Psychic Blades + Extra attack

[Rukelnikov]

So it seems the number of times you can attack with the Psychic Baldes is tied to the Attack action instead of the attacks themselves, thus I could only make one psychic blade attack even if I had Extra Attack, am I reading it correctly?

[Valmark]

Imo you can make both attacks with the Blade- the singular used like that seems to be referencing a lack of Extra Attack (you can make THE attack, not AN attack or something similar) so it wouldn't really count as a way to stop the soulknife from attacking twice with the Attack action and the Blade.

[MaxWilson]

So it seems the number of times you can attack with the Psychic Baldes is tied to the Attack action instead of the attacks themselves, thus I could only make one psychic blade attack even if I had Extra Attack, am I reading it correctly?

Psychic Blades (the Whispers Bard feature) is explicitly usable only once per round.


Psychic Blades

When you join the College of Whispers at 3rd level, you gain the ability to make your weapon attacks magically toxic to a creature's mind.

When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one use of your Bardic Inspiration to deal an additional 2d6 psychic damage to that target. You can do so only once per round on your turn.

The psychic damage increases when you reach certain levels in this class, increasing to 3d6 at 5th level, 5d6 at 10th level, and 8d6 at 15th level.

[Amnestic]

Psychic Blades (the Whispers Bard feature) is explicitly usable only once per round.


Think they're talking about the Rogue Soulknife feature, but could be wrong.

Pertinent text highlighted:


Psychic Blades

Also at 3rd level, You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. Whenever you take the Attack action, you can manifest a psychic blade from your free hand and make the attack with that blade. This magic blade is a simple melee weapon with the finesse and thrown properties. It has a normal range of 60 feet and no long range, and on a hit, it deals psychic damage equal to 1d6 plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll. The blade vanishes immediately after it hits or misses its target, and it leaves no mark on its target if it deals damage.

After you attack with the blade, you can make a melee or ranged weapon attack with a second psychic blade as a bonus action on the same turn, provided your other hand is free to create it. The damage die of this bonus attack is 1d4, instead of 1d6.

This reads to me as you can only attack with the blades once per Attack action. I wouldn't have any issue with letting a rogue attack more than once with it if they get extra attack. It breaks nothing to do so.

[stoutstien]

By my reading you can use the psychic blade for all attacks provided by the attack action but not for attacks that fall outside of that like AOOs. It's pretty ambiguous.

[Rukelnikov]

Think they're talking about the Rogue Soulknife feature, but could be wrong.

Yeah, I totally forgot whisper knife had a similarly named feature.


This reads to me as you can only attack with the blades once per Attack action. I wouldn't have any issue with letting a rogue attack more than once with it if they get extra attack. It breaks nothing to do so.

Well, yeah I would allow it too. However, I'm trying to decipher the RAW of the feature.

[Amnestic]

To me, the reason it's only usable on one attack is because of the disappearing sentence after it hits or misses on the attack. You manifest it as part of the attack action, but then it disappears after the first attack you make with it, regardless of how many total attacks you have.

[Segev]

I really don't get the reason they worded it the way they did. Why are they so careful to make it vanish between attack actions, rather than just letting the rogue have a psychic blade whenever he attacks, and possibly having it out for menacing/flourish purposes outside of attacking?

[Dork_Forge]

I think this works:

It doesn't say you manifest it when you take the attack action, it says "you can manifest a psychic blade from your free hand and make the attack with that blade." The way the sentence is structure imo makes it seem like it's when you make the attack you can manifest it.


Practically speaking thought I can't see why a DM would not allow it, it's hardly game breaking.

[Ertwin]

I really don't get the reason they worded it the way they did. Why are they so careful to make it vanish between attack actions, rather than just letting the rogue have a psychic blade whenever he attacks, and possibly having it out for menacing/flourish purposes outside of attacking?

Because it is a stealth weapon, for when you don't want to get caught hurting/killing someone. It's the same reason it leaves no trace. It's meant for assassinations/subtly, not open combat.

Example: Find someone asleep, auto-crit them with a sneak attack, for massive damage, that will register as a headache if they survive.

[Segev]

Because it is a stealth weapon, for when you don't want to get caught hurting/killing someone. It's the same reason it leaves no trace. It's meant for assassinations/subtly, not open combat.

Example: Find someone asleep, auto-crit them with a sneak attack, for massive damage, that will register as a headache if they survive.

A creative use for it, but not one in any way suggested by how the ability is written up. Especially since nothing in its description suggests you can hide the fact that you made an attack that inflicted that near-fatal headache.

[BerzerkerUnit]

I think this works:

It doesn't say you manifest it when you take the attack action, it says "you can manifest a psychic blade from your free hand and make the attack with that blade." The way the sentence is structure imo makes it seem like it's when you make the attack you can manifest it.


Practically speaking thought I can't see why a DM would not allow it, it's hardly game breaking.

This interpretation (which is also objectively right) also allows for a Thrown combat style without the need for the fighting style, though the style isn't a bad buff.

[follacchioso]

A creative use for it, but not one in any way suggested by how the ability is written up. Especially since nothing in its description suggests you can hide the fact that you made an attack that inflicted that near-fatal headache.Well, the blades do psychic damage, and the rogue could BA hide just after the attack, without leaving any traces behind. So, quite a bad headache...

[Segev]

Well, the blades do psychic damage, and the rogue could BA hide just after the attack, without leaving any traces behind. So, quite a bad headache...

And yet, everyone in the area still sees the rogue appear and stab the target with a glowing blade. Including the target himself. Even if the rogue then disappears.

[quindraco]

And yet, everyone in the area still sees the rogue appear and stab the target with a glowing blade. Including the target himself. Even if the rogue then disappears.

EDIT: looked up the definition of shimmer.

It's up to your GM. There are two definitions of shimmer, and one of them is that the blades do indeed emit light. The other is that they look like a heat mirage and are reflective.

[Segev]

EDIT: looked up the definition of shimmer.

It's up to your GM. There are two definitions of shimmer, and one of them is that the blades do indeed emit light. The other is that they look like a heat mirage and are reflective.

"Shimmering" doesn't mean "invisible," regardless of definition, so even if you want to quibble about me claiming it "glows," the fact remains that the rogue becomes visible, obviously stabs the target with a visible thing, and then the target reacts with pain. There is no rule presented to have it be mysterious where the pain came from, unless you're ruling that people who see somebody come up and make a stabbing/slashing motion at somebody else can't figure out that the immediate pain reaction and/or demise of the somebody else was caused by the somebody making the stab/slash motion. At no point is the rogue not detectable while making the attack, nor is his attack clandestine.

[Dork_Forge]

"Shimmering" doesn't mean "invisible," regardless of definition, so even if you want to quibble about me claiming it "glows," the fact remains that the rogue becomes visible, obviously stabs the target with a visible thing, and then the target reacts with pain. There is no rule presented to have it be mysterious where the pain came from, unless you're ruling that people who see somebody come up and make a stabbing/slashing motion at somebody else can't figure out that the immediate pain reaction and/or demise of the somebody else was caused by the somebody making the stab/slash motion. At no point is the rogue not detectable while making the attack, nor is his attack clandestine.

I mean, this mostly seems like you can just Assassin's Creed someone, nothing says that the blade has to appear any time other than immediately before impact, nothing says you can't use your body to block the action and nothing in the ability says that it emits light.

Even if someone saw you attack them with a thing... said thing is not on your person and there's no visible injury.

You can also throw it 60 ft from hiding...

The same subclass gets invisibility and teleportation (these are higher level abilties, but the premise of the thread is a minimum of 8th level anyway).

[Ertwin]

"Shimmering" doesn't mean "invisible," regardless of definition, so even if you want to quibble about me claiming it "glows," the fact remains that the rogue becomes visible, obviously stabs the target with a visible thing, and then the target reacts with pain. There is no rule presented to have it be mysterious where the pain came from, unless you're ruling that people who see somebody come up and make a stabbing/slashing motion at somebody else can't figure out that the immediate pain reaction and/or demise of the somebody else was caused by the somebody making the stab/slash motion. At no point is the rogue not detectable while making the attack, nor is his attack clandestine.

I mean the Dm could rule that a sleight of hand check may be needed if doing it in front of witnesses. As mentioned, it has a 60 ft throwing range, so hiding/invisibility is an option.

Or you know, just assassinate your target while nobody is around, and leave everyone clueless as to how they died, or make it look like an accident.

[x3n0n]

Or you know, just assassinate your target while nobody is around, and leave everyone clueless as to how they died, or make it look like an accident.

That's more what I was picturing; they're asleep alone in their bed, you hit them with a guaranteed crit Sneak Attack that only deals psychic damage.
You've got a pretty reasonable shot at killing them on the first hit.

(However, the SK invisibility does wear off once you deal damage, so if you didn't kill them, they will get a good look at you if you're not taking other precautions to avoid it.)

[Dork_Forge]

(However, the SK invisibility does wear off once you deal damage, so if you didn't kill them, they will get a good look at you if you're not taking other precautions to avoid it.)

It explicitly wears off at the point of damage, so you won't be visible whilst the blade exists and if you're in melee they have no proof that you actually did anything to them. If thrown, well you're 60ft away, no weapons and no signs or physical damage to implicate you.

[JNAProductions]

It explicitly wears off at the point of damage, so you won't be visible whilst the blade exists and if you're in melee they have no proof that you actually did anything to them. If thrown, well you're 60ft away, no weapons and no signs or physical damage to implicate you.

Could just be a mage. Magic exists in D&D.

[Dork_Forge]

Could just be a mage. Magic exists in D&D.

Yes it does, magic that usually has visible components and mages that carry a component pouch or focus of some kind.

One of the advantages of Psionics is the plausible deniability, they may very well look for magic, but they won't find it in any conventional sense.

[JNAProductions]

Yes it does, magic that usually has visible components and mages that carry a component pouch or focus of some kind.

One of the advantages of Psionics is the plausible deniability, they may very well look for magic, but they won't find it in any conventional sense.

Sorcerers with Subtle exist.

Not to mention, correct me if I'm wrong, you still have to throw the Psychic Blade. Which could easily be mistaken for a Somatic Component.

[Dork_Forge]

Sorcerers with Subtle exist.

Not to mention, correct me if I'm wrong, you still have to throw the Psychic Blade. Which could easily be mistaken for a Somatic Component.

Because a player option exists doesn't mean that it's prevalent enough in the world tobe considered or even well known. I can't think of any NPC statblock that had Subtle in it (I may be missing one, but it's in such a minority I think my point stands).

If you're talking about the actual throw, the premise was being hidden/invisible, nobody would see you make the throw and even if they did, the proof is an eye witness account that would amount to either 'they threw something that no one can find and left no mark' or 'they're a caster! But there's no actual evidence of that because it isn't true'

If psionics is well known, or there's a surprising amount of Sorcerers that took Subtle, or trials without any substantial evidence, sure this could end very badly. I don't think that's likely to be the case in most games though.

[quindraco]

Sorcerers with Subtle exist.

Not to mention, correct me if I'm wrong, you still have to throw the Psychic Blade. Which could easily be mistaken for a Somatic Component.

Fun fact: you can usually watch a Sorcerer cast with Subtle, since they have to stroke their focus to cast. Xanathar's has weird text in it making it clear that this makes the spell perceptible and then offers literally no guidance just how perceptible, so the GM has no idea what ability check to ask for or what DC to realize that a focus stroking is a full cast.

[Valmark]

Fun fact: you can usually watch a Sorcerer cast with Subtle, since they have to stroke their focus to cast. Xanathar's has weird text in it making it clear that this makes the spell perceptible and then offers literally no guidance just how perceptible, so the GM has no idea what ability check to ask for or what DC to realize that a focus stroking is a full cast.

Only if the spell has a Material component too though.

[Segev]

The rules just don't support "I can pretend I didn't attack him, and people will actually be fooled," without leaning heavily into the improvised ability check rules. Which is fine, but it does mean that a class feature which describes nothing suggesting using it to sneakily do damage, instead focusing on "honing the power of your mind into a weapon" (or something to that effect), is not likely designed for that purpose. 5e is big on using descriptions that explain what the intended use of something is. So if it were RAI that it be a "mysterious murder" tool, it likely would make references to leaving your victims dead with no visible wounds, or to killing people without anybody noticing you did it, etc.

Assassin uses language indicating what it's meant to be doing, even if the mechanics are terrible for actually doing it.

Soulknife likely is not MEANT to be used as a "better assassin," even if the rules DID support the interpretations being given. (I do not believe they do, but I would also be okay with a player and DM deciding to work something out to build a character around the idea, likely involving Sleight of Hand in some fashion, similar to what has already been discussed.)

[Ertwin]

The rules just don't support "I can pretend I didn't attack him, and people will actually be fooled," without leaning heavily into the improvised ability check rules. Which is fine, but it does mean that a class feature which describes nothing suggesting using it to sneakily do damage, instead focusing on "honing the power of your mind into a weapon" (or something to that effect), is not likely designed for that purpose. 5e is big on using descriptions that explain what the intended use of something is. So if it were RAI that it be a "mysterious murder" tool, it likely would make references to leaving your victims dead with no visible wounds, or to killing people without anybody noticing you did it, etc.

Assassin uses language indicating what it's meant to be doing, even if the mechanics are terrible for actually doing it.

Soulknife likely is not MEANT to be used as a "better assassin," even if the rules DID support the interpretations being given. (I do not believe they do, but I would also be okay with a player and DM deciding to work something out to build a character around the idea, likely involving Sleight of Hand in some fashion, similar to what has already been discussed.)

I mean the text pretty explicitly states that the attack leaves no marks on the target, and the blade instantly disappears. I mean, what other use would you assume from that description? It's clearly meant to be a subtle weapon best used with subterfuge in mind. It also implies from the psychic damage, and the lack of mark, that the target will feel pain in their head, rather than where the blade struck. Which implies you wouldn't be an obvious attacker unless you made yourself obvious.

[Joe the Rat]

Subtlety of the knife aside, if someone sees you brain-stab someone, regardless of the exact nature of the weapon, it's going to look like you are at the very least punching them with a magical effect.

If you are not seen in the act, or are attacking in such a way that a mundane attack would be concealed, then the body presents the mystery - there is no obvious sign of injury.


But what this whole thread has got me thinking about is a Soulknife / Whispers Bard.