D&D 5E Psionics in Tasha

[Samloyal23]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
We are constantly saying that WoTC should listen to the fans, that they should give the fans what they want. Well, the fans don't want a new system.

You can call it lazy if you want, you can give "but it would be so easy to do X" all you want, but at the end of the day, the fans spoke, and they indicated no.

At least for Psionics, it appears like they are done trying to make a new system. And after years of trying, I don't blame them.

Sure, but none of that is defined by the spell, correct?

So, it would still be the same spell, with the same rules, even if you flavored the process differently.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not think they really tried very hard to make a complete system. They gave a half-hearted effort and it showed. So they came up with answers that no one was enthusiastic about.

Flavour and crunch in a good rule system are one and the same. If your invisibility is based on telepathy, it can be blocked by mental defences instead of a dispel, you can be seen by anyone you are not mentally connected to, and can easily be seen in a photograph or video. If it based on transmutation it is not an illusion, so being resistant to illusions will not defend against it. If it based on a connection to another plane, banishing energy from other planes will dispel it. The flavour determines the mechanics.

 

[Mistwell]

I do not think they really tried very hard to make a complete system. They gave a half-hearted effort and it showed. So they came up with answers that no one was enthusiastic about.

What's weird is this denial that some are genuinely enthusiastic about it. Some are in this very thread. It's like they are a hidden fnord or something. People literally seem to have trouble even seeing them in front of their faces.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I do not think they really tried very hard to make a complete system. They gave a half-hearted effort and it showed. So they came up with answers that no one was enthusiastic about.

Flavour and crunch in a good rule system are one and the same. If your invisibility is based on telepathy, it can be blocked by mental defences instead of a dispel, you can be seen by anyone you are not mentally connected to, and can easily be seen in a photograph or video. If it based on transmutation it is not an illusion, so being resistant to illusions will not defend against it. If it based on a connection to another plane, banishing energy from other planes will dispel it. The flavour determines the mechanics.

That is not how DnD effects work. This is not a system with a dozen different interactions between types of the same ability. If their years of effort is "not trying very hard" within the context of the system they created, then what you really want was for them to completely remake 5e. And 5 years into the cycle, that isn't going to happen.


And, just to give a taste of the problem with trying to do what you are proposing within our current system, let us look at two things that are very explicit.

See Invisibility
Faerie Fire

Both of these abilities state that they cancel the Invisibility mechanic, in different ways. See Invisibility just states outright "you can see invisible creatures as though they were visible."

Now, imagine you have someone cast this spell, to see an invisible enemy. And the DM replies that "You can't see him, his invisibility works by affecting your mind to make you believe you aren't seeing him, so this spell wouldn't let you alter your mind to break that."

Or, let us take Faerie Fire, which cancels invisibility by attaching to the creature, and outlining it. And you try that a different time, and the DM responds "You can't see him. This invisibility works by phasing him partially into the Far Realms, he isn't really here and it is only his mind that is attacking you, so the Faerie Fire will simply pass through and do nothing."


Two just very basic ways that your proposed ideas would wreck the game. See Invisibility would be worthless, because it would be "See Some Invisibility as long as the DM determined this type of invisibility was the type that can be seen through" This also opens up all sorts of exploits that would be pointless. "I'm sorry, I know you created an anti-Magic bubble, but this Cone of Cold works by opening a tiny portal to the Plane of Endless Ice, the cold that flowed out and hit you was real cold, not magical cold, so your anti-magic didn't stop it. Would have worked if the enemy hadn't been able to get out of the bubble, but since they can mentally fold space to teleport using just the power of their mind (which isn't magic as I explained, and since it wasn't a spell I can still cast Cone of Cold by opening the portal) but since they could, they could still do this."


No. Yes, it can be cool and interesting to have things work that way in fiction. Heck, if you build a system that can handle that from the start, it can make a good game. But DnD was not designed with that sort of exception based ruling in mind, so adding it in now would be a disaster.

 

[Samloyal23]

No. Yes, it can be cool and interesting to have things work that way in fiction. Heck, if you build a system that can handle that from the start, it can make a good game. But DnD was not designed with that sort of exception based ruling in mind, so adding it in now would be a disaster.

It worked in 2E and if it makes thing complicated that just adds depth to system. Knowing different ways to accomplish something jut means you need to know multiple ways to defeat it. Up your game, play smarter, be more strategic.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It worked in 2E and if it makes thing complicated that just adds depth to system. Knowing different ways to accomplish something jut means you need to know multiple ways to defeat it. Up your game, play smarter, be more strategic.

Telling people they need to get better and play better, because you want to add something unnecessary to the system, is a poor argument.

If you want to play smarter and better, then you can houserule whatever crazy stuff you want. Make the design of armor matter, make the season matter, make the phase of the moon and position of the stars matter, make metaphysical biology interact with organic chemistry and decide if lifetime of malnutrition and hard labor ends up leaving someone with a looser grip that allows their weapon to slip, reducing their ability to fight by .1%

The rest of us are fine with the system that was made. We like Dungeons and Dragons 5e. If you want to play something else, you can either find something else, or make it.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

The rest of us are I am fine with the system that was made. We I like Dungeons and Dragons 5e. If you want to play something else, you can either find something else, or make it.

Fixed that for you.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

It worked in 2E and if it makes thing complicated that just adds depth to system. Knowing different ways to accomplish something jut means you need to know multiple ways to defeat it. Up your game, play smarter, be more strategic.

I will attempt to sum up my past 3 or 4 years of discussion experience here so that it might save you some time shouting into the wind....

To many posters on this board the logic goes....

Fact 1: 5e is the bestselling version of D&D of all time.
Fact 2: A design goal for 5e was to make the game rules fairly simple and accessible to a larger crowd than previous editions.

False Conclusion 1: Every design choice made by WotC to achieve Fact 2 was a good choice for the game because of Fact 1 and therefore your opinions that a design is bad or lackluster is incorrect because the masses aren't complaining about it.

False Conclusion 2: Whenever content is added to 5e it has to conform to systems in the base game because Fact 2 says that everything has to be accessible to the largest number of players as possible.

False Reasoning 1: Unrelated to Facts 1 and 2 stated above, there is a strange resonating logic that "WotC cannot publish an idea unless it meets X% of public approval" despite the fact that most books released undergo no public approval process and the only reason they need "public approval" is because of rules set by (and ignorable by) the very body that chooses to publish those ideas in the first place.

....so at the end of the day the psion you are going to get (speculatively, the book isn't out yet to be factual) is a type of SORCERER and you can't complain about it because 5e is the bestselling game of all time and all new rules have to be simple and accessible and people voted against previous playtests of the psion (including curiously the SORCERER variant but lets just ignore that).

 

[Remathilis]

It worked in 2E and if it makes thing complicated that just adds depth to system. Knowing different ways to accomplish something jut means you need to know multiple ways to defeat it. Up your game, play smarter, be more strategic.

I mean, why stop with psionics? Let's have divine magic work on a different system too. Same with artificers, bards, druids, and warlocks. I mean, monks already do, so let's give every class a unique mechanic and completely unique spells (no overlap!)

Should be ready to go by 2032...

 

[Chaosmancer]

Fixed that for you.

Right, I forgot that some people talking about the 5e rules would prefer to be playing 3.5, 2e, Pathfinder, GURPS, or something else.

But... since 5e is the most popularly sold version of DnD in decades, I think it is fair to say that I am not alone in liking the game. And especially not alone in not wanting to see that major of a change made to the fundamental structures presented.


Edit:

Okay, so I wrote that before reading your second post. So, I'm going to try and save myself a headache.

I do not think 5e is perfect. I do not think every decision ever made by the designers of 5e is perfect. I do not think that we should never make the system more complicated than it is now.

However, I recognize that there are different level of engagement and fun. You might be familiar with the concept of "Weight" for Boardgames from Boardgame geek. The higher the weight, the more complicated and longer the game takes to play. One of my favorite games is Spirit Island, which is officially weighed at 3.99/5.

There are quite a few games rated higher than that. Twilight Imperium (Third Edition) is one that I know of, that I have never played, and it is rated 4.25. First Martians: Adventures on the Red Planet is 4.19.

But looking at the Overall ratings there are some differences, big ones. Spirit Island is currently ranked 13th overall. Third Edition of Twilight Imperium is 75th, First Martian? 1,881st

Now, I would be lying if I said that complexity alone is determining these rankings. Twilight Imperium 4th edition is weighted at 4.21 and is 5th overall. Likely the introduction of a new, more popular version of the game, pushed down the rankings of the older version.

But, what we can say is that complexity alone does not make a game better. Complexity needs to have a purpose, a reason for making it more complex.


Some complexity I would like to add to DnD 5e is to improve the crafting system. It has come up multiple times as something my players would like to see more of and see improved, and my own attempts to make one have been iffy at best. Better? Yes, but not as good as I want.

But the type of complexity were some types of sources of abilities, or even just the same source being implemented in different ways, work completely differently to the point where abilities meant to counter those abilities do not work? That is needlessly complex. It maybe be more "realistic" but that does not mean it will make the game better.

And backing your claim that people should just play better, think more, be better players, and then they would enjoy this complexity, is arrogant. Pure and simple. More complex games are not necessarily better, liking and playing more complex games does not make you a better player, or even more strategic. There are plenty of games that are incredibly simple, very few rules, very quick to teach, and they require incredibly skilled play and deep strategic thought. It all depends on interactions. Not Complexity.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Right, I forgot that some people talking about the 5e rules would prefer to be playing 3.5, 2e, Pathfinder, GURPS, or something else.

But... since 5e is the most popularly sold version of DnD in decades, I think it is fair to say that I am not alone in liking the game. And especially not alone in not wanting to see that major of a change made to the fundamental structures presented.


Edit:

Okay, so I wrote that before reading your second post. So, I'm going to try and save myself a headache.

I do not think 5e is perfect. I do not think every decision ever made by the designers of 5e is perfect. I do not think that we should never make the system more complicated than it is now.

However, I recognize that there are different level of engagement and fun. You might be familiar with the concept of "Weight" for Boardgames from Boardgame geek. The higher the weight, the more complicated and longer the game takes to play. One of my favorite games is Spirit Island, which is officially weighed at 3.99/5.

There are quite a few games rated higher than that. Twilight Imperium (Third Edition) is one that I know of, that I have never played, and it is rated 4.25. First Martians: Adventures on the Red Planet is 4.19.

But looking at the Overall ratings there are some differences, big ones. Spirit Island is currently ranked 13th overall. Third Edition of Twilight Imperium is 75th, First Martian? 1,881st

Now, I would be lying if I said that complexity alone is determining these rankings. Twilight Imperium 4th edition is weighted at 4.21 and is 5th overall. Likely the introduction of a new, more popular version of the game, pushed down the rankings of the older version.

But, what we can say is that complexity alone does not make a game better. Complexity needs to have a purpose, a reason for making it more complex.


Some complexity I would like to add to DnD 5e is to improve the crafting system. It has come up multiple times as something my players would like to see more of and see improved, and my own attempts to make one have been iffy at best. Better? Yes, but not as good as I want.

But the type of complexity were some types of sources of abilities, or even just the same source being implemented in different ways, work completely differently to the point where abilities meant to counter those abilities do not work? That is needlessly complex. It maybe be more "realistic" but that does not mean it will make the game better.

And backing your claim that people should just play better, think more, be better players, and then they would enjoy this complexity, is arrogant. Pure and simple. More complex games are not necessarily better, liking and playing more complex games does not make you a better player, or even more strategic. There are plenty of games that are incredibly simple, very few rules, very quick to teach, and they require incredibly skilled play and deep strategic thought. It all depends on interactions. Not Complexity.

1. I am not the poster who mentioned "play better, think more, be better players". I am happy that 5e was designed as a super smooth entryway for HUGE amounts of new players to pick up and learn tabletop RPGs. I don't demand that any table play in any way that they don't find fun for themselves. I don't think that general design for 5e should veer from this zone of complexity.

2. I am more of a boardgamer than I am an RPGer nowadays. I have the same username on BGG if you want to scope out my pedigree. I understand the concept of weight. I am happy that 5e is of similar weight in the RPG world as, say, Pandemic is in the boardgame world. Pandemic is a great example, actually, in that it has sold massive amounts of copies BECAUSE OF it's easily accessible design. The second expansion for Pandemic, In the Lab, adds at least another half-point of complexity in curing the diseases because it wanted to give the big fans something more to dig their teeth into when playing the game. Its optional. It doesn't have to hit the table, but it is there for those that want to explore it. My brother, who owns Pandemic as a casual boardgamer has no interest in In the Lab, and may not even know it exists. He is happy to play the base game and move on. The existance of some optional heavier rules isn't impacting his love of the game at all.

That is exactly what people like myself are SCREAMING about with 5e. Yes, we have a great introductory game. Yes it sells like hotcakes. Yes we have millions of new players...that's all awesome. But that doesn't mean that every release for 5e ever has to adhere to that same level of design. Give the hardcore fans something to sink their teeth into. Who cares if it doesn't sell as well? Make it a downloadable supplement. Make it a small part of a Tasha's book that can be ignored if desired. Just give fans who want a little bit more Weight in their game SOMETHING in the 5 years the game has been in print.

3. My initial response to correct your statement was because you were representing ME by saying "The rest of us" and then saying something opposite of how I feel. Even when you boil down "the rest of us" to just the users on this thread, you still aren't speaking for everyone.