Post/Author/DateTime	Post
NestroEmichae 03-06-04, 05:52 PM	I'm continuing the off-topic discussion started here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=193978&perpage=30&pagenumber=2). This is just the thread where we can continue it. My last post is on there. Edit: My last post: One slight problem with that: Not true. Under Psionics are Different, magical attacks ignore psionic defenses the same way psionic attacks ignore magical defenses. The psion may not have to worry about the wizard using SR to drop the chances of being affected by a power, but does have to worry about about the fireball the wizard launches in response. The greatest fallacy I have seen behind the idea of psionics and magic working the same is this simple fact: They don't. Magic users have to use complex equations combined with drawing upon outside power to manipulate the world around them. The innate ones, such as the sorceror, simply do it naturally. However, psions draw upon their mind and body to manipulate the world around them and do not use equations in the process. That difference is actually quite small, but it is a huge one in effect. If you put a wizard on a world where there is no magic, the wizard is useless. If you put a psion on a world where there is no psionics and he's suddenly the most powerful person on that world. Why do I say that? Simple: Wizards and sorcerors are just using a strange form of mathematics to cause local physics to bend to their will, while psions are using their mind. And of the two, math is entirely dependant upon local physics to work properly. Now, one other thing: Psions are actually using their will and focusing it through their minds. Game mechanics suggest that the sorcs are simply doing the same exact thing as wizards, only intuitively. Thus, they could simply be intuitive mathematicians. And bards are only using a sonic form of math anyway (that's about what music amounts to). This is all related to the fact they use the same spell scrolls. Meh. Off-day or something.
Tsuul 03-06-04, 06:34 PM	Shoulda put you last post on this thread. Had to read the whole thread to figure out that you last post was off topic and had no true relevance to the Killing a Wizard thread and that the Killing a Wizard thread had no bearing on this one at all. As for the Psionics are Different. Sure, they are different. About as different from Arcane magic as Divine magic is. The system was not pre-built to handle Psionics. Just look in the MM at psionic creatures. Without across the board re-tooling the psionics are different variant is just too unweildly to use. I like the idea in principle, but in application it quickly fails to be balanced. just my 2cp
NestroEmichae 03-06-04, 08:00 PM	True about the system not made to support psionics. That's a designer error, however. Actually, I find divine and arcane magic to not be that different. They both work under a similar principle: They draw upon outside forces to work. Psionics doesn't.
Darklion 03-06-04, 09:22 PM	They draw upon outside forces to work. Psionics doesn't.Who says? In other words, you're looking at it from the standpoint that because you're using two different methods, you get two different effects. Look at it from the standpoint of the effect. Generating fire is generating fire. Generating telekinesis is generating telekinesis. From the effect's standpoint, it doesn't matter how it was generated! Fire still burns, whether it's psionic fire or magical fire. Telekinesis still lifts things, whether it's psionic telekinesis or magical telekinesis. From the effect's viewpoint, it's irrelevant how it was generated! Just because wizards and psions "cast" their "spells" in different ways, and are powered by different mechanisms, doesn't mean the effects are any less compatible. You're confusing three different aspects of spells and powers: the start of the process (casting a spell, manifesting a power), the end of the process (the effect generated), and the middle of the process (how casting a spell or manifesting a power produces the generated effect). To draw on a real world example, coal, solar, wind, nuclear, and hydroelectric all utilize vastly different harvesting mechanisms, and virtually all of them have some aspect of transformation (burning coal, heating steam, etc.) to generate electricity. But ultimately, I can plug my desk light into the wall socket and turn it on, and it doesn't matter how the electricity was generated. In game terms, casting a spell is burning coal and manifesting a power is absorbing solar energy. The effect, such as generating fire or creating a telekinetic force, is my desk lamp. How magic and psionics are generated -- the specific process by invoking mental concentration or throwing bat poop in the air is turned into a change in reality -- is the stuff between the wall socket and the power plant. And just like in real life, you can have more than one type of power generation hooked up to the wall sockets. Just because psionics makes a change one way and a magic makes it another way doesn't mean that the effect is any different.
NestroEmichae 03-06-04, 10:23 PM	Originally posted by Darklion Who says? Psionics Handbook, the Introduction section, under the heading What is Psionics? By stating what psionics is, it is implying what magic is not. If magic were the same, there would be no need to describe what psionics is. In other words, you're looking at it from the standpoint that because you're using two different methods, you get two different effects. Look at it from the standpoint of the effect. Generating fire is generating fire. Generating telekinesis is generating telekinesis. From the effect's standpoint, it doesn't matter how it was generated! Fire still burns, whether it's psionic fire or magical fire. Telekinesis still lifts things, whether it's psionic telekinesis or magical telekinesis. From the effect's viewpoint, it's irrelevant how it was generated! Looking at the effect, there is no difference between Divine magic and Arcane magic and, thus, the two should be treated exactly the same. Wait, they're not. They are treated somewhat differently from each other. Guess that means that different methods is important for dealing with them. Sorry, but you'll have to try to convince the designers of it before you convince me. I'm not the one who wrote the rules that separates Divine and Arcane magic. Just because wizards and psions "cast" their "spells" in different ways, and are powered by different mechanisms, doesn't mean the effects are any less compatible. 'Powered by different mechanisms'. That doesn't even begin to cover it. Psionics has been set up as an entirely different system with different rules than magic has. They don't have spell slots, don't have any classes that prepare spells, get their powers from a completely different source than the magic system has, have a separate system for dealing with the powers in items (beyond the commonality of weapons and armor), and even have a separate section on the website. Top it all off, they have their own set of item creation feats. You're confusing three different aspects of spells and powers: the start of the process (casting a spell, manifesting a power), the end of the process (the effect generated), and the middle of the process (how casting a spell or manifesting a power produces the generated effect). Where did you get the idea that I'm confusing those three at? Beginning of the process: a) Mages say the final words, give the gestures, use up the items for energy, etc. to complete the spell in their mind b) Psions focus their mind and sacrifice a bit of their own power to begin sending the power out. Middle of the process: a) The spell forms, drawing upon whatever focuses and material items to help power it as it begins to unleash the effects. b) The power sacrificed by the psion unleashes a backlash of some sort, such as a sound in the back of everyone's mind, as it begins forcing reality to bend. End of process: a) Spell completes unleashing effects and bending the rules of reality. b) Power completes forcing reality to bend. To draw on a real world example, coal, solar, wind, nuclear, and hydroelectric all utilize vastly different harvesting mechanisms, and virtually all of them have some aspect of transformation (burning coal, heating steam, etc.) to generate electricity. But ultimately, I can plug my desk light into the wall socket and turn it on, and it doesn't matter how the electricity was generated. The analogy is somewhat correct. However, it does show one bad thing. You are ignoring the vast differences between nuclear power and the rest. For one thing, a coal power plant doesn't create waste that continues to endanger people for thousands of years. CO2 and CO will eventually be cleaned up by nature. It still is ignoring the differences between magic and psionics, though. To get them, a proper analogy is a Star Trek warp core and a coal plant. In one case, the radioactive byproduct is what is sent as power*, only to be transformed into electricity at special points later on. In the other, the energy derived from it is what is sent as power. In game terms, casting a spell is burning coal and manifesting a power is absorbing solar energy. The effect, such as generating fire or creating a telekinetic force, is my desk lamp. How magic and psionics are generated -- the specific process by invoking mental concentration or throwing bat poop in the air is turned into a change in reality -- is the stuff between the wall socket and the power plant. And just like in real life, you can have more than one type of power generation hooked up to the wall sockets. Just because psionics makes a change one way and a magic makes it another way doesn't mean that the effect is any different. [/B] The effect is also no different than if I poured oil on you and set you on fire than if I cast a fireball on you. Why should the two be considered different? Wait, look back at how they defined the differences between Arcane and Divine magic. The effect isn't what matters for how those two are different. Going to the more appropriate analogy: In this case, it is correct that plugging the lamp in will end up with the same result. However, you don't have to worry about something going seriously wrong with the power pole and it unleashing ionized matter onto the street. Electricity from downed powerlines is dangerous, but at least it has a limit on where it can go. *What, you didn't know that's what the plasma conduits conduct? It doesn't become electricity until it gets near what it is powering. I will accept corrections with proof on this. Another thing we haven't covered: Batteries. Psions and mages rely on two entirely different types of power to fuel their abilities. For one thing, Psions rely exclusively on Power Points for just about everything. Even some of their magic items require PP to function. Mages simply have per-day spells and abilities. The result is the items tailored to help them power these abilities provide two different forms of power. Items that help a mage cast more spells merely increase the spellcaster level, allow them to recast a spell, etc. Psions, on the other hand, just get PP from an item that does a similar job. The result is that a psion with 25 million gray ioun stones can cast 25 million 1st-level powers in addition to their regular PP allotment, which is an advantage the mages simply do not have and cannot have under the way magic is structured. Suddenly a small difference becomes a huge one when a psion is still manifesting long after the sorceror has died of old age.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 03-07-04, 02:57 PM	Originally posted by NestroEmichae Actually, I find divine and arcane magic to not be that different. They both work under a similar principle: They draw upon outside forces to work. Psionics doesn't. Do the rules explicitly require that? If not, you're just stating your decision, and one could easily decide the other way. For example, probably the simplest way is for psionic power points to represent magical energy prepared and stored in a way the psionicist can quickly use, just like a sorcerer's spell slots are magical energy prepared and stored in a way the sorcerer can quickly use. Both classes rely on external magical energy. Both classes store that energy internally. Both classes create magical effects. Both classes have their stored energy suppressed by antimagic. Both are magicians. You don't have to use that version, of course, but it's probably the easiest one to fit into the rest of D&D. The suggestion that psionics counts as magic is somewhat stronger, though - since class abilities such as a monk's oh-so-internal Wholeness of Body, a druid's Wildshape, a cleric's positive-energy-channelling Turn Undead, and a paladin's Divine Grace are all inherently magical (supernatural --> cancelled by Antimagic Field --> magical), it seems most reasonable to conclude that "magic" covers just about everything unusual a character might be capable of doing. Deciding otherwise is an option, of course - it's just not the option that (IMHO) makes the most sense or fits best with the rest of D&D. YMMV.
Darklion 03-07-04, 03:14 PM	Looking at the effect, there is no difference between Divine magic and Arcane magic and, thus, the two should be treated exactly the same. Wait, they're not. They are treated somewhat differently from each other. Guess that means that different methods is important for dealing with them.Let's see. Divine and arcane magic, both subject to spell resistance? Yes. Divine and arcane magic, both subject to dispel magic? Yes. Divine and arcane magic, both subject to normal saving throws? Yes. Gee, you know what? Divine and arcane magic are treated the same, when dealing with the end effect. Normal magical fire is normal magical fire, whether it's produced via arcane or divine means ("divine fire," such as that produced by a flame strike, is a special type of magical fire). While there may be differences in how they are prepared, and how they are cast, and the "source" of that power (divine energy vs. whatever powers arcane magic), the ultimate effect is the same regardless of how it was produced. Where did you get the idea that I'm confusing those three at?My understanding of your argument is that you can't see why psionics should be affected by magic (e.g., dispel magic or SR) and vice versa. If that's not the case, then ignore my entire posting.The analogy is somewhat correct. However, it does show one bad thing. You are ignoring the vast differences between nuclear power and the rest. For one thing, a coal power plant doesn't create waste that continues to endanger people for thousands of years. CO2 and CO will eventually be cleaned up by nature. It still is ignoring the differences between magic and psionics, though.I'm ignoring the vast differences because they are irrelevant for the purposes of powering my desk lamp. Whether my light bulb is powered by nuclear, solar, coal, battery, or monkeys-riding-bicycles power, my light bulb still works the same. My point is that, in universes where psionics and magic interact with each other, there is a single "universal" method by which an effect occurs. The effect is the light bulb/desk lamp. And in those universes, it's irrelevant what is generating the "electricity" to power those effects.To get them, a proper analogy is a Star Trek warp core and a coal plant. In one case, the radioactive byproduct is what is sent as power*, only to be transformed into electricity at special points later on. In the other, the energy derived from it is what is sent as power.Fine, great, whatever. The point is, the end result is you're getting electricity/power that can then be used to generate an effect -- turn on a desk lamp, power a microwave, or keep the transporter pod activated. The magical/psionic effect IS the desk lamp, microwave, or transporter, and TO THE EFFECT, it's irrelevant where the energy is coming from. The effect is also no different than if I poured oil on you and set you on fire than if I cast a fireball on you. Why should the two be considered different? Wait, look back at how they defined the differences between Arcane and Divine magic. The effect isn't what matters for how those two are different.The effect IS different. Pouring oil on somebody is mundane. Fireball is a supernatural occurrence in the world. And as I stated above, the differences between arcane and divine magic are irrelevent when determining the effects on the effect. There is no such thing as "arcane spell resistance" or "divine spell resistance." There is no such thing as "arcane-effect-only dispel magic" or "divine-effect-only dispel magic." As far as the effects go, it doesn't matter how they were produced, magic interacts with magic equivalently -- becaues the effects are compatible. Why is it so hard for you to admit that psionic effects might be compatible?
NestroEmichae 03-07-04, 03:24 PM	What the hell? I hate it when the damn thing doesn't accept my changes. Originally posted by Dire Celestial Bonobo Do the rules explicitly require that? If not, you're just stating your decision, and one could easily decide the other way. <SNIP> Deciding otherwise is an option, of course - it's just not the option that (IMHO) makes the most sense or fits best with the rest of D&D. YMMV. Summary of what I had said: It does say that they have different sources. First in the introduction in a long method. However, here's the short an easy sentence I found later on: The psion draws real power from his mind. Page 7, first sentence. However, yours does fit the way it seems they were trying to make it. It seems WotC has trouble trying to figure out whether or not to go with what they tell people, as shown by the disaster that is the Necromancy school.
NestroEmichae 03-07-04, 03:44 PM	Originally posted by Darklion Let's see. Divine and arcane magic, both subject to spell resistance? Yes. Divine and arcane magic, both subject to dispel magic? Yes. Divine and arcane magic, both subject to normal saving throws? Yes. Gee, you know what? Divine and arcane magic are treated the same, when dealing with the end effect. Normal magical fire is normal magical fire, whether it's produced via arcane or divine means ("divine fire," such as that produced by a flame strike, is a special type of magical fire). While there may be differences in how they are prepared, and how they are cast, the ultimate effect is the same regardless of how it was produced.My understanding of your argument is that you can't see why psionics should be affected by magic (e.g., dispel magic or SR) and vice versa. If that's not the case, then ignore my entire posting. I can see why it should, but in this case I'm arguing the differences based on where they get the energy from. I had thought I had made it clear on what basis I was arguing the differences. Where divine and arcane are not treated the same: Symbols on scrolls, requirements to prepare, how they are cast, where the power comes from (note that both come from outside the actual caster), spells available (not as much), interactions with armor, material requirements (DF not required with arcane), etc. Why I am arguing that the two shouldn't interact as well (keep in mind this is a two-way street and psions suddenly lose a lot of protection against mages): The different energy sources. The same fuel that keeps a nuclear power plant running won't work in a coal power plant. Plus, the two use different methods for turning the fuel into energy. Spells such as antimagic field affect the turning of fuel into energy (by preventing it) and I do not feel that something designed to sabotage a coal power plant's ability to turn fuel into energy out to work as well on a nuclear power plant. However, it is easier to have the two not interact than to spend the time trying to find out where they interact. I'm ignoring the vast differences because they are irrelevant for the purposes of powering my desk lamp. Whether my light bulb is powered by nuclear, solar, coal, battery, or monkeys-riding-bicycles power, my light bulb still works the same. Let's say you are told one day that you have to provide fuel for the power plant. However, you have coal and the plant is nuclear. It suddenly is relevant. That is the case with psions and mages. My point is that, in universes where psionics and magic interact with each other, there is a single "universal" method by which an effect occurs. The effect is the light bulb/desk lamp. And in those universes, it's irrelevant what is generating the "electricity" to power those effects. Not entirely true. It doesn't matter as much. Take an effect that affects the source of magic. Psionics is unaffected because it doesn't have the same source. Fine, great, whatever. The point is, the end result is you're getting electricity/power that can then be used to generate an effect -- turn on a desk lamp, power a microwave, or keep the transporter pod activated. The magical/psionic effect IS the desk lamp, microwave, or transporter, and TO THE EFFECT, it's irrelevant where the energy is coming from. To the effect, it doesn't matter. But using the same point, it doesn't matter whether you use a cruise missile or a nuke: The building you hit will still be destroyed. Want to argue that they are the same thing?
Taldra 03-07-04, 04:21 PM	I play Psionics are Different variant and here is what you have to do, which is a PITA, which is why psionics aren't always popular. You have to evaluate every spell/psionic interaction possible and evaluate them ahead of time to determine how they interact. And as someone who has done so, it is a long and annoying process.
Tsuul 03-07-04, 04:38 PM	From NestroEmichae: Summary of what I had said: It does say that they have different sources. First in the introduction in a long method. However, here's the short an easy sentence I found later on: PHB states what divine magic is and what arcane magic is. Both come from seprate sources. Psionics is a third type of energy that needed to be explained in the PsiHB cause Science fiction defines it differently depending on the author. Sorcerers even store their magical energy differently the Wizards and they still use the same system. If you use the Psionics are Different Varient, you should probably consider the Divine and Arcane magics are different as well. Same exact aguements you state can be applied to those as well. It'd certainly be a different campain =)
Darklion 03-07-04, 05:09 PM	Let's say you are told one day that you have to provide fuel for the power plant. However, you have coal and the plant is nuclear. It suddenly is relevant. That is the case with psions and mages.In which case, I get no power for my desk lamp. But again, you're talking about the raw fuel itself, which is transformed into energy via some fashion, and it is that energy which powers the effect. In other words, while the type of raw fuel that I have matters in order to generate the transformation process, once you get past the transformation process, everything is just electricity. Your magic-vs-psionics approach seems to be ignoring that transformative process, instead claiming that the type of fuel dictates how many prongs are on the power outlet. You seem to be saying that there's a five-prong outlet that connects you to nuclear plants, and a twelve-prong outlet that connects you to coal plants. If that's the case, then obviously you'll need different lamps, and a coal-lamp won't work with a nuclear-plug. But that's not the only possible set up. (I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right. I'm saying that there are multiple approaches to the problem, some of which enforce interactivity and some which prevent it.) MY approach is to say that at some point, regardless of the source of the original energy, it all pours into a collective "grid" of power. And the effects that are generated by a spell or psionic ability are "powered" off of that grid. For every effect, there's one -- and only one -- lamp somewhere. There's a "lamp" for creating magical fire, and a separate "lamp" for creating a telekinetic effect. A psion may expend his internal mental fuel to pump power into that grid, a wizard may require bat poop and complex math to pump power into that grid, and a cleric may require faith to pump power into that grid, but ultimately once you put power into that grid it all just becomes "electricity." And the lamp itself doesn't care about where the electricity comes from. The other approach, as I implied above, is to say that electrical sockets do not hook into a collective "grid," but to say that each electrical socket can only be plugged directly into a power plant. In that case, if you have a nuclear plant and the only fuel you have is coal, you're SOL. That lamp gets no power, and nothing happens.
NestroEmichae 03-07-04, 06:48 PM	Originally posted by Tsuul PHB states what divine magic is and what arcane magic is. Both come from seprate sources. Psionics is a third type of energy that needed to be explained in the PsiHB cause Science fiction defines it differently depending on the author. Not this arguement again. One gets tired of having to deal with the scifi. Still, I can see how those who do not have the time to build a library of fantasy and the occult can make it. I really need to get out more. I have actually seen magic used in science fiction as often as psionics. Magic is also defined differently depending on the author or real life tradition. In fact, much of what they put in the PsiHB actually isn't based upon science fiction about psionics, but based upon science fiction about magic or real world beliefs about magic. Using crystals for energy? Neo Paganism magic. Using your own energy for the 'spells'? Some forms of witchcraft. Top it all off, it is also affected by those people who try to test for it in real life and the distinctions between types they give. Using 'psionics = scifi' won't fly with me when a DM attempts it, as I'll pull out Shadowrun and several scifi books and start arguing that magic = scifi. And I'm not the only one. One final thing: Psionic power isn't a recent thing. Considering that psychics were differentiated from mages back in the 1800s, and not as a part of science fiction, and the fact that much of how psionics in DnD works can be traced to fantasy and mythological stories about sorcerors and wizards, it becomes easy to see why some DMs simply replace magic with psionics. Sorcerers even store their magical energy differently the Wizards and they still use the same system. I have yet to see any evidence of this. All I see is that they get the spells differently, only not differently enough for the differences to be more than the surface. If you use the Psionics are Different Varient, you should probably consider the Divine and Arcane magics are different as well. Same exact aguements you state can be applied to those as well. It'd certainly be a different campain =) Been there, done that. However, psionics is a case where you are getting your power from your own mind, while magic (and this is universal for the entire magic system) relies upon outside sources. That single difference is small, but small differences are all that differentiate between a diamond and coal. In which case, I get no power for my desk lamp. But again, you're talking about the raw fuel itself, which is transformed into energy via some fashion, and it is that energy which powers the effect. In other words, while the type of raw fuel that I have matters in order to generate the transformation process, once you get past the transformation process, everything is just electricity. True, somewhat. However, different fuels require different methods of transformation. Then again, (using a DnD example) it, as you say, doesn't matter whether it was the whitefire or the fireball that caused your clothes to start burning. Your magic-vs-psionics approach seems to be ignoring that transformative process, instead claiming that the type of fuel dictates how many prongs are on the power outlet. You seem to be saying that there's a five-prong outlet that connects you to nuclear plants, and a twelve-prong outlet that connects you to coal plants. If that's the case, then obviously you'll need different lamps, and a coal-lamp won't work with a nuclear-plug. But that's not the only possible set up. (I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right. I'm saying that there are multiple approaches to the problem, some of which enforce interactivity and some which prevent it.) Damn you! I had a good arguement prepared to be neutral and you just used it! My arguement is actually too busy being concerned with the power plant to deal with the outlet. Perhaps the one I need is the example of an electric engine vs. a combustion engine. They both have the same effect in the end, but they require different fuels, different maintenance, and inevitably different methods of dealing with waste. After all, you can't just toss battery acid out the tail pipe. I'm just saying that the two should not have interchangible parts. This is, of course, ignoring those damned hybrid engines. Interesting irony about car engines: The early models of American cars actually used electric engines. However, they moved to combustion engines because electric engines were not efficient enough. Now, they are trying to move back to electric engines and finding the same problems people did back in the early 1900s. MY approach is to say that at some point, regardless of the source of the original energy, it all pours into a collective "grid" of power. And the effects that are generated by a spell or psionic ability are "powered" off of that grid. For every effect, there's one -- and only one -- lamp somewhere. There's a "lamp" for creating magical fire, and a separate "lamp" for creating a telekinetic effect. A psion may expend his internal mental fuel to pump power into that grid, a wizard may require bat poop and complex math to pump power into that grid, and a cleric may require faith to pump power into that grid, but ultimately once you put power into that grid it all just becomes "electricity." And the lamp itself doesn't care about where the electricity comes from. The other approach, as I implied above, is to say that electrical sockets do not hook into a collective "grid," but to say that each electrical socket can only be plugged directly into a power plant. In that case, if you have a nuclear plant and the only fuel you have is coal, you're SOL. That lamp gets no power, and nothing happens. ... This has got to be the most effective arguement I have seen on the topic of psionics and magic interaction. I'm in too much shock to reply.
Tsuul 03-08-04, 03:02 AM	Not this arguement again. One gets tired of having to deal with the scifi. Huh? You took my words and created statement I wasn't making. Magic is also defined differently depending on the author or real life tradition. Your response to my argument was actualy closer to what I was trying to convey. Thanks for arguing my point. ;) PsiHandbook says what psionics is so that people don't get it confused with what OTHER genras/fictions/beliefs/interpretations says it is. Not, to imply, what magic isn't. I have yet to see any evidence of this. All I see is that they [sorcerers]get the spells differently[then wizards], only not differently enough for the differences to be more than the surface. Look harder. What happens to the spell within the body of the caster based on class is a good place to start. Sorcerers are very similar to psions.
codinggp 03-08-04, 11:45 AM	It has neve been "ruled" that magic and psionics are inherently different. It is up to your DM to decide how they work. They can work different, or they can be the same. It even gives such options in the psionics guide book! Just because a psion uses his mind and a wizard uses equations does not mean they don't manipulate the same forces and that psionics and magic intermingle. Ever notice how so many of the powers are the same? besides, if we go that psions are different because they use their minds, then we have to do with same with bards, sorcerers, and clerics....all of their magic would be different. bards use songs (not equations), sorcerers use will (not equations), and clerics get divine power (they do not use equations) One can think of the D&D world of having supernatural and elemental forces that control and form the universe. When these forces are manipulated its called magic, either by divine or arcane methods. When someone has a strong enough and trained mind the manipulation of these forces is called psionics. In the end everyone is manipulating the same raw materials for different effects, they only use different means. In this way magic and psionics interect similarly, eg anti-magic would stop psionics etc. regardless neither interpretation is wrong....its up to your DM to decide how he or she wants to run their campaign world.
Taldra 03-08-04, 11:52 AM	It has neve been "ruled" that magic and psionics are inherently different. In edition one and two "psionics are different" was the standard, it wasn't until edition three they made psi/magic transparancy the default.
Dragos 03-08-04, 12:17 PM	i happen to think they are essentially the same...as in what affects magics affects psionics and vice versa....however the best explanation i've heard is ...... http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040305a&page=3 which is the preview for the psionics magic interaction for the new Faerun guide comming out
codinggp 03-08-04, 12:58 PM	Originally posted by Taldra In edition one and two "psionics are different" was the standard, it wasn't until edition three they made psi/magic transparancy the default. sigh, this IS a 3.0/3.5 board isn't it?
Mutant for Hire 03-08-04, 01:14 PM	I can easily see divine magic, arcane magic and psionics all being the same type of energy, call it "chi". Clerics gain their chi from their patron deities. Wizards gain their chi from rituals tapping into the world around them. Monks use their personal chi and nuture their personal life force. Ignore the variance in casting issue. Remember that Bards, Sorcerors and Wizards all work differently and yet they use the same power type.
NestroEmichae 03-08-04, 06:17 PM	Has anyone noticed that most of these ideas for how to make magic and psionics similar* tend to be house rules instead of drawing from what was actually written? With the exception of the FR example, but FR isn't core or in the PsiHB. Edit: Damn delaying piece of crap computer. I spent the last 20 minutes trying to edit this post and getting kicked off! Cookie to anyone who notices the irony of my statement. Edit 2: *By "how to make magic and psionics similar' I mean why they are. I had forgotten that my phrazing is quite rare in this case. Originally posted by Tsuul Huh? You took my words and created statement I wasn't making. cause Science fiction defines it differently depending on the author Your words, not mine. Your response to my argument was actualy closer to what I was trying to convey. Thanks for arguing my point. ;) I'm slipping. I've never done that before. ]PsiHandbook says what psionics is so that people don't get it confused with what OTHER genras/fictions/beliefs/interpretations says it is. Not, to imply, what magic isn't. Then why don't they do the same with magic? Magic actually has a higher number of variations than psionics. Plus, the definition they gave for what psionics is has been accepted and generally considered common knowledge since before I was born. By the time 3E came out, the definition already cut across all genres and just about everyone these days has heard of it and most people have at least a vague idea of how it works. Defining it is not needed unless you are intending to show how it is different. Look harder. What happens to the spell within the body of the caster based on class is a good place to start. Sorcerers are very similar to psions. I know how close they are. That's why psions are pointless in games where psionics and magic are the same. It's also why the psions are often referred to as weak sorcerors. However, that's not what I'm arguing. However, your point has one flaw: When the sorcerors go to use that intuitive power, how do they use it? They use pretty much the same casting method as the wizard. Plus, their power is described as intuitive, not innate. Psions are innate with their power. Main Entry: in·tu·i·tion Pronunciation: "in-tu-'wi-sh&n, -tyu- Function: noun Etymology: Middle English intuycyon, from Late Latin intuition-, intuitio act of contemplating, from Latin intuEri to look at, contemplate, from in- + tuEri to look at 1 : quick and ready insight 2 a : immediate apprehension or cognition b : knowledge or conviction gained by intuition c : the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference Main Entry: in·nate Pronunciation: i-'nAt, 'i-" Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English innat, from Latin innatus, past participle of innasci to be born in, from in- + nasci to be born -- more at NATION 1 : existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth : NATIVE, INBORN <innate behavior> 2 : belonging to the essential nature of something : INHERENT 3 : originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience - in·nate·ly adverb - in·nate·ness noun synonyms INNATE, INBORN, INBRED, CONGENITAL, HEREDITARY mean not acquired after birth. INNATE applies to qualities or characteristics that are part of one's inner essential nature <an innate sense of fair play>. INBORN suggests a quality or tendency either actually present at birth or so marked and deep-seated as to seem so <her inborn love of nature>. INBRED suggests something either acquired from parents by heredity or so deeply rooted and ingrained as to seem acquired in that way <inbred political loyalties>. CONGENITAL and HEREDITARY refer to what is acquired before or at birth, the former to things acquired during fetal development and the latter to things transmitted from one's ancestors <a congenital heart murmur> <eye color is hereditary>. See the difference now? It has neve been "ruled" that magic and psionics are inherently different. It is up to your DM to decide how they work. They can work different, or they can be the same. It even gives such options in the psionics guide book! Just because a psion uses his mind and a wizard uses equations does not mean they don't manipulate the same forces and that psionics and magic intermingle. Ever notice how so many of the powers are the same? This was disproven by Taldra's post. Never use absolutes, as they are always easily disproven. It was once ruled that they are different, though that was in previous editions. besides, if we go that psions are different because they use their minds, then we have to do with same with bards, sorcerers, and clerics....all of their magic would be different. bards use songs (not equations), sorcerers use will (not equations), and clerics get divine power (they do not use equations) I had thought the bard part had been covered elsewhere. Actually, there is an old episode of a science fiction show that best covers it: Songs can be best classified as sonic equations. Each song has its own mathematical equation that it follows. Using math instead of the normal symbols, you can easily reproduce any song that exists. In fact, some computers store sounds as mathematical equations and simply reproduce them through the speakers. And sorcerors: They are described as intuitive spellcasters in the characteristics section. This could simply mean that they can do the mathematics intuitively. Intuition is not based upon intelligence, so they have no need to rely upon it. All the charisma reliance amounts to is their confidence in themselves allowing themselves to access greater depths of that intuition. As for clerics: That's divine magic, so it doesn't fit with your other examples. In any case, they are getting their magic from an outside source as well. One can think of the D&D world of having supernatural and elemental forces that control and form the universe. When these forces are manipulated its called magic, either by divine or arcane methods. When someone has a strong enough and trained mind the manipulation of these forces is called psionics. In the end everyone is manipulating the same raw materials for different effects, they only use different means. In this way magic and psionics interect similarly, eg anti-magic would stop psionics etc. regardless neither interpretation is wrong....its up to your DM to decide how he or she wants to run their campaign world. This is one way of looking at it. Ignore the variance in casting issue. Remember that Bards, Sorcerors and Wizards all work differently and yet they use the same power type. Key words: 'Same power type.' What is at issue is whether or not psionics is a similar power type.
codinggp 03-08-04, 06:48 PM	NestroEmichae wrote: Has anyone noticed that all of these ideas for how to make magic and psionics similar tend to be house rules instead of drawing from what was actually written? With the exception of the FR example, but FR isn't core or in the PsiHB. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Have you read the PsiHB? It fully describes using psionics as different or similar. Different being how you want it, and similar being how many people (and FR) have described to you on this thread. So NO, these are not all house rules, but one of the alternative rules in the PsiHB. It clearly gives a rule guide that assumes what has SR has PsiR, and that detect magic detects psions, dispel magic dispels psionics, etc.... As a DM you can go with this version or the other version, BOTH OF WHICH ARE PUBLISHED! OR you can make some house rules. I feel that this thread isn't really a discussion on psionics and magic being different or similar, but more along the lines of those OH SO MANY threads where one person feels WotC made a mistake and they want the rules changed to how they feel things should be run, wanting some official ERRATA to reflect their personal views. Regardless of what opinions are written, even pointing to published references that SHOW THE CONTRARY of what the original poster wants, these will be ignored or somehow falliciously discredited by the original poster and his supporters until this thread degenerates into nothing more than a bait and flame war. I vote we stop this thread now.
NestroEmichae 03-08-04, 07:42 PM	Originally posted by codinggp NestroEmichae wrote: Has anyone noticed that all of these ideas for how to make magic and psionics similar tend to be house rules instead of drawing from what was actually written? With the exception of the FR example, but FR isn't core or in the PsiHB. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Have you read the PsiHB? It fully describes using psionics as different or similar. Different being how you want it, and similar being how many people (and FR) have described to you on this thread. Actually, that quote of mine was wrong. I noticed it after I posted the message and have spent the last twenty minutes trying to edit it. Also, read it again: It says how to make them similar, not that they are similar, is mostly house-rules. FR is the only thing I have seen that provides an actual explanation as to why they are similar. The PsiHB merely states they are similar and doesn't bother with the fluff text as to how. But wait, I need to define 'how': Flufftext mechanics of the world itself. A mistake on my part. Perhaps I should change it to 'why'. So NO, these are not all house rules, but one of the alternative rules in the PsiHB. It clearly gives a rule guide that assumes what has SR has PsiR, and that detect magic detects psions, dispel magic dispels psionics, etc.... And what does that have to do with psionics and magic drawing upon chi? That, the FR one, and one I can't remember are pretty much the only three related to how to make it such while the rest are purely speculation. As a DM you can go with this version or the other version, BOTH OF WHICH ARE PUBLISHED! OR you can make some house rules. And the point of stating the obvious is? I feel that this thread isn't really a discussion on psionics and magic being different or similar, but more along the lines of those OH SO MANY threads where one person feels WotC made a mistake and they want the rules changed to how they feel things should be run, wanting some official ERRATA to reflect their personal views. Regardless of what opinions are written, even pointing to published references that SHOW THE CONTRARY of what the original poster wants, these will be ignored or somehow falliciously discredited by the original poster and his supporters until this thread degenerates into nothing more than a bait and flame war. On psionics? Please. I just want a discussion and don't actually care which side proves itself. I'm losing and I know it and soon I'll have to admit defeat when I am no longer capable of countering the arguements against me. It happens. As for the FR comment: It used to be on here that the discussions were core unless stated otherwise, and then the other materials had to be stated. I don't know when that changed, but I'm still one who sticks to that old standard. I see I made the mistake in assuming that certain standards would remain. I guess next time I shall state what I had thought would be obvious. And I do find that comment to be flamebait. You're obviously trying to start a flamewar. I vote we stop this thread now. You are free to stop posting at any time. No one is stopping you. Edit: Now that's odd. I seem to have lost an hour. But how?
NestroEmichae 03-08-04, 08:01 PM	Excuse this double-post. Other than the strange loss of time on my part, I've been looking through the books for a way to save what is left of my arguement. So far, I haven't found one other than issues unrelated to it. Thus, my arguement will be defeated with minimal effort and I will be unable to counter the next round of replies if they follow the weaknesses in my arguement. In addition, this has the seeds of a flamewar already planted (by bad wording and a mistake on my part and an intentional attempt by someone else). So, good match. I hope to argue again, preferably with me more prepared and not grabbing onto straws as my carefully-built arguement falls apart around me quickly.
Darklion 03-08-04, 08:07 PM	Edit: Now that's odd. I seem to have lost an hour. But how?Alien abduction, maybe. Do you feel "probed"? ;)
NestroEmichae 03-08-04, 08:09 PM	Originally posted by Darklion Alien abduction, maybe. Do you feel "probed"? ;) Nah. I'm temporally unstable. Just last week I had to explain to Cleopatra what I was doing in her bedroom. ;)