The wild talent feats don’t have asi attached, so I guess they’re origin feats?
No, they're a new category of feat; Wild Talent Feat. Something being an Origin Feat isn't determined by them having an attached ASI, it's determined by them having the "Origin" feat category.
While they may not be called "Origin Feats"- which to be fair is relevant since Warlocks at least have an Invocation that specifically draws from that category- they seem to fill the same role as Origin Feats or the Dragonmark Feats from the Eberron UA- they're feats intended to be taken as a part of a Background, presumably because the campaign is in a particular setting or looking to draw on a particular common theme.
What point are you trying to make? I can't tell if you're just saying "these fill a similar design niche to Origin feats", or if you're trying to make a case that they can be picked in situations that allow for an Origin feat choice specifically? I'm asking for clarification because you seem to have replied in a contrary manner to my purely rules accurate statement that they're not part of the Origin feat category. I wasn't making any statement about their design niche or anything like that...
I suppose? How, though? What, precisely, do they do?
Psions weave magic and extraordinary powers through the power of their minds. They develop their minds as fonts of power that manifest spells and grow stronger over the course of their adventuring careers.
Backgrounds representing their connection to wild talents will be included with these feats in a future book if they become official, but in the meantime a character who takes the Noble or Sage background can choose a Wild Talent feat in place of that background’s Origin feat, and any character can choose one of these feats when their class normally allows a feat choice.
Ahh. Well, turns out if you actually read the stuff there’s an answer. Thank you.
Of course it kind of begs the question of why only nobles or sages. No farmers with mind powers, I guess. Which seems weird, but at least there’s an answer.
I have always been a proponent that more options is better. If you don't like an option, you are free to discard it. But this is a game about infinite creativity, so we may as well provide as many permutations of as many ideas as we can and let each group at each table decide what to use and what not to use.
I remember being so excited to get The Complete Psionics Handbook back in 1991. But I never really felt like I had much chance to really explore the full possibilities of that class. It just felt... clumsy. Keeping track of the Disciplines, Sciences, Devotions, Defense Modes, and Psi Points was just a hassle. It works much better as a standard caster class. The one thing that PHBR5 had that this new UA misses is the ability to custom build your own psionicist from the ground up. The old rules allowed us to pick and choose a unique set of Sciences and Disciplines, whereas this new class follows the straightforward "this is what you get at each level" format. But that's fine. There's always room to spice it up with some homebrew ideas.
And sure, some may say that the Psion is too similar to a warlock or a sorcerer to really merit its own distinct class. So? You're still free to play a warlock or a sorcerer. heck, even in our world there are tons of jobs in every career fields whose titles and job descriptions sound eerily similar and that have a great deal of overlap. So why wouldn't that be true in the game world too?
Go for it. More options is always better. If you like it, play it. If you don't, don't. If you want to tweak it to better fit your campaign, tweak it. But if a new things sparks a little creativity in just a few people, then it was worth it.
Destructive Thoughts has a problem: a vast shortage of conjuration or evocation spells that have saving throws.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only spells that you can use Destructive Thoughts on that are actually on the Psion list are Shatter, Blade Barrier and Force Cage.
The wild talent feats don’t have asi attached, so I guess they’re origin feats?
No, they're a new category of feat; Wild Talent Feat. Something being an Origin Feat isn't determined by them having an attached ASI, it's determined by them having the "Origin" feat category.
While they may not be called "Origin Feats"- which to be fair is relevant since Warlocks at least have an Invocation that specifically draws from that category- they seem to fill the same role as Origin Feats or the Dragonmark Feats from the Eberron UA- they're feats intended to be taken as a part of a Background, presumably because the campaign is in a particular setting or looking to draw on a particular common theme.
What point are you trying to make? I can't tell if you're just saying "these fill a similar design niche to Origin feats", or if you're trying to make a case that they can be picked in situations that allow for an Origin feat choice specifically? I'm asking for clarification because you seem to have replied in a contrary manner to my purely rules accurate statement that they're not part of the Origin feat category. I wasn't making any statement about their design niche or anything like that...
Just going over the bit about design niche. They’re not technically Origin feats and there’s one or two cases where the distinction will be relevant, but for general discussion I think people can track “origin feat” as a catchall term for these.
The spell list is kinda weak considering the class has only simple weapons, no armor, and d6 for HP. The subclasses don't really help much with that either.
Also, what good is turning your hands into weapons if you will get crushed if you try to use them?
I agree. I don't see what would be wrong with letting them wear light armor. And sure, the Metamorph can turn their hands into blades like the T-1000 did with John Connor's foster mother Janelle. But it would be neat to see something more along the lines of a Kensei/Battlemaster/Bladesinger. The warlock has the Hexblade, the Psion deserves something similar.
The wild talent feats don’t have asi attached, so I guess they’re origin feats?
No, they're a new category of feat; Wild Talent Feat. Something being an Origin Feat isn't determined by them having an attached ASI, it's determined by them having the "Origin" feat category.
While they may not be called "Origin Feats"- which to be fair is relevant since Warlocks at least have an Invocation that specifically draws from that category- they seem to fill the same role as Origin Feats or the Dragonmark Feats from the Eberron UA- they're feats intended to be taken as a part of a Background, presumably because the campaign is in a particular setting or looking to draw on a particular common theme.
What point are you trying to make? I can't tell if you're just saying "these fill a similar design niche to Origin feats", or if you're trying to make a case that they can be picked in situations that allow for an Origin feat choice specifically? I'm asking for clarification because you seem to have replied in a contrary manner to my purely rules accurate statement that they're not part of the Origin feat category. I wasn't making any statement about their design niche or anything like that...
Just going over the bit about design niche. They’re not technically Origin feats and there’s one or two cases where the distinction will be relevant, but for general discussion I think people can track “origin feat” as a catchall term for these.
Yeah, no. I think using a game specific term in such a "catchall" way is unhelpful at best and misleading at worst. Origin Feats are a discrete category of feat and that language shouldn't be used interchangeably with other topics. Unless your intent is to mislead and confuse.
At the very least it's a confusing way to respond to someone making a comment explicitly about the rules and not about design spaces
Backgrounds representing their connection to wild talents will be included with these feats in a future book if they become official, but in the meantime a character who takes the Noble or Sage background can choose a Wild Talent feat in place of that background’s Origin feat, and any character can choose one of these feats when their class normally allows a feat choice.
Ahh. Well, turns out if you actually read the stuff there’s an answer. Thank you.
Of course it kind of begs the question of why only nobles or sages. No farmers with mind powers, I guess. Which seems weird, but at least there’s an answer.
Simple answer: They're placeholders. This was easier than coming out with new backgrounds as part of the UA as well.
Just confuses me why they didn't say you can just replace the origin feat of any background with one of these purely for the sake of playtesting.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only spells that you can use Destructive Thoughts on that are actually on the Psion list are Shatter, Blade Barrier and Force Cage.
I'm not convinced it's valid for forcecage; the wording suggests that it may only apply at the time you initially cast the spell, and there is no initial save for forcecage. Other than that, I didn't check the entire list but that seems plausible.
As I expected, it's a mixture of panic & the usual "But Mystic & past editions were more unique/Wikipedia:OtherStuffExists" talk. I mean this in the most good-faith way:Calm down, let's actually talk about why we're here.
Mystic was canned for a reason. It was the most divisive thing pre-pandemic, 5e-wise. It caused fights, & was stopped for being too controversial.
Past editions' versions of psionics were disliked as a hassle for casual players. Whom are being considered far more than the Beyond Forums, YouTuber & Reddit audiences.
This is the result of a metric oceanload of feedback.
I advise people not panic, read the UA with more than a casual eye, put aside biases, & actually test this out before going doom & gloom.
& remember why we're here in the most neutral form of psion(ic) we're at now:ALL the feedback, casuals being preferred over "professionals", The sheer pre-pandemic feedback divisiveness over 5e UA Mystic that have Hasbro scared of any orders towards WotC to revive that incarnation, & people still wanting Psionics despite Aberrant(Which is a mess, Beyond-wise...& being about being descended/touched by from Aberrations & The Far Realm, not psions) & GOO(You are not forming a pact with your mind/brain).
Now, as for how this is mechanically:It took the right lesson from Monk, and added a Psionic Energy Dice recharge. IMO, it should be a Level 3 thing, given the encouraged rate of Psionc Energy Dice consumption.
I can now hopefully use Scribes Wizard to create PsyBall thanks to Psychic Crush. So that's a positive.
Tasha's Mind Whip got nerfed, unsurprisingly.
Rautlothim's Psychic Lance needs the following adjustment:It should work on something's most commonly known name, not quite Onomantic precision. Otherwise Manshoon & similar entities whose true name are lost, in-game lore-wise, would be functionally immune to the pseudo-Onomantic aspect.
Telekinetic Fling needs to work with more types of non-stones ammo. Don't want to overlap with Magic Stone.
Most of the actual Psion(ic) is neutral. The lack of need to worry about non-material, non-verbal components is good, but the actual spell list that benefit from such is kinda...meh.
Likewise, the spell list needs to be HEAVILY modified to work with Expanded Rules, Legacy & Partnered Content spells, just like Artificer, to work on Beyond. Likewise, with some Beyond Partnered Content has Psionic Powers, & those should be allowed to work with the 2nd-Level feature of the Psion(ic) as acceptable options, given that the synergy is begging to be tapped.
One last note:I think a smidge more lore would help with this.
Intellect Fortress is way better than Protection from Energy (grants advantage on saves, upcast for additional targets). Of course, protection from energy is garbage so that may be okay.
Psychic Scream: unchanged from XGTE.
Raulothim's Psychic Lance: requiring a truename is an interesting restriction.
Summon Astral Entity: broadly compable to other summons.
Telekinetic Crush: I don't think any of the advantages this spell has make up for damage dropping from 8d6 (fireball) to 5d6.
Telekinetic Fling: I'm not sure why it does force damage, it's pretty clearly using a solid object. I have trouble seeing why I would use this over True Strike.
Further thought on Telekinetic Fling: I think making it work more like True Strike would be a good change. For example
TELEKINETIC FLING Transmutation Cantrip (Psion) Casting Time: Action Range: touch Components: V, M (an item which can be thrown, or an item of ammunition) Duration: Instantaneous
Using force of mind, you make one thrown or ranged attack with the item used in the spell’s casting. The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity, and you are considered proficient. If the item is ammunition, treat it as having base damage 1d6, range 60/240.
Cantrip Upgrade. You may make two attacks at level 5, three at level 11, four at level 17. Each attack must be with a different item or piece of ammunition.
Rautlonom's Psychic Lance needs the following adjustment:It should work on something's most commonly known name, not quite Onomantic precision. Otherwise Manshoon & similar entities whose true name are lost, in-game lore-wise, would be functionally immune to the pseudo-Onomantic aspect.
It makes more sense to me that only a creature's real name has any power over/is able to magically identify the target.
Likewise, the spell list needs to be HEAVILY modified to work with Expanded Rules, Legacy & Partnered Content spells, just like Artificer, to work on Beyond. Likewise, with some Beyond Partnered Content has Psionic Powers, & those should be allowed to work with the 2nd-Level feature of the Psion(ic) as acceptable options, given that the synergy is begging to be tapped.
The partnered content thing basically just is not going to happen- all they're doing there is taking what someone else has already published, copying it to the site, and tagging them in the relevant lists. I'm pretty sure that legally speaking they simply cannot just go in and add those spells to another class list, because those spells aren't their property- they're licensed content. Designating which of those spells psions can use would be something all the 3PPs would need to do independently, and I'm not sure if those decisions would get directly supported on Beyond.
The partnered content thing basically just is not going to happen- all they're doing there is taking what someone else has already published, copying it to the site, and tagging them in the relevant lists. I'm pretty sure that legally speaking they simply cannot just go in and add those spells to another class list.
Well, maybe. They probably can't add them by name, but they could say "All wizard spells like (X), (Y), or (Z) are also psion spells" and that rule would indirectly incorporate 3PP spells.
The partnered content thing basically just is not going to happen- all they're doing there is taking what someone else has already published, copying it to the site, and tagging them in the relevant lists. I'm pretty sure that legally speaking they simply cannot just go in and add those spells to another class list.
Well, maybe. They probably can't add them by name, but they could say "All wizard spells like (X), (Y), or (Z) are also psion spells" and that rule would indirectly incorporate 3PP spells.
In theory, but I'm not sure they'd be able to come up with an effective baseline. Plus I'm pretty sure they couldn't actually tag the relevant spells as on the psion list, so the effect would be pretty minimal.
What point are you trying to make? I can't tell if you're just saying "these fill a similar design niche to Origin feats", or if you're trying to make a case that they can be picked in situations that allow for an Origin feat choice specifically? I'm asking for clarification because you seem to have replied in a contrary manner to my purely rules accurate statement that they're not part of the Origin feat category. I wasn't making any statement about their design niche or anything like that...
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Psions weave magic and extraordinary powers through the power of their minds. They develop their minds as fonts of power that manifest spells and grow stronger over the course of their adventuring careers.
Beyond that, read the UA.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Ahh. Well, turns out if you actually read the stuff there’s an answer. Thank you.
Of course it kind of begs the question of why only nobles or sages. No farmers with mind powers, I guess. Which seems weird, but at least there’s an answer.
I have always been a proponent that more options is better. If you don't like an option, you are free to discard it. But this is a game about infinite creativity, so we may as well provide as many permutations of as many ideas as we can and let each group at each table decide what to use and what not to use.
I remember being so excited to get The Complete Psionics Handbook back in 1991. But I never really felt like I had much chance to really explore the full possibilities of that class. It just felt... clumsy. Keeping track of the Disciplines, Sciences, Devotions, Defense Modes, and Psi Points was just a hassle. It works much better as a standard caster class. The one thing that PHBR5 had that this new UA misses is the ability to custom build your own psionicist from the ground up. The old rules allowed us to pick and choose a unique set of Sciences and Disciplines, whereas this new class follows the straightforward "this is what you get at each level" format. But that's fine. There's always room to spice it up with some homebrew ideas.
And sure, some may say that the Psion is too similar to a warlock or a sorcerer to really merit its own distinct class. So? You're still free to play a warlock or a sorcerer. heck, even in our world there are tons of jobs in every career fields whose titles and job descriptions sound eerily similar and that have a great deal of overlap. So why wouldn't that be true in the game world too?
Go for it. More options is always better. If you like it, play it. If you don't, don't. If you want to tweak it to better fit your campaign, tweak it. But if a new things sparks a little creativity in just a few people, then it was worth it.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only spells that you can use Destructive Thoughts on that are actually on the Psion list are Shatter, Blade Barrier and Force Cage.
Psykinetics also get Thunderwave.
So learn to love Shatter until level 11.
Just going over the bit about design niche. They’re not technically Origin feats and there’s one or two cases where the distinction will be relevant, but for general discussion I think people can track “origin feat” as a catchall term for these.
The spell list is kinda weak considering the class has only simple weapons, no armor, and d6 for HP. The subclasses don't really help much with that either.
Also, what good is turning your hands into weapons if you will get crushed if you try to use them?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I agree. I don't see what would be wrong with letting them wear light armor. And sure, the Metamorph can turn their hands into blades like the T-1000 did with John Connor's foster mother Janelle. But it would be neat to see something more along the lines of a Kensei/Battlemaster/Bladesinger. The warlock has the Hexblade, the Psion deserves something similar.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
Yeah, no. I think using a game specific term in such a "catchall" way is unhelpful at best and misleading at worst. Origin Feats are a discrete category of feat and that language shouldn't be used interchangeably with other topics. Unless your intent is to mislead and confuse.
At the very least it's a confusing way to respond to someone making a comment explicitly about the rules and not about design spaces
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Simple answer: They're placeholders. This was easier than coming out with new backgrounds as part of the UA as well.
Just confuses me why they didn't say you can just replace the origin feat of any background with one of these purely for the sake of playtesting.
is this new class not an option in dndbeyond character creation or am I missing something?
I'm not convinced it's valid for forcecage; the wording suggests that it may only apply at the time you initially cast the spell, and there is no initial save for forcecage. Other than that, I didn't check the entire list but that seems plausible.
D&D Beyond’s character builder doesn’t support playtest content, only official releases.
pronouns: he/she/they
As I expected, it's a mixture of panic & the usual "But Mystic & past editions were more unique/Wikipedia:OtherStuffExists" talk. I mean this in the most good-faith way:Calm down, let's actually talk about why we're here.
Mystic was canned for a reason. It was the most divisive thing pre-pandemic, 5e-wise. It caused fights, & was stopped for being too controversial.
Past editions' versions of psionics were disliked as a hassle for casual players. Whom are being considered far more than the Beyond Forums, YouTuber & Reddit audiences.
This is the result of a metric oceanload of feedback.
I advise people not panic, read the UA with more than a casual eye, put aside biases, & actually test this out before going doom & gloom.
& remember why we're here in the most neutral form of psion(ic) we're at now:ALL the feedback, casuals being preferred over "professionals", The sheer pre-pandemic feedback divisiveness over 5e UA Mystic that have Hasbro scared of any orders towards WotC to revive that incarnation, & people still wanting Psionics despite Aberrant(Which is a mess, Beyond-wise...& being about being descended/touched by from Aberrations & The Far Realm, not psions) & GOO(You are not forming a pact with your mind/brain).
Now, as for how this is mechanically:It took the right lesson from Monk, and added a Psionic Energy Dice recharge. IMO, it should be a Level 3 thing, given the encouraged rate of Psionc Energy Dice consumption.
I can now hopefully use Scribes Wizard to create PsyBall thanks to Psychic Crush. So that's a positive.
Tasha's Mind Whip got nerfed, unsurprisingly.
Rautlothim's Psychic Lance needs the following adjustment:It should work on something's most commonly known name, not quite Onomantic precision. Otherwise Manshoon & similar entities whose true name are lost, in-game lore-wise, would be functionally immune to the pseudo-Onomantic aspect.
Telekinetic Fling needs to work with more types of non-stones ammo. Don't want to overlap with Magic Stone.
Most of the actual Psion(ic) is neutral. The lack of need to worry about non-material, non-verbal components is good, but the actual spell list that benefit from such is kinda...meh.
Likewise, the spell list needs to be HEAVILY modified to work with Expanded Rules, Legacy & Partnered Content spells, just like Artificer, to work on Beyond. Likewise, with some Beyond Partnered Content has Psionic Powers, & those should be allowed to work with the 2nd-Level feature of the Psion(ic) as acceptable options, given that the synergy is begging to be tapped.
One last note:I think a smidge more lore would help with this.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
So, reactions to the spells
Further thought on Telekinetic Fling: I think making it work more like True Strike would be a good change. For example
It makes more sense to me that only a creature's real name has any power over/is able to magically identify the target.
The partnered content thing basically just is not going to happen- all they're doing there is taking what someone else has already published, copying it to the site, and tagging them in the relevant lists. I'm pretty sure that legally speaking they simply cannot just go in and add those spells to another class list, because those spells aren't their property- they're licensed content. Designating which of those spells psions can use would be something all the 3PPs would need to do independently, and I'm not sure if those decisions would get directly supported on Beyond.
Well, maybe. They probably can't add them by name, but they could say "All wizard spells like (X), (Y), or (Z) are also psion spells" and that rule would indirectly incorporate 3PP spells.
In theory, but I'm not sure they'd be able to come up with an effective baseline. Plus I'm pretty sure they couldn't actually tag the relevant spells as on the psion list, so the effect would be pretty minimal.
They were able to make the relevant tags with Artificer, Illrigger, & Profane Soul Blood Hunter, so they can make them with Psion.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.