Psionics: Magic or Not

[bogmad]

In either case, it's out of place.

If psionics is magic, it's redundant to magic.

If psionics isn't magic, it's game breaking, and adds an unnecessary complex system.

Whether it's game breaking is up for debate. And it doesn't have to be unnecessarily complex.

If it is magic, it might be redundant, but then so would overlapping mage and cleric spells.

The problem I see is that over time D&D has supported both versions. Some of us like the not-magic version and some of us don't. Most of the discussion has been trying to force one position on the other, but in it's broadest sense it's just arguing fluff. It just so happens that the fluff happens to have very broad mechanical implications if we choose one side or the other.

If you want to argue sorcerers and psions are basically the same, as has been going on in other threads, I'll disagree with you. But, if you say in your game psionic power and sorcery are indistinguishable, fine. I'm ok with that unless you try to force your game ideas on me.

Can both positions be mechanically viable in a single edition, or is there a line in the sand that needs to be drawn?

 

[Tovec]

In either case, it's out of place.

If psionics is magic, it's redundant to magic.

If psionics isn't magic, it's game breaking, and adds an unnecessary complex system.

That logic doesn't make sense or necessarily follow, for anything.

If wizards are fighters, it's redundant to fighters.
{which they aren't}
If wizards aren't fighters, it's game breaking, and adds an unnecessary complex system.
Uh..

 

[Ahnehnois]

The approach to psionics that makes sense to be is the Psychic's Handbook, which builds the system on existing mechanics (skills and feats), meaning that it is not particularly complex or difficult to learn. I see no reason why it is or has to be game-breaking either. Some people think magic is game-breaking. Some people think nothing is game-breaking.

 

[n00bdragon]

Whether psionics falls under the umbrella term "magic" is about as important as whether the red dragon breathes 40 points of "fire" damage at you or the white dragon breathes 40 points of "cold" damage at you. Perhaps there is some aspects of the game that modifies "magic" or "psionics". Perhaps one comes with a rider effect, like flames tend to have rider effects like "you are now on fire", but the core of the matter is the same. You have a character with plot coupons that allow them to do things not covered by the Joe Blow rules of the game meant to handle ordinary interactions of the game.

That said there's no reason to make a completely independent system for plot coupons. It just leads to things not working together like they should.

 

[Dragongrief]

For the base system, I think psionics should be considered "magic".

I've been looking at it as HOW you access magic being determined by Arcane vs Divine. If some being or power packages and hands you the magic, then it's Divine. If you grasp the power through your own will/rituals/heritage, then it's Arcane.

Leaving psionics as Arcane magic also simplifies how it interacts with other classes - only one mage-kit is needed for each of the non-caster classes.

That said, if someone takes on the task of giving it the attention that it would need to be done correctly (probably on the mechanical level of a setting supplement), having a "Psionics are Different" book would be awesome.

My favorite version of D&D psionics was 2e. It wasn't really balanced, but did a great job of giving a different feel (whether you considered it magic or not).

 

[captpike]

divine, arcane, primal(nature), psionic are all power sources, ways of doing supernatural things, there is no reason one should be more "magic" then the other in a RPG system (novels and such are different)

I never understood why druids had divine powers pre-4th to be honest it makes little sense. or why divine and arcane spells work the same way but psionics do not. they should each be roughly equal in power, and be good and bad at different things.

arcane: powerful, comes from the universe, hard to control
divine: given by god, more friendly, less overtly powerful but easy to control
primal: given by nature/primal spirits whatever, it is inherit in what and who you are, very non destructive, "smarter" then arcane and most divine
psionic: purely internal, less flashy then the others, and harder to make long lasting effects, but very flexible.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

It's magic because 1) balance, and 2) even with the sci-fi/new age techno-babble, it's still magic by another name.

 

[Andor]

Whether psionics falls under the umbrella term "magic" is about as important as whether the red dragon breathes 40 points of "fire" damage at you or the white dragon breathes 40 points of "cold" damage at you. Perhaps there is some aspects of the game that modifies "magic" or "psionics". Perhaps one comes with a rider effect, like flames tend to have rider effects like "you are now on fire", but the core of the matter is the same. You have a character with plot coupons that allow them to do things not covered by the Joe Blow rules of the game meant to handle ordinary interactions of the game.

That said there's no reason to make a completely independent system for plot coupons. It just leads to things not working together like they should.

What you said is exactly true. ... From a Gamist perspective. From a Simulationist or Narrativist perspective however it's pretty meaningless. Since we know 5e is taking a step back from Gamist design we can .. not discount it, but perhaps agree that the discussion is worthy from other perspectives?

From a simulationist viewpoint metaphysical or cosmological differences matter. If, for example, Psionics are considered to be not supernatural within the context of the game, then they should work just fine within the boundaries of an anti-magic field. On the other hand it also suggests definite limits to what they can accomplish. Since the soul is usually defined to be supernatural then ressurecting the dead should be beyond the purview of Psionic powers. Or perhaps they might get access to a revivify power which only works if the body has been dead for less than 3 rounds, which then implies that the soul sticks around for 18 seconds after death. Each added building block tells you more about how the world works even if it's not spelled out explicitly.

From a narrativist viewpoint it also matter. For example in 3e the Hexblade class gets screwed out of most of their class powers if they turn good, and they can't even atone for it since they don't get their powers from some supernatural entity which will forgive them if they kick enough puppies. There are stories to be told from that (for example a Wizard who is worried by the implications that theoretically neutral and insensate Arcane magical power will stop answering to some practitioners if they are good and so begins to investigate the sources of arcane power) but those stories only make sense within a context where Arcane, Divine or Psionic are more than empty keywords.

 

[captpike]

What you said is exactly true. ... From a Gamist perspective. From a Simulationist or Narrativist perspective however it's pretty meaningless. Since we know 5e is taking a step back from Gamist design we can .. not discount it, but perhaps agree that the discussion is worthy from other perspectives?

From a simulationist viewpoint metaphysical or cosmological differences matter. If, for example, Psionics are considered to be not supernatural within the context of the game, then they should work just fine within the boundaries of an anti-magic field. On the other hand it also suggests definite limits to what they can accomplish. Since the soul is usually defined to be supernatural then ressurecting the dead should be beyond the purview of Psionic powers. Or perhaps they might get access to a revivify power which only works if the body has been dead for less than 3 rounds, which then implies that the soul sticks around for 18 seconds after death. Each added building block tells you more about how the world works even if it's not spelled out explicitly.

From a narrativist viewpoint it also matter. For example in 3e the Hexblade class gets screwed out of most of their class powers if they turn good, and they can't even atone for it since they don't get their powers from some supernatural entity which will forgive them if they kick enough puppies. There are stories to be told from that (for example a Wizard who is worried by the implications that theoretically neutral and insensate Arcane magical power will stop answering to some practitioners if they are good and so begins to investigate the sources of arcane power) but those stories only make sense within a context where Arcane, Divine or Psionic are more than empty keywords.

that kind of stuff does not belong in rule at all but in campaign settings, or up to the player. when you say "the hexblade loses his powers if he turns good" it can make a good story but that is only one, if you don't define that but let the players and DMs do what they want then you have many more stories to tell.

the game is up to the designers, the world is up to the campaign setting and the DM. when you mix them too much you start limiting concepts, saying that all the cool concepts that involve non-lawfull good paladins cant exist wont work.

that is why all the power sources of a RPG need to be co-equal, if you treat some as "magic" and some as "weak-non magic" then you will only cause problems.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think having different kinds of magic isa road to a lot of problems, and D&D has enough trouble with the spell system as it is. Easier to call everything different ways of accessing magic.