Tasha's Cauldron of Everything will be available on D&D Beyond upon release, but digital pre-orders for the product are not yet available. We will share all pre-order details - including the special D&D Beyond pre-order perks - on all of our social channels as soon as they become available. Thank you!
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything will be available on D&D Beyond upon release, but digital pre-orders for the product are not yet available. We will share all pre-order details - including the special D&D Beyond pre-order perks - on all of our social channels as soon as they become available. Thank you!
I hope it includes content for the DM and the player, like XGtE
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
REMEMBER: Wizards Of The Coast does not own DDB, they are two different companies. When you buy a physical book, WotC receives the money you bought it for, not DDB and vice versa. If you want a digital key to get an online book for free because you have the hardcopy book then DDB makes no money because you don't buy off DDB you buy off WotC, so please stop making threads about this issue. DDB needs money to continue helping people and servers aren't cheap.
Any thoughts on possible spells added to the artificer list from the UA or in the CFV section? Dragon's breath and Tenser's floating disk are the ones that come to mind at first.
I'd love more 1st and 2nd level options for Spell-Storing Item. Like Silence or Mirror Image, for example.
To elaborate some before poor Sposta bursts, since I know for an absolute fact nobody went and read those two threads he linked:
There is a significant (if the split in those mentioned threads is indicative of the playerbase's general leanings) subsection of players who believe that psionic abilities should feel distinct and different from arcane spellcasting. A "psionic" character that uses the same methods as a spellcaster to produce the same results as a spellcaster with the same fuel as a spellcaster is not a "psionic" character at all - it is a spellcaster with delusions of mental aptitude. TRhere are limits to how far "reflavor for your pleasure!" will stretch, and a character that has to Speak Mystic Words, finger-waggle, and grope for their eye of newt every time they want to use their "innate psionic abilities" is a stretch too far for those who see a distinct, fundamental rift between spellcasting and psionic ability.
The usual arguments against this stance boil down to "but WHYYYYYYYY" from people whose brains aren't wired that way and cannot figure out why folks like Sposta (and myself) are so vehemently against treating psionics as just more-purple-than-usual spellcasting. They figure that supernatural effects is supernatural effects is supernatural effects, and the specific packaging you put on your brand of supernatural effects doesn't matter save for your own personal aesthetics. This subset of people does not recognize a difference between "psychic magic" and "magical magic" and gets very confused when the very phrase "psychic magic" pisses off the Spostas and Yureis of the world who insist that psionic/psychic abilities have nothing whatsoever to do with 'magic'.
There's also a strong tendency to point out that Fifth Edition hates rules with a ferocity and passion bordering on psychotic, and ANY attempt to introduce LITERALLY ANYTHING that distinguishes a psionic character from a regular-ass boring spellcaster we already have seven hundred examples of is met with confusion, rejection, and typically outright hostility. That's why the Psionic Talent die died - it was a New Rule in a game that hates New Rules so powerfully I am amazed we ever get books like Tasha's Cauldron, here. Too many people want psychic characters to be nothing but regular-ass spellcasters with a purple filter over the top and who fulfill somatic components with their face instead of their hands, and they just legitimately don't understand why that very idea is toxic, hateful, and actively harmful to the game for folks like Sposta and myself. We get "well just homebrew something then!" or "why is it so awful to flavor things your way while keeping the simple rules we already understand instead of having to learn this weird new thing?"
We get this often enough that we've formed...strong opinions on the subject. All of which is tangentially and mostly off-topic for this thread, but hopefully the explanation helps ongoing conversations.
Im just only catching up on the reading from the overnight deluge of different timezone users. I reading and quoting this from all the way back at pg8 without any knowledge of whats happening on the following pages. Im aware Im probably popping this in in a completely different conversation where its up to, but I just had to say thank you for this succinct view point. This single quote made the opinion of yours and Sposta's and many others around the community crystal clear for a change rather than just "Psionics =/= Spellcasting" or "I shouldn't have to reflavour because-". As someone who has started in 5e, I get it now and as someone who was a firm "just reflavour it" before this comment, I now agree with you.
Ok thats all. Carry on. As you were.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired) Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
I appreciate you saying so, Spikepit. That was my intent with the post. It's hard enough for many of us to remember that other folks simply don't think the way we do and may not recognize the same basic premises we do. For folks like Sposta and myself, the difference between "Magic" and "Psychic" is as stark, obvious, and unbridgable as the difference between "Magic" and "Martial". Telling someone who wanted to play an awesomely powerful spellcaster to simply reflavor a fighter's different weapon attacks as different 'Spell Strikes', and treat each of the fighter's martial-oriented class features as a strange form of physical spell, would strike most D&D players as bizarre, nonsensical, and completely against the point.
Sposta, myself, and enough others that this keeps coming up feel the exact same way about Magic vs. Psionics. Reflavoring the one as the other is technically possible but completely defeats the purpose behind the existence of a 'psychic' character or system. For other folks? Well, like I said. Supernatural effects are supernatural effects regardless of their source; they see no significant difference whatsoever between Magic and Psychic, and figure the only difference is superficial trappings like which gestures one uses, speaking mantras rather than Power Words, or casting with your face instead of your hands. They just don't grok the differences the way we do. Nothing inherently wrong with that viewpoint, but for those who don't share it, constantly being told that we can just turn spells into psychic powers is maddening.
Because that's just simply not true, however much 5e desperately wishes it was and how much they try and force us to agree that it is.
I appreciate you saying so, Spikepit. That was my intent with the post. It's hard enough for many of us to remember that other folks simply don't think the way we do and may not recognize the same basic premises we do. For folks like Sposta and myself, the difference between "Magic" and "Psychic" is as stark, obvious, and unbridgable as the difference between "Magic" and "Martial". Telling someone who wanted to play an awesomely powerful spellcaster to simply reflavor a fighter's different weapon attacks as different 'Spell Strikes', and treat each of the fighter's martial-oriented class features as a strange form of physical spell, would strike most D&D players as bizarre, nonsensical, and completely against the point.
Sposta, myself, and enough others that this keeps coming up feel the exact same way about Magic vs. Psionics. Reflavoring the one as the other is technically possible but completely defeats the purpose behind the existence of a 'psychic' character or system. For other folks? Well, like I said. Supernatural effects are supernatural effects regardless of their source; they see no significant difference whatsoever between Magic and Psychic, and figure the only difference is superficial trappings like which gestures one uses, speaking mantras rather than Power Words, or casting with your face instead of your hands. They just don't grok the differences the way we do. Nothing inherently wrong with that viewpoint, but for those who don't share it, constantly being told that we can just turn spells into psychic powers is maddening.
Because that's just simply not true, however much 5e desperately wishes it was and how much they try and force us to agree that it is.
Thank you for being more level headed and eloquent about this issue than I am capable of being. (Especially after the day I’ve had. 🙄)
You and I can take turns. The next time I end up in a spitting mad-on Anger Frenzy (and we all know it'll happen), you can be the one who talks sense and tells me to stuff it. Hueh.
You and I can take turns. The next time I end up in a spitting mad-on Anger Frenzy (and we all know it'll happen), you can be the one who talks sense and tells me to stuff it. Hueh.
Deal. I think we already kinda take turns on that once in a while already, so agreeing to doing something I already do is not a problem.
I appreciate you saying so, Spikepit. That was my intent with the post. It's hard enough for many of us to remember that other folks simply don't think the way we do and may not recognize the same basic premises we do. For folks like Sposta and myself, the difference between "Magic" and "Psychic" is as stark, obvious, and unbridgable as the difference between "Magic" and "Martial". Telling someone who wanted to play an awesomely powerful spellcaster to simply reflavor a fighter's different weapon attacks as different 'Spell Strikes', and treat each of the fighter's martial-oriented class features as a strange form of physical spell, would strike most D&D players as bizarre, nonsensical, and completely against the point.
Sposta, myself, and enough others that this keeps coming up feel the exact same way about Magic vs. Psionics. Reflavoring the one as the other is technically possible but completely defeats the purpose behind the existence of a 'psychic' character or system. For other folks? Well, like I said. Supernatural effects are supernatural effects regardless of their source; they see no significant difference whatsoever between Magic and Psychic, and figure the only difference is superficial trappings like which gestures one uses, speaking mantras rather than Power Words, or casting with your face instead of your hands. They just don't grok the differences the way we do. Nothing inherently wrong with that viewpoint, but for those who don't share it, constantly being told that we can just turn spells into psychic powers is maddening.
Because that's just simply not true, however much 5e desperately wishes it was and how much they try and force us to agree that it is.
To weigh in way, way too late on this sort of thing.
I do believe that the long time in the trenches over this issue has made for a viewpoint on this that is far too focused on word choices and not the actual nature of the rules and mechanics in play.
As a character with a cantrip, I use magic to manifest an extension of my will as a physical force to move an object. I have 'cast' mage hand.
If a Psi Subclass comes out that can use inate powers, I can use Psionics as an extension of my will as a physical force to move an object. I have 'cast' mage hand.
The only point of contention here seems to be that mage hand is called a spell and therefore MUST be magical, as opposed to a slightly different supernatural force?
Would it be better if a Psi Subclass changed the word 'spells' to 'powers' and otherwise used existing rules? Because the spell lists have so many already established rules, levels and uses for 'supernatural effects' that throwing them out because they were originally 'magic' is absolutely childish.
There is nothing inherently problematic about wanting a unique flavour to Psionics. But if you reject the entity of the published spell lists, which every single class and applicable subclass currently shares access to as a standardised rule set, you are adding needless complication to a system that is lauded for its streamlined nature.
A Psi class that removed material components, called its abilities anything besides spells, and used a list of existing spells for their already understood and widely known effects rather than because of the word 'spell' seems practical, efficient and able to convey the widest possible array of powers while keeping the new class light on the rules glut.
Top them off with some unique powers (like the four elements monk has - spells to pick and some unique effects), and depending on overall player sentiment either use spellcasting slots as a widely understood and easily measured system of limiting more powerful abilities that works fine with a title change to mental reserves, or introduce a pool like Ki.
If you hyper fixate on the word 'spell' in existing features and ignore the reasons that people want to draw on the existing spell lists and slots for their function you are missing so much of what people are trying to convey in these arguments.
Tl;Dr A Psion class is not needed. Psionic subclasses allow maximum flexibility without having to publish a whole book length class, using existing 'spellcasting' rules with an official overhaul paint job is the same.
Guess we will see what of the dozen different versions of the UA finally made it into the book in a few months!
A Psi class that removed material components, called its abilities anything besides spells, and used a list of existing spells for their already understood and widely known effects rather than because of the word 'spell' seems practical, efficient and able to convey the widest possible array of powers while keeping the new class light on the rules glut.
I could see this working. Use verbiage such as "as though you had cast the _________ spell". But the limiter on how often would need to be something other than Spell Slots. Otherwise you quite literally are just casting spells. And I would expect a slew of new Psionic Abilities (unfortunately, codified in the rulebooks as spells) that are not available to Wizard or Sorcerer classes. Only some overlap with Warlock. That said, the only class feature we've talked about is the Psionic Powers class feature, which would roughly correlate to a Spellcasting Feature in another class.
Brachiaraidos, that's kinda exactly the point I was trying to drive at. I can change the names of things myself just fine. I can rule that a certain subset of spells, when attached to an appropriate character background and class selection, waves the need for material components. I can do all of that peachy-keen fine without any issue. As you said yourself, you consider psychic abilities to simply be "a slightly different supernatural force".
That's neither good enough nor the point.
Folks like Sposta and myself believe psychic abilities are as different from 'Magic' as Magic is from Technology, and Technology is from Conan Swording. It is a fundamentally different force that in many cases does not, and should not interact with "magical" forces. Yes, many spells duplicate effects that should properly be psychic in nature. Spells like Detect Thoughts are ones everybody holds up as 'proving' that spells with a purple-tint filter over them can totally act as psionic abilities, without regard to the fact that in many cases, those spells probably shouldn't exist.
I don't particularly like Detect Thoughts as a spell. Nor do I like Telekinesis as a spell. Those abilities do not make sense as Magical Spells. Many of these fundamentally psychic abilities are implemented as spells, which makes it very difficult to make psychic characters mechanically distinct from spellcasters. If you're using spells to create effects by providing spell components, utilizing spell slots as fuel for those spells, you are not a psychic character no matter what sort of skin you put on those spells. You. Are. A. Spellcaster. And that lack of mechanical distinction, the idea that all mental powers are just more purple-er magic and all mentalists are just shitty, oddly picky mages with weird spell lists that don't make any sense for their class, is maddening.
I don't want to keep derailing the entire discussion with more arguments about psionics. The book is already locked down, whatever godawful spell-based substitute they decided to settle on for psionic characters is in. All the psychic abilities are spells now, and they'll all require bizarre material components, bellowing Magic Words at the top of your lungs, and consuming spell slots to use despite that just...not making any bloody sense for psionic characters. As Sposta has said repeatedly, spellcasting =/= psionics. They're two fundamentally different things that come from fundamentally different places, they're used in fundamentally different ways, and the mechanics of the game should support that.
But...because 5e, they don't. So perhaps allow us fans of psychic characters who will now never have the chance to play psychic characters because psychic powers have officially been adapted permanently out of 5e via the structure of this book, to have our little chance to grieve, hmm?
Thanks
I hope it includes content for the DM and the player, like XGtE
REMEMBER: Wizards Of The Coast does not own DDB, they are two different companies. When you buy a physical book, WotC receives the money you bought it for, not DDB and vice versa. If you want a digital key to get an online book for free because you have the hardcopy book then DDB makes no money because you don't buy off DDB you buy off WotC, so please stop making threads about this issue. DDB needs money to continue helping people and servers aren't cheap.
Nerd Immersion predicted that the 22 live UA subclasses (not counting the August 5 ones) will be included.
Or Dragon’s Breath
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I’m sure it will.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Im just only catching up on the reading from the overnight deluge of different timezone users. I reading and quoting this from all the way back at pg8 without any knowledge of whats happening on the following pages. Im aware Im probably popping this in in a completely different conversation where its up to, but I just had to say thank you for this succinct view point. This single quote made the opinion of yours and Sposta's and many others around the community crystal clear for a change rather than just "Psionics =/= Spellcasting" or "I shouldn't have to reflavour because-". As someone who has started in 5e, I get it now and as someone who was a firm "just reflavour it" before this comment, I now agree with you.
Ok thats all. Carry on. As you were.
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired)
Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer
Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden
DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
I appreciate you saying so, Spikepit. That was my intent with the post. It's hard enough for many of us to remember that other folks simply don't think the way we do and may not recognize the same basic premises we do. For folks like Sposta and myself, the difference between "Magic" and "Psychic" is as stark, obvious, and unbridgable as the difference between "Magic" and "Martial". Telling someone who wanted to play an awesomely powerful spellcaster to simply reflavor a fighter's different weapon attacks as different 'Spell Strikes', and treat each of the fighter's martial-oriented class features as a strange form of physical spell, would strike most D&D players as bizarre, nonsensical, and completely against the point.
Sposta, myself, and enough others that this keeps coming up feel the exact same way about Magic vs. Psionics. Reflavoring the one as the other is technically possible but completely defeats the purpose behind the existence of a 'psychic' character or system. For other folks? Well, like I said. Supernatural effects are supernatural effects regardless of their source; they see no significant difference whatsoever between Magic and Psychic, and figure the only difference is superficial trappings like which gestures one uses, speaking mantras rather than Power Words, or casting with your face instead of your hands. They just don't grok the differences the way we do. Nothing inherently wrong with that viewpoint, but for those who don't share it, constantly being told that we can just turn spells into psychic powers is maddening.
Because that's just simply not true, however much 5e desperately wishes it was and how much they try and force us to agree that it is.
Please do not contact or message me.
Thank you for being more level headed and eloquent about this issue than I am capable of being. (Especially after the day I’ve had. 🙄)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You and I can take turns. The next time I end up in a spitting mad-on Anger Frenzy (and we all know it'll happen), you can be the one who talks sense and tells me to stuff it. Hueh.
Please do not contact or message me.
I should just create a homebrew Psionic class that uses updated elements and streamlines the usage, but adds all the cool stuff we really want.
Deal. I think we already kinda take turns on that once in a while already, so agreeing to doing something I already do is not a problem.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If you beat me to the finish line I would happily use it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Never before has the "Shut up and take my money" meme been more relevant to me
No kidding, i'm on the site like a volture waiting for it to drop on D&D beyond so i may buy it
To weigh in way, way too late on this sort of thing.
I do believe that the long time in the trenches over this issue has made for a viewpoint on this that is far too focused on word choices and not the actual nature of the rules and mechanics in play.
As a character with a cantrip, I use magic to manifest an extension of my will as a physical force to move an object. I have 'cast' mage hand.
If a Psi Subclass comes out that can use inate powers, I can use Psionics as an extension of my will as a physical force to move an object. I have 'cast' mage hand.
The only point of contention here seems to be that mage hand is called a spell and therefore MUST be magical, as opposed to a slightly different supernatural force?
Would it be better if a Psi Subclass changed the word 'spells' to 'powers' and otherwise used existing rules? Because the spell lists have so many already established rules, levels and uses for 'supernatural effects' that throwing them out because they were originally 'magic' is absolutely childish.
There is nothing inherently problematic about wanting a unique flavour to Psionics. But if you reject the entity of the published spell lists, which every single class and applicable subclass currently shares access to as a standardised rule set, you are adding needless complication to a system that is lauded for its streamlined nature.
A Psi class that removed material components, called its abilities anything besides spells, and used a list of existing spells for their already understood and widely known effects rather than because of the word 'spell' seems practical, efficient and able to convey the widest possible array of powers while keeping the new class light on the rules glut.
Top them off with some unique powers (like the four elements monk has - spells to pick and some unique effects), and depending on overall player sentiment either use spellcasting slots as a widely understood and easily measured system of limiting more powerful abilities that works fine with a title change to mental reserves, or introduce a pool like Ki.
If you hyper fixate on the word 'spell' in existing features and ignore the reasons that people want to draw on the existing spell lists and slots for their function you are missing so much of what people are trying to convey in these arguments.
Tl;Dr A Psion class is not needed. Psionic subclasses allow maximum flexibility without having to publish a whole book length class, using existing 'spellcasting' rules with an official overhaul paint job is the same.
Guess we will see what of the dozen different versions of the UA finally made it into the book in a few months!
Your opinion on whether Psion Class is needed does not change the fact that some of us still want one.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I could see this working. Use verbiage such as "as though you had cast the _________ spell". But the limiter on how often would need to be something other than Spell Slots. Otherwise you quite literally are just casting spells. And I would expect a slew of new Psionic Abilities (unfortunately, codified in the rulebooks as spells) that are not available to Wizard or Sorcerer classes. Only some overlap with Warlock. That said, the only class feature we've talked about is the Psionic Powers class feature, which would roughly correlate to a Spellcasting Feature in another class.
With unique mechanics.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
.
..
...
... OTL
Brachiaraidos, that's kinda exactly the point I was trying to drive at. I can change the names of things myself just fine. I can rule that a certain subset of spells, when attached to an appropriate character background and class selection, waves the need for material components. I can do all of that peachy-keen fine without any issue. As you said yourself, you consider psychic abilities to simply be "a slightly different supernatural force".
That's neither good enough nor the point.
Folks like Sposta and myself believe psychic abilities are as different from 'Magic' as Magic is from Technology, and Technology is from Conan Swording. It is a fundamentally different force that in many cases does not, and should not interact with "magical" forces. Yes, many spells duplicate effects that should properly be psychic in nature. Spells like Detect Thoughts are ones everybody holds up as 'proving' that spells with a purple-tint filter over them can totally act as psionic abilities, without regard to the fact that in many cases, those spells probably shouldn't exist.
I don't particularly like Detect Thoughts as a spell. Nor do I like Telekinesis as a spell. Those abilities do not make sense as Magical Spells. Many of these fundamentally psychic abilities are implemented as spells, which makes it very difficult to make psychic characters mechanically distinct from spellcasters. If you're using spells to create effects by providing spell components, utilizing spell slots as fuel for those spells, you are not a psychic character no matter what sort of skin you put on those spells. You. Are. A. Spellcaster. And that lack of mechanical distinction, the idea that all mental powers are just more purple-er magic and all mentalists are just shitty, oddly picky mages with weird spell lists that don't make any sense for their class, is maddening.
I don't want to keep derailing the entire discussion with more arguments about psionics. The book is already locked down, whatever godawful spell-based substitute they decided to settle on for psionic characters is in. All the psychic abilities are spells now, and they'll all require bizarre material components, bellowing Magic Words at the top of your lungs, and consuming spell slots to use despite that just...not making any bloody sense for psionic characters. As Sposta has said repeatedly, spellcasting =/= psionics. They're two fundamentally different things that come from fundamentally different places, they're used in fundamentally different ways, and the mechanics of the game should support that.
But...because 5e, they don't. So perhaps allow us fans of psychic characters who will now never have the chance to play psychic characters because psychic powers have officially been adapted permanently out of 5e via the structure of this book, to have our little chance to grieve, hmm?
Please do not contact or message me.