Magic-Psionics Transparency


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, here's the thing: I understand that most people consider this to be integral to successfully using psionics in a game, and that if you don't use it, the game will implode. I'd like to explore this, though, with an eye towards (a) why it's necessary; (b) whether it needs to be on/off or if a partial version is possible; and (c) personal gaming anecdotes with/without, focusing on how it worked for you, what was good with it, what problems arose, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It's not necessary.
I think it's just there to make the DM's job easier.
If it's not there, magic users can not counter psionics, can not identify psionics in use (unless they have the non-class skill to do so), and can not nullify psionics (no dispel, no anti-magic area). Also, the same is true of psionicists vs magic/spells.
I can see many story reasons to not have the transparency.

I've played in games before where psionicists were rare, but they most often became anti-mages, and policed errant magic users. We did not use transparency. It worked well, I thought, but then again I played the psionicist :)


Kryzbyn wrote:
I can see many story reasons to not have the transparency.

That's one of the things I'm looking at: if the location of a prisoner, for example, has been obscured by magic, it might be cool for a PC psion to be able to find him that way -- but not if that's going to implode the game later onin ways I'm not foreseeing.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
OK, here's the thing: I understand that most people consider this to be integral to successfully using psionics in a game, and that if you don't use it, the game will implode. I'd like to explore this, though, with an eye towards (a) why it's necessary; (b) whether it needs to be on/off or if a partial version is possible; and (c) personal gaming anecdotes with/without, focusing on how it worked for you, what was good with it, what problems arose, etc.

Here's the problem: without transparency, defenses against psionics become non existent. But I'm sure you realize that. Some of us consider that a major imbalance, or at the very least a major spanner thrown in to how this game is supposed to work. While the obverse also holds true for the psionic player, he has a party to cover his weakness in that area.

As to putting in a partial version that becomes far more complicated than all on or all off, and adding complication when it doesn't make the game better for it is not something I do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Kryzbyn. It's there to make the DM's job easier. Personally I'd prefer to not use the transparency rules, but since I only have one psionic character in my games I'd rather not run him off by imposing the non-transparency option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You'd have to invent magic spells that specificly effect some psionic powers, and vice versa.
Over time, these would occurr, I would think.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Story wise I could see a cold war that would arise between magic users and psionicists...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I agree with Kryzbyn. It's there to make the DM's job easier. Personally I'd prefer to not use the transparency rules, but since I only have one psionic character in my games I'd rather not run him off by imposing the non-transparency option.

Usually however, it's psionic players who benefit from non-transparency, unless a DM is planning on dumping a ton of psionic monsters on a non-psionic party. The psionic question can cut more than one way.


Story-wise, non-transparency is probably much more interesting, either form PC's or GM's side. Gameplay-wise, I think it's a drag. Two very similar things that somehow don't affect each other at all. It would end up being frustrating, IMO. I see creating detect psionics, dispel psionics and anti-psionic sphere spells, while the psion crafts equivalent powers.


The last time I was in a game that included psionics was in a 3.5 game about fifteen years ago. The GM decided that magic and psionics were not transparent to each other, and were different things.

There was indeed a sort of cold war between the magically-inclined area (where the PCs were from) and the psionic-inclined area (where the PCs were exploring.)

Let's just say that things got complicated, as the psionicists' defenses didn't really work against purely magical effects, and magical defenses didn't work against psionics. The GM later said that he wished he'd counted it all as "magic," as the bookkeeping got a little out of hand. He was even more glad than we were when we left the psionic area and returned to the magical lands.

I'm currently working on some homebrew rules for psychic magic. It will be a third sort of magic, alongside arcane and divine. Class names will be things like "Seer," "Medium," "Telepath," "Fakir," etc. Powers will work more-or-less like spontaneous spellcasting.


Haladir wrote:
The GM later said that he wished he'd counted it all as "magic," as the bookkeeping got a little out of hand.

This is the sort of useful anectdote I was hoping for! Thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Here's the problem: without transparency, defenses against psionics become non existent. But I'm sure you realize that.

I guess I don't realize that, or at least not fully. As far as defenses against spells, we have saving throws; regardless of transparency, they apply to both spells and psionics, so they still exist. Likewise for disruption of concentration with held attacks or ongoing damage; it's equally a thing for both magic and psionics, again regardless of transparency. Those are the main two defenses I usually deal with.

I could sort of understand SR being an issue for DMs, but in my experience it's never been hard for spellcasters to overcome anyway -- put that one down as "transparency might apply here."

After those, what other "defenses against psionics" are we looking for? I've never had anyone counterspell in a game, ever, so that's out. Likewise for any player actually antimagic field. Dispel magic for existing effects, sure, but why not have dispel psionics, too?

LazarX wrote:
As to putting in a partial version that becomes far more complicated than all on or all off, and adding complication when it doesn't make the game better for it is not something I do.

I don't see why it would automatically need to be complicated: "No transparency except SR," for example, isn't that complex. I personally probably wouldn't do that for the reasons cited above (never found SR to be all that important anyway), but it's an example to show you where I'm coming from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
It would end up being frustrating, IMO. I see creating detect psionics, dispel psionics and anti-psionic sphere spells, while the psion crafts equivalent powers.

I'd see that, too, but still can't quite see why it would automatically be bad for the game. I'm definitely open to being convinced, though.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Here's the problem: without transparency, defenses against psionics become non existent. But I'm sure you realize that.

I guess I don't realize that, or at least not fully. As far as defenses against spells, we have saving throws; regardless of transparency, they apply to both spells and psionics, so they still exist. Likewise for disruption of concentration with held attacks or ongoing damage; it's equally a thing for both magic and psionics, again regardless of transparency. Those are the main two defenses I usually deal with.

I could sort of understand SR being an issue for DMs, but in my experience it's never been hard for spellcasters to overcome anyway -- put that one down as "transparency might apply here."

After those, what other "defenses against psionics" are we looking for? I've never had anyone counterspell in a game, ever, so that's out. Likewise for any player actually antimagic field. Dispel magic for existing effects, sure, but why not have dispel psionics, too?

More details would be helpful.

Saving throws apply to psionics only if transparency is in place. Without transparency there are no magical defenses against psionics or vice versa.


dotting to hopefully come back later (though not with real-world experience :) )


I've run some partial transparency before. Psionics and Magic do not affect each other but certain creature types had a built in psionic resistance. If a creature had SR, the creature also had PR equal to half the SR + a racial bonus. The racial bonus was different based on the creature time. For example dragons and aberrations might have a +8 racial bonus to PR but a magical creature might only have a +4. The idea was that alien minds are far harder to affect than humanoid minds. I had little problem maintaining psionic vs magic. Most of the creatures were in the magic sphere but I threw in some psionic monsters to make my player's psychic warrior feel special.

Psionics in my game was rare. Psions were seen as godless monsters by the public, but secretly the world governments employed psions as bodyguards, seers, or to construct psionic defenses.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
OK, here's the thing: I understand that most people consider this to be integral to successfully using psionics in a game, and that if you don't use it, the game will implode. I'd like to explore this, though, with an eye towards (a) why it's necessary; (b) whether it needs to be on/off or if a partial version is possible; and (c) personal gaming anecdotes with/without, focusing on how it worked for you, what was good with it, what problems arose, etc.

I would not say it is necessary, but it creates more work for a GM if he does not use it. If you have a psion in the party and no psionic creatures in the game he has an advantage that casters don't get so if you are going to not use the rule then having a mix of psionic and normal(for lack of a better word) monsters should be used.

Often times this was a problem when the GM had one psionic character, and did not know this rule existed. So the psion was getting past SR with ease and nobody could identify his powers. In some of these games nova'ing also did not help.

PS: The first paragraph is based on personal experience. Now that I don't have the free time that I used to have to adjust campaigns as much the transparency rule is better for me. Otherwise I would mix it up without using the rule.

PS2: I did allow a spellcraft/psicraft at a -5 penalty later on.

Dark Archive

Haladir wrote:
The last time I was in a game that included psionics was in a 3.5 game about fifteen years ago. The GM decided that magic and psionics were not transparent to each other, and were different things.

You've played D&D 3.5 in 1999?


LazarX wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Here's the problem: without transparency, defenses against psionics become non existent. But I'm sure you realize that.

I guess I don't realize that, or at least not fully. As far as defenses against spells, we have saving throws; regardless of transparency, they apply to both spells and psionics, so they still exist. Likewise for disruption of concentration with held attacks or ongoing damage; it's equally a thing for both magic and psionics, again regardless of transparency. Those are the main two defenses I usually deal with.

I could sort of understand SR being an issue for DMs, but in my experience it's never been hard for spellcasters to overcome anyway -- put that one down as "transparency might apply here."

After those, what other "defenses against psionics" are we looking for? I've never had anyone counterspell in a game, ever, so that's out. Likewise for any player actually antimagic field. Dispel magic for existing effects, sure, but why not have dispel psionics, too?

More details would be helpful.

Saving throws apply to psionics only if transparency is in place. Without transparency there are no magical defenses against psionics or vice versa.

That may be the rule, but that's silly. There's no way of avoiding psionic effets, unless they're being treated as magic?

Hmmm. Looking at the psionic/magic transparency section I don't see anything that says that. Powers are listed with saving throws and no mention of "only if transparency is in place".

Do you have a source for that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Saving throws apply to psionics only if transparency is in place.

Huh? Why do all psionic powers become "save: no" without transparency?

LazarX wrote:
Without transparency there are no magical defenses against psionics or vice versa.

Again, what defenses are we talking about? Amulets of spell resistance? No one wants those anyway because they prevent your friends from buffing you.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
necromental wrote:
It would end up being frustrating, IMO. I see creating detect psionics, dispel psionics and anti-psionic sphere spells, while the psion crafts equivalent powers.
I'd see that, too, but still can't quite see why it would automatically be bad for the game. I'm definitely open to being convinced, though.

There would probably be no problem if the PCs were only psionics(or only magickers) out there. But if psionics and magic users (and psionic and magic items) crop up regularly (even at the same time), preparing two almost identical spells that each have a 50-50 chance of being useful (and not even mentioning the sorcerer), and investing in a cross class skill that has very limited use...well it wouldn't be fun very much.

For defenses, there's barbarian's and dwarf's bonus to saves vs spells. Martials tend to buff those if they can, and now if you have something that bypasses a defense they invested in, while having the same effect on them, it could be considered a dickish move from dm's side, for example. (the same would be true for SR if it wasn't a trap/expensive/difficult to get)


Kirth Gersen wrote:

I guess I don't realize that, or at least not fully. As far as defenses against spells, we have saving throws; regardless of transparency, they apply to both spells and psionics, so they still exist. Likewise for disruption of concentration with held attacks or ongoing damage; it's equally a thing for both magic and psionics, again regardless of transparency. Those are the main two defenses I usually deal with.

I could sort of understand SR being an issue for DMs, but in my experience it's never been hard for spellcasters to overcome anyway -- put that one down as "transparency might apply here."

After those, what other "defenses against psionics" are we looking for? I've never had anyone counterspell in a game, ever, so that's out. Likewise for any player actually antimagic field. Dispel magic for existing effects, sure, but why not have dispel psionics, too?

More details would be helpful

Some spells such as mink blank specifically call out divination magic. I know that is a high level spell so just to be clear the spell level was not the point. The point was the focus on "magic". So if you use psionic divination you could by pass it. A few spells call out "magic" or "spells", so the psionic counterpart would not be impeded.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Saving throws apply to psionics only if transparency is in place.

Huh? Why do all psionic powers become "save: no" without transparency?

I don't think that is what he means. He does need to explain it better though.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Kirth, think about it this way.

What would you do if I told your fighter 'no, this guy targets your psionic AC, and you need to buy a whole new set of psionic armor over your regular armor to protect yourself against his attacks'?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This is the relevant text for the matter.

Combining Psionic And Magical Effects

The default rule for the interaction of psionics and magic is simple: Powers interact with spells and spells interact with powers in the same way a spell or normal spell-like ability interacts with another spell or spell-like ability. This is known as psionics-magic transparency.

Psionics-Magic Transparency
Though not explicitly called out in the spell descriptions or magic item descriptions, spells, spell-like abilities, and magic items that could potentially affect psionics do affect psionics.

When the rule about psionics-magic transparency is in effect, it has the following ramifications.

Spell resistance is effective against powers, using the same mechanics. Likewise, power resistance is effective against spells, using the same mechanics as spell resistance. If a creature has one kind of resistance, it is assumed to have the other. (The effects have similar ends despite having been brought about by different means.)

All spells that dispel magic have equal effect against powers of the same level using the same mechanics, and vice versa.

The spell detect magic detects powers, their number, and their strength and location within 3 rounds (though a Psicraft check is necessary to identify the discipline of the psionic aura).

Dead magic areas are also dead psionics areas.

Without transparency, monsters and characters that rely on SR or saving throw bonuses vs magic or spells for defenses become full targets for psi powers that don't allow saves such as Energy Ray and the whatnot. Simmilarly dispel magic has no effect on running psionic effects. nor can those effects be detected with detect magic. Psions also walk blithely with no concerns in otherwise magic-dead areas. Eliminating transparency has major impact on a psionic entering a magic dominant world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

1. So the psion was getting past SR with ease and

2. nobody could identify his powers.

Thanks for the specific examples!

For (1), I could see a simple rule that "SR applies against spells and psionics and so one and so forth," as being a very simple, non-invasive compromise area. Again, though, I've never seen players have too much trouble overcoming SR, so I almost suspect this would be a relative non-issue.

For (2), that's the sort of thing I'm especially curious about. Obviously, from a story standpoint, it's cool to be able to include stuff like "You're not sure how Bob is being controlled. Your detect magic isn't pinging, but your Sense Motive check tells you for sure his mind has been clouded." That's a way to re-introduce mysteries into a game that usually doesn't allow them past a certain point.

Getting Bob loose of his psionic fog might be interesting, too, if they can't just chuck a dispel magic on they guy. Maybe they need to put him in protective custody in a jail cell until he eventually makes the save? Or maybe they need to find another psion to remove the effect?

That said, I can live without the obvious story potentialif it introduces a trojan horse into the game that I'm not seeing.


LazarX wrote:


All spells that dispel magic have equal effect against powers of the same level using the same mechanics, and vice versa.

The spell detect magic detects powers, their number, and their strength and location within 3 rounds (though a Psicraft check is necessary to identify the discipline of the psionic aura).

Dead magic areas are also dead psionics areas. [/i]

Without transparency, monsters and characters that rely on SR or saving throw bonuses vs magic or spells ....

That is what I thought you meant, but it was not written that way. :)


wraithstrike wrote:
Some spells such as mink blank specifically call out divination magic. I know that is a high level spell so just to be clear the spell level was not the point. The point was the focus on "magic". So if you use psionic divination you could by pass it. A few spells call out "magic" or "spells", so the psionic counterpart would not be impeded.

AHa! Thanks, I knew it was a good idea to start this thread. Given time, I'll make a list of these and look at it, item by item, and see where it takes me.

Thanks again.


LazarX wrote:

This is the relevant text for the matter.

Combining Psionic And Magical Effects

The default rule for the interaction of psionics and magic is simple: Powers interact with spells and spells interact with powers in the same way a spell or normal spell-like ability interacts with another spell or spell-like ability. This is known as psionics-magic transparency.

Psionics-Magic Transparency
Though not explicitly called out in the spell descriptions or magic item descriptions, spells, spell-like abilities, and magic items that could potentially affect psionics do affect psionics.

When the rule about psionics-magic transparency is in effect, it has the following ramifications.

Spell resistance is effective against powers, using the same mechanics. Likewise, power resistance is effective against spells, using the same mechanics as spell resistance. If a creature has one kind of resistance, it is assumed to have the other. (The effects have similar ends despite having been brought about by different means.)

All spells that dispel magic have equal effect against powers of the same level using the same mechanics, and vice versa.

The spell detect magic detects powers, their number, and their strength and location within 3 rounds (though a Psicraft check is necessary to identify the discipline of the psionic aura).

Dead magic areas are also dead psionics areas.

Without transparency, monsters and characters that rely on SR or saving throw bonuses vs magic or spells for defenses become full targets for psi powers that don't allow saves such as Energy Ray and the whatnot. Simmilarly dispel magic has no effect on running psionic effects. nor can those effects be detected with detect magic. Psions also walk blithely with no concerns in otherwise magic-dead areas. Eliminating transparency has major impact on a psionic entering a magic dominant world.

So you get saving throws, you just don't get any bonuses that are specifically versus magic or spells.

That's fine. That makes sense.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Kirth, think about it this way.

What would you do if I told your fighter 'no, this guy targets your psionic AC, and you need to buy a whole new set of psionic armor over your regular armor to protect yourself against his attacks'?

I'm not seeing the analogy: a Will save is a Will save.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'm not seeing the analogy: a Will save is a Will save.

A Will save you need to buff with psionics AND magic.

Maybe this isn't as bad as that. I wouldn't know. I've never taken the time to review every change that magic/psionic opacity requires.

I've also never rewritten an entire ruleset either of course...


Kirth Gersen wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Some spells such as mink blank specifically call out divination magic. I know that is a high level spell so just to be clear the spell level was not the point. The point was the focus on "magic". So if you use psionic divination you could by pass it. A few spells call out "magic" or "spells", so the psionic counterpart would not be impeded.

AHa! Thanks, I knew it was a good idea to start this thread. Given time, I'll make a list of these and look at it, item by item, and see where it takes me.

Thanks again.

The barbarian's superstition ability to get bonus save vs spells/magic goes away.<--I doubt this is the only instance of a class or race ability being negated.

There are probably a few feats and magic items affected by this also.


wraithstrike wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Without transparency, monsters and characters that rely on SR or saving throw bonuses vs magic or spells ....
That is what I thought you meant, but it was not written that way. :)

Thanks!! Now I get it; it sure took me long enough. OK, so we're worried specifically about:

1. Dwarves and their "+2 against spells and spell-like abilities"
2. The Superstition rage power
3. The spell immunity spell
4. Elves' bonus to saves against enchanment spells.

Any others?

It seems to me we could expand the wording judiciously: "Elves get a +2 bonus to saves against enchantment spells and other charm- and compusion-like effects." Same ability, now applies. Same with superstition.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If a player wanted to run a psionic in my campaigns, Transparency is one of the no-negotiation conditions for me. Psis would still leave the advantages of not needing material components, foci, spell books, casting components and the like.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:


It seems to me we could expand the wording judiciously: "Elves get a +2 bonus to saves against enchantment spells and other charm- and compusion-like effects." Same ability, now applies. Same with superstition.

You do realize that all you are doing is writing in the transparency rules back into the game on a line by line basis. :)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
A Will save you need to buff with psionics AND magic.

I don't think a +5 resistance bonus gets negatied by all psionics. It applies directly to the Will save, which in turn applies against both. The only exceptions would be oddball ones like dwarves' and elves' +2, and Superstition, and maybe one or two other corner cases.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

See my edit. ;)

Kirth Gersen wrote:
It seems to me we could expand the wording judiciously: "Elves get a +2 bonus to saves against enchantment spells and other charm- and compusion-like effects." Same ability, now applies. Same with superstition.

So transparency in only the things you want transparent? :)

And ninja'd by wraithstrike.


wraithstrike wrote:
You do realize that all you are doing is writing in the transparency rules back into the game on a line by line basis. :)

That thought did just occur to me, yes. But the things we're writing back in are things that don't destroy the one argument (and, honestly, it's the only argument I can think of against using full transparency): lack of transparency in terms of detection/dispelling can open up the avenues to include some mysteries that are not able to be instantaneously solved by any pary worth the name.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
So transparency in only the things you want transparent? :)

Yes, exactly! But remember, I did open up the thread with a question as to whether transparency had to be a totally binary proposition.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
So transparency in only the things you want transparent? :)
Yes! Exactly. Remember, I did open up the thread with a question as to whether transparency had to be a totally binary proposition.

Lets get to the meat of the matter then... what do you want opaque?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
lack of transparency in terms of detection/dispelling can open up the avenues to include some mysteries that are not able to be instantaneously solved by any pary worth the name.

Meh. Detect/dispel magic can't solve everything.


LazarX wrote:
Lets get to the meat of the matter then... what do you want opaque?

I think I already posted the two examples of where it might be handy to have opacity.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Obviously, from a story standpoint, it's cool to be able to include stuff like "You're not sure how Bob is being controlled. Your detect magic isn't pinging, but your Sense Motive check tells you for sure his mind has been clouded." That's a way to re-introduce mysteries into a game that usually doesn't allow them past a certain point.

Getting Bob loose of his psionic fog might be interesting, too, if they can't just chuck a dispel magic on they guy. Maybe they need to put him in protective custody in a jail cell until he eventually makes the save? Or maybe they need to find another psion to remove the effect?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Meh. Detect/dispel magic can't solve everything.

It might help to mention that I'm an oddball, because I'm coming out of a game background in which we eventually were researching protection against discern location spells and overcoming them with penetrate protection from discern location spells (I'm not making this up). I was once involved in a game in which we were blackmailing one of the bad guys using documents that no longer existed -- it was the only way to keep him from locating them -- and bluffing him that we still had them.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If I ever get to play with 8th level spells, I'll let you know.

As for things the party can't dispel, use supernatural abilities.


By the rules it is binary, but for the game I ran I came up with a middle ground of sorts allowing them to be different, but still maintaining transparency to a large extent.

That is what the +5 DC to spellcraft/psicraft was an example of.

One question however is what will you do with knowledge(psionics)?

PS: I also playtested having psicraft and spellcraft as two different skills. That also worked out.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
If I ever get to play with 8th level spells, I'll let you know.

Even before that point, you're hiding stuff from locate object by using spells, and then the party goes in and uses detect magic specifically to find the spells that are hiding the object, so they can find the object, so then you use magic aura to hide the spell that's hiding the object... part of me thinks it would be nice to have another avenue of approach, is all.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Lets get to the meat of the matter then... what do you want opaque?

I think I already posted the two examples of where it might be handy to have opacity.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Obviously, from a story standpoint, it's cool to be able to include stuff like "You're not sure how Bob is being controlled. Your detect magic isn't pinging, but your Sense Motive check tells you for sure his mind has been clouded." That's a way to re-introduce mysteries into a game that usually doesn't allow them past a certain point.

Getting Bob loose of his psionic fog might be interesting, too, if they can't just chuck a dispel magic on they guy. Maybe they need to put him in protective custody in a jail cell until he eventually makes the save? Or maybe they need to find another psion to remove the effect?

Depends. If the game is revolving around new mysterious psionic powers that no one knows anything about, then this is a good way to go.

If it's old hat in the setting, even if rare, then the response to "You're not sure how Bob is being controlled. Your detect magic isn't pinging, but your Sense Motive check tells you for sure his mind has been clouded." is just: "Well we'd better go check with a psion."

Probably means you need one in the party. Or the world needs to have developed spells specifically to interact with psionics. Which means you'll need to have them ready to use.


wraithstrike wrote:
One question however is what will you do with knowledge(psionics)?

I hadn't thought about it yet -- that's one thing I was hoping to gather a bunch of anecdotes about, so I'd have some context to work with.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Even before that point, you're hiding stuff from locate object by using spells, and then the party goes in and uses detect magic specifically to find the spells that are hiding the object, so they can find the object, so then you use magic aura to hide the spell that's hiding the object... part of me thinks it would be nice to have another avenue of approach, is all.

I'm pretty sure that is the general 'you', since I never have to do any of that. :P


TriOmegaZero wrote:
As for things the party can't dispel, use supernatural abilities.

You know me -- as DM, I always play within the same set of rules the players are using. If there's no way in the rules we're all playing by that gives that ability that'll work in the way I want to use it, I don't do it.

1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Magic-Psionics Transparency All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.