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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Crawford tipped his hand in the Beyond videos, we got the Psionic Sorcerer, Monk and son over the past three months already. And it looks like they are not going to make a dedicated Psion right now.

That'd be a Hard Fail for the Big Tent, so let's hope not.

Yeah, I know ad populum, sure. It may well be that WotC won't miss the revenue from the disappointed fans of psionics who eventually give up on 5e, it's possible many of them will just shrug and accept that they are nth-class fans who don't deserve to play ever the characters they want. It will likely prove a fine business decision for WotC. Pragmatically throwing your longtime supporters under the bus often is.

 

[Parmandur]

That'd be a Hard Fail for the Big Tent, so let's hope not.

Yeah, I know ad populum, sure. It may well be that WotC won't miss the revenue from the disappointed fans of psionics who eventually give up on 5e, it's possible many of them will just shrug and accept that they are nth-class fans who don't deserve to play ever the characters they want. It will likely prove a fine business decision for WotC. Pragmatically throwing your longtime supporters under the bus often is.

Balderdash.

Making a "big tent" means trying to be popular and roundly appealing. Observing the accomplished fact of D&D currently being popular and roundly appealing isn't an example of the ad populum falacy, it is a tautological statement of the fact of the existing big tent.

They've noodles for years on Psionics, and what people want out of it. I liked the Concentration bending concept Mearls was working on, but if WotC finds the Subclass options I more workable, that is the big tent approach in action, not failing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Making a "big tent" means trying to be popular and roundly appealing.

No, it meant being inclusive of fans of all past editions. That's how it was used throughout the Next playtest. That was the justification for even having a 5e in the first place. Past editions each left someone out, Next was going to fix that.

It wasn't realistic, so it's no surprise it's finally giving up.
But Psionics is an odd thing to throw in the towel over, considering how much past work they have to draw upon.

Observing the accomplished fact of D&D currently being popular

Acknowledged. Throwing fans of psionics under the bus may be the expedient thing to do, and a fine business decision from a marketing perspective. It may not meaningfully impact sales.

They've noodles for years on Psionics, and what people want out of it. I liked the Concentration bending concept Mearls was working on, but if WotC finds the Subclass options I more workable, that is the big tent approach in action, not failing.

Hard. Fail.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

A psionic barbarian? It would be like the wilder version of the bloodrager, a hybrid class by Pathfinder.

 

[Sacrosanct]

When Mearls said that 5e would be designed so that fans of each previous edition would have some of the things from their favorite editions included, that does not mean that Mearls promised to make 5e appeal to every single fan of every single edition. That's ridiculous.

And since 5e has players and fans who were fans of every other edition before 5e, that means the goal was met. Having many 1e-4e fans like 5e, but not you, doesn't mean they failed in that statement, or lied, because you don't represent all the fans of any particular edition. My favorite edition was 1e, and I like 5e. Does that mean every 1e fan likes 5e? Joe over there loves 1e but doesn't like 5e because of reason X, does that mean 5e lied and didn't make 5e inclusive of 1e fans? Of course not.

It's objectively true 5e brought in elements from every other edition. We've gone over the lists before. There is no way 5e can have every element of every edition. I don't know what to tell someone who was under that impression, but it was never promised by the team.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When Mearls said that 5e would be designed so that fans of each previous edition would have some of the things from their favorite editions included, that does not mean that Mearls promised to make 5e appeal to every single fan of every single edition.

It was never a realistic goal. And it was never limited to just 'some of the things,' it was ideas like, you'd be able to make a character like that of your favorite edition, and play it along side others' who liked different editions.
Really, very out there.

Holding them too it may seem a bit unfair, but, it was also the very justification for having 5e at all. That more recent editions had failed to include or support playstyles of fans of earlier editions, and WotC needed to do just that, with 5e, to 'heal the rift' in the fanbase.

And since 5e has players and fans who were fans of every other edition before 5e, that means the goal was met.

Different fans liked different things about past editions. Psionics has fans who specifically like what it did for the game in one or more past editions (it was in all past editions, afterall!).

Besides, D&D has fans who had been fans of every past edition, and will be fans of every edition to come, because we're just that loyal.

Having many 1e-4e fans like 5e, but not you, doesn't mean they failed in that statement, or lied, because you don't represent all the fans of any particular edition.

Cutting psionics doesn't lose me. For most of the last 39 years, I've rather loathed psionics, considering them a sci-fi bit with no business in D&D. It was only c2010 that I relented.

But just because I'm getting some stuff I wanted out of 5e (like a Druid that ticks all the boxes to feel like a Druid for the first time since 1e), doesn't mean I give it a free pass on coming through for other fans, as well.

There is no way 5e can have every element of every edition.

It's a finite list of elements. The structure of 5e, if not quite as fully modular as suggested in the playtest, is open to optional rules. It absolutely can do exactly that. And, people who don't like a given optional element, need never opt into it.

 

[paladinn]

A psionic barbarian? It would be like the wilder version of the bloodrager, a hybrid class by Pathfinder.

Dude.. This is a 5e thread. Stop pushing Pathfinder, already

 

[Chaosmancer]

Would reflavored spell points really be a better solution for Psionics though? Especially since we know it will have some elements like the 4e Monk, where you will be able to spend X points to cast "Insert name" spell?

That could end up being fine, but would it satisfy people who want it to be invisible, silent, undetectable, and uncounterable?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Would reflavored spell points really be a better solution for Psionics though? Especially since we know it will have some elements like the 4e Monk, where you will be able to spend X points to cast "Insert name" spell?

Spell points might make a better framework or template than spell slots, anyway. But actual spells aren't a great idea, IMHO.

That could end up being fine, but would it satisfy people who want it to be invisible, silent, undetectable, and uncounterable?

I doubt anybody really quite wants that. Not having material & verbal components, certainly. And not subject to counter-magic/dispel magic or the like (and vice-versa, unable to dispel/counter spells) if the DM decides "psionics are different," sure - psionics would be the counter to psionics, just a magic is the counter magic (something that makes the most sense in settings like Darksun, where psionics are comparatively commonplace and understood, like magic is in most D&D settings).

 

[Hussar]

We are getting into the concept of 4e "power sources" here. Psoinics is a source akin to arcane or divine. By comparison in 3e, it was a separate book appropriate for settings that used psionics.

Psionics being an arcane tradition is every bit as jarring as making druid or cleric an arcane tradition. There's something being fundamentally misunderstood in the design.

And yet, Land Druids get a shopping list of iconic wizard spells like fireball, lightning bolt, invisibility and others. And, they function mechanically, virtually identical to a wizard, without the ritual casting. The dividing line between "arcane" and "divine" is paper thin and it's a matter of a couple of sentences to change on to the other.

As a thought exercise: Is Prof. X a wizard? If not, what makes him different from a wizard? This may sound silly, but the answers to these questions form the concept statement for what the psion should be both flavor and mechanics-wise.

I'll echo spellbooks being a dead wrong choice. I'll add that Cha not Int should be caster stat to match psionic races.

Is he a wizard? Yes. D&D Wizard? Probably not since he can't blow stuff up. But, a wizard with a specific spell list? Sure. Can totally see that. He may not have a spell book, but, he has a Cerebro, so, it's not like he doesn't have a "focus". The difference between "wizard" and "Professor X" is not much.