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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Lots of people seem to be labouring under the delusion that if they keep rejecting things they don't care for then WotC will keep coming back with something else, until they eventually come up with something that they think is perfect, and then 70% of the community will agree with them.

Delusion? Everyone remember the original versions of the Artificer? It started out as a Wizard subclass, then turned into a broken terrible 1/3rd caster, then after a few years we got a way better version of it that was then fixed a bit, and put into Eberron: Rising from the Last War.

Wizards of the Coast have proven that they can take a good idea that was executed poorly and had negative feedback, and then fix it up to a state where the community enjoys it, and then can make it official with a few revisions. They have done it before. If they did it with the Artificer, they can do it with Psionics. They're trying to do so, which is a good sign.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

And there we differ. I would rather see psionics done in a way that I didn't particularly care for* than not done at all.

*As I've said, I would prefer psionics as a side ability rather than a dedicated class, but I voted for Mystic because other people wanted it.

And honesty? It seems to be a destructive obsession in some parts of the world.

Destructive obsession? Now you're saying the fact that the community can't seem to agree on one thing as a worldwide destructive obsession? That seems like an overstatement.

*It's nice you voted for something because you thought that if you voted for it, it would make people happy. Personally, I'd prefer if you actually voted for what you wanted, because that's how WotC knows what people actually want, and the community agreed that the Mystic was broken as hell, and needed serious revisions or to go.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think most people would rather have no psionics than bad psionics. I also would hope that 70% of people would be willing to approve psionics that the think would be good, even if they aren't their own personal version of perfect. I consider myself in that camp.

I would support a Psion class that is primarily Intelligence based and gains high level capabilities similar to those found in high level spells (ie, things like astral projection and long-rand teleportation), and doesn't use spellcasting components.

I would support this if it were done simply as a spellcaster who uses displays instead of components, or if it were based on ki instead of spell slots/point, or if it were based on at-wills with augmentable effects, or if it had d6s or d8s, light armor or no armor, etc. I might have minor preferences on those details, but as long as it fits the feel of a traditional D&D Psion to me, those minor details won't cause me to reject the class.

What causes me to negatively rate a psion attempt is if it is a subclass of an existing class, since no existing class can meet the basic requirements for a traditional D&D Psion (unless you make a new subclass in combination with creating a variant class feature--such as making a sorcerer who replaces "Spellcasting" with "Psionic Spellcasting" so that they don't use components, and that it can be based on Intelligence). Or if it, like the Mystic, doesn't provide high-level capabilities. I gave detailed feedback on the Mystic, and I can't recall the details from that long ago, but the only major deal-breaker objection I had was the utter lack of access to those sort of abilities. Being able to pile on more damage or stick multiple weaker abilities together is not an acceptible substitute for more powerful capabilities (again, like astral projection, long range teleportation, and other high-level reality warping goodness).

Multiple people have whipped up versions of a 5e D&D Psion that I would consider good enough, so it can be done (just using 3rd-party is not a solution for me because it doesn't produce a shared experience). WotC needs to look at these other peoples' work and start from there if they aren't sure where to start.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I think most people would rather have no psionics than bad psionics.

I agree with this statement. I think that the community is like that, too, at least on this subject.

I also would hope that 70% of people would be willing to approve psionics that the think would be good, even if they aren't their own personal version of perfect. I consider myself in that camp.

I agree, I will approve any psionic system they come up with that I think will work well. Unfortunately, IMHO, we have gotten no examples of psionics this way in 5e.

I would support a Psion class that is primarily Intelligence based and gains high level capabilities similar to those found in high level spells (ie, things like astral projection and long-rand teleportation), and doesn't use spellcasting components.

I want something like this. My three sticking points with psionics are:

1. It must have a class that is 100% focused around psionics.
2. It cannot cast spells in place of psionic powers.
3. It must be easy to understand for the community.

That's it. That's all the requirements I personally have for psionincs in 5e. The mystic was the closest thing I've seen come from WotC that emulates what I would like in psionics in 5e. There's no class in the most recent versions. The closest thing they have to a psionicist is a spellcaster. It is easy to understand, but that's the only thing it has going for it, IMHO.

I would support this if it were done simply as a spellcaster who uses displays instead of components, or if it were based on ki instead of spell slots/point, or if it were based on at-wills with augmentable effects, or if it had d6s or d8s, light armor or no armor, etc. I might have minor preferences on those details, but as long as it fits the feel of a traditional D&D Psion to me, those minor details won't cause me to reject the class.

I would not reject the class based on hit die size. I wouldn't reject it due to ki point-like abilities. I wouldn't reject it due to proficiencies or anything along those lines. I would reject it if it was a spellcaster. Minor details aren't what you reject something because of. To me, you reject something that doesn't work as a psionicist, which having it based around casting spells is not how it should work.

What causes me to negatively rate a psion attempt is if it is a subclass of an existing class, since no existing class can meet the basic requirements for a traditional D&D Psion (unless you make a new subclass in combination with creating a variant class feature--such as making a sorcerer who replaces "Spellcasting" with "Psionic Spellcasting" so that they don't use components, and that it can be based on Intelligence). Or if it, like the Mystic, doesn't provide high-level capabilities. I gave detailed feedback on the Mystic, and I can't recall the details from that long ago, but the only major deal-breaker objection I had was the utter lack of access to those sort of abilities. Being able to pile on more damage or stick multiple weaker abilities together is not an acceptible substitute for more powerful capabilities (again, like astral projection, long range teleportation, and other high-level reality warping goodness).

I could not accept a subclass that is supposed to emulate the psion as a whole. Psionics is magic, but it isn't spellcasting.

Multiple people have whipped up versions of a 5e D&D Psion that I would consider good enough, so it can be done (just using 3rd-party is not a solution for me because it doesn't produce a shared experience). WotC needs to look at these other peoples' work and start from there if they aren't sure where to start.

Yes, I have a version I am helping create, and I would gladly send it to WotC as what I would like psionics to be.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I want something like this. My three sticking points with psionics are:

1. It must have a class that is 100% focused around psionics.
2. It cannot cast spells in place of psionic powers.
3. It must be easy to understand for the community.

It sounds like there's a large degree of overlap between what would work for you and what would work for me, and I think that's probably true for most people (which I why it's totally doable).

I do have a question about spells. How would you feel if spells from the PHB were used to represent psionic powers, but were manifested psionically (no components, for example, and possibly other minor changes in how they operated) rather than used in the same way as standard spellcasting? Basically mimicking what was done in 3.5e. They could obviously create additional psionic powers that aren't in the PHB, but this would allow them to spend less page count on powers that are very similar to already written up spells. Would that be acceptable to you, or does it fail the test?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It sounds like there's a large degree of overlap between what would work for you and what would work for me, and I think that's probably true for most people (which I why it's totally doable).

Yes, I think they can find a system that the community overall is happy with, they just haven't tried enough.

I do have a question about spells. How would you feel if spells from the PHB were used to represent psionic powers, but were manifested psionically (no components, for example, and possibly other minor changes in how they operated) rather than used in the same way as standard spellcasting? Basically mimicking what was done in 3.5e. They could obviously create additional psionic powers that aren't in the PHB, but this would allow them to spend less page count on powers that are very similar to already written up spells. Would that be acceptable to you, or does it fail the test?

No. No, no, no. Nonononononono. Spells cannot be psionic powers or vice versa. (I'm fine with wizards casting telepathy and other psionic-themed spells). That's a dealbreaker for me. If they made a new class and had it be a spellcaster in the sense that they used spells as we have them in 5e to emulate psionic abilities, I would not allow that in my games. That fails the test. They would need to come up a new system for psionics, which they've proven they can do through the Psi-Dice mechanic and the Mystic.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right, so it looks like "good" psionics is just what people happen to personally like, while "bad" psionics is what they don't like. And, not having the "good" psionics means rather having no psionics.

While this position may well indeed be one shared by many people, you might not want to assume that they agree with your on "good" and "bad". I don't. I like the current UA. It presented characters that I want to play, and that's a success. If they call that psionics, and it means spells and VSM and no dedicated class, that's fine with me. While I've played D&D since 1e, and did psionics in those editions, I could not care less about those 'traditions' or how they did things. That's the least interesting thing I find in a concept of psionics for 5e. Interesting in 5e, yes, I care about, but not having a particularly strong opinion on what "good" psionics is, I'm happy for interesting psionics. YMMV, and, honestly, I hope it does. If everyone thought like I did, it'd be pretty boring.

 

[Maxperson]

No. No, no, no. Nonononononono. Spells cannot be psionic powers or vice versa. (I'm fine with wizards casting telepathy and other psionic-themed spells). That's a dealbreaker for me.

So according to this, no edition of D&D, 1e to 5e, has ever had psionics that you like. If that's true, you are such an outlier that I doubt you ever get what you want. I think the vast majority of people want something resembling psionics from at least one edition.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, so it looks like "good" psionics is just what people happen to personally like, while "bad" psionics is what they don't like. And, not having the "good" psionics means rather having no psionics.

Except not. Only one person here is being that hard about it. The rest of us are much more flexible.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Right, so it looks like "good" psionics is just what people happen to personally like, while "bad" psionics is what they don't like. And, not having the "good" psionics means rather having no psionics.

Good is relative, so yes.