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

 

[Minigiant]

I sometimes think they have seller's remorse over giving sorcerers and monks points. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a 5.5e (or 5e version of Pathfinder Unchained) if, instead of chi, monks got "martial arts" some of which were at will, but most having a level 1-9 and the table of when you get new "martial arts" looking very familiar. But on the plus side, you stop at a monastery or hang out with another monk for a week and you can pick up some free "martial arts", each path with have bonus "martial arts", and they will make a lot more new stuff for existing monks then they do now.

Edit: almost forgot, your material components will include num-chucks.

I think it's the opposite. I think they like points. Just not as a replacement for slots.

If anything, a 5.5e will treat martial arts, manuevers, invocation, sorceries, with the same classification as spells and put them in the back of the book. This way a monk can choose between hadokens, shadow jutsus, or stunning fists.

This whole UA seems like a test to see if they can do psionics without points as the primary resource. The Psi Talent Die would be replacing Psi Power Points as the Psionic gimmick.

 

[Maxperson]

...

Wow. That's...way outside of my experience.

Yeah. Nobody asking if they notice who cast the spell, done by verbal, material and/or somatic components, happens a lot in games I've run and played in. As has tying and gagging wizards and other casters, not done if components don't come up, and more.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah same. In low-level play (mostly what I do) the only spell I care about components are resurrection spells.

It seems like you guys are talking about just material components. Verbal and somatic are also components, and those come up a lot more.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yea, but that's the point. In its standard usage, it's not a resource, it's a buff. It's just a buff when if you get real unlucky, you lose it.

It would be a lot more interesting if it had a greater effect, but you would have a 25% chance to lose it.

I think 25% is too high.


My personal thought is to allow the die to grow one size bigger (so at level 3 if you roll a 1 on the d6, it becomes a d8) but it automatically decreases back to your baseline when you next use it. I think that helps a little with this idea that you are gaining and losing power, allowing you to gain above their normal limit.

My big question comes from what to do with a d12.

I also thought of a system with charges, like rolling certain numbers banks or loses a charge that you can carry throughout the day, then your abilities can use a charge instead of decreasing the die. Might be too complicated though

 

[ccooke]

It seems like you guys are talking about just material components. Verbal and somatic are also components, and those come up a lot more.

The use of material components is greatly simplified in 5e, though. Well. I think it's implemented something close to what a lot of us were actually playing: You have a spellcasting focus and that replaces the need for specific components, either figuratively ("It's a spell component pouch and you keep it stocked up without having to roleplay doing so") or literally ("It's a wand. I don't need spell components, I use this").

However, when there are costly components they definitely should matter. For instance, every game I have run there is a point where the party have to go find a pearl worth 100gp so that they can cast identify. given that most of those components are not consumed, it makes a nice little simulationish roleplaying task for them. A little later, they start stocking up on diamonds...

I would miss leaving the costly components out, but the 'free' components are already as much out of the game as they need to be.

That said, I did end up having a party manage to escape from a prison once after having managed to find a partially-spent match and a little crevice at the top of the crumbling dungeon where bats had been roosting...
(There were less ... flashy methods of dealing with the guards, but it did help them through the fight to reclaim all of their equipment).

 

[ccooke]

I think 25% is too high.


My personal thought is to allow the die to grow one size bigger (so at level 3 if you roll a 1 on the d6, it becomes a d8) but it automatically decreases back to your baseline when you next use it. I think that helps a little with this idea that you are gaining and losing power, allowing you to gain above their normal limit.

My big question comes from what to do with a d12.

I also thought of a system with charges, like rolling certain numbers banks or loses a charge that you can carry throughout the day, then your abilities can use a charge instead of decreasing the die. Might be too complicated though

The thing is... I don't think it needs changing as-is. It's already about the same power as a battlemaster. Anything more would just make it too powerful.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I do wonder how people are going to feel about that sort of thing in practice. Every single other class in 5E has control over resource spending - just not these guys.

It only took me a little bit of thought to realize that I really dislike this mechanic.

There is nothing about psionics that claims that it should have distinctly unreliable supernatural powers compared to everyone else. Other than the Wild Magic Sorcerer, no one else has to deal with this stuff.

"I have no idea how long my power is going to last" has no thematic reason in either D&D psion lore, or generally psychic/psion lore to exist (again--as a distinctly psionic theme--there can be a variety of unreliable supernatural powers, but it makes no sense to single out psionics for that treatment.

I know I'm not the only one who would be driven away from a class with such a feature.

Does anyone really experience ignoring the component rules as written? I've not seen that in 5E actual play. People are really rigorous about Somatic, Vocal and Material tracking from all I've seen. Invisible Mahe Hand with no component is huge.

We use components. 5e (and honestly--3e too, just people apparently didn't read the book) says if you have a component pouch you are assumed to have all the non-costly material components you need*. Then you have V and S components. They don't normally have a game effect (although S components don't mesh with two-weapon fighting well), but we are aware of which spells require which so that when they do happen to have an effect we can apply it.

* Tracking individual components rather than just V,S,M hasn't been a core rule since like 1e (it was optional in 2e). Every now and then a thread pops up with "Do you use components?" and it is inundated with responses of people saying they ignore the component rules in a way that demonstrates that they actually do think the rule is that you are supposed to keep track of how much bat guano you have, when there literally hasn't been such a rule in the game for 30 years.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The thing is... I don't think it needs changing as-is. It's already about the same power as a battlemaster. Anything more would just make it too powerful.

But, Battlemaster abilities are far more consistent, and my first change is quite minor. The average difference between dice is 1, and this requires you to have rolled a 1 first, while at maximum value, and then you get a very minor bump in ability.

I'm not running the math, but it would be a decimal point increase in average power I think, nothing that would alter the balance enough to really matter.

 

[Hussar]

First, we (or many of us) are not demanding a whole book. Some do want that, or at least a lengthy treatment, but not all. I'd be fine with a page count similar to the Artificer. In fact, I'd likely prefer it to make it accessible to everyone.

Second, I respect your dislike of psionics, but I think you have missed a bit by completely skipping everything after 2e. 3.0e was interesting but had some issues, but 3.5e and 4e were rock solid (within their respective editions). Seems a little petty to still be anti-psionic based on the rules for it sucked 30 years and 5 incarnations ago don't you think?

Third, how do you feel about the Artificer treatment, and would you be okay with a Psionics class if it were of a similar page count and rules innovation?

But, the Artificer uses very little in the way of unique mechanics. Nearly everything in the Artificer appears in another class. Turrets use pet mechanics. Artificers cast spells just like every other spell caster (albeit with a slightly different progression), about the only thing they do that is unique is making a small number of magic items. The mechanics for which are just pretty much spells anyway.

So, sure, if that's your idea of a psion, then great. It's a sorcerer with a couple of bells and whistles and a different bonus spell list? Groovy.

But, when you start into things like PSP's or point based casting, MUST be completely different from magic, etc. etc, then, no, I'm not interested. It's difference for the sake of being different. It's pointless. And not something I have any interest in adding to the game.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah. Nobody asking if they notice who cast the spell, done by verbal, material and/or somatic components, happens a lot in games I've run and played in. As has tying and gagging wizards and other casters, not done if components don't come up, and more.

It's not even done in a super gamey way: but what you are doing with your hands is narratively important when the movement has magical implications.