D&D Psionics Survey; Plus "First Major Mechanical Expansion" Coming?

The latest D&D survey is up from WotC, and it's asking your thoughts on the revised Awakened Mystic article (aka 5E psionics rules) in Mike Mearls' Unearthed Arcana column last July. It also asks whether you want to see new races, classes, spells, and feats. At the same time, the last survey's results are in, reporting on the pubic's opinions of the Kits of Old article from a few months ago; and Mike Mearls refers to a "first major mechanical expansion" in the game.

[lq]At this stage, we’ve begun considering what the first, major mechanical expansion to the game might look like.[/lq]

 

[Mouseferatu]

Sorry to disappoint but the feats are already spread over more books (than the PHB)

Are they? Maybe I'm just forgetting something, but I don't recall seeing new feats anywhere...

 

[Xohar17]

Are they? Maybe I'm just forgetting something, but I don't recall seeing new feats anywhere...

The only one that comes to mind is the Svirfneblin Magic feat for deep gnomes that appears both in the EEPC and the SCAG.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The only one that comes to mind is the that Svirfneblin Magic feat for deep gnomes that appears both in the EEPC and the SCAG.

Hmm. Yeah, I'd forgotten that, but... Given the context of this discussion--someone saying "I like being able to just hand the players one book and say go"--that feat doesn't count. Because it's only available to a race that also isn't in the PHB!

 

[CapnZapp]

I hope the power creep doesn't invalidate PHB1 classes / subclasses. The PHB1 should be the only gateway needed to contribute effectively.

Yes - and no.

A "super fighter" or "better cleric" or a new kind of totem barbarian that does damage resistance even better than Bear would indeed be bad.

But any new Beastmaster Rangerish or Four Elements Monkish (example) ought to be better.

Since that's pretty much the point of the complaints. People that want a Hunter with a combat pet doesn't need another Beastmaster. They want something that's superior to that class, pure and simple.

But in general power creep is completely unnecessary and bad; I agree.

 

[CapnZapp]

Hmm. Yeah, I'd forgotten that, but... Given the context of this discussion--someone saying "I like being able to just hand the players one book and say go"--that feat doesn't count. Because it's only available to a race that also isn't in the PHB!

The Svirf feat was indeed the one.

 

[Azzy]

Maybe a mechanical update will mean I can learn a new skill later in the adventuring "career" (and no, tools don't count) without needing a feat (especially since they are optional).

I already house-ruled that into my games....

Stealing from 2e AD&D Nonweapon Proficiencies, I allow characters to gain an additional proficiency in either a Skill, Tool, Language, or Weapon at 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, & 18th level.

 

[Azzy]

Well, I think I got beaten to the punch here.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Maybe a mechanical update will mean I can learn a new skill later in the adventuring "career" (and no, tools don't count) without needing a feat (especially since they are optional).

Unfortunately, it seems like they're solely focusing on adding more player character options (classes, subclasses, spells, feats).

 

[Kite474]

I can't wait! As for the whole Class Vs. Subclass. I tend to much more on the side of new classes because sub-classes by the by tend to not really be able to cover alot of ground on their own. For example take the PDK. It is really trying to be the replacement for the Warlord.... and its really really bad at it. Like excruciatingly so. That and for almost all of the fighters archetypes for that matter your still kind of stuck with the "I roll to attack X times" for the majority of the characters career.

But yeah I would definitely love some new material! Hope its great! Finally something in this edition outside the core that actually might be worth buying!!

 

[Kite474]

Whoops! Double post.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I would be surprised if the various player options printed in the adventure books and the EEPC are not included in this new book. It would help them reach a page count equal to the PHB and would put all the scattered rules in one place, but would use few enough pages that there would be plenty of room for new stuff to make the book worth the $40-50 price tag.

 

[MechaPilot]

I said in my feedback that I wanted more non-traditional races (merfolk, centaurs, etc) and rules and advice for allowing players to play truly monstrous characters (medusas, fiends, dragons, etc).

I also said that the other options we should get should really be the ones we need for different settings, such as a well-done and fully fleshed out artificer.

 

[CapnZapp]

Unfortunately, it seems like they're solely focusing on adding more player character options (classes, subclasses, spells, feats).

Again, a "mechanical update" leads down a slippery slope to two different (similar but not identical) versions.

No matter how innocuous a small skill rule would seem.

Just adding to the game has the great advantage we all play the same game.

 

[CapnZapp]

To add to that: the skill proposal is a small benign suggestion.

But 3.5 was undone by adding a thousand small changes that individually could be seen as small, useful and harmless.

Yet, in the end 3.5 changed a lot without actually fixing any of the real problems.

Compare 5E which truly and satisfyingly fixes d20.

But not because of the individual changes to each spell or class feature. It's the deep sweeping fundamental core changes that did it.

Patching and tweaking an edition is, I believe, a fool's errand.

Especially with a Paizo lurking behind the corner.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Again, a "mechanical update" leads down a slippery slope to two different (similar but not identical) versions.

No matter how innocuous a small skill rule would seem.

...and? You're saying that's a bad thing?

 

[jayoungr]

It would be nice to see the expanded tactical options that they floated as a possibility during the playtest period. People who prefer TOTM can use the PHB, and people who would like expanded options could use the tactical expansion.

 

[CapnZapp]

...and? You're saying that's a bad thing?

Yes. You have read my numerous posts on the subject correctly!

 

[CapnZapp]

I would be surprised if the various player options printed in the adventure books and the EEPC are not included in this new book. It would help them reach a page count equal to the PHB and would put all the scattered rules in one place, but would use few enough pages that there would be plenty of room for new stuff to make the book worth the $40-50 price tag.

That doesn't sound unreasonable, but it would mean you could choose this new book and circumvent the "PHB plus one" guideline.

Of course, by now, the community would have found if there were any unintended power combos to be had, so perhaps this wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Assuming:
1) there are no such combos to be abused
OR
2) there were, and at least one component is simply not reprinted

and not
3) the abuse combo is "fixed". Again, I hope they stick to their policy of not adding fixes to the game. Having several slightly different versions of something is bad.

Either errata the thing that can be abused or, more plainly, don't reprint it.

 

[Atlatl Jones]

I would be surprised if the various player options printed in the adventure books and the EEPC are not included in this new book.

I hope they are included. It would make it a lot easier to reference in play, and the EEPC options were never available in print anyway, only pdf.

 

[GMMichael]

Literally too good to be true.

I don't know about that. Book of Nine Swords and the Warlock (Complete Mage?) were the seeds the blossomed into 4th edition. Are you ready for 6th?