Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Psionics in Tasha
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JiffyPopTart" data-source="post: 8104462" data-attributes="member: 4881"><p>They are good enough for me because they reflect the interests and desires of the person who made them. It's not my job to vet a proposed system or solution so that it upholds to some standard before I begrudgingly stamp it "Good Enough". I can agree or disagree. I can find some fault with it. I can say I think its a horrible idea, but that doesn't somehow negate what the other person is saying.</p><p></p><p>I don't find the feat and skill framework unsuited for being stretched and used in a different fashion than it already is. If you dumped a bunch of psion abilites into the feat system, created a base class that gave Psion tagged feats as level up bonuses aside from the ASI bumps, and then tied the "to hit" and "Save DC" numbers for your feat choices into your skills you would have a mechanically distinct and playable psion. Whether or not this the best choice, or even if I like this method of doing it, is not related to the fact that I can easily see it being created in a way that meshed well with the rest of the rules of 5e.</p><p></p><p><strong><em>Only barely related siderant about 5e design principles</em></strong></p><p>At this point I have given up hope that 5e is ever going to deliver something mechanically interesting. I think the only thing that is going to open that door is if sales fall off the cliff and all the new players making 5e sell like hotcakes move on to something different. If the game were to crash in that way (due to no fault of the system, just the whims of the public interest) I can see them having to start marketing products toward the more devout long time fans.</p><p></p><p>In many ways, and as a fan of both, I see a lot of parallels between where 5e is now in design philosophy and where Warhammer 40k went with its design philosophy in between 2nd and 3rd edition of its game. (talking 40k here) When 3e was released it was generally seen as a good move. The gameplay was very much streamlined from 2e, getting rid of all the really strange bits and making a playable game that was fast but allowed for most of the units and items that were found in 2e. Over time, however, the new fans were still happy with the additions toward the game but the older fans noticed that the interesting bit or bob that they liked from 2e never showed back up. The simplicity that formed a basis for a new and streamlined game was a good start to the older fans, but the design philosophy of sticking with that simplicity drove some people away from the game. Games Workshop did a simple calculation that new fans dropping $$$ on new models are a better revenue stream than keeping the old fans happy so they just left the old fans to change or move on. I chose to move on when 4e was released and it was a simple revision of the simplicity of 3e.</p><p></p><p>Moving forward in time....9th edition just came out which is a simple revision of 8th edition. 8th edition was a big rules revamp and sparked my interested into buying a rulebook after an absence of 15+ years from following the game. Somewhere between 4th and 8th Games Workshop realized that while onboarding new players is great, the big fans are the ones who buy every book even when they don't necessarily even play the army. With 8th the rulesset STILL remained accessible to new players. The core game rules were very simple and a pair of first timers can get through a game with their basic units with little trouble. They added in, however, options to please the old fans. Obscure items came back with rules to support them. The new player didn't have to know how some $600 special order model worked on the tabletop because they didn't have to interact with it at their table. They could buy and play the simplest most basic units and armies and have fun not learning 50000 other rules, but the player who has been collecting for 20+ years can still break out his strange item, find rules to represent it on the table in an interesting way, and play the game that they want as well.</p><p></p><p>This is where in my opinion 5e is failing (as a game design for established players, not as a moneymaker), and why I am not hopeful for its future barring some radical change of gears. At some point they have decided to design some items by committee via online playtests and surveys. The sole item that seems to get funneled through this process seems to be crunch, and within the last couple years seems to be character class crunch. The design by committee is great at producing mediocre and uninspiring new subclasses that slightly push the envelope of what a class can be and seem to shut down any attempt at injecting something completely new and exciting into a stale 5 year old system. So, theoretically, what we are going to see whenever the Tasha's book comes out for players to consume is 17? new subclasses to add to the classes we already have that are slight variations of things we have already seen (via the playtests) and in some cases have already played (for the tables that incorporate the playtests into their normal games). This isn't new and exciting, its just getting the final Power Point of the TPS report we submitted our data for last fiscal year.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JiffyPopTart, post: 8104462, member: 4881"] They are good enough for me because they reflect the interests and desires of the person who made them. It's not my job to vet a proposed system or solution so that it upholds to some standard before I begrudgingly stamp it "Good Enough". I can agree or disagree. I can find some fault with it. I can say I think its a horrible idea, but that doesn't somehow negate what the other person is saying. I don't find the feat and skill framework unsuited for being stretched and used in a different fashion than it already is. If you dumped a bunch of psion abilites into the feat system, created a base class that gave Psion tagged feats as level up bonuses aside from the ASI bumps, and then tied the "to hit" and "Save DC" numbers for your feat choices into your skills you would have a mechanically distinct and playable psion. Whether or not this the best choice, or even if I like this method of doing it, is not related to the fact that I can easily see it being created in a way that meshed well with the rest of the rules of 5e. [B][I]Only barely related siderant about 5e design principles[/I][/B] At this point I have given up hope that 5e is ever going to deliver something mechanically interesting. I think the only thing that is going to open that door is if sales fall off the cliff and all the new players making 5e sell like hotcakes move on to something different. If the game were to crash in that way (due to no fault of the system, just the whims of the public interest) I can see them having to start marketing products toward the more devout long time fans. In many ways, and as a fan of both, I see a lot of parallels between where 5e is now in design philosophy and where Warhammer 40k went with its design philosophy in between 2nd and 3rd edition of its game. (talking 40k here) When 3e was released it was generally seen as a good move. The gameplay was very much streamlined from 2e, getting rid of all the really strange bits and making a playable game that was fast but allowed for most of the units and items that were found in 2e. Over time, however, the new fans were still happy with the additions toward the game but the older fans noticed that the interesting bit or bob that they liked from 2e never showed back up. The simplicity that formed a basis for a new and streamlined game was a good start to the older fans, but the design philosophy of sticking with that simplicity drove some people away from the game. Games Workshop did a simple calculation that new fans dropping $$$ on new models are a better revenue stream than keeping the old fans happy so they just left the old fans to change or move on. I chose to move on when 4e was released and it was a simple revision of the simplicity of 3e. Moving forward in time....9th edition just came out which is a simple revision of 8th edition. 8th edition was a big rules revamp and sparked my interested into buying a rulebook after an absence of 15+ years from following the game. Somewhere between 4th and 8th Games Workshop realized that while onboarding new players is great, the big fans are the ones who buy every book even when they don't necessarily even play the army. With 8th the rulesset STILL remained accessible to new players. The core game rules were very simple and a pair of first timers can get through a game with their basic units with little trouble. They added in, however, options to please the old fans. Obscure items came back with rules to support them. The new player didn't have to know how some $600 special order model worked on the tabletop because they didn't have to interact with it at their table. They could buy and play the simplest most basic units and armies and have fun not learning 50000 other rules, but the player who has been collecting for 20+ years can still break out his strange item, find rules to represent it on the table in an interesting way, and play the game that they want as well. This is where in my opinion 5e is failing (as a game design for established players, not as a moneymaker), and why I am not hopeful for its future barring some radical change of gears. At some point they have decided to design some items by committee via online playtests and surveys. The sole item that seems to get funneled through this process seems to be crunch, and within the last couple years seems to be character class crunch. The design by committee is great at producing mediocre and uninspiring new subclasses that slightly push the envelope of what a class can be and seem to shut down any attempt at injecting something completely new and exciting into a stale 5 year old system. So, theoretically, what we are going to see whenever the Tasha's book comes out for players to consume is 17? new subclasses to add to the classes we already have that are slight variations of things we have already seen (via the playtests) and in some cases have already played (for the tables that incorporate the playtests into their normal games). This isn't new and exciting, its just getting the final Power Point of the TPS report we submitted our data for last fiscal year. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Psionics in Tasha
Top