D&D 5E 5e has everything it needs for Dark Sun

[grimslade]

There are two arguments going on here. One is what Dark Sun needs to be a complete setting and the other is 5Es very conservative creation of new systems/ classes to expand the breadth of the 5E rule set.
I am going to dodge the first point for a bit and address the conservative rule system expansion. Neochameleon and others have been asking what does a psionics class bring to D&D? What is the point of a new system? In my case, I want an innate caster who has intricate control of the magic they can produce. I want a telepath who doesn't need to learn 6 different formulae of varying spell levels, when they are strong enough they can mimic Dominate Monster or create new effects that aren't codified as a 'spell'. I want a telekineticist who can manipulate enemies and objects at least, as well as a warlock, can with eldritch blast invocations. The sorcerer is a failure of a spontaneous innate caster, it is a limited wizard with extra steps. Put out a magic system that is flexible and does not use the Vancian system we have suffered for almost 50 years. The D&D Next exploration of rules promised a lot but has calcified other than in MtG setting books.
I am going to defer on the question of what does a Dark Sun setting book need. I know what I would need to run a Dark Sun campaign, but what WotC would feel comfortable releasing may be divergent from my predilections. No doubt they will address environmental hazards and charts for non-metal equipment and breakage rules. I hope they will have a defiling system with the real temptation to use it. Preserving is baseline arcane from the PHB. Wild psionic talents would need to be addressed, Theros and Ravenloft have similar subsystems. In my Dark Sun there needs to be a psionic class. I don't know that there is the will within WotC to actually expand the ruleset for 5E. So I would assume a selection of subclasses with the anemic psi-dice system to push it out the door.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sure, I just don't even think it's hard to salvage it. The basic approach is right, just cut it down - though not as severely as you're suggesting because you're overly concerned with this tiny minority who get analysis paralysis at all, we're already down to like 5% of players, and of those, many can get it on everything.

... are you serious? You think only 5% of people ever suffer analysis paralysis? Or did you intend to write 55% at the wrong time and under the wrong conditions - because I suspect that is a low estimate? Because an overwhelming number of options (way outside the 7+-2 rule of thumb) presented in one giant lump and then drawing from the same daily pool of points but allowing for novas (which makes pacing significantly harder)

A lot of analysis paralysis is about presentation - and I dealt with it in two out of five players in my last group (so way more than 5%) by giving them custom-written character sheets that grouped up and laid out the options in a way that suited their individual characters. The mystic would have been a much much bigger problem.

Not every class is for everyone.

No - but we can reliably assume that people are going to, from time to time, play classes that are not intended for them. The failure states are therefore important. The secret to success of 5e (other than Critical Role), I'm convinced, is that it minimises these fail states both in number and impact - and the mystic fails on all counts.

Also important is what proportion of people a class is actually for and how obvious the class makes it who it is for. The mystic, with its fiddly nature is for a relatively low proportion of people. And with its utterly unclear theming doesn't draw people in.

So who is the Psion for? Because if the Mystic is your example, meaning simplicity isn't it, the only answer I can think of is "People who've been playing since the 2e days and want there to be a Psion class like back in the day". I can't think of character concepts that can only be covered by a Psion class.

It adds a ton because it's a completely different approach and one that actually jives with approaches from fantasy fiction, unlike all other D&D casters (very much including Sorcerers).

Here I'm going to say you're way over a decade out of date. The ridiculous parts of Vancian casting left with 4e, and stayed gone in 5e, with even the 5e wizard being a semi-spellpoint caster. Sources like WoW, Harry Potter, and even D&D itself has added the grab bag of spells to popular culture. The 4e/5e specialisation rules reward focus and limited lists. Oh, and the warlock is a thing.

All of which says to me that yes in the 90s the 2e Psion was a huge thematic improvement on the 2e wizard in many places. But that was quarter of a century ago and three editions ago.

I don't agree re: smart and your argument neither makes obvious sense logically, nor is supported by evidence, and I have a huge amount of anecdotal events that run directly against your claims. I would got as far as to say that in an exception-based system, claiming that more classes pushes players away, when all the previous editions of D&D and every other exception-based class-based game I can think of has tons and tons of classes and does great.

Let's look at the evidence.

The longest lasting edition of D&D and probably the most successful after 5e was AD&D 1e - which did not have lots of classes officially considered canon (and if you want Dragon equivalents there's the DM's guild). 2e, which did have a lot of classes did badly enough that it was caught by White Wolf games (whose classes were barely asymmetric) and badly enough that it brought TSR down. 3.0, 3.5, and 4e all also had tons of classes - and collapsed. If the evidence wasn't so one sided I'd say the sample size was too small. But it is one sided. Adding classes brings the game to a point it becomes intimidating and the D&Ds with fewest classes are most approachable and last longest.

What makes it particularly unconvincing to me is that it's the most casual-ass players who pick the weirdest classes and subclasses, utterly reliably. I hear this ridiculous claim like "new players want and need to play stuff like Champion Fighter". It's complete bollocks. New players are bored stiff by stuff like Champion.

On that we can agree - new players look for stuff they find cool. Which is precisely why a class that "isn't for everyone" and that will give negative play experiences is to be avoided. If it's a class that promises to be fiddly and delivers on that - a geometer mage or something - that would be reasonable. But the mystic isn't promising that.

New players frequently pick complex and involved classes and engage with them really strongly - like Bard - Bard is not a simple class, it has a lot of moving parts and a lot to consider. Wizards too.

And one of the advantages 5e has over other editions is that thanks to the changes to spell prep you tangle yourself less.

Pure anecdote (but that seems to match with what you've got) but I've seen more players driven away from D&D by it not having a good class to support their concept, or because they hated the mechanics on D&D casters, than because the classes "overwhelmed" them. 2 vs 0 so low numbers but w/e.

If you want to defend the mystic or the Psion that way give me those concepts that can't be done. This is a big part of what justifies the Artificer. But "I do magic with my mind to manipulate people" fits both an enchanter and a college of whispers bard.

I'm not saying there aren't cool concepts that can't be done. I'm asking what they are and saying just the name "Psion" or "mystic" isn't enough

Yes. They've repeatedly said they understand people want it. That's why they tried adding it early, like in every other edition since 2E.

And when it failed they added it through different routes like the College of Whispers Bard and the Psychic Warrior. They have most of the character concepts, leaving the class a near empty husk.

And if you are a person with a problem with analysis paralysis as bad as you're describing, there are bunch of 5E classes that will be an issue.

Except I'm not a person with analysis paralysis problems. I'm someone who solves those problems for other people.

Which demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the issue. It's like thinking Paladins are just "Fighters who are a bit religious".

A closer analogy would be asking the point of introducing a paladin class if there was already a divine equivalent to the Eldritch Knight. And you know what? That could be done - the 5e paladin with their range of oaths does it.

The sorcerer is already internally powered and can pick up spells that give them telepathic and telekinetic abilities that can be cast at various levels and can trade slots up and down and can tweak their spells. What does the Psion bring thematically or mechanically that can't be done by an aberrant mind other than a lack of tentacles?

Or Rangers are "Fighters who crap in the woods", except even more extreme. Your "argument" is just a lot of extremely strong opinions about something that doesn't even really impact you, because you'd never even play it.

But you don't actually have an answer. Which is why you are going all out on the offensive and hoping that I don't notice that you are following the maxim that "case weak, attack the opposition".

And someone fumbling with a mystic would affect me because analysis paralysis affects the entire table. A well designed class on the other hand might inspire me to play it. But the mystic isn't it. And when you say it's almost what you want you're trying to get something added that would have a significant chance of making my games worse.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The fundamental basis of Dark Sun is how it differs on how it handles the supernatural classes. Most Arcanists are destructive. Clerics are either gone or tied to the elements. Druids are rare or gone. Paladins serve evil Sorcerers. And Psionicists replace the rest as the main source of supernatural effect which tilts supernatural effects toward mental aspects.

So correct me if I'm wrong here. But you're saying that the fundamental basis of Dark Sun is that it takes a steaming dump all over all the existing classes with supernatural abilities in order to promote the new Mary Sue class with none of the drawbacks it hamstrings all the normal D&D classes with.

I sincerely hope that this version of Athas never sees print in 5e. Especially as it means that in order to be balanced with the nerfed classes inside Athas the Psion needs to be weak outside Athas as the other classes lose their Athas-imposed drawbacks.

You can downplay all of this but you severely reduce the grab of the setting. You reduce much of the added features. Basically you would be attempting to convince people to spend money for stuff they already have for people who don't really care.

2E Athas is more than a quarter of a century old. Even 4e Athas is about a decade old - and the majority of 5e players are under 30. The people WotC are trying to convince to spend money are almost entirely not the people who already have Dark Sun sourcebooks. Instead they are the people who will have their favourite classes gratuitously nerfed to make way for The Designer's Favoured Class.

 

[tetrasodium]

Can we stop with this pseudoscientfic gibberish massively misusing of Miller's Law incorrectly attempting to apply a limitation of short term memory in a specific type of situation to a character built over a period usually consisting of weeks or months where the aid of a written character sheet largely consisting of chunked data that likewise has an exception of it's own? The fact that it's being done to support a think of the children style argument that declares any amount of complex worse than any level of simplicity on the sole basis of misusing Miller's law rather than providing any coherent support for merits of the simple alternative makes it so much worse

 

[Minigiant]

So correct me if I'm wrong here. But you're saying that the fundamental basis of Dark Sun is that it takes a steaming dump all over all the existing classes with supernatural abilities in order to promote the new Mary Sue class with none of the drawbacks it hamstrings all the normal D&D classes with.

I sincerely hope that this version of Athas never sees print in 5e. Especially as it means that in order to be balanced with the nerfed classes inside Athas the Psion needs to be weak outside Athas as the other classes lose their Athas-imposed drawbacks.

No it's that the Power Sources have changed and the classes change with them.

Arcane is nerfed
Divine is now DEAD
Primal stays the same
Martial stays the same
Psionics is buffed hard
Elemental is buffed slightly
Tech is still Dead
Shadow is barely a thing

So Clerics switch to Elemental and become rarer than Primal using Druids. Paladins switch to Arcane. Rangers go full Martial or stick to Primal. Arcanists exist but are the rarest casters. Full on Wizards must hide. Bards switch to Psionics or Primal. Sorcery expresses itself as Elementalism or Psioncs instead of Arcane. And Psionic users become the most common type of "mage".

 

[Neonchameleon]

Neochameleon and others have been asking what does a psionics class bring to D&D? What is the point of a new system? In my case, I want an innate caster who has intricate control of the magic they can produce. I want a telepath who doesn't need to learn 6 different formulae of varying spell levels, when they are strong enough they can mimic Dominate Monster or create new effects that aren't codified as a 'spell'. I want a telekineticist who can manipulate enemies and objects at least, as well as a warlock, can with eldritch blast invocations. The sorcerer is a failure of a spontaneous innate caster, it is a limited wizard with extra steps. Put out a magic system that is flexible and does not use the Vancian system we have suffered for almost 50 years.

First Thank You!

Second I'm going to argue with some of your points. First Vancian Casting has gone. 4e killed it then 5e took its clothes and built a dancehall over its grave. Even wizards effectively use spell slots now, making them closer to 3.X sorcerers in flexibility than to classic Vancian wizards. Spell points were a huge improvement in the 2e days but we're a far from perfect solution and 5e casting covers most of their advantages.

Third six months ago I'd have agreed with you about the sorcerer being a failure. But it's a failure for a simple reason. Not enough spells known for flexibility. One spell per level or two per spell level simply isn't enough if there are three pillars. But the Aberrant Mind from Tasha's doubles that (as does the Clockwork Soul) - and you can swap out all the tentacles for other divination or enchantment spells including from the warlock and wizard lists - and from sixth level you can go full spell point if you want without losing efficiency. You can also use sorcerer metamagic to alter your spells the way you seem to be requesting.

The aberrant mind therefore seems to do a pretty good job of covering the bases

 

[Neonchameleon]

Can we stop with this pseudoscientfic gibberish massively misusing of Miller's Law incorrectly attempting to apply a limitation of short term memory in a specific type of situation to a character built over a period usually consisting of weeks or months where the aid of a written character sheet largely consisting of chunked data that likewise has an exception of it's own? The fact that it's being done to support a think of the children style argument that declares any amount of complex worse than any level of simplicity on the sole basis of misusing Miller's law rather than providing any coherent support for merits of the simple alternative makes it so much worse

As long as we can stop pretending that long term memory will be applicable for anything like all players. Or that all people chunk the same way. Or that chunking things doesn't take time.

The reason spell slot casting has lasted so long and I can't think of any long running system with equivalent complexity of spell points is that spell slots come to you pre-chunked. And when someone starts reading through spell cards or power cards (rather than just checking something) you know they're using short term memory.

And the problem with the Mystic is just how much de-chunking it does.

And "any amount of complexity worse than any amount of simplicity" is a flat strawman. All else being equal simplicity is better - but although there is a cost to complexity it can be worth it for better outcomes. The reward needs to be demonstrated however because there is a cost being paid.

 

[tetrasodium]

As long as we can stop pretending that long term memory will be applicable for anything like all players. Or that all people chunk the same way. Or that chunking things doesn't take time.

The reason spell slot casting has lasted so long and I can't think of any long running system with equivalent complexity of spell points is that spell slots come to you pre-chunked. And when someone starts reading through spell cards or power cards (rather than just checking something) you know they're using short term memory.

And the problem with the Mystic is just how much de-chunking it does.

And "any amount of complexity worse than any amount of simplicity" is a flat strawman. All else being equal simplicity is better - but although there is a cost to complexity it can be worth it for better outcomes. The reward needs to be demonstrated however because there is a cost being paid.

you don't get it. The limit you keep hammering applies to a very different situation. You are misapplying it to such an extreme degree that the only part you seem to have grasped is that there are conditions where someone can be expected to remember 7 +-2 things. Those conditions are not the ones you are trying to apply them to.

edit: For others, the very fact that character sheets spell sheets & similar exist makes the 7+-2 thing of Millers Law unrelated to playing a character of any class

 

[Steampunkette]

First Thank You!

Second I'm going to argue with some of your points. First Vancian Casting has gone. 4e killed it then 5e took its clothes and built a dancehall over its grave. Even wizards effectively use spell slots now, making them closer to 3.X sorcerers in flexibility than to classic Vancian wizards. Spell points were a huge improvement in the 2e days but we're a far from perfect solution and 5e casting covers most of their advantages.

Third six months ago I'd have agreed with you about the sorcerer being a failure. But it's a failure for a simple reason. Not enough spells known for flexibility. One spell per level or two per spell level simply isn't enough if there are three pillars. But the Aberrant Mind from Tasha's doubles that (as does the Clockwork Soul) - and you can swap out all the tentacles for other divination or enchantment spells including from the warlock and wizard lists - and from sixth level you can go full spell point if you want without losing efficiency. You can also use sorcerer metamagic to alter your spells the way you seem to be requesting.

The aberrant mind therefore seems to do a pretty good job of covering the bases

This is -wild-.

People tell you the Aberrant Mind isn't enough of a Psionicist because it's more of a "Far Realm" character than anything. You get a list of ways something would need to function to be a "Real" Psionicist. Then insist Aberrant Mind does the job just fine. Even though the Aberrant Mind does... none of the stuff from that list. At all. While also being primarily just an Alienist/Aberration Entity class that changes it's shape or functions into Aberration style abilities as a class feature.

That's amazing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is -wild-.

People tell you the Aberrant Mind isn't enough of a Psionicist because it's more of a "Far Realm" character than anything. You get a list of ways something would need to function to be a "Real" Psionicist. Then insist Aberrant Mind does the job just fine. Even though the Aberrant Mind does... none of the stuff from that list. At all. While also being primarily just an Alienist/Aberration Entity class that changes it's shape or functions into Aberration style abilities as a class feature.

That's amazing.

People told me that the Aberrant Mind was more of a far realm character because there are too many tentacles involved. There are tentacles involved in literally four spells it can take and all of them can be swapped out for divination or enchantment spells by the rules as written. So getting rid of the tentacles isn't hard and can be done by the rules as written, not changing one single one of the mechanics. You were born with your powers is one listed option for their origin so literally the only connection you need to have with the far realm other than having to keep but not cast one tentacle spell for one level before you can swap it out is the name "Aberrant Mind".
That's wild!

They then told me a list of things wanted including spell points and the ability to tweak spells and I compared that list to the Aberrant Mind and found it fits just about all the mechanical criteria given. It even for all practical purposes uses spell points from level 6 onwards ffs. Metamagic lets you alter your spells and manipulate them far more intricately than normal magicians can. And more intricately than Eldritch Blast that mostly does damage. It fits all the criteria listed so far as I can tell other than not being a sorcerer.
That's Amazing!

When someone says "I don't want X because Y" I tend to check if Y is actually true.