D&D 5E 5e has everything it needs for Dark Sun

[Remathilis]

Sooo it can -create- magic, but isn't magic by it's very nature.
...
It ain't magic. It may -interact- with magic. It may even -create- magical effects. But it ain't magic itself.

Isn't that a distinction without difference though? Especially in 5e where most effects are represented by spells anyway. I mean, consider:

A wizard laboriously studies an arcane formula and uses that to... cast burning hands.
A cleric devoutly prays to the God of Light and is rewarded by being able to... cast burning hands.
A warlock enters into a pact with an archdevil who teaches him to use hellfire to... cast burning hands.
An Artificer uses her tools and infusions to create a small flamethrower that allows her to... cast burning hands.
A monk of the four elements focus her ki to bend fire and... cast burning hands.
A psion focuses his inner psychic power of pyrokinesis to... cast burning hands.

Etc etc.

Of course, the mechanics involved differs slightly in each casting. Spell slots, ki points, or invocations, Int/Wis/Cha caster stat, type of magical focuses allowed, etc. But the fact remains they are all using the same spell and all that differs is a few details.

I don't see a psion being that different. If WotC had any stomach for a new "supernatural effect" system, surely the artificer was the place to try it, and the fact that we got "refluffed spells" tells me all I need to know about what a psion class would look like.

It would look like a spell-point sorcerer. With alternate class features and a curated spell list. It would psionically "cast" charm person, burning hands, or whatever. Flavor it how you like, but in the end, it's still going to be a 9 level spellcaster.

 

[Yaarel]

Where are you getting that from?

From the Monster Manual that explicitly says psionics = spells. Likewise, the spell descriptions in Tashas for Psi Knight refer to psionic "spells".

 

[Steampunkette]

LOL This has all been a misunderstanding, then. When I talked about the Psion slots working to use Wizard spells and vise versa, that's the same kind of transparency interaction. It doesn't alter what psionics and magic are, but it allows them to interact which doesn't gimp Psions that multiclass. Your objection to that made me think you wanted them completely separate.

Not -completely-. Though I don't think they should be able to be great multiclass options with Wizards, no. I still stand by that. It would be much cooler to have their power points interact with non-spell class abilities, rather than just being "More Spellcasting".

Isn't that a distinction without difference though? Especially in 5e where most effects are represented by spells anyway. I mean, consider:

A wizard laboriously studies an arcane formula and uses that to... cast burning hands.
A cleric devoutly prays to the God of Light and is rewarded by being able to... cast burning hands.
A warlock enters into a pact with an archdevil who teaches him to use hellfire to... cast burning hands.
An Artificer uses her tools and infusions to create a small flamethrower that allows her to... cast burning hands.
A monk of the four elements focus her ki to bend fire and... cast burning hands.
A psion focuses his inner psychic power of pyrokinesis to... cast burning hands.

Etc etc.

Of course, the mechanics involved differs slightly in each casting. Spell slots, ki points, or invocations, Int/Wis/Cha caster stat, type of magical focuses allowed, etc. But the fact remains they are all using the same spell and all that differs is a few details.

I don't see a psion being that different. If WotC had any stomach for a new "supernatural effect" system, surely the artificer was the place to try it, and the fact that we got "refluffed spells" tells me all I need to know about what a psion class would look like.

It would look like a spell-point sorcerer. With alternate class features and a curated spell list. It would psionically "cast" charm person, burning hands, or whatever. Flavor it how you like, but in the end, it's still going to be a 9 level spellcaster.

Honestly... that's a problem that I have with D&D in general... I've always thought that the spell lists shouldn't overlap across sources.

Arcane should get it's own spell list, Primal, Divine, even Occult casters should get their own "This is ours, not yours" list of spells.

But even if it is mechanically super similar, having that -narrative- separation helps to spur story. It may be off brand jelly, but at least it's not more Peanut Butter.

 

[Yaarel]

For example. In Tashas, the Psi Knight feature "Telekinetic Master" says the following.

"
TELEKINETIC MASTER
18th-level Psi Warrior feature
Your ability to move creatures and objects with your mind is matched by few.
You can cast the telekinesis spell, requiring no components, and your spellcasting ability for the spell is Intelligence. On each of your turns while you concentrate on the spell, including the turn when you cast it, you can make one attack with a weapon as a bonus action. Once you cast the spell with this feature, you can't do so again until you finish a long rest, unless you expend a Psionic Energy die to cast it again.

"

Here, 5e formulates the inherently psionic flavor of telekinesis as a kind of magical spell.

This "psionics=spell" approach continues the 5e core rule in the Monster Manual.

 

[Maxperson]

From the Monster Manual that explicitly says psionics = spells. Likewise, the spell descriptions in Tashas for Psi Knight refer to psionic "spells".

It says that they use psionics to cast spells, yes. And spells are magic, but when they also say that psionics can make magic, that doesn't mean that it's inherently magic. It could very easily be Psi and Psi could be used to make magic in some circumstances, like innate spellcasting. That stuff being quoted by @Steampunkette was from the UA, so it's not set in stone, but it does show their thinking and intent.

 

[Maxperson]

For example. In Tashas, the Psi Knight feature "Telekinetic Master" says the following.

"
TELEKINETIC MASTER
18th-level Psi Warrior feature
Your ability to move creatures and objects with your mind is matched by few.
You can cast the telekinesis spell, requiring no components, and your spellcasting ability for the spell is Intelligence. On each of your turns while you concentrate on the spell, including the turn when you cast it, you can make one attack with a weapon as a bonus action. Once you cast the spell with this feature, you can't do so again until you finish a long rest, unless you expend a Psionic Energy die to cast it again.

"

Here, 5e formulates the inherently psionic flavor of telekinesis as a kind of magical spell.

This "psionics=spell" approach continues the 5e core rule in the Monster Manual.

They've also gone out of their way to separate psionics and magic, though. They said very specifically that the psionic wizard subclass wasn't psionic, but rather a wizard that uses magic to access psionic power to augment his spells.

I'm not convinced that they are going to be one and the same in 5e. They WILL interact though.

 

[Yaarel]

It says that they use psionics to cast spells, yes. And spells are magic, but when they also say that psionics can make magic, that doesn't mean that it's inherently magic. It could very easily be Psi and Psi could be used to make magic in some circumstances, like innate spellcasting. That stuff being quoted by @Steampunkette was from the UA, so it's not set in stone, but it does show their thinking and intent.

Yeah, that is the part of the argument by @Steampunkette that makes sense to me.

A "mind" is nonmagical but can (manipulate the Weave to) create a magical effect.

 

[Yaarel]

It says that they use psionics to cast spells, yes. And spells are magic, but when they also say that psionics can make magic, that doesn't mean that it's inherently magic. It could very easily be Psi and Psi could be used to make magic in some circumstances, like innate spellcasting. That stuff being quoted by @Steampunkette was from the UA, so it's not set in stone, but it does show their thinking and intent.

I feel references to UA are useless. If a UA said something that failed to appear in Tashas, it can even mean that designers have rejected that approach.

The only texts that are relevant for psionics are the MM and Tashas.

 

[Sithlord]

They definitely renovated the kitchen, but that kitchen still has a stove, an oven or two, a standing mixer, and refrigerator. They're just newer appliances with a couple more bells and whistles. Y'know. Got an Icemaker, this time!

The only really "Big" changes to Ravenloft are that there's no central map where all the realms are connected, and the majority of people there are soulless puppets acting out their day to day lives so we don't have to consider why the Dark Powers are tormenting a bunch of innocent civilians just because the ruler of their nation was a complete and absolute prong in life. Everything else is changes to individual domain stories to tell interesting and varied morality plays.

They're not going to do that for Dark Sun, though. Why? 'Cause there's no need to heighten the "Nightmare Logic" aspect of the setting in order to make it more oriented toward Action-Horror. But as I've noted in a different thread... they might make it more "Mad Max: Fury Road" than "Conan the Barbarian Enters the Thunderdome". More Action-Survival than previous editions. Maybe they'll focus on threats to survival beyond combat like they did describing each type of Horror and assign different survival threats to regions?

They're probably not going to remove Thri-Kreen from the setting just because they'd need a thri-kreen race. They're probably not going to erase Psionics from the setting because they don't want to make a Psionics System. They're not going to erase Defiling or Preserving, either.

Why? 'Cause those things are -fundamental- to the setting in the same way Monsters and Mists are fundamental to Ravenloft.

Will they change up the names and genders of the Sorcerer-Kings? Oh, probably. Will they alter the different City-States to fit WotC's current political ideology? Absolutely. Will they make the game more action-oriented? 100%.

But roads connecting the domains isn't what makes the Domains of Dread into Ravenloft. Neither is the suffering of innocent souls. (Yeah, I know, you dislike the "Zarovich is the first Vampire and the Morninglord is gone" but that's less about the setting as a whole and more about Strahd's story... or... more accurately... THIS Strahd. 'Cause the other Strahd and the Morninglord and everything still exist in one of the other versions floating around the Shadowfell... though it should be noted that in this version Jander Sunstar tried to kill Strahd when Strahd wanted another servant.)

Just because the morninord isn’t in this book doesn’t mean he won’t be in a later book. Everything can’t be put in one book and he wasn’t in the first boxed set either.

 

[Steampunkette]

I feel references to UA are useless. If a UA said something that failed to appear in Tashas, it can even mean that designers have rejected that approach.

The only texts that are relevant for psionics are the MM and Tashas.

In which case -only- the Telekinesis Spell is magical.

None of the other abilities reference spells or magic. None of the rest of the -class- references spells or magic. Only the one spell that is reproduced.

Which still tracks with what they said in the UA.

Almost like it's still their intent... -wild-...

As to Psionics in the MM: It is a descriptor added to Spellcasting traits. Because there is no psionic system currently developed for the game, they couldn't very well provide monsters with the ability to do Psionics according to the Psionicist class.

Just like how Githyanki were "4th level magic users" for their abilities, but the description said they were explicitly Psionicists 10 years before the first Psionicist class came out.