D&D 5E (2014) Psionics in Tasha

[Mistwell]

They weren't spells though.
On the activator's level, the manifester wasn't casting a spell.

Spell resistance resists psionics.

Whatever meaningful difference you're finding here, it looks to be purely surface level only.

 

[Weiley31]

I could've sworn that Spell Resistance didn't do anything to Psionics and vice versa with Power Resistance. But it's been forever since I've read the 3.5 Psionics Handbook. And if that was the case, then having anti-magic stuff have disadvantage Psionics would make sense.

 

[Minigiant]

Spell resistance resists psionics.

Whatever meaningful difference you're finding here, it looks to be purely surface level only.

Youare focusing on the end point: the effect.
I am focus on the starting point: the process.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Youare focusing on the end point: the effect.
I am focus on the starting point: the process.

You mean when the psionists uses magic? That process? I mean, you're not really fixated on either the effect or the process, but on the words used to name those. What happened when a 3e psionist used psionics was that they used magic -- differently approached magic, but still magic. Arguing that because this magic was called a power instead of a spell is semantics.

The ship of psionics and magic are totally different sailed two editions ago. It hasn't come back to port, yet, despite those waiting for it. You're welcome to continue to wait for your ship to come in, but don't tell us it's always been at the dock.

 

[Mistwell]

Youare focusing on the end point: the effect.
I am focus on the starting point: the process.

While not all processes are primarily descriptive in nature, this one is primarily descriptive in nature. The fact that they needed an optional variant rule for games that wanted to distinguish between psionics and spells tells you it wasn't meaningfully distinguished in the game.

 

[Gladius Legis]

You mean when the psionists uses magic? That process? I mean, you're not really fixated on either the effect or the process, but on the words used to name those. What happened when a 3e psionist used psionics was that they used magic -- differently approached magic, but still magic. Arguing that because this magic was called a power instead of a spell is semantics.

The ship of psionics and magic are totally different sailed two editions ago. It hasn't come back to port, yet, despite those waiting for it. You're welcome to continue to wait for your ship to come in, but don't tell us it's always been at the dock.

The mechanics were different in 3e. 3e psionics did not use spell slots. And even if the mechanics weren't totally different, words matter narratively. And narratively, there has always been a clear demarcation between psionics and magic.

So, no, that ship never left port in the first place. Until 5e with TCOE explicitly calling psionics spells. Psionics was never magic, no matter how much you think words don't matter, and I am sick and tired of dishonest people like you claiming otherwise.

 

[Minigiant]

You mean when the psionists uses magic? That process? I mean, you're not really fixated on either the effect or the process, but on the words used to name those. What happened when a 3e psionist used psionics was that they used magic -- differently approached magic, but still magic. Arguing that because this magic was called a power instead of a spell is semantics.

The ship of psionics and magic are totally different sailed two editions ago. It hasn't come back to port, yet, despite those waiting for it. You're welcome to continue to wait for your ship to come in, but don't tell us it's always been at the dock.

I'm not fixated on the world either.

I am fixated on the logic between the mechanics and narrative.

Many fans in the D&D community simple go "it's magic" and walk away.

The mechanics of a wizard spellbook creates an effect on the lore, narratives, and story of the wizard. Each rule change changes magic itself. It creates questions. How do wizards cast spells? Is the wizard, sorcerer, and warlock fireball the same thing? If yes, what does that say about their different mechanics? If not, what aren't there 3 fireballs?

If you don't care because "magic is Magic and spells his spells "then it's very simple for you. There's no problem.

But if you care about the process from the creation of the effect, l to the learning of the effect, to the activation by the person of the effect, to the affect itself; well making psionics into spells is just added more craziness and confusion to something that's already convoluted with very few specifics, wired details that do matter and gaps that cannot be accounted for.

Having both sorcerers and wizards use the same spells makes magic wierd enough. Why do sorcerers get a psionic subclass but not wizards if wizards can literally write down and analyze spells from pieces of pilfered scrolls from long dead mages.

 

[Minigiant]

While not all processes are primarily descriptive in nature, this one is primarily descriptive in nature. The fact that they needed an optional variant rule for games that wanted to distinguish between psionics and spells tells you it wasn't meaningfully distinguished in the game.

Or
Just maybe D&D supernatural effects made no sense and description was added to made the nonsensical have a bit of logic

 

[Ovinomancer]

Or
Just maybe D&D supernatural effects made no sense and description was added to made the nonsensical have a bit of logic

I agree, but this seems at odds with your post immediately proceeding -- either it's a bit of lore to reduce the nonsense or it matters what the lore is. I don't see these two things as particularly compatible because any lore introduced that eases the nonsense would be acceptable, yes? Including powers are just a different way to do spells?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

You mean when the psionists uses magic? That process? I mean, you're not really fixated on either the effect or the process, but on the words used to name those. What happened when a 3e psionist used psionics was that they used magic -- differently approached magic, but still magic. Arguing that because this magic was called a power instead of a spell is semantics.

You call it semantics, I call it the possibility to tell stories. When different concepts are brought together, you can compare them, confront them, mix them, use them to generate stories. If everything is the same, works the same, has the same name, you’re voluntarily making things dull, drab, homogeneous, boring and you gain nothing in return.