D&D 5E Psionics in Tasha

[Aldarc]

Doesn't this conversation depend, if not hinge, on whether one considers "rules" as a general guideline versus as an absolute law or universal constant?

 

[Shardstone]

Doesn't this conversation depend, if not hinge, on whether one considers "rules" as a general guideline versus as an absolute law or universal constant?

This is a reductionist argument that basically says "Should we even have this conversation?" To answer it, I'll say no, it doesn't depend or hinge on those things - those things have no impact whatsoever actually. Why would your personal view of rules dictate whether D&D should have psionics rules or not? Does your personal viewing of rules also dictate whether there should be spells, races, or classes in the game?

 

[glass]

Nonsense. A "rule" that has exceptions is demonstrably false.

In the normal everyday definitions of the terms, you would of course be correct (the oft misinterpreted saying "the exception proves the rule" is using the older definition of the word "prove" meaning "test"). EDIT: Or not, apparently. Thanks @see.

Specifically in the context of a ruleset like D&D, not so much. D&D rules have exceptions all the time, without implying that the underlying rule is any less a rule, and indeed must so for any ruleset of any real complexity to work.

_
glass.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Lets look at the consequences of "no components" then, shall we?

In this week's game my players encountered a swarm of cranium rats. Who cast Dominate Monster on one of the PCs. Not only did the players not see the spell being cast, so could not counter or attack the caster, even after the PC was dominated and marching off to their doom they still had no idea what the source of effect was. So, rather than try to kill the caster or try to break their concentration, they had no choice but to violently KO the mind controlled player.

Now, that's okay for a monster, but it would be a massive power boost if a PC was able to do the same thing.

 

[Maxperson]

In this week's game my players encountered a swarm of cranium rats. Who cast Dominate Monster on one of the PCs. Not only did the players not see the spell being cast, so could not counter or attack the caster, even after the PC was dominated and marching off to their doom they still had no idea what the source of effect was. So, rather than try to kill the caster or try to break their concentration, they had no choice but to violently KO the mind controlled player.

This is a tired non-argument. We have also been arguing for the displays of 3e that would negate that advantage. But then you know that, since you've debated this with me in multiple threads. Why are you trying to argue something you know isn't what we are asking for?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Doesn't this conversation depend, if not hinge, on whether one considers "rules" as a general guideline versus as an absolute law or universal constant?

This is kind of what I was thinking.

If you throw Cesium into water, it will explode. There are no exceptions. This always happens. Saying this rule would be broken because there are no times you can throw Cesium into water and it not explode would be ludicrous.


And I think that was why part of the reason why the Devs very intelligently did not make the Psionic tag for innate spellcasting carry any special rules. Because you could have "normal" innate spellcasting with no components. And you could have Psionic innate spellcasting with components. And since they have to specify if it needs components anyways, there was literally no reason to make a rule for it.

Even if Monster XYAZ is the only one who ever uses components for Psionic casting, making them the sole exception to a general rule of thumb for a future full of thousands of psionic monsters... the way they wrote the rules reflects a much more open interpretation, allowing them to easily do that without having to call out "this monster breaks the rules" while also having DMs have to look up the rules for Psionic casting.

Because there are no rules for it. They usually use no components, but that is covered in the statblock itself, it is not a feature of the tag "Psionic" Even if 99% of the time, that statblock note and that tag are paired together, it is not a rule.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is a tired non-argument. We have also been arguing for the displays of 3e that would negate that advantage. But then you know that, since you've debated this with me in multiple threads. Why are you trying to argue something you know isn't what we are asking for?

To be fair, currently by the rules, Displays aren't a thing.

You would in fact, have to add that rule to PCs. Once more making the Psionic tag have different rules for Monsters and PCs, which would mean you would have to specify whether you are talking about monster psionic rules or player psionic rules. Instead, Psionics were given no special rules. Meaning that you do not have to have that distinction between two rule sets named the same thing.

 

[Maxperson]

And I think that was why part of the reason why the Devs very intelligently did not make the Psionic tag for innate spellcasting carry any special rules. Because you could have "normal" innate spellcasting with no components. And you could have Psionic innate spellcasting with components. And since they have to specify if it needs components anyways, there was literally no reason to make a rule for it.

So far there isn't one example of either, though. No innate normal casters without components use and no innate psionic casters with it.

Even if Monster XYAZ is the only one who ever uses components for Psionic casting, making them the sole exception to a general rule of thumb for a future full of thousands of psionic monsters... the way they wrote the rules reflects a much more open interpretation, allowing them to easily do that without having to call out "this monster breaks the rules" while also having DMs have to look up the rules for Psionic casting.

D&D is an exceptions based game, though. You can't walk through walls, except if you have Passwall or incorporeal movement. You can't re-roll dice, except if you are Lucky or another exception. You can't see in the dark, except if you have Darkvision. The game is literally designed around exceptions. There's even a rule for it. Specific Beats General is just another way of saying, exceptions break the rule.

There's no good reason that I can see for psionics to be different than the game itself, unless it's the exception.

 

[Maxperson]

To be fair, currently by the rules, Displays aren't a thing.

Well, yeah. That's why I'm saying they could be done to balance things out. They also weren't a thing in 3e until the psionic book.

You would in fact, have to add that rule to PCs. Once more making the Psionic tag have different rules for Monsters and PCs, which would mean you would have to specify whether you are talking about monster psionic rules or player psionic rules. Instead, Psionics were given no special rules. Meaning that you do not have to have that distinction between two rule sets named the same thing.

Two things. First, monsters already follow different rules than PCs, so this isn't even a thing to blink at. Second, if you want conformity between monsters and PCs, you can give it to them and just apply the displays to monsters.

 

[Aldarc]

This is a reductionist argument that basically says "Should we even have this conversation?" To answer it, I'll say no, it doesn't depend or hinge on those things - those things have no impact whatsoever actually. Why would your personal view of rules dictate whether D&D should have psionics rules or not? Does your personal viewing of rules also dictate whether there should be spells, races, or classes in the game?

There may be a misunderstanding afoot. I'm quibbling with the back and forth game of semantics regarding exceptions disproving rules and such.