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.

 

[hbarsquared]

The Psion (not Mystic, ugh...) to me means:

The Power of the Mind. Imagination, Creativity, Flexibility. Not memorized formulas, not intrinsic powers. No components. If you have the fortitude/willpower to call it into being, it is done.

So, I don't mind Far Realm as an optional flavor, but it is not the root of psionics, any moreso than infernal is for a warlock.

I like the idea of psionics being mechanically complex, for the player. Let there be even more math and resource management involved! Divorcing from spellcasting should be absolute.

With that said, I like this second iteration. Fluff is very annoying and badwrongfun.

 

[Tectuktitlay]

You should have played original Everquest...Erudite was a race!

I did play the original EQ, I remember. I also remember my drunk bard running at full speed with the song of speed (whose name escapes me, percussion-based song) whipping back and forth at insane speeds (because being drunk meant your character actually physically staggered left and right continuously, in addition to your vision being blurry), occasionally dying from flying off a hill too far. XD

 

[Steve Gorak]

Hi y'all!

One question, and apologies if it's already been discussed, I only read the last few pages of this thread: isn't is strange that there are no "telekinesis" powers in the V2?
To me, it's one of the core psionic archetypes...
Thoughts/comments?

Cheers,

SG

 

[Tectuktitlay]

Hi y'all!

One question, and apologies if it's already been discussed, I only read the last few pages of this thread: isn't is strange that there are no "telekinesis" powers in the V2?
To me, it's one of the core psionic archetypes...
Thoughts/comments?

Cheers,

SG

My guess? That TK will be the third Order, the one not yet being playtested. Focusing on moving opponents around with pushes and pulls, with a lot of force damage, and so on. Since they seem to have in part folded clairsentience in with telepathy in the Order of the Awakened. The remainder of talents and disciplines we see are likely to correspond to the entire telekinesis sphere of influence. This might also mean pyro, cryo, and electrokinesis getting a discipline or two, and a talent, apiece.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I think the issue with TK is that they are trying to figure a novel way to do it. Spamming the Telekinesis spell and a suggestion that you dip into arcane spell thief so you can do "subtle TK" seems a little too wizard for the mystic, so I suspect they are trying to create something similar to the awakened mind where it is broken into a couple of subclass features and disciplines.

 

[Tectuktitlay]

I think TK would have spammable ability to maneuver enemies around the battlefield, and possibly to grapple them at range (breaking that grapple contested with your Psionic Discipline attack roll, instead of your Strength (Athletics) check), making them rather unique in their abilities. We haven't really seen any class or subclass that specializes in moving the enemy around and keeping them in place from a distance. I agree with the idea that they could be an Unarmored Defense subclass. They'd kinda be close to Jedi, in a lot of ways, which I am very ok with as a core concept. Really, the entire class could be pushed in that direction, making them appealing to modern and scifi modified campaigns (which they're obviously open to, with the city-based subclass and spell options presented in Unearthed Arcana).

 

[Vael]

Hi y'all!

One question, and apologies if it's already been discussed, I only read the last few pages of this thread: isn't is strange that there are no "telekinesis" powers in the V2?
To me, it's one of the core psionic archetypes...
Thoughts/comments?

Cheers,

SG

Considering this is still a playtest, it's to be expected. The first iteration of the Psionic rules mentioned two other Psionic Orders: The Order of the Knife and the Order of the Invisible Hand, most likely Soulknife and Telekinetic options for the Mystic.

Subclass design for the Mystic is tricky. The first iteration was too segmented, Awakened Mind Mystics couldn't even access Immortal Disciplines, and vice versa. The new model is ... okay, but just a little healing for using disciplines from your specialization doesn't seem that distinctive. I like the Talents, opening up for telepathic abilities for all Mystics.

And I'm loving the idea of playing a Sharn-based Mystic Inquisitive.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

A 5th level Ranger spell isn't more or less powerful than a 5th level druid spell, by and large. They still use the same base damage calculations and so on. The difference is, paladins and rangers don't get 6th+ level spells, but, instead get other class effects instead.

The "Nth-level" label is meaningless. It's just a label*. The system effectively does vary spell level by class -- it just disguises the fact by saying that druid get "5th-level" spells at 9th level but rangers get "5th-level" spells at 17th level. They could have said instead that all classes get "5th-level" spells at 9th level and "9th-level" spells at 17th level, but the ranger's "5th-level" spells are "3rd-level" spells for the druid and its "9th-level" spells are "5th-level" spells for the druid. It would have been more confusing for other purposes, but it would be more accurate for the purpose we're discussing here, of class balance. The spells that a ranger gets at 9th level are less powerful than the spells a druid gets at 9th level, and the spells that a ranger gets at 17th level are less powerful than the spells a druid gets at 17th level. Comparing a druid's 9th-level spells to a ranger's 17th-level spells is comparing apples and oranges, even though they both happen to have the label of "5th-level" spells.

So much for half-casters versus full casters. Now, even between two different full casters, there are power differences. You say that spells of equivalent level do equivalent damage, but that's simply not true. Clerics get flame strike at "5th level" (9th real level). Wizards get fireball at "3rd level" (5th real level). Fireball does the same damage as flame strike, in a wider area, at a lower level. This is because wizards are generally accepted as being better blasters than clerics; more of the power budget in their spell list is assigned to good blasting spells. Clerics, on the other hand, get very good healing, which wizards can do poorly at best.

So if a psionic class got a "3rd-level" (5th real level) power that was equivalent to or better than the wizard "5th-level" (9th real level) spell telekinesis, this would not necessarily be a balance problem any more than fireball vs. flame strike is a balance problem. It could still be a balance problem, of course, but it would need to be evaluated as such holistically, taking into account the class' power budget as a whole, not picking out single abilities in isolation. To take the hyperbolic example, if that were literally all the psionic class could do, then it would clearly be weaker than the wizard, notwithstanding that the wizard can't do that specific thing until a higher level.

*Except for bards' Magical Secrets.

 

[CapnZapp]

You are cherry-picking certain aspects and ignoring others to make a point that simply isn't so clear cut. (Just to point a finger at a single data point: Fireball is a known outlier and is a poor basis of comparison)

It's much simpler to say that all 5th level spells are equal but some of them are more equal than others.

Nothing suggests half caster spells are exempt from the general guidelines on power per spell level. The power of the spells a ranger get at level 17 has more in common with the power of full spellcasters at level 9 than at 17, that's for certain.

And to simplify this comparison, we say that "both spells are level five".

That doesn't mean the level 17 Ranger can't get a spell that's considered to be especially powerful for a level 5 spell, just like the level 5 Wizard gets a spell that is exceptionally powerful for a level 3 spell.

That Fireball is a poor example of a 3rd level spell doesn't invalidate the concept for all spells.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

You are cherry-picking certain aspects and ignoring others to make a point that simply isn't so clear cut. (Just to point a finger at a single data point: Fireball is a known outlier and is a poor basis of comparison)

You can't simply dismiss data points by calling them "outliers". Especially not when I could just as easily point to lightning bolt as fireball. If all the primary wizard blasting spells are "outliers"... well, that's kind of my point: wizard blasting is ahead of the rest.

The power of the spells a ranger get at level 17 has more in common with the power of full spellcasters at level 9 than at 17, that's for certain.

Again, that's kind of my point.