Monster Manual IV and the Githyanki Psion

[MerricB]

Several people have criticised Monster Manual IV for not including psionic character advancement for the Githyanki included in it.

Monster Manual IV uses new classes (and templates) from several books for its advanced monsters, but there is one thing in common with all these classes: their special abilities can be summarised in only a few lines in the statblock. To use any statblock in MMIV, all you need is the book and the three core rulebooks (PHB, DMG and MM). Everything is there, and the text required isn't that much, either.

Contrast with a statblock for a Githyanki Psion 4. What do you need? Well, descriptions of how power points work, psionic/magic transparancy rules, augmentation of powers, power descriptions, etc.

That is a significant investment of space, for one or two monsters.

Githyanki are usable in the core rules - they are in the Monster Manual - and MMIV keeps them usable in the core rules. It'd be nice to see a Complete Psionic II with advanced psionic githyanki, but I can't fault Wizards for not including psionic githyanki in MMIV.

Cheers!

 

[Kunimatyu]

If githyanki generally advance by psionic character class, then don't put Githyanki pregens in a book that doesn't use the psionic rules. Go with a different race that isn't going to create those problems(Goblinoids weren't in MMIV), or let new monsters fill the space.

 

[MerricB]

If githyanki generally advance by psionic character class, then don't put Githyanki pregens in a book that doesn't use the psionic rules. Go with a different race that isn't going to create those problems(Goblinoids weren't in MMIV), or let new monsters fill the space.

Githyanki happen to be in the regular Monster Manual. They have a favoured class of fighter there.

I'd rather have non-XPH Githyanki turning up and remaining part of the D&D universe rather than only appearing once every three years in XPH supplements.

Cheers!

 

[Dark Psion]

And it is there because with each edition of the game "someone" has tried to remove Psionics from the game.

When second edition came out, there were no psionics anywhere till the Complete Book of Psionics was released. The Forgotten Realms Adventures book even said that Psionics no longer existed in the realms. Of course that very same month there was an article in Dragon on Skullport that included the brand new 2e Psionicist.

They did not reprint all psionics rules when they included the Gem Dragons in Monster Manual II and take a look at the list of dragons in Dragons of Faerun (Scroll down). There are psionic dragons right there, a Crystal Dragon on page 33 and a Topaz Dracolich on page 51. I don't see where including them added any problems, but having them will make the book more complete. Someone who doesn't play in FR might pick up this book just to see what a Gem Dragon looks like, and it doesn't limit itself to just the MM dragons, there are other types too.

If MMIV had psionic Githyanki, I would have bought it for that alone, despite its other problems. My first question on the Tome of Battle, "Anything for the Psychic Warrior?" He didn't get much from the Complete Psionic.

A lot of people have defended the "monsters with class levels" in MMIV because it saves time for the DM, but what about my time? If I have to add psionics to everything, that requires time that could be spent playing. Especially since the XPH did not include that NPC chart that was in the original 3e Psi Hbdk.

One of the reasons I like Eberron is that I feel a little more welcomed there. I don't have to create everything myself. There comes a time where the fun gives way to fustration when you have to do everything.

 

[GQuail]

And it is there because with each edition of the game "someone" has tried to remove Psionics from the game.

There is some credence to this. Psionics in D&D has had a love/hate relationship for years, and I suspect always will. For some people it's just not acceptable in a fantasy game: for others, it should be a core part of the rules. Arguably, whoever has been in charge of D&D at the time has often let their opinion on this topic shine in the support psionics gets.

They did not reprint all psionics rules when they included the Gem Dragons in Monster Manual II and take a look at the list of dragons in Dragons of Faerun (Scroll down). There are psionic dragons right there, a Crystal Dragon on page 33 and a Topaz Dracolich on page 51. I don't see where including them added any problems

Well, no, because the dragons tehrein don't use the Psionics rules, do they? As I mentioned on the thread this spins off from, tehre is a difference between simply saying "Psionics" in a spell like ability context and "Psionics" in the entire new block of rules way. Those who wanted Gem Dragons to use a new rule set had to go to the web enhancement on the topic: out of the box, they were no different than core Mind Flayers. D&D won't ever get rid of monsters who have "mind powers", but it might not always deal with them with seperate rules.

If MMIV had psionic Githyanki, I would have bought it for that alone, despite its other problems. My first question on the Tome of Battle, "Anything for the Psychic Warrior?" He didn't get much from the Complete Psionic.

A lot of people have defended the "monsters with class levels" in MMIV because it saves time for the DM, but what about my time? If I have to add psionics to everything, that requires time that could be spent playing. Especially since the XPH did not include that NPC chart that was in the original 3e Psi Hbdk.

.... I don't get this at all. I mean, the absence of the NPC chart, fine: but are you complaining that it takes time to insert your non-core rules system into other material? That you're being forced to spend time adding Psionic levels to GIthyanki NPCs because the evil games designers won't print them in their standard collections? I know of the pain of having to retrofit stuff to fit your campaign because of different races/classes/etc, but I don't think you can break from core and then complain that it takes more work: it's always going to be the nature of the beast, and those who aren't ready for it shouldn't be doing it.

3.X has made a point of making each book stand alone as much as possible: apart fromt he core rules, anything else required is usually reprinted. (Passing cross references, like advice to look in another book for ideas for a familiar for a new class or such like, aren't the same as stuff like the rules for Swift Actions.) At heart, anything else is unlikely, since it starts to tread into some of TSR's more unhelpful practices. "Sure, Timmy, you don't need to say anything bar "See Wilderness Survival Guide", if they want the rules for drowning they can j spend an other £20."

One of the reasons I like Eberron is that I feel a little more welcomed there. I don't have to create everything myself. There comes a time where the fun gives way to fustration when you have to do everything.

....I think you might be in the wrong game to GM if you don't like doing work.

But seriously, I agree that Eberron has made a better job of making Psionics feel integrated with the core setup. You don't have to use them, but if you do it doesn't feel like you're crowbarring them where they ain't wanted when you do. I hope that future settings will take this sort of approach to making adding non-core material in a bit less of a heartache.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Githyanki happen to be in the regular Monster Manual. They have a favoured class of fighter there.

I'd rather have non-XPH Githyanki turning up and remaining part of the D&D universe rather than only appearing once every three years in XPH supplements.

Cheers!

If you want to populate the Astral with Githyanki Fighter8s, you can do that. Still won't stop me from scratching my head and wishing they were done in a manner consistent with their flavor, or just weren't done at all(ie. replaced with goblinoids). And Dark Psion has a good point -- if MM2's Gem Dragons can have psionic powers listed in their entry, so can Githyanki. You could have one Githyanki Soldier(a fighter), and then a few psionic ones, probably an elitre psychic warrior and a psion, with maybe a Gish thrown in for good measure.

 

[MerricB]

If you want to populate the Astral with Githyanki Fighter8s, you can do that. Still won't stop me from scratching my head and wishing they were done in a manner consistent with their flavor, or just weren't done at all(ie. replaced with goblinoids). And Dark Psion has a good point -- if MM2's Gem Dragons can have psionic powers listed in their entry, so can Githyanki. You could have one Githyanki Soldier(a fighter), and then a few psionic ones, probably an elitre psychic warrior and a psion, with maybe a Gish thrown in for good measure.

MM2 Gem Dragons are very interesting. No Power Points, and...

Amythest Dragon: Two abilities that can be replaced by psionic powers.
Crystal Dragon: One spell that can be replaced by a psionic power.
Emerald Dragon: Three spells that can be replaced by psionic powers; one ability that can be replaced by a psionic power.
Sapphire Dragon: Two abilities that can be replaced by psionic powers.
Topaz Dragon: One spell that can be replaced by a psionic power.

Compare a 4th level Githyanki Psion:
* Power Points
* Nine powers known (needing full explanation)
* explanation of augmentation of powers
* (At least) one psionic feat, that may need an explanation of psionic focus.

That's a *lot* more.

Consider also the original description of the Githyanki:
"Githyanki progress as fighters, magic-users, or fighter/magic-users... Each castle will also contain 40 knights (anti-paladins of 9th level)" (Fiend Folio 1E, page 43).

Monster Manual IV: Githyanki Soldier - fighter (check). Gish - fighter/magic-user (check). Githyanki Captain -fighter/blackguard (the modern equivalent of the anti-paladin... check).

Yes, MMIV is actually closer to the roots of the Githyanki than you may give it credit for.

 

[Shemeska]

Consider also the original description of the Githyanki:
"Githyanki progress as fighters, magic-users, or fighter/magic-users... Each castle will also contain 40 knights (anti-paladins of 9th level)" (Fiend Folio 1E, page 43).

Monster Manual IV: Githyanki Soldier - fighter (check). Gish - fighter/magic-user (check). Githyanki Captain -fighter/blackguard (the modern equivalent of the anti-paladin... check).

Yes, MMIV is actually closer to the roots of the Githyanki than you may give it credit for.

Depends on how you define roots. Though the 1e FF originated them, I'd use the PSMC I as the bellweather for Githyanki rather than the 1e FF, just because it's the origin of more of their historical flavor, and it's certainly more in depth.

Off the top of my head I don't recall how they handled psionics, but add in the chapter on Githyanki society from 'Guide to the Astral Plane' and psionics are certainly there along with arcane magic as well (though to an extent the githyanki don't distinguish between the two as much).

 

[GQuail]

MM2 Gem Dragons are very interesting. No Power Points, and...

Amythest Dragon: Two abilities that can be replaced by psionic powers.
Crystal Dragon: One spell that can be replaced by a psionic power.
Emerald Dragon: Three spells that can be replaced by psionic powers; one ability that can be replaced by a psionic power.
Sapphire Dragon: Two abilities that can be replaced by psionic powers.
Topaz Dragon: One spell that can be replaced by a psionic power.

Compare a 4th level Githyanki Psion:
* Power Points
* Nine powers known (needing full explanation)
* explanation of augmentation of powers
* (At least) one psionic feat, that may need an explanation of psionic focus.

That's a *lot* more..

Yeah, this was very much my point, albeit explained by someone with the MM2 in front of them. ;-)

Consider also the original description of the Githyanki:
"Githyanki progress as fighters, magic-users, or fighter/magic-users... Each castle will also contain 40 knights (anti-paladins of 9th level)" (Fiend Folio 1E, page 43).

Monster Manual IV: Githyanki Soldier - fighter (check). Gish - fighter/magic-user (check). Githyanki Captain -fighter/blackguard (the modern equivalent of the anti-paladin... check).

Yes, MMIV is actually closer to the roots of the Githyanki than you may give it credit for.

That's an interesting point which hadn't occured to me: though as Shemeska says, being close to its roots isn't the same thing as being correct for where they are know. After all, psionics in 1E wasn't class based, but a random set of powers you gained on top of: so of course no early Gith will note their Psion class level. (This is coming froma hazy recollection of 1E psionics, mind. My 1st Ed rules are another book I don't have with me at work. ;-) )

 

[Vocenoctum]

That's an interesting point which hadn't occured to me: though as Shemeska says, being close to its roots isn't the same thing as being correct for where they are know. After all, psionics in 1E wasn't class based, but a random set of powers you gained on top of: so of course no early Gith will note their Psion class level. (This is coming froma hazy recollection of 1E psionics, mind. My 1st Ed rules are another book I don't have with me at work. ;-) )

Right, the psionic powers were there, but not a seperate system, much like the way the powers are treated in the core MM entry in 3.5.

Saying githyanki have to conform to Planescape is a bit off, Planescape was a setting that deviated from core D&D at times. It'd be like saying all Mind Flayers must use the information from Spelljammer to be complete. Githyanki from FF and Manual of the Planes have plenty of information to draw on, and for many of us is the epitome of the race, rather than the sometimes odd material Planescape introduced.