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

 

[Superchunk77]

Well if ya want Psionics that bad, this maybe the closet thing for now. The Korranberg Chronicles: Psion's Primer.

Dungeon Masters Guild

www.dmsguild.com

Dang, that's really well done! I like it even more than the UA stuff.

 

[Parmandur]

5e mimics some of the presentation of 1E, but rules-wise, they're barely related. But that's not really the rabbit-hole that this particular thread needs to go down.

I think that's the point, though: this is an attempt to get at 1E style Psionics (not a Core Class, bit a bonus for some gifted characters) but without mimicking the 1E mechanical details.

 

[Parmandur]

That's not true. They, and Avangions, were for playing. If a PC went through the process, they would become those things.

In the original box set, or in later Supplements? It does seem they were both Epic Destinies in 4E, at least.

I'd put the odds of playable Dragon-Kings in the 5E era at somewhere around 0, same as playable Liches.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Without the Psion class, there are no Dragon Kings or Avangions. It was also an integral class to the setting in other ways.

This is ridiculous. I could make a statblock for both of these today if I wanted to under the 5E rules we now have.

 

[OB1]

After reading through a few times, gotta say I really love the Psi Talent concept and execution. Hoping that the inevitable negative feedback from some doesn't kill this concept before print.

I could see these three subclasses appearing in a Planar themed book first, followed by a full Psion class shortly after wards in a Dark Sun campaign guide.

Feels like hanging the Psi Talent mechanic off of a Monk chassis with Psi Points replacing Ki points and allowing for new ways to use and recharge your Psi die could work for a full class with subclasses ranging from martial to full mentalist.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I don't think the quote supports your thesis, indeed "As much as many playtesters enjoyed the psionic themes in the mystic" rather strongly suggests that the feedback related to the actual idea of the Mystic was generally positive, and the negative comments are clearly mechanics-related (too powerful, too complex). The encroachment point is totally non-viable. Even if that's the feedback they got in 2017, it's not valid, given the Artificer does likewise, and many other D&D classes do exactly that. Whereas complex/powerful are potentially valid.

None of this supports the "too negative to be worth saving", which implies there was essentially nothing of worth, not even the concept.

Further, WotC have made a lot of comments on Psionic stuff over the years, before and after Mystic, that suggest some problems within their team on how Psionics are viewed, and how the Mystic was viewed.

THEMES doesn't mean RULES. Themes doesn't mean anything, and is fluffy language used to mask what Wizard's is actually saying.

They say pretty explicitly define what all of the negative feedback actually is, while keeping the positive feedback purposefully vague. Furthermore, they say that it is because of that negative feedback that they decided to quite on Mystic development.

If the feedback was generally positive, Wizard's would have kept developing Mystic rules with updated UA to the community. Instead, they ditched it. The only logical conclusion here is that the negative outweighed the positive.

Whether you personally disagree with their conclusion on that negative feedback is irrelevant here; it is the one they made, and unless the feedback for this UA is equally negative (which it does not seem it will be), it is a conclusion they'll likely stick with.

 

[Maxperson]

In the original box set, or in later Supplements? It does seem they were both Epic Destinies in 4E, at least.

I'd put the odds of playable Dragon-Kings in the 5E era at somewhere around 0, same as playable Liches.

In the 2e Dragon Kings hard cover book. It talks about characters undergoing the process and amount of experience needed to get to the next stage of dragonhood.

 

[Maxperson]

This is ridiculous. I could make a statblock for both of these today if I wanted to under the 5E rules we now have.

That should have been dragons, not dragon kings. And no you could not. Why? Because PCs could achieve both dragonhood and Avangion status, and stat blocks don't work for PCs.

 

[TwoSix]

That should have been dragons, not dragon kings. And no you could not. Why? Because PCs could achieve both dragonhood and Avangion status, and stat blocks don't work for PCs.

Well, that's not quite true. Stat blocks are perfectly playable, otherwise the whole concept of wildshape wouldn't work. What stat blocks don't have is a mechanical method of progression or advancement.

You can hand all your players a random monster out of the MM and run a perfectly fine session. You just can't level them up without a large dose of DM fiat.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, that's not quite true. Stat blocks are perfectly playable, otherwise the whole concept of wildshape wouldn't work. What stat blocks don't have is a mechanical method of progression or advancement.

You can hand all your players a random monster out of the MM and run a perfectly fine session. You just can't level them up without a large dose of DM fiat.

Fair enough.

Dragons and Avangions were classes, not just stat blocks.