D&D 5E WotC will likely be making a dedicated Psion class, as per recent tweets

[Giltonio_Santos]

"Big tent," does not mean, "Everyone gets exactly what they want."

Sure. Still, a big tent that invalidates 20+ years of lore on some of the most beloved campaign settings ever created for D&D is not that big. Not that WotC seems to care. They're probably building an even bigger tent right now, with the help of Ravnica/Exandria fans... ¯\(ツ)/¯

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure. Still, a big tent that invalidates 20+ years of lore on some of the most beloved campaign settings ever created for D&D is not that big. Not that WotC seems to care. They're probably building an even bigger tent right now, with the help of Ravnica/Exandria fans... ¯\(ツ)/¯

You know, with how often every setting gets brought up as having been invalidated, stolen, altered beyond recognition, destroyed, thrown out the window, ect for every edition including 2e, 3.x, 4e, 5e, and 6e... there is a part of me that is only half joking when I wonder if destroying old properties is pretty much the most DnD thing you can do.

I mean between too inclusive, not inclusive enough, too historically accurate, not historically accurate enough, too similar, too different, wrong kind of similar, wrong kind of different, too many classes, too few classes, not enough of this class, too much of that class, wrong monsters, wrong myths, wrong lore, wrong writer, wrong artist ect, I think I have seen every aspect of every edition called out at one point or another.

I can't even think up a properly joking feature of the game that I could point to in absurdity. The first thing I thought of was that longswords deal 1d8 damage, then I remembered that longswords are historically innaccurate, probably closer to arming swords, and were never truly used against armored opponents, except in ways that DnD doesn't properly emulate...

It's just so absurdly funny in a way, but that's DnD and the internet for you.

 

[Umbran]

Sure. Still, a big tent that invalidates 20+ years of lore on some of the most beloved campaign settings ever created for D&D is not that big.

Well, that makes for a kind of big (rhetorical) question to ask yourself - is the tent about the game, or about the settings?

Another question to consider (that we don't have the data to answer, so we can only consider, not answer) - how many people will feel they are shoved out of the tent because their favorite setting of some decades past is not actively supported any more?

 

[Parmandur]

Is he? I mean it kind of looks more like he just gets overruled a lot.

In terms of being able to bluff and misdirect for the purposes of public playtesting,yes, he is quite the poker player. He got a third of the Race options and all of the Class options for Ravnica tested without a hint of what they were meant for. Since Crawford took over UA from Mearls, UA has become sneaky.

 

[generic]

In terms of being able to bluff and misdirect for the purposes of public playtesting,yes, he is quite the poker player. He got a third of the Race options and all of the Class options for Ravnica tested without a hint of what they were meant for. Since Crawford took over UA from Mearls, UA has become sneaky.

That's better for the game, IMO, the fewer unintentional leaks the better, even if it doesn't serve me well in terms of early speculation.

 

[Fenris-77]

There's a whole lot of "I'm not getting what I want therefor WoTC is a flawed company and are ruining the game/have flawed design principles/are terrible people and should feel bad" floating around. I find it odd to say the least. The Psion isn't really that different from any other spell caster IMO, and never has been, despite some of the cosmetic differences inherent in points vs spell slots and stuff like components and whatnot. And yes, I have played all of the relevant editions and settings, before someone asks.

On a separate note, I actually quite like that UA has become sneaky. My tolerance for crowdsourced rules is finite and decoupling mechanics from setting avoids a lot of grief and internet shouting.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Well, that makes for a kind of big (rhetorical) question to ask yourself - is the tent about the game, or about the settings?

I think that's up to each fan to decide. For me, it's probably about the settings more than the game. There are much better RPGs out there I could be playing. I enjoy the plethora of lore associated with D&D at a level I don't actually enjoy rolling a d20 to hit and subtracting hit points to calculate damage. 5e is not even my favorite edition, I'd prefer to run my weekly game on AD&D 2e, I just respect my players' desire to play an edition that's still getting support from the publisher.

Maybe we should also have a clearer understanding of what constitutes or not a big tent, after all. People keep saying that "big tent doesn't mean it gets to be everything for everyone", but let's be honest: the idea of a 5e big tent was important as part of the playtest effort and lingered for a few years as a promise for the future. There was no warlord, but one would appear, eventually. There was no psionics, but we would get the system once they're ready to do Dark Sun. There was no tactical module, no epic play, no good rules for creating/selling/buying magic items, but... well, you got it.

Now, does 5e's tent gets to be called a big one just because a lot of people are playing it? Does it really support various playing/DMing styles? Is Curse of Strahd a real horror take or just Storm King's Thunder with vampires? If it's the first case, why it's authors couldn't spare a few words for the optional rules on fear/horror/corruption in the Dungeon Master's Guide?

Funny enough, I'm not saying all that because 5e is not keeping me entertained now. But we are 5.5 years into the edition and I cannot look at the last UA on psionics and not get worried. The message I got from it is: "Ok, at first they told you this ship would eventually sail some different waters, but now it's making too much money by always traveling the same route, and you should drop from it if you want to go somewhere else". Once more: that's a pity. I still see a lot of potential on the basic 5e engine. If WotC keeps failing to deliver the big tent, it's not because the core game cannot support it.

Another question to consider (that we don't have the data to answer, so we can only consider, not answer) - how many people will feel they are shoved out of the tent because their favorite setting of some decades past is not actively supported any more?

This, I guess we'll have to wait and see. I don't expect it to be an issue, because their tent is still growing to this date (Exandria/Ravnica fans, and all...), but I expect more people to drop the ship once they realize that actually developing the game beyond "look at this new storyline" and "look at this cleric that also deals +1d8 damage at 8th level" is not on their plans.

What I can say, for sure, is that I was not the only person in my gaming circle to get the wrong message from the last UA. Where we were not even considering PF2 two weeks ago, we're now being remembered that Paizo has at least shown some willingness to iterate and innovate upon their basic game in the past. That's more than you can say about WotC for more than five years now.

Also, sorry for the wall of text.

 

[Parmandur]

That's better for the game, IMO, the fewer unintentional leaks the better, even if it doesn't serve me well in terms of early speculation.

I like the increased challenge level of the speculation, it keeps me engaged. Which is proof their clever plan is working, methinks.

There's a whole of "I'm not getting what I want therefor WoTC is a flawed company and are ruining the game/have flawed design principles/are terrible people and should feel bad" floating around. I find it odd to say the least. The Psion isn't really that different from any other spell caster IMO, and never has been, despite some of the cosmetic differences inherent in points vs spell slots and stuff like components and whatnot. And yes, I have played all of the relevant editions and settings, before someone asks.

On a separate note, I actually quite like that UA has become sneaky. My tolerance for crowdsourced rules is finite and decoupling mechanics from setting avoids a lot of grief and internet shouting.

Co-signed.

 

[Parmandur]

Maybe we should also have a clearer understanding of what constitutes or not a big tent, after all. People keep saying that "big tent doesn't mean it gets to be everything for everyone", but let's be honest: the idea of a 5e big tent was important as part of the playtest effort and lingered for a few years as a promise for the future. There was no warlord, but one would appear, eventually. There was no psionics, but we would get the system once they're ready to do Dark Sun. There was no tactical module, no epic play, no good rules for creating/selling/

The term "Big Tent" comes from politics, a sort of Americanization of "Broad Church" in British politics. It means a political party that contains a wide range of opinion, such as the Democrats under Roosevelt for the New Deal or Labour under Tony Blair. Still, a "Big Tent" has limits, because the Party will have platforms and goals not everyone will be able to sign up to pursue.

I don't think WotC has ever promised a Warlord, and there is definitely no magic "economy" in the pipeline: as Mearls put it, for 3E and 4E, everything was ad hoc and meaningless from WotC side, and there is literally zero value above what a DM can make up on the spot.

Anything above level 11 or 12 is effectively Epic, since the vast majority of tables don't go above that level. Crawford has gone so far as to call out any Subclass features above 12th level as pure theorycraft that will rarely see any use. I wouldn't expect to ever see anything more.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

there is definitely no magic "economy" in the pipeline: as Mearls put it, for 3E and 4E, everything was ad hoc and meaningless from WotC side, and there is literally zero value above what a DM can make up on the spot.

What about the new Eberron book? I was under the impression there would be a new magic item creation system in there at least.

Anything above level 11 or 12 is effectively Epic, since the vast majority of tables don't go above that level. Crawford has gone so far as to call out any Subclass features above 12th level as pure theorycraft that will rarely see any use. I wouldn't expect to ever see anything more.

Personally I'm a big fan of the Epic system that already exists in the DMG (Epic Boons and the ability to raise your ability scores all the way to 30).