PDA

View Full Version : STILL a problem with Psionics?!



Otogi
2010-04-25, 09:06 PM
Alright, so I've been around the Play-by-Post games a little bit, sometimes for D&D, M&M and sometimes for other games, but the ones I most look forward to is 4e games. There's actually quite a few, believe it or not, by in almost every game I can find either discourage or outright forbid the psionics power source, especially if the game had a thought out world. But why? In the PHB 3, psionics received a new back story, being a natural defense or effect for/from the Far Realm. Now, sure, not everybody uses the Points of Light, but it's mentioned that psionics are magic and not they're own, separate, sci-fi-ish energy, and psychic powers are featured a lot in old fantasy stories and fantasy fiction. So what gives? Is it the flavor from the last edition still putting a bad taste in people's mouths, or it something else?

Reynard
2010-04-25, 09:10 PM
I allow them, but I think many DMs are waiting for any errata, just on the off-chance there's something really exploitable.

Yuki Akuma
2010-04-25, 09:16 PM
Some people are still sore about 2e psionics.

Optimystik
2010-04-25, 09:31 PM
I can't fathom how this could still be a problem. Psychic damage has been in 4e since the beginning.

Tavar
2010-04-25, 09:40 PM
Because, obviously, even if two editions of a game have almost nothing in common, they're still exactly the same.

Procyonpi
2010-04-25, 10:00 PM
I my mind, the problem with Psionics has never been so much that they're unbalancing (although they definitely were in some versions). My problem is that they don't make sense with the general flavor of a DnD "medieval fantasy land" setting. Wizards, clerics, rangers fighters, rouges... they all make a certain amount of intuitive sense, even if they involve magic. But psionics have always struck me as being a bit too sci-fi-ish for a DnD world. Maybe as an eccentric villain NPC, I could see it. But not as a playable class.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-04-25, 10:07 PM
Psionics was just what sci-fi invented so they could have magic. So just consider it one of three forms of magic, Arcane, Divine and the Mind.

Otogi
2010-04-25, 10:12 PM
I my mind, the problem with Psionics has never been so much that they're unbalancing (although they definitely were in some versions). My problem is that they don't make sense with the general flavor of a DnD "medieval fantasy land" setting. Wizards, clerics, rangers fighters, rouges... they all make a certain amount of intuitive sense, even if they involve magic. But psionics have always struck me as being a bit too sci-fi-ish for a DnD world. Maybe as an eccentric villain NPC, I could see it. But not as a playable class.

But again, there are people who use or have used psychic abilities in fantasy works, and even 4e puts it on record (in the same entry, in the introduction before you get to anything) that psionics are magic, just a different kind of magic like Primal or Divine powers, so how does that seem to you?

FishAreWet
2010-04-25, 10:12 PM
The flavor of psionic powers is near identical to that of a sorcerers. Makes more sense then preparing spells like a wizard for sure.

/3.5e.

Tavar
2010-04-25, 10:15 PM
Also, in many editions, Psionics matches fantasy casters better than Vancian. Largely, of course, because Vancian casting was chosen so that it wouldn't match "real world" magic. Of course, the real irony is that Vancian casting was invented in a Sci-Fi book, but now it's more Fantasy than stuff found in most non-DnD books.

Procyonpi
2010-04-25, 10:27 PM
The flavor of psionic powers is near identical to that of a sorcerers. Makes more sense then preparing spells like a wizard for sure.

/3.5e.

The way psionic powers work is game mechanics. My major problem is with the idea of "physic" powers in a DnD game. I don't care if you call it magic, psionics imply a far more structured and modern set of paranormal abilities than you'd expect to see in a medieval world. Again, I might be willing to make an exception for an occasional über-sophisticate villain, but besides that, they ruin the feel of the world.

Just because it's not my cup of tea doesn't mean other people can't like them or use them in their worlds, though. :smallsmile:

Yuki Akuma
2010-04-25, 10:29 PM
Because... Arcane spellcasting isn't structured, apparently?

Are you just complaining about power names? "Mordenkainen's Mnemonic Enhancer" anyone?

(Or was that Rary? I forget.)

Procyonpi
2010-04-25, 10:36 PM
Because... Arcane spellcasting isn't structured, apparently?

Are you just complaining about power names? "Mordenkainen's Mnemonic Enhancer" anyone?

(Or was that Rary? I forget.)

Yeah, the power names are a huge part of it. Arcane magic at least gives its spells names using words that the average medieval present would understand.

And "structured" probably wasn't the right term there. "less primal" is more what I getting at.

AlterForm
2010-04-25, 10:37 PM
Because... Arcane spellcasting isn't structured, apparently?

Are you just complaining about power names? "Mordenkainen's Mnemonic Enhancer" anyone?

(Or was that Rary? I forget.)

That was Rary. Mordenkainen had his Magical Watchdog that you totally cast to protect yourself from Ogres when the DM asked if you wanted to cast any spells before you entered the dungeon. Also, that Mansion thing.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-04-25, 10:39 PM
That was Rary. Mordenkainen had his Magical Watchdog that you totally cast to protect yourself from Ogres when the DM asked if you wanted to cast any spells before you entered the dungeon. Also, that Mansion thing.

I have an ogre slaying knife its +9 against ogres.

KillianHawkeye
2010-04-25, 10:40 PM
And "structured" probably wasn't the right term there. "less primal" is more what I getting at.

And yet the Primal power source is a-okay?? :smallconfused::smallconfused:

sambo.
2010-04-25, 10:47 PM
i've played since 1ed and i've never liked Psionics.

Optimystik
2010-04-25, 10:49 PM
The flavor of psionic powers is near identical to that of a sorcerers. Makes more sense then preparing spells like a wizard for sure.

/3.5e.

Actually, it's the mechanics that are nearly identical between sorcerers and psions (the main difference being points vs. slots.) Psion flavor is closer to wizard flavor - unlocking power through diligent study, rather than through emotion.

Wilders are the ones whose flavor identical to Sorcerers.


Yeah, the power names are a huge part of it. Arcane magic at least gives its spells names using words that the average medieval present would understand.

As I recall, magic tends to use latin roots, while psionics tends to use greek ones. Greek ones usually have a more "science-y" sound. I'm no etymologist though, so I could be mistaken.

Temotei
2010-04-25, 10:53 PM
That was Rary. Mordenkainen had his Magical Watchdog that you totally cast to protect yourself from Ogres when the DM asked if you wanted to cast any spells before you entered the dungeon. Also, that Mansion thing.

Not to mention disjunction.

Mystic Muse
2010-04-25, 10:58 PM
Well, in my defense I don't actually have the PHB3. I'm getting DDI tomorrow which may solve that problem though.

Goonthegoof
2010-04-25, 11:23 PM
I keep encountering the no psionics thing as well, and it's always really confused me. In D&D divine and arcane are well accepted and come from your deity and (pacts with devils, your draconic bloodline, a bunch of magical batteries crystals, rigorous study, etc etc) respectively. It always made sense to me that psionics is the one that came from your own mind to balance out the other two.

ungulateman
2010-04-25, 11:43 PM
The major problem people have with Psionics in 4e is that they're unbalancing - when you make one, it is either going to suck, and suck hard; or it's going to be absurdly overpowered. The only real exception is the Monk, but that's because the Monk is basically using Ki anyway, just dressed up as Psionics.

hangedman1984
2010-04-25, 11:53 PM
you could also draw parallels between psionics and real-world eastern mysticism, thus giving psionics a more "mystic" flavour

Divide by Zero
2010-04-26, 12:18 AM
How is using your mind to directly manipulate the world around you, and other people, "too sci-fi"?

<morbo>Science does not work that way!</morbo>

Mastikator
2010-04-26, 12:47 AM
Um guys. Sorcerers and favored souls are also their own sources of their magic powers, they don't draw it from the outside. Psionics aren't unique or first in that perspective. And there is a optional rule for spell points, which work similarly to power points if I understand it correctly.

The main difference between them is that psionic is more nova-like, and the fluff is rather unique.
Personally I love psionics and always incorporate it. But I prefer to make it extremely rare outside of naturally psionic races, like Duegar.

Procyonpi
2010-04-26, 12:52 AM
And yet the Primal power source is a-okay?? :smallconfused::smallconfused:

To be honest, yes. Magic that seems more natural is easier to pass off in a medieval setting.

Optimystik
2010-04-26, 12:57 AM
Um guys. Sorcerers and favored souls are also their own sources of their magic powers, they don't draw it from the outside. Psionics aren't unique or first in that perspective.

Quite untrue - see also, material components and foci. Even Favored Souls need to tote a symbol around for 90% of their spells, for all that gods can't shut off their powers.

Psionics is both unique, and first, in not requiring either. But no magic system is purely internal anyway; you can negate just about all of them via external means (NPF/AMF.)


To be honest, yes. Magic that seems more natural is easier to pass off in a medieval setting.

FYI, D&D is not "medieval" at all - not even Greyhawk and Faerun.

The_Snark
2010-04-26, 01:15 AM
Psionics was just what sci-fi invented so they could have magic.

That's the crux of the problem right there: people associate psionics with science fiction. It isn't logical: psychic powers are not scientific, and there's no reason why there shouldn't be another form of magic. But that doesn't change the fact that when you start throwing around words like psychic, telepath, or kineticist, many people will be reminded of Dune, or Star Trek, or Babylon 5, or New Age crystal mysticism... It's like having aliens arrive in flying saucers: there's absolutely no reason it couldn't happen in a fantasy world, but it's going to throw off the mood for some people. (A lot of people, actually, if the fourth Indiana Jones movie is any indicator.)

Even if you try to explain them as magical beings with saucer-shaped artifact vehicles, the trappings are still there to remind people. It's a gut feeling, and you're not going to change it with logical arguments.

Me, I like psionics. But I can't help but think this way even when I'm aware of it. I generally abandon the trappings and play my characters as mystics or madmen, who change the world by willing it to change, and I don't talk about crystal harmonics or psychic talent. As other people have noted, 3.5 psionics simulate typical fantasy magic at least as well as Vancian casting, if not better.

Yora
2010-04-26, 01:18 AM
How is using your mind to directly manipulate the world around you, and other people, "too sci-fi"?
The greatest mistake of 3.5e psionics are the names:

Biofeedback, Body Equilibrium, Compression, Co-op Concentration, Decerebrate, Destiny Dissonance, Dissipating Touch, Duodimensional Claw, Hypercognition, Id Insinuation, Inertial Barrier, Matter Agitation, Psychofeedback, Teleempathic Projection, Temporal Acceleration.
Some spells also have strange names, but the naming of psionic powers almost always uses words that sound remarkably like 20th century science and pseudoscience terms. That's why people think it feels like science fiction, and it's both logical and obvious.
Yes, it can be reflavored, but there are just so many powers, that you allready have to love the system to go through all the trouble. If you don't, you just put the system aside and don't think about it again.

These can also be psionic.
Link 1 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG263.jpg), Link 2 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/sarlona_gallery/102985.jpg), Link 3 (http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg256/bilylee/Toph_by_lychi.jpg), Link 4 (http://api.ning.com/files/V3d3OCp3A2MnD7NIz2me9RWGBhPJDSyS1lDtNFYEVVCMiMjJoM 5IcF5FHdqwGIvlprfE*X-t3ER-5ew20ovnPz9iyu2kewem/Bleach__Memories_of_Nobody_by_skybl.jpg)
But why going through the trouble of reflavoring a system you already don't like?

Doc Roc
2010-04-26, 01:32 AM
To be honest, they never sounded science-flavored to me.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-04-26, 01:36 AM
In my campaign setting psionic beings are called mentalists.
While magic traces its origins to the creation of the world and the gods, psionics predates it. It was the power of The Old Ones and their children the beings who ruled the plane before the coming of the deities and the rise of the young races. [such as demi-humans]

When the death of an extremely powerful Old One occurred a thousand years ago.[*cough* Cthulhu*]. His essence was scattered across the material plane and psionic powers began to manifest in the races who sprung from the gods instead of The Old Ones.

Kurald Galain
2010-04-26, 02:49 AM
in almost every game I can find either discourage or outright forbid the psionics power source, especially if the game had a thought out world. But why?
Because psionics is not, and has never been, meaningfully different from magic. Yes, you control stuff with your mind - that's precisely what wizards and sorcerers do, too. You can write up some differences between "trained" and "innate" magic or something like that, but that's not nearly enough to make a separate archetype. Indeed, I can think of zero fantasy books (other than D&D books, of course) that contain "magic" and "psionics" as two separate things.

The reason psionics existed in earlier editions was so that people who didn't like Vancian casters could have a spell point system instead, but that reason is now moot.

(aside from that, there are some issues with psions being potentially overpowered in 4E)

Yuki Akuma
2010-04-26, 05:05 AM
But 4e has always had several redundant power sources. Even when it started it had two flavours of magic. No one seems to complain about Primal, which in earlier editions was just Divine. Why Psionics? What is so bad that people can't accept it?

It doesn't make sense.

Plus, Psionics in 4e is still different to other power sources, so there is still a mechanical point to their existence.

Yora
2010-04-26, 05:06 AM
I liked how psionics was handeled in the Drizzt novel that is set during the time of troubles.
All clerics in Menzoberanzan loose their magical power, and I think arcane magic didn't work so well either. But one house had lots of psions instead of wizards, which were not affected by the problems with magic.

Kurald Galain
2010-04-26, 05:20 AM
But 4e has always had several redundant power sources.
Yes, but power sources aren't the point. It's rarely relevant to which "power source" a class belongs.

Rather, all PHB1 classes and most other classes correspond to a standard fantasy character archetype. Whenever two different classes represent the same archetype, then this begs the question why the second class is needed. This is the case with wizard/psion, and warlord/ardent.

Aside from that, the battlemind doesn't seem to match any archetype at all; indeed, its fluff is all over the place. The monk is an archetype, but the 4E monk neither uses the psionic rules, nor does it give any real justification why it is psionic rather than martial (other than "gee, we have too many martial classes already").

Primal doesn't have this issue, in that barbarian, druid and shaman are all character archetypes that aren't really covered by the PHB1 classes.

ghost_warlock
2010-04-26, 05:21 AM
Because psionics is not, and has never been, meaningfully different from magic. Yes, you control stuff with your mind - that's precisely what wizards and sorcerers do, too. You can write up some differences between "trained" and "innate" magic or something like that, but that's not nearly enough to make a separate archetype. Indeed, I can think of zero fantasy books (other than D&D books, of course) that contain "magic" and "psionics" as two separate things.

The reason psionics existed in earlier editions was so that people who didn't like Vancian casters could have a spell point system instead, but that reason is now moot.
Good points, although psionics still uses a 'spell points' system that differs somewhat from the typical 4e powers structure.

As for psionics not being "meaningfully different" from magic, the same argument could be made for arcane vs. divine vs. primal vs. even martial. If anything, the power-point augmentation of at-wills, among three of the psionics classes, makes psionics the only power source meaningfully different from the other four (five counting shadow, but we haven't seen enough from that to really make a judgement call, I suppose).


(aside from that, there are some issues with psions being potentially overpowered in 4E)
To this I ask: "So what?"

Fighters, rangers, rogues, wizards and other classes have all had their round of being "overpowered." Rangers/rogues were being labeled overpowered before the PHB1 was even officially, legally, released. WotC has a fair track record within 4e of dragging things back in line so I see no reason not to expect an incoming nerf to psions if they are truly due one.

I completely understand the impulse to disallow the use of psionics in an established campaign until a fair evaluation has been made. I see no reason why psionic characters should be banned from a 4e game because psionics were overpowered in 2e, however. That would be insipid.


Yes, but power sources aren't the point. It's rarely relevant to which "power source" a class belongs.

Rather, all PHB1 classes and most other classes correspond to a standard fantasy character archetype. Whenever two different classes represent the same archetype, then this begs the question why the second class is needed. This is the case with wizard/psion, and warlord/ardent.

Aside from that, the battlemind doesn't seem to match any archetype at all; indeed, its fluff is all over the place. The monk is an archetype, but the 4E monk neither uses the psionic rules, nor does it give any real justification why it is psionic rather than martial (other than "gee, we have too many martial classes already").

Primal doesn't have this issue, in that barbarian, druid and shaman are all character archetypes that aren't really covered by the PHB1 classes.

With psionics, I suspect it's less about developing different archetypes as it is about gratifying players who want to experiment with divergent mechanics.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-04-26, 05:29 AM
Aside from that, the battlemind doesn't seem to match any archetype at all; indeed, its fluff is all over the place. The monk is an archetype, but the 4E monk neither uses the psionic rules, nor does it give any real justification why it is psionic rather than martial (other than "gee, we have too many martial classes already").
Well, there are some marketing reasons for Monk to be psionic:

(1) Monks are supposed to be able to do "magical" things above-and-beyond the superhuman stuff Martial types can do. So they need a somewhat-mystical power source.

(2) "Ki" turned out to be a non-starter as a power source

(3) They were going to be introduced in PHB3 anyhow, and (IIRC) all the new classes are either Primal or Psionic - and Monks are in no way Primal.

Re: OP
Remember that Psionics were in D&D from the very beginning; it was the "weird powers" granted to Mind Flayers and it could grant any PC some badass powers via Wild Talent without breaking into either the Cleric's or Magic-User's prerogatives.

AD&D's treatment of Psionics was a headache from the beginning, and I don't think 3rd helped its case much. If someone is actually banning Psionics in 4E, get that DM to actually read over the rules and see that they're not overpowered in the least. The Power Point mechanic is interesting but, AFAIK, nobody has figured out a way to abuse it beyond the levels of abuse common in CharOp.

Optimystik
2010-04-26, 05:38 AM
The greatest mistake of 3.5e psionics are the names:

Whether they are a "mistake" or not is a matter of personal preference, I'd say. I happen to love the names.


Aside from that, the battlemind doesn't seem to match any archetype at all; indeed, its fluff is all over the place. The monk is an archetype, but the 4E monk neither uses the psionic rules, nor does it give any real justification why it is psionic rather than martial (other than "gee, we have too many martial classes already").

I couldn't disagree more. Monks should have been psionic from the very beginning, and indeed have a much more psionic feel than even Soulknives. Self-actualize, achieve the pinnacle of mental and physical prowess, do things that regular warriors can't dream of - very, very psionic.


Well, there are some marketing reasons for Monk to be psionic:

(1) Monks are supposed to be able to do "magical" things above-and-beyond the superhuman stuff Martial types can do. So they need a somewhat-mystical power source.

(2) "Ki" turned out to be a non-starter as a power source

(3) They were going to be introduced in PHB3 anyhow, and (IIRC) all the new classes are either Primal or Psionic - and Monks are in no way Primal.

While you can "back into" psionic monks through a train of thought such as this, I still consider them a good enough fit (and always have) that such isn't needed.

Kurald Galain
2010-04-26, 06:03 AM
Good points, although psionics still uses a 'spell points' system that differs somewhat from the typical 4e powers structure.
True enough. I haven't seen it in action often enough to see whether it makes a big difference. For what it's worth, I do generally prefer spell points to vancian.



As for psionics not being "meaningfully different" from magic, the same argument could be made for arcane vs. divine vs. primal vs. even martial.
Yes. I consider the power sources a cop-out. It's not really relevant whether the ranger is martial or primal, or whether the invoker is divine or psionic. My point is that "ranger" is a fantasy archetype, whereas "psion" is not (or rather, the same archetype as "wizard" and "sorcerer").


To this I ask: "So what?"
(re: psions potentially being overpowered) I'm bringing this up for one reason: psionics were generally considered overpowered in 2E and 3.0. I've heard frequent stories of DMs banning psionics in 3.5 because they thought they were overpowered (of course, that the rule on power point limits was easily overlooked also didn't help). And now in 4E, people can again use that argument and there is some truth to it. So to the OP's question "is there still a problem with psionics?", the answer is that "yes, they are still (or again) overpowered".

To be fair, this is not a fundamental problem, it's just two or three individual powers that are overpowered. And as you point out, WOTC is likely to nerf them soon.



Fighters, rangers, rogues, wizards and other classes have all had their round of being "overpowered." Rangers/rogues were being labeled overpowered before the PHB1 was even officially, legally, released.
I am not aware of fighters and rogues ever having been considered "overpowered". Still, you are correct that WOTC has recently done a decent job of nerfing, and will likely nerf psions in the next round of errata.



With psionics, I suspect it's less about developing different archetypes as it is about gratifying players who want to experiment with divergent mechanics.
Yes. But isn't "using different mechanics to do the same thing" precisely one of the concepts that 4E tried to move away from?



(1) Monks are supposed to be able to do "magical" things above-and-beyond the superhuman stuff Martial types can do. So they need a somewhat-mystical power source.
That would be a good point, except that e.g. fighters and rogues also routinely do such above-and-beyond things.



(2) "Ki" turned out to be a non-starter as a power source
Yes. I don't miss it, personally.


(3) They were going to be introduced in PHB3 anyhow, and (IIRC) all the new classes are either Primal or Psionic - and Monks are in no way Primal.
I don't find "it's in the PHB3 so it must be psionic" to be a valid reason. Its caption reads "Psionic, divine and primal heroes", and could just as easily have included "martial" in there.



I couldn't disagree more. Monks should have been psionic from the very beginning, and indeed have a much more psionic feel than even Soulknives.
I haven't seen earlier-edition monks in action, but I do not consider 3E monks to have much of a "psionic" feel to them, really. I don't think this comparison holds in 4E, either: while monks can do things that are physically impossible, so can all martial classes.

Comet
2010-04-26, 06:43 AM
My problem with mixing psionics with 'regular' magic is that it makes them both feel less special.
I'd rather have one campaign where I focus properly on a world where supernatural power comes from pure power of will and another where it's all about manipulating and relying on existing, neutral energies.

Mixing the two makes the world seem kind of like a mess. I generally dislike the basic mentality of 'everyone can be anything'. I'd much rather set some basic limits to what the players/GM can do within a single story, to ensure at least some thematic integrity and hopefully produce a cooler, more focused storyline.

That said, I think the 4th edition psionic flavour is the one best suited for mix n' mashing, judging by what I've heard. It's also really cool.

Yora
2010-04-26, 06:46 AM
For my E6 world, I decided I want to use the great things psionics has to offer. But with that decided, there really wasn't any point to have wizards and sorcerers at all, so I kept arcane spells only as spell like abilities of monsters.

Optimystik
2010-04-26, 06:52 AM
I haven't seen earlier-edition monks in action, but I do not consider 3E monks to have much of a "psionic" feel to them, really. I don't think this comparison holds in 4E, either: while monks can do things that are physically impossible, so can all martial classes.

The key difference is why monks are able to do those impossible things. Fighters, Rangers, and other martial classes aren't known for meditation, self-actualization, or contemplation. There's also no clear reason why Monks are so much more resistant to extranormal influence (magic, poison, disease) than the other martial classes are, either.

Wait - actually, there is. "Mind over matter" - the defining characteristic of the monk's flavor - the disciplined mind can overcome any influence, which is also the reason behind "Any Lawful." And psionics is about unlocking the power of the mind, is it not? The connection should be obvious, and I can only say that I'm glad WotC came around eventually.

Otogi
2010-04-26, 11:11 AM
So to the OP's question "is there still a problem with psionics?", the answer is that "yes, they are still (or again) overpowered".

Thanks for answering a question I didn't ask?

Optimystik
2010-04-26, 11:16 AM
Thanks for answering a question I didn't ask?

Not to mention incorrectly :smallsigh:

Vizzerdrix
2010-04-26, 11:24 AM
the sig sums up my feelings on this ^_^

gdiddy
2010-04-26, 11:47 AM
I dislike the fluff for a medieval setting and lack the patience to reflavor. I run my own worlds and there is never psionics, because they're medieval-type worlds. They don't fit. Just like in 3.5 Incarnum or Tome of Battle doesn't fit. If I were playing spelljammer or dark sun, I would use it, because it makes sense. But I am not. :smalltongue:

Draz74
2010-04-26, 11:50 AM
Whenever two different classes represent the same archetype, then this begs the question why the second class is needed. This is the case with wizard/psion, and warlord/ardent.

Aside from that, the battlemind doesn't seem to match any archetype at all; indeed, its fluff is all over the place.

I'll grant you the Battlemind and the Ardent, even though I like the Ardent.

But in the Wizard/Psion case ... as far as I can tell, the Psion is actually the class that better matches the archetype from most fantasy. And therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it's the Wizard that needs to justify its existence, not the Psion. :smalltongue:

Otogi
2010-04-26, 11:51 AM
I dislike the fluff for a medieval setting and lack the patience to reflavor. I run my own worlds and there is never psionics, because they're medieval-type worlds. They don't fit. Just like 3.5 Incarnum or Tome of Battle doesn't fit. If I were playing spelljammer or dark sun, I would use it, because it makes sense. But I am not. :smalltongue:

But there's been psychic powers IN medieval worlds, and even if don't allow Incarnum or Tome of Battle (...for some reason), you would still have things like Dragonfire Adepts, Spellthiefs and Wu Jens.

Yora
2010-04-26, 11:53 AM
I dislike the fluff for a medieval setting and lack the patience to reflavor. I run my own worlds and there is never psionics, because they're medieval-type worlds. They don't fit. Just like in 3.5 Incarnum or Tome of Battle doesn't fit. If I were playing spelljammer or dark sun, I would use it, because it makes sense. But I am not. :smalltongue:
I'm currently trying to make a psionic high fantasy setting. I wonder how the result will be.

hamishspence
2010-04-26, 11:54 AM
Mercedes Lackey combined psychic powers, magic, and medieval-level technology in the Heralds of Valdemar novels.

That said, the "Mage Gift" was basically another psychic power- that allowed you to see, and wield, magic- whereas all the other psychic powers were more traditional ones.

Yora
2010-04-26, 11:59 AM
What is it will spellbooks anyway? I think I can remember some instances in which wizards poured over old tomes to find ways to defeat a monster or research the location of an artifact. But have there ever been any wizards that got their spells from their books?

Draz74
2010-04-26, 12:01 PM
even if don't allow Incarnum or Tome of Battle (...for some reason),

I started to object to this, too ... then I noticed it actually made sense for him, because he flat-out admitted that he "lacks the patience to re-flavor." Personally I don't find re-flavoring most things very hard, but if it's too much work for him, then I can see why even something as wonderful as Tome of Battle might not fit into a "standard" D&D setting.

Kurald Galain
2010-04-26, 12:02 PM
But in the Wizard/Psion case ... as far as I can tell, the Psion is actually the class that better matches the archetype from most fantasy. And therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it's the Wizard that needs to justify its existence, not the Psion. :smalltongue:
In earlier editions, this is precisely right: any spellpoint- or fatigue-system is a far better match for magic in fiction, than vancian casting. Except, you know, in certain books by Jack Vance :smalltongue:

But then my point remains that there is no need for both the wizard and the psion. In 4E, the wizard is no longer vancian in the first place, so it's no longer true that he's the "worse fit" and still one of them is redundant.

Mercedes Lackey certainly has two systems of magic in there, but neither of them is vancian. Robin Hobb does the same. So for neither setting would it be correct to claim that "one kind of caster is the wizard, the other is the psion". No, they're either both wizards or both psions (with different power selections), and there'd still be no need for both classes in an RPG.

Tavar
2010-04-26, 12:03 PM
What is it will spellbooks anyway? I think I can remember some instances in which wizards poured over old tomes to find ways to defeat a monster or research the location of an artifact. But have there ever been any wizards that got their spells from their books?

In Jack Vance's books, yes. Thus, again, it's a sign of people mistaking sci-fi(what Jack Vance wrote) for fantasy.

Kurald Galain
2010-04-26, 12:04 PM
In Jack Vance's books, yes. Thus, again, it's a sign of people mistaking sci-fi(what Jack Vance wrote) for fantasy.

Vance wrote both, and his Dying Earth series is very much fantasy.

On the other hand, how many fantasy novels can you find that involve ectoplasm and sentient floating crystals?

hamishspence
2010-04-26, 12:04 PM
In Mercedes Lackey, it might be closer to:

there are wizards, and noncaster characters with at-will psi-like abilities.

Some of which are more powerful than others.

Jayabalard
2010-04-26, 12:06 PM
Psionics was just what sci-fi invented so they could have magic. So just consider it one of three forms of magic, Arcane, Divine and the Mind.I personalyl would have to consider it one of the two forms of magic, arcane and divine. Both of those are covered, so there's really no need for it.


But have there ever been any wizards that got their spells from their books?There's the spellbook in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

hamishspence
2010-04-26, 12:10 PM
Discworld also has wizard spellbooks- which can get dangerous:

"On Discworld, book reads YOU!" :smallbiggrin:

Spellcasters in H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos are sometimes called wizards, and get their spells from books.

Optimystik
2010-04-26, 12:16 PM
Mercedes Lackey combined psychic powers, magic, and medieval-level technology in the Heralds of Valdemar novels.

I'm quite fond of those books, if only for the very gay protagonist in the Magic's Pawn trilogy :smallbiggrin:

And thank you for reminding me of this very clear exception to the "only D&D combines magic and psionics!" myth.


I started to object to this, too ... then I noticed it actually made sense for him, because he flat-out admitted that he "lacks the patience to re-flavor." Personally I don't find re-flavoring most things very hard, but if it's too much work for him, then I can see why even something as wonderful as Tome of Battle might not fit into a "standard" D&D setting.

I honestly don't. Faerun and Eberron flat-out juxtapose magic and psionics without quibble, and they are "standard D&D settings." ToB is easy - toss the disciplines in Kara-Tur, or tie each one to regions. And every D&D setting has the PEP, so why wouldn't Incarnum work?

gdiddy
2010-04-26, 12:16 PM
But there's been psychic powers IN medieval worlds, and even if don't allow Incarnum or Tome of Battle (...for some reason), you would still have things like Dragonfire Adepts, Spellthiefs and Wu Jens.

They're not allowed, either. Because when I DM, I run low-fantasy, George R. R. Martin-style settings. I also nerf the hell out of all casters and items in 3.5 (spells do their level in Constitution damage to the caster, items cost 100x book price). This is done for flavor. In this world, the power level of all characters is reduced and the lethality is very high. Things that are not medieval or European enough in my opinion, don't get nerfed and reflavored, they just aren't allowed in.

This is the same reason I play Planescape in 2e and custom campaigns in 3.5. As much as I like mechanics, fluff makes it or breaks it for me. I think I'm in the majority, though in the right campaign, I appreciate lot's of ToB, Psi-stuff, or whatever.

ghost_warlock
2010-04-26, 12:18 PM
In earlier editions, this is precisely right: any spellpoint- or fatigue-system is a far better match for magic in fiction, than vancian casting. Except, you know, in certain books by Jack Vance :smalltongue:

But then my point remains that there is no need for both the wizard and the psion. In 4E, the wizard is no longer vancian in the first place, so it's no longer true that he's the "worse fit" and still one of them is redundant.

Mercedes Lackey certainly has two systems of magic in there, but neither of them is vancian. Robin Hobb does the same. So for neither setting would it be correct to claim that "one kind of caster is the wizard, the other is the psion". No, they're either both wizards or both psions (with different power selections), and there'd still be no need for both classes in an RPG.

However, by this logic, there is no need for both a rogue and a ranger, a cleric and a paladin, an assassin and a rogue, an invoker and a wizard, a fighter and a barbarian, etc.

From a mechanical perspective, the psion offers variety that the other controllers can't claim it reintroduces a spell-power system into an otherwise universal and stale at-will/encounter/daily power system and thereby avoids redundancy.


I personalyl would have to consider it one of the two forms of magic, arcane and divine. Both of those are covered, so there's really no need for it.
There is no significant difference between arcane and divine magic in 4e.

hamishspence
2010-04-26, 12:19 PM
Aren't illithids a part of Planescape? With Ilsensine, the illithid deity, making its home in the Outlands?

Yora
2010-04-26, 12:23 PM
On the other hand, how many fantasy novels can you find that involve ectoplasm and sentient floating crystals?
Which is exactly the reason you can't blame anyone for not wanting psionics in his fantasy game as written. :smallbiggrin:

I have started reflavoring with calling the psion a witch and flavoring it as a wu jen, and the psychic warrior a swordmage. Wilders are perfectly okay, as they are.
Psicraft is identical to Spellcraft and called the same.
Psionic items are handled just like magical items, and are created with the same feats. Dorjes are wands, psicrowns are staffs, and psicrystals are scrolls.
Clairsentience is called divination, metacreativity is conjuration, psychokinesis is evocation, psychometabolism is transmutation, and telepathy is enchantment.
There are no abjuration, illusion, and necromancy powers. Psychoportation is conjuration (teleportation) and the only sub-school a witch can specialize in.
That leaves only the powers to be renamed. Which is, unfortunately, the biggest effort with this whole thing. ^^


However, by this logic, there is no need for both a rogue and a ranger, a cleric and a paladin, an assassin and a rogue, an invoker and a wizard, a fighter and a barbarian, etc.
There are no paladins, assassins, and invokers in my games either. :smallwink:

Kurald Galain
2010-04-26, 12:26 PM
However, by this logic, there is no need for both a rogue and a ranger, a cleric and a paladin, an assassin and a rogue, an invoker and a wizard, a fighter and a barbarian, etc.
For several of those, yes, that's precisely the point. It strikes me as an exaggeration on several of the others.

The question is how many classes can be printed before they become redundant. A common complaint about the 3E samurai is that it isn't needed, because the fighter class already covers that. I'd say 4E is nearing its saturation point, and they seem now to be arbitrarily printing new mechanics just for the sake of it.


From a mechanical perspective, the psion offers variety that the other controllers can't claim
As I said earlier, wasn't having separate mechanics for the same thing precisely something 4E design wanted to avoid?

At least in my area, when PHB2 came out, there was a surge of people playing PHB2 classes because they were highly interested in particularly barbarians and druids. When the PHB3 came out, most people around here went "meh". There are far more people playing PHB1 classes precisely because they are more iconic.

The Glyphstone
2010-04-26, 12:27 PM
My personal campaign setting had psionics beat up sorcerers and steal their fluff. The sorcerers beat up the warlocks and stole their fluff in turn. Warlocks ended up as failed psions.

I've heard and seen that 4E finally made psionics fluff-distinct, whether or not they're mechanically/role redundant, which I applaud.

gdiddy
2010-04-26, 12:37 PM
Aren't illithids a part of Planescape? With Ilsensine, the illithid deity, making its home in the Outlands?


You might have misunderstood me. In my own setting, I disallow psionics. When playing in settings with psionics, I play with psionics.

Flavor as Written counts for a lot. And it turns a lot of people off, if they're going for Martin-esque or Tolkien-esque settings.

I remember once, while playing with a DM who is very chill with what is allowed in his campaign, someone asked for a spare character sheet for a new player. I handed it over to the DM, who was helping her make her character. He had most everything filled out, and then saw on the second page that this generic sheet had Powers/PP fields, next to its spell fields. The DM got suspicious. "Is this a Psionics sheet? Do you have any other kind?" When someone else produced one, he relaxed. "Yeah, let's get her a real sheet." This is not uncommon. The sight of the sheet was troublesome and considered too confusing for a new player to handle. Furthermore, some people outright hate Psionics. It's always standing as something superfluous, an addition to the normal game and requires justification in a setting.

Draz74
2010-04-26, 12:41 PM
In earlier editions, this is precisely right: any spellpoint- or fatigue-system is a far better match for magic in fiction, than vancian casting. Except, you know, in certain books by Jack Vance :smalltongue:

But then my point remains that there is no need for both the wizard and the psion. In 4E, the wizard is no longer vancian in the first place, so it's no longer true that he's the "worse fit" and still one of them is redundant.

Meh, he's still a "worse fit" in 4e IMHO:

His focus on books and scholarship as a means to magic, while flavorful, isn't really common in fantasy
He still uses vague setting-specific explanations of where arcane magic comes from, like "The Weave" or various strange combos of hand gestures and mumblings, instead of just saying "his mind is so powerful it can alter reality," like the Psion
His magic is generally more "flashy" than the Psion's; explosions and bright-colored auras of fire, lightning, and so on are harder to flavor as "subtle magic" than, say, the Psion's Charm effects.

ghost_warlock
2010-04-26, 12:44 PM
For several of those, yes, that's precisely the point. It strikes me as an exaggeration on several of the others.

The question is how many classes can be printed before they become redundant. A common complaint about the 3E samurai is that it isn't needed, because the fighter class already covers that. I'd say 4E is nearing its saturation point, and they seem now to be arbitrarily printing new mechanics just for the sake of it.
Technically, any more than one class to fill each role would be redundant.

However, we're coming at this from two different perspectives. I see variety (even if for variety's sake) as a boon to the system, rather than as a redundant nuisance.

My personal preference, when envisioning a fantasy world, is one that has room for a massive variety of characters and power sources. Why on earth should I want to restrict my character options to books and prayers when I can also have the option of wilderness spirits, self-empowered mind over matter, pacts with questionable entities, directly tapping planar energies, stealing from the gods rather than bowing to them, and whatever else strikes a fancy at the time?


As I said earlier, wasn't having separate mechanics for the same thing precisely something 4E design wanted to avoid?
If so, then WotC has violated their own design philosophy; to the benefit of 4e players, imo.


At least in my area, when PHB2 came out, there was a surge of people playing PHB2 classes because they were highly interested in particularly barbarians and druids. When the PHB3 came out, most people around here went "meh". There are far more people playing PHB1 classes precisely because they are more iconic.
Might just be your area. The group I usually play with consists of a monk, a psion, a warden, a druid, and (my PC) a warlock. Occasionally we're joined by a fighter. Fairly even spread between the PHBs it seems to me.

Optimystik
2010-04-26, 12:49 PM
Technically, any more than one class to fill each role would be redundant.

However, we're coming at this from two different perspectives. I see variety (even if for variety's sake) as a boon to the system, rather than as a redundant nuisance.

My personal preference, when envisioning a fantasy world, is one that has room for a massive variety of characters and power sources. Why on earth should I want to restrict my character options to books and prayers when I can also have the option of wilderness spirits, self-empowered mind over matter, pacts with questionable entities, directly tapping planar energies, stealing from the gods rather than bowing to them, and whatever else strikes a fancy at the time?
...
If so, then WotC has violated their own design philosophy; to the benefit of 4e players, imo.

This post is win. That is all.

hamishspence
2010-04-26, 12:57 PM
Things that are not medieval or European enough in my opinion, don't get nerfed and reflavored, they just aren't allowed in.

This is the same reason I play Planescape in 2e and custom campaigns in 3.5. As much as I like mechanics, fluff makes it or breaks it for me. I think I'm in the majority, though in the right campaign, I appreciate lot's of ToB, Psi-stuff, or whatever.

I was responding to this.

It seemed from the post, that one of the reasons for playing 2nd ed Planescape, was that it didn't have psionics in- which seemed a little odd, given that psionic creatures, at least, exist in it.

On settings with both psionics and magic- quite a lot of "modern fantasy" has it. Magic being rituals, incantations, circles, sacrifices and what have you, psionics being telepathy, object reading, etc.

Optimystik
2010-04-26, 01:02 PM
Flavor as Written counts for a lot. And it turns a lot of people off, if they're going for Martin-esque or Tolkien-esque settings.

I don't think any D&D magic system fits Tolkien or Martin. About the only thing they all have in common are dragons.


The DM got suspicious. "Is this a Psionics sheet? Do you have any other kind?" When someone else produced one, he relaxed. "Yeah, let's get her a real sheet." This is not uncommon.

:smallsigh:

Otogi
2010-04-26, 01:03 PM
I was responding to this.

It seemed from the post, that one of the reasons for playing 2nd ed Planescape, was that it didn't have psionics in- which seemed a little odd, given that psionic creatures, at least, exist in it.

On settings with both psionics and magic- quite a lot of "modern fantasy" has it. Magic being rituals, incantations, circles, sacrifices and what have you, psionics being telepathy, object reading, etc.

Actually, Planescape did have psionics and allowed Psionicists (goofy name by the way), but I just don't remember seeing any named NPCs having them.

gdiddy
2010-04-26, 01:04 PM
I play Planescape in 2e because it's the only version that actually supports the setting. :smalltongue: And I lack the patience to convert for 3.x and the setting, mechanics, and whatnot all make sense as a cogent unit. Of course we play Planescape with psionics (broken, horrible 2e psionics) and it rocks, because it makes sense.

[EDIT]: @Optimystic- I'll be the first to admit my game requires piles of homebrew. Just click the Heir of Karmark recruitment thread in my sig for examples. It's a little more fantasy than my ideal (Casters take Con damage, which keeps them in check) for casting, but so few people want to play Iron Heroes.

hamishspence
2010-04-26, 01:07 PM
I see- because Planescape isn't medieval European, Psionics is OK, but in any medieval European setting, it's less OK?

I can understand that.

Still, psionics can have a bit of witchy flavor if done right.

gdiddy
2010-04-26, 01:15 PM
I see- because Planescape isn't medieval European, Psionics is OK, but in any medieval European setting, it's less OK?

I can understand that.

Still, psionics can have a bit of witchy flavor if done right.

If I wanted to distill it down to a hard fast rule, yes.

Though this isn't absolute. I might allow Psionics in a medieval european flavor campaign as a one-time thing for a compelling duegar character. (There would be no place for a gith, illithid, or thri-keen, though.) However, the "I'm a human with something weird" theme of most psionic races is just...unappealing.

Choco
2010-04-26, 01:16 PM
Really the "problem" with psionics is 1 (or both) of 2 issues:

1.) Ignorance. As was pointed out before, some people are still bitter over 2e psionics to the point where they don't even bother looking at it in newer versions of the game.

2.) Flavor. Some people just don't like the flavor when 3 forms of magic (arcane, divine, primal in 4e) already exist. I fall in this camp, though instead of banning it I prefer to just refluff it.

Optimystik
2010-04-26, 01:16 PM
Is any D&D setting "medieval European fantasy," Martin-style? Maybe Oerth, but even that has planar travel, outsiders, constructs, elementals etc. running around, IIRC.

The way I see it, once you introduce fluff elements like those - and particularly something like an "astral plane" - you've blown that door off its hinges long ago.

ghost_warlock
2010-04-26, 01:20 PM
If I wanted to distill it down to a hard fast rule, yes.

However, the "I'm a human with something weird" theme of most psionic races is just...unappealing.

Honestly, I feel the same way about elves, dwarves, halflings, orcs, etc.

I make allowances for gnomes precisely because of the shadowcraft mage. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-04-26, 01:20 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_projection

Astral planes aren't completely out of place in western philosophy.

Even medieval (or premedieval) times had the concept.

Still- D&D draws from a lot of eras, not just medieval.

electricbee
2010-04-26, 01:25 PM
I don't get the reluctance to flavor to taste.

Call a telepathy psion an enchanter or enchantress. Or a wizard or a sorcerer for that matter, and I don't have a problem with magical dude influending others actions or knocking stuff around.

The power suite doesn't seem that far out there for fantasy.

hamishspence
2010-04-26, 01:26 PM
On psion specialist names- Seer is a name that doesn't even need changing- it sounds perfect for almost any setting.

Optimystik
2010-04-26, 01:31 PM
"Kineticist" might be a bit non-standard though, never mind "psychoportation."

Just playing Devil's advocate here, I'm fully in favor of reflavoring to taste if a given DM doesn't like such names. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-04-26, 01:40 PM
Yes- some names need changing, some don't.

Kineticist could be Evoker.

Hmm- what would psychoportation be renamed?

Optimystik
2010-04-26, 01:42 PM
Hmm- what would psychoportation be renamed?

Displacement? (following the Wheel of Time talent/school naming convention.)

hamishspence
2010-04-26, 01:44 PM
a specialist could be a "Displacer"

This might go well with Displacer Beast- if you take the view that the creature warps space on a small scale (and that's why it's hard to hit), a bit like teleporting.

Optimystik
2010-04-26, 01:49 PM
It also has the added advantage of being broader than mere "teleportation" - allowing it to encompass non-teleport Psychoportations like Catfall and Psionic Disintegrate.

hamishspence
2010-04-26, 01:52 PM
How would it work for Disintegrate? All the particles in the target being "displaced" a short way away from each other, in all directions?

Optimystik
2010-04-26, 01:55 PM
I'd say it displaces the bonds holding those particles in the creature's shape. This also explains why you only get a tiny bit of dust from a much larger creature - many of the elements in the person's body become gases immediately (Oxygen, Hydrogen etc.) and dissipate, leaving only the metalloids like Carbon/Silicon.

But I'm getting pseudo-science-y again :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-04-26, 02:10 PM
Either way- it makes sense in the context of moving things.

All particles are moved just far enough that there's nothing holding them to each other.

So in Aristotelian terms, all the Air, Fire, and Water in the body escapes, leaving only a small pile of Earth :smallbiggrin:

gdiddy
2010-04-26, 02:15 PM
I'd say it displaces the bonds holding those particles in the creature's shape. This also explains why you only get a tiny bit of dust from a much larger creature - many of the elements in the person's body become gases immediately (Oxygen, Hydrogen etc.) and dissipate, leaving only the metalloids like Carbon/Silicon.

But I'm getting pseudo-science-y again :smalltongue:

What people think of when they hear "psionics". (Lots of dead catgirls.)


Either way- it makes sense in the context of moving things.

All particles are moved just far enough that there's nothing holding them to each other.

So in Aristotelian terms, all the Air, Fire, and Water in the body escapes, leaving only a small pile of Earth :smallbiggrin:

What people think of when they hear "magic". (Ancient ill-informed belief systems.)

hamishspence
2010-04-26, 02:32 PM
Yup- the same spell can be flavored in 2 different ways.

Optimystik
2010-04-26, 02:33 PM
What people think of when they hear "psionics". (Lots of dead catgirls.)

Atop the genocided piles that have fallen to Tippyverse, this is an anthill next to Everest anyway. *shrug*

We already have pressureless fireballs, thunderless lightning, drowning to heal and all kinds of other delightful contrivances, after all.

Oslecamo
2010-04-26, 02:48 PM
drowning to heal

Healing? What healing? You go to 0HP, then -1, then die. The rules don't say anything that you still need to be under water for that to happen. Just that you need to fail one save for holding your breath. Then the water enters your lungs, you get one moment of awareness as your body enters in shock and desesperately tries to pump out the water, then die painfully.

Volthawk
2010-04-26, 02:57 PM
Healing? What healing? You go to 0HP, then -1, then die. The rules don't say anything that you still need to be under water for that to happen. Just that you need to fail one save for holding your breath. Then the water enters your lungs, you get one moment of awareness as your body enters in shock and desesperately tries to pump out the water, then die painfully.

I think it goes like this:

You're at -9 (for example).

Someone dunks your head into a bucket.

You go back to 0HP.

You get pulled out.

Or something like that...

NEO|Phyte
2010-04-26, 03:00 PM
I think it goes like this:

You're at -9 (for example).

Someone dunks your head into a bucket.

You go back to 0HP.

You get pulled out.

Or something like that...

Key rule quote:

Healing that raises the dying character’s hit points to 0 makes him conscious and disabled. Healing that raises his hit points to 1 or more makes him fully functional again, just as if he’d never been reduced to 0 or lower. A spellcaster retains the spellcasting capability she had before dropping below 0 hit points.
Stick head in bucket, drop to 0, friend heals you for at least 1 HP, good as new.

Oslecamo
2010-04-26, 03:02 PM
I think it goes like this:

You're at -9 (for example).

Someone dunks your head into a bucket.

You go back to 0HP.

You get pulled out.

Or something like that...You keep drowning because the water's at your lungs.

You drop to -1

You're dead.


Soo you delay your death by some seconds. Wich is what's suposed to happen when you slow down somebody's metabolism by cuting their oxygen supply anyway.

NEO|Phyte:The healing rules don't say anything about removing the drowning condition. Heal the dude all you want. It won't help him any better than if he had been droped to negatives by a poison effect that will affect him 1 minute later.

olentu
2010-04-26, 03:04 PM
Healing? What healing? You go to 0HP, then -1, then die. The rules don't say anything that you still need to be under water for that to happen. Just that you need to fail one save for holding your breath. Then the water enters your lungs, you get one moment of awareness as your body enters in shock and desesperately tries to pump out the water, then die painfully.

Well the theory is that if at sufficiently negative HP the going to 0 part would heal the character. Also I have heard that there is supposedly some way said to stop drowning with a heal check in stormwrack but I can not provide a reference since I have never been able to find it. That is not to say it does not exist though since I could have easily missed something obvious. If anyone happens to know where such a thing is I would appreciate directions to it.

Optimystik
2010-04-26, 03:11 PM
Healing? What healing? You go to 0HP, then -1, then die. The rules don't say anything that you still need to be under water for that to happen. Just that you need to fail one save for holding your breath. Then the water enters your lungs, you get one moment of awareness as your body enters in shock and desesperately tries to pump out the water, then die painfully.

Um, RAW says nothing about water entering the lungs either. Nor does it provide ways to expel said water, even by inducing vomiting. You're actually proving my point that RAW is silly - kudos.

NEO|Phyte
2010-04-26, 03:16 PM
NEO|Phyte:[/B]The healing rules don't say anything about removing the drowning condition. Heal the dude all you want. It won't help him any better than if he had been droped to negatives by a poison effect that will affect him 1 minute later.

I'd hardly call "fully functional, as if they'd never been dropped to 0 or below" one's state while drowning. D&D is full of dumb rule quirks like this, which is why any DM that takes their game seriously don't follow them exactly.

Volthawk
2010-04-26, 03:19 PM
NEO|Phyte:The healing rules don't say anything about removing the drowning condition. Heal the dude all you want. It won't help him any better than if he had been droped to negatives by a poison effect that will affect him 1 minute later.

Wait, drowning's a condition?

I'm not seeing it here... (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm)

Yora
2010-04-26, 03:24 PM
I don't get the reluctance to flavor to taste.
You first have to like something before you go through the trouble of reflavoring it. If you hate the basic idea from the start, and you don't want it in your game, you wouldn't even start to think what is salvagable.

For example, one could say that a psion does just the same thing as a sorcerer, and when someone wants to play a spontaneous arcane spellcaster, he can play that. Going through the trouble of reflavoring psion, only so you end up with two sorcerers? Few people would do that.
I like power points and psionic feats, so I go through all the trouble and kick out arcane spellcasting to replace it with refluffed psionics. :smallbiggrin:
But when I want to improve fighters and look at maneuvers, all I see is more variants of greater magic weapon, true strike, and keen edge. Probably could be refluffed, but I don't like the concept of melee characters having limited uses of their abilities or only having access to some of their abilities at any one moment, so I won't bother with refluffing maneuvers.

Ormagoden
2010-04-26, 03:24 PM
Wait, drowning's a condition?

I'm not seeing it here... (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm)

I IHS drowning!

No but seriously back on topic of psionics PLZ! I was enjoying reading this until drowning came up.

I do have to side with Gdiddy on this one. I like psionics, but it only has a place in some campaigns.

Volthawk
2010-04-26, 03:29 PM
I IHS drowning!

No but seriously back on topic of psionics PLZ! I was enjoying reading this until drowning came up.

I do have to side with Gdiddy on this one. I like psionics, but it only has a place in some campaigns.

So, you use your mental strength to make the water disappear?

Funnily enough, sounds like something Psionics would do...

Personally, I like Psionics. It's fun, and has cool stuff with it, and gives a lot more control over your powers.

Ormagoden
2010-04-26, 03:42 PM
So, you use your mental strength to make the water disappear?

Funnily enough, sounds like something Psionics would do...

Personally, I like Psionics. It's fun, and has cool stuff with it, and gives a lot more control over your powers.

Yeah i wonder what the DC for a concentration check to pull a power off while your dead is...

The Glyphstone
2010-04-26, 04:09 PM
I thought being dead doesn't actually impair your functionality at all?:smallbiggrin:

erikun
2010-04-26, 05:37 PM
In my games, I prefer "magic" that is mysterious, wonderous, and unknown. Psionics fits just as much as Arcane, Divine, Primal, Shadowcraft, Incarum, Truenaming, Draconic, Fey, Demonology, and whatever else you could think of fits. Reducing every event in the world to something you could scribble into a notebook and preform yourself with a day's preparation feels both silly and counterintuitive - not to mention quite against the feel of most fantasy I've read.

FMArthur
2010-04-26, 06:11 PM
Most medieval fantasy that I've read has their mages closer to psions in the way they cast and in flavor than to wizards and sorcerors. Maybe I just read the wrong books?

gdiddy
2010-04-26, 07:40 PM
Most medieval fantasy that I've read has their mages closer to psions in the way they cast and in flavor than to wizards and sorcerors. Maybe I just read the wrong books?

If there is a reflavoring of psionics that keeps the mechanics, I will use it and renounce the false god Vance.

Optimystik
2010-04-26, 08:21 PM
If there is a reflavoring of psionics that keeps the mechanics, I will use it and renounce the false god Vance.

Or you could just stick with magic and renounce the false god Vance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) :smalltongue:

Draz74
2010-04-26, 08:25 PM
Or you could just stick with magic and renounce the false god Vance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) :smalltongue:

Because magic isn't broken enough already. :smalltongue:

gdiddy
2010-04-26, 11:14 PM
Or you could just stick with magic and renounce the false god Vance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) :smalltongue:

Meh. It's incomplete and feels wonky when I just tried to convert a few things. Metamagic and neat little ancillary abilities would need to be pp-reliant. Focus would need to be added.

Meh. It's a lot of work, more than one of the of proto-ideas in UA can fix. They're great inspiration for home-brewing, but some of the ideas are just not thought out.

I love the psionic mechanics, but there is an impasse. No one who dislikes psionics fluff cares enough to reflavor such blasphemies against Gygax, and the people who like it already wouldn't want to reflavor it for the unwashed unbelievers. I watch both ships passing in the night from my island, alone. Maybe I'll do it this summer, if I thought people would react positively to it.

olentu
2010-04-27, 12:24 AM
Meh. It's incomplete and feels wonky when I just tried to convert a few things. Metamagic and neat little ancillary abilities would need to be pp-reliant. Focus would need to be added.

Meh. It's a lot of work, more than one of the of proto-ideas in UA can fix. They're great inspiration for home-brewing, but some of the ideas are just not thought out.

I love the psionic mechanics, but there is an impasse. No one who dislikes psionics fluff cares enough to reflavor such blasphemies against Gygax, and the people who like it already wouldn't want to reflavor it for the unwashed unbelievers. I watch both ships passing in the knight from my island, alone. Maybe I'll do it this summer, if I thought people would react positively to it.

Well they list two options by which metamagic can work under the system no focus needed. One pay by the modified slot rather then the original level. Two each feat can be used three times per day cost free but can not raise modified slot over the level able to be cast if not using spell points.

ghost_warlock
2010-04-27, 12:29 AM
I love the psionic mechanics, but there is an impasse. No one who dislikes psionics fluff cares enough to reflavor such blasphemies against Gygax, and the people who like it already wouldn't want to reflavor it for the unwashed unbelievers.

Really? From this very thread:


My personal campaign setting had psionics beat up sorcerers and steal their fluff. The sorcerers beat up the warlocks and stole their fluff in turn. Warlocks ended up as failed psions.

I've heard and seen that 4E finally made psionics fluff-distinct, whether or not they're mechanically/role redundant, which I applaud.


I have started reflavoring with calling the psion a witch and flavoring it as a wu jen, and the psychic warrior a swordmage. Wilders are perfectly okay, as they are.
Psicraft is identical to Spellcraft and called the same.
Psionic items are handled just like magical items, and are created with the same feats. Dorjes are wands, psicrowns are staffs, and psicrystals are scrolls.
Clairsentience is called divination, metacreativity is conjuration, psychokinesis is evocation, psychometabolism is transmutation, and telepathy is enchantment.
There are no abjuration, illusion, and necromancy powers. Psychoportation is conjuration (teleportation) and the only sub-school a witch can specialize in.
That leaves only the powers to be renamed. Which is, unfortunately, the biggest effort with this whole thing. ^^


I like power points and psionic feats, so I go through all the trouble and kick out arcane spellcasting to replace it with refluffed psionics. :smallbiggrin:

gdiddy
2010-04-27, 12:57 AM
Really? From this very thread:

Yora mentioned the refluff effort three times, I think. And Glyphstone's fluff shuffle is neat.

But a majority of the effort, that is turning every "biofeedback" into "Anselon's Toughening", etc, needs to be done. Making effects flashy, rather than making bell noises, making things sound more primitive, elemental, and unpseudoscientific. Most importantly, taking a hammer to Every. Single. Crystal. And Ioun Stones, too, while I'm at it. Then, after grinding up the powder and snorting it, I'll giving them proper alchemical flavors.

@Olentu: I was clearly wrong. I must have misread. But the misread spawned something great: I'm going to stick with Vancian, but only until I reflavor every [psionic] thing in the SRD.

Doc Roc
2010-04-27, 02:50 AM
So, this really bothers me. Why are you so deeply bothered by the psionics fluff? And Ioun stones? They've been around for a long time now, actually, so I'd think that you'd be generally accustomed to them, or that you'd have scribbled up some new fluff. And honestly, the whole idea of this as some grand undertaking is bothersome too. It's just 20 minutes of time writing up a compelling new flavor for existing mechanics.

hamishspence
2010-04-27, 02:57 AM
Most importantly, taking a hammer to Every. Single. Crystal. And Ioun Stones, too, while I'm at it. Then, after grinding up the powder and snorting it, I'll giving them proper alchemical flavors.

What's wrong with crystals? Isn't the Crystal Ball a staple of magic in general?

Traditionally, various gems were believed to have beneficial properties. So the use of gems and crystals in magic items doesn't seem all that out of place.

Wands made out of single large crystals, however, might be a bit much.

Doc Roc
2010-04-27, 02:59 AM
Wait, wait. I thought that was Energon.
Those are crystal? ;)

gdiddy
2010-04-27, 03:13 AM
Because I am overly dramatic and lazy?

Or at least I am toward gaming. It would not take me twenty minutes, but likely a set of 4-8 hours.

Also, it's grand because it may bring the psionics mechanics to non-psionic players.

Most IRL players I have met revile psionics. It's visceral, but I can't help but think it has to do with all the pseudoscience fluff.

Ioun stones have never seen any of the campaigns I've been in or DM'd. They're the Illumians of items. And psionic crystals are not classic crystal balls, they resemble real world new age beliefs more than anything.

hamishspence
2010-04-27, 03:44 AM
Ioun stones have never seen any of the campaigns I've been in or DM'd. They're the Illumians of items. And psionic crystals are not classic crystal balls, they resemble real world new age beliefs more than anything.

True- but how much New Age stuff is based heavily on very "old age" stuff?

Doc Roc
2010-04-27, 03:48 AM
True- but how much New Age stuff is based heavily on very "old age" stuff?

Not as much as you'd think, actually, but that's neither here nor there if we are honest. I guess the thang is that basically some people have irreconcilable feelings of animosity towards psi's fluff.

hamishspence
2010-04-27, 03:52 AM
I can understand that- though I've seen novels where magic sounds an awful lot like psionics- the person has an inner reservoir of power, which is depleted by casting spells, which are often scalable. Crystal swords also sometimes make appearances in non-psionic settings.

Doc Roc
2010-04-27, 03:55 AM
I can understand that- though I've seen novels where magic sounds an awful lot like psionics- the person has an inner reservoir of power, which is depleted by casting spells, which are often scalable. Crystal swords also sometimes make appearances in non-psionic settings.

I stand by my belief that psionics is all about the Energon.

Kurald Galain
2010-04-27, 04:07 AM
So, this really bothers me. Why are you so deeply bothered by the psionics fluff? And Ioun stones?
To be frank I've always found ioun stones rather stupid (and illumians, too). You're a tough adventurer with a gemstone floating around your head? Meh. But ioun stones are such a small part of the game that they're easily ignored.

That goes for the 3E psionic fluff as well (with the ectoplasm and so forth). But I've never banned 3E psionics for the fluff. I suppose I would want to limit a 3E campaign so that it doesn't contain the whole kitchen sink of arcane and divine and vestiges and psionics and truenaming and shadowcasting, but the issue has never come up in practice.

Optimystik
2010-04-27, 05:47 AM
Meh. It's incomplete and feels wonky when I just tried to convert a few things. Metamagic and neat little ancillary abilities would need to be pp-reliant.

Yes - just like they're slot-reliant now.


Focus would need to be added.

Why?


Meh. It's a lot of work, more than one of the of proto-ideas in UA can fix. They're great inspiration for home-brewing, but some of the ideas are just not thought out.

I disagree. Spell points are a key part of so many RPGs that I find it more sad than anything else that D&D had clung to Vance's coattails for as long as it did. 4e at least graduated to pseudo-Recharge, a move that I find benefited the game as a whole.


I love the psionic mechanics, but there is an impasse. No one who dislikes psionics fluff cares enough to reflavor such blasphemies against Gygax,

...You do realize Gygax is the reason we have psionics in D&D in the first place? And as I recall, Arneson was no stranger to the system either.


I can understand that- though I've seen novels where magic sounds an awful lot like psionics- the person has an inner reservoir of power, which is depleted by casting spells, which are often scalable. Crystal swords also sometimes make appearances in non-psionic settings.

Indeed - and furthermore, Wild Surge is a mechanic sorcerers at least really should have had. How many fantasy novels feature a mage cutting loose, use magic far stronger than he should be capable of, then be whacked with the fatigue-bat when he's done?

D&D magic simply can't model that - but Overchannel/Wild Surge can.

hamishspence
2010-04-27, 06:03 AM
Indeed - and furthermore, Wild Surge is a mechanic sorcerers at least really should have had. How many fantasy novels feature a mage cutting loose, use magic far stronger than he should be capable of, then be whacked with the fatigue-bat when he's done?

D&D magic simply can't model that - but Overchannel/Wild Surge can.

Which is not to say they haven't tried- with feats like Born of the Three Thunders, or the epic magic system with backlash damage- but you don't have the "any spell can be delivered with enough push to damage the caster as well" feel that you get with Overchannel.

Greenish
2010-04-27, 06:12 AM
I suppose I would want to limit a 3E campaign so that it doesn't contain the whole kitchen sink of arcane and divine and vestiges and psionics and truenaming and shadowcasting, but the issue has never come up in practice.You missed meldshaping, incantations and blade magic.

Yora
2010-04-27, 07:43 AM
No one who dislikes psionics fluff cares enough to reflavor such blasphemies against Gygax, and the people who like it already wouldn't want to reflavor it for the unwashed unbelievers.
Actually, I really don't like the way of playing that Gygax apparently represents. The charm of Greyhawk or the Tomb of Horror is as much of a mystery to me, as most of the content of the older monster manuals. He created the basis for what would become the Forgotten Realms, Planescape, and d20, but I think he can hardly be seen as the gold standard for RPGs.

Oslecamo
2010-04-27, 12:58 PM
Which is not to say they haven't tried- with feats like Born of the Three Thunders, or the epic magic system with backlash damage- but you don't have the "any spell can be delivered with enough push to damage the caster as well" feel that you get with Overchannel.

It's not that hard to implement. I've seen plenty of homebrew that allows you to cast stronger magic trough scalating fortitude saves/concentration checks, taking damage when you fail, and you only stop when your character literally can't move anymore.

The problem it's that's is even more broken than regular magic. It gives even more incentive for the 5 minute day. Go nova on a battle, then find some safe place to rest, rinse and repeat.

Basically, from a mechanical point of view, players will be more than willing to push their characters to the brink of death if it means more power now and then they can quickly recover with some hours of rest.

Agrippa
2010-04-30, 03:06 PM
Actually, I really don't like the way of playing that Gygax apparently represents. The charm of Greyhawk or the Tomb of Horror is as much of a mystery to me, as most of the content of the older monster manuals. He created the basis for what would become the Forgotten Realms, Planescape, and d20, but I think he can hardly be seen as the gold standard for RPGs.

Um, exactly what wah of playing is that?

Agrippa
2010-04-30, 03:17 PM
I disagree. Spell points are a key part of so many RPGs that I find it more sad than anything else that D&D had clung to Vance's coattails for as long as it did. 4e at least graduated to pseudo-Recharge, a move that I find benefited the game as a whole.

Actually a modified version of Vancian spellcasting, i.e. spells prepared at one time instead of per day and only a dozen slots to prepare each spell, could be interesting. And like magic in The Dying Earth these spells would be based on scientific and mathematical formulas. This would be along with spellpoint and at-will systems as well.


...You do realize Gygax is the reason we have psionics in D&D in the first place? And as I recall, Arneson was no stranger to the system either.


From what I gather Gygax supported the idea of psychic power or psionics in D&D, but hated how they were implemented. In fact from what I've read he refused to use OD&D and AD&D psionics rules in his games not due to flavor but due to mechanics. The 1st Edition PHB really was written by committee.

Optimystik
2010-04-30, 03:32 PM
From what I gather Gygax supported the idea of psychic power or psionics in D&D, but hated how they were implemented. In fact from what I've read he refused to use OD&D and AD&D psionics rules in his games not due to flavor but due to mechanics. The 1st Edition PHB really was written by committee.

Even assuming that's true (source?) it doesn't really prove much. The "idea of psychic power" is what we're discussing, the implementation is secondary to that. We already know that it was poorly implemented before XPH, so whether he loved or hated how it was done doesn't matter to the question of why there is still a problem with psionics.

Starbuck_II
2010-04-30, 03:33 PM
I stand by my explaination: the reason people have a problem with psionics is not enough bat poo. :smallbiggrin:

mikej
2010-04-30, 03:36 PM
I stand by my explaination: the reason people have a problem with psionics is not enough bat poo. :smallbiggrin:

Win. [filler/]

Nero24200
2010-04-30, 03:39 PM
I can understand that- though I've seen novels where magic sounds an awful lot like psionics- the person has an inner reservoir of power, which is depleted by casting spells, which are often scalable.

Well...just off the top of my head...the Black Magicians Trilogy (the whole series centers around mages as well), The Age of Five Trilogy, the Dragonage Setting (Like this in the games, but the books also confirm this is how magic works for them).

Though I think it's easier to note that while a few books use a psionic-esc system, far, far less use a Vancian-esc system. The only ones I have ever seen was Dying Earth (but then again, D'n'D magic is based on this), D'n'D based books (though again, based on D'n'D), and the discworld books (but even then, Discworld is meant to be a parody, so it makes sense to copy certain elements from Dying Earth. And at that, the only spell this seems to apply to is the one Rincewind has).

Oslecamo
2010-04-30, 03:40 PM
I stand by my explaination: the reason people have a problem with psionics is not enough bat poo. :smallbiggrin:

Probably more correct than you imagine.

D&D magic is flavourfull and varied. It demands exotic components and gestures, like in some kind of crazy chemistry experience, and that's exciting.

D&D psionics are cold and calculated. You could be playing a statue for all that matters. It looks more like a bunch of pure mathematic formulas than anything else, and that's boring.

This is, just look at ToB! It gives shiny names and descriptions to attacks that still deal only damage, and sudenly people love it! Full attacking is boring, but executing Twin Lion Climbing to Heavens! that demands a full round action and deals the same average damage is a dream come true!

Yakk
2010-04-30, 03:45 PM
Alright, so I've been around the Play-by-Post games a little bit, sometimes for D&D, M&M and sometimes for other games, but the ones I most look forward to is 4e games. There's actually quite a few, believe it or not, by in almost every game I can find either discourage or outright forbid the psionics power source, especially if the game had a thought out world. But why? In the PHB 3, psionics received a new back story, being a natural defense or effect for/from the Far Realm. Now, sure, not everybody uses the Points of Light, but it's mentioned that psionics are magic and not they're own, separate, sci-fi-ish energy, and psychic powers are featured a lot in old fantasy stories and fantasy fiction. So what gives? Is it the flavor from the last edition still putting a bad taste in people's mouths, or it something else?
1: High level psions are silly, because they screwed up 2 of the level 1 powers.

2: Ardents are too close to Warlords.

3: Fightbrains have an awesome name.

4: People often allow Monks. They are monks!

5: Fightbrain/Ardent/Psion all use a weird system that the DM might not yet understand.

6: Bad taste from previous D&D psionics.

gdiddy
2010-04-30, 03:50 PM
This is, just look at ToB! It gives shiny names and descriptions to attacks that still deal only damage, and sudenly people love it! Full attacking is boring, but executing Twin Lion Climbing to Heavens! that demands a full round action and deals the same average damage is a dream come true!

Except a lot of people ban ToB, too. In fact, I am going to say it's the same reason they ban psionics. They don't like the flavor.

There's not enough batpoo in ToB either.

Optimystik
2010-04-30, 03:52 PM
Probably more correct than you imagine.

D&D magic is flavourfull and varied. It demands exotic components and gestures, like in some kind of crazy chemistry experience, and that's exciting.

D&D psionics are cold and calculated. You could be playing a statue for all that matters. It looks more like a bunch of pure mathematic formulas than anything else, and that's boring.

This is, just look at ToB! It gives shiny names and descriptions to attacks that still deal only damage, and sudenly people love it! Full attacking is boring, but executing Twin Lion Climbing to Heavens! that demands a full round action and deals the same average damage is a dream come true!

It's bad form to pass your opinion off as fact, you know. Just because you find psionics boring doesn't mean we do too.

erikun
2010-04-30, 03:52 PM
I don't mean to be picking on anyone in particular, but every time I hear the psionics-too-sciencey discussion, I feel like I'm having this conversation.

DM: In my world, we have wizard who rigorously analyze the smallest details of every spell to learn how they work and how to create new spells. They join guilds and schools where they discuss magical theory, exchange spells, and create an economy to efficiently produce scrolls and magical equipment. Priests have carefully analyzed their deities wants and desires, knowing fully what lies within a deity's realm, what specifically will please or anger a deity, and what the limitations are of their magical gifts and powers. Smiths and crafters have worked over thousands of years to produce the finest quality weapons and armor from the finest quality materials, some of which rival magical equipment. Agriculture has advanced to the point where most people in the world are not tied to the fields every day, thus freeing them to follow trivial pursuits such as mercantile, magical study, and adventuring.

Me: I want to move stuff around with my mind.

DM: NO! That is far too SCIENCEY for my campaign!

Agrippa
2010-04-30, 04:05 PM
Even assuming that's true (source?) it doesn't really prove much. The "idea of psychic power" is what we're discussing, the implementation is secondary to that. We already know that it was poorly implemented before XPH, so whether he loved or hated how it was done doesn't matter to the question of why there is still a problem with psionics.

In large part because of how it was implemented in earlier editions. Imagine a first level character walking around with disintergrate. That's how broken pre-3.x psionics were.

gdiddy
2010-04-30, 04:07 PM
I don't mean to be picking on anyone in particular, but every time I hear the psionics-too-sciencey discussion, I feel like I'm having this conversation.

DM: In my world, we have wizard who rigorously analyze the smallest details of every spell to learn how they work and how to create new spells. They join guilds and schools where they discuss magical theory, exchange spells, and create an economy to efficiently produce scrolls and magical equipment. Priests have carefully analyzed their deities wants and desires, knowing fully what lies within a deity's realm, what specifically will please or anger a deity, and what the limitations are of their magical gifts and powers. Smiths and crafters have worked over thousands of years to produce the finest quality weapons and armor from the finest quality materials, some of which rival magical equipment. Agriculture has advanced to the point where most people in the world are not tied to the fields every day, thus freeing them to follow trivial pursuits such as mercantile, magical study, and adventuring.

Me: I want to move stuff around with my mind.

DM: NO! That is far too SCIENCEY for my campaign!

I am with you; I agree. They are very similar. Then, someone who is playing a character in a world along side hobbits and other Tolkien tropes says "I manifest biofeedback!"

Biofeedback, Affinity field, Metaconcert, Temporal Acceleration, Id Insinuation, just off the top of my head invoke a modern pseudo-scientific naming convention.

Then my teeth clench together and I ban it for flavor reasons. Most people don't run worlds where psionics or its flavor makes sense.

Nero24200
2010-04-30, 04:08 PM
The "science" aspect is pretty ironic. I've always thought of Vanican as being the "science"-y form of magic. Why not? When a wizard preperes spells he knows exactly how much of each spell he/she can cast. Metamagic's can't be applied on the fly, they have to be planned and thought out. What's more, spells have set limits. If a wizard can cast magic missile and gain 5 missiles, he's always gonig to gain at least 5 missiles.

On the other hand, a Psion simply has powers known and a reserve of power. They go until the power's gone, that's it.

Oslecamo
2010-04-30, 04:10 PM
It's bad form to pass your opinion off as fact, you know. Just because you find psionics boring doesn't mean we do too.

It works the other way around too. There are people wich find the vanilla attack exciting, but that doesn't stop some people from claiming that vanilla attacks are boring.:smallwink:

Plus, there are people out there wich find pure mathematics exciting. Like those wich love to do statistic studies with the D&D rules just for the lulz.:smalltongue:

Basically, diferent tastes for diferent people, it just happens that psionics taste just isn't as popular as the others. There are people wich like/love it, but there's lots of people wich don't like to mix it with your average medieval-fantasy campaign.

erikun
2010-04-30, 04:41 PM
To be fair, I can see what the problem is. I personally dislike charisma casting in general, and Sorcerers in particular. Something about the "I through fireballs through the force of my personality" just sounds funny any time I hear it. Trying to rationalize it just makes it worse in my mind.

I wouldn't stop a player from playing the class, though, if that's how they invision their character.

How about Mordenkainen's Faithful Watchdog, Otiluke's Telekinetic Sphere, Bigby's Interposing Hand, Programmed Image, Contingency... magic has no shortage of silly or very inappropriate names, depending on the setting. The main difference is that we've been playing games with Bigby's Raised Middle Digit for three decades or so, meaning we're used to it and can accept it in a medieval fantasy, even when it is otherwise completely inappropriate.

I guess I just put Psionics in the same box.

gdiddy
2010-04-30, 04:49 PM
To be fair, I can see what the problem is. I personally dislike charisma casting in general, and Sorcerers in particular. Something about the "I through fireballs through the force of my personality" just sounds funny any time I hear it. Trying to rationalize it just makes it worse in my mind.

I wouldn't stop a player from playing the class, though, if that's how they invision their character.

How about Mordenkainen's Faithful Watchdog, Otiluke's Telekinetic Sphere, Bigby's Interposing Hand, Programmed Image, Contingency... magic has no shortage of silly or very inappropriate names, depending on the setting. The main difference is that we've been playing games with Bigby's Raised Middle Digit for three decades or so, meaning we're used to it and can accept it in a medieval fantasy, even when it is otherwise completely inappropriate.



I didn't say spells were cooler or even made more sense, just that they had less of a modern pseudo-science naming convention.


I guess I just put Psionics in the same box.

Probably! :smallsmile:

If Wizards was serious about integrating psionics into 4e, they probably should have had the psion in the PHB I. Instead, a new generation of gamers will always see it as ancillary.

Nero24200
2010-04-30, 05:08 PM
If Wizards was serious about integrating psionics into 4e, they probably should have had the psion in the PHB I. Instead, a new generation of gamers will always see it as ancillary.

A while back on the Paizo forums oen of the designers asked "How would you like to see psionics" and the majority of psionic fans said "Keep powers, keep power points, keep augmentation, in fact, make one or two tweeks but keep it largely the same. Then make it "core"".

And well...I agree. I see core material being given passes very often even if obvious cheese is used...but non-core content has to be monitored carefully.

randomhero00
2010-04-30, 06:29 PM
The whole 'disliking psionics because of the flavor of its names' deal is fallacy.

For crying out loud, wizards have spells like, Clone, Temporal Stasis, Disjunction, Astral Projection, Telekinesis, Dimensional Lock, etc.

Optimystik
2010-04-30, 08:25 PM
In large part because of how it was implemented in earlier editions. Imagine a first level character walking around with disintergrate. That's how broken pre-3.x psionics were.

It's still not relevant. Those problems have been fixed for almost a decade now.
As a community, we have two choices - continue to wring our hands over the flumphs and duckbunnies of yesteryear, or move forward.


If Wizards was serious about integrating psionics into 4e, they probably should have had the psion in the PHB I. Instead, a new generation of gamers will always see it as ancillary.

4e does not work that way.
Every PHB in this edition is core.

By that logic, they intended Primal classes to be ancillary too, by relegating them to PHB2 - despite nature-powered classes being a fantasy staple.

Doc Roc
2010-04-30, 09:02 PM
Purchasing decisions DO work that way though, and a lot of people through-out this thread have spoken against primal power sources for just that reason.

Agrippa
2010-04-30, 09:07 PM
It's still not relevant. Those problems have been fixed for almost a decade now.
As a community, we have two choices - continue to wring our hands over the flumphs and duckbunnies of yesteryear, or move forward.

I agree, but that's what people still think about when they hear "D&D psionics". By the way, what's so bad about duckbunnies?

Arakune
2010-04-30, 09:10 PM
I guess it was either Doc Roc or Kurald Kain (was it?) that said psionics just have more greek instead of latin...

erikun
2010-04-30, 09:19 PM
The whole 'disliking psionics because of the flavor of its names' deal is fallacy.
I feel compelled to point out that disliking something is never a fallacy.

gdiddy
2010-04-30, 09:23 PM
By that logic, they intended Primal classes to be ancillary too, by relegating them to PHB2 - despite nature-powered classes being a fantasy staple.

You mean all I have to do is pay an extra $35 for the privilege of something that was in 4e "from the beginning?" My issues with the way that Wizards is using a Games Workshop-esque model for 4e aside, it still costs money. Without even an SRD with Psi-stuff in it, even less people are going to have access to 4e Psionics. Aside from people who want hybrid rules, people who need to play a monk, and the Dark Sun players who will have to buy this book, it's pretty insular and can outright be ignored by a lot of people.

Philistine
2010-04-30, 10:02 PM
I am with you; I agree. They are very similar. Then, someone who is playing a character in a world along side hobbits and other Tolkien tropes says "I manifest biofeedback!"

Biofeedback, Affinity field, Metaconcert, Temporal Acceleration, Id Insinuation, just off the top of my head invoke a modern pseudo-scientific naming convention.

Then my teeth clench together and I ban it for flavor reasons. Most people don't run worlds where psionics or its flavor makes sense.
Yeah, because "I cast Hypnotism (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/hypnotism.htm)!" sounds substantially less silly - in character - than the psionic example does. :smallamused:

Maybe it's just me, but caster characters that I play will almost never refer to a spell by name - any name. (It's only happened once ever that I can recall, in response to a question posed in-character by a party member; and even then, the character called it "Breakfast of Champions" rather than "Heroes' Feast" - and went on to say that priests of other faiths had their own names for it as well.) So it doesn't much matter to me that some spells (or powers... or maneuvers, for that matter) have ridiculous names that might or might not fit with the tone of a given setting, because the characters don't know the names and thus won't be using them.

Lappy9000
2010-04-30, 10:22 PM
I'm currently trying to make a psionic high fantasy setting. I wonder how the result will be.I can speak from experience that it is a delightfully unique experience, without straying from the rule.

I've never had a problem adapting Psionics to the traditional High Fantasy "feel." Ever seen YuYu Hakusho? That's how I picture Psionics in D&D (Kuwabara even has a mindblade)

Yora
2010-05-01, 02:05 AM
Basically, diferent tastes for diferent people
NO!
D&D must only be played the way I do! If anyone likes something different than I do, you ruin the entire game forever! :smallbiggrin:

Volthawk
2010-05-01, 02:30 AM
Probably more correct than you imagine.

D&D magic is flavourfull and varied. It demands exotic components and gestures, like in some kind of crazy chemistry experience, and that's exciting.

D&D psionics are cold and calculated. You could be playing a statue for all that matters. It looks more like a bunch of pure mathematic formulas than anything else, and that's boring.

This is, just look at ToB! It gives shiny names and descriptions to attacks that still deal only damage, and sudenly people love it! Full attacking is boring, but executing Twin Lion Climbing to Heavens! that demands a full round action and deals the same average damage is a dream come true!

Well, personally I like how Psionics is like that...

Bogardan_Mage
2010-05-01, 02:33 AM
Also, in many editions, Psionics matches fantasy casters better than Vancian. Largely, of course, because Vancian casting was chosen so that it wouldn't match "real world" magic. Of course, the real irony is that Vancian casting was invented in a Sci-Fi book, but now it's more Fantasy than stuff found in most non-DnD books.
If by "real world" you mean post-Tolkienian fantasy, sure. But Vanican magic better fits (or rather, is a more logical extention of) mythological magic, the type where magic consists of arcane rituals and dark invocations. This isn't feasible in an action packed high fantasy story (which is, incidentally, why you seldom see Gandalf performing actual magic) so the idea with Vancian magic is that you do all that stuff ahead of time so you can fire off your prepared spell in the heat of battle.

Gralamin
2010-05-01, 02:40 AM
If by "real world" you mean post-Tolkienian fantasy, sure. But Vanican magic better fits (or rather, is a more logical extention of) mythological magic, the type where magic consists of arcane rituals and dark invocations. This isn't feasible in an action packed high fantasy story (which is, incidentally, why you seldom see Gandalf performing actual magic) so the idea with Vancian magic is that you do all that stuff ahead of time so you can fire off your prepared spell in the heat of battle.

Except thats a blatant misrepresentation of the Vancian magic used in D&D. If it was correct, Control Weather (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlWeather.htm) for instance, would not have a 10 minute casting time - there is little point in shortening the time it takes to cast if it still cannot be used in battle. In addition, you should be able to cast a given spell given sufficient time (No more then 1 hour, since 1 hour lets you prepare all spells you can possibly prepare!). What D&D has is a "Fire & Forget" mechanism. You learn the spell, and keep it in memory until you are ready to use it, then you activate it and lose it.

As for Gandalf - No, there is nothing in Tolkien lore that supports this.

hamishspence
2010-05-01, 02:46 AM
He uses a "word of command" to seal the door when the Balrog has counterspelled his "shutting spell"

The door exploded, and the Balrog was sent tumbling backward- and the roof collapsed on it.

This was in the book version.

Terazul
2010-05-01, 02:48 AM
Man, I really can never understand how people get so caught up in flavor, especially with psionics. Just ignore it and do what you want. I once played a campaign where until the end everyone in-character thought I was some kind of crazy wizard or mystic.

I'd raise a clenching hand, and from nothingness would appear massive clockwork beasts of my mental design to perform my every whim (Astral Construct). With a snap of my fingers, hundreds of knives would flicker into existence to impale my foes (Crystal Shard), and with cacophonous laughter, waves of ebon lightning would entrap my foes to their doom (Energy Wall), as my vengeful gaze shattered the heavenly blessings that enshrouded them (Dispel Psionics).

All sorts of other crazy crap.

It's only as cold and calculated/sci-fi/sciency as you make it. The names are just there so you know... y'know, what things do. As that's kind of important for playing the game. Not liking the mechanics is another thing altogether, and a much sounder argument. Comparatively.

Kantolin
2010-05-01, 02:48 AM
Yeah, because "I cast Hypnotism (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/hypnotism.htm)!" sounds substantially less silly - in character - than the psionic example does. :smallamused:

Maybe it's just me, but caster characters that I play will almost never refer to a spell by name - any name.

Interestingly, I had both silence and shouting - several times in both cases. The party met a group of various people who followed the ever-flashy Storm Dragon, which resulted in quite a few extremely flashy displays accompanied by unnecessary pyrotechnics. Most of those were wizards, though - most of the psions in said campaign just invoked energy by whispering a few words and focusing to remove the displays (And summarily tended towards Black, since Black is secretive).

Although I then did have one Blue Psion that honestly had no idea how his powers worked. Summarily, whenever he did get a new power to work, he'd try to replicate everything that happened when it worked the first time to see if that makes it happen again. This led to a ton of fun description and roleplay, as he'd (for example) wear the very nice suit that the Queen had made for him because that was the first time he'd managed to use teleknesis.

He occasionally complained to the party wizard that wizards had large guilds of people who had carefully structured spellcasting that was split into carefully arranged categories that you could place.

He also complained about the fact that he would rather all of a sudden be unable to do anything at all, whereas wizards only seemed to run out of one spell at a time, but that's neither here nor there. :P

Ah, well. I like psionics quite a bit. ^_^

Bogardan_Mage
2010-05-01, 02:49 AM
Except thats a blatant misrepresentation of the Vancian magic used in D&D. If it was correct, Control Weather (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlWeather.htm) for instance, would not have a 10 minute casting time - there is little point in shortening the time it takes to cast if it still cannot be used in battle. In addition, you should be able to cast a given spell given sufficient time (No more then 1 hour, since 1 hour lets you prepare all spells you can possibly prepare!). What D&D has is a "Fire & Forget" mechanism. You learn the spell, and keep it in memory until you are ready to use it, then you activate it and lose it.
Well yes. The D&D system has evolved for various reasons, such as game balance. If you want a flavour explanation, perhaps there's some limit on how much preparation can be done for certain spells. And Sorcerors just throw all that out the window, I have no explanation for that. But I still think it's important to understand the origins of the system, and using terms like "Fire & Forget" doesn't help that.


As for Gandalf - No, there is nothing in Tolkien lore that supports this.
I'm not sure what you expect me to support, Gandalf's "magic" is phenomenally underwhelming by modern fantasy standards. That much is self evident. The reason is that Arda's magic isn't the same as the modern fantasy norm. If you dispute this, I'd rather like to know where you think Tolkien lore supports the presence of a modern fantasy system of magic.

Kantolin
2010-05-01, 03:03 AM
But Vanican magic better fits (or rather, is a more logical extention of) mythological magic, the type where magic consists of arcane rituals and dark invocations.

Actually, my problem with Vancian magic is that you memorize copies of spells and the like, and do that every morning.

When I think of a wizard, I think of a specialist in closer to either a sorceror or psion-esque sense. You read about the evil magic-using queen, and she has her schticks - she charms people using what may or may not be magic, and anyone who crosses her is turned into a toad [or perhaps, turned into various small animals], and she herself turns into animals when meeting with the dark forces that give her her magic. When she faces the protagonist, she... attempts to turn them into toads, and when in danger she turns into an animal in an attempt to escape.

She doesn't then decide 'Eh, let me not memorize any more turn-people-to-toads today, that totally didn't work. Now I'm gonna be the evil fire-magic-using-queen'. She might be able to go through some ritual or another to expand her capabilities into something else that's usually tangentally linked but may not be or something, but she won't usually say, "Darn, I knew I should've had another turn-people-to-toads and not picked a fireball there. Oh well, fireball."

Now personally, I really really like Vancian casting - I really like the pre-planning that goes into it and it's super fun mechanically. But I actually find it harder to model what I'd consider a typical arcanist using it. Sorcerors are better for that as they can give you a more proper 'Well, we could go talk to Mad Melchior; he's known for doing everything you could want to with the ocean'. And less, "Well, let's ask Firion the Fire Mage if he wouldn't mind memorizing Sleet Storm today".

Psions then have the additional advantage that they can put extra 'punch' into the same spell if they opt to (or put less punch). This leads to the frequently seen fantasy scenario where a wizard does something comparatively minor without expending themselves (using few pp), it has only a minor effect (1d6 damage), perhaps damaging the wood.

...But if they put everything they have into it it can be considerably more impressive (14d6 as they're level 14), blasting through the door itself.

...But the legendary archmage can choose to put even more force into it and release a fireball that can melt stone itself.

Oh, well. I can't imagine gandalf saying, nor thinking, 'Man I wish I'd memorized less fireworks today and one more speak with animals. Or junked both of them and learned lightning bolt'.

Bogardan_Mage
2010-05-01, 03:13 AM
Actually, my problem with Vancian magic is that you memorize copies of spells and the like, and do that every morning.
No, you don't! You prepare spells. You don't memorize them (I don't care if that's what RAW says, that's not what Vancian magic is supposed to be). If you picture wizards as being capable of tossing out fireballs at the drop of a hat, that's fine, but that's not what magic was like in it's mythogical origins. The point I'm trying to make is that Vancian magic is the extention of these myths, and that the "traditional" fantasy presentation of magic has very little connection to them.

I am not, by the way, trying to say that either system is superior. I just would like more people to understand the point of Vancian magic because so many people don't.

Kantolin
2010-05-01, 03:30 AM
That actually sounds more like the binder - which is also a cool class, and more firmly in mythological 'deal with the devil' style spellcasting. ^_^

But well... I don't think that Vancian casting is a very good system for that style of mythos at all. The point of vancian casting is that magic is split into levels. You do the complex ritual portion of the casting ahead of time, set so it can go off with a 'trigger'.

But that doesn't synchronize very well with mythos. There weren't triggers usually - you did the ritual and it happened. And then people most spellcasters you read about (especially the evil ones) had schticks - the witch wasn't going to fireball you ever; she was going to turn you into a toad. With Vancian, she'd have to consciously decide each morning to do the appropriate ritual to turn you into a toad (and more than once!).

I mean, a wizard has to pre-cast and memorize their spells, and you've said that's not what Vancian is meant to replicate. Well, if you take a sorceror, and instead of '15 minutes concentrating', they spend 15 minutes undergoing a ritual so they can use spells that day, then the sorceror fits a lot more than the wizard as they end up thematically linked to particular spells (So the evil witch is good at turning you into frogs, and can't just do something else instead).

Now, if your argument was 'because they hold books when doing these rituals' or sommat it'd actually be more fitting (Although the knowledge strikes me as more important; Gandalf seemed to focus a heck of a lot more on his staff to the point where I'm unsure if he even had a spellbook). But 'Vancian' as a description means the 'I prepare two magic missiles and one mage armour'.

Which, while really really fun in my book, doesn't sync up quite like someone finally learning how to control the weather, and then doing that.

Gralamin
2010-05-01, 03:33 AM
Well yes. The D&D system has evolved for various reasons, such as game balance. If you want a flavour explanation, perhaps there's some limit on how much preparation can be done for certain spells. And Sorcerors just throw all that out the window, I have no explanation for that. But I still think it's important to understand the origins of the system, and using terms like "Fire & Forget" doesn't help that.
Even if it is how it is in Vance's books, it it not the system that D&D uses. Even when used to refer to Vancian magic. Looking at the origins may be important, but a lot less important then looking at the actual flavor and system given. And that system is "Fire & Forget".


I'm not sure what you expect me to support, Gandalf's "magic" is phenomenally underwhelming by modern fantasy standards. That much is self evident. The reason is that Arda's magic isn't the same as the modern fantasy norm. If you dispute this, I'd rather like to know where you think Tolkien lore supports the presence of a modern fantasy system of magic.

I feel we have a misunderstanding here. To me it was implied you were stating that Gandalf used Vancian magic, which I feel is completely unsupported.


No, you don't! You prepare spells. You don't memorize them (I don't care if that's what RAW says, that's not what Vancian magic is supposed to be). If you picture wizards as being capable of tossing out fireballs at the drop of a hat, that's fine, but that's not what magic was like in it's mythogical origins. The point I'm trying to make is that Vancian magic is the extention of these myths, and that the "traditional" fantasy presentation of magic has very little connection to them.
I'm not so sure it follows from a lot of magic in myths. I'm sure it follows from some myths, and your claims are actually supported, but for instance "Caer-Merdin" (Aka Caermarthen, or Merlin's Tower and the Imprisoned Fiends) is very vague on how magic works with the most in-depth being:


Before that Merlin died, he did intend
A brazen wall in compas to compile
About Caermerdin, and did it commend
Unto these sprites to bring to perfect end;
During which work the Lady of the Lake,
Whom long he loved, for him in hast did send;
Who therby forced his workmen to forsake,
Them bound till his return their labor not to slack
That is obviously very vague. While I don't pretend to have done in-depth research, I can say that a lot of myths are very very vague on magic, and I'm not sure there really is enough to say that Vancian follows from mythology.

Yora
2010-05-01, 04:09 AM
D&D psionics are cold and calculated. You could be playing a statue for all that matters. It looks more like a bunch of pure mathematic formulas than anything else, and that's boring.
The kineticists, nomads, egoists, and shapers of this popular psionic setting disagree: :smallbiggrin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE9te6HnfKQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=541gq0qAlx8

Bogardan_Mage
2010-05-01, 05:33 AM
That actually sounds more like the binder - which is also a cool class, and more firmly in mythological 'deal with the devil' style spellcasting. ^_^

But well... I don't think that Vancian casting is a very good system for that style of mythos at all. The point of vancian casting is that magic is split into levels.
No, not really. That's something D&D attached to it for game balance. But think of it like you have a finite amount of magical power, so you can only cast a certain number of spells of a certain power level.


You do the complex ritual portion of the casting ahead of time, set so it can go off with a 'trigger'.

But that doesn't synchronize very well with mythos. There weren't triggers usually - you did the ritual and it happened. And then people most spellcasters you read about (especially the evil ones) had schticks - the witch wasn't going to fireball you ever; she was going to turn you into a toad. With Vancian, she'd have to consciously decide each morning to do the appropriate ritual to turn you into a toad (and more than once!).
Ok, first of all you're taking myths and acting as though the spellcasters in them were using Vancian magic, which was not my point. My point was that Vancian magic extends the utility of the established system. You're arguing that wizards and witches of folklore are playing very unoptimised D&D Wizards, which has nothing to do with what I was saying.


I mean, a wizard has to pre-cast and memorize their spells, and you've said that's not what Vancian is meant to replicate.
No, I said they don't memorize anything. This is important, because "Fire & Forget" isn't how memory works. Vancian magic makes a lot more sense if you don't think of it in terms of memory. Take out the memorize and that's pretty much exactly what Vancian magic is meant to replicate.


Well, if you take a sorceror, and instead of '15 minutes concentrating', they spend 15 minutes undergoing a ritual so they can use spells that day, then the sorceror fits a lot more than the wizard as they end up thematically linked to particular spells (So the evil witch is good at turning you into frogs, and can't just do something else instead).
Again, the way in which D&D Wizards learn spells has absolutely nothing to do with Vancian magic.


Now, if your argument was 'because they hold books when doing these rituals' or sommat it'd actually be more fitting (Although the knowledge strikes me as more important; Gandalf seemed to focus a heck of a lot more on his staff to the point where I'm unsure if he even had a spellbook). But 'Vancian' as a description means the 'I prepare two magic missiles and one mage armour'.
Yes, it does. I've no idea how you got the idea I was talking about spellbooks.


Which, while really really fun in my book, doesn't sync up quite like someone finally learning how to control the weather, and then doing that.
Yeah, but if you were an apprentice to someone who called himself a wizard in ancient times, you wouldn't be able to do that. He'd do some elaborate ritual to distract attention away from the fact that he can't actually control the weather. That's what Vancian magic is supposed to represent, the only difference being that in fantasy it actually works!


Even if it is how it is in Vance's books, it it not the system that D&D uses. Even when used to refer to Vancian magic. Looking at the origins may be important, but a lot less important then looking at the actual flavor and system given. And that system is "Fire & Forget".
I think Vancian flavour fits well enough with D&D that I would prefer to think of it in those terms than in the bizarre and nonsensical "Fire & Forget" fashion. But you're right, for whatever reason WotC decided that the human mind doesn't really work in the way it clearly does and that it makes sense to memorise and forget spells in that manner.


I feel we have a misunderstanding here. To me it was implied you were stating that Gandalf used Vancian magic, which I feel is completely unsupported.
No, what I was saying was that Gandalf didn't use Vancian magic. If he had, he would have been a lot more powerful in the story because Vancian magic facilitates magical combat which Gandalf doesn't really do. Tolkien's magic was more in line with mythology than both modern fantasy and Vancian magic, and as such is very limited in situations like combat.


I'm not so sure it follows from a lot of magic in myths. I'm sure it follows from some myths, and your claims are actually supported, but for instance "Caer-Merdin" (Aka Caermarthen, or Merlin's Tower and the Imprisoned Fiends) is very vague on how magic works with the most in-depth being:

That is obviously very vague. While I don't pretend to have done in-depth research, I can say that a lot of myths are very very vague on magic, and I'm not sure there really is enough to say that Vancian follows from mythology.
Perhaps it's not right to paint mythology with such a broad brush, but I do think Vancian magic better reflects mythology than a mana based system or even an undefined system with godlike magic users warping reality at a whim. It's based on those myths in which magic comes from rituals and pacts with powerful beings, which isn't really reflected in non-Vancian modern fantasy.

Yuki Akuma
2010-05-01, 05:45 AM
If by "real world" you mean post-Tolkienian fantasy, sure. But Vanican magic better fits (or rather, is a more logical extention of) mythological magic, the type where magic consists of arcane rituals and dark invocations. This isn't feasible in an action packed high fantasy story (which is, incidentally, why you seldom see Gandalf performing actual magic) so the idea with Vancian magic is that you do all that stuff ahead of time so you can fire off your prepared spell in the heat of battle.

Gandalf isn't a Wizard. Gandalf is an angel.

Greenish
2010-05-01, 07:02 AM
Gandalf isn't a Wizard. Gandalf is an angel.Gandalf is a wizard in the sense the word is used in Middle Earth. It just happens to mean "powerful supernatural entity disguised as human" instead of the more usual "human who has studied magic".

Arbitrarious
2010-05-01, 07:44 AM
Probably more correct than you imagine.

D&D magic is flavourfull and varied. It demands exotic components and gestures, like in some kind of crazy chemistry experience, and that's exciting.

D&D psionics are cold and calculated. You could be playing a statue for all that matters. It looks more like a bunch of pure mathematic formulas than anything else, and that's boring.

This is, just look at ToB! It gives shiny names and descriptions to attacks that still deal only damage, and sudenly people love it! Full attacking is boring, but executing Twin Lion Climbing to Heavens! that demands a full round action and deals the same average damage is a dream come true!

So adding material components, the one thing most players ignore when it comes to magic would make psionics better? I prefer the simpler system and I can and do get my flavor by playing up the displays on powers. Flickering coronas of light, ghostly images glimpsed from the corner of your eye, and the faint smell of lavender in the air are all appropriate displays. I do understand that it is a matter of opinion and you are as entitled to yours as I am mine. Being said I can easily reflavour if I have to and would much rather use the rule set that better supports the archetype I'm playing for.

Oh and regarding ToB, it's not that we have Twin Lion Climbing to Heavens that we gush over. It's that we have that and Lion's Furious Rush (Pounce), Mighty Roar (Intimidate Check as a Swift action), Golden Mane (moderate fort) or whatever else we want to pick. That martial characters get options more in line with spell casting without blowing an entire feat on it greatly improves things. Also many attacks don't require full round actions anymore. It's nice to be able to use the same trick casters have had since day one. "Gee, I want to be effective but my enemy is 45ft away and I didn't want to have to take Lion Totem Barbarian. Oh well."

Yuki Akuma
2010-05-01, 08:56 AM
Gandalf is a wizard in the sense the word is used in Middle Earth. It just happens to mean "powerful supernatural entity disguised as human" instead of the more usual "human who has studied magic".

But in Dungeons and Dragons terms, he's an angel, not a Wizard. So, really, using him as an argument in a Dungeons and Dragons discussion is silly. :smallwink:

Yakk
2010-05-01, 10:37 AM
Plus, there are people out there wich find pure mathematics exciting. Like those wich love to do statistic studies with the D&D rules just for the lulz.:smalltongue:
I find pure mathematics exciting.

Using statistics on D&D is an example of applied mathematics, not pure mathematics. :)

erikun
2010-05-01, 02:01 PM
Maybe Gandalf is just an Angel Summoner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F17rPg_pYOs). :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-05-01, 03:05 PM
Or a 4E Deva- angelic being incarnated in mortal form.

Optimator
2010-05-01, 05:44 PM
Maybe Gandalf is just an Angel Summoner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F17rPg_pYOs). :smalltongue:

Gawd I love that skit. I've had it bookmarked forever. So illustrative, too.

Bogardan_Mage
2010-05-01, 08:46 PM
But in Dungeons and Dragons terms, he's an angel, not a Wizard. So, really, using him as an argument in a Dungeons and Dragons discussion is silly. :smallwink:
I wasn't using him in an argument about Dungeons and Dragons, I was using him in an argument about the presentation of magic in mythology and fantasy fiction, under which he most certainly falls. Honestly, it seems people see me saying that Vancian magic follows from classical representations of magic and assume I'm saying that classical magic is Vancian, even when I specifically say that it isn't.