Why do you need psionics when you already have it?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 259 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It occurred to me this morning that the sorcerer and summoner classes could could EASILY be described as psionic characters. You can blast things physically (evocation) mentally (enchantment), manipulate objects telekinetically (telekinesis), build eco-form monstrosities (summon monster)--even around yourself at times (synthesist)--etc. It's all there!

Black blade magus with quick draw even makes a pretty damn good soul knife/psychic warrior even if you ask me.

So...why do you really feel you need more than that to represent psionics?

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the Vancian spell slot system even does a good* job of representing *magic,* so I certainly wouldn't want to see it used to represent psychic stuff or force powers or whatever.

*'Good' as in, thematically, where it completely fails to represent almost any sort of magic depicted in fiction or film *other* than the works of Jack Vance, or mechanically, where it's also got some alpha strike / 15-minute workday issues.

That said, I'm not in love with mana pool / power point systems either (again, for magic *or* for psionics), which feel a little too video-game-y to me.

Both psychic stuff and magic, particularly in the fiction of the last four decades or so, tends to feel more like something out of Mutants & Masterminds or 4th edition D&D (at will powers, balanced for constant use), or, maybe, Green Ronin's Complete Psychic Handbook (with it's skill roll / strain mechanic), or some bastard hybrid of the two (constant use, but strain for overuse / crit failures / attempting to over-step your limits).

So, anywho, TL;DR, I guess a sorcerer who calls himself a psionic isn't any more or less of a thematic fail for me than a magical practitioner using those 'daily spell slots.' :)

Go for it!


14 people marked this as a favorite.

1) Because that is the way other forms of magic work in some fantasy novels. The spell slot system is used only in books written for D&D and from Jack Vance...and that's about it. Why should you have to memorise and then repeat formula for magic to work? If it is, as Crowley claimed, the changing of reality by the imposition of will, then psionics is where magic should be, not the other way around.

2) Because the mechanics of the psionics system is more elegant than spell-slots, and more intuitive.

3) Because it allows class options like the soulknife and the wilder that have no magic equivalents (sorry, but black blade magus is nothing like a soulknife). "It" is most certainly NOT all there.

4) Because people play summoners, sorcerers, bards, magus, and other casters when they have wizards. Why, when by your logic all they "need" is the wizard? The answer is because those classes have features and flavours that make them preferable for the concepts people want to play. The same is true of psionics, they give players more options for how they want to play their characters, options the other classes do not have.

5) Because psionics does some things well that are fun that magic does not do well. This isn't unbalanced, it's just a better way of doing some things that with magic are not very effective strategies, such as being a blaster-mage (can't beat a wilder for this option).

6) Because it's cool.


Ravingdork wrote:

It occurred to me this morning that the sorcerer and summoner classes could could EASILY be described as psionic characters. You can blast things physically (evocation) mentally (enchantment), manipulate objects telekinetically (telekinesis), build eco-form monstrosities (summon monster)--even around yourself at times (synthesist)--etc. It's all there!

Black blade magus with quick draw even makes a pretty damn good soul knife/psychic warrior even if you ask me.

So...why do you really feel you need more than that to represent psionics?

I dont. But i think what attracts the psionics crowd, besiddes more rules, is the other kind of supernatural ability that the psi concept is.

In my opinion, a World never need both unless you it is a SUPERS campaign.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Cap. Darling wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

It occurred to me this morning that the sorcerer and summoner classes could could EASILY be described as psionic characters. You can blast things physically (evocation) mentally (enchantment), manipulate objects telekinetically (telekinesis), build eco-form monstrosities (summon monster)--even around yourself at times (synthesist)--etc. It's all there!

Black blade magus with quick draw even makes a pretty damn good soul knife/psychic warrior even if you ask me.

So...why do you really feel you need more than that to represent psionics?

I dont. But i think what attracts the psionics crowd, besiddes more rules, is the other kind of supernatural ability that the psi concept is.

In my opinion, a World never need both unless you it is a SUPERS campaign.

Athas would like a word with you.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cap. Darling wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

It occurred to me this morning that the sorcerer and summoner classes could could EASILY be described as psionic characters. You can blast things physically (evocation) mentally (enchantment), manipulate objects telekinetically (telekinesis), build eco-form monstrosities (summon monster)--even around yourself at times (synthesist)--etc. It's all there!

Black blade magus with quick draw even makes a pretty damn good soul knife/psychic warrior even if you ask me.

So...why do you really feel you need more than that to represent psionics?

I dont. But i think what attracts the psionics crowd, besiddes more rules, is the other kind of supernatural ability that the psi concept is.

In my opinion, a World never need both unless you it is a SUPERS campaign.

Mercedes Lackey would like a word with you.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ditto Witch World, ElfQuest, the Deryni books, Eberron, Buffy, etc.

There's tons of books and genres with both magic and psionics.

Since much of what D&D has labeled magic is in fact psychic phenomena (such as telekinesis, ESP, clairvoyance, astral projection) or flat out science fiction (teleportation), it's kind of a fuzzy distinction to make, in a D&D/PF centric discussion.

These days, a 'witch' on TV (such as Buffy) is more likely to fling people around with telekinesis, or use telepathy, or set things on fire with pyrokinesis, or even teleport herself or others, than to cast a spell or incant a ritual or do anything actually *magical.* The lines are blurred to the point of meaningless.

Psychic stuff comes in from the other direction as well, with a few psionic explanations for 'metacreativity' (wishing stuff up out of thin air) or even psychic shapeshifting, which are more typically magical effects.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

It occurred to me this morning that the sorcerer and summoner classes could could EASILY be described as psionic characters. You can blast things physically (evocation) mentally (enchantment), manipulate objects telekinetically (telekinesis), build eco-form monstrosities (summon monster)--even around yourself at times (synthesist)--etc. It's all there!

Black blade magus with quick draw even makes a pretty damn good soul knife/psychic warrior even if you ask me.

So...why do you really feel you need more than that to represent psionics?

Because psionics don't need gestures and incantations and bat poop, and as noted above, the Vancian slot system doesn't even do a good job of representing magic. It does a completely crappy job of representing psionics.


Because Elsimore is coming, and playing a wizard require at least 11 of IRL intelligence to plan and manage your slots, but most people have 7 so only can use pool of mana/points.

IMHO all weird things already explained in DnD as "magic is real" or supernatural abilities if its some monstrocity. Adding another source for "magical" things is redundant as arcane and divine are already more than enough.


LizardMage wrote:


Athas would like a word with you.

tell him to PM me and we will talk;)

same goes for the rest of them.
No but seriously, either you have magic and bat poo and rituals and things that man was not mend to know. Or you have mind over matter the Powers of the mind and all the fun and horror that comes with that.
The crossover stuff is not for me.
PSI is, for me, more of a Sci-fi thing. And all this Fantasy psionics is just magic with out the demons.(a.k.a. boring)

But the PF magic is also quite independent of "the things man was not ment to know" and is less interesting for that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thread wrote:
Why do you need psionics when you already have it?

I suppose for the same reason there is a sorcerer when we already have a wizard in the game.


Set wrote:

Ditto Witch World, ElfQuest, the Deryni books, Eberron, Buffy, etc.

There's tons of books and genres with both magic and psionics.

Since much of what D&D has labeled magic is in fact psychic phenomena (such as telekinesis, ESP, clairvoyance, astral projection) or flat out science fiction (teleportation), it's kind of a fuzzy distinction to make, in a D&D/PF centric discussion.

These days, a 'witch' on TV (such as Buffy) is more likely to fling people around with telekinesis, or use telepathy, or set things on fire with pyrokinesis, or even teleport herself or others, than to cast a spell or incant a ritual or do anything actually *magical.* The lines are blurred to the point of meaningless.

Psychic stuff comes in from the other direction as well, with a few psionic explanations for 'metacreativity' (wishing stuff up out of thin air) or even psychic shapeshifting, which are more typically magical effects.

Actually in the Deryni books magic and psionic is the same thing. All magic is the same so what Ravingdork is saying fits closer to the Kathrine Kurtz books then a separate system for magic and psionic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:


So...why do you really feel you need more than that to represent psionics?

It's not only the flavor, but the MECHANICS that make psionics different. It's a power point system, that feels very different from Wizard, Cleric, & Sorcerer casting.

It's like "why do you need gunslingers & samurai & monks?"
Because grit, resolve, and ki are all different mechanics that Fighter doesn't have.

"Why do you have Summoners when a wizard can..." because building an Eidolon is such an interesting mechanic you can build a whole class around it.

A cleric could be roleplayed as an inquisitor, but the Inquisitor CLASS has distinct mechanics. A wizard could be roleplayed as an oracle, but the oracle CLASS has distinct mechanics. A fighter/wizard is a magic swordsman, but the Magus CLASS has distinct mechanics. and so on and so on.

So when you look at a Pathfinder class, don't think just in terms of concept or flavor, but also of the crunchy mechanics behind the class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

It occurred to me this morning that the sorcerer and summoner classes could could EASILY be described as psionic characters. You can blast things physically (evocation) mentally (enchantment), manipulate objects telekinetically (telekinesis), build eco-form monstrosities (summon monster)--even around yourself at times (synthesist)--etc. It's all there!

Black blade magus with quick draw even makes a pretty damn good soul knife/psychic warrior even if you ask me.

So...why do you really feel you need more than that to represent psionics?

Because psionics don't need gestures and incantations and bat poop, and as noted above, the Vancian slot system doesn't even do a good job of representing magic. It does a completely crappy job of representing psionics.

So would you consider the Force from Star Wars to be psi powers? Because, at least in the three original movies, every time someone used Force powers they included a gesture. From the subtle hand wave of Obi Wan's "These are not the droids..." to Vader's pinched fingers, to Yoda's outstretched hand when lifting Luke X-Wing.

(I do agree with the stupid Vancian system though.)

Dark Archive

Vod Canockers wrote:
So would you consider the Force from Star Wars to be psi powers?

Despite being all wrapped up in spiritualism, mysticism and religious imagery and themes, despite my 'main' in Star Wars: The Old Republic being a Sith 'Sorcerer' who performs blood rituals and sacrifices to summon Sithspawn and perform various other occult rites, I've always seen the Force powers as psionics, with a bunch of mystical trappings.


Because DnD magic doesn't replicate actual mythological magic.

Mythological magic was often from the mind, based on the internal power of a being. A being wasn't fueling it with some outside power or calling upon outside power or using rituals or stuff; they powered it with their own essence and own ability.

What's the difference? DnD magic is always external. It's always calling upon some outside power, even if it is just the power around the caster. Pathfinder inherited that.

Psionics, in real life, was originally coined as a term to describe psyhic powers and intended only to relate to the paranormal; in essence, as magic. In a lot of fiction, psionics sees use as magic, and sometimes it's flat-out stated that psionics and magic are the same thing with the term just being different. But it still, always, has that bit about the power being internal to the user in some way, which allows it to better replicate actual mythology... which is why it shows up quite a bit in fantasy stories and exists alongside DnD-style magic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
So would you consider the Force from Star Wars to be psi powers?
Despite being all wrapped up in spiritualism, mysticism and religious imagery and themes, despite my 'main' in Star Wars: The Old Republic being a Sith 'Sorcerer' who performs blood rituals and sacrifices to summon Sithspawn and perform various other occult rites, I've always seen the Force powers as psionics, with a bunch of mystical trappings.

On that, I disagree. Because they are using an external power source, I've always found it to be magic.


Does it have to be "spell" points or would it be acceptable to have a class more like the Witch, with lots of at-will spell-like abilities?

How about a variant of wordcasting?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:
On that, I disagree. Because they are using an external power source, I've always found it to be magic.

And yet, according to Yoda, it's an energy generated by life and internal to it, and yet also something that only certain people can access and utilize, being 'strong' in some families. Psychic stuff is more often associated with bloodlines, and inherent to a person, while magic is more often associated with books of lore that anyone can read and use (and, in Lovecraftian tales, to their woe), and not something tied to a bloodline or family.

Force stuff fits psychic tropes more than magic tropes, IMO.


(Paging Adm. Ackbar) So how much of psionics in D&D is about using a system that no one else is using? How much of it is being able to say, "You have defenses against magic? Well I fooled you, this isn't magic!"?


Sarcasmancer wrote:

Does it have to be "spell" points or would it be acceptable to have a class more like the Witch, with lots of at-will spell-like abilities?

How about a variant of wordcasting?

At-will abilities would be better. Points systems were intended to reflect how tired the caster is, but are never used that way.

And wordcasting is just a horrible system in implementation. I'd rather not revisit that mistake.

Set wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
On that, I disagree. Because they are using an external power source, I've always found it to be magic.

And yet, according to Yoda, it's an energy generated by life and internal to it, and yet also something that only certain people can access and utilize, being 'strong' in some families. Psychic stuff is more often associated with bloodlines, and inherent to a person, while magic is more often associated with books of lore that anyone can read and use (and, in Lovecraftian tales, to their woe), and not something tied to a bloodline or family.

Force stuff fits psychic tropes more than magic tropes, IMO.

Yoda's description of how the Force works matches up to the description of where DnD and Pathfinder druids get their magical power from. In effect, the Jedi are druids.

There's also a lot of fiction that ties magic to bloodlines. Psychic stuff, on the other hand, is usually always-on.

Wrong John Silver wrote:
(Paging Adm. Ackbar) So how much of psionics in D&D is about using a system that no one else is using? How much of it is being able to say, "You have defenses against magic? Well I fooled you, this isn't magic!"?

For people like me? 0%. While the methods of using power are different, the effects are the same. And most magical defenses work against the deployment of energy, not against calling upon it in the first place.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Yes, I suppose the components would get a little in the way...

Most of your responses seem pretty reasonable. At least it's not for lack of imagination like I was thinking it might be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Yes, I suppose the components would get a little in the way...

Most of your responses seem pretty reasonable. At least it's not for lack of imagination like I was thinking it might be.

Isn't the obvious reason that its better balanced casting system then vancian magic that "feels" more like how most (but not all) fantasty magic system are and that as a popular 3.5 subsystem it would be nice if the 3.5 SRD available psionic rules were official PF?

That being said Dreamscarred Press did a great job translating 3.5 psionics over to PF and really at this point I'd just like it to be declared the official PF psionic system, since Paizo has stated numerous times that if they did do a psionics system it would not be backwards compatible. Also, because Soulknives are no longer complete garbage and achieving that is quite the accomplishment.


Set wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
On that, I disagree. Because they are using an external power source, I've always found it to be magic.

And yet, according to Yoda, it's an energy generated by life and internal to it, and yet also something that only certain people can access and utilize, being 'strong' in some families. Psychic stuff is more often associated with bloodlines, and inherent to a person, while magic is more often associated with books of lore that anyone can read and use (and, in Lovecraftian tales, to their woe), and not something tied to a bloodline or family.

Force stuff fits psychic tropes more than magic tropes, IMO.

In fiction magic is also often somthing that rund in the blood.

Psionics and magic are 2 ways of explaining inexplaininable stuff that have been adopter by writers and later games and films and stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Cap. Darling wrote:

In fiction magic is also often something that round in the blood.

Psionics and magic are 2 ways of explaining unexplainable stuff that have been adopter by writers and later games and films and stuff.

There is no difference between applied magic and manifested psionics except for what a given literary source says there is in a specific setting. They are both in every way "I think it, it happens."


I'll eventually pony up the money for DSP's Psionics because from what I see on the OGC it is incredibly well done, but honestly I think the entire concept could have been done with two base classes and a series of feats/talents. The scope feels more like magic again.

As for why I would want psionics in the first place;

1. It has a place in fantasy.

2. You cant really make an ESPer/Telekenetic/Sensitive/Psychic in Pathfinder without having a ton of other baggage like Eidolons, Bloodlines, Deities and Magic.

3. As soon as we get rules for spaceships and space vehicle combat it would be a nice addition to Space-Fantasy campaigns.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrong John Silver wrote:
(Paging Adm. Ackbar) So how much of psionics in D&D is about using a system that no one else is using? How much of it is being able to say, "You have defenses against magic? Well I fooled you, this isn't magic!"?

That doesn't work in D&D/PF, because the psionic-magic transparency:

XPH, srd, and ultimate psionics wrote:

Though not explicitly called out in the spell descriptions or magic item descriptions, spells, spell-like abilities, and magic items that could potentially affect psionics do affect psionics.

When the rule about psionics-magic transparency is in effect, it has the following ramifications.

Spell resistance is effective against powers, using the same mechanics. Likewise, power resistance is effective against spells, using the same mechanics as spell resistance. If a creature has one kind of resistance, it is assumed to have the other. (The effects have similar ends despite having been brought about by different means.)

All spells that dispel magic have equal effect against powers of the same level using the same mechanics, and vice versa.

The spell detect magic detects powers, their number, and their strength and location within 3 rounds (though a Psicraft check is necessary to identify the discipline of the psionic aura).

Dead magic areas are also dead psionics areas.

This is one of the most basic rules of the entire subsystem. Learn the basic rules before complaining about them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

the majority of classes can be replaced with just reflavouring other ones, it doesn't mean we should go back to a 3 class system.


Magic: I manipulate external forces to make something happen.
Psionics: I manipulate internal forces to make something happen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrong John Silver wrote:
(Paging Adm. Ackbar) So how much of psionics in D&D is about using a system that no one else is using? How much of it is being able to say, "You have defenses against magic? Well I fooled you, this isn't magic!"?

None of it, magic and psionics are "transparent" insofar as magic resistance = psionic resistance and vice verse. Psionics is just a different paradigm of achieving the same supernatural effects as magic. IMHO it's a slicker system, which is why I enjoy using it.


What Dabbler said.


Wow, I've only encountered heavily houseruled psionics, then. Thanks for showing me.


Because Gygax! (okay, that's not a good answer, but it sounds cool).


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Malwing wrote:
You cant really make an ESPer/Telekenetic/Sensitive/Psychic in Pathfinder without having a ton of other baggage like Eidolons, Bloodlines, Deities and Magic.

Change the name of many of those features and suddenly it's not baggage. Gasp! Imagination!

Kryzbyn wrote:

Magic: I manipulate external forces to make something happen.

Psionics: I manipulate internal forces to make something happen.

This does not follow any definition of psionics I have EVER heard.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrong John Silver wrote:
Wow, I've only encountered heavily houseruled psionics, then. Thanks for showing me.

That's the way it happens a lot of the time, isn't it?

DM: "This is so obviously broken that I'll heavily houserule it before I allow it into my game!"

/writes poorly-thought-out and untested house rules

---doodly-doodly-doop!---

Player: "Wow, this system is terribly broken!"
DM: "I knew it all along! I was a fool to allow this horribly broken subsystem into my game!"


Ravingdork wrote:


Kryzbyn wrote:

Magic: I manipulate external forces to make something happen.

Psionics: I manipulate internal forces to make something happen.
This does not follow any definition of psionics I have EVER heard.

You mean in the Pathfinder/D&D rules, or anywhere? Because it seems very obvious to me. Psionics = Powers of the human mind. So much so that I've never heard it explained any other way.

Wikipedia: "Psionics refers to the practice, study, or psychic ability of using the mind to induce paranormal phenomena. Examples of this includes empathy, telepathy, telekinesis, pyrokinesis, electrokinesis and other workings of the outside world through the psyche."

Wikipedia: "Psionics, in role-playing games, is a broad category of fantastic abilities originating from the mind, similar to the paranormal psionic abilities that some people claim in reality."

D20 PFSRD: "What is Psionics? Psionics, in its simplest form, is harnessing the power of the mind and using it to perform tasks, feats, and awe-inspiring acts."

How is "harnessing the powers of the mind" not equal to "manipulating internal forces"?


Ravingdork wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Magic: I manipulate external forces to make something happen.

Psionics: I manipulate internal forces to make something happen.
This does not follow any definition of psionics I have EVER heard.

Where have you been?


Ravingdork wrote:
Malwing wrote:
You cant really make an ESPer/Telekenetic/Sensitive/Psychic in Pathfinder without having a ton of other baggage like Eidolons, Bloodlines, Deities and Magic.

Change the name of many of those features and suddenly it's not baggage. Gasp! Imagination!

Please don't do that. I feel that regardless of the intention it seems like a put down but also if we're going to go there then we don't need most of the classes that exist. That argument also denies the fact that mechanically that baggage still exists in the sense that as telepath I somehow am dependant on some sort of psychic-realm pet, magic schools, and physical mutations that are not in line with the Professor X concept I had in mind.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

It occurred to me this morning that the sorcerer and summoner classes could could EASILY be described as psionic characters. You can blast things physically (evocation) mentally (enchantment), manipulate objects telekinetically (telekinesis), build eco-form monstrosities (summon monster)--even around yourself at times (synthesist)--etc. It's all there!

Black blade magus with quick draw even makes a pretty damn good soul knife/psychic warrior even if you ask me.

So...why do you really feel you need more than that to represent psionics?

Because in case you haven't noticed, what they want is an official Paizo or Paizo sanctioned redraw of the 3.5 psi point system.... Which they're not likely to get.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malwing wrote:
That argument also denies the fact that mechanically that baggage still exists in the sense that as telepath I somehow am dependant on some sort of psychic-realm pet, magic schools, and physical mutations that are not in line with the Professor X concept I had in mind.

Then perhaps what you should be doing is incorporating Mutants and Mastermind mechanics into your game. (it is based on 3.5 after all)

Or make use of the excellent material from Dreamscarred, because if you're looking for a revival of 3.5 psi mechanics that's going to be where you're getting it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

It occurred to me this morning that the sorcerer and summoner classes could could EASILY be described as psionic characters. You can blast things physically (evocation) mentally (enchantment), manipulate objects telekinetically (telekinesis), build eco-form monstrosities (summon monster)--even around yourself at times (synthesist)--etc. It's all there!

Black blade magus with quick draw even makes a pretty damn good soul knife/psychic warrior even if you ask me.

So...why do you really feel you need more than that to represent psionics?

Back when the psionics debates was popular this always came up, but it is not the same as the points. To me it does not fit. Psionics is not just about changing the name. The point systems works well, and offers a lot of flexibility with the powers you have.


Vod Canockers wrote:


So would you consider the Force from Star Wars to be psi powers? Because, at least in the three original movies, every time someone used Force powers they included a gesture. From the subtle hand wave of Obi Wan's "These are not the droids..." to Vader's pinched fingers, to Yoda's outstretched hand when lifting Luke X-Wing.

(I do agree with the stupid Vancian system though.)

1. Just because they made them doesn't mean they needed to make them. They were merely a focusing aid, not a necessity.

2. Since Force Powers are usually invisible, the creators needed to give a visual cue to the audience that something unusual was happening.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Malwing wrote:
You cant really make an ESPer/Telekenetic/Sensitive/Psychic in Pathfinder without having a ton of other baggage like Eidolons, Bloodlines, Deities and Magic.

Change the name of many of those features and suddenly it's not baggage. Gasp! Imagination!

Kryzbyn wrote:

Magic: I manipulate external forces to make something happen.

Psionics: I manipulate internal forces to make something happen.
This does not follow any definition of psionics I have EVER heard.

How is 'power derived solely from the mind/will' NOT 'internal'?!


Set wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
So would you consider the Force from Star Wars to be psi powers?

Despite being all wrapped up in spiritualism, mysticism and religious imagery and themes, despite my 'main' in Star Wars: The Old Republic being a Sith 'Sorcerer' who performs blood rituals and sacrifices to summon Sithspawn and perform various other occult rites, I've always seen the Force powers as psionics, with a bunch of mystical trappings.

Yeah ... the Force is just psychic powers gained through a symbiotic relationship with psionically-active micro-organisms. It's still all within the body, brain, and mind.


LazarX wrote:
Malwing wrote:
That argument also denies the fact that mechanically that baggage still exists in the sense that as telepath I somehow am dependant on some sort of psychic-realm pet, magic schools, and physical mutations that are not in line with the Professor X concept I had in mind.

Then perhaps what you should be doing is incorporating Mutants and Mastermind mechanics into your game. (it is based on 3.5 after all)

Or make use of the excellent material from Dreamscarred, because if you're looking for a revival of 3.5 psi mechanics that's going to be where you're getting it.

Well to do that (get Ultimate Psionics) I have to save up like an extra $90, which isn't hard but I'm not doing that this week.


LazarX wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

It occurred to me this morning that the sorcerer and summoner classes could could EASILY be described as psionic characters. You can blast things physically (evocation) mentally (enchantment), manipulate objects telekinetically (telekinesis), build eco-form monstrosities (summon monster)--even around yourself at times (synthesist)--etc. It's all there!

Black blade magus with quick draw even makes a pretty damn good soul knife/psychic warrior even if you ask me.

So...why do you really feel you need more than that to represent psionics?

Because in case you haven't noticed, what they want is an official Paizo or Paizo sanctioned redraw of the 3.5 psi point system.... Which they're not likely to get.

Which they would never get, since that would be Paizo stomping all over the current version.

Personally, I want psionics, but I agree the point system was a bad idea. The Warlock from 3.5 and Witch from Pathfinder both seem to be along a better path for it.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Zhayne wrote:
How is 'power derived solely from the mind/will' NOT 'internal'?!

How is this NOT exactly the same as a sorcerer!?


A sorcerer is still manipulating an external force to make a spell.
They just have a blood-driven talent for it.
They still have to waggle thier fingers and say stuff like a wizard does.

Psionicists just exert their will. No finger waggling, no speaking.

More like the difference between casting a spell and using a spell-like ability.


Ravingdork wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
How is 'power derived solely from the mind/will' NOT 'internal'?!
How is this NOT exactly the same as a sorcerer!?

Here's what the sorcerer fluff text in the PRD says:

Quote:
Scions of innately magical bloodlines, the chosen of deities, the spawn of monsters, pawns of fate and destiny, or simply flukes of fickle magic, sorcerers look within themselves for arcane prowess and draw forth might few mortals can imagine. Emboldened by lives ever threatening to be consumed by their innate powers, these magic-touched souls endlessly indulge in and refine their mysterious abilities, gradually learning how to harness their birthright and coax forth ever greater arcane feats. Just as varied as these innately powerful spellcasters' abilities and inspirations are the ways in which they choose to utilize their gifts. While some seek to control their abilities through meditation and discipline, becoming masters of their fantastic birthright, others give in to their magic, letting it rule their lives with often explosive results. Regardless, sorcerers live and breathe that which other spellcasters devote their lives to mastering, and for them magic is more than a boon or a field of study; it is life itself.

Note the word I bolded. The power itself isn't actually drawn from inside them; they're just naturally skilled at using arcane magic.

1 to 50 of 259 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why do you need psionics when you already have it? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.