log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Psionics in Tasha

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Okay, I think I'm tracking you with these last two. You're saying some kind of story of how magic works has to exist in order for the ruleset for magic to work or make sense? I don't agree. I don't bother to explain how magic works in my games and it seems to go just fine. Anytime you can swap in different things and nothing else changes it's a good sign that that thing isn't important to the overall operation. It might do something else, like tell a story you like, but it's not essential to the ruleset.
Like I said several times.
You do not need to use an interface to explain the connection of magic and spells. You don't have to explain anything.

But if you don't explain things, you can't explain thing nor enter discussion about explanations. if someone says "it doesnt make sense" and you lack explanations, you can't display how it makes sense.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Like I said several times.
You do not need to use an interface to explain the connection of magic and spells. You don't have to explain anything.

But if you don't explain things, you can't explain thing nor enter discussion about explanations. if someone says "it doesnt make sense" and you lack explanations, you can't display how it makes sense.
I'm sorry, I've lost the thread. What is your overall point? I mean, this one is trivially untrue -- I've entered this discussion on explanations to say that an explanation isn't necessary, so, yes, I can. I can argue that point, so clearly I can be in that discussion.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I'm sorry, I've lost the thread. What is your overall point? I mean, this one is trivially untrue -- I've entered this discussion on explanations to say that an explanation isn't necessary, so, yes, I can. I can argue that point, so clearly I can be in that discussion.

That psionics does not use the same interface as spellcasters and should not use spells.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
That psionics does not use the same interface as spellcasters and should not use spells.
Right, so, if I understand, what you're saying is that needs to be some explanation for how magic works, which you call, confusingly, an "interface." This "interface" also includes all of the common game rules for magic. So, therefore, psionics cannot use those same game rules because then it also inherits the "interface." If, say, the "interface" is "True Names," then this makes for an incongruity because then psionics uses True Names.

I gotta say, that's a shaky tower. There's a number of legs that can be kicked out of that. The most obvious is to leverage your already admitted statement that it doesn't matter what the "interface" is, it just has to exist (dubious in itself, but for argument's sake I'm working with it). Why can you not, then, have multiple "interfaces" for the same set of game rules. If I can swap them outright and nothing changes, then I can also work in multiples because nothing mechanically rests on the "interface," it's a storytelling tool only. So, then, I can have magic using True Names, or the Weave, or whatever and have psionics use some other "interface" but the same game rules.
 

Shardstone

Adventurer
Why even argue with Mini, man. Not a single thing he has said has basis in any fact.

Throughout the game, there is language like "spells or magical effects." Magical effects means their magic. The dragon's breath weapon is considered magical. Crawford has said this before in one of the youtube videos before, though I can't recall which one atm. Without a doubt, not a thing Mini has said holds even an ounce of validity in regards to this discussion because it is the definition of fake news.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Seriously, this is like playing whack-a-mole. Features of 2nd edition psionics are not the same thing as features of psionics from D&D day one. The interaction of spells and psionics was entirely undefined prior to 2nd edition, in part because psionic powers were basically rare and minor extras bolted on to characters who could participate in psionic combat, which was the heart and soul of 0e/1e psionics (which were born as a counter to 0e mind flayers). So it was entirely a matter of table call whether or not, say, anti-magic shell would block psionic powers.

And Gygax didn't create D&D psionics. Tim Kask, editor of Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry, created D&D psionics.
While the interactions may not have been defined prior to 2e, Psionics was not magic in 1e. They were explicitly powers that only resembled magic, which means that they were not actual magic, but rather the powers of the mind described.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
So, you can explain how the Succubus's Charm ability isn't magic? How about a Beholder's Eye Rays?

Sure! Just as soon as you explain how a wizard doesn't cast spells, and cows don't have 4 legs.

And when you do, I'll point out how the existence of magic that is similar to something psionics can accomplish doesn't in any way mean that psionics is magic.

So, the real thing you seem to be interested in then, is removing counter play. You want a set of abilities that cannot be countered or dispelled within the current framework.

:yawn: At least wait a few pages before you accuse someone of something they specifically said that they weren't doing. I mean, what did you think I was saying when I said, " For the record, I personally don't care if they do make it magic, so long as they don't try to make the powers into spells and/or have components be necessary."?

Because that is a difference you are adding. Nothing about Psionics would require us to say that it isn't fully compatible with magic. But, you want the ability to avoid being dispelled. To avoid being countered. To scy through a guards and wards set up. To read the mind of a person under Mind Blank.

Nope! That's the difference that I'm explaining. I don't care if it's magic or not.

Do I actually believe that I found a magical spell called Levitation, which levitates an object or person, therefore making "levitating something" a magical spell in the game? Yes. I can even post a link to the DnD Beyond page of it.

I don't really care. It's entirely irrelevant as to whether psionic levitation is magic or not.
 

cbwjm

Hero
Who said weave?

I said 5e has an assumption of a shared interface.
Because 5e no longer seperates spells by classes and type. They are just spells and every class interfaces with spells in a universa lsense.
Scrolls
Spellbooks
Domains
Multiclassing
Flexible casting
Divine smite/Primeval Awareness
Spell granting feats

It's just spells and slots. Everyone uses them.and interfaces with them somewhere down the line.
Blame 5e for making the game more user friendly, less restrictive, and easier to learn.
I thought you were talking about the weave because that's what I was talking about.
 

see

Explorer
While the interactions may not have been defined prior to 2e, Psionics was not magic in 1e. They were explicitly powers that only resembled magic, which means that they were not actual magic, but rather the powers of the mind described.
That's an incredible amount of exegetical weight to put on one word in an introductory paragraph.

The obvious counterargument would be to bring up cases like

"This discipline is the same as the magic-user spell, clairaudience (q.v.), except that unknown areas up to 30' distant can be scanned."
"This discipline is the same as the magic-user spell, clairvoyance (q.v.), except that unknown areas up to 20' distant can be scanned."
"This discipline is very similar to the magic-user spell, teleport (q.v.). The only major difference is that psionic energy points must be expended to use the power. Also, if points above the required 20 are expended, the psionic individual is able to alter the percentage probabilities of mis-teleporting (coming in too low or too high) by 1% per additional psionic strength point expended either to correct low and/or high mis-teleporting."

After all, if it's explicitly the same as a specific magic-user spell with a few explicit exceptions, and none of those exceptions declare that it isn't magic, then the same extends to it also being magic, right?

Or . . . we can all just stop trying to render unintended metaphysical implications out of the body of a dead man's forty-two-year-old text, and accept that prior to 1991's Complete Psionics Handbook, it was undefined whether psionics were magic.
 

Delazar

Explorer
didn't read all 34 pages, so not sure if it was already mentioned, but psionics were in 5e since the very beginning, right there in the MM

"
Innate Spellcasting (Psionics).
The mind flayer's innate spellcasting ability is Intelligence (spell save DC 15). It can innately cast the following spells, requiring no components:
"
When I saw the UA with the Mystic, I rolled my eyes and thought "so what, now we're going to update all the psionics monsters already published?"

Psionics were always magic in 5e, and always used existing spells. Here's to hope that, when they publish the Psion(icist) class in the Dark Sun book, they insert the "requiring no components" part.
 

Eric V

Hero
Why even argue with Mini, man. Not a single thing he has said has basis in any fact.

Throughout the game, there is language like "spells or magical effects." Magical effects means their magic. The dragon's breath weapon is considered magical. Crawford has said this before in one of the youtube videos before, though I can't recall which one atm. Without a doubt, not a thing Mini has said holds even an ounce of validity in regards to this discussion because it is the definition of fake news.
???!!

He's sourcing from the PHB. He's literally using the text from the main book.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
???!!

He's sourcing from the PHB. He's literally using the text from the main book.
He is? The main book doesn't talk about interfaces at all, except in the sidebar where it provides some flavor about the weave, which @Minigiant has expressly said he's not talking about. Maybe you have a better handle on Mini's argument than I do, in which case, please explain it to me. I admit I'm not entirely sure I've followed Mini's argument.
 

Eric V

Hero
It's probably wiser to let him do it; I don't want to put words in his mouth.

IF I have understood him correctly, he's saying all classes use an interface to use magic. The scroll-writing ability of wizards is a mechanical manifestation of this (in that they can transcribe priest spells into their spellbooks if the spell is also on the ever-growing wizard spell list). For myself, I see the interface in the exact same use of material components for spells, regardless of power source (for lack of a better term); the example I gave earlier is the cleric through faith, the druid through connection to nature, the paladin through devotion, the monk through meditation, the sorcerer through innate power, and the wizard through study...all need the same straight piece of iron to cast hold person. Why should nature demand the use of iron? Your god? How does the iron work with your devotion? Who knows? But it's required.

Now, do most people handwave material components? It seems so. Do most people not bother explaining the interface (though it's right there on page 205 "Instead, they make use of a fabric of magic, a kind of interface between the will of the spellcaster and the raw stuff of magic.")? It seems so as well.

To say it's not in the rules though...no. It is. Even if it's a commonly ignored rule.

I may not be doing his argument justice, however.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
It's probably wiser to let him do it; I don't want to put words in his mouth.

IF I have understood him correctly, he's saying all classes use an interface to use magic. The scroll-writing ability of wizards is a mechanical manifestation of this (in that they can transcribe priest spells into their spellbooks if the spell is also on the ever-growing wizard spell list). For myself, I see the interface in the exact same use of material components for spells, regardless of power source (for lack of a better term); the example I gave earlier is the cleric through faith, the druid through connection to nature, the paladin through devotion, the monk through meditation, the sorcerer through innate power, and the wizard through study...all need the same straight piece of iron to cast hold person. Why should nature demand the use of iron? Your god? How does the iron work with your devotion? Who knows? But it's required.

Now, do most people handwave material components? It seems so. Do most people not bother explaining the interface (though it's right there on page 205 "Instead, they make use of a fabric of magic, a kind of interface between the will of the spellcaster and the raw stuff of magic.")? It seems so as well.

To say it's not in the rules though...no. It is. Even if it's a commonly ignored rule.

I may not be doing his argument justice, however.
I don't understand this bit of calling a game rule an "interface." This really reads like attaching a specific bit of fluff to a game rule and then saying, "see, you can't use this game rule for this other thing, it has different fluff!" It's begging the question -- you've assumed something in your premise that proves your conclusion. I don't see how you effectively defend the premise -- there's no need to have fixed fluff to enable game rules, if anything, game rules limit the available fluff, not the other way around. You can easily use spell slots for psionics and just explain it differently with exactly the same mechanics. Insisting otherwise -- that spell slots, for instance, can only be associated with a non-psionics-compatible fluff explanation -- is making an unsupportable claim. Not unsupportable in that you can create such fluff, but unsupportable in claiming that this prevents any other options. It doesn't.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Why even argue with Mini, man. Not a single thing he has said has basis in any fact.

Throughout the game, there is language like "spells or magical effects." Magical effects means their magic. The dragon's breath weapon is considered magical. Crawford has said this before in one of the youtube videos before, though I can't recall which one atm. Without a doubt, not a thing Mini has said holds even an ounce of validity in regards to this discussion because it is the definition of fake news.

Spells and magic are different terms.

Spells are a type of magic.
Psionics are a type of magic.
Ki is a type of magic.

Historically, they were 3 different types of magic.
 

Eric V

Hero
I don't understand this bit of calling a game rule an "interface." This really reads like attaching a specific bit of fluff to a game rule and then saying, "see, you can't use this game rule for this other thing, it has different fluff!" It's begging the question -- you've assumed something in your premise that proves your conclusion. I don't see how you effectively defend the premise -- there's no need to have fixed fluff to enable game rules, if anything, game rules limit the available fluff, not the other way around. You can easily use spell slots for psionics and just explain it differently with exactly the same mechanics. Insisting otherwise -- that spell slots, for instance, can only be associated with a non-psionics-compatible fluff explanation -- is making an unsupportable claim. Not unsupportable in that you can create such fluff, but unsupportable in claiming that this prevents any other options. It doesn't.
"Interface" is the term used in the PHB. The fluff is the different names for the interface, and they mention that in different places they refer to it as different things (they specifically call out the Weave for FR), but the interface itself is part of the official description of magic in the PHB. No one is assuming anything, it literally reads in the PHB that spellcasters can't manifest magical effects without this interface (again, p. 205).

Is it easily ignored? Sure. From what I can tell, most people do. I am assuming, though, that an official WotC product follows the official rule about magic; so psionics no longer being a separate thing but instead being magic means psions (but really, sorcerers) need to use the same interface to cast their spells.

They'd need the same V,S,M components too, unless they took a feat.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
"Interface" is the term used in the PHB. The fluff is the different names for the interface, and they mention that in different places they refer to it as different things (they specifically call out the Weave for FR), but the interface itself is part of the official description of magic in the PHB. No one is assuming anything, it literally reads in the PHB that spellcasters can't manifest magical effects without this interface (again, p. 205).

Is it easily ignored? Sure. From what I can tell, most people do. I am assuming, though, that an official WotC product follows the official rule about magic; so psionics no longer being a separate thing but instead being magic means psions (but really, sorcerers) need to use the same interface to cast their spells.

They'd need the same V,S,M components too, unless they took a feat.
The PHB talks about an "interface" in exactly one place, where it says that the interface is the weave. So, unless you're claiming that the weave is what is RAW, there's nothing about any other "interface" to talk about. Since this is already an rejected position -- you've just claimed other things can be the "interface" -- then the argument that "interface" is a required and RAW description of how magic works is also already rejected. You cannot pick part of a thing and say it's the whole thing. The "interface" in the PHB is the weave. If you do something other than the weave, you're already outside that explanation. If you allow for other things, you're outside that explanation. This "interface" is specific to the weave, as it's described as a thing between raw magic and practitioners that allow practitioners to control the otherwise nearly impossible to control raw magic. That's it. If you swap in something else, you don't get to insist that the "interface" part remains and is required -- the "interface" is inseverable from the weave description. You cannot have it both ways.

And, this is accepting arguendo that the description of the weave is RAW rather than flavor. I do not agree this is so, because the weave doesn't impact any game rules. And, you've also already agreed that it can be changed and a different flavor added.

What I think you intend to mean by "interface" is just whatever explanation for how magic works in a given setting. But that answer could simply be "it just does" at which point there's no "interface" there.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Is it easily ignored? Sure. From what I can tell, most people do. I am assuming, though, that an official WotC product follows the official rule about magic; so psionics no longer being a separate thing but instead being magic means psions (but really, sorcerers) need to use the same interface to cast their spells.

They'd need the same V,S,M components too, unless they took a feat.

Not exactly. Specific beats general is a thing in 5e and we know from the Monster books and UA that WotC views psionics as a specific exception to that general rule.
 


EscherEnigma

Explorer
When I saw the UA with the Mystic, I rolled my eyes and thought "so what, now we're going to update all the psionics monsters already published?"
IIRC, when they published the 3.X psionics handbooks, they did exactly that, saying the GM can use the MM version of the monster or the new updated version that uses the new psionics rules, per their preference. So it wouldn't be unprecedented or confusing. The contrary, it would be both precedented and make perfect sense.

To the overall thread...

I suspect that the psionics we see in Tashas will be exactly what the UA would lead us to expect: psionic sub-classes for existing classes to augment their abilities with psionics, but no psionic main class. I think this works well enough for the "soul knife" and "psyhic warrior", but I do hope they create a pure "psion" class at some point (maybe in a Dark Sun campaign book, like they did with Artificer in Eberron?).

So while you'll be able to get closer to a psion with a psionic-themed sorcerer (with a bunch more psychi-flavored spells), I don't think that's where it'll end.
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top