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."

 

[Remathilis]

Yep. And psionics has been "MAGIC" in the past.

It's also had a 'not magic' option in 3e, and in 4e was a separate 'Source.' So, yeah, if you want to go the 4e route and have Psionics definitively or existentially distinct from arcane, divine, etc, it might be an issue to have a sub-class throw that switch.

5e has not gone that way, though: Divine, arcane, natural, draconic, chaos, G.O.O., Fey, or Diabolic, magic is all magic.

Psionics was never "magic". In AD&D, it ran on a completely different system (lacking levels, components, and schools for power points, ability checks, and disciplines). 3e allowed for psionic/magic transparency (which AD&D did not) and 4e made it implicit. However, psionics and magic were completely separate for most of its history and used some varying mechanic (even 4e, in the tune of power points augments) for nearly all of it.

Further, all the other types you listed have always been represented by "magic" previous. Divine and Arcane (or Cleric and M-U) go back as far as OD&D, "natural" (which I assume you mean druidic) was a subtype of divine, "draconic" (again, you mean sorcerer bloodline) was arcane, chaos (dating back to the wild mage) was arcane, G.O.O.,fey magic and diabolic (typically acquired via 3e prestige classes) were both basically arcane magic too. So all the sources you listed before basically were always spells, typically a subset of either divine/priestly or arcane/wizardly. Psionics never was. It was always unique and NEVER tied to arcane or divine magic. Doing so now cheapens it.

That's an interesting distinction, and probably /why/ Sorcerers, Warlocks and Clerics work that way, because it would be strange for a Sorcerer to 'become' Draconic at 3rd level. Of course, that's no objection at all to a Psionic Sorcerer, since he'd be Psionic from level 1.

It does hurt the idea of an Ardent Bard, though. ;(

Which only works if you decide psionics is "inner magic", which the sorcerer already does. You could make a "magic" bloodline and it would basically be what you're proposing. Psionics isn't just another way to cast magic missile; making it so defeats the point. Psionics is about powers of the mind (telepathy, remote viewing, clairsentience), body (bio-feedback, pain tolerance, psychic healing), spirit (aura reading, charkras, and spirit projection) and manipulation of objects (telekinesis, pyrokinesis, teleportation). Psionics has different beat than magic, and certainly than the magic the sorcerer gets.

As would a hypothetical psionic sorcerer.
There's no rule that differentiates the Arcane Source in 5e, nor even any formal concept of source. A Sorcerer is as different from a Wizard as from a Druid or Cleric: they're all three neo-Vancian prepped casters and the Sorcerer isn't.

First line under Spellcasting: "An event in your past, or in the life of a parent or ancestor, left an indelible mark on you, infusing you with arcane magic. This font of magic, whatever its origin, fuels your spells."

Emphasis mine. Right there, a psionic subclass would contradict the main text of the book. Doesn't say "magical", or "psionic" or "supernatural", its says ARCANE MAGIC and SPELLS.

Case closed.

Every class and almost every sub-class in 5e is just another way of saying "spellcaster." It'd be tough to sell the idea that they're mostly not needed.

If psionics is just magic (and Arcane Magic at that) then they aren't needed anymore. Wizards can charm, read minds, move objects without touching them, throw fire, move vast distances, and even dominate the weak minded. Without a unique mechanic and powers different than arcane magic, they are akin to a diviner, enchanter, or conjurer and thus redundant.

At that point, I'd rather NOT clutter up the game with a redundant subclass wearing some classic name. Go big or go home; new system or don't bother.

 

[GobiWon]

I am surprised that people who play a roleplaying game have such a hard time separating fluff from mechanics. How hard is it to create your own gods, warlock pacts, origins of sorcery, or psionic triggers. This is a game predicated on creativity and imagination. There is nothing in the 5e core rules that is setting specific. None of the classes or sub-classes are specific to the Realms. Nothing in the fluff should keep you from enjoying 5e as a system. It's as if some of you don't like the system because the book mentions that elves are good with long swords and in the fantasy world that you have envisioned elves use boomerangs ... well change it. Nothing presented so far is beyond normal fantasy tropes. If you have something different in mind, tweek it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am surprised that people who play a roleplaying game have such a hard time separating fluff from mechanics. How hard is it to create your own gods, warlock pacts, origins of sorcery, or psionic triggers. This is a game predicated on creativity and imagination. There is nothing in the 5e core rules that is setting specific.

Nod. As it was during the playtest and the edition war, discussions like this often go down a rabbithole when someone really wants their way to be the default or official way, as if they need that validation to re-assure them that it's OK to have a different preference from the next guy. :shrug:

Were it not for that impulse, we wouldn't even have 5e, right now.

Psionics was never "magic". In AD&D, it ran on a completely different system (lacking levels, components, and schools for power points, ability checks, and disciplines).

Different system, yes. 'Not magic?' not so clear. Magic & psionics interacted in 1e, yes. But so did magic and gamma world mutations and technology, in the 1e DMG.

3e allowed for psionic/magic transparency (which AD&D did not) and 4e made it implicit.

Backwards. 4e gave Psionics it's own 'Source,' making it definitively different from Arcane, just as, say, Martial was. 3e explicitly gave you the magic/not-magic choice, for the first time. 4e went the other way, it was the only edition that took Psionics, Divine, Primal, &c and made them all distinct Sources.

I don't expect 5e to take the 4e course and make Psionics distinct from magic, since it's abandoned formal Sources, and, because 33 of 38 sub-classes already use spells in one way or another.

Which only works if you decide psionics is "inner magic", which the sorcerer already does.[/qoute] Or 'mind magic,' yes. Exactly. Psionics is a supernatural power, placed in a fantasy setting, what else is going to be but 'magic' in some sense. Two of three Monk sub-classes use spells for their Ki powers, why wouldn't a Psionic sub-class (or full class) also leverage the tremendous amount of space the PH1 devoted to spells?

Psionics is about powers of the mind (telepathy, remote viewing, clairsentience), body (bio-feedback, pain tolerance, psychic healing), spirit (aura reading, charkras, and spirit projection) and manipulation of objects (telekinesis, pyrokinesis, teleportation). Psionics has different beat than magic, and certainly than the magic the sorcerer gets.

Most of those are things already done by spells. Sub-classes can add to spell lists, so filling out the few that aren't isn't a problem. Likewise, adding a feature that eschews certain components wouldn't be out of line.

If psionics is just magic (and Arcane Magic at that) then they aren't needed anymore. Wizards can charm, read minds, move objects without touching them, throw fire, move vast distances, and even dominate the weak minded. Without a unique mechanic and powers different than arcane magic, they are akin to a diviner, enchanter, or conjurer and thus redundant.

By the same token, you could have cut the Sorcerer, Warlock, EK, & AT. Wizard sub-classes could have covered the gamut, and multi-classing the two 1/3rd casters.

But that's clearly not the standard 5e is using.

At that point, I'd rather NOT clutter up the game with a redundant subclass wearing some classic name. Go big or go home; new system or don't bother.

While I empathize with that point, genuinely, I just don't think WotC has shown an enthusiasm for that approach. Rather than give Monks their long list of Ki powers, Barbarians Totems, and so forth, they gave everyone who did anything supernatural spells. It's an efficient approach, letting them do the most with the least design resources and without the complication of wildly different sub-systems. But, I agree that it is disappointing in some cases. Psionics may turn out to be one of them.

OTOH, I'm afraid "go big or don't bother" is a lot more likely to get us "don't bother."

Better something than nothing.

 

[GobiWon]

Mechanically psionic powers have to be different than spells. They should not simply reference a spell description. They need to be called powers even if they are formatted in a similar fashion to spells. They are going to duplicate spell functions in some cases (telepathy and mage hand come to mind) ... but they must mechanically have a different feel. A pool of points and an exhaustion mechanic that allows them to empower and extend their duration goes a long way to this end. The use of the feat mechanic as a prerequisite to psionic powers also does this and it throws humans a boon that rarely happens when rule sets expand.

 

[Jester David]

Listening to some of the Know Direction coverage from PaizoCon. Right now I'm on the panel about the upcoming Pathfinder book Occult Adventures, which features the Paizo version of psionics:
http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2015/06/paizocon-2015-occultism-with-brandon-hodge/

And the publisher, Erik Mona, talked about how they explicitly wanted psychic magic to use the same magic system. Otherwise it's asking people to learn a whole new, unfamiliar ruleset for psionics, adding this huge chunk of new rules. Which makes it harder to learn and incorporate into your game.

This makes a lot of sense to me, because learning a whole new rule system is often tricky. It's what kept me away from stuff like the 3e Tome of Magic and Magic of Incarnum. Having psionics be completely different with no spell overlap sounds exactly like that sort of thing.

Thoughts?

 

[GobiWon]

Listening to some of the Know Direction coverage from PaizoCon. Right now I'm on the panel about the upcoming Pathfinder book Occult Adventures, which features the Paizo version of psionics:
http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2015/06/paizocon-2015-occultism-with-brandon-hodge/

And the publisher, Erik Mona, talked about how they explicitly wanted psychic magic to use the same magic system. Otherwise it's asking people to learn a whole new, unfamiliar ruleset for psionics, adding this huge chunk of new rules. Which makes it harder to learn and incorporate into your game.

This makes a lot of sense to me, because learning a whole new rule system is often tricky. It's what kept me away from stuff like the 3e Tome of Magic and Magic of Incarnum. Having psionics be completely different with no spell overlap sounds exactly like that sort of thing.

Thoughts?

I agree that Incarnum was too different. There needs to be overlap and points of reference. Psionic powers would still be ranked 1-9 and have level restrictions. The spell point system in the DMG is not necessarily that different than the neo-vancian system that now exists. It just feels different because of how it is presented and that is what is needed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Jester: I'd give you xp for those cogent observations, were they not in the form of a Pathfinder plug. ;P

Mechanically psionic powers have to be different than spells. They should not simply reference a spell description. They need to be called powers even if they are formatted in a similar fashion to spells.

Ideally, they'd be called Disciplines and Sciences. And some sort of 'points' would certainly be nice, harkening back to the classic game. But that doesn't mean the underlying mechanics need to be all that different.

Casters who get their magic from completely different sources still use the same spells, mechanically. Shadow and Elemental Monks and Totem Barbarians, for instance, reference spells for how certain abilities work, but don't prep spells out of a book like a Vancian wizard. Psionics could be similar, leveraging the large investment in the PH spell list, while still being distinct from other casters.

They are going to duplicate spell functions in some cases (telepathy and mage hand come to mind) ... but they must mechanically have a different feel. A pool of points and an exhaustion mechanic that allows them to empower and extend their duration goes a long way to this end.

Sounds good.

The use of the feat mechanic as a prerequisite to psionic powers also does this and it throws humans a boon that rarely happens when rule sets expand.

Unfortunately that runs up against the feats being optional thing. Sure, psionics are going to be optional, but if they /require/ feats, that's just another hurdle for the player who wants a psionic to get his DM past.

A Wild Talent feat would be cool, though, for campaigns where feats are in use.

As long as fans of psionics get /something/ for 5e significantly before 6e hits the shelves...

 

[GobiWon]

As a DM, I want feats and psionics to be optional, so that's not a problem.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As already stated, I prefer Psi to be its own thing as opposed to reskinned magic. Go back to AD&D: whatever you think of the quality of the actual mechanics, Psi was different and did not feel at all like magic.

(FWIW, I did buy ToM and MoI.)


Plus, given the modular nature of 5Ed rules, whether it is or isn't distinct makes no real difference in terms of adoption/learning curve. Like Feats: don't like it, don't use it. D&D has never been a truly stripped-down, rules light, easy to learn game. I just don't see additional subsystems being a real major issue.

 

[bogmad]

Listening to some of the Know Direction coverage from PaizoCon. Right now I'm on the panel about the upcoming Pathfinder book Occult Adventures, which features the Paizo version of psionics:
http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2015/06/paizocon-2015-occultism-with-brandon-hodge/

And the publisher, Erik Mona, talked about how they explicitly wanted psychic magic to use the same magic system. Otherwise it's asking people to learn a whole new, unfamiliar ruleset for psionics, adding this huge chunk of new rules. Which makes it harder to learn and incorporate into your game.

This makes a lot of sense to me, because learning a whole new rule system is often tricky. It's what kept me away from stuff like the 3e Tome of Magic and Magic of Incarnum. Having psionics be completely different with no spell overlap sounds exactly like that sort of thing.

Thoughts?

The fact that they're calling it "psychic magic" really explains it well enough I think, and chooses a side in the "is it magic or not" divide.

I'm pretty clearly of the side who wants psionics as Not-Magic.
Though I'm open to having it both ways depending on your game, I really need distinct mechanics to have it meet what I need for mine.

I agree that you don't want to over complicate the system, especially the Basic system.
BUT
5th Edition is a much simpler game than pathfinder, so I think there's more room for a different mechanic for psionics (and hopefully a simple one as well) that won't break the game. With PF you have a better chance of having the straw that breaks the back of an already overburdened system.

With 5e, psionics would definitely NOT be a part of the basic game, to keep it from completely diluting the default DnD expectations. It would clearly be a "optional system"

For organized play I'd probably link it to only specific storylines with psionic themes to prevent things from getting too bloated, especially if they do a less-than-perfect job designing the system and insert some power creep that has everybody complaining about every party having a &()&$% psion in it.