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]

Which is transformational. It changes their nature. They were strictly martial, they become casters.

"Add to" is a change. I get that you're fixated on the kind of change, but there is precedent for sub-classes changing the base class in dramatic ways. Adding spell casting, for instance is radically changing spell access & spell lists.

You and I are using "change" very differently. For you, any deviation from the "norm" is change, whereas I'm solely focused on contradicting what came before. There is nothing about EK's spellcasting that contradict's what the base fighter does. Both still wear heavy armor, use weapons, can heal self a bit, and can occasionally go nova with extra actions.

There is no subclass that changes a base class feature. None. A few add extra options (like extra uses for inspiration dice or more action choices in cunning action) but none of them remove spell access, change the spells they have access to (except to add more options), remove proficiencies, or change arcane to divine or vice-versa. You are asking for a rules expansion equal to or greater than adding a new base class; you are asking for subclasses to do more than they currently do.

And Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Paladins CLERICS do so at 1st. The thing about a precedent is that it doesn't have to happen the majority of the time to be established, it only has to happen once. Three classes picking sub-classes at first level is more than adequate precedent.

For those three classes only. No other class does. Doing so creates a very odd rules position: if a psionic subclass has to be picked at first level, what about others? Do all bards now have to declare being Lore, Valor, or Ardent at first level? What if you don't pick it a first level, can you now NEVER select it when you get to third? Why does the psionic bard change my proficiencies at first level, but the Valor bard doesn't? What if I want to mix classic base bard abilities (like musical instrument proficiency) with the ardent bard psionic powers? What if I choose psionic bard at first level and change my mind when I get to third level? Can I still take Valor or Lore now?

Your creating a recipe for headache, and since WotC is very keen on keeping this game AL compatible, I doubt they'd create something that causes THAT much chaos.

There are, in fact, no sub-class rules in the PH. It's not a class-design ruleset, it's just a set of classes. What there are, is precedents, in the existing 38 sub-classes. [/QUOTE]

That's ALL we have. There is no rules for character class creation either, but design a class with full-spellcasting, d12 HD, double proficiency bonus to all class skills and Con/Dex/Wis as proficient saves and tell me your setting a new precedent, and you'll be laughed off this board.

I shouldn't have to explain why adding a sub-class is simpler than adding a new base class, you've been pointing it out, yourself: most of the class is already designed, you just have to design what makes the sub-class unique.

What makes a subclass unique is a.) additional powers given at specific levels, b.) additional proficiencies given when the subclass is first taken, and c.) possible additional spells added to spell list. All 38 subclasses in the PHB adhere to this. Both of them in the DMG adhere to this, and the four in the UA documents adhere to this.

A Psion as Sorcerer sub-class, for instance, is easy. The Sorcerer even already uses a point mechanic. Your heritage is Psionic (maybe Far Realms if that's used explicitly), you get some features related to that, like telepathy and psionic combat, say, and you're off.

Which makes you a mage with a few psionic powers. Good job. You're a fireballing, magic missiling, mage armored, meteor swarming spellcaster, who gets a few telepathic or telekinetic powers at 1st, 6th, 14th and 18th level. Iits the definition of "we don't care about psionics, so here is a sublcass we threw together during lunch break. All your Dark Sun or Eberron psions and the like are just sorcerers now. Have a nice day."

If WotC is going to slap psionics fans in the face with "just play a sorcerer" I'd really rather they not bother. I can make my own subclass if I want that. I'd almost be happier with "psionics is dumb, no psi in 5e." than this half-baked option.

Depends on what goal of the design is. A balanced class shouldn't break anything, unless there's an unintended/undetected synergy with some other game element. A class designed, as most 5e classes have been, to evoke classic feel, OTOH, may be a tad 'broken' by some measures, if the original - like the 2e psion, for instance - was.

There are lots of fixes you could add to 2e psionics to keep the better balanced; minimum levels on powers (no disintergrate at 6th level); max cap on power points spent on a given power (no nova big blasts), some general magical overlap (at least as far as detection and dispelling is concerned). I played with both versions of 2e psionics; they were so close to being good, but some minor things allowed them to break. One hopes 5e's design team could iron out those kinks while keeping the general tone and feel of psionics similar.

I'm fine with new mechanics, if they're clear/balanced/playable mechanics (which isn't even relevant, since obtuse/broken/problematic mechanics are hardly anathema to the 5e philosophy). But, new mechanics present challenges. It's not a catch-22, it's a trade-off. There's greater design effort and you're 'betting' more if you go with the more extensive splatbook vs a UA article, for instance. Both are valid options.

I fully expect psionics will appear in a UA first. A decent psionic class shouldn't be more than a dozen pages to start. We'll play with them and break them and then they will fix them and release them in some finished form later. Its WotCs modus operandi these days.

Sorcerer is the most obvious choice for a psionic sub-class, it's been brought up in multiple threads here and on the WotC boards, and it's pretty intuitive, being the class for in-born magic. In addition, Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue have no magic abilities to 'change' before choosing a sub-class, so tacking on psionics to them the same way arcane is tacked on with the EK and AT or rituals tacked on to the Totem Barbarian would be fine. Not that I can think of any reason to have a psionic barbarian.

Psychic Warrior can bolt on to Fighter like EK does, not problems there. Likewise, a Lurk/Soul knife seems keen for rogues. Add on a dedicated psion class and a "Wild Talent" feat that mimics Magical Initiate, and you have a well rounded psionic stable.

 

[Celebrim]

...and completely different operational mechanics & resource management.

And that's my point, or part of it.

Which is irrelevant to whether or not psionics is just another name for 'magic'. The problem that psionic fans have largely defined psionic and their preference for psionic in terms of mechanical variation and resource management. But the mechanical variation and resource management largely exists in the metagame and not in the game world itself. We don't normally expect levels, hit points, and spell points to exist in the game world themselves unless we are doing something like Order of the Stick and deliberately breaking the 4th wall.

My suspicion is that ultimately the demand for psionics is really only going to be appeased by offering familiar mechanics because for most psionic fans the mechanics are what makes it psionics to them, not the completely unexplained incoherent flavor where no one ever really resolved what psionics are.

I mean, you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics are different because their source is internal." And the sorcerer's power isn't? And you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics are different because their source isn't magic, it's psionic.", but that's just a tautology. Psionic is psychic which is magic. The only difference was whether or not you were trying to be pseudo-scientific about your superstition. And you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics are different because they are mental." And normal magic isn't? Or you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics feel like Jedi or eastern mystics, not like wizards." But that's just a different magical tradition. Heck, Obi Wan is called a 'wizard', and Darth Vadar has 'sorcerous ways'. Just because everyone else is running around with blasters, doesn't mean the Jedi aren't a bunch of eastern themed wizard knights. "But, crystals!" Why do you think Wizards are associated with crystal balls? The point is that people have only a very vague idea what they mean by 'magic' and 'psionic', and when it gets down to the concrete things it's all about operational mechanics & resource management.

But 1e only needed different operational mechanics & resource management in order to divorce a system of magic from the class/level system. And 2e largely did away with that so, so it really only needed spell points because of 1e emulation, and because the standard 1e magic system was Vancian. By 3e, we were already getting pseudo-Vancian systems like the Sorcerer, and by 5e all the classes are using pseudo-Vancian systems. So it's not at all clear that there is a flavor reason or a mechanical reasons for a whole different subsystem, but for most existing fans of psionic, psionic means the points subsystem.

 

[Remathilis]

And that's my point, or part of it.

Which is irrelevant to whether or not psionics is just another name for 'magic'. The problem that psionic fans have largely defined psionic and their preference for psionic in terms of mechanical variation and resource management. But the mechanical variation and resource management largely exists in the metagame and not in the game world itself. We don't normally expect levels, hit points, and spell points to exist in the game world themselves unless we are doing something like Order of the Stick and deliberately breaking the 4th wall.

Partially, but the effects a psionic power and a wizard spell should be different too. Psionics shouldn't raise (or animate) the dead. They don't summon creatures, nor bring down meteors from the heavens. What they should be doing is focusing on mind influence (reading thought, implanting false memories, dominating minds), supernatural feats of the body (grafting weapons, withstanding unbearable conditions), and extrasensory abilities (reading auras, causing objects to spontaneously combust, and making objects move by force of will alone). Additionally, a psionic power has no verbal or somatic components, nor does it require material objects to use. Its not just magic with spell points, though magic has done a good job of mimicking psionic ability.

My suspicion is that ultimately the demand for psionics is really only going to be appeased by offering familiar mechanics because for most psionic fans the mechanics are what makes it psionics to them, not the completely unexplained incoherent flavor where no one ever really resolved what psionics are.

The same can be said of any class really; imagine if ranger had been some fighter subclass or druid players being told "play a nature domain cleric." One need only see how warlord fans felt after the battlemaster.

I mean, you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics are different because their source is internal." And the sorcerer's power isn't? And you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics are different because their source isn't magic, it's psionic.", but that's just a tautology. Psionic is psychic which is magic. The only difference was whether or not you were trying to be pseudo-scientific about your superstition. And you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics are different because they are mental." And normal magic isn't? Or you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics feel like Jedi or eastern mystics, not like wizards." But that's just a different magical tradition. Heck, Obi Wan is called a 'wizard', and Darth Vadar has 'sorcerous ways'. Just because everyone else is running around with blasters, doesn't mean the Jedi aren't a bunch of eastern themed wizard knights. "But, crystals!" Why do you think Wizards are associated with crystal balls? The point is that people have only a very vague idea what they mean by 'magic' and 'psionic', and when it gets down to the concrete things it's all about operational mechanics & resource management.

Cleric magic is the same as wizard magic; each spell belongs to a school, they use components, there are a lot of crossover effects, and most healers in fantasy are called "wizards", so cleric should just be a subclass of wizard, right?

Of course not. Cleric means something to the game. Psionics means something to the game. You can use reduction-logic to argue ANY class should just be a subclass of Fighter and/or Wizard if you want, but doing so defeats D&D's tradition. Psionics has NEVER been a type of magic, psions never a type of sorcerer or wizard. Trying to fit them in this box now is a disservice.

 

[fuindordm]

It's a fair point that giving mechanics a mechanical distinction benefits only the players, not the fictional characters in the campaign and how they see the world.

And yet...

Most importantly, the game is for the players and not for the fictional characters. As a DM if I care most about the creative writing aspects of the game, then one magic system might be enough to model all the different cultures and magical traditions that I need. But if my players start to complain that all spellcasters feel the same because they share V,S,M components, the same slot system, and strongly overlapping spell lists, with only minor variations (prepare or not, metamagic or not, limited spells known or not), then my game has a problem.

Also...

Fictional academics in the game world probably DO make very serious distinctions between arcane and divine, between wizards and sorcerers, and even between clerics and warlocks, just as we think of physics and chemistry and biology as very different things even though they can all create light (e.g., filament bulb, light sticks, bioluminescence) and even though if you look at the different technologies the right way, it is easy to see the common principle of electrons absorbing energy and releasing it as light. Creating light is a simple trick, but different techologies achieve it in different ways, with very different forms of training and material requirements.

So having many different "sources" of magic, with distinct requirements and limitations, isn't wasted complexity in the game world, at least to characters in the world who care about magic.

Personally:

As a player, I want different mechanics because I want to experience the game in a different way.

As a GM, I want different mechanics because I want to choose rules that support the style I am trying to achieve with a given campaign, and more variety in magic systems gives me more tools.

As a fictional PC, I want different mechanics because I think it's cool if the world has a source of supernatural powers whose rules I dont know[\B]. Take that wierd psion in front of me--he's not using gestures and words to cast spells. Is he casting spells at all? If I try to counterspell what he's doing, will it work? My friend is paralyzed because of him, can I assume that he can't paralyze me at the same time? What the heck is this glowing goo dripping on my head???

 

[Tony Vargas]

You and I are using "change" very differently. For you, any deviation from the "norm" is change, whereas I'm solely focused on contradicting what came before. There is nothing about EK's spellcasting that contradict's what the base fighter does. Both still wear heavy armor, use weapons, can heal self a bit, and can occasionally go nova with extra actions.

In the case of the EK, the mechanics are just 'additions,' yes. But the conceptual change is night & day. The Paladin and Ranger, in that conceptual sense, are no more different from the Fighter than the EK, yet they are classes.

To me, that says that a sub-class can radically alter a class concept - to a degree comparable to being a different class.

There is no subclass that changes a base class feature. None.

There's also no existing psionic full class. And, if we get a good one, it'll likely do things no other class has done before. If that's OK, why would it be wrong for a psionic sub-class to do something no sub-class has done before?

It wouldn't be.

For those three classes only. No other class does. Doing so creates a very odd rules position: if a psionic subclass has to be picked at first level, what about others?

They'd be picked as they always were. Your choice would be psionic at 1st or arcane at 1st with the Bard. Psionic does whatever it does to make it an Ardent, say, and Arcane makes it like the existing bard, including picking something else later.

That's ALL we have. There is no rules for character class creation either.

Exactly. You want a radically new & different full class. If all new full classes had to do only what existing ones do, you couldn't have that. OTOH, you don't want 'just' some sub-classes, so you hold them up to a more exacting standard to demand they be blah.

Both a sub-class or sub-classes and one or more new classes would be valid design choices for introducing psionics to 5e.

Which makes you a mage with a few psionic powers. Good job. You're a fireballing, magic missiling, mage armored, meteor swarming spellcaster, who gets a few telepathic or telekinetic powers at 1st, 6th, 14th and 18th level. Iits the definition of "we don't care about psionics, so here is a sublcass we threw together during lunch break. All your Dark Sun or Eberron psions and the like are just sorcerers now. Have a nice day."

I wouldn't rule that out. It's not like every class to show it's face in a past PH1 got the royal treatment in the 5e PH1.

There are lots of fixes you could add to 2e psionics to keep the better balanced

I'm sure there are. I'm not so sure it's an important consideration in 5e design. I think we'd be justified in expecting power points, attack/defense modes, &c - from a full psion, or even, in some form, from a Psion sub-class of Sorcerer.

Psychic Warrior can bolt on to Fighter like EK does, not problems there. Likewise, a Lurk/Soul knife seems keen for rogues. Add on a dedicated psion class and a "Wild Talent" feat that mimics Magical Initiate, and you have a well rounded psionic stable.

Now you're sounding more nearly reasonable.

 

[GobiWon]

Partially, but the effects a psionic power and a wizard spell should be different too. Psionics shouldn't raise (or animate) the dead. They don't summon creatures, nor bring down meteors from the heavens. What they should be doing is focusing on mind influence (reading thought, implanting false memories, dominating minds), supernatural feats of the body (grafting weapons, withstanding unbearable conditions), and extrasensory abilities (reading auras, causing objects to spontaneously combust, and making objects move by force of will alone). Additionally, a psionic power has no verbal or somatic components, nor does it require material objects to use. Its not just magic with spell points, though magic has done a good job of mimicking psionic ability.

His point needs to be stressed. I cannot stress it enough. Psionics will be different, if it is treated different even if it shares some mechanical similarities to the "magic" system. If it is treated as separate from magic, it will become it's own thing. Psionics must have it's own concentrations and focus. Just like divine has healing which arcane is rarely allowed to intrude upon. Psionics must concentrate on mental abilities that rarely overlap with things that arcane and divine casters can do. A previous poster mentioned psionic invisibility which would only affect a single opponent. You wouldn't become invisible. Your opponent would simply "think" you had disappeared. This is how these powers need to work and feel.

 

[Yaarel]

I'm not entirely clear on what you're advocating. It sounds like you want add subclasses to some classes (e.g. psion to wizard) that breaks the existing sub-class pattern for those classes, by starting at 1st level instead of 3rd.

When the Wizard picks a cantrip at level 1, it can be a psi cantrip that additionally allows the Wizard to substitute psi as the source of all other effects, instead of arcane.

At level 2, the requirement to take a psi archetype/tradition can be the ability to cast a psi cantrip.

 

[bogmad]

My suspicion is that ultimately the demand for psionics is really only going to be appeased by offering familiar mechanics because for most psionic fans the mechanics are what makes it psionics to them, not the completely unexplained incoherent flavor where no one ever really resolved what psionics are.

Everyone keeps making the anecdotal argument "IME people really only want psionics to game the mechanics" but in my personal experience, what I want has a lot more to do with the fluff. I just want the fluff to match the mechanics well enough, and psionics as a magic class doesn't do that for me.

I mean, you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics are different because their source is internal." And the sorcerer's power isn't? And you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics are different because their source isn't magic, it's psionic.", but that's just a tautology. Psionic is psychic which is magic. The only difference was whether or not you were trying to be pseudo-scientific about your superstition. .

I do want to be pseudo scientific with my superstition I guess, but really only in my definition of mystical forces. The force is "magic" to you, but it's not to me. You can argue I'm wrong all you want, but in the fantasy realm in my mind I'm right. It's all fantasy, so how do we have an enforceable argument? We're both right. Just in my fantasy setting there's psionics (or "the force" to be reductionist) and then there's magic. They're different things. That work differently.

Still, I don't think that's going to be enough to stop the arguments.
To extend the Eastern/Western metaphor, there's some sounds in Mandarin or other Asian languages that I'm simply never going to hear because my brain just doesn't make the distinction. At the same time, my 5 year old nephew can hear the difference in those phonemes just fine because his brain still has the plasticity to recognize and categorize them.

Somewhere in my childhood I must have come up with a different idea of what psionics is when I was flipping around in that 2e psioncists handbook and reading those Joe Dever Magnamund books. You may have interacted with similar fiction or game mechanics, but to you it was just another form of magic. It will never be something else, and everytime I say Xi, you're going to hear Shi.

 

[SkidAce]

I want a unique mechanic, and am initially opposed to using the sorcerer as a base.

However, looking at it, I do see some keen ideas, not for USING the sorcerer, but COPYING the sorcerer.

The cantrips could be the old 2E attack or defense modes.

Make a unique spell list (divided by discipline). Get a "free" feat at 1st level that gives access to a certain discipline (telepathy, metabolism, etc.) You could then spend your ASIs as additional feats if you wanted to learn other disciplines.

Change spellcasting ability to be based on the power. Metabolism might use con, mind attacks might use wis.

Keep "sorcery" point ability from 2nd level. (Or use DMG spell points)

Replace the standard bloodlines with something that relates to psionics (discipline focus, create astral constructs, pyrokinetic, ? ? etc.)

Optional ideas, can concentrate/maintain extra powers, sacrifice con/hp for spell points/slots

---

Would be easier than converting the 2E version. (at least based on my first attempt)

Hmmmmm.

 

[SkidAce]

I do want to be pseudo scientific with my superstition I guess, but really only in my definition of mystical forces. The force is "magic" to you, but it's not to me. You can argue I'm wrong all you want, but in the fantasy realm in my mind I'm right. It's all fantasy, so how do we have an enforceable argument? We're both right. Just in my fantasy setting there's psionics (or "the force" to be reductionist) and then there's magic. They're different things. That work differently.

Same here.