D&D General What’s The Big Deal About Psionics?

[Maxperson]

Balancing the game around a trash encounter video game grind is WOTC"s fault. People aren't running that many fights because it's not fun or engaging. They're largely risk free and pointless in terms of stakes, existing only as an attrition grind. You could halve spell slots and halve the number of fights and the game would be better. Their own adventures aren't even following that model.

You would also have to halve the number of hit points all characters have and halve the martials abilities as well. Half the encounters requires half of all the resources(not just casters) that PCs have.

If people aren't running that many encounters and are going against game design, it's their fault the game doesn't work. The options are suck it up, change it yourself or play a different game. You can't expect the company to fix your mistakes for you.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Design mistakes exist, you know.

Game Designers aren't perfect gods and the adventuring day proves that.

 

[James Gasik]

It doesn't actually have to be 6-8 encounters though. That same passage in the DMG states: "If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can go through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer."

So it's perfectly fine to adjust these numbers, provided the xp budget per encounter is shifted.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

You would also have to halve the number of hit points all characters have and halve the martials abilities as well. Half the encounters requires half of all the resources(not just casters) that PCs have.

If people aren't running that many encounters and are going against game design, it's their fault the game doesn't work. The options are suck it up, change it yourself or play a different game. You can't expect the company to fix your mistakes for you.

When your userbase tells you your design assumptions suck, it's on you to fix them.

Moreover, martials are underpowered as is. Their "contribution" is average performance over a period of time, never particularly shining. They lack narrative control, relying on mother may I to effect change, whereas casters dictate narrative effects and the world (sometimes) gets a save. Removing their resources removes the point of taking away casters in the first place, which is parity.

 

[Vaalingrade]

There's a thread active right now about demonizing video games and we're in here literally defending a TTRPG requiring trash mobs.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It doesn't actually have to be 6-8 encounters though. That same passage in the DMG states: "If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can go through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer."

So it's perfectly fine to adjust these numbers, provided the xp budget per encounter is shifted.

All that does is screw the short rest chump classes even more. The fighter pops his action surge, hits twice more, and goes, "well, I'm a crappy Paladin now!" Meanwhile, the casters unload their top tier spells, round after round.

I've done some workaround, such as letting second wind give the benefits of a short rest 1/day (later 2/day), but fewer encounters don't do the trick without reducing caster resources or implementing some kind of fatigue/blowback mechanic for them.

 

[Maxperson]

When your userbase tells you your design assumptions suck, it's on you to fix them.

And I'm sure 6e will be different. 5e, though, isn't changing for you. The base design is over and done with and the entire game is built around that core.

They lack narrative control, relying on mother may I to effect change, whereas casters dictate narrative effects and the world (sometimes) gets a save. Removing their resources removes the point of taking away casters in the first place, which is parity.

Again with the false mother may I narrative? There's no mother may I going on when I dictate to the DM what I do with my martial characters. Ever.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

And I'm sure 6e will be different. 5e, though, isn't changing for you. The base design is over and done with and the entire game is built around that core.

Again with the false mother may I narrative? There's no mother may I going on when I dictate to the DM what I do with my martial characters. Ever.

It isn't a false narrative. It's great your DM lets you do stuff. Casters get to do the exact same thing, AND get to dictate their own terms with spells when the DM isn't willing to play ball.

Only giving one set of characters narrative plot coupons is a problem. Sadly the "muh v-tude!" crowd will only accept one form of plot coupon.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It isn't a false narrative. It's great your DM lets you do stuff. Casters get to do the exact same thing, AND get to dictate their own terms with spells when the DM isn't willing to play ball.

Only giving one set of characters narrative plot coupons is a problem. Sadly the "muh v-tude!" crowd will only accept one form of plot coupon.

How would you propose to fix this then? Direct narrative control for martials is a no-go for many, many tables. Giving them in-game moves would work, but it leads to greater complexity, which WotC is clearly terrified about. As I've said before, you're going to have to move beyond official rules for this. The Level Up fighter, for example, covers a lot of this ground.

As far as the encounter day is concerned, Maxperson is correct. It is the foundation of the combat system for 5e, and they can't change without a new edition.

 

[Vaalingrade]

How would you propose to fix this then? Direct narrative control for martials is a no-go for many, many tables. Giving them in-game moves would work, but it leads to greater complexity, which WotC is clearly terrified about. As I've said before, you're going to have to move beyond official rules for this. The Level Up fighter, for example, covers a lot of this ground.

As far as the encounter day is concerned, Maxperson is correct. It is the foundation of the combat system for 5e, and they can't change without a new edition.

New edition it is then.