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."

 

[Jester David]

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

I was just trying hard to cite my sources, so people didn't need to listen to the podcast if they didn't want to. Information trackback if you will...

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'm fond of the idea of it being another type of magic, so it fits nicely with existing things like innate spellcasting, dispel magic, anti-magic fields, counterspells, etc. If it's too different, the interaction with the existing rules is awkward.

Even if it's not "magic" overtly, if it follows the same basic rules of the game it would help. Having the neo-Vancian casting with 9 levels of powers helps keep things familiar and accessible.

 

[bogmad]

I'm fond of the idea of it being another type of magic, so it fits nicely with existing things like innate spellcasting, dispel magic, anti-magic fields, counterspells, etc. If it's too different, the interaction with the existing rules is awkward.

Even if it's not "magic" overtly, if it follows the same basic rules of the game it would help. Having the neo-Vancian casting with 9 levels of powers helps keep things familiar and accessible.

I'd agree that keeping things accessible is an absolute requirement, but familiar isn't as important to me, especially if the only way to be familiar is to completely mimic similar spells.

I also agree that there should be a certain amount of interaction with magic, just so you don't break the game with a psion being impervious to spells or vice versa.

But it could be on a spell by spell, power by power basis for all I care. Psychic fire might be able to be dispelled by cold magic, lacking what "magic fire" has that makes it harder to get rid of by mundane means. No psychic fireballs (or psionic fireball spells), but just the ability to create mundane fire with your mind. A bucket brigade works better against a pyrokineticist than a guy wielding unquenchable fire from Hell.

Go back to psychic invisibility being limited by the amount of targets you're invisible to. Dispel magic might not work on it, but a group or army is going to be able to notice the psion who's only invisible to the wizard and a few other guys at most. BUT even then, See Invisible IS going to uncover that psionically invisible dude even if dispell magic won't*.

If you do it that way though, it would require having a much smaller choice of abilities or list than the number of spells available to spellcasters. Don't provide enough toys to the psion that would make it frustrating that an anti-magic field never catches his schtick, and provide way to make his talents countered by other means. Make it exciting when dispel magic doesn't catch the psion, instead of frustrating when "oh great the psion is impervious again."
A small list could keep it accessible (if not familiar), but a large list would make it unwieldy. In that way a full level 1-9 level span might make the system LESS accessible by requiring enough options to fill out the entire progression.

(*"because magic" or because the spell is detecting the mass and converting it to sight instead of pure visual information or however you need to fluff it to sleep at night)

 

[Hussar]

/snip

2.) While the Sorcerer, warlock and cleric pick their subclass at level 1, the wizard, druid, bard, and other subclasses do not. Which would create a disruptive element of "my magic was arcane until hit level 2, now its psionic". It was one the problems I had with artificer too, btw. Subclasses are additive, not transformational. There is no subclass so far that invalidates the rules of base class, merely adds on to them. Which is why you can ADD spellcasting to the fighter via EK, the Favored Soul doesn't change a sorcerer from an "arcane" to "divine" spellcaster.



In the end of the day though, dragon and chaos sorcerers still obey the rules of the base sorcerer class. They are still arcane casters. They still have a limited pool of effects (focused tighter on combat than utility). They don't change the rules of spellcasting or sorcery points. Even Favored Soul and Stormsoul (while beefing up spell selection and granting greater versatility) don't invalidate the "power of magic in your veins" approach. Psionics would, unless psionics = magic and therefore your just making a mentalist caster class.

Which boils down to my problem with using an existing class subclass; if the only way to do so is to decide psionics is a fancy way of saying "spellcaster" then its not needed. We already have bards and enchanters who are masters of messing with your head; mage hand is a cantrip already. Psionics needs to be its own thing or it needs to be forgotten; middle grounding makes it redundant and pointless.

But, since we do have a precedent here with the Sorc, Warlock and Cleric, it's maybe not as hard to make a psionicist pick its subclass at level one. Why not add level one psionic subclasses to the base archetypes (say Bard, Sorc and Wizard). Because, in my mind, the warlock certainly paves the way for this. Granted a warlock's spells are all "magic", but their source is very, very different. Which Otherworldly Patron you pick for your Warlock should greatly change the look and feel of a given warlock. You get a pretty different suite of abilities at level one and I would hope that players would create characters that are very different based on their Patron.

Perhaps it's not as much of a challenge as you think Rem. Why couldn't you have three subclasses, Psion, Wilder and Soulknife, placed under the aegis of Wizard, Sorcerer and Bard, which gives the basic framework for powers - when do you receive spells and whatnot, and then have the subclasses filter out some of the base class' underpinnings - so a Soul Knife loses instrument proficiencies but gains proficiency in something else. Bardic inspiration gets reflavored as a mental buff thingie. Keep the spell progression and weapon proficiencies and all you have to do is come up with a new disciplines list (which I think everyone agrees is needed) and we're good to go.

It seems to fit the bill to me.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Small cavaet: never used psionics under 1e (since I never played 1e, just read the books). My play experience is with 2e and on, so I'll keep to them.

Now, starting with the Complete Psionics Handbook, I can tell you with certainty magic interacted with psionics poorly. Detect Magic did NOT detect psionic powers. Dispel Magic didn't dispel psionic powers. You could use psionics in anti-magic, dead magic, and so on (one of the reasons Dark Sun gave used it prominently). Psionic powers required no verbal or somatic components, you could even use them while bound or stunned (as long as you could take "purely mental actions"). Psionics had no level (which was why they were sometimes gamebreaking; disintergrate at level 6?) required ability checks to activate (and could potentially backfire if you rolled poorly enough, I'll have to tell you about Ivan the Sentient Psionic Bridge later). Psionics even had a strange (and obtuse) form of combat using attack and defense mechanisms. They were "magic" in the sense that they were a non-mundane, but they were not MAGIC as D&D defined it.

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. [/QUOTE]

:facepalm:

I just explained why 2e psionics was completely different than 2e magic. Shall I do the same for 3e now? How you couldn't make a "magical" item out of psionics (but instead had their own special item creation feats)? That powers didn't scale with level but required power points to augment them? (A precursor to 5e's high slot system). That they used "Psionic Focus" as a mechanic to keep/expend psionic power? That they lacked Cantrips or 0-level powers?

Even in 3e, psionics was a very different beast than straight magic. 4e didn't invent powersources, you know.

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?

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.

The Player's Handbook is done and dusted. I never expected psionics to be in it. The monk needed to be. I accept that giving them "spells" was a good shorthand to fit more stuff in the PHB. But we're not talking PHB anymore; the skies the bloody limit. They can do psionics in anything form a UA to a hardbound tome, they can put out as many unique abilities as they want.

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.

Its hard to know what standard they are using; they've released the PHB and a single 25 page PDF of player stuff. (And a couple UAs, which are barely more than playtest). However, despite having spells in the book, they found the ability to put in Invocations and Superiority Dice as subsystems as well; I doubt 5e is new-system averse (and it clearly doesn't mind optional rules).

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."

Then don't use them if you don't like them. But don't half-ass them for use who DO like them. A psionic sorcerer is a lazy, half-ass way of doing psionics, any person on this board could make one and put it in the database and claim "psionics for 5e is done." Let psionics be for those who want to use it; make your own sorcerer subclass if you don't.

Better something than nothing.

I'd rather nothing than crap.

 

[Remathilis]

But, since we do have a precedent here with the Sorc, Warlock and Cleric, it's maybe not as hard to make a psionicist pick its subclass at level one. Why not add level one psionic subclasses to the base archetypes (say Bard, Sorc and Wizard). Because, in my mind, the warlock certainly paves the way for this. Granted a warlock's spells are all "magic", but their source is very, very different. Which Otherworldly Patron you pick for your Warlock should greatly change the look and feel of a given warlock. You get a pretty different suite of abilities at level one and I would hope that players would create characters that are very different based on their Patron.

But there is no MECHANICAL difference between the three warlocks; just a choice of a few powers, a few additional spell choices, and a bit of description. Psionics should be different then just being another source of Eldritch Blast, it should make the PC play different. Otherwise, its barely worth the title psionic.

Perhaps it's not as much of a challenge as you think Rem. Why couldn't you have three subclasses, Psion, Wilder and Soulknife, placed under the aegis of Wizard, Sorcerer and Bard, which gives the basic framework for powers - when do you receive spells and whatnot, and then have the subclasses filter out some of the base class' underpinnings - so a Soul Knife loses instrument proficiencies but gains proficiency in something else. Bardic inspiration gets reflavored as a mental buff thingie. Keep the spell progression and weapon proficiencies and all you have to do is come up with a new disciplines list (which I think everyone agrees is needed) and we're good to go.

Imagine that play out in game.

DM: Well, you're all third level now; Bob, pick your subclass.

Bob: Ok, my Bard, Cwell the Fine, picked the Soulknife psionic subclass.

DM: Oh, sweet. What does that give you?

Bob: Well first, remember how I impressed the mayor with my lute first game? Well, I can't play it anymore, I just forgot how. And I can't cast cure wounds or sleep anymore, because I became psionic and gained telepathy and meditative focus. Oh, now I can use my inspiration dice to manifest a blade of psionic power like a short sword. And I don't get song of healing anymore, but anyone who meditates with me gets the same benefit. And also, I can't cast rituals anymore, I lost the ability to use spellcasting focuses, and I can't read spell scrolls anymore (so Jim, you want my scroll of charm person now?) but I can use psychokinesis to wreath myself in psionic flame!

DM: So, what part of you is still a bard?

Bob: Oh, my hit die and spell progression didn't change...

It seems to fit the bill to me.

Glad your happy. As I've said, I'd rather they forget the whole thing than make these silly half-measures.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But, since we do have a precedent here with the Sorc, Warlock and Cleric, it's maybe not as hard to make a psionicist pick its subclass at level one. Why not add level one psionic subclasses to the base archetypes (say Bard, Sorc and Wizard).

Imagine that play out in game.

DM: Well, you're all third level now; Bob, pick your subclass...

Not how I'd imagine it.

Small cavaet: never used psionics under 1e (since I never played 1e, just read the books). My play experience is with 2e and on, so I'll keep to them.

We're going to talk past eachother a lot then, since I used 1e Psionics, and ignored them in 2e.

Shall I do the same for 3e now?

3e specifically had a 'psionics is magic' and 'psionics is different' options.

4e didn't invent powersources, you know.

It didn't invent Roles, either, but did you ever try telling anyone that during the edition war. 4e did formalize the Sources, making each it's own distinct thing, just like it formalized Roles, something 5e has gotten so far away from it's almost comical.

But we're not talking PHB anymore; the skies the bloody limit. They can do psionics in anything form a UA to a hardbound tome, they can put out as many unique abilities as they want.

They're not exactly putting out huge amounts of radically new content. I don't doubt that Psionics deserves coverage as least as lavish as a 2e Complete Psionic Handbook or 4e PH3 & Psionic Power, and that such would leave plenty of room for an extensive, unique system (including a magic/not-magic option) and multiple classes. But, so far there's no indication we'll ever get 'splats' along the line of a Complete book.

A UA (or maybe a series of them, each with a sub-class, or some feats), OTOH, would be a lot less of a stretch.

Its hard to know what standard they are using; they've released the PHB and a single 25 page PDF of player stuff. (And a couple UAs, which are barely more than playtest). However, despite having spells in the book, they found the ability to put in Invocations and Superiority Dice as subsystems as well; I doubt 5e is new-system averse

Those were pretty compact sub-systems. Superiority Dice & Maneuvers fell far short of the mark, too.

A psionic sorcerer is a lazy, half-ass way of doing psionics,

5e doesn't exactly seem to eschew that sort of thing. We already alluded to the Battlemaster, for instance.

I'd rather nothing than crap.

I understand, but it's a very subjective bar, and WotC won't be able to clear it for everyone. No matter how many design FTEs they throw at it.

 

[Hussar]

Remalthalis - did you miss the part where I said that Psions would pick their Subclass at 1st level? So, your Bard example would never happen. It's just like a Warlock picking his Patron at 1st level. I'd say that there is a fair mechanical difference between a Short Rest based Fear/Charm spell and an at will Telepathy that bypasses language requirements. And, just because there aren't that many differences between patrons doesn't mean you couldn't make stronger differences with our Psionic subclasses.

I mean, heck, I mentioned straight out that our Soul Knife Bard Subclass loses his instrument proficiencies at 1st level so your mayor example would never happen.

I get the feeling that you skimmed my post but didn't actually read it.

 

[Nifft]

That powers didn't scale with level but required power points to augment them? (A precursor to 5e's high slot system).

(emphasis added)

Agree. This is a point which I made some pages back.

I feel like 5e magic basically took one of the main things which separated magic and psionics: the scaling mechanic. On top of that, Sorcerers get Sorcery Points which translate into spell slot levels, at rates which are very analogous to power points.

So IMHO there's no big loss in using spell slots to power psionic powers: spell casting is quite close to using psionics mechanics already.

- - -

In terms of flavor, by using a spell slot you'd be forcing magical energy through one of your innate Psionic circuits. So you'd get at-will powers (pure Psionics) plus the ability to use stronger effects with limits (via spell slots).

 

[Yaarel]

I want everyone to have what they want. Perhaps it is possible in this case.


Make ‘psionics’ and ‘psychic magic’ two different things.

Psionics (also called psi) is ‘nonmagic’. It has unique mechanics to ‘manifest’ ‘powers’. The Psion is a separate class, and is psionic.

Psychic magic is ‘magic’. It uses normal mechanics to ‘cast’ ‘spells’. The various archetypes of the core classes are psychic.


Psychic magic uses the power of the mind as the source of magic (replacing the weave, gods, nature, dragons, etcetera). Psychic magic is distinctive for having no material components, and so on.

A DM can use both psionics and psychic magic (which I would probably do). Or a DM might prefer to use only one of the two.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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

Actually arcane and divine are still things--just not mechanical. See "The Weave of Magic" sidebar in the spellcasting section where it talks about the whole multiverse D&D default position regarding there being a magical interface (which is called "the Weave" on Faerun), and regarding which classes use arcane vs. divine magic.

Now, mechanically arcane vs. divine is meaningless in this edition. But lore-wise, their existence is a default, multiverse wide (not just Forgotten Realms) assumption of 5e D&D. Future products are just not going to ignore that.