I hate psionics because psions are automatically immune to magic and all weapons and can't die, and because they require you to use the expanded Star Wars setting, and because of that rule that says a 1st level psion can cast meteor swarm at will, and because all psions drive Impalas with chrome spinners.
If we had sigs, that would be sig'd.
There are enough differences (flavor) between power sources for arcane, divine, psionic, yada, yada, that one system to handle them all should be attainable.
Except that the Vancian system is an overbearing b%!@@ and telling people who want to play a mage within a simpler, more coherent, easy, readily available, free, more balanced system to shut up and go bow before the altar of Jack Vance or never ever play a mage for as long as they're in your group is a dick move.
Plus, the additional systems paint on shades and nuances that add to the impression that magic is actually weird, which is always a plus.
I just wanted to say the same thing. A cleric (a healer of a god) has the same system as a wizard (a heathen killing people with mathematics) as does every other casting class and everyone's okay with that.
Warlock, Dragonfire Adept, Artificer, Truenamer, Binder, Shadowcaster, Paladin, Bard, Monk, Incarnate/Soulborn/Totemist, Druid, succubi, dragons (or any other monster with supernatural abilities).
All of them have magic that quite explicitly goes outside the bounds of the Vancian system. Possibly in addition to the Vancian system (as is the case with Artificer, Bard, Paladin, and Druid).
Wild Shape is an alternate system, Lay on Hands/Smite/Detect is an alternate system, Bardic Music is an alternate system, Artificer item creation is an alternate system, invocations, truenaming, pact magic, shadow magic, supernatural abilities. All of these are not Vancian standard.
|
That variant rules seems to make Psionics inherently more powerful than magic. Is that the effect that you desire?Not at all....the attack and defense modes, as I've stated in other posts on this topic elsewhere, were bad enough.
But, I'm merely offering a variant to those that are merely wishing for one. Not everyone needs to use all the ideas that are presented.
I miss the old days of Psionics....
So you liked that a level 1 psionic character can pretty much ego whip anything to death...umm yeah, the old days of psionics was BROKEN. Really, that was a system I truely did not enjoy, nor would EVER allow. The 3.x system...meh, it's weaker then magic. But yes you just proved why I don't like psionics...so umm thanks I guess.
|
|
Except that the Vancian system is an overbearing b#*#~ and telling people who want to play a mage within a simpler, more coherent, easy, readily available, free, more balanced system to shut up and go bow before the altar of Jack Vance or never ever play a mage for as long as they're in your group is a dick move.Plus, the additional systems paint on shades and nuances that add to the impression that magic is actually weird, which is always a plus.
shush you, I like the vancian system of magic damn it.
shush you, I like the vancian system of magic damn it.
"Overbearing b@*%!" doesn't mean "unlovable," but it's still not something to foist on every player who ever wants to play a mage no matter how much they hate it when there are far simpler, more balanced, more coherent options out there and available for free.
Why should one player get to use a set of rules no one else gets to? No one is stopping him from playing a caster. And "simpler, more balanced, more coherent" is all in the eye of the beholder really.
The number one reason I hate psionics is that players who obsess about them are like venereal disease - a pain in the ass that won't go away.
And what a delightful way to put it!
I know! We should make it so wizards actually ARE Vancian casters.
At their highest peak of power they can memorize FIVE spells, but still need access to their massive library that doesn't travel with them in order to memorize said spells.
All in favor?
I know! We should make it so wizards actually ARE Vancian casters.
At their highest peak of power they can memorize FIVE spells, but still need access to their massive library that doesn't travel with them in order to memorize said spells.
All in favor?
Sure why not. If only to shut people up about Fighter vs Wizard.
eh wasn't vancan spells pretty much god like? As in insta kills?
Calling Viletta; you're needed in the 'Is this an evil act?' thread...LOL
I do enjoy her post, mostly when it comes to defending a player's freedoms and options.
She often gets a bit over zealous at any restriction for seemly any reason what so ever..
|
Wild Shape is an alternate system, Lay on Hands/Smite/Detect is an alternate system, Bardic Music is an alternate system, Artificer item creation is an alternate system, invocations, truenaming, pact magic, shadow magic, supernatural abilities. All of these are not Vancian standard.
You forgot barbarian's rage and monk's fury of blows. According to this list, they would also be an alternative system that is not vancian standard :D
And I still don't see why a prayer-powered cleric can be vancian, and a psionic must be alternative
if everyone would quit posting in this troll thread it would go away....
if everyone would quit posting in this troll thread it would go away....
Smurf your own advice. :P
|
As a DM you also have to be prepared to learn something new. You can expect or demand to never learn anything new. Life and mostly your players are not going to oblige you by not throwing something new your way. If your telling a player to learn and adapt the magic system so that they can emualte psionics than you should learn the psinoc system as well. It works both ways. Being a DM does not disqualify you from learning something new
If anything this thread has shown me is that their is a demand for psionics. A small one yet imo it is there. And not because a players wants something new to argue with the DM at the game table. If that the attitude your going to take whenever one of your players wants to try something new you have no business being a DM as it will end badly.
Isn't it all vancian except psionics, depending on the definition of vancian?
Even 4E is vancian.
Except in 4E, they had to add power points to psionics, in addition to the standard power distribution accross all classes. Although it is not complicated in concept, it just shows the incessant need to make psionics different.
I am not stating the vancian system is the ultimate solution, but it can support it. There is enough differences when you consider scope of power, range, affect, saves, damage, utility, ... the list goes on, to make each special and unique.
But I came to this thread to late, so I will move on.
In the spirit of the OP's questions:
I simply don't like the flavor of psionics. And, as others have already said, I don't like the way systems for psionics is usually fitted into the existing game. In my experience, they're disruptive to existing gameplay, difficult to balance with everyone else and a constant cause for conflict within an existing group.
The comments by those on both sides of this discussion here, and in every other thread ever put online, is a perfect example. People are passionate about their feelings on the subject and I've not yet been in a group where it hasn't caused tension amongst the players and that has an impact on the overall enjoyment of the game.
On the subject of flavor: I also don't like having telekinesis and teleport in the wizard spell lists. When I DM I often remove both from my games. That can be a decision players don't like it but I'm up front about my prejudice at the start of the game. If that's going to bother them than either I don't run, or those who disagree don't play.
For the record, I'm not really a fan of the vancian system. My number one wish list for all revisions of "the oldest and most popular rpg" has been to see the magic system changed to more of a point system. It's not likely to ever happen but if it did, I still wouldn't want psionics in the game. The flavor simply does nothing for me. I respect other people's opinions. If it works for you great. That's just not the game I want to play and I keep that in mind when I choose the people I play with.
She often gets a bit over zealous at any restriction for seemly any reason what so ever..Why hello there pot! :P
I am not sure what your getting at here, I don't ever recall telling a GM he was playing wrong for not allowing something.
Only stuff I have ever argued is how I would rule things and how it worked in a published setting.
|
|
She often gets a bit over zealous at any restriction for seemly any reason what so ever..Why hello there pot! :PI am not sure what your getting at here, I don't ever recall telling a GM he was playing wrong for not allowing something.
Only stuff I have ever argued is how I would rule things and how it worked in a published setting.
I was referring to how you hold your position with just as much stubborn zeal. You should have said what you were referring to plainly the first time.
ummm I said "at any restriction for seemly any reason what so ever" which seemed clear to me.
I have no issue with her holding her ground, I do the same. What I do have issue with is her calling folks poor GM's or the like for not sharing that stance. To her it does not matter why you say no, if you say no for any reason what so ever, then your a poor GM.
Which honestly is farther then I ever go, IF you don't agree with my point of view then eh ya don't and your free to run games your way. I simply never recall telling someone they were a poor GM or that they were being abusive to a player for not having my view.
heh, like you don't?
Nope, that one is on my list of won't budge. I would however allow you to play a LG paladin or an ex paladin who was now chaotic, or a cleric who says he is a paladin or the like.
but yep I never houserule the paladins AL restrictions, I do however change the code slightly to reflect his chosen god. And I do require you to have a god, but ya know this :)
I also rework the monks silly weapons restrictions..why always Asian weapons when they are just simple weapons with new names??
Now on topic. I would allow you to play a psionic pc on any world that had psionics however. I do have the book after all and have no issue saying no if something seems a bit much :)
So the discussion is really about whether the DM should have total control of every aspect of the game world and everything in it, or whether players should get a say, too? I think we've had that one before.
DM: "All fighters in my awesome world of Q'treak'fl-toosh have blond hair and use war axes, because that's awesome!"
Player: "Can't I play a brunette swordsman from somewhere else?"
DM: "Get with the awesomeness of the setting or get lost!"
ummm I said "at any restriction for seemly any reason what so ever" which seemed clear to me.
I have no issue with her holding her ground, I do the same. What I do have issue with is her calling folks poor GM's or the like for not sharing that stance. To her it does not matter why you say no, if you say no for any reason what so ever, then your a poor GM.
Which honestly is farther then I ever go, IF you don't agree with my point of view then eh ya don't and your free to run games your way. I simply never recall telling someone they were a poor GM or that they were being abusive to a player for not having my view.
I thought she said "arbitrarily banning things...", and the issue was the things she considered arbitrary were not agreed to be so by others.
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 system.
I like different magic systems, quite frankly I'm tired of Vancian magic seeing as the only literature to use it were the works of Jack Vance and, of course, D&D based novels. I think if it is done by paizo it should be something *different* otherwise I'd ask what the point was in offering up an alternate magic system in the first place.
That said the reason I disliked Psionics during 3.5 stemmed from a number of reasons.
* Players who'd abuse the rules.
The players I had who were interested often seemed to only want to play a psion so they could make a build that could do a certain number of damage to a certain number of creatures. Only on rare occasions did someone actually have a good concept to back up their character which is more of a situational thing and less of an issue with the rules themselves.
* I didn't like the 'feel' of psionics in my games.
I'm one of those who felt psionics was more of a science fiction thing rather than a fantasy things. Could have been Babylon 5 or a variety of old sci-fi movies but they just never felt right in fantasy settings that weren't built around them. Even in Forgotten Realms they seemed more like they were put in there to support the game rules rather than run with Ed Greenwoods original setting.
* I lacked the free time my players had to study said rules.
With school and work my time to prepare for games was minimal at best, usually restricted to the day of game, during which I wanted to focus on building encounters and the story of the game. My players, on the other hand, often had heaps of free time (one, due to military and disability benefits didn't even have to work) to pour through supplement books and make nasty builds while I tried to make NPCs that would actually challenge them. This without psionics was difficult enough (though somewhat fun in that evil DM way) with psionics it was simply a headache.
It also didn't help that I had little to no motivation to study the rules. I didn't like the feel of psionics, I didn't like the idea of reading a new book of rules for something I didn't like, felt too much like school or work rather than the fun I was trying to have by playing the game.
* The pet rock.
The damn pet rock is just, well, stupid. Idiotic. Silly. Something created from the mindset of "Well Psions are just another type of wizard and wizards have familiars so psions should have something similar!" which, in my opinion, is just bad design (and bad flavor too).
In the end I took a look at the rules, didn't find them bad, and in some settings they even fit (Eberron for example) but they still never really struck me as something that would fit into my own fantasy games be they Realms or Golarion. In my present group the issue doesn't come up so often, I let one of my trusted players play a psionicist but he changed his mind and went with a different concept, I still shut down the abusive player whenever he tries to bring it up.
|
As a DM you also have to be prepared to learn something new. You can expect or demand to never learn anything new. Life and mostly your players are not going to oblige you by not throwing something new your way. If your telling a player to learn and adapt the magic system so that they can emualte psionics than you should learn the psinoc system as well. It works both ways. Being a DM does not disqualify you from learning something new
If anything this thread has shown me is that their is a demand for psionics. A small one yet imo it is there. And not because a players wants something new to argue with the DM at the game table. If that the attitude your going to take whenever one of your players wants to try something new you have no business being a DM as it will end badly.
Absolutely 100% wrongo. As a DM you do NOT have to learns something new to make you players happy. Would it be nice to try, sure, but don't listen to terrible advice like this. A good DM does what is best for his game and players. And before anyone spits out swill about out crap about dms not having players, it isn't going to happen. What will happen is bozos that think, what they want is more important then what is best, will leave and you will end up with players that fit your game. I have yet to see a DM not have any players because he won't learn the new bells and whistles.
So the discussion is really about whether the DM should have total control of every aspect of the game world and everything in it, or whether players should get a say, too? I think we've had that one before.
DM: "All fighters in my awesome world of Q'treak'fl-toosh have blond hair and use war axes, because that's awesome!"
Player: "Can't I play a brunette swordsman from somewhere else?"
DM: "Get with the awesomeness of the setting or get lost!"
Big Difference. Have you ever played in a game where a DM was running something he doesn't like? Or something he has trouble grasping. If my DM doesn't want psionics because it wont fit his game, or he doesn't like them, or he doesn't understand them, that is fine. I would rather play in a game where the dm knows his stuff, feels comfortable in his world, and makes a good game rather than have one that tries to please everyone and make a pile of crap where no one has fun. If you think that any good DM can make anything work, you need a few years to grow up. Maybe you should go put together some games, and then come back when you are wiser. I don't mean that for Kirth specifically, but for anyone who things not changing their play style or rules is the mark of a bad DM.
Or something he has trouble grasping.
This is a legitimate reason to ban something -- "I don't have time (certainly not before next session, anyway) to review and approve that rule set." I'd have no issues with that. I do have issues, as stated, with the DM who molly-coddles his own little special world to the point where the players get no say in it.
In my most recent homebrew game, there were a couple of characers who totally didn't fit the specific kingdom in the setting -- in terms of race, culture, and/or class combinations, they were batting 0/3 and 1/3, respectively. Rather than ban them, I asked the players if they were OK with their PCs being foreigners, and a "crisis" was thereby easily averted. I could have been a dick and said "No! You have to play elves! And no archivists or runeblades are allowed!" -- but what would be the point of that?
|
|
Rather than ban them, I asked the players if they were OK with their PCs being foreigners, and a "crisis" was thereby easily averted. I could have been a dick and said "No! You have to play elves! And no archivists or runeblades are allowed!" -- but what would be the point of that?
Please see my last post, I already answered this. (I know you saw it, you quoted from it)
Honsetly, as has been done in every single one of these threads, the psionics power point system can e explained in, like, one paragraph. One small paragraph.
It isn't exactly difficult to grasp, guys.
As for fluff concerns, what if the player presents it in a way that distinctly is not "sci-fi?" Would you still disallow it and tell them "Whoh now, you can't make up fluff, only I can, and I declare psionics HAVE to be sci-fi and thus are banned"
I could have been a dick and said "No! You have to play elves! And no archivists or runeblades are allowed!" -- but what would be the point of that?
Why is disallowing something that does not fit the world or campaign being a dick? Is it to much to ask a player to play something that fits the game? Just once?
Just wondering here is all.
I could have been a dick and said "No! You have to play elves! And no archivists or runeblades are allowed!" -- but what would be the point of that?Why is disallowing something that does not fit the world or campaign being a dick? Is it to much to ask a player to play something that fits the game? Just once?
Just wondering here is all.
If the concept can fit without breaking world immersion, and the DM understands the mechanics of the class there is really no reason to ban it. I don't see why a DM would not leave certain parts of a world unexplored just to allow for the "mysterious traveler."
Now if a DM creates a world that for some reason won't make sense with what the player wants, and I am sure there are players that try to be different to the point of being difficult, then the player might need to change his mind.I would not mind my choices being restricted for one campaign(Level X to Level Y with a definite end point), but I would not play in a restrictive campaign world(years of gaming).
Edit: to answer the question we I dont think us "option" people think all restrictions make you(general statement, not aimed at SS) a bad DM. We just think the restrictions should be very small, and if we can find a way to fluff our way into a game then there is no reason to tell us no.
|
|
Absolutely 100% wrongo. As a DM you do NOT have to learns something new to make you players happy.
It all depends if one players is the only one interested in psionics than yes you do not really have to learn anything. If most pf the group is interested in psionics while you amy not have to allow it you whould at least look through them. Being a DM does not mean not learning anything new. When I first ran 3E than 3.5 i made surwe to learn as much of the system as I could to make sure I would know what to allow and what not to allow.
Would it be nice to try, sure, but don't listen to terrible advice like this. A good DM does what is best for his game and players. And before anyone spits out swill about out crap about dms not having players, it isn't going to happen. What will happen is bozos that think, what they want is more important then what is best, will leave and you will end up with players that fit your game. I have yet to see a DM not have any players because he won't learn the new bells and whistles.
One thing I have learned is that a DM only has power as long as the players are willing to give it ot them. Just oultalwing anything and everything with "I am not allowing it because I am the DM. one too many times means you have no group. A gmaing group is a give and take proposition. You have to allow some things and disallow certain things. DMs that try too hard to control everything end up having no players. I had that happen to me at least twice. First to myself before I knew better as a DM and second to another gaming group I was in. So dont give me that BS that DMs having players leave thier groups does not happen it does. A very rare occurence yet it does happen. Since when did being a DM become you vs the players. I never understood that mentality. Your supposed to work with the players not against them.
Mind you if you are upfront about not allowing psionics into the game and the players deamnds them and threathens to leave than yes you do not have to. Which is why before you start a game you sit down and tell the players what you allow and disallow.
One thing that's very offensive and arrogant even is to say "You -will- GM and -these- are the rules you will GM by!"
If a player tried that crap on me, he'd be wondering how in the hell I kicked him away from the table so fast.
You must have plenty of players lined up at the door, then. That's not the case for everyone. I recently had my own home game dissolve from under me because half the group didn't care for the play style, the other half did, and I chose to side with the "dos" rather than try and change the game. Now I have no players at all.
That sucks Kirth, I had my last group dissolve due to inner player issues. Hope ya find another group man.
|
|
If the entire table is full of players who want psionics and the GM doesn't, the appropriate course of action is to find another GM.
Or the players and DM try to come to a comprimse first before having it all fall apart. Like I said a gaming group is a two way street. Both the DMs and the players need to learn to bend when it comes to rules.
One thing that's very offensive and arrogant even is to say "You -will- GM and -these- are the rules you will GM by!"
If a player tried that crap on me, he'd be wondering how in the hell I kicked him away from the table so fast.
No one is saying that players have to force rules down a DMs throat. Neither should the DM just outlaw every rule either. It is a compirse. As I said before the DM has as much power as the players are willing to give him/her. And if your not careful as Kirth has mentioned you no longer hav a gaming group. I do not see why some in this thread need to goet so defensive. Have you never had a player wanting something else besdies the core rules.
Now I have no players at all.
I'm assuming that you did not have enough players to run a game. Still sucks. And something that DMs tend to underestimate. Is how much the players are willing to take before leaving a game.
Agreed, if the whole group is wanting a psionic game and you have no interest in running one, then yes its time for one of them to GM for a while.