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

[Lem23]

The problem is: you end up firebolting people not because you want to, but because this is what's usually available for your character to do. Much like the life cleric that probably casts about 2-3 sacred flames for every spell slot spent on heal/support. There's no "minor phantasmal killer" cantrip, wisdom save or take 1d6 psychic damage. There's no "target gains 2 temporary HP" cantrip. Basically: as far as mechanical diversity is concerned, 5e pays lip-service to the idea of multiple character concepts. And now I'm not even talking about subsystems anymore, this is about a diviner using mostly divination magic, instead of setting things on fire.

If you choose to take those spells, then yes, you're likely to be using those spells. If you don't want to use those spells, then there's an easy solution there - don't take those spells.

 

[Undrave]

If you choose to take those spells, then yes, you're likely to be using those spells. If you don't want to use those spells, then there's an easy solution there - don't take those spells.

And then you contribute nothing if a fight breaks out.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

If you choose to take those spells, then yes, you're likely to be using those spells. If you don't want to use those spells, then there's an easy solution there - don't take those spells.

And then... Walk past 90% of the challenges in the official adventures with only your crossbow shots? Great...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Again, there is risk, and there is dumb. Putting out a product people don't want is dumb. Putting out new mechanics for free to see if people want them first is smart. There is no difference in terms of "risk" involved.

The way the industry operated before the Next playtest was objectively inferior, and produced a measurably inferior commercial result. They took a gargantuan risk by starting down the big data path, way bigger than any splat book put out with no vetting ever did. It paid off, and they have every reason to continue.

You're often good to talk to Parmandur, but here it really feels to me like I'm talking to someone who isn't even thinking. There's no critical analysis here, which you're usually good at. Just 100% ride-or-die for Wizards of the Coast.

There's also no evidence to support your assertion re: "the industry", and I do mean absolutely none. It is literally not viable to claim that as objective fact, because you have no cohort, and the other factors involved are too big. You're welcome to that theory. To claim it as objective fact, however, is to lie.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You mean innovative and mechanically daring products which almost nobody likes or buys.

No, I don't.

Focus-groups and acceptance tests don't lead to better products, they merely lead to ones that people say they like better in focus groups and acceptance tests. Which is a very different thing. This is very well-demonstrated by gaming history, whether it's tabletop or video. Here's even worse, because it's a small, motivated group of people giving feedback, rather than a genuine cross-section of the community (which would mean limiting input from some people, and trying to get it from others).

Plenty of daring and innovative games have done extremely well, just as plenty of games which have played it extremely safe have been massive flops. Do you think 2E would have succeeded if they'd just focus-grouped and acceptance-tested their products? It would have been a trashfire. Many of the best 2E products would never have happened. Certainly Spelljammer, Dark Sun, and Planescape would never have come out.

Or the World of Darkness, if early White Wolf had decided to focus-group that with extant RPGers, would they have had extremely positive results? Nope. They'd have been told to put in classes and levels. And pretending like the WoD wasn't a massive success would be silly.

Loads of terrible fantasy-heart-breaker type games which faded into nothingness like the morning mist would probably have got well over 70% approval from the sort of people who think the Mystic was trash and so on, too.

It works for 5E only because it is the dominant game, and has a huge captive audience, and it's unclear if it's even helping them at all.

(Sometimes even for the dominant game, it could be their downfall, too - if WoW, for example, had taken this 70% approval acceptance-test-based theology to heart early on, then it'd be one of those basically-dead games that's F2P and gets occasional minor updates, because absolutely NONE of the changes to the game which have let it endure for 15+ years would have got 70% approval from the sort of people who would be actually bothering to answer such surveys. The designers got loads wrong about WoW, absolutely loads. But the community got way more wrong, and was so ultra-conservative, design-wise, that TBC would have been basically the end of WoW, design-wise. And sooner or later, someone would have come along and done to WoW, what WoW did to EQ. D&D isn't really in that position, because no-one is going to drop the time and money it would take to make a "D&D killer" into the RPG industry, that would be mad. But at the same time, the idea that this sort of approach is helping D&D, not locking it into a peculiar mindset/approach that existed at one time, in one, is mmmm, questionable.)

 

[JiffyPopTart]

My most recent character was a Storm Sorcerer. I decided to do the thematic thing and pick all the spells having something to do with thunder or lightning, or which I could fairly easily theme as being created by storm related phenomenon (like Catapult being the result of a swift gust of wind).

My two cantrips....
Shocking Grasp (touch)
Thunderclap (5' radius)

Yes....I played as sorcerer who had two attack cantrips that had to be used in melee combat. It wasn't......ideal.

My choices were to either

1. Ignore the idea of trying to model a sorcerer who's powers all relate to their origin.
2. Houserule changing of damage type to change Firebolt to Lightningboltette or similar.
3. Stick with my theme and be less than optimal.

I picked 3. My sorcerer rarely, if ever, used attack cantrips and when I was out of spells I just had to wade into melee and hope for the best.

He died trying to thunderwave three dwarves into a chasm and all three making their saves.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

For what its worth, I actually agree with you. I'm just wondering what heck do people expect when they want a Psionic Class that doesn't 'use new mechanics'? Such a thing would feel WAY too redundant to me since we have the Bard and Enchanter available. Feels to me like they COULD just 'sit down and play the cool thing' RIGHT NOW and not ruin it for people who LIKE new mechanics...

I'm a bit bitter

Preaching to the choir here....I still want a psion that isn't even "magic". Starting with the announcement of Ravnica and solidified with the announcement of Wildemount, I no longer expect much from 5e so I am no longer disappointed with their design choices.

 

[Weiley31]

And then... Walk past 90% of the challenges in the official adventures with only your crossbow shots? Great...

Pretty much the reason why I am forever grateful for the introduction of Cantrips.

 

[Mistwell]

No, I don't.

Yes you do. And that's the reply you deserve for failing to address 90% of my post to you, and cutting just one sentence out of context, and then ranting about your assumptions and guesses about how WOTC is using the data and what cross-sections they're using when you have no clue at all how that data is used or what cross-sections are used.

This is a conversation RE, not a platform for you to pontificate your notions and ignore what other people think.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Obviously experiences differ, but I’ve felt this way about just about every 5e character I’ve played. It takes until at least 3rd level before a character’s basic functions are all online, and depending on the subclass may take until 6th or 7th level before it really comes into its own. And there is always class baggage that is irrelevant to the concept at best and actually hinders it at worst. I know I’m far from the only one who feels this way.

So, the thing is, when someone says "welcome to XYZ", it implies that whatever they are replying to is just an unavoidable part of ZYX, which is what I am saying isn't true.