In a recent thread, came out that several people dislike psionics because of the sci-fi flavour (is not the only reason these classes are disliked, see the thread).
This quite surprised me. I alway played psionics like people able to put mind over body.. so psions as yogi, psywarriors as sort of monks and the like.
Another poster pointed out that this is due the fact I used to play with the Oriental Advetures Web Enhancement Mahasarpa (containing, among other things, psionics with indian flavour).
So.. are psionics sci-fi for you? And why? For the crystals fetish? I admit is quite ugly..
Or there are other reasons (name and effects of powers)? Discuss.
I'd say it can have a sci-fi flavour, but it definitely doesn't have to.
Sure, there's things like Jedi (they have something that is close to psionics - but Star Wars is a bad example, because it is at least as much fantasy as it is science fiction), W40K, StarCraft's Protoss and Terran Ghosts, Babylon 5's Telepaths/Psi Corps, and many other sci-fi stories/settings (whatever you want to call it) that use some sort of psionics as "sci-fi magic".
But, as you have said, there's the yogi thing. Monks are almost psionic, too.
The crystals could be seen as sci-fi elements (a lot of sci-fi totally has the hots for crystals), but crystals are in fantasy, too!
The psionic powers do have a strong "sci-fi" flavour in their naming, though. Look at the list of psi powers from 3.5e (HERE)
You'll find things like
It does read like a cross between a psychiatry magazine and the list of bands attending some really weird festival.
At the same time, Vancian spellcasting is cribbed from an actual science and sorcery series, and has spells such as Telepathy, which itself comes from the 19th century ;)
While I do not feel that psionics cannot fit into a fantasy setting(I have read plenty of fantasy series where the magic worked more like psionics), I do feel that the naming convention of the powers + the way it is bolted on to most campaign setting makes it feel like it doesn't fit. I think this out of place feeling leads to the thinking that it is really a sci-fi thing.
It is like those cognition tests. Put up a picture of a fur-clad barbarian, a wizard, a elf archer, and a crystal decked out psion.... Which one doesn't belong?
If the psionic suplement was done in a way that strongly integrated it into the PF campaign setting so that it didn't feel like something that was tacked on, I think it wouldn't feel so out of place. This would go a long way towards removing the sci-fi stigma.
"Psionics" is just another method of representing "magic". Also, I hate the crystals thing, so I am ignoring them.
Put up a picture of a guy in furs with a big weapon, a guy in a robe who changes reality, a elf with a bow, and another guy (possibly in robes) who changes reality.... Which one doesn't belong?
Nobody really jumps out when you remove the class/archetype names.
And such mystics should have powers like clairsenttience, not teleportation.
Siddhi - aka yogic psychic powers.
I don't have a problem with "the powers of the mind" in fantasy. However, the word "psionic" is much more a sci fi word. I prefer "mystic". And such mystics should have powers like clairsenttience, not teleportation.
Small-minded fleshling! Distance is but an illusion. Reality is slave to thought.
It's just that almost everybody is so afraid to take reality and just change it to suit their whims that they unconsciously cripple their minds, opting to call reality to be stable and boring.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, as many who don't have this defence up phase themselves right out of existence.
But some either have the perfect understanding of their powers, or learn to take one step at a time, not shattering the walls they've built around themselves but taking them down brick by brick.
Those who take these baby steps do "gain" far more than clairsentience. They might only slowly transcend what powers mortals limit themselves to, but they erode all barriers at once. They can pierce the veils of perception, transcend time and space, change themselves and change others and other things in matter, energy, mind, whatever.
So at first, they only learn weak powers, but they're not limited to one fact about perceived reality.
Thanks for picking this one up and running with it, Kaiyanwang.
I think the problem is not that psionics is not fantasy at least in it's theme, I think the problem is that if you want the paranormal in a sci-fi game, book, film or TV series, you call it psionics. Ergo the association with science fiction. I can think of many instances of psionics (from description or from being called such) in the fantasy genre, but these are dismissed as 'magic' by those that observe them.
Psionics itself doesn't help this, with a more 'scientific' (read rational and logical) approach to the powers and naming them. Even though D&D core magic has a few things like 'telekinesis' in it, a look at the psionics powers list reveals many more such instances of pseudo-scientific names.
That is where I think the impression comes from.
Good point, Dabbler.
I'm curious what other people could think, but you probably nailed it.
@Jarl: thank you: I will use it to expand some background in my personal setting.
Funny, a flying train isn't Sci-Fi but psionics are.
Psionics are a basic part of the D&D Universe, Githyanki, Mind-flyers, etc.. I don't see the Sci-Fi part of the psionics, it looks like some kind of alien or planar power, and it is what I like about it.
I don't like the 3.5 mechanics, but that's another history.
.
..
...
....
.....
...anyone back then using anything we'd call 'psychic powers' was doing magic, at least as far as everyone else was concerned.
Psionics, the term 'psychic' and everything in between are considered sci-fi *terminology* because...
..well, they're scientific terms for 'magical like' effects?
Maybe?
o_o
./shrug
If there is too be a difference between magic and psionics such that it is actually worthwhile to have two different sets of rules (rather than, for example, simply taking a sorcerer and fluffing all his powers as "powers of the mind"), there needs to be a unique niche that psionics fills. To me, that niche should be thought projection and biofeedback and clairsentience. The reality altering powers should be left to arcane magic. Every time someone argues that reality altering abilities (such as teleportation) should be accessible to psionics, it just strengthens the arguement that we don't need new rules (the sorcerer class is sufficient).
There are three problems with this. One is that Magic, in D&D, can do absolutely anything, so there will be nothing that psionics can do that magic cannot do, or that we can (for balance reasons) allow psionics to do in any way significantly better at than magic.
The other is that there are psionic applications to more fields than that, such as kinetics and teleportation.
Third problem is that the psionic character has to fill a role in the party. There are five - scout, combatant, healer, caster and specialist/jack-of-trades, with the last being optional. A psionic character taking the caster slot has to be able to do at least some of the things that casters do. If he is only ever allowed to be a second-rate caster, you have a class no-one will take.
|
In a recent thread, came out that several people dislike psionics because of the sci-fi flavour (is not the only reason these classes are disliked, see the thread).
I grew up with a lot of 'chick-fantasy' in the house, as my mom was a fan of Andre Norton, Anne McCaffery, Linda Bushyager, Tanith Lee, etc. and, in many cases, the 'magic' of those settings was either heavily cross-pollinated with psionics, or worked alongside psychic type abilities openly.
Then I went to college, and took a course in parapsychology and shamanism (anthropology, etc.) and pretty much anything 'magical' was already subsumed under parapsychology anyway, including mediumship, etc.
AD&D included a vast array of spells that flat-out bludgeoning psionics powers over the head and poached them, including blatant acts of theft like telekinesis and clairvoyance (where Gygax didn't even bother to use a fantasy-sounding name, like hand of the mage or farsight), and that sort of thinking has folded down into pretty much every TV show / movie depiction of 'magic,' from The Craft to Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Legend of the Seeker to Suupernatural, with 'mages' waving their hands and making people fly around telekinetically, or using spells to mind control people or read their minds or view past events (or foretell future events), etc.
So, for me, it's the exact opposite. Psionics don't 'feel too sci-fi' for me, because 90% of psionics does, is already done by so-called wizards.
Willow and Zeddicus, etc. are *far* more likely to use telekinesis than they are to 'cast a spell.' I don't think Gandalf *ever* cast a spell (although his various failed incantations at the gates of Moria might have counted) and the big battle between him and Saruman at the tower was pretty much telekinesis.
We've been so inundated with psionics effects (and even terminology) being relentlessly poached for 'magic' depictions and presentations that the notion that psionics is somehow 'not magical' is kinda ludicrous, since psionics-as-magic is pretty much all we see, 24/7.
Could the terminology use touching up? Yeah. Clairvoyance could be called Farsight, and Telekinesis could be called Hand of the Prime Mover or Motion of the Spheres and fluffily defined as tapping into the movement of the heavens to hurl stuff around by sympathetically linking it to some celestial body or something, but we've had peanut butter in our chocolate since day one, back in the '70s, when the original PHB came out.
Given that I've yet to see a TV / movie / comicbook 'mage' use Vancian magic, impressing spells into his mind and then forgetting them over the course of the day, if anything, the *standard* D&D magic system is not 'magical enough' for my tastes. A psychic *and* a magician, if designed to emulate what we are inundated with on a daily basis, would work more like a 3.5 Warlock or a 4th edition Wizard, with the ability to fling stuff around pretty much all day long.
I wouldn't be surprised, if on some level, disatisfaction with psionics as a system is that it can sometimes prove *ever better* at modeling the sorts of 'wizards' we have grown up seeing in media than Vancian AD&D/D&D has ever done. It's bad enough to have another system that ends up doing pretty much the same thing as magic, but one that does a better job of simulating what we have been raised to think of as magic? That's just a little bit insulting!
|
|
The very very very,
very,
very
VERY best thing would have been,
to scrub the spells which duplicate psionic powers that wizards STOLE thematically from the psion/mystic, from sorcerer/wizard list.
In a few cases, perhaps. (Teleportation, for instance, was psi before it was magic, and limiting wizards to 'seven-league boots' or shapeshifting into a bat to get around would be more thematic, perhaps.)
In others, such as clairvoyance / remote sensing, the idea of viewing distant locations (through crystal balls) is pretty firmly lodged in both sides of the medium, both as a magical trick and as a psionic ability. Ditto spiritualism (communing with the dead) or conjuring up fire without flint and tinder.
|
|
The very very very,
very,
very
VERY best thing would have been,
to scrub the spells which duplicate psionic powers that wizards STOLE thematically from the psion/mystic, from sorcerer/wizard list.
In a few cases, perhaps. (Teleportation, for instance, was psi before it was magic, and limiting wizards to 'seven-league boots' or shapeshifting into a bat to get around would be more thematic, perhaps.)
In others, such as clairvoyance / remote sensing, the idea of viewing distant locations (through crystal balls) is pretty firmly lodged in both sides of the medium, both as a magical trick and as a psionic ability. Ditto spiritualism (communing with the dead) or conjuring up fire without flint and tinder.
Taking things back is definitely the way to go. However, it would be difficult to determine what goes back.
I also think it would be nice to finally tone down wizards by removing key spells that have been in their arsenal for decades.
The difficulty does lie in where should the separation be. For example, planar travel should be wizard or psion (only as an example, not saying it couldn't be both)? Wizards can open travel ways to other planes. Psion can transport his mind there, but no the body?
I think it's worth the time and effort, because it opens up so many new opportunities for role-playing and exploration.
The difficulty does lie in where should the separation be. For example, planar travel should be wizard or psion (only as an example, not saying it couldn't be both)? Wizards can open travel ways to other planes. Psion can transport his mind there, but no the body?
What? Why? That seems rather arbitrary.
Most of the powers associated (in game) with wizards have been associated with mystics (outside of the game) since well before the game(s) and genre(s) ever existed.
Taking things back is definitely the way to go. However, it would be difficult to determine what goes back.
I also think it would be nice to finally tone down wizards by removing key spells that have been in their arsenal for decades.
I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of returning psionicist-defining spells back to the psionicist exclusively as powers, particularly if it helps define the psionicist better.
The difficulty does lie in where should the separation be. For example, planar travel should be wizard or psion (only as an example, not saying it couldn't be both)? Wizards can open travel ways to other planes. Psion can transport his mind there, but no the body?
I think certain abilities, such as teleportation, should remain available to both psionicists and mages. A little crossover for effects considered to be fundamental in defining a mage (such as translocational magics) shouldn't cause them to be excluded from mages just to make psionicists feel more unique. Telepathic spells? Sure. Divinational magic? Okay. But I'm going to let the mage continue to access translocational magics, and if psionicists absolutely must have their mode of travel psionics too, they'll have dream travel or something similar to use.
Distinctiveness doesn't have to come at a severe price for either the psionicist or the mage imo.
I grew up with a lot of 'chick-fantasy' in the house
Dark Dungeons forever, eh?
|
|
I've been wanting to play an atheist character for awhile. He'd believe there is no difference between arcane and divine spells except in perception. A cleric thinks he has to pray to get spells so he he needs to. He gets trained to use somantic components that can be used in armor so that's how it works. He'd fully believe that the only difference is perception. I got this idea from the Wheel of Time books. Aes Sedai are stuck almost forever using their powers in the way they were trained, a fireball is cast with a throwing motion or just an outstretched hand. The Wise Ones don't bother with anything like that.
I mean, how many people in Golarion actually meet one of the gods. Probably just the handful who ever go epic. Who's to say he's wrong?
I told you all that because that's how I feel about psionics. As long as you're treating them transparently (SR=PR, etc), there is no difference except in perception.
Bolting on an entire new system for a 5% improvement is really, really, NOT worth the time you put in.
Also realize that older players like myself have seen SO many terrible incarnations of psionics that the announcement "Huzzah, psionics now works" came WAY after the personal decision "Psionics are terrible"
Yes, maybe if I bothered to look at the latest version, there would something neat. But who cares? I already have a game that I like (Pathfinder). In a swords and sorcery genre, I'm really looking for two things. Pathfinder already delivers those.
So, psionics are just not relevant.
I would certainly like to see such a separation of arcane amd psionic ability ... except that it would mess up a backward compatibility of Pathfinder something awful. It would have been great if it had been done from the start ... but it wasn't.
Between arcane, divine and psionic 'magic' there is a lot of overlap, and we will just have to live with it unless we want to play a totally different game ... and I like Pathfinder as is well enough to put up with it.
I honestly don't think there is any real difference between psionics and magic other then name. Generally you have two types of practitioners for both, those who study and those with natural talented. they often can do similar things in fiction.
For example, I've been reading the Dresden Files which the main character can alter reality through force of will and belief. He's good at finding things with this ability and has a lot of strength but lacks fine control, so he can be very destructive (mostly with fire and force) but has a problem with burning down buildings and things like that. To access powers like this you need to believe in what you're doing, gather and shape the energy (often internal energy fueled by emotions), and then release the energy. Nonsense words are used to help you focus and protect your mind from the energy rushing around. Tools and rituals are used to aid in focus. Circles are used to block out random energy to help focus energies and defend against them. The author, Jim Butcher, calls this magic. How hard would it be to call this psychic?
So when people are saying that certain spells should by psionic powers instead (telekinesis, charm person, teleportaion, etc.), I don't buy it. First these are abilities that I have no problem as seeing as "supernatural" as I do seeing it as "paranormal". Moving objects through sheer force of will, bending others to their will, and vanishing from one point to appear in another have been staples of magic before sci-fi existed. Second, how does taking arcane spells really make psychics different from magic?
I think the key to making psionics work is to use feats so you can open psionics up to all classes but still have psionic classes too. What's the point of having another from of arcane magic that most people will ignore again?
Simply take the Sorcerer call him a Psion, reflavor some of the bloodlines, and give him a new spell list. Same system, new flavor, different visible effects.
.
I agree this is one of the simples way of making a Psion. Another would be just get rid of gods/cleric... and call cleric Psion's. This would mean that they get there power from there minds and not some god :).
PS= Paladins could also be called Psi-Warriors; etc..
Simply take the Sorcerer call him a Psion, reflavor some of the bloodlines, and give him a new spell list. Same system, new flavor, different visible effects..
I agree this is one of the simples way of making a Psion. Another would be just get rid of gods/cleric... and call cleric Psion's. This would mean that they get there power from there minds and not some god :)
.
PS= Paladins could also be called Psi-Warriors; etc..
You could say the same for virtually any class though. Why bother having rangers, paladins, and fighters? Let's just go back to the four classes of Thief, Magic User, Fighting Man, and Cleric.
In fact, cleric and magic user are now the same class.
What? It's the simplest way!
Well the way i look at it. Many shows like Babylon 5, farscape, and even Stargate Sg-1 just use picnics as a futurist way of having magic. So it really depends on what you wont your psi characters to do. Healing type magic or blasting type magic.
Guess i prefer to keep wizards as magic. And have cleric as Psi due to my dislike of gods/priest being over used by GM in novels to rune some old fashion worlds in other games.
Also, i tend to like Psi being able to were some armor. Cleric's & Paladins fill this niche nicely without requiring any rule changes. Only just a name change.
You can take a refluffed sorcerer if you want to, but you will have a hard time finding a player who loved the 3.5 psionics system willing to call it a good replacement for their character - not impossible, but most will say "meh" and shrug and not bother. How do you resolve the psychic warrior, or the wilder, or the soulknife this way?
The reason is not that the power point/flexible powers system was more powerful than the vancioan magic one, but that it really fit the mould it was designed for. Plus, Psionics has had power points from day #1. Why change that?
As stated above, you could do away with the ranger, barbarian and paladin and just re-skin the fighter for all those classes ... but would it make the game more fun and interesting to do so?
On the subject of roles, I don't much like the fact that D&D has them, but like it or not they are the general requirements a party has to fulfil in one form or another in order to succeed. I love cross-role characters, and 5th wheels, but that does not mean I'm blind to the fact that if you don't have a combat class, you'd better have two or three characters with some modicum of combat ability or your group has a serious weakness.
|
Taking things back is definitely the way to go. However, it would be difficult to determine what goes back.
I also think it would be nice to finally tone down wizards by removing key spells that have been in their arsenal for decades.
I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of returning psionicist-defining spells back to the psionicist exclusively as powers, particularly if it helps define the psionicist better.
The difficulty does lie in where should the separation be. For example, planar travel should be wizard or psion (only as an example, not saying it couldn't be both)? Wizards can open travel ways to other planes. Psion can transport his mind there, but no the body?I think certain abilities, such as teleportation, should remain available to both psionicists and mages. A little crossover for effects considered to be fundamental in defining a mage (such as translocational magics) shouldn't cause them to be excluded from mages just to make psionicists feel more unique. Telepathic spells? Sure. Divinational magic? Okay. But I'm going to let the mage continue to access translocational magics, and if psionicists absolutely must have their mode of travel psionics too, they'll have dream travel or something similar to use.
Distinctiveness doesn't have to come at a severe price for either the psionicist or the mage imo.
I understand the principle but... If you wanted to make psionics really, really, really unpopular you could probably do it by taking spells away from other casters.
I think the ideas at the start of the thread, about using fluff changes (names of powers, classes, crystals) to make psionics feel more 'fantasy' would be a really positive step to persuading people who are ambivalent toward psionics to give it a try.
In Golarion (a fairly standard fantasy world, as well as paizo's setting) I imagine the average adventurer who met a psionicist would probably 'get' a Vudran mystic, wearing robes like a monks but brightly coloured, his hair is in tattered dreadlocks down to his knees and he is wearing garlands of flowers. In the morning he sits down over an incense block and meditates, when he visits temples he smears ash from the holy fire over his brow. His mystic powers weaken foes, bolster his own might and send enemies hurtling through the air. I think the same adventurer would struggle with a man concentrating upon a crystal as he discussed 'biofeedback'.
Dave "Hey, is that magic gem?"
Paul "No, it's a psi-focus crystal."
Dave "A What?"
Lisa "Dave, it's a magic gem with sci-fi flavour."
Dave "Hey, is that magic gem?"
Paul "Yes, it enhances my mystic powers."
Dave "Cool!"
I'm not sure I get the referenceDark Dungeons forever, eh?
I grew up with a lot of 'chick-fantasy' in the house
I think the proper response to that is: "OMFG N00B!!!!11!" or something like that :P
You want to pass off as someone who knows about D&D and don't know the Dark Dungeons Chick Tract? "Black Leaf, No!" does mean nothing to you? Never thought about using Mind Bondage on your parents to get 200 bucks worth of RPG equipment?
This is like spotting a unicorn!
People were talking about having Psions in DnD. Now, they're talking about having a character class which uses power points in DnD. It's important to understand that these are not the same topic.Yup.
You know, the magic in Slayers is described as "Everyone has this big pool from which they draw their magic, but the size of their bucket, and thus the power of individual spells they use vary".
...
Sound familiar?
The canteen in the IT park we just moved into. Except it's a plate, not a bucket. But it might as well be.
I'm not sure I get the referenceDark Dungeons forever, eh?
I grew up with a lot of 'chick-fantasy' in the houseI think the proper response to that is: "OMFG N00B!!!!11!" or something like that :P
You want to pass off as someone who knows about D&D and don't know the Dark Dungeons Chick Tract? "Black Leaf, No!" does mean nothing to you? Never thought about using Mind Bondage on your parents to get 200 bucks worth of RPG equipment?
This is like spotting a unicorn!
Seach for Jack Chick Dark Dungeons and learn about your satanic ways. ;)
The multiple problems with power points are well known. They largely focus around the ability to nova and the fact that a character will effectively have more of their highest level spells than the Sorcerer does. I think power points are one of the primary reasons psions aren't balanced (and never have been).
Nope.avi.
Psionics were overpowered in 2e because there were no power levels. Psionic characters could have disintegrate or domination at level 1. Power points had nothing to do with it.
The ability to nova is vastly overrated. Certainly the psion can spend all his power points and throw out "high level powers" while the sorcerer cannot. On the other hand, the sorcerer's fireball is already high level.
Auto-scaling is vastly underrated. It's huge. It's easy to take it for granted when you've always had access to it.
A level ten psion is burning ten points a round - the equivilant of almost a level 6 spell - to do what a standard level 3 fireball can do every time. This a big deal. The psion has to spend a level 6 spell to do what the sorcerer can do with a level 3 spell.
People were talking about having Psions in DnD. Now, they're talking about having a character class which uses power points in DnD. It's important to understand that these are not the same topic.Yup.
You know, the magic in Slayers is described as "Everyone has this big pool from which they draw their magic, but the size of their bucket, and thus the power of individual spells they use vary".
...
Sound familiar?
Who's magic system was given an authorized d20 writeup by Guardians of Order and subsequently reprinted in d20 Advanced Magic. A point, magic in Slayers also drains a casters energy/vitality. This includes non-lethal damage and fatigue conditions. Additionly magic, while powered by a caster, draws on external forces.
Don't take one qoute, especially with Lina trying to explain magic to Goury, who has no capacity for spells in a world where virtually everyone can use at least one. Talk about a fighter with Int dump stat.
People were talking about having Psions in DnD. Now, they're talking about having a character class which uses power points in DnD. It's important to understand that these are not the same topic. We could create a class which uses arcane magic, but with power points. Or, we could create a new psion class which doesn't use power points.
The multiple problems with power points are well known. They largely focus around the ability to nova and the fact that a character will effectively have more of their highest level spells than the Sorcerer does. I think power points are one of the primary reasons psions aren't balanced (and never have been).As for roles, your game will be better off without them. Just change your tactics.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on power points, because I have found in general that they make psions and wilders no more or less powerful than wizards and sorcerers.
Yes, you can manifest your most powerful power more times a day than a wizard or sorcerer - IF it is appropriate, and if that is all that you do. Say you need to use a different, lower level power? say to make it appropriately effective at your level you have to augment it ... that power now cost you the same as your highest level power, too.
For example, compare an evoker to a kineticist:
At 5th level the evoker can cast two fireballs per day. The kineticist can churn out five energy cones per day. Sounds like the evoker has the crap end of the stick, until you realise that (1) fireball is far and away the better in terms of range and area of effect, and (2) what if they face a foe that can only be hurt by force damage? The evoker has magic missile he can cast five times a day, the kineticist has concussion blast ... which to use effectively costs him five power points, the same as the energy cone so he only gets five uses a day out of it ... on top of that, for five power points it's only doing 2d6 damage compared to the evoker's 3d4+3. After those five magic missiles, the evoker still has his 2nd and 3rd level spell slots, the kineticist is out of juice.
The fifteen minute adventuring day problem wasn't started by psionic characters, it was started by casters, and the 'nova' problem has exactly the same solution.
I agree about roles, I hate them, but there are things that a party needs to be able to do all the same.
Problem regarding roles is that, without them, you end up with classes that have "Can't do anything" as their role. Roles exist, if at the very least in the eyes of the player. The only question is, will the classes be developed with the existance of roles in mind, or will the players decide on the roles later?