Why psions are so rare in RPG's?

[JamesDixon]

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.

1. Yes, because this thread is about AD&D/D&D psions. You can read I presume.

3. Yes we are since this thread is about AD&D/D&D psionics. I even referenced the rules so we were on the same page. You took issue with it. It's not my fault that you either can't read or can't form a coherent argument about the rules. That's not my problem.

Oh you're the one that started the entire INT vs. WIS thing. That was your argument and I corrected you using the rules. If you don't like it then find a different system or write your own.

 

[Humbaba]

1. Yes, because this thread is about AD&D/D&D psions. You can read I presume.

The thread is literally called "Why psions are so rare in RPG's" and OP references several non-D&D settings. All that high-fructose corn syrup in your sharter diet has destroyed your brain.

 

[JamesDixon]

The thread is literally called "Why psions are so rare in RPG's" and OP references several non-D&D settings. All that high-fructose corn syrup in your sharter diet has destroyed your brain.

I just don't get why. We got a lot of AD&D/2E adaptations in 90s and the unique CRPG which allow psion PC's is the Dark Sun games(Shattered Lands/Wake of the Ravager which is a bit underrated imo). None of the 3rd edition D&D adaptations from 00s allow psion PC's. Temple of elemental evil, nwn1, nwn2(...) none of then allow psions. Except if you mod the game. The PRC mod for NWN1 adds the following classes :

• Psion
• Psychic Warrior
• Soulknife
• Wilder

Other game which is not a D&D product but is heavily influentied by D&D which offers psionics is the KoTC2. Psionic powers are vstly different than spells mechanic wise. I always preferred arcane casters, play every game except those who lacks magic, like Kingdom Come, Mount & Blade and Fallout: New Vegas as one. However, in Pillars of Eternity 1/2 I played as Cipher. Exactly because the normal wizard of the game is just a lackluster ultra nerfed version of infinity engine magic users. Cipher in other hands, has a lot of cool stuff to do. Dominating enemy minds is extremely powerful. Mainly in a very low lethality game.

In my topic about low lethality, some people argued that OHK spells are "win buttons"(which I disagree). However, dominating an enemy is essentially the same of OHK a enemy and reanimating him to fight the previous enemies. Much more powerful effect. Whisper of Treason and Puppet Masters are amazing powers in Pillars IMO.

Pathfinder: Wrath of The Righteous will have 25 base classes with literally hundreds of subclasses. No psion. Like P&P has.

Because the original post cited AD&D/D&D and its derivatives. Never mind the fact that you said, "How come then wizards use INT and not WIS?"

That's where I came in with AD&D 2E. If you didn't like the answer princess then you should have said that I wasn't talking about AD&D/D&D but x system. You didn't and proceeded to attack the rules of AD&D 2E. If you have a problem with the rules then say so, but saying that they're wrong is the wrong thing to do. Did you want me to review all versions of OD&D and AD&D to show you how wrong you are?

 

[Alex]

I remember I used to dislike how their abilities would start strong, but never grow much in 2nd edition (I mean, there were pretty powerful abilities in there; and you could eventually get a good list of them, but they didn't grow with your level which meant they would eventually become much less useful when compared to actual spells; not to mention that they were, or could be, completely out of range for the stuff a beginning magic user could do at level 1. Eventually, I came to like that implementation exactly because of these points, rather than despite; but I never actually had it in play unfortunately.

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.

Zed, do you have any particular thoughts on any of the iterations of psionics in D&D?

 

[Humbaba]

Because the original post cited AD&D/D&D and its derivatives. Never mind the fact that you said, "How come then wizards use INT and not WIS?"

That's where I came in with AD&D 2E. If you didn't like the answer princess then you should have said that I wasn't talking about AD&D/D&D but x system. You didn't and proceeded to attack the rules of AD&D 2E. If you have a problem with the rules then say so, but saying that they're wrong is the wrong thing to do. Did you want me to review all versions of OD&D and AD&D to show you how wrong you are?

>Because the original post cited AD&D/D&D and its derivatives
Oh they're derivatives now. Nice save.

>Never mind the fact that you said, "How come then wizards use INT and not WIS?" That's where I came in with AD&D 2E
Because I must've been referencing AD&D because only AD&D uses INT and WIS as stats. Conclusion jumper Jimmy over here.

>Did you want me to review all versions of OD&D and AD&D to show you how wrong you are?
You're the only one bible thumping D&D around here like an abject dweeb, read the room and have another sip.

 

[JamesDixon]

Because the original post cited AD&D/D&D and its derivatives. Never mind the fact that you said, "How come then wizards use INT and not WIS?"

That's where I came in with AD&D 2E. If you didn't like the answer princess then you should have said that I wasn't talking about AD&D/D&D but x system. You didn't and proceeded to attack the rules of AD&D 2E. If you have a problem with the rules then say so, but saying that they're wrong is the wrong thing to do. Did you want me to review all versions of OD&D and AD&D to show you how wrong you are?

>Because the original post cited AD&D/D&D and its derivatives
Oh they're derivatives now. Nice save.

>Never mind the fact that you said, "How come then wizards use INT and not WIS?" That's where I came in with AD&D 2E
Because I must've been referencing AD&D because only AD&D uses INT and WIS as stats. Conclusion jumper Jimmy over here.

>Did you want me to review all versions of OD&D and AD&D to show you how wrong you are?
You're the only one bible thumping D&D around here like an abject dweeb, read the room and have another sip.

1. Yes stupid Pathfinder etc... all use 3.x OGL as a basis. That makes it a derivative of D&D. Are you usually this stupid or did you get a gender studies degree?

2. Invalid argument. I used AD&D 2E as a reference because I have it handy. Did you want me to go back to D&D Basic 1974 for the stats? I can easily do that for you if your fee-fees are hurt too bad.

3. Not an argument princess. Come back when you can actually reply to the argument you made using D&D stats. D&D/AD&D is in the OP so that makes you a moron. How can you breathe when you're such a retard?

I tire of you child. You've now made the idiot list. Don't reply since I won't see it stupid.

 

[Humbaba]

1. Yes stupid Pathfinder etc... all use 3.x OGL as a basis. That makes it a derivative of D&D. Are you usually this stupid or did you get a gender studies degree?

2. Invalid argument. I used AD&D 2E as a reference because I have it handy. Did you want me to go back to D&D Basic 1974 for the stats? I can easily do that for you if your fee-fees are hurt too bad.

3. Not an argument princess. Come back when you can actually reply to the argument you made using D&D stats. D&D/AD&D is in the OP so that makes you a moron. How can you breathe when you're such a retard?

I tire of you child. You've now made the idiot list. Don't reply since I won't see it stupid.

>1. Yes stupid Pathfinder etc... all use 3.x OGL as a basis
Then why cite AD&D you mongoloid

>2. Invalid argument. I used AD&D 2E as a reference because I have it handy. Did you want me to go back to D&D Basic 1974 for the stats? I can easily do that for you if your fee-fees are hurt too bad.
For the last time: I never once brought up D&D.

>I tire of you child. You've now made the idiot list. Don't reply since I won't see it stupid.
Statistically speaking the kindergarden I attended had a higher average IQ and education level than the university you went to in Bumfuck, AZ. An American calling someone stupid is like a child claiming they can beat their dad in arm wrestling. Have a nice glass of USA juice and stop shitting up the site.

 

[InSight]

Strongly disagree. Psionics are the manipulation of "inner forces", magic of "outer forces". The difference between a psion and a wizard is akin to the difference of a wizard and a cleric.

Such comment disregards mind control spells, and divination spells including detect evil. Assuming by "inner" as inside the body and "outer" as outside the body. That would also include transmutation/transformation/shape-shifting spells for they manipulate inner forces. Based on that one could also describe Psionic as a less capable spell caster(less variety of abilities). Less capable>less-use/use-less>rarer appearance in RPG's and it settings.

In most Role Playing Games , the abnormal power of wizards and clerics require spell-casting, that is spelling, that is to speak "from Proto-Germanic *spellam (source also of Old High German spellon "to tell," Old Norse spjalla, Gothic spillon "to talk, tell"), from PIE *spel- (2) "to say aloud, recite."(https://www.etymonline.com/word/Spell), that is to evoke their power from voice/sound/words.

In contrast to spell caster, Psionics are/can-be shown/described/portrayed needing only thought/will/intent or unconsciousness/blank-mind/reflex to evoke their power.
In game system/terms/rules that would translate as activating enormous force instantly, not giving the other party a chance react/counter/defend. Think/speculate/imagine the effects on the design/game. Such overpowering being, would require/necessitates its rarity akin to dragons. Otherwise the settings can become too alien/strange/unbelievable and thus unappealing/unattractive/repellent.

 

[InSight]

Really you should only have clerics and wizards. Warlock and sorcerer are redundant in themselves and should be wizard subclasses.

This also applies to Fighters. Barbarians , Rangers(discounting spell casting) and the like should be fighter's subclasses(a variation/specialization) instead of a class by themselves. Because such is not the case, the fighter has less abilities/capabilities in contrast to other DnD classes(and even perhaps majority of CRPG) and thus less interesting to use/play/develop(in game) compared to other options.

A Psionic class provides a reverse situation(depending on the game system/rules/settings):
A Psionic is relatively new and rare to other classes/roles/function of its type and has less abilities rather then more compared to them.
A Fighter is relatively old and common to other classes/roles/function of its type and has less abilities rather then more compared to them.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

psionics have been lost in time as just another flavour of wizard. you play one, when allowed, where possible, mostly only for larping reasons. did i ever tell you there's been a period in my life i studied "real" psionics?

 

[Humbaba]

Really you should only have clerics and wizards. Warlock and sorcerer are redundant in themselves and should be wizard subclasses.

This also applies to Fighters. Barbarians , Rangers(discounting spell casting) and the like should be fighter's subclasses(a variation/specialization) instead of a class by themselves. Because such is not the case, the fighter has less abilities/capabilities in contrast to other DnD classes(and even perhaps majority of CRPG) and thus less interesting to use/play/develop(in game) compared to other options.

That's a good point especially in the barbarian's case. Barbarian is not a profession, if anything it's a cultural background. It would also cut down on class bloat in general.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The Complete Psionics Handbook is assigned homework reading for all of you. And I don't mean Complete Psionic, but the 2E version.

 

[Cryomancer]

The Complete Psionics Handbook is assigned homework reading for all of you. And I don't mean Complete Psionic, but the 2E version.

Agreed. People here really believe that arcane arts and psionics are the same? Pick Borys from Dark Sun. HE has 30 levels as defiler and 30 as psionicist. Why even bore to level up two similar classes if they are similar?

 

[Humbaba]

The Complete Psionics Handbook is assigned homework reading for all of you. And I don't mean Complete Psionic, but the 2E version.

Agreed. People here really believe that arcane arts and psionics are the same? Pick Borys from Dark Sun. HE has 30 levels as defiler and 30 as psionicist. Why even bore to level up two similar classes if they are similar?

I thought the distinction between psionics and magic in Dark Sun was due to specific thematic reasons.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The Complete Psionics Handbook is assigned homework reading for all of you. And I don't mean Complete Psionic, but the 2E version.

Agreed. People here really believe that arcane arts and psionics are the same? Pick Borys from Dark Sun. HE has 30 levels as defiler and 30 as psionicist. Why even bore to level up two similar classes if they are similar?

I thought the distinction between psionics and magic in Dark Sun was due to specific thematic reasons.

even in FR it's completely distinct from magic, psionics don't rely on the weave for their power and function just fine in dead magic zones

 

[Cryomancer]

I thought the distinction between psionics and magic in Dark Sun was due to specific thematic reasons.

No, are not only thematic.

Magic is the manipulation of "outer forces", psionics of "inner forces", since there are no weave in Athas, to get the energy to do a spell, is far more complex. Some kits uses forces for other planes to prepare spells, like the shadow wizards however, using another dimension as energy source is extremely dangerous and a low level shadow wizard can easily take d6+1 damage after failing in a save and he has mere d4 hit points per level, so he can die at spell preparation. Magic is extremely dangerous and/or costly in athas.

Magic is way more risky in Dark Sun than psionics. You must disguise your spells as psionics otherwise you will be hunted by a angry mob and templars. And there are a lot of effects which can't be obtained via magic and a lot of effects that can't be obtained by psionics. Spells which has a psionic counterpart like disintegrate often require different types of saves in 2E. If I remember correctly, the disintegrate - psionic require a save vs death and the spell variant require a save vs spell.

TL;DR - Druids are much more redundant to clerics and rangers to fighters than psionics are to wizards.

 

[Gradenmayer]

"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.

Strongly disagree. Psionics are the manipulation of "inner forces", magic of "outer forces". The difference between a psion and a wizard is akin to the difference of a wizard and a cleric.

So it's just monk's KI? Play monk.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

"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.

Strongly disagree. Psionics are the manipulation of "inner forces", magic of "outer forces". The difference between a psion and a wizard is akin to the difference of a wizard and a cleric.

So it's just monk's KI?

No, ki is a form of magic. You can find this in the 5e phb under "The magic of Ki".

1e monks did not have 'ki' or any equivalent. Oriental Adventures monks did, but it was nothing like later incarnations, and most of the classes introduced in the book use 'ki'(iirc, it's basically just a fancy word for eh... stamina)

 

[JamesDixon]

"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.

Strongly disagree. Psionics are the manipulation of "inner forces", magic of "outer forces". The difference between a psion and a wizard is akin to the difference of a wizard and a cleric.

So it's just monk's KI? Play monk.

No monks in AD&D 2E at first. It only became available via a kit in The Complete Priests Handbook. That still kept the original AD&D 1E divine spellcasting. In Faith & Avatars FR book and Player Options: Spells & Magic Monks are still priests, instead of being a kit they're a full blown priest class.

 

[JamesDixon]

"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.

Strongly disagree. Psionics are the manipulation of "inner forces", magic of "outer forces". The difference between a psion and a wizard is akin to the difference of a wizard and a cleric.

So it's just monk's KI?

No, ki is a form of magic. You can find this in the 5e phb under "The magic of Ki".

1e monks did not have 'ki' or any equivalent. Oriental Adventures monks did, but it was nothing like later incarnations, and most of the classes introduced in the book use 'ki'(iirc, it's basically just a fancy word for eh... stamina)

You could say that in AD&D 1E PHB that the monk abilities on the table are ki based powers though the word never appears.

 

[DraQ]

Is this relevant here?
https://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-why-do-psionics-suck/
Because I think it is relevant here.

Spoiler

Wizardry gets a pass because psionics there *is* just another school of magic, which is split along the lines of just straight spellcasting, manipulation of matter and using it to blow things up or poison them, manipulation of mind, and whining to gods to lend you a hand.

 

[Poseidon00]

Less than 25% of players know what the psionic ruleset is.

 

[JamesDixon]

Is this relevant here?
https://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-why-do-psionics-suck/
Because I think it is relevant here.

Spoiler

Wizardry gets a pass because psionics there *is* just another school of magic, which is split along the lines of just straight spellcasting, manipulation of matter and using it to blow things up or poison them, manipulation of mind, and whining to gods to lend you a hand.

He's wrong about it being an afterthought though. It was essential in the original D&D set of books which also introduced many famous monsters like demons. It was the third supplement. By using the author's logic then everything else in Book 6 Eldritch Wizardry (1976) is an afterthought. It then appeared in AD&D 1E PHB (1978) as a core set of rules. Not an afterthought there either. In AD&D 2E (1989) it was in the Complete Psionics Handbook (1991) that preceded Dark Sun a setting that used psionics. Again, not an afterthought.

He's spot on that the Eldritch Wizardry and AD&D 1E rules are complicated and don't adhere to the rules for other classes. That lead to unnecessary confusion for players. That makes it not a school of magic. It shared nothing with spellcasting at all. It's hard to be considered a form of magic when it doesn't use the rules for magic.

 

[Humbaba]

No, are not only thematic.

Magic is the manipulation of "outer forces", psionics of "inner forces", since there are no weave in Athas, to get the energy to do a spell, is far more complex. Some kits uses forces for other planes to prepare spells, like the shadow wizards however, using another dimension as energy source is extremely dangerous and a low level shadow wizard can easily take d6+1 damage after failing in a save and he has mere d4 hit points per level, so he can die at spell preparation. Magic is extremely dangerous and/or costly in athas.

Magic is way more risky in Dark Sun than psionics. You must disguise your spells as psionics otherwise you will be hunted by a angry mob and templars. And there are a lot of effects which can't be obtained via magic and a lot of effects that can't be obtained by psionics. Spells which has a psionic counterpart like disintegrate often require different types of saves in 2E. If I remember correctly, the disintegrate - psionic require a save vs death and the spell variant require a save vs spell.

TL;DR - Druids are much more redundant to clerics and rangers to fighters than psionics are to wizards.

That's exactly my point, in the context of Dark Sun psionics and magic are two completely different things entirely because of in-universe reasons and function very differently as well. But Dark Sun is the exception not the rule.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

psionics is not magic for the same reason punching someone isn't magic
psionics comes from within, not without