Unearthed Arcana Why UA Psionics are never going to work in 5e.

[dave2008]

You are 100% correct. There is still a way to turn off the "background magic" via anti-magic which still allows Ki powers to work in the field so my larger point stands, although should be amended to change "The Weave" to "Background magic accessed by the weave".

Actually, in 5e anti-magic doesn't work on background magic, if I remember correctly. A dragon can still breath fire and fly in an anti-magic field in 5e (if I remember correctly)

EDIT: From page 18 of the Sage Advice Compendium:
"Our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:

1. The background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
2. The concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect

In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type. Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:

• Is it a magic item?
• Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
• Is it a spell attack?
• Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
• Does its description say it’s magical?

If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.

Let’s look at a white dragon’s Cold Breath and ask ourselves those questions. First, Cold Breath isn’t a magic item. Second, its description mentions no spell. Third, it’s not a spell attack. Fourth, the word “magical” appears nowhere in its description. Our conclusion: Cold Breath is not considered a magical game effect, even though we know that dragons are amazing, supernatural beings."

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Then how do you explain why a wizard who has learned fireball still has to decipher a new version of it if he finds another spellbook?


So are you saying that there is a core that remains constant, but other schools add mumbo jumbo fluff that doesn't matter?

Speaking a regarding my Eberron game:
There is more than one way of achieving the same result. Many wizards have different traditions of applying the same base principles, and even more different methods of notation to describe them.
However anyone with a solid grounding in the base theory (Arcana) has a chance of working out what effect (spell) someone is trying to create based on their words and gestures.

I'd also say that two practitioners of the same tradition, particularly Elves, would find it much easier to understand each other's notation etc.

I'm glad to see an interesting discussion other than just a blanket argument on whether or not there should be 5e psionics.

My attempt to lay out...

Why I think that in fiction the term "Psionics" and "Magic" are generally interchangeable but then I disagree with myself and will go on to say that in Dungeons & Dragons psionics should exist and should be unrelated to Magic.

In the Forgotten Realms it is established that there is a "thing" called The Weave. It can be destroyed, it can be built, it can be altered, and for some characters it can be interacted with. A 5th edition character in 5e might interact with the Weave by casting spells, having a magic item, using a scroll, using a spell-like power, or many of probably hundreds of different items and abilities. If, in 5e Forgotten Realms something is "magic" then it works via using The Weave as its method of making changes on the plane. Arcane spells use it, powers granted by gods use it, if you think "Primal" is a source then even Nature itself uses it (midichlorians???).

In 5e there is also, clearly, the ability to make changes on the plane in a purely physical manner. You can chop down a tree or punch someone in the face and knock them out. There is an expected level to what you can accomplish (you can jump 10 feet but not 40 miles) based on a level of science that roughly equals our own world. In the REAL WORLD giants can't exist because reasons (I want to say oxygen levels in the atmosphere and inability to exchange gasses, but i'm not quoting it because its not important to the conversation) however there are plenty of giants in the Forgotten Realms. This isn't because The Weave is required for giants to live, but because the laws of science in the FR are not our real world laws.

So the question conceptually about psionics is.....can there be another force in the Forgotten Realms that allows work to be done on the plane, but that isn't The Weave or physical actions? If you believe that "Psionics is different" then you are saying yes, there is this totally different way that this can be done, and it doesn't use the weave. I frequently hear people say that the idea of disentangling something from magic (The Weave) is just a powergame move, but in actuality there is already a core class that does this "affect the world in a way that uses some other power than The Weave to let me do something that breaks physical laws of the Forgotten Realms as we know it, and that class is the Monk.

The Monk uses "Ki", a resource that is not explained in detail as to how it works to do things like attack faster, use telepathy, avoid negative effects, and stun enemies and yet not one of those powers uses "The Weave" nor can they be stopped by a counterspell or anti-magic field. The monk can even use this nonmagical (but non-mundane) "Ki" energy to affect The Weave and cast spells if they take the correct path to do so.

I like the idea of there being more to the world than just "Magic" and I like to think of Magic as being synonymous with "The Weave". I like to think that some characters have power sources other than magic, and I like to think that all the different sources CAN interact with each other but don't necessarily HAVE TO interact with each other.

Note that while Monks' interaction with the weave is not detailed, Ki and Monk abilities are specified as magical.
I would view them as similar to a magical creature or construct: the magic is part of them and cannot be dispelled or suppressed by antimagic effects. It is still detailed as magic however, in a way that a giant's ability to live and move on a world with earthlike gravity isn't.

 

[dave2008]

nevermind

 

[Chaosmancer]

Actually, in 5e anti-magic doesn't work on background magic, if I remember correctly. A dragon can still breath fire and fly in an anti-magic field in 5e (if I remember correctly)

EDIT: From page 18 of the Sage Advice Compendium:
"Our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:

1. The background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
2. The concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect

In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type. Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:

• Is it a magic item?
• Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
• Is it a spell attack?
• Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
• Does its description say it’s magical?

If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.

Let’s look at a white dragon’s Cold Breath and ask ourselves those questions. First, Cold Breath isn’t a magic item. Second, its description mentions no spell. Third, it’s not a spell attack. Fourth, the word “magical” appears nowhere in its description. Our conclusion: Cold Breath is not considered a magical game effect, even though we know that dragons are amazing, supernatural beings."

In addition to this @Sabathius42 the sidebar in the PHB has this line "Raw magic is the stuff of creation, the mute and mindless will of existence, permeating every bit of matter and present in every manifestation of energy throughout the multiverse. "

If we take this to be literal, then magic exists in the kinetic energy of swinging an axe to chop down a tree, or in the electrical energy needed for your heart to beat or your brain to function.

This makes "psionics are foreign to magic" mean they would have to be foreign to existence itself, which just does not work on many levels (unless you count Far Realms and make it solely based there, except even the Far Realms uses magic)

 

[Hussar]

Great post, but I think this is exactly what I mean

Psionics evokes the feel of science. It sounds like a science term, because it uses similiar language to science terms.

But, it is still just magic with a science coat of paint. In fact, I doubt you could find Psionics in a purely "Hard Sci-fi" setting, because we don't have the science to explain how it could really work.

You can create hard rules for it, just like you can have a hard magic system, but Psionics itself is not hard science (using literary terms)

Of course you won't find psionics in a purely "Hard SF" setting. That's the point of psionics. Psionics is how SF writers get away with adding magic to an SF setting. That's what psionics IS. I believe, sir, that you finally have gotten the point. That psionics is just magic. It's the same thing, just given a funny set of glasses and a mustache so we can have magic in an otherwise SF setting.

-----

And, just to go back to my point about morality tales vs ethics. It's not a black and white vs shades of grey thing at all. Lord of the Rings has tons of shades of grey, but, it's still solidly fantasy. As is A Song of Fire and Ice for that matter. But, the point about both stories, and most fantasy, is that you HAVE good and evil. It might be evil and evil. It might be good and good. But, the point is, there is still definite moral sides and the story, when you boil it right down, is an examination of morality - what does it mean to be good?

In SF, moral questions are often (although not always of course) less about good and evil and a lot more about what does it mean to be human? Terminator was mentioned. Man vs Machine - and in the expanded movies and TV stories, the questions of what does it mean to have free will in the face of predestination takes the foreground. What does it mean to be human is a major question in many SF stories - Spock, Data, AI, etc. It's less about good and evil and more about political and social questions and commentary. Whether you're talking modern SF stories, or going all the way back to Frankenstein or War of the Worlds.

Is there overlap in genre? Oh of course. Genre is porous. It's Venn diagram with tons of overlap. We can only define genre by the centers, not the edges. And there will always be edge cases.

 

[Hussar]

From Terry Pratchett's Discworld:

I would point out that Sir Terry's works are, in fact, satire.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, I agree the genres of "sci-fi" and "fantasy" are different (and sometimes muddled). I just wanted to be clear that IRL, PSI is science fantasy, not just science fiction. Also, IRL people often take Sci-fi to simple be indication of will come to pass, that "science" and technology will get us there. That is not the case with PSI and some other things we associate with sci-fi.

Then those IRL people would be wrong.

Doctor Who is SF. Very, very solidly SF despite being completely bonkers when it comes to science. The Doctor is essentially a wizard with a magic wand, so, it must be fantasy right? But, again, you have to look at the themes of the show. It's rarely just a good vs evil story. It's almost always a story about what it means to be human. "Humans, funny little brains" says the Doctor. It's a theme that's repeated over and over and over again.

The science of Doctor Who is pure bunk. It won't ever come to pass. But, Doctor Who is still very much Science Fiction.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Of course you won't find psionics in a purely "Hard SF" setting. That's the point of psionics. Psionics is how SF writers get away with adding magic to an SF setting. That's what psionics IS. I believe, sir, that you finally have gotten the point. That psionics is just magic. It's the same thing, just given a funny set of glasses and a mustache so we can have magic in an otherwise SF setting.

I've always said that.

And, just to go back to my point about morality tales vs ethics. It's not a black and white vs shades of grey thing at all. Lord of the Rings has tons of shades of grey, but, it's still solidly fantasy. As is A Song of Fire and Ice for that matter. But, the point about both stories, and most fantasy, is that you HAVE good and evil. It might be evil and evil. It might be good and good. But, the point is, there is still definite moral sides and the story, when you boil it right down, is an examination of morality - what does it mean to be good?

In SF, moral questions are often (although not always of course) less about good and evil and a lot more about what does it mean to be human? Terminator was mentioned. Man vs Machine - and in the expanded movies and TV stories, the questions of what does it mean to have free will in the face of predestination takes the foreground. What does it mean to be human is a major question in many SF stories - Spock, Data, AI, etc. It's less about good and evil and more about political and social questions and commentary. Whether you're talking modern SF stories, or going all the way back to Frankenstein or War of the Worlds.

Is there overlap in genre? Oh of course. Genre is porous. It's Venn diagram with tons of overlap. We can only define genre by the centers, not the edges. And there will always be edge cases.

Hmmm, okay. I definitely would not call that a matter of "ethics". There is a better term, but I'm not thinking of it at the moment. Matters of identity maybe?

I think in this matter though, there is more overlap than not. For example, questions of predestination and free will come up quite often with stories involving prophecies, which is a fantasy staple.

I will agree though that Sci-fi much more commonly focuses on social commentary in a more direct way. Though, even Lord of the Rings has a lot of social commentary on World War II, industrialization, and putting forth pastoral life of simple folk as the best way to live life.

But, sci-fi is much more famous for social commentary.

Then those IRL people would be wrong.

Doctor Who is SF. Very, very solidly SF despite being completely bonkers when it comes to science. The Doctor is essentially a wizard with a magic wand, so, it must be fantasy right? But, again, you have to look at the themes of the show. It's rarely just a good vs evil story. It's almost always a story about what it means to be human. "Humans, funny little brains" says the Doctor. It's a theme that's repeated over and over and over again.

The science of Doctor Who is pure bunk. It won't ever come to pass. But, Doctor Who is still very much Science Fiction.

As you said, genres are porus and being about social commentary and what it means to be human is not the sole domain of Science Fiction. Heck, comedy shows are 95% social commentary. And they aren't sci-fi usually.

 

[Hussar]

Well, let's not get too sidetracked here. We're discussing the difference between fantasy and SF, not SF (or spec fiction) vs other genres. And, of course, it gets even more convoluted when you add in humorist and satirical SF and fantasy writers like Pratchett or Douglas Adams or Jonathan Swift.

Yeah, I agree that "ethics" is the wrong word, but, I've never been able to find a better one that isn't the mouthful of "what it means to be human in the face of some fictional change" Because, really, that's generally what separates SF from Fantasy. They share too many tropes for tropes to be a good divisor.

But, even fantasy stories with prophesies generally don't concern themselves overly much with the notion of free will. You usually get the standard, "Why me? Why do I have to be the chosen one" sort of thing, but, rarely do you get, "Well, if prophesies come true, then there is no free will. If there is no free will then morality cannot exist since every decision I make is predestined therefore, I'm going to go on a murder spree and kill myself because, well, that's that the universe wants me to do".

Or, to put it another way, you cannot really tell Flowers for Algernon as a fantasy story any more than you can turn Lord of the Rings into an SF story.

 

[dave2008]

Then those IRL people would be wrong.

Doctor Who is SF. Very, very solidly SF despite being completely bonkers when it comes to science. The Doctor is essentially a wizard with a magic wand, so, it must be fantasy right? But, again, you have to look at the themes of the show. It's rarely just a good vs evil story. It's almost always a story about what it means to be human. "Humans, funny little brains" says the Doctor. It's a theme that's repeated over and over and over again.

The science of Doctor Who is pure bunk. It won't ever come to pass. But, Doctor Who is still very much Science Fiction.

we are not using the terms sci-fi and sci-fantasy in the same way. While the show Doctor Who may be science-fiction, the science in it is science-fantasy. The genre is sci-fi, but the "science" is sci-fantasy. Does that make sense?