Mike Mearls on D&D Psionics: Should Psionic Flavor Be Altered?

WotC's Mike Mearls has been asking for opinions on how psionics should be treated in D&D 5th Edition. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that he'd hinted that he might be working on something, and this pretty much seals the deal. He asked yesterday "Agree/Disagree: The flavor around psionics needs to be altered to allow it to blend more smoothly into a traditional fantasy setting", and then followed up with some more comments today.

"Thanks for all the replies! Theoretically, were I working on psionics, I'd try to set some high bars for the execution. Such as - no psionic power duplicates a spell, and vice versa. Psionics uses a distinct mechanic, so no spell slots. One thing that might be controversial - I really don't like the scientific terminology, like psychokinesis, etc. But I think a psionicist should be exotic and weird, and drawing on/tied to something unsettling on a cosmic scale.... [but]... I think the source of psi would be pretty far from the realm of making pacts. IMO, old one = vestige from 3e's Tome of Magic.

One final note - Dark Sun is, IMO, a pretty good example of what happens to a D&D setting when psionic energy reaches its peak. Not that the rules would require it, but I think it's an interesting idea to illustrate psi's relationship to magic on a cosmic level."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why does that argument not apply to wizard or cleric spells? Why are they "magic"? Why can't they be complying with the laws of physics in a way we don't understand?

Simply, they have always been explicitly designated as "magic."

 

[Siphersh]

A human can't fly in D&D without it being magic. Period.

In the real world it looks like magic and psionics are similar, in that they are both supernatural. But that's just because they don't actually work. If they did work, we would call them natural phenomena or technologies. But in D&D they do work, and so that category is not applicable.

3rd edition and later made psionics very similar to magic, but when reading the earlier rules, it seems to me that the fundamental difference is that psionics is something you do, while magic is something you "wield", regardless of the source of the magic. So, in D&D psionics is more similar to abilities or skills than to magic.

And the rules used to reflect exactly that difference. There's the concept of psionic mastery, which means that the psionic ability is not a self-contained mechanism that you use as-is, but something that you can get better at doing. Like a skill. And that same concept is represented in the 2nd edition rules, when you roll sort of an ability check for doing psionics. And of course the third difference in the mechanics: the point system also represents the same concept: psionics is something that you do, and so you're not using up some abstract arcane containers, but you just get exhausted.

I think that's a clear and fundamental narrative difference between magic and psionics, and those rules clearly represent that difference.

 

[Hussar]

Simply, they have always been explicitly designated as "magic."

That's pretty circular. It's magic because it's magic? Doesn't really tell us anything. Is a hippogriff's flight magic? Are giant insects "magic"? Is a medusa or basilisk's gaze magic? After all, neither can actually exist, and if you start futzing about with physics, then why can't my PC learn to fly? It's pretty obviously all magic (in the dictionary sense of the word, not in the game mechanics definition).

I mean, prior editions did actually just make it all magic. Basic/Expert allowed your wisdom bonus vs magic to apply to much more than just spells. It was very much a 3e thing to try to quantify all this as either "magic" or "supernatural" or "Extraordinary" but, 5e doesn't do that. It doesn't distinguish effects that way. It's left to the DM. And as such, saying it's magic or not magic is equally valid.

 

[Staffan]

Really? Let's just fact-check that.

[pictures snipped]

... nah. Same crunch, different editor.

Looks like basically the same deal for Psionic Teleport vs. Arcane Teleport.


Is this debunked now? Can we move on to new arguments?

They have similar effects, but they are not the same.

* Psionic ESP is single-target, whereas magic ESP lets you change target each round.
* Magic ESP has a specified duration, whereas psionic ESP costs PSPs each round to maintain.
* Magic ESP has a maximum range and is blocked by a variety of substances. Psionic ESP doesn't and isn't.

Let's also look at the Teleport power vs the Teleport spell, since you brought it up:

* Magic teleport has no limit at all on range, psionic teleport becomes more expensive the farther you want to go.
* Magic teleport has a specific weight limit (250 lbs + 150 lbs/level above 10th), psionic teleport instead teleports yourself + 1/5 of your body mass (or +3 times your body mass for double cost).
* Psionic teleport has a chance of not working at all, as do all psionic powers (based on the power score), but if it does work you always hit your target. Magic teleport always works, but has a chance of arriving high or low with possibly disastrous consequences.

So no, magic ESP is not the same as psionic ESP, and magic teleport is not the same as psionic teleport. Further, the issue was that in 1e as well as 3e, many psionic powers simply said "see spell X." There's nothing of the sort in the 2e Complete Psionics Handbook - all the powers are described "from scratch."

 

[Nifft]

They have similar effects, but they are not the same.

* Psionic ESP is single-target, whereas magic ESP lets you change target each round.
* Magic ESP has a specified duration, whereas psionic ESP costs PSPs each round to maintain.

Psionic ESP can be restarted each round for free on a different subject, giving you the same effect as switching targets.

Actually, it looks like Psionic ESP just had really terrible game design -- it looks like it can be restarted on the same target every round for free. So 2e had some poor editing, oh well.

But the point remains: the effect is basically the same, with some scaffolding differences (spell slot vs. power points).

The third one I checked was Detect Lies vs. Truthear, and they look identical in effect as well.

But even if you're right about 2e (which you're not), that wouldn't mean much except that 2e would be the aberration which strayed from the mainstream original vision of Psionics.

Here, in the 1e PHB, I found an explicit passage that says psionics and spells should be treated the same:

... so yeah.

I didn't play much 2e, but it really looks similar in the few places that I've looked at it. I did play a lot of 1e, and in that edition, there was no such line between Psionics and Magic.

 

[Remathilis]

Truenamers in 3e used a similar mechanic in the Tome of Magic. Additionally, the DC went up by two every time you used a power. Given that 5e proficiency bonuses are pretty easy to keep in line (unlike 3e, where it was fairly easy to game the system), I could see this working very well. Could you do without power points entirely here and just use the rising DC to limit abilities per day? Maybe the first one is free, and then subsequent castings (errr uses, whatever) get more difficult.



Riffing off of number 1 above, why not just use the "use" DC? Scale that DC by class level vs a given "Use DC"? For powers you have "proficiency" in (which could be limited by class level) your first shot is free and the DC's scale fairly moderately. Maybe disadvantage and a high DC for non-proficient manifestations.

You could, possibly, add in a second layer in that psionic characters have various fields of specialisation (metabolism, telepathy, etc) which could set the use DC's. Stuff that's in your field, but, you don't have proficiency in (not actual, literal proficiency, but, I suck at making up names) has a relatively low DC, while the further you go from your baseline, the higher the DC.



Since I'm leaning towards doing away with power points, this becomes a problem. But, again, scaling DC to the rescue. Each round of maintaining raises the DC to keep the effect going. Different powers could call for different periods of time for checks - a damage effect would likely be measured in rounds, while an illusion effect might be measured in minutes.



Not sure if scaling DC would work for this and I like this idea, so, I'm not sure how I'd include it. I suppose scaling DC might work - you jack up the use DC to get a stronger effect. This might get awfully complicated though.



I don't think I like number 5, for the simple reason that it makes Psi too powerful. I mean, if I'm getting d20+5-10 (roughly) vs baseline abilities, that seems pretty strong. OTOH, since most monsters only use their base stat for a saving throw anyway, this wouldn't actually come into play that often.

All your ideas on scaling DC could work, I picked power points due to EVERY iteration of psionics having them, but they aren't intrinsic to my design. A few truenamer ideas couldn't hurt, I guess.

 

[Nifft]

All your ideas on scaling DC could work, I picked power points due to EVERY iteration of psionics having them, but they aren't intrinsic to my design. A few truenamer ideas couldn't hurt, I guess.

I strongly dislike Trunamer mechanics.

They only work if you assume standard wealth-by-level and optimize aggressively around your Truespeak check -- at which point they are balanced against normal, non-optimized characters.

I really dislike when a class requires system mastery to not be horrible.

 

[Staffan]

Psionic ESP can be restarted each round for free on a different subject, giving you the same effect as switching targets.

No, it can't. In order to use it on a new target, you first have to establish contact (using a different power), which costs 3-18 PSPs (depending on target's level/HD) and takes a round. Then you can use ESP, at a cost of 6 PSPs per round. The bit where it says "Power score: The first round of maintenance is free" refers to the equivalent of a critical success, rolling exactly equal to your power score when initiating the power.

But the point remains: the effect is basically the same, with some scaffolding differences (spell slot vs. power points).

Yes, there's overlap between what magic can do and what psionics can do. That's to be expected. But they go about it in different ways, and the powers and spells have significant differences.

The third one I checked was Detect Lies vs. Truthear, and they look identical in effect as well.

Detect Lies is cast on a specific target, who gets a save. Truthear is focused on the user, and gives them the ability to discern lie from truth. There's no save (although you do need to succeed in using it), and you get to use it on everyone you hear.

But even if you're right about 2e (which you're not),

It's been a long time since I was so tempted to use the ORLY owl.

I started playing with 2nd edition. I played it a lot, and much of it was in the very psionics-heavy setting Dark Sun (which even had its own psionics expansion splatbook, The Will & The Way). I know my 2nd edition psionics - both variants of it (the proper version from the Complete Psionics Handbook, and the vastly inferior one from Skills & Powers). I don't have much truck with the 1e version, but don't tell me I don't know 2e.

that wouldn't mean much except that 2e would be the aberration which strayed from the mainstream original vision of Psionics.

Psionics in 1e was a fairly neglected thing stuck in an appendix. 2e gave psionics its own sourcebook, and had a campaign setting where psionics played a very significant part, Dark Sun. I think it's fair to say that for many, possibly most, psionics fans, the 2e Complete Psionics Handbook presents what psionics should strive to be like, though of course with certain flaws fixed (and if you ask 10 2e psionics fans what those flaws are, they'll give you 11 different answers).

Here, in the 1e PHB, I found an explicit passage that says psionics and spells should be treated the same:

... so yeah.

This is a specific spell that calls out that it also affects psionic powers. 2e psionics had a section on how magic and psionics interacted - in general, when a spell blocked "magic" in general, it was ineffective against psionics (e.g. globe of invulnerability, anti-magic shell) but when it affected something more specific it worked (e.g. forbiddance, mind blank (although the psionicist did get a save to break through the mind blank)).

I didn't play much 2e, but it really looks similar in the few places that I've looked at it. I did play a lot of 1e, and in that edition, there was no such line between Psionics and Magic.

2e was fairly similar to 1e in many respects. Psionics was not one of them.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's pretty circular. It's magic because it's magic? Doesn't really tell us anything. Is a hippogriff's flight magic? Are giant insects "magic"? Is a medusa or basilisk's gaze magic? After all, neither can actually exist, and if you start futzing about with physics, then why can't my PC learn to fly? It's pretty obviously all magic (in the dictionary sense of the word, not in the game mechanics definition).

I mean, prior editions did actually just make it all magic. Basic/Expert allowed your wisdom bonus vs magic to apply to much more than just spells. It was very much a 3e thing to try to quantify all this as either "magic" or "supernatural" or "Extraordinary" but, 5e doesn't do that. It doesn't distinguish effects that way. It's left to the DM. And as such, saying it's magic or not magic is equally valid.

I DID say "simply."

Things that look alike are not necessarily similar in significant ways other than appearance. Ichthyosaurs were not sharks. Cleaner Wrasse are not the same as a Blenny. A Scarlet King Snake and a Coral Snake are definitely not the same.

To expand, if:

1) D&D has always defined "Arcane" and "Divine" spells- and certain abilities- as "magic", then

2) refines and redefines the term "magic" with the claim that all magic draws power from "The Weave", and

3) a set of powers & abilities known as "Psi" mimics the effects of magic abilities but does not draw power from "The Weave", then

4) "Psi" is, by definition, not "magic."

And if these are all true, it should have a tangible mechanical effect. It should mean something.

 

[Nifft]

I started playing with 2nd edition.

Ah. Well, that's what this is about, then. I guess you're trying to recreate 2e?


I started with 1e, and played a lot of 3.x and 4e and a tiny bit of 5e, amongst a ton of other game systems.

I'm not trying to favor a single edition here -- rather, I'm trying to look at how psionics fit into D&D as a whole, and how it can benefit from the good design features of 5e in particular.

One good design feature of 5e is how caster multiclassing works. It's neat. A full caster-like class ought to multiclass as elegantly.

2e was fairly similar to 1e in many respects. Psionics was not one of them.

Okay. I'm willing to accept that 2e psionics is not like 1e psionics, even if it's still mostly (but not exactly) duplicating many spell effects.

Why do you think 2e ought to get more votes than 1e, 3e, 3.5e and Pathfinder combined?