It does go both ways. But individual players are more apt to have an idea of what works for them and what doesn't from their own experiences than the mindless morass of blabbering insanity people call 'The Majority'.
Like, for me? I am absolutely STARVING for some GODS DAMNED DEPTH in my D&D game. There are maybe two and a half classes in the game that are not insultingly oversimplified, and there is exactly ONE class in this entire game where you make a meaningful character decision past level 3. No, spell selection for spellcasting characters does not count and never has. That is obnoxious and unacceptable, if even only because those of us who like to make decisions, like to tinker with characters and bite into depth and complexity, deserve our fair freaking shot too. What form that depth takes? Dunno. I'm not a game designer. But I know what there's basically freaking none of in 5e, and that's depth.
People like to say that 5e is the most successful roleplaying game in the world by far, and that this proves its perfect superiority to everything else and it is thus flawless in every way. Thing is? 5e's success has very little to do with its design. At least, insofar as it being 'better' than other games. It has to do with the fact that streamer culture latched onto tabletop gaming and Wizards pushed 5e with its Fat Budget Dollars. 5e is fast and its oversimplified nature makes it watchable, but it's not the only game that qualifies. Critical Role has proven that it could've just as easily been a Savage Worlds game; UnDeadwood was a masterpiece and SW is just as fast and watchable as 5e is. Being watchable, however, is not the criteria by which a game is judged.
If Wizards keeps ignoring the folks who're screaming in desperation, from our little tumorous corner of the 'Majority' Blob Monster, for any degree of depth and engagement in this game? Well, eventually Pathfinder's going to come up with its own digital tool, and that'll be all she wrote for a whole lot more folks than anybody suspects.
People like to say that 5e is the most successful roleplaying game in the world by far, and that this proves its perfect superiority to everything else and it is thus flawless in every way.
It's always brought up whenever any sort of serious discussion of 5e's weaknesses and failings begins. "Well if it's so bad, why is it the most successful RPG out there, huh?!"
What's funny, at least to me, is why that seems to be the case. But honestly this is way off of topic anyways so I'll let it go. Apologies for the long derailment.
It certainly has been the most successful at drawing new players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
It's a pretty important and well-established principle of game design that players (as a collective) don't really ever know what they want. Good feedback is "here's how I felt about this, here are the issues I had with it." It's not players' job to offer solutions, nor are players very good at that. As IamSposta says, it's literally the designers' job to give players what they aren't able to articulate their desire for. That's what game design is.
That may be true. I guess we will just have to wait and see what we want when they release the material. It goes both ways on this point though, maybe the players that want a full Psion class and unique mechanics don't know that they will be fine with subclasses yet. We will have to see what the overall response is when they do that.
NO. I do know what I want for psionics now that they've published multiple UA testing out psionics. They have tried the psionic subclasses 2 times now, and that will not satisfy my psionic-thirst. They tried subclasses, and I now know I want a class. They tried making it be spell-based, and I know I didn't like that. I won't like it being spell based as a subclass or class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
My point is that, If WOTC were to pursue the Psion, it would need to make it through playtesting and surveys too. If the masses give it bad results, I doubt they would ignore those survey results because certain players want it really really bad a certain way.
First, yes they would have to playtest it. Second, they could ignore the survey results that say "I don't want this to exist". Third, again, we don't want it "really really bad" that's the exact opposite of what we want.
They would change their design to match what people want until survey results passed. I would guess you would end up with an Intelligence based Ranged Monk or an Intelligence based Psychic Warlock. The Monk version would probably be the easiest, since many of its defenses against effects and deflecting attacks would make sense.
They would. They could also just see how the surveys do among the people who want this class, and when it passes among them, it would be ready to publish.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It's a pretty important and well-established principle of game design that players (as a collective) don't really ever know what they want. Good feedback is "here's how I felt about this, here are the issues I had with it." It's not players' job to offer solutions, nor are players very good at that. As IamSposta says, it's literally the designers' job to give players what they aren't able to articulate their desire for. That's what game design is.
That may be true. I guess we will just have to wait and see what we want when they release the material. It goes both ways on this point though, maybe the players that want a full Psion class and unique mechanics don't know that they will be fine with subclasses yet. We will have to see what the overall response is when they do that.
NO. I do know what I want for psionics now that they've published multiple UA testing out psionics. They have tried the psionic subclasses 2 times now, and that will not satisfy my psionic-thirst. They tried subclasses, and I now know I want a class. They tried making it be spell-based, and I know I didn't like that. I won't like it being spell based as a subclass or class.
I’m aware, I was more responding to the idea that the “masses just don’t know what they like or don’t like” idea, and that because they aren’t game designers they just don’t know and are wrong. That argument goes both ways, so if it invalidates the masses it also invalidates the people who think they “know” they want a full class. Again, the point is that it doesn’t invalidate anyone’s opinion either way. I believe you when you tell me your preferences on this design, it’s not that you “aren’t a game designer so you just don’t know what’s good for you but I do, even though I’m not one”
Prestige classes might well be an avenue for them to give the folks craving depth a way to get that depth without inconveniencing all the folks who hate having to think when they play D&D.
EDIT: Stupid net delays.
But yes.
Positron: why is it that it's perfectly okay for Wizards to just completely flat-out ignore what even their Head Designer Dude described as "a sizable minority"? I get that you, specifically, are thrilled and happy that they're eliminating depth at every possible turn to comply with the vanilla-pudding Majority, but man. Is there not any concern in your mind whatsoever for what happens when that 'sizable minority' finally gets fed up enough to jump ship?
The point is that individual people can know what they want, but the ravening hoard that is “people” have no idea what it wants. It’s the “Consult the Necrosages Masses” mentality that is the issue. Too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak.
I'm one of the people who filled in the questionnaire on the psi UA. The way the questions where my answers will be interpreted as that I don't want a psy specific mechanic. And that's as far away from what I want as possible. I don't want the die system on top of an already existing class and where you need to take special feats to flesh out your character even further. I want all of that incorporated in one class not as a graft on top of a number of different other classes. The way it is now is a bit of a Frankenstein's monster approach. Nothing really fits and it's jarring.
I'm one of the people who filled in the questionnaire on the psi UA. The way the questions where my answers will be interpreted as that I don't want a psy specific mechanic. And that's as far away from what I want as possible. I don't want the die system on top of an already existing class and where you need to take special feats to flesh out your character even further. I want all of that incorporated in one class not as a graft on top of a number of different other classes. The way it is now is a bit of a Frankenstein's monster approach. Nothing really fits and it's jarring.
I agree wholeheartedly. That’s the best argument for not just using subclasses I have seen.
PS- You can write in an essay format answer on the surveys. In future, you might use that to make sure that your feedback to WotC is exactly as clear and specific as this was. Because this was excellent.
Prestige classes might well be an avenue for them to give the folks craving depth a way to get that depth without inconveniencing all the folks who hate having to think when they play D&D.
EDIT: Stupid net delays.
But yes.
Positron: why is it that it's perfectly okay for Wizards to just completely flat-out ignore what even their Head Designer Dude described as "a sizable minority"? I get that you, specifically, are thrilled and happy that they're eliminating depth at every possible turn to comply with the vanilla-pudding Majority, but man. Is there not any concern in your mind whatsoever for what happens when that 'sizable minority' finally gets fed up enough to jump ship?
In a way I am agreeing with some of the ideas... to put my position clearly, I actually want you guys to receive the complexity you desire, but class and subclass design should be inclusive to most players. Complexity can be added in 5e (and revisiting prestige classes or additional optional systems that are campaign specific are great ideas) but Psion class design probably doesn’t need it baked into its core. I also don’t want to make it sound like I refuse any mechanic outright, things like Warlock spell casting and invocations are acceptable versions of a magic system. They are different versions that work within the system. The problem comes when players have to learn new systems, or have conversion charts, or have entirely new sets of “manifestations” That require work to learn.
Psion class design probably doesn’t need it baked into its core. I also don’t want to make it sound like I refuse any mechanic outright, things like Warlock spell casting and invocations are acceptable versions of a magic system. They are different versions that work within the system. The problem comes when players have to learn new systems, or have conversion charts, or have entirely new sets of “manifestations” That require work to learn.
That was why I loved the Psi Die. It was so simple, even an insurance hawking caveperson could do it.
I think as far as introducing more complexity into class builds are concerned, maybe they should take another crack at Prestige Classes.
I would love that.
while prestige classes were a neat system, i am not really shure they really fit 5e, subclasses fill the role that prestige classes do for the most part, the only thing i might see prestige classes doing diffrent is allowing you to gain features fitting a certain archetype every level instead of every four levels or so, while also being a thing that is not wide enough to be a entire class, or things that might specifically require multiclassing
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I think as far as introducing more complexity into class builds are concerned, maybe they should take another crack at Prestige Classes.
I would love that.
while prestige classes were a neat system, i am not really shure they really fit 5e, subclasses fill the role that prestige classes do for the most part, the only thing i might see prestige classes doing diffrent is allowing you to gain features fitting a certain archetype every level instead of every four levels or so, while also being a thing that is not wide enough to be a entire class, or things that might specifically require multiclassing
They would allow you to add to your character a level progression that can't be its own class, and provides a way to customize your character beyond the one subclass you're pigeonholed into without awkward multiclassing. You say you're not sure they fit 5e, but then go on to explain the niche they'd have in 5e.
kind of slightly changed my mind in the middle of the sentence....
but speaking of discarded 3.5e mechanics, what do you guys think of level adjustments / racial hit dice / racial classes? like on the one hand it would allow people to play objectively stronger races without it completely wrecking the balance but at the same time it might suck for people who want to play an race with an level adjustment that is very melee focused like an minotaur but also wants to play an spellcaster but will thus be several levels behind on their spellcasting, or something might happen the opposite direction
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
That was pretty much the whole problem with level adjustments. Yeah you could be a mind flayer with a 10 level adjustment but you just lose out on so much else.
The other route to take is making a creature class that you can then choose to level up to pick up more of the creature traits, or level up their wizard. That kinda circles back to making a dumbed down version as a base race with optional feats to pick up racial abilities that were trimmed to make it balanced at first level.
Bit of a catch 22.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
The only real issue I could see with this Psionic UA is that the closest way to be a full time psychic is to be a Sorcerer who will still be mainly doing Sorcerer stuff. And I like the Psionic Soul. I've read the Psychic Warrior and Soulknife from 3.5, and this UA is basically those things, but good. If I weren't currently playing a Ranger, my primary backup might even be a Psi Knight. I was even looking forward to them doing a psychic Monk (for Githzerai players), before I saw the announcement that some people thought the Psi Die was too confusing.
If you’re at all interested in playing a Psi Knight (and they’re fun, I highly recommend one), then make one now to sit on it until you’re ready because there is no telling when the next iteration will come out and that UA will get archived.
Prestige classes might well be an avenue for them to give the folks craving depth a way to get that depth without inconveniencing all the folks who hate having to think when they play D&D.
EDIT: Stupid net delays.
But yes.
Positron: why is it that it's perfectly okay for Wizards to just completely flat-out ignore what even their Head Designer Dude described as "a sizable minority"? I get that you, specifically, are thrilled and happy that they're eliminating depth at every possible turn to comply with the vanilla-pudding Majority, but man. Is there not any concern in your mind whatsoever for what happens when that 'sizable minority' finally gets fed up enough to jump ship?
In a way I am agreeing with some of the ideas... to put my position clearly, I actually want you guys to receive the complexity you desire, but class and subclass design should be inclusive to most players. Complexity can be added in 5e (and revisiting prestige classes or additional optional systems that are campaign specific are great ideas) but Psion class design probably doesn’t need it baked into its core. I also don’t want to make it sound like I refuse any mechanic outright, things like Warlock spell casting and invocations are acceptable versions of a magic system. They are different versions that work within the system. The problem comes when players have to learn new systems, or have conversion charts, or have entirely new sets of “manifestations” That require work to learn.
So, you want us to get what we want, as long as it isn't what we want? I agree with one point there, the subclasses for the base classes that are psionic (soul knife, etc) should be inclusive to new players and "simple" to understand.
What I don't agree with is that a class has to be inclusive to players. If you guys want psionics, fine. Take your dumbed down, simple, boring psionic subclasses. You guys were the ones that didn't want a class anyway. So, if they make a class for the "sizable minority" that wants it, and they want it to have new mechanics, and a new layer of complexity, how in the Nine Hells is that effecting you in any way?
What I truly disagree with about this statement is one thing "a psion class doesn't need complexity baked into its core". The reason I disagree with this is because spellcasters are complex at their core. Anyone knows that if you're starting to play D&D, you should start with a fighter, monk, rogue, or barbarian. If you want simplicity in your game, play a martial character. If you want an easy gameplay that makes your turns take 12 seconds in real life, play a martial character. If you want complexity, and to make your turns take 5 minutes each as every enemy on the battlefield has to roll a saving throw or take damage, be a spellcaster. (I recommend Moon Druids if you really want to annoy the people at your table)
A psion will likely be at least as complex as a spellcaster. I personally don't think it should be complex for the sake of it being complex, but I do think it should be at least as difficult to play as a spellcaster. If it is more complex than this, great. This'll make Yurei happier, as well as many other people I know.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It does go both ways. But individual players are more apt to have an idea of what works for them and what doesn't from their own experiences than the mindless morass of blabbering insanity people call 'The Majority'.
Like, for me? I am absolutely STARVING for some GODS DAMNED DEPTH in my D&D game. There are maybe two and a half classes in the game that are not insultingly oversimplified, and there is exactly ONE class in this entire game where you make a meaningful character decision past level 3. No, spell selection for spellcasting characters does not count and never has. That is obnoxious and unacceptable, if even only because those of us who like to make decisions, like to tinker with characters and bite into depth and complexity, deserve our fair freaking shot too. What form that depth takes? Dunno. I'm not a game designer. But I know what there's basically freaking none of in 5e, and that's depth.
People like to say that 5e is the most successful roleplaying game in the world by far, and that this proves its perfect superiority to everything else and it is thus flawless in every way. Thing is? 5e's success has very little to do with its design. At least, insofar as it being 'better' than other games. It has to do with the fact that streamer culture latched onto tabletop gaming and Wizards pushed 5e with its Fat Budget Dollars. 5e is fast and its oversimplified nature makes it watchable, but it's not the only game that qualifies. Critical Role has proven that it could've just as easily been a Savage Worlds game; UnDeadwood was a masterpiece and SW is just as fast and watchable as 5e is. Being watchable, however, is not the criteria by which a game is judged.
If Wizards keeps ignoring the folks who're screaming in desperation, from our little tumorous corner of the 'Majority' Blob Monster, for any degree of depth and engagement in this game? Well, eventually Pathfinder's going to come up with its own digital tool, and that'll be all she wrote for a whole lot more folks than anybody suspects.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm not aware of anyone who says this.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It's always brought up whenever any sort of serious discussion of 5e's weaknesses and failings begins. "Well if it's so bad, why is it the most successful RPG out there, huh?!"
What's funny, at least to me, is why that seems to be the case. But honestly this is way off of topic anyways so I'll let it go. Apologies for the long derailment.
Please do not contact or message me.
It certainly has been the most successful at drawing new players.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
NO. I do know what I want for psionics now that they've published multiple UA testing out psionics. They have tried the psionic subclasses 2 times now, and that will not satisfy my psionic-thirst. They tried subclasses, and I now know I want a class. They tried making it be spell-based, and I know I didn't like that. I won't like it being spell based as a subclass or class.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I would love that.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
First, yes they would have to playtest it. Second, they could ignore the survey results that say "I don't want this to exist". Third, again, we don't want it "really really bad" that's the exact opposite of what we want.
They would. They could also just see how the surveys do among the people who want this class, and when it passes among them, it would be ready to publish.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I’m aware, I was more responding to the idea that the “masses just don’t know what they like or don’t like” idea, and that because they aren’t game designers they just don’t know and are wrong. That argument goes both ways, so if it invalidates the masses it also invalidates the people who think they “know” they want a full class. Again, the point is that it doesn’t invalidate anyone’s opinion either way. I believe you when you tell me your preferences on this design, it’s not that you “aren’t a game designer so you just don’t know what’s good for you but I do, even though I’m not one”
Prestige classes might well be an avenue for them to give the folks craving depth a way to get that depth without inconveniencing all the folks who hate having to think when they play D&D.
EDIT: Stupid net delays.
But yes.
Positron: why is it that it's perfectly okay for Wizards to just completely flat-out ignore what even their Head Designer Dude described as "a sizable minority"? I get that you, specifically, are thrilled and happy that they're eliminating depth at every possible turn to comply with the vanilla-pudding Majority, but man. Is there not any concern in your mind whatsoever for what happens when that 'sizable minority' finally gets fed up enough to jump ship?
Please do not contact or message me.
Positron,
The point is that individual people can know what they want, but the ravening hoard that is “people” have no idea what it wants. It’s the “Consult the
NecrosagesMasses” mentality that is the issue. Too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak.Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm one of the people who filled in the questionnaire on the psi UA. The way the questions where my answers will be interpreted as that I don't want a psy specific mechanic. And that's as far away from what I want as possible. I don't want the die system on top of an already existing class and where you need to take special feats to flesh out your character even further. I want all of that incorporated in one class not as a graft on top of a number of different other classes. The way it is now is a bit of a Frankenstein's monster approach. Nothing really fits and it's jarring.
I agree wholeheartedly. That’s the best argument for not just using subclasses I have seen.
PS- You can write in an essay format answer on the surveys. In future, you might use that to make sure that your feedback to WotC is exactly as clear and specific as this was. Because this was excellent.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
In a way I am agreeing with some of the ideas... to put my position clearly, I actually want you guys to receive the complexity you desire, but class and subclass design should be inclusive to most players. Complexity can be added in 5e (and revisiting prestige classes or additional optional systems that are campaign specific are great ideas) but Psion class design probably doesn’t need it baked into its core. I also don’t want to make it sound like I refuse any mechanic outright, things like Warlock spell casting and invocations are acceptable versions of a magic system. They are different versions that work within the system. The problem comes when players have to learn new systems, or have conversion charts, or have entirely new sets of “manifestations” That require work to learn.
That was why I loved the Psi Die. It was so simple, even an insurance hawking caveperson could do it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
while prestige classes were a neat system, i am not really shure they really fit 5e, subclasses fill the role that prestige classes do for the most part, the only thing i might see prestige classes doing diffrent is allowing you to gain features fitting a certain archetype every level instead of every four levels or so, while also being a thing that is not wide enough to be a entire class, or things that might specifically require multiclassing
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
kind of slightly changed my mind in the middle of the sentence....
but speaking of discarded 3.5e mechanics, what do you guys think of level adjustments / racial hit dice / racial classes? like on the one hand it would allow people to play objectively stronger races without it completely wrecking the balance but at the same time it might suck for people who want to play an race with an level adjustment that is very melee focused like an minotaur but also wants to play an spellcaster but will thus be several levels behind on their spellcasting, or something might happen the opposite direction
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
That was pretty much the whole problem with level adjustments. Yeah you could be a mind flayer with a 10 level adjustment but you just lose out on so much else.
The other route to take is making a creature class that you can then choose to level up to pick up more of the creature traits, or level up their wizard. That kinda circles back to making a dumbed down version as a base race with optional feats to pick up racial abilities that were trimmed to make it balanced at first level.
Bit of a catch 22.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
The only real issue I could see with this Psionic UA is that the closest way to be a full time psychic is to be a Sorcerer who will still be mainly doing Sorcerer stuff. And I like the Psionic Soul. I've read the Psychic Warrior and Soulknife from 3.5, and this UA is basically those things, but good. If I weren't currently playing a Ranger, my primary backup might even be a Psi Knight. I was even looking forward to them doing a psychic Monk (for Githzerai players), before I saw the announcement that some people thought the Psi Die was too confusing.
If you’re at all interested in playing a Psi Knight (and they’re fun, I highly recommend one), then make one now to sit on it until you’re ready because there is no telling when the next iteration will come out and that UA will get archived.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So, you want us to get what we want, as long as it isn't what we want? I agree with one point there, the subclasses for the base classes that are psionic (soul knife, etc) should be inclusive to new players and "simple" to understand.
What I don't agree with is that a class has to be inclusive to players. If you guys want psionics, fine. Take your dumbed down, simple, boring psionic subclasses. You guys were the ones that didn't want a class anyway. So, if they make a class for the "sizable minority" that wants it, and they want it to have new mechanics, and a new layer of complexity, how in the Nine Hells is that effecting you in any way?
What I truly disagree with about this statement is one thing "a psion class doesn't need complexity baked into its core". The reason I disagree with this is because spellcasters are complex at their core. Anyone knows that if you're starting to play D&D, you should start with a fighter, monk, rogue, or barbarian. If you want simplicity in your game, play a martial character. If you want an easy gameplay that makes your turns take 12 seconds in real life, play a martial character. If you want complexity, and to make your turns take 5 minutes each as every enemy on the battlefield has to roll a saving throw or take damage, be a spellcaster. (I recommend Moon Druids if you really want to annoy the people at your table)
A psion will likely be at least as complex as a spellcaster. I personally don't think it should be complex for the sake of it being complex, but I do think it should be at least as difficult to play as a spellcaster. If it is more complex than this, great. This'll make Yurei happier, as well as many other people I know.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms