D&D 5E Psionics in Tasha

glass · Oct 5, 2020

Paul Farquhar said:
"Display" is not a term in 5e. Component is a term in 5e.

Since Maxperson is arguing in favour of adding something new, the fact that the term for the non-existant thing is also non-existant is hardly news.

_
glass.

Maxperson · Oct 5, 2020

Paul Farquhar said:
"Display" is not a term in 5e. Component is a term in 5e.

You do understand that I'm arguing for 3e style displays to be added to 5e psionics if/when they are created, right?

Paul Farquhar · Oct 5, 2020

Maxperson said:
You do understand that I'm arguing for 3e style displays to be added to 5e psionics in place of components, right?

This is the whole problem: you want psionics, but only so long as it is the same psionics that you had in 3e.

Cadence · Oct 5, 2020

Maxperson said:
Identify uses a pearl of at least 100g.

PF is just using one component for another, though. The point is to be rid of components.

And they did for all the cheap ones (and V&S ones). I'm guessing the keeping of the others were for game balance.

It seems really odd to me that the folks specializing in magic need a 100gp pearl to identify things, but the psionic types wouldn't need anything. If psionics were going to be "not magic", would you be against the psionic folks being able to use identify at all?

Are there any "psionic-like" spells in 5e that have expensive components?

Paul Farquhar · Oct 5, 2020

Cadence said:
And they did for all the cheap ones (and V&S ones). I'm guessing the keeping of the others were for game balance.

It seems really odd to me that the folks specializing in magic need a 100gp pearl to identify things, but the psionic types wouldn't need anything. If psionics were going to be "not magic", would you be against the psionic folks being able to use identify at all?

Are there any "psionic-like" spells in 5e that have expensive components?

None of the specifically psionic-like spells use material components at all.

AdmundfortGeographer · Oct 5, 2020

Never more pleased to find the unwatch button.

TwoSix · Oct 5, 2020

Paul Farquhar said:
This is the whole problem: you want psionics, but only so long as it is the same psionics that you had in 3e.

Honestly, WotC could have earned a lot of goodwill by simply copying 3.5 psionics and updating the classes and powers to be 5e compliant. 3.5 psionics was really good!

Maxperson · Oct 5, 2020

Paul Farquhar said:
This is the whole problem: you want psionics, but only so long as it is the same psionics that you had in 3e.

Well that's not true, either. But thanks for playing the Strawman game.

Maxperson · Oct 5, 2020

Cadence said:
And they did for all the cheap ones (and V&S ones). I'm guessing the keeping of the others were for game balance.

It seems really odd to me that the folks specializing in magic need a 100gp pearl to identify things, but the psionic types wouldn't need anything. If psionics were going to be "not magic", would you be against the psionic folks being able to use identify at all?

Are there any "psionic-like" spells in 5e that have expensive components?

I wouldn't care if psionics didn't have identity, even though object reading is a very psi ability. I'm also at work, so I can't check on the last question.

Aldarc · Oct 5, 2020

TwoSix said:
Honestly, WotC could have earned a lot of goodwill by simply copying 3.5 psionics and updating the classes and powers to be 5e compliant. 3.5 psionics was really good!

I sometimes think that WotC tries too hard while missing obvious solutions.