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

[Horwath]

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:


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.

this.

natural weapons/armor should have value of one extra skill proficiency max. Unless it's really very good, like AC 16+dex or 2d8 for one claw attack or similar. AC 12/13+dex is nearly worthless, same as onehanded 1d4/1d6 attacks.

I also hate overestimating V/S components, no chance for any stealthy spellcasting as you have to use S components as saluting Rimmer from the Red dwarf or screaming at the top of you lungs for V components.

 

[Olrox17]

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.

Perhaps. What strikes me is that D&D, as a whole, is not a simple game. 5e is certainly simpler that past editions, but it's still a complex game.
Spellcasting, the most common and widespread player-side subsystem, is the opposite of simplicity. Almost 100 pages of the PHB are solely dedicated to spellcasting! But apparently half a column to explain Psi dice was too much. It bothers me.

 

[Aldarc]

The page count dedicated to spellcasting in the PHB is not necessarily indicative about complexity or simplicity. Also, once you learn it for one spellcaster, you essentially learn it for all spellcasters. So whatever complexity there may be for spellcasting, it becomes applicable to a lot for learning how to play the game. It allows you to move from one spellcasting class to another pretty readily. So if you put psionics, for example, on a spell/power slot system, then you are not asking players to learn something new, but, rather, to engage that prior complexity or knowledge, though possibly expanding that slightly in ways unique to psionics.

I don't think that we should castigate or shame people for wanting to keep the game simpler or withing the bounds of their personal mechanical comfort levels.

 

[Olrox17]

The page count dedicated to spellcasting in the PHB is not necessarily indicative about complexity or simplicity. Also, once you learn it for one spellcaster, you essentially learn it for all spellcasters. So whatever complexity there may be for spellcasting, it becomes applicable to a lot for learning how to play the game. It allows you to move from one spellcasting class to another pretty readily.

Yes, spellcasting is a shared subsystem. So were psi dice in the UA: it was shared by 3 subclasses and a general feat.

So if you put psionics, for example, on a spell/power slot system, then you are not asking players to learn something new, but, rather, to engage that prior complexity or knowledge, though possibly expanding that slightly in ways unique to psionics.

Yes, but that's boring. IMO, obviously.
I mean, 4e is often criticized for sameness of player options, and even in 4e psionics had their own cool, unique subsystem.

I don't think that we should castigate or shame people for wanting to keep the game simpler or withing the bounds of their personal mechanical comfort levels.

Those people are 100% free to hold that opinion. Apparently they're even the majority. I still believe that kind of thinking is poisonous to the game's growth and evolution, and I am sad about that. I can't lie.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't think that we should castigate or shame people for wanting to keep the game simpler or withing the bounds of their personal mechanical comfort levels.

Given that psionics have always been optional rules, I would castigate them for stopping other people from having nice things. If the rules are too complex for some players they have the option not to use them. Optional rules are optional.

But more castigation is for WotC - people are always wary of new ideas - bold innovators go ahead and innovate anyway. WotC are cowards.

 

[Lem23]

Those people are 100% free to hold that opinion. Apparently they're even the majority. I still believe that kind of thinking is poisonous to the game's growth and evolution, and I am sad about that. I can't lie.

I'd take the opposite tack - what would poison the game is bloat. KISS is a much better way of dealing with the mechanics, the fewer new systems and subsystems the better.

 

[Lem23]

But more castigation is for WotC - people are always wary of new ideas - bold innovators go ahead and innovate anyway. WotC are cowards.

You could also argue that a bold innovation would be to have 5e be the first edition that never has a psionics option at all.

 

[Delazar]

How difficult can this be? Full caster, remove spell components, use spell points instead of slots for spell level 1-5, give 1 casting/day for spell level 6-9, create a bunch of psionic-flavored spells.

Balance it against other casters by restricting spell-list/spells known, and with class features.

Done.

 

[Olrox17]

I'd take the opposite tack - what would poison the game is bloat. KISS is a much better way of dealing with the mechanics, the fewer new systems and subsystems the better.

Can’t there be a middle ground between “nothing new, ever, I hate change” and “third edition level massive bloat”?

 

[Fenris-77]

How difficult can this be? Full caster, remove spell components, use spell points instead of slots for spell level 1-5, give 1 casting/day for spell level 6-9, create a bunch of psionic-flavored spells.

Balance it against other casters by restricting spell-list/spells known, and with class features.

Done.

And a lot of hard-core psionic fans would still be up in arms because psions 'aren't casters'. Personally, I have very little interest in just another full caster, but that would satisfy some people. I don't think WotC wants to go this route though or they would have. They sort of already did with the Mystic, and that didn't get enough love either. There's nothing wrong with this method of building a Psion btw, I agree it would be easy and cover most of the bases. I'm actually quite happy to not really care about Psionics one way or another. I would prefer to see some cool alternate mechanics and system for it, but I'm not fashed either way.