Psionics in D&D were never kept to single concept. I was first introduced to psionics in D&D with the AD&D 2e Complete Psionics Handbook. In the back of that book, it talks about how a yogi describes the unleashing of this power as a tiger unsheathing its claws in his mind. The problem with this is that the yogis come from a spiritual tradition more akin to Ki/Chi/Qi, or Prana, or Chakra, or Mana, while western psychics and spiritualists have a tradition rooted in communication with actual spiritual beings, while the modern psionic concept stems from post-modern physics (mental energy forcing quantum changes in reality) instead of the spiritual.
The problem with all of this getting rolled into the same source is that they clash with each other. The psionic power of Akira or Stephen King's Firestarter fits the postmodern physics mold. To imagine one of these characters speaking with the spirits of the dead through a Ouija board, or trying to divine the future through Tarot cards or by gazing into a crystal ball seems absurd. If psychics of all stripes are to get more acceptance in D&D, they will either have to be defined by a single tradition, or multiple traditions will need to be reflected while being kept distinctly separate.
You really need to watch Genma Taisen (1983). The opening character is a gypsy with a crystal ball who's instructed by the universe to hook up with an advanced cyborg from another planet and then track down psionicists from all over the world, including a psychokineticist from Japan. It was done by a lot of the same people who went on to make Akira, including the character designers.
The gypsy comes from the communing with spirits tradition of psychics, and so the crystal ball makes sense. A post-modern physics oriented psychic using a crystal ball doesn't fit thematically; it's like a gypsy doing yoga, or a yogi meditating with a white noise machine.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />@ Salla : these game terms will not survive in the next edition if the designers do not change their minds. But you said too little things, and you seem to only express global indifference. In fact, I didn't really understand your opinion on the subject.
My opinion is 'they're fine as they are', which is precisely what I said. If a player wants to muck about with crystal balls and tarot cards or other such paraphernalia, that's their call; it shouldn't be hard-coded into the system. the defining element of psionics for me is that they are internal power; you don't need outside objects to use them. You just need willpower and focus, and you can read minds/move objects/whatever.
But in 4th edition, the prominent aspect of psionics is debuffing, their power come from outside, an answer to the far realm influence, and they better focus them through implements. It doesn't match the description you give of psionics.
The next edition will get rid of implement, but I also hope it will also get rid of terms that do not feel like being naturally coming from the known D&D campaign setting. Even in Dark Sun, we don't know how this post-modern magic setting have decided that psychic powers have to be called "psionics". In our 21st century, psionics don't mean anything to a majority of people, psions even less, but almost everyone know and understand what are mental or psychic powers.
I think it would be better if psychic powers specialists were some of the classic wielders of these kind of power, like witch, warlock or shaman, and maybe without any dailies to be the classes with the more potent utility powers (to make 4th edition reference). After that, I agree that things like tarot or crystal balls should be optional, linked to themes or else.
But what I also think is that "psionics" or "Psion" should be optional too, pertaining to some themes, specific organization or campaign setting. The fact is that these terms forbid some (maybe more than I think) players to play pure psychic powers wielders because they are called a strange sci-fi flavored name and using a sci-fi flavored name power source. Psionics are not new options added to D&D one or more years after the printing of the new editions (after AD&D 1st), each time they are the "D&D sci-fi psionics patch 1.0" It's more easy to reflavor a witch focused on mental perception and manipulation into a more modern telepath or medium concept than to reflavor a psion into a witch, just because psionics are banned from a lot of tables.
I created this thread to know if people who like playing psychic powers using classes are really attached for these classes to be sci-fi flavored, or if they would be more interested to see them better and more naturally integrated into the fantasy setting of D&D. I don't think that people who hate psionics in D&D would hate to see a psychic power using witch, what they hate is all the names that come from nowhere in any setting. But it would also be interesting to know if I'm right or not about this. (I have edited the first post to be more clear about this)
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion "Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe "In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer "Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition. "you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
I like psionics as an optional module. Mostly because I have never used it in any edition.
I think non-psionic spellcasters should have psychic spells and abilities. Especially monsters.
Psionics, imo, has always been another thing. I don't think I ever thought of it as sci-fi, but I certainly don't think psychic echantments or monsters should be solely the place of psionics.
I guess I think of psionics as an alternate subsystem, and if that subsystems manifests in energy punches or psychic powers, it's all good with me.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />@ Salla : these game terms will not survive in the next edition if the designers do not change their minds. But you said too little things, and you seem to only express global indifference. In fact, I didn't really understand your opinion on the subject.
My opinion is 'they're fine as they are', which is precisely what I said. If a player wants to muck about with crystal balls and tarot cards or other such paraphernalia, that's their call; it shouldn't be hard-coded into the system. the defining element of psionics for me is that they are internal power; you don't need outside objects to use them. You just need willpower and focus, and you can read minds/move objects/whatever.
you can just be option oriented, like Foci and Totems as crutches. There was an option for Wizards to have Taboos in Spells & Magic. I could see a similar point award for characters using Tarot, Amythests, Ouija boards, or Crystal Balls. As a Crutch it's like a 2 point penalty, as a focus it's probably a +1 bonus if used when not necessary. The sciency aspect of Psionics doesn't really matter.
From my perspective, you have magic-religion-science-psionics. That means the notions of science are just as different and possibly ridiculous to a Psionicist/Psychic as the notions of Religion are to a Scientist. I'm not promoting the emnity, simply illustrating it's there, and the pattern is repeated. Everyone thinks their Recipe for Reality is best, and Psychics are Post-Post Modern, thematically.
Psionics is another repackaged magic option, with mechanical variations ranging from slight to major, flavored as "mind magic". What that flavor entails in practice is largely subjective, and depends mostly on the table using it. Sure, base fluff might right it off as some sort of technomancy equivalent or some other such sci-fi likeness, but that's just one example of a way to fluff them, not the fact of their fluff.
Really, I'm less concerned with how to flavor psionics than I am how their mechanics translate, since that was always what seperated them the most from conventional spellcasting. I can flavor a Psion attacking by summoning armies of illusionary french poodles to nip at my opponents heals, but if it's not any different in usage than arcane or divine spellcasting I might as well be playing a Bard/Wizard/Cleric/etc.
psionics being packaged like magic is the first step to failure.
try looking at it is as a skill/feat package and then you are on to something. Psionics shouldn't be viewed as magic, it should be viewed as an extension of the character - any character. Psionics makes a person smarter, wiser, healthier, more empathic, intuitive, etc. Otherwise, it really is just reflavored magic and doesn't need to exist.
Psionics should be the skills and feats between normal mundane person and the three omnis, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. It's a ladder. It's running where once was walking, walking where once was crawling, and flying where once was leaping. Psionics isn't about being different, it's about being better.
The 'How' and 'Why' can be as fruity as you want. The 'What' is still just repainted magic.
It has to be very fruity, because it's what's important.
Martial is also just repainted magic. the fluff and the ways to deliver damage and conditions change, but we can consider that we cast "a sword in the head" spell.
Charm spells (like all spells) have their own "life". You cast them, they work the way they are intended to work. The flavor of psychic powers in fiction differs, they are more like using new organs to directly alter the world in more subtle ways than high magic. In 4th edition, psionics are not even repainted magic, and the 3rd edition was not perfect from this point of view with all the fireballs.
How you paint the mechanics of a class is the most important thing. Paint it in psionics colors and you have something that doesn't match well with D&D worlds, even Dark Sun.
Supernatural effects could be all linked in a spectrum going from pure psychic to pure elemental, all supernatural effects users existing in different places along this spectrum. Psychics and D&D sorcerers could be at each ends of this spectrum as natural users, using similar at-will mechanics for all their abilities, from attacks to utility.
Psychic abilities don't have to be advanced science in fantasy settings. Psion can just be a sci-fi theme applied to a traditional psychic class in my opinion.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion "Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe "In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer "Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition. "you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
It has to be very fruity, because it's what's important.
Martial is also just repainted magic. the fluff and the ways to deliver damage and conditions change, but we can consider that we cast "a sword in the head" spell.
Charm spells (like all spells) have their own "life". You cast them, they work the way they are intended to work. The flavor of psychic powers in fiction differs, they are more like using new organs to directly alter the world in more subtle ways than high magic. In 4th edition, psionics are not even repainted magic, and the 3rd edition was not perfect from this point of view with all the fireballs.
How you paint the mechanics of a class is the most important thing. Paint it in psionics colors and you have something that doesn't match well with D&D worlds, even Dark Sun.
Supernatural effects could be all linked in a spectrum going from pure psychic to pure elemental, all supernatural effects users existing in different places along this spectrum. Psychics and D&D sorcerers could be at each ends of this spectrum as natural users, using similar at-will mechanics for all their abilities, from attacks to utility.
Psychic abilities don't have to be advanced science in fantasy settings. Psion can just be a sci-fi theme applied to a traditional psychic class in my opinion.
I have hard time believing so. The spit and polish is cheep. I played a Dark Sun Psion once who used a shrunken head instead of an orb, and painted him in the light of some sort of witch doctor who could use the shrunken head to invade the minds of others. I could have easily done this with any mentalist arcane, divine or primal class as well. So it's obvious that you can flavor it any which way you want it.
What it does though, has to be different aside from its flavor. I could have fluffed any magic casting class with mind assailing powers and a held or worn object and played a creepy mind invading witch doctor who harness his powers through a shrunken head, but I can only play a psionic class like a psionic class where the nuts and bolts are concerned.
Also, if your belief that the sci-fi flavor of psionics can easily be removed, and all psionic concepts relegated to offshoots of existing classes, why does they flavor even matter to you? I hope I'm reading that wrong, because that makes no sense to me at all.
It has to be very fruity, because it's what's important.
Martial is also just repainted magic. the fluff and the ways to deliver damage and conditions change, but we can consider that we cast "a sword in the head" spell.
Charm spells (like all spells) have their own "life". You cast them, they work the way they are intended to work. The flavor of psychic powers in fiction differs, they are more like using new organs to directly alter the world in more subtle ways than high magic. In 4th edition, psionics are not even repainted magic, and the 3rd edition was not perfect from this point of view with all the fireballs.
How you paint the mechanics of a class is the most important thing. Paint it in psionics colors and you have something that doesn't match well with D&D worlds, even Dark Sun.
Supernatural effects could be all linked in a spectrum going from pure psychic to pure elemental, all supernatural effects users existing in different places along this spectrum. Psychics and D&D sorcerers could be at each ends of this spectrum as natural users, using similar at-will mechanics for all their abilities, from attacks to utility.
Psychic abilities don't have to be advanced science in fantasy settings. Psion can just be a sci-fi theme applied to a traditional psychic class in my opinion.
I have hard time believing so. The spit and polish is cheep. I played a Dark Sun Psion once who used a shrunken head instead of an orb, and painted him in the light of some sort of witch doctor who could use the shrunken head to invade the minds of others. I could have easily done this with any mentalist arcane, divine or primal class as well. So it's obvious that you can flavor it any which way you want it.
What it does though, has to be different aside from its flavor. I could have fluffed any magic casting class with mind assailing powers and a held or worn object and played a creepy mind invading witch doctor who harness his powers through a shrunken head, but I can only play a psionic class like a psionic class where the nuts and bolts are concerned.
Also, if your belief that the sci-fi flavor of psionics can easily be removed, and all psionic concepts relegated to offshoots of existing classes, why does they flavor even matter to you? I hope I'm reading that wrong, because that makes no sense to me at all.
Because you don't want to consider that there are many DMs that are not so flexible with classes flavor. I remember a 2nd ed. DM who refused to refluff clerics into non divine profiles, and our group hated divine classes so there wasn't any healer in the group.
In fact, I know more DMs who will agree for some refluff, but not about an entire class. Just because it feels artificial.
I played a refluffed class to play a psychic powers user in 4th ed. and I didn't take a psionic class, I took an enchanter, because I'm not agree with the telepath as a debuff spammer unable to manifest telepathy without taking the right race or feat. Refluff is not a concept beyond my imagination.
What you consider obvious is not obvious at all, or there wouldn't be so much rejection about psionics. I remember some 2nd edition people who were upset to see names like "Telekinesis", "ESP" or "Astral Projection" in the wizard spell list, and it was just a spell name to change in their characters' spell books. The more you work to refluff a class, the less you easily immerse you in your character, just because each time you open a D&D rule book about your totally refluffed character, you see pictures and read text that are formated for the base class. Some people don't care, some others have problems with this. I do not say that removing the Sci-fi fluff is easy once the psionic concept is printed, it's something that must be done before.
We all have different ways to apprehend things, such as through logic or through aestheticism. It doesn't make no sense, it's just opinions. And it seems that psionics are not liked as they are by a majority of D&D players and DMs. And this bars players like me, who like to play pure psychic powers wielders, to have well supported classes.
So I make this thread to see if there's any hope to see some compromise in the next edition. And no, I don't consider "People just have to refluff all their characters from up to bottom" as a good answer to the problem, because it won't get "instinctive" psychic powers from the ghetto they are in.
I think that psionics is a concept that works less and less edition after edition. Their place in D&D have to be designed from the start, and my opinion is that the sci-fi approach didn't work well in 1st and following editions, do not work at all now, and so will never work later. I won't lose sleep if psionics are back as they are in the next edition, but I don't see what anybody gain with a sci-fi concept that falls flat again and again when there are already traditional psychic powers users that would benefit from this specialization instead of being crappy or bizarre classes.
Nobody will convince me that the witch has been a good class in any edition, just a toned down wizard, each time.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion "Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe "In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer "Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition. "you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
