Psionics: Magic or Not

[MarkB]

I voted "undecided", but I'd far prefer to have had an "It depends" option.

The concept of psionics as another form of magic will work in some campaigns. In others, psionics being different from magic may be an important plot point - or may simply better fit the flavour of the campaign.

Balance-wise, I think either option works so long as it's agreed at the start of the campaign.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In D&D terms? No. The whole point of having psionics is to have something that is supernatural, but not magic. If you call it magic and/or treat it as such, you might as well cut it altogether.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think the slightly more relevant question is: psionics, is it the same as what a wizard does or not?

I mean, hacking goblins to bits like a high level fighter does is "magic" by certain definitions, but it's clearly not the same thing a wizard does.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I definitely want psionics to be different. I want psionics to be immune to the anti-magic field, but for psions to be vulnerable to threats that others are not.

I also want the mechanics to differ greatly from that of wizards. I feel 3.5 went the wrong direction, but like much of how 4E handled it. Psionic powers should be much fewer in number, more personal in nature, and more flexible is use.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the slightly more relevant question is: psionics, is it the same as what a wizard does or not?

And for this, then yes, my answer is 'no'. Magic might be magic, but every class uses different types of magic in different ways. Cleric magic is different than Druid magic is different than Warlock magic is different than Bard magic is different than Paladin magic etc. Psion magic is also different.

 

[bogmad]

We can argue that psionics as not-magic only originated in the 50s, but that still predates this game that used a lot of those pulp stories (sci fi and not) as a source. Ray guns and robots don't fit with old fairytales, but they still showed up in the barrier peaks. There should be room for non-magic, quasi-science "supernatural" effects if only as a supplement. The fact is there is a very large precedent in D&D for psionics being different than magic. There should at least be room for it for those that want it.

I definitely want psionics to be different. I want psionics to be immune to the anti-magic field, but for psions to be vulnerable to threats that others are not.

I also want the mechanics to differ greatly from that of wizards. I feel 3.5 went the wrong direction, but like much of how 4E handled it. Psionic powers should be much fewer in number, more personal in nature, and more flexible is use.

This is precisely what I want.

 

[Kinak]

If arcane magic and divine magic are both magic, then psionics can be psychic magic.

That said, if take on the casting mechanics with wizards and clerics, I don't actually know anyone who would want to play them. The main reason they were played was that people felt that the point system felt more like magic "should."

Of all the people I've played with, only two care about psionicists, but both of them would rather the class be left out entirely than have it strapped to a spell slot system. Obviously, if the alternate casting systems materialize, they might be satisfied.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Warbringer]

From a different angle, I've always associated psionics with the monsters that use them - mindflayers and aboleths - and that "alien-ness" and I just don't feel that when psionics = "arcane psychic magic".

While it may only be a sub-culture, I feel this is important "feel" in the game that is potentially lost.

 

[TwoSix]

If arcane magic and divine magic are both magic, then psionics can be psychic magic.

Either every kind of magic is different, or every kind of magic is the same. No "arcane and divine are both magic, but psychic stuff isn't." Arcane and divine should be as differentiated from each other as arcane and psionics are.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Either every kind of magic is different, or every kind of magic is the same. No "arcane and divine are both magic, but psychic stuff isn't." Arcane and divine should be as differentiated from each other as arcane and psionics are.

I don't agree with that. The way I interpret magic in D&D is "supernatural power that comes from somewhere else", whereas psionics is "supernatural power that comes from within". Where the magic comes from can vary; you've got magic from nature, from deities, from cosmic forces, from wherever arcane magic comes from. But it's still you learning a ritual to access power that you yourself don't have.

To me, psionic power is fundamentally different and mechanics should reflect that. It shouldn't be tied down to slots and daily limitations and proscribed uses in the same way that virtually all D&D magic is.