Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Revisits Psionics

The latest Unearthed Arcana from WotC revisits some psionic rules! “Shine with the power of the mind in this installment of Unearthed Arcana! Today we revisit several psi-themed options that we released in the past few months. Studying your feedback on those options, we’ve crafted this new collection of subclasses, spells, and feats, found in the PDF below.“

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

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Me: I think you're engaging in some confirmation bias where you toss out or ignore things which run contrary to your bias.

You: No I don't.

Me: Exhibit A

This is hypocrisy so dense that I can't even breath reading this post, Mistwell

Staggering, rank hypocrisy, and I know you're old enough to remember when hypocrisy meant something, because I am. You've been ignoring vast swathes of what I'm saying, or dismissing it off-handedly, rather than engaging, which is fine but it's equally an example of you ignoring anything that runs contrary to your bias.

Also the idea that real-world experience is "just bias" is just wow...

 

[Flamestrike]

Until Luke hides behind Vader and Palpatine watches his personal special attack just go fizzle.

Lukes a Halfling?

 

[Mistwell]

This is hypocrisy so dense that I can't even breath reading this post, Mistwell

Staggering, rank hypocrisy, and I know you're old enough to remember when hypocrisy meant something, because I am. You've been ignoring vast swathes of what I'm saying, or dismissing it off-handedly, rather than engaging, which is fine but it's equally an example of you ignoring anything that runs contrary to your bias.

Also the idea that real-world experience is "just bias" is just wow...

My man, you can personally attack me all you want. But you didn't respond to what I said.

No your first hand experience with a small number of other businesses in other fields does not, in fact, justify your totally dismissive "A nice man said" insulting spin on the direct video evidence which runs contrary to your view. Specific trumps general in more than just D&D rules, and this is a specific answer that you're trying to refute with very vague, very general business experience from other fields which was also deeply self-serving to your argument.

If you were treating this like a conversation where other people can make points you didn't consider, where evidence you were not aware of can be presented and it could change your mind, you would not have written than "A nice man said so" comment.

That's confirmation bias. It was about as dismissive as you could have been, and your "but other businesses in my experience" retort was about as weak and grasping as it could be.

How about you treat your peers better and show you're open to maybe being wrong on this topic?

 

[Kobold Avenger]

For a theoretical Psion, I still feel that using the chasis of the Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Bard is the method to go, since it's the easiest to compare.

But if they were to go in more of the direction of the Warlock and taking advantage of the Talent die, I feel such a class would get something like roll the Talent die when using a spells of certain levels like 5th level or below. Though maybe it's a roll to use lower level spell slots, and reduce the die on use for higher levels like 5th and 4th. With 6th and above being just like the Warlock's Mystic Arcanum possibly independent of spending the die. And for them they'd get Psi Replenishment as an every short rest use after a certain level.

 

[Mistwell]

Unrelated to my conversation with RE, if I had to make a dedicated psionic class, I'd use the template from Monte Cooks 3e alternate bard. The one which had "powers" (known as spellsongs) that had multiple variations depending on how many points you sunk into them? That's a good template for a psionic user in my view.

I think the way it worked was Spellnotes can be combined into spellchords, and spellchords can be combined to make spellmelodies. A bard can expend five spellnote slots for the day to create a spellchord, or three spellchord slots to create a spellmelody. Likewise, a single chord slot can power five notes, and using one melody slot, a bard can cast three chords (or 15 notes).

Then the could also weave the different levels of spell songs, spending two to create a 50 percent increase in duration and range, or a bonus to saving throw DC, or a 50 percent increase in damage.

An example of the powers:

Spell note:
Songstrilke: With a single note, you blast forth a cone of sonic energy from your mouth that inflicts 1d4 points of damage per three caster levels (to a maximum of 5d4).

And that note, upcast to a spell chord:

Sonic Blast: As songstrike,except for the increased range, plus this spellsong inflicts 1d4 points of damage per level to a maximum of 10d4.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

How about you treat your peers better and show you're open to maybe being wrong on this topic?

I refer you to my previous post re: hypocrisy. You have shown no open-ness to being wrong any of these points, and haven't even been willing to countenance most of what I've said, instead dismissing it (you may accuse me of the same - you may even be right, but you cannot throw the first stone here). Unless you have specific points relating to Psionic class design, that's my last response on this.

 

[Parmandur]

This is hypocrisy so dense that I can't even breath reading this post, Mistwell

Staggering, rank hypocrisy, and I know you're old enough to remember when hypocrisy meant something, because I am. You've been ignoring vast swathes of what I'm saying, or dismissing it off-handedly, rather than engaging, which is fine but it's equally an example of you ignoring anything that runs contrary to your bias.

Also the idea that real-world experience is "just bias" is just wow...

Is your business experience in entertainment, service or gaming? Seriously, what Crawford has laid out explains what they are doing, while your hypothesis does not. That you find it "improbable" is immaterial of it is true.

 

[Mistwell]

I refer you to my previous post re: hypocrisy. You have shown no open-ness to being wrong any of these points, and haven't even been willing to countenance most of what I've said, instead dismissing it (you may accuse me of the same - you may even be right, but you cannot throw the first stone here). Unless you have specific points relating to Psionic class design, that's my last response on this.

Even if you think I am a hypocrite who is not living by my own standards (and I disagree but that's a side point), you're still obligated to behave well. Particularly if you're not liking my behavior, accusing me of behaving as bad as you should tell you to self-examine.

That "A nice guy said" was not directed at me but you did it to another poster here who didn't deserve it.

"You're bad too" isn't a good answer to justify why you did that. If I'm talking to you in a manner you don't like, and you're talking to a half-dozen people in the same way, then telling me I am a hypocrite for behaving like you is a moment to pause and consider the ramifications of that claim.

How about just consider their positions rather than dismissing them and hand-waiving their points.

 

[Remathilis]

2 out of 5 have had a Psion class. Two. out of Five. One of those two was the least selling edition of D&D. I think we've had as many official Jester classes as we've had Psion classes. And this is what is being described as not just a tradition, but a "strong tradition"?

Very disingenuous.

Dragon Magazine 78 had an unofficial class that became the template for the 2e Psionicist class. There were two versions of the 2e class actually: the first being in the Complete Psionics Handbook (and the one most people think of) and a revised version in Player's Option: Skills & Powers that used a different "AC vs Thac0" like system instead of ability checks. Third edition likewise had two vastly different versions of the psion(icist) class; the 3e version that had random d20-based save DCs (and each discipline tied to an ability score) and the later 3.5 version that is basically a spell-point 5e wizard. 4e likewise had a psion class, build around ADEU like all 4e classes but omitting Encounter powers for PP to augment at-wills. So, depending on how you take the canonical status of Dragon, a character class that has focused on just using psionics has existed for four editions.

The far bigger issue, IMHO, is that in four editions the damn class has looked extremely different from one another and in two editions got major overhauls to fix how utterly broken it was. There is little that unifies the various psionic classes beyond "points-based resources" and "vaguely psychic abilities like TK or mind-reading" Everything else has been in flux; weapons, armor, HD, specific powers, attack/defense modes, etc. Wizards, for the most part, have looked similar each edition, or at least have kept similar trappings. Psionics hasn't stayed the same within the same edition for most of its life.

So, I kind of don't blame WotC for giving up and opting for subclasses, TBH. Psionics, outside of a few key powers like telepathy, teleportation, telekinesis, and clairsentience, has never kept a solid identity. And it really looks like WotC is not keen on a whole new subsystem for psionics anymore. That more or less puts them back to the point of having psionics be an augment to classes power rather than its own class. Simply put, they don't see much value in re-inventing the wheel yet again, especially with how the Mystic was received.

As I said, they are probably going to Paizo it; here are a few psionic-feeling abilities characters, and if you want a unique system, look to a third party for a solution.

 

[Mistwell]

The far bigger issue, IMHO, is that in four editions the damn class has looked extremely different from one another and in two editions got major overhauls to fix how utterly broken it was. There is little that unifies the various psionic classes beyond "points-based resources" and "vaguely psychic abilities like TK or mind-reading" Everything else has been in flux; weapons, armor, HD, specific powers, attack/defense modes, etc. Wizards, for the most part, have looked similar each edition, or at least have kept similar trappings. Psionics hasn't stayed the same within the same edition for most of its life.

That was most of my point, but you said it better than I did.