D&D 5E Unearthed Arcana: Travelers of the Multiverse

New free content from WotC - the latest 4-page Unearthed Arcana introduces six new races: astral elf, autognome, giff, hadozee, plasmoid, and thri-kreen.

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

Looks like Spelljammer and/or Planescape is back on the menu!

 

[Charlaquin]

There is a difference in kind though.

A lv 6 Paladin who uses all of their spells as spells cannot Divine Smite. However they still have access to: Divine Sense, Lay on Hands, Divine Health, Channel Divinity, and Aura of Protection.

A lv 6 Monk who uses all their ki on spells can't use Flurry of Blows, Step of The Wind, Patient Defense, throwback on Deflect Arrows, or Stunning Strike. Leaving them with only... increased movement speed, the other half of deflect missiles, Ki-Empowered Strikes, and Slow Fall.

A paladin lost access to a single ability, and still has Three abilities that take actions and one major defensive ability. The Monk lost access to Five abilities, and only has passive abilities left. No active abilities at all.

And a wizard who runs out of spell slots loses access to all their active abilities as well. Different classes are more or less reliant on their resources than others.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's also entirely possible - but I suspect it'll be more mix-and-match than that if so, rather than cleanly separating stuff out.

I don't think there's any evidence to support the idea that it is particularly popular, or even that it passed any "satisfaction threshold", because they haven't actually introduced a "version of psionics", just spotty little bits of Psionics here and there.

“Spotty little bits of psionics here and there” is what passed the satisfaction threshold (otherwise it wouldn’t have been published) and is what psionics looks like in 5e. Sorry that’s not to your liking.

You're wrong to suggest there's no controversy, and that's easily shown in any discussion of psionics on any D&D forum or Discord or the like. I know you'd like to say "Oh it's just us grogs being difficult", but that's demonstrably false.

I’m not saying it’s just us grogs being difficult, I’m saying it’s the vocal < 30% of players who respond to the UA surveys. Which is demonstrated to be true by the fact that psionic options finally got through the UA process to print, which WotC says requires 70% satisfaction.

As for whether we'll see another version, I agree that it's unlikely unless DS is delayed to after D&D2024. I do think it's possible we'll see a Psionicist/Psion class with DS though. I'm sure it'll piss off 66% of "people with opinions" (of whatever kind) however they design it of course. I think the basic approach to psionics in 5E, assuming we get DS, is going to be "a bunch of different mechanics called psionics", which is at least better than the "some Arcane spells which we're saying are Psionics" which seemed to be the plan a while back.

Ok. I don’t think that’s going to be the case, but I guess we’ll see.

 

[overgeeked]

Which racial features would a Plasmoid Druid retain while in Wildshape?

Only those its new physical shape was capable of also doing. Exactly like everyone else.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They worked pretty well in the original Spelljammer setting, where they were important players.

Yeah I remembered that later. Like Parmandur I suspect this is 2-for-1.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

“Spotty little bits of psionics here and there” is what passed the satisfaction threshold (otherwise it wouldn’t have been published) and is what psionics looks like in 5e. Sorry that’s not to your liking.

Sorry mate but I don't buy "it passed or wouldn't have been published" as anything but a purely faith-based and irrational belief when they literally haven't mentioned the 70% threshold for what, two, three years? More? Yet they have discussed whether things were included or not and it now looks like what they're doing is a lot less mindless and dimwitted than the old 70% threshold, that they're taking more complex factors into account.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sorry mate but I don't buy "it passed or wouldn't have been published" as anything but a purely faith-based and irrational belief when they literally haven't mentioned the 70% threshold for what, two, three years? More? Yet they have discussed whether things were included or not and it now looks like what they're doing is a lot less mindless and dimwitted than the old 70% threshold, that they're taking more complex factors into account.

They haven’t mentioned the threshold in years, but they haven’t said they’ve stopped using it either. Even if we assume the standard is different now, they at least still use the poll feedback as a metric to decide if something should be printed or not, which still means being printed indicates broad popularity. They’ve also talked in interviews about the latest psionics UA having gotten very positive feedback. Maybe they’re lying, but if we assume that we really have no way of accurately assessing the general audience’s opinion of anything.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They’ve also talked in interviews about the latest psionics UA having gotten very positive feedback. Maybe they’re lying, but if we assume that we really have no way of accurately assessing the general audience’s opinion of anything.

That doesn't follow, rationally.

Positive feedback may well be more complex now than just the surveys, in fact, for WotC's sake, I pray that it is. I have little doubt that the reliance on badly-conducted surveys (and they were terrible, and have only improved at all quite recently) and an alleged hard threshold actively damaged their decision-making re: D&D earlier on.

My main point was re: "a threshold". I very much doubt a specific threshold still exists, and "broad popularity" is likely true but also likely comes from a more complex/nuanced approach to feedback. One that simply wasn't used (and perhaps not even available) during all the previous attempts at Psionics. Another difference is that the audience has changed a lot, and got a lot larger. I mean, the Mystic was Q1 2017, which appallingly over 4.5 years ago, and the D&D audience has what, tripled since then? More? I forget. I don't doubt it's shifted significantly younger too.

Put it another way, the perceived success of recent psionics could be as much down to changing methodology and a changing audience as anything else. Indeed either one alone could explain it. I really wonder what would happen if trimmed down the Mystic, renamed it, and dropped it today, for 2021's audience and methodology. I'm not sure it'd make it but I am sure it would come a hell of a lot closer.

 

[overgeeked]

The thing I’m concerned about is them announcing the book before the survey has gone up and come down. If it’s not exactly what people want there’s a chance the survey will be flooded with negative response. Like if it is pure Spelljammer that’ll piss some off. If it’s not that’ll piss others off. Not sure what impact, if any, that would have. Just a concern.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The thing I’m concerned about is them announcing the book before the survey has gone up and come down. If it’s not exactly what people want there’s a chance the survey will be flooded with negative response. Like if it is pure Spelljammer that’ll piss some off. If it’s not that’ll piss others off. Not sure what impact, if any, that would have. Just a concern.

Is there a sign they're doing that? Honest question, I haven't been following close enough to know.

Pure Spelljammer would be a hard pass for me. I don't hate Spelljammer, in fact I quite like it, but I have no interest in running it, none at all, and I don't feel like it's a useful addition to other settings, more of a distraction.

 

[Parmandur]

Is there a sign they're doing that? Honest question, I haven't been following close enough to know.

Pure Spelljammer would be a hard pass for me. I don't hate Spelljammer, in fact I quite like it, but I have no interest in running it, none at all, and I don't feel like it's a useful addition to other settings, more of a distraction.

There is a March book being announced tomorrow. Odds are it is relates to this UA, based on historic timing.