Psionic Bias?

[lesser_minion]

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

Yeah. Look what that added to the game.

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

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

[Optimystik]

Yeah. Look what that added to the game.

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

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

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

[Tavar]

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

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

[lesser_minion]

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

Yes.

I don't see your point.

[Optimystik]

Yes.

I don't see your point.

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

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

[lesser_minion]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Optimystik]

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

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

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

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

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

[The Big Dice]

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

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

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

[cynical]
They just want your money and are happy to sell you rules you don't need but want because of buzzwords. Rather, they think effects that you can already get through other, better supported rule sets are worth publishing an entire book for. But then their publishing philosophy has always been a combination of "One is good, so ten is better" with "The customer will buy whatever we publish" added for good measure.
[/cynical]
I've used the psionics rules in non-fantasy games. I don't actually have a problem with them when they are put into what I feel to be the right context.

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

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

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

[lesser_minion]

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

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

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

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

[Saph]

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

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

[Tavar]

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

There is no charge being levelled against psionics here.

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

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

Huh? Wasn't that part of the same discussion? Or are you referencing something that happened earlier in the thread?

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

[Optimystik]

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

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

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

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

What?

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

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

[tyckspoon]

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

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

[Tavar]

What?

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

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

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

[The Big Dice]

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

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

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

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

It's never been about the mechanical structures for me. It's all about feel and verisimilitude. And I'm using the word illusion to describe illusions.

[Optimystik]

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

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

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

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

For example, the Erudite in Candlekeep that teaches Psionics is clearly meant to be referenced in-game, or else why supply his level?

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

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

[lesser_minion]

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

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

Why?

This is the point that I responded to.

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

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

[Saph]

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

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

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

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

[lesser_minion]

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

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

Not that that really helps, unfortunately.

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

[Optimystik]

I never said anything about D&D settings.

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

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

It's never been about the mechanical structures for me. It's all about feel and verisimilitude. And I'm using the word illusion to describe illusions.

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

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

[taltamir]

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

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

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

[tyckspoon]

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

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

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

[lesser_minion]

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

[Tavar]

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

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

This is the point that I responded to.

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

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

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

WotC wouldn't have needed to do much to get psionics working under a spell slot system - there are a few minor differences in rules (such as components), and a whole pile of content (which, in many cases, only needed re-writing because of the decision to use points).

This is what I was refering to originally, and the reason that Euridite was brought up. At this point, though, I think I've pretty much lost track of this discussion; too many people making responses only tangently related. Just to say, my last post was supposed to partially be a defense of lesser_minion.

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

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

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

Fair enough, though is seems to be making a fairly big deal out of a very small part of the book(IMO, of course). From my position, it's like banning all Vancian Caster because you don't like the wish spell.

[Optimystik]

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

Psions can't manipulate light like mages can.

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

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

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

[Tavar]

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

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

[lesser_minion]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Discworld series did likewise.

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

[Tavar]

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

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

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

[lesser_minion]

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

Pair'O'Dice Lost mentioned that earlier.

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

[Optimystik]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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