Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!
To begin, here psionics shall be used to refer to the application of psi and not radionics. With that out of the way some view psionics and magick to be the same thing, others view them to be subsets of the other and still there are those who view them to be different. I am not here to change your opinion (and nor will you change mine) so with that said what are your takes on Psionics vs Magick? Do you view them to be the same thing, similar, different, etc? Do you view one of them to be inferior or about the same? Would you say that anyone can do either one or perhaps one or both of them have specific requirements for their use?
Please comment down below your opinions on the matter of Psionics vs Magick and thank you for your contributions.
Note*
I would've liked to have included a poll but I wasn't sure how to go about doing this so here we are instead I guess.
I view psionics, sans radionics, as "basically empty hand magick". The longer one practices, the need for tools lessens, this does not mean that I "discount" tools!
They are pretty much the same thing to me. Only the approach differs. And sometimes even that doesn't differ at all.
But the both work with both seen and unseen reality and causing changes. Not really a difference.
vs - Versus basically means in opposition so there can't be a vs (at least not in my perspective) as I am able to regard magic as a form of advanced technology same as psionics ... and I do subscribe to @Robert Ramsay idea ... "they are different approaches to the same thing" ... I'm 44 yo and practice my own form of magic because it works for me and I came to realisation that there's one single energy, one single source which is filtered through all sorts of concepts, all sorts of ideologies, all sorts of frameworks, beliefs, belief systems... but there's only One energy... and I will refrain from attaching a label to it.
vs - Versus basically means in opposition so there can't be a vs (at least not in my perspective) as I am able to regard magic as a form of advanced technology same as psionics ... and I do subscribe to @Robert Ramsay idea ... "they are different approaches to the same thing" ... I'm 44 yo and practice my own form of magic because it works for me and I came to realisation that there's one single energy, one single source which is filtered through all sorts of concepts, all sorts of ideologies, all sorts of frameworks, beliefs, belief systems... but there's only One energy... and I will refrain from attaching a label to it.
I mean, in my opinion, psychism is magic. I feel that it is a necessary skill to build when studying any tradition or system of magic. I also think it is an important part of executing rituals and spells more efficiently.
"Psionics" = "energy work" = "wandless magic(k)". With the caveat that someone coming from the "psionics" camp could certainly be using tools to enhance, channel, and accumulate energy.
"Psionics" is a word that comes from a mid-20c technocratic view, and may be said by people trying to get grants to study things that are commonly held to be in the domain of "magic" or "superstition" by the materialistic, mechanistic worldview. It shows up a lot in sci-fi from the 1950s-1980s too; it fell sharply out of favor in that field and there's a ton of people who only want to read hard sci-fi!!!! who will scoff when it shows up in older books and say it makes the whole thing instantly fantasy!!, which they sneer at.
Digging up various editions of AD&D and comparing the rules for psionics with the rules for magic-users feels like an interesting way to look at pop-culture views of psionics vs. magic from the seventies on. They're apparently still around in the 5th edition of the rules!
Digging up various editions of AD&D and comparing the rules for psionics with the rules for magic-users feels like an interesting way to look at pop-culture views of psionics vs. magic from the seventies on. They're apparently still around in the 5th edition of the rules!
I remember that the chances of getting psionics on your character were so small that if anyone rolled 100 on 2d10 at any time, for any reason, someone would inevitably say "There go your psionics for the next 100 years"
"Psionics" = "energy work" = "wandless magic(k)". With the caveat that someone coming from the "psionics" camp could certainly be using tools to enhance, channel, and accumulate energy.
"Psionics" is a word that comes from a mid-20c technocratic view, and may be said by people trying to get grants to study things that are commonly held to be in the domain of "magic" or "superstition" by the materialistic, mechanistic worldview. It shows up a lot in sci-fi from the 1950s-1980s too; it fell sharply out of favor in that field and there's a ton of people who only want to read hard sci-fi!!!! who will scoff when it shows up in older books and say it makes the whole thing instantly fantasy!!, which they sneer at.
Digging up various editions of AD&D and comparing the rules for psionics with the rules for magic-users feels like an interesting way to look at pop-culture views of psionics vs. magic from the seventies on. They're apparently still around in the 5th edition of the rules!
Speaking of D&D, does anyone else find it strange how despite being described as having innate magical powers, sorcerers still have to use material components or at least an arcane focus? If you asked me, this makes no sense on a thematic level. Yes, I get it's for balancing purposes but the way I hear people justify this is by saying the sorcerer just knows how to cast spells, they don't need to study them like wizards do.
That's not innate magical power. That's just innate knowledge. In that case you might as well describe sorcerers as a version of wizards who have an instinct for how magic operates or if not completely then at least on the basic level.
sigh
The best explanation I've heard so far is that it's not a matter of them strictly needing those material components. The ingredients and foci are not for initiating power but for channeling control. It's to prevent the spell from horribly blowing up in their face, an issue of control and safety if you will. At least this explanation makes more sense and would justify why despite having innate magical powers, most sorcerers would still use material components and arcane focuses even if based on their lore description they really shouldn't require them but no. Hardly anyone ever uses this justification and say it's based off of RAW or their version RAI.
At least the psion doesn't have to use any material components or focuses or any components at all for that matter. I've heard some people describe them as basically sorcerers who actually have innate magical powers and operate as such without arbitrarily requiring components, especially the material ones.
"Psionics" = "energy work" = "wandless magic(k)". With the caveat that someone coming from the "psionics" camp could certainly be using tools to enhance, channel, and accumulate energy.
"Psionics" is a word that comes from a mid-20c technocratic view, and may be said by people trying to get grants to study things that are commonly held to be in the domain of "magic" or "superstition" by the materialistic, mechanistic worldview. It shows up a lot in sci-fi from the 1950s-1980s too; it fell sharply out of favor in that field and there's a ton of people who only want to read hard sci-fi!!!! who will scoff when it shows up in older books and say it makes the whole thing instantly fantasy!!, which they sneer at.
Digging up various editions of AD&D and comparing the rules for psionics with the rules for magic-users feels like an interesting way to look at pop-culture views of psionics vs. magic from the seventies on. They're apparently still around in the 5th edition of the rules!
Speaking of D&D, does anyone else find it strange how despite being described as having innate magical powers, sorcerers still have to use material components or at least an arcane focus? If you asked me, this makes no sense on a thematic level. Yes, I get it's for balancing purposes but the way I hear people justify this is by saying the sorcerer just knows how to cast spells, they don't need to study them like wizards do.
That's not innate magical power. That's just innate knowledge. In that case you might as well describe sorcerers as a version of wizards who have an instinct for how magic operates or if not completely then at least on the basic level.
sigh
The best explanation I've heard so far is that it's not a matter of them strictly needing those material components. The ingredients and foci are not for initiating power but for channeling control. It's to prevent the spell from horribly blowing up in their face, an issue of control and safety if you will. At least this explanation makes more sense and would justify why despite having innate magical powers, most sorcerers would still use material components and arcane focuses even if based on their lore description they really shouldn't require them but no. Hardly anyone ever uses this justification and say it's based off of RAW or their version RAI.
At least the psion doesn't have to use any material components or focuses or any components at all for that matter. I've heard some people describe them as basically sorcerers who actually have innate magical powers and operate as such without arbitrarily requiring components, especially the material ones.
For me, psionics and magick are closely related but not identical. I tend to see psionics as the direct application of mental energy—focused will, intention, and psychic faculties—to produce an effect, whereas magick often incorporates symbolic, ritual, or structural frameworks to amplify, focus, or direct that energy. In other words, psionics is raw mental power; magick is psionics packaged in a system.
I don’t view either as “inferior”—they’re just different tools. Psionics can be simpler and more adaptable, while magick can be more precise and long-reaching if the practitioner follows a system. Both require discipline and self-knowledge, though magick often has external requirements like ritual space, tools, or correspondences, whereas psionics is usually internal.
I also think anyone can learn either, but natural affinity, personality, and mental focus influence which path is easier to develop. Some people are naturally adept at visualizing and manipulating energy (psionics), while others thrive in symbolic and ceremonial structures (magick).
Ultimately, they’re two sides of the same coin: intention and will shaping reality.
