D&D Psionics Survey; Plus "First Major Mechanical Expansion" Coming?

The latest D&D survey is up from WotC, and it's asking your thoughts on the revised Awakened Mystic article (aka 5E psionics rules) in Mike Mearls' Unearthed Arcana column last July. It also asks whether you want to see new races, classes, spells, and feats. At the same time, the last survey's results are in, reporting on the pubic's opinions of the Kits of Old article from a few months ago; and Mike Mearls refers to a "first major mechanical expansion" in the game.

[lq]At this stage, we’ve begun considering what the first, major mechanical expansion to the game might look like.[/lq]

 

[Topdecker]

Psionics in D&D predate those games. Psionics has been part of D&D since 1976, where it appeared in Supplement II: Eldritch Wizardry for the original version of the game.

Metamorphosis Alpha was also published in 1976. I have no idea which one got printed first and nor does it matter. The likelihood that TSR would release 2 titles in the same year that both featured psionics without ONE of the two influencing the other, is extremely unlikely.

Not a poke at you, but I did not think much of EW. My copy remained pristine which was proof of the low opinion that I had of it. It was not the psionics - it was because it was almost incoherent in presentation, with ownership of Dragon Magazine articles being needed to put it into any sort of focus. The legendary stuff was cool and the art was ok, but I almost never referred back to it.

 

[Elderbrain]

More options is fine (new subclasses, new monsters, etc.) Invalidating existing material would NOT be o.k. ("All your old classes are obsolete - here's the new versions!" - basically, what 3.5e did to 3e, and Essentials did to 4e.) All the current 5e material should be 100% compatible with any new material. In other words, add a spell-less Ranger - fine. Take away currently valid options - not fine. I prefer that all such new options be presented as subclasses, as in the PHB - not kits or prestige classes, though the Artificer and the Psionicist/Psi/Mystic might merit whole new classes to do them justice. (I vote that the Psionic base class simply be called a "Psychic" and not "Psionicist", "Psion", "Mystic", etc. The first two sound too scientific and sci-fi-ish for my tastes. "Mystic" at least sound like the class is supernatural! However, "Psychic" works best for me because the user is clearly utilizing "psionic" powers and would not be mistaken for, say, some kind of wizard or cleric, which is possible with "Mystic". Everybody associates the word "psychic" with supernatural abilities (i.e. a "psychic reader" is clearly not a sci-fi concept, IMHO.)

 

[Grue AC]

I'm just hoping for a new Int based class. Just because your WoTC doesn't mean everyone else wants to be one.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't play half-editions, so I would merrily be left behind in case of a revision.

I don't know if by "mechanical expansion" they really mean new rules or new character material, although in some cases (psionics) the two things happen at the same time. I would be happy in either case anyway. They might even consider a PHB2, DMG2 and MM2, although I don't think they'll have enough strong material for the first 2 of them.

As for the survey on Psionics, I must say that even tho I am not generally a fan, I found their second and latest design attempt quite impressive. I liked the system, almost all disciplines/talents/powers, and both subclasses. I am almost convinced I would actually welcome psionics in my D&D game for the first time ever... to actually win me, they just need a couple of otherwise significant improvements:

1- The base class is just too complex... you have Psionic Talents (basically cantrips), Psychic Focus (also at-will), and the Psi Points based effects (roughly corresponding to point-based spellcasting). And you get up to 6 different disciplines in the first 10 levels, meaning 6 Focuses and 12-20 "spells", plus the Talents. This is already complex enough for me and on par with PHB spellcasters, so I'd like that they simplify the rest of the class (there are 2 more abilities with their own mechanics to keep track of) or my players would probably not want to play this at all with too much stuff to learn. Maybe just streamlining the mechanics a little bit would help.

2- I would like the identity of "psionics = power of the mind" to be strengthened. For example, d6 HD and no armor proficiencies (just like Wizards, also based on non-physical powers). Some subclasses can reinstate those back easily, like the Order of the Immortal aka Psychic Warrior. In addition, I would remove those powers that grant benefits to other people, most notably the Adaptive Body discipline which is described as "augmenting your own body" but then lets you bestow resistance/immunities to others. This breaks my suspension of disbelief, but it depends on the actual effects (particularly, the really physical ones).

But overall I quite like this stuff... It's unique and different enough to hold as a base class on par with the PHB classes, both mechanically and narratively.

 

[Neonchameleon]

My problem with psionics in D&D has nothing to do with genre policing. It's that almost every edition has had an entirely different set of psionics rules and they have all been terrible. From attack and defence modes to powerpoints that rewarded spamming.

 

[CapnZapp]

The power points are, IIRC, exactly like spell points in the DMG.

And yes, of course you'll use that to always cast as many spell points as possible with each action.

Better to be king of three encounters than an equal contributor of eight, especially since the chance of getting a long rest long before that eighth encounter is pretty good.

A caster with spell points is like a warlock in that he can always cast his highest levelled spells, but with much greater flexibility than that warlock. More high level spells and/or lower levelled spells too.

In short: any Psion must be much more frail than the Wizard to be balanced in practical play. It should probably not get attack cantrips on par with Firebolt etc; the class really needs to suck when low on power points, for anyone to hold back.

 

[SailorNash]

I don't care about Psionics. No aliens or science fiction for me. But I do like Mystics, diviners, gypsies, sooth-sayers and prophets. A psychic class would be wonderful, or at least no less harmful than a Lore Bard or Knowledge Cleric. So long as they keep the weird "psion" stuff to a minimum.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

No aliens or science fiction for me.

Have you ever stopped and wondered, "What's the difference between a Dwarf and a Klingon?"

 

[MechaPilot]

Have you ever stopped and wondered, "What's the difference between a Dwarf and a Klingon?"

A little more time in the makeup chair (to get that rubber skullcap on)
The lack of an affected Scottish accent
And the lack of camera tricks to make you look shorter

 

[Sadras]

Have you ever stopped and wondered, "What's the difference between a Dwarf and a Klingon?"

No. But I find half-Klingons attractive. The same cannot be said for half-dwarves.