D&D 5E Psionics in Tasha

[glass]

If the brains glow at all (and that assumption is only based on the illustration, their is nothing in the text to indicate that) it would be only when their powers are active. Rats are tiny, their brains are less than 1 cm across, it was dark, it was a location where you would expect to find rats, cranium rats are highly intelligent and where largely trying to stay hidden, and even so, I allowed a passive nature check (which they failed) for the party to notice something unusual about them.

I have only ever played 5e not run it, so I only have a PHB. I will have to take your word from what the text says in the book, but the wiki from which I sourced the image says the brains glow (possibly). It is reasonable to rule that they only glow, but since this line of debate was about them tacetly using their powers on unsuspecting adventurers they will be glowing at that time. And the fact that it will likely be dark makes glowing brains stand out more, not less.

My players where quite happy that I had given them a sporting chance.

All I can say is it is a good job I am not one of your players, because I would not have been happy about it. And I would probably not have bitten my tongue and stayed quiet about it.

In 5e D&D a display is a component. That's how it's represented in terms of game mechanics.

Displays are not represented in the game at all AFAIK. Were they to be, there is no reason whatsoever to define them in such a way that no components would equal no displays, which would go against the point of including them in the first place.

_
glass.

 

[glass]

Sure, if the entire swarm ran past you, but they wouldn't do that.

If it is not an entire rat swarm, then they do not have the intelligence or the psionic powers.

_
glass.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I have only ever played 5e not run it, so I only have a PHB. I will have to take your word from what the text says in the book, but the wiki from which I sourced the image says the brains glow (possibly). It is reasonable to rule that they only glow, but since this line of debate was about them tacetly using their powers on unsuspecting adventurers they will be glowing at that time. And the fact that it will likely be dark makes glowing brains stand out more, not less.

Not only does the book not state that the brains glow. It does not state that the necessarily have exposed brains or indeed look any different at all to regular rats.

All I can say is it is a good job I am not one of your players, because I would not have been happy about it. And I would probably not have bitten my tongue and stayed quiet about it.

All i can say is the door is the always open, my players are free to use it any time they like.

Displays are not represented in the game at all AFAIK. Were they to be, there is no reason whatsoever to define them in such a way that no components would equal no displays, which would go against the point of including them in the first place.

_
glass.

PHB p102:

Subtle Spell
When you cast a spell you can spend 1 sorcery point to cast it without and somatic or verbal components.

Jeremey Crawford, Sage Advice:

Subtle Spell is meant to protect a spell w/o material components from counterspell, since you can't see the casting.

If it is not an entire rat swarm, then they do not have the intelligence or the psionic powers.

_
glass.

They only have to be within 5' of each other. They don't have to be in plain view.

 

[Maxperson]

They are depicted with gestures for exactly the reason material components are required in D&D - so the person watching can tell that a certain character is using their powers.

Intentionally concealing power use would require more concentration, so works fine with sorcery points-subtle spell.

In 5e D&D a display is a component. That's how it's represented in terms of game mechanics. It is explicit in 5e rules that if you cast a spell without components (i.e. subtle spell) an observer cannot tell that the character is casting a spell.

No components = no display

I think it's very likely that Tasha's will include a sidebox suggesting refluffing components if the character is intended to be psionic.

So you really think every person who is holding a piece of iron in D&D is casting a spell? Every person holding a pearl is casting identify?

Material components aren't there for display purposes. They are there as a limiter to the number of times you can use the magic. Or at least that's what they were for in 1e-3e. WotC has basically just kept them for nostalgia/tradition purposes at this point, except for the valuable ones which continue to serve their original purpose. It's the somatic and verbal that serve to show spellcasting, but those still aren't a display like Psions had in 3e.

 

[glass]

Not only does the book note state that the brains glow. It does not state that the necessarily have exposed brains or indeed look any different at all to regular rats.

Is the picture not from the book?

All i can say is the door is the always open, my players are free to use it any time they like.

And if I have a particularly egregious falling out with a GM or a player, that is always an option. But I prefer not to court such difficulties by playing gotcha with my players (and I react poorly when GMs play gotcha with me).

PHB p102:

Subtle Spell
When you cast a spell you can spend 1 sorcery point to cast it without and somatic or verbal components.

Jeremey Crawford, Sage Advice:

Subtle Spell is meant to protect a spell w/o material components from counterspell, since you can't see the casting.

No mention of displays in either of those excepts, so it in no way proves your position that displays = components. They entirely consistant with displays not currently existing.

_
glass.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So you really think every person who is holding a piece of iron in D&D is casting a spell? Every person holding a pearl is casting identify?

This is what the rules state:
Jeremey Crawford, Sage Advice:

Subtle Spell is meant to protect a spell w/o material components from counterspell, since you can't see the casting.

Ergo, if someone casts a spell with material components, even if it has no S or V components, you can tell that person is casting a spell (magic sparkles?). If you cast a spell with no components it is impossible to tell that a spell is being cast.

 

[Maxperson]

This is what the rules state:
Jeremey Crawford, Sage Advice:

Subtle Spell is meant to protect a spell w/o material components from counterspell, since you can't see the casting.

Ergo, if someone casts a spell with material components, even if it has no S or V components, you can tell that person is casting a spell (magic sparkles?). If you cast a spell with no components it is impossible to tell that a spell is being cast.

There's this thread for stupid Sage Advice. You should post that over there. In any case V, S and M are not displays like I am talking about. I'm talking about the 3e psionic displays which were not components.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And if I have a particularly egregious falling out with a GM or a player, that is always an option. But I prefer not to court such difficulties by playing gotcha with my players (and I react poorly when GMs play gotcha with me).

Good, I wouldn't want a player who throws their toys out of the pram if an encounter doesn't go the way they expect. My players enjoy being surprised.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm talking about the 3e psionic displays which were not components.

3e edition was 3e, and has no relevance to 5e. In 5e spell components serve as indicators that a spell is being cast. Don't use the word "displays" if it bothers you, but in 5e the rules are perfectly clear: a spell with no components is invisible.

 

[Aldarc]

This is what the rules state:
Jeremey Crawford, Sage Advice:

Subtle Spell is meant to protect a spell w/o material components from counterspell, since you can't see the casting.

Ergo, if someone casts a spell with material components, even if it has no S or V components, you can tell that person is casting a spell (magic sparkles?). If you cast a spell with no components it is impossible to tell that a spell is being cast.

A minor quibble, but Sage Advice is not a rule. It's Crawford's interpretation of the rules.