Psionics, Un-Expanded

[Darklord Xavez]

I prefer the 3.0 Psionics Handbook to the 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook, even when using 3.5 for everything else, because it enhances the flavor of the game.

My main complaint about 3.5 psionics is it turns to attack/defense modes, introduced in AD&D, into regular powers. I think that brings psionics closer to just being a different spell list, because that leaves pretty much only the power point system to distinguish it. Also, psionic combat provides for an interesting twist, much like reserve feats (Complete Mage).

In addition, I'm a fan of how each discipline is tied to a different ability, because it makes sure that no two psions will ever be the same, even though their combat mode lists will be similar.

What do you think? Anyone else share my views?
-X

[Flickerdart]

Psionic combat is a terrible idea because it makes it better not to have a psionics user in the party when facing psionic monsters. Otherwise, since the psionicist is the only one that's under threat of psionic combat, he hemorrhages power points like crazy (while the monster gets to use them for free), slowing down the combat and making things worse for everyone.
Futhermore, undead creatures are immune to psionic combat, but can still have attack modes, meaning that you're even more boned than before while your buddies are sitting pretty with their Nonpsionic Buffer. Between that, the MAD, and the awful PrCs, playing a psionics user under that system was pretty much actively punished by the book.

[Zaq]

Psionic combat isn't a godawful idea if and only if the entire party is doing it. It's still an idea that needs a lot of tweaking, but it's not necessarily the dumbest thing WotC's ever churned out. In a party that's only partially psionic, though? Keep me the hell away from that mess.

[DeltaEmil]

Psionic combat is only okay if everyone in the party's a psionic, and even more important, everybody knows how the rules work. Also, all-too complicated subsystems in a game system with lots of subsystems by themselves are just wasting much more time than it should be necessary.

So yeah, count me towards those who don't like the 3.0 psionic rules.

[faceroll]

Not a fan of the extreme MAD and power chains for characters with limited powers known. It's like require a sorcerer to take burning hands to take scorching ray to take fireball to take meteor swarm. COOL, I HAVE WAY TOO MANY CRAPPY POWERS.

[Analytica]

The Hypercognition book, as well as some Dreamscarred book, I think, has updated rules for psionic combat.

[Dusk Eclipse]

The HypercognitionHyperconcious book, as well as some Dreamscarred book, I think, has updated rules for psionic combat.

Fixed that for you :smallwink:

And count me in the I don't like the "Psionics Handbook" crew. XPH is a true piece of art IMO

[Doc Roc]

Fixed that for you :smallwink:

And count me in the I don't like the "Psionics Handbook" crew. XPH is a true piece of art IMO

XPH was probably the single best built piece of 3.x, speaking from an optimization standpoint. Most psionic GBs can be traced to just three problematic powers, which is.... frankly, astounding.

[Veyr]

I'd argue Tome of Battle as, at the very least, a contender, there.

[Doc Roc]

I'd argue Tome of Battle as, at the very least, a contender, there.

I would place it in similar reaches, but remember, ToB came out very late in the game, so some of the elementary mistakes in it are less forgivable. Like the fact that it's really hard to use Iron Heart Surge for the intended purpose, but painfully easy to use it for weird ones.

[Shpadoinkle]

Originally Posted by AntiDjinn on the WotC Boards. Spoilered for length, not actual spoilers on anything.
I have used this model before, but to really appreciate how this "class feature" worked you should see how it would apply if ported to mainstream D&D where they haven't been conditioned to accept inferior mechanics without question. Lets take the big sacred moo, a Cleric's undead turning ability:

DM: "Before we get started, Cleric, I just want you to know that I am instituting some changes in your turn undead class feature that will make your class more different and give it a unique divine mechanic."

Player: "OK. How does it work now?"

DM: "Well, for starters, when you attempt to turn undead you will now have to burn a spell."

Player: "A spell???? What level?"

DM: "Different levels. It depends on what turning mode you want to use. Sanctified Gesture takes a level 1, Divine Dance of Power takes a level 2, High Holly Homina Homina takes a level 3, and...."

Player: "Wait, I assume I will get a bonus on the roll based on the level of spell slot I sacrifice?"

DM: "Sometimes you will. Other times you will get a penalty based on the turning defense mode the opponent selects. Turning and turning defense modes will interact on a table. The table determines the actual DC of the roll, not the level of the spell slot burned. Choosing a given defense mode may actually mean you pay a spell to get a penalty on the save, but it will still be better than being defenseless."

Player: "The undead will get defense modes?"

DM: "Sure, so will you. Each round you will select a turning attack mode and a defense mode. In fact, you will need to select a defense mode against each undead opponent each and every round and each will cost you spell slots."

Player: "Wwwwwwhat????!!!!!! What if I am facing undead who do not cast spells, I assume they won't get to mount a defense?"

DM: "It doesn't matter if you face undead without casting ability because their turning and turning defense modes are free."

Player: "Wait a minute! This is stupid! One of my 3rd level spell slots could be spent on Searing Light which fries undead; why would I ever spend it on an attack mode that might help me on a turning attempt? And why would I ever take a turning defense mode, much less a separate one vs. each undead opponent? I would simply choose to ignore undead or cast spells against them or go at them with weapons. I would have to have brain damage to choose to turn with these rules!"

DM: "If you fail to mount a defense then each unblocked undead gets a special +8 bonus to hit you for having this wonderful class feature and choosing not to use it. They also get to drain your stats if they hit. This will apply also to anyone who adds a level of Cleric; multiclassing will be very flavorful."

Player: "But I am a spellcaster, I need to be able to cast spells. How can I do my job if my spell slots get sucked away every time we run into undead?"

DM: "Well, how can you do your job if you are dead or reduced to a mindless state? You need to use your spells this way or you may not live long enough to cast them anyway."

Player: Head down, silently weeping into his hands.

DM: "I should mention too that you will be able to make turn undead attempts vs. nonundead; if you succeed they will be stunned for a few rounds. Of course, everyone who does not have this feature will get a huge bonus on the save DC. The best part: If you blow a 5th level spell to use High Holy Hokey Pokey then everyone in a large area could be stunned for a long while and they don't get a bonus vs. this one mode -- that makes the entire system usable and balanced."

Player: "They should all be stunned if they ever see me willingly use these rules. This is preposterous! I need my spells to heal and buff and perform all the functions of a Cleric. How am I going to be of any use to the party if I hemorrhage spell slots every time we run into undead?"

DM: "That is the beauty of it: You get to choose whether to use your spell slots as they were intended or save your own hide by using them to turn. Come on and at least give it a chance. It will be a mechanic unique to your class so it must be a benefit. You don't want to be just another spellcaster do you? This will add so much flavor and.... Hey! Get him off of me!"

Player: "How ya like that fist flavor?"

So yeah. Psionic combat is stupid.

[stainboy]

I'll dock ToB one point each for maneuver prerequisites, the crusader random-draw thing, and really powerful abilities with ambiguous language (Iron Heart Surge and White Raven Tactics).

ToB is cool, but most of its appeal is that it lets you make fighters and monks that are actually good. Imagine if Magic of Incarnum had been fluffed as martial power, and Tome of Battle had been full of pictures of glowy blue soul energy. I'm pretty sure we'd call MoI one of the best books in the 3.5 line and mostly ignore ToB.

[DeltaEmil]

Not necessarily. Good mechanics aren't that dependent on good pictures. And the pictures in Tome of Battle are actually rather average.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Am I the only one who likes ToB pictures?:smallconfused:

[Tavar]

What's wrong with either of the first two things on your list?

[Veyr]

I'll dock ToB one point each for maneuver prerequisites, the crusader random-draw thing, and really powerful abilities with ambiguous language (Iron Heart Surge and White Raven Tactics).
I agree about prereqs and IHS/WRT, but the Crusader recovery mechanic is awesome and excellent. I'm a huge fan of that mechanic.

[Dusk Eclipse]

What's wrong with either of the first two things on your list?
Assuming you are talking about stainboy's list
Some people (myself included) feel that it is a bit unfair that martial adepts have to select maneuvers as pre-requistes, taking precious maneuvers known slots, to get more powerful maneuvers, when spells (much more powerful) don't have the same limitant (and in case of Wizard, they don't even get a cap on how many spells they know).

The random maneuver thingy of Crusaders? I don't care much for it, as I haven't played a Crusader yet

[Doc Roc]

I agree about prereqs and IHS/WRT, but the Crusader recovery mechanic is awesome and excellent. I'm a huge fan of that mechanic.

Seconded, here. It's just... slick. Really slick. It could have been worded better, but that doesn't change the fact that it's really cool.

[Psyren]

Originally Posted by AntiDjinn on the WotC Boards. Spoilered for length, not actual spoilers on anything.
I have used this model before, but to really appreciate how this "class feature" worked you should see how it would apply if ported to mainstream D&D where they haven't been conditioned to accept inferior mechanics without question. Lets take the big sacred moo, a Cleric's undead turning ability:

DM: "Before we get started, Cleric, I just want you to know that I am instituting some changes in your turn undead class feature that will make your class more different and give it a unique divine mechanic."

Player: "OK. How does it work now?"

DM: "Well, for starters, when you attempt to turn undead you will now have to burn a spell."

Player: "A spell???? What level?"

DM: "Different levels. It depends on what turning mode you want to use. Sanctified Gesture takes a level 1, Divine Dance of Power takes a level 2, High Holly Homina Homina takes a level 3, and...."

Player: "Wait, I assume I will get a bonus on the roll based on the level of spell slot I sacrifice?"

DM: "Sometimes you will. Other times you will get a penalty based on the turning defense mode the opponent selects. Turning and turning defense modes will interact on a table. The table determines the actual DC of the roll, not the level of the spell slot burned. Choosing a given defense mode may actually mean you pay a spell to get a penalty on the save, but it will still be better than being defenseless."

Player: "The undead will get defense modes?"

DM: "Sure, so will you. Each round you will select a turning attack mode and a defense mode. In fact, you will need to select a defense mode against each undead opponent each and every round and each will cost you spell slots."

Player: "Wwwwwwhat????!!!!!! What if I am facing undead who do not cast spells, I assume they won't get to mount a defense?"

DM: "It doesn't matter if you face undead without casting ability because their turning and turning defense modes are free."

Player: "Wait a minute! This is stupid! One of my 3rd level spell slots could be spent on Searing Light which fries undead; why would I ever spend it on an attack mode that might help me on a turning attempt? And why would I ever take a turning defense mode, much less a separate one vs. each undead opponent? I would simply choose to ignore undead or cast spells against them or go at them with weapons. I would have to have brain damage to choose to turn with these rules!"

DM: "If you fail to mount a defense then each unblocked undead gets a special +8 bonus to hit you for having this wonderful class feature and choosing not to use it. They also get to drain your stats if they hit. This will apply also to anyone who adds a level of Cleric; multiclassing will be very flavorful."

Player: "But I am a spellcaster, I need to be able to cast spells. How can I do my job if my spell slots get sucked away every time we run into undead?"

DM: "Well, how can you do your job if you are dead or reduced to a mindless state? You need to use your spells this way or you may not live long enough to cast them anyway."

Player: Head down, silently weeping into his hands.

DM: "I should mention too that you will be able to make turn undead attempts vs. nonundead; if you succeed they will be stunned for a few rounds. Of course, everyone who does not have this feature will get a huge bonus on the save DC. The best part: If you blow a 5th level spell to use High Holy Hokey Pokey then everyone in a large area could be stunned for a long while and they don't get a bonus vs. this one mode -- that makes the entire system usable and balanced."

Player: "They should all be stunned if they ever see me willingly use these rules. This is preposterous! I need my spells to heal and buff and perform all the functions of a Cleric. How am I going to be of any use to the party if I hemorrhage spell slots every time we run into undead?"

DM: "That is the beauty of it: You get to choose whether to use your spell slots as they were intended or save your own hide by using them to turn. Come on and at least give it a chance. It will be a mechanic unique to your class so it must be a benefit. You don't want to be just another spellcaster do you? This will add so much flavor and.... Hey! Get him off of me!"

Player: "How ya like that fist flavor?"

So yeah. Psionic combat is stupid.

This. Just... this.

3.0 Psionics was immensely stupid. If you want psionic combat in 3.5 that works, please pick up Hyperconscious.

The book is worth the price tag for the PrCs alone, but the feats and mechanics are icing on the cake.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Oh yes, hyperconcious is a great buy, I really like the Ghostbreaker, every psy-gish can benefit from a dip or so from them (it also opens way to the tasty tasty devotion feats, Law devotion is a favourite of mine)

[Tavar]

Thoughts.
They also get to switch maneuvers, the rules are really lenient, and there are plenty of maneuvers that don't have prerequisites.

Plus, I'd say that's more a problem with Wizards than with Adepts.


As for crusaders...I love it. One of the best parts about playing them.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Possibly, still I am considering killing the pre-requisites in my games, just a personal preference. And I will probably play a crusader some point in the future (I am running RHoD and I am re-stating monsters to be more ToB oriented).

[Veyr]

My issue with pre-requisites is that they greatly increase character creation time, without adding anything meaningful. The pre-reqs don't come up very often, but you have to double-check all of them, and then you have to figure out what maneuvers you would have had at which levels to see if you met the pre-reqs - it gets very tedious. And like I said - it just doesn't add anything.

Also, Tiger Claw's prerequisites are really dumb. As in, Wolf Fang Strike, Claw at the Moon, and Rabid Wolf Strike are the only ones that don't have one. You cannot take Blood in the Water, Hunter's Sense, or Sudden Leap without taking Wolf Fang Strike first, or waiting until you can take Claw at the Moon or Rabid Wolf Strike at 3rd (or 6th, if you're trying to Martial Study), which sucks because Sudden Leap is by far the most useful maneuver out of all of these to someone who doesn't want to specialize in Tiger Claw. It seems to think that you must be TWFing if you want any Tiger Claw maneuvers.

They also mean that certain PrC combinations are really bad, because you end up having to take low-level maneuvers when you should be taking high-level ones, because the PrC doesn't give the same disciplines your base class did (this is a bigger issue with homebrew than it is with any of the PrCs in the book, though, admittedly).


EDIT: It's interesting how everyone who doesn't like the Crusader mechanic (in this thread, so far, that I have seen), hasn't actually played a Crusader. I totally get that - I was leery of the idea, too. The idea that you might be caught without that one maneuver you need sounds awful.

The reality is, it's not. One, you get to choose the maneuvers readied - something chosen at random from a list of awesome is still awesome. You'll never not have something cool to do. Also, realize that at the very worst, it will take 3 rounds for you to get a particular maneuver. Now realize that it will only take that long if your sudden need for the maneuver happens just as you refresh, and that maneuver happens to be the very last one drawn. This is exceedingly unlikely to happen. The first Crusader I played, I got Extra Granted Maneuver because I was worried about this: I ended up retraining it because I realized it really wasn't doing me any good at all.

So seriously, try one: the "randomness" factor turns out not to matter at all, and never having to waste actions refreshing is awesome.

[stainboy]

Crusader mechanic: I'm just docking them for not explaining how to do it. The average person is really bad at probability. *You* know you're supposed to make index cards, but somewhere there's someone writing his five maneuvers on a table and rolling 1d4+1. (You probably game with at least one person who wouldn't get what's wrong with that. That guy you told he could use fractional BAB, and now you have to calculate his attack bonus for him every level? Yeah, he doesn't get it.)

Maybe maneuver prereqs isn't exactly the problem, but they could have forced you to specialize without making you plan out your build so far in advance. And like Veyr said the Tiger Claw prereqs are a pain because Tiger Claw is split between dualwield and single-attack-only.

[Tavar]

Yes, if you don't think and read the rules, there are problems. That's universal. I've had people think that Bonus spells were granted as long as you qualified for them, and that they could be used to cast spells of whatever level they were from. So, level 1 characters casting 3rd to 4th level spells. This doesn't mean that the rules were poorly explained.

[Darklord Xavez]

This. Just... this.

3.0 Psionics was immensely stupid. If you want psionic combat in 3.5 that works, please pick up Hyperconscious.

The book is worth the price tag for the PrCs alone, but the feats and mechanics are icing on the cake.

Thank you for the recommendation. I'll check it out; maybe I'll be able to get it at Gencon this summer.
-X

[manyslayer]

Pretty much agree with everyone about the 3.0 vs 3.X psionics.

I love psionics but even when I ran under 3.0, psionic combat simply did not exist. This was because it penalized someone for being psionic. And heaven forbid you want to later multi-class into a psionic class (our group cares more for character development than optimization for level ups so even sub-optimal choices are taken if it makes sense from an in-character reason). That means that now, instead of being stunned you'll be taking damage, whatever but your defenses are crap compared to psionic threats of an appropriate encounter level.

And, while I did appreciate the idea of different abilities being tied to different disciplines. While this is a neat idea, the effect of having to separately track different save DC modifiers depending on the power you manifest (on top of having to roll the d20 to set the base for the DC) made bookkeeping a nightmare. This on top of the effect that your highest level powers would be severely limited (being limited by the requiring a 10 + power's level in the key ability).

So, yes, 3.5 was a god-send for psionic usage. That said, if you and your group prefer 3.0, play it and have fun. That's really what it comes down to in the end.


P.S. I play a crusader (level 15 with 2 levels of fighter) and I love the recharge mechanic. Yes, there have been occasions I didn't get the power I was hoping for (not having Minotaur's Charge ready for the opening of combat) but it actually makes you have to change up your routines a bit, which I think is also a good thing. Not to mention, you get to recycle your maneuvers without having to spend actions to do so.

[Thalnawr]

Oh yes, hyperconcious is a great buy, I really like the Ghostbreaker, every psy-gish can benefit from a dip or so from them (it also opens way to the tasty tasty devotion feats, Law devotion is a favourite of mine)
I love the Ghostbreaker for the simple fact that there's a feat in one of the Dreamscarred Press psionics books that allows you to burn a turn attempt as a swift action to instantly regain your psionic focus... I love not having to dip a non-psionic class to be able to do that.

[stainboy]

About the six-way MAD, it doesn't promote diverse builds as much as it looks like it would. The system is designed to promote all-arounder stats pumped up with Animal Affinity. Except for Dex, which you leave at 8 and then set high enough to manifest psyport powers with Polymorph or Metamorphosis, and except for any strength above 15, which you set to like 30+ with (again) Metamorphosis. It's completely gameable and it's not a good system.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I love the Ghostbreaker for the simple fact that there's a feat in one of the Dreamscarred Press psionics books that allows you to burn a turn attempt as a swift action to instantly regain your psionic focus... I love not having to dip a non-psionic class to be able to do that.

Do you remember what is the source of that feat? my character-building senses are yelling me to build a psionic gish.

[Psyren]

I love the Ghostbreaker for the simple fact that there's a feat in one of the Dreamscarred Press psionics books that allows you to burn a turn attempt as a swift action to instantly regain your psionic focus... I love not having to dip a non-psionic class to be able to do that.

You don't need a dip to regain your focus as a swift, just Hustle :smalltongue:
Though I agree that being able to do so for free is nice too.

[Hecuba]

And, while I did appreciate the idea of different abilities being tied to different disciplines. While this is a neat idea, the effect of having to separately track different save DC modifiers depending on the power you manifest (on top of having to roll the d20 to set the base for the DC) made bookkeeping a nightmare. This on top of the effect that your highest level powers would be severely limited (being limited by the requiring a 10 + power's level in the key ability).

I used to play with a DM (sadly, he passed away a few months ago), who was quite good a making 3.0 Psi entertaining-- if you had everyone playing it (though he did switch over to Hypercon's Psionic Combat system when it became an option). For normal campaigns back in 3.0, he outright banned it.

When I asked why, he explained tha he felt psionics was designed reasonably well, but on a flawed premise. It was balanced well against itself, but poorly against 3.0 as a whole. Essentially, he thought (and convinced me) that it works better as D20 Psionics with supplements from D&D than as D&D 3.0 Psionics.

[Thalnawr]

Do you remember what is the source of that feat? my character-building senses are yelling me to build a psionic gish.
I believe it's in the High Psionics Compilation book, but I'm AFB for another 3 hours so I can't check.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I believe it's in the High Psionics Compilation book, but I'm AFB for another 3 hours so I can't check.

Ok thanks, hmm now I need a game to test this one.

[classy one]

The psionic combat in hyperconsious was very simple you roll a d20, add your modifies, while your opponent rolled a d20 added his modifers and you compare the result. The winner gained real world benefits depending on which mode you selected (no defense or attack).

So it only resulted in one extra roll, and some of the benefits are really good, like + to your power's DC, the more negative mods you had on it the more benefit you got ir you end up winning.

There is even a feat that let you do psionic combat on non-psionic creatures, making it always useful, especially when they gain no benefits even when they win.

Yet another feat allowed you drain PP every round from your oppenent even when you lose psi combat.

The only thing concerning about it was that it acted like an automatic detect psionics and it wasn't voluntary. If 2 or more psionic people are within 30 ft of eachother, a mindscape (the place you fight) pops up. So if you traveled with another psionic user, you'd have to constantly turn off combat (or treat it like a continous chess game, which could be fun).

[Flickerdart]

When I asked why, he explained tha he felt psionics was designed reasonably well, but on a flawed premise. It was balanced well against itself, but poorly against 3.0 as a whole. Essentially, he thought (and convinced me) that it works better as D20 Psionics with supplements from D&D than as D&D 3.0 Psionics.
The PsiH had two base classes. It would have been very difficult for it not to be balanced with itself.

[Hecuba]

The PsiH had two base classes. It would have been very difficult for it not to be balanced with itself.

3.0 Psion isn't 1 class, it's 6. If no one is pushing more than two 19s*, then the power distribution between the disciplines ends up with something relatively similar to the classes like dread necro and beguiler than came about later in 3.5.

The specialized 3.5 casters are more polished, of course. But the basic idea isn't that different.

*Not the most reasonable assumption on a CharOp board, but reasonable for probably most games IMHO. Especially since 3.0 was had less heavy CharOp than late 3.5