The problem, LT, is that magic (divine or arcane) can do everything, so you wouldn't get rid of most of the powers, you'd get rid of ALL the powers.*IF* psionics is done so that it is actually worthwhile to have it - ie. it doesn't mimic a lot of spells, but actually and thoroughly has it's own flavor, then I can accept it.
That means getting rid of the overwhelming majority of powers in the 3.5 psionics book.
As for point based systems, the game already has them - look at the monk.That's not a problem. Yes, magic can do everything. But, the price of that flexibility is having to do complex gestures (which largely prohibits armor among other things), complex incantations (which can be circumvented by silence etc.), and complex and sometimes costly material components.
Psionics can be much more limited to powers traditionally associated with psychic powers without having that cost.
That would be everything that magic does, then.
No, I'm not being argumentative, I'm serious.
Traditional psychics can:
Shape and mould ectoplasm, either raw or into normal objects (Metacreation)
Remote view different locations, as well as see other 'dimensions' of reality, foresee the future and review the past (Clairsentience)
Move objects, control energy (pyrokinesist, cryokinesis etc) (Psychokinesis)
Control their own bodies or effect 'psychic surgery' on others (psychometabolism)
Read minds, control thoughts, even attack the minds of others (telepathy)
Transport themselves (or others) from place to place (psychoportation)
Psionics and magic have always done the same thing/had the same results. It was just done differently/came from a different source.
Unless theres some core mechanic that's added to make it truly unique, what's the difference between psionics and a bunch of SLA's?
I've recently been playing Saga Edition Star Wars, and would like to see psionics done more like the force powers int that. Leave the power point system to DSP, perhaps even allowing their material in PFS play if it is high enough quality (what I've seen I've liked, but I haven't checked it all out). Just throwing out ideas, since it is so early you never know where they can lead.I'd like to see this actually myself. I think that the Force system in SAGA was the way to handle the Force and I would like a similar system (if possible) to be implemented.
Honestly, I actually hate the Force system in Saga, though that may be more due to the skills/defenses system than the Force system. At level 1, my Force user could nuke the crap out of anyone with a ludicrously easy skill check, but by level 10 or so, I'd have a difficult time affecting anyone of comparable level, thanks to the way my rolls weren't increasing as exponentially as their defenses. The game ended before it got to that point, but it was really a poor implementation of perhaps a good idea.
Funny that the Force system in SAGA is so very close to Tome of Battle's maneuver system in general application, and yet everyone seems to have ToB here.
There is -no- reason to create a completely new set of rules to do the exact same thing as a set of rules which already exists.
Aside from players who like variety of options or hate Vancian casting, of course...
Aside from players who like variety of options or hate Vancian casting, of course...
Those are no more arguments for putting 3.5 psionics in Pathfinder than they're arguments for putting the equally not-Vancian Exalted charm system in Pathfinder. Heck, on the "variety" point, Exalted Charms are a lot more different from the existing spell system than 3.5 psionics are, so it serves as an argument for Charms much more effectively than it does for 3.5 psionics.
By "powers traditionally associated with psionics", I'm not talking about some slapped together paper on Wikipedia which doesn't make a distinction between magic and mentalism.
I'm talking about powers traditionally associated with psionics by the majority of people. This includes things like astral projection, telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.You ask any...
Try asking anybody who has actually studied the paranormal in real life, as I have (I've done psychical investigation as an associate member of the SPR for around two years), that's more reliable than pop-culture. Whoever did the original psionics system did their homework as far as I'm concerned. If it looks too similar to magic, that's because the same sources were inspiration for some magic spells.
Third, RPGs do not simulate reality - they simulate myth, fables, and legends. Tropes and cliches are far more important than anything some scientist (mainstream or not) wrote in some obscure book.
Ooooh, I like that. Can I use it for arguments about why there should be a ninja class that isn't just an archetype of the rogue in that other thread?
Third, RPGs do not simulate reality - they simulate myth, fables, and legends. Tropes and cliches are far more important than anything some scientist (mainstream or not) wrote in some obscure book.Ooooh, I like that. Can I use it for arguments about why there should be a ninja class that isn't just an archetype of the rogue in that other thread?
Sounds like a plan to me!
common Ninja Tropes and cliches are that of a rogue :)
By "powers traditionally associated with psionics", I'm not talking about some slapped together paper on Wikipedia which doesn't make a distinction between magic and mentalism.
I'm talking about powers traditionally associated with psionics by the majority of people. This includes things like astral projection, telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.You ask any...
Try asking anybody who has actually studied the paranormal in real life, as I have (I've done psychical investigation as an associate member of the SPR for around two years), that's more reliable than pop-culture. Whoever did the original psionics system did their homework as far as I'm concerned. If it looks too similar to magic, that's because the same sources were inspiration for some magic spells.
How did you study the paranormal - debunking the claims of 'psychics' or through surveys of opinions that the general public holds about them or some other means altogether?
Since we are talking about a phenomena that don't exist, it is more important from the point of view of game design trying to emulate the flavor to capture what the public thinks about them rather than what claims the psychics make about themselves. Arguably, this can logic also be extended to phenomena that do have a scientific basis in the real world, but it is a little more dubious there, as in that case we have something real to compare it to as a reality check.
Basically, in my mind, psionics should comprise telepathy, clairvoyance, psychometabolism and psychokinesis. Powers currently in metacreativity and psychoportation should be left to other power sources, though some would be suitable for reclassification into the four discipline psionic scheme I outlined above. Then again, I also think that arcane magic (and divine magic, which too should be more distinct from arcane magic than it is now) should not have some of the things included in psionics. The latter (removing things from arcane and divine magic to make them more distinct and to leave things for psionics) is, of course, impossible to accomplish in Pathfinder, due to backward compatibility issues. Since psionics is not core, however, restrictions on types of things it can do are viable.
common Ninja Tropes and cliches are that of a rogue :)
Unless you pay attention to the culture of origin - Most common tropes and cliches about ninja from Japan tell a very different story.
But I digress... :D
Since we are talking about a phenomena that don't exist,
It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. The only way to do it is investigate claims no matter how ridiculous and test them rigorously. It's pretty boring because 99% of them are, frankly, crap. If you make a statement like "All ravens are black" then you only have to find one white raven to be wrong, so to prove your statement you have to look at every raven in the world.
I've been involved in historical studies, active investigations, and so on. What I'm very aware of is that there is a very large gulf between: "What went on was X" and "What went on was Y" which is largely filled with "Something went on but WTF was it?" The problem with investigating the paranormal is not the lack of evidence that something sometimes happens for which we have no explanation - it's having enough evidence to formulate a clear, testable hypothesis for what is going on that's outside the 'normal' or not, as the case may be. It's a field that actually has a lot of serious scientists working in it from psychologists to theoretical physicists.
|
Another interesting factoid: DSP offered their services to Paizo to actually help produce the "official" PF revision of Psionics, and never got a response. I think it'd have been really cool, but I'm good with just going with the DSP book. It looks like it'll be just my style, and it also has my art in it (so nice to finally be published...).It's fairly to see why in retrospect. Dreamscarred was and is mainly interested in retooling the SRD Psionic system for Pathfinder. Whereas Paizo's Creative Director would rather leave the SRD psi mechanics dead and buried and strike with something that's more in meld with magic altogether.
And that's okay. Part of being a creator is working to your aesthetic taste.
Yes he has, and Paizo's CEO has said that the decisions have not yet been made and nothing has been taken off the table.
Since we are talking about a phenomena that don't exist,It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. The only way to do it is investigate claims no matter how ridiculous and test them rigorously. It's pretty boring because 99% of them are, frankly, crap. If you make a statement like "All ravens are black" then you only have to find one white raven to be wrong, so to prove your statement you have to look at every raven in the world.
I've been involved in historical studies, active investigations, and so on. What I'm very aware of is that there is a very large gulf between: "What went on was X" and "What went on was Y" which is largely filled with "Something went on but WTF was it?" The problem with investigating the paranormal is not the lack of evidence that something sometimes happens for which we have no explanation - it's having enough evidence to formulate a clear, testable hypothesis for what is going on that's outside the 'normal' or not, as the case may be. It's a field that actually has a lot of serious scientists working in it from psychologists to theoretical physicists.
Here is the fundamental problem with the way you are looking at the issue. There is no bright line demarcating what is "psychic" and what is "magic". Rather, such distinction is imposed by the observer, typically a Westerner - an outsider. That is to say, the distinction is primarily etic and has more to do with our own metanarratives than it has to say about the subject being studied. And, from as far as I can tell, it's tangled into issues of Orientalism.
That's why our own tropes, cliches, myths, legends, and fables should be the unit of measure.
You are imposing a distinction which does not exist in the subject itself (largely because the subject doesn't share in the Cartesian fallacy) and then saying "see there? That's what I'm talking about!" In other words, you're begging the question and then trying to defend it by making an appeal to authority.
Forget the...
Actually, it's the way that 3.5 looked at the issue, I'm just running with it. You are quite right, there IS no real distinction between "psionic" and "magic" - which is why they do essentially the same thing in a slightly different way - and yes we can use our own ideas, but as we are all different and those ideas are purely subjective, it's going to be hard to get a consensus. If you want to make another system that does things differently again, go ahead, but I find that the 3.5 system works very well for what I want a psychic character to be.
The issue, as I understand it, with 3.5 psionics for Paizo is not anything good or bad about the power point system, merely that it is a different system and they don't want too many systems. They are all about selling adventures, and the adventures are best sold to the widest possible audience; requiring a supplement to run an adventure reduces the potential audience.
Now myself, I think that the more systems the better. The strength of the character class system is that each class can have different mechanics, and that makes for greater likelihood of finding the character class that fits your concept. I can see why Paizo want to do things the way that they do, though, and hence why they might well leave the 3.5esque psionics to 3pps.
Dabbler there is a massive difference between class mechanics and a whole new casting system. It took a whole book to explain and cover the differences in the system. A class mechanic should not rewrite massive parts of the rules and need 200 or so pages to explain and use.
The XPH is not a different class mechanic, its a whole new system. The psion is a sorcerer using a whole new system, it has no class mechanics, none. You simply can not use the "different class mechanic is a good thing" here. Its not a class mechanic but a whole new system.
Now that you've conceded it's entirely subjective, I don't have to beyond three words: I like it. As the only "wrongbadfun" is taking away someone else's fun, I can ask you to justify your opposition to an alternative system you don't have to use if you don't want to. It doesn't harm YOUR fun if a Pathfinder 3.5 psionics exists, it does harm my fun if it doesn't.
Beyond that, the psionics point-based system serves several purposes:
It works intuitively with the way that powers are described, it's crunch that matches the fluff.
It allows those that are not fond of Vancian casting to have a viable alternative in a game that still includes Vancian casting for those that do like it.
It provides more options and more opportunities in characters and creatures to all players and DMs to have an additional system available.
This gets to something I've long realized about your position. It isn't about psionics. It's about having a system based on power points. If the entire magic system were converted over to power points - including Sorcerers - you'd be happy, because you'd just take the Sorcerer class and change it's fluff to "Psion".
Thing is, I'd be happy too because there still wouldn't be two entirely different systems to accomplish the same thing.
Now who's making assumptions? You're wrong, I'm afraid. I have no issue with Vancian as Vancian, but I'd like an alternative to it. I do enjoy the concept of psionics and how it meshes with the mechanics very nicely. For me it's killing a number of birds with a single projectile. It not being Vancian is only one of them.
Finally, let me remind you that you've got a book which will give you that - 3.5 - and you'll soon have another - Dreamscarred. I'm not upset that you have these rules. I don't know where you got the idea that I was. I think the power point issue is a great example of what third party presses can do for Paizo.
I agree with you there, and this is what James Jacobs proposed - that Paizo may leave the name 'psionics' alone and just do something else that fills the gap in Golarian to their satisfaction while not introducing a new mechanic (or system, however you prefer to look at it).
Another interesting factoid: DSP offered their services to Paizo to actually help produce the "official" PF revision of Psionics, and never got a response. I think it'd have been really cool, but I'm good with just going with the DSP book. It looks like it'll be just my style, and it also has my art in it (so nice to finally be published...).
What I think might be interesting is if Paizo licensed DSP to create one of the other planets in golarion's system.
So, our disagreement is over the fact that I believe that if there's going to be a new system added, it should be to bring something truly new to the game (the binder, for example),
I don't have a problem with this at all. The more available possibilities the better, as far as I am concerned. On this respect we are on the same page.
whereas you see nothing wrong with making the game more complicated for it's own sake.
No, I just happen to see the 3.5 psionics system as bringing something if not new (well it was in 3.5) then definitely original to the game, something good it shouldn't lose. That's where we disagree, I think - but that's OK, not everyone likes the same thing.
The Binder wasn't new. It was just a way to get Spell Like abilities added to a character and the ability to change them around every day. It wasn't really revolutionary, and it was poorly done in a lot of ways. Incarnum and Truenaming were much more "new" as far as magic was concerned, but they were also sort of misses, too.
Power point resource management and augmentation are different from vancian casting. They're something "new" to the Pathfinder rules, and they don't complicate things unless you want to use them, just like any other rules system. Hero Points from the APG complicate the rules, because they're new rules added to the system. But Power Points are elegant, fun, and worth bringing to the table. Of course, the point is largely moot, but I'd be all for it just being more endorsed. Some people out there only let things run when they're "official" - PFS, for example. Having power point psionics available to me in Pathfinder Society play would be a huge benefit.
If rigth now the Psionics are compatible with Pathfinder rules, I'll be more interest in how psionics classes and secrets fit in the Golarion World. It could be a nice idea to expand on psionics as a Nation or part of the world where psionic characters and NPC gather to discuss psionic matters.
What I mean, is that it would be nice if psionics could be more integrated with Golarion, that way it wouldn't feel likje an add-on to the game and more like a expantion to the campaing setting.
I think the place your looking for is vudra,it is why paizo will have to at some point tackle a psychic handbook.
|
This is the biggest reason I don't want Paizo to do a completely new system just for psionics. I mean, it's cool to have third party publishers do psionics. But some players don't know how to hear "no". As soon as Paizo endorses an additional system like psionics, Paizo is endorsing making running a game more difficult for GMs. Considering that it's always been more difficult to find a GM than to find players, this is a bad idea.
My problem here is that I absolutely don't want Paizo, or any company I buy from, to be influenced by that logic. DMs need to learn that when they say no it means something. I do believe that DM's need to be somewhat flexible, but that doesn't mean they should allow players to run roughshod over them, which is what you are describing to me. Interestingly enough when a GM in my group said no psionics, we didn't suddenly have players leaving the game pouting. We had a few who would attempt to change the DM's mind and if he stood his ground it was dropped. Same went for any other splatbook/supplement. Hell the most common reason offered was I don't own that book, so no. And frankly the new material, system-wise, in the Expanded Psionics Handbook could be condensed into 2-3 pages with little effort. Most of the system in that book was restating other systems, or rephrasing them. Never forget, no matter how whiny your players are, every part of the game is optional. If you really don't want Druids/Psionics/Wizards/Fighters in your campaign you never have to allow them.
Graywulfe
|
|
Yes, GMs need to know how to say "no". I'm talking about players who don't know how to hear "no".This is the biggest reason I don't want Paizo to do a completely new system just for psionics. I mean, it's cool to have third party publishers do psionics. But some players don't know how to hear "no". As soon as Paizo endorses an additional system like psionics, Paizo is endorsing making running a game more difficult for GMs. Considering that it's always been more difficult to find a GM than to find players, this is a bad idea.My problem here is that I absolutely don't want Paizo, or any company I buy from, to be influenced by that logic. DMs need to learn that when they say no it means something. I do believe that DM's need to be somewhat flexible, but that doesn't mean they should allow players to run roughshod over them, which is what you are describing to me. Interestingly enough when a GM in my group said no psionics, we didn't suddenly have players leaving the game pouting. We had a few who would attempt to change the DM's mind and if he stood his ground it was dropped. Same went for any other splatbook/supplement. Hell the most common reason offered was I don't own that book, so no. And frankly the new material, system-wise, in the Expanded Psionics Handbook could be condensed into 2-3 pages with little effort. Most of the system in that book was restating other systems, or rephrasing them. Never forget, no matter how whiny your players are, every part of the game is optional. If you really don't want Druids/Psionics/Wizards/Fighters in your campaign you never have to allow them.
Graywulfe
A player who doesn't know how to hear 'no' is a player who knows their GM will cave if they whinge about it long enough.
GMs need to know how to say 'no', and mean it.
Whereas my biggest criticism of 3.5 psionics is that the only thing it brought to the game that was "definitely original" was a new way to complicate the game. As I've said before, if the new psionics rules brought anything "definitely original" (ie. didn't just mimic spells), I'd support it.
And as was pointed out, because spells can do anything there are very few things you can point at which a spell couldn't mimic, making your bar an impossible goal - anything psionics can do (read minds, blow things up, move objects, foresee the future) you can point at and say "a spell does that". Instead they brought a new system ... which I for one like and think did bring something new and original to the game, but I accept that's a matter of opinion.
I agree, some players cannot hear "no". However, the DM that means "no" does not have to play with them, and they will learn to hear "no" or end up lonely. Let's face it, you don't need psionics for this to happen with the number of 3pps around.
I don't want LilithsThrall playing the game
QED by your own logic you must quit :smug:
Whereas my biggest criticism of 3.5 psionics is that the only thing it brought to the game that was "definitely original" was a new way to complicate the game. As I've said before, if the new psionics rules brought anything "definitely original" (ie. didn't just mimic spells), I'd support it.And as was pointed out, because spells can do anything there are very few things you can point at which a spell couldn't mimic, making your bar an impossible goal - anything psionics can do (read minds, blow things up, move objects, foresee the future) you can point at and say "a spell does that". Instead they brought a new system ... which I for one like and think did bring something new and original to the game, but I accept that's a matter of opinion.
I agree, some players cannot hear "no". However, the DM that means "no" does not have to play with them, and they will learn to hear "no" or end up lonely. Let's face it, you don't need psionics for this to happen with the number of 3pps around.
As was pointed out before, while magic can do everything, there is a high cost in terms of components; somatic, verbal, and material, as well as casting time, chance of disruption, etc.
What 3.5 psionics did was it started from the assumption that psionics can do everything magic can do, then it tried to balance it by mimicing magic with things like manifestations.
This was a contributing factor in people, including myself, not accepting psionics - if you're just going to mimic magic, why impose a whole new system on us?
What I suggested earlier was that psionics be limited to powers traditionally associated with psionics; telepathy, clairvoyance, and mind-over-body, but make the powers swift or move actions without any equivalent to spell components or their limitations. In a sense, it'd extend and emphasize ki pool abilities, not mimic arcanists.
Thing is, I think that's what the 3.5 psionics system did. The categorising powers into nine levels and setting manifesting times was just a means of balancing the system with the existing magic system. Yes, the "See spell of the same name" entries annoyed me, but they were the designers taking short cuts, really. The DSP version moves away from that, thankfully.
I think the system was neat in that it offered a viable alternative to Vancian magic at the same time as bringing in psionics. Not everybody likes Vancian, it has clunky logic and doesn't feel very 'real' to many, and to those players psionics was a godsend.
I don't think we really disagree over that many things conceptually, the main difference is you'd like a new system built from scratch, while I'd like to tweak the one we have and keep a level of backward compatibility there.
|
|
A player who doesn't know how to hear 'no' is a player who knows their GM will cave if they whinge about it long enough.
GMs need to know how to say 'no', and mean it.
You're wrong. A player who doesn't know how to hear 'no' is a person who lacks experience being told 'no'.
If I sit down to play with someone I've never played with or someone I play with for a few hours once or twice a week who has missed out on being told 'no' throughout his/her life, I am not responsible for their lack of maturity. If I'm a new GM feeling overwhelmed by the pressures and uncertainties of GMing, it is not my fault they are acting like jerks.
And I say you're wrong. It's not my fault if a player is spoiled and doesn't understand that everything isn't centered on them, and I'm not going to coddle them if they want something in my game that I find unbalancing or of a flavor that I dislike. I'll help them find a similar altenative if they like or a new idea if they'd rather, but 'no' means 'no' not 'well maybe...'
I submit to what my GMs decide is allowed in their games, and I damn well expect the same respect when I sit in the big chair.
|
|
I don't have a clue what you're responding to, but it -clearly- isn't my post.A player who doesn't know how to hear 'no' is a player who knows their GM will cave if they whinge about it long enough.
GMs need to know how to say 'no', and mean it.
You're wrong. A player who doesn't know how to hear 'no' is a person who lacks experience being told 'no'.
If I sit down to play with someone I've never played with or someone I play with for a few hours once or twice a week who has missed out on being told 'no' throughout his/her life, I am not responsible for their lack of maturity. If I'm a new GM feeling overwhelmed by the pressures and uncertainties of GMing, it is not my fault they are acting like jerks.And I say you're wrong. It's not my fault if a player is spoiled and doesn't understand that everything isn't centered on them, and I'm not going to coddle them if they want something in my game that I find unbalancing or of a flavor that I dislike. I'll help them find a similar altenative if they like or a new idea if they'd rather, but 'no' means 'no' not 'well maybe...'
I submit to what my GMs decide is allowed in their games, and I damn well expect the same respect when I sit in the big chair.
~chuckle~
Yeah, whatever.