Why does everyone hate psionics?

[Bandededed]

... Why does everyone seem to hate psionics? I've been trying to find a game for a week or two, and every one I read says something like "core only. no psionics." It's freaking depressing, especially when I just decided on a build of psionic monk that I like...

So, does anyone know?

[horseboy]

Because they tell off colored jokes and have really rank body odor?

Nah, usually it's either they don't feel like having to mess with yet another system within a system or they've had bad experiences with prior editions.

[Bag_of_Holding]

... Why does everyone seem to hate psionics? I've been trying to find a game for a week or two, and every one I read says something like "core only. no psionics." It's freaking depressing, especially when I just decided on a build of psionic monk that I like...

So, does anyone know?

Emphasis mine

Psionic rule isn't considered core.



p.s. Of course some people might argue that psionics are, in fact, included in SRD document, but it doesn't prove anything.

[SurlySeraph]

Either because they don't want to bother to learn the system (like me) or because almost all the psionics material is terribly named. Or because psionics seems science-fiction-y, and doesn't seem to fit with normal high fantasy.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Mostly because psionics, previous to 3.5, SUCKED. ASS. HARD. They we're either brokely overpowered, or brokely lousy, and the change from crappy psionics to the spectacular Expanded Psionics Handbook is usually seen as one of 3.5's top 3 greatest achievements over 3.

[osyluth]

Either because they don't want to bother to learn the system (like me) or because almost all the psionics material is terribly named. Or because psionics seems science-fiction-y, and doesn't seem to fit with normal high fantasy.

Terribly named? That's not much of a change from most other D&D products.

[Bandededed]

Of course some people might argue that psionics are, in fact, included in SRD document, but it doesn't prove anything.

You are correct, and the example I gave was bad. Psionics appear in the SRD because they are under the open content license. However, many of the same people running those games allow homebrew on a case-by-case basis.

They just don't allow psionics.

@ all: Thanks for the info though. I haven't been playing too long, so I never really got into psionics before the expanded psionics handbook.

[Solo]

1) They don't like the flavor
2) Bad experiences with prior edition psionics (everything before 3.5 psionics was bad)
3) Not core. Many people prefer to keep things core for simplicity.
4) Don't want to learn a different system

[Swordguy]

Nah, usually it's either they don't feel like having to mess with yet another system within a system or they've had bad experiences with prior editions.

Horseboy's got it right on. Now, the current system is much easier to pick up than older editions, to be fair.

Myself? No psi. I fall in the second category - horrid experiences with psionic PCs. I distinctly recall a PC in an AD&D game who could steal class abilities from other PCs via psionics. Ever seen a full caster with a fighter's THACO progression and a full set of thief abilities, plus extra psionic stuff? Game-breaking. Does this apply to the current rules? No - of course not. But I don't care. It's fully irrational and I admit that. But as long as I'm running games my choice stands: no psionics in my games.

[Bag_of_Holding]

You are correct, and the example I gave was bad. Psionics appear in the SRD because they are under the open content license. However, many of the same people running those games allow homebrew on a case-by-case basis.

They just don't allow psionics.

@ all: Thanks for the info though. I haven't been playing too long, so I never really got into psionics before the expanded psionics handbook.

I just noticed what you put in for your 'Location'. That's creepy.

[Collin152]

They ban psionics because they think it'll make them look cool.
If I were Dm'ing and I banned Psionics, itd probably be because I diddn't want to work the whole psionics system through my head when making the adventures, considering there'd be, like, exactly one psionic character to use the rules, because I certainly don't want to use any psionic NPCs.

[Madmal]

i think Solo's 4th reason is the one that plays the most. I, as an example, have Magic of Incarnum, and i haven't bothered to understand it so far.

besides, i haven't found an acceptable either. Warforged and Archivists aren't classified as "Core", and i want to play one.

[TheThan]

I see a few other reasons why people don’t use psionics.

No healing, to my knowledge there is no healing powers, which means if you replaced the magic system with the psionics system, players will have no way to effectively heal themselves.

Setting specific reasons, if your playing in a world someone else created, and that person decided not to use psionics for whatever reason, then he’s probably not going to let you use them.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Body adjustment. Second level power, heals 1d12, augmentable. The empathic transfers.

If you can think of it, psionics does it and is balanced.

[Swooper]

What's this crap about 'not bothering to learn the system'?

1. A power costs power points to manifest (cast) equal to (power level x2)+1. So, odd numbers: 1, 3, 5, 7 etc. Some are augmentable for extra effects.
2. You can't use more PPs on a single power than your manifester level.
3. Psionic Focus. DC 20 concentration check, full action to get it, lets you take 15 on a concentration check and you lose it when you use certain psionic feats.

There, you now know how psionics work. That's honestly about it. Other than this, it's not much more than any other sourcebook you'd open. 'Not bothering to learn the system' is not a valid excuse for not allowing psionics, because if you can get your head around D&D 3.x to begin with, psionics is dead simple.

[Xuincherguixe]

I think it's most likely because people feel psionics isn't "fantasy".

There's some other problems, but I think that's the big one.

I like them. They seem easier to manage than the traditional "memorize spells" way.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

What's this crap about 'not bothering to learn the system'?

1. A power costs power points to manifest (cast) equal to (power level x2)+1. So, odd numbers: 1, 3, 5, 7 etc. Some are augmentable for extra effects.
2. You can't use more PPs on a single power than your manifester level.
3. Psionic Focus. DC 20 concentration check, full action to get it, lets you take 15 on a concentration check and you lose it when you use certain psionic feats.

There, you now know how psionics work. That's honestly about it. Other than this, it's not much more than any other sourcebook you'd open. 'Not bothering to learn the system' is not a valid excuse for not allowing psionics, because if you can get your head around D&D 3.x to begin with, psionics is dead simple.

Now just learn all of the powers, balance encounters that could now be one-shotted through a cool combination, and figure out the progression. It's easy from a player's viewpoint, but more is not better for a DM.

[AmberVael]

What's this crap about 'not bothering to learn the system'?

1. A power costs power points to manifest (cast) equal to (power level x2)+1. So, odd numbers: 1, 3, 5, 7 etc. Some are augmentable for extra effects.
2. You can't use more PPs on a single power than your manifester level.
3. Psionic Focus. DC 20 concentration check, full action to get it, lets you take 15 on a concentration check and you lose it when you use certain psionic feats.

There, you now know how psionics work. That's honestly about it. Other than this, it's not much more than any other sourcebook you'd open. 'Not bothering to learn the system' is not a valid excuse for not allowing psionics, because if you can get your head around D&D 3.x to begin with, psionics is dead simple.

It's not that simple! I mean really, I can name a ton of examples of how it's different!
First and foremost.. um...
Well, there's...
Um...
...
Nevermind.


More seriously- yes, psionics really is simple. It's simpler than Tome of Battle, and I don't see people going crazy over not wanting to learn ToB's rules.
So if that's your reason, I'd guess that you haven't learned the grapple rules either.

^: Psionics = more balanced wizardry. I can't think of any differences between magic spells and psionic powers large enough to actually change the way an entire encounter goes.

[Swooper]

Now just learn all of the powers, balance encounters that could now be one-shotted through a cool combination, and figure out the progression. It's easy from a player's viewpoint, but more is not better for a DM.

I don't see how that's harder than learning the new spells/monsters/whatever from ANY splatbook.

[Farmer42]

If you one shot an encounter with psionics, the DM shouldn't worry about balance. If they one shot the encounter, they're screwed for the next one. It isn't unfair to the player if they want to nova an encounter, they'll be useless for the rest of the day.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Bad experiences in the past. Another rule system that is poorly supported. Partly because Psionics are better balanced and not as broken and abuseable as the magic system in game so less incentive to learn the system.

A nice way to introduce them into a game might be the Psychic Rogue variant at Wizard's.

[Swordguy]

I don't see how that's harder than learning the new spells/monsters/whatever from ANY splatbook.

And I don't allow splatbooks or content thereof until I've had a chance to fully acquaint myself with it - regardless of how long that takes. Psionics goes to the back of the line because without it, there are no psionicists - while whenever a book comes out for a core class there's an immediate need for it.

[Chronos]

They we're either brokely overpowered, or brokely lousy

Or both at once. A psionicist in 2nd edition could get Disintegrate at 3rd level... Or at least, he could, if it were actually possible to learn any psychokinesis powers at all. See, there were two kinds of powers, Sciences (greater powers), and Devotions (lesser powers), and in any given discipline, you had to know more Devotions than Sciences. Well, the Telekinesis power was a science, and there was only one devotion in the entire discipline that didn't have Telekinesis as a prerequisite. "I think I'll learn Telekinesis. No, wait, I can't, since I'd need to have two devotions first. OK, then, I'll learn another devotion. No, wait, I can't, since I don't have Telekinesis."

But if you could actually figure out some way to use the system at all, yeah, Disintegrate on a 3rd-level character. Yeah, that's balanced.

[Collin152]

More seriously- yes, psionics really is simple. It's simpler than Tome of Battle, and I don't see people going crazy over not wanting to learn ToB's rules.
So if that's your reason, I'd guess that you haven't learned the grapple rules either.

Hey, don't get me started now, I don't like Tome of Battle either, despite it's gap-leveling improvements.
And still, it's a whole new set of abilities to keep in mind when designing encounters.
Also, I don't like a large number of the powers.
Also, the grapple rules are needlessly complex anyways, and I propose we seperate them from core and make a supplemental book just for grappling.

[GammaPaladin]

I distinctly recall a PC in an AD&D game who could steal class abilities from other PCs via psionics. Ever seen a full caster with a fighter's THACO progression and a full set of thief abilities, plus extra psionic stuff?

*cough*ThrallherdWithFusionPower*cough*

[Helios Sunshard]

A little from "dont want to bother learning the system" and "dont like the flavor".

It just feels weird to me, i prefer magic as the prevalent force in the universe and psionics seems too futuristic to me.

[AKA_Bait]

They ban psionics because they think it'll make them look cool.
If I were Dm'ing and I banned Psionics, itd probably be because I diddn't want to work the whole psionics system through my head when making the adventures, considering there'd be, like, exactly one psionic character to use the rules, because I certainly don't want to use any psionic NPCs.

That... or before 3.5 Psionics was broken one way or another (as others have said). Or, the major reason, it steps on magic's toes. Most of my players aren't going to want to play a psionic character, because they didn't all buy the book or want to read the SRD section, and most do want to play some magical character or other (even if it's just a duskblade). The two systems tend to duplicate abilities and that causes versimiltude problems so having both in one game is, frankly, more trouble than it's worth.

[Xuincherguixe]

See, I don't think that it is too futuristic. Traditionally, psionics has been mostly in high science settings, but it doesn't have to be.

Magic and Psionics don't even have to be different things. I mean, they seem pretty similar to me.

[horseboy]

Magic and Psionics don't even have to be different things. I mean, they seem pretty similar to me.

You know how many YEARS of Rolemaster I went through before I realized the realm of mentalism was their version of psionics?

[Rutee]

Magic and Psionics don't even have to be different things. I mean, they seem pretty similar to me.

Seconded. I just don't draw needless distinctions, I s'pose.