Psionics Survey Results: Generally Positive But More Work Needed

WotC has published the results of last month's psionics survey. They indicate a generally positive reaction to the playtest psionics rules, with some aspects proving less popular, especially the way psionics and magic interact, and the mystic class itself getting lower scores. The general conclusion is that more work is needed on the psionics rules, and that there will be another draft in a couple of months.

Find the survey resuts here.

 

[Jester David]

I'm sure that if 4e had been more successful, another round of adventures or a different Dungeon AP would have fleshed out another corner of the world, using much of the Dawn War mythology and history but ignoring Nentir as the home base location. In time, the "World of D&D" would have formed and Nentir would have been no bigger a part of it than Karameikos is to the Known World or the Dalelands is to Faerun.

Maybe. IIRC that was how Mystara evolved: compiled from the Basic D&D adventures. Really, a good percentage of the major locales listed in the map of the Vale (Winterhaven, Gardmore Abby, Fallcrest, Thunderspire, Harkenwold, Hammerfast) were detailed. But the adventures seldom expanded beyond the Vale.
However, the structure of the 4e adventures didn't help. Most were straight dungeon crawls so there wasn't a lot of world lore to expand into a setting.

What most people forget was the setting was expanded. Articles were done by Rich Baker online: http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=player&subcategory=nerathilegends
But no one really cared.

Which might be a bit of an impediment. If they wanted to do the setting, they'd need Baker as it was evidently his baby and he has the notes and ideas. But he's busy with his own game company and seems reluctant to partner with WotC again.

 

[Remathilis]

Maybe. IIRC that was how Mystara evolved: compiled from the Basic D&D adventures. Really, a good percentage of the major locales listed in the map of the Vale (Winterhaven, Gardmore Abby, Fallcrest, Thunderspire, Harkenwold, Hammerfast) were detailed. But the adventures seldom expanded beyond the Vale.
However, the structure of the 4e adventures didn't help. Most were straight dungeon crawls so there wasn't a lot of world lore to expand into a setting.

What most people forget was the setting was expanded. Articles were done by Rich Baker online: http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=player&subcategory=nerathilegends
But no one really cared.

Which might be a bit of an impediment. If they wanted to do the setting, they'd need Baker as it was evidently his baby and he has the notes and ideas. But he's busy with his own game company and seems reluctant to partner with WotC again.

Yeah, I know they expanded "D&D World" to include the Chaos Scar and Elsir Vale (via the Tiamat AP) and lifted a LOT of areas from other settings (Isle of Dread, Tomb of Horrors, and Barovia IIRC) and added its own lore (I did read an article about Nerath prior to the fall) but as you said, the lore is scattered among dozens of tidbits locked in Dragon articles and source-books, so I think people would want it all collected, edited, and put in a single volume.

And if its true Baker did most of the work on the 4e setting, I think his input would be as important as K. Baker, Greenwood, or Wiess/Hickman would be to Eberron, Realms, and Dragonlance, respectively.

 

[Zaran]

Where did you hear that there will be a Dragonlance setting next year? Everything I heard suggests that it'll be the Realms for the foreseeable future.


I am hoping to give the mystic a try here in a few weeks. The question for me is whether the class can work as the Dragonlance mystic or not. Typically, psionics has been shunned in Dragonlance due to its flavor. However, the 5e reskinning of may make it more palatable.

I was just stating an example. My complaint is that no one knows what's coming out next year and I don't think keeping that stuff secret helps the company.

 

[Aldarc]

I liked the general take a lot.
But I wasn't crazy about some things, like the name, and some of the specific implementation.

But it sounds like they understood that, so I'm excited to see what it looks like in November(hopefully).

While my specific qualms with the Mystic differ ... I was generally positive.

I disliked the name, its connection to the Far Realms, and I felt that the mystic was too reductionistic of the wide variety of psionics of D&D's past. The mystic was akin to combining the wizard, sorcerer, warlock, and bard into a single "arcanist" class. Dreamscarred Press has expanded the 3rd Edition XPH psionics in new and exciting ways. As such, the 5E mystic felt like an uninspired, barren dud.

Forums are notorious for being 1) highly negative/toxic, and 2) collections of vocal minorities than actually representative of the larger player base.

And your thoughts regarding the "mystic"?

 

[bogmad]

I disliked the name, its connection to the Far Realms, and I felt that the mystic was too reductionistic of the wide variety of psionics of D&D's past. The mystic was akin to combining the wizard, sorcerer, warlock, and bard into a single "arcanist" class. Dreamscarred Press has expanded the 3rd Edition XPH psionics in new and exciting ways. As such, the 5E mystic felt like an uninspired, barren dud.

I'm not a fan of the Far Realms being locked in either, and the name hasn't grown on me, but I felt the different "subclasses" were a good start to fit in the base class along with a more psychic warrior type. Not there, but a good start.

I'm not opposed to maybe one more psionic class (or subclasses to fighter & rogue) to fit the more weapon based psions in addition to the typical "mystic" psionicist, but I think combining the myriad of psion classes into one class is less a problem than forcing every arcanist into the mage like they almost tried in the playtest. I like a psion who does one or only a few disciplines really well and flexibly, instead trying to make a psionic wizard, which is what 3x psions can feel like at times.

 

[MagicSN]

About the name - at least at my table people
Would ignore the name and call them psionics
as thats what they are. Always happens when
You give something known (if from earlier
Editions or some other source) a different
Name. Had once a series of adventures which
Dealt about a powerful magic sword - people
Ignored the name I gave it and talked
About "Excalibur". Same will happen
With psyonics - I mean mystics of course

 

[Mephista]

And your thoughts regarding the "mystic"?

Grossly underpowered past level 4. You need to spend points to keep up with simple cantrip growth and Extra Attacks, which is free for everyone else. I don't particularly care for the ability to bypass Charm resistance, when all other Dominate-class (save Suggestion) magic uses it - an important distinction when dealing with elves and defensive magic items. But generally, I would have no qualms about seeing it at my table. I don't care for heavy resource management, so I'd never play it myself, but I'd be all for it if another player wanted to explore it.

Honestly, I'm primarily neutral on the subject. There are parts that I don't care for, but it looks interesting and I think people would have fun playing it, especially with how your focus switches between psionic channels there. But, since I'm not particularly interested in playing one myself, I don't have a bone in the fight either.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I don't think the "rate this feature" from 1 to 5 ever did a good job of getting feedback. I ended up having to type comments almost up to the limit about what I felt was right and wrong.

One of the big things I made a point of is that I wanted to see there being was levelled spells/powers tied to disciplines, as I made it a big point of preferring 3e's approach over 2e's.

 

[TwoSix]

Honestly, Dreamscarred Press did such a good job expanding on the 3.5 XPH for Pathfinder that I don't even feel the need for 5e to do psionics, as it will almost inevitably suffer in comparison.

 

[Vael]

Honestly, Dreamscarred Press did such a good job expanding on the 3.5 XPH for Pathfinder that I don't even feel the need for 5e to do psionics, as it will almost inevitably suffer in comparison.

Well, that only really helps if one plays Pathfinder, and I don't, so I'd still like a 5e system.

I'm curious, though. What about Dreamscarred's take on Psionics is so good? I thought it was a fairly straightforward port of 3.5 Psionics.