Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Brother MacLaren" data-source="post: 1485165" data-attributes="member: 15999">I'm not &quot;putting clerics on a pedestal&quot;.&nbsp; I'm using them as an example to show that, in D&amp;D, terms mean what the designers want them to mean.&nbsp; &quot;Trolls&quot; might be another.&nbsp; &quot;Broadsword&quot; and &quot;flail&quot; - let's not get started.&nbsp; Putting something on a pedestal means holding it up as an example of what is good.&nbsp; I was merely showing an example of what *is.*&quot;Psionics&quot; as a word has *no* objective reality that I need to care about.&nbsp; The fact that it may have some history of use as a term in sci-fi literature doesn't really matter to me - I'm not playing a B5 RPG.&nbsp; The fact that it used to be a &quot;non-magic equivalent of magic&quot; is irrelevant, because 1E is irrelevant.&nbsp; If I want to use the word to describe &quot;mind magic,&quot; then I can.&nbsp; Because basically that's what it feels like to me.And, yes, I agree with you that D&amp;D *has* played up the &quot;scientific&quot; angle in previous editions and carried over the nomenclature. That's why I'm happy throwing all of the psuedoscience names in the trash, keeping the powers and mechanics, and renaming all of the powers.&nbsp; I always thought it was stupid to pretend that psionics wasn't magic - mind-reading and teleporting are magic, pure and simple.&nbsp; Fortunately, 3E does not try to pretend that psionics is non-magical (or dragon breath, for that matter). I just think you're placing too much importance on what psionics used to be.&nbsp; It's something different (and much more sensible) now - it is now a form of magic.&nbsp; I think that 3E psionics - which *is* &quot;D&amp;D psionics&quot; - clearly is just another form of magic, like arcane and divine, with its own spell list.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Brother MacLaren, post: 1485165, member: 15999"] I'm not "putting clerics on a pedestal". I'm using them as an example to show that, in D&D, terms mean what the designers want them to mean. "Trolls" might be another. "Broadsword" and "flail" - let's not get started. Putting something on a pedestal means holding it up as an example of what is good. I was merely showing an example of what *is.* "Psionics" as a word has *no* objective reality that I need to care about. The fact that it may have some history of use as a term in sci-fi literature doesn't really matter to me - I'm not playing a B5 RPG. The fact that it used to be a "non-magic equivalent of magic" is irrelevant, because 1E is irrelevant. If I want to use the word to describe "mind magic," then I can. Because basically that's what it feels like to me. And, yes, I agree with you that D&D *has* played up the "scientific" angle in previous editions and carried over the nomenclature. That's why I'm happy throwing all of the psuedoscience names in the trash, keeping the powers and mechanics, and renaming all of the powers. I always thought it was stupid to pretend that psionics wasn't magic - mind-reading and teleporting are magic, pure and simple. Fortunately, 3E does not try to pretend that psionics is non-magical (or dragon breath, for that matter). I just think you're placing too much importance on what psionics used to be. It's something different (and much more sensible) now - it is now a form of magic. I think that 3E psionics - which *is* "D&D psionics" - clearly is just another form of magic, like arcane and divine, with its own spell list. [/QUOTE]

Verification