Unearthed Arcana Why UA Psionics are never going to work in 5e.

[Paul Farquhar]

This view is in the very small minority.

Unfortunately there are a lot of very small minorities for various versions of psionics who "cannot have" a different version.

 

[Maxperson]

Unfortunately there are a lot of very small minorities for various versions of psionics who "cannot have" a different version.

There are only 4 versions of psionics, and 1e has an even smaller minority of support than 2e does, and I haven't heard a single person here clamoring for 4e psionics. 3e is the giant in the room, but I don't think WotC wants to duplicate that system.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There are only 4 versions of psionics, and 1e has an even smaller minority of support than 2e does, and I haven't heard a single person here clamoring for 4e psionics. 3e is the giant in the room, but I don't think WotC wants to duplicate that system.

I think the Mystic was WotC's attempt to duplicate 3rd edition psionics. With that rejected I can't see them trying that one again.

As for 4e psionics, I really don't know much about it, was it substantially different from 3e?

Here is how I look at it:

Consider the gith. They are all psionic (because aliens). To them using psionics is just like using their hands, it's just another tool. But the gith are not all psions. They have the full range of fighters, rogues and mages. And they all use their psionics to help them rogue, fight and mage. Thus, what is important to "do gith" is psionics that can be used with other classes: feats, subclasses or something else. I would prefer not to go with "all gith are multiclassed psions".

 

[Maxperson]

I think the Mystic was WotC's attempt to duplicate 3rd edition psionics. With that rejected I can't see them trying that one again.

It wasn't exactly the same, and it wasn't rejected for being like 3e. It was rejected for doing too much and stepping on too many other classes toes.

As for 4e psionics, I really don't know much about it, was it substantially different from 3e?

I can say yes, because the class structure for 4e was very different and they wouldn't have made any class similar to the 3e Psion, but beyond it being different I really don't know anything about it.

Consider the gith. They are all psionic (because aliens). To them using psionics is just like using their hands, it's just another tool. But the gith are not all psions.

That's incorrect. They are psionic because Astral Plane. They have lived on the Astral Plane, the plane of the mind, for so long that they developed psionics as a race.

They have the full range of fighters, rogues and mages. And they all use their psionics to help them rogue, fight and mage. Thus, what is important to "do gith" is psionics that can be used with other classes: feats, subclasses or something else. I would prefer not to go with "all gith are multiclassed psions".

They're basically all wild talents with some full Psions.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It wasn't exactly the same, and it wasn't rejected for being like 3e. It was rejected for doing too much and stepping on too many other classes toes.

It was never going to be exactly like 3e, because 5e isn't exactly like 3e. And we don't know why it was rejected, that information isn't available. But I don't accept that "doing to much" was ever a significant problem - it would have been trimmed in the balance pass. Personally, I think it has more to do with people not liking the name and fluff text.

That's incorrect. They are psionic because Astral Plane. They have lived on the Astral Plane, the plane of the mind, for so long that they developed psionics as a race.

They are only on the Astral Plane because of aliens (illithid) and only able to live there because of changes the aliens made to their biology, making them psionic.

They're basically all wild talents with some full Psions.

Yup. Which is why I think that whatever you do with a specialist psionic class, it is important to also have wild talents. Now that is an argument against the mystic doing everything.

 

[Maxperson]

It was never going to be exactly like 3e, because 5e isn't exactly like 3e. And we don't know why it was rejected, that information isn't available. But I don't accept that "doing to much" was ever a significant problem - it would have been trimmed in the balance pass. Personally, I think it has more to do with people not liking the name and fluff text.

It's right in the UA document that was just released. As an addition, too powerful or too complex were also complaints.

"In 2017, we experimented with an unofficial character class—the mystic—focused on psionic powers. Through its features and subclasses, the mystic allowed you to create a character who echoed the abilities of other classes in the game but with a psionic twist. As much as many playtesters enjoyed the psionic themes in the mystic, feedback was also clear that the class encroached on other classes’ territory and that it was often too complex, too powerful, or both."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah, you will excuse me if I don't take corporate-speak at face value.

If "stepping on other classes toes" was a real issue, they could have simply cut all but three subclasses. I suspect that may have been an excuse given by the "KEEP YOUR PSIONICS OUT OF MY D&D" crowd though, who are quite numerous.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yeah, you will excuse me if I don't take corporate-speak at face value.

In what way was the text Max quoted "corporate speak"?

I think of corporate speak as meaningless catch-phrases, e.g. "We are a leading provider of enabling solutions." (Translation: "We do SAP consulting.")

But that WotC quote is pretty clear.

Or did you just mean that you assume they are lying?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Or did you just mean that you assume they are lying?

It's usually called "spin".

But I don't get why people find the idea so surprising, everyone lies all the time. Nothing wrong with it.

You know, like politicians can never call the electorate stupid? Of course they think the electorate is stupid, the electorate is stupid. But to admit it is suicide.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, you will excuse me if I don't take corporate-speak at face value.

If "stepping on other classes toes" was a real issue, they could have simply cut all but three subclasses. I suspect that may have been an excuse given by the "KEEP YOUR PSIONICS OUT OF MY D&D" crowd though, who are quite numerous.

Have you ever looked a thread here that wants to give a bonus to the classes, like allowing even a weak version of Expertise to all the classes to help out with skills. The sheer number of cries from people say, "But it will step on the toes of the Rogue and Bard!" and "It will completely invalidate the Rogue and Bard classes!" and such are deafening.