Are you asking if it blocks air from getting in? No, it doesn't, unless you interpret air as matter, which it technically is, but in D&D terms it isn't. And even then, D&D is extremely generous with the amount of time you can live without air. The spell lasts an hour, I think you'll be fine.
Tasha's psionics are labeled spells. Even though they are duplicate powers from AD&D psionic powers. I think the nomenclature change might be be a sop for player's and DM's who hate the psionic concept to pinch their noses and just deal with it. I've loved psionics through 4 editions, I've always held to the concept of a trained Psion as being the source of it's own power. Hence it's rarity, also 5e...
Tasha's psionics are labeled spells. Even though they are duplicate powers from AD&D psionic powers. I think the nomenclature change might be be a sop for player's and DM's who hate the psionic concept to pinch their noses and just deal with it. I've loved psionics through 4 editions, I've always held to the concept of a trained Psion as being the source of it's own power. Hence it's rarity, also 5e...
But part of the point of this whole thread is that, as you seem to be elliptically aware, 5e never really said "these are psionics" and put them in that space they've occupied through 4 editions. I just got an aberrant mind sorcerer in a party yesterday, so I've never really put a lot of mind to it, so to speak. I'm still thinking though that _maybe_ a Soul Knife might not mind being stuck in a Force Cage if it gives them the freedom to use their powers in anti-magic spaces. But the idea that psionics are simply the mind availing itself to the weave, which makes all psions technically sorcerers, is a possibility without a 5e explanation as to what Psionics are, and given the reduced touch it seems 5e is going in with providing deeper explanations in terms of lore and metaphysics, it's a viable way of handling things.
I remember when psionics was basically a lottery win too ... and remember how psionic characters sorta drained the life, so to speak, out of other players desires to continue playing with what a lot of folks thought were game breakers. I never held a strong position either way and know other editions tried to make psychic talents less exceptional and more in line with conventional D&D talent sets. 5e's attempt to do so is doesn't do a lot of ground laying work, just "here, everything else supernatural in the game can largely be brought back to the weave or some other function of the game ... but these options are just psychic, no we're not going to explain further, have fun". Are these psionic additions to the game that different than say Rage, for example, which is much more thought out in its relationship with the Weave etc.
The inborn magical abilities of certain creatures, the acquired supernatural powers of people such as monks, and psionic abilities are similar in that their users don’t manipulate the Weave in the customary way that spellcasters do. The mental state of the user is vitally important: monks and some psionics-users train long and hard to attain the right frame of mind, while creatures with supernatural powers have that mind-set in their nature. How these abilities are related to the Weave remains a matter of debate; many students of the arcane believe that the use of the so-called Unseen Art is an aspect of magical talent that can’t be directly studied or taught.
A Monk's Ki is definitely magical according to the base description, so there's no reason to suspect that Psionics aren't also considered magical.
A monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind has the psionics tag added to its Spellcasting or Innate Spellcasting special trait. This tag carries no special rules of its own, but other parts of the game might refer to it. A monster that has this tag typically doesn't require any components to cast its spells.
It refers to using psionics as casting a spell multiple times.
I always had the impression they called them spells as a placeholder, so if they ever wanted to do something different with it, they could just errata this paragraph and start using them however the new way is.
The inborn magical abilities of certain creatures, the acquired supernatural powers of people such as monks, and psionic abilities are similar in that their users don’t manipulate the Weave in the customary way that spellcasters do. The mental state of the user is vitally important: monks and some psionics-users train long and hard to attain the right frame of mind, while creatures with supernatural powers have that mind-set in their nature. How these abilities are related to the Weave remains a matter of debate; many students of the arcane believe that the use of the so-called Unseen Art is an aspect of magical talent that can’t be directly studied or taught.
A Monk's Ki is definitely magical according to the base description, so there's no reason to suspect that Psionics aren't also considered magical.
At this point, it's just a matter of whether something alluded to in SCAG should be considered authoritative outside its own context.
And that means “talk to your DM as it’s their decision in the end”. I have the 2e and 3e psionics books and both allow the DM to rule either way or somewhere in between so nothing has really changes.
Psionics for players aren’t magical unless the features granting it states they are. Tags for NPC creatures aren’t relevant to players either unless they actually have that tag. Look at the difference between the soul knife and the psi warrior.
soul knife has psi bolstered knack and physic whispers that aren’t described as magical. Every other feature is either explicitly described as magical, or is based on the physic blade feature which itself is described as magical. So with that, the first two features are the only in magical features the soul knife gets, though they are all part of its own Psionic package.
the psi warrior has protective field, Psionic strike, telekinetic movement, psi-powered leap, telekinetic thrust, guarded mind, bulwark of force, and the telekinetic master as Psionic features. Out of the 8 features and even sub features(telekinetic movement is actually 3 features), only telekinetic master is magical. Even then, only the actual casting of the spell is magical. A psi warrior would be able to concentrate on the suppressed spell in an anti magic field to gain the bonus action attack.
Since this is an “exclusions” based game, each feature has to be scrutinized to determine what it can and can’t do, even if it’s using the nomenclature of past groups of features that had general rules assigned to them in previous editions.
A monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind has the psionics tag added to its Spellcasting or Innate Spellcasting special trait. This tag carries no special rules of its own, but other parts of the game might refer to it. A monster that has this tag typically doesn't require any components to cast its spells.
It refers to using psionics as casting a spell multiple times.
I always had the impression they called them spells as a placeholder, so if they ever wanted to do something different with it, they could just errata this paragraph and start using them however the new way is.
This is entirely irrelevant to the question. We are not talking about "a monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind." In fact, we're not even talking about monsters.
A monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind has the psionics tag added to its Spellcasting or Innate Spellcasting special trait. This tag carries no special rules of its own, but other parts of the game might refer to it. A monster that has this tag typically doesn't require any components to cast its spells.
It refers to using psionics as casting a spell multiple times.
I always had the impression they called them spells as a placeholder, so if they ever wanted to do something different with it, they could just errata this paragraph and start using them however the new way is.
This is entirely irrelevant to the question. We are not talking about "a monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind." In fact, we're not even talking about monsters.
You can pretend that, or acknowledge it as a good faithed effort to use other areas of the game to pin down what psionics are in a game that maps out the "nature" of many power sets except, incoveniently, psionics. Nothing wrong with folks coming in explaining where their thinking is coming from.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
A monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind has the psionics tag added to its Spellcasting or Innate Spellcasting special trait. This tag carries no special rules of its own, but other parts of the game might refer to it. A monster that has this tag typically doesn't require any components to cast its spells.
It refers to using psionics as casting a spell multiple times.
I always had the impression they called them spells as a placeholder, so if they ever wanted to do something different with it, they could just errata this paragraph and start using them however the new way is.
This is entirely irrelevant to the question. We are not talking about "a monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind." In fact, we're not even talking about monsters.
You can pretend that, or acknowledge it as a good faithed effort to use other areas of the game to pin down what psionics are in a game that maps out the "nature" of many power sets except, incoveniently, psionics. Nothing wrong with folks coming in explaining where their thinking is coming from.
Acknowledging that a line of thought or explanation is incorrect based on the framework within the rules doesn’t mean that the above persons are insulting one another or being aggressive in any way.
A monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind has the psionics tag added to its Spellcasting or Innate Spellcasting special trait. This tag carries no special rules of its own, but other parts of the game might refer to it. A monster that has this tag typically doesn't require any components to cast its spells.
It refers to using psionics as casting a spell multiple times.
I always had the impression they called them spells as a placeholder, so if they ever wanted to do something different with it, they could just errata this paragraph and start using them however the new way is.
This is entirely irrelevant to the question. We are not talking about "a monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind." In fact, we're not even talking about monsters.
You can pretend that, or acknowledge it as a good faithed effort to use other areas of the game to pin down what psionics are in a game that maps out the "nature" of many power sets except, incoveniently, psionics. Nothing wrong with folks coming in explaining where their thinking is coming from.
Acknowledging that a line of thought or explanation is incorrect based on the framework within the rules doesn’t mean that the above persons are insulting one another or being aggressive in any way.
There isn't really a framework that specifically defines psionics with any stability in 5e, which is why this thread exists. So I don't see any framework whose policing you're licensing temery. Like I said, and I'll say again, it's a pretense that there are stable psionics rules in 5e on the par with any other rules that allow mechanical supernatural or paranormal effects. I never said it was insulting or aggressive to dismiss citation of a passage that discusses psionic abilities "on the other side" of the game. My intention was the idea that such an association was "entirely irrelevant" is a pretense standing on a fiction that there's a definitive rule here. A poster may like their personal answer and solution, but that's ignoring a lot of the contention in this thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
A monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind has the psionics tag added to its Spellcasting or Innate Spellcasting special trait. This tag carries no special rules of its own, but other parts of the game might refer to it. A monster that has this tag typically doesn't require any components to cast its spells.
It refers to using psionics as casting a spell multiple times.
I always had the impression they called them spells as a placeholder, so if they ever wanted to do something different with it, they could just errata this paragraph and start using them however the new way is.
This is entirely irrelevant to the question. We are not talking about "a monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind." In fact, we're not even talking about monsters.
The basic rules pre-date any character abilities that used psionic powers, So since only monsters would have had such powers when this was developed that’s the word they used, is my theory. Also, I take the first part as flavor text, since in rule terms, there aren’t “monsters” per se. There are creatures, with creature types, but there are no rules for “monsters.”
Certainly it would be simpler if they said creature instead of monster, but they didn’t. And also, NPCs and characters don’t follow the same rules, so I can see your argument. Still this is, as far as I know, the only general description of what a psionic power is: A spell. One that may not need components, but still a spell. If you have some other game source that even attempts to define psionics directly, please share.
Player Race: Kalashtar, Eberron Rising after the war Pp. 29-31 is described specifically as having psionic abilities. Racial traits described as individual powers not psionic spells. Huh... I move that the ability to move something with an internal ability, focused mind and force of will, with it's own rules set, shall forever be known as mojo.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the spell forcecage (in box form at least) says that matter can't pass through, and spells are blocked. While I think the psychic blades would ignore the first clause as they are manifestations of psychic energy and energy by definition has no mass so is not matter (this is further represented as the blades do not inflict physical injuries) . I would treat the act of throwing the blade moot as both spells and physical attacks are nulled by the barrier.
However if the cage is made in cage form I would rule that the ability would function as per normal should the Rogue pass the Charisma check.
It blocks spells cast "into or out of" it, which can get pretty weedy.
While I think the psychic blades would ignore the first clause as they are manifestations of psychic energy and energy by definition has no mass so is not matter (this is further represented as the blades do not inflict physical injuries) . I would treat the act of throwing the blade moot as both spells and physical attacks are nulled by the barrier.
Psychic blades are neither matter nor spells. However, as the spell provides a solid barrier, it will provide total cover, so you can't legally target an attack through it without a special rule saying so, meaning most of the time, it blocks the traversal of the blades. Throwing at a space isn't actually an attack, so you'd use the same rules as throwing an oil flask at a space through total cover. Unless the DM rules that oil flasks can phase through total cover, psychic blades shouldn't be able to, either.
However if the cage is made in cage form I would rule that the ability would function as per normal should the Rogue pass the Charisma check.
The spell involves no Charisma checks. I assume you mean a Charisma saving throw.
Unless the DM rules that oil flasks can phase through total cover, psychic blades shouldn't be able to, either.
While your point about total cover is relevant, I feel like the oil flask example is most easily handled by the bit about matter not passing through the force cage, as long as we can agree that an oil flask is matter.
Firstly I’d like to point out that the psychic blades feature doesn’t restrict what can be targeted with the attacks. This means that a creature, an object, and a point in space are all valid targets for the feature. That being said, it’s not necessarily useful to target a space unless a hidden creature is believed to be in that space. And barring DM fiat, all objects are generally immune to psychic damage so the attack alone against an object wouldn’t necessarily do anything unless it was perhaps to showcase the rogues abilities to other creatures.
next, regarding the Psychic Teleportation sub feature under Soul Blades. “Psychic Teleportation. As a bonus action, you manifest one of your Psychic Blades, expend one Psionic Energy die and roll it, and throw the blade at an unoccupied space you can see, up to a number of feet away equal to 10 times the number rolled. You then teleport to that space, and the blade vanishes.” By the reading, though the knife is indeed thrown at a location, there is no stipulation requiring the nice to actually get to the location or be further interacted with for the teleport to work. The space merely needs to be unoccupied and seen. If the cover is somehow transparent then I don’t see how it would stop this particular feature unless there were some other factors involved.
The only thing I would add to the discussion is that the first line of Forcecage could be read in a couple of different ways ...
"A creature inside the cage can't leave it by nonmagical means. If the creature tries to use teleportation or interplanar travel to leave the cage,"
This could be saying that a creature must use magic to leave the cage and goes on to describe what happens if they specifically try teleportation or interplanar travel magic. However, it could also be read that teleportation and interplanar travel are specific examples of means considered magical for leaving the forcecage - no matter how the teleportation or interplanar travel is obtained. In the end, it is a DM call.
For example, if there were a creature with the ability to teleport and that ability was not described as magical. Could the creature attempt to leave the cage because that ability is specifically called teleportation for which rules exist in the forcecage description? Does the description of forcecage mean that teleportation and interplanar travel are intrinsically considered magical for the purpose of leaving the cage?
Are you asking if it blocks air from getting in? No, it doesn't, unless you interpret air as matter, which it technically is, but in D&D terms it isn't. And even then, D&D is extremely generous with the amount of time you can live without air. The spell lasts an hour, I think you'll be fine.
Tasha's psionics are labeled spells. Even though they are duplicate powers from AD&D psionic powers. I think the nomenclature change might be be a sop for player's and DM's who hate the psionic concept to pinch their noses and just deal with it. I've loved psionics through 4 editions, I've always held to the concept of a trained Psion as being the source of it's own power. Hence it's rarity, also 5e...
But part of the point of this whole thread is that, as you seem to be elliptically aware, 5e never really said "these are psionics" and put them in that space they've occupied through 4 editions. I just got an aberrant mind sorcerer in a party yesterday, so I've never really put a lot of mind to it, so to speak. I'm still thinking though that _maybe_ a Soul Knife might not mind being stuck in a Force Cage if it gives them the freedom to use their powers in anti-magic spaces. But the idea that psionics are simply the mind availing itself to the weave, which makes all psions technically sorcerers, is a possibility without a 5e explanation as to what Psionics are, and given the reduced touch it seems 5e is going in with providing deeper explanations in terms of lore and metaphysics, it's a viable way of handling things.
I remember when psionics was basically a lottery win too ... and remember how psionic characters sorta drained the life, so to speak, out of other players desires to continue playing with what a lot of folks thought were game breakers. I never held a strong position either way and know other editions tried to make psychic talents less exceptional and more in line with conventional D&D talent sets. 5e's attempt to do so is doesn't do a lot of ground laying work, just "here, everything else supernatural in the game can largely be brought back to the weave or some other function of the game ... but these options are just psychic, no we're not going to explain further, have fun". Are these psionic additions to the game that different than say Rage, for example, which is much more thought out in its relationship with the Weave etc.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The sword coast book says:
A Monk's Ki is definitely magical according to the base description, so there's no reason to suspect that Psionics aren't also considered magical.
yeah, what Farling said. Maybe Psionics are functionally magical, perhaps a psilock?
Psionics are spells. From the basic rules:
Psionics
A monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind has the psionics tag added to its Spellcasting or Innate Spellcasting special trait. This tag carries no special rules of its own, but other parts of the game might refer to it. A monster that has this tag typically doesn't require any components to cast its spells.
It refers to using psionics as casting a spell multiple times.
I always had the impression they called them spells as a placeholder, so if they ever wanted to do something different with it, they could just errata this paragraph and start using them however the new way is.
At this point, it's just a matter of whether something alluded to in SCAG should be considered authoritative outside its own context.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
And that means “talk to your DM as it’s their decision in the end”. I have the 2e and 3e psionics books and both allow the DM to rule either way or somewhere in between so nothing has really changes.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Psionics for players aren’t magical unless the features granting it states they are. Tags for NPC creatures aren’t relevant to players either unless they actually have that tag. Look at the difference between the soul knife and the psi warrior.
soul knife has psi bolstered knack and physic whispers that aren’t described as magical. Every other feature is either explicitly described as magical, or is based on the physic blade feature which itself is described as magical. So with that, the first two features are the only in magical features the soul knife gets, though they are all part of its own Psionic package.
the psi warrior has protective field, Psionic strike, telekinetic movement, psi-powered leap, telekinetic thrust, guarded mind, bulwark of force, and the telekinetic master as Psionic features. Out of the 8 features and even sub features(telekinetic movement is actually 3 features), only telekinetic master is magical. Even then, only the actual casting of the spell is magical. A psi warrior would be able to concentrate on the suppressed spell in an anti magic field to gain the bonus action attack.
Since this is an “exclusions” based game, each feature has to be scrutinized to determine what it can and can’t do, even if it’s using the nomenclature of past groups of features that had general rules assigned to them in previous editions.
This is entirely irrelevant to the question. We are not talking about "a monster that casts spells using only the power of its mind." In fact, we're not even talking about monsters.
You can pretend that, or acknowledge it as a good faithed effort to use other areas of the game to pin down what psionics are in a game that maps out the "nature" of many power sets except, incoveniently, psionics. Nothing wrong with folks coming in explaining where their thinking is coming from.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Acknowledging that a line of thought or explanation is incorrect based on the framework within the rules doesn’t mean that the above persons are insulting one another or being aggressive in any way.
There isn't really a framework that specifically defines psionics with any stability in 5e, which is why this thread exists. So I don't see any framework whose policing you're licensing temery. Like I said, and I'll say again, it's a pretense that there are stable psionics rules in 5e on the par with any other rules that allow mechanical supernatural or paranormal effects. I never said it was insulting or aggressive to dismiss citation of a passage that discusses psionic abilities "on the other side" of the game. My intention was the idea that such an association was "entirely irrelevant" is a pretense standing on a fiction that there's a definitive rule here. A poster may like their personal answer and solution, but that's ignoring a lot of the contention in this thread.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The basic rules pre-date any character abilities that used psionic powers, So since only monsters would have had such powers when this was developed that’s the word they used, is my theory. Also, I take the first part as flavor text, since in rule terms, there aren’t “monsters” per se. There are creatures, with creature types, but there are no rules for “monsters.”
Certainly it would be simpler if they said creature instead of monster, but they didn’t. And also, NPCs and characters don’t follow the same rules, so I can see your argument. Still this is, as far as I know, the only general description of what a psionic power is: A spell. One that may not need components, but still a spell.
If you have some other game source that even attempts to define psionics directly, please share.
Player Race: Kalashtar, Eberron Rising after the war Pp. 29-31 is described specifically as having psionic abilities. Racial traits described as individual powers not psionic spells. Huh... I move that the ability to move something with an internal ability, focused mind and force of will, with it's own rules set, shall forever be known as mojo.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the spell forcecage (in box form at least) says that matter can't pass through, and spells are blocked. While I think the psychic blades would ignore the first clause as they are manifestations of psychic energy and energy by definition has no mass so is not matter (this is further represented as the blades do not inflict physical injuries) . I would treat the act of throwing the blade moot as both spells and physical attacks are nulled by the barrier.
However if the cage is made in cage form I would rule that the ability would function as per normal should the Rogue pass the Charisma check.
Forcecage blocks matter.
It blocks spells cast "into or out of" it, which can get pretty weedy.
Psychic blades are neither matter nor spells. However, as the spell provides a solid barrier, it will provide total cover, so you can't legally target an attack through it without a special rule saying so, meaning most of the time, it blocks the traversal of the blades. Throwing at a space isn't actually an attack, so you'd use the same rules as throwing an oil flask at a space through total cover. Unless the DM rules that oil flasks can phase through total cover, psychic blades shouldn't be able to, either.
The spell involves no Charisma checks. I assume you mean a Charisma saving throw.
While your point about total cover is relevant, I feel like the oil flask example is most easily handled by the bit about matter not passing through the force cage, as long as we can agree that an oil flask is matter.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Firstly I’d like to point out that the psychic blades feature doesn’t restrict what can be targeted with the attacks. This means that a creature, an object, and a point in space are all valid targets for the feature. That being said, it’s not necessarily useful to target a space unless a hidden creature is believed to be in that space. And barring DM fiat, all objects are generally immune to psychic damage so the attack alone against an object wouldn’t necessarily do anything unless it was perhaps to showcase the rogues abilities to other creatures.
next, regarding the Psychic Teleportation sub feature under Soul Blades. “Psychic Teleportation. As a bonus action, you manifest one of your Psychic Blades, expend one Psionic Energy die and roll it, and throw the blade at an unoccupied space you can see, up to a number of feet away equal to 10 times the number rolled. You then teleport to that space, and the blade vanishes.”
By the reading, though the knife is indeed thrown at a location, there is no stipulation requiring the nice to actually get to the location or be further interacted with for the teleport to work. The space merely needs to be unoccupied and seen. If the cover is somehow transparent then I don’t see how it would stop this particular feature unless there were some other factors involved.
The only thing I would add to the discussion is that the first line of Forcecage could be read in a couple of different ways ...
"A creature inside the cage can't leave it by nonmagical means. If the creature tries to use teleportation or interplanar travel to leave the cage,"
This could be saying that a creature must use magic to leave the cage and goes on to describe what happens if they specifically try teleportation or interplanar travel magic. However, it could also be read that teleportation and interplanar travel are specific examples of means considered magical for leaving the forcecage - no matter how the teleportation or interplanar travel is obtained. In the end, it is a DM call.
For example, if there were a creature with the ability to teleport and that ability was not described as magical. Could the creature attempt to leave the cage because that ability is specifically called teleportation for which rules exist in the forcecage description? Does the description of forcecage mean that teleportation and interplanar travel are intrinsically considered magical for the purpose of leaving the cage?