NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7966895" data-attributes="member: 5142">Well, not quite. The Mentalist edge requires the Arcane (Psionics) background and the Wizard edge requires the Arcane (Magic) background. But I am not arguing that I want Psionics as per Savage Worlds. I was pointing out that Magic and Psionics co-exist in Savage Worlds as per the initial point that there are prominent non-D&D settings that have both. Of course, because D&D embraces and values class-based archetypes and niche protection. Savage Worlds puts "weird science" on the same level as "magic," and it's solution is to reskin things. That would likely also be how it works if we had psionics and magic in games like Mutants & Masterminds, Hero System, or Fate. (1) I'll be honest here. I'm confused how the validity of my interpretations (presumably of the settings) have any bearing about whether you are arguing in good faith? (2) Only a few "others" have responded to my interpretations, namely just Chaosmancer. Chaosmancer pointed out what I already knew about how it works in Savage Worlds and noted how these things developed inconsistently in comic books. TwoSix lamented the difficulty of toolkit classes vs. narrower narrative classes that coexist in D&D. That's basically your "others." (3) The initial prompt of this was you "struggling" to think of settings where psionics and magic exist side by side. I named them. Saying that they more or less operate the same or anything else moves the goalposts by trying to shift the argument to a different point other than whether there are prominent non-D&D settings where psionics and magic co-exist. I personally think that genre fiction is more fluid than the tendency that some critics of psionics in D&D have that "it's all magic" or even advocates of psionics in D&D have that "it's no magic." This sort of reductionism is often begging to be disproved with counter-evidence. Sometimes it is a form of magic. Sometimes "magic" is considered something that wizards do, and things like "miracles" and "psionics" are the purview of others. This goes back to the excellent point that [USER=7006]@DEFCON 1[/USER] made about what constitutes magic in D&D as well as my point about how a tacit part of the debate seems to be the idea that wizards want to gobble up everything magical as "theirs." I can say this, and I suspect that you would agree: in fiction where magic exists or there is no formal distinction between psionics and arcane magic, there is nevertheless often a distinction of depictions between the archetype of wizards (or however the fireball-inclined are called) and those with psychic powers. And I think that on that basis alone, psionics (mysticism, occult magic: a rose by any other name) justifies a legitimate place in D&D. If we look in the context of D&D where "divine," "primal," and "arcane" are all classified as magic, then I am cool with "psionics" being considered a tradition of magic like the aforementioned traditions. (Just like it was in 3.5E and Dreamscarred Press!) I just don't want "psionics" to be slapped onto a sorcerer or wizard and then WotC calls it a day. "Primal" magic gets its druid class. "Divine" magic gets its cleric class. "Arcane" magic gets its wizard class. I want "psionics" to be given its psion class.</blockquote>

Verification