Why all the psionics hate?

[Renen]

Trting to join some PbP games, I see so many DMs not allowing psionics... why?

Fluff? But you can refluff them so easily... both psionics and magic is more or less "shaping the world to your will"

Power? They are less broken than wizards.

Knowledge of psionics? Took me about 30 min of reading ro get that they use a "mana" system, and only slightly different spells than arcane casters.

[Hyena]

People dislike fluff, yet don't like to refluff anything for a reason unknown to myself.

[Segev]

To be fair, Psionics has some of the more convoluted and obviously broken tricks in the game at its disposal. Can druids do it all better? Sure, and the fact they do it straight-forwardly actually makes it easier for them to pull off. But the fact that it's all straight-forward, but hidden behind veneers of reasonable-seeming abilities, makes it non-obvious.

Psionics, meanwhile, can burst-damage better than a dedicated evoker in a straight-forward way, and has tricks that are obviously tricky (but easy to achieve).

So it looks broken.

[Flickerdart]

There are a couple of (IMO, bad) reasons that people might have for banning psionics:
1: Not core. Learning another subsystem is seen as a horrible burden by some new DMs, which leads them to resent anything outside of the PHB.
2: Power points. MP? What is this, video games?
3: People miss the "you cannot spend more PP on a power than your ML" rule and think psions can nova like crazy.
4: People have a sour taste from 2e and 3e psionics which were kind of awful.
5: People think that every party must have exactly one fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric, and nothing else, and that this is the only way the game is balanced.
6: All the crystals.

[Psyren]

Some are just unfamiliar with it and would rather stick with what they know. To be perfectly fair, despite having greater balance overall, psionics does prevent some traps for unwary DMs and players alike that can interfere with certain campaigns. I have the most sympathy for this group, though I would basically point out to them that fearing anything new causes them to miss out on all kinds of rewarding material, especially when more than half of that material is available completely free of charge. (SRD, Mind's Eye.)

Some dislike the fluff. This one holds no water in my eyes - nobody is forcing you to use crystals and tattoos, you're free to change the trappings of the system to something else. And if the powers tend to sound "science-y" that's only because psionics tends to use Greek roots.

Some are soured on it due to prior editions. 3.0 psionics in particular left a very, very bad taste in people's mouths. These are the easiest to win over though, as there are multitudes of threads dedicated to explaining 3.5 psionics in general. There is a link in my sig to a post by Peregrine that does so pretty succinctly for instance.

[gurgleflep]

Maybe it's because they don't have an understanding of the psionic system? :smallconfused: It's also the harder system to learn from what I hear - I understand it more than the magic system oddly enough :smalltongue:

[navar100]

One of my groups thinks psionics (Pathfinder) is more powerful than magic just based on damage alone. Mindthrust doing 1d10 damage as a 1st level power. Compare to Magic Missile. Energy Missile doing 3d6 damage to five individuals as a 2nd level power. Compare to Flaming Sphere. The DM for that campaign was also bothered with expending psionic focus for an autoroll 15 on a concentration check to manifest defensively where as spellcasters have no such thing. I gave all the usual arguments as to why psionics is balanced, but they weren't swayed.

I also have a suspicion my natural character building optimization is more optimal than the group is comfortable with. When it's for a passive character such as my Life Mystery Oracle who is a "Grand Master" Healbot they aren't bothered. When I take a more offense-orientated character, they notice. The DM for this particular campaign already got annoyed with my replacement character for the psion with a Dual Cursed Dark Tapestry Oracle who makes bad guys reroll critical hit threats and party members reroll critical fumble threats. He really likes those cards. I wonder how they'll react to my 1st level Paladin for another campaign doing 2d6 + 9 damage with normal things like 18 strength, a greatsword, and Power Attack.

[Renen]

There are a couple of (IMO, bad) reasons that people might have for banning psionics:
1: Not core. Learning another subsystem is seen as a horrible burden by some new DMs, which leads them to resent anything outside of the PHB.
2: Power points. MP? What is this, video games?
3: People miss the "you cannot spend more PP on a power than your ML" rule and think psions can nova like crazy.
4: People have a sour taste from 2e and 3e psionics which were kind of awful.
5: People think that every party must have exactly one fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric, and nothing else, and that this is the only way the game is balanced.
6: All the crystals.

1. I have been playing DnD about 6 months, and im already familiar with things like Tome of battle, psionics, incarnum, etc. Cant be THAT hard. And not like im learning this stuff day and night...

2. Like no one played videogame RPGs before...

3. So... they are just idiots? Its like missing the fact that wizards prepare spells.

4. Havent played older editions but... times change... if some people dont wanna see what changed, revert to sentence 1 of above answer.

5. Those are some pretty bad DMs then...

6. STILL not as broken as arcane magic.

[shadow_archmagi]

Maybe it's because they don't have an understanding of the psionic system? :smallconfused: It's also the harder system to learn from what I hear - I understand it more than the magic system oddly enough :smalltongue:

It's probably more that by the time most people pick up a psionics book, arcane magic has been around for so long it feels natural and intuitive, even though it is the opposite of those things.

[Boci]

3. So... they are just idiots? Its like missing the fact that wizards prepare spells.

No it isn't, because psionics are competly playable even when you miss that line, whilst wizards are not if you don't read the bit on preparing spell.

[Renen]

Sure they are... u just play them as beholders... have ability to store ALL the spells and cast them all on demand.

[ArqArturo]

I don't hate psionics, not the 3.5 version. However... Psionic Combat. Man, that was an awful thing.


Other than that, I have always treated psionics as another form of magic (arcane, divine, nature, psionics), just as a more refined version of nature magic.

[Boci]

Stop trying to force the analogy, it doesn't work. And don't insult people who miss a single line in a 300+ page book. They aren't idiots, they simply made a mistake.

[Raendyn]

Friends dont let friends play psionincs in a non-psionic party-world.

First of all, the subsystem, has issues, huge issues. Its research-friendly to get op and broken cause you pretty much have to look into 2 books to pull dirty things off.

If anyone allows you to play psionics, then he automatically also allows the system and the psionic existance, and you should know that noone that hasnt already made his setting include psionics, includes them on the fly, extra bureaucratic work for DM. Not to mention how much pissed they become when you bypass so many resistances without trying, just cause of the extra flexibility.

Also, psionics tent to synergize with psionics, so when you are the only psioninc-using character many things get uglier. And if you are new to the psionics you will find yourself Power-Points-hungry and will get pissed when you notice that pretty much all other casters long so much more than you.

You WILL notice that DM's unfamiliar with Psionics get mad when they see what tricks psionic user players can bring onto the table, and they get even more mad-erish:smallyuk: when they read the powers/feats, cause there is so much misspell, so much content able for different interpretations, so many things that have onbious RAI different from RAW.

Only ppl allowing me to play psionics are either super experienced DMs, Dms that dont know psionics and wanna try them, ppl that know them, but we have a gentlemens agreement not to cheese even a bit, and by that I mean no diry tricks, not being powerfull.

[Augmental]

FYou WILL notice that DM's unfamiliar with Psionics get mad when they see what tricks psionic user players can bring onto the table, and they get even more mad-erish:smallyuk: when they read the powers/feats, cause there is so much misspell, so much content able for different interpretations, so many things that have onbious RAI different from RAW.

So it's just like the Vancian magic subsystem, then.

[ericp65]

Some people also simply don't see how psionics fits a fantasy setting. I have no problems with it. I personally view psionics as more realistic than arcane magic, but that aside, I see no problem using all available sources of supernatural power in a single game setting. Maybe there's just not as much literary precedent for psychic ability in fantasy fiction, and that causes some people to see it as more science-fiction than fantasy.

I found the first D&D psionics rules cumbersome, but still I tried using them. When they overhauled it, introducing MAC and MTHAC0, I found it somewhat less cumbersome, but still convoluted when it came to psionic combat. In 3.5, I'm happy with psionics, and have played (but not yet been DM for) games that spotlighted psionic characters and foes.

[Fates]

A surprising number of people are unaware that Psionics/Magic transparency is canon, and that opacity is a variant that is usually advised against. Besides that, it often comes down to those damn crystals.

[Rubik]

Some people also simply don't see how psionics fits a fantasy setting.Have those people never read a fantasy novel, then? They tend to fit in better with modern fantasy by a rather large margin. And considering that "Vancian" magic is based off the works of Jack Vance, which are sci-fi novels...

[shadow_archmagi]

when they read the powers/feats, cause there is so much misspell


I'm not the only one who found this line hilarious, right?

[Boci]

Have those people never read a fantasy novel, then? They tend to fit in better with modern fantasy by a rather large margin. And considering that "Vancian" magic is based off the works of Jack Vance, which are sci-fi novels...

I think the names help with that. Some people find them too science-y.

[Gullintanni]

The only objection I have for Psionics vs. Arcane et. al. is that it's one more system to keep track of. A single party with Vancian casting, Psionics, ToB, Incarnum etc. is a lot for a DM to keep in his head all at once.

Even a DM who knows all four systems may only know one or two of them well enough to run without referring consistently to rulebooks...and even if he knows all four perfectly, it's still four separate skillsets to manage on the party, so it could conceivably more difficult for the DM to keep track of the party's capabilities.

My solution would probably be to limit the number of subsystems within the party. I'd probably permit ToB and either Vancian or Psionic 'magic'. I'd actually prefer ToB + Psionic if I'm skewing toward balance.

[ArqArturo]

Have those people never read a fantasy novel, then? They tend to fit in better with modern fantasy by a rather large margin. And considering that "Vancian" magic is based off the works of Jack Vance, which are sci-fi novels...

Furthermore, the Temple of the Frog adventure modules.

[Snowbluff]

I dislike the mechanics. People keep telling me it's inherently balanced, and it's not. Etc.

[Flickerdart]

1. I have been playing DnD about 6 months, and im already familiar with things like Tome of battle, psionics, incarnum, etc. Cant be THAT hard. And not like im learning this stuff day and night...

2. Like no one played videogame RPGs before...

3. So... they are just idiots? Its like missing the fact that wizards prepare spells.

4. Havent played older editions but... times change... if some people dont wanna see what changed, revert to sentence 1 of above answer.

5. Those are some pretty bad DMs then...

6. STILL not as broken as arcane magic.
I would like to bring your attention to the seventh word in the post you quoted.

[Boci]

I dislike the mechanics.

Could you be a bit more specific?

Do you dislike the lack of components? The augmentation mechanic? The power point system? The fact that they can wear armour? The better action economy?

[Squark]

I'm not sure what "tricks" Raendyn is referring to. Both of the recharge tricks rely on sources beyond the EPH and CPsi, while most of the other tricks I know of require 9th level powers, while Psycrystal tricks are easily stopped by a DM who just says, "No, your Psycristal can't take feats".

[Snowbluff]

Could you be a bit more specific?

Do you dislike the lack of components? Yes. They can hide signs pretty easily as well.


The augmentation mechanic? I actually like augmentation. It's just not handled very well, IMO. I am fine with "Augment this to change action/type", but adding things like DC scaling and damage dice is just bad. Why doesn't it just scale?


The power point system? Yes, but mostly because augmentation is a crap shoot.


The fact that they can wear armour? Yes. This is filed under components.


The better action economy?
Yes, but not really.

[RFLS]

First of all, the subsystem, has issues, huge issues. Its research-friendly to get op and broken cause you pretty much have to look into 2 books to pull dirty things off.

Ditto for Vancian. I can smash a game with the PHB and PHB II. No problem.


If anyone allows you to play psionics, then he automatically also allows the system and the psionic existance, and you should know that noone that hasnt already made his setting include psionics, includes them on the fly, extra bureaucratic work for DM. Not to mention how much pissed they become when you bypass so many resistances without trying, just cause of the extra flexibility.

So, wading through the squishy remains of abused grammar, I gather that you think that psionics feels bolted on, and that it can bypass defenses intended against magic (Spell Resistance is the only one I can think of here). So, here's how that goes:

If you have a lazy DM, sure, it feels bolted on. Solution: find someone competent. It's not hard to add psionics into a world. Heck, just refluff them as arcanists, which brings me to my second point.
If you're playing with transparency (and you should be), psionics is resisted by all the same resistances to standard magic.



Also, psionics tent to synergize with psionics, so when you are the only psioninc-using character many things get uglier. And if you are new to the psionics you will find yourself Power-Points-hungry and will get pissed when you notice that pretty much all other casters long so much more than you.

This...looks like a lack of understanding about how the system works. A psion can match a wizard pretty much spell for power, all day long.


You WILL notice that DM's unfamiliar with Psionics get mad when they see what tricks psionic user players can bring onto the table, and they get even more mad-erish:smallyuk: when they read the powers/feats, cause there is so much misspell, so much content able for different interpretations, so many things that have onbious RAI different from RAW.

Uhm. Wait. Are we talking about 3.5 here, or psionics? Because honestly, those problems are inherent to 3.5 as a whole. This ties into my first point, which is this: psionics, in a mid-optimization level game, have a much lower ceiling than the Vancian casters.


Only ppl allowing me to play psionics are either super experienced DMs, Dms that dont know psionics and wanna try them, ppl that know them, but we have a gentlemens agreement not to cheese even a bit, and by that I mean no diry tricks, not being powerfull.

What? Okay, this sounds like a munchkining problem more and more. Of course there are going to be problems if you try to make the most powerful character possible every single game. Solution: don't do that.

[BWR]

I personally view psionics as more realistic than arcane magic

Please explain how psionics are more 'realistic' than 'arcane magic'.

[RFLS]

Please explain how psionics are more 'realistic' than 'arcane magic'.

I doubt he meant realistic. I could definitely get behind "reasonable," for example. "Thought out" would also be a good fit. "Interesting" would also work. But no, realistic is demonstrably false, @eric. Clarification would indeed be great.

[Morty]

Some people just don't like using power points, and/or don't feel like introducing another subsystem, separate both in fluff and mechanics, into the game. Those are both fair reasons.

[Mewtarthio]

Have those people never read a fantasy novel, then? They tend to fit in better with modern fantasy by a rather large margin. And considering that "Vancian" magic is based off the works of Jack Vance, which are sci-fi novels...

You'd be hard-pressed to convince anyone that the Dying Earth stories are sci-fi. Or novels, for that matter.

That being said, it's probably just the name that throws people. "Psionics" is usually taken to mean "sci-fi magic," and so is assumed by definition to be out-of-place in fantasy. The system itself is pretty good at emulating a fairly common type of spellcaster, while Vancian magic can really only emulate Vancian magic* (which, I understand, was actually intentional).

*Which is not to be confused with "the magic system Jack Vance invented," which is only vaguely similar to Vancian magic.

[Eldan]

I dislike power point mechanics in general. They are boring. I mean, sure, more balanced than core 3.5 vancian and the augmentation mechanic is very nice. But still. I don't like power points.

[Yora]

2: Power points. MP? What is this, video games?

Power Points are 95% of the reason I love psionics. Augmentation is another 4%.
I then simply refluff everything and call it magic.

D&D without spell slots! How awesome is that?!

[Boci]

Yes. They can hide signs pretty easily as well. I actually like augmentation. It's just not handled very well, IMO. I am fine with "Augment this to change action/type", but adding things like DC scaling and damage dice is just bad. Why doesn't it just scale?
Yes, but mostly because augmentation is a crap shoot.
Yes. This is filed under components.

Yes, but not really.

Okay, could you start with something like that next time? Also are there any problems I failed to guess?


I dislike power point mechanics in general. They are boring.

And spell slots aren't?

[Eldan]

I love spell slots. I love them so much. The idea is incredibly awesome and D&D's Vancian is the most interesting magic system I've ever seen in any game.

I should elaborate. I like systems that place limitations on the user. The spell slot system is a very interesting limitation: you have to prepare ahead of time. It forces the wizard to think ahead, which fits with their high intelligence to make them very tactical characters. Very nice rule/fluff interaction. Plus, the entire idea of preparing spells ahead of time, then keeping them in your head is a gold mine for interesting world building and descriptions.

Psions? "Oh, I can cast so many spells, then I get tired". Boring. No limitations. No interesting directions to take the fluff in. Even with reflavouring, it's just bland.

[elonin]

I haven't played a psionic character, though I'd like to. There are new systems that have to be learned, which might also be the issue with TOB. By just having 1 power point it opens up access to feats that are more versatile. While reading threads here it is obvious that the ML cap is misunderstood. And with players trying to abuse known systems a dm who isn't as familiar with the psionic system is wise to be wary.

Psionic items don't seem to mesh well.

[Boci]

I love spell slots. I love them so much. The idea is incredibly awesome and D&D's Vancian is the most interesting magic system I've ever seen in any game.

I should elaborate. I like systems that place limitations on the user. The spell slot system is a very interesting limitation: you have to prepare ahead of time. It forces the wizard to think ahead, which fits with their high intelligence to make them very tactical characters. Very nice rule/fluff interaction. Plus, the entire idea of preparing spells ahead of time, then keeping them in your head is a gold mine for interesting world building and descriptions.

Psions? "Oh, I can cast so many spells, then I get tired". Boring. No limitations. No interesting directions to take the fluff in. Even with reflavouring, it's just bland.

But the psion's arcane counterpart is the sorceror, not the wizard.

[Eldan]

Well, yes. The psion is better than the sorcerer. It is still incredibly bland.

[Squark]

But the psion's arcane counterpart is the sorcerer, not the wizard.

Not originally- The Euridite came later. Wilder is the original Sorcerer equivalent for psionics (With Augmentation allowing the Wilder more versatility than the Sorcerer would get out of 11 powers, at least in theory).

[Eldan]

Oh yeah. That's another thing. Even though they have very few powers on the list, the two or three times I've tried building high-level psions, I could never find enough interesting powers for them. Though I guess if they had a book like the Spell Compendium, that issue would go away.

[Boci]

Not originally-

I'd argue yes. The psion is a spontenous caster with a fixed number of powers known. Thats a sorceror, not a wizard, and later maker an even more sorcerish psionic class doesn't change that.


Well, yes. The psion is better than the sorcerer. It is still incredibly bland.

But how is the sorceror more interesting?

[Renen]

Yes. They can hide signs pretty easily as well. I actually like augmentation. It's just not handled very well, IMO. I am fine with "Augment this to change action/type", but adding things like DC scaling and damage dice is just bad. Why doesn't it just scale?
Yes, but mostly because augmentation is a crap shoot.
Yes. This is filed under components.

Yes, but not really.

And the arcanes can STILL break the game in more ways than psionics. There's a reason psion is a T2 class. The only Psionic T1 classes are there not because of psionics. Thrallherd for example is there because of 2 followers he gets. Erudite is there because he can learn all arcane spells ever.


I would like to bring your attention to the seventh word in the post you quoted.
Not bashing you or anything. I know you just presented popular arguments, and I was just addressing them.


Well, yes. The psion is better than the sorcerer. It is still incredibly bland.

What can be blander (is that a word) than "forgetting" spells you cast?
There's a reason so many games still use the "mana" system. Because its actually more versatile than having to guess what spells you will need. I actually really like erudite in a sense that he "locks in" the powers he uses, being limited to only a specific amount of unique powers per day.

[Boci]

And the arcanes can STILL break the game in more ways than psionics. There's a reason psion is a T2 class. The only Psionic T1 classes are there not because of psionics. Thrallherd for example is there because of 2 followers he gets. Erudite is there because he can learn all arcane spells ever.

I'm sure Snowbluff knows that. They seem to dislike a percieved mechanical inelegance in the mechanics, not game breaking potential.

[Garphor Drinfan]

Ok, I've had enough of the DM bashing on this thread. Pure and simple I'm not going to remake my campaign, restructure the entire setting, learn an entirely different system, and redevise all of my tricks just so you can be a Psion. I don't like psions, they don't fit in with fantasy settings in any way shape or form regardless of what people would like to think.

Oh, and the fact that most of you are saying "Psions aren't broken." but are then going back and saying things like this:


A psion can match a wizard pretty much spell for power, all day long.


Well, yes. The psion is better than the sorcerer. It is still incredibly bland. (Granted that Eldan is arguing against)

Is just laughable, if you're going to argue for a thing, at least argue coherently and get your head out of the clouds, Arcane more breakable than Psionics? That's just obscenely ignorant.

[Snowbluff]

Okay, could you start with something like that next time? Also are there any problems I failed to guess?
Nah, that's the important part.

Psicrystals get feat by RAw, which is wierd when combined with metaconcert.



And spell slots aren't? Mana points are the norm. I've played with them enough in video games.


And the arcanes can STILL break the game in more ways than psionics. There's a reason psion is a T2 class. The only Psionic T1 classes are there not because of psionics. Thrallherd for example is there because of 2 followers he gets. Erudite is there because he can learn all arcane spells ever.
This is an example of someone who does not understand the issue. Allow us to educate him. There is no difference between T1 and T2 save for the number of abilities known. They are equally game breaking.

Psions are T2 because they do not know their whole list.

Erudites are T1 because they can.

StP Erudites are a separate issue. It's a monster.

My main issue is the inelegance of the system. StP Erudites are filed under 'inelegance.'

[Boci]

Ok, I've had enough of the DM bashing on this thread. Pure and simple I'm not going to remake my campaign, restructure the entire setting, learn an entirely different system, and redevise all of my tricks just so you can be a Psion.

You don't have to. Just let the PC play a psionic character. You contol an entire world, they control a single indevidual. They have a wierd and possibly rare form of magic. How much rewriting does that take to accomidate?



Oh, and the fact that most of you are saying "Psions aren't broken." but are then going back and saying things like this:



(Granted that Eldan is arguing against)

Is just laughable, if you're going to argue for a thing, at least argue coherently and get your head out of the clouds, Arcane more breakable than Psionics? That's just obscenely ignorant.

We are not a hive mind you know. Plus I'm pretty sure RFLS was talking about spell slot and PP endurance, not broken potential.

Edit: Also what DM bashing? Renen may have been a bit harsh at times, but they are probably just venting over a character being denied based on its class, which is always annoying.

[Garphor Drinfan]

You don't have to. Just let the PC play a psionic character. You control an entire world, they control a single individual. They have a weird and possibly rare form of magic. How much rewriting does that take to accommodate?

No, you don't understand, they might control one individual, but I have to make it so that being that individual is even possible. I have to add psionics into the setting, I have to make sure that what I've written for my campaign isn't nullified by the fact that Psions are so different from what I normally deal with, and I have to make sure that he isn't the only psion out there to maintain credibility.


We are not a hive mind you know. Plus I'm pretty sure RFLS was talking about spell slot and PP endurance, not broken potential.

You may not be a hive mind, I acknowledge that, but I was more bringing attention to the fact that there is no way in hell a Wizard can go against a Psion without having their entire spell list entirely geared towards defeating a psion, and they won't last as long regardless.

[Flickerdart]

Arcane more breakable than Psionics? That's just obscenely ignorant.
Gate. Genesis. Shapechange. Craft Contingent Spell. Ice Assassin. Planar Binding spells.

Psionics has combos, yes. Everything has combos. But there's nothing in the game that combos better and has more straight-up punching power than arcane spellcasting. Given that you admit not dealing with psionics, I have to wonder who the ignorant one here actually is.

No, you don't understand, they might control one individual, but I have to make it so that being that individual is even possible. I have to add psionics into the setting, I have to make sure that what I've written for my campaign isn't nullified by the fact that Psions are so different from what I normally deal with, and I have to make sure that he isn't the only psion out there to maintain credibility.
Why? There are loads of stories about guys with unique powers.

[Blightedmarsh]

I think we can just agree that most {barring a few subsystems they miraculously got right then didn't screw up later} forms of magic have the inherently potential to be broken in 3.5. Either because they are easily abusable (*insert spell here* I am looking at you) or because they simply don't work.

[Boci]

No, you don't understand, they might control one individual, but I have to make it so that being that individual is even possible. I have to add psionics into the setting, I have to make sure that what I've written for my campaign isn't nullified by the fact that Psions are so different from what I normally deal with, and I have to make sure that he isn't the only psion out there to maintain credibility.

Why? Pcs are already about being unique and generally do stretch credability (suspiciously similar WBL, like it was arbatrated by some unseen power, they know they can trust eachother). When you consider those, having a psionic PC without any NPCs really doesn't break the world. Just have arcane NPCs note that his magic is wierd and that they've heard about it. It won't strain believability any more than a 100 other things inherant in a game's limitation.


You may not be a hive mind, I acknowledge that, but I was more bringing attention to the fact that there is no way in hell a Wizard can go against a Psion without having their entire spell list entirely geared towards defeating a psion, and they won't last as long regardless.

You're wrong. See Flickerdart's list of spells below your post.


Nah, that's the important part.

Psicrystals get feat by RAw, which is wierd when combined with metaconcert.

Mana points are the norm. I've played with them enough in video games.

So in order:
Lack of components - it comes directly from the mind, plus it was a new system and needed some ways of being distinguishable from magic.

Argmentation - Damage isn't automatically augmented as a trade off for the versatility provided by the augmentation mechanic. DC doesn't scale because neither do those of spells.

Psichrystals with feats - rule glitch, correct as neccissary

Action economy - What do you mean by "Yes, but not really."

[Garphor Drinfan]

Gate. Genesis. Shapechange. Craft Contingent Spell. Ice Assassin. Planar Binding spells.

Psionics has combos, yes. Everything has combos. But there's nothing in the game that combos better and has more straight-up punching power than arcane spellcasting. Given that you admit not dealing with psionics, I have to wonder who the ignorant one here actually is.

You clearly don't know what those spells do if you think they have any kind of chance at breaking the game. Ice Assassin might be pushing it, but Psions are far more broken if you actually pay any attention.

And do you really think I would be here if I didn't have experience with it? Did I ever say that I had any small amount of knowledge with them? If so, be sure to bring my attention to it. Otherwise, try to read better.


Why? There are loads of stories about guys with unique powers.

Yes, but keep in mind that I have an entire rest of a party to deal with here. I can't go off making one person entirely unique and leave them hanging out in the cold, that's called favoritism and any moron with half a day's experience DMing knows that that's how parties break apart more often than not.


Why? Pcs are already about being unique and generally do stretch credability (suspiciously similar WBL, like it was arbatrated by some unseen power, they know they can trust eachother). When you consider those, having a psionic PC without any NPCs really doesn't break the world. Just have arcane NPCs note that his magic is wierd and that they've heard about it. It won't strain believability any more than a 100 other things inherant in a game's limitation.

People make their characters unique so that they're interesting to read about, playing a character is about making them unique, yes, but if you have to introduce a whole new system to the game to do that for your character you're doing it entirely wrong.


You're wrong. See Flickerdart's list of spells below your post.

No, I'm afraid you're wrong. These are all extremely high end spells with extremely expensive material components, most of which have little combat potential if the conditions aren't precisely right.

[Snowbluff]

Gate. Genesis. Shapechange. Craft Contingent Spell. Ice Assassin. Planar Binding spells.

Wait (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/genesis.htm), what? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/genesis.htm)

Shapechange, Gate, Ice Assassin, and Planar Binding are not what i would call straight forward, and all do almost the same thing for your purposes. Considering that these all overlap with the StP Erudite List, and that Greater Metamorphosis does most of what Shapechange does, this argument is largely invalid.

Psionics should be a tad weaker, but that's only due to a lack of support. Given more time, the system would have been bloated.

[Boci]

Wait (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/genesis.htm), what? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/genesis.htm)

Isn't psionic genesis weaker than the arcane one?


You clearly don't know what those spells do if you think they have any kind of chance at breaking the game. Ice Assassin might be pushing it, but Psions are far more broken if you actually pay any attention.

And do you really think I would be here if I didn't have experience with it? Did I ever say that I had any small amount of knowledge with them? If so, be sure to bring my attention to it. Otherwise, try to read better.

How about some evidence rather than "You're wrong I'm right?"


Yes, but keep in mind that I have an entire rest of a party to deal with here. I can't go off making one person entirely unique and leave them hanging out in the cold, that's called favoritism and any moron with half a day's experience DMing knows that that's how parties break apart more often than not.

Its not favoritsm to say "You can use this book but I won't otherwise incorporate the mechanics into my game world in any significant way."

[Snowbluff]

Isn't psionic genesis weaker than the arcane one?

You can't make it out of weird stuff, but it can still have other traits, if I am reading this right.

[Flickerdart]

You clearly don't know what those spells do if you think they have any kind of chance at breaking the game.
Yeah, I'm just...if you don't understand how Gate is a broken spell, there's not going to be any reasoning with you.

[Boci]

You can't make it out of weird stuff, but it can still have other traits, if I am reading this right.

I don't know mysaelf, I was just parroting what I had heard.

[RFLS]

No, you don't understand, they might control one individual, but I have to make it so that being that individual is even possible. I have to add psionics into the setting, I have to make sure that what I've written for my campaign isn't nullified by the fact that Psions are so different from what I normally deal with, and I have to make sure that he isn't the only psion out there to maintain credibility.

You may not be a hive mind, I acknowledge that, but I was more bringing attention to the fact that there is no way in hell a Wizard can go against a Psion without having their entire spell list entirely geared towards defeating a psion, and they won't last as long regardless.

For clarification, yes, I was stating that a Psion's PP puts him pretty close to a wizard in number of manifestations or spells per day. Read more closely in the future. For further clarification...you're absolutely wrong in your interpretation of psionics. The only psionic class in the game that can match the wizard in brokenness, power, and versatility is the StP Erudite, and that's because he's using the Wizard's tricks.

[flare'90]

You can't make it out of weird stuff, but it can still have other traits, if I am reading this right.

You also can't set the time trait of the plane, so no accelerated time to recover spells in 1 round or other silly things.
You pay less Xp, trough.

[erikun]

Ok, I've had enough of the DM bashing on this thread. Pure and simple I'm not going to remake my campaign, restructure the entire setting, learn an entirely different system, and redevise all of my tricks just so you can be a Psion. I don't like psions, they don't fit in with fantasy settings in any way shape or form regardless of what people would like to think.
I think that you, as DM, should have the ability to say what's allowed and what isn't in your game.

That said, I'm not sure what you'd need to change to limit a Psion that you haven't already changed that would limit a Wizard. Unless you've gone through and placed limits on individual spells, that is. I can understand not wanting to revise an entire new spell list.


Oh, and the fact that most of you are saying "Psions aren't broken." but are then going back and saying things like this:

(Granted that Eldan is arguing against)

Is just laughable, if you're going to argue for a thing, at least argue coherently and get your head out of the clouds, Arcane more breakable than Psionics? That's just obscenely ignorant.
Eldan was saying that the Psion is less bland than the Sorcerer, as I understand it. And I believe RFLS was saying that a Psion would not run out of PP before the Wizard runs out of spells, although that depends a lot on how smartly the Psion/Wizard players are concerving their PP/spell slots, respectively.

Arcane is more breakable than Psionics, yes. Flickerdart mentioned a bunch of high-level spells that do it, although even something as simple as Glitterdust and Web can control things that Psionics have no way of replicating.

Again, though, if you've gone through and houseruled all these spells, then I can see your fixed arcane spellcasting being more balanced and less breakable than psionics.

[Garphor Drinfan]

Yeah, I'm just...if you don't understand how Gate is a broken spell, there's not going to be any reasoning with you.

It's basically a high end summoning spell or essentially a planeshift. It has a ****ing XP cost, it's not broken.


Isn't psionic genesis weaker than the arcane one?

Genesis isn't that great of a spell in the first place, I don't see why anyone would care that the psionic version is slightly lesser when all of their other powers are so grossly out of the powersphere.


How about some evidence rather than "You're wrong I'm right?"

I'm sorry, I didn't know I was being held to higher standards than my opponents.


Its not favoritsm to say "You can use this book but I won't otherwise incorporate the mechanics into my game world in any significant way."

Yes, it is, because it means that the rest of the characters now don't have that option anymore if they want to multi-class. Essentially I'm holding this character up and saying "You are special". If psionics are being added, it must be to the entire system.

[Renen]

No, you don't understand, they might control one individual, but I have to make it so that being that individual is even possible. I have to add psionics into the setting, I have to make sure that what I've written for my campaign isn't nullified by the fact that Psions are so different from what I normally deal with, and I have to make sure that he isn't the only psion out there to maintain credibility.



You may not be a hive mind, I acknowledge that, but I was more bringing attention to the fact that there is no way in hell a Wizard can go against a Psion without having their entire spell list entirely geared towards defeating a psion, and they won't last as long regardless.

You can refluff psionics. You can say the character is a sorcerer, that has a few "forgotten" spells. I doubt the discussion about spell slots and power points will happen IC, with people wondering how the PC casts w/o spellslots. You can just say "its a form of magic" (like shadoweave) and boom! Its refluffed

And a wizard can easily go against psion as long as u use the default rule of psionic transparency. Granted, the psion might go nova and win, but now they are drained of PP, and pretty much anyone can kill them. If they DONT nova, the wizard will probably have an advantage.

[Lateral]

Isn't psionic genesis weaker than the arcane one?
Yes, mainly because you can't change time traits or terrain matter in the psionic one. The two most powerful uses of making your own demiplane, really, are being able to have a demiplane where time is fast and having a demiplane made of precious minerals. Psionic Genesis can do neither.

[Garphor Drinfan]

I think that you, as DM, should have the ability to say what's allowed and what isn't in your game.

That said, I'm not sure what you'd need to change to limit a Psion that you haven't already changed that would limit a Wizard. Unless you've gone through and placed limits on individual spells, that is. I can understand not wanting to revise an entire new spell list.


Eldan was saying that the Psion is less bland than the Sorcerer, as I understand it. And I believe RFLS was saying that a Psion would not run out of PP before the Wizard runs out of spells, although that depends a lot on how smartly the Psion/Wizard players are concerving their PP/spell slots, respectively.

Arcane is more breakable than Psionics, yes. Flickerdart mentioned a bunch of high-level spells that do it, although even something as simple as Glitterdust and Web can control things that Psionics have no way of replicating.

Again, though, if you've gone through and houseruled all these spells, then I can see your fixed arcane spellcasting being more balanced and less breakable than psionics.

As a side note thank you for being a logical human being.

[Big Fau]

You can't make it out of weird stuff, but it can still have other traits, if I am reading this right.

It can't mimic a time trait, something the Arcane version can do. Psionic Genesis is still powerful, but it isn't going to render every encounter meaningless.


It's basically a high end summoning spell or essentially a planeshift. It has a ****ing XP cost, it's not broken.

That high-end summoning spell can bring in an entire other character class (usually a creature with Cleric casting). Doubling up on spells for an encounter is all kinds of broken, even with the XP cost (XP costs being a slap on the wrist as far as balance goes; even Wish doesn't cost that much in the long-term).

Edit: Also, you can Gate in a Titan, have it use it's Gate SLA to call another Titan, then repeat ad infinitum until the duration on the first Gate runs out (2 minutes, barring metamagic). And you can do so in such a way that none of the Titans will harm you or your party via clever wording (which a spellcaster capable of casting 9th level spells can do thanks to a high Int/Wis).


I'm sorry, I didn't know I was being held to higher standards than my opponents.

We've provided examples. Please do the same and stop using a highly aggressive tone in your posts.

[Lateral]

How about an experiment, then? Garphor, you list a broken thing you can do with psionics, then we list a broken thing you can do with arcane magic. I guarantee you that you will run out long before we do.

[Boci]

It's basically a high end summoning spell or essentially a planeshift. It has a ****ing XP cost, it's not broken.

Are you familiar with the phrase XP is a rather?

Also one off 5k expirience to get a solar to mindrape into your slave is well worth it.


Genesis isn't that great of a spell in the first place, I don't see why anyone would care that the psionic version is slightly lesser when all of their other powers are so grossly out of the powersphere.

You can make it fast time flowing to recover spells quicker, magic dominate for free empowerment...the list goes on.


I'm sorry, I didn't know I was being held to higher standards than my opponents.

Maybe they haven't made the best efforts, but they at least mentioned spells, and whilst we're at it;

A psion and wizard fight. If the wizard wins, he wins. If the psion wins, oops, nevermind it was just an astral projection, we'll call it a draw.


Yes, it is, because it means that the rest of the characters now don't have that option anymore if they want to multi-class. Essentially I'm holding this character up and saying "You are special". If psionics are being added, it must be to the entire system.

So tell the other PCs they are free to use it and fluff it as destiny binging together rare powers. How will it break versimultitude to have some psionic PCs who just happen not to encounter some psionic NPC counterparts. Surely the contrived "PCs must meet others of their power" is just as contrived.


As a side note thank you for being a logical human being.

"The DM should try his best to allow a player's character concept" is no less logical. Also you did see the bit where he said he felt banning psionics was unneccissary? And that he disagrees with you about psionics being more broken?

[Flickerdart]

It's basically a high end summoning spell or essentially a planeshift. It has a ****ing XP cost, it's not broken.
If only that were true. Fortunately, there are loads of ways (Thought Bottle, Dweomerkeeper) for spellcasters to tell XP costs to go sit in a corner.

[Renen]

It can't mimic a time trait, something the Arcane version can do. Psionic Genesis is still powerful, but it isn't going to render every encounter meaningless.



That high-end summoning spell can bring in an entire other character class (usually a creature with Cleric casting). Doubling up on spells for an encounter is all kinds of broken, even with the XP cost (XP costs being a slap on the wrist as far as balance goes; even Wish doesn't cost that much in the long-term).

Edit: Also, you can Gate in a Titan, have it use it's Gate SLA to call another Titan, then repeat ad infinitum until the duration on the first Gate runs out (2 minutes, barring metamagic). And you can do so in such a way that none of the Titans will harm you or your party via clever wording (which a spellcaster capable of casting 9th level spells can do thanks to a high Int/Wis).



We've provided examples. Please do the same and stop using a highly aggressive tone in your posts.

Good edit. Whole time I was reading the whole gate isnt op argument, I was thinking "chain gate, chain gate, chain gate..."

Edit: isnt pun pun made using arcane as well?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Flickerdart
1: Not core. Learning another subsystem is seen as a horrible burden by some new DMs, which leads them to resent anything outside of the PHB.

Not just new DMs. Not everyone has the personal time, energy or interest to learn one or more new subsystems. This may be difficult to accept for those Playgrounders, and they are many, who occupy the more rarefied heights of system mastery and exploitation; but the fact is a lot of regular, ordinary gamers have their hands full just working up a weekly session. Not everyone is a connoisseur of alternate game mechanics; not everyone needs to be.

Also, whether the author's opinion or a more general attitude, the quoted comment conflates a dislike for new subsystems with a general detestation of anything beyond strict Core, which is hardly fair and certainly not always true.


Originally Posted by Flickerdart
5: People think that every party must have exactly one fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric, and nothing else, and that this is the only way the game is balanced.

This may well be true in select cases, but it certainly doesn't describe a single person I've gamed with over the ten years since 3.5 first came out, not players and not DMs.


Originally Posted by shadow_archmagi
It's probably more that by the time most people pick up a psionics book, arcane magic has been around for so long it feels natural and intuitive, even though it is the opposite of those things.

This is probably true in a lot of cases. Also, most people just pick up the book and play, without an exhaustive analysis of the balance of every toothed cog in the game.


Originally Posted by ericp65
Maybe there's just not as much literary precedent for psychic ability in fantasy fiction, and that causes some people to see it as more science-fiction than fantasy.

This is an insightful comment, and very true. My first exposure to the word "psionic" came from the X-Men, and that's a fundamentally different genre from the classic fantasy I was reading at the same time. There was no overlap, and no reason to imagine there should be. As practiced by Jean Grey and Professor X, psionics seemed much closer to the talents of Flinx, or Vulcans, or even the Jedi--any of the other purely SF storylines out there.


Originally Posted by Gullintanni
A single party with Vancian casting, Psionics, ToB, Incarnum etc. is a lot for a DM to keep in his head all at once.

Even a DM who knows all four systems may only know one or two of them well enough to run without referring consistently to rulebooks...and even if he knows all four perfectly, it's still four separate skillsets to manage on the party, so it could conceivably more difficult for the DM to keep track of the party's capabilities.

All of this is very, very true.

Keep in mind that the DM isn't just tracking the mechanics of the party; he has to handle the mechanics of all the NPC adversaries as well, plus all the other moving parts of an often complex storyline--on top of managing personalities in your average boisterous gaming group. Learning a new subsystem can be a disproportionate drain on time, patience, mental energy, all of it.


Originally Posted by Garphor Drinfan
Pure and simple I'm not going to remake my campaign, restructure the entire setting, learn an entirely different system, and redevise all of my tricks just so you can be a Psion.

And there's something to this as well. I've had some extremely bad experiences with players who approach the game with an attitude of supreme entitlement. If it's out there, in whatever supplement or web enhancement, then they feel they have an ironclad right to play it--even when it causes tremendous problems for the DM, whose natural focus is on the particular story he wants to tell. It's not fair to the DM, and ultimately not fun for anyone, to demand he change that story--and the entire world around it--to accommodate that player's sense of entitlement.



Also, to add one other response to the OP which hasn't been mentioned so far: one thing I've gradually realized is just how much of an effect your first gaming group can have, and especially the DM of that group. My first DM for 3.5 was adamantly against psionics, for reasons that Snowbluff and Eldan might agree with, and many others here wouldn't. Those reasons could be argued endlessly, but his strongly stated convictions had their influence on the rest of the group.

If it could be shown that using the XPH was the only way to present a unique and compelling character concept, I might just consider it--but it would take a lot of persuading to get me to pick up the book. The stars would have to align, but I wouldn't completely rule it out.

.

[Flickerdart]

Edit: isnt pun pun made using arcane as well?
The old pun-pun was because it needed a familiar. With Pazuzu, you can do it with anything (but a paladin easiest of all).

[Garphor Drinfan]

"The DM should try his best to allow a player's character concept" is no less logical. Also you did see the bit where he said he felt banning psionics was unnecessary? And that he disagrees with you about psionics being more broken?

Obviously you don't know what a debate is. I am allowed to congratulate my opponents on making good points when they do. Grow a bit of maturity and you might see that hostility is not a necessary component when you disagree with someone.

I am not going to dig through my collection of books just so that I can point out exactly what is broken with the features of psionics just so that I might be knocked down once again by those who refuse to see the other side of an argument.

I'm satisfied with the points I've made in this thread, however, as I stand alone and have better things to do than argue with people over the internet about a trivial matter, I bid you all good day.

[Flickerdart]

I'm satisfied with the points I've made in this thread, however, as I stand alone and have better things to do than argue with people over the internet about a trivial matter, I bid you all good day.
You haven't actually made any points, just statements you've steadfastly refused to back up with any evidence.

[erikun]

Edit: isnt pun pun made using arcane as well?
Pun-Pun is made by granting your soul to a deity as a Paladin (because "by RAW" the deity always accepts when a Paladin is requesting) and so achieves it on 1st level. There's a few variants, with one being arcane and one being psionic.

[Garphor Drinfan]

You haven't actually made any points, just statements you've steadfastly refused to back up with any evidence.

Did you actually read the post or just scan it for things you could argue about?

[Boci]

Obviously you don't know what a debate is. I am allowed to congratulate my opponents on making good points when they do. Grow a bit of maturity and you might see that hostility is not a necessary component when you disagree with someone.

But shouldn't you address their points? Especially if you think they were worded so well?


I am not going to dig through my collection of books just so that I can point out exactly what is broken with the features of psionics just so that I might be knocked down once again by those who refuse to see the other side of an argument.

I'm satisfied with the points I've made in this thread, however, as I stand alone and have better things to do than argue with people over the internet about a trivial matter, I bid you all good day.

Remember that complaint you opened with, about saying two things that contradict eachother? Like "I'm not going to make any points" and "I'm satisfied with the points I made".


Did you actually read the post or just scan it for things you could argue about?

I've read your posts, the only points I seen you make involve how well a psionic character fits into a game, not about how broken they are. If you did feel free to correct me.

[Garphor Drinfan]

But shouldn't you address their points? Especially if you think they were worded so well?

You will note that that is precisely the point at which I stopped arguing.


I've read your posts, the only points I seen you make involve how well a psionic character fits into a game, not about how broken they are. If you did feel free to correct me.

I said Post, singular. As in the one he was quoting.


Remember that complaint you opened with, about saying two things that contradict eachother? Like "I'm not going to make any points" and "I'm satisfied with the points I made".

You're paraphrasing in probably the worst way possible, and creating a delusion around it. I said I was done, argue your trivialities with someone else.

[Tyndmyr]

I dislike the mechanics. People keep telling me it's inherently balanced, and it's not. Etc.

This is true. Now, it is FAR from the only thing in 3.5 that is unbalanced, but Psionics have some dirty tricks that are fairly easy to pull off. Consider Schism...it's pretty much awesomeness in a can. Anything that grants action economy is pretty much always great.

Now, do action economy tweaks exist in vancian casting? Absolutely. But you've gotta dig for 'em. Your average guy who wants a bit of power but hasn't read all the online optimizer threads may not know about Celerity and what not.

Plus, plenty of people who ban Psionics also ban other things. I don't usually ban psionics tbh...but I have. For instance, there's one fellow in one of my groups that, if given the chance, will always play psionics, and always insist that transparency shouldn't exist. It's a hassle. Could I refluff it, and argue with him, and tweak things to work? Sure. But it's time I'm not spending on other stuff. So, if it's a setting where psionics are not really important to the world, ban 'em and move on with life. There's still a whole pile of other systems for people to use.

Edit: Also, thrallherd is obnoxious.

[Renen]

No one needs to "dig out" or even buy any books to know psionics. A big part of the material is feee on SRD or stuff like the mind's eye.

Just saying...

Edit: thrallherds problem isnt psionics. Its the ability to get the followers. You can easily have an "arcane" thrallherd.

[RFLS]

I bid you all good day.


Did you actually read the post or just scan it for things you could argue about?


Remember that complaint you opened with, about saying two things that contradict eachother? Like "I'm not going to make any points" and "I'm satisfied with the points I made".

All fairly relevant to each other. Stay and debate, leave and don't, just...one or the other. Anyone here would be pretty happy to, you know, actually debate if that's what you're interested in, but you haven't really backed up any points other than "sometimes psionics doesn't fit the setting."

[Boci]

You will note that that is precisely the point at which I stopped arguing.

Remember when you said I didn't know what a debate was? Well right back at you, because if you had been arguing up until now, I should be able to symerize your points on why psionics is more broken than arcane, but I can't beyond "I'm right and your wrong, those spells aren't broken". Did you even mention a single psionic power beyond genesis?

[Garphor Drinfan]

All fairly relevant to each other. Stay and debate, leave and don't, just...one or the other. Anyone here would be pretty happy to, you know, actually debate if that's what you're interested in, but you haven't really backed up any points other than "sometimes psionics doesn't fit the setting."

I haven't debated since saying that I wouldn't merely defended myself personally. Am I not allowed to continue reading the thread and put up a defense when personally attacked?


Remember when you said I didn't know what a debate was? Well right back at you, because if you had been arguing up until now, I should be able to symerize your points on why psionics is more broken than arcane, but I can't beyond "I'm right and your wrong, those spells aren't broken". Did you even mention a single psionic power beyond genesis?

Then perhaps you should read better.

[Boci]

I haven't debated

You haven't debated full stop. You've made no points to support psionics being more broken then arcane. If this comes off as a personal attack to you then I am sorry. You know how you can defend yourself? Show me the points you made in your debate.


Then perhaps you should read better.

Maybe I should, this thread certainly pogressed fast. Can you show me something I missed to save me having to read through a 3 page debate?

[RFLS]

I haven't debated since saying that I wouldn't merely defended myself personally. Am I not allowed to continue reading the thread and put up a defense when personally attacked?

*shrug* You were openly hostile. Expect a little hostility back. Personally, I'd appreciate it if you'd stick around and explain why psionics is so broken.

[Garphor Drinfan]

You haven't debated full stop. You've made no points to support psionics being more broken then arcane. If this comes off as a personal attack to you then I am sorry. You know how you can defend yourself? Show me the points you made in your debate.

I'm sorry that you can't actually read the posts where they are. I'm not going to quote myself just because you are too lazy to actually take the time to read what is being put forward by an opponent.

You haven't debated either really, making no points aside from "Arcane are worse", bringing in vast multitudes of spells available to be read in any given amount of interpretations, always selecting the worst, for obvious reasons. It is fairly simple to take a spell out. It is not so simple for psionics and that is the very last thing I will say on the subject.

Many of your compatriots have actually argued some fairly decent points however.


*shrug* You were openly hostile. Expect a little hostility back. Personally, I'd appreciate it if you'd stick around and explain why psionics is so broken.

I apologize for that, truely, but as I said in the first place the fact that everyone was blaming it on DMs was starting to get to me as I read more and more of it.

[Big Fau]

I haven't debated since saying that I wouldn't merely defended myself personally. Am I not allowed to continue reading the thread and put up a defense when personally attacked?



Then perhaps you should read better.

The only ad hominids in this thread are coming from you. Like that last line in the post I quoted.

[Boci]

I'm sorry that you can't actually read the posts where they are. I'm not going to quote myself just because you are too lazy to actually take the time to read what is being put forward by an opponent.

Except I'm not the only one who said so. So wouldn't it be a wise move to take 15 seconds to copy paste and shut me up, rather than spending significantly more time telling me your not going to?


You haven't debated either really, making no points aside from "Arcane are worse", bringing in vast multitudes of spells available to be read in any given amount of interpretations, always selecting the worst, for obvious reasons. It is fairly simple to take a spell out. It is not so simple for psionics and that is the very last thing I will say on the subject.

Many of your compatriots have actually argued some fairly decent points however.

So I didn't see the need to repeat what they said. I mentioned astral projection meaning a psion could at best draw in a one on one fight and how Gate and Mindrape break the game.

See that? I just symerized the points I made in this thread.


I apologize for that, truely, but as I said in the first place the fact that everyone was blaming it on DMs was starting to get to me as I read more and more of it.

Well it is generally the DM's fault when a class isn't allowed, and I lot of us have a different aproach to DMing, i.e. a policy of saying yes to character concepts by default and no only as a last resort.

[Eldan]

What can be blander (is that a word) than "forgetting" spells you cast?
There's a reason so many games still use the "mana" system. Because its actually more versatile than having to guess what spells you will need. I actually really like erudite in a sense that he "locks in" the powers he uses, being limited to only a specific amount of unique powers per day.

It's hermetic magic. Ritualistic. You cast your spell ahead of time, then, using your incredible mentale focus, hold on to it to release it when the time comes.
It ticks all the boxes for a wizard. Strategic thinking and preparation. Willpower. Rituals.

And yes, it's not versatile. That's the entire bloody point of what I said above. I like system that make you sacrifice something, or make a tactical decision ahead of time regularly, instead of just giving you a list and letting you cast whatever you want from it.

Because it's more interesting.


Also, note, I'm not talking spells vs. powers here. Yes, arcane has way more broken spells than psionics has broken powers. I'm talking purely base mechanics.


Eldan was saying that the Psion is less bland than the Sorcerer, as I understand it. And I believe RFLS was saying that a Psion would not run out of PP before the Wizard runs out of spells, although that depends a lot on how smartly the Psion/Wizard players are concerving their PP/spell slots, respectively.

Clarification: the sorcerer is a very weird class. The Vancian system makes little sense for it, as spell slots really don't belong on a class that doesn't prepare. I'd argue that having just the wizard and a sorcerer with psion mechanics would just be the best solution.
Wizard vs. Psion is a question of interesting mechanics, and the wizard is more interesting.
Sorcerer vs. Psion is a question of mechanics that fit the fluff, and the sorcerer's really don't.

[TheTyrantis]

Edit: Also, you can Gate in a Titan, have it use it's Gate SLA to call another Titan, then repeat ad infinitum until the duration on the first Gate runs out (2 minutes, barring metamagic). And you can do so in such a way that none of the Titans will harm you or your party via clever wording (which a spellcaster capable of casting 9th level spells can do thanks to a high Int/Wis).

Infinite Titan army? I'm not here for the the Psionics discussion, I just wanted to say that the DM would probably step in and stomp out a plan like that from being carried out.

[Big Fau]

See that? I just symerized the points I made in this thread.

Sorry, but this is bugging me: Summarized.


Infinite Titan army? I'm not here for the the Psionics discussion, I just wanted to say that the DM would probably step in and stop a player from stomping out a plan like that from being carried out.

It works by RAW, without any kind of shoddy rules interpretation. The generic Titan is a 20HD Outsider (with the Extraplanar subtype) and Gate 1/day as a 20th level spellcaster. It isn't an infinite army, but I'd be impressed at a CR 20 encounter that could stand up to that many Titans.

[navar100]

I love spell slots. I love them so much. The idea is incredibly awesome and D&D's Vancian is the most interesting magic system I've ever seen in any game.

I should elaborate. I like systems that place limitations on the user. The spell slot system is a very interesting limitation: you have to prepare ahead of time. It forces the wizard to think ahead, which fits with their high intelligence to make them very tactical characters. Very nice rule/fluff interaction. Plus, the entire idea of preparing spells ahead of time, then keeping them in your head is a gold mine for interesting world building and descriptions.

Psions? "Oh, I can cast so many spells, then I get tired". Boring. No limitations. No interesting directions to take the fluff in. Even with reflavouring, it's just bland.

You must hate Sorcerers then. And Warlocks. And Beguilers. And Warmages. And Bards.

[Boci]

Infinite Titan army? I'm not here for the the Psionics discussion, I just wanted to say that the DM would probably step in and stop a player from stomping out a plan like that from being carried out.

That doesn't stop something from being broken. In fact if the Dm has to step in, that's proof it is broken.

[erikun]

I haven't debated since saying that I wouldn't merely defended myself personally. Am I not allowed to continue reading the thread and put up a defense when personally attacked?
I am curious as to what would need to be changed in the campaign to allow psionics to work in it. Are there some kind of homebrew changes that have been made, either to specific spells or how spells work, that haven't been applied to psionics?

Or is it just a general setting consideration, where you have people who are identifiably Wizards and identifiably Clerics, and so having people running around with an unidentifiable magic source (Psions, Warlocks, Binders) would just not make sense?

[Eldan]

You must hate Sorcerers then. And Warlocks. And Beguilers. And Warmages. And Bards.

Not hate, no. They aren't quite as bland as the psion, with the exception of the warmage. There's really no excuse for the warmage.

The sorcerer is just a strange legacy of game design. It should probably have psion-like mechanics, but they hadn't thought of that yet in the PHB. So it gets semi-vancian which makes little sense.

The bard is fine, really. Again, strange semi-vancian, but it has bardic music, which makes up for a lot.

The beguiler would be better if it was prepared, but it earns a lot of bonus points for having a restricted spell list instead of the overabundance of diversity the wizard enjoys. Also, skill points. I like those.

[Boci]

Not hate, no. They aren't quite as bland as the psion, with the exception of the warmage. There's really no excuse for the warmage.

The sorcerer is just a strange legacy of game design. It should probably have psion-like mechanics, but they hadn't thought of that yet in the PHB. So it gets semi-vancian which makes little sense.

The bard is fine, really. Again, strange semi-vancian, but it has bardic music, which makes up for a lot.

The beguiler would be better if it was prepared, but it earns a lot of bonus points for having a restricted spell list instead of the overabundance of diversity the wizard enjoys. Also, skill points. I like those.

So the sorceror isn't as bland as the psion, but should have been given psion like mechanics?

[Gullintanni]

Tbh, I'm with Eldan on the Vancian magic thing. Spell slots are by far and away more flavorful than "mana". In AD&D they also used to mean something. With spellcasters requiring so much more experience, and with spellcasting being so much easier to disrupt, Vancian casters couldn't actually cast spells all day long with impunity.

Not that a limited "mana" style system wouldn't accomplish the same, but I also found in practical in that it elegantly eliminated math from the act of casting spells. Again, not a big deal, but...I just liked it.

But I also liked Thac0 so I may have been a bit of a masochist :smallwink:

[Scow2]

So the sorceror isn't as bland as the psion, but should have been given psion like mechanics?

He's saying the sorcerer is more bland than the psion, the one exception to the "Vanician casters are more interesting than Psions". A sorcerer with Psion-like mechanics and magical fluff would have been better.

[Boci]

He's saying the sorcerer is more bland than the psion, because it's not truly Vancian casting, just bolted on. A sorcerer with Psion-like mechanics and magical fluff would have been better.

Huh?

"They aren't quite as bland as the psion, with the exception of the warmage."

And even if that is what he's saying, it still clashes with his first point that PP are boring.

[TheTyrantis]

That doesn't stop something from being broken. In fact if the Dm has to step in, that's proof it is broken.

Perhaps, but the creature is not compelled to help the person that calls it. It can, in fact, not go through the gate at all. Creatures with doubled your HD can't be controlled even if it does walk through, which isn't really that much of an issue when you have level 9 spells, so that works to the "broken" argument.

However, if you want to see true broken, see this hombrew of Saiyans (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Saiyans_%283.5e_Race%29) from Dragonball. I don't know if someone made it to be serious, but I can't imagine having an enemy or character that can gain +140 to all physical stats upon reaching stage IV, but it must certainly be interesting to see.

[Eldan]

He's saying the sorcerer is more bland than the psion, the one exception to the "Vanician casters are more interesting than Psions". A sorcerer with Psion-like mechanics and magical fluff would have been better.

I'm not even calling the sorcerer bland. Fluffwise, it's really quite close to the Psion. I call it weird. The mechanics don't really fit together, while the Psion's do.

[Boci]

I'm not even calling the sorcerer bland. Fluffwise, it's really quite close to the Psion. I call it weird. The mechanics don't really fit together, while the Psion's do.

So just to clarify, mechanically (but not powerwise) comparing psion to sorceror, is either one noticable better than the other?

[Eldan]

The psion is better than the sorcerer. Not more interesting, maybe, but clearly better put together.

[Boci]

The psion is better than the sorcerer. Not more interesting, maybe, but clearly better put together.

So doesn't that invalidate your origional points complaint that the psion was more boring than the wizard, since that isn't the comparison you are meant to make (even if the wizard is more interesting)?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Big Fau
The only ad hominids in this thread are coming from you.

The phrase is "ad hominem." Your version would broaden things considerably.

:smallamused:

[Gigas Breaker]

I'm pretty lucky to have only played with groups where all official wizards 3.5 books are fair game. Not being a jerk is an unspoken rule as far as breaking the game goes.

I gotta say that banning Psionics for balance reasons is simply incorrect unless you ban all tier 1 and 2 but even then the Psychic Warrior is a fine tier 3. Maybe if you offer to dm a game where they get to play a psion it will convince them it's mostly ok.

[Eldan]

So doesn't that invalidate your origional points complaint that the psion was more boring than the wizard, since that isn't the comparison you are meant to make (even if the wizard is more interesting)?

Perhaps I shouldn't have started out with comparisons, then. Even if the sorcerer is worse from a purely mechanical standpoint, the Psion is still bland. Its mechanics work, sure. But they are colourless and just too easy.

[erikun]

Perhaps, but the creature is not compelled to help the person that calls it. It can, in fact, not go through the gate at all. Creatures with doubled your HD can't be controlled even if it does walk through, which isn't really that much of an issue when you have level 9 spells, so that works to the "broken" argument.
Actually, Gate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm) can be cast as a Calling spell and forces a creature through. That creature is controlled to perform some service for you, or can enter into a contract. (If they have less than double your HD.) There is no reason why you cannot case Gate and request the creature to use SLAs on your behalf, unless this has been restricted by the DM.

One common trick is to Gate in an Efreet, then have it use its daily "grant up to three wishes" ability. Another is to Gate in a likely friendly outsider (Solar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm#angelSolar) for a LG Wizard) and have in enter into a contract to use its spells and SLA for you for one day. There are other creatures which have Gate as a SLA, allowing you to get as many outsiders as you'd like at the same time. (Have each one enter into a contract with you upon being called.)


However, if you want to see true broken, see this hombrew of Saiyans (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Saiyans_%283.5e_Race%29) from Dragonball. I don't know if someone made it to be serious, but I can't imagine having an enemy or character that can gain +140 to all physical stats upon reaching stage IV, but it must certainly be interesting to see.
dandwiki.com is nortoriously bad with the homebrew that it allows, and shouldn't be used as a basis for a comparison to anything.

[Rubik]

I think the names help with that. Some people find them too science-y.You realize that most spells are based in Latin, which is also sciency, right? Polymorph vs Metamorphosis is merely Latin vs Greek, and both are used in scientific naming schemata.

This is specious reasoning at best.

[TuggyNE]

It's basically a high end summoning spell or essentially a planeshift. It has a ****ing XP cost, it's not broken.

If only that were so. But no, the point of gate is two-fold: you get the full flexibility of all the monsters within the HD range ever printed (which, among other things, lets you cherry-pick the most powerful creatures; SMIX has 12 HD Outsiders, 24 HD Elementals, 18 HD Animals, and so on, but gate can get you 40 HD Outsiders); and you get full control of all their abilities, even spells or SLAs that cost them XP. There are a couple more interesting abilities, like being able to call the BBEG and command him to commit harakiri, being able to call an arbitrarily-powerful monster and have it wreak random uncontrolled havoc, or calling a monster with gate as a spell or SLA to chain a great number of servants in. However, even the most basic usage is far more powerful than a summon spell.


Good edit. Whole time I was reading the whole gate isnt op argument, I was thinking "chain gate, chain gate, chain gate..."

Edit: isnt pun pun made using arcane as well?

Pun-Pun is made with an item that casts gate, actually. I believe it may be essential to (nearly) all the various methods of ascension.

[Boci]

Perhaps I shouldn't have started out with comparisons, then. Even if the sorcerer is worse from a purely mechanical standpoint, the Psion is still bland. Its mechanics work, sure. But they are colourless and just too easy.

Fair enough, but from the sound of it that applies to the sorceror just as much as to the psion. Making it less "what I dislike about psionics" and more "what I dislike about early spontenous casters". Which is still a valid point, but less relevant to this thread.


You realize that most spells are based in Latin, which is also sciency, right? Polymorph vs Metamorphosis is merely Latin vs Greek, and both are used in scientific naming schemata.

This is specious reasoning at best.

Yes but Latin also has a greater basis in the english language than Greek (at least I think it does), which gives us a tolerance to it. That and it doesn't matter what is true, only what people percieve to be such.

I don't have a problem with the names myself, but its a point I've seen raised before.

[Eldan]

You realize that most spells are based in Latin, which is also sciency, right? Polymorph vs Metamorphosis is merely Latin vs Greek, and both are used in scientific naming schemata.

This is specious reasoning at best.

Both are Greek, in fact. Morph is a Greek root, and it's in both.

But yeah, that's the one complaint I never understood. Scientific names? What? Should we just translate it all into Anglish? (http://anglish.wikia.com/wiki/Headside)

Because then, you wouldn't have Sorcerers anymore either, that's a Latin word.

[Big Fau]

The phrase is "ad hominem." Your version would broaden things considerably.

:smallamused:

I can never spell that right myself. Thanks.


Perhaps, but the creature is not compelled to help the person that calls it. It can, in fact, not go through the gate at all. Creatures with doubled your HD can't be controlled even if it does walk through, which isn't really that much of an issue when you have level 9 spells, so that works to the "broken" argument.

Although it was already pointed out, I do need to enforce it: Only deities and "unique" beings are allowed to ignore the Gate spell's Calling effect. You can always call a generic Titan as long as your CL is at least 10th (since you can call and control a single creature without fail if it's HD are within twice your CL). Given that Gate requires a CL of 17th at minimum in order to be cast at all you can start chain-Gating Titans as soon as you can cast the spell.

Only when attempting to call multiple creatures with a total HD greater than your CL, or when attempting to Gate in unique beings/deities, do you suffer the risk of them not listening to your orders.

[TheTyrantis]

dandwiki.com is nortoriously bad with the homebrew that it allows, and shouldn't be used as a basis for a comparison to anything.

Looking through this thread, I haven't seen a proper basis for anything here besides the name.

I've seen:

people complaining about Psions being boring.
people complaining about over-usage of Power Points making them powerful.
people complaining that people just aren't used to Psions.
people complaining that psionics don't belong in a setting with magic.
people complaining that psionics are just another kind of arcane caster.
people complaining that arcane is broken.
people suggesting that several spells are broken.
people saying that Psions are just as good as Wizards/Sorcerers.


All of these just explain the thread name (Why [some] people hate Psions), but I have yet to see anything make a proper point to how Psions are or aren't broken, and I may as well just bring up a person who created Super Saiyans for how credible any of these arguments have been. There is no base to any points made and none of them persuade me to either side. The content laid out in this thread has ended up like making a pizza with no crust - you just end up with a big mess and are still hungry.

[NEO|Phyte]

I'm staying away from the primary discussion, but for the sake of sharing knowledge, I would like to point out, since Pun-pun has been mentioned in the thread, that he originated as an 11th level Psion (IIRC, I may have the level wrong), but has since been achieved far quicker by other means.

[Boci]

All of these just explain the thread name (Why [some] people hate Psions), but I have yet to see anything make a proper point to how Psions are or aren't broken,

That's because a lot of points on this thread are options. There are two "facts": psioncs are powerful but less broken than arcane, and just as endurance with their powers."

Everything else is an opinion, which makes it harder to debate.

[Renen]

Who ever said paionics arent broken? Everyone whos pro-psionics is simply saying that arcane is waaaaaay more broken. Where a psion can break action economy with things like syncheonicity, stuff like chain gating gives you as many "actions" as you can get feom all those golems.

The fluff can be easily ignored or changed into "its another way of doing magic"

And being unfamiliar with a whole system which can be looked up in SRD... well, I dont know how thats possible.

Edit: also, please try to stay on topic and not deviate into things like a discussion of latin.

[Big Fau]

I'm staying away from the primary discussion, but for the sake of sharing knowledge, I would like to point out, since Pun-pun has been mentioned in the thread, that he originated as an 11th level Psion (IIRC, I may have the level wrong), but has since been achieved far quicker by other means.

The very first Pun-Pun was a 17th level Wizard, then it became a Mind Flayer (Illithid Savant from Savage Species made that possible). The Psion version was the third iteration of Pun-Pun. Eventually it got down to a 5th level Wizard, then a 1st level Kobold Paladin.

[Eldan]

The very first Pun-Pun was a 17th level Wizard, then it became a Mind Flayer (Illithid Savant from Savage Species made that possible). The Psion version was the third iteration of Pun-Pun. Eventually it got down to a 5th level Wizard, then a 1st level Kobold Paladin.

There was also a Divine Minion variation, that was the first one I saw.

[erikun]

people complaining about Psions being boring.
people complaining that people just aren't used to Psions.
people complaining that psionics don't belong in a setting with magic.
people complaining that psionics are just another kind of arcane caster.

These are all just opinions, and so while they may shape what a DM decides to include or exclude, they don't really factor into why any particular person would do so. They're pretty much just people stating their opinion on the matter.



people complaining about over-usage of Power Points making them powerful.

It is true that psionics can use PP faster and more readily than spellcasters can use spell slots. However, this is more a problem of psionics running out of PP faster than spellcasters running out of spell slots. A Psion may be able to use their highest-level powers a few times (only a few) more than Wizards can use their highest-level spells, but your average Wizard can cast Fireball for level*d6 damage more often than a Psion can use Energy Ray for level*d6 damage, due to augmentation.



people complaining that arcane is broken.
people suggesting that several spells are broken.
people saying that Psions are just as good as Wizards/Sorcerers.

There are more powerful arcane spells that powerful psionic powers, even limiting ourselves to PHB and EPH. Arcane spells have greater effects and last longer than psionic powers. I'm not talking about Wizard Genesis vs Psion Genesis here either; compare the duration of Glitterdust (1 rd/lvl) and Web (100 rd/lvl) to Mental Disruption (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/mentalDisruption.htm) (1 round) or... actually, I can't find another multi-target 2nd-level power that does more than damage.

Or compare Invisibility (cannot be seen, +20 hide bonus) to Chameleon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/chameleon.htm) (+10 hide bonus, limited to 1-of-6 Psions).

The only conversation I've seen comparing Psions directly to Wizards/Sorcerers was a flavor discussion, comparing Vancian spell preparation to Psionic PP to spontaneous spell slot casting.

[shadow_archmagi]

No, you don't understand, they might control one individual, but I have to make it so that being that individual is even possible. I have to add psionics into the setting, I have to make sure that what I've written for my campaign isn't nullified by the fact that Psions are so different from what I normally deal with, and I have to make sure that he isn't the only psion out there to maintain credibility.


As has been mentioned, "Steve uses some kinda weird magic I've never seen before" is a perfectly valid explanation. Maybe, eventually, you can expand it to "Steve uses some weird magic from the far east" if you feel like giving it more explanation. Heck, you can just say that psionic characters are using Arcane magic.




You may not be a hive mind, I acknowledge that, but I was more bringing attention to the fact that there is no way in hell a Wizard can go against a Psion without having their entire spell list entirely geared towards defeating a psion, and they won't last as long regardless.

Wait, what? I'm really unclear on how THIS is true. Wizard has all kinds of game-winners that don't have to be geared towards psions. Black Tentacles+Solid Fog. Dominate Person. Wall of Force+ Cloudkill. Baleful Polymorph (Toad)+Pointy Stick. None of these even involve a 6th level spell.

[Asheram]

And being unfamiliar with a whole system which can be looked up in SRD... well, I dont know how thats possible.


I think it's just so simple that it's Not Core (technically core since it's in the SRD but not in the actual Core Books).
A new ruleset from a splatbook is... Forgive me for saying so but it doesn't feel kosher. The rejection might be a sort of knee-jerk reaction to changing or modifying rules that you are comfortable with.

Again, a Psion isn't much more than a "specialist" Sorcerer with mana, but it can look quite scary before you realize that.

[Renen]

Well, I do agree they arent true core, but I dont see stuff like binders and incarnum banned as often as psionics. And Binder has a few tricks too, mostly involving mitigating things like ability damage that make other spells and such balanced.

[TheTyrantis]

These are all just opinions, and so while they may shape what a DM decides to include or exclude, they don't really factor into why any particular person would do so. They're pretty much just people stating their opinion on the matter.


Everything else is an opinion, which makes it harder to debate.

I'm not going to discredit anything said here, but it seems that's all that's being thrown around here- opinions. This thread was founded by opinions and that's all that's been said, in my opinion. Erikun, you provided some evidence as to how arcane magic is better than Psionic powers, and I commend you for such, but ultimately it seems like it bubbles down to whether or not you like them. I don't know anything about Psions, so I'm not going to try and make anyone believe that arcane magic is better than them, but if everything orbits around what people think, then I'm not sure why this thread was created if it just comes down to whether people like them or dislike them or what spells are better or worse.

In any case, I'll dwindle away now because I got more involved than I wanted to get, but I would try to make sense of what was trying to be accomplished here and have no experience of my own to share.

[squera]

Because they are presented with BALD characters (well, most common psions, at least).
And who wants to be bald in DnD??

[Asheram]

Well, I do agree they arent true core, but I dont see stuff like binders and incarnum banned as often as psionics. And Binder has a few tricks too, mostly involving mitigating things like ability damage that make other spells and such balanced.

Sorry, I must get the statistics right here.

Are we talking about DMs who ban psionics but allow binders/incarnum?
Or are we talking about DMs who ban psionics vs DMs who ban incarnum/binders

Edited for clarity.

[erikun]

I don't know anything about Psions, so I'm not going to try and make anyone believe that arcane magic is better than them, but if everything orbits around what people think, then I'm not sure why this thread was created if it just comes down to whether people like them or dislike them or what spells are better or worse.
It seems like the thread was created because somebody wanted to know why psionics is banned in some games but not others. And yes, it frequently is a matter of the DM just not liking the material or just not being familiar with the material.

Not that those are insignificant reasons - especially with not being familiar, it takes time and energy to read through and become familiar with a new system. It's just that those are the most common reasons I've seen.

[Boci]

I'm not going to discredit anything said here, but it seems that's all that's being thrown around here- opinions. This thread was founded by opinions and that's all that's been said, in my opinion. Erikun, you provided some evidence as to how arcane magic is better than Psionic powers, and I commend you for such, but ultimately it seems like it bubbles down to whether or not you like them. I don't know anything about Psions, so I'm not going to try and make anyone believe that arcane magic is better than them, but if everything orbits around what people think, then I'm not sure why this thread was created if it just comes down to whether people like them or dislike them or what spells are better or worse.

In any case, I'll dwindle away now because I got more involved than I wanted to get, but I would try to make sense of what was trying to be accomplished here and have no experience of my own to share.

Ultimatly I would say its about the broader debate of "When does it become jerkish to ban something as a DM you do dislike as a person?"

For example I dislike divine classes apart from the ranger, but clearly banning those simply because of that would be a **** move. So when does it becomes acceptable to ban something as a DM?

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review.