magic/psionics transparency question. [Archive] - Wizards Community

magic/psionics transparency question. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
xpochian
01-30-08, 12:59 AM just a simple question, but asides from the two or three points that this transparency covers, would something like a dwarf's racial bonus against spells and spell-likes also include psionic powers, or is that beyond the transparency's veil?

thanks in advance!
CrimsonDeath
01-30-08, 02:38 AM just a simple question, but asides from the two or three points that this transparency covers, would something like a dwarf's racial bonus against spells and spell-likes also include psionic powers, or is that beyond the transparency's veil?

thanks in advance!

I'm pretty sure it would work equally well against spell, powers, spell-like abilities, and psi-like abilities.
MnemonicSV
01-30-08, 03:19 AM Well... to attempt an answer to that, lets examine the closest crossing of dwarves and psionics that we have available: The duergar (or gray dwarf).

Like the standard dwarf, a duergar gains a "+2 racial bonus on saves against spells and spell-like effects." So the question is, did the designers intentionally not change the parlance, or was this merely a case of "copy and paste" from the dwarf description?

The duergar (as it appears in the XPH) is an obviously psionic race, so it doesn't make sense really that this bonus would only apply to magic, and not the psionic effects to which they are more accustomed. Especially when one considers the powerful psionic threats which exist underground (read: mind flayers). My personal opinion: This was a "copy and paste" from the standard dwarf description, and was likely intended to apply to psionics equally well. Thus, the same would probably go for standard dwarves.

The XPH has other similar parlance oversights... such as in the half-giant "Fire Acclimated" description. It calls out a +2 racial bonus to saves against fire spells and effects, but I don't know a single player/DM who wouldn't allow the bonus to apply to fire-descriptor powers as well.

If this rationale fails for you, then just go with the "core" rule. The DMG (pg. 297) describes all psionic abilities as spell-like. Now, the XPH does of course supercede this description, but this does act as at least a possible guideline for outside scenarios such as this.

Beyond that, it certainly isn't game-breaking to allow it.
MnemonicSV
01-30-08, 03:30 AM UPDATE:

Ok, now I definitely believe that the racial bonus to saves vs spells and spell-like effects applies to powers and psi-like abilities equally well!

It turns out the the Duergar description was actually updated in Complete Psionic (pg 144, Duergar Racial Class). The description of their +2 racial bonus now specifically calls out that it applies to powers and psi-like abilities as well.

Normally my instinct is to mistrust anything in CompPsi, at least at first. This, however, seems reasonable. Given this example, I think it's safe to say the same applies to standard dwarves as well.

(They still didn't update the half-giant's "Fire Acclimated" trait though. Oh well.)
CrimsonDeath
01-30-08, 04:38 AM The XPH has other similar parlance oversights... such as in the half-giant "Fire Acclimated" description. It calls out a +2 racial bonus to saves against fire spells and effects, but I don't know a single player/DM who wouldn't allow the bonus to apply to fire-descriptor powers as well.
Note that "effect" could include everything from Red Dragon breath to Alchemist's Fire, with Energy Bolt [fire] presumably somewhere in between.

For something that would corroborate my original conclusion by contrasting with it, check out feats like Closed Mind in the XPH. It specifically states that it affects powers, but not spells, as an exception to the transparency rules. I chose Closed Mind specifically because it grants a saving throw bonus, which is what we were talking about in the first place.
DracoPhoenix
01-30-08, 10:36 AM My general rule of thumb for transparency is:

Unless it explicitly states transparency does not apply, for that instance / circumstance, then substituting "power" for "Spell" etc if fine.

This applies to things like +Caster level abilities (Illumians caster level buff), +X to Spell DC / saves etc.

Makes adapting PrCs a lot easier too.

That said, there's a few things (common sense applies), like psi crystal v familiar where equivalent instances exist but are substantially mechanically different.

(Note: The no. of Astral Construct v Summon Monster/Animal limit doesn't apply (or it applies to both) :D)
MnemonicSV
01-30-08, 12:55 PM Note that "effect" could include everything from Red Dragon breath to Alchemist's Fire, with Energy Bolt [fire] presumably somewhere in between.

I had a feeling someone would bring that up. "Effect" could also apply to "spells" itself as well though, which means calling out spells instead powers (in the XPH of all places) is indeed a minor parlance oversight. Not that it matters... like we both agree, we all know to apply it to both anyway.

In most places the parlance was revised (such as power resistance, instead of the classic spell resistance), but in others it simply wasn't. Take for instance the Elan's or the Synad's "aberration" entry. Or the Thri-Kreen's "monstrous humanoid" entry. They could just as easily said powers and effects, but the designers stuck with spells instead. Why? Copy and paste, my friend, copy and paste.

Fortunately, we all know to overlook those minor oversights. And in turn we can safely advise the OP to do the same.
hangedman1984
01-31-08, 08:46 PM My general rule, which isn't completly raw, is that if it doesn't make a distinctian btw arcane and divine, then it applies to psionics as well. If it does consider arcane and divine seperate, then psionics is separate also.
Asadeseth
02-01-08, 04:18 PM Thats basicly the rule we play with, heck we ever crushed Psicraft and Spellcraft into one skill, Knowledge Psionics however remains its own skill like Knowledge Arcane and Knowledge Religon are seperate.

Perls of power, meta magic rods (not that weve ever seen one), helms of telepathy, ect all work cuz the have no real difficulty in converting. Rings of wizardry and torcs of power points however dont for simple system reasons.
Tiarn
02-01-08, 11:50 PM Here's an interesting conundrum, though. What about an elf's +2 saves vs. enchantment spells and effects? When talking about psionics what constitutes an echantment effect (since that's a school of magic and not a subtype of spell or power) How would you rule that? ;)

Note: I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just curious how others percieve this in their games. I alway rule that the intention was that elves resist a mostly-mind-affecting "subtype" of magic (enchantment) and therefore would do the same for psionics (telepathy). I just want to see what others think.
CrimsonDeath
02-01-08, 11:55 PM Here's an interesting conundrum, though. What about an elf's +2 saves vs. enchantment spells and effects? When talking about psionics what constitutes an echantment effect (since that's a school of magic and not a subtype of spell or power) How would you rule that? ;)

XPH p. 58: "For the purpose of psionics-magic transparency, telepathy powers are equivalent to powers of the enchantment school (thus, creatures resistant to enchantment spells, such as elves or monks, are equally resistant to telepathy powers)."
Tiarn
02-01-08, 11:58 PM ****, I can't believe as often as I've read the XPH I hadn't seen that before! Thanks for pointing that out, CrimsonDeath.
CrimsonDeath
02-02-08, 01:55 AM Sure. Aside from Psychoportation, the other disciplines also map to magical schools, if you want to check on those.
NoldorForce
02-02-08, 02:20 AM To expand on CrimsonDeath's point:
([Magical School] <-> [Psionic Discipline])
Abjuration <-> None.
Conjuration <-> Metacreativity.
Divination <-> Clairsentience.
Enchantment <-> Telepathy.
Evocation <-> Psychokinesis.
Illusion <-> None.
Necromancy <-> None.
Transmutation <-> Psychometabolism.
None <-> Psychoportation.
AntiDjinn
02-02-08, 03:37 AM A monk's Still Mind should apply as well vs. telepathic intrusion as it does vs. enchantments. It is simply a defense they weave through self-discipline, not a spell or anything that would be exclusive to a particular realm.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
xpochian 01-30-08, 12:59 AM	just a simple question, but asides from the two or three points that this transparency covers, would something like a dwarf's racial bonus against spells and spell-likes also include psionic powers, or is that beyond the transparency's veil? thanks in advance!
CrimsonDeath 01-30-08, 02:38 AM	just a simple question, but asides from the two or three points that this transparency covers, would something like a dwarf's racial bonus against spells and spell-likes also include psionic powers, or is that beyond the transparency's veil? thanks in advance! I'm pretty sure it would work equally well against spell, powers, spell-like abilities, and psi-like abilities.
MnemonicSV 01-30-08, 03:19 AM	Well... to attempt an answer to that, lets examine the closest crossing of dwarves and psionics that we have available: The duergar (or gray dwarf). Like the standard dwarf, a duergar gains a "+2 racial bonus on saves against spells and spell-like effects." So the question is, did the designers intentionally not change the parlance, or was this merely a case of "copy and paste" from the dwarf description? The duergar (as it appears in the XPH) is an obviously psionic race, so it doesn't make sense really that this bonus would only apply to magic, and not the psionic effects to which they are more accustomed. Especially when one considers the powerful psionic threats which exist underground (read: mind flayers). My personal opinion: This was a "copy and paste" from the standard dwarf description, and was likely intended to apply to psionics equally well. Thus, the same would probably go for standard dwarves. The XPH has other similar parlance oversights... such as in the half-giant "Fire Acclimated" description. It calls out a +2 racial bonus to saves against fire spells and effects, but I don't know a single player/DM who wouldn't allow the bonus to apply to fire-descriptor powers as well. If this rationale fails for you, then just go with the "core" rule. The DMG (pg. 297) describes all psionic abilities as spell-like. Now, the XPH does of course supercede this description, but this does act as at least a possible guideline for outside scenarios such as this. Beyond that, it certainly isn't game-breaking to allow it.
MnemonicSV 01-30-08, 03:30 AM	UPDATE: Ok, now I definitely believe that the racial bonus to saves vs spells and spell-like effects applies to powers and psi-like abilities equally well! It turns out the the Duergar description was actually updated in Complete Psionic (pg 144, Duergar Racial Class). The description of their +2 racial bonus now specifically calls out that it applies to powers and psi-like abilities as well. Normally my instinct is to mistrust anything in CompPsi, at least at first. This, however, seems reasonable. Given this example, I think it's safe to say the same applies to standard dwarves as well. (They still didn't update the half-giant's "Fire Acclimated" trait though. Oh well.)
CrimsonDeath 01-30-08, 04:38 AM	The XPH has other similar parlance oversights... such as in the half-giant "Fire Acclimated" description. It calls out a +2 racial bonus to saves against fire spells and effects, but I don't know a single player/DM who wouldn't allow the bonus to apply to fire-descriptor powers as well. Note that "effect" could include everything from Red Dragon breath to Alchemist's Fire, with Energy Bolt [fire] presumably somewhere in between. For something that would corroborate my original conclusion by contrasting with it, check out feats like Closed Mind in the XPH. It specifically states that it affects powers, but not spells, as an exception to the transparency rules. I chose Closed Mind specifically because it grants a saving throw bonus, which is what we were talking about in the first place.
DracoPhoenix 01-30-08, 10:36 AM	My general rule of thumb for transparency is: Unless it explicitly states transparency does not apply, for that instance / circumstance, then substituting "power" for "Spell" etc if fine. This applies to things like +Caster level abilities (Illumians caster level buff), +X to Spell DC / saves etc. Makes adapting PrCs a lot easier too. That said, there's a few things (common sense applies), like psi crystal v familiar where equivalent instances exist but are substantially mechanically different. (Note: The no. of Astral Construct v Summon Monster/Animal limit doesn't apply (or it applies to both) :D)
MnemonicSV 01-30-08, 12:55 PM	Note that "effect" could include everything from Red Dragon breath to Alchemist's Fire, with Energy Bolt [fire] presumably somewhere in between. I had a feeling someone would bring that up. "Effect" could also apply to "spells" itself as well though, which means calling out spells instead powers (in the XPH of all places) is indeed a minor parlance oversight. Not that it matters... like we both agree, we all know to apply it to both anyway. In most places the parlance was revised (such as power resistance, instead of the classic spell resistance), but in others it simply wasn't. Take for instance the Elan's or the Synad's "aberration" entry. Or the Thri-Kreen's "monstrous humanoid" entry. They could just as easily said powers and effects, but the designers stuck with spells instead. Why? Copy and paste, my friend, copy and paste. Fortunately, we all know to overlook those minor oversights. And in turn we can safely advise the OP to do the same.
hangedman1984 01-31-08, 08:46 PM	My general rule, which isn't completly raw, is that if it doesn't make a distinctian btw arcane and divine, then it applies to psionics as well. If it does consider arcane and divine seperate, then psionics is separate also.
Asadeseth 02-01-08, 04:18 PM	Thats basicly the rule we play with, heck we ever crushed Psicraft and Spellcraft into one skill, Knowledge Psionics however remains its own skill like Knowledge Arcane and Knowledge Religon are seperate. Perls of power, meta magic rods (not that weve ever seen one), helms of telepathy, ect all work cuz the have no real difficulty in converting. Rings of wizardry and torcs of power points however dont for simple system reasons.
Tiarn 02-01-08, 11:50 PM	Here's an interesting conundrum, though. What about an elf's +2 saves vs. enchantment spells and effects? When talking about psionics what constitutes an echantment effect (since that's a school of magic and not a subtype of spell or power) How would you rule that? ;) Note: I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just curious how others percieve this in their games. I alway rule that the intention was that elves resist a mostly-mind-affecting "subtype" of magic (enchantment) and therefore would do the same for psionics (telepathy). I just want to see what others think.
CrimsonDeath 02-01-08, 11:55 PM	Here's an interesting conundrum, though. What about an elf's +2 saves vs. enchantment spells and effects? When talking about psionics what constitutes an echantment effect (since that's a school of magic and not a subtype of spell or power) How would you rule that? ;) XPH p. 58: "For the purpose of psionics-magic transparency, telepathy powers are equivalent to powers of the enchantment school (thus, creatures resistant to enchantment spells, such as elves or monks, are equally resistant to telepathy powers)."
Tiarn 02-01-08, 11:58 PM	****, I can't believe as often as I've read the XPH I hadn't seen that before! Thanks for pointing that out, CrimsonDeath.
CrimsonDeath 02-02-08, 01:55 AM	Sure. Aside from Psychoportation, the other disciplines also map to magical schools, if you want to check on those.
NoldorForce 02-02-08, 02:20 AM	To expand on CrimsonDeath's point: ([Magical School] <-> [Psionic Discipline]) Abjuration <-> None. Conjuration <-> Metacreativity. Divination <-> Clairsentience. Enchantment <-> Telepathy. Evocation <-> Psychokinesis. Illusion <-> None. Necromancy <-> None. Transmutation <-> Psychometabolism. None <-> Psychoportation.
AntiDjinn 02-02-08, 03:37 AM	A monk's Still Mind should apply as well vs. telepathic intrusion as it does vs. enchantments. It is simply a defense they weave through self-discipline, not a spell or anything that would be exclusive to a particular realm.