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]

Let's add some more wood to the fire.


This, I think, tells that this may not be the only type of psionics out there, but how a wizard would use it in her studies of the arcane. Not unlike a divine soul blurs arcane and divine magic.

 

[Stalker0]

Crawford has pointed this out explicitly, they already did this, in September: the Aberrant Mind is the Psionic Sorcerer, just as the Astral Self is the Psionic Monk, the Orator is the Psionic Bard, etc...

Except the Abberant Mind is a poorly done psion imo. I think the currently brought Psion mechanics are more interesting, and if they were put on teh sorc chassis we would get something interesting. The abberant mind is not really a psionic sorc, more of an "abberation" sorc.

 

[Ashrym]

I like the aberrant mind. It's not the "psionicist / mystic" either but I think a different sorcerer subclass could work. Just because a class has one psionic subclass does not mean it cannot have two.

The flavor of something that no longer seems quite human(oid) after encountering a being from the far realm open up aberrant subclasses in more areas and I wouldn't mind seeing that explored more.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Lord-Archaon Yeah, I really wasn't addressing anyone in particular. That said, for you to say that the statement "there's not a single good way to look at it" is somehow demonstrably false tells me what I need to know about your position. First, it isn't false, or incorrect, since it's an opinion about aesthetics rather than verifiable fact, and second, for all that you put it in quotes that's also not what I said. When you change the word 'possible' for the word 'good' you're making quite the editorial change. Mind you, even if you had quoted me accurately you'd still be wrong to say that it's somehow a false statement.

Also, getting all judgy about why you think other people post a certain way is pretty hostile when you spread it about with such broad strokes. Are you actually surprised that someone piped up and "whoa, hold your horses there..."?

 

[Lord-Archaon]

@Lord-Archaon Yeah, I really wasn't addressing anyone in particular. That said, for you to say that the statement "there's not a single good way to look at it" is somehow demonstrably false tells me what I need to know about your position. First, it isn't false, or incorrect, since it's an opinion about aesthetics rather than verifiable fact, and second, for all that you put it in quotes that's also not what I said. When you change the word 'possible' for the word 'good' you're making quite the editorial change. Mind you, even if you had quoted me accurately you'd still be wrong to say that it's somehow a false statement.

Also, getting all judgy about why you think other people post a certain way is pretty hostile when you spread it about with such broad strokes. Are you actually surprised that someone piped up and "whoa, hold your horses there..."?

No, I'm not surprised, that's exactly what I said in that post: I went for this hostility on purpose.

And I never said your statement (or the modified version) was false. I said it was as wrong as thinking that there is only one way. Wrong, not false. And not in and of itself, but because it degenerates into thinking you can portray a concept in any way. Which is what leads to so many failed reboots of classic franchises, or reinterpretations of fables that just end up saying something completely different.

Same here: if you don't keep some boundaries (admittedly, you didn't say you wouldn't: I am talking about how things could go wrong starting from your statement, not exactly with your statement) you end up reinterpreting the concept so much that you end up with something else entirely.

 

[Lord-Archaon]

This, I think, tells that this may not be the only type of psionics out there, but how a wizard would use it in her studies of the arcane. Not unlike a divine soul blurs arcane and divine magic.

Thank god for this. Yet the fact they are presenting classic psionic powers as spells tells me that when they go for a full-fledged class, it will most probably still cast spells. Which is, again, contrary to what psionics is in essence. These are the boundaries I'm talking about. And I am nearly sure they are going for it because I see they adopted this "a spell for everything" or "everything as a spell" attitude a long time ago.
And what makes me so salty is that the only good reason they have for doing this is a wise-sounding "why reinventing the wheel" reply, which is just a fig leaf hiding laziness and cowardice about designing something new AND better. New AND better is the reason for reinventing the wheel. (At least in this case, where you just can't say spells are exactly such a universal thing as a wheel.)

 

[Fenris-77]

Multiple ways are very much not the same thing as any way. Setting that aside though, I actually suspect we aren't far apart on what we might like to see, I'm just not as married to the same set of boundaries you are.

 

[Remathilis]

Crawford has pointed this out explicitly, they already did this, in September: the Aberrant Mind is the Psionic Sorcerer, just as the Astral Self is the Psionic Monk, the Orator is the Psionic Bard, etc...

I've been thinking on this...

I'm actually thinking the new book that comes out that all this UA subs is for is a new type of Tome of Magic; Like Elminster's Librium Mysteria or something. All the subs so far have dealt with strange alternative ways to get magic; be it planar, elemental, truename, runic, primal, or now psionic. Bundle these with a bunch of new spells (mind sliver, psionic spells, etc) and a few "arcane" monsters and you could have a decent "setting neutral" themed book.

 

[Leatherhead]

Except the Abberant Mind is a poorly done psion imo.

It's not supposed to be the Psion. It's just a psychic Sorcerer, as opposed to an elemental one.

 

[Parmandur]

I've been thinking on this...

I'm actually thinking the new book that comes out that all this UA subs is for is a new type of Tome of Magic; Like Elminster's Librium Mysteria or something. All the subs so far have dealt with strange alternative ways to get magic; be it planar, elemental, truename, runic, primal, or now psionic. Bundle these with a bunch of new spells (mind sliver, psionic spells, etc) and a few "arcane" monsters and you could have a decent "setting neutral" themed book.

Something along those lines seems fairly plausible: we still have a small fraction of a book in material (less than 40 pages, not all of which will probably make it into a book, so 8-12% I wager) and they are doing a good job with keeping their cards close to their chest.