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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

I want psionics the way I want it, because to me, it would feel cheap to have it be 100% represented by spells. I know other people with the same opinion. I'm sorry if my opinion is delaying or getting rid of psionics, but I just would rather have no psionics than a bad psionic system, from my viewpoint.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

That's a useless distinction. Being more flexible than an extreme position* doesn't make you actually flexible.

*and you only label it extreme because it disagrees with you and falls into.a category of wants you'd rather not exist. I really don't see much difference between the "extreme" opinion and yours in regards to things you absolutely insist must be part of psionics.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

I haven't ever played those editions, so I wouldn't know. I am not an outlier, I know quite a few other people with the same opinion as I. I am not an outlier, you've just not been exposed to this opinion before, I'm assuming. Again, I don't know what playing psionics was like in those editions, but I do know what Psionic traditions there were, and how I'd like the class to work. Also, it would be similar to some parts of previous editions. But tell me, was the Mystic similar to previous editions?

I cannot be the only one you've ever met online or in person that wants a non-caster psion class.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I want psionics the way I want it, because to me, it would feel cheap to have it be 100% represented by spells. I know other people with the same opinion. I'm sorry if my opinion is delaying or getting rid of psionics, but I just would rather have no psionics than a bad psionic system, from my viewpoint.

Yes, this is clear: if it isn't how you want it, no one should have it. Seems a tad childish.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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

Yeah, so, since there's no one else here that seems to have the same opinion as me, I will have to be the spokesperson for my group of people that agree with this opinion. It's not bad to have standards. I have standards to what Psionics must be for me to approve it, and it's a very small list that I said above. I don't think it's bad to have a guideline of what you want for psionics.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Yes, this is clear: if it isn't how you want it, no one should have it. Seems a tad childish.

I could argue, it doesn't count as psionics if it is spells, but sure. Call me childish for not wanting to change my opinion. Also, I do want psionics, but it has to be in an acceptable way. If they'd brought the Artificer in the stage that it was in during the Xanathar's playtesting stage, we would've had a mess of a class. Sometimes it's better to take time to develop systems and classes.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I could argue, it doesn't count as psionics if it is spells, but sure. Call me childish for not wanting to change my opinion. Also, I do want psionics, but it has to be in an acceptable way. If they'd brought the Artificer in the stage that it was in during the Xanathar's playtesting stage, we would've had a mess of a class. Sometimes it's better to take time to develop systems and classes.

I actually empathize (and sympathize!) with wanting psionics to be non-spells. Same with @Maxperson's desire for psionics to have no VSM. I get it, I really do.

In both cases, maybe at least partly because I'm weirdly nostalgic for the 1e version.

And at the same time, I can set those desires aside and evaluate the latest UA on its own merits. I actually like it more and more as I mull it over. I filled out the survey and gave it pretty high marks.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I actually empathize (and sympathize!) with wanting psionics to be non-spells. Same with @Maxperson's desire for psionics to have no VSM. I get it, I really do.

I don't care what components are needed for psionics, but I would prefer if it was just somatic or verbal, and you choose when you use the power. It's not a deal-breaker for me.

And at the same time, I can set those desires aside and evaluate the latest UA on its own merits. I actually like it more and more as I mull it over. I filled out the survey and gave it pretty high marks.

I personally ranked the ideas of the subclasses high, but execution low. I liked a lot of the abilities, and ranked them high, but I did rank a lot of the parts I disliked low.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

If it is wrong, then I ask what is the right path. Saying "I don't like this" is not enough. I want somebody explain the reasons about how should it be.

 

[Maxperson]

That's a useless distinction. Being more flexible than an extreme position* doesn't make you actually flexible.

You left out a word. Shame on you.