Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New Unearthed Arcana: Psionics!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 7861569" data-attributes="member: 6750235"><p>Those spells don't have a tag that says psionic. I fully endorse adding one if a person wants to make them more significant and I suspect many people would do just that.</p><p></p><p>It's definitely an option to keep psionics separate but it looks to me like the other spells listed as appropriate to a psionic character would need to have some similar consideration. There are over a hundred spells and only ten new ones.</p><p></p><p>Are you thinking only the new spells would be true psionics? That limits psionic ability but it's a possibility. A person could simply call that the psionic power list and consider a power and a spell version. That seems a bit awkward to me if a person mix and matches but powers them with the same spell slots anyway.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I disagree. I think psionicists can be a full class but I'm not seeing how adding a pseudo-caster is necessary. I would like to see a full class but if all it's going to be is another flavor of what we already have when WotC is telling us it's not an option they expect to see utilized then there's no real point to it.</p><p></p><p>I can already give sorcerers spell points and handwave components then give it a different label. Those other classes were included based on feedback during 5e playtesting. A full psionicist class will be created based on market research and feedback (in theory).</p><p></p><p>The player base would need to demonstrate the demand. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You mean like monopoly? Coke? Maybe create a new system, see it's not that popular, revert back to the original recipe, and see a huge success? The New Coke model. </p><p></p><p>That's just a bit of kidding and I understand your point, but design space is finite regardless. At some point there will always be that limit where more or new stops being productive. Branching out in a direction after doing an analysis to determine there's no market in that direction is not productive. Giving up resources on a smaller scale for existing fans is fan service, which is where it looks like we're at when it comes to psionics.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Being mocked isn't synonymous with unpopular. We would need data from WotC and their reasons for justifying that inclusion to make the popularity comparison without jumping to conclusions.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><em>Sneak attack</em> doesn't apply to <em>rend mind</em> because <em>rend mind</em> is not a weapon attack. What's more interesting about <em>rend mind</em> is that the DC formula isn't standard. It's 10 + proficiency + INT mod instead of 8 + proficiency + INT mod. I don't know if that's an intentional rule breaker or if it's a typo but it looks like it could be significant.</p><p></p><p>Keep in mind <em>rend mind</em> is at the same level we see <em>thief's reflexes</em> and <em>death attack. </em>It's not like rogues don't have options to pump out some high damage at that level.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ashrym, post: 7861569, member: 6750235"] Those spells don't have a tag that says psionic. I fully endorse adding one if a person wants to make them more significant and I suspect many people would do just that. It's definitely an option to keep psionics separate but it looks to me like the other spells listed as appropriate to a psionic character would need to have some similar consideration. There are over a hundred spells and only ten new ones. Are you thinking only the new spells would be true psionics? That limits psionic ability but it's a possibility. A person could simply call that the psionic power list and consider a power and a spell version. That seems a bit awkward to me if a person mix and matches but powers them with the same spell slots anyway. I disagree. I think psionicists can be a full class but I'm not seeing how adding a pseudo-caster is necessary. I would like to see a full class but if all it's going to be is another flavor of what we already have when WotC is telling us it's not an option they expect to see utilized then there's no real point to it. I can already give sorcerers spell points and handwave components then give it a different label. Those other classes were included based on feedback during 5e playtesting. A full psionicist class will be created based on market research and feedback (in theory). The player base would need to demonstrate the demand. ;) You mean like monopoly? Coke? Maybe create a new system, see it's not that popular, revert back to the original recipe, and see a huge success? The New Coke model. That's just a bit of kidding and I understand your point, but design space is finite regardless. At some point there will always be that limit where more or new stops being productive. Branching out in a direction after doing an analysis to determine there's no market in that direction is not productive. Giving up resources on a smaller scale for existing fans is fan service, which is where it looks like we're at when it comes to psionics. Being mocked isn't synonymous with unpopular. We would need data from WotC and their reasons for justifying that inclusion to make the popularity comparison without jumping to conclusions. [I]Sneak attack[/I] doesn't apply to [I]rend mind[/I] because [I]rend mind[/I] is not a weapon attack. What's more interesting about [I]rend mind[/I] is that the DC formula isn't standard. It's 10 + proficiency + INT mod instead of 8 + proficiency + INT mod. I don't know if that's an intentional rule breaker or if it's a typo but it looks like it could be significant. Keep in mind [I]rend mind[/I] is at the same level we see [I]thief's reflexes[/I] and [I]death attack. [/I]It's not like rogues don't have options to pump out some high damage at that level. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New Unearthed Arcana: Psionics!
Top