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.

 

[procproc]

I like that they are giving them the extra d8s to damage instead of an extra attack. That keeps their at-will damage appropriate, and with their abilities that allow them crazy burst damage, I think two attacks might be unmanageable from a design standpoint.

Right, I think that plus Lethal Attack in its current form may be too much. Right now, though, there are NO primary melee combatants that don't get at least one extra attack. Paladins actually get the extra damage on each attack (Imp. Divine Smite) AND extra attacks; other classes that don't get extra attacks include the rogue and several cleric subdomains. In my experience, 5e rogues often get the extra attack anyway through off-hand weapons, and clerics (even more martially-inclined ones) are primary casters first, melee characters second.

If we were going to rank those classes on a spectrum of melee combatant effectiveness -- starting with fighter/barb/paladin, moving through bladelock and valor bard and rogue and cleric -- my conception of a psywar probably puts them between the fighter/barb tier and the bladelock/bard tier. Not getting access to an extra attack at lvl 5 just doesn't make much sense with that in mind.

I'd consider getting the extra attack to be a fundamental element of playing a warrior-type character, and if there's another mechanic being considered that makes it not work, then the other mechanic needs to be changed to accommodate the extra attack.

 

[Hussar]

Slaadi are aberrations that are explicitly not connected to originating from the Far Realms.

The existence of an exception does not disprove my point. But, you're right, I should be more exactingly pedantic and state that [/i]almost all[/i] aberrations are tied to the Far Realms and all psionic aberrations are tied to the Far Realms - Aboleth, Mind Flayer, that sort of thing.

They have failed to provide precedent of psionic creatures without a prior edition Far Realms connection, but other than this playtesting material we are offering our thoughts on, it has not been stated that psionics is all related to the Far Realms, and it has been contradicted that all aberrations are related to the Far Realms. The lack of current edition precedent of a psionic non-aberration, or a creature explicitly un-connected to the Far Realms having psionics doesn't preclude either of those being published in the future with absolutely no inconsistency in 5e publication.

Well, except for the fact that in the DMG, the Far Realms is described as the realm of alien mind magic. Granted, that's not specifically psionics, but, I'm thinking it's pretty close.

But, hey, I'm all for ignoring the books. That's fine by me. I honestly have no horse in this race and couldn't care less what the flavour says. I just find it endlessly amusing to watch as people scramble to justify rejecting 5e established flavour after having beaten all critics over the head previously with said flavour. The irony is far, far too delicious.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I got some responses from Mike Mearls on twitter about a few things regarding the Mystic. I am to new to post the links but here is the responses

Regarding Consumptive Power:
My Question: "is Consumptive Power truly meant to be so harsh? The higher level you are, it hurts more while the benefit never goes up"
His Response: "it's basically free power points - balance wise, assumed it was not used vs. other classes' abilities"
My Counter-Question: "ah, but am I reading right that if you used it at a lvl 20 mystic, you will reduce your HP total and max by 100 HP for 5 PP?"
His Response: "we'll do a pass to make sure stuff works past 10. The cost will need to be tweaked."

It doesnt even work at 10! You take 50 damage AND lower your HP by 50. With a 14 con, you have 23 HP left (assuming you're even conscious!), and basically grind the day to a halt assuming you survive the fight because you're an immense liability going forward. Its not FREE by any stretch, and is just terrible compared to arcane recovery, which is should be dramatically better than given its cost!

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Right, I think that plus Lethal Attack in its current form may be too much. Right now, though, there are NO primary melee combatants that don't get at least one extra attack. Paladins actually get the extra damage on each attack (Imp. Divine Smite) AND extra attacks; other classes that don't get extra attacks include the rogue and several cleric subdomains. In my experience, 5e rogues often get the extra attack anyway through off-hand weapons, and clerics (even more martially-inclined ones) are primary casters first, melee characters second.

If we were going to rank those classes on a spectrum of melee combatant effectiveness -- starting with fighter/barb/paladin, moving through bladelock and valor bard and rogue and cleric -- my conception of a psywar probably puts them between the fighter/barb tier and the bladelock/bard tier. Not getting access to an extra attack at lvl 5 just doesn't make much sense with that in mind.

I'd consider getting the extra attack to be a fundamental element of playing a warrior-type character, and if there's another mechanic being considered that makes it not work, then the other mechanic needs to be changed to accommodate the extra attack.

I still think that is viewing the immortal wrong. He's not a primary melee combatant, he's a full caster who will get access to the equivalent of 9th level powers, and gets the same amount of power points as the more "castery" psion. The hybrid psychic warrior half progression hasnt been made yet. The immortal is more like a war cleric, valor bard, or bladesinger. A martial oriented "caster".

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Thoughts on Celerity - the 5 point usage seems pretty mediocre, as it's clearly Haste's weaksauce cousin, using points equal to a third level spell for a single bonus action attack. That's more or less always inferior to just dumping those 5 points into lethal strike. And that is an issue with celerity being a poor return, not lethal strike being too good. Drop lethal strike to d4's and its still better than taking a bonus attack with celerity (barring GWM). Was this ability supposed to have a duration?

I also just noticed that the 5 point celerity includes two trap options, Dash and Disengage. You can have the benefits of BOTH of them for 2 PSP's, or spend 5 points to get one. The cost, IMO, should be adjusted down, or the benefits adjusted up.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The existence of an exception does not disprove my point. But, you're right, I should be more exactingly pedantic and state that almost all aberrations are tied to the Far Realms and all psionic aberrations are tied to the Far Realms - Aboleth, Mind Flayer, that sort of thing.



Well, except for the fact that in the DMG, the Far Realms is described as the realm of alien mind magic. Granted, that's not specifically psionics, but, I'm thinking it's pretty close.

But, hey, I'm all for ignoring the books. That's fine by me. I honestly have no horse in this race and couldn't care less what the flavour says. I just find it endlessly amusing to watch as people scramble to justify rejecting 5e established flavour after having beaten all critics over the head previously with said flavour. The irony is far, far too delicious.

Here's my basic point: right now we have indirect evidence that the Far Realm is connected to psionics. That's perfectly acceptable, and I don't think many people object to the idea that there is a lot of psionic stuff going on with regards to Far Realms entities.

What we don't have in this edition or prior ones (not sure on 4e) is any conclusive evidence that psionics are connected to the Far Realm.* If the fluff in this playtest document is allowed to stand, we would then have that--which many of us do not like one bit.

I'm actually not sure what you mean about the irony over MM flavor and such. I think there was a spectrum of ideas on the MM. For instance, I love that they put so much flavor in it, but I have strong objections to certain innovations that they added (the origin of the Yugoloths, for example). And because the flavor matters so much to me, I want them to get it right with regards to psionics--and that means not contradicting most of the psionics materials of prior editions to shoehorn it into a restrictive Far Realms origin. Now, if I didn't care about it, I would just do what others that don't care do, change it if I want it different. But I care about the continuity and setting identity of D&D.

*In fact, prior editions have plenty of evidence to the contrary and alternate sources for psionic stuff, as this thread has demonstrated.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I am beginning to feel that the problem with psionics fluff isn't with psionics at all - it's with arcane magic. Specifically, that there aren't more things that arcane magic doesn't do well. If psionics were capable of more effects that could only be achieved with psionics, it would have more of its own unique feel.

 

[Hussar]

Here's my basic point: right now we have indirect evidence that the Far Realm is connected to psionics. That's perfectly acceptable, and I don't think many people object to the idea that there is a lot of psionic stuff going on with regards to Far Realms entities.

What we don't have in this edition or prior ones (not sure on 4e) is any conclusive evidence that psionics are connected to the Far Realm.* If the fluff in this playtest document is allowed to stand, we would then have that--which many of us do not like one bit.

I'm actually not sure what you mean about the irony over MM flavor and such. I think there was a spectrum of ideas on the MM. For instance, I love that they put so much flavor in it, but I have strong objections to certain innovations that they added (the origin of the Yugoloths, for example). And because the flavor matters so much to me, I want them to get it right with regards to psionics--and that means not contradicting most of the psionics materials of prior editions to shoehorn it into a restrictive Far Realms origin. Now, if I didn't care about it, I would just do what others that don't care do, change it if I want it different. But I care about the continuity and setting identity of D&D.

*In fact, prior editions have plenty of evidence to the contrary and alternate sources for psionic stuff, as this thread has demonstrated.

Thing is 5e is chockablock with flavour elements that either directly contradict or at least never appeared in earlier editions. And this was perfectly okay. Adding in the Weave to all D&D worlds is considered perfectly fine, despite it being every bit as restrictive as tying Far Realms to psionics. Even in Dark Sun, we have The Weave, apparently. ALL magic in D&D, at least according to the books, comes from The Weave.

This flatly contradicts most settings and is a complete departure from earlier continuity. Yet, it passes without comment. So, "It must fit with prior continuity" is a ship that sailed a couple of years ago.

You don't get to pick and choose here. "Oh, it's okay to change that continuity because I don't care, but, don't change this continuity because it's important to me" is, to me, frankly hilarious. Pretty much par for the course, IMO, but, still something I find endlessly amusing.

Sorry, but, if you wanted continuity to be an issue in 5e, you should have been stepping up to the plate a couple of years ago. Now? Now, it's just self serving. So, why should i care? No one gave a toss two years ago when the 5e books rewrote virtually every aspect of continuity - monster flavour, class flavour (any alignment paladins that aren't tied to a specific deity or faith?), setting flavour. On and on. 5e changed continuity easily as much as 4e did but, they did it in such a way that instead of people recoiling, they fell over themselves to pat WotC on the back. Well, the bed's been made. Good luck on stuffing this particular genie back in the bottle.

 

[CapnZapp]

I really wish this thread could be split in one crunch thread and one fluff thread.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Thing is 5e is chockablock with flavour elements that either directly contradict or at least never appeared in earlier editions. And this was perfectly okay. Adding in the Weave to all D&D worlds is considered perfectly fine, despite it being every bit as restrictive as tying Far Realms to psionics. Even in Dark Sun, we have The Weave, apparently. ALL magic in D&D, at least according to the books, comes from The Weave.

This flatly contradicts most settings and is a complete departure from earlier continuity. Yet, it passes without comment. So, "It must fit with prior continuity" is a ship that sailed a couple of years ago.

You don't get to pick and choose here. "Oh, it's okay to change that continuity because I don't care, but, don't change this continuity because it's important to me" is, to me, frankly hilarious. Pretty much par for the course, IMO, but, still something I find endlessly amusing.

Sorry, but, if you wanted continuity to be an issue in 5e, you should have been stepping up to the plate a couple of years ago. Now? Now, it's just self serving. So, why should i care? No one gave a toss two years ago when the 5e books rewrote virtually every aspect of continuity - monster flavour, class flavour (any alignment paladins that aren't tied to a specific deity or faith?), setting flavour. On and on. 5e changed continuity easily as much as 4e did but, they did it in such a way that instead of people recoiling, they fell over themselves to pat WotC on the back. Well, the bed's been made. Good luck on stuffing this particular genie back in the bottle.

I actually have been vocal about the parts of continuity that I didn't want them to change, especially before it had gone to print, when there was a chance to do something about it.

But you're right, some of us who weren't phased by some of the other continuity adjustments don't like this one.

I think that in and of itself should say something about this particular proposed change.