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

 

[Professor Murder]

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

Correct. It is a game. There are plenty of systems in any game I play that don't click for me so they don't get the spotlight. cough cough Grappling. If these rules get the go ahead I will be disappointed, sure, but these aren't core rules, so if I end up not using them, it's not a huge loss. People do need to have some perspective both in terms of their reactions and their reactions to reactions. These rules don't inspire me to make Psi-characters in 5th or as a DM to make Psi classes a feature in worlds I create. That's disappointing, but the toolbox of 5th is getting pretty robust now so it is not like one is bereft.

A side exercise can be people listing currently published games that have fun psi mechanics for people who want that itch scratched.

 

[Flamestrike]

I actually think there is broad consensus for the Psi Knight and the Soul Blade; both need to tidied up a bit, but the consensus is there.

We probably need a dedicated Psion class though in addition from the looks of it.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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.
...
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.
...
Meanwhile psionic fans are demanding an entire book?!?! And they think this is a reasonable goal?

First, we (or many of us) are not demanding a whole book. Some do want that, or at least a lengthy treatment, but not all. I'd be fine with a page count similar to the Artificer. In fact, I'd likely prefer it to make it accessible to everyone.

Second, I respect your dislike of psionics, but I think you have missed a bit by completely skipping everything after 2e. 3.0e was interesting but had some issues, but 3.5e and 4e were rock solid (within their respective editions). Seems a little petty to still be anti-psionic based on the rules for it sucked 30 years and 5 incarnations ago don't you think?

Third, how do you feel about the Artificer treatment, and would you be okay with a Psionics class if it were of a similar page count and rules innovation?

 

[Umbran]

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

So, despite the inappropriate approach, there's a point here...

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?

The above is a, "Technically correct is the best kind of correct!" argument. Letter of the law rather than the spirit of it.

With all due respect, it being mentioned in the Monster Manual does not really count as "in the game" for a PLAYER. Psionics is mentioned as fluff, because canon. It is not an element the players can engage with in a meaningful way.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Something is not garbage just because it's in another book. If you didn't read it, you are just assuming.

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.

You've never allowed a class from a book other than the PHB?

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

You do realize that most classes have unique mechanics, right? 5e, despite the similarities, is not 4e.

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.

Or maybe a Psion will be made. The said it wasn't off of the table. They just gave up on the Mystic.

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?

Awesome Strawman dude. I have skipped a few pages here, but "having an entire book." isn't a demand that I've seen.

Good luck with that.

Don't need luck for something not being asked for.

 

[Maxperson]

With all due respect, it being mentioned in the Monster Manual does not really count as "in the game" for a PLAYER. Psionics is mentioned as fluff, because canon. It is not an element the players can engage with in a meaningful way.

I was going to make this argument when I saw this post, but when I took a closer look at Mind Flayers, I noticed that it's actually more than fluff. The psionics for the Mind Flayer specifies that their spells use no components, which is a mechanical psionic benefit. It's still not much, and not for players, but it's more than fluff.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Thinking about this for a couple of days, it occurs to me that subraces that have a psychic talent would be a nice addition. So a player could play one of the 4 psychic subclasses (includes GOOlocks), or if they wanted to be a Battlemaster fighter instead of a psychic knight, they could have psychic feats (if the DM allows them) and/or be a "mind elf", and of course if you wanted to be extra psychic, you could play a psychic subclass with psychic feats using a psychic subrace like "bighead halfling." That seems like it would have more than sufficient options for Dark Sun.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Thinking about this for a couple of days, it occurs to me that subraces that have a psychic talent would be a nice addition. So a player could play one of the 4 psychic subclasses (includes GOOlocks), or if they wanted to be a Battlemaster fighter instead of a psychic knight, they could have psychic feats (if the DM allows them) and/or be a "mind elf", and of course if you wanted to be extra psychic, you could play a psychic subclass with psychic feats using a psychic subrace like "bighead halfling." That seems like it would have more than sufficient options for Dark Sun.

Or "Tentaclehead Halfling".

But interesting idea.

 

[Umbran]

I was going to make this argument when I saw this post, but when I took a closer look at Mind Flayers, I noticed that it's actually more than fluff. The psionics for the Mind Flayer specifies that their spells use no components, which is a mechanical psionic benefit. It's still not much, and not for players, but it's more than fluff.

Given that components are largely overlooked unless/until a PC is specifically denied their pouch/focus, this amounts to, "I ignore a rule that rarely has impact anyway." Which renders this another, "Well, technically it isn't absolutely true," argument. LIke calling ketchup a vegetable dish. Or...

"You said there'd be ice cream!"
"Yes. Well... actually, it is a 'non-dairy desert'. And it has melted."

I think the hair splitting on this is not at all constructive, and gets in the way of just noting the darned reality and moving on. I can see why folks get frustrated.

 

[Doug McCrae]

What if they create both a dedicated psionics class and a psionic subclass of a non-psionic class such as the sorcerer?