Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="see" data-source="post: 8097776" data-attributes="member: 10531">That's an incredible amount of exegetical weight to put on one word in an introductory paragraph.The obvious counterargument would be to bring up cases like "This discipline is the same as the magic-user spell, clairaudience (q.v.), except that unknown areas up to 30' distant can be scanned.""This discipline is the same as the magic-user spell, clairvoyance (q.v.), except that unknown areas up to 20' distant can be scanned.""This discipline is very similar to the magic-user spell, teleport (q.v.). The only major difference is that psionic energy points must be expended to use the power. Also, if points above the required 20 are expended, the psionic individual is able to alter the percentage probabilities of mis-teleporting (coming in too low or too high) by 1% per additional psionic strength point expended either to correct low and/or high mis-teleporting."After all, if it's explicitly the same as a specific magic-user spell with a few explicit exceptions, and none of those exceptions declare that it isn't magic, then the same extends to it also being magic, right?Or . . . we can all just stop trying to render unintended metaphysical implications out of the body of a dead man's forty-two-year-old text, and accept that prior to 1991's Complete Psionics Handbook, it was undefined whether psionics were magic.</blockquote>