Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rbodine 01-03-06, 12:31 PM	Has there been any discussion about adding psionics to LG? Is there any reason that Wizards has yet to do so?
smerwin29 01-03-06, 12:38 PM	The LG Circle has said repeatedly and unambiguously that psionics were not going to be included in LG. I assume the reason why is because they don't want to burden judges with having to learn the psionics rules in order to run LG events. That's the short version . . . ;-) Shawn
beyowulf 01-03-06, 09:43 PM	Psaw. The Psionics rules need very little learning. They're extremely similar to other spellcasters, and psionics and magic interact. IOW, Negate Psionics will work on Magic, and Dispel Magic will work on Psionics. The only thing you need to remember. 1)Psionic feats, that require a focus, can not be used at the same time. 2)You cannot pump more PSP into a power than half your caster level.
boolean 01-03-06, 09:55 PM	The Psionics rules need very little learning. But a little more than you've displayed. The only thing you need to remember. 1)Psionic feats, that require a focus, can not be used at the same time. Unless you have some way of gaining multiple fucuses, such as Psicrystal Containment. 2)You cannot pump more PSP into a power than half your caster level. Expanded Psionics Handbook, p.63: "The maximum number of points you can spend on a power (for any reason) is equal to your manifester level."
Puggle Halfwine 01-03-06, 10:06 PM	Gygax: Oh yeah. There's a number of things in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons that I never should have done. I shouldn't have put Psionics in there, but somebody talked me into it. Some of the combat, weapons vs. armor, and weapon speeds I just would have dropped. LG is supposed to be the 'show off how cool D&D is ment to be in it's original world, how the creator intended it to be'. Psionics violates that concept. Plus, they are smarter than me, which makes me feel sad.
beyowulf 01-03-06, 10:17 PM	But a little more than you've displayed. Yes, well, I was going off the top of my head. Unless you have some way of gaining multiple fucuses, such as Psicrystal Containment. Are there others? Except for an Epic Feat, I don't see any others. And Psicrystal Containment is still a Full-round action Expanded Psionics Handbook, p.63: "The maximum number of points you can spend on a power (for any reason) is equal to your manifester level." Pardon, I misremembered. I think my point still stands. That little is required in learning additional rules.
smerwin29 01-03-06, 10:28 PM	I think my point still stands. That little is required in learning additional rules. And that is your opinion, which you are entitled to. The people in charge see it differently enough to disallow psionics in LG. If you are interested, you can use psionics in some of the other campaigns, including Mark of Heroes, Living Kalamar, and Living Arcanis to name a few. Regards, Shawn
kenobi65 01-03-06, 11:02 PM	I think my point still stands. That little is required in learning additional rules. Well, the basic concepts aren't that difficult, true...but in adding psionics to a campaign, you're also adding: - A half-dozen or so new classes - Dozens of "powers" - Dozens of psionic items ....none of which are particularly analagous to anything that's already in the core rules. And, note that of the non-Core items that the Circle has let into the campaign, they've steered away from things (e.g., the Warlock class) that fundamentally work differently from what's already in the Core rules.
beyowulf 01-04-06, 07:40 AM	Well, the basic concepts aren't that difficult, true...but in adding psionics to a campaign, you're also adding: - A half-dozen or so new classes - Dozens of "powers" - Dozens of psionic items ....none of which are particularly analagous to anything that's already in the core rules. And, note that of the non-Core items that the Circle has let into the campaign, they've steered away from things (e.g., the Warlock class) that fundamentally work differently from what's already in the Core rules. Well, I don't think you'd need to add in the XPH in wholesale. Just bits and pieces. I'd steer clear of the Wilder and Soulknife(just because the latter's mere presence would inspire people to create Jedi knockoffs) Non of the psionic races either. Personally, I don't everything in the XPH would fit in Living Greyhawk, but I do think some things would. Same with any of the other books I could even see a way to ease it into Living Greyhawk. Perhaps a major shift in power among the Illithids allowed some of their slaves to escape to the surface. Some of these ex-slaves could have learned something of psionics, even be psions or psychic-warriors Of course, this is all, in my opinion.
gizmonster 01-04-06, 10:55 AM	Yes, well, I was going off the top of my head. And you got it wrong...you claim to know and want psionics in, but this proves it isn't as easy as you say. Are there others? Except for an Epic Feat, I don't see any others. And Psicrystal Containment is still a Full-round action Pardon, I misremembered. Again, you didn't remember it right, more proof it adds too much complexity. I think my point still stands. That little is required in learning additional rules. I think you killed your own point.
rbodine 01-04-06, 01:41 PM	Thanks for your responses. I've also received responses on the yahoo living geoff board. The point of my post was to ask whether we could expect psionics in LG, and -- for better or worse -- the answer appears to be an emphatic "not on your life." Fair enough. This thread has now become "well, is it better or worse?" Much more interesting discussion. Let me weigh in on this. LG has always been about the core books, and the XPH is not core. However, neither are MM2, MM3, or FF, all of which are used in LG for NPC's. Ergo, I see nothing wrong with incorporating psionics into LG while restricting PC access to the various classes. (Isn't this exactly what a mind flayer is in the core D&D world anyway?) My guess is that would satisfy pro-PSI people without offending anti-PSI people. Moreover, mod authors could include psionics if they like them, but ignore psionics altogether if they hate them. Again, everyone's happy. Everything a GM would need to know about psionic items for a given adventure could be included within the adventure itself. Item creation? Without PC psionisits, there'd be no need for them, so GM's wouldn't have to worry about PC's springing new things on them. Am I forgetting anything? As to the overall complexity, it would be more complex, but so what? The game itself is pretty complex. There's almost always a rules discussion at my tables, and not too many of my extended group are rules junkies. Issues always come up. Psionics would add a level to that (however great or small), but if you didn't live for complexity, you wouldn't be a RP gamer. :) One more point. I'd like psionics to be a part of D&D 4.0 (whenever that happens). If that occurred (I'm not holding my breath), then an LG GM wouldn't need to buy more than just the PHB, MM, and DMG. Of course, when the upgrade to 4.0 does occur, I'll pull what little hair I have left out. I've spent too much on 3.5 books. :) Anyway, this is just pie-in-the-sky, because it appears that psionics will never be in LG except for the psi-like abilities of the mind flayers, githyanki, githzerai, etc. (and I've seen none of those races yet).
kenobi65 01-04-06, 02:05 PM	LG has always been about the core books, and the XPH is not core. However, neither are MM2, MM3, or FF, all of which are used in LG for NPC's. Ergo, I see nothing wrong with incorporating psionics into LG while restricting PC access to the various classes. (Isn't this exactly what a mind flayer is in the core D&D world anyway?) My guess is that would satisfy pro-PSI people without offending anti-PSI people. Moreover, mod authors could include psionics if they like them, but ignore psionics altogether if they hate them. Again, everyone's happy. It sounds like you're proposing "allow psionics for module writers / NPCs, but not PCs." If that's what you're saying, then I don't think that'd satisfy pro-psi players at all. Every "pro-psi" post I've seen on this board (and the topic comes up every couple of months) is from players who want to play psionic PCs.
smerwin29 01-04-06, 02:17 PM	Two points: one logical and one illogical. First, the illogical one. Many people who played 1E and 2E D&D learned to see psionics as too overpowered and too difficult to master. This bias against psionics has carried over for them, to the point where I have seen more than a few people completely write off the RPGA campaigns that DO allow psionics. More logically, the game (LG, I mean) needs motivated, experienced, and happy judges if it is going to maintain it level of growth and playability. Whatever your opinion on the level of complexity adds to the game, you cannot deny that psionics works differently--in the sense of game mechanics--than anything else in 3e D&D. Making it legal in LG FORCES judges to have to learn the system. Also, the mods would have to include all the rules for psionics or the judges would be forced to buy the XPH. Adding this to the mix is going to alienate those judges, who are needed for the campaign to survive. And yes, the campaign does allow many non-core resources. 99% of these resources, however, mesh with the core rules more easily--and can be printed easily into a mod for the judge's information. A rules element like the warlock is something that completely new, and I am surprised it was approved even for writers in LG. Having had to run an APL 18 mod fairly cold with a high level warlock in it was not much fun, and I was relatively familiar with the rules of the warlock. What the Circle (and RPGA HQ to whatever extent they influence the Circle) has to weigh constantly is this desire of the players for the new stuff against the need to keep things reasonable for the judges. I have seen an exodus of players and judges in the past few months because they are tired of the game focusing more on the "new toys" and less on the roleplaying. More have a foot out the door waiting to see what happens with the Spell Compendium. This type of interplay is a natural evolution of a campaign, be it a home game or a huge organized play game, as more and more resources become available. We'll see what happens, but yeah, I think psionics are pretty much nixed for the foreseeable future, at least in LG. Shawn (who bought the XP to judge and write for the Mark of Heroes campaign)
rbodine 01-04-06, 02:35 PM	Funny that you bring up the Warlock. The Warlock is the closest magical analogy to the Soulknife, which is a class I'd like to give a try. If they made the warlock available, I'd probably not be worried about psionics at all. The psychic warrior and psions have close analogies, and I couldn't care less about the wilder. I have no great desire to use a power when a similar spell will do.
beyowulf 01-04-06, 07:41 PM	It sounds like you're proposing "allow psionics for module writers / NPCs, but not PCs." If that's what you're saying, then I don't think that'd satisfy pro-psi players at all. Every "pro-psi" post I've seen on this board (and the topic comes up every couple of months) is from players who want to play psionic PCs. Though I only speak for myself, I wouldn't mind psionics being writer's only. Especially if it gets rid of some of the bias some gamers have against it.
kenobi65 01-04-06, 07:55 PM	Though I only speak for myself, I wouldn't mind psionics being writer's only. Especially if it gets rid of some of the bias some gamers have against it. Unfortunately, I suspect you're in the minority. I can foresee lots of complaining along the lines of: - "How come the bad guys get to do it, but we can't? That's so NOT FAIR!" - "Now there's all these monsters with these weird new ways to try and kill us!"
paigeoliver 01-04-06, 08:53 PM	Gary Gygax said. Oh yeah. There's a number of things in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons that I never should have done. I shouldn't have put Psionics in there, but somebody talked me into it. Psionics is not the game I want to play. If they started showing up with any regularity in LG then I would go back to playing at home, and I probably wouldn't be the only one.
beyowulf 01-04-06, 09:39 PM	Gary Gygax said. Psionics is not the game I want to play. If they started showing up with any regularity in LG then I would go back to playing at home, and I probably wouldn't be the only one. Just curious, but how do you feel about the catfoilk being discussed in one of the other topics? How about the dinosaurs high-level druids have access to as animal companions? :)
kenobi65 01-04-06, 09:59 PM	Just curious, but how do you feel about the catfoilk being discussed in one of the other topics? How about the dinosaurs high-level druids have access to as animal companions? Well, I don't think there's any danger of catfolk PCs in LG any time soon.
beyowulf 01-04-06, 10:06 PM	Another question, a general one. Have Githzerai, or Githyankai shown up in any modules at all?
paigeoliver 01-04-06, 11:30 PM	Just curious, but how do you feel about the catfoilk being discussed in one of the other topics? How about the dinosaurs high-level druids have access to as animal companions? :) Although I personally wouldn't vote to allow catfolk PCs, it would not bother me too much if people had them. Feline humanoids do have a long history in D&D, specifically in the Red Box/Rules Cyclopedia version. The main thing about non-standard races is that when you have too many of them you end up with completely unbelievable situations that wouldn't work in most modules. Is that NPC going to try to hire a ragtag band of half-orcs, centaurs and catfolk for his mission? Probably not. Neither will all the other NPCs react to them very well. No problem with dinosaurs either, dinosaurs have popped up in darn near every campaign I have ever played. High level stuff is always crazy anyway. But to me psionics isn't D&D. It is some other game. It might be a cool game, I might even like playing that game, but it isn't the same game. I have always preferred playing and running in worlds similar to Greyhawk and D&D's "Known World", and psionics don't fit those settings.
Simpi 01-05-06, 02:58 AM	Another question, a general one. Have Githzerai, or Githyankai shown up in any modules at all? 2nd year Core module 'Echo' had a bunch of Githyanki in it if I remember corrected. Oh, and please. No more playable PC races and definetly no Psionics. S.H, the guy from Naerie
Mortepierre 01-05-06, 04:48 AM	Just curious, but how do you feel about the dinosaurs high-level druids have access to as animal companions? :) I don't have any problem with it. I'll just expect said druid to show me the AR where it is stated that he went to the Amedio alone for a few months until he could find one of the last surviving members of those species :P (not to mention surviving long enough to train it)
Mortepierre 01-05-06, 04:51 AM	What the Circle (and RPGA HQ to whatever extent they influence the Circle) has to weigh constantly is this desire of the players for the new stuff against the need to keep things reasonable for the judges. I have seen an exodus of players and judges in the past few months because they are tired of the game focusing more on the "new toys" and less on the roleplaying. More have a foot out the door waiting to see what happens with the Spell Compendium. Hear! hear! :clap:
beyowulf 01-05-06, 07:30 AM	But to me psionics isn't D&D. It is some other game. It might be a cool game, I might even like playing that game, but it isn't the same game. I have always preferred playing and running in worlds similar to Greyhawk and D&D's "Known World", and psionics don't fit those settings. Just something else that occured to me. If you were playing a game, and one of the NPCs was a psionicist, would you know it was a psionicist? Especially, if the NPC doesn't mention it, or the GM never brings it up.
SteveMND 01-05-06, 04:24 PM	"I could even see a way to ease it into Living Greyhawk." The thing is, you can't 'ease' it into LG. Even if you only let a few PCs use it, or only if it was author-only, every judge in LG would, in theory, have to learn how the mechanics of psionics work*, because one would never know if the next table he runs a mod for will involve psionics -- be it from the players side or the module side. Steve M * and earlier comments notwithstanding, Psionics is significantly different from the regular Core rules -- if it wasn't, they wouldn't have had to publish a book on how they operate, and could have just come out with funny-sounding feats and Prestige classes. :)
Macabail 01-05-06, 07:13 PM	A few notes about exactly how easy it is to use psionics in a campaign. It isn't easy at all. We (the Living Arcanis staff) have discovered through much pain that many portions of the XPH are not balanced when integrated with core D&D. This has necessitated a large volume of changes to the mechanics (again, making life more difficult for PCs). There are also additional problems because even within the core rules segment there are unclear areas when it comes to meshing psionics and magic (metamagic rods anyone?). In short, I am not surprised as a player, nor as a former triad member, as a writer or as an administrator from a campaign that does use psionics that the circle remains as adamant as they were from day one that psionics has no place in Living Greyhawk. Cheers, James Zwiers Living Arcanis Staff
beyowulf 01-05-06, 10:24 PM	* and earlier comments notwithstanding, Psionics is significantly different from the regular Core rules -- if it wasn't, they wouldn't have had to publish a book on how they operate, and could have just come out with funny-sounding feats and Prestige classes. :) It isn't easy at all. We (the Living Arcanis staff) have discovered through much pain that many portions of the XPH are not balanced when integrated with core D&D. This has necessitated a large volume of changes to the mechanics (again, making life more difficult for PCs). You know I keep hearing this, but I'd greatly appreciate some more concrete examples. From what you're saying, you should be having the same problems integrating divine magic with arcane, as you're having with psionics and arcane, or psionics and divine. Far as I can tell, psionics should just be another form of magic, and should interact the same way. You've got powers with levels from 1 to 9, just like arcane and divine magic, the only difference is, instead of memorizing or praying for them in advance, you pay power points for when you want to use them. Thats my understanding, so where's the difficulty. This is an honest question, please don't read any sarcasm or malice into it, but I'd really like to know.
Mortepierre 01-06-06, 04:07 AM	1) Right now, a DM has to own & bring to the table only 3 books (PHB, DMG, MM1). Many bring more, based on whatever mod. they're running (i.e. FF for COR4-19). Psionics would mean they had to (buy and) bring one more. Many will balk at this. 2) Using psionics means all the DM-Tests have to be reviewed to take that system into account. Since the great majority of DM know little to nothing about psionics (keeping it at bay with a 10' pole), they'll fail the test or won't even try it. Less DM = less games = loss of players. 3) Psionics are a different system. No question about it. Yes, there are similarities (core classes, 9th levels of powers, etc..) but they are only basic ones. Psionics have changed so much from 1e to 3.5e that I know many "old school" DM who are still stuck with the Attack/Defense modes of 1e/2e and are completely baffled by the new rules. Not to mention that many of us know how 85% of the spells from the PHB operate by heart. I am not saying we are able to quote directly things such as the exact casting time but when you cast a Melf's Acid Arrow, Flamestrike, or Mordenkainen's Disjunction, you know what's going to happen without having to look it up. Not so with psionics. Their names just aren't familiar (enough). 4) I have had lengthy chats with people on the ENWorld boards who know psionics inside-out and who can, given the proper character, dish out so much damage in one round that it's not even funny anymore. 3e Psi was badly broken. 3.5 EPsi is still broken (though a bit less). 5) Know the old saying "give them a hand and they'll take your arm"? I am willing to bet that they day the circle allows psionics into LG, people will start asking to play psi-races too. All but one of which have NEVER EVER been known to exist in GH. I am beginning to be a bit tired of new races "appearing" out of the blue in the setting just because some players are itching to play with WotC's latest toy!
JohnduBois 01-06-06, 07:02 AM	I can tell you this: as a player/DM who has a limited budget (college student), started playing regularly in 2004, and only plays in the context of LG, if the Circle decided to allow psionics into the campaign, I would flat refuse to DM any mod where psionics were involved. Furthermore, I would shy away from DM'ing at conventions, as there would be a much greater chance that I would have to DM psionic PC's. It's hard enough learning all the spells (for example, I don't know what Mordenkainen's Dysjunction does at all), especially as new spells get added to the campaign, without having to learn psionics as well.
Arvagor 01-06-06, 09:50 AM	I am beginning to be a bit tired of new races "appearing" out of the blue in the setting just because some players are itching to play with WotC's latest toy! What new races? The only new race that's been added as a player option is to play as an Asherati from Sandstorm (the choice of centaur notwithstanding, as that race already existed in the setting). From personal experience, I don't exactly see how their inclusion (the Asherat, that is) is breaking the game... I chose to make one because they (the Circle) offered the choice, the race has some interesting quirks, they fit the setting (the Bright Sands) well, and the Circle gave them an interesting background -- and I didn't want to play a centaur, partly because the minute the option was announced, everybody and their mother came up with such übercheese builds (gee, nothing like a free +8 to Strength!) that I'm surprised the Circle didn't immediately pull the option (that, and as pointed out in the Catfolk thread, there now appear to be more centaurs running around the Bright Desert than the terrain could ever support)... Hey, you can always move over to Blackmoor -- then you only need worry about using the PHB a(nd the Blackmoor book itself, if you care to...)
rbodine 01-06-06, 11:42 AM	Much of what the anti-psionics people are saying makes sense, and my initial question has been answered (i.e., psionics will never be a part of LG). However, I do not accept arguments such as 'the names aren't familiar enough.' That seems like metathesiophobia (a fear of change) to me. If you took the time to learn psionic powers (as you did the spells), they would become as recognizable as the spells. Also, D&D players seem to be higher on the IQ bell curve than the average Joe. I can't see how the psionics system could confuse people (other than metathesiophobiacs) anymore than the spell system, the combat system, etc. It's not rocket science. (Don't argue with me. I can use metathesiophobia in a sentence.) :) On another note, what about a new living campaign that uses psionics (in addition to magic, of course)? I wonder if there would be enough interest. I doubt too many posters on this thread would show :), but I bet there'd be a large enough contingent to make it work. This would certainly satisfy both camps; if you don't like it, don't play. Unfortunately, I doubt Wizards will do it, but you never know.
JohnduBois 01-06-06, 11:47 AM	Living Arcains (and, I believe, Kalamar) already use psionics. For D&D Campaigns, Mark of Heroes allows the use of psionics with a campaign card. Is there a reason that we need a new living campaign to address it if we already have one or two?
rbodine 01-06-06, 11:56 AM	Living Arcains (and, I believe, Kalamar) already use psionics. For D&D Campaigns, Mark of Heroes allows the use of psionics with a campaign card. Is there a reason that we need a new living campaign to address it if we already have one or two? No, of course not, unless the campaign was pure psionics (i.e., no spells), which would have about zero fan base. As soon as I posted, I realized I should have asked whether a living system already has psionics in it. LG is the only living campaign I've played.
kenobi65 01-06-06, 11:57 AM	However, I do not accept arguments such as 'the names aren't familiar enough.' That seems like metathesiophobia (a fear of change) to me. If you took the time to learn psionic powers (as you did the spells), they would become as recognizable as the spells. Maybe. Here's another theory: Many (probably most) LG players play D&D in venues beyond LG (i.e., other RPGA campaigns, home games, etc.) I'm going to make a guess that most D&D players don't use psionics. So, they're fairly-to-completely unfamiliar with the psionic rules, and may well have actively rejected adopting them into their games. LG, as it stands now, fundamentally uses the same rules that most home D&D games use. If you play D&D at home, you can go play (even DM) LG without having to learn any additional game rules (though you do have to learn the campaign rules). Adding in psionics would be seen by many (esp. the DMs) as forcing them to become familiar with an additional set of rules that they don't use otherwise.
kenobi65 01-06-06, 12:06 PM	It's hard enough learning all the spells (for example, I don't know what Mordenkainen's Dysjunction does at all) Shouldn't have to worry about it, unless you DM for the high-level LG stuff that's supposed to be coming, since it's a 9th-level spell. :) (Oh, and it's basically Dispel Magic on steroids; it can permanently render magical items non-magical.)
Sieylianna 01-06-06, 12:23 PM	(Oh, and it's basically Dispel Magic on steroids; it can permanently render magical items non-magical.) It can also destroy artifacts. My PC and another PC wizard briefly discussed using this option -which threatens permanent loss of casting- during a December 31st module before the PCs went into retirement. Ed
rbodine 01-06-06, 12:24 PM	Adding in psionics would be seen by many (esp. the DMs) as forcing them to become familiar with an additional set of rules that they don't use otherwise. Your addressing a different thing. If you don't like psionics because you believe that the system is imbalance with the rest of the game, fine. If you don't like psionics because you believe the system is ridiculously clunky, fine. If you don't like psionics because the system takes too long to learn, fine (but then I ask how did you have the time to learn magic?). If you don't like psionics simply because it's different, that's metathesiophobic (I went to kollage). If you don't like psionics simply because you haven't yet learned the names, that's silly. Eventually, you'll learn, and if the system that's in place is good once you've learned it, not liking it anyway is metathesiophobic (I like using that word). Being concerned about learning new things falls into this latter category. I'm sure that wasn't the poster's original intent, but that's how much of these arguments come across. Let me reiterate that I have no problem with restricting psionics in LG. I'd be completely satisfied if they'd allow more of the non-Core classes from MHB and the complete series. On the other hand, I play a FR home game with a psion in the party, and his character doesn't bother me at all. It's just an academic debate at this point.
kenobi65 01-06-06, 12:35 PM	If you don't like psionics simply because it's different, that's metathesiophobic (I went to kollage). If you don't like psionics simply because you haven't yet learned the names, that's silly. Eventually, you'll learn, and if the system that's in place is good once you've learned it, not liking it anyway is metathesiophobic (I like using that word). Being concerned about learning new things falls into this latter category. I'm sure that wasn't the poster's original intent, but that's how much of these arguments come across. Regardless of the reason why, I think it comes down to this: people are saying, "I don't use psionics, so don't force me to learn psionics / buy the XPH just so I can play / DM Living Greyhawk." LG is as close as the RPGA comes to offering a "baseline" D&D game, and adding psionics to it takes it away from that.
smerwin29 01-06-06, 12:48 PM	Being concerned about learning new things falls into this latter category. I'm sure that wasn't the poster's original intent, but that's how much of these arguments come across. I think your desire to use a big word has caused you to overstate your argument. I don't think anyone here has an irrational fear of learning new things or of changes. Many simply just do not want to take the time to learn them. There is a huge difference. :-D We have a player in my local group who we pick on because he can quote you the newest broken feats and spells from Races of Ad Nauseum, but he can't seem to remember that casting a spell while being threatened provokes an AoO. I have been very, very active in the campaign since the beginning, from a player to a judge to a Triad Member to an author. At a convention in December a group asked me to run them through an APL 18 mod. I have judged high APLs before and generally have a good grasp of the rules. I had read the mod but not prepped it. The experience made me want to leave the campaign--the mod and the characters were both abuilt primarily from non-Core sources, and I just don't have the time to commit to learning all of that. I want to spend my limited time supporting the campaign by contributing, not learning supplementary material. I know that part of that is my own problem, but there is also a point where too many new things becomes a barrier to entry and a disincentivizing factor for current players (I see your big word and raise you another). What you are calling metathesiophobic other people call wanting to save the campaign from itself. Or so I think . . . Shawn
rbodine 01-06-06, 12:52 PM	Which goes back to my earlier point of adding psionics to the PHB for version 4.0. I doubt it will happen, but that would eliminate the need to buy extra books. How thick would the PHB be, though!?
rbodine 01-06-06, 01:01 PM	disincentivizing This doesn't even come close to matching my bet. You should have written triskaidekaphobia. :) I see your point. I admit that there's a fine line between the two, and I don't think the intent is to be metathesiophobic; it's probably an issue of semantics. In any case, I don't see learning psionics as that big of a deal from an intellectual perspective. It's not that hard to learn. If the issue is more one of money (buying more books) and/or time (having to work a full time job), then the reasoning is much more reasonable to me. (Bonus hero points to the first to get the reference from the subject line.)
D_karr 01-06-06, 01:04 PM	Rob, just like 7up being the un-cola you need to be the un-metathesiophobic. Go ahead add it your sig... :D
JohnduBois 01-06-06, 01:23 PM	This doesn't even come close to matching my bet. You should have written triskaidekaphobia. :) Shut your pie hole! The absence of 13-sided dice is the only reason I do tabletop gaming! :P
kenobi65 01-06-06, 01:23 PM	In any case, I don't see learning psionics as that big of a deal from an intellectual perspective. It's not that hard to learn. If the issue is more one of money (buying more books) and/or time (having to work a full time job), then the reasoning is much more reasonable to me. I don't think it's an issue of people thinking that it's hard (as you point out earlier, it's not like the core rules are overly simplistic). It's that it's more. For some, time and / or money may be issues. For others, it may just be a feeling that, "why should I need to learn that entire new set of rules just to play LG, when I don't need those rules to play the D&D I play with my friends?" And, while some people feel psionics fit within D&D, others simply don't; they may feel that psionics is more of a sci-fi feel, or whatever. Just like how, when Eberron was introduced, a lot of people said, "that doesn't feel like D&D to me."
Sieylianna 01-06-06, 05:41 PM	And, while some people feel psionics fit within D&D, others simply don't; they may feel that psionics is more of a sci-fi feel, or whatever. Just like how, when Eberron was introduced, a lot of people said, "that doesn't feel like D&D to me." Psionics are also horribly unbalanced. I have an 11th level living arcanis psion who generally functions in high level modules as the party healer, party blaster and/or the face. Not much good in actual melee, but that's because my feats are chosen to support other roles. Since about third level, my PC has run out of power points once. And that was in a module with five nasty combats without a rest where I was filling both the wizard and cleric roles and we were playing up (ATL 12 playing 13 instead of 11) without a front-line fighter because the DM said it would be a cakewalk otherwise. Ed
beyowulf 01-06-06, 10:18 PM	1) Right now, a DM has to own & bring to the table only 3 books (PHB, DMG, MM1). Many bring more, based on whatever mod. they're running (i.e. FF for COR4-19). Psionics would mean they had to (buy and) bring one more. Many will balk at this. Okay, I can see this. 2) Using psionics means all the DM-Tests have to be reviewed to take that system into account. Since the great majority of DM know little to nothing about psionics (keeping it at bay with a 10' pole), they'll fail the test or won't even try it. Less DM = less games = loss of players. This too. 3) Psionics are a different system. No question about it. Yes, there are similarities (core classes, 9th levels of powers, etc..) but they are only basic ones. Psionics have changed so much from 1e to 3.5e that I know many "old school" DM who are still stuck with the Attack/Defense modes of 1e/2e and are completely baffled by the new rules. Sad to hear Not to mention that many of us know how 85% of the spells from the PHB operate by heart. I am not saying we are able to quote directly things such as the exact casting time but when you cast a Melf's Acid Arrow, Flamestrike, or Mordenkainen's Disjunction, you know what's going to happen without having to look it up. Not so with psionics. Their names just aren't familiar (enough). Eh...well I suppose it would be a catch-22. 4) I have had lengthy chats with people on the ENWorld boards who know psionics inside-out and who can, given the proper character, dish out so much damage in one round that it's not even funny anymore. 3e Psi was badly broken. 3.5 EPsi is still broken (though a bit less). This I am surprised to hear. There was large outcry, especially when I frequented the Wizards, Psionics Handbook forums about how Psionics was grossly underpowered. If I recall correctly, that was one of the reasons for the demand for a 3.5 edition. You sure those psionics builds were legal? I don't complain to know psionics completely, but from what I saw, playing a 3.0 psion would be maddenly frustrating. 5) Know the old saying "give them a hand and they'll take your arm"? I am willing to bet that they day the circle allows psionics into LG, people will start asking to play psi-races too. All but one of which have NEVER EVER been known to exist in GH. I am beginning to be a bit tired of new races "appearing" out of the blue in the setting just because some players are itching to play with WotC's latest toy! Well, I know I've wanted to play a Kensai in Living Greyhawk, and I still haven't been able to. So long as you leave them on the restricted list, I don't see a problem. :)
Mortepierre 01-07-06, 05:18 AM	Hey, you can always move over to Blackmoor -- then you only need worry about using the PHB a(nd the Blackmoor book itself, if you care to...) Glad to see just how nice you can be towards people voicing an opinion. Good day to you too!
Arvagor 01-07-06, 01:32 PM	Glad to see just how nice you can be towards people voicing an opinion. Good day to you too! My comment was not sarcasm, nor "pooh-poohing", nor was it a "if you don't like it, leave"... If anyone asks me today what campaign to play if you are just getting started, I would probably recommend Blackmoor over LG -- with only 4 books to worry about (and only 2 if you just want to play), Blackmoor comes across as much less confusing...
rbodine 01-09-06, 12:57 PM	It's that it's more. For some, time and / or money may be issues. For others, it may just be a feeling that, "why should I need to learn that entire new set of rules just to play LG, when I don't need those rules to play the D&D I play with my friends?" . . . And, while some people feel psionics fit within D&D, others simply don't; they may feel that psionics is more of a sci-fi feel, or whatever. At this point, I think this thread has actually strayed from "Psionics in LG?" to "Psionics in D&D: Yeah or Nay?" I, at least, concede that there's no way psionics should be added to LG, especially because there are other living campaigns in which psionics are available. However, even from that perspective, your point is well taken; more isn't necessarily better. Personally, however, I like the idea of having more options. One of the things that makes the game great is Wizard's relentless effort to give us more options. Psionics is just one more option, and I think it fits in nicely with D&D. Just like how, when Eberron was introduced, a lot of people said, "that doesn't feel like D&D to me." On the other hand, I was one of those who read the Eberron campaign setting and thought "that doesn't feel like D&D to me." :)