WotC will likely be making a dedicated Psion class, as per recent tweets

D&D has been self-referential since 3e.
I disagree, 2e at the very latest.
;)

If not from the very beginning. D&D is often described as having defined it's own sub-genre of fantasy. It initially, like 0e, tried to capture archetypes from the broader genre, but, at, like one whole class per character - Ranger for Aragorn, Cleric for Van Helsig, Monk for Kwai Chang Caine - and when that clearly was never going to work, just hunkered down and worked with what it had from Men & Magic through Eldritch Wizardry.

3e was probably the first edition that wasn't entirely self-referent, and occasionally tried something new. 4e, of course, not even Essentials, just the first 2 years of 4e, was the last.
 

dave2008

Legend
You said you disagree with my statement about lack of support for different playing styles. How so? (with examples, if possible).
OK, I am going to try to keep this as brief as possible and I can add more later if needed. First the problem with this discussion is that I don't know what "style of play" you think 5e supports by RAW / RAI. I see or hear about people playing just with WotC material that play very differently. So I will just pick a few styles and run with it:

High-fantasy / high-magic/ dungeon delve: I am going to call this the baseline, standard style. I assume you agree it supports this and will not provide any evidence otherwise.

Horror: Curse of Strahd; Sanity checks & horror (dmg pg 265-266) Combine with slow natural healing & healers kit dependency (dmg pg 266-267) for more danger. Madness (dmg pg 258-260)

Gritty: Healer's kit dependency, slow natural healing, and gritty realism rest variant (dmg pg 266-267), lingering injuries & massive damage (dmg pg 272-273)

Low-magic: go with gritty above and then restrict magic using classes to half-casters max. or ban them altogether. (lots of options in between as well). Don't hand out magic items.

Heroic: Inspiration (dmg 240), hero points, healing surges & epic heroism rest variant (dmg pg 264-267); morale (dmg pg 273)

Tactical: optional flanking & facing (dmg pg 251-252); speed factor , disarm, mark, overrun, shove aside, tumble, hitting cover, cleaving, & massive damage (dmg 270-273); classes: battlemaster, bard, rogue, and any magic using class has interesting tactical options. If the new UA on variant features is made official this will be expanded to a lot of other classes / subclasses. Feats (several existing and UA feats provide interesting tactical options).

Intrigue: Eberron, Rising from the Last War; social interaction (dmg 244-245), noncombat challenges (dmg pg 261). UA variant features would add some social oomph to fighter classes for this style.

Narrative: Plot points (dmg pg 269).
 

Sacrosanct

Legend


So, what sorts of rules are we looking at building? The list is a little fluid, but here's what we want to focus on. It's kind of a laundry list, and there's no guarantee that everything will be ready at launch, so it's more of a wish list.

  • Include tactical combat rules that allow the option to add more miniatures gaming elements to combat. This would include a grid, options for facing, rules for more detailed zones of control, and so on.
  • Provide a system that emphasizes refreshing resources by encounter instead of by day. The nice thing about our approach is that since this is an option, we don't have to settle for half measures. Everything can be encounter-based, even hit points.
  • Create rules for giving mechanical weight to character motivation, personality traits, and so on.
  • Provide a structure for a more story-based approach to D&D, treating the DM and players as co-authors of a narrative with a specific focus.
  • Use action points, fate points, or a similar meta-mechanic as a reward or a way to give players a mechanical option to boost their power for a specific moment.
  • Create variant XP rules, using XP as a way for a DM to place the emphasis on fighting, interaction, exploration, finding treasure, and so on.
  • Add in rules for firearms, including both a historical take and one driven by fantasy.
  • Include rules for mass combat between armies, both for resolving two armies fighting and battles where the PCs can play a role.
  • Design rules for speeding up battles that involve lots of monsters and the characters.
  • Provide rules for sea battles.
  • Create rules for realms management and strongholds.
  • Design rules for finding ingredients and reagents to craft magic items.
  • Provide critical hit and critical failure tables.
  • Design rules for using armor as damage reduction, along with rules for hit locations.
  • Introduce rules for lingering wounds, a gritty approach to health and well being.
  • Include alternative magic systems.
  • Provide rules for horror and sanity, along with other rules to change D&D's genre.
Pretty much everything on that list already exists. Grid based combat? Inspiration mechanic? Madness?

Remember, just because it might not have been designed how you want it, doesn’t mean it’s not there.
 
Last edited:
OK, I am going to try to keep this as brief as possible and I can add more later if needed. First the problem with this discussion is that I don't know what "style of play" you think 5e supports by RAW / RAI
I'd say playing self-referent, really-D&D style of D&D - in the afore-mentioned self-referent D&D-sub-genre of fantasy, of course.

;)

OK, more nearly seriously, the intended/native 'style' of 5e is DM Empowerment Style! Say it like you're calling out the 70's Kung-fu-movie style you're about to lay out a half-dozen mooks with.

(...nope...not that serious, either... I tried... honest.)

High-fantasy
Tolkien is often cited as the exemplar of high fantasy, so, suits by his estate notwithstanding, not s'much.

/ high-magic/ dungeon delve:
I am going to call this the baseline, standard style. I assume you agree it supports this and will not provide any evidence otherwise.
Sure, that's fairly succinctly 5e D&D: it's all about that magic. It'll stray outside the dungeon pretty readily, but there'll likely be one.
 

Giltonio_Santos

Adventurer
OK, I am going to try to keep this as brief as possible and I can add more later if needed. First the problem with this discussion is that I don't know what "style of play" you think 5e supports by RAW / RAI. I see or hear about people playing just with WotC material that play very differently. So I will just pick a few styles and run with it:

High-fantasy / high-magic/ dungeon delve: I am going to call this the baseline, standard style. I assume you agree it supports this and will not provide any evidence otherwise.

Horror: Curse of Strahd; Sanity checks & horror (dmg pg 265-266) Combine with slow natural healing & healers kit dependency (dmg pg 266-267) for more danger. Madness (dmg pg 258-260)
I agree with 5e baseline being high magic. I believe there's space for really high/pervasive magic. I'd say they kind of deliver it with the release of Eberron. Before that, though, I don't think it got reasonable support.

For horror, I think the rules in the DMG are good enough. Still, they do not interact with Curse of Strahd, not even en passant. I've used them for my own Raveloft needs. I agree with you that 5e can do horror to a certain level.

Gritty: Healer's kit dependency, slow natural healing, and gritty realism rest variant (dmg pg 266-267), lingering injuries & massive damage (dmg pg 272-273)

Low-magic: go with gritty above and then restrict magic using classes to half-casters max. or ban them altogether. (lots of options in between as well). Don't hand out magic items.
I'd prefer gritty and low-magic to be different things. You can have one without the other, in my opinion. I agree with you that the DMG options can make gritty happen, even if they taste like half-cooked stuff.

WotC failing to deliver a warlord probably helps to make low-magic hard to implement. I don't agree that it's feasible because I can remove things. I'd want it the other way around: rules to make it happen. Thankfully, AiME is here for all my low-magic needs.

Heroic: Inspiration (dmg 240), hero points, healing surges & epic heroism rest variant (dmg pg 264-267); morale (dmg pg 273)

Tactical: optional flanking & facing (dmg pg 251-252); speed factor , disarm, mark, overrun, shove aside, tumble, hitting cover, cleaving, & massive damage (dmg 270-273); classes: battlemaster, bard, rogue, and any magic using class has interesting tactical options. If the new UA on variant features is made official this will be expanded to a lot of other classes / subclasses. Feats (several existing and UA feats provide interesting tactical options).

Intrigue: Eberron, Rising from the Last War; social interaction (dmg 244-245), noncombat challenges (dmg pg 261). UA variant features would add some social oomph to fighter classes for this style.

Narrative: Plot points (dmg pg 269).
Now, this is where I cannot follow you. Inspiration/plot points/hero points tastes so much like half-cooked stuff that it makes the gritty variant look like something coming out of the Diana Jones Awards for excellence in gaming.

The tactical rules module, including their implementation of speed factor, is a nightmare. I've yet to see a player/DM of 5e look at it and say "ok, let's try it", and I play with some seriously tactically-minded people. Then, without it, most players will just ignore the tactical layer coming from a battle master or a range of spell options and just use whatever deals more damage. At least that's what I've seen in the last 5.5 years.

But I do agree with @Sacrosanct: WotC not delivering is not the same as I feeling like what they delivered is not good enough. But I stand by my original opinion: most of those 15-20 pages in the DMG are paying lip-service to the idea of different playing styles. I can play and enjoy 5e and still believe we deserve better.

For starts, I'd like their storylines to at least remember those 15-20 pages exist. This could be done by inviting the DM to use that stuff to improve the core experience - at least as an option; it doesn't need to be the base assumption (the lack of proper integration between CoS and the horror module being the biggest offender, in my opinion). What's the point of honor and sanity if BG: DiA cannot even remember they exist?

New storylines could be used to build upon those rules, as needed. I said most of the variants in the DMG taste like half-cooked food. You don't need more than 1-3 pages in a 256-page supplement to change that, maybe with the exception of the "tactical rules module". You'd probably need something as comprehensive as 2e's Players Options: Combat and Tactics to develop 5e into a tactically interesting RPG.
 

Xeviat

Explorer
At-will powers enhanced by power point options. Similar to 4e's system. 6 subclasses - kineticist, telepath, etc from 3e. The 3e disciplines define options within the class. Power points recover on a short rest. That's a differentiating element similar to 2e's recovery rate.
I am super inspired by this. 5E has had a need for a 3E Warlock style class, one with mostly at-will magic. Psion would be a good place for it.
 

Arnwolf666

Adventurer
This is why I keep coming back to the idea that know one will be truly happy with the psion class. They might as well make a sorcerer, monk, and warlock version.
I am personally curious about the one suggested that was at will powers modified by spell points. Just make lots of psion classes at let players and DM’s pick what suits their style.
 

Fenris-77

Explorer
The fact that the 5e engine supports a pretty wide set of styles and genres, which it does, doesn't really speak to what WoTC is doing one way or another. The WoTC model os very much about selling the D&D experience, both to veterans and newbs. They needed a system that could do both those things, and, you know what, they have it. For all it's faults and whatnot, 5e does the job it's designed to do pretty darned well.
 

dave2008

Legend
WotC failing to deliver a warlord probably helps to make low-magic hard to implement. I don't agree that it's feasible because I can remove things. I'd want it the other way around: rules to make it happen. Thankfully, AiME is here for all my low-magic needs.
That is exactly what AiME does - it removes almost all magic. I personally don't think you can have a low magic setting without removing things.


Now, this is where I cannot follow you. Inspiration/plot points/hero points tastes so much like half-cooked stuff that it makes the gritty variant look like something coming out of the Diana Jones Awards for excellence in gaming.
The issue here is base 5e is already very heoric. I don't feel it takes much to make more so. I feel the items in the DMG are adequate if I wanted to go that route.

The tactical rules module, including their implementation of speed factor, is a nightmare. I've yet to see a player/DM of 5e look at it and say "ok, let's try it", and I play with some seriously tactically-minded people. Then, without it, most players will just ignore the tactical layer coming from a battle master or a range of spell options and just use whatever deals more damage. At least that's what I've seen in the last 5.5 years.
First, I will clarify that my group is strategically minded, but not tactically minded. However, when I look at the options available to players in the classes and DMG I see the ground work for very tactical gaming experience. I personally don't see what is missing from 4e, but I know others do. The issue I see as DM is the monsters don't have a lot of tactical options. I can handle that side, but I can see where some DMs can't. Fortunately, monsters have been getting better in that respect. For example, with the MM & VGtM you can make a very tactically minded Gnoll warband.

For starts, I'd like their storylines to at least remember those 15-20 pages exist.
That would be nice, but I am guessing they have their reasons. Though I can see a way to include without incorporating that should allow for both experiences.
 
Last edited:

LuisCarlos17f

Adventurer
If the DM wants to create a low-level magic setting then the players will ask firearms, (or to play a fantasy weird western) or alchemy, but in closed rooms it may be too dangerous.

And a psionic can't be only a sorcerer with a pool of power points. This is not only about game mechanics but also a special flavor in the background. Are they as X-Men or like jedi masters? How are the relations with arcane, divine and primal spellcasters? Maybe the clerics when find a potential psionic manifester this is recruited and trained as an ardent. Maybe they are feared because their powers can be too subtle, for example somebody suffering hallucinations in the wrong (or right) place and time and there is a tragedy (or a villain is terminated).

If wizards are like scientific investigators, sorcerer as artists with talent and warlocks as traders, the psionics would be like athletes of mind sports and their powers as fruit of hard training, with a clear philosophy about discipline and hard work. A wizard prays abracadabra and moves a wand but a psionic is touching her head with her fingers (craniosacral massage) to concentrate better.
 

dave2008

Legend
If the DM wants to create a low-level magic setting then the players will ask firearms, (or to play a fantasy weird western) or alchemy, but in closed rooms it may be too dangerous.
I have never had a player ask about firearms or alchemy. However, I have only played in one dedicated low-magic campaign (current one). That being said I definitely don't think the two are related. Low-magic does not equal fire-arms and/or fantasy western.
 
Last edited:

Ashrym

Hero
On some days yeah, early on sales etc. Not you can hit millions of sales on a few hundred each day.
That's refuting information with speculation. It's a pet peeve of mine and seems to happen a lot on Enworld, lol. The most recent time I looked prior to that post it was 8 ranks better on the list. I would ask for evidence of times the PHB is not in the top 100 best sellers if you want to make a statement like the one I quoted. ;)

So, what sorts of rules are we looking at building? The list is a little fluid, but here's what we want to focus on. It's kind of a laundry list, and there's no guarantee that everything will be ready at launch, so it's more of a wish list.
Thanks for digging out that. Turns out they’re promising even more than I could remember. And all I wanted was a psionic class that’s not a wizard by a different name. Lucky me, I guess... 😆
I also think WotC did well for a list of "it would be nice to have..." options. They certainly did not make any promises in that article you linked while also avoiding specifics. Here is the end of it:

"It's a big list, and probably more than we can fit into what we hope to provide. At the end of the day, the advanced rules are likely to be more of an ethos or an attitude that casts the DM as a game designer who can alter the mechanics or add to them to suit the specific needs of a campaign."

D&D has been self-referential since 3e.
That's not actually a bad thing. Appealing to nostalgia is a sales move if a person can pull it off properly. It's the main reason I bought Temple of Elemental Evil and Keep on the Borderlands in DDO. ;)

Intrigue: Eberron, Rising from the Last War; social interaction (dmg 244-245), noncombat challenges (dmg pg 261). UA variant features would add some social oomph to fighter classes for this style.
I like this and have done all the various styles you listed. This particular post reminded me of a tangent and I was curious if anyone here picked up the Murder on the Eberron Express one-shot and tried it out yet.

This is why I keep coming back to the idea that know one will be truly happy with the psion class. They might as well make a sorcerer, monk, and warlock version.
I am personally curious about the one suggested that was at will powers modified by spell points. Just make lots of psion classes at let players and DM’s pick what suits their style.
4e's psion was largely "add more powers and here's what the also do when you amp them" using at-will abilities and power points for amping. That's the basis but given how cantrips work in 5e I imagine that structure might take a lot of work and run into mechanical issues if a person isn't cautious.

It's still the route I would prefer. Make a list of basic powers that may or may not resemble cantrips, add power points much like sorcery points or ki points but focus on the short rest aspect because there's more room to grow in that direction (imo), and make 6 subclasses that provide thematic abilities and / or modify thematic powers.

Otherwise I'm inclined to reskin sorcerers.
 

dave2008

Legend
I like this and have done all the various styles you listed. This particular post reminded me of a tangent and I was curious if anyone here picked up the Murder on the Eberron Express one-shot and tried it out yet.
I have not. Not helpful, but didn't want to l;eave the question blank.
 
Last edited:
Appealing to nostalgia is a sales move if a person can pull it off properly.
The WoTC model os very much about selling the D&D experience, both to veterans and newbs. They needed a system that could do both those things, and, you know what, they have it. For all it's faults and whatnot, 5e does the job it's designed to do pretty darned well.
Many of those faults were restored precisely so it could deliver the "D&D experience" familiar to veterans, and 'authentic' for the newbs coming in to see what all the fuss was about in the 80s. ;)

That's a come-back in full swing, even "Back! And, here to stay!" It goes beyond mere nostalgia, indoctrinating a new generation.

4e's psion was largely using at-will abilities and power points for amping. That's the basis but given how cantrips work in 5e I imagine that structure might take a lot of work and run into mechanical issues if a person isn't cautious.
Cantrips scale damage with character level, while more potent spells scale with a limited resource (slots, or, spell point variant, or sorcery points, I suppose).

It shouldn't be too tricky for the power-point scaling on psionic disciplines be in terms of area, riders, and the like, rather than just damage.

Speaking of nostalgia, the at-will level psionics could be 'modes,' like attack/defense modes. The disciplines could be short-rest-resource power points, and the 'sciences' also use PP, but face a long-rest limit, as well.
 

Ashrym

Hero
Speaking of nostalgia, the at-will level psionics could be 'modes,' like attack/defense modes. The disciplines could be short-rest-resource power points, and the 'sciences' also use PP, but face a long-rest limit, as well.
I had thought of that but it goes against the spells of the same names we already saw in the UA's. Those particular spells would also need to be removed if they are also at-will psionic abilities. At least from how I'm imagining it.
 

lkj

Adventurer
So in the latest Dragon+ stream, right at the end, Jeremy briely mentions that there is plenty of space for psionically themed subclasses even if there's a full class. This is obviously true. And he makes no promises about a psion class. But the way he talks about it is very far from suggesting they've abandoned the idea or have gone cold on it.

AD
 

Advertisement

Top