Mistwell
Legend
They weren't spells though.
On the activator's level, the manifester wasn't casting a spell.
Spell resistance resists psionics.
Whatever meaningful difference you're finding here, it looks to be purely surface level only.
They weren't spells though.
On the activator's level, the manifester wasn't casting a spell.
Spell resistance resists psionics.
Whatever meaningful difference you're finding here, it looks to be purely surface level only.
You mean when the psionists uses magic? That process? I mean, you're not really fixated on either the effect or the process, but on the words used to name those. What happened when a 3e psionist used psionics was that they used magic -- differently approached magic, but still magic. Arguing that because this magic was called a power instead of a spell is semantics.Youare focusing on the end point: the effect.
I am focus on the starting point: the process.
Youare focusing on the end point: the effect.
I am focus on the starting point: the process.
The mechanics were different in 3e. 3e psionics did not use spell slots. And even if the mechanics weren't totally different, words matter narratively. And narratively, there has always been a clear demarcation between psionics and magic.You mean when the psionists uses magic? That process? I mean, you're not really fixated on either the effect or the process, but on the words used to name those. What happened when a 3e psionist used psionics was that they used magic -- differently approached magic, but still magic. Arguing that because this magic was called a power instead of a spell is semantics.
The ship of psionics and magic are totally different sailed two editions ago. It hasn't come back to port, yet, despite those waiting for it. You're welcome to continue to wait for your ship to come in, but don't tell us it's always been at the dock.
You mean when the psionists uses magic? That process? I mean, you're not really fixated on either the effect or the process, but on the words used to name those. What happened when a 3e psionist used psionics was that they used magic -- differently approached magic, but still magic. Arguing that because this magic was called a power instead of a spell is semantics.
The ship of psionics and magic are totally different sailed two editions ago. It hasn't come back to port, yet, despite those waiting for it. You're welcome to continue to wait for your ship to come in, but don't tell us it's always been at the dock.
While not all processes are primarily descriptive in nature, this one is primarily descriptive in nature. The fact that they needed an optional variant rule for games that wanted to distinguish between psionics and spells tells you it wasn't meaningfully distinguished in the game.
I agree, but this seems at odds with your post immediately proceeding -- either it's a bit of lore to reduce the nonsense or it matters what the lore is. I don't see these two things as particularly compatible because any lore introduced that eases the nonsense would be acceptable, yes? Including powers are just a different way to do spells?Or
Just maybe D&D supernatural effects made no sense and description was added to made the nonsensical have a bit of logic
You call it semantics, I call it the possibility to tell stories. When different concepts are brought together, you can compare them, confront them, mix them, use them to generate stories. If everything is the same, works the same, has the same name, you’re voluntarily making things dull, drab, homogeneous, boring and you gain nothing in return.You mean when the psionists uses magic? That process? I mean, you're not really fixated on either the effect or the process, but on the words used to name those. What happened when a 3e psionist used psionics was that they used magic -- differently approached magic, but still magic. Arguing that because this magic was called a power instead of a spell is semantics.
The only history of psionics that was constant in all editions was that psionics wasn't spells.
IMHO, I think that having psionics as spells would actually help mainstream psionics, as it would integrate the themes with the other sub-systems of the game. The issue, however, pertains to some of the things that people expect from psionics regarding VSM, but there are some relatively easy fixes for that.How is making psionics just more spells the least hated? Everyone I've ever heard of considers it the worst thing they could do with it.
4e is ready to ruin your day. From PHB 3 flavor text on the Psionic Power Source:Psionics is not magic. Never has been in D&D. That is fact.
Honestly, I don't think that it takes much adjustments for "the process from the creation of the effect" to have spells act like powers. A big part of that, IMHO, is just providing ways to bypass VSM components, and providing a sidebar about power points.But if you care about the process from the creation of the effect, l to the learning of the effect, to the activation by the person of the effect, to the affect itself; well making psionics into spells is just added more craziness and confusion to something that's already convoluted with very few specifics, wired details that do matter and gaps that cannot be accounted for.
Not quite. From Eldritch Wizardry through 2e, psionics were distinct from magic. From 3e onwards psionics were described as a form of magic, but still distinct from spellcasting until now. And in 3e/3.5 it was pretty simple to use the option varient to make them not magic again. No such varient option can meaningfully exist in a psionics-are-just-spells system.Nope. It's D&D, where psionics has always been defined as distinct from magic. Explicitly so. To say otherwise is dishonest.
To you. To some of us (@Gladius Legis and myself for example), it is a highly significant difference in flavour.A distinction without a difference.
The 3.5 psionics system could easily have been a spell system, but it was distinct from the spell system in D&D 3.5 (and every other edition).I only started with 3.5, but if you look at 3.5 psionics, it was pretty similar to spells. Different jargon (displays instead of components, Psychokinesis instead of Evocation), but the formatting was otherwise pretty close. To the point where one of my annoyances with 3.5 psionics was the bevy of "Psionic [Spell]" powers.
That was a pretty significant change, and being point based, had a kind of continuity with psionics going back to 1976. Although 4e was a bit of an outlier since it made much less of a distinction between magic and not-magic than any other edition anyway (one of the few things that botherd me about it TBH).Same with 4e. Psionic powers had the slight change in using augmentable at-wills to replace encounter powers, but still similar formatting.
But they are reinventing the wheel. 5e psionics bear no resemblance to 3.5 or 4e psionics (let alone any before).And, I guess for me, what the lesson of 3.5 and 4e is is why reinvent the wheel?
Clerics and Druids say hello.I’m looking forward to Dark Sun!
"Oh no! Magic is destroying the world. It’s a good thing that we can use an almost identical form of magic that is completely harmless."
Honestly, I don't think that it takes much adjustments for "the process from the creation of the effect" to have spells act like powers. A big part of that, IMHO, is just providing ways to bypass VSM components, and providing a sidebar about power points.
Clerics and druids perform magic and cast spells. Do clerics and druids have magic formula involved? Or what about bards?I just don't want psionic characters doing magic formula aka spells. To me, psionic did not have all of that arcane math involved.
Clerics and druids perform magic and cast spells. Do clerics and druids have magic formula involved? Or what about bards?