Aldarc
Legend
How is it interesting and not finicky? And how does this address my criticisms I raised about it?
Unearthed Arcana Why UA Psionics are never going to work in 5e.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Sorry, are we now having to defend against criticisms? You seemed adamantly against this when it was your preferences. I followed the same approach of presenting my likes. I'd be happy to engage in a discussion, but I seem to have misunderstood what the ground rules were. Are we in "defend our likes against criticisms" now?
Aldarc
Legend
You must be new here. Welcome to this thread on psionics where people who like psionics have been persistently defending their likes and preferences against criticisms from those who don't.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
No, but we did agree on the last pass that you're expressing general likes and have no wish to defend them, which I agreed to. Have things changed? Again, happy to have the discussion -- I don't mind explaining my points. I'm not as interested on a one sided discussion, though. Fine to let it go -- I understand sometimes people don't want to be challenged when talking about hobby preferences. But, if you get to question me, I get to question you. I'm weird that way.
Aldarc
Legend
Hmmm... Unless I am mistaken, it seems like my expression of general "likes" was almost entirely about criticisms I had regarding the latest iteration of psionics in UA.
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Clearly you have no future in politics.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Okay. I looked back at your post and didn't see anything specific as far as issues. You say it's gimicky, which is a judgement I can't actually answer for you, and that the other features offend your opinion that psionics should be more controlled. I don't have either of those issues, so I don't see how I can adequately refute your assertions of your preferences. I'll try:
Gimmicky: the psi-die is very similar to the battlemaster dice. The effect is on the same order and you can choose to use it or not as you want. Using it may or may not achieve the goal you want. Design-wise, it's not more gimmicky than existing features, with a different flavor. So, no, I disagree it's too gimmicky -- it appears to be just gimmicky enough to fit in with other 5e features.
Losing the die on a high roll is not rewarding: Well, I flat disagree, here, as I would not feel that unrewarding at all. The die doesn't expend at all unless you get maximum effect. To compare to the battlemaster again, those dice are expended no matter what. So long as I don't roll maximum, my psi-die is always available at the same power level. If I do get maximum effect, that's the only time is expends -- ie, I only lose the resource after it's had maximum effect, never on minimum or average effect. That isn't unrewarding to me at all, it actually makes the feature more available.
Lack of control due to random die size changes: I can see where you're coming from, here, but I don't think it's as random as you're saying. I get the choice to risk my psi-die with full knowledge of both it's current state and the odds on that use of it degrading or improving. It's entirely transparent to the decision making process -- I have full information on what I'm risking and the range of outcomes. Plus, I still have the reset mechanic to fix any bad luck runs (at least once). While, yes, the mechanic is based on a random outcome, it's use is anything but random -- it's choice to get a benefit added every time with full awareness of the risk envelope. This, exactly, is the kind of design I like -- presenting the option for a risk to players that is 1) fully understood and 2) even if it costs the resource it's always of benefit when used.
So, yeah, I don't agree with your criticisms, either in the flavor presented (which I have no baggage for, so isn't a concern of mine) or in the specifics of how it operates. The "gimmick" isn't far off of existing designs that are well liked (superiority dice) and I view it as far more controlled than you do because I'm looking at the choice points, which are clear and unequivocal, instead of the mechanic which is random. My choice to engage the mechanic is very controlled, even if the mechanic is random. Just like attacking, or using a superiority die, or action surge -- I know what using it can result it even if I cannot predict the results.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
I do not. Even if my disinterest in playing politics is put aside, my youth was far too... rambunctious... to ever get into office.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
No, Max, because that wasn't about that, either. That was a misunderstanding where I was trying to point out that preferences are design inputs because they turn into metrics for evaluating design and failed to make that point without causing issues. A point I dropped in the thread and took up, with my apologies for being unclear, with @Aldarc directly. I'm not terribly surprised that you 1) didn't follow that either and 2) feel it's a ripe time to bring it up. The second not because it's a good argument, but because it's a club you think you can wield. Might as well start yelling fallacy at me again, like you did the last time we traded posts in this thread. I'm sure if you insist again, it will be just as true.
Similar Threads
