D&D General Weekly Wrecana - A New Division of Gish Classes

[Tony Vargas]

… Unless both exist on the same story. Then clarifying the situation seems a necessity.

Nod. If a setting intentionally juxtaposes the conventions of science-fiction and fantasy, and chooses not to resolve as one or the other, it can place scientifically-correct technologies and psuedo-scientifically hand-waved psionics along with scientifically-insupportable fantasy conventions and magic. You could have the Enterprise visit Discworld, and the natives would use magic, while Mr. Spock would remain psionic.

But, doing so tends towards the incoherent. About the only genre it makes sense in is comic-book superheroes.

Yes, I do get that psionics is the sci-fi substitute for magic, but they are different in feel, description and definition

To fit the sci-fi genre, yeah. That's the thing, psionics in a fantasy setting is, OT1H, nonsense, since psionics is just magic with the fantasy serial numbers filed off, OTOH, it's genre-blending, like Conan with a raygun, and you can do it if you really want to, OTOOH, 'psionics' could just be a different form/style of magic in such a setting, just a 'casting spells' could be a form/style of psionics (or a 'sufficiently advanced technology') in a science-fiction setting.

In the context of D&D, I think 3.5 made the best call in leaving it to the DM to declare psionics is magic or psionics is different.

 

[Igwilly]

Nod. If a setting intentionally juxtaposes the conventions of science-fiction and fantasy, and chooses not to resolve as one or the other, it can place scientifically-correct technologies and psuedo-scientifically hand-waved psionics along with scientifically-insupportable fantasy conventions and magic. You could have the Enterprise visit Discworld, and the natives would use magic, while Mr. Spock would remain psionic.

But, doing so tends towards the incoherent. About the only genre it makes sense in is comic-book superheroes.

To fit the sci-fi genre, yeah. That's the thing, psionics in a fantasy setting is, OT1H, nonsense, since psionics is just magic with the fantasy serial numbers filed off, OTOH, it's genre-blending, like Conan with a raygun, and you can do it if you really want to, OTOOH, 'psionics' could just be a different form/style of magic in such a setting, just a 'casting spells' could be a form/style of psionics (or a 'sufficiently advanced technology') in a science-fiction setting.

In the context of D&D, I think 3.5 made the best call in leaving it to the DM to declare psionics is magic or psionics is different.

… That’s what I was saying: it really does depend on the writer. My comment was a personal preference statement. Written words do not have the same effects as spoken ones, so it may have sounded extreme, but I noted it was a “quibble”.
Now, I disagree with one thing: There is a genre in which magic and psionics can live side-by-side: Science Fantasy. Perhaps my favorite subgenre.
Although I love psionics in my game, they are not mandatory for everyone: the world the DM is running tells you if they’re included or not; but I thought that was implied. Most of “psionic-hating” was for a sensation that they’re mandatory. No class is mandatory.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Whenever psionics is magic or not does depend on the writer, sure. The author of a work has the right to tell what is happening in his reality.
However, such a distinction is important. One example: let’s say that a setting has both magic and psionics, but they’re separate. An anti-magic field would block all magic, but not psionics. On the other hand, an anti-psionic field would block psionics, but not magic.
Anti-magic field, magic resistance, special items, detect magic, etc. All of them are significant for the setting.
As another argument, I believe that, in comic books, most super-hero’s powers are not magic, and there is actual magic in Marvel or DC.
It’s funny for you to mention something in the second paragraph, because for me, those are a fundamental part of magic: magic words, magic gestures, triggers, etc. Just focusing your mind doesn’t translate magic for me: and when dealing with fantasy, it’s all about the themes!
So yes, such a distinction is important.
I just wish I could use my ultimate argument, but I don’t think I can. It doesn’t work on everyone, to be honest.

Sure, the distinctions are in some conceptual sense perhaps empty, but you can justify anything in terms of whatever flavor you want, its all made up anyway, so its all cool!

I think about what the inhabitants of a world would think, and its hard to imagine they would care much about the fine distinction of "this guy focuses his mind" vs "this guy spent years memorizing formulas so he can wave his hand" when the end result is nearly indistinguishable to them. We, as modern people with our complex ontology draw distinctions that pre-modern people simply didn't draw, and I kind of like approaching it from that angle, personally.

 

[Igwilly]

Well, if you allow me, I would like to go back to the implement/material components discussion.
Material components can work. I like them when they work. The problem is, D&D never was particularly interested in making it work. Most components are completely random and a pain to track individually: with such different things for each and every spell, stocking components can be really boring. Also, many components, as Wrecan stated, are meta-jokes; not something to take seriously.
The spell component pouch, while intended to be an abstraction, is too much of an abstraction. The wizard cannot know which components he’ll need to which spells he’ll memorize in long trip, when he’s unable to restock the pouch, having such specific requirements. It’s so big of an abstraction that it may not be there, as well. Keep in mind that I actually like to track how many arrows are left in the quiver.
If we want material components in the game, we should take it seriously. Categorizing reagents by type is a good way – such as 4e or even a little more elaborated than that – but not specifying too much each spell’s requirement. The spell component pouch can then serve as a practical way to carry and refill your inventory without being a huge hand-wave.
Now, do we need spell components? I think this really depends on the writer/designer/DM. Perhaps we need, or perhaps we need foci to cast spells. However, I don’t think it’s a player’s decision: the DM should decide how such specific things are in his world.
Personally, I think the spell-caster should be properly equipped to cast spells; at least in the most efficient manner. Choosing both, however, seems like too much. Either spell component pouch or focus (what 4e calls implement). For arcane casters, at least. For divine casters… I imagine that, if the focus option is chosen, then it works as any other. If spell component is chosen, then the cleric should carry a valuable sacred symbol/talisman, with higher-level spells demanding symbols that are more expensive. Alternatively, just use spell components, too! Other types of magic may work in different ways, or be equal to one of them.
Both ways can work. It’s just that D&D rarely worked on them to actually, well, work.

 

[Garthanos]

Keep in mind that I actually like to track how many arrows are left in the quiver.

Well that explains it...


just yanking your chain

Gonna admit I prefer ritual specific components with gathering skills (or even skill challenges if you want to do them in a rush and really really need them and similar things) to using the generic components. (Generic components are basically money)

 

[Igwilly]

Hum... I’m thinking a little more right now.
While the idea of spell components is interesting, in order to be really flavorful the items must be valuable, so that tracking them has a purpose. Spells consuming rare ingredients is best served as the main spellcasting limitation: instead of Vancian, AEDU or Mana, magic require expensive materials. Making it as a side system along with the main one may be just too much to worry for not enough gain.
However, I think it’s still possible to preserve material components by requiring them in others frequent activities: rituals, scrolls, on-the-fly potion making, perhaps even extra spells or as metamagic effects, etc. In this way, we can preserve spell components, and the spell component pouch, making them important, but allowing foci to shine too.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, 4e is actually pretty comprehensive on 'components' in a generalized sense...

First you have powers, which ALMOST all benefit from an implement. Powers CAN also have prerequisites, although I don't actually know of any which used this as a way to specify a component or other material requirement. It is a feasible pathway in the rules however.

Secondly you have consumables, which are never required but can enhance various categories of powers or rituals. I guess in theory a consumable could even work with just very specific powers, though none were ever released that work this way AFAIK.

Thirdly you have rituals, which have both components, consumables, and foci (which are similar to implements, but specific to a given ritual, required for its casting, and much more variable in type).

I like 4e's system. They have 'residuum' which, if the GM makes it available in a given scenario, is a universal component for rituals, basically a way to translate gold into ritual components. Or you can find the specific type of component for the category of ritual you are casting. Its not TOO detailed, but it means that a wizard and a cleric and a druid may all need to find different materials and you do have to keep track of them. They aren't generally super expensive, though a few rituals do have significant costs, Raise Dead being a prime example.

There's room for improvement. I think ideally consumables might be integrated better into the system, and in essence replace 4e's version of components (residuum could then be a sort of universal component, but maybe at a cost premium).