Unearthed Arcana Psionics Hits Unearthed Arcana

Particle_Man said:

I'm in a hurry so not reading 27 pages of a thread so maybe this was already noted. Quick thing on the wotc psionics (which I love). The Awakened Mind's Third Eye discipline automatically gives blindsight 30' and then if you spend a psi point you can get tremorsense 30'. But isn't blindsight 30' already strictly superior to tremorsense 30'? What would the latter give you that would make it worth spending the psi point?

Click to expand...

Tremorsense allows you to "see" through walls or obstacles. Blindsight still needs line of sight.

Kamikaze Midget said:

Its mechanic is "I conentrate, and stuff happens," which is distinctive, but doesn't tie into a separate fiction.

We need a better story on this. I don't see the conflict, the motivation, like I do with most of the existing 5e classes.

Click to expand...

I don't know why the Far Realm story seems insufficient to you, it actually feels redundant to me.

Wizards don't really have a story or fiction to them! They read books, they copy scrolls, some may have had teachers. That's it.

Druids also don't really have much of a backup fiction. Nobody really explains how nature can possibly grant their powers.

I don't think Psions/Mystics need much more explained than they managed to unlock some unusual capabilities of the mind that simply most people don't have, or haven't learned, just like e.g. Barbarians do with Rage and Rogues with their highly developed skills.

Seriously.

Li Shenron said:

I don't know why the Far Realm story seems insufficient to you, it actually feels redundant to me.

Wizards don't really have a story or fiction to them! They read books, they copy scrolls, some may have had teachers. That's it.

Druids also don't really have much of a backup fiction. Nobody really explains how nature can possibly grant their powers.

I don't think Psions/Mystics need much more explained than they managed to unlock some unusual capabilities of the mind that simply most people don't have, or haven't learned, just like e.g. Barbarians do with Rage and Rogues with their highly developed skills.

Click to expand...

Fighters some fellow bodybuilds muscles, and now is decent with a sword. LOL! But we need more story! Wheres the drama?! Wheres the backstory? The angst?! The conflict! What was the work-out routine schedule? Were the weights slippery? We must know!

Li Shenron said:

I don't know why the Far Realm story seems insufficient to you, it actually feels redundant to me.

Wizards don't really have a story or fiction to them! They read books, they copy scrolls, some may have had teachers. That's it.

Druids also don't really have much of a backup fiction. Nobody really explains how nature can possibly grant their powers.

I don't think Psions/Mystics need much more explained than they managed to unlock some unusual capabilities of the mind that simply most people don't have, or haven't learned, just like e.g. Barbarians do with Rage and Rogues with their highly developed skills.

Click to expand...

Wizards have that thing about having learned how to twist the Weave, which is the body of the goddess Mystara (is that right?)

Clerics have the gods affect the weave for them, and Druids... nature spirits I guess.

Although I don't know the exact details (they don't usually matter anyway) I know that there is indeed fiction and an explanation on how magic works

Wepwawet said:

Tremorsense allows you to "see" through walls or obstacles. Blindsight still needs line of sight.

Click to expand...

In this edition, that is NOT correct.

The same language is used for Tremorsense and Blindsight ("within a specific radius"). There's nothing about obstructions blocking either.

Nifft said:

In this edition, that is NOT correct.

The same language is used for Tremorsense and Blindsight ("within a specific radius"). There's nothing about obstructions blocking either.

Click to expand...

Really? Could it be one of those common sense things that they assumed it wasnt necessary to write down all the details?

Because they should be different, I think. Got to check the book when I get home...

Chryssis said:

People are saying Mystics are given too much versatility due to spell points, a spell slot full caster can only cast x spells where a mystic can cast their low level spells all day. That is true! however a wizard has access to 34? first level spells and a dozen cantrips while a mystic has access to 3...

Click to expand...

3 for now. There's no reason to assume they won't be releasing more disciplines for each order, or that as you continue to level past 5 you won't gain access to more of those disciplines. Continuing the progression in the PDF you might have access to 5 disciplines at level 11, and 8 disciplines at level 20.

But your point about versatility is right. And it has always been one key way that Psionics differ mechanically from Spell casting. It makes for a different play-style where you need to decide if you're going to blow all of your points on a handful of bigger effects, or fire out a ton of small ones all day long. I don't want to see it homogenized to work more like the spell casters, I want options!

Based on the given progression of disciplines (2 active 1 passive) and 3 available by 5th level it would seem logical that each tier has 2-3ish disciplines so a max level mystic will have 2-3 options to choose from per equivalent spell level (each discipline has a low mid and top end ability for each tier) that is very restrictive.

Click to expand...

Extrapolating out from what we have so far I'd say, aside from Intellect Fortress, that each discipline is going to have one powered ability per manifestor level, so 9 total powers per discipline. They won't always be 1, 3, 5, 7, 9... etc points, some of the current ones have 1, 1, 5, so some may offer two level 2 powers no level 3 power, then a level 4 power, and so on.

So a max level mystic should have access to 8 disciplines, each one containing 9 powers and a passive concentration effect. That's 72 powers in their mental bank, though they have to spend actions to switch between different groups of 9. After that it's up to the Psion to decide if they're going to blow all their points on 7 level 9 powers (assuming a cap of 133 power points) or if they're going to meter them out a bit more.

Given the other spell casters mechanics on level 6-9 spells I wouldn't be surprised to see the discipline powers that cost 11, 13, 15, and 17 power points have a rider saying they can only be manifested once per day. I just wonder if they're going to have that apply per discipline, or have it be across the board to reflect that all other caster-types only get 1 spell of levels 6-9 per day.

Personally I want Psionics to be mechanically different, that's a big part of why I've been playing almost exclusively psionic characters since AD&D 2nd Edition. I skipped them in 4th edition because in that version all of the classes were largely, mechanically the same and Psions didn't feel different enough.

Remathilis said:

It COULD, but they chose not to resell us the same rules system they are giving away for free in the Basic doc.

Psionics could go two ways: it could be sold to us as a book of splat giving us a couple of new subclasses, a bunch of new spells, etc, or as a new system. The former just ends up more PC glut to pick through, while the latter is a new decision point; do I want to include this or not. Some DMs will love it and use it heavily (Dark Sun), some will find place for it but not over-emphasize it (Eberron, Ravenloft), some will allow it and never discuss it (Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms) and some will outright ban it (Dragonlance). To me, that makes it an important, dynamic changing element rather than just another tool for PCs to build sorcerers and monks with.

Click to expand...

I think that is interesting. Subclasses is PC glut but a new class with a unique casting method is not.

I agree, though that psionics are not a universal campaign setting thing. It makes sense why they are not included in the PHB at least by paying homage to campaign settings... Well that is not quite right though. We have some pretty odd ball races that would not be in some campaign settings (tiefling, dragonborn etc.). They sort of list these as "rare". Then you have some classes that are not viable in some campaign settings - Warlock, and Sorcerer - wild mage. So there are some examples of things that are not viable as classes and races that are not going to automatically be universally accepted like an elf or a fighter. Psion's would certainly fit into that group of not universally accepted.

For psion's in the 3.xe era, we wound up banning them. As they were seen as too powerful and were not balanced appropriately. they had a unique mechanic that avoided spell slots and gave them a bunch of new "spells" which were pretty mutable and gave extreme flexibility over the standard classes. We banned it.

For 2e era it was just wonky mechanics, great theme but ineffective with the opposed rolls. Throughout that era we played as much 1e as 2e.

For 1e era we had a few PCs with psionics. They were highly effective (teleport, domination, invisibility) out the gate. Delving into the attack modes and things when you ran into a mindflayer was nasty. I remember one PC had his powers wiped from him by a mindflayer in one game. That sucked for him. Psionics were in the base game. Heck they were in the most owned book - PHB. Thinking about it this way, I would have much rather had a psion in the base game rather than a Warlock.

Something about the 1e psionics that is a problem with this edition is the further unique they go the more difficult the monster manual becomes. Unless, in a future printings they go back in and errata the book and post a free update. The monsters could look quite different. Something that melds with what they did in the MM makes a lot of sense to me. Additionally psionics should have already been worked out by Mearls and co. we should have seen the mechanics already in the MM and simply not had the source book to run them appropriately. This is ball that was dropped.

Sadrik said:

For 1e era we had a few PCs with psionics. They were highly effective (teleport, domination, invisibility) out the gate. Delving into the attack modes and things when you ran into a mindflayer was nasty. I remember one PC had his powers wiped from him by a mindflayer in one game. That sucked for him. Psionics were in the base game. Heck they were in the most owned book - PHB. Thinking about it this way, I would have much rather had a psion in the base game rather than a Warlock.

Something about the 1e psionics that is a problem with this edition is the further unique they go the more difficult the monster manual becomes. Unless, in a future printings they go back in and errata the book and post a free update. The monsters could look quite different. Something that melds with what they did in the MM makes a lot of sense to me. Additionally psionics should have already been worked out by Mearls and co. we should have seen the mechanics already in the MM and simply not had the source book to run them appropriately. This is ball that was dropped.

Click to expand...

You're right, by leaving it out of the MM they basically locked themselves into magic/psionic transparency from the outset.

But in 1E, my reading was that psionic character aren't very powerful out of the gate. Someone with 4 disciplines and 2 sciences, for example, only knows 1 discipline at level 1--then at level 3 they learn another at the first level of mastery. So by 9th level this character has 1 discipline at mastery 9, 1 at mastery 7, 1 at mastery 5, 1 at mastery 3, and has finally learned their first science at mastery 1.

Ben

Sadrik said:

I think that is interesting. Subclasses is PC glut but a new class with a unique casting method is not.

Click to expand...

Its a perception thing.

Lots of DMs would consider a new subclass or spell just another character option; toss it on the pile with the others. I'm sure a lot of people would look at a psionic-mage with psionic spells and assume they are just more of the same stuff in the PHB and pay them no mind until a players want's to make one. A new system, however, makes a DM pay attention. Does this fit my world? Do I like the rules? Etc. Its forces them to decide how psionics fit in their world in a way that Storm Sorcerers or the EE spells don't. Its different-ness demands attention. It doesn't just add more of the same, it adds new and unlike anything you get in the PHB.

A psionic system expands the reaches of what the system can do; a psionic magic-system offers us more of the same.