PDA

View Full Version : Psionics are becoming mandatory



Kurald Galain
2008-01-27, 05:28 AM
As we know, psionics has been a supplement for every edition from first through third. While this has been popular among many groups, there are also many people that don't like it and avoid it like the plague.

The 2E psionics handbook had an intro section that asked the question if, besides arcane and divine, D&D needs a third type of magic - I've known several people who responded with a firm "no", and ditched the book.

But, it would seem from the 4E preview that psionics are intended to be a mandatory part of every gaming world. In particular, WOTC has admitted that they're going to remove most of the mind-affecting wizard and priest spells (i.e. nearly the entire Enchantment school) and give those to the psio. In other words, you can't use a substantial part of "classic" wizard abilities at all unless you buy the Psi book.

Tempest Fennac
2008-01-27, 05:39 AM
I remember there being a thread a while back about thee being 6 types of Wizard in 4E with orbs, wands and staffs being used by certain schools to enhance their spellcasting. Most of them sounded like blasters apart from 1 wich sounded like an Abjurer/Evoker and another one which sounded like it specialised in battlefield control and enchantments. I'll try and find the link in case it's relevant to this information.

Update: I couldn't find the information on Wizards in te GitP archives (srry about that). I thought it would be useful due to what you said about Psionics not fitting in with the idea of 1 of the specialists.

Learnedguy
2008-01-27, 06:24 AM
Actually, I don't think it sounds that bad. Makes it easier to distinguish the classes and gives everyone a specific flair:smallwink:

I'd be even happier if they also removed some of the psion's more blasty abilities:smallbiggrin:

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-27, 06:34 AM
I don't see the problem, if you don't like the fluff just make the mind affecting wizards.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-27, 06:46 AM
I don't see the problem, if you don't like the fluff just make the mind affecting wizards.

Oberoni fallacy.

Also, the problem is that you need to buy an additional book to read the mind-affecting spells that in earlier editions were in the PHB.

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-27, 06:50 AM
Bob fallacy. Yes I know the other one was real, I just don't like it.

Is thier anything that shows that thier all the psionic stuff won't be in the main book.

Avor
2008-01-27, 06:58 AM
But, it would seem from the 4E preview that psionics are intended to be a mandatory part of every gaming world. In particular, WOTC has admitted that they're going to remove most of the mind-affecting wizard and priest spells (i.e. nearly the entire Enchantment school) and give those to the psio. In other words, you can't use a substantial part of "classic" wizard abilities at all unless you buy the Psi book.

As a melee character, I could care very little.

But as a DM, I hate non-core magic, pact, truename, and Psi do not exist in my world. As a DM I always have to contend with players aproching me with stupid overpowered crap they want to be. Non-core magics are just lame, a way for noob players to get a unfiar advantage over the established classes and rules. The spell conpendium was bad enough as it was.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-27, 07:12 AM
Is thier anything that shows that thier all the psionic stuff won't be in the main book.

Yes. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14537842&postcount=1)

The Races and Classes book tells us that "the mind-affecting spells of wizards and clerics will be toned down or removed".

Reel On, Love
2008-01-27, 07:17 AM
But as a DM, I hate non-core magic, pact, truename, and Psi do not exist in my world. As a DM I always have to contend with players aproching me with stupid overpowered crap they want to be. Non-core magics are just lame, a way for noob players to get a unfiar advantage over the established classes and rules. The spell conpendium was bad enough as it was.

See, that's hilarious, because core magic is vastly more powerful than the Tome of Magic stuff, and a lot more powerful than Psionics, too.[/b]

Binders are OK, but not really caster types; Shadowcasters are notoriously weak, and Truenamers just plain SUCK. Psions are well-balanced, UNLIKE wizards, and the *vast* majority of the Sor/Wiz A-list has no psionic equivalent (either that, or the equivalent sucks).

P.S.: real powergamers make wizards and druids, it's the people who are bored of core and want something interesting who generally use ToM.

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-27, 07:18 AM
^^ How does that show that psionic stuff won't be in the main book?

Mordokai
2008-01-27, 07:18 AM
Mostly playing the melee classes, I care little about this. However, I am one of those that say strong "no" to psionics. I agree wizards and clerics need to be toned down, but taking the entire school away from them seems like too much to me.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-27, 07:25 AM
^^ How does that show that psionic stuff won't be in the main book?

For your information (http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e).

Project_Mayhem
2008-01-27, 07:36 AM
Hmmm, I rather like the idea of psions actually having a niche as opposed to being just better balanced wizards, and the mind affecting powers sound more congruent with the idea of psychics.

Indon
2008-01-27, 10:29 AM
I'd be surprised if most enchantment-type spells weren't made to operate completely differently anyway, regardless of what class gets them. As part of Wizard's wanting to completely purge the game of save-or-dies, they'd have to either scrap most enchantment, or render it largely ineffective.

It doesn't matter if the Wizard or the Psion gets an ability called "Sleep". It won't much resemble the current D&D spell.

Overlard
2008-01-27, 10:32 AM
Hmmm, I rather like the idea of psions actually having a niche as opposed to being just better balanced wizards, and the mind affecting powers sound more congruent with the idea of psychics.
Exactly. I want psionics to have it's own purpose, and not just replicate a load of spells with the word "Psionic" in front of them.

lord_khaine
2008-01-27, 10:51 AM
playing a psion allready have a wastly different feal to playing a arcane caster, there are very few powers that are just Psionic X

Serpentine
2008-01-27, 10:56 AM
Bugger that for a joke.

But then again we don't have psionics at all in our game (MM monsters excluded), so maybe I'm somewhat biased...

serow
2008-01-27, 10:56 AM
It's good news that Psionics is finally getting a nice spot in the game rather than "the alternative" :smallsmile:

Trog
2008-01-27, 10:57 AM
Psionics are becoming mandatory

No. They aren't. Watch me not buy the book and not care.

AmberVael
2008-01-27, 11:00 AM
No. They aren't. Watch me not buy the book and not care.

See Trog.
See Trog be awesome.
Awesome, Trog, awesome. :smallbiggrin: :smallwink:

Fishy
2008-01-27, 11:30 AM
So... why does everyone hate on Psionics? I've never understood this.

Diamondeye
2008-01-27, 11:36 AM
Well, no, they're not. I doubt they'll be in the PHB (could be, but I doubt it).

There's several alternatives if you don't want them:

Make them into "Enchanters" or something, magic the abilities arcane magic, if all you object to is the flavor.

Don't use them, period

Houserule their spells/powers/whatever back into whatever class they originally belonged to.

Don't use them period and housrule the 3E spells in for other casters if you want those abilities still available.

Personally, I dislike psionics strongly. If I were to DM a 4E campaign, either option 3 or 4 would probably occur, along with the laundry list of other things I'd have to do.

must....not...rant.

BloodyAngel
2008-01-27, 11:43 AM
I'm not a huge psion fan personally... but my dislike of them has nothing to do with their rules.... which are really no more overpowered than anything else can be in the hands of a powergamer twink. I dislike them because to me, psionic are not fantasy. Crystal weapons, mind powers, etc etc... I like the old fantasy settings, like the arthurian myths, or the connan the barbarian-type settings. Psychic powers feel a lot more sci-fi to me. In games like rifts, I love the psionic classes... But not in D&D. They don't fit the flavor I like for the game.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-27, 11:49 AM
To be fair, psionics were hugely overpowered in first and second editions.

However, the only reason D&D has psionics to begin with, is to allow an alternative (of spell points) to exist for the vancian memorization system. But since 4E already does away with vancian, this difference becomes irrelevant.

Theli
2008-01-27, 12:02 PM
So... why does everyone hate on Psionics? I've never understood this.

It is a question of flavor. People think of DnD as a game set in the genre of fantasy.

Although there's no reason why you couldn't have a proper, even low-technology, fantasy of characters able to wield great power present only in their minds... (And not have to use arcane utterances and gestures to call out the magic present in the world.) Many people are simply happy playing the same Tolkien/Arthurian/European style fantasy over and over again and don't want to go outside of their comfort zones.

So why does WotC demand that psionics be included? Because it was added as an option early on in DnD's lifespan and it provides more design space to work with. (And WotC loves design space. It grants easy excuses for more books.)

If early DnD had provided some kind of variant system that, for example, allowed you to play vampires and werewolves, and other shapeshifters, in the manner of white wolf (and not just as afflicted templates which simple bonuses and penalties)...they would probably implement something much like that as well. All they need is an excuse in order to include something which may not necessarily be part of the core genre of the game.


Anyway, psionics really does have a place in DnD... due to history and nostalgia if nothing else. Just because it has been reviled by many, even when it was first introduced, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a place in the game as a whole.

zaei
2008-01-27, 12:04 PM
I love the psionic flavor. As I've seen someone else say, what's the HUGE difference between manipulating external forces (wizard, sorc), and manipulating internal forces (psion)?

Regarding 4e, sounds awesome to me. As long as I still get my Claws of the Beast, I'm cool. I'll almost certainly be snapping up the 4e psionics book.

Talya
2008-01-27, 12:05 PM
That's stupid. I must ammend my other post quantifying how many changes so far I like and dislike about 4e.

Drascin
2008-01-27, 12:15 PM
Well, given I'd play with psionics anyway, as the concept of a fantasy where no one is actually able to tap his own internal power for strength instead of using external spells takes me far out of my comfort zone, I won't really care much if "psionics are mandatory". Which, as Trog mentioned, are not, anyway. The only bad part is the whole "wizards do not deserve mind-affecting stuff". Yeah, psions should be better at it, as it's what they work with every day, but I'd say it's quite logical, as much as anything regarding magic can be logical, that wizards are able to cast incantations that weaken or completely destroy the will of creatures. Maybe not the kind of brainwashing that a skilled psion would do, but... overwhelming the brain with full force and pretty much frying it looks like the kind of spell a bored wizard would come up with.

AmberVael
2008-01-27, 12:19 PM
I agree with Drascin. Seriously, there is nothing wrong with focusing psionics on its niche, and I'd love to see them better separated and defined, but taking away enchantment magic from the wizards just seems a bit unfair. Divine magic and Arcane magic overlap a lot- though not everywhere- but it doesn't seem to cause horrible problems. Why not give psionics a ton more mind affecting powers and just let it work from there? Give psionics more options, and keep arcane magic where it is.

Swordguy
2008-01-27, 12:26 PM
It is a question of flavor. People think of DnD as a game set in the genre of fantasy.

Although there's no reason why you couldn't have a proper, even low-technology, fantasy of characters able to wield great power present only in their minds... (And not have to use arcane utterances and gestures to call out the magic present in the world.) Many people are simply happy playing the same Tolkien/Arthurian/European style fantasy over and over again and don't want to go outside of their comfort zones.


Well, that's not a biased opinion at all.

It it not acceptable for me to simply feel that psionics don't fit into my campaign world?

Fax Celestis
2008-01-27, 12:58 PM
I agree with Drascin. Seriously, there is nothing wrong with focusing psionics on its niche, and I'd love to see them better separated and defined, but taking away enchantment magic from the wizards just seems a bit unfair. Divine magic and Arcane magic overlap a lot- though not everywhere- but it doesn't seem to cause horrible problems. Why not give psionics a ton more mind affecting powers and just let it work from there? Give psionics more options, and keep arcane magic where it is.

And how do we know that's not the case?

averagejoe
2008-01-27, 01:01 PM
and keep arcane magic where it is.

Horribly broken?

Kurald Galain
2008-01-27, 01:04 PM
And how do we know that's not the case?

Because WOTC said it wouldn't be.

Theli
2008-01-27, 01:04 PM
Well, that's not a biased opinion at all.

It it not acceptable for me to simply feel that psionics don't fit into my campaign world?

Not saying that. You can, hopefully, still leave elements of the game out without affecting the balance too much.

It's a shame that they're going to implement a whole subset of the game that you may not be able to use...but with your own unique campaign world that's just bound to happen with respect to one element or another. If there's something you feel you need that WotC doesn't provide -- such as, possibly, strong mind compulsion/controlling/affecting magics (though they may still exist) -- then you're just going to have to homebrew it. It's unfortunate, but I don't see what the problem is.


Anyway, chances are that psionics won't use a vastly different system than arcane magic. It seems that everything is treated as powers. So it may not be overly difficult to just re-flavor what you don't like about it. There doesn't necessarily have to be something intrinsic to the power set that makes it impossible to treat as if it was a different style. (Not saying that there isn't a chance that there IS, just that it isn't necessarily the case that it must be.)

AmberVael
2008-01-27, 01:09 PM
And how do we know that's not the case?

Because we read the first post?

WOTC has admitted that they're going to remove most of the mind-affecting wizard and priest spells (i.e. nearly the entire Enchantment school) and give those to the psio. In other words, you can't use a substantial part of "classic" wizard abilities at all unless you buy the Psi book.

They're removing spells. That's what I'm protesting against- that takes out the capabilities that arcane casters formerly had and should keep.


Horribly broken?

Har har har. :smalltongue:
You know what I mean. With the ability to cast enchantments.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-27, 01:21 PM
Because we read the first post?
Provide a quotation from WotC that states that. I know from my experience that Kurald (who you quoted) is mostly against 4e, and is liable to be biased in his interpretations of what WotC has to say--just as I am equally biased towards 4e in the other direction.

The only quotation I can think of speaks of a reduction in mind-affecting spells and the like, not a total annihilation of them. In addition, having read R&C and a variety of other material--most of it just articles released by WotC or designers--the statement about psionics being more centered about mental manipulation is merely that: more centered. There is no evidence that I have seen that directly says, "Wizards will not be controlling their foes: that's something only psions will do." if you can provide proof of that, I'll eat my words. Until then, I'll stick with the idea that people are--as usual with 4e--blowing things out of proportion.

AmberVael
2008-01-27, 01:29 PM
Still, even a reduction is against my stance. Arcanists have been defined, and enchantment has always been a part of magic. Lessening it just seems like a step backwards.

Tren
2008-01-27, 01:31 PM
Wizards aren't losing enchantment entirely though, it's just not as large of a segment of their spell list. Also, people are focusing on the psionics here (being as that was what they mentioned in R&C), but I see the winnowing of the generalist wizards spell list as an opportunity for much more detailed specialist wizard classes akin to the Dread Necromancer in 3.5. For once we might actually get an enchanter, necromancer, or illusionist that isn't just a regular wizard with a negligible spell DC increase.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-27, 01:35 PM
Still, even a reduction is against my stance. Arcanists have been defined, and enchantment has always been a part of magic. Lessening it just seems like a step backwards.

They've been defined in previous editions, and they're being re-defined in 4e. If they were going to keep everything the same, they wouldn't need a new edition. Obviously changes are going to be made. Some are going to be made for the sake of balance, others for the sake of flavor, and still others for the sake of design. Regardless of the reason, this is what WotC is doing with 4e and how they're redefining how aspects of the game should work.

EvilElitest
2008-01-27, 01:39 PM
That's stupid. I must ammend my other post quantifying how many changes so far I like and dislike about 4e.

weird, i'm happy with this system, i've like psionics and always used well in my game

What annoys me is the lost of the vantician system and so pisonics loose their mystic, as well as basically ruining some of the cool qualities of cleric and wizard
from
EE

AmberVael
2008-01-27, 01:41 PM
They've been defined in previous editions, and they're being re-defined in 4e. If they were going to keep everything the same, they wouldn't need a new edition. Obviously changes are going to be made. Some are going to be made for the sake of balance, others for the sake of flavor, and still others for the sake of design. Regardless of the reason, this is what WotC is doing with 4e and how they're redefining how aspects of the game should work.
In previous editions, and in magic as a concept as a whole. I've never thought of magic without the ability to manipulate minds, and by lessening it... well, they're singling it out, at least, in the kind of phrasing I'm hearing, which seems rather odd.
Yes, changes are being made, but I see a lot of what they are doing to be part of the (in my mind) terrible marketing scheme to make things new when they don't need to be changed.
If they said "we're going to remove a lot of magic's capabilities" I'd have said "fine, that's all well and good," but in targeting enchantment they're basically saying "this isn't an important part of magic, and doesn't fit the flavor as much as the other things" which I highly disagree with. If they gave other reasons, such as it being broken, or flawed, or anything, I might have seen it in a better light, but they seem to be doing it just because they think it is more of what psionics should be doing, and less of what arcanists do.

Drascin
2008-01-27, 01:45 PM
Provide a quotation from WotC that states that. I know from my experience that Kurald (who you quoted) is mostly against 4e, and is liable to be biased in his interpretations of what WotC has to say--just as I am equally biased towards 4e in the other direction.

The only quotation I can think of speaks of a reduction in mind-affecting spells and the like, not a total annihilation of them. In addition, having read R&C and a variety of other material--most of it just articles released by WotC or designers--the statement about psionics being more centered about mental manipulation is merely that: more centered. There is no evidence that I have seen that directly says, "Wizards will not be controlling their foes: that's something only psions will do." if you can provide proof of that, I'll eat my words. Until then, I'll stick with the idea that people are--as usual with 4e--blowing things out of proportion.

Well, it's all fine then. I was just reacting to the OP. Since I don't tend to take 4E debates too seriously - because a) it's not like I'm not going to heavily alter it anyway and b) I'm actually liking most of what I hear about 4E (exception being Dragonborn, but there always has to be a race one doesn't like. They get rid of useless half-elves, they bring in unlikeable half-dragons. It's simple substitution, and nothing for me to fret about :smalltongue:) so I have no reason to argue -, I don't follow much of the info Wizards releases on the matter. And I kinda assumed Wizards would have mind-affecting spells anyway - just reaffirming my opinion, as a psionics supporter, that I liked psions getting their own niche, and that even if it's psions' area of expertise, Wizs should have a few enchants. D&D wizards are already far enough from the archetypal fantasy wizard (seriously, you'll have better luck modeling archetypal wizards with psions - oh the irony!), let's not enlarge that distance, ne? :smallwink:

mikeejimbo
2008-01-27, 01:46 PM
I've heard they're getting rid of bards in core but adding them to some supplement. Enchantment is kind of their forte - will they become psionic?

Fax Celestis
2008-01-27, 01:47 PM
In previous editions, and in magic as a concept as a whole. I've never thought of magic without the ability to manipulate minds, and by lessening it... well, they're singling it out, at least, in the kind of phrasing I'm hearing, which seems rather odd.
Yes, changes are being made, but I see a lot of what they are doing to be part of the (in my mind) terrible marketing scheme to make things new when they don't need to be changed.
If they said "we're going to remove a lot of magic's capabilities" I'd have said "fine, that's all well and good," but in targeting enchantment they're basically saying "this isn't an important part of magic, and doesn't fit the flavor as much as the other things" which I highly disagree with. If they gave other reasons, such as it being broken, or flawed, or anything, I might have seen it in a better light, but they seem to be doing it just because they think it is more of what psionics should be doing, and less of what arcanists do.

I think the problem stems from the idea that you're expecting continuity between 3e (and/or preceding editions) and 4e that WotC has explicitly stated will not be happening. They've said they're going to make broad, sweeping changes between editions and that they're not going to bother with update manuals because the systems are going to be different enough that updating mechanics in any sort of uniform way will not be feasible.

And really, who's to say that what they're doing isn't a good direction? It certainly makes more sense for people with Incredible Powers of the Mind to be better at manipulating the minds of others. And it also makes sense for people with the Ability to Control Time and Space to be better at blowing things up and making people immobile and breaking the laws of physics.

3e even tried to do this but left the fundamental basis of the Batman Wizard in place because they expected nobody to use them. Now, in 4e, they're making it so that Batman Wizardry doesn't exist (among other things) and focusing wizards into a spellcasting format (blaster/hoser/controller instead of SoD/SoL/SoS-er) that they find to be both balanced and more in-line with the flavor of wizards they're putting into 4e.

So don't take your expectations of 3e/2e/1e/Chainmail and put them into, over, or on 4e: it's a different game, even if it has the same name.

AmberVael
2008-01-27, 01:49 PM
Let me simplify my stance then.
They're making broad, sweeping changes and I don't like them as much. I'd rather play my game than the game they are releasing. :smalltongue:

Fax Celestis
2008-01-27, 01:51 PM
Let me simplify my stance then.
They're making broad, sweeping changes and I don't like them as much. I'd rather play my game than the game they are releasing. :smalltongue:

And that's fine. No one's forcing you to upgrade.

AmberVael
2008-01-27, 01:54 PM
And that's fine. No one's forcing you to upgrade.
No they're not. But I can still express my dismay that the new game isn't something I like the flavor of. In my mind, enchantment is something a spellcaster should be able to do, and do it well.

I mean really, the silver tongued, hypnotic sorcerer (not as a class, but as a designation of someone who uses magic) is just something I've always found to be a fun concept. The idea that they won't be as present is dismaying to me.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-27, 01:55 PM
No they're not. But I can still express my dismay that the new game isn't something I like the flavor of. In my mind, enchantment is something a spellcaster should be able to do, and do it well.

I mean really, the silver tongued, hypnotic sorcerer (not as a class, but as a designation of someone who uses magic) is just something I've always found to be a fun concept. The idea that they won't be as present is dismaying to me.

At least you admit that they will be less prevalent instead of nonexistent. Perhaps the diplomancer will still exist, even if it doesn't come around until the introduction of the bard.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2008-01-27, 01:57 PM
Also, the problem is that you need to buy an additional book to read the mind-affecting spells that in earlier editions were in the PHB.

Buy? I don't understand.

AmberVael
2008-01-27, 01:58 PM
Or maybe we'll just have to settle for diplonicists, since that will apparently be their focus.
That change, I admit, is one I wholly applaud. I mean really, what was up with them flinging fireballs and crystal shards around? That didn't make much sense to me, with my concept of psionic flavor.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-27, 01:58 PM
Buy? I don't understand.

Good point. Every indication so far has said that 4e's equivalent of the XPH will be under the OGL and therefore available in the SRD.

Diamondeye
2008-01-27, 02:00 PM
To a certain degree people ARE being forced to change editions.

If you're the DM, no problem, you can run a 3.5 game (or whatever you prefer) unless your players are dead set on 4E or nothing.

If you're a player, you're stuck with what the DM is running, and from the general opinions here it seems that a lot of people are looking favorably on 4E.

That's good, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but for people who end up not liking it (and unless I'm wildly misunderstanding what I've read so far, that's me) if we don't luck out with a DM who plays 3.5 we're going to be stuck with something we barely recognize as D&D.

I've DMd probably 3 times as much as I've played in my life, but this edition is going to probably reduce that 25% to under 5% in the long run.

Solo
2008-01-27, 02:00 PM
And that's fine. No one's forcing you to upgrade.

That's what they want you do think.

When 4th edition comes out, a massive internet virus will be unleashed to wipe out PDF copies of your DnD books, while the DnD books themselves self destruct due to secret microchip bomblets implanted in them.

As this is happening, WotC hackers disable all various SRDs and Crystalkeep, while the secret paramilitary arm of WotC crashes into your house to purge it of all notes, photocopies, and other paraphernalia of previous DnD editions, while sending you off to a secret Hasbro brainwashing facility to remove all memories of other DnD games from your possession and turning you into a mindless consumer pawn that will only buy the latest and newest WotC products, thus ruining forever your chance of playing your beloved DnD 3.5e.

Drascin
2008-01-27, 02:06 PM
That's what they want you do think.

When 4th edition comes out, a massive internet virus will be unleashed to wipe out PDF copies of your DnD books, while the DnD books themselves self destruct due to secret microchip bomblets implanted in them.

As this is happening, WotC hackers disable all various SRDs and Crystalkeep, while the secret paramilitary arm of WotC crashes into your house to purge it of all notes, photocopies, and other paraphernalia of previous DnD editions, while sending you off to a secret Hasbro brainwashing facility to remove all memories of other DnD games from your possession and turning you into a mindless consumer pawn that will only buy the latest and newest WotC products, thus ruining forever your chance of playing your beloved DnD 3.5e.

Nah, the brainwashing tech is still not finished. I don't think we'll be able to do that until D&D 5.0, at the very least.

Idea Man
2008-01-27, 02:40 PM
At the most basic level, does D&D need two "magic" systems? Nope. If you play with the psionics/magic transparency rules, what's the difference? Psions get vastly more adaptable abilities than a sorcerer, and can compete with an optimized wizard due to the ability to enhance even their lowest level abilities on the fly. If you use the magic/psionics seperation rules, both psionics and magic become more difficult to regulate.

For the longest time, I hated the psionics system and refused to use it. I had issues with the point-based system, the complete malleability of the powers, especially the blasting ones, which struck me as totally unbalanced compared to wizards.

Then I had an epiphany. Psions are what a sorcerer should be! Sorcerers suffer from a restricted spell list the same size as the psion's powers, but psions get to enhance their powers by expending more points, making them more adaptable. The psion can take one blasting power and apply any energy type (except acid), so needn't spend all his available learned powers on attacks to be useful (although other powers make him even more versitle).

If psions were billed as the spontaneous caster option, they'd get much better press, I think. Wizards would still have an edge in being able to know any spell they need, but spontaneous casters could milk their powers for maximum effect.

Handing off mind effects to psions isn't a fix, it's more of a lateral move. It will take something away from the game if psionics aren't built in to the base system, as some people just won't use those extra rules.

Aquillion
2008-01-27, 03:11 PM
The psionic flavor fits into D&D better than you'd think; the problem is that WotC materials are terrible at conveying it or describing it in a non-laughable fashion.

The word 'psionic' is probably bad; it just has too many sci-fi connotations. Have people in your world call them a 'mentalist' or an 'ascetic' or a 'Gnostic' and it fits much better -- they would be seen as ascetics who gain their power through mental focus and purity, often by filtering out or controlling their worldly impulses. For example, it would be a good way to describe a Taoist-style scholar who has gained the power over the world around him by first understanding himself.

VanBuren
2008-01-27, 03:17 PM
Oberoni fallacy.

Also, the problem is that you need to buy an additional book to read the mind-affecting spells that in earlier editions were in the PHB.

Does that even apply to fluff?

Tren
2008-01-27, 04:11 PM
Does that even apply to fluff?

I wouldn't think so, I don't think you can particularly call fluff "broken". If you don't like something or it doesn't fit for your setting you can change it, but just because you chose to change it doesn't mean the original concept is broken/unbalanced/faulty.

Avor
2008-01-27, 04:22 PM
So... why does everyone hate on Psionics? I've never understood this.

Mostly because I hate things I don't understand. Everybody knows how to take down the core classes in a fight, you know what they can do. New magics just ****s everybody over, things that use to protect don't, and things that use to kill, just only hurt realy bad. As a DM, I want to know something inside and out before I allow it, just so I know how to deal with it in game.

But psionics are also on iffy line, the line between Fantacy hero, and Comic book Super Hero. When a D&D character becomes a X-man knock off, it doens't belong.

Uncle Festy
2008-01-27, 04:28 PM
I'm sure this has been said, but...
Here's the key. Psions were annoying before because they were basically "I'm a wizard... with my mind!" That won't be true anymore.

Rutee
2008-01-27, 04:38 PM
.....Wizards will send their elite team of lawyers at you if you don't use psionics? I AM CONFUSED.

And so help me, don't quote oberonni fallacy on that. DnD is setting neutral. I'm not saying they're mechanically balanced, I'm not saying they're awesome if you tweak X. I'm saying they were never, ever mandatory. Putting them in the core book makes them more accessible, NOT more required*. If the DM is going to allow psionics, he probably would in 3.5e too. In fact, the only reasoning I can think of that would cause a DM to say "No" in 3.5e and "Yes" in 4e is "I didn't have time to read through that book, sorry." While that does technically mean that those of you who hate Psionics for whatever reason win out with 3.5e, the reason you do so makes the 'victory' trivial.

*Unless you play the huge module-driven WotC semi-living campaign.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-27, 05:15 PM
The psionic flavor fits into D&D better than you'd think; the problem is that WotC materials are terrible at conveying it or describing it in a non-laughable fashion.

I think it's the overlap.

There's just not enough fluff to go around to make meaningfully different descriptions for the wizard and the sorcerer and the warlock and the psion and the truenamer and half-dozen of other mystical caster classes out there. I'm sure there are DMs out there that don't use sorcerers because "obviously" they're the same as warlocks, only worse; or that don't use psions because "evidently" that's what a sorcerer does, and so forth. While I'm sure they were all intended to be different, the effect doesn't always work out that way in campaigns.

Jothki
2008-01-27, 05:22 PM
Wizards having access to mind-affecting spells doesn't really make any sense flavorwise anyway. Subverting the laws of physics and summoning matter from nothingness really doesn't have that much at all to do with making the kind of tiny, precise changes that would be required to manipulate minds. You could do it, sure, but you'd probably need a whole bunch of divination working behind the scenes or you'd just end up cooking the target's brain. Reworking someone's mind in even the most trivial fashion would certainly be more complicated than, say, Fabricate, but there are mind-affecting spells from the first level upwards.

Psions, on the other hand, would be able to do that kind of thing easily by the virtue of having their own mind as a template, and the ability to access the minds of others without needing to (heavily) subvert the laws of physics.

Talya
2008-01-27, 05:56 PM
Wizards having access to mind-affecting spells doesn't really make any sense flavorwise anyway.

Perhaps not. And yet sorcerers as enchanters has always made perfect sense, flavorwise. It's very...Fey.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-27, 05:59 PM
Perhaps not. And yet sorcerers as enchanters has always made perfect sense, flavorwise. It's very...Fey.

//indicates fey-pact warlocks in 4e.

The_Snark
2008-01-27, 06:04 PM
Perhaps not. And yet sorcerers as enchanters has always made perfect sense, flavorwise. It's very...Fey.

Precisely.

I don't mind psions getting superior mental abilities (in fact, they have them already, what with Modify Memory and the ability to augment their powers to have them work however they want), and I don't mind the wizard getting fewer, but the archetypal enchantress beguiling her victims, or the evil sorcerous vizier using hypnosis to maintain control over the court, shouldn't be abandoned.

I'm hoping that they simply remove the higher tiers of mental control (Dominate, Mindrape, Modify Memory) from the wizard in favor of the psion, and let the wizard keep things such as charms, hypnosis, and maybe a suggestion-like power or two.

Jothki
2008-01-27, 06:09 PM
Precisely.

I don't mind psions getting superior mental abilities (in fact, they have them already, what with Modify Memory and the ability to augment their powers to have them work however they want), and I don't mind the wizard getting fewer, but the archetypal enchantress beguiling her victims, or the evil sorcerous vizier using hypnosis to maintain control over the court, shouldn't be abandoned.

I'm hoping that they simply remove the higher tiers of mental control (Dominate, Mindrape, Modify Memory) from the wizard in favor of the psion, and let the wizard keep things such as charms, hypnosis, and maybe a suggestion-like power or two.

Enchantresses and evil sorcerous viziers are more or less psions anyway. It seems to me that that's a bit of flavor that got tangled up with reworking the laws of physics due to a lack of other options, and now that it's there people don't want to get rid of it.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-27, 06:10 PM
Wizards having access to mind-affecting spells doesn't really make any sense flavorwise anyway.
Sure it does, if you look at mythology, legend, and fantasy novels you will find plenty of precedent for wizards using mind-affecting spells.

Yes, you can make up some kind of fluff under which it doesn't make sense (which you just did - incidentally, your fluff presupposes knowledge of 20th-century physics and psychology, which most myths, legends and fantasies don't) but it is just as easy to make up flavor under which it does (and you wouldn't even have to make that up, because there are exceedingly many books that breach the subject).

In other words, your opinion is not a fact. It's just your opinion.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-27, 06:14 PM
In other words, your opinion is not a fact. It's just your opinion.
In the same vein, so is yours.

The_Snark
2008-01-27, 06:15 PM
Enchantresses and evil sorcerous viziers are more or less psions anyway. It seems to me that that's a bit of flavor that got tangled up with reworking the laws of physics due to a lack of other options, and now that it's there people don't want to get rid of it.

The vizier could be a psion, but not the enchantress. I'm thinking of witch- and fey-like characters. Psions can do mind control, but they're not so great with shapechanging and illusions, and they've never had anything to do with nature magic, which are the other traditional specialties of fey and witches.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-27, 06:27 PM
In the same vein, so is yours.

Yes, I had expected somebody to use that particular "tu quoque" cliche within minutes.

While I'm sure that was a hilariously funny response to make on your part, you will note that the original post here does not in fact contain opinion, but is simple fact. Likewise, the statement that "fantasy novels [contain] plenty of precedent for wizards using mind-affecting spells" is fact, not opinion.

Talya
2008-01-27, 06:28 PM
The mind-affecting enchantress is about the most common type of sorceress/witch/mystic in classical fiction, and it has always been magic, not the power within their own minds, that allowed them to do this.

As far as rewriting memories being exclusive to the psion under 3.5?

1 spell contradicts this: Mindrape.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-27, 06:28 PM
Yes, I had expected somebody to use that particular "tu quoque" cliche within minutes.

While I'm sure that was a hilariously funny response to make on your part, you will note that the original post here does not in fact contain opinion, but is simple fact. Likewise, the statement that "fantasy novels [contain] plenty of precedent for wizards using mind-affecting spells" is fact, not opinion.

You have yet to prove evidence that wizards will have no mind-affecting spells in 4e. I will grant you that the number of them are reduced, but nothing I have seen has indicated that there will be none. Without evidence, it is opinion.

The_Snark
2008-01-27, 06:35 PM
The mind-affecting enchantress is about the most common type of sorceress/witch/mystic in classical fiction, and it has always been magic, not the power within their own minds, that allowed them to do this.

As far as rewriting memories being exclusive to the psion under 3.5?

1 spell contradicts this: Mindrape.

If it was my post you were referring to, I was saying that Mindrape (and its lengthier but potentially more powerful cousin Programmed Amnesia) should be removed from the wizard, and either given to the psion or dispensed with altogether.

Other than that, completely agreed. My above post expresses what I hope they end up doing so as to keep the enchantress/witch alive while still giving the psion a more defined role.

Counterspin
2008-01-27, 06:41 PM
As for having to buy the psionics book to get the full range of psionic powers, that is indeed true.

However, the idea that you'll have to have "psionics" as it's been presented in 3e or prior editions of D&D is false. Retreading one class from one "magic powers" type to another is superlatively easy. Just make psions specialist enchanters. Ta da!

Quirinus_Obsidian
2008-01-27, 06:46 PM
If I disbelieve $E (oops, 4E); that means it does not exist.

but...

Since there will be no mind affecting "abilities" (Arcane, Divine notwithstanding) in said $e (damn, did it again!; 4E), that means that the $E (Hmm, maybe it's a complex...) "effect" would have not been able to exist... Thus; It will be 3.5 FTW!!

Siberys
2008-01-27, 06:47 PM
I mean really, the silver tongued, hypnotic sorcerer (not as a class, but as a designation of someone who uses magic) is just something I've always found to be a fun concept. The idea that they won't be as present is dismaying to me.

They'll be present, even in the first three books. But Psionics will get the more specialized mind-affecting stuff. And if you want that specialization, but not the crystal-focus, change the fluff.

THE FLUFF IS MUTABLE! *gasp!*

And, honestly psionics fits perfectly well in fantasy. Examples;

Oriental - like the mental version of a monk.
Seers - The oracle at Delphi would definitely be psionic, and is definitely fantasy material.
Dreams - Seriously - changing the fluff to talk about "weaving reality into the stuff of dreams and rearranging it to your desires" works great. 'S how I describe psionics in Eberron - and crystals just have an affinity for holding dreamstuff.

And those complaining about mechanics? there's, like, 4 rules you need to learn;

1) A power's cost is equal to its level plus the next lowest level of power.
2) You can improve a power by spending extra points on it (they don't auto-scale like magic, one of the balancing factors)
3) You can't spend more points on a power than your Manifest (caster) level.
4) As long as you have 1 power point, you can gain Focus with a DC 20 Concentration check, which can then be used to 'take fifteen' on a concentration roll, or use other abilities you gain from feats.

Other than that, Psionics is MECHANICALLY IDENTICAL to Spontaneous Spellcasting, you just have to read whatever class you're using. Names are different, sure, but they're obvious (Caster Level and Manifester Level, for example). Those four rules take only, what? 20 seconds to learn?

And in 4e? I'm sure the case'll be similar. A few rules to learn, but, by and large, identical to normal, with poorly implemented but easily changed fluff.

Sto Exstasis

Fhaolan
2008-01-27, 06:51 PM
There is also the possibility that psionics and magic are both going to change so much that the whole magic/psionic dividing line isn't going to be as important in crunch, as in previous editions.

After all, it sounds like they're going to ditching Vance-style magic. And Vancian magic was the one of the major difference between the crunch of psionics and magic in previous editions.

For example, if melee-characters are getting 'maneuvers' that are portrayed as 'times per encounter' usage, or perhaps a luck-point system, and spellcasters are having 'spells' that are portrayed as 'times per encounter' usage, or perhaps a spell-point system, and psionic-characters are getting 'powers' that are portrayed as 'times per encounter' usage, or perhaps a power-point system...

Unless you really load up the fluff, the differences between magic, psionics, and even the melee maneuver system seems cosmetic to me.

Talya
2008-01-27, 06:56 PM
After all, it sounds like they're going to ditching Vance-style magic. And Vancian magic was the one of the major difference between the crunch of psionics and magic in previous editions.


This is bad.

I played a lot with a "point" based casting system in Palladium's "Rifts" game. Magic and psionics were indistinguishable from each other, other than one used your PPE and one used ISP--essentially your "mana pool" for you computer gamers.

Vancian magic in d20 is far superior. I won't touch psionics in 3.x because I hate the point-based casting system.

Rutee
2008-01-27, 06:59 PM
Mana pools vs. Vancian Magic is fragging preference. Don't play it off as anything else.

Counterspin
2008-01-27, 07:01 PM
Well, since all the classes use the same basic mechanics now, you've nothing to fear Talya. This is also the reason why it'll be so easy to use the "psion" class as an arcane class, everything runs on the same day/encounter/will engine.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2008-01-27, 07:06 PM
I agree, Psicrystals aren't fantasy.

I've never once seen a work of fantasy wherein a crystal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Crystal) held great, supernatural power. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_Elendil) Not once. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eye_of_Argon) Certainly not in a Dungeons and Dragons related fantasy, at least. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crenshinibon)

Talya
2008-01-27, 07:09 PM
Well, since all the classes use the same basic mechanics now, you've nothing to fear Talya. This is also the reason why it'll be so easy to use the "psion" class as an arcane class, everything runs on the same day/encounter/will engine.

I don't care about the difference. I said I like the vancian system. (While I admit D&D has used Vancian magic forever, it's newish to me as I only got into D&D after 3.5 was already out...i'd used mana-pool systems prior to that.) Someone said it's going away. I also like the big difference between spontaneous and prepared spellcasters, both flavorwise and mechanically.

So far, the only things I believe 4e improves upon are racial mechanics (the system of making race something of a sub-class rather than just a few static bonuses at character creation is brilliant), and the toning down of magical items. Everything else they've done looks fugly.

Collin152
2008-01-27, 07:13 PM
Look, I'm fine with psionics and all, just make sure they stay the hell out of my rulebooks.

Reel On, Love
2008-01-27, 07:13 PM
This is bad.

I played a lot with a "point" based casting system in Palladium's "Rifts" game. Magic and psionics were indistinguishable from each other, other than one used your PPE and one used ISP--essentially your "mana pool" for you computer gamers.

Vancian magic in d20 is far superior. I won't touch psionics in 3.x because I hate the point-based casting system.

You are wrong and also a communist. Vancian magic is *terrible*; its departure is a thing of beauty.

Siberys
2008-01-27, 07:45 PM
Look, I'm fine with psionics and all, just make sure they stay the hell out of my rulebooks.

This is what I don't understand (in general, I mean; not specifically you); I'm of the mindset that I can use ANY crunch set before me, in some form at least, and that the fluff is replaceable. I'd prefer that as many "power sources" were available as possible, psionics prominently among them, that I could tinker with, so long as they were reasonably balanced. The only time I'd call foul is if they were replacing one ruleset in-core with a less necessary one, which, as of yet, to our knowledge, they haven't (except in the case of Gnomes and Tieflings, but I'm a confidant homebrewer :smalltongue: ).

Collin152
2008-01-27, 07:55 PM
This is what I don't understand (in general, I mean; not specifically you); I'm of the mindset that I can use ANY crunch set before me, in some form at least, and that the fluff is replaceable. I'd prefer that as many "power sources" were available as possible, psionics prominently among them, that I could tinker with, so long as they were reasonably balanced. The only time I'd call foul is if they were replacing one ruleset in-core with a less necessary one, which, as of yet, to our knowledge, they haven't (except in the case of Gnomes and Tieflings, but I'm a confidant homebrewer :smalltongue: ).

I'd be more tolerant if they used the words "Ectoplasm" "Crystal" and "Astral" a whole lot less often.

horseboy
2008-01-27, 08:37 PM
As this is happening, WotC hackers disable all various SRDs and Crystalkeep, while the secret paramilitary arm of WotC crashes into your house to purge it of all notes, photocopies, and other paraphernalia of previous DnD editions, while sending you off to a secret Hasbro brainwashing facility to remove all memories of other DnD games from your possession and turning you into a mindless consumer pawn that will only buy the latest and newest WotC products, thus ruining forever your chance of playing your beloved DnD 3.5e.
Nah, they've got De Beer's ninjas on retainer. Paid in Emeralds of course.

When they made that whole 4th edition launch announcement, didn't they say something about there being like 7 books in core. IIRC psionics was listed as one of the 7 books. We'e all known they're coming, now we've got an idea what's in there.

As far as them not being "fantasy" enough, I've read enough Robert Howard to be comfortable with them.

Though, for the record I wouldn't be happy about having to shell out another $30 if I played.

Gralamin
2008-01-27, 09:26 PM
No they're not. But I can still express my dismay that the new game isn't something I like the flavor of. In my mind, enchantment is something a spellcaster should be able to do, and do it well.


Races and classes, page 80 under "Are Schools of Magic Dead?" by Logan Bonner

Enchantment is still around, but expect future classes to emphasize it more than the classes in the first Player's Handbook.

serow
2008-01-27, 10:41 PM
Personally, I find the Vancian system, even the spontaneous casting, to be too ungainly. There's no fine control. Sure you can use a level 5 slot to cast a level 1 spell when there are no more lower level slots left... but why expend so much "magical energy" to cast a level 1 spell? When I cast a level 1 spell, I expect the cost to remain as a level 1 cost.

I'm not taking into account the relative impact of casting a level 5 spell versus casting a level 1 spell, I'm just complaining about the amount of "magical energy" I'd potentially need. The concept just doesn't mesh well with me. That's just one of the reasons why I vastly prefer the PP system over the Vancian system. :smallsmile:

Sleet
2008-01-27, 10:49 PM
THE FLUFF IS MUTABLE! *gasp!*

That was my thought - take a mind-affecting-specialized psion, file off the serial numbers, call it an "enchanter," and be done with it.

Talya
2008-01-27, 10:51 PM
Personally, I find the Vancian system, even the spontaneous casting, to be too ungainly. There's no fine control. Sure you can use a level 5 slot to cast a level 1 spell when there are no more lower level slots left... but why expend so much "magical energy" to cast a level 1 spell? When I cast a level 1 spell, I expect the cost to remain as a level 1 cost.

I'm not taking into account the relative impact of casting a level 5 spell versus casting a level 1 spell, I'm just complaining about the amount of "magical energy" I'd potentially need. The concept just doesn't mesh well with me. That's just one of the reasons why I vastly prefer the PP system over the Vancian system. :smallsmile:

That's because vancian magic is not supposed to represent an expenditure of magical energy. That's what feels better about it to me. PPE implies, somehow, that--like psionics--you are getting the power from within. It is not from within, you aren't taxing yourself at all to cast it. You are pulling it from the magic in the universe around you. The difficulty is in preparing those spells in your head and getting them ready to cast on a moment's notice. Vancian magic has you put a magical imprint of the spell into memory that fades after it is used. You can only train yourself to remember so many spells of each level that you can cast. It feels more...arcane, and less scientific and clinical...than a mana pool system.

(BTW, there's a feat that allows you to break up a single higher level spell slot into multiple lower level spell slots that total the same.)

Fax Celestis
2008-01-27, 10:53 PM
That's because vancian magic is not supposed to represent an expenditure of magical energy. That's what feels better about it to me. PPE implies, somehow, that--like psionics--you are getting the power from within. It is not from within, you aren't taxing yourself at all to cast it. You are pulling it from the magic in the universe around you. The difficulty is in preparing those spells in your head and getting them ready to cast on a moment's notice. Vancian magic has you put a magical imprint of the spell into memory that fades after it is used. You can only train yourself to remember so many spells of each level that you can cast. It feels more...arcane, and less scientific and clinical...than a mana pool system.

Can you at least admit that the power point system makes sense from a psionic standpoint, where you are drawing power from within?

Talya
2008-01-27, 10:55 PM
Can you at least admit that the power point system makes sense from a psionic standpoint, where you are drawing power from within?

Yes. Which is probably why I also don't like the flavor of psionics, either.

Farmer42
2008-01-27, 10:59 PM
You can only train yourself to remember so many spells of each level that you can cast. It feels more...arcane, and less scientific and clinical...than a mana pool system.

For a wizard, this is true, but spont casters don't memorize anything. They are casting out of potential arcane energy.

Rutee
2008-01-27, 11:05 PM
Can't you just work the fluff however you want? Granted, they're changing the default, but it's fluff. Fluff's mutable.

Talya
2008-01-27, 11:09 PM
Can't you just work the fluff however you want? Granted, they're changing the default, but it's fluff. Fluff's mutable.


That's rather a variation of the Oberoni fallacy you keep stating. "The fluff doesn't matter, because you can change it!"

Well, in that case, the crunch doesn't matter, because you can houserule it.

The game doesn't matter, cause you don't need to buy it.

We're not talking about how it can be changed after the fact, though.

Talya
2008-01-27, 11:11 PM
For a wizard, this is true, but spont casters don't memorize anything. They are casting out of potential arcane energy.

Again, it's not their own energy, but the energy of the universe/weave/whatever around them. They just have a less disciplined and more instinctual method of using it than wizards. (They'd probably do better using "per encounter" spells, mind you. Not that my sorceror ever runs out of spell slots...)

Rutee
2008-01-27, 11:15 PM
Oberonni Fallacy refers to game balance. "This aspect of the game is balanced because the GM can houserule it." That you liken the situation to Oberonni Fallacy doesn't make it so; DnD is setting neutral. By definition the fluff in the game is /meant/ to be discarded in favor of what the players like best.

So with that in mind, why can you not change the fluff to something you like better?

Collin152
2008-01-27, 11:16 PM
The fact that I despise the fluff aside, I don't like power points. I really prefer Vancian casting, or it's alternatives. Having a numerical reserve makes me feel like I'm playing Final Fantasy. Or worse.

Tren
2008-01-27, 11:16 PM
It feels more...arcane, and less scientific and clinical...than a mana pool system.

See for me it provides just the opposite feeling. It feels more like math, and I don't find it to be very intuitive at all (workable, but not necessarily intuitive). I prefer the idea that a wizards magic, or at least his ability to channel and control it, relies on some degree of inner strength and is physically taxing on the caster, something I feel power points represent better.

Farmer42
2008-01-27, 11:17 PM
Again, it's not their own energy...

Going to ye olde PHB, page 52 under the characteristics heading if it matters, here, " Sorcerers cast spells through innate power..." Innate meaning inborn, part of their being. So, yes, it is their energy.

Gralamin
2008-01-27, 11:24 PM
Going to ye olde PHB, page 52 under the characteristics heading if it matters, here, " Sorcerers cast spells through innate power..." Innate meaning inborn, part of their being. So, yes, it is their energy.

Which is also being taken to an extreme in 4E. Sorcerers barely control their power and usually release some extra that causes an effect around themselves.

The_Snark
2008-01-27, 11:25 PM
Going to ye olde PHB, page 52 under the characteristics heading if it matters, here, " Sorcerers cast spells through innate power..." Innate meaning inborn, part of their being. So, yes, it is their energy.

Innate talent, it means. Arcane energy is something outside, which sorcerors channel instinctively.

Me, I've never much minded power points, possibly because I haven't played very many games that use mana pools, so it feels like its own system to me, and the ability to spend as many points as you want (up to your limit) tweaking the power feels distinctly different from spellcasting. Don't get me wrong, I like it, but I'd have trouble flavoring a psion as an enchanter. They simply feel different to me.

I do have problems with Vancian casting... prepared spellcasting makes sense flavor-wise, but it's a headache to do the bookkeeping. Spontaneous spellcasting is easier, but it no longer makes sense that you only have a certain number of a lengthy spell memorized and mostly cast, because you never bothered memorizing and mostly casting it. There's no defined reason why you can only use magic instinctually so many times.

Come to think, 4e seems to be replacing the sorceror concept in core with the warlock.

Collin152
2008-01-27, 11:25 PM
Again, parts of Psionics crunch (including manifestations like ectoplasm when using powers) are too filled with the fluff.
If it were all just mind powers and less "I have Crystals and Goo" I'd be better with it. Or if it were described in more magical terms. But either way, the way something is first introduced to me is the way I'll think of it in times to come.

Siberys
2008-01-27, 11:25 PM
I'd be more tolerant if they used the words "Ectoplasm" "Crystal" and "Astral" a whole lot less often.

Not to beat a dead horse, but that's one of the things I refer to when talking about fluff - will changing the name have any mechanical effect? No. Building off my dream-energy example before, call it "Oneiromantic Shell" or "Dreamarmor" instead of "Ectoplamic Armor". Done.

Talya
2008-01-27, 11:28 PM
Oberonni Fallacy refers to game balance. "This aspect of the game is balanced because the GM can houserule it." That you liken the situation to Oberonni Fallacy doesn't make it so; DnD is setting neutral. By definition the fluff in the game is /meant/ to be discarded in favor of what the players like best.

So with that in mind, why can you not change the fluff to something you like better?
First of all, the oberoni fallacy doesn't refer specifically to game balance.

Oberoni Fallacy (noun): The fallacy that the existence of a rule stating that, the rules can be changed, can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Etymology, D&D message boards, a fallacy first formalized by member Oberoni.

The fluff is the most important part of the rules. The fluff is more important than the crunch, by far. The fluff is the game. The crunch is designed around and to support the fluff, not the fluff around the crunch. You can "discard it", but then there's no real point to the books.

And while the setting is neutral, the ranger is a ranger. You can't just rewrite him to be a ninja...doing so is essentially writing your own custom version of the game. It's a far bigger house rule than minor balancing changes.

Collin152
2008-01-27, 11:30 PM
Not to beat a dead horse, but that's one of the things I refer to when talking about fluff - will changing the name have any mechanical effect? No. Building off my dream-energy example before, call it "Oneiromantic Shell" or "Dreamarmor" instead of "Ectoplamic Armor". Done.

I don't care what it's called, just that it exists. I don't want any kind of otherworldly matter to exude from my body when I use my mental powers.

tyckspoon
2008-01-27, 11:31 PM
Innate talent, it means. Arcane energy is something outside, which sorcerors channel instinctively.

Me, I've never much minded power points, possibly because I haven't played very many games that use mana pools, so it feels like its own system to me, and the ability to spend as many points as you want (up to your limit) tweaking the power feels distinctly different from spellcasting. Don't get me wrong, I like it, but I'd have trouble flavoring a psion as an enchanter. They simply feel different to me.


For what it's worth, it should be a lot easier to think of the 4th Ed Psion as an 'Enchanter' because all indications are that classes are all moving to a standard structure of at will/per encounter/per day powers. The difference between Wizard and Psion should be far more apparent in the focuses of their selectable powers lists and not how they use those powers.

Gralamin
2008-01-27, 11:32 PM
Innate talent, it means. Arcane energy is something outside, which sorcerors channel instinctively.

Have a quote that supports that conclusion? Preferably from a primary source (Eg Core).

Zeful
2008-01-27, 11:35 PM
First Psionics are not likely to be core simply because their are going to be 8 classes and as of the Wizards Preview: Races and Classes they are likely going to be: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Paladin, Ranger, Warlock, Warlord. However nothing is going to be set until the release date.

The_Snark
2008-01-27, 11:38 PM
Sure. Right at the beginning of the sorceror entry:


Sorcerors create magic the way a poet creates poems, with inborn talent honed by practice.

Really, the PHB fluff is rather vague (because they want to leave the DM's options open), but if arcane magic is an external force (and since wizardry harnesses it, it definitely is), it makes sense that sorcerors simply have an innate talent for harnessing that force, rather than having to study meticulously to use it.

Talya
2008-01-27, 11:38 PM
Have a quote that supports that conclusion? Preferably from a primary source (Eg Core).

All D&D magic is treated similarly. In the Realms, they named it "The Weave," but it's no different in any other setting, other than the God/Goddess who maintains it. The fabric of magic is a supernatural link between the prime material and all other realms, it is part of the universe itself. Magic is not possible without access to that source, it is the ability of beings to tap into it and direct it. Some beings do so because they are actually linked to it and part of it (magical creatures), some do so by study and practice (wizards), some are granted access by the gods (divine casters), others do so through force of will, instinctually (spontaneous casters.)

Gralamin
2008-01-27, 11:39 PM
Sure. Right at the beginning of the sorceror entry:



Really, the PHB fluff is rather vague (because they want to leave the DM's options open), but if arcane magic is an external force (and since wizardry harnesses it, it definitely is), it makes sense that sorcerors simply have an innate talent for harnessing that force, rather than having to study meticulously to use it.

Thanks for the quote, never noticed that. I do agree it is a bit to vague over all.

sonofzeal
2008-01-27, 11:44 PM
The fact that I despise the fluff aside, I don't like power points. I really prefer Vancian casting, or it's alternatives. Having a numerical reserve makes me feel like I'm playing Final Fantasy. Or worse.
You do realize that Final Fantasy use Vancian casting long before it used MP reserves, right? Gee, I wonder why they abandoned it? Maybe because it's counterintuitive, limiting, and generally frustrating to use?

My problem with the Vancian system is that I like efficiency and sustainability. I like my casters to be able to use relatively low level stuff consistently, varying the details to suit the enemy. The Vancian system forces me to only use my cheap, efficient spells a specific number of times per day, before I'm forced to either burn through through my resources increasingly rapidly, or resort to piddly little hand crossbow attacks. In short, it interferes with my ability to play my characters the way I want them to be played.

Gralamin
2008-01-27, 11:44 PM
All D&D magic is treated similarly.
...No, not really. Almost everything in Tome of magic is treated differently then in the Players Handbook for one.


In the Realms, they named it "The Weave," but it's no different in any other setting, other than the God/Goddess who maintains it. The fabric of magic is a supernatural link between the prime material and all other realms, it is part of the universe itself.
I have not seen anything that supports THAT large of a conclusion, care to share a quote?


Magic is not possible without access to that source, it is the ability of beings to tap into it and direct it. Some beings do so because they are actually linked to it and part of it (magical creatures), some do so by study and practice (wizards), some are granted access by the gods (divine casters), others do so through force of will, instinctually (spontaneous casters.)
I notice you draw heavily from the Realms, which does have the benefit of being well fleshed out, but It is not the same as magic in Eberron and Greyhawk. Mechanically perhaps, but not really in the fluff.

tyckspoon
2008-01-27, 11:45 PM
First Psionics are not likely to be core simply because their are going to be 8 classes and as of the Wizards Preview: Races and Classes they are likely going to be: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Paladin, Ranger, Warlock, Warlord. However nothing is going to be set until the release date.

The most recent article from Wizards (Pit Fiend stat block) mentions that the PHB is in the typesetting phase in preparation to go to print. It's set; any changes they make to it now are going to be on the order of correcting typos that the editors didn't catch. I'm thinking the Races and Classes preview correctly previews the PHB.

As a side note, said article also says the Forgotten Realms stuff is starting to go into Development, which means it's probably a pretty good time to complain to Wizards if you don't like the direction they're taking the Realms.

Rutee
2008-01-27, 11:52 PM
First of all, the oberoni fallacy doesn't refer specifically to game balance.
Oh God. "This part is a filler you're supposed to discard at leisure" is lost on you, isn't it? As far as I'm concerned, Fluff in DnD is placeholder. WotC is just not good at setting building.



The fluff is the most important part of the rules. The fluff is more important than the crunch, by far. The fluff is the game. The crunch is designed around and to support the fluff, not the fluff around the crunch. You can "discard it", but then there's no real point to the books.
...I'm sorry, you have the origins of DnD almost completely backwards. The fluff supports the mechanics. Seriously, you can observe this in the design process of 4e, whether you like the direction it's going in or not; For instance, look at the subject of debate; Vancian Casting. Do you think they re-imagined the wizard concept first, then changed the /entire/ ability system to reflect this, or first changed the basic system, recognized that Vancian Casting is not supported by this, and re-imagined Wizards after the fact?

As a side note, the part you seem to favor (Specifically, the wizard calling on outside power) is /still very doable/ without Vancian Casting. Behold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mage:_The_Awakening).


And while the setting is neutral, the ranger is a ranger. You can't just rewrite him to be a ninja...doing so is essentially writing your own custom version of the game. It's a far bigger house rule than minor balancing changes.
Something about this doesn't make sense. Most of the people I've played DnD with go the other way around: They'll pick classes that let them bring their character concept to life, rather then basing the concept on the class. The fluff for the classes has been irrelevant, except when it suits the character. Saying the fluff matters the most, to me, seems like putting the cart in front of the horse. You buy a system to help you run the ideas you already had.

Edit: The thought occurs to me that the "MEchanics support fluff" could be meant as a generic statement. Is that accurate?

Collin152
2008-01-27, 11:54 PM
You do realize that Final Fantasy use Vancian casting long before it used MP reserves, right? Gee, I wonder why they abandoned it? Maybe because it's counterintuitive, limiting, and generally frustrating to use?

My problem with the Vancian system is that I like efficiency and sustainability. I like my casters to be able to use relatively low level stuff consistently, varying the details to suit the enemy. The Vancian system forces me to only use my cheap, efficient spells a specific number of times per day, before I'm forced to either burn through through my resources increasingly rapidly, or resort to piddly little hand crossbow attacks. In short, it interferes with my ability to play my characters the way I want them to be played.

They used something very similar to Vancian, sure, but in purely combat scenarios, it's weak. But that's just it. What kind of game is all hack and slash?
Anyways, I'm not here to hear a sermon to convert me away from Vancian, I'm here to say why I don't like psionics. Why is that? Because I prefer Vancian over Power Points. Entitled to this view, I'd prefer that I not be forced into incoorporating psionics.
Now you may say, Collin, they've said they are moving away from Vancian this edition. That may be so, but it isn't just Vancian I like. I also like all the magic in the Tome of Magic, for instance. I really just despise power points.
If resource management isn't your cup of tea, go ahead and play Psions. But a Psion's existance should not interfere with My WIzard's ability to cast enchantment spells.

Rutee
2008-01-27, 11:58 PM
They used something very similar to Vancian, sure, but in purely combat scenarios, it's weak. But that's just it. What kind of game is all hack and slash?
DnD at its inception, and at its heart.

Collin152
2008-01-28, 12:00 AM
DnD at its inception, and at its heart.

I pity you and your gaming. The game is about interaction! Problem solving. If all you ever do is go to conveniently located cave and kill all uglies, you may as well play World of Warcraft.

Rutee
2008-01-28, 12:02 AM
I pity you and your gaming. The game is about interaction! Problem solving. If all you ever do is go to conveniently located cave and kill all uglies, you may as well play World of Warcraft.

I will forgive this, and simply ask you a question.

"What are 80% of the mechanics in DnD devoted to?"

For your edification, my tastes in roleplaying are towards the narrative. Mechanics may or may not be enjoyable (Ideally, it'd be fun, so it doesn't feel like a chore), but my focus is neither the interaction nor the mechanics; It's the story.

Collin152
2008-01-28, 12:03 AM
I will forgive this, and simply ask you a question.

"What are 80% of the mechanics in DnD devoted to?"

Oh, so the other 20% is ignorable?

Rutee
2008-01-28, 12:03 AM
Oh, so the other 20% is ignorable?

Swing and a miss. If you devote most of your mechanics to something, that tells me that you expect the game to center on that.

Gralamin
2008-01-28, 12:06 AM
I pity you and your gaming. The game is about interaction! Problem solving. If all you ever do is go to conveniently located cave and kill all uglies, you may as well play World of Warcraft.

Both you and Ruttee are incorrect, at least partially.

The game was developed from a war game, but has evolved from there, even though combat has remained an important part of the game.


The D&D Game
The D&D game is a fantasy game of your imagination. It's part acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, and part dice rolling.
This quote suggests that if you do not have any combat, or if you do not have any storytelling then "you are playing the game wrong".

This is not to say playing the game wrong isn't fun, it is just not how the game was meant to be played, the combat rules are there for a reason.
This is however off topic, and I suggest creating a new thread to discuss it further.

Collin152
2008-01-28, 12:07 AM
Swing and a miss. If you devote most of your mechanics to something, that tells me that you expect the game to center on that.

Surely it isn't all you do? While you may do combat most of the time, what happens when a non combat situation comes up, but all of your rules are for combat? While, yes, we do still have major gaps in the rules in those areas, we can't just accept that DnD is all about killing and fighting.
There is a reason it's called a Role Playing Game and not a Combat Simulation game.
Role play, not roll play.

Don't get me wrong, combat is necesary, but it isn't the be all end all.
Anyways, I still don't like Psionics, and I forget how that evolved into this discussion.

sonofzeal
2008-01-28, 12:07 AM
Because I prefer Vancian over Power Points. Entitled to this view, I'd prefer that I not be forced into incoorporating psionics.
And I just don't understand this. Okay, so you like Vancian, fine, but as far as I can see there's nothing keeping you from saving up power points via a system you've set up ahead of time to replicate Vancian. The PP/MP system is just flat-out more flexible, to the point where you can do Vancian inside it if you really want to. Yes, you'll lose some options that your fellows will have, but the choice is yours.

So tell me then, why is PP such an abomination?

Collin152
2008-01-28, 12:09 AM
And I just don't understand this. Okay, so you like Vancian, fine, but as far as I can see there's nothing keeping you from saving up power points via a system you've set up ahead of time to replicate Vancian. The PP/MP system is just flat-out more flexible, to the point where you can do Vancian inside it if you really want to. Yes, you'll lose some options that your fellows will have, but the choice is yours.

So tell me then, why is PP such an abomination?

Abomination? I should be so flattering. I've said nothing to say it is not worth the time of any of you, I simply, for reasons I can explain more fully on the morrow, do not wish to use it myself, and would greatly prefer it if I were not expected to.
Until tomorrow, I bid thee good night.

Talya
2008-01-28, 12:10 AM
Oh God. "This part is a filler you're supposed to discard at leisure" is lost on you, isn't it? As far as I'm concerned, Fluff in DnD is placeholder. WotC is just not good at setting building.

I think they've in the past (including TSR) been very good at setting building. (or at least good at hiring those who are.) FR, Eberron, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, they were all great settings.

Fact is, most people buy/download/borrow the PHB/DMG/MMI, despite all the necessary points being available at www.d20srd.org. It's not for the rules, but for what you call filler...the stuff that's not on the SRD. Rules are easy to make. I've made my own, there are dozens of game systems. If the crunch was everything, WotC would be out of business. The crunch alone is soulless. It's all intrinsicly linked together. Crunch and Fluff an't be separated without both seeming to be contrived. The crunch provides the mechanics, but the fluff is the drive. They're married, you can't separate them and still have the game feel right.




...I'm sorry, you have the origins of DnD almost completely backwards. The fluff supports the mechanics. Seriously, you can observe this in the design process of 4e, whether you like the direction it's going in or not; For instance, look at the subject of debate; Vancian Casting. Do you think they re-imagined the wizard concept first, then changed the /entire/ ability system to reflect this, or first changed the basic system, recognized that Vancian Casting is not supported by this, and re-imagined Wizards after the fact? Ever consider that's what feels so wrong about where they are going with 4e? You come up with the concept first, then design the rules for it.


Something about this doesn't make sense. Most of the people I've played DnD with go the other way around: They'll pick classes that let them bring their character concept to life, rather then basing the concept on the class.

Absolutely, which is why fluff should be, at least from the character side, fairly generic. It's also why i love the depth of 3.5 in its current state, with a couple dozen base classes, and hundreds of PrCs. There is almost always fluff and mechanics to match your character concept.


The fluff for the classes has been irrelevant, except when it suits the character. Saying the fluff matters the most, to me, seems like putting the cart in front of the horse. You buy a system to help you run the ideas you already had.

I don't think it works that way very often. I don't want to design a whole setting, I want to play in a setting I'm familiar with. Likewise, i rarely have a character concept in my head before I go thumbing through books reading up a few dozen classes and figuring out how they might combine (both fluffwise and mechanically) into something i'm interested in playing.


Edit: The thought occurs to me that the "MEchanics support fluff" could be meant as a generic statement. Is that accurate?

Yes, i think in general, the mechanics should exist to make what is stated in the fluff of a setting or a character workable within the game system. I don't think the two can be divorced from each other and still be compelling. If what you are capable of doing within the rules doesn't match what the fluff says you should do, in the style it says you can do it, then the fluff and mechanics are both useless.

Rutee
2008-01-28, 12:20 AM
Surely it isn't all you do? While you may do combat most of the time, what happens when a non combat situation comes up, but all of your rules are for combat? While, yes, we do still have major gaps in the rules in those areas, we can't just accept that DnD is all about killing and fighting.
There is a reason it's called a Role Playing Game and not a Combat Simulation game.
Role play, not roll play.

I love how you're assuming I play these for the gamist elements when the post directly preceding the one you drew this assumption from talks about the narrative. More on that in a moment though. More importantly, you asked me what kind of game is designed to be hack and slash. I answerred. Now you're trying to attack this imaginary method by which I play the game as being unfun, in as few words as possible.

Tell me how DnD is not hack-n'-slash based, within its rules. And bear in mind that I'm going to compare DnD to systems like GURPS, Fudge, Exalted, Mascot-Tan, and the World of Darkness, offhand. It's not the most gamist-tilted system ever, but I didn't say it was. I said it was primarily designed for hack n' slash (And dungeon crawls).

Edit: Gao. How did I leave this out?
And really, before you start preaching to me, shouldn't you confirm I actually play the game that way? 'cause, I don't. Not that it matters; I feel confident in saying that I've gone over far more examination of roleplaying and system design then the average player. Whatever I picked as my preference, the odds of you providing some new, truly stunning insight are slim to none. As it is, I understand each of the more common 3 draws to roleplaying, and prefer Story.


Both you and Ruttee are incorrect, at least partially.

The game was developed from a war game, but has evolved from there, even though combat has remained an important part of the game.
If the game has evolved, why is the bulk of the players handbook, and non-setting specific supplements, devoted either directly to combat related things, or to classes (With most class abilities being again, directly tied to combat. Spellcasters get the most leeway here)?

Gralamin
2008-01-28, 12:21 AM
I think they've in the past (including TSR) been very good at setting building. (or at least good at hiring those who are.) FR, Eberron, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, they were all great settings.

Fact is, most people buy/download/borrow the PHB/DMG/MMI, despite all the necessary points being available at www.d20srd.org. It's not for the rules, but for what you call filler...the stuff that's not on the SRD.
How about the starting gold of a wizard? Or the Wealth By level of a level 5 character? Or how much XP is needed to reach level 20? Some of the Key rules of the game is not covered by the SRD.


Rules are easy to make. I've made my own,
Good for you, So have I. I have also found that good rule systems, as well as those with traction take rather talented people to create.


there are dozens of game systems If the crunch was everything, WotC would be out of business. The crunch alone is soulless. It's all intrinsicly linked together. Crunch and Fluff an't be separated without both seeming to be contrived. The crunch provides the mechanics, but the fluff is the drive. They're married, you can't separate them and still have the game feel right.
I find it quite easy to do actually. The Mechanics sometimes need small house rules to make work, but the Fluff is meant to have sweeping changes applied to it so you can play the game the way you want to.
Or are you telling me that I am in the wrong for wanting to use anything homebrewed that replaces existing fluff?


Ever consider that's what feels so wrong about where they are going with 4e? You come up with the concept first, then design the rules for it.
Actually I've found 4E to be going in a positive direction. Personally I find it easier to design rules around an initial concept, and then change that concept as need be. Fluff is adaptable, thats why other campaign settings work.


Absolutely, which is why fluff should be, at least from the character side, fairly generic. It's also why i love the depth of 3.5 in its current state, with a couple dozen base classes, and hundreds of PrCs. There is almost always fluff and mechanics to match your character concept.
But if I want to play a Swashbuckler, I have to play the swashbuckler class?


I don't think it works that way very often. I don't want to design a whole setting, I want to play in a setting I'm familiar with. Likewise, i rarely have a character concept in my head before I go thumbing through books reading up a few dozen classes and figuring out how they might combine (both fluffwise and mechanically) into something i'm interested in playing.
So what your saying is you choose the crunch before the fluff? And yet you argue thats the exact opposite thing you should do when designing a system?


Yes, i think in general, the mechanics should exist to make what is stated in the fluff of a setting or a character workable within the game system. I don't think the two can be divorced from each other and still be compelling. If what you are capable of doing within the rules doesn't match what the fluff says you should do, in the style it says you can do it, then the fluff and mechanics are both useless.

So since I can make a Sorcerer into a swashbuckler type, but the fluff doesn't really agree with it, D&D 3.5 Is useless?

serow
2008-01-28, 12:21 AM
It is not from within, you aren't taxing yourself at all to cast it. You are pulling it from the magic in the universe around you. The difficulty is in preparing those spells in your head and getting them ready to cast on a moment's notice. Vancian magic has you put a magical imprint of the spell into memory that fades after it is used. You can only train yourself to remember so many spells of each level that you can cast.Magic which is not instinctive, natural, within and requires effort, proper preparation, precise execution doesn't sound very magical, in fact it sounds very scientific and clinical to me. That's pretty much my objection to the Vancian system. And it's really silly to spend a feat to emulate the PP system when the PP system comes with it by default.
Personal preferences I suppose.

Gralamin
2008-01-28, 12:23 AM
If the game has evolved, why is the bulk of the players handbook, and non-setting specific supplements, devoted either directly to combat related things, or to classes (With most class abilities being again, directly tied to combat. Spellcasters get the most leeway here)?
Thats a simple question, and thus a simple answer: Wizards knows that the vast majority of customers enjoy combat, and therefore give a system that has all the rules for combat fleshed out.

Rutee
2008-01-28, 12:29 AM
Thats a simple question, and thus a simple answer: Wizards knows that the vast majority of customers enjoy combat, and therefore give a system that has all the rules for combat fleshed out.

But if the bulk of the mechanics cover combat and dungeon crawling, in what sense has the game itself changed? I won't argue that the way you're playing it has, certainly, but how has the system changed?

KindaChang
2008-01-28, 12:35 AM
As mentioned earlier, DnD is a role playing game, not a roll playing game. For me, this has always, ALWAYS meant that fluff ruled over mechanics. However, this is also an age old debate for magic itself in fantasy. And the same debate that is playing out here.

I had a well articulated argument to support my point, but it got completely lost as I posted. I guess my point is now: This is an old debate in new form. Brandon Sanderson's Allomancy vs Tolkein's "He can do that because he's Gandalf!" vs DnD's "A spell takes up pages in a spellbook equal to it's level. Even if it is one word long."

Personally I view as psionics as a sci-fi sort of thing (mostly thanks to Dune) and DnD's core fluff as most commonly medieval fantasy. Yes, DnD is setting neutral, BUT the core fluff has traditionally been fantasy. (seriously, look at those illustrations again)

This feeling of there being something a bit off with psionics taking over some of the wizard or sorceror's role (and curse WotC for removing sorcerors from the fluff!) is because, to me the fluff is the most important part of playing DnD. Whether you homebrew your own, or use the provided the story in the role playing evolves out of the fluff. Not the mechanics. If I wanted to be constantly worried over mechanics I'd start roll playing instead.

Gralamin
2008-01-28, 12:36 AM
But if the bulk of the mechanics cover combat and dungeon crawling, in what sense has the game itself changed? I won't argue that the way you're playing it has, certainly, but how has the system changed?

The system is a collection of rules. Pray tell, how do you put rules on someones imagination? The system has evolved by moving away from combat, and it evolved from chainmail as soon as the original D&D game was released.

horseboy
2008-01-28, 12:47 AM
Surely it isn't all you do? While you may do combat most of the time, what happens when a non combat situation comes up, but all of your rules are for combat? While, yes, we do still have major gaps in the rules in those areas, we can't just accept that DnD is all about killing and fighting.
There is a reason it's called a Role Playing Game and not a Combat Simulation game.
Role play, not roll play.

Don't get me wrong, combat is necesary, but it isn't the be all end all.
Anyways, I still don't like Psionics, and I forget how that evolved into this discussion.
You're forgetting one thing, this is D&D. There are no noncombat situations. Those that desire noncombat situations play games designed to fulfill such desires.

DementedFellow
2008-01-28, 12:51 AM
And that's fine. No one's forcing you to upgrade.

My local RPGA group will be moving to 4e. I hardly have a say-so about that. Some of us don't have a ready supply of players with a spare weekend every week to play a game. Some of us are forced to play the cards we are dealt. And that does mean, some of us are forced to move to 4e.

Gralamin
2008-01-28, 12:54 AM
My local RPGA group will be moving to 4e. I hardly have a say-so about that. Some of us don't have a ready supply of players with a spare weekend every week to play a game. Some of us are forced to play the cards we are dealt. And that does mean, some of us are forced to move to 4e.

You choose to continue playing with your local RPGA group. There are other methods then real life that allow you to play D&D. You are simply choosing not to make use of many resources available to you.

Rutee
2008-01-28, 12:55 AM
I think they've in the past (including TSR) been very good at setting building. (or at least good at hiring those who are.) FR, Eberron, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, they were all great settings.

Fact is, most people buy/download/borrow the PHB/DMG/MMI, despite all the necessary points being available at www.d20srd.org. It's not for the rules, but for what you call filler...the stuff that's not on the SRD. Rules are easy to make. I've made my own, there are dozens of game systems. If the crunch was everything, WotC would be out of business. The crunch alone is soulless. It's all intrinsicly linked together. Crunch and Fluff an't be separated without both seeming to be contrived. The crunch provides the mechanics, but the fluff is the drive. They're married, you can't separate them and still have the game feel right.
I find it entirely probable that most people who buy the PHB/DMG/MM1 do not KNOW about the SRD. Which did you hear about first? Which is the average person more likely to see: Physical books, or a website?




Ever consider that's what feels so wrong about where they are going with 4e? You come up with the concept first, then design the rules for it.
1: 4e doesn't seem wrong to me.
2: No, you don't, not if you're trying to be setting neutral. That's what this entire thing boils down to, really. When you want to design your system to an already extant world, then yes, you will want to tailor the mechanics to the fluff, because you explicitly don't care about other settings. DnD, however, has always been presented and presumably, designed as something you can, and should play any fantasy setting in. That means you /can not tailor the system to your fluff/. To do so would be to exalt that setting above others, and no longer be system neutral. That's not actually a bad thing, but you seem to want DnD to be for the Forgotten Realms. It's not. I'm sorry, you're fooling yourself if you think it is.





No, not really. Ostensibly yes, but if effectiveness is a concern, you're outta luck if you want to be acrobatic. Well, yes and no. Without you know, diving through thousands of sidebooks anyway, a lot of concepts simply don't work.



[quote]I don't think it works that way very often. I don't want to design a whole setting, I want to play in a setting I'm familiar with. Likewise, i rarely have a character concept in my head before I go thumbing through books reading up a few dozen classes and figuring out how they might combine (both fluffwise and mechanically) into something i'm interested in playing.
Whether or not it works out that way very often (And it does, I'm pretty sure; It's hte /default way DnD is set up to work/) is irrelevant. That is the designers' intention. They are designing the system to as best match that intention as they can. Well, the ultimate intention is to make money, but that's part of it.


The system is a collection of rules. Pray tell, how do you put rules on someones imagination? The system has evolved by moving away from combat, and it evolved from chainmail as soon as the original D&D game was released.
You haven't.. really quantified that evolution. When did the system focus move away from combat?

DementedFellow
2008-01-28, 12:58 AM
You choose to continue playing with your local RPGA group. There are other methods then real life that allow you to play D&D. You are simply choosing not to make use of many resources available to you.

Neglect the friends I've made? That's callous. Go on the internet and play by post? Playing on a forum is slow and dull, IMHO.

What pray tell are these "many resources"? I would really like to know a way around this pesky 4e solution so if you have any ideas let me know.

Rutee
2008-01-28, 01:00 AM
Neglect the friends I've made? That's callous. Go on the internet and play by post? Playing on a forum is slow and dull, IMHO.

What pray tell are these "many resources"? I would really like to know a way around this pesky 4e solution so if you have any ideas let me know.

You could stop playing RPGA and use your scheduled time to play homebrew.

DementedFellow
2008-01-28, 01:07 AM
You could stop playing RPGA and use your scheduled time to play homebrew.

Part of the purpose of RPGA is to find gamers in an otherwise gamer-dry locale. So are you suggesting, I try to scare up some people, even people in my RPGA group who only show up half the time as it is because of work or whatever, to come to my homebrew even when they won't be given RPGA points? It doesn't seem likely that will work.

Gralamin
2008-01-28, 01:08 AM
Neglect the friends I've made? That's callous.
It is still a choice you make, and that is all my point for that was.


Go on the internet and play by post? Playing on a forum is slow and dull, IMHO.

What pray tell are these "many resources"? I would really like to know a way around this pesky 4e solution so if you have any ideas let me know.

There are chat programs such as mIRC that offer fast paced game play over the internet, provided you have a DM (Come hang out in #giantitp and you could even steal NEO's Dicebot). In addition there are tools such as OpenRPG, maptool, or Gametable that allow internet based play.

Rutee
2008-01-28, 01:10 AM
Part of the purpose of RPGA is to find gamers in an otherwise gamer-dry locale. So are you suggesting, I try to scare up some people, even people in my RPGA group who only show up half the time as it is because of work or whatever, to come to my homebrew even when they won't be given RPGA points? It doesn't seem likely that will work.

Okay, but now you've met these people. You know each other, and can contact each other.

As to their motivations, I can't help you there.

DementedFellow
2008-01-28, 01:21 AM
It is still a choice you make, and that is all my point for that was.



There are chat programs such as mIRC that offer fast paced game play over the internet, provided you have a DM (Come hang out in #giantitp and you could even steal NEO's Dicebot). In addition there are tools such as OpenRPG, maptool, or Gametable that allow internet based play.

I tried to DM CoC (Call of Cthulhu) using an mIRC client on sorcery.net. It was very slow and people were lost in the whole idea, whereas the other players were befuddled because they wanted to use an Attack of Opportunity. Besides, to me, the whole point in playing a pen-and-paper RPG is the pen-and-paper aspect of it. I like being in the same room as the people I am playing with and I enjoy the hiccups in play to have a joke or something like that.

I'm not a hardcore gamer and to me the game is method for myself and friends to get together and play. But that doesn't mean the game is a moot point. I don't like the idea of purchasing a whole new set of books just to play the same game I've been playing the past couple years. And yes, I know the SRD is available, as are pdf scans, BUT I'm one of those crazy gamers who doesn't bring a laptop to a game.

I don't really see the use in changing things around especially when done for no reason. Like the exclusion of bards. In 2e, I have heard, they were powerhouses, in 3.x they are support characters and a pain to DMs because of their knowledge checks. But in 4e they are just -poof- gone in the core books. Someone mentioned that they are planning on adding them in a supplement. And that just seems like another excuse to buy another book. Because chances are, the supplements won't be OGL.

Gralamin
2008-01-28, 01:36 AM
I tried to DM CoC (Call of Cthulhu) using an mIRC client on sorcery.net. It was very slow and people were lost in the whole idea, whereas the other players were befuddled because they wanted to use an Attack of Opportunity. Besides, to me, the whole point in playing a pen-and-paper RPG is the pen-and-paper aspect of it. I like being in the same room as the people I am playing with and I enjoy the hiccups in play to have a joke or something like that.
Much of the atmosphere (but not all of it) can be replicated through voice over IP clients.


I'm not a hardcore gamer and to me the game is method for myself and friends to get together and play. But that doesn't mean the game is a moot point. I don't like the idea of purchasing a whole new set of books just to play the same game I've been playing the past couple years. And yes, I know the SRD is available, as are pdf scans, BUT I'm one of those crazy gamers who doesn't bring a laptop to a game.
Understandable. I'm not sure how printing costs are currently, but usually Wizards releases an SRD in text documents. You could get most of the rules printed off at a local staples or some such.


I don't really see the use in changing things around especially when done for no reason. Like the exclusion of bards. In 2e, I have heard, they were powerhouses, in 3.x they are support characters and a pain to DMs because of their knowledge checks. But in 4e they are just -poof- gone in the core books. Someone mentioned that they are planning on adding them in a supplement. And that just seems like another excuse to buy another book. Because chances are, the supplements won't be OGL.

If you never try to change something around, it will never get better, and sometimes if you wait until its broken, the change may not fix the error. From what I've read in the Preview books, most changes have some logic behind them.
Bards were removed from Core as they no longer fit in core, similar to the Druid or Barbarian. The Supplements will not be OGL. However Couldn't you borrow the books of others in the groups?

Cuddly
2008-01-28, 01:55 AM
Oberonni Fallacy refers to game balance. "This aspect of the game is balanced because the GM can houserule it." That you liken the situation to Oberonni Fallacy doesn't make it so; DnD is setting neutral. By definition the fluff in the game is /meant/ to be discarded in favor of what the players like best.

So with that in mind, why can you not change the fluff to something you like better?

But when we buy the book, we have to pay for the fluff, word by word, page by page. Literally.

Not liking fluff, but liking the mechanics, means you have to spend twice as much for the rules.

Starbuck_II
2008-01-28, 07:23 AM
But when we buy the book, we have to pay for the fluff, word by word, page by page. Literally.

Not liking fluff, but liking the mechanics, means you have to spend twice as much for the rules.

Yeah, I've never liked how much scientific Wizards are. Even Sorcs know E=mC^2.
They eat a spider for no good reason and learn they are can climb walls, what?
Scry makes a TV set.

I've never liked how unfantasy wizards are for me. But I can change the fluff so it is not a big issue for me.

Rutee
2008-01-28, 08:52 AM
But when we buy the book, we have to pay for the fluff, word by word, page by page. Literally.

Not liking fluff, but liking the mechanics, means you have to spend twice as much for the rules.

Yeah, we do have to pay for the fluff. Given that any setting in DnD whatsoever is most likely to discard what you just paid for, it sucks when that's a bulk of the words, don't it?

Mind, if DnD had a strong established setting, /that/ would make it different. But I'm not sure I'd bother with 4e if it did. DnD's two saving graces to me have been interesting gamist mechanics and utter non-setting-tied-ness. If you're looking to play fantasy, and don't have another system specifically in mind, DnD handles it pretty well.

Indon
2008-01-28, 09:36 AM
You do realize that Final Fantasy use Vancian casting long before it used MP reserves, right? Gee, I wonder why they abandoned it? Maybe because it's counterintuitive, limiting, and generally frustrating to use?

Unlikely.

A much more likely scenario is that it's simply easier for a computer that is limited in RAM and memory space to run a single variable to describe a character's magic remaining, rather than 9 of them - that had to be 4-bit each, at that, because in FF1 and 3 the vancian casting went up to 9 spell levels max.

So, max MP storable in 16 bits: 65,000 and change.

Bits required to store one 9-level vancian caster's state: up to 36, though maybe a few less with some clever bit-wise optimization.

Plus, Vancian casting requires less calculation than an MP system does, which is something a computer cares nothing about - the computer has cycles to spare to run a few simple math problems.

kamikasei
2008-01-28, 10:27 AM
Okay, I'm not going to quote people because these points are in response to statements scattered throughout the thread, but I hope that it will be clear what I'm addressing.

Apparently there will be Wizards in the PHB and Psions or some analogue to Psions in a later, semi-core book.

Psions will be the best at mind-affecting powers while Wizards will be toned down on their access to / power of same. This I think it's fair to say is a claim being made by the OP.

So: if you want to play the best mind-affecting character available in the game, you will have to buy the psionics book and play a psion. Right? Does anyone contest this?

Now, I agree that a standard arcanist should be able to mess with people's minds. It should be possible to be a competent enchanter and illusionist, for example, or enchanter and transmuter, or whatever. So if the only way to be an enchanter is to be a Psion and call yourself an enchanter, and further be denied access to all sorts of other abilities by virtue of being an enchanter, that would be bad.

If Wizards still get solid enchanting ability, enough to be a beguiling sorceress with shapeshifting and illusions, but just not as good as a Psion, that's okay in my eyes.

If Psions get a sufficiently diverse power set that they can be the beguiling, shapeshifting sorceresses themselves, that's okay by me too.

So then the real question is: will playing an effective enchanter require you to be a Psion, or at least have the psionics book? Maybe. Will this be terrible? Well, it's annoying if you have to shell out the extra cash for the book. In that I will agree with the OP: it's a pain if you have to buy an extra book in order to play a concept that worked fine out the gate with the 3.5 PHB.

But cost aside, what's the problem with using the psionics book? I can see three. One: you don't like the psionic flavour of power-from-within, which is at least part of what Talya seems to be arguing. This is likely to remain a problem. Two: you don't like the flavour of other things associated with psionics: crystals, ectoplasm, etc. Plenty of people use psionics in 3.5 without much recourse to these, but they are the sort of thing that can spread through a system, until ignoring, avoiding or reflavouring them can become very unwieldy. Whether these things are going to be a major part of 4e psionics is unknown, but it's a valid concern.

And three: the mechanics for psionics are different from those of arcane magic in a way that you find distasteful or annoying. ...Which might happen. Certainly many people seem to find the mechanical differences in 3.5 irritating. But we don't know what the mechanics of 4e psionics will be like. We know the mechanics of arcane magic are changing a lot. Complaining that you'll be required to use psionics in 4e, and thus be stuck with power points rather than good old Vancian, makes no sense because there's no reason to think power points will remain and we know Vancian is out. To be honest - and I address this point specifically to Talya - if you really like Vancian and hate using another system, then 4e psionics aren't your problem. You're going to be unhappy with the PHB on its own, even if it contains all the spells and powers you need to play the best enchanter in the game.

...Well, anyway. My point, and not to take away from the fluff vs. mechanics or Oberoni debates ongoing, is that complaining about the expansion of 4e psionics based on the differences between 3.5 psionics and other casting makes no sense at all. We just don't have enough information to go on. At the moment the only complaint that has solid evidence to justify it is that the best mind-benders in the game are likely to be Psions, so you'll have to buy an extra book if you want to go that route.

Worira
2008-01-28, 11:01 AM
First of all, the oberoni fallacy doesn't refer specifically to game balance.



Quote:
Oberoni Fallacy (noun): The fallacy that the existence of a rule stating that, the rules can be changed, can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Etymology, D&D message boards, a fallacy first formalized by member Oberoni.

The fluff is the most important part of the rules. The fluff is more important than the crunch, by far. The fluff is the game. The crunch is designed around and to support the fluff, not the fluff around the crunch. You can "discard it", but then there's no real point to the books.

And while the setting is neutral, the ranger is a ranger. You can't just rewrite him to be a ninja...doing so is essentially writing your own custom version of the game. It's a far bigger house rule than minor balancing changes.

But the fluff is not rules. I'm not going to weigh in on its importance relative to crunch, but the Oberoni Fallacy isn't about fluff.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-28, 11:06 AM
At the moment the only complaint that has solid evidence to justify it is that the best mind-benders in the game are likely to be Psions, so you'll have to buy an extra book if you want to go that route.

Maybe. They could release the Psionics Handbook under the OGL. Lord knows they did it with the 3.5e version.

horseboy
2008-01-28, 12:22 PM
Two: you don't like the flavour of other things associated with psionics: crystals, ectoplasm, etc. Plenty of people use psionics in 3.5 without much recourse to these, but they are the sort of thing that can spread through a system, until ignoring, avoiding or reflavouring them can become very unwieldy. Whether these things are going to be a major part of 4e psionics is unknown, but it's a valid concern.They could just call it a +1spell adder for Mentalism. :smallwink:


And three: the mechanics for psionics are different from those of arcane magic in a way that you find distasteful or annoying. ...Which might happen. Certainly many people seem to find the mechanical differences in 3.5 irritating. But we don't know what the mechanics of 4e psionics will be like. We know the mechanics of arcane magic are changing a lot. Complaining that you'll be required to use psionics in 4e, and thus be stuck with power points rather than good old Vancian, makes no sense because there's no reason to think power points will remain and we know Vancian is out. To be honest - and I address this point specifically to Talya - if you really like Vancian and hate using another system, then 4e psionics aren't your problem. You're going to be unhappy with the PHB on its own, even if it contains all the spells and powers you need to play the best enchanter in the game.

Very much agree. For all we know, psionics will use the exact same mechanics as every other class, only the power source will be different.

Talya
2008-01-28, 03:48 PM
I find it entirely probable that most people who buy the PHB/DMG/MM1 do not KNOW about the SRD. Which did you hear about first? Which is the average person more likely to see: Physical books, or a website?

I think most people who play D&D knew about it either long before 3e or 3.5 came out, or played it for the first time in a computer game (NWN.)


1: 4e doesn't seem wrong to me.

It feels very much like the wrong direction to me.


2: No, you don't, not if you're trying to be setting neutral. That's what this entire thing boils down to, really. When you want to design your system to an already extant world, then yes, you will want to tailor the mechanics to the fluff, because you explicitly don't care about other settings. DnD, however, has always been presented and presumably, designed as something you can, and should play any fantasy setting in. That means you /can not tailor the system to your fluff/. To do so would be to exalt that setting above others, and no longer be system neutral. That's not actually a bad thing, but you seem to want DnD to be for the Forgotten Realms. It's not. I'm sorry, you're fooling yourself if you think it is.

First of all, setting neutral does not mean "fluff neutral."

They didn't design a dual weilder/archer with an animal companion first, then decide he was going to be a ranger and theme him after nature-loving/survivalist later. The class concept is thought of first, then they come up with the crunch to match the fluff. And secondly, even at the setting level, every setting requires custom crunch. Rules need to match the fluff. You can't design them independantly and expect them to mesh.



No, not really. Ostensibly yes, but if effectiveness is a concern, you're outta luck if you want to be acrobatic. Well, yes and no. Without you know, diving through thousands of sidebooks anyway, a lot of concepts simply don't work.

One of my few complaints about the 3.5 system is how it handles the dextrous melee fighter.

kamikasei
2008-01-28, 04:10 PM
It feels very much like the wrong direction to me.

Talya, your original question to which Rutee was responding was:

Ever consider that's what feels so wrong about where they are going with 4e?
...which sort of assumes she also feels 4e "feels so wrong". The fact that you feel so isn't in question. You can't change her mind about the preeminence of mechanics by saying that that's what is wrong with 4e if she doesn't agree there's anything wrong in the first place.

Talya
2008-01-28, 04:14 PM
But when we buy the book, we have to pay for the fluff, word by word, page by page. Literally.

Not liking fluff, but liking the mechanics, means you have to spend twice as much for the rules.

Heh...mostly true. Well, either that or spend more time on P2P software because the files are bigger. ;)

Rutee
2008-01-28, 05:34 PM
I think most people who play D&D knew about it either long before 3e or 3.5 came out, or played it for the first time in a computer game (NWN.)
Perhaps, but the SRD is not going to get nearly as many new players into it regardless. And I'm slightly doubtful NWN links to it.




First of all, setting neutral does not mean "fluff neutral."

They didn't design a dual weilder/archer with an animal companion first, then decide he was going to be a ranger and theme him after nature-loving/survivalist later. The class concept is thought of first, then they come up with the crunch to match the fluff. And secondly, even at the setting level, every setting requires custom crunch. Rules need to match the fluff. You can't design them independantly and expect them to mesh.
It's true taht setting neutral doesn't necessarily mean fluff neutral; After all, it sort of assumes a lot about the players world as is, because it's the default. Fact of the matter is though, the more you tailor your mechanics to fluff, the more you assume that style of setting, and the harder you make it to adapt. Those are /negative traits/ in a setting neutral game, period. Rules need to match the fluff, but frankly, once you have your core concepts, the fluff needs to move to match the mechanics, not the other way around. Not when you want your game to be usable for lots of different styles and setting types.

Really, with how much you defend tooth and nail the tailoring of mechanics to fluff, you haven't provided a compelling reason for it, within the context of a setting-neutral game.


One of my few complaints about the 3.5 system is how it doesn't handle the dextrous melee fighter.

Fixed, though I have quite a few complaints about it myself.

pyrefiend
2008-01-28, 05:46 PM
This is what I do anyway... take away the wizards' mind control spells and the psion's blasty powers.

CockroachTeaParty
2008-01-28, 05:51 PM
I'll admit that I haven't been keeping up to date with where and how 4E is going, and I agree that creating classes better suited toward specific roles, even in spellcasting (similar to warmage, beguiler, dread nercro, etc.) will probably make for a more balanced game, it sort of saddens me that psionics might become pseudo-core and function in a similar 'per encounter' basis like the rest of the supposed magic systems of the edition.

One thing that I found attractive about psionics (and shadow magic, and pact magic, and incarnum, etc.) was that they operated under different rules. Sure, a shadow caster or a psion or a wizard could dominate a monster, and after the fact most of these abilities produce the same effects, the fact that they were different rules to their execution helped make them feel like a different power. Sure, you can use description to flavor anything the way you like it, but having mechanical differences, even as subtle as a point system like psionics or a Truespeech check, helped make them all feel different to me.

I suppose my main concern is that psionics, arcane, and divine magic will end up working, and feeling, the same in 4E. Sure, having spells and powers usable per encounter will probably generate a more balanced game, but humor me for a moment:

When it comes time to create a character for a new game in 3.5 edition, we all have to make some choices. If you want to make an all-powerful archmage, you can go right ahead, and very little is stopping you. But if you wanted to feel a little more risk, and perhaps feel a little more rewarded whenever you succeeded, maybe you would make a martial character. Perhaps a few other people are already playing an arcane or divine caster, and you want to play something fundamentally different, both for RP and strategy purposes. Maybe you'll cook up a psion, or a shadowcaster, or an incarnate.
There are many (perhaps too many) different classes in 3.5, many of them less powerful than the druid or wizard, but at least for me, part of the attraction of these classes was their weakness. If your hero managed to conquer challenges with just his sword, or his wits, or his mind, or creepy entities bound to his soul, often times that felt more rewarding to me than simply churning out another Batman wizard or CoDzilla.

If 4E is going to balance the classes so well that the risk and reward of playing something weaker or stronger is lessened, or negated, than am I alone in feeling that could be a negative thing? Truth be told, balance has never truly been too much of an issue for me; if anything, I enjoy unbalance, as it can serve as a catalyst for coming up with creative solutions for being effective in situations a class was not designed for.

I'm sure that in the end 4E will be a well-oiled, balanced, fair game that will satisfy a great number of people, perhaps even myself. We're all just running on speculation and scraps right now, anyway. But despite all of the problems it has, I still see 3.5 edition as a system with a lot of life left in it. I think it did a good job of making alternative casting systems feel alternative, and I hope 4E will be able to do the same.

Counterspin
2008-01-28, 05:57 PM
The only reason I play D&D, as opposed to Unknown Armies in a medieval setting, is because of the tactical element. I'd rather play with the mat, and I'd rather have the classes be balanced, so that the fate of the players comes from the decisions they make in combat rather than their builds.

Rutee
2008-01-28, 06:05 PM
The only reason I play D&D, as opposed to Unknown Armies in a medieval setting, is because of the tactical element. I'd rather play with the mat, and I'd rather have the classes be balanced, so that the fate of the players comes from the decisions they make in combat rather than their builds.

B-but Pornomancy! Dipsomancy! Diplomancy!

Before anyone asks... (http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j227/RuteeKatreya/UnknownArmies.jpg)

Jayabalard
2008-01-28, 06:18 PM
As we know, psionics has been a supplement for every edition from first through third. While this has been popular among many groups, there are also many people that don't like it and avoid it like the plague.In 1ed AD&D they were in the player's handbook.

Prophaniti
2008-01-28, 06:30 PM
I would agree with Swordguy. I like psionics(though I do agree with BloodyAngel that they've always felt more sci-fi than fantasy to me), but I don't want to see them become core. I do occasionally run campaigns in which psionics have no place and if they're core it'll be that much more annoying for my players. Yet another thing I'll have to tell them to ignore in the $30 book they just bought.

EDIT: wow, I just realized that I posted after only reading the first page on this thread... I can only use the excuse that I'm at work and easily distracted. Still, my point stands as is. But if you're trying to find the posts I agreed with, they're clear back on page one.

RukiTanuki
2008-01-28, 06:48 PM
For what it's worth, my players are quite fond of the spellpoint system. For the most part, they're pretty casual players, and most don't want to deal with a ton of overhead. The sorceror may understand the logic behind my explanation of why he can make a small rolling ball of fire (Flaming Sphere), or a large long-lasting Wall of Fire, but he can't make any more medium-sized explosions of fire (Fireball) today. That is, he understands, but those rules seem imposing, and it doesn't make the game more fun for him.

For my players, spell points replace logistical options (which require them to decide what they need before they know they need it) with tactical options (in combat, they can use the spell they want as needed until their points run low). It feeds into their overall goals: they want to spend less time planning what they're going to do, and more time doing it. For them, I think 4e's going to be a good fit. (It's part of the reason I'm trying to adapt 3.5 to a per-encounter/per-day magic system in the meantime.)

Collin152
2008-01-28, 07:10 PM
For what it's worth, my players are quite fond of the spellpoint system. For the most part, they're pretty casual players, and most don't want to deal with a ton of overhead. The sorceror may understand the logic behind my explanation of why he can make a small rolling ball of fire (Flaming Sphere), or a large long-lasting Wall of Fire, but he can't make any more medium-sized explosions of fire (Fireball) today. That is, he understands, but those rules seem imposing, and it doesn't make the game more fun for him.

For my players, spell points replace logistical options (which require them to decide what they need before they know they need it) with tactical options (in combat, they can use the spell they want as needed until their points run low). It feeds into their overall goals: they want to spend less time planning what they're going to do, and more time doing it. For them, I think 4e's going to be a good fit. (It's part of the reason I'm trying to adapt 3.5 to a per-encounter/per-day magic system in the meantime.)

For the record, if a sorcerer can still cast Wall of Fire, they can also cast Fireball.

sonofzeal
2008-01-28, 07:34 PM
For the record, if a sorcerer can still cast Wall of Fire, they can also cast Fireball.
I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why PP/MP pools are so horrible, btw.

Rutee
2008-01-28, 07:40 PM
I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why PP/MP pools are so horrible, btw.

Can't it just be preference? As long as he's not saying "They suck", but "I don't like them", it's not like it's an objective statement.

Collin152
2008-01-28, 07:50 PM
Can't it just be preference? As long as he's not saying "They suck", but "I don't like them", it's not like it's an objective statement.

As a matter of fact, that's what I've been saying hte whole time. At least, it's what I've been meaning.

Who are you, that I need to justify my opinion?

Rutee
2008-01-28, 07:53 PM
Who are you, that I need to justify my opinion?

Your opinion is on quality. You may not 'need' to explain yourself, but given that the thread as a whole is a debate, don't give an opinion on quality if you won't justify it. That's just making an argument then hiding behind "It's an opinion, it can't be wrong!"

Counterspin
2008-01-28, 07:54 PM
Rutee - I'd keep it all somehow. Probably banned religious texts of ancient faiths :)

Collin152
2008-01-28, 08:15 PM
Your opinion is on quality. You may not 'need' to explain yourself, but given that the thread as a whole is a debate, don't give an opinion on quality if you won't justify it. That's just making an argument then hiding behind "It's an opinion, it can't be wrong!"

Well, I laid some justifications, which were deemed unsatisfactory. The fact remains that I dislike the use of Power Points, and therefore Psionics, and would therefore prefer them not to be Core.

MeklorIlavator
2008-01-28, 08:23 PM
Well, I laid some justifications, which were deemed unsatisfactory. The fact remains that I dislike the use of Power Points, and therefore Psionics, and would therefore prefer them not to be Core.

Besides power points, whats wrong with them? Because they might not use power points in 4ed(and it seems likely that they won't), so what is your objection in that case?

Collin152
2008-01-28, 08:35 PM
Besides power points, whats wrong with them? Because they might not use power points in 4ed(and it seems likely that they won't), so what is your objection in that case?

While nothing may be inherantly wrong with them, per se, if the ymaintain the relationship between flavor and mechanics they currently do, I'll be disadvantaged in re-flavoring them(as the way something is first presented to me is the way I'll continue to think of it).
For instance, the displays. I know Ican make a chec kto use the powers without displays, but if ectoplasm isn't linked to Psionics in my view, nor any other otherworldly substabce, then a material display is unorthodox. Nontheless, it remains a mechanical effect of the powers, not a flavor effect. The same goes with the other displays.
Furthermore, I don't like a lot of the powers, which pretty much constitutes all but the telepathic ones.

FlyMolo
2008-01-28, 08:51 PM
Personally, I love Psionics.

Crunchwise and flavorwise. Crunchwise they make great hybrid classes, see warmind and soulknife. Flavorwise, I like throwing things with my mind. I would like to see Psionics get more blastery abilities, and maybe more mind-affecting ones.

Counterspin
2008-01-28, 08:56 PM
On a related note, Pornomancy! Dipsomancy! Diplomancy! are all also becoming mandatory, in that they come in a separate book, and if you want to use them in D&D you should probably buy that one :)

Prophaniti
2008-01-28, 09:05 PM
Sorry, Diplomancy I'm familiar with, but what are the other two? Or do I not want to know?

Rutee
2008-01-28, 09:06 PM
Trust me, you don't want to know. (http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j227/RuteeKatreya/UnknownArmies.jpg)

ForzaFiori
2008-01-28, 09:33 PM
While nothing may be inherantly wrong with them, per se, if the ymaintain the relationship between flavor and mechanics they currently do, I'll be disadvantaged in re-flavoring them(as the way something is first presented to me is the way I'll continue to think of it).
For instance, the displays. I know Ican make a chec kto use the powers without displays, but if ectoplasm isn't linked to Psionics in my view, nor any other otherworldly substabce, then a material display is unorthodox. Nontheless, it remains a mechanical effect of the powers, not a flavor effect. The same goes with the other displays.
Furthermore, I don't like a lot of the powers, which pretty much constitutes all but the telepathic ones.

just change the material display to something different. maybe their eyes flash with the inner power they're calling out right before the power goes into effect or something. thats the main point everyones been saying, if you dont like how something is described, just change it so that you do! who cares if the psion gets coated in extoplasm or jelly or puppies as long as YOU AND YOUR PLAYERS like the fluff?

Tar Palantir
2008-01-28, 09:35 PM
Never been much of an enchanter, as all of my enchantment casters have died gruesome, combat-related deaths against anything with a decent Will save. I just now finished getting all of the 3.5 books I like, so I'm not going 4th edition any time soon. At least until they release a new Libris Mortis. I love the undead. And I mean really love the undead :smallwink: .

Starsinger
2008-01-28, 09:37 PM
This is what I do anyway... take away the wizards' mind control spells and the psion's blasty powers.

Why? The three most prevalent forms of psionic ability in the media are Telepathy, Telekinesis, and Pyrokinesis. Pyrokinesis seems awfully blasty to me...

Collin152
2008-01-28, 09:38 PM
just change the material display to something different. maybe their eyes flash with the inner power they're calling out right before the power goes into effect or something. thats the main point everyones been saying, if you dont like how something is described, just change it so that you do! who cares if the psion gets coated in extoplasm or jelly or puppies as long as YOU AND YOUR PLAYERS like the fluff?

But I don't want to be coated in anything!
Ever!
I don't want people to hear my powers working!
Ever!
I want it to all be in my own head until it blows yours up.

horseboy
2008-01-28, 09:46 PM
But I don't want to be coated in anything!
Ever!
I don't want people to hear my powers working!
Ever!
I want it to all be in my own head until it blows yours up.

Scanners FTW!

Collin152
2008-01-28, 09:48 PM
I don't follow.

Rutee
2008-01-28, 09:50 PM
But I don't want to be coated in anything!
Ever!
I don't want people to hear my powers working!
Ever!
I want it to all be in my own head until it blows yours up.

...Then just change the whole fragging thing to be exactly as obvious as magic. Or not obvious ever. Seriously, WHAT THE HELL? It's fluff. Match it up to whatever you like.

Collin152
2008-01-28, 09:55 PM
...Then just change the whole fragging thing to be exactly as obvious as magic. Or not obvious ever. Seriously, WHAT THE HELL? It's fluff. Match it up to whatever you like.

Technically, those are mechanical effects.
Suppose I was playing a game of stealth and subterfuge. Fluff I can manipulate at will, but these things go beyond fluff.
I still don't see why it's such a travesty that I dislike Psionics.
Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't. Psionics have nuts, Vancian magic don't.
I never feel like a nut.

Rutee
2008-01-28, 09:59 PM
Technically, those are mechanical effects.
Suppose I was playing a game of stealth and subterfuge. Fluff I can manipulate at will, but these things go beyond fluff.
I still don't see why it's such a travesty that I dislike Psionics.
Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't. Psionics have nuts, Vancian magic don't.
I never feel like a nut.

Technically, they're mechanical effects that are there to back up the fluff. Do you /really/ think the balancing factor was supposed to be the noise?

It's a travesty because the reasons you keep producing are completely mutable and unnecesary extra factors.

It's roughly analogous to my saying that DnD sucks because of the Arcane Archer class. It's a minor feature I can completely ignore.

Collin152
2008-01-28, 10:06 PM
Does it matter why I don't like it?
Besides, though these fluff centered things are unworthy of justification in your sight, I still dislike Power Points, the concept of Psionic Focus, all the Psionic skills, and nearly all of the Psion's powers.

MeklorIlavator
2008-01-28, 10:19 PM
Does it matter why I don't like it?
Besides, though these fluff centered things are unworthy of justification in your sight, I still dislike Power Points, the concept of Psionic Focus, all the Psionic skills, and nearly all of the Psion's powers.

You mean like psionic overland flight? Or energy wall(kinda like the wall of series)? Or metamorphasis(kinda like polymorph)?

Most many psionic powers are either direct copies of arcane/divine ones or are based off existing spells, so I fail to see whats so objectionable(oh no! Psions can learn one power to deal multiple types of energy damage).

And there are four psionic skills, and three are pretty direct copies of spellcraft(psicraft), use magical device(use psionic device), knowledge arcane (knowledge psionics). So what exactly is the problem with autohypnosis? I liked it because it seemed to give a way to create the truly "zen" character(mind over matter).

Psionic focus is a bit tricker,and I could see several objections to it, but could you please explain.

horseboy
2008-01-28, 10:31 PM
I don't follow.
Scanners (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081455/). That scene you described, it was one of the defining shots in the movie.

Edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Om8cWWTajU

serow
2008-01-29, 02:24 AM
I still dislike Power Points, the concept of Psionic Focus, all the Psionic skills, and nearly all of the Psion's powers.All the things that I like :smallsmile:

tyckspoon
2008-01-29, 02:27 AM
I believe I understand! The linking factor between all the things Collin dislikes is: the letter P! Obviously there is some sort of negative Sesame Street experience at the root of all this.

kamikasei
2008-01-29, 06:00 AM
I believe I understand! The linking factor between all the things Collin dislikes is: the letter P! Obviously there is some sort of negative Sesame Street experience at the root of all this.

Let me pitch this great new system to you: it has Mentalists, who shoot off Mind Bullets using their Awesome Meter while staying in The Zone...

Starbuck_II
2008-01-29, 11:07 AM
Let me pitch this great new system to you: it has Mentalists, who shoot off Mind Bullets using their Awesome Meter while staying in The Zone...

That sounds like great way of reflavoring. I'd have no issue with that change.

Theli
2008-01-29, 11:18 AM
Let me pitch this great new system to you: it has Mentalists, who shoot off Mind Bullets using their Awesome Meter while staying in The Zone...

*sings*
Wonderboy, what is the secret of your power?
*stop singing*

Ok, that's enough of that.

Diamondeye
2008-01-29, 01:25 PM
...Then just change the whole fragging thing to be exactly as obvious as magic. Or not obvious ever. Seriously, WHAT THE HELL? It's fluff. Match it up to whatever you like.

You can't always do that. The fluff and the system are inextricably intertwined in some cases.

This was a real problem in 1E; they actually used the fluff to balance the game. Paladins, for example, were considered a powerful class so they had specific requirements laid out that they had to follow, in terms of game mechanics. No more than 10 magic items, and only of certain types, they had to tithe money, and a few other things. Other classes had level limits that were written into the mechanics and fluss (Druids, Assassins, and Monks, off the top of my head.)

Now granted, it's nowhere near that bad now, but sometimes in order to change the fluff you have to change the mechanics or they don't seem to match up.

Counterspin
2008-01-29, 01:36 PM
Diamondeye : I fail to see how that is true with a 3e psionics->magic conversion, and I further find it highly unlikely that it will be true in 4e given the unification of all classes under the will/encounter/day system.

It may be true in some cases, but I don't see how it's true in this one. Specifics please.

Collin152
2008-01-29, 06:02 PM
I believe I understand! The linking factor between all the things Collin dislikes is: the letter P! Obviously there is some sort of negative Sesame Street experience at the root of all this.

But I love the Prismatic spells, and Polymorph.
Plus Phantasmal Killer, Prying Eyes, and Plane Shift.
See, a plethora of powerful spells, particularly ones leaving no trace of the original thing. (I get lazy, okay!)

Diamondeye
2008-01-30, 10:29 AM
Diamondeye : I fail to see how that is true with a 3e psionics->magic conversion, and I further find it highly unlikely that it will be true in 4e given the unification of all classes under the will/encounter/day system.

It may be true in some cases, but I don't see how it's true in this one. Specifics please.

I didn't say it necessarily was true in this situation. I said it could be (in regards to 4E) However, until we find out what the details of the 4E mechanics are for 4e we won't be able to say either way, will we?

As for 3.X I have not played with psionics, and since they didn't mutilate the magic system in 3E I had no need to convert psionics into magic.

Now, I can think of a way that it could be a problem in 4E: (That's Could BE, not Will Be)

I understand that there's some sort of "ectoplasm" thing in 4E psionics that's been mentioned. Ectoplasm, any time I've ever encountered the term, has been some general varient of the "ghost goop" in Ghostbusters.

That's kind of gross.

Suppose that because it's gross there's an effect of using it around NPCs: a negative reaction modifier say, or something like that.

This is fluff hard-coded in as a mechanic. Removing it could conceivably make certain powers too powerful; for example, a mind-affecting power the only clue of which (and therefore the inly deterrent to liberal use thereof) is the "ectoplasm".

If you yank the ectoplasm to make it more like magic you either have to concoct a new excuse for the penalty OR you have to accept that the player will be able to use it more freely than was designed.

Until we get the mechanics we won't know for sure, but I would not be quick to claim you can seamlessly change the fluff without either removing certain malance mechanics of having them exist for no apparent reason other than the sake of balance.

Starbuck_II
2008-01-30, 12:29 PM
I understand that there's some sort of "ectoplasm" thing in 4E psionics that's been mentioned. Ectoplasm, any time I've ever encountered the term, has been some general varient of the "ghost goop" in Ghostbusters.


What is it it is like Entangling Ectoplasm that emulates the tangling foot bag?
That used ectoplasm.

No worse than the bag so I can't imagine npcs having a issue.

Talya
2008-01-30, 01:30 PM
There's nothing I find more irritating than the so-called argument, "If you don't like it, you can just change it!" People aren't talking about house rules, either in fluff or in mechanics. They're talking about what's written in the book.