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

Tony Vargas said:

Sub-classes already exist that are chosen at 1st level, so that's not a new thing.

Click to expand...

But all sub-classes of the same class are chosen at the same time. It's even listed on the class's progression table. At 3rd level, barbarians choose a Primal Path. At 1st level, clerics choose a Domain. At 2nd level, druids choose a Circle.

What you are suggesting is akin to saying that at 1st level, a cleric can choose to be a Life cleric. If she doesn't, she can choose to be a Tempest cleric at 3rd level. That does not work with the way classes are set up now - unless, of course, you base the class on the cleric, sorcerer, or warlock, who all choose their sub-class at 1st level.

Celebrim said:

In D&D, psionics have always been 'magic under a different name' with no coherent description of what it was if it wasn't magic. In 1e, psionics were simply, "Magic that is innate to your being rather than acquired through study." What was really unique about it as a rule set was that it was almost completely not tied to level or class.

Click to expand...

...and completely different operational mechanics & resource management. And while 2Ed Pdi was VERY mechanically similar, subsequent editions vary.

IOW, your initial statement is only trivially true in that you get "kewl powerz".

A new class with new sub-classes is needed. I think you can build on an existing framework that is familiar but still make it feel different. 1-9 power levels of abilities that scale the same as spells. At the same time you need to make these powers feel different by adding around the edges ... a point system, an exhaustion mechanic tied to constitution, categorizing each power by the classic six disciplines, and unique prerequisites to access these powers can do this with out pigeon-holing the system to one particular genre or another. Powers need to be unique. It would be a mistake to reference spell descriptions and would come across like lazy game design. The system needs to allow for both sci-fi and fantasy, and it can.

Tony Vargas said:

Pretty sure it's 38.

Click to expand...

Pedantry awards you no points.

Tony Vargas said:

Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster change martial classes into arcane casters.

Click to expand...

They ADD spellcasting to the fighter and rogue classes. The fighter doesn't lose any of its base abilities (extra attack, second wind, action surge, or indomitable). Likewise, the rogue retains sneak attack, thieves cant, uncanny dodge, evasion, and all the other base rogue skills. Nor do they lose any weapon, armor, save, skill, or tool proficiencies in the process, and they choose to become arcane casters at THIRD LEVEL, not first.

Tony Vargas said:

Totem Barbarians use magic while Berserkers don't.

Click to expand...

Totem Barbarians get three rituals they can use. Hardly "using magic" in the colloquial sense and barely counting as a spellcaster.

Tony Vargas said:

Sorcerers are either Chaos-touched or have a Draconic heritage, that sounds like an essential difference in nature.

Click to expand...

Yet neither of them change the nature of the base class. They don't change spell access or spell lists, change their proficiencies, require refluffing metamagic, or change a single thing about their base spellcasting mechanic (caster stat, spells known, spells per day, rituals or implements). Yes, they are different in flavor and have unique mechanics, but in the end they are very much the same sorcerer class and play similar.

Tony Vargas said:

Warlocks can be using creepy Lovecraftian magic, capricious fey magic, or nasty diabolic magic.

Click to expand...

Again, nothing changes the base class. Same invocations, same tome/blade/chain mechanic, same base spell list, same proficiencies, same, same, same. All pacts do is give you some expanded spell choices and your subclass powers.

Tony Vargas said:

Regular, Shadow, and Elemental monks seem pretty different in their natures, too.

Click to expand...

Really? Same martial arts, same proficiencies, same... do I really need to keep going? NONE OF THESE SUBCLASSES RADICALLY ALTER THE RULES OF THE BASE CLASS!!!!! THEY ARE ADDITIVE, NOT TRANSFORMATIONAL OR SUBTRACTIVE!!!

Tony Vargas said:

Sub-classes already exist that are chosen at 1st level, so that's not a new thing.

Click to expand...

Barbarian's choose their Primal Path at 3rd level. Bard's choose their College at 3rd level. Druids pick their Circle at 3rd level. Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues pick their Arcehtype at 3rd level. Monks pick their Tradition at 3rd level. Paladin's pick their Oath and 3rd level. And Wizard's pick their tradition at 2nd level. This doesn't change based on the subclass (EK's are picked at 1st level, but champions are picked at 3rd) and there is NO example of subclass being picked before the level you gain access to its ability. YOU ARE RE-WRITING THE SUBCLASS RULES IN THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK!

But please, tell me how that is easier than a new base class.

Tony Vargas said:

IIRC, WotC has signaled an unwillingness to introduce new classes.

Click to expand...

WotC has signaled an unwillingness to introduce new anything so far. All we have to go on is the Artificer, and WotC got enough negative feedback on the Wizardficer that they went back to the drawing board on it. Lack of content =/= unwilling to introduce, if that is the case WotC is unwilling to introduce new weapons, armor, backgrounds, and feats.

Tony Vargas said:

A few of the new classes introduced in 3.5 didn't cause any problems. The Scout was just fine. Some of the Bo9S classes were OK. In 4e, there were no particular problems caused by introducing the PH2 classes.

Click to expand...

A well designed class breaks nothing.

Tony Vargas said:

New mechanics can be a problem, yes - whether they're tied to a class or not. A new class, OTOH, may not introduce many new mechanics.

Click to expand...

This the Catch 22: KM demands any new class be radically new in order to justify its existence, and you don't want any new mechanics (be it class, subclass, or what) because they can break the system. Ergo, there is no psionic system WotC can introduce* that will satisfy both of you.

A curious game, D&D rules expansion is. The only winning move is not to play.

Remathilis said:

Pedantry awards you no points.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it awards 2.8 points.

Yaarel said:

Creating psionic or ki archetypes for core classes accomplishes ten good things.

• I use the normal familiar rules of core D&D.
• I avoid a learning curve of rules that only exist for the sake of being weird and complex.
• I get rules that are balanced, rigorously tested, and publicly reviewed.
• I avoid wonky broken mechanics. (Even 4e psionic broke the game, a char-op nightmare).
• I get elegant gaming design, where every rule is useful, efficient, and fun.
• I avoid proliferation of redundant classes, and the power creeping that comes with them.
• My Wizard archetype enjoys the excellent spells that are clearly psionic (mind, body, force).
• My psionic adventurer avoids the ‘left overs’, after the Wizard and Cleric stole everything.
• I get the psionic flavor that I love: personal mindful power.
• I replace the flavors that I hate: external sources, gods, patrons, weave, material components.

Click to expand...

By trying to place psionics on top of existing classes you are more likely to get broken mechanics. By creating a new class and sub-classes you can balance their power at each level to the power of existing classes. By giving psionic powers to the entire gambit of classes you are more likely to create broken and unintended combinations that outpace current characters in power and strength. Then the power creep begins and in order to keep up everyone has to play a character with psionics and that is what we want to prevent.

Remathilis said:

This the Catch 22: KM demands any new class be radically new in order to justify its existence, and you don't want any new mechanics (be it class, subclass, or what) because they can break the system. Ergo, there is no psionic system WotC can introduce* that will satisfy both of you.

A curious game, D&D rules expansion is. The only winning move is not to play.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I have the genesis of two viable systems in my head. One of them is, essentially, a replacement for Sorcerer that would pretty much just be "internally powered by [select from list]", with the option for the various archetypes to swap out the VSM components for something else (like 3E did, but expanded as appropriate to the other archetypes). I have no idea what I'd do for psychic warrior, etc., but it might be as simple as "use multiclassing rules" or an Eldritch Knight knock-off archetype.

The other is a new subsystem that works by providing base devotions (a.k.a. spells) that can be augmented with talents, which are gained as the character advances. Most devotions would also have a "Maintain" tag in their description that would give the on-going effect if the psion maintains concentration. This would call for a new base Psion class (to cover a couple 3E Psion sub-classes, Wilder, and Ardent) as well as a Fighter archetype for Psychic Warrior (that would nick the soul knife's stuff) and a Lurk archetype for Rogue.

I like both ideas, and would welcome either in my game. But, either would alienate half(ish) the fans.

There's a clear middle ground here, which is the approach I'd advocate. A new Psion class, for the psionic specialists. Psion Subclasses fill the core archetypes, like Telepaths, Telekinetics and Shapers. And the rest as subclasses in existing classes. Psychic Warrior as a Fighter Subclass. Lurk as a Rogue Subclass. The poor Soulknife ... maybe a feat? ;-)

One new class will not break the game. Psions, I feel, are different enough to be its own class. I can sympathize with the desire to limit the number of new classes, but I don't agree that that means no new classes EVER.

Remathilis said:

They ADD spellcasting to the fighter and rogue classes.

Click to expand...

Which is transformational. It changes their nature. They were strictly martial, they become casters.

Totem Barbarians get three rituals they can use. Hardly "using magic" in the colloquial sense and barely counting as a spellcaster.

Click to expand...

I'd count them among the 8 sub-classes that don't cast spells, rather than the 30 that do, yes. But, it's still using magic.

Yet neither of them change the nature of the base class. They don't change spell access or spell lists, change their proficiencies

Click to expand...

"Add to" is a change. I get that you're fixated on the kind of change, but there is precedent for sub-classes changing the base class in dramatic ways. Adding spell casting, for instance is radically changing spell access & spell lists.

Barbarian's choose their Primal Path at 3rd level. Bard's choose their College at 3rd level. Druids pick their Circle at 3rd level. Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues pick their Arcehtype at 3rd level. Monks pick their Tradition at 3rd level. Paladin's pick their Oath and 3rd level. And Wizard's pick their tradition at 2nd level.

Click to expand...

And Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Paladins do so at 1st. The thing about a precedent is that it doesn't have to happen the majority of the time to be established, it only has to happen once. Three classes picking sub-classes at first level is more than adequate precedent.

But please, tell me how that is easier than a new base class.

Click to expand...

There are, in fact, no sub-class rules in the PH. It's not a class-design ruleset, it's just a set of classes. What there are, is precedents, in the existing 38 sub-classes.

I shouldn't have to explain why adding a sub-class is simpler than adding a new base class, you've been pointing it out, yourself: most of the class is already designed, you just have to design what makes the sub-class unique.

A Psion as Sorcerer sub-class, for instance, is easy. The Sorcerer even already uses a point mechanic. Your heritage is Psionic (maybe Far Realms if that's used explicitly), you get some features related to that, like telepathy and psionic combat, say, and you're off.

A well designed class breaks nothing.

Click to expand...

Depends on what goal of the design is. A balanced class shouldn't break anything, unless there's an unintended/undetected synergy with some other game element. A class designed, as most 5e classes have been, to evoke classic feel, OTOH, may be a tad 'broken' by some measures, if the original - like the 2e psion, for instance - was.

This the Catch 22: KM demands any new class be radically new in order to justify its existence, and you don't want any new mechanics (be it class, subclass, or what) because they can break the system. Ergo, there is no psionic system WotC can introduce* that will satisfy both of you.

Click to expand...

I'm fine with new mechanics, if they're clear/balanced/playable mechanics (which isn't even relevant, since obtuse/broken/problematic mechanics are hardly anathema to the 5e philosophy). But, new mechanics present challenges. It's not a catch-22, it's a trade-off. There's greater design effort and you're 'betting' more if you go with the more extensive splatbook vs a UA article, for instance. Both are valid options.

Staffan said:

unless, of course, you base the class on the cleric, sorcerer, or warlock, who all choose their sub-class at 1st level.

Click to expand...

Sorcerer is the most obvious choice for a psionic sub-class, it's been brought up in multiple threads here and on the WotC boards, and it's pretty intuitive, being the class for in-born magic. In addition, Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue have no magic abilities to 'change' before choosing a sub-class, so tacking on psionics to them the same way arcane is tacked on with the EK and AT or rituals tacked on to the Totem Barbarian would be fine. Not that I can think of any reason to have a psionic barbarian.

GobiWon said:

By trying to place psionics on top of existing classes you are more likely to get broken mechanics. By creating a new class and sub-classes you can balance their power at each level to the power of existing classes. By giving psionic powers to the entire gambit of classes you are more likely to create broken and unintended combinations that outpace current characters in power and strength. Then the power creep begins and in order to keep up everyone has to play a character with psionics and that is what we want to prevent.

Click to expand...

Well said. Packaging psionics into its own self-contained system offers much less scope for unintended combos to break the game. If you try to shoehorn it into the system as it stands, the risk increases greatly.

To see the issue, look no further than the sorlock. The sorlock combo (multi-classed warlock/sorcerer, using Quicken Spell to double-cast eldritch blast for insane damage) exists because warlocks are piggybacking off the traditional caster system instead of using their own self-contained mechanics. If eldritch blast were a warlock class ability rather than a cantrip, the sorlock wouldn't be possible. Similarly, if psions use the existing magic system, all psionic spells have to be vetted for all classes, since there are feats and class abilities that let you poach spells off another class's list.