Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6670645" data-attributes="member: 996">That sounds like a problem with one of them.  But, it'd depend on exactly how the raksasha's immunity is phrased.  If it's "immunity to magic," so be it.  If it's Immunity to spells under 6th level, then it's not immune to things that aren't spells, if it's based on the level of the slot used to cast the spell...  If it's immunity to 'effects' under a 'level' then it depends on null-handling, then the DM is going to have to rule on what 'effects' means and how to handle null values of level.Such corner cases are inevitably common under 5e's design philosophies, and it's up to the DM to rule on them.  It's easier if you pin psionics to existing ideas, like magic, then to make them totally new, and thus call into question how they interact with all prior material.  It'd be /much/ easier if the psionic cast spells with slots, and had no new mechanics, at all.  It'd be even easier to not add psionics, at all.'Easier,' obviously, isn't the only consideration.  Psionics = magic would be the option that'd tend to break the game into fewer, larger pieces, while the 'not magic' option would be for those who don't mind picking up many smaller pieces of their campaign and re-assembling them in a totally different shape.  Regardless, I still say the best (for 5e) course is to present the DM with the choice of either option, rather than a default and alternate - because Psionics already isn't part of the Standard game, so there's no need to worry about which is the default, the default is no psionics.</blockquote>

Verification