Are you looking forward to Magic of Incarnum?

[Felon]

It's not about magic items at all. At least some of those are actually soulmelds, and the number of pictures that are probably magic items is appropriate for 5-10 pages of magic items, enough to support the new system but not a considerable portion of the book by any means.

/sigh

You don't get it. Call them "soulmelds" all you like, but it looks like a magic item, walks like a magic item, quacks like a magic item, takes up slots like a magic item, then it's pretty much a friggin' magic item.

 

[tetsujin28]

What do you think about it?

I have no idea what it is or what it's about.

 

[William Ronald]

/sigh

You don't get it. Call them "soulmelds" all you like, but it looks like a magic item, walks like a magic item, quacks like a magic item, takes up slots like a magic item, then it's pretty much a friggin' magic item.

Yes, but they are powered by the character instead of being treasure. I think that this book might be a response to those who call for more power incorporated in a character as opposed to picking up magic items. So, perhaps, it is as appropriate to refer to them as a magic item as referring to a psionic power or a spell with a physical manifestation a magic item. (I suspect the slot thing was for balance issues.)

Felon, what do you think would be a better way to handle something that seems to be about a character accessing personal power? Would ra statement in the book declaring that one cannot stack similar effects (a soulmeld that improves moving silently with boots of elvenkind) be appropriate. (I do like the idea of many effects not being visible, as it can make what seems to be a non-threatening character much more effective. )

 

[JustKim]

/sigh

You don't get it. Call them "soulmelds" all you like, but it looks like a magic item, walks like a magic item, quacks like a magic item, takes up slots like a magic item, then it's pretty much a friggin' magic item.

I don't get it? What is it you're getting that gives you all this insight into the book? Because from the previews every indication is that soulmelds are slot-based class abilities like a Marshal's auras. Class abilities are not tools. You cannot buy or sell them. You cannot find a class ability in a treasure chest. There's really not much danger of something immaterial saturating the magic item market, so your initial complaint, if you recall it, is unfounded.

I am amazed you would call me ignorant when, at best, you have as much information as I do. All you have that I don't is a knee-jerk reaction to pictures which look like accessories from an online art gallery, and I daresay this does not put you in a position to talk down to me.

 

[Ashanderai]

I dunno, it seems to me your objection to the Psi rules seems to mostly be a hang-up on flavor text. Rewrite it if you don't like it. ^^ And it should be possible to come up with either a 'Gather Chi' mechanic to replace the daily allotment, or a fixed number of points by level to redistribute round by round if you like. That would certainly change the flavor, and it would be possible, if a fair amount of work to balance it to. A lot of powers would basically lose their limited durations under that set-up so you may need to cap the number that can be up at once.

Actually at this point we're starting to sound like Incarnum... Well in any event remember that if you find a nice set of mechanics it's always possible to jigger with the flavor text and special effects.

See below.

Okay, it seems like you are cherry picking your sources and stances here. If you are arguing that the rules don't say that psionics = ki, I would have to agree with you. And you also say that you aren't claiming that you can't use psionics to emulate ki-using magic. That's all I am saying.

I don't see any cherry picking going on. I am talking about both flavor and game mechanics.

I'll go a step further and say that looking at this from a vantage point of representing supernatural powers in the entirety of a game world, I consider it counter-intuitive to cobble up two entirely different magic systems that are doing the same thing. So AFAIAC, ki and psionics are just the same "elephant" being described from the vantage points of different in game culures.

Going by that logic, you could say the same of the magic system in 3.x, psionics, AE magic, or any other group of game mechanics that simulate "magical effects" that are otherwise unavailable in reality as most of us perceive it.

AFAIAC, the logical thing to do in the next edition of the game would be to make the monk and the psychic warrior one and the same. When I think them being the same, I think of the conceptual synergy, not the flavor text of the RAW.

When strictly speaking of game mechanics for those classes I can agree with you here almost 100%, unless you are advocating psionics for the monk. I do not advocate that, unless there were to be different subclasses for the monk with one being a psionic version.

If you think my stance on the issue is one of analyzing the authentic vice cinematic takes on the concept, your argument is mildly misplaced.

I am not addressing how you or any specific individual on these or any other boards views the issue here. I am talking about my experience with several folks that I have met in person and discussed this and related topics with.

And if you had brought this up prior to 3e, that would have dispelled all doubt in my mind.

But under 3e, this seems to me to be just flavor text for the discipline of psychometabolism. And the psychic warrior class, who so strongly resembles historical and cinematic figures who were said to harness ki to attain mastery in combat, sort of drives the point home.

No. I want rules for this stuff. This isn't just flavor text that I would like to see. As I have already demonstrated, I can come up with that on my own and it is not an issue. But I want game mechanics that are different from psionics and magic for ki. I want a round-by-round resource allocation system for it. I originally thought that the Magic of Incarnum would have enough of these rules that I wouldn't have to create them myself. As I have said before, I will have to create them since it appears that the rules for MoI will not be as easily adaptable for what I want as I thought they would be. Claiming that what I want is a different flavor text of psioinics only validates my point because I DO want different flavor text, BUT I also want rules to represent and support ki that can reinforce the flavor of the ki powers. Psionics does this for powers of the mind, but not for ki. You guys disagree with that, then fine. I am not saying you can't use psionics to simulate ki, but it doesn't work for me and it actually decreases my enjoyment of the game to do as you propose. I am looking for something that will enhance my enjoyment of the game when I play with ki powers and I am not trying to foist it upon anyone other than my game group.

FYI Chakras have appeared in concept in official material for psionics on the WotC website and in material by the 3e psionics author, Bruce Cordell.

I am not familiar with the material. I am familiar with chakras in the Quintessential Psychic Warrior book, which I did not like. Thanks for the information.

In the aforementioned material, a character trained in utilizing a particular Chakra draws PPs and healing power while in contact with the earth.

Cool. Again, I am not familiar with this material. Chakras and contact with the ground are only peripheral to the rules I want for the game mechanic for ki. I want round-by-round resource management, positive, negative and balanced aspects for every powers effects (probably something akin to the heightened and diminished effects of spells in AE would be a good reference, but none of the ki aspect power effects should be stronger or weaker necessarily, but rather different and some powers should work only when powered by a specific aspect of ki), and Constitution and Wisdom to be the "caster" stats. Rules for how blood affects ki, drawing power from the earth, dragon lines, chakras and the rest are all just icing on the cake.

FWIW, I made a ki system for 2e based on many of the concepts discussed. I totally abandoned all such efforts midway though 3e as the takes were so similar in all but the most subtle ways that I felt like I was re-inventing the wheel.

That's fine for you, but unless you only look at rules for ki in the most general of ways (which you guys seem to be arguing for) I don't feel that it would be reinventing anything, but rather creating something new.

I have sidetracked this thread enough. I will keep my opinion on ki to myself in future as it appears to be unpopular here and it only serves keep things off-topic. I don't really have time to devote to a debate on the merits of a ki-system versus using psionics or any other "magic" system to represent ki anyway. You guys present a few good points, but I remain unconvinced that psioinics makes for a lasting game mechanic for ki-use; in the absence of another, better system, yes, but not when something more can be done.

I might get MoI anyway since I am a sucker for new core class material and new magic systems, but I can only hope it can provide some kind of structure or fuel for a ki-system I might hope to fashion, though I remain doubtful.

 

[Psion]

Going by that logic, you could say the same of the magic system in 3.x, psionics, AE magic, or any other group of game mechanics that simulate "magical effects" that are otherwise unavailable in reality as most of us perceive it.

I am explicitly not drawing the line at "supernatural effect" as the base an defining concept that is worthy of having specific rules support. So this would not be "my logic."

When strictly speaking of game mechanics for those classes I can agree with you here almost 100%, unless you are advocating psionics for the monk.

Since I see ki as psi-like psychometabolic abilities, that is precisely what I am advocating. So obviously we differ on the issue.

I am not addressing how you or any specific individual on these or any other boards views the issue here.

That's good, but wasn't clear from your first response on the issue. Your statement was a bit absolute that ki had nothing to do with psionics. That's your view. Mine differs.

I do not advocate that, unless there were to be different subclasses for the monk with one being a psionic version.

And I see that as redundant.

No. I want rules for this stuff. This isn't just flavor text that I would like to see. As I have already demonstrated, I can come up with that on my own and it is not an issue. But I want game mechanics that are different from psionics and magic for ki.

That's all well and good, but again, I would see this as redundant.

Claiming that what I want is a different flavor text of psioinics only validates my point because I DO want different flavor text, BUT I also want rules to represent and support ki that can reinforce the flavor of the ki powers.

You want that because you already view it that way.

The main reason I am skeptical about MoI is for similar reason. The totemist (or whatever) seems like it has already been covered; it seems just a different way to do a druid (in his example, James Wyatt even says "think druid.")

You guys disagree with that, then fine. I am not saying you can't use psionics to simulate ki, but it doesn't work for me

For you. Just so. But I hope you understand the unequivocal nature of your initial objection is what drew the opposition; others don't feel the same way and it's more a matter of personal philosophy and perception than anything else.

I don't really object to the idea of a specific ki system; it just seems to me that on the scale that D&D considers thing, it is a bit fine grained; it would almost be like having entirely different magic systems to support the sorcerer and wizard. (I dig the ki system in N&S and Mystic China. Too bad about the rest of the system...)

 

[Ashanderai]

I am explicitly not drawing the line at "supernatural effect" as the base an defining concept that is worthy of having specific rules support. So this would not be "my logic."

Then, why make the statement? It seems counter-intuitive to your point as it removes any justification for even having a psionics system as well as a ki system.

Since I see ki as psi-like psychometabolic abilities, that is precisely what I am advocating. So obviously we differ on the issue.

Agreed.

And I see that as redundant.

I think a statement of yours applies to how I feel about this point - "That's your view. Mine differs." Do you feel the same about the class variants in Unearthed Arcana, various issues of Dragon, subclasses in Arcana Evolved, and subclasses, class variants, and racial substitution levels in numerous other books? Apparently, there is a market for subclasses and related class variants, despite you feeling they are redundant. But, that is another issue and I will leave it at that.

That's all well and good, but again, I would see this as redundant.

I don't, and I am not the only one. I have seen others posting on MoI threads across the internet, most on the WotC boards, that they hoped to use the new system in the book as a ki-use system.

You want that because you already view it that way.

Exactly, and the same can be said of your point of view.

The main reason I am skeptical about MoI is for similar reason. The totemist (or whatever) seems like it has already been covered; it seems just a different way to do a druid (in his example, James Wyatt even says "think druid.")

I concur with your assessment of the Totemist. It might have been a little better if they had presented it as a class variant or substitution levels of the druid. But, I don't know that that would have gone over any better.

For you. Just so. But I hope you understand the unequivocal nature of your initial objection is what drew the opposition; others don't feel the same way and it's more a matter of personal philosophy and perception than anything else.

And I hope you understand the same thing about the post that said, "Ki use is psionics." That is the post with an "unequivocal nature" that drew my opposition to begin with. Everything you say above about personal philosophy and perception I would direct at the post that drew me into this.

I don't really object to the idea of a specific ki system; it just seems to me that on the scale that D&D considers thing, it is a bit fine grained; it would almost be like having entirely different magic systems to support the sorcerer and wizard. (I dig the ki system in N&S and Mystic China. Too bad about the rest of the system...)

Again, we disagree on the fine grain issue. If this is fine grain, then so is the reason for psionics to have a different system from the core magic system. I would not apply this issue to that of the wizard and sorcerer because that is handled in the manner of one gaining powers from unique knowledge (Int) and the other from a birthright (Cha). There is no need to carry it further because no matter how the two tap into the power it is the same energy from what is most often the same source. The psion and wizard draw their powers from different sources in different ways. That is a main point for me with the ki-user and the psion and the wizard and all their associated classes (i.e. sorcerer, wilder, etc.) on this issue; all their powers come from different sources and they tap into those powers in different ways. The ki-user from everything I have learned taps into a different source of power and accesses his powers in a different way than the manner in which psionic powers and spells are accessed.

I am sure you will make a parting point, but I have already broken my word above once about posting again and I have other things demanding my attention for a while to come, but I can agree to disagree with you over many particulars in how we perceive ki-use, though it seems by some of your statements that we might actually agree on much of these issues. It has been interesting debating this with you, but I should probably say something don't believe I said before that might or might not help you to understand my vantage point in this discussion. I am looking at the ki system I want for mainly as a strictly oriental game mechanic for an oriental game; not a westernized game - I don't even espouse using monks as written by the PH in a typical western, fantasy setting. That probably makes no difference to you, but I thought I should share it.

 

[Psion]

Then, why make the statement? It seems counter-intuitive to your point as it removes any justification for even having a psionics system as well as a ki system.

You are trying to foist a false dichotomy on me. I am not forced into the condition of having new magic systems for every conceivable concept or one. I can... and I feel it is a proper balance... to limit the implementation of new systems to cases where there are significant conceptual differences.

Do you feel the same about the class variants in Unearthed Arcana, various issues of Dragon, subclasses in Arcana Evolved, and subclasses, class variants, and racial substitution levels in numerous other books? Apparently, there is a market for subclasses and related class variants, despite you feeling they are redundant.

I would have no problem using AE classes in AE, in isolaton from other classes. I do beleive that you should limit how many different takes on magic you are using with the same system. Where there is significant conceptual overlap, I feel that making resonable translations of similar concepts to the same system in game is needful and helpful in keeping the clutter level of the game down.

Of course, it's ironic that you invoke AE to make this point since it makes psionics a subset of witch's magic.

Were I to try to write a d20 version of Mystic China, a dedicated Chi system would be great. Of course, I wouldn't hesitate to re-use elements of psionics that fit, which in my perception are many.

And I hope you understand the same thing about the post that said, "Ki use is psionics."

Sure, but that wasn't me.

I am looking at the ki system I want for mainly as a strictly oriental game mechanic for an oriental game; not a westernized game - I don't even espouse using monks as written by the PH in a typical western, fantasy setting. That probably makes no difference to you, but I thought I should share it.

For such a game, I would have no problem making its own ki system.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Incarnum at least for the Totemist is another form of Animism. And there are already classes like the Druid, Ranger, Spirit Shaman and (Ancestral aka the OA) Shaman that use elements of Animism and spirits.

 

[Andor]

Incarnum at least for the Totemist is another form of Animism. And there are already classes like the Druid, Ranger, Spirit Shaman and (Ancestral aka the OA) Shaman that use elements of Animism and spirits.

As written up it's animistic sure. But (if you're addresing the incarnum as Ki posts above) our point was that with some slight alteration of flavor text and special effects you might be able make it look like a chi use tradition rather than an animistic one. (Not that there is no possible overlap there, Animal style kung-fu could be used as a starting point frex.)