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]

The whole point of psionics is, it pulls from nowhere else except oneself.

There are no external sources.

 

[aramis erak]

The Far Realm, as previously established, was introduced in 2e with Gates of Firestorm Peak, and a similar concept ("Outside") was alluded to in the Illithiad. 3e books included it as well - Tome & Blood had the Alienist with mastery over pseudonatural creatures, and the Epic-Level Handbook had the Brain Collectors who were said to be from the Far Realm and a pseudonatural template that made regular monsters into epic ones with extra tentacles. The 3e Manual of the Planes included the Far Realm as a variant plane. And of course Eberron had the plane of Xoriat, which was essentially the Far Realm, as a core (albeit distant) concept.

So no, the Far Realm was not introduced as a 4e concept. It gained prominence in 4e, but it was added to the game long before that.

It wasn't a core part of the universe in 2E, 3E, nor 3.5E - but it was core in 4E.

 

[GobiWon]

This quote made me realize what Mearls was asking...

... In the end though, they are all different paths to the same source; the weave where magic comes from and all magic (no matter its source) obeys the rules of "spells" because in the end, they are all coming from the same origin (just through different routes). Think of it like the internet; I can access it from a Windows, Linux,Mac, iOS or Android device using Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera, or Internet Explorer, but they all lead to the same internet source.

Psionics is different. It doesn't use the Weave as a source of magic.

Wizards - are hackers. They know how to hack the "Weave"
Warlocks - are told how to hack the "Weave" by their patrons
Sorcerers - are prodigies who are born knowing how to hack
Clerics - ask their gods to hack the "Weave" for them
Druids - know secret back doors into the "Weave" through their knowledge of nature

 

[Tony Vargas]

It wasn't a core part of the universe in 2E, 3E, nor 3.5E - but it was core in 4E.

4e had that whole "everything is core" thing going, yes. The label didn't really mean anything, unlike in 3e where there was a perception that 'core only' was less broken.

In 2e, when the Far Realms was introduced, AD&D still had the conceit that everything (including said Far Realm) was in a single 'Multiverse' anyway. You could choose never to take your campaign to the Far Realm (which has certainly never been the point in any edition - it's a place Lovecraftian horrors come from, not a place you go) or to the Ravenloft pocket-dimensions, or to certain of the myriad alternate-prime-material planes containing various settings, but they were all part of the same core-game universe as the Great Wheel model.

 

[Mercule]

Gods and mortals tap into the same source. In the Realms the source is the "Weave". Psionics is different.

So... psions aren't mortal? If so, they still tap into the same source.

"The Weave" is one of the things I hate about the Realms. I despise that the word "Weave" is even found in the PHB. It's entirely too setting-specific.

Arcane magic deals with science-like laws of how to manipulate, well, magic. Depending on the setting, this could be an Enochian "language of creation", manipulation of ambient energy (a.k.a. Weave), or even forcing various entities (read: deities, vestiges, etc.) to do your bidding via loopholes in their service agreement.

Gods don't (always) play by the same rules. Depending on the setting, they might use the ambient energy, but they could also simply be near omnipotent, capable of manipulating the mental energy of their faithful, pull their power from a greater source (per BECMI Immortal rules), or just be tremendous batteries of power. Clerics get their power by proxy as the gods grant quantified powers. Using the same rules as the Wizard is a mechanical convenience everywhere outside of the Realms.

Psionics is somehow internally powered; that "somehow" is the rub. This could be people keyed to the "friction" between different realities (Far Realms), tainted by magical "fallout", capable of directly manipulating the ambient "Weave", or even showing the first signs that humanity has the same divine spark as the gods.

The setting determines how psionics fit. If I were to run a Realms game that included psionics, I can't imagine any other flavor than to say the psion is manipulating the Weave without need of formal spells, regardless of mechanics. Maybe "Mystara's Chosen" is just a cute name for psions.

When I run Eberron, it's mostly just seen as another form of magic. What little deeper thought is given would be mostly along the lines of it being a world where demons are literally buried in the ground, people manifest magic tattoos, and unprovable gods grant spells to clerics who act against their doctrine. How can you stress about some folks who learn to do magic by shear willpower, rather than knowledge?

In my home brew, psionics are generally the result of over-exposure to magic -- daddy had an artifact, mommy lived near the tower of a mad mage, etc. They are occasionally seen as secondary reflections of humanity's ability to ascend to godhood (which is rare, but possible). The fact that elves are wholly incapable of ever manifesting psionics and are also known to be a race of (minor) angels that forsook their divine spark to live among the mortal races only adds fuel to the fire.

I still can't see anywhere near as much justification for fluff saying "psionics is different" as for saying "divine channeling is different". You could throw psions on either side of the line, but they have a lot more in common with either arcane or divine magic than the two do with each other.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

I have converted the 3rd Ed Binder, Factotum, Incarnate, Knight, and ToB classes, so new mechanics are not that big an issue, I am just still not quite sure on which way to implement Psionics.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

...or to the Ravenloft pocket-dimensions

Actually, getting to Ravenloft wasn't the problem. Dragging characters from their normal campaign into Ravenloft was a recommended DM tactic.

(Unless you meant something specific by pocket-dimensions that I'm unfamiliar with)

 

[Remathilis]

So... psions aren't mortal? If so, they still tap into the same source.

That's the question; DO they tap the same source as magic, or do they tap something else entirely. D&D (5e) has made it clear that arcane and divine magic come from the same Raw Source of Magic, and it is the vessel and way they tap into it (via arcane knowledge, divine power, or whatever) that explains why clerics heal, wizard blow things up, warlocks cast different than sorcerers, and bards get magic at all.

What's being proposes is, what if psionics DOES'NT come from this same Raw Source? What if its something unconnected to raw magic rather than being a third type of magic? What if psionics doesn't have to obey the same rules that arcane or divine don't or produce the same effects as them? What is something hard for a wizard to do (such as teleportation) is easier for a psion to do, but the psion couldn't animate a skeleton or remove a curse? What if it is dangerous, exhausting, or even risks madness to try to use psioncs? What if psionics is rare because while most people "get" concept of magic, the idea of psionics is strange and frightening? And what if psionics leaves you open to the entities of the Far Realm or makes you a brighter target for its minions? Or what if its internal power source is the solution to said entities?

This is WAY cooler than "psions are sorcerers with telepathy". This is a radical shakeup of the system worthy of a rules expansion (and corresponding AP), not just another splatbook of character options. That is something I want to see, and I hope its what Mearls is aiming for with his probing questions.

 

[bogmad]

So... psions aren't mortal? If so, they still tap into the same source.

Not sure where one assumption leads to the other.
Gods could also provide a way to tap into psionics or other sources or whatnot, but that hasn't ever been a default setting assumption for anything in D&D. Same way, you don't have to have Divine and Arcane magic interact in your setting; you're free to say a wizards dispell magic won't affect a cleric's spell, but it's never been the case in any setting I've heard of. Yet there is a precedent for psionics to be different. All I want is a way for that difference to be in my game and for the difference to be meaningful.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Magic comes from the Weave. There are a lot of path's to the weave: studying spells (wizard), Gods (cleric), natural forces (druid), pacts with powerful entities (warlock), songs of creation (bard), and even inherited talent from special bloodlines (sorcerer). In the end though, they are all different paths to the same source; the weave where magic comes from and all magic (no matter its source) obeys the rules of "spells" because in the end, they are all coming from the same origin (just through different routes). Think of it like the internet; I can access it from a Windows, Linux,Mac, iOS or Android device using Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera, or Internet Explorer, but they all lead to the same internet source.

Psionics is different. It doesn't use the Weave as a source of magic. It pulls from somewhere else.

Y'know what's funny about this? The Weave is a network delivering energy to whomever plugs into it using the right adapter/device/algorithm (components). What you can do with it is consistent, predictable, repeatable - and, with enough training (a wizard level, feat, or even background) anyone can do it.

Psionics, OTOH, are mysterious powers some claim to have that others can't reproduce or explain - or, under the 'psionics are different' theory, detect, or affect.

So spellcasting, in the Realms, is not magic at all: it's just one of those 'sufficiently advanced technologies.'
Psionics, OTOH, actually does have some of the science-defying qualities of magic.

So... psions aren't mortal? If so, they still tap into the same source.

"The Weave" is one of the things I hate about the Realms. I despise that the word "Weave" is even found in the PHB. It's entirely too setting-specific.

I'm not crazy about the high-magic Realms with the Weave and Mystra and her favorite, Elmonster, and, just general uber-NPCs under every rock approach.

But, for whatever reason, they chose it as the default setting, so you have to expect to see it's schticks here and there. Like everything else, though, we're free to toss 'em. As long as Weave-ishness doesn't get hard-coded into how magic works in a what that's too difficult to tease out, though, it's really not an issue.

Arcane magic deals with science-like laws of how to manipulate, well, magic. Depending on the setting, this could be an Enochian "language of creation", manipulation of ambient energy (a.k.a. Weave), or even forcing various entities (read: deities, vestiges, etc.) to do your bidding via loopholes in their service agreement.

Or the material components of your spell and the air you exhale while speaking it being exchanged for the pure energy of the positive material plane to power you spells (1e DMG, if anyone's wondering).

Psionics is somehow internally powered; that "somehow" is the rub. This could be people keyed to the "friction" between different realities (Far Realms), tainted by magical "fallout", capable of directly manipulating the ambient "Weave", or even showing the first signs that humanity has the same divine spark as the gods.

The setting determines how psionics fit. If I were to run a Realms game that included psionics, I can't imagine any other flavor than to say the psion is manipulating the Weave without need of formal spells, regardless of mechanics. Maybe "Mystara's Chosen" is just a cute name for psions.

Sounds reasonable - and flexible.

I still can't see anywhere near as much justification for fluff saying "psionics is different" as for saying "divine channeling is different". You could throw psions on either side of the line, but they have a lot more in common with either arcane or divine magic than the two do with each other.

The biggest factor I see is one that fans of psionics are quick to deny: that psionics is a science-fiction 'bit,' a throwaway detail used to insert magical elements into a genre that otherwise tries to be modern and scientific. Because of that association, the idea that it's "not magic" is actually pretty intuitive, and a little shaky. Psionics in sci-fi is not magic in the sense that it's had traditional trappings of magic removed - the serial numbers filed off - but it is magic in the sense that it does what magic does, both literally, in the sense of the same sorts of effects, and in the literary sense of filling the same function within the story.

So the argument that psionics are 'not magic,' and the argument that they're redundant, and the argument that they have no place in D&D at all, are all really based on the same thing - if one is right, they all are.