D&D 5E Psionics in Tasha

[Minigiant]

What mechanics in 5e? I don't recall seeing anything to do with the mechanics of the game or even subclasses that deals with the weave. About the only thing I really remember is that there was a text box talking about it. I'm not saying they aren't there, but I definitely don't recall them so I'm thinking it has little to no impact on a game.

I also don't recall it being mentioned as a setting default for 4e, but then it has been a while since I've looked at 4e.

Who said weave?

I said 5e has an assumption of a shared interface.
Because 5e no longer seperates spells by classes and type. They are just spells and every class interfaces with spells in a universa lsense.
Scrolls
Spellbooks
Domains
Multiclassing
Flexible casting
Divine smite/Primeval Awareness
Spell granting feats

It's just spells and slots. Everyone uses them.and interfaces with them somewhere down the line.
Blame 5e for making the game more user friendly, less restrictive, and easier to learn.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The weave is only one interpretation of the interface.

Like I said.

If Psionics or Primal or Incarnium are spells, then wizards can add them to their books.

Then a cleric can dip into a level of psion and toss their 1st level psionic spell in a 9th level loss.

The new Fey/Shadow feats that let you know any 1st level spell of certain school. ANY SPELL FROM ANY CLASS of those schools.

Coffeelocks.

Youll have to add rules to make the lore start looking screwy and weird.

So... nothing new.

Wizards can add Divine spells into their books, if they share them in their class list. And Wizards already have Psionic abilities as spells (telekinesis and multiple versions of telekinesis at that, two different telepathies, the ability to see the future, Detect Thoughts, Suggestion, Charm Person, ect)

A wizard can dip one level of cleric and throw their 1st level cleric spell as a 9th level loss. Heck, they could go two levels of Paladin and throw a 9th level divine Smite.

The other two things stay those things.


You aren't pointing out new problems with the lore. Just old ones that you don't like with this new coat of paint.

I didn't miss it. I answered it with my response. Magic and not magic have a distinction of their own. It doesn't take someone to make it useful.

So, you can explain how the Succubus's Charm ability isn't magic? How about a Beholder's Eye Rays?

The distinction between magic and not magic is just as useful. If psionics are supernatural, but not magic, then detect magic and dispel magic won't work against psionics. Other things will be different as well. It does not take a person to view those as distinct. They are distinct on their own merits.

Cool. You magic levitation can be dispelled, but if psionics is supernatural, but not magical, mine can't be.

So, the real thing you seem to be interested in then, is removing counter play. You want a set of abilities that cannot be countered or dispelled within the current framework.

Because that is a difference you are adding. Nothing about Psionics would require us to say that it isn't fully compatible with magic. But, you want the ability to avoid being dispelled. To avoid being countered. To scy through a guards and wards set up. To read the mind of a person under Mind Blank.

This is after all, the first distinction you want to point out. Which indicates to me it is something very important to you, and to me.... that is just not something I want in the game.

You actually believe that?

Do I actually believe that I found a magical spell called Levitation, which levitates an object or person, therefore making "levitating something" a magical spell in the game? Yes. I can even post a link to the DnD Beyond page of it.

Do I believe that this then proves your statement "Not true. It's supernatural, but not necessarily magic. " at least partially wrong in response to Crimon's "Being able to levitate objects or shoot mind bullets is magic. Period."? Also yes.

Because Levitating objects is something done via magic.... a lot. In fact it is one of the most common signs of "person who knows magic" to have them move something via magic, without touching it. Or, to move it with their mind or a gesture. And there is no indication that such effects are not in fact magic.

And, "mind bullets" still accurately describes Mind Spike, so I believe that I was correct to say that was a magical spell effect too. Since it is.

Who said weave?

I said 5e has an assumption of a shared interface.
Because 5e no longer seperates spells by classes and type. They are just spells and every class interfaces with spells in a universal sense.
Scrolls
Spellbooks
Domains
Multiclassing
Flexible casting
Divine smite/Primeval Awareness
Spell granting feats

It's just spells and slots. Everyone uses them.and interfaces with them somewhere down the line.
Blame 5e for making the game more user friendly, less restrictive, and easier to learn.

Okay... but where do have a rule stating that is because of a unique, third element that acts as an interface between people and magic and not just... how people interact with magic.

Music can be created by the human voice. That music can be written down. That music can be presented in different styles of singing. Training in one type of singing can make you far better at learning and working within a different style of singing.

And animals can use the same interaction to make far different, and sometimes far more powerful sounds, not because they have a different third element interface, but because their bodies are designed differently and so they can interact with sound and music differently. Even though they are interacting in a similar universal sense.


So, nothing you listed points to an "interface" between people and magic. This could all be just how magic works.

 

[Minigiant]

Okay... but where do have a rule stating that is because of a unique, third element that acts as an interface between people and magic and not just... how people interact with magic.

Page 201 of the PHB.

Mearls and Crawford added an interface to make sense of their rules changes in 5e. Don't like it, ignore it. But that's the fundamentals on how they make sense of spells, classes, and subclasses.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Who said weave?

I said 5e has an assumption of a shared interface.
Because 5e no longer seperates spells by classes and type. They are just spells and every class interfaces with spells in a universa lsense.
Scrolls
Spellbooks
Domains
Multiclassing
Flexible casting
Divine smite/Primeval Awareness
Spell granting feats

It's just spells and slots. Everyone uses them.and interfaces with them somewhere down the line.
Blame 5e for making the game more user friendly, less restrictive, and easier to learn.

Ah, with the discussion about the weave being the interface between magic and people, you've not done yourself a favor with your choice of term. It appears you mean common rules, which is a different thing from an interface in most regards, but I see what you're trying to say, and don't necessarily disagree. I'm not seeing the point, though -- is there a problem with a common ruleset doing lots of different things? FATE uses a common ruleset, but generates lots of different possibilities. A set of commonly shared rules or attributes isn't automatically simple or limiting. For example, you can use most of the same mechanics for psionics in D&D as for spellcasters, but change a few things, like no scrolls, psionic spells being limited to psionic spell lists (and so not available to other casters) and removing/reducing component use. Bam, you have a set of psionics that is separate from other caster classes while using most of the same rules. Then it's just a matter of flavor.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Page 201 of the PHB.

Mearls and Crawford added an interface to make sense of their rules changes in 5e. Don't like it, ignore it. But that's the fundamentals on how they make sense of spells, classes, and subclasses.

Wait, are you talking about share rules or the weave, here. Your terminology is more confusing that enlightening.

 

[Minigiant]

Ah, with the discussion about the weave being the interface between magic and people, you've not done yourself a favor with your choice of term. It appears you mean common rules, which is a different thing from an interface in most regards, but I see what you're trying to say, and don't necessarily disagree. I'm not seeing the point, though -- is there a problem with a common ruleset doing lots of different things? FATE uses a common ruleset, but generates lots of different possibilities. A set of commonly shared rules or attributes isn't automatically simple or limiting. For example, you can use most of the same mechanics for psionics in D&D as for spellcasters, but change a few things, like no scrolls, psionic spells being limited to psionic spell lists (and so not available to other casters) and removing/reducing component use. Bam, you have a set of psionics that is separate from other caster classes while using most of the same rules. Then it's just a matter of flavor.

I didn't mention the weave.
I said the interface.

The problem is that people see Spell interface and Weave as synonymous. The Weave is one option. The most popular one.

I didn't say you can't homebrew. I said if you play the game straight out the book and don't use some sort of interface, the lore gets weird and screwy.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I didn't mention the weave.
I said the interface.

The problem is that people see Spell interface and Weave as synonymous. The Weave is one option. The most popular one.

I didn't say you can't homebrew. I said if you play the game straight out the book and don't use some sort of interface, the lore gets weird and screwy.

I don't see how, unless, again, you're using interface as a stand in for common rules? Whatever you're saying here, it's not at all clear.

 

[Minigiant]

Wait, are you talking about share rules or the weave, here. Your terminology is more confusing that enlightening.

Who said the weave?
I said an interface.
My preferred interface is True Names.
The interface is the explanation Mearls and Co used to justify shared spell rules with no obstructive class and type restrictions.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't see how, unless, again, you're using interface as a stand in for common rules? Whatever you're saying here, it's not at all clear.

The interface is the explanation for common spell rules and why every caster taps into the same pool of spells and slots.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The interface is the explanation for common spell rules and why every caster taps into the same pool of spells and slots.

Okay, I think I'm tracking you with these last two. You're saying some kind of story of how magic works has to exist in order for the ruleset for magic to work or make sense? I don't agree. I don't bother to explain how magic works in my games and it seems to go just fine. Anytime you can swap in different things and nothing else changes it's a good sign that that thing isn't important to the overall operation. It might do something else, like tell a story you like, but it's not essential to the ruleset.