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.

 

[Sacrosanct]

My sticking point is that I think the user base in 2019 is very different from the user base in 2004, when the last revision of psionics was published. (4e psionics was integrated into the core system, so it wasn't really a different system.) So I don't have a lot of belief that any previous market failures mean that a new revision would also not be well received, as it's being sold to a very different audience. Again, if they have market research that says otherwise, than I certainly understand their hesitance to proceed.

They aren't just going by 2004. They are looking at every edition that has psionics, from 1979 to the most recent (the playtest mystic class), and apparently in every case, 'while fun, it was hardly used" according to Crawford.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

When you have 40 years and 4 editions of evidence, that's not a "conservative" approach. That's common business sense. Why would you keep spending time, energy, and limited resources on things that for the past 40 years was hardly used? Conservative? Nah. Smart? Yep.

At some point you have to branch out or you are going to run out of design space. I'm a huge Star Wars fan and lived the idea of an X-Wing minis game. Then I bought it and played it....and there was a problem. They chose to simplify the different ships down to a handful of stats, and that stat range only varied from 0-3. This caused a problem as they expanded the line because there was little to no variability in the feel of the different ships because they only had a few values to work with.

When X-Wing 2.0 released I had hoped they wod widen the range to allow finer details...but they did not so are stuck in the same hole they were before (at least in my opinion).

There isn't anything left, classwise, that is a basic trope that is going to appeal to the masses to warrant developing according to past sales standards. So you have painted yourself into a corner of "sales dictate development" which is NOT a good practice to pursue with all of your resources.

Products designed primarily because of marketing goals are good for the company but bad for the game as a whole.

Now I will shut up and wait for my Critical Role supplement to add to my Rick and Morty, Stranger Things, and Acquisitions Inc supplements because that's what the crowd wants.

 

[Salthorae]

So you have painted yourself into a corner of "sales dictate development" which is NOT a good practice to pursue with all of your resources.

Who says that is what they’re doing with all their resources all the time? I’m sure they have tons of different ideas that are tossed around all the time and then tossed out for one reason or another.

Just look at the Mystic UA. or Mearls idea in the Happy Fun Hour to have cantrips that can boost or be fueled by spell slots.

personally I think some of the new design and UA are innovative ways to use the 5e frameworks

bad for the game as a whole.

I’d rather they designed for the masses and stayed profitable and publishing than tossing out “innovative” or “niche” designs that no one bought and tanked the line this forcing a new edition on is just to sell more books To stay in business as D&D

 

[TwoSix]

They aren't just going by 2004. They are looking at every edition that has psionics, from 1979 to the most recent (the playtest mystic class), and apparently in every case, 'while fun, it was hardly used" according to Crawford.

OK. I'm not really sure if you're trying to refute a point I made, or just making a clarification.

I'm mostly getting the sense you dislike my usage of the term "conservative" to describe WotC's design ethos, but I'm not really sure if I'm reading you correctly. (Internet, and all.) From your previous posts, you seem to be arguing WotC isn't being conservative, they're being financially pragmatic based on market considerations. Which is almost certainly true! But the financially pragmatic choice often tends to be the conservative one, and I don't see why describing it that way would be remotely controversial. I'm not accusing them of anything nefarious. It's just a bummer for me personally, because I prefer for them to be innovative.

 

[Quartz]

I've just had a read through and herewith my initial thoughts:

For the Psychic Warrior is Psionic Armament once per round or once per short rest or what? Because once per round seems a bit good.

It looks like the Soulknife can't Sneak Attack with her psychic blade: 'it deals 1d6 psychic damage on a hit'. Just as well given Rend Mind. 24/7 telepathy is a bit good, especially at only 3rd level and is wholly out of kilter with the other two possibilities. Invisibility / Psychic Veil might be a better option. Speaking of Psychic Veil, this is far too weak for a 13th level power.

I quite like the Arcane Tradition. Thought Form seems a bit powerful. I'm thinking that attacks against you should have Advantage because you're glowy and obvious.

Looking at the spells, I see a big problem with Id insinuation: you can have up to 3 turns per round. I think the damage should be per round, not per turn. Mind Sliver's second effect seems a bit too good for a cantrip. I also note that the target is explicitly one person - good.

 

[Sacrosanct]

A lot of opinions here on how WotC should design the game from people who haven't designed or published anything themselves.

I may not agree with every approach Mearls and co have been doing, but you can't deny how incredibly successful it has been. So they deserve the benefit of the doubt that they know what they're doing, and they're doing it right.

 

[Tony Vargas]

They aren't just going by 2004. They are looking at every edition that has psionics, from 1979 to the most recent (the playtest mystic class), and apparently in every case, 'while fun, it was hardly used" according to Crawford.

That sounds more like an excuse than a reason.

High levels have historically been little-used in D&D, too. But 5e goes to 20th, just like 2e & 3e. The Bard wasn't exactly popular in any prior edition (was consistently mocked for a long time, for that matter), nor the Druid, they both made the PH1 cut.

 

[Zaukrie]

A lot of opinions here on how WotC should design the game from people who haven't designed or published anything themselves.

I may not agree with every approach Mearls and co have been doing, but you can't deny how incredibly successful it has been. So they deserve the benefit of the doubt that they know what they're doing, and they're doing it right.

to be clear, only people that have designed a game should comment on a game?

They might or might not be doing the best thing for psionics for 5e, that doesn't mean everyone has to like the decision.

 

[Tony Vargas]

to be clear, only people that have designed a game should comment on a game?

To be clear, his assertion was about sales. So really, only people who have marketed a game are fit to comment on it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

to be clear, only people that have designed a game should comment on a game?

They might or might not be doing the best thing for psionics for 5e, that doesn't mean everyone has to like the decision.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that someone who has no idea what goes into game design probably shouldn't be calling the designers things like "lazy" or "ruined it", or other attacks. Especially when the team has made probably the most successful version of D&D ever, whether or not it fits our own personal desires.