Ki versus Psionic: Power Sources Do Battle (in a semantic sort of way)

[lutecius]

You associate "arcane" with one specific source of magic because the game tells you to, not because the definition of the word "arcane" itself dentoes a particular brand of magic. If the game tells you that the mystic power source covers a certain source of magic, then suddenly it's not vague anymore either.

Mysiticism is actually more specific than just "magic". It evokes concepts like meditation, heightened consciiousness, personal energy,

...and generally has a religious connotation.

and similar traits that distinguish ki and psionics from power sources that are chiefly external.

Rites are integral part of mysticism and can involve external things like prayers to one or several gods and drugs or sacrifices in the case of ancient religions. Mysticism is a specific notion but doesn't translate well in d&d terms. Mystic and mystical however, are really vague and have been used in reference to various kinds of magic, among other things.

Even though arcane and mystic originally meant something similar (secret, hidden), the former is more specific. Arcane generally retains the meaning of "obscure, esoteric", which does fit the d&d wizard (not so much natural casters like the sorcerer) and unlike mystic, arcane can't be used as a synonym for "religious" or "supernatural".

 

[D.Shaffer]

If they can drop Ki, will they also drop Elemental? That seems even more untenable, or at least I still haven't heard a really good description of the power source that couldn't easily be described as an aspect of Arcane or Primal. .

Over at RPG.net, Mearls has said they're sticking with Elemental and Shadow, although he didnt provide any details on the theme behind either.

If I had to guess, considering the Elemental plane is the home of primordial chaos, AND demon kind, it'll be the DnD equivalent of Chaos from WH...without all the far realmsish tentacle bits and madness.

 

[Dm_from_Brazil]

Interesting fact:

Altough most people links Psionics with the 2nd Edition, they have been around for a longer time: indeed, they are in D&D just from the beginning, from the "little brown soft-cover books" OD&D: they appeared in the 3rd supplement, Eldritch Wizard(1976) - the "naked woman laid in a sacrificial altar cover" one.

Here is the introduction of Psionics, taken from the book:
"The introduction of psionic combat is bound to enliven games grown stagnant. It opens up unntold possibilities for both theplayers and the DM,and in so doing recognizes one of the favorite topics of science fiction and fantasy writers: the unknown powers of the mind."

One must remebers that this was the 70´s, were this pis troupes WERE common (both in scifi <syfy? > and fantasy, and that Gygax, himself, believed in the paranormal, as he told in his biography - altough, later, he would regret to have brought psionics to D&D...

Note: Of Gygax, on paranormality;
"Of course there is the paranormal. To
deny it is to flout reason. There are things
that happen that cannot be explained by
any scientific means. Some of that is
paranormal. Exactly what is paranormal,
what isn't, I'll leave to those who worry
about such things. I do know, for example,
that things have happened to me that
have no rational or scientific explanation
and those I consider as outside the
known: paranormal." - from OD&Dities, the OD&D Fanzine, #9 (feb,2003)

 

[Plane Sailing]

Interesting fact:

Altough most people links Psionics with the 2nd Edition, they have been around for a longer time: indeed, they are in D&D just from the beginning, from the "little brown soft-cover books" OD&D: they appeared in the 3rd supplement, Eldritch Wizard(1976) - the "naked woman laid in a sacrificial altar cover" one.

I still seem them as johnny-come-lately ideas, as I was playing with OD&D + Greyhawk (supplement 1) and a couple of issues of the strategic review. I didn't like psionics when they introduced it in Eldritch Wizardry (too sci-fi!) and I've never liked it in D&D since!

 

[Dragonhelm]

When Dragonlance was under the SAGA system, it introduced two new forms of magic to replace the loss of arcane and divine magic. They were also classified as forms of arcane and divine magic.

Mysticism was the divine power of the self, and was described as the magic of life. One would look inward to their own "divine spark" and channel mystic energies that way.

While classified as divine, many of the original spheres of mysticism would now fall under new power sources. Healing would still be divine, but animism would definitely be primal. Some of those spheres (mentalism, meditation, channeling, and possibly sensitivity) are all psionic, from a thematic point of view.

So in Dragonlance, a world that has traditionally been opposed to psionics, we have had inner divine power (mysticism) with psionic-like effects. I think in 4e, the setting should maybe be looked at through new eyes and any psionic restrictions be dropped. There are too many precedents now.

I'd have preferred Heart!

In Dragonlance, mysticism was known as the Power of the Heart.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Personally my one worry is having the Monk in Psionics will dilute/warp that a bit, but... If Psionics had already been in development before this switch then I think/hope Psionics will still have its feel to it.

The monk has a long-term connection to psionics, though. Way back in Best of Dragon #2, there is a variant monk that is supposed to be a better design than what came before. Some of the monk's powers were psionic in nature. So there is a precedent.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Well, you kinda missed your own point there. You associate "arcane" with one specific source of magic because the game tells you to, not because the definition of the word "arcane" itself dentoes a particular brand of magic. If the game tells you that the mystic power source covers a certain source of magic, then suddenly it's not vague anymore either.

I didnt miss my own point, I understood where my bias was from. A lot of other gamers have the same association as well. It makes sense to play to your audiences expectations, particularly with basic naming conventions.

Mysiticism is actually more specific than just "magic". It evokes concepts like meditation, heightened consciiousness, personal energy, and similar traits that distinguish ki and psionics from power sources that are chiefly external.

It also evokes concepts like ancestral spirits, divine rites, and standard spella. Mystic is a catch all for magic, at least for me.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Honestly, I'm glad ki has been abandoned. Its way too culture specific, and it already duplicates many of the themes found in psionics.

I think it's fine putting the two together. It'd be nice if somewhere in PHB3 or if they do Psionic Power, to see some mention on how various cultures use different terms, "ki" being one of them.

On the other hand, I wish they'd use some other term than psionic. The term psionic has too much baggage associated with it from previous editions.

Oh, I dunno. I thought they finally were making headway with the XPH.

And here is to hoping they get rid of a lot of the new-age crystal bunk that had permeated psionics for the last two editions. If WotC does that, I'd gladly accept psionics in my game (up until now I've been very "meh" on psionics).

They didn't have the crystal motif in 2nd edition. Unless you're counting 3e and 3.5 as separate editions. I personally like the crystal motif. I thought it added something fun and unique to psionics.

FWIW, I think that the Freudian pseudoscience naming conventions will return in 4e, most likely under the powers of the psion (or its equivalent).

My hope is that they will function in a similar way to warlock pacts. Maybe some, like psychometabolism, are associated with specific classes, such as the monk or psychic warrior. Clairsentience may become a ritual thing. But I could see other psionic powers functioning as "pacts."


By the way, I looked up the etymology of psionics, and it predates the science fiction authors of the 20th century. Per Wikipedia:

Etymology
The word psychic is derived from the Greek word psychikos ("of the mind" or "mental") and refers in part to the human mind or psyche (ex. "psychic turmoil"). French astronomer and spiritualist Camille Flammarion is credited as having first used the word psychic, while it was later introduced to the English language by Edward William Cox in the 1870s.

 

[Shroomy]

I wonder if psionics will now gain wider acceptance now that it will be more tightly integrated into the core game and will receive regular, on-going support (well, at least more so than in previous editions)? Personally, I've never really had an issue with the idea and flavor of psionics, but I've always felt that it was the red-headed stepchild of D&D. Incorporating the monk and somewhat getting away from past conventions signals to me that WoTC is trying to broaden the concept, and I think that's a good idea since harnessing the power of the mind (and body) gives you a lot to work with. I can easily see how the psionic power source can cover everything from new agey, crystal using psions employing id insinutation to the new monk. IMO, it could easily give the arcane power source a run for its money when it comes to the sheer number of 4e classes.

 

[lutecius]

I wonder if psionics will now gain wider acceptance now that it will be more tightly integrated into the core game and will receive regular, on-going support (well, at least more so than in previous editions)? Personally, I've never really had an issue with the idea and flavor of psionics, but I've always felt that it was the red-headed stepchild of D&D. Incorporating the monk and somewhat getting away from past conventions signals to me that WoTC is trying to broaden the concept,

I like the incorporation of the monk, but I'm not sure that will lead to wider acceptance of psionics. After all, the monk is the other red headed step child of d&d and this move may allienate both psionics and monk fans.

Using the same system as other classes might help, though. And I believe this is more important to 4e fans than flavour. (I don't want to start a war here but I do feel that more often than not, flavour issues are brought up by players of other editions while most discussions among 4e players revolve around mechanics, except when defending 4e of course.) Like others have said, power sources are not that relevant and 4e is generally easy to refluff.