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."

 

[aramis erak]

Semantics aside, what are the distinguishing features of psionics that set it apart from "spellcasting magic?" As others have pointed out, there is not a lot of room to have it do things that spellcasting magic can't do, because spellcasting magic can do just about anything. But psionics could do certain things better, or in different ways.

I would say the distinguishing traits of psionics should be:

• No external tools, ingredients, or actions. Using psionics is a purely mental activity. You can do it--at full power--while chained, gagged, and naked.

This I agree with

(This means none of the New Age crystals-and-chakra stuff.)[/list]

This I don't

• Psionics does not create free-standing effects. It does not summon creatures or create objects, and any ongoing psionic effect requires concentration. There is no such thing as a "psionic item."

This I don't, either.

I can see psionic items as waveguides for psionic power - no power, no use. They might allow effects at increased potency, or even without competency in them. Or, they might be power stores (batteries) that can be drawn from to reduce specific costs later, by tapping them while triggering a psionic ability. The rarest would be ones that generate psionic energy of their own... made my the most powerful and deranged psions - their insight and their madness are linked, and so their lab notes are unintelligible without becoming as deranged as they are

• Psionics is not dispellable. Not only do dispel magic, counterspell, antimagic field, and the like not work, but there are no psionic equivalents of those things. If you want to stop a psion from doing something, you have to target the effect, not the psionics; for example, physically holding still an object that the psion is trying to move with telekinesis.
• Psionics ignores physical barriers. Where psionics is concerned, there is no difference between "line of sight" and "line of effect." A wall of force blocks spells, but psionics can go right through it. Furthermore, most psionic powers can be used "over the wire" of a scrying effect, either magical or psionic.
• Psionics can be developed by non-specialists. Someone with the Wild Talent feat (I assume this will be a feat) has access to the same array of powers as a full psion. The psion can just put a lot more oomph behind those powers, and can master a greater number of them.

Thes I do agree with, mostly. Psionics should be blockable with magic, but only with magic specific to blocking psionics.

• Psionics can't compete with magic in raw power. Psionics ignores a lot of the restrictions and countermeasures that magic-wielders have to deal with; the flip side is that magic-wielders pack a harder punch. Put a psion and a wizard of the same level in an arena, and the wizard will usually trounce the psion.

Ohly if the psion doesn't survive long enough to turn the wizard against himself. Which, when combined with "Magic cannot stop psionics" means psions are MORE likely to win if of equal level and HP... The wizard can't defend, and the psion can save, and wizards' nova damage is usually survivable by that wizard if he saves versus it... but fatal to a similar level fighter if not saved against.

But you left out one other key of Psionics - Where magic is often save for half, psionics should almost always be boolean - it works or does not.

 

[SkidAce]

If a human being flies due purely to their own will, it's pretty clearly magical. It might be planar energies or breaking the laws of physics or a pact with a demon or the granted ability of a god or just thinking happy thoughts - that's still magical, it's still magic, it's clearly not natural.

Or complying with the laws of physics in a way we don't understand.


Lots of things today in the real world would have been called magic by those that didn't understand them, doesn't mean they were magic. Like when you referenced Arthur C. Clarke, they may "seem" like magic, but are not.

 

[Remathilis]

Should be familiar from AD&D. And, as logistical nightmares go, nothing compares to a huge, redundant, new sub-system.

2e psionics, for all its warts, was playable out of one handbook with only minimum rules reference form the PHB. I see no reason why a 5e version shouldn't be also.

It's certainly not the only thing you've mentioned. You seem very committed to denying perfectly workable options to others.

Because your "perfectly workable options" always are the path of least resistance.

Your perfectly workable options is the same as saying "We don't need a druid class; the nature domain for cleric's fills that role and is less redundant. All druid players will be nature clerics." Sounds fine, until you look at the differences between the two classes; no wild shape, no unique spells (save for 10 granted by the domain), no druidic language, proficiencies (refluff your mace as a scimitar!), or whatever. It doesn't fit. Its a lazy way of looking at it. But I guess it'd be better than no nature priest at all, and look how much space it'd save in the PHB.

That might be fine to you since you don't like druids, you think previous versions of druids were broken, and druids don't play a roll in your campaign so cramming them under cleric and being done with it works. It doesn't work for people who love druids, want a druid like the 2e/3e druid (but better balanced) and don't want to see some two-bit impostor dancing around wearing the druid's name.

If that makes it work for you, I'm fine with a psionics that works like magic, interacts with magic as if it were magic, faces the same checks on its otherwise unrestrained power as magic, but nominally pretends to be 'not magic.'

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, its a damn spellcaster again.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Or complying with the laws of physics in a way we don't understand.


Lots of things today in the real world would have been called magic by those that didn't understand them, doesn't mean they were magic. Like when you referenced Arthur C. Clarke, they may "seem" like magic, but are not.

...unless the fiction-verse says otherwise. Which is precisely the position several persons are taking.

It is not NORMAL, and is exceedingly rare. But within the confines of the settings in which it exists, Psi is merely the result of manipulating as-yet unknown laws of physics directly via one's mind, not breaking them. IOW, though it seems like it, Psi is not magic.

These get at the same thing - something that complies with the laws of physics in a way we don't understand or as-yet unknown without breaking them is still magic, because "magic" isn't exclusionary or specific. Anything can be magic. Battlemaster superiority dice can be magic. Anything can not be magic. A wizard's fireball can be nanobots or a flamethrower. XP can be magic. HP can be magic. Level can be magic. Laser pistols can be magic.

Saying that it's the laws of physics we don't understand is just another gloss on "it's from a pact with the devil" or "it's from my blood" or "its ki" or "it's luck and skill and practice." It's an excuse for supernormal stuff to occur. It's a distinction without a real difference. It's all applied phlebotnium, in the end. It doesn't actually describe any real way that psionics is different in play from any of those other things in the way that they are used by a practitioner. It's ultimately pretty meaningless at the level of play experience. I can run a wizard tomorrow who uses the laws of physics in novel ways and using all my power from within myself to read minds and predict the future and leap between dimensions. How is such a character not a psionic character? What don't they have that a psionic character has? What can't they do that a psionic character does?

Which is what I'm hoping to drill down into more - ignore the excuse for the power, what differentiates them in their use from other effects? Don't tell, show - how is this different? In what way? What is the change? To get at how psionics might be different in play from wizards or clerics, we should get at how they are different in the moment in the fiction, so how are they different? What does using a psionic power look like and how is it distinct from what it looks like when a wizard casts a spell? [MENTION=68021]Das[/MENTION]uul 's stuff is a solid (if a bit specific) start.

 

[Remathilis]

Which is what I'm hoping to drill down into more - ignore the excuse for the power, what differentiates them in their use from other effects? Don't tell, show - how is this different? In what way? What is the change? To get at how psionics might be different in play from wizards or clerics, we should get at how they are different in the moment in the fiction, so how are they different? What does using a psionic power look like and how is it distinct from what it looks like when a wizard casts a spell? @Dasuul 's stuff is a solid (if a bit specific) start.

Just spit-balling a couple ideas. I have no idea if they are balanced, usable, or what...

0.) Powers do not have verbal, somatic, or material components. They are unaffected by grapples, silence, or the like.

1.) Powers require a "check". Each power has a power score (basically, a DC to activate) and the psion must make a power check (1d20 + Prof + Int) to activate it; succeed and your power goes off as normal, fail and the power has half or no effect. This could possibly replace savings against psionics as well, but I'm not sure yet on that.

2.) Powers don't have a "power level" akin to spell level. (IE telepathy is a first level power) but some powers have a minimum character level to take (IE: you must be 11th level to take the Mind Blast power). Most powers are differentiated by power point cost.

3.) Powers don't have durations, but instead have a maintenance cost of power points to keep going for every round past the first one.

4.) There are actually very few powers (maybe a dozen or so) but they can be augmented by spending more power points. Telekinesis might start out weak (on par with mage hand) but by using more power points, you can use it lift more, hurl heavy objects, push or slam foes, crush their windpipes, hold the steady, or even create whirlwinds of telekinetic force. Clairvoyance might start out as a scrying tool, but eventually expand to seeing the past and or future.

5.) Psionics doesn't grant a save as normal, but instead "attacks" an ability score. (IE: telepathy requires the psion to roll 1d20 + prof + int mod against the victims Int SCORE, which acts as the DC). Non-psionic minds might impose disadvantage, while psionic combat might grant the psion advantage on further psionic powers used on the victim. Could be used with 1 above as well.

Again, just brainstorming there. There is plenty of room for new, innovative mechanics that don't involve rehashing spellcasting.

 

[dwayne]

I think there should be a psion class with specializations under it for the different areas of study and focus. A wild talent should be like a feat or a back ground maybe, but the abilities should have a progression and a requirement to get to the next like a tree with branches. This way you can not pick and choose them and has a definite path to the end goal a line of study were as a wilder or untrained psion talent would be very limited on the number of powers but would be very powerful with the one she has and she could study and train as a psion but due to her wild talent it works ageist her as her mind fights the training. Being a wild your mind is so focused on the one power that its hard for a trained mind to get through the chaos of your unordered mind even maybe causing the telepath to be stunned of a failed contact or attack. Also in telepathic combat the attacker wyho is so focused on the mind attack would be at a disavantage to defend him self from physical attacks and his friends would have to defend him as he fights or distracts the enemy telepath. Were as a wild talent would be able to use his one power without leaving him self open to attack but the only way to improve this for a wild would be through feats maybe. So a wild low level talent would be able to distract or detect things were as one with a few improvement feats maybe be able to psychic crush or blast a cone in an area to stun.

 

[dwayne]

Just spit-balling a couple ideas. I have no idea if they are balanced, usable, or what...

0.) Powers do not have verbal, somatic, or material components. They are unaffected by grapples, silence, or the like.

1.) Powers require a "check". Each power has a power score (basically, a DC to activate) and the psion must make a power check (1d20 + Prof + Int) to activate it; succeed and your power goes off as normal, fail and the power has half or no effect. This could possibly replace savings against psionics as well, but I'm not sure yet on that.

2.) Powers don't have a "power level" akin to spell level. (IE telepathy is a first level power) but some powers have a minimum character level to take (IE: you must be 11th level to take the Mind Blast power). Most powers are differentiated by power point cost.

3.) Powers don't have durations, but instead have a maintenance cost of power points to keep going for every round past the first one.

4.) There are actually very few powers (maybe a dozen or so) but they can be augmented by spending more power points. Telekinesis might start out weak (on par with mage hand) but by using more power points, you can use it lift more, hurl heavy objects, push or slam foes, crush their windpipes, hold the steady, or even create whirlwinds of telekinetic force. Clairvoyance might start out as a scrying tool, but eventually expand to seeing the past and or future.

5.) Psionics doesn't grant a save as normal, but instead "attacks" an ability score. (IE: telepathy requires the psion to roll 1d20 + prof + int mod against the victims Int SCORE, which acts as the DC). Non-psionic minds might impose disadvantage, while psionic combat might grant the psion advantage on further psionic powers used on the victim. Could be used with 1 above as well.

Again, just brainstorming there. There is plenty of room for new, innovative mechanics that don't involve rehashing spellcasting.

I like some of these ideas pacifically 1,3, and 5 never really liked the power point thing my self maybe a dice pool to draw from or something.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Just spit-balling a couple ideas. I have no idea if they are balanced, usable, or what...

0.) Powers do not have verbal, somatic, or material components. They are unaffected by grapples, silence, or the like.

Common refrain, and I think something easily agreed on. Though there's spellcasting that ignores components (and that's even called psionics - check out the gith races for that!), so this doesn't necessarily mean "no spellcasting."

1.) Powers require a "check". Each power has a power score (basically, a DC to activate) and the psion must make a power check (1d20 + Prof + Int) to activate it; succeed and your power goes off as normal, fail and the power has half or no effect. This could possibly replace savings against psionics as well, but I'm not sure yet on that.

That's a pretty meaty distinction! The biggest thing to watch out for here is the old 2e problem of "I spend three rounds doing nothing because I can't roll for crap." Could be something like "I blow some power points to MAKE SURE this works this time."

2.) Powers don't have a "power level" akin to spell level. (IE telepathy is a first level power) but some powers have a minimum character level to take (IE: you must be 11th level to take the Mind Blast power). Most powers are differentiated by power point cost.

This seems kind of...academic and minor to me. Like, if we have a ranking of power (in that there is a cost) and a minimum required character level, then we sort of have "power levels" anyway. Why insist at their omission?

3.) Powers don't have durations, but instead have a maintenance cost of power points to keep going for every round past the first one.

Sure, that's pretty distinct from spells, too - usually it doesn't cost anything to keep a spell going.

4.) There are actually very few powers (maybe a dozen or so) but they can be augmented by spending more power points. Telekinesis might start out weak (on par with mage hand) but by using more power points, you can use it lift more, hurl heavy objects, push or slam foes, crush their windpipes, hold the steady, or even create whirlwinds of telekinetic force. Clairvoyance might start out as a scrying tool, but eventually expand to seeing the past and or future.

"Casting at a higher level," but why limit the quantity? Why not just let it happen on things it makes sense to happen on?

5.) Psionics doesn't grant a save as normal, but instead "attacks" an ability score. (IE: telepathy requires the psion to roll 1d20 + prof + int mod against the victims Int SCORE, which acts as the DC). Non-psionic minds might impose disadvantage, while psionic combat might grant the psion advantage on further psionic powers used on the victim. Could be used with 1 above as well.

This might get messy - proficiency bonus doesn't apply to your ability scores, meaning that someone who is well trained to avoid assaults on Intelligence actually doesn't show it here, which kills part of their fiction - that they are clever enough to resist Intelligence-based attacks better than most.

Again, just brainstorming there. There is plenty of room for new, innovative mechanics that don't involve rehashing spellcasting.

Totally. And psi seems like it'd be an OK fit.

From this perspective, psi would seem less reliable than spellcasting - a spell just works, doesn't cost anything to maintain, and while your foe might avoid it, they can't really stop you from producing it. Psi would be more difficult, producing a similar effect would be more taxing.

 

[Remathilis]

Common refrain, and I think something easily agreed on. Though there's spellcasting that ignores components (and that's even called psionics - check out the gith races for that!), so this doesn't necessarily mean "no spellcasting."

Kinda why I put it as zero; it seems the bog-standard, easily agreed upon change from magic. Still, it would need some counterbalance since a psionic would basically be getting silent/still spell for free.

That's a pretty meaty distinction! The biggest thing to watch out for here is the old 2e problem of "I spend three rounds doing nothing because I can't roll for crap." Could be something like "I blow some power points to MAKE SURE this works this time."

I was really debating on the idea of "works/works better" or "works/half-effect" style; it doesn't necessarily prevent you from doing something, but makes it less effective when you fail. I don't necessarily want a "roll to see if I do something this round", but in the end it could be no different than a fighter rolling to attack and whiffing, especially if failure costs little or no resources.

This seems kind of...academic and minor to me. Like, if we have a ranking of power (in that there is a cost) and a minimum required character level, then we sort of have "power levels" anyway. Why insist at their omission?

The idea is that power point cost, activation DC, and augmentation cost sets the "relative power level" rather than spell level. For example, telekinesis is a 5th level spell for wizards with set effects, a psion has a telekinetic power that he can get at 1st level and as he gains power, he gains better ability to activate it (proficiency bonus increases), more options to augment it, and more power points to use it. The minimum class level is only for effects that are too powerful for a low level PC to have period. (For an example of what I'm thinking, look at how warlock invocations are done.)

Sure, that's pretty distinct from spells, too - usually it doesn't cost anything to keep a spell going.

That might allow personal buffs (or even limited party buffs) to circumvent concentration; burning through X power points per member per round might be a good enough countermeasure, but if not than the cost will certainly limit hour long abilities. Again, that would depend on power points gained and costs to activate/maintain (with probably some cap of power points spent per round to avoid novaing).

"Casting at a higher level," but why limit the quantity? Why not just let it happen on things it makes sense to happen on?

The idea was to make power broad and versatile. One telekinesis power can do more than just life objects; it could do what Bigby's hand, Forcecage, mage hand, tenser's disc, and such all do if you spend enough power points (and reach the DC, which as I think about could scale with augmentation).

To take a spellcasting example; imagine if Cure Wounds was a psionic power. You can add power points to heal more hp, but you could also use power points to have it act as lesser restoration (removing disease, blindness, or the like), or healing word (healing at distance), or even revivify (bring someone back from the dead) all by spending points to augment it. Makes it very broad and versatile, so you would want a natural limit on how many different effects he could actually do.

Again, a cap on power points spent per round (and possibly augments making the DC to activate scale) would be the check on such flexibility.

This might get messy - proficiency bonus doesn't apply to your ability scores, meaning that someone who is well trained to avoid assaults on Intelligence actually doesn't show it here, which kills part of their fiction - that they are clever enough to resist Intelligence-based attacks better than most.

Yeah, probably best to go with tradtional saves, but its an alternative to such a system.

Totally. And psi seems like it'd be an OK fit.

From this perspective, psi would seem less reliable than spellcasting - a spell just works, doesn't cost anything to maintain, and while your foe might avoid it, they can't really stop you from producing it. Psi would be more difficult, producing a similar effect would be more taxing.

My idea was that psionics is harder to use, but gives you a lot more flexibility in how you use it. Spells (even those you cast at higher level) are rigid; they tend to do one (or a small group) of effects where psionics is much more fluid at the cost of reliability.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

The idea is that power point cost, activation DC, and augmentation cost sets the "relative power level" rather than spell level. For example, telekinesis is a 5th level spell for wizards with set effects, a psion has a telekinetic power that he can get at 1st level and as he gains power, he gains better ability to activate it (proficiency bonus increases), more options to augment it, and more power points to use it. The minimum class level is only for effects that are too powerful for a low level PC to have period. (For an example of what I'm thinking, look at how warlock invocations are done.)

The idea was to make power broad and versatile. One telekinesis power can do more than just life objects; it could do what Bigby's hand, Forcecage, mage hand, tenser's disc, and such all do if you spend enough power points (and reach the DC, which as I think about could scale with augmentation).

To take a spellcasting example; imagine if Cure Wounds was a psionic power. You can add power points to heal more hp, but you could also use power points to have it act as lesser restoration (removing disease, blindness, or the like), or healing word (healing at distance), or even revivify (bring someone back from the dead) all by spending points to augment it. Makes it very broad and versatile, so you would want a natural limit on how many different effects he could actually do.

Again, a cap on power points spent per round (and possibly augments making the DC to activate scale) would be the check on such flexibility.

My idea was that psionics is harder to use, but gives you a lot more flexibility in how you use it. Spells (even those you cast at higher level) are rigid; they tend to do one (or a small group) of effects where psionics is much more fluid at the cost of reliability.

This has been my thinking as well. Psionics should have a "build on what you know" quality to it. It's perfectly fine for a wizard with no necromancy spells in his spellbook to suddenly gain one that allows him to animate the dead. On the other hand, a Psion without telepathy shouldn't be able to manifest a mindblast ability out of the blue.