Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 8453499" data-attributes="member: 7006">As a DM, your stance on psionics will probably all come down to your position and definition of &quot;magic&quot;.If you define &quot;magic&quot; as the stuff spellcasters do using spells... then psionics cannot and should not be &quot;magic&quot;.&nbsp; However, if you define &quot;magic&quot; as any so-called &quot;supernatural&quot; effect (by what we players understand to be what could have actually occurred during the time of medieval society based on its scientific level of understanding and design)... then psionics are another type of magic.&nbsp; One whose &quot;power source&quot; is different than the magic that Wizards use, Druids use, Clerics use etc.I happen to fall into the latter camp myself... which is why I have never felt a real need for psionics to be an important thing in my games.&nbsp; We have so many ways of accessing magic in D&amp;D that adding another to me is not necessary.&nbsp; I especially don't care and need psionics to use a different mechanical system for it... although I think if I was going to bother with it, I'd probably at the very least use the Spell Point variant rule for it just because.But really... to my way of thinking at least as far as 5E is concerned... the fact that they didn't make the Monk class a &quot;psionics&quot; class to begin with... saying straight away that Ki is essentially psychic power (because it pretty much is as far as I'm concerned)... then they lost the chance to have psionics be an actual integrated thing in the game.&nbsp; 4E did it the right way (by saving the Monk's introduction for the psionics power source in PHB3)... but my only real issue with that is that the name and the fluff of the Monk is rather disparate from the other names and fluff of the other psionic classes.&nbsp; Those all tend to have the scientific-y names like Empath, Battlemind, Psi-Warrior, and not words that evoke a more swords &amp; sorcery feel (I am one of the people who liked the name Mystic much more than Psion.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 8453499, member: 7006"] As a DM, your stance on psionics will probably all come down to your position and definition of "magic". If you define "magic" as the stuff spellcasters do using spells... then psionics cannot and should not be "magic". However, if you define "magic" as any so-called "supernatural" effect (by what we players understand to be what could have actually occurred during the time of medieval society based on its scientific level of understanding and design)... then psionics are another type of magic. One whose "power source" is different than the magic that Wizards use, Druids use, Clerics use etc. I happen to fall into the latter camp myself... which is why I have never felt a real need for psionics to be an important thing in my games. We have so many ways of accessing magic in D&D that adding another to me is not necessary. I especially don't care and need psionics to use a different mechanical system for it... although I think if I was going to bother with it, I'd probably at the very least use the Spell Point variant rule for it just because. But really... to my way of thinking at least as far as 5E is concerned... the fact that they didn't make the Monk class a "psionics" class to begin with... saying straight away that Ki is essentially psychic power (because it pretty much is as far as I'm concerned)... then they lost the chance to have psionics be an actual integrated thing in the game. 4E did it the right way (by saving the Monk's introduction for the psionics power source in PHB3)... but my only real issue with that is that the name and the fluff of the Monk is rather disparate from the other names and fluff of the other psionic classes. Those all tend to have the scientific-y names like Empath, Battlemind, Psi-Warrior, and not words that evoke a more swords & sorcery feel (I am one of the people who liked the name Mystic much more than Psion.) [/QUOTE]

Verification