PDA

View Full Version : I sense Kalashtar!



Artagon
10-15-2009, 12:34 PM
Soo.. with all this Quori stuff coming out, does anyone else feel like maybe we should see a Kalashtar race option? For those of you who don't know, a Kalashtar is a race that is basically human, save that they have a shard of Quori soul trapped within them..

Dylos_Moon
10-15-2009, 12:37 PM
It doesn't take a kalashtar...

Angelus_dead
10-15-2009, 02:21 PM
I don't think one is planned, but it would be a good idea. Of course they'd use the Arcane Kalashtar variant, so it can fit in the DDO rules.

MDS_Geist
10-15-2009, 02:53 PM
I certainly hope so, but have hoped for that since release.

Looking forward to eventually playing a Kalashtar soulknife...

whysper
10-15-2009, 02:55 PM
Why would they need to use the arcane variant? They already have Psionic bonuses upcoming :)

MDS_Geist
10-15-2009, 02:57 PM
Why would they need to use the arcane variant? They already have Psionic bonuses upcoming :)

Already in the game since the Degenev brothers arrived.

kingfisher
10-15-2009, 02:58 PM
turn off your psi-sense and turn on your olfactory sense: you will be smelling the ripe aroma of old sweat, warm hay, and bacon first because before you get your heavy thinkers the swine are coming!

SimVerg
10-15-2009, 02:59 PM
Why would they need to use the arcane variant? They already have Psionic bonuses upcoming :)

They may have a "psionic" tag but they lack a psionics spell system.

Twerpp
10-15-2009, 03:04 PM
Psionics..just another type for bonuses is all I've seen.

You're on a wild Kalashtar chase.

MDS_Geist
10-15-2009, 03:04 PM
They may have a "psionic" tag but they lack a psionics spell system.

Not officially, but I think the spell point system could adapt quite easily to a power point system. There is already a separate system for bardic music not being tagged as magic, so psionics would seem to be a natural and easy progression.

Angelus_dead
10-15-2009, 03:17 PM
Not officially, but I think the spell point system could adapt quite easily to a power point system. There is already a separate system for bardic music not being tagged as magic, so psionics would seem to be a natural and easy progression.
That is extremely incorrect.

Indeed, the fact that DDO uses spellpoints would make it harder to add psionic points, not easier. Do you know what "SPUM" means?

Lorien_the_First_One
10-15-2009, 03:27 PM
That is extremely incorrect.

Indeed, the fact that DDO uses spellpoints would make it harder to add psionic points, not easier. Do you know what "SPUM" means?

Um no...tell us

KoboldKiller
10-15-2009, 03:29 PM
Your all wrong, they are implementing the "Thong" race of Dwarves.

These Dwarves are sturdier than standard Dwarves, as such they shirk all forms of armor in favor of wearing only thongs.

Twerpp
10-15-2009, 03:35 PM
That is extremely incorrect.

Indeed, the fact that DDO uses spellpoints would make it harder to add psionic points, not easier. Do you know what "SPUM" means?

The first thing that comes up when you google it is pretty interesting.

Andromansis
10-15-2009, 03:58 PM
Yes, psionics are already in the game.
Fred uses Psychic Chirurgery to give you your feat respecs. (How did you think he did it?)
The current spell casting system in the game would appear to be a variant on the unearthed arcana rules, which in and of itself is a variant on the psionic rules


The main difference is that in the PnP stuff the cost of spells starts at one point and then scales up by 2 points for every spell level and in here the cost of spells starts at 10 and scales up by 5 for every spell level.

The more challenging systems of psionics to introduce would be augmenting of powers and overchannelling. By level 3, overchannelling would be so overpowered because they could eliminate the cost of it to their HP pool. And yes, that extends into Epic Overchannelling if you so choose. Though it wouldn't be that farfetched that they could retool their command bar stuff to accept an additional arguement, and then have that arguement spawned when you select select the spell and the power point expenditure from your spell list (click the sliderbar below the spell, drag it to 5, and then pull it out and you get a command that is somewhat similar to [$cast:Energy Missile{%t,5,Fire}], which reads as "Cast Energy Missile with the fire descriptor at the target while using 5 power points", though I'm certain that their tool command language is somewhat different.)

But even moreso than that, the powers themselves are somewhat esoteric. Weapon Grafting, growing tentacles, and stuff like that. Some stuff even weirder than that.

And then there is power stones, which is the psionic equivilent of scrolls. each stone has 1d4 random powers in them.


So yes, I would freaking love to see psionics brought into the game. They're gonna have to gimp a few portions of it though. I'm alright with that. Don't see it happening in Update 1 though.

As far as the Kalashtar go... I'd also love that.

Xenus_Paradox
10-15-2009, 05:19 PM
Given that the devs seem to be bleeding 4E into DDO, they might go with the new psionic system. Much less complicated, and different enough from 3.5 spellcasting that it would have a nice exotic feel to it.

Angelus_dead
10-15-2009, 05:23 PM
Um no...tell us
Okay, here you go (http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=ddo+psionics+spum&l=1).

enochiancub
10-15-2009, 05:42 PM
That is extremely incorrect.



Does anyone else find this ridiculously rude and obnoxious? It's always "Incorrect" "Wrong" etc etc.

Lighten the heck up for petes sakes

jakeelala
10-15-2009, 05:46 PM
That is extremely incorrect.

Indeed, the fact that DDO uses spellpoints would make it harder to add psionic points, not easier. Do you know what "SPUM" means?

haha do you develop for Turbine? Do you have some insight into the engine and how it's programmed to handle things like this?

Monk Ki system wasn't a big deal, I'm guessing they could manage psionics too. In any case, I won't claim to know like you do, which is patently ridiculous.

Aeneas
10-15-2009, 06:04 PM
Does anyone else find this ridiculously rude and obnoxious? It's always "Incorrect" "Wrong" etc etc.

Lighten the heck up for petes sakes

It's literally the only way he'll respond. I'm convinced that A_D is Q we're all mere Picards.

Angelus_dead
10-15-2009, 06:34 PM
haha do you develop for Turbine? Do you have some insight into the engine and how it's programmed to handle things like this?
I'm sufficiently capable to tell that adding a new class to DDO is a challenge of game design, and not computer programming.

MDS_Geist
10-15-2009, 06:46 PM
That is extremely incorrect.

Indeed, the fact that DDO uses spellpoints would make it harder to add psionic points, not easier. Do you know what "SPUM" means?

"No, I strenuously object!"
Thanks Commander Galloway.

Given that the programming mechanic for spell points is already in the game, I don't see why it would be more difficult to use that same mechanic for psionic power points. As for the issue of "game design," which I'm sure you're aware involves "computer programming," Turbine has made clear that adding classes and races is a large challenge. Given that it would be possible to use an extant mechanic for a slightly different system, this would logically lessen that challenge.

Feel free to define "spum" if your argument hinges on it.

Angelus_dead
10-15-2009, 06:56 PM
Given that the programming mechanic for spell points is already in the game, I don't see why it would be more difficult to use that same mechanic for psionic power points.
It might help if you think about it this way:
I suggest adding a new class to DDO, called the "Mizard". A mizard has 4 hp/level, 1 BAB per 2 levels, good Will saves, no armor or weapon proficiencies, and no skill except concentration. But his levels and intelligence give him energy points, which can be spent to create a variety of useful effects from a list, whose effectiveness depends on his level, intelligence, and possibly feats, items, or enhancements.

Would it be a good idea to follow my suggestion and add the Mizard class? Or would that be too similar to some other class that already exists in the game?


As for the issue of "game design," which I'm sure you're aware involves "computer programming,"
That is precisely untrue. In reality, games were designed well before computers became available.


Feel free to define "spum" if your argument hinges on it.
I don't see why I should make the effort, when you're not willing to click on google.com.

Angelus_dead
10-15-2009, 06:59 PM
These two threads should be enough to debunk any suggestions to add psionics into DDO:
thread 1 (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?p=2015390)
thread 2 (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=204234)

enochiancub
10-15-2009, 07:16 PM
Erm, googling SPUM brings out some rather racey subjects as well as some socio economic sounding things. But hey, nice way to be a jerk either way.

Angelus_dead
10-15-2009, 07:19 PM
Erm, googling SPUM brings out some rather racey subjects as well as some socio economic sounding things. But hey, nice way to be a jerk either way.
Could you at least read THIS thread before replying to THIS thread?

PS. For the benefit of the web-link impaired, SPUM is an acronym used by game designers to characterize the psionics rules in D&D. It stands for Spell Point Using Mage.

Angelus_dead
10-15-2009, 07:22 PM
I did, you got ****y about it not being googled. So I googled it and couldn't see how it applied. Could you eat me?
I provided a link. A clickable hyper-link, which is currently rendered in orange underlined text.

Lymnus
10-15-2009, 07:35 PM
I provided a link. A clickable hyper-link, which is currently rendered in orange underlined text.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=SPUM&aq=f&aqi=g10&oq=&fp=c807e9ccc08a197a

When one asks himself, "Hey, what's SPUM?", it's not outside the realm of reason to believe he'd try googling it.

So, he'd try googling the term "SPUM". Try doing that, and see why people find using that term so, well, ridiculous. Mind you, this is NSFW.

After that, they might try looking up "SPUM acronym". This, of course, is quite logical too. So, once you look this up, you get some SFW links. Yay.
But, these are mainly results like "Splendid Micro-Union of Microstatia", which obviously have nothing to do with this topic.

I suppose you assumed that everyone would look up "SPUM Psionics", "SPUM DDO", or "SPUM Psionics DDO". But, honestly, SPUM isn't a widely used term. A term like MAD wouldn't have been too out-there for most.

So, we'll look up SPUM Psionics. And, it says on the very first link, SPUM means "A derogatory term for 3rd edition psionics that states that psionics is simply an alternate sorcerer."

Then, they continue to elaborate, explaining how this is not the case. Try reading this: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19579322/?pg=last

If you don't want to, I'll just quote the significant part.


The mechanics for manifesting powers is relatively the same as casting an arcane or divine spell. However, psionic powers vary in range and flavor in a unique fashion. Just as divine spells are have unique flavor, as well as arcane magic.
Thus, while these three types of mystic abilities have similar mechanics, and even some similarities amongst the various spells/powers, they are each unique in their own fashion. It is as easy to call a cleric an "alternate wizard" as it is to call a psion an "alternate sorcerer"
That said, psionics does have some major differences compared to divine and arcane magic. For one, magic uses spell components while psionics do not. Instead of components, psionic powers have "displays". Displays are an after-effect created from manifesting a power. Psionics also use "Power Points" in place of spell slots. The points can be used for any level power, and does not limit the number of times per day a power is manifested (as long as a sufficient supply of points remain, of course). Finally, a large number of psionic powers do not scale (unless using appropriate feats), while most spells do.

Angelus_dead
10-15-2009, 07:41 PM
So, he'd try googling the term "SPUM". Try doing that, and see why people find using that term so, well, ridiculous.
Yes, some people might do that, but I'm prohibited from exploring the implications.


I suppose you assumed that everyone would look up "SPUM Psionics", "SPUM DDO", or "SPUM Psionics DDO".
I absolutely did not assume that, which is why I provided a link that included the necessary keywords.


Then, they continue to elaborate, explaining how this is not the case. Try reading this
The counterargument is so inadequate that it isn't even funny.


If you don't want to, I'll just quote the significant part.
Or you could read one of the other DDO threads linked, where all of those topics have been dismantled in-depth.

Memnir
10-15-2009, 07:43 PM
I'd not mind seeing Kalashtar added - but I'd like to see Half-Orcs & Half-Elves first.

As for the complexity of adding Psionics to the game - yeah, it'd be tough. But I also think it'd be worth it for the variety if done properly. The existence of a few effects in the game that are labeled as Psionics do not mean that those are a gateway to shoehorning Psi powers into the game. And, none of the new content changes my opinion on that much. Most of the new psionic effects are repackaged versions of stuff already in the game. If they can make Psionics unique enough to not just be a repackaged version of existing content - it's worth pursuing as a player class. If not... leave it as an NPC feature only.

Lymnus
10-15-2009, 07:52 PM
Yes, some people might do that, but I'm prohibited from exploring the implications.
Fair enough, seeing how such implications are rather, well. I'll just stick with NSFW. But, I entirely understand this. Just realize that when someone looks up that term, they're more likely than not going to find something other than your intended definition.



I absolutely did not assume that, which is why I provided a link that included the necessary keywords.
I'd agree with you, but you showed this term in such a fashion that it almost seemed like you're saying, "You're ignorant if you aren't familiar with this term." I'm sure that's not what you're implying, but that's how it seems. It's interesting, though, that the link you provide is actually quoting yourself.



The counterargument is so inadequate that it isn't even funny.
It's not a counter argument. You simply gave a source--the Psionics FAQ that I looked at, which actually seemed to be fairly outdated seeing how the Expanded Psionics Handbook hasn't even been released (which would mean it's at least 6 years old), and I looked in that source. I simply found that the source you providing explained that psionic characters are not the same thing as SPUMs.
But, it is worth saying that since this is such an old source, the term SPUM might just be outdated. I make the same mistake using the term gish. If someone doesn't understand a term, just define it. When someone asked what SPUM is, would it have hurt to say "Spell Point Using Mage", instead of having a link that says, "There, was that so hard?" It just seems rude.



Or you could read one of the other DDO threads linked, where all of those topics have been dismantled in-depth.
The majority of those posts are your own arguments. I thoroughly understand your opinion. But, your opinion isn't the be-all end-all opinion. I understand that you might dislike repeating the same points, but if you're so passionate about a certain topic, you could certainly be more charismatic or persuasive when trying to show your opinion. But, to each their own.

Lymnus
10-15-2009, 07:57 PM
I'd not mind seeing Kalashtar added - but I'd like to see Half-Orcs & Half-Elves first.

As for the complexity of adding Psionics to the game - yeah, it'd be tough. But I also think it'd be worth it for the variety if done properly. The existence of a few effects in the game that are labeled as Psionics do not mean that those are a gateway to shoehorning Psi powers into the game. And, none of the new content changes my opinion on that much. Most of the new psionic effects are repackaged versions of stuff already in the game. If they can make Psionics unique enough to not just be a repackaged version of existing content - it's worth pursuing as a player class. If not... leave it as an NPC feature only.

I absolutely agree. I'd even vouch for saying Druids should come beforehand, but that's still me just being hopeful.

Wouldn't you think, though, that psionics would be somewhat similar to making a favored soul? We do have the spell point system, which is almost exactly like the power point system. Many of the current animations we have could be adapted to psions, if they were truly that lazy. It seems that you could gain a few psionic classes easily.

At least, that's my opinion on the matter. Take it or leave it, of course.

Angelus_dead
10-15-2009, 08:39 PM
But, it is worth saying that since this is such an old source, the term SPUM might just be outdated. I make the same mistake using the term gish. If someone doesn't understand a term, just define it. When someone asked what SPUM is, would it have hurt to say "Spell Point Using Mage"
The meaning of the acronym is not what mattered. Instead, it was whether or not a person had seen it before, which indicates if he had read the previous discussions of psionics on the DDO forums.


if you're so passionate about a certain topic, you could certainly be more charismatic or persuasive when trying to show your opinion. But, to each their own.
I am not passionate about it, but I was persuasive in prior discussions. If a person was interested in that topic, he could go read the previous threads.

Several of the people insulting me here have demonstrated that they did not actually read the material.... so no matter how "charismatic" the words might or might not be, they're all the same if they never make it off the screen.

Angelus_dead
10-15-2009, 08:43 PM
It seems that you could gain a few psionic classes easily.
There are many things that would be easy for the developers to do; it's more important to first decide if it would be a good idea or not. In what way could psionic classes be beneficial?

It might help to consider the implications of an analogous suggestion, such as adding a new class called BattleLord, who is expert both in attacking enemies with weapons, and surviving such attacks against him. It would be fairly easy to add BattleLord to DDO (and you could also call him Samurai or Swashbuckler or Warblade), but would the result be positive or negative?

Kistilan
10-15-2009, 09:07 PM
It's literally the only way he'll respond. I'm convinced that A_D is Q we're all mere Picards.

Quarion was way nicer.

Kistilan
10-15-2009, 09:09 PM
I'd not mind seeing Kalashtar added - but I'd like to see Half-Orcs & Half-Elves first.

As for the complexity of adding Psionics to the game - yeah, it'd be tough. But I also think it'd be worth it for the variety if done properly. The existence of a few effects in the game that are labeled as Psionics do not mean that those are a gateway to shoehorning Psi powers into the game. And, none of the new content changes my opinion on that much. Most of the new psionic effects are repackaged versions of stuff already in the game. If they can make Psionics unique enough to not just be a repackaged version of existing content - it's worth pursuing as a player class. If not... leave it as an NPC feature only.

They added ki for monks. It's a point & move system. Psionics would be as tedious as adding the monk class.

SteeleTrueheart
10-15-2009, 09:10 PM
Quarion was way nicer.

Not sure if this was a joke in response to a joke, or that you just didn't get the Star Trek TNG reference?

Angelus_dead
10-15-2009, 09:11 PM
Quarion was way nicer.
"Q (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek))" is not an abbreviation for Quarion. (It actually means "Quarton", which I hadn't known until just now)

SteeleTrueheart
10-15-2009, 09:20 PM
The main problem with adding psionics (from a gameplay perspective) that I see is that it would add to that powercreep the Devs have been trying to reduce. Suddenly everyone would have stat/to hit/damage/AC bonuses with the psionic tag that would probably stack with all existing bonuses.

They could of course make it non stackable with magic if it was essentialy a similar spell, but then what would a psionic character bring over an arcane/divine character?

This is all a derail anyway as the OP was referring to a RACE and not Classes. The Kalashtar race could certainly be created for the game and have a more limited racial feat clicky type of psionic abilities. This would be a lot more restricted than a class addition.

Unfortunately I am at work so I do not have my Ebberon book with me to see what the race perks are and to evaluate the usefulness of adding it to the game.

Angelus_dead
10-15-2009, 09:31 PM
Suddenly everyone would have stat/to hit/damage/AC bonuses with the psionic tag that would probably stack with all existing bonuses.
A look at the psionic effects (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powerList.htm#psychicWarriorPowers) from the D&D rules doesn't indicate it would happen. The abilities appear to give the same kinds of bonuses you could get from magic spells, primarily enhancement.


Unfortunately I am at work so I do not have my Ebberon book with me to see what the race perks are and to evaluate the usefulness of adding it to the game.
The arcane-kalashtar recommended for non-psionic campaigns has a +2 bonus to charisma for the purpose of extra spell use. The race also has +2 on bluff, intimidate, diplomacy, and saves against mind-affecting spells, and 1x use of Mindlink.

If I were adding Kalashtar to DDO they would get many cool powers from enhancements, including Mind Blade and Tashalatora. (In D&D, Tashalatora supports the multiclassing of monk and psionic manifester, so in DDO I would make it allow a sorc/monk character to use charisma in place of wisdom for features such as AC and Stunning Fist, to a limit of 2x monk levels)

SteeleTrueheart
10-15-2009, 09:48 PM
A look at the psionic effects (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powerList.htm#psychicWarriorPowers) from the D&D rules doesn't indicate it would happen. The abilities appear to give the same kinds of bonuses you could get from magic spells, primarily enhancement.

Yes, I guess that is why I said "They could of course make it non stackable with magic" however, the fact that Shade is desperate to get the +6 STR psionic cookies shows that it DOES stack in DDOland.



The arcane-kalashtar recommended for non-psionic campaigns has a +2 bonus to charisma for the purpose of extra spell use. The race also has +2 on bluff, intimidate, diplomacy, and saves against mind-affecting spells, and 1x use of Mindlink.

If I were adding Kalashtar to DDO they would get many cool powers from enhancements, including Mind Blade and Tashalatora. (In D&D, Tashalatora supports the multiclassing of monk and psionic manifester, so in DDO I would make it allow a sorc/monk character to use charisma in place of wisdom for features such as AC and Stunning Fist, to a limit of 2x monk levels)

"to a limit of 2x monk levels" the devs have never put this type of limitation in yet on multiclassing, doubtful they would now.

though the race does look interesting.

Angelus_dead
10-15-2009, 10:49 PM
shows that it DOES stack in DDOland.
It does not show that.


"to a limit of 2x monk levels" the devs have never put this type of limitation in yet on multiclassing
It is not a limitation on multiclassing.

MDS_Geist
10-15-2009, 11:32 PM
It might help if you think about it this way:
I suggest adding a new class to DDO, called the "Mizard". A mizard has 4 hp/level, 1 BAB per 2 levels, good Will saves, no armor or weapon proficiencies, and no skill except concentration. But his levels and intelligence give him energy points, which can be spent to create a variety of useful effects from a list, whose effectiveness depends on his level, intelligence, and possibly feats, items, or enhancements.

Would it be a good idea to follow my suggestion and add the Mizard class? Or would that be too similar to some other class that already exists in the game?

Except for the fact that psionics are not magic and there are multiple psionic classes. So as entertaining as that was, it was also pointless.



That is precisely untrue. In reality, games were designed well before computers became available.

Which is entertainingly silly.
In case you're unaware, we're talking about a computer game based on a pen and paper game.



I don't see why I should make the effort, when you're not willing to click on google.com.

Since it is your argument, it is incumbent upon you to prove your point.

Uska
10-16-2009, 12:21 AM
Would be cool but I see no cause to get your hopes up even slightly.

Uska
10-16-2009, 12:35 AM
Not sure if this was a joke in response to a joke, or that you just didn't get the Star Trek TNG reference?

I am sure most did and I only watched about 6 episodes of that trash of a show.

Natashaelle
10-16-2009, 03:19 AM
Psionic character classes are not a prerequisite for introducing Kalashtari (the reverse could be arguably true though). All that's needed is for the game to include Psionics in some form or other, and hey presto what have we got here ? :)

Nice one OP, think you're onto something ;)

Angelus_dead
10-16-2009, 03:26 AM
Psionic character classes are not a prerequisite for introducing Kalashtari (the reverse could be arguably true though). All that's needed is for the game to include Psionics in some form or other, and hey presto what have we got here ?
If there aren't psionic character classes, then the desires of people who say "I wish DDO had psionics" are not being met.

If they were satisfied with psionics aside from class features, then they could simply go into Slavers of the Shrieking Mines and be satisfied with a couple of illithids.

Angelus_dead
10-16-2009, 03:28 AM
Except for the fact that psionics are not magic
No, that is exactly false. According to the D&D rules, psionics are magic.


Except for the fact that psionics are not magic and there are multiple psionic classes. So as entertaining as that was, it was also pointless.
It made sense by itself, but I see that it wasn't helpful to you.


Which is entertainingly silly.
In case you're unaware, we're talking about a computer game based on a pen and paper game.
That's senseless.


Since it is your argument, it is incumbent upon you to prove your point.
I did. The fact that you didn't read it doesn't change that, although it does reduce my incentive to respond to you. If you'd like to dispute my explanation, you could go ahead and try.

Natashaelle
10-16-2009, 03:32 AM
If there aren't psionic character classes, then the desires of people who say "I wish DDO had psionics" are not being met.

If they were satisfied with psionics aside from class features, then they could simply go into Slavers of the Shrieking Mines and be satisfied with a couple of illithids.

Don't get me wrong -- I think these developments are a STRONG indication that we will get both Kalashtari and at least one Psionic character Class in the upcoming Mods/Updates.

I was just commenting that Kalashtari could perfectly well be introduced *before* any new Psi Character Class(es) ;)

Oh and any DDO parallel of one of my old AD&D characters would *require* Psionics in-game, so I'm all for it ... :)

Natashaelle
10-16-2009, 03:43 AM
No, that is exactly false. According to the D&D rules, psionics are magic.

According to 1st Edition they're not ; 2nd Edition ignored the question ; 3rd Edition provided various options for DMs/Groups.

The default position of the rules is that Magic and Psionics can interact with each other. But one of the proposed variants in 3rd Edition states that they are different and do not affect each other in any way ; another that they are similar but different so that they interact with attached penalties ; another that they are different but interact normally with some exceptions (Dispel Magic not working against Psionics etc on the one hand, but Psionics and Magic not stacking on the other) ; another that they are just different types of Magic ; finally, another variant is that they simply do not exist in your Campaign.

We will see what the DM in this online Campaign decides ;) , however the existence of specific "Psionic" bonuses in DDO as of Mod9 is tending towards the "they are (at least somewhat) different" end of the spectrum, in my opinion.

Soulken
10-16-2009, 03:49 AM
According to 1st Edition they're not ; 2nd Edition ignored the question ; 3rd Edition provided various options for DMs/Groups.

The default position of the rules is that Magic and Psionics can interact with each other. But one of the proposed variants in 3rd Edition states that they are different and do not affect each other in any way ; another that they are similar but different so that they interact with attached penalties ; another that they are different but interact normally with some exceptions (Dispel Magic not working against Psionics etc on the one hand, but Psionics and Magic not stacking on the other) ; another that they are just different types of Magic ; finally, another variant is that they simply do not exist in your Campaign.

We will see what the DM in this online Campaign decides ;) , however the existence of specific "Psionic" bonuses in DDO as of Mod9 is tending towards the "they are (at least somewhat) different" end of the spectrum, in my opinion.

Yes but we arent 1st or 2nd edtion are we, and we arent really a varriant of 3.0 either we are 3.5 and as abrassive as A_D can seem sometimes he is right it is considered magic.

Angelus_dead
10-16-2009, 03:49 AM
Don't get me wrong -- I think these developments are a STRONG indication that we will get both Kalashtari and at least one Psionic character Class in the upcoming Mods/Updates.
What it looks like is that the devs wanted a different kind of enemy than undead, giants, and devils, so they flipped a coin between Xoriat and Dal Quor and got tails. The "psionic" bonus you see on various magic items was mainly so they'd have another kind of bonus that wasn't the same as existing ones, allowing a new path of loot progression to be created. And of course it provided new flavor text for items, such as the word "Elocator".

As for the possibility of psionic classes in DDO, did you read this thread?
http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=204234



I was just commenting that Kalashtari could perfectly well be introduced *before* any new Psi Character Class(es)
That would miss out on a lot of the flavor of Kalashtar; to deny them connection to psion classes, but to not replace it with the arcane variant. Non-psionic kalashtar rules are provided for D&D:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20060925a

Angelus_dead
10-16-2009, 03:58 AM
The default position of the rules is that Magic and Psionics can interact with each other. But one of the proposed variants in 3rd Edition states that they are different and do not affect each other in any way
The description of those optional variations includes a summary of the implications for game balance, which warn that having psionics be distinct from magic would be a mistake for an MMORPG. It makes it much harder to have balance between psionic and non-psionic player characters.

SteeleTrueheart
10-16-2009, 05:53 AM
It does not show that.

It does show that.

The cookies grant a psionic bonus. It stacks. It is the only evidence in game of what psionic bonuses do. Therefore, with all the known evidence, they stack. Your snooty five word childish denial does not change the facts.

It does not show that psionics are being added to the game. It does not show that psionic related races are being added to the game. It does not show that if Turbine introduces true psionics in the future that all psionic bonuses will stack with magic bonuses. It simply shows that for the moment the DM's rule is psionics and magic stack, so are considered separate and distinct. I am eagerly awaiting the result of Shade using one in the presence of a beholder to see if the anti-magic dispels it or not.



It is not a limitation on multiclassing.

Depending on how they set it up it would be. Or it might not be. All moot until they added it, if they added it as you expect, and if they even added that particular ability. Too many ifs to debate it really.

Natashaelle
10-16-2009, 08:50 AM
Several good points people -- I think though that ultimately, there is a particular take on Psionics in the Eberron setting, which will likely be mirrored at least in the DDO version.

The implementation and balance issues can be tough to handle in a tabletop game, but at least in DDO we will see universal application of whatever Turbine chooses to implement.

I do not think we will see any of the more extreme variants applied, and I would personally guess that DDO Psionics will be dispellable as magic etc, simply so as to avoid the need to rethink huge numbers of old quests to make them Psi-compatible. But then again, this would depend on exactly which version of Psionics Turbine ended up using, including some potential homebrew rules.

Is still all just castles in the air :)

Angelus_dead
10-16-2009, 09:35 AM
It does show that.

The cookies grant a psionic bonus. It stacks. It is the only evidence in game of what psionic bonuses do. Therefore, with all the known evidence, they stack. Your snooty five word childish denial does not change the facts.
That response is both completely wrong, and completely undeserving of my time to explain why.

For the benefit of others: he is committing a quaternio terminorum fallacy, whereby two separate concepts ("psionic-typed bonuses" and "psionic powers of psionic classes") are treated as if they were one entity, thereby leaping to a conclusion without evidence for it.

The reality is that if Turbine were to add psionic classes such as Psion:
1. They would want to follow the D&D rules for it as much as possible, which means psionic classes grant the same kinds of bonuses they do in D&D, which means types that won't stack with existing spells.
2. They would not want to stupidly unbalance their game, which means psionic classes would give bonuses that generally don't stack with those of existing classes.


I am eagerly awaiting the result of Shade using one in the presence of a beholder to see if the anti-magic dispels it or not.
And since there are magic effects which work within an antimagic field...


Depending on how they set it up it would be. Or it might not be. All moot until they added it, if they added it as you expect, and if they even added that particular ability. Too many ifs to debate it really.
As it was a suggestion invented by me, exactly what it does is defined by what I said it does. According to how I wrote it, it is not a "limitation on multiclassing". If you didn't think it was sufficiently defined to discuss, then you shouldn't have made claims about what it is.

Borror0
10-16-2009, 09:51 AM
In case you're unaware, we're talking about a computer game based on a pen and paper game.
In case you're unaware, importing psionics would be a mistake as they would be identical to existing arcane classes (or nearly) due to DDO's house rules. In PnP, the main difference between magic users and psions is that magic uses spell per day and spell slots while the other uses spell points. However, in DDO, magic already uses spell points. As a result, there is no difference between psionic powers and magic powers except in name.

Since it is pointless to have two classes being so similar, psions would need to be changed so that it could be different from magic.

Because of that, implementing psions is much more of a game design challenge than a computer programming challenge: the tech for spells or creating additional resources already exist but, since the psionic powers and magic would be so similar in DDO, the designers will have a lot of work to do if they ever wish to implement psions.

MDS_Geist
10-16-2009, 09:57 AM
Since it is pointless to have two classes being so similar, psions would need to be changed so that it could be different from magic.

As you know, psionics is a system and a psion is one of the classes that uses that system. At no point did I suggest psions as a class. There are other classes besides psions such as the psychic warrior and the soulknife.

Memnir
10-16-2009, 10:09 AM
They added ki for monks. It's a point & move system. Psionics would be as tedious as adding the monk class.Agreed. And actually, Monk was the foremost thing on my mind when I said that Psions should only be included if they can be made unique and interesting - as opposed to existing game features repackaged.

To me, the largest appeal of the Monk has been the Unarmed style of combat. And the Dev realized that the default Punch-Punch-Kick unarmed animations would lead to epic failure of the new class - and took the time and effort to make a Monk's unarmed animations not just different but fun to watch. The same, if not more, attention to detail would be needed to put in Psi powers to the game - because to me at least, the spell casting animations would look silly and wrong for mind-powers.

In addition, I'd hope that the Devs would learn from the Monk's example and make sure that all key features of any new class from here on out worked prior to their induction to the game. The year long and ongoing issues with Handwraps has left a bitter taste in my mouth regarding the Monk - and I think a lot of folks share that feeling.



Yes, it would be possible to add Psionics to the game. And yes, it would be fantastic to have more options in class and race selection. But, I only hope to see them if they can be done properly and responsibly.

I don't see the addition of a few Psionic effects and examples of a new race as any indicator we're going to see them anytime soon, however. After all, there has been a Druid on Atraxia's Haven for how long now? Goodness knows I've been wrong before, and I'd love to be wrong here too... but if we see a new race or class, it's likely to be a long ways off. That said, this is a great conversation to have because it shows the Devs that we are interested and eager to see them added - even if it takes time.

SteeleTrueheart
10-16-2009, 12:33 PM
That response is both completely wrong, and completely undeserving of my time to explain why.

For the benefit of others: he is committing a quaternio terminorum fallacy, whereby two separate concepts ("psionic-typed bonuses" and "psionic powers of psionic classes") are treated as if they were one entity, thereby leaping to a conclusion without evidence for it.



I have been discussing the Kalashtar race not psionic classes, as per the OP

Let me spell it out in even simpler terms for you and more slowly. I admit I could have been a little more clearer as you seem to be pedantic.

Here is my quote:
"It does not show that if Turbine introduces true psionics in the future that all psionic [ability granted] bonuses will stack with magic bonuses."
This shows I clearly believe that psionic powers and psionic-typed bonuses are different things, because I also said:

"The cookies grant a psionic[-type] bonus. It stacks. It is the only evidence in game of what psionic bonuses do. Therefore, with all the known evidence, they stack."

Now that shows that I believe they are different things however, I do believe they are related. Obviously I interpret the fact of there being a psionic-type bonus, that it would be granted by a psionic power or feat etc. Unless you are saying psionic-type bonuses (which are in game) would not be granted by psionic powers/abilities...?


The reality is that if Turbine were to add psionic classes such as Psion:
1. They would want to follow the D&D rules for it as much as possible, which means psionic classes grant the same kinds of bonuses they do in D&D, which means types that won't stack with existing spells.
2. They would not want to stupidly unbalance their game, which means psionic classes would give bonuses that generally don't stack with those of existing classes.

I will ignore the fact that I am talking about a race and you are talking about classes, since I am saying that if this race was created it would have psionic abilities that would ... oh why bother nicely debating this, let me do the A_D style...
1. Is your assumption. We all know exactly how close Monk is to PnP.
2. I agree and already stated so:

The main problem with adding psionics (from a gameplay perspective) that I see is that it would add to that powercreep the Devs have been trying to reduce. Suddenly everyone would have stat/to hit/damage/AC bonuses with the psionic tag that would probably stack with all existing bonuses.

They could of course make it non stackable with magic if it was essentialy a similar spell, but then what would a psionic character bring over an arcane/divine character?






And since there are magic effects which work within an antimagic field...


I am willing to be educated in this. What (non store bought) self buffing potion works in a beholders anti magic field?

Andromansis
10-20-2009, 06:46 AM
It would be interesting to inquire as to how far their [Turbine's] Liscence of D&D material extends, and if it is in any way limited by the OGL which is attached on almost all D&D 3.5 source material.

Bottom line though, even if they are not playable, Kalashtar at least deserve their own model in game.
Its not like we're asking for Tauric Bears or anything like that. (I keep meaning to look up exactly how the Scorrow happened, its an interesting Drider variant, but I don't know how the Drow did it without the aide of Lloth.)

MDS_Geist
10-20-2009, 07:07 AM
(I keep meaning to look up exactly how the Scorrow happened, its an interesting Drider variant, but I don't know how the Drow did it without the aide of Lloth.)

Rather than Lolth, the deity followed by many drow is Vulkoor who manifests as a scorpion. Since he's a scorpion guy rather than a spider queen, we have scorrow rather than driders. :)

Natashaelle
10-20-2009, 07:42 AM
It would be interesting to inquire as to how far their [Turbine's] Liscence of D&D material extends, and if it is in any way limited by the OGL which is attached on almost all D&D 3.5 source material.

Generally speaking, the OGL does not confer any videogames publication rights, which must be acquired separately. The OGL lets people make use of the *text* that is specifically designated as Open Game content, ie they are able to use that *text* in their own OG materials.

Apart from that, there is nothing whatsoever to prevent 3rd party content developers to create their own original materials ; this being said, Turbine undoubtedly have some specific agreements with WotC regarding the development and contents of DDO (as derivative of material copyrighted by WotC), that are unlikely to be discussed publicly anywhere, outside _potentially_ (and I use that word advisedly) certain types of game convention seminars.

mistyfish603
10-20-2009, 03:50 PM
I want to start out by saying I understand the work and what have you that would go into the process of adding new material and such, and this post has nothing to do with any of that. Instead I would like to touch on the subject of why or why not to add material that is similar to already existing material.

One of the core implementations in DnD has been the concept of customization and personal choice. 3.5 has choices in spades, and most all of them are mirrors of other stuff with just enough paint to make it look different. Besides the effort involved for devs there is not one good reason to not add something just because it over laps, does the same job as, looks kinda alike, etc.

As for Psionics and Arcane magic, sure in their bones they are twins, masters or mystical attacks which they employ to do great damage to foes or create great wonders for the world to see. But flavor wise they are very very different. A wizard through training and self discovery found the proper formula, incantations and so on to bend the forces of the world to his liking. A sorcerer does the same but they more instinctively know the formula vs study. A psion through force of will and fueled by his own reserves of power performs similar acts. Where one uses his knowledge to achieve a result the other uses his own inner fire.

Lets for example assume psion and wizard are the exact same with just a name change. Why bother having them like that? In case I want to be called a psion and not wizard. Apply this example to "why make a bunch of different races even if they have the same exact benefits and flaws statistical but are named something else and have different skin color", Personal preference.

And on a personal preference note, I'd rather fire psionic gem missiles vs arcane magic missiles. Sure gems require a ranged attack and do piercing dmg but thems the breaks :D

Natashaelle
10-21-2009, 04:05 PM
No, that is exactly false. According to the D&D rules, psionics are magic.

DeGenev Brothers are still present on the the European servers, and one of my guildies has just spammed Greater Dispel Magic on me at Phoenix PvP while I was Psionically Inspired by them.

Zilch, nada, no effect :)

Of course this is a "special" bonus, but it does still tend to show that DDO Psionics are not Magic.