PDA

View Full Version : Magic/Psionic Transparency



FlyMolo
2008-04-04, 11:47 PM
The epic Psion has lots of spell feats on its list (ELH). LOTS. They're just sort of handwaved to be transparencied psionic versions of their magic counterparts.

It's quite a long list.

For example, automatic quicken is on there. But you need regular quicken as a prerequisite, as well as spellcraft levels. It's reasonable to assume metapsionic quicken and psicraft, as the psionic equivalents. But there's several that don't really fit. Like spell opportunity, for which there's a perfectly good metapsionic non-epic feat, although the epic one is a little better. As well as a couple metapsionic feats that I don't think there are magic equivalents for, like burrow, or opportunity power.

So my question is, how far do you take transparency? ALL THE WAY, allowing for burrow spell? and non-epic opportunity spell? Those really have to be converted, though. Generally, a spell is like an equivalent level power, which costs (2*level) minus one pp. So 9th level power, 9th level spell, 17pp. But burrow costs an extra 2 pp. so that's plus +1.5? Okay, plus one is alright. Opportunity spell is +3, roughly, but makes absolutely no sense. Please, a wizards specially preparing a spell he can only cast if his opponent lets him? Batman isn't that silly. At a hefty spell level penalty, definitely not. And makes even less sense for a spontaenous caster, who take full-round actions to metamagic stuff.

Or NONE OF THE WAY, ruling out most of the epic level psion entry, as well as lots subsequent text.

Either way sucks. One doesn't make sense(at all), the other sticks it to the Wizards in a big way.

Thoughts?

Lord Iames Osari
2008-04-04, 11:53 PM
I take transparency pretty much all the way. I don't make a big deal out of it, so it's never come up in a game I run, but it goes pretty much all the way. I never really went through and thought about all the implications, though.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-04-04, 11:58 PM
Transparency all the way. Psionics is just another type of magic like arcane and divine. Transparency doesn't make sense only if you insist on clinging to an arbitrary and needless division of power sources.

TS

Emperor Tippy
2008-04-05, 12:03 AM
I either go all the way and just treat it like regular magic (when I'm lazy) or go all the way the other way and have 0 transparency (how it should be).

FlyMolo
2008-04-05, 12:21 AM
I take transparency pretty much all the way. I don't make a big deal out of it, so it's never come up in a game I run, but it goes pretty much all the way. I never really went through and thought about all the implications, though.

There are many, and make work for a DM. Burrow spells? Closed mind against magic? (+2 to saves) Craft cognizance crystal for spell levels? Force of Will(will save instead of fort/ref) against magic? (this one, if transparencied, actually violates RAW. You're not supposed to do that.) Psionic Hole against all spells? You're magicproof, or nearly. Psionic Talent, and you gain a first level spell slot?

Taking it all the way is clearly silly. The question is, how far exactly? Dispel psionics=dispel magic makes psionics not broken, which is good. (being the only one who can do magic stuff, and the usual protections don't work? bad.) I know mostly this gets taken a little farther, so that telepathic powers count as enchantments for those pesky resistances.

The_Snark
2008-04-05, 12:38 AM
I don't think psionics/magic transparency is meant to extend to feats and items, actually; the definition makes no mention of it (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#combiningPsionicAndMagic alEffects). Most of them are very easy to convert from one to the other, but some of them plain don't make sense.

SR=PR and dispel checks affecting both magic and psionics, yes, that's definitely necessary, but I don't think I'd let a spellcaster use a metapsionic feat that didn't have a magic equivalent unless they had a really good reason. The two systems are supposed to have some differences, after all.

And note that things like Closed Mind specifically say they're an exception to transparency rules.

Bogardan_Mage
2008-04-05, 12:47 AM
I think this scenario is not an issue of Psionics being poorly thought out, but of Epic levels being poorly thought out. They just slapped on a list of feats and said "right, these are psionically flavoured feats, whatever that means". Make your own epic psion bonus feat list, and actually bother to write out the psionically flavoured epic feats.

Basically, don't worry about pre-epic levels. Those work, sort of. It's the epic levels where things start to get a little hazy, especially if you start putting in non-core things like Psionics. The problem starts at level 21.

FlyMolo
2008-04-05, 01:00 AM
I don't think psionics/magic transparency is meant to extend to feats and items, actually; the definition makes no mention of it (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#combiningPsionicAndMagic alEffects). Most of them are very easy to convert from one to the other, but some of them plain don't make sense.

SR=PR and dispel checks affecting both magic and psionics, yes, that's definitely necessary, but I don't think I'd let a spellcaster use a metapsionic feat that didn't have a magic equivalent unless they had a really good reason. The two systems are supposed to have some differences, after all.


Yes. The trouble is in the epic levels(/\ has it right), where magic feats quite clearly are handwaved into being psionic ones(I think there are several that have good psionic equivalents now, the best example being the power specialization tree.), citing transparency. This could lead to badness, by RAW. This can be used across the board leading to burrow and opportunity spell.

I know most people either class power effects as basically spells for the purposes of stacking, SR/PR, dispelling, school resistances, etc. Or they declare Psionics are Different and dispense with all of it. Does anyone take it a step farther, and prohibit psion/wizards from using powers of their barred school?

The_Snark
2008-04-05, 01:06 AM
Psions don't have barred schools, and the schools don't actually translate exactly to disciplinesóRead Thoughts, for example, is Telepathy and rightly so, but its magical equivalent is a divination spell, which is more like Clairsentience, rather than Enchantment (the closest equivalent to telepathy). So no, I wouldn't prevent cerebremancers from using any discipline they like. No reason to hit theurge-esque classes harder.

And yeah, I think the problem was that the people writing the epic rules were lazy and didn't want to think about psionics very much, or include another five pages worth of psionic reprints of feats. If you're playing in Epic, there's plenty of other issues to worry about, really, and a little common sense will get you psionic equivalents for most of them. Doesn't mean all metamagic/metapsionic feats have equivalents on the other side.

Beren One-Hand
2008-04-05, 02:11 AM
Does anyone take it a step farther, and prohibit psion/wizards from using powers of their barred school?

Why would you do that? A sorcerer/wizard is not barred from selecting spells from the barred school for his sorcerer spells known. So even if the disciplines were an exact transfer of the schools of magic you wouldn't do it.

Kurald Galain
2008-04-05, 04:23 AM
Transparency all the way. Psionics is just another type of magic like arcane and divine. Transparency doesn't make sense only if you insist on clinging to an arbitrary and needless division of power sources.

Quoted for truth.

Swooper
2008-04-05, 08:34 AM
Personally, I prefer as little transparency as possible, like Emperor Tippy. Sure, it's a bit of extra work for the DM (making sure monsters are roughly equally likely to have PR as SR, and that the players face opponents both psionic and magical) but the non-transparency works both ways so I can't really see how it would become a balance problem. The BBEG wizard can't Dispel the psion's powers, but neither can the BBEG psion Dispel the wizard's spells. Both will have to find other ways to combat the PCs. So what's the problem?

Illiterate Scribe
2008-04-05, 09:35 AM
Remember that full transparency can lead to the ungodly horror that is persistent power.

:shudders:

FlyMolo
2008-04-05, 03:10 PM
Personally, I prefer as little transparency as possible, like Emperor Tippy. Sure, it's a bit of extra work for the DM (making sure monsters are roughly equally likely to have PR as SR, and that the players face opponents both psionic and magical) but the non-transparency works both ways so I can't really see how it would become a balance problem. The BBEG wizard can't Dispel the psion's powers, but neither can the BBEG psion Dispel the wizard's spells. Both will have to find other ways to combat the PCs. So what's the problem?

There are more magical monsters than psionic ones. This is fact. Read any MM. So the party hits more magical ones, unless you purposefully change the likelihood of hitting psionic ones, to match. So, a PC with "magic" effects, a psion, in a world full of magic, has a magical advantage against which there is no countermeasure. And the DnD world, at least classically, is stuffed to the gills with magic, not psionics.

This is a bad thing, there needs to be more psionic monsters. But yeah. In lieu of writing up 5 monster manuals stuffed with psionic monsters, dispel/sr transparency is a stopgap.