To what extent can Psionic usage be detected in 4e?

48 posts / 0 new
Last post
The original (AD&D) idea behind Psionics was that its usage could not be detected by a non-psionic.

When attacked, a non-psionic character could not detect the origin, and would possibly not even know the difference between a severe headache and a mind-blast.

Has this changed in 4e?
Yeah, Psionic Powers are still Powers, and all powers are subject to the "you are aware that you are being affected by a power, who's doing it, and what it's doing" unless the power specifically says otherwise.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
Also, psionicists have giant glowing haloes around their heads whilst using their powers, don't they?
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
Glowing halo's would be a complete give away!

So it looks like the 4e psionic power have little to do with the original concept.

Too bad , that was the only thing that made psionic power unique (and really fun to play). Without the hidden usage, you can just as well use magic!
Psionics and magic sorta blend in with one another. I like psionics in 4th edition/3rd edition. Not so much in 1st/2nd edition.
Well yeah, Psionics and Magic are kinda the same thing anyway.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
The original (AD&D) idea behind Psionics was that its usage could not be detected by a non-psionic.

When attacked, a non-psionic character could not detect the origin, and would possibly not even know the difference between a severe headache and a mind-blast.

Has this changed in 4e?



Well people have already really answered you, but if you have read the PH3 where Psionic classes were introduced.  That'll give you the background on the power source in 4e if you haven't already read it.  The thing is, if you try to argue that no one really knows you're using psionic powers against a creature then by that people would be arguing that they'd have combat advantage because the target wouldn't know you're attacking them.  And it would just be a ridiculous annoyance.
Glowing halo's would be a complete give away!

thespaceinvader was joking.
It's a thematic point without any real mechanical effect, so you don't have to go with the default flavor for it. In fact, when the default flavor is something as stupid as glowing mind halos, you probably should ignore it.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Every time the "glowy mind halos" come up (though it's been... a long time, now, since I've seen that brought up... huh), I feel the need to say:

I don't think they're that terrible... if they were "during-power-manifestation-only" things.  And not... y'know... actual glowing ring-shaped-halos.  An aura of energy.  A distortion in the air around the psion.  Those could work.

Still, I prefer the "eyes glow when manifesting a power" approach, if I must use some kind of visual description.  Or the eye/pupil doing weird things, like in Push.

Better than Hiro (from Heroes), and his "squinty-gonna-poop-myself-concentrating" face.


Wait, I just realized I have no idea what this thread was actually about.  ... Laughing
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
No, I mean actual, literal, glowing haloes.  As in this iconic Psion image.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
I'm not sure what made you think that I didn't think you were referring to the standard 4e psionic art style.

Or maybe you're responding to someone else.

Hell, I'm the one who is apparently hitting "reload current page" instead of "post the god-damn message", and thus losing entire posts this morning... so maybe I should just assume it makes sense to everyone else.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
The original (AD&D) idea behind Psionics was that its usage could not be detected by a non-psionic.

Heh, it's funny how this idea behind psionics has always been maintained by some people.  

There's nothing in the 1E PHB Appendix 1 that instructs the DM or the player to regard psionic disciplines or attack or defense modes as undetectable.

Major and minor disciplines are written up in the same format as spells are, and a lot of them are described to be similar to magic-user spells of the same name (just lacking components, for example the 2nd level MU spell ESP is V,S,M (copper piece, classic!) but the psionic discipline ESP has no components). 

My 2E library is lacking so I'm not sure if the Complete Psionics Handbook (PHBR5) or similar book or Dragon article or whatever made this 'undetectable' claim an actual rule, but if so, it's the only edition to have 'undetectable' psionics.

Aside Question:  Since they were very rare (go ahead, try to roll up a 1E psionic character without fudging the dice ;) and strictly only humans could be psionic ('and possibly dwarves or halflings', a sentence that really sums up how 'tight' rules language was back in the day ;), my question to the forum: did anyone ever play a 1E psionic character from 1st level, rolled up fair and square?
The original (AD&D) idea behind Psionics was that its usage could not be detected by a non-psionic.


I agree with ecla.  I never thought 1e psionics were undetectable or unaffected by things like dispel magic.

When attacked, a non-psionic character could not detect the origin, and would possibly not even know the difference between a severe headache and a mind-blast.


The only attack I am aware that acted like that was the monk's quivering palm attack, and possibly the spell phantasmal killer.

Psionics was unique in AD&D because combat was ten times as fast as other combat.  I.e., if two psionicists were fighting one another, they got ten rounds of combat before anybody else got one.  Also, psionics needed no components.
No, I mean actual, literal, glowing haloes.  As in this iconic Psion image.


And yet Mialee never stopped anyone from playing a wizard, so...

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
I'm not sure what made you think that I didn't think you were referring to the standard 4e psionic art style.

Or maybe you're responding to someone else.

Hell, I'm the one who is apparently hitting "reload current page" instead of "post the god-damn message", and thus losing entire posts this morning... so maybe I should just assume it makes sense to everyone else.


I was responding to the people who thought I was joking.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
Glowing halo's would be a complete give away!

So it looks like the 4e psionic power have little to do with the original concept.

Too bad , that was the only thing that made psionic power unique (and really fun to play). Without the hidden usage, you can just as well use magic!



And now what makes a psionic class fun to play is the feel of the powers and mechanics, instead of undetectable cheese.

Sounds like an improvement to me.

Also, psionicists have giant glowing haloes around their heads whilst using their powers, don't they?



Depends.  I usually view the halos as simply being an artist's way of indicating something is going on for the benefit of the viewer, rather than something visible to the characters therein.  Kind of like how comic book artists regularly draw 'invisible' energy effects like telepathy, telekinesis, sound, or wind blasts.  It's so the audience knows what's going on in the picture.

On the other hand, it's pure fluff,  so even if that's the 'canonical default', it's not required of any character due to the mutability of fluff.  So if you want one, you can have one.  If you don't, you don't, though in neither event does that change the basic rule that yes, people know you're using powers.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Glowing halo's would be a complete give away!

So it looks like the 4e psionic power have little to do with the original concept.

Too bad , that was the only thing that made psionic power unique (and really fun to play). Without the hidden usage, you can just as well use magic!



No, you don't get an unfair advantage anymore.  You have to play by the same rules as everybody else.

You'll forgive me if I don't have a lot of sympathy for your point of view.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I didn't view his thread as 'trying to not play by the same rules' but as he would like to see Psionics function like it did in the older editions. It was a refreshing question that made me think of my early D&D days. Good question.
Glowing halo's would be a complete give away!

thespaceinvader was joking.



Not "joking", exactly - just "has seen the art"

Seriously, take a look through PH3 and Psionic Power.  Find me a picture of any Psionic using a power without having the halo.

(I don't actually remember if there is one or not - if there isn't, SO THERE.  If there is, SEE HOW MANY OF THE REST HAVE 'EM?)
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
The original (AD&D) idea behind Psionics was that its usage could not be detected by a non-psionic.


I agree with ecla.  I never thought 1e psionics were undetectable or unaffected by things like dispel magic.



Psionic Invisibility was the major problem that I remember - it explicitly wasn't penetrable by any magical means, and didn't operate by any of the normal Invisibility rules.

This *was* a potentially game-breaking problem in at least one edition.  I just don't remember if it was 1E or 2E "Complete Psionic Handbook"
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
I didn't view his thread as 'trying to not play by the same rules' but as he would like to see Psionics function like it did in the older editions. It was a refreshing question that made me think of my early D&D days. Good question.



I'm pretty sure that by "having it work like it did in the old days", he was asking for it "not to play by the rules", since in the old days it didn't work by the same rules.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
"The original (AD&D) idea behind Psionics was that its usage could not be detected by a non-psionic."

Heh, it's funny how this idea behind psionics has always been maintained by some people. 

There's nothing in the 1E PHB Appendix 1 that instructs the DM or the player to regard psionic disciplines or attack or defense modes as undetectable.

Major and minor disciplines are written up in the same format as spells are, and a lot of them are described to be similar to magic-user spells of the same name (just lacking components, ...). 

My 2E library is lacking so I'm not sure if the Complete Psionics Handbook (PHBR5) or similar book or Dragon article or whatever made this 'undetectable' claim an actual rule, but if so, it's the only edition to have 'undetectable' psionics.

It has been many years (I played AD&D in the early 80's), so I am speculating about why we had that impression at the time. Of course, I cannot remember any specific rule that said that psionic usage was largely undetectable by creatures without psionic powers.

But, a number of reasons why we may have thought this have already been mentioned in this thread:

* No components were required.
* No gestures and no implements were required for "casting"
* No words or incantations
* No outwardly visible manifestations of the "spell" (like a fireballs, lightning, magic missile, etc).
* Combat occurred 10 times faster than normal

Maybe this is the problem: at the time, we never questioned the fact. For us it was too obviously undetectable.

Consider the following scenario:

4 adventures are playing cards at a table. The hands of all participants can be seen. Suddenly a mug of ale rises from the table and empties its contents on one of the player's head. If it was a wizard, you would have seen a gesture so someone is used psionics. But who was it?

Aside Question:  Since they were very rare (go ahead, try to roll up a 1E psionic character without fudging the dice ;) and strictly only humans could be psionic ('and possibly dwarves or halflings', a sentence that really sums up how 'tight' rules language was back in the day ;), my question to the forum: did anyone ever play a 1E psionic character from 1st level, rolled up fair and square?

All I can remember is that psionics was an additional option that you could roll for. If you were among the small percentage that had psionic power, then you determined your power level and additional powers with further roles.

However, it was risky to roll because if you had psionic powers, but they were weak, then they were more of a liability then an asset.

On the other hand, if you had them then usually no-one else in the party knew, so you could have a lot of fun (see scenario above)!
4eTurnTracker, D&D 4e Combat Manager
Latest news and updates on Twitter

No, you don't get an unfair advantage anymore.  You have to play by the same rules as everybody else.


Well, besides getting to spam encounter powers :33.

Also

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
Yeah, Psionic Powers are still Powers, and all powers are subject to the "you are aware that you are being affected by a power, who's doing it, and what it's doing" unless the power specifically says otherwise.

This is not true in general. Have you ever been hit by an arrow coming out of pitch darkness? You may know you are being affected by a power, and what it is doing, but you don't know who did it.

Heck, to go back to AD&D: we were once hit by a delayed fireball laid by an invisible wight. We were as clueless as anyone hit by a psionic attack.

For me the the rules have never had to state explicity that you cannot detect where an attack is coming from if there is no outward manifestation, that's obvious.
4eTurnTracker, D&D 4e Combat Manager
Latest news and updates on Twitter
This is not true in general. Have you ever been hit by an arrow coming out of pitch darkness? You may know you are being affected by a power, and what it is doing, but you don't know who did it.



Unless the creature in question is hidden (which is unlikely after an attack) you know exactly from which square it originated, even in pitch darkness. You might not be able to attach a face to the attacker, but you still know where he is. 

Heck, to go back to AD&D: we were once hit by a delayed fireball laid by an invisible wight. We were as clueless as anyone hit by a psionic attack.
 



Irrelevant to the discussion as it's a different game. 

For me the the rules have never had to state explicity that you cannot detect where an attack is coming from if there is no outward manifestation, that's obvious.



They explicatly state that you do know where it's coming from, even when there is no outward manifestation (unless the target is hidden (game wise, not flavorwise), which is also mentioned explicitly) , because that's what makes the game work better mechanically. 
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
This is not true in general. Have you ever been hit by an arrow coming out of pitch darkness? You may know you are being affected by a power, and what it is doing, but you don't know who did it.

Unless the creature in question is hidden (which is unlikely after an attack) you know exactly from which square it originated, even in pitch darkness. You might not be able to attach a face to the attacker, but you still know where he is. 

For me the the rules have never had to state explicity that you cannot detect where an attack is coming from if there is no outward manifestation, that's obvious.

They explicatly state that you do know where it's coming from, even when there is no outward manifestation (unless the target is hidden (game wise, not flavorwise), which is also mentioned explicitly) , because that's what makes the game work better mechanically. 

This is new to me. I have never read a rule which said I automatically know the origin square of an attack.

Do you have a rule book quote on this?

I was responding to the people who thought I was joking.

Not "joking", exactly - just "has seen the art"
Seriously, take a look through PH3 and Psionic Power.  Find me a picture of any Psionic using a power without having the halo.

I think we're just misunderstanding each other. I know that that's how they're presented in most if not all artwork in 4E. What I interpreted as a joke was that I thought that thespaceinvader was jokingly suggesting that Psionic characters must have these things just because they're part of the official art. My mistake. Either way, psionic halos are still a joke to me, and they don't have to be included in your games or for your characters if you don't want them to be.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
This is new to me. I have never read a rule which said I automatically know the origin square of an attack.

Do you have a rule book quote on this?



The rule is actually that you always know what square all non-Hidden creatures are in, and that an attack breaks Hidden and reveals your location.

There are a VERY few ways to remain Hidden while attacking, and most of them are of the sort "if you miss while Hidden, your location is not revealed".

In general, though, the fact of the attack reveals the location of the attacker.  And being affected by a power reveals all the details of the power.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
This is new to me. I have never read a rule which said I automatically know the origin square of an attack.

Do you have a rule book quote on this?



Hm, in my PHB on page 57 it says "Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you've done to it and what conditions you've imposed".

But that's not super conclusive about also knowing you did it (though you can probably argue it) I remember reading it more clearly somewhere though. Maybe it's clearer in the RC? Or someone else has a clearer quote about it?

(Or can point out that I'm wrong ;)) 
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
This is new to me. I have never read a rule which said I automatically know the origin square of an attack.

Do you have a rule book quote on this?



Hm, in my PHB on page 57 it says "Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you've done to it and what conditions you've imposed".

But that's not super conclusive about also knowing you did it (though you can probably argue it) I remember reading it more clearly somewhere though. Maybe it's clearer in the RC? Or someone else has a clearer quote about it?

(Or can point out that I'm wrong ;)) 



I think that bit of text is perfectly clear:  When you do something, it knows what you've done to it.

That kind of necessarily includes that *you* have done it.  It knows exactly what *you* did.

And the knowledge of location is covered by Hidden, again.

Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
The rule is actually that you always know what square all non-Hidden creatures are in, and that an attack breaks Hidden and reveals your location.

There are a VERY few ways to remain Hidden while attacking, and most of them are of the sort "if you miss while Hidden, your location is not revealed".

In general, though, the fact of the attack reveals the location of the attacker.  And being affected by a power reveals all the details of the power.

Sounds logical. But, seriously, I have been in this situation too.

An arrow comes out of the dark (beyond my light source - and my character has no dark vision). I know the direction of the arrow, but it could still come from any number of squares (I don't even know how big the room is).

I say, "I attack the attacker". The DM says "Pick a square!"

At this point it would be good to be able to quote a rule.

A further question: what if the creature attacked and then moved. Does the DM have to tell me the origin square of the arrow or the location of the attacker?

(P.S. I realize that any ranged counter attack will have to take a -5 penalty for full concealment, but that is still a lot better than attacking an empty square!)
The rule is actually that you always know what square all non-Hidden creatures are in, and that an attack breaks Hidden and reveals your location.

There are a VERY few ways to remain Hidden while attacking, and most of them are of the sort "if you miss while Hidden, your location is not revealed".

In general, though, the fact of the attack reveals the location of the attacker.  And being affected by a power reveals all the details of the power.

Sounds logical. But, seriously, I have been in this situation too.

An arrow comes out of the dark (beyond my light source - and my character has no dark vision). I know the direction of the arrow, but it could still come from any number of squares (I don't even know how big the room is).

I say, "I attack the attacker". The DM says "Pick a square!"

At this point it would be good to be able to quote a rule.



You want the rules on Stealth, at that point.  Hit the link in my sig, it's got an interminably long breakdown and FAQ and every question under the sun.

But!

Short version is:  You never ever ever have to guess where a creature is, at all, ever, unless it is Hidden.
The only way to become Hidden is by rolling Stealth at the end of a Move.
Attacking breaks Hidden and reveals your location.

Unless the creature both:
1) was Hidden
and
2) had something that SPECIFICALLY says it can remain Hidden when it attacks,
it is no longer Hidden.  And you know what square it's in.

A further question: what if the creature attacked and then moved. Does the DM have to tell me the origin square of the arrow or the location of the attacker?



When it lost Hidden by attacking you, it revealed it's location.  It then moved, and it could attempt to become Hidden again at the *end* of the Move - but you would still know what square it stopped in.

It is extremely difficult to make people guess your location from round to round while still making attacks.  Damn near impossible, in fact, and this is by design.  In general, you either accept your Combat Advantage and Invisibility as good enough on their own, or you don't attack and become nearly immune to counterattacks.   You usually can't make people guess your location effectively *and* attack them.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
Short version is:  You never ever ever have to guess where a creature is, at all, ever, unless it is Hidden.
The only way to become Hidden is by rolling Stealth at the end of a Move.
Attacking breaks Hidden and reveals your location.

Well, I know this is the case for PCs, but when a Monster mini disappears from the board, you have to start guessing! This, apparently is wrong...?

The confusion, as you mention in your text, may come from the fact that "Hidden" is not explicity discribed as a condition in the rule book.

In particular: it is not explictly stated that the only way to become hidden is through a Stealth check.

Example 1: A Monster teleports into a room next door (assuming he can teleport without line of sight). Now I cannot hear or see the monster: is it Hidden?

Example 2: Wizard Utility 16, Clever Escape: in short, you teleport and become invisible, and leave behind a duplicate of your self. Now if we do not assume that you also become Hidden then everyone will "see" 2 of you, one invisible, and other visible.

Well, I know this is the case for PCs, but when a Monster mini disappears from the board, you have to start guessing! This, apparently is wrong...?



If a mini actually disappears, I guess you have to guess where it is...but the DM shouldn't remove a mini unless it is hidden.


Example 1: A Monster teleports into a room next door (assuming he can teleport without line of sight). Now I cannot hear or see the monster: is it Hidden?



Nope.


Example 2: Wizard Utility 16, Clever Escape: in short, you teleport and become invisible, and leave behind a duplicate of your self. Now if we do not assume that you also become Hidden then everyone will "see" 2 of you, one invisible, and other visible.



As written, the power is not that useful. The wizard COULD roll Stealth AFTER the teleportation to become hidden but everyone will know what square he teleported to. I would probably judge that the wizard becomes hidden as soon as the illusion pops into existance and remains so against anyone not recognizing the illusion for what it is...
Example 1: A Monster teleports into a room next door (assuming he can teleport without line of sight). Now I cannot hear or see the monster: is it Hidden?



Keep in mind that while it's not Hidden by default, it can make a Stealth check since you can't see it and will probably get a hefty bonus for having a full wall between you and it.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.

Example 1: A Monster teleports into a room next door (assuming he can teleport without line of sight). Now I cannot hear or see the monster: is it Hidden?

Nope.


Example 2: Wizard Utility 16, Clever Escape: in short, you teleport and become invisible, and leave behind a duplicate of your self. Now if we do not assume that you also become Hidden then everyone will "see" 2 of you, one invisible, and other visible.

As written, the power is not that useful. The wizard COULD roll Stealth AFTER the teleportation to become hidden but everyone will know what square he teleported to. I would probably judge that the wizard becomes hidden as soon as the illusion pops into existance and remains so against anyone not recognizing the illusion for what it is...


I agree with you on Example 2, but not on Example 1. In that case I would also say the Monster is also Hidden.

And, as a DM (which I am not) I think I would be within the rules for the following reason:

The rules do not state that the only way to become hidden is through a Stealth check. D&D Compendium p 312 says: "A creature normally uses the Stealth skill to become hidden". This definitely implies that there are other ways of becoming Hidden.

In the same text the Compendium says: a Hidden creature is "silent and invisible". But this does not mean that being silent and invisible are a condition to becoming Hidden.

So unfortunately, we have no further information of the "other ways" of becoming Hidden which means it is left to the DM's discretion.

In which case he can say a creature is Hidden if it seems logical to him.
As a DM you can of course decide that a creature is hidden whenever you like.
As a DM you can of course decide that a creature is hidden whenever you like.


True. If nothing else, it is perfectly legitimate for a DM to create a custom monster with a trait that reads: "Any creature that cannot see this monster treats it as hidden and must make a DC [whatever] Perception check to locate it."

However, if a DM is effectively houseruling the entire Stealth/hidden system so that monsters can hide far more easily and consistently than under the default rules, then he is running a serious risk of making certain monsters (particularly lurkers, but also many skirmishers) considerably more deadly than they 'should' be. If he knows what he's doing and adjusts encounters accordingly, this is not a problem. But if he just thinks the rules are supposed to work this way, then there is a good chance you're going to end up with an unexpected TPK sooner or later.

Also, if he allows PCs to also use these more lenient Stealth/hiding rules, then certain classes/builds (Rogues and archer Rangers, for example) may become grossly unbalanced relative to others.

Houseruling is a bit like modding a computer game. If you know what you're doing, it can be great. And if you just tinker around the edges, you'll usually be OK even without a good grasp of the underlying numbers. But if you start altering basic game mechanics without properly understanding why all those settings and global variables have the precise values they do, you risk breaking the game.

"My flying carpet is full of elves."

As a DM you can of course decide that a creature is hidden whenever you like.

True. If nothing else, it is perfectly legitimate for a DM to create a custom monster with a trait that reads: "Any creature that cannot see this monster treats it as hidden and must make a DC [whatever] Perception check to locate it."

However, if a DM is effectively houseruling the entire Stealth/hidden system so that monsters can hide far more easily and consistently than under the default rules, then he is running a serious risk of making certain monsters (particularly lurkers, but also many skirmishers) considerably more deadly than they 'should' be. If he knows what he's doing and adjusts encounters accordingly, this is not a problem. But if he just thinks the rules are supposed to work this way, then there is a good chance you're going to end up with an unexpected TPK sooner or later.

You are welcome to talk about House Ruling or "a DM deciding a Monster is Hidden whenever he likes", but please note that that is NOT what I was talking about.

Much more useful (for me anyway) would be to talk about a Guide that would help a DM decide if a Creature is hidden!

The reason we need such a Guide is because the rules state (as I mentioned above), that there are other ways of becoming Hidden which do not require a Stealth check.

But the rules do not say what these ways are!!!

(So House Ruling has nothing to do with this because a house rule violates an actual rule. But if there is no rule, then a ruling on the subject cannot be regarded as a House Rule)

I'm pretty sure the "other situations" the rules refer to are monsters with powers or features that let them be hidden rather then "the DM can decide for himself".

As a DM, the only time I would "decide" a monster is hidden is if it has such a high Stealth bonus (including circumstance modifiers) that no PC can possibly spot it. In any other situation, just use a stealth check vs perception. 
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.