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

I'm going to refer to the Great Wheel/Planescape cosmology as the D&D Multiverse, because that's what 5e calls it and I don't want to have to clarify what I'm talking about all the time. Alright, so here's how it went:

1e Manual of the Planes:
-The D&D Multiverse was fleshed out from earlier seeds to cover most of the basic ground it does today. There are a lot of differences, but it's essentially the same thing, as opposed to any of the other cosmologies that have been used in D&D settings.
-At this time the main D&D settings were Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, and Dragonlance, and (with the possible exception of Dragonlance) they all used the D&D Multiverse.

2e Cosmology:
-The D&D Multiverse got substantially expanded through Planescape (and Spelljammer)
-All worlds existed within the same D&D Multiverse. You could travel between them, and that's something that happened in official sources.
-A few worlds didn't interact terribly well in some of their fiction, but there was often an official explanation (ie, Dark Sun existed in a "closed" crystal sphere, so you couldn't spelljam in or out).

3e Cosmology:
-The only setting that still used the slightly changed D&D Multiverse was Greyhawk.
-Every other setting either didn't get addressed officially in 3e, or got it's own unique cosmology. It was assumed that each setting existed in its own reality, and you could not hop through portals or spelljam from one to another.
-Forgotten Realms got it's own unique cosmology.
-Eberron was created, so it naturally got its own unique cosmology.

4e didn't use the D&D Multiverse, so it isn't comparable.

5e Cosmology:
-As of the original publication of the core books, the D&D Multiverse now officially encompasses all worlds again, like in 2e.
-Eberron retain it's unique cosmology as a mini-cosmology within the D&D Multiverse. Basically, the same treatment that Dark Sun got in 2e.
-I do not have any of the Magic: the Gathering setting books, and without them it is unclear how or if this applies to them. They might very well exist within their own cosmologies.

So basically, originally (or as near as you can get to it) most settings existed within the D&D Multiverse. 3e decided to buck the trend, and 5e went back to it.

I can understand how someone might see the D&D Multiverse as applying particularly to Forgotten Realms if looking at it compared to M:tG settings, but that misconception causes confusion regarding a lot of things. For instance, the racial pantheons (elves, dwarves, gnomes, drow, etc) are D&D Multiverse, not Forgotten Realms things. You'll find the same pantheons in Greyhawk, Planescape, and Spelljammer, and they are generally offered as recommended options for home-brew settings (along with the fantasy-historical pantheons). In fact, the Elven, Dwarven, Greek, Norse, and Celtic pantheons are considered to be the top five powerhouse pantheons in Planescape (at least as far as the Sigil people know).

There are so many things that people mistakenly equate as Forgotten Realms specifics or add-ons that are in fact D&D Multiverse things--many of which predated the Forgotten Realms and first appeared in Greyhawk and other places!

It feels to me kind of like if the D&D Multiverse is Basketball and the Forgotten Realms is Michael Jordan, but people believe he invented the game and owns the NBA or something.

"That's not how that works! That's not how any of this works!"
 

log in or register to remove this ad


It takes time to master psionic,
the dev team is just about to make moving a grain of sand,
so we are still far away from a complete system!
 
Last edited:

So the latest UA psionics playtest received negative feedback regarding the psionic die and WotC indicated that they will still work on psionics. Seems like the apocalypse didn't happen for psionics just because I provided my honest feedback on the latest iteration of psionics.
And how many versions of of psionics have been rejected now?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Just because some people can't see the apocalypse doesn't mean it isn't happening.
 

Aldarc

Legend
And how many versions of of psionics have been rejected now?
Seems like enough that Crawford said that they are getting a better picture of what people want.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
This would be applicable if it wasn't for the fact that it's not. Because you yourself admit, there have been a number of different versions, so if one were being intellectually honest, one would have to admit that they are hardly doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results.

Just because some people can't see the apocalypse doesn't mean it isn't happening.
There's not really a sense of impending doom or frustration with psionics in Jeremy Crawford's voice. Your apocalypse is self-imagined and created primarily to guilt people into giving false feedback.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Seems like enough that Crawford said that they are getting a better picture of what people want.

....

There's not really a sense of impending doom or frustration with psionics in Jeremy Crawford's voice.

In fairness, we are now:

More than eight years after 5e was publicly announced; and
almost six full years after the publication of the Player's Handbook; and
three years after the release of the Mystic class in UA; and
there have been four (I think?) attempts at psionics in UA already, with the most recent one rejected...

And it really seems like every attempt gets narrower. So far, the main feedback is that it can't be a new class and it can't have new mechanics. Which must be really annoying for the people who want differentiated psionics.

Yes, I expect psionics at some point as well, but I can understand why there is a wee bit of frustration for those who like psionics.
 

Aldarc

Legend
And it really seems like every attempt gets narrower. So far, the main feedback is that it can't be a new class and it can't have new mechanics.
WotC said that the feedback was specifically against the Mystic, but not that there can't be a new class.

Yes, I expect psionics at some point as well, but I can understand why there is a wee bit of frustration for those who like psionics.
I am one such person.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
WotC said that the feedback was specifically against the Mystic, but not that there can't be a new class.

Perhaps you are correct. On the other hand, I would note that instead of designing a different new class, they designed within the "subclass" space.

And the most recent announcement wasn't a problem with the subclass design space, it was with the Psionic Talent Die.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that seems like a pretty clear indication of where they are going.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure we will find out in another six years or so. :)

EDIT: Who knows, maybe Dark Sun/Psionics will be the 50th Anniversary publication, or, maybe, the 75th.
 

Aldarc

Legend
And WotC throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I would not be happy with that - and I would likely move on from 5e to other games - but it's their choice to make.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Seems like enough that Crawford said that they are getting a better picture of what people want.

There's not really a sense of impending doom or frustration with psionics in Jeremy Crawford's voice. Your apocalypse is self-imagined and created primarily to guilt people into giving false feedback.

I'm not sure I'm hearing what you are hearing with this video
He is saying a lot of things about how people "don't want a new mechanic" and that they really liked psionic themed characters, but that they want things "to keep working the same way"

All of that reads to me like there is not going to be a Psionic class, and if there is, it will be a spellcaster like a wizard or sorcerer. Because the feedback is, don't create new mechanics, just let us play the theme, which means spells.
 

Aldarc

Legend
I'm not sure I'm hearing what you are hearing with this video
He is saying a lot of things about how people "don't want a new mechanic" and that they really liked psionic themed characters, but that they want things "to keep working the same way"

All of that reads to me like there is not going to be a Psionic class, and if there is, it will be a spellcaster like a wizard or sorcerer. Because the feedback is, don't create new mechanics, just let us play the theme, which means spells.
I was talking about the UA article where they talked specifically about feedback they received regarding the Mystic and not the video, so maybe before accusing me of not listening to the video, maybe you should bother listening to me. That seems like the polite thing to do after all.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
I was talking about the UA article where they talked specifically about feedback they received regarding the Mystic and not the video, so maybe before accusing me of not listening to the video, maybe you should bother listening to me. That seems like the polite thing to do after all.

I didn't know there was an article, and you talked about how there was nothing "in his voice"

So, was I to assume they published a new article I did not know about, or that you listened to him talk with his voice on a video I knew about

Maybe don't be so defensive, I wasn't accusing you of anything, just saying I was hearing a different interpretation.
 

Aldarc

Legend
I didn't know there was an article, and you talked about how there was nothing "in his voice"

So, was I to assume they published a new article I did not know about, or that you listened to him talk with his voice on a video I knew about

Maybe don't be so defensive, I wasn't accusing you of anything, just saying I was hearing a different interpretation.
I said that there was nothing in his voice about giving up on psionics not necessarily about a psionic class. I also said that their reasons for putting the Mystic on the shelf was discussed in one of the previous UA psionic articles.

That said, I do think that their current subclass direction is far more likely, but I doubt that WotC have given up completely on the possibility for a psionic class. They could be testing subsystems for more easier to manage subclass bites first before going back to the drawing board for a psion class.
 



Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I'm not sure I'm hearing what you are hearing with this video
He is saying a lot of things about how people "don't want a new mechanic" and that they really liked psionic themed characters, but that they want things "to keep working the same way"

All of that reads to me like there is not going to be a Psionic class, and if there is, it will be a spellcaster like a wizard or sorcerer. Because the feedback is, don't create new mechanics, just let us play the theme, which means spells.
Just because the latest UA had subclasses and no full class, does not mean they aren't working on one. A full class is much harder than just a few subclasses. You have to design the FULL class as well as 2-3 subclasses to go with it.

I think some of you are reading too much into the most recent UA which only said no Mystic and gave a few subclass ideas.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Just because the latest UA had subclasses and no full class, does not mean they aren't working on one. A full class is much harder than just a few subclasses. You have to design the FULL class as well as 2-3 subclasses to go with it.

I think some of you are reading too much into the most recent UA which only said no Mystic and gave a few subclass ideas.

Now that the new subclasses have been rejected because people don't want psionics to use a unique mechanic, I have no idea. We could just get a new spellcasting class called a Psion again. But, it will just use spell slots.
 

Aldarc

Legend
The psi dice was rejected - and likely unique mechanics for psionics - though the themes and class fantasy of the subclasses seem to have been fairly popular.

Jeremy Crawford's summation of the feedback: "We dig kind of a neat, sometimes spooky psychic theme, but we just want it to work like how things work generally in fifth edition."
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
True Wizards are rare in Eberron. According to Keith, people with Magic Initiate or Magewrights are far more common.
Well no. “True wizards” aren’t just PCs. PC wizards are just exceptional wizards. There are many wizards at Morgrave and Arcanix who are masters of up to 3rd level spells, and a few who are even higher level than that.

In 5e, they aren’t PC class characters unless a DM wants them to be, but that is irrelevant to the state of the world. “Wizardry” isn’t class levels, it’s a type of magic.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
“Wizardry” isn’t class levels, it’s ...

wizardry_1__proving_grounds_of_the_mad_overlord_1.gif


We know what Wizardry is.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top