Ashla, you have made it perfectly plain that you believe psychic abilities have no place in D&D, and that you believe I've never played a game of D&D before due to not believing that bolting a single random weird gimmick to one side of a core class offers a dramatic and meaningful shift in that class's play flow.
I've literally pointed out that there is a whole setting that was built for it and let me assure you I really do like it and how Psionics are a part of it.
As to not believing you: you've given me little reason to based on your comments and lack of understanding of how whole swathes of classes work.
You want to know what I mean when I say *meaningful* changes? Do a ranger subclass that implements the core idea of the Spell-less Ranger - the sub entirely removes spellcasting and replaces it with a powerful Superiority system and additional martial capabilities.
Can you clarify what that would mean and how it wouldn't just be a battlemaster archer?
Do a Bladesinger that turns the wizard into a half-caster that can mingle leveled spellcasting and martial swordplay in the same turn, implementing spellblade abilities *properly*.
Why do you need that when there are other half classes that can credibly perform that role (IE valor bard, Hexblade)
Do a sorcerer that removes spell slots entirely, instead allowing the sorcerer to make a casting roll to successfully cast their spells - their magic isn't 100% reliable but they can cast without limit.
This sounds like an utter disaster to try and balance and/or make work in anything approaching a timely fashion.
Things that CHANGE THE RULES, not just bolt a small handful of extra actions onto an otherwise ironclad, utterly rigid and inflexible chassis. THEN subclasses could be used to reduce class bloat the way people keep saying they do. But until subclasses are allowed to do that? They're utterly useless for changing up the game flow and feel of a class.
What you're proposing would make the game an absolute nightmare hellscape of rules inconsistancies that would grind the game to a halt as players and GM's try to parse out how anything actually happens.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: you should be playing literally anything else because you apparently don't like D&D.
Despite some of Yurei’s examples of "meaningful”, which I assume was off the top of their head and not a fully fleshed out and tested system, I kind of agree with her. A barbarian will, the vast majority of the time, get angry, scream, and swing their greataxe recklessly no matter the subclass. It’s just the subclasses tack on a few other things like being resistant to more damage types, etc.
And I would also like to see a psychic class in the game. I just don’t see it coming in 5E. Too much of what a psi class would have as class feature are covered by spells. But I really do think the only way to separate a psi class from just being a wizard but worse is to remove all of those spells and feats that replicate a psi class feature from the game. And anything close to that would be in a 6E unfortunately.
Despite some of Yurei’s examples of "meaningful”, which I assume was off the top of their head and not a fully fleshed out and tested system, I kind of agree with her. A barbarian will, the vast majority of the time, get angry, scream, and swing their greataxe recklessly no matter the subclass. It’s just the subclasses tack on a few other things like being resistant to more damage types, etc.
And I would also like to see a psychic class in the game. I just don’t see it coming in 5E. Too much of what a psi class would have as class feature are covered by spells. But I really do think the only way to separate a psi class from just being a wizard but worse is to remove all of those spells and feats that replicate a psi class feature from the game. And anything close to that would be in a 6E unfortunately.
To the first part: yes, Classes do in fact play like classes. If we were stuck with like... 4 that had no internal variation then you might have a point but that's simply not the case. A fighter, a paladin and a barbarian are all going to functionally play differently even if they are all performing the same role as a front line brick for the rest of the party. Further, having the sub-classes offering variations on the core theme means that there is less time wasted on people trying to parse out how they actually work and interact with the world around them.
As to Psionics being it's own thing... there are simply too many problems with trying to implement it as a non-casting class; Like to make say.... a telepath work you'd need to canabalize the enchantment and divination trees since those are the ones that cover effecting others mental states which means that you either have a character that has an incredibly limited set of options relative to a wizard/sorcerer or you need to remove those spells/abilities from those classes in which case you are making them worse to justify the existence of a psychic class.
None of this is saying that it's simply impossible to do this, but rather that it would require a monumental amount of effort on the part of WotC (who let's be honest are not exactly inspiring confidence atm) to create a whole new system to appeal to a niche player base to say nothing of how their are other systems out there that simply handle psionics far better then D&D.
...which means that you either have a character that has an incredibly limited set of options relative to a wizard/sorcerer or you need to remove those spells/abilities from those classes in which case you are making them worse to justify the existence of a psychic class.
It's almost like the martial/caster divide is actually an everyone/caster divide. Like the spell system is, itself, the problem. Even WotC seems to be drifting in the direction of "just give everyone some magic" to keep play balanced and happy (I mean, not quite, but feats like Magic Initiate and other stuff point to "anyone can have some magic identity if they want").
And in a magical world where "magic" is kinda "everything," it's naturally going to be even harder to build character concepts around "no magic, no, really." Of course psionics would end up being reskinned magic, and have all the same "specialists suck when most casters are super-generalists" problem.
Which is not to say that the idea of psionics in D&D is bad. Just to say "D&D has all sorts of problems that get in the way."
A question, the "cultivators" from xianxia fiction, are they psionic manifesters? If holographic runes appear when they are casting some power then it is not psionic, but if they don't use material, verbal or somatic components, then we could say they are psions.
And a system of psionic powers could be the best option to add "superheroes" like the X-Men.
Despite some of Yurei’s examples of "meaningful”, which I assume was off the top of their head and not a fully fleshed out and tested system, I kind of agree with her. A barbarian will, the vast majority of the time, get angry, scream, and swing their greataxe recklessly no matter the subclass. It’s just the subclasses tack on a few other things like being resistant to more damage types, etc.
And I would also like to see a psychic class in the game. I just don’t see it coming in 5E. Too much of what a psi class would have as class feature are covered by spells. But I really do think the only way to separate a psi class from just being a wizard but worse is to remove all of those spells and feats that replicate a psi class feature from the game. And anything close to that would be in a 6E unfortunately.
To the first part: yes, Classes do in fact play like classes. If we were stuck with like... 4 that had no internal variation then you might have a point but that's simply not the case. A fighter, a paladin and a barbarian are all going to functionally play differently even if they are all performing the same role as a front line brick for the rest of the party. Further, having the sub-classes offering variations on the core theme means that there is less time wasted on people trying to parse out how they actually work and interact with the world around them.
As to Psionics being it's own thing... there are simply too many problems with trying to implement it as a non-casting class; Like to make say.... a telepath work you'd need to canabalize the enchantment and divination trees since those are the ones that cover effecting others mental states which means that you either have a character that has an incredibly limited set of options relative to a wizard/sorcerer or you need to remove those spells/abilities from those classes in which case you are making them worse to justify the existence of a psychic class.
None of this is saying that it's simply impossible to do this, but rather that it would require a monumental amount of effort on the part of WotC (who let's be honest are not exactly inspiring confidence atm) to create a whole new system to appeal to a niche player base to say nothing of how their are other systems out there that simply handle psionics far better then D&D.
Which is why I said it would have to be in 6E and not 5E and its update.
Conceivably I do believe it could be done in this edition building off of, as Yurei mentioned, warlock and invocations style class features and replacing the few spell slots with maybe a couple standard features. But as it stands now, with feats and spells that already cover some or most of what a psi class’s “psi invocations” would do, the class would just be a poor imitation of caster classes.
I think a new edition would be needed to do it well.
To the first part: yes, Classes do in fact play like classes. If we were stuck with like... 4 that had no internal variation then you might have a point but that's simply not the case. A fighter, a paladin and a barbarian are all going to functionally play differently even if they are all performing the same role as a front line brick for the rest of the party. Further, having the sub-classes offering variations on the core theme means that there is less time wasted on people trying to parse out how they actually work and interact with the world around them.
yes, classes play like classes and fighters will play differently than paladins or barbarians even when filling the same role in the party. That’s why we have different classes. But we are talking about subclasses and if they significantly change how a class plays compare to the same class but different subclass.
I don’t believe, like Yurei, that they have no effect. A Gloomstaker Ranger will play differently than a Drakewarden Ranger. But there are some classes/subclasses that, while providing variation in features, still play very similarly. A barbarian is going to rage and attack recklessly no matter if you are totem, ancestral, beast, or wild magic. You’re not going to strap on heavy armor and wield a rapier with DEX. A lot of clerics, no matter their domain, will be using Spiritual Weapon and/or Spirit Guardians. While an Arcane Archer fighter will play differently than a melee battle master, or Eldritch Knight.
Out of curiosity, what do psionics fans think of the Psion classes from Laserllama and KibblesTasty? I'm sure there are plenty of others as well, but those 2 seem pretty well respected among 3rd party class creators.
To the first part: yes, Classes do in fact play like classes. If we were stuck with like... 4 that had no internal variation then you might have a point but that's simply not the case. A fighter, a paladin and a barbarian are all going to functionally play differently even if they are all performing the same role as a front line brick for the rest of the party. Further, having the sub-classes offering variations on the core theme means that there is less time wasted on people trying to parse out how they actually work and interact with the world around them.
yes, classes play like classes and fighters will play differently than paladins or barbarians even when filling the same role in the party. That’s why we have different classes. But we are talking about subclasses and if they significantly change how a class plays compare to the same class but different subclass.
I don’t believe, like Yurei, that they have no effect. A Gloomstaker Ranger will play differently than a Drakewarden Ranger. But there are some classes/subclasses that, while providing variation in features, still play very similarly. A barbarian is going to rage and attack recklessly no matter if you are totem, ancestral, beast, or wild magic. You’re not going to strap on heavy armor and wield a rapier with DEX. A lot of clerics, no matter their domain, will be using Spiritual Weapon and/or Spirit Guardians. While an Arcane Archer fighter will play differently than a melee battle master, or Eldritch Knight.
And I’m fine with that.
An eagle totem barbarian could very well be a dex build, designed to avoid being hit and using finesse rage strikes while darting in and out of combat (does still have to be a str based attack, but still). My storm cleric has neither spiritual weapon nor spirit guardians prepared, let alone uses them. Even where there are trends that generate expected commonalities, that is not strictly 'by design.'
yes, classes play like classes and fighters will play differently than paladins or barbarians even when filling the same role in the party. That’s why we have different classes. But we are talking about subclasses and if they significantly change how a class plays compare to the same class but different subclass.
I don’t believe, like Yurei, that they have no effect. A Gloomstaker Ranger will play differently than a Drakewarden Ranger. But there are some classes/subclasses that, while providing variation in features, still play very similarly. A barbarian is going to rage and attack recklessly no matter if you are totem, ancestral, beast, or wild magic. You’re not going to strap on heavy armor and wield a rapier with DEX. A lot of clerics, no matter their domain, will be using Spiritual Weapon and/or Spirit Guardians. While an Arcane Archer fighter will play differently than a melee battle master, or Eldritch Knight.
And I’m fine with that.
There's a few things a subclass can do for a class:
It can do more of what the class already does. (Champion, Berserker, Hexblade, every single wizard except like one, etc, etc.)
It can let you specialize and expand on a specific part of your stuff (Moon Druid, Battlemaster)
It can give you a specific flavor of stuff that fills the class out (Monks, Warlocks)
It can break the class mold (Bladesinger, 1/3 casters)
(One can totally argue categories or specific classifications, but don't bother.)
Most of these really don't change how the class plays to any great extent. Because subclasses don't get to add that many few features and can't remove any, even the mold-breakers often don't play that differently.
To the first part: yes, Classes do in fact play like classes. If we were stuck with like... 4 that had no internal variation then you might have a point but that's simply not the case. A fighter, a paladin and a barbarian are all going to functionally play differently even if they are all performing the same role as a front line brick for the rest of the party. Further, having the sub-classes offering variations on the core theme means that there is less time wasted on people trying to parse out how they actually work and interact with the world around them.
yes, classes play like classes and fighters will play differently than paladins or barbarians even when filling the same role in the party. That’s why we have different classes. But we are talking about subclasses and if they significantly change how a class plays compare to the same class but different subclass.
I don’t believe, like Yurei, that they have no effect. A Gloomstaker Ranger will play differently than a Drakewarden Ranger. But there are some classes/subclasses that, while providing variation in features, still play very similarly. A barbarian is going to rage and attack recklessly no matter if you are totem, ancestral, beast, or wild magic. You’re not going to strap on heavy armor and wield a rapier with DEX. A lot of clerics, no matter their domain, will be using Spiritual Weapon and/or Spirit Guardians. While an Arcane Archer fighter will play differently than a melee battle master, or Eldritch Knight.
And I’m fine with that.
An eagle totem barbarian could very well be a dex build, designed to avoid being hit and using finesse rage strikes while darting in and out of combat (does still have to be a str based attack, but still). My storm cleric has neither spiritual weapon nor spirit guardians prepared, let alone uses them. Even where there are trends that generate expected commonalities, that is not strictly 'by design.'
I mean, I'd argue that you can get huge differences between Wolf and Bear totems owing to the fact that the former makes every enemy around you super vulnerable while the latter makes you super invulnerable. Thus while the actual playstyle for you doesn't change a lot beyond how easily you are going to take damage the changes that this makes to party dynamics (along with roleplay as a whole) are absolutely massive.
Which is why I said it would have to be in 6E and not 5E and its update.
Conceivably I do believe it could be done in this edition building off of, as Yurei mentioned, warlock and invocations style class features and replacing the few spell slots with maybe a couple standard features. But as it stands now, with feats and spells that already cover some or most of what a psi class’s “psi invocations” would do, the class would just be a poor imitation of caster classes.
I think a new edition would be needed to do it well.
I mean... sure?
At some hypothetical point in the distant future a new iteration of the game's ruleset could allow for the existance of psionics, heal the divide between melee and caster, have the Races with lore that doesn't get blanderfied, Giant Robots, Laser gun battles and a non-skeevy discussion on physical intimacy. It could hypothetically happen that someone is able to thread that needle.
But that isn't going to be likely to occur for several more years; 6th is basically coming out this year and all signs point to it being more of a 3.5 then a whole new rule set.
A question, the "cultivators" from xianxia fiction, are they psionic manifesters?
They're monks. Or what monks would be if they were allowed to be badasses, but since monks use a power system that isn't spellcasting, they don't get cool stuff.
At some hypothetical point in the distant future a new iteration of the game's ruleset could allow for the existance of psionics, heal the divide between melee and caster.
4th edition existed (not touching on your other points because not terribly related). It was rejected. The core problem with fixing the martial/caster divide is that lots of people don't want it fixed.
A question, the "cultivators" from xianxia fiction, are they psionic manifesters?
They're monks. Or what monks would be if they were allowed to be badasses, but since monks use a power system that isn't spellcasting, they don't get cool stuff.
At some hypothetical point in the distant future a new iteration of the game's ruleset could allow for the existance of psionics, heal the divide between melee and caster.
4th edition existed (not touching on your other points because not terribly related). It was rejected. The core problem with fixing the martial/caster divide is that lots of people don't want it fixed.
The reason 4e was rejected had nothing to do with it fixing the martial/caster divide.
At some hypothetical point in the distant future a new iteration of the game's ruleset could allow for the existance of psionics, heal the divide between melee and caster.
4th edition existed (not touching on your other points because not terribly related). It was rejected. The core problem with fixing the martial/caster divide is that lots of people don't want it fixed.
I mean yes: 4e existed and it worked really good for psi (as I've acknowledged in the past) but 4e was also a radical departure from the mechanical systems and design theory that had existed for decades before that. It was also pretty roundly rejected by the player base because of that. I say this as someone who really liked 4th as a sort of "saturday morning cartoon" game as opposed to 3rd with it's "We're going to present you with the illusion of multitudes of choices and balanced systems" approach.
As to the rest of it (which is just as valid) my point was that if we're talking about pure hypotheticals with no real ties to reality then literally anything is possible; it's shcroedingrs cat if you also a word processer, 2 more cats and a lighter.
It's almost like the martial/caster divide is actually an everyone/caster divide. Like the spell system is, itself, the problem. Even WotC seems to be drifting in the direction of "just give everyone some magic" to keep play balanced and happy (I mean, not quite, but feats like Magic Initiate and other stuff point to "anyone can have some magic identity if they want").
And in a magical world where "magic" is kinda "everything," it's naturally going to be even harder to build character concepts around "no magic, no, really." Of course psionics would end up being reskinned magic, and have all the same "specialists suck when most casters are super-generalists" problem.
Which is not to say that the idea of psionics in D&D is bad. Just to say "D&D has all sorts of problems that get in the way."
No magic just isn't realistic past low level play. Even a Champion Fighter or Thief Rogue will end up wanting, and being expected to have, useful magic items later in their careers. And if we're doing that, well, we might as well make it so everyone can pick up cantrips and basic rituals if they want, or be able to have some kind of magical heritage like being touched by fey, or unlock latent psychic abilities of some kind.
Out of curiosity, what do psionics fans think of the Psion classes from Laserllama and KibblesTasty? I'm sure there are plenty of others as well, but those 2 seem pretty well respected among 3rd party class creators.
I can't speak for Yurei or any of the others who want a psion class but my guess is that Laserllama's attempt would be rejected because it uses the spellcasting system. KibblesTasty's might be closer to what they want, I'll need more time to look through it.
The reason 4e was rejected had nothing to do with it fixing the martial/caster divide.
I mean, you say that, but I struggle to see a way of "fixing it" that doesn't at least approach what 4e attempted to do, i.e. removing the divide entirely by giving everyone "powers" with different coats of paint.
It's almost like the martial/caster divide is actually an everyone/caster divide. Like the spell system is, itself, the problem. Even WotC seems to be drifting in the direction of "just give everyone some magic" to keep play balanced and happy (I mean, not quite, but feats like Magic Initiate and other stuff point to "anyone can have some magic identity if they want").
And in a magical world where "magic" is kinda "everything," it's naturally going to be even harder to build character concepts around "no magic, no, really." Of course psionics would end up being reskinned magic, and have all the same "specialists suck when most casters are super-generalists" problem.
Which is not to say that the idea of psionics in D&D is bad. Just to say "D&D has all sorts of problems that get in the way."
No magic just isn't realistic past low level play. Even a Champion Fighter or Thief Rogue will end up wanting, and being expected to have, useful magic items later in their careers. And if we're doing that, well, we might as well make it so everyone can pick up cantrips and basic rituals if they want, or be able to have some kind of magical heritage like being touched by fey, or unlock latent psychic abilities of some kind.
Well, I was referring to the argument that psionics need to be fundamentally/mechanically "not magic," though, yeah, the problem also exists with the concept of "martial, meaning no spells ever."
Basically, what you describe is D&D "doing its best" to deal with fundamental problems in its design. The spell system is just so broad and pervasive to the game as a whole that ~every class needs to use it to have fun. (And it means that some classes like Wizard can "specialize" in "being good at everything" which undermines the idea of a class-based system...)
The reason 4e was rejected had nothing to do with it fixing the martial/caster divide.
It was absolutely the reason it was rejected. The complaints about 4e were all about homogenization, and fundamentally, you can't fix the martial/caster divide without homogenization of capabilities. It doesn't have to be done in the same way as 4e, you can instead go way over the top on what martial characters can do, but you really can't fix the divide without normalization of resources, and that's the key thing 4e did.
The reason 4e was rejected had nothing to do with it fixing the martial/caster divide.
It was absolutely the reason it was rejected. The complaints about 4e were all about homogenization, and fundamentally, you can't fix the martial/caster divide without homogenization of capabilities. It doesn't have to be done in the same way as 4e, you can instead go way over the top on what martial characters can do, but you really can't fix the divide without normalization of resources, and that's the key thing 4e did.
The reason 4e was rejected had nothing to do with it fixing the martial/caster divide.
It was absolutely the reason it was rejected. The complaints about 4e were all about homogenization, and fundamentally, you can't fix the martial/caster divide without homogenization of capabilities. It doesn't have to be done in the same way as 4e, you can instead go way over the top on what martial characters can do, but you really can't fix the divide without normalization of resources, and that's the key thing 4e did.
There was a long list of complaints about 4e that were not about the martial/caster divide.
It's almost like the martial/caster divide is actually an everyone/caster divide. Like the spell system is, itself, the problem. Even WotC seems to be drifting in the direction of "just give everyone some magic" to keep play balanced and happy (I mean, not quite, but feats like Magic Initiate and other stuff point to "anyone can have some magic identity if they want").
And in a magical world where "magic" is kinda "everything," it's naturally going to be even harder to build character concepts around "no magic, no, really." Of course psionics would end up being reskinned magic, and have all the same "specialists suck when most casters are super-generalists" problem.
Which is not to say that the idea of psionics in D&D is bad. Just to say "D&D has all sorts of problems that get in the way."
No magic just isn't realistic past low level play. Even a Champion Fighter or Thief Rogue will end up wanting, and being expected to have, useful magic items later in their careers. And if we're doing that, well, we might as well make it so everyone can pick up cantrips and basic rituals if they want, or be able to have some kind of magical heritage like being touched by fey, or unlock latent psychic abilities of some kind.
Out of curiosity, what do psionics fans think of the Psion classes from Laserllama and KibblesTasty? I'm sure there are plenty of others as well, but those 2 seem pretty well respected among 3rd party class creators.
I can't speak for Yurei or any of the others who want a psion class but my guess is that Laserllama's attempt would be rejected because it uses the spellcasting system. KibblesTasty's might be closer to what they want, I'll need more time to look through it.
The reason 4e was rejected had nothing to do with it fixing the martial/caster divide.
I mean, you say that, but I struggle to see a way of "fixing it" that doesn't at least approach what 4e attempted to do, i.e. removing the divide entirely by giving everyone "powers" with different coats of paint.
The problem wasn’t that it gave everyone powers. I’m all in for giving all characters powers.
The problems with 4e were too many to count, but mostly revolve around the attempt to make it a video game. The narrative drama was replaced with dice mechanics for everything.
The reason 4e was rejected had nothing to do with it fixing the martial/caster divide.
It was absolutely the reason it was rejected. The complaints about 4e were all about homogenization, and fundamentally, you can't fix the martial/caster divide without homogenization of capabilities. It doesn't have to be done in the same way as 4e, you can instead go way over the top on what martial characters can do, but you really can't fix the divide without normalization of resources, and that's the key thing 4e did.
Any assertion of "why 4e failed" (And I will note that by "failed", we. mean "sold more books over the course of its life than anything else in the business did, with only pathfinder maybe coming close") is almost certainly oversimplifying at best. It will have been multicausal, and even WotC probably don't fully understand, and they have market data we don't. (My personal theory is that the main cause is likely to have been the fact that if you aren't into complex tactical combat, it wasn't the game for you, but I know that I don't know.) Very loud people on the internet have their own opinions, but loud people on the internet are often not representative.
But 4e's success is off-topic. It didn't fail because it had viable psychic characters. It's a model for having them, but not one that's likely to be tried again soon.
You also don't need to fix the martial-caster divide to have psychic classes. Thy can fall on one side or the other, or even in the middle.
I mean yes: 4e existed and it worked really good for psi (as I've acknowledged in the past) but 4e was also a radical departure from the mechanical systems and design theory that had existed for decades before that. It was also pretty roundly rejected by the player base because of that. I say this as someone who really liked 4th as a sort of "saturday morning cartoon" game as opposed to 3rd with it's "We're going to present you with the illusion of multitudes of choices and balanced systems" approach.
As to the rest of it (which is just as valid) my point was that if we're talking about pure hypotheticals with no real ties to reality then literally anything is possible; it's shcroedingrs cat if you also a word processer, 2 more cats and a lighter.
While the 4th edition of D&D failed to meet Hasbro’s objectives, it wasn’t a failure as a game system. In fact, it was one of the best I’ve played—remarkably balanced and effective at streamlining gameplay. By the end of 3.5, each turn could drag on for 20-30 minutes, leaving players bored and impatient. The 4th edition addressed this issue, and I’d be thrilled to see its mechanics revived in some form, perhaps for other Wizards of the Coast properties that aren’t as dependent on the traditional D&D model.
Regarding the psionics of past editions, they were somewhat-balanced, and the psionic class functioned as intended. However, the lack of uniformity in the 5th edition’s design philosophy would likely hinder the integration of such a class. This is because the success of the psionic class in previous editions was due in part to a consistent gameplay cycle across all classes. The 5th edition, on the other hand, revisited the approach of 3.5, simplifying it and removing many complex mechanics, which included elements that supported the psionic class.
The 5th edition stands on its own, and while it’s interesting to reflect on previous systems, direct comparisons aren’t entirely practical. If we were to liken the editions to food, 1.0 through AD&D 2.0 would be apples, 3rd and 3.5 would be oranges, 4th would be a chocolate bar, and 5th would be a banana—with 5.5 potentially being a chocolate-covered banana.
Note: The 4th edition’s failure to fulfill Hasbro’s ambitions wasn’t due to poor sales or a lack of community engagement. D&D has consistently been the top-selling tabletop role-playing game, and the 4th edition was no exception. It’s speculated that Hasbro’s goals involved leveraging the Open Game License (OGL). Unlike previous editions, the 4th edition was not released under the OGL; instead, it offered a licensing agreement that granted Hasbro rights to derivative games. To my knowledge, this was not widely adopted, except by Hasbro’s own subdivisions—for instance, My Little Pony received a 4th edition release. Meanwhile, smaller game studios that had thrived under the D20 system continued to do so under the OGL, and companies that had traditionally collaborated with Wizards of the Coast branched out on their own, such as with Pathfinder. It seems Hasbro attempted to monopolize a niche market and did not succeed, prompting Wizards of the Coast to create the 5th edition in an effort to reconcile with the community.
Despite some of Yurei’s examples of "meaningful”, which I assume was off the top of their head and not a fully fleshed out and tested system, I kind of agree with her. A barbarian will, the vast majority of the time, get angry, scream, and swing their greataxe recklessly no matter the subclass. It’s just the subclasses tack on a few other things like being resistant to more damage types, etc.
And I would also like to see a psychic class in the game. I just don’t see it coming in 5E. Too much of what a psi class would have as class feature are covered by spells. But I really do think the only way to separate a psi class from just being a wizard but worse is to remove all of those spells and feats that replicate a psi class feature from the game. And anything close to that would be in a 6E unfortunately.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
To the first part: yes, Classes do in fact play like classes. If we were stuck with like... 4 that had no internal variation then you might have a point but that's simply not the case. A fighter, a paladin and a barbarian are all going to functionally play differently even if they are all performing the same role as a front line brick for the rest of the party. Further, having the sub-classes offering variations on the core theme means that there is less time wasted on people trying to parse out how they actually work and interact with the world around them.
As to Psionics being it's own thing... there are simply too many problems with trying to implement it as a non-casting class; Like to make say.... a telepath work you'd need to canabalize the enchantment and divination trees since those are the ones that cover effecting others mental states which means that you either have a character that has an incredibly limited set of options relative to a wizard/sorcerer or you need to remove those spells/abilities from those classes in which case you are making them worse to justify the existence of a psychic class.
None of this is saying that it's simply impossible to do this, but rather that it would require a monumental amount of effort on the part of WotC (who let's be honest are not exactly inspiring confidence atm) to create a whole new system to appeal to a niche player base to say nothing of how their are other systems out there that simply handle psionics far better then D&D.
It's almost like the martial/caster divide is actually an everyone/caster divide. Like the spell system is, itself, the problem. Even WotC seems to be drifting in the direction of "just give everyone some magic" to keep play balanced and happy (I mean, not quite, but feats like Magic Initiate and other stuff point to "anyone can have some magic identity if they want").
And in a magical world where "magic" is kinda "everything," it's naturally going to be even harder to build character concepts around "no magic, no, really." Of course psionics would end up being reskinned magic, and have all the same "specialists suck when most casters are super-generalists" problem.
Which is not to say that the idea of psionics in D&D is bad. Just to say "D&D has all sorts of problems that get in the way."
A question, the "cultivators" from xianxia fiction, are they psionic manifesters? If holographic runes appear when they are casting some power then it is not psionic, but if they don't use material, verbal or somatic components, then we could say they are psions.
And a system of psionic powers could be the best option to add "superheroes" like the X-Men.
Which is why I said it would have to be in 6E and not 5E and its update.
Conceivably I do believe it could be done in this edition building off of, as Yurei mentioned, warlock and invocations style class features and replacing the few spell slots with maybe a couple standard features. But as it stands now, with feats and spells that already cover some or most of what a psi class’s “psi invocations” would do, the class would just be a poor imitation of caster classes.
I think a new edition would be needed to do it well.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
yes, classes play like classes and fighters will play differently than paladins or barbarians even when filling the same role in the party. That’s why we have different classes. But we are talking about subclasses and if they significantly change how a class plays compare to the same class but different subclass.
I don’t believe, like Yurei, that they have no effect. A Gloomstaker Ranger will play differently than a Drakewarden Ranger. But there are some classes/subclasses that, while providing variation in features, still play very similarly. A barbarian is going to rage and attack recklessly no matter if you are totem, ancestral, beast, or wild magic. You’re not going to strap on heavy armor and wield a rapier with DEX. A lot of clerics, no matter their domain, will be using Spiritual Weapon and/or Spirit Guardians. While an Arcane Archer fighter will play differently than a melee battle master, or Eldritch Knight.
And I’m fine with that.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Out of curiosity, what do psionics fans think of the Psion classes from Laserllama and KibblesTasty? I'm sure there are plenty of others as well, but those 2 seem pretty well respected among 3rd party class creators.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e7eab9fcc76e2321541f8b3/t/62d709d380489f6b1a28754b/1658259926628/Psion+1.5.3+Compressed.pdf
https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-MPkCSxSj0OETiEd3Pyf
An eagle totem barbarian could very well be a dex build, designed to avoid being hit and using finesse rage strikes while darting in and out of combat (does still have to be a str based attack, but still). My storm cleric has neither spiritual weapon nor spirit guardians prepared, let alone uses them. Even where there are trends that generate expected commonalities, that is not strictly 'by design.'
There's a few things a subclass can do for a class:
(One can totally argue categories or specific classifications, but don't bother.)
Most of these really don't change how the class plays to any great extent. Because subclasses don't get to add that many few features and can't remove any, even the mold-breakers often don't play that differently.
I mean, I'd argue that you can get huge differences between Wolf and Bear totems owing to the fact that the former makes every enemy around you super vulnerable while the latter makes you super invulnerable. Thus while the actual playstyle for you doesn't change a lot beyond how easily you are going to take damage the changes that this makes to party dynamics (along with roleplay as a whole) are absolutely massive.
I mean... sure?
At some hypothetical point in the distant future a new iteration of the game's ruleset could allow for the existance of psionics, heal the divide between melee and caster, have the Races with lore that doesn't get blanderfied, Giant Robots, Laser gun battles and a non-skeevy discussion on physical intimacy. It could hypothetically happen that someone is able to thread that needle.
But that isn't going to be likely to occur for several more years; 6th is basically coming out this year and all signs point to it being more of a 3.5 then a whole new rule set.
They're monks. Or what monks would be if they were allowed to be badasses, but since monks use a power system that isn't spellcasting, they don't get cool stuff.
4th edition existed (not touching on your other points because not terribly related). It was rejected. The core problem with fixing the martial/caster divide is that lots of people don't want it fixed.
The reason 4e was rejected had nothing to do with it fixing the martial/caster divide.
I mean yes: 4e existed and it worked really good for psi (as I've acknowledged in the past) but 4e was also a radical departure from the mechanical systems and design theory that had existed for decades before that. It was also pretty roundly rejected by the player base because of that. I say this as someone who really liked 4th as a sort of "saturday morning cartoon" game as opposed to 3rd with it's "We're going to present you with the illusion of multitudes of choices and balanced systems" approach.
As to the rest of it (which is just as valid) my point was that if we're talking about pure hypotheticals with no real ties to reality then literally anything is possible; it's shcroedingrs cat if you also a word processer, 2 more cats and a lighter.
No magic just isn't realistic past low level play. Even a Champion Fighter or Thief Rogue will end up wanting, and being expected to have, useful magic items later in their careers. And if we're doing that, well, we might as well make it so everyone can pick up cantrips and basic rituals if they want, or be able to have some kind of magical heritage like being touched by fey, or unlock latent psychic abilities of some kind.
I can't speak for Yurei or any of the others who want a psion class but my guess is that Laserllama's attempt would be rejected because it uses the spellcasting system. KibblesTasty's might be closer to what they want, I'll need more time to look through it.
I mean, you say that, but I struggle to see a way of "fixing it" that doesn't at least approach what 4e attempted to do, i.e. removing the divide entirely by giving everyone "powers" with different coats of paint.
Well, I was referring to the argument that psionics need to be fundamentally/mechanically "not magic," though, yeah, the problem also exists with the concept of "martial, meaning no spells ever."
Basically, what you describe is D&D "doing its best" to deal with fundamental problems in its design. The spell system is just so broad and pervasive to the game as a whole that ~every class needs to use it to have fun. (And it means that some classes like Wizard can "specialize" in "being good at everything" which undermines the idea of a class-based system...)
It was absolutely the reason it was rejected. The complaints about 4e were all about homogenization, and fundamentally, you can't fix the martial/caster divide without homogenization of capabilities. It doesn't have to be done in the same way as 4e, you can instead go way over the top on what martial characters can do, but you really can't fix the divide without normalization of resources, and that's the key thing 4e did.
There was a long list of complaints about 4e that were not about the martial/caster divide.
The problem wasn’t that it gave everyone powers. I’m all in for giving all characters powers.
The problems with 4e were too many to count, but mostly revolve around the attempt to make it a video game. The narrative drama was replaced with dice mechanics for everything.
Any assertion of "why 4e failed" (And I will note that by "failed", we. mean "sold more books over the course of its life than anything else in the business did, with only pathfinder maybe coming close") is almost certainly oversimplifying at best. It will have been multicausal, and even WotC probably don't fully understand, and they have market data we don't. (My personal theory is that the main cause is likely to have been the fact that if you aren't into complex tactical combat, it wasn't the game for you, but I know that I don't know.) Very loud people on the internet have their own opinions, but loud people on the internet are often not representative.
But 4e's success is off-topic. It didn't fail because it had viable psychic characters. It's a model for having them, but not one that's likely to be tried again soon.
You also don't need to fix the martial-caster divide to have psychic classes. Thy can fall on one side or the other, or even in the middle.
While the 4th edition of D&D failed to meet Hasbro’s objectives, it wasn’t a failure as a game system. In fact, it was one of the best I’ve played—remarkably balanced and effective at streamlining gameplay. By the end of 3.5, each turn could drag on for 20-30 minutes, leaving players bored and impatient. The 4th edition addressed this issue, and I’d be thrilled to see its mechanics revived in some form, perhaps for other Wizards of the Coast properties that aren’t as dependent on the traditional D&D model.
Regarding the psionics of past editions, they were somewhat-balanced, and the psionic class functioned as intended. However, the lack of uniformity in the 5th edition’s design philosophy would likely hinder the integration of such a class. This is because the success of the psionic class in previous editions was due in part to a consistent gameplay cycle across all classes. The 5th edition, on the other hand, revisited the approach of 3.5, simplifying it and removing many complex mechanics, which included elements that supported the psionic class.
The 5th edition stands on its own, and while it’s interesting to reflect on previous systems, direct comparisons aren’t entirely practical. If we were to liken the editions to food, 1.0 through AD&D 2.0 would be apples, 3rd and 3.5 would be oranges, 4th would be a chocolate bar, and 5th would be a banana—with 5.5 potentially being a chocolate-covered banana.
Note: The 4th edition’s failure to fulfill Hasbro’s ambitions wasn’t due to poor sales or a lack of community engagement. D&D has consistently been the top-selling tabletop role-playing game, and the 4th edition was no exception. It’s speculated that Hasbro’s goals involved leveraging the Open Game License (OGL). Unlike previous editions, the 4th edition was not released under the OGL; instead, it offered a licensing agreement that granted Hasbro rights to derivative games. To my knowledge, this was not widely adopted, except by Hasbro’s own subdivisions—for instance, My Little Pony received a 4th edition release. Meanwhile, smaller game studios that had thrived under the D20 system continued to do so under the OGL, and companies that had traditionally collaborated with Wizards of the Coast branched out on their own, such as with Pathfinder. It seems Hasbro attempted to monopolize a niche market and did not succeed, prompting Wizards of the Coast to create the 5th edition in an effort to reconcile with the community.
And a Happy Pride Month to those celebrating!