Ultimate Psionics - Thoughts?

[Silentman73]

So with Ultimate Psionics (http://paizo.com/products/btpy91t5?Ultimate-Psionics) coming, what are folks' thoughts on this, for those who used the two existing published materials being folded into this hardback? I won't have the opportunity to use it as a player for awhile yet (running my group through the Wrath of the Righteous adventure path right now, and we're just starting; none of my players will be using psionic characters as the campaign progresses), but I'm looking forward to eventually using it as a player, as I love psionics, and always have (even in its ridiculously clunky, practically unplayable 1st Edition version).

So how are the rules in this book going to stack up against the Expanded Psionics Handbook? Is it better to use that? I'm curious to hear thoughts from those who have used the two existing DSP PDFs.

[Terokai]

The Dreamscarred press psionic's rules are actually very intuitive. The classes are balanced and while there is no setting in the books the rules are rock solid. (since i like the psionic power points system i have considered swapping out to spell points or power points for all magic in my pathfinder games.)

The only thing i had a problem with is that astral constructs take a lot of referencing (since you can build them your selves) and the psi crystal companion to me at least required a bit more role play effort since it is sentient than your standard familiar.

You wont regret picking up ultimate psionics.

[Anguish]

Half of UP is the old 3.5e EPH. It's updated to Pathfinder's standard in all the important ways, so just sticking with the EPH is definitely not a better choice. The other half is basically Dreamscarred's equivalent of Paizo's APG; more classes, more feats, more powers, more, more, more.

The material underwent heavy playtesting and has been out for a few years now. It's tried and true.

I've been a fan of Psionics as an allowed ruleset since 3.5e and this is just great stuff.

Bottom line is: like you I won't be playing for a while. I've got two campaigns running as DM but it'll likely be another year before I get to play, and it'll have been a good 2.5-3 years of DMing by then. I fully expect my cherished shiny new PC to be from UP.

[meatrace]

It's good. The art is actually really good.
I'm iffy on the plethora of new classes. I think they're clunky compared to the core 4 psionics which includes a redesigned and playable soulknife.

[williamoak]

I'm dotting this. I'm thinking of integrating psionics in my own games, and I keep hearing good things about what dreamscarred press did.

[6 OF 66 OF HEXAMATRIX 666]

I am hoping that Spell resistance do not protect against psionics like it was in D&D's first two editions.

As they made Spell resistance work against psionics, third edition psionic powers basically became spells with no verbal, somatic or material components. Just require an action and "power points".

[Terokai]

As far as spell resistance goes the system does assume a certain degree of transparency between the psionic casters and vancian casters. However you can totally run it as seperate systems and as such they give psionic resistance and knowledge psionics as feats and skills. So they leave it up to you

[williamoak]

I will admit I prefer keeping transparency between psionics & magic. Psionics already has the significant advantage of lossing casting components, whihc is a significant advantage.

[Anguish]

meatrace wrote:

It's good. The art is actually really good.

I'm iffy on the plethora of new classes. I think they're clunky compared to the core 4 psionics which includes a redesigned and playable soulknife.

I hear you. That said, it's actually kind of cool what they did. The core classes are pretty simple, much like Paizo's Core. The new classes are more complicated and unique, not unlike the APG classes.

[Silentman73]

6 OF 66 OF HEXAMATRIX 666 wrote:

I am hoping that Spell resistance do not protect against psionics like it was in D&D's first two editions.

As they made Spell resistance work against psionics, third edition psionic powers basically became spells with no verbal, somatic or material components. Just require an action and "power points".

I've done some poking around online, and someone does a pretty solid review of the material. I still want to hear folks' thoughts in working with the existing DSP stuff, but I wanted to respond to this, because it inevitably seems to be the sticking point for psionics in most any version of D&D.

The Psionic/Magic transparency seems largely to be put in place as a concession to GMs who don't want to deal with an entirely new set of rules where powers are fundamentally mimicking spells, but none of the built-in defenses that nominally keep magic in line are going to work. Logically speaking it makes no sense to me that psionics and magic interact with each other at all. Magic has long been regarded as the utilization of a fundamentally external force (whatever fluff shape that took in the game of your choice) whereas psionics has always been about a 100% internal source of power. Someone may know how to disrupt the "flow" of magic with a Dispel Magic spell, but it makes no sense that a spell designed to counter magic would counter psionics, even if it achieved the same effect (i.e., a psionic force bolt of some sort is likely to have very little meaningful difference in effect from Magic Missile).

I mean, a spell that gives you heat resistance is going to protect you from fire damage regardless of it coming from Fireball or Molecular Agitation, but at that point you're attacking the effect, not the source.

And it's complications like that which have made many a GM in the past hold their heads, hem and haw a bit, and more often than not finally just say, "No psionics in my campaign." The material has traditionally been so poorly supported after its initial sourcebook (if anything after the initial sourcebook was released) that a lot of work gets shoved off on the GM who tries to integrate psionics into the campaign. All of a sudden you have a player who may be as interested in the "flavor" of psionics as much as their effects (often the case, as psionic effects often duplicate magical effects in game terms), which means the GM suddenly has to start coming up with cool psionics-specific stuff which really only benefits the psionic player. You might give a gem-tipped "wand" of some sort to a non-psionic player, but as far as they're concerned, it's functionally no different than a magical wand that generates the same effects as the psionic version.

A lot of iterations of psionics since its completely unplayable 1st Edition version have spent as much (if not more) time on showing a GM how to integrate it into an existing campaign as they have developing the concept itself. This is usually done by attempting to tie it into the core mechanic. It first happened with the Complete Psionics Handbook in 2nd Edition, where everything was tied into the non-weapon proficiency system. 3rd Edition got it right by tying it into the core d20 System mechanics, but there were some vicious oversights and power discrepancies (turn off those displays with feats? Some poor creature has no real way of knowing where the source of that Molecular Agitation is, and mostly just has to stand there and slowly burn to death as long as the Psion could maintain visual contact, because there was no saving throw to minimize or remove the damage).

The Expanded Psionics Handbook gave us the nearly perfect version of psionics. That's why it pleases me to hear that Ultimate Psionics is largely just a retuning of that material; Bruce Cordell had knocked it out of the park.

Coincidentally, is he at all involved in the DSP material?

The inherent problem with psionics/magic transparency was taken to its logical extreme in 4th Edition, sadly. Ignoring the glaring fault of that mechanic where everything was just reduced to a "power" (call it a spell, combat maneuver, whatever, they were all just "powers"), there was absolutely ZERO real distinction between magic and psionics. Psionics was just another "power source". Hell, to be honest, it would have taken zero real effort on the part of a DM or player to just throw the Wizard and Psion power lists together, let Wizards learn the psionic powers as spells (in cases where they didn't already have a spell that did that), and let Psions learn Wizard spells as powers.

It's one reason why I love the 3.5 version of psionics, and why I'm hopeful about Ultimate Psionics: even something so simple as a point system provided sufficient distinction from a Vancian spellcaster that I felt like I was playing a different class. I'm excited to hear neat things about the Soulknife that I'm hearing as well.

Now if the damned thing didn't cost $80...

[The_Hanged_Man]

6 OF 66 OF HEXAMATRIX 666 wrote:

I am hoping that Spell resistance do not protect against psionics like it was in D&D's first two editions.

The degree of transparency is presented as an option in the book, although the authors suggest transparency as default. This is largely due to effects such as antimagic fields becoming horrifically effectively when magics and psionics are non-transparent.