Unearthed Arcana Why UA Psionics are never going to work in 5e.

[Guest 6801328]

Losing the die on a high roll is not rewarding: Well, I flat disagree, here, as I would not feel that unrewarding at all. The die doesn't expend at all unless you get maximum effect. To compare to the battlemaster again, those dice are expended no matter what. So long as I don't roll maximum, my psi-die is always available at the same power level. If I do get maximum effect, that's the only time is expends -- ie, I only lose the resource after it's had maximum effect, never on minimum or average effect. That isn't unrewarding to me at all, it actually makes the feature more available.

Lack of control due to random die size changes: I can see where you're coming from, here, but I don't think it's as random as you're saying. I get the choice to risk my psi-die with full knowledge of both it's current state and the odds on that use of it degrading or improving. It's entirely transparent to the decision making process -- I have full information on what I'm risking and the range of outcomes. Plus, I still have the reset mechanic to fix any bad luck runs (at least once). While, yes, the mechanic is based on a random outcome, it's use is anything but random -- it's choice to get a benefit added every time with full awareness of the risk envelope. This, exactly, is the kind of design I like -- presenting the option for a risk to players that is 1) fully understood and 2) even if it costs the resource it's always of benefit when used.

Also, it takes a while before you lose it completely (unless you're spending it on abilities that automatically reduce it.). Even when you start out with a d6, there's a 1/6 chance of it going to d4, at which point you spend your Psi Replenishment, then another 1/6 chance of going to d4, then a 1/4 chance of losing it. So a 1/144 chance of only getting 3 uses out of it.

I wrote a quick monte carlo simulation, and even starting out with a d6 you get around 21 uses before you lose it. As soon as it becomes a d8 that jumps to 60+, and it doubles from there. Average value is half your max die size.

 

[Maxperson]

How is it interesting and not finicky? And how does this address my criticisms I raised about it?

The reset ability keeps it form being overly finicky. You need to get very unlucky to lose the die quickly. The vast majority of the time, you will keep the resource and ability or abilities going for a very reasonable amount of time for 5e.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Losing the die on a high roll is not rewarding: Well, I flat disagree, here, as I would not feel that unrewarding at all. The die doesn't expend at all unless you get maximum effect. To compare to the battlemaster again, those dice are expended no matter what. So long as I don't roll maximum, my psi-die is always available at the same power level. If I do get maximum effect, that's the only time is expends -- ie, I only lose the resource after it's had maximum effect, never on minimum or average effect. That isn't unrewarding to me at all, it actually makes the feature more available.

I want to build on this a little bit, because there is a mirrored design here that I think is important to address.

People don't like rolling the maximum result leading to the die downgrading. They feel it takes away from the "joy" of rolling a high number. But, there is only one other place in the design to put the downgrade, and that is rolling the lowest number, which I feel is worse.

To throw out some quick examples involving the Psi Knight using their damage shield, 1d6 and can upgrade.

Current Rules:
You roll a 6. You have blocked the maximum amount of damage, but your die drops to a d4 for next round.
You roll a 1. You have blocked the minimum amount of damage, but you die upgrades to a d8 for next round.

My use of "but" here is important. The two sides of the sentence are opposed. One is a "good" thing the other a "bad" thing.

Mirrored rules:
You roll a 6. You have blocked the maximum amount of damage, and your die upgrades to a d8 for next round.
You roll a 1. You have blocked the minimum amount of damage, and your die drops to a d4 for next round.

And here we have higher highs, but also lower lows. You failed to make an impact and weakened yourself in the process. That feels far worse than making the biggest impact possible and then weakening yourself.

This is why I like the Psi Die design, very few mechanics work to make rolling 1's suck less. I mean, how many times have you seen a battlemaster roll that die and get a 1? Or roll a 1 on bless when it was the only number that wouldn't help? 1's are feel bad numbers in the game, and this takes them and gives you a boost when you get them.

 

[Maxperson]

Also, it takes a while before you lose it completely (unless you're spending it on abilities that automatically reduce it.). Even when you start out with a d6, there's a 1/6 chance of it going to d4, at which point you spend your Psi Replenishment, then another 1/6 chance of going to d4, then a 1/4 chance of losing it. So a 1/144 chance of only getting 3 uses out of it.

Is there a reason you aren't waiting until the d4 goes away to replenish the die?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Is there a reason you aren't waiting until the d4 goes away to replenish the die?

Oh...yeah.

Funny, somehow I assumed you couldn't use replenishment once you lost the die completely. But there's nothing that says, that, is there?

One sec and I'll update....

Yeah, with starting d6 it bumps average # of uses up to 32.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

There's having standards. And there's being so rigid that you end up never getting married, because nobody can meet them.

When did this become an analogy on dating? Also, that's not how my standards when it comes to the Psion are. I have 3 requirements before I will approve the system. You have a similar number of requirements, right?

1. Must have a psion based class. I honestly couldn't care less if they made psionic rogues, monks or sorcerers as long as there's a psion class.
2. The class cannot be a spell caster. No spells instead of powers.
3. Must be easy to understand. (5e philosophy.)

That's it. Those are my requirements. How are any of those like "being so rigid that you end up never getting married?"

You want a psion class. You want it to not use VSM components. You probably also want it to be easy to understand, because WHO DOESN'T WANT IT TO BE SIMPLE?!?!

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

If it is wrong, then I ask what is the right path. Saying "I don't like this" is not enough. I want somebody explain the reasons about how should it be.

What is wrong to me is:

1. No psion based class.
2. They make psionics be spellcasting.
3. It's complicated as f*ck.

That's what would be wrong for me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

1. It's complicated as f*ck.

I find it kind of hilarious that anything about 5e would be described that way.

EDIT: "A tad more complicated than the level WotC was aiming for in 5e" I would agree with.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I do respect that opinion (I don't think psionics can be spells in the fiction), but I'm still trying to figure out precisely where it's centered. Which editions of previous psionics are you familiar with? Of the ones with which I'm familiar the presentation of psionic powers has been done in the following manners:

I am not super familiar with any prior edition's psionic systems. I know a small amount about them, based on what other people have said, but I never played any previous editions, so I don't have firsthand experience in the matter.

1e) Psionic powers are discrete things that cost a set amount of points to activate and have effects described similar to spells, but are not in fact spells. In some of the descriptions, it directly references spells from the the PHB, such as "This discipline [the psionic power clairvoyance] is the same as the magic-user spell, clairvoyance (q.v.), except that unknown areas up to 20’ distant can be scanned." Points recover gradually over time.

I would personally prefer the Psionic powers to function similarly to this. It's not a dealbreaker to me if they use psi points numbering in the hundreds, or just have it like Sorcery points. It would not be spells. That is what I would require before I approve it.

2e) Same as 1e, except I don't believe there are references to PHB spells, instead just writing up the entire effect. (I don't have current access to the 2e psionic rules, so I'm going by memory on this one. I also didn't have the later 2.5e revision, so I don't really know what was different in it.)

In my ideal psion, they wouldn't reference any spells in the base class. I wouldn't fuss over it if they had them be able to cast mage hand or something else.

3.0e) Mostly the same type of presentation as 2e. Psionic powers now have levels that are equivalent to spell levels. Power points recover all at once in the morning.

I wouldn't love it if they had levels, but I wouldn't fuss over it either.

3.5e) As 3.0e, except that many psionic powers directly reference PHB spells again like they did in 1e, and some powers can be augmented by spending more points to get increased effects. It tells you what happens when you do so inside the power description (essentially the exact same mechanic as 5e's "at higher levels" element in many spells, but with points rather than slots. This was almost certainly the original inspiration for that element in 5e spells).

Something like this isn't terrible, but it wouldn't cast spells.

4e) Powers mostly use the universal AEDU setup, except instead of Encounter powers they could use points (I think?) to augment At-Will powers to do extra stuff.

I wouldn't want it to be a ton like this. They would get "Talents" that are essentially cantrips, but again, I wouldn't fuss over it.

Where do you feel the line is where psionics become too closely connected to spells to be acceptable? Does it make a difference that in 1e and 3.5e they directly said "same as <spell in PHB>" after describing the uniquely different psionic elements, while in 2e and 3.0e they reprinted the text from the PHB with a few changed words instead? Or do you object to all of those editions' (1e-3.5e) presentations? (If so, I'm assuming you're basing your preference on 4e?)

I wouldn't love it if they referenced spells in the class. If they did this, I would approve of it if they made most of the psionics powers not be this way.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I find it kind of hilarious that anything about 5e would be described that way.

The mystic was. The newer systems aren't, which IMHO is the only thing they have going for them, besides flavor.

They're not going to make a hyper-complicated system again. They know not to do that now, I hope. If they did make a class that was super complicated, that would show that the game designers don't know what they're doing.