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

[FlyingChihuahua]

Much as Remalithis said here or elsewhere, one of the core problems - which I did put in my feedback - is that WotC is trying too hard to reinvent the wheel with psionics (e.g., Mystic, psi dice) and that they should consider try receiving feedback on simpler approaches.

But lying just for the sake of having something is not a satisfactory approach to things. So why should I say that it's satisfactory if I'm just lying through my teeth?

Why shouldn't they try to do something new for 5e's psionics, concerning how the general reaction to every edition besides 4e's psionics system was?

 

[Aldarc]

Why shouldn't they try to do something new for 5e's psionics, concerning how the general reaction to every edition besides 4e's psionics system was?

3.5e's reaction was negative? Since when? This isn't what I necessarily suggested, but I'm confused by your revisionist history.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not a false dilemma. It's the TRUTH. There is a minimum 70% approval required for any subclass to be included.

You have no idea whether or not it's the truth that if we down vote this UA that we won't get psionics. That's your assumption plain and simple.

Why do you even believe the 70% thing, anyway? You've refused to accept what WotC says is the reason for Mystic being abandoned, because "corporations lie," but accept what the same corporation says about 70%. That's very inconsistent of you.

 

[Maxperson]

Is 70% an unfair arbitrary high bar? Yes it is, but I didn't set it, WotC did.

How do you know? According to you, WotC is not to be believed, because corporations lie.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Why couldn't they make it into the game as part of the psionic subsysten without the sorcerer? I am not seeing why they are dependant on what happens with a sorcerer subclass. They could just say, "re-skin existing spellcasters as follows, with the following alternate rules" and cover the spellcasting classes that way I suppose.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It's not a false dilemma. It's the TRUTH. There is a minimum 70% approval required for any subclass to be included.

Yeah, so much to say here, but I'm not sure how to say it. I don't remember the Bladesinger ever being playtested. Anything in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide? Remember? Those were never playtested. Sure, that's their rule now, but they're the ones who made the rules, and they can break them if they have too in order to get a Dark Sun book out.

Also, yeah, the fact that this probably won't get approved (I voted against it, and explained what my problems with it were) does not mean that we're never getting psionics. That's really jumping to conclusions. If they really want psioinics to work, they'll continue making more psionics UA until they get whatever they think is a good approval rating. Until them, I'm going to be voting down any psionic systems that have Psions as spellcasters.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, so much to say here, but I'm not sure how to say it. I don't remember the Bladesinger ever being playtested. Anything in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide? Remember? Those were never playtested. Sure, that's their rule now, but they're the ones who made the rules, and they can break them if they have too in order to get a Dark Sun book out.

I'm sure that they have testers with Non-Disclosure Agreements to test things. They could test without it being a public test and we would never know.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If they really want psioinics to work

No reason to suppose they think it matters that much. It took three years for them to get back from the last attempt, and then it was with something much less elaborate. If all your attempts keep getting rejected it makes no business sense to keep investing time in it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm sure that they have testers with Non-Disclosure Agreements to test things. They could test without it being a public test and we would never know.

I'm sure they do. And the truth is, most of us don't actually test anything. We read the description and imagine what it would like to play, but we don't actually play it.

The only UAs I have actually tested in a game are the previous artificer (it sucked in play) and some Mystic powers tacked onto a monster.

As for the bladesinger, I'm told the Sword Coast book was actually contracted out to a third party. Which might explain the poor balance of much of the crunch in that book.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

How do you know? According to you, WotC is not to be believed, because corporations lie.

True, and as Elfcrusher says, they could choose to ignore their own rule if it suits them to do so. That's my only hope.

NB It's not just corporations that lie - it's everyone: "Did you like that jumper I knitted you last Christmas dear?"