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

[Fenris-77]

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]

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.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

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]

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.

 

[Ashrym]

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]

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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]

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Yeah, no point in spells-for-psionics.

 

[lkj]

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