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.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

It CAN'T "kill the game." That's a foolish statement. WotC is in a much better position than you are making them out to be. I am not arguing they should change strategy; don't be a jerk. I am saying because the strategy has worked well, they csn easily afford to try different things.

So they should dump the strategy that got them to their current point?

 

[Eric V]

So they should dump the strategy that got them to their current point?

No.

I am not saying abandon strategy...I NEVER said that.

I am saying, once, they can try something different. That's it.

Here's what I wrote in post 440: Mind you, I'm not sure WotC is employing the designers I'd want for this kind of thing, but I think they're in a great position to say "Go design the thing you always wanted, be as creative as possible, and don't let the masses dilute it."

Please notice the singular "the thing." Not a wholesale change in strategy, just. One. Thing. To show some real innovation/creativity.

Somehow, in a fit of I-don't-know-what-the-hell, it got reinterpreted as "...all it would take is a few years of serious monetary implosion. And that could happen if they poured resources into products only a few people would buy."

Who said anything about a few YEARS? Y'all aren't arguing in good faith and you're putting words in my mouth. Please stop it and just put me on Ignore.

 

[Parmandur]

It CAN'T "kill the game." That's a foolish statement. WotC is in a much better position than you are making them out to be. I am not arguing they should change strategy; don't be a jerk. I am saying because the strategy has worked well, they csn easily afford to try different things.

They are trying different things, and testing folks response to them. No need to be hasty.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

They are trying different things, and testing folks response to them. No need to be hasty.

But that's "letting the masses dilute it" despite the fact that they are making it for said masses

 

[Parmandur]

But that's "letting the masses dilute it" despite the fact that they are making it for said masses

I know, right? How far the hoi poloi get involved in the pretending to be Elves business???

 

[the Jester]

It CAN'T "kill the game." That's a foolish statement. WotC is in a much better position than you are making them out to be. I am not arguing they should change strategy; don't be a jerk. I am saying because the strategy has worked well, they csn easily afford to try different things.

Yeah, it can. You're ignoring everything I pointed out about the fact that trying different stuff costs money, and needs to make that money back for the bills to get paid. And don't make the mistake of thinking that every dollar D&D makes goes back into developing the brand. The game exists to produce profits. Those profits don't go back into the game- they leave the company in the hands of the guys making the big bucks (perhaps often those at Hasbro). That money isn't a resource to be gambled on new products; it's gone from WotC.

Because the strategy has worked well, they should keep using it. Changing a winning strategy isn't a good idea unless there's a very good reason to do so.

 

[the Jester]

"Psionic focus" was always considered a state of mind and not an object

If by "always" you mean in 3e and 3e only. Heck, 4e psionic characters used implements, including ki foci.

 

[Vael]

You assume I didn't.

An easy assumption, given the amount of bile and hyperbole in that post.

I feel the need to point out, again, that this is not a Psion, this is a Wizard that studies Psionics. It was right there in the description of the class. It's the equivalent of the Cerebremancer prestige class from 3.5 (The Cerebremancer was a prestige class that allowed multi-classed spellcasters and psionics users to enhance both abilities). It's not even the first in the recent series of UA to reference Psionics, we had the Aberrant Mind Sorcerer, and even the Astral Form Monk has a Psionic feel to it.

So, I'm reasonably confident that this is not the sum total of Psionic material we're getting. Possibly more subclasses, probably even a base class Mystic/Psion.

 

[Eric V]

Yeah, it can. You're ignoring everything I pointed out about the fact that trying different stuff costs money, and needs to make that money back for the bills to get paid. And don't make the mistake of thinking that every dollar D&D makes goes back into developing the brand. The game exists to produce profits. Those profits don't go back into the game- they leave the company in the hands of the guys making the big bucks (perhaps often those at Hasbro). That money isn't a resource to be gambled on new products; it's gone from WotC.

Because the strategy has worked well, they should keep using it. Changing a winning strategy isn't a good idea unless there's a very good reason to do so.

Look, it just seems that you see D&D's position as being a LOT more precarious than I do. It's HUGE right now. Never been more popular. Fitting in a couple of non-masses-approved classes in the next book isn't going to do anything to change that. At all. The game isn't relying upon a smaller group of hardcore gamers who get offended at certain game elements get introduced; there's a ton more money from what we would have called 'casual' gamers now, and I cannot see them stopping altogether because some new classes showed up. No freakin' way.

Did a bunch of people leave because Vin Diesel got a class in? Damn, what if they went to every celebrity and said "You get a new class in the next book!" so we got Joe Manganiello with a new class, Deborah Ann Woll with a new class, Dame Judi Dench with a new class...do you think that would tank? Do you think that would cause "bloat" that would drive away players?

NO WAY. It would sell, and sell well, due to the celebrity tie-in. Maybe some grognards might not like it, but you know what? They would just ignore those classes, and keep playing their fav D&D anyway.

I understand in previous editions they would have to be more careful, but this is a new day.

 

[the Jester]

I am not saying abandon strategy...I NEVER said that.

I am saying, once, they can try something different. That's it.

Here's what I wrote in post 440: Mind you, I'm not sure WotC is employing the designers I'd want for this kind of thing, but I think they're in a great position to say "Go design the thing you always wanted, be as creative as possible, and don't let the masses dilute it."

Please notice the singular "the thing." Not a wholesale change in strategy, just. One. Thing. To show some real innovation/creativity.

Okay, fair enough. But I think you underestimate how big of a hit even one book that bombs would be.

Somehow, in a fit of I-don't-know-what-the-hell, it got reinterpreted as "...all it would take is a few years of serious monetary implosion. And that could happen if they poured resources into products only a few people would buy."

Who said anything about a few YEARS? Y'all aren't arguing in good faith and you're putting words in my mouth. Please stop it and just put me on Ignore.

Or, like, you could put those who you feel aren't arguing in good faith on ignore.

Or we could all keep discussing in a civil and respectful manner without trying to misrepresent what the others are saying- something I don't feel like I have seen in this thread, by the way. If people are misunderstanding you, it's possible that they are not reading you closely, but it's also possible that you're not expressing yourself clearly enough for them to take the meaning you intend as unambiguous away from your posts. I certainly got the impression you were promoting the idea of throwing the gates open to wilder/more creative/farther afield design choices/space henceforth. Since you're now clarifying that you're advocating for only a single product like this, cool- that helps to make your meaning more apparent. But I don't think it's fair to say that anyone who read otherwise from your posts is arguing in bad faith or trying to put words in your mouth.

By the way, who are you quoting above? Or are you... ahem... putting words in the collective mouths of the other side?