Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: OneDnD seems to mainstream psionics
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 07:22:24 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <v0gdb2$3o4p8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v0dmh2$1rvpq$1@sibirocobombus.campaignwiki>
 <v0dqv3$323o9$4@dont-email.me> <7ivk2j560cru7gbb1eb1gl0drn76k2pg6b@4ax.com>
 <v0e6v4$1u868$1@sibirocobombus.campaignwiki> <v0eipj$37jkh$2@dont-email.me>
 <v0frrd$2n26e$1@sibirocobombus.campaignwiki>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 16:22:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0f731ead82456469e553d67c7f3791e0";
	logging-data="3937064"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1910yWEhkm2QBW/abLwyQfNoBfQrUEhDY8="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zh6adMFITj1z2oVJfmDYJ9vNcYs=
In-Reply-To: <v0frrd$2n26e$1@sibirocobombus.campaignwiki>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3991

On 4/26/2024 1:52 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
> On 4/25/2024 11:43 PM, Justisaur wrote:
>> On 4/25/2024 10:57 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
>>> On 4/25/2024 6:16 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On 
>>> the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just 
>>> variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions. 
>>
>> Warlocks and Sorcerers were both added in 3.5e  I liked the iterations 
>> in that edition much better.  They both feel like they should be 
>> sub-classes and in optional books.  Do you really need 3 charisma 
>> based arcane full caster base classes in the PHB?  Heck there's only 2 
>> full physical classes.
> 
> Warlocks were introduced in 3.5? Must have missed that, but I got 
> disinterested about that edition pretty quick. I burned out on 3e back 
> in the day and got completely turned off when 4e came around. That's 
> when I shifted to older editions.

Complete Arcane player's handbook. I did have someone play it.  It felt 
very underpowered, but it had a lot more sustain with eldritch blast 
than wizards.  It's much better balanced in 5e

>> As much as I love psionics, I'd prefer it also in another optional 
>> book as they're loading too much into the PHB already.
> 
> I do like psionics, and I am using the Old School Psionics supplement 
> for my homebrew rules (after trying to adapt the 3.5 psion to b/x at one 
> point). I think they might fit into the world at large if you flavor 
> them right. I think about something like "mystics" (which is a word that 
> also was used for monks in DnD which makes this awkward), which leans 
> into traditions of various mystics from all over the world.

3.5 psionics was pretty good, but it felt like it was just magic with 
spell points, and resulted in players blowing all their points at once 
for not any more effect than a wizard's highest level spell but leaving 
them without anything else.  I also didn't like all the crystals 
reliance.  I actually had some people play psions in 2e, I used the 
psionics handbook, but it needs careful interpretion, I had some 
situations like a Psion that used scrying and teleport at level 7 to 
bypass an entire adventure I had planned.  I didn't like the contact 
mechanics, and I think the Dark Suns version worked best.

I at one point was trying to write my own psionics system too based on 
modern perception of mind powers (sensitivity, tk, pk, medium, remote 
viewing, prediction etc.) but never got to anything workable.  I suppose 
crystals fit with that too, I just don't like them for some reason.

-- 
-Justisaur

  ø-ø
(\_/)\
  `-'\ `--.___,
   ¶¬'\( ,_.-'
        \\
        ^'