D&D Psionics Survey; Plus "First Major Mechanical Expansion" Coming?

The latest D&D survey is up from WotC, and it's asking your thoughts on the revised Awakened Mystic article (aka 5E psionics rules) in Mike Mearls' Unearthed Arcana column last July. It also asks whether you want to see new races, classes, spells, and feats. At the same time, the last survey's results are in, reporting on the pubic's opinions of the Kits of Old article from a few months ago; and Mike Mearls refers to a "first major mechanical expansion" in the game.

[lq]At this stage, we’ve begun considering what the first, major mechanical expansion to the game might look like.[/lq]

 

[Shroomy]

All I can say is that I am thankful that psionics aren't part of the core game.

It is just my opinion, but a concept / word originating from the 1950's has no place in a fantasy setting. Good stuff for a space opera, but latter-half of the word is from "electr-onics" and has no business having ever been in D&D. It's like they licked too many Gama World book covers or something and just tossed it into the game since they had a rules framework.

Science-Fantasy has long been a part of D&D, as well as it's literary and pop culture antecedents, so I must disagree with your assertion that psionics has no business being in D&D. It may not be for everyone or every campaign, but it definitely has a place in the game.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

To say that one sort of fantasy (psionics - the ability to do wondrous things through practiced force of will) does not fit where another sort of fantasy (magic - the ability to do wondrous things through practiced formulae or faith in a power besides one's self) does is to be closed-minded, and often elitist at the same time.

All fantasy, whether it is the typical D&D sort with elves, dwarves, orcs, fireball spells and divine magic, or the planet-traveling alien encountering and gunfighting sort, has its place in D&D.

Powers of the mind, even if called magic in their sources, are found in the very materials originally listed as being inspiration for the D&D game itself.

Edit to add: And let us all be mindful that there was a time when there was just "Fantasy"; not all of these sub-divisions that have been made of it such as "historical fantasy" or "science-fiction".

 

[jayoungr]

It is just my opinion, but a concept / word originating from the 1950's has no place in a fantasy setting. Good stuff for a space opera, but latter-half of the word is from "electr-onics" and has no business having ever been in D&D. It's like they licked too many Gama World book covers or something and just tossed it into the game since they had a rules framework.

For what it's worth, I don't usually like "psionics" in fantasy either,* and I dislike the name. But ever since they renamed it as "mystic," I hear a lot of outcry from people who love the name (and concept) for some reason.

I guess it just means that whatever they choose, someone's going to be unhappy.


*Not to say it's impossible for it to be done well, but usually the flavor just doesn't match up.

 

[Umbran]

All I can say is that I am thankful that psionics aren't part of the core game.

It is just my opinion, but a concept / word originating from the 1950's has no place in a fantasy setting.

What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

As for the concept - Katherine Kurtz has written a few pretty successful trilogies of fantasy novels in which any D&D player is likely to say, "Hey, all that magic is psionics." None of the verbal, somatic, and material component and preparation stuff. If she can do that, the concept is fine, even if you don't like the word.

I admit, I am not a great fan of mixing standard spellcasting and psi in the same game. For some reason, I find that thematically off-putting. But, a game where all magic was psi, basically a game in a world like Kurtz's, would be fine and fun by me.

 

[Topdecker]

To me, Psionics seemed cobbled on from the Metamorphosis Alpha / Gamma World chain of games. I regarded it as being ill considered when 1st edition was released and after 30+ years of holding this position, I am unlikely to change my opinion.

I do agree with Umbran in that selecting one system - ritual casting vs inherent powers - is agreeable - and I suppose that part of my dislike for psionics is that there is no need for a secondary system beyond some marketing goal of having psionics span several game systems.

 

[SkidAce]

Science-Fantasy has long been a part of D&D, as well as it's literary and pop culture antecedents, so I must disagree with your assertion that psionics has no business being in D&D. It may not be for everyone or every campaign, but it definitely has a place in the game.

I agree.

It has been in my campaign and the lore of the world since at least 1985-86.

 

[Shroomy]

To me, Psionics seemed cobbled on from the Metamorphosis Alpha / Gamma World chain of games. I regarded it as being ill considered when 1st edition was released and after 30+ years of holding this position, I am unlikely to change my opinion.

I do agree with Umbran in that selecting one system - ritual casting vs inherent powers - is agreeable - and I suppose that part of my dislike for psionics is that there is no need for a secondary system beyond some marketing goal of having psionics span several game systems.

D&D psionics isn't cobbled on material from MA/GW - both share the same literary and pop culture influences. For psionics, it's Sterling Lanier's Hiero's Journey, which is referenced in Appendix N and the 1e GW foreword. BTW, the book is awesome and includes an literary example of a character gaining experience and leveling up!

 

[SkidAce]

To me, Psionics seemed cobbled on from the Metamorphosis Alpha / Gamma World chain of games. I regarded it as being ill considered when 1st edition was released and after 30+ years of holding this position, I am unlikely to change my opinion.

I do agree with Umbran in that selecting one system - ritual casting vs inherent powers - is agreeable - and I suppose that part of my dislike for psionics is that there is no need for a secondary system beyond some marketing goal of having psionics span several game systems.

Not to try to change your mind, but here is some additional info;

Katherine Kurtz had "psionic" magic in her fantasy series. (Deryni)

Marion Zimmer Bradley had "psionic" magic in her fantasy series. (Darkover)

Julian May...(The Pliocene Epic, i.e. The Many Colored Land, which is FANTASTIC!)

Anne McCaffrey...Andre Norton...Mercedes Lackey...

 

[Azzy]

I'd like to see a second Monster Manual as well.

I'd like a second, a third, a forth... There's a lot of monsters from the games past that should be updated and included.

 

[Azzy]

To me, Psionics seemed cobbled on from the Metamorphosis Alpha / Gamma World chain of games. I regarded it as being ill considered when 1st edition was released and after 30+ years of holding this position, I am unlikely to change my opinion.

Psionics in D&D predate those games. Psionics has been part of D&D since 1976, where it appeared in Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry for the original version of the game.

 

[Topdecker]

Psionics in D&D predate those games. Psionics has been part of D&D since 1976, where it appeared in Supplement II: Eldritch Wizardry for the original version of the game.

Metamorphosis Alpha was also published in 1976. I have no idea which one got printed first and nor does it matter. The likelihood that TSR would release 2 titles in the same year that both featured psionics without ONE of the two influencing the other, is extremely unlikely.

Not a poke at you, but I did not think much of EW. My copy remained pristine which was proof of the low opinion that I had of it. It was not the psionics - it was because it was almost incoherent in presentation, with ownership of Dragon Magazine articles being needed to put it into any sort of focus. The legendary stuff was cool and the art was ok, but I almost never referred back to it.

 

[Elderbrain]

More options is fine (new subclasses, new monsters, etc.) Invalidating existing material would NOT be o.k. ("All your old classes are obsolete - here's the new versions!" - basically, what 3.5e did to 3e, and Essentials did to 4e.) All the current 5e material should be 100% compatible with any new material. In other words, add a spell-less Ranger - fine. Take away currently valid options - not fine. I prefer that all such new options be presented as subclasses, as in the PHB - not kits or prestige classes, though the Artificer and the Psionicist/Psi/Mystic might merit whole new classes to do them justice. (I vote that the Psionic base class simply be called a "Psychic" and not "Psionicist", "Psion", "Mystic", etc. The first two sound too scientific and sci-fi-ish for my tastes. "Mystic" at least sound like the class is supernatural! However, "Psychic" works best for me because the user is clearly utilizing "psionic" powers and would not be mistaken for, say, some kind of wizard or cleric, which is possible with "Mystic". Everybody associates the word "psychic" with supernatural abilities (i.e. a "psychic reader" is clearly not a sci-fi concept, IMHO.)

 

[Grue AC]

I'm just hoping for a new Int based class. Just because your WoTC doesn't mean everyone else wants to be one.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't play half-editions, so I would merrily be left behind in case of a revision.

I don't know if by "mechanical expansion" they really mean new rules or new character material, although in some cases (psionics) the two things happen at the same time. I would be happy in either case anyway. They might even consider a PHB2, DMG2 and MM2, although I don't think they'll have enough strong material for the first 2 of them.

As for the survey on Psionics, I must say that even tho I am not generally a fan, I found their second and latest design attempt quite impressive. I liked the system, almost all disciplines/talents/powers, and both subclasses. I am almost convinced I would actually welcome psionics in my D&D game for the first time ever... to actually win me, they just need a couple of otherwise significant improvements:

1- The base class is just too complex... you have Psionic Talents (basically cantrips), Psychic Focus (also at-will), and the Psi Points based effects (roughly corresponding to point-based spellcasting). And you get up to 6 different disciplines in the first 10 levels, meaning 6 Focuses and 12-20 "spells", plus the Talents. This is already complex enough for me and on par with PHB spellcasters, so I'd like that they simplify the rest of the class (there are 2 more abilities with their own mechanics to keep track of) or my players would probably not want to play this at all with too much stuff to learn. Maybe just streamlining the mechanics a little bit would help.

2- I would like the identity of "psionics = power of the mind" to be strengthened. For example, d6 HD and no armor proficiencies (just like Wizards, also based on non-physical powers). Some subclasses can reinstate those back easily, like the Order of the Immortal aka Psychic Warrior. In addition, I would remove those powers that grant benefits to other people, most notably the Adaptive Body discipline which is described as "augmenting your own body" but then lets you bestow resistance/immunities to others. This breaks my suspension of disbelief, but it depends on the actual effects (particularly, the really physical ones).

But overall I quite like this stuff... It's unique and different enough to hold as a base class on par with the PHB classes, both mechanically and narratively.

 

[Neonchameleon]

My problem with psionics in D&D has nothing to do with genre policing. It's that almost every edition has had an entirely different set of psionics rules and they have all been terrible. From attack and defence modes to powerpoints that rewarded spamming.

 

[CapnZapp]

The power points are, IIRC, exactly like spell points in the DMG.

And yes, of course you'll use that to always cast as many spell points as possible with each action.

Better to be king of three encounters than an equal contributor of eight, especially since the chance of getting a long rest long before that eighth encounter is pretty good.

A caster with spell points is like a warlock in that he can always cast his highest levelled spells, but with much greater flexibility than that warlock. More high level spells and/or lower levelled spells too.

In short: any Psion must be much more frail than the Wizard to be balanced in practical play. It should probably not get attack cantrips on par with Firebolt etc; the class really needs to suck when low on power points, for anyone to hold back.

 

[SailorNash]

I don't care about Psionics. No aliens or science fiction for me. But I do like Mystics, diviners, gypsies, sooth-sayers and prophets. A psychic class would be wonderful, or at least no less harmful than a Lore Bard or Knowledge Cleric. So long as they keep the weird "psion" stuff to a minimum.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

No aliens or science fiction for me.

Have you ever stopped and wondered, "What's the difference between a Dwarf and a Klingon?"

 

[MechaPilot]

Have you ever stopped and wondered, "What's the difference between a Dwarf and a Klingon?"

A little more time in the makeup chair (to get that rubber skullcap on)
The lack of an affected Scottish accent
And the lack of camera tricks to make you look shorter

 

[Sadras]

Have you ever stopped and wondered, "What's the difference between a Dwarf and a Klingon?"

No. But I find half-Klingons attractive. The same cannot be said for half-dwarves.