Tony Vargas
Legend
Sounds supernatural, which psionics are, but I don't think magic encompasses all the supernatural..
D&D General Weekly Wrecana - A New Division of Gish Classes
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
But I would call all of these types of magic. There's some sort of supernatural 'juice' or something that is tapped into by some process or through some characteristic of the practitioner. I'd call some things like maybe 'ultra-advanced technology' perhaps skirting the edge in that they MIGHT actually NOT be supernatural (at least such is being claimed, they are 'fantastical'). Psionics OTOH isn't a technology (at least usually, in what case it is such then we might call it fantastical), nor is The Force (which I would call psionics personally, how is it different at all, its mental power). I'd call Qi pretty much also psionics, though some of it is more like 'Charles Atlas Superpower' kind of stuff, which is again effectively magical.
I understand, you want to limit 'magic' to something like muttering certain incantations, drawing mystical diagrams, and flinging exploding gobs of bat poop. The problem, as I see it, with this is that since its all made-up fantastical stuff anyway there's no effective difference, and little justification for drawing arbitrary lines in the rules or mechanics. This is something 4e is great about IMHO. There's simply no such thing as 'magical' and 'mundane', and this comports very well with the pre-modern world-view in which the entire world is effectively a big magical device which works in unknown ways for unknown reasons. An anti-magic spell in 4e would literally have to stop fighter's swords from working, hehe.
Tony Vargas
Legend
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Well, both the 4e Assassin classes are somewhat 'magical', though the Essassin lampshades some of its magicalness by calling it 'poisons' (just ones that oddly manage to mostly obey the resource management paradigm of powers). Honestly neither was a very successful class. The problem that Assassin has always had as a PC class concept is pretty obvious, any good assassin kills his target dead with one stroke, not really very compatible with D&D combat... (and the 1e Assassin has the same issue, which IMHO is the biggest reason it didn't make the 2e PHB cut).
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Psionics had a COOL style in 1e that was wholey and completely incongruent with D&D ... although 3e did take a shot at integrating its flavor.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Part of me REALLY wanted to like 1e psionics, but they were just so borked. We changed the rules to 1 attack/defense per round, which KINDA helped, but even then the stuff was pretty far out of line with the rest of the game.
The problem was, either you were a fairly weak psionic, in which case you were just plain better off not being psionic at all, since all it gained you was being meat on the table for any psionic monster that came along, OR you were a STRONG psionic, in which case the monsters were the meat on the table (even a low level PC with high psionic points could gank powerful demons, etc before they could escape if you used the 1 attack/defense per segment rule).
The disciplines were a total crapshoot. They remind me more than anything of the 1e GW mutation chart, and in fact they may well have had mutual inspiration!
Of course it was the very wackiness of it all that made it intriguing. Anyway, I still say its a magic system in my world view, just a very strange one. I always kind of thought that maybe a more interesting game would be one with a world where 1e psionics were the ONLY magic! You'd probably have to create a way to start out as a psionic character, and I don't know how you'd balance it so everyone didn't just do that and keep doing it until they lucked out and got some stupid powerful PC, but doubtless there would be a way.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Same here badly written but evocative... shista... disign a modern quasi scifi game and use that flavor but fix the damn rules.
Leaving all the rest here so I can just nod repetitively
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.
Rehabilitated as modified, limited, re-themed, and adapted, sure. They’re the sci-fi equivalent of magic, but going from that to “psionics = magic” is a long jump.
Ah, that was a discussion I was having with our fellow user. Qi and psionics seem to be more connected than psionics and magic. However, I’m still not convinced they are the same in all cases (because it depends on the writer), but as a local rule, that can work.
Tony Vargas
Legend
My point is more that they don't belong in the same story. If you have someone who reads minds, foretells the future, aports objects, walks through walls, flies, disappears into thin air, &c and he's doing that while wearing a robe and mumbling a lot while waving a wand, against a backdrop of dragons, knights, & castles, well then, it's 'magic.' If you have someone else doing all the same things, but he's wearing a uniform and concentrating intently, and doing it all against a backdrop of space ships, bug-eyed monsters, and alien worlds, well then, it's 'psionics.'
Of course, D&D shamelessly steals from sci-fi as well as fantasy sources, has done since quite early on.
… Unless both exist on the same story. Then clarifying the situation seems a necessity.
Yes, I do get that psionics is the sci-fi substitute for magic, but they are different in feel, description and definition – such as the anti-magic field argument. Distinctions are important: they tell how a given fiction world functions.
It is true that an author can make psionics be, in fact, magic; and I respect that decision. However, it bugs me to no end; I don’t like it since (for me) it doesn’t reflect such a difference in practical terms. That’s what I was saying.
Similar Threads
