Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Revisits Psionics

The latest Unearthed Arcana from WotC revisits some psionic rules! “Shine with the power of the mind in this installment of Unearthed Arcana! Today we revisit several psi-themed options that we released in the past few months. Studying your feedback on those options, we’ve crafted this new collection of subclasses, spells, and feats, found in the PDF below.“

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

 

[TwoSix]

Fair enough.

Dragons and Avangions were classes, not just stat blocks.

I agree. They were a special "class-like" structure in 2E, and an Epic Destiny in 4E. Ideally, they would be paired with some kind of Epic Level Handbook for 5E, they shouldn't be something you can get into at Tier 3.

 

[gyor]

Those were, but they were um, imho, kind of terrible and the reception here and on Reddit was not er, positive for either. I suspect they've gone back to the drawing board on those.

There were also a bunch of UA subclasses which seemed from a very different setting, like the Rune Knight or whatever it was called, and have yet (AFAIK) to emerge as connected to a setting.

See that I what I mean, every time there appears to be a pattern, it falls apart.

Heck it could even be a multisetting book for all I know.

 

[gyor]

This is what confuses me, as it's no established tradition to have a dedicated Psion class. That's not how it worked in first edition, which is what started psionics to begin with and which was the established tradition for a very long time and at the peak of the golden age of D&D. There, all the classes could also have psionics - same theme as this proposal for 5e.

And even the editions which had dedicated psionic classes didn't do those classes the same between editions, and didn't even call them by the same names. Is a 2e Psionicist really all that similar to a 4e Psion?

So it's not like this is some sacred cow being slain by not going with a dedicated Psion class. It's why I think all the claims of some consensus among those who want psionics is bunk. It's only a consensus for those who were hardcore 3e fans I think.

Almost every edition had a Psion class or multiclasses except first, so that seems like a tradition to me.

 

[gyor]

Totally agree with this: the initial run if UA last year was probably mostly if not entirely for Theros, just most of it was DOA.

You don't know that for certain because you don't know what they were for, not all of those were intended for Theros, the Aberrant Mind Sorcerer clearly wasn't for example.

 

[Dausuul]

Per my previous post, I consider dragon kings and avangions to be abominations anyway... but even setting that aside, the 2E mechanics just do not map to 5E.

In 2E, you played a psionicist to 20th, then dual-classed into wizard (or vice versa) and leveled up again to 20th. In 5E, this would be a level 40 character, which is not supported at all. Supporting it would require figuring out how to take all PCs to level 40, which is a very big ask for content that will not be used by 99% of campaigns anyway.

The funny thing is, this UA solves the problem! Because there is no stand-alone psion class, it is possible to reach maximum wizard power and maximum psionic power without adding more levels: You just play a wizard with the psionic subclass, and level up to 20. Make avangion or dragon metamorphosis into a series of epic boons, and you're done.

Except that you shouldn't, because it would be an abomination.

 

[Parmandur]

You don't know that for certain because you don't know what they were for, not all of those were intended for Theros, the Aberrant Mind Sorcerer clearly wasn't for example.

The Aberrant Mind was actually quite perfect for Theorosian Merfolk.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is what confuses me, as it's no established tradition to have a dedicated Psion class. That's not how it worked in first edition, which is what started psionics to begin with and which was the established tradition for a very long time and at the peak of the golden age of D&D. There, all the classes could also have psionics - same theme as this proposal for 5e.

And even the editions which had dedicated psionic classes didn't do those classes the same between editions, and didn't even call them by the same names. Is a 2e Psionicist really all that similar to a 4e Psion?

So it's not like this is some sacred cow being slain by not going with a dedicated Psion class. It's why I think all the claims of some consensus among those who want psionics is bunk. It's only a consensus for those who were hardcore 3e fans I think.

All I was saying is that people dig in on sides about official rules not because they will or will not use the content based on whether or not it's official, but because whether or not it is official will (possibly) forever color people's perceptions and expectations about what the game is. They are arguing about the flavor of the game, not what goes on at their table.

 

[Guest 6801328]

And, for what it's worth, this is the first iteration of 5e Psionics that I kind of like.

 

[gyor]

The Aberrant Mind was actually quite perfect for Theorosian Merfolk.

The Triton is perfect for Theros Tritons, but it doesn't matter because it was clearly designed for whatever book is going to have Psionics, which was never Theros.

 

[Weiley31]

What stat blocks don't have is a mechanical method of progression or advancement.

That's why ya spice em up with class features and UA Sidekick rules. That Hobgoblin guardsman to the Warchief uses College of The Bard's Sword Flourish feature to represent his elite swordsmanship skills in battle. An Elven Bladesinger NPC would Second Wind to represent that last burst of strength against a horde of Orcs at a last stand.