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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cleon" data-source="post: 6670575" data-attributes="member: 57383">That's approaching the psionics/magic/spells categorisation solution from another direction. Instead of "psionics is magic but is not spellcasting", it's basically "psionics in NOT magic but is sometimes spellcasting".It could work, but it seems a lot less elegant to me. Apart from the balance issue of it meaning psionics work fine in places magic doesn't, the spell comparison involved makes it a lot more fiddly. Every psionics power has to be clearly deliminated as a "spell-equivalent" or "not a spell-equivalent" to indicate how dispelling and the like interacts with it, and this list has to be updated whenever a new bunch of spells or powers is introduced to the game, in case one of the new spells is equivalent to an already existing psionic power (or vica versa). If there isn't a clear list there'll be a lot of arguments as to whether a psionic power is enough like a particular spell for it to be counted as the same for the sake of counter-magic. If there is a clear list I suspect there'll be similar arguments about a psionic power working fine when a spell that is very similar is nullified by magic countermeasures.Furthermore, it implies that the psionic powers that are "equivalent" to a spell fundamentally work in the same way (else how else would a counter-spell ability work against them?) and I'm not sure I like that very much.Overall, I think a "psionics is magic but not spellcasting" approach would work better.</blockquote>

Verification