Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Orion Polaris 08-22-07, 01:49 PM	In the 4E playtest article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drpr/20070816a In my case, I’ve thrown together a “psion.” It’s because prior to the shift to the new playtest rules, I was playing a psion elan named Infandous. You wonder, why the scare quotes? Well, just between you and me, updated-Infandous-the-psion is actually a wizard with the serial numbers filed off. I really hope that psions aren't delegated to being "wizards with the serial codes filed off." I really don't like the sound of this.
Racinante 08-22-07, 02:29 PM	Dup post
Racinante 08-22-07, 02:43 PM	In the 4E playtest article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drpr/20070816a I really hope that psions aren't delegated to being "wizards with the serial codes filed off." I really don't like the sound of this. A later quote in the 4th edition forums clarified this. Psionics will be in 4th edition, but it will not be core. 4th edition psions will not be a "wizard with the serial code filed off". Psionics has not been updated to the level for playtesting so anyone who is playtesting cannot actual play a psion. For flavor purposes and to maintain continuity in their current game, Bruce made the conversion for playtesting purposes only. This article was not intended to and does not provide any information about psionics in 4th edition.
Bacris 08-22-07, 03:18 PM	Here's a nail. Here's Racinante. Here's Racinante hitting the nail on the head. :) 4th Ed PHB will not have psionics - so they can't really playtest it... but Bruce has been playing a psion, so they "reflavored" the wizard, since the psion wasn't available.
Rageheart 08-22-07, 03:38 PM	I hope they don't add Psionics like Arcana Evolved did, as a "Spell Template" which simply modifies the spell you cast to not have some components. ... but it's still the same spell that the non-psionic casters can cast. :mad:
Fafnir 08-22-07, 05:56 PM	I hope they don't add Psionics like Arcana Evolved did, as a "Spell Template" which simply modifies the spell you cast to not have some components. ... but it's still the same spell that the non-psionic casters can cast. :mad: I can see worse ways of doing it.
DisposableHero_ 08-22-07, 06:02 PM	I can see worse ways of doing it.QFT, sadly
AntiDjinn 08-22-07, 06:07 PM	A later quote in the 4th edition forums clarified this. Psionics will be in 4th edition, but it will not be core. 4th edition psions will not be a "wizard with the serial code filed off". Psionics has not been updated to the level for playtesting so anyone who is playtesting cannot actual play a psion. For flavor purposes and to maintain continuity in their current game, Bruce made the conversion for playtesting purposes only. This article was not intended to and does not provide any information about psionics in 4th edition. In other words, any inchoate psionics 4.0 rules were not ready to play test, if there were even any written at the time, so BC just playtested the arcane system and called his character a psion. It makes me wonder why he bothered. If the rules were still at the playtesting stage then trying to do anything fancy risks missing a glitch that someone just trying to do a basic wizard would have caught. Presumably (hopefully) this session was at a point where the most basic testing had already been done and they were only out to fine tune certain game elements. Since he is an experienced game developer, I would assume he used the opportunity to test whatever will pass for spell + metamagic interaction, casting mechanics, and spellcaster development and character progression, in 4.0.
Tempest Stormwind 08-22-07, 06:12 PM	He's on record as saying he did that only for narrative reasons -- he was already playing the elan psion, and when they implemented these class changes he just changed the fluff of the wizard. It let him get playtesting in on the wizard without violating the narrative of the story or forcing him to develop a new character.
Salla 08-22-07, 06:13 PM	I can see worse ways of doing it. We already have, it was called the 3.0 Psionics Handbook
Fafnir 08-22-07, 06:27 PM	We already have, it was called the 3.0 Psionics Handbook My first 3.0 character ever was a Gnome Psion. :banghead: I still have to get rid of the Taint points I got by using that Handbook. :raincloud
Sleepwalker13666 08-22-07, 06:37 PM	My first 3.0 character ever was a Gnome Psion. :banghead: I still have to get rid of the Taint points I got by using that Handbook. :raincloud I tried playing a tiefling psion/phyrokinetisist, Gods that sucked, at 12th level I was the equivalent of an 7th. However when i finally got up the nerve to rewrite her all the suffering I had endured seemed worth it. :D
Fafnir 08-22-07, 06:39 PM	I tried playing a tiefling psion/phyrokinetisist, Gods that sucked, at 12th level I was the equivalent of an 7th. You played a Pyro too? I finally found a kindred soul! :D I ended up remaking him as a Slayer, then a Constructor, and finally in 3.5 as a straight Kineticist.
AntiDjinn 08-22-07, 07:08 PM	Speaking of 3.0 psionics, many of us who used the PsiHB are convinced that the playtesters must have used pre-generated or converted mid-level characters. A 3.0 egoist of 8th-12th level might have seemed perfectly viable, and misses the fact that he probably would have died (or been a severe XP and resource sink for the party) at level 1 or 2. The same was true for the 3.0 savant; one made at higher level could have Mass Concussion and Greater Concussion without spending slots on the lower level non-scaling versions. The fact that such a character would not have been able to earn the XP to see higher levels can be conveniently ignored when one is just plopping down an established character to playtest. Because so many holes in the system appear to have been missed in playtesting (or even introduced, non-scaling powers happened because of things that came up in the testing phase) we got stuck with a lot of "patches" like Resculpt Mind, Mind Blind, Chain Link, and others. Hopefully, no repeat here. The session cited in this thread was fairly recent and so must represent fairly late-stage fine tuning. Someone certainly must have tested all the low level material. They must have run sessions in which every had to make a first level character to shakedown the character creation rules. They must have leveled a few characters starting at first to make sure the mechanics work for lowbies. Right?
DrowBattlemind 08-22-07, 07:56 PM	All true, but if they restructure the psion class the way they are the wizard class, I'm not going to be too upset. As it stands, Wizards spell will work this way (or so they imply): Low Level Spells (traditionally 1st-3rd or 4th) will 'refresh' for the player on a 'per encounter basis' Mid Level Spells will refresh on a daily basis. High Level Spells will utilize a quasi-vancian spell-slot mechanic, requiring one to carefully pick out your high level spells for that day. Change the word 'spells' to 'powers', and 'spell slots' to 'power points', and a new psion class doesn't look half bad, now, does it? (Just as they took the 3.0 Prestige class Soulknife and made it a base class for 3.5, that looks kind of like taking a Metamind and making it a base class for 4e)
Tealgorthian 08-22-07, 08:04 PM	We already have, it was called the 3.0 Psionics Handbook 2e's Psionics book was far farfarfarfarfarfarfarfar far worse.
Bacris 08-22-07, 08:21 PM	2E psionics had arguably the best flavor, but the worst mechanics.
Sleepwalker13666 08-22-07, 08:23 PM	You played a Pyro too? I finally found a kindred soul! :D I ended up remaking him as a Slayer, then a Constructor, and finally in 3.5 as a straight Kineticist. BROTHER!!! We now know longer suffered alone. :D
Varl 08-23-07, 11:21 PM	2E psionics had arguably the best flavor, but the worst mechanics. I don't know about that. I'm a 2e DM, and I can't stand how the powers are all over the place power-wise in 2e. If there's one thing 3e/3.5 has taught me, and changed the way I used to think about psionics under 2e, was that psionics could actually have levels assigned to them. The mechanics part I agree with you, though.
Tealgorthian 08-24-07, 12:19 AM	I don't know about that. I'm a 2e DM, and I can't stand how the powers are all over the place power-wise in 2e. If there's one thing 3e/3.5 has taught me, and changed the way I used to think about psionics under 2e, was that psionics could actually have levels assigned to them. The mechanics part I agree with you, though. Nothing like a Ranger with a Wild Talent for Detonate at first level, huh? Or Inertial Armor. Good god, that was so broken. I had a PC use it in a Tornado, then use the stored up energy to blow up the better part of Dragon Mountain. Like. The 70% of the whole damn mountain.
Millenia 08-24-07, 01:52 AM	Hopefully, no repeat here. The session cited in this thread was fairly recent and so must represent fairly late-stage fine tuning. Someone certainly must have tested all the low level material. They must have run sessions in which every had to make a first level character to shakedown the character creation rules. They must have leveled a few characters starting at first to make sure the mechanics work for lowbies. Right? In all probability, there are likely plenty of playtesting groups at different levels. Some started off their characters at level 1, while others - who had an ongoing campaign - probably just converted their characters (like the cited one here). ^_^;;
Bacris 08-24-07, 07:19 AM	I don't know about that. I'm a 2e DM, and I can't stand how the powers are all over the place power-wise in 2e. If there's one thing 3e/3.5 has taught me, and changed the way I used to think about psionics under 2e, was that psionics could actually have levels assigned to them. The mechanics part I agree with you, though. The LEVEL of powers is definitely mechanics, not flavor :)
Varl 08-24-07, 09:17 AM	Nothing like a Ranger with a Wild Talent for Detonate at first level, huh? Or Inertial Armor. Good god, that was so broken. I had a PC use it in a Tornado, then use the stored up energy to blow up the better part of Dragon Mountain. Like. The 70% of the whole damn mountain. Heh. Or someone later deciding Disintegrate really is a fun way to trash adventures the DM sets up because it's so readily available so soon. And I'm not just talking disintegration of an entire NPC villain; a vital area of the NPC would be enough, just so the guy ends up a gimp. I always laugh at how Disintegrate is a 6th level spell in AD&D (12th character level), but has no effective level restraint in psionics. Defenders of the psionic Disintegrate often say that it has two prerequisites before the character can use it. Oooo. If you look at the chart in the psionic handbook, by 3rd level you'll have access to enough devotions and sciences to acquire Disintegrate's prerequisites of TK and Soften. These kinds of abuses were precisely what was wrong with 2e psionics.
Sleepwalker13666 08-25-07, 04:08 PM	Yeah good old first edition/ second edition psionics, the only thing that balanced them was rarity. I would always hate when you warn your group they have to take what they get if they role on the wild psi charts, then you happen to role something like -1d6 Int, Wis, Cha and get to listen to them fuss and complain that thats not fair and they are not going to play this character.
Nephlite 08-25-07, 04:50 PM	Heh. Or someone later deciding Disintegrate really is a fun way to trash adventures the DM sets up because it's so readily available so soon. And I'm not just talking disintegration of an entire NPC villain; a vital area of the NPC would be enough, just so the guy ends up a gimp. I always laugh at how Disintegrate is a 6th level spell in AD&D (12th character level), but has no effective level restraint in psionics. Defenders of the psionic Disintegrate often say that it has two prerequisites before the character can use it. Oooo. If you look at the chart in the psionic handbook, by 3rd level you'll have access to enough devotions and sciences to acquire Disintegrate's prerequisites of TK and Soften. These kinds of abuses were precisely what was wrong with 2e psionics. But didn't it: have a chance to kill you. That is worse than EXP cost: they don't kill you.
InkBlot 08-25-07, 04:53 PM	That just makes it even more broken. Any given time you use it, Disintigrate would either one-shot the enemy or one-shot you. Neither of those are good for anybody. And if you simply refrain from using Disintigrate, then you might as well not have that ability at all.
AntiDjinn 08-25-07, 09:45 PM	Most 2E psionic misfires couldn't kill you. Detonate blew up one of your items and did 1d10 to you, which might kill you. Disintegrate could target an item of yours. Phasing was the one that could kill you: 1 in 20 times using it you died. That was my main problem with 2E psionic misfires: Not that there should not be a chance for a fumble, but that 1 in 20 odds are just too damned high. Our DM once calculated that in a large battle (such as a castle siege) with 200+ psionicists and wild talents on each side, about 20-40 would harm themselves in the first 10 rounds and 10-20 would take themselves down without engaging the enemy. Seriously, if you bought a car and on 1 in 20 cranks of the ignition the engine seized up, you would call your lawyer. If you plan to drive the car so infrequently that a 5% catastrophic failure rate would be insignificant, then just take the bus.
Mercurius 08-25-07, 11:50 PM	I'm feeling even more glad that I never touched psionics until 3.5...
Varl 08-26-07, 01:12 PM	But didn't it: have a chance to kill you. That is worse than EXP cost: they don't kill you. What? Of course it has a chance to kill you. Don't tell me you don't think a Disintegration power shouldn't have a chance to kill you. You think an XP penalty is enough? AntiDjinn: FTR, 2e Disintegrate could target an item or a creature, despite the text block's AOE entry for the power only saying one item up to 8 cubic feet. That was my main problem with 2E psionic misfires: Not that there should not be a chance for a fumble, but that 1 in 20 odds are just too damned high. Our DM once calculated that in a large battle (such as a castle siege) with 200+ psionicists and wild talents on each side, about 20-40 would harm themselves in the first 10 rounds and 10-20 would take themselves down without engaging the enemy. What should the chance of a fumble be then?
Lycanthromancer 08-26-07, 01:23 PM	There's a difference between, say, the wilder's chance for enervation (dazed for 1 round and loss of power points) and insta-death. One puts you in danger. The other makes sure you'll never be in danger again.
Scion of Coldshard 08-27-07, 11:27 AM	I dont really understand why having the option for disintegrate is something that people bring up as a detriment for 2nd edition psionics.. basically it was a low level once per day ability (leaving you with basically nothing else to do besides normal weapons) that had a chance to kill you or a single enemy. Who in their right mind is going to do that? Personally, I like that it was an option, sortof like a built in kill switch to cull the herd. No real character was going to take it but as a dm you could have an npc take it without having to bend any rules and then have them use it.. only to dissolve in front of them. Maybe it was an enemy and witnesses are saying that the pc's did the crime, maybe it was a friend with newly developed powers, maybe it was just a side show for flavor in a certain region, maybe it was a hundred other things.. but it was able to be done without bending/breaking rules ;) There was a lot of good and a lot of bad in the 2nd edition psionic stuff.. but then the same could be said about lots of parts of 2nd edition, psionics didnt really stand out in that crowd oddly enough.. As for the thread at hand though, while it is unfortunate that psionics are not making it into the primary core books it is good to know that they will be released in 4th edition.. and will be in a book that at least has 'players handbook' in the title maybe!
DarkTouch 08-27-07, 03:38 PM	Re: 2nd Edition - Honestly, first edition was worse. There were entire charts in the DMG that involved ways that your psionic character could get screwed for having psionics. Mostly death, coma, brain turned to mush.. Death was usually best because you could be brought back to life at least. The mush brain stuff was often harder to fix. Re: 4th Edition - Lets face it. Much like 3rd edition, psionics will be in the core books. They'll need it for Mind Flayer, Aboleth, and Coutl stats. Then the 4th edition psionic book will come out and we'll get new stats for Mind Flayers, Aboleths, and Coutl that use the new rules and people will have the option of using the old rules if they don't like psionics or the new ones if they do.
RavinRay 08-28-07, 01:23 AM	DarkTouch, I hope to Sardior they don't, don't, do that. As in psionic monsters in the Monster Manual but using psionic spell-like abilities instead of actual psi-like abilities. Of course, it does give players options, but must psionics always bend over backwards to accomodate outsiders for the sake of an iconic monster like the illithid? (It's not like we're arrogating the psionic monsters to ourselves.) I've a feeling psionics will only be alluded to in the core books (like that single paragraph in the DMG) but not detailed.
ArcTan 08-28-07, 02:18 AM	Most 2E psionic misfires couldn't kill you. Detonate blew up one of your items and did 1d10 to you, which might kill you. Disintegrate could target an item of yours. Phasing was the one that could kill you: 1 in 20 times using it you died. That was my main problem with 2E psionic misfires: Not that there should not be a chance for a fumble, but that 1 in 20 odds are just too damned high. Our DM once calculated that in a large battle (such as a castle siege) with 200+ psionicists and wild talents on each side, about 20-40 would harm themselves in the first 10 rounds and 10-20 would take themselves down without engaging the enemy. Seriously, if you bought a car and on 1 in 20 cranks of the ignition the engine seized up, you would call your lawyer. If you plan to drive the car so infrequently that a 5% catastrophic failure rate would be insignificant, then just take the bus. Yes. This is the fundamental reason critical fumbles have always been a bad idea.
RavinRay 08-28-07, 09:14 AM	As for the thread at hand though, while it is unfortunate that psionics are not making it into the primary core books it is good to know that they will be released in 4th edition.. and will be in a book that at least has 'players handbook' in the title maybe! Two threads at EN World's own 4E forums talk about annual Player's Handbooks and DungeonMaster's Guides after the first, and per this speculation (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3716244&postcount=72): Need? No. Want? Yes. I mean, lookit: people bought the Expanded Psionics Handbook because they wanted psionics in their game. The first Fourth Edition Player's Handbook is subtitled "Arcane, Divine, and Martial Heroes", and we have good indications that the second Player's Handbook will include psionics. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that they'll use the Player's Handbook series to introduce alternative sources of power and, presumably, alternatives to the existing core classes and races - sort of a mix of "capsystem" books like the Expanded Psionics Handbook and "splatbooks" like the Complete and Races series. So you'll buy a single book with, say, psionics, incarnum, and pact magic, labelled Player's Handbook II, rather than the Expanded Psionics Handbook, Magic of Incarnum, and Tome of Magic. In fact, Tome of Magic itself - presenting three different sources of magic - is probably a good example of how the Player's Handbook sequels will manifest themselves. We might have to wait a whole year if this is true.
Bacris 08-28-07, 10:19 AM	A) there is speculation, albeit based on inferring things that may not be there, that psionics will be in the DMG (given a comment by a WotC staffer whose name eludes me) that psionics would be in a book the DM is likely to have. However, that could easily reference some splat book. B) There are definitive statements by WotC staff, including Scott Rouse, that psionics will be in 4th edition and the SRD - just not when. My guess is that we won't see 4th Edition psionics until July at the earliest, May 2009 as a likely candidate if it's not in the DMG.
Tempest Stormwind 08-28-07, 11:21 AM	A) there is speculation, albeit based on inferring things that may not be there, that psionics will be in the DMG (given a comment by a WotC staffer whose name eludes me) that psionics would be in a book the DM is likely to have. However, that could easily reference some splat book. http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13540164#post13540164
Sleepwalker13666 09-02-07, 09:54 AM	http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13540164#post13540164 Thanks for the link, actually got some information I was looking for.
DrowBattlemind 09-02-07, 11:03 AM	There are definitive statements by WotC staff, including Scott Rouse, that psionics will be in 4th edition and the SRD Which, according to the rules, inclusion in the SRD means that it will be Core. Not that that'll stop anti-psi DM's from declaring it "not core", simply because it wasn't in the primary three books, however.