Is Psionics Magic?

[Ilorin Lorati]

Split on mod request from "Pathfinder Dreamscarred Press Announces: Path of War Expanded (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?373269)"

For anyone looking in, basically the discussion here is whether psionics is a type of magic or something separate that is merely superficially and mechanically similar to it.


Compare:
Now, spellcasting and psionics are basically interchangeable with this. They both function as mental powers that let you do impossible stuff. Manoeuvres on the other hand.... not as insertable as psionics, because it's physical magic, not mental. Since it is much further mechanically from standard spellcasting it requires an explanation for why it exists and is separate to those sources of magic.

Martial maneuvers as described in Path of War are not innately magical. Some examples have magical applications, or may be magical, but that doesn't mean the system that maneuvers use is at all defined as magic. Your attempt to change the text of the psionics rules to fit maneuvers and spells is a strawman argument because nowhere are spells or maneuvers described as such - and you're advocating changing their flavor by doing so.

[Jeff the Green]

In the Forgotten Realms, at least, they're magic. Or at least, they use the Weave, which is why there's psionics/magic transparency.

[squiggit]

Well, you're also changing the question. The original question was whether or not Psionic requires a fundamental change to a setting to be integrated, not whether or not it was identical to magic. That's shifting the goalposts a bit.

Also disagree with your comment in the other thread about the portrayal of psychic powers in popular culture and other fiction. Frankly, psychic powers more than a little are used as a stand-in for magic. The man with psychic visions replaces the oracle of old myths. The telekinetic or pyrokinetic or what have you replaces the witch... etc. 40k even calls their evil psions sorcerers.

Though beyond that, what it is in other settings is a bit immaterial. In Pathfinder it behaves and looks like magic... which is why I don't think it's particularly difficult to integrate into anthing.

[Milo v3]

I think you misunderstood why I did the compare thing....

[Ilorin Lorati]

The conversation moved on from that, squiggit. I'd recommend looking back and catching up.

Milo, that may be - you'll have to spell it out for me, and I'll read it in the morning. For the moment, I'm going to bed.

[Milo v3]

The conversation moved on from that, squiggit. I'd recommend looking back and catching up.
Actually we were still discussing whether or not Psionic requires a fundamental change to a setting to be integrated.... Which explains a few things.



Milo, that may be - you'll have to spell it out for me, and I'll read it in the morning. For the moment, I'm going to bed.

I was saying that the flavour effectively is the same between magic and psionics, but that same flavour specifically doesn't work with initiators. Not that maneouvers and psioncasting are the same.

[squiggit]

Actually we were still discussing whether or not Psionic requires a fundamental change to a setting to be integrated.... Which explains a few things.
Yep. The whole point of the "psionics is basically magic" argument was to illustrate that you didn't need to break a setting in half to make it work, because they're fundamentally the same concept expressed through different mechanics.

[Fouredged Sword]

Also mechanically they are very different. Psionics falls into the same niche of a daily limit of abilities that you expend to get effects. Anywhere you have spells you can insert the same progression of resource (slots and power points) and access to the same level of powers (spell and power levels) without changing the fundamental nature of the class structure.

Martial stuff is harder just to insert. It doesn't follow the daily limit of powerful abilities mechanic. It follows an encounter limit of moderately powerful abilities. You can't just remove class feature A, insert class feature B to get a solution to bringing it into a game.

[EisenKreutzer]

Umm... Thats up to the GM. Which is why there are sidebars and rules variants for each option.

[JusticeZero]

Also adding that the same arguments that conclude that psi is "not magic" also extend to the point "and neither is whatever the Clerics and Druids are doing". The difference in fluff between what a Wizard does and what a Cleric does is bigger than the difference between what a Psion does vs what a Sorcerer does.

[Psyren]

I am a big supporter of psionics, but incorporating it into any setting can indeed be disruptive. There's a whole section in Ultimate Psionics (pgs. 135 - 142) where DSP articulates the potential pitfalls quite well, both from a metagame standpoint (e.g. managing player resources/encounter math, transparency, and dealing with traditional caster roles like healing, misdirection and buffing) and an in-universe standpoint (balancing traditional magic treasure with psionic treasure, how the denizens of a campaign world view psionics and magic, how to handle death and resurrection, refluffing psionics as another form of magic like runic energy etc.) And even that barely scratches the surface - there are many other topics not covered such as the differences in detecting or preventing psionics use, dealing with the subtle mechanical differences between the two systems like psionics having weaker illusions but more powerful divinations, and common DM tools like incarceration.)

In short, depending on the campaign world it can either fit in seamlessly or flow as well as a river of bricks. But the key is to confront the potential issues head-on, not pretend there is no issue.

[Fax Celestis]

There's only an issue if you make one. In a game fundamentally about adventure and imagination, failing to have the imagination to include something as basic as psionics into the game world, even in its most minuscule form, is a sign that you're more interested in perpetuating a paradigm than having fun.

[Psyren]

There's only an issue if you make one. In a game fundamentally about adventure and imagination, failing to have the imagination to include something as basic as psionics into the game world, even in its most minuscule form, is a sign that you're more interested in perpetuating a paradigm than having fun.

I think this is oversimplifying. There are valid reasons to want to be careful about how you include psionics in a campaign world (especially an existing one) and "you lack imagination" is going to do nothing but put the DM's back up instead of taking a more empathic approach.

[Fax Celestis]

I think this is oversimplifying. There are valid reasons to want to be careful about how you include psionics in a campaign world (especially an existing one) and "you lack imagination" is going to do nothing but put the DM's back up instead of taking a more empathic approach.

So it's perfectly fine to have to make those considerations for psionics but not for spellcasting? Why is spellcasting the default okay assumption? Because it's in the core book? If the DM's world only has specific things, that's fine. But if the DM's reason for excluding something is because it's in the wrong book? He's being an idiot.

[Xuldarinar]

I might as well throw in as well.

To the question posed by the thread's title: Psionics can be magic, and a degree of transparency is often default. The mechanisms of psionics are as understood as that of magic and in the same light we can say any suitably advanced technology is magic, so by that we can argue that whether by means of the mind alone or by gestures/words/ect., it is still 'magic' though it may or may not operate off of a different phenomena. If someone wants it to be something entirely different, they may but the argument can always be made either way. I cannot say for certain if psionics is an actual form there of, or just something capable of similar feats, and really that lies in the hands of the DM. All that is certain is that there are some interactions between the two by default.


Now, as to if a change needs to be made in a setting for psionics to be integrated: I would say no.

Psionics may be a rare phenomena, one individuals haven't heard of nor encountered, or its practitioners were mistaken as users of more common forms of magic (regardless as to if it is actually a form of magic or not). Maybe psionics are quite common but in a different region, perhaps in a place magic isn't practiced commonly and psionics are used instead?

[Kurald Galain]

Effectively, psionics is either
(1) the same thing as magic but with added crystals and ectoplasm, or
(2) the same thing as magic but using spell points instead of vancian casting.

Now the underlying question here is usually whether you should have both "wizard" magic and "psion" magic in the same campaign. On the one hand, the crystals-and-ectoplasm fluff doesn't fit most fantasy settings (and indeed, isn't found in any fantasy novels that I'm aware of, other than D&D books), so for #1 the answer tends to be "no". On the other hand, having two different mechanics for the same thing is unnecessarily complicated and again isn't found in any fantasy novels that I'm aware of, so for #2 the answer also tends to be "no".

A completely different question is whether you should have "psion" magic instead of "wizard" magic (and ignoring the crystal/ecto fluff). The answer to that appears to be that psion-magic is more balanced but harder to play with than wizard-magic, so it may be "yes" depending on whether you value balance over simplicity or vice versa.

[Psyren]

So it's perfectly fine to have to make those considerations for psionics but not for spellcasting? Why is spellcasting the default okay assumption? Because it's in the core book? If the DM's world only has specific things, that's fine. But if the DM's reason for excluding something is because it's in the wrong book? He's being an idiot.

Spellcasting is a default okay assumption because many of its trappings have been cultural mainstays for hundreds if not thousands of years, and have been part of many other gaming systems and media outside of D&D. Think of how many novels where, if you gag a spellcaster or tie him up or take his toys away, he becomes nearly powerless. None of that will work on a psion. Think of how many video games where there is a separation between blasting effectiveness and healing effectiveness; a psion or vitalist can be equally stellar at both with little investment. Think of how many novels where it's hard for a spellcaster to do anything truly monumental without enemy casters knowing something is up - psions can be almost completely unobtrusive even while they move mountains. And so on. There are a lot of major differences with this system, and glossing them over is not doing these concerns justice.

All of these can be mitigated or countered, but first you have to acknowledge they exist.

[Fax Celestis]

Spellcasting is a default okay assumption because many of its trappings have been cultural mainstays for hundreds if not thousands of years, and have been part of many other gaming systems and media outside of D&D. Think of how many novels where, if you gag a spellcaster or tie him up or take his toys away, he becomes nearly powerless. None of that will work on a psion. Think of how many video games where there is a separation between blasting effectiveness and healing effectiveness; a psion or vitalist can be equally stellar at both with little investment. Think of how many novels where it's hard for a spellcaster to do anything truly monumental without enemy casters knowing something is up - psions can be almost completely unobtrusive even while they move mountains. And so on. There are a lot of major differences with this system, and glossing them over is not doing these concerns justice.

I am approaching this as a fluff argument, not a mechanical one, so if you're doing the opposite we're going to talk across each other this whole time.

[Psyren]

I am approaching this as a fluff argument, not a mechanical one, so if you're doing the opposite we're going to talk across each other this whole time.

Fluffwise I have no problems with it. But the topic appears to be about both.

For those who do have fluff issues (not you and I), I love the suggestion in UPsi of reskinning it as "runic magic" :smallsmile:

[Kurald Galain]

Spellcasting is a default okay assumption because many of its trappings have been cultural mainstays for hundreds if not thousands of years, and have been part of many other gaming systems and media outside of D&D. Think of how many novels where, if you gag a spellcaster or tie him up or take his toys away, he becomes nearly powerless. None of that will work on a psion. Think of how many video games where there is a separation between blasting effectiveness and healing effectiveness; a psion or vitalist can be equally stellar at both with little investment. Think of how many novels where it's hard for a spellcaster to do anything truly monumental without enemy casters knowing something is up - psions can be almost completely unobtrusive even while they move mountains. And so on. There are a lot of major differences with this system, and glossing them over is not doing these concerns justice.

So what you're saying is that the role of a psion-magic is to be identical to wizard-magic but without any of its limitations?

[Ilorin Lorati]

In the Forgotten Realms, at least, they're magic. Or at least, they use the Weave, which is why there's psionics/magic transparency.

Ed Greenwood disagrees (http://www.candlekeep.com/library/articles/sse/sse_050607-04.htm) (scroll down to the July 31st answer at the very bottom), but I wasn't really asking about a specific setting.


Actually we were still discussing whether or not Psionic requires a fundamental change to a setting to be integrated.... Which explains a few things.

That was all a part of the conversation on whether or not Path of War changes the setting its implemented into. The point we went off topic and the point Glyphstone asked us to move was here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18156661&postcount=180)



I was saying that the flavour effectively is the same between magic and psionics, but that same flavour specifically doesn't work with initiators. Not that maneouvers and psioncasting are the same.


Also adding that the same arguments that conclude that psi is "not magic" also extend to the point "and neither is whatever the Clerics and Druids are doing". The difference in fluff between what a Wizard does and what a Cleric does is bigger than the difference between what a Psion does vs what a Sorcerer does.


That's not a point I'm arguing. Arcane and Divine magic are both defined as magic. Psionics is defined in specific words that intentionally don't include magic, and the rule that says psionics and magic interact with each other goes out of its way to say they only act mechanically similar, as in game mechanics. Your choice to flavor psionics as magic is your own and more power to you for making that choice, but IMO it's pretty clear what the designer intent was.

[squiggit]

and the rule that says psionics and magic interact with each other goes out of its way to say they only act mechanically similar, as in game mechanics
Those mechanical similarities have fluff ramifications though that you simply can't disregard though. The fact that the anti-magic field shuts down the psion and that a trained wizard can use their knowledge of spellcraft to figure out what a psion is doing is the whole point.

[Psyren]

So what you're saying is that the role of a psion-magic is to be identical to wizard-magic but without any of its limitations?

No, it's perfectly fine for it to be different. But if you as the DM don't account for that difference in your world-building, it can cause problems for your story that may not be readily apparent if you're accustomed to only dealing with magic.

As a quick example, I would expect law enforcement in a setting where psionics is well-known to be equipped with a number of psionic restraints. Thus, if the PCs defeat an evil psion or wilder, they'll have the option to take that individual prisoner, instead of being forced to choose between keeping them comatose indefinitely or slitting their throat.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Those mechanical similarities have fluff ramifications though that you simply can't disregard though. The fact that the anti-magic field shuts down the psion and that a trained wizard can use their knowledge of spellcraft to figure out what a psion is doing is the whole point.

If it were as simple as that, the XPH and Ultimate Psionics wouldn't have sections just on transparency rules.

[Segev]

I'm really not sure what point is trying to be made, here, or what the question is. It all seems to boil down to, "It depends on the setting and the DM."

Psionics is a mechanical system with a certain flavor centered around the flexibility of power points, the need to augment, and a few extra trappings like psionic focus which are unrelated to the "spell-like" mechanics of the individual powers.

It DOES play a bit distinctly from how spellcasting does.

It does not fit any better or worse (as a general rule) than any other subsystem, such as Incarnum or Binding. It's a little more fluff-wise distinct from existing spellcasting than Martial Maneuvers are from existing fighting, but only in that you can easily pretend that Martial Maneuvers have been done all along but with more fluff than crunch.

So I'm not really sure what the argument or question is. The answer really does seem to be, "It depends on the DM and his setting."

[JusticeZero]

..the crystals-and-ectoplasm fluff doesn't fit most fantasy settings (and indeed, isn't found in any fantasy novels that I'm aware of, other than D&D books)..
Neither does familiars, Vancian casting, or high powered and very specific spell use by a religious figure in an inherently polytheistic setting.

..having two different mechanics for the same thing is unnecessarily complicated and again isn't found in any fantasy novels that I'm aware of, so for #2 the answer also tends to be "no".Wealreadyhave multiple systems of spellcasting in Core. Many fantasy settings contain multiple spellcasting systems.
psion-magic is more balanced but harder to play with than wizard-magic...
Speaking as someone who has run psi only games, Psionics is not a complicated system.

[JusticeZero]

Lots of fields don't like to share terminology for the exact same thing for political reasons.

As far as the original argument, it was because of a statement that it would take a lot of house ruling to make Psionics fit into a setting that wouldn't be needed for maneuvers or, say, binding.

[Psyren]

On the other hand, having two different mechanics for the same thing is unnecessarily complicated and again isn't found in any fantasy novels that I'm aware of, so for #2 the answer also tends to be "no".

You're not looking closely enough if you think this is the case. Wheel of Time has two (more than two if you factor in ad hoc supernatural abilities like being a wolfbrother, sniffer or dreamwalker.) Narnia has two. Harry Potter has two. Star Wars has two. Comics have a ton - look at the varied mechanics of something like Green Lantern for instance. Avatar has at least 4, all accessed in different ways that are only superficially similar, and deeper than that there are at least two major ones. Elder Scrolls has at least 3. On and on and on. Multiple magic systems are a big part of fiction.

[Prime32]

That's not a point I'm arguing. Arcane and Divine magic are both defined as magic. Psionics is defined in specific words that intentionally don't include magic, and the rule that says psionics and magic interact with each other goes out of its way to say they only act mechanically similar, as in game mechanics. Your choice to flavor psionics as magic is your own and more power to you for making that choice, but IMO it's pretty clear what the designer intent was.:smallconfused: So if you were walking down the street and you saw a guy concentrate for a moment then shoot fire from his hands, you would say that's perfectly normal? You couldn't imagine anyone calling that magic?

[Xuldarinar]

I think something that would be worth discussing to settle this point is this:

What is magic?

If we can establish that, then we can establish if psionics fall under that definition.

[Ilorin Lorati]

:smallconfused: So if you were walking down the street and you saw a guy concentrate for a moment then shoot fire from his hands, you would say that's perfectly normal? You couldn't imagine anyone calling that magic?

You can't define a concept based on what someone uninitiated into it might think it is; what a lay man might call magic is not necessarily so. In this hypothetical example, he could have had a miniature flamethrower hidden in his sleeves. Is a flamethrower magic simply because it's unknown?

To answer your question: I, personally, would describe it as an unknown. I'd probably approach the person if they didn't seem insane and see what's up, but I wouldn't make a general assessment that unknown, therefore magic.

If I were a generic commoner? I probably would call it magic, because I'm probably untrained in knowledge (psionics) and don't understand the difference.

If I were a wizard with detect magic, I would be able to understand that what I'm looking at is a type of supernatural power, but one that doesn't fall within the realm of the schools of magic and was thus, by definition, something distinct, but similar. Only by having knowledge (psionics) trained would I be able to tell you exactly what it is, however.

[JusticeZero]

If I were a wizard with detect magic, I would be able to understand that what I'm looking at is a type of supernatural power, but one that doesn't fall within the realm of the schools of magic and was thus, by definition, something distinct, but similar. Only by having knowledge (psionics) trained would I be able to tell you exactly what it is, however.
it does, however, detect as magic under Detect Magic, regardless of whether it gives a magic school.

[tonberrian]

The primary difference between magic and psionics, at least D&D fluff-wise, is that magic is about ritual, whereas psionics is fundamentally a much more personal power. Prevent a caster from completing the ritual (represented by components) and you take away his power. Psionic components are not part of a ritual, and instead are aftereffects of reality being altered. You can't prevent a psychic from manifesting by tying him up.

But what practical difference is there from spell-like abilities and something with psionic powers? The line is a bit more blurry there.

[Ilorin Lorati]

it does, however, detect as magic under Detect Magic, regardless of whether it gives a magic school.

I disagree; psionic powers detect as psionic power under detect magic, and spells detect as magic under detect psionics. This is because there is a specific rule in place that says it does so, and psionic-magic transparency is not there in all cases.

For instance, you can't counterspell a power, because it's not a spell.

[Kurald Galain]

Neither does familiars, Vancian casting, or high powered and very specific spell use by a religious figure in an inherently polytheistic setting.
Perhaps you should read more fantasy, then. His Dark Materials (P.Pullman) and Quest For Glory (C.Cole) have familiars, Magician (R.Feist) and Game Of Thrones (G.Martin) have high powered spell use by religious figures, and it's not that hard to find other examples.


Wealreadyhave multiple systems of spellcasting in Core.
No, we don't. Just different spell lists.


Many fantasy settings contain multiple spellcasting systems.
No, they don't - certainly not multiple ways of achieving the exact same effect, nor anything involving sentient crystals and ectoplasm. How about you start by naming a couple?

[Prime32]

But what practical difference is there from spell-like abilities and something with psionic powers? The line is a bit more blurry there.According to the Monster Manual:

"Spell-like Abilities (Sp)" are spells which are cast mentally through a creature's innate abilities, which can usually be used at will. They do not possess components, cannot be counterspelled, and cannot be used to counterspell. They do not possess a "type" of magic, like arcane or divine, regardless of the spell they are based on.
"Psionics (Sp)" are spell-like abilities which explicitly draw on a creature's own power rather than "outside magical force or ritual". A few types of abilities are mentioned to be particularly common for psionic creatures (such as shapeshifting and mental attacks) but they don't have any hard restrictions.

[Fax Celestis]

You can't define a concept based on what someone uninitiated into it might think it is; what a lay man might call magic is not necessarily so. In this hypothetical example, he could have had a miniature flamethrower hidden in his sleeves. Is a flamethrower magic simply because it's unknown?

Clarke's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

That is, it doesn't matter if it is or it isn't, it still looks the same from the outside.

Which, coincidentally, is the same thing with wizards and psions.

[Prime32]

No, we don't. Just different spell lists.

No, they don't - certainly not multiple ways of achieving the exact same effect, nor anything involving sentient crystals and ectoplasm. How about you start by naming a couple?We have clerics who wield power bestowed on them by the gods through the strength of their faith. We have druids, who draw power from nature. We have wizards, scientists who memorise combinations of gestures, incantations and chemical reactions that erase themselves from their minds after use. We have sorcerers, who are descended from dragons and can thus use wizard science instinctively or something.

And there are spells which all four can use, that function exactly the same.

[Kurald Galain]

We have clerics who wield power bestowed on them by the gods through the strength of their faith. We have druids, who draw power from nature. We have wizards, scientists who memorise combinations of gestures, incantations and chemical reactions that erase themselves from their minds after use. We have sorcerers, who are descended from dragons and can thus use wizard science instinctively or something.

Try again. You're quoting from the PHB, whereas we were discussing fantasy settings that aren't D&D. There are basically zero fantasy settings (other than D&D novels) that have a split between wizard-magic and psion-magic, or even wizard/sorcerer/cleric/druid. And this one guy was handwaving that "ooooh yes there are toooons of such settings", so I'm asking him to name a bunch.

[tonberrian]

No, they don't - certainly not multiple ways of achieving the exact same effect, nor anything involving sentient crystals and ectoplasm. How about you start by naming a couple?

In the Wheel of Time, men and women tap into different types of magic, each with its own methods of use. For the most part, anything not fundamentally world changing can be done with either of them, but there is a specific line about how they use fundamentally different approaches to do a specific thing, and there are lines about how one is better than the other at certain things, or even impossible with the opposing type.

In the Belgariad/Mallorean cycle (David Eddings) there's sorcery (build up willpower, say a word, and what you wanted happens) and magic (bind a spirit from outside that dimension with a body and powers that you specify - if you lose control, it assumes its true form and devours your soul). Not to mention the strange powers of witchcraft and those of the Seers of Kell.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Off the top of my head I can think of Shadowrun, which has Magic and Resonance, each of which are mutually exclusive to each other.

[Rubik]

If staring at something and causing it to explode is fine, then why isn't staring at something and causing it to explode?

Can you tell which one is the Energy Ball and which one is the Silent, Stilled Fireball? 'Cuz I can't.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Both are fine. Both are also being vastly oversimplified in your example.

This isn't about whether a layman can tell the difference, because we're all psuedo-omniscient beings in the grand scheme of a tabletop game and as such we're not laymen.

[Rubik]

Both are fine. Both are also being vastly oversimplified in your example.They amount to the exact same thing, in the end. Just because one requires you to dance around singing and the other doesn't has no bearing on which one is more appropriate to a campaign. Hell, dancing around singing and flinging poo is silly and stupid. The other, not so much.

[Ilorin Lorati]

I can take a pair of scissors to a piece of paper, or I can fold and tear it in two. The end result is mostly the same, but they're still significantly different acts: one is shearing, the other is tearing.

[Fax Celestis]

Fantasy books and shows with multiple magic systems: Dune. Shannara. Sword of Truth. Secret Atlas. Game of Thrones. Earthsea. Discworld. The Belgariad. Marvel. Buffy. Charmed. Last Unicorn. Dragaera. Dresden Files. Tales of Alvin Maker. Thomas Covenant. Turtledove's Darkness. Enchanted Forest. Supernatural.

[Kurald Galain]

Fantasy books and shows with multiple magic systems: Dune. Shannara. Sword of Truth. Secret Atlas. Game of Thrones. Earthsea. Discworld. The Belgariad. Marvel. Buffy. Charmed. Last Unicorn. Dragaera. Dresden Files. Tales of Alvin Maker. Thomas Covenant. Turtledove's Darkness. Enchanted Forest. Supernatural.

Yes, I know. I've read most of those. But how many from those list contrast hermetic magic with crystals and ectoplasm? I'm pretty sure that number is zero.

The point isn't that D&D should have only one magic system. The point is that psionics is (1) mechanically not different enough since most psi powers are just copy/pasted from wizard spells, and (2) fluffed in a way that is inappropriate to many settings.

[Rubik]

Yes, I know. I've read most of those. But how many from those list contrast hermetic magic with crystals and ectoplasm? I'm pretty sure that number is zero.

The point isn't that D&D should have only one magic system. The point is that psionics is (1) mechanically not different enough since most psi powers are just copy/pasted from wizard spells, and (2) fluffed in a way that is inappropriate to many settings.The way a psion plays can be similar to a sorcerer or considerably different, depending on the build, giving the psion class both a sense of familiarity and a niche of its own.

Meanwhile, psionic fluff is exceedingly mutable. I often fluff my psionic characters as having extremely powerful racial abilities that manifest themselves as somewhat unusual spell-like abilities, and that meditation and gaining levels is akin to training them and bringing them to the fore. I've also fluffed them as sorcerous abilities from a nonhuman ancestor, advanced arcane magic, warlock-esque powers granted by some sort of otherworldly beast (which is then a permanent part of oneself thereafter), and so on.

As for crystals and ectoplasm, both exist in the non-psionic parts of D&D, if you'll recall. From powdered diamond dust used in Resurrection to onyx used to raise the undead to the gemstone used to trap souls, gemstones are a big part of magic. And ectoplasm is merely an extraction of the Astral Plane, which is part and parcel of nearly every cosmology out there.

[Fax Celestis]

Yes, I know. I've read most of those. But how many from those list contrast hermetic magic with crystals and ectoplasm? I'm pretty sure that number is zero.

Shannara has elfstones. Dresden Files has psionics and ghosts. So do Marvel, Buffy, Charmed, Supernatural. Alvin Maker doesn't have ectoplasm but definitely has crystals. There are more.

Psionics in D&D will never appear wholesale in a non-D&D-themed novel. Why? Because it doesn't translate well to literature or video. Magic systems across universes rarely work the same, so why are you expecting them to now?

[Prime32]

Try again. You're quoting from the PHB, whereas we were discussing fantasy settings that aren't D&D. There are basically zero fantasy settings (other than D&D novels) that have a split between wizard-magic and psion-magic, or even wizard/sorcerer/cleric/druid. And this one guy was handwaving that "ooooh yes there are toooons of such settings", so I'm asking him to name a bunch.

Yes, I know. I've read most of those. But how many from those list contrast hermetic magic with crystals and ectoplasm? I'm pretty sure that number is zero.

The point isn't that D&D should have only one magic system. The point is that psionics is (1) mechanically not different enough since most psi powers are just copy/pasted from wizard spells, and (2) fluffed in a way that is inappropriate to many settings.I'm confused about what you're asking. (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-f9JY7w7nzYw/U_2CIts-b8I/AAAAAAABCmU/QSR3zw7cpjE/011.jpg?imgmax=3000) Do you want to see examples of how stories differentiate them? I could start with some manga...

You can use spiritual powers by drawing on the mana around you, or the ki within your body. Your mana reserves are linked to study while your ki reserves are linked to physical fitness. It's the same energy, to the point where you can activate magic items with your ki and vice versa, but mana works best on things outside your body while ki works best on things inside it or in direct contact with it - thus they use different sets of techniques (such as magic circles and controlling spirits, versus increasing the cutting power of your weapon). There is also a technique which melds your ki with mana in order to give you physical buffs, but few have the knack for it.
Psionics, also known as "unique skills" and "innate magic", are very rare - they differ from spells in that they do not require any kind of focus, ritual or significant energy expenditure, and can thus be used much more freely and without telegraphing your movements (though this matters less against high-level mages who learn to make up for those weaknesses). You are born with your psionics and can't learn new ones, but you can come up with new uses for them.

Okay, this franchise's metaphysics can get confusing, so I'm going to be simplifying a lot of stuff or leaving things out:

A Certain Magical Index features psychics who were trained to establish a "personal reality" in their minds that overrides physical laws around them, giving each person a unique set of flexible abilities. Generally these follow scientific principles like "increasing or reducing friction", but this is just a mindset thing. The rare few who develop psychic abilities without training, known as Gemstones, tend to have harder-to-analyse abilities like "heroes show up whenever I'm in danger".

Conversely, magicians call on supernatural beings to warp reality on their behalf - each spell requires a ritual and does only one thing, but they can learn a lot of them and invent new ones. Due to the clashing philosophies of denial vs. acceptance, it is generally impossible for someone to be both a magician and a psychic at once.

There is also angelic magic, where a magician ritually associates themselves with an angel to gain associated powers, but becomes unable to use normal magic in the process. It is later revealed that the training program for psychics was invented by a magician, and is just the angel ritual with all the religious terminology replaced with scientific terms.

Then there's a group of characters who attempt to create "reverse psionics" by using large-scale impulses to create a small-scale effect, rather than vice versa. This is noted to follow the same principle as magical methods such as feng shui.

And finally the main character has a unique ability that can negate anything supernatural, regardless of origin. It is neither magical nor psionic, but both sides are interested in it.

[Psyren]

Yes, I know. I've read most of those. But how many from those list contrast hermetic magic with crystals and ectoplasm? I'm pretty sure that number is zero.

The point isn't that D&D should have only one magic system. The point is that psionics is (1) mechanically not different enough since most psi powers are just copy/pasted from wizard spells, and (2) fluffed in a way that is inappropriate to many settings.

It is mechanically, thematically and descriptively different to magic. I simply can't agree that they are too similar to not exist in parallel.

I'm also uncertain which settings you feel psionics is inappropriate for, since it is canonically a part of every D&D setting + Golarion at a minimum.

[Fax Celestis]

It is mechanically, thematically and descriptively different to magic. I simply can't agree that they are too similar to not exist in parallel.

I'm also uncertain which settings you feel psionics is inappropriate for, since it is canonically a part of every D&D setting + Golarion at a minimum.

Yeah. I mean, would you (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/hagunemnon.htm) look at (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/aboleth.htm) that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/couatl.htm).

[Xuldarinar]

Yeah. I mean, would you (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/hagunemnon.htm) look at (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/aboleth.htm) that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/couatl.htm).

Checkmate?

[SiuiS]

Exact opposite. Magic is a type of psionics; if you think about it, psionics is the one that's closest and purest to the source (internal power expressed with will to create effects), while magic just adds layers of obfuscation (internal power expressed through will using rituals and superstitious symbols to create specific, unchangeable effects – unless you learn the 'secrets' of unlocking greater customization).

Basically, mages with lots of meta magic feats are getting closer to their Psionic roots.

[atemu1234]

Flavorfully? Not really. They're different systems and they are described differently.
Mechanically? Yes. There's a huge overlap (not even counting StP erudites and the like) of spells and powers, and without variant rules they are pretty much interchangeable. Look into the point magic system given in Unearthed Arcana and the Psionics system. One stems from the other (though I'm not sure which from which).

[Fax Celestis]

Flavorfully? Not really. They're different systems and they are described differently.
Mechanically? Yes. There's a huge overlap (not even counting StP erudites and the like) of spells and powers, and without variant rules they are pretty much interchangeable. Look into the point magic system given in Unearthed Arcana and the Psionics system. One stems from the other (though I'm not sure which from which).

Spell points come from psi: psi's been around since 1976 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldritch_Wizardry). Psi in previous editions worked via a power point system (in addition to some magic items, actually): the 3.x versions are merely refinements of the same principles. Magic has almost always worked off a vancian slot system. Spell points are sort of the unholy bastard child of the two.

http://i.imgur.com/LygBvzF.png
Requires expansion, eh?

[Brookshw]

Spell points come from psi: psi's been around since 1976 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldritch_Wizardry). Psi in previous editions worked via a power point system (in addition to some magic items, actually): the 3.x versions are merely refinements of the same principles. Magic has almost always worked off a vancian slot system. Spell points are sort of the unholy bastard child of the two.

We don't talk about older versions of psionics.....

No, not even then.

[Xuldarinar]

Exact opposite. Magic is a type of psionics; if you think about it, psionics is the one that's closest and purest to the source (internal power expressed with will to create effects), while magic just adds layers of obfuscation (internal power expressed through will using rituals and superstitious symbols to create specific, unchangeable effects – unless you learn the 'secrets' of unlocking greater customization).

Basically, mages with lots of meta magic feats are getting closer to their Psionic roots.



In essence, this take can mean:

Psionics are drawn from your mind.

Divine Magic is drawn from someone, or something, else's mind.(unless it is a Vestige)
Arcane Magic is nascent psionic energy which exists independently of minds.

Drawing this energy from outside of yourself typically requires gestures, spoken words, a focus of some sort, items to be used up in the casting process, or any combination thereof. If you are the source, or have taken the time to learn how to channel the energy appropriately, one can forgo most if not all of these requirements.

[tonberrian]

It's worth noting that a lot of magic systems in fiction are closer to 3.5 psionics than vancian casting.

Vancian casting is weird.

[Brookshw]

It's worth noting that a lot of magic systems in fiction are closer to 3.5 psionics than vancian casting.

Vancian casting is weird.

Eh, it makes sense for the time and origins of the game as a whole. Can't really look at things by today's standards to judge.

[Fax Celestis]

It's worth noting that a lot of magic systems in fiction are closer to 3.5 psionics than vancian casting.

Vancian casting is weird.

Unless you're reading anything by Jack VecnaVance.

[Sith_Happens]

Exact opposite. Magic is a type of psionics; if you think about it, psionics is the one that's closest and purest to the source (internal power expressed with will to create effects), while magic just adds layers of obfuscation (internal power expressed through will using rituals and superstitious symbols to create specific, unchangeable effects – unless you learn the 'secrets' of unlocking greater customization).

Basically, mages with lots of meta magic feats are getting closer to their Psionic roots.

HEADCANON ACCEPTED.

Anyways, I'd actually say that Supernatural abilities are the most divorced thing from magic fluff-wise. You don't even need to concentrate on those things, they just sort of happen the moment you want then to.

[SiuiS]

In essence, this take can mean:

Psionics are drawn from your mind.

Divine Magic is drawn from someone, or something, else's mind.(unless it is a Vestige)
Arcane Magic is nascent psionic energy which exists independently of minds.

Divine magic is and always has been praying for miracles or cashing in promises.

And arcane is outside a mind? No.

You don't draw energy from outside yourself for arcane magic. Ever. You use your internal energy to cause a change in the world. The fireball is made by the internal psychic capabilities of someone who uses the force of their mind (will) to enact changes. Or are you saying a psion using energy burst (fire) is expending their internal fire somehow?

[Xuldarinar]

Divine magic is and always has been praying for miracles or cashing in promises.

And arcane is outside a mind? No.

You don't draw energy from outside yourself for arcane magic. Ever. You use your internal energy to cause a change in the world. The fireball is made by the internal psychic capabilities of someone who uses the force of their mind (will) to enact changes. Or are you saying a psion using energy burst (fire) is expending their internal fire somehow?


No. Im saying while a psion uses their own energy for a psionic power, spells draw from outside of one's self but still is going through the individual's mind.

A wizard prepares fireball: The wizard as he studies takes in the energy from around them, arguably the psionic power of their plane or another for certain ones, and through their study prepares it to be released in a certain form with specific conditions.

A sorcerer casts fireball: The sorcerer, closer to psions, mentally knows how to channel the psionic energy they inherently draw in on a daily basis to get the desired result.

A cleric prepares fireball: The cleric prays/meditates to prepare their spells, following a process not entirely dissimilar to that as wizards, but through this they are granted the energy they use by another entity, a consciousness.

An oracle casts fireball: Simular to the sorcerer, except this knowledge and the energy for it comes from an entity.

A druid prepares a spell: Not dissimilar from the cleric, except their source is a being of nature or even an 'earthmind'.

A psion manifests a power: The psion uses their own psionic energy, knowing how to form it into the psionic power, and releases it to manifest. They aren't a middleman, they are the source.

[Pan151]

You don't draw energy from outside yourself for arcane magic. Ever.

I believe you are in urgent need of getting yourself familiar with the Weave...


Anyway: Psionics is a type of magic, just like any other of the 123623323632643999752 different types of magic that exist in DnD.



Arcane magic is the manipulation of the strings that hold the world together.

Divine magic is the same, except you're lazy and you have a god do it for you.

Psionics is imagining something with such intensity that it actually becomes reality.

Invocation/Pact magic is inherent magic bestowed upon your very flesh and soul. There is also some overlap with arcane magic when it comes to sorcerers.

Truenaming magic is the ability to directly command the universe itself to act for you.

Shadow magic, Incarnum magic, Initiator magic etc are... well, different in some other ways.

[JusticeZero]

And people have no problem including a lot of other alternate magic systems in their games as a rule.

[Psyren]

http://i.imgur.com/LygBvzF.png
Requires expansion, eh?

I get it!


HEADCANON ACCEPTED.

Anyways, I'd actually say that Supernatural abilities are the most divorced thing from magic fluff-wise. You don't even need to concentrate on those things, they just sort of happen the moment you want then to.

They're the purest form of magic though, tied intrinsically to something's very being. A Dragon doesn't have to concentrate to scare people or breathe fire, it just does it. A vampire doesn't have to concentrate to dominate everyone around it or turn to mist when badly damaged, he just does it. An angel doesn't have to concentrate to speak every language that ever was and will be, it just does. And so on.

[Xuldarinar]

They're the purest form of magic though, tied intrinsically to something's very being. A Dragon doesn't have to concentrate to scare people or breathe fire, it just does it. A vampire doesn't have to concentrate to dominate everyone around it or turn to mist when badly damaged, he just does it. An angel doesn't have to concentrate to speak every language that ever was and will be, it just does. And so on.

There is a purer form of magic, one that all forms answer to. Their existence depends entirely on this one. The whims of the DM.

Suddenly I have a desire to create a Class/PrC/(set of)Feat(s)/ect. for abilities based on the notion of a character who has become aware of the fact they do not actually exist, that they are characters in a game, and through that they can bribe the DM.