Unearthed Arcana New Unearthed Arcana: Psionics!

There’s a new Unearthed Arcana article out, and it’s all about psionics! "Their minds bristling with power, three new subclasses arrive in today’s Unearthed Arcana: the Psychic Warrior for the fighter, the Soulknife for the rogue, and the tradition of Psionics for the wizard."

​

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

In this 9-page PDF, there are also some new psionics-themed spells (including versions of classic psionic powers like id insinuation and ego whip) and two new feats.

 

[Ashrym]

Not really. They might affect how often you can cast or boost some damages here and there, but the class abilities don't really affect their spellcasting mechanically in any way.

Boosting damage here and there is impacting spell casting, but it's beyond that an also part of the subclasses. Most wizard traditions change spells of certain schools. Some domains change or add effects from related spells. Bards are better at using spells based on ability checks because of skill benefits. Valor bards plan out a spell and bonus attack. All 3 have different ritual spell casting mechanics.

They have universal spell casting mechanics in common and use the same spell progression table. That doesn't make them the same. There's difference between a diviner recovering spell slot in casting divinations, and lore bard pumping up a dispel magic check, and a life cleric granting bonus healing on spells.

 

[Vael]

If this is the full extent of Psionics, yeah, I'm gonna be disappointed, but I don't hate these subclasses.

My fav would be the Soulknife. I'd assumed the Soulknife would be a Monk subclass, but Rogue works way better.

The Psychic Warrior is acceptable. Fighters aren't really my thing, but this seems cool.

A little underwhelmed with Wizard subclass, but that's more me hoping for a full Psionicist class. As a Wizard subclass, this is fine.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I like the idea of psionic subclasses, but I would suggest some changes.

- I imagine wu jen as an occult subclass than psionic (occult classes from Pathfinder). And those taboos would too boring, annoying for game designers or useless in a videogame adaptation.

- The name for psionic wizard should be mentalist, and a psionic rogue should be the lurker.

- If the wilder will be a psionic sorcerer then the psychic enervation needs to be fixed, because it was not a fun gameplay. Maybe with suffering the dazed condition would be enough, because psionic power points was boring for the risk.

- The ardent as psionic cousin of paladin should be a base class. It is a too cool concept what could allow creation of new stories about conflicts and love-hate relations with clerics and other divine spellcasters. Templars as ardents would be interesting enemies in Dark Sun. But I am afraid it will be only a paladin subclass.

- D&D should use the idea of "archetypes" by Pathfinder where some class features are replaced, but the character is different since the first level.

- In the past time ago I suggested the name "cofrater" ( = member of a brotherhood) for a class as ersatz of jedis from Star Wars.

- I miss some ideas from psionic and occult class from Pathfinder, as the aegis class, or the medium and spiritualist from Pathfinder Occult Adventures. You can bet somebody will create the homebred version for 5th Ed or even to be used in their Ravenloft games.

- Would Paizo dare to publish its own version for D&D 5th Ed of the new classes it created?

- Batlemind as a warlord subclass?

- Will be templars a cleric subclass in the future Dark Sun? I wouldn't blame WotC.

- What would happen if a soulknife, a solarian (starfinder class), a jedi and protoss zealot enter a bar and..?

 

[Kurotowa]

I was actually thinking that if every class gets a subclass that's psionic I would appreciate it more but the feats (holy cow there are actually feats presented!!) add to it.

I'd say that a psionic subclass for every class isn't required. I mean, how would you do a psionic Cleric or Ranger subclass? But as has been pointed out that these three aren't your only options. The Aberrant Mind Sorcerer and GOO Warlock can easily be used for more aberration themed psionic characters, especially with the new spells in this rules pack, and the Astral Self Monk can fit a psionic theme easily too.

There could be room for a couple more. You might be able to fit in a Paladin who purifies their mind and body through rigorous dedication to their Oath, retool the Archivist Artificer to be more explicitly psionic, and do a Bard that's focused on mind magic effects. But that's about the limit of it IMO. No need to get fixated on mandatory symmetry.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think the feedback surveys are going to be very difficult to interpret on this unless they take a non-standard form.

For instance, I think we need a full psion class. If the survey never asks that question, how am I supposed to respond to the things they normally ask? I can go through and rate each feature of each class based on how I would feel about it if there is also a psion class in the game. But if these are intended to be a replacement for a psion class, my ratings would be very different.

If the survey doesn't ask, I strongly recommend everyone consider a "write-in" vote about whether or not you think there should be a full psion/mystic class, and how your feedback should be interpreted in that light.

Ie:

"I think we need a full Psion class, and I rated the subclasses as if they were being included in addition to that."

"I think we need a full Psion class, and I rated the subclasses as if they were being created as a replacement instead of a full Psion class."

"I don't think we need a full Psion class, and I rated the subclasses as if there will not be a Psion class."

 

[Ashrym]

I'd say that a psionic subclass for every class isn't required. I mean, how would you do a psionic Cleric or Ranger subclass? But as has been pointed out that these three aren't your only options. The Aberrant Mind Sorcerer and GOO Warlock can easily be used for more aberration themed psionic characters, especially with the new spells in this rules pack, and the Astral Self Monk can fit a psionic theme easily too.

There could be room for a couple more. You might be able to fit in a Paladin who purifies their mind and body through rigorous dedication to their Oath, retool the Archivist Artificer to be more explicitly psionic, and do a Bard that's focused on mind magic effects. But that's about the limit of it IMO. No need to get fixated on mandatory symmetry.

It's not about symmetry. It's about campaign flavor.

For a cleric I would add a domain that would be appropriate. That one is easy. The ranger or druid would be more nature specific. I imagine I have other options, of course, but I wouldn't mind seeing psionic subclasses to go around.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

A little underwhelmed with Wizard subclass, but that's more me hoping for a full Psionicist class. As a Wizard subclass, this is fine.

There's the rub. Taken in isolation, it's a perfectly decent wizard tradition. However, if this is intended to be the standard bearer for psionics in this edition, it's a disappointment.

 

[lkj]

Also, Crawford explains why it's not a stand alone class (and why it probably won't be), and why the mechanics are core 5e rather than new stuff. He comes right out and says that when previous editions did that in the past, while fun, hardly anyone used them. So they want options that more people will use, and not have to buy a new book and learn an entire new rules system.

Agree or not, there you have it.

OK. I've listened to the interview now, and I don't agree with this interpretation of what he said. It's clear that they have no intention of developing a whole new system for psionics. There won't be any Psionics Handbook. But that's not the same as saying that they won't have a psionic class (a psion) that covers mechanics that aren't well suited to existing class structures. They are going to used subclasses for everything that they can. But, like the Artificer, they might create a new class to support flavor and mechanics that don't fit well elsewhere.

It does tell us that if they do create a psion class, it's not going to be based on some new system developed from whole cloth. They'll use the existing spell system for spell-like abilities. Maybe they'll even develop a psion spell list that, possibly, has a few exclusive spells.

All that said, I am now less sure they'll develop such a class. They'll only do it if they don't think the subclasses they've created cover the breadth of what people want. However, what they are doing now (and what Crawford said) is not inconsistent with the approach Mearls was taking in the Happy Fun Hour. Make subclasses where possible. Only use the class for ideas that don't fit well in subclasses. They may well decide that they don't need an extra class after all.

We'll see.

AD

 

[Shadowdweller]

I'm not too keen on the psion as a wizard archetype. IMHO psionics in fantasy literature seem to involve fewer but possibly more powerful or versatile abilities. I think the warlock (possibly with invocations as new psionic "powers") or sorcerer would make a much better chassis than the wizard. Maybe a free subtle metamagic would be a good start? Charisma seems like an appropriate stat. Psionics don't really fit the warlock flavoring very well though.

Most importantly, psionics should feel different from magic.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Some of the new "psionic spells" definitely need balancing. Compare Id Insinuation to Tasha's Hideous Laughter, for example.