Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Daydreamer 03-12-07, 07:17 PM	I am dming an Eberron campaign, that is going to have the pcs heading to Sarlona for a while. They pcs have not encountered psicionics up until this point, and what im wondering is. Should i make psionics and magic transparent to each other? Or not? If not, how much additional work am i looking to take into consideration doing this?
Deekin 03-12-07, 07:42 PM	For all that is holy and good, make them transparent. You will greatly increase your workload if you do not.
Daydreamer 03-12-07, 07:46 PM	Even given the fact that none of the pcs have psionics? Also, would a spell like detect magic reveal the force as psionic or in some way different?
Deekin 03-12-07, 07:48 PM	The spell detect magic detects powers, their number, and their strength and location within 3 rounds (though a Psicraft check is necessary to identify the discipline of the psionic aura). So they detect magic, but cannot ID it.
Xaxor 03-12-07, 08:03 PM	How much additional work? Way too much. Dispel Magic does nothing against Psionics, and the book suggests a Dispel Psionics as an spell of a higher level. You also have to do that in reverse for Psionics to magic. Your players will probably be mad if they have to spend another known spell or add one spell to their spellbook when they could just use Dispel Magic. And rewriting creatures to have power resistance instead of, or in addition to, spell resistance will get tedious. Not to mention having to figure out which one applies every time. Dwarves and Elves won't get their extra save bonuses. It gets worse from there, I'm sure.
Angelflesh 03-12-07, 08:36 PM	I don't make them transparent. The reason why i don't is because i want them to be two distinct forces in my world, not one with two names. Transparency is lame and doesn't allow the two systems to differ from each other the way the should.
Tempest Stormwind 03-12-07, 08:39 PM	I don't make them transparent. The reason why i don't is because i want them to be two distinct forces in my world, not one with two names. Transparency is lame and doesn't allow the two systems to differ from each other the way the should. Then explain why your wizards are detecting, dispelling, and resisting the handiwork of the gods.
Angelflesh 03-12-07, 09:17 PM	Then explain why your wizards are detecting, dispelling, and resisting the handiwork of the gods. If you have an issue with my opinion, you can shove it right back up where you found it. I simply said why i don't use transparency. No one, including you, is in any place to question that, just as i won't question yours or anyone else's choice in the matter.
Tempest Stormwind 03-12-07, 09:25 PM	If you have an issue with my opinion, you can shove it right back up where you found it. I simply said why i don't use transparency. No one, including you, is in any place to question that, just as i won't question yours or anyone else's choice in the matter. And I wasn't saying you shouldn't. I was asking for an explanation -- if nontransparency is the way it "should" be, how are you handling magic, which is already even more transparent than psionics and magic are (since arcane and divine magicians use the same skills, feats, mechanics, and in many cases the same spells)?
Angelflesh 03-12-07, 10:08 PM	How do you not get it? We have Magic and Psionics, i choose to make them different. Detect Magic works with Arcane, Divine, Pact, Shadow, Truename, and Incarnum. Why? Oh, because they are all magic. Now i could go another step further and break up Detect Magic into six separate spells if i wanted, but it would be unfair because if a PC took "Detect Arcane Magic" he would be at a loss with all other magic types. I guess that's why WOTC chose to call the spell "Detect Magic". The bottom line is, in my eyes, Magic isn't psionic, and Psionics aren't magical.
Sines 03-12-07, 10:37 PM	How do you not get it? We have Magic and Psionics, i choose to make them different. Detect Magic works with Arcane, Divine, Pact, Shadow, Truename, and Incarnum. Why? Oh, because they are all magic. Now i could go another step further and break up Detect Magic into six separate spells if i wanted, but it would be unfair because if a PC took "Detect Arcane Magic" he would be at a loss with all other magic types. I guess that's why WOTC chose to call the spell "Detect Magic". The bottom line is, in my eyes, Magic isn't psionic, and Psionics aren't magical. Arcane, Divine, and Shadow? Okay, I'll group them all as Magic. They draw on energy from different planes. Shadow is kind of pushing it, but it has enough in common. Pact. Pact is using the supernatural abilities of things banished beyond the known cosmos. It's not really magic, certainly supernatural however. Truenaming isn't supernatural at all, at least not in the same way as the others. You're simply speaking the words of existance and rewriting things. You're messing with the fundamental building blocks of reality. Incarnum is pretty close to magic, as you are drawing power from the planes, but there are notable differences. On the other hand, Psionics involves drawing power from one of the known planes, namely the Astral Plane (I believe it comes solely, or at least primarily from there) so I would put them closer to Shadow than Pact or Truenaming. Heck, I think Psionics is closer to magic than pact or truenaming. Of course, how you view it all is all strictly up to interpretation. I tend to view Dispels and Detects as merely affecting the ability of supernatural abilities in general to function. They either note the presence of non-natural laws, or try to remove any ability for non-natural laws to function. Not the best worded way of looking at it, but whatever. Still, in a game with no Psionic characters, non-transparency does have its points. While you cannot affect the evil Psions powers, he can't affect your magic, which means while you only have to worry about not being able to dispel his abilities (This also makes for supernatural puzzles that your party can't solve simply by dispelling it, without providing a comically large dispel DC), he has to worry about around 4 angry adventurers loaded down with magical gear than he can make no attempt to area dispel. Both ways have thier points, but if you are trying to make an arguement about what makes sense, I'd say it either has to be all or none. Either all forms of supernatural require certain similarities, or none of them do. You can make arguements that maybe some are similar enough, or different enough, but Psionics in particular is no more different from arcane or divine than Incarnum, Pact, Shadow, or Truenaming. Probably less so than Pact, at the very least. Sorcerers and Psions both impose thier will on reality, those Binders just call in Outside (Note the capital O) help, and have to avoid thier own will being subjugated.
Angelflesh 03-12-07, 10:57 PM	Arcane, Divine, and Shadow? Okay, I'll group them all as Magic. They draw on energy from different planes. Shadow is kind of pushing it, but it has enough in common. Pact. Pact is using the supernatural abilities of things banished beyond the known cosmos. It's not really magic, certainly supernatural however. Truenaming isn't supernatural at all, at least not in the same way as the others. You're simply speaking the words of existance and rewriting things. You're messing with the fundamental building blocks of reality. Incarnum is pretty close to magic, as you are drawing power from the planes, but there are notable differences. Wrong. Read the title of the book Pact, Shadow and Truename Magic are in. In fact, read the entries for each magic system. Just because it doesn't come from a different plane, doesn't mean it's not magic, where the hell did you hear this nonsense? Oh yeah, i was reading the cover of Magic of Incarnum and it says "Magic of Incarnum" on the front... I hate to break it to you, but Psionics come from the mind, not the Astral Plane. I doesn't matter what you "think" or "believe". If you want to make it so in your campaign world, then you are free to do so. Now it does seem to have connections to the Astral Plane, hence the Astral Constructs and ectoplasm. What if i say Ghosts come from the Astral Plane? I own Ghostwalk, and it says they are made of ectoplasm, so therefore they are native to the Astral Plane. Wrong. I know i'm coming off as a total jerk, but you need to think before you post.
Tempest Stormwind 03-12-07, 10:59 PM	And the fact that psionics are listed as magical effects drawn from the mind, while incarnum isn't called magic anywhere but the title and yet still has transparency means nothing to you? Either all systems are transparent or none are. It doesn't make sense any other way. If you want to persecute psionics by putting them in an oddball nontransparent section, by all means, do so -- but don't yell at us or act all self-righteous when we mention it's unusual. Oh, and Ghostwalk uses ectoplasm in a different context from the XPH, and it flat-out admits it's essentially a campaign setting, and that ghosts are completely different in that setting than they are anywhere else. Meanwhile, the XPH's ectoplasm is explicitly drawn from the Astral Plane, which it also uses for any teleportation effect or material display. It's not drawn from a plane, but that plane has some property that makes it easily manipulated.
Angelflesh 03-12-07, 11:16 PM	And the fact that psionics are listed as magical effects drawn from the mind, Well, let's do a little homework. A psionic power is a one-time psionic effect. Psionic characters and creatures need not prepare their powers for use ahead of time. They either have sufficient power points to manifest a power or they do not. That's from the SRD. Hmm...nothing "magical" going on here. The same thing is stated in the intro in the book also... Now in the MM it does say they are Spell-Like Abilities, but this was before the XPH. Please, show me where it says Psionics are magical effects. while incarnum isn't called magic anywhere but the title and yet still has transparency means nothing to you? And oh my, i skimmed through my MoI, well the first 2 pages, and it repeatedly says it's magical. Also, in the beginning of the Soulmeld chapter, it says Soulmelds are magical constructions. So riddle me this: Can Dispel Magic dispel a magical effect? Now, i formed this rebuttal with literally less than 5 minutes of skimming a few pages in 3 books. Come on, don't start writing checks you can't cash.
Nexis 03-12-07, 11:30 PM	No wait guys, I don’t think you’re seeing the genius of what Angelflesh is saying. He’s saying that, since Magic of Incarnum has the word magic in it, and The Expanded Psionics handbook doesn’t, that they cant be at all the same! Even though that’s the default rule in the book, for balance and simplicity, and you certainly couldn’t change (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=470229) the flavor (http://dreamscarredpress.com/main/index.php?option=com_joomlaboard&Itemid=28&func=view&id=413&catid=9)! The reason why i don't is because i want them to be two distinct forces in my world, not one with two names. Do you see True Naming magic as different than Arcane? How about Shadow magic and Divine? In your campaign setting they are all transparent and yet Psionics and Arcane, which can both produce fireballs unlike Truenaming, are apparently completely different. On a different note, who cares if Psionics comes from the mind? You’re literally basing your whole argument off the fact that the Handbook lacks a single word in it.
Angelflesh 03-12-07, 11:38 PM	Well the reason i think Arcane Magic and Truename Magic are both magic is because they are both categorized as magic. The default Transparency rule doesn't say Magic is psionic, and Psionics are magcial, it allows them to be effected by each other. Such examples would be Power/Spell Resistance, Dispel Magic/Psionics. It doesn't say they are the same, or both magical, or both psionic. Get it right. Well, MoI says it's new a magic system, so if i do my detective work i can deduce that Incarnum is a form of magic. Now, don't get me wrong, Truename, Pact, Arcane etc. are all different, but they are different forms of magic. Now, since they didn't include Dispel Pacts, Dispel Mysteries, or Dispel Utterances, one can only come to the conclusion that all three forms of magic are inherently transparent with other forms of magic.
AntiDjinn 03-12-07, 11:42 PM	Transparency is simply a means for handling the mechanics of interaction. The skills Spellcraft and Psicraft as well as Use Magical Device and Use Psionic Device can still be separate (for that matter, you can add separate Prayercraft and Use Ecclesiastic Device). It does not mean psionic powers are spells, it simply handles them as supernatural effects. Example: A telepath manifests Conceal Thoughts, a cleric or wizard uses a spell to attempt to read his mind. Transparency: He gets +4 on his Will save vs. the attempt; the power functions against magical mental intrusion. Non-transparency: The power is of no benefit; the XPH version assumes transparency and without it, the power is ineffective. Example: A seer manifest Detect Remote Viewing, no other psions are currently scrying his location, but a wizard, two sorcerers, a bard, a druid, a shaman, and three shugenja's are spying on him via spells. Transparency: He is aware of each scrying attempt and can make his ML check (separately) against each to get in image of the spy. Non-transparency: The power is of no use in detecting magical scrying. Example: A psion is hit with a Fireball spell and manifests Damp Power as an immediate action. Transparency: All variables of the spell (the damage) are minimized. Non-transparency: Nothing. He takes full damage. The power only affects other psionic effects and can not manipulate the variables of a spell. You can, if you are willing to do the work, opt for semi-transparency, but this is not the version presented as Psionics is different in the XPH. Most commonly, energy defenses are treated as the same (fire resistance 20 works vs. all fire effects whether they are psionic, magical, or mundane, and saving throw mods such as Conceal Thoughts apply regardless of the type of effect that forces the saving throw. You will still have to determine how various Detects and Dispels work.
Ricktur63 03-12-07, 11:43 PM	Look in the FRCS pg 290 and PGtF pg 172. The latter explains psionics and the weave quite nicely. "In a sense, each psionic creature is its own Weave, using the magic of its own lifeforce and mind to create psionic effects."
Angelflesh 03-12-07, 11:53 PM	Hey wow, you used a campaign setting as your example. Here's the problem, campaign settings often tweak the rules, such as Ghostwalk, which is a campaign option (pretty much the same thing as Tempest stated), does with ectoplasm and ghosts. So examples from campaign settings and options aren't really valid evidence. Now, Antidjinn explains Transparency beautifully. Good job dude.
Daydreamer 03-12-07, 11:56 PM	I guess i had a different reading of transparency. For example, resist fire cast by a wizard would resist a fire power manifested by a psioncist. And a resist mind effect, would resist a mind effect, irregardless of whether cast by a wizard/psionicst. The logic being it protects one from fire, however that fire was produced. Or it protects one from having there mind read, however that mind was being read. It makes the same much sense as a shield spell protecting versus a soulblade. However a detect magic spell would not detect a psi power. Also, if i assume transparency, under the RAW does that make spellcraft/psicraft use magic device/ use psi device interchanable?
Angelflesh 03-13-07, 12:05 AM	No, you had it right. Resist Fire works against fire spells and fire powers. And detect magic works as if you manifested Detect Psionics. I think you're understanding of Transparency is correct. Also, if i assume transparency, under the RAW does that make spellcraft/psicraft use magic device/ use psi device interchanable? Yo. When i say "yo" i mean "yes".
Ricktur63 03-13-07, 12:07 AM	If you had read any of the two page references then you would have seen where it said NOT to use the Non-magical Psionics variant described in the DMG. It is usually universally regarded as a poor choice. It seems to me like you are just being obstinate so no matter what anyone says you will find fault with their examples. I was only using it as an example to explain how it is handled in that setting.
Angelflesh 03-13-07, 12:24 AM	That's all fine and dandy. But a campaign setting, such as Faerun or Eberron often tweak the rules (Faerun with psionics and the weave) or offer new rules (Eberron with action points). I'm not trying to find fault in other peoples arguments, there just is fault in them. When someone says Psionics is described as magical effects and then i point out that they certainly are not described that way, it's just me refuting what they said. If people are gonna pull..well.."stuff" out of their asses, i'm going to correct them if i am able. I apologize, i know i'm acting like a total jerk (like i said earlier), but i said i use non-transparency, and Tempest strolls by and says i's all or nothing. "if you want Psionics to be different, then Incarnum, Pact, Shadow, Truename, Arcane and Divine half to all be different." Give me a break, like i said Dispel Pact, Mystery and Utterance spells are not offered, i can only assume they are transparent with other forms of magic. Now before some one brings this up, MoI does offer such spells and Detect Incarnum, Unbind Chakra and Unshape Soulmeld. So i you can use Incarnum without transparency. I should apologize, i do use Incarmum without transparency because these spells are available. The thing is, when the book says it's a new magic system, the only logical conclusion you can come to is that it's magic.
Crystalforged 03-13-07, 02:13 AM	I do believe Tempest is simply stating his opinion on the matter. Just like you are. The way he stated could have been less adversarial but as you said yourself you haven't been exactly coordial either. Now that said its an opinion that I rather agree with. The way I see it each of these different classes all produce supernatural effects, quite a few of which rather similar, each drawing on it in a very different way. Lets say for example each of them wanted to create fire, what do they do? -Cleric prays to some supernatural being asking it to grant him the ability to create fire in return for his faith. -Wizard uses his long training to draw out and shape mystical energy through the use of complex gestures and gobblygook. -Sorcerer draws on some supernatural heritage to draw out and shape mystical energy through force of personality. -Truenamer chants off the words used to create the universe to change the properties of something. -Pact maker contacts some being that exists outside the conventional notions of reality that has some conection to fire and strikes a deal with him. -Psion draws on and shapes mystical energy around him through mental discipline. Now when you look at it this way each of them has their own ways of calling on their supernatural power and different sources of their power. So then it would seem to follow for me at least that either each is drawing on a "different" supernatural energy so then each of these energies would then not be "transparent" or they are ALL drawing on the same underlying mystical energy so they would each interact with each other as such. EDIT: In response to the OP's original question, I have to agree with many of the others that straight transparacy is probably the best option. There is something to be said about the flavor of making magic and psionics alien and different forces but its usually not worth the work it takes to balance it in game. For example even though your party doesn't have any psionicists in it there is still the issue that the BBEG will cut through their defenses like butter. Sure they'll do the same thing to him but this doesnt mean its not an issue. Its a lot like giving two guys machine guns and setting them loosing in a pitch black room, its probably going to go to the guy who hits first. There's also the aspect of items. Do the PCs want to pick up items to defend against psionics even though they'll probably be useless when they get out of Sarlona? What if their foes get their hands on items to protect against magic? If only one of these things happen the balance of power can wildly shift. On the other hand if they both happen you've just got youself into a mexican standoff that's likely to escalate. Now they both have some protection against the other, if one has better protection then the balance of power has shifted in their favor. To even the odds the other side obtains even better protection then and the balance of power shifts again and the cycle repeats. From the prespective of sheer practicality non-transparancy tends to add a level of complexity that is not always wanted or needed.
Soel Griffin 03-13-07, 03:29 AM	I also do not use the transparency rules. It works fine. I suspect most of the folks who are against it haven't tried running psionics differently. The fact that there is a variant rule in the book means that someone else has run it differently before as well. Magic is magic, and psionics are psionics.
ORC_Paradox 03-13-07, 07:26 AM	Guys, stop the flaming and trolling.
crizhII 03-13-07, 08:24 AM	Transparency is simply a means for handling the mechanics of interaction. The skills Spellcraft and Psicraft as well as Use Magical Device and Use Psionic Device can still be separate (for that matter, you can add separate Prayercraft and Use Ecclesiastic Device). It does not mean psionic powers are spells, it simply handles them as supernatural effects. Example: A telepath manifests Conceal Thoughts, a cleric or wizard uses a spell to attempt to read his mind. Transparency: He gets +4 on his Will save vs. the attempt; the power functions against magical mental intrusion. Non-transparency: The power is of no benefit; the XPH version assumes transparency and without it, the power is ineffective. Example: A seer manifest Detect Remote Viewing, no other psions are currently scrying his location, but a wizard, two sorcerers, a bard, a druid, a shaman, and three shugenja's are spying on him via spells. Transparency: He is aware of each scrying attempt and can make his ML check (separately) against each to get in image of the spy. Non-transparency: The power is of no use in detecting magical scrying. Example: A psion is hit with a Fireball spell and manifests Damp Power as an immediate action. Transparency: All variables of the spell (the damage) are minimized. Non-transparency: Nothing. He takes full damage. The power only affects other psionic effects and can not manipulate the variables of a spell. You can, if you are willing to do the work, opt for semi-transparency, but this is not the version presented as Psionics is different in the XPH. Most commonly, energy defenses are treated as the same (fire resistance 20 works vs. all fire effects whether they are psionic, magical, or mundane, and saving throw mods such as Conceal Thoughts apply regardless of the type of effect that forces the saving throw. You will still have to determine how various Detects and Dispels work. Unfortunately all three of the examples you have given here are flat wrong. Conceal Thoughts, Detect Scrying and Damp Power all explicitly apply to magical effects regardless of Transparency. The text of each power is fairly clear on the subject.
chiefsheep 03-13-07, 12:32 PM	At the risk of offering an answer to the question that was asked at the beginning of the thread (entertaining though the other posts have been), in the campaign I am currently playing in (an Eberron one) my DM uses the following modified magic/psionics transparancy rules: Detect Magic will detect the presence, number, and location of psionic auras, but not the strength or discipline. Detect Psionics will detect the presence, number, and location of magic auras, but not the strength or school. Dispel Magic checks that target psionics are cast at a -4 penalty. Dispel Psionics checks that target magic are manifested at a -4 penalty. Antimagic Field has a 50% chance to suppress psionics, checked every 1d4 rounds. Null Psionics Field has a 50% chance to suppress magic; checked every 1d4 rounds. Creatures with resistance to mind-affecting spells and effects gain resistance to psionic equivalents. Creatures with resistance to mind-affecting powers and effects gain resistance to magic equivalents. Creatures with spell resistance also gain power resistance equal to their spell resistance -5. Creatures with power resistance also gain spell resistance equal to their power resistance -5. The following skills can be used interchangeably for skill checks, but at a -5 penalty to emulate the opposing skill; ranks in these skills never “stack” and are not interchangeable for other purposes (such as meeting prerequisites for a prestige class): Spellcraft and Psicraft Use Magic Device and Use Psionic Device Knowledge (arcana) and Knowledge (psionics) Counterspells and countersongs do not affect powers. All other equivalent spells and powers are interchangeable; for example, Identify and Psionic Identify can each detect all magic or psionic properties. He may have copied it himself from a source, so hopefully I'm not trampling all over copyright here... Hope that helps you.
AntiDjinn 03-13-07, 01:06 PM	Unfortunately all three of the examples you have given here are flat wrong. Conceal Thoughts, Detect Scrying and Damp Power all explicitly apply to magical effects regardless of Transparency. The text of each power is fairly clear on the subject. The text of each power assumes you are using the default transparency rules. Refer to pages 65-66 of the XPH where a variant called "Psionics is Different" is detailed. Defenses vs. such things as mind-affecting effects do not cross with this variant even if they say they do. If you use non-transparency then sooner or later someone might research Damp Spell, or Detect Magical Remote Viewing (there is no Detect Scrying in the XPH), but they will be of higher level than the existing powers.
crizhII 03-13-07, 02:20 PM	The text of each power assumes you are using the default transparency rules. Refer to pages 65-66 of the XPH where a variant called "Psionics is Different" is detailed. Defenses vs. such things as mind-affecting effects do not cross with this variant even if they say they do. If you use non-transparency then sooner or later someone might research Damp Spell, or Detect Magical Remote Viewing (there is no Detect Scrying in the XPH), but they will be of higher level than the existing powers. I disagree most strongly. The text of all Powers assumes that you are not using Transparency. Transparency makes Spell/Power Resistance, Dispel Magic/Psionics and immunity to Mind Affecting Powers/Spells interchangable. That's it, period. Mind Blank, Psionic works against spells in a non-transparent game. Thought Shield, Intellect Fortress, Tower of Iron Will et al do not. I think you may need to study what the transparency rules actually say in more detail, XPH p55. To simplify, they say that anywhere that you see the phrase 'power' you can also assume that it also means 'spell.' If it says 'Power Resistance' you may read that as 'Spell Resistance'. If it says 'Mind Affecting Powers' you may read that as 'Mind Affecting Spells'. Obviously there's a whole vice versa thing there that goes without saying. Take that away and any 'power' that does not explicitly mention spells in its text no longer affects spells. Conversely any 'power' that does explicitly mention spells in its text continues to affect them just as it did before. It is designed this way specifically so that there do not have to be multiple versions of each power. It's quite cunning really, you provide an overarching principle that makes the two systems transparent whilst leaving the text of the actual powers non-transparent. Take away the overarching 'tranparency' principle et voila you are left with a perfectly functioning non-transparent system with no confusion and with minimal wasted text in the sourcebook. In conclusion, I'll say again because I'm sure there is someone willing to argue black was white here, the powers as written are non-transparent. The transparency principle is a set of very simple translations/substitutions to the text of all powers that make them transparent. Take that away and the system reverts to its default, non-transparent, position. Not the other way around.
AntiDjinn 03-13-07, 02:26 PM	So you are saying that Damp Power will still manipulate the parameters of a spell even in a non-transparency game, yet abosolutely no spell in the entire PHB will work because none of them reference powers in their text? That seems balanced. This is why DMs turned against psionics in 2E.
crizhII 03-13-07, 02:31 PM	So you are saying that Damp Power will still manipulate the parameters of a spell even in a non-transparency game, yet abosolutely no spell in the entire PHB will work because none of them reference powers in their text? That seems balanced. This is why DMs turned against psionics in 2E. What you are saying is that the transparency rules are incorporated into the body of the text of the individual powers. I am saying the opposite. You are saying that the powers should be used RAW in a transparent game but that any mention of spells should be edited out in a non transparent game I am saying that the powers should be used RAW in a non-transparent game but that the phrase 'or spell' should be added everywhere the word 'power' appears in a transparent game. Yesno?
ArcTan 03-13-07, 02:47 PM	How do you not get it? We have Magic and Psionics, i choose to make them different. Detect Magic works with Arcane, Divine, Pact, Shadow, Truename, and Incarnum. Why? Oh, because they are all magic. Now i could go another step further and break up Detect Magic into six separate spells if i wanted, but it would be unfair because if a PC took "Detect Arcane Magic" he would be at a loss with all other magic types. I guess that's why WOTC chose to call the spell "Detect Magic". The bottom line is, in my eyes, Magic isn't psionic, and Psionics aren't magical. ...WotC also chose to say that Full Transparency was the best option in the XPH and make all their future products under that assumption. I mean, whatever. I don't have a problem with less-than-full transparency, per se. Keith Baker has said he likes the semi-transparency rules (but not full opacity) that the XPH gives, because he likes a psionic character wandering around in Khorvaire to be just a little more untouchable than he should be and arcanists who wind up in Riedra to be just a little more confused and at a loss than they'd otherwise be. But it is more bookkeeping, and you really can achieve the same effect through flavor. (I mean, just because a Fighter's AC works against a Monk's unarmed attacks doesn't mean that a Fighter who's never seen a Monk before won't think the Monk's ability to do damage without weapons is *weird*, just as an arcanist has to deal with "magic" that doesn't fit into any schools, requires no components, needs no preparation, etc.)
ArcTan 03-13-07, 02:52 PM	Wrong. Read the title of the book Pact, Shadow and Truename Magic are in. In fact, read the entries for each magic system. Just because it doesn't come from a different plane, doesn't mean it's not magic, where the hell did you hear this nonsense? Oh yeah, i was reading the cover of Magic of Incarnum and it says "Magic of Incarnum" on the front... I hate to break it to you, but Psionics come from the mind, not the Astral Plane. I doesn't matter what you "think" or "believe". If you want to make it so in your campaign world, then you are free to do so. Now it does seem to have connections to the Astral Plane, hence the Astral Constructs and ectoplasm. What if i say Ghosts come from the Astral Plane? I own Ghostwalk, and it says they are made of ectoplasm, so therefore they are native to the Astral Plane. Wrong. I know i'm coming off as a total jerk, but you need to think before you post. You're mainly coming off as a total jerk because you're typing in very small characters people can't read, and because you're being completely unnecessarily defensive toward people who disagree with you. FWIW, "magic" and "psionic" are just words, without any good definition. They both, in real life, just refer to being able to do things that seem to break the laws of physics -- there's no *actual* distinction between them, just that they're words that apply to different traditions and vague, broad categories of things (i.e. the distinction is *flavor*). Anyway, the Astral Plane is the dimension of mind, providing the potential for all thought, dream, intelligence, etc. That's why it's where gods first form and where gods go to die (because pure belief is first generated there before finding an Outer Plane to be its home), why all planes are linked through it, etc. Manual of the Planes. As for where psionics "comes from", whatever. Where does magic "come from"? They're all just various kinds of power or technology for manipulating the world. It makes less sense to me that they'd be completely different kinds of power that can't interact with each other at all than the alternative, since in reality everything is ultimately part of the same world and based on the same principles. The same physical laws that govern how a crossbow works govern how a computer works -- it's just our understanding of them that differs.
ArcTan 03-13-07, 02:58 PM	I guess i had a different reading of transparency. For example, resist fire cast by a wizard would resist a fire power manifested by a psioncist. And a resist mind effect, would resist a mind effect, irregardless of whether cast by a wizard/psionicst. The logic being it protects one from fire, however that fire was produced. Or it protects one from having there mind read, however that mind was being read. It makes the same much sense as a shield spell protecting versus a soulblade. However a detect magic spell would not detect a psi power. Under default transparency rules, detect magic does detect the presence of active powers and their strength, but does not detect what they are, because Spellcraft and Psicraft are entirely different skills. (This makes sense, and is actually, IMO, cooler than making it not work at all. Think a Star Trek episode where the tricorder is going off the charts with "incredibly energetic readings of unknown origin".) What you describe isn't so much "transparency" as "sanity". Making it so that things like fire resistance or mind blank aren't "transparent" is going to create enormous problems for a magic/psionic campaign. Also, if i assume transparency, under the RAW does that make spellcraft/psicraft use magic device/ use psi device interchanable? No. That's a far greater degree of transparency than they assume. M/P transparency just assumes that magic and psionics are the same basic *force* -- that having a power active creates some kind of field around you that magic can detect -- but not that they're the same *thing*.
fozzybear 03-13-07, 03:00 PM	He's just telling everyone how HE uses psionics in HIS campaign. No need for everyone to get so defensive. YOU don't have to use psionics the way HE does. Just one option.
ArcTan 03-13-07, 03:04 PM	What you are saying is that the transparency rules are incorporated into the body of the text of the individual powers. I am saying the opposite. You are saying that the powers should be used RAW in a transparent game but that any mention of spells should be edited out in a non transparent game I am saying that the powers should be used RAW in a non-transparent game but that the phrase 'or spell' should be added everywhere the word 'power' appears in a transparent game. Yesno? See, the reason it doesn't say "or spell" was so that you could run a psionics-ONLY game, not a "non-transparent" game. Psionics was written -- perhaps foolishly -- so that it could be a completely self-contained system that replaces the existing magic system for DMs who want to do that, rather than just the ragged wart on the ass of D&D that previous psionics rules had been. If nothing else, making it so that psionics *could* work as its own self-contained system was a good decision for making sure psionics would be balanced, useful and fun. (As opposed to, say, Truenaming, which as a system only really seems fun if you use it to bolster ordinary arcane magic.) Sure, the powers are written in such a way so that you can disregard the existence of spells entirely if you so wish. The problem is that *spells* are also written that way, obviously, since spells were written before 3e psionics existed. Do this kind of "full non-transparency" and you realize that while a psionicist has *some* powers that do explicitly reference spells (usually in situations where a spell and a power would react differently because of different mechanics), an arcanist will have absolutely nothing at all he can do against a psionicist. A psionicist can use damp power on an arcanist's spells. An arcanist can use... what? His dispel magic is useless. His antimagic field is useless. Even his Mordenkainen's disjunction is useless. As noted, this is why DMs turned against 2e psionics.
crizhII 03-13-07, 03:22 PM	See, the reason it doesn't say "or spell" was so that you could run a psionics-ONLY game, not a "non-transparent" game. Psionics was written -- perhaps foolishly -- so that it could be a completely self-contained system that replaces the existing magic system for DMs who want to do that This argument holds no water. We were discussing the fact that powers like Damp Power do say 'or spell'. Please don't muddy the water while I wait for the reply to my previous question.
fozzybear 03-13-07, 03:24 PM	Wow, it is so easy to troll this board, its not even funny.
ArcTan 03-13-07, 03:30 PM	This argument holds no water. We were discussing the fact that powers like Damp Power do say 'or spell'. And, like I said, these usually deal with cases where they *have to* deal with ways in which spells are different from powers. The reason it doesn't say "or spell" after *every* power is because this would make it take up more ink and reduce the self-contained-ness of the system. Please don't muddy the water while I wait for the reply to my previous question. The answer to your question is the same one that he and I gave before. To run a game where you literally assume that if the text doesn't say "spell" it doesn't work on spells, and if it doesn't say "power" it doesn't work on powers, is lunacy, because while some powers mention spells, NO SPELLS MENTION POWERS. The reason there was a rule for transparency is so that they wouldn't have to go back and errata the entire magic section of the PHB to put "or power" in after everything. Sheesh, is it really that you love psionics so much that you've forgotten how many books on magic there are that don't mention psionics at all, and assume it doesn't exist? And how problematic that would be if you took that literally in a game with psionics?
crizhII 03-13-07, 04:13 PM	See, the reason it doesn't say "or spell" was so that you could run a psionics-ONLY game, not a "non-transparent" game. Psionics was written -- perhaps foolishly -- so that it could be a completely self-contained system that replaces the existing magic system for DMs who want to do that Look, either it was written as a self-contained system or it wasn't. If any power references spells it wasn't. That entire argument, as quoted above, is specious. It is merely so much smoke, mirrors and bs. I won't address it again.
crizhII 03-13-07, 04:17 PM	while some powers mention spells, NO SPELLS MENTION POWERS. And? So? What? e.g. Mind Blank in a non-transparent game is more powerful. Why? Because it clearly blocks Psionics but has no effective Psionic counter. A Psion may use Shatter Mind Blank on a Personal Mind Blank but may not do so on a Mind Blank. Which further draws me away from the straight yes/no question I asked AntiDjinn 5 posts back....
Uchiha_Arthas 03-13-07, 08:00 PM	At the risk of offering an answer to the question that was asked at the beginning of the thread (entertaining though the other posts have been), in the campaign I am currently playing in (an Eberron one) my DM uses the following modified magic/psionics transparancy rules: Detect Magic will detect the presence, number, and location of psionic auras, but not the strength or discipline. Detect Psionics will detect the presence, number, and location of magic auras, but not the strength or school. Dispel Magic checks that target psionics are cast at a -4 penalty. Dispel Psionics checks that target magic are manifested at a -4 penalty. Antimagic Field has a 50% chance to suppress psionics, checked every 1d4 rounds. Null Psionics Field has a 50% chance to suppress magic; checked every 1d4 rounds. Creatures with resistance to mind-affecting spells and effects gain resistance to psionic equivalents. Creatures with resistance to mind-affecting powers and effects gain resistance to magic equivalents. Creatures with spell resistance also gain power resistance equal to their spell resistance -5. Creatures with power resistance also gain spell resistance equal to their power resistance -5. The following skills can be used interchangeably for skill checks, but at a -5 penalty to emulate the opposing skill; ranks in these skills never “stack” and are not interchangeable for other purposes (such as meeting prerequisites for a prestige class): Spellcraft and Psicraft Use Magic Device and Use Psionic Device Knowledge (arcana) and Knowledge (psionics) Counterspells and countersongs do not affect powers. All other equivalent spells and powers are interchangeable; for example, Identify and Psionic Identify can each detect all magic or psionic properties. He may have copied it himself from a source, so hopefully I'm not trampling all over copyright here... Hope that helps you. I have read this entire thread and Laughed and sighed at the (insert word of your choice) of people and I must say the above person makes the most sense and arguably has the best system. Reason Being: The Role-Player in me wants Psionics and Magic to be different. Its more fun and more realistic/immersive...But the Player in me does realise that if there are different then magic users have no real good counter. The above seems like the best comprimise.
AntiDjinn 03-13-07, 08:27 PM	Even with semi-transparency, it still makes little sense why psionics should be different yet divine and arcane magic are not only transparent, but fully identical. Had it never bothered anyone that a sorcerer can make a simple Spellcraft roll to realize a shugenja is casting a Heal spell even if he has never seen a shugenja before and Heal is not on the sorcerer list? The sorcerer does not even take a penalty to his roll. If I worship Agni the god of fire and have cast a divine Wall of Flame (domain spell), why should any wizard just be able to dispell this divine boon with a waive of his hand? If you are a wizard and are casting an arcane spell that you researched yourself, why can any cleric identify it on sight? Why should their prepared divine defenses be fully effective against it? If a wizard is impeded in nerfing a power manifest by a lurk, he should also be hard pressed to dispel a druid's spell. If you are going to go with non-transparency then take the next logical step and go with FULL non-transparency. Make divine and arcane separate so you have three unique realms of power instead of one huge one called magic and a tiny one called psionics.
Angelflesh 03-13-07, 08:41 PM	What is up with some of you saying if you're going to use non-transparency, then go all or nothing, blah blah blah. Give me a break, you rework all the spells that effect other magical effects and i'll do it. Now, you can't just split the spells up into several different versions, the spell level ought to be lowered, since Dispel Divine Magic would have zero effect on Arcane, Incarnum, Pact, Shadow, and Truename magic. It all comes down to a big inconvenience because now i need to predict how many casters of each type i am likely to encounter, which i have no way of doing accurately without metagaming. Now we can assume that most campaigns will include mostly arcane and divine magic so it's actually not so bad, right? Wrong. There are so many spells out there that affect magical effects. Now i need to figure out which spells to take and take into consideration if i am going to be up against more arcane than divine casters or vice versa. I don't know about you, but i don't feel like wasting all my spells on arcane and divine copies of the same spell. You see what i mean, going all the way with non-transparency is going to cause many problems and complications.
Crystalforged 03-13-07, 09:01 PM	I think I speak for most of us when we say we realize going all the way with non-transparancy is going to cause problems. We're also saying that doing non-transparancy is going to cause problems too or extra book keeping at the least. What I at least have been trying to say is that IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO GO ALL OR NOTHING. I've been trying to say that Psionics isn't all that different from magic compared to how different some of the subtypes of "magic" are from each other so logically segregating psionics in particular doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But the key word is logic, something gets glossed over in D&D pretty regularly for the sake of fun/practicality/flavor/etc so if you want to intergrate non-transparancy, go for it. I'm just saying why it doesn't seem logical to ME.
Angelflesh 03-13-07, 09:20 PM	In mechanics psionics and magic are similar, but otherwise they are described as two completely different forces. That's why it seems logical to separate them. I don't mind a little extra book keeping, because the extra work i put into the game when i use non-transparency is well worth the reward. I understand things may run a bit smoother and quicker if you treat magic and psionics the same, but when you emphasize the differences and make the two separate, and distinct forces, the pay off is much greater. In my opinion, with transparency i'm a sorcerer, but i call my spells "powers".
Xaxor 03-13-07, 09:28 PM	Well, maybe you should take the next step then Angelflesh. If you don't want to go completely non-transparent, then why do it with Psionics and "Magic"? There is still more book-keeping. Why bother other than flavour? If flavour is your only concern, then take a look at these boards. There are more than enough re-flavouring topics. It's not that hard.
Angelflesh 03-13-07, 09:39 PM	Well, maybe you should take the next step then Angelflesh. If you don't want to go completely non-transparent, then why do it with Psionics and "Magic"? There is still more book-keeping. Why bother other than flavour? If flavour is your only concern, then take a look at these boards. There are more than enough re-flavouring topics. It's not that hard. I'd like you to quote where i said flavor was my only concern. Also, please refer to post #45 that i made stating the reasons using non-transparency with all the magic systems is not practical. Not because of extra book keeping, which i would have no problem with, but because of all the complications that arise. Besides, the fact that i prefer separate spells/powers to affect magical and psionic effects proves i prefer the mechanical differences as well. You can have transparency and stuff your campaign full of flavor in order to differentiate between things, which is entirely possible, but i enjoy the mechanical differences and extra work as well. I'm not lazy, i enjoy working on my campaigns and adventures, i use optional rules where i believe it will enhance the game play, flavor, and overall enjoyment of the experience, regardless of the extra work involved. Please, think about the ramifications of such implementations unless you have a solution.
Angelflesh 03-13-07, 09:52 PM	On another note, i think most of you are getting the wrong idea about me. It seems a lot of you think i'm telling everyone to use non-transparency because it's better or because i said so. Here i am, i have half the people in thread at my throat because of my opinion. Seriously, i said why i think non-transparency is better, and why transparency with all the magic types would be impractical. Don't come to me and say i should go to the next level if i want transparency if you haven't thought it through first and realized the problems such rules would cause. Transparency with psionics and all magic types would be great and i would implement it, but the ends do not justify the means. Implementing such non-transparency rules would be like taking 1 step forward and 5 steps back. By all my means, if anyone has a solution to this problem i have realized, or knows something i don't, hit me with it.
jbsaff 03-14-07, 01:43 AM	You are welcome to an opinion. Just don't be suprised if/when someone finds your opinion impractical or illogical and asks about the apparent inconsistency. You have said that you do not mind the extra "bookkeeping" keeping Magic and Psionics different, but that implementing the same level of non-transparency between differing magic types would be impractical due to the complications of such a division. Others see Magic/Psionics non-transparency the same way that you view non-transparency between magic systems. Thus the appearance of incongruence.
Daydreamer 03-14-07, 01:57 AM	Whoa whoa, when i said not transparent i still assumed procection from fire would help vs psionic fire etc. I just meant detect powers wouldnt detect magic and vice versa. But things that protect against a force-ie fire, would be interchanagable. And things that protect against mental intrusion would be interchanagable.
Soel Griffin 03-14-07, 02:03 AM	He's just telling everyone how HE uses psionics in HIS campaign. No need for everyone to get so defensive. YOU don't have to use psionics the way HE does. Just one option. Really. I don't see why people can't realize that others run games differently than they do.
ArcTan 03-14-07, 02:45 AM	On another note, i think most of you are getting the wrong idea about me. It seems a lot of you think i'm telling everyone to use non-transparency because it's better or because i said so. Here i am, i have half the people in thread at my throat because of my opinion. That's what happens when you state an opinion in a forthright, blunt way that makes it sound like there's no reason behind it. (Psionics and magic are DIFFERENT. They just are. They're DIFFERENT. Look, the XPH doesn't ever use the word "magic" anywhere.) And then jump down someone's throat, telling them to take their opinion and shove it, when they question your opinion.
Angelflesh 03-14-07, 09:06 AM	You are welcome to an opinion. Just don't be suprised if/when someone finds your opinion impractical or illogical and asks about the apparent inconsistency. You have said that you do not mind the extra "bookkeeping" keeping Magic and Psionics different, but that implementing the same level of non-transparency between differing magic types would be impractical due to the complications of such a division. Others see Magic/Psionics non-transparency the same way that you view non-transparency between magic systems. Thus the appearance of incongruence. You obviously didn't read a word i wrote about the consequences if implementing non-transparency with the magic types. Also, please point out the inconsistencies of Psionics-Magic transparency and i will be happy to destroy them. That's what happens when you state an opinion in a forthright, blunt way that makes it sound like there's no reason behind it. (Psionics and magic are DIFFERENT. They just are. They're DIFFERENT. Look, the XPH doesn't ever use the word "magic" anywhere.) And then jump down someone's throat, telling them to take their opinion and shove it, when they question your opinion. I gave more then enough reasons for my opinion, but i don't need to give any reasons at all. Like i said above, read my previous posts if you think i no reasoning to go with my opnion. I swear, it feels like i'm two steps ahead of the people i'm arguing with. You guys make claims about me and don't back it up, so i have to you point to the posts that you obviously skipped where your statement gets torn to shreds before you even made it.