Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Brother MacLaren" data-source="post: 1483987" data-attributes="member: 15999">I always liked psionics.&nbsp; As Myrvketh noted, it's a good way to model Jedi powers.&nbsp; (And Jedi Powers were much more fantasy than sci-fi until TPM)&nbsp; It also gives you a &quot;fresh&quot; set of spells (basically), with different options.&nbsp; The psionic feats in particular are quite an interesting approach.I played a bit of Rolemaster, in which there were three types of magic: channeling (divine), mentalism (psionic), and the other kind that was arcane.&nbsp; One is from specific powers beyond you, one is from the power within you, and one is from focusing the power all around you.&nbsp; That made a good bit of sense to me.&nbsp; Is there any reason why two is the right number for &quot;types of magic&quot; and three is out?&nbsp; (Although, now that I think about it, does D&amp;D already have Su and Sp abilities as &quot;internal&quot; magic?)&nbsp; Psionics *is* magic - there's nothing scientific about it.&nbsp; It always bugged me that AD&amp;D tried to claim psionics wasn't magic.&nbsp; It sure isn't real as I understand reality, no matter how many people believe in it (several billion people believe in divine magic, but I'm comfortable calling it &quot;magic&quot; and not &quot;science&quot;)&nbsp;&nbsp; I agree with jb - psionics would fit a lot better with fantasy-style names.&nbsp; The &quot;specialist&quot; names weren't bad.&nbsp; Perhaps rename the disciplines &quot;nomad powers, shaper powers, etc.&quot; and rename the powers that have pseudoscientific names.&nbsp; Maybe the attack forms Ego Whip and Id Insinuation could be &quot;Mindcleaver&quot; and &quot;Soulrender&quot; or something.&nbsp; Rounser - still not seeing how making psionics another type of magic would cheapen psionics in any way.&nbsp; You'd be changing it from its past definition in D&amp;D (non-magic that does most of the same things as magic) and from its usage in sci-fi (a phenomenon that allegedly has a scientific basis) and making it something that works within the realm of the game.&nbsp; But D&amp;D does that all the time, using a very odd definition of something from literature or history (e.g. &quot;cleric&quot;) or changing definitions from one edition to the next.&nbsp; Maybe if they called it mentalism instead?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Brother MacLaren, post: 1483987, member: 15999"] I always liked psionics. As Myrvketh noted, it's a good way to model Jedi powers. (And Jedi Powers were much more fantasy than sci-fi until TPM) It also gives you a "fresh" set of spells (basically), with different options. The psionic feats in particular are quite an interesting approach. I played a bit of Rolemaster, in which there were three types of magic: channeling (divine), mentalism (psionic), and the other kind that was arcane. One is from specific powers beyond you, one is from the power within you, and one is from focusing the power all around you. That made a good bit of sense to me. Is there any reason why two is the right number for "types of magic" and three is out? (Although, now that I think about it, does D&D already have Su and Sp abilities as "internal" magic?) Psionics *is* magic - there's nothing scientific about it. It always bugged me that AD&D tried to claim psionics wasn't magic. It sure isn't real as I understand reality, no matter how many people believe in it (several billion people believe in divine magic, but I'm comfortable calling it "magic" and not "science") I agree with jb - psionics would fit a lot better with fantasy-style names. The "specialist" names weren't bad. Perhaps rename the disciplines "nomad powers, shaper powers, etc." and rename the powers that have pseudoscientific names. Maybe the attack forms Ego Whip and Id Insinuation could be "Mindcleaver" and "Soulrender" or something. Rounser - still not seeing how making psionics another type of magic would cheapen psionics in any way. You'd be changing it from its past definition in D&D (non-magic that does most of the same things as magic) and from its usage in sci-fi (a phenomenon that allegedly has a scientific basis) and making it something that works within the realm of the game. But D&D does that all the time, using a very odd definition of something from literature or history (e.g. "cleric") or changing definitions from one edition to the next. Maybe if they called it mentalism instead? [/QUOTE]

Verification