Unearthed Arcana New Unearthed Arcana: Psionics!

There’s a new Unearthed Arcana article out, and it’s all about psionics! "Their minds bristling with power, three new subclasses arrive in today’s Unearthed Arcana: the Psychic Warrior for the fighter, the Soulknife for the rogue, and the tradition of Psionics for the wizard."

​

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

In this 9-page PDF, there are also some new psionics-themed spells (including versions of classic psionic powers like id insinuation and ego whip) and two new feats.

 

[Remathilis]

So the psychic warrior and soul knife look... fine? They do their job well. I won't get into them. I want to discuss the psionic wizard (psion henceforth).

Its sooooo close, and yet...

It first reminded me of the original UA Eberron article with artificer as a subclass of wizard. It barely scraped the faintest hint of what made the full class great and smeared it on the classic magic-user class. Obviously, its a much better sub than that original artificer one, but it had a similar feel to that. Or did it?

The psionic character class has had many iterations in D&D, but the closest to a a standardized form would be the 3.x psion class: power points, power levels, Int caster. He felt like a psionic wizard. A quick rundown of his powers showed some classic wizard powers ported over either wholesale (identify, daze, knock) or similar enough to be effectively the same (energy ball, incarnate, remove viewing). Complete Psion shortened the gap further, leaving very little daylight between the psion list and the wizard list.

And yet, giving psionics over to wizards doesn't completely jive either. Sure, a psion and a wizard filled a lot of the same roles, but they weren't 1:1. For example, psion powers were known like a sorcerer, wizards kept them in a spellbook. Having psionics needing spellbooks doesn't feel right. Further, there are some spells that don't feel right for a psion (specifically, summoning and necromancy) while some powers clearly in the psionic wheel-well (such as healing) aren't there.

And then there is power points/psionic strength points; probably the only design element consistent through 4 editions was using a mana/point system rather than slots. It kinda feels like a betrayal to not be counting points when using psionics.

Personally, I think the best bet is to make psion a class that is similar to the wizard BUT separate. Not the re-invention that the mystic tried, but something that takes the wizard, lobs off the spellbook, replaces spell slots with "power" (spell) points, customizes the spell list, makes the subclass features part of the the base class (along with some good ideas stolen from the mystic) and then adds a couple "disciplines" (telepath, kineticist, nomad, seer, and shaper) as subclasses as its own. It can repurpose most of the spells from the PHB, add some new ones, and then bring to a boil.

Its not the easy drop-in subclass, but its not the complicated mess that the mystic was. Its fairly close to what Mearls was wanting. Its probably the best. Because its balanced on paper and works fine enough if you're looking to make a kalshatar wizard, but it just doesn't feel psionicy enough to be the "psion" class of 5e.

That said, its better than nothing and I'll adapt if this is all it is. But they are so close...

 

[dave2008]

I feel like the invention of the DMsGuild has stifled online collaboration. In the past you would be involved in a community (lets say ENWorld for example) and if you created something for your game you would share it with that community to mine for ideas and balance and end up with a crowdsourced final project that everyone has access to. Now I find that a lot of those people who would be doing this are instead having a go at becoming semi-professional game designers by micro-transactioning their efforts.

"Like my Hound Archon class, just a buck!"

I don't begrudge people trying to make it in the industry, but I do feel like the lure to take a project to a marketplace does stifle community creativity. I can only speak for myself, but i'm literally NEVER going to pay for rules material that isn't "official" mostly because I can assume the "official" sources are fairly playtested and balanced.

When the 5e playtest was still going and the time of the official release was approaching 5e was described as an edition where the core rules will be simple and easy to manage. The system was also supposed to be "expanded" by supplements and material meant to tack onto the sections of the rules you wanted to explore and expand. Think that 5e combat is too simplistic....try the "Expanded Combat" module. Want to go heavy on exploration, try the "Wilderness" module.

Since 5e has released the idea of these "modules" to expand our games seems to have been back burnered (if not thrown out entirely) in favor of adventure paths and light introductions to various campaign settings. I understand why people are frustrated to hear something to the effect of "Well, we might not ever have a proper Psionics systems because nobody will use it." because that same statement can be used to apply to each and every system that people are hoping to see from WotC.

In my games of 3e and 4e I have been a big fan of Psionics. I like the idea of exploring "Psionics are totally not magic" which is hard to do when half of the "ruleset" for psionics is describing a wizard and wizard spell lists. Yes, I can houserule and 3rd party whatever I want, but having three subclasses as the only official not to psionics seems a letdown, and really dashes hopes for further content.

There is still a lot of sharing here on EnWorld (I've put up quite a bit myself) and perhaps you are not familiar with UA reddit? Tons of collaboration going on there.

 

[Parmandur]

That's what happens when you design to please the masses as opposed to giving it your best creative shot.

You say that as if there is any inherent contradiction.

 

[Kurotowa]

Finally read it. Ya, that's not what I was hoping for at all. Telekinetics is just mage hand? Boring.

That's how D&D works. Mage Hand is the best telekinesis you can get at low level. Then as you get higher in level you get more powerful telekinetic abilities. Psionic Wizards get the Telekinesis spell at 9th level. Psychic Warriors get Telekinetic Bulwark at 10th level. They get broken up into different abilities with different use restrictions because this is still D&D. If you want a free form telekinesis ability that's powerful from the start and improves over time, you'd best start investigating superhero RPGs, because that's what you're asking for.

 

[Eric V]

You say that as if there is any inherent contradiction.

This response surprises me not at all. Genuinely sorry you can't/won't see the difference.

 

[Parmandur]

That's how D&D works. Mage Hand is the best telekinesis you can get at low level. Then as you get higher in level you get more powerful telekinetic abilities. Psionic Wizards get the Telekinesis spell at 9th level. Psychic Warriors get Telekinetic Bulwark at 10th level. They get broken up into different abilities with different use restrictions because this is still D&D. If you want a free form telekinesis ability that's powerful from the start and improves over time, you'd best start investigating superhero RPGs, because that's what you're asking for.

Mearls had the start of something that could square that circle on the Happy Fun Hour. Time will tell if anything ever comes out of that.

 

[gyor]

I'm kind of torn about this, in 3 ways:

1. The relegation of psionics to being basically another school of arcane magic is a huge (over)simplification of psionics in general. That said, I can see the attractiveness of Not having to manage a separate wonky psionics sub-system. And there are Plenty of new-ish wonky subsystems already in 5e.

2. If psionics Are going to be considered as another arcane "school", does that mean that other arcane users can grab a psionic spell or two? I can see that being a lot of fun, but it definitely eliminates any particular "specialness" of psionic characters. Especially if there's not going to be a reworked mystic/psion/whatever.

3. I confess, the psionic feats are probably the most attractive piece of the article. In OD&D and 1e, psionics were an Extremely optional "bolt-on" to an existing class. The easiest way to come close to that in 5e would be psionic feats. It doesn't matter your class or sub-class; if you're of a mind (pun intended) to pursue psionics to some extent, you can do it!

Just my $.02

I'll point out that Magic Initiate would also be a Psion Feat if you pick Psionic Cantrips and a Psion Spell.

 

[dave2008]

This response surprises me not at all. Genuinely sorry you can't/won't see the difference.

That is not what he/she is saying. The point he/she is making is that the most creative approach can also appeal to the masses. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

[Parmandur]

This response surprises me not at all. Genuinely sorry you can't/won't see the difference.

They are two separate tracks: determining the target audience is completely unrelated to whether one "takes the best creative shot." Logically, you can A.) make a niche game and not take a great creative shot, B.) make a niche game and make a fantastic creative effort, C.) make a popularly aimed game but not take a good creative shot or D.) make a popularly aimed game and swing for the fences.

 

[Parmandur]

That is not what he/she is saying. The point he/she is making is that the most creative approach can also appeal to the masses. It doesn't have to be on or the other.

Precisely.

(you can refer to me as a "he" just fine)