Magic-Psionics Transparency

[Reshy]

I'm just curious what minmax thinks but should Magic-Psionics Transparency always be treated as on or is it a bad rule that shouldn't ever be used?

[Fredgerd]

False dichotomy I think. It should be treated as case by case. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. The DM should arbitrate on this.

[snakeman830]

In general, it makes the game run a lot smoother in my experience, but this is primarily because of the overwhelming amount of magical content compared to psionic content.  Because psionic monsters and items are so much rarer, it can be difficult to run a "balanced" game where psionics and magic are separate.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I suppose there are fans and haters of the 4e version.  That one, it's doesn't matter that a particular guy has Arcane or Divine or Psionic or Nature or Martial, because ultimately it doesn't matter at all.  You've got an ability that does X, and that word you want to use, is fluff.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

a bad rule that shouldn't ever be used

Yup.

Assume that things in the psionics are necessary: you need psionic feats to craft psionic items. If you could just craft them as wonderous magic items, there shouldn't be psionic crafting feats. You can't UMD psionic items. That's what UPD is for. Things that boost ML don't boost CL. This is the way most of DnD works even for similar systems: boosting SA doesn't automatically boost your skirmish even if they are close. Boosting your skirmish doesn't automatically boost your SA even though its harder to boost skirmish compared to SA.

The only balanced way to have the two systems interact when it isn't clear what should be "necessary" to use is one-way transparancy: spells overcome psionics but psionics don't work against magic. So you can identify a psionic item but you can't psionic identify a magic item. Psionic identify in that wierd list of powers in that eberron book iirc, but if it isn't then consider this just a rhetorical example.

This means that psionics isn't fully "different" and therefore completely imbalanced against everything else: "No power resistance? Haha!"
It also means psionics isn't fully transparent and therefore completely broken when combined with magic: "Well I just grab an ioun stone and 3 spells and now my ML level is high enough to augment powers enough to one shot that great wyrm!"

This appears unfair to psionics, but in fact isn't. I've built several very power psionic characters using this common sense principal. Just don't expect psionics to do everything that magic does. That would be expecting them to be the same and they aren't. This way a DM unfamiliar with psionics can have a player suddenly plug in a psionic character into an otherwise balanced (magic-nerfed) campaign and not have to worry about all the awful things that might co-relate to the new system.

[Nick]

I always liked the idea of "Psionics-magic translucency," where they're sorta similar but not really.

Essentially, checks to overcome resistance of the opposite type roll twice and take the higher roll, due to it sorta kinda working to resist the wrong kind but not really,

Dispel Psionics works on magic effects if the Manifester rolls higher on a Manifester level check against 10+ level of the spell used to make the effect + caster's key ability mod, and vice versa

Psionics can work in AMFs, but 50% chance it simply fails, and vice versa

Detect Psionics can detect sources of magic, but it never goes past the information gained from round 1 for detecting magic, and vice versa

Or, just roll 50% automatic failure or success if the types collide, if that's easier. Obviously feats and skill checks remain completely opaque and different.

My DM pulled this on us in our most recent campaign, and it worked quite well. It didn't exactly help keep everything balanced, per say, but it did make the world feel a lot more alive.

[TC X0 Lt 0X]

I prefer transperency, it tends to simplify things in most cases.