D&D General Psionics, Spell Slots, and Game Design: Why Every 5e Problem Can be Solved by a Spell

[Undrave]

True. Personally I would be willing to accept that, even if it wouldn’t be my preference.

the problem with treating all features as spell is that 'Spell' is basically a keyword that interact with other element of the games based on its fiction. It's really no different than if 4e had ability to counter powers based on their power source really. You could easily rewrite a ton of 5e stuff as 4e power in format.

 

[Stormonu]

I think this is where Savage Worlds got things right. They decoupled "powers" (termed Trappings) from their source, so that you can add in a new way of doing things without having to come up with a whole new subsystem. Invisibility has the same mechanical effects, whether it is granted by Faith, a Demon Pact, Psionics, Superpowers, Mad Science or some flavor of Arcane Magic.

D&D 5E almost did it right, but started with the premise that all this stuff is a magical spell, rather than leaving it open to being from a Martial, Supernatural, Divine, Pact, etc. source where the mechanics would be the same but might be from a different source - and that source could have have its own distinct methods and/or "Trappings" (such as bargain rules for Pacts, faith and devotion rules for Divine, study & prep mechanics for Wizardly Arcane, blood power points for Sorcery, focus & meditation rules for Psionics, training for Martial, etc.)

 

[NotAYakk]

I think this is where Savage Worlds got things right. They decoupled "powers" (termed Trappings) from their source, so that you can add in a new way of doing things without having to come up with a whole new subsystem. Invisibility has the same mechanical effects, whether it is granted by Faith, a Demon Pact, Psionics, Superpowers, Mad Science or some flavor of Arcane Magic.

D&D 5E almost did it right, but started with the premise that all this stuff is a magical spell, rather than leaving it open to being from a Martial, Supernatural, Divine, Pact, etc. source where the mechanics would be the same but might be from a different source - and that source could have have its own distinct methods and/or "Trappings" (such as bargain rules for Pacts, faith and devotion rules for Divine, study & prep mechanics for Wizardly Arcane, blood power points for Sorcery, focus & meditation rules for Psionics, training for Martial, etc.)

That was 4e. Really, that was 4e.

5e is a response to the rejection of that part of 4e (among other components).

There is a D&D game, and it is a good one, that does what you are asking. But that isn't what 5e does.

5e takes some of the design math of 4e, massages it (4e had more rapid scaling; a max level (30) PC was on the order of 100 to 1000 times stronger than a level 1 PC; in 5e, it is closer to 10-50 times stronger), and explicitly removes uniformity of class mechanics (that 4e had at launch, and experimented with tweaking towards its end).

I encourage you to go play 4e. It is a great game, with good bones.

I think making 5e mimic that part of 4e isn't a good idea. The rejection was solid, and sneaking it back in through the back door isn't a good idea.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think this puts the cart before the horse. WotC has shown in quite a few UA playtests the willingness to try something different than just reiterating the spell system. The customer base said they didn't like it. So, the new psionics is going to be spell system based, not because that's how WotC designs for balance, but because the customer base, as a whole. said they didn't want to have a different system. Perhaps they said this because they do want a different system, but no consensus of thought on what that should be could be reached and the spell-system was always second best? Some kind of instant runoff or weighted choice voting resulted in spell-system being the most universally agreed upon even if it didn't win in the first round of voting (or second)? Regardless, the OP seems to suggest that it's a design intent thing, when, to me, it appears to be a customer base is happy with the current design and so want new things to fit in rather than stick out.

 

[TwoSix]

I think this is where Savage Worlds got things right. They decoupled "powers" (termed Trappings) from their source, so that you can add in a new way of doing things without having to come up with a whole new subsystem. Invisibility has the same mechanical effects, whether it is granted by Faith, a Demon Pact, Psionics, Superpowers, Mad Science or some flavor of Arcane Magic.

Yea, I don't think that's really what a lot of people want. I think that cleric Fireball and wizard Fireball being pretty much the same thing is viewed as a regrettable simplification by many players, not a feature.

 

[Eric V]

Yea, I don't think that's really what a lot of people want. I think that cleric Fireball and wizard Fireball being pretty much the same thing is viewed as a regrettable simplification by many players, not a feature.

Can't speak for any group but my own, but this here was one of the top 5 reasons we stopped playing 5e. It really was too bad.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yea, I don't think that's really what a lot of people want. I think that cleric Fireball and wizard Fireball being pretty much the same thing is viewed as a regrettable simplification by many players, not a feature.

The cleric shouldn't have fireball to begin with.

The spell mechanic works fine for pretty much any supernatural power. In fact I dislike when they invent overlapping mechanics to do the same thing. Like how in the fiction cure wounds and lay on hands are different? Why is one spell and another isn't? And the same class being able to use both makes it even weirder.

I don't feel that the spell mechanic itself leads to sameyness, it is that there is too much overlap in the spell lists.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I think this puts the cart before the horse. WotC has shown in quite a few UA playtests the willingness to try something different than just reiterating the spell system. The customer base said they didn't like it. So, the new psionics is going to be spell system based, not because that's how WotC designs for balance, but because the customer base, as a whole. said they didn't want to have a different system. Perhaps they said this because they do want a different system, but no consensus of thought on what that should be could be reached and the spell-system was always second best? Some kind of instant runoff or weighted choice voting resulted in spell-system being the most universally agreed upon even if it didn't win in the first round of voting (or second)? Regardless, the OP seems to suggest that it's a design intent thing, when, to me, it appears to be a customer base is happy with the current design and so want new things to fit in rather than stick out.

So it's supply and demand then? Makes sense to me. If you tell WOTC that their new subsystem sucks and that being "magical" is cool, eventually an all magic system is what you get!

Remember marking? It was a distinct mechanic and everyone hated that! How about kingdom management? It didn't make it past 2E but most of the spells did!