Post/Author/DateTime	Post
androkguz 01-04-07, 10:48 PM	So the XPH says that I can choose between 1. psionics=magic 2. Psionics is related to magic 3. psionics has nothing to do with magic so what do you think better suits Eberron?
Shady314 01-04-07, 10:52 PM	So the XPH says that I can choose between 1. psionics=magic 2. Psionics is related to magic 3. psionics has nothing to do with magic so what do you think better suits Eberron? Do you mean metagame or in setting. In setting especially in Eberron I like Psionics and Magic as two distinct and very different abilties and traditions. So 3. Even going so far as to carefully control any overlap in spells and psionics. (Genesis comes to mind) But for the rules I'd go insane if I didn't just make psionics = magic. If you really think you can handle it 3 makes the most "sense" mechanically and flavorly in Eberron but it's an insane amount of work balancing two completely separate branches of "magic" and to me ultimately not worth it.
Nived 01-04-07, 10:54 PM	I personally prefer the magic/psionics transparancy rule, because its just easier. I flavor it up. Casting detect magic will detect a psionic effect, it'll be 'different' ("You feel a power the likes of which you've never felt before, it's outside the magical schools as you come to understand them, it's alien.") but for mechanical purposes they can detect it. Spell resistance works on psionics and vice versa... antimatic disrupts psionics. Immunity from magic means immunity to psionics too. Maybe I'm lazy, but it just makes my bookkeeping as a DM easier.
androkguz 01-04-07, 11:04 PM	Do you mean metagame or in setting. In setting especially in Eberron I like Psionics and Magic as two distinct and very different abilties and traditions. So 3. Even going so far as to carefully control any overlap in spells and psionics. (Genesis comes to mind) But for the rules I'd go insane if I didn't just make psionics = magic. If you really think you can handle it 3 makes the most "sense" mechanically and flavorly in Eberron but it's an insane amount of work balancing two completely separate branches of "magic" and to me ultimately not worth it. I mean in setting which would then lead to my metagame ("is the golem inmune to powers?" is a question in metagame and in setting). Well, I was thinking that since dragonshards (siberys and eberron) can be used for both magic and psionics then there would be some relation between the two things.
DanjaNinja 01-04-07, 11:08 PM	Complete rules transparency will save you so many headaches. Any other option can throw the game off balance in unexpected ways. Edit: Which is not to say that psionics are unbalancing. They're not, in my opinion. They're just similar enough to magic to make you feel familiar with the system, but just different enough that the party Psion can seriously catch you off-guard. The best way to circumvent this is to very carefully read up on it, but transparency can help you overcome the inevitable road bumps of introducing a large body of new mechanics into the game.
Shady314 01-04-07, 11:11 PM	I mean in setting which would then lead to my metagame ("is the golem inmune to powers?" is a question in metagame and in setting). Well, I was thinking that since dragonshards (siberys and eberron) can be used for both magic and psionics then there would be some relation between the two things. Humans could be psions or wizards. Doesn't necessarily mean there is a relation between the two. Trust what everyone else has said. Mechanically psionics=magic is the superior choice. So yes the golem would be immune.
androkguz 01-04-07, 11:32 PM	Humans could be psions or wizards. Doesn't necessarily mean there is a relation between the two. Trust what everyone else has said. Mechanically psionics=magic is the superior choice. So yes the golem would be immune. Ok, lets forget about mechanichs right now. You are contradicting yourself, your example would fit if you had said psionics is different. Is there anyone who thinks that in Eberron psionics and magic are not different enought? I just wanna know your thought :)
DanjaNinja 01-04-07, 11:58 PM	Ok, lets forget about mechanichs right now. You are contradicting yourself, your example would fit if you had said psionics is different. Is there anyone who thinks that in Eberron psionics and magic are not different enought? I just wanna know your thought :) What exactly do you mean by "different enough"? Psionics have a fairly well-established place in Eberron, and it's by default a separate thing from magic. The degree and exact nature of these differences can vary wildly from game to game. Rules transparency is one way to do this. In-game descriptions and in-character use of psionic jargon are also effective measures. Personally, I run it straight from the XPH with the flavor they use there, and no one in my groups has ever voiced concern that they were too similar.
Psionycx 01-05-07, 12:00 AM	Personally I dislike the idea of psionics being another form of magic because it takes away a lot of the point of it. Basically the psionic classes just become SPUM's (Spell Point Using Mages). Back in 2E the stark divide between the two provided a way to spring the occasional surprise on players rigged out against magic, while also encouraging some class diversity since a good wizard wasn't the solution to all problems. However, practically speaking transparency does make for easier bookeeping. Fewer details to remember. However, it does bear remembering that transparency is a two-way street. Detect Psionics can also detect magic, Dispel Psionics and Null Psionics Field can negate magic, Power Resistance equals Spell Resistance and so on. This does make some things harder to rationalize, because it does mean that psionics is also more effective at countering magic, so a lot of the stated tension between magic users and psionics users becomes invalidated. So it boils down to a question of rules convience versus role playing theme. There's no one right answer.
Nived 01-05-07, 01:22 AM	I feel even with rules transparancy there is enough difference between them. Culturally they are very different, flavorwise they are difference, and by and large they DO different things. The regalia is different, and they play different.
Salla 01-05-07, 01:41 AM	I feel even with rules transparancy there is enough difference between them. Culturally they are very different, flavorwise they are difference, and by and large they DO different things. The regalia is different, and they play different. What he said.
Manyfist 01-05-07, 04:55 AM	I say they're diffrent. Psionics isn't that common in Khorvaire, its alot (I mean ALOT) more common than in Faerun. However its slowly gaining more headway into Khorvaire through the influence of the Inspired and Kalasthar. For less of a headacke I would rule Magic=Psionics for the purpose of SR/PR...etc. Only because its simple and less of a headacke.
zipdrive 01-05-07, 05:53 AM	Again, I have to agree with previous posters regarding the incredible headaches making magic and psionics different rule-wise will cause you. Now, it's relatively easy to separate psionics and magic flavor-wise. All psionics could originate from Dal-quor, whether through Riedra and the Inspired, through Kalashtar or through monster and artifacts related to them. Now, while magic is widely accepted around Khorvaire, studied and utilized, the same is not true with psionics. For example, the characters shouldn't recognize what powers are used against them, and to find a place to study psionics should be a challenge. Of course, remembering to emphasize the differences (whether it's material components, mumbling strange phrases or the use of ectoplasm) always helps.
Nived 01-05-07, 11:28 AM	One interesting note that was once pointed out to me, to go along with the above poster. Psionics aren't natural to Eberron (World not setting). Every instance of Psionics can be tied back to either Dal-Qor, or Xoriat (mind flayers and the like). What do these planes have in common? The Plane of Dreams, the Plane of Madness, are both already by their very nature tied to the mind.
androkguz 01-05-07, 01:06 PM	One interesting note that was once pointed out to me, to go along with the above poster. Psionics aren't natural to Eberron (World not setting). Every instance of Psionics can be tied back to either Dal-Qor, or Xoriat (mind flayers and the like). What do these planes have in common? The Plane of Dreams, the Plane of Madness, are both already by their very nature tied to the mind. Well, in the case of Xoriat, mind flayer gain their power's by devouring the brains of the living. But yes, I've always liked more the Eberronian style of psionics than the XPH style 'cause it's more clear, it's about dreams and not about a brain with legs eating thoughts. Also, kalashtar are to me a better style of psionic race than any of the XPH. So I suppose that the transparency is the way I'm going. Even if I separate them flavorfully it would seem like there is arcane magic, divine magic and psionic magic, and that was what I was not sure would fit well in Eberron. But I'm using it never the less. Now that I think about it, that's how I like it more :P
ChimericalWolf 01-05-07, 01:26 PM	Psionics aren't natural to Eberron (World not setting). Every instance of Psionics can be tied back to either Dal-Qor, or Xoriat (mind flayers and the like). What do these planes have in common? The Plane of Dreams, the Plane of Madness, are both already by their very nature tied to the mind. Cite for this? While much of Eberron psy is linked to one of these, where does it say that they are not natural or that they must be related to madness or dreams? I fully support full transparancy. Psionics are different from Arcane magic, but so is Divine. Having different ratings for Magic and Psionics only really works if you divorce Arcane from Divine. If my wizard can't detect a Psionic power, with it being from a different 'order' of effect, how do we justify detecting Divine spells?
Nived 01-05-07, 02:36 PM	I have nothing to cite. It was something someong once brought up while I was discussing psionics in Eberron. For my part I can't really come up with anything that doesn't tie back to one or the other. It makes sense really for planes of existance tied to the essance of a state of mind to have mind powers (psionics) and really any aberration that ties back to Psionics (which is a lot of them) gets slapped with Xoriat while nearly anything else related to psionics gets tied back to the Quori or a manifest zone of Dal-Qor. The only specific inferance I can remember is from one of the novels, which aren't canon anyway. A druid Adolan refering to a Kalashtar's psi-crystal as something unnatural (or there was something unnatural about it I can't remember the exact passage). That didn't stop him from risking his life and eventually lose it trying to protect that kalashtar. Also I'm not saying that every psion need be tied to one plane or the other. A oh I don't know halfling psion can live his whole life and adventures without ever touching upon Xoriat or Dal-Qor... I'm not saying he gets his powers from Dal-Qor or that he needs to learn his art from a kalashtar, inspired, or aberration... just that the practice of psioncs originally came from those planes. That that halfling psion's teacher's, teacher's, teacher's, teacher had a brush with one or the other that unlocked the potential in them. I need not effect that halfling psion's life at all.
androkguz 01-05-07, 10:44 PM	Besides from the mind flayer what other Xoriatians are psionic?
keethor_smash 01-05-07, 11:21 PM	thanks for the spoiler ..... just started the binding stone.... lol.
AbsentMindedProfessor 01-05-07, 11:37 PM	My group was just dicussing this last session, and I (as the current DM) decided to allow "some" transparency. The Psion wanted to make an Arcane Knowledge check, and I let him be considered trained (no max DC 10) in Knowledge Arcane and use his Knowledge Psionics modifier at -5. And I'd then also allow Knowledge Arcane to know Psionic stuff at -5.
androkguz 01-05-07, 11:46 PM	My group was just dicussing this last session, and I (as the current DM) decided to allow "some" transparency. The Psion wanted to make an Arcane Knowledge check, and I let him be considered trained (no max DC 10) in Knowledge Arcane and use his Knowledge Psionics modifier at -5. And I'd then also allow Knowledge Arcane to know Psionic stuff at -5. That I would never allow. Otherwise, my cleric could use his knowledge religion as a knowledge arcana or knowledge psionics with the same idea. Unless of course, the question could have an overlap in either field
Siberys 01-06-07, 01:36 AM	In my games, I use a modified setup for schools and disciplines, so if I need a transparency (like the elves racial save bonus) it's easy, but rules-wise, I'm using Psionics are Different. It wasn't actually too hard, either. I just made a couple of powers and spells, as suggested by the book. I made PR weaker, but still existant versus Spells, and vice-verse. I made certain feats affect one or the other. etc. It took me a day of mild bookwork, at tops. My set-up is basically common sense. "The elf is naturally resistant to enchantment? why couldn't he resist Telepathy?", or "Well, the demon has mental blocks against one type of energy. They're not made for another, but are still there enough to help", etc... I could post all the rules here, if ya'll like. EDIT: Here (http://www.geocities.com/siberys_thering/psidif.pdf) it is. Ignore the part about Arcane Domains - once you get into that, that's my REAL houserules. All that's need for this discussion, though, is the first page and the table on the second.
ArcTan 01-06-07, 01:48 AM	Do you mean metagame or in setting. In setting especially in Eberron I like Psionics and Magic as two distinct and very different abilties and traditions. So 3. Even going so far as to carefully control any overlap in spells and psionics. (Genesis comes to mind) Different traditions doesn't mean different fundamental forces or kinds of energy. Frankly, it wouldn't make sense to me at all for a psion's magic to be a kind of magic that an arcanist's magic just passes through as though it didn't exist, was completely incapable of detecting, etc. It's not just a rules nightmare, it *doesn't make sense*. In real life every form of energy is ultimately related to every other form of energy -- it's one universe we live in, and all. In real life it doesn't matter if one guy's studied karate and I've studied jiujitsu -- when we fight, the same physics controls whether we hit each other and whether we're able to dodge or absorb each other's blows. Different traditions, absolutely. Strange and mysterious to each other, you got it. Thing is -- you already get *plenty* of that just by playing up the flavor of the two kinds of magic, showing a psion able to do things like energy missile or mind seed or various other powers that seem really freaky from an arcanist's perspective, having the psions wear lots of crystals and use lots of Latin and Greek-derived terminology for the things they do (i.e. "technobabble") -- all of this is enough to give you the idea that Psionics Is Different without the rules nightmare of saying that the energy psionics draws upon is some random, completely inaccessible, fundamentally different force from that magic draws upon.
ArcTan 01-06-07, 01:50 AM	(As an aside: This is why I fully support, in the hypothetical event of a high TL civilization from d20 Future running into a D&D world, them being able to detect and manipulate psionic or magic enchantments as "bizarre energy fields". If Star Trek can do it...)
Lokiyn 01-06-07, 01:58 AM	Assuming of course that these energies are entirely physical in nature and origin. It might be a difficult to put souls in a Double A Battery. Here is the basic thing. Play Psionics mechanically as magic. But its flavored differently. So play the reactions differently. When a wizard does something a psionicist can't do (a lot). Have the psion look at the wizard funny and ask him how he did that. Same with the psion, When the psion turns himself into a small sailboat the wizard should be amazed.
Siberys 01-06-07, 02:15 AM	Part of the reason I think they should be at least partially different, mechanically, is this; Psionics represents something foriegn and unknown, to those of the usually-assumed main continent (Khorvaire, for example.) Psionics is often used for horror-incursions (quori, Githyanki, sarlona, etc...) My conclusions; a) something is much more horrific (and, in a game, therefore, more fun) if it is harder to control by the normal means (in this case, magic) b)If a group such as those had been planning an invasion, or what-have-you, would they not have planned a way to overcome the primary tool of the target (again, in this case magic), and the targets probably wouldn't have been prepared similarly? c) something so foriegn should be hard to counter. If you met someone from across the world, using an unfamiliar technique, wouldn't you find it hard to counter their actions? And if that person weren't familiar with your technique, they'd be suffering the same way. To represent gaining a famiarity, you could get feats or spells/powers that enable you to better counter that other technique, right? In other words, it adds to the feel of the game if interactions between the two forces is not straightforward. An entire adventure arc could be played, trying to find the right spells to protect against this strange, foriegn Psionics. In short, descriptive text works very well in many cases, but sometimes a crunchy interior is required to get the best texture out of a fluffy candy :D
Lokiyn 01-06-07, 02:22 AM	Thats actually already represented. Without Psicraft, Arcane and divine wielders have about as much clue as to whats going on as a commoner, That is very very scary for a wizard who relies on his knowledge. So they have to adventure with a psion and pick up some psicraft before they can understand it.
Shady314 01-06-07, 04:18 AM	Different traditions doesn't mean different fundamental forces or kinds of energy. Frankly, it wouldn't make sense to me at all for a psion's magic to be a kind of magic that an arcanist's magic just passes through as though it didn't exist, was completely incapable of detecting, etc. It's not just a rules nightmare, it *doesn't make sense*. In real life every form of energy is ultimately related to every other form of energy -- it's one universe we live in, and all. In real life it doesn't matter if one guy's studied karate and I've studied jiujitsu -- when we fight, the same physics controls whether we hit each other and whether we're able to dodge or absorb each other's blows. Different traditions, absolutely. Strange and mysterious to each other, you got it. Thing is -- you already get *plenty* of that just by playing up the flavor of the two kinds of magic, showing a psion able to do things like energy missile or mind seed or various other powers that seem really freaky from an arcanist's perspective, having the psions wear lots of crystals and use lots of Latin and Greek-derived terminology for the things they do (i.e. "technobabble") -- all of this is enough to give you the idea that Psionics Is Different without the rules nightmare of saying that the energy psionics draws upon is some random, completely inaccessible, fundamentally different force from that magic draws upon. Well first of all you said a psion's "magic." I don't consider what a psion does "magic." Mechanically yes. In flavor no. In the real world I can't shoot magic missiles from my hands or visit another plane of EXISTENCE filled with the souls of the dead. The fundamentals tenets of reality and our universe clearly don't apply in Eberron. So I don't need to hear the realism argument thanks. Dal Quor is a plane filled with psionics as is Xoriat. Is there a plane filled with arcane energy anywhere? I suppose you could argue Irian is divine energy. Anyways the points is where's your evidence the source of magic and psionics are the same? Nothing supports that within the setting flavor or the core mechanics. Does your protection from fire protect from lightning? It'd make some sense. Protection from heat protecting you from the heat of the lightning. Mechanically it doesn't work that way in DnD though. Some things would and do go right through other things. I do admit "tradition" was a poor word choice. I forget the crazy things people will harp on on message boards. If you'd notice anyways I finished by saying I use transparency and recommend the OP do the same.
ArcTan 01-06-07, 04:44 AM	Well first of all you said a psion's "magic." I don't consider what a psion does "magic." Mechanically yes. In flavor no. In the real world I can't shoot magic missiles from my hands or visit another plane of EXISTENCE filled with the souls of the dead. The fundamentals tenets of reality and our universe clearly don't apply in Eberron. So I don't need to hear the realism argument thanks. Verisimilitude, then, not realism. It seems silly that it just so happens that "psionic energy" exists in some places or in some people but is wholly absent in others, while "arcane energy" exists in some places or in some people but is wholly absent in others. As people have pointed out, *conceptually* the difference between arcane and divine magic is quite large (magic you get by studying the world, magic you get by praying to a deity) and yet either one can be affected by dispel magic in the same way. It rubs me the wrong way for psionics to be that different. (FWIW, this is the same feeling of annoyance I get when we have "modern" folks transported to a fantasy world in various settings and have electricity and gunpowder suddenly, magically fail to work. It just strikes me as lazy -- just waving your hand and saying "It's a different world, it's magic, it's different" without delving into how and why it's different.) In any case, yes it is magic -- outside of D&D's habit of doing a search-and-replace function on things ("psionic"/"magic", "power"/"spell", "manifest"/"cast"), by any normal, real-world definition what psions do pretty much is magic. (This is actually important to me, because it's a way to defend the points-based psionics system from people who claim it's unusable because of the flavor -- as though the flavor weren't primarily just a matter of what words you decide to use for things.) Dal Quor is a plane filled with psionics as is Xoriat. Is there a plane filled with arcane energy anywhere? I suppose you could argue Irian is divine energy. Anyways the points is where's your evidence the source of magic and psionics are the same? Nothing supports that within the setting flavor or the core mechanics. It's not actually filled with "psionics". Detect psionics doesn't detect beings from Dal Quor. It's not like the plane would light up the radar of a detect psionics power if you were there. It's a place where a lot of people *use* psionic powers and a lot of people have learned them for a long time, but that's it. It's not even the case that Dal Quor's planar traits empower psionic powers as opposed to arcane magic or anything like that. In fact, in Dragon magazine Keith Baker wrote up some more denizens of Dal Quor besides the quori, including a dream-creature that survives precisely by attacking prepared spellcasters and stealing their spell energy. The reasoning given for linking Dal Quor and Xoriat to psionics is that psionics is magic accessed through the inner workings of the mind, and both of these planes offer insight into said workings of the mind. By contrast arcane magic is generally seen to be magic accessed through observation of the external world (hence the need for gestures, verbalized chants and material components), and the planes that correspond to parts of the physical world could thus be linked to arcane spellcasting. (We do have one example of a PrC that works this way, the Sharn Skymage, though in general Manifest Zones of the various planes *do* confer bonuses to spellcasting of the right kind -- Fire subtype spells for Fernia manifest zones, etc.) It's actually the thing about Irian and Mabar being "divine" energy that makes me point out the fallacy here. Even though divine spellcasters have an *easier time* working with divine energy (Conjuration (healing) and Necromancy spells), arcane spellcasters do, in fact, have access to necromancy and can, in fact, animate skeletons. Moreover, it's core within the ECS itself to claim that the Artificer proves -- at least in Artificers' eyes -- that all magic is linked at bottom, however strenuously divine and arcane spellcasters might complain about this -- the artificer can craft items that utilize either one without complaint. Psionics is mysterious enough and has enough of its own tradition that there isn't a joined Psionic/Magic Artificer -- but there's enough of an *implication* of everything being joined at root to please me. Does your protection from fire protect from lightning? It'd make some sense. Protection from heat protecting you from the heat of the lightning. Mechanically it doesn't work that way in DnD though. Some things would and do go right through other things. I do admit "tradition" was a poor word choice. I forget the crazy things people will harp on on message boards. If you'd notice anyways I finished by saying I use transparency and recommend the OP do the same. But transparency doesn't make *sense* unless psionics and magic are the same kind of energy, in the end. I mean, by all means, keep Psicraft a different skill from Spellcraft, Use Psionic Device separate from Use Magic Device, Knowledge (psionics) different from Knowlege (arcana). All these symbolize the gulf in knowledge and understanding between arcanists and psionicists. But it's *right there* in the description of Transparency in the XPH. Transparency is a rule that assumes that magic and psionics are the same kind of thing implemented in radically differing ways -- but if psionics is a wholly different kind of "energy" from magic, then dispel magic has nothing to dispel on a psionically-enchanted creature, and vice versa. It even goes so far as to push this idea harder when talking about the difference between Spell Resistance and Power Resistance -- i.e. that there is none, and that an effect that lowers SR also lowers PR, an effect that confers SR also confers PR -- and this would make no sense, the spell spell resistance couldn't give resistance to a psionic energy the creator of that spell had no knowledge about -- unless, to quote the XPH, SR and PR are the "same quality gained through different means".
ArcTan 01-06-07, 04:56 AM	Part of the reason I think they should be at least partially different, mechanically, is this; Psionics represents something foriegn and unknown, to those of the usually-assumed main continent (Khorvaire, for example.) Psionics is often used for horror-incursions (quori, Githyanki, sarlona, etc...) My conclusions; a) something is much more horrific (and, in a game, therefore, more fun) if it is harder to control by the normal means (in this case, magic) Horrific on the other end, though, too. They can't do anything against you and you can't do anything against them and the rules become hard to follow. Put it this way -- a world in which dispel magic didn't exist would make Enchanters very, very powerful indeed. A world, therefore, that has Telepaths who are all on one side and Wizards on the other who have no idea what they're up against will be in real, scary trouble because the Wizards will be able to do *nothing* about the Telepaths' abilities -- until the Enchanters realize the Psions can't do anything about them either, and strike back, and you start to get a big bloody mess. In any case, though, it's *already* harder to control them under full Transparency, as long as the Transparency doesn't apply to skills. Detect magic detects psionics but your Spellcraft roll to detect schools is useless. You can't counterspell psionics. You can't cast protection from spells to counter a particularly nasty power. You can't learn the power yourself and figure out how to use it. You can't use Knowledge (arcana) rolls to figure out how their powers work and which ones they'd be most likely to use. You can, in other words, do only the most basic things to fight their power -- dispel it, if you can overcome the caster level, or confer resistance against it. And that's it. b)If a group such as those had been planning an invasion, or what-have-you, would they not have planned a way to overcome the primary tool of the target (again, in this case magic), and the targets probably wouldn't have been prepared similarly? Whoa, whoa, whoa. It's not like the quori or whoever can *pick* how the basic nature of psionics and magic work. I mean, sheesh. This is a metagame decision by the DM, one that affects the very core nature of what psionic power *is* in the game. It's not something the quori have control over. (It's like saying "Wouldn't Wizards *prefer* to make arcane magic work so they can prepare an indefinite number of spells per day?) c) something so foriegn should be hard to counter. If you met someone from across the world, using an unfamiliar technique, wouldn't you find it hard to counter their actions? And if that person weren't familiar with your technique, they'd be suffering the same way. To represent gaining a famiarity, you could get feats or spells/powers that enable you to better counter that other technique, right? Sure. This is already represented by things like the need to make Psicraft checks that you can't make (because the skill is cross-class unless you're a psionic character). You're acting like the rules for Transparency mean that arcanists and psionicists are *not different at all*, that Knowledge (arcana) *is* Knowledge (psionics), that it now becomes possible to use a vaguely appropriate spell to counterspell a power -- none of which is at all true. Even with full Transparency under the XPH, psionicists are still very strange and very hard to pin down by almost all the tricks arcanists like to use. (The very fact that psionic powers have no verbal, somatic or material component means that some of the oldest tricks you use on an arcanist -- physically immobilizing the caster, casting silence, attacking the spellbook or components pouch -- are now utterly useless. The whole way psionics works means that some of the instincts you have against an arcanist -- waiting for him to "use up" his high-level spells before attacking -- are now much, much less effective. Etc.) In other words, it adds to the feel of the game if interactions between the two forces is not straightforward. An entire adventure arc could be played, trying to find the right spells to protect against this strange, foriegn Psionics. Sure. It's already basically like this with Transparency. The main thing is that Transparency helps to prevent some truly nasty questions with spell and power interaction. (Assuming dominate and psionic dominate both exist, if they have no rules-based interaction *at all*, what happens when both are cast on a single character? Uh oh. This kind of thing, y'know.) In short, descriptive text works very well in many cases, but sometimes a crunchy interior is required to get the best texture out of a fluffy candy :D Yeah, but I would prefer crunch *less* complex than the short, sweet and quite effective crunch of Transparency, which basically makes all the skill-based interactions opaque to each other while the interaction of the actual magic with the actual psionics is transparent. That works quite well -- anything more complex will bring up several dozen points of conflict where spells and powers might interact in a way that's much more complicated if you assume they just "pass through" each other.
Arcane Guyver 01-06-07, 05:29 PM	I prefer almost complete transparency. Flavor-wise, psionics are different from arcane, just as arcane is from divine. Actually, I prefer to go the extra step and make psion flavor different from wilder, just as bard is from wizard. Beyond what is normal for transparency rules, I rolled UPD and Psicraft into UMD and Spellcraft, respectively.
DBlizzard 01-06-07, 07:45 PM	I will note that in one of the "Ask Keith Baker" threads he stated he preferred the middle ground option. Not transparent, not completely separate.
Dex The King 01-07-07, 01:31 AM	I agree with you for the most part ArcTan, but to me Transparency is more radical than that. In my Eberron just as in my other games, there are three different kinds of magic. Arcane, divine, and psionic. Each has their strengths and weaknesses, their historical communities of users, and so on. It just builds off the text in the XPH, same concept, different approach. Logically, transparency leads to this sort of setup. A few questions of how to effect transparency lead to a few more questions, and a few more house rules later, powers become but a different sort of spell. Under transparency just as the XPH states it, dispel psionics can be used exactly the same way dispel magic is to end ongoing mystical effects. So can the latter be used to counterspell the former? If not, then how is it that they really interact? There is strict distinction, referred to as Psionics Are Different, where there is no rule overlap, then there is Psionics Are Unusual, which is what I would say ArcTan explains, as there are plenty of little distinctions between psionics and magic that you can still call the two separate things. Then there is full Transparency which I prefer, which I then call Magic: Arcane, Divine, Psionic. Power Resistance then equals Spell Resistance. I've rolled Psicraft and Use Psionic Device into Spellcraft and Use Magic Device. I've gone on to make equivalent metamagic feats transparent, so a wizard/psion who has taken Maximize Spell can use it on his powers, as the description of Maximize Power. If there is not equivalent feat, then they don't transfer. I've also extended this to item creation. Staffs = Psicrowns, Universal items = Wondrous Items, etc. This means artificers can make psionic items. There really are not that many to speak of, so I've found it doesn't break the game. Knowledge (psionics), Knowledge (religion), and Knowledge (arcana) remain separated. Psionics aren't natural to Eberron (World not setting). Every instance of Psionics can be tied back to either Dal-Qor, or Xoriat (mind flayers and the like).Couatls are psionic, and they are the children of Eberron and Siberys, about as native to the plane as a creature can get. (This also raises the idea of a psionic sect in the Church of the Silver Flame.) Yuan Ti are as well, as are the Shassaluaskar, the couatl-descended version of Yuan Ti created for this setting by Keith Baker himself. There are other links between Siberys and psionics, such as the use of Siberys dragonshards in making psionic items. The foreign plane argument doesn't stand. Foreign and unusual? It's really just a single step beyond the primacy of divine magic in Thrane, or Arcane magic in ancient Xen'drik and contemporary Argonessen.
Lokiyn 01-07-07, 03:27 AM	See i personally find that level of sameness disconcerting. Lets look at it another way. Suppose we want to heat a house. We have three materials Wood, Oil and Coal. Each produce the same effect (heat) but do so in different ways. Each one has its own unique properties, it would be hard to build a chair out of oil for example. The Generic Settings are fine as is. to quote Though not explicitly called out in the spell descriptions or magic item descriptions, spells, spell-like abilities, and magic items that could potentially affect psionics do affect psionics. When the rule about psionics-magic transparency is in effect, it has the following ramifications. Spell resistance is effective against powers, using the same mechanics. Likewise, power resistance is effective against spells, using the same mechanics as spell resistance. If a creature has one kind of resistance, it is assumed to have the other. (The effects have similar ends despite having been brought about by different means.) All spells that dispel magic have equal effect against powers of the same level using the same mechanics, and vice versa. The spell detect magic detects powers, their number, and their strength and location within 3 rounds (though a Psicraft check is necessary to identify the discipline of the psionic aura). Dead magic areas are also dead psionics areas. To Summerize. Magic Items Spells Spell-like abilities These Three items can have the words spell replaced with power, and magic replaced with psionics. The two are one and the same Similarly Spell Resistance is the exact same as power Resistance. Spells that dispel or detect, treat powers as spells of the same level with no problem. Dead magic zones are dead psionics So all of the important mechanical end effects are the same. However, Psionic Skills do not function on magic, Psionic metafeats do not function on spells (and the other way around). Feats that require psionics do not function for arcanists without psionics and the other way around. Psions can't use reserve feats without spells and Arcanists cant use Psionic feats without Power points (or psi like ability) Lumping them all together might as well end with. little spell, small spell, big spell, bigger spell. Where all magic has been summed up into 4 or 5 spells. Its the Mechanical and Flavor distinctions that make each system of magic worth playing. If clerics were exactly like wizards, and Druids exactly like clerics and psions exactly like any of the above, what would be the point? One might as well go the route of Iron heros and use that silly all in one magic user concept.
Dex The King 01-07-07, 06:06 PM	I don't take it far enough to get rid of the flavor distinctions. I also do not allow arcanists to take psionic feats any more than I allow psions to take divine feats. I just make things a little simpler. Let me put it this way. Would you have a separate skill for Use Arcane Device and Use Divine Device? How about Arcanacraft and Divine-craft? That particular skill distinction is arbitrary in light of the rest of transparency. By equivalent feats, I mean the ones that exist in print with "spell" replaced with "power." Empower Power has a different set of rules to make it work, but it still ends up multiplying the variable, numeric effects by 1.5. If a mystic theurge wants to empower a cure critical wounds and a fireball without taking two feats, the rules allow it. I allow a cerebremancer to do the same with a magic missile and a crystal shard. Psionics are not that different. I consider the above to be important mechanical issues. On the subject of merging magic traditions together, I couldn't agree more. I find the idea absurd, and the comparison with my conception of transparency to be equally absurd. Making psionics into a third kind of magic stops treating it like a mystical red-headed stepchild. It stops there.
ArcTan 01-07-07, 08:12 PM	I will note that in one of the "Ask Keith Baker" threads he stated he preferred the middle ground option. Not transparent, not completely separate. Well, if I remember correctly, he actually said that he preferred XPH Transparency for mechanics, but to keep the flavor of psionics strange. I suppose total transparency would involve erasing all the distinctions between magic and psi -- so that UMD checks work on dorjes and power stones, and Psicraft can be used to identify spells, and so on -- but I don't know of anyone who recommends playing that way (except Dex the King, I suppose).
Lokiyn 01-07-07, 08:23 PM	As long as you remember things like Psionic Focus, and the fact that all Psionic feats are mechanically non identical to their magic counterparts (metapsionic pp cost, Focus expenditure) and on occasion are not replicated. (Burrowing Power, Chain Power, Opportunity Power, Twin Power, Unconditional Power) Are the major Core differences, Chain power suffering from limitations that the arcane versions don't. And no, The rules do not allow one feat to substitute for another, Reread the transparency rules. Only Magic Items, Spells, and Spell-like abilities can be substituted for. Feats are entirely separate. However if you wish to give out two feats instead of one that is your prerogative as Dm. And the important question about those skills are. What mechanical difference between arcane and divine other than the source does a UMD check have to acount for? None really, Psionics have a rather large mechanical separation from arcane and divine magics. Moreso than arcane and divine. If you split by source however then you wind up Use magic Wizard device, Use Magic Sorcerer Device, Use Magic Cleric Device, Use magic Druid Device, and Use Magic Bard Device. Transparency as currently listed is fine. No need to make more things transparent.
DanjaNinja 01-07-07, 10:01 PM	I suppose total transparency would involve erasing all the distinctions between magic and psi -- so that UMD checks work on dorjes and power stones, and Psicraft can be used to identify spells, and so on -- but I don't know of anyone who recommends playing that way (except Dex the King, I suppose). When I first started running psionics, I too kept UMD and UPD as separate skills. It would have offended my notions of transparency to do otherwise. Honestly, though, now that I have some experience under my belt, I'd run UMD = UPD. For one, keeping them separate forces you to throw in the odd psionic item to keep your players happy. That's not really a big hairy deal, but it's sometimes awkward to rationalize a psionic item into the game, especially considering their relative rarity in Khorvaire. The main reason however is that there's simply not enough of a difference between the two mechanically to justify it. It's comparable to splitting Hide into Hide (Urban) and Hide (Wilderness). Both skills are invaluable but arbitrarily specialized. The party Rogue is going to be miffed when all his ranks in Hide (Urban) are useless outside the city. It sets restrictions on the character's movements, and it hampers the rest of the party as well (they're forced to either stay in the city or find some way to compensate for the Rogue's weaknesses). Challenge is fun, but not when the challenge stems from the fact that the character is being denied a very basic, fundamental ability. The same argument can be used form UMD and UPD. The party Artificer is going to be miffed when he finds this interesting psionic device, but he's unable to do anything with it other than say, "Well... it does something." Any character wishing to use psionic devices is forced to pump points into a cross-class skill. UPD's high DCs make this a sub-par choice to begin with, and if it's not a psionics heavy game it's going to make it even less appealing. Why spend valuable resources on a skill that only applies to a specialized situation? The bottom line is that you end up with an interesting but otherwise inferior skill, like Scry, Innuendo, and Read Lips of 3.0 notoriety.
DBlizzard 01-07-07, 10:49 PM	Well, if I remember correctly, he actually said that he preferred XPH Transparency for mechanics, but to keep the flavor of psionics strange. This is what I've found from the hellish bovine: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=3977574&postcount=920 I apologize for this being something of a rules-crunchier question. Eberron is the first official setting since the release of 3.0 to include psionics. Since there's an actual difference in story terms between psionics and magic, do you have any suggestions on what kind of magic-psionics transparency to use? I'm generally a fan of the "Diminished Effect" rules in the XPH. Psionics and Magic do come from fundamentally different sources, as described earlier in this thread. But I like the idea that a defensive spell or power is designed to disperse all supernatural forces, regardless of source. The diminished effect options make this possible while still making the two different enough to be meaningful. I also don't have detect magic detect powers, or vice versa.
Salla 01-08-07, 01:11 AM	I did, in a moment of lunacy, consider doing complete 'Psionics Is Different' in tandem with removing divine magic entirely, but I realized early on that any and all 'coolness' that would result from redoing the rules on such a basic level would be far outstripped by all the work I'd have to do in game prep. :)
zipdrive 01-08-07, 04:49 AM	to go off on a tangent, don't you think the terminology is a bit upside-down? I mean, transparency is when something DOES NOT interact with light, not affecting it or being affected by it... this, to me, suggested (when first reading the XPH) that this option means that magic and psionics do not affect one anothe (i.e. Psionics Are Different). The only transparency is in the rules for psi use and the DM - he need learn no new rules/mechanics. I would have called it Psionic/Magic interoperability, or something :)
Lokiyn 01-08-07, 01:09 PM	I've always looked at it like this The rules are called transparency. When the Rule is in effect, the groups are opaque. (Partial interaction) When not in effect, the groups are transparent. (no interation) Partial effect, (Sr-10=Pr, etc). (Translucent)
ArcTan 01-08-07, 03:27 PM	to go off on a tangent, don't you think the terminology is a bit upside-down? I mean, transparency is when something DOES NOT interact with light, not affecting it or being affected by it... this, to me, suggested (when first reading the XPH) that this option means that magic and psionics do not affect one anothe (i.e. Psionics Are Different). The only transparency is in the rules for psi use and the DM - he need learn no new rules/mechanics. I would have called it Psionic/Magic interoperability, or something :) You're overanalyzing. Outside of the physics terminology, "transparency" in this sense means that a set of rules is visible to and usable by someone outside the initial assumed boundary of the rules -- it's that boundary that's either transparent or opaque. This is how the term is used when people talk about "bureaucratic transparency" -- if an ordinary citizen can see what the bureaucrats do and exert influence on them, then the system is transparent. Otherwise it's opaque. Psionics-magic transparency means the boundaries of the category "magic" are not opaque to psionicists, and vice versa.
Dex The King 01-11-07, 01:09 AM	You're right, ArcTan, I do play this way. As do a few others, at they at least implied they do. Lokiyn, I know that I am doing something outside the rules. That's not my argument. I feel the game works better when those rules are changed. On the subject of feats I understand completely. This level of rule mongering is not for everyone, and I accept that there may be dangers that I have not run across yet. On skills, I completely agree with DanjaNinja. If you play as the books say, psionics are in fact mechanically different, but not enough to justify an extra skill for the use of their items. Indeed, the entire skill is based around the idea of using something that one would not otherwise be able to, even if they do not understand it! On a mechanics basis, the Hide argument is perfect as well, as is the comparison to Read Lips and Scry. The separation is clunky and unnecessary.
Lokiyn 01-11-07, 12:53 PM	I'm not saying your wrong from a game standpoint, its your game do as you will. I've been in games where we rolled spot and search together. and rolled Climb Jump and swim into an athletics skill. I'm simply saying that i personally am incredible leary of changing things because of unintended side effects. I look at UMD like this, You know some garbled phrases and guestures that wizards clerics and sorcs use, basically a compilation of Somatic and material components that let you wing it. UPD on the other hand requires concentration and forcing yourself into abnormal mental patterns requireing you to generate energy with thought rather than guesture. Mechanically i see that as different enough to justify a separation. UMD, is External phsyical actions, UPD is internal Mental actions.
DanjaNinja 01-11-07, 03:29 PM	UMD, is External phsyical actions, UPD is internal Mental actions. I'm not arguing that distinguishing between UMD and UPD is unjustifiable. If you come at it from the player's vantage point--a metagame perspective rather than an in-game perspective--then you have two skills with exactly the same effect (use supernatural devices)... so why split them?
Lokiyn 01-11-07, 07:18 PM	Because from an ingame perspective there are two dissimilar methods to activate these items. One set item you guesture with and speak words (using umd to imitate a caster) One set of items require you to concentrate in specific mental patterns. in game there are two diffrent types of items with two different activation methods (look at the different methods in the xph and the Dmg two different activation methods. Its the separation of two distinct item activation methodologies.
Arcane Guyver 01-11-07, 09:49 PM	There's a very simple fix for that - you can only activate psionic items with UMD if you have the psionic subtype.
ChimericalWolf 01-12-07, 01:59 AM	Because from an ingame perspective there are two dissimilar methods to activate these items. One set item you guesture with and speak words (using umd to imitate a caster) One set of items require you to concentrate in specific mental patterns. in game there are two diffrent types of items with two different activation methods (look at the different methods in the xph and the Dmg two different activation methods. Its the separation of two distinct item activation methodologies. I am inclined to slightly disagree. What about a rogue using UMD to not take damage from carrying around a BoVD? I see UMD as, yes, partly faking activation words, using generic gestures, but it's linked to charisma, not intelligence. I think UMD is mostly getting by on guts, on having the balls to pick up something you obviously don't know how to use, and having the confidence to use it anyway, the laws of reality be damned. And of course, how is faking a command word really that different from faking a command thought?