New D&D Monthly Survey: Mystics & Psionics

The new D&D monthly survey is up - it asks about last month's Unearthed Arcana psionics rules. Additionally, WotC reports on the results of the last survey about settings, classes, and races. It turns out that the top tier settings in terms of popularity are Eberron, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Planescape, and the Forgotten Realms, followed by Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Spelljammer. Additionally, popular character types were led by the artificer, shaman, and alchemist; while the most popular races were thri-kreen, goblin, and aasimar.

Find the new survey here. "This month, our survey looks at the mystic character class and our first draft of psionics rules for fifth edition. Your input is an invaluable tool that helps shape how we develop new material for D&D. If you love the rules, hate them, or have a specific issue you want to address, let us know."

 

[steeldragons]

Lumping the shaman in twith alchemist and artificer is...a hard sell. I think his time and effort is better served elsewhere. The two "item-based" subclasses are a no-brainer, but wrapping in a spirit-based...half-caster, I would say (mix the powers between spells and "spirit-talking/controlling/summoning powers...besides the game needs more half-casters to give them a bit of traction).

I've been looking to do a write up on a 5e shaman...and really, I'm not convinced a druid subclass is their best bet...what with pesky wildshape at 2nd being automatic, "skin changing" being a specifically shamanic magical thing notwithstanding. By the same token, while it looks like a great fit with a warlock subclass, the flavor is just...off. A warlock is a class dependent and beholden on their pact to a "greater entity" to imbue/instruct them in power...and while, yes, a shaman is dependent on the presence/magic of spirits/spiritual beings to fuel/work their magic, they are not, really, beholden to them. They can deal with other/different spirits. There is no..."entity" to create a pact with...and "pacts" with spirits that shamans would be creating are more to control the spirit, not the patron/warlock kind of arrangement. As the clerics are dependent on their Domain choice and deity from the get go...a shaman is something of a stretch their...though I did consider a "Spirit Domain"...and the Turning ability seems like something the shaman ought to be able to do in a D&D world...

So, yeah. Shamans are a bit of a sticky wicket. But lumped in as a subclass with Artificer and Alchemist? Nah. No thanks.

 

[Remathilis]

So basically no one cares about the Known World/Mystara anymore? That's disappointing.

Mystara has about a dozen strikes against it; less known due to being the Basic D&D setting (opposed to the much popular AD&D settings), its spread out over a dozen gazetteers instead of one big book/box, generic enough that it doesn't look too different than Toril or Oerth at first glance (pseudo Medieval setting populated with stock MM critters) and been out of the public view since at least the late 1990 (and only because of a slight AD&D revival). Like Greyhawk, its primarily remembered for its modules (Keep on the Borderland, Night's Dark Terror, Isle of Dread, etc) than for anything unique to it.

As a Mystara fan, its hard to say this but I think Mystara and Greyhawk probably need to just enjoy retirement. Both have heavy online fan communities and need little in the way of support material outside the core rules. (Well, maybe a few races, spells, or items converted. Easy stuff). The core brand of D&D has heavily mined what was great about those settings (the adventures), and the rest isn't unique enough to warrant development.

But it'd be nice if rakasta made the jump to generic D&D. Why D&D has always reinvented the cat-folk when they owned a perfectly good version is beyond me...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The reason Greyhawk has a gritty, old school feel is because it's representative of its time. The late 2e relaunch and 3e LG were weaksauce, and I'd expect little more from anything else WotC would add to the setting now.

Ya want some Greyhawk, I got yer Greyhawk right here.

I thought the Scarlet Brotherhood book that came out at the tail end of 2nd edition was pretty awesome. It gave good insight into how to make a Lawful Evil/Neutral party function. Also Return to White Plume Mountain is easily in my top 10 list.

 

[steeldragons]

AH! Brain-blast!

What if...WHAT...IF...Shaman is not a "subclass" itself...but falls under a new/different PACT WITHIN WARLOCK! Pact of the Spirits! So you get some trick/powers from your PACT, still as a warlock bound to an entity, though. So you have your patron and if you take the Pact of Spirits, then you get, like, nature/animal/fey spirits to deal with/help you for Archfey, "lost souls/cursed spirits forced to do your bidding" for/from the Fiend patron, annnnnd...?....some other t.b.d. kind of spirits for the GOOs.

...not sure I love that flavor for a shaman...who should/typically is the religious and magical authority of the tribe, the advisor to the chief, the "medicine man"/healer, and [above all] the link to spirit world and capable of travel/interaction to/with it [which generally translates to a given community's sole magic-worker].

But maybe...it's a thought...worth a look.

 

[doctorhook]

Is there a reason to be impolite? Did WotC do something to us that I missed, other than put forth a playtest design that some fans did not care for?

I meant to emphasize my significant disappointment with that presentation of the artificer concept.

Eberron is one of the most popular D&D settings (indicated most recently in the article we're discussing), and the artificer class is endemic to it. The concept shifted slightly between 3.5E and 4E (as did a lot of class concepts), but the 5E UA version was entirely unlike those predecessors. It was called an artificer, but it was really just a wizard with a few different tricks, whereas Eberron's artificers have always been distinctly unwizardly in concept and in play. TL;DR: It was an artificer class, but it didn't resemble the artificer classes it claimed to be based upon. I told them as much when they surveyed about it.

 

[Agamon]

I thought the Scarlet Brotherhood book that came out at the tail end of 2nd edition was pretty awesome. It gave good insight into how to make a Lawful Evil/Neutral party function. Also Return to White Plume Mountain is easily in my top 10 list.

There were some decent releases, no doubt. SKR did good with SB. But for the most part, releases from WotC for GH didn't quite cut the muster.

 

[TwoSix]

So, yeah. Shamans are a bit of a sticky wicket. But lumped in as a subclass with Artificer and Alchemist? Nah. No thanks.

Well, it all depends on how you picture a shaman, right? I think focusing a shaman on binding spirits into totems or fetishes could make an excellent way to use a hypothetical "imbuing" mechanic class in a nature/spirit/primal oriented direction. I'm seeing some combination of Warcraft Shaman, Diablo Witch Doctors, and the Werewolf rituals from World of Darkness as a good inspiration.

So you have a class with a new novel mechanic for tying spells into items, and then the Shaman uses the Druid spell list as his baseline, the Alchemist uses Cleric (alchemy potions focus on healing and granting new abilities to the drinker), and Alchemist uses Sorcerer or Wizard (and focuses on making blasting items, as well as cloaks of invisibility and such tools.) I think a mechanic where the item itself can maintain concentration on a spell, but the user can only benefit from one imbued item at a time, would be an interesting mechanical niche to explore for such a class.

 

[Remathilis]

Shamans in D&D have been pretty varied, so "what do you mean by Shaman?" is a pretty relevant question. Old 2e-style humanoid-priests? Spirit-talkers who divine illness? Spellcaster-monks?

Well...

BECMI D&D had four different shaman classes: one was a humanoid (goblin, etc) with access to few cleric spells, one was a shadow elf who gained cleric magic along with wizard magic, and two were primitive human clerics with spirit powers and a few druid powers (one got a spirit animal, one could shapechange).

2e had a few kits with shaman in it, but there were three shaman classes; one in the Barbarian Handbook (which was just a cleric with druidic spells, high HD, and weapon/armor restrictions), one in the Shaman accessory (which had a unique casting method that allowed them to effectively regain spell slots) and one in PO: Spells & Magic/Faiths & Avatars (which had a spirit summoning mechanic that granted SLAs, along with divine spellcasting).

3e had the OA shaman (formally the shugenja) and the Spirit Shaman (who had a proto-5e casting mechanic and spirit powers). 4e shamans were primals who got a spirit animal to fight for them.

The overwhelming majority of shamans in D&D have been divine casters with spirit companions. I think the 4e version with touches of the spirit shaman or 2e shamans would be the best. In 5e terms, I think it would work great as a druid subclass that granted you a spirit companion (it'd be a great way to give the druid an animal companion while keeping the ranger's unique).

 

[steeldragons]

Well, it all depends on how you picture a shaman, right? I think focusing a shaman on binding spirits into totems or fetishes could make an excellent way to use a hypothetical "imbuing" mechanic class in a nature/spirit/primal oriented direction. I'm seeing some combination of Warcraft Shaman, Diablo Witch Doctors, and the Werewolf rituals from World of Darkness as a good inspiration.

So you have a class with a new novel mechanic for tying spells into items, and then the Shaman uses the Druid spell list as his baseline, the Alchemist uses Cleric (alchemy potions focus on healing and granting new abilities to the drinker), and Alchemist uses Sorcerer or Wizard (and focuses on making blasting items, as well as cloaks of invisibility and such tools.) I think a mechanic where the item itself can maintain concentration on a spell, but the user can only benefit from one imbued item at a time, would be an interesting mechanical niche to explore for such a class.

I see it..what you and Mr. Mearls are talking about. I DO! I'm just not sure it is the best way to go about it.

Inherent to the class/subclass structure is that there needs be some commonality of flavor, story...raison d'etre, that is part of the class...and so "trickles down", if you will, to the subclasses. No matter what circle you choose, you are a Druid. No matter what style of warrior you are, you are a Fighter. No matter where your specialities lie, you are a Rogue.

Taking two "science-y" -implying civilization, advancement of knowledge, technologies- classes and lumping them in with another subclass that is, by definition...or at least immediate word-association, conjuring images, and game legacy [from 1e on with the monstrous humanoid shamans/witchdoctors of the DMG] of "primitive" communities/peoples...a more [to borrow the 4e nomenclature, but note the small "p"] primal mode of magic-working/spell-casting...

Lumping them together under "No matter what kind of spell you imbue in what kind of item, you're all the same class" just isn't...I don't know...it's not "enough" for me. OR perhaps it is too vague to constitute the flavor/story of other classes. It's not a strong enough coherent flavor for the Class...though works/is justifiable if you tilt you head and squint for the subclass.

Take the Artificer and the Alchemist and make a class. Absolutely! My half-hearted rewrite of the UA artificer lumped alchemist in as a subclass (and something I just called a "Golemancer" for the makes other mecha-magical creatures/things type)! Rangers & Barbarians & Bards are all "base classes" with only 2 subclasses each. The "technological/sciencey guys" can be subclasses of their own class without wrapping in shaman, very handily...all imho, of course.

 

[doctorhook]

I was pretty down on psionics overall. I like the basic mechanical conceit (get a special ability from Concentration, and dump points into it to cast spells), but it's going to need MUCH better flavor (FAR REALMS?!) and a LOT of balance.

In fact, maybe we could take the idea of different psionics stories, turn them into subclasses.

The Dreamer is an Eberron-style psionicist capable of dream-travel and dimensional rifts. Kalashtar love them. They have two minds - a dreaming mind and a waking mind.
The Evolved is a Dark-Sun-style psionicist who changes their body. They are mutants and seers. They master energy and shape.
The Outsider is a World-Axis-style psionicist who is linked to the invasions of the Far Realm. They have madness and insight in equal degrees. They are changed by things from behind the stars.

That'd give them a flavor boost as well as breaking down the weird One True Origin Story Of All Psionicists that the UA material has going on.

WOW! I know want to see KM's three mystic archetypes as a part of the official class!!! Those are really cool ideas! Mearls? Are you reading this? STEAL THESE IDEAS!!!

See, I definitely agree with KM's assessment of UA Psionics, but to me (at least flavour-wise) his suggestions are committing the same sins that the playtest did: it's an unnecessary reinvention that ignores past expressions of the concept of psionics and tries to lump unrelated things together. For example, the whole "dream-plane" psionics thing is an explicitly racial concept in Eberron, but this didn't have any bearing on the type of psionics that, say, a dwarf might have used against the horrors of Xoriat. Would most fans of previous-editions psionics be satisfied if 5E's single psionic class had only setting-specific subclasses? Alternatively, would fans of those settings be satisfied if psionics was pared down to a single narrow subclass?

I guess I don't see the need to reinvent the proverbial wheel with psionics. Psionics would be well-served by a single class, the psion, with six different subclasses based on the six psionic disciplines: egoist, kineticist, nomad, seer, shaper, and telepath. (If six subclasses seems unreasonable, why? Clerics have seven and wizards have eight.) Further, make a new martial archetype (a.k.a.: subclass) for fighters called "psychic warrior", with a limited selection of psionic abilities from a couple of the psionic disciplines. Ditto for the soulknife, except make it a subclass of either monk or rogue. Finally, create a bunch of psionic powers--what were called "disciplines" in the playtest--and divvy them into the six disciplines, then put them on a list. Why re-conceptualize psionics in the same edition that was deliberately trying to roll back the re-conceptualizations of other classes that 4E brought?

Reading the UA Psionics playtest, I'm reminded of one of the wizard previews that was released in the months prior to 4E: instead of having the traditional schools of magic, the designers had thought fans would like wizards to have specializations like, "Golden Wyvern initiate" and "Serpent Eye cabalist" and "Stormwalker theurge". As soon as WotC gauged the fan reaction, they changed all that in a hurry. There's nothing wrong with those concepts, but they sure as hell didn't represent what the previous incarnations of the D&D brand had said wizards were supposed to be. "Order of the Awakened" and "Order of the Immortal" feel like exactly that same mess all over again.