Why don't your players like psionics?

My regular game night players don't seem to mind the Psionic Handbook Psionics all that much we've bee using it for over a year and there have been no real complaints. One of our fairly regular player runs a Psychic Warrior and she adds a differen element to the parties capabilities. I do play Psionics with a Psionics is Different option so the multple ability score requirements haveb't bothered the players or myself much.

I've posted the like of this somewhere before: The notion that psionics are science fiction based always baffles me as Psionics has NOTHING to do with science it is a made up whoopie power.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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

You are nothing short of putting words in my mouth. Your summary resembles my statement not at all.

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.

Given your criteria above, it may well feel like a psion to you.

It won't feel like one to me.

Just like if I want a ninja, I'll just convince the DM to let me multiclass monk and rogue.

And you wouldn't be wrong. But that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Or if I want a Samurai, I'll just use a fighter with a funny-looking bastard sword.

And he'll lack the sorts of aristocratic skills a samurai would have. It appears your standards for recreating a certain feel are quite less stringent than mine.

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.

Why. Anything I put up will be judged by your subjective standards and you'll shoot it down.

But it doesn't live up to my standards. That's nothing I have to prove to you.

If you don't feel it offers you anything different enough, fine that's your call. For you. Just don't go pretending you aren't being entirely subjective about the matter.
 

Saeviomagy said:
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.

Cool! I think a psion is a spellcaster who creates magical effects without any sort of spellcasting whatsoever; no waving of hands, no spell components, no chanting of arcane syllables. He has a pool of undefined magical potential that on a second's notice he can transfer into casting only his highest level spells if he so chooses, or lots and lots of his lowest level spells. He handles telepathic powers more effectively than a traditional wizard, and he has access to feats which feed off of his mental energies to allow him powerful abilities at a cost.

Okay, go!

As Psion said, I really doubt that you can come up with anything that pleases someone with a different subjective viewpoint than your own, but I'm curious how you'll do this.
 

Have to agree with Psion and Piratecat. Unless you go for the mechanics, which you obviously do not, because you specifically said so, psions are completely different to spellcasters.

Now, if you go with the mechanics, they start to show certain similarities, but in the revised version, the differences are much better worked out than in the original PsiHB.

Sorcerers are also completely different to wizards - mechanics aside -, and they are obviously much closer to wizards mechanically than psions.

Bye
Thanee
 

Torm said:
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.)

I don't mind too much that I'm "odd man out" in Shawn's game for two reasons: (1) I'm getting to play a psion :) and (2) We seem to play Shawn's game as more of a "Beer and Pretzels" style game, and everyone seems to play what they want, as opposed to fitting smoothly into the setting (otherwise, we wouldn't have angelic halflings flitting around. :D)




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... 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.

That's a common complaint, and one that really doesn't have a good answer, other than for WotC to start changing names. Once they've done that, they've alienated all the psionics fans who liked the names just as they are, and you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

Monte Cook had a good idea with his Mind Witch, (just love the imagery of that!) but they are VERY much spellcasters, even if they've ditched all the lightshows and verbal/somatic components.
 

Torm said:
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.

This is the only problem I (and my group) have psionics; we tend to call them mystics or mind mages and try to think of less "technical" names for their powers. A simple change that prevents psionics from jarring with "fantasy"; it just becomes a point pool based form of supernatural power.
 

I wonder, Henry, whether this disconnect between the two camps (and there does seem to be two camps), isn't in response to the paraphenalia of magic. For example, your description of a psion suggests someone who wields magic without the gestures and magic words and bits of creature. I suspect that Saeviomagy would say that's still just a spellcaster, only they don't bother with the 'occult trappings'.

In other words, to some the (broadly) non-game affecting 'window dressing' of magic is important as a descriptor of the spellcaster, whilst to others it is just flavour. Saeviomagy might well say that letting a Sorcerer use a spell point mechanic would produce a Psion, whilst you, Psion and Piratecat would still see something worlds apart.

Is that a fair comment?
 

Deadguy said:
In other words, to some the (broadly) non-game affecting 'window dressing' of magic is important as a descriptor of the spellcaster, whilst to others it is just flavour. Saeviomagy might well say that letting a Sorcerer use a spell point mechanic would produce a Psion, whilst you, Psion and Piratecat would still see something worlds apart.

As I see it, there are two angles to consider:

How the character appears and behaves to other people.

How it appears and behaves to the person playing it.

A common complaint that I hear is that psionics is just another form of magic. My response to this is "so what?" It is just another form of magic. A third branch of magic, if you will. So I am not especially concerned that people see a lot of similarities to spellcasting in psioincs. It's enough for most people that divine and arcane are allowed to stand side by side. I think psionics is just as fair.*

Now sure, you can dress up other sorts of spellcasters to look like psions from a third party perspective. Wizard (or a core divine spellcaster) will be a little tough, since they are required to prepare their spells.

You can dress up the sorcerer to look by a psion by taking eschew materials and taking the right spells, and (IMO, cornily) making his verbal component "ommm" (which, btw, I find to be rather tangential quality if used at all. I've never had a psionic PC or NPC put his fingers to his temples. BID.)

But this only works so far. What happens to a sorcerer when shackled? Can't cast spells with material components. This is unlike a psions, whose powers are supposed to stem from the mind. Similar situation regarding being gagged and verbal components. That same psion-wannabe sorcerer can't concentrate to heal his body, because that is something in the game that arcane magic is not supposed to do.

Now sure, you could add a lot of feats, expand the spell list, knock many enchantments down a level, or whatever it takes. But that begins to be a lot of work for a task that has already been done for you, because the psionics hb has already been written to approximate the feel of psionics or mental magic, vice that of the classical wizard that uses incantations.

The major 3e campaign I ended last winter featured an empire that used psionic characters as their supernatural workhorses, as it were. My players certainly perceived the difference in how they operated from the cabal of wizards that they opposed. Sure, I could have dressed up sorcerers to try to do the same thing. But it would have been less the feel I was looking for with more work.

I know. Because that's exactly what I did while I was waiting for the Psionics Handbook to come out.

Now onto the second issue of playing the psionic character. For the person playing the character, the difference in feel is even more pronounced. When I am playing a wizard, I have the freedom to pick spells and expand my list by research, and so forth.

As a psion, I have a list of things I can do, because I have the potential to do them. But I can do any of them, so long as I have the mental endurance remaining to do it. It's a matter of willpower.

The sorcerer, it's a harder case to make that there is a marked difference beyond the scope of the powers that each is allowed (and the behaviors noted above.) However, in the XPH, the feel gets even more solidly moved away from the sorcerer. No longer is the difference limited that the sorcerer has slots and I don't. Now the potency of my powers can depend on how much mental effort I put into them.

To me, that is a telling difference.

* - Side discussion of psionics as a third branch of magic. When I was experimenting with my own shaman rules, I found the arcane/divine division maddening, as shamanism could be seen as either depending on your own personal thoughts of what arcane magic is. Yet, most people who play 3e don't seem to have much of a problem with that distinction.

I think the reason is that as longtime players of D&D, we accept that dichotomy as a normal aspect of the metasetting. The only thing that highlighted the artificiality of it to me above was that I was trying to fit something into it that was not already part of the metasetting.

With me? Okay now, consider this. Some of you are chiming with the notion that it doesn't belong, and feel pretty strongly that way. If that's what the game is to you, then fine. However, note that for many of us, psionics has been part of the game for us since 1e. Our conception of what belongs is different than yours.

Nobody is wrong on this point (well, unless you try to make a case that your standpoint is objectively true); we just have different perceptions and different things we are accustomed to.
 
Last edited:

I allow psionic characters in my Planescape game only. Still, psionics won't be a major part of the game; I think that our last psionic combat was back in 2E. I just don't find the concept much different from magic, which is also the reason for which I think that psionics belong to a separate book rather than the core rules. Maybe if one day I get tired of slot magic, I'll make a campaign with psionics and call them mana points magic.
 

@Psion: I would see shamans as divine casters, using some sort of spiritual symbolism as their source of power (similar to a cleric of good (no deity) or a druid of nature).

Bye
Thanee
 

Remove ads

Top