... If players nowadays want to play Jean Grey, some can use sorcerer and others can use Warlock and the Phoenix as a patron. This doesn't mean you're overlapping, just that you have different paths to fulfill an idea. This is just the norm, I mean an RPG system that allows only one way to achieve your idea for a character is a pretty meh one.
In a side note, I still prefer the Psidie mechanic over a point system for casting spells, D&D is definitively not built in a way that allows a spell point system to work properly. And even if I want a Psion class, I also want Psionic subclasses, mainly because I love 'gish' and psionics always shine in this.
Now, about mechanics... what about combining the Psidie with the disciplines? The Psion chooses a subclass level one, between Telekinesis, Telepathy, Teleportation, Psychometabolism, Metacreativity, and Clairvoyance, each one gives access to one Greater Discipline, with the same name, that contains 6 powers, separated in 2 Beginner, 2 Initiate, and 2 Master powers. Beginners' power can be used for anyone, Initiate can only be used after a character reaches Psion 7th level, and Masters in the 14th level. Besides this, each Greater Discipline gives access to one cantrip, without components.
Besides this, there are Minor Disciplines. You gain access to one in the 2nd level, and another one every 5 levels after this (7th, 12th, 17th), each Minor discipline contains 4 power, 1 Beginner, 2 Initiate, and 1 Master. It's not necessary a lot of disciplines in this case, 8 or 10 is already more than enough.
I personally do not think that the psionic mechanic must be “complex” in and of itself. Simply having it be different adds breadth, depth, and a modicum of intricacy to the game as a whole. That is the “complexity” that I am after. And I do not fear an overlap. Let two different character types both be Jean Grey. So what? It doesn’t hurt anything. What it does is give me (and everyone else) options on how to make Jean Grey different ways. Simply having a new variety of choices from which to build my characters would be welcome.
Then that is all fine. Some people started suggesting increased complexity as an equivalent to depth, so it gets confusing as to what people mean when they describe wanting depth. i don’t think 128 Psi Points and a conversion charts are equal in complexity.
I also am fine with the idea of having both represented, but I think our concerns come from the same place. Let’s say we have a Soul Knife, Aberrant Mind, and a Psychic Warrior. A new player wants to play Professor Xavier, and it’s only available in a hard to use Psion class. That’s my hang up, where do concepts fall? Is every concept attempted in Psion also given a subclass? Where is the line and balance?
I think what a lot of the disconnect is here - besides some players valuing depth over accessibility and others valuing the inverse - is an absolute, starving-man desperation for choice in our games.
Dungeons and Dragons Fifth Edition purports itself "the world's greatest role playing game". This claim is based solelyt on the strength of 5e's sales, and not on any inherent superiority of the system. Those sales are achieved through slavish adherence to a doctrine of absolutely maximizing accessibility. One of the sacrifices it makes to do so is choice. When you create a first-level character in D&D 5e, you have already made eighty percent of all the meaningful decisions that will ever be made for that character. If you select a subclass at first level, a'la sorcerers and clerics, then you are completely done making meaningful choices for that character basically forever, with the slim exception of deciding whether you're able to hamstring yourself with one of the eight or so feats in the game which are actually worth allocating in place of an ASI. If you choose a subclass at second or third instead, you get to make the final meaningful decision of your character's existence at that level, after which the entirety of your character's development is on strict, unwavering autopilot, outside of multiclassing rules. Because it's more accessible if the game builds your character for you, without any input from you whatsoever after grudgingly allowing you to make two or three choices at the start.
I hate that. I hate it fiercely. I hate it without reservation. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, I HATE it, I FREAKING HATE IT!!! It is awful, it is putrid, it is one of the greatest sins Fifth Edition has committed against its community, and the fact that its juggernaut success means everybody else is slobbering to follow suit makes me wonder if I should even continue trying to play these rule-bound systems or if I should just go back to running freeform. Every paladin is completely identical to every other paladin. Every monk is identical to every other monk. Every sorcerer is identical to every other sorcerer. So on and so forth. Even the artificer, supposedly the cerebral, creative Invent-y class, is more or less the same way. My battlesmith I enjoy running and vexing her DM with is more or less identical to every other battlesmith created by anyone ever, with the sole exception of taking a wizard level to complement her background.
The only way to buck the system and make a character that is even the slightest bit unique to you and your game is to multiclass your ass off, or to make a warlock and avoid the usual Blastlock nonsense. Or to go so deep into the homebrew weeds that you may as well be playing a different system.
If any prospective Psion class is built the same way, with the same stupid rules as the rest of 5e, I will probably scream. I need. CHOICES. I need some freaking AGENCY in my "role playing game", which is why all of the campaigns my play group runs regardless of who's in the DM seat have pretty heavy homebrew allowance in terms of character generation and progression. Because 5e's assumption that we're all too stupid to understand how this sort of thing works and insistence that we stay in our little baby carrier seats while it does all the driving for us is infuriating and I find myself increasingly unwilling to stand for it.
No 5e, I am not a blithering moron. Give me the ******* wheel and let me drive my own god damned character, please.
With respect Positron49, precluding a psion with unique mechanics would not solve the player's problem of being unable to play Professor Xavier, because the problem is already inherent to the design of 5e's spellcasting. In order to fix that, they would have to considerably (and I mean *considerably*) expand the number of spells available, which would appease some in the crowd who want psionics to be spellcasting, but would alienate others who think the spell list is already bloated as it is and oppose adding more to it; I am not one of those people, but it is an argument I have heard before and I know it would come up in any future playtest feedback.
The other thing to consider is that new players are already discouraged from from playing spellcasters until they become more experienced, and are often told "play a fighter or a barbarian first"; again, precluding a psion with different mechanics would does not solve that particular player's dilemma.
Besides, 5e already has conceptual overlaps, most notably between the Sorcerer and the Wizard; adding a class that has overlap with a number of subclasses kind of pales by comparison.
I’m a strong proponent of making Psionics a class all it’s own. It just feels right and brings me back to my 2e Dark Sun days. I actually find the system of a changing-die-size mechanic to be simple enough to make it usable by new and experienced players (though you could play with options that allow multiple dice, or more nuanced mechanics behind it). All in all, it felt like a good start at least.
I am also in the camp of “Do not mix spell casting and Psionics” - it just comes off as cheap. Like... “We want to introduce a new thing but didn’t want to be creative at all so let’s just make some spells into psionics” cheap. Barbarians have rage, Bards have Inspiration dice, Warlocks have different types of spell slots, Metamagic for Sorcs, Abjuration Fields, Beast companions... trust me, a Psionic class done with a simple mechanic will work.
Also, don’t make Psionics a subclass. Make it a Wild Talent or a Feat if you want them in your campaign, just like the UA does. It’s simple and provides another layer of development to the game that allows players to be creative.
As for class design? I think it’s been absolutely great since day one. I’m an old school DnDer and I’ve seen friends of mine that left the fold since the days of 3e (“too powergame-y”) to 4e (“too wargame-y”) actually getting interested in playing again. I don’t answer enough of the surveys I don’t think, but I’ve got to hand it to the designers thus far, it actually feels like a game the majority can play again.
ANSWER THE SURVEYS BREWKSY, OTHERWISE YOU VOICE WON'T COUNT!!!
Gah, sorry! Sorry about that. I just, was having flashback to people saying they didn't voice their opinion on the Psi Dice UA...
The Psionics one was the only one I really wanted to, but I missed it :(
Was the consensus that they liked the concept of “changed dice”? I thought it was so simple and clean and matched up really well with the other systems.
I did voice my opinion on the Psi Die. My opinion changed after I did so, however. My initial reaction was hesitant, but the mechanic grew on me in the interim. Wizards' tendency to release the survey after a time period so short that no one could have possibly had time to playtest the content in real games unless that's the only thing they did in the four minutes between UA Doc Release and UA Survey Release bothers me greatly.
I did voice my opinion on the Psi Die. My opinion changed after I did so, however. My initial reaction was hesitant, but the mechanic grew on me in the interim. Wizards' tendency to release the survey after a time period so short that no one could have possibly had time to playtest the content in real games unless that's the only thing they did in the four minutes between UA Doc Release and UA Survey Release bothers me greatly.
Yeah, I didn’t feel confident judging it because I didn’t use it in game at all - I typically don’t mess around with UA much and when it comes to new mechanics I try not to trust my theory crafting over actual play.
I hope we see a great implementation of Psionics in a future sourcebook 🙂
@Yurei: I hear ya. My initial reaction to it was *VERY* angry, but after taking a few days to parse through that UA's terrible writing I realized it was actually a lot better than I had first thought. and yeah, the UA's *definitely* need more time to get a feel for them.
@Brewksy: Unfortunately, the majority opinion on the survey was that people didn't want it because they thought it was too complicated (it really wasn't...)
@Brewksy: Unfortunately, the majority opinion on the survey was that people didn't want it because they thought it was too complicated (it really wasn't...)
Oh dang... that’s too bad. And I really question the validity of an opinion saying that it was too complicated. I mean, I won’t offer an opinion on the balance or usability, but it certainly made sense on one single read-through. Anyone claiming that it was complicated should probably never multi class either...
Thus the point of the last several pages of discussion. More or less. The Psy Die is significantly less complex than 5e's janky half-Vancian, half-not spellcasting rules, but because players are supposed to already know those rules it's fine to lean on them rather than seeking a different engine to drive psionic manifestations in 5e. Or so some folks believe.
Thus the point of the last several pages of discussion. More or less. The Psy Die is significantly less complex than 5e's janky half-Vancian, half-not spellcasting rules, but because players are supposed to already know those rules it's fine to lean on them rather than seeking a different engine to drive psionic manifestations in 5e. Or so some folks believe.
The crazy thing is, with a Psi-Die, you can introduce all sorts of mechanics and features to subtly build the class.
1) A capstone that allow you to increase the die to a D20
2) Splitting dice to get multiple dice (Once per day, split a d12 into two d6s)
3) Once per day, allowing you to increase the die size on a 2, instead of just a 1
4) Granting such dice to others as a form limited transferral of psychic power
5) A burnout mechanic that allows you to take the maximum roll once, at the expense of two die size drops...
I digress, but you see what I mean - there’s just so many ways to add layers to this simple mechanic. I feel really bad for not putting more thoughts down early. Are the survey results posted somewhere?
@Brewksy: Unfortunately, the majority opinion on the survey was that people didn't want it because they thought it was too complicated (it really wasn't...)
Oh dang... that’s too bad. And I really question the validity of an opinion saying that it was too complicated. I mean, I won’t offer an opinion on the balance or usability, but it certainly made sense on one single read-through. Anyone claiming that it was complicated should probably never multi class either...
Maybe complicated isn’t the right word... convoluted might be a better fit?
Thus the point of the last several pages of discussion. More or less. The Psy Die is significantly less complex than 5e's janky half-Vancian, half-not spellcasting rules, but because players are supposed to already know those rules it's fine to lean on them rather than seeking a different engine to drive psionic manifestations in 5e. Or so some folks believe.
The crazy thing is, with a Psi-Die, you can introduce all sorts of mechanics and features to subtly build the class.
1) A capstone that allow you to increase the die to a D20
2) Splitting dice to get multiple dice (Once per day, split a d12 into two d6s)
3) Once per day, allowing you to increase the die size on a 2, instead of just a 1
4) Granting such dice to others as a form limited transferral of psychic power
5) A burnout mechanic that allows you to take the maximum roll once, at the expense of two die size drops...
I digress, but you see what I mean - there’s just so many ways to add layers to this simple mechanic. I feel really bad for not putting more thoughts down early. Are the survey results posted somewhere?
They don't put out the survey results. We could see the psi die return sometime if they make a Psion class, but I think it's gone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
@Brewksy: Unfortunately, the majority opinion on the survey was that people didn't want it because they thought it was too complicated (it really wasn't...)
Oh dang... that’s too bad. And I really question the validity of an opinion saying that it was too complicated. I mean, I won’t offer an opinion on the balance or usability, but it certainly made sense on one single read-through. Anyone claiming that it was complicated should probably never multi class either...
The majority consensus was
That bad things happening on the high number and good things happening on 1s was too “un-D&D”
That the adjusting die size was too difficult to track, specially on VTTs.
That DMs couldn’t trust their players to track the Psi Die and didn’t want to have to do the extra babysitting.
I loved the Psi Die. It worked beautifully. Goodbye Psi Die, we hardly knew youZ
The Mystic had more problems then that. The points array was based on spell points and that chart was reduculous. There were no restrictions on which subclass could take what disciplines, the Focus part was confusing for people. It needed a lot of work to make it viable.
Many objections:
"The points array was based on spell points"
-just becuase it is based on spell points does not make it less unique, no class uses them by default, almost nobody uses that variant rule and it still feels radically different from spellcasting, they were able to do many things with that mechanic just like how they can with the psi Dice, especially since their disiplinces remain at a certain power level 9th level onwards and they just become better at using the disiplinces they have
"and that chart was reduculous"
-what chart did you mean and why do you Think it is ridiculous?
"the Focus part was confusing for people"
-well the focus was not that confusing, but you could Always move it to level 2, or remove it entirely since it isint really vital to the power of the class-
"There were no restrictions on which subclass could take what disciplines"
-why should there be such restrictions? No similar restrictions exist for wizards and many other spellcasters, shure some spellcasting classes have a handful of archetype spells between , and maybe it would be cool for one or two psionic disiplinces associated with each order was Only available to that order, but forcing an wu jen to Only take wu jen disiplinces and mostly restricting themselves to a fraction of the available disiplinces feels stupid, as stupid as a evocation wizard Only being able to learn evocation spells
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
... If players nowadays want to play Jean Grey, some can use sorcerer and others can use Warlock and the Phoenix as a patron. This doesn't mean you're overlapping, just that you have different paths to fulfill an idea. This is just the norm, I mean an RPG system that allows only one way to achieve your idea for a character is a pretty meh one.
In a side note, I still prefer the Psidie mechanic over a point system for casting spells, D&D is definitively not built in a way that allows a spell point system to work properly. And even if I want a Psion class, I also want Psionic subclasses, mainly because I love 'gish' and psionics always shine in this.
Now, about mechanics... what about combining the Psidie with the disciplines? The Psion chooses a subclass level one, between Telekinesis, Telepathy, Teleportation, Psychometabolism, Metacreativity, and Clairvoyance, each one gives access to one Greater Discipline, with the same name, that contains 6 powers, separated in 2 Beginner, 2 Initiate, and 2 Master powers. Beginners' power can be used for anyone, Initiate can only be used after a character reaches Psion 7th level, and Masters in the 14th level. Besides this, each Greater Discipline gives access to one cantrip, without components.
Besides this, there are Minor Disciplines. You gain access to one in the 2nd level, and another one every 5 levels after this (7th, 12th, 17th), each Minor discipline contains 4 power, 1 Beginner, 2 Initiate, and 1 Master. It's not necessary a lot of disciplines in this case, 8 or 10 is already more than enough.
Then that is all fine. Some people started suggesting increased complexity as an equivalent to depth, so it gets confusing as to what people mean when they describe wanting depth. i don’t think 128 Psi Points and a conversion charts are equal in complexity.
I also am fine with the idea of having both represented, but I think our concerns come from the same place. Let’s say we have a Soul Knife, Aberrant Mind, and a Psychic Warrior. A new player wants to play Professor Xavier, and it’s only available in a hard to use Psion class. That’s my hang up, where do concepts fall? Is every concept attempted in Psion also given a subclass? Where is the line and balance?
I think what a lot of the disconnect is here - besides some players valuing depth over accessibility and others valuing the inverse - is an absolute, starving-man desperation for choice in our games.
Dungeons and Dragons Fifth Edition purports itself "the world's greatest role playing game". This claim is based solelyt on the strength of 5e's sales, and not on any inherent superiority of the system. Those sales are achieved through slavish adherence to a doctrine of absolutely maximizing accessibility. One of the sacrifices it makes to do so is choice. When you create a first-level character in D&D 5e, you have already made eighty percent of all the meaningful decisions that will ever be made for that character. If you select a subclass at first level, a'la sorcerers and clerics, then you are completely done making meaningful choices for that character basically forever, with the slim exception of deciding whether you're able to hamstring yourself with one of the eight or so feats in the game which are actually worth allocating in place of an ASI. If you choose a subclass at second or third instead, you get to make the final meaningful decision of your character's existence at that level, after which the entirety of your character's development is on strict, unwavering autopilot, outside of multiclassing rules. Because it's more accessible if the game builds your character for you, without any input from you whatsoever after grudgingly allowing you to make two or three choices at the start.
I hate that. I hate it fiercely. I hate it without reservation. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, I HATE it, I FREAKING HATE IT!!! It is awful, it is putrid, it is one of the greatest sins Fifth Edition has committed against its community, and the fact that its juggernaut success means everybody else is slobbering to follow suit makes me wonder if I should even continue trying to play these rule-bound systems or if I should just go back to running freeform. Every paladin is completely identical to every other paladin. Every monk is identical to every other monk. Every sorcerer is identical to every other sorcerer. So on and so forth. Even the artificer, supposedly the cerebral, creative Invent-y class, is more or less the same way. My battlesmith I enjoy running and vexing her DM with is more or less identical to every other battlesmith created by anyone ever, with the sole exception of taking a wizard level to complement her background.
The only way to buck the system and make a character that is even the slightest bit unique to you and your game is to multiclass your ass off, or to make a warlock and avoid the usual Blastlock nonsense. Or to go so deep into the homebrew weeds that you may as well be playing a different system.
If any prospective Psion class is built the same way, with the same stupid rules as the rest of 5e, I will probably scream. I need. CHOICES. I need some freaking AGENCY in my "role playing game", which is why all of the campaigns my play group runs regardless of who's in the DM seat have pretty heavy homebrew allowance in terms of character generation and progression. Because 5e's assumption that we're all too stupid to understand how this sort of thing works and insistence that we stay in our little baby carrier seats while it does all the driving for us is infuriating and I find myself increasingly unwilling to stand for it.
No 5e, I am not a blithering moron. Give me the ******* wheel and let me drive my own god damned character, please.
Please do not contact or message me.
That’s my position. Psionics doesn’t have to be inherently any more challenging than Spellcasting. Just inherently different from Spellcasting.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
With respect Positron49, precluding a psion with unique mechanics would not solve the player's problem of being unable to play Professor Xavier, because the problem is already inherent to the design of 5e's spellcasting. In order to fix that, they would have to considerably (and I mean *considerably*) expand the number of spells available, which would appease some in the crowd who want psionics to be spellcasting, but would alienate others who think the spell list is already bloated as it is and oppose adding more to it; I am not one of those people, but it is an argument I have heard before and I know it would come up in any future playtest feedback.
The other thing to consider is that new players are already discouraged from from playing spellcasters until they become more experienced, and are often told "play a fighter or a barbarian first"; again, precluding a psion with different mechanics would does not solve that particular player's dilemma.
Besides, 5e already has conceptual overlaps, most notably between the Sorcerer and the Wizard; adding a class that has overlap with a number of subclasses kind of pales by comparison.
I’m a strong proponent of making Psionics a class all it’s own. It just feels right and brings me back to my 2e Dark Sun days. I actually find the system of a changing-die-size mechanic to be simple enough to make it usable by new and experienced players (though you could play with options that allow multiple dice, or more nuanced mechanics behind it). All in all, it felt like a good start at least.
I am also in the camp of “Do not mix spell casting and Psionics” - it just comes off as cheap. Like... “We want to introduce a new thing but didn’t want to be creative at all so let’s just make some spells into psionics” cheap. Barbarians have rage, Bards have Inspiration dice, Warlocks have different types of spell slots, Metamagic for Sorcs, Abjuration Fields, Beast companions... trust me, a Psionic class done with a simple mechanic will work.
Also, don’t make Psionics a subclass. Make it a Wild Talent or a Feat if you want them in your campaign, just like the UA does. It’s simple and provides another layer of development to the game that allows players to be creative.
As for class design? I think it’s been absolutely great since day one. I’m an old school DnDer and I’ve seen friends of mine that left the fold since the days of 3e (“too powergame-y”) to 4e (“too wargame-y”) actually getting interested in playing again. I don’t answer enough of the surveys I don’t think, but I’ve got to hand it to the designers thus far, it actually feels like a game the majority can play again.
ANSWER THE SURVEYS BREWKSY, OTHERWISE YOU VOICE WON'T COUNT!!!
Gah, sorry! Sorry about that. I just, was having flashback to people saying they didn't voice their opinion on the Psi Dice UA...
The Psionics one was the only one I really wanted to, but I missed it :(
Was the consensus that they liked the concept of “changed dice”? I thought it was so simple and clean and matched up really well with the other systems.
I did voice my opinion on the Psi Die. My opinion changed after I did so, however. My initial reaction was hesitant, but the mechanic grew on me in the interim. Wizards' tendency to release the survey after a time period so short that no one could have possibly had time to playtest the content in real games unless that's the only thing they did in the four minutes between UA Doc Release and UA Survey Release bothers me greatly.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeah, I didn’t feel confident judging it because I didn’t use it in game at all - I typically don’t mess around with UA much and when it comes to new mechanics I try not to trust my theory crafting over actual play.
I hope we see a great implementation of Psionics in a future sourcebook 🙂
@Yurei: I hear ya. My initial reaction to it was *VERY* angry, but after taking a few days to parse through that UA's terrible writing I realized it was actually a lot better than I had first thought. and yeah, the UA's *definitely* need more time to get a feel for them.
@Brewksy: Unfortunately, the majority opinion on the survey was that people didn't want it because they thought it was too complicated (it really wasn't...)
Oh dang... that’s too bad. And I really question the validity of an opinion saying that it was too complicated. I mean, I won’t offer an opinion on the balance or usability, but it certainly made sense on one single read-through. Anyone claiming that it was complicated should probably never multi class either...
Thus the point of the last several pages of discussion. More or less. The Psy Die is significantly less complex than 5e's janky half-Vancian, half-not spellcasting rules, but because players are supposed to already know those rules it's fine to lean on them rather than seeking a different engine to drive psionic manifestations in 5e. Or so some folks believe.
Please do not contact or message me.
The crazy thing is, with a Psi-Die, you can introduce all sorts of mechanics and features to subtly build the class.
1) A capstone that allow you to increase the die to a D20
2) Splitting dice to get multiple dice (Once per day, split a d12 into two d6s)
3) Once per day, allowing you to increase the die size on a 2, instead of just a 1
4) Granting such dice to others as a form limited transferral of psychic power
5) A burnout mechanic that allows you to take the maximum roll once, at the expense of two die size drops...
I digress, but you see what I mean - there’s just so many ways to add layers to this simple mechanic. I feel really bad for not putting more thoughts down early.
Are the survey results posted somewhere?
Maybe complicated isn’t the right word... convoluted might be a better fit?
They don't put out the survey results. We could see the psi die return sometime if they make a Psion class, but I think it's gone.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I’m sure the Psi Die is gone for good.
It was simple, and it could have had multitudes of things bolted onto it.
The majority consensus was
I loved the Psi Die. It worked beautifully. Goodbye Psi Die, we hardly knew youZ
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Man... all of those issues are... trivial. :(
Many objections:
"The points array was based on spell points"
-just becuase it is based on spell points does not make it less unique, no class uses them by default, almost nobody uses that variant rule and it still feels radically different from spellcasting, they were able to do many things with that mechanic just like how they can with the psi Dice, especially since their disiplinces remain at a certain power level 9th level onwards and they just become better at using the disiplinces they have
"and that chart was reduculous"
-what chart did you mean and why do you Think it is ridiculous?
"the Focus part was confusing for people"
-well the focus was not that confusing, but you could Always move it to level 2, or remove it entirely since it isint really vital to the power of the class-
"There were no restrictions on which subclass could take what disciplines"
-why should there be such restrictions? No similar restrictions exist for wizards and many other spellcasters, shure some spellcasting classes have a handful of archetype spells between , and maybe it would be cool for one or two psionic disiplinces associated with each order was Only available to that order, but forcing an wu jen to Only take wu jen disiplinces and mostly restricting themselves to a fraction of the available disiplinces feels stupid, as stupid as a evocation wizard Only being able to learn evocation spells
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
Yup
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting