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.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I suspect we'll see a Wild Talent feat that grants you a psionic talent. Seems straightforward.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

So, the Mystic.

I still hate the name.

But, as I said earlier, I find the class intriguing and based upon this thread I think I'm not the only one.

Seems like sort of a swiss army knife. Can fill just about any role, but not quite as effectively as other classes. Flexibility vs power. I can get behind that.

 

[Yaarel]

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

Exactly, D&D includes different kinds of traditions involving Psionics. The founding tradition, and the main one, is: Psionics is part of the untapped potential of the Human brain. Done.

Regarding an other narrative for Psionics, if one is even necessary, six magic words solves most difficulties:

"
In the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, ...

"


Maybe in the Forgotten Realms, psionics results from Far Realm dissonance.

But the core rules can remember that most DMs dont use Forgotten Realms, and the majority are likely to homebrew. Also, traditional players dont associate Psionics with Far Realms. Rules that are more focused on the brain, and less focused on a specific cosmology, make it easy for the DMs to characterize Psionics according to their own homebrew settings, in whatever way makes sense to them.

 

[MoonSong]

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

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.

I think they haven't even noticed something could be wrong with the far realms connection. I have the theory that the designers just enjoy playing wizards so much that they just assume everybody wanting to play something else is looking to play a monster, a freak, or a rough gritty character.

 

[Devilbass]

Well, if they don't have a question regarding the far-realms fluff, you'll be able to comment on it anyway; there is always a comments section in the survey for you to put your thoughts down.

 

[Dire Bare]

Whereas the "pseudo-science" is a large part of what turned me off of prior iterations of psionics, so I'm glad to see it gone. (Though I haven't had a chance to read through the PDF yet.)

Different strokes, etc.

Not only do I love that "classic" weird pseudo-sci feel of 1st thru 4th edition psionics, but in the interest of keeping D&D true to its roots, I would prefer WotC retain that feel. As I feel they've done a good job so far with the 3 core books.

However, I understand that psionics has always been a contentious add-on to the main rules for fans, with a love-or-hate it issue from pretty much the beginning. Each new version of psionics retained that pseudo-sci feel (for me, at least), but varied quite a bit on how it was delivered and always had just as many detractors as supporters (or at least, seemingly to me). And, alas, the pendulum seems to be swinging away from pseudo-sci, both by the designers and the fans overall. I'm not super familiar with Pathfinder psionics covered in their "Occult" series of products, but it looks to be as much of a departure as the Unearthed Arcana playtests we're discussing.

So, yeah, different strokes.

Dreamscarred Press!!! Let's get cracking on 5th Edition Psionics with that pseudo-science feel for the DM's Guild!!! I'll buy it!

 

[Hussar]

Exactly, D&D includes different kinds of traditions involving Psionics. The founding tradition, and the main one, is: Psionics is part of the untapped potential of the Human brain. Done.

Regarding an other narrative for Psionics, if one is even necessary, six magic words solves most difficulties:

"
In the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, ...

"


Maybe in the Forgotten Realms, psionics results from Far Realm dissonance.

But the core rules can remember that most DMs dont use Forgotten Realms, and the majority are likely to homebrew. Also, traditional players dont associate Psionics with Far Realms. Rules that are more focused on the brain, and less focused on a specific cosmology, make it easy for the DMs to characterize Psionics according to their own homebrew settings, in whatever way makes sense to them.

But, 5e has continuously ignored that option. I mean, all magic in 5e is tied to "The Weave" which only appears in Forgotten Realms. Since when was magic ever tied to The Weave outside of that setting? Considering that The Weave isn't really even defined (is it a physical thing? Can I see it somehow? Go to where it is? What exactly is it?), all we're left with is Forgotten Realms material to explain The Weave.

Why shouldn't Psionics be treated exactly the same? 5e has already established that psionic creatures are all Far Realms and nothing that isn't from the Far Realms has any access to psionics. The whole "power of the mind" explanation doesn't work when all these super intelligent magical beings like angels and devils and whatnot, don't have a single psionic link to their name. Like it or not, the Far Realms is part of Core 5e. It's talked about in both the DMG and the Monster Manual.

Sure, you can ignore it in your home brew campaign. No worries. You can do that with anything. But, ignoring the Far Realms in published material is a lot trickier when it's just as much of the rules as the Abyss or anything else. Like it or hate it, it IS part of the system and it would be difficult to ignore at this point since now you're rewriting established material.

And, for that matter, it does make a lot of sense to tie psionic power to the Far Realms. Far Realmsy stuff is all about mental power and the ability to shape reality with thought. Very Lovecraftian. Which does dovetail very nicely with psionics. Psionics taps into the Far Realms, sort of like stepping outside the Matrix and into the "source code" of the universe to allow the mind to expand to the point where you can reshape reality with thought. It is a fairly compelling narrative.

 

[Hussar]

Not only do I love that "classic" weird pseudo-sci feel of 1st thru 4th edition psionics, but in the interest of keeping D&D true to its roots, I would prefer WotC retain that feel. As I feel they've done a good job so far with the 3 core books.

However, I understand that psionics has always been a contentious add-on to the main rules for fans, with a love-or-hate it issue from pretty much the beginning. Each new version of psionics retained that pseudo-sci feel (for me, at least), but varied quite a bit on how it was delivered and always had just as many detractors as supporters (or at least, seemingly to me). And, alas, the pendulum seems to be swinging away from pseudo-sci, both by the designers and the fans overall. I'm not super familiar with Pathfinder psionics covered in their "Occult" series of products, but it looks to be as much of a departure as the Unearthed Arcana playtests we're discussing.

So, yeah, different strokes.

Dreamscarred Press!!! Let's get cracking on 5th Edition Psionics with that pseudo-science feel for the DM's Guild!!! I'll buy it!

To be fair though, Lovecraftian inspiration IS pretty pseudo-science. You don't necessarily have to dig deep into the horror aspect of it, but, the whole idea of tapping into this "outside the bubble of reality" with your mind in order to reshape reality dovetails rather well.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

The general description of the class should just be "using the powers of the mind" and then they should throw in a sidebar with a few options.

Origins of Psionics:

Psionics - Pseudoscience notions... an ability that everyone has latent, but some develop through rigorous mental discipline.

Psychic - Paragraph about a special gift that only few possess, add some Victoriana and how to use it in those kind of campaigns

The Far Realms - Weird tentacled beasties and eldritch horrors. OH THE MADNESS!

Asian Campaign flavored - Without going full throttle for anything that might evoke cultural appropriation, present the Mystic as a companion class to the monk, mention monasteries, wandering ascetics and the place that these people have in that society in those kind of campaigns.

I notice that it is long term psionic fans that have the biggest issues with the Far Realms flavor. Since these are the people you are probably needing to please the most, especially with integration into Dark Sun and since it is just pretty much flavor text, you might as well please them as well as give alternatives that open people up to other power sources and campaign styles.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

While I agree with most everything you say, sometimes I feel like I was the only person who liked the initial draft of artificer :/

I actually liked the UA Artificer as a Wizard with a splash of Artificer like the Eldritch Knight is a Fighter with a bit of Wizard mix. It was good for what it was, but I would like to see it as its own thing or as part of an Artificer/Alchemist/Rune Scribe creator class. It is enough of its own niche that it probably can support its own class and set of subclasses. It is probably even more distinct than a Sorcerer is from a Wizard, but it is also nice to have a Wizard subclass who is also into the crafting aspects as well as having a guy who does that full time. (Although a feat conferring a few of those abilities might be nice too to make a Gnomish Bard or some other appropriate crafty magical type who wants a splash of that flavor as well.)