PDA

View Full Version : Why the hate on the Psion class?



Matinta
2019-07-04, 12:22 PM
I hear a lot of hate on Psions.

people say they don't fit the setting, too similar to arcane casters and they are weird.

1- I think they totally fit the setting. these people need to grab an old Sword and sorcery book and take a good read on the classics. There are plenty of Psions there.

2- Are you kidding me? When I picture a Psion I picture a shirtless muscular humanoid with glowing tattoos and a shaved head. Lot's of floating crystals of power of different shapes.

When I picture a wizard I picture an old skinny wizened guy with a long beard, robes and a weird hat.

How are those two aesthetics ever capable of overlapping?

3- Being weird is the whole point of Psions.

Have you guys never heard of Weird fantasy? Look it up darling, it's totally a thing! (And not some kind of sexual kink) It mixes Sci-fi elements with fantasy elements.

So overall I really don't get what the deal is.

:smallannoyed:

Koo Rehtorb
2019-07-04, 12:24 PM
It's more of a sci-fi thing than a fantasy thing.

HouseRules
2019-07-04, 12:40 PM
In the old days, it was called Science Fantasy.
Science Fiction was not a genre yet, but it evolved.
Gary Gygax was a SiFi fan.
Note that Gygax use SiFi, not SciFi!
Lots of Dragon Magazines in the early days have SiFi content, to emphasize Gygax's personal desire.

However, Gygax regret creating the Psionic Subsytem.
Why? is a very strong point.
The Psionic Subsystem in BD&D, AD&D, BX D&D, BECMI D&D, all derived from Gygax's OD&D.
The AD&D 2E Psionic Subystem was the first independent from Gygax's invention.


The term "Psionics" should be followed by "(sic)" in most works dealing with roleplaying game rules, for it is typically misused. (A good indicator of how well the authors have researched their work, and how little the publisher knows about it, too!). Psionics means "electronically enhanced psychic, or psychogenic, ability." It is as simple as that.

Seems like consulting a dictionary made Gygax regret his abuse of the word Psionic.

Note that without Gygax, Psionic would not become a major aspect of Science Fiction.
His abuse of the term Psionic allowed SciFi writers to drop their magic from Science Fantasy to switch over to Science Fiction.

Matinta
2019-07-04, 12:44 PM
In the old days, it was called Science Fantasy.
Science Fiction was not a genre yet, but it evolved.
Gary Gygax was a SiFi fan.
Note that Gygax use SiFi, not SciFi!
Lots of Dragon Magazines in the early days have SiFi content, to emphasize Gygax's personal desire.

However, Gygax regret creating the Psionic Subsytem.
Why? is a very strong point.
The Psionic Subsystem in BD&D, AD&D, BX D&D, BECMI D&D, all derived from Gygax's OD&D.
The AD&D 2E Psionic Subystem was the first independent from Gygax's invention.



Seems like consulting a dictionary made Gygax regret his abuse of the word Psionic.

Note that without Gygax, Psionic would not become a major aspect of Science Fiction.
His abuse of the term Psionic allowed SciFi writers to drop their magic from Science Fantasy to switch over to Science Fiction.

That's BS.

People with non-magical mental powers apear everywhere in media even before Gygax.

In the old days of Planetary romance sci-fi and fantasy mixed together all the time, it's only because of Tolkien fan boys that we got such harsh distinctions now a days.

GloatingSwine
2019-07-04, 12:48 PM
Partly it's giving them a unique mechanical identity in a system which already contains an enviable variety of kitchen sinks, magic-wise.

Early efforts in that direction were, shall we say, not elegant...

Matinta
2019-07-04, 12:55 PM
Partly it's giving them a unique mechanical identity in a system which already contains an enviable variety of kitchen sinks, magic-wise.

Early efforts in that direction were, shall we say, not elegant...

Who cares about that?

If the DM has to learn 100 rules to play what difference does one more make?

Honest Tiefling
2019-07-04, 01:01 PM
It's more of a sci-fi thing than a fantasy thing.

This is a huge part of it. And then you get really weird cases where magic is very well defined and interconnected except for Psionics which is really fricking weird especially when you have a god of all magic except psionics. So they don't just seem rather Sci-Fi with the pseudoscience names, they introduce some narrative troubles along the way. And that's not even counting the weird interactions between magic and psionics, so you have a bunch of rules to worry about.


Who cares about that?

If the DM has to learn 100 rules to play what difference does one more make?

I do! I'm not going to be the player who pisses off the DM, thank you very much. And if I was the DM, I have enough to handle and learning MORE rules isn't a great argument. I could as easily learn a rule where I can start setting character sheets on fire, what's the difference?

Mastikator
2019-07-04, 02:02 PM
I take umbrage with psion being science fiction. Maybe space/future fantasy but there is nothing remotely scientific about psionics.

S@tanicoaldo
2019-07-04, 02:15 PM
Space fantasy is still fantasy!

There are princess, wizards, warlords and magical swords.

http://i.imgur.com/RGnJB.jpg
https://kyanitepublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/frank_frazetta_thuviamaidofmars.jpg

Heck Pathfinder setting qualify for Space fantasy if you think about it.
https://pathfinderwiki.com/mediawiki/images/d/d7/Solar_system_map.jpg
https://pathfinderwiki.com/mediawiki/images/thumb/e/e3/Castrovel.jpg/800px-Castrovel.jpg
https://pathfinderwiki.com/mediawiki/images/thumb/3/34/Akiton_gate.jpg/800px-Akiton_gate.jpg

I fail to see the issue regarding them not belonging in the setting.

But I totally get the mechanical side of it, keeping track on the Psi points is annoying.

Honest Tiefling
2019-07-04, 02:28 PM
Space fantasy is still fantasy!

It's still fantasy, but you can't just mix up fantasy worlds and get something usuable. It's a bit like putting epic high fantasy together with grimdark edgy fantasy, there's going to be tonal issues and it won't feel coherent. Especially if magic is already defined in the setting and psionics doesn't follow the same rules thematically. It's like ice cream, mint chocolate ice cream is still a valid flavor, but I don't think I'm going to mix it with peanut butter or black sesame ice cream any time soon.

Imagine how pissed people would have been if the Peter Jackson LOTR movies ended with some Valar returning from outer space to laser beam Mordor. Kinda not what people signed up for, and it does lessen the mythical and epic mood of the series if Space Elves can just press a button and deal with the issue.

Futhermore, if the DM has built a setting, they probably can't do the work to add in psionics seamlessly in a timely fashion. Oh, you want me to rewrite the rules of magic completely after I tried to make a living, breathing world? Sure, add to my workload. This won't turn into some sort of crazy fantasy kitchen sink at all, nope nope nope! And if the DM is using a premade setting, they probably don't want to make sweeping changes to it as they promised a certain thing to the other players.

And speaking of Pathfinder, weren't people really annoyed at Numeria and often just plain ignored it?

Space fantasy can be fun (see all of the posts excited for any hint of Spelljammer) but you can't just force it into every. Single. Game. Or. Setting.

gkathellar
2019-07-04, 02:30 PM
Standard Fantasy is mostly surface-level tropes. If you call your wacky mental powers "magic," then people will accept them as part of the Standard Fantasy package. If you call them psychic powers, then a certain set of people will feel like they Just Don't Fit.

It's all in the names.

GloatingSwine
2019-07-04, 02:39 PM
Who cares about that?

If the DM has to learn 100 rules to play what difference does one more make?

It's not usually 1 more rule though.

It's at the very least a separate spell list which is similar to all the others but these one you do by thinking about it really hard, with their own rules for which ones can be metamagiced-but-we-call-it-augment.

Plus a bunch of other special abilities and doodads to keep track of that are almost but not quite the same as a mage or a warlock.

S@tanicoaldo
2019-07-04, 02:42 PM
My first contact with fantasy (Before going to classic fantasy books) was with He-man, She-Ra and Thundarr, cartoons where the setting was clearly a mix of Sci-fi and fantasy tropes with wizards and barbarians living in harmony with lazer guns and space ships so I see no issue, on the contrary this kind of setting hold a space place in my hearth.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhAobPugvsk

Cartoons were really cool back in the day. Heck they still are. With the likes of Adventure time and Over the garden wall.

Honest Tiefling
2019-07-04, 03:00 PM
My first contact with fantasy (Before going to classic fantasy books) was with He-man, She-Ra and Thundarr, cartoons where the setting was clearly a mix of Sci-fi and fantasy tropes with wizards and barbarians living in harmony with lazer guns and space ships so I see no issue, on the contrary this kind of setting hold a space place in my hearth.

But those settings were designed with that sort of motif in mind, it wasn't trying to jam He-Man into say, Gargoyles. Because that would probably be really weird. You could probably make it work, but if the rest of the party isn't on board and the DM really wanted to play Gargoyles why bother with the extra work?

And did you really appreciate the Live Action movie where they went to earth and the focus was on some random girl? See what harm a genre shift can do!?

LibraryOgre
2019-07-04, 03:36 PM
I don't have a problem with psychic powers in D&D; while "magic" tends to not be a sci-fi things, psychic powers in sci-fi are often just the kind of magic you can get away with and vaguely justify in your sci-fi story (q.v. "Biotics" in Mass Effect, which rely on a chain of [tech] explanations that boil down to "Some people can throw things with their mind.")

For fantasy settings, you have to consider how you integrate your psychic powers into your setting. In Brust's Dragaera novels, psychic powers are separate from sorcery. Sorcery draws power from elemental Chaos, most often through the medium of the Imperial Orb, though some crazy people manipulate it directly. Psychic powers are innate mental abilities, which can be trained, and witchcraft is using rituals and resonances to enhance those psychic powers.

In Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar setting, "mind magic" is the prevalent form of magic. It is an innate ability, and usually cannot be learned, only have existing facility with it trained. The setting eschews the Greek-derived names common in discussion of psychic powers... you don't have Clairvoyance, you're a Farseer. You're not a Pyrokinetic, you're a Firestarter. You aren't telekinetic, you're a Fetcher (distinct from an n'wah :smallbiggrin:). You're not telepathic, you're a Mindspeaker.

In both cases, though, the metaphysics are built with psionics in mind; they're not an afterthought that you're trying to integrate into an existing system.

Particle_Man
2019-07-04, 03:42 PM
I think part of the hate comes from psionics being unbalanced in first and second editions. But 3.5 psionics is imho more balanced than wizard magic. In fact you could ban wizards and sorcerers and have psions and be finer, balance-wise.

Another issue, as the op notes, is the aesthetics. Makes me want to refluff 3.5 psionics as faerie gem magic and be done with it.

Mastikator
2019-07-04, 04:17 PM
Space fantasy is still fantasy!

There are princess, wizards, warlords and magical swords.

http://i.imgur.com/RGnJB.jpg
https://kyanitepublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/frank_frazetta_thuviamaidofmars.jpg

Heck Pathfinder setting qualify for Space fantasy if you think about it.
https://pathfinderwiki.com/mediawiki/images/d/d7/Solar_system_map.jpg
https://pathfinderwiki.com/mediawiki/images/thumb/e/e3/Castrovel.jpg/800px-Castrovel.jpg
https://pathfinderwiki.com/mediawiki/images/thumb/3/34/Akiton_gate.jpg/800px-Akiton_gate.jpg

I fail to see the issue regarding them not belonging in the setting.

But I totally get the mechanical side of it, keeping track on the Psi points is annoying.

But keeping track of psi points is way easier than spell slots, if anything it's an excuse to finally free yourself from that awful vancian magic system and just use spell points.

S@tanicoaldo
2019-07-04, 04:34 PM
But those settings were designed with that sort of motif in mind, it wasn't trying to jam He-Man into say, Gargoyles. Because that would probably be really weird. You could probably make it work, but if the rest of the party isn't on board and the DM really wanted to play Gargoyles why bother with the extra work?

And did you really appreciate the Live Action movie where they went to earth and the focus was on some random girl? See what harm a genre shift can do!?

I have never seen the movie :/

But you misunderstood me, I'm not arguing that Psionics could or even should be added in EVERY single setting.

I'm arguing that the idea that psionics can't be added in ANY D&D setting is really weird and to me wrong.

Heck we have tons of alien stuff D&D why single out psionics so bad?

zinycor
2019-07-04, 05:33 PM
Who cares about that?

If the DM has to learn 100 rules to play what difference does one more make?

I don't believe you are going to make any friends with that argument.

Honest Tiefling
2019-07-04, 06:20 PM
But you misunderstood me, I'm not arguing that Psionics could or even should be added in EVERY single setting.

My mistake then. But yeah, I would have to agree with one of your other points: He-man could be an awesome basis for a setting with some judicious editing.

But yeah, just as some settings seem like they could have psionics added in easily, others just don't. It's a bit of a matter of personal taste which is one issue, and the never-ending argument of respecting a DM's vision with the setting while allowing enough player input. Different strokes for different folks.


I think part of the hate comes from psionics being unbalanced in first and second editions. But 3.5 psionics is imho more balanced than wizard magic. In fact you could ban wizards and sorcerers and have psions and be finer, balance-wise.

I've heard a lot of different opnions on if Psionics is balanced or not for third edition, but I do think trying to balance a system you aren't familiar with is tedious and often problematic. Even if it is better balanced, a lot of people just aren't familiar enough with it to want to tackle balancing it when they already have to deal with the multiheaded beast of vanican casting.

S@tanicoaldo
2019-07-04, 06:39 PM
My mistake then. But yeah, I would have to agree with one of your other points: He-man could be an awesome basis for a setting with some judicious editing.

But yeah, just as some settings seem like they could have psionics added in easily, others just don't. It's a bit of a matter of personal taste which is one issue, and the never-ending argument of respecting a DM's vision with the setting while allowing enough player input. Different strokes for different folks.

Indeed.

But I'm under the impression that for some people Psionics have no place in fantasy like AT ALL and that they are exclusively a sci-fi thing.

And for that I object. I mean just look at Dark sun!

Kami2awa
2019-07-04, 06:43 PM
Numerous reasons I can think of :

1) Psions in AD&D were broken AF. Furthermore they required learning a completely different and much more complicated system to deal with, and were rare if you used the random character generation rules. Older players might never have bothered with them.
2) Yep, science fantasy used to be a thing, but that's no longer most people's view of a "typical" fantasy world. So younger players won't include psychic powers in their world.
3) No core psychic classes in 3.5e. Psychic stuff is therefore tacked onto the game and not part of its central premise.

Bohandas
2019-07-04, 06:47 PM
Note that without Gygax, Psionic would not become a major aspect of Science Fiction.
His abuse of the term Psionic allowed SciFi writers to drop their magic from Science Fantasy to switch over to Science Fiction.

Not really. It's still science fantasy whether they call it "magic" or "psionics" or "psychokinesis" or "the force"

EDIT:

On a related note The Doctor's sonic screwdriver is a magic wand

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-04, 06:52 PM
Wait, did someone claim that Gygax made psionics part of science fiction, and someone else claim that the fantasy / science fiction distinctions are all the "fault of "Tolkien fanboys"?

I needed a good laugh tonight, thanks.

:smallbiggrin:

Lord Raziere
2019-07-04, 07:35 PM
The lesson I'm getting from this is to say screw all distinction between anime, space fantasy and so on and just make the fantasy I want. and that the only thing holding anything back is making it look "right" to an outside observer. when anything looking "right" is an illusion.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-04, 07:40 PM
The lesson I'm getting from this is to say screw all distinction between anime, space fantasy and so on and just make the fantasy I want. and that the only thing holding anything back is making it look "right" to an outside observer. when anything looking "right" is an illusion.

I started reading that and was thinking "well, sure, if that's what you find fun and engaging, go for it", and then you got to that last part, and I want to ask why you'd crap on other people's fun as part of griping about them crapping on your fun.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-04, 07:47 PM
I started reading that and was thinking "well, sure, if that's what you find fun and engaging, go for it", and then you got to that last part, and I want to ask why you'd crap on other people's fun as part of griping about them crapping on your fun.

I apologize, thats not what I meant.

its all arbitrary, and if I want to appeal to an audience beside myself, I must find a way to make match up to that arbitrary view without seeming out of place. that is all.

Excession
2019-07-04, 07:50 PM
2- Are you kidding me? When I picture a Psion I picture a shirtless muscular humanoid with glowing tattoos and a shaved head. Lot's of floating crystals of power of different shapes.

When I picture a wizard I picture an old skinny wizened guy with a long beard, robes and a weird hat.

You don't need to let class dictate appearance so much IMO. Class determines mechanics, and only as much of appearance as supported armour types require.

The last wizard I played looked like a young elven woman with pale skin, light blond hair, and green eyes, wearing sensible travelling clothes and carrying an arming sword. Complete lack of being old, having a beard, or wearing robes, and her hat was a plain oiled leather one capable of blocking sun or rain. After a month walking about in deserts and forests she gave up on the long hair as well. She looked less like a wizard, and more like a noble's daughter on holiday, which is what she was.

The next might look like a fantasy version of Doc Holiday, complete with wand of magic missile and a deck of cards for a spellbook.

MoiMagnus
2019-07-05, 03:35 AM
I hear a lot of hate on Psions.

people say they don't fit the setting, too similar to arcane casters and they are weird.

1- I think they totally fit the setting. these people need to grab an old Sword and sorcery book and take a good read on the classics. There are plenty of Psions there.


And? If that's not in the personal headcanon of your DM/Players, it I'll feel out of place for them. That's irrelevant if they're right of wrong from an historical point of view.

Moreover, arcane magic has already some mind power, so it covers part of psionic powers.



2- Are you kidding me? When I picture a Psion I picture a shirtless muscular humanoid with glowing tattoos and a shaved head. Lot's of floating crystals of power of different shapes.

When I picture a wizard I picture an old skinny wizened guy with a long beard, robes and a weird hat.

How are those two aesthetics ever capable of overlapping?


That kind of psychic does not overlap with wizards. It overlaps with monks of "whatever school that give them magic abilities". And it overlaps with some kinds of sorcerers.



3- Being weird is the whole point of Psions.

Have you guys never heard of Weird fantasy? Look it up darling, it's totally a thing! (And not some kind of sexual kink) It mixes Sci-fi elements with fantasy elements.

Sure. But some people really like pure medieval-fantasy.



So overall I really don't get what the deal is.

:smallannoyed:

I will add some additional argument against:

1) "One world, one magic". A lot of people likes this idea. They're already not fan of the distinction between arcane and divine magic, but that's too central to D&D to get rid of. So for them anything that isn't arcane or divine should not exist, as it is unnecessary and makes the magic system "uglier".

2) Psionic powers have usually weird rules, specific to psionic characters. Peoples usually don't like that, as it is additional information they have to remember, even when they don't play a psionic character. That's for the same reasons most tables play without poisons rules.

3) "Mental powers should not exist." Some people's don't like at all the influence of mental power on the universe, and would get rid of all the spells from the enchantment school if they could. They don't like the possibility of their character being influenced mentally. They don't like the possibility of NPC being secretly mind controlled.

Lastly, note that I personally have no problems with psionic. Though I don't always put them in my universe when I DM, as they don't feel at the core of D&D, so it depends. (Same for druids, by the way)

Millstone85
2019-07-05, 07:00 AM
"One world, one magic". A lot of people likes this idea. They're already not fan of the distinction between arcane and divine magic, but that's too central to D&D to get rid of. So for them anything that isn't arcane or divine should not exist, as it is unnecessary and makes the magic system "uglier".Personally, I like having multiple magic sources with subdivisions.

Magic

External (Spellcasting)

Ambient (Arcane)
Borrowed (Divine)

Internal (Discipline)

Body (Ki)
Mind (Psionics)


But that, indeed, might not be everyone's jazz.

Especially if they start with a definition of arcane spellcasting that has nothing to do with any kind of ambient energy.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-05, 08:59 AM
Some iterations of Psionics have also had the problem of "if you're not psionic yourself, you might as well not even bother trying to defend against psionics", which tends to really torque some gamers. It's a specific example of the more general problem of psionics being "tacked on" -- the interaction with the rest of the system isn't integrated into the system from the start.

Mastikator
2019-07-05, 12:10 PM
Some iterations of Psionics have also had the problem of "if you're not psionic yourself, you might as well not even bother trying to defend against psionics", which tends to really torque some gamers. It's a specific example of the more general problem of psionics being "tacked on" -- the interaction with the rest of the system isn't integrated into the system from the start.

But again this is just as true for "conventional" magic. How does a fighter tackle being contained in a resilient sphere? The answer is: his spell casting friend bails him out. Why is magic given a free pass and psionics not?

gkathellar
2019-07-05, 12:14 PM
But again this is just as true for "conventional" magic. How does a fighter tackle being contained in a resilient sphere? The answer is: his spell casting friend bails him out. Why is magic given a free pass and psionics not?

Because magic is generally a core part of the genre, while systems labeling themselves psionic tend to present as something extra stapled to the side of it.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-05, 12:22 PM
But again this is just as true for "conventional" magic. How does a fighter tackle being contained in a resilient sphere? The answer is: his spell casting friend bails him out. Why is magic given a free pass and psionics not?


I didn't say it wasn't ever a problem. Where spellcasting gives no or little chance of evasion, defense, resistance, or counter-measure to non-spellcasters, and non-spellcasters make up part of the possible PC build space, the system has a problem.

Psionics in some editions seemed to have that problem but cranked up to 11, both because the psionics needed to resist psionics was even more rare, and because the psionic powers seemed to more commonly feature no hope of resistance by non-psionics.

Particle_Man
2019-07-05, 12:31 PM
In 3.5 there was psionic/magic transparency so that whatever resisted magic could resist psionics and vice-versa (a few feats broke the rule and allowed a bonus vs psionic attacks but not magical ones, but that doesn’t make magic weaker so doesn’t affect your argument).

Alas the sins of the fathers (earlier editions) leads to distrust of this and future versions.

S@tanicoaldo
2019-07-05, 12:43 PM
Because magic is generally a core part of the genre, while systems labeling themselves psionic tend to present as something extra stapled to the side of it.

Weren't psions in the core book once? I think it was in 4th edition.

johnbragg
2019-07-05, 12:43 PM
Either psionics is pretty much the same as spellcasting, or it's really different.

If it's pretty much the same, then you have the question of why it's worth it to deal with a new and separate subsystem with different rules and quirks and balance issues and bad splats that ends up doing the same thing. Unless it's really just spells re-skinned, in which case it's just a question of fitting it into the campaign world (sort of like kung fu monks in most settings).

3.5 Warlocks, and Tome of Battle classes were pretty much casting spells, so no real argument there (except that it was too anime, or that fighters should never have nice things, or that fighters should be "realistic".)

If it's really different, then it's probably either underpowered or wildly overpowered compared to the magic systems players and DMs are used to dealing with.

I'm pretty sure that you could play a 3rd edition "psionicist" without the psionics rules, just using the UA Spell Points Variant with a sorcerer, choosing spells thematically.

LordEntrails
2019-07-05, 12:48 PM
people say they don't fit the setting, ...
1- I think they totally fit the setting. ...
When I picture a Psion I picture a ...
...
How are those two aesthetics ever capable of overlapping?

3- Being weird is the whole point of Psions.
...
So overall I really don't get what the deal is.

Which setting? Their are hundred of D&D settings. Some they fit, some they don't.

So you have a specific pictures of psions and wizards and settings, and anything that doesn't fit your image is wrong? And why do you insist psions must be wierd?


That's BS.
So anyone who has an imagination or opinion that is different than your belittle and invalidate them like a bully?


Who cares about that?
Obviously lots of people do. Just because you don't doesn't make them wrong. Bully.


But keeping track of psi points is way easier than spell slots, if anything it's an excuse to finally free yourself from that awful vancian magic system and just use spell points.
That's just mechanics. Nothing conceptually core to either vancian or spell points. So not really that relevant is it? I mean since you can establish mechanics for both magic and psionic systems that use either method...


Some iterations of Psionics have also had the problem of "if you're not psionic yourself, you might as well not even bother trying to defend against psionics", which tends to really torque some gamers. It's a specific example of the more general problem of psionics being "tacked on" -- the interaction with the rest of the system isn't integrated into the system from the start.
^^ This is a big part of it. Those of us who have been around long enough have seen significant problems with the implementation of psionics. Not that they can't be done well. Not that they can't fit the setting. But often times they are just added as another way to do virtually the same thing. Many systems have not really distinguished why psionics are unique and many times they just feel like magic in a sci-fi setting.

Particle_Man
2019-07-05, 12:49 PM
I like the idea of replacing arcane magic with psionics (including points) and leaving divine as vancian to emphasis a difference between the two. But that is a flavour thing.

I guess I should mention Dark Sun as a setting that was official and also put psionics front and centre. Alas it started in 2nd ed AD&D.

Also, I think the shaper in 3.5 brought something new to the table - customizable temporary allies, for one thing.

Velaryon
2019-07-05, 01:00 PM
I used to ban psionics entirely from my games. Nowadays, I just give the player a dirty look and begrudgingly let them do it. Thankfully, I have only one player among my regular group who even likes psionics, and he doesn't do it super often.

For me, the issue is that using psionics and Vancian casting together seems redundant to me. The differences in fluff seem like splitting hairs to me, and most of the psionic powers more or less duplicate existing spells. So why have two systems that mostly do the same things?

From a mechanics point of view, it feels less uniquely D&D, and more like the standard MP system from most video games. That has an advantage in simplicity, but also makes me feel like I'm playing Final Fantasy with dice. So I choose to use Vancian casting instead.

Millstone85
2019-07-05, 01:15 PM
Weren't psions in the core book once? I think it was in 4th edition.Well, 4e put them in a core book, the PHB3.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-05, 01:20 PM
As a general thing, not just D&D, I'd prefer to see the various "extraordinary means of manipulating the world" more unified, rather than the grab-bag approach of disconnected arcane magic, divine magic, sorta both/neither magic, internal magic, external magic, chi/ki, psionics, etc, that's been common in D&D.

S@tanicoaldo
2019-07-05, 01:22 PM
As a general thing, not just D&D, I'd prefer to see the various "extraordinary means of manipulating the world" more unified, rather than the grab-bag approach of disconnected arcane magic, divine magic, sorta both/neither magic, internal magic, external magic, chi/ki, psionics, etc, that's been common in D&D.

But... But... That's the charm of D&D.

Honest Tiefling
2019-07-05, 02:10 PM
But... But... That's the charm of D&D.

For some. The real charm of DnD is the diversity in it's player base, from those who enjoy a tactical battle of strategy and planning, to those who want dramatic storylines, to those who want to kick butt while hanging out with friends. From those who enjoy space fantasy, to high fantasy to grim dark fantasy. From small time stories of a group of talented people protecting a city to a story of demigods battling for the fate of the multiverse. From those who play tieflings to those who don't play tieflings.

If you really like psionics, I dare you to make a setting with disjointed magical/psuedomagical systems can be incorporated in a coherent narrative sense. Shirtless muscular barbarians optional.

Mechalich
2019-07-05, 02:23 PM
For me, the issue is that using psionics and Vancian casting together seems redundant to me. The differences in fluff seem like splitting hairs to me, and most of the psionic powers more or less duplicate existing spells. So why have two systems that mostly do the same things?

This. It's worth noting that most of the psionic-themed monsters in D&D, like Illithids and Githyanki, work just fine when their powers are presented as bog standard arcane magic. There is simply no mechanical benefit to having an additional, and different magical system added to gameplay and a significant penalty is applied in the form of additional complexity by doing so. It's perfectly possible to simply apply a psionic label to an arcane caster and then just move on or vice versa.

This sort of thing doesn't just hit psionics, Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, and various other unusual mechanics introduced throughout the 3e run were often derided because they introduced additional mechanical complexity without seemingly producing any major new storytelling options.

Quertus
2019-07-05, 02:35 PM
As a general thing, not just D&D, I'd prefer to see the various "extraordinary means of manipulating the world" more unified, rather than the grab-bag approach of disconnected arcane magic, divine magic, sorta both/neither magic, internal magic, external magic, chi/ki, psionics, etc, that's been common in D&D.


But... But... That's the charm of D&D.

What benefit would one get by claiming that Wizards, Clerics, Psionics, Monks, Barbarians, Crusaders, Dragons, Demons, Superman, Green Lantern, Doctor Fate, and my computer all run on the same magic?

Or, rather, what benefit would one get by inventing a single power source, then reinstantiating each member of the above list using that single source?


This. It's worth noting that most of the psionic-themed monsters in D&D, like Illithids and Githyanki, work just fine when their powers are presented as bog standard arcane magic. There is simply no mechanical benefit to having an additional, and different magical system added to gameplay and a significant penalty is applied in the form of additional complexity by doing so. It's perfectly possible to simply apply a psionic label to an arcane caster and then just move on or vice versa.

This sort of thing doesn't just hit psionics, Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, and various other unusual mechanics introduced throughout the 3e run were often derided because they introduced additional mechanical complexity without seemingly producing any major new storytelling options.

What new storytelling options should an additional power source / unusual mechanics produce?

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-05, 02:54 PM
What benefit would one get by claiming that Wizards, Clerics, Psionics, Monks, Barbarians, Crusaders, Dragons, Demons, Superman, Green Lantern, Doctor Fate, and my computer all run on the same magic?

Or, rather, what benefit would one get by inventing a single power source, then reinstantiating each member of the above list using that single source?


First, you're conflating genres and categories and settings. Superman is nominally not magic (just comic book stuff), Green Lantern I'm not sure if the lantern and ring are supposed to be magic, Doctor fate is "comic book magic", and computers aren't magic at all.

Second, no one said "single magic and single mechanics for everything".


I'm too mentally spent from issues at the office to explain more right now.

gkathellar
2019-07-05, 03:06 PM
Weren't psions in the core book once? I think it was in 4th edition.

They weren't, but even if they had been it wouldn't matter. "Psychic" and "psionic," just as words, are not part of the standard fantasy vocabulary. People hear them and they take away something that isn't quite the the genre norm.

And I really do have to stress, it's all about the words. You can have crystals and mental strain and mind-reading and telekinesis, and as long as you call it magic, people will accept it as Standard Fantasy. It's only once you say, "look, here's something different," that people start to respond as though something is different.

M Placeholder
2019-07-05, 03:26 PM
I like the idea of replacing arcane magic with psionics (including points) and leaving divine as vancian to emphasis a difference between the two. But that is a flavour thing.

I guess I should mention Dark Sun as a setting that was official and also put psionics front and centre. Alas it started in 2nd ed AD&D.

In that setting, it was also explained that practioners of "The Way" weren't beholden to a higher power or a set of circumstances that clerical and arcane magic users were.

Templars got their power from one of the Sorcerer Kings/Queens, Clerics served one of 4/8 elements, Druids had to take care of a guarded land and served Spirits of the Land. As for Arcane spellcasters, Defilers and Preservers had to take account of how much plant life was in an area and keep their spellcasting abilities on the downlow most of the time, as misuse of arcane magic had left Athas a burned out wasteland.

In contrast, The Way was a power that could not be taken from a practitioner, and Psions had a lot more freedom in how they used their power and who they were hired by. I liked how the setting stressed how important it was to have a power that was yours and nobody could take away, especially in such a harsh and dangerous setting as Dark Sun.

Mastikator
2019-07-05, 03:36 PM
I didn't say it wasn't ever a problem. Where spellcasting gives no or little chance of evasion, defense, resistance, or counter-measure to non-spellcasters, and non-spellcasters make up part of the possible PC build space, the system has a problem.

Psionics in some editions seemed to have that problem but cranked up to 11, both because the psionics needed to resist psionics was even more rare, and because the psionic powers seemed to more commonly feature no hope of resistance by non-psionics.

Right the system has a problem, not psionics. So far I've seen nothing in this thread that can't be rephrased as tradition or taste. The mechanics of psionics are better than vancian spellcasting because they are both simpler and more flexible, AND easier to track.

Knaight
2019-07-05, 03:37 PM
A lot of it is residual. The psionic rules basically sucked until 3.5, including a lousy adaptation in 3.0 (albeit a really interesting one that just didn't actually work), and so people tended to dislike it. This also bought D&D enough time to pretend that there was a coherent aesthetic there, and that psionics would somehow violate it - which is, in a word, nonsense. It's been a fantasy kitchen sink from the beginning, a mismash of a bunch of different sources with a soupcon of its own unique weirdness. If there's anything the D&D setting is good at it's taking some new janky thing out of nowhere and tossing it in the massive pile of existing janky things to which it blends right in.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-05, 03:46 PM
Right the system has a problem, not psionics. So far I've seen nothing in this thread that can't be rephrased as tradition or taste. The mechanics of psionics are better than vancian spellcasting because they are both simpler and more flexible, AND easier to track.

I don't disagree when it comes to 5e -- I like "spell points" better than Vancian by far, and that's effectively what the 5e "mystic" uses.

But, the OP's question was "Why the hate on the Psion class?" and my posts continue to be about that, not an argument about which is better and not just an argument about 5e in particular. The reasons for the hate aren't just about 5e's mechanics in isolation, and this thread isn't about 5e specifically.

M Placeholder
2019-07-05, 03:53 PM
Another problem that people have alluded to in this thread is that in terms of the 8 schools of magic in D&D, there aren't really any Psionic Disciplines that are sufficiently different to a magic school. Telepathy lines up pretty closely with Enchantment, Clairsentience with Divination, Psychometabolism with Transmutation, Metacreativity with Conjuration, and Psychokinesis with Evocation.

The only one that doesn't have an arcane equivalent that fits closely is Psychoportation. Even then, a lot of the teleportation powers have spells from the Conjuration school that provide similar effects.

Bohandas
2019-07-05, 04:57 PM
First, you're conflating genres and categories and settings. Superman is nominally not magic (just comic book stuff)

That's mincing words a bit don't you think?

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-05, 05:32 PM
That's mincing words a bit don't you think?

No but I'm running on fumes and really mad about unrelated things, so I hope you'll understand if I answer later.

Mastikator
2019-07-05, 07:19 PM
I don't disagree when it comes to 5e -- I like "spell points" better than Vancian by far, and that's effectively what the 5e "mystic" uses.

But, the OP's question was "Why the hate on the Psion class?" and my posts continue to be about that, not an argument about which is better and not just an argument about 5e in particular. The reasons for the hate aren't just about 5e's mechanics in isolation, and this thread isn't about 5e specifically.

I have to admit I'm not familiar with the 5e system. I was mainly using the 3.5 and pathfinder systems as an example of psionics being mechanically superior to vancian magic. But don't take that to be an argument about editions, AFAIK the only D&D that doesn't hamstring itself with vancian magic is the 4th edition.

I think the main valid points one can make is either 1) mechanical elegance and 2) aesthetics 3) the current setting. Imbalance that comes from the system itself and traditional expectations are not good reasons.

Quertus
2019-07-05, 07:55 PM
First, you're conflating genres and categories and settings. Superman is nominally not magic (just comic book stuff), Green Lantern I'm not sure if the lantern and ring are supposed to be magic, Doctor fate is "comic book magic", and computers aren't magic at all.

Second, no one said "single magic and single mechanics for everything".


I'm too mentally spent from issues at the office to explain more right now.

Ah. I missed the word "more" when you said "more unified".

And my list wasn't actually random - I've been handed a "Green Lantern power ring" in the amazingly kitchen sink setting called D&D, that goes beyond just published material. And "my computer" explicitly runs off magic per 2e D&D (when brought to a D&D setting, that is).

But, as to what you really meant… I still ask, what benefit would you be seeking in desiring D&D to use "more unified" power sources?

False God
2019-07-05, 09:21 PM
Honestly, this is the first time I've seen people suggesting it's because "magic and psionics don't mix thematically". Sure, I see there are differences between the two, but they seem far less stark than the presentation put forth in this thread. Most of the objections I've heard of before were over how broken and OP they were.

I like psionics, if for no other reason than psi-points make worlds more sense to me than Vancian casting. I include them in every game I run. Usually in the form of esoteric sects like monks that isolate themselves from society while they refine their skills. Like martial arts, "psionics" are a form of training the mind and body, their power something of a side-effect of their intended goal of enlightenment.

I've never had a problem with this, though I realize it's not exactly the traditional presentation. The mechanical systems underneath remain identical.


But keeping track of psi points is way easier than spell slots, if anything it's an excuse to finally free yourself from that awful vancian magic system and just use spell points.

God tell me about it. The Psi-points/Spell Points system is so much clearer, smoother and less wasteful than the Vancian system, but there's some kind of weird stigma attached to it and every time I try to run a game that way people scoff or leave.


The lesson I'm getting from this is to say screw all distinction between anime, space fantasy and so on and just make the fantasy I want. and that the only thing holding anything back is making it look "right" to an outside observer. when anything looking "right" is an illusion.

At the end of the day, it's on you to make the various lego blocks you've been given fit together in a coherent fashion. It's on the painter to create a beautiful image. Specific colors don't do it on their own.


It's like ice cream, mint chocolate ice cream is still a valid flavor, but I don't think I'm going to mix it with peanut butter or black sesame ice cream any time soon.
Random comment since I saw this line of yours: Mint Chocolate & peanut-butter, basically mint chocolate chip & Reese's PB cups is an absolutely FANTASTIC combination. I do strongly advise you try it. Might run to the store and get me some now....

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-05, 09:24 PM
Ah. I missed the word "more" when you said "more unified".

And my list wasn't actually random - I've been handed a "Green Lantern power ring" in the amazingly kitchen sink setting called D&D, that goes beyond just published material. And "my computer" explicitly runs off magic per 2e D&D (when brought to a D&D setting, that is).


I really didn't have any way of knowing about your character having a power ring and a computer.




But, as to what you really meant… I still ask, what benefit would you be seeking in desiring D&D to use "more unified" power sources?


First, better interaction / meshing between the various classes... monks use "internal magic", some readings of the sorcerer have it using "internal magic", and yet there's no mechanical interaction between the monk's abilities and the sorcerer's abilities, is there? And if you did try to homebrew it, imagine the mess made by merging the monk's Ki and the sorcerer's "spell pool" -- because the two mechanical game subsystems are so different.

Second, because having umpteen fundamentally different sources and methods of magic, without any real underlying framework, just tossed into the kitchen sink, makes for a worldbuilding nightmare (IMO).




That's mincing words a bit don't you think?


All I can say is that the typical gonzo "anything goes" construct of a superheroic comic setting is a perfect example of the potential mess caused by allowing any and ever source of extraordinary power without much thought for how they interact, and then throwing those examples in with the D&D examples... and a computer... is just a recipe for conflicting elements at every layer.

Mechalich
2019-07-05, 10:36 PM
Honestly, this is the first time I've seen people suggesting it's because "magic and psionics don't mix thematically". Sure, I see there are differences between the two, but they seem far less stark than the presentation put forth in this thread. Most of the objections I've heard of before were over how broken and OP they were.


D&D psionics don't mix thematically with D&D magic, because the two are built on separate mechanical systems and therefore play out differently in practice such that a Psion is far more different as a caster from a Wizard than a Sorcerer or even a Druid is. If you eliminate the mechanical issues most of the thematic issues vanish. Pathfinder, for example, has the Psychic class, who uses 'psychic magic' but mechanically is just another full casting class with a particular flavor. If D&D had built psionics that way from the start I suspect there would be far fewer objections, in the same way that there are very few objections to the Alchemist class in Pathfinder, with is also just a full caster with a specific spell list and some weird flavor.

Lucas Yew
2019-07-05, 11:09 PM
I like Psions. In fact I find them better Sorcerers than the actual class, for I think an innate magic ability of a creature should never be constrained by either something artificial (language, Verbal) or specific biology dependent (fingered limbs, Somatic). Psions thankfully joss both. And don't even mention the dreaded Vancian slot-by-slot preparation mechanics...

It might also have to do with the fact that my native language does not distinguish "psychic-" and "super-" powers, using the same single word to denote them instead. Plus, genre fusions are common and usually expected in my homeland's pulp fantasy market (European, Wuxia, SciFi, etc).

False God
2019-07-05, 11:15 PM
D&D psionics don't mix thematically with D&D magic, because the two are built on separate mechanical systems and therefore play out differently in practice such that a Psion is far more different as a caster from a Wizard than a Sorcerer or even a Druid is.
What? Two things work differently therefore they don't mesh thematically? Did I read that right?

"Theme" and "Mechanics" are two separate elements.

I mean, the Fighter and the Wizard work differently, but you don't see folks saying they don't mesh thematically!


If you eliminate the mechanical issues most of the thematic issues vanish. Pathfinder, for example, has the Psychic class, who uses 'psychic magic' but mechanically is just another full casting class with a particular flavor. If D&D had built psionics that way from the start I suspect there would be far fewer objections, in the same way that there are very few objections to the Alchemist class in Pathfinder, with is also just a full caster with a specific spell list and some weird flavor.
None of the thematic objections posted previously in this thread seemed to hinge on the mechanics of the Psion, since ya know, again theme and mechanics are two separate items. They all seem to hinge on the more "sci-fi" or "scientific" presentation of psionic "psychic magic" as some kind of sciency element more akin to Mass Effect than D&D.

Millstone85
2019-07-06, 04:20 AM
I have hopes for 5e psionics.

Mechanically, 5e spellcasting looks like this:

All spellcasters are spontaneous casters.
0th-level spells, a.k.a. cantrips, are cast without expending any spell slot.
1st-to-8th-level spells are cast with a spell slot of the same level or higher.
Some of the above get additional goodies when (up)cast with a higher slot.
9th-level spells are cast with a 9th-level slot, and are of course very strong.

From playtesting materials and designer videos, it looks like psionic disciplines might essentially amount to upcastable cantrips. And that's an idea I really want to see explored.

Thematically, playtesting materials have gone from...
Psionics and magic are two distinct forces. to...
Psionics is a special form of magic use, distinct from spellcasting. which I think is much better.

SimonMoon6
2019-07-06, 08:12 AM
What benefit would one get by claiming that Wizards, Clerics, Psionics, Monks, Barbarians, Crusaders, Dragons, Demons, Superman, Green Lantern, Doctor Fate, and my computer all run on the same magic?

Just FYI, there was a DC comic series called Genesis. It proposed that all the different kinds of awesome people (guys with powers like Superman, guys with magic like Doctor Fate, guys with high tech devices like Green Lantern) all used the same power source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_(DC_Comics)

What benefit was there? They were able to sell more comics. (The series itself was pretty awful as can readily be imagined.)



Green Lantern I'm not sure if the lantern and ring are supposed to be magic,

More FYI stuff:

The first Green Lantern to appear in comics (Alan Scott) had magically based powers. The lantern itself was a weird magical artifact that stated that it would burn three times: once to bring life, once to bring death, and once to bring power. After it brought life to some guy and brought death to some other guy, it was found by Alan Scott who carved off a bit of it to make a ring. And that's the source of his powers.

Every other Green Lantern (possibly barring some weird alternate reality versions) has a ring and lantern based on advanced technology (based on the Lensman science fiction novels). The lanterns and rings were created by the "Guardians of the Universe". In some tellings of the story, they decided to bundle up all the magic in the universe and send it away (because they hated magic so much) and this magic became the Starheart from which Alan Scott's lantern was formed.

However, while the Green Lantern batteries and rings are high tech, they currently have a strange connection to emotional energy. Apparently, each color in the visible spectrum represents an emotion, each of which can form the basis of a Lantern Corps (such as the Green Lantern Corps). The weirdest part of this is that the emotion corresponding to "green" is the emotion known as "willpower". Yup, willpower is an emotion. The more of this emotion (willpower) that you feel, the better you are at being a Green Lantern. Similarly, the Red Lantern Corps is powered by rage.

And none of this is magical at all. It's technology, honest to goodness.

Jay R
2019-07-06, 09:35 AM
I have no interest in playing a psion, and have felt that way since the first psionic powers appeared in the Eldritch Wizardry supplement in 1976.

It's not hate. It's disinterest.

I come to D&D to try to play in an archetypical role that I already love, in a medievaloid setting.

[Similarly, when I run a D&D game, I use much more of the traditional monsters, and only use the D&D-specific monsters occasionally. My players will see more ogres, gryphons, chimeras, and dragons than beholders, blink dogs, otyughs, and slaads. The new ones exist, but the world is mostly filled with medieval and classical monsters.]

My first Paladin was named Theseus. My first bard was named Fflewdder. My first hobbit thief had the hobbitish name Robin Banks.

If somebody came out with a game system set in a world in which psionics worked for me, I'd play one. I have played a character with force powers in Star Wars.

That's my taste, and there's nothing wrong with it. Other people can prefer other things, and there's nothing wrong with that either.

I have a friend who doesn't want to play wizards. That isn't "hate on" the wizard class. It's just what he wants to do.

I play lots of games, for lots of purposes. I play SF characters in Traveler, not in D&D. I play musketeers characters in Flashing Blades, not in Champions. I play second base in baseball, not in football. I use an epee in fencing, not in ping pong.

And for the same reason, I have no interest in playing psionic characters in D&D.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-06, 09:36 AM
I'm going to add the word "medievaloid" to my list of terms, to go with things like "quasi-medieval Eurasian mashup".

Also, I now want to see people play ping-pong played with a epees.

Particle_Man
2019-07-06, 10:08 AM
I think 3.5 psionics is a great mechanical system. I don’t mind the theme, but my friends do - hence my wish to reflavour it as faerie gem magic. If I wasn’t too busy/lazy, I could even publish it under the OGL.

Mind Flayers (reflavoured) would make a terrifying Unseelie Court. But that would not be publishable under OGL rules, alas. Jesters caps would be objects of fear because of what they represented!

Millstone85
2019-07-06, 10:25 AM
If somebody came out with a game system set in a world in which psionics worked for me, I'd play one. I have played a character with force powers in Star Wars.It is funny because the Force is akin to the Weave or a divine presence.

Brookshw
2019-07-06, 11:27 AM
Also, I now want to see play ping-pong played with a epees.

This is also my main takeaway from this thread.

Lille
2019-07-06, 03:17 PM
To answer the question about "Psion in a core rulebook", no edition of D&D that I know (3.5 and up) has done that, but both Starfinder and the Pathfinder 2.0 playtest included at least something like it.

Starfinder: Magic AFAIK didn't use V/S components, the Mystic spellcasting class included several iconic psychic character types as subclasses, and there was a "psionic" archetype available for all characters.

PF2.0: Magic was divided up into four types. Arcane and Divine magic were as the usual, Primal was "natural magic", and Occult was a mix of psychic and lovecraftian. Occult magic was the magic used by Bards and certain types of Sorcerers.

I know that neither Starfinder nor Pathfinder are D&D, but they're fairly closely related, so I thought I might as well point this out.


Also, I now want to see play ping-pong played with a epees.


This is also my main takeaway from this thread.

Also, that.

Particle_Man
2019-07-06, 04:50 PM
Lovecraftian bards? How King in Yellow. :smallcool:

HouseRules
2019-07-06, 05:16 PM
To answer the question about "Psion in a core rulebook", no edition of D&D that I know (3.5 and up)

OD&D has not core non-core distinction. They are in Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry, along with Druids.
Only AD&D 1E has them.
Even 2E Removed them.

Willie the Duck
2019-07-08, 09:33 AM
Okay, well this thread seems to have had its catharsis. As others have said, there's no right way to do things, psionics in fantasy is merely a bridge too far for some people (while perfectly acceptable or even preferable to other fantasy motifs for others), and ping-pong with a epees is an Olympic event I would totally watch.

Just a few comments over things that haven't been touched on, or at least I think I can add to what has already been said.


When I picture a Psion I picture a shirtless muscular humanoid with glowing tattoos and a shaved head. Lot's of floating crystals of power of different shapes.

While there are individual stories of the Pulp era where any one of these might have been included along with the types of supernatural powers we tend to think of as psionics, for the most part this specific image was invented by the D&D 3rd edition psionics books (3.0 and 3.5). Crystals obviously are tied by lots of people to the general magic/psychic category, but not specifically to psionics over magic (D&D's Ioun stones, for instance, were inspired by those in Jack Vance's Dying Earth series, which has a lot of its DNA in D&D wizards). Tattoos, most frequently, seemed associated with monks* (and in fact there is a Tattooed Monk PrC in D&D 3e, showing how often these two character types cross-pollinate). Shaved/bald heads, well, yes, that is often associated with psionic types (or at least Professor X), but also wizards quite a bit (bald wizard probably second only to wildly unkept hair and beard, amongst male wizard archetypes.
*Monks, btw, are another part of D&D that got its start very early in the game, with a checkered implementation in many-to-most editions, never really got integrated into the main ruleset until 3rd edition (if then), and a sizeable portion of the base don't necessarily like for similar reasons to psionics


Being weird is the whole point of Psions.
Yes, and that's the problem/issue some have with them in a nutshell. You cannot be weird without something to be weird in comparison to, and people who do not want that weirdness in their games are going to dislike them. You cannot subvert a norm if one does not exist.

There will always be a debate (be it raging, simmering, only-in-subtext) as to whether D&D is best when it is 'about' stout, axe-wielding dwarven warriors grudgingly fighting alongside elven fighter-wizards (or maybe rangers and druids) and halfling rogues, or whether the game is best 'about' warforged monks and tiefling psionics fighting alongside the shifter artificer and his Eberron-style, angst-free drow ally. There's no right answer and everyone is going to have different preferences.


these people need to grab an old Sword and sorcery book and take a good read on the classics.

Are you kidding me?
...
Have you guys never heard of Weird fantasy? Look it up darling, it's totally a thing!
...
So overall I really don't get what the deal is.

This is not the way to sway people to your position. Others have called you a bully, and I don't think that's quite the word I'd use. There's a lot of condescention (they need to read the classics, they have never heard of Weird fantasy, you're clearly the expert here) and general disapproval of others having a different opinion than you that's hard to get behind. There's a point behind all this that I can understand (psychic powers are not more outlandish than plenty of other stuff also in D&D), but I'd highly suggest taking another crack at it if you want to convince others.

Ignimortis
2019-07-08, 11:04 AM
I just don't like the theme of psionics.

Personally, I conflate psions as "power of the mind" with arcane magic - you can only hold so many half-finished spells in your mind at once, or will so much raw magic into existence, so arcane magic is the power of the mind in my current game.

Mordaedil
2019-07-09, 02:40 AM
I personally love psionics.

They've always been a staple in D&D since AD&D when they were printed in the back of the 1st AD&D player's handbook along with bard and saying it doesn't belong is like saying bards are overpowered because they can both fight and cast magic. It is a viewpoint born out of ignorance.

Psionics over all have had a few stumbles, 2nd AD&D psionics were broken and stupid and 3.0 Psionics were too lacking in focus. 3.5's expanded psionics handbook was when they started to kinda get it right (albeit I feel like they ended up a bit too similar to wizards when they couldn't chose to specialize in any ability score they wanted). They were in a lot of respects "better monks" that fit more with the concept of the monk as a sort of reclusive sage that studied the mind and unlocked the potential of the perfection of self.

I mean, if you want to talk tacked-on-systems, I would point to Incarnum or Tome of Magic, yet the warlock was happily accepted by everyone sooner than the psion. Kinda strange that.

I think everyone has a few different ideas of what a psionic character is, but I don't really like how they were portrayed in art of handbooks and the like, it might be better to look at things like espers from Final Fantasy or psychics in Mob Psycho 100. Weird for the sake of weird is what I think maybe turned a lot of people away from psions in the first place.

Maybe it is easier to swallow if you consider them as your choice of casting specialist, untapping the core of each respective ability score (in the respect of the egoist, telepath, shaper, nomad, kineticist and seer) without any external means.

Also they are not that difficult to learn, you already have them in the game in the form of mindflayers.

Kyutaru
2019-07-09, 03:55 AM
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I believe the reason D&D calls it "magic", Star Wars calls it "the Force", and Warhammer 40k calls it "psychic" is because of the eras each is set in and belief surrounding what this power source happens to be. D&D views it as something mystical that has always existed, Star Wars treats it like a religion about life itself, and Warhammer 40k views it as an abomination of brain contact with daemons and immaterial unreality. Incidentally, the last of these even calls psychic users heretics and witches while employing their own so it's quite the lovely contradiction.

Whatever you call it they are fundamentally the same things used in different ways, colored by the perceptions of the inhabitants of the setting. Psionics in D&D may functional differently from magic but seems to frequently interact with anti-magic in the same ways. It may be a different form of spellcasting but uses the same source. They all do and they just can't see it because some are more educated than others and call it by what they consider a more proper name for it.

In the future, perhaps everyone will have abandoned these ancient concepts of magic or psionics or elements or whatever voodoo you subscribe to in favor of the power of Memes. All great works only occur through memes and they fuel unfathomable acts of change through the science of psychology. Or perhaps they won't and we'll have even more definitions for the undefinable that no one agrees with.

Maybe Wizards are just ancient scientists that discovered how to tap into 5th dimension quantum fields and learned how to manipulate them to produce consistently viable effects. Sounds like science to me.

Willie the Duck
2019-07-09, 08:05 AM
They've always been a staple in D&D since AD&D when they were printed in the back of the 1st AD&D player's handbook along with bard and saying it doesn't belong is like saying bards are overpowered because they can both fight and cast magic. It is a viewpoint born out of ignorance.
Psionics over all have had a few stumbles, 2nd AD&D psionics were broken and stupid and 3.0 Psionics were too lacking in focus. 3.5's expanded psionics handbook was when they started to kinda get it right (albeit I feel like they ended up a bit too similar to wizards when they couldn't chose to specialize in any ability score they wanted). They were in a lot of respects "better monks" that fit more with the concept of the monk as a sort of reclusive sage that studied the mind and unlocked the potential of the perfection of self.
...
I think everyone has a few different ideas of what a psionic character is, but I don't really like how they were portrayed in art of handbooks and the like, it might be better to look at things like espers from Final Fantasy or psychics in Mob Psycho 100. Weird for the sake of weird is what I think maybe turned a lot of people away from psions in the first place.
Maybe it is easier to swallow if you consider them as your choice of casting specialist, untapping the core of each respective ability score (in the respect of the egoist, telepath, shaper, nomad, kineticist and seer) without any external means.

You gave about a half dozen legitimate reasons why someone might not like psionics or their implementation in D&D right after you suggested that such a view was 'born out of ignorance.' Can you break this down?


I mean, if you want to talk tacked-on-systems, I would point to Incarnum or Tome of Magic, yet the warlock was happily accepted by everyone sooner than the psion. Kinda strange that.

It makes sense to me. Incarnum are, like psionics pre-3e, a tacked-on system with a lot of new mechanics and terms to learn, and are generally one of the less accepted/integrated parts of 3e. Warlocks, like sorcerers before them, were simple-to-understand fluff on top of a goal of making a simple-to-use spellcaster variant for the player who wanted to play 'a mage' without the 5D-chess strategery of Vancian spell selection and planning.


Also they are not that difficult to learn, you already have them in the game in the form of mindflayers.

Yes, however, mindflayers can be defined as having psychic powers with no alteration to the system. If you aren't using psionics, mindflayers still work because most D&D monsters have odd powers with different fluff sources from PCs and different, exceptional mechanics. Hydras have a decapitation/attack-specific-body-part mechanic even if you don't use it elsewhere. Ghosts have aging mechanics. Heck, mindflayers themselves have another, non-psionic separate mechanic (brain extraction) that otherwise doesn't show up in the game. So, while mindflayers are a great iconic D&D example for the normalizing of psychic powers as a fluff concept for a D&D world, I don't really see how they help integrate the psionic ruleset into the game.

Lord Torath
2019-07-09, 08:53 AM
<snip> 2nd AD&D psionics were broken <snip>I keep hearing this (assuming you mean "broken" to mean "overly powerful"). I've never seen it, though. Mostly I've heard it from those misunderstanding some of the powers and limitations of the class. Psionicists were relatively powerful against single opponents, but weak against groups. And generally anything a psionicist could do, a wizard or cleric could also do. The class suffered from Multiple Attribute Dependency (Wis/Int/Con), and there was a 1-in-20 chance of your power going wrong each time you tried to use it. The class was greatly improved with the Dark Sun supplements Dragon Kings and The Will and the Way, but it was still far from being overpowered.

For a truly broken (non-functional) version of Psionics, look at the 1E (http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/psionics.htm) AD&D (http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/Building%20D&D/buildingdnd34.htm) version (disclaimer: not my website). That alone could account for a lot of the hate.

I actually really liked how 2E psionics worked so differently from magic (both clerical and wizardly). The "Price is Right" method (as close to the actual retail price your target number without going over) also made it easy to tell who won in an opposed test. It was unaffected by Dispel Magic, but protections against specific effects still worked.

Brookshw
2019-07-09, 10:57 AM
I keep hearing this (assuming you mean "broken" to mean "overly powerful"). I've never seen it, though. Mostly I've heard it from those misunderstanding some of the powers and limitations of the class. I don't know about that. As I recall, lack of magic/psionic transparency and psionic attack methods that required psionic defense methods (not to mention the headache that their interactions implicated re: figuring out which was strong against which and the respective modifiers) all were issues. That's without diving into any specific powers.

I also expect that "overly powerful" is a sub-classification of "broken" in so far as the system can't, or barely, supports it while still carrying out it's function.

Man_Over_Game
2019-07-09, 11:03 AM
I'm starting to think 4e did it right.

Where everyone got a dozen powers, you got 4 that could be boosted to 3 different levels, and holding back now meant you could spend more later.

4th Edition, Master Race. Fight me.

Segev
2019-07-09, 12:37 PM
Also, I now want to see people play ping-pong played with a epees.


This is also my main takeaway from this thread.

This, combined with the talk of science fantasy, has me now picturing nerds pulling epee-pens out of their pockets to duel. Ability to stave off allergic reactions optional.

AdmiralCheez
2019-07-09, 12:41 PM
With all the groups I've played in, there's been a couple of recurring themes on why they don't generally play with psionics. First, it's not usually in the base player's handbook, and a lot of the people I know play by the rules of "you can't play it unless you bought the book." We're all getting older and are having more trouble justifying spending the extra money on a book to maybe play a single class one day. And when we were younger, we didn't have the money to spend on them.

Second, it's a new set of rules that not everyone understands immediately, and it's hard to keep balanced when only one person is using them, especially if the DM doesn't own the book to keep track of how it works. We get so little time to actually play the game as it is, it doesn't make sense to learn a whole new mechanic for a character that could be done with a few flavor tweaks to an existing spellcasting class.

Third, if you're going to introduce one psionic character into a setting and not treat it like it's a huge, special deal, you kinda have to introduce a bunch of psionics, and most of the campaign stories we enjoy just don't really work as well with a bunch of mind readers running around. Intrigue and deception are out when every major person is going to have a psion on payroll to read the thoughts of everyone they come across, as an example. That's not to say it can't be done, it just takes extra work to account for it.

Willie the Duck
2019-07-09, 12:41 PM
Ability to stave off allergic reactions optional.

No, that would be with staves. :smallbiggrin:











That they practice the use of during bena-drills. :smalltongue:

Tvtyrant
2019-07-10, 08:05 PM
I think the real issue is that magic and psionics are so widely defined in D&D that they overlap entirely, so there isn't actually a need for both.

What are psychic powers in fiction? Telepathy, hearing/speaking with the dead, telekinesis, illusions.
What are witch powers in fiction?

A D&D wizard can read minds, make illusions, speak with the dead, and see the future. They can also summon monsters, fly, shoot fireballs, and teleport.

A D&D psion can read minds, make illusions, speak with the dead, see the future, summon monsters, fly, shoot fireballs and teleport.

The Beguiler from 3.5 could have easily been a "psion" and worked perfectly well. The psion from 3.5 could have been called a "wizard" in 3.5 and worked perfectly well. Even in the fluff a Psion and a Sorcerer are nearly identical, much less in their actual abilities.

Segev
2019-07-10, 11:51 PM
I think the real issue is that magic and psionics are so widely defined in D&D that they overlap entirely, so there isn't actually a need for both.

Paizo apparently agrees with you. Their version of it is "psychic magic," as presented in Occult Adventures, and is just another kind of magic.

Mordaedil
2019-07-11, 01:04 AM
You gave about a half dozen legitimate reasons why someone might not like psionics or their implementation in D&D right after you suggested that such a view was 'born out of ignorance.' Can you break this down?


I find that, when you engage in a discussion with people outright negative to a certain thing, direct confrontation is unlikely to sway their viewpoints, so finding common ground is more fruitful. So my starting position is "yeah, I can see why you'd not like it" and work from there.

I think psionics are pretty cool, but I also recognize it is not for everyone, not for every table and not for every game. But I'd like people who never have given psionics a time of day, to give them a shot to see if they actually enjoy it.

A lot of the dismissals I've read here seem to be from people who never entertained even playing the classes and that is a bit hasty on their part, imo.

skeintech
2019-07-11, 01:05 AM
Chatbot Development Company

Matinta
2019-07-12, 07:15 PM
How can people correlate magic and physic powers? They are two completely different vibes.

just look at 11 from stranger things, she is a greta example of a psion, she just focus and will her powers intro existence with pure willpower.

She does't need to mumble nonsensical Magic words or wave her arms around making silly simbols and gestures.

It's a fast direct and often subtle power. It's your mind and will that does the power. It's your will made real.

Magic is all about bending reality using your intellect, memorizing complex magical secrets, shapes and formulas. It's your knowledge, logic and skill that does the trick not your mind alone.

How can you guys say it's the same thing? I don't get it.

Kyutaru
2019-07-12, 07:32 PM
How can people correlate magic and physic powers? They are two completely different vibes.

just look at 11 from stranger things, she is a greta example of a psion, she just focus and will her powers intro existence with pure willpower.

She does't need to mumble nonsensical Magic words or wave her arms around making silly simbols and gestures.

It's a fast direct and often subtle power. It's your mind and will that does the power. It's your will made real.

Magic is all about bending reality using your intellect, memorizing complex magical secrets, shapes and formulas. It's your knowledge, logic and skill that does the trick not your mind alone.

How can you guys say it's the same thing? I don't get it.
"You're a sorcerer, Harry!"

Honest Tiefling
2019-07-12, 07:36 PM
"You're a sorcerer, Harry!"

"Or a warlock, the DM is being generous with splatbooks this game, I guess!"

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-12, 07:41 PM
How can people correlate magic and physic powers? They are two completely different vibes.

just look at 11 from stranger things, she is a greta example of a psion, she just focus and will her powers intro existence with pure willpower.

She does't need to mumble nonsensical Magic words or wave her arms around making silly simbols and gestures.

It's a fast direct and often subtle power. It's your mind and will that does the power. It's your will made real.

Magic is all about bending reality using your intellect, memorizing complex magical secrets, shapes and formulas. It's your knowledge, logic and skill that does the trick not your mind alone.

How can you guys say it's the same thing? I don't get it.



Take away the trappings of strange words and arcane substances, and what's the difference between "knowledge logic and skill" and "your mind"? Where do "knowledge logic and skill" reside?
Not all instances of powers called "magic" involve some sort of hoccus pocus, gestures or words, or arcane strange ingredients.
Some depictions of psychic / psionic powers have involved gestures and such, look at all the comic book "telepaths" who hold a hand to their head, or point at their target, or something.
The line between magic and psychic powers is often blurred, look to all the comic book "telepaths" who confront each other in "the astral plane" or "the ethereal world", while D&D uses those same terms in ways deeply linked to magic.
Indeed, the fiction that deeply influenced D&D's magic was in turn deeply influenced by the occult, spiritualist, and new age movements, D&D's magic ambiance grew out of a rich melange of influences going back to the Victorian era, Crowley, Gardener, Blovatsky, and so on, which rarely made much distinction between "magic" and "psychic".
The centuries are rife with stories and accusations of magic that affects the mind, charming victims, sending dreams, snooping for secrets, etc. Is "mesmerism" actually "magic", or actually "psychic"?


None of which is to say that you can't draw a strong distinction in your own games, in your own settings, in your own fiction.

But it is quite unfair to react as if anyone who doesn't is clueless.

Dr paradox
2019-07-12, 08:01 PM
How can people correlate magic and physic powers? They are two completely different vibes.



Long story short, and totally unfairly, Psionics are too cool. I don't like cool things.

Their dose of exoticism, their glowing buff dudes with crystal magic, the presumed extra rarity, they all smack of a kind of "more fantastical than thou" attitude that rubs me the wrong way about a lot of expanded class options. The same way Eladrin as a starting race in 4e made Elves mundane by comparison, the psionic protagonists always seem like they're looking down their noses at the hardworking, thematically rich, mythologically consistent wizards and saying "Oh, magic, huh? Still messing about with spells, there? How quaint."

The thing is, since I agree that Psions play a totally different thematic role than other spellcasters, I resent those themes' incursion into my pseudo-historical fantasy. I'm happy that 5e still doesn't have an officially published Psion, because I don't yet need to be the bad guy by telling players I'd rather not stitch a whole new radically different fantastical paradigm onto the world.

I like them as a monstrous and weird element, because then I can play them as horrific and disturbing instead of straight cool. Mind Flayers and Aboleths and Elder Things can party down as far as I'm concerned.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-12, 08:08 PM
Long story short, and totally unfairly, Psionics are too cool. I don't like cool things.

Their dose of exoticism, their glowing buff dudes with crystal magic, the presumed extra rarity, they all smack of a kind of "more fantastical than thou" attitude that rubs me the wrong way about a lot of expanded class options. The same way Eladrin as a starting race in 4e made Elves mundane by comparison, the psionic protagonists always seem like they're looking down their noses at the hardworking, thematically rich, mythologically consistent wizards and saying "Oh, magic, huh? Still messing about with spells, there? How quaint."

The thing is, since I agree that Psions play a totally different thematic role than other spellcasters, I resent those themes' incursion into my pseudo-historical fantasy. I'm happy that 5e still doesn't have an officially published Psion, because I don't yet need to be the bad guy by telling players I'd rather not stitch a whole new radically different fantastical paradigm onto the world.

I like them as a monstrous and weird element, because then I can play them as horrific and disturbing instead of straight cool. Mind Flayers and Aboleths and Elder Things can party down as far as I'm concerned.

Funny thing is, I think you both agree that magic and psionics are two different and separate things?

Dr paradox
2019-07-12, 08:27 PM
Funny thing is, I think you both agree that magic and psionics are two different and separate things?

Yeah, totally! Which is why I'm comfortable saying I don't want Psionics in my magic-game, the same way I'm comfortable disallowing chainsaws and cell-phones. Those are cool things I'll happily include in my slasher-horror game, but they're bad fits for the tone I'm trying to evoke in my fantasy pioneer game.

Tectorman
2019-07-13, 08:08 AM
How can people correlate magic and physic powers? They are two completely different vibes.

just look at 11 from stranger things, she is a greta example of a psion, she just focus and will her powers intro existence with pure willpower.

She does't need to mumble nonsensical Magic words or wave her arms around making silly simbols and gestures.

It's a fast direct and often subtle power. It's your mind and will that does the power. It's your will made real.

Magic is all about bending reality using your intellect, memorizing complex magical secrets, shapes and formulas. It's your knowledge, logic and skill that does the trick not your mind alone.

How can you guys say it's the same thing? I don't get it.

IIRC, the characters in Stranger Things (at least, the kids that play D&D) refer to her as the party's Wizard. Clearly, they're not fussed about the distinction. Also, she uses her arms plenty of times with her powers (the Gate in season 2 and Billy in season 3 most immediately come to mind), as does what's-her-name with the mind trick powers.

For that matter, Old Ben's "these aren't the droids you're looking for" has that persistent handwave (and the Force was referred to as "sorcerous ways" in the same movie).

Pleh
2019-07-13, 10:55 AM
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I believe the reason D&D calls it "magic", Star Wars calls it "the Force", and Warhammer 40k calls it "psychic" is because of the eras each is set in and belief surrounding what this power source happens to be. D&D views it as something mystical that has always existed, Star Wars treats it like a religion about life itself, and Warhammer 40k views it as an abomination of brain contact with daemons and immaterial unreality. Incidentally, the last of these even calls psychic users heretics and witches while employing their own so it's quite the lovely contradiction.

Whatever you call it they are fundamentally the same things used in different ways, colored by the perceptions of the inhabitants of the setting. Psionics in D&D may functional differently from magic but seems to frequently interact with anti-magic in the same ways. It may be a different form of spellcasting but uses the same source. They all do and they just can't see it because some are more educated than others and call it by what they consider a more proper name for it.

In the future, perhaps everyone will have abandoned these ancient concepts of magic or psionics or elements or whatever voodoo you subscribe to in favor of the power of Memes. All great works only occur through memes and they fuel unfathomable acts of change through the science of psychology. Or perhaps they won't and we'll have even more definitions for the undefinable that no one agrees with.

Maybe Wizards are just ancient scientists that discovered how to tap into 5th dimension quantum fields and learned how to manipulate them to produce consistently viable effects. Sounds like science to me.

Actually, I think this is the root of my own dislike for how psionics are handled in D&D. After how comprehensively Magic is established in the PHB and standard gameplay, tacking on Psionics as an afterthought for magic with a different set of mechanics makes it feel like it breaks this rule that any given setting is going to interpret the supernatural from a different perspective.

I mean, it feels like it undermines the unique perspective of the setting to suggest that Magic is both a comprehensive explanation of supernatural power AND psionics is supernatural, but NOT MAGIC. I mean, it can work if you are careful to make Psionics specifically a different cultural expression of magic, like if you have a psionic society, but you can create that society using normal magic rules and you don't need special different mechanics for it. The different mechanics imply that it actually functions differently, which is ALSO undermined by the fact that many psionic powers are almost word for word copies of arcane spells. WHY should they be different at all?

It's another case that a game's Mechanics should support its Fluff. If you have two magic systems, there should be justification for why they are different and distinct. Part of this justification should reasonably be in that each should not only function mechanically differently, but they should also ultimately not be strictly capable of the exact same effects. Just pick a lane.

To me, it makes more sense to either say that Psionic cultures just specialize in Enchantment and Telekinetic spells, OR if you prefer alternative magic mechanics, just use the alternative mechanics. Why not use Power Points for normal spells instead of slots?

Segev
2019-07-13, 11:09 AM
Actually, I think this is the root of my own dislike for how psionics are handled in D&D. After how comprehensively Magic is established in the PHB and standard gameplay, tacking on Psionics as an afterthought for magic with a different set of mechanics makes it feel like it breaks this rule that any given setting is going to interpret the supernatural from a different perspective.

I mean, it feels like it undermines the unique perspective of the setting to suggest that Magic is both a comprehensive explanation of supernatural power AND psionics is supernatural, but NOT MAGIC. I mean, it can work if you are careful to make Psionics specifically a different cultural expression of magic, like if you have a psionic society, but you can create that society using normal magic rules and you don't need special different mechanics for it. The different mechanics imply that it actually functions differently, which is ALSO undermined by the fact that many psionic powers are almost word for word copies of arcane spells. WHY should they be different at all?

It's another case that a game's Mechanics should support its Fluff. If you have two magic systems, there should be justification for why they are different and distinct. Part of this justification should reasonably be in that each should not only function mechanically differently, but they should also ultimately not be strictly capable of the exact same effects. Just pick a lane.

To me, it makes more sense to either say that Psionic cultures just specialize in Enchantment and Telekinetic spells, OR if you prefer alternative magic mechanics, just use the alternative mechanics. Why not use Power Points for normal spells instead of slots?In my own games, I treat psionics as distinct from magic because it actually is doing something different. Magic, in my D&D games, is an interaction with the animistic spirits that underlie the laws of nature by which the world operates. Wizards have contracts with ancient beings they invoke. Sorcerers have similar, but either inherited specific rights (and rites) or have negotiated them for their own personal use, rather than as "if/then" clauses that anybody knowledgeable enough can invoke. Clerics have power granted by their position in the divine hierarchy; they're given rights to command their god's servants as a proxy for their god. Druids instead are members of the community of nature spirits by virtue of their affiliation and having been accepted as "immigrants" to it.

Psions, on the other hand, are BEING the supernatural force that's altering the world around them.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-13, 12:18 PM
In my own games, I treat psionics as distinct from magic because it actually is doing something different. Magic, in my D&D games, is an interaction with the animistic spirits that underlie the laws of nature by which the world operates. Wizards have contracts with ancient beings they invoke. Sorcerers have similar, but either inherited specific rights (and rites) or have negotiated them for their own personal use, rather than as "if/then" clauses that anybody knowledgeable enough can invoke. Clerics have power granted by their position in the divine hierarchy; they're given rights to command their god's servants as a proxy for their god. Druids instead are members of the community of nature spirits by virtue of their affiliation and having been accepted as "immigrants" to it.

Psions, on the other hand, are BEING the supernatural force that's altering the world around them.

That's not far from the setup I have in both the settings I'm working on.

Most magic is via spirits or "small gods" (nature, ancestor, clan/family, elemental, conceptual, etc), because most mortals can't perceive or manipulate the multidimensional energies needed to make extranormal effects occur. Some spirits are helpful, some are neutral, and some are actively malign.

Those who can work magic directly are rare, and often unpredictable and dangerous. It takes something special, some quirk of ancestry, empowerment by a deity or elder spirit, or uncommon focus, dedication, and luck to piece together lore that could just as easily destroy the person. (For every "learned one", there are dozens who blew themselves up from the inside, or went stark raving mad, or ran into someone or something that didn't want to share... and many many thousands of people who never even thought to try.) Each of these people who can work direct magic is unique, and there's not really a line between "sorcerer", "wizard", "warlock", or "mystic" in the D&D sense.

Pleh
2019-07-13, 12:45 PM
In my own games, I treat psionics as distinct from magic because it actually is doing something different. Magic, in my D&D games, is an interaction with the animistic spirits that underlie the laws of nature by which the world operates. Wizards have contracts with ancient beings they invoke. Sorcerers have similar, but either inherited specific rights (and rites) or have negotiated them for their own personal use, rather than as "if/then" clauses that anybody knowledgeable enough can invoke. Clerics have power granted by their position in the divine hierarchy; they're given rights to command their god's servants as a proxy for their god. Druids instead are members of the community of nature spirits by virtue of their affiliation and having been accepted as "immigrants" to it.

Psions, on the other hand, are BEING the supernatural force that's altering the world around them.

I get that, but I would want it to go further than the fluff behind how it functions. In a system like this, I'd want to see them actually get limited in what fields they control.

Like, if magic is animistic spirits that control the prime elements, then Psionics better not be summoning the power of the prime elements. Otherwise, how do the animistic spirits feel about being the middle man getting cut out of the process? I mean, how is it not just better in every way to just BE the supernatural force that affects change in every way? Why seek the power of smaller or greater gods for help instead of just being a small god yourself?

It only makes sense to me if psionics are limited to the standard tropes. Psionics has the Enchantment school, the Evocation (Force) abilities, Transmutation spells that enhance physical abilities only (like Jump, but not Polymorph) and maybe share the Divination school, while Arcane is barred from these schools.

Ideally, I'd like to see Divine and Arcane distinguished similarly, but in some ways, they do this with the Spell Lists (which I feel are much better distinguished than Arcane Spells and Powers)

Zakhara
2019-07-13, 04:47 PM
Most of the Psion distaste has already been said (convoluted mechanics back in the day, perceived imbalance, burdensome to memorize, unusual or contradictory flavour, arguably redundant in more modern editions as it streamlines). But my two cents is that it's disliked for how it reopens a small wound regarding the implied knowledge of a game world.

Many old D&D spells, monsters, etc. took inspiration from science fiction, and this became apparent in the rules (most plainly, Green Dragons explicitly breathing chlorine gas rather than "just poison"). Some of this has been swept under the rug or forgotten, but it's there: D&D was never a very mysterious game in how it handles magic and/or technology. In a way, I feel that modern discussions regarding firearms and other gizmos is a reflection of how players are "retaking" the fantastical elements back (by being more conscientious of their worlds and what's in them).

But part of Psionics and their core appeal, IMO, is "the world is not what you knew." It's deliberately alien, and moreover less vague in their source. It's blatantly scientific in a way magic never has to be, especially in a modern context. As such, I think it kind of reminds people in a tacit way that unsubtle science fiction is a component of D&D's DNA, and thus becomes viewed as a sort of pariah for it.

Anonymouswizard
2019-07-13, 05:11 PM
How can people correlate magic and physic powers? They are two completely different vibes.

just look at 11 from stranger things, she is a greta example of a psion, she just focus and will her powers intro existence with pure willpower.

She does't need to mumble nonsensical Magic words or wave her arms around making silly simbols and gestures.

It's a fast direct and often subtle power. It's your mind and will that does the power. It's your will made real.

Magic is all about bending reality using your intellect, memorizing complex magical secrets, shapes and formulas. It's your knowledge, logic and skill that does the trick not your mind alone.

How can you guys say it's the same thing? I don't get it.

No. One category of 'unrealistic mumbo jumbo' is not inherentlhy different from another category of 'unrealistic mumbo jumbo' because you're saying nonsense words instead of staring really hard.

Especially with Still Spell, Silent Spell, and Eschew Materials.


Anyway, in my time I used to be ambivalent towards psionics, but now I find they tend to step on the toes of arcane magic too much. And despite my forum handle, I'm growing to like Psychics over Wizards, partially because they tend to have a focus built in more inherently.

Which is to say use whatever kind of paranormal powers you want in your setting, discuss it with your friends, and if nobody wants arcane magic/divine magic/psionics/chi/whatever to be a part of the setting, just don't put it in. But don't pull an Angry (https://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-why-do-psionics-suck/), if you don't want psionics in your game just don't have them!

I mean I've never liked the idea of Incarnum, and as I've got no friends who do I've never played in games where it's a thing. But I do like psychic, divine magic, arcane magic, and chi magic*, have played in games with any combination of the four, and highly enjoyed them.

In the setting I'm currently working on psychic powers are one of the two natural expressions of magic humans can use. The setting uses a stripped down and reworked version of 5e, there's only five classes, and only four are considered socially acceptable. Are you a Fighter who has studied the use of weapons? A crafty Rogue who always has the tool for the job? A Mystic dedicated to the powers of the mind? An Adept (Monk) who hones their body into an ideal form? Or maybe your consort with the gods, delving into powers best left forgotten given by beings best ignored, using the foul powers of the Cleric?

Psionics fit here. They're natural, and the dualistic counterpart to the chi powers that Adepts develop. But the idea of bargaining with gods, trading worship and service for power, is alien to the setting. It has no counterpart to balance it, it crosses the line between spirit and flesh, and most who pursue such powers are reduced to shells simply acting out the whims of their masters, unable to pursue the goals they once had. The setting is a fantasy one, and yet set up to make the idea of a spellcasting wizard a threatening and uncertain one, even compared to the person who can read your mind.

* In D&D 3.5 this would be your {scrubbed} Fighin' Magic.

Calthropstu
2019-07-13, 05:47 PM
Space fantasy is still fantasy!

There are princess, wizards, warlords and magical swords.

http://i.imgur.com/RGnJB.jpg
https://kyanitepublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/frank_frazetta_thuviamaidofmars.jpg

Heck Pathfinder setting qualify for Space fantasy if you think about it.
https://pathfinderwiki.com/mediawiki/images/d/d7/Solar_system_map.jpg
https://pathfinderwiki.com/mediawiki/images/thumb/e/e3/Castrovel.jpg/800px-Castrovel.jpg
https://pathfinderwiki.com/mediawiki/images/thumb/3/34/Akiton_gate.jpg/800px-Akiton_gate.jpg

I fail to see the issue regarding them not belonging in the setting.

But I totally get the mechanical side of it, keeping track on the Psi points is annoying.

Power points are easier than keeping track of spell slots.

Instead of x1st, x2nd, x3rd etc and x spells memorized for the day, I have these powers and this many points to spend on them. Far less to keep track of.

Segev
2019-07-13, 05:58 PM
I get that, but I would want it to go further than the fluff behind how it functions. In a system like this, I'd want to see them actually get limited in what fields they control.

Like, if magic is animistic spirits that control the prime elements, then Psionics better not be summoning the power of the prime elements. Otherwise, how do the animistic spirits feel about being the middle man getting cut out of the process? I mean, how is it not just better in every way to just BE the supernatural force that affects change in every way? Why seek the power of smaller or greater gods for help instead of just being a small god yourself?

It only makes sense to me if psionics are limited to the standard tropes. Psionics has the Enchantment school, the Evocation (Force) abilities, Transmutation spells that enhance physical abilities only (like Jump, but not Polymorph) and maybe share the Divination school, while Arcane is barred from these schools.

Ideally, I'd like to see Divine and Arcane distinguished similarly, but in some ways, they do this with the Spell Lists (which I feel are much better distinguished than Arcane Spells and Powers)

Psionics is distinguished, though. At least as much as Divine/Arcane spell list divides are. They have their own power list, and their powers are frequently not reprints of spells. Where they are, they still function somewhat differently due to the lack of automatic improvement by ML and the augmentation rules.

In a way, it IS better to be psionic than magical: you're able to do things with more precision. On the other hand, though, it tends to be far more personally costly. Mages can cast more often at the same power level, though they can't nova as well.

As for how the spirits behind things feel about it, most aren't bright enough to care. Those that are aren't the ones being "slighted." There may well be gods and spirits who resent psionics, but psions aren't dependent on them nor interacting directly with them.

Pleh
2019-07-13, 07:07 PM
Psionics is distinguished, though. At least as much as Divine/Arcane spell list divides are.

Actually, I've been leaning more and more into the desire to assert stronger division between Divine and Arcane, too.

In my own head canon, I've grown more and more fond of the Dark Souls treatment of Divine Magic, calling them Miracles rather than Spells and I've been exploring alternative mechanics for them so they really feel more different.

HouseRules
2019-07-13, 07:15 PM
Well, I think there should be 4 divisions?

Arcane
Divine (Clerics, Paladins, etc)
Nature (Druids, Rangers, Bards, etc)
Psionic

It makes more sense to make a Nature divide because Bards are closer to Druids than Arcane.

The Glyphstone
2019-07-13, 07:38 PM
You could probably drop that down to three by putting Arcane and Psionic in one category. Divine and Nature magics are both dependent on an outside entity/force to source their power from, but arcanists and psions are autonomous. Ultimately, if psionic ability can be learned or developed, is the power to perform psionics really that much different than the power to perform wizardry? Or if psionic ability is innate/genetic/natural, is that noticably different than the inherited magic of a sorcerer?

Haldir
2019-07-13, 09:13 PM
Simple- the DM's job is already complex enough without having to learn an entirely new system of magic that literally does nothing that old one didn't already.

No, you wanting to be special and feel different from a wizard is not actually enough to justify the work. You want a Psion? I'll help you pick the perfect spelllist in the wizard or sorceror class. I'll even let you write as many new ones are you want. But I will not be interested in a brand new subset of mechanics just for the sake of the mechanics being different.

HouseRules
2019-07-13, 09:16 PM
Psionic is more flexible than Sorcerer.

But then, the creation of Spell Caster Level as something that needs to be tracked, and the scaling of magic is what makes the spell level system complex.

Even 3E Psionic is not compatible with 2E linear levels:
Remembering spell storage are counted in "spell levels", and that "spell levels" act linearly.
Thus, 1+1 = 2 does not work, it becomes 1+1 < 3, 1+1+1 < 5, etc.

Anonymouswizard
2019-07-14, 06:40 AM
Simple- the DM's job is already complex enough without having to learn an entirely new system of magic that literally does nothing that old one didn't already.

Yes and no. In all honesty, in 3.5 the psionics system is 90% identical to spellcasting, and the power list takes a lot from the spell list. The main differences are the use of power points instead of spell slots, the lack of VSM components, and the need to put in additional resources to upscale a power.

Although personally my favourite D&D psionics system has to be 3e's. It's broken, but the idea of using the six stats to limit the character's access to the six Disciplines appeals to me. It's an organic way of encouraging the player to specialise in one area while having some ability in a couple more. Unfortunately D&D is not favorable to such MADness, especially with it's SAD Clerics abs Wizards.

But 3.5 psionics? It's just spells built on a slightly different set of assumptions. A set of assumptions Thai makes them slightly more balanced, but that's more to do with D&D magic having a worse track record with balance than a lopsided seesaw.

Haldir
2019-07-14, 03:38 PM
Yes and no. In all honesty, in 3.5 the psionics system is 90% identical to spellcasting, and the power list takes a lot from the spell list. The main differences are the use of power points instead of spell slots, the lack of VSM components, and the need to put in additional resources to upscale a power.

Although personally my favourite D&D psionics system has to be 3e's. It's broken, but the idea of using the six stats to limit the character's access to the six Disciplines appeals to me. It's an organic way of encouraging the player to specialise in one area while having some ability in a couple more. Unfortunately D&D is not favorable to such MADness, especially with it's SAD Clerics abs Wizards.

But 3.5 psionics? It's just spells built on a slightly different set of assumptions. A set of assumptions Thai makes them slightly more balanced, but that's more to do with D&D magic having a worse track record with balance than a lopsided seesaw.

Yeah, most people saying "Psionics is better than Vancian" are coming from the 3.P mindset, where Vancian has all the system bloat and terrible balance. But if you remove that specific mechanical problem from the equation, then there's no reason to have a separate system at all. Nothing a psion does thematically isn't covered by spells that already exist.

Anonymouswizard
2019-07-14, 04:10 PM
Yeah, most people saying "Psionics is better than Vancian" are coming from the 3.P mindset, where Vancian has all the system bloat and terrible balance. But if you remove that specific mechanical problem from the equation, then there's no reason to have a separate system at all. Nothing a psion does thematically isn't covered by spells that already exist.

Oh, I'll agree there. Bur my point was that, compared to every other alternate system, psionics aren't that different to core malic (it really comes down to terminology, that scaling is never automatic, and that it uses power points instead of more restrictive slots).

In fact, once you use the Spell Points variant 5e casting essentially has most of the good points of 3.5 Psionics. Which is why I'm somewhat sad that the 5e Mystic isn't a caster with a very unique spell list.

Zakhara
2019-07-14, 04:11 PM
Nothing a psion does thematically isn't covered by spells that already exist.

I'm not sure how 3e+ handle Psychic Combat. Is it present? It's my favourite part of Psions, but it doesn't get much love. I suppose spells could replicate it via a "wizard's duel," but it feels very thematically removed in a good way.

The Glyphstone
2019-07-14, 04:11 PM
Psionic Combat died in the fire it deserved during the 3e rewrite.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-14, 04:19 PM
I don't recall what psionic combat was like.

But, I do like the hypthetical idea of "magic vs magic" being more than two mages or psychics or whatever playing rocket-tag, with the first one to land a spell winning.

The Glyphstone
2019-07-14, 04:24 PM
From an old thread, itself copied from a dead thread on the WotC forums:


I have used this model before, but to really appreciate how this "class feature" worked you should see how it would apply if ported to mainstream D&D where they haven't been conditioned to accept inferior mechanics without question. Lets take the big sacred moo, a Cleric's undead turning ability:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Player: "The undead will get defense modes?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Player: Head down, silently weeping into his hands.

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

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

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

Player: "How ya like that fist flavor?"

Haldir
2019-07-14, 04:40 PM
In fact, once you use the Spell Points variant 5e casting essentially has most of the good points of 3.5 Psionics. Which is why I'm somewhat sad that the 5e Mystic isn't a caster with a very unique spell list.

this is exactly what should be done. I think the only reason the Mystic came out the way it did is because of tradition. People who want psionics expect it to be a whole new system, even if that's objectively bad for the game.


I'm not sure how 3e+ handle Psychic Combat. Is it present? It's my favourite part of Psions, but it doesn't get much love. I suppose spells could replicate it via a "wizard's duel," but it feels very thematically removed in a good way.

There are contests in 5e. Would be child's play to have a contested roll of 1d20 + Proficiency + Ability Mod (whichever fits better with your idea of mental strength. Honestly, any of them can work with how vague mental powers are. Is it knowledge of your abilities? Is it your own powerful sense of self? Is it your willpower? There's no right answer thematically.)

Theoboldi
2019-07-14, 05:04 PM
this is exactly what should be done. I think the only reason the Mystic came out the way it did is because of tradition. People who want psionics expect it to be a whole new system, even if that's objectively bad for the game.


I completely disagree. As someone who likes psychic powers in his fiction, I think there are certain thematic trappings to them that should be reflected in their design. If they were just spellcasters with a different list and power points instead of slots, they wouldn't feel like proper psychics to me.

Mind, this is coming from someone who thought the 3.5 psions did some things very wrong. (I mean, what kind of psion has summoning abilities? Or how about the straight up energy rays?)

Besides, how is a new system objectively bad for the game? The initial Mystic draft explored some interesting ideas with its individual disciplines, and felt distinct from magic in a good way. Sure, it was highly unbalanced, but that's usually a given with new design space.

Haldir
2019-07-14, 05:10 PM
I completely disagree. As someone who likes psychic powers in his fiction, I think there are certain thematic trappings to them that should be reflected in their design. If they were just spellcasters with a different list and power points instead of slots, they wouldn't feel like proper psychics to me.

Mind, this is coming from someone who thought the 3.5 psions did some things very wrong. (I mean, what kind of psion has summoning abilities? Or how about the straight up energy rays?)

Besides, how is a new system objectively bad for the game? The initial Mystic draft explored some interesting ideas with its individual disciplines, and felt distinct from magic in a good way. Sure, it was highly unbalanced, but that's usually a given with new design space.

System bloat and redundancy, mostly. Along with causing your Game Master to learn an entirely new set of rules to do the things you could already do with the old ones.

Edit- You also dramatically increase the chances of edge case conflicts with other rules and abuse from synergies that are unplanned. If you add a Mystic to a Wizard, there's a multiclass rule for your spells already in place. If you do it with a different system, there's sooo much room error.

I am not at all being sarcastic, i would love to hear what you think is so special about psionics that can't be done with magic. If I can name a spell that already exists and does that exact same affect, you will not convince me.

Theoboldi
2019-07-14, 05:19 PM
System bloat and redundancy, mostly. Along with causing your Game Master to learn an entirely new set of rules to do the things you could already do with the old ones.

Edit- You also dramatically increase the chances of edge case conflicts with other rules and abuse from synergies that are unplanned. If you add a Mystic to a Wizard, there's a multiclass rule for your spells already in place. If you do it with a different system, there's sooo much room error.

I am not at all being sarcastic, i would love to hear what you think is so special about psionics that can't be done with magic. If I can name a spell that already exists and does that exact same affect, you will not convince me.

The issue comes from the design of individual spells and effects, I think. It's not so much that the mechanics for the effects of psionics and magic need to be different. A dominate person spell and a mind control power should function the same. But rather, a psion should not have an individual mind control spell, and a specific telekinesis spell, while at the same time picking Fire Bolt rather than Friends for his cantrips.

One big part of psionics to me is the feeling of individual, cohesive disciplines that have one versatile effect that the psion slowly learns how to increase in power and do unorthodox things with.

To give an example, the psychic powers in Stars without Number function like this, and it is overall one of my favorite psychic power systems out there.

Haldir
2019-07-14, 05:26 PM
The issue comes from the design of individual spells and effects, I think. It's not so much that the mechanics for the effects of psionics and magic need to be different. A dominate person spell and a mind control power should function the same. But rather, a psion should not have an individual mind control spell, and a specific telekinesis spell, while at the same time picking Fire Bolt rather than Friends for his cantrips.

One big part of psionics to me is the feeling of individual, cohesive disciplines that have one versatile effect that the psion slowly learns how to increase in power and do unorthodox things with.

To give an example, the psychic powers in Stars without Number function like this, and it is overall one of my favorite psychic power systems out there.

So you want new mechanics for what is essentially a flavor differentiation and roleplay choices? Hard pass. But maybe you can find a DM who likes extra work for no reason.

Theoboldi
2019-07-14, 05:33 PM
So you want new mechanics for what is essentially a flavor differentiation and roleplay choices? Hard pass. But maybe you can find a DM who likes extra work for no reason.

I mean, I'd be alright with it as a GM, since I like psychic powers and would want to encourage them. But that aside, I find your conclusion a bit reductive of what I've said.

It's not a flavor differentiation and just a roleplay choice. Ideally, a system of psionic powers should make your abilities feel as if they naturally grow and expand in what they can do. It's not about what I want to represent to other people who watch me play, but what I feel when playing the character.

There's no need to insinuate that my opinion on this carries no value.

Haldir
2019-07-14, 05:38 PM
I mean, I'd be alright with it as a GM, since I like psychic powers and would want to encourage them. But that aside, I find your conclusion a bit reductive of what I've said.

It's not a flavor differentiation and just a roleplay choice. Ideally, a system of psionic powers should make your abilities feel as if they naturally grow and expand in what they can do. It's not about what I want to represent to other people who watch me play, but what I feel when playing the character.

There's no need to insinuate that my opinion on this carries no value.

There's a bit of reduction there yes, because I think your opinion kind of summarizes everyones anti-psionic feelings in this thread.

You literally said you didn't want to use the Mind Control that was already in the game, you needed your own special mind control ability. I understand wanting to play a psychic, but needing your psychic to be different just because you want them to be different is a bit of an ask for some tables.

Anonymouswizard
2019-07-14, 05:42 PM
Psionic Combat died in the fire it deserved during the 3e rewrite.

To be fair, 3e made a decent attempt at it. Nonpsionics got a hefty* defensive bonus for free, meaning it didn't render them obsolete, and it technically worked. It just wasn't really worthwhile, I remember Attack and Defence modes being quite expensive for what they did.

* not as good as am optimal defence, but I think they got a bonus against all five Attack Modes.


But, I do like the hypthetical idea of "magic vs magic" being more than two mages or psychics or whatever playing rocket-tag, with the first one to land a spell winning.

Honestly, I think 'first to land a spell' is a fine easy to model it.

The problem is that in many games landing the spell is too easy. Magicians should be casting wards and counterwards, trying to slip that one combat ending spell past their opponent's defences while predicting their foe's means of attack.

Magical and psychic duels should be like physical duels, with a back and forth to try to land that killing blow, with occasional breaks to rest in official duels where the participants can top up their wards.

And I'm now imagining two wizards at opposite ends of a city, using Abjuration and Divination spells to premature the other, with the referee calling a tea break every hour.

Theoboldi
2019-07-14, 05:50 PM
There's a bit of reduction there yes, because I think your opinion kind of summarizes everyones anti-psionic feelings in this thread.

You literally said you didn't want to use the Mind Control that was already in the game, you needed your own special mind control ability. I understand wanting to play a psychic, but needing your psychic to be different just because you want them to be different is a bit of an ask for some tables.

....:smallconfused:

I gave my reasons. There are thematic trappings that should be represented in a psychic. And ones that quite frankly, have been shown to work. It's not about just 'needing my own special ability'.

Other than that, I feel a bit personally attacked here. Yes of course at its core I want psychics to be different because I would like that. That's a bit of a nonsensical thing to complain about. I wouldn't force every table to use a specific psychic variant and its not the end of the world if I had to use normal spellcaster mechanics to represent them. All I did was disagree with the notion that a normal spellcaster with a special list would be completely sufficient and satisfying.

Haldir
2019-07-14, 05:55 PM
Going round in circles here.

As long as you can do the things you want at the end of the day, I only need one mechanical option for it. Asking for another one is pretty much why people have a disliking for psionics, which is a shame, because they are a fun archetype. I just don't care for the unnecessary stuff to make your feels good.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-14, 06:02 PM
Going round in circles here.

As long as you can do the things you want at the end of the day, I only need one mechanical option for it. Asking for another one is pretty much why people have a disliking for psionics, which is a shame, because they are a fun archetype. I just don't care for the unnecessary stuff to make your feels good.

Sometimes the mechanics are grossly bad at representing the actual thing going on with the power.

Theoboldi
2019-07-14, 06:04 PM
Going round in circles here.

As long as you can do the things you want at the end of the day, I only need one mechanical option for it. Asking for another one is pretty much why people have a disliking for psionics, which is a shame, because they are a fun archetype. I just don't care for the unnecessary stuff to make your feels good.

Okay. I mean, I guess it's unnescessary. But that's a complete non-argument. D&D itself is not necessary. None of us actually need the game. Nor do I need a special psion class.

It's just nice to have. And better at giving those of us who like it the feeling of being this character type that we like.

I'm gonna leave this conversation here, since I said all I wanted on the subject, and you are right, we are just talking in circles.


Sometimes the mechanics are grossly bad at representing the actual thing going on with the power.

I don't agree with most stuff you say, Max, but this I do fully agree with.

hoaiphong123
2019-07-23, 09:39 PM
I think it's more like a sci-fi thing

Quertus
2019-07-24, 05:14 PM
So, this thread - plus Angry's article - helped me understand what's always bothered me about psionics. And it's related to "needless complexity".

Now, 2e had "make a stat check - sometimes your power works, sometimes it doesn't". That was "complexity with purpose". And 2e used all 6 stats for those rolls. OK, that allows different psions to have different strengths and weaknesses. Complexity with purpose.

But 3e? Your specialization determined which stat you used for everything. 3.5? Intelligence. Period.

So what don't I like? What's been bugging me?

Well, to my mind, psionics is an act of will. It's not how well you understand arcane formulae, or how powerful your mind is, but how strong your will is. And, to me, that's Wisdom.

And I'd never really thought about it before.


Simple- the DM's job is already complex enough without having to learn an entirely new system of magic that literally does nothing that old one didn't already.

No, you wanting to be special and feel different from a wizard is not actually enough to justify the work. You want a Psion? I'll help you pick the perfect spelllist in the wizard or sorceror class. I'll even let you write as many new ones are you want. But I will not be interested in a brand new subset of mechanics just for the sake of the mechanics being different.


Going round in circles here.

As long as you can do the things you want at the end of the day, I only need one mechanical option for it. Asking for another one is pretty much why people have a disliking for psionics, which is a shame, because they are a fun archetype. I just don't care for the unnecessary stuff to make your feels good.

I mean, you can kill people just fine with SoD spells, why ask for a separate mechanic to hit things and deal damage? Now everything has to track "Hit Points" just because Fighters have to be difficult, and not use the simple SoD system.

Still, that's your good for being willing to let people write new spells to match their vision. For some things, that will work fine. For the Fighter, though? Probably not so much. So it depends on how the player conceptualizes psionics.

Lord Torath
2019-07-24, 05:39 PM
So, this thread - plus Angry's article - helped me understand what's always bothered me about psionics. And it's related to "needless complexity".

Now, 2e had "make a stat check - sometimes your power works, sometimes it doesn't". That was "complexity with purpose". And 2e used all 6 stats for those rolls. OK, that allows different psions to have different strengths and weaknesses. Complexity with purpose.

But 3e? Your specialization determined which stat you used for everything. 3.5? Intelligence. Period.

So what don't I like? What's been bugging me?

Well, to my mind, psionics is an act of will. It's not how well you understand arcane formulae, or how powerful your mind is, but how strong your will is. And, to me, that's Wisdom.

And I'd never really thought about it before.2E Actually only used 3 stats: Wisdom (Prime Requisite), Constitution, and Intelligence.

Quertus
2019-07-24, 06:00 PM
2E Actually only used 3 stats: Wisdom (Prime Requisite), Constitution, and Intelligence.

What? No, that can't be right. *Checks*

Catfall: Dex -2
Awe: Chr -2

But… those are outliers, almost everything uses those 3 stats. Huh.

Anonymouswizard
2019-07-24, 06:29 PM
But 3e? Your specialization determined which stat you used for everything. 3.5? Intelligence. Period.

3e is worse. Psychometabolism runs off Strength. Psychoportation runs off Dexterity. Psychokinesis runs off Constitution. Metacreativity runs off Intelligence. Clairsentience runs off Wisdom. Telepathy runs off Charisma.

It doesn't matter which you decided to focus on, this is always true (otherwise the Psychic Warrior doesn't work). In a game Othery than 3e D&D this more organic way of limiting powers miffy have been interesting, but D&D traditionally suffers from casters with broad limits and a harsh penalisation of MAD characters.

Which is why 3.5 turning Psions into wizards and introducing the Wilder as a Sorcerer analogue worked. Psionics now stood up to magic with it's SAD aspects, but stricter limits on what it could do, and the fact that there were far more spells published than powers, stopped it from bend too broken.

On that note, if like any eventual D&D 6e to have mental stats play a bigger role in combat, and physical stats to play a bigger role in spellcasting. Although maybe I'll just try making that system myself.

Particle_Man
2019-07-24, 09:09 PM
But 3e? Your specialization determined which stat you used for everything. 3.5? Intelligence. Period.

So what don't I like? What's been bugging me?

Well, to my mind, psionics is an act of will. It's not how well you understand arcane formulae, or how powerful your mind is, but how strong your will is. And, to me, that's Wisdom.

And I'd never really thought about it.

I suppose you could ban psions and wilders but allow psychic warriors and soul knives.

Segev
2019-07-25, 12:08 AM
So what don't I like? What's been bugging me?

Well, to my mind, psionics is an act of will. It's not how well you understand arcane formulae, or how powerful your mind is, but how strong your will is. And, to me, that's Wisdom.

And I'd never really thought about it before.
.

In 3e, they inconsistently made a transition where Charisma was force of will as you impose it on the world.

Millstone85
2019-07-25, 04:10 AM
In 3e, they inconsistently made a transition where Charisma was force of will as you impose it on the world.Yeah, when it comes to spellcasting and the like:

Intelligence is about analysis, such as figuring out the protocol.
Wisdom is about awareness, such as communing with nature.
Charisma is about presence and determination.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-25, 08:18 AM
Yeah, when it comes to spellcasting and the like:

Intelligence is about analysis, such as figuring out the protocol.
Wisdom is about awareness, such as communing with nature.
Charisma is about presence and determination.



And only one of the three really lines up with the normal usage of the word.

LibraryOgre
2019-07-25, 09:24 AM
Yeah, when it comes to spellcasting and the like:

Intelligence is about analysis, such as figuring out the protocol.
Wisdom is about awareness, such as communing with nature.
Charisma is about presence and determination.


I borrow from Shadowrun, and it's Astral Attributes (at least, in earlier editions)

Intelligence is your Astral Quickness/Dexterity.
Willpower/Wisdom is your Astral Body/Constitution.
Charisma is your Astral Strength.

Quickly and accurately manipulate several concepts? That's intelligence. Resist being manipulated or affected? That's Wisdom. Force others into change? That's Charisma.

Particle_Man
2019-07-25, 09:32 AM
Hmmm . . . That might actually be a fun way to do psionic combat. Each psionic character creates an avatar in mind space that has physical stats that are swapovers of the psionic character’s mental stats, and then the avatars duke it out.

Eldan
2019-07-25, 09:35 AM
Interestingly, the Astral Plane actually works like that. At least, it did in Planescape, maybe also third edition: your mental ability scores also became your physical ability scores. THat said, I think they used Intelligence as Strength, Willpower as Dexterity and Charisma as Constitution, mostly because those lined up?

That said, I could see Charisma making sense as Constitution. It's your sense of self, too.

Segev
2019-07-25, 11:22 AM
And only one of the three really lines up with the normal usage of the word.

Intelligence definitely does. Charisma does, too, if you pay attention to all the cases in which it's used. Wisdom is a bit of a stretch, but fits when you cut out the parts that overlap with the other two and look for the archetypal "wise man," who tends to be aware of much and able to read others like a book.

I'm curious if the one that "really lines up" to you is Int or Cha. I'm guessing Int.

LibraryOgre
2019-07-25, 11:37 AM
Hmmm . . . That might actually be a fun way to do psionic combat. Each psionic character creates an avatar in mind space that has physical stats that are swapovers of the psionic character’s mental stats, and then the avatars duke it out.

This is similar to what Dark Sun's "Will and the Way (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17199/The-Will-and-the-Way-2e?affiliate_id=315505)" did. Using the 5 attacks and 5 defenses, they further specialized them into various seemings (cannot recall the phrase they used), which represented different aspects. A given seeming would be stronger against other seemings, just as different defenses were stronger against certain attacks.

To add spice, both sides would, ideally, have cards listing the attack, defense, and seeming they were using. They'd choose them, then reveal them simultaneously.... so if your opponent chose a good seeming, they could trounce you, even if your defense was usually strong against their attack.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-25, 11:44 AM
Intelligence definitely does. Charisma does, too, if you pay attention to all the cases in which it's used. Wisdom is a bit of a stretch, but fits when you cut out the parts that overlap with the other two and look for the archetypal "wise man," who tends to be aware of much and able to read others like a book.

I'm curious if the one that "really lines up" to you is Int or Cha. I'm guessing Int.

INT lines up.

CHA doesn't -- it's used for all sorts of stuff besides charm and "personal magnetism". Determination? Personal "power"? Inner "force"? What? Over time, it became the meaningless grab-bag stat of D&D.

Lord Torath
2019-07-25, 11:59 AM
This is similar to what Dark Sun's "Will and the Way (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17199/The-Will-and-the-Way-2e?affiliate_id=315505)" did. Using the 5 attacks and 5 defenses, they further specialized them into various seemings (cannot recall the phrase they used), which represented different aspects. A given seeming would be stronger against other seemings, just as different defenses were stronger against certain attacks.

To add spice, both sides would, ideally, have cards listing the attack, defense, and seeming they were using. They'd choose them, then reveal them simultaneously.... so if your opponent chose a good seeming, they could trounce you, even if your defense was usually strong against their attack.Harbingers and Constructs. The five attack modes were each divided into 4 harbingers, and the 5 defense modes were each divided into 5 constructs.

Personally, I find the harbingers and constructs to be "complexity for complexity's sake", and I've never used them. They use the very same rules as the standard attack and defense modes, except that you now need to check a 20x20 matrix for the modifiers rather than a 5x5 matrix. I figure you can add the imagery without adding the rules complexity. The cards are a very good idea, though. I've created a word file with the powers formatted onto 3x5 cards1. The attack mode cards summarize the effects of a successful attack on a contacted mind (along with cost, range, power score, etc), and the defense mode cards list the modifier to the attack mode.

1. I then purchased a pdf from Paizo of the official TSR psionic cards and decided I liked mine better.

Millstone85
2019-07-25, 12:11 PM
INT lines up.

CHA doesn't -- it's used for all sorts of stuff besides charm and "personal magnetism". Determination? Personal "power"? Inner "force"? What? Over time, it became the meaningless grab-bag stat of D&D.I think determination can be justified as persuading oneself to push on. "Come on, me, you can do this!"

CHAsting might also assume that magic is receptive to personal magnetism.

Segev
2019-07-25, 12:50 PM
INT lines up.

CHA doesn't -- it's used for all sorts of stuff besides charm and "personal magnetism". Determination? Personal "power"? Inner "force"? What? Over time, it became the meaningless grab-bag stat of D&D.

Nah, it's just leaning heavily on "force of personality."

Bigmouth
2019-07-25, 03:09 PM
Despite the people posting hate on this particular thread, I don't think in general many players have any sort of hate for psions, or psychic powers being added into their D&D game. I heard a lot of complaints about 4E (a lot from my own gaming groups of the time) but what I didn't hear was "4E sucks because of psionic classes." Once my own gaming groups ended up deciding they liked 4E, it still wasn't something people hated. But they all hated psionics in earlier editions. With a passion. My own take from that is that people (in general) would have zero problem with a simple, well built psionic class or classes. The main stumbling block is poorly designed game mechanics for those classes.

Segev
2019-07-25, 03:16 PM
Despite the people posting hate on this particular thread, I don't think in general many players have any sort of hate for psions, or psychic powers being added into their D&D game. I heard a lot of complaints about 4E (a lot from my own gaming groups of the time) but what I didn't hear was "4E sucks because of psionic classes." Once my own gaming groups ended up deciding they liked 4E, it still wasn't something people hated. But they all hated psionics in earlier editions. With a passion. My own take from that is that people (in general) would have zero problem with a simple, well built psionic class or classes. The main stumbling block is poorly designed game mechanics for those classes.

Probably not. Psionics in 4e is just martial initiation, like everything else. Disliking the mechanics of psionics in other editions doesn't make the mechanics BAD. In a lot of ways, they're more solid than systems that I doubt your group complained about in other editions. It's just different, perhaps in a way they disliked.

Tvtyrant
2019-07-25, 08:15 PM
Probably not. Psionics in 4e is just martial initiation, like everything else. Disliking the mechanics of psionics in other editions doesn't make the mechanics BAD. In a lot of ways, they're more solid than systems that I doubt your group complained about in other editions. It's just different, perhaps in a way they disliked.

4E psions had the problem that the best powers were frontloaded, and you wanted to do the same thing every round of every combat. They were very effective, and extremely boring.

Particle_Man
2019-07-25, 09:10 PM
And besides, 3.5 psionics are at least as well designed as 3.5 wizard spells. Now first and second Ed had issues and 3.0 had different issues. Though I have a soft spot for the 3.0 half-orc idiot with hypercognition. :smallsmile:

DMVerdandi
2019-07-25, 10:23 PM
Why the hate?

Grognardism.
Full stop.

I am a 90's baby, so I grew up with 3.5; Those who are speaking to the hate of editions before that fall on my deaf ears. I have no experience, nor desire to experience that. From my perspective, XPH is really the beginning of crunchy and organized psionics.

The excuse about not wanting to learn other systems is a poor excuse as well. If not being able to understand these rules was that hard, you wouldn't play the game. D&D is crunchy, and there are lighter systems if that is what you want.

And as far as 3.5 Psionics, "each power is level x 2 -1. You can't spend more than your level is points at once"
That's it. That is the system. Some powers can be augmented, in which you spend a point(s) to get a rider effect. So if something costs 3 points, and you can add a D6 with the expenditure of another point, then that is 3+1 = 4.
If you are level 4, you can't spend more to augment or for metapsionics.


That is at best 3rd grade mathematics. If you can't learn that, I have no faith in you as a DM or a creative mind, and you probably aren't even playing the core rules correctly. All of psionics is less complicated than wild-shape.


Then, in so far as Psychic powers not being "fantasy", then any mentalist, yogi, swami, or any of those types just don't exist. Never mind psychic powers BY NAME being a VERY frequent story device in stories and legends in many cultures that existed before the common era.
Patanjali's yoga scriptures, Journey to the west, Greek enlightenment philosophy, etc, and all of these ideas were traded [Up until the dark ages].

Furthermore, Dungeons and Dragons is really a melange of mythological settings and such, and almost all of it is an amalgamation. Knights in full armor fighting floating eyeball ALIENS in labyrinths? Come now.


The fact is people don't want psionics in their game because:
1.They are Myopically following certain tropes, and never deviating, even though the game itself deviates. Elves must always be archers, Dwarves must always be axe wielding drunks. All non-core features are non-existent and or broken. [Grognardism]

2.To spite their players who they perceive as being munchkins

3.Meme behavior and token responses based on the boards/internet [This happened with Tome of Battle too]

4.They have their own railroad and psionics for some reason don't fit. It's too anime or Scifi and as a form of protectionism, will not allow. Similar but not the same as 1.



It is NOT because it's too hard to learn, or inherently broken or any of that.

Vknight
2019-07-25, 11:00 PM
The real answer to psychics is why not?

*Pulls out lightsaber*

Haldir
2019-07-25, 11:51 PM
I mean, you can kill people just fine with SoD spells, why ask for a separate mechanic to hit things and deal damage? Now everything has to track "Hit Points" just because Fighters have to be difficult, and not use the simple SoD system.

Still, that's your good for being willing to let people write new spells to match their vision. For some things, that will work fine. For the Fighter, though? Probably not so much. So it depends on how the player conceptualizes psionics.

This is a bit of an oversimplification of my point while also deliberately ignoring context. There eventually comes a point where you have to decide "is this different enough to warrant different mechanics?" I can show you a perfectly good "psion" with the sorceror class (5e) just by renaming it's abilities. I cannot, however, show you a perfectly good spellcaster using the fighter class. You're being intentionally dense for the sake of your argument.

Eldan
2019-07-26, 04:08 AM
I mean, purely mechanically speaking, psionics in third edition are just spells that don't use most components. So if you want to nitpick, whenever you see someone cast a spell in fantasy without bat guano and loudly incanted spells, it might be psionics. That's how I tend to use it in my games, too. Alternative magical discipline. More meditative and internal, instead of ritualistic.

Quertus
2019-07-26, 06:34 AM
This is a bit of an oversimplification of my point while also deliberately ignoring context. There eventually comes a point where you have to decide "is this different enough to warrant different mechanics?" I can show you a perfectly good "psion" with the sorceror class (5e) just by renaming it's abilities. I cannot, however, show you a perfectly good spellcaster using the fighter class. You're being intentionally dense for the sake of your argument.

You missed the point.

You can show me what *you think* is a perfectly good "Psion" with just the Sorcerer class. And I might even agree with you. But, since by your own admission, you cannot build a perfectly good X with Y for every value of X and Y, it stands to reason that some people's conceptualization of what a Psion is would not agree with yours, and would not be buildable with the Sorcerer class, any more than their idea of a Fighter.

Gotta admit, though, it'd be heck'a fun to watch you build a whole party of sorcerers through liberal use of custom spells, to let them be the players' concept of Psion, Fighter, Thief, Druid, Hercules, etc.

Willie the Duck
2019-07-26, 09:41 AM
Why the hate?
Grognardism.
Full stop.

That doesn't really compute. As mentioned before, psionics have existed in the game since the very first supplement for original D&D in 1975.


The excuse about not wanting to learn other systems is a poor excuse as well. If not being able to understand these rules was that hard, you wouldn't play the game. D&D is crunchy, and there are lighter systems if that is what you want.
It's not an excuse, it is a preference. People who do not like XYZ or do not want it in their game do no need an excuse. Regardless, the existence of complexity in D&D does not imply that additional complexity (particularly complexity that does not serve a clear point or provide an obvious benefit to one's game table) must be adopted or will be appreciated. Every additional rules subset has to undergo the same sales pitch to the audience as any other.


And as far as 3.5 Psionics, "each power is level x 2 -1. You can't spend more than your level is points at once"
That's it. That is the system. Some powers can be augmented, in which you spend a point(s) to get a rider effect. So if something costs 3 points, and you can add a D6 with the expenditure of another point, then that is 3+1 = 4.
If you are level 4, you can't spend more to augment or for metapsionics.

That is at best 3rd grade mathematics. If you can't learn that, I have no faith in you as a DM or a creative mind, and you probably aren't even playing the core rules correctly. All of psionics is less complicated than wild-shape.

If this were all that psionics were, there wouldn't be any issues. People have played spell-point based magic systems before. You are right, that part is not particularly complicated. It's also not really what (AFAICT) people have a problem with.


The fact is people don't want psionics in their game because:
1.They are Myopically following certain tropes, and never deviating, even though the game itself deviates. Elves must always be archers, Dwarves must always be axe wielding drunks. All non-core features are non-existent and or broken. [Grognardism]

2.To spite their players who they perceive as being munchkins

3.Meme behavior and token responses based on the boards/internet [This happened with Tome of Battle too]

4.They have their own railroad and psionics for some reason don't fit. It's too anime or Scifi and as a form of protectionism, will not allow. Similar but not the same as 1.

These are not facts. They are your personal take on the real motivation of conveniently absent straw opponents.

Haldir
2019-07-26, 11:04 AM
You missed the point.

You can show me what *you think* is a perfectly good "Psion" with just the Sorcerer class. And I might even agree with you. But, since by your own admission, you cannot build a perfectly good X with Y for every value of X and Y, it stands to reason that some people's conceptualization of what a Psion is would not agree with yours, and would not be buildable with the Sorcerer class, any more than their idea of a Fighter.

Gotta admit, though, it'd be heck'a fun to watch you build a whole party of sorcerers through liberal use of custom spells, to let them be the players' concept of Psion, Fighter, Thief, Druid, Hercules, etc.

but you don't need custom spells to create a psion. Literally everything they do is already done in some way by existing spells. You cannot name a single thing that a psion can do traditionally that isn't already a spell. I mean, maybe you can, but nobody else in the thread has been able to so far. Except for maybe "psychic combat" whatever that is. Even then, we have mechanics for contested checks.

Segev
2019-07-26, 11:39 AM
but you don't need custom spells to create a psion. Literally everything they do is already done in some way by existing spells. You cannot name a single thing that a psion can do traditionally that isn't already a spell. I mean, maybe you can, but nobody else in the thread has been able to so far. Except for maybe "psychic combat" whatever that is. Even then, we have mechanics for contested checks.

(Mass) Time Hop
Time Regression
Astral Construct (is not the same as the Summon Monster line, and, in fact, the augmentation mechanic highlights additional differences)
Skate
Bestow Power
(Greater) Concealing Amphora
Control Body
Deja Vu
Dismiss Ectoplasm
Ecto Protection
Empathic Transfer
Feat Leech
Graft Weapon
Immovability
Metaconcert
Mindlink (as a first level ability, rather than a 5th level spell, with different targeting)
Personality Parasite
Mind Seed
Quintessence
Schism (now that haste doesn't do anything similar anymore)
Share Pain
Vigor (false life is nowhere near as efficient)
Solicit Psicrystal
Sustenance (spell equivalents conjure food and water)
Synesthete
Touchsight (admittedly, blindsight-granting spells are close enough)
Ubiquitous Vision


Some of these may have ways of replicating them or coming close based on spells, but not all of them. Others you could claim you could just make new spells for, and of course you could. But you'd have to; you can't just do it with existing spells.

Quertus
2019-07-26, 02:11 PM
but you don't need custom spells to create a psion. Literally everything they do is already done in some way by existing spells. You cannot name a single thing that a psion can do traditionally that isn't already a spell. I mean, maybe you can, but nobody else in the thread has been able to so far. Except for maybe "psychic combat" whatever that is. Even then, we have mechanics for contested checks.

Well, what do you mean by "traditionally"? In 3e, Psions can use a(n augmented) 2nd level spell to boost any stat, or multiple at once. And have tricks to recover their "spells", and so can (with a Ring of Spell Storing) buff the whole party, and keep the whole party buffed.

In 2e, they could open Dimension Doors that actually stuck around for as long as the Psion kept paying for them.

In my head canon, they can cause people and objects to burst into flame, and can choose to maintain the effect until the person burns to death (even if in a vacuum), if they so desire.

I don't think any of those effects can be replicated without custom spells.

But with custom spells? Like I said, I'd love to see it. (Never mind my 1st level 2e Psion with PaO…)

Talakeal
2019-07-26, 02:42 PM
INT lines up.

CHA doesn't -- it's used for all sorts of stuff besides charm and "personal magnetism". Determination? Personal "power"? Inner "force"? What? Over time, it became the meaningless grab-bag stat of D&D.

"Meaninless grab bag" is a pretty bad idea for a stat, we already had one like that, it was called wisdom.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-26, 02:47 PM
"Meaninless grab bag" is a pretty bad idea for a stat, we already had one like that, it was called wisdom.

Wisdom... yeah, I guess that has become some sort of combination of awareness, willpower, mental defense, and "natural world sagacity", hasn't it?

Willie the Duck
2019-07-26, 02:51 PM
Wisdom... yeah, I guess that has become some sort of combination of awareness, willpower, mental defense, and "natural world sagacity", hasn't it?

Along with occasionally 'things cleric/druids should be good at' (ex: medicine).

Charisma just bites off a bit of the 'willpower' but with 'force of personality' or however it is framed. Honestly, that makes more sense in Hero System or the like, where the stat is at least specifically Presence.

Zakhara
2019-07-26, 03:11 PM
Except for maybe "psychic combat" whatever that is. Even then, we have mechanics for contested checks.

Psionics had several--rather different--resolution systems starting out. One was using Psionic Abilities; as noted many were totally removed from spells, and some weren't.

But they also had its effect versus non-Psionics, using a Save derived from INT (and the cost of failure changing also; average INT of 9-12 was actually safest).

Psychic Combat is notorious for its many tables, but was so much more than just a bog-standard dice-off. Players had Attack/Defense Modes (with familiar names like Mind Blank, Ego Whip et al), and selected them double-blind. Each Mode had advantages over another, and neither contestant knew exactly what the other had, turning this form of combat into a deadly cat-and-mouse minigame.

AD&D botched Psychic Combat when it restated the rules, which is a damn shame. Very underrated part of the Psionic experience.

EDIT: forgot to say that use of Abilities also drained Total Psionic Strength, which affected your potency in Psychic Combat. An interesting source of risk management that spell slots never quite captured.

Talakeal
2019-07-26, 04:07 PM
(Mass) Time Hop
Time Regression
Astral Construct (is not the same as the Summon Monster line, and, in fact, the augmentation mechanic highlights additional differences)
Skate
Bestow Power
(Greater) Concealing Amphora
Control Body
Deja Vu
Dismiss Ectoplasm
Ecto Protection
Empathic Transfer
Feat Leech
Graft Weapon
Immovability
Metaconcert
Mindlink (as a first level ability, rather than a 5th level spell, with different targeting)
Personality Parasite
Mind Seed
Quintessence
Schism (now that haste doesn't do anything similar anymore)
Share Pain
Vigor (false life is nowhere near as efficient)
Solicit Psicrystal
Sustenance (spell equivalents conjure food and water)
Synesthete
Touchsight (admittedly, blindsight-granting spells are close enough)
Ubiquitous Vision

I think this is looking at it a bit backward.

Sure, there are some unique powers that were developed for the psion class because there was a need to give them something unique.

However, why did there need to be a psion class in the first place when most of the traditional psychic powers (ESP, clairvoyance, telepathy, telekinesis, astral protection, etc.) already existed as spells?

Would the game have really suffered if any of the items from your list were likewise developed as spells rather than powers?

Segev
2019-07-26, 04:51 PM
I think this is looking at it a bit backward.

Sure, there are some unique powers that were developed for the psion class because there was a need to give them something unique.

However, why did there need to be a psion class in the first place when most of the traditional psychic powers (ESP, clairvoyance, telepathy, telekinesis, astral protection, etc.) already existed as spells?

Would the game have really suffered if any of the items from your list were likewise developed as spells rather than powers?

I don't think you were to whom I wsa responding, so I'll forgive you for the fallacy in which you're engaging, as I believe you honestly think my motivation is other than refuting his claim. But this is moving the goalposts.

The claim was made that you could build a psion using nothing but the already-extant spells, with no need to even invent new ones, let alone a new class to use them, and do literally everything a psion can do. This is not even a complete list of things which you would have to make up new spells to make existing spellcasting classes able to do.

Your direction of attack, Talekeal, is different, and my list isn't a response to it. However, the response to yours is, "Why do we need Tome of Battle when we already have spellcasters? Why not just play a wizard who uses magic to make his sword-swinging better?"

The answer is the same in both cases: they're trying to capture different things with those classes.

Anonymouswizard
2019-07-26, 06:02 PM
"Meaninless grab bag" is a pretty bad idea for a stat, we already had one like that, it was called wisdom.

Honestly I'm starting to think that three mental stats might be too many. We could probably do fine with Intelligence/Willpower or Intelligence/Perception. I somewhat prefer the first one of these two, fold perception into Intelligence and say it's about processing speed.

I'm the other hand I'm okay with just one mental stat, and a massive supporter of a single Physique stat over a Strength/Constitution split. It's not overly realistic, but they trend to go together and simplicity is good.

Now this isn't the same thing as a meaningless grab bag stat, this is intentionally using broader categories and being careful about division of skills. Or rather it's not dividing stats for the sake of dividing stats, simplicity is a good thing (or rather needless complexity is bad), and fewer stats means it's easier to make them matter fit every character.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-26, 07:21 PM
Honestly I'm starting to think that three mental stats might be too many. We could probably do fine with Intelligence/Willpower or Intelligence/Perception. I somewhat prefer the first one of these two, fold perception into Intelligence and say it's about processing speed.

I'm the other hand I'm okay with just one mental stat, and a massive supporter of a single Physique stat over a Strength/Constitution split. It's not overly realistic, but they trend to go together and simplicity is good.

Now this isn't the same thing as a meaningless grab bag stat, this is intentionally using broader categories and being careful about division of skills. Or rather it's not dividing stats for the sake of dividing stats, simplicity is a good thing (or rather needless complexity is bad), and fewer stats means it's easier to make them matter fit every character.

On the other hand, it's harder to make a character who is X but not Y.

Anonymouswizard
2019-07-27, 11:07 AM
On the other hand, it's harder to make a character who is X but not Y.

True, but it's a balancing act. More stats means more differentiation, but less stats means dumping a stat hurts more (although boosting a stat is also inherently better).

I mean, If we want more differntiation we could easily expand D&D to include ten stats:
Strength
Constitution
Dexterity
Agility
Reaction Speed
Intelligence
Education
Willpower
Perception
Charisma

In a game where characters are only differentiated by Attributes this sort of spread is probably fine. If we throw in special combat skills and magic spells it's likely better, because we can make everything useful in most situations. It could peobably be quite balanced, because we've split them down relatively narrow.

At the same time, I've grown to like simplicity and not splitting anything more than you need to. It makes teaching games to those without the book easier.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that differentiation, simplicity, and balance are all fine goals.

Quertus
2019-07-27, 12:49 PM
So, let's make a Psion as a Sorcerer mod ACF, complete with a few sample custom spells.

The "Psion" Sorcerer gets one fewer spell slot per level, and loses the "Familiar" class feature. In exchange, they gain access to an additional custom spell list, and gain Immediate Metamagic, Heighten Spell, Improved Heightening, Purely Mental, Fickle Magic, and Spell Debt as class features.

Immediate Metamagic: metamagic can be added on the fly (as per a normal Sorcerer), except that doing so does not increase the casting time of their spells.

Improved Heightening - whenever a Psion uses metamagic on a spell, the spell's level (for any purposes that would be advantageous, such as save DC, or ability to penetrate Minor Globe) increases as though it had been heightened.

Purely Mental - all the spells the Psion casts require no components, as though affected by Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew/Ignore Materials.

Fickle Magic - whenever the Psion attempts to cast a spell, they must attempt a stat check (stat corresponding to the spell), DC = 5 + (2*spell level), or the spell fails.

Charm Person (1): if this spell is Heightened to 4th level, it becomes Charm Monster. If this spell is Heightened to 9th level, it becomes Dominate Monster.

Spontaneous Combustion (0): corporeal target must save or be on fire. You may Maintain this spell, incurring Spell Debt. If the save failed, so long as you Maintain this spell, the target continues to burn from within, and cannot be extinguished, even in a vacuum. If the target made the save, then they must attempt a new saving throw, at a cumulative -1 penalty, each round that you maintain the spell, until they catch on fire (after which, follow the rules for Maintaining the spell after a failed save). When you choose to end the spell, you must pay the Spell Debt. If heightened to 1st, it deals an additional d6 fire damage; if heightened to 2nd, this damage ignores immunity to fire; if heightened to 3rd, this spell can burn incorporeal undead.

Spell Debt: needs work on the specific math, but some spells can be maintained, at the cost of other spell slots later. So, if you maintain Spontaneous Combustion for 18 rounds, it may cost 9 spell levels of Spell Debt. If you ever attempt to cast / lost spells / otherwise fall below your spell debt, or fall unconscious or are otherwise mentally incapacitated (stoned, feeble minded, etc), all currently Maintained spells end, and you pay your Spell Debt immediately.

Power Recovery (0): flip a coin; if you win the flip, recover up to 3 spell slots of the level this spell has been heightened to or lower. This spell requires 10 rounds to cast.

Animal Affinity (2): provides your choice of a +4 or a +1d4+1 enhancement bonus to a stat of your choice. If the former, for every 2 levels you heighten the spell, it provides a +4 bonus to an additional stat. If the latter, for every 3 levels you heighten it, the bonus increases by an additional 1d4+1.

Dimension Door (4): like Dimension Door, but this spell can be Maintained for Spell Debt. While it is Maintained, (insert reference to standard but probably nonexistent rules about connected spaces, (visible) gateways, etc).

Haldir
2019-07-27, 02:32 PM
I don't think you were to whom I wsa responding, so I'll forgive you for the fallacy in which you're engaging, as I believe you honestly think my motivation is other than refuting his claim. But this is moving the goalposts.

The claim was made that you could build a psion using nothing but the already-extant spells, with no need to even invent new ones, let alone a new class to use them, and do literally everything a psion can do. This is not even a complete list of things which you would have to make up new spells to make existing spellcasting classes able to do.

Your direction of attack, Talekeal, is different, and my list isn't a response to it. However, the response to yours is, "Why do we need Tome of Battle when we already have spellcasters? Why not just play a wizard who uses magic to make his sword-swinging better?"

The answer is the same in both cases: they're trying to capture different things with those classes.

Those are meaningless mechanics. I'm talking about thematics. Moving things with your mind, reading minds, influencing minds.

The argument "these particular spells aren't already spells" is weak. YOu want special mechanics just for specialness, all I want is a playable psychic, which I can get without special extra mechanics of specialness, thank you. None of those things you mentioned are integral to the archetype in any way at all. It's confusing mechanics with narrative, which is not a particularly appealing trait to me.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-27, 03:49 PM
Sometimes the mechanics just don't fit the fiction-layer thing they're supposed to be, however.

If a systems's spellcasting mechanics are built around complex gestures and arcane phrases and drawing symbols in the air in front of you (more so than D&D's system, even)... then it's really not going to fit "psychic" powers very well.

To me, that's hardly "meaningless" or "just trying to be special"... it's getting the feel of the mechanical layer to sync with the feel of the fiction layer.

Segev
2019-07-27, 04:10 PM
Those are meaningless mechanics. I'm talking about thematics. Moving things with your mind, reading minds, influencing minds.

The argument "these particular spells aren't already spells" is weak. YOu want special mechanics just for specialness, all I want is a playable psychic, which I can get without special extra mechanics of specialness, thank you. None of those things you mentioned are integral to the archetype in any way at all. It's confusing mechanics with narrative, which is not a particularly appealing trait to me.
Again, the shifting the goalposts from that to which I was responding. For reasons already stated.

SimonMoon6
2019-07-27, 04:11 PM
Some people hate psionics because they do things too differently. They've got a whole new system that you have to learn and in some versions of the game, psionic attack modes and defense modes made things so very much more complicated.

Some people hate psionics because they don't do things differently enough. They have mental powers that are not mundane... well, anything that's not mundane can be done by a wizard/sorcerer, so why do we need another "does non-mundane things" class?

Some people hate psionics because they don't fit into the generic fantasy world that D&D is supposed to represent. It's a science-fictional superpower and D&D doesn't have any of those.

Some people hate psionics because they already fit into the generic fantasy world that D&D is supposed to represent, because magic can do psionics already.

Some people hate psionics because they're too new. They just get added with a supplement and aren't part of the core rules, making it hard to integrate with the game since everything else has already been constructed without the assumption that psionics exist.

Some people hate psionics even though they're super-old, being in the Player's Handbook in first edition, with every monster having to have their psionic abilities listed in the Monster Manual.

Quertus
2019-07-27, 04:24 PM
Sometimes the mechanics just don't fit the fiction-layer thing they're supposed to be, however.

If a systems's spellcasting mechanics are built around complex gestures and arcane phrases and drawing symbols in the air in front of you (more so than D&D's system, even)... then it's really not going to fit "psychic" powers very well.

To me, that's hardly "meaningless" or "just trying to be special"... it's getting the feel of the mechanical layer to sync with the feel of the fiction layer.

Lol. I had just noticed that, and added it to my "Psion ACF", then I read your post.

Yeah VSM components and Psion don't mix in my view of psionics. Most of D&D's specific implementation? Eh, hit or miss. But standard Sorcerer casting method is definitely right out.

Knaight
2019-07-28, 03:10 PM
Sometimes the mechanics just don't fit the fiction-layer thing they're supposed to be, however.

If a systems's spellcasting mechanics are built around complex gestures and arcane phrases and drawing symbols in the air in front of you (more so than D&D's system, even)... then it's really not going to fit "psychic" powers very well.

To me, that's hardly "meaningless" or "just trying to be special"... it's getting the feel of the mechanical layer to sync with the feel of the fiction layer.

On the other hand, if the spellcasting mechanics are built around complex gestures and arcane phrases then why isn't Dexterity a significant spellcasting stat? Being smart enough to know the exact geometry you need in your magic circle counts for approximately nothing if you don't have the fine motor skills to draw a circle (absent compasses, assistants, etc.), and when the only thing that counts is a mental stat I'd argue that the mechanics potentially fit psychic powers better.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-28, 07:55 PM
On the other hand, if the spellcasting mechanics are built around complex gestures and arcane phrases then why isn't Dexterity a significant spellcasting stat? Being smart enough to know the exact geometry you need in your magic circle counts for approximately nothing if you don't have the fine motor skills to draw a circle (absent compasses, assistants, etc.), and when the only thing that counts is a mental stat I'd argue that the mechanics potentially fit psychic powers better.

I don't know why DEX isn't a spellcasting stat in D&D, perhaps because they originally thought of each class as going with exactly one stat, and no one has really thought it out... or exacting precision isn't considered of dire important, or something. But the mechanics clearly include requirements that the caster be free to and able to gesture, speak, and do some stuff with esoteric ingredients, in some combination.

And at least in many cases D&D's arcane magic comes across as knowing which "system commands" to enter to activate or alter reality's "code", which also doesn't fit psychic powers very well.

Pleh
2019-07-28, 08:13 PM
I don't know why DEX isn't a spellcasting stat in D&D, perhaps because they originally thought of each class as going with exactly one stat, and no one has really thought it out... or exacting precision isn't considered of dire important, or something. But the mechanics clearly include requirements that the caster be free to and able to gesture, speak, and do some stuff with esoteric ingredients, in some combination.

And at least in many cases D&D's arcane magic comes across as knowing which "system commands" to enter to activate or alter reality's "code", which also doesn't fit psychic powers very well.

That would be interesting if there was a Dex based sleight of hand check required for somatic components. Then Cha for Verbal components (same with public speaking and public performance, your sense of confidence and ability to articulate under pressure). Then it might be cool if Int was the "material" component stat as you deduce what materials in your area could trigger a spell effect (obviously, you keep basic components in your pouch, but sometimes components are naturally already at hand).

Anything to make the spellcasters more MAD like the rest of the classes that struggle with that sort of thing. All the classes should be more MAD, as it balances things better.

deuterio12
2019-07-28, 08:29 PM
On the other hand, if the spellcasting mechanics are built around complex gestures and arcane phrases then why isn't Dexterity a significant spellcasting stat? Being smart enough to know the exact geometry you need in your magic circle counts for approximately nothing if you don't have the fine motor skills to draw a circle (absent compasses, assistants, etc.), and when the only thing that counts is a mental stat I'd argue that the mechanics potentially fit psychic powers better.

Lab/chirurgy work demands a lot of good hand work, but that doesn't mean a biologist that's carefully opened hundreds of animals or a chirurgeon that has opened hundreds of patients will be any good at archery, sneaking around or dodging attacks/blasts.

Basically Dex represents more of an "automated" movements, when you can react instinctively, automatically, with no thinking. Military archers would train until they could fire multiple arrows before the first one even reached the target. And if you're aiming at a moving target, time to think is a luxury.

Whereas if you're doing an operation or carefully opening a new specimen, it's technically complex gestures, but you can't turn your brain off, the movements are not automatic, quite in the contrary, you must always concentrate, pay attention to the tiniest details.

And case in point spellcasting is tied to the concentration skill, which in turn is Con-based. And that's something that real world medics and scientists also need, endurance to keep working hours non-stop when needed, make sure they're not distracted by anything else when doing their stuff.

Related, one of the things that annoys me about psionics is how hard they are to disable. If you gag a spellcaster and tie up their hands, you've seriously hindered their abilities, but if you do the same to a psion, they don't give a single f***, they can still manifest at full ability.

So yeah, there's zero safe ways to restraing a dangerous psion, the only way to prevent them from using psionics is outright slicing their throat.

kinem
2019-07-28, 08:40 PM
When I picture a Psion I picture a shirtless muscular humanoid with glowing tattoos and a shaved head. Lot's of floating crystals of power of different shapes.

When I picture a wizard I picture an old skinny wizened guy with a long beard, robes and a weird hat.

How are those two aesthetics ever capable of overlapping?

So the only difference is age and muscularity? Face it, that's not a real difference. What happens when a psion grows old? Does he become a wizard?

Plenty of wizards are totally into magical crystals and magical tattoos, so there's NOT that. And there's no reason they can't be muscular. Even Gandalf was no slouch with a melee weapon.

I have no problem with psions, but I just see them as variant sorcerers.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-28, 09:32 PM
the only reason Psion is hated, is because Wizards were first, and people don't like second things being the same as first things, so they think second stuff is worse than the first stuff.

if we gone back in time and switched them around, the only difference in this discussion would be people thinking that magic is just poorly understood psychic power.

Psyren
2019-07-28, 11:42 PM
Anything to make the spellcasters more MAD like the rest of the classes that struggle with that sort of thing. All the classes should be more MAD, as it balances things better.

Every class being a little MAD is fine; where D&D has historically failed is that you're only allowed to get better at one stat at a time. This is ludicrous when you think about it - a fighter or barbarian who improves his craft isn't just getting more muscle, he's getting faster and tougher. Similarly, under a system like the one you describe, a wizard who gets more practiced at memorizing his spells and fishing for the right components would be getting simultaneously smarter and more deft.

There are other systems where you're able to (or forced to) pump multiple stats as you level, and I almost always find these more engaging, because you're no longer punished for not focusing on your key stat to the exclusion of all else. Green Ronin's Dragon Age, 5e, and Starfinder are some prominent examples.

Knaight
2019-07-29, 04:42 AM
Lab/chirurgy work demands a lot of good hand work, but that doesn't mean a biologist that's carefully opened hundreds of animals or a chirurgeon that has opened hundreds of patients will be any good at archery, sneaking around or dodging attacks/blasts.

No, but that's mostly just because the attribute is a blend of fine motor skills, gross motor skills, and reflexes, which aren't exactly strongly correlated. That biologist definitely has an edge if they try to learn to pick locks, for instance.

HouseRules
2019-07-29, 07:29 AM
Lab/chirurgy work demands a lot of good hand work, but that doesn't mean a biologist that's carefully opened hundreds of animals or a chirurgeon that has opened hundreds of patients will be any good at archery, sneaking around or dodging attacks/blasts.

Basically Dex represents more of an "automated" movements, when you can react instinctively, automatically, with no thinking. Military archers would train until they could fire multiple arrows before the first one even reached the target. And if you're aiming at a moving target, time to think is a luxury.

Whereas if you're doing an operation or carefully opening a new specimen, it's technically complex gestures, but you can't turn your brain off, the movements are not automatic, quite in the contrary, you must always concentrate, pay attention to the tiniest details.

And case in point spellcasting is tied to the concentration skill, which in turn is Con-based. And that's something that real world medics and scientists also need, endurance to keep working hours non-stop when needed, make sure they're not distracted by anything else when doing their stuff.

Related, one of the things that annoys me about psionics is how hard they are to disable. If you gag a spellcaster and tie up their hands, you've seriously hindered their abilities, but if you do the same to a psion, they don't give a single f***, they can still manifest at full ability.

So yeah, there's zero safe ways to restraing a dangerous psion, the only way to prevent them from using psionics is outright slicing their throat.

So the average person is limited to 15 minutes of consecutive concentration, and only the extraordinary could last longer. Your point is that surgeons and other medical and health staffs and officials have higher concentration and therefore higher constitution.

I would say, how about make constitution the limit. No one could have stat points more than constitution +X, so a 10 con creature never have 10+X any other stat. Now, the balance is what should X be, and most would say 2 (50% confidence interval), 4 (75% confidence interval), 6 (82.5% confidence interval), 8 (93.75% confidence interval), et cetera; and choose the appropriate level.

Pleh
2019-07-29, 08:07 AM
Every class being a little MAD is fine; where D&D has historically failed is that you're only allowed to get better at one stat at a time. This is ludicrous when you think about it - a fighter or barbarian who improves his craft isn't just getting more muscle, he's getting faster and tougher. Similarly, under a system like the one you describe, a wizard who gets more practiced at memorizing his spells and fishing for the right components would be getting simultaneously smarter and more deft.

There are other systems where you're able to (or forced to) pump multiple stats as you level, and I almost always find these more engaging, because you're no longer punished for not focusing on your key stat to the exclusion of all else. Green Ronin's Dragon Age, 5e, and Starfinder are some prominent examples.

To be fair, that's an easy enough house rule for D&D. I'd borrow the rule from SWSE (which is widely known for being a prototype that bridged 3.5 and 4e) that said, "2 points every 4 levels and you can't put both points in a single stat at any given level."

If my table was worried it would be imbalancingly powerful to have that many extra attribute increases, just start them out with a lower point buy limit, so they start a little weaker and end a little stronger.

Anonymouswizard
2019-07-29, 09:38 AM
No, but that's mostly just because the attribute is a blend of fine motor skills, gross motor skills, and reflexes, which aren't exactly strongly correlated. That biologist definitely has an edge if they try to learn to pick locks, for instance.

This has always annoyed me in games. I have below average reflexes and fine motor skills, but my gross motor skills/agility are fine. Thanks to the D&D legacy very few games can model that, the ones that can either split Dexterity into Dexterity/Reflexes and Agility, or make heavy use of advantages to simulate 'away from system norm' (hello GURPS). It gets more annoying the more stats are split, why are Strength and Constitution split but Dexterity and Agility aren't?

Anyway, if I was making 6e D&D I'd do away with skills and increase the number of base stats. Some jiggery pokery with the physical stats to seperate attack rolls, AC, and initiative, and some jiggery pokery with mental stats so it's clear what each one actually does.

I also think we should decide if magic is a physical art or a mental art. The former you should have to make Dexterity tolls to pull off the complex gestures, the latter you have to make Willpower/Charisma rolls to force the universe to bend to your will. Maybe different classes have different methods of casting spells, and thus use different stats, but never the same stat that determines their magical energy. Or maybe casters are TAD, with one stat determining magical energy, one determining what spells they can cast, and another regulating the casting itself. It might jolt the designers into giving warriors the stat increases they need to remain relevant without overly changing the strength of casters.

Actually, Strength is also getting a bit undervalued for everybody. I vote we move HP bonuses to Strength and use Consitution to determine spell slots/points (and I honestly wish D&D would either go to a spell points system or an actually Vancian one where spells are powerful but you only get a handful).

HouseRules
2019-07-29, 10:02 AM
Dexterity also have a right bias. Where's the Sinisterity for the left side?
It should be better to split into Reflex, Agility, Minor Motor Control, and Major Motor Control.
Then, we have to deal the difference between Agility when used to mean of changing direction, and Speed which is how fast a character could run.

Willie the Duck
2019-07-29, 11:38 AM
On the other hand, if the spellcasting mechanics are built around complex gestures and arcane phrases then why isn't Dexterity a significant spellcasting stat? Being smart enough to know the exact geometry you need in your magic circle counts for approximately nothing if you don't have the fine motor skills to draw a circle (absent compasses, assistants, etc.), and when the only thing that counts is a mental stat I'd argue that the mechanics potentially fit psychic powers better.


I don't know why DEX isn't a spellcasting stat in D&D, perhaps because they originally thought of each class as going with exactly one stat, and no one has really thought it out... or exacting precision isn't considered of dire important, or something. But the mechanics clearly include requirements that the caster be free to and able to gesture, speak, and do some stuff with esoteric ingredients, in some combination.

At least for AD&D 1&2e and for 3e (albeit with a combat-casting rule which often circumvented it) there was a clear and obvious way that the complex gestures were modelled -- if someone hit you while you were casting the spell, it would fail. Dexterity only played a portion of that (however much of your total AC it contributed), but perhaps that means that the level of physical complexity was such that most anyone could do them, provided nothing was actively messing you up. So less like a surgeon (which is hugely fine motor skills-dependent) and more like being a lab chemist (sure pouring from vial to beaker can be a problem if trying to do so in the middle of a sword fight, but unhindered you probably have a success rate in excess of 99% on the dexterity portion of the skill).

It's worth remembering that, up until 3e, Intelligence itself was only indirectly tied to one's spellcasting--in oD&D (pre-Greyhawk) and basic/classic, it was only an xp-boost to the wizarding classes (magic user and elf, plus some late-BECMI additions). In AD&D is was chance to learn a newfound spell and how many per level you could learn. But it didn't contribute to save DC, or to magic attack bonus, or anything like that.

Regardless, I agree that these arm motions and such are integral to the normal conception of a person with psychic powers. However, I think that, if that were the only difference, that they could work as a sorcerer ACF as suggest, just with different rules on spell disruption.

Lord Torath
2019-07-29, 01:52 PM
At least for AD&D 1&2e and for 3e (albeit with a combat-casting rule which often circumvented it) there was a clear and obvious way that the complex gestures were modelled -- if someone hit you while you were casting the spell, it would fail. Dexterity only played a portion of that (however much of your total AC it contributed), but perhaps that means that the level of physical complexity was such that most anyone could do them, provided nothing was actively messing you up. So less like a surgeon (which is hugely fine motor skills-dependent) and more like being a lab chemist (sure pouring from vial to beaker can be a problem if trying to do so in the middle of a sword fight, but unhindered you probably have a success rate in excess of 99% on the dexterity portion of the skill). In 1E/2E AD&D, you couldn't use your dexterity bonus to AC when casting a spell (they may have changed that in the Player's Option books; I'm not that familiar with them), even if it had no material or somatic components.

Willie the Duck
2019-07-29, 02:08 PM
In 1E/2E AD&D, you couldn't use your dexterity bonus to AC when casting a spell (they may have changed that in the Player's Option books; I'm not that familiar with them), even if it had no material or somatic components.

Interesting. I like to think that I generally still remember how we played those editions, but I'm not surprised that level of specificity has faded into the background.

Still, just by having spells disrupt-able by violence models, imo, something that does require a vague amount of attention and manual dexterity, but more one that you simply have to have things not go wrong (so like a chemist pouring chemicals) rather than really requiring fine motor control (like surgery, as my example). Not being able to add your Dex bonus, now that you mention it, does sound like the AD&D conception of casting (you're a sitting duck while you are doing it, why don't you have an army of hirelings between you and the enemy while you are doing it?).

Particle_Man
2019-07-29, 03:38 PM
On the other hand, there were class-based ability score prerequisites in 1st ed. Magic-Users needed at least some dexterity (ok, 6 is a low bar, but still, it was listed), and Illusionists needed a hell of a lot of dexterity (16! They only needed 15 intelligence!).

LibraryOgre
2019-07-30, 11:31 AM
I don't know why DEX isn't a spellcasting stat in D&D, perhaps because they originally thought of each class as going with exactly one stat, and no one has really thought it out... or exacting precision isn't considered of dire important, or something. But the mechanics clearly include requirements that the caster be free to and able to gesture, speak, and do some stuff with esoteric ingredients, in some combination.

And at least in many cases D&D's arcane magic comes across as knowing which "system commands" to enter to activate or alter reality's "code", which also doesn't fit psychic powers very well.

To an extent, in AD&D, it was. In 1e, those with phenomenally bad Dexterity scores could only be clerics... everyone else needed a 6 or better (and thieves needed a 9 or better). When you get into 2e, that gets dropped, but several of the specialties are noted as having intricate requirements for their somatic components, and so needing a good Dex.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-30, 11:41 AM
To an extent, in AD&D, it was. In 1e, those with phenomenally bad Dexterity scores could only be clerics... everyone else needed a 6 or better (and thieves needed a 9 or better). When you get into 2e, that gets dropped, but several of the specialties are noted as having intricate requirements for their somatic components, and so needing a good Dex.

It's been so long that I didn't remember those requirements -- thank you (and to others who mentioned it, as well).

SimonMoon6
2019-07-30, 03:03 PM
Every class being a little MAD is fine; where D&D has historically failed is that you're only allowed to get better at one stat at a time. This is ludicrous when you think about it - a fighter or barbarian who improves his craft isn't just getting more muscle, he's getting faster and tougher.

I'd say ridiculous in the other direction. Once a person has figured out the basics of their craft (become a first level character), they're not going to be putting on more muscle mass and definitely not in an open-ended way. Imagine if all rookie policemen were weak until they'd been on the force for a few years, after which they become muscle-bound bodybuilders. That's not what happens. There might be some regular daily exercise, but that just keeps someone at the level of strength that they're currently at. In fact, it's entirely possible that one gets lazy after a while, stops exercising, and strength goes down. But I've yet to see a game where stats atrophy (other than from age). (I could complain about skills too... any skill you're not using regularly is going to go away much faster than you might expect. You don't just continue to gain and gain more and more knowledge.)

Similarly, with intelligence. A wizard might learn more about a particular thing that he's doing, but he might then start to forget other things. So, his overall intelligence level would stay the same. And the more time he spends in his room reading dusty books, well, that's time that he's not exercising, so say goodbye to strength and constitution. If we say intelligence is increasing (ludicrous!), then strength and constitution would have to be decreasing. But, again, I haven't see any game that lets stats atrophy the way they really would.

Haldir
2019-07-30, 07:51 PM
Again, the shifting the goalposts from that to which I was responding. For reasons already stated.

To you it's shifting goal posts. To me it's what I've literally been saying over and over since the beginning of this conversation. Stormwind fallacy is real, yo.

Particle_Man
2019-07-30, 08:07 PM
I'd say ridiculous in the other direction. Once a person has figured out the basics of their craft (become a first level character), they're not going to be putting on more muscle mass and definitely not in an open-ended way. Imagine if all rookie policemen were weak until they'd been on the force for a few years, after which they become muscle-bound bodybuilders. That's not what happens. There might be some regular daily exercise, but that just keeps someone at the level of strength that they're currently at. In fact, it's entirely possible that one gets lazy after a while, stops exercising, and strength goes down. But I've yet to see a game where stats atrophy (other than from age). (I could complain about skills too... any skill you're not using regularly is going to go away much faster than you might expect. You don't just continue to gain and gain more and more knowledge.)

Similarly, with intelligence. A wizard might learn more about a particular thing that he's doing, but he might then start to forget other things. So, his overall intelligence level would stay the same. And the more time he spends in his room reading dusty books, well, that's time that he's not exercising, so say goodbye to strength and constitution. If we say intelligence is increasing (ludicrous!), then strength and constitution would have to be decreasing. But, again, I haven't see any game that lets stats atrophy the way they really would.

GURPS 3rd edition does that but only for very high skill levels that are not maintained.

Theoboldi
2019-07-31, 07:30 AM
To you it's shifting goal posts. To me it's what I've literally been saying over and over since the beginning of this conversation. Stormwind fallacy is real, yo.

Nothing what anyone said at any point in this conversation has had anything to do with the Stormwind fallacy. The Stormwind fallacy is the idea that optimisation prevents roleplaying, or vice versa.

Talakeal
2019-07-31, 10:58 AM
I'd say ridiculous in the other direction. Once a person has figured out the basics of their craft (become a first level character), they're not going to be putting on more muscle mass and definitely not in an open-ended way. Imagine if all rookie policemen were weak until they'd been on the force for a few years, after which they become muscle-bound bodybuilders. That's not what happens. There might be some regular daily exercise, but that just keeps someone at the level of strength that they're currently at. In fact, it's entirely possible that one gets lazy after a while, stops exercising, and strength goes down. But I've yet to see a game where stats atrophy (other than from age). (I could complain about skills too... any skill you're not using regularly is going to go away much faster than you might expect. You don't just continue to gain and gain more and more knowledge.)

Similarly, with intelligence. A wizard might learn more about a particular thing that he's doing, but he might then start to forget other things. So, his overall intelligence level would stay the same. And the more time he spends in his room reading dusty books, well, that's time that he's not exercising, so say goodbye to strength and constitution. If we say intelligence is increasing (ludicrous!), then strength and constitution would have to be decreasing. But, again, I haven't see any game that lets stats atrophy the way they really would.

I would say that this, combined with a buildup of bad habits, is why most characters in the world stop gaining much XP once they hit their stride.

Haldir
2019-07-31, 08:10 PM
Nothing what anyone said at any point in this conversation has had anything to do with the Stormwind fallacy. The Stormwind fallacy is the idea that optimisation prevents roleplaying, or vice versa.

{scrubbed}

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-31, 10:35 PM
I'd say ridiculous in the other direction. Once a person has figured out the basics of their craft (become a first level character), they're not going to be putting on more muscle mass and definitely not in an open-ended way. Imagine if all rookie policemen were weak until they'd been on the force for a few years, after which they become muscle-bound bodybuilders. That's not what happens. There might be some regular daily exercise, but that just keeps someone at the level of strength that they're currently at. In fact, it's entirely possible that one gets lazy after a while, stops exercising, and strength goes down. But I've yet to see a game where stats atrophy (other than from age). (I could complain about skills too... any skill you're not using regularly is going to go away much faster than you might expect. You don't just continue to gain and gain more and more knowledge.)

Similarly, with intelligence. A wizard might learn more about a particular thing that he's doing, but he might then start to forget other things. So, his overall intelligence level would stay the same. And the more time he spends in his room reading dusty books, well, that's time that he's not exercising, so say goodbye to strength and constitution. If we say intelligence is increasing (ludicrous!), then strength and constitution would have to be decreasing. But, again, I haven't see any game that lets stats atrophy the way they really would.

I totally get where you're coming from here, but I also think it would drive a significant number of gamers nuts, and has some potential for onerous overhead and juggling. Maybe it's one of those things that needs to get set aside for the sake of just keeping the game enjoyable.

Theoboldi
2019-07-31, 10:59 PM
That's a pretty dumbed down summary. In reality it means that narrative and storytelling is a distinct and seperate entity from mechanics. It is most often applied to optimization, but it doesn't have to be. So your "I don't want THAT mind control, I want MY OWN mind control BOO HOOO" is equally applicable. Even tho Stormwind him or herself was distinctly reacting to optimization, yes.

No, that's what you're extrapolating from the fallacy. Literally any source will tell you that the fallacy itself is about character optimization preventing roleplaying. You can google it if you want.

Please don't keep insisting that obviously factually incorrect things are correct. Nobody is convinced by your attempts to discredit me.

Mind, I'm not trying to convince you of my position on psionics. That seems like a waste of time to me. I just absolutely hate it when people misuse fallacies, because it spreads misinformation and counterproductive discussion habits.