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

 

[DND_Reborn]

Honestly I'm not sure who rolls the dice, and whether or not the group votes, changes the underlying argument. The DM could say, "You guys roll the dice" for the random treasure table. And it's not like there's going to be much debate about who gets the Holy Avenger. Yes, there are some functional differences between the two, but I'm not sure they matter in the context of the arguments being made here.

In any event, I was making the argument in your defense. @Chaosmancer seems to find it unacceptable that one character should be more powerful as the result of random dice rolls, and I was pointing out that random treasure does exactly that.

AH! Well, I appreciate the assistance!

Sorry, but when I am quoted and there is no statement acknowledging agreement (I agree, You have a point, etc.) it usually means I am being disputed. My bad.

As way of apology the odds of rolling a paladin using 3d6 in order (as Cavalier-Paladin), getting the right social class so you don't need a sponsor, then getting a sword, holy avenger, intelligent is about 1 in 71,168,969,697.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ah, I get the point.

That isn't quite where I was going with it, but I see the similarities.

Let us say for arguments sake that you need to roll a 10 or less on a 1d100 to be psionic.

For someone who doesn't want psionics on their character, it doesn't matter. They don't want it, so they won't roll for it.

For someone who does want it, they now have a 90% chance to not have the character they wanted. So, it ends up being more likely they either won't use the system, or they will just be given the abilities anyways, ignoring the roll.

But, because there was only a 10% chance of any character being Psionic, the game was built to allow Psionics to be unbalanced, with the theory that you can't really expect them to show up.


That all seems like a poor design though.

I find it better to design Psionics to be balanced, or have a cost that is balanced, from the beginning. Because the people who want it will likely get it anyways, and we don't need "but it isn't likely to happen" as a balancing act.

Magical Items are a bit different, in my mind, but I don't want to get bogged down in discussing them.

But isn’t that a LOT like magic items? “I want to play a character with a sentient sword” isn’t necessarily something you get to choose.

Now, I can understand a sentiment that psionics, like magic itself, should be something that you get to choose. But this might be a case of the designers having a different opinion, and categorizing the ability differently than you would prefer, not necessarily “bad” design.

 

[Guest 6801328]

AH! Well, I appreciate the assistance!

Sorry, but when I am quoted and there is no statement acknowledging agreement (I agree, You have a point, etc.) it usually means I am being disputed. My bad.

As way of apology the odds of rolling a paladin using 3d6 in order (as Cavalier-Paladin), getting the right social class so you don't need a sponsor, then getting a sword, holy avenger, intelligent is about 1 in 71,168,969,697.

Hmm. Given that the prime factors of that number are:

3
7
7
53
9134767

I don't think so.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Ah, I get the point.

That isn't quite where I was going with it, but I see the similarities.

Let us say for arguments sake that you need to roll a 10 or less on a 1d100 to be psionic.

For someone who doesn't want psionics on their character, it doesn't matter. They don't want it, so they won't roll for it.

For someone who does want it, they now have a 90% chance to not have the character they wanted. So, it ends up being more likely they either won't use the system, or they will just be given the abilities anyways, ignoring the roll.

But, because there was only a 10% chance of any character being Psionic, the game was built to allow Psionics to be unbalanced, with the theory that you can't really expect them to show up.


That all seems like a poor design though.

I find it better to design Psionics to be balanced, or have a cost that is balanced, from the beginning. Because the people who want it will likely get it anyways, and we don't need "but it isn't likely to happen" as a balancing act.

Magical Items are a bit different, in my mind, but I don't want to get bogged down in discussing them.

It just depends on how you view psionics. I view them as an extra to the game. I don't want to play a psionicist but if I get them, cool. For me, by making them a possible standard feature, you are taking the fun out of them.

So, to me it is not poor design, it is just right.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Hmm. Given that the prime factors of that number are:

3
7
7
53
9134767

I don't think so.

Um... I do.

 

[Chaosmancer]

But isn’t that a LOT like magic items? “I want to play a character with a sentient sword” isn’t necessarily something you get to choose.

Now, I can understand a sentiment that psionics, like magic itself, should be something that you get to choose. But this might be a case of the designers having a different opinion, and categorizing the ability differently than you would prefer, not necessarily “bad” design.

No, the "bad" part is making it more powerful just because it is random, which is historicallly the way things end up happening when an ability is gated behind a random roll.

But, you totally can play a character with a sentient sword, and choose that. Warlock, Pact of the Blade. Or even an Eldritch Knight if you want a stretch a little.

But, since those classes very specifically give you magical weapons bonded to your character, it is trivially easy to ask a DM to have them talk to you as part of that.

I'm stretching, I know, but "sentient" weapons don't by themselves give you any advantages.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It just depends on how you view psionics. I view them as an extra to the game. I don't want to play a psionicist but if I get them, cool. For me, by making them a possible standard feature, you are taking the fun out of them.

So, to me it is not poor design, it is just right.

Making them a standard feature? I'm not sure the difference here, but if you want them to be extra special just because they are special, I also find that a poor design choice.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Making them a standard feature? I'm not sure the difference here, but if you want them to be extra special just because they are special, I also find that a poor design choice.

It isn't special if everyone can do it. It isn't a poor design to me, but poor is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[Guest 6801328]

No, the "bad" part is making it more powerful just because it is random, which is historicallly the way things end up happening when an ability is gated behind a random roll.

But, you totally can play a character with a sentient sword, and choose that. Warlock, Pact of the Blade. Or even an Eldritch Knight if you want a stretch a little.

But, since those classes very specifically give you magical weapons bonded to your character, it is trivially easy to ask a DM to have them talk to you as part of that.

I'm stretching, I know, but "sentient" weapons don't by themselves give you any advantages.

If you want to refluff those class features to meet the spirit of what I was intending, then I will refluff sorcerer metamagic to meet the requirements for psionics that you are describing. Fair?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I mean, if you don’t like the sentient sword example, let’s just use the time-honored tradition of rolling for stats. Some people get lucky, roll better, and are more powerful.

You don’t have to use it, or like it. And clearly WotC sees limitations with that model. But it’s hardly some strange anomaly that exists only in old versions of psionics.