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."

 

[Von Ether]

First up. Psioics and Science Fantasy has been a part of D&D since almost Day One with the games original Sword and Sorcery roots. The more "traditional fantasy" flavor was added later to jump in on the LotR craze in the 70s.

Dang! I missed that whole twitter thing and wished to add my own two cents, for what it's worth.

For me, I always wanted psionics to be able to stand alone as a potential replacement for magic for two reasons. A. I had a long standing grudge against "Vancian" magic spell slots as a player. B. Open up D&D for more crazy homebrew worlds.

Anecdotally, almost every other homebrew I've played in had some form of Science Fantasy or psionics in it.

 

[Morlock]

For example, the Cleric class forces every setting to have gods, who the character must then worship.

No, it doesn't. You can substitute various types of patrons for "gods," or remove them altogether (in favor of, say, "ethos"), and the cleric will still work. They need not worship anyone. This is all fluff, and easily changed to suit your setting. And you can remove the class, if you don't like it.

 

[steeldragons]

Well, I have psionics in my homebrew world. They are psychic individuals. There is nothing "science fantasy" about them or the world. Their inclusion from science fantasy sources at D&D's roots notwithstanding.

 

[Von Ether]

No, it doesn't. You can substitute various types of patrons for "gods," or remove them altogether (in favor of, say, "ethos"), and the cleric will still work. They need not worship anyone. This is all fluff, and easily changed to suit your setting. And you can remove the class, if you don't like it.

Yeeahhh. In theory. But most players can't or won't separate rules from the fluff they are attached. I've spent years mix and matching rules with settings, and when it comes to DnD Magic/Clerics and Superheroes they players won't make the jump.

 

[arjomanes]

No, it doesn't. You can substitute various types of patrons for "gods," or remove them altogether (in favor of, say, "ethos"), and the cleric will still work. They need not worship anyone. This is all fluff, and easily changed to suit your setting. And you can remove the class, if you don't like it.

Well technically, the rules say "Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. Clerics are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effects." It's pretty clear that the default D&D cleric gets its power from the gods.

Now, you could certainly recreate the class into another class that has similar mechanics, but you would have to change a great deal about the class. The name, the holy symbol, the spells, and the abilities would all need to be changed. The trope of the holy warrior defines many of the mechanical choices, and changing the trope means some of the mechanical choices may need to be revisited. Why does the class grant medium armor and shield proficiency, for example? Why does it serve a patron and gain iconic domain powers from that being? What is the purpose of the relationship and why is that being represented by universal concepts?

So yes, you could rebuild the class, with or without different changes to the mechanics, but the story and the non-mechanical rules and descriptions are very integral to the class as well. I'm all for tweaking the rules to fit the setting, and coming up with new and interesting variants. But the default D&D 5e cleric and its relationship with divine magic necessitates gods in the world. Of course the DM is welcome to change that rule as he sees fit, and actually is encouraged to by the rules, which is very cool.

I'm not meaning to argue with you as much as drawing a distinction between the default game and each of our own settings. In my setting, for example, only humans that worship the gods of law are technically clerics. Chaotic non-humans or worshipers of gods of chaos are cultists (or their nonhuman equivalent — each race has its own name for warrior priests, as well as favored deities/domains), not clerics, with slightly different abilities.

Even if the default game had a story about how psionics work and where that power comes from, that doesn't preclude me from tweaking it to fit my world as well. But a psion would still have a certain role and a story in the default game.

 

[Shasarak]

Aww, but the Far Realm is cool!

Meh, the only difference that I can see between the Abyss and the Far Realm is that one has Cthulhu and Psionics and the other has all the cool Demons.

 

[gyor]

No and I hope they have a Ardent (4e Empath), for 5e. And or a Divine Mind.

 

[Shasarak]

On the subject of differentiating Psionics from magic, I prefer the Fiest model that at its core all magic (Divine and Arcane) and Psionics are actually the same.

 

[Morlock]

On the subject of differentiating Psionics from magic, I prefer the Fiest model that at its core all magic (Divine and Arcane) and Psionics are actually the same.

I'm kind of backing into the same thing in my setting; everything is psionics, but there are psionic clerics and druids, etc., too.

Well technically, the rules say "Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. Clerics are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effects." It's pretty clear that the default D&D cleric gets its power from the gods.

Yeah, but that's all fluff. And it always depends on the setting. Clerics have always been quite different from default magic-users (and the like) in this regard; they're usually extensively interwoven with the setting. I haven't read through 5e yet, but I'd be surprised if it didn't say something about "check with your DM about the setting you'll be playing in." Clerics are all over the place in terms of the gods they can worship, and the trappings and mechanical consequences of same.

Now, you could certainly recreate the class into another class that has similar mechanics, but you would have to change a great deal about the class. The name, the holy symbol, the spells, and the abilities would all need to be changed.

That's what I mean. The holy symbol is pretty much bound to change from setting to setting, and patron to patron. The spell lists, too. Abilities, too, though not necessarily so. And as for the name of the class, it's sort of a catch-all, generic term, IMO. Any setting worth its salt (except maybe a deliberately generic one) is going to have specific names for the members of each cult.

The trope of the holy warrior defines many of the mechanical choices, and changing the trope means some of the mechanical choices may need to be revisited. Why does the class grant medium armor and shield proficiency, for example? Why does it serve a patron and gain iconic domain powers from that being? What is the purpose of the relationship and why is that being represented by universal concepts?

You're asking the wrong guy on that topic. Before I decided to go with 5e, I was playing with the idea of stripping the fighting abilities out of the cleric class altogether, and making characters use levels of fighting classes to make up the difference, if that's what their players want. I didn't see anything inherent to the priest archetype that demanded fighting ability superior to that of the wizard. Still don't.

I'm not meaning to argue with you as much as drawing a distinction between the default game and each of our own settings.

I wouldn't mind if you were. I like arguing. We aren't too far apart. But I still think I was right to reply the way I did about D&D "forcing" this or that.

 

[Yaarel]

No, it doesn't. You can substitute various types of patrons for "gods," or remove them altogether (in favor of, say, "ethos"), and the cleric will still work. They need not worship anyone. This is all fluff, and easily changed to suit your setting. And you can remove the class, if you don't like it.

Speaking for myself, I cannot change the fluff of the rules. For me, playing D&D is about immersing in the illusion of being in an other world. Simply seeing the word ‘gods’ when consulting character sheets and core books, spoils the illusion of the other world. I saw the mistake that stage magician made, and now the illusion is fail.

Moreover, the rules of the Cleric class that players must consult emphatically forces the player to pick a ‘god’. Not a patron, not an ethos, but a ‘god’. As per the rules as written. The Dungeon Masters Guide is infuriating because even the section that talks about alternative settings still tries to talk the DM into having gods in the setting anyway. No thanks.

The rules as written bakes in the flavor of unwanted gods into every aspect of the D&D class, even the spells. It is impossible to play an immersive game without being forced to deal with gods.

I could, of course, completely rewrite the entire Cleric class, and rewrite most of the spells, and rewrite swaths of the Players Handbook, in order to create a flavor that I enjoy.

Or I could play a different game that makes it easy to enjoy the flavors that I enjoy.

The reason why I continue my interest in 5e is I appreciate the mechanics. I value the effort WotC made to playtest this version of D&D. I respect the result. At the same time, I want to play *my* campaign setting. Not the setting brand that WotC is trying to force on me.