Monster Manual IV and the Githyanki Psion

[Psion]

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?

That's the strawman, or if you prefer, "fundamental criterion that I differ with".

MMIV is a deviation from prior MM volume in that it provides more details on each creature. In that vein, I beleive the proper thing to do is to stat them out with the system that provides more detail for psionics, much in the same way that in Lords of Madness, the "magical mock-ups" are regarded as a stop gap measure and psionics are regarded as the correct way to stat certain illithidkin.

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

Since there are no existing creatures with a pedigree of using those sorts of abilities, I think there is no compelling reason to do so.

 

[Shemeska]

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.

Well of course, I won't have the gestapo break into your house just because you refer to Gelugons as Ice Devils.

It does help to remain faithful to prior material for continuities sake, as it keeps people happy though (such as the tempest with 3e FR's retcons of geography, vanishing gods, vanishing planes, etc).

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.

Alright, that's a fair statment. The question of course remains where to draw the line of when does one source elaborate to the extent that it differs too much from the original? But as you say next...

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.

That's a nice way of approaching it I think.

Now what would be incredibly awesome would be if they gave citations or references to earlier books they draw from, or just point people towards a sourcebook/module/product line if they're interested in a more detailed look. We saw this to a brief extent in some early 3e books when they said 'taken from material from X book by Y author'. It seems that they've moved away from this recently though from what I've seen.

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.

*noddin* I just oftentimes see its contributions rejected offhand because some folks see it as "just another setting", and ignore the metasetting aspects prior to 3e.

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.

And the differences between them could spawn a thread in and of itself. *chuckle* Lots of changes for creative reasons and the evolution of the material, and also changes because of creative restrictions or because mechanics forced some alterations, etc.

 

[GQuail]

That's the strawman, or if you prefer, "fundamental criterion that I differ with".

I do prefer that. It's got less implication that I'm somehow not arguing properly. ;-)

MMIV is a deviation from prior MM volume in that it provides more details on each creature. In that vein, I beleive the proper thing to do is to stat them out with the system that provides more detail for psionics, much in the same way that in Lords of Madness, the "magical mock-ups" are regarded as a stop gap measure and psionics are regarded as the correct way to stat certain illithidkin.

I've only ever skimmed Lords of Madness, but I do recall the presence of psionic sidebars: but thsoe sidebars were uselss without the XPH, and the monsters were clearly packaged to be useable generically as well. Rather than a "stop gap" for those without the XPH, I remember the book in the reverse: with an extra add-on for Psionics users. But then, since i wasn'tlooking for psionic stuff at the same, perhaps I wasn't reading the text the way other people might. ;-)

The MM4 certainly is quite different to tomes prior, and with all the room a monster takes up therein I', sure some people would have tolerated chucking the ecology information so you could slap in a quick & dirty psychic warrior Githyanki. But I dunno how you'd assemble such a "plug and play" class when it apparently takes a whole hardback to explain the rule system, or alternatively how you'd justify to your editor taking up X pages on material that a large chunk of your customers simply can't use because it requires another non-core book to make it work.

Since there are no existing creatures with a pedigree of using those sorts of abilities, I think there is no compelling reason to do so.

This is perhaps the big issue: the history of Psionics and its on again, off again core relationship. Because there are so many monsters still in the MM which are essentially Psionic monsters, designers of adventures, NPC books etc will always have to contend with doing it the Core Way or the Psionic Way. As long as we have this "part in, part out" situation, we're always going to end up displeasing people with how they're treated.

I dunno if that means yanking out the Illithids and keeping them in the Psionics book, or slapping Psionics into core rules: but either way, we'd know where we stood. ;-)

 

[arscott]

Well, if it's cool to print psionic versions of creatures and then include non-psionic 'stopgap' versions, why not just print a wizard4 alongside your psion4 and be done with it.

Frankly, the Psionics rules are as close to core as you can come without being in the PHB--Their included in the SRD, for crying out loud. If Joe Dungeonmaster can't use one or two pages from his two hundred page books because he doesn't own the XPH, so be it. The fact that he payed thirty cents for those pages and can't use them is outweighed by the fact the XPH owner payed thirty dollars for an entire book and can't use it because wizards won't inclued psionic support in their other products.

 

[Dark Psion]

Well, if it's cool to print psionic versions of creatures and then include non-psionic 'stopgap' versions, why not just print a wizard4 alongside your psion4 and be done with it.

Frankly, the Psionics rules are as close to core as you can come without being in the PHB--Their included in the SRD, for crying out loud. If Joe Dungeonmaster can't use one or two pages from his two hundred page books because he doesn't own the XPH, so be it. The fact that he payed thirty cents for those pages and can't use them is outweighed by the fact the XPH owner payed thirty dollars for an entire book and can't use it because wizards won't inclued psionic support in their other products.

Very good point, Psionics is in the SRD, you do not need the XPH to understand what a Psion is.

Look at the Player's Guide the Eberron, that book has a reference to about everything WotC has released in 3.5e. But if you do not use Goliaths, just igonore that sidebar. But if you do use the Marshal and War Mage, there is a sidebar for you on page 97.

It is much easier to ignore the Dragon Spawn than it probably was to create them.

 

[BryonD]

If you are not going to use psionics, then pick a race not associated with psionics to put in the book.

 

[Vocenoctum]

If you are not going to use psionics, then pick a race not associated with psionics to put in the book.

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.

Why must it be all or nothing?

 

[johnnype]

A githyanki without psionics is like wizard without spells. I just don't see the point. There are inumerable other monsters and races you can choose if you're looking for just another humanoid from another plane. Why mess with something as classic as the Githyanki? It makes no sense. I agree with Psions argument above, whould it have killed them to have just 4 pages of the book for those of us who like psionics?

On a bit of a tangent I'm also bummed they chose to make rakshasa (and demons, and devils, and...) without psionics after 1st edition. I'd like to just ad them on myself but I'm really not that good at sting things up well. Here's hoping psionics is part of the core in fourth edition.

 

[Shemeska]

I said I would earlier in the thread so I went back and looked at how various sources detail the githyanki:

1e Fiend Folio - Psionics only appear in the stat block, and are not addressed in the flavor text. The flavor text briefly tells of their revolt against the mind flayers, split with the githzerai, and their having a lich queen (though she is not named), and their association with red dragons.

1e MotP - there's about a half page that talks about them. It spends most of that space talking about various mechanics related issues, class restrictions, changes to their stats from the Fiend Folio, and it references some 1e psionic powers. Of the fluff that is present, it mentions the them having a lich queen, living on fortresses on "islands of matter" in the astral, and their periodic raids against githyanki. The lich queen is not named.

2e Planescape Monstrous Compendium - For what it's worth, looking at the PSMC I, it doesn't discuss githyanki with psion levels, though it does discuss their use of "psychic and strange astral energies" principally among the Hr'a'cknir of githyanki society. The suggestion is there in the fluff, but it doesn't explicitely address anything related to the mechanics of 2e psionics (which I'm not admittedly familiar with). The 1e material is expanded by a good bit.

2e Guide to the Astral Plane - from pages 44-67, a whole chapter is devoted to the githyanki, their origins and history, society, social divisions and castes/classes, githyanki fotresses, tactics, unique magic, etc. Virtually all of their most unique traits and details originate in this souce, including as far as I can tell, for the first time calling the lich queen 'Vlaakith'. Psionicists are addressed, and approximately 75% of githyanki are considered wild talents while a significant fraction of those have actual training in the class. Such githyanki psions are normally referred to and treated as githyanki warlocks (arcane magic users, not the 3.x class).

3.x - the terminology introduced in the 2e sources is retained, along with Vlaakith being the name of the lich queen, along with the basics laid down in the 1e material and expanded in 2e. Psionics or not psionics alternates radically by source.

 

[GQuail]

Very good point, Psionics is in the SRD, you do not need the XPH to understand what a Psion is.

Availability is irrelevant to me: it's not that it;'s useless if I don't have the optional rules system, but if I don't /use/ it. Similarly, epic level NPCs are perfectly useable by the SRD, but I suspect most groups won't find them useful because they don't play Epic.

There are some people here kicking about the "Psionics is basically core, really, when you get down to it" argument: unti such time as Psionics is truly core again, these people are always going to end up dissapointed when books come out that dont reference "core rulebook number four".