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.

 

[fuindordm]

This looks pretty good!

Minor comments:
* "Greater disciplines" should be called "sciences", and a hypothetical third category opening up at 11th level should be called "grand arts".
* Very nice use of psychic focus as a flexible tool available only to the class.
* What is so psychic about melding with your weapon? I never understood the appeal.
* Immortals get heavy armor? I guess this will prevent them getting confused with monks...
* Just for aesthetics, I'd prefer if body alteration powers like Adaptive Body only worked on self. I just don't see the mystic/psionic as a party buffer.

 

[CapnZapp]

Why does it get weaker as you get more powerful and as 5 points becomes a progressively smaller proportion of your total?

Because that's irrelevant?

5 points is a 3rd level spell slot. That's supposed to be exactly as useful at any level.

But wait - there's more: psionics don't get a 3rd level slot. They get more spell points, which they can use to fuel spells of any level.

Do consumptive power twice and you have yourself the equivalent of a 7th level spell, and not merely a pair of 3rd level spells! Add three of your own psi points, and you can cast "psionic wish" one extra time!

No wonder the cost must be scaled to your level...

It does mean each point of Con modifier equals one "free" use of Consumption, so there's that...

 

[phantomK9]

EDIT- iow, if you think to literary or movie examples, you can think of worlds that use psionics, or worlds with magic, but rarely worlds with both. It's just hard to use both systems effectively unless they are playing by the same set of rules.

Which is the number one reason why I've pretty much been always against using psionics is any of my D&D games.

That being said, however, I don't actually hate this version of the psionic rules. It is a marked improvement over their last attempt.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's just hard to use both systems effectively unless they are playing by the same set of rules.

I would say the issue is preventing the other guy from using his system effectively!

Not using both effectively at the same time...

Seriously though, it's a huge advantage for psionic users, since probably 99% will play in a campaign where the DM won't change the baseline: many magic users, few psionic users.

Having your stuff be invulnerable to manipulation was completely broken in previous editions, and while the "meta game" of spell duelling is less pronounced in 5th, it sure will be noticeable.

 

[CapnZapp]

Throwing in my two cents here.

This has been, IMHO, a continuing issue with psionics ever since the 1e PHB appendix.

If it's spells, but "from the MIND!" then why bother? But, on the other hand, if you create a whole psionics system, then you have created a second type of magic that doesn't play by the rules of the first type of magic that everyone else uses.

Which means, again IMHO, that psionics is hard to integrate fully into a D&D game with all the other spellcasters. Not impossible, but hard.

My opinion is that the draw of plsionics is a new kind of spellcaster that does not work like the others.

That you gain unique powers is not the most important point, and to be honest, why can't there be spells replicating psionic powers?

The main thing any psionic supplement must offer is mechanically different casters. Having psions use the same systems as wizards or clerics is a mistake. Just as it was a mistake to have fighters and spellcasters use the same framework in 4th edition.

Since no PHB spellcaster is using the DMG spell point system, I have to give this PDF a pass. But only just.

Ideally Psionics should use its own mechanism; balance be damned. A psion should just be as different to a wizard as a thief is to a druid, or a monk to a warlock. Otherwise, what's the point?

That's why I'm kind of drawn to the idea of using your whole score for stuff (like Intelligence 17 counting as seventeen), since that's completely unlike any PHB mechanism.

 

[bogmad]

I would say the issue is preventing the other guy from using his system effectively!

Not using both effectively at the same time...

Seriously though, it's a huge advantage for psionic users, since probably 99% will play in a campaign where the DM won't change the baseline: many magic users, few psionic users.

Having your stuff be invulnerable to manipulation was completely broken in previous editions, and while the "meta game" of spell duelling is less pronounced in 5th, it sure will be noticeable.

But what from this playtest is actually broke by not interacting with magic?
You can't break a psionic charm is about all I can see. Which I prefer and don't have a problem with.

You can't dispell the magic item bonus an immortal bestows? I'd maybe argue against the +3 bonus given that magic items aren't supposed to be built into the system. But if you limit it to the adept himself I think it can help counter the lower attack bonus you'll probably get from focusing on Intelligence over strength or Dex.

Personally, I'm pretty square in the camp of liking psionics as different than magic, but I'd agree you need to take care to not break things. I don't see that yet though.

 

[TwoSix]

Do consumptive power twice and you have yourself the equivalent of a 7th level spell, and not merely a pair of 3rd level spells! Add three of your own psi points, and you can cast "psionic wish" one extra time!

No wonder the cost must be scaled to your level...

It does mean each point of Con modifier equals one "free" use of Consumption, so there's that...

Nitpick: You can only use Consumptive Power once. (Can't be used again until a long rest.)

 

[Xeviat]

Is it too much to ask that the pyschic warrior subclass gets a second attack? Like maybe at level 6 with the war bard or level 5 through a discipline choice like the warlock?

Yes, but I suppose you could do that instead of giving them the "divine strike" extra dice. I like that they're different, more akin to Clerics than Paladins. It means we could have a fighter subclass "Psychic Warrior" for more of a warrior with a little psionic power, a "Soul Knife" on the Monk, and a "Lurk" on the Rogue.

I like the changes here. I'd love to playtest it, but I don't get to play often enough to do playtests.

 

[Kite474]

So for those who were big into PF do you think Wizards attempt is on the path to being as good as Dreamscarred Press's psionics?

 

[Dire Bare]

I'm still not a fan of the reflavoring of psionics to remove its pseudo-science theme.

Me neither, I would like WotC to hold on to the "classic" psionic style from earlier editions. However, if they don't, I'm sure we'll see a reflavor on DM's Guild!