Chaosmancer
Legend
Page 201 of the PHB.
Mearls and Crawford added an interface to make sense of their rules changes in 5e. Don't like it, ignore it. But that's the fundamentals on how they make sense of spells, classes, and subclasses.
And now we are back at the beginning of the circle.
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.
Okay, wait, what?
You do not need to use an interface (the weave being one example of a type of interface) to explain why magic works, but if you don't use an interface then you can't explain why magic works the same for everyone... even though you can by simply saying that is how mortals interact with magic.
Because now if someone says "that doesn't make sense" you shrug and say "this is how the Weave works" but if you take out the weave you... just shrug and say "this is how Magic works"... which is the exact same answer, but somehow saying "The Weave" is an explanation but saying "Magic" isn't? Because the Weave is the interface for magic?
I feel like a cartoon of Goofy, twisted into a knot as I point in every direction at once. How does any of this make sense?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Okay, so let me review real fast.
Beholder Eye Rays are magical. They are not Psionic.
Beholder eye rays do not use any components, no verbal, somatic, or material. (according to you) Psionic abilities do not use any components, no verbal, somatic, or material.
One of the Beholder's eye rays is... telekinesis. Telekinesis is a Psionic ability.
But of course, there has to be a difference between magical telekinesis and psionic telekinesis right? Let us go back over your points. No components? Nope, they both have that. Which leaves.... Psionic telekinesis can't be dispelled and it would work in an Antimagic zone.
But wait, if we look down to your next quotes...
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."?
Nope! That's the difference that I'm explaining. I don't care if it's magic or not.
I don't really care. It's entirely irrelevant as to whether psionic levitation is magic or not.
huh, so Psionics can be magic. It can be affected by dispel magic and anti-magic zones.
So, now I am at a loss. You claimed that a Beholder's eye beams being magical was as obvious as a cow having four legs. But, one of those beam being a classic psionic ability, and not requiring any components... wouldn't that make the Beholder's Eye Beam Psionic?
I mean, there is no difference I can find between your required definitions of Psionics, and this ability you said was clearly and unquestionably magical in nature.
And of course, a wizard can use the exact same ability as the Beholder, they simply need some components.... so, if they are doing the exact same thing, and the way one of them does it is indistinguishable from Psionics... where does that leave us?
Counting Cow legs I suppose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's probably wiser to let him do it; I don't want to put words in his mouth.
IF I have understood him correctly, he's saying all classes use an interface to use magic. The scroll-writing ability of wizards is a mechanical manifestation of this (in that they can transcribe priest spells into their spellbooks if the spell is also on the ever-growing wizard spell list). For myself, I see the interface in the exact same use of material components for spells, regardless of power source (for lack of a better term); the example I gave earlier is the cleric through faith, the druid through connection to nature, the paladin through devotion, the monk through meditation, the sorcerer through innate power, and the wizard through study...all need the same straight piece of iron to cast hold person. Why should nature demand the use of iron? Your god? How does the iron work with your devotion? Who knows? But it's required.
Now, do most people handwave material components? It seems so. Do most people not bother explaining the interface (though it's right there on page 205 "Instead, they make use of a fabric of magic, a kind of interface between the will of the spellcaster and the raw stuff of magic.")? It seems so as well.
To say it's not in the rules though...no. It is. Even if it's a commonly ignored rule.
I may not be doing his argument justice, however.
I just want to pop out that example and say that you are only partially right.
You need a piece of iron... or a Druidic Totem, A Diety's symbol on an Amulet, A crystal, a Wooden Staff, A Diety's Symbol engraved on a Shield, A staff that does not need to be made of wood,. A sprig of Misteltoe, A reliquary with a fragment of a sacred object, an orb, a Yew Wand, a wand that does not have to be made from yew, or a Rod.
All of that... seems like it makes magic incredibly permissive, since those items replace 95% of all material components for the entire magical system.