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]

The UA gave an example of a non-spellcaster Ranger archetype. Does this subtraction change the Ranger class from a divine source to martial source?

I was waiting for that to get brought up...

The Spell-less ranger is a variant class; not a subclass. It still gets to pick either hunter or beastmaster (and one of the beastmaster's abilities change to make up for the lack of spells). When read in the context of that article, its an example of how DM's can modify a class to suit their campaign. Its not to be taken as an official sanctioned option; its pure DM's fiat. (As it seems is all UA articles).

In that context, if you make a psionic sorcerer with an alternate spell list for your home campaign, more power to you. WotC will probably avoid said option for no other reason than AL play (alternate classes can get messy, even now the spell-less rangers require some DM adjuncation involving magic items). I fully suspect (and I can be wrong; I fully suspected a FRCS by now) that WotC will never mention, support, or bother with spell-less rangers or other alternate classes in future products. That is there for DMs to use in home-games.

So yes, to your answer, but I'd be REALLY leery of reading much into the spell-less ranger as a template for doing psionics, unless you want psionics to be unofficial and AL prohibited.

 

[I'm A Banana]

All this talk about "power source" and "arcane magic" and "divine magic" is 100% weapons-grade Older Edition Itis. These concepts have no intrinsic meaning in 5e's class design. Clerics and paladins or wizards and sorcerers don't tap the same "power source" or have the same "kind of magic." They are entirely different and distinct traditions for doing supernatural things.

Seriously, we need to stop talking about "spellcasting" and "magic" as if it's the same thing because in D&D, it isn't.

Many of the supernatural things these classes can do are united under the "spellcasting" mechanic. Spellcasting, as a mechanic, has a meaning in the fiction of D&D - a sort of ritualistic combination of gestures, words, and occasional catalyst materials combined with a mental concentration unlocks the effects of a specific, known magical power. Spellcasting is a big mechanic, and it has its own rules, but it says nothing of the source of your magical power, only the way in which you tap into it. A sorcerer's fireball and a wizard's fireball aren't both arcane things, they're fundamentally different in the fiction of the world (one is based in knowledge, understanding, and secret lore; another based on instinct, nature, and internal power), even if the use of them would look pretty similar. A monk who uses burning hands actually looks a lot like those as well, but they'd say their power comes from training, dedication, and contemplation of elemental forces, not knowledge or inner power.

These all use the spellcasting mechanic. None of these are the same "power source."

Spellcasting isn't the only way to use magical power in D&D, either. A monk of 15th level does not age. This is clearly not a "natural" effect, but there's no spellcasting involved, no specific magical effect conjured up. A barbarian's rage might be "martial", or it might be "primal," or "divine" or even "psionic" depending on how you view the story of the barbarian.

Psionics is magic, in the broadest, most inclusive sense of the term. It is clearly supernatural. It may or may not be spellcasting - particularly if you don't use discrete magical effects that rely on a moment of mental concentration and maybe a word, gesture, or catalyst, it probably shouldn't be spellcasting. Of course, this is what psionics was in 3e and 4e and to a certain degree in the pre-3e days as well, but put a pin in that - maybe we don't want it to be spellcasting now. In fact, all this talk of it being internal and self-powered makes it sound a lot like a sorcerer - "inborn magic" and the like.

If we say that psionics is not spellcasting, this means that it is not a discrete magical effect created by a moment of concentration. It means psionics might resemble barbarian rages or battlemaster dice or skill checks or sneak attack or Action Surge or domain powers. If the flavor of psionics is "it comes from within," how does that look in practice?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While I don't necessarily agree with all that, to start answering the very practical question of "What does it look like in practice?":

1) For many effects, it doesn't look like anything at all. I suggested that Barbarian rage or monastic Ki powers could fall under a Psi model. Thus, such powers look like improbable results and effects gained with no outward manifestation of the supernatural- uncanny strength or dexterity, improbably noticing something, knowing something he shouldn't know.

2) for some effects, it may look very similar, requiring concentration...but not necessarily overlapping with magical effects requiring concentration. IOW, Psi may generate effects requiring concentration that similar magic does not, and vice versa.

3) Psi effects may not be dispellable in the normal magical sense, and would also work when powers drawing from the Weave would not. As I suggested earlier, the Psionic versions of powers may affect fewer targets or have a different range than their magical counterparts.

4) if Psi uses an exhaustion mechanic (as I suggested), it may be very dependable and available, but once the manifester reaches a certain point, he may be borderline powerless. Not just in terms of his powers, but in all the ways exhaustion affects a PC. This would also mean that other things that cause exhaustion would reduce the manifester's efficacy. In a sense, the fatigued Psionic manifester becomes less able to use his Psi effectively in situations when worn-out wizards, warlocks, clerics, bards and Druids do not.

5) while most Psi would be free of needing components, some may require foci. These wouldn't necessarily be "supernatural" in any way, but just a..."physical mnemonic"...that makes it easier/possible for the manifester to use the power.

 

[pemerton]

Spellcasting, as a mechanic, has a meaning in the fiction of D&D - a sort of ritualistic combination of gestures, words, and occasional catalyst materials combined with a mental concentration unlocks the effects of a specific, known magical power. Spellcasting is a big mechanic, and it has its own rules, but it says nothing of the source of your magical power, only the way in which you tap into it.

<snip>

Spellcasting isn't the only way to use magical power in D&D, either.

This is true. In the current "Why does 5e suck?" thread, this issue has come up in a discussion of the relationship between the Eldritch Knight subclass and the idea of a mythic hero or demigod.

All this talk about "power source" and "arcane magic" and "divine magic" is 100% weapons-grade Older Edition Itis. These concepts have no intrinsic meaning in 5e's class design. Clerics and paladins or wizards and sorcerers don't tap the same "power source" or have the same "kind of magic." They are entirely different and distinct traditions for doing supernatural things.

<snip>

A sorcerer's fireball and a wizard's fireball aren't both arcane things, they're fundamentally different in the fiction of the world (one is based in knowledge, understanding, and secret lore; another based on instinct, nature, and internal power), even if the use of them would look pretty similar.

But this isn't true, according to the Basic Rules. On page 81, there is a sidebar which says this (emphasis original):

All magic depends on the Weave, though different kinds of magic access it in a variety of ways. The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding - learned or intuitive - of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect. Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic. The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters’ access to the Weave is mediated by divine power - gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin’s oath.​

This pretty clearly says that a wizard and a sorcerer's fireball are both arcane things, and that cleris and paladins do tap into the same "power source" (although that phrase itself is not used).

 

[I'm A Banana]

But this isn't true, according to the Basic Rules. On page 81, there is a sidebar which says this (emphasis original):

All magic depends on the Weave, though different kinds of magic access it in a variety of ways. The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding - learned or intuitive - of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect. Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic. The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters’ access to the Weave is mediated by divine power - gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin’s oath.​

This pretty clearly says that a wizard and a sorcerer's fireball are both arcane things, and that cleris and paladins do tap into the same "power source" (although that phrase itself is not used).

Good point, I tend to utterly ignore the Weave nonsense, but WotC isn't likely to.

It's worth noting that in this description, both kinds of casters "use the weave," but it's not clear that the casting of an elemental monk or a tiefling's casting does the same thing. So we can have Weave-less spellcasting (monks, barbarians, racial abilities) that aren't explicitly arcane or divine in nature that nonetheless use the spellcasting mechanics. So "doesn't use the Weave" doesn't necssarily mean "doesn't cast spells," and "casts spells" doesn't necessarily mean "uses the Weave" or even "is based on knowledge."

Which still circles back to the main thrust: regardless of the origins of the power, do you cast spells with psionics? As in, do you use the spellcasting mechanics to use psionics as a character? If so, how do you do it differently than other casters? And if not, what do you do instead? And I mean this in the fiction of the world sense - does a psionic character stand for a moment, concentrate, point, maybe clutch a crystal ball? If they do, that implies spellcasting. If they don't, what do they do? What does it look like in the world when a psionic character uses their special abilities?

 

[Goemoe]

Psionics is magic, in the broadest, most inclusive sense of the term.

Wrong. And as this is your base for discussion, I don't need to comment anything else of you.

Psionics are different. And happily so, we don't need another source of magic.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Except it kind of is a source of magic in that it creates a supernatural effect.

Except in the internal logic of the fiction that inspires and informs the games, Psi is most usually NOT magic.

To borrow a formulation from Arthur C. Clark, in the fiction, Psi is a science so advanced it seems like magic. It isn't supernatural, it is hypernatural. Like an eidetic memory or synesthesia. It is a natural ability to those who have it, and it is as hereditary as red hair or the color of their skin. It is the ultimate expression of mind over matter by the masterful manipulation of rules of physics and chemistry we simply don't understand...yet.

Thus in game terms, because it does not draw from the Weave, it isn't magic. It won't detect as magic. It won't be dispelled by the same things as magic.

This means there are also things it won't be able to do, or can only approximate or simulate. It shouldn't be able to raise the dead, but it may be able to animate a body like a puppet. It can't truly summon creatures, but it may be able to open portals that creatures may pass through...though they may not be loyal to the manifester, since there is no magic commanding its loyalty. It may be able to create approximations of living things with creations of pure force. "Monsters from the Id!"

 

[Jeff Albertson]

In 4th Ed is is referred to as "psionic magic", that was a change I like in 4th Ed.

 

[Hussar]

But, [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] - aren't your examples problematic? This isn't really "psionics are different" when all you're doing is cherry picking magical effects, is it? If Psi can summon demons, do dimensional travel, animate the dead and summon monsters (what difference does it really make if they're "Monsters of the ID" or Fey monsters a la druid summoning?) all you're doing is creating just another spell caster with a different spell list.

If we want psionics to be different, shouldn't they be doing things that the spell lists flat out can't do?

Only problem with that is, the spell lists, as they stand, pretty much cover a lot of ground. There isn't a whole lot of space left if we don't start copying spell effects.

I think that all this base class vs subclass debate has hidden the real issue - what's left for a psionicist to do that isn't already covered?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But, [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] - aren't your examples problematic? This isn't really "psionics are different" when all you're doing is cherry picking magical effects, is it? If Psi can summon demons, do dimensional travel, animate the dead and summon monsters (what difference does it really make if they're "Monsters of the ID" or Fey monsters a la druid summoning?) all you're doing is creating just another spell caster with a different spell list.

If we want psionics to be different, shouldn't they be doing things that the spell lists flat out can't do?

Only problem with that is, the spell lists, as they stand, pretty much cover a lot of ground. There isn't a whole lot of space left if we don't start copying spell effects.

I think that all this base class vs subclass debate has hidden the real issue - what's left for a psionicist to do that isn't already covered?

In the basic game, magic steps on amost everybody's toes, and where it doesn't, it eventually will over the lifetime of the edition. So asking Psi to do something magic doesn't is kind of pointless.

As for my "cherry picking", I showed things that Psi does differently, and that it shouldn't be able to do. And IMHO, those details matter. As I framed it:

1) A manifester animating a corpse is literally acting like a puppeteer- he has to consciously decide its movements. Therefore, he's not going to be magically calling up a small fighting force to fight for him, he is going to be limited to 1-2 max. But while he's limited in number, dispel magic effects would be ineffective against his puppets.

2) A manifester calling for otherplanar help is taking a much bigger risk than the spellcaster. Where the caster summons an ally that is bound to obey his will, the manifester only opens a passageway and asks for aid. He literally has no control over what steps through, if anything- it is a free agent. He cannot make it do tasks or fight for him, he must bargain with it...which takes time. He cannot make it go home.

(For game purposes, there may be details in the power that give the manifester power over what passes through the portal, but I didn't suggest or imply any.)

3) the manifester's monsters from the Id would be just that: fields of force shaped by the chaos of the unconscious mind. Think...Mordenkainen's Hound with a randomized collection of combat stats. Potentially more flexibility, but less precision.

IMHO, how you do a task is just as important as the end result. In the history of the game, a knock spell swiftly and silently opens a locked door via magic, but is an ablative resource chosen at the expense of other potential effects; the rogue is swift and silent and can do the task all day, but may occasionally fail; the noise of a barbarian bashing it in raises an alarm.

A key is not a crowbar is not a packet of C4.

Just the basic underlying premise that Psi (as I proposed it) does not draw power from the Weave but from the manifester's own personal reserves of energy (see the exhaustion mechanic) has has all kinds of game implications: usable (or unusable) where & when magic is not; depleteable & renewable in ways that magic is not. As "not magic", it may be unable to affect certain targets or do certain tasks that the game explicitly requires be done by magic.