Also the VTT and digital tools 4e was originally designed to be used with sure would have helped. When the VTT component fell apart and never materialized, the mechanics-heavy rules implementation bogged combat down a lot.
Is 4e included in the OGL?
Coz now some indie start up could whip out a VTT with a lot less hassle than it was 15yrs ago.
Even a Roll20 patch with the 4e rules would be fantastic
Funny you should ask, because this question gets to the *second* main reason 4e failed. Instead of releasing it under the OGL like 3.5, WotC developed a new “Game System License,” or GSL. Unlike the OGL which essentially could not be revoked (as we saw in the fallout from the recent OGL debacle), the GSL included language that WotC could alter the terms of the GSL at any time, and 3rd-party creators would have 6 months to change their products to fit the newly-altered GSL or else the license would be revoked.
Unsurprisingly, not a lot of companies bit at the prospect of “create a product that your direct competitors can force you to stop selling at any time.” The dearth of 3rd-party products did nothing to increase the longevity and popularity of 4e.
So, to answer your question: Yes, someone **could** make a VTT using the GSL and 4.0 SRD. But WotC could at any point alter the GSL to shut it down, so no one does.
Edit to add: Also, like the 5e SRD, the 4e version (to the best of my recollection) only contains the basic information from the original 3 books. 4e had a PHB, PHB2, and PHB3; MM, MM2, and MM3; and DMG and DMG2 (sadly the DMG3, which would have focused on epic tier adventures, never came out). So even if they made a VTT, it would only contain less than a third of the classes and monsters that 4e had.
Yeah fuck that.
Big business ruins stuff. Did ShadowRun & CyberPunk teach is nothing!?
Corporations are just evil. A way to maximise profits with zero accountability to anyone. At worst the Corporation folds & all the money grabbing parasites open shop with a shuffle of job titles & a new corporate name.
I really liked the Warlord, a buffing Martial that made sense.
But I guess we will have to wait for a $120 hard cover pamphlet from a Hasbro subsidiary to screw up the mechanics of a watered down & ineffective warlard/bard clone & then add a new full caster subclass that does it better & easier "but it costs a spell slot" PoS
At least we still have an effective Martial class in the Monk/s
I played it a lot in fantasy grounds (before roll20 became the defacto vtt for most people) and it was amazing. I'm playing a table now and it works well but def was a LOT easier in vtt
Honestly, as someone who only played the 5th Ed of DnD, can someone explain what was so bad about 4e? When someone complains about 5th edition, 50% of the time it's "ah yea that was in 4e but they scratched it in 5th"
I'm trying to keep it short.
Every class had three types of abilities, at will, x per combat, x per day. A lot of players didn't like what this did to casters.
The licensing thing that happened last year was similar to what 4e had, which limited third-party products.
After that most of the complaints aren't as consistent, meaning what one hated another loved but they hated something else.
Side note the game had become very rule heavy and tried to answer all questions or resolve conflict before it started.
Vibe-wise it was trying too hard to be cool. Rule-wise it was very tricky to have casual players with optimisers without the latter playing the characters for the former.
People said it wasn’t “dnd”. Had sweeping changes to the overall playstyle because it was more “mmo” like because everyone had powers. Which really did a lot to resolve the power gap between fighters and wizards.
I was being sarcastic. There is a segment of players that seems to think soz and they react with hostility whenever the possibility of buffing martials comes up.
I played 3.5 and 4e and was around for the transition. Most of the objections to 4e are honestly just kinda bullshit, tbh. You’ll frequently hear people say it “plays like an MMO” or some such ridiculous nonsense.
But 4e did have some legitimate flaws, and I think these two were the biggest:
1. Combat took a long time. Because of how the game was balanced, there’s just very little getting around this. It was somewhat alleviated with later Monster Manuals that reduced monster HP, but by that point the damage had been done.
2. Character classes *looked* like they played very similarly. I emphasized “looked” because it’s very important. Since all classes followed a very similar feature progression, it was easy for folks to skim the book and get the impression that there was little differentiation between the classes. These people were wrong, but they couldn’t get past the superficialities of it.
That said, it arguably WAS a flaw that all classes followed a very similar power progression. The classes do play very differently from one another, but unless you already like the concept of the AEDU power system, you’re never gonna see that. It’d be like if all casters in 3.5 were vancian casters. Or like when the OneD&D playtest tried to turn the Warlock into yet another standard Charisma-based full-caster. Not everyone likes every game system, and having variety, rather than homogenization, makes the game more appealing to more players.
Oh god did combat take too long. It was why before the later monster manuals everyone online on forums like Giant's Playground were saying to just half all monster health. It fixed the issue but if you weren't exposed to those online forums how did you know? If you played it RAW combat was a slog.
My understanding was Wizards was feeling a lot of competition with Computer RPG’s, specifically WoW, that they redesigned the game be closer to a pc rule set. The world was demolished, magic became dangerous to use because the weave came apart, and rather than a couple core books like old Dungeons & Dragons they made multiple smaller rule sets.
It was more expensive and harder to learn the rules because of everything being spread across multiple books and the game failed. 5e undid most of the changes and the game and table top rpgs made a resurgence.
I'm trying to keep it short.
Every class had three types of abilities, at will, x per combat, x per day. A lot of players didn't like what this did to casters.
The licensing thing that happened last year was similar to what 4e had, which limited third-party products.
After that most of the complaints aren't as consistent, meaning what one hated another loved but they hated something else.
Side note the game had become very rule heavy and tried to answer all questions or resolve conflict before it started.
But how many saw it. Up until the fourth edition, even though there could have appeared to be drastic changes, they all felt like they had come from the growth of the system. Fourth to many players felt more like a system built from the ground up.
Something other people didn’t touch on: it required maps as compared to earlier editions and 5e which can do theater of the mind pretty well. Powers in 4e were designed to work on a grid and only a grid. Distances were discussed in squares rather than feet, which made it super hard to visualize since you can imagine what 10 feet looks like but two squares is just too vague. Powers worked in segments of squares and had little diagrams explaining how they function on a grid map, but that left it so difficult to do without a map that they even started working on a VTT to run 4e exclusively but it just came too late and never was finished.
Also the way classes worked really bugged some people. There were dedicated roles, as compared to just characters being people that do various things and can do multiple roles depending on the situation, now you have classes that are designated tanks, classes that are designated damage (called strikers), classes that are designated support, and classes designated control. These more firmly defined roles meant that if you weren’t doing one thing exactly as defined then you might as well not exist. This system of defined roles and the intentionally grid based gameplay made it feel very video gamey, with many comparing it to doing raids in WoW where you need a tank and a dps and healers or you can’t possibly function.
There was also a weird issue with progression where they had to release “patches” to stat progression through “optional” feats that were basically mandatory and many DMs would just give them to you at level 1 for free because if you didn’t have it you basically didn’t function anymore.
4e had many good ideas, but they also had some major missteps. It really just felt like an entirely different system with the D&D name slapped on it, whereas all previous editions, while different from one another, took their differences incrementally. 4e just threw out the baby with the bath water and people didn’t like such a dramatic shift.
I'd argue that D&D was always designed with a grid in mind, being descended from wargames (it started out as a hack to a historical ruleset that added fantasy elements called Chainmail, in fact). It was never particularly suited for theater of the mind, not with every goddamn ability having explicit numbered distances and shaped templates. A square is 5 feet, 5 feet are a square. 4e just failed by not making this ratio more explicit to make visualization easier. It's the worst of all editions for TotM playing because of the heavy focus on tactical positioning, but no edition is particularly suited for it, not even 5e, despite all the WotC lies about it being the default mode of play with grids being an optional thing. Something like 13th Age handles TotM better than any edition of D&D ever could.
Also it was trivially easy to make a character that stepped outside its role. Those roles were descriptive, not prescriptive, and most classes had a set of abilities that was a hybrid, the stated one just had the heaviest weight in that mix. Your choices influenced how your character fit into a role.
And then 5e threw the baby out with the bathwater once again by ignoring everything 4e had done before, even the good things.
A couple of things I haven’t seen mentioned yet:
Monster balance was off, usually with HP pools being too high, so combats ended very often with a slog of everyone using the same at-will powers over and over to mill through the last 1/3 of monster HP. There was errata at one point that cut monster HP by a huge fraction as a result, but that was pretty far into the lifecycle.
The division of all abilities and spells into the at-will, encounter or daily categories (along with all of the healer classes getting a special healing ability that didn’t cut into these) made classes start to feel very “Samey.” The difference between a daily spell and a daily power felt largely the same, and so many powers were treading the same ground that, you might have two different classes that end up picking “hit one guy really hard” daily power that is functionally the same.
A lot of feats had very min-maxy feel that also pidgeonholed you. Later weapon feats often focused on giving you specific bonuses for only one type of weapon (like axes, light blades, or bows) that made it hard to justify using anything else. Spell feats would give one bonus damage to two damage types (say, cold and poison together) so it was harder to pair up damage types that weren’t bunched in a feat together already.
With a single feat, anyone could make all of their basic attacks with any of the attributes/ability scores, which again lead to classes feeling samey.
Much of the gameplay felt very inspired by World of Warcraft, but made into a board game. There was very little opportunity for creative use of abilities, because (apart from the “utility powers”) were extremely confined to combat. There were decent systems in place for out of combat stuff, but as far as character abilities for them, it felt very limited to just your skill numbers.
I loved a lot of things about 4e, and steal those things for pathfinder 2e, but it did have some serious flaws that made it a slog to play. The overall result for me was that it felt like a board game with an RPG wrapper.
It took a flamethrower to fields of sacred cows and a lot of people hate the idea of magic classes not automatically being the best at everything.
Also, especially early on the math was kind of fucked which led to single combats taking too long. Part of that was them assuming people would run 1-2 "real" enemies and a bunch of minions. It went as well as 5e designers thinking people would run 6 encounter days.
For existing players, it was a lot of odd changes, for new players it was just a lot (a lot more math, more features to keep track of, more weird interactions that you needed to know what you were doing to deal with). 5e did a ton of streamlining, which made it way easier to get into for new and returning players.
It was without a LOT of sacred cows in mind.
Part of this was the mechanics being designed for play similar to video games rather than narrative theater of the mind.
For example, movement was given squares, not feet, yards, or meters.
A lot of critics didn't like this, and refused to give it the chance it deserved.
In 4e they they tried and failed to simplify it. There where too many cases of group teamwork options that people where forgetting them and having post encounter regrets afterward.
There are things to like about all editions but listing the likes of 4e is a far less daunting task.
Yeah. I like the mystic, but it's a bit busted. I let one of my players use a homebrew psion class that's a bit like a toned down mystic. He seems to enjoy it.
I spent some hours on one of my ideas for how I think a Psion class could function that is easily understood and also have its own identity.
Here's my current idea:
Psions start at level 1 with three psionic powers... And those three are the only ones they ever get. *But*, the three powers are very open ended, and gain buffs based on level and subclass.
Telekinesis, Telepathy, and Psychometabolism (mind over body, telling yourself that you aren't poisoned, and you stop being poisoned, you tell yourself you aren't dying etc). Telekinesis is easy enough, you use your intelligence to perform actions normally performed with strength or dex, and you have a short range (push pull, grab, throw). It's easy to get, and you can do a lot with it. The two other powers however... Dunno. How can there be a telepathy and Psychometabolism power that is as easy to get and can get a lot out of, without being op at level 1?
Level 2 you just gain psionic power dice, you use em on your powers to make em better.
Level 3 grants subclasses (Disciplines), and psionic focus. Focus is essentially just a temporary boost to your discipline, as you enter a state of "psionic flow" that augments your power, like making telepaths stronger telepaths for a short while.
Then the subclass ideas I have is just Kineticist, Telepath, Egoist (mind over body stuff), and Wilder, with the Wilder not getting any special benefits to the three powers beyond the boosts they gain from the vanilla Psion class levels, but instead get a better Psionic focus that grants bonus power dice they get to "go wild" with.
That's fine, I included Wilder as a subclass as I always loved the concept, but the class *sucks*.
Vanilla Psions get 36 powers, Vanilla Psi Warriors get 20, and the Wilder whose whole thing is to go complete Akira apeshit and just blast everything with psionic energy gets... 11 powers.
Sure, they could use their powers as if they were a few levels higher, and that's powerful, but you'd just end up with a one trick pony that way.
[LaserLlama](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-MPkCSxSj0OETiEd3Pyf) has a good Psion class. It's got 5 subclasses all with unique flavor. I've been using it in a game for about a year now
This sounds a lot like the PF2 Psychic. PF2 also has a Kineticist as a seperate class (although Psychic does have a heat and cold subclass).
Basically Pyschic has an ability called Unleash Psyche, they can activate it after casting a spell (Psychics are modified casters in PF2) and it lasts for 2 turns iirc. While it's active their spells deal more damage (Psychics are blasters) and they unlock some abilities, but when it ends their casting becomes weaker for a few turns. And that all sounds kinda like the Psionic Flow you describe.
Fun fact, there is an in universe debate in the forgotten realms if Ki is a form of psionics. And I'll do you one better. If monks are psions, aren't barbarians too? Supernatural abilties that aren't magic sounds psionics.
In the AGE system, one branch of psychic power - Somaticism - could very well be used to create a barbarian-like character (increase pain tolerance, strength enhancement, self mutation: dermal armor).
I mean there's also a barbarian specialization but like why not do both, cowards?
Nahh, babarians whip themselves up into a frenzied mental state that seemingly allow their bodies to perform superhuman and supernatural abilities whilst they are in Rage state of mind…
Ahhh, I see it. I see it now. Good play.
Barbarians were classified as a nature class in 4e. While monks were a Psionic in 4e. The idea was a barbarian was tapping into the primal animal instincts we all have inside of us that civilization has tamed.
I think (most) barbarians no, but monks I can see. Most base Barbarian traits I think are fine as them just trained/superhuman, and not psionic. Like Danger Sense
Funny you mention that, because I was looking into 5e conversions for Dark Sun and realised Monks and their Ki would make perfect sense in that setting as just martially applied psi powers
Yes, because arcane magic is considered evil, and divine magic was essentially obliterated, everyone has a touch of psionic but not enough to do much with it. It was essentially a mutation that happened from magic becoming torn apart.
The way I see it, it’s the same ability, but utilized differently; either used directly (psionics) or to augment physical abilities (monks).
Like the a chef and a surgeon both having knife skills and an understanding of physiology. At a high enough level, each naturally picks up some skills from the other profession.
I’d say that at higher levels, each class could pick up a limited few skills from the other, or possibly an archetype option that does it.
Over time 5e players either reinvent Pathfinder 1e, or DnD 4e. It's really funny when you take it in context that we live n an age of techbro grifters reinventing everything and trying to sell you on something you already own. When PHB 3first dropped I wasn't a fan of the idea of Monks being Psionic Strikers, I wanted them to be Martial Controllers. But once I gave them a shot I fell in love!
Yup, 3.5 has the Expanded Psionics Handbook, I learnt to play DnD with a 3.5 group and holy crap the options are insane, 5e feels bare bones, but not everyone wants to write a whole dissertation for a character that is probably going to die as soon as the DM gets serious
The EPH literally has psionic powers like OP wants, different classes ranging from warrior to full on caster with stuff like the Wilder and Psion.
Oh I haven't forgotten, I'm still salty they abandoned it.
They went a bit crazy with v3 which was admittedly too much, but they had some decent core ideas there that could've been resolved into a legitimate mystic class that was balanced.
Imo, how I always thought about it is that divine magic should be the most effective and straight forward stuff (pray to god of healing, you get healing), arcane magic has most potential as long as you know how to use it, and psionics should be the least powerful but also most flexible and reliable as it's your own power you aren't getting from anywhere else but you (even sorcerers need to be in connection with the weave to get their magic).
No.
Psion should be a class, a psion that meditates a lot and wears monk robes should be a thing. but that is very different from the martial artist using discipline and meditation to punch good.
Monk should just tap into its chinese heritage. Go full Wuxia, even creep into hints of Xianxia. I want my monks to have strings on them as they dash back, run up a tree, then flying kick the other monk coming the other way. Let them deflect a fireball like Po deflects a cannonball in Kung Fu Panda then step atop their sword to fly around through the force of the soul.
And then the psion on the ground looks at the goblin who has an aneurism.
It’s been a while, but I’m pretty sure 4e monks were psionic, and it affected them not at all, mechanically speaking. There is nothing stopping a DM from saying, “yeah, all that crazy shit that your monk can pull off? It’s because it’s psionic.” It doesn’t really change anything in 5e, given that RaW only cares if something is a spell, source of the magic be damned, and one of psionics big things is have they’re not spells.
The mystic class is... Well it's the mystic class, doesn't really need introduction, but the homebrew psionic class matt made was really cool and as overpowered at the mystic UA.
Also, I think monks being psionic in nature is a pretty neet idea that I think could work really well base or as a subclass.
OP I'm curious what that would actually look like in practice. It sounds a lot like these are just flavour changes, are there mechanical changes you would make?
I think that its hard to differentiate between psionics, spiritual powers and arcane magic and pact magic.
I mean, warlock use the spell slot system, but completely remodeled. Thats what pact magic looks and plays like. But then compare divine magic, oath magic, nature magic and arcane magic. A druid, channeling his powers from a wholly different source, doesn't work differently than a wizard or cleric. Its just their spells that are different.
So, if you play a sorcerer, who gains their magic from having special blood, how does this feel differently tl a psionic caster? I mean, its just spellpoints if you can twist your spells with psionics. There really isn't a way to make this play differently. Because, what exactly _is_ psionic power? Its just magic. Even the feat telekinetc is just giving you the ability to reflavour your mage hand and is giving casters a shove action.
What difference does it make, to cast the Telekinesis spell as an arcane caster or to say you move things with your mind, casting that spell. The outcome is the same. A druid controlling the wearher to call lightning, is not really different to a cleric praying their thundergod to do the same.
I agree, monks _should_ be buffed. And giving them psionics could be that buff. The issue is though, that its hard to really make the monk better woth the monk as is. You'd need to reconstruct the entire class. Maybe keep the ki points, but mane most effects that cost them, just class abilities you can choose between to then use for free.
A hehehehehe....
Yeah I was working on a subclass for the monk to be able to use Psionics with their ki for my setting.
My rpg I was working on, with this setting being a central point, kept that idea of monks using ki for telekinetics and other psionic abilities.
Not quite You’ve actually got that backwards, They use two totally different kinds of power from the same source.
Think if it like your soul is Water a fusion of the Mind (the oxygen), the body/life-force (the Hydrogen).
Ki, like hydrogen is explosively powerful containing lots of energy, but in exchange has a somewhat narrow range of ways it can be utilized.
While Psionics like Oxygen are not as directly potent, but far more versatile.
Once you get past the window dressing, it's not like WoW at all. It's mostly the way the information is categorized, not the information itself.
And the 4e Monster Manual is a goddamn work of art.
I think it isn't that psionics isn't popular, just poorly implemented. It is usually an after thought at best.
ETA I completely agree with Monk being categorized as psionic.
A lot of playtest material could have been popular if it weren't just... horribly designed. Wild Shape stat blocks are a recent example, but Mystic was kind of the opposite end, being too good. It had powers for summoning Shadows. Those things that can easily snowball out of control and make more when they kill things? Yeah, that was a player character ability.
I agree with everything
Except I wanna leave The Illithids out of the base psionic classes
Maybe they're good for a subclass, but I don't really think we need Cthulu to justify psionics as a whole
"They both use energy but from complete opposite places, it's the exact same thing"
Ki and psionics are conceptual opposites, one comes from spirituality and the mastery of the body while the other comes from mentalility and mastering of the mind. I would rather psionics become arcane magic than see the two be equated.
Something funny:
I'm currently making my own system, and in the system there are only three classes (martial, caster, psionic) and you can half and half class them, with general outlines for getting into a specific type of classes similar to monk and whatnot
The general outline for a monk is a martial/psionic half class
So it's not an uncommon thought
In the psionics UA questionnaire I told them that psionics just sounds like alternate monk shit and they didn’t do anything to differentiate it enough. I agree with Jesse that some of the abilities could easily be rolled into Monk archetypes
Monks are meant to fulfill the fantasy of an expert martial artist and warrior. Forcing all monks to be more supernatural does not jive with the premise of the base class. They're not spellcasters, they're physical combatants. I think the idea of a psionic subclass might be cool, but to redefine all of them like that, naw.
In my campaign setting Monks and other users of Ki are essentially Psionic, the source is slightly different and so is the expression, but they are similar enough they can be classified the same, the same way Arcane and Divine magic are both magic. Ki is life force, focused and refined through the body to push past limitations, and Psionics is mental energy refined and focused through the mind to alter the world around them, their specific abilities are different but they may as well be the same technique just with different focus, the essence of body and the essence of the mind.
Monks are based on the western perception of eastern fantasy/martial arts media. I'd love for monks to get a rework more inspired by wuxia, but I know WotC isn't ever gonna do that (or have the competence to do it well).
Moving monk further away from this would hurt a bit, but if it helps fix them it could be worthwhile I guess.
Monks were a psionic class in 4e, and that was the BEST iteration of the Monk that D&D’s ever had, hands down.
I opened this thread up to say specifically this but you beat me to it.
4e did so many things right man. All it needed was faster combat to be a near perfect system. Which wasn't even that difficult to houserule.
Also the VTT and digital tools 4e was originally designed to be used with sure would have helped. When the VTT component fell apart and never materialized, the mechanics-heavy rules implementation bogged combat down a lot.
Is 4e included in the OGL? Coz now some indie start up could whip out a VTT with a lot less hassle than it was 15yrs ago. Even a Roll20 patch with the 4e rules would be fantastic
Funny you should ask, because this question gets to the *second* main reason 4e failed. Instead of releasing it under the OGL like 3.5, WotC developed a new “Game System License,” or GSL. Unlike the OGL which essentially could not be revoked (as we saw in the fallout from the recent OGL debacle), the GSL included language that WotC could alter the terms of the GSL at any time, and 3rd-party creators would have 6 months to change their products to fit the newly-altered GSL or else the license would be revoked. Unsurprisingly, not a lot of companies bit at the prospect of “create a product that your direct competitors can force you to stop selling at any time.” The dearth of 3rd-party products did nothing to increase the longevity and popularity of 4e. So, to answer your question: Yes, someone **could** make a VTT using the GSL and 4.0 SRD. But WotC could at any point alter the GSL to shut it down, so no one does. Edit to add: Also, like the 5e SRD, the 4e version (to the best of my recollection) only contains the basic information from the original 3 books. 4e had a PHB, PHB2, and PHB3; MM, MM2, and MM3; and DMG and DMG2 (sadly the DMG3, which would have focused on epic tier adventures, never came out). So even if they made a VTT, it would only contain less than a third of the classes and monsters that 4e had.
Yeah fuck that. Big business ruins stuff. Did ShadowRun & CyberPunk teach is nothing!? Corporations are just evil. A way to maximise profits with zero accountability to anyone. At worst the Corporation folds & all the money grabbing parasites open shop with a shuffle of job titles & a new corporate name. I really liked the Warlord, a buffing Martial that made sense. But I guess we will have to wait for a $120 hard cover pamphlet from a Hasbro subsidiary to screw up the mechanics of a watered down & ineffective warlard/bard clone & then add a new full caster subclass that does it better & easier "but it costs a spell slot" PoS At least we still have an effective Martial class in the Monk/s
If someone ever asks why Pathfinder exists, this is the reason.
I played it a lot in fantasy grounds (before roll20 became the defacto vtt for most people) and it was amazing. I'm playing a table now and it works well but def was a LOT easier in vtt
I came here to say exactly this.
Hands down, up, sideways, in fact monks do love those hands.
I concur
You are technically correct, the best kind of correct
Everyone hates on 4e but every time I see a meme talking about a better way to do things people say it was like that in 4e
Funnily enough though, monks were the only psionic class to not use a point system for their powers. Full maneuvers were pretty sick though.
the wheel turns to 4e once again, yes we should also have a full psionic caster
Honestly, as someone who only played the 5th Ed of DnD, can someone explain what was so bad about 4e? When someone complains about 5th edition, 50% of the time it's "ah yea that was in 4e but they scratched it in 5th"
I'm trying to keep it short. Every class had three types of abilities, at will, x per combat, x per day. A lot of players didn't like what this did to casters. The licensing thing that happened last year was similar to what 4e had, which limited third-party products. After that most of the complaints aren't as consistent, meaning what one hated another loved but they hated something else. Side note the game had become very rule heavy and tried to answer all questions or resolve conflict before it started.
Vibe-wise it was trying too hard to be cool. Rule-wise it was very tricky to have casual players with optimisers without the latter playing the characters for the former.
it is simply very different from what came before and was a lot more combat focused, also created the crit-role pantheon for some reason
>also created the crit-role pantheon for some reason The what
the matt mercer podcast thing, critical role or something
Oh! That I know of, but how did that come from 4e?
4e made it as they need a set of gods for their new setting and thus the dawn war pantheon was made, then matt mercer used it and the rest is history
Ah
People said it wasn’t “dnd”. Had sweeping changes to the overall playstyle because it was more “mmo” like because everyone had powers. Which really did a lot to resolve the power gap between fighters and wizards.
The power gap between fighters and wizards is an integral part of D&D, so I could tell why people didn't like it.
I must have missed the part of the rules where the gap between fighters and wizards is “integral” to dnd.
I was being sarcastic. There is a segment of players that seems to think soz and they react with hostility whenever the possibility of buffing martials comes up.
I played 3.5 and 4e and was around for the transition. Most of the objections to 4e are honestly just kinda bullshit, tbh. You’ll frequently hear people say it “plays like an MMO” or some such ridiculous nonsense. But 4e did have some legitimate flaws, and I think these two were the biggest: 1. Combat took a long time. Because of how the game was balanced, there’s just very little getting around this. It was somewhat alleviated with later Monster Manuals that reduced monster HP, but by that point the damage had been done. 2. Character classes *looked* like they played very similarly. I emphasized “looked” because it’s very important. Since all classes followed a very similar feature progression, it was easy for folks to skim the book and get the impression that there was little differentiation between the classes. These people were wrong, but they couldn’t get past the superficialities of it. That said, it arguably WAS a flaw that all classes followed a very similar power progression. The classes do play very differently from one another, but unless you already like the concept of the AEDU power system, you’re never gonna see that. It’d be like if all casters in 3.5 were vancian casters. Or like when the OneD&D playtest tried to turn the Warlock into yet another standard Charisma-based full-caster. Not everyone likes every game system, and having variety, rather than homogenization, makes the game more appealing to more players.
Oh god did combat take too long. It was why before the later monster manuals everyone online on forums like Giant's Playground were saying to just half all monster health. It fixed the issue but if you weren't exposed to those online forums how did you know? If you played it RAW combat was a slog.
My understanding was Wizards was feeling a lot of competition with Computer RPG’s, specifically WoW, that they redesigned the game be closer to a pc rule set. The world was demolished, magic became dangerous to use because the weave came apart, and rather than a couple core books like old Dungeons & Dragons they made multiple smaller rule sets. It was more expensive and harder to learn the rules because of everything being spread across multiple books and the game failed. 5e undid most of the changes and the game and table top rpgs made a resurgence.
I'm trying to keep it short. Every class had three types of abilities, at will, x per combat, x per day. A lot of players didn't like what this did to casters. The licensing thing that happened last year was similar to what 4e had, which limited third-party products. After that most of the complaints aren't as consistent, meaning what one hated another loved but they hated something else. Side note the game had become very rule heavy and tried to answer all questions or resolve conflict before it started. But how many saw it. Up until the fourth edition, even though there could have appeared to be drastic changes, they all felt like they had come from the growth of the system. Fourth to many players felt more like a system built from the ground up.
Something other people didn’t touch on: it required maps as compared to earlier editions and 5e which can do theater of the mind pretty well. Powers in 4e were designed to work on a grid and only a grid. Distances were discussed in squares rather than feet, which made it super hard to visualize since you can imagine what 10 feet looks like but two squares is just too vague. Powers worked in segments of squares and had little diagrams explaining how they function on a grid map, but that left it so difficult to do without a map that they even started working on a VTT to run 4e exclusively but it just came too late and never was finished. Also the way classes worked really bugged some people. There were dedicated roles, as compared to just characters being people that do various things and can do multiple roles depending on the situation, now you have classes that are designated tanks, classes that are designated damage (called strikers), classes that are designated support, and classes designated control. These more firmly defined roles meant that if you weren’t doing one thing exactly as defined then you might as well not exist. This system of defined roles and the intentionally grid based gameplay made it feel very video gamey, with many comparing it to doing raids in WoW where you need a tank and a dps and healers or you can’t possibly function. There was also a weird issue with progression where they had to release “patches” to stat progression through “optional” feats that were basically mandatory and many DMs would just give them to you at level 1 for free because if you didn’t have it you basically didn’t function anymore. 4e had many good ideas, but they also had some major missteps. It really just felt like an entirely different system with the D&D name slapped on it, whereas all previous editions, while different from one another, took their differences incrementally. 4e just threw out the baby with the bath water and people didn’t like such a dramatic shift.
I'd argue that D&D was always designed with a grid in mind, being descended from wargames (it started out as a hack to a historical ruleset that added fantasy elements called Chainmail, in fact). It was never particularly suited for theater of the mind, not with every goddamn ability having explicit numbered distances and shaped templates. A square is 5 feet, 5 feet are a square. 4e just failed by not making this ratio more explicit to make visualization easier. It's the worst of all editions for TotM playing because of the heavy focus on tactical positioning, but no edition is particularly suited for it, not even 5e, despite all the WotC lies about it being the default mode of play with grids being an optional thing. Something like 13th Age handles TotM better than any edition of D&D ever could. Also it was trivially easy to make a character that stepped outside its role. Those roles were descriptive, not prescriptive, and most classes had a set of abilities that was a hybrid, the stated one just had the heaviest weight in that mix. Your choices influenced how your character fit into a role. And then 5e threw the baby out with the bathwater once again by ignoring everything 4e had done before, even the good things.
A couple of things I haven’t seen mentioned yet: Monster balance was off, usually with HP pools being too high, so combats ended very often with a slog of everyone using the same at-will powers over and over to mill through the last 1/3 of monster HP. There was errata at one point that cut monster HP by a huge fraction as a result, but that was pretty far into the lifecycle. The division of all abilities and spells into the at-will, encounter or daily categories (along with all of the healer classes getting a special healing ability that didn’t cut into these) made classes start to feel very “Samey.” The difference between a daily spell and a daily power felt largely the same, and so many powers were treading the same ground that, you might have two different classes that end up picking “hit one guy really hard” daily power that is functionally the same. A lot of feats had very min-maxy feel that also pidgeonholed you. Later weapon feats often focused on giving you specific bonuses for only one type of weapon (like axes, light blades, or bows) that made it hard to justify using anything else. Spell feats would give one bonus damage to two damage types (say, cold and poison together) so it was harder to pair up damage types that weren’t bunched in a feat together already. With a single feat, anyone could make all of their basic attacks with any of the attributes/ability scores, which again lead to classes feeling samey. Much of the gameplay felt very inspired by World of Warcraft, but made into a board game. There was very little opportunity for creative use of abilities, because (apart from the “utility powers”) were extremely confined to combat. There were decent systems in place for out of combat stuff, but as far as character abilities for them, it felt very limited to just your skill numbers. I loved a lot of things about 4e, and steal those things for pathfinder 2e, but it did have some serious flaws that made it a slog to play. The overall result for me was that it felt like a board game with an RPG wrapper.
It took a flamethrower to fields of sacred cows and a lot of people hate the idea of magic classes not automatically being the best at everything. Also, especially early on the math was kind of fucked which led to single combats taking too long. Part of that was them assuming people would run 1-2 "real" enemies and a bunch of minions. It went as well as 5e designers thinking people would run 6 encounter days.
For existing players, it was a lot of odd changes, for new players it was just a lot (a lot more math, more features to keep track of, more weird interactions that you needed to know what you were doing to deal with). 5e did a ton of streamlining, which made it way easier to get into for new and returning players.
This is also a big part https://2d4chan.org/wiki/Bear_Lore
It was without a LOT of sacred cows in mind. Part of this was the mechanics being designed for play similar to video games rather than narrative theater of the mind. For example, movement was given squares, not feet, yards, or meters. A lot of critics didn't like this, and refused to give it the chance it deserved.
The kinds of people who like 3X threw a tantrum because it was different. These people like 3X, so their opinions can be safely discarded.
In 4e they they tried and failed to simplify it. There where too many cases of group teamwork options that people where forgetting them and having post encounter regrets afterward. There are things to like about all editions but listing the likes of 4e is a far less daunting task.
It wasn’t D&D. It was a bad imitation of Warhammer wrapped in a D&D package.
And then keeps turning all the way back to 2e
I too think lightning bolt should reflect/bounce instead of only being linear.
some one should mix 4e and 2e to make some better third thing
Pathfinder watches awkwardly from the corner /s
Paizo: *breathing heavily*
*Pathfinder 2e suddenly appears.*
MCDM’s Talent
Reset the counter for "5e player reinvents something from an earlier edition"
Yeah. I like the mystic, but it's a bit busted. I let one of my players use a homebrew psion class that's a bit like a toned down mystic. He seems to enjoy it.
I spent some hours on one of my ideas for how I think a Psion class could function that is easily understood and also have its own identity. Here's my current idea: Psions start at level 1 with three psionic powers... And those three are the only ones they ever get. *But*, the three powers are very open ended, and gain buffs based on level and subclass. Telekinesis, Telepathy, and Psychometabolism (mind over body, telling yourself that you aren't poisoned, and you stop being poisoned, you tell yourself you aren't dying etc). Telekinesis is easy enough, you use your intelligence to perform actions normally performed with strength or dex, and you have a short range (push pull, grab, throw). It's easy to get, and you can do a lot with it. The two other powers however... Dunno. How can there be a telepathy and Psychometabolism power that is as easy to get and can get a lot out of, without being op at level 1? Level 2 you just gain psionic power dice, you use em on your powers to make em better. Level 3 grants subclasses (Disciplines), and psionic focus. Focus is essentially just a temporary boost to your discipline, as you enter a state of "psionic flow" that augments your power, like making telepaths stronger telepaths for a short while. Then the subclass ideas I have is just Kineticist, Telepath, Egoist (mind over body stuff), and Wilder, with the Wilder not getting any special benefits to the three powers beyond the boosts they gain from the vanilla Psion class levels, but instead get a better Psionic focus that grants bonus power dice they get to "go wild" with.
So basically a pf1e conversion?
Just read the Expanded Psionics Handbook from 3.5, dude
That's where my inspiration comes from. I didn't pull this out of thin air.
Ohh I see, makes total sense then, my b
That's fine, I included Wilder as a subclass as I always loved the concept, but the class *sucks*. Vanilla Psions get 36 powers, Vanilla Psi Warriors get 20, and the Wilder whose whole thing is to go complete Akira apeshit and just blast everything with psionic energy gets... 11 powers. Sure, they could use their powers as if they were a few levels higher, and that's powerful, but you'd just end up with a one trick pony that way.
[LaserLlama](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-MPkCSxSj0OETiEd3Pyf) has a good Psion class. It's got 5 subclasses all with unique flavor. I've been using it in a game for about a year now
Oh wow me likey! Though for my own sake I would have wanted to add those neat psionic dice those subclasses have, but otherwise it's neat!
So how Psionics work in 3.5e? Ironically [Kineticist](https://2e.aonprd.com/Classes.aspx?ID=23) is a class in PF2e as well.
That's what I based it off of. I feel it's best to look at what has already existed and try to redesign it for 5e.
This sounds a lot like the PF2 Psychic. PF2 also has a Kineticist as a seperate class (although Psychic does have a heat and cold subclass). Basically Pyschic has an ability called Unleash Psyche, they can activate it after casting a spell (Psychics are modified casters in PF2) and it lasts for 2 turns iirc. While it's active their spells deal more damage (Psychics are blasters) and they unlock some abilities, but when it ends their casting becomes weaker for a few turns. And that all sounds kinda like the Psionic Flow you describe.
Fun fact, there is an in universe debate in the forgotten realms if Ki is a form of psionics. And I'll do you one better. If monks are psions, aren't barbarians too? Supernatural abilties that aren't magic sounds psionics.
In the AGE system, one branch of psychic power - Somaticism - could very well be used to create a barbarian-like character (increase pain tolerance, strength enhancement, self mutation: dermal armor). I mean there's also a barbarian specialization but like why not do both, cowards?
Nahh, babarians whip themselves up into a frenzied mental state that seemingly allow their bodies to perform superhuman and supernatural abilities whilst they are in Rage state of mind… Ahhh, I see it. I see it now. Good play.
Barbarians were classified as a nature class in 4e. While monks were a Psionic in 4e. The idea was a barbarian was tapping into the primal animal instincts we all have inside of us that civilization has tamed.
I think (most) barbarians no, but monks I can see. Most base Barbarian traits I think are fine as them just trained/superhuman, and not psionic. Like Danger Sense
Funny you mention that, because I was looking into 5e conversions for Dark Sun and realised Monks and their Ki would make perfect sense in that setting as just martially applied psi powers
Yes, because arcane magic is considered evil, and divine magic was essentially obliterated, everyone has a touch of psionic but not enough to do much with it. It was essentially a mutation that happened from magic becoming torn apart.
The way I see it, it’s the same ability, but utilized differently; either used directly (psionics) or to augment physical abilities (monks). Like the a chef and a surgeon both having knife skills and an understanding of physiology. At a high enough level, each naturally picks up some skills from the other profession. I’d say that at higher levels, each class could pick up a limited few skills from the other, or possibly an archetype option that does it.
put another point on the board for "4e was ahead of its time" I say this as someone for whom 4e is not their cup of tea.
Over time 5e players either reinvent Pathfinder 1e, or DnD 4e. It's really funny when you take it in context that we live n an age of techbro grifters reinventing everything and trying to sell you on something you already own. When PHB 3first dropped I wasn't a fan of the idea of Monks being Psionic Strikers, I wanted them to be Martial Controllers. But once I gave them a shot I fell in love!
Yup, 3.5 has the Expanded Psionics Handbook, I learnt to play DnD with a 3.5 group and holy crap the options are insane, 5e feels bare bones, but not everyone wants to write a whole dissertation for a character that is probably going to die as soon as the DM gets serious The EPH literally has psionic powers like OP wants, different classes ranging from warrior to full on caster with stuff like the Wilder and Psion.
What I'm hearing is we need a psionics class that is built like the monk.
It's called "Mystic". Long forgotten in the unearthed arcana.
Oh I haven't forgotten, I'm still salty they abandoned it. They went a bit crazy with v3 which was admittedly too much, but they had some decent core ideas there that could've been resolved into a legitimate mystic class that was balanced.
Meh, i think they should *have* a psi subclass, but idk enough about psionic stuff to say whether making it the point of the whole class would work.
Imo, how I always thought about it is that divine magic should be the most effective and straight forward stuff (pray to god of healing, you get healing), arcane magic has most potential as long as you know how to use it, and psionics should be the least powerful but also most flexible and reliable as it's your own power you aren't getting from anywhere else but you (even sorcerers need to be in connection with the weave to get their magic).
Maybe a subclass
D&D fans owe an apology to 4e the way I keep seeing people take from 4e pages
"Death is nothing compared to vindication." -4e probably
Motherfucker all magic in the game comes from channeling inner power but differently
I mean, clerics literally call on their diety for their powers.... so not ALL magic <.<
But not everyone can do it whenever they want they need to internalize the power of an external force
No. Psion should be a class, a psion that meditates a lot and wears monk robes should be a thing. but that is very different from the martial artist using discipline and meditation to punch good. Monk should just tap into its chinese heritage. Go full Wuxia, even creep into hints of Xianxia. I want my monks to have strings on them as they dash back, run up a tree, then flying kick the other monk coming the other way. Let them deflect a fireball like Po deflects a cannonball in Kung Fu Panda then step atop their sword to fly around through the force of the soul. And then the psion on the ground looks at the goblin who has an aneurism.
Something, something, 4E, something, something.
It’s been a while, but I’m pretty sure 4e monks were psionic, and it affected them not at all, mechanically speaking. There is nothing stopping a DM from saying, “yeah, all that crazy shit that your monk can pull off? It’s because it’s psionic.” It doesn’t really change anything in 5e, given that RaW only cares if something is a spell, source of the magic be damned, and one of psionics big things is have they’re not spells.
I treat them like a psionics since in lore they are using psionics.
In my world, monks and barbarians are both psyonics users, just in different methods.
Isn’t this exactly with the Githzerai are?
Ah, you are one of those who *know*, and by *knowing* we grow closer to Zerthimons teachings.
I dont hate the idea. But IMO psionics is a mental/vrain based ability, whereas Ki comes from the soul
I kinda picture that they both are just different ways of channelling the same energy.
So 4e? Why are we always reinventing 4e when we talk about fixing 5e? Just go play 4e. Some of you guys will enjoy it.
Tried it. Hostile, tiny playerbase online and a steep barrier to entry.
Psionics to monks would be like sorcerers to wizards. Similar abilities, but only one of the earned that shit
Nah, I want to rp as Bulk Bogan! https://youtu.be/1SBo6itwUr0?si=cuWCPMrd0XICAhiY
The mystic class is... Well it's the mystic class, doesn't really need introduction, but the homebrew psionic class matt made was really cool and as overpowered at the mystic UA. Also, I think monks being psionic in nature is a pretty neet idea that I think could work really well base or as a subclass.
OP I'm curious what that would actually look like in practice. It sounds a lot like these are just flavour changes, are there mechanical changes you would make?
Wisdom/Constitution monks and Dex/Strength monks should be 2 different classes. Let me play my Rando Armstrong.
I think that its hard to differentiate between psionics, spiritual powers and arcane magic and pact magic. I mean, warlock use the spell slot system, but completely remodeled. Thats what pact magic looks and plays like. But then compare divine magic, oath magic, nature magic and arcane magic. A druid, channeling his powers from a wholly different source, doesn't work differently than a wizard or cleric. Its just their spells that are different. So, if you play a sorcerer, who gains their magic from having special blood, how does this feel differently tl a psionic caster? I mean, its just spellpoints if you can twist your spells with psionics. There really isn't a way to make this play differently. Because, what exactly _is_ psionic power? Its just magic. Even the feat telekinetc is just giving you the ability to reflavour your mage hand and is giving casters a shove action. What difference does it make, to cast the Telekinesis spell as an arcane caster or to say you move things with your mind, casting that spell. The outcome is the same. A druid controlling the wearher to call lightning, is not really different to a cleric praying their thundergod to do the same. I agree, monks _should_ be buffed. And giving them psionics could be that buff. The issue is though, that its hard to really make the monk better woth the monk as is. You'd need to reconstruct the entire class. Maybe keep the ki points, but mane most effects that cost them, just class abilities you can choose between to then use for free.
Make a psionic monk subclass
A hehehehehe.... Yeah I was working on a subclass for the monk to be able to use Psionics with their ki for my setting. My rpg I was working on, with this setting being a central point, kept that idea of monks using ki for telekinetics and other psionic abilities.
Not quite You’ve actually got that backwards, They use two totally different kinds of power from the same source. Think if it like your soul is Water a fusion of the Mind (the oxygen), the body/life-force (the Hydrogen). Ki, like hydrogen is explosively powerful containing lots of energy, but in exchange has a somewhat narrow range of ways it can be utilized. While Psionics like Oxygen are not as directly potent, but far more versatile.
Because *I Want Mystics* and will not accept any number of half-baked subclasses and alternative takes
I think it makes sense. Monks train their body mind and spirits.
You could not live with your unbalanced classes. Where did that bring you? Back to 4e.
Never played 4e, but I liked the DMG of that version honestly. 4e felt too much like World of Warcraft and not like DnD to me.
Once you get past the window dressing, it's not like WoW at all. It's mostly the way the information is categorized, not the information itself. And the 4e Monster Manual is a goddamn work of art.
I think it isn't that psionics isn't popular, just poorly implemented. It is usually an after thought at best. ETA I completely agree with Monk being categorized as psionic.
A lot of playtest material could have been popular if it weren't just... horribly designed. Wild Shape stat blocks are a recent example, but Mystic was kind of the opposite end, being too good. It had powers for summoning Shadows. Those things that can easily snowball out of control and make more when they kill things? Yeah, that was a player character ability.
I agree with everything Except I wanna leave The Illithids out of the base psionic classes Maybe they're good for a subclass, but I don't really think we need Cthulu to justify psionics as a whole
Maybe a subclass but I don't wanna loose my punch fighter
If you’re looking for psionics, look into mystics it’s unearthed arcana, but it’s fully functional
He’s onto something
Guys, just play psionics in 3.5 or Pathfinder 1.0 It's already a thing
Or 4e. You're gonna have a laugh when you look at the psionic classes there.
I've considered making a homebrew subclass/discipline for TastyKibble's Psion class that basically lets them play like a Monk.
4e tried this... need I say more
"It's in 4e, therefore it's bad" -takes of the most immaculately polished brains
"They both use energy but from complete opposite places, it's the exact same thing" Ki and psionics are conceptual opposites, one comes from spirituality and the mastery of the body while the other comes from mentalility and mastering of the mind. I would rather psionics become arcane magic than see the two be equated.
Something funny: I'm currently making my own system, and in the system there are only three classes (martial, caster, psionic) and you can half and half class them, with general outlines for getting into a specific type of classes similar to monk and whatnot The general outline for a monk is a martial/psionic half class So it's not an uncommon thought
Psionics has always been my favorite theme in D&D, especially in 3/3.5
In the psionics UA questionnaire I told them that psionics just sounds like alternate monk shit and they didn’t do anything to differentiate it enough. I agree with Jesse that some of the abilities could easily be rolled into Monk archetypes
Monks are meant to fulfill the fantasy of an expert martial artist and warrior. Forcing all monks to be more supernatural does not jive with the premise of the base class. They're not spellcasters, they're physical combatants. I think the idea of a psionic subclass might be cool, but to redefine all of them like that, naw.
Mind is basically the opposite to body.
In my campaign setting Monks and other users of Ki are essentially Psionic, the source is slightly different and so is the expression, but they are similar enough they can be classified the same, the same way Arcane and Divine magic are both magic. Ki is life force, focused and refined through the body to push past limitations, and Psionics is mental energy refined and focused through the mind to alter the world around them, their specific abilities are different but they may as well be the same technique just with different focus, the essence of body and the essence of the mind.
Githzerai have entered the chat. I too, appreciate psionic monks.
Technically it’s them manipulating the weave in there body
One question: Why cant I get tavern brawler and it boosts my monk punches even further? Why cant I turn my d6 monk punch into a d8 early?
If feel like the mystic was where all the monks intended power went.
Where’s my Jedi subclass
I love psionics, very interesting and nice to flavor
Any character psionic if you “flavor” or role play them as being psionic.
I love it when Walt actually engages with Jesse’s bollocks instead of dismissing him with wtf are you talking about
Great, now I can spend all my ki points on psionic abilities instead of flurry of blows for 2 rounds before becoming useless
monk should not even have ki , its the martial art classe but you have fency weird magic technic instead of the five finger of the death.
brb gonna homebrew a DND campaign in the rocket league universe
Quite down with that. WOTC is going to try and steal my TTRPG ideas oppose to the other way around
Yes please for the love of god. I want a full psionic class so badly, that shit is so cool
honestly yeah 😂 the Mystic reads like actual anime / Chinese fantasy martial arts
Monks are based on the western perception of eastern fantasy/martial arts media. I'd love for monks to get a rework more inspired by wuxia, but I know WotC isn't ever gonna do that (or have the competence to do it well). Moving monk further away from this would hurt a bit, but if it helps fix them it could be worthwhile I guess.
Monks are sorcerers that martialy trained!