Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7055242" data-attributes="member: 996">I strongly disagree with the reasoning, but I'm OK with the conclusion.&nbsp; 5e classes do re-cycle a lot of mechanics, when those mechanics are spells, but they also put a new mechanical spin on each class.&nbsp; Psionics in D&amp;D have mostly been a magic-alternative, they're supernatural, have an aura of the fantastic (sci-fi rather than traditional fantasy fantastic, but D&amp;D has never been shy about mixing the two), but were not technically magic for quite a while.&nbsp; I think 3.5 had the right idea in making them distinct from magic, as an option.&nbsp; 4e took it the other way and made each 'Source' distinct, and 'magic' while clearly most strongly associated with the 'Arcane' source, almost moot.&nbsp; Arcanists were definitely magic in 4e, and literally cast spells, while Martials were definitely not magical or even supernatural even though they could potentially perform superhuman feats.&nbsp; Every other Source was at least a little ambiguous:&nbsp; Divine characters used prayers, if you think of the Gods as magical, that's magic, if not, maybe it's arguably slightly different; Primal characters used the power of the Primal Spirits who were part of the Natural world, but their powers were still very often supernatural, a bit of a minor paradox; Psionics were powers of the mind, catalyzed by the influence of the Far Realm, which was so alien calling it either magical or natural would be wildly off base.5e, OTOH, is drawing a line between magical and not-magical, and it's so far placed the Mystic on the magical side of the line.&nbsp; I think that's a mistake, that the 3.5 solution of leaving psionics on the fence and leaving it's true nature up to the individual DM is best.&nbsp; But, even then, it'd be supernatural.&nbsp;They don't, because they're linked to the Mystic's magical nature as a 5e psionic.&nbsp; They're supernatural powers, they're designed like other psionic powers to reflect that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7055242, member: 996"] I strongly disagree with the reasoning, but I'm OK with the conclusion. 5e classes do re-cycle a lot of mechanics, when those mechanics are spells, but they also put a new mechanical spin on each class. Psionics in D&D have mostly been a magic-alternative, they're supernatural, have an aura of the fantastic (sci-fi rather than traditional fantasy fantastic, but D&D has never been shy about mixing the two), but were not technically magic for quite a while. I think 3.5 had the right idea in making them distinct from magic, as an option. 4e took it the other way and made each 'Source' distinct, and 'magic' while clearly most strongly associated with the 'Arcane' source, almost moot. Arcanists were definitely magic in 4e, and literally cast spells, while Martials were definitely not magical or even supernatural even though they could potentially perform superhuman feats. Every other Source was at least a little ambiguous: Divine characters used prayers, if you think of the Gods as magical, that's magic, if not, maybe it's arguably slightly different; Primal characters used the power of the Primal Spirits who were part of the Natural world, but their powers were still very often supernatural, a bit of a minor paradox; Psionics were powers of the mind, catalyzed by the influence of the Far Realm, which was so alien calling it either magical or natural would be wildly off base. 5e, OTOH, is drawing a line between magical and not-magical, and it's so far placed the Mystic on the magical side of the line. I think that's a mistake, that the 3.5 solution of leaving psionics on the fence and leaving it's true nature up to the individual DM is best. But, even then, it'd be supernatural. They don't, because they're linked to the Mystic's magical nature as a 5e psionic. They're supernatural powers, they're designed like other psionic powers to reflect that. [/QUOTE]

Verification