Results 241 to 270 of 355
Thread: Psionic Bias?
-
2010-04-04, 02:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: Psionic Bias?
You're correct. The Tome of Magic actually warns against trying to create new vestiges and instead suggests re-flavoring existing vestiges for balance concerns. I believe it is possible to create additional balanced vestiges, but that it would indeed be very difficult to make them good. Making them around spell-casting seems even more daunting a task.
As to the slot vs PP system concerns; frankly I don't think offering options is ever a bad design, unless the options are horribly unbalanced. For the same reasons as listed before, the Psionics system is in fact a beautiful gem. It would loose all of its mechanical value if it used the same x/day system that core magic uses. Some players don't like x/day magic, but can play a caster with psionics and be happy. That is good design. This is one of the major problems with 4th edition for a lot of people - the lack of variety. All the classes use the same mechanics, so if you don't like those mechanics, then you're out of luck. It's not that the 4E system is a bad system, but if you don't like the at-will/encounter/daily power system, then there's not much for you.
I've heard that the 4E psionics is making it a bit more interesting by giving more at-wills that you can spend points to improve like Encounter/Daily powers; and that sounds pretty cool. I don't know much about it though, but at least it offers some different options.
That's not a design flaw. That is a design feature. That is in fact a measure of good design. Far from the opposite. You're providing an alternative way to do something out of the box in a way some people prefer. If the party wants a nice sorcerer like character but someone dislikes playing a sorcerer, they might prefer playing a Psion. Since it's balanced, there's not a problem with this. Some people prefer to play intricate multi-class combinations of warrior/mage/divine classes, some people prefer Bards.
You could remove spell components and convert it all to XP costs; remove somatic and vocal components from spells; convert existing magic into a pool-based system instead of x/day to make it more attractive to people who prefer such a system; remove arcane-spell failure; and then make sure that the system is balanced; while leaving people who like those things and the x/day system with nothing.
OR you could just make the EPH/SRD psionics available, and be able to cater to both types of players without a lot of terrible imbalances, an even wider range of character options, and without all the legwork.
Yes, I still don't believe that even the plan for the EPH was a bad design decision. In fact, it seems like a truly brilliant one.You are my God.
-
2010-04-04, 02:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- London, England.
Re: Psionic Bias?
Sure. I could do the work to make psionics and magic effectively the same system, and rewrite the fluff appropriately, and explain these houserules to all my players. Or, I could only use one or the other.
As a general rule, I'm not a fan of altering the mechanics and fluff of a system unless there's a very good reason for doing so. In this case, fitting psionics in with arcane magic would give players slightly more options, in exchange for more work and adjudication on my part. At which point the question becomes "are the extra options significant enough to be worth it?"
And in my opinion, the answer's no. If I had a group who were real fans of psionics, I'd do it, but I don't. Furthermore, a significant fraction of the psionics fans I've met like psionics specifically because they're NOT arcane magic, so they probably wouldn't be happy with anything that made the systems interchangeable anyway.I'm the author of the Alex Verus series of urban fantasy novels. Fated is the first, and the final book in the series, Risen, is out as of December 2021. For updates, check my blog!
-
2010-04-04, 03:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Psionic Bias?
How is it really more work? "These skills are the same."
There. You're done. And you aren't making them interchangeable, you're making them... I don't know, Interactable? They're still distinct.
And the fluff doesn't even to be changed; they're no fluff reason why Psionics and Arcane/divine don't interact. In fact, the defalut assumption is that they do.He fears his fate too much, and his reward is small, who will not put it to the touch, to win or lose it all.
-James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose
Satomi by Elagune
-
2010-04-04, 03:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Enterprise, Alabama
- Gender
Re: Psionic Bias?
I never really understood why UPD and UMD are distinct.
Heck, according to Magic Item compendruim: Psionics can make any magic item. So Vice Verse should be able to do the same.Last edited by Starbuck_II; 2010-04-04 at 03:05 PM.
-
2010-04-04, 03:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
-
2010-04-04, 03:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- In a box of dice
- Gender
Re: Psionic Bias?
Don't you think that offering wildly different sets of rules within the confines of the same game, with the same end result, is bad design?
Under the regular magic rules you have four basic categories, Arcane and Divine casters, Spontaneous and Prepared casters. Then WotC came out with a few other systems, other solutions to the same problem. That's offering choice. Though I do think that sometimes too much choice is a bad thing in game design. Especially when, like the EPH, it's simply carrying on legacy concepts from earlier editions and not particularly well supported in other material. The bad part is people assuming that because the material is there, they have to use it.
There's a reason core is called core. It's because that's the assumed default, the framework that the game hangs on. There's a core mechanic in D20 and there's two core approaches to casting. Psionics isn't one of them. Even the iconic creatures in the core rules that use Psionics, Aboleths and Illithids, don't have their abilities referred to in terms of psionic powers. Instead they get the Special Abilities of Psionics (Sp). Which are then given spell effects. And both have a higher CR variant that uses magic as described in the PHB. And there's no suggestion in the core rules that any other option is there for them.
Which tells me that the EPH is an optional add-on. The only support it gets is itself. Even Lord of Madness only mentions the EPH in side bars. Which again tells me that WotC didn't regard that book as paticularly important.
-
2010-04-04, 03:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
Re: Psionic Bias?
i don't see how theres any real work to do saph...
here, i'll give you a paragraph that will make magic and psionics completely compatible.
"psionic characters use the magic that comes from their own bodies to manipulate themselves and the world around them, what they do is still magical, but psionic creatures have created a culture that has endowed such abilities with a different terminology. beyond name, any skills or abilities that effect spells or magic also effect psionics or vice versa, unless specifically stated in the rules."
there, no change to your game in any way except now you can use psionics if someone would like to. the fluff has been unified and all you've done is speak for 30 seconds."He who would count the teeth of the dragon must accept a degree of risk"
Vince Arkady in Sea Strike by James Cobb
-
2010-04-04, 03:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- London, England.
Re: Psionic Bias?
I'd say it's because they wrote 3.5 psionics effectively as a replacement for arcane magic. If they'd wanted them to fit comfortably together they wouldn't have copy-pasted half the Magic section of the 3.5 SRD.
There's no reason to have UMD and UPD and Psicraft and Spellcraft unless you want it to be a hassle to use the two systems interchangeably. This suggests to me that they were specifically trying to make them less compatible with each other.I'm the author of the Alex Verus series of urban fantasy novels. Fated is the first, and the final book in the series, Risen, is out as of December 2021. For updates, check my blog!
-
2010-04-04, 03:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Psionic Bias?
Um, there's aren't 4 different mechanics in the PHB, there's one, with a slight subcatagory. Arcane and Divine don't offer different mechanics, not really. And Again, spontaneous is a subcategory of a unified mechanic, not a different mechanic altogether.
Except that they have the optional variant to have them be different and not interact. One that they specifically warn against due to possible problems, but one that they acknowledge exists.
Plus, you're basically saying that "If I start by houseruling that they're different, then I have to do a lot of work in order to make them fit". Why not just not make the houserule in the first place?Last edited by Tavar; 2010-04-04 at 03:17 PM.
He fears his fate too much, and his reward is small, who will not put it to the touch, to win or lose it all.
-James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose
Satomi by Elagune
-
2010-04-04, 03:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Tampa, FL
- Gender
Re: Psionic Bias?
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."Last edited by Optimystik; 2010-04-04 at 03:20 PM.
-
2010-04-04, 03:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- London, England.
Re: Psionic Bias?
I'm the author of the Alex Verus series of urban fantasy novels. Fated is the first, and the final book in the series, Risen, is out as of December 2021. For updates, check my blog!
-
2010-04-04, 03:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- In a box of dice
- Gender
Re: Psionic Bias?
-
2010-04-04, 03:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Psionic Bias?
I'm saying that those 2 kills are the only things making them at all incompatible. If you just state that "Psicraft=Spellcraft, UPD=UMD", then there's the entire problem, gone. There's not fluff reason why they aren't compatible, and besides those 2 skills they work together completely. So where's this big, difficult to solve difference you're talking about?
He fears his fate too much, and his reward is small, who will not put it to the touch, to win or lose it all.
-James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose
Satomi by Elagune
-
2010-04-04, 03:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- London, England.
I'm the author of the Alex Verus series of urban fantasy novels. Fated is the first, and the final book in the series, Risen, is out as of December 2021. For updates, check my blog!
-
2010-04-04, 03:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: Psionic Bias?
That's because everything aside from core is an optional add-on. One of the major complaints people had about late 3e was the fact that WotC stubbornly stuck to the philosophy that core material should receive more options because everyone had it and non-core shouldn't because some might not. Things like psionics, binders, martial adepts, etc. didn't get any additional support even though they were fairly popular; classes like the marshal and soulknife remained sub-par because WotC ignored them; casters outside of core rarely had their spells lists expanded; and so on and so forth.
Meanwhile, the strongest classes in the game (wizards, clerics, and druids, oh my) continued to get support in almost every single book, regardless of the fact that they didn't need the help, because "that's what everybody plays with." Core getting support while non-core doesn't is a bad thing, a very bad thing. Many imbalances in 3e are the result of the devs never considering the interactions between books due to this focus on core; even for a company that seems practically allergic to playtesting, ignoring all but 3 of your products when producing new material is just bad.
Originally Posted by The Big Dice
-
2010-04-04, 03:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Gender
Re: Psionic Bias?
it seems to me that the problem with psionics is that it is a whole new book and is not integrated with phb... a whole new magic system. (the new age crystals flavor doesn't help though)...
the most typical thing I see is "my DM doesn't allow psionics because he doesn't have the time to learn it"
It being a seperate book dedicated to itself rather then a part of the "core" game puts it at a huge disadvantage... its a big enough time investment learning the core classes, especially the arcane and divine magic systems found in core.
Adding a third whole new magic system, learning it from an entire book (vs arcane and divine which merely take a portion of the phb), it seems like way too much effort to put forth.I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman!
the glass is always 100% full. Approximately 50% of its volume is full of dihydrogen monoxide and some dissolved solutes, and approx 50% a mixture of gasses known as "air" which contains roughly (by volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases.
-
2010-04-04, 03:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: Psionic Bias?
To be fair, it's a whole new book because the whole point is to introduce psionics. Spells take up about 1/2 the PHB; if you divided it up into PHB 1 (noncasters and mundane monsters/equipment/feats/etc.), PHB 2 (casters and magical monsters/equipment/feats/etc.), and PHB 3 (psionics and psionic monsters/equipment/feats/etc.), they'd be all about the same size. For the lack of integration with core and the use of (Sp) for core "psionic" monsters, see my above rant on WotC shortsightedness.
-
2010-04-04, 03:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Indianapolis
- Gender
Re: Psionic Bias?
Second system; divine and arcane don't have enough differences to call them different magic systems. You might call it a third system if you consider the Sorcerer to represent a significantly different system from the pre-selected spell slots used by Wizards, Clerics, and Druids.
-
2010-04-04, 03:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Gender
Re: Psionic Bias?
that might all be true... but thats not how most DMs and or players see it.
The way WOTC presented it, its a "Why bother".
I mean, there are just so MANY different magic styles... arcane, divine, psionics, bindings, trunaming, etc etc.
I have never had a DM that allowed psionics... because every one of them said he couldn't be bothered to learn the system.
I haven't really read it myself actually...
nor has most people I played with.I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman!
the glass is always 100% full. Approximately 50% of its volume is full of dihydrogen monoxide and some dissolved solutes, and approx 50% a mixture of gasses known as "air" which contains roughly (by volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases.
-
2010-04-04, 03:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Tampa, FL
- Gender
Re: Psionic Bias?
Actually, what you're referring to is merely a subset of illusion - Patterns and Phantasms. Psionics can actually approximate those fairly well, because there isn't a whole lot of difference between those and enchantment. In both cases, you're making the subject (or subjects) react to something that doesn't exist by planting it in their heads.
The illusion that Psionics is bad at approximating, is the external kind - Figments, Shadows, and Glamers, that arise by manipulating light and other sensation. So no Silent Images, no Shadow Conjurations, and no Invisibility.
-
2010-04-04, 03:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Psionic Bias?
So, are you going to answer my question?
Specifically, here(and elsewhere), you refer to it being a big problem to fix the incompatibilities. I think I've shown that the incompatibilities can be solved with 6 words ("Psicraft=Spellcraft, UPD=UMD"). So are their other incompatibilities? If not, what's the reason that you don't like/allow psionics?He fears his fate too much, and his reward is small, who will not put it to the touch, to win or lose it all.
-James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose
Satomi by Elagune
-
2010-04-04, 03:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
Re: Psionic Bias?
Not really. Core enough adds plenty of options. One or two good splatbooks greatly increase that variety. Psionic handbook by itself doesn't give as much versatility as psion fans claim.
It's a group of builds wich seek to give your character infinite power. And it can be done in core with wish loops.
You're completely right. I'm indeed arguing against nothing, since psionics can't actually mimic large portions of magic and wide variety of concepts, since you're only pretending you have the limitations, and your psion will never be stoped from manifesting if tied and gagged.
We're disccussing if dudes who can alter reality with just thinking minds are the same as dudes who can alter reality with chanting and weird gestures/components. Common sense was thrown out of the window screaming long ago.
No you can't. A well built gish can actualy end up as good if not stronger than a straight wizard.
Have your weapon/shield be your holy symbol. Or buff yourself before drawing your weapon. Or use a light shield to keep your hand free. Or use spells that don't demand focus. How hard is it?
So, why do you ignore what you can do with core?
Easy to say. Much MUCH harder to do. There's hundreds of homebrew projects out there, and I have yet to see one that does that, yet alone in a single afternoon. It would probably be easier to fix core than to fill psionic holes, and we've been trying to fix core for over a decade now.
Or play a straight cleric. Or a straight sorceror. And bother to pick the right feats and spells. Just like your psion would need to pick his own feats and powers. No jumping trough more hoops than psionics, and you don't need to learn a whole new system!
Again, easy talk, much harder when you try to actualy do it. If it was as easy as you say, someone would've done it by now.
I would say that it's much easier to miss the manifester limit rule than to miss a whole table, but meh, since you missed several other core stuff, I'll take your word for it.
And now we bring simple statistics, and see there's a lot more people out there using magic than psionics. If psionic problems are so easily bypassed, why is it so?
My idea of "better" is that psionic Naruto didn't only end up with a lot of non-human traits due to his exotic race, he could be tied up and gagged/under water/grappled/silenced/his limbs cut off and still be able to use his ninja tecquniques no problem.
-
2010-04-04, 03:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- Bristol, UK
Re: Psionic Bias?
Mental Pinnacle is one of the biggest problems.
Still, costly material components that form part of the balancing have to be replaced with an XP component in order to fit with psionics. I'll concede that.
Verbal, somatic, 'free' material components, and foci do little more in-game than add a weakness to the character (that many DMs are hesitant to actually bring into play for various reasons) and compromise stealth (which can be done equally well using the effects of the spell). Or make people cringe at the bad jokes.
Why?
For the designer, it's different.
It becomes harder to support a game the more subsystems there are. Each time you add a subsystem to the game, you add to the amount of material you need to support.
Since you can only produce so much content, you have to divide your attention (or simply forget about one or more of the systems).
When there are a lot of fluff similarities between the subsystems, this becomes a problem, because a piece of content that is appropriate for one subsystem is also appropriate for the other.
Converting one piece of content from one subsystem to another takes effort - but has little benefit. The new content might have added something interesting. Converting it adds a cross-reference.
So you get the highly appealing choice between denying one system some content (viewed from WotC's perspective, this makes it less useful as an incentive to buy later supplements), or producing a supplement that costs more and is lower-quality.
So yes, psionics is a very good system, and well worth including in games. Maybe it wouldn't be better if it had used spellcasting as a jumping-off point. But the support just might have been.Last edited by lesser_minion; 2010-04-04 at 04:02 PM.
-
2010-04-04, 03:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Tampa, FL
- Gender
Re: Psionic Bias?
I don't think you'll find anyone that seriously claims that psionics has as much versatility as magic.
To paraphrase Xykon: If your power can be taken away with a handkerchief and some rope, you never really had power to begin with, now did you?
What's wrong with psionics working while restrained? (And if you have Hyperconscious, working while you're incapacitated or unconscious.) I personally find it ridiculous that a character with the power to manipulate reality itself should be turned into a commoner by taking his bag of knickknacks away and covering his mouth.
-
2010-04-04, 03:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- In a box of dice
- Gender
Re: Psionic Bias?
If you can't induce a false sensation, whether it be any of the five senses, or suppress either senses or persception, it's not really a mental power at all. Cartoony zap-boom stuff doesn't really make for good mind powers.
And to be fair, D&D (and in fact most fantasy gaming) has extremely cartoony magic. GURPS Psionics has psi powers that are more grounded in things like remote viewing and the kind of applications you see in fiction for psi. D&D psionics, other than having coined the most uncomfortable word in gaming (psionicists) is just another way of generating cartoon style effects that usually just do damage or help out combat in other ways. But with a different book keeping system.
It's not thematically needed as a rule set, nor is it different enough to warrant inclusion in fantasy games.
-
2010-04-04, 03:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- Eberron
- Gender
Re: Psionic Bias?
Man this thing was full of outdated stuff.
Swoop Falcon
I make(made?) avatars! Last updated 12-23-2008. Requests not unwelcome. Last request 01-12-2010.
Avatar by me.
-
2010-04-04, 04:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- London, England.
I'm the author of the Alex Verus series of urban fantasy novels. Fated is the first, and the final book in the series, Risen, is out as of December 2021. For updates, check my blog!
-
2010-04-04, 04:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
-
2010-04-04, 04:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Gender
I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman!
the glass is always 100% full. Approximately 50% of its volume is full of dihydrogen monoxide and some dissolved solutes, and approx 50% a mixture of gasses known as "air" which contains roughly (by volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases.
-
2010-04-04, 04:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Tampa, FL
- Gender
Re: Psionic Bias?
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.
I'm so very glad WotC disagrees with such a narrow-minded opinion.
I'll have to take your word for it, since I have no intention of playing Pathfinder. (Weren't we discussing D&D?)Last edited by Optimystik; 2010-04-04 at 04:07 PM.