D&D 5E Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.

[Tony Vargas]

You will never see the 1e style psionics system in 5e. I hope not, anyway.

It would be nice to see some sort of MC or feat or background for a 'wild talent,' so you could have the concept of the random, untrained psionic, as well as mystics, but, no, there's no absolute need to ape questionable mechanics to evoke an option available in a past edition (not that 5e hasn't resorted to doing so, a lot, just that I don't see why it'd need to in every case, to deliver the option).

GOO warlocks have psionic powers.

No, they have arcane telepathy granted by a patron. Nothing like psionics, at all. It'd be like cutting the wizard out of the game and saying it's OK because archers can have 'magic missiles.'

But even then, we've been talking about the breadth of choices to make at character creation. 1e psionics had nothing to do with any of that.

You could play a psionic character in 1e. Just like you could play a Paladin or Bard, you just had to have a DM who was OK with it, and get lucky. You couldn't play a psionic character using the 5e PH.

So I'm not sure why you even keep trying to insert it into the discussion. You might as well be complaining that percentile strength is missing, because that's on the same level as 1e psionics. It was a die roll made to see if you tacked something on to the end of your character.

A 1e fighter could be literally as strong as an ogre, thanks to % STR. A 5e fighter can be as stronger than an ogre. The former was lucky at 1st level, the latter inevitable, if you want it. But a really strong fighter is available in both editions.

Maybe you could hold the fact that /any/ 5e character not just fighters (and paladins and rangers and barbarians) can be that strong without magic, while in 1e, they'd've needed an item, itself class-restricted from use by magic-users, against the 1e fighter, but that is, indeed, getting to the point of a minor mechanical quibble.

 

[Corwin]

Well, psionics have made it into every other edition, and are in the pipeline to be added to 5e, so they can't've been that bad an idea...

And were never the same in any of them. So what exactly are you trying to say?

True. As an answer to the objection that 5e needs to come through with missing player options, saying it has 'more,' if taken literally, could still be lacking, even were it true.

As an answer to that, one can only offer this: There will never be a time, even if 5e was actively supported for 100 years, be every option possible as a choice. It's like you are trying to say that we need more splat because every idea or concept hasn't been presented yet. Well, not every idea or concept can ever be. And trying to do that very thing is what leads to the bloat that has killed previous editions. So why are some of you striving to repeat history?

 

[Corwin]

No, they have arcane telepathy granted by a patron.

Disqualifying something that is obviously what it is, because of flavor, is folly.

You could play a psionic character in 1e.

No. That's not how I remember it. Please offer a source or reference.

 

[jayoungr]

The ongoing discussion between [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1560]Corwin[/MENTION] about whether 5E has more character options than ever or is fewer than ever looks like a disagreement about what sort sorts of 5E character options should be counted in the tally. Full classes only? Classes and subclasses? Classes plus subclasses plus backgrounds? Classes plus subclasses plus backgrounds plus racial features? All of the above plus feats?

 

[Shasarak]

You seem to be mistaking my blog for a peer reviewed scientific journal.
If you're looking for "evidence" I don't recommend the internet, let alone fan sites.

Everything we say here is speculation. Speculation and opinion backed up by the barest slivers of data. We're all blind men feeling the elephant.

But I did cite a Columbia university study and the WotC spending habits survey. So there's a lot more evidence than you'll see elsewhere. And my blog post was informed by the writings of various RPG publishers.
If you have counter evidence (or a rebuttal to my arguments other than "prove it") I'd like to read it.

If you want to make the argument that more books = shorter lifespan of an edition then maybe you could at least give some supporting evidence that such and such edition had so many books and lasted for this many years as compared to this edition that lasted for a shorter time with more books.

Instead what I see on your blog is things like: more content makes a game harder to play which in theory is true but in practice is not because simply you dont use what you dont use. For example if you have a choice of 100 classes but you have four players at your table then you do not need to reference the other 96 classes just the 4 that you are using. If you have a million monsters to choose from you dont need to know what the other 999,999 do to run the one that you are using. If you are not using the occult adventures book then you do not need to know what the rules are for a kineticist.

And also the Choice paradox that you claim confuses people does not seem to be represented anywhere else in our society. When you go to your supermarket to buy peanut butter you do not see two choices there, chances are you have a whole section of peanut butters to choose from and yet people still seem to be able to complete their shopping in a reasonable time without freezing in front of every section that they walk past.

Now while I could go through your other points it does not fundamentally address the premise of more books = shorter lifespan of an edition. One notable exception to your premise is Rifts which appears to have lasted for 21 years with about 80 books published during that time. So while I dont expect you to meet the standards of a peer reviewed journal on the other hand some figures and analysis to support your claim would be appreciated.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Disqualifying something that is obviously what it is, because of flavor, is folly.

Magic vs psionics is just a flavor distinction, it has non-trivial mechanical repercussions.

No. That's not how I remember it. Please offer a source or reference.

If you're trying to point out that it was 'optional' (like, oh, feats in 5e) or random (like, so much of 1e), that's already been acknowledged. You're also going down the rabbit hole of replicating mechanical artifacts rather than characters.

And were never the same in any of them. So what exactly are you trying to say?

That 5e's got room for some more player options.

As an answer to that, one can only offer this: There will never be a time, even if 5e was actively supported for 100 years, be every option possible as a choice. It's like you are trying to say that we need more splat because every idea or concept hasn't been presented yet. Well, not every idea or concept can ever be. And trying to do that very thing is what leads to the bloat that has killed previous editions. So why are some of you striving to repeat history?

As the title of this thread points out, recognizing that there were characters you could have played from various past PH1s that 5e can't manage yet, is not the same as insisting that it drown itself in bloat trying to ape every obscure, redundant, or broken mechanic ever to appear in between the covers of a D&D book.

 

[nswanson27]

As an answer to that, one can only offer this: There will never be a time, even if 5e was actively supported for 100 years, be every option possible as a choice. It's like you are trying to say that we need more splat because every idea or concept hasn't been presented yet. Well, not every idea or concept can ever be. And trying to do that very thing is what leads to the bloat that has killed previous editions. So why are some of you striving to repeat history?

I certainly don't read his statements that way. His arguments seem well-grounded and reasonable. You seem to imply that there is no middle ground between what the release schedule is now, and the splat-fest of prior editions?

 

[Tony Vargas]

And were never the same in any of them. So what exactly are you trying to say?

That 5e's got room for some more player options, and, in particular, that coming through with some conspicuously 'missing' compared to certain past editions would help 5e reach its professed goals and make it a better, more inclusive, iteration of D&D.

As an answer to that, one can only offer this: There will never be a time, even if 5e was actively supported for 100 years, be every option possible as a choice. It's like you are trying to say that we need more splat because every idea or concept hasn't been presented yet. Well, not every idea or concept can ever be. And trying to do that very thing is what leads to the bloat that has killed previous editions. So why are some of you striving to repeat history?

As the title of this thread points out, recognizing that there were characters you could have played from various past PH1s that 5e can't manage yet, is not the same as insisting that it drown itself in bloat trying to ape every obscure, redundant, or broken mechanic ever to appear in between the covers of a D&D book.

The ongoing discussion between [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1560]Corwin[/MENTION] about whether 5E has more character options than ever ... looks like a disagreement about what sort sorts of 5E character options should be counted in the tally.

Sub-class seem the most critical decision point in 5e, IMHO. Between PH & SCAG, there's what, 40-50? But I see nothing wrong with bringing race and background into it, they're also quite character-defining.

The comparison to 3e would be very difficult, because 3e character options shook out into complicated 'builds,' theoretically, countless thousands of them, but only a fraction were arguably viable.

2e class groups, classes, & kits, though could be cogently compared to 5e classes, sub-classes & backgrounds, though, for instance, and I'm sure 5e comes out ahead if you just do the sane thing and adjust for pace of release: PH + SCAG vs PH+(whatever splat hit first, CPH?)

But 2+ years in, comparing 5e to 3e or 4e (or even 2e)? Not a fair comparison at all, not with the differing paces of publication.

 

[Shasarak]

No. That's not how I remember it. Please offer a source or reference.

Psionics is presented in Appendix 1 of the ADnD PHB on page 110.

 

[Corwin]

Magic vs psionics is just a flavor distinction, it has non-trivial mechanical repercussions.

The MM has multiple psionic monsters that use magic and say "call it psionics".

If you're trying to point out that it was 'optional' (like, oh, feats in 5e) or random (like, so much of 1e), that's already been acknowledged. You're also going down the rabbit hole of replicating mechanical artifacts rather than characters.

You could not play a play a psychic as a character in 1e. You could play a character that had psychic powers though. And it wasn't an option you chose. It was one of random tacked-on optional rule benefits.

That 5e's got room for some more player options.

Was someone arguing that it doesn't?

As the title of this thread points out, recognizing that there were characters you could have played from various past PH1s that 5e can't manage yet, is not the same as insisting that it drown itself in bloat trying to ape every obscure, redundant, or broken mechanic ever to appear in between the covers of a D&D book.

Who are you trying to convince?