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."

 

[Yaarel]

And healing. You could have the Ardent as a Bard psionic-sub-class.

Also Heal and Cure spells make more sense as shapeshifting/psychometabolism/polymorph.

The Bard is awesome for several psionic archetypes, including Psychic Warrior and Ardent.

For a Psionic healer, I also want a Cleric archetype, a Mystic whose psi comes from personal enlightenment and higher consciousness. (No gods.) Heh, the words ‘personal’ and ‘enlightenment’ are almost a paradox. What keeps these mystics in physical reality is their desire to help others.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For a Psionic healer, I also want a Cleric archetype, a Mystic whose psi comes from personal enlightenment and higher consciousness. (No gods.)

The Clerics' significant 'archetype' is really their Domain (chosen at 1st, unlike most others). I suppose you could have a Mind or Psyche or Psionic Domain or something...

Heh, the words ‘personal’ and ‘enlightenment’ are almost a paradox. What keeps these mystics in physical reality is their desire to help others.

A Bodhisattva as psionic archetype of the Cleric?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Okay, so let me clarify my position. Anyone can take their base caster classes and flavor them however they want. But WotC is not going to create a subclass that contradicts the base flavor of their caster classes. You aren't going to have psion as a subclass of wizard (or bard, etc), because wizard is explicitly an arcane magic user, and making them psionic means they would have to change from arcane to psionic at level 2. It changes, rather than adds on to the core class.

Subclasses in 5e add to, rather than change core classes. Unless you believe WotC is intending to completely backpedal on their class design philosophy, that's just the way it is. Again, I'm only bringing this up in case anyone (posting or lurking) has some misconception that WotC might do some of these things. Personally, I like their philosophy. I don't want to see psionics changing the nature of arcane or divine classes. Make one psionic class, a couple subclasses, and 3 feats. Done. But if people are just thinking of how they would do it in their own house rules, then anything works.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But WotC is not going to create a subclass that contradicts the base flavor of their caster classes. You aren't going to have psion as a subclass of wizard (or bard, etc), because wizard is explicitly an arcane magic user, and making them psionic means they would have to change from arcane to psionic at level 2. It changes, rather than adds on to the core class.

There are already archetypes that make that kind of radical change. The Fighter is as mundane as a class can be, until he takes EK and changes completely, for instance.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

There are already archetypes that make that kind of radical change. The Fighter is as mundane as a class can be, until he takes EK and changes completely, for instance.

Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster add features to the class--they don't transform previous class identity or features.

The only way they could "psionicize", say, a wizard or bard, would be to say that they learn how to do psionics in addition to their arcane spellcasting. Maybe, from the point they gain the subclass, they can treat certain spells as psionics rather than arcane magic. But it wouldn't replace their arcane magic, any more than you could have a druid take a "circle of the wand" and switch to arcane magic at level 2. And it would be a mess that doesn't represent psionics well in any event. No, the full casters aren't going to be transformed into psionicists. They'll have to make a new class for a psionic full "caster."

 

[Yaarel]

But WotC is not going to create a subclass that contradicts the base flavor of their caster classes.

The inflexibility of setting requirements is why I am unable to enjoy 5e so far.

It would pain me to see future 5e products sink deeper and deeper into the setting that I want to get away from in the first place.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster add features to the class--they don't transform previous class identity or features.

They do transform class identity, making Fighters and Rogues into casters.

It's true, though, that archetypes and the like don't generally take away class features, just add to them or add options to them.

The only way they could "psionicize", say, a wizard or bard, would be to say that they learn how to do psionics in addition to their arcane spellcasting. Maybe, from the point they gain the subclass, they can treat certain spells as psionics rather than arcane magic.

That'd be a problem for the 'psionics must be different' concept that was an option in 3e. If psionics is just a source of magical power, though, it's no different from being empowered by a draconic heritage vs an affinity or chaos or a Great Old One instead of an Arch-Fey. They don't change the class features, just the story behind them.

No, the full casters aren't going to be transformed into psionicists. They'll have to make a new class for a psionic full "caster."

Leveraging the existing magic systems - which already have spells for most of what psionics could do, anyway - would be an efficient way of re-introducing them, holding down the amount of development work and the page count required.

I mean, look at how heavily the spell list is leveraged, already: every class, and 33 of the 38 sub-classes, use some spell write-ups in some way: divine magic, nature magic, Lovecraftian magic, barbarian totems, elemental & shadow monk's ki, draconic heritage, Vancian memorization, raw chaos, diabolic pacts and Fey patrons - all modeled by spells. Adding psionics to that list wouldn't hurt anything.

 

[Yaarel]

There need to be special psionic cantrips, including Telepathy, Telekinesis, and so on.

Hopefully, it is possible to use spell slots to spike the effects of these cantrips. Telekinesis would lift more mass, maybe also more targets. Telepathy, might be the go-to place for Psionic Blast.

When a Wizard character chooses a psionic cantrip, the cantrip itself might allow the Wizard to switch over to psionic as the source for all of the other spells, instead of arcane.

 

[Remathilis]

They do transform class identity, making Fighters and Rogues into casters.

It's true, though, that archetypes and the like don't generally take away class features, just add to them or add options to them.

That'd be a problem for the 'psionics must be different' concept that was an option in 3e. If psionics is just a source of magical power, though, it's no different from being empowered by a draconic heritage vs an affinity or chaos or a Great Old One instead of an Arch-Fey. They don't change the class features, just the story behind them.

Leveraging the existing magic systems - which already have spells for most of what psionics could do, anyway - would be an efficient way of re-introducing them, holding down the amount of development work and the page count required.

I mean, look at how heavily the spell list is leveraged, already: every class, and 33 of the 38 sub-classes, use some spell write-ups in some way: divine magic, nature magic, Lovecraftian magic, barbarian totems, elemental & shadow monk's ki, draconic heritage, Vancian memorization, raw chaos, diabolic pacts and Fey patrons - all modeled by spells. Adding psionics to that list wouldn't hurt anything.

There is no subtype that changes the nature of spellcasting, merely adding it to classes that lacked it before.

A psionic subclass for (example) sorcerer is pointless. It's basically saying "psionics is just magic" and can be modeled by a sorcerer who learns magic missile, fireball, sleep, mage armor, and dispel magic, but got a few tk/telepathy powers. Or that wizards can scribe "psionics" in his "psionics book".

I get there is an urge to try to fit every former class under the PHB 12 (hell, I'm sure there are some who would want some of them crammed down to subclasses, but too late now.) But doing so robs psionics of its flavor the same way making warlock a wizard archetype would.

 

[Mercule]

The idea isn't so much pionics coming from the Far Realms as a reaction to incursions by the Far Realms. Psionics thus remains inherently 'internal,' even under that concept. Though, in principle, I agree that it's the sort of thing that should be allowed to vary from setting to setting or campaign to campaign.

This was the specific example I had in mind when I said "don't like". It's indirect causality, but still causality. Not frowning on anyone who does like the idea. I just don't, and would prefer to not even have that level of relationship fluff in the rules.

I guess what I'm really looking for is a psionics system that wouldn't lose anything if the designers/developers were expressly told they could not mention the Far Realms, even obliquely, anywhere in the book and inherently psychic monsters (mind flayers, aboleths, etc.) could only be discussed in a way that one might include orcs and dwarves in a book on weapons (e.g. dwarves like axes and hammers). That's not to say the book actually has to be that "clean", just that it should be that separable.