So, I was very pleased with the psionic rules presented in the 3.5 book.
For one thing, they ditched all the psionic combat. This is a good thing, because it did ability score damage, which takes forever to heal, and it detracted from the rest of gameplay. The two players involved in psionic combat are basically just trading blows in an elaborate rock-paper-scissors game, doing damage that takes weeks to heal or a lot of spells, while the rest of the party is just bored. Turning them into normal attack and defensive powers was an excellent move.
Secondly, like spells, most psionic powers had saving throws. This actually removes a lot of the flaws of magic verses psionics. Since you almost always get a saving throw, it really doesn't matter what the source is. One minor flaw in the system is most of the damage powers are 1st-3rd level, with the option to use power points to increase damage. This means, if magic/psionics transparency is in place, that you can completely neutralize a psionic attack with a minor globe of invulnerability. There's a psionic feat to boost the effective level of your powers, but it's a bit of a chink in the armor, so to speak.
However, some elements I disliked. For example, the "display" factor with most powers just seems stupid. Psionics are supposed to be products of the mind, why would there be an obvious effect? I can well believe that really powerful manifestations (like Kalek's attack in The Verdant Passage) would have a visual manifestation, but not a simple missive. I'm curious if most of the DM's here just ignore displays entirely.
I also enjoyed, in my own DS campaign, describing the effects, much like the Prism Pentad novels did. I actually got some complaints from the players, because they felt I was taking too much time to do that, while neglecting normal combat moves and arcane/divine spells. Touche, I guess.
Anyway, I was curious as to how people here use or change the Psionics rules systems to better fit their DS campaigns. Any observations, complaints, etc?
3.5 Psionics loses a bit of flavour however as its more or less a point based magic system and most of the powers are similar to spells.
I just use the rules as printed. 2nd ed psionic rules were reasonably awful and 3.0 Psionics was broken as hell instead of broken lite like 3.5
Yeah. I'm curious if ANYONE on the boards here has ever successfully ran a 2nd Edition campaign using the psionics rules? I think their worst flaw, really, is it's too much extra crap... and if you use the harbingers and constructs from The Will and the Way, you make it even worse.
3.5 Psionics loses a bit of flavour however as its more or less a point based magic system and most of the powers are similar to spells.
True enough. One major change they introduced in 3.5 was the ability to augment powers freely, which makes psionics far more adaptable and flexible than magic in many cases. A good example of that flexibility is the energy attack powers, which allow you to choose, on the spot, what energy type damage they do, barring acid only. A wizard or sorcerer just doesn't have that flexibility available, and it's very useful in Athas.
I'm wondering though, how you could make it "more" flavorful, and still keep it from becoming a tacked-on system. Any ideas?
It's important to remember that you can make a check to hide the Displays of powers during their manifestation. I believe it is a concentration check DC 15 plus the power level.
Yeah. I think the check is a little high myself. DC 10 as a base, maybe, and then have it increase by 1 for every point of augmented power you channel, or by 2 for every meta-psionic feat applied. So if you're really pushing power into it, it becomes harder to hide.
Plus, in my own campaign, the displays only occur in the mind of the attacker and defender(s). I rather liked that effect from the novel. The idea is that only super-high levels of psionic power, like from the Dark Lens, would actually create a true physical effect.
Yeah. I'm curious if ANYONE on the boards here has ever successfully ran a 2nd Edition campaign using the psionics rules? I think their worst flaw, really, is it's too much extra crap... and if you use the harbingers and constructs from The Will and the Way, you make it even worse.
True enough. One major change they introduced in 3.5 was the ability to augment powers freely, which makes psionics far more adaptable and flexible than magic in many cases. A good example of that flexibility is the energy attack powers, which allow you to choose, on the spot, what energy type damage they do, barring acid only. A wizard or sorcerer just doesn't have that flexibility available, and it's very useful in Athas.
I'm wondering though, how you could make it "more" flavorful, and still keep it from becoming a tacked-on system. Any ideas?
The only thing Arcane casters have that comes close to that is the mastery of elements power of the Archmage prestige class. Not sure about how to make in more in flavour.
Yeah. I'm curious if ANYONE on the boards here has ever successfully ran a 2nd Edition campaign using the psionics rules? I think their worst flaw, really, is it's too much extra crap... and if you use the harbingers and constructs from The Will and the Way, you make it even worse.
Not bragging, but I ran a 4 year 2e campaign using the old psionics rules. It worked out okay, mainly because the two psions in the group were not telepaths! The 2e rules workable, but not very balanced. Many powers were either overpowered (at low levels) or underpowered (at all levels).
I like the 3.5 rules - they've done a great job finally balancing them out and making them a viable ruleset.
Yeah. I'm curious if ANYONE on the boards here has ever successfully ran a 2nd Edition campaign using the psionics rules?
I did, and not only Dark Sun, but Grewhawk as well. Moreover, even now I prefer to run 2e Dark Sun, not least due to 2e psionics.
I also have to say, psionics should be different but the rules need tweaking
-psionics is not magic, thus detect magic won't work on psionics, and visa-versa.
-Anti-magic shell stops psionics, because anti-magic stops ALL supernatural effects, and thus, psionics which is clearly (Su) not (Ex).
-As a general house rule, I say that psionics is better at the manipulation of minds and objects on the small scale, magic is superior in terms of area, raw force, duration, for adjuticating "ties".
I have to disagree a little bit about wizards being able to marshall more raw force than a psion. A 1st level power called Crystal Shard is awesomely potent (Granted, against a single target) and IIRC, can be used to pierce an anti-magic shell if the source of the manifestation is outside the anti-magic zone, because the power generated a physical object and pushes it at the target. It can be made to do 1d6 damage per PP invested in it, pierces power resistance and allows no save. A 20th level manifester armed only with this power and maybe Energy Ray is more than a match for all but the most prepared and well equipped wizard of equivalent level, especially if the manifester knows Quicken Power, in which case, if he has the initiative, he could completely wipe out an opposing spellcaster in one round. I do agree with anyone who says a well-prepared wizard has more staying power, though.
meteor Swarm, Enlarged Cone of Cold...
Wizard >>> Psion for raw force ;)
And if you want good stuff for psionics, the psionics board is great too.
The main difference between magic and psionics is that magic get's more support. You have way more spells and feats and PrC's available to casters than manifesters. Even in the athas.org stuff. More support tends to mean more power.
I did, and not only Dark Sun, but Grewhawk as well. Moreover, even now I prefer to run 2e Dark Sun, not least due to 2e psionics.
Same.
All of my campaigns included psionics to some degree.
The single biggest factor that has kept me from playing much 3/3.5E is that I enjoy the 2E psionics system (mainly how it was very distinct from magic).
I never used harbingers or constructs, too much work, as has been said. However, I had zero problems DMing or playing telepaths and felt that serious imbalances were sufficently rare.