Here is official discussion on it if u want to watch. Most of the points i have been trying to get across are clarified in the first 5 minutes so you don't need to watch the whole thing
FYI: I watched the first 3:30 and they hadn’t made a single point yet. If the next minute and a half are just as empty of actual content then they have either failed to make your points as promised, or....
1:45 - “they have gone back to the drawing board with every edition on how psionics work”
2:10 - “magic and Psionics are like thus 🤝, they are not 2 separate things”
^In what way is that official? Todd is DNDBeyond staff, sure but he's not a Wizards employee, so he doesn't call the shots. And the WebDM guy is a youtuber. Despite their heightened visibility and possibly being closer to the source of creation than we are, they're still just end-users, same as us.
So yeah, it's just two dudes, opining on psionics. I happen to disagree with some of their opinions.
DnD has way too much of a bug up its ass about introducing psionics. The only reason it doesn't have as well developed of a history as other elements of the game is because every edition there's been this humming and hawing. Just make it a thing already. If people don't like it, they don't have to use it. Package with something else, get your money and relax about it.
Psionics=magic but psioncs=/= spellcasting. This also doesn't mean it's a whole big conundrum to have both in the same room together. Dumbing it down and making it too cookie-cutter is a mistake.
Mystic could've used some tuning but "was overpowered, trash immediately" is a ridiculous overreaction.
Ahah. I didn’t realize that those were specific points. I thought they were the kinds of statements of fact that one lays down to make sure everyone is on the same page on a topic in preparation for making a point. You know, something along the lines of: “Since water is wet, and since rivers are made of water, and because you are dry, if you fall into a river you will be wetter than you are now. The point being, if you wish to stay dry, then don’t fall in a river.”
Those first three aren’t points, they are the facts that lead-up to the argument that proves the point. Kind of like this:
“Because they have yet to get Psionics right in previous editions, and because the Mystic was overpowered, and because they are treating Psionics as different form of magic in this edition, they have an opportunity to fix the flaws of the past now. The point being that the Psion needs to be something different than they have tried in the past, but not the Mystic, and has to have some way to perform magic without casting spells.”
PS- Thy mystic is overpowered until level 9, then things flatten out for a few levels, and then they rapidly fall behind every other class. In 2e, the Fighter was OP until around levels 6-8, and then they gradually became more useless. The Wizard was practically useless until around level 5, and then it rapidly outpaced everything else after that. (The level cap back then was 36!) The point being that there have and always will be balance issues in D&D, why should that stop them from trying.
^In what way is that official? Todd is DNDBeyond staff, sure but he's not a Wizards employee, so he doesn't call the shots. And the WebDM guy is a youtuber. Despite their heightened visibility and possibly being closer to the source of creation than we are, they're still just end-users, same as us.
So yeah, it's just two dudes, opining on psionics. I happen to disagree with some of their opinions.
DnD has way too much of a bug up its ass about introducing psionics. The only reason it doesn't have as well developed of a history as other elements of the game is because every edition there's been this humming and hawing. Just make it a thing already. If people don't like it, they don't have to use it. Package with something else, get your money and relax about it.
Psionics=magic but psioncs=/= spellcasting. This also doesn't mean it's a whole big conundrum to have both in the same room together. Dumbing it down and making it too cookie-cutter is a mistake.
Mystic could've used some tuning but "was overpowered, trash immediately" is a ridiculous overreaction.
What he said!
(Although, the Mystic is overpower for the first half of the level scale. People’s reactions were based off of first impressions formed during low-level play. If the Mystic had been weak levels 1-9 and then ramped up people would have said they were too underpowered and things could have gone very different.)
^In what way is that official? Todd is DNDBeyond staff, sure but he's not a Wizards employee, so he doesn't call the shots. And the WebDM guy is a youtuber. Despite their heightened visibility and possibly being closer to the source of creation than we are, they're still just end-users, same as us.
So yeah, it's just two dudes, opining on psionics. I happen to disagree with some of their opinions.
DnD has way too much of a bug up its ass about introducing psionics. The only reason it doesn't have as well developed of a history as other elements of the game is because every edition there's been this humming and hawing. Just make it a thing already. If people don't like it, they don't have to use it. Package with something else, get your money and relax about it.
Psionics=magic but psioncs=/= spellcasting. This also doesn't mean it's a whole big conundrum to have both in the same room together. Dumbing it down and making it too cookie-cutter is a mistake.
Mystic could've used some tuning but "was overpowered, trash immediately" is a ridiculous overreaction.
It is pretty interesting to see how people react every time they introduce Psionics/the Mystic because there is a strange vocal minority that DESPISE the concept. These are, in my opinion, people who can't stand any sort of technology like guns and such in their DnD. Must be too far leaning into science fiction for them.
However, I can see where Wizards is coming from when it comes to introducing an entirely new magic system. DnD is in its golden era and more people are playing it than ever before. It is mostly because of this edition's accessibility and throwing in an entirely different magic system used by a single class adds another layer of difficulty that some people just don't want to deal with. I agree, just add it and let people who are against it to not use it... but Wizards wants all of their products to be used and thus a lot of refreshing mechanics get thrown by the wayside. But the mystic was totally overwhelming, especially for new players, it needed to either be scrapped or overhauled. It had a lot of cool ideas they should explore in the future, but watching my friend cycle through an insane tool belt at level 9 slows things down at my table and I'm sure it would at others.
If they go the spell slot direction, which they will, I hope that psionic spells could maybe have levels or differing functionality depending on what spell level you cast it. Or you can cast it at a lower level to begin concentration on it's beginning effects while then pumping higher level slots to do other crazy stuff while keeping concentration. All while doing so without material, verbal and (sometimes) somatic components. You could even have multiple concentration spells up at the risk of causing exhaustion if you get hit.
Yes, your take on the Mystic is accurate in my opinion.
Yes, your take on WotC, D&D’s current success, and how important a role Game Mechanics have to play in that success is also correct.
Yes, you are probably correct (assuming that we get an actual Psion Class of course) that they will have Spell Slots and “Cast Spells.” I hope you are also right that their version of spell casting is at least that far removed from every other caster in the game. (Except for the Warlock which has been just as unique since it’s debut almost 20 years ago as it is today, but even that Class has a lot of miles on it now.) You have no idea how I much I wish and hope that the Psion will be even that unique of nothing else. I was originally hoping for something even more “different” than the Warlock is from other Casters, but I’m wise enough not to be too greedy. At this point I’ll settle for what you describe and houserule the Points back in from the DMG if I feel it necessary to distinguish them further. However I sincerely have my doubts that it will be any more diverse from “traditional” spell casting as the Artificer. 😔
Davavor and IamSposta have hit the nail on the head. To preface, I would love a Psionics class and system, I'm a bells 'n' whistles kinda guy.
In the aforementioned link, the point of 6e came up briefly, starting I believe with noting peoples complaints, with some people asking when 6th Edition would come out. Their response was something along the lines of "When 5e stops having record breaking sales."
Just as Davavor points out, "DnD is in its golden era and more people are playing it than ever before. It is mostly because of this edition's accessibility..." This in tandem with Jeremy Crawford in the Psychic Warrior interview, "Some editions have gone that route of Psionics gets its whole system [i.e. the Mystic class]. The issue with that is typically where that leads, even though it can be a lot of fun, is most people then don't use it. And so there's always, for us, we're always balancing 'delivering the thing that many of us like and that we want,' whether it's Psionics or something else in D&D, and balancing that with 'well, we want as many people to enjoy this and actually use it at their game tables as possible.'"
So as publishers, I will believe in beholders before I'll believe they'll compromise their profits. Of course, this isn't going to stop me from letting my opinions be known, especially to the publishers through the next UA survey. I just think we shouldn't get our hopes too high, and should probably set our expectations closer to where the Artificer lies now.
Davavor and IamSposta have hit the nail on the head. To preface, I would love a Psionics class and system, I'm a bells 'n' whistles kinda guy.
In the aforementioned link, the point of 6e came up briefly, starting I believe with noting peoples complaints, with some people asking when 6th Edition would come out. Their response was something along the lines of "When 5e stops having record breaking sales."
Just as Davavor points out, "DnD is in its golden era and more people are playing it than ever before. It is mostly because of this edition's accessibility..." This in tandem with Jeremy Crawford in the Psychic Warrior interview, "Some editions have gone that route of Psionics gets its whole system [i.e. the Mystic class]. The issue with that is typically where that leads, even though it can be a lot of fun, is most people then don't use it. And so there's always, for us, we're always balancing 'delivering the thing that many of us like and that we want,' whether it's Psionics or something else in D&D, and balancing that with 'well, we want as many people to enjoy this and actually use it at their game tables as possible.'"
So as publishers, I will believe in beholders before I'll believe they'll compromise their profits. Of course, this isn't going to stop me from letting my opinions be known, especially to the publishers through the next UA survey. I just think we shouldn't get our hopes too high, and should probably set our expectations closer to where the Artificer lies now.
Davavor and IamSposta have hit the nail on the head. To preface, I would love a Psionics class and system, I'm a bells 'n' whistles kinda guy.
In the aforementioned link, the point of 6e came up briefly, starting I believe with noting peoples complaints, with some people asking when 6th Edition would come out. Their response was something along the lines of "When 5e stops having record breaking sales."
Just as Davavor points out, "DnD is in its golden era and more people are playing it than ever before. It is mostly because of this edition's accessibility..." This in tandem with Jeremy Crawford in the Psychic Warrior interview, "Some editions have gone that route of Psionics gets its whole system [i.e. the Mystic class]. The issue with that is typically where that leads, even though it can be a lot of fun, is most people then don't use it. And so there's always, for us, we're always balancing 'delivering the thing that many of us like and that we want,' whether it's Psionics or something else in D&D, and balancing that with 'well, we want as many people to enjoy this and actually use it at their game tables as possible.'"
So as publishers, I will believe in beholders before I'll believe they'll compromise their profits. Of course, this isn't going to stop me from letting my opinions be known, especially to the publishers through the next UA survey. I just think we shouldn't get our hopes too high, and should probably set our expectations closer to where the Artificer lies now.
Look! A good argument!
Yes, see?!?! First Jlwolf2 stated their preface, then they laid out all of the facts that nobody could dispute in a logical fashion. Then they stated the argument based on those facts so they could close with the point they were making. Even you ended up agreeing, so it was obviously successful. A well crafted argument indeed. (😜 Callback humor)
On a more serious note, Jlwolf2 is basically saying exactly what we’re all saying. The only difference between your point and ours is that you believe the pursuit of a functioning, balanced Psionic based Class is futile and therefore pointless. We believe it is a worthy enough pursuit to make it worth the extra work it would take, and that even if it fails it would still be worth the attempt.
Davavor seems to still hold out hope that someone at WotC still thinks so too and that we will get a Psion that is in some way recognizably based on the last thing we saw from Mearls before the lights went out. I am a bit more cynical myself and expect either nothing at all, or worse yet something so bland or dysfunctional that they should have listened to your opinion. I think CritchCricket truly believes that the Mystic could have been salvaged. I also think Mearls was actually trying his best to salvage it from what he had left to work with, but he knew that keeping the name “Mystic” would have rendered it DOA so he changed it to Psion. Each of us, yourself included, seem to be well aware of all the facts involved. It seems that we have each drawn our own entirely reasonable conclusions from those facts and have put forth competing arguments to support our differing opinions. I guess we will find out soon enough which of us is correct.
I also would like to point out that realized I have neglected to acknowledge when you agreed with me in post #77. That was an oversight on my part. I hope you don’t think me unsporting for it. After all, if we cannot agree to respect each other enough to acknowledge what we do agree on whenever it happens then there would be no room for discorse.
You know, it occurs to me they could also use a point system more in line with the Monk's Ki rather than the one the old Mystic UA used, only with more of a focus on casting rather than augmenting their martial abilities.
I reread the Psi UA extensively. I then compared older UAs that did eventually get published against their finalized printed versions to get a better feel for what and how things get fleshed out in a lore/narrative sense once they hit publication. I went back to the doc that started this thread and tried to predict what will happen.
I am now more convinced than ever that the Wizard Subclass in that document is in fact most likely the watered down caster that I predicted. I’m so sure that if I were a betting man, and I am, that if Vegas opened a line on it I would not hesitate to place my bet.
The original “psychic caster” was the Psionicist. Mearls probably changed his version of it to the “Mystic” to try and avoid the negative connotations that many people associate with Psionicist. I think that made it more difficult for the people to which he intended to appeal to actually connect with the Class, and the people who were going to hate it regardless hated it regardless so it won over nobody.
The Wizard Subclass in that document are specifically referred to as “Psionicists” in the flavor text. Also, many of the new Spells listed (Id Insinuation, Intellect Fortress, and Ego Whip as examples) have their names lifted directly from the 2e Psionicists Handbook. That’s it, that’s what we’ll get, and if we want it to feel different they will suggest we use the point system in the DMG.
I did in fact compare your notes against the UA as promised.
I think your assessment of the Fighter is fairly accurate, Playtesting will let us know if you are correct.
As to the Rogue Subclass... I don’t like it and here’s why: All of the Features are about combat with their Psi blades. (I’m a ‘90s X-Men fan and they will always be “Psi Blades” to me.) I think that type of character would have probably suited the Monk better. I think they really missed an opportunity to do a “Thief of Secrets” and make an awesome “mind reader/thought stealer/trick your mind into not seeing me” type of Character that would have been far cooler. The strict focus on combat makes the Rogue a little too one dimensional for my tastes. One could have made a Character similar enough to this Subclass using an Arcane Trickster+ Shadow Blade+These new “Psionic Spells” (oh it hurts me to type that) To be fair though, this Rogue Subclass could theoretically do it Psi Blades as many times as it likes instead of worrying about spell slots, but it brings nothing to the table besides that.
I still don't buy the "people won't use/like it, therefore why even try" argument. Especially in today's DnD where a large part of the revitalization could be attributed to a few entities championing the game and bringing it more to the mainstream. Get one of them onboard and you can directly influence the course of the game far more than in previous iterations. I mean let's be real, if Critical Role started running psionics, it'd sell like gangbusters. And it's not even about how much influence CR or another stream has, it's the environment itself. The streams, the events, the Youtube channels, it's a whole different ballgame as to how the material is shaped and consumed. If one wanted to make something a thing, there are a lot more options to do so now.
And yes, I not only believe the mystic could've been saved, I think it should've been saved. I hate the trend of "nerf it into the ground" or "trash it rather than fix it" that game developers, video or otherwise, seem to have. Although I'm not crazy on the name and would've personally preferred "Psion". The word "mystic" has more magical connotations than it does psionic.
We're still dealing with a business though. I could certainly be wrong about this next part, just kind of guessing. How much of a return are they getting for how much effort? It took almost three years from the initial release of the Artificer to the final release we have now today, and people are still complaining. From the majority of comments I've seen, the only thing that 'worked' for the Mystic was the bare-bones concept of psionics itself, with the mechanics being over complicated and unbalanced entirely. So instead of spending an amount of resources to salvage anything from the Mystic or create something new entirely, they are going with what has repeatedly brought in several times more profit than what it took to produce; simplicity and accessibility. The only way to make this change in favor of what we want is to get a vast majority of people to express a unified idea and present it to WotC, but we can't even come to an agreement as to what that idea is! A few key phrases and terms like 'unique' and 'new' keep springing up, but what does that mean? Should we do what we did with the Artificer and present the class in a setting book where it fits like Dark Sun? Should we use any preexisting spells and or magic, or come up with an entirely new system? How many complaints means it still needs work?
If you get nothing else from this, at least get this. Your happiness and satisfaction really don't matter to a company unless it affects their profits. We can always try to change anything, but I can't guarantee anything to you. So unless you can do that, take what you can get when it comes and expand upon it yourself, or wait for others to do so.
I am horrified by this... Given how good the innovation was with one of the early UA on Mystic, this is just a huge step in the wrong direction. I'm horrified because it homogenizes the powers instead of leaving a real sense of identity for these fundamentally different forces. I don't want table top world of warcraft (not baiting here, just saying)
Psionics should not ever, ever, ever, ever be a subclass of wizard.
I fear that these problems are too deeply ingrained into 5e. Some people here would criticize your homebrew if it were released by WotC because they were just doing the same thing they are with the subclasses so far; abandoning a Psionicist in favor of just doing subclasses. Having never seen your homebrew, I have no opinion on it's functionality, but I feel it illustrates my previous point, "...take what you can get when it comes and expand upon it yourself, or wait for others to do so." Look back to the very beginning of D&D. You needed two other game systems to play it. It was all just homebrew! And it grew and evolved from there.
At an initial glance, I’m disappointed in how these archetypes appear to be implemented. While the “spells” are interesting, the fact that they are spells doesn’t really say “mentalist” to me. All three of them need some work to bring them up to par with those already established (but maybe I just haven’t thought it through fully).
Psionics really does need to be a class of its own. As these archetypes stand, they seem more like flavor than a real option, along the lines of choosing a couple of feats (like the Dragonmarks for Eberron). The only one that remotely feels somewhat unique is the Soulknife. The fighter variant, by far needs the most work to set it apart (I’d rather play an Eldritch Knight). And the wizard, while it has some interesting (and potentially powerful) potential, the preparation aspect doesn’t really fit so I agree with others that it Would fit more with a sorcerer than a wizard.
But that’s just my take, I could be (and probably am) wrong.
1:45 - “they have gone back to the drawing board with every edition on how psionics work”
2:10 - “magic and Psionics are like thus 🤝, they are not 2 separate things”
2:45 - “the previous mystic was overpowered”
^In what way is that official? Todd is DNDBeyond staff, sure but he's not a Wizards employee, so he doesn't call the shots. And the WebDM guy is a youtuber. Despite their heightened visibility and possibly being closer to the source of creation than we are, they're still just end-users, same as us.
So yeah, it's just two dudes, opining on psionics. I happen to disagree with some of their opinions.
DnD has way too much of a bug up its ass about introducing psionics. The only reason it doesn't have as well developed of a history as other elements of the game is because every edition there's been this humming and hawing. Just make it a thing already. If people don't like it, they don't have to use it. Package with something else, get your money and relax about it.
Psionics=magic but psioncs=/= spellcasting. This also doesn't mean it's a whole big conundrum to have both in the same room together. Dumbing it down and making it too cookie-cutter is a mistake.
Mystic could've used some tuning but "was overpowered, trash immediately" is a ridiculous overreaction.
Ahah. I didn’t realize that those were specific points. I thought they were the kinds of statements of fact that one lays down to make sure everyone is on the same page on a topic in preparation for making a point. You know, something along the lines of: “Since water is wet, and since rivers are made of water, and because you are dry, if you fall into a river you will be wetter than you are now. The point being, if you wish to stay dry, then don’t fall in a river.”
Those first three aren’t points, they are the facts that lead-up to the argument that proves the point. Kind of like this:
“Because they have yet to get Psionics right in previous editions, and because the Mystic was overpowered, and because they are treating Psionics as different form of magic in this edition, they have an opportunity to fix the flaws of the past now. The point being that the Psion needs to be something different than they have tried in the past, but not the Mystic, and has to have some way to perform magic without casting spells.”
PS- Thy mystic is overpowered until level 9, then things flatten out for a few levels, and then they rapidly fall behind every other class. In 2e, the Fighter was OP until around levels 6-8, and then they gradually became more useless. The Wizard was practically useless until around level 5, and then it rapidly outpaced everything else after that. (The level cap back then was 36!) The point being that there have and always will be balance issues in D&D, why should that stop them from trying.
See what I did there?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
What he said!
(Although, the Mystic is overpower for the first half of the level scale. People’s reactions were based off of first impressions formed during low-level play. If the Mystic had been weak levels 1-9 and then ramped up people would have said they were too underpowered and things could have gone very different.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It is pretty interesting to see how people react every time they introduce Psionics/the Mystic because there is a strange vocal minority that DESPISE the concept. These are, in my opinion, people who can't stand any sort of technology like guns and such in their DnD. Must be too far leaning into science fiction for them.
However, I can see where Wizards is coming from when it comes to introducing an entirely new magic system. DnD is in its golden era and more people are playing it than ever before. It is mostly because of this edition's accessibility and throwing in an entirely different magic system used by a single class adds another layer of difficulty that some people just don't want to deal with. I agree, just add it and let people who are against it to not use it... but Wizards wants all of their products to be used and thus a lot of refreshing mechanics get thrown by the wayside. But the mystic was totally overwhelming, especially for new players, it needed to either be scrapped or overhauled. It had a lot of cool ideas they should explore in the future, but watching my friend cycle through an insane tool belt at level 9 slows things down at my table and I'm sure it would at others.
If they go the spell slot direction, which they will, I hope that psionic spells could maybe have levels or differing functionality depending on what spell level you cast it. Or you can cast it at a lower level to begin concentration on it's beginning effects while then pumping higher level slots to do other crazy stuff while keeping concentration. All while doing so without material, verbal and (sometimes) somatic components. You could even have multiple concentration spells up at the risk of causing exhaustion if you get hit.
Davavor,
Yes, your take on the Mystic is accurate in my opinion.
Yes, your take on WotC, D&D’s current success, and how important a role Game Mechanics have to play in that success is also correct.
Yes, you are probably correct (assuming that we get an actual Psion Class of course) that they will have Spell Slots and “Cast Spells.” I hope you are also right that their version of spell casting is at least that far removed from every other caster in the game. (Except for the Warlock which has been just as unique since it’s debut almost 20 years ago as it is today, but even that Class has a lot of miles on it now.) You have no idea how I much I wish and hope that the Psion will be even that unique of nothing else. I was originally hoping for something even more “different” than the Warlock is from other Casters, but I’m wise enough not to be too greedy. At this point I’ll settle for what you describe and houserule the Points back in from the DMG if I feel it necessary to distinguish them further. However I sincerely have my doubts that it will be any more diverse from “traditional” spell casting as the Artificer. 😔
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Davavor and IamSposta have hit the nail on the head. To preface, I would love a Psionics class and system, I'm a bells 'n' whistles kinda guy.
In the aforementioned link, the point of 6e came up briefly, starting I believe with noting peoples complaints, with some people asking when 6th Edition would come out. Their response was something along the lines of "When 5e stops having record breaking sales."
Just as Davavor points out, "DnD is in its golden era and more people are playing it than ever before. It is mostly because of this edition's accessibility..." This in tandem with Jeremy Crawford in the Psychic Warrior interview, "Some editions have gone that route of Psionics gets its whole system [i.e. the Mystic class]. The issue with that is typically where that leads, even though it can be a lot of fun, is most people then don't use it. And so there's always, for us, we're always balancing 'delivering the thing that many of us like and that we want,' whether it's Psionics or something else in D&D, and balancing that with 'well, we want as many people to enjoy this and actually use it at their game tables as possible.'"
So as publishers, I will believe in beholders before I'll believe they'll compromise their profits. Of course, this isn't going to stop me from letting my opinions be known, especially to the publishers through the next UA survey. I just think we shouldn't get our hopes too high, and should probably set our expectations closer to where the Artificer lies now.
Look! A good argument!
Yes, see?!?! First Jlwolf2 stated their preface, then they laid out all of the facts that nobody could dispute in a logical fashion. Then they stated the argument based on those facts so they could close with the point they were making. Even you ended up agreeing, so it was obviously successful. A well crafted argument indeed. (😜 Callback humor)
On a more serious note, Jlwolf2 is basically saying exactly what we’re all saying. The only difference between your point and ours is that you believe the pursuit of a functioning, balanced Psionic based Class is futile and therefore pointless. We believe it is a worthy enough pursuit to make it worth the extra work it would take, and that even if it fails it would still be worth the attempt.
Davavor seems to still hold out hope that someone at WotC still thinks so too and that we will get a Psion that is in some way recognizably based on the last thing we saw from Mearls before the lights went out. I am a bit more cynical myself and expect either nothing at all, or worse yet something so bland or dysfunctional that they should have listened to your opinion.
I think CritchCricket truly believes that the Mystic could have been salvaged. I also think Mearls was actually trying his best to salvage it from what he had left to work with, but he knew that keeping the name “Mystic” would have rendered it DOA so he changed it to Psion.
Each of us, yourself included, seem to be well aware of all the facts involved. It seems that we have each drawn our own entirely reasonable conclusions from those facts and have put forth competing arguments to support our differing opinions. I guess we will find out soon enough which of us is correct.
I also would like to point out that realized I have neglected to acknowledge when you agreed with me in post #77. That was an oversight on my part. I hope you don’t think me unsporting for it. After all, if we cannot agree to respect each other enough to acknowledge what we do agree on whenever it happens then there would be no room for discorse.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You know, it occurs to me they could also use a point system more in line with the Monk's Ki rather than the one the old Mystic UA used, only with more of a focus on casting rather than augmenting their martial abilities.
Mez,
If I recall that was something that Mearls had been considering for his proposed Psion. Great minds thinking alike and all....
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Dav,
I reread the Psi UA extensively. I then compared older UAs that did eventually get published against their finalized printed versions to get a better feel for what and how things get fleshed out in a lore/narrative sense once they hit publication. I went back to the doc that started this thread and tried to predict what will happen.
I am now more convinced than ever that the Wizard Subclass in that document is in fact most likely the watered down caster that I predicted. I’m so sure that if I were a betting man, and I am, that if Vegas opened a line on it I would not hesitate to place my bet.
The original “psychic caster” was the Psionicist. Mearls probably changed his version of it to the “Mystic” to try and avoid the negative connotations that many people associate with Psionicist. I think that made it more difficult for the people to which he intended to appeal to actually connect with the Class, and the people who were going to hate it regardless hated it regardless so it won over nobody.
The Wizard Subclass in that document are specifically referred to as “Psionicists” in the flavor text. Also, many of the new Spells listed (Id Insinuation, Intellect Fortress, and Ego Whip as examples) have their names lifted directly from the 2e Psionicists Handbook. That’s it, that’s what we’ll get, and if we want it to feel different they will suggest we use the point system in the DMG.
RIP Psion 2018-2018 It died so young, tragic.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Guytza,
I did in fact compare your notes against the UA as promised.
I think your assessment of the Fighter is fairly accurate, Playtesting will let us know if you are correct.
As to the Rogue Subclass... I don’t like it and here’s why: All of the Features are about combat with their Psi blades. (I’m a ‘90s X-Men fan and they will always be “Psi Blades” to me.) I think that type of character would have probably suited the Monk better. I think they really missed an opportunity to do a “Thief of Secrets” and make an awesome “mind reader/thought stealer/trick your mind into not seeing me” type of Character that would have been far cooler. The strict focus on combat makes the Rogue a little too one dimensional for my tastes. One could have made a Character similar enough to this Subclass using an Arcane Trickster+ Shadow Blade+These new “Psionic Spells” (oh it hurts me to type that) To be fair though, this Rogue Subclass could theoretically do it Psi Blades as many times as it likes instead of worrying about spell slots, but it brings nothing to the table besides that.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I still don't buy the "people won't use/like it, therefore why even try" argument. Especially in today's DnD where a large part of the revitalization could be attributed to a few entities championing the game and bringing it more to the mainstream. Get one of them onboard and you can directly influence the course of the game far more than in previous iterations. I mean let's be real, if Critical Role started running psionics, it'd sell like gangbusters. And it's not even about how much influence CR or another stream has, it's the environment itself. The streams, the events, the Youtube channels, it's a whole different ballgame as to how the material is shaped and consumed. If one wanted to make something a thing, there are a lot more options to do so now.
And yes, I not only believe the mystic could've been saved, I think it should've been saved. I hate the trend of "nerf it into the ground" or "trash it rather than fix it" that game developers, video or otherwise, seem to have. Although I'm not crazy on the name and would've personally preferred "Psion". The word "mystic" has more magical connotations than it does psionic.
We're still dealing with a business though. I could certainly be wrong about this next part, just kind of guessing. How much of a return are they getting for how much effort? It took almost three years from the initial release of the Artificer to the final release we have now today, and people are still complaining. From the majority of comments I've seen, the only thing that 'worked' for the Mystic was the bare-bones concept of psionics itself, with the mechanics being over complicated and unbalanced entirely. So instead of spending an amount of resources to salvage anything from the Mystic or create something new entirely, they are going with what has repeatedly brought in several times more profit than what it took to produce; simplicity and accessibility. The only way to make this change in favor of what we want is to get a vast majority of people to express a unified idea and present it to WotC, but we can't even come to an agreement as to what that idea is! A few key phrases and terms like 'unique' and 'new' keep springing up, but what does that mean? Should we do what we did with the Artificer and present the class in a setting book where it fits like Dark Sun? Should we use any preexisting spells and or magic, or come up with an entirely new system? How many complaints means it still needs work?
If you get nothing else from this, at least get this. Your happiness and satisfaction really don't matter to a company unless it affects their profits. We can always try to change anything, but I can't guarantee anything to you. So unless you can do that, take what you can get when it comes and expand upon it yourself, or wait for others to do so.
I am horrified by this... Given how good the innovation was with one of the early UA on Mystic, this is just a huge step in the wrong direction. I'm horrified because it homogenizes the powers instead of leaving a real sense of identity for these fundamentally different forces. I don't want table top world of warcraft (not baiting here, just saying)
Psionics should not ever, ever, ever, ever be a subclass of wizard.
Heya guys, hard pass. Please no.
My home-brew psionicist is a subclass of monk using the Mystic powers from the UA and the "ki" for "PSP", and it works great.
I fear that these problems are too deeply ingrained into 5e. Some people here would criticize your homebrew if it were released by WotC because they were just doing the same thing they are with the subclasses so far; abandoning a Psionicist in favor of just doing subclasses. Having never seen your homebrew, I have no opinion on it's functionality, but I feel it illustrates my previous point, "...take what you can get when it comes and expand upon it yourself, or wait for others to do so." Look back to the very beginning of D&D. You needed two other game systems to play it. It was all just homebrew! And it grew and evolved from there.
At an initial glance, I’m disappointed in how these archetypes appear to be implemented. While the “spells” are interesting, the fact that they are spells doesn’t really say “mentalist” to me. All three of them need some work to bring them up to par with those already established (but maybe I just haven’t thought it through fully).
Psionics really does need to be a class of its own. As these archetypes stand, they seem more like flavor than a real option, along the lines of choosing a couple of feats (like the Dragonmarks for Eberron). The only one that remotely feels somewhat unique is the Soulknife. The fighter variant, by far needs the most work to set it apart (I’d rather play an Eldritch Knight). And the wizard, while it has some interesting (and potentially powerful) potential, the preparation aspect doesn’t really fit so I agree with others that it Would fit more with a sorcerer than a wizard.
But that’s just my take, I could be (and probably am) wrong.
We're also getting Aberrant Mind Sorcerer.