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."

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

So psionics is not supernatural in any way?

Methinks in your rush to be snarky, you missed the point completely.

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.

So it's magic. It's wonderous supernatural wish-granting. It may or may not be "arcane" (using knowledge) or "divine" (gaining access through a mediator), but it's magic all the same. It may be magic like a tiefling's inherent magic or magic like an elemental monk's magic - it might involve casting a spell. It might be magic like a monk's agelessness or a paladin's lay on hands - it might just be a thing you can do.

Trying to argue there's some big distinction between "psionics" and "magic" isn't the most useful talking point because psionics is clearly magic, it just might not be the same flavor of magic that sorcerers and clerics use. To figure out how like or unlike them it is, it's useful to start with something like "Do they cast spells, meaning, does using a power for them involve a moment of concentration and a word, gesture, and/or some catalyst?"

 

[Remathilis]

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?

All computers in the year 2015 can do the same basic things; type a document, read an email, watch a video, surf the web, play a game, etc. On a system level, there is no difference between what a Windows, Linux, Mac, or even a Chromebook can do. So why do we have so many OS and why do people defend them to the death?

The process is just as important and the result. A telepath using mind puppet and a wizard casting dominate person might in the end have the same effect, but different parameters (the psionic version may require the psion's action each round to work, but allows the psion to send the target into suicidal conditions.)

Likewise, a psion might get access to certain effects sooner than a wizard (esp in the realm of telepathy, teleportation, and telekinesis) but utterly lack other abilities (unable to raise the dead or summon a creature). Just like how certain software doesn't work on some OS (good luck getting SCL to work on a Chromebook).

Just because an effect exists and psionics can mimic a similar effect doesn't mean it's redundant, if that were the case we would have no need for delayed blast fireball or meteor swarm since we already have fireball...

 

[Hussar]

Fair enough.

 

[bogmad]

So it's magic. It's wonderous supernatural wish-granting. It may or may not be "arcane" (using knowledge) or "divine" (gaining access through a mediator), but it's magic all the same. It may be magic like a tiefling's inherent magic or magic like an elemental monk's magic - it might involve casting a spell. It might be magic like a monk's agelessness or a paladin's lay on hands - it might just be a thing you can do.

Trying to argue there's some big distinction between "psionics" and "magic" isn't the most useful talking point because psionics is clearly magic, it just might not be the same flavor of magic that sorcerers and clerics use. To figure out how like or unlike them it is, it's useful to start with something like "Do they cast spells, meaning, does using a power for them involve a moment of concentration and a word, gesture, and/or some catalyst?"

Oh, it's total semantics, but the point is that for some of us "indistinguishable from magic" in the game's sense does not mean the same thing as "magic."
I know it's frustrating for some that I must have a different definition of "magic" that to most people is indistinguishable from it, but it's also frustrating to hear "IT'S CLEARLY MAGIC, DUMMY."
Not to me. Why? Just cuz. And then it turns into some yelling match where I then end up like Walter in the Big Lebowski, muttering "Calmer than you are" under my breath to the Dude.

Ok, slightly more thought out than "just because":
Magic for me is pretty much either Arcane or Divine, with weird exceptions like monk abilities that I'm fine being ambivalent with. Psionics is not Arcane or Divine, so therefore it's something else.
In fact, I even like leaving it in this weird undefined category where the only thing I can say for certain about it is that it's not magic​.
It's not useful at all to argue about. You said so yourself:

Trying to argue there's some big distinction between "psionics" and "magic" isn't the most useful talking point

I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY
but then you go ahead and say in the same sentence what keeps setting the argument into useless pontificating I'm doing now:

because psionics is clearly magic.

In fact, the defining trait of it for me is that it's not magic. Sure, it acts a lot and looks a lot like magic, but that's part of the fun of it. And I can totally see how that makes some peoples heads explode in nerdrage [inside and outside of the fiction], but that can be fun too.

[added] And as you've shown, we can have some substantive discussions on what good mechanics might be for psionics are regardless of what side of the "magic/not magic" divide we fall on. I just want something that works for both positions instead of "it's magic, so lets make it work like magic does: with spellcasting exactly like these other classes do"

 

[Mercule]

That's the question; DO they tap the same source as magic, or do they tap something else entirely.

I'm not really objecting to the idea that a particular setting could have them be totally alien and other-sourced. I'm objecting to the idea that it's baked in and should be included in the rules. I think the psionics rules should be just rules. If one setting has them alien and wholly different than magic -- in some way "out of phase" with arcane/divine magic and with a dispel/detect wall up between them -- I'm okay with that, for that setting. I might even really dig on it, in certain cases.

That's not how I've ever used psionics, or seen it used. It's always been just another form of magic with a bit different fluff and mechanics. We didn't use the "Psionics is different" option in 3.5 because it would've broken 15-20 years of continuity, for us. At this point, it would break 30+ years of continuity for my home brew. Don't force me to do that, if I use 5E psionics. Make it optional, at worst/best.

I guess what I really want out of psionics is two-things: 1) a mechanic to allow almost anyone to have a one-off, innate, spell-like ability and 2) a form of magic driven by will, rather than intense study and the use of words, gestures, and materials. A feat could easily give #1, except that what we currently has grants actual spells, not spell-like abilities. The Sorcerer class has the fluff of delivering #2, but really doesn't satisfy -- I still don't get how having magic flowing through your veins grants knowledge of specific words and gestures (and even materials).

 

[Mercule]

Touche ... Mortals who use divine and arcane magic tap the same source as gods. Psionic users would tap an internal mental source tied to sentience and individual awareness. Both would be mortal.

FWIW, I wasn't trying to be snarky. Just pointing out the circular arguments around the whole issue.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A telepath using mind puppet and a wizard casting dominate person might in the end have the same effect...
Just because an effect exists and psionics can mimic a similar effect doesn't mean it's redundant, if that were the case we would have no need for delayed blast fireball or meteor swarm since we already have fireball...

It also doesn't mean that it needs an entirely different mechanic. There's nothing wrong with going the 1e way, and having a psionic discipline, "Mind Puppet" with the notation "except as noted above and described below, the discipline is identical to the Dominate Person spell..." Or simply giving the psionic Dominate Person, and a class feature that changes the components of spells he casts.

All three are valid design choices:

- Re-cycling spells saves space, complexity, and design effort, and also (though it's not an important consideration in 5e) limits the impact 'power creep' or 'bloat' can have on game balance.

- Listing a 'new' discipline that references the mechanics of an existing spell gives the discipline a sense of being distinct and a convenient way to give it components or other details different from the spell, while sacrificing only a little more space, simplicity, balance &c.

- Creating a completely new supernatural-power sub-system, including a list of disciplines & sciences nearly as extensive as existing spells creates a strong, arbitrary, mechanical impression of psionics being more distinct from existing types of magic (divine, arcane, ki, etc), than those existing types are from eachother, at the price of substantial design effort (some of which in the current WotC model, might have to be farmed out), much higher page count, increased complexity, and, incidentally (because, again, not an important consideration in 5e) carries a higher risk of being 'broken' or otherwise impacting game balance & playability via bloat.

On top of those three choices, there's also the the possibilty of using 3.5 take of giving an explicit option for Psionics to be 'magic,' interacting with checks on magical power like dispels, magic resistance, anti-magic zones and the like (and also any perks of magic, like working vs spells, curses, diseases, conditions, etc that "can only be removed by magic"), or to be 'different,' and unrestrained by checks on magical power (but unable to take advantage of 'only magic' perks). Presenting such a choice, and the optional mechanics to back it up, would be very much in keeping with 5e's doctrine of DM empowerment and attempts at modularity.

 

[GobiWon]

But, [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION]

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?

That is why it is important that the psionicist not pull from the current spell list. These powers have to be unique in feel if not always unique in effect. It can be done but it will require a lot of new supernatural powers that feel different than casting a divine or arcane spell.

 

[Mercule]

Oh, it's total semantics, but the point is that for some of us "indistinguishable from magic" in the game's sense does not mean the same thing as "magic."

And, for some, even magic (especially arcane) is simply hidden knowledge (the literal meaning of "arcane") that is "indistinguishable from magic". From that standpoint, trying to say that psionics isn't magic is pretty circular.

And as you've shown, we can have some substantive discussions on what good mechanics might be for psionics are regardless of what side of the "magic/not magic" divide we fall on. I just want something that works for both positions instead of "it's magic, so lets make it work like magic does: with spellcasting exactly like these other classes do"

This works fine, for me. In fact, this works ideally, for me. Stop baking more flavor than is necessary into my game rules. The number one purpose of the D&D rules set is to enable me to play fantasy games in a setting I design. Some boundaries have to be included, just to get the rules to function coherently. But, it's okay if I use psionics as a subsystem for (only) humans to manifest spell-like powers due to arcane magical experiments while someone else uses them for a non-magic system of manifestations due to "friction" between our universe and a Far Realm.

I think the key to psionics is that it is magic-like (i.e. has powers and effects) but does not rely on the same VSM components as casters. It has the potential to both "pop-up" in random individuals and to be formally trained. Whether true in fact, it has all appearance of being completely powered by the psion. It is also compatible/balanced with standard magic but may or may not operate "in phase" with it, in the sense of sensing and countering. Finally, it is more "personal" in its nature, which is evident in the traditional link to telepathy but that isn't the sum of its use.

Thoughts?

 

[Mercule]

That is why it is important that the psionicist not pull from the current spell list. These powers have to be unique in feel if not always unique in effect. It can be done but it will require a lot of new supernatural powers that feel different than casting a divine or arcane spell.

And, this is why psionics pretty much demands a full, stand-alone hardcover. At this point, regardless of whether you see psionics as "magic" or not, it's just history.