D&D 5E People didn't like the Psionic Talent Die

It’s fine if you didn’t like it, but it’s insulting to be told I only liked it because it was new. I’ve already been over why it felt like psychic powers to me, and why it felt like a natural fit in 5e’s mechanical feel. If it didn’t feel that way to you that’s valid but please don’t tell me it didn’t feel that way to me.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be insulting to anyone. I haven't actually followed this thread past the first few posts (so I haven't read your explanations), I'm just responding to general thoughts I've seen bandied around about the psi die. Some people seemed to me to only like it because it was a new toy, some of those realize and acknowledge that, and other may not realize it. It sounds like you have other reasons for liking it, so that doesn't apply to you. Even for those who do like it just because it's a new toy, there's nothing wrong with that, but I don't think that's a good enough reason by itself for it to be adopted as a new element of a decades old D&D phenomenon (psionics).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be insulting to anyone. I haven't actually followed this thread past the first few posts (so I haven't read your explanations), I'm just responding to general thoughts I've seen bandied around about the psi die. Some people seemed to me to only like it because it was a new toy, some of those realize and acknowledge that, and other may not realize it. It sounds like you have other reasons for liking it, so that doesn't apply to you. Even for those who do like it just because it's a new toy, there's nothing wrong with that, but I don't think that's a good enough reason by itself for it to be adopted as a new element of a decades old D&D phenomenon (psionics).
The concept of at will superiority dice has existed since the 2012 playtest. Psi dice merely added a small shrinking/expanding variation.
Hardly a new toy.
 


I mean, if a psionic uses the same mechanics as a wizard, sorcerer, or warlock, aren't they just a wizard, sorcerer, or warlock with different fluff? At that point, why bother with a class?
You unironically listed three classes with the similar mechanics that also happen to co-exist in 5e, not to mention the cleric, bard, and druid. So how do these other classes justify their existence as classes despite having "the same mechanics"? Theme, legacy, and class fantasy. And that's what Jeremy Crawford even alludes to when relaying the feedback received.

I don't think that it's a coincidence that one of the most popular iterations of psionics in D&D was fundamentally just spell slots fueled by spell points. It rests within the realm of "familiar enough."

It felt very much like what comes to my mind when I think of a character with psychic powers. Psychic potential is almost universally depicted as unpredictable and difficult to control, and often the psychic character can push their powers beyond their normal limit, but only when the plot needs them to, and there’s always some kind of backslash. The die captured that feeling very well in my opinion. If that’s what a “wild talent build” is, I’d be fine with that being what Psionics are. What even is a “mind mage” anyway and what prevents players from making one with the currently available options?
Same is true for how magic is depicted, but magic in D&D...

For my money I would rather see psionic classes function off the warlock frame maybe with some at will abilities that played off of Concentration. Mostly I would rather they stand a part based on what they can do rather than how they do it.
Same here. Several times when I was asked about what I thought a psion could do, I proposed that one thing psions could do is engage the Concentration mechanic: e.g., help others concentrate, disrupt concentration, steal spells that casters are concentrating on, etc.
 
Last edited:

From the threads I read about the Psi die in various places, and listening to this, I think that they really shot themselves in the foot with the die in two ways:

1) The "out-of-power" mechanic where the die could stop working. People absolutely hated this.

2) The fact that the die went up and down in power at all. This vexed the heck out of people, though nowhere near as much as the die stopping working.

The math showed that these reactions weren't entirely rational (just like a lot of the dislike of the Mystic relied on preposterous situations, mathematically), but they were nonetheless common, and no amount of people doing the math could convince people otherwise.

Crawford discusses how some people don't like unique mechanics, but I feel pretty confident in saying that if they Psi die had been a fixed number based on your level (that could perhaps be boosted/lowered, but only by "voluntary" effects, not random ones), it would have done two things:

A) It would not have been regarded as a "unique mechanic". Loads of classes have some sort of die mechanic, but none of them have it randomized. That's where this crosses into the line of new mechanics.

B) It wouldn't have annoyed so many people with the declining/increasing aspects who otherwise didn't mind it as a mechnanic.

Had they just done that, yes, it would have been different from what they got, but the combination of it not being regarded as a entirely new mechanic by most people, and not being as potentially vexing (in that it clearly made some people anxious, and others just didn't like the idea), then they'd have got a thumbs up on this. Though they'd still have not had enough mucus for the Sorcerer! So that would need fixing.

On the upside, Crawford seems very positive about including Psionics, like he really repeatedly stressed how it's always in D&D, over and over. So I expect we'll see yet another take on these guys pretty soon.

If they do insist on using existing spells and so on (which I don't think is a good idea, because it annoys too large an intersection of groups), I think the main thing is to make it so the system is not slot-based (they already a spell point system in the DMG for goodness sake!), and make it so that by default, you cast w/o any material components at all, and and probably choose whether you use V or S components (pick one, other vanishes), and maybe even can suppress whichever of those you have for a small psi point cost.

Unfortunately this is I think of one of the D&D design team's foibles. They consistently do a few weird things - I've mentioned that they wildly overvalue natural weapons and natural armour, like to a bananas degree. It's inexplicable. In almost every case they make them a terrible idea, and objectively vastly worse than say, having Elven Weapon Proficiencies or the Mountain Dwarf deal with okay weapons and medium armour, yet they value them as if they were the same as, or better than that. I have no idea what sort of games they're playing, but in thirty years of D&D, the only "natural weapons" using characters I've seen have have been either gimmick characters, where it wasn't mechanically advantageous, just cool, or weird exploits (like where some race got to retain a claw/claw/bite routine or whatever), and the latter just isn't a thing in 5E.

And I think likewise they overvalue trying to make people using full V/S/M components, even though, realistically, 95% of the time, it doesn't even matter, and the other 5% it's either costly components (just adjust those spells or take them off the list) or casting from steatlh - and psionics should be good at being cast from stealth. That's part of it's "thing". So I think they'll mess it up if they try to go the "spell" route.
 

The concept of at will superiority dice has existed since the 2012 playtest. Psi dice merely added a small shrinking/expanding variation.
Hardly a new toy.

But the shrinking/expanding was "new enough". That's the issue. That's what made people call it a "unique mechanic" and react negatively to it on that basis. If they'd made it so the shrinking/expanding was entirely voluntary, I bet the reaction would not have been the same.

I think on some level, people just hated having the bad effect tied to the high roll, and good effect to the low, too.
 

@Ruin Explorer, brings up a good point. You can have two mechanics that mathematically yield comparable results, but one may feel more psychologically rewarding than the other. Which mechanic would probably be preferred? Probably the psychologically rewarding one. I don't think that the psi die felt psychologically rewarding for a lot of people who provided feedback.
 

But the shrinking/expanding was "new enough". That's the issue. That's what made people call it a "unique mechanic" and react negatively to it on that basis. If they'd made it so the shrinking/expanding was entirely voluntary, I bet the reaction would not have been the same.

I think on some level, people just hated having the bad effect tied to the high roll, and good effect to the low, too.
Well, sure. Those are entirely reasonable arguments, and good feedback. I won’t lie, the shrinking being linked to a good roll is a bit counterintuitive.
But according to Crawford the bulk of the negative feedback wasn’t that, it was “we don’t want a new mechanic, just give us more of the same please”.
That, I find depressing.
 

Well, sure. Those are entirely reasonable arguments, and good feedback. I won’t lie, the shrinking being linked to a good roll is a bit counterintuitive.
But according to Crawford the bulk of the negative feedback wasn’t that, it was “we don’t want a new mechanic, just give us more of the same please”.
That, I find depressing.
When you frame it like that, it does sound depressing, but when you frame it like the "KISS" adage, then it becomes more reasonable and understandable.
 


Remove ads

Top