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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5242817" data-attributes="member: 4937">I regard that as mostly a mechanical issue, in as much as it addresses (as you mention) the question of how psionics interact with magic resistance, anti-magic fields, etc.  I regard psionics as magic period in as much as regarding it as such is almost a requirement of adding it as a balanced subsystem that engages with the rest of the game.  But I've been taking it as a given that its regarded as a subset of magic for these purposes.  If it isn't even regarded as a subset of magic, but it is 'some other thing' mechancially, that makes it even less palatable than my default stance on it.  If flavor wise it was 'some other thing', I'd still want magic resistance to apply.As much as it is a flavor issue, the problem is that no one seems able to explain what that 'some other thing' is without recourse to magic in so many words or less.  It would be more acceptable to me if it could be showed to fill a niche not covered by another category of magic.  The problem with that is that I tend to look on divisions like arcane/divine as being spanning, in as much as I would simply define 'arcane' magic as 'you do magic yourself' and 'divine magic' as 'someone does magic on your behalf'.  Mechanically speaking, the only real difference between the two is one doesn't work so well with armor (you do magic yourself) and the other (someone else does magic on your behalf) isn't really effected by what you are wearing.  This mechanical difference makes some sense with regard to the aforementioned split.  However, there doesn't seem to be a third option between 'you do it yourself' and 'someone does it for you'.  Thefore, it seems to me as if psionics are just a trivial variation on the theme of 'you do magic yourself', and not only trivial, but inexplicable in that I can't see any difference between a sorcerer that has the inate ability to detect thoughts and a psychic who has the inate ability to detect thoughts other than the mechanical artifacts of the system.This is especially true when 'psion' ceases to be 'something you are' (as in 1e) and 'a class you have' (as in later editions).  The justification for psion as a subsystem gets thinner and thinner.   I'd understand if you wanted an alternate magic system and dumped sorcerer and wizard and picked up psionic classes, labeling them (or not) 'wizards', 'sorcerers', 'warlocks' or what have you.  I don't really understand how they represent a separate thing in themselves.  If they are a separate thing from magic, what are they?  The answer, 'Duh, they are psionics', is fundamentally unsatisfying to me.</blockquote>

Verification