D&D 5E Psionics in Tasha

[Chaosmancer]

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.

 

[Minigiant]

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

Spells is a type of magic.
In FR, a dragons breath is magic. But it is not a spell so it does not use the interface.
When the dragon uses her sorcerer powers, those are spells and that's uses the weave.
If it is a psionic dragon, when she uses her mindblast it is magic but..

...In 1e, 2e,3e, and 4e it is not a spell and doesn't use the interface.
...In 5e, it is a spell and does use the interface.

Get it.

 

[EscherEnigma]

If the only difference between a "psionic" telekinesis and a "magical" telekinesis is whether or not the sorcerer used a spell point to make it subtle, I think that puts us back in the "a sorcerer with careful spell selection and the subtle metamagic is a psion" territory.

Heck, if you're okay saying "for the really difficult tricks, I need to use this specially prepared crystal to focus my mental energies", then you can even do spells with material components. And when you're out of sorcery points (which will cover at least half your spells/day at all levels)? "Look, if I wasn't tired, I could just think at them, but I'm tired, so I'm mumbling mantras and putting my hand up to my forehead like Jean Grey".

I mean, thinking of comic-book psionics, a whole mess of 'em both shout out things when they're doing their mind-witchery and make various hand gestures... sure, that's because a character standing their stoically and not saying a word is far less interesting on a comic book page, but still.

 

[Vael]

Out of curiousity, which edition of DnD, or another RPG that has both Magic and Psionics, do people find very successful? From both a flavor and mechanics standpoint?

 

[Maxperson]

Out of curiousity, which edition of DnD, or another RPG that has both Magic and Psionics, do people find very successful? From both a flavor and mechanics standpoint?

For me, 3e. It made psionics magic, but retained the most important differences that kept psionics from being spells.

 

[Eric V]

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.

Should the druid, cleric, sorcerer, wizard, monk, and/or paladin find themselves without implements (in prison, or just escaped, let's say) they can ALL use the same piece of straight iron to cast hold person. Nature demands a piece of iron. So does your god. Your internal power needs the piece of iron to manifest this way. The iron is also part of the formula you learned in class, and is what your friend's meditation leads him to use, and is necessary no matter how devoted to her ideals your other friend is.

WHY, in the narrative, would all these different sources of power use the same material component, if it didn't involve some form of interface?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Out of curiousity, which edition of DnD, or another RPG that has both Magic and Psionics, do people find very successful? From both a flavor and mechanics standpoint?

Rolemaster has/had its not-physically possible character divided into three different categories that correspond to the D&D tropes of divine, arcane, and mentalist. They specifically go out of their way to say that mentalism isn't "psionics" however the rules backing up the different styles leans towards making it feel that way. For example the equivalent of a wizard in Rolemaster can't wear armor at all because in-universe reasons that it would interfere with spellcasting, whereas their equivalent of a psion can wear any armor but no helmets for different in-universe reasons. It makes the three prongs of "magic" feel different from each other.

Torg has arcane, divine, and psionic using characters and in that system they are completely different systems from each other. In fact, because of the nature of different characters coming from different "realities", each of the 8 different worlds a character might come from have a different amount of native spiritual, arcane, or psionic potential such that a character from Core Earth (our world) can learn how to cast a fireball but will be at a disadvantage when doing so unlike a character from Aysle (the D&Dish world) where a higher Magic Axiom supports spellcasting.

 

[EscherEnigma]

WHY, in the narrative, would all these different sources of power use the same material component, if it didn't involve some form of interface?

Ah, that's the problem.

You're looking for an in-story narrative explanation for an out-of-story joke.

Fireball's don't need guano because of narrative, they need it because it's a reference to gunpowder, and that amused Gygax. And so-on.

So yeah, when you go fishing for a narrative explanation, you're probably going to get a tortured post-hoc justification that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Eric V]

Ah, that's the problem.

You're looking for an in-story narrative explanation for an out-of-story joke.

Fireball's don't need guano because of narrative, they need it because it's a reference to gunpowder, and that amused Gygax. And so-on.

So yeah, when you go fishing for a narrative explanation, you're probably going to get a tortured post-hoc justification that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Are you saying that's how it is for all material components? In 5e?!

 

[Minigiant]

Ah, that's the problem.

You're looking for an in-story narrative explanation for an out-of-story joke.

Fireball's don't need guano because of narrative, they need it because it's a reference to gunpowder, and that amused Gygax. And so-on.

So yeah, when you go fishing for a narrative explanation, you're probably going to get a tortured post-hoc justification that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

The point is not that it's bat guano.

It's that the priest of the sun god, the royal abjurer, and the evil warlock of Asmodues all use bat guano.