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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And there's where I don't think it needs to squeeze into one class though. I fully support the idea of a Psion base class.

Nod. There's too much of a current in the community of, "well, you only need one a class, or a sub-class, or a background," - even though 5e, just in the PH, has multiple ways of coming at the same thing. The classic Thief, for instance, is a class, the Rogue, has a rogue sub-classed named after it, and is neatly aped by any Background that lets you at Thieves' Tools.

At the same time, let the Psychic Warrior be a fighter subclass (whatever you think of this iteration...), let the Soul Knife be a rogue subclass.

5e does seem to have room for faux-multi-classing sub-classes - EK, AT, Bladesinger - but, at the same time, it seems to make room for full classes that could have, as easily, been done that way, like the Ranger & Paladin. And that's on top backgrounds with the wiff of a class about them, and, optionally, feats that let you poach class abilities, and, of course, actual multi-classing.

I don't think we need a Psion and a Wilder though. I really hated the Wilder as it just felt like "we need to mirror the Wizard/Sorcerer Int/Cha dualism for Psionics too!", which I disliked.

Psionics as a thing that just happens was pretty deeply ingrained early on, though, I feel like that's what the Wild Talent or Wilder or whatever is for. In 5e, I suppose that could be a Background and/or Feat, along the lines of many 5e backgrounds and feats that shade into Multi-classing by lifting key abilities from specific classes.

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, yeah, the Druid is a fine example, but there's some balance there that people wouldn't be happy with, specifically not casting spells while using that ability (until 18th level anyway). Nor does the Druid rain lightning bolts quite like a Wizard. But I'm nit picking. None of that obviates your point, which is well taken. The caveat there is that the farther you spread out the less depth you need to be prepared to get. I think Psionics fans wouldn't be happy with an actual generalist support character, or at least not one that's too general.

As far as squeezing goes, if you start with a d8 base and then split into Psychic Warrior and Psion, with a Soulknife or whatever as a maybe third, you could cover a lot of ground. Treat the PW like a Hexblade and go the other way with the Psion. Build basic psionic abilities into the class and then differentiate through the subclasses. Anyway, I like the idea a lot and I think it's got the minerals to do the job.

 

[SkidAce]

Would be tricky to differentiate, but a nice challenge. Hasn't been done before, that I remember of.

Necroscope series of books by Brian Lumley.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I think its also important to not slide too far down the slippery slope of "of course psionics can do that too...". Some overlap between classes is fine, but too much smacks of greed.

Too much overlap and you end up looking like a cleric...

 

[Maxperson]

I agree except i always viewed psionics as more wisdom based. But I would play a psion like you describe it.

I've viewed psionics as both int and wis based. I liked how 2e had individual powers key off of different stats.

 

[Maxperson]

But the complaint is to the design philosophy. "Why does everything have to be spells" well, part of it is that the spells are already the mechanics they want.

Sure, maybe the Psion can get special treatment. But then, why not the X or the Y or the Z. Every release after them would start saying "well, they did it for the Psion, why can't they do it again" so it is important to understand the why of the philosophy instead of just looking at a single class.

You don't need to give them super special treatment, though. All you have to do is put a paragraph into the Psion class that says something like, "Psions don't use spells in the traditional sense. Rather their "spells" are inherent powers that they produce, rather than cast."

Then you can give them access to appropriate spells according to the traditional psionics lists, but they will be powers.

 

[Garthanos]

Sure, maybe the Psion can get special treatment. But then, why not the X or the Y or the Z. Every release after them would start saying "well, they did it for the Psion, why can't they do it again" so it is important to understand the why of the philosophy instead of just looking at a single class.

Well nobody gets their skills differentiated enough for you to actually have an idea of what you can accomplish i mean really. What about the ranger you say? ummmm so let's just give the ranger incantations and bat guano like they did in 1e because it cannot be that skills need details we arent giving any other skill details they are just attribute checks, nyeh lets just hand the ranger some mumbo jumbo right? (... because um tradition yeh that is why)

 

[Chaosmancer]

You don't need to give them super special treatment, though. All you have to do is put a paragraph into the Psion class that says something like, "Psions don't use spells in the traditional sense. Rather their "spells" are inherent powers that they produce, rather than cast."

Then you can give them access to appropriate spells according to the traditional psionics lists, but they will be powers.

....

Which sounds like exactly what I was suggesting when I was told "if you feel this dire need of reusing spells ".

It is about not giving them special treatment, because the design philosophy is to reuse the spells they made if possible, instead of giving out multiple identical abilities that do the exact same mechanical thing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well nobody gets their skills differentiated enough for you to actually have an idea of what you can accomplish i mean really. What about the ranger you say? ummmm so let's just give the ranger incantations and bat guano like they did in 1e because it cannot be that skills need details we arent giving any other skill details they are just attribute checks, nyeh lets just hand the ranger some mumbo jumbo right? (... because um tradition yeh that is why)

I have no idea what you are trying to saw with all the hemming and hawwing and umming.

Skills aren't spells anyways? Ranger spells are ranger spells, and the spells each use the same mechanics as they do for anyone else?

I'm legit lost what you are responding to. Are you saying rangers should not have gotten spells and should have instead gotten "skills" that do what the spells did? That their other abilities should have been spells? That they should have been using foci this entire time instead of component pouches?

 

[Garthanos]

I'm legit lost what you are responding to. Are you saying rangers should not have gotten spells and should have instead gotten "skills" that do what the spells did?

Should hmmm well that word "should" is a judgement call. Think of it this way If nature and survival skills were given more elaboration the need for spells for the ranger really wouldn't exist. In 1e especially it always felt like they pasted on spells at a high levels because they couldnt be bothered to develop a skill system to represent the extraordinary things he could do. (and the spells he did get were so low level when he got them they were useless).

Aragorn wasnt a spell caster and yet....