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.

 

[Staffan]

What’s the source on that received wisdom? WotC publish a number of great adventures in the 3.x era.

Forge of Fury, Red Hand of Doom are still favorites of many people.

@Twiggly the Gnome already posted the source for this, but I'll note that Wizards and Paizo still mostly aren't in the business of selling adventures. They are selling campaigns.

A classic-type adventure is something the DM puts in their already existing campaign, and which is good for a few sessions of play. This means that the adventure has to be about the right level for it to be useful, and that it either has to be bland enough to slip into any campaign or have just the right flavor to fit into that particular DM's campaign.

Paizo's adventure paths, and most of Wizard's offerings, are entire campaigns. You make new characters, and play through the campaign from start to finish. Often, particularly with Paizo's APs, there's a section that gives you guidance as to what the campaign is going to be about before making characters and providing campaign-tailored player options. Examples are "You're all aboard a ship headed for Sargava in the Mwangi Expanse. This is not going to be a ship-themed campaign, but more about exploration of jungles and old ruins. Why are you headed there?" or "You all live in the city-state of Korvosa, which is like this (Player's Guide). You all have your own beefs with the minor crime boss Gaedren Lamm. What is it?"

I'll note that you listed Red Hand of Doom as one of the great 3.x adventures. It is one of the first adventures to do things this way, albeit starting at 5th level instead of 1st.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Ravnica is the last one what has been published, the newcomer, and only one book.

CoS is popular because there are lots of players who now don't want only to kill monster and gathering gold coins, but something different, like the gothic horror with supernatural conspiracies. Ravenloft is the perfect setting for fans of American Horror History and survival horror videogames. I dare to say we will see more projects, someones with "softer" tone as R. L. Stine Goosebumps, with relatively low level of violence, and other harder titles as Tim Burton's Dark Shadows or the movies Crimson Peak, Mama, the lodgers, the woman in black, the three mothers trilogy or House of the Haunted Hill.

But the gothic horror in TTRPG where the own players create stories we will see a confrontation between two points of view, one fatalistic, about we are victims in the hand by the fate and we can't change this, and other about we are responsable for our own actions, and we will face the consequences, and sin will be punished.

 

[Garthanos]

I hardly think it's fair to judge what psionics have been like in the game based on what you prefer rather than actually going by the rules that were in place.

The classification was nonsense, the martial artist was the obvious inspiration for martial practices which included a slew of the explicit monk abilities directly from 1e which the monk wasn't qualified to take. They had nothing particular in common with the other psionic classes mechanically no psionic points nothing. The flavor of treating martial as a power source by the system screams monk inspired. I can acknowledge some of that is my preference but I think it's more honest to acknowledge they didnt follow through which is something that happened later in the release.

The witch class was also silly misclassified as a wuzard because wuzards eats everything their flavor introduction positively dripped Warlock like it was swapped out at the last second because they noticed spell book was appropriate for a witch too. Shrug.

 

[Garthanos]

Crawford has pointed this out explicitly, they already did this, in September: the Aberrant Mind is the Psionic Sorcerer, just as the Astral Self is the Psionic Monk, the Orator is the Psionic Bard, etc...

In some sense Psionic as subclass is hearkening back to 1e where psionic was pasted on top of some base class. In 1e at least you weren't just a psionic you were psionic plus class.

 

[Lord-Archaon]

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.

The bile came days after the article: believe me I did think about it.
And while this being a possible addition and not substitution of a true psychic is possible (not sure, IMO) it's still insulting to the concept to see iconic psychic powers becoming spells that Wizards can learn.

The bile is against this whole philosophy of "we have spells for this, so we should use them" that they employ for everything. Their solution for the Ranger favored enemy for example, giving free casts of Hunter's Mark.

I am just completely against this philosophy. It makes magic too common and it makes it impossible to come up with some force that could be just different.
And one of the worst things is being aware that they do this just because it's easier than having multiple systems. These design choices seep into the game and spoil it, for me and people like me.

I would have every caster class use a different system. While I understand I would be in the minority about this, I would at least like Psionics, since they are something most people don't even care about and wouldn't include in their game out of principle, to be DIFFERENT.

 

[Lord-Archaon]

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

In previous edition they didn't need anything. Thank you for reminding me the worst aspect of 4e psionics, I hated it back then as well. Especially Ki Foci: contrary to the very concept they represent.
Implements for Psions were acceptable to a point: at least they were not stupid trinkets like they are trying to make them now for the Psionicist.

 

[Lord-Archaon]

You are angry and insulted, fine. But no one here insulted you by writing that idea. Honestly, like I said, I kind of like the imagery. It has a good theme to me, and for a wizard subclass it is decent. But, if you just don't like the theme, then say so. You don't need to start hurling insults around. We can talk about themes and tropes without devolving into screaming matches about whose ideas are good or not.

I didn't hurl insults to anyone, I just said exactly that I didn't like this and felt insulted by it. I am pretty sure people who LIKED psionics and cared for them, before, can't like it like this.
I might be wrong, but that's what I'm trying to find out. Not going to be convinced by your case. If I see many more taking yours stance, maybe, but so what? I will still complain, because I care.
I am tired of things being judged by people who don't care, including the designers. This is the message I want to spread. With fringe themes, let people who care take care.

 

[Garthanos]

In some sense Psionic as subclass is hearkening back to 1e where psionic was pasted on top of some base class. In 1e at least you weren't just a psionic you were psionic plus class.

Oh and in 1e one could be a Monk without psionics OR a monk with psionics....

Basically one was training and discipline and the other was a genetic fluke of some sort.

 

[Lord-Archaon]

How is that an insult to you? Psionic magic was a thing for wizards and I am struggling to see how having psionic magic for wizards is an insult to anyone here.

The insult is seeing so many conditions needed to do what should be the basics of psionics. Morphing into an incorporeal body with a trinket floating inside is not just "noticeable", it's freaking unusable in low magic settings, or settings where you want to keep things slightly real.

I don't care about psionic magic, as long as there is going to be non-magic Psionics, which seems like there won't be.

I do realise that magic-psionics transparency was the default. I never played like that because it defeated the whole purpose.
Now, if you make psionic exactly magic, there can't even be the option of playing it different.
So make them different but "transparent", I tell the designers, and then I will be overruling the transparency, like I always did. But don't freaking unify it with the concept of spells, because then I will need to remake it from scratch to make it different.

 

[Garthanos]

In previous edition they didn't need anything.

You can do your stuff without implements regardless of class though. (And the way I played as soon as Inherent bonuses came out it wasnt even a few percentiles off) . Most weapon users are 1/2 to 1/3 as capable or worse deprived of weaponry.