Psionic classes in DL

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

zombiegleemax

Oct 10, 2003 19:10:26
Okay, I just bought the DLCS and it says nothing about psionic classes, or did I just miss it? A player of mine wants to be some kind of psion but I told him that I don't wnat to let him if it isnt part of the dragonlance universe. Then I remembered reading one of the war of souls book with that Knight of Neraka who had some psion powers. So what should I do? Should I allow him to be a psion character?
#2

randpc

Oct 10, 2003 20:02:03
Officially Psionics, and Psionic creatures etc have never existed in DragonLance.

Soverign Press's official stance is simply that they won't say anything one way or another, preferring to leave it to the judgement of the DM.
#3

Dragonhelm

Oct 10, 2003 20:10:59
The 2e stance (from Unsung Heroes and other sources) is that psionics do not exist in Krynn.

I asked Jamie Chambers of Sovereign Press about psionics since 3e psionics are so different, and he said that Sovereign Press will not address psionics either way in their products, leaving the decision up to the DM.

Note: The mental powers you are referring to is the power of Mentalism, part of the divine magic of Mysticism. That's not psionics.

My personal opinion is to allow the psion. I like giving players the freedom to play the type of character they want.

If you do allow the psion, be careful on how you present him in-game. How would the Wizards of High Sorcery view the psion? How would divine magic users view the psion? What about the other organizations, such as the Knights of Solamnia?

Also ask yourself how psionics fit into the grand scheme of things. Is it a power granted by the gods? Did the Greygem awaken the inner potential of a person?

There's a lot to think about. However, the inclusion of a psion (especially if the other players don't know what he is) can add a lot to one's game.
#4

zombiegleemax

Oct 10, 2003 20:12:11
As for the Knight you're talking about, that was Lord Targonne, who was known as a mentalist. A spell-caster who uses spells to mess with people's minds, especially esp, to the point where it becomes an ability. I've been thinking of doing a Mentalist prestige class, but it might come out sooner in another product, so.... hey.
#5

zombiegleemax

Oct 10, 2003 20:13:30
grrr for dragonhelm (also known as he-who-doesn't-answer-emails... :fight!: ) jumping in right as I post.
#6

Dragonhelm

Oct 10, 2003 21:45:02
Originally posted by Magus_Extreme
grrr for dragonhelm (also known as he-who-doesn't-answer-emails... :fight!: ) jumping in right as I post.

*uses power of Mentalism*

*waves hand in air*

This is not the Solamnic Knight you are looking for. Move along...

Sorry, I've been a bit busy of late. Yes, I did receive the e-mail and the private message. Sorry for not getting back to you. Look for an e-mail back tonight.
#7

zombiegleemax

Oct 11, 2003 8:18:35
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
*uses power of Mentalism*

*waves hand in air*

This is not the Solamnic Knight you are looking for. Move along...

Sorry, I've been a bit busy of late. Yes, I did receive the e-mail and the private message. Sorry for not getting back to you. Look for an e-mail back tonight.

naw, it's cool man. you know i gotta give you a lil grief. I understand busy-ness.
#8

zombiegleemax

Oct 11, 2003 15:52:14
psionic powers come from being better than everyone else keep that in mind . . .

If you do allow the psion, be careful on how you present him in-game. How would the Wizards of High Sorcery view the psion? How would divine magic users view the psion? What about the other organizations, such as the Knights of Solamnia?

this is a very good outlook though keep it in mind
#9

zombiegleemax

Oct 12, 2003 17:31:10
I was just plain offended by that post....Im not sure why.....No....psionic powers do not come from being better than anyone else....those with psionics are simply using their minds to reach out and affect themselves and the world around them.....but....a psion is no better than a wizard for example.....and a fighter has a very good chance of kicking the steel out of a psychic warrior.
#10

baron_the_curse

Oct 13, 2003 2:18:45
Well, if Psionics come from being better than everyone else I guess that’s why Elminster was a Wild Talent psionic in 2nd Edition FR.

I have to agree with Serena though; Psionics don’t come from being better than anyone around them. That’s like saying Clerics are the only people that will reach their perspective heaven because they share a closer link with the gods. It’s just not true.
#11

carteeg

Oct 13, 2003 9:08:28
It may not be true. But an egotistical egoist may be free to believe it in game. :D
#12

zombiegleemax

Oct 13, 2003 15:00:08
Well, i would't discard psionics at all. A previous post suggested an advanced yaggol able manifest psionic powers, and to be honest i liked the idea. And after reading DLCS i'd include the shadowpeople, using psions and phsychic warrior as favored classes.
#13

zombiegleemax

Oct 14, 2003 16:50:22
I for one am going to exclude psionics entirely.....as it always had been done in the past. But that's only one reason I'm going to do that. Another reason would be because I just can't seem to see them meshing well with the already established world that had not been created with psionics in mind. Reason three.....I just can't stand psionics....I know alot of people like them, but in my mind I just don't see themin medieval fantasy....they seem way too sci-fi to me. Kinda like throwing the Force into LoTR...laughable. Then I could go on to say that I have given psionics in DL the benefit of the doubt and allowed a psionic character. It was a multi classed monk/psychic warrior. He manifested his power on the wicker dragon during that whole incident, helping it to look more alive to scare the draconians. While it was a fun undertaking....the psi character just didnt mesh well.....and the player and I designed a heroic death for the character. It just didnt work in my game.
#14

zombiegleemax

Oct 14, 2003 18:41:12
Originally posted by Serena DarkMyst
I for one am going to exclude psionics entirely.....as it always had been done in the past. But that's only one reason I'm going to do that.

I've always had a problem with the exclusion of psionics on Krynn. The 2nd edition sources stating that psionics do not exist never gave any reason for their exclusion. So excluding it because of those sources is a waste, I feel. But then again, if there is a good reason, some tale, some flavour behind its exclusion, then thats cool. I much prefer what has been done with the DLCS, that is, leaving it up to the DM.


Another reason would be because I just can't seem to see them meshing well with the already established world that had not been created with psionics in mind. Reason three.....I just can't stand psionics....I know alot of people like them, but in my mind I just don't see themin medieval fantasy....they seem way too sci-fi to me.

As for not meshing with DL, I disagree. The only difference between a psion and a mystic using the sphere of mentalism or meditation is the execution of their power, not the result. I don't see it as much of a leap to take from mystics (or monks for that matter) to psions. Both seek to better themselves by drawing from power within. So, you may ask, why bother with both. Different feel, different execution of power, more variety for the player.

If you want medieval flavour, try reading the Lone Wolf series. The Kai Lords were basically an order ranger/monk types with psionic ability (depending on how you advanced your character).


Kinda like throwing the Force into LoTR...laughable. Then I could go on to say that I have given psionics in DL the benefit of the doubt and allowed a psionic character. It was a multi classed monk/psychic warrior. He manifested his power on the wicker dragon during that whole incident, helping it to look more alive to scare the draconians. While it was a fun undertaking....the psi character just didnt mesh well.....and the player and I designed a heroic death for the character. It just didnt work in my game.

Lastly, I've always considered Star Wars more of a fantasy epic than sci-fi. Replace xwings with astral ships and the death star with some epic magical artifact, and hey presto. So something like the force (telekinesis, hmm, how did Saruman take Gandalf's staff in the movie), or even the telepathy Galadriel uses during LOTR does not seem so out of place.
#15

zombiegleemax

Oct 14, 2003 19:48:14
I've never seen a problem with the absence of psionics from Krynn mainly because of the way the setting is designed. Metaphysics in Krynn have always been fairly well-defined and the connection between magic on Krynn and the spiritual progression the gods maintain have always made sense within the setting.

Practically-speaking, at least before psionics devolved into just another kind of spell-like ability in 3E, they created too many issues to fit comfortably within the setting.

Since Krynn has (in recent history) experienced two periods of reduced magic (the first being the loss of clerical powers after the Cataclysm, the second being the early Age of Mortals), it would seem irrational to suggest that psionics existed before. Surely *somebody* would have stumbled across long before now.

It is reasonable to suppose that Chaos's rampage is what helped spark the emergence of Sorcery and Mysticism. Wild Sorcery has always been associated with chaotic forces. And even Mysticism draws on unstructured flows of divine energy. This also explains why Mysticism was not discovered during the three centuries between the Cataclysm and the War of the Lance.

But psionics is not traditionally associated with chaos. Of course, the 3E psionics system so closely resembles the spell-casting system that the difference between a Sorceror, Mystic and a Psion is functionally neglible, so it probably could work.
#16

Dragonhelm

Oct 14, 2003 21:42:44
The topic of whether psionics fit a fantasy setting or are more sci-fi has popped up on the psionics boards several times. I think it amounts to the idea that psionics can be fantasy based, depending on how they are presented. Unfortunately, the word "psionics" is itself tied so heavily towards comic book characters and sci-fi.

From more of a "canon" point of view, psionics doesn't fit DL so well, unless you used the psionics rules for portions of mysticism. There's already four types of magic, so a fifth power would be a bit much.

However, I am a fan of psionics, and I do think they could be included if presented in a certain way.

My current theory is that psionics came about at the same time as sorcery and mysticism. The power of Chaos amplified those two magics.

In the case of psionics, I feel that the power of Chaos changed a few individuals in subtle ways. The change was caused by the same power that created various races in the past (i.e. kender, minotaurs), although the change was much more subtle.

During the early Age of Mortals, those who had these powers were afraid of being discovered by the dragon overlords or the Knights of Takhisis, so they kept their powers hidden. As such, they never fully organized, or began any formal training.

And it goes on from there. This is, IMO, a great way to introduce psionics, keep the feel of psionics, and maintain world flavor without overpowering anything.

Anyway, that's just one thought. I'd like to hear others.
#17

zombiegleemax

Oct 15, 2003 18:31:32
Originally posted by Dragonhelm

In the case of psionics, I feel that the power of Chaos changed a few individuals in subtle ways. The change was caused by the same power that created various races in the past (i.e. kender, minotaurs), although the change was much more subtle.

Anyway, that's just one thought. I'd like to hear others.

That's along the same lines as I see it. The greygem was responsible for accelerating an evolutionary process amongst certain individuals. This process, eventually, would allow ancestors of these individuals to gain access to higher portions of their their mind, those not used by the average mortal. This in turn brought about an understanding of the ontological, the relationship of mind, body and soul, the nature of being. From this understanding comes the realisation of the power of this relationship, and the ability to make manifest their will.
Now, this differs from mysticism. Mysticism has always existed, and in this explanation, is the divine spark gifted to all as a result of being the creation of the divine. While this power requires a great faith and is powered by heart and soul, it is still only the chanelling of a power that already existed, that in a sense, does not really belong to the individual.
So, the two have different power sources. Mysticism is a gift from the gods (although it still must be understood and harnessed correctly), while psionics is a substitue for the divine spark, that comes about through a greater understanding of the metaphysical. It is truly the power of the individual, and given time will rival the power of the gods themselves.
#18

zombiegleemax

Oct 15, 2003 19:07:53
Originally posted by Kalthasian Talanward
I've always had a problem with the exclusion of psionics on Krynn. The 2nd edition sources stating that psionics do not exist never gave any reason for their exclusion. So excluding it because of those sources is a waste, I feel. But then again, if there is a good reason, some tale, some flavour behind its exclusion, then thats cool. I much prefer what has been done with the DLCS, that is, leaving it up to the DM.
As for not meshing with DL, I disagree. The only difference between a psion and a mystic using the sphere of mentalism or meditation is the execution of their power, not the result. I don't see it as much of a leap to take from mystics (or monks for that matter) to psions. Both seek to better themselves by drawing from power within. So, you may ask, why bother with both. Different feel, different execution of power, more variety for the player.
Lastly, I've always considered Star Wars more of a fantasy epic than sci-fi. Replace xwings with astral ships and the death star with some epic magical artifact, and hey presto. So something like the force (telekinesis, hmm, how did Saruman take Gandalf's staff in the movie), or even the telepathy Galadriel uses during LOTR does not seem so out of place.

Okay...I simply stated my personal reasons for not using psionics in MY game......I dont care what other people use in theirs. And yes...there was 2E source material that explained why psionics dont function on Krynn....due to a dampening field around the planet....It may be a cheap excuse....but it is an excuse....or then again...it could be simply said that psionics just dont exist(which I like better) which is just the same as saying orcs dont exist on Krynn...which is accepted very easily. And lastly....all that about replacing the death star with an epic magical artifact and astral ships and such.....thats why I like DL compared to other fantasy worlds.....they dont do too much like that.....it doesnt get too ridiculous.....its more believable than most D&D worlds.
#19

zombiegleemax

Oct 15, 2003 19:37:56
Originally posted by Serena DarkMyst
Okay...I simply stated my personal reasons for not using psionics in MY game......I dont care what other people use in theirs.

Understood. My comments, in response to your comments were simply to convey MY feelings on the subject.

And yes...there was 2E source material that explained why psionics dont function on Krynn....due to a dampening field around the planet....

Was this in Krynnspace? I'm pretty sure I own the rest of the material but I don't have that book.

And lastly....all that about replacing the death star with an epic magical artifact and astral ships and such.....thats why I like DL compared to other fantasy worlds.....they dont do too much like that.....it doesnt get too ridiculous.....its more believable than most D&D worlds.

My point in regards to that was that the story behind star wars is the classic fantasy epic. You know, good struggling against the vast forces of evil, the redemption of misguided souls and so forth. You could place the story in any setting and it lessons and morals would resonate the same. Believability in a fantasy world is such a subjective thing, given that it IS fantasy.
#20

Dragonhelm

Oct 15, 2003 20:32:41
Kalthasian Talanward - I like your explanation of how psionics and mysticism co-exist. That's almost to a T how I would have phrased it. Like the divine spark bit.

I have to say I'm actually rather surprised (and pleased!) to see so much support for psionics in Krynn.

For those that are interested in psionics in Krynn, I have a question. Would you be interested in an unofficial online guide for psionics in Krynn? If so, then what would you like to see in it?
#21

zombiegleemax

Oct 15, 2003 20:54:53
Originally posted by Dragonhelm

For those that are interested in psionics in Krynn, I have a question. Would you be interested in an unofficial online guide for psionics in Krynn? If so, then what would you like to see in it?

Sounds Cool. I have a couple of ideas, although finding the time to get them onto paper (or in the computer) is challenging. I have an organisation, the Order of the Tempered Soul, which is home to the Mind Wardens (also known as the Soul Sentinels), a group concerned with protecting the free will of Krynn's inhabitants. The Mind Warden is a 10 level prestige class and is almost finished, just have to add a bit more history and a final balancing of their powers (maybe I could bounce a few ideas off people?). Also, the little snippet I posted above is part of a larger piece containing a fair bit of information on the nature of psionics on krynn, taking into account the reasons for offworlders losing their abilities and the mystery that is the Yaggol. This needs a bit more work, but once it takes on a coherant form, I'd be happy to post it for those who are interested.
I'd also be interested in any and all of the ideas others have.
#22

Dragonhelm

Oct 15, 2003 21:19:47
Originally posted by Kalthasian Talanward
Sounds Cool. I have a couple of ideas, although finding the time to get them onto paper (or in the computer) is challenging.




Blimey.

I had a few notes, but it sounds like you have such a supplement already written (at least in your head).

I would encourage you to take the time, write it down, and send it in to the Nexus. We'd be happy to post it.
#23

zombiegleemax

Oct 15, 2003 21:36:23
Originally posted by Dragonhelm

I would encourage you to take the time, write it down, and send it in to the Nexus. We'd be happy to post it.

I did just that with the previous incarnation of my idea, but I never got any feedback, but as they say, if at first you don't succeed.......
#24

zombiegleemax

Oct 16, 2003 16:35:32
dang . . . too many new posts . . .no time to read them all

oh well i get the basic idea anyway

that crap about being better . . . that was aimed at being better than normal human/(insert optional race here) limitations

anyway while we are on the subject of psions check this out - 3rd paragraph http://www.nuklearpower.com/redmage30.php
#25

zombiegleemax

Oct 17, 2003 10:31:34
The biggest things to think about in allowing psionics is whether or not to use the "psionics are different" option, and the existence of psionic opponents. If psionics can bypass magic, a psionic character becomes extremely powerful.
Psionic opponents also become important, or else the psion will go unchallenged (relatively) and dominate the campaign (in the sense that everyone and his brother will be wanting to know about this strange power.)

I would most likely restrict the class to humans. (The other races have their own quirks, and psionics is more of an inborn ability than a "class" per se.)

Although a campaign centered around the "first psion" would be pretty cool. Maybe he could be an alien (or child of an alien). With a new location in space, the possibilities for new monsters and abilities in the Age of Mortals are endless. Or he could be a mutant, transformed by the world-bending power of the new dragons.

There's a lot to think about there.

---
I just gotta say, (even though its probably not the place or time) I never liked the psychic warrior. Blending two classes makes little sense with 3rd edition's increased ability to multiclass, and, played right, a fighter/psion could spank a psychic warrior at most any level. (His base attack can be better, he can have more PSPs, and his power progression will only be slightly behind, if at all.)

Do the math.
#26

zombiegleemax

Oct 17, 2003 14:12:06
okay then thanks

that was a well written post good job
#27

zombiegleemax

Oct 17, 2003 14:31:26
Given how spell-like 3E psionics are, and if you apply the Transparency rules, then to all intents and purposes psionics really are nothing more than another kind of magic anyway.

The big issue would revolve around defining them as "Sorcery" or "Mysticism", since creating a fifth type of magic would start to get a little absurd within the setting.

Perhaps Psychokinesis, Psychoportation and Metacreativity would be considered "Sorcery" (dealing with non-living things).

Clairsentience, Psychometabolism and Telepathy would by "Mysticism" (dealing with life).

Not that those distinctions have stuck anyway, even though they appear several times in the new rule books.
#28

zombiegleemax

Oct 18, 2003 9:15:06
Yeah, they did kinda throw out those distinctions. I've been thinking of limiting sorcerers to elemental/nonliving magics, and mystics to "living" magics myself. This would kind of preserve the feel of the magic styles, but it means I have to rework the spellcharts.

I'd be interested if someone who is not as lazy as me went ahead and did that...(wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.)

But I don't know if the result would significantly weaken the class.
#29

zombiegleemax

Oct 18, 2003 11:46:23
hey i hear ya man

...(wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.)

but it is nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more

i dont know about ruining the class though, you will have to try it out and see
#30

Dragonhelm

Oct 18, 2003 11:50:38
Originally posted by Craven Moistmuffins
Yeah, they did kinda throw out those distinctions. I've been thinking of limiting sorcerers to elemental/nonliving magics, and mystics to "living" magics myself. This would kind of preserve the feel of the magic styles, but it means I have to rework the spellcharts.

This is a bit difficult in D&D, although not wholly impossible. For example, a pyromancer's fireball would only have to affect non-living materials.

Perhaps you could give a bonus to sorcerers if they use their magic on non-living things, and a bonus to mystics if they use their magic on living things (create a couple of feats, or a prestige class, etc.). This way, you don't limit the players, but you keep a bit of that SAGA feel.

Creating a spell list where all the PHB spells would be divided into the various realms of sorcery/spheres of mysticism would be time-consuming as well.

If anyone would like to continue discussing incorporating the SAGA feel with D&D mechanics, I would ask that a new thread be started.
#31

zombiegleemax

Oct 18, 2003 12:09:31
hmmmm notice how the person who started the thread has not re-posted .... ever

maybe we should end it