Psionics?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Hello

I've seen a lot of people talking about psionics in pathfinder but, in my search I have found nothing. If I have just missed it or am just wrong can you plz let me know.

P.S.
If they are in pathfinder can i have a link plz.


There are no official psionics in Pathfinder. The only thing close to it is the psionics series by Dreamscarred Press, which is a direct adaption of 3.5's psionics system.


Here is the Link to Dreamscarred Press adaption of Psionics for Pathfinder.


Here is a link to the Psionic rules on the SRD. As Ashram said, it is 3pp from Dreamscarred Press.


Thank you all : ).

Grand Lodge

Dreamscarred Press: Ultimate Psionics


An official Psionics supplement is coming for Pathfinder, along with new classes.

However be aware Psionics is treated as simply another form of magic, in the new rules.

Most Psionics is mental manipulation of magic in Pathfinder, rather than manipulation of a separate form of mental energy.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, the pathfinder version is not psionics but psychic magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nohwear wrote:
Here is a link to the Psionic rules on the SRD. As Ashram said, it is 3pp from Dreamscarred Press.

And IT.

IS.
AWESOME.

Sczarni

kankuro Kurosaki wrote:

Hello

I've seen a lot of people talking about psionics in pathfinder but, in my search I have found nothing. If I have just missed it or am just wrong can you plz let me know.

If they are in pathfinder can i have a link plz.

In Pathfinder "psionics" will be known as "psychic magic".

HERE is a link to the Occult Adventures book that Paizo is releasing next summer.

And HERE is a link to the playtest document, allowing you to sample some of the classes and spells that Paizo has in mind.


Claxon wrote:
To be fair, the pathfinder version is not psionics but psychic magic.

Yeah, which leads me to the rather now boring refrain of.. "The Psychic is a Sorcerer"

There was no need for it to be more than another Sorcerer Bloodline really.

Waste of page count.

Really ALL of the Psychic stuff could have been easily lumped into Schools of Magic and Bloodlines without even missing a beat.

Sczarni

The playtest classes are rather different from anything we have currently. Some may have features similar to other classes, but they're each different enough to warrant a new publication.

Plus, what will sell more? Releasing another splatbook on Sorcerer Bloodlines, or releasing a new hardback with 6 new classes, archetypes of those classes, feats, a new category of magic, and new items to go with it all?


Nefreet wrote:

The playtest classes are rather different from anything we have currently. Some may have features similar to other classes, but they're each different enough to warrant a new publication.

Plus, what will sell more? Releasing another splatbook on Sorcerer Bloodlines, or releasing a new hardback with 6 new classes, archetypes of those classes, feats, a new category of magic, and new items to go with it all?

If you label the new book as they are, and do away with the 6 new classes, refer to them as Sorcerer bloodlines and a wizard school of magic, and then put all the rest of that stuff you listed in it?

Probably the same sale amount as you are going to get as they are doing it now.

I highly doubt there would be any ultimate sales number difference.

Sczarni

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you probably haven't read through much of the playtest document (or playtested any of the classes within it).

What you're claiming is tantamount to removing the Summoner, or Magus, or Arcanist classes and replacing them with Sorcerer Bloodlines.

I don't know about you, but there's only so much of the Sorcerer class I can take.


I'm personally very disappointed with Occult Adventures. I SO wish they just went in cahoots with Dreamscarred Press and made that system "official".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not disappointed with Occult Adventures, as I feel the concept of Occult, is in no way related to Psionics. Occult is spiritual, related to both non-corporeal spiritual beings, as well as ancestral ghosts. Psionics has to do with the mind and nothing "spiritually". It wouldn't makes sense to have psionics be a part of anything "occult".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not disappointed with Occult Adventures, as I feel the concept of Occult, is in no way related to Psionics. Occult is spiritual, related to both non-corporeal spiritual beings, as well as ancestral ghosts. Psionics has to do with the mind and nothing "spiritually". It wouldn't makes sense thematically to have psionics be a part of anything "occult".


Jodokai wrote:
I'm personally very disappointed with Occult Adventures. I SO wish they just went in cahoots with Dreamscarred Press and made that system "official".

They did not do that because some people will auto-hate anything with the name "psionics" in it. This used to be a hot topic and one time, and the number of "but in 1E or 2E blah blah blah" was ridiculous. In addition many do not like the idea of psionics and will use any excuse not to have it in the game. They will cite the rules. You will show them how their idea of the rule is wrong, and they finally come back to "well I just dont like it". It is just like some people don't like technology mixed with their magic. However if you call it "not psionics" it is suddenly ok. Some just did not like the power point system, claiming it was broken, but really it just did not mesh with their style of play. Now players can have "psionics" or "not psionics" assuming the GM allows DSP that is.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jodokai wrote:
I'm personally very disappointed with Occult Adventures. I SO wish they just went in cahoots with Dreamscarred Press and made that system "official".

Paizo is of many things, a buisness. There's simply no economic incentive to do so.


Talking with a friend of mine about the Kineticist, I described a couple class features, mainly complaining about Burn, and he asked me how it compared to the old 3.5 Wilder. I had to explain (and I'm not sure he understood) that it's not a psionic class. It would certainly fit better thematically as a psionic class than an occult class, but them's the breaks.

He kept pushing the Wilder at me until I came at him with, "no spells, no power points".

"It's just so simple to convert any caster class to power points."

"This class gets no spells. None. Not even spells in psionic form. It's more like the old 3.5 Warlock."

"No spells?"

He refused to download the playtest. I think he wants to be pleasantly surprised, or not have his expectations be too high.

The other classes I'm pretty meh about. I'll probably build a fewcharacters based on the classes, but the fluff will be heavily modified to not be occult-based.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To me Psionics is Dnd, occult is cuthulu, each to their own I guess.


wraithstrike wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
I'm personally very disappointed with Occult Adventures. I SO wish they just went in cahoots with Dreamscarred Press and made that system "official".
They did not do that because some people will auto-hate anything with the name "psionics" in it. This used to be a hot topic and one time, and the number of "but in 1E or 2E blah blah blah" was ridiculous. In addition many do not like the idea of psionics and will use any excuse not to have it in the game. They will cite the rules. You will show them how their idea of the rule is wrong, and they finally come back to "well I just dont like it". It is just like some people don't like technology mixed with their magic. However if you call it "not psionics" it is suddenly ok. Some just did not like the power point system, claiming it was broken, but really it just did not mesh with their style of play. Now players can have "psionics" or "not psionics" assuming the GM allows DSP that is.

This is something of a false argument, in that the GM is always free to ban, restrict, or modify any material he chooses, whether core, supplemental, or third party. Having psionics and not-psionics would still be as free a choice as always, just as you can have wizards and not-wizards, monks and not-monks, and everything else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, both mechanically and thematically I don't understand why it's so hard to differentiate psychic magic from psionics. The mechanical differences are obvious but you're basically running the concepts of esoteric spiritual soul magic rather than mind magic. In Occult adventures we have classes that fall under elementaler, possession, This guy, and Harry Dresden, all of which are not really represented in Psionics.

About the only Occult Adventures classes that I think are hard to differentiate from existing classes is the Psychic and barely the Spiritualist. (Although Medium very similar to Radiance House's Occultist if we bring third party into this.) The Psychic is just obvious and bland to me. That's not entirely a bad thing because we have full casters for every other form of magic so it feels necessary but still feels like an occult sorcerer.


Did Occult Adventures come out already? Because I'm seeing people write about how they're disappointed in it already. I know that the play test came out already but wasnt it just a few of the classes?

I mean unless you have the completed book how can you be disappointed in it?

Someone not liking the premise I can kinda understand but being disappointed in something that you haven't gotten a chance to even skim through?


People... *shakes head*


Zhayne wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
I'm personally very disappointed with Occult Adventures. I SO wish they just went in cahoots with Dreamscarred Press and made that system "official".
They did not do that because some people will auto-hate anything with the name "psionics" in it. This used to be a hot topic and one time, and the number of "but in 1E or 2E blah blah blah" was ridiculous. In addition many do not like the idea of psionics and will use any excuse not to have it in the game. They will cite the rules. You will show them how their idea of the rule is wrong, and they finally come back to "well I just dont like it". It is just like some people don't like technology mixed with their magic. However if you call it "not psionics" it is suddenly ok. Some just did not like the power point system, claiming it was broken, but really it just did not mesh with their style of play. Now players can have "psionics" or "not psionics" assuming the GM allows DSP that is.
This is something of a false argument, in that the GM is always free to ban, restrict, or modify any material he chooses, whether core, supplemental, or third party. Having psionics and not-psionics would still be as free a choice as always, just as you can have wizards and not-wizards, monks and not-monks, and everything else.

Paizo was worried about the money aspect also.


In terms of classes I found the Mystic, Mesmerist, and Medium to be the most exciting.

The Psychic to be highly bland. The Occultist and Spiritualist I didn't spend much time with and can't comment.

The Mesmerist has fun class features that allow it to fulfill the concept without total reliance on the spell system.

The Mystic was pretty crap in the playtest and hopefully Mark will be allowed to enact the changes in his write up.

I am worried about the archetype, feat, and item section of the book as that's really where Paizo messes up most.

From a flavor standpoint I find Psychic Magic to be pretty distinct and very "Occult-y." This is a good thing in many ways as it allows it to be completely distinct from Psionics.

From a system stand point I find Psychic Magic proper to be completely stock standard and to me it's just another way to attain tiers 1-3 like Arcane and Divine Magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

Dreamscarred Press' Psionics is full of awesome and win I have to say. I've DMed a few characters using it and I'm very happy with it.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Did Occult Adventures come out already? Because I'm seeing people write about how they're disappointed in it already. I know that the play test came out already but wasnt it just a few of the classes?

No, it was all of the classes. Sure, the final book will have alterations from the playtest's feedback, and there'll be more spells, feats, and archetypes, but it's very, very clear what the vision is behind the product.

Quote:
I mean unless you have the completed book how can you be disappointed in it?

Pretty easily. All it takes is a trailer to clue you in that a given movie isn't something you want to see, despite what "could've been". You shouldn't judge a book by it's cover, but you certain should judge it by excerpts.

Quote:
Someone not liking the premise I can kinda understand but being disappointed in something that you haven't gotten a chance to even skim through?

Classes are the heart of subsystem books. They're more than enough to convey the substance of what the book will entail. You don't need to skim the archetype chapter to realize you'll see a bunch of "bring some of the features of the classes to existing classes" sets. You don't need to read the feats chapter to realize you'll see a bunch of "Extra <whatever>" player options. You don't need to read an equipment chapter or even a spells chapter when you've got a sample of how the new spells work.

That ALL said, I'm not one of the book's detractors. I'm just answering your question. Personally I thought there were a couple cool classes and a couple duds, but I'll be allowing it at my table. I do strongly expect I'll prefer DSP's psionics and martial initiators over this as an add-on though.


I have run with 1st Ed, 2nd Ed, and 3.0/3.5/DSP psionics in my games since the early 80s. The psionicist wasn't any more broken then fighters with haste magic or mastery, wizards with no spell caps, or cleric with morning stars and full plate. Dark Sun added a nice variety of spells and powers, and was a good example of a setting that added psionics from the start. The Psychic classes are interesting, but I prefer DSP psionics since the system makes far more sense then Vancian spell slots or spell like abilities.

Also, many of the greatest iconic monsters of D&D had psionics. The mind flayer, the intellect devourer, the gith, the su-monster. Each of these is a very memorable encounter with the unknown, and the psionics reflect a great sense of shock to PCs used to demons or undead (the usual high level foes in most games). If you want a good example of psionics used in a classic adventure trope, look for the older Dungeon magazine that uses the slay the dragon as a background for a githyanki invasion of the Forgotten Realms. I don't remember what issue it is in, but the adventure includes a huge amount of githyanki, two red dragons, an insane slaad manipulated by the githyanki to serve as a guard, and permanent portals to the astral plane. Easy enough to replace the githyanki with plane traveling elan psychic warriors and psionicists, and whatever replaced slaads in Pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's not surprising that there are folks less than happy. There are those who won't be happy with anything other than a regurgitation of the 3.5 psi system tweaked to Pathfinder status. That ship sailed with Dreamscarred and Paizo clearly has no interest in reinventing the wheel.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
It's not surprising that there are folks less than happy. There are those who won't be happy with anything other than a regurgitation of the 3.5 psi system tweaked to Pathfinder status. That ship sailed with Dreamscarred and Paizo clearly has no interest in reinventing the wheel.

Now now, that's not being fair. Very slyly saying that those who didn't like what the OA playtest revealed are some sort of inflexible don't-like-new-things get-off-my-damned-lawn biased individuals. Not cool.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
DJEternalDarkness wrote:
Dreamscarred Press' Psionics is full of awesome and win I have to say. I've DMed a few characters using it and I'm very happy with it.

DSP regularly does Pathfinder better than Paizo does Pathfinder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
It's not surprising that there are folks less than happy. There are those who won't be happy with anything other than a regurgitation of the 3.5 psi system tweaked to Pathfinder status.

Yeah, I'm certain it has nothing to do with DSP's psionics being better in every possible way.


Zhayne wrote:
LazarX wrote:
It's not surprising that there are folks less than happy. There are those who won't be happy with anything other than a regurgitation of the 3.5 psi system tweaked to Pathfinder status.
Yeah, I'm certain it has nothing to do with DSP's psionics being better in every possible way.

I thought psionics and physic magic were going to be different.

It is not Paizo's fault that some people refuse to play with any material that isn't first-party regardless of quality or how much paizo themselves endorse the material.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:
LazarX wrote:
It's not surprising that there are folks less than happy. There are those who won't be happy with anything other than a regurgitation of the 3.5 psi system tweaked to Pathfinder status.
Yeah, I'm certain it has nothing to do with DSP's psionics being better in every possible way.

To you. I much prefer Paizo's take on it.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:
LazarX wrote:
It's not surprising that there are folks less than happy. There are those who won't be happy with anything other than a regurgitation of the 3.5 psi system tweaked to Pathfinder status.
Yeah, I'm certain it has nothing to do with DSP's psionics being better in every possible way.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Occult Adventures isn't Paizo's take on what DSP has done. Nor has it been advertised as a new brand of psionics at all. It's a completely different kettle of fish.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Psychic magic =/= psionics, a point that Paizo has hammered home pretty much every chance they've had.

Other than some overlap in naming conventions, psychic magic tends towards the Victorian/Occult vibe and could have been labeled "spiritual magic" just as aptly (if not moreso).

Psionics like that featured in 3.5 and lovingly recreated and expanded upon by Dreamscarred for Pathfinder has a much more sci-fi and modern edge to it, so I like both systems for very different concepts. As even Paizo themselves has stated, if you want psionics get Dreamscarred's Ultimate Psionics. It's incredibly well made and some of the best balanced material available for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. If you skew towards Victorian spiritualism in what you think of for the word "psychic", OA is probably going to be what you want.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:

Psychic magic =/= psionics, a point that Paizo has hammered home pretty much every chance they've had.

Other than some overlap in naming conventions, psychic magic tends towards the Victorian/Occult vibe and could have been labeled "spiritual magic" just as aptly (if not moreso).

Psionics like that featured in 3.5 and lovingly recreated and expanded upon by Dreamscarred for Pathfinder has a much more sci-fi and modern edge to it, so I like both systems for very different concepts. As even Paizo themselves has stated, if you want psionics get Dreamscarred's Ultimate Psionics. It's incredibly well made and some of the best balanced material available for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. If you skew towards Victorian spiritualism in what you think of for the word "psychic", OA is probably going to be what you want.

This has been my pet peeve since Occult Adventures was announced. The two things are almost nothing alike but everywhere I see "Paizo is doing their own take on psionics!!!" At best some GMs have to retcon what they thought was going on in Vudra and sort out what the word 'psychic' means in their games but otherwise in mechanics, flavor and general genres/tropes/concepts they cover Occult Adventures and Psionics are drastically different and sure as the Abyss are not mutually exclusive.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malwing wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

Psychic magic =/= psionics, a point that Paizo has hammered home pretty much every chance they've had.

Other than some overlap in naming conventions, psychic magic tends towards the Victorian/Occult vibe and could have been labeled "spiritual magic" just as aptly (if not moreso).

Psionics like that featured in 3.5 and lovingly recreated and expanded upon by Dreamscarred for Pathfinder has a much more sci-fi and modern edge to it, so I like both systems for very different concepts. As even Paizo themselves has stated, if you want psionics get Dreamscarred's Ultimate Psionics. It's incredibly well made and some of the best balanced material available for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. If you skew towards Victorian spiritualism in what you think of for the word "psychic", OA is probably going to be what you want.

This has been my pet peeve since Occult Adventures was announced. The two things are almost nothing alike but everywhere I see "Paizo is doing their own take on psionics!!!" At best some GMs have to retcon what they thought was going on in Vudra and sort out what the word 'psychic' means in their games but otherwise in mechanics, flavor and general genres/tropes/concepts they cover Occult Adventures and Psionics are drastically different and sure as the Abyss are not mutually exclusive.

Everywhere in this case, means every single gamer who can't read, or won't listen to what Paizo has had to say. If you check all those posts, you'll find that NONE of them was started by a Paizo person.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

9 people marked this as a favorite.

And in fact, in several instances people employed by Paizo and working on the project have come in to say "it's really not psionics and here's why" only to be completely ignored... Sigh.

I'm reminded of a post in a thread Ravingdork started that helped spread the misinformation where one of the designers came in and explained at great detail the difference between OA and psionics and even the historical and cultural divergence between the concept of psychic magic and phenomenon and the connotation and emergence of psionics, only to have the very next poster chime in and go "I'm so happy to see Paizo doing psionics!"
The irony made me very sad.

Long and the short of it though - Paizo has made it very clear that they will not be doing psionics, and they have endorsed Dreamscarred Press' work on multiple occasions for people who want that. If your GM doesn't like 3pp materials I can direct you to a few of those recommendations as well as several excellent reviews of the material. As I've noted on several occasions, DSP's work is well-known for being incredibly well balanced, even moreso than a lot of the core casting classes.

If you're already a fan of DSP, great! No reason to be down on Occult Adventures, it's aimed at a different audience and trying to do a different thing. There's a lot of great stuff there and I'm looking forward to playing with all of it.

Anecdotally, we actually did a one off the other night that included a Medium, a Kineticist (the OA one, not the Psion path), a Cryptic, and a Vitalist. The Cryptic was an urban investigator type from Absalom with a knack for solving puzzles, the Vitalist was a dwarf who was only just beginning to realize that his powers were more than natural leadership and empathy, the Medium was a Vudrani on the run from some mysterious danger, and the Kineticist was a former worshipper of Zon-Kuthon who killed his superior and traveled to Absalom looking to start a new life. There was absolutely no confusion about what the differences between these characters were, and the world didn't implode when players running both psionic characters and wielders of psychic magic sat down at the same table. Just sayin'.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Only filthy powergamers use 3rd party classes! A Psion nova'd my lone BBEG once, they're all broken!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

1) Taking what the Paizo staffers say with a pinch of salt is a product of experience.

2) People might have had an easier time not conflating Paizo 'psychic magic' with old style psionics if Paizo hadn't chosen to name every one of the Psychic Spells after old style Psionics powers.
Looking at a list of powers and seeing Ego Whip, Id Insinuation, Mind Thrust, Tower of Iron Will and all the other old favourites, it's easy to see why some might get confused. Names which are, of course, already in use in the DSP psionics books.

"but... but... ...Paizo said!" yeah yeah, see 1.


The occult book's quite Vancian. Also doesn't help that like most things of "has vancian vs has not vancian" results in the usual balance of those two things. We're expecting what, "tier 5 at best if all the rumored changes go through" out of the kineticist for example? Experience tells us that what we saw in the playtest will be more or less what we get from the book, though there'll be a few extra spells available.

It was a good move on Paizo's part not to use the term psionics though; that word's been dragged through the mud (quite unfairly after 1st edition, where the issue was more the fact that it was the first ever Gestalt class) that the book's sales would be nowhere near as high from just the choice of name.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jamie Charlan wrote:

The occult book's quite Vancian. Also doesn't help that like most things of "has vancian vs has not vancian" results in the usual balance of those two things. We're expecting what, "tier 5 at best if all the rumored changes go through" out of the kineticist for example? Experience tells us that what we saw in the playtest will be more or less what we get from the book, though there'll be a few extra spells available.

It was a good move on Paizo's part not to use the term psionics though; that word's been dragged through the mud (quite unfairly after 1st edition, where the issue was more the fact that it was the first ever Gestalt class) that the book's sales would be nowhere near as high from just the choice of name.

Having played a first edition psionic. I can tell you it was no gestalt. it was nothing more than a random chance of a random sized onetime dollop of power lumped on to a first level character. AD+D psionics did not scale and there was no rhyme nor reason as to what the character would game from random rolls. You could have a ton of powers and not enough psi to run any of them or the complete reverse.

Worse psionic combat took place 10 rounds to the standard one which meant that the other players sat on their hands until the resolution of the psionic duel, which meant they either had no one to fight or their psionic ally collapsed dead with a fried brain before they got their first turn.

In Gygax's own words, shorehorning psionics into AD+D was "The biggest mistake I ever made."

If psionics has a long lasting bad rep, it was well earned.


Throne wrote:

2) People might have had an easier time not conflating Paizo 'psychic magic' with old style psionics if Paizo hadn't chosen to name every one of the Psychic Spells after old style Psionics powers.

Looking at a list of powers and seeing Ego Whip, Id Insinuation, Mind Thrust, Tower of Iron Will and all the other old favourites, it's easy to see why some might get confused. Names which are, of course, already in use in the DSP psionics books.

If that is true, you can color me very annoyed.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Throne wrote:

2) People might have had an easier time not conflating Paizo 'psychic magic' with old style psionics if Paizo hadn't chosen to name every one of the Psychic Spells after old style Psionics powers.

Looking at a list of powers and seeing Ego Whip, Id Insinuation, Mind Thrust, Tower of Iron Will and all the other old favourites, it's easy to see why some might get confused. Names which are, of course, already in use in the DSP psionics books.

If that is true, you can color me very annoyed.

It is true that Paizo used names from psionics for their psychic magic, but it is also true that people kept calling it psionics before those spells were seen even though Paizo kept insisting otherwise. Basically people would have kept calling it psionics anyway.

Scarab Sages

Jodokai wrote:
I'm personally very disappointed with Occult Adventures. I SO wish they just went in cahoots with Dreamscarred Press and made that system "official".

I know it would be "cool", but it's unnecessary, you don't need paizo saying it's official. You can make it official in your games.

I have always been a huge psionics fan, and I have the DSP books, that's good enough for me. On the other hand I don't like certain official products, such as the mythic adventures, and I don't use them.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DragonBelow wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
I'm personally very disappointed with Occult Adventures. I SO wish they just went in cahoots with Dreamscarred Press and made that system "official".
I know it would be "cool", but it's unnecessary, you don't need paizo saying it's official. You can make it official in your games.

There is PFS. There are also groups that don't allow any 3PP stuff, because it's all dirty and unbalanced and evil. You know, despite the fact that everything that DSP has put out being far better balanced than anything that Paizo has put out.

I also find it amusing that Paizo has supported systems that even they admit aren't all that great in the name of backwards compatibility. Psionics must have some real haters among the Paizoo staff.


Kthulhu wrote:
DragonBelow wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
I'm personally very disappointed with Occult Adventures. I SO wish they just went in cahoots with Dreamscarred Press and made that system "official".
I know it would be "cool", but it's unnecessary, you don't need paizo saying it's official. You can make it official in your games.

There is PFS. There are also groups that don't allow any 3PP stuff, because it's all dirty and unbalanced and evil. You know, despite the fact that everything that DSP has put out being far better balanced than anything that Paizo has put out.

I also find it amusing that Paizo has supported systems that even they admit aren't all that great in the name of backwards compatibility. Psionics must have some real haters among the Paizoo staff.

It is the players more than the staff. IIRC I think I know one dev that does not really care for it. With that aside what other system is in the game that was not needed. For the sake of the question if you are going to say vanician spell casting I think dumping that would have ended Paizo's hopes before they began.

1 to 50 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Psionics? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.