D&D 5E Psionics in Tasha

[Gladius Legis]

We already knew this. Since every attempt to make a psionicist was rejected, WotC decided their only option was to go with the simplest, least hated option - psionic spells.

How is making psionics just more spells the least hated? Everyone I've ever heard of considers it the worst thing they could do with it.

 

[Gladius Legis]

No, the point of psionics "from the start" (1976's Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry) was to be a handful of odd powers held by characters with otherwise-normal classes, plus a psionic combat system.

If your proposed psionics system doesn't have psionic combat, and it does have psionic classes or subclasses, you've entirely abandoned what psionics was "from the start" in favor of doing something radically different.

Which is fine, but don't pretend you're channeling the true nature of D&D psionics, rather than saying, "I feel psionics should be X, not Y".

This is irrelevant, and that you think this is any kind of rebuttal is shameful intellectual dishonesty.

It does not change the fact that psionics was never intended to be magic of any kind. Period.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is irrelevant, and that you think this is any kind of rebuttal is shameful intellectual dishonesty.

It does not change the fact that psionics was never intended to be magic of any kind. Period.

Being able to levitate objects or shoot mind bullets is magic. Period.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Being able to levitate objects or shoot mind bullets is magic. Period.

Psionics is not magic. Never has been in D&D. That is fact.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Psionics is not magic. Never has been in D&D. That is fact.

No it's not, it's pointless semantics.

 

[Gladius Legis]

No it's not, it's pointless semantics.

Nope. It's D&D, where psionics has always been defined as distinct from magic. Explicitly so. To say otherwise is dishonest.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Nope. It's D&D, where psionics has always been defined as distinct from magic. Explicitly so. To say otherwise is dishonest.

A distinction without a difference.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I'll say one thing

I am not surprised "Psionics as
Spells" is coming out in TCOE, a book with options that could sell itself on its own.

Not even a Season 8 Game of Thrones rules could drag this book down.

Actually, this is the one thing that is seriously making me question whether I want to get TCOE.

 

[Gladius Legis]

A distinction without a difference.

Wrong.

 

[Minigiant]

A distinction without a difference.

There was always a difference.

People who saw all supernatural effects as the same magic just failed to see it.

 

[Weiley31]

I actually like the idea, as mentioned before, Counter Spell having Disadvantage against Psionics. So Magic Resistance, Dispel Magic, Counter Spell, and what not should have Disadvantage when rolling against Psionics.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I lost 2 int following this argument about what psionics are. All I can say is that it is an entirely thought out concept like magic or gods that grant powers.
I would also not refer to rules from nearly halve a century ago... a lot has changed since then. In the game and in the real world.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I actually like the idea, as mentioned before, Counter Spell having Disadvantage against Psionics. So Magic Resistance, Dispel Magic, Counter Spell, and what not should have Disadvantage when rolling against Psionics.

Actually, you don't need such a rule. To use counterspell you need to see the spell being cast. So with the psionic sorcerers ability or subtle spell you can't counterspell anyway...

 

[see]

I don't get the impression that they do think it's a good idea. Instead, I think they're trying to convey that what supposed "traditionalists" are claiming aren't necessarily factual and that psionics in D&D aren't as immutable as some claim.

Exactly.

The first version of D&D psionics was primarily about psionic combat, with some other talents attached. And the longest-lived single version of psionics, AD&D 1st edition's (1978-1989), was the same; the 1e DMG's glossary went so far as to define psionics as "Mental combat, possible only by very intelligent beings and some monsters. Psionics also encompasses certain other special mental abilities, such as telekinesis."

No other version of psionics ever lasted to see its sixth birthday, and the majority of those other systems (OD&D, 2e CPH, 2e S&P, and 3e, as opposed to 3.5 and 4e) had psionic combat.

So don't tell me your vision is, as the person I quoted, "the whole point of psionics from the start". You don't have tradition on your side. Argue that your vision enables better stories, or that you want a caster class based on point-fuelled powers, or whatever. That's cool. Just don't invoke the history of D&D psionics as your justification.

(Unless, of course, your vision for 5e psionics really is based around psionic combat. In which case, while I'll admit you have tradition on your side, I have to really question the soundness of your judgment. Psionic combat never worked well.)

 

[Minigiant]

The only history of psionics that was constant in all editions was that psionics wasn't spells.

 

[Mistwell]

No, the point of psionics "from the start" (1976's Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry) was to be a handful of odd powers held by characters with otherwise-normal classes, plus a psionic combat system.

If your proposed psionics system doesn't have psionic combat, and it does have psionic classes or subclasses, you've entirely abandoned what psionics was "from the start" in favor of doing something radically different.

Which is fine, but don't pretend you're channeling the true nature of D&D psionics, rather than saying, "I feel psionics should be X, not Y".

I remember that subsystem feeling like rock paper scissors. It looked complicated on paper, but in play it just felt like "did you happen to choose the right power to use this round or not?"

Wasn't the psionic combat system some awful mess? Like a five-way game of scissors-paper-stone where you only know a couple of the shapes and you can't start the rest of the combat until you've played ten rounds of this?

Do you believe that having that would be a good idea?

Great minds think alike. I posted my comment, then read yours.

 

[Mistwell]

The only history of psionics that was constant in all editions was that psionics wasn't spells.

In 3rd and 3.5 editions, psionic energy and magic are mutually and equally vulnerable to a dispel magic spell or a dispel psionics power; spell resistance protects against powers just as it protects against spells, while power resistance protects against spells as it does against powers. In fact, it was a variant rule, known as "psionics are different," which was the only place where there was an attempt to enforce a separation between the two systems. And, it wasn't much of a separation really, even as a variant rule.

 

[eayres33]

What I think would be a lot of fun would be a game where everyone played completely non-magical classes. During game play they might come across a grimoire that one understood and learned, granted the knowledge to cast Magic Missile 3xday. Another might find the holy relic of Lathander that while attuned, gives the ability to cast Light 3xday and Cure Wounds 1xday.

By limiting magic that way, you could even give some spells that are above where party level would otherwise have access. Since the PC isn't dropping spells as often, being able to cast a 4th level spell 1xweek at 5th level isn't game breaking. It could be very fun.

Edit: changed non-medical classes to non-magical classes.

I have a Talislanta the Savage Lands game I'm going to run like this.
There is no magic but as the game goes on they will discover forgotten secrets and gain access to some magic.

 

[Minigiant]

In 3rd and 3.5 editions, psionic energy and magic are mutually and equally vulnerable to a dispel magic spell or a dispel psionics power; spell resistance protects against powers just as it protects against spells, while power resistance protects against spells as it does against powers. In fact, it was a variant rule, known as "psionics are different," which was the only place where there was an attempt to enforce a separation between the two systems. And, it wasn't much of a separation really, even as a variant rule.

They weren't spells though.
On the activator's level, the manifester wasn't casting a spell.

 

[Azzy]

They weren't spells though.
On the activator's level, the manifester wasn't casting a spell.

The only thing that differentiated 3e's psionic from magic is that the were called "powers" instead of "spells", and were "manifested" instead of "cast", and they had "displays" instead of "components". The difference was all superficial—and that's the way they should be in 5e, IMNSHO.