PDA

View Full Version : Ominous news for psionics



puppyavenger
2007-08-18, 11:49 AM
In my case, I’ve thrown together a “psion.” It’s because prior to the shift to the new playtest rules, I was playing a psion elan named Infandous. You wonder, why the scare quotes? Well, just between you and me, updated-Infandous-the-psion is actually a wizard with the serial numbers filed off.

Now I wonder what that means

Starsinger
2007-08-18, 11:50 AM
Most likely that psionics, if they exist in 4e, aren't part of the core package, like in 3.x, so for the time being he has to satisfy himself with a reflavored wizard.

RTGoodman
2007-08-18, 11:51 AM
I think it probably means that all magic (well, for wizards at least) is being converted to the spell point system from Unearthed Arcana, so they're mechanically the same as Psions are now.

And now half of the people rejoice the downfall of Vancian casting, and the others are infuriated by the same downfall of Vancian casting...

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-08-18, 11:56 AM
Probably means there are now three 'flavors' of magic: Arcane, Divine, and Psionic, all of which interact normally with each other. Dispel magic works equally well on all three, etc...

Douglas
2007-08-18, 11:57 AM
From the person who played that "psion" (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13440523&postcount=92):

Before this gets off to the races, lemme provide a little context to the playtest report. (I'm the DM at that table.) When we did this playtest, we had eight playable classes--none of them psion. To preserve our ongoing narrative, Bruce and I decided that the best stopgap available was to use the wizard mechanics, but continue to describe him as a psion.

Please, please, don't draw any wider conclusions about psions or wizards or how much alike they'll be. We did what we did for one simple reason: there was no 4e psion available. Don't confuse our stopgap measure with overall design intent.

--David Noonan, game designer, Wizards of the Coast
...who wishes he had time to respond to every thread.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-08-18, 03:31 PM
Well, I certainly hope they've got a 4e psion on the way. It seems to me that every opportunity they've had to introduce psions to core (admittedly not many), the designers chose not to do so only to work their butts off and warn how certain rules were designed to prevent psionics from seeming like a "tacked on system." Well, I can't see how you can avoid that feeling with any expansion set of rules. Unless a system is designed with certain expansions in mind, any expansion—psionics, incarnum, pact magic, shadow magic, truename magic, the Sublime Way, etc.—is going to feel tacked on. You need a DM willing to fully integrate new material into his or her campaign and maybe even do a bit of homebrewing to make such systems feel right.

I want to see psionic monsters actually be psionic—not just have some spell-like abilitiesthat are arbitrarily labeled as "psionics."

Fully integrating psionics can also help eliminate the need for Psionics-Magic Transparency and allow the two concepts to actually look and feel different.

Oh, and I really like the way David Noonan tries to hint that there may be psionic integration while maintaining enough plausible deniability in the case that there isn't.

Matthew
2007-08-19, 08:00 PM
I'm on the other side of the fence. I couldn't care less if they dumped Psionics entirely.

Doc_Outlands
2007-08-19, 09:35 PM
Good God - perhaps I'll go back to playinjg GURPS.....

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-19, 09:54 PM
Ominous news indeed.

I don't want psionics in the core book though. Psionics are more sci-fi fantasy than medieval fantasy. As such, they don't belong in the core book. Especially since they are aiming for a more medieval fantasy (even more so than Greyhawk).

Thinker
2007-08-19, 09:56 PM
Ominous news indeed.

I don't want psionics in the core book though. Psionics are more sci-fi fantasy than medieval fantasy. As such, they don't belong in the core book. Especially since they are aiming for a more medieval fantasy (even more so than Greyhawk).

I think Vorpal Tribble is about to eat you.

ray53208
2007-08-19, 10:02 PM
you know, one good thing that couldve come from a new edition wouldve been the inclusion of psionics in the core rules. so i guess that while the previous system was "not good enough" (my words) to continue as-is, one vestigial hold over was to separate psionics out from the core rulebooks.

i guess the allmighty dollar reigns supreme again. theres another 30-40 bucks for another "core" rule book right there.

Jack Mann
2007-08-19, 10:10 PM
I've never heard a convincing argument for why psionics are less fantastic than magic spells.

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-19, 10:19 PM
Vestigial hold-over?! Psionics just don't belong in core. I'm not saying psionics is a bad thing, I'm just it doesn't belong in core. The only way I'd be happy with core psionics would be if it was a feat or class option for the spellcaster class that re-flavored his spellcasting, while granting some additional ability (similar to the Psion feat in Arcana Evolved).

Fighters, and wizards and clerics and thieves and woodsman are all staples of fantasy. Psionics in fantasy are portrayed as a strange and mysterious power in most fantasy that I have read- even compared to wizards.

It won't be a breaking point for me if psionics are in the core book, but I would prefer for the stuff in the core book to be acceptable for all my games. I much prefer to say "I'm using core" rather than "I'm using core -but no psions". When I run a psionics game, it's a psionics game, and the inclusion of psionics is an important part of that game.


Note, the issue I have with psionics is purely a flavor one. The mechanics of psionics I have no problem with. But if you re-flavor the psion to be more appropriate for a medieval fantasty setting, then how is it different from sorcerer?

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-08-20, 11:25 AM
When I run a psionics game, it's a psionics game, and the inclusion of psionics is an important part of that game.
Sure, that's how you run your game. But others would like to be able to have a system sufficiently integrated that they can just have it an incidental part of their world.


Note, the issue I have with psionics is purely a flavor one. The mechanics of psionics I have no problem with. But if you re-flavor the psion to be more appropriate for a medieval fantasty setting, then how is it different from sorcerer?
I'm not seeing how "supernatural power from an internal source" is such a problem with "medieval" fantasy. Note that the Monk core class has the same kind of flavor going for it.

The_Werebear
2007-08-20, 11:56 AM
I'm not seeing how "supernatural power from an internal source" is such a problem with "medieval" fantasy. Note that the Monk core class has the same kind of flavor going for it.

And monks, ninja, and samurai don't fit in either. I have to agree with Skjaldbakka here. When I get the typical idea of superpowers in a fantasy setting, it is from arcane casters who pour over books or from priests who call down the wrath of their deity. Sorcerers are already a stretch for me, but I can buy the blood of the Dragon thing. However, Wuxia Monks and psychics running around are too much for my verisimilitude. I can't see them very well in a swords and sorcery campaign. Come to think of it, that is why I like ToB, save for the obviously supernatural schools of Desert Wind and Shadow Hand. I can't see someone working sword magic to shoot fireballs in a Wuxia thing. However, I can see someone feral ripping someone up(Tiger Claw) or hitting stuff very, very hard (Iron Heart, Devoted Spirit, and Stone Dragon) or even getting swordplay down to a speedy strike and pure focus (Diamond Mind), much less counters (Setting Sun) or shouting orders (White Raven).

However, I think psychics. fit very well in a modern campaign, or even steampunk. It is just a setting thing for me.

Tormsskull
2007-08-20, 12:52 PM
/signs the "No psionics in core" petition that isn't really a petition.

TSGames
2007-08-20, 01:06 PM
Ominous news indeed.


So that's what the thread title was supposed to be... And here I am trying to figure out just what "Ominess" is and what it has to with 4.0 or psionics. :smallwink:

I shall admit, however, that my sentiments on the topic at hand are the same as the aforementioned poster.


Forgot a verb.

AtomicKitKat
2007-08-20, 10:52 PM
I think part of it has to do with how Psionics is essentially "Automatic Still+Silent". It's kind of annoying to not know anything is up until the constipated-looking baldie at the other end of the arena blasts your brains out your ears.

Cybren
2007-08-20, 11:01 PM
I've never heard a convincing argument for why psionics are less fantastic than magic spells.
Not less fantastic, but less appropriate to medieval fantasy I think, for a variety of reasons: term "psionics" itself, the fact that the concept of psionics as an individual form of the supernatural, the linking of the brain to though processes and not the cooling of blood...

Damionte
2007-08-20, 11:16 PM
Not less fantastic, but less appropriate to medieval fantasy I think, for a variety of reasons: term "psionics" itself, the fact that the concept of psionics as an individual form of the supernatural, the linking of the brain to though processes and not the cooling of blood...

My thing is who got to make "that" decision for all the rest of us? I've read plenty of series that had Psionics in it. When did the powers that be get together and decide for all of the rest of us that Psionics had no place in a fantasy world.

Or that Monks, and martial arts don't belong in a fantasy game?

Or that Magic Spaceflight didn't belong in a fantasy game.

Who says that LOTR is the end all be all of fantasy literature? LOTR wasn't the first bit of fantasy literature. Nor was it the last!

Yes early D&D took a lot of it's qeue's from LOTR but it also took peices of many many other stories. And has kept incorporating more and more of the wide world of fantasy as the years went on.

Those who don't liek a particlar aspect of a peice of the game always have the option of not using it. If you're game doesn't include clerics and devine magic, (Like Early Dragonlance stuff.) then you can take clerics out of your game.

You can make a world where Warlockes are the only kind of Casters, or where there is no arcane magic at all, simply by removing those aspects. A lot of people do that when they want to play a fantasy game closer to that of Connan, or historical fantasy.

Removing the peices you don't want to use is very easy to do.

What's NOT easy is adding something you DO want that the game doesn't include.

I feel for those who love Spelljammer but had to pretty much leave it behind when it wasn't easily incorporated into 3.5, or who just stayed with 2nd Edition because of it.

People are always trying to have everyone else conform to their view of how it shoudl be. You don't like Psionics, then don't use Psionics. Or Alternate Arcane classes, or Steampunk technology. Preasure campaigns to keep that stuff out of the books though isn't cool for all of those players who DO want to build worlds which include these other non tolkien-esq things.

Cybren
2007-08-20, 11:22 PM
Let's employ so ridiculously flawed logic!


Psionics involve crystals.
New Age hippies love crystals.
If psionics and new age hippies both love crystals than psionics is new age.
If psionics is new age it must be new.
If psionics are new then their presence in a medieval society is anachronistic!
QED.



People are always trying to have everyone else conform to their view of how it shoudl be. You don't like Psionics, then don't use Psionics. Or Alternate Arcane classes, or Steampunk technology. Preasure campaigns to keep that stuff out of the books though isn't cool for all of those players who DO want to build worlds which include these other non tolkien-esq things.


No ones trying to stop psionics or any of those things from being in the game.
I don't even care if they're core. It's just, they don't need to be core, and including an entire separate magic system and classes and rules will add a few extra pages (and dollars) to the core rule books.

Seriously though psionics are a modern phenomena. You can play however you want, I just feel that having psionics in a medieval fantasy world is about as appropriate as having sky scrapers or mass transit.

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-20, 11:27 PM
Psionics are different enough from the others methods of casting that including them in the core book would clog up the works a great deal. Psionics are, and should be, different enough from magic to merit a book dedicated to psionics, rather than cramming it into a new core that is already likely to be overcrowded with the inclusion of racial level-based abilities and 30 level base classes.

Ramza00
2007-08-20, 11:36 PM
Vestigial hold-over?! Psionics just don't belong in core. I'm not saying psionics is a bad thing, I'm just it doesn't belong in core. The only way I'd be happy with core psionics would be if it was a feat or class option for the spellcaster class that re-flavored his spellcasting, while granting some additional ability (similar to the Psion feat in Arcana Evolved).

Fighters, and wizards and clerics and thieves and woodsman are all staples of fantasy. Psionics in fantasy are portrayed as a strange and mysterious power in most fantasy that I have read- even compared to wizards.

It won't be a breaking point for me if psionics are in the core book, but I would prefer for the stuff in the core book to be acceptable for all my games. I much prefer to say "I'm using core" rather than "I'm using core -but no psions". When I run a psionics game, it's a psionics game, and the inclusion of psionics is an important part of that game.


Note, the issue I have with psionics is purely a flavor one. The mechanics of psionics I have no problem with. But if you re-flavor the psion to be more appropriate for a medieval fantasty setting, then how is it different from sorcerer?

replace the word psion with those damn pesky oriental monks :smallwink:

knightsaline
2007-08-21, 12:08 AM
Psionics are more sci-fi fantasy than medieval fantasy.
Thats because of Western Fantasy. In some eastern fantasy, they focus on the power within rather than power from outside. want an example? Journey to the West . You may not know that name, but if you are a fan of badly dubbed shows, you might know the next one, Monkey. Still do not recognise it? Dragon Ball. These 3 are based on eastern philospohy, which focuses on the untapped potential within.

I actually WANT psionics to be in 4e. then again, I would want other things to be core in 4e (ToB, Invocations, Pallys not of LG alignment). That way, from day one, I can study the psionics rules rather than have to wait possibly years to get psionics (Country is 1 year behind on D&D books. Still dont have ToB and ToM).

What should be the real worry is if Wizards refuse to make all 4e books (including core) OGL. No more using the SRD to back up your rules and DM rulings, no more trying to convince newbs to play by showing them the SRD. If wizards don't use the OGL, they are screwing themselves badly

Jack Mann
2007-08-21, 12:08 AM
Okay, I can accept not wanting to see an entire different magic system in the book. That would take up a whole lot of space, making things unwieldy. I still don't buy the claim that psionics belong in D&D any less than traditional spellcasting, but wanting to keep the PHB under ten pounds is probably a good idea.

Damionte
2007-08-21, 12:26 AM
You can play however you want, I just feel that having psionics in a medieval fantasy world is about as appropriate as having sky scrapers or mass transit.

Yeah but they included Skyscrapers and Mass Transit. Have Psionics use the same syste is easy enough. I believe they were just tryiing to experiment with a poitn based system when they did psionics last time. Rather than trying to point out that psionics was just different, alian or foriegn.

Also adding psionics to the core book is much cheaper than making a whoel new book. Adding it to the core raises the price by like $1.00. Eat one less cheesburger.

horseboy
2007-08-21, 12:33 AM
Also adding psionics to the core book is much cheaper than making a whole new book. Adding it to the core raises the price by like $1.00. Each one less cheeseburger.

The last time psionics was included in a core book was 1st edition. They gave it, what, 5 pages? I'd rather they had a second book that gave it the room it needed so it doesn't sucketh it mightily.

jamroar
2007-08-21, 12:35 AM
replace the word psion with those damn pesky oriental monks :smallwink:

I agree. Monks should be folded into a "powered by psionics" class. It fits well with the "mind over body" concept of the monk and psionics was modeled after yoga ascetic types to begin with.

Ramza00
2007-08-21, 12:50 AM
I agree. Monks should be folded into a "powered by psionics" class. It fits well with the "mind over body" concept of the monk and psionics was modeled after yoga ascetic types to begin with.

no I meant it isn't the typical "western" LOTR/King Arthur form of fantasy, yet it is included in the PHB in 3.0.

All the arguements why psionics shouldn't be in 4.x due to flavor reasons can be applied to monks in 3.x. If you don't want psionics in your world you don't have to use them. If it was put into 4th edition phb it will probably say this class is optional up to the DM or it will say that all classes are optional up to the DM due to flavor but it is best for CR balance to have the 4 archetypes.

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-08-21, 01:30 AM
My only issue with psionics came from not knowing how they worked, and hearing nothing but broken bits of... brokenness. Now, I'm still not a huge fan, but I like the concept. I like it even more given that I've read most of the Darkover series of books. That series makes psionics and fantasy mesh together in such a way that it makes a lot of sense and even feels natural to the genre. Hell, even the pyrokeneticist class just screams Sharran influence. :smallbiggrin:

The point that it doesn't take much to get rid of things you don't like as opposed to adding things you want is so very much valid it isn't funny. You don't like something for the mechanics or fluff? Cry me a river. Change or get rid of it. Just don't allow your sense of how you want it confuse you into thinking that a business is going to eliminate something that doesn't fit your limited view if it'll hold an appeal to a wider market. Such is the nature of the beast. Aspects from ToB and Psionics may or may not make the final cut. Who the heck knows? If it does, you can house rule stuff away until you cut out the box you want to play in. Something tells me you'll live. :smalltongue: In the mean time, WotC will throw out as many basic options as they can to lure in customers so that they can later milk us all of even more hard earned cash with expansion books.:smallamused: If the rules work better, I'll play ball. Most of you will too despite the griping. :smallwink:

serow
2007-08-21, 01:38 AM
Actually, psionics is the normal fantasy type of magic, both system wise and fluff wise, to me.

Damionte
2007-08-21, 01:39 AM
Actually, psionics is the normal fantasy type of magic, both system wise and fluff wise, to me.

Same here. I started my fantasy reading with The Belgariad. Thier magic was more psionics than anything. It was even called "The Will & The Word".


If the rules work better, I'll play ball. Most of you will too despite the griping. :smallwink:

AMEN !!!!!

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-08-21, 01:44 AM
Really. If I'm going to pay to play a new system, I want as much crap as they can stuff into the core book(s) as possible. Even if it's stuff I don't think I'll ever use. Nobody is twisting my arm to include it. I just want my money's worth of options.

Pauwel
2007-08-21, 04:05 AM
The only thing sci-fi about psionics is the names of the powers (and the word itself,"psionic"). I've always thought it sounded completely out of place in medieval fantasy when you use words like "metamorphosis", "catapsi", "apopsi" and "psychokinesis".
The same can be said of a number of core spells, of course, but there aren't nearly as many of those.

That being said, were it not for the goofy names I think psionics would fit perfectly; the Belgariad is a good example of psionics in a fantasy setting.
I do think that the crystals are silly as hell, fantasy or sci-fi, but that's just me. Magical crystals are fairly common and okay, but swords made out of the damn stuff is just idiotic.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-21, 04:20 AM
Primarily I don't want two different systems of supernatural powers. Either use Vancian, or use power points, or use something else, but pick one. Flavor-wise, as far as I'm concerned, psion == sorcerer.

The_Werebear
2007-08-21, 11:12 AM
The only thing sci-fi about psionics is the names of the powers (and the word itself,"psionic"). I've always thought it sounded completely out of place in medieval fantasy when you use words like "metamorphosis", "catapsi", "apopsi" and "psychokinesis".
The same can be said of a number of core spells, of course, but there aren't nearly as many of those.

That being said, were it not for the goofy names I think psionics would fit perfectly; the Belgariad is a good example of psionics in a fantasy setting.
I do think that the crystals are silly as hell, fantasy or sci-fi, but that's just me. Magical crystals are fairly common and okay, but swords made out of the damn stuff is just idiotic.

Some of the effects seems out of place though as well. They simply rely on a much more modern knowledge. I cringed whenever someone says "I rip him apart with stored Kinetic Energy" in a setting that has tech from 1350 (Note- This is an approximate date). The entire system would have to be reflavored before it would fit in. I would have no problem running sorcerers off the power point system though, provided they weren't using those silly names and flavorings.

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-21, 12:47 PM
I have issues with the way psionics was done in 3rd ed. in general. It is too much like a different spellcaster, and doesn't fit my concept of 'psionics' at all. It isn't different enough. There are a very small number of psionic powers that aren't also spells. I would prefer for psionics to be more feat and/or template based, as opposed to a 'psion' class. I want psionics to be more heavily 'weird powers', not 'new spell list'.

John Campbell
2007-08-21, 01:40 PM
I don't want psionics in core; I don't want psionics in D&D at all. "Psionics" is the term that cheesy sci-fi uses to justify magic without admitting that there really isn't any science involved. Honest fantasy, where you can call the magic "magic", doesn't need it. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't have people who specialize in mystical mind powers of various sorts, but they should use the same rules as any other magician.

As for the monk, I'd like to see it get the axe, too. Not because I don't think the flavor fits, but because I don't like the way the flavor and the class mechanics are so tightly bound. It should be possible to build a stereotypical Eastern kung-fu master with D&D rules... but it should also be possible to build an effective unarmed fighter who is not the stereotypical Eastern kung-fu master. Ideally, this shouldn't even need its own class... you should be able to do an unarmed specialist with Fighter or Rogue the same way you can do a greatsword specialist or a rapier specialist. With a little role-playing (remember that?), a few class options, a couple of feats, you don't need a Monk class to do it any more than you need a special Samurai class to run an Eastern-flavored Fighter or Paladin (which OotS demonstrates quite nicely).

D&D really needs to get away from this tendency to create a straightjacketed class for every conceivable character concept. I'd like to see all prestige classes and about half of the base classes (including all the non-core ones, and at least the Barbarian and Druid from core) eliminated, but the remaining classes broadened with feats and mix-and-match optional features and easy multiclassing to take up the slack.

I have no real hope that this will actually happen.

Damionte
2007-08-21, 01:52 PM
As for the monk, I'd like to see it get the axe, too. Not because I don't think the flavor fits, but because I don't like the way the flavor and the class mechanics are so tightly bound. It should be possible to build a stereotypical Eastern kung-fu master with D&D rules... but it should also be possible to build an effective unarmed fighter who is not the stereotypical Eastern kung-fu master. Ideally, this shouldn't even need its own class... you should be able to do an unarmed specialist with Fighter or Rogue the same way you can do a greatsword specialist or a rapier specialist. With a little role-playing (remember that?), a few class options, a couple of feats, you don't need a Monk class to do it any more than you need a special Samurai class to run an Eastern-flavored Fighter or Paladin (which OotS demonstrates quite nicely).

D&D really needs to get away from this tendency to create a straightjacketed class for every conceivable character concept. I'd like to see all prestige classes and about half of the base classes (including all the non-core ones, and at least the Barbarian and Druid from core) eliminated, but the remaining classes broadened with feats and mix-and-match optional features and easy multiclassing to take up the slack.

I have no real hope that this will actually happen.

Agreed. This is my problem with many D&D concepts as well. Psionics and Monks are two of them. As are Warlockes, hell most classes in the game are pegeonholled into thier powers. I don't want them to link flavor with powers and abilities as much as they do.

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-21, 02:01 PM
"Psionics" is the term that cheesy sci-fi uses to justify magic without admitting that there really isn't any science involved.

Psionics is not 'sci-fi magic'. Psionics is often well-done in sci-fi. Take Babylon 5 for example. Nothing about B5 psionics says 'magic' to me. Psionics in B5 is a group of people with inherent abilities that have very little in common with 'magic'. Sure, wizards can read minds and dominate people, but they also do lots of other things that doesn't fit the psionics paradigm.

That's why I think psionics would be better represented as something that can be added to a character, as opposed to something that a character is all about. Hence the suggestion of psionic replacement levels, or perhaps a psionic template (similar to the half-fiend and half-celestial- some stat boosts and more importantly, a few spell-like ability progression based on level, -there are enough spells that fit the psionics theme to fill out such a chart. Perhaps make one template for telepath, one for telekinetic, and one for empath).

I think I may homebrew just such a thing.

The Demented One
2007-08-21, 02:08 PM
From the person who played that "psion" (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13440523&postcount=92):
And the Demented One breathes a sigh of relief.

tainsouvra
2007-08-21, 02:27 PM
I don't want psionics in core; I don't want psionics in D&D at all. "Psionics" is the term that cheesy sci-fi uses to justify magic without admitting that there really isn't any science involved. Honest fantasy, where you can call the magic "magic", doesn't need it. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't have people who specialize in mystical mind powers of various sorts, but they should use the same rules as any other magician. In other words, the Deryni books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deryni) (Katherine Kurtz) are definitely not historical fantasy, they're some sort of science fiction? Powers of the mind which alter reality, with a specific part of the brain that some individuals are born configured to allow them to access this power, specifically referred to at points as "natural psychic abilities"...but it's historical fantasy, and quite blatantly so. The books also include magical spells and rituals, but the books are very specific in making them entirely different from the psychic abilities that all Deryni possess.

A common and popular book series that seamlessly includes both psionics and magic, right there on the shelf for you to pick up...the first book of that series is over 30 years old, too, so it's not like it's a new thing. Ignore it if you want, but don't pretend psionics are just cheesy science fiction, because that patently untrue if you actually go about reading a sampling of the genre. Psionics are used in high fantasy, and used well, and used in ways that are simply not the same as magic.

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-21, 04:17 PM
Psionics are used in high fantasy, and used well, and used in ways that are simply not the same as magic.

They are however, not a staple of high fantasy. Psionics generally leans more towards the sci-fi side of the spectrum than the fantasy side. It is also one of two things:

1) Unique enough to either merit its own book or take up way too much space in the core book.

2) Not unique enough to be much more than a 'different' spellcaster.

I personally lean towards hidden option 3, but I doubt it will happen:

3) Psionics will be a set of powers that can be used by any class, with each class having replacement levels and/or class feature ability trees that represent a 'psionic' character.


EDIT- I find the information in your link to be counter to what you are saying. It seems like magic rituals are tied closely to the psychic powers, which makes it seem alot more like a magic system justified as psychic powers, as opposed to psionics.


The novels include various examples of inherent Deryni abilities that are displayed by numerous primary and secondary characters. Deryni powers are closely interconnected with each other, since a Deryni's natural psychic abilities also give him/her the ability to perform magical rituals of varying complexity, but many of these powers can be divided into three basic categories: psychic abilities, magical abilities, and Healing.

emphasis mine.

Golthur
2007-08-21, 05:00 PM
EDIT- I find the information in your link to be counter to what you are saying. It seems like magic rituals are tied closely to the psychic powers, which makes it seem alot more like a magic system justified as psychic powers, as opposed to psionics.



emphasis mine.

Not really.

If you've read the books, you'd see that the Deryni all have psionics, and the flavour is just that - psionics. Their natural psychic sensitivity also allows them to perform advanced ritual magic, but this is really only the more advanced practitioners in the books (e.g. Camber and immediate family, in the Legends of Camber of Culdi series) and is by no means all.

MadMadMad
2007-08-21, 05:06 PM
I personally don't care for psionics. I feel like is is more sci-fi than fantasy, as if it is based more on physical ability that a mystical unknown power. (I admit I'm not familiar with the 3.5 rules, but it is my impression).

To me it's kinda like when Lucas tried to explain away the Force as these little midichlorians that live in your cells. Ack.

Still, I know lots of people like to play them, so we need rules for it. More power to you! If it's popular enough it may very well be in the core book - of course no DM is forced to have them in his campaign!

kpenguin
2007-08-21, 05:09 PM
I personally don't care for psionics. I feel like is is more sci-fi than fantasy, as if it is based more on physical ability that a mystical unknown power. (I admit I'm not familiar with the 3.5 rules, but it is my impression).

To me it's kinda like when Lucas tried to explain away the Force as these little midichlorians that live in your cells. Ack.

Still, I know lots of people like to play them, so we need rules for it. More power to you! If it's popular enough it may very well be in the core book - of course no DM is forced to have them in his campaign!

It's not actually a physical ability. Psionics as I understand it in 3.x is tapping into the innate power of the mind or soul, as opposed to magic which is a mystical medium of the universe.

Tor the Fallen
2007-08-21, 05:13 PM
I'd rather have them include psionics in core, and as a DM, or as a group of players, we can pick and choose what is and isn't in the world, rather than giving Wizards another excuse to pump out splat books for me to throw money at.

DreadSpoon
2007-08-21, 05:49 PM
My thing is who got to make "that" decision for all the rest of us? I've read plenty of series that had Psionics in it. When did the powers that be get together and decide for all of the rest of us that Psionics had no place in a fantasy world.

Medieval fantasy is the key word here. D&D has always been about knights and armed men mixed in a world with magic and monsters. Ninjas, samurai, psions, and so on just don't fit that theme. Psions fail to fit because they are based on a very modern approach to supernatural forces. Medieval science and medicine was primitive, and the focus on the supernatural was on the world and spirits, not the self. This has always been a core part of the D&D philosophy, as well, with the gods and external magic and the primal forces of good/evil and chaos/law permeating the game's mechanics. Psionic forces just don't come into play in medieval fantasy at all, and fit even worse into D&D.

Worst of all, though, is that people feel the need to create entire new rulesets and books for psionics when you can just replace the word "sorcerer" with "psion" and not need new rules for anything at all. IF fourth edition has psions, I'm going to assume (and quite safely, given space limitations) that psions will be nothing more than sorcerers with a different spell list and some other minor tweaks. There isn't room to fit two different systems in one book. Furthermore, the designers have already stated that they were uncomfortable with 1/3 of the PHB being devoted to one class (wizard), which is why they added the sorcerer. If they add psion, it is absolutely guaranteed that they won't have their own separate rule system for casting.


Or that Monks, and martial arts don't belong in a fantasy game?

You're not going to find many anti-psionic, pro-monk people, I think. Personally, I hate them. They're just as wrong for the genre. Not to mention that, with even a teensy bit of realism tossed in the mix, there is no unarmoed warrior in the world who could defeat a properly trained and equipped medieval knight. Monks are just goofy. Granted, I also feel that shields should be given a huge boost in the game, since I can guarantee you that any competent shieldman could easily defeat even a greatly skilled fighter using dual weapons... or even a two-handed weapon. Most of the two-handed weapons were either phased out by the mid-late medieval period as being useless, or were used in specific tactical setups and not as a general battlefield weapon.


Or that Magic Spaceflight didn't belong in a fantasy game.

Most of us don't play Spelljammer.


Who says that LOTR is the end all be all of fantasy literature? LOTR wasn't the first bit of fantasy literature. Nor was it the last!

No, but it is what D&D has always strived to emulate in many ways. If you really want to play psionic-kung-fu RPGs, there are plenty of games other than D&D for you to play.


Yes early D&D took a lot of it's qeue's from LOTR but it also took peices of many many other stories. And has kept incorporating more and more of the wide world of fantasy as the years went on.

Which isn't a good thing. Loss of focus and direction slowly kills a product; it doesn't make it better.


Those who don't liek a particlar aspect of a peice of the game always have the option of not using it. If you're game doesn't include clerics and devine magic, (Like Early Dragonlance stuff.) then you can take clerics out of your game.

Likewise, if you really want psionics, you can add them in.


You can make a world where Warlockes are the only kind of Casters, or where there is no arcane magic at all, simply by removing those aspects. A lot of people do that when they want to play a fantasy game closer to that of Connan, or historical fantasy.

A lot of people just don't use D&D when they want that kidn of game, just like I'd recommend someone who wants psionic-ninjas-in-plate-armor to go use GURPs or something instead of D&D.


Removing the peices you don't want to use is very easy to do.

What's NOT easy is adding something you DO want that the game doesn't include.

Nonsense, its' very easy. You go buy the book and you're done. if WotC doesn't publish the add-on you want, someone else probably does.


I feel for those who love Spelljammer but had to pretty much leave it behind when it wasn't easily incorporated into 3.5, or who just stayed with 2nd Edition because of it.

Nothing is wrong with sticking with second edition. There are people who still exclusively play first edition AD&D or even original D&D, and I doubt they feel a great loss at not being able to spend large amounts of cash on needless extraneous rulebooks.


People are always trying to have everyone else conform to their view of how it shoudl be. You don't like Psionics, then don't use Psionics. Or Alternate Arcane classes, or Steampunk technology. Preasure campaigns to keep that stuff out of the books though isn't cool for all of those players who DO want to build worlds which include these other non tolkien-esq things.

Oh? Sounds just like the psionics people, who want WotC to stuff yet more rules and more crap into the core rulebooks because they don't like D&D being a medieval fantasy game like it has always been and would prefer it change into their personal prefered genre. If you don't like medieval fantasy, that's perfectly fine, but quit trying to shove your ideas down the throats of people who picked up D&D specifically because it _wasn't_ all mutants and psions and ninjas and crap.

tainsouvra
2007-08-21, 06:31 PM
I find the information in your link to be counter to what you are saying. It seems like magic rituals are tied closely to the psychic powers, which makes it seem alot more like a magic system justified as psychic powers, as opposed to psionics. The wiki is overgeneralizing--in the books...
Humans with no psychic ability perform some magical rituals;
Deryni specifically mention the difference between magic and their psychic powers in spoken plot exposition;
Most Deryni have no idea how to perform magic but use their psychic abilities naturally;
Faith alone has magical effects separate from any inborn psychic ability.
Those four facts are central to the plots of some of the books, but you'd have to read the books to know this. Don't expect a one-page wiki to cover everything :smallsmile:

They're really quite good books, too. If you consider yourself a connoisseur of fantasy, I strongly recommend picking them up--not just because it will change your mind about psionics, but they're just good reading.


Medieval fantasy is the key word here. D&D has always been about knights and armed men mixed in a world with magic and monsters. Ninjas, samurai, psions, and so on just don't fit that theme. As a correction, a few elements of the current approach to Psions' fluff doesn't fit that theme. Psionics itself does not have that problem, it's very specific to certain elements of the class as presented.
Psionic forces just don't come into play in medieval fantasy at all, and fit even worse into D&D. I recommend Kurtz' work to you as well. You'll see how well it can work. There is nothing incompatible, in fact once you see how nicely it can all tie together you might wish it was core yourself :smallwink:
Sounds just like the psionics people, who want WotC to stuff yet more rules and more crap into the core rulebooks because they don't like D&D being a medieval fantasy game like it has always been and would prefer it change into their personal prefered genre. If you don't like medieval fantasy, that's perfectly fine, but quit trying to shove your ideas down the throats of people who picked up D&D specifically because it _wasn't_ all mutants and psions and ninjas and crap. I found that inaccurate and downright hostile. Dial it back a notch, flaming won't contribute to the discussion.

Damionte
2007-08-21, 07:47 PM
Responding to Dreadspoon....

This discusion is really about D&D being more than just a few people's limited view on what fantasy is. Or even midevil fantasy. There is and was more going on in the world during the midevil period than what was happening on the small sub continent of europe.

Same time period same preasures but things were a bit different in the middle east at that time. They were different in Asia, they were different in Russia, they were different in Africa, & South Amreica, and again in North America.

All of these places have and had thier own variations on these same themes.

The game mechanics need to be flexible enough for us to be a little different. So we can portray a wider variety of cultures. So "everyone" can relate to, and have fun with the game.

The theme of the world shouldn't change the mechanics much, if at all. A fighter is still a fighter rather he's in a Connan like story, or a classic tolkienesq D&D world like Greyhawke, a high fantasy world like Forgotten Realms, or a more magic/steampunkish world like Ebberon. A Knight and a Samurai are the same thing!

John Campbell
2007-08-21, 09:53 PM
In other words, the Deryni books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deryni) (Katherine Kurtz) are definitely not historical fantasy, they're some sort of science fiction?
No, actually, that's exactly the opposite of what I was saying. What I'm saying is that Pern (to pick a well-known example) is fantasy, not science fiction, no matter how much Anne McCaffery waves her hands and yells "Psionics!" to justify powers and creatures that obviously have no basis in fact or reasonable scientific speculation.

And, further, that if you're going to be honest about it and admit that these mind powers and teleporting fire-breathing dragons and so on are fantasy, not anything scientific, there's no real point in pretending that they're anything but magic. It may be one of a number of distinct magical systems (as, apparently, in Deryni), but it's still just magic.

And D&D already has arcane and divine magic, and thirty-eleven prestige classes (oh, gods, I hope those go away) with their own special rules for magic use; I don't think it really needs another type. And if it does, I really think it needs to follow the same basic rules as the other types, and, for game-balance reasons, have pretty similar limitations. I've never played with psionics in 3rd edition - never had a DM who allowed them - but in earlier editions, they were Broken with a capital 'B', largely because they violated this.

And the fact that I've never played with a DM who allowed them, or a player who objected to their ban, is one of the reasons that I don't think they should go into the core books. Let the minority who actually want them in the game buy the expansion book, and save the core space for things that the majority want in their D&D. I dunno; maybe my experience is non-typical. I don't really think so, though.

(Incidentally, I read some of the Deryni books, but don't recall anything about psionics in them. A little bit about magic. It was some years back, and I only read a couple. I should probably pick some of those up... I don't remember much, but do recall them being pretty decent.)

(One of my favorite fantasy series, Steven Brust's Dragaera, has psychic powers as distinct from sorcerous magic, too. But Brust doesn't make any pretense that using one's psychic powers is anything but magic - it's even called "witchcraft". It's got advantages and limitations different than sorcery's, and is really overall weaker, but Brust is writing fiction, not running a role-playing game where keeping the witch and the sorcerer balanced against each other is important to keep their players from getting into snits.)

Traveling_Angel
2007-08-21, 10:26 PM
@ DreadSpoon: D&D is different things to different people. Some like Tolkien fantasy, some like Ebberon, others like FR, and so on. D&D was only at its most rudimentary stages pure and utter Medieval Fantasy as you describe it. Now it is much broader, free to be whatever the players and DMs make it. My world? it's so plane-centric that Planescape looks drab and yawn standard. Variation is what it's all about.

My issue with Psionics in the core is that it gives the illusion that they're standard, which they are most certainly not. Simply, most of the people buying 4th ed with be coming again players, and most won't be people who used psionics regularly. Therefore, they're more likely to say to the new players "skip this" while it gives the newbie DM a harder time.

knightsaline
2007-08-21, 10:31 PM
To all those who say that Psionics have no basis in a medieval setting.

SO WHAT?


People play games to escape reality, not to replicate it. If they wanted to replicate reality, they would play The Sims or vary D20 modern so that there are no supernatural crap and only face humans.

For those who don't want Psionics, heres some advice, DON'T USE IT! D&D is different from video games. Don't want monks? Don't need to use them! Want to make a new spell? You can do that.

If you are going to say "I don't want psionics in 4.0", don't come here and say that. Make a topic called "Things not wanted in 4.0", there you can say how much you hate those who choose to harness the power of the mind rather than the power of the gods.

Abstruse
2007-08-21, 10:53 PM
Not to mention that, with even a teensy bit of realism tossed in the mix, there is no unarmoed warrior in the world who could defeat a properly trained and equipped medieval knight.
Clearly you never heard about how Magellan and his soldiers got the crap kicked out of them by unarmored Filipinos armed with sticks, then. All fifty of those Spanish wannabe colonizers were killed. :smalltongue:

That's not to say that the monk in and of itself hasn't somewhat outlived its relevance in D&D. It more or less has. And I'd love to see psionics more or less rolled into the other "magic" classes. As others in this thread have said, it really feels much more like a modern-day or sci-fi reference than medieval magicks.

Stephen_E
2007-08-21, 10:59 PM
I've never heard a convincing argument for why psionics are less fantastic than magic spells.

Not less fantastic, less fantasy.

Simply out. -
Fantasy literature has lots of magic and almost no psionics.
Indeed traditional fantasy has NO psionics.

Psionics is a concept that is modern.
Indeed it can largely be attributed to Science Fantasy/Fiction.

Does that answer your question why many have a disconnect between psionics and a medival setting?

Stephen

EvilElitest
2007-08-21, 11:07 PM
I think it probably means that all magic (well, for wizards at least) is being converted to the spell point system from Unearthed Arcana, so they're mechanically the same as Psions are now.

And now half of the people rejoice the downfall of Vancian casting, and the others are infuriated by the same downfall of Vancian casting...

What is your proof that their dropping Vancian?
from,
EE

EvilElitest
2007-08-21, 11:19 PM
My thing is who got to make "that" decision for all the rest of us? I've read plenty of series that had Psionics in it. When did the powers that be get together and decide for all of the rest of us that Psionics had no place in a fantasy world.

Or that Monks, and martial arts don't belong in a fantasy game?

Or that Magic Spaceflight didn't belong in a fantasy game.

Who says that LOTR is the end all be all of fantasy literature? LOTR wasn't the first bit of fantasy literature. Nor was it the last!

Yes early D&D took a lot of it's qeue's from LOTR but it also took peices of many many other stories. And has kept incorporating more and more of the wide world of fantasy as the years went on.

Those who don't liek a particlar aspect of a peice of the game always have the option of not using it. If you're game doesn't include clerics and devine magic, (Like Early Dragonlance stuff.) then you can take clerics out of your game.

You can make a world where Warlockes are the only kind of Casters, or where there is no arcane magic at all, simply by removing those aspects. A lot of people do that when they want to play a fantasy game closer to that of Connan, or historical fantasy.

Removing the peices you don't want to use is very easy to do.

What's NOT easy is adding something you DO want that the game doesn't include.

I feel for those who love Spelljammer but had to pretty much leave it behind when it wasn't easily incorporated into 3.5, or who just stayed with 2nd Edition because of it.

People are always trying to have everyone else conform to their view of how it shoudl be. You don't like Psionics, then don't use Psionics. Or Alternate Arcane classes, or Steampunk technology. Preasure campaigns to keep that stuff out of the books though isn't cool for all of those players who DO want to build worlds which include these other non tolkien-esq things.

It this that is the best pro psionics argument i've ever heard. Congrats
from,
EE

heroe_de_leyenda
2007-08-21, 11:25 PM
I also think Psionics should be more unique, and if they are more unique they should be in another book. It is not about if we like them or not (I do and I use them in a homebrew setting) but they certainly don't fit in a medieval fantasy world where everything is about knights and magic and dragons. The posibility of mind-expert reality-shapers... the concep of "mind" and it's power isn't supposed to be so developed in such a setting. The inclusion of psionics should be very campaign-specific.

Now, seeing it from a practical thing, being psionics a unique power sistem, it requires a lot of pages to cover all the powers, the feats, the psionic items, the psionic monsters, etc. It would give us a very bulky PHB and harder to use (and less strimlined)

tainsouvra
2007-08-21, 11:27 PM
No, actually, that's exactly the opposite of what I was saying. What I'm saying is that Pern (to pick a well-known example) is fantasy, not science fiction, no matter how much Anne McCaffery waves her hands and yells "Psionics!" to justify powers and creatures that obviously have no basis in fact or reasonable scientific speculation.

And, further, that if you're going to be honest about it and admit that these mind powers and teleporting fire-breathing dragons and so on are fantasy, not anything scientific, there's no real point in pretending that they're anything but magic. It may be one of a number of distinct magical systems (as, apparently, in Deryni), but it's still just magic. So, basically, you disagree with the authors who place importance on the difference between psionics and magic, even when it comes to their own work? I'm sorry, but while I understand that you're using "magic" as a generic term for supernatural powers, I do not agree that it's such a good catch-all as to make psionics irrelevant. The very fact that this thread would draw so many comments indicates that, to many people, there is a distinct difference between them that goes beyond what word is being used. It evokes a different idea of power from what "magic" tends to evoke, otherwise people's preferences wouldn't be so pronounced. It's not just a rose by another name, it's a different flower.
And D&D already has arcane and divine magic, and thirty-eleven prestige classes (oh, gods, I hope those go away) with their own special rules for magic use; I don't think it really needs another type. And if it does, I really think it needs to follow the same basic rules as the other types, and, for game-balance reasons, have pretty similar limitations. I've never played with psionics in 3rd edition - never had a DM who allowed them - but in earlier editions, they were Broken with a capital 'B', largely because they violated this. I agree about previous versions, but you should try it sometime, the 3.5 version is excellent.


And the fact that I've never played with a DM who allowed them, or a player who objected to their ban, is one of the reasons that I don't think they should go into the core books. Let the minority who actually want them in the game buy the expansion book, and save the core space for things that the majority want in their D&D. I dunno; maybe my experience is non-typical. I don't really think so, though. I tend to agree with that, given how a decent number of gamers don't want to include psionics, and given WotC's tendency to use splatbooks for anything but "we think everyone will use this" material, it makes sense. That's not to say that it doesn't fit the genre, only that space in the core books is limited and while everyone might not be using the psion, practically everyone needs the cleric.

It's still very fantasy, even very historic-fantasy, it's just not so essential that the book would be incomplete without it. If WotC tended to try to fit everything that might belong in a standard game, I'd say it would be a foolish mistake to leave out psionics, but since they tend to keep the core books limited I'm inclined to agree that it makes a better splatbook. I do think there should be mention in the DMG, though, simply because it's so significant in the genre that leaving it out entirely seems like a bad idea.
(Incidentally, I read some of the Deryni books, but don't recall anything about psionics in them. A little bit about magic. It was some years back, and I only read a couple. I should probably pick some of those up... I don't remember much, but do recall them being pretty decent.) Pick them up again, it's in there and the books are pretty good. One even gets into how it is possible to do a psychic surgery (an aspect of healing, but on the brain, in the story) to suppress one's natural powers, and how there's a difference between the minds of Deryni and humans that can be detected by a similar process. There's a lot of psionic concepts in there :smallsmile:

EvilElitest
2007-08-21, 11:31 PM
I don't want psionics in core; I don't want psionics in D&D at all. "Psionics" is the term that cheesy sci-fi uses to justify magic without admitting that there really isn't any science involved. Honest fantasy, where you can call the magic "magic", doesn't need it. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't have people who specialize in mystical mind powers of various sorts, but they should use the same rules as any other magician.

As for the monk, I'd like to see it get the axe, too. Not because I don't think the flavor fits, but because I don't like the way the flavor and the class mechanics are so tightly bound. It should be possible to build a stereotypical Eastern kung-fu master with D&D rules... but it should also be possible to build an effective unarmed fighter who is not the stereotypical Eastern kung-fu master. Ideally, this shouldn't even need its own class... you should be able to do an unarmed specialist with Fighter or Rogue the same way you can do a greatsword specialist or a rapier specialist. With a little role-playing (remember that?), a few class options, a couple of feats, you don't need a Monk class to do it any more than you need a special Samurai class to run an Eastern-flavored Fighter or Paladin (which OotS demonstrates quite nicely).

D&D really needs to get away from this tendency to create a straightjacketed class for every conceivable character concept. I'd like to see all prestige classes and about half of the base classes (including all the non-core ones, and at least the Barbarian and Druid from core) eliminated, but the remaining classes broadened with feats and mix-and-match optional features and easy multiclassing to take up the slack.

I have no real hope that this will actually happen.

If D&D goes in that direction, it will become GURPS
from,
EE

Stephen_E
2007-08-22, 01:17 AM
I agree that the Dernyi series is a good example of a fantasy series with both magic and psionics. It's also one of the rare examples (and it's modern fantasy. 30 years is modern. 100+ is required before you can start to claim "non-modern").

Anne MacCaffreys Dragonrider series is neither fantasy nor magic. It could fairly be described as Science Fantasy but you're definitely looking at Psionics rather than magic.

Steven Brust's Taltos series is debatable, but in all honesty if you actually note the background (what actaully is happening) rather than the story (what the characters think is happening) it should probably be described as Science fiction. The was a alien race who traveled between the stars in spaceships that manipulated chaos/reality in some unspecified way. They used genetic engineering to create a variety of subspecies by melding animal genetics with the base race. They also created psionic abilities that the species call "sorcery", before they destroyed their home planet with some big experiment that went wrong. Sure there is some odd stuff with Gods ecetre, but if you follow things closely you'll know the "gods" aren't gods in the Christian mythic sense.

So we have Spaceships, Massive genetic engineering and multiple alien races that each evolved on their own world.

That said, I for one have no problem with putting Psionics in core so long as they can fit it. I would also like it to be set up such that it is clear that it is entirely optional whether the DM has it in or out. Like it or not, large numbers of players aren't comfotable with psionics in a medieval setting.

Stephen

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-22, 03:05 PM
If you are going to say "I don't want psionics in 4.0", don't come here and say that. Make a topic called "Things not wanted in 4.0", there you can say how much you hate those who choose to harness the power of the mind rather than the power of the gods.

Last time I checked, we weren't discussing whether psionics should be in 4th, but whether it belonged in the core material- specifically in the PHB.

I have heard no objection to a psionics expansion except from the 'psionics should be in core' camp. And they would probably not object to a psionics expansion failing psionics in core.

I don't see much ground for even anti-psionics users to complain about the introduction of a psionics expansion- no-one is forcing them to buy it, just like they likely didn't buy PsH or EPsH.

This is likely the biggest reason it won't be in core- inclusion of psionics in
4th ed. core would be enough reason for a significant group of people to boycott 4th, whereas the people who like psionics and wanted it in core will probably buy it anyway, and wait for the psionics expansion.

The money trail says no psionics in 4th ed. core.

tainsouvra
2007-08-22, 03:09 PM
Last time I checked, we weren't discussing whether psionics should be in 4th, but whether it belonged in the core material- specifically in the PHB. There's been a significant spinoff argument that claims that psionics don't belong in historical fantasy, and that muddied the waters quite a bit. That's a message board for ya :smallwink:


inclusion of psionics in
4th ed. core would be enough reason for a significant group of people to boycott 4th I strongly suspect they'd be all talk. They'd mumble, grumble, and drag their feet...but if they bought 3.0 and 3.5 both, odds are pretty darn good they'll get 4.0, and 4.5, and 4.6, and so on. People talk about boycotting, but for some reason sales never seem to go down enough to matter, which makes me doubt it happens to any meaningful degree.

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-22, 03:30 PM
I think that it would be significant enough to impact sales. There are a number of things that would cause me to refuse to purchase the book. Inclusion of psionics isn't one of them (too much change to the skill system is).


Although you do raise a significant point in that people that even care about 4ed have already purchased 3.0 and likely 3.5, and are therefore likely to get pressured into 4th. The diehards are over at adnd forums.

High-Chancellor
2007-08-22, 03:33 PM
You know... people talk about psionics being all "inner power" and stuff as opposed to "outer power", aka magic. But you know what? In old fantasy stuff, a lot of time MAGIC is inner power, as well as outer power.


I would be perfectly happy if they just scrapped psions and made it all MAGIC. Because seriously, why not? Blowing stuff up with your mind is no less magic than blowing stuff up with a word.

The only difference is a stupid name and stupid fluffy flavor text, that is stupid.

Psionics my hairy butt.

(Which was my original bunk with Psionics when they came out with the psionic books also. "Oh no! It's different from magic! Really it is!" They just wanted to add another mechanic for waving your hand and causing a stone gargoyle to fly across the room.)

tainsouvra
2007-08-22, 04:33 PM
Encouraging the existing magic rules to be more mutable as far as components and sources of power, and encouraging refluffing on a regular basis to match, would indeed make psionics "just another magic" as far as the game mechanics go even if it was different in style...but D&D players don't tend to go with that as a design, they like to be told that a Wizard does X, a Psion does Y, and you can look at table 129 and 189 for each. A Wizard who uses inner mental powers with a fancy display instead of shaping external energies with words and gestures, well that's just crazy talk, we can't make that core...even if that's the basic idea of the Psion.