1) Flavor. Psionics is not classic fantasy, which is how I prefer my games.
P.S. These are my opinions, so if you're planning on posting why they're wrong, just STFU.
Well, that last bit is helpful to the conversation.
But your first one confuses me. Vancian spellcasting isn't classic fantasy either. In fact, I can't think of a single non-D&D (or Jack Vance) style of magic use. In almost every fantasy medium, magic is portrayed either through an inner power that is depleted with magic use (mana system, power point system, etc, etc), or through a series of spell-like abilities that the person can cast when they so desire (more similar to the warlock class of 3.5).
How exactly does Vancian spellcasting fit under classic fantasy? I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong, I'm honestly trying to understand where people are coming from in this.
I specifically didn't say anything about Vancian spellcasting. You're reading *way* too much into my sentence. To be more specific, by classic fantasy I mean "swords & sorcery." How the swords and magic work mechanically are fairly irrelevant to the traditional fantasy feel. Psionics (even if powered by the same nebulous "inner power" as magic) have a different flavor, and one that I don't associate with classic fantasy.
As for the last bit, there has been a lot of "your opinions are wrong, and you are dumb" going on in this thread. I'm trying to give Dabbler what he asked for in the OP - the opinions of someone who doesn't like psionics. I'm not interested in becoming a target for rabid psionics fans. Your post made me realize that I should clarify what I meant by "classic fantasy." (BTW, I'm not accusing you of calling my opinions wrong or calling me dumb - your response was quite civil.)
I have no problem with psionics in fantasy, I don't think it's been implemented that well. What has been done with psionics in the past that couldn't be accomplished with current PF classes? Wizards with "psychic schools", mentalist sorcerers, and monk soul blades wouldn't be a stretch. I'm not saying this should be the way to go, I'm just saying that there real difference with magic and psionics always seemed more mechanical then thematic to me. Crystals never did it for me.
New additional rules systems never help matters, though this goes for Magic of the Incarnum, the Book of Nine Swords, etc. Such things have to be incorperated from the start of the game to really fit. Otherwise a DM has to learn the rules for a player or two, which isn't really attractive. Settings that incorperate them from the start of the game like Eberron and Dark Sun, which helped matters for psionics.
I think, to implement psionics, it would need a rules set that gels easily into the system. It will also need to be different enough so you aren't using arcane magic by a different name. If they can manage this, I think I'd work psionics into more of my games.
I'm sort of curious how people though Force Skills in Star Wars worked. I never played much of it but it seemed like you had either no power because you didn't start as a Jedi and couldn't dump a lot of skill points into the skills or you had a lot of Force Powers and couldn't tie your shoes.
I agree. If Psionics are added to a game (by a player, an item or a monster a DM uses), it unbalances the game by adding a new element to which there are no counters. For instance, to bring challenges to a psionic player, the DM has to work in psionic-resistant monsters, add psionic gear to the loot drops, and try to inhibit their powers to the same extent all other classes are limited from time-to-time (anti-magic zones, silence spells, etc.) The way to make a lot more people accepting of psionics is to make sure it balances with the current game mechanics.2. Psionics do not play well with current magic system.Can you clarify this point, please - I'm not challenging it, I just want to know what you mean.Well according to what I've read some people say and what I've even run into myself is that Because Psionics and Magic are different they cannot dispel each other. A Psion doesn't lose his ability to manifest in an Anti-Magic Zone, and vice versa. Although there isn't that many Anti-Psionic Zones so this can be seen as a one sided issue. This may be a misinterpretation on many peoples' parts but that is another issue altogether.
A second comment along these lines is that psionics do not follow the same rules as magic spells do. They have additional effects and can change with by adding more points into them. Also, there is the whole thing with the rules for Psionic Focus and some of the psionic feats allowing psions to do things that regular magic users could never dream of. Etc.
Keep in mind that I personally don't have any thing against psionics but I've read enough about them on these forums to figure out what the main points are. I mean even seeker said I was right on target. And while there are others who will make other points, I'm certain that the majority of the opponents of psionics have one of the three issues I mentioned earlier.
Psionics doesn't work this way. The natural form of psionics is psionics/magic transparency. Spell resistance works against powers. Psionic resistance works against magic.
Did
Did you people read the book?
Overall, I think I am neutral to psionics, but here are some of the things I don't like:
For the record, I'm not saying you're wrong on this, I'm just trying to get a deeper understanding of a few things
1. Its not different enough from magic. Anything magic can do, psionics can pretty much do. Instead of giving us something new and interesting, it gave us something that was a little too similar to what we had seen before, with a new mechanic. While I think the system is a good alternate for magic, I don't think it has a distinctly new enough feel to be something different.
As I mentioned earlier, what exactly is there that magic can't do? When wizards cast telepathy and telekinesis and charm person, how is a telepath supposed to stand out? Psionics can't have a niche because arcane magic allows for no niches - it devours everything it sees. The psionics book had wizard spells, for goodness sake.
2. It was too easy to boost. I don't mind going nova, but feats like overchannel, or the wilder, made it too easy to augment a power to levels beyond your current maximum. At low levels, this made psionics rediculously powerful, especially those focusing on rays or summoning.
I will agree with rays, but summoning is a bit of a crapshot. At early levels, wilders can make for some fantastically good summoners, but once you level up, psionic summoning dwindles hard due to their summons not having any SLAs.
3. No Armor check penalty, and free still spell. Basicaly, because psionics go no real penalty for wearing armor, you could put yourself in platemale and suck up the ACP to attack, as you never bother to attack anyway, and a penalty to touch spells isn't that big a deal. You could not prevent someone from casting by imobilizing them or gaging them, making the psionics significantly more powerful than spells. I saw this in every game played that had a psionic character.
I find this odd, because I never saw this in any psionic characters. In general, a +10 to AC won't do much if that's the only armor boost you have, especially when it doesn't stack with other armor sources the psion can get.
4. Sort of an extension of 1, but psionics extended beyond their normal purview of powers. Normally, psionics are associated with tellekenesis, metabolism, and telepathy powers. But psionics in game extended well beyond this, resulting in it feeling too magical and not mental.
I think the goal there was to encapsulate all the different forms of "psionics." Take psychikinetics, you have the very classical "firestarter" type of character like Carrie. Nomads I think got a bit of a rough end; originally they were based on movement through time and space, another fairly common psychic style of power, but they somehow ended up with things like "psychic disintegrate" for whatever unknown reason.
5. Mechanics only available to psionics. Too many feats were psionic only that would have been good to open up to the general population. They got some exclusive nice toys that had no real reason to be exclusive.
Tsk, first in option 1 you want psionics to stand out, now you want them to share their toys with everyone? ;p
6. Reprinting of the same stuff. Because it was so similar to magic, you ended up with the same things for both, like metamagic feats and magic items(new psionic versions of traditional wands/staves/scrolls).
Somewhat agreed. I believe Dreamscarred is patching this by combining psionic and arcane skills, so that there would be wands of psionic powers and the like.
7. Broken powers. Some of the powers didn't appear to have been playtested and ballanced at all. Not a beef with the system, and arcane casting has the same issue.
Amusingly enough, the most broken powers were the ones most similar to arcane spells ;p
8. Lack of support. Magic got new abilities, powers, and awesome stuff in each new book. Psionics maybe got a prestige class.
Ugh, I totally agree with you there. I'm not sure there was a single book that didn't have a new wizard spell in it (Even the goddamn psionics books had wizard spells. I MEAN COME ON >:|). Yet psionics had...well, let's just say "one and a half," because there's no way I'm counting CPsi as a full book :(
|
No, I didn't read the book, that is how it was explained by a very weasely player. So, I just swung the banhammer and moved on. I, as a DM, don't like re-tailoring a campaign just so a player I didn't like very much can run his usual munchkin BS.
Like it or not, psionics has left a lot of people with a bad taste in their mouth. It doesn't matter how it got there, but you have to rectify it before the larger whole will accept it. The plaintiff cry of "READ THE BOOK" doesn't work, because a lot of us don't have the time or energy to expend on something we don't like in the first place.
Make it easy, otherwise we'll throw it in the can like Monster PCs.
No, I didn't read the book, that is how it was explained by a very weasely player. So, I just swung the banhammer and moved on. I, as a DM, don't like re-tailoring a campaign just so a player I didn't like very much can run his usual munchkin BS.
Like it or not, psionics has left a lot of people with a bad taste in their mouth. It doesn't matter how it got there, but you have to rectify it before the larger whole will accept it. The plaintiff cry of "READ THE BOOK" doesn't work, because a lot of us don't have the time or energy to expend on something we don't like in the first place.
Make it easy, otherwise we'll throw it in the can like Monster PCs.
If you won't read the book and you don't want to talk about it or listen about it, how on earth are we supposed to "rectify it?"
Honestly, this is pointless. You've made up your mind. It's not possible to convince you.
Quoting other people in frustration and then asking if they had even read the book.
I think you are getting to why Dabbler started the thread here. A lot of people replying have never read the 3.5 psionic rules, but are basing their responses on their reactions to previous editions, general reaction to the idea of psionics, or on second or third hand info. I freely admit I'm one of those people. Never interested me or appealed to me and I had no intention of implementing it in my games, so why waste the money and time buying and reading it?
The correct question to ask, which is what Dabbler is trying to get at, I believe, is why the seeming kneejerk reaction of people like me to psionics, and how can it be overcome? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think 3.5 psionics was a great commercial success for WotC, in that it never attracted more than a niche following. So, unless Paizo is interested in developing just for that same niche audience, they need to find a way to expand the market and make psionics appealing to more than the people who like it already.
I read Dabbler as someone who is pro-psionics looking to understand why people are anti-psionics, as a necessary prerequisite to converting them or producing a product which could convert them. Seems more productive to me than just railing at them because they don't understand the 3.5 system, or aren't applying it right, or are just wrong in their opinions. That type of argument seems unlikely to change any minds.
Overall, I think I am neutral to psionics, but here are some of the things I don't like:For the record, I'm not saying you're wrong on this, I'm just trying to get a deeper understanding of a few things
1. Its not different enough from magic. Anything magic can do, psionics can pretty much do. Instead of giving us something new and interesting, it gave us something that was a little too similar to what we had seen before, with a new mechanic. While I think the system is a good alternate for magic, I don't think it has a distinctly new enough feel to be something different.As I mentioned earlier, what exactly is there that magic can't do? When wizards cast telepathy and telekinesis and charm person, how is a telepath supposed to stand out? Psionics can't have a niche because arcane magic allows for no niches - it devours everything it sees. The psionics book had wizard spells, for goodness sake.
Basicly, my complaint is that a psionic filled the exact same party role as an arcane wizard.
2. It was too easy to boost. I don't mind going nova, but feats like overchannel, or the wilder, made it too easy to augment a power to levels beyond your current maximum. At low levels, this made psionics rediculously powerful, especially those focusing on rays or summoning.I will agree with rays, but summoning is a bit of a crapshot. At early levels, wilders can make for some fantastically good summoners, but once you level up, psionic summoning dwindles hard due to their summons not having any SLAs.
Depends on how many feats were invested in it. With some of the special abilities you were able to give to summons, and with overchannel, you could make some nasty combat tanks with buffs. I may be mixing some 3.0 psionics in though, as we converted from 3.0 to 3.5 in that campaign and I'm not convinced that player did it right. But he had 2-3 equal level summons out thanks to overchannel that were invisible, flying, and had 4 arms dealing 2d8+10 each. Not broken in and of itself, but it filled the niche that party needed quite well, and significantly more powerful than anything an arcane summoner could do.
4. Sort of an extension of 1, but psionics extended beyond their normal purview of powers. Normally, psionics are associated with tellekenesis, metabolism, and telepathy powers. But psionics in game extended well beyond this, resulting in it feeling too magical and not mental.I think the goal there was to encapsulate all the different forms of "psionics." Take psychikinetics, you have the very classical "firestarter" type of character like Carrie. Nomads I think got a bit of a rough end; originally they were based on movement through time and space, another fairly common psychic style of power, but they somehow ended up with things like "psychic disintegrate" for whatever unknown reason.
The problem was that psionics were not focused at all, and every character felt like a generalist. I didn't like the feel of this. I would have liked to have seen a more powerful and versatile but also more focused set of powers, instead of the catch all that felt too much like a generic wizard.
5. Mechanics only available to psionics. Too many feats were psionic only that would have been good to open up to the general population. They got some exclusive nice toys that had no real reason to be exclusive.Tsk, first in option 1 you want psionics to stand out, now you want them to share their toys with everyone? ;p
Yeah, the problem with many of the feats was that they didn't stand out as psionic. Some felt perfect, like running up walls. Others, like being able to take turns on a charge or increasing your damage die, felt like they should have been options to everyone because there was nothing special about them. And many of these powers were perfect for the Monk (flavor-wise at least), but he was unable to utalize them. Finally, some of the feats it was a problem of the psiwarrior just being a better fighter than the fighter, with some of the psi-only feats that acted as capstones to other feat chains. So, in addition to him getting powers, he also got access to better feat chains.
7. Broken powers. Some of the powers didn't appear to have been playtested and ballanced at all. Not a beef with the system, and arcane casting has the same issue.
Amusingly enough, the most broken powers were the ones most similar to arcane spells ;p
I'm not sure I totally agree with you because I can't think of any arcane spells like the ones my group broke, except fabricate. Even that was much more powerful as a psion because of the power that allowed you to re-allowcate your skills, thus getting any craft you need at any time. Because of the point system I found it much easier to break psionics than arcane. You may get fewer total castings, but you can get more of your high level spells off. Some things are not broken until you get them too many times per day. My group's psionic players also tended to be the better people for breaking magic systems, while my group's arcane casters tend to want to play evokers. After low levels, it was so trivial to not spend all your power points in a day even with 4 encounters that we never had issues. The arcane casters just had more unused spells.
|
|
No, I didn't read the book, that is how it was explained by a very weasely player. So, I just swung the banhammer and moved on. I, as a DM, don't like re-tailoring a campaign just so a player I didn't like very much can run his usual munchkin BS.
Like it or not, psionics has left a lot of people with a bad taste in their mouth. It doesn't matter how it got there, but you have to rectify it before the larger whole will accept it. The plaintiff cry of "READ THE BOOK" doesn't work, because a lot of us don't have the time or energy to expend on something we don't like in the first place.
Make it easy, otherwise we'll throw it in the can like Monster PCs.
If you won't read the book and you don't want to talk about it or listen about it, how on earth are we supposed to "rectify it?"
Honestly, this is pointless. You've made up your mind. It's not possible to convince you.
No, it isn't impossible to convince me. Don't make it a full hardcover that I have to read fully to please one player's wishes and fit it into the core rules. If there was a $20 splatbook (or $5 PDF) that I could review, I'd give it a try. So far, any attempt at psionics that I have seen has been too unwieldy for me to be interested.
|
|
I read Dabbler as someone who is pro-psionics looking to understand why people are anti-psionics, as a necessary prerequisite to converting them or producing a product which could convert them. Seems more productive to me than just railing at them because they don't understand the 3.5 system, or aren't applying it right, or are just wrong in their opinions. That type of argument seems unlikely to change any minds.
BINGO! Telling someone to read a rulebook on psionics to understand the system is like telling someone who doesn't like income taxes to read the 2010 tax code.
BINGO! Telling someone to read a rulebook on psionics to understand the system is like telling someone who doesn't like income taxes to read the 2010 tax code.I read Dabbler as someone who is pro-psionics looking to understand why people are anti-psionics, as a necessary prerequisite to converting them or producing a product which could convert them. Seems more productive to me than just railing at them because they don't understand the 3.5 system, or aren't applying it right, or are just wrong in their opinions. That type of argument seems unlikely to change any minds.
I'll make this offer to anyone on the boards. Give me your phone # and I will call you and explain all the psionic rules you ever need to know in about 5 minutes.
I don't really have problems with psionics, I feel that they've had a place in every edition of the game and every setting.
I don't really use them often in my games mainly because few people have wanted to play them. That being said I definitely prefer using psionic giths and mind flayers to the relatively boring 3.x MM versions. Levels of psion make Illithids much more interesting opponents than the regular version.
I do definitely sympathize with the resistance to learning yet another mechanical subsystem. It's hard enough for the average DM to stay up to speed on all the core spells much less all the spell expansions and functionally psionics is a spell system expansion.
Finally I think alot of the effects of a psion could easily be replicated just by refluffing the sorceror. Instead of drawing on mystical bloodlines the rebranded sorceror would be drawing on hidden mental reserves. Yes it would strip out the power point system but that's not that big of a change. By a similar token you could strip out the vancian memorization system and replace it with a rebranded power point system and call it mana points.
I'll make this offer to anyone on the boards. Give me your phone # and I will call you and explain all the psionic rules you ever need to know in about 5 minutes.BINGO! Telling someone to read a rulebook on psionics to understand the system is like telling someone who doesn't like income taxes to read the 2010 tax code.I read Dabbler as someone who is pro-psionics looking to understand why people are anti-psionics, as a necessary prerequisite to converting them or producing a product which could convert them. Seems more productive to me than just railing at them because they don't understand the 3.5 system, or aren't applying it right, or are just wrong in their opinions. That type of argument seems unlikely to change any minds.
My momma taught me never to give out my number to strangers with "meat" in their name and with glowing red eyes. :) What the hell is that thing, anyway?
Seriously, the issue isn't the rules for me. They might be wonderful. First I have to be attracted to the idea as something that will enhance our gaming experience. I haven't gotten that vibe yet. The rules don't matter until the concept interests me. Then we can talk execution.
I'll make this offer to anyone on the boards. Give me your phone # and I will call you and explain all the psionic rules you ever need to know in about 5 minutes.BINGO! Telling someone to read a rulebook on psionics to understand the system is like telling someone who doesn't like income taxes to read the 2010 tax code.I read Dabbler as someone who is pro-psionics looking to understand why people are anti-psionics, as a necessary prerequisite to converting them or producing a product which could convert them. Seems more productive to me than just railing at them because they don't understand the 3.5 system, or aren't applying it right, or are just wrong in their opinions. That type of argument seems unlikely to change any minds.
I think this is a major problem that psionics is going to need to overcome. Even though the 3.5 rules were such an improvement over previous version there is so much resistance to psionics that whatever Paizo releases it needs to not only be a rules improvement, in a lot of ways it needs to be an olive branch. And if we can figure out what that is maybe we can make psionics a viable investment for Paizo and there will be more development on the rules other then here is the book and done.
3. Psions are capable of "nova-ing" to an extreme amount even far beyond what a basic spellcaster can do.
For me, it's all this. I've played in a group where a psionic player literally made the (then) DM weep. While psionics are fine in the hands of a responsible player, in the hands of an uber-munchkin they are nothing short of completely painful for the whole rest of the group and DM.
My problem with psionics as written is it is too different from PFRPG. While I love the capability of the psychic warrior I have to agree with James Jacobs you can easily use the bard chassis and create a psychic warrior. With proper blood lines you could easily duplicate any of the psions. Nobody allows a XPH character in their game including most of the organized campaigns.
I realize most of the problems in games with psions and psychic warriors appearing more powerful then their arcane and divine counterparts is mostly lack of understanding of the rules. I believe most game master just don't want to deal with a new, different form of magic. Maybe for a world specific campaign but not as an add in to an existing world. Kalamar added psionics in but the god of magic hated psionic characters and had them outlawed. One of the better ways to allow them but limit them in a campaign.
Seriously, the issue isn't the rules for me. They might be wonderful. First I have to be attracted to the idea as something that will enhance our gaming experience. I haven't gotten that vibe yet. The rules don't matter until the concept interests me. Then we can talk execution.
I want to blow up peoples heads like that scene from scanners!
I want to go into a trance and walk through peoples' dreams!I want to set stuff on fire with a mere thought!
I want to manipulate time itself!
I want a character who has conscious control over his autonomic functions.
But yeah, the problem to me is that arcane magic has already cribbed so much from what has psionic flavor that anything I say you'll just be like "just cast x spell instead". Not you specifically but yeah.
I just started watching the Merlin BBC series and Merlin is clearly a Psion. He can stop time and use telekinesis in the first episode, and it's more reactive. He doesn't study musty old tomes, stuff just happens.
Nobody allows a XPH character in their game including most of the organized campaigns.
I'm sure you meant no malice with this statement, but I just want to be clear. I use and allow XPH in conjunction with PF core rules. So you're wrong on that score. I know others that do as well, and a lot of people use PF to play settings like Dark Sun and Eberron with which it is integrated. From the sounds of it, people in this very thread continue to use XPH in conjunction with PFRPG.
Organized play is the problem, and that's only Paizo's fault. I don't play in organized play however so I don't particularly care.
Nobody allows a XPH character in their game including most of the organized campaigns.I'm sure you meant no malice with this statement, but I just want to be clear. I use and allow XPH in conjunction with PF core rules. So you're wrong on that score. I know others that do as well, and a lot of people use PF to play settings like Dark Sun and Eberron with which it is integrated. From the sounds of it, people in this very thread continue to use XPH in conjunction with PFRPG.
Organized play is the problem, and that's only Paizo's fault. I don't play in organized play however so I don't particularly care.
Sorry if I implied malice as I did not mean to. Trouble with discussion boards they do not convey the sadness in my statement. When WotC published The Psionic Handbook and the Expanded Psionic Handbook I was a huge fan. Here was a very flexible system of spell casting that was an answer to many of the problems with clerics and wizard spell casting. Psionics were not allowed in either Living City or Living Greyhawk and only marginally allowed in either Living Arcanis and Living Kalamar. Further more I could not find a game master in the Denver area who would allow it.
So even though I have contributed to Dreamscarred efforts to convert psionic to Pathfinder RPG I have little hope I will ever get to play a psychic warrior. The arcane duelist in the APG is probably as close as I am going to get.
stuff
Oh no problem. It just sounded like you were coming from the other side and saying "no one allows that stuff anyway". I just want it know that...I do!
As to this whole thread, I honestly think the solution is to just force psionics to be core. If it were core it would HAVE to work with other magic systems, including flavoring it differently if necessary and patching genuine problems like nova and transparency, which would alleviate that worry. Players and DMs would HAVE to read it, which would eliminate all the misinformation and misunderstanding about how the rules work and that, no, at 2nd level you CANT fire off a 10die energy missile. Third, it would allow Paizo to add that content to APs without referencing an outside source or eating up page count.
It's a simple and elegant solution that only necessitates time travel and mind control of the Paizo staff.
This is odd. It's like asking me why I don't like asperagus. Then a bunch of people telling me that I should because I like other vegetables...
I've never liked psionics in my D&D, probably stemming from earlier editions, and I just don't want to use them. I'm not sure why anyone cares. If some people like 'em, make a book, whatever.
Not sure why psionics need to be argued like politcs and religion (I'm right, you are both wrong and very stupid). Pretty silly, really.
Meatrace,
I agree with you if the psionic rules could be forced into the core rule book they would be better received and I also agree some arcane spells got a lot of their ideas from traditionally psionic source material. Damage is done and I do not expect Paizo to change their stance on psionics. I plan on buying both the beta and final from Dreamscarred just to support them.
So far as I know, organised play is core only - no Witches, Oracles, etc allowed either - and I'm playing a Wilder in a Council of Thieves game, for a DM that prefers core-only stuff.
I have met DMs that were really keen on psionics (including the one that got me hooked), DMs that didn't want them (only one that gave a categorical 'no' though), and DMs that were open to persuasion - and these are by far and away the largest group in my experience.
Once I have a handle on the issues people have in another day or two, I'll start posting some stuff up to address their issues. I've seen a lot of valid points, some misconceptions and some things that, well, we can't do anything about. This won't be about starting an argument or telling people they are wrong, just coming up with facts and looking for pointers.
I have to say that so far, 75% of the issues raised are very fixable indeed - but I want to know what you guys think.
So far as I know, organised play is core only - no Witches, Oracles, etc allowed either - and I'm playing a Wilder in a Council of Thieves game, for a DM that prefers core-only stuff.
This is incorrect. The AGP classes are allowed within PFS and have been since the playtest. Which is another point why the psion must use core casting rules, as they will most likely open it as well and a PFS Gm must be able to look over it in 5 mins and then allow it to be played.
As it stands they could never do that.
This is odd. It's like asking me why I don't like asperagus. Then a bunch of people telling me that I should because I like other vegetables...
I've never liked psionics in my D&D, probably stemming from earlier editions, and I just don't want to use them. I'm not sure why anyone cares. If some people like 'em, make a book, whatever.
Not sure why psionics need to be argued like politcs and religion (I'm right, you are both wrong and very stupid). Pretty silly, really.
Ironically the flavor argument is the one I have the most respect for. I don't mind that some people dislike psionics, as a system or as a flavor. If you don't like it and aren't sure why, I can respect that. It's when people try to rationalize it with untruths that gets my panties in a bunch. But that's the same for everything, I just tend to defend psionics much more strongly because I like it that much more.
I know a DM who disallows Druids in his game, even though they're core. Just don't fit with his world. I can understand that, but if he tried to tell me that PF druids are broken I'd mentally pimp slap him.
P.S. I love asparagus, but hate vegetables!
No, it isn't impossible to convince me. Don't make it a full hardcover that I have to read fully to please one player's wishes and fit it into the core rules. If there was a $20 splatbook (or $5 PDF) that I could review, I'd give it a try. So far, any attempt at psionics that I have seen has been too unwieldy for me to be interested.No, I didn't read the book, that is how it was explained by a very weasely player. So, I just swung the banhammer and moved on. I, as a DM, don't like re-tailoring a campaign just so a player I didn't like very much can run his usual munchkin BS.
Like it or not, psionics has left a lot of people with a bad taste in their mouth. It doesn't matter how it got there, but you have to rectify it before the larger whole will accept it. The plaintiff cry of "READ THE BOOK" doesn't work, because a lot of us don't have the time or energy to expend on something we don't like in the first place.
Make it easy, otherwise we'll throw it in the can like Monster PCs.
If you won't read the book and you don't want to talk about it or listen about it, how on earth are we supposed to "rectify it?"
Honestly, this is pointless. You've made up your mind. It's not possible to convince you.
Psionic classes have power points. These are replenished when you rest, much like Vancian caster spell slots.
Unlike wizards, all psions have to be specialized. Rather then shutting them out of a school, there are specific specialization-only powers. For example, one power might be nomad only; you would have to be a psion specializing in psychoportation in order to learn that power.
They learn powers when they level up and cast them spontaniously; they cannot memorize scrolls or learn powers. The only other way to learn powers is to take the feat Expanded Knowledge. You can use Expanded Knowledge to learn any power but the power must be the level lower then your highest or below - if you are capable of casting level 7 powers as your highest, you can only learn a power between levels 1 and 6.
Psionic classes gain bonus powerpoints depending on their chief attribute much like vancian casters gain additional spell slots.
Each power costs a certain number of points depending on the level of the power.
Powers do not automatically scale like wizard spells do; you need to spend more points to make them more powerful. Doing this does not cause the spell to count as higher level, so protections against magic can be devastating to you. For example, a fireball cast by a level 3 wizard and a fireball cast by a level 10 wizard do different amounts of damage. An energy blast cast by a level 3 psion and an energy blast cast by a level 10 psion does the same damage, unless the psion augments it with more power points.
Unless you take a feat or ability that allows otherwise, you cannot spend more points on a power then your manifester level. At level 10 you can spend ten - and ONLY ten - points on each power.
Vancian magic and psionics have transparency - whatever effects wizards, clerics, druids, etc, such as anti-magic fields or dispel magic, also works on psionics, and vice versa.
Psionic classes have psionic focus. This can be regained by using a standard action and making a concentration check. Whenever you wish to use metapsionics (like metamagic but...well, you get the idea), you need to spend your focus, thus ensuring you cannot pile as many metapsionics as you want. A feat can turn the standard action into a move action.
Done.
Or heck, why not have the entire psionic rules...for free?
See that spot where it says Psionics? Yep. There you go.
|
So far as I know, organised play is core only - no Witches, Oracles, etc allowed either - and I'm playing a Wilder in a Council of Thieves game, for a DM that prefers core-only stuff.
I have met DMs that were really keen on psionics (including the one that got me hooked), DMs that didn't want them (only one that gave a categorical 'no' though), and DMs that were open to persuasion - and these are by far and away the largest group in my experience.
Once I have a handle on the issues people have in another day or two, I'll start posting some stuff up to address their issues. I've seen a lot of valid points, some misconceptions and some things that, well, we can't do anything about. This won't be about starting an argument or telling people they are wrong, just coming up with facts and looking for pointers.
I have to say that so far, 75% of the issues raised are very fixable indeed - but I want to know what you guys think.
Dabbler just wanted to make a quick correction. Organized play does include the APG. Seeing how I run an Oracle and a Witch on a regular basis.
Now, my issue with psionics is similar to others in that they were introduced but never really supported. The books were a grand total of two with almost no content outside of those. I would trust PF to support the psionic classes a lot more if introduced.
If there are a lot of people out there who still think of psionics as that thing from 1st and 2nd edition that was honestly overpowered.If you're talking about that thing where you have to spend PSP to create a mind link, then additional PSP to generate an effect along with the link, with additional PSP to maintain that effect each round/minute... I'm not so sure it was overpowered if it was actually played RAW.
... and it was certainly very different from magic in a way 3.5 XPH didn't seem to be.
I seem to recall you could get a Psionic Disintegrate power at 1st level that could one-shot a dragon in 2nd Ed. If that's not overpowered I don't know what is.
poppycock
Oh PC, a valiant effort, but don't you know it is a PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT that everyone involved in a game that has psionics must read and memorize the entire expanded psionics handbook, plus errata, and there will be a quiz.
I seem to recall you could get a Psionic Disintegrate power at 1st level that could one-shot a dragon in 2nd Ed. If that's not overpowered I don't know what is.
I will answer your clarion call to gaming justice and state unequivocally: 2nd edition psionics are broken and have no place in a Pathfinder game!
|
|
You can find almost ANYTHING on the internet... but here's one thing you'll never find. Its a conversation that goes sorta like this:
Person 1: "This is my opinion on <fill in ANY topic here>."
Person 2: "Your reasons are not good enough for me! FLAME ON!"
Person 1: "Wow... you've convinced me."
Its perfectly valid to just not like psionics because you don't like them... same as you might not like the taste of broccoli, orange socks, or the smell of vanilla.
poppycockOh PC, a valiant effort, but don't you know it is a PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT that everyone involved in a game that has psionics must read and memorize the entire expanded psionics handbook, plus errata, and there will be a quiz.
Guys I know you are big fans of psionics and all but I don't think telling people that they are wrong like this is going to encourage them to try psionics. I think what Dabbler is looking for (and I know I am) are ways to get people to give psionics a second chance attacking there opinions or perceptions of psionics isn't going to help. And if we can't expand the fan base psionics is never going to get more development or worse yet Paizo is going to gut it and start over.
|
They ran out of power too fast. I was in a game with a player who was using a psionic character and halfway through a long fight involving and army of demon, the character runs out of juice and then suddenly keels over because his AC buff ran out. Earlier on I was impressed with how powerful he was, then that happens and I'm left utterly perplexed, turns out he had done everything in his power to increase the amount of psionic points he had and still came up shy.
The 2nd ed. Psionics are overpowered, especially if your character has good mental stats, I had a 3.5 paladin+rogue/scout gestalt who was given access to that list, admittedly that GM made me angry with some out of game shenanigans so I was already building to crush anything and everything in my path (level 5 characters shouldn't have +23 will saves), suddenly the character had access to psionics at which point I was a level 5 god for all intents and purposes. The problem I had with that character was it had too much to keep track of I had the paladin abilities, rogue talents, sneak attack, skirmish, feats, Half-celestial+Aasimar spells, psionic abilities, psionic points, and everything else that went along with it. The guy wanted a higher-order game, I was cool with that, then he tried screwing me on money and I built the most dangerous thing I could think of that would let me not get involved in melee combat where he liked to do things, so I made an archer.
Guys I know you are big fans of psionics and all but I don't think telling people that they are wrong like this is going to encourage them to try psionics. I think what Dabbler is looking for (and I know I am) are ways to get people to give psionics a second chance attacking there opinions or perceptions of psionics isn't going to help. And if we can't expand the fan base psionics is never going to get more development or worse yet Paizo is going to gut it and start over.poppycockOh PC, a valiant effort, but don't you know it is a PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT that everyone involved in a game that has psionics must read and memorize the entire expanded psionics handbook, plus errata, and there will be a quiz.
I am literally giving him exactly what he asked for.
A short and easy look at how psionic powers works, along with a link to something that is significantly cheaper then a big hardcover book to psionic information.
poppycockOh PC, a valiant effort, but don't you know it is a PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT that everyone involved in a game that has psionics must read and memorize the entire expanded psionics handbook, plus errata, and there will be a quiz.
I'm quoting this because I like the word poppycock.
That's...that's honestly my only reason.
Honestly...the attitude of most of the pro-psionics posters in the thread has made me consider not even paying attention to this thread anymore. Dabbler asked those of us who have had issues what they were, and I can respect that. Heck, I'd love to see psionics done in a way that I actually like! However, effectively ranting at those of us who don't like it (or me, anyway) doesn't help. Just pointing it out.
That is how it always goes. the Pro guys hound and attack anyone and everyone that didn't like anything, be it the rules or the font on the cover until no one new starts posting because they do not want to deal with the pro trolls.
So then the trolls go "See only a very few don't like the system"
|
That is how it always goes. the Pro guys hound and attack anyone and everyone that didn't like anything, be it the rules or the font on the cover until no one new starts posting because they do not want to deal with the pro trolls.
So then the trolls go "See only a very few don't like the system"
As opposed to the many psionic threads going just fine until somebody yells and screams about how psionics are bad, broken, and banned.
|
As opposed to the many psionic threads going just fine until somebody yells and screams about how psionics are bad, broken, and banned.
*shrug*
Psionics threads don't interest me so I couldn't comment on that. I would suggest that idiots trolling psionics threads in one place don't justify doing likewise in this thread.
Turning every point into a debate is not changing anyone's mind, it's just discouraging people from participating in the discussion.
Honestly...the attitude of most of the pro-psionics posters in the thread has made me consider not even paying attention to this thread anymore. Dabbler asked those of us who have had issues what they were, and I can respect that. Heck, I'd love to see psionics done in a way that I actually like! However, effectively ranting at those of us who don't like it (or me, anyway) doesn't help. Just pointing it out.
I'm not really trying to attack people, I'm trying to understand why they feel the way they feel. It's why I'm asking why the spell telekinesis or the spell charm person are ok but the powers for either are bad. It's why I'm noting that some of the larger misconceptions come from people who honestly don't know how the rules work, and I don't mean that as an insult, I mean they literally do not know how the rules work because they never read them.
|
|
Why I don't like psionics.
There has been a lot of valid criticism in this thread about psionics. On the whole, however, my biggest gripe with psionics is that it largely didn't feel like psionics, for example psionic teleportation?
All in all, the psionics rules ended up feeling like they were actually not rules for psionics, but rules for another kind of arcane magic - and that begged the question "what's the point?"On the other hand, my biggest complement for the psionics rules is that the psionic warrior feels far and away to be the best version of rules for the monk that I've ever seen. Pathfinder really should have modelled the rules for the monk around the psionic warrior.
Depending on setting, in comics some psychic characters can teleport.
No one is ever going to change their opinion of psionics with post like this, I don't care what side of the argument you are on. The point of this is to find out what peoples view points are on psionics. It doesn't matter if they still are thinking of 2nd edition or 1st edition or they just don't understand what the 3.5 rules are. If we don't know what the people who are not using psionics are thinking how do you present the information in a way that we encourage more people to try the rules. That way we increase the fan base and actually get support. Otherwise we are going to have another edition where we get 1 psionics book (and then CP). Or where Paizo decides the rules don't work for too many people and gut them and start over.
Let everyone post their opinions, please.
No one is ever going to change their opinion of psionics with post like this, I don't care what side of the argument you are on. The point of this is to find out what peoples view points are on psionics. It doesn't matter if they still are thinking of 2nd edition or 1st edition or they just don't understand what the 3.5 rules are. If we don't know what the people who are not using psionics are thinking how do you present the information in a way that we encourage more people to try the rules. That way we increase the fan base and actually get support. Otherwise we are going to have another edition where we get 1 psionics book (and then CP). Or where Paizo decides the rules don't work for too many people and gut them and start over.
Let everyone post their opinions, please.
If someone says flat out "I refuse to read the book or look at the rules," then they cannot be convinced. Their opinion is pointless because it is meaningless - they are not a customer that can be "won over."
|
They ran out of power too fast. I was in a game with a player who was using a psionic character and halfway through a long fight involving and army of demon, the character runs out of juice and then suddenly keels over because his AC buff ran out. Earlier on I was impressed with how powerful he was, then that happens and I'm left utterly perplexed, turns out he had done everything in his power to increase the amount of psionic points he had and still came up shy.
Odds are he was going nova, which does have the nasty tendency of causing you run out of PP too quickly; with psionics you have (at least in my experience) to have be more careful with your resources, as you can easily run out very quickly. Thankfully, that is why there are cognizance crystals, dorjes, and psicrowns (which I honestly think are a bit more useful than their non-psionic equivalents). And then there is always the Metamind PrC if you ABSOLUTELY need more PP.
|
|
I love the idea of psionics and even used them in both 2nd Ed and 3.5 Ed but the system just doesn't seem to blend well with the rest of the game mechanics. I always overlooked that hiccup and soldiered on but I'd much rather a system that is a much smoother blend. I'd like a system that is a mind magic; physic powers that are in part related to magic.
I guess the big issue is that magic can itself be defined as psionics, that is to say the study or practice of using the mind to induce paranormal phenomena. Telekinesis and clairvoyance spring to mind.
I can really see a place for it in fantasy games. I see the sorcerer with his heritage related prowess, the cleric with the divine blessings, the wizard with his ancient tomes of forbidden knowledge and the psion with their disciplined mental magic. To me they would be an elitist type either looked down upon by others or looking down on others who don't possess true power from within.
|
|
My issue with psionics? Every single psionic player I have ever met crys bloody murder over the full magic/psionics transparency and how psionics ain't magic. Then we get into a 2 hours argument in the middle of game (which eventually makes the wizard/sorcerer upset that psions manifest their power stilled/silent/eschew material) and I have to kick them out and ban psionics until I get soft and let somebody else try it out. Yes this is not a knock against the system. I don't mind the system or the flavor or any of that. I just don't like psionics fans who seem to be particularly rabid. This thread full of "your opinion that psionics flavor isn't fantasy is wrong" ain't helping me with that opinion. Besides which if somebody truely hates the vancian system, there is the UA spell point magic system...which causes a lot less issues (and despite the added flexability is actually weaker...kinda like psionics).
Psionics doesn't work this way. The natural form of psionics is psionics/magic transparency. Spell resistance works against powers. Psionic resistance works against magic.
Did
Did you people read the book?
You can repeat it 10000 times, and provide links, and if I open up another thread on the issue someone else will say the same thing. It comes up in every psionics thread I have seen, no matter how many times it gets knocked down. :(