D&D 5E Psionics in Tasha

[Maxperson]

It feels like more than "in a world, where wizards draw on the weave", it's whether all worlds have wizards running on the weave unless there's a house rule otherwise.

The box says all worlds have a version of the weave. Then it goes on to say that if an archmage was in an area where the weave was torn, he couldn't cast spells(paraphrasing because I'm at work).

Those two statements make the "weave" and what happens without it mechanical in nature. No "weave," no magic. The weave allows arcane casters to use magic = mechanic. No weave, no magic = mechanic. The ease with which you can ignore, be unaware of, or change those mechanisms doesn't cause them to cease to exist in RAW.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The box says all worlds have a version of the weave. Then it goes on to say that if an archmage was in an area where the weave was torn, he couldn't cast spells(paraphrasing because I'm at work).

Those two statements make the "weave" and what happens without it mechanical in nature. No "weave," no magic. The weave allows arcane casters to use magic = mechanic. No weave, no magic = mechanic. The ease with which you can ignore, be unaware of, or change those mechanisms doesn't cause them to cease to exist in RAW.

If you see it like: without air, everyone dies that is ok. There are rules to handle not having air, but I have not seen a hard rule that says: when the weave is gone, you do x.
I think I have seen rules about dead magic and wild magic in Faerun in a different edition though.
Can you pretty please quote the box you speak of.
All I can find is: wizards draw upon the weave to summon arcane power or something similar in th fluff section of the wizard class.

 

[Maxperson]

If you see it like: without air, everyone dies that is ok. There are rules to handle not having air, but I have not seen a hard rule that says: when the weave is gone, you do

It's in that box. Other than "can't cast spells" what more is needed.

Can you pretty please quote the box you speak of.
All I can find is: wizards draw upon the weave to summon arcane power or something similar in th fluff section of the wizard class.

At work, so no, but I can't direct you. It's in the spellcasting section prior to the spell lists.

 

[Cadence]

If you see it like: without air, everyone dies that is ok. There are rules to handle not having air, but I have not seen a hard rule that says: when the weave is gone, you do x.
I think I have seen rules about dead magic and wild magic in Faerun in a different edition though.
Can you pretty please quote the box you speak of.
All I can find is: wizards draw upon the weave to summon arcane power or something similar in th fluff section of the wizard class.

It's in that box. Other than "can't cast spells" what more is needed.

PHB page 205. "By any name, without the Weave, raw magic is locked away and inaccessible, the most powerful archmage can't light a candle with magic in an area where the Weave hs been torn.". "And in places where the Weave is damaged or torn, magic works in unpredictable ways - or not at all."

 

[JiffyPopTart]

How about you try to explain how these mechanics need to be different to properly represent a psion and why that is? Then we might get somewhere.

I think this statement helps me to understand your viewpoint on psion versus the viewpoint of the others in this thread debating with you. I'll do my best to try to explain.

In 5e D&D there is a character class called a FIGHTER. I use all caps to point out that FIGHTER is a collection of rules and options that mechanically describes how something works in the game. I could, in my home game, have a pseudo-Roman style setting where the residents of the world refer to legionaries, gladiators, barbarians, and mercenaries all of which can be represented in the game by the rules for FIGHTER. They also might be represented by the rules for BARBARIAN or even ROGUE depending on how the individual was pictured. You could even make a case for some of the spry non-armored and light weapon using barbarian tribesfolk to be represented on the character sheet by the MONK. This is exactly what I repurposed in the Tomb of Annihilation campaign to represent a native tribesman from the jungles of Chult. I used the rules for MONK but my character would describe themselves as a warrior.

The teases for the Tasha's book indicates that its going to include rules for including psionics in 5e. We speculate this is going to be done by taking several classes that already exist in 5e (assumed to be FIGHTER, ROGUE, and SORCERER) and including a subclass for each of those that incorporates powers/spells/abilities that emulate previous editions psionic content. One such element is the new spell Mind Sliver which I will show below for those who haven't seen it yet.

Now I would like to point out the fundamental disagreement happening in this thread, as I see it.

Some here are saying that its perfectly acceptable that if you want to play a psion that you can use a FIGHTER, ROGUE, or SORCERER to do so, because once you strip away the mechanics you can have a character who can zap others minds, charm them, levitate things, and remote view and that is what a psion is. With this school of thought an Arcane Trickster is just as much a sneaky backstabbing wizard as much as it is a spellcasting backstabbing sneak.

Others here are saying that it's not perfectly acceptable to play a psion that is anything other than a PSION, because otherwise you have the baggage that the original base class carries with it. To them an Arcane Trickster is explicitly a ROGUE who can do some magic and a Psionic Sorcerer is explicitly a SORCERER.

I don't think that either way of looking at it is wrong, because opinions can't be wrong. I am, however, a fan of psionics being "different" than magic. I also feel that 5e is stale and too conservative in its game design. I have been able to play a SORCERER from launch day and call him a psion. Giving me a new subclass of SORCERER with powers more emulating older versions of psionics will make my reskinning of SORCERER feel closer to a a psion. It doesn't, however, give me a PSION which is what I would personally prefer.

There are no crunch hooks in the Mind Sliver spells to attach it to psionics in any way. There aren't even any fluff hooks to connect it to psionics. Its simply another Enchantment spell. There is no mention of psionic anywhere in the spell description. There is nothing that ties this spell only to characters is a certain innate power. There is nothing that sets it apart from every other spell in the books that have been released so far.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think this statement helps me to understand your viewpoint on psion versus the viewpoint of the others in this thread debating with you. I'll do my best to try to explain.

In 5e D&D there is a character class called a FIGHTER. I use all caps to point out that FIGHTER is a collection of rules and options that mechanically describes how something works in the game. I could, in my home game, have a pseudo-Roman style setting where the residents of the world refer to legionaries, gladiators, barbarians, and mercenaries all of which can be represented in the game by the rules for FIGHTER. They also might be represented by the rules for BARBARIAN or even ROGUE depending on how the individual was pictured. You could even make a case for some of the spry non-armored and light weapon using barbarian tribesfolk to be represented on the character sheet by the MONK. This is exactly what I repurposed in the Tomb of Annihilation campaign to represent a native tribesman from the jungles of Chult. I used the rules for MONK but my character would describe themselves as a warrior.

The teases for the Tasha's book indicates that its going to include rules for including psionics in 5e. We speculate this is going to be done by taking several classes that already exist in 5e (assumed to be FIGHTER, ROGUE, and SORCERER) and including a subclass for each of those that incorporates powers/spells/abilities that emulate previous editions psionic content. One such element is the new spell Mind Sliver which I will show below for those who haven't seen it yet.

View attachment 126652

Now I would like to point out the fundamental disagreement happening in this thread, as I see it.

Some here are saying that its perfectly acceptable that if you want to play a psion that you can use a FIGHTER, ROGUE, or SORCERER to do so, because once you strip away the mechanics you can have a character who can zap others minds, charm them, levitate things, and remote view and that is what a psion is. With this school of thought an Arcane Trickster is just as much a sneaky backstabbing wizard as much as it is a spellcasting backstabbing sneak.

Others here are saying that it's not perfectly acceptable to play a psion that is anything other than a PSION, because otherwise you have the baggage that the original base class carries with it. To them an Arcane Trickster is explicitly a ROGUE who can do some magic and a Psionic Sorcerer is explicitly a SORCERER.

I don't think that either way of looking at it is wrong, because opinions can't be wrong. I am, however, a fan of psionics being "different" than magic. I also feel that 5e is stale and too conservative in its game design. I have been able to play a SORCERER from launch day and call him a psion. Giving me a new subclass of SORCERER with powers more emulating older versions of psionics will make my reskinning of SORCERER feel closer to a a psion. It doesn't, however, give me a PSION which is what I would personally prefer.

There are no crunch hooks in the Mind Sliver spells to attach it to psionics in any way. There aren't even any fluff hooks to connect it to psionics. Its simply another Enchantment spell. There is no mention of psionic anywhere in the spell description. There is nothing that ties this spell only to characters is a certain innate power. There is nothing that sets it apart from every other spell in the books that have been released so far.

Thank you, good analysis.

I actually generally prefer that in class based games such as D&D the classes to be concrete things that have in universe meaning so in that sense I get the desire for psions to be their own thing. Then again I don't think getting stuck on nomenclature is helpful. In my setting druids are usually called shamans.

I think part of the issue to me that I really don't get what sets the psions apart on fundamental level. 'They use their inner power,' well so do the sorcerers and monks so giving them 'psionic' subclasses works for me. Fundamentally the whole 'but its different' thing just doesn't compute for me in this instance. I don't see an essential difference between a sorcerer drawing on their innate magical capabilities and a psion drawing on their inner mental power to produce blatantly supernatural effects. Characterising one as sorcery and other to psionic seems mostly like a matter of style; they're both basically doing the same thing so in that sense I don't see a huge issue in them being represented by the same base class.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It's in that box. Other than "can't cast spells" what more is needed.


At work, so no, but I can't direct you. It's in the spellcasting section prior to the spell lists.

Ok. Sorry. I was wrong and you were right. I must have mixed it up with earlier editions. I hope there are no hard feelings.

 

[Aldarc]

I think part of the issue to me that I really don't get what sets the psions apart on fundamental level. 'They use their inner power,' well so do the sorcerers and monks so giving them 'psionic' subclasses works for me. Fundamentally the whole 'but its different' thing just doesn't compute for me in this instance. I don't see an essential difference between a sorcerer drawing on their innate magical capabilities and a psion drawing on their inner mental power to produce blatantly supernatural effects. Characterising one as sorcery and other to psionic seems mostly like a matter of style; they're both basically doing the same thing so in that sense I don't see a huge issue in them being represented by the same base class.

Sure, but I would say the same is true for the difference between a sorcerer and a wizard. Does it really matter that one is learned arcane magic and the other is innate arcane magic? Is that not also mostly a matter of style and aesthetics that sets them apart? So why not represent both with the same class?

 

[Maxperson]

Ok. Sorry. I was wrong and you were right. I must have mixed it up with earlier editions. I hope there are no hard feelings.

Nope. None at all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, but I would say the same is true for the difference between a sorcerer and a wizard. Does it really matter that one is learned arcane magic and the other is innate arcane magic? Is that not also mostly a matter of style and aesthetics that sets them apart? So why not represent both with the same class?

Sorcerer really shouldn't be a separate class.