Just because sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic does not mean sufficiently advance technology and magic are the same thing.
If there can be one method to break the laws of physics, there can be other different methods that break the laws of physics, yet achieve the same end results.
If the 'sufficiently advanced technology' breaks the laws of physics, it's magic.
Regarding the "I don't want components" bloc, I'd say there's pretty much no way they're going to make a class with something like full casting power abilities that doesn't use them, especially if mind stuff is supposed to be the focus. One of the very few drawbacks/limitations to spellcasting is that without Subtle Spell you can't really conceal most casts unless your DM is very generous about V and S components. This is clearly by design to prevent casters from always fishing for a Charm/Dominate Person or similar effect in social encounters, so it's highly unlikely it's going anywhere.
I completely agree. In fact, I’ll go as far as saying that componentless casting is either a fumbled wisdom check out or a flagrant attempt to seek an unfair advantage.
You know, if I thought you were convincible, I might. But I don't, so you can do the work yourself.
I'll stick with addressing what you're willing to defend then.
Oh, I'm entirely willing to defend anything I said. But, since:
You have presumably been reading the thread
You are still arguing the way you are
I must conclude that you have seen my arguments, and didn't find them persuasive. So I'm not gonna waste my time digging them up so you can say "those don't refute my arguments".
Quick quiz: how many similar but actually different methods are there for casting classes to choose and manage their spells? I count at least five, and I suspect there are more. Were those carefully considered?
What does this have to do with the price of tea in Kara-Tur? Is there a spell selection method you have a problem with? Because I don't. (Except Ranger, they should be prepared casters, but we already know that's getting fixed.)
When you're arguing that the spellcasting system is "carefully considered", I think that's an extremely relevant question.
Just to spell it out: It's an example of how it's a pile of arbitrary decisions, at least some of which are "because we've always done it that way". Even if you're making the choices for flavor reasons, you need to be very careful, because minor variations on a mechanic are inherently confusing to players. I think they're going to be down to two, maybe three, in revised, which is a much better number.
Until players can agree on what prions should be then absolutely the developers should hold off on building the class. Without a target to build to, developers would just be firing blind.
That's not how game design works. Designers design. Playtesters react, and the designers iterate or change course based on the feedback they get. At no point does the playerbase as a whole set the course. To try that would get you nowhere, because players don't actually agree on anything. Even the question "should there be psychic classes?" is disputed, and that's a much higher-level question than "how should they work?" You can't even get agreement on how existing classes should work: the designers pick a direction and go.
Even with the revised 5e playtest, which is an extremely unusual process, that's not how it was done. The had ideas, developed them in-house, and then sent some of them out to the public to see how they landed. There was some tweaking in response to comment, but mostly it was just picking among options.
Actually, in this type of situation, it's exactly how game design works and is intended to work -- in any situation where your goal is to implement a feature that has been requested by users, the first step is to try and figure out what they're actually asking for, then figure out what you can actually implement and determine whether that matches the request.
Psionics is literally just magic that a bunch of pretentious science fiction writers came up with back in the 50s because they wanted to have space wizards.
Well, sort of. The actual word 'psionics' comes from 1950s SF, but 'psi' as a term comes via multiple steps from the Greek word psyche (and just means mind, spirit, breath), and the idea of psychic powers is visible in 19th century parapsychology; for example, the Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882.
Which would have been new age mysticism and re-interpretation of traditional folk lore.
IE
Just because sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic does not mean sufficiently advance technology and magic are the same thing.
If there can be one method to break the laws of physics, there can be other different methods that break the laws of physics, yet achieve the same end results.
Again, semantic handwaving does not really solve anything.
I like how you are poo-pooing on me for "semantic handwaving" while the proponents of psionics are engaged in semantic fist shaking.
Actually, in this type of situation, it's exactly how game design works and is intended to work -- in any situation where your goal is to implement a feature that has been requested by users, the first step is to try and figure out what they're actually asking for, then figure out what you can actually implement and determine whether that matches the request.
It also enters into a question of whether or not it's realistically feesible within the framework of the game itself.
Like as an example, I'm sure that their would be people who would be really excited to have giant anime robots (IE Eva unit 01) but how someone would balance out a party that has a member in a 40 meter tall suit of armor would be beyond me.
Taking a feat to get adequate telepathy is not "picking spells".
The main thing the half-feat gives you is a spell without the components. You can just take the spell without it and make it Subtle, it's not hard. For the transmission side of things, you can either use the Message cantrip or the Aberrant Mind speech ability.
When you're arguing that the spellcasting system is "carefully considered", I think that's an extremely relevant question.
Just to spell it out: It's an example of how it's a pile of arbitrary decisions, at least some of which are "because we've always done it that way". Even if you're making the choices for flavor reasons, you need to be very careful, because minor variations on a mechanic are inherently confusing to players. I think they're going to be down to two, maybe three, in revised, which is a much better number.
This is just as much an argument against psionics as a discrete subsystem as it is for it, you realize that right?
Psionics is literally just magic that a bunch of pretentious science fiction writers came up with back in the 50s because they wanted to have space wizards.
Well, sort of. The actual word 'psionics' comes from 1950s SF, but 'psi' as a term comes via multiple steps from the Greek word psyche (and just means mind, spirit, breath), and the idea of psychic powers is visible in 19th century parapsychology; for example, the Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882.
Which would have been new age mysticism and re-interpretation of traditional folk lore.
I'll try this again. They have substantive criteria that go along with what they consider psionics. So, for that matter, do writers who have used such concepts in a literary context.
Changing names of things that do not fit those criteria does not make them fit those criteria.
When you're arguing that the spellcasting system is "carefully considered", I think that's an extremely relevant question.
Just to spell it out: It's an example of how it's a pile of arbitrary decisions, at least some of which are "because we've always done it that way". Even if you're making the choices for flavor reasons, you need to be very careful, because minor variations on a mechanic are inherently confusing to players. I think they're going to be down to two, maybe three, in revised, which is a much better number.
This is just as much an argument against psionics as a discrete subsystem as it is for it, you realize that right?
A discrete, standalone, subsystem is not "minor variations". (Well, maybe "just do it with spell slots" would be, if you're gonna patch it to make it more psychic-like.)
That has its own confusion load, as I've mentioned, but it's fundamentally different in type; more of an initial hurdle issue than an ongoing "which one is this?" Does anyone think battlemaster powers, or warlock invocations, or artificer infusions, are confusing just because they're not spells? (The answer is almost certainly "yes", but not statistically significant.) "There are too many classes and subclasses, each with their own things", is much more common, and legit, but 5e has a definite design decision on that axis already.
Actually, in this type of situation, it's exactly how game design works and is intended to work -- in any situation where your goal is to implement a feature that has been requested by users, the first step is to try and figure out what they're actually asking for, then figure out what you can actually implement and determine whether that matches the request.
That might be appropriate for things like "necromancers are overpowered in the new season of diablo 4" or "Mishra's Bottle Washer needs banning in Standard" - you look at the available evidence, see if it's actually true, decide if you care, make some attempt to figure out what the metagame will look like after, and make the call.
But for new things like this? Yeah, no. You'll have high-level data like "there's a bunch of players who want psychic powers in D&D -- look at how busy that thread is!", but the decision to do it is made on high-level strategy like "We're doing Dark Sun/a completely different psionic-based setting" or "We're doing PHB2, with the updated Artificer and some other classes, so start kicking around the new class ideas." The designers almost certainly aren't allowed to read the forums, due to the generally-accepted issue of "they used my idea! I'll sue!" (Which is vastly overrated IMO, but common.) They're certainly not going to look for consensus at the high level, much less the implementation level.
Psionics is literally just magic that a bunch of pretentious science fiction writers came up with back in the 50s because they wanted to have space wizards.
Well, sort of. The actual word 'psionics' comes from 1950s SF, but 'psi' as a term comes via multiple steps from the Greek word psyche (and just means mind, spirit, breath), and the idea of psychic powers is visible in 19th century parapsychology; for example, the Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882.
Which would have been new age mysticism and re-interpretation of traditional folk lore.
I'll try this again. They have substantive criteria that go along with what they consider psionics. So, for that matter, do writers who have used such concepts in a literary context.
Changing names of things that do not fit those criteria does not make them fit those criteria.
A Hummer, Porsche, Dodge Trans-am, PT cruiser, Delorean, Pinto and Model T ford may all have different names and performances but at the end of the day they are still all automobiles and still powered by an internal combustion engine.
If there are people from WotC observing this thread they'll see that a sizable amount of the commentary is about how psionics doesn't make sense as a distinct subsystem.
Also this is like, 250 posts over the course of 3 years with a lot of it being from the same posters going in circles.
Psionics is literally just magic that a bunch of pretentious science fiction writers came up with back in the 50s because they wanted to have space wizards.
Well, sort of. The actual word 'psionics' comes from 1950s SF, but 'psi' as a term comes via multiple steps from the Greek word psyche (and just means mind, spirit, breath), and the idea of psychic powers is visible in 19th century parapsychology; for example, the Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882.
Which would have been new age mysticism and re-interpretation of traditional folk lore.
I'll try this again. They have substantive criteria that go along with what they consider psionics. So, for that matter, do writers who have used such concepts in a literary context.
Changing names of things that do not fit those criteria does not make them fit those criteria.
A Hummer, Porsche, Dodge Trans-am, PT cruiser, Delorean, Pinto and Model T ford may all have different names and performances but at the end of the day they are still all automobiles and still powered by an internal combustion engine.
Yes they are. However if you try to say that they are all battle tanks, simply because battle tanks are also ground vehicles with internal combustion engines, do not expect anyone to agree with you. Or if you are talking about something with the performance of a Model T being competitive in the context of an Indiana 500 game. Changing the names does not make the differences irrelevant in a context where the differences are relevant.
Same with the various archery related things, when I was talking about renaming firebolts as archery, as if a firebolt really is simply a different kind of bow or arrow or training or something.
Psionics is literally just magic that a bunch of pretentious science fiction writers came up with back in the 50s because they wanted to have space wizards.
Well, sort of. The actual word 'psionics' comes from 1950s SF, but 'psi' as a term comes via multiple steps from the Greek word psyche (and just means mind, spirit, breath), and the idea of psychic powers is visible in 19th century parapsychology; for example, the Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882.
Which would have been new age mysticism and re-interpretation of traditional folk lore.
I'll try this again. They have substantive criteria that go along with what they consider psionics. So, for that matter, do writers who have used such concepts in a literary context.
Changing names of things that do not fit those criteria does not make them fit those criteria.
A Hummer, Porsche, Dodge Trans-am, PT cruiser, Delorean, Pinto and Model T ford may all have different names and performances but at the end of the day they are still all automobiles and still powered by an internal combustion engine.
Yes they are. However if you try to say that they are all battle tanks, simply because battle tanks are also ground vehicles with internal combustion engines, do not expect anyone to agree with you. Or if you are talking about something with the performance of a Model T being competitive in the context of an Indiana 500 game. Changing the names does not make the differences irrelevant in a context where the differences are relevant.
Same with the various archery related things, when I was talking about renaming firebolts as archery, as if a firebolt really is simply a different kind of bow or arrow or training or something.
Weren't you the one accusing me of engaging in semantics before?
Psionics is literally just magic that a bunch of pretentious science fiction writers came up with back in the 50s because they wanted to have space wizards.
Well, sort of. The actual word 'psionics' comes from 1950s SF, but 'psi' as a term comes via multiple steps from the Greek word psyche (and just means mind, spirit, breath), and the idea of psychic powers is visible in 19th century parapsychology; for example, the Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882.
Which would have been new age mysticism and re-interpretation of traditional folk lore.
I'll try this again. They have substantive criteria that go along with what they consider psionics. So, for that matter, do writers who have used such concepts in a literary context.
Changing names of things that do not fit those criteria does not make them fit those criteria.
Fortunately for us, the Aberrant Mind is about a 98% match to what a Psion should be in all but flavor and flavor is easy to change.
So, it's important to understand what kinds of asks are simply nonstarters, and if demanded, will just make Wizards decide to do nothing at all:
Psi not interacting with magic countermeasures. They aren't going to redesign a bunch of adventures and monsters to have new psi countermeasures, nor are they going to make it so a psi can trivially bypass challenges that are supposed to be hard, so psi, unless it's weak enough to be irrelevant, will be treated as a magical effect subject to normal countermeasures against magic.
Completely new power lists, unless those lists are extremely short (short enough to fit in a class/subclass description of a couple pages). Wizards isn't going to publish hundreds of new effects for use by a narrow interest group.
Then there's things they might be willing to do but would need better arguments than "I don't like it", such as
A new class. They've published all of one new class since 2014, they're clearly unenthusiastic about it.
A system that doesn't use spell slots. Spell slots have a bunch of useful predefined interactions (including things like multiclassing) and are standard for the game.
So, it's important to understand what kinds of asks are simply nonstarters, and if demanded, will just make Wizards decide to do nothing at all:
Psi not interacting with magic countermeasures. They aren't going to redesign a bunch of adventures and monsters to have new psi countermeasures, nor are they going to make it so a psi can trivially bypass challenges that are supposed to be hard, so psi, unless it's weak enough to be irrelevant, will be treated as a magical effect subject to normal countermeasures against magic.
Completely new power lists, unless those lists are extremely short (short enough to fit in a class/subclass description of a couple pages). Wizards isn't going to publish hundreds of new effects for use by a narrow interest group.
Then there's things they might be willing to do but would need better arguments than "I don't like it", such as
A new class. They've published all of one new class since 2014, they're clearly unenthusiastic about it.
A system that doesn't use spell slots. Spell slots have a bunch of useful predefined interactions (including things like multiclassing) and are standard for the game.
Bolded is arguably the most signifigant hurdle; like the direction WotC has elected to go with for their product is to diversify via subclasses rather then making whole new classes (or the insufferable horror of prestige classes) because they're faster and easier to pop out then a new class (which in turn needs to be supported with future content).
While this does leave some folks in the dust, it is ultimately better for the company overall.
A discrete, standalone, subsystem is not "minor variations". (Well, maybe "just do it with spell slots" would be, if you're gonna patch it to make it more psychic-like.)
That has its own confusion load, as I've mentioned, but it's fundamentally different in type; more of an initial hurdle issue than an ongoing "which one is this?" Does anyone think battlemaster powers, or warlock invocations, or artificer infusions, are confusing just because they're not spells? (The answer is almost certainly "yes", but not statistically significant.) "There are too many classes and subclasses, each with their own things", is much more common, and legit, but 5e has a definite design decision on that axis already.
I meant that past iterations of psionics have themselves been, quote, "a pile of arbitrary decisions." Like all their failed attempts at nontransparency and psionic combat which led to them abandoning those ideas entirely in the XPH.
If instead all you want is a tiny menu of abilities like battlemaster powers, I have good news, Psi Warrior and Soulknife exist. If instead what you want are a larger menu of supplemental options like Invocations and Infusions - hey, did you notice how those aren't the core of their respective classes and how they both needed spellcasting to go alongside them?
And if what you're asking for is something that bears no resemblance to any of those, or any iteration of psionics that came before - well fine, "make me something that has never existed and that I can't adequately describe" is certainly a thing you can ask for, but you know, good luck with that.
Then there's things they might be willing to do but would need better arguments than "I don't like it", such as
A new class. They've published all of one new class since 2014, they're clearly unenthusiastic about it.
A system that doesn't use spell slots. Spell slots have a bunch of useful predefined interactions (including things like multiclassing) and are standard for the game.
I still don't know what the aversion to spell slots even is. Is it the word "spell?" We can change that, but again I point to Paizo here that correctly realized "actually, using spell slots for our psionics system makes sense."
I still don't know what the aversion to spell slots even is.
I mean... I can see how some people could be opposed to the vancian system since it's rather removed from more contemporary magic systems that tend towards MP.
Doesn't change the fact that the opposition to it comes across as some bitter teenager contrarianism in this case.
I mean... I can see how some people could be opposed to the vancian system since it's rather removed from more contemporary magic systems that tend towards MP.
I guess I'm not seeing why psionics specifically has to be opposed to that. Someone who is against Vancian magic should want everyone using SP/MP - and we can do that! (And yes, I know you know this.)
Besides - 5e isn't truly Vancian anyway - you don't have to prepare the same spell multiple times to use it more than once.
I mean... I can see how some people could be opposed to the vancian system since it's rather removed from more contemporary magic systems that tend towards MP.
I guess I'm not seeing why psionics specifically has to be opposed to that. Someone who is against Vancian magic should want everyone using SP/MP - and we can do that! (And yes, I know you know this.)
Besides - 5e isn't truly Vancian anyway - you don't have to prepare the same spell multiple times to use it more than once.
Yeah but if they gave everyone MP then they'd have less reasons to justify having their very own treehouse you see.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If the 'sufficiently advanced technology' breaks the laws of physics, it's magic.
I completely agree. In fact, I’ll go as far as saying that componentless casting is either a fumbled wisdom check out or a flagrant attempt to seek an unfair advantage.
Taking a feat to get adequate telepathy is not "picking spells".
Oh, I'm entirely willing to defend anything I said. But, since:
I must conclude that you have seen my arguments, and didn't find them persuasive. So I'm not gonna waste my time digging them up so you can say "those don't refute my arguments".
When you're arguing that the spellcasting system is "carefully considered", I think that's an extremely relevant question.
Just to spell it out: It's an example of how it's a pile of arbitrary decisions, at least some of which are "because we've always done it that way". Even if you're making the choices for flavor reasons, you need to be very careful, because minor variations on a mechanic are inherently confusing to players. I think they're going to be down to two, maybe three, in revised, which is a much better number.
That's not how game design works. Designers design. Playtesters react, and the designers iterate or change course based on the feedback they get. At no point does the playerbase as a whole set the course. To try that would get you nowhere, because players don't actually agree on anything. Even the question "should there be psychic classes?" is disputed, and that's a much higher-level question than "how should they work?" You can't even get agreement on how existing classes should work: the designers pick a direction and go.
Even with the revised 5e playtest, which is an extremely unusual process, that's not how it was done. The had ideas, developed them in-house, and then sent some of them out to the public to see how they landed. There was some tweaking in response to comment, but mostly it was just picking among options.
Actually, in this type of situation, it's exactly how game design works and is intended to work -- in any situation where your goal is to implement a feature that has been requested by users, the first step is to try and figure out what they're actually asking for, then figure out what you can actually implement and determine whether that matches the request.
I like how you are poo-pooing on me for "semantic handwaving" while the proponents of psionics are engaged in semantic fist shaking.
It also enters into a question of whether or not it's realistically feesible within the framework of the game itself.
Like as an example, I'm sure that their would be people who would be really excited to have giant anime robots (IE Eva unit 01) but how someone would balance out a party that has a member in a 40 meter tall suit of armor would be beyond me.
The main thing the half-feat gives you is a spell without the components. You can just take the spell without it and make it Subtle, it's not hard.
For the transmission side of things, you can either use the Message cantrip or the Aberrant Mind speech ability.
Sure thing.
This is just as much an argument against psionics as a discrete subsystem as it is for it, you realize that right?
I'll try this again. They have substantive criteria that go along with what they consider psionics. So, for that matter, do writers who have used such concepts in a literary context.
Changing names of things that do not fit those criteria does not make them fit those criteria.
A discrete, standalone, subsystem is not "minor variations". (Well, maybe "just do it with spell slots" would be, if you're gonna patch it to make it more psychic-like.)
That has its own confusion load, as I've mentioned, but it's fundamentally different in type; more of an initial hurdle issue than an ongoing "which one is this?" Does anyone think battlemaster powers, or warlock invocations, or artificer infusions, are confusing just because they're not spells? (The answer is almost certainly "yes", but not statistically significant.) "There are too many classes and subclasses, each with their own things", is much more common, and legit, but 5e has a definite design decision on that axis already.
That might be appropriate for things like "necromancers are overpowered in the new season of diablo 4" or "Mishra's Bottle Washer needs banning in Standard" - you look at the available evidence, see if it's actually true, decide if you care, make some attempt to figure out what the metagame will look like after, and make the call.
But for new things like this? Yeah, no. You'll have high-level data like "there's a bunch of players who want psychic powers in D&D -- look at how busy that thread is!", but the decision to do it is made on high-level strategy like "We're doing Dark Sun/a completely different psionic-based setting" or "We're doing PHB2, with the updated Artificer and some other classes, so start kicking around the new class ideas." The designers almost certainly aren't allowed to read the forums, due to the generally-accepted issue of "they used my idea! I'll sue!" (Which is vastly overrated IMO, but common.) They're certainly not going to look for consensus at the high level, much less the implementation level.
A Hummer, Porsche, Dodge Trans-am, PT cruiser, Delorean, Pinto and Model T ford may all have different names and performances but at the end of the day they are still all automobiles and still powered by an internal combustion engine.
If there are people from WotC observing this thread they'll see that a sizable amount of the commentary is about how psionics doesn't make sense as a distinct subsystem.
Also this is like, 250 posts over the course of 3 years with a lot of it being from the same posters going in circles.
Yes they are. However if you try to say that they are all battle tanks, simply because battle tanks are also ground vehicles with internal combustion engines, do not expect anyone to agree with you. Or if you are talking about something with the performance of a Model T being competitive in the context of an Indiana 500 game. Changing the names does not make the differences irrelevant in a context where the differences are relevant.
Same with the various archery related things, when I was talking about renaming firebolts as archery, as if a firebolt really is simply a different kind of bow or arrow or training or something.
Weren't you the one accusing me of engaging in semantics before?
Fortunately for us, the Aberrant Mind is about a 98% match to what a Psion should be in all but flavor and flavor is easy to change.
So, it's important to understand what kinds of asks are simply nonstarters, and if demanded, will just make Wizards decide to do nothing at all:
Then there's things they might be willing to do but would need better arguments than "I don't like it", such as
Bolded is arguably the most signifigant hurdle; like the direction WotC has elected to go with for their product is to diversify via subclasses rather then making whole new classes (or the insufferable horror of prestige classes) because they're faster and easier to pop out then a new class (which in turn needs to be supported with future content).
While this does leave some folks in the dust, it is ultimately better for the company overall.
I meant that past iterations of psionics have themselves been, quote, "a pile of arbitrary decisions." Like all their failed attempts at nontransparency and psionic combat which led to them abandoning those ideas entirely in the XPH.
If instead all you want is a tiny menu of abilities like battlemaster powers, I have good news, Psi Warrior and Soulknife exist. If instead what you want are a larger menu of supplemental options like Invocations and Infusions - hey, did you notice how those aren't the core of their respective classes and how they both needed spellcasting to go alongside them?
And if what you're asking for is something that bears no resemblance to any of those, or any iteration of psionics that came before - well fine, "make me something that has never existed and that I can't adequately describe" is certainly a thing you can ask for, but you know, good luck with that.
I still don't know what the aversion to spell slots even is. Is it the word "spell?" We can change that, but again I point to Paizo here that correctly realized "actually, using spell slots for our psionics system makes sense."
I mean... I can see how some people could be opposed to the vancian system since it's rather removed from more contemporary magic systems that tend towards MP.
Doesn't change the fact that the opposition to it comes across as some bitter teenager contrarianism in this case.
I guess I'm not seeing why psionics specifically has to be opposed to that. Someone who is against Vancian magic should want everyone using SP/MP - and we can do that! (And yes, I know you know this.)
Besides - 5e isn't truly Vancian anyway - you don't have to prepare the same spell multiple times to use it more than once.
Yeah but if they gave everyone MP then they'd have less reasons to justify having their very own treehouse you see.