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

 

[Maxperson]

We don't know the exact details: but we do know the independent data points of "most people don't use Feats" and "70% approval is the threshold for publishing an option." Tough to get 70% approval for an option being used by a third of players.

Not really. I think a lot of people vote that feats should be in the game, even if they don't personally use them most or even all of the time. I've never played a Warlord. I personally don't like them, but I'd vote to include them, because a lot of players do enjoy Warlords. I'm not self-centered, so I won't vote down someone else's fun.

 

[Maxperson]

So the customers shouldn't consequences for their actions, is that right?

Why are you so bitter about letting other people have psionics?

 

[Dausuul]

So the customers shouldn't consequences for their actions, is that right?

We, the people who talk about stuff on D&D forums, are a tiny sliver of the customer base and WotC has made it clear that they do not consider us to be representative. Because, well, we're not. We are an extremely skewed sample.

Therefore, people complaining about psionic options on forums are not the reason we do not have official 5E psi rules yet.

 

[Parmandur]

Not really. I think a lot of people vote that feats should be in the game, even if they don't personally use them most or even all of the time. I've never played a Warlord. I personally don't like them, but I'd vote to include them, because a lot of players do enjoy Warlords. I'm not self-centered, so I won't vote down someone else's fun.

The point of the reaction surveys is to be self-centered: do you like this, why or why not?

We have had about 3pages of new Feats since the PHB, and not for lack of testing: new Feats have a very, very hard time clearing 70% approval. These ones I'll give good marks, though I will note my overall dislike of Feats.

 

[Parmandur]

No we couldn't. Don't shift the blame onto customers.

They've been testing possibilities for five years. They'll keep it up until they have something that works for most people. No need to be hasty.

 

[Maxperson]

The point of the reaction surveys is to be self-centered: do you like this, why or why not?

I don't, really. I think surveys on which implementation of something are good. And surveys on which order you want things implemented. But I dislike surveys where you are shooting down what other people like.

My philosophy is kitchen sink. Put stuff into the game and let the tables sort it out. If you don't like psionics, don't use it. Don't shoot it down for those who do.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Thank you everybody, for the reminder why I no longer come to this site for discussions. There are 25 pages of arguing about points that has nothing to do with the subject that started the thread. I would like nothing more than discuss the new sub-classes, what they can do, how they work, and ideas about how to play them, but it is evident that is not possible here.

I definitely see where youre coming from in this case. All interesting discussion on the UA article itself has long since passed pages ago.

 

[Dausuul]

We don't know the exact details: but we do know the independent data points of "most people don't use Feats" and "70% approval is the threshold for publishing an option." Tough to get 70% approval for an option being used by a third of players.

The fighter class is an option being used by a mere 14% of players*. Yet we get new fighter subclasses on the regular. People often approve of having options even if they do not currently exercise them.

*Strictly speaking, 14% of PCs, but it seems like a fair assumption that most players only have one active PC at a time.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't, really. I think surveys on which implementation of something are good. And surveys on which order you want things implemented. But I dislike surveys where you are shooting down what other people like.

My philosophy is kitchen sink. Put stuff into the game and let the tables sort it out. If you don't like psionics, don't use it. Don't shoot it down for those who do.

If I don't like something, I'll make it known. They want to know about dislike and indifference.

Psionics I've been friendly to, actually, it's Feats I normally dump on in surveys. The previous round of Psionic Feats was a notable exception, and these I like. They could go all the way.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Why are you so bitter about letting other people have psionics?

I'm not. I would love to have psionics. Hell, in a world i've been working on, Psionics are a fairly important part (granted, they are considered abominations, but still.)

It's just that from what I've seen, whatever they release will be hated by the same people who wanted it in the first place, because they deviate too much or something (despite the fact that this is a new edition and thus should be expected to change things to fit it's gameplay style and aesthetics). Not even getting into the fact that it seems like a lot of people who want psionics want it to completely obsolete spellcasting.

I don't, really. I think surveys on which implementation of something are good. And surveys on which order you want things implemented. But I dislike surveys where you are shooting down what other people like.

My philosophy is kitchen sink. Put stuff into the game and let the tables sort it out. If you don't like psionics, don't use it. Don't shoot it down for those who do.

So you want the 3.0/.5 supplement treadmill again?