Psionics: Yea or Nay?

[Barastrondo]

I think that it's also not a question of the implementation of psionics, but the overimplementation of magic, which doesn't leave a lot of room for psionics in a lot of ways. Having things that have a psionic "feel" to them as a specialty that any wizard could specialize in, for example, makes it clear that the psionics concepts aren't the problem.

There's a point there, but also I think part of the issue is that when a wizard uses something with a "psionic feel", it may not come across as a "psionic feel" to a given viewer, specifically because a wizard is using it in conjunction with traditional arcane trappings. There's a big thematic difference between something as simple as the difference between muttering a phrase in an obscure language as opposed to pressing two fingers to one's temple and furrowing one's brow meaningfully.

You're right that there is no real niche protection for psionics, though. Of course, achieving niche protection for psionics would involve taking away stuff from spellcasters, a process that might not engender any more goodwill toward the psionicist.

 

[Corinth]

I have no issue with there being a psionics ruleset in D&D. It's an option in the toolset that I want to have on hand for when I play or run in a milieu where they are appropriate. The use or disuse of psionics, therefore, is at the same level of similar components: solved at the individual campaign, not at the publisher.

My issue, however, is in the execution. Because psionics should be treated as a module to insert or remove as the user desires, they should be presented with a crystal-clear paradigm and executed to fit that paradigm- and the references for that paradigm must be placed where the user can see it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If magic means 'breaks the laws of physics as we understand them' then psionics are magical. If magic means 'the set of real world practices called magic' then they are not.

Features of magic:
Magical language
Gesture
Use of objects
Ritual
Sympathetic magic - like affects like, for example voodoo dolls

D&D wizards, and clerics, are big on language, gesture and objects - the verbal, somatic and material components. The old material components, such as bat guano for a fireball, are often examples of sympathetic magic, as well as being sometimes puns with modern references - copper piece for ESP. There isn't much ritual though, due to D&D magic being mostly fast casting so it can be used in combat. For the same reason, D&D spell casters seldom need to acquire a lock of hair or suchlike from a foe to give a spell power.

Psionics afaik doesn't have verbal or somatic components, ritual or sympathetic magic. Correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm not that up on psionics in any edition of D&D. 3e has New Age crystals. If one thinks of psionics as derived from Golden Age sci-fi then there's a strong precedent for a material component in the Lensman series.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

There's a big thematic difference between something as simple as the difference between muttering a phrase in an obscure language as opposed to pressing two fingers to one's temple and furrowing one's brow meaningfully.

But I think magic is plenty big enough to subsume psionics within its remit.

ESP/Psi is itself an outgrowth of an historical need to cast magic in a more rational light : specifically as notions of human psychology (described in human terms) gradually replaced more religious conceptions of existence.

The prototype event for this schism is almost dateable: 23 Nov 1775. Anton Mesmer (Mesmerism) and Johann Gassner (an exorcist) going toe-to-toe in an effort to impress Max Joseph of Bavaria. Mesmer proved more impressive. Psi won.

Mesmer -> Charcot -> Janet -> Bleur -> Breuer -> Freud.

Parapsychology and Theosophy represent fields where magic and psi overlap.

And most modern "New Age" magic - I'm thinking Wicca, Seithr and whatever else - is firmly derived from Thelemic ideas about will: magic is here simply defined as causing change to occur in conformity with the will. Whatever adjuncts are used (crystals, candles, rituals etc), they are self-consciously deployed as methods to focus the will.

Needing no external trappings, Psionics might be described as Thelemic magic par excellence.

But much of the language is sci-fi, and is more like Asimov's "Mentalics" or May's "Metafaculties," and I think that's what most people have problems with. Using those quasi-scientific terms is what turns people off psionics.

Vance cheats and somehow gets away with it.

 

[Psion]

Why? Just curious. Because I don't find spells so in opposition to the notion of 'varying in effect wtih expenditure of effort/force of will' as you seem to. In particular, I would say that a spell cast at the 6th caster level is more powerful than one cast at the 5th caster level because of differences in the expenditure of effort/force.

I don't see leveling up as a measure of effort or force of will. That 6th level wizard doesn't choose to do less get less out of his spell; there is typically nothing to be gained by it. A power used by a 6th level Psion depending on how much of his personal determination is expended in the effort (from 1-6 pp, assuming a 1st level power that can be thus enhanced.)

So what about psionics seem to you tied to the idea of flexible spending of points of effort, other than the fact that historically this was how they were represented (because historically, they were not strongly tied to the level of the character possessing them)?

It's as I've already stated... power point expenditure equates to effort and sapping of will. I'm not sure how to make my perspective much more clear. If you don't see it that way, fine. I'm not here to put forth my perspective as the one true way. Just spelling out where I see some dividing lines.

As for not historically being strongly tied to the level--there we lapse from in world representation to game balance factors. That prior powers were weakly tied to level in many ways was at a detriment to game balance.

So, for example, you consider 'Alter Self' a 'discrete effect'? How about 'Detect Thoughts'? Is that a 'discrete effect' incompatible with the notion of a 'natural power'?

I don't find detect thoughts to be at odds with the idea of a natural power (and I'll note that the read thoughts psionic power doesn't have any augmentation options; the main thing that makes it fit well in psionics is the mind-related nature of the power.) But if a creature could naturally cast lightning bolt (say), it would seem more in line with me to the notion of a natural power if the creature could meter out the power instead of always doing the same amount of damage.

 

[Nifft]

But if a creature could naturally cast lightning bolt (say), it would seem more in line with me to the notion of a natural power if the creature could meter out the power instead of always doing the same amount of damage.

In a world where Power Attack exists, and where Attacking for Subdual Damage exists, I'm not opposed to critters having some control over the potency of their "natural" attacks.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Doug McCrae]

ESP/Psi is itself an outgrowth of an historical need to cast magic in a more rational light : specifically as notions of human psychology (described in human terms) gradually replaced more religious conceptions of existence.

Hasn't that move occurred in magic also over the last few hundred years? Alchemy blurs the line between science and magic. I believe the 'Big Idea' of the Order of the Golden Dawn was to apply the scientific principles of experimentation and rigorous documentation to the occult. Though one could say that traditional magical practices have always contained rational elements - traditional medicine, the placebo effect.

One seemingly universal (or if not universal, then very common) element in real world magic is the belief in occult entities as essential to proceedings - spirits, genies, demons, gods, the Devil, God. Vance* and D&D do away with this, the D&D wizard works alone. He's like a scientist in this respect, he doesn't need to rely on magical beings. I think that's the post-Enlightenment world view creeping in. Compare the magic in the Elric novels, which is all summoning-based.

*Prior to Rhialto the Marvellous, who uses a genie-like creature to perform most tasks.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

One seemingly universal (or if not universal, then very common) element in real world magic is the belief in occult entities as essential to proceedings - spirits, genies, demons, gods, the Devil, God. Vance* and D&D do away with this, the D&D wizard works alone. He's like a scientist in this respect, he doesn't need to rely on magical beings. I think that's the post-Enlightenment world view creeping in. Compare the magic in the Elric novels, which is all summoning-based.

I agree. Elric is a sorcerer. I think the D&D wizard is closest to the model of the Renaissance magus: Ficino or Pico della Mirandola would probably work best as wizards. They incorporate sorcery (in the classical sense of dealing with spirits or maleficium) into their practice, but they aren't tied to it alone. But tomes, systematized correspondences, formulae, replicable procedures (as opposed to mysteries or rites) etc. all mark a trend toward rational magic.

Notions of self-determination and free will are explicitly tied to this move; hence Pico's rejection of Astrology as "fate," although its correspondences are retained. Eventually the "genius" or "daemon" mutates into notions about the higher Self, transcendental Self or whatever. The source of the power is fully internalized. Psi can only really flourish in this environment.

Historically, sorcery (in the D&D sense) might be described as pre-1400s; wizardry as 1400s-1800s and Psi as post 1800 - allowing for considerable overlap. Depending on the historical tenor of a game, these elements will appear more or less convincing. The language of psi won't work very well in a Viking campaign. In the Iron Kingdoms or Eberron, it should work fine.

*Prior to Rhialto the Marvellous, who uses a genie-like creature to perform most tasks.

The sandestin is an interesting case. It appears in the Lyonesse trilogy as well, and hints at a species of magic which works regardless of other cultural or historical trends.

 

[Doug McCrae]

That would explain why the sorcerer needs a high charisma, to deal with occult entities, though that's not part of the class as presented in the PHB.

I didn't know that was the original meaning of the term 'sorcery'.

 

[SkidAce]

That would explain why the sorcerer needs a high charisma, to deal with occult entities, though that's not part of the class as presented in the PHB.

I didn't know that was the original meaning of the term 'sorcery'.

Yea, that caused me terminology issues when 3rd came out. I was using sorcerers as the term for magic users that summon devil/demons and deal with them.

When we updated my homebrew, I had to reassure several players that being a sorcerer would not result in an immediate hanging. (of course I kept a little of that flavor, "they had to get that power from somewhere" said the academic wizard suspiciously)