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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yaarel" data-source="post: 6669702" data-attributes="member: 58172">That is an interesting distinction. Psionics is ‘magic’, but is ‘not spellcasting’. I like it.This articulation works well in 5e, where psionics lacks any component, having neither verbal, somatic, nor material. By definition, psionics cannot be ‘spellcasting’.It also reminds me of the suggestion that all ‘spell-like abilities’ can be by definition psionic manifestations.Being ‘not spellcasting’, psionics can still interact with ‘magic’, dispelling magic, and viceversa.I agree the DM can decide how psionics interacts with spells. In 3e, the default is psionics and magic are ‘transparent’, meaning they interact normally. At the same time, the rules instructed the DM about the alternative option where they dont interact, if that is what the group prefers.4e, and if I recall correctly 3e too, uses the term ‘psionic magic’, making unequivocal the identity of psionics as a type of magic.The 4e approach appeals to me most, where there are very different ways and styles of magic, each having a different ‘source’ with its distinctive thematic flavor. So, the psionic magic is just as different from the ‘arcane magic’ of Wizard, as ‘divine magic’ is different from the ‘primal magic’ of a Druid. But it is all different kinds of magic.This goes back to the suggestion that psionics is a kind of ‘magic’, but a way of magic that has nothing to do with spellcasting.</blockquote>

Verification