Why don't your players like psionics?

[Ibram]

from a DM's point of view I feel that Psionics are to much like magic from a mechanics point of view (in nearly every instance it is just a different take on the Sorcerer). Now if psionics worked more like the force powers in SW or psychic powers in Forbidden Kingdoms then I'd be more open to it.

From a players point of view unless psionics are part of the campaign world then i see no reason to play one (its kind of odd if you are the only one in the entire world who can do something).

 

[milotha]

I think that more players would choose to play psionicists if psionics were better integrated into the core rule books and better play tested. This would improve the character class immensely.

As it stands, as a psionicist, there a few psionic items, fewer feats to choose from, fewer skills to choose from, fewer prestige classes. Yes, they may be in the specific psionics book, but outside of that currently there isn't much mention of them. In addition, the GM has to go out of their way to incorperate them into the game. This is especially true with the items. Say you were running on the Sunless Citadel module path and the GM wasn't altering any of the items. You'd get diddley squat.

Plus it's more work for the GM. If you are running in a canned setting, then you have to add everything in. If your running your own setting, then it's harder to suddenly integrate psionics into the setting.

Edit: And IMHO, the designers of the previous psionics rulesets were obviously smoking crack. It's the only excuse for such a badly balanced, bad executed addition. Or maybe, they just can't be integrated well given my above rant. I haven't looked at the new book.

 

[Myrkveth]

No one likes psionics (IMHO)

I have been a fan of psionics since I first found them in the back of the Player's Handbook (along with the original Bard class). I've been enthralled with them since, mainly due to the Jedi in Star Wars I've come to realize.

I have never had a GM who would allow it for any number of reasons, not the least of which was 'it's broken' or 'I don't like it'. I bought the Psionics Handbook (and now the Expanded Psi Hbk) in the first week they were released and I am stoked about using them in **my own campaign**. Now I'm the GM and I have introduced several psionic NPCs including my namesake, a female PsiWar (who joined a party of 2 clerics, 1 barbarian, and 1 specialist wizard) as added muscle. She's been invaluable since she can run down most any normal villain (so far) and she adds flavor to the party.

None of my players has been interested in a psionic character mainly because that means (a) more work outside the normal D&D character knowledge base, (b) concerns of attracting and having to fight psionic monsters, and (c) they are all satisfied with playing standard, iconic characters rather than anything exotic or unusual. So, I have been introducing psionic NPCs (and soon villains) and getting them used to the idea that psionicists exist and are viable. I even have an organization of psionic monks (read as 'Jedi') who are working in the background (so far).

The idea of psionic items in treasure has eluded me. Thanks for reminding me of that! I can use that as another mechanism for introducing the PCs to psionicists. Cool! Not that I need to overload them with psionic items, but one or two appropriately placed items will do nicely.

 

[Nifft]

One good intro item is the Psionic Tattoo. My players like the ones they found -- especially the Animal Affinity ones, which are quite flexible. "They're like potions, but more convenient!"

-- N

 

[jgbrowning]

Personally, I don't like the naming conventions. A strong majority of the words (names) describing the abilties are purely, utterly, modern. Psycoportation. Psychokinetic. Biocurrent. They, at a basic level, don't fit with a fantasy game (to use WoTC's words) "firmly rooted in medieval warfare."

I'd be a lot happier if they'd redo the naming conventions to make them more "mystical" rather than science-fiction.

joe b.

 

[reiella]

In 3.0, most likly had to do with MAD and not wanting the Psionic Combat vulnerability.

That, and as said, the genre-"breaking" issue of Psionics in a fantasy world is troubling to overcome .

I really don't understand the problem of 'loot', psionic items aren't a necessity for a psionic character by far.

I also see that alot of folks end up associating the victorian-era psychic theme of D&D Psionics with the modern and feeling it out of place.

 

[Psion]

Personally, I don't like the naming conventions. A strong majority of the words (names) describing the abilties are purely, utterly, modern. Psycoportation. Psychokinetic. Biocurrent. They, at a basic level, don't fit with a fantasy game (to use WoTC's words) "firmly rooted in medieval warfare."

You mean like teleportation and telekinesis?

I'm not seeing (especially in 3e, where they nixed references to "cells" and "molecules") that the naming conventions are much different from D&D's.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I really don't understand the problem of 'loot', psionic items aren't a necessity for a psionic character by far.

Maybe this will help you understand... flip the rolls around. Have a Wizard in a predominantly Psionic setting. You can't use any psionic trigger items because your class can't use said items. You never find any scrolls with new spells because everyone learns their abilities as Psions and their scroll equivalent isn't usable by you.

I hope that helps... magical items help a setting reinforce it's status as a magical setting. Psionic items do the same. Most people that I've known that played psionic characters would gladly trade a higher powered magic weapon for a lower powered psionic one because it helps define their character as something other than the usual magic sword wielding fighter. Just personal experience and personal opinion.

 

[jgbrowning]

You mean like teleportation and telekinesis?

I'm not seeing (especially in 3e, where they nixed references to "cells" and "molecules") that the naming conventions are much different from D&D's.

D&D has it's share, but to a much lesser ratio.

Ablating, Affinity Field, Apopsi, Biocurrent, Biofeedback, Catapsi, Telempathic Projection, Combat Precognition, Psycholuminescence, Matter Agitation, Combat Prescience, Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Ecto Puppet, Body Equilibrium, Metaphysical Weapon, Duodimensional Hand, Ectoplasmic Form, Improved Biofeedback, Dismiss Ectoplasm, Wall of Ectoplasm, Inertial Barrier, Clairtangency, Metaconcert, Greater Biocurrent, Reddopsi, Hypercognition, Improved Clairtangency, Probablity Travel...

vrs

Teleport, telekenisis, clairaudience/clairvoyance, contingency....

The choice of modern descriptors for psionic powers is deliberate. This deliberate choice is conflicting with the devault, semi-medieval, world that is Dungeons and Dragons at a basic level. The modern name choice is done to try and differentiate "psionic" powers from "magic," but again at a basic level, psionics are just magic (things that can't happen in real life based upon modern science).

You can have psionics without modern terminology. They decided not to go that route for many of their powers. Some (like Bite of the Tiger) do go a more "mystical" route rather than a modern route, but there's a significant % of powers that are named according to a modern perspective. This is utterly jarring for me. I have a dwarf, an elf, and a human all wearing chainmail armour and wielding swords speaking about "psycholuminescence" or "matter agitation." Just not jiving with me, and I imagine, many others...

joe b.

 

[KB9JMQ]

I have never had anyone ask to but I have also never offered.
I know it is silly considering the context but I have never liked it because it always seemed too far "out there".

I also never like the non-action type of fighting that I presume it would be.