D&D 5E Psionics in Tasha

[Charlaquin]

Alright, but let's be coherent and give spells to Fighters, Rogues and Barbarians, because right now they look like they belong in a completely different game than the all spells, all the time D&D 5e.

And then we’ll finally be back to 4e style design!

(Joking... kind of...)

 

[Cadence]

Found this interesting in the 3.5 Psionic Handbook:

"Some people do not use psionics in their D&D games. This reluctance is usually due to the way previous editions have handled psionics rules. In previous editions, psionics rule systems are add-ons that do not dovetail well with the core rules. In contrast, psionics rules for the new edition of the D&D game are integrated into the core mechanics of the game. A psionic character will be balanced with a non-psionic character of equal level. You’ll be able to multiclass into and out of the psionic character classes like you can with the core classes."

 

[Charlaquin]

Found this interesting in the 3.5 Psionic Handbook:

"Some people do not use psionics in their D&D games. This reluctance is usually due to the way previous editions have handled psionics rules. In previous editions, psionics rule systems are add-ons that do not dovetail well with the core rules. In contrast, psionics rules for the new edition of the D&D game are integrated into the core mechanics of the game. A psionic character will be balanced with a non-psionic character of equal level. You’ll be able to multiclass into and out of the psionic character classes like you can with the core classes."

Of course, 3e psionics routinely got lambasted for being “spells with the word psionic tacked on.” The pendulum swings.

 

[Ovinomancer]

?

Stating a truism is not wanting. Whether or not I think most people suck, or not, is a completely different exercise.

After all, you can't trust people. People like Nickelback and gave Driving Miss Daisy the Best Picture Oscar.

Ah, I misunderstood you from earlier in the thread, then. You think that psionics as spells is the better option and have use the truism to show support. My bad.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

Once they introduced the section below (from the 3.0 Psionic book), there has been little fundamental difference between "psionics" and "spells".

Note: I, personally, think that psioncs SHOULD be 100% different from spells and spell-like-abilities and think that there shouldn't be any "crossing of the streams" between the two power sources except for very specific spells/powers created explicitly to affect the other power source. I even make this true in my campaigns as a house rule. The fact remains that at a deeper, generic level psionics has been "magic" since 3e.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

"Same quality with two different names." Exactly!

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I'll post this too, since it will probably get referenced at some point. (also from the 3.0 Psionics Handbook)

 

[JiffyPopTart]

And for completeness on that change in view on psionics...what the 2e Psionic Handbook had to say about it.

 

[Aldarc]

Of course, 3e psionics routinely got lambasted for being “spells with the word psionic tacked on.” The pendulum swings.

IMHO, 3e and 4e psionics were probably the best iteration. I don't mind that psionics are spells or magic, but I don't want psionics to just be subsumed by arcane magic. I want it to be more like divine cleric magic or primal druid magic, which both co-exist alongside arcane magic without people calling for the death of clerics and druids since sorcerers and wizards already exist.

 

[DND_Reborn]

And for completeness on that change in view on psionics...what the 2e Psionic Handbook had to say about it.

View attachment 126629

And from AD&D 1E PHB:

I guess we just didn't need that much of an explanation back then. FWIW, pay particular attention to that word: resemble.

Having hardly played 3E, and no 4E at all, but over 30 years of 1E and 2E-- Yes, psionics remain distinctly non-magical in my games.

But as I have said before, I will reserve final judgement once the full system is released. I am not pleased about the "psionics is spells" thinking, but I am hoping I might be pleasantly surprised by what the final version of WotC's vision reveals.