log in or register to remove this ad

 

UA Unearthed Arcana Revisits Psionics

The latest Unearthed Arcana from WotC revisits some psionic rules! “Shine with the power of the mind in this installment of Unearthed Arcana! Today we revisit several psi-themed options that we released in the past few months. Studying your feedback on those options, we’ve crafted this new collection of subclasses, spells, and feats, found in the PDF below.“

F07971E8-C0BB-4025-A151-D48852409FCA.jpeg


 
Last edited:
Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey


log in or register to remove this ad



the Jester

Legend
...the lengths to which some people go to cover for WotC... :rolleyes:

If by 'covering for WotC' you mean calling a falsehood a falsehood, then okay.

Or perhaps you can point out how my assertion that psionics are actually in 5e, despite your repeated claim that they aren't, doesn't hold up? My Monster Manual certainly contains the word 'psionics' in several entries; are you suggesting that it's a fluke or misprint?
 

If by 'covering for WotC' you mean calling a falsehood a falsehood, then okay.

Or perhaps you can point out how my assertion that psionics are actually in 5e, despite your repeated claim that they aren't, doesn't hold up? My Monster Manual certainly contains the word 'psionics' in several entries; are you suggesting that it's a fluke or misprint?
Don't you know? If someone defends something, they're either a fanboy or being paid to do so.
 

Aldarc

Legend
Really? What I love about the subclass approach (and even more so the Feat approach) is that it reflects the 1e concept that psionics is something in addition to your class, not instead of it.
I prefer the instead of approach of 3E. Class-based fantasy is a bit easier to grapple with than something that's also tacked on to the existing class fantasy.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Really? What I love about the subclass approach (and even more so the Feat approach) is that it reflects the 1e concept that psionics is something in addition to your class, not instead of it.
This is very different than 1e. Psionics in 1e was the same when tacked on to every class out there. This doesn't tack on psionics, so much as completely alter the class in a psionic way, merging the two rather than tacking on. I like it, but it's not what 1e did.
 

This is very different than 1e. Psionics in 1e was the same when tacked on to every class out there. This doesn't tack on psionics, so much as completely alter the class in a psionic way, merging the two rather than tacking on. I like it, but it's not what 1e did.

"reflect a concept" does not mean "the same as"

Just sayin'.
 




Best case scenario would be to have something like a refined version of this presentation (though I'm not a fan of the psi dice), and an Intelligence-based, full caster, 3.5e mechanically inspired Psion class. It isn't rocket science here. That would be good enough for most people and fill that giant gaping hole in the rules. (And I'll point out that Psion(icist) has been a class in 2e, 3.xe, and 4e--so the vast majority of the game's history). It doesn't need any systems that are more divergent from standard 5e rules than the Artificer does, and they made the artificer.
 

Sure. You see independence being reflected by dependence. That's not what my eye beholds.

I tried to say, "You be you and I'll be me." But, no, you had to start slinging aspersions, huh?

If you can't see why subclasses and feats, which let you start with a standard class and then add some nifty psionics features, are conceptually more akin to 1e psionics than a separate Psion class is, then there's not much I can do to help you.
 

gyor

Legend
I know this is an aside, but the Phoenix Sorcerer was one of my favorite UA's ever. I remain hopeful that the various elemental sorcs that we've seen show up in a book (probably Planescapey)


I actually thought that they felt very Therosy, Phoenix' are tied to Purphoros in Theros, the Sea is Thassa' domain, and change Stone Sorcerer to Medusa Sorcerer because Medusa's turn enemies to stone and have combat skills, with Medusa' being Pharika's creatures.

PS I accidently qouted you twice, but didn't remove the second one properly so it looked like my comment was a qoute from you. Oops, I editted now.
 
Last edited:

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
If you can't see why subclasses and feats, which let you start with a standard class and then add some nifty psionics features, are conceptually more akin to 1e psionics than a separate Psion class is, then there's not much I can do to help you.
This is a Strawman. I never said it was more or less like 1e psionics than a separate Psion class. I said it was nothing like 1e and it's not. It's quite literally the opposite of the way 1e did psionics. You can have two things(5e subclasses and a Psion class) be nothing like each other AND also have both be nothing like a third thing(1e psionics).

1e psionics was a completely independent system that you could plug into ANY class and have it work exactly the same for all of them. 5e subclasses are all completely dependent systems that only work the class a particular system is designed for. They don't reflect what 1e was in the slightest.
 

This is a Strawman. I never said it was more or less like 1e psionics than a separate Psion class. I said it was nothing like 1e and it's not. It's quite literally the opposite of the way 1e did psionics. You can have two things(5e subclasses and a Psion class) be nothing like each other AND also have both be nothing like a third thing(1e psionics).

1e psionics was a completely independent system that you could plug into ANY class and have it work exactly the same for all of them. 5e subclasses are all completely dependent systems that only work the class a particular system is designed for. They don't reflect what 1e was in the slightest.

Dude, are you just really in the mood for an internet argument?

What I like about this UA is that it (and I'll say it again, especially the Feat aspect) reminds me of the 1e approach.

But, like I said before, whatever.
 

counterproductive bickering aside, I have a couple of observations about the Wild Talent feat.

1) Wild Talent (Dex) can give a bonus to initiative rolls. Assassins take note.

2) Psi Guided strike could make the whip a more appealing weapon. It's also nice with Pole Arm Master, DB Scimitars, races with claws and for low level variant human monks.
 
Last edited:

Yeah, I suppose, but it’s still interesting that they’re breaking the trend of no Feat explicitly requiring another Feat.
I've given this some thought, and the prerequisite could be changed to read "Has a psionic talent die", thus avoiding directly mentioning other feats.

You could add psionic talent die1d4 as a racial ability to kaleshtar and any other inherently psychic race.
 

Hussar

Legend
Skipped ahead a few pages, but, phew, this is a busy thread.

There's a very good reason for not leaning too hard on what was done before. Mostly at least in 1e and 2e, because what was done before was a horrible, broken mess that was one of the worst sets of mechanics released for either edition. 2e psionics were so broken that you actively had to try not to break the mechanics. They were just flat out awful.

In fact, they were so bad, that I completely skipped psionics in 3e. I have no idea what psionics look like in 3e and I don't care. If psionics requires an entirely new set of mechanics walled behind an entire book, then, well, I hope psionics never comes to 5e. It was garbage back then, and it will be garbage now.

As a DM, no, I'm not going to read an entire book just for your character. Sorry. Not interested. So, any approach to psionics that creates a complete class and whatnot is a total non-starter for me. I will treat it exactly the way I treated psionics in 3e, 3.5e and 4e - it doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned.

And, the same goes for Dark Sun. If I need to buy an entire psionic book just to run Dark Sun, well, again, I'll treat it exactly the way I did in the 90's. Completely ignore it.

So, for me, the sub-class approach is the best way. We get psionics. We don't have to bolt on completely different mechanics, just so one player at the table can get to feel all special. If you can't compromise and meet half way, then, well, there's a ton of 3rd party material out there for you to use.

Good grief, Warlord fans get pooped on for wanting a class that would take up all of three or four pages and would use existing mechanics. We get told that it's too hard, doesn't fit in the game and we should be satisified with what we've already got. Meanwhile psionic fans are demanding an entire book?!?! And they think this is a reasonable goal?

Good luck with that.
 

TheSword

Legend
Supporter
This kind of rabid, lack of consensus, is why stuff doesn’t get done.

Psionics become such a poisoned chalice so that it just isn’t worth publishing or alternatively gets so watered down that no one is happy.

it’s a game for Pete’s sake
 

Advertisement1

Latest threads

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top