Unearthed Arcana 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.“

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

 

[Aldarc]

It could easily have been trimmed back if it had met with a less overwhelmingly negative response, and doing everything better than every other class is exactly what the 2nd edition psion that people are so fond of did.

And anyway, your own suggestion includes no significant differences to the Mystic.

It wasn't a fundamentally bad idea, but some fans of psionics thought that the whole "mystic" name was trying to pussfoot with psionics by intentionally avoiding the "psion" name. Mearls posed a question on Twitter asking whether or not the name "mystic" or "psion" was preferred. "Psion" won like 66 to 33 percent. But as others have said, such as @DEFCON 1, the mystic was attempting to do too much. But a big problem - much like with 4e - was presentation of their ideas.

Nope, The truth is it was rejected because the community is deeply divided over what it wants from psionics, and no side is prepared to give an inch.

How many inches have I already given? I have proposed so many ways psionics could work in 5e. So let's stop pretending that we are dealing with two monolithic and unwavering sides.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It wasn't a fundamentally bad idea, but some fans of psionics thought that the whole "mystic" name was trying to pussfoot with psionics by intentionally avoiding the "psion" name.

Psion was a subclass. But names are the easiest thing to change. Personally, I prefer Mystic, Psion is as bland as you can get.

How many inches have I already given? I have proposed so many ways psionics could work in 5e.

One that has already been resoundly rejected. And you haven't suggested any way to change it, other than a vague "present it better".

So let's stop pretending that we are dealing with two monolithic and unwavering sides.

There aren't two sides. If there where only two sides it would at least be easy to reach a simple majority. There are four or five sides, so it's difficult to get more than 20% or 30% in favour of anything.

 

[Aldarc]

Psion was a subclass. But names are the easiest thing to change. Personally, I prefer Mystic, Psion is as bland as you can get.

It was still clear that WotC was pussyfooting around the label of psionics. Much as I said before, in Mearls's straw poll on Twitter, the psion name resoundingly thumped the mystic one.

One that has already been resoundly rejected. And you haven't suggested any way to change it, other than a vague "present it better".

Perhaps it would help if you were an active listener. In the various psionic threads, I have suggested ki/psi points. I suggested warlock pact-like mechanics. I suggested using regular spell slots. So I have suggested a number of things for the psion.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It was still clear that WotC was pussyfooting around the label of psionics.

"Pussyfooting" is a value judgment.

All of the D&D class names are words that exist outside of the game. Apart from psion, which is a meaningless collection of letters. I suspect WotC wanted a name that had a meaning.

But anyone who rejected it on the basis of "I don't like the name" is an idiot.

Perhaps it would help if you were an active listener. In the various psionic threads, I have suggested ki/psi points. I suggested warlock pact-like mechanics. I suggested using regular spell slots. So I have suggested a number of things for the psion.

I tend to loose track over who said what. But the fact is, it doesn't matter what you suggest, THERE IS NO OPTION THAT CAN COMMAND A MAJORITY.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It's that what WotC are going for with their psionic soul? It just needs a bit of clarification, especially how it interacts with "subtle spell".

The statement was about the psion that people in this thread seemed to want rather than the one in the current UA.
That said, the sorceror is a pretty good base, since they have subtle spell as a fallback if you don't want to risk rolling the psi die.

I guess I don't see the fuss over "minor" material components - in our games almost everyone uses an spellcasting focus anyway, and an spellcasting focus is the same as a psionic focus, is it not?

Unsure of what a psionic focus is. The material component issue is mostly the same as the somatic component issue: it needs a hand free and acts as a visual indicator that someone is casting a spell/psi ability.

 

[Aldarc]

"Pussyfooting" is a value judgment.

We are largely discussing value judgments.

All of the D&D class names are words that exist outside of the game. Apart from psion, which is a meaningless collection of letters. I suspect WotC wanted a name that had a meaning.

The name "Psion" has had meaning in the context of D&D, which is what matters.

I tend to loose track over who said what. But the fact is, it doesn't matter what you suggest, THERE IS NO OPTION THAT CAN COMMAND A MAJORITY.

I am skeptical of your opinion. Going back to something @Remathilis said, one of the problems is that it feels like WotC keeps trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to psionics. They could have presented something far more straight-forward in their initial showing of the Mystic instead of the convoluted mess that it was.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The statement was about the psion that people in this thread seemed to want rather than the one in the current UA.
That said, the sorceror is a pretty good base, since they have subtle spell as a fallback if you don't want to risk rolling the psi die.

There is no one thing that "people seem to want". I'm happy with the psionic soul, with a little bit of polishing up. I would have been okay with a polished up Mystic too.

Unsure of what a psionic focus is.

Its a spellcasting focus used by psionicists.

In a wider context, it's usually a crystal.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The name "Psion" has had meaning in the context of D&D, which is what matters.

But the point is, WotC felt that the name should have a meaning to someone who has never played the game. Because, you know, WotC like to get new players, sometimes.

I am skeptical of your opinion. Going back to something @Remathilis said, one of the problems is that it feels like WotC keeps trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to psionics. They could have presented something far more straight-forward in their initial showing of the Mystic instead of the convoluted mess that it was.

You are trashing the very thing you just suggested!!!

The Mystic use psi points, just as the 2nd and 3rd edition psion had. It had a wide range of different abilities, just like the 2nd and 3rd edition psion. It was more complex than other classes, just like the the 2nd and 3rd edition psion. It had it's own set of abilities rather than recycled spells, just like the 2nd and 3rd edition psion. It could do the same job as other classes, just like the 2nd edition psion.

Maybe it was overambitious, and shouldn't have tried to include things like the Wu Jen, and some of the abilities where poorly balanced, but UA stuff isn't balanced anyway (and nothing was as horribly broken as the 2e psion). If it hadn't been so soundly rejected for having the wrong name it could have become exactly what psion fans are asking for.

 

[Remathilis]

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7967560]I am skeptical of your opinion. Going back to something @Remathilis said, one of the problems is that it feels like WotC keeps trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to psionics. They could have presented something far more straight-forward in their initial showing of the Mystic instead of the convoluted mess that it was.[/QUOTE]

I rough sketched up a psion class by combining the wizard, bard, and spell point variant in the DMG, as well as a custom spell list and a few abilities from the various UAs and while not complete (it lacks subclasses at the moment) feels usable if not a little derivative. I'm sure WotC could have done the same and frankly after seeing how the artificer really contains few new mechanics and a lot of refluff, I'm surprised they didn't do the same with psions.

Then again, I feel WotC has been trying to be too cute by half as of late and been going for options that are either quirky or very one-shot (I'm looking at you returned rogue) and ignoring some classic staples (like dervish, witch and shaman). In think the psionic sorcerer is a good idea, but the psi-die mechanic is too quirky and doesn't feel like psionics. Maybe just give sorcs some additional spell choices, some abilities to use sorcery points for psychic stuff, and a few ribbons like telepathy? Nah, we need a new die mechanic!

Try KISS for a change WotC!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Try KISS for a change WotC!

They usually do! Mystic and first round Artificer where the only exceptions. These new UA subclasses are KISS.

But psionics being more complex than core rules is kid of traditional, going all the way back to 1st edition.

 

[Aldarc]

But the point is, WotC felt that the name should have a meaning to someone who has never played the game. Because, you know, WotC like to get new players, sometimes.

Psionics are not exactly some strange concept to people.

You are trashing the very thing you just suggested!!!

The Mystic use psi points, just as the 2nd and 3rd edition psion had. It had a wide range of different abilities, just like the 2nd and 3rd edition psion. It was more complex than other classes, just like the the 2nd and 3rd edition psion. It had it's own set of abilities rather than recycled spells, just like the 2nd and 3rd edition psion. It could do the same job as other classes, just like the 2nd edition psion.

Maybe it was overambitious, and shouldn't have tried to include things like the Wu Jen, and some of the abilities where poorly balanced, but UA stuff isn't balanced anyway (and nothing was as horribly broken as the 2e psion). If it hadn't been so soundly rejected for having the wrong name it could have become exactly what psion fans are asking for.

I'm not a fan of how something similar to what I suggested was actually implemented, because it was somewhat convoluted and needlessly complicated as a class, tried to do too much, it stepped on too many toes, and the name was not doing any favors. But I also suggested synthesizing ki and psi points under ki points, so that the psion would also use ki.

I'm sure WotC could have done the same and frankly after seeing how the artificer really contains few new mechanics and a lot of refluff, I'm surprised they didn't do the same with psions.

Then again, I feel WotC has been trying to be too cute by half as of late and been going for options that are either quirky or very one-shot ...

Try KISS for a change WotC!

Yeah, KISS would be nice.

 

[Remathilis]

They usually do! Mystic and first round Artificer where the only exceptions. These new UA subclasses are KISS.

But psionics being more complex than core rules is kid of traditional, going all the way back to 1st edition.

It was something that by 3.5 was mostly eradicated. The 3.5 psion was the most balanced, mostly because it was a spell-point wizard with custom spells and two twists (augments, which are now built into 5e spells, and focus). I fail to see why it isn't the foundation of 5e psionics. They mystic tried, much to its detriment, to avoid giving psi-powers corresponding levels and consequently there is now 6-9th level powers to compensate at high level. Further, the mystic tried to be the soul knife, psychic warrior, ardent, psion, wu-jen(?) and a bunch of other older classes all rolled into one rather than giving them room to breathe. They mystic took an easy concept and overdesigned it, rather than just emulate what worked earlier.

I mean, I'll take the psionic fighter, rogue, and sorcerer. I wish they weren't using the psi-die and instead used something resembling the famous points mechanics, but whatever.

 

[Fenris-77]

KISS and some differentiation are my two keys to victory here. I don't want the mechanics to be too fiddly, and I don't want the class to feel just like a wizard or sorcerer but with a different paint job.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It seems like people are forgetting something... the Mystic wasn't so huge and unwieldy at the beginning. The very first Mystic came out in 2015 and included just two subclasses... Awakened and Immortal. The second version of the Mystic came out in 2016 and again included just two subclasses... Awakened and Immortal. It wasn't until the third version of the Mystic came out in 2017 that it had all six subclasses.

So what does this tell us? It tells us that first of all... they had no intention of actually releasing psionics three to five years ago (despite when some folks here have claimed), because it was a year between UA releases. And for those three releases, the design they had established didn't really change that much. Between the first two they just bulked the levels from 5 up to 10, and from the second to the third they offered up the four additional subclasses. So at least at the very beginning of the design they thought they were on the right track, they just weren't in any hurry and had not yet decided on a plan of release. Heck... the largest arguments during all that time wasn't the mechanics, but merely the name of the class and that in version 0.2 they expressly said it was the Far Realm that caused psionics, nothing else. THAT'S what freaked most people out back then.

It was probably only after sitting on the six subclass version in 2017 and seeing people's reaction to not only that UA but also the design and reactions to all the other subclass work they did in that time leading up towards Xanathar's Guide for all the other classes that they came to realize that trying to make a fighter-esque subclass and a casting subclass and a rogue-esque subclass all underneath a single class at the expected power level players seemed to require just didn't work. I mean, sure the Cleric has domains that allow for a more melee-bent cleric, and a ranged-bent cleric, and a sneaky cleric, caster cleric etc... but I don't think any of us are putting those domain subclasses on the same level as the full classes they are mimicking. No one is saying the Trickster Cleric is on par with the Rogue... the Trickster is a Cleric with a minor in roguing.

But had they done the same with the Mystic/Psion, people would have freaked out. Heck... we're still getting this now with people rattling off lists of what the psion HAS to have to actually be a psion. So when the realized they couldn't design a Mystic/Psion that had multiple subclasses of all different types AND that players expected those subclasses to be on par with the actual other classes that focused on those things... that's when the whole "the Mystic does too much" idea came about and they switched over to the psionic subclass idea. If people wouldn't accept an Immortal that was Psion first, fighter second... then perhaps they'd more readily accept a Fighter first, psionics second design. Or a Rogue/Monk first, psionics second design. And apparently that has done better.

So the people who are saying that WotC could have Kept It Simple Stupid and completed and released the entire psionics package three years ago... the true answer is no they couldn't. Because by the time the first player-facing book was to come out (Xanathar's Guide in Nov 2017)... they had already gone done their three UA package of the Mystic, built the class up brick-by-brick, and then found out that the single-class with extremely varied subclasses just didn't hold up. It was either overpowered in places, or didn't give enough of what players wanted in other places. Which meant it wasn't ready for Xanathar's Guide, and thus got pushed back (at which point I suspect WotC then hit upon the plan to include the new class within the eventual Dark Sun setting book, the same way they were working the Artificer towards the Eberron book.) But now psionics is stuck until whenever they decide to go back and release a new DS.

 

[Aldarc]

It seems like people are forgetting something... the Mystic wasn't so huge and unwieldy at the beginning. The very first Mystic came out in 2015 and included just two subclasses... Awakened and Immortal. The second version of the Mystic came out in 2016 and again included just two subclasses... Awakened and Immortal. It wasn't until the third version of the Mystic came out in 2017 that it had all six subclasses.

So what does this tell us? It tells us that first of all... they had no intention of actually releasing psionics three to five years ago (despite when some folks here have claimed), because it was a year between UA releases. And for those three releases, the design they had established didn't really change that much. Between the first two they just bulked the levels from 5 up to 10, and from the second to the third they offered up the four additional subclasses. So at least at the very beginning of the design they thought they were on the right track, they just weren't in any hurry and had not yet decided on a plan of release. Heck... the largest arguments during all that time wasn't the mechanics, but merely the name of the class and that in version 0.2 they expressly said it was the Far Realm that caused psionics, nothing else. THAT'S what freaked most people out back then.

It was probably only after sitting on the six subclass version in 2017 and seeing people's reaction to not only that UA but also the design and reactions to all the other subclass work they did in that time leading up towards Xanathar's Guide for all the other classes that they came to realize that trying to make a fighter-esque subclass and a casting subclass and a rogue-esque subclass all underneath a single class at the expected power level players seemed to require just didn't work.

This is how I remember things as well.

But had they done the same with the Mystic/Psion, people would have freaked out. Heck... we're still getting this now with people rattling off lists of what the psion HAS to have to actually be a psion. So when the realized they couldn't design a Mystic/Psion that had multiple subclasses of all different types AND that players expected those subclasses to be on par with the actual other classes that focused on those things... that's when the whole "the Mystic does too much" idea came about and they switched over to the psionic subclass idea. If people wouldn't accept an Immortal that was Psion first, fighter second... then perhaps they'd more readily accept a Fighter first, psionics second design. Or a Rogue/Monk first, psionics second design. And apparently that has done better.

This, however, is where we get a bit of a far jump in the realm of assumptions from simply recounting the past. Because as you say, the Mystic was trying to become too much. But it seems like a hybrid approach would work. It's a bit ridiculous, IMO, to throw the baby out with the bath water here.

So the people who are saying that WotC could have Kept It Simple Stupid and completed and released the entire psionics package three years ago... the true answer is no they couldn't. Because by the time the first player-facing book was to come out (Xanathar's Guide in Nov 2017)... they had already gone done their three UA package of the Mystic, built the class up brick-by-brick, and then found out that the single-class with extremely varied subclasses just didn't hold up. It was either overpowered in places, or didn't give enough of what players wanted in other places.

But they could have taken the Mystic/Psion and focused on a narrower range of archetypes, while moving the Soul Knife to the monk/rogue and the immortal/psychic warrior to the fighter. Have a main psionic class, with two to three subclasses (e.g., Akashic, Transcendant, Nomad, Empath, etc.) but then also spread psionics out a bit so that one class chassis doesn't have to try doing it all.

So I don't think that the KISS method hasn't been disproved here. If anything, your summation points to the point how they KISS and then lost sight of their vision when they tried to make the Mystic do too much.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But they could have taken the Mystic/Psion and focused on a narrower range of archetypes, while moving the Soul Knife to the monk/rogue and the immortal/psychic warrior to the fighter. Have a main psionic class, with two to three subclasses (e.g., Akashic, Transcendant, Nomad, Empath, etc.) but then also spread psionics out a bit so that one class chassis doesn't have to try doing it all.

So I don't think that the KISS method hasn't been disproved here. If anything, your summation points to the point how they KISS and then lost sight of their vision when they tried to make the Mystic do too much.

My discounting of KISS was regarding the idea that had WotC kept it KISS they could/would have released a psionic system years ago. That just wasn't happening.

Now if they do decide to design a Psion for the Dark Sun campaign setting, then absolutely KISS will be the order of the day. WotC WON'T design a weird or out there system that might thrill a small group of players but which would make most of the playerbase go "Huh?" I think the names you list for potential subclasses are a bit too esoteric than what I would imagine WotC would go with, but there's no reason to think WotC wouldn't go with a telepath, telekinetic, metabolic controller (like the feats were called) set of subclasses for a Psion. Very basic, very simple. The question though is... is it very necessary?

And that's where the rest of 2020 comes in. If/when they release the three psionic subclasses and the wild talent feat that I personally believe they will (psi die and all)... the reaction of the playerbase to them will go a long way in early 2021 in determining for WotC whether designing an additional psion class is necessary. Because if it seems like reactions indicate that the Psionic Soul sorcerer really is all the "psionic caster" most players want... then the need to make another psionic caster as a full class just isn't there and they won't bother. Even with the small but vocal group of players that complain that the sorcerer uses spell components and thus isn't a true psion.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Psionics are not exactly some strange concept to people.

Speeks somone who clearly lives in a geek bubble!

 

[DEFCON 1]

Speeks somone who clearly lives in a geek bubble!

Depends on how you look at it.

If you say "Psion" or "psionics", then yeah, most people would go "Huh"? But if you just said "Psychics", most of the world knows what you mean. They may not parse the gaming distinctions between what a Psychic would do versus what a Wizard would do versus what a Cleric would do... but at least they'd have a pretty good idea of what a Psychic could do by itself.

 

[Aldarc]

I think the names you list for potential subclasses are a bit too esoteric than what I would imagine WotC would go with, but there's no reason to think WotC wouldn't go with a telepath, telekinetic, metabolic controller (like the feats were called) set of subclasses for a Psion. Very basic, very simple.

The names are certainly negotiable. But let's take the Akashic, for example. I got the name and idea from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved for 3.X, though the name stems from the mystical idea of the Akashic Memory. In AE, the Akashic was a mystical skill monkey that drew its knowledge from a collective memory of the cosmos. So we could imagine a potential feature for the Mystic Akashic being something like picking a skill that they are not proficient in, and they are proficient in that skill or tool for the day and they can't change it until after a long rest. Call it a "Metamind" or something.

And that's where the rest of 2020 comes in. If/when they release the three psionic subclasses and the wild talent feat that I personally believe they will (psi die and all)... the reaction of the playerbase to them will go a long way in early 2021 in determining for WotC whether designing an additional psion class is necessary. Because if it seems like reactions indicate that the Psionic Soul sorcerer really is all the "psionic caster" most players want... then the need to make another psionic just isn't there and they won't bother. Even with the small but vocal group of players that complain that the sorcerer uses spell components and thus isn't a true psion.

I guess that we'll see. I will add my voice to the feedback advocating for a dedicated psion/mystic class.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Depends on how you look at it.

If you say "Psion" or "psionics", then yeah, most people would go "Huh"? But if you just said "Psychics", most of the world knows what you mean.

No, they will think they know what you mean, but actually think of someone who holds a séance to speak with dead people.

Which was the Pathfinder take on it.

"Mystic" is more likely to give someone from outside the D&D bubble the image of a person who cultivates mental powers (whilst levitating in a loincloch).