In the recent Unearthed Arcana about Psionic powers, one of the abilities is

Ego Whip (3 psi) - As an action, choose one creature you can see within 60 feet. The target must make an INT saving throw. On a failed save, it takes 3d8 psychic damage and is filled with self-doubt, and on its next turn, it can only take the Dodge, Disengage, or Hide action. On a successful save, half damage.

Against a Black Pudding who has immunities to Charm or Intimidation, would that attack hit or not?

Further info on this UA group of abilities is the ability

Forceful Query (2 psi) - As an action, you can ask a question of one creature that can see and hear you within 30 feet. Must be a yes/no question. If creature fails WIS saving throw, they must tell the truth. (Immune if charm-proof)

It's this last part in parenthesis that I want to emphasize: The designers took the time to mention that THIS ability will fail if your monster is charm-proof, yet didn't do this for the Ego Whip. With that as a counter-point, should Ego Whip be fixed to be considered a charm that a charm-proof monster is immune from?

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Welcome to SE! Good first question. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jeff
    Commented Jun 22, 2017 at 14:55

1 Answer 1


No, it is not Charm Based

Unfortunately, Unearthed Arcana is play-test and incomplete. WoTC may not have purposefully left out that creatures Immune to Charm could avoid the effect, but it likely was purposeful.

Since there is no clarification, you need to go with the language provided. If it doesn't say there is a Charm effect or that a creature who is immune to charm is protected, then it remains active.

Note: Most Charm effects are WIS saves, not INT. The fact that Ego Whip is INT suggests it is purposeful that there isn't Charm Immunity attached.

  • \$\begingroup\$ @BlueMoon93 I put in "most" because I'm not positive :) But pretty sure it's ALL. \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Commented Jun 22, 2017 at 15:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ Just to add to a fine answer that D&D is a Rules As Written (RAW) game so if it doesn't say it is a Charm based effect anywhere, for instance, then it isn't. There are no "implied" rules. \$\endgroup\$
    – Protonflux
    Commented Jun 22, 2017 at 16:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Protonflux I'm a big RAW guy and often very literal, but D&D 5e has been developed to allow for a lot of table ruling/judgements. While there aren't implied rules, there is a large degree of freedom given in the ruleset to alter/adjust as needed or desired. Happy to discuss in chat \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Commented Jun 22, 2017 at 16:54
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Protonflux 100% agree. Also worth noting: unlearn the DnD from previous editions, and don't overhtink stuff. If it is written, then it is to be taken at face value, even if contradicts more general rules. If not, don't overthink. 5e is a rules lawyer hell. And that is its strongest selling point. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jun 23, 2017 at 4:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ House rule are fine, but be careful you don't unbalance what is a well balanced game. In this case it is test class so it is by definition already a house rule to use it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Protonflux
    Commented Jun 23, 2017 at 14:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .