D&D 5E Psionics in Tasha

[Maxperson]

1) They were UAs showing ways to use Psionics. Not something dipping into psionic power. They were intended to be Psionics.

The designers have quite literally said that those classes and spells are not psionic classes and spells. They are arcane and use some psionic energy.

2) All of those classes started with the use of components, and some eventually were able to ignore some components for some spells, under specific circumstances. Your position though was that all Psionics never use components, ever.

Yes, they did start with components, because they are NOT psionic classes.

So, again, if you move your goal posts to "sometimes they don't need components" or "high level psionics lose the need for components" then you have a point. But those were not your position.

Refutation of wrong statements is not a moved goal post. Sorry dude.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If you know the rules, and if countermeasures are built into the system, just having a different set of countermeasures to magic and psionics will eventually become second nature. Once you know blocking telepathy blocks psionic invisibility, you will just check off that box in your planning when you suspect a psionic opponent is using that power. We did it in 2E, we can do it in 5E.

"eventually becoming second nature" requires a lot of investment to learn, on top of learning the game itself.

This is not somehow a natural evolution of a gamer, where they will internalize the core system, then the alternate rules, then whatever else. A lot of players only bother with the rules they need, and a lot of DMs would marginalize or completely remove a seperate system that would require their players to ask "is it a magical effect, or a psionic effect, that I need to block?"

DM lives are hard enough, without adding that extra distinction where it is not needed.

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

The designers have quite literally said that those classes and spells are not psionic classes and spells. They are arcane and use some psionic energy.

Yes, they did start with components, because they are NOT psionic classes.

Refutation of wrong statements is not a moved goal post. Sorry dude.

I never saw anything about them not being the take on Psionics for those rules, but frankly it doesn't matter. Even if I was right, and provided evidence, you would refuse to acknowledge it and dig your heels in. Arguing with you is pointless. I shouldn't even have made my post in the first place.

 

[Maxperson]

I never saw anything about them not being the take on Psionics for those rules, but frankly it doesn't matter.

Here's the link.

Jeremy Crawford: We haven’t closed the door on a class like Mystic/Psion

D&D Sage Advice ·

www.sageadvice.eu

And the quote from Jeremy Crawford, "The wizard subclass—Psionics—in the latest Unearthed Arcana is just that: a subclass. It is a wizard who studies psionics in a wizardly way. The name of the subclass is the tradition the wizard is part of. It is not a psionics system."

As you can see, it's a wizard who is just studying psionics and gaining some knowledge of it, it is not a psionic class.

Even if I was right, and provided evidence, you would refuse to acknowledge it and dig your heels in. Arguing with you is pointless. I shouldn't even have made my post in the first place.

But you aren't right, and before I would admit that I'm wrong, you'd have to actually be right. When shown that I'm wrong, I admit it. I have many times here. Also, you don't get to accuse me of refusing to acknowledge evidence when you yourself are doing just that. You've had every bit as long as I have to admit that you are wrong, yet you haven't, which makes this a pot meets kettle moment.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Here's the link.

Jeremy Crawford: We haven’t closed the door on a class like Mystic/Psion

D&D Sage Advice ·

www.sageadvice.eu

And the quote from Jeremy Crawford, "The wizard subclass—Psionics—in the latest Unearthed Arcana is just that: a subclass. It is a wizard who studies psionics in a wizardly way. The name of the subclass is the tradition the wizard is part of. It is not a psionics system."

As you can see, it's a wizard who is just studying psionics and gaining some knowledge of it, it is not a psionic class.


But you aren't right, and before I would admit that I'm wrong, you'd have to actually be right. When shown that I'm wrong, I admit it. I have many times here. Also, you don't get to accuse me of refusing to acknowledge evidence when you yourself are doing just that. You've had every bit as long as I have to admit that you are wrong, yet you haven't, which makes this a pot meets kettle moment.

Max, I have argued with you for most of a year. I have never once seen you admit you are wrong, and you constantly refuse to acknowledge anything except your own evidence.

I will admit I was wrong about the wizard, but let me ask you this question.

How can you use the word of Jeremy Crawford as evidence, when you have, in this very thread, said that the writers and game designers of DnD 5e are wrong about their own statements of the game? According to the other poster, it was Chris Perkins, not Crawford, but you flat out stated that the game designer was wrong about how the game was designed. How then can you simultaneously use the game designer's words to tell us how the game is meant to be played?

I am supposed to disregard their writing in the Monster Manual, when they spoke about Psionics, because they are wrong (ie they disagree with you) but now I am supposed to believe them and follow their words because they are right (ie, they agree with you)



Maybe I am just too tired today to be on forums. Maybe today has just been too draining. But, as I said, I feel like I should have just not made the post in the first place, because whether I was right or not, whether you were right or not, it wouldn't have mattered. It never matters.

 

[Maxperson]

How can you use the word of Jeremy Crawford as evidence, when you have, in this very thread, said that the writers and game designers of DnD 5e are wrong about their own statements of the game? According to the other poster, it was Chris Perkins, not Crawford, but you flat out stated that the game designer was wrong about how the game was designed. How then can you simultaneously use the game designer's words to tell us how the game is meant to be played?

Because the evidence contradicts him. Nothing that I know if is contradicting Crawford here.

I am supposed to disregard their writing in the Monster Manual, when they spoke about Psionics, because they are wrong (ie they disagree with you) but now I am supposed to believe them and follow their words because they are right (ie, they agree with you)

That's up to you. I cant tell you what to believe. I can only present my evidence and argument, which is pretty overwhelmingly on my side here. It's also not the same situation as I pointed out above.

Maybe I am just too tired today to be on forums. Maybe today has just been too draining. But, as I said, I feel like I should have just not made the post in the first place, because whether I was right or not, whether you were right or not, it wouldn't have mattered. It never matters.

We all get tired and cranky. I've been there. Get some rest man.

 

[eayres33]

Do you consider conditions, gods and planes of existence core 5e rules?

It kind of depends on what you meaned by core. Conditions are definitely core as their mechanics are baked into the core mechanics of the game.
Gods and planes are wrapped into spell casting so to an extent they are core but you could change the fluff around them to weaken them in your game.

 

[Samloyal23]

"eventually becoming second nature" requires a lot of investment to learn, on top of learning the game itself.

This is not somehow a natural evolution of a gamer, where they will internalize the core system, then the alternate rules, then whatever else. A lot of players only bother with the rules they need, and a lot of DMs would marginalize or completely remove a seperate system that would require their players to ask "is it a magical effect, or a psionic effect, that I need to block?"

Fans of psionics who expect a more sophisticated set of rules will not be put off by it, and DMs can choose to ignore the distinction if they find it too much to deal with. I have never in my life seen a gaming grew that played by RAW 100% of the time with no modifications or reinterpretations of the rules. Players who want a more strategic system should have the option.

 

[Chaosmancer]

We all get tired and cranky. I've been there. Get some rest man.

Thank you, I've got a lot going on, and it is slightly stressful

Because the evidence contradicts him. Nothing that I know if is contradicting Crawford here.

The evidence only contradicts him if you refuse to acknowledge that there are plenty of arcane abilities that also require no components.

If you do not ignore that, then Psionics having no components is not a unique rule to Psionics, meaning that what he wrote (that the word Psionics does not carry with it any special rules) is still true. If it were not true, then every single example of Arcane magic being cast with no components would instead be psionic abilities.


But, I tried convincing you of this before. So I don't really expect to convince you now. You made up your mind before you even saw the quote from the MM.

 

[Maxperson]

The evidence only contradicts him if you refuse to acknowledge that there are plenty of arcane abilities that also require no components.

That's not true. The evidence contradicts him anyway. Special abilities have never required components. That's a function of them being special abilities. Psionics casting is a separate thing from special abilities. Psionic casting directly equates to normal casting. Those are the apples that you compare, not the oranges of special abilities. When you look at psionic casting in the MM(and other monster books) and in all the UAs where psionics are used, a lack of components is there.

If you do not ignore that, then Psionics having no components is not a unique rule to Psionics, meaning that what he wrote (that the word Psionics does not carry with it any special rules) is still true. If it were not true, then every single example of Arcane magic being cast with no components would instead be psionic abilities.

It doesn't have to be a unique rule to psionics. It just has to be a function of psionics. Breath weapons aren't a unique rule to dragons, but breath weapons are a function of dragons. There might be an exception out there, but the general rule is dragons have breath weapons.

But, I tried convincing you of this before. So I don't really expect to convince you now. You made up your mind before you even saw the quote from the MM.

Because WotC clearly views psionics to be as it has been historically. It's not just the MM psionic casters, but every iteration of psionics in the UA. Even the wizard/sorcerer subclasses that use some psionics do so to remove components(among other things).

Edit: I hope whatever you have going on that is stressful resolves itself soon.

Edit part 2: This is the full quote from the MM. Note the bold part which describes no components as a special function of Psionics.

"A monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind has the psionics tag added to its Spellcasting or Innate Spellcasting special trait. This tag carries no special rules of its own, but other parts of the game might refer to it. A monster that has this tag typically doesn't require any components to cast its spells."

 

[Aldarc]

Fans of psionics who expect a more sophisticated set of rules will not be put off by it, and DMs can choose to ignore the distinction if they find it too much to deal with. I have never in my life seen a gaming grew that played by RAW 100% of the time with no modifications or reinterpretations of the rules. Players who want a more strategic system should have the option.

I think you are underestimating "fans of psionics who don't want a more sophisticated set of rules who would be put off by it." As far as most players are concerned, magic is already the more strategic/tactical system.

I love psionics, but when I look at a lot of my favorite versions of psionics in other games, psionics are using virtually identical subsystems and/or mechanics as the rest of the casters.