New D&D Monthly Survey: Mystics & Psionics

The new D&D monthly survey is up - it asks about last month's Unearthed Arcana psionics rules. Additionally, WotC reports on the results of the last survey about settings, classes, and races. It turns out that the top tier settings in terms of popularity are Eberron, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Planescape, and the Forgotten Realms, followed by Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Spelljammer. Additionally, popular character types were led by the artificer, shaman, and alchemist; while the most popular races were thri-kreen, goblin, and aasimar.

Find the new survey here. "This month, our survey looks at the mystic character class and our first draft of psionics rules for fifth edition. Your input is an invaluable tool that helps shape how we develop new material for D&D. If you love the rules, hate them, or have a specific issue you want to address, let us know."

 

[Lancelot]

Also no questions about the Far Realm origin. Surveys can be as revealing in what they don't ask as they can be efficient in gathering information about what they do ask. Be sure to fill in your feelings on the Mystic or whatever else the survey left out in the comments section.

I'll second this.

For the record, I kind of hate the Far Realms being presented as the default option, for a bunch of reasons. The wizard class doesn't assume that they're all trained by the Orders of High Sorcery (Krynn). The paladin class doesn't assume they're all Cormyrian Purple Dragon Knights (Forgotten Realms). The mystic class shouldn't assume that psionics are connected to Cthulhu. I'm okay if the Far Realm is presented as one of many options in a side-bar, which should also include: personal spirituality, diabolic pacts, scientific experimentation, magical accidents, side-effect of widespread defiling / environmental corruption, and whatever else comes to mind.

Actually, I'd argue that the Far Realm origin should be less prevalent than any of the above. There was next-to-nothing about the Far Realm in classic AD&D. Psionics started out as pseudo-science, not madness-from-beyond. The major D&D psionic races (such as the githyanki) had no direct link to the Far Realm. Most D&D campaign settings don't use the Far Realm at all: it's not relevant for Mystara, Krynn, Kara Tur, Ravenloft, Athas, Greyhawk, Eberron... and only tangential for Planescape, Spelljammer and the Forgotten Realms. It's not consistent with the novels that inspired the first major re-working of psionics in D&D (K Kurtz's "Deryni" series, which sparked a golden age Dragon magazine revamp of psionics), or any other classic fantasy novels which include significant use of mental powers (e.g. Zelazny's "Amber" series, Julian May's "Jack the Bodiless", etc).

...and I've written 250 words to that effect in the comments section of the survey. The whole Lovecraftian thing is over-done in both D&D and Pathfinder (and a lot of other RPGs). It's in the same category as zombies and vampires for me at the moment: it's used so often, it has lost a lot of its mystique. Give it a rest for a while, and come up with more interesting fluff... or at least a wider variety of options.

 

[mrm1138]

The guys at The Tome Show made a comment that I agree with, that WotC should work on a completely new campaign setting created specifically for 5e. What I'd personally love to see is a 5e-based space opera setting, something more straightfaced than Spelljammer. Honestly, I'd be satisfied with something that was more or less Star Wars with the serial numbers filed off. I think it would be easier to get my group interested in something like that, since they're already familiar with the rules than it would be to switch to Fantasy Flight's official Star Wars RPG.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'll second this.

For the record, I kind of hate the Far Realms being presented as the default option, for a bunch of reasons.

I have no problem with the Far Realm or it being the origin of psionics. D&D is full of Lovecraftian stuff, including the very prominently psionic Mind Flayers. I have a problem with a default option that the DM has to 'house rule' - it creates the impression in players that they know how things 'really work,' (and have a right to know if the DM changes how they work) which is, IMHO, contrary to the DM-empowerment philosophy of 5e.

We don't need a default explanation of where psionics comes from. Rather, give multiple competing theories, even call out one as the consensus among learned sages or whatever. But don't set it in stone. JMHO.

There was next-to-nothing about the Far Realm in classic AD&D. Psionics started out as pseudo-science, not madness-from-beyond. The major D&D psionic races (such as the githyanki) had no direct link to the Far Realm.

The Far Realm was introduced fairly early in 2e, and the abberations such as Mind Flayers have their origins there. The Gith, BTW, were human slaves of the Mind Flayers who learned their psionic powers to rebel against them, so there's an example of a Far Realms connection, right there in you example of no Far Realms connection.

What's more "could go either way" than that?

Let the DM decide, WotC!

The guys at The Tome Show made a comment that I agree with, that WotC should work on a completely new campaign setting created specifically for 5e.

5e is so focused on capturing the feel of the classic game, it should really go back to Greyhawk. Litterally, to the dungeons under Castle Greyhawk, like they should get the Gygax estate to let them rifle through his old notes and find maps from '73...

 

[doctorhook]

The Arficer Unearthed Arcana Wizard subclass was wildly unpopular.

You said it more politely than I would have.

 

[GreenTengu]

I think out of all of the settings listed as the top settings, what is missing is a sword and sorcery setting in which you can play marauding adventurers set against a gritty world. FR is far too high fantasy, and the rest are very thematically niche. Greyhawk, drawing it's inspiration from early fantasy pulp fiction like the Grey Mouser, Conan, and in some instances Dying Earth can be (and should be) unique enough to set itself apart from the epic fantasy of FR and not be a watered down generic setting.

And how is this not by-the-numbers, dry and vanilla?
Are there any special circumstances that you would run across in the setting that require special rules to explain how to handle them in game?
Are there any unique environments or enemies or peoples that you need unique rules for?
Is there a special level of technology or magic different from the default core that needs a new class or an alteration of a mechanic?

If not.. then... yeah, you may as well just use the core book. Any campaign setting for it would just be maps and lists of NPCs who are either liable to be dead the session the adventurers meet them or never going to be used in a way they need concrete stats anyway.

We seem to be saying the same thing, I just use the term "dry" or what you use the word "gritty".

If the world needs no rules that aren't in the core book-- in fact, with GrayHawk, not in the free basic PDF, it doesn't need a setting published for it. Because you have 3 editions of gazettes already that give you your maps and lists of city and NPC names.

 

[doctorhook]

The UA Artificer received a lot of negative feedback, to the point where the survey report said "OK, back to the drawing board on this one."

The problem was that it was a class that could call itself an artificer since it had magic and abilities that focused on creating magic items, but it wasn't anything like the 3.5e Eberron Artificer, and that's what people clamoring for an Artificer class wants. It's as if they had made an Illusionist rogue archetype focusing on card tricks and stuff like that - the name is technically correct, but it's not the Illusionist.

I think this is a pretty spot-on assessment. It was an artificer class, but it sure as hell was not the artificer class.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I believe if Wizards is going to do other worlds then I want more than just a book along with some AP's.

 

[ChapolimX]

...
If the world needs no rules that aren't in the core book-- in fact, with GrayHawk, not in the free basic PDF, it doesn't need a setting published for it. Because you have 3 editions of gazettes already that give you your maps and lists of city and NPC names.

Well, I'm on the other side here. In fact, I'm keeping a little hope that WOTC at some point will provide hardcovers with poster maps making easier for a campaign setting newbie (me) to get into some of D&D classics. But I know this holds a big dose of wishful thinking. Let's see. Worse case scenario will have to deal with pdfs.

 

[Connorsrpg]

This was good. Gives all of us doing homebrews what might be popular directions for house rules (or even En5ider articles).

I certainly haven't worked on any of those desired classes, though I would love to see a good shaman. I am just not sure how to go about it yet.

The top 3 races were a surprise to me, though I am pleased others have some love for kreen and aasimar.

Several of the others have been central to our main setting (and used in others we have played or developed). That is why we have already developed several races. In fact, from that list we already have converted the following races: aasimar (4 subraces), catfolk (4), gith (the 2 subraces listed), giant-kin (3 subraces inc half-giants).

You can have a look here http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/d-d-races if interested. Be warned - we have Flaws (negative features which are on another page, but you can ignore these) and other House Rules embedded, but I am sure you can work them out. IF there is any interest, I would like to do some races for and EN5ider article.

None of the last 4 races listed. Re Gnolls (I love gnolls) - haven't done a gnoll subrace, but they would fit under out canisaran race (where we already have 6 subraces).

 

[Greybird]

Starting caveat: I have not read or played an existing Shaman class from any form of D&D. I have, however, studied quite a bit about the cultural/spiritual practices of shamanism (or more accurately, shamanistic practices, unless you're in Siberia.)

In D&D terms, shaman aren't really divine casters. The closest existing thing (in concept rather than mechanics) would probably be a necromancer, except that a shaman would work with natural spirits rather than the spirits of the dead. Each spell on the spell list would represent different spirit allied with the shaman, acting at his behest. Spells would be (fluff-wise) gained by making deals with new spirits (or overcoming them in a challenge), so they would be fewer than many classes get.

Based on that, and on my readings, the closest thing to a shaman in 5E today would be a Warlock. Every other type of caster gets their power from either a divine, internal, or external 'raw power' source, while a warlock gets his power by making a deal with an intelligent external source - much like a shaman. Just create a warlock archetype with a Patron of 'Spirits.' Fill the patron's list with healing, buffing, and protection spells, and you're ready to go.