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

Minigiant · Jun 10, 2015

Mistwell said:
I think they got this from, "Some classic psionic-using creatures in AD&D were also tied to the far realms, therefore Psionics are tied to the far realms". Which I really don't like. The psionics were not themselves tied to the far realms, just those handful creatures that also had them. They're as tied to the far realms as swords are tied to orcs - yes, orcs also use swords, but swords are not connected to orcs in particular.

I mean, I won't hate it if they tie them to the far realms, I just think it's a poor choice. Tying it to "the force" is a much stronger concept.

I agree that tying it to the far realms is a poor choice.

Think of the orc.

Orcs can use martial combat.
Orcs can use skills are rogues and rangers
Orcs can get divine magic via Gruumsh or Bane worship.
Orcs can get arcane magic via sorcerers or warlocks.

So the psionics should have a source and flavor that let the base monsters like orcs, goblins, and giants can gain access to. If it is too "alien", its acceptance and blending into general fantasy becomes harder.

darius0 · Jun 10, 2015

I don't think there is anything wrong with having some built in flavor/lore behind psionics. The little details they put about various things in 5th edition is something that I really like. Like how demons dissolve into foul ichor when defeated.

The Far Realm as a concept is D&D is fine to me. It is a Lovecraftian idea and so are mind flayers; and psionics were basically introduced with mind flayers. Connecting psionics with the Far Realms makes sense. It would just be flavor really; nobody has to use it if they don't want to but it saves DMs some time coming up with ideas if they want to use psionics.

Tony Vargas · Jun 10, 2015

"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.

That double-hypothetical doesn't inspire a lot of excitement. So not working on psionics, and, even if it were, wanting to set a high bar would only be 'theoretical.'

The scientific terminology always grated a little, but it's not like there wasn't a lot of that in early D&D. Plenty of spells referenced science or were laden with other anachronisms, for instance. Same with quite a lot of monsters, especially when they got 'ecology' articles, and the occasional item. Not to mention Temple of the Frog or Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.

Bacon Bits · Jun 10, 2015

My only problem with psionics is that it generally feels tacked on. It's nearly always an optional system, so it never really feels well supported or well represented.

Thus, I consider two things a good presentation of psionics:

Dark Sun
Mind Flayers, Githzerai, and Githyanki

In other words, psionics needs to be inseparable from the campaign setting or the creature without destroying it's nature or flavor. Because that's how magic is. And that's why psionics sucks. It's always the red-headed stepchild. Like Spelljammer.

Vael · Jun 10, 2015

fjw70 said:
I would like to see psionics mimic the Force.

Which, while I agree, is, I think, a part of the problem. When we discuss Psionics, most of the examples and Iconic Psionic users are from Science Fiction. X-Men, Bene Gesserit, Biotic Adepts, Vulcans and Jedi ...

So, what Mearls seems to be doing is trying to make Psionics less Science Fiction. Personally, I think that's not the right tack. I'd rather embrace it. DnD is such a weird tent, expand it. But then, I also have the same problem with those that insist Monks are not DnD, because it's too Asian.

Psikerlord# · Jun 10, 2015

arjomanes said:
I REALLY like this line of thought.

So what makes psionics different, and how can its presence or absence affect the setting? I personally think it can work well with the idea of cosmic horror and mind-melting terror that the Far Realm invokes. If you look at the traditionally psionic monsters, they are alien things. I also like the idea of giving the powers common names, rather than the scientific descriptors they have always had.

Personally if I were to add psionics to my game, it would come with aberrations as a key element of the setting. I would include Lovecraftian great old ones, creatures like mindflayers and beholders, and make psionics powered by the presence of these creatures and how they warp reality. Or it would be a very wuxia-influenced game that used both psionics and ki side-by-side. As mentioned by Mike Mearls, Dark Sun also has a different spin on psionics, but no less world-altering.

I love this idea. I hope they go with something like this. Arcane, divine, primal and far realmsian psionic - sweet!

I do want psionics as another branch of magic however, in terms of it being affected by detect magic, dispel magic, counterspell and so on. I definitely don't want a whole new lot of spells and powers to deal with negating "psionics" as opposed to negating "magic".

Psikerlord# · Jun 10, 2015

Kobold Avenger said:
There's plenty of reasons why psionics won't get used by DMs. A big factor would be if the mechanics are too different (and automatically assumed to be overpowered), most DMs aren't going to try to learn a vastly different new sub-system just because some player wants to feel special.

And then there's problems down the road such as future support, and integration with other things that come along. Psionics should be something that could dropped in a campaign without too much of a readjustment of game balance and rules.

Pisonics was historically OP because (i) most folks wont have any defence against it, (ii) you can do it stealthy no problem and (iii) you could pump up your powers to nova like crazy by abusing the power point system.

Psikerlord# · Jun 10, 2015

FallenAkriel said:
For me, I feel psionic is simply the complete version of "Ki". It's a mastery over your mind and body that you can also extend to modify your surrounding.
Multiple explanations are possible: Mutation from an hostile environment, too much exposure to the far realms or genetic. They are all good.

It could be a feat tree mechanic to get powers or a Difficulty class mechanic with each 6 psionic group link to an specific attribute each (Psychometabolism = Con, Clairsentience = Wisdom).

New age names needs to go to feel more like fantasy.

This would be my alternative preference - make psion a monk subclass or something.

Minigiant · Jun 10, 2015

Vael said:
Which, while I agree, is, I think, a part of the problem. When we discuss Psionics, most of the examples and Iconic Psionic users are from Science Fiction. X-Men, Bene Gesserit, Biotic Adepts, Vulcans and Jedi ...

So, what Mearls seems to be doing is trying to make Psionics less Science Fiction. Personally, I think that's not the right tack. I'd rather embrace it. DnD is such a weird tent, expand it. But then, I also have the same problem with those that insist Monks are not DnD, because it's too Asian.

I agree.
And like I mentioned earlier, one of the easiest way to give psionics more fantasy is to expand influences out of the typical locations. I was shocked of how well my player's Sasuke Uchiha psionic-rogue fit in my setting.

---

Here's a crazy idea.

What if barbarian's rage is psionic?
Or one form of it is?
What if "the thing" that unlocked psionics made rage physical?
Before warriors just got mad. But now if you get mad enough you can tap into the anger inside and turn into a RAGING MONSTER OF PURE FURY AND PSIONIC INDIGNATION! HULK SMASH!

Yes, psionics comes from radiation.

Mistwell · Jun 10, 2015

Vael said:
Which, while I agree, is, I think, a part of the problem. When we discuss Psionics, most of the examples and Iconic Psionic users are from Science Fiction. X-Men, Bene Gesserit, Biotic Adepts, Vulcans and Jedi ...

So, what Mearls seems to be doing is trying to make Psionics less Science Fiction. Personally, I think that's not the right tack. I'd rather embrace it. DnD is such a weird tent, expand it. But then, I also have the same problem with those that insist Monks are not DnD, because it's too Asian.

You can make it like the force, and more fantasy oriented. It's why I keep advocating for Deryni-like psionics. Deryni and D&D go way back to Dragon Magazine #78. It's pure fantasy, but it's also psionics. It integrates well with the rest of the universe, helps deal with muticlass divine-psionics and arcane-psionics as well, etc..

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

Minigiant

Legend

darius0

Explorer

Tony Vargas

Legend

Bacon Bits

Hero

Vael

Legend

Psikerlord#

Explorer

Psikerlord#

Explorer

Psikerlord#

Explorer

Minigiant

Legend

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)

Similar Threads

Related Articles