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

[Aldarc]

But the Psionic Talent Dice was really easy to understand.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that people are obligated to like it because it's "easy to understand." A mechanic can be "easy to understand" while also being regarded as more complicated than it's worth, a needless addition when pre-existing mechanics would suffice, psychologically unsatisfying, poor/disliked model of the imagined fiction, etc.

 

[Aldarc]

There's a qualitative and moral difference between bastardizing the myths and legends of your own people or a group of people close to your own ancestry, and doing the same to those of a culture far removed from your own. When doing the latter, it is best to tread a lot lighter. Doubly so if you're a White creator taking inspiration from the myths and legends of BIPOC cultures. And sometimes, you have to ask yourself if what you're writing is really your story to tell.

Have a gander at this article: Asian Representation and the Martial Arts. Section specifically on 5e quoted below:

I would personally like to see Monks retooled and reflavored more like the Oathsworn in Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved. The Oathsworn were not about ki/chi, mystical martial arts, or the like. Their inspiration were the Haruchai of the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. The Oathsworn in AE would swear oaths not to use weapons, but instead become a living weapon. Their oaths were quasi-magical and let them overcome a need for sleep, water, and food or to resist fear.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

The math in 5e is definitely more elegant, but 3e helped you achieve character concepts better.

Indeed. 5e says you get to be an illusionist wizard, but you still end up firebolting your enemies 50% of the time.

 

[Olrox17]

This brings up an interesting point that was kinda danced around earlier in this thread, that the standards by which potential new 5e material is being judged are very different than the standards by which the initital material in the Next playtest was judged. The PHB classes, subclasses, races, backgrounds, and all the rest, lived and died by how much they resonated with fans of previous editions. Nowadays, with the enormous influx of new players, they’re the ones UA material has to appeal to. And they don’t have the same baggage we do.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m not putting a value judgment on it, just making an observation.

 

[Olrox17]

I’m not putting a value judgment on it, just making an observation.

I know. It's just a funny self-deprecating meme

 

[doctorbadwolf]

"I think it was more about the mechanic.." is contradicted by "There were a lot of people bouncing...on there being a different mechanic at all."

He made it clear it's not how the mechanic worked that was at issue...it was that there was a different mechanic of any kind involved. That was the issue people had, the existence of any new mechanic there. So he already addressed claim that it's about how the mechanic worked. It's not - it's about mechanics being different from the norm, as a generalization.

But it isn’t about the mechanic being new, it’s about the mechanic working in a way that isn’t consistent with how things tend to work in 5e.

And again, the same people didn’t bounce off the Artificer, which introduces a ton of new and different mechanics, so we clearly have a case where “just let me sit down and play the cool thing” is more nuanced than you are suggesting, and I don’t think that Crawford actually suggests that it is as simple as you seem to think it is.

Hmm... No? It's a straight forward build that does what you seem to want? Why would it be kludgey? There's no weird MC shenanigans involved, Variant Human is pretty popular and so is Magic Initiate so it's not really out of the ordinary. It's just 'Pick the spells with the Psionic flavor'.

It's a perfectly fine Psionic Bard build.

And more important, it doesn't require learning any new mechanics.

Heck, flavor Magic Initiate: Sorecer (to pick up Message, Friends and Charm Person) as a sort of natural gift and the Bardic training was to hone it?

Reflavoring every single feature of a class isn’t straightforward. It’s a kludge.

Welcome to 5e.

I mean, not really. I’ve never felt that way about any of the characters I’ve made in 5e.
I have only felt that way about builds suggest here and elsewhere online that “already do that”.

 

[Undrave]

I see what you are saying , and I'm not arguing with you that what you propose could be reflavored as a psion....but at the end of the day it's still, mechanically, a bard.

I am a HUGE proponent of reskinning and morphing a class into something that it wasn't designed to be, but it isn't the same as having a separate class that has a mechanical difference.

There really isn't a huge reason why a paladin couldn't have been a subclass of cleric, or that a ranger couldn't have been a subclass of druid when the game was designed, other than people expect them to be more distant than a subclass allows.

Another somewhat related thing: whenever the Warlord is brought up there's tons of cries of 'It's just a Fighter!' or 'Use a Battlemaster!' and that there just 'isn't enough space to make 6-8 subclass for the Warlord' (despite the fact I could come up with 8 of 'em myself, seven here and a 'Rabble Rouser' archetype) but I'm supposed to believe that 'Telepathy Specialist' and 'Telekinesis Specialist' are archetypes enough to build a whole Psion class?! Maybe you could add a Psychometry Specialist that wouldn't overlap with the Diviner, somehow... but I have a hard time to believe you could make more Psion subclasses that wouldn't just be re-skinned Wizards or something. Magic does too many things in D&D.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that people are obligated to like it because it's "easy to understand." A mechanic can be "easy to understand" while also being regarded as more complicated than it's worth, a needless addition when pre-existing mechanics would suffice, psychologically unsatisfying, poor/disliked model of the imagined fiction, etc.

I'm not asking them to 'like' anything, just to not throw a fit if they're added to the game. There's plenty of mechanics I don't like in 5e (I mentioned surge-less healing previously) but I make do. There's plenty of classes I don't give a damn about but I'm not gonna take them away from someone who does like them. As long as they don't break anything, they could make a class that fights with farts and I wouldn't mind, even if I'd never use it.

 

[Undrave]

Reflavoring every single feature of a class isn’t straightforward. It’s a kludge.

It's not really a stretch of a reflavor. Pick Variant Human, pick 'Magic Intitiate: Sorcerer', choose 'Friends', 'Message' and 'Charm Person' as spells. Now you have an innate talent to influence others. You either learn to play with their emotion using the power of Bardic training, or you study Enchantment School magic to perfect your innate abilities.

There, one reflavoring that covers everything in one go. Then you don't have to justify crap. It's just stuff you can DO.

 

[Mistwell]

But it isn’t about the mechanic being new, it’s about the mechanic working in a way that isn’t consistent with how things tend to work in 5e.

And again, the same people didn’t bounce off the Artificer, which introduces a ton of new and different mechanics, so we clearly have a case where “just let me sit down and play the cool thing” is more nuanced than you are suggesting, and I don’t think that Crawford actually suggests that it is as simple as you seem to think it is.

Could be. I hope you are right, because I like new mechanics.