Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7966354" data-attributes="member: 7006">No one can agree on psionics because at the core, no one agrees on what is &quot;magic&quot; in D&amp;D currently.What * is * &quot;magic&quot;?&nbsp; Is it anything and everything that we in the real-world would call &quot;supernatural&quot;?&nbsp; Is it only things that are specifically called out as being &quot;spells&quot; that are &quot;cast&quot;?&nbsp; Is it only things that those classes that use the &quot;Arcane&quot; source do?Are the supernatural things the Monk does &quot;magic&quot;?&nbsp; Are the Cleric and Paladin's abilities that come from their gods and oaths (like say their Channel Divinity features) &quot;magic&quot;?&nbsp; Is a Druid's wildshaping &quot;magic&quot;?&nbsp; Everyone is going to have a different opinion.For some... &quot;magic&quot; will be only those things that can be stopped with Dispel Magic.&nbsp; So anything a Monk does or any supernatural feature a monster does isn't &quot;magic&quot; because they can't be dispelled.&nbsp; Despite the fact that that stuff certainly is supernatural.&nbsp; For others... ANYTHING &quot;supernatural&quot; falls into the category of &quot;magic&quot;, regardless of whether it can be dispelled, or counterspelled, or stops working in an anti-magic field.&nbsp; If it's something we normies can't do... it's because &quot;magic&quot;.If you are one of the former, then of course psionics isn't &quot;magic&quot; and should never be &quot;magic&quot;.&nbsp; &quot;Magic&quot; is specifically the casting of magical spells, and probably only those spells that are arcane in nature.&nbsp; Since psionics isn't that... then it's not &quot;magic&quot;.&nbsp; Which is why they want psionics to be its own class, rather than being tethered to an arcane class like Sorcerer or Wizard as a subclass.&nbsp; Psionics isn't magic and it certainly isn't Arcane, and thus shouldn't be connected to it in any way (despite what either arcane class can do with their spells whose functionality and results look and perform pretty much the same as the stuff psions accomplish.)Or if you are one of the latter... since &quot;magic&quot; is merely a catch-all term and a synonym of &quot;supernatural&quot;.. psionics WOULD be &quot;magic&quot; because it is a supernatural thing.&nbsp; It's something a normal person just can't do.&nbsp; And if that's the case... it is much easier to just let it sit in the pool with everything else that is supernatural because they are less inclined to split everything up.&nbsp; There's no &quot;arcane&quot; and &quot;divine&quot; split because those terms are meaningless as actual &quot;thing&quot;... they are just layovers from an older time.&nbsp; Same way 5E doesn't identify barbarian, ranger, or druid stuff as &quot;primal&quot; anymore.&nbsp; And thus the need of an entirely separate &quot;psionics&quot; grouping is unnecessary too.&nbsp; To these people... psionics are just supernatural effects you personally can do with your mind without needing to gain it from outside sources.&nbsp; Which is why these people DON'T see a difference between the Sorcerer and the Psion (and probably the Monk)-- all three of them get their supernatural abilities from within themselves, and there's no appreciable difference if its just from &quot;your mind&quot; (like the psion) or &quot;your body&quot; (like the monk) or &quot;your blood&quot; (like the sorcerer).&nbsp; All three have supernatural abilities, and thus all three are using &quot;magic&quot;.&nbsp; And worrying about keeping any of them separate and distinct from any other is unnecessary, even if people call their &quot;magic&quot; different things (like &quot;spells&quot; or &quot;oaths&quot; or &quot;ki&quot; or &quot;channeling divinity&quot; or &quot;invocations&quot; or &quot;bardic inspiration&quot; or yes, even &quot;psionics&quot;.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7966354, member: 7006"] No one can agree on psionics because at the core, no one agrees on what is "magic" in D&D currently. What * is * "magic"? Is it anything and everything that we in the real-world would call "supernatural"? Is it only things that are specifically called out as being "spells" that are "cast"? Is it only things that those classes that use the "Arcane" source do? Are the supernatural things the Monk does "magic"? Are the Cleric and Paladin's abilities that come from their gods and oaths (like say their Channel Divinity features) "magic"? Is a Druid's wildshaping "magic"? Everyone is going to have a different opinion. For some... "magic" will be only those things that can be stopped with Dispel Magic. So anything a Monk does or any supernatural feature a monster does isn't "magic" because they can't be dispelled. Despite the fact that that stuff certainly is supernatural. For others... ANYTHING "supernatural" falls into the category of "magic", regardless of whether it can be dispelled, or counterspelled, or stops working in an anti-magic field. If it's something we normies can't do... it's because "magic". If you are one of the former, then of course psionics isn't "magic" and should never be "magic". "Magic" is specifically the casting of magical spells, and probably only those spells that are arcane in nature. Since psionics isn't that... then it's not "magic". Which is why they want psionics to be its own class, rather than being tethered to an arcane class like Sorcerer or Wizard as a subclass. Psionics isn't magic and it certainly isn't Arcane, and thus shouldn't be connected to it in any way (despite what either arcane class can do with their spells whose functionality and results look and perform pretty much the same as the stuff psions accomplish.) Or if you are one of the latter... since "magic" is merely a catch-all term and a synonym of "supernatural".. psionics WOULD be "magic" because it is a supernatural thing. It's something a normal person just can't do. And if that's the case... it is much easier to just let it sit in the pool with everything else that is supernatural because they are less inclined to split everything up. There's no "arcane" and "divine" split because those terms are meaningless as actual "thing"... they are just layovers from an older time. Same way 5E doesn't identify barbarian, ranger, or druid stuff as "primal" anymore. And thus the need of an entirely separate "psionics" grouping is unnecessary too. To these people... psionics are just supernatural effects you personally can do with your mind without needing to gain it from outside sources. Which is why these people DON'T see a difference between the Sorcerer and the Psion (and probably the Monk)-- all three of them get their supernatural abilities from within themselves, and there's no appreciable difference if its just from "your mind" (like the psion) or "your body" (like the monk) or "your blood" (like the sorcerer). All three have supernatural abilities, and thus all three are using "magic". And worrying about keeping any of them separate and distinct from any other is unnecessary, even if people call their "magic" different things (like "spells" or "oaths" or "ki" or "channeling divinity" or "invocations" or "bardic inspiration" or yes, even "psionics".) [/QUOTE]

Verification