Unearthed Arcana Why UA Psionics are never going to work in 5e.

[Maxperson]

Ah, many people skipped 4e. I know that at least. I'm not old enough to have been playing those editions when they came out. I wasn't even 3 when 3e came out.

Way to make me feel old!! One of the players in my group just turned 30. His dad and I have been playing D&D together since we were 14.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So your reason for sabotaging discussion with your persistent "this is why psionics in 5e will never work" spiel is because you want psionics to be exceptional in 5e that gets slapped onto the character rather than a dedicated class, as has been the case for the past 3 out of 4 editions?

I'm not trying to "sabotage" anything. I mealy foretell what's going to happen unless people get behind what is currently on offer. We have had 5+ versions of D&D, with 5 completely different concepts of what psionics should be (including "no psionics"). If you assume they are roughly equally distributed, that means roughly 20% of players in each camp. Now, if you are optimistic, about 50% of each camp are willing to compromise. That leads to a hardcore of 40% who will reject anything that is put on the table. The threshold is set at 70%, and it is impossible for anything to score higher than 60%.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not trying to "sabotage" anything. I mealy foretell what's going to happen unless people get behind what is currently on offer. We have had 5+ versions of D&D, with 5 completely different concepts of what psionics should be (including "no psionics"). If you assume they are roughly equally distributed, that means roughly 20% of players in each camp. Now, if you are optimistic, about 50% of each camp are willing to compromise. That leads to a hardcore of 40% who will reject anything that is put on the table. The threshold is set at 70%, and it is impossible for anything to score higher than 60%.

That's one giant assumption built from a heap of assumptions.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's one giant assumption built from a heap of assumptions.

Sure, but in the absence of hard data one must use assumptions to fill in the gaps. The assumptions I have made are based on comments on this forum, and are extremely generous. I would be surprised if 10% are willing to compromise and back the Psionic Soul as the only psionic on offer.

 

[Aldarc]

Whatever the case, I gave my feedback to WotC on their psionic subclasses and the direction they are going.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not trying to "sabotage" anything. I mealy foretell what's going to happen unless people get behind what is currently on offer. We have had 5+ versions of D&D, with 5 completely different concepts of what psionics should be (including "no psionics"). If you assume they are roughly equally distributed, that means roughly 20% of players in each camp. Now, if you are optimistic, about 50% of each camp are willing to compromise. That leads to a hardcore of 40% who will reject anything that is put on the table. The threshold is set at 70%, and it is impossible for anything to score higher than 60%.

Lots of unfounded assumptions there. First, the 5 editions were not completely different. 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e all had "caster" psionics. 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e all had power points. 2e, 3e and 5e all had disciplines. 2e, 3e, 4e and 5e all had Psions as a class. There was some variance on the mechanics of those things, but there were lots of similarities.

Not only that, but lots and lots of people were like me and liked 1e psionics, 2e psionics, 3e psionics and 5e psionics. The complaints against the Psion were about stepping on toes, not about the psionics system itself. I don't buy into the WotC conspiracy theory that you do.

This 40% number is too high, probably waaaaaaaaaaaay too high.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Whatever the case, I gave my feedback to WotC on their psionic subclasses and the direction they are going.

So did you rate the psionic soul overall "satisfactory" or higher? Because if 70% of respondents don't do that there will be no psionics.

 

[Aldarc]

So did you rate the psionic soul overall "satisfactory" or higher? Because if 70% of respondents don't do that there will be no psionics.

Why do you love presenting false dilemmas?

I did not rate it satisfactory or higher, as I dislike the psi dice gimmick mechanic that permeates this draft. There are simpler mechanics they could try without them needing to reinvent the wheel. Plus, a psionic soul sorcerer is an impoverished psion. If this means that there will be no psionics, then so be it. You may go through life lying about your satisfaction levels just so you can get scraps, but I would prefer to provide solid feedback that can move psionics in the right direction rather than lie and be stuck with a version of psionics that I dislike.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If you assume they are roughly equally distributed, that means roughly 20% of players in each camp. Now, if you are optimistic, about 50% of each camp are willing to compromise. That leads to a hardcore of 40% who will reject anything that is put on the table.

I refer you to equation #6:

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Why do you love presenting false dilemmas?

It's not a false dilemma. It's the TRUTH. There is a minimum 70% approval required for any subclass to be included. That is a hard fast non-negatable number. And without the sorcerer and the spells the whole package falls apart. The Psi Knight and the Soul Blade might still make it into the game, but refluffed to not be part of a psionic subsystem.

And there is no other psion on offer.

I did not rate it satisfactory or higher, as I dislike the psi dice gimmick mechanic that permeates this draft.

It doesn't matter why you don't like something - that's why the individual power abilities are also rateable, so you can say you like the class but don't like individual powers.

Same with the mystic - it's irrelevant why people didn't like it, it didn't hit 70% overall approval, so it was thrown out, along with psi points and diciplines.