Monster Manual IV and the Githyanki Psion

[GQuail]

Now I'm home with my Fiend Folio, I note that allow Gith are very potent Psionicists (up there in the Greater Demon levels) their describing blurb doesn't focus on it much at all: the Githzerai entry mentions some of the powers they always have, but for the most part there's no heavy focus on their l33t Psychic Skills. Again, though, this is an edition thing: the blurb doesn't mention it any more than it would call out their HP, because it's in the stat block and that's that.

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.

Whilst Planescape did set out to be the "meta-setting" for D&D, as Spelljammer had before it, and Planescape has influenced many a 3.X planar topic, I agree with the general point here: picking one of a variety of different interpretations and saying "this is the one true waY" is always going to cause problems when someone with a different primary source calls your idea "wrong".

I don't own the Planescape material question but do own Fiend Folio, so you'll pardon me if I declare their debut to be the reference point I'd be going from. ;-)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

You can like it more, but it's still not their origin, the Fiend Folio is, where they were literally the cover girls (?) of the book.

Having said that, I don't believe it's necessary to give complete psionic info on MM4 githyanki to make them psionic. Just state that they're level 4 psychic warriors, or whatever, ignore the psionic focus and points jazz -- people who have XPH will already know about it, and people who don't won't care. Most enemies are killed in a handful of rounds. The bookkeeping wouldn't change things in many cases, and the people who care will have the resources to do it on their own.

I'm not in love with psionics, but with certain monsters (mind flayers, githyanki and a few others), it's ridiculous to have two competing versions running around instead of streamlining NPC-psionics-for-non-psionics games to the point where both groups can use the same write-ups just fine.

 

[Psion]

I honestly wouldn't expect the MMIV to include all the psionic rules needed to run a psion, and consider that a bit of a strawman. You could include a psion; if you don't use psionics, don't use the creatures. Lord knows there's plenty of creatures in the book I won't be using.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I honestly wouldn't expect the MMIV to include all the psionic rules needed to run a psion, and consider that a bit of a strawman. You could include a psion; if you don't use psionics, don't use the creatures. Lord knows there's plenty of creatures in the book I won't be using.

An excellent point. I don't think any monster book other than Year's Best D20 has ever tempted me to even use half of the monsters therein.

 

[GQuail]

I honestly wouldn't expect the MMIV to include all the psionic rules needed to run a psion, and consider that a bit of a strawman. You could include a psion; if you don't use psionics, don't use the creatures. Lord knows there's plenty of creatures in the book I won't be using.

I don't think it's a strawman when you compare it to the example of how other non-core classes are used in the MM4: with explanations of how their unique features work. Against the model of the Scout listed, how could you manage a Psion?

I agree that monster manuals are books where I accept that not every page therein is going to be something I'm using, but featuring something that's dependant on me owning X sourcebook is always a poor idea if there's an alternative. If that means a Mind Flayer sorceror rather than a Wilder, then that's what it should go for: unless the book is pretty explicit about it being an expansion of the previous book, such as a collection of specifically Psionic NPCs.

Query: Although it doesn't have the history in game as Psionics does, would people mind is MMV featured Incarnum, Vestige or Truename using NPC?

 

[GQuail]

I'm not in love with psionics, but with certain monsters (mind flayers, githyanki and a few others), it's ridiculous to have two competing versions running around instead of streamlining NPC-psionics-for-non-psionics games to the point where both groups can use the same write-ups just fine.

I've got to agree with this. Having two seperate versions of the same creature floating about depending on the use of optional rulesets or not is pretty silly: they really need to do it just one way or the other.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Query: Although it doesn't have the history in game as Psionics does, would people mind is MMV featured Incarnum, Vestige or Truename using NPC?

I wouldn't mind if alternate rules were used, so long as it was noted at some point, depending on how much of the material was present.

I wouldn't have minded a Githyanki Psychic Warrior in MM4, I just don't think it's absence diminishes the book or the Githyanki that are there.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Query: Although it doesn't have the history in game as Psionics does, would people mind is MMV featured Incarnum, Vestige or Truename using NPC?

Simplified sufficiently, it's all just unusual special abilities. It'd be fine by me. (But then, so would a stripped-down psionics that didn't mention points or focus or anything else but what the power does.)

 

[Shemeska]

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.

And it's also a bit off to reject a more detailed source from 2e rather than something from 1e based on a 3e design conceit of 'core' versus 'non-core'.

To use your Illithid example 3.x has certainly drawn on the spelljammer material on them, and likewise the neogi, the arcane/mercane, and the clockwork horrors, etc. If it's a relevant source that elaborates on a creature, it has tended to be used by later sources. Should FR be unable to use Yochlol's because they first appeared in conjunction with drow on Greyhawk, then appeared in Planescape and FR sources later on? Of course not, there was cross pollination of material from settings at the time as 1e matured the idea of a common multiverse which carried on throughout all of 2e.

Just because the most detailed source of information happens to be published under one product line or not shouldn't matter in this case. The material is relevant and it should be considered in what is presented. Whether you like the source or not is something else entirely I suppose. I don't care for many things in 'Warriors of Heaven' from late 2e, but if I'm talking about Aasimon and to a lesser extent Archons, I'll be taking a look at what it has to say on the subject along with its own source material, some of which covers topics in more detail and on other topics in less detail.

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.

Again, what 'core' D&D are you talking about, because no such notion existed at the time. The majority of the more detailed information on the githyanki appeared in the PSMC I and then the sourcebook on the Astral plane, building upon the much earlier but also often brief 1e sources. I'll have to look and compare the sources across the editions later on tonight and see where 3e draws from preferentially, though off the top of my head the bulk of the material on their race and its history is still going to be from the 2e sources.


*clears throat*

Ahem, but in any event the MMIV was, despite its brevity, decently faithful to prior lore, even giving the first explicit reference to Zerthimon that I believe that we've had in 3.x from WotC. But reverting to 'core' or non-core classes rather than psionic based ones is a bit of a pickle. It's not something that totally cheeses me off mind you, but I will agree that it's mildly annoying to have two versions of iconic psionic monsters floating around (though I can also understand the point of view saying that it might be semi-impractical to reference something from a radically different ruleset).

Of course were I mean, I'd be tempted to say something along the lines of "screw 'em, you want to use psionic monsters you can buy the psionics book for the rules on them because your hand won't be held by having those rules reprinted across multiple books whenever illithids/githyanki/psurlons/etc are mentioned".

 

[Vocenoctum]

And it's also a bit off to reject a more detailed source from 2e rather than something from 1e based on a 3e design conceit of 'core' versus 'non-core'.

They can draw on other resources, but they're not required to. Planescape may have expanded on earlier material but that doesn't mean you're required to draw on that material at all. You can, but it's not required.

To use your Illithid example 3.x has certainly drawn on the spelljammer material on them, and likewise the neogi, the arcane/mercane, and the clockwork horrors, etc.

The illithids Spelljammer material has really only been referenced at all in Lords of Madness, and even there it wasn't the actual Spelljammer material. Neogi ARE spelljammer, so of course they reference it. Just like it'd be silly to use Aasimar in a way in which they were not initially done.

If it's a relevant source that elaborates on a creature, it has tended to be used by later sources. Should FR be unable to use Yochlol's because they first appeared in conjunction with drow on Greyhawk, then appeared in Planescape and FR sources later on? Of course not, there was cross pollination of material from settings at the time as 1e matured the idea of a common multiverse which carried on throughout all of 2e.

The proplem is that often times, references become more mutually exclusive as they are developed more. Taking one source over another only really makes fans of that one source happy.

Frankly, they should take the best material that can appeal to the broadest fanbase and make that available. People that want something more detailed in a specific way can move to a more specific example from the general example.

Just because the most detailed source of information happens to be published under one product line or not shouldn't matter in this case. The material is relevant and it should be considered in what is presented. Whether you like the source or not is something else entirely I suppose. I don't care for many things in 'Warriors of Heaven' from late 2e, but if I'm talking about Aasimon and to a lesser extent Archons, I'll be taking a look at what it has to say on the subject along with its own source material, some of which covers topics in more detail and on other topics in less detail.

For the record, I like Planescape, it's just the atttitude that Planescape is somehow "the truth" rather than "just another setting" that I'm argueing.

Again, what 'core' D&D are you talking about, because no such notion existed at the time. The majority of the more detailed information on the githyanki appeared in the PSMC I and then the sourcebook on the Astral plane, building upon the much earlier but also often brief 1e sources. I'll have to look and compare the sources across the editions later on tonight and see where 3e draws from preferentially, though off the top of my head the bulk of the material on their race and its history is still going to be from the 2e sources.

As an example, compare Manual of Planes (1e) to Planescape to Manual of Planes (3e), the planes don't match in many ways. 3e's MotP has some planescape stuff, but it's not a planescape reprint, and it doesn't have to be simply because Planescape existed.