D&D 4E 4e Psionics speculation

[Harshax]

Harshax- really? 2ed psionics? AHHH! disintigrate or teleport at 3rd level, Multiple Attribute Dependancy, being able to spend 2 slots for a + 2 to a roll, and psionic attack madness
it was different all right, but after playing Darksun a while I wished it wasn't.

Hey! No Fair! I already said the 2E implementation may be wonky or weird!

I definitely don't think the difference between Psionics and Wizardry should be one of mechanics, just theme.

I also hope to see Psychic Surgery as a Discipline. (psionic equivalent of ritual)

 

[Sadrik]

Personally, I see the archetypical Samurai as more of a Striker than a Defender or Leader, but that's besides the point.

This is D&D! And we've had an Oriental Adventures sourcebook for every edition of the game since the 80's. So chances are, the majority of writers, gamers, and consumers disagree with you. Whether you think it is silly or not, probably doesn't factor into the OP's request, so I don't really know how you are contributing to the discussion, other than to hijack or troll it.

I definitely prefer to get all the thematic classes in one go, and not spread across different splat books, so I'll be rooting for a 4E Oriental Adventures Sourcebook, with classes and background material, and not wuxia themed characters spread out across several books.

To bring this back on topic, I hope to see Psionics as a fully realized Power Source, so that if I want to run games featuring Psionics to the exclusion of Arcane and Divine Sources I can do so without a lot of personal writing.

True a samurai, as I was typing is very much a ranger! Archery, *check* Two-weapon fighting, *check*, but I can also, see a fighter or a warlord, samurai should be varied and not tied down to a single class. "Every samurai must be this way...", is not "cool". For instance one clan of samurai might all be really good archers so they might be rangers specializin in archery, another might be really good with great swords (no-dachi), fighter, and others might be really good at "leading", warlord. But to classify all samurai and distill them into one class and then tack on some half-a$$ed new power source, really would be a travesty.

I think that you misunderstood my comments as saying that there should not be an "Oriental Adventures" book. That is absolutely not the case. My point is, no half-baked power sources, especially those based purely on something as ephemeral as "Asian" or "Middle-eastern" or "African" or "Aztec" or any other geographical area, and this includes things like: "chi" or "voodoo" or "chakra".

My other point, niche protection for classes is important, I don't want to see 20 different martial defenders, that are basically mechanically the same with a bit fluff difference. For instance, if we were to see a berserker, a barbarian, a fighter power called rage and finally a blade-dancer whose effects are basically the same but different fluff. This would degrade the system as a whole and make it more convoluted. You could mechanically have all of those classes under one roof, using the berserker fighter, the blade dancer fighter etc.

As far as psionic power source. I hope it will limit itself to telekinesis based effects, telepathy based effects, precognition-prescience based effects, and body control effects. Again, psionics should not step on the toes of other classes and still be interesting and have a different feel than when you play a wizard or cleric. Right now, in 3.5 psions feel like you are playing a blasty sorcerer/wizard, at least thematically- that is not right.

 

[DreamChaser]

For primal power source, perhaps...

Druid - Primal controller, using wild shape and nature manipulation (entangle) to change the logistics of the battle field.
Shaman - Primal leader, using primal power to embolden those around him by granting totem abilities to others
Barbarian - Primal defender, using primal power to attack and defend through self empowerment.

DC

 

[Sadrik]

Druid - Primal controller, using wild shape and nature manipulation (entangle) to change the logistics of the battle field.
Shaman - Primal leader, using primal power to embolden those around him by granting totem abilities to others
Barbarian - Primal defender, using primal power to attack and defend through self empowerment.

With:
Sorcerer - Primal striker: using the raw elements to blast enemies with the raw power of the elements (fire sorcerer -> fire, air sorcerer -> lightning, earth -> physical, and water -> cold)

Eww, that would be sweet.
Although wild shape is not a very "controller" like ability and they said in R&C that they would be big on wild shape. Wild Shape in my mind is either defender or striker. But they also referred to the druid as a leader in an old something or other (can't remember source).

 

[Spatula]

I can see the rational for a psionic leader, but to me the most fitting psionic healing is either self-only or the shareing of health variety. Will a leader without healing be playable?

The Warlord heals by yelling at you, so I don't see a psionic leader that yells at you telepathically being all that much a stretch. Hit points in 4e represent more than physical wounds, which is how healing surges & the warlord are able to make some sense.

 

[DreamChaser]

With:
Sorcerer - Primal striker: using the raw elements to blast enemies with the raw power of the elements (fire sorcerer -> fire, air sorcerer -> lightning, earth -> physical, and water -> cold)

Eww, that would be sweet.
Although wild shape is not a very "controller" like ability and they said in R&C that they would be big on wild shape. Wild Shape in my mind is either defender or striker. But they also referred to the druid as a leader in an old something or other (can't remember source).

That depends on what you change into. Certain forms lend themselves to reshaping the logistics of the battle.

That said, I could see shaman as controller and druid as leader just as easily. They transform themselves and others, in whole or in part, to battle their foes and perform better.

DC

 

[DreamChaser]

The Warlord heals by yelling at you, so I don't see a psionic leader that yells at you telepathically being all that much a stretch. Hit points in 4e represent more than physical wounds, which is how healing surges & the warlord are able to make some sense.

Correction: hit points in every edition represented more than physical wounds. Now (for the first time) "healing" reflects more than just physical repair.

DC

 

[Harshax]

True a samurai, as I was typing is very much a ranger! Archery, *check* Two-weapon fighting, *check*, but I can also, see a fighter or a warlord, samurai should be varied and not tied down to a single class. "Every samurai must be this way...", is not "cool".

Agreed.

I think that you misunderstood my comments as saying that there should not be an "Oriental Adventures" book. That is absolutely not the case. My point is, no half-baked power sources, especially those based purely on something as ephemeral as "Asian" or "Middle-eastern" or "African" or "Aztec" or any other geographical area, and this includes things like: "chi" or "voodoo" or "chakra".

I still contend 'Asian' was a joke power source. Chi could be a very good concept for a power source, if the powers it had wouldn't strain the definition of Martial, Primal, or Psionic.

My other point, niche protection for classes is important, I don't want to see 20 different martial defenders, that are basically mechanically the same with a bit fluff difference.

I don't think anyone wants that, nor is anyone suggesting that. At the very least the core classes: Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue will probably be thematically altered to fit an Oriental, African, or Arabian setting. The first Oriental Adventures assumed that no 'occidental' classes were to be played alongside those presented in the book. 2E tried to make kits, that kinda got it right. 3E added classes, made suggestions for others, and further suggested to remove a few (aka. Paladin). Most people want a Wu Jen to be thematically different in terms of power access than a Wizard, and that's probably what we are going to get. Side by side, you could say: Yeah His Daily 4d10 damage is the same as the other guy, but instead of calling it Flaming Smack Down, its called Cut of Seven Scarves. But I predict you'll be seeing that at every table, regardless of setting. Not every Wizard is going to cast 'Magic Missile', they might call it 'Burning Ray' or whatever fits the idea the player has. The two spells will work exactly the same, but will be called two different things. We did this alot in 1E (renaming spells). I think this is good for the game. It will reduce the number of new splat books on the market, because everyone will quickly realize that a classes power is the same as the fighter's but renamed something else. Writers will have to focus on developing campaign fluff which will encourage DM's and players to rename existing powers, so that they can get into the mental headspace of the setting.

For instance, if we were to see a berserker, a barbarian, a fighter power called rage and finally a blade-dancer whose effects are basically the same but different fluff. This would degrade the system as a whole and make it more convoluted. You could mechanically have all of those classes under one roof, using the berserker fighter, the blade dancer fighter etc.

If all the classes are mixed freely and compared as a whole, probably. But that happened in every edition. I for one use to religiously collect every class or kit I could find, until I finally decided that it was stupid. I cut back to the core books, added a couple kits, or classes, or PrC (Depending on Edition) to match the flavor of my setting, and stuck to my guns when a player wanted to play some groovy new kit/class/PrC from the latest netbook/PDF purchase.

As far as psionic power source. I hope it will limit itself to telekinesis based effects, telepathy based effects, precognition-prescience based effects, and body control effects. Again, psionics should not step on the toes of other classes and still be interesting and have a different feel than when you play a wizard or cleric. Right now, in 3.5 psions feel like you are playing a blasty sorcerer/wizard, at least thematically- that is not right.

For the record, we're very much in agreement on most things. Mechanically, classes will differ only in the combinations of their available talent trees. I predict Wizards will publish a few truly new abilities per setting, and then someone is going to decode the entire class making process, put it in a PDF, and sell it on rpgnow. That, or Wizards will officially demystify the whole balancing act in the DMG3.

 

[Sadrik]

Side by side, you could say: Yeah His Daily 4d10 damage is the same as the other guy, but instead of calling it Flaming Smack Down, its called Cut of Seven Scarves. But I predict you'll be seeing that at every table, regardless of setting. Not every Wizard is going to cast 'Magic Missile', they might call it 'Burning Ray' or whatever fits the idea the player has. The two spells will work exactly the same, but will be called two different things.

I agree, if an OA book is released with a conversion of terms guide- for instance bastard sword == katana, greatsword == no-dachi, fighter == bushi, paladin == sohei, rogue == yakuza then altering feat names, power names, add new powers, weapons, feats, class features (ala- brawny rogue, tricky rogue, fey pact, star pact, infernal pact), a new striker class: monk, and then of course include all of the setting fluff for Kara-Tur/Rokugan/or something new. Then you have an excellent book .

I predict Wizards will publish a few truly new abilities per setting,

I would be disappointed if they just changed the name and published the material again. I would much rather see an appendix with a power attack == cut of the seven hearts or whatever not pages and pages of the same material with a simple name change.

 

[Harshax]

I would be disappointed if they just changed the name and published the material again. I would much rather see an appendix with a power attack == cut of the seven hearts or whatever not pages and pages of the same material with a simple name change.

You took my quote out of context. I was stating that Wizards will sparsely publish 'truly new' powers in campaign guides and will generally provide flavor to make existing classes fit the setting. They are already doing that, eg. The Swordmage in the upcoming FR Campaign Book. This is probably the most popular variant/multiclass in D&D, 2nd to F/T if not #1, but WotC is publishing the class in a Campaign Setting instead of a core book. I'm guess it will be a rehash of fighter and wizards powers, with a sprinkling of abilities that allow them to mesh, eg. spell delivery through melee attacks, etc.