D&D 5E D&D survey March 2016--Awakened Mystic, Kits of Old survey results, and "first, major mechanical expansion"

[Greg Benage]

The article also discusses some preliminary info into the "first, major mechanical expansion", more design philosophy than anything concrete.

I responded to the survey, standing athwart history and yelling "Stop!" at a time when no other is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.

 

[CapnZapp]

What I can see is:

A couple of new base classes. A shaman, a psionicist, and (dare I say it) a "martial healer".

Ideally, a rethink of metamagic, which in my opinion should be accessible to all.

The question of what makes a sorcerer distinct is an important one, but "metamagic" is the wrong answer.

So add one or two metamagic feats and a new sorcerer base class. (The old one can be kept as the king of metamagic)

A slew of new subclasses, including replacements for the ones least well received, such as the beastmaster. More cleric domains.

More options like BM maneuvers. Perhaps even a wholly new system like that one. Feats spellcasters desire.

Personally I'd like Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert done over, but I realize that's a subject for another thread.

What else...? A slew of new spells perhaps. More monsters doesn't belong in a "Player's..." module.

An upgraded and thoroughly improved version of the d20 magic item economy would be greatly appreciated as the biggest hole in 3E to 5E compatibility. More magic items would never hurt.

Bring on the crunch! [emoji3]

But for the love of God, avoid the urge to "fix" the basic rules and mechanics of 5e. No 5.5

One game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I certainly hope it isn't 5.5

That would imply a whole raft of niggling rules tweaks, and that's horrible.

I don't share that implication.

The ".5ing" I'm talking about is a substantial new product (or line of products) that often happens when sales of the original core rules begin to flag a few years into an edition cycle as the market saturates.

In 2e, that was Skills & Powers (or maybe the black-covered-book revision!). In 1e, Unearthed Arcana did something similar. In 3e, it got formalized with 3.5, with its niggling rules tweaks. In 4e, Essentials with appeals to "classic design" and drift away from some of 4e's organizational principles.

It's defined more by the fact that it is a reaction to existing edition design moreso than by any particular quality of the rules tweaks. A useful point of comparison is, say, 4e's Martial Power vs. 4e Essentials. Both new options, but one clearly thinking about the fundamental design of the edition, the other simply adding MORE STUFF.

I wouldn't be shocked if this included, for instance, a new ranger - you could still use the old one, but now there's also a shiny new one that has a few years of feedback driving it! Maybe it gives you an option to add bonus spells to sorcerers!

Versus something like SCAG, which is basically "more stuff!"

Could be wrong on that, though - if they just make a big book of more options, it'd be a ".5ing" in terms of business strategy only: a shot in the arm to a game a few years into its edition cycle.

 

[Bad Fox]

I'm always curious about what other people put in their comments for these surveys, so I thought I'd post mine here - or at least the stuff on psionics...


Mystic Class

Overall, I really like it a lot! Giving the class a medium armour proficiency seems a bit off-theme, though. I feel like light armour would work better. And I'm not sure about Mystical Recovery and Consumptive power - I'd have to see these abilities in action for awhile to give them a fair assessment.

Also, although preferences on the name of the class may not be something you're looking at, Mystic doesn't seem like the best fit to me. Mystics already a real thing that don't have anything to do with mental powers. That said, psionicist and psychic feel either too chunky (psionicist) or too real world pseudo-sciencey (psychic). Psion seems like it could be a happy medium?

Core Psionic Rules

All pretty neat. Good job!

I like that this class provides the player with lots of interesting choices: not just when making their character, but particularly while PLAYING their character.

Order of the Awakened

I think Psionic Investigation is a very cool ability: I'm a big fan! That said, I have considered that it might make things difficult for some DMs trying to run a mystery-style adventure. Perhaps the ability to see events from the object's perspective could be toned down just a little?

Order of the Immortal

Perhaps adjusting the armour proficiency from heavy down to medium would work better for the Immortals? They feel like they would default to a more nimble combat style bolstered by things like Psionic Resilience and various disciplines.

Psionic Disciplines

Immortal Disciplines: for the disciplines that this applies to, I think a good change would be to make it harder to use beneficial abilities on other creatures than it is to use them on yourself. For example, it could cost more psi-points to use Adaptive Body to give another creature resistance or immunity to damage than it would cost to use this discipline to protect yourself.

Awakened Disciplines: if some of these disciplines had abilities that were specifically useful for attacking and defending against psionic enemies, that would be a neat little nod to 2nd edition psionic combat!

As a specific comment, Mind Vault seems to give too much versatility to one character. I mean, you essentially have a proficiency in every skill and tool, as you could give your PC a different proficiency every turn with a bonus action.

Okay, and I'm being a little picky with Third Eye, but the tremor sense ability just doesn’t feel very intuitive to use. Are there any alternative abilities you could drop in there?

Psionic Talents

These mostly look good - I'm looking forward to eventually seeing a lot more of these! What is up with Beacon, though? You just light up like a florescent bulb? That could use some adjusting...

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't share that implication.

The ".5ing" I'm talking about is a substantial new product (or line of products) that often happens when sales of the original core rules begin to flag a few years into an edition cycle as the market saturates.

Then we're talking about the same thing.

And no, I still feel a 5.5 along those lines would be a tremendous mistake for the kind of extra crunch that we're about to see for the next few years.

I think they've learnt their lesson:

There is ONE game. Your old books are perfectly fine. No, you don't need huge chunks of errata.

Buy the new books if you like the game but want more. We're still all playing the same game.

No different version numbers.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Then we're talking about the same thing.

And no, I still feel a 5.5 along those lines would be a tremendous mistake for the kind of extra crunch that we're about to see for the next few years.

I think they've learnt their lesson:

There is ONE game. Your old books are perfectly fine. No, you don't need huge chunks of errata.

Buy the new books if you like the game but want more. We're still all playing the same game.

No different version numbers.

I still feel like we're talking about different things. Like, your old books were perfectly fine when 4e released Essentials. Essentials still filled the same business niche (a shot in the arm a few years after the core rules were out). You could even get away without updating to 3.5e, if strict rules adherence wasn't a big deal. 3e -> 3.5e, about 3 years. 4e -> 4essentials, about 3 years. Each of them basically a "Hey, everyone's got the Core Rules, now they need to buy this!" from a business standpoint.

Anyway, didn't really mean to disappear down a "DEFINE .5e's!" rabbit-hole, just noting that I imagine this book will be more than just a few new character options and likely is planned to come in the edition lifecycle like 3.5e and 4essentials were and so will likely be a Pretty Big Deal Release in the next year or so.

 

[Zardnaar]

Essentials was also not really a .5 edition relative to 1.5/2.5/3.5.

1st ed UA+WSG+DSG a lot of that made its way into the 2E PHB. 2.5 was the Players option books, some of that made it into 3E but most of it was variant rules. 3.5 was somewhat incompatible with 3.0 at least enough to be annoying and essentials was just variant classes really and errata.

Feedback seemed good as well. I don't think I was one of those but the classes looked mostly fine from what I could see.

 

[Shasarak]

1st ed UA+WSG+DSG a lot of that made its way into the 2E PHB. 2.5 was the Players option books, some of that made it into 3E but most of it was variant rules. 3.5 was somewhat incompatible with 3.0 at least enough to be annoying and essentials was just variant classes really and errata.

Some people thought it was somewhat incompatible, other people kept on using their 3.0 Monster Manual for years until we finally noticed and brought him an updated version.

 

[Emirikol_Prime]

People can we please stop crying bloat? Having a new monster book and maybe a new player book with spells and sub-classes every year or two would be amazing.

No one is forcing anyone to buy it. I feel terrible that there is rarely anything to buy for this edition from WoTC. I don't need Pathfinder levels of glut. I just would appreciate something.

And no DMsG is not an option until they find a real way to separate the wheat from the chaff.


This constant outcry against product is such a downer.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yeah, I think the fact that we'll be getting our first Big Book o' Mechanical Gewgaws over two years into the edition is pretty far from "bloat." Bloat =/= any new mechanics ever.