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

 

[Fenris-77]

This could also be a campaign rule kind of thing. If we're going to play with psionics maybe everyone gets the wild talent feat for free to start (for Darksun say, or whatever).

 

[MorkaisChosen]

Another option (my preferred one!) is just having PCs start at 3rd level.

I agree that it feels odd not to have the psionics at 1st level for some concepts, but that's a familiar wrinkle of 5th Edition's design spreading the core toolkit over the first 3 levels.

My usual two PHB examples are an ex-soldier College of Valour Bard and a magic student who gets kicked out and turns to crime to get the materials to keep studying, becoming an Arcane Trickster - both concepts that fit well in their class and subclass, but feel like they start with the wrong abilities for the narrative if played from 1st level.

All this is to say: I'm not inclined to criticise these subclasses for that problem, as it isn't unique to them by any stretch of the imagination; my feelings on that matter are probably coloured by the fact that it's a problem that bothers me enough with PHB classes that I have a standard solution that works just as well for these subclasses as any other.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Besides sorcerers, warlocks and clerics also choose their subclass at 1st level, so with more psionic subclasses there will be more options for starting off psionic.

Warlock seems particularly appropriate, because they have relatively few spells in the first place. A handful of new psionic-focused invocations and you're there. Maybe a new Pact of the Chain option for psionics.

 

[ccooke]

Another option (my preferred one!) is just having PCs start at 3rd level.

I agree that it feels odd not to have the psionics at 1st level for some concepts, but that's a familiar wrinkle of 5th Edition's design spreading the core toolkit over the first 3 levels.

My usual two PHB examples are an ex-soldier College of Valour Bard and a magic student who gets kicked out and turns to crime to get the materials to keep studying, becoming an Arcane Trickster - both concepts that fit well in their class and subclass, but feel like they start with the wrong abilities for the narrative if played from 1st level.

All this is to say: I'm not inclined to criticise these subclasses for that problem, as it isn't unique to them by any stretch of the imagination; my feelings on that matter are probably coloured by the fact that it's a problem that bothers me enough with PHB classes that I have a standard solution that works just as well for these subclasses as any other.

Part of this is that 5e was designed with two natural start-points - 1st and 3rd. This is why levels 1 and 2 go so quickly, and why level 3 is the point when every class has its complete basic toolkit. I like starting at level 1, but it's very much 'apprentice level', to my mind.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Other option could be add "zero sublevels". For the zero sublevels the PCs wouldn't be stronger, at all, but they would learn, or "unlock" some things. Later all PCs could spend XPs for sublevels to unlock some feat or new tricks, but not really more powerful. It would be like playing Sims when these improve their skills, for example coocking or playing music.

 

[maceochaid]

They definitely need to make some variants to Kalashtar and Gith that have "Psionic Talent" as a racial feature that would qualify them for the other feats.

So it could be something like for Githyanki Psionics (and this is totally spitballing) You can add your psionic talent die to your speed, and boost a jump. Githzerai Psionics you can add your psionic talent die to a saving throw, Kalashtar mind link you can add your psionic talent die to insight and persuasion checks. (again, spitballing broad outlines, the balance might be way off) but the idea is that it would set them up for expanding their Psionics with feats, or be able to take a psionic class and get some nice synergy with expanded options.

 

[Connorsrpg]

No no no! I know people seemed psyched by the psion-thing, personally I don't like this direction. I would like to see:

1. A Psion class with a new mechanic (not just spells, more warlock/ki-oriented maybe). Use Soulknife, etc. as a base for the subclasses maybe. I don't want to see Psi-subclasses for all 12 classes.

2. Latent Psionics for any class or race much like AD&D.

I don't think we need 3 or more classes for this.

Tracking Psychic Talent die just becomes a hassle. It is also explosive in a way when you get lucky to get a larger die. How does it make sense? You roll low on a die, and the next time you have more, roll low again and you get more? I don't know, at first glance it seems a needless hassle.... And why would you randomly choose to use more or less power when making the attempt to use it. It seems like you are a psion who has little control over your ability.

Maybe further looking will reveal something worthwhile, but for right now yawn.

There is a new mechanic for psionic characters. That dice mechanic IS what distinguishes them. You don't need a suclass for all. That is what the feat is for. To allow anyone to be psionic

 

[DND_Reborn]

There is a new mechanic for psionic characters. That dice mechanic IS what distinguishes them. You don't need a suclass for all. That is what the feat is for. To allow anyone to be psionic

Well, a dice mechanic is not my favorite (one of the reasons I dislike Battle Master, the superiority die ).

Latent psionics would not require a feat, but I was thinking more a random check system. Of course, I understand the reluctance for this as people sometimes seem to roll better than you'd expect.

Oh, and I would not want any psionic subclasses myself. Latent ability would not be tied to a subclass. Again, I understand others want psionic subclasses for some core classes, just not me. But that is fine, of course, it isn't just my game, and I don't have to use them if they eventually make it in officially. LOL!

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, a dice mechanic is not my favorite (one of the reasons I dislike Battle Master, the superiority die ).

Latent psionics would not require a feat, but I was thinking more a random check system. Of course, I understand the reluctance for this as people sometimes seem to roll better than you'd expect.

Oh, and I would not want any psionic subclasses myself. Latent ability would not be tied to a subclass. Again, I understand others want psionic subclasses for some core classes, just not me. But that is fine, of course, it isn't just my game, and I don't have to use them if they eventually make it in officially. LOL!

Honestly, the "rolling better than you expect" part isn't why I dislike random check systems.

For the person who doesn't want Psionics, it is pretty easy to refuse to roll and even if the DM forces them to roll, to just refuse to use the mechanics. But for the person who wants Psionics, they have to jump through a hoops of randomness to get them.

And because they end up not being able to get them when they want, then we expect them to be designed to be more powerful than a normal option.

Which means when a DM just says "yes, you can play the character you want to play" they are giving permission to be far more powerful than any PC who is not psionic.

It seems like a bad methodology and I don't understand the appeal of it at all.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Honestly, the "rolling better than you expect" part isn't why I dislike random check systems.

For the person who doesn't want Psionics, it is pretty easy to refuse to roll and even if the DM forces them to roll, to just refuse to use the mechanics. But for the person who wants Psionics, they have to jump through a hoops of randomness to get them.

And because they end up not being able to get them when they want, then we expect them to be designed to be more powerful than a normal option.

Which means when a DM just says "yes, you can play the character you want to play" they are giving permission to be far more powerful than any PC who is not psionic.

It seems like a bad methodology and I don't understand the appeal of it at all.

Well, I don't agree with some of your assumptions.

First, in AD&D (1E) most people who had psionics had very little and it left you vulnerable to special psionic attack modes etc. that non-psionics were unaffected by. Only if you were really lucky and had good INT, WIS, and CHA were you likely "more powerful" for being psionic.

Second, if a psion class is offered and you want psionics, play the psion. If you allow MCing, take a couple levels if you just want a bit. I would not want them as feats because feats are optional, for one thing (although 90% of tables use them IME...) but more importantly because they are few and fare between and compete with ASI, which are important as well.