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]

You get a like just for the effort in collating all of that at the very least

 

[Salthorae]

You get a like just for the effort in collating all of that at the very least

I'm going to raise your like for a love

Great data @Ashrym

 

[Eric V]

I didn't say they would lose their position as the market leader.

I said if they had a miss on their sales goals that they would have to answer for why. shrug

When you have a formula that is working exceptionally well, why risk it on a gamble?

I do think they'll put a full Psion out, eventually. But that is based entirely on my hope that we'll see official 5e support for Dark Sun based on market research that shows it will do well.

If they don't do Dark Sun, I doubt we'll see an official Psion base class.

I was referring to the part where you wrote that, due to the limited number of releases per year, "they can't afford a dud."

Looking at their sales and overall growth, I think it's obvious they could take a few risks. Unless things really are that secretly volatile.

 

[Tony Vargas]

. I'm struggling to find support for lack of popularity for bards and druids.

This is the one that stuck with me:

In 2016, Mearls gave this information. It stated that the traditional classes were largely the most used, with paladins and warlocks trailing in 5th and 6th place while druids were in last.

Druid's my favorite class in 5e, for the first time since 1e, it was disappointing to hear.

But, Bard, yes, it's really turned around from being so roundly mocked in 3e.

My point, though, was not about which classes top a favorite or most-iconic or whatever poll - classes that have made the cut end up at the bottom of such polls, if nothing else, because they're often the only classes on such polls - but that even classes that don't have a lot of people liking/wanting them can see print. It's the classes that some vocal minority hates enough to generate 'controversy' that run into trouble.

 

[Parmandur]

I was referring to the part where you wrote that, due to the limited number of releases per year, "they can't afford a dud."

Looking at their sales and overall growth, I think it's obvious they could take a few risks. Unless things really are that secretly volatile.

Volatile, nah. They do take risks, who h are mitigated by the testing process. Pre-sorts the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Garthanos]

I've seen claims of popularity but I cannot seem to find evidence to support it.

There is no warlord to vote on right now the closest class combo on that list functionally to the Warlord is a Bard (Valor) / Fighter (Battlemaster if you try)/ Rogue (mastermind). Hmmmmmm ( arguably they each provides a narrow subtype of warlord usually missing its party wide benefits) basically we have sub classes or ahem 5e variety multiclass as a subclass, but not specialist.

A step further I am a serious Warlord fan and I do not get much out of the 3pp providing a 5e Warlord (ok a noble doing the lazy lord trick is fun ) currently they do not seem to really provide much better support than reflavoring a bard/battlemaster so I am rather meh.

No smart non-caster types in this edition just intelligence is a dump stat rejects;

Mearls riff on the class was probably one of the more interesting possibilities (quite unfinished though it was) I have seen so far however so there is that. I could take that as encouraging.

 

[Ashrym]

This is the one that stuck with me:
Druid's my favorite class in 5e, for the first time since 1e, it was disappointing to hear.

But, Bard, yes, it's really turned around from being so roundly mocked in 3e.

Except mocked doesn't mean unpopular. Now it's just no longer mocked. IME, I saw more bards than barbarians, druids, monks, or paladins. That's why they felt middle-of-the-road popularity.

Being mocked didn't stop them from being my favorite 3e class either. I like generalists.

My point, though, was not about which classes top a favorite or most-iconic or whatever poll - classes that have made the cut end up at the bottom of such polls, if nothing else, because they're often the only classes on such polls - but that even classes that don't have a lot of people liking/wanting them can see print. It's the classes that some vocal minority hates enough to generate 'controversy' that run into trouble.

The vocal minority doesn't trump research and business practices. It wouldn't matter how loudly 6 people hate macguffins if I have 60 people telling me they want to buy macguffins from me. That's the point of surveys and test groups. Now if I have 60 people telling me they won't buy macguffins from me if I cater to the 6 vocal minority by changing the macguffin recipe then I would have an issue.

What I don't actually know in this case is who the vocal minority actually is. It might be those against warlords and it might be those who insist we should have warlords. WotC has that data; not me.

What I know is it doesn't bother me if warlords are included or not. I'm happy with battle masters and don't see an issue with someone else being happy with an actual warlord class. I just don't think I'm in a position to make assumptions about the popularity of the class or make assumptions as to why the class was excluded, but I know that (keeping on topic) psionics was demonstrated some concerns over using a system just for a class that was not seeing much use.

As for druids, being the bottom of the list at that time only demonstrated that the other classes were more popular at that time. It does not actually demonstrate a lack of popularity. The same goes for those polls I referenced earlier. Popular relative to other popular classes is not the same thing as being unpopular.

There is no warlord to vote on right now the closest class combo on that list functionally to the Warlord is a Bard / Fighter. Hmmmmmm

Warlord was a write-in for "other - please specify" on some of those. Voters failed to write it in to make significant numbers. So if the bard / fighter is the closest thing, and both are popular, and players who liked both did not see the need to add warlord does that not indicate they prefer the bard / fighter options?

 

[Garthanos]

Warlord was a write-in for "other - please specify" on some of those. Voters failed to write it in to make significant numbers

You might as well be selling crystals.

Gerrymandering and voter splitting (by distributing features of the class hither and yon)
A vote for Bard could have gone to Warlord another Vote for Fighter could have gone for Warlord) ... without an actual clear vote target of Warlord you expect them to imagine and write in their own idea for it .... sheesh

 

[Garthanos]

An intentional deliberate capitulation to haters and an obvious bit of evidence that 4e fans were not the target audience just like the way they phrased their opinion polls on the play test.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Remember when we were discussing rules instead of the corporate politics and economic views of a major company?

Good times.