D&D 5E Psionics in Tasha

[SkidAce]

The weave is only one interpretation of the interface.

Like I said.

If Psionics or Primal or Incarnium are spells, then wizards can add them to their books.

Then a cleric can dip into a level of psion and toss their 1st level psionic spell in a 9th level loss.

The new Fey/Shadow feats that let you know any 1st level spell of certain school. ANY SPELL FROM ANY CLASS of those schools.

Coffeelocks.

Youll have to add rules to make the lore start looking screwy and weird.

I might tolerate WotC using the spell format for simplicity, but they wont BE spells.

 

[Minigiant]

I might tolerate WotC using the spell format for simplicity, but they wont BE spells.

We will see if WOTC lets a wizard can scribe id insinuation into his spellbook.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, so let me review real fast.

Beholder Eye Rays are magical. They are not Psionic.

Correct.

"Eye Rays. The beholder shoots three of the following magical eye rays at random..."

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.

Not relevant. Spell like abilities are watermelons and psionics are oranges. It's a False Equivalence to equate spell like abilities to powers(spells).

One of the Beholder's eye rays is... telekinesis. Telekinesis is a Psionic ability.

Not the Beholder version. The behold version is explicitly not psionic. All psionic abilities are marked as such.

But of course, there has to be a difference between magical telekinesis and psionic telekinesis right?

In action? Maybe, maybe not. Psionics and magic can both produce similar results.

Psionic telekinesis can't be dispelled and it would work in an Antimagic zone.

Unless they go the 3e route and make psionics a different kind of magic other than spells. Like...........powers.

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?

Do you even read the monster descriptions? The eye rays are magical per RAW.

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.

You can find no difference between spells and powers(not spells)? You can find no difference between spells(not magical abilities which are a different mechanic) and powers?

The reason you aren't finding any difference is that you are deliberately not looking.

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?

It leaves us with you being factually wrong that psionics cannot be something other than magic. They can be magic or something that isn't magic, but which produces some similar results to magical spells and abilities.

 

[SkidAce]

We will see if WOTC lets a wizard can scribe id insinuation into his spellbook.

Let me clarify....they will not BE spells, regardless of the format WotC chooses to use, in my game.

So no wizard's scribing scrolls or choosing psionic spells/powers at level up.

IF a wizard want to research something similar after experiencing or seeing psionics in action, that might be a possibility. but that then would be a spell (IN MY CAMPAIGN), not a psionic power/"spell".

BL: Format as spells, tolerable...actually spells, not gonna happen for us.

 

[SkidAce]

Of course, I should mention that clerics can only choose spells freely from the PHB, other "cleric" spells must be learned in the story/narrative.

I'm evil like that.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The difference between psionic telekinesis and magical spell telekinesis is that one does not need components regardless of any sorcerer points being used.

 

[Minigiant]

Let me clarify....they will not BE spells, regardless of the format WotC chooses to use, in my game.

So no wizard's scribing scrolls or choosing psionic spells/powers at level up.

IF a wizard want to research something similar after experiencing or seeing psionics in action, that might be a possibility. but that then would be a spell (IN MY CAMPAIGN), not a psionic power/"spell".

BL: Format as spells, tolerable...actually spells, not gonna happen for us.

Same.-
I'm not allowing wizards for choose or scribe psionic spells at my table.
WOTC can EZ mode the flavor out the game if they want with over-permissiveness.
I am not letting them or my players brown the class colors.

 

[Chaosmancer]

We shouldn't be making what is easy.
We should make what is good.
Easy is how we got the 5e Ranger and 5e Sorcerer and the 5e Monk. Copies of the 3e versions.

You miss my point.

It is easy to find Psionic effects already.

So, how are we supposed to take psionic effects that already exist in the spell sub-system, make an entirely new sub-system, and make it feel different enough from magic, while also not unbalancing everything?That is the challenge. How do you make telekinesis different from telekinesis, while insisting that one is a wholly unique and new thing?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correct.

"Eye Rays. The beholder shoots three of the following magical eye rays at random..."

Okay doing good....

Not relevant. Spell like abilities are watermelons and psionics are oranges. It's a False Equivalence to equate spell like abilities to powers(spells).

And crash.

This is Telekinesis. This is a magical ability being cast with no components. One of the core things you have demanded of Psionics. If Spell-Like Abilities aren't like Psionics, what makes them different? It can' be that they are magic, because you said psionics can be magic.

So, it can only be a false equivalence if they are not similiar. And, from your own definitions, I cannot find any reason they are not similar.

Not the Beholder version. The behold version is explicitly not psionic. All psionic abilities are marked as such.

You misunderstood.

Telekinesis is a Psionic ability. If I googled searched it, I would get results about psychic power. It is one of the two most iconic psionic abilities in existence.

The beholder is using Telekinesis. Unless you can provide a reason that it is some other type of ability, (other than saying I'm wrong because I'm wrong) then I don't see where I misstepped here. Sure, the Mindflayers and one or two classically Psionic monsters have the word "psionic" for their spell-like abilities, but in practice they work identically in the game and at the table, It is a keyword that doesn't mean anything, because it does not connect to any rules.

In action? Maybe, maybe not. Psionics and magic can both produce similar results.

Unless they go the 3e route and make psionics a different kind of magic other than spells. Like...........powers.

Do you even read the monster descriptions? The eye rays are magical per RAW.

Do you even read your own posts? You are the one who said that Psionics can be magical.

So magical eye rays does not prevent them from also being Psionic eye rays, because psionics can be magical.

And, in fact, they can produce the same results, look the exact same, and use the same rules (since spell-like abilities, Psionic Spell-Like Abilites and Spells are all using the same block of rules [Yes, Max, I am aware that spell-like abilities do not have components, that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to Wall of Fire being Wall of Fire, no matter how it is cast. Which would mean that Telepathy is Telepathy, whether you are using Psionics or Spells.])

You can find no difference between spells and powers(not spells)? You can find no difference between spells(not magical abilities which are a different mechanic) and powers?

The reason you aren't finding any difference is that you are deliberately not looking.

Well, Powers don't exist. There is no 5e mechanic labeled "Powers" for me to look at. So no, looking in 5e I can find no differencem except that one exists and the other one doesn't.

And, by your own admission.

Both are magical.
Both would be effected the same by Anti-Magic, Dispel, and Counterspell.
Both would create the same effects.


The only possible difference is that one uses components and the other doesn't. But, Spell-Like Abilities are not Powers according to you, even though Spell-Like Abilities do not use components. Meaning that I've gone down the list, and they are the exact same as existing mechanics, with no difference except you saying they are different.

That is putting tap water in two different jugs, and selling one as Fiji and the other as Dasani. They are the same water, from the same source. But, you seem to be calling for exactly that, because it is always different, even when it isn't.

 

[Minigiant]

You miss my point.

It is easy to find Psionic effects already.

So, how are we supposed to take psionic effects that already exist in the spell sub-system, make an entirely new sub-system, and make it feel different enough from magic, while also not unbalancing everything?That is the challenge. How do you make telekinesis different from telekinesis, while insisting that one is a wholly unique and new thing?

It's actually really easy.
5e has tier assumptions of effects and damage. Just match those.
The problem is that WOTC screwed it up when they did it (the mystic) and spoiled the whole process.

It's like saying that designing a good Ranger class most of the community would like is impossible. Hell, the 5e Ranger has most of the elements for a good skeleton in it.

 

[EscherEnigma]

"Eye Rays. The beholder shoots three of the following magical eye rays at random...Beholder version. The behold version is explicitly not psionic. All psionic abilities are marked as such.

So the only difference that matters is whether it's got the psionics tag? That brings us right back to it being a fluff distinction, not a mechanics/rules distinction.

You know, I started in this thread saying we did still need a dedicated psion class. But y'all are talking me out of it, cause I don't share your need for a unique system, and I'm plenty good at re-flavoring.