Who got Psionics in my Dnd?

[grendel1968]

I always felt that the differences between the types of "magic" (arcane, divine, psionic) were essentially semantic; none of the things these varying types of casters do are possible in the real world, so it never mattered to me much whether the caster had to pray to his gigantic imaginary friend, rub bat pooh between his fingers, or give himself a brain aneurism via sheer focus of will in order to throw a fireball. They are all very similar to me.

I ban psionics, and have for 25 years, in my campaigns because I find them to be consistently poorly balanced... Just my opinion.

One previous poster (forgive my poor memory) mentioned a 2E psionic wild talent with the summon planar creature ability. I actually had this happen last time I (in a moment of pique) allowed psionics... In 2E a wild talent recieved every prerequisite for any random wild talents, and sufficient psionic power points to cast every power he had, once daily... the net result was a level one wizard able to summon a demon, or teleport a dozen times a day, for example. I asked the player to chuck the character in the name of balance, he declined, and when I made it clear I would exercise DM's prerogative and kill the character in the interest of fairness, he attacked and killed the entire party... using his psionic wild talent to do so.

Yes, a yellow flag on me for allowing it all to happen, especially since I was so biased against psionics to begin with. But I've yet to see what I consider a fair and balanced psionic system in any edition of D&D, and I've seen and played them all.

Oh, one more thought. I also associate psionics more with the Sci-Fi genre because my back-up game in the 70's was Traveller, a Sci-Fi RPG that includes psionics as part of the core mechanics.

 

[Amadeus Windfall]

I thought Martial Powers was a book for new classes? PHBs are only to to address new power sources, such as those that would include psionics, and previously un mentioned power sources from earlier PHBs?

No, Martial Power contains new Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, Powers, Class features, etc. for the existing Martial classes.

 

[Psion]

Also, here's how it works:

Mages: Toying with the universe.
Priests: Using power of the Gods.
Psionicists: Tapping into the power inside themselves.

A 3e Sorcerer is more appropriate. Another example would be a Mutant from the X-Men.

If you are reaching into the comics, look at Dr. Strange:
Doctor Strange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note how they divided abilities into "personal sources", "universal sources", and "divine sources". The idea of such a "magic trifecta" existed outside of D&D at the time.

 

[Shadeydm]

I was a longtime psionics hater and never really felt that they added much to the game. When Dark Sun came out and I played in a DS caqmpaign my view was changed to a degree. Psionics realy felt like an integral part of that setting and I enjoyed them in that context. I also liked using the deck of psionic powers that was released back in the day those added to my enjoyment at the time.

Post Dark Sun I still don't like psionics outside that setting, however I am sure if someone worked at making them fit the campaign I would be ok with them as a player.

In summary my position is:
Dark Sun + psionics = good
Greyhawk + psionics = bad

 

[Cryptos]

True, you don't see very many Professor Xavier-style telepaths in most euro-centric medieval fantasy. But you do often see seers and oracles that are distinct from wizards and witches. It's not like all flavors of psionics would be entirely foreign to a setting like D&D.

What surprises me is that this so often comes up about psionics and not other elements, like say, monks.

To me, this guy is what I think when someone says "monk" in the context of a euro-centric fantasy setting:

This guy... not so much:

 

[Starbuck_II]

I always felt that the differences between the types of "magic" (arcane, divine, psionic) were essentially semantic; none of the things these varying types of casters do are possible in the real world, so it never mattered to me much whether the caster had to pray to his gigantic imaginary friend, rub bat pooh between his fingers, or give himself a brain aneurism via sheer focus of will in order to throw a fireball. They are all very similar to me.

I ban psionics, and have for 25 years, in my campaigns because I find them to be consistently poorly balanced... Just my opinion.

One previous poster (forgive my poor memory) mentioned a 2E psionic wild talent with the summon planar creature ability. I actually had this happen last time I (in a moment of pique) allowed psionics... In 2E a wild talent recieved every prerequisite for any random wild talents, and sufficient psionic power points to cast every power he had, once daily... the net result was a level one wizard able to summon a demon, or teleport a dozen times a day, for example. I asked the player to chuck the character in the name of balance, he declined, and when I made it clear I would exercise DM's prerogative and kill the character in the interest of fairness, he attacked and killed the entire party... using his psionic wild talent to do so.

Yes, a yellow flag on me for allowing it all to happen, especially since I was so biased against psionics to begin with. But I've yet to see what I consider a fair and balanced psionic system in any edition of D&D, and I've seen and played them all.

Oh, one more thought. I also associate psionics more with the Sci-Fi genre because my back-up game in the 70's was Traveller, a Sci-Fi RPG that includes psionics as part of the core mechanics.

Do you have a 3.5 example? 3.5 made Psionics balanced way more than even Divine and Arcane magic.
So if you have the latter; I can't see why 3.5 psionics would be a issue.

 

[Rechan]

As for "That's not traditional fantasy, why's it in there?!"

Are aboleth/illithids/beholders "traditional fantasy"? I've never seen them in anything but D&D.

Sure, Conan put a few tentacled horrors to the sword, but that's it.

 

[Rechan]

Note how they divided abilities into "personal sources", "universal sources", and "divine sources". The idea of such a "magic trifecta" existed outside of D&D at the time.

Well hell, Rolemaster has the trifecta. Essence, Channeling, and Mentalism.

 

[Hippy]

I always felt that the differences between the types of "magic" (arcane, divine, psionic) were essentially semantic; none of the things these varying types of casters do are possible in the real world, so it never mattered to me much whether the caster had to pray to his gigantic imaginary friend, rub bat pooh between his fingers, or give himself a brain aneurism via sheer focus of will in order to throw a fireball. They are all very similar to me.

I ban psionics, and have for 25 years, in my campaigns because I find them to be consistently poorly balanced... Just my opinion.

One previous poster (forgive my poor memory) mentioned a 2E psionic wild talent with the summon planar creature ability. I actually had this happen last time I (in a moment of pique) allowed psionics... In 2E a wild talent recieved every prerequisite for any random wild talents, and sufficient psionic power points to cast every power he had, once daily... the net result was a level one wizard able to summon a demon, or teleport a dozen times a day, for example. I asked the player to chuck the character in the name of balance, he declined, and when I made it clear I would exercise DM's prerogative and kill the character in the interest of fairness, he attacked and killed the entire party... using his psionic wild talent to do so.

Yes, a yellow flag on me for allowing it all to happen, especially since I was so biased against psionics to begin with. But I've yet to see what I consider a fair and balanced psionic system in any edition of D&D, and I've seen and played them all.

Oh, one more thought. I also associate psionics more with the Sci-Fi genre because my back-up game in the 70's was Traveller, a Sci-Fi RPG that includes psionics as part of the core mechanics.

from your user name and length of time gaming, we appear to be similar in our outlook on past use of psionics. I just recently changed my mind with the 3.5 system and now allow them in my game and also play in two other games that the DM allows them. We are having a great time. The feel of psionics has always been in fantasy novels as previous posters have noted, however I think it is the name 'psionics' that seems to create the barrier and move the perception to the sci-fi realm.

 

[Psion]

As for "That's not traditional fantasy, why's it in there?!"

Are aboleth/illithids/beholders "traditional fantasy"? I've never seen them in anything but D&D.

What kills me about the "that's not traditional fantasy" argument is that somehow, by virtue of being an RPG instead of a novel, in some people's heads, D&D loses the right to contribute to what comprises "traditional fantasy". And yet, if you look at the course of books since the inception of D&D, it has had an impact of the course of the literary fantasy genre, more than most published novels since then!

In this particular case, however, there's plenty of sources in traditional fantasy behind psionics.