Unearthed Arcana Why UA Psionics are never going to work in 5e.

[Paul Farquhar]

Have you ever looked a thread here that wants to give a bonus to the classes, like allowing even a weak version of Expertise to all the classes to help out with skills. The sheer number of cries from people say, "But it will step on the toes of the Rogue and Bard!" and "It will completely invalidate the Rogue and Bard classes!" and such are deafening.

Yah, but as you say it's always there as background chatter, if WotC accepted it as valid we would never get any new stuff.

Redundancy is has pretty much always been a part of D&D (with the possible exception of 4e).

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's usually called "spin".

But I don't get why people find the idea so surprising, everyone lies all the time. Nothing wrong with it.

You know, like politicians can never call the electorate stupid? Of course they think the electorate is stupid, the electorate is stupid. But to admit it is suicide.

Who expressed "surprise" about the idea?

In general I agree with you that corporations...and politicians...lie. But in this case I don't find the information dubious, or see a motive for lying.

 

[Maxperson]

Yah, but as you say it's always there as background chatter, if WotC accepted it as valid we would never get any new stuff.

Redundancy is has pretty much always been a part of D&D (with the possible exception of 4e).

I agree with @Elfcrusher on this. There's no reason for them to spin or lie about this, and every reason to believe them based on the chatter we see. They are talking about feedback, which is literally the chatter being aimed that way. Corporations lie, and WotC has said some doozies in the past. This isn't one of those.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Consider the gith. They are all psionic (because aliens). To them using psionics is just like using their hands, it's just another tool. But the gith are not all psions. They have the full range of fighters, rogues and mages. And they all use their psionics to help them rogue, fight and mage. Thus, what is important to "do gith" is psionics that can be used with other classes: feats, subclasses or something else. I would prefer not to go with "all gith are multiclassed psions".

Or...perhaps...the psionic abilites that the gith have are assigned to the rules for the race since those are racial abilities???? That way you won't have un-psionic gith like you would if you make psionics a set of feats.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There are a number of classes that can do many of the same things as each other, particularly if spells are the determining factor. However, I think a big part of class design is about the ability to perform their powers reliably and consistently better than a non-specialist. For example, other characters can track using the Survival skill, but the Ranger has tools that allow them to do it more readily and naturally: Natural Explorer, Favored Enemy, Land's Stride, and Primeval Awareness. Similarly, an enchanting wizard can perform telekinesis and telepathy, but we would expect that a psion can do it better with greater reliability, versatility, etc. This is the trade-off for a psion not having the full gamut of spells to know and cast as a wizard.

And how often was the Ranger's Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy called out as "nothing that a rogue with expertise in survival can't do just as well"? From my recollection, that point comes up every single time people talk about redesigning the ranger.

And while it is all well and good to say we can expect a psion to do it better, even doing it better isn't exactly enough if it doesn't cover some aspect that people will actually need to use. The Revised Ranger had the ability to ignore all difficult terrain, ever, and that is the best version of that ability we have ever seen. But, no one really ever talked about it as more than an oddity. No one looks at it as a powerful ability to my knowledge, because difficult terrain is something rarely dealt with, and so dealing with it "the best" doesn't matter.

Will Telepathy end up the same way? Psion's might be "the best" at telepathy, but not only do we have no idea what that looks like, we have no idea if that will be enough to make people want to play the class.

So I think this is a valid point to discuss. How do you take abilities that exist, that need to be the cornerstone of a new class, and do them in such a way that it is worth playing this new class?

 

[Dire Bare]

And how often was the Ranger's Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy called out as "nothing that a rogue with expertise in survival can't do just as well"? From my recollection, that point comes up every single time people talk about redesigning the ranger.

And while it is all well and good to say we can expect a psion to do it better, even doing it better isn't exactly enough if it doesn't cover some aspect that people will actually need to use. The Revised Ranger had the ability to ignore all difficult terrain, ever, and that is the best version of that ability we have ever seen. But, no one really ever talked about it as more than an oddity. No one looks at it as a powerful ability to my knowledge, because difficult terrain is something rarely dealt with, and so dealing with it "the best" doesn't matter.

Will Telepathy end up the same way? Psion's might be "the best" at telepathy, but not only do we have no idea what that looks like, we have no idea if that will be enough to make people want to play the class.

So I think this is a valid point to discuss. How do you take abilities that exist, that need to be the cornerstone of a new class, and do them in such a way that it is worth playing this new class?

From my perspective, whether a character concept should be idealized as a full class, a subclass, a background, or feat (or some new invented mechanic) isn't really about, "Does the psion do psionics better than other characters?" Although that certainly plays a role. But rather, is the archetype strong enough or popular enough narratively that it makes sense to give a full-class treatment and focus. And that is subjective.

Would the psion work as a subclass, or a collection of subclasses? Yes. Could you build a purely feat-based psion? Sure. Could you invent a new mechanic not currently in the game to represent psionics? Yes to all of the above, they are all valid choices. I personally think the psion as an archetype has enough legs that it deserves the full "Complete Psionics Handbook" treatment again in 5E.

Of course, WotC isn't designing for my home game (or yours) but is designing for the community (and franchise) collectively. They have to balance good mechanics, good story, respect for legacy, and pushing to cover new ground. They have to find that sweet spot between satisfying the old guard, delighting the newer fans, and giving us something new and exciting that we didn't know that we wanted until we got it! Not an easy task.

I think they could do that with a digital/POD "Complete Psionics" release that gives us a core Psion class based on the classic psion from 2E/3E. With additional subclasses for the fighter, rogue, and wizard to represent classic archetypes like the psychic warrior, lurk, soulknife, and ardent. Maybe with some new classes/subclasses to better represent mid-19th century mediums and mystics. With a feat system for wild talents (the one they have now works pretty well). Elements of this could then be reprinted as needed in some future Dark Sun or Sarlona sourcebook.

I'm not going to hold my breath. The forces of "no" complain too loudly and will likely derail psionics all together for 5E, IMO. Nothing I've found on the DM's Guild has satisfied me yet (although the "Korranberg Chronicle: Psion's Primer" comes really close, it's some solid design work there) . . . I may just have to buckle down and design my own (that nobody else will care for, heh).

 

[JiffyPopTart]

So I think this is a valid point to discuss. How do you take abilities that exist, that need to be the cornerstone of a new class, and do them in such a way that it is worth playing this new class?

Charm Person (psionic) (1-20pp, max 1PP per character level)

Cut and past text for the rules for the spell Charm Person with the following changes.

Charm Person (psionic) affects 1 humanoid creature per PP spent. The psion may affect half as many targets as normal forcing the targets to have disadvantage on their saving throws. The psion may affect twice as many targets as normal granting those targets advantage on their saving throws.

***********************
You have now added versatility to the base Charm Person ability without substantially changing what happens when the target becomes charmed.
***********************

Telekinetic Grap (psionic) (1-20pp, max 1PP per character level)

Cut and paste text for the Mage Hand spell with the following changes.

1PP: The psion gains the use of Telekinetic Grasp until their next long rest.
1PP: The psion may lift or manipulate an additional 5lbs for as long as their Telekinetic Grasp is active.
1PP: The psion may extend the range an additional 30' for as long as their Telekinetic Grasp is active.
1PP: Whatever additional features or abilities you might want to add in class design.

Add text implying the psion can augment their existing Telekinetic Grasp at any time by adding additional PP up to the limit imposed by their character level.

*********************
You now have one power that, as the character grows, can become more versatile as needed by the situation. They could flip a switch 300 feet away, or lift something 50lbs they are next to using the same amount of "power" for the day. At high levels they could lift 50lb at 300' if thats what would help in the situation they are in. My few additional barely make the power writeup take up much more room than the spell itself does, but this feels very different than both the normal Mage Hand, theArcane Tricksters ability to use the Mage Hand to do skills at a distance, and the Telekinesis spell.

 

[Aldarc]

And how often was the Ranger's Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy called out as "nothing that a rogue with expertise in survival can't do just as well"? From my recollection, that point comes up every single time people talk about redesigning the ranger.

Regardless of you arguing the fine points of the ranger, my point still stands.

So I think this is a valid point to discuss. How do you take abilities that exist, that need to be the cornerstone of a new class, and do them in such a way that it is worth playing this new class?

How did other 3pp psions do it? Clearly they were capable of doing it, no? So why do you keep acting like this is impossible or an insurmountable challenge?

 

[Marandahir]

To me, whether a concept gets the full class or subclass or feat or background treatment is really about, "how broad an idea is this? Is there room for 5-10 mechanical and narratively unique iterations that still feel part of a narrative and mechanically cohesive whole?" If the answer is yes, then it can be a class.

Some concepts are so broad, like a Sentinel or a Sharpshooter, or so narratively malleable, like a Criminal or a Sailor, that they're better suited to other pillars of the game's mechanics (feats and backgrounds respectively). It would be a real shame to have to take a level in Sailor to be able to make your Fighter a competent Sailor, or worse, to have to multiclass deep enough into Rogue to reach the Swashbuckler subclass to get those sailor abilities (not in real life, just a hypothetical based on the subclass name). The concept works better as a background occupation that any character class might have had before they became an adventurer. Sharpshooter, on the otherhand, is a broad idea of an expert archer/dagger-thrower/gunslinger etc, and it could work with any number of classes and subclasses that have ranged capabilities. There was no need to create a Sharpshooter subclass of Fighter (as appeared in UA ahead of Xanathar's), because that suggests that while a Rogue or Ranger (etc) could be a great archer, only a Fighter could be an expert sharpshooter.

So when we're thinking about, "is there narrative space for this class," we need to know if the class can stand on its own two feet as a mechanically and narrative consistent whole without gatekeeping concepts that would naturally fit into any or all of the other character classes. It makes sense to make Psionics, as a broad concept, available via feat, as an alternative to multiclass dipping into a hypothetical Psion class. This is akin to taking the Ritual Caster feat - it opens the door into a new world of abilities. Of course, Psionics can't rely on an optional rule-set like feats or multiclassing, so the question is whether it works as a full class or as a series of subclasses in addition to that feat.

As a parallel, I'd like to present the Arcane Gish - one of those rare concepts like the Warlord and the Psion that are "missing" from the game's class list but compelling enough to be a class (as they have been in past editions).

The problem with Arcane Gish characters is not that it's not a compelling class concept or that there isn't room for a dozen or more iterations on it. The problem is that each idea of what that concept means is wildly different from mechanics and narrative (as Arcane+Martial is a wildly broad concept). This is why we have Eldritch Knights and Arcane Archers and Bladesingers and War Mages and Oath of the Watchers and Hexblade Patrons and College of Swords and College of Valour and Arcane Tricksters and Wild Souls and Way of the Four Elements and Battle Smiths and Artillerists and Armorers (not to mention the rejected UA Stone Sorcery origin which leaned into the Arcane Aegis concept of 4e Swordmages) - there's so many different ways to iterate on this concept, and to try to unite them into a single class fails to satisfy the narrative and mechanical "feel" the fans of each archetype is looking for. By housing these related archetypes in different classes, it gives the concept a life that otherwise is overly general and broad, and allows a fine-tuned idea to be presented.

The downside of this is that 75% of the time, you're not an Arcane Warrior, you're a Fighter/Wizard/Paladin/Warlock/Bard/Rogue/Barbarian/Monk/Artificer(/Sorcerer), and if the core mechanics of your class don't synergise right with the particular Arcane Gish concept you're going for, you're a bit out of luck.

When WotC made the Mystic, they essentially tried to make the Arcane Gish a single class, only they were doing Psionics, not Arcane Gishes. This is a kitchen sink, and it's akin to what the Wizard was in the earliest stages of the D&D Next playest: barely a thing of itself, just a name and a single mechanic that links vastly different concepts together. This is what class families were in 2e, and what Power sources were in 4e. It's not a real class. This is the sort of narrative whole that is needed for Psionics (they need to all be related to one another in some way), but it does not a class make. The Psionic Talent die is a great way, imho, for doing this for all Psionic concepts.

If we want a "Psion" class, however, we need to figure out something a lot more focused on a single psionic concept, but broad enough that you can churn out subclasses for it. And those subclasses can't be "one feels more martial, one feels more roguelike, one feels more magical, one feels more divine, etc." That leads us back into the issue with the Mystic.

So we need a singular class that people will agree is awesome, that has room for more than just, "Telepath, Telekinetic, Pyrokinetic, Ectoplasm summoner/shaper." And it can't include the concepts of 4e's Battlemind/3e's Metabolist necessarily, because that one is so martially focused (better as a Fighter or Monk subclass). It could. however, include the Ardent if such an Empath concept is less martially focused than it was in 4e (never understood why the empath had to hit people with a spear to mess with their emotions).

But is there room for 5-10 more subclasses? The other main classes have a whole host of concepts screaming for them. Can we crowd-source some concepts? And if so, is there an agreeable baseline for the Psion? If there isn't enough subclass ideas for the Psion or enough of an agreeable baseline for it, Psionics is better off split between the various classes.

 

[Chaosmancer]

How did other 3pp psions do it? Clearly they were capable of doing it, no? So why do you keep acting like this is impossible or an insurmountable challenge?

Could you please point to the post where I said it was impossible or insurmountable? Because I need to edit it to show the fact that that is not what I am trying to say.

I am trying to say that it is the design challenge of the psion. Why is this such a contraversial statement?

If someone wanted to add a new Fighter Subclass using arcane magic I would point out that the Eldritch knight and Arcane Archer exist and cover large tracts of that concept. Does that mean you can't make a new subclass? Clearly not because the Echo Knight exists and did something completely different with the same basic idea.

A lot of people say they want a Psion, great. A lot of people have only two things they really state about it. 1) It uses the character's brain 2) It has this list of potential powers.

Well, that is great, but that list of powers is also a bunch of spells and abilities that already exist in the game. I guess you could ignore that, design the Psion as if none of those abilities existed, but I think everyone would agree that would lead to a bad design.

So, we have to recognize that they exist, and design in such a way that acknowledges they exist, to make sure that the new class isn't rendered moot by an existing class.

That is it. That is my entire point. Make sure that if you design a Psion, you don't make it OP or redundant when compared to the closest thing we have to what people say they want. I don't know why that has been taken to this point where I am being told that such a design isn't impossible, I never said it was, I was simply pointing out the challenges in the design process.