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

[Lem23]

Calling what we have now, six years into the edition's lifecycle, a quite full roster of interesting options, is kind of an overstatement. I don't know if any other D&D edition was starving for new mechanics like 5e at this point in their respective cycles.

I disagree that 5e is sraving for new mchanics. It's just not succumbing to bloat like previous editions. That's a good thing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why the warlock, but not the warlord or a psionic class?

The warlord has lived in 1 edition, and psionics are controversial as to whether they really belong or not, but if you wanna add those go ahead, I don't especially care.

 

[generic]

I would always prefer more options, even ones which are not exactly popular, due to my particular taste for releases and their respective release schedules.

 

[Parmandur]

Calling what we have now, six years into the edition's lifecycle, a quite full roster of interesting options, is kind of an overstatement. I don't know if any other D&D edition was starving for new mechanics like 5e at this point in their respective cycles.

OD&D, 1E, BECMI.

 

[generic]

OD&D, 1E, BECMI.

You use those as examples, but these were all basically just proto-D&D, not the sophisticated d20 system we utilize now.

 

[Parmandur]

What is culturally problematic about the Monk and Warlock? Monks bear little resemblance to practitioners of traditional martial arts, and Warlocks have never existed.

Someone selling their soul to extraplanar entities for fun & profit isn't going to sit right with many people.

Monk's are actually particularly problematic, though, because of the cultural appropriation odditiy going on there. I've heard some good analytics of this from Asian gamers, and it really puts the whole class in an uncomfortable light. The whole exotic Orientalist treatment of Ki is particularly egregious.

 

[Parmandur]

You use those as examples, but these were all basically just proto-D&D, not the sophisticated d20 system we utilize now.

The most popular versions of the game, other than the one we have now...?

They were editions of D&D, and just because something came later doesn't mean it is better. History doesn't progress or regress, it wobbles. WotC has correctly identified something that worked for early D&D, in terms of product development.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

OD&D, 1E, BECMI.

Really? I agree about 1e (though it got support from Dragon, that 5e, unfortunately, also lacks), but I find both Original and Rules Cyclopedia D&D to be, each within its respective context and microcosm, much more mechanically instigating than 5e.

 

[Undrave]

Not at all. It's been six years. According to the people who own the game, it received and continues to receive a huge influx of new players, probably the biggest influx in its history. 5e was forged on the feedback of people who played D&D before it but it's pretty reasonable to say that, between new and returning players, they are not the majority of the people providing feedback anymore.

That's a very good point actually.

Again, to go back to the evolution thing: the D&D player base changes with every new player and every time someone leaves.

D&D can't stay stagnant to keep its players satisfied because its players are never the same.

 

[Parmandur]

Really? I agree about 1e (though it got support from Dragon, that 5e, unfortunately, also lacks), but I find both Original and Rules Cyclopedia D&D to be, each within its respective context and microcosm, much more mechanically instigating than 5e.

Rules Cyclopedia was the collection of, what, 15 years of rules releases. And OD&D hardly had more product support than 5E.

If we count Dragon magazine, then we can certainly count the DMsGuild, and 5E clearly has a faster and broader release of material.

Point is,5E is less of a historical outlier for D&D in general, just for WotC. And WotC has learned their lessons from history now.