Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Roman 02-21-08, 08:50 AM	I don't think 3.X edition Psionics has a very good correspondence to Psionics in real life. When I say 'Real Life Psionics', I don't mean to imply the actual existence of psionics in real life, but rather the tropes and stereotypes that we conjure up in our minds when we think of how psionics would work if they existed and how they are portrayed in popular culture. Dont 3.XE Psionics are too much like magic in that they can create things out of thin air and so on. They are also too flashy. I imagine Psionics to be much more subtle, concentrated on telepathy and unable to create new materials or conjure things. I would envision a split along those lines for Psionics and other sources of power: Psionic Power: Telepathy, Telekinesis, Metamorphosis and Sensing Divine Power: Blessing, Life, Summoning and Sensing Arcane Power: Energy, Summoning, Transportation, Metamorphosis This means that each power source has two 'unique' and two 'shared' fields of effect. Of course, the 'unique' fields of effect may not be completely unique, its just that the other power sources would be much worse at dealing with them. The 'shared' fields of effect would not be exactly the same among the power sources either, but appropriately flavored for the given power source (e.g. no psionic metamorphosis turning one's enemy into a frog...). Of course, future power sources, such as shadow, or nature would change the dynamic somewhat, but I would still advocate keeping at least one field of effect as 'unique' to each power source. Note 1: Blessing covers various buffs Note 2: Life covers healing, necromancy and so on There has been a hint that most enchantment stuff will be left for Psionics in 4E, so there is some hope in this regard. What do you think? (For the 4E discussion I have started a thread here: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=991752 but the more general psionic discussion can take place here.)
aotrscommander 02-21-08, 09:08 AM	On the other hand 3.x psionics pretty accurately reflects psionics in other media (like the X-Men, for example, most of whose powers are psionically based in some sort of way). Swings and round-abouts.
The_Mess 02-21-08, 10:00 AM	I don't think 3.X edition Psionics has a very good correspondence to Psionics in real life. I've had some complaints about this before, but, oddly, they don't match yours. :-) 3.XE Psionics are too much like magic in that they can create things out of thin air and so on. They are also too flashy. I imagine Psionics to be much more subtle, concentrated on telepathy and unable to create new materials or conjure things. Well, D&D tends towards the flashy in any event. You have to expect that when covering warriors, it will cover the flashiest warriors and when covering psionics it will cover the flashiest psions. Subtle isn't really a huge part of the game. Even stealthy characters are subtle in flashy ways. :-) "I'm hiding in PLAIN SIGHT! You can't see me, even though there is no rational way you could miss me! NA-NA NANA NA!" However, summoning objects has long been a part of psionics, at least since they started doing "ectoplasm" effects in the 1800's, and force-effect-objects have been around for much of this century. They may not be as common as telekinesis and telepathy, but that doesn't mean they aren't around. I would envision a split along those lines for Psionics and other sources of power: Psionic Power: Telepathy, Telekinesis, Metamorphosis and Sensing Divine Power: Blessing, Life, Summoning and Sensing Arcane Power: Energy, Summoning, Transportation, Metamorphosis Of course, you can use telepathy to summon, it just takes your summoned longer to get to you. :-) On the whole, though, I like the division.
Asadeseth 02-21-08, 12:51 PM	Well astrial constructs actualy reflect the Tupala (from indian myths) prity well, there are some Germanic/Scandanvian myths that fit this area as well. Psychoportation and transformation has been recorded as well. Meny of the things in 3.x psionics have RL paralels, its just that some are far more common than others. One area that is largely a part of psionics that has been well recorded and is week in 3.x psionic however is probabilty control.
Lycanthromancer 02-21-08, 01:04 PM	CLAIRSENTIENCE. Fate of one FTW.
Asadeseth 02-21-08, 01:17 PM	well in the caise of clairsentience it not probability control, just seeing into the future and going for the best outcome, ie an insight bonus. probability controle, ie LUCK controle, should give luck bonuses. But yes Fate of One IS indead a luck baised power, it is however only 1 power, hight level (7) and seer only, so my point still stands.
Lycanthromancer 02-21-08, 01:23 PM	Look at my powers revision, and twist of fate. Also, I NEED MORE OPTIONS FOR THE FATE TABLE! I'M ONLY 1/3 OF THE WAY FINISHED!!!
Asadeseth 02-21-08, 01:34 PM	Fate table? Also Fate seems more of a Divine or Arcane thing, Free will fits Psionics far beter than Fate.
Lycanthromancer 02-21-08, 01:39 PM	YOU CONTROL YOUR OWN DESTINY. YOU DECIDE YOUR OWN FATE. MAKE YOUR DECISIONS WISELY, YOUNG SCION.
Asadeseth 02-21-08, 01:42 PM	This is D&D not Scion =P (though i play both) And no, buy definition you DON'T make your own fate, fate is predetermined, you don't get to make a choise. Free Will is about choise, it is infact the opposite of Fate. still Lycanthromancer I am curious about your little project.
Lycanthromancer 02-21-08, 01:43 PM	If you see what's in store for you (via clairsentience), then you can work to change it. That's what clairsentience is all about, is it not?
ToastedAmphibian 02-21-08, 04:14 PM	If you can sucessfully work to avoid it, then it wasnt really your fate at all. If you cant change it, then your not much better off, unless you use it to plan when to buy life insurance. Either way, it seems like it would either be showing you a self- derived illusion of what could be (Dellusion) or an enescapable sentence of impending unavoidable DOOM
Lycanthromancer 02-21-08, 04:18 PM	If you can sucessfully work to avoid it, then it wasnt really your fate at all. If you cant change it, then your not much better off, unless you use it to plan when to buy life insurance. Either way, it seems like it would either be showing you a self- derived illusion of what could be (Dellusion) or an enescapable sentence of impending unavoidable DOOMNot if time branches out like Startrek (and the various psionic powers) suggests. If that is the case, your current incarnation chooses the best possible fate out of all of them to follow by viewing potential futures and choosing your actions accordingly. It's all according to plan.
Eldritch_Lord 02-21-08, 04:21 PM	MAKE YOUR DECISIONS WISELY, YOUNG SCION. Shouldn't that have been YOUNG PSION? ;)
Lycanthromancer 02-21-08, 04:24 PM	Shouldn't that have been YOUNG PSION? ;)I've been watching too much Alien Homonym.
Asadeseth 02-21-08, 04:47 PM	Okay but that standard clairsentience is a form of probability controle, but I could take a big mouthfull of alc. spit it out in front of a match and say I cast a fire ball. In a sence I DID cast a fire ball, but realy its not the same thing as the spell. Looking into the future and seeing probable out comes and then going for the best, is one was to controle probabilty. But its still not out and out luck controle, and Psionics neads that. It would probably ether be psychoportation or Kenetist typed powers, not sure wich. As for fate, if you can change it, then its NOT fate. Fate is like Greek or Noris legionds, you don't get a choise. Its going to happen and their is nothing you can do about it, honstly I rather dislike fate as a roleplaying aspect in most caises my self. If you have a chance to change it then its not realy fate. MY HYPOTHOSIS on the oragin of the concept of fate (not useing a degree here, just what my thoughts on the origins here) is that it was conseaved of as a copeing mechanism. Opp, valcano erupted, fate nothing you could do, lighting? What else could it be but fate right? Lost in a duel, well why blame your self if the other guy was fated to win, ect. I like free will beter, its one of the reasons, thematicly, of why I like Psionics more than Arcane or Divine. Arcane or EXPETUALY Divine often have fate elements tied into their theams.
Eldritch_Lord 02-21-08, 06:13 PM	I've been watching too much Alien Homonym. It would have been better had you said ****phone, but whatever....
Lycanthromancer 02-21-08, 06:24 PM	It would have been better had you said ****phone, but whatever....The pun would be lost. Why does it '****' out 'h-o-m-o-'? All it means is 'same'. See (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=****-)? Homograph, homophone, homonym. Why?
Eldritch_Lord 02-21-08, 07:03 PM	The pun would be lost. Why does it '****' out 'h-o-m-o-'? All it means is 'same'. See (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=****-)? Homograph, homophone, homonym. Why? Actually, homophone is same sound, different meanings and spellings; homonym is same sound, same spelling, different meaning. Psion =/= scion. And you're right; I didn't notice the censoring of the human genus. I don't think I've ever seen it used offensively on the boards, only when saying ____ sapiens or using words like these. Come on WotC, stop already.
Lycanthromancer 02-21-08, 07:09 PM	Ring-ring-ring-ring-ring-ring-ring, Ba-homophone?
Eldritch_Lord 02-21-08, 09:29 PM	Ring-ring-ring-ring-ring-ring-ring, Ba-homophone? :nonono:
Lycanthromancer 02-21-08, 09:47 PM	I had to make a pun using homophone, since people get uppity about homonym. What else could I do?
Slagger the Chuul 02-21-08, 09:49 PM	Ring-ring-ring-ring-ring-ring-ring, Ba-homophone? It's the best, beats the rest!
Lycanthromancer 02-21-08, 09:54 PM	I'm not exactly certain, but I *think* we just went off-topic.
Legdiwena 02-21-08, 09:58 PM	Predicting the future and then plotting to make it so. Cookie for the reference.
Eldritch_Lord 02-22-08, 11:19 AM	I'm not exactly certain, but I *think* we just went off-topic. Technically, when I made the first pun, I saw this coming, and we were talking about Clairsentience, so....
Lycanthromancer 02-22-08, 12:05 PM	http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g111/Lycanthromancer/MakeItSo.jpg
Legdiwena 02-22-08, 12:48 PM	http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g111/Lycanthromancer/MakeItSo.jpg Nice try, but no dice for you.
Lycanthromancer 02-22-08, 01:06 PM	I knew it wasn't, but it still works.
Legdiwena 02-22-08, 01:17 PM	Change it to Prescience and get me a new picture,lol.
Roman 03-10-08, 04:44 PM	I must confess that I am not familiar with the references that seem to be the source of amusement.
CrimsonDeath 03-11-08, 12:25 PM	"Make it so." Picard said that all the time.
Lycanthromancer 03-11-08, 02:07 PM	Also, BANANAPHONE. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=wky5H1xC6-I&feature=related)
JimProfit 03-11-08, 02:50 PM	I like psionics the way it is, it has the videogame feel to it and that's how I like it. If psionics were realistic, you'd be rolling a d100 percentile with every attempt at manifesting your power, and even upon success or failure, a fortitude save not to get fatigue, minor damage, hallcunations, etc. Trying to make psionics realistic would turn it into chaos magic but even less realiable, weaker, and more die rolls.
Lycanthromancer 03-11-08, 03:11 PM	If psionics were 'realistic,' you'd sit there for an hour, staring at your dice, trying to make them roll themselves.
Legdiwena 03-11-08, 04:07 PM	Do not try to roll the dice, that is impossible. Instead, try to realize that it is only you that rolls.
CrimsonDeath 03-11-08, 04:22 PM	If psionics were realistic, you'd be rolling a d100 percentile with every attempt at manifesting your power, and even upon success or failure, a fortitude save not to get fatigue, minor damage, hallcunations, etc. Umm... If it were "realistic", it wouldn't work. By introducing a system by which it works, you've already established that realism is out the window, so it doesn't really matter how reliable, effective, or strenuous it is.
Legdiwena 03-11-08, 05:02 PM	Umm... If it were "realistic", it wouldn't work. By introducing a system by which it works, you've already established that realism is out the window, so it doesn't really matter how reliable, effective, or strenuous it is. I object to psionics or indeed magic being unrealistic by their very existence.
Lycanthromancer 03-11-08, 05:12 PM	Or, perhaps, the lack thereof.
CrimsonDeath 03-11-08, 08:05 PM	I object to psionics or indeed magic being unrealistic by their very existence. Are you saying that magic or psionics can exist in a realistic manner within a fictitious environment, or are you citing their actual existence as evidence that they're realistic?
Legdiwena 03-11-08, 08:13 PM	I contend that they exist in RL.
Lycanthromancer 03-11-08, 08:15 PM	Me too. See? I have this XPH right here. *thunk thunk* Seems solid to me.
Legdiwena 03-11-08, 08:37 PM	I'm a druid, I believe magic exists outside the game and its books.
CrimsonDeath 03-11-08, 09:07 PM	Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to exist in a laboratory. Either way, JimProfit neglected to explain why his system was more realistic than... well... any other system that might be devised, and my point is that without documented evidence of how magic or psionics really works, there's no way to objectively determine the relative realism of various systems of simulating them.
Lycanthromancer 03-11-08, 09:10 PM	Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to exist in a laboratory.Ellen DeGeneres doesn't exist in a lab either, and I'm pretty sure she's real. I could be wrong, though.
Demon_Paladin 03-11-08, 09:19 PM	Ellen DeGeneres doesn't exist in a lab either, and I'm pretty sure she's real. I could be wrong, though. I've watched her daytime TV show before, so I'm going to conclude that she escaped from a lab. Now, back to the original topic, I like psionics as is. Their flashy, but not over the top, like a few ToB powers.
CrimsonDeath 03-11-08, 10:31 PM	Ellen DeGeneres doesn't exist in a lab either, and I'm pretty sure she's real. I could be wrong, though. If she's ever visited a doctor's office, and that doctor kept records of her visit, then yes, some time in the past she existed in a laboratory (at least for the purposes of this discussion). She can be (and probably has been) verified to exist. Unfortunately, we personally lack the capacity verify those records because she has the legal right to conceal them from us. However, considering the fact that large numbers of other human beings have been verified to exist in the past, I find it safe to assume that she does as well. I believe I can also predict a large number of her physical properties with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Mere physical phenomena, however, don't have the luxury of doctor/patient confidentiality. Thus far, there has not been scientifically verified evidence of the existence of magic or of psychic powers. (In fact, I recall hearing about a study designed to measure the effectiveness of prayer; the study actually found a negative corellation between prayer on an individual's behalf and the speed of that individual's recovery from illness.) So my point remains: Since magic has not been verified to exist, its physical properties have not been classified, so an attempt to assign physical properties to it in a gaming system can't reasonably be criticized on the grounds of realism.
The_Mess 03-11-08, 10:42 PM	The original poster to this thread made clear that his definition of "realistic" meant only that it simulated the way psionics is purported to work in real life, not that it worked as RL psionics does(n't), so the ongoing failure of magic to exist after the skeptic and his measuring stick arrive isn't really relevant to the thread. I'm trying very, very, very hard not to start one of my typical rants on magic and pseudoscience. Please appreciate it.
Lycanthromancer 03-11-08, 10:46 PM	Actually, 3.5 psionics is startlingly close to its base material. It's just not very close to the popular notion of 'RL' psionics. Thus, the complaint isn't a valid one.
Lycanthromancer 03-11-08, 10:51 PM	Be careful, CrimsonDeath. People are allowed to believe anything they want, no matter how fanciful, and it's against the CoC to tell people that the fantasy-things they believe in aren't real, no matter how odd they are. Careful you don't get in trouble, man.
The_Mess 03-11-08, 11:16 PM	Be careful, CrimsonDeath. People are allowed to believe anything they want, no matter how fanciful, and it's against the CoC to tell people that the fantasy-things they believe in aren't real, no matter how odd they are. Excellent, then it should be equally against the CoC for people to tell me my belief that fantasy-things don't exist is false by proclaiming magic or psionics actually exists. Good for the goose, good for the gander, right? In the end, any expression of belief is telling someone else their beliefs are false. I can't say the moon is made of rocks without insulting some fundamentalist Muslems. (Seriously, I am not making this up. I started a flame war with one once when he insisted the moon was a spritual place and not made of stone.) I recommend that we all respect everyone's right to express their beliefs (in appropriate contexts, of course) and all try not to be thin-skinned about it.
DM-Scott 03-12-08, 12:00 AM	There's actually a fair amount of study and research that has been, and is being, done in regards to "psychic phenomena". Many people will actually tell you that a higher mental ability actually exists; and I for one will swear to anyone that there are in fact various types of psionic aptitudes that many people have at varying levels of strength and control. For example, minor telepathy, empathy, various forms of exterior senses, and so on and so forth. Other forms of psychic ability include seeing or perceiving various immaterial entities, be they "spirits", "angels", "demons", or what ever name you'd like to use for the given situation. Some people see auras. However, D&D psionics are far from "real life psionics" in just about every level of understanding. If psionics in D&D were to be modeled more closely after the kinds of psionic practices that are studied (be the student self taught, naturally talented, or through a mentor), I would say it would mostly fall into the realms of information gathering, energy manipulation, and constructing; with constructing and energy manipulation being closely related (such as forming astral constructs of various kinds, creating energy patterns and fields, and so forth). Ultimately, because it's D&D, such things would need to be bigger, flashier, and far more impressive than anything anyone can do in our world (but go figure - a 6th level fighter can out jump world class athletes with out much trouble). No one wants to have the extend of their character's 'special abilities' be "I take 10 on the concentration check, and roll my psicraft (sense) check for a 21. Do I successfully determine the invisible energy pattern is in the form of a pyramid?" On the other hand, having that be a minor ability that they could do might be fun. :D Anyway, I'm done. Peace out, Game on.
CrimsonDeath 03-12-08, 01:02 AM	Be careful, CrimsonDeath. People are allowed to believe anything they want, no matter how fanciful, and it's against the CoC to tell people that the fantasy-things they believe in aren't real, no matter how odd they are. Careful you don't get in trouble, man. I never intended to say that magic doesn't exist. (I believe in miracles myself, after all.) However, to my knowledge, we have no reliable empyrical evidence of its existence or its tendencies. My point was that, without such evidence, we have no grounds to establish a framework of what makes a particular abstract model of magic "realistic". There's actually a fair amount of study and research that has been, and is being, done in regards to "psychic phenomena". Many people will actually tell you that a higher mental ability actually exists; and I for one will swear to anyone that there are in fact various types of psionic aptitudes that many people have at varying levels of strength and control. I was aware that such studies had been conducted, but not of any that had generated statistically significant reproducible results. If you're familiar with any, I'd appreciate hearing about them. (Also, I believe there's a sizable standing wager they might want to collect on.)