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

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, I don't agree with some of your assumptions.

First, in AD&D (1E) most people who had psionics had very little and it left you vulnerable to special psionic attack modes etc. that non-psionics were unaffected by. Only if you were really lucky and had good INT, WIS, and CHA were you likely "more powerful" for being psionic.

Ok, you realize that since my complaint was with random systems for powers, that a result of "you rolled well enough for special powers, you are now weaker and more vulnerable to attacks" is even worse than being too powerful, right?

Looking at this you would need to roll good Int, rool good Wis, roll good Cha then roll to gain psionic powers to play the character you want to play. What is the benefit of this randomness?

Second, if a psion class is offered and you want psionics, play the psion. If you allow MCing, take a couple levels if you just want a bit. I would not want them as feats because feats are optional, for one thing (although 90% of tables use them IME...) but more importantly because they are few and fare between and compete with ASI, which are important as well.

We ran into this on another forum, and it is honestly a bit tricky.

Someone was trying to convert Wild Talent into something PCs gained at first level, instead of being of feat. They even had a relatively clever way to balance the dice, by having the skill die portion only apply to skills you picked, which cost you the proficiency in that skill from your class or background.

However, they originally left the damage substitution alone, and this runs a big risk. Taking this option means you have the option for more powerful abilities later, it gives you a powerful ability now, and it gives you a neutral ability. It is purely a buff.

So what do you give the player who doesn't take it?

However, a much easier, and more common houserule, is simply to give everyone a feat/ASI at 1st level. Which I think is the better path, because then it is more easily balanced rather than 1) Are you feeling lucky enough to be more powerful or 2) Well, Bob just chose to be stronger than everyone.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Ok, you realize that since my complaint was with random systems for powers, that a result of "you rolled well enough for special powers, you are now weaker and more vulnerable to attacks" is even worse than being too powerful, right?

Looking at this you would need to roll good Int, rool good Wis, roll good Cha then roll to gain psionic powers to play the character you want to play. What is the benefit of this randomness?

No, I don't see that at all. The option was to roll for psionics if you wanted them. It was unlikely you would roll well or even have any, but if you did you could be powerful. The risk was weighed against the reward.

What is the benefit of this randomness? In a game where you roll dice all the time? This is part of an outlook on D&D I will never really understand... wanting to choose your scores and get max hp and everything else when part of the fun is the challenge of accepting what fate has given you and making a good play of it.

We ran into this on another forum, and it is honestly a bit tricky.

Someone was trying to convert Wild Talent into something PCs gained at first level, instead of being of feat. They even had a relatively clever way to balance the dice, by having the skill die portion only apply to skills you picked, which cost you the proficiency in that skill from your class or background.

However, they originally left the damage substitution alone, and this runs a big risk. Taking this option means you have the option for more powerful abilities later, it gives you a powerful ability now, and it gives you a neutral ability. It is purely a buff.

So what do you give the player who doesn't take it?

However, a much easier, and more common houserule, is simply to give everyone a feat/ASI at 1st level. Which I think is the better path, because then it is more easily balanced rather than 1) Are you feeling lucky enough to be more powerful or 2) Well, Bob just chose to be stronger than everyone.

Well I can't say anything about what someone tried on another forum. But by making it random, it doesn't cost anything to anyone. If you don't get it, oh well, that's how the dice fell, better luck next time.

Anyway, there isn't any point in discussing it. I've expressed my views and they aren't going to change. I like randomness in my game...

 

[PsyzhranV2]

What is the benefit of this randomness? In a game where you roll dice all the time? This is part of an outlook on D&D I will never really understand... wanting to choose your scores and get max hp and everything else when part of the fun is the challenge of accepting what fate has given you and making a good play of it.

Characters aren't as disposable in 5e as they are in 1e. If you get a bad stat roll for a character in 1e, no biggie, just have them charge into the jaws of the nearest owl bear, you have 10 more characters in reserve. In 5e, people usually aren't making that many backup characters, since that mentality of ciewing PCs as expendable isn't there. So if the DM doesn't let you reroll, you're gonna be stuck with an ineffective character for a good while. Amd of you had created a concept for that character beforehand only for the stats to not pan out, that's gonna sting.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What is the benefit of this randomness? In a game where you roll dice all the time? This is part of an outlook on D&D I will never really understand... wanting to choose your scores and get max hp and everything else when part of the fun is the challenge of accepting what fate has given you and making a good play of it.

I don't roll for HP in 5e.

Many people don't roll for ability scores, and I've insitituted a house rule that you can roll, or take the standard array if you don't like your roll (because too many times I've seen characters with multiple 5's and 7's)

And if you go too far the other way, why not roll for Race? Roll for Class? Roll for Feats?

Increasing randomness does not mean increasing fun. And you haven't really given a good defense of why rolling for psionics is a good system beyond "I like random results"

 

[DND_Reborn]

Characters aren't as disposable in 5e as they are in 1e. If you get a bad stat roll for a character in 1e, no biggie, just have them charge into the jaws of the nearest owl bear, you have 10 more characters in reserve. In 5e, people usually aren't making that many backup characters, since that mentality of ciewing PCs as expendable isn't there. So if the DM doesn't let you reroll, you're gonna be stuck with an ineffective character for a good while. Amd of you had created a concept for that character beforehand only for the stats to not pan out, that's gonna sting.

That's just perspective and mentality as you say. A character can be as disposable or not in either edition. It also comes from having a concept in mind before you roll. Roll first and base your character off of that. Then it doesn't sting.

When we played 1E, we didn't have 10 characters in reserve, we might have had a backup character just in case but that was it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't roll for HP in 5e.

Many people don't roll for ability scores, and I've insitituted a house rule that you can roll, or take the standard array if you don't like your roll (because too many times I've seen characters with multiple 5's and 7's)

And if you go too far the other way, why not roll for Race? Roll for Class? Roll for Feats?

Increasing randomness does not mean increasing fun. And you haven't really given a good defense of why rolling for psionics is a good system beyond "I like random results"

I am not surprised you don't roll HP given your points of view.

I like rolling but have nothing against people who don't.

I don't mind game where you do roll for race, but that is personal preference as is everything else. Class you can develop so I see no point in rolling for that, but background I can see rolling for if you wanted to. Feats can also be developed, so no rolling is needed IMO.

Increased randomness is increased fun for me, and that is the only defense I will offer for my point of view.

 

[Guest 6801328]

No, I don't see that at all. The option was to roll for psionics if you wanted them. It was unlikely you would roll well or even have any, but if you did you could be powerful. The risk was weighed against the reward.

This exact same argument could be applied to random treasure tables, right?

You could get really lucky and roll a sentient Vorpal Sword with really great bonus abilities. That makes you much more powerful than other characters because of a series of lucky dice rolls.

Or maybe you already got lucky like that and you're a Paladin, and then you got lucky again and now you have a sentient Holy Avenger. (It would actually be an interesting game to see what those odds are, rolling 3d6 in order for abilities, and then rolling on the original DMG treasure tables.)

 

[DND_Reborn]

This exact same argument could be applied to random treasure tables, right?

You could get really lucky and roll a sentient Vorpal Sword with really great bonus abilities. That makes you much more powerful than other characters because of a series of lucky dice rolls.

Or maybe you already got lucky like that and you're a Paladin, and then you got lucky again and now you have a sentient Holy Avenger. (It would actually be an interesting game to see what those odds are, rolling 3d6 in order for abilities, and then rolling on the original DMG treasure tables.)

Well, accept you, the player, don't roll those things. The DM does. Which character gets what items is up to the group. For specific cases, such as the Holy Avenger, that character normally receives less of other things in the games I've been in.

Now, you are a party, right? So you should be glad your friend, ally, and comrade is now more powerful instead of complaining they are now better by random luck. In a pro team, a lot of players have more natural talent, and some team members might envy them that, but they are better for the team still to have there.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well, accept you, the player, don't roll those things. The DM does. Which character gets what items is up to the group. For specific cases, such as the Holy Avenger, that character normally receives less of other things in the games I've been in.

Now, you are a party, right? So you should be glad your friend, ally, and comrade is now more powerful instead of complaining they are now better by random luck. In a pro team, a lot of players have more natural talent, and some team members might envy them that, but they are better for the team still to have there.

Honestly I'm not sure who rolls the dice, and whether or not the group votes, changes the underlying argument. The DM could say, "You guys roll the dice" for the random treasure table. And it's not like there's going to be much debate about who gets the Holy Avenger. Yes, there are some functional differences between the two, but I'm not sure they matter in the context of the arguments being made here.

In any event, I was making the argument in your defense. @Chaosmancer seems to find it unacceptable that one character should be more powerful as the result of random dice rolls, and I was pointing out that random treasure does exactly that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Honestly I'm not sure who rolls the dice, and whether or not the group votes, changes the underlying argument. The DM could say, "You guys roll the dice" for the random treasure table. And it's not like there's going to be much debate about who gets the Holy Avenger. Yes, there are some functional differences between the two, but I'm not sure they matter in the context of the arguments being made here.

In any event, I was making the argument in your defense. @Chaosmancer seems to find it unacceptable that one character should be more powerful as the result of random dice rolls, and I was pointing out that random treasure does exactly that.

Ah, I get the point.

That isn't quite where I was going with it, but I see the similarities.

Let us say for arguments sake that you need to roll a 10 or less on a 1d100 to be psionic.

For someone who doesn't want psionics on their character, it doesn't matter. They don't want it, so they won't roll for it.

For someone who does want it, they now have a 90% chance to not have the character they wanted. So, it ends up being more likely they either won't use the system, or they will just be given the abilities anyways, ignoring the roll.

But, because there was only a 10% chance of any character being Psionic, the game was built to allow Psionics to be unbalanced, with the theory that you can't really expect them to show up.


That all seems like a poor design though.

I find it better to design Psionics to be balanced, or have a cost that is balanced, from the beginning. Because the people who want it will likely get it anyways, and we don't need "but it isn't likely to happen" as a balancing act.

Magical Items are a bit different, in my mind, but I don't want to get bogged down in discussing them.