Why don't you like psionics?


3.5/d20/OGL

1 to 50 of 874 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


Dabbler wrote:

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 love psionics - I don't find the overpowered or broken... I think the problem is that they are poorly understood additional rules that require extra effort on behalf of the GM..... Some GMs don't have the time or motivation to understand them and then some players will "cheat" or "fudge" because the GM is not fully conversant with the rules - there is a general impression left by the rules abusing players of psionics being far more powerful than they are.

I like the system for Psionics and find it better than the magic system and I like that it is different from magic.

I can also understand comments from Paizo that if they were to do Psionics they would make it more like magic as then new rules do not need to be learned...... I would be happy with this approach if they could differentiate the feel of their psionics enough so it wouldn't be just another magic system... because that is boring and not the point of psionics - if its just another type of magic what is the point of having them.

Dark Archive

psionics love, keepin his mouth shut, but keepin an eye on the thread.

i do gotta admit, it did make stat blocks bigger and required another book to use.

the thing i did hate was psionics was just different enough that some DM's wouldnt let you use it


A lot of the complaints i got about using Psionics was that because it was a seperate system, there was little support. spell resist was not psi resist and vice versa.

So if played as written, psionica could be effectively unstoppable. This meant that you had to come up with compremises as to how psionics and magic interacted. Was a dorje basicly a wand and useable with use magic device? Could spell resistance be used against psionics?

In the end we simply ruled that there was no effective difference, so anything that applied to magic applied to psionics and vice versa.

The core of the problem is attemptign to integrate a completly new system into the existing system after the fact.


JMD031 wrote:

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.

+1, this is the big three

I think if they brought it more inline with the current magic system{Which fixes 1 and 2} stopped the noving you would have less dislike of psionics as a whole

You'll still have the deal with the "No sci-fi in my fantasy} bunch even if a wizard covers mind powers anyhow. Go fig


Dabbler wrote:

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.

There are multiple hundred plus post on this issue. The same points are hashed out every time.

First I am going to send you here Myth of psionics being over powered

Here is one of the larger ones.
Some things are repeated a lot since the thread is over 800 post, but it is one of the better ones. It also spawns a few side threads.

This is when dreamscarred press decided to take on the quest of doing psionics for pathfinder

These are the biggest ones to look at. Have fun.

Sovereign Court

They just never seem to fit... generally because they've always been added-on in some book that comes out after the core rules. This is only untrue in AD&D 1e where psionics were hidden in an appendix way back at the end of PHB along with a bunch of other stuff that didn't fit in anywhere else (1e bards, anyone?).

Your campaign is humming along nicely and along comes 'the new book' and the inevitable, "Can I play this? All it requires is for you to learn this WHOLE BOOK that is dedicated to the character I want to play. You'll get to expend all sorts of effort learning how the psionic classes work, how the special psionic equipment works, how the various special psionic monsters work... such fun!"

I suppose I'm also a bit skewed in my perception since the people I've seen most attracted to psionics are the ones who'd most like to be able to use vast amounts of min-maxing munchkinitude to make their characters and the opportunity to learn a rules system they know the GM will pay passing attention to is a wide opened door to warehouse full of abusive potential. I know not every fan of psionics is this typee of player... but I gotta learn from experience.

And, before someone says, "Find a new group.", I'm playing with the same group for 25 years... we've stood up at each others' weddings (for the grooms AND the brides... with various individuals serving as best man, ushers, maids or matrons of honor, bridesmaids, etc.), celebrated the births of children, mourned the deaths of parents... and, in one case, the death of one of the group... and another of them GAVE ME A KIDNEY 3 months ago. That's just not an option.


The biggest gripe I had was that psionics didn't fit the flavor of my setting. If it did, I would have allowed it as a DM. That was during 3.5 when the books were released. Now that my setting can possibly support it, I would probably take a second look at it if one of my players was interested. I would definitely allow it if Paizo releases an updated system that is easier to integrate.


roccojr wrote:

They just never seem to fit.......

I suppose I'm also a bit skewed in my perception since the people I've seen most attracted to psionics are the ones who'd most like to be able to use vast amounts of min-maxing munchkinitude to make their characters and the opportunity to learn a rules system they know the GM will pay passing attention to is a wide opened door to warehouse full of abusive potential. I know not every fan of psionics is this typee of player... but I gotta learn from experience.

And, before someone says, "Find a new group.", I'm playing with the same group for 25 years... we've stood up at each others' weddings (for the grooms AND the brides... with various individuals serving as best man, ushers, maids or matrons of honor, bridesmaids, etc.), celebrated the births of children, mourned the deaths of parents... and, in one case, the death of one of the group... and another of them GAVE ME A KIDNEY 3 months ago. That's just not an option.

That is not a psionics issue. That is a group issue. You could replace psionics with baking cakes and that issue would be there, or any other new splat book, subsystem and so on.


Generally speaking, the psionics were always so obscure as compared to everything else as to make them either completely worthless or ridiculously overpowered.

E.G. a group of psionicists could run around with dispel magic disposables, hobbling parties that had no choice but to rely on magic items and casters, and yet the party would typically have really no other defense.

On the flip side, you would have the "too stupid to be affected by psionics" as to make being a psionicist less than fun.

If psionics were on the same level as divine magic as compared to arcane, and arcane as compared to divine, then I would consider playing psionics.

The other annoying aspect is that psionicists would greatly benefit from magic equipment, but non-psionicists would find psionics based equipment beyond worthless to them.


Dabbler wrote:

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.

But if one doesn't correct a misunderstanding people might think their misunderstanding is truth.

Like that Spell resistance thing: it is by default equal to psionics resist (SR = PR). Changing the rules to not affect each makes a huge difference to perception of psionics.

So I'd say for Reason:
1. People Misunderstanding rules
2. Bad players purposely misunderstanding rules (Munchkins) and keeping real rules a secret (DM too trusting maybe?)
3. Bad memories from previous editions


Takamonk wrote:

Generally speaking, the psionics were always so obscure as compared to everything else as to make them either completely worthless or ridiculously overpowered.

E.G. a group of psionicists could run around with dispel magic disposables, hobbling parties that had no choice but to rely on magic items and casters, and yet the party would typically have really no other defense.

On the flip side, you would have the "too stupid to be affected by psionics" as to make being a psionicist less than fun.

If psionics were on the same level as divine magic as compared to arcane, and arcane as compared to divine, then I would consider playing psionics.

The other annoying aspect is that psionicists would greatly benefit from magic equipment, but non-psionicists would find psionics based equipment beyond worthless to them.

Say that again in english or somebody can translate for him.

Liberty's Edge

To me psionics were supposed to be new character classes originally. That was the goal. But instead of that what they did was to implement a whole new subsystem of combat, stat tracking, and skill systems. Not to mention introducing what is effectively a MP bar into D&D.

The implementation was poorly integrated and it always felt like they tacked it on. It felt like they took a RV trailer and welded it to the side of a nice 2 floor and a basement suburban home. Sure it added new things, but it tarnished the package as a whole.

If pathfinder is to do psionics they are going to HAVE to do it in a different way that the whole power points system due to a number of reasons including closed content and IP laws and such. I hope for a time when they do this that they can integrate in a way so it looks like a nice porch or a pool in the back yard instead of a parking a pop tent on the lawn.


Themetricsystem wrote:


If pathfinder is to do psionics they are going to HAVE to do it in a different way that the whole power points system due to a number of reasons including closed content and IP laws and such.

The Psionics rules are open content.


@takamonk, what? are you referring to some non-3.5 thing?
I agree that the items could be integrated better. Concentration could have been used instead of autohypnosis back then, and psi/magic transparency should be the heavily recommended default, and UMD should work on Psionic gear, too.

@Themetricsystem:
http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/psionicRacesClassesSkillsSpells.htm
is OGL.


sigh, guys the OP asked y'all not to pop in and make this a "Your doing it wrong" thread.

If you love the system, good for you. Please stop trying to prove folks in this thread they are wrong.


Too salty.


JMD031 wrote:
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.

Edit - and I'll back Seeker's comment: I have specifically asked for those that do not like psionics to post here their reasons, and for those that like psionics not to post. I don't want 2nd and 3rd hand supposition, I want it from the horse's mouth. On all the psionics threads we hear a lot about what people think other people might have said they didn't like about psioncs ... nah, I want to know what the current Pathfinder fans actually think of them.

Because if we do not know what the issues are, we can't fix them, and if I have to plough through 300 posts of psionics-lovers telling the not-lovers how they are wrong, I'll never find out what those with a problem actually think!


wraithstrike wrote:
Takamonk wrote:

Generally speaking, the psionics were always so obscure as compared to everything else as to make them either completely worthless or ridiculously overpowered.

E.G. a group of psionicists could run around with dispel magic disposables, hobbling parties that had no choice but to rely on magic items and casters, and yet the party would typically have really no other defense.

On the flip side, you would have the "too stupid to be affected by psionics" as to make being a psionicist less than fun.

If psionics were on the same level as divine magic as compared to arcane, and arcane as compared to divine, then I would consider playing psionics.

The other annoying aspect is that psionicists would greatly benefit from magic equipment, but non-psionicists would find psionics based equipment beyond worthless to them.

Say that again in english or somebody can translate for him.

I asked you to explain you didnt. Now I will break it down with my understanding of your words.

They are not worthless or overpowered. I notice you did not give examples. I will have to assume you have not idea what you are talking about.

The 2nd paragraph is a bunch of incoherent words that make no sense.

The 3rd paragraph does not state if you think psionics are stronger or weaker, just on a different level. Another non-argument since it is not saying anything.

4th. Not all magical equipment is useful to a psionic class, and not all psionic items are useless to magic classes. There you go.


Dabbler wrote:
JMD031 wrote:
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.

I knew this would turn into the 2nd thread I linked. What he speaks of consist of a variety of issues. One is the nova. That argument alone probably took up 3 pages or more in the other thread. In the end we all decided to agree to disagree.

Some DM's have things take place no matter what the PC's do. Other DM's revolve around the PC's. If the psion novas then the party has to rest which messes with immersion(did I spell that right). I think a player that blows spells or power points and ends up useless in combat deserves what they get, but others feel like it is the systems fault. It is a lot more detailed somewhere in the 2nd thread. I would go there and search for nova, and probably my name. That should get you within a page or two of that portion of it.
A big issue was that many of us feel that the mechanics and the psionics idea are a package deal, and they are not to be divorced. Others are willing to take the idea and put the mechanics aside if we can call ourselves psionics. Why not just play a sorcerer and call it a psion was the counter to that, and then there was another counter ad infinitum.....

Sovereign Court

wraithstrike wrote:
That is not a psionics issue. That is a group issue. You could replace psionics with baking cakes and that issue would be there, or any other new splat book, subsystem and so on.

Yeah... but I was asked why I don't like psionics and that's my answer. I wasn't asked why psionics are bad (I wouldn't say they're bad... they might work great... for YOU). I'm not saying my reasons are why YOU shouldn't like them.

Incidentally, as I would certainly be susceptible to a bribe that involved a freshly baked cake, cake baking COULD become a min-maxing issue, too (though the maxing would likely involve my waistline). That's an issue I'm willing to wait on before making any rules against it... if any of my players feel like baking me a pineapple upside down cake, better do it quick before I have to send cake baking the way of psionics in my campaigns.


@Wraithstrike, you seem to be in the pro camp like me, so let's back off and let those with issues share them.


My main issue with psionics is that I don't particularly feel the need for a third type of magic in the game. I'm also not all that happy with the flavour. Generally I prefer the feel of psionics for modern or futuristic style games.

Part of my dislike is probably also due to how it was handled in previous editions. At one point I was quite keen to learn and use the system since I was keen on Dark Sun, but the psionics rules at the time seemed to be horribly convoluted and liable to bog the game down. I never actually got XPH, but a friend ran a Psion in a game I played and it seemed fine (though his psi crystal seemed overly useful and tended to foil the DM's plans). I just never really felt the desire to make use of it.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I'll try to keep this brief and simple, and I will state that I've run into several powergamers/munchkins in my group that may have partially spoiled psionics for me, however, that said...

I like the concept of new magic systems, but psionics didn't do it for me. The spell point system was neat, but it felt far too unfair even to sorcerers, who have a certain number of slots that they can't turn into higher level spells. I've seen PCs nova too easily, all of the counters are typically in the same book, which makes it harder for me to look at a list and say "Hey, this looks like a good challenge to the party..." Moving on from that, there was also the point where it brought in entirely new skills. This is something I oppose on the sheer principle, as it can invalidate other classes. (ie. Wizard who got all magical knowledge he could find...and suddenly knows squat about the new magic system.)

The way powers scaled, both DCs and damage-wise, bothered me somewhat, but it was too many small issues and irritations that finally made it so I completely banned it from my games. Oh, and the new-age crystal-y feel, along with unique entire item trees was just the death knell to it. I'm sure Paizo can fix it if they try...I'm just going to be skeptical until I see such.

Liberty's Edge

Berik wrote:
My main issue with psionics is that I don't particularly feel the need for a third type of magic in the game. I'm also not all that happy with the flavour. Generally I prefer the feel of psionics for modern or futuristic style games.

+1.

I don't necessarily have a beef with any psionic rules system - I just don't like the flavor. The whole idea of tele-whatever and mind powers and sentient power crystals...it's just not my genre. Beyond even "get your sci-fi out of my fantasy", I don't really care for the flavor even in a modern or sci-fi game.

Besides that, the 3.0 psionics (in my experiences) tended to attract "bad" players - Players who either wanted to take advantage of rules loopholes in order to powergame, or who wanted to be a psychic in order to be different and special and attention hogging. I know, this is a player problem, not a rule problem, but like I said, psionics seemed to attract these guys in my groups.

Even then, I still bought the Psionics Handbook in case any of my players wanted to play a psionic character. However, the whole idea of a big rules subset that had to be learned, grafted on, and integrated, made it a lot of work for me as a DM to allow that option.

So, even if a new, "better", Pathfinderized psionics system comes out, I will very likely not buy it, simply because I'm not the target audience - my issues with psionics probably aren't fixable, and I'm okay with that. My input probably isn't extremely valuable for whatever it is you're working on, but that's my $0.02, anyway.


roccojr wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
That is not a psionics issue. That is a group issue. You could replace psionics with baking cakes and that issue would be there, or any other new splat book, subsystem and so on.

Yeah... but I was asked why I don't like psionics and that's my answer. I wasn't asked why psionics are bad (I wouldn't say they're bad... they might work great... for YOU). I'm not saying my reasons are why YOU shouldn't like them.

Incidentally, as I would certainly be susceptible to a bribe that involved a freshly baked cake, cake baking COULD become a min-maxing issue, too (though the maxing would likely involve my waistline). That's an issue I'm willing to wait on before making any rules against it... if any of my players feel like baking me a pineapple upside down cake, better do it quick before I have to send cake baking the way of psionics in my campaigns.

If you allow psionics your players owe me a slice of cake.


Senevri wrote:
@Wraithstrike, you seem to be in the pro camp like me, so let's back off and let those with issues share them.

Fine, but I am sure they wont say anything I have not seen already. I do understand why nobody wants to read an 800 post thread though.


My main beef with psionics is that not only do they not fit the genre very well, but the notion of a "Mana Point" system kind of goes against the already established "Spell Slots" system for "superpowers" (essentially what spells and such boil down to on a very basic level) in this game. One or the other should be used imo but not both.

In 3.5 psionics seemed more of an afterthought... like a new system that was just thrown like spatter of brown paint onto the canvas of the game rather than carefully painted in so it fit seemlessly. You ended up with psionic characters running around in groups being these mysterious beings that no one knew anything about (DM: "Don't have Knowledge: Psionics? You know nothing about the new PC or these new monsters I'm going to throw at you only because the psionic PC is in the group").


Dork Lord wrote:

My main beef with psionics is that not only do they not fit the genre very well, but the notion of a "Mana Point" system kind of goes against the already established "Spell Slots" system for "superpowers" (essentially what spells and such boil down to on a very basic level) in this game. One or the other should be used imo but not both.

In 3.5 psionics seemed more of an afterthought... like a new system that was just thrown like spatter of brown paint onto the canvas of the game rather than carefully painted in so it fit seemlessly. You ended up with psionic characters running around in groups being these mysterious beings that no one knew anything about (DM: "Don't have Knowledge: Psionics? You know nothing about the new PC or these new monsters I'm going to throw at you only because the psionic PC is in the group").

If I have psionic monsters in a game I would let the players know to take that knowledge or I would allow knowledge(arcane) to work with a penalty. I don't think it is fair to bring nonstandard monsters into a game like that. Now if the "special monsters" are only there for a very limited number of encounters I would not worry about the knowledge psionics issue.

ok. I failed my will save.

Shadow Lodge

My 'problem' with psionics is I don't want to deal with learning yet another complex subsystem.

It's bad enough we have to deal with the fact that there are 3+ systems of casting now (prepared from a full spell list, prepared from a list of spells known, spontaneous from a list of spells known). Teaching players a complete new system would be a PITA. Learning a complete new system because one player wants to play a class is likewise a PITA.

So either change everything to power points (unlikely) or change psionics over to vancian (also unlikely).


I have played far too much Warhammer 40,000, psionics just seems to far out of place in a fantasy setting to me.


0gre wrote:

My 'problem' with psionics is I don't want to deal with learning yet another complex subsystem.

It's bad enough we have to deal with the fact that there are 3+ systems of casting now (prepared from a full spell list, prepared from a list of spells known, spontaneous from a list of spells known). Teaching players a complete new system would be a PITA. Learning a complete new system because one player wants to play a class is likewise a PITA.

So either change everything to power points (unlikely) or change psionics over to vancian (also unlikely).

Psionics is not hard to learn. You just have to do more math, and learn not to blow all your points in one round, but most new people playing casters have the same issue with spells.


Wraithstrike you are yet again off topic. Would you please stop informing everyone with an opinion they are wrong. Your doing the very thing the OP asked you guys not to do.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Wraithstrike you are yet again off topic. Would you please stop informing everyone with an opinion they are wrong. Your doing the very thing the OP asked you guys not to do.

I can't help it.

It is like watching someone punch my son in the face. I don't have a son, but still.
I also get a -10 to my will save when I see the same arguments. Yeah I could just not look, but someone might surprise me with something new.

In any event to help this thread move along:

Psionics is too sci-fi

Psionic characters can do too much damage with one power

Psionic powers are overpowered compared to the magic versions

Psychic Warrior feats are too powerful

Psychic Warrior is stronger than a fighter

Energy Missile is overpowered

Energy powers are overpowered

The Erudite is broken

Metapsionic feats are too powerful, they cost less than metamagic feats

The Metamind is overpowered with Font of Power

Metamorphosis, Greater is overpowered

Schism is overpowered

Vigor is overpowered

Psychic Reformation is overpowered

The Cerebremancer is overpowered

1st level powers doing 20d6 damage are overpowered

Psionics are more powerful than wizards due to their damage powers

The King of Smack build is overpowered

Time Regression is too strong

Astral Construct is too good for a 1st level power

Empathic Transfer, Hostile is overpowered

Elans are overpowered

The Overchannel feat is too strong

The Slayer is overpowered

Split Psionic Ray is too powerful

Synchronicity is overpowered

Anticipatory Strike is overpowered

The problem is the power point system is far more flexible then the current system for other casters. So if the psionic gets a far more flexible magic system he will be starting with a balance issue. Sure you can slam him back to balance by making his powers ultra weak, but that's not much fun. My problem with psionics is really how it's magic system isn't vancian and it should be if it is going to work in 3.X.

The psion can activate powers even when gagged, bound, and tied up.

There are more reasons, I am sure.


See that is what the OP asked you not to do. Your derailing this thread and that is why folks do not post.

Every single time this come up a few of you guys always derail it trying to prove how wrong someone is. It does not matter if they are wrong or not you guys just have to show how wrong they are

That is not what this thread is about. It does not matter if they are wrong or not. All that matters is what they think, not why they think it.

Feel free to start your own topic, but stop derailing this one and harassing posters that do not share your views.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

See that is what the OP asked you not to do. Your derailing this thread and that is why folks do not post.

Every single time this come up a few of you guys always derail it trying to prove how wrong someone is. It does not matter if they are wrong or not you guys just have to show how wrong they are

That is not what this thread is about. It does not matter if they are wrong or not. All that matters is what they think, not why they think it.

Feel free to start your own topic, but stop derailing this one and harassing posters that do not share your views.

I just posted a listed of anti-psiconic issues. Don't tell me you did not see the list.

Shadow Lodge

wraithstrike wrote:
Psionics is not hard to learn. You just have to do more math, and learn not to blow all your points in one round, but most new people playing casters have the same issue with spells.

First, you should read the OP...

Quote:
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).

Second. I don't care, one magic system per game is fine with me.


0gre wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Psionics is not hard to learn. You just have to do more math, and learn not to blow all your points in one round, but most new people playing casters have the same issue with spells.

First, you should read the OP...

I already did. Now you can read my list of items I put up that people have complained about. See, I did gave the OP what he wanted.


0gre wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Psionics is not hard to learn. You just have to do more math, and learn not to blow all your points in one round, but most new people playing casters have the same issue with spells.

First, you should read the OP...

Quote:
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).
Second. I don't care, one magic system per game is fine with me.

Oh man, so now you want us to choose between the magic systems that the Bard/Inquisitor uses, vs. the Wizard vs. Sorcerer vs. Ranger/Paladin vs. Witch vs. Cleric. They are all different. You already have at least half a dozen competing magic systems. Learning one takes as much time, effort, and brains as learning psionics.

I'm with you Wraith. I understand and appreciate what Dabbler is trying to do, but it is utterly pointless. Why should they be able to civilly trash what we love while maintaining blissful ignorance, but we can't have a nice discussion elsewhere without someone crashing it.


eh no one crashes you subjects. You just get upset when someone points out a fact you like to ignore is all.

This subject is far from pointless.


Wraithstrike, while I appreciate your opinions, here is NOT THE PLACE. You are doing exactly what I asked you not to do: a psionics-lover listing all the reasons that you think that those that don't like psionics do not like psionics, and in effect you are 'threadcrapping.' Meatrace, you aren't helping. If this exercise is pointless as you claim I'll find out faster without you two filling the thread up with your own ideas that I specifically asked you NOT TO DO.

Do I have to call the mods in to delete all your posts before you get the hint?


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

eh no one crashes you subjects. You just get upset when someone points out a fact you like to ignore is all.

This subject is far from pointless.

What fact is that? The fact that you were proven wrong by dabbler and others in another thread? Rent a brain cell.


.
..
...
....
.....

*raises fist*

1 - The 3.5 power point system slowed the game down. This is not a fault of psionics itself but rather the problems with having a separate system. Yes, the rules are not rocket surgery but as mentioned by a few posters, the power point system is more flexible.

This flexibility requires more detailed book keeping which results in slowing the game down.

2 - Personally I don't feel a psionic 'system' is needed to make the game *better*. However I understand that many people don't like the existing magic system and/or want more variety. Otherwise, any existing character class can be played as a psionic character. If you walk, talk and act like a psychic/psionic character, who's going to know otherwise? :)

Examples:

That fire ball? The direct result of imposing your formidable will upon reality.

The eye of newt, strange hand gestures and alien words? Helps focus your mental powers.

Spell slots? A mechanic representing your limited ability to store mental constructs, each the distillation of years of practice and meditation.

A spell? The unleashing of the mental construct into the physical world.

Extra attacks per round? Jedi mind powers, natch!

3 - The annoyance for me was many of our players tried to use psionics to create magic-like effects without running the risk of being accused of wizards/'known casters'. Granted, this is a direct result of dropping psionics into a magic-baised campaign world but still...

''I didn't blow him up! How could I? I'm not a wizard! Why was I glowing? ..because.. I'm *special!*''

*shakes fist*


Despite the odd turn this thread has taken and the fact that, while I am not in love with it, I still enjoy 3.5 psionics, I will give my issues with that psionic system.

1. It is just different enough to create a number of irritating holes. I don't really see the system as being all that different. There are spellcasters that can cast spells which go up to ninth level. They are separated into a number of schools of magic and access to a new spell is gained (for devoted spellcasters) every two levels. A lot of the words are switched around though; spells are powers, spellcasters are manifesters, schools are disciplines, spell resistance is power resistance, and so on. To me, all the wording changes are unnecessary complications that confuse things more than make psionics special. I think the system wouldn't lose much if it used words like "enchantment" instead of "telepathy." Alternatively, it could just go and be different from the spell system entirely and avoid having schools/disciplines of magic/psionics and levels of spells/powers.

2. "Nova-ing." The idea of throwing one's highest level powers (not just low level powers augmented to full) over and over until all/most power is expended at a more exceptional rate than other casters. While I can apply this worry to PCs abusing it, I am more worried about it being used by NPCs who really pushed into a corner and will not survive past the battle. I've haven't had to deal with this really, just because people haven't played psionic characters in my games nor do I get to play often enough to give a significant amount of experience with psionic characters. If forced to apply my own 'novaing' character's experience to this I would have to say that, while it is entertaining to say "wild surge and augment for full," an eighth level wilder launching energy missile round after round (for lack of non-utility powers in the higher level slots) is not incredibly effective.

3. "Takes up a lot of space in books if one is assuming only Core Rulebooks," barely gets on here just because I perceive that as impacting how they are used in adventures. This won't actually impact me having psionic PCs or inserting my own psionic NPCs into adventures, so it falls as a minor issue I have. It won't affect me as I get DSP's version, but it does mean I am more lenient for Paizo to move away from the system.


Dabbler wrote:

Wraithstrike, while I appreciate your opinions, here is NOT THE PLACE. You are doing exactly what I asked you not to do: a psionics-lover listing all the reasons that you think that those that don't like psionics do not like psionics, and in effect you are 'threadcrapping.' Meatrace, you aren't helping. If this exercise is pointless as you claim I'll find out faster without you two filling the thread up with your own ideas that I specifically asked you NOT TO DO.

Do I have to call the mods in to delete all your posts before you get the hint?

I will make it easy psionic complaints made by people who don't like psionics posted by me

I stopped countering threads over 4.5 hours ago.

Edit:Most of the Rage Rant removed.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

eh no one crashes you subjects. You just get upset when someone points out a fact you like to ignore is all.

This subject is far from pointless.

What fact is that? The fact that you were proven wrong by dabbler and others in another thread? Rent a brain cell.

Uh except he wasn't?


You misspelled that. It's called *sigh*onics. At least here.

Dark Archive

Dabbler wrote:

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.

- Yet another rules sub-system to learn = extra burden, as I'm the DM.

- Psionic powers tend to replicate magic spells under another name instead of having a very distinctive flavor - I'm not a specialist wizard/fire-themed sorcerer, I'm a pyrokineticist! Meh.

- Stat block clutter.

- Balance issues, mostly related to loopholes and exploitable situations (eg. nova-ing, but the super-duper telepath/scrier too).

Unfortunately, I'm also quite aware that a psionic subsystem does not fit really well with the vancian spell slot system, and a "holistic system" would require a rather radical redesign (I vote for the one seen in the Thieves' World Players Guide, which is open content too).


To those that have issue with psionics fluff being too sci-fi, I feel the need to ask: do you also ban the wizard spells Detect Thoughts, Charm Person, or Telekinesis, or anything similar/associated?

Honest question. I see "It's to sci-fi" thrown around on occasion, and I'm confused why a power point system that portrays how magic works in many works of fantasy is more sci-fi then the magic system that actually came out of a sci-fi series of books, despite both casting the same spells.

Edit: Likewise, to those that feel psionics don't have their own niche, do you ban those spells? Because that sort of feels like what should be "psion territory" to me. I'm not sure niches can be had when arcane casters have this habit of devouring everything they see and forcing them to become arcane spells.

1 to 50 of 874 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 3.5/d20/OGL / Why don't you like psionics? All Messageboards