D&D 5E Psionics in Tasha

[Cadence]

Arcane and Divine are exactly the same. There is no separation at all.

There used to be, didn't there?

I'm fine with limiting the discussion to what's in 5e... but that's sure going to cut out a lot of arguments about what psionics should be.

 

[wingsandsword]

Arcane and Divine are exactly the same. There is no separation at all.

As far as 5th edition rules are concerned, yes.

As far as established D&D lore, the canons of most D&D settings, and the rules of D&D 1st through 4th editions. . .heck no.

It rather makes 5e the dissenting outlier here, not the standard that is set.

 

[Minigiant]

It has been established in canonical D&D lore that psionics is totally unrelated to magic...and that the two coexist side-by-side and rarely interacting.

It has also been established (at least it appears in the preview of 5e psionics) in canonical D&D lore that psionics is exactly the same thing as an arcane magic spell and that "psions" are just another type of arcane caster along side wizards, warlocks, and sorcerers.

Which canonical D&D lore wins???

Psionics as powers vs spells is 4 editions to 1.

I get it. Psionics would be a headache to focus test, playtest, and design. However it never was going to mainstream. Attempting to apply normal acceptance levels in order to gauge design favorablity of psionics was doomed to be unlocked by past fans.

Or until they attract the attention of "things" that like people who use mind powers.

One of the things that's annoyed me about some versions of psionics is that the whole point is to be able to one-up everyone, where nothing non-psionic can stop them. It feels like thats a horrible selling point for a game where any other character type is supposed to be useful.

Now, having a different power (aks spell?) list, and not having components seems like no-brainers.

I remember one of the issue with psionics is that no psionics were resistant to some powers. And mere fact that you were psionic meant you were weak to psionics and had to constant invest in defending your mind.

Then there was that everyone is a specialist thing and how hard it was to branch out.

But yeah psionics characters could really one up spellcasters in a few things.

 

[Maxperson]

There used to be, didn't there?

Not since 2e.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Even in 3e the idea of Psionic effects being subject to magical dispels and being treated like Magic was discussed in books.

Simply put how the DM wants to handle the interaction betwixt Psionic and Magic is their decision to make. That is essentially what the U/A Psionic Sidebar stated.

I doubt that position has changed.

It is also fine if Psionic power in Eberron is just like magic, and the opposite is true in Dark Sun, or the Forgotten Realms.

The multiverse can come in many different flavors. It is not like, most of you don't use a heavily mod'd version of 5e, based off your posts.
Let's just make it official, every world, every table is different, and official.

 

[wingsandsword]

It has been established in canonical D&D lore that psionics is totally unrelated to magic...and that the two coexist side-by-side and rarely interacting.

It has also been established (at least it appears in the preview of 5e psionics) in canonical D&D lore that psionics is exactly the same thing as an arcane magic spell and that "psions" are just another type of arcane caster along side wizards, warlocks, and sorcerers.

Which canonical D&D lore wins???

For ~40 years, since Psionics were introduced in the 1st edition DMG, until now, Psionics were treated as something other than magic, a separate power source under a separate name.

In every D&D setting that has used psionics, it's been treated as something other than spells, a distinctly "third" alternative to arcane and divine magic. Right offhand I know it was treated that was in Forgotten Realms (right offhand I remember the difference being explicitly described and discussed in Volo's Guide to All Things Magical as not being magic and being something else) and in Dark Sun (entire books written on the subject, like The Will and the Way).

At best you had the treatment from 3rd edition and later where Psionic powers and Magic spells could directly detect, protect from, or dispel each other, but even then the actual abilities were still considered distinct.

That's a vast and overwhelming consensus of 4 editions of D&D, and the "fluff" or lore of multiple settings. . .vs. a preview of the 5th edition psionic rules released a few days ago.

The fact that WotC decided to make 5th edition Psionics totally different than everything before and just make it apparently a different spell list and that's it does NOT change a decades-long consensus of D&D editions and campaign settings. . .it means that 5th edition is the one that is out of line, not that other editions and settings are out of line because they contradict 5e.

 

[wingsandsword]

Not since 2e.

You think there aren't distinctions between Arcane and Divine magic in 3e and 4e?

3e is what literally gave us the terms "Arcane" and "Divine" when "Wizard" and "Priest" magic was generally used before that. When you read the spellcasting descriptions in a 3e class, it specifically enumerates if it's considered arcane or divine. . .and one hard mechanical difference between them is that divine spells don't suffer from Arcane Spell Failure for somatic components in armor. Also, Prestige Classes often specified if spellcasting for a prerequisite had to be Arcane or Divine in nature. . .Cleric or Druid spellcasting would never qualify you for Arcane Archer, and no amount of Wizard levels could qualify you to be a Heirophant.

4e went so far as to break down all classes into a "power source" and a role. . .with Arcane and Divine as two of the first and major "power sources".

 

[Kobold Avenger]

For ~40 years, since Psionics were introduced in the 1st edition DMG, until now, Psionics were treated as something other than magic, a separate power source under a separate name.

No they weren't, 3e started treating psionics as magic and 3.5e went further in that regard with stating that it's the default that psionics can be affected by magic. For almost the last 20 years psionics has been magic, it's just that it's often used different mechanics.

 

[wingsandsword]

No they weren't, 3e started treating psionics as magic and 3.5e went further in that regard with stating that it's the default that psionics can be affected by magic. For almost the last 20 years psionics has been magic, it's just that it's often used different mechanics.

Uh, no. 3e did explicitly NOT consider psionics magic. There's a WORLD of difference between saying that psionics and magic can affect each other, and saying they're the same thing.

Try qualifying for a spellcasting prestige class with Psionic levels. . .you can't. Try qualifying for magic item creation feats with psionic levels, or taking psionic feats with only having spellcasting classes. It does NOT work like that.

They are different things, not interchangable.

 

[Cadence]

Not since 2e.

3.5 made at least a little distinction anyway... "Clerics, druids, experienced paladins, and experienced rangers can cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells. The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells. Divine spells tend to focus on healing and protection and are less flashy, destructive, and disruptive than arcane spells." ... "However, only characters who have the spell in question (in its divine form) on their class spell list can cast a divine spell from a scroll."

And they had different lists and could be different level of spell. ::::