I'll break the thread rules. I'm a fan of psionics but had a few issues with the 3.X system.
1. Too many feats: There was Dodge and Psionic Dodge. I had the feeling they were trying to fill space in the book. 3.5 had a feat explosion, so this might be a problem with the whole 3.5 system.
2. Psionic Focus: This space filler was used to create feats. The whole focus thing I just didn't like. I'm sure it can be explained a hundred ways and have heard and read most of them, it's just not needed in my opinion. Of course, this would get rid of most of those feats.
3. Psionic Items: They should have been more similiar to their magic counter parts. The system was set up to mirror magic so I thought this would have been easier (Craft Psionic Staff for example).
4. Use Psionic Device: This is related to the item problem. This should have been rolled into Use Magic Device with the transparency rules, which as a GM I usually allowed.
On a side note, I'm looking forward to see what Paizo does with psionics. Each manifestation so far has been better than the last in my opinion, so I have little reason to believe this would be different.
For those ready with their snarky comments, please note that I am only responding to the question that was posted. You're not going to "prove" anything, because as I stated before, these are just opinions and cannot be proven.
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.
Psions that nova run out of power points really quickly if there are several encounters. If there is only one or two encounters then casters can do the same thing. <---Another old issue.
PS: Any class is painful in the hands of a munchkin.
From what I've gathered it mainly has to do with 3 things.
1. Psionics take up too much space to stat block NPCs.
2. Psionics do not play well with current magic system.
3. Psions are capable of "nova-ing" to an extreme amount even far beyond what a basic spellcaster can do.
There are probably more but I think this summarizes things up nicely.
Ok, so I need to add:
4. Psionics go against the flavor of the fantasy system.
Now it should be able to cover 80% of the people who have issues with psionics. The rest have their own reasons for being against psionics.
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.
We are not attacking opinions. We are attacking fallacies. We discuss opinions. Saying psionics is supposed to ignore SR as an example is a fallacy. Saying a power can do X when it can't is a fallacy. Now if I prove a poster's fallacies wrong, and he still won't try it then he probably just does not like the idea of psionics in a fantasy setting(or some other flavor reason), and I can live with that, but using misinterpretations of the rules is just wrong. In the end Dabbler will have to correct the false beliefs. Why does it matter if he does it or one of us does it?
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.
So what should we do when something is incorrect? I mean something such as a belief with how the rules work which can be proven to be factually incorrect.
Dude you guys are doing the very thing the OP asked you not to do. That makes you a troll in this thread.
You guys have hounded and trolled anyone who said anything you did not like.
You are trolling and derailing the thread.
>Swims in with Troll Flakes TM<
Sorry! Mr. Fishy was ummm... Mr. Fishy is here now.
Mr. Fishy's problem with Psionics was the new rule set. That is it, [i]the rules[i]. Mr. Fishy would have to read and learn an entire subset of robust rules to fairly run a psionic character in a group. Psionics are a type of casting. Mr. Fishy feels secure saying that casting is a tricky class feature. Psonics aggravates casting by making it very flexible.
Plus the feats allow for extra psi points and then the psychic focus. This feat only works if the focus was maintained and that one expends your focus and this feat lets you s&++ doves and fly sideways if you have 3 psi in your reserves and a Cornish Hen in your pocket.
To those who were asking. Yes, I did read through the Expanded Psionics Handbook. I figured out all the rules, because I promised someone I would do so. I read it, did not like the particular flavor of how it worked, the mechanics of how the spells functioned, because they were spells, and so forth. I will reiterate, yet again that I read and understood the rules. I've read about 3 of these threads until I got sick of it. I have issues with how hard it is to shut down a 3.5 psionic character's powers short of an antimagic field, how easy it is to suppress all signs that they used a power, and how some of the powers were far lower than equivalent powers that other classes could use (namely psionic Mind Blank, and the power that breaks it as well.) It made my job as GM needlessly more difficult in many ways, and too many of the feats were too exclusive. I'll point out that I think that all of the psionic item creation feats were silly. There were other ways they could have taken care of things, like if they had just changed the appearance of some items. But no, they added new item creation feats instead. I just realized I'm starting to rant, so...I'm just ending it here. I got frustrated with the way 3.5 dealt with things. IMO, make psionics either completely different or build it into the same structure as spells. Otherwise...what's the point of pretending it isn't typical magic, just like the wizard, sorcerer or cleric gets?
Dude you guys are doing the very thing the OP asked you not to do. That makes you a troll in this thread.
You guys have hounded and trolled anyone who said anything you did not like.
You are trolling and derailing the thread.
You can't put a thread up talking bad about things people like and at times untruthfully, and expect for them to just stand by. I am surprised he even made the thread.
Dabbler might need a thread explaining how the pro side of any issue can benefit from staying away because a lot of us just are not seeing it. <--Not a joke
Dabbler, we've discussed psionics before, but I'll list my objections again here for your convenience.
#1 is bad experience with AD&D psionics. Left a bad taste in my mouth which lingers thirty years later. Never played 2nd edition. Never felt like spending money on 3rd edition psionics rules.
#2 is learning a whole new "magic" system. I am lazy.
#3 even trying to pick at little bits of the psionics system and balance it against spells requires heavy thinking. The way powers and psi points scale with level is so different from standard magic . It makes it hard to integrate a psionic character in a previously psion free campaign.
#4 Overbearing smack-you-in-the-face psionics enthusiasts who can't keep their mouth shut even to help their own cause. Just a personal turnoff. Much along the lines of the min-maxers who swear I am not playing the game right at great length and volume.
That said, a white-haired wilder chick may slowly be changing my mind.
so your just gonna troll until everyone stops talking.
Mmmmmm.....brainnnnsssss
They stopped talking because of the crusaders up there hound and attack any and every post that is not glowing praise for the XPH
|
I just want to know what the obstacles are to a Pathfinder psionics project from those that wouldn't want to see an upgrade of the OGL psionics system.
Honestly?
I view psionics as a Sci-Fi or Superhero trope, not a Fantasy one. I don't want psionics, firearms, or steam-engines in my fantasy gaming.
|
#4 Overbearing smack-you-in-the-face psionics enthusiasts who can't keep their mouth shut even to help their own cause. Just a personal turnoff. Much along the lines of the min-maxers who swear I am not playing the game right at great length and volume.
That's the latest reason added to my list, too.
Dude you guys are doing the very thing the OP asked you not to do. That makes you a troll in this thread.
You guys have hounded and trolled anyone who said anything you did not like.
You are trolling and derailing the thread.
You can't put a thread up talking bad about things people like and at times untruthfully, and expect for them to just stand by. I am surprised he even made the thread.
Dabbler might need a thread explaining how the pro side of any issue can benefit from staying away because a lot of us just are not seeing it. <--Not a joke
Do you want to know why, here is why. I want to know that people aren't even looking at the rulebook. Because that means we are losing a part of the possible purchasers of a psionics book, before the book is even written. Then we lose another part of the audience because they are not a fan of the style. Then we lose more because they don't like the rules system. Why is this helpful? Because if you want to grow the community you need to look at fixing these peoples perception of the rules. And that isn't saying you are wrong (seriously does anyone actually think that is going to help). If you want supported psionic rules and you want more then one book you have to figure out how to get more people to try the rules. That is all there is to it.
#4 Overbearing smack-you-in-the-face psionics enthusiasts who can't keep their mouth shut even to help their own cause. Just a personal turnoff. Much along the lines of the min-maxers who swear I am not playing the game right at great length and volume.That's the latest reason added to my list, too.
I was gone until now. Would Tom mind telling me how it helps anyone to keep their mouth shut?
example:
ToZ(because he is a good sport) you are a liar and a cheater. You also instigates arguments, and break up friendships. ToZ you can not respond to this in any way, no matter if it is true or not. Trust me, I am helping you.
Do you want to know why, here is why. I want to know that people aren't even looking at the rulebook. Because that means we are losing a part of the possible purchasers of a psionics book, before the book is even written. Then we lose another part of the audience because they are not a fan of the style. Then we lose more because they don't like the rules system. Why is this helpful? Because if you want to grow the community you need to look at fixing these peoples perception of the rules. And that isn't saying you are wrong (seriously does anyone actually think that is going to help). If you want supported psionic rules and you want more then one book you have to figure out how to get more people to try the rules. That is all there is to it.Dude you guys are doing the very thing the OP asked you not to do. That makes you a troll in this thread.
You guys have hounded and trolled anyone who said anything you did not like.
You are trolling and derailing the thread.
You can't put a thread up talking bad about things people like and at times untruthfully, and expect for them to just stand by. I am surprised he even made the thread.
Dabbler might need a thread explaining how the pro side of any issue can benefit from staying away because a lot of us just are not seeing it. <--Not a joke
To fix the perception of the rules all it takes is a copy and paste or a link.
If they can't accept being told they misread or misunderstood rule with the truth in front of them they are not the type to listen anyway.Now if you are trying to get them to change their views on immersion that is another topic altogether.
I do thank you though for responding to my question. I think what Dabbler should do is have a crunch and a fluff thread. The ways to convert both each side will be vastly different and deserve their own thread.
To fix the perception of the rules all it takes is a copy and paste or a link.
If they can't accept being told they misread or misunderstood rule with the truth in front of them they are not the type to listen anyway.Now if you are trying to get them to change their views on immersion that is another topic altogether.
I do thank you though for responding to my question. I think what Dabbler should do is have a crunch and a fluff thread. The ways to convert both each side will be vastly different and deserve their own thread.
But I think what we are seeing is that the perception is deeper then we can fix with a messageboard post. I can write SR works on psionics here, but how many people will actually read this post. And even if they do will they actually pick up the psionic rules afterwards. We are dealing with 30 years of people thinking the rules are "broken". I am looking for what we can do to change that. It might take some sort of complete overhaul of the rules to do it. But I am looking for options.
And I do respect the fact that the Professor, meatrace, and you are fans of the rules and take offense to the fact that you feel that everyone is attacking what is the most balanced psionic rules so far.
|
|
I was gone until now. Would Tom mind telling me how it helps anyone to keep their mouth shut?
example:
ToZ(because he is a good sport) you are a liar and a cheater. You also instigates arguments, and break up friendships. ToZ you can not respond to this in any way, no matter if it is true or not. Trust mes, I am helping you.
Bad example since someone SHOULD be allowed to defend himself... assuming ToZ isa good sport who likes salami, we're not attacking ToZ if we give reasons why we don't like salami.
Or perhaps its a good example if you feel personally attacked by negativity aimed at psionics...
Anyway, keeping your mouth shut helps when all that's accomplished by opening it is sounding like a frothing at the mouth, overzealous, pigheaded troll. Defending that trolling by saying what amounts to, "Well, we got trolled elsewhere so nanner nanner nanner." doesn't help. There are ways to disagree without being coming off so badly that the message gets lost in your attitude.
I've tried not to say 'you' in any of that since I don't want to attack anyone... its as general as I can make it...
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.
+Everything, including the kitchen sink. I had forgotten about that aspect.
Most Psionic enthusiast players I have played with have gone into the game under the basic assumption that Psionics can and should bypass SR, Dispel Magic, Antimagic Fields and every other counter that works against magic, under the argument that "it's not magic". Basically, they want magic that no one has any defense against.
NOTE: I'm not saying every psionics enthusiast is like that, but the majority that I have played with have seemed that way.
|
Honestly?
I view psionics as a Sci-Fi or Superhero trope, not a Fantasy one. I don't want psionics, firearms, or steam-engines in my fantasy gaming.
I can respect that. We all have our preferences. Personally, I'm ok with firearms in a limited fashion (no machine guns, but I like swashbucklers so I'm cool with single shot pistols and the like).
I'm willing to accept more steampunk and even SciFi elements so long as there is a good, in-game explanation why they exist, along with a solid and logical reason why they are restricted to a specific area and haven't spread across the world (unless the campaign involves technological revolution).
Psionics are iffy. I don't have any specific problem with them in a fantasy setting, but I haven't seen a psionic system I like since the 2nd edition Complete Psionics Handbook & Dark Sun setting rulebook.
I have a pet peeves about over-sized weapons, and I absolutely hate the concept of non-evil drow.
I guess my approvals and objections are totally based on personal preference and prejudices. Like Pact Magic, Shadow Magic, and the True Name stuff. Maybe it was balanced. Maybe not. I just didn't like it.
To fix the perception of the rules all it takes is a copy and paste or a link.
If they can't accept being told they misread or misunderstood rule with the truth in front of them they are not the type to listen anyway.Now if you are trying to get them to change their views on immersion that is another topic altogether.
I do thank you though for responding to my question. I think what Dabbler should do is have a crunch and a fluff thread. The ways to convert both each side will be vastly different and deserve their own thread.
But I think what we are seeing is that the perception is deeper then we can fix with a messageboard post. I can write SR works on psionics here, but how many people will actually read this post. And even if they do will they actually pick up the psionic rules afterwards. We are dealing with 30 years of people thinking the rules are "broken". I am looking for what we can do to change that. It might take some sort of complete overhaul of the rules to do it. But I am looking for options.
And I do respect the fact that the Professor, meatrace, and you are fans of the rules and take offense to the fact that you feel that everyone is attacking what is the most balanced psionic rules so far.
I don't mind them not liking psionics, even the rules, as long as they understand the rules.
As far as the immersion people like what they like, and whether I think it is reasonable or not, it can be hard to change that.I think what also needs to be addressed is the difference between a playstyle issue and a psionics issue. I don't think the system is perfect, but no system is. I don't really care to go into specifics because I just had the debate just a few months ago. It was an enlightening, and draining experience, and while I don't agree with a vanican based system I do see what Seeker was worried about. I personally plan to throw in some psionics characters into my game as NPC's hoping the newer players will be like "What was that?", and want to try it.
I was gone until now. Would Tom mind telling me how it helps anyone to keep their mouth shut?
example:
ToZ(because he is a good sport) you are a liar and a cheater. You also instigates arguments, and break up friendships. ToZ you can not respond to this in any way, no matter if it is true or not. Trust mes, I am helping you.Bad example since someone SHOULD be allowed to defend himself... assuming ToZ isa good sport who likes salami, we're not attacking ToZ if we give reasons why we don't like salami.
Or perhaps its a good example if you feel personally attacked by negativity aimed at psionics...
Anyway, keeping your mouth shut helps when all that's accomplished by opening it is sounding like a frothing at the mouth, overzealous, pigheaded troll. Defending that trolling by saying what amounts to, "Well, we got trolled elsewhere so nanner nanner nanner." doesn't help. There are ways to disagree without being coming off so badly that the message gets lost in your attitude.
I've tried not to say 'you' in any of that since I don't want to attack anyone... its as general as I can make it...
I did not see any insults. If we insulted anyone who disagreed with us, which happens in some threads that is trolling. I think we were pretty civil. I know you did not accuse us of insulting anyone, but "frothing at the mouth" sounds like fanboy rage, which normally comes with insults.
Honestly?
I view psionics as a Sci-Fi or Superhero trope, not a Fantasy one. I don't want psionics, firearms, or steam-engines in my fantasy gaming.
I can respect that. We all have our preferences. Personally, I'm ok with firearms in a limited fashion (no machine guns, but I like swashbucklers so I'm cool with single shot pistols and the like).
+1
I don't mind mixing many of these things together, but I do understand how someone else may not like the idea.
Here's a question for the group, how different are psionics and magic anyways? You need a clearly defined thematic difference between the two, and I don't think it exists. Telekinesis, mental control over others, mental communication, remote viewing, etc. are just as applicable to magic as they are to psionics (which is why I think it's labelled as sci-fi by a lot of people, it's magic that's acceptable in sci-fi because it's "paranormal" rather then "supernaural").
Magic is external and Psionics are internal. I'd say both have equal elements as psychics can shoot energy and sorcerers can shape change.
Magic is vancian and psionics are spell point. Not a real good difference IMO, as you can run magic using SP with a little work (FFG's Midnight setting did this and there was UA too) and you could probably reverse engineer psionics with little effort. Rules don't define the theme of something, just provide it some structure.
Magic is generally more powerful and more controlled but psionics are more versatile and you can nova. I think this is more an issue of the vancian and SP system.
Ultimately, when I look at psionics I feel the same way when I looke at 4th Ed classes. The power type might change from arcane, divine, wild, psionic, or pumkin, but there isn't a lot that really seems to seperate them. Psions seem like wizards with a different skin change created by a fan you can download if you feel like it. The easy way around this is just saying magic = psionics and make some class options around this. The other way is a lot harder as it requires finding a unique niche for it.
I might look at monks, psychic warriors (a better name would be nice), and soul blades and aim the damaging powers more towards melee then ranged, but I'm not sure on that.
While I generally do like the 3.5 psionics rules, there are aspects I don't care for. Primarily is that it never received the same level of support. There were new spells in every supplement, but psionics was all but ignored. Secondly is the fact that some of the classes, items, and feats were just core material with a sticker on them that said "PSIONIC". I also have the carry over disdain from previous editions of psionics.
I love that it works as a point based drop in magic system that integrates well with the core rules, but parts of it just weren't given much thought.
Just shows that even among those who like psionics there are things about it we don't particularly care for.
This sums up the situation here I think.
So what should we do when something is incorrect? I mean something such as a belief with how the rules work which can be proven to be factually incorrect.
You mind breaking that down to me? It went over my head.
I like the idea of Psionics, I just don't like them to be another form of Magic, I would like them to be very different from the way magic is ran not just core spells with stickers on them like Freesword said. Kind of like ad&d Psionics where you had to do a check and spend points. Or the way the force was done is 3.5 with skill points, I just want Psionics to feel different from magic from Fluff to mechanics, but that is just me.
Could someone please answer my fluff question?
Why are psionics "sci-fi" when Vancian spellcasting, cribbed from a sci-fi "science and sorcery" book series, allows you to cast Telekinesis, a word with roots firmly in 19th century psuedoscience and sci-fi "Not-Magic?"
well even if I do not agree, sci-fi uses the term Psionics alot. It is now tied pretty firmly to sci-fi. That and the crystals kinda gave it even more of a new agey/sci-fi vibe
Now I do not agree it is strictly sci-fi, but alot of folks seem to.
|
|
Depending on setting, in comics some superheroes violently take diesel powered dildos to the undersides of bad guys.
If I'm interested in comic settings, I'll play Champions or some other comic game.
I can't think of any psionic from myths, but, if we assume 'psionic' means 'mystic', the kinds of powers we associate with mystics are astral projection, telekinesis, hypnosis, etc., not teleportation.
Yeesh, those are settings to stay away from like they are the plague.
The point I was making is that sometimes crazy mind powers can let you move faster than the speed of light, even if it isn't very accurate or well-controlled.
Technically speaking the system of magic used in D&D is psionic in nature for characters who don't use material components or outside sources of power. Psychic powers are special abilities generated by the mind, and sorcerers fit that bill fairly well
|
|
Could someone please answer my fluff question?
Why are psionics "sci-fi" when Vancian spellcasting, cribbed from a sci-fi "science and sorcery" book series, allows you to cast Telekinesis, a word with roots firmly in 19th century psuedoscience and sci-fi "Not-Magic?"
Who CARES?!?
It doesn't matter WHY they have an opinion, it's their opinion. You aren't gonna change their mind by pulling the I know more about geek history then you do. So what if they don't know where the vancian system came from?!? To them, it's fantasy D&D and psionics is sci-fi. If nothing else, it makes the pro psionics camp look like rabid fanbois...and remember my main mark against psionics is the players...not the system. Comments like this really ain't helping me wanna allow psionics in any game I run anytime soon.
Could someone please answer my fluff question?
Why are psionics "sci-fi" when Vancian spellcasting, cribbed from a sci-fi "science and sorcery" book series, allows you to cast Telekinesis, a word with roots firmly in 19th century psuedoscience and sci-fi "Not-Magic?"
Who CARES?!?
It doesn't matter WHY they have an opinion, it's their opinion. You aren't gonna change their mind by pulling the I know more about geek history then you do. So what if they don't know where the vancian system came from?!? To them, it's fantasy D&D and psionics is sci-fi. If nothing else, it makes the pro psionics camp look like rabid fanbois...and remember my main mark against psionics is the players...not the system. Comments like this really ain't helping me wanna allow psionics in any game I run anytime soon.
How are we supposed to address a complaint if we don't know where it comes from?
"It feels sci-fi."
"Why?"
Why is important. If people think the fluff is too sci-fi, then the answer is to find out why they feel that way.
It's not about knowing where vancian magic comes from, it's about finding why one is "sci-fi" and the other is not despite the ability itself being identical.
Sigh because Psionics are sci-fi and magic is fantasy. It is that simple. What system it uses is irrelevant to that point
|
|
Could someone please answer my fluff question?
Why are psionics "sci-fi" when Vancian spellcasting, cribbed from a sci-fi "science and sorcery" book series, allows you to cast Telekinesis, a word with roots firmly in 19th century psuedoscience and sci-fi "Not-Magic?"
Who CARES?!?
It doesn't matter WHY they have an opinion, it's their opinion. You aren't gonna change their mind by pulling the I know more about geek history then you do. So what if they don't know where the vancian system came from?!? To them, it's fantasy D&D and psionics is sci-fi. If nothing else, it makes the pro psionics camp look like rabid fanbois...and remember my main mark against psionics is the players...not the system. Comments like this really ain't helping me wanna allow psionics in any game I run anytime soon.
How are we supposed to address a complaint if we don't know where it comes from?
"It feels sci-fi."
"Why?"Why is important. If people think the fluff is too sci-fi, then the answer is to find out why they feel that way.
It's not about knowing where vancian magic comes from, it's about finding why one is "sci-fi" and the other is not despite the ability itself being identical.
Well then don't pull the geek history. Just ask WHY is psionics too sci fi for you. Is it the word? Is it the SP system? Is it you don't active do anything other then stare really hard to make things happen? That is what you wanna ask to get at why they dislike psionics as too sci fi. What you pulled was I have a bigger member of the male anatomy then you do and so your obviously wrong because you don't know what Jack Vance novels were about.
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?"
My thoughts exactly - you read my mind!
Are you psychic? ; )
I also feel that if one is going to go through all the work of adding options/expansions to a ruleset, then these options/expansions should both work with the ruleset (not referring to magic/psionic transparency here, rather to the feeling that psionics was always "tacked on" to the system) and be supported by the ruleset, i.e. make it part of core.
As much as I love the concept of psionics, if all that will be done with it is to publish a limited line of books (the rulebook supplement, maybe a setting [Vudra? Castrovel??] companion & an adventure [not necessarily a long one]...) & then [almost] never refer to it again in subsequent products, then why bother?
"Yes", I know that there are many (relatively speaking, of course) who would like the option of using psionics in their Pathfinder games (& I count myself among them), & I am NOT saying that Paizo should not consider bringing psionics (not necessarily just updating the 3.5 rules) to the Pathfinder RPG. But if psionics is going to receive much in the way of support as a component of core, then I'd rather Paizo focus its resources on other things that will continue to make Pathfinder an awesome game than on something that feels "tacked on" & does nothing for the game itself.
There ARE other games/systems where I can get my psionics fix. ; )
With no offense intended (& apologies to the OP if this went off-topic),
-- C.
I like the idea of Psionics, I just don't like them to be another form of Magic, I would like them to be very different from the way magic is ran not just core spells with stickers on them like Freesword said. Kind of like ad&d Psionics where you had to do a check and spend points. Or the way the force was done is 3.5 with skill points, I just want Psionics to feel different from magic from Fluff to mechanics, but that is just me.
Agreed.
See the post above - before the long & dense part of it... ^.^'
-- C.
Could someone please answer my fluff question?
Why are psionics "sci-fi" when Vancian spellcasting, cribbed from a sci-fi "science and sorcery" book series, allows you to cast Telekinesis, a word with roots firmly in 19th century psuedoscience and sci-fi "Not-Magic?"
"Vancian" spellcasting? As in the system/mechanic used for the rules side of the RPG? You're comparing -that- to a background/"fluff" issue that we in the "not so sure we like the idea of psionics in Pathfinder" camp have (ie whether psionics fits the High Fantasy genre)? That doesn't even make sense. Whether the game used a mana point system or the current memorization system, I'd have just as much issue with Psionics being too "sci-fi" for a High Fantasy based game.
As for Telekinesis, the name has bothered me... but not enough to warrant using it as an argument for pro-psionics to be valid in my opinion. You could just as easily call the spell "Move Object" if it's going to be an issue. The point is it doesn't matter. There are spells that do other things psionics has been capable of in science fiction. Take Pyrokinesis in "Firestarter" by Steven King for example. Is the spell Heat Metal too close to psionics to be a spell then? What about Fireball?
Psionics has -always- been something that's been tacked on to a setting/system in D&D as an afterthought with no real effort made to ensure that it actually belongs in the game (with the possible exception of Dark Sun, but I never did play in that setting). Psionics might even fit the genre of Shadowrun (for an example of a different genre RPG), but if they tried to add it to the current game now it would be a poorly contrived mess. I believe it would be multitudes worse for Pathfinder since the High Fantasy genre really wouldn't work (in my opinion) with such sci-fi elements. Heck, I'm even glad that Pathfinder has no Mind Flayers... especially once I found out that they're actually time-traveling aliens.
Could someone please answer my fluff question?
Why are psionics "sci-fi" when Vancian spellcasting, cribbed from a sci-fi "science and sorcery" book series, allows you to cast Telekinesis, a word with roots firmly in 19th century psuedoscience and sci-fi "Not-Magic?"
A wiser man than me answered this up by saying: 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a completely ad-hoc plot device.'
|
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.So what should we do when something is incorrect? I mean something such as a belief with how the rules work which can be proven to be factually incorrect.
You mean someone is wrong? On the internet???
EDIT: Doh! Beaten to it by more than 7 hours ...
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.
Personally, for charm effects I don't really like psionics. I like tellepathy to be more akin to Jedi mind tricks at low levels, and completely re-writing people's memories at higher levels. The system just doesn't allow for that kind of thing though. It is too broad with its power, never focuses, but is very limmitted in what it can do. I have this problem with the magic system too, but that is easier explained away by it being more of a science. I would prefer a more freeform magic system like Mage or Ars Magica.
Telekinesis spells (along with mage hand and other lower level spells) are actually pretty good for what I want the telekineticist to do. They are free form enough to let the GM decide what happens, while giving rules for how to handle some different things that the player may attempt to do. Personally, I would take this line of spells and use it for the model for a class. The class would get little else, but it would be better than any caster when it comes to telekinesis.
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.So what should we do when something is incorrect? I mean something such as a belief with how the rules work which can be proven to be factually incorrect.You mean someone is wrong? On the internet???
Mothman just said anyone that does not like psionics is wrong. I hope he does not try to correct me later on this.
How are we supposed to address a complaint if we don't know where it comes from?Your not supposed to, please read the first post of the thread again.
Here i'll post it again for you to help.All you are doing by posting these repetative arguements is further alienating people. If you would like to get up on your soap box about psionics well feel free to make your own thread with your own goals. Your thoughts are not helping this thread and it's explictly stated goals. To do anything else just makes you an obivous troll.This is a question aimed at those who do not like the 3.5-type psionics system. I'm not looking to start a flame war or anything, I just genuinely want to get an idea of the reasons why some DMs and players do not like that system from those people. So please, no psionics-lovers posting their conjectures here or trying to correct 'misunderstandings' about their beloved systems (I'm a lover of the psionics system myself).
I just want to know what the obstacles are to a Pathfinder psionics project from those that wouldn't want to see an upgrade of the OGL psionics
All he did was ask why.
It seems to me you want the pro-psionics camp to not only sit back whiles lies* are spread, but when opinions come up we are not allowed to try to understand your opinions either?
*I am sure someone was not paying attention so I will repeat myself. Lies/Misinformation refers to things that can factually be proven to be wrong based on the rules not fluff issues.
What is the difference between Dabbler addressing the issues in this thread at a later time, and us doing it now as they are coming up?