D&D 5E Psionics in Tasha

[Aldarc]

The things shared come from official books.

The argument wouldn't be that the lore isn't canon, it would be that the lore is inconsistent, retconned, or has unreliable authors.

You argue which books are right not not that they don't exist.

The page numbers you cited certainly come from official books, but the texts on those pages don't always say what you think that they say.

 

[Mercurius]

Haven't read the thread or followed Psionicsgate closely, but it really seems like there's no point in adding--and calling it--"psionics" if it is just more spells, albeit of a psychic nature. Why not just add psychic-flavored spells to wizards or, better yet, sorcerers?

On the other hand, a multi-faceted approached could be taken, each as rules options:

*A "mind mage" wizard and/or sorcerer sub-class (this is the easy but blandest route they seem to be taking with Tasha's).
*A "mystic" or psion new class, with an entirely different sub-system that makes psionics feel and play differently.
*A AD&D style sub-system in which PCs of any and all classes can have "psychic abilities."

So there you have it: mind mage, mystic/psion, and psychic abilities. Best of all worlds, and all optional.

I am honestly baffled why it has been so hard for WotC to figure this out. These folks do game design as a full-time vocation. I know you can't please everyone all of the time, but there does seem to be general consensus that psionics should look and feel differently than other forms of supernatural power. To quote the Great French One, "Make It So."

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Usually clerics of religions without gods can't cast spells.
But they can get around it via bastardized Truenaming.

5e Citation really and truly needed here. It is fine to have your own theories and opinions, but since you're trying to claim this as fact across the 5e system, you need to back it up.

The holes are filled by lore and text commonly shared by the community.

Deities grant cleric magic.
Wizards use complex rituals, gestures, and words to activate their magic.
Wizards don't need to speak the language of wizards they copy spells from so the language of wizards is universal.
Power Word Kill

I really think that you are getting mixed up in your personal definitions and some confusion between "magic" and "spells".
Spells are magic, but not all magic is spells.

Most monks for example do not cast spells. Yet all monks are magical. They harness the power of their mind and soul to enhance their body. It is entirely possible that ki is closer to psionic power than it is to casting spells, but it is still magic.

 

[Gladius Legis]

4e is ready to ruin your day. From PHB 3 flavor text on the Psionic Power Source:

Well, 4e ruined a ton of decades-old lore, so citing it doesn't exactly sway me on the matter.

 

[Minigiant]

5e Citation really and truly needed here. It is fine to have your own theories and opinions, but since you're trying to claim this as fact across the 5e system, you need to back it up.

The only thing I claimed is fact is that spells all use the same interface.

True name is one intepetation of the interface. The Weave is another. The Strands of Magic is another.
I like True Names.

I really think that you are getting mixed up in your personal definitions and some confusion between "magic" and "spells".
Spells are magic, but not all magic is spells.

I know this. That's my whole argument.
Not all magic and supernatural effects are spells.

Most monks for example do not cast spells. Yet all monks are magical. They harness the power of their mind and soul to enhance their body. It is entirely possible that ki is closer to psionic power than it is to casting spells, but it is still magic.

My theory is that monk subtly alter their own true names via meditation, adding their supernatural abilities to core selves via ki.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Minigiant the stuff you talk about is fluff and might very well massively vary from setting to setting and your interpretation seems to have a liberal dose of headcanon in it. Which is fine, but it is unreasonable to except WotC design their mechanics based on your headcanon. It is actually better if they leave some things open to interpenetration so that people can use their preferred fluff.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, 4e ruined a ton of decades-old lore, so citing it doesn't exactly sway me on the matter.

I don't care how you feel about 4e. Your assertion was still wrong.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I read here that Psionics began as a system for psionic combat. In other words, psionics = weaponizing the mind. I went back and read the stuff from AD&D (1/2E) and understand a bit better now.

This sounds bloody cool (despite the terribly janky mechanics) and a SUPER easy way to make a Psion out of this. Hello??? A class dedicated to using the mind to tear people apart is a DOPE idea, and each subclass could easily capture another "method" as people see it.

You could have your "Champion" esque Psion subclass that relies on, IDK, spells or something basic.

You could have your "Battlemaster" esque Psion who has a bunch of different psi point powers she invests in to naughty word things up with her mind.

Etc etc.

I like where this is going and see some potential.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I don't care how you feel about 4e. Your assertion was still wrong.

It was right up until the edition that ruined all that lore.

 

[Samloyal23]

Wasn't the psionic combat system some awful mess? Like a five-way game of scissors-paper-stone where you only know a couple of the shapes and you can't start the rest of the combat until you've played ten rounds of this?

Do you believe that having that would be a good idea?

Telepathic combat was a multi-level strategic game-within-a-game. Add psionic harbingers and constructs from The Will & The Way and you have a wide range of options. I always looked forward to a mental battle.