Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Psionics and Mystics Take Two

February's Unearthed Arcana article from WotC's Mike Mearls has been posted. This time around, the topic is psionics again "This month, Unearthed Arcana returns to the mystic character class and the rules for psionics. Based on the playtest feedback you sent us, there are a number of changes you can expect." The article expands the Mystic class to 10th level, and adds a variety of new options.

Find the article right here.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

You can only consumption for a maximum of 5 pp, once per long rest, at any level. There is no loop to be started.

It should simply cost HD.

The only problem with it costing Hit Dice is that just leads to even more nova possibilities on a one fight (or one meaningful fight) day*, something that Power/Spell Point classes already excel at given their ability to convert low level resources into high level ones. Only way that could work IMO, is to move it to a short rest, similar to arcane recovery.

That said, I do think consumption is pretty terrible as written. Assuming a 14 con, at 10th level a psion will be sporting 73 HP (or whatever they roll). Taking 50HP of damage AND lowering their HP max by 50 to drop roughly the equivalent of a couple 1st level spells is abysmal.

*Yeah, yeah, I know 5E is supposedly balanced on 6-8 trash fights a day... I haven't seen that actually be the norm in an adventure or an organic campaign lol.

 

[Blue]

I'm sorry, but frankly, GOOD. If its just a wizard with a crystal and a dreamcatcher, then they shouldn't even bother doing it. Too many classes use the spell mechanic as is.

Okay, you're glad it doesn't work with the casting multiclass concept. Can you please provide me with an alternative that we don't fall back into the 3.x issue where two caster-type classes don't work well together because they mechanics don't add together? You may or may not have had experience with that, but it was a real problem. 5e has a mechanism with the unified caster chart that doesn't deal with it perfectly, but does deal with it a lot better than we had back then. So are you throwing out the baby with the bathwater with your comments, or do you actually have a way to make this work correctly?

 

[procproc]

Well, even without spell slot overlap, the fact that cantrips (1) exist and (2) scale based on character level rather than class level does a LOT to fix the problem.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Well, it is fairly easy to add such a skill to your campaign without having official ruling. But as they stated psionics <> magic, they could have added it themselves. Might just be not that interesting for draft rules.

I'd prefer they don't add any more skills to the game. That's exactly the kind of bloat I dislike.

It's worth pointing out that Arcana isn't just about magic. It is about all sorts of supernatural things, of which psionics should definitely qualify.

Psionic Talents
Yeah Cantrips! Finally auto-scaling damage options and minor effects on tap. They tend to have wonky action rules though. They also need at least three more; Pyrokinesis attack (fire damage) "throw a crystal at it" attack (Bludgeoning/slashing/piercing damage), and Cutting Resonance needs to be reworked into one of these as well, for the weapon users. Then give each order their preferred attack talent for free, cause you know there are going to be shapers and fireminds eventually.

I'm assuming we'll get pyrokinesis and telekinesis with the kineticist style subclass that was referenced in the first draft. Hopefully we'll see that subclass on the next draft, as I expect there will be about 2 more subclasses, and only one one additional draft in which to see them before rules finalization.

If there was a tentacled-horror-and-madness subclass of a psionic class with a much broader narrative, I don't think I'd be objecting as much. But the fact that my Dark Sun psychic gladiator has to be linked to eldritch creatures from beyond the stars instead of just being born with a talent in the Way (or whatever) is kind of cramming a revisionist story where the existing story is plenty good enough.

Yep.

It'd be interesting to see who actively LIKES the narrative and who just doesn't care / would change the narrative. I'm hearing a lot of the second group, not much of the first, which might just be a function of the folks I'm talking to, or it might point to a missed opportunity with defaulting to the Far Realm description. But I'm sure WotC has better data on that than I could gather.

At this point, I don't think they have much data since they haven't asked about the fluff at all. The only feedback they have on it whatsoever (unless they are reading these forums) is write-in answers on the survey and/or tweeting/contacting the designers.

One observation about the Far Realm stuff-- I think it's important that the text doesn't say that psionics are powered by the Far Realm. It only says that interaction with the Far Realm has a tendency to awaken minds to the "cosmic underpinnings that dictate the form and nature of reality."

Psionics doesn't have anything to do with the Far Realm specifically. It's just that the bizarreness of it opens more minds to psionics. In other words, this flavor allows there to be any number of circumstances that 'awaken' minds. Even training.

So there isn't really any re-fluffing necessary even with the existing text. 'In my campaigns, people are awakened either through intense training or the sight of crazy vampire koalas'.

Clearly, the Far Realm connection lets them set up a story where people with weird powers start appearing as a symptom of a Far Realm threat. Could be quite cool if done properly. But by making the connection incidental, it doesn't restrict any of the flavor in the class mechanics itself. Seems like a reasonable compromise.

Unfortunately that isn't quite correct. It does specifically say that psionics comes from the Far Realms (indirectly), no "may", no "might", no "one possible origin."

As written, all psionics relies on the Far Realms making incursions into the world--even though there is absolutely no reason for it to be so, and the very examples given in the text work just as well without the Far Realms even existing, much less influencing a particular world.

It would be quite simple for them to rework the text slightly to say something like "Psionics are possible for creatures whose minds have been awakened to the cosmic underpinnings that dictate the form and nature of reality. One manner in which that can happen is through interaction with the Far Realms . . ."

Just a thought.

AD

Completely agree. It would be effortless. We should all let them know that we'd like them to make that effortless change.

Of the people who actually care what the fluff says, a good number of us appear to dislike the Far Realms as the only explanation for psionics existing in a world. There are also lot of people don't care one bit what the official fluff says. So if you are writing fluff, should you write it for the people who don't care what you are writing, or for the people who do?

I mean, if even 10% of people are dissatisfied with something in survey results, we've been told before that they tend to give serious consideration to changing it. I would say that of the people who actually care about the fluff quite a bit higher than 10% of us dislike the Far Realms connection.

They need to ask the question on the survey so we have the chance to make ourselves heard.

 

[Morlock]

Is it me, or does Mend Wounds suck? Heal 21 hp for the equivalent of a 5th level spell.

Averages, no ability bonus:

Cure Wounds @5th: 31

Mass Cure Wounds @5th: 13 * 6 = 78

Prayer of Healing @5th: 31 * 6 = 186

 

[Hussar]

I'm not sure I agree with those who say that it's "not something to be concerned about at this point." WotC is soliciting feedback on the class, and that's part of the feedback - the class's default narrative is seriously souring me on it. For me, this is MUCH more vital than psionic cantrip mechanics.




I think that might be tied to the weakness for me. Like, I've got no problems with a Great Old One Warlock - it's madness and tentacles and all-knowing eldritch beings and secret cabals all the way down. Its mechanics support that Far Realms narrative.

This is like they designed the class, and then figured Far Realms Were Hip With Kids These Days, and so grafted the narrative onto it.

So you've got a class that doesn't NEED to be about the creatures beyond the stars, mechanically, but that IS about them, narratively.

If there was a tentacled-horror-and-madness subclass of a psionic class with a much broader narrative, I don't think I'd be objecting as much. But the fact that my Dark Sun psychic gladiator has to be linked to eldritch creatures from beyond the stars instead of just being born with a talent in the Way (or whatever) is kind of cramming a revisionist story where the existing story is plenty good enough.

Heck, these subclasses even seem to exhibit the "Fighter Problem" of being more about mechanics than about the place in the world of these characters. "I want to perfect the body/mind" isn't the meatiest of story material.

It'd be interesting to see who actively LIKES the narrative and who just doesn't care / would change the narrative. I'm hearing a lot of the second group, not much of the first, which might just be a function of the folks I'm talking to, or it might point to a missed opportunity with defaulting to the Far Realm description. But I'm sure WotC has better data on that than I could gather.

I'd point out though, that it is consistent with 5e fluff to keep psionics tied to the Far Realms. So far, the only "psionic" material we have is the Monster Manual and all the psionic creatures are aberrations. Aboleth, Mind Flayers, etc. In earlier editions, more creatures had ties to psionics - pretty much anything outer planar, other than elementals, had psionics - Demons, devils, angels, etc. But, 5e has stripped all that away. Demons and angels have zero ties to psionics. And, this is largely just continuing the trend that was started in 3e. There's a reason that the Dal Quor is tied to psionics. Sure, it's the "Realm of Dreams" but, look at the art and the monsters - it's the Far Realms by any other name. Strange tentacled beasties get psionics.

So, it does make a fair bit of sense to continue with that already established fact. Psionics=tentacled horrors that want to eat your brains. Anyone who wants to use psionics gets lumped into that pile as well.

The time to complain about this was when the Monster Manual was released. That's when WotC established this tie. Aberrations=Far Realms and Aberrations=Psionics. So, any psionic character, in keeping with the earlier flavour of the MM, pretty much has to be tied to the Far Realms.

On a side note, I have to LOVE the irony here. I complained, pretty bitterly, about the flavour changes in the Monster Manual and got told to sit down and shut up - they weren't changing anything, they were just making interesting lore. Well, you folks that adored the Monster Manual now get to deal with that. I'll be over hear smiling smugly.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Okay, you're glad it doesn't work with the casting multiclass concept. Can you please provide me with an alternative that we don't fall back into the 3.x issue where two caster-type classes don't work well together because they mechanics don't add together? You may or may not have had experience with that, but it was a real problem. 5e has a mechanism with the unified caster chart that doesn't deal with it perfectly, but does deal with it a lot better than we had back then. So are you throwing out the baby with the bathwater with your comments, or do you actually have a way to make this work correctly?

No, I'm glad they are exploring design mechanics other than spells, as nearly every single class uses spells inherently, or has a subclass that does. For all the guff 4E got on it's classes being homogenized, 5E at times feels the same way with nearly everything being some kind of caster. The decision to silo psionics off means there's less worry about unforseen combos with things like Magic Initiate, Bards, etc. They can just focus on making them their own thing, rather than yet one more splat for someone to pore over while making a "build" for his caster. Its a sign they are willing to try new mechanics, rather than regurgitating the same class with a different spell list. Maybe we can get a non-caster shapeshifter class, an incarnate, or something else that breaks the mold. Their artificer attempt was exciting as tepid tap water and received accordingly, maybe they'll go back to the drawing board and make a unique class.

Why should they worry about multiclassing, an optional rule as is. It's also not a caster, in that the powers dont have levels (hooray!). It's not like a monk gets to progress their Ki when they multiclass into rogue. Not every class needs a perfect multiclass combo. The solution to the psion/wizard multiclass problem is... to not take it if you want more spells. It's not like multiclassing into barbarian gives that wizard any more spells either. Outside of Darksun's sorcerer kings (who I guess would now be wizard kings), its not like the wizard/psion multiclass is terribly iconic or has some vast legacy to preserve.

And again, if they make psionic powers spells, they shouldnt even bother with the class. The 3rd edition psion was a complete waste of time and print because all it was just a spell points sorcerer with a crystal pet. I can refluff that myself in under 30 seconds. If that's all you want in 5E, just play an enchanter or something and reflavor your spells. Mage armor becomes kinetic dampener, fireball becomes pyrokinetic burst, what have you. The wizard class already has basically "all magical spell effects other than healing" locked up as their schtick... what design space is there for a 9 spell level based psion to really occupy?

 

[lkj]

Unfortunately that isn't quite correct. It does specifically say that psionics comes from the Far Realms (indirectly), no "may", no "might", no "one possible origin."

As written, all psionics relies on the Far Realms making incursions into the world--even though there is absolutely no reason for it to be so, and the very examples given in the text work just as well without the Far Realms even existing, much less influencing a particular world.



Completely agree. It would be effortless. We should all let them know that we'd like them to make that effortless change.

Of the people who actually care what the fluff says, a good number of us appear to dislike the Far Realms as the only explanation for psionics existing in a world. There are also lot of people don't care one bit what the official fluff says. So if you are writing fluff, should you write it for the people who don't care what you are writing, or for the people who do?

I mean, if even 10% of people are dissatisfied with something in survey results, we've been told before that they tend to give serious consideration to changing it. I would say that of the people who actually care about the fluff quite a bit higher than 10% of us dislike the Far Realms connection.

They need to ask the question on the survey so we have the chance to make ourselves heard.

I think we basically agree. And I see why you say it ties it only to the Far Realms. But when I read that text I definitely see wiggle room. The key is that what the Far Realms does is 'awaken' people. There's really nothing in that text that says people can ONLY be awakened by the Far Realms, and there's nothing in the mechanics that ties it to the Far Realms.

Yes, it does say that "psionics indirectly originates from the Far Realm."

But it does not say it ONLY originates from the Far Realm. And since the rest of the fluff is compatible with many origins, it's easy for me to assign the Far Realm as just one case.

That said, since it only gives the Far Realms as an example-- and since the above sentence could imply that it's the only source as you say -- I can see why people are interpreting it that way. And, ultimately, the fix is some adjustment to the text. I just suspect the 'indirectly' was an intentional space left to allow other origins.

At any rate, not really worth arguing about such subtleties in language. We agree that they could easily make more people happy with small changes.

AD

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'd point out though, that it is consistent with 5e fluff to keep psionics tied to the Far Realms. So far, the only "psionic" material we have is the Monster Manual and all the psionic creatures are aberrations. Aboleth, Mind Flayers, etc. In earlier editions, more creatures had ties to psionics - pretty much anything outer planar, other than elementals, had psionics - Demons, devils, angels, etc. But, 5e has stripped all that away. Demons and angels have zero ties to psionics. And, this is largely just continuing the trend that was started in 3e. There's a reason that the Dal Quor is tied to psionics. Sure, it's the "Realm of Dreams" but, look at the art and the monsters - it's the Far Realms by any other name. Strange tentacled beasties get psionics.

There are a lot of psionic aberrations, but in D&D as a whole, aberration-style psionics is only one subset of psionics.

• Dark Sun has psionic beasts and plants and humanoids aplenty, born out of evolution and life-warping magic, not tentacled horrors. A psion on Athas is more like a mutant in a world where mutants are common, a creature more evolved than its kin.
• Eberron's psionics is linked to the Dream World and the dark subconscious. A psion in the Five Nations is most famously fused with the soul of a dream-creature, but any creature of impulse and imagination might fit the theme very well.
• Gem dragons are associated with psionics. A psion following in their tradition might seek balance and isolation, using crystals to attune their minds.
• Celestials like hollyphants, shedu, coatl, ki-rin, baku, opicinus, titans/empyreans, agathion, planetars, solars, and various demons and devils and slaadi and daemons in Old-School D&D can point to a planar narrative, where the origins of psionic power are astral or philosophical in nature, rather than something fundamentally alien.
• Yuan-ti are psionics, linked narratively to their great intellect and genre-wise to their "pulpy" vibe. They'd fit in nice among the mutants of Dark Sun (body alteration is a thing with them already) - a psion in this tradition might arise from having their mind enhanced with toxins and venoms, not tentacled things from beyond.
• Exotics like ustilagors, quaggoths and su-monsters and brain moles and gray oozes and thought eaters and cerebral parasites and yellow molds and crysmals and old-school duergar are just a little WTF. Some could be lumped into "psionic nature," others into the aberration camp, and others into other camps.

...all of which just means that "psionics are from the Astral Plane" or "Psionics is from evolution" is about as valid a narrative in D&D historically as "psionics is from the Far Realm." I wouldn't expect to have to stick tentacles into Athas or to conflate Xoriat with Dal Quor in order to explain psionics in Dark Sun or Eberron.

The time to complain about this was when the Monster Manual was released. That's when WotC established this tie. Aberrations=Far Realms and Aberrations=Psionics. So, any psionic character, in keeping with the earlier flavour of the MM, pretty much has to be tied to the Far Realms.

The time to complain about it is when they're collecting feedback, which, LO, they are doing. No one needs to run their complaints by you first to make sure it's okay.

 

[lvl20dm]

I think an adventure along the lines of the Gates of Firestorm Peak would be a good tie-in with Psionics. That we are seeing a second round on the Mystic makes me hopeful that we'll see the finished product this year.