Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6181199" data-attributes="member: 95493">Nope.Also, it would have been a standard rule only in 3e. So, while you may ignore "tradition" the game should not if they are trying to recapture a specific feeling of how something is supposed to work.Well, no that's not what I'm saying or asking.You seem to be saying that "because" or "tradition" aren't good enough reasons. But then ignoring anything I put AFTER the "because" in a sentence and saying "you said because, that make's this argument invalid." Which is what I'm saying is fairly arbitrary.Also, you obviously don't see the value or distinction in the split, I get that I really do. I honestly would agree with you about the quality of the class. I don't like psions. Haven't since a single player wildly abused the class and nearly broke my game years ago. However, based on everything I have learned about psionics it is different and thus I can make this argument without even liking the class or power type.Oh, how does it streamline? Remember you can't use classes or subclasses.So, the purpose is to streamline. Okay, why not ONE type of magic, or not specifying at all. Magic just is magic in our world after all. All magic (in our real myths) comes from the gods/nature/spirits, or from demons/the soul/blood. That could be our baseline. As @KM says that would make ALL casters divine classes, which I'm okay with. But then you still have a problem as psionics isn't divine magic.. but I'll get back to that.So is psionic (not magic) vs. magic. One is spell-like and the other is spells. One works in an antimagic field, one does not. One can be dispelled, detected and otherwise countered as magic. One cannot.That has nothing to do with tradition or "because" of how the effect works. It does semi come down to those things when you think why they are spell-like abilities but I'm not going into that.In a debate are we really supposed to do the other person's job for them?Well, I guess I can anyway:Divine magic is magic from a divine source. Typically that means a deity, or other supernatural spirit capable of granting divine spells. (Notice no mention to intermediary acting on behalf of a deity.)But I'll do two better and define arcane and psionics.Arcane magic is magic from an arcane source. Typically this magic comes from years of training and is gained through knowledge of arcane power through magical sigils (spellbooks), innate magical power (bloodlines), or deals with powerful beings (pacts).Psionics is spell-like abilities from a mental source. Typically it manifests as "mind-powers" which cannot be counted as spells and are NOT magic.Neither an argument nor telling me how I am wrong, just saying that I am. (As per bogmad's comments.)Yeah, you might be right in some settings but are VERY wrong in others.Even in 3e (which seems to be the edition you are most familiar with?) has druids not responsible to a deity as clerics are. They draw magic from nature itself. Rangers are the same, I believe.Paladins are arguably from gods, but they fall based on their ethos and not the word of their god so I don't know.Clerics would mostly fall into this, except for domain clerics who get their power from the cosmos even if gods weren't there - as long as there is divine magic out there.Fiend-worshipers.. as you may guess.. don't work for gods. Heck, the only fiends capable of granting spells are almost at god level themselves. Asmodeus and Orcus have teeter-tottered over that edge a few times.And that all assumes 3e. Now onto 4e where druids (and others, granted) got a primal source. I'm definitely no 4e expert - is a primal source a god (or intermediary)?A. I agreed with you that sorcerers should be psionic in such a case.B. [MENTION=6695559]bogmad[/MENTION] has covered this, twice. (Granted once was after this post but still.)C. You aren't making the argument that sorcerers should be different are you? I mean you are, but I don't think you mean to be.Here is something I'm not exactly clear on. My knowledge of DnD is 3e and on, with minor scatterings of early bits pieced in as I've been explained. Especially on the case of psionics.But the "spontaneous" wizard aspect of sorcerers only seems to apply to the 3e (3.0 and 3.5) version. Even Pathfinder has a better distinction than this. 4e certainly does too.Success! Psions use mind-"magic", and don't memorize spells from books.Told you I could crack it if you answered the bold question.Everything you are saying here I can say of Psionics =/= magic (or psionics =/= divine OR arcane). See..Psionics =/= arcane and divine, because psionics is sourced to the mind (and is not technically magic) and divine and arcane are not.   That IS a difference.  It's not a "because" answer, and it's not a  "tradition" answer, it's an actual reason.Except, I'm just guessing mind, that you are going to say that isn't good enough. And I get that it isn't .. FOR YOU.. but everyone who likes and uses psionics finds it a great distinction.Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. [sarcasm]*inserts clip of Bill O talking about the tides*[/sarcasm]This question only applies to the 3e versions of wizard, sorcerer, and psion. Only to those conditions. Since 5e isn't I can't answer that. Also, I like @SW's answer for this "If Psionic effects aren't dissimilar enough from Arcane effects, rebuild them until they are."</blockquote>

Verification