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

 

[ccooke]

Seeing this and considering the circumstances, I'm pretty much convinced we'll get an official book with some sort of Psionics in it sometime around the Baldurs Gate 3 release.
For better or worse. They might be pretty confident this is more or less what they want to print. Although I'd be pretty disappointed if the only Psionic Full Caster is a CHA based Sorcerer Subclass.

I don't know... Sure, Int is the traditional stat, but in the wider world of fiction, psi abilities just as often run on force of personality - and that is definitely a good fit for Cha in d&d.

Maybe I don't care because none of the previous iterations of psionics really grabbed me? (Okay, I think the 4e approach had a lot of merit in the classes they made, but it was just a power source like the rest; they took an existing framework and ran with it)

 

[Demetrios1453]

Seeing this and considering the circumstances, I'm pretty much convinced we'll get an official book with some sort of Psionics in it sometime around the Baldurs Gate 3 release.
For better or worse. They might be pretty confident this is more or less what they want to print. Although I'd be pretty disappointed if the only Psionic Full Caster is a CHA based Sorcerer Subclass.

I wonder how much of a mess it would make, if at all, to basically say "for this subclass, where you would normally use CHA, you use INT"? Sorcerers get their subclasses at the start, so it wouldn't be a switch mid-stream...

 

[Aldarc]

I think this is good for psionically enhanced non-psion classes. I'm going to wait for the psion and its attendant subclasses before I decide whether psionics is gelling for me or not.

That may be the best way to go, but people are already talking as if the lack of a psion is certain.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I don't know... Sure, Int is the traditional stat, but in the wider world of fiction, psi abilities just as often run on force of personality - and that is definitely a good fit for Cha in d&d.

Maybe I don't care because none of the previous iterations of psionics really grabbed me? (Okay, I think the 4e approach had a lot of merit in the classes they made, but it was just a power source like the rest; they took an existing framework and ran with it)

In 2nd edition, I'm pretty sure Psionicists used Wisdom.

 

[Marandahir]

Best 5e Psionics. It doesn't invalidate the way the Core Rulebooks use Psionics, it leans into the Psionic Sorcerer as the essential Psion/Wilder (depending on your roleplaying, and without awkwardly forcing a spellbook on the Psion for a couple levels), it expands the options that psionic Fighters and Rogues can use, and it allows for Wild Talents so that everyone can reach into Psionic pools.

The most important takeaway is that a lot of what people want Psionics to do, SORCERERS WERE ALREADY DOING. Switch to a spellpoint system, figure out a balanced way to merging that with the Sorcery points, and you're 90% of the way there. We just needed a Psionic themed subclass.

I don't think that Psionic Soul Sorcerer should have to use Cha, but perhaps this speaks to a broader identity issue where casting stat shouldn't be a defining feature of a class. I can see Wise Paladins without much charisma, Charismatic Clerics, Intelligent, bookish Clerics, Wise or Intelligent Sorcerers, Charismatic Witchy-Wizards, Intelligent Ruleslawyer Warlocks, etc… This is similar to how Fighters could be Strength or Dexterity focused, depending on their choice of armaments.

If I was homebrewing this, I might try tying something beyond skills to each "caster" stat to make the choice of caster focus ability have trade offs.

That's more of a 6e feedback though.

 

[Ashrym]

That may be the best way to go, but people are already talking as if the lack of a psion is certain.

That's because the UA article states the devs are giving up on the mystic class and looking at psionics as available to all characters. If that is true, then it's unlikely we will see the a revisit on the class and the psionic soul is about as close as it gets. It looks like a decent psionicist to me.

 

[Weiley31]

That's because the UA article states the devs are giving up on the mystic class and looking at psionics as available to all characters. If that is true, then it's unlikely we will see the a revisit on the class and the psionic soul is about as close as it gets. It looks like a decent psionicist to me.

I feel the Wild Talent feat is the best way to do it.

 

[Aldarc]

That's because the UA article states the devs are giving up on the mystic class and looking at psionics as available to all characters. If that is true, then it's unlikely we will see the a revisit on the class and the psionic soul is about as close as it gets. It looks like a decent psionicist to me.

I understand that, which is why I'm not sure if I will turn to 5e if I am in a fix for psionics.

 

[Maxperson]

That may be the best way to go, but people are already talking as if the lack of a psion is certain.

I think the opposite. They are giving a lot of thought to psionics right now, which shows that they are aware that a lot of players want psionics, and I'd wager the vast majority of those players want a full psionic class. I think they are working on it, but aren't at a place where they want to share it.

 

[Marandahir]

I understand that, which is why I'm not sure if I will turn to 5e if I am in a fix for psionics.

I'm sorry it doesn't work out for you, Aldarc. :/