Why don't your players like psionics?

[Doctor Futurity]

Too sci-fi for us.

Naw. A lot of fiction out there features strong fantasy settings with psionic-styled magic. In fact, I'd say it's as common as more conventional, hermeneutic representations. Think of the deryni, for example, or Witch World. I guess it just depends on how rigidly you define fantasy (which is odd, because usually it is sci-fi which is moe rigid in definition).

I have at least one player who's fasciated by psionic characters. It got regular use in my 2nd edition campaigns, but less so in 3rd edition. I've been hoping the XPH will change that attitude. Frankly, when I once ran a psionics only setting, that's when everyone had the most fun.

As a DM, I make use of psionics often (in at least one of my campaigns, where it is thoroughly integrated). Another DM I know never, ever uses it, and doesn't (so far as I can tell) allow it.

Big problem I see is, like others have posted, it's yet another book someone has to buy, and essentially adds a third magic system to two you already have; only experimental players I likely to bite, unless the DM makes them integral to the system by disallowing or diminishing the divine and arcane magics.

 

[Kalendraf]

I must have a different mix of players. Seems like every time we start a new campaign (which is not all that often, mind you), I get asked by several of them whether or not they'll be able to use psionics. A majorify of my players want to use them, and it's been me as DM, though also partly a lack of rules at the time, that has been the reason why we haven't.

FYI, I've picked up the XPH recently, and am going to run one of my groups thru a one-shot using the Dark Sun adventure in last month's dungeon magazine. I figure that will give everyone a taste of how psionics work in 3.5. At this point I have no plans to modify either of my existing campaigns to include psionics, but perhaps I will allow them in a future one.

 

[Saeviomagy]

From my point of view:

If you want to play a psion, take sorceror as your class, pick appropriate spells, get 'eschew material components' or convince your DM to let you use appropriate components (like pendulums, crystals and the like) for your spells, and make the somatic and verbal components to your spells placing your fingers to your temple and saying "ohmmmmmm".

Or do the same with a wizard or a cleric.

Honestly - why add yet another system to the mix? D&D already covers everything that psionics adds, and the only real difference between psionics and magic is the flavour behind them. Bang. Done. No need to balance psionics against the varieties of traditional magic.

 

[Psion]

If you want to play a psion, take sorceror as your class, pick appropriate spells, get 'eschew material components' or convince your DM to let you use appropriate components (like pendulums, crystals and the like) for your spells, and make the somatic and verbal components to your spells placing your fingers to your temple and saying "ohmmmmmm".

Let's just say for those of us who use and enjoy psionics, the difference is so clear that your examlpe appears absurd. Clerics and wizards are more similar than psions and wizards, yet those seem to pass muster with most people.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Let's just say for those of us who use and enjoy psionics, the difference is so clear that your examlpe appears absurd. Clerics and wizards are more similar than psions and wizards, yet those seem to pass muster with most people.

So basically your arguement is "psions are good because you smell bad".

Is that the extent of your logical reasoning?

Describe to me, in your own words (ie - don't use game terms), what a psion is.

I guarantee that I'll be able to put one together starting from a wizard, sorceror or cleric base.

Just like if I want a ninja, I'll just convince the DM to let me multiclass monk and rogue. Or if I want a Samurai, I'll just use a fighter with a funny-looking bastard sword.

I won't go out and make up core classes for them.

To date, every incarnation of psionics has been "magic with window dressing". Prove to me that you want something that merits it's own rules.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Psionics are integrated into my DragonLance game as well, but with a psion that came over from another realm (homebrew).

Huh. I've integrated magic into my DL game as well, except it is the original power harnessed by the Races of Man that the gods tried to erase with a pogrom because they couldn't control it. The psions were expunged from records except as witches and demon-possessed individuals. They went underground (technically to a pocket dimension) and for the last few millenia have been controlling several trade guilds while waiting for the chance to kick the churches in the teeth.

I had a psionicist player during my 2e campaign and she did quite well, though I did add a few house rules that gave her a bit more power potential. I had to make a point of adding psi-items to the loot, but it wasn't too bad since back then high GP jewels were power batteries.

We've used psions during some high-level 3.0 one shots (20-30th level) and decided that other than Astral Construct and the mass cocoon powers they were pretty crappy compared to a similar sorceror thanks to the non-scaling damages, so no one was that eager. Psi-warriors are pretty kick-butt thanks to the nifty feats but the players of the combat-bunnies are pretty devoted to their current characters.

We'll see if the Monk decides to grab the Fist of Zuikoden or not.

 

[Henry]

I guarantee that I'll be able to put one together starting from a wizard, sorceror or cleric base.

I guarantee that I could eliminate the need for a sorcerer by creating a wizard feat that added spontaneous casting at the expense of unlimited spell choice.

The important difference is the total elimination of all spell components (verbal, somatic, material) and giving them abilities that are different, yet balanced with respect to the existing magic-casters. The appeal is not one you can put a solid finger on, in the same way that you can't say what makes a barbarian so unique it couldn't be duplicated with a ticked-off fighter with proper feats. Some people just like their raging, obscenely strong, hardy savages. Some people like a spell-caster that operates at 90 degrees from the norm.

 

[Psiblade]

I personally like a fighter type that uses his mind and mental prowess (psionic feats & powers) to achieve victory.

My psy war can run up the walls, turn while charging, empower my weapon (energy), empower my physical frame (thicken skin, psionic body), and strike with deadly precision (deep impact with power attack) because of his mental abilities.

There is such a difference in the type of powers and abilities between a psy war and fighter type that dabbles in magic (spellsword/bladesinger). One is truly different from the other in both feel and powers.

-Psiblade

 

[Acid_crash]

I don't understand why some people don't like psionics, especially when they say that it 'feels' wrong, or 'it's just another book i don't want to complicate into the game.'

To me, psionics feel right at home in a fantasy game. Actually, the psionics system feels more like magic than the actual arcane magic in the core book. it uses points instead of slots, it has the freedom of use instead of preparation and then forgetting the spell when used or losing the slot of the spell when cast, and the feats for psionics make more sense also.

To me, psionics in the XPH simulates magic in many fantasy novels than does the base core magic rules does. I like them, they are a part of my game, and if that means I have to get rid of wizards and sorcerors then so be it.

 

[Torm]

It's funny, because two of your other players, including the DM of the game you referred to in which you're playing a psion, and myself were just talking about this at lunch Wednesday. I started from the position that I didn't like Psionics, as they don't feel right for a medieval setting. The other DM kind of agreed, although we both agreed that the rules for them work well enough to allow them. (I wouldn't be surprised if your complaint about a lack of psionic world context - items, monsters, etc. - continues to be a problem in Shawn's campaign, though, unless you talk to him about it.)

Mark pointed out, though, that Psionics HAS been around since medieval times or even before - in concepts like Chi and such. And it was at that point that I think I figured out what's wrong with them - the names. They all SOUND like something modern or even sci-fi. There are certain patterns for naming things in certain time periods, and just as I wouldn't expect to hear using carrier pigeons referred to as using the "teleavian", "psionics" jars the ear in the equivalent of the 12th or 13th century. (And, yes, that means I think MAYBE they should find a better name for the spell Telekinesis, too.)

Maybe if they called it something like "the Mindfire", and the names of the powers didn't sound like they belong in the FX Guide from Alternity, the class and powers would mesh with the setting better.