GM wont allow me to take Psion because "Psionics are more broken than spells.""

[Con_Brio1993]

So I got told this a couple days ago by my GM during character creation. Needless to say I was flabbergasted. His argument seemed to be based around a comparison of 8th level characters (wizard vs psion). He said a Psion gets 58 powerpoints, plus 20 bonus points (intelligence of 20). Or a total of 68. Level 4 powers cost 7 powerpoints, so that's 9.7 uses of a max level power. And you have the option of metapsionics and increasing their effects by pumping them. Meanwhile a specialized level 8 wizard with 20 intelligence gets only four casts of fourth level spells. Same with a Sorcerer with 20 charisma. Apparently this, plus the fact that Psions can spend points to increase DCs whereas casters need feats makes Powers more powerful and broken.

Is this true? Most everything I have read elsewhere suggests Psions are less powerful than Sorcerers and Wizards. Is my GM perhaps underestimating the utility of lower level spells that Wizards/Sorcerers can cast? Is he overestimating the usefulness of 4th level Powers? What is the best way to show this using? I need hard evidence if I am going to convince him otherwise.

[Lord Haart]

For starters, here you go. (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/946751)

[Con_Brio1993]

For starters, here you go. (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/946751)

Thanks :smallsmile:

[avr]

Underestimating lower level spells is the big one. Third level spells are still part of most combats for an 8th level wizard; second level spells include important buffs, utility and the occasional battlefield control spell (see glitterdust & web).

That's also true for a psion by the way, except that the psion is probably paying 7 PPs to get the full effect of the second or third level power, whereas the wizard gets full caster level while not having to use a higher level slot.

I don't understand the argument he's making on metapsionics. If you want to use most of these you pay extra PP, which count against the cap you can spend on the power as per normal. Also you spend psionic focus so you can't use them 2 rounds in a row (unless you spend another feat on psionic meditation and use a move action; which makes them effectively take as long as a sorcerer using metamagic.)

[tyckspoon]

Ok, so the Psion can manifest 10-11 4th level powers, or lower-level powers augmented to the same expenditure. That's 40-44 levels worth of spell power, all of his highest level. That's not bad. The Wizard only gets 4x4 = 16 spell levels worth of the same level. But.. keep in mind, if the Psion does this he gets *nothing* of lower levels. That 40 spell levels is everything he's good for. The Wizard still has 3rd (3x5 = 15 more spell levels) and 2nd (2x5 = 10 more) spells, in addition to whatever use he can find for his 1sts (Mage Armors, Feather Falls, Nerve Skitters?) And hey, what do you know.. those 4th, 3rd, and 2nd slots add up to 41 spell levels worth of power. About the same as the Psion has to play with. The Sorcerer has *more* spell levels, and he's a closer analogue to how Psions work anyway.

Edit: Mind, if he's of the mindset that a caster's power is measured by how many d6s worth of Fireballs he can throw, than yeah, Psions straight out of the box are better than Wizards. That's mostly because Wizards and Sorcerers *aren't very good at blasting* without some focused optimization toward that end. The Energy Foo powers are straight up better than their arcane spell counterparts, although again having to spend extra PP to augment the powers to get full damage from them is a restriction on the Psion - how would Wizards feel if they had to Heighten their Fireballs just to make them do more than 5d6 damage?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Bad comparison. A level 8 wizard with int 20 has 6 first level spells, 4 second level spells, 4 third level spells, and 3 fourth level spells. Let's convert this to pp.

6 x 1 = 6
4 x 3 = 12
4 x 5 = 20
3 x 7 = 21

Then add it together; 6+12+20+21=59pp, equivalent to 7.3725 manifestations, just slightly behind the Psion.

HOWEVER, the caster's spells scale with his cl with no extra input on his part while the Psion has to push his pp to match his ml if he wants a power to scale -at all-. It's less a matter of the Psion getting 9.7 fourth level powers as it is a matter of him getting 9.7 level appropriate manifestations.

Except for DC's, all of the wizard's 17 spells per day will hit with full force. If none of them call for saves then that 17 spells is more like 136pp, approximately half again what the Psion gets.

Realistically, the blending of spells and powers that do and don't need to scale with level means that these comparisons really don't mean a whole lot. The Psion and wizard push about the same basic level of power. The wizard pulls well ahead of the psion when it comes to combining magical effects or being able to prepare spells with niche effects that a Psion just can't waste a power known on. The Psion pulls ahead a little when it comes to power combinations that shatter the action economy and flexibility in his blasting ability, but the former is easily (and frequently) shut down by a DM and the latter is of fairly little consequence in the grand scheme of things.

[Artillery]

So the fact Psions don't get free scaling for there low level spells means nothing?

Psion at lvl 8 with 20 int, 58+20, 78 power points. 4th level power cost 9 oiwer points so you get 8 castings of it.
Specialist Wizard at lvl 8 with 20 int, 7 lvl-0, 6 lvl-1, 5 lvl-2, 5 lvl-3, 4 lvl-4.
Sorcerer at lvl 8 with 20 cha, 7 lvl-0, 7 lvl-1, 7 lvl-2, 6 lvl-3, 4 lvl-4.

You could look at a psion only doing it on max level spells or, compare it to a wizard. 6 lvl-1 powers for 6pp, 5 lvl-2 powers for 15pp, 5 lvl-3 powers for 25pp, and 4 lvl-4 powers for 36pp. It costs 82pp to do the same amount of each casting as a wizard.

Psionics can make a lvl-1 power better, but its not free in anyway. Look at Astral Construct a lvl-1 power, you need to pump power points into it to make it scale.

What Psions get is better use of low level powers because they still stay relevant at higher levels, the difference is they need to make them act like higher level spells to work better. Most powers have the "For every 2 power points spent augmenting this power increase the save DC by 1" increasing the pp spent by 2 is just like increasing the spell slot by 1.

So Psions get built in heighten power, because that doesn't exist for psionics. Also Metapsionic Feats are more limited then metamagic it requires you expend your psionic focus, which takes either a full or move action to get back. If you do it with a psicrystal too, max you can ever apply is 2 and you can't do it the next round.

Who plays a caster that only uses their highest level spells and then is like, "Well I'm done."

[Yora]

And you have the option of metapsionics and increasing their effects by pumping them.
Augmenting isn't really an option but in many cases almost a requirement. A 8d6 fireball from a wizard is actually cheaper than an 8d6 energy blast from a psion. And sorcerers can use metamagic at will as well.

[Con_Brio1993]

Bad comparison. A level 8 wizard with int 20 has 6 first level spells, 4 second level spells, 4 third level spells, and 3 fourth level spells. Let's convert this to pp.

6 x 1 = 6
4 x 3 = 12
4 x 5 = 20
3 x 7 = 21

Then add it together; 6+12+20+21=59pp, equivalent to 7.3725 manifestations, just slightly behind the Psion.

HOWEVER, the caster's spells scale with his cl with no extra input on his part while the Psion has to push his pp to match his ml if he wants a power to scale -at all-. It's less a matter of the Psion getting 9.7 fourth level powers as it is a matter of him getting 9.7 level appropriate manifestations.

Except for DC's, all of the wizard's 17 spells per day will hit with full force. If none of them call for saves then that 17 spells is more like 136pp, approximately half again what the Psion gets.

Realistically, the blending of spells and powers that do and don't need to scale with level means that these comparisons really don't mean a whole lot. The Psion and wizard push about the same basic level of power. The wizard pulls well ahead of the psion when it comes to combining magical effects or being able to prepare spells with niche effects that a Psion just can't waste a power known on. The Psion pulls ahead a little when it comes to power combinations that shatter the action economy and flexibility in his blasting ability, but the former is easily (and frequently) shut down by a DM and the latter is of fairly little consequence in the grand scheme of things.

Ah nifty. Where is the spell to pp converter located? Also a specialist wizard has more spells and most everyone specializes.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ah nifty. Where is the spell to pp converter located? Also a specialist wizard has more spells and most everyone specializes.

The conversion's a simple math equation X=2Y-1 where x is the pp to manifest and y is the level of the power.

There's also a table in XPH somewhere that has this already solved for level 1-9 powers.

I didn't include the bonus spells for a specialist (which would've totaled an extra 16pp by conversion or 32pp by cl) since specialization is common but not ubiquitous. The loss of versatility just isn't worth the extra slots to too many people to take it as a given.

Besides, the proper comparison is more sorcerer vs psion than wizard vs psion. A sorcerer has spells known and can pick from his list on the fly, same as the psion.

[Particle_Man]

Also, wizards can "stack" different metamagic feats on the same spell being cast. Because of the requirement of blowing your psionic focus, psions can only put one metapsionic feat on one use of a power. I mean, there may be a way around that (maybe using a feat that lets both you and your psicrystal have a separate focus, and then you blow both in the same round?) but it would require some doing while wizards do it straight out of the box.

[Pex]

My sympathies. I was denied a psion as well for one campaign of my group's Pathfinder game after one session. I gave all the usual arguments as to why psionics is balanced, but the group, not just the DM, wouldn't accept them. They accept spellcasters are powerful but were bothered for just raw damage I was more powerful than spellcasters - 1d10 for a 1st level power, 3d6 against 5 opponents for a 2nd level power, "Take 15" on concentration to manifest defensively expending psionic focus. The nuances of depleting power points, the need to augment, limit on power point expense fell on deaf ears.

[Kelb_Panthera]

My sympathies. I was denied a psion as well for one campaign of my group's Pathfinder game after one session. I gave all the usual arguments as to why psionics is balanced, but the group, not just the DM, wouldn't accept them. They accept spellcasters are powerful but were bothered for just raw damage I was more powerful than spellcasters - 1d10 for a 1st level power, 3d6 against 5 opponents for a 2nd level power, "Take 15" on concentration to manifest defensively expending psionic focus. The nuances of depleting power points, the need to augment, limit on power point expense fell on deaf ears.

People resist change. The degree varies from person to person but it's always there. There's even a term for it: psychological resistance.

This has always been a hindrance to getting psionics into a game that's been running smoothly without it. It will almost certainly continue to do so in the future.

[Phelix-Mu]

DMs also resist because they want to have good mastery of systems that players plan on using, which can be time prohibitive for some DMs. As indicated, lots of DMs that don't allow psionics for balance reasons simply aren't understanding the finer points of psionics, so they could do with a bit more reading.

But, in defense of DMs, there is a ton of work involved in running a game with as big a ruleset as 3.5, especially with moderately to highly proficient players. More DMs should just say "no, because i'm already too busy."

[TheMeMan]

My sympathies. I was denied a psion as well for one campaign of my group's Pathfinder game after one session. I gave all the usual arguments as to why psionics is balanced, but the group, not just the DM, wouldn't accept them. They accept spellcasters are powerful but were bothered for just raw damage I was more powerful than spellcasters - 1d10 for a 1st level power, 3d6 against 5 opponents for a 2nd level power, "Take 15" on concentration to manifest defensively expending psionic focus. The nuances of depleting power points, the need to augment, limit on power point expense fell on deaf ears.

To be *fair* Psionic Blast's 3d6 against 5 opponents, targetted no less, is quite a bit of damage for a 2nd level power and can take over early game combat by itself, especially considering the range of versatility it can offer. As a 3rd level it would have been bit on the weaker side of damaging spells, but probably could have been reigned in one way or the other. Of course, it gets reigned in well enough as the game progresses, but it can wreak havoc by itself at levels 3-5 and make very short work of most encounters.

That said, I do agree that Psions of most any sort are not any major issue at all with raw power in mind and most games. Sure, if you min-max the living hell out of them they are just stupid good, but definitely no worse for the game than a wizard that's been equally optimized. Hell, most of the abusable issues with them are simply due to the DM allowing things to happen that they don't need to.

Really, it comes down to most people not understanding how Manifester levels work, or how Psionics work. Hypothetically you can turn out major damage from a 1st level power, but only at later points in the game. There are few hard-caps on the limit of the power points you can put in (Such as SPells that stop at a certain number of dice), but this is heavily countered by the fact that if you do this you are burning out huge chunks of your PP to do.

Another way to look at it is this:

Casting a first or second level power that has the damage potential of a 5th or 6th level spell is certainly possible. But this is not to say that this means that a 1st level Power is the equivalent of a 6th level spell. Rather, due to how PP work, it's more like a Sorceror spending a 5th or 6th level spell anyway. Most of the damage outputs, when you really look at them, are on-par or even worse out of the gate, and it takes you investing power points to make them better (Which in turn acts as though you are utilizing a higher spell rather than a lower one).

Of course, there are a ton of handy 1st and 2nd level buff and debuff powers that you can spam nearly indefinitely later on, but that's honestly not much different than any given caster can do for the most part and frankly non-augmented buffs at lower level powers become very irrelevant later in the game.

Try to get your group to let you play one as a one-of to show them it's not that bad. It's not more broken than a Sorceror of similar build, and certainly far less borked than Wizards can be.

Really, the problems that arise from people thinking Psions are broken stems from unfamiliarity with it, or from low-op groups having a high-op Psion. The first is only fixed through experience, and the second is a problem with *any* class regardless of where it sits on the tier-system or what have you. A high-opped Fighter will ruin those campaigns just as bad as any caster would.

[Particle_Man]

I wonder if there is a holdover from Psionics in earlier editions of the games, when there were strange exploits.

Maybe the answer is for you to offer to run a game for a while as DM, where you ban arcane (and if you feel very brave, divine) casters and allow psionics and see what people do as players. It might be easier for both sides to see the other's point of view then.

[ericgrau]

Brokenness does depend on gaming group and you shouldn't dismiss it outright. His reasoning is completely wrong though and you should address it politely using the many resources people are eagerly providing here. It will however lead into other issues that come from misunderstanding the psionics rules. Make sure you use magic-psionics transparency, the default. Make sure you understand the rules and limitations such as limits on pumping. Finally psionic damage tends to be good so in a gaming group that focuses a lot on damage dealing you don't want to overdo it. Try other powers or agree on a damage and/or multi-targetting ability nerf appropriate to your groups' optimization level (if any nerf is even necessary at all). Or simply don't select the chained targeting and sonic versions.

[Rubik]

As to the "1d10 for a 1st level power is awesome" deal, Mind Thrust is considered substandard, given that it's A.) mind-affecting, and B.) Will save negates. Even if your foe isn't one of the 5 (out of 15) types that are outright immune, or buffed with Mind Blank or similar, anyone who makes the save still takes 0 damage.

I'd rather have 1d6+1 that's virtually guaranteed to hit than 1d10 that isn't.

[AlltheBooks]

Your DM lacks understanding of the game they are running. Fact.

[hymer]

Your DM lacks understanding of the game they are running. Fact.

More like "Your DM lacks understanding of the psionics subsystem in the system you are using. Probably just as well you're not running a psionic character, then."

[AlltheBooks]

More like "Your DM lacks understanding of the psionics subsystem in the system you are using. Probably just as well you're not running a psionic character, then."

Psionics is not a subsystem. Incarnum is not a subsystem. ToB is not a subsystem. They are components of a system. Used, liked, understood or not they are.

Besides your statement is at it's heart a lie. "Probably just as well you're not running a psionic character, then." In context with the OP that's saying, "good thing I make no attempt at understanding this and good thing I'm just saying no."

The player wants to play this. Where's the "just as well you're not.." coming from? The DM.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Psionics is not a subsystem. Incarnum is not a subsystem. ToB is not a subsystem. They are components of a system. Used, liked, understood or not they are.

Besides your statement is at it's heart a lie. "Probably just as well you're not running a psionic character, then." In context with the OP that's saying, "good thing I make no attempt at understanding this and good thing I'm just saying no."

The player wants to play this. Where's the "just as well you're not.." coming from? The DM.

I don't think you quite understand what the term "subsystem" means. I like all of the one's you've listed there but denying that they are subsystems is sticking your head in the sand as much as the DM disallowing them because he doesn't want to learn them. They, like everything outside of the core rulebooks, are optional and supplementary, sometimes they're just not options that will be available.

[ericgrau]

It's not a requirement nor necessarily a good idea to allow all books. Especially if the DM doesn't understand them all. It would be good to first increase the DM's understanding to then bring more options into play in the most fun and least disruptive way possible. It would be bad to try to force psionics on him in an antagonistic way when his understanding is low.

In my group sometimes we'll take jabs at psionics as in "omg that's so broken" but it's all in jest. We understand how it fits in our group dynamic and individually keep tabs on not letting it get over the top, just like everything else in D&D. Likewise exactly how you handle it depends on making sure the DM understands the system and, like everything else, limiting it to what is typical for your group.

[hymer]

Is there something bad about the word 'subsystem' that I'm not aware of? Maybe we should leave the word itself and get into the semantics, shall we? Psionics is a part of the system which can be left out completely. Doing so will let the rest of the system function as well or unwell as ever it did.

As for my 'lie' (really?): The "Just as well you're not" is coming from the outside observer, me. My observation is that the DM is not familiar with psionics, which is something I assume you intended to establish with your


Your DM lacks understanding of the game they are running. Fact.

My suggestion then is that until he is ready, willing and able to include psionics, playing a psionic character is going to bring something into the DM's game which he doesn't like, doesn't want, and doesn't know what to do with. In other words, it is probably just as well that you're not playing a psionic character in this campaign.

Edit: Soulknifed x 2.

[Elderand]

Your DM lacks understanding of the game they are running. Fact.

That one is just nonsense

What game is the DM running ? DnD 3.5 or possibly pathfinder.

Does the DM lack understanding of psionics, certainly.

Is psionic a necessery part of the game that is always included ? No.

Does the DM include psionics despite not understanding it ? no

The correct phrase is therefore, the DM lack understanding of a potential part of the game that he isn't planning on using.

The only fact here is that twitter sized soundbites rarely if ever present a clear, fitting and detailled argument.

[Con_Brio1993]

The conversion's a simple math equation X=2Y-1 where x is the pp to manifest and y is the level of the power.

There's also a table in XPH somewhere that has this already solved for level 1-9 powers.

I didn't include the bonus spells for a specialist (which would've totaled an extra 16pp by conversion or 32pp by cl) since specialization is common but not ubiquitous. The loss of versatility just isn't worth the extra slots to too many people to take it as a given.

Besides, the proper comparison is more sorcerer vs psion than wizard vs psion. A sorcerer has spells known and can pick from his list on the fly, same as the psion.

Yeah I'm asking where the equation is so I can show my GM the equation and what WoTC thinks spell slots are worth in terms of points.

[Vhaidara]

It isn't an official conversion. Here's the way it works:

1st level power minimum pp cost (mppc): 1
First level spell = 1pp

2nd level power mppc: 3
Second level spell = 3pp

3rd level power mppc: 5
Third level spell = 5pp

etc, etc.

[MonochromeTiger]

That one is just nonsense

What game is the DM running ? DnD 3.5 or possibly pathfinder.

Does the DM lack understanding of psionics, certainly.

Is psionic a necessery part of the game that is always included ? No.

Does the DM include psionics despite not understanding it ? no

The correct phrase is therefore, the DM lack understanding of a potential part of the game that he isn't planning on using.

The only fact here is that twitter sized soundbites rarely if ever present a clear, fitting and detailled argument.

going by your pathfinder example, pathfinder has psionics as an optional resource often presented as third party content, it is not absolutely necessary and while some like it and it can be fun it is not mandatory for a DM to learn it unless they want to allow it in their campaign (which requires a few extra moving parts and is the reason the psionics books include sections on "how to make psionics work in your campaign").

that said on the initial subject of the topic...psionics are a game mechanic that can be included if the DM and players want it to be, it has potential to become overpowered but so does every other game mechanic with a number value and a player willing to look at it for more than a minute and while I personally don't have great experience with psion balance saying it's going to become overpowered feels more like a lack of trust in the players to keep their characters in line.

[Isamu Dyson]

That one is just nonsense

What game is the DM running ? DnD 3.5 or possibly pathfinder.

Does the DM lack understanding of psionics, certainly.

Is psionic a necessery part of the game that is always included ? No.

Does the DM include psionics despite not understanding it ? no

The correct phrase is therefore, the DM lack understanding of a potential part of the game that he isn't planning on using.

The only fact here is that twitter sized soundbites rarely if ever present a clear, fitting and detailled argument.

Agreed.(tcl)

[Urpriest]

Yeah I'm asking where the equation is so I can show my GM the equation and what WoTC thinks spell slots are worth in terms of points.

It's just 3rd level power = 3rd level spell, etc. That's the only principle at work there.

[Captnq]

I am a DM. I never play, I only DM.

I don't like psionics. I don't use psionics. I don't let my players use psionics. Why? Because I said so.

I suspect your DM feels the same way. He's just trying to give you excuses. You ask him why and he doesn't want to come off sounding like a ****, so he saus, "Not balanced, blah blah blah".

Me? I don't mind sounding like a ****. I say, "No." And if a player whines I say, "Do you like oxygen? Because your PC might not have any shortly." It gets the point across. Even if you "prove" him wrong, chances are he will still say no. Take a hint. Psionics is a pain in the ass and he might not want to bother with it.

[Urpriest]

Psionics is a pain in the ass

See the rest of our post was subjective, and as such I have no problem with it. This isn't, and it's objectively wrong.

[MonochromeTiger]

I am a DM. I never play, I only DM.

I don't like psionics. I don't use psionics. I don't let my players use psionics. Why? Because I said so.

I suspect your DM feels the same way. He's just trying to give you excuses. You ask him why and he doesn't want to come off sounding like a ****, so he saus, "Not balanced, blah blah blah".

Me? I don't mind sounding like a ****. I say, "No." And if a player whines I say, "Do you like oxygen? Because your PC might not have any shortly." It gets the point across. Even if you "prove" him wrong, chances are he will still say no. Take a hint. Psionics is a pain in the ass and he might not want to bother with it.

perhaps a bit aggressive but...still true, if the DM says no there's not a lot that can be done to change their mind.

[Faily]

Alot of my personal dislike of Psionics is the whole "it looks like magic, almost works like magic, but is not magic".

Most sensible GMs use the transparancy-rule (Spell Resistance applying for Psionic powers, and Psionic Resistance applying for spells), but the big difference of arcane/divine magic when compared to psionic magic, is that psionics run on a mana-system rather than a day-slots system.

It's like combining D&DOnline casters with D&D pen-and-paper casters... it's two very different beasts. Personally, I like that the caster-types operate on the same system, so to speak, so that is one of the reasons I don't like psionics as well. From my brief experience with some powers in a low-level group, the psion's abilities can quickly outshine alot of party-members, especially considering the amount of encounters one usually have in a day as an adventurer.

[Xerlith]

Alot of my personal dislike of Psionics is the whole "it looks like magic, almost works like magic, but is not magic".

Most sensible GMs use the transparancy-rule (Spell Resistance applying for Psionic powers, and Psionic Resistance applying for spells), but the big difference of arcane/divine magic when compared to psionic magic, is that psionics run on a mana-system rather than a day-slots system.

It's like combining D&DOnline casters with D&D pen-and-paper casters... it's two very different beasts. Personally, I like that the caster-types operate on the same system, so to speak, so that is one of the reasons I don't like psionics as well. From my brief experience with some powers in a low-level group, the psion's abilities can quickly outshine alot of party-members, especially considering the amount of encounters one usually have in a day as an adventurer.

By this logic you're also stating that Initiators, Dragonfire Adepts and Warlocks outshine Wizards. Which they don't, if the latter use even a bit of their time actually choosing right spells to prepare.

I've run a game in which one of my players played a psionic character. PF Psychic Warrior Elan. In a 3rd-level party consisting of a Warblade, (blaster) Sorcerer/Crusader and Rogue he felt overshadowed...

[Kuulvheysoon]

Most sensible GMs use the transparancy-rule (Spell Resistance applying for Psionic powers, and Psionic Resistance applying for spells), but the big difference of arcane/divine magic when compared to psionic magic, is that psionics run on a mana-system rather than a day-slots system.

Worth noting that psionics/magic transparency is the default, and using anything else is a variant.

[Zrak]

I think a better phrasing of the DM's concern is that psionics, like spellcasting, are a powerful system that can easily overshadow mundane characters and even be campaign-shattering if used properly and that, unlike spellcasting, they are not a system with which he is familiar enough enough that he can rein in or prepare for the most egregious offenses.

In other words, a lot of DMs are aware enough to know there are some spells they should really just not allow a player to use, some prestige classes they really shouldn't let players take, and so on. Conversely, a lot of DMs don't have the same knowledge of psionics; your DM may be confident enough in his knowledge of spellcasters that he's okay letting people play wizards because he'll give them a Tommy Lee Jones face and shake his head if they ask to buy a scroll of shivering touch, but he is not confident enough in his knowledge of psionics to know whether or not psicyrstal+vigor+share pain is really going to be a problem or not.

[Urpriest]

I think a better phrasing of the DM's concern is that psionics, like spellcasting, are a powerful system that can easily overshadow mundane characters and even be campaign-shattering if used properly and that, unlike spellcasting, they are not a system with which he is familiar enough enough that he can rein in or prepare for the most egregious offenses.

In other words, a lot of DMs are aware enough to know there are some spells they should really just not allow a player to use, some prestige classes they really shouldn't let players take, and so on. Conversely, a lot of DMs don't have the same knowledge of psionics; your DM may be confident enough in his knowledge of spellcasters that he's okay letting people play wizards because he'll give them a Tommy Lee Jones face and shake his head if they ask to buy a scroll of shivering touch, but he is not confident enough in his knowledge of psionics to know whether or not psicyrstal+vigor+share pain is really going to be a problem or not.

I just don't think that's especially plausible, though. D&D 3.5 has been out of print for what, seven years? Surely by now the only people left DMing it have broad enough experience to be familiar with common subsystems like psionics.

[MonochromeTiger]

I just don't think that's especially plausible, though. D&D 3.5 has been out of print for what, seven years? Surely by now the only people left DMing it have broad enough experience to be familiar with common subsystems like psionics.

that depends on their willingness to try or practice at those subsystems in that time. for some that may be an issue as simple as not really caring enough about it to add it to their games, sometimes it could be from not being informed, occasionally it's from a lack of willingness to apply funds to buying a book on an optional system when they could just homebrew new content for free. there's also the fact that even if a specific system has been out of print for that long it doesn't mean everyone got their books and started using them before then, a fair number of groups I've seen have gotten their start from borrowing an interesting source book from a family member or getting it in a yard sale. it's more of a generalization to say everyone knows it by now than it is to say that many don't.

[jindra34]

I just don't think that's especially plausible, though. D&D 3.5 has been out of print for what, seven years? Surely by now the only people left DMing it have broad enough experience to be familiar with common subsystems like psionics.

This made my day. You'd think that. But then new people keep ending up joining groups, thinking they understand it, and taking over. And then running into mess after mess because they didn't.

[Just to Browse]

I just don't think that's especially plausible, though. D&D 3.5 has been out of print for what, seven years? Surely by now the only people left DMing it have broad enough experience to be familiar with common subsystems like psionics.

The chance of it occuring is nonzero, and I'll match your conjecture with my own by saying it's actually quite likely, as 100% of the DMs I've played under haven't even touched it.

[JusticeZero]

The main annoyance is this statement of how psionics is more powerful. I switched a campaign over to psionics only as a way to reign in the FX-users, because they're less potent than the Vancians.

[MonochromeTiger]

The main annoyance is this statement of how psionics is more powerful. I switched a campaign over to psionics only as a way to reign in the FX-users, because they're less potent than the Vancians.

balancing a game that allows the player to set up their own progression and playstyle: your experiences may vary.

[Zrak]

I just don't think that's especially plausible, though. D&D 3.5 has been out of print for what, seven years? Surely by now the only people left DMing it have broad enough experience to be familiar with common subsystems like psionics.

I think you'd be surprised. A lot of the people I know who play online don't have much experience with non-core materials. Mostly, I'd assume it's a result of not knowing a lot of people with the disposable income to stockpile a bajillion splatbooks, but a surprising percent haven't even had much experience with the "deep end" of the SRD.


The main annoyance is this statement of how psionics is more powerful. I switched a campaign over to psionics only as a way to reign in the FX-users, because they're less potent than the Vancians.

Again, psionics are more "broken" if a DM doesn't know how they work. Sure, Vancian casting has raw potential than psionics, but that's not the same as always being more exploitable in all cases.

[MeiLeTeng]

I just don't think that's especially plausible, though. D&D 3.5 has been out of print for what, seven years? Surely by now the only people left DMing it have broad enough experience to be familiar with common subsystems like psionics.

When I was still able to play (so about 2 years ago) my best friend and I would trade off dming, his gut feeling was that anything outside of core (and I mean core, not srd) was poorly balanced and simply wanted nothing to do with it, there wasn't really anything to do to change his point of view on it.

I've known a few other people that feel the same way about non-core material.

[Kelb_Panthera]

When I was still able to play (so about 2 years ago) my best friend and I would trade off dming, his gut feeling was that anything outside of core (and I mean core, not srd) was poorly balanced and simply wanted nothing to do with it, there wasn't really anything to do to change his point of view on it.

I've known a few other people that feel the same way about non-core material.

That's an attitude that really irks me. It stems from willful ignorance.

The would-be DM decides he doesn't want to analyze the non-core material and he doesn't want to listen to any of the myriad people that -have- thoroughly analyzed the system and so he remains ignorant of the fact, and it is an observable fact, that game balance steadily -improved- as new books were released and that core-only has the worst balance of almost any other combination of books.

[Red Fel]

I just don't think that's especially plausible, though. D&D 3.5 has been out of print for what, seven years? Surely by now the only people left DMing it have broad enough experience to be familiar with common subsystems like psionics.

I have never had escargot. Never wanted to. Never had a desire to eat snails. Will likely never try it. Yet escargot have been eaten since, what, prehistoric times? Surely by now those who enjoy French cuisine will have tried it. And yet, here I am, unwilling to stuff a garlic-soaked snail in my face.

The above was an illustration. While I agree that the system of psionics is simple and straightforward enough, and has been around enough, that anyone with the slightest desire to do so could develop a proficiency, that presumes that they have that desire. A DM, even an intelligent and self-aware one, who has never played with psionics creates a self-fulfilling prophecy - he has no desire to play with psionics, because he lacks the proficiency to regulate it. He will not develop the proficiency, because he refuses to play.

As regrettable as the "psionics is overpowered" myth is, I cannot disagree with a DM who states that psionics will not be used at his table. I may disagree with his reasoning, but I cannot challenge his conclusion, because fiat is a thing. And as regrettable as this DM's ignorance appears to be, I cannot accept the argument that there is no excuse for him not to know about psionics by now. I am still learning new concepts and applications for 3.5. There are many books I haven't read, classes I haven't played, mechanics I haven't tried, even though the system itself is out of publication. I can fault a person for an unwillingness to try new things, but not for the failure to have already done so.

[Flickerdart]

Not willing to eat escargot is one thing. Preventing anyone from bringing it to your dinner party because you personally won't eat it is petty.

[OldTrees1]

Not willing to eat escargot is one thing. Preventing anyone from bringing it to your dinner party because you personally won't eat it is petty.

Except a DM has to taste every character in their world.
It is a DM's right to be unwilling to allow some material.

[Kazyan]

As regrettable as the "psionics is overpowered" myth is, I cannot disagree with a DM who states that psionics will not be used at his table. I may disagree with his reasoning, but I cannot challenge his conclusion, because fiat is a thing. And as regrettable as this DM's ignorance appears to be, I cannot accept the argument that there is no excuse for him not to know about psionics by now. I am still learning new concepts and applications for 3.5. There are many books I haven't read, classes I haven't played, mechanics I haven't tried, even though the system itself is out of publication. I can fault a person for an unwillingness to try new things, but not for the failure to have already done so.

*demure clapping* Well said.

I've been handing around on this from for, I dunno, over a year? And I still cannot into shadowcasting. So there's an example.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's an attitude that really irks me. It stems from willful ignorance.

The would-be DM decides he doesn't want to analyze the non-core material and he doesn't want to listen to any of the myriad people that -have- thoroughly analyzed the system and so he remains ignorant of the fact, and it is an observable fact, that game balance steadily -improved- as new books were released and that core-only has the worst balance of almost any other combination of books.

Just realized this makes it sound like I insist that a DM must allow psionics.

I do not insist that this be so.

I can respect a DM saying, "I don't know psionics and I've got enough on my plate that I don't want to learn it any time soon. Therefore I do not allow it in my campaign," or "It doesn't fit the flavor I'm going for, so no." I wouldn't be happy about it but I can accept that.

I have precious little respect for a DM that claims "psionics is broken," or "It's too poorly balanced," and then doesn't bat an eyelash at a wizard or sorcerer played by-the-book. Especially if they refuse to listen to any detailed explanation that could show them their misunderstanding. I'd at least try to sell him on a same-game test.

[LordBiscuit]

I can see that theres essencally two sides to this arguement.

On one side, theres the DM that for whatever reason doesn't want to allow them in the campiagn, either to not have learn the system (mostly for perfectly fine reasons) and that they are broken. Partly because Psionics act quite differently to most classes in the game, comparable to only the spellcasters who "were at least balienced by having poor combat stats". Alternatively the fluff probably doesn't mix that well with the univerce, though it could be argued and encouraged that most classes can have their fluff rejigged to fit.

On the other side there is the player, who either wants to play as the character concept or otherwise wants to have as much options as possible to play the game.

Personally, while I don't believe they are broken they are functionally different and somewhat bewildering to understand at a first glance, easpically since in the third book, many of the psychic powers were changed over.

A lot of DM's don't have time for that along with the other campiagn planning and general day to day life or otherwise simply doesn't want to introduce something that isn't dnd to them. When they are creating the world, that latter part matters a lot, even though in theory it should be a simple paste in job.

So yeah, if he says no, the only alternative would be to either take over (To provide the altenrative experience, which will have to take place outside the normal sessions) or just give up on the idea because no amount of logic will beat the will to not have to touch something they don't like. This is fair play really and has to be respected. Afterall, he's running the backscene stuff anyways.

Personally though I struggle to my DM look at TOB related stuff, so when I had asked him as a curious question about psionics he admited he simply didn't have the free time to properly look at them to include them in any campiagns. That of course is fair enough by me since I'm quite happy to play anything.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Third book? You do know that the 3.0 psionics handbook is supposed to be thrown out altogether for 3.5's expanded psionics handbook, right?

Maybe you mean complete psionic? They changed a few powers (some of them didn't need it) but they only added one new mechanic. If you got XPH then you already understand everything in CPsi except the individual class's features and psionic auras.

[LordBiscuit]

Third book? You do know that the 3.0 psionics handbook is supposed to be thrown out altogether for 3.5's expanded psionics handbook, right?

Maybe you mean complete psionic? They changed a few powers (some of them didn't need it) but they only added one new mechanic. If you got XPH then you already understand everything in CPsi except the individual class's features and psionic auras.

Ahhh, you are correct. I forget that one was a 3.0 book.

[CombatOwl]

So I got told this a couple days ago by my GM during character creation. Needless to say I was flabbergasted. His argument seemed to be based around a comparison of 8th level characters (wizard vs psion). He said a Psion gets 58 powerpoints, plus 20 bonus points (intelligence of 20). Or a total of 68. Level 4 powers cost 7 powerpoints, so that's 9.7 uses of a max level power. And you have the option of metapsionics and increasing their effects by pumping them. Meanwhile a specialized level 8 wizard with 20 intelligence gets only four casts of fourth level spells. Same with a Sorcerer with 20 charisma. Apparently this, plus the fact that Psions can spend points to increase DCs whereas casters need feats makes Powers more powerful and broken.

Is this true? Most everything I have read elsewhere suggests Psions are less powerful than Sorcerers and Wizards. Is my GM perhaps underestimating the utility of lower level spells that Wizards/Sorcerers can cast? Is he overestimating the usefulness of 4th level Powers? What is the best way to show this using? I need hard evidence if I am going to convince him otherwise.

Are psions more powerful than arcane casters with few applicable downsides? Yes. Are they "broken"? Really only egoists are broken, and that's because of metamorphic transfer cheese.

[13_CBS]

Are psions more powerful than arcane casters with few applicable downsides? Yes.

Define "more powerful". I'd say that Psions are more difficult to inhibit, can sometimes get better mileage out of their lower level powers, and potentially more tactically flexible than even a Sorcerer, but in terms of overpowered stuff they can do the Arcane casters win out (in part because Arcanes got more published content, in part because some of the most egregious Arcane spells didn't get replicated in psionics).

[Yawgmoth]

Are psions more powerful than arcane casters with few applicable downsides? No. As previously stated, they're more powerful if all you count is the number and size of damage dice they can potentially sling, and even that metric ignores certain key features like saving throws and immunities. Once you start looking at the entire picture, or even a larger part of it, you see that just going on sheer volume of content that arcane wins out.

[Perpetr8r]

Unearthed Arcana has the spell point variant system which is basically making spellcasters use power points like a psionic. Uses the same table and could be used to explain the worth of a spell to a power.

But yea a big selling point is that a 1rst level power 1d10 or not is always a 1d10 when used with no augmentation. Where as a Wizard's damage dealing spell is automatically scaled to his Caster Level.

Psionic points don't regenerate as quickly as some assume they do. I once asked someone who thought they regenerated at the end of each encounter. It works on the same flow as spell slots renewed.

But seriously bring up the Spell Point variant system, its still using spells and the like but it might give them a feel for psionics mechanics.

[killem2]

You could also relate it in this way.


level 1 Psion with 18 int, get 4 point points.

level 1 wizard with 18 int, get 2 level 1 spells, and 3 level zero. (access to prestidigitation)

The other thing to remember is, many MANY of the psionic version of arcane/divine spells, or at least the ones that resemble them, are personal spells, or have more limitations on use.

THAT is what puts Psion a bit behind wizard in terms of raw power. Wizard have a bit more outlets to come out on top over a psion. Not a lot more, not a drastic difference, but enough to show that psions are NOT over wizard (unless you start getting into ridiculous RAW-straining optimizing) :smallcool:

Psyren can debate all that, I am horrible at it. haha


I am a DM. I never play, I only DM.

I don't like psionics. I don't use psionics. I don't let my players use psionics. Why? Because I said so.

I suspect your DM feels the same way. He's just trying to give you excuses. You ask him why and he doesn't want to come off sounding like a ****, so he saus, "Not balanced, blah blah blah".

Me? I don't mind sounding like a ****. I say, "No." And if a player whines I say, "Do you like oxygen? Because your PC might not have any shortly." It gets the point across. Even if you "prove" him wrong, chances are he will still say no. Take a hint. Psionics is a pain in the ass and he might not want to bother with it.



I would drill you until you told me why. Because if I had a neat character concept that happened to be around psionics that wasn't crazy broken in anyway, I'd want to know why you are cramping my RP style. :smallwink:

Also, psionics are NOT that hard to grasp in 3.5.

I also DM and I am always open to discussing the usage of ANYTHING in my games, and we'll talk it out. I rarely tell my player's no, and if I have to, I will explain myself because it's the right thing to do.

And if it doesn't fit thematically I'll tell them.

[HaikenEdge]

I would drill you until you told me why. Because if I had a neat character concept that happened to be around psionics that wasn't crazy broken in anyway, I'd want to know why you are cramping my RP style. :smallwink:

Also, psionics are NOT that hard to grasp in 3.5.

I also DM and I am always open to discussing the usage of ANYTHING in my games, and we'll talk it out. I rarely tell my player's no, and if I have to, I will explain myself because it's the right thing to do.

And if it doesn't fit thematically I'll tell them.

To follow up on this, as a DM, I might not like a system (say, Weapons of Legacy or Truenaming, in my case), but if a player came up to me and told me they wanted to play a character who utilized Weapons of Legacy or they wanted to be a Truenamer, I would never say no, because that's not how D&D is supposed to be. To me, as a DM, what I like is irrelevant; my function as a DM is to understand how the systems function and help my players tell the stories they want to tell based on their characters. I mean, I'll warn them about probably not getting much support within the game as an initiator or a psionist would, but if their character concept is based around the mechanics of WoL or truespeak, I'd let them play it, so long as they knew what they were getting into.

As a DM, I am telling the story about my players' characters, by providing them an interesting world to interact with. How they want to play the game is up to them; I facilitate their experience by understanding how the rules work within the system, and applying them to play. What I like is irrelevant as a DM, because I have no story I'm itching to tell while I'm DMing (and I know how to write, so I can do that if I want to tell a story), and as a player, if a DM tells me I can't play something, I'm going to go find another campaign where I can play what I want, because I feel D&D is about the players, not the DM.

[13_CBS]

To follow up on this, as a DM, I might not like a system (say, Weapons of Legacy or Truenaming, in my case), but if a player came up to me and told me they wanted to play a character who utilized Weapons of Legacy or they wanted to be a Truenamer, I would never say no, because that's not how D&D is supposed to be. To me, as a DM, what I like is irrelevant; my function as a DM is to understand how the systems function and help my players tell the stories they want to tell based on their characters. I mean, I'll warn them about probably not getting much support within the game as an initiator or a psionist would, but if their character concept is based around the mechanics of WoL or truespeak, I'd let them play it, so long as they knew what they were getting into.

As a DM, I am telling the story about my players' characters, by providing them an interesting world to interact with. How they want to play the game is up to them; I facilitate their experience by understanding how the rules work within the system, and applying them to play. What I like is irrelevant as a DM, because I have no story I'm itching to tell while I'm DMing (and I know how to write, so I can do that if I want to tell a story), and as a player, if a DM tells me I can't play something, I'm going to go find another campaign where I can play what I want, because I feel D&D is about the players, not the DM.

I think it comes down to DMing style and personal taste. Tabletop RPGs like D&D, where there's a game overseer (DM) and players meaningfully interacting with the narrative (players), there's always a tension between DM control and player freedom. Some people put more emphasis on the former, some more on the latter, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that; likewise, I don't think it's necessarily a DM's duty to learn an entire subsystem just because one player wants to use it. DMs who do go out of their way to do so to accommodate a player's tastes certainly deserve praise, but I don't think that necessarily means a DM who doesn't do that deserve to be criticized so harshly on it.

DMing for a system complicated as D&D 3.5 is difficult enough; adding more complexity and potential headaches just for one player is something I think is reasonable for a given DM to turn down.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Are psions more powerful than arcane casters with few applicable downsides? Yes.


Define "more powerful". I'd say that Psions are more difficult to inhibit, can sometimes get better mileage out of their lower level powers, and potentially more tactically flexible than even a Sorcerer, but in terms of overpowered stuff they can do the Arcane casters win out (in part because Arcanes got more published content, in part because some of the most egregious Arcane spells didn't get replicated in psionics).


No. As previously stated, they're more powerful if all you count is the number and size of damage dice they can potentially sling, and even that metric ignores certain key features like saving throws and immunities. Once you start looking at the entire picture, or even a larger part of it, you see that just going on sheer volume of content that arcane wins out.

Thirded. At minimal optimization a wizard and a psion are approximately even in power. As optimization increases a discrepancy does develop but it's in favor of the wizard, not the psion. There are simply a vast array of options available to an arcane caster that are not available to a psionicist. These options are what create the discrepancy and they make it -enormous- at the upper level of optimization. The only thing a psion can unequivocally do better than an arcanist is absolutely shatter the action economy.

[13_CBS]

The only thing a psion can unequivocally do better than an arcanist is absolutely shatter the action economy.

I forget; is the majority of psionic action-economy breaking stuff found in Complete Psionics? I vaguely recall Linked Power being involved, and I think that's from Complete Psionics...

[Kelb_Panthera]

I forget; is the majority of psionic action-economy breaking stuff found in Complete Psionics? I vaguely recall Linked Power being involved, and I think that's from Complete Psionics...

Nah. In fact linked power and synchronicity are the only things in CPsi that contribute to that particular break point. The old stand-byes of schism and fission are right there in XPH, nevermind the psicrystal shenannigans. CPsi didn't help the issue but psions were breaking the action economy well before that book was published.

[Urpriest]

I have never had escargot. Never wanted to. Never had a desire to eat snails. Will likely never try it. Yet escargot have been eaten since, what, prehistoric times? Surely by now those who enjoy French cuisine will have tried it. And yet, here I am, unwilling to stuff a garlic-soaked snail in my face.

Think about it like this:

You like French cuisine, but you have no desire to try escargot. Then, every French restaurant in the world closes, and stays closed for around a decade. Your access to French cuisine now only comes from fellow fans of French cuisine, who host dinner parties at each other's houses.

Despite this, French cuisine fascinates you enough that you continue to pursue it. For a while, perhaps, you have a stable group of friends who cook French cuisine, and you all agree on what you like.

But this is the 21st century, and you are an intellectual fellow (if you weren't, you wouldn't be interested in French cuisine). You have to move, for your job, or your education, or whatever, during that decade. Probably several times. And while you might look for fellow appreciators of French cuisine, inevitably there are going to be dry spells where you can't find a community.

Luckily, this is the age of the internet! So unless you want to spend large periods of time without doing anything French cuisine-related at all (and again, if you could tolerate that, you would just have found some other type of restaurant that's actually open), you will inevitably join internet communities that discuss French cuisine.

Joining those communities, you notice that about, say, 10% of their discussion is about escargot. And for some reason, most of them don't find it disgusting! There are actually a lot of descriptions of it that are downright tasty. So while you may still not have tried escargot by this point, just by being a member of this internet community your point of view on escargot is being brought around.

Now I can understand if someone who decided, instead, to go for Quebecois cuisine, would avoid escargot, especially if Quebecois restaurants are still open. But someone who insisted on French cuisine, even when all the restaurants were closed? That sort of person would be part of a wider community for long enough to be brought over to the side of escargot.

See my point?

[hymer]

@ Urpriest: I'm not sure I get it... Because there is limited 3.5 material, we should like psionics? How do you manage that leap? I've eaten some vile things in my life, but I'll never again make a psionicist if I can help it.

[Urpriest]

@ Urpriest: I'm not sure I get it... Because there is limited 3.5 material, we should like psionics? How do you manage that leap? I've eaten some vile things in my life, but I'll never again make a psionicist if I can help it.

It's not that there's limited 3.5 material, it's that it's a limited community. To get your 3.5 fix, you have to hang around 3.5 forums...and hanging around 3.5 forums for years on end tends to give you a working knowledge of psionics.

Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not saying you end up liking it. But you do end up understanding it.

[hymer]

I see. True enough, I expect. After all, I'm an example of that.

[AstralFire]

Not sure I buy that argument. New people get bought into 3.5 with regularity, thanks to the SRD.

[Urpriest]

Not sure I buy that argument. New people get bought into 3.5 with regularity, thanks to the SRD.

Why would they seek out the SRD if they weren't pointed to it by a D&D community, either online or in person?

[HaikenEdge]

And psionics (along with Epic levels, Deities and Unearthed Arcana) are in the SRD too.

[AstralFire]

Why would they seek out the SRD if they weren't pointed to it by a D&D community, either online or in person?

A fair number of the people who push the SRD online, IMX, are of the "core-only because my vampire gaming sire disliked psionics, and I shall pass that on unto the next generation." This happens a lot in the freeform roleplaying community whenever someone wants to adopt a few more rules for handling certain things.

Oddly, Epic seems to be more okay with these people than psionics.

[Snowbluff]

Please, they are equally broken.

Psionics can be more of a pain in the butt to deal with in some cases, since their components are readily mutable. It shouldn't be a problem to the point where they should be banned, unless your DM feels the need to regularly throw casters into dungeons.

[NichG]

How many encounters a day does your DM usually use?

Psions are a bit better at going nova than Wizards, so that may play into his perceptions.

Also, if he has a lot of house rules limiting certain spells/etc (e.g. Gate, Polymorph, the usual suspects), it may just be that he is wary of a new system that he has not created a set of house rules of the same type for. The solution there would be to go over every power and psionic feat/etc you choose and explain it, so that when you do bring out something powerful he isn't taken by surprise. Basically, try to deflect the idea that you're trying to 'get away with something' and instead use it as an opportunity to both get him more familiar with the system and to give him a good feeling about the system rather than a feeling of 'this only shows up when my players are trying to pull something'.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Please, they are equally broken.

Psionics can be more of a pain in the butt to deal with in some cases, since their components are readily mutable. It shouldn't be a problem to the point where they should be banned, unless your DM feels the need to regularly throw casters into dungeons.

You didn't just say that psionics and epic are equally broken? Or if you did then certainly you think that vancian casting is just as broken?

Epic is a joke. Such extremes as epic spell casting and improved whirlwind attack in the same subsystem is just a ridiculous gap.

[Snowbluff]

You didn't just say that psionics and epic are equally broken? Or if you did then certainly you think that vancian casting is just as broken?
The latter. :smallsmile:


Epic is a joke. Such extremes as epic spell casting and improved whirlwind attack in the same subsystem is just a ridiculous gap.

Yeah, it's pretty awful.

[Urpriest]

A fair number of the people who push the SRD online, IMX, are of the "core-only because my vampire gaming sire disliked psionics, and I shall pass that on unto the next generation." This happens a lot in the freeform roleplaying community whenever someone wants to adopt a few more rules for handling certain things.


That would entail that each person "sires" the next batch quickly enough that none are without a group long enough to start reading D&D forums...which I suppose is possible, but leads to a ridiculous game of telephone which just depresses me.

[Con_Brio1993]

I am a DM. I never play, I only DM.

I don't like psionics. I don't use psionics. I don't let my players use psionics. Why? Because I said so.

I suspect your DM feels the same way. He's just trying to give you excuses. You ask him why and he doesn't want to come off sounding like a ****, so he saus, "Not balanced, blah blah blah".

Me? I don't mind sounding like a ****. I say, "No." And if a player whines I say, "Do you like oxygen? Because your PC might not have any shortly." It gets the point across. Even if you "prove" him wrong, chances are he will still say no. Take a hint. Psionics is a pain in the ass and he might not want to bother with it.

From the way the conversation went, I am pretty sure he thought they were legitimately more broken than arcane spellcasters.

[Red Fel]

That would entail that each person "sires" the next batch quickly enough that none are without a group long enough to start reading D&D forums...which I suppose is possible, but leads to a ridiculous game of telephone which just depresses me.

Not going to quote everything you've said (because I'm lazy, fault me if you like) but I think you've made some solid points.

I agree that, for those who are part of the online 3.5 community, it is virtually impossible to avoid exposure to conversations on psionics, particularly the myths and facts, and how to easily operate and integrate the system in your games. Once again, however, I find you have made an assumption with which I cannot agree - participation in the online community. The scale of participation, even among those who use 3.5 - which, as you mention, is no longer actively published - varies wildly, from those (like many in the Playground) who engage actively in multiple forums, produce handbooks and compilations, and provide invaluable assistance on one end of the spectrum, to those who run games and never seek out any online resources at the other extreme. And while I'm sure that many fall someplace in the middle, that's an awfully broad spectrum. Prior to my joining the Playground, the extent of my participation in online discourse was the occasionally search for a class description or handbook while I fiddled with my books. I'm reasonably certain I wasn't the only one, and equally certain there are those who participate even less than that.

It is entirely possible that an entire demographic exists consisting of those who actively use and play 3.5, or some portion of 3.5, and yet do not actively participate in online discourse, and thus have never encountered these helpful clarifications. Or, to use the cooking analogy, these are people who have lived in one place and maintained a French cooking circle, at which they will not allow certain dishes (because ew, snails), or perhaps they moved and established a new cooking circle, yet at no time did they go onto the internet to research new recipes. Instead, these people rehashed, revised, and reinterpreted their existing recipes, working the classics (eclairs, steaks frites, baguettes) down to a science. They were comfortable in their complacency. Can they truly call themselves gourmets of French cuisine? No, because they limit themselves to a single area of the culinary arts, and refuse to deviate or expand. But they nonetheless practice French cooking, and perhaps they even do so well.

[NichG]

Hopping in on this community exposure discussion...

One factor is also that a person encountering an online community that views the game very differently than they've been playing it may actually find their particular views strengthened or entrenched by that exposure.

Consider, if I think that the Fireball Wizard is where its at, and maybe even a little broken, then I find people telling me 'psionics isn't overpowered' online, how I take that claim will depend on the other things I see them talking about. If, e.g., they're all talking about things that I'm familiar with (blaster wizards, sword-and-board fighters, monks being okay, etc) then I may accept their claim 'psionics isn't overpowered'. If on the other hand I see them talking about uberchargers, Pun-Pun, etc (even purely theoretically), I may rightly assume that their standards for what is and isn't overpowered are just too different than mine for their advice to be useful - basically although there's this 3.5ed community, they aren't playing the same 3.5 as I am.

In the French food analogy, its sort of like if I were a fan of classic French cuisine and I came upon an online community that talked about nothing but French-Asian fusion. Depending on how big the difference is and how open-minded I am, I might decide 'they're talking about something, but it isn't the French food that I know and love' rather than 'French food is broader than I thought, maybe I should pay attention to this!'

[Enguebert]

As a DM, i allowed psionics in my campaign : a psion and a psionic fighter.

And it brings some problems. No big problems, but problems anyway.
Not because psionic is overpowered, but because i didn't know well psionics.

First, if you allow psionic, that means more work for the DM because you must know the rules.
When a player want to make a tripper, fine, i know that i have to re-study carefully rules of tripping and ways to counter it. It is ok because rules for tripping are only a few pages
Same for psionic, but psionic is a whole book. That means a lot of work.

As DM, you have to :
1) Check that player is using powers following the rules and not misunderstanding them
2) Adapt scenario to challenge psionics. If your psionic characters have a power that can trivialize an encounter, be sure it is only ONE encounter and not the whole scenario. (it is similar for wizard/sorcerer, but often DM knows better arcane than psionic)
Also if psionic have an usual tactic, you need to prepare some encounters where this tactis is not efficient or doesn't work (so other chars may also shine)
3) Adapt scenario to have psionic opponent/psionic treasure

Basically, letting players come with stuff DM is not familiar give DM more work
And it takes time for the DM to adapt.

[Threadnaught]

Think about it like this:

...

See my point?

Okay, think about your dinner party example this way. The guests (players) may each eat and enjoy their own meal, while the other players only have to see and smell it.

The host (DM) however, must sample everything. Allergic to citrus? Too bad, a guest wants to eat lemon chicken and according to you, the host is required to accommodate to their tastes. Regardless of how the host feels.
Well, according to your well worded point that is.


Also, not everyone has as much experience hosting (DMing) dinner parties (games) as you seem to think. Sure, it's a practice that's been going on for decades, but you're forgetting about younger people, or maybe someone wants to start hosting a dinner party to improve their social life. Maybe they just want to try cooking some fancy new recipes, with lots of cheese.


Why would they seek out the SRD if they weren't pointed to it by a D&D community, either online or in person?

I started playing last April, I got pointed to the SRD by a member of a community for a console RPG, whom I know of no links to any D&D community outside of his own tables. It happens, new players are interested.

[hymer]

@ Threadnaught: Urpriest wasn't saying that all DMs must include psioics in their games. He said that these days, most DMs of 3.5 have been exposed to psionics, and there ought to be fewer myths about it. Which others then disagreed with, but that's a different can of tuna.

[Chronos]

The group I'm currently playing with allowed psionics once, and quickly came to the conclusion that it was overpowered and never touched it again. This all happened before I joined the group, so I don't know exactly what happened, but from what I've heard, it sounds like it was mostly a matter of the player in question having a better mastery of the psionics rules than the DM did, possibly combined with the group overlooking the PP per power cap rule. It was exacerbated by the group also having a poor mastery of spells, so their baseline comparison was low, and also favoring a few combats per day, nova style, which makes the psion's ability to blow all of their points on high-level powers relatively more significant.

Now, it's true that my group has a mistaken notion of the power of psionics. But even though it's been many years since the system came out, that misconception has never been changed, and likely never will. Why? Because the natural consequence of them deciding that psionics is overpowered, is that they've never allowed it again. If they're not allowing it, then they're never going to get a chance to change their opinion of it. And if they never change their opinion of it, they're not going to allow it, either.

Nor can this be fixed by pointing out the mistakes they made originally, since they don't even remember what those were. All they remember about psionics is that it's overpowered, and all the details have faded away.

[hymer]

There's also this: The first player to want to play a psionicist in a group is likely to have a greater system mastery than the group's average. If s/he's taken the time to read up on psionics, chances are s/he's been reading up on a lot of stuff. Starting something from scratch also means someone more likely to have sought elsewhere, such as forums like this, for help in understanding. Which could lead to even bigger discrepancies in optimization than usual.
This has probably caused psionics to show itself from the most powerful side from early on in many groups.

[AlltheBooks]

Wow. So many people embracing and actually acting as a proponent for ignorance.

Not to mention lol at the amount of people who "run as DM" complaining about reading books. Really? If you have been DM for over a year and don't have a very firm grasp of the core books and at least read every single other D&D book cover to cover for fun, you may want to reconsider what you are playing.

A word for some of you, the rest of you it will go in one ear out the other.

As DM the game is not for you. Really. It is for the players. It does not matter how mentally limited, bias or uninformed you are, the game is run for the players. For them, make yourself a better person. Make the game better. Or hand over the DMG.

[Thrair]

Wow. So many people embracing and actually acting as a proponent for ignorance.
Implying (in fact, all but stating) people who disagree are ignorant is an ad hominem.


Not to mention lol at the amount of people who "run as DM" complaining about reading books. Really? If you have been DM for over a year and don't have a very firm grasp of the core books and at least read every single other D&D book cover to cover for fun, you may want to reconsider what you are playing.
I'd say you should definitely have a good grasp of the rules, and it's advisable to be at least moderately versed in most of the official books. But discouraging people from DMing because they have not read every splatbook is a little daft, if you ask me. I agree with you on the general principle, but not on how strongly you feel about it.


A word for some of you, the rest of you it will go in one ear out the other.
Again, you make an ad hominem by implying most of the people here are incapable of listening to (and, by your wording, possibly understanding) your arguments. It's a rather condescending statement.


As DM the game is not for you. Really. It is for the players. It does not matter how mentally limited, bias or uninformed you are, the game is run for the players. For them, make yourself a better person. Make the game better. Or hand over the DMG.
Once more, I agree with your general principle, but resent the insulting tone you use. Yes, a DM should run the game for the players. But every game, DM, and gaming group is different. Sometimes what most like, others do not. Nor is a DM obligated to agree with players on every ruling. Rule 0 exists for a reason. Suggesting they are "mentally limited, biased, or uninformed" for not agreeing with a certain view is astoundingly arrogant.





In summary, I agree with many of your arguments, but you have buried them under an unnecessarily belligerent and offensive tone, and it does your arguments no favours.

I will reiterate: I actually agree with the fundemental points of you arguments, but because of how offensive you are being towards any who might disagree, I am ending up focusing my post more on your negativity than on the content of you post.

Be polite and civil. General courtesy to people who have not done anything to wrong you aside, your opinions will be less likely to be dismissed out of hand.

[hymer]

@ Allthebooks: Your arrogant attitude is... looking for the right word here... sad? I think that's about right.
You don't have a patent on the right way to be a DM, or the right way to play D&D. And you don't get to pass judgment on other people's harmless fun.
If the players did not take the DM's fun into consideration at all, they would be behaving selfishly. Not taking one's own enjoyment into view in choosing what to do with one's free time is just silly.

[Particle_Man]

If it is a system mastery issue, the pro-psionics player should agree to run a game for the group that heavily features psionics, so everyone else (including the regular DM) gets an idea of what psionics are like and get familiar with it.

Mind you, some people have a reaction against psionics that is more . . . visceral. For players in a game with those people, I recommend the pro-psionics player (assuming they have time and energy) take and reskin everyone psionic is "faerie gem magic" (or whatever), and ask the DM if they can try out this slightly different system to add "faerie gem flavour" (or whatever flavour) to their character. Who knows, the DM might go for that and find out that the system is pretty cool too.

Lessee, Metacreativity could be "moonlight shaping", hmmmm . . . :smallsmile:

[Juntao112]

Okay, think about your dinner party example this way. The guests (players) may each eat and enjoy their own meal, while the other players only have to see and smell it.

The host (DM) however, must sample everything. Allergic to citrus? Too bad, a guest wants to eat lemon chicken and according to you, the host is required to accommodate to their tastes. Regardless of how the host feels.
Well, according to your well worded point that is.

If bringing psionics to the table is likely to send the DM into anaphylactic shock, I would definitely understand why he chose to ban it.

[Urpriest]

Okay, think about your dinner party example this way. The guests (players) may each eat and enjoy their own meal, while the other players only have to see and smell it.

The host (DM) however, must sample everything. Allergic to citrus? Too bad, a guest wants to eat lemon chicken and according to you, the host is required to accommodate to their tastes. Regardless of how the host feels.
Well, according to your well worded point that is.

Not what I was talking about, as others have pointed out.



Also, not everyone has as much experience hosting (DMing) dinner parties (games) as you seem to think. Sure, it's a practice that's been going on for decades, but you're forgetting about younger people, or maybe someone wants to start hosting a dinner party to improve their social life. Maybe they just want to try cooking some fancy new recipes, with lots of cheese.



I started playing last April, I got pointed to the SRD by a member of a community for a console RPG, whom I know of no links to any D&D community outside of his own tables. It happens, new players are interested.

Here's the thing: most people, in a world with no French restaurants and no French cookbooks, would pick a different style of cuisine to start out with. You want to start hosting a dinner party to improve your social life? Great! There are lots of Italian cookbooks (or Quebecois if you favor PF) that will let you do exactly that.

Similarly, most people, having been pointed to the SRD by someone outside of a D&D context, would look at it, notice it's edition 3.5, poke around on the internet a little, realize that there are new editions of the game out, and pick one of those instead. That's just a basic thing anyone does when they want to start a new game, or download a new program: they find the most recent patch, the most recent version of the rules. That's...normal.

So I'm curious: why didn't you do that?

[Zrak]

Implying (in fact, all but stating) people who disagree are ignorant is an ad hominem.
I believe he is saying that people are embracing the idea of and/or advocating the merits of people remaining ignorant about psionics, not that the views opposed to his are held by the categorically Ignorant.

That said, the attitude that everyone can just afford all the books is a little ridiculous. There are a lot of books and each one is fairly expensive.

Still, though, psionics are available for free and I don't really understand why a DM would still refuse to learn them after all this time, I was just pointing out that a lot of DMs do refuse to learn them.


(or Quebecois if you favor PF)

There's a good joke about poutine to be made, here. Something about not making 3.5 less cheesy, just adding gravy?

[MonochromeTiger]

Here's the thing: most people, in a world with no French restaurants and no French cookbooks, would pick a different style of cuisine to start out with. You want to start hosting a dinner party to improve your social life? Great! There are lots of Italian cookbooks (or Quebecois if you favor PF) that will let you do exactly that.

first: I'd like to motion for the food analogy to be dropped, I dislike both types of food involved and dislike the implication that somehow having a specific taste is required to be sociable or sophisticated when we all know everyone has different tastes. also I'm finding it difficult to understand what food nationality has to do with the different systems of pen and paper RPG beyond "I like this, so this is what it means".



Similarly, most people, having been pointed to the SRD by someone outside of a D&D context, would look at it, notice it's edition 3.5, poke around on the internet a little, realize that there are new editions of the game out, and pick one of those instead. That's just a basic thing anyone does when they want to start a new game, or download a new program: they find the most recent patch, the most recent version of the rules. That's...normal.

So I'm curious: why didn't you do that?

second: where are you pulling this statistic from? please by all means explain how you know what "most" people do when earlier in the thread you also made the generalization that absolutely everyone who still plays 3.5 has to fully understand psionics when it's completely possible for them to not understand it. some people don't think everything is a videogame that needs the latest patch to work, some people are enticed by their friends' stories of a specific edition and want to try it before going to a later version that has no guarantee of being what they heard about.

so I'm curious: why is what you would do instantly the standard for what's normal?

[AstralFire]

Similarly, most people, having been pointed to the SRD by someone outside of a D&D context, would look at it, notice it's edition 3.5, poke around on the internet a little, realize that there are new editions of the game out, and pick one of those instead. That's just a basic thing anyone does when they want to start a new game, or download a new program: they find the most recent patch, the most recent version of the rules. That's...normal.

So I'm curious: why didn't you do that?

4E is more complicated to set up than 3E core, has a trashed reputation, a smaller player base, and doesn't have its core components available free (legally, anyway).

[Urpriest]

first: I'd like to motion for the food analogy to be dropped, I dislike both types of food involved and dislike the implication that somehow having a specific taste is required to be sociable or sophisticated when we all know everyone has different tastes. also I'm finding it difficult to understand what food nationality has to do with the different systems of pen and paper RPG beyond "I like this, so this is what it means".

Sorry to trigger you with the food analogy. If you're curious, I chose Italian for 4e because it's another European cuisine but fairly distinct, and Quebecois for PF because it's a later version of an analogous cultural core.




second: where are you pulling this statistic from? please by all means explain how you know what "most" people do when earlier in the thread you also made the generalization that absolutely everyone who still plays 3.5 has to fully understand psionics when it's completely possible for them to not understand it. some people don't think everything is a videogame that needs the latest patch to work, some people are enticed by their friends' stories of a specific edition and want to try it before going to a later version that has no guarantee of being what they heard about.

I'm reasoning about what "most" people do the same way you are, by thinking about what possible motivations they could have. My point was that I couldn't think of any obvious reasons why someone would make that decision. Those you give in your post are two potential ones, but I don't think they're sufficient. Most game media have a pretty good track record for implementing actual upgrades that either enhance the experience or at least make it comprehensible to modern audiences. Understanding that the tabletop industry doesn't do that requires a certain amount of edition fatigue, and that doesn't really square with the level of experience we're discussing.



4E is more complicated to set up than 3E core, has a trashed reputation, a smaller player base, and doesn't have its core components available free (legally, anyway).

4e is easier to set up than 3e core, especially since there's an online character builder. PF is, at minimum, just as easy to set up.

4e has a trashed reputation, yes...but PF has been exploiting that rather well, to the point that people aware of 4e's trashed rep are probably also aware of and favorably disposed to PF.

As for the player base, got any figures on that? I certainly can believe that PF has a larger player base than 4e, but both almost certainly beat out a game with no advertising and a limited supply of increasingly expensive books.

PF has its core components available free, and 4e essentially does because if you're joining an existing group then they'll probably just let you in to a shared DDI account.

[AstralFire]

It's been my experience that people who aren't heavy rules junkies, especially the ones introduced after the end of 3E, don't usually make a sharp distinction between 3E and PF. I only do because I had some skin in that game, so to speak.

And even with DDI, I'd argue that it's simpler to make and play a level 1 Fighter or Wizard in 3E; the option to play 3E 'simple' (also ineffective, but simple) with abilities that don't heavily depend on a tactical mindset is much simpler than 4E - and I say this as someone that rather likes 4E.

I remember I tried to introduce a group of freeform RPing friends to 4E, then my preferred classes and books in 3E, until I had to pare it down to Core 3E (and subsequently had next to no fun personally at a game level, though the RPing itself was fun.) The previous options (incl. psionics) were all too off-putting to them.

[Khosan]

Sorry to trigger you with the food analogy. If you're curious, I chose Italian for 4e because it's another European cuisine but fairly distinct, and Quebecois for PF because it's a later version of an analogous cultural core.

I'd go with sandwiches, personally. In the end, they're pretty much all the same thing, the difference is just what you put in it.

Some sandwich-makers are totally fine with putting whatever the customer wants into their sandwich. Others might shy away from certain toppings for certain reasons (like not having it on hand, not knowing how to use it or just thinking the sandwich is better off without it). Some sandwich-eaters might hate the thought of even being in the same room as someone with mayo on their sandwich and some mayo-eaters might be completely baffled by others' dislike of it.

Anyway, I think first impressions has a lot to do with some people's dislike of psionics. It only really takes one bad experience for someone to be put off it forever. It's a system that, when not properly understood, looks pretty broken and a lot of DMs when first looking it over probably won't understand it properly.

[Thrair]

I believe he is saying that people are embracing the idea of and/or advocating the merits of people remaining ignorant about psionics, not that the views opposed to his are held by the categorically Ignorant.

I dunno. Maybe. But if you look at his choice of words (bolding the relevant bit) and the other comment in his post:


Wow. So many people embracing and actually acting as a proponent for ignorance.


A word for some of you, the rest of you it will go in one ear out the other.

At best, he's openly hostile to those who are disagreeing with him. At worst, he's saying if you agree with the DM, you're ignorant or "mentally limited".

Again, I agreed with a lot of his core points. But he was, frankly, such an ass about it, that I can't really support his argument on account of it reading as an attack on everyone who doesn't share his viewpoint.

[purpenflurb]

When I started DMing, I was basically pushed into it because nobody else would. At that point in time everything had to be from the PHB, with a few exceptions for things I managed to personally read, as trusting my players on the rules ended up rather poorly in a couple of cases. Now that I have some experience, I would absolutely allow it. The only things I really ban are planar shepherd, initiate of mystra, and leadership.

So, if a DM is still learning the game, and isn't ready to tackle more complexity, I understand banning psionics. If they have experience, and are insisting psionics are overpowered, I would explain it to them. If they still refuse I would say they aren't doing there job as well as they should, and would consider trying to find another group.

[Urpriest]

It's been my experience that people who aren't heavy rules junkies, especially the ones introduced after the end of 3E, don't usually make a sharp distinction between 3E and PF. I only do because I had some skin in that game, so to speak.

And even with DDI, I'd argue that it's simpler to make and play a level 1 Fighter or Wizard in 3E; the option to play 3E 'simple' (also ineffective, but simple) with abilities that don't heavily depend on a tactical mindset is much simpler than 4E - and I say this as someone that rather likes 4E.

I remember I tried to introduce a group of freeform RPing friends to 4E, then my preferred classes and books in 3E, until I had to pare it down to Core 3E (and subsequently had next to no fun personally at a game level, though the RPing itself was fun.) The previous options (incl. psionics) were all too off-putting to them.

Was this pre or post Essentials? I ask because while I'm generally skeptical of it, this is precisely the sort of thing Essentials is supposed to be for.

[AstralFire]

Was this pre or post Essentials? I ask because while I'm generally skeptical of it, this is precisely the sort of thing Essentials is supposed to be for.

Post, as in half a year ago. Just mentioning that there was a neat little program they could download made them groan because that just seemed so much more complicated.

[Urpriest]

Post, as in half a year ago. Just mentioning that there was a neat little program they could download made them groan because that just seemed so much more complicated.

So I just processed your last post...these guys were already a Freeform gaming group? So they already had a system that suited them, and playing D&D was essentially just about reaching a compromise with you?

I don't think anything in that situation is bad per se, but I feel like there ought to be some better compromises, especially if you didn't end up enjoying the way they were playing 3.5 anyway.

[Pex]

The proper food analogy on these forums is:

I like chocolate ice cream.

:smallbiggrin:

[AstralFire]

So I just processed your last post...these guys were already a Freeform gaming group? So they already had a system that suited them, and playing D&D was essentially just about reaching a compromise with you?

I don't think anything in that situation is bad per se, but I feel like there ought to be some better compromises, especially if you didn't end up enjoying the way they were playing 3.5 anyway.

Not a group, per se; I've never met any freeform RP groups. Just a handful of people I do freeform RP with that expressed interest in D&D. I tried to talk them into 4E (because I've never really gotten to do it) and that fell through, and as I mentioned, so did the expanded 3E, all the way until we were down to core 3E.

The plural of anecdote isn't data, but I move in enough FFRP circles and see enough people casually picking up D&D and having similar issues that I know this is not a totally isolated experience.

[nyjastul69]

The proper food analogy on these forums is:

I like chocolate ice cream.

:smallbiggrin:

No! No it isn't. Vanilla is the best! Chocolate is clearly overpowered and you should not like it. :smallwink:

[MonochromeTiger]

No! No it isn't. Vanilla is the best! Chocolate is clearly overpowered and you should not like it. :smallwink:

I refuse to acknowledge either, I shall instead enjoy my epic level wafflecone icecream..

[nyjastul69]

I refuse to acknowledge either, I shall instead enjoy my epic level wafflecone icecream..

Come to think of it, I don't even like vanilla. I like scooping all of the vanilla out of a box of harlequin/Neapolitan and watching the rest of the flavors vie for my flavor.

[fluke1993]

Off topic but: Great, now I have an idea for a campaign involving animated dairy products fighting to the death over who gets eaten and who gets to fight another day. The whole thing would have overtones of racial tension and class struggles which would be complicated by the sudden appearance of a new type of frozen desert in the form of the sorbet.

More on topic:

There are some valid reasons for dis-allowing Psionics, 3.5 or PF. Baring STPE (Which arguably is ovepowered) power is not generally one of them.

1: The flavor that accompanies psionics, may not fit the game the DM wants to run. In this case keep in mind that the DM is not just there ONLY for your enjoyment, while that is his role in the game, if something as small as allowing psionics would ruin the game for him (or anyone else involved) it may be better to drop it as pushing the issue will only make the game less comfortable for him and yourself.

2: Another possible reason to ban psionics may be that you have found yourself the rare group of players who, for one reason or another, doesn't understand the sub-system. This is OK. Keep in mind that for every hour of play that goes into a good campaign, three or more hours of work on the GMs side are generally required and introducing a new subsystem can be a lot of work. Trying to introduce a new subsystem into a campaign that may already be taking up a good 10-20 hours per session of the DMs time may only cause more problems than it's worth. In this case offer your assistance in understanding the problem (and only do that if you are absolutely sure you understand the material yourself) but if the DM still refuses too budge, don't push it. In my opinion this is the root of your problem. My suggestion would be to study up on the various rules of the subsystem, at least to the point to where you would be comfortable DMing with it, and then try again.

3: Finally a DM may ban psionics for no other reason than he just doesn't like it. This differs from the first case where the DM simply doesn't like the flavor of psionics for a specific campaign. It also differs from the second case in that the DM understands the system. (please note that I do not believe your DM does) In this case the DM simply doesn't like it for one reason or another. It may be the flavor, it may be the mechanics, it may be the fact that the term PP reminds him of taking a whiz. Regardless of what his reason is, he understands the system and still doesn't allow it. In this case, depending on the type of DM you have, you may or not be able to change his mind about his decision. This is definitely not the problem your having however if you encounter this kind of DM, how you should appeal will change depending on the DM. For example a DM who encourages creative character development may be swayed by an interesting character concept whereas the afore mentioned PP DM may be willing to allow it as long as you use the term MP as opposed to PP.

Edit: for sentence structure (This is why I need to hit preview...)

[Canine]

For the 3.P folks, this is the updated version of "Psionics are Overpowered" (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=2700.html), from the original author of "Psionics are Overpowered". He is the co-founder of Dreamscarred Press, who put out amazing material for Pathfinder, and have been doing so for years.

[Red Fel]

Off topic but: Great, now I have an idea for a campaign involving animated dairy products fighting to the death over who gets eaten and who gets to fight another day. The whole thing would have overtones of racial tension and class struggles which would be complicated by the sudden appearance of a new type of frozen desert in the form of the sorbet.

What an excellent idea! Someone should open a thread about food-based D&D (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=312687)! (Shameless plug.)

Back on topic, I think your points are spot-on. If the flavor doesn't fit, or the players or DM don't like or understand it, leave it out. Same applies to any subsystem. Admittedly, as Urpriest has mentioned, with the ample support for 3.5 available in communities like this, it's not hard to educate oneself on the basics, but sometimes you just don't feel like studying in order to play the game.

Well said.

And Canine, excellent link!

[The Insanity]

I don't know psionic rules despite years of playing and going on D&D forums for a simple reason - laziness. I'm just too lazy to bother and they don't interest me enough to overcome my laziness.
OTOH, if a player wanted to use psionics, I would make the effort to learn at least the basics. Fortunately no player wanted to use psionics in my game as of yet.

[CIDE]

The proper food analogy on these forums is:

I like chocolate ice cream.

:smallbiggrin:


http://theemighteekittens.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/batman-chocolate1.jpg

You're dead to me.

[Dawgmoah]

I don't know psionic rules despite years of playing and going on D&D forums for a simple reason - laziness. I'm just too lazy to bother and they don't interest me enough to overcome my laziness.
OTOH, if a player wanted to use psionics, I would make the effort to learn at least the basics. Fortunately no player wanted to use psionics in my game as of yet.

I've been running 3.5 for going on six years now. And just recently started visiting online forums. Most of the just looked for certain articles or things like one person already said.

And everything is on the table: find a reputable source or something you want to do, sure I'll allow it. I wil also be scurrying in the background to understand just what I let in and ensure I can find ways to balance it if at all possible. That's what happened when a player wanted to use psionics. Having a player run a raptoran was harder to fit in for some reason...

[TETanglebrooke]

The loss of versatility just isn't worth the extra slots to too many people to take it as a given.


If a wizard isn't a focused specialist they're doing it wrong. With the right selection of spells and the right selection of banned schools there is no lack of versatility.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If a wizard isn't a focused specialist they're doing it wrong. With the right selection of spells and the right selection of banned schools there is no lack of versatility.

That is indeed how -some- people look at it. I'm not one of them and, if you'll forgive my appeal to authority, it's my understanding that the illustrious op-fu master Emperor Tippy is a proponent of generalization in wizardry among others.

[TETanglebrooke]

I can appeal to authority too by dropping the name TreantMonkLvl20 and his handbook on being GOD.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There you go then. If some of the most expert optimizers in the community disagree on this point, then can we simply agree that it's not so simple as one or the other always being the superior choice?

[Snowbluff]

If a wizard isn't a focused specialist they're doing it wrong. With the right selection of spells and the right selection of banned schools there is no lack of versatility.

Agreeing with Kelb about this. "No lack of versatility" is no "No loss of Versatility."

PS: Shadow spells suck unless they are Simulacrum.

[TETanglebrooke]

Agreeing with Kelb about this. "No lack of versatility" is no "No loss of Versatility."

PS: Shadow spells suck unless they are Simulacrum.

The most versatile wizard build I ever saw was a gnome focused illusionist who only prepared silent image with all of his slots lvls 1-9. Shadowcraft Mage and Earth Spell(iirc).

[Elderand]

The most versatile wizard build I ever saw was a gnome focused illusionist who only prepared silent image with all of his slots lvls 1-9. Shadowcraft Mage and Earth Spell(iirc).

Personal annecdote does not a data point make.

Also there is a difference between creative thinking and build versatility

[TuggyNE]

Personal annecdote does not a data point make.

It actually does; it's only when you're trying to put those data together that you have the challenge of equalizing assumptions, ensuring controls, and so forth.

And, in this case, if the thesis is "All non-simulacrum (shadow) spells are lousy", then "Under these circumstances, no (shadow) spells are lousy" is a suitable disproof.


Also there is a difference between creative thinking and build versatility

With SCM, there is little or no difference, since you can mechanically make your spells mimic whatever you want with no adjudication needed. That, after all, is what makes the PrC broken.

[TETanglebrooke]

What Tuggy said.

[MonochromeTiger]

It actually does; it's only when you're trying to put those data together that you have the challenge of equalizing assumptions, ensuring controls, and so forth.

And, in this case, if the thesis is "All non-simulacrum (shadow) spells are lousy", then "Under these circumstances, no (shadow) spells are lousy" is a suitable disproof.



With SCM, there is little or no difference, since you can mechanically make your spells mimic whatever you want with no adjudication needed. That, after all, is what makes the PrC broken.

...you're using logic on the internet.. this frightens and confuses me. I'm on tuggy's side on this one.