Why psions are so rare in RPG's?

[JamesDixon]

Sorcerers weren't introduced until AD&D 2E as a wizard kit way after psionicists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but sorcerer in 1E was a "magic user title", At lv 11 they get the Wizard tile, then high wizard and finally archwizard and the sorcerer kit existed for 2E on complete wizard handbook was called amazon sorceress. Is this truth? I'm not sure.

I was on my tablet earlier which doesn't have my pdfs on it. I doublechecked and you're correct. I had thought they had made sorcerers for AD&D 2E. Turns out it was me that wrote it up for Dragonlance 2E. LOL

 

[Humbaba]

Just make generic magic-user, with cleric, wizard, etc. as subclasses, then.

I mean back in the day the class was in fact simply called "magic-user". Everything else was flavor. Besides you can argue that there is very little difference between the terms wizard, sorceror, warlock etc. outside of whatever arbitrary mechanics are given to them in a given RPG. Most languages don't distinguish between "wizard" and "sorceror" and historically all magic and magic users were considered satanic anyway, so there is culturally very little difference if any between a regular wizard and a warlock. Merlin is literally a cambion. Most wizards in sword & sorcery are evil. The first non-satanic mage was probably Gandalf and he was an angel strictly speaking, so not even a wizard in the traditional sense.

 

[Nano]

Most wizards in sword & sorcery are evil.

Which makes sense. How many people could have the abilities of a wizard without being corrupted by the power? (Assuming they weren't already corrupt in the first place.)

 

[Dodo1610]

Psionics already exists in 5E as playtest content so there is a good chance it will be added officially at some point.


Also human Psionics do exist in the forgotten realm since 3E not just in Spelljammer and Dark Sun

 

[Can't handle the bacon]

The first non-satanic mage was probably Gandalf and he was an angel strictly speaking, so not even a wizard in the traditional sense.

Wizard = wise one. That's what the "wiz" part means. In that sense, Gandalf is certainly a wizard, even without the wizardry bestowed upon him by his (super)natural angelic powers (and the elven ring of fire).

"Mage" has a similar etymology, iirc, and was used to designate zoroastrian priests.

 

[Humbaba]

The first non-satanic mage was probably Gandalf and he was an angel strictly speaking, so not even a wizard in the traditional sense.

Wizard = wise one. That's what the "wiz" part means. In that sense, Gandalf is certainly a wizard, even without the wizardry bestowed upon him by his (super)natural angelic powers (and the elven ring of fire).

"Mage" has a similar etymology, iirc, and was used to designate zoroastrian priests.

How come then wizards use INT and not WIS?

 

[JamesDixon]

The first non-satanic mage was probably Gandalf and he was an angel strictly speaking, so not even a wizard in the traditional sense.

Wizard = wise one. That's what the "wiz" part means. In that sense, Gandalf is certainly a wizard, even without the wizardry bestowed upon him by his (super)natural angelic powers (and the elven ring of fire).

"Mage" has a similar etymology, iirc, and was used to designate zoroastrian priests.

How come then wizards use INT and not WIS?

Because INT is a measure of learning while Wisdom is a measure of intuition/common sense.

From AD&D 2E: Intelligence represents a character's memory, reasoning, and learning ability, including areas outside those measured by the written word. Intelligence dictates the number of languages a character can learn. Intelligence is the prime requisite of wizards, who must have keen minds to understand and memorize magical spells.

Wisdom describes a composite of the character's enlightenment, judgement, guile, willpower, common sense, and intuition.

In a nutshell, INT is book learning while WIS is common sense. Thus, INT better represents actually being wise from a book learning standpoint over WIS. Keep in mind that the NPC sage character uses INT not WIS. That's due to the way Nonweapon Proficiencies/Secondary Skills are written as all the knowledge ones use INT as the base stat for rolling on a d20.

 

[Cryomancer]

Because INT is a measure of learning while Wisdom is a measure of intuition/common sense.

Exactly. A inventor/scientist/scholar/wathever doing a dangerous reckless experiment IRL(eg) is the typical example of "high int/low wis". A magic user specialized in conjuration, so he can summon demon to do his bidding despite demons not being reliable is a high fantasy example.

 

[Humbaba]

In a nutshell, INT is book learning while WIS is common sense. Thus, INT better represents actually being wise from a book learning standpoint over WIS.

So INT also represents wisdom? I think the word you're looking for is "learned" or "educated". Most people don't consider bookworms wise in that sense.

 

[JamesDixon]

In a nutshell, INT is book learning while WIS is common sense. Thus, INT better represents actually being wise from a book learning standpoint over WIS.

So INT also represents wisdom? I think the word you're looking for is "learned" or "educated". Most people don't consider bookworms wise in that sense.

According to AD&D 2E, Intelligence represents book learning. I didn't write the rules dude.

If you go by the definition of the word Wise you get Intelligent as a synonym not Wisdom. Thus, Gary and company used the right word to describe being wise in D&D. If you want it to mean something different then write your own version of D&D. Otherwise, what I said is correct as it is written within the rules of AD&D 2E.

 

[Bruma Hobo]

Nah, lots of different overlapping systems are alright. Just keep the words and themes that don't fit into my western medieval fantasy out, 'k? No "psionics", no "ki", no "ooga-booga".

Why should we care about setting consistency, mondblut? Your either sound like a storyfag or a LARPer.

 

[mondblut]

Nah, lots of different overlapping systems are alright. Just keep the words and themes that don't fit into my western medieval fantasy out, 'k? No "psionics", no "ki", no "ooga-booga".

Why should we care about setting consistency, mondblut? Your either sound like a storyfag or a LARPer.

There is no point in breaking stuff where there is nothing worth breaking.

 

[Alex]

But they can work in fantasy; just not typical medieval fantasy. I think both Darksun and Spelljammer settings are examples of places where psionics can work alongside magic.

That's what I said. Dark sun goes out of its way to show how "alien" it is, and Spelljammer is literally Star Trek meets D&D.

Oh, I guess we are just arguing about what "fantasy" means, then. Sorry. That said, I think spelljammer can be much better than Star Trek meets D&D. It can be Traveller meets D&D.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

making a list of all anti-psion people on the codex

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

Psions are kind of late additions to most DnD editions, correct? Most cRPGs based off DnD try to stick to base classes as much as possible. Be that due to general policy, what time the game was written or just limited resources/time. For non-DnD titles, most psion abilities are already covered under the usual mage and priest types of spells. I think the whole subject is a bit wasted. Usually people in real life who claimed to have some kind of ability were just normal people in normal jobs with that ability. Why not just have a fighter with pyromancy or telekinesis?

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Since you mention "sorcery", D&D already has the difference between wizard = book-smart spellcaster vs sorcerer = innate spellcaster so psionics just become this weird additional thing.

Psions are kind of late additions to most DnD editions, correct? Most cRPGs based off DnD try to stick to base classes as much as possible. Be that due to general policy, what time the game was written or just limited resources/time. For non-DnD titles, most psion abilities are already covered under the usual mage and priest types of spells. I think the whole subject is a bit wasted. Usually people in real life who claimed to have some kind of ability were just normal people in normal jobs with that ability. Why not just have a fighter with pyromancy or telekinesis?

Psionics were introduced into original D&D via Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry in 1976, and so were a late addition that probably was not used extensively by players. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, however, did include psionics in the 1978 Players Handbook as Appendix I (i.e. the first Appendix), so it was introduced to everyone but as an option rather than a standard rule, and the following year's Dungeon Masters Guide included rules for dealing with psionic combat as part of the general combat rules. Later versions of non-advanced D&D excluded psionics, and the 2nd edition of AD&D excluded it from the 1989 core rulebooks but later introduced the subject in 1991's PHBR5 The Complete Psionics Handbook, just before the appearance of the Dark Sun campaign setting that depended on these new rules. Although it was always an option for a DM to introduce these optional psionics rules into the campaign, none of TSR's other campaign settings incorporated psionics in their baseline forms, so really psionics was just associated with Dark Sun.

As for the idea of a separate "sorcerer" class, there was no such thing in any TSR version of D&D/AD&D, which relied entirely on Vancian spell-casting.

 

[mondblut]

making a list of all anti-psion people on the codex

Should have figured us all out telepathically, you fraud.

 

[Zeriel]

"Psionics" are magic for science fiction settings. They are thematically unfit and absolutely not needed in fantasy games which already have spellcasting wizards and clerics.

Eh this is not quite true. For instance Illithid clearly are more exotic than must "magic", and most make sense under the Psionic rubric. I think what is lost is the "exotic"ness of it when it is grafted onto just a common player class--and indeed I think you've got it reversed where it is treating Psions as just "another mage" that makes them boring.

 

[mondblut]

For instance Illithid clearly are more exotic than must "magic", and most make sense under the Psionic rubric.

However alien Illithids are supposed to be, they don't need ESP crap brought into the picture solely for a reason to make them appear even more out of place (and time). Vampires use their gaze to charm chicks into spreading up. Medusas use their gaze to turn whole groups of people into statue gardens. Illithids using their gaze to cause you mild headache? Pah. Could be any number of special abilities or attacks with no bullshit attached.

 

[Zeriel]

For instance Illithid clearly are more exotic than must "magic", and most make sense under the Psionic rubric.

However alien Illithids are supposed to be, they don't need ESP crap brought into the picture solely for a reason to make them appear even more out of place (and time). Vampires use their gaze to charm chicks into spreading up. Medusas use their gaze to turn whole groups of people into statue gardens. Illithids using their gaze to cause you mild headache? Pah. Could be any number of special abilities or attacks with no bullshit attached.

They're literal brain parasites. How much more appropriate could you get than mindpowers? Do you want them to have magical brains instead? I mean... I guess you can reduce it to that, but it takes away the "magic" (pardon the pun) of their flavor in my opinion.

The fact their mind blasts and sucking brains out are not tied to MR & wizard counter-measures is also a large part of what makes them scary and different.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

making a list of all anti-psion people on the codex

Should have figured us all out telepathically, you fraud.

psychics and psions aren't the same you dip

 

[Can't handle the bacon]

The first non-satanic mage was probably Gandalf and he was an angel strictly speaking, so not even a wizard in the traditional sense.

Wizard = wise one. That's what the "wiz" part means. In that sense, Gandalf is certainly a wizard, even without the wizardry bestowed upon him by his (super)natural angelic powers (and the elven ring of fire).

"Mage" has a similar etymology, iirc, and was used to designate zoroastrian priests.

How come then wizards use INT and not WIS?

Because intards never caught on as a class name.

 

[The_Mask]

Okay, so I'm gonna come out of the closet: I like the idea of psions. (sorry Delt) But I'm going to apply some Asimovian stuff over here, because I'm weird, and this is the Codex.

I define, in my brain (no pun intended), psionics as the art of influencing your surroundings with your brain. Which means converting energy from you into something else that either influences people or moves things. So it should be hybrid class. Main attribute should be CON actually (sickly person that can't convert energy properly shouldn't be a psion). And secondary, any INT, WIS or CHA - whichever is higher.




In any case, psions are hard to work with because everyone has a different opinion on why the human mind is great. Is it the raw speed and computational power of our brains that allows even a child to dish out amazing statements, or learn several languages lightning fast? Is it the wisdom it stores, that allows your grandpa to destroy you in chess, seeing your defeat 15 moves ahead? Is the willpower and force of presence to push others into doing great things?
So many answers. Difficult to nail. Really.
Not surprising D&D has had a rough time with it.

 

[AdolfSatan]

It's rather simple:
Most players don't give a fuck about psions. Adding classes costs time and money that companies prefer to spend on shit people will actually pay for like romance, fishing, and horse armor dlc.

 

[Humbaba]

According to AD&D 2E, Intelligence represents book learning. I didn't write the rules dude.

If you go by the definition of the word Wise you get Intelligent as a synonym not Wisdom. Thus, Gary and company used the right word to describe being wise in D&D. If you want it to mean something different then write your own version of D&D. Otherwise, what I said is correct as it is written within the rules of AD&D 2E.

>I didn't write the rules dewd
But you're referencing them. If they are not meant to represent or support your claims then I can safely disregard them.

>If you go by the definition of the word Wise you get Intelligent as a synonym not Wisdom.
Would be real weird if a noun could be a synonym for an adjective so not surprise there.

>Thus, Gary and company used the right word to describe being wise in D&D. If you want it to mean something different then write your own version of D&D
We are not even discussing D&D specifically so I have no clue what you're on about.