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

 

[Professor Murder]

I can appreciate why this direction is the one with the traction, but I would much rather a new class with subclasses to create the various Psionic archtypes.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I can appreciate why this direction is the one with the traction, but I would much rather a new class with subclasses to create the various Psionic archtypes.

Really? What I love about the subclass approach (and even more so the Feat approach) is that it reflects the 1e concept that psionics is something in addition to your class, not instead of it.

 

[Professor Murder]

Meh. I played Psionics in 1st ed. I really enjoyed the 3.5 Psionics Expanded book better.

 

[the Jester]

...the lengths to which some people go to cover for WotC...

If by 'covering for WotC' you mean calling a falsehood a falsehood, then okay.

Or perhaps you can point out how my assertion that psionics are actually in 5e, despite your repeated claim that they aren't, doesn't hold up? My Monster Manual certainly contains the word 'psionics' in several entries; are you suggesting that it's a fluke or misprint?

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

If by 'covering for WotC' you mean calling a falsehood a falsehood, then okay.

Or perhaps you can point out how my assertion that psionics are actually in 5e, despite your repeated claim that they aren't, doesn't hold up? My Monster Manual certainly contains the word 'psionics' in several entries; are you suggesting that it's a fluke or misprint?

Don't you know? If someone defends something, they're either a fanboy or being paid to do so.

 

[Aldarc]

Really? What I love about the subclass approach (and even more so the Feat approach) is that it reflects the 1e concept that psionics is something in addition to your class, not instead of it.

I prefer the instead of approach of 3E. Class-based fantasy is a bit easier to grapple with than something that's also tacked on to the existing class fantasy.

 

[Maxperson]

Really? What I love about the subclass approach (and even more so the Feat approach) is that it reflects the 1e concept that psionics is something in addition to your class, not instead of it.

This is very different than 1e. Psionics in 1e was the same when tacked on to every class out there. This doesn't tack on psionics, so much as completely alter the class in a psionic way, merging the two rather than tacking on. I like it, but it's not what 1e did.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is very different than 1e. Psionics in 1e was the same when tacked on to every class out there. This doesn't tack on psionics, so much as completely alter the class in a psionic way, merging the two rather than tacking on. I like it, but it's not what 1e did.

"reflect a concept" does not mean "the same as"

Just sayin'.

 

[Maxperson]

"reflect a concept" does not mean "the same as"

Just sayin'.

No, but the 1e concept was independent, not merged(dependent). These are great subclasses, but they don't reflect 1e's concept at all.

 

[Guest 6801328]

No, but the 1e concept was independent, not merged(dependent). These are great subclasses, but they don't reflect 1e's concept at all.

Whatever. Eye of beholder, and all.