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

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

It would have been a very stupid version, then. A Mystic, which is a hermit/outcast with obscure quirks, is not at all representative of what a Psion was.

Since those at WotC are not stupid, it's far more likely that it was a psionic class, but not intended to be the Psion.

And here's another problem with the Psion, in action.

 

[Maxperson]

And here's another problem with the Psion, in action.

Or a problem with people wanting a Psion to be something it has never in any edition been.

We are allowed to have opinions.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Thing is, many of us hate Feats and let them know that forcefully in surveys whenever possible. Their data shows that most tables and players don't use Feats. To sell a product to people who don't use Feats, relying on them as a mechanic is inefficient.

I love how you say this sort of "corporate line" thing and I just don't believe it and roll my eyes and then we get into a pointless argument.

Lets avoid that this time and I'll say, I'd love know what exactly "most tables and most players don't use Feats" actually means.

Because the interesting thing to me is, out of the three (actually four) 5E games I either run or play in (amazingly I only run one of them atm), only one actually has any characters at all who have a Feat (and not even every PC does). What do all the others have in common? All the PCs are below the level where you get your third ASI/Feat. And you use the standard array, or point-buy, the gain from choosing an ASI for your first two ASI/Feats are so high that you generally don't want a Feat (excluding super-min-maxers who take VHuman or the like, but they're rare, and we have none). Thus if we were surveyed, we might well say "We don't use Feats", or if they looked at our characters via Beyond, they'd find that they didn't have Feats.

But that's not because anyone "hates" Feats, or even is opposed to them in any way, it's simply because ASIs are much more valuable then Feats for most characters who are generated that way.

Unfortunately I don't think either of us actually do know what that "no feats" deal means, so there we go! I strongly suspect that, before 5E is done (I mean, assuming we count any 5.5E as 5E), there will be a setting which relies on either literally Feats, or worse a mechanism so close to them it's kind of a joke that they're not called Feats, but maybe we can both chalk that up to "late-edition shenanigans", which 2E, 3E, 4E (and I'd say 1E) all engaged in.

As an aside I think this is fine. I'm not particularly married to Feats - I'm actually kind of impressed by how well-balanced they are against ASIs, and think ASIs should generally come out ahead.

(I do think it's a bit off that there's only details on gaining new tool proficiencies and languages though, you should able to gain skills and possibly single weapon proficiencies or even armour proficiencies without getting into Feats, as they're not part of the default game, but that's a whole other topic.)

The Dragonmark Race options provide the exact mechanism we'll likely see for Dark Sun in terms of "everyone has Psionics."

Yeah, and that's problematic of course because it means the races they start Dark Sun with are all the races it will literally ever have official support for. Oh well, anything that gets Thri-Kreen back.

 

[Aldarc]

For the first part, see the people asking for psionic abilities that are different from magic, thus making them immune to all the things that counter magic. For the second, look up Psionic Combat that existed until 3.5.

I'm a fan of how psionics was in 3.5E/Dreasmscarred Press. It worked. I don't mind psionics as magic, but the problem is that trying to hitch it on a sorcerer or wizard is that both of those come equipped with a lot of non-psionic themes, flavor, and other baggage. I think that either a Spell Point Psion or a Warlock-like pact magic Psion would work well for 5e. Give them spells and other talents, wild or trained, that they could do, and you're on the easy track to success.

Well then the discussion of "Where's the Immortal/Soul Knife/Wu Jen?" Plus that doesn't actually solve the problem of the Mystic doing too much.

I'm sorry, but I am not following what you are trying to say here. Would you mind clarifying? I agree that the Mystic was doing too much. That's my point.

Pedantry. They Mystic was to be the 5e version of the Psion.

Except that it wasn't trying to be the Psion; it was trying to be ALL psionics (e.g., psion, psychic warrior, soul knife, etc.) and then some (e.g., Wu Jen).

And here's another problem with the Psion, in action.

I recall posts like yours about the Artificer too.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, and that's problematic of course because it means the races they start Dark Sun with are all the races it will literally ever have official support for. Oh well, anything that gets Thri-Kreen back.

That shouldn't be a problem; I've been told the only races that should EVER exist in Athas are the ones from the original box set, so that should be easy enough to fit in one book.

 

[Weiley31]

but you can't counterspell it, you don't need any components, and it'll always work in an antimagic field?

They would need a Psionic version of those countermeasures basically. Psionics is technically NOT magic.(at least in 3.X/3.5 ) So something like Anti-Magic field wouldn't be a problem for Psionics.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Or a problem with people wanting a Psion to be something it has never in any edition been.

We are allowed to have opinions.

Or people wanting a psion to be something that doesn't fit into the current system.

Yes, you ware allowed to have opinions. Other people are allowed to have their opinions, as are they (and you) allowed to challenge or ignore opinions.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

They would need a Psionic version of those countermeasures basically. Psionics is technically NOT magic.(at least in 3.X/3.5 ) So something like Anti-Magic field wouldn't be a problem for Psionics.

Which is, IMO, dumb and doesn't fit 5e.

 

[SkidAce]

I'm impatient for them to figure out psionics so we can have 5E Dark Sun, but in the end I would rather they take the time to get it right. As a software developer, the pattern looks pretty familiar to me: Build a rough prototype to test your design, and expect to throw out the prototype and start over from scratch--at least once, maybe multiple times, before you figure out the architecture that will do what you need. The worst thing you can do is cling to your first prototype and try too hard to make it work.

I want them to get it right, but avoiding the psionics aspects of my world and its mythos is getting old.

Yes I could do my own system. They would likely release psionics the week after* I finished converting everything.




* hey maybe that the way to get them to do it, if I do it first....

 

[Ruin Explorer]

To be perfectly honest, a new, spell-point based caster class with a unique spell list and some discipline-based subclasses would be fine. Allow them to ignore VS components, add a few class features like telepathy, and a few new spells. Basically, the 3.5 psion class redux. It would be safe, boring and work fine for most purposes. The biggest problem is WotC wanted to reinvent the wheel and make it unique rather than go with the obvious system.

YES EXACTLY. I don't know why this is so incredibly painful for them. The reinventing the wheel thing for Psionics thing is the most bizarre hang-up I've ever seen WotC indulge, and part of why I keep saying "internal conflict" is a factor here. 5E launched with a bunch of full-casters who frankly, are kind of interchangeable. Is a Cleric really a different thing from a Bard? It's basically a fluff different. Is a Sorcerer a different thing from a Bard? Barely. Is a Warlock that different from a Sorcerer? Kinda, but yeesh, it's similar chassis, and the Wizard is just a relic at this point, who is there mostly so at least ONE class in 5E uses INT and because he's a sacred cow.

It's pretty much a case of "bing bang bosh" as we say, you could have a work Psion or Psionicist or whatever you want to call it, largely using existing spells, powered by a spell point system that works out to be less punch than a full caster, but more spell options, and a lot of neat little tricks, and yeah no VM components, optionally no S (just avoid or create alternate versions of any spells with consumable components or something). Make it INT-based because no-one else is except Wizard. "Job's a good 'un" as we also say - which translates to "That job is done".

But instead... instead we get multiple ridiculous revisions, and then this Psionic Wizard just is just ridiculous and totally misses the point to the maximal degree, and now giving up. After just having put in YET ANOTHER generic-as-heck full caster in the form of the Artificer! So there's no possible excuse that new classes need to be "unique" or "not encroach". The Artificer is barely not a subclass and absolutely encroaches. Yet that's fine.

This isn't the fault of players. This isn't the fault of feedback. This isn't the fault of UA. This is fault of bad designers being bad. Needlessly and pointlessly complicating things, and applying a weird double standard.

Anyway point is I agree. They should have done that. It would have been easy. We'd have had a Psion 3 years ago and we'd all be happy. Or at least unhappy in that sort of "This okay I guess" way that I felt about literally all 5E classes when 5E came out, and which gradually turned into more positive feelings over time. Except about Rangers.