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.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The psionic wizard had got a name in 3.5: the erudite, in the complete psionic, practically a variant class what could choose a different list of powers everyday like wizards or clerics, like the archetypes by Pathfinder RPG. And there were some prestige class hybring two classes, for example cerebromance (arcane + psionic) or fist of zuoken (monk + psionic).

Saying it should be only a subclass is like saying warlock, bard, ranger or paladin should be only subclasses.

How would want to play with a psion? Fans of X-Men comics, and psionic manifester classes fit very well in oriental settings. Jedi and other force adepts are their own version of psionic powers.

You have to remember when the SRD of the psionic powers was published, some 3rd Party will create their own psionic class, for example Dreamscarred Press. This has its own ideas about mixing psionic and occult classes.

 

[TwoSix]

I see a lot of comments about how WoTC gave up, or are too lazy, or are playing it too safe. None of those are reasons. Jeremy gave the reason, and it comes down to raw numbers. Not enough people played or used psionics in the past to warrant putting out a new system. That's not lazy, or too conservative, or giving up. That's a pure business standpoint.

"People didn't use it in the past, so they won't use it now" is almost a textbook definition of conservative. If they have current survey results that says a a large section of the market doesn't want material that deviates much from the current rules, then I agree that marketing to a conservative user base requires a conservative design strategy by WotC.

 

[Krachek]

long time ago in Adc DnD psionic was the way to have a very unique character.
in a world where a lot of people cast spell, how to shine out? By having psionic.
since then I think psionic have keep a little aura of “over the top” feature.
”Being special” is all the purpose of Psionic for some people.
so having a sorcerer with spell point and no component for spell is just not enough special.

 

[Sacrosanct]

"People didn't use it in the past, so they won't use it now" is almost a textbook definition of conservative. If they have current survey results that says a a large section of the market doesn't want material that deviates much from the current rules, then I agree that marketing to a conservative user base requires a conservative design strategy by WotC.

When you have 40 years and 4 editions of evidence, that's not a "conservative" approach. That's common business sense. Why would you keep spending time, energy, and limited resources on things that for the past 40 years was hardly used? Conservative? Nah. Smart? Yep.

 

[Krachek]

I don’t see why psionic should be tied to intelligence.
we have seen a lot of “psionic“ character in movie, novel that weren’t int base, but rather charisma or wisdom and often none of them, they were only standard people with a particular ability to use their mind.

so in actual 5ed, bard, sorcerer, even fighter can be tag as psionic. Battle master manœuvre can be explain by psionic power.

so the debate about psionic is all around play style, feeling and opening some concept and Interpretation. Just like the old hit points debate!

 

[TwoSix]

When you have 40 years and 4 editions of evidence, that's not a "conservative" approach. That's common business sense. Why would you keep spending time, energy, and limited resources on things that for the past 40 years was hardly used? Conservative? Nah. Smart? Yep.

Most business decisions are conservative. It's not a pejorative.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Most business decisions are conservative. It's not a pejorative.

That's not what conservative means though. If you stop doing something that isn't successful, that isn't a conservative approach. That's just common sense. To continue to waste time/resources/money on something that isn't successful is dumb. The opposite of dumb is not conservative. Two totally unrelated things.

If after every time you eat a certain food it makes you sick, if you stop eating that food, you aren't doing it for conservative reasons. You're just eliminating that particular thing, and can be just as creative as always, just with other things

 

[Tony Vargas]

"People didn't use it in the past, so they won't use it now" is almost a textbook definition of conservative. If they have current survey results that says a a large section of the market doesn't want material that deviates much from the current rules, then I agree that marketing to a conservative user base requires a conservative design strategy by WotC.

Or, even if they don't, if there's a 'conservative' (reactionary? radical?) segment of the market that'll cause trouble if they feel slighted, while the 'silent majority' will sit (relatively) quietly and accept being under-served, well, the pragmatic thing to do is obvious.

Really, though, the game's growth doesn't come from catering to whole or part of the fanbase that answers surveys, it comes from creating a positive/interesting enough perception of the game outside that fanbase.

Even a big tent can't fit everyone. The goal is to make it as accomodating as possible, not please literally everyone.

Fans of past editions aren't everyone. "Everyone" includes the 7.4 billion people who have never played D&D.

5e is just meant to be D&D for the mere 40 million who have.

Get them all singing kumbaya together, and you have a better chance of getting new voices to join in.

 

[TwoSix]

That's not what conservative means though. If you stop doing something that isn't successful, that isn't a conservative approach. That's just common sense. To continue to waste time/resources/money on something that isn't successful is dumb. The opposite of dumb is not conservative. Two totally unrelated things.

If after every time you eat a certain food it makes you sick, if you stop eating that food, you aren't doing it for conservative reasons. You're just eliminating that particular thing, and can be just as creative as always, just with other things

My sticking point is that I think the user base in 2019 is very different from the user base in 2004, when the last revision of psionics was published. (4e psionics was integrated into the core system, so it wasn't really a different system.) So I don't have a lot of belief that any previous market failures mean that a new revision would also not be well received, as it's being sold to a very different audience. Again, if they have market research that says otherwise, than I certainly understand their hesitance to proceed.

Conservative simply means to be "cautious towards innovation and change" and "respecting established norms", which I'm using to describe WotC's reluctance to design new mechanical structures. You could certainly argue that NOT making a psionic full class is innovative (as it bucks the tradition of previous editions). I mean, you could argue that 5e is both conservative (using a mechanical chassis derived from previous editions, leaning into classic D&D tropes) and innovative (it's the only edition that tried to be built as a gestalt of the popular parts of all previous editions).

 

[dave2008]

No, sir, I don't like it. Any of it...

...I'm fine with Psychic Warrior and Soulknife being Fighter and Rogue subclasses, respectively,...

So your fine with part of it, but don't like it - is that right? What if these subclasses were available and a Psion class?