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

[Fenris-77]

In fact, you’ve no authority whatsoever over what “gets to be an objection”.

If you want to hold 3PP material to different standards that's up to you, but don't expect me not to point it out.

This is condescending and elitist trash that you are normally much better than. I don’t know what has pushed you to get into a headspace to act like that, but it’s not great behavior.

Yeah, speaking of condescending and worse than expected...

That aside, the completely written but glitch-erased rest of that statement was, indeed, that it isn’t a real concern for you, but it is a perfectly valid concern.

No one needs to use it, but valid reasons for doing so are necessary if you want to get on a public forum and say that all the hard work of the indie and 3PP presses to produce more material for 5E is unbalanced and tonally inconsistent.

Contrary to your insulting assumptions about people who disagree with your preferences, it has nothing to do with capability or being “afraid” of anything.

Hyperbole, mea culpa. I was a little annoyed at the enormously insulting stance on the quality of other publishers. It's got nothing to do with my preferences either. I wasn't assuming people should by the same books I own, or use them the same way. All I said was that there is a wealth of good material out there for 5E, at which point you got all manky about how terrible it all is. With the unstated assumption that I must be some kind of moron for using it because it's obviously terrible. Jeeze. I don't think it would hurt to be a little more charitable than that. Especially when I doubt you've even read half the stuff I'm talking about. That's not a criticism of you buying habits, or what you choose to use in your own game, just of your willingness to criticize something you aren't familiar with, or at the least critique with an insultingly wide brush.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

And yes, wotc is more consistent and balanced than Kobold Press

To each its own, I guess, but in my own experience running 5e since before official release, that's just wrong. I own the Monster Manual, Volo's, Mordenkainen's, the Creature Codex, and the Tome of Beasts, and I've found that the probability of a hard/deadly encounter actually being hard/deadly while using KP stuff is much higher, and let's not even discuss the fact that monsters have actual synergy between the different abilities in their stat blocks.

This piece of advice is written in a WotC book. A core book, really:

Spell Swaps. One way to customize an NPC spellcaster is to replace one or more of its spells. You can substitute any spell on the NPC's spell list with a different spell of the same level from the same spell list. Swapping spells in this manner doesn't alter an NPC's challenge rating.

An Archmage who has identify but no shield on its spell list sits side by side with that advice.

 

[Parmandur]

I've found that the probability of a hard/deadly encounter actually being hard/deadly while using KP stuff is much higher

That Kobold Press monsters are more powerful consistently is sort of the point, though: WotC wants the players to win pretty consistently, and deadly is really only supposed to be deadly if the day has been a real grind. They are using different tuning bases.

Kobold Press stuff is about as balanced as 2E TSR stuff. Probably a good bit better, really.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

That Kobold Press monsters are more powerful consistently is sort of the point, though: WotC wants the players to win pretty consistently, and deadly is really only supposed to be deadly if the day has been a real grind. They are using different tuning bases.

This statement is not only at odds with 5e's fame of making good use of natural language, it contradicts the definition of a deadly encounter provided by the DMG:

Deadly. A deadly encounter could be lethal for one or more player characters. Survival often requires good tactics and quick thinking, and the party risks defeat.

 

[SkidAce]

Heck, Clerics should get Produce Flame!

wut? they dont?

 

[Weiley31]

Heck, Clerics should get Produce Flame!

Sacred Flame: I saw you staring at her!!!

Cleric: But Baby, your the only flame for me!

Cleric puts his arm around Sacred Flame and they both proceed to make out.

 

[Charlaquin]

This statement is not only at odds with 5e's fame of making good use of natural language, it contradicts the definition of a deadly encounter provided by the DMG:

5e doesn’t really use natural language. It uses natural-sounding words but gives them very specific technical meanings. This is actually one of the problems I often have with 3PP - it’s rarely worded in the way 5e would word a functionally similar mechanic. Now that’s a purely aesthetic nitpick and far from a dealbreaker, but it is emblematic of my overall problem with most 3PP products: they often just don’t feel like 5e.

 

[Undrave]

wut? they dont?

Nope!

Cleric Cantrips:
Guidance
Light
Mending
Resistance
Sacred Flame
Spare the Dying
Thaumaturgy

That's it. 7 cantrips. At level 10, you have 5 Cantrips. That's only 42 combinations possible.

 

[Parmandur]

Nope!

Cleric Cantrips:
Guidance
Light
Mending
Resistance
Sacred Flame
Spare the Dying
Thaumaturgy

That's it. 7 cantrips. At level 10, you have 5 Cantrips. That's only 42 combinations possible.

Pretty great cantrips, though.

 

[cbwjm]

Nope!

Cleric Cantrips:
Guidance
Light
Mending
Resistance
Sacred Flame
Spare the Dying
Thaumaturgy

That's it. 7 cantrips. At level 10, you have 5 Cantrips. That's only 42 combinations possible.

I think you've doubled up on your number of combinations, I had to use a calculator to do it for me (then I learned the math to better understand it) but 5 combinations of 7 is only 21 so it's even worse. Xanathar's has expanded it out to 9 cantrips for a total of 126 combinations.