D&D 5E Psionics in Tasha

[Minigiant]

Okay, I think I'm tracking you with these last two. You're saying some kind of story of how magic works has to exist in order for the ruleset for magic to work or make sense? I don't agree. I don't bother to explain how magic works in my games and it seems to go just fine. Anytime you can swap in different things and nothing else changes it's a good sign that that thing isn't important to the overall operation. It might do something else, like tell a story you like, but it's not essential to the ruleset.

Like I said several times.
You do not need to use an interface to explain the connection of magic and spells. You don't have to explain anything.

But if you don't explain things, you can't explain thing nor enter discussion about explanations. if someone says "it doesnt make sense" and you lack explanations, you can't display how it makes sense.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Like I said several times.
You do not need to use an interface to explain the connection of magic and spells. You don't have to explain anything.

But if you don't explain things, you can't explain thing nor enter discussion about explanations. if someone says "it doesnt make sense" and you lack explanations, you can't display how it makes sense.

I'm sorry, I've lost the thread. What is your overall point? I mean, this one is trivially untrue -- I've entered this discussion on explanations to say that an explanation isn't necessary, so, yes, I can. I can argue that point, so clearly I can be in that discussion.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm sorry, I've lost the thread. What is your overall point? I mean, this one is trivially untrue -- I've entered this discussion on explanations to say that an explanation isn't necessary, so, yes, I can. I can argue that point, so clearly I can be in that discussion.

That psionics does not use the same interface as spellcasters and should not use spells.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That psionics does not use the same interface as spellcasters and should not use spells.

Right, so, if I understand, what you're saying is that needs to be some explanation for how magic works, which you call, confusingly, an "interface." This "interface" also includes all of the common game rules for magic. So, therefore, psionics cannot use those same game rules because then it also inherits the "interface." If, say, the "interface" is "True Names," then this makes for an incongruity because then psionics uses True Names.

I gotta say, that's a shaky tower. There's a number of legs that can be kicked out of that. The most obvious is to leverage your already admitted statement that it doesn't matter what the "interface" is, it just has to exist (dubious in itself, but for argument's sake I'm working with it). Why can you not, then, have multiple "interfaces" for the same set of game rules. If I can swap them outright and nothing changes, then I can also work in multiples because nothing mechanically rests on the "interface," it's a storytelling tool only. So, then, I can have magic using True Names, or the Weave, or whatever and have psionics use some other "interface" but the same game rules.

 

[Shardstone]

Why even argue with Mini, man. Not a single thing he has said has basis in any fact.

Throughout the game, there is language like "spells or magical effects." Magical effects means their magic. The dragon's breath weapon is considered magical. Crawford has said this before in one of the youtube videos before, though I can't recall which one atm. Without a doubt, not a thing Mini has said holds even an ounce of validity in regards to this discussion because it is the definition of fake news.

 

[Maxperson]

Seriously, this is like playing whack-a-mole. Features of 2nd edition psionics are not the same thing as features of psionics from D&D day one. The interaction of spells and psionics was entirely undefined prior to 2nd edition, in part because psionic powers were basically rare and minor extras bolted on to characters who could participate in psionic combat, which was the heart and soul of 0e/1e psionics (which were born as a counter to 0e mind flayers). So it was entirely a matter of table call whether or not, say, anti-magic shell would block psionic powers.

And Gygax didn't create D&D psionics. Tim Kask, editor of Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry, created D&D psionics.

While the interactions may not have been defined prior to 2e, Psionics was not magic in 1e. They were explicitly powers that only resembled magic, which means that they were not actual magic, but rather the powers of the mind described.

 

[Maxperson]

So, you can explain how the Succubus's Charm ability isn't magic? How about a Beholder's Eye Rays?

Sure! Just as soon as you explain how a wizard doesn't cast spells, and cows don't have 4 legs.

And when you do, I'll point out how the existence of magic that is similar to something psionics can accomplish doesn't in any way mean that psionics is magic.

So, the real thing you seem to be interested in then, is removing counter play. You want a set of abilities that cannot be countered or dispelled within the current framework.

At least wait a few pages before you accuse someone of something they specifically said that they weren't doing. I mean, what did you think I was saying when I said, " For the record, I personally don't care if they do make it magic, so long as they don't try to make the powers into spells and/or have components be necessary."?

Because that is a difference you are adding. Nothing about Psionics would require us to say that it isn't fully compatible with magic. But, you want the ability to avoid being dispelled. To avoid being countered. To scy through a guards and wards set up. To read the mind of a person under Mind Blank.

Nope! That's the difference that I'm explaining. I don't care if it's magic or not.

Do I actually believe that I found a magical spell called Levitation, which levitates an object or person, therefore making "levitating something" a magical spell in the game? Yes. I can even post a link to the DnD Beyond page of it.

I don't really care. It's entirely irrelevant as to whether psionic levitation is magic or not.

 

[cbwjm]

Who said weave?

I said 5e has an assumption of a shared interface.
Because 5e no longer seperates spells by classes and type. They are just spells and every class interfaces with spells in a universa lsense.
Scrolls
Spellbooks
Domains
Multiclassing
Flexible casting
Divine smite/Primeval Awareness
Spell granting feats

It's just spells and slots. Everyone uses them.and interfaces with them somewhere down the line.
Blame 5e for making the game more user friendly, less restrictive, and easier to learn.

I thought you were talking about the weave because that's what I was talking about.

 

[see]

While the interactions may not have been defined prior to 2e, Psionics was not magic in 1e. They were explicitly powers that only resembled magic, which means that they were not actual magic, but rather the powers of the mind described.

That's an incredible amount of exegetical weight to put on one word in an introductory paragraph.

The obvious counterargument would be to bring up cases like

"This discipline is the same as the magic-user spell, clairaudience (q.v.), except that unknown areas up to 30' distant can be scanned."
"This discipline is the same as the magic-user spell, clairvoyance (q.v.), except that unknown areas up to 20' distant can be scanned."
"This discipline is very similar to the magic-user spell, teleport (q.v.). The only major difference is that psionic energy points must be expended to use the power. Also, if points above the required 20 are expended, the psionic individual is able to alter the percentage probabilities of mis-teleporting (coming in too low or too high) by 1% per additional psionic strength point expended either to correct low and/or high mis-teleporting."

After all, if it's explicitly the same as a specific magic-user spell with a few explicit exceptions, and none of those exceptions declare that it isn't magic, then the same extends to it also being magic, right?

Or . . . we can all just stop trying to render unintended metaphysical implications out of the body of a dead man's forty-two-year-old text, and accept that prior to 1991's Complete Psionics Handbook, it was undefined whether psionics were magic.

 

[Delazar]

didn't read all 34 pages, so not sure if it was already mentioned, but psionics were in 5e since the very beginning, right there in the MM

"
Innate Spellcasting (Psionics).
The mind flayer's innate spellcasting ability is Intelligence (spell save DC 15). It can innately cast the following spells, requiring no components:

• At will: detect thoughts, levitate
• 1/day each: dominate monster, plane shift (self only)

"
When I saw the UA with the Mystic, I rolled my eyes and thought "so what, now we're going to update all the psionics monsters already published?"

Psionics were always magic in 5e, and always used existing spells. Here's to hope that, when they publish the Psion(icist) class in the Dark Sun book, they insert the "requiring no components" part.