First off Vadim, thats a hella long text there.
Your the one that keeps telling other people they are playing wrong, No one is attacking your playstyle yet you attack other styles as wrong. Yes you keep saying that over and over does not make it true, but you seem to think it does
1. Class can be very much a part of the game world. In mine{ since it keeps coming up} magic works a certain way. If a power is magical your limited on how you can access it
Now since we do indeed use a class based system , if you want to bard ability , your limited to playing a bard class. Now going back to how magic works if a setting has magical laws{ most do on some level} Then you need to work with the setting.
No as magic power is limited to learned only, then you must learn the power from someone either 1, a group or 2. someone else. Which comes back to skald { group} or witch
Even on earth guilds held secrets close, it's not like it's an odd thought that in a realm where magic can only be learned, "guilds" would become the norm. And that is where we are at in the setting. Each magical tradition is like a guild.It hold the secrets to how to access that power. If you wish to learn you must "join" one of the traditions
This is not an unknown concept. Its not a stight jacket, any more then a paladin is. You have a great deal of leeway, Your class is not every thing your character is, but it is a piece of the whole
Bardic Music does not exist in-character. There is no such thing. Skalds can't train you in Bardic Music. They can train you in their magical and musical ways, which can be represented by Bardic Music, but there are still many, many things that Bardic Music can represent, and many, many things that can represent skald training.
Again your not listening. To access magical ablitys {bardic music} you must be trained. Which in as far as that go is not uncommon to train bards in most worlds
Skalds are the common way to lean the "bard" class, the traditions is what forms the base of the class. And no if you can not access the "bard" class ablitys then you do not pass the tests, you may still be a part of the order, but are not a skald
You do not go to law school and fail, but get to be a lawyer do you?
That Bardic Performance and 6 spell levels and various skills and dX hit die can represent any number of things. In saying it can only represent skalds and vice versa is abusive precisely because the class, the ability sack doesn't exist.
But it does indeed exist, it's called a class based game system. You want the bard power then you must be the bard class, which is why it is not a classless system. You do not get to cherry pick ablitys you get to play a class
Now as I have pointed out if you want the magic powers of a class, any magic class you must learn them
If the players want Bardic Music to be skald-only, then it means Bardic Music can be anything at all, it can represent absolutely any concept for which it could conceivably be appropriate. It's just that the players choose not to use it for anything else.
If even one player disagrees, however, it becomes an inappropriate and abusive constraint for all the reasons I've been laying out.
It can be chants or storys{mostly skalds] or about any preform skill, but if you want to sing, ya take the skill anyone can do that. If you want the magic power you learn it
And that one player, is being an ass and can play something else or leave. You do not need disruptive folks at a table. Take a gnome in darksun, you might object to not having that race in game, but your objection does not change it, get over it or leave and stop bringing everyone else down
But again, the spell's appearance does indeed depend on who casts it, not on what the character class is.
Nope by RAW it does not, you needed a feat in 3.5 to change it really. This is a world thing, and can change from game to game
And by default it is based off the class,...look up spellcraft and know arcanea
You house rules yours, we do ours neither is wrong
And there is absolutely zero reason why this can't be ported to the Psion wizard or the Bard priest or the Psychic Warrior skald.
Yep, it's called haveing flavor in your setting. You should try it. It has been pointed out wizards learn one way, sorcerers another. They know each other does casting different{ class is not invisible]
So it brakes flavor to say" umm yeah I know he casts nothing like every other wizard but it looks the same" And If ya brake flavor, you take away from the player feel of the world.
xcept this isn't about restrictive worlds. This is about starting with a world and then shackling classes in ways that have no contribution to said world or the game as a whole
Like taking out the wizard? how did that help your world? humm, that contributed to your play style. The restrictions in place on magic and other things Help form the frame work of mine. They are set limits, like up and down having to breath
Magic works in a set way, that is not a shackle, that is a tool, living breathing part of the reality of the world, like the sun raising in the east. It s known thing, a tangible, part of reality
It's only a shackle to those who do not want to be a part of the world.
And I thought I wrote a lot. Good to have people like Viletta around, makes me look concise in comparison.
I'm only going to respond to Viletta Vadim's responses to my post, as I'm at work and don't have the time to read through all the other posts and responses, and I'm not going to try defending others.
Kaisoku wrote:
Actually, group 2 is just thinking that having fluff restrict options isn't necessarily abusive to players.Fluff restricting options is standard fare. However, locking a mechanic, saying "X is used for Y and only Y and nothing else," is wildly different. You can define a world strongly, but to isolate so many different mechanics and especially individual classes? That's going way into the player's domain.
So what we are talking about now isn't that the process is bad, but the degree.
Kaisoku wrote:
What they can't do though, is to build a character with the Bardic Performance ability, with no in-game training from the Skald. Also, that last claim (I was trained by Skald) might be challenged by a real Skald if they come across one.It's not that the DM is telling the players how to think and act, but rather where they can obtain specific sets of abilities.
Which is a constraint with zero value.
Bardic Music does not exist in-character. There is no such thing. Skalds can't train you in Bardic Music. They can train you in their magical and musical ways, which can be represented by Bardic Music, but there are still many, many things that Bardic Music can represent, and many, many things that can represent skald training.
The reason it's abuse is that it's a constraint with no logical connection to the world without metagaming out the wazoo, it doesn't contribute, it doesn't make the world deeper, and it vastly stifles the players and their ability to contribute to the creative vision.
You are actually telling seeker what his campaign is supposed to be like. You might not realize it, but you are actually saying that the Skald's musical magic training is doing more than what he has it set up to do.
If he says that the Skald's training gives an exact set of abilities over a certain amount of training, then to say that "those abilities don't actually exist, and Skalds are actually giving a more "nebulous" musical talent", you are changing his campaign for him.But, maybe that's your point. You are saying that a campaign who's fluff is that restrictive is not allowing players to be creative. That's fine. You don't like that kind of campaign.
It's not abusive though. It's set up for a very specific flavour. And if he let the player make a character using the Sorcerer or Psionic mechanics instead of the Bard mechanics, it really is changing the flavour of his setting.
I think that might be where you aren't seeing our point of view. Just letting players do whatever they want to get the concept will interfere with the flavour of the setting. Sometimes the DM has to draw a line in the sand to keep the flavour he's trying to present. It is the DM's game as well...
Kaisoku wrote:
And while the Skald training only being available in the form of the Bard class, instead of any class that can thematically be put together to mimic a Bard's abilities to a degree...... that is exactly the same as limiting what classes are available.
Not remotely.
Banning the Wizard class because it's a broken class mechanically? That's limiting the mechanics because the mechanics are bad. Banning the Psion class because the world doesn't have psions? That's arbitrary and irrelevant, because the fluff is only tangentially related to the mechanics, and the Psion class can make fantastic wizards.
But we aren't talking about banning because it's broken. I wasn't necessarily referencing your situation, just using the wizard as an example (you could use cleric or any other "big list of spells" class).
My point was that the DM wasn't prepared to handle that class in his game.
To use the Tiers post's wordage, the Wizard class has the ability to "step off the road completely", to which, the DM isn't capable of handling the headache of expanding the road to accomodate.
The Sorcerer playing as a bard situation is the same thing. The Sorcerer mechanic has the ability to step off the road the DM laid out for the flavour of the Skald, and he isn't capable of handling the headache of expanding the flavour to include the player's changes.
I guess you can then call that DM lazy, or uncomprimising, however I'd suggest learning the DM's situation before labelling.
What you are not taking into account is that just saying "bardic music can be represented lots of ways" is assuming that those other ways won't change the flavour in some fashion. But they do.
Kaisoku wrote:
Actually, in my own personal experience, most of the people who I play with first find out what the game is about (Epic Fantasy, core D&D only, dark and serious mystery/intrigue, cthulu, kick-down-the-door, etc), and THEN come up with a character for that game.Find out? Try discuss. If the DM is decreeing what the game will be about rather than discussing it with the group as a whole, there's a problem.
Once again, you are placing assumptions on the situation (my situation, actually.. this is getting a bit personal).
My gaming "potential" has about a dozen players or so. It can involve about 9 or 10 different gaming settings or systems (half of which are D&D in one flavour or another), and that's not including any homebrew.
So if I were to decide to DM a campaign of some kind, I'd ask each of my 12 or so contacts if they feel like playing in that campaign too, hoping to get at least 4 people who feel like playing that campaign.
Now, I'm an easy going DM, if the player wants to help me make a homebrew world, I'm all for it. But it's not like I'm sitting down with the same set of 4 people that I always play with and coming up with a homebrew and then refusing to discuss anything with them.
And really, if I'm playing an adventure path (like I am now), and I don't have time to handle big sweeping changes (like I am now), then the player is going to need to ask what the game is about so he can make an appropriate character... it's as simple as that.
Now please, if you want to disagree and come back saying that this is not a good situation for the player, fine. If you want to say that this is an unfortunate set of circumstances for the player's creativity, then fine.
But I will take serious offense to anyone saying that I'm being abusive to my players, or being controlling or draconian. I'd at least ask that you get to know me and my situation more before resorting to that kind of verbiage.
1. Class can be very much a part of the game world. In mine{ since it keeps coming up} magic works a certain way. If a power is magical your limited on how you can access it
I would agree that "barbarian" or "wizard" may be parts of any gameworld. However, I would disagree that a "barbarian" MUST be the Barbarian class.
In a Viking campaign for example, I might suggest as DM that Barbarian would work well for a Berserker. However, if someone made a Fighter and decided to call him a "berserker" and just had him go crazy and and act frenzied in battle - how does anyone in the campaign world know the mechanical difference?
This is not an unknown concept. Its not a stight jacket, any more then a paladin is.
I agree here. However, if every class was as restrictive as the Paladin, I probably wouldn't play Pathfinder. The Paladin is stupidly restrictive, and thankfully it is a lone example in the game system.
Again your not listening. To access magical ablitys {bardic music} you must be trained. Which in as far as that go is not uncommon to train bards in most worlds
There IS such a thing as Bardic music, but that is a very specific type of Bardic performance. A Bard-class with Performance (Oratory) may not even know how to sing or play music. Maybe he just happens to be an inspiring speaker, or he's an excellent motivator. Why MUST these abilities be learned by a teacher?
Bardic "music" is a very narrow definition of an ability that is intended to be flexible in meaning.
This has gotten tedious, nobody in this thread is willing to bend and we just keep getting the same points rehashed over and over again. Nothing new has been said for several pages.
Viletta has great points in her argument and I prefer her way of looking at the game.
Seeker on the other hand just goes about his game differently and with more of a Gygaxian feel. The fact that I think his view is archaic does not invalidate it. The fact that he has players in his game should tell you all that they must not be offended by his world's restrictions.
Seriously, we know whom agrees with whom here, I think it is time to let this thread go the way of the buffalo.
I have played with a group since AD&D 2nd Ed (we started with the Player's Option book), advancing/converting into 3rd edition, then 3.5 and then Pathfinder.
The group has gone through both revisions and thanks to cosmic cataclysm a final re-start at first level (when Pathfinder came out). The players love their old characters, but agreed to stop playing them in 3.5 after they hit around level 90 (but ended up playing them again from 1st-level and up).
Many things have appeared during this long period of play regarding balance, classes and so forth.
Our conclusions are:
In any scenario where spellcaster classes have had time to prepare (through divination or pure luck) against any other kind of class, the spellcaster usually comes out as the winner, if
the other classes cannot neutralize the spellcaster's defensive measures.
Such a scenario (where the spellcaster has the preparation time) rarely, if even happens though, since most intelligent players using, say Fighters, avoid being just stick-wielders, and use magical items to deface flaws in their setup and to counter magical threats.
For high level combats, winning the initiative, mostly means the fight is done and over with. A high level warrior type of character (with basic items, that grants flying, teleporting or such) will instant kill any Wizard that hasn't prepared specifically for that opponent (which mostly isn't possible).
Wizards and Clerics (and somewhat Druids) can reshape the world at epic
levels, but their chances in an instant combat encounter isn't much greater than for pure warriors (it is back to initiative roll again).
Still, spellcasters are a necessity in high level play, since the versatility of them are their strength.
IMHO, the strongest character in the game is a warrior/spellcaster multiclass.
Caineach, I'm just curious, what do you think of Snowflake? Of bending the class/role/story lines to create an interesting and living breathing character?VV what you describe works great for free range games, but not all games are free range. As a GM, I have any right to make rules regarding my game world as I see fit. You can always leave the table if you don't want to play, it doesn't mean I will change my world for you. If I want to run a game with traditions, you can bet that my traditions will be consistent and violating them will not get you power, because as a GM I have defined it such. Likewise, playing something outside those traditions will be very difficult, unless you come up with a good reason that fits into my world.
If I say only this group knows how to do this thing, and you must learn it from them, then you must learn it from them. And so does everyone else with that power in that world.
Honestly, I would rather play in a well thought out game with hard and fast rules I can count on, like SoS's, than the world that you describe. In his world, I'm building something in that has a home and a connection to the world arround him. In yours, my character can fit anywhere and everywhere, and therefore fits nowhere, because anything goes.
Kyrt, i like Princess Snowflake, but her existence helps define the world. She will fit in some games wonderfully, and another not so much. One of the things about her though is that she does not define where her power comes from, and the GM is free to do that if the player wants to explore it. Also, her history is kind of a mystery, so it is possible for the player to go exploring that.
I have lots of character ideas I want to try, when a new game pops up I pick the one that will fit the setting the most. I often even give my GM a couple characters and see which one his eyes light up with.
1. Class can be very much a part of the game world. In mine{ since it keeps coming up} magic works a certain way. If a power is magical your limited on how you can access itI would agree that "barbarian" or "wizard" may be parts of any gameworld. However, I would disagree that a "barbarian" MUST be the Barbarian class.
In a Viking campaign for example, I might suggest as DM that Barbarian would work well for a Berserker. However, if someone made a Fighter and decided to call him a "berserker" and just had him go crazy and and act frenzied in battle - how does anyone in the campaign world know the mechanical difference?
I would say that other berserkers, and people who fight them often, would notice that he does not get the ferocious strength usually associated with the Berserkers, but lay people wouldn't be able to tell. He is missing powers nowmally associated with the group. This would have some roleplaying aspects, as some would feel he is just pretending while others may respect him for finding a new way to fight.
Again your not listening. To access magical ablitys {bardic music} you must be trained. Which in as far as that go is not uncommon to train bards in most worldsThere IS such a thing as Bardic music, but that is a very specific type of Bardic performance. A Bard-class with Performance (Oratory) may not even know how to sing or play music. Maybe he just happens to be an inspiring speaker, or he's an excellent motivator. Why MUST these abilities be learned by a teacher?
Bardic "music" is a very narrow definition of an ability that is intended to be flexible in meaning.
SoS is saying that they must be taught in his world to have the supernatual effects the abilities have. Anyone can make an amasing performance, but only someone trained can weave the magic into it to grant supernatual inspiration, mystically fascinate, or counter other magic. There are different ways to learn this, but each is identifiable by someone who knows what to look for. The common training that is prevalent is the order of Scalds, while other, smaller traditions exist using the catch all term Witch, as if you get magic from an unusual sorce they don't know or understand this is the term.
VV, on your point that you can use a Psion and call yourself a "wizard", every other "wizard" who you meet who uses the wizard class would know you are different. You cast spells differently, you have different spells, and you can't train eachother. This can easily disrupt the flavor of a campaign.
VV, on your point that you can use a Psion and call yourself a "wizard", every other "wizard" who you meet who uses the wizard class would know you are different. You cast spells differently, you have different spells, and you can't train eachother. This can easily disrupt the flavor of a campaign.
Actually, psions and sorcerers are indistinguishable from an in-game perspective. Psions just cast all of their spells Silent and Stilled and don't write down spells on scrolls.
VV, on your point that you can use a Psion and call yourself a "wizard", every other "wizard" who you meet who uses the wizard class would know you are different. You cast spells differently, you have different spells, and you can't train eachother. This can easily disrupt the flavor of a campaign.Actually, psions and sorcerers are indistinguishable from an in-game perspective. Psions just cast all of their spells Silent and Stilled and don't write downs spells on scrolls.
And people would still be able to tell that they don't get the same powers from the same source.
And people would still be able to tell that they don't get the same powers from the same source.
How?
And people would still be able to tell that they don't get the same powers from the same source.How?
They are doing different things. There spell lists are different. People who have seen sorcs will see completely new powers with a psion, even people who are thousands of years old who have seen hundres of sorcs before will see something new.
They are doing different things. There spell lists are different. People who have seen sorcs will see completely new powers with a psion, even people who are thousands of years old who have seen hundres of sorcs before will see something new.
So? So it's a sorcerer who has spent a lot of time manifesting his own unique spells. That is allowed in the rules, you know. Having spells someone else doesn't know does not mean that you aren't a spellcaster. There's also a lot of psion powers that are exactly the same as spells, or have effects close enough to those of spells to be mostly indistinguishable; a psion using only those powers would entirely negate your entire argument so far.
They are doing different things. There spell lists are different. People who have seen sorcs will see completely new powers with a psion, even people who are thousands of years old who have seen hundres of sorcs before will see something new.So? So it's a sorcerer who has spent a lot of time manifesting his own unique spells. That is allowed in the rules, you know. Having spells someone else doesn't know does not mean that you aren't a spellcaster. There's also a lot of psion powers that are exactly the same as spells, or have effects close enough to those of spells to be mostly indistinguishable; a psion using only those powers would entirely negate your entire argument so far.
And it would be much harder to tell the difference between those 2. I'm not saying that in many games they aren't interchangable. Just that they aren't in all, and that the differences will be important sometimes.
I'm not saying that in many games they aren't interchangable.
Actually, that's precisely what you said:
VV, on your point that you can use a Psion and call yourself a "wizard", every other "wizard" who you meet who uses the wizard class would know you are different. You cast spells differently, you have different spells, and you can't train eachother.
|
I recall this argument popping up before. Since then I started a new massive homebrew project for the gaming community down here un Peru.
I can honestly say that I took a lot of what I got form the last argument into consideration when trying to build it.
It is a strongly flavored setting, where a lot of game elements are very very hard to implement, and I have had first hand experience on how similar proyects down here had faile duw to sacrificing mechanical variety and high magic in the name of strong flavor.
So the best I could come up with was this, I wrote up a small flavor text on every PF class I could think off (including Dreamscarred press psionics) with the intention of being as generic as I could, and found out that in many cases I couldn´t be generic without sacrificing the flavor of the world.
The main culprits were the Paladin and the Monk (Paladin being restrictive by mechanics, an Monk being a problem because no form of martial arts are supposed to exist)
Gave those to my players and gave them a description of what the feel of the world was (the feel being something that most peruvians have a strong grasp of) and then spend an entire session (followed by online discussions) making character concepts fit the feel of the world.
In the end I realized that the only ways to keep a setting flavorfull while not being restrictive are the folllowing:
1. Have players who care about the world´s feel as much as you do. Who are excited about the chance of existing in that specific world.
2. Leaving a lot of empty spaces. No matter how creative you think you are, players will come up with stuff you didn´t forsee. If a player wants to play something funky like a mechanical psion in wizard robes, then have that be part of the world. Some kind of rganization called ¨The true mages¨ who claim wizards are liers and that the true arcane power comes from the mind.
3. Have a very strong grasp on the world. If you have a very solid understanding of what things could have happened through the history of the world, it will be easier to use those events, clans, nations, organizations that would fit any player´s wacky character.
4. There is nothing wrong with being firm. Some things just won´t fly in your world (in the case of mine the big one were big swords) regardless of how much the players might try to talk you into it. Do not fall into the whole ¨My character is the only one in the world who ____¨
Those are just my 2 cents.
I'm not saying that in many games they aren't interchangable.Actually, that's precisely what you said:
VV, on your point that you can use a Psion and call yourself a "wizard", every other "wizard" who you meet who uses the wizard class would know you are different. You cast spells differently, you have different spells, and you can't train eachother.
And every wizard knows that every sorc casts spells differently than them.
And every wizard knows that every sorc casts spells differently than them.I'm not saying that in many games they aren't interchangable.Actually, that's precisely what you said:
VV, on your point that you can use a Psion and call yourself a "wizard", every other "wizard" who you meet who uses the wizard class would know you are different. You cast spells differently, you have different spells, and you can't train eachother.
That is your OPINION. There is absolutely nothing in the text of the game that says that. Sorcerers and Wizards receive the their magic from different sources, not once is there any mention they they cast differently.
Your are being argumentative for no other reason than the fact that you can't admit that someone doesn't make the same inferences about gameplay as you and your group.
And every wizard knows that every sorc casts spells differently than them.
No, they do not know. Mostly because they don't cast differently. Sorcerers and Wizards cast the exact same spells (minus maybe a dozen total spells in all of 3.5, splats and 3PP included, that are either sorc or wiz only) in the exact same ways with the exact same results. The only distinctions between sorcerers and wizards, baseline, are spells known vs spellbooks, and there's no way for a wizard to know whether an enemy arcane caster is a wizard or a sorcerer unless they come across their spellbook.
And every wizard knows that every sorc casts spells differently than them.No, they do not. Mostly because they don't. Sorcerers and Wizards cast the exact same spells (minus maybe a dozen total spells in all of 3.5, splats and 3PP included, that are either sorc or wiz only) in the exact same ways with the exact same results. The only distinctions between sorcerers and wizards, baseline, are spells known vs spellbooks, and there's no way for a wizard to know whether an enemy arcane caster is a wizard or a sorcerer unless they come across their spellbook.
Unless you look at the flavor, where the Sorc is casting using an inate power while the wizard has to study and learn to draw the power from elsewhere. Also, on talking to eachother, it would be quickly apparent that they do things differently. They learn differently, they draw power from differnt sources, and they do it in different ways. Thus, you need a system of magic that can account for these differences in your world. Adding in the psion, someone who functions somewhat like a wizard, somewhat like a sorc, and entirely different from both, adds annother complication. Some people don't care that their magic system is inconsistent. Others, like me, do.
Its not my oppinion that wizards know that sorcs cast differently, if they have a single rank in knowledge arcana. They may not be able to identify which you are on sight, but people can learn which you are in game.
Umm guys unless you change it the psion powers are not recognizable by spellcraft or know arcana. A adapt would know your not an arcane caster, the farmer who is a magic groupi with one rank of know arcanea would know your not a "wizard" or "sorcerer" if he had a chance to watch you
Unless your willing to rework how they function with in the game world folks can tell. Might as well just use a sorcerer, if your gonna go though the trouble to rework the class.
I would agree that "barbarian" or "wizard" may be parts of any gameworld. However, I would disagree that a "barbarian" MUST be the Barbarian class.
I agree, most barbarians may be one thing, but not all. However I never restricted an none caster. All I said was any "spell casting" class or a class with magic ablitys must learn them
Now if you wanted to play a barbarian with lets say on of the magic flaming rage powers from beta. I would restrict where you could learn such a power as it is magic.
I agree here. However, if every class was as restrictive as the Paladin, I probably wouldn't play Pathfinder.
This I understand as well, but even "bards" in my world are not that restrictive. They have a tradition and a "loose" code which is mostly "gather tells of the Anzari people, go forth and bring, glory to the people" , but no AL restrictions really.
There IS such a thing as Bardic music, but that is a very specific type of Bardic performance. A Bard-class with Performance (Oratory) may not even know how to sing or play music. Maybe he just happens to be an inspiring speaker, or he's an excellent motivator. Why MUST these abilities be learned by a teacher?Bardic "music" is a very narrow definition of an ability that is intended to be flexible in meaning.
And that speaker must be trained. Skalds do not sing normally, they chant, tell storys , give speeches, some play drums. But anyone can give speeches, chant, sing, play drums. The supernatural power within bardic music is however out of reach of just anyone
Magic is a part of the great beyond,It does not touch the world and must be drawn into it, nothing but fey or what you would call outsiders can do so naturally
Your great speaker would most likely be taken in by a "witch" to learn such things or the skalds might train him. But without such training he will never be able to touch the supernatrual and unlock all he could do
SoS is saying that they must be taught in his world to have the supernatual effects the abilities have. Anyone can make an amasing performance, but only someone trained can weave the magic into it to grant supernatual inspiration, mystically fascinate, or counter other magic. There are different ways to learn this, but each is identifiable by someone who knows what to look for. The common training that is prevalent is the order of Scalds, while other, smaller traditions exist using the catch all term Witch, as if you get magic from an unusual sorce they don't know or understand this is the term.
Caineach, you seem to have got exactly what I am doing. Nice to know a few folks get what I am doing
Umm guys unless you change it the psion powers are not recognizable by spellcraft or know arcana.
Obviously we're assuming the rules for transparency are in effect. It'd be moronic of us to assume otherwise when we're talking about ... gasp ... magic and psionics being transparent to each other!
It's actually the default rule, too, so in truth you're wrong through and through.
No by default 1 rank of spellcraft or know arcana will tell you anything the psion casts is not arcane or divin in nature. Look it up in the xph
Also the psion will have to take 4 skills know arcana/psionics ,spellcraft and psi craft to pull his lie off, as without spell craft and know arcana he has no clue as to what anyone else is doing with "spells"
Unless you change that, then you get into having to group all psion powers by school.
No by default 1 rank of spellcraft or know arcana will tell you anything the psion casts is not arcane or divin in nature.
False. You have to make a check of DC 15+spell level to identify a spell, and failing the check (even if you fail it because it's not possible to succeed because it's not actually a spell) doesn't mean you know it's not a spell. Don't try to push your house rules as actual rules.
Also the psion will have to take 4 skills know arcana/psionics ,spellcraft and psi craft to pull his lie off, as without spell craft and know arcana he has no clue as to what anyone else is doing with "spells"
Why the frell does this matter? Remember, he's emulating a sorcerer. Half the time sorcerers don't even know how they pull of what they do, let alone how anyone else does!
Again, stop pushing your house rules as actual rules.
I wonder what the check would be to determine an effect as "not magic"? I mean, you can certainly do it through a process of elimination (IE, somebody manifests a weak Psionic Power on you and you STILL can't identify the darn thing with a roll of 24 or higher). I think that'd be a pretty good clue.
Something else that's imortant...
An untrained Knowledge (psionics) check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).
So, depending on what "common knowledge" is in your campaign, a character might be able to deduce that the effects he is seeing are at least psionic in nature.
Personally, I'd just allow a Spellcraft check DC 10 to determine effect type (arcane, divine, psionic, prepared, spontaneous), though we don't want to foul up the RAW with a glimmer of common sense. That'd by a travesty.
sigh, house rules means I changed something.
Psion powers are not spells, it says so in the xph, spellcraft/ know arcana can not id them, by RAW they may only be ID with psicraft/ know psionics. Spell craft will get "it was magic of some kind" even if you roll a nat 20 it can not tell you what kind of school of spell as by RAW it is not a spell
Your changing rules ,not I
Personally, I'd just allow a Spellcraft check DC 10 to determine effect type (arcane, divine, psionic, prepared, spontaneous), though we don't want to foul up the RAW with a glimmer of common sense. That'd by a travesty.
The issue is loopy that is still telling. They are saying there is no way anyone can tell psionic powers from arcane spells
Your changing rules not I
Incorrect. The characters do not know what number their players rolled on the d20, unless of course you're playing in Order Of The Stick World. All the character knows is that he does not know what spell was just cast.
Your changing rules not IIncorrect. The characters do not know what number their players rolled on the d20, unless of course you're playing in Order Of The Stick World. All the character knows is that he does not know what type of magic it is.
And when they have a +15 before they roll? when the most learned arcan master can not tell?
sorry man but it stands spellcraft and know arcana can not ID psionics, unless you change that rule
I am house ruling nothing.
They may not be able to identify which you are on sight, but people can learn which you are in game.
If they get to observe you for long periods of time. A party member may notice the "wizard" never prepares spells, but most NPC's won't be around you long enough to know that.
sorry man but it stands spellcraft and know arcana can not ID psionics
I never said they could. You are the one that is claiming that spellcraft and K:Arcane can identify psionics.
They may not be able to identify which you are on sight, but people can learn which you are in game.If they get to observe you for long periods of time. A party member may notice the "wizard" never prepares spells, but most NPC's won't be around you long enough to know that.
I agree with this, many would not be able to tell. And all depending on the world might not be a huge deal. It would not be in mopst if your sorcerer called himself a wizard, a witch, a voodoo priest or the great cornhollio
But other casters might know, and in most cases would not care. It's all in the world if it would be an issue or not
I recall players in darksun being wizards and passing themselves off as "psions"
I never said they could. You are the one that is claiming that spellcraft and K:Arcane can identify psionics.
More or less you did
Obviously we're assuming the rules for transparency are in effect. It'd be moronic of us to assume otherwise when we're talking about ... gasp ... magic and psionics being transparent to each other!
It's actually the default rule, too, so in truth you're wrong through and through.
being transparent means no one cane tell. 1 rank in either skill would be enough in some cases to tell, 10 ranks and you know for sure.
Edit let me put it this way
2 fighters get into a ring, both use a different fighting style. It only takes a very small amount of time to understand "hey this guy is not using my style"
Now arcane and divain are closer in style and would be harder to see the differences. You could do it but be harder, psionics however is very easy to tell
10 ranks and you know for sure.
No, you do not. Failing a Spellcraft check just means you do not identify the spell. It does not mean you magically know that the spell isn't actually a spell, but rather a psionic power.
The difference between how a Wizard looks when he casts a spell and how a Sorcerer casts a spell, I can see that taking a practiced eye (maybe DC 15 or so).
Cleric vs. Wizard? I'd say they are different enough to warrant a slightly lower check. I doubt very highly that the verbal components to these spells are similar, even the spells that are effectively the same. The Cleric is calling their power from their deity while wizards are weaving intricate magical formulae. I'd definitely say DC 10.
Psionics is right out. Crazy visual effects and sounds appear out of nowhere. No real verbal, material, or somatic components to speak of. DC 10 at most to determine they are not magical spellcasters.
Increase DCs for certain metamagic feats (silent, etc +2 to +5) or even actions such as a wizard who decides to hold up a holy symbol while casting (+2) to, for some reason.
Psionics is right out. Crazy visual effects and sounds appear out of nowhere. No real verbal, material, or somatic components to speak of.
How is this any different from a Silent, Stilled spell cast by a Sorcerer?
Loopy has it, unless you rework the basic rules psionics is easy to see as not the same
And zurai an apprentice can not use still and silent spell. And your powerful if you can do both at once. also the effects that go with the powers are a dead give away
Nah, were just bored really.
Edit. I do have a question who brought psion wizards back up again? I know I repleyed to it, but it was going when I got here
Well, we all must and it does get entertaining. I was skimming the thread mostly replying to one here and there and saw the psion wizard again
Gods I have such a low will save at times
Psionics is right out. Crazy visual effects and sounds appear out of nowhere. No real verbal, material, or somatic components to speak of.How is this any different from a Silent, Stilled spell cast by a Sorcerer?
Because it doesn't work like that. Read the SRD.
This is my favorite part, though...
A Psicraft check (DC 10 + 1 per additional power in use) reveals the exact number of simultaneous powers in play.
A DC 10 Psicraft check reveals there is 1 psionic power in play. :)
Now, I remember some rules out there for making Psicraft checks with Spellcraft and Spellcraft checks with Psicraft. Hmmmmm....
Because it doesn't work like that. Read the SRD.Psionics is right out. Crazy visual effects and sounds appear out of nowhere. No real verbal, material, or somatic components to speak of.How is this any different from a Silent, Stilled spell cast by a Sorcerer?
Care to be less patronizing and more useful? How about actually answering the question by quoting the relevant SRD entry instead of saying the equivalent of "read the Bible, it's in there somewhere"?
Care to be less patronizing and more useful? How about actually answering the question by quoting the relevant SRD entry instead of saying the equivalent of "read the Bible, it's in there somewhere"?Because it doesn't work like that. Read the SRD.Psionics is right out. Crazy visual effects and sounds appear out of nowhere. No real verbal, material, or somatic components to speak of.How is this any different from a Silent, Stilled spell cast by a Sorcerer?
Sorry, I didn't want to quote the whole darn thing here, but since you can't be bothered to find it...
Display
When a power is manifested, a display may accompany the primary effect. This secondary effect may be auditory, material, mental, olfactory, or visual. No power’s display is significant enough to create consequences for the psionic creatures, allies, or opponents during combat. The secondary effect for a power occurs only if the power’s description indicates it. If multiple powers with similar displays are in effect simultaneously, the displays do not necessary become more intense. Instead, the overall display remains much the same, though with minute spikes in intensity. A Psicraft check (DC 10 + 1 per additional power in use) reveals the exact number of simultaneous powers in play.
Dispense with Displays
Despite the fact that almost every power has a display, a psionic character can always choose to manifest the power without the flashy accompaniment. To manifest a power without any display (no matter how many displays it might have), a manifester must make a Concentration check (DC 15 + the level of the power). This check is part of the action of manifesting the power. If the check is unsuccessful, the power manifests normally with its display.
Even if a manifester manifests a power without a display, he is still subject to attacks of opportunity in appropriate circumstances. (Of course, another Concentration check can be made as normal to either manifest defensively or maintain the power if attacked.)
Auditory
A bass-pitched hum issues from the manifester’s vicinity or in the vicinity of the power’s subject (manifester’s choice), eerily akin to many deep-pitched voices. The sound grows in a second from hardly noticeable to as loud as a shout strident enough to be heard within 100 feet. At the manifester’s option, the instantaneous sound can be so soft that it can be heard only within 15 feet with a successful DC 10 Listen check. Some powers describe unique auditory displays.
Material
The subject or the area is briefly slicked with a translucent, shimmering substance. The glistening substance evaporates after 1 round regardless of the power’s duration. Sophisticated psions recognize the material as ectoplasmic seepage from the Astral Plane; this substance is completely inert.
Mental
A subtle chime rings once in the minds of creatures within 15 feet of either the manifester or the subject (at the manifester’s option). At the manifester’s option, the chime can ring continuously for the power’s duration. Some powers describe unique mental displays.
OlfactoryAn odd but familiar odor brings to mind a brief mental flash of a long-buried memory. The scent is difficult to pin down, and no two individuals ever describe it the same way. The odor originates from the manifester and spreads to a distance of 20 feet, then fades in less than a second (or lasts for the duration, at the manifester’s option).
Visual
The manifester’s eyes burn like points of silver fire while the power remains in effect. A rainbow-flash of light sweeps away from the manifester to a distance of 5 feet and then dissipates, unless a unique visual display is described. This is the case when the Display entry includes “see text,” which means that a visual effect is described somewhere in the text of the power.
|
Also, and it's been a while so correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't all psionic powers have a "tell" or "manifestation" or whatisitscalled?
Visual, Auditory, etc - all of them produce some kind of ding bing bamn poof then they are manifested, unless the psionicist uses a feat or or skill or some such to negate the effect.
I mean, I think it's pretty obvious when a divine spellcaster is casting a spell - they always have to include the holy symbol or bit of twigs in the casting, so anyone who knows even the basics of how divine spells will look at the caster as he casts and say "aha, divine symbol or bundle of sticks - must be divine magic!"
I think the intention was for it to be likewise obvious when a psionicist uses their powers - "aha! that goblin just exploded with fire and he's got some ectoplasmic goo on him! must have been killed by a psion". I believe there are some powers whose 'tells' are hidden, or perhaps only "mentally audible", so hitting a guy with a charm or suggestion won't tip anyone off unless the save goes through, but most of them had some rather distinctive tell.
A wizard doesn't know a damn thing about what ectoplasm is, mind, but he can recognize it, just like he can recognize a holy symbol, even though he doesn't know what god it belongs to.
EDIT: and Loopy beats me to the punch with a quote from the SRD!
Sorry, I didn't want to quote the whole darn thing here, but since you can't be bothered to find it...
The attitude was unnecessary. I did actually search the XPH before I posted. If actually backing up your statements when you make them is too much like work, maybe you should refrain from making them in the first place. I'm as argumentative as they come, but you may note that when I tell someone to refer to the SRD or rulebook, I quote the relevant section for them. Not doing so is being a jerk.
Also, I quote for emphasis:
The secondary effect for a power occurs only if the power’s description indicates it.
...
Despite the fact that almost every power has a display, a psionic character can always choose to manifest the power without the flashy accompaniment.