Psionic Bias?

[Saph]

Plus, you're basically saying that "If I start by houseruling that they're different, then I have to do a lot of work in order to make them fit". Why not just not make the houserule in the first place?

I really can't figure out what you're trying to say. By RAW, psionics and magic ARE different - that's why you can't identify spells with Psicraft. "Psionics-magic transparency" is a misleading name.

[The Big Dice]

Psionics is worse at: Illusion

Mind powers that aren't very good at affecting perception and thought aren't mind powers. It's blasting with pretty names.

You would think that if there's one field psionics would excel in, it's Illusions. You know, putting images into people's minds.

[Tavar]

I really can't figure out what you're trying to say. By RAW, psionics and magic ARE different - that's why you can't identify spells with Psicraft. "Psionics-magic transparency" is a misleading name.

I'm saying that those 2 kills are the only things making them at all incompatible. If you just state that "Psicraft=Spellcraft, UPD=UMD", then there's the entire problem, gone. There's not fluff reason why they aren't compatible, and besides those 2 skills they work together completely. So where's this big, difficult to solve difference you're talking about?

[Saph]

I'm saying that those 2 kills are the only things making them at all incompatible. If you just state that "Psicraft=Spellcraft, UPD=UMD", then there's the entire problem, gone. There's not fluff reason why they aren't compatible, and besides those 2 skills they work together completely. So where's this big, difficult to solve difference you're talking about?

*shrug* If that's what works for you.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Which tells me that the EPH is an optional add-on. The only support it gets is itself. Even Lord of Madness only mentions the EPH in side bars. Which again tells me that WotC didn't regard that book as paticularly important.

That's because everything aside from core is an optional add-on. One of the major complaints people had about late 3e was the fact that WotC stubbornly stuck to the philosophy that core material should receive more options because everyone had it and non-core shouldn't because some might not. Things like psionics, binders, martial adepts, etc. didn't get any additional support even though they were fairly popular; classes like the marshal and soulknife remained sub-par because WotC ignored them; casters outside of core rarely had their spells lists expanded; and so on and so forth.

Meanwhile, the strongest classes in the game (wizards, clerics, and druids, oh my) continued to get support in almost every single book, regardless of the fact that they didn't need the help, because "that's what everybody plays with." Core getting support while non-core doesn't is a bad thing, a very bad thing. Many imbalances in 3e are the result of the devs never considering the interactions between books due to this focus on core; even for a company that seems practically allergic to playtesting, ignoring all but 3 of your products when producing new material is just bad.


Mind powers that aren't very good at affecting perception and thought aren't mind powers. It's blasting with pretty names.

You would think that if there's one field psionics would excel in, it's Illusions. You know, putting images into people's minds.

Illusions aren't mental projections except when it comes to phantasms; they're free-standing constructs similar to holograms. Psionics does do mental manipulation with things like cloud mind and microcosm, it's the major image/illusory script/silence kind of illusion for which it's inferior to magic.

[taltamir]

it seems to me that the problem with psionics is that it is a whole new book and is not integrated with phb... a whole new magic system. (the new age crystals flavor doesn't help though)...

the most typical thing I see is "my DM doesn't allow psionics because he doesn't have the time to learn it"
It being a seperate book dedicated to itself rather then a part of the "core" game puts it at a huge disadvantage... its a big enough time investment learning the core classes, especially the arcane and divine magic systems found in core.
Adding a third whole new magic system, learning it from an entire book (vs arcane and divine which merely take a portion of the phb), it seems like way too much effort to put forth.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Adding a third whole new magic system, learning it from an entire book (vs arcane and divine which merely take a portion of the phb), it seems like way too much effort to put forth.

To be fair, it's a whole new book because the whole point is to introduce psionics. Spells take up about 1/2 the PHB; if you divided it up into PHB 1 (noncasters and mundane monsters/equipment/feats/etc.), PHB 2 (casters and magical monsters/equipment/feats/etc.), and PHB 3 (psionics and psionic monsters/equipment/feats/etc.), they'd be all about the same size. For the lack of integration with core and the use of (Sp) for core "psionic" monsters, see my above rant on WotC shortsightedness.

[tyckspoon]

specially the arcane and divine magic systems found in core.
Adding a third whole new magic system, learning it from an entire book (vs arcane and divine which merely take a portion of the phb), it seems like way too much effort to put forth.

Second system; divine and arcane don't have enough differences to call them different magic systems. You might call it a third system if you consider the Sorcerer to represent a significantly different system from the pre-selected spell slots used by Wizards, Clerics, and Druids.

[taltamir]

To be fair, it's a whole new book because the whole point is to introduce psionics. Spells take up about 1/2 the PHB; if you divided it up into PHB 1 (noncasters and mundane monsters/equipment/feats/etc.), PHB 2 (casters and magical monsters/equipment/feats/etc.), and PHB 3 (psionics and psionic monsters/equipment/feats/etc.), they'd be all about the same size. For the lack of integration with core and the use of (Sp) for core "psionic" monsters, see my above rant on WotC shortsightedness.

that might all be true... but thats not how most DMs and or players see it.
The way WOTC presented it, its a "Why bother".

I mean, there are just so MANY different magic styles... arcane, divine, psionics, bindings, trunaming, etc etc.
I have never had a DM that allowed psionics... because every one of them said he couldn't be bothered to learn the system.
I haven't really read it myself actually...
nor has most people I played with.

[Optimystik]

Mind powers that aren't very good at affecting perception and thought aren't mind powers. It's blasting with pretty names.

You would think that if there's one field psionics would excel in, it's Illusions. You know, putting images into people's minds.

Actually, what you're referring to is merely a subset of illusion - Patterns and Phantasms. Psionics can actually approximate those fairly well, because there isn't a whole lot of difference between those and enchantment. In both cases, you're making the subject (or subjects) react to something that doesn't exist by planting it in their heads.

The illusion that Psionics is bad at approximating, is the external kind - Figments, Shadows, and Glamers, that arise by manipulating light and other sensation. So no Silent Images, no Shadow Conjurations, and no Invisibility.

[Tavar]

*shrug* If that's what works for you.

So, are you going to answer my question?

Sure. I could do the work to make psionics and magic effectively the same system, and rewrite the fluff appropriately, and explain these houserules to all my players. Or, I could only use one or the other.
Specifically, here(and elsewhere), you refer to it being a big problem to fix the incompatibilities. I think I've shown that the incompatibilities can be solved with 6 words ("Psicraft=Spellcraft, UPD=UMD"). So are their other incompatibilities? If not, what's the reason that you don't like/allow psionics?

[Oslecamo]

You also just pointed out that you need to spend lots of feats to force standard magic to fit into different concepts; and trying to work through system mastery and many more splat-books to make it do what you want it to. In other words: Jump through hoops. You can't do it out of the box.

Not really. Core enough adds plenty of options. One or two good splatbooks greatly increase that variety. Psionic handbook by itself doesn't give as much versatility as psion fans claim.



No, by that argument Pun-pun is not the only viable build. It's true that you could use "pun-pun" to mechanically represent virtually anything; unless you wanted to flavor your character as something other than a character (Paladin preferably) who sold their goodness to Pazuzu for godly powers and what-not. Also, Pun-pun is not a system; Pun-pun is an theoretical abuse of a lot of different rules and optional material.

It's a group of builds wich seek to give your character infinite power. And it can be done in core with wish loops.



In fact, I wasn't arguing over builds or anything of the sort. I was merely showing that for a variety of character concepts psionics can in fact mimic large portions of magic, and can be used to deal with a wide variety of concepts without needing the aforementioned hoop jumping. You're arguing nothing, and nothing is what you're arguing against.

You're completely right. I'm indeed arguing against nothing, since psionics can't actually mimic large portions of magic and wide variety of concepts, since you're only pretending you have the limitations, and your psion will never be stoped from manifesting if tied and gagged.



You're taking it out of context. Bring it back into context then debate it if you wish, but don't pull BS like that because it's just foolish. Common sense man.

We're disccussing if dudes who can alter reality with just thinking minds are the same as dudes who can alter reality with chanting and weird gestures/components. Common sense was thrown out of the window screaming long ago.



Yep, lots of ways to twist the system to make it work for you. Mithril armor, spending feats or using prestige classes to cast in armor, or entering into a variety of prestige classes from different splat-books and so forth.

Again, you're also arguing something I'm not. I never suggested that a fighter/wizard or fighter/psion was even on equal terms with a strait-wizard or strait-psion (well, especially not a strait wizard). I was pointing out that you don't have to spend lots of feats and resources to succeed at being weaker. Instead, you can make a better mage-knight.

No you can't. A well built gish can actualy end up as good if not stronger than a straight wizard.



Also, cleric-fighter has lots of synergy, but also requires you to hold your holy symbol and be a cleric (with everything that comes with).

Have your weapon/shield be your holy symbol. Or buff yourself before drawing your weapon. Or use a light shield to keep your hand free. Or use spells that don't demand focus. How hard is it?



It also doesn't do much if you want to throw around fireballs and similar things; or pull off cool magic-tricks beyond personal buffs, self-heals, or various save-based spells. Though truthfully if I was discussing builds, I'd skip fighter altogether and just be a cleric.

Or I could just play a Psychic Warrior and be a default-gish. Alternatively, I'm fond of Psion 8 / Ranger 2 / Slayer 10 for a BAB +16 gish with decent saves and solid casting/manifesting. But I'm speaking in terms of what we can do here with this system; not specific builds.

So, why do you ignore what you can do with core?



That being said, it would be entirely possible to completely trash core magic and add new psionic powers (using the psionic system guidelines) to create psionic versions of spells like animate dead or polymorph any object or cure wounds. Such things were left out for specific reasons, but could be added to the system in one afternoon.

Easy to say. Much MUCH harder to do. There's hundreds of homebrew projects out there, and I have yet to see one that does that, yet alone in a single afternoon. It would probably be easier to fix core than to fill psionic holes, and we've been trying to fix core for over a decade now.



You want to play a spell-sword without jumping through hoops? Play a X/Psion; or a Psychic Warrior. You want to play a blastey caster who doesn't suck by default (but is limited in cheese), play a Psion or Wilder.

Or play a straight cleric. Or a straight sorceror. And bother to pick the right feats and spells. Just like your psion would need to pick his own feats and powers. No jumping trough more hoops than psionics, and you don't need to learn a whole new system!



Yes, if you remove core casting completely, then you would need to add more powers and options into the Psionics system. It can in fact handle such options very effectively; whereas the reverse is not as true.

Again, easy talk, much harder when you try to actualy do it. If it was as easy as you say, someone would've done it by now.




That's funny indeed because I just pointed out the entire gist of the psionics system in my previous posts. Also, this friend of a friend arguments amuse me. Lots of people screw up using magic too. I've had people accidentally have too few spells per day, or too many. Or people who think you get 2nd level spells at 2nd level and 3rd level at 3rd. Mistakes are made everywhere.

I would say that it's much easier to miss the manifester limit rule than to miss a whole table, but meh, since you missed several other core stuff, I'll take your word for it.




I'd like you to explain to me how it's harder to learn, since I just summed up the system in my previous post. I explained your bonus spell/PP, your resources, and how you use them in a single paragraph; then gave an example of the learning curve following it.

At the very least, it's not harder to learn that standard magic; and in my experiences has been infinitely easier to teach new players than standard spell-casting. One player in my group loves playing barbarians and psions; hates wizards and clerics. Is in the middle with bards and sorcerers. He despises preparation based casting, and when he doesn't have the option for psionics generally just plays a warrior or maybe a bard. He finds them too confusing and convoluted, lacking in sense, and annoying. Another at our table, who loves Wizards endlessly and has never played a Psion at all, hates the way sorcerers cast spells almost like wizards. He hates that they're supposed to be drawing their power from a raw source, not just memorizing it or having "spontaneous memorization". He says Psions are better sorcerers.

And now we bring simple statistics, and see there's a lot more people out there using magic than psionics. If psionic problems are so easily bypassed, why is it so?



Hmmm. I didn't remember Naruto being a construct, but I'll take your word for it. Rock Lee was human if I recall though. What's better though? Technically wizards can do everything that everyone can do ever; but how easy is it to make it work? What's your idea of better?

My idea of "better" is that psionic Naruto didn't only end up with a lot of non-human traits due to his exotic race, he could be tied up and gagged/under water/grappled/silenced/his limbs cut off and still be able to use his ninja tecquniques no problem.

[lesser_minion]

Actually, they kinda are. There are many spells and rules that are balanced due to difficult to acquire components. Need we remind you why the Spell-to-power Eurdite is considered so broken?

Mental Pinnacle is one of the biggest problems.

Still, costly material components that form part of the balancing have to be replaced with an XP component in order to fit with psionics. I'll concede that.

Verbal, somatic, 'free' material components, and foci do little more in-game than add a weakness to the character (that many DMs are hesitant to actually bring into play for various reasons) and compromise stealth (which can be done equally well using the effects of the spell). Or make people cringe at the bad jokes.


Why?

For a player or a DM, there is no obvious difference. At least, nothing direct. From our end, the only problems were the lack of support, and the (possible) need to teach new players another system (which isn't especially horrible, as a lot of the groundwork is laid already once a player knows how to use magic).

For the designer, it's different.

It becomes harder to support a game the more subsystems there are. Each time you add a subsystem to the game, you add to the amount of material you need to support.

Since you can only produce so much content, you have to divide your attention (or simply forget about one or more of the systems).

When there are a lot of fluff similarities between the subsystems, this becomes a problem, because a piece of content that is appropriate for one subsystem is also appropriate for the other.

Converting one piece of content from one subsystem to another takes effort - but has little benefit. The new content might have added something interesting. Converting it adds a cross-reference.

So you get the highly appealing choice between denying one system some content (viewed from WotC's perspective, this makes it less useful as an incentive to buy later supplements), or producing a supplement that costs more and is lower-quality.

So yes, psionics is a very good system, and well worth including in games. Maybe it wouldn't be better if it had used spellcasting as a jumping-off point. But the support just might have been.

[Optimystik]

Not really. Core enough adds plenty of options. One or two good splatbooks greatly increase that variety. Psionic handbook by itself doesn't give as much versatility as psion fans claim.

I don't think you'll find anyone that seriously claims that psionics has as much versatility as magic.


You're completely right. I'm indeed arguing against nothing, since psionics can't actually mimic large portions of magic and wide variety of concepts, since you're only pretending you have the limitations, and your psion will never be stoped from manifesting if tied and gagged.

To paraphrase Xykon: If your power can be taken away with a handkerchief and some rope, you never really had power to begin with, now did you?

What's wrong with psionics working while restrained? (And if you have Hyperconscious, working while you're incapacitated or unconscious.) I personally find it ridiculous that a character with the power to manipulate reality itself should be turned into a commoner by taking his bag of knickknacks away and covering his mouth.

[The Big Dice]

The illusion that Psionics is bad at approximating, is the external kind - Figments, Shadows, and Glamers, that arise by manipulating light and other sensation. So no Silent Images, no Shadow Conjurations, and no Invisibility.

If you can't induce a false sensation, whether it be any of the five senses, or suppress either senses or persception, it's not really a mental power at all. Cartoony zap-boom stuff doesn't really make for good mind powers.

And to be fair, D&D (and in fact most fantasy gaming) has extremely cartoony magic. GURPS Psionics has psi powers that are more grounded in things like remote viewing and the kind of applications you see in fiction for psi. D&D psionics, other than having coined the most uncomfortable word in gaming (psionicists) is just another way of generating cartoon style effects that usually just do damage or help out combat in other ways. But with a different book keeping system.

It's not thematically needed as a rule set, nor is it different enough to warrant inclusion in fantasy games.

[NEO|Phyte]

Emphasis mine. It points to a single attack which automatically crits.

Depends on your interpretation. If you assume that this crit follows all the standard rules for critical hits, and merely automatically succeeds (circumventing the need for a roll), then there is a threat. There is certainly nothing in the power description to contradict this interpretation.
RAW, you have to roll a threat to trigger Lighting Mace. No roll, no threat, no extra attack. Like how the d2 Crusader can't just use a weapon with 1 base damage, because there's no roll to trigger the loop.

[Saph]

So, are you going to answer my question?

Probably not, no. I'd just be repeating myself.

[Terazul]

To make things more annoying, converting a spell to a power takes effort - but has little benefit. The new spell might have added something interesting. Converted to a power, it adds a cross-reference.


Well y'know. Unless you're an Erudite.

[taltamir]

I don't think you'll find anyone that seriously claims that psionics has as much versatility as magic.

pathfinder authors do.

[Optimystik]

If you can't induce a false sensation, whether it be any of the five senses, or suppress either senses or persception, it's not really a mental power at all.

Um, Psionics can do all of those things. They just do it by acting directly on the target's mind, rather than manipulating the characteristics of external objects.


It's not thematically needed as a rule set, nor is it different enough to warrant inclusion in fantasy games.

I'm so very glad WotC disagrees with such a narrow-minded opinion.


pathfinder authors do.

I'll have to take your word for it, since I have no intention of playing Pathfinder. (Weren't we discussing D&D?)

[lesser_minion]

Well y'know. Unless you're an Erudite.

Yeah. Look what that added to the game.

Among other things, converting a spell properly would entail actually making sure that it's suitable from a crunch perspective (i.e. that it isn't mental pinnacle and that the game can survive it being spammed), as well as thematically.

As well as writing out a header, cross-reference, and an augmentation line if the spell scales with CL or forms a chain.

[Optimystik]

Yeah. Look what that added to the game.

Among other things, converting a spell properly would entail actually making sure that it's suitable from a crunch perspective (i.e. that it isn't mental pinnacle and doesn't need a really strict per-day limit or the game will break), as well as thematically.

As well as writing out a header, cross-reference, and an augmentation line if the spell scales with CL or forms a chain.

You do know that ACFs are optional, right? And subject to DM approval?

[Tavar]

Probably not, no. I'd just be repeating myself.

Okay. So what's the point of posting in a discussion thread if you don't, you know, discuss?

[lesser_minion]

You do know that ACFs are optional, right? And subject to DM approval?

Yes.

I don't see your point.

[Optimystik]

Yes.

I don't see your point.

That blaming an entire system for something optional is rather ridiculous.

Basic Erudites (11 UPD) are no more powerful than psions.

[lesser_minion]

That blaming an entire system for something optional is rather ridiculous.

Basic Erudites (11 UPD) are no more powerful than psions.

But it was a post about the StP erudite that I was responding to.

And the brokenness of something that tried to take the easy route to converting spells to powers is still worth noting when pointing out that it would take a lot of effort to convert spells to powers for little reward.

Even if it's not on the list of things that WotC are holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use.


I'll have to take your word for it, since I have no intention of playing Pathfinder. (Weren't we discussing D&D?)

As far as I'm aware, Paizo simply don't want to do psionics, and don't want to admit their reasons (whether they're the ones I pointed out, or others). They don't qualify as serious, I don't think.

[Optimystik]

But it was a post about the StP erudite that I was responding to.

And the brokenness of something that tried to take the easy route to converting spells to powers is still worth noting when pointing out that it would take a lot of effort to convert spells to powers for little reward.

Even if it's not on the list of things that WotC are holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use.

None of that is relevant to the topic of this thread. Those are examples of poor class balance, not poor system design.

StP Erudite is unbalanced on its own merits, not because Psionics are unbalanced.

[The Big Dice]

Um, Psionics can do all of those things. They just do it by acting directly on the target's mind, rather than manipulating the characteristics of external objects.
And yet it's not very good at illusions. I smell a contradiction...


I'm so very glad WotC disagrees with such a narrow-minded opinion.

They just want your money and are happy to sell you rules you don't need but want because of buzzwords. Rather, they think effects that you can already get through other, better supported rule sets are worth publishing an entire book for. But then their publishing philosophy has always been a combination of "One is good, so ten is better" with "The customer will buy whatever we publish" added for good measure.

I've used the psionics rules in non-fantasy games. I don't actually have a problem with them when they are put into what I feel to be the right context.

My dislike for psionics isn't to do with rules. It isn't to do with the kind of things they can do (other than them not being very good at representing the kinds of things you see psi powers do in media outside of anime).

My problem with psionics is very simply, other than in D&D literature, psionic ability is almost always put into a modern, near future or full blown space opera setting. Using them in a fantasy game doesn't feel right to me. To me, having two contradictory systems that basically represent the same thing is like having a secondary combat system that some characters use, but not all.

Consistency of setting, rather than rewriting the setting to accomodate a player.

[lesser_minion]

None of that is relevant to the topic of this thread. Those are examples of poor class balance, not poor system design.

StP Erudite is unbalanced on its own merits, not because Psionics are unbalanced.

My point being that a large chunk of spells are unbalanced if you simply convert them directly to powers.

There is no charge being levelled against psionics, how did you even infer one?

[Saph]

Okay. So what's the point of posting in a discussion thread if you don't, you know, discuss?

Because I already participated in the part of the discussion which I was interested in. Now quit pushing me, or I'll start answering your questions.

[Tavar]

My point being that a large chunk of spells are unbalanced if you simply convert them directly to powers.

There is no charge being levelled against psionics here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8220077&postcount=263).

Right. The point I was trying to make is that it's difficult to make one into the other easily, as evidenced by the horrible brokeness that came into being the last time that was done.


Because I already participated in the part of the discussion which I was interested in. Now quit pushing me, or I'll start answering your questions.
Huh? Wasn't that part of the same discussion? Or are you referencing something that happened earlier in the thread?

And I don't mean to be pushy, it's just that from my position, you've said "X, because Y", and when I responded, "Y isn't really the case", you then didn't answer. And it's just something that really bothers me, because I feel like I'm missing something that should be obvious.

[Optimystik]

And yet it's not very good at illusions. I smell a contradiction...

You can't create Figments, Glamers or Shadow Illusions with Psionics. I explained this already.

But those don't qualify as "mind powers" by your definition of the term, so what's the problem?


My problem with psionics is very simply, other than in D&D literature, psionic ability is almost always put into a modern, near future or full blown space opera setting.

What?

Faerun has psionics and fits none of those. :smallconfused:
So does Dark Sun. Even Greyhawk, minus the Flayer Sovereignty bit.

The only D&D settings that could remotely fit "modern" or "space opera" are Eberron and Spelljammer.

[tyckspoon]

And yet it's not very good at illusions. I smell a contradiction...


It's not good at illusions, in the sense of doing all the things the Illusion school can do, like long-lasting false images, shadow effects, hypnotic patterns, Color Sprays, and the like. It is good at screwing with people's senses, but it does that by literally screwing with people's senses (False Sensory Input, Telepath 3.) There's no contradiction there, just you selectively defining what illusions means.

[Tavar]

What?

Faerun has psionics and fits none of those. :smallconfused:
So does Dark Sun. Even Greyhawk, minus the Flayer Sovereignty bit.

The only D&D settings that could remotely fit "modern" or "space opera" are Eberron and Spelljammer.

Those are DnD literature, though. Of course, I'd point out that most literature's magic doesn't follow the Vancian mold, either. And most seem much closer to Psionics in function. The only thing they're missing is the magic words that also seem very common. But the name Psionic is much more often used in sci-fi, mainly when the authors want to have magic, without having magic.

[The Big Dice]

Faerun has psionics and fits none of those. :smallconfused:
So does Dark Sun. Even Greyhawk, minus the Flayer Sovereignty bit.

The only D&D settings that could remotely fit "modern" or "space opera" are Eberron and Spelljammer.

I never said anything about D&D settings. I said I've used the rules in non fantasy games. Which I have, the Mongoose Judge Dredd game in particular. And the psionics rules work just fine.

I did note that my comment about a secondary combat system, which is basically what psionics feels like when it gets grafted uncomfortably onto a setting that uses magic as described in the core rules, went unchallenged.

It's never been about the mechanical structures for me. It's all about feel and verisimilitude. And I'm using the word illusion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illusion) to describe illusions.

[Optimystik]

Those are DnD literature, though. Of course, I'd point out that most literature's magic doesn't follow the Vancian mold, either. And most seem much closer to Psionics in function.

1) That's blatantly false. Faerun in particular goes to great lengths to justify the Vancian system - Mages forget spells whenever cast thanks to the first Mystra (the one that took over from Mystryl) devising various ways to limit casters after Karsus' Folly.

In the novels, overcoming Vancian limitations is always an important plot point - it denotes that the caster in question is achieving a fundamental understanding of magic that supercedes the restrictions on normal mages. Salvatore has Cadderly do this in the Cleric Quintet. Cunningham has Danilo Thann do this in Elfsong. And Lynn has Druhallen do this in The Nether Scroll.

2) The settings exist in sourcebooks, not just novels. That psionics exist in Faerun, Dark Sun, etc. is applicable in a gaming context as well as a narrative context.

For example, the Erudite in Candlekeep (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070711) that teaches Psionics is clearly meant to be referenced in-game, or else why supply his level?


The only thing they're missing is the magic words that also seem very common. But the name Psionic is much more often used in sci-fi, mainly when the authors want to have magic, without having magic.

Obviously psionics fit better in sci-fi/modern than magic does. But that's not the same as saying they don't fit in traditional fantasy.

[lesser_minion]

Right. The point I was trying to make is that it's difficult to make one into the other easily, as evidenced by the horrible brokeness that came into being the last time that was done.




My point is that it was a bad idea for WotC to write psionics the way they did from the outset. It might have had a positive ending, but it was still a mistake.

Why?

This is the point that I responded to.

When WotC wrote the rules for psionics, they could have avoided the problems that they ended up creating for themselves by using the existing magic rules as a starting point. They didn't. That is their mistake (it is worth bearing in mind that they didn't really know what they were doing at the time).

Please do not make the mistake of assuming that I am some kind of psionics-hater. I'm not.

[Saph]

And I don't mean to be pushy, it's just that from my position, you've said "X, because Y", and when I responded, "Y isn't really the case", you then didn't answer. And it's just something that really bothers me, because I feel like I'm missing something that should be obvious.

What you're missing is that issues of what to include and leave out of a campaign are highly subjective. There's no "right" answer to the question of which books and/or subsystems you should include in your campaign world - it depends on what you're trying to create, the people in your group, and how you envisage games.

For my part, when running games, I generally try to stay as close as possible to RAW, and as I said earlier, I don't like changing fluff and mechanics unless I have to. I like players to be able to read about the background and in-game explanations for things like magic and psionics in the books and have what they read in the books actually apply to the world I run. So when someone tells me "You should change XYZ of the mechanics, and fluff doesn't matter. Why can't you just do that?" . . . then this is an unhelpful response, because they're assuming that everyone else places the same priority on fluff and crunch that they do. (A more helpful answer makes some effort to reconcile the two, like alisbin's post above.)

And now I should get back to work, since this has taken more time than I ought to be spending.

[lesser_minion]

I'm still absolutely convinced that one of the elements of Psionics-Magic Transparency is that while in force, Spellcraft and Psicraft are considered to be the same skill, and likewise for Use Magic Device and Use Psionic Device.

As far as I'm aware, the text isn't actually there, but I'm sure it's somewhere official. Or, at worst, a forum-post admission that the text should have been there.

Not that that really helps, unfortunately.

EDIT: Nothing in errata, although 3.0 noted that 'Remote Viewing' ranks granted a bonus to scry checks, and vice versa (which could actually be abused on the off chance that anyone would actually want to).

[Optimystik]

I never said anything about D&D settings.

No, what you said was "psionics doesn't fit unless the setting is 'modern', 'sci-fi' or 'futuristic.'" And I have just given examples of how WotC disagrees with you.

Whatever 3rd-party or homebrew settings you use that psionics don't fit into aren't my concern. This thread is about D&D.


It's never been about the mechanical structures for me. It's all about feel and verisimilitude. And I'm using the word illusion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illusion) to describe illusions.

"something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality. "

So tell me, how does that not describe False Sensory Input? Or Cloud Mind? How about Distract? Microcosm?

[taltamir]

And yet it's not very good at illusions. I smell a contradiction...

illusions = create light and sound
enchantment = alter someone's mind to make them perceive light and sound that isn't really there.

in both cases you get the same effect, but via a different route.

[tyckspoon]

"something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality. "

So tell me, how does that not describe False Sensory Input? Or Cloud Mind? How about Distract? Microcosm?

It does, and if you're going to use that particular definition than yes, psionics is good at illusion (better at it than Illusionists, in fact, because Illusion usually produces something that is real but not substantial, whereas psionic powers create a sense of something that is simply not there at all.) But I'm pretty sure there's some fallacy regarding using a non-game definition to argue about something that already has very meaningful in-game definitions, and by the in-game definitions of illusions psionics is not good at them.

[lesser_minion]

Illusion magic concerns itself with more than just images. I don't see how psionic illusions should be any different.

[Tavar]

1) That's blatantly false. Faerun in particular goes to great lengths to justify the Vancian system - Mages forget spells whenever cast thanks to the first Mystra (the one that took over from Mystryl) devising various ways to limit casters after Karsus' Folly.
I left out the "out side of DnD literature". This means, outside of literature based in one of their gameworlds, and thus following their rules.




This is the point that I responded to.

When WotC wrote the rules for psionics, they could have avoided the problems that they ended up creating for themselves by using the existing magic rules as a starting point. They didn't. That is their mistake (it is worth bearing in mind that they didn't really know what they were doing at the time).

Please do not make the mistake of assuming that I am some kind of psionics-hater. I'm not.


But those components are not appreciably harder to remove. The rules already support spells without components.

WotC wouldn't have needed to do much to get psionics working under a spell slot system - there are a few minor differences in rules (such as components), and a whole pile of content (which, in many cases, only needed re-writing because of the decision to use points).
This is what I was refering to originally, and the reason that Euridite was brought up. At this point, though, I think I've pretty much lost track of this discussion; too many people making responses only tangently related. Just to say, my last post was supposed to partially be a defense of lesser_minion.


What you're missing is that issues of what to include and leave out of a campaign are highly subjective. There's no "right" answer to the question of which books and/or subsystems you should include in your campaign world - it depends on what you're trying to create, the people in your group, and how you envisage games.

For my part, when running games, I generally try to stay as close as possible to RAW, and as I said earlier, I don't like changing fluff and mechanics unless I have to. I like players to be able to read about the background and in-game explanations for things like magic and psionics in the books and have what they read in the books actually apply to the world I run. So when someone tells me "You should change XYZ of the mechanics, and fluff doesn't matter. Why can't you just do that?" . . . then this is an unhelpful response, because they're assuming that everyone else places the same priority on fluff and crunch that they do. (A more helpful answer makes some effort to reconcile the two, like alisbin's post above.)

And now I should get back to work, since this has taken more time than I ought to be spending.
Fair enough, though is seems to be making a fairly big deal out of a very small part of the book(IMO, of course). From my position, it's like banning all Vancian Caster because you don't like the wish spell.

[Optimystik]

Illusion magic concerns itself with more than just images. I don't see how psionic illusions should be any different.

Psions can't manipulate light like mages can.

Don't get me wrong, I think they should be able to, but there it is.


I left out the "out side of DnD literature". This means, outside of literature based in one of their gameworlds, and thus following their rules.

I don't see how you can separate the two. Even in the game you can break free of Vancian by being an Archmage, or a Dweomerkeeper, or with spells like Lucubration. You can even just give your special mage(s) the Spell Point variant. Any of those would mirror the process put into place in the literature.

[Tavar]

Optimystik, are we reading the same arguements? I'm saying that, outside of DnD and books based in DnD gameworlds, most books don't use something that resembles the vancian system(the only 2 I can think of are Jack Vance's works[duh] and Roger Zelazny's Amber Series).

And once you use the Spell point system, well, they you're not using the Vancian system, are you?

[lesser_minion]

Delayed response, since I didn't catch the whole of this post:


Psionics is worse at: Illusion, Necromancy, some Conjuration (Healing and Calling.)

Psionics is better at: Evocation (multi-use powers), Transmutation (Bonus Actions, shapeshifting - objects as well as creatures), Divination (multiple ways to defeat anti-scrying measures), some Conjuration (transportation - especially via time).

I'd say that's different enough for psionics not to be just "componentless magic."

These are content differences. They don't mean much when the issue was what WotC should have done at the start. The point is that slot-based psionics would have been less than ideal (points-based magic that's balanced for points would have been better), but a better route - at least on Wootsie's end (and possibly on our end through better support) - than the route they ended up taking.


And once you use the Spell point system, well, you're not using the Vancian system, are you?

Bizarrely, you could be. Vancian magic is about forgetting a spell when you cast it. True Vancian casters were, as far as I've been told, limited by something more akin to spell points than spell slots.

The Discworld series did likewise.

Vancian could in theory also represent some of the "make a spirit do your bidding" stuff - you call up a couple of spirits and make a deal with them (spell preparation), then you call them up again when their help is needed.

[Tavar]

Bizarrely, you could be. Vancian magic is about forgetting a spell when you cast it.

I'm told that the casters in the Dying Earth series itself worked by simply having a certain amount of 'space' for spells, where different spells filled different amounts of space - that actually fits better with spell points than with spell slots (which, amazingly, are actually what a lot of people associate with Vancian).

Actually, I've read Tales from a Dying earth(which, ironically enough, is pretty sci-fi). Casters do have a certain amount of space, and spells do take up a certain amount, but casters have to prepare spells. So I guess it's more of a combo between point and slot. In DnD, they have X number of points. By spending points, you create slots, more points for a higher level slot. Then you can put spells in that slot, at which points it's just like a wizard.

[lesser_minion]

Actually, I've read Tales from a Dying earth(which, ironically enough, is pretty sci-fi).

Pair'O'Dice Lost mentioned that earlier.

From Wikipedia, I got the impression that it was "light-hearted post-apocalyptic fantasy/sci-fi".

[Optimystik]

Optimystik, are we reading the same arguements? I'm saying that, outside of DnD and books based in DnD gameworlds, most books don't use something that resembles the vancian system(the only 2 I can think of are Jack Vance's works[duh] and Roger Zelazny's Amber Series).

All right, I get that now... but I don't see what you're getting at by pointing that out.

Yes, Vancian is a ridiculous system that only a small subset of fantasy authors bother considering - and even the ones that do, consider "true magic" to be that magic which rightly does away with it. What does that have to do with Psionics?


These are content differences. They don't mean much when the issue was what WotC should have done at the start. The point is that slot-based psionics would have been less than ideal (points-based magic that's balanced for points would have been better), but a better route - at least on Wootsie's end - than the route they took.

I agree that Psionics was built from the ground-up to take advantage of a points-based system.

So what? That doesn't make it extraneous. There's a great deal of fluff that psionics enables, that traditional magic does not. Compare an Ardent to a Cleric - only psionics could allow anyone to self-actualize their religion, combine diametrically opposing tenets of faith, and still get powers. Or Wilders to Sorcerers - only Wilders actually gain power from emotional state.

Magic - at least in D&D - doesn't have fluff like that at all. All power is tied to some external source, and if you don't follow the arbitrary rules, no power for you. And no magic system has ever done a good job of explaining exactly why breakdancing, gobbledygook and eye of newt is necessary for unlocking this power.

[Tavar]

All right, I get that now... but I don't see what you're getting at by pointing that out.

Yes, Vancian is a ridiculous system that only a small subset of fantasy authors bother considering - and even the ones that do, consider "true magic" to be that magic which rightly does away with it. What does that have to do with Psionics?

Simply that it's better then Vancian for portraying most standard fantasy.

[Bogardan_Mage]

Vancian magic is a novel and creative way of synergising the needs of a high action dramatic story or game with the mythological basis of magic. Western magic has historically been about arcane rituals and invocations to gods or demons which can really mess up the pacing of a battle. So Jack Vance's solution was to have wizards do all those rituals and invocations ahead of time and then fire off the spell when they needed to. A lot of people forget that the point of Vancian magic is to stay somewhat true to mythology, and without this context it seems to be the case that wizards are "forgetting" their spells as they cast them or that Vancian magic makes less sense than a mana based system like psionics.

One could, if one was so inclined, use this to point out that a Vancian system is indeed unsuitable fluff-wise for psionics since the lore about rituals and invocations aren't there. However, I'm not so inclined, because while I do think this fluff is important to understanding Vancian magic, I don't think it's necessarily linked with the system such that any appearance of spell slots necessitates this kind of explanation (just look at the Sorceror, for example. It cuts out exactly the part of Vancian magic that makes it properly Vancian). Not that I think psionics should use spell slots; I think both systems have been designed around themselves too much to hamhandedly give the Psion power slots or give the Wizard spell points (for some reason I don't like that UA system, perhaps it's just that psionics is so much better integrated). If you want to use one system with the other's fluff, you should refluff the whole thing and copy it over.

[Ashiel]

Not really. Core enough adds plenty of options. One or two good splatbooks greatly increase that variety. Psionic handbook by itself doesn't give as much versatility as psion fans claim.

Bollocks. Psionics covers a lot of versatility and makes blasting casters viable without resorting to huge amounts of rule-crunching, meta-shrinking, and splat-booking. There are fewer powers per level than arcane-casters sport, but most of those powers scale with level; do more stuff as you augment them, and so forth. Their ability to draw powers from different lists also allows for customizing them effectively at the cost of feats; which is entirely a great option - because thanks to augmenting, such a feat is rarely wasted.

Additionally, they're easier to multi-class without gimping yourself. At the same time, it's harder to crank out super-busted stuff in that department (a Psion 10/Slayer 10 sports a +15 BAB and 18th level manifesting, but is at best on par with wizard 20 or cleric 20 or druid 20; and likely weaker - but damn fun to play). Because of the system works, it's easier to press it into a wider variety of character arch-types or concepts.

Psionics sports:

Excellent summoning options.
Excellent blasting options.
Excellent mind-influencing options.
Excellent mobility options.
Excellent self-buff options.
Strong utility options.
Strong battlefield control options.
Fair party-assist options.
Poor save or die options.
Poor healing options.
Poor illusion options.
Poor transmutation options.
Poor alignment-based options.
Virtually no necromancy options.


Most of those options have options within options. If you pickup energy powers, you can adjust the energy type on the fly (greatly helping direct damage energy effects, which core spell-casting does very badly).

Your summons (astral constructs) are versatile and shape-able; and usable for utility as well as meat-shields. They don't get all the crazy spell-like abilities that traditional summoning does (such as summoning a unicorn to heal your party better than the level-equivalent healing spell on your same list). So they're not the best summoners but they're good at it.

Your mind-influencing options are probably the best in the game; but such things are easily guarded against (sadly). That being said, you're better at such things than core spell-casting (because it's pretty easy to keep spamming psionic charm against minor NPCs to make friends); however core casting can hit higher save DCs than you without cheese (spell focus is better than its psionic equivalent); and completely smashes it with cheese (Polymorph Any Object abuse can give you insane prime casting boosts, Awaken abuse, and so forth).

You have a large number of utility/self-buff powers that can benefit not only casters but other character types as well (sometimes more than casters actually), which again makes them ideal for multi-classing for filling out different concepts. A character sporting synesthete can pull the blind-swordsman bit exceptionally well, for example; while a monk/psychic warrior has a lot of synergy with their powers and key abilities which makes for a solidly playable character (though I prefer just slapping psywarrior powers on a core monk and calling it..."Monk").

They can pull a decent amount of battlefield control. Nothing near what the wizard can sport (but hey, we're better blasters and are well-rounded). They have a few wall powers (energy wall and wall of ectoplasm), and their summoning could be considered control-based. They sport psionic grease, and entangling ectoplasm which are decent debuffs (particularly at low-levels or if you're trying to conserve energy). They sport powers like telekinetic maneuver which allow them to trip, disarm, and bull-rush people with their minds from a distance which makes for excellent single-target battle-control.

Frankly, they have a ton of options. It's just none of those options exceed what core-casters are already capable of; other than the blasting option (but core out-paces them when splat-books are included); but they don't possess everything that core-casters can bring to bare. They're solidly balanced.


It's a group of builds wich seek to give your character infinite power. And it can be done in core with wish loops.
Last I checked, you had to make use of non-core material to get it to work; with the most accepted version requiring Pazuzu to initiate from level 1 with virtually any character (preferably a Paladin though). Wish loops work fine too though for completely breaking the game. Why are talking about core-brokenness? :smallconfused:


You're completely right. I'm indeed arguing against nothing, since psionics can't actually mimic large portions of magic and wide variety of concepts, since you're only pretending you have the limitations, and your psion will never be stoped from manifesting if tied and gagged.

You could blindfold the psion, denying them line of sight to anything. Alternatively, they still provoke attacks when they manifest (even without displays) so you can ****-kick them in the face if they try something funny. Alternatively, it means you're too dangerous to allow you consciousness; at which point you beat them half-to-death until they pass out (nonlethal damage). Generally though, being tied up is pretty deus ex; since if your enemies are dangerous they probably would have killed you in your weakened state anyway.

Additionally, grappled and gagged means your effectively entangled and grappled/pinned; so to successfully manifest you need to sport a DC 20 + Power Level to successfully do it in such a situation.

In other words, when you're not bound and gagged, you can chant and wave your hands or whatever you want without problems. If you are bound and gagged, you can still try but it becomes harder without your freedom. Then again


We're disccussing if dudes who can alter reality with just thinking minds are the same as dudes who can alter reality with chanting and weird gestures/components. Common sense was thrown out of the window screaming long ago.

Yeah, we're discussing that. However, common sense in the discussion was not thrown out the window; and should not be. If you threw your common sense out the window because of the subject matter, then you should follow it in hopes of retrieving it.


Yep, lots of ways to twist the system to make it work for you. Mithril armor, spending feats or using prestige classes to cast in armor, or entering into a variety of prestige classes from different splat-books and so forth.

Again, you're also arguing something I'm not. I never suggested that a fighter/wizard or fighter/psion was even on equal terms with a strait-wizard or strait-psion (well, especially not a strait wizard). I was pointing out that you don't have to spend lots of feats and resources to succeed at being weaker. Instead, you can make a better mage-knight.

No you can't. A well built gish can actualy end up as good if not stronger than a straight wizard.

Wait, what? "No you can't" what? That doesn't even connect to anything I said in that statement. :smallconfused:

On the other hand; it's possible to super-gish stuff where they fight as good as warriors and cast as good as casters with a ton of splat-books and a number of prestige classes like Abjurant Champion. Thing is, with core-psionics it's easy to make a good and playable gish with either Psychic Warrior or Psion; with the best probably involving Psion and Slayer levels for a +15 BAB / 9th level manifesting; which is still less optimized than Wizard 20.


Have your weapon/shield be your holy symbol. Or buff yourself before drawing your weapon. Or use a light shield to keep your hand free. Or use spells that don't demand focus. How hard is it?

Well, let's see. Firstly, weapons and armor aren't holy symbols within the rules. I wouldn't mind someone doing that, but if you're really strong on keeping stuff RAW-only like Saph does, then this doesn't work. You're also again having to jump through hoops and fine-tooth the system to make sure you can get something sort-of workable; such as requiring your opening turn action to be self-buff or else you can't do it (since once combat has started, you either have to waste actions re-sheathing your weapons to cast, or dropping them); and making sure you only pick spells without specific components, which often doesn't leave you with much to choose from (and often not what you want).

How hard is it? Well, it's a lot harder than just using Psionics. Especially for beginners. I cannot stress how amazingly aggravating something like that is for people who aren't experts at rule-mastery.


So, why do you ignore what you can do with core?
I haven't ignored it. Keep making stuff up if you want to, but here's the skinny on the subject. I know what core is capable of. I've been doing this for a very long time. I'm aware of what core-casting has to offer, and I'm aware of its limitations. I'm aware of many of the little tricks and gimmicks to try to ignore the restrictions and quirks of the system.

Which is exactly why I think the psionics system is so great.

Exactly when did I say I was ignoring core anyway? It's practically all I use when building adventures and games for my tabletop group; so I'm curious. Where did I suggest someone else ignore core? I don't believe I've said that. What makes you say this?


Easy to say. Much MUCH harder to do. There's hundreds of homebrew projects out there, and I have yet to see one that does that, yet alone in a single afternoon. It would probably be easier to fix core than to fill psionic holes, and we've been trying to fix core for over a decade now.

Actually, to address the major drawbacks of a game that runs entirely under psionics based casting, specifically the lack of healing, party-buffs, necromancy, illusion, and so forth; yes it would only take maybe 8 hours if you were working on it diligently. The nature of augmenting actually allows you to make a few powers which get better as you can augment it; meaning if I were to do it I would likely end up consolidating a large number of spells into augment-able versions.

The cure x wounds line would become cure wounds with the ability to augment it to improve its benefit (such as 1pp gets 1d8+1, 3pp gets 2d8+3, 5pp gets 3d8+5, etc). That's that.

Stuff like silent image would be condensed into Image, and augmenting it would allow you to add more effects to the illusion, increase its duration, dimensions, or other aspects.

Stuff like ray of fatigue or waves of fatigue and their exhaustion counterparts would be condensed to allow you to boost them strait from fatigued to exhausted within the same powers.

Stuff like animate dead would be likely be adjusted to use XP - or it would be adjusted to be less powerful by default. Augmenting would also be ideal here for getting stronger undead. Spells like create undead would go through a similar process, with create greater undead being rolled into it as augment-able.

Summoning would be very much like astral construct except it would offer different tiers of creatures that you could summon. The actual methods would be pretty much the same. Actually, I would probably add the ability to augment it so that you can still summon multiple weak creatures, or maybe weak creatures with longer durations (but I'd add this to astral constructs too if that were the case).

Spells like haste and other buff spells could be more or less converted seamlessly; possibly with the application of augments so that you could use more power to pop them with longer durations (such as 1 minute / level rather than 1 round / level); or eventually be able to pop a swift-action haste for the cost of say, a 7th level power.

Invisibility would also be sweet and pretty easy to convert as well; along with rolling improved invisibility into it in true augmenting fashion.

The biggest hurdles would be creating psionic versions of broke-ass spells like polymorph any object, since it would require me to balance such spells; and it would take more time to decide how to properly word them and what limitations to provide that they lack in the core rules.

Humorously; this makes me realize that the PHB spell section would be nearly as large if you could augment standard spell-casting. :smallamused:


Or play a straight cleric. Or a straight sorceror. And bother to pick the right feats and spells. Just like your psion would need to pick his own feats and powers. No jumping trough more hoops than psionics, and you don't need to learn a whole new system!

Yeah, I know you're not reading my posts now. You're basically ignoring the benefit of options I mentioned before. However, this argument is fail, because the cleric is still limited by a number of mechanics that can stifle a character concept or doesn't offer the types of powers you're looking for (the aforementioned spell-knight for example casting energy spells); in addition a core-sorcerer doesn't multi-class well due to the way they are designed, and also don't make a solid blaster because of the way core magic works. Instead of being capable blasters, they just blast sub-par more often.

Additionally, they need to devote meta-magic feats that they don't get to allow them to keep up with blasting (but their DCs don't go up so while they deal more +d6s or 1.5x damage, enemies save vs their spells more often) while requiring them to do so as full-round actions. You still also end up with the bat-poop flinging, arm waggling sorcerers - despite their power is supposed to be entirely innate and from within their naturally arcane-filled selves. Essentially, the core-magic fails at the sorcerer fluff by default.

Also, both are still stuck with the x/day slot system, which as I pointed out is often less than desirable for quite a few people; requires more book-keeping for preparation casters; is less fluid; and has all the usual hang-ups.


Again, easy talk, much harder when you try to actualy do it. If it was as easy as you say, someone would've done it by now.

Someone has done it by now. I've met several people on forums who don't even use core-casting for their magic and use the psionics system entirely. I prefer using both because I like options myself; and my friends and fellow players like options.

Also, see two or three paragraphs back in this post.


I would say that it's much easier to miss the manifester limit rule than to miss a whole table, but meh, since you missed several other core stuff, I'll take your word for it.

It's also easy to miss how grappling and such works; or that your save DCs aren't 10 + caster level + ability modifier (something I've ran into with people a few times; especially with newbies); or that you deal unarmed strike damage on a successful grapple check; or that you can move 1/2 your speed with a grappled foe in toe if you succeed on a grapple check (with a +4 bonus if you pinned them already); or any number of things really.

Additionally, it is pointed out several times within the book; especially within the psionics overview chapter; as well as numerous FAQs and forums like this one. Frankly, the inability of a player to simply read the information on the class they want to play is disgraceful. It's pathetic. Suggesting that such a simple rule - even if it's overlooked by lots of people too lazy to just read the rules - is a strike against the system is crazy. This sort of thinking is creating a double-standard; since it appears that it's fine if other rules are easily misplaced but it makes Psionics a bad system for it.


And now we bring simple statistics, and see there's a lot more people out there using magic than psionics. If psionic problems are so easily bypassed, why is it so?

Because humans are a strange animal. Psionics harbors a bad reputation from 1st edition through 3.0, and lots of people are ready and willing to throw down that it is full of problems, is unbalanced, doesn't work, and a load of additional charges without knowing anything about it. Many of these people are incredibly vocal about it.


Some players simply haven't bothered to check it out.

Some people are like me and don't believe in throwing out magic just because you have psionics; and thus use both.

Some people expect it to be a complicated system and don't bother reading or learning about it because they don't think they have time; despite the fact that it's not harder or more complicated than dealing with core spell-casting.

Some players/DMs argue it based on flawed notions of what is or isn't fantasy or it's new-agey or sci-fi; despite the fact that psionics and magic is pretty much interchangeable in esoteric lore.

Some people rail against change or anything they perceive as different.


In all honesty, I've not found anyone who has a leg to stand on attacking the psionics system. Everyone that flat-out bans it, that I've met, have never had a legitimate reason; and more often than not was merely "because I said so" (which is a quick way to loose someone's respect).

Some people don't bother with it because they like the core classes and vancian-based casting fine; or have no interest in a point-based casting resource; and that's fine to. However, if I joined their group and wanted to play a Psion, I should be able to do so. If they have specific fluff-related concerns, I've noted that it's exceptionally easy to adjust for the fluff. If they don't know the rules, I can explain them. If they simply say no for no legitimate reason, then they loose my respect and I find another group on principal (since if that's the best they can offer over such a minor thing, then I probably won't like their games either; for a lot of reasons).


My idea of "better" is that psionic Naruto didn't only end up with a lot of non-human traits due to his exotic race, he could be tied up and gagged/under water/grappled/silenced/his limbs cut off and still be able to use his ninja tecquniques no problem.

Well he would need a half-a-dozen concentration checks for all of that, as well as likely being dead since his limbs are sliced off (blood loss or whatever); and so forth. Of course, if he's under-water, he might have been drown-healed too. :smalltongue:

[Terazul]

Nitpick on the "blah he's not even human" psionic Naruto stuff. They actually cover the race choice in the build.

Jinchuuriki - Naruto is the vessel used by the fourth hokage to contain the destruction beast Kyuubi. In Naruto terms this makes Naruto a Jinchuuriki, a vessel which can attain enormous power from the demon it contains by resonating with the beast. In game terms this is why Naruto is an Empty Vessel rather than a human.

Both mechanically and flavorfully appropriate, no?

Edit: Coincidentally, Empty Vessel is just a Human with a few +2s to some skills and a bonus PP at level 1. Fun times.

[Optimystik]

Simply that it's better then Vancian for portraying most standard fantasy.

I agree, but they fixed that with UA, which provided two viable systems to pull magic away from the Vancian pothole.

They just happen to be slightly stronger than Vancian, which personally I have no problem with. The benefits of that power can easily be transferred to the party as a whole... and a caster player who is bent on hogging the limelight will do so whether you use Vancian, Spell Points or Recharge Magic.

[Lycanthromancer]

I agree, but they fixed that with UA, which provided two viable systems to pull magic away from the Vancian pothole.

They just happen to be slightly stronger than Vancian, which personally I have no problem with. The benefits of that power can easily be transferred to the party as a whole... and a caster player who is bent on hogging the limelight will do so whether you use Vancian, Spell Points or Recharge Magic.A LOT more powerful, actually.

It's like you're a psion who casts from the wizard/sorcerer (or cleric, or druid) lists, has access to pretty much every spell on his list, has a LOT more 'spells known', can change those spells known every day, and can cast them all spontaneously. The only thing he can't do (except for sorcerers) is metamagic on the fly.

[olentu]

A LOT more powerful, actually.

It's like you're a psion who casts from the wizard/sorcerer (or cleric, or druid) lists, has access to pretty much every spell on his list, has a LOT more 'spells known', can change those spells known every day, and can cast them all spontaneously. The only thing he can't do (except for sorcerers) is metamagic on the fly.

I thought that the spell points section on metamagic specifically said that casters do not need to prepare spells with metamagic. Let me see if I can dig up what I was thinking of.

Edit: Ah here we are



In the spell point system, a DM has two options for how to adjudicate metamagic effects. In either case, casters need not specially prepare metamagic versions of their spells—they can simply choose to apply the metamagic effect at the time of casting. Doing this does not increase the spell’s casting time.

[Optimystik]

A LOT more powerful, actually.

It's like you're a psion who casts from the wizard/sorcerer (or cleric, or druid) lists, has access to pretty much every spell on his list, has a LOT more 'spells known', can change those spells known every day, and can cast them all spontaneously. The only thing he can't do (except for sorcerers) is metamagic on the fly.

An Erudite still has the stronger mechanic (if not the stronger list.) While a spell point wizard still has to choose his spells known at the start of the day, an Erudite can "choose" them on the fly by using them.

In addition, this variant narrows the gap between Generalists and specialized wizards. The specialized ones have one more spell known per spell level, but no additional spell points, which means no additional uses/day.

If you're truly worried about power, add the Vitalizing variant further down the page - a flavorful balancing factor that is much easier to apply to spell points than to Vancian. You can even add your own penalties, or raise the thresholds before they are applied. You can also apply the suggested use-limit on metamagic to rein that in as well. (I would suggest combining the use-limit on metamagic with the point-cost directly, rather than applying one then the other as they suggest.)

And to bring this tangent back to topic, you now have a system that fits with more fantasy systems than Vancian does. A Spell Point variant could much more easily apply to a Wheel of Time d20 than Vancian can, for instance.

[Oslecamo]

An Erudite still has the stronger mechanic (if not the stronger list.) While a spell point wizard still has to choose his spells known at the start of the day, an Erudite can "choose" them on the fly by using them.
Pun-Pun argument(aka it's allright because Pun-Pun is still stronger). Just because there's even cheesier cheese out there, it doesn't mean it's ok.



If you're truly worried about power, add the Vitalizing variant further down the page - a flavorful balancing factor that is much easier to apply to spell points than to Vancian. You can even add your own penalties, or raise the thresholds before they are applied.

Vitalizing variant? Flavourfull? Maybe. Balancing? Hmm, no.

That just makes it simply broken, because starting lv3 the cleric has lesser restoration to remove fatigue and exhaustion, wich means an absurdly high number of spells per day. Raise the treshold? Excellent, restoration recovers even more spell points! Even whitout restoration a couple hours of rest will recover 2/3 of your SP. No reason to hold back on your magic whatsoever.

At least the erudite needed to wait untill lv11 to get insanely high PP.

[Lycanthromancer]

Edit: Ah here we arehttp://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g111/Lycanthromancer/TVTJawdrop.png?t=1270468441

[Optimystik]

Pun-Pun argument(aka it's allright because Pun-Pun is still stronger). Just because there's even cheesier cheese out there, it doesn't mean it's ok.

How is it cheese? Pun-pun is overpowered because nothing can match him. But if you're introducing an entire spellcasting variant, you shouldn't be only giving it to the PCs.


Vitalizing variant? Flavourfull? Maybe. Balancing? Hmm, no.

That just makes it simply broken, because starting lv3 the cleric has lesser restoration to remove fatigue and exhaustion, wich means an absurdly high number of spells per day. Raise the treshold? Excellent, restoration recovers even more spell points! Even whitout restoration a couple hours of rest will recover 2/3 of your SP. No reason to hold back on your magic whatsoever.

That's an easy fix - spells that remove those conditions don't restore spell points. Only natural rest can do that.

(I agree that allowing restoration and heal to restore SP is a bit much.)

[Volkov]

You ever worn armor?

It hugely constrains your movements, and its hard to exactly replicate something you do unarmored. (Yes, even what the game calls light armor.)

Now, training in armor for the movements, that's where certain classes come in.....

The game lies about the restrictiveness of full-plate, which is so mobile you can do cartwheels and tap dance in it.

[Starbuck_II]

The game lies about the restrictiveness of full-plate, which is so mobile you can do cartwheels and tap dance in it.

Wait, it gives you the ability to do cartwheels. I can't do those so if I wear fullplate I learn how?

[Volkov]

Thing is, science fiction is extrapolating stories from what could very easily happen as a result of improvements of technology in the real world.

Fantasy is stuff that is completely fictional, and will probably never ever happen unless the rules of reality are completely changed.

In other words, sci fi is what we think might happen, whereas fantasy is what we wish would happen (but probably won't).

Psionics is purely in the realm of fantasy, since people can't pull ectoplasm from another dimension to create matter, nor can they fire heat-rays from their eyes. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's magic, even if it isn't called as such. It's magic in the same way that Superman or Peter Pan flying around sans wings is magic.

Or are you saying that you're capable of mind-control, pushing around objects with your mind, divining the future by thinking real hard, or teleporting from place to place? Because I sure can't, and I don't know anyone who does.

Telling people it's 'too sci fi' is doing the phrase a complete and total disservice, thank you very much.

Red alert 2 is technically Sci-fi, and very, very little in it is possible or practical. (A tank that shoots lightning bolts of doom...even in the game it's worthless)

[Starbuck_II]

Don't forget randomly when you destroy a building: civilians can use other units powers.

The Tesla civi was awesome looking. He shot lightning out of his hands!

That made multi-player fun.

[Volkov]

But everyone hates Yuri's floating discs. If so much as one penetrates your defenses you are screwed royally. Then again everyone hates Yuri and his cheap @$$ psychic powers in general.

[Lycanthromancer]

Red alert 2 is technically Sci-fi, and very, very little in it is possible or practical. (A tank that shoots lightning bolts of doom...even in the game it's worthless)Just because it's sci-fi doesn't mean it can't have fantasy elements...or vice versa.

Tech may be able to reproduce some of them (see Xenosaga), but it's still not psionics, as it's technology doing the eye-layzher thing (for example), which is no more psionics than firing a gun is telekinetic in nature (mind bulettes! [sic]). As abilities granted by psionics are (meta)physical impossibilities, they are purely in the realm of fantasy.

Just because someone adds magic to sci-fi-esque stories doesn't mean it's not magic.


But everyone hates Yuri's floating discs. If so much as one penetrates your defenses you are screwed royally. Then again everyone hates Yuri and his cheap @$$ psychic powers in general.I know I don't like yuri. [/rimshot]

[Optimystik]

Red alert 2 is technically Sci-fi, and very, very little in it is possible or practical. (A tank that shoots lightning bolts of doom...even in the game it's worthless)

Of course it's not possible - there's still the whole "fiction" aspect.

But it is based on something real, i.e. a Tesla Coil. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_coil) The idea was not yanked wholesale from the ether.

[Volkov]

Of course it's not possible - there's still the whole "fiction" aspect.

But it is based on something real, i.e. a Tesla Coil. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_coil) The idea was not yanked wholesale from the ether.

It's pretty damned obvious the soviets took the Tesla coil tech from the real life Tesla coil, it's that as destructive the Real life tesla coil is to organisms, it's worthless against armored vehicles. But in Red alert, Tesla tech is a very potent tank killer.

[Optimystik]

It's pretty damned obvious the soviets took the Tesla coil tech from the real life Tesla coil, it's that as destructive the Real life tesla coil is to organisms, it's worthless against armored vehicles. But in Red alert, Tesla tech is a very potent tank killer.

Again... that's the "fiction" bit.
It's like FTL travel. Not scientifically possible at all, but crops up in sci-fi all the time.

[Volkov]

Again... that's the "fiction" bit.
It's like FTL travel. Not scientifically possible at all, but crops up in sci-fi all the time.

And C&C more or less ran soley on rule of cool the instant Red alert 1's expansion packs came out. (C&C 1 had some mild realism, RA 1 aftermath has teleporting, well armored, missile firing tanks)

[PhoenixRivers]

Again... that's the "fiction" bit.
It's like FTL travel. Not scientifically possible at all, but crops up in sci-fi all the time.

The same was said of supersonic travel. "Not possible" typically means "I'll get back to you on that"...

[Volkov]

The same was said of supersonic travel. "Not possible" typically means "I'll get back to you on that"...

Supersonic travel was thought to be beyond the capabilities of manned aircraft, they already could break the sound barrier with missiles and in some cases unguided bombs (the grand slam and tallboy bombs' terminal velocities exceeded the speed of sound) but doing this with a manned aircraft and keeping the pilot alive was much harder. Secondly there were no laws or widely accepted scientific theories that prevented supersonic travel. (Science's definition of theory is very different from the everyman's definition)

[The Glyphstone]

Again... that's the "fiction" bit.
It's like FTL travel. Not scientifically possible at all, but crops up in sci-fi all the time.

Quoted for truth. I just finished doing an English essay/presentation on pretty much this exact topic, looking at 'hard' and 'soft' science fiction, figuring out where the consensus lies on what turns on into the other (hint, it doesn't exist), and exploring where it came from. Spoilered because it's tangential to the discussion:
For example, one of my focuses was H.G. Wells and The Time Machine; on its surface, the book is absurd...it prominently features physical time travel, accepted as impossible by relativity, does so without even bothering to include technobabble for an excuse, throws in some odds ideas about long-term evolutionary theory (likewise unsubstantiated, just "because", and is still considered one of the classic science fiction stories.

Basically, the end conclusion I came to is that no one can properly agree on what makes up science fiction, let alone what is 'hard' or 'soft'...I've got a quote by Heinlein that basically says he'd accept as 'hard' a story featuring psi powers and time travel if it was explained thoroughly enough. Comparatively, Aasimov regularly took the position that 'hard' fiction required being based off of known real-world science, or extrapolated from it.

"Science Fiction is like porn...you can't describe what it is, but you know it when you see it." (Mark Glassey)

[Optimystik]

The same was said of supersonic travel. "Not possible" typically means "I'll get back to you on that"...

While I generally agree with this, in this case it's different. It's not just a matter of "we haven't figured it out yet." It's mathematically impossible.

E=mc². Even if you eliminate mass, the highest speed you can get to is c - the speed of light. Even getting there would require an undefined amount of energy, never mind exceeding it.

To change it, we have to change the math itself.

EDIT: While we're on the topic of approaching singularities, it seems like this thread has hit one...

[The Big Dice]

In all honesty, I've not found anyone who has a leg to stand on attacking the psionics system. Everyone that flat-out bans it, that I've met, have never had a legitimate reason; and more often than not was merely "because I said so" (which is a quick way to loose someone's respect).
That's funny, because the only reason I've seen for people to support the psionics rules is them saying "Because I like them." There might be valid mechanical reasons for that, or there might be power gaming reasons for it. But neither has a leg to stand on in the face of setting verisimilitued and internal consistency if the GM say no psionics.

That said, I've never attacked the system itself. I don't have a problem with that at all. My problem is entirely about aesthetics of setting. And if a player doesn't like the organisations and structures of a campaign setting enough to be willing to go along with them, why is that player going to have any respect for the GM or the other players at the table?


Some people don't bother with it because they like the core classes and vancian-based casting fine; or have no interest in a point-based casting resource; and that's fine to. However, if I joined their group and wanted to play a Psion, I should be able to do so. If they have specific fluff-related concerns, I've noted that it's exceptionally easy to adjust for the fluff. If they don't know the rules, I can explain them. If they simply say no for no legitimate reason, then they loose my respect and I find another group on principal (since if that's the best they can offer over such a minor thing, then I probably won't like their games either; for a lot of reasons).

I'd see that as player entitlement and the worst kind of browbeating brinksmanship. After all, if I join a new group, I don't go trying to throw my weight around and change the established order of how they do things at their table. That's just disrespectful. Rules be damned, there are things like manners and respect to consider here.

What if the concerns aren't fluff related at all, but instead are setting related? I tend to go with guilds who regulate and monopolise the use of arcane magic, while churches do the same for divine magic. They are usually not monolithic multinationals, working on the principle of power isn't for sharing unless people want to pay our prices or it's a matter of national security. And then you come along demanding to play a Psion, even though I've made it clear that I'm not using those rules, nor am I using anything from Forgotten Realms or Eberron.

Causing a scene and having a tantrum about it makes you a problem player in my book, especially if you're the new guy. If you're going to make waves over certain books not being used at the table, what else are you going to make waves over?

[Oslecamo]

The same was said of supersonic travel. "Not possible" typically means "I'll get back to you on that"...

Not exactly. There's also the "It looked easy when we began..."

For example, a couple decades ago everybody was thinking that by now we would've colonized half the solar system by now. And have humanoid robots everywhere. And flying personal cars for the middle man.

Technically speaking, all of the above should be possible with our current science.

Pratically speaking, a LOT of tecnical details apeared that blocked those ideas. It's much easier to make nonhumanoid robots. We already have enough problems with ground based cars, let alone make them fly wich would make driving a 100 times more dangerous not to mention moreexpensive. We could get to Mars or make a colony on the moon, but who's gonna pay the astronomic bill for that?

Similarly, altough one day we may discover FTL travel, it would demand a complete rewrite of the laws of science as we know it, and then a rain of technical problems to make it viable. Unless we hit some kind of jackpot like the Internet, wich almost develops by itself, but those are exceptions, not the rule.

The Big Dice:+1 to what you said. A lot of groups just don't like certain rules and/or fluff, and that's part of the game, not a problem. Forcing the group to acept your vision when there's plenty of other choices out there to make your character is bad.

[The Glyphstone]

While I generally agree with this, in this case it's different. It's not just a matter of "we haven't figured it out yet." It's mathematically impossible.

E=mc². Even if you eliminate mass, the highest speed you can get to is c - the speed of light. Even getting there would require an undefined amount of energy, never mind exceeding it.

To change it, we have to change the math itself.

EDIT: While we're on the topic of approaching singularities, it seems like this thread has hit one...

Isn't this why most sci-fi writers nowadays include hyperdrive/warp drive/etc? There are theories, plausible or otherwise, about alternate dimensions...while it's impossible to change the speed of light in our universe, a manner of transmitting matter between dimensions could potentially allow us to travel to a universe where the speed of light was different, or E=mc^2 simply didn't apply. Zoom around for a bit at effective supralight, then drop back into normal reality.

[Optimystik]

Isn't this why most sci-fi writers nowadays include hyperdrive/warp drive/etc? There are theories, plausible or otherwise, about alternate dimensions...while it's impossible to change the speed of light in our universe, a manner of transmitting matter between dimensions could potentially allow us to travel to a universe where the speed of light was different, or E=mc^2 simply didn't apply. Zoom around for a bit at effective supralight, then drop back into normal reality.

That's the fiction portion again. :smalltongue:

But it's not as crazy as you think! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive)

[Lycanthromancer]

Isn't this why most sci-fi writers nowadays include hyperdrive/warp drive/etc? There are theories, plausible or otherwise, about alternate dimensions...while it's impossible to change the speed of light in our universe, a manner of transmitting matter between dimensions could potentially allow us to travel to a universe where the speed of light was different, or E=mc^2 simply didn't apply. Zoom around for a bit at effective supralight, then drop back into normal reality.Technically you can slow light down, if only via refraction.

However, it IS possible.

If you could slow light down enough, then you could go faster than light. For a given value of 'light'.

[Volkov]

While I generally agree with this, in this case it's different. It's not just a matter of "we haven't figured it out yet." It's mathematically impossible.

E=mc². Even if you eliminate mass, the highest speed you can get to is c - the speed of light. Even getting there would require an undefined amount of energy, never mind exceeding it.

To change it, we have to change the math itself.

EDIT: While we're on the topic of approaching singularities, it seems like this thread has hit one...

Either that or something has to prove the equation wrong or utilize a special circumstance where the equation doesn't apply (none exist as far as we know)

[The Big Dice]

Technically you can slow light down, if only via refraction.

However, it IS possible.

If you could slow light down enough, then you could go faster than light. For a given value of 'light'.

There's a few theories on how it might be possible to go faster than light. But one of the biggest problems is fuel. We just don't have a way to provide enough accelleration to get to the kind of speeds required.

That and the faster something moves in relativistic terms, the more mass it has. Until it reaches infinite mass at the speed of light. Scientists and engineers just don't have a way of coping with that.

[Optimystik]

There's a few theories on how it might be possible to go faster than light. But one of the biggest problems is fuel. We just don't have a way to provide enough accelleration to get to the kind of speeds required.

That and the faster something moves in relativistic terms, the more mass it has. Until it reaches infinite mass at the speed of light. Scientists and engineers just don't have a way of coping with that.

See my link - with the "Alcubierre Drive" the ship doesn't move at all - rather, it moves a bubble of space around it.

Professor Farnsworth was right after all :smalltongue:

[The Glyphstone]

That's the fiction portion again. :smalltongue:

But it's not as crazy as you think! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive)

Ah, Alcubierre drives.:smallbiggrin:

Though now I'm reminded of another quote, this one by Rod Serling (of Twilight Zone fame): “Fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science fiction is the improbable made possible.”

[Oslecamo]

See my link - with the "Alcubierre Drive" the ship doesn't move at all - rather, it moves a bubble of space around it.

Professor Farnsworth was right after all :smalltongue:

Problem is, you cannot control where or when the bubble stops moving, at least as far as your link and science cares. Not that pratical.

[Blackfang108]

I know I don't like yuri. [/rimshot]

You're missing out, man. Some of it is so bad it's hilarious.

Also, that was terrible. :smallbiggrin:

[Lycanthromancer]

You're missing out, man. Some of it is so bad it's hilarious.Not interested. Check my sig for details. :smallwink:


Also, that was terrible. :smallbiggrin:Thank you.

[Lord Raziere]

or y'know...you can always just shorten space itself, don't have to go faster than light, just shorten the distance required to get to your destination.

[Optimystik]

Problem is, you cannot control where or when the bubble stops moving, at least as far as your link and science cares. Not that pratical.

Hence the "fiction" pa-

I'm just going to get a stamp made with "FICTION!" on it, and save myself some typing :smalltongue:

And anyway, we were talking about how to theoretically achieve FTL. Who said anything about stopping? Stopping is for girly-men who cannot subsist on space ether and their own chest hair!

[Lycanthromancer]

Hence the "fiction" pa-

I'm just going to get a stamp made with "FICTION!" on it, and save myself some typing :smalltongue:

And anyway, we were talking about how to theoretically achieve FTL. Who said anything about stopping? Stopping is for girly-men who cannot subsist on space ether and their own chest hair!Eww.

I mean, I'm all for chest hair, but...

...eww.

[Optimystik]

I think this topic has run its course.

Um... Psionics is a-okay! Or something.

[lesser_minion]

Technically you can slow light down, if only via refraction.

However, it IS possible.

If you could slow light down enough, then you could go faster than light. For a given value of 'light'.

That's backwards. Light having different speeds in different media is what causes refraction when it encounters an interface at an angle. Note that light is not the fastest thing in a given medium. There is even a light equivalent to a 'sonic boom'.

Generally, what people mean by 'faster than light' is 'faster than 299,792,458 ms-1', the speed of light in a vacuum.

The mass of an object is given by the equation (iirc):

m = m0 / sqrt(1 - v2/c2)

i.e. if the rest mass is other than zero, the mass of an object moving at the speed of light will be infinite (this equation cannot be used to find any information about what happens when the rest mass is zero)

In any event, the bottom line is that faster-than-light travel is not "just an engineering challenge" in the same way that supersonic travel was. Even then, some engineering challenges aren't necessarily surmountable - for example, the Death Star's superlaser required about a thousand times more energy than its own estimated rest-mass converted into energy (and would have produced a much less spectacular bang).

[Blackfang108]

Not interested. Check my sig for details. :smallwink:

Actually, I was taking that into account. I'm talking about the SFW parts. (seriously, bad writing, worse voice acting. Add popcorn and booze to taste.)

[Ashiel]

That's funny, because the only reason I've seen for people to support the psionics rules is them saying "Because I like them." There might be valid mechanical reasons for that, or there might be power gaming reasons for it. But neither has a leg to stand on in the face of setting verisimilitued and internal consistency if the GM say no psionics.
If you're going to respond to my posts; read them. I've been supporting the psionics rules on grounds of mechanical adaptability, their fluff versatility, their balance, and intuitive nature and easy-of-use functions. Not merely "cause I like 'em". That's pretty disrespectful too.


That said, I've never attacked the system itself. I don't have a problem with that at all. My problem is entirely about aesthetics of setting. And if a player doesn't like the organisations and structures of a campaign setting enough to be willing to go along with them, why is that player going to have any respect for the GM or the other players at the table?

I'm not certain what you're suggesting here. It's entirely possible to dislike in-game organization and structures (say like the Zhentarim in the Forgottem Realms, or Drow) but have the utmost respect for the DM and other players; so I'm really confused here.

If you don't like the Zhentarim or playing Evil characters, or playing parties with "magic classes only" for a Magic-School style game or something, then just don't play. If you and your DM can work out some way to fit something want to play in, then that's great. If you don't like the subject matter, simply bow out and wait for another game.


I'd see that as player entitlement and the worst kind of browbeating brinksmanship. After all, if I join a new group, I don't go trying to throw my weight around and change the established order of how they do things at their table. That's just disrespectful. Rules be damned, there are things like manners and respect to consider here.

Re-read my post. I was very specific with what I said. I said that if the answer was "no" for "no legitimate reason", then I would walk. I would walk because arbitrary stuff like that bothers me a lot, and has nothing to do with the game itself. If they could somehow show me that the rule-choice here was hazardous to their game (for balance or mechanical reasons), then I would find something else to play.

Players are also entitled to having fun too dagnamit. I DM virtually all the games I participate in; often because no one else around feels up to DMing (try as I do to encourage them); and from the standpoint of a DM I say that it is not all about me nor all of my "intricate laid out plots". DMs exist to serve the players; and sometimes that service also requires you to say "no". However, I'm not going to tell someone "no" for no reason. If you do, I will loose respect for you. It's just how it is.

Respect and manners goes both ways.


What if the concerns aren't fluff related at all, but instead are setting related? I tend to go with guilds who regulate and monopolise the use of arcane magic, while churches do the same for divine magic. They are usually not monolithic multinationals, working on the principle of power isn't for sharing unless people want to pay our prices or it's a matter of national security. And then you come along demanding to play a Psion, even though I've made it clear that I'm not using those rules, nor am I using anything from Forgotten Realms or Eberron.

All of the above is fluff. All of it. All those regulated guilds and monopolies are fluff-aspects of the game. Fluff is not the enemy. If players are capable of playing wizards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, or whatever, then it's not difficult to fit a Psion into the game as a type of sorcerer. If your game theme is "no casters", then that's a different thing entirely.

If you're not using Psionics because you're not familiar with it, then now's a good time to become so. If you say no arbitrarily without reason, then that's a big red-flag to me that it's going to be a great game of "my-rules & railroads" the whole time (when I was hoping to play D&D). If you won't use logic or reasoning behind your DMing judgments, then why should I assume you will with other things; and why should I play in your game?

I would politely let you know that I changed my mind; bow out of the game; and then find something else to do; or another game.


Causing a scene and having a tantrum about it makes you a problem player in my book, especially if you're the new guy. If you're going to make waves over certain books not being used at the table, what else are you going to make waves over?

I'm not certain what sort of toddlers you are talking about; but bowing out of a game to find another doesn't require tantrums and scenes. A simple "Sorry, I don't think this is the type of game I'm looking for" would suffice. Maybe I'd stick around and watch for a while to see if the red-flag was merely an anomaly; or find out a bit more about the game before committing myself to playing.

What other things would I make waves over? Well here is a list for you.

The DM having a female wizard of mine be dominated an anally raped, and then rolling some dice behind the screen and declaring that she's enjoying it. (Yes this happened)
The DM picking on one person or intentionally killing off PCs because they feel like it.
The DM throwing in more random encounters because he thought a deity shared by another player and I's PCs was stupid. (Happened as well; was Eliastree from the Forgotten Realms, and always interrupted our characters when we spoke of her with random encounters.)
The DMing making up rules on the fly to be a jerk. (Happened. I described my cleric holding up her shield and attempting to goad opponents into attacking her instead of the squishier allies. He rolls against my AC and misses, then rolls damage against my shield as if it were a sunder-attempt, using "Well it would hit your shield". Also, called-shots.)
The DM looking for players invites me to a game. I ask up front if it's fine if I play a Psion (since I hadn't played one in a long time). He says sure, he totally allows psionics. Later as I'm presenting my 1st level human psion made to the DM's specifications. The DM then declares that because psionics are overpowered, he is adding a will-save to disbelieve them to every psionic power; but he's using the recharge magic varient for core casters. (Actually happened. I explained how Psionics wasn't unbalanced and that his ruling made no sense even fluff-wise; and he ended up lifting his will-save penalty; but I bowed out because...well because that's seriously messed up; and totally dropped my confidence in him as a DM.)


Ultimately, I'm not certain what you're trying to prove here. Twisting my words, attacking my character, and suggesting that I'm going to throw tantrums and what-not aren't very respectful either. :smallannoyed:

[Tinydwarfman]

Either that or something has to prove the equation wrong or utilize a special circumstance where the equation doesn't apply (none exist as far as we know)

By that logic, we just haven't discovered magic yet. (wasn't there a Simpsons episode along those lines?)

@Asheil
Does your DM play FATAL by any chance? :smallfrown: I feel sorry for you.

[The Glyphstone]

By that logic, we just haven't discovered magic yet. (wasn't there a Simpsons episode along those lines?)

Clarke's Law?

[Tinydwarfman]

Clarke's Law?

'Indistinguishable from magic', not actually magic. Magic breaks the Laws of Physics, science works from within them.

[The Glyphstone]

'Indistinguishable from magic', not actually magic. Magic breaks the Laws of Physics, science works from within them.

But to someone uneducated, or sufficient ignorant, they'll be functionally identical. "Magic" is an incredibly vague term in that case...teleportation or personal flight are both magic spells, but they've also got significant presence in science fiction as technology-based. Violating the laws of thermodynamics with, say, a Fireball spell could be harder.

If you just define 'Magic' as 'Impossible Things', then yes, we will never discover magic...but then it becomes a cyclical argument.

[Ashiel]

@Ashiel
Does your DM play FATAL by any chance? :smallfrown: I feel sorry for you.

Actually no. I've never played FATAL but I've heard it was terrible. Unfortunately, I'm actually listing things from different games with different DMs. Those are games that I walked from; and would walk from again. I have no luck with finding games as a player; but I've been DMing for 10 years almost exclusively.

I don't even think I hold DMs to a high standard. I always try to make characters who get along with party members; I prefer playing NG/LG characters (not in the Lawful Stupid way); write my characters according to the fluff the DMs provide whenever possible; try to keep things pretty simple; and I tend to attempt to follow plot-hooks and what-not. It's just the few games I've been in that were great games, only lasted for a few sessions because of various out of game issues such as work schedules or school.

[Tinydwarfman]

But to someone uneducated, or sufficient ignorant, they'll be functionally identical. "Magic" is an incredibly vague term in that case...teleportation or personal flight are both magic spells, but they've also got significant presence in science fiction as technology-based. Violating the laws of thermodynamics with, say, a Fireball spell could be harder.

If you just define 'Magic' as 'Impossible Things', then yes, we will never discover magic...but then it becomes a cyclical argument.

Magic on it's own is a vague term, but most settings expand on what exactly their magic is. Many versions involve creating new matter from nothing, however others treat it like science. It all really depends on the setting.

[The Glyphstone]

Magic on it's own is a vague term, but most settings expand on what exactly their magic is. Many versions involve creating new matter from nothing, however others treat it like science. It all really depends on the setting.

That's fair. I was just taking issue with your response to Volkov, seeming to interpret him as saying "if we haven't disproved it, then it's possible", and saying "then we just haven't discovered something impossible yet" as a counter.

[JoshuaZ]

While I generally agree with this, in this case it's different. It's not just a matter of "we haven't figured it out yet." It's mathematically impossible.

E=mc². Even if you eliminate mass, the highest speed you can get to is c - the speed of light. Even getting there would require an undefined amount of energy, never mind exceeding it.

To change it, we have to change the math itself.



Not exactly. First of all, c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The speed of light through other media is slower. In fact, this is an important fact which leads to something useful phenomena such as Cherenkov radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation). Moreover, even then nothing actually says that you can't get to c. The key is that objects with positive rest mass cannot accelerate to c in real space. That's not due to an undefined energy level being required but rather an infinite energy level. In any event, none of this rules out other forms of FTL travel. For technical reasons warp drives are extremely unlikely. But wormholes are not severely implausible given our current knowledge level.

Disclaimer: I'm a math grad student not a physicist so I could have details wrong.

[Optimystik]

Psst - Ix-nay on the ATAL-Fay in the layground-Pay.


'Indistinguishable from magic', not actually magic. Magic breaks the Laws of Physics, science works from within them.

And science fiction is the middle ground - starting within the laws of physics, and then diverging to either a small or large degree depending on the subject matter at hand.

Psionics, on the other hand, doesn't do this; they handwave away most effects with "ectoplasm" which might as well be "mana" for all the scientific implication it has.

[Zergrusheddie]

I originally made this post in order to get some explanation on why Psionics tend to get flak for reasons that I am unaware of. I'm not exactly sure how Sci-Fi vs. Magic came into play.

I am just more confused than when it began.

[Starbuck_II]

I originally made this post in order to get some explanation on why Psionics tend to get flak for reasons that I am unaware of. I'm not exactly sure how Sci-Fi vs. Magic came into play.

I am just more confused than when it began.

Apparently, Psionics gets flak because it seems Sci-Fi. But since no one can sanely define Sci-Fi. Magic and psionics seem indisguishable.

One person thought: Sci-Fi is where we could be.
But then since we haven't proven how anyone can use psionics yet: that means Sci-Fi is more magic than psionics.
With started argument that they are the same.
Meaning, Fantasy should have both but that brung the people who don't like psionics in their fantasy because of Nar-wals*.

*(okay I tuned out that argument but I think uniciorns and nar-wals were involved. If they weren't, they should have been).