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."

 

[Mercule]

Dang...all my quotes disappeared and didn't make it to this post. I'll just summarize points I made.

...stuff...

Because of the precedent of ki and the difficulty of explaining the source of psionics in model #1 without going sci-fi or Far Realm, I favor Psionic Model #2.

I agree with most of what you say, here. Any quibbles I have aren't worth exploring. Most of the middle of you post is very much in line with what I said, earlier, about why trying to nail down the in-game "how" of D&D magic is a fool's errand. It's a rules structure, first, and a reflection of the narrative fiction, second.

Specific example from my campaign setting, which started in 1E: Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are all different.

Wizards are actually doing the whole spell thing. Not much more really needs said.

Clerics don't cast spells. They petition their gods for intervention and miracles. Based on explicit passages in 1E AD&D, the god (or his agents) give a general indication of the type of aide they'll provide that day, but they're free to change it up, at time of casting because, well, divine choice. Since most of the favors being offered will be done by intermediaries or raw faith, the contract is generally followed. When the cleric "casts" her spell, it isn't a chunk of Weave that's set off; it's actual intervention of an angel or some lesser agent -- in the case of the highest level spells, it might actually be the god, but there are only a few clerics in the world capable of those.

Druids are animists (this is home brew, but totally within flavor of RAW up to 5E). They don't deal with gods. They deal with the spirits of the world. If you follow a god, you're a cleric, not a druid. Clear, yet? Druids don't use spells in the wizardly fashion, either, though. Instead, they spend their prep time communing with the anima and striking bargains for future favors. These favors get transferred to local spirits wherever the druid decides to call on them. Again, no weave. Just anima performing acts for the druid.

Why does dispel magic work across sources? Shut up! It's a game and done for balance. Maybe the same disruptive energies shock the anima or there's an ancient agreement that intervention must have limits to avoid a direct war among the gods. I don't really care because the above descriptions of wizard, cleric, and druid are more detailed than any player in 30+ years of play has ever wanted. If I ever find one that does care, I'll worry about it, then.

As a bonus, psions are inherently magic. They pretty much work with the same energy as the wizards because, honestly, I didn't see any point in having two different pockets of random energy floating around to be shaped. That's not the important part of psionics. The important part is that these folks are self-powered -- at least enough that they can give a healthy shove to "the force/the weave/Sven". They don't need the rote methodology of the wizard, but they aren't dependent upon the gods or anima, either. They want something to happen and it does. What does that say about their humanity -- or the divinity of the so-called gods? Sure, wild talents may not have the breadth or depth of a celestial or god, but the fact is that someone who really pushes it can practically use his own bootstraps to become a demigod. What if that's only the surface of the secrets out there?

In practice, most people who play psionics do so either because a) they want to focus on some other class, but want a single cool power or b) like magic, like D&D, but don't care for the pain of slots. All the other conversation is somewhat moot to most folks. In fact, I'm not sure that 5E doesn't handle both these cases out of the PHB with a combination of Magic Initiate and either Warlock or the refined preparation rules for other casters. Everything else is a victim of the 80/20 rule.

 

[Remathilis]

It cannot unless WotC publishes it. Spamming it at us won't make it official, and official is what's needed for organized play, and what will be standard for many people's home games.

I've not allowed 3rd party add-ons in my D&D gaming since about 1983... not even the dragon published classes. Not since the abuses we monty-hauled with the time traveller class.

WotC already doesn't allow UA material with OP, and I doubt we'll see a psion (of any type) before it appears in UA, playtests for a while, gets feedback, and then... whatever it does last (we haven't gotten to that step yet).

Either way, we have a while before we get anything official, and perhaps WotC will just save time and use mine. They have my permission.

Your post might be hyperbole, but if psionic bloodline sorcerer is all they are going to do. I'd rather WotC not do anything with psionics. I agree. It would feel underwhelming.

Somebody rolled a 20 on their Intelligence Save. Good job!

Who/which "guys win" with this option? Was my presentation re-inventing wheels or bloating the system? I was really hoping it didn't....I mean, any moreso than adding any other new class and subclasses would.

Granted, I've not been paying especially close attention to the back-and-forth of the past several pages of this thread, but I was under the impression you, at least, Remathilis, were interested in them being "different" from magic-users...without, necessarily, being linked to any particular origin story.

I was. I'm apparently among the minority. It appears there is a very vocal group that think psionics is magic, powers are spells, psions are sorcerers, strength is weakness, and day is night, that I've stopped arguing. I they want a psion that obeys the rules of magic, subclasses, and the like, this is what that will look like. That is the dead simplest psionics system they can do.

Now, for those of us who want something more complex, feels more like psionics of old, and uses a different system to differentiate from magic, I hope WotC is paying attention and delivers.

 

[Nifft]

While you could say that clerics and warlocks have the same story, it's important to note that 5e D&D does not say that. They present two distinct and different stories.

The story of the cleric might be said to be "My loyalty to a being greater than myself is rewarded with powers that advance both of our interests."

The story of the warlock might be said to be "Something otherworldly has granted me secret power that I can use to further my own interests."

Think of how a celestial warlock is distinct in the narrative from a cleric, or how a death-priest or or trickster-cleric is distinct from a warlock. 5e could have made the choice to combine them, but for reasons (that likely have little to do with these narratives) made them distinct. If the psion is to be distinct, it also needs a narrative that is not the same narrative that the sorcerer already has. The bar for that isn't particularly high, but it's still a thing that needs to be done.

Makes sense to me.

Also, the story of the Monk is different from the story of the Sorcerer, even though both might use innate points to power Fire spells from the Wizard's list.

So, how do these sound:

The Monk uses physical and spiritual training to learn magical techniques.

The Sorcerer gains innate power through having a powerful ancestor.

The Psion has a unique understanding of the nature of (energy, thoughts, flesh, time & space, matter, or information), and this enlightenment allows the psion to shape the world.

The Ardent has explored a philosophy and discovered the secret ways in which that philosophy influences the universe.

The Erudite has a flexible mind, but not a strong one, which can mimic the thought-patterns of others easily, but has difficulty snapping out of those patterns after using them. Could be a selfless seeker of knowledge or a two-faced charlatan.


Hmm, the Psychic Warrior still needs a story which doesn't overlap the Monk. Can't just combine enlightenment with physical training. Hmm.

 

[Nifft]

It appears there is a very vocal group that think psionics is magic,

Yep.

powers are spells,

Nope, but powers using spell-slots is fine.

psions are sorcerers,

Nope, sorry. You fail at reading comprehension.

 

[Mercule]

I think 3.5 had the best take, which was to present the psionics is magic/different choice to the DM and let him decide. 'Baking in' either option would at least annoy some sub-set of fans of D&D psionics, and that's at odds with the 5e philosophy of inclusiveness (not that 5e has been or can be expected to be perfectly inclusive, but it's nice to stick to it as much as possible).

Agreed. This thread makes it pretty clear that you'd alienate half of the people who actually care by making either choice firm. I also agree with your follow-up logic. Even if "psionics are different/same" is moved to a sidebar, whatever AL does is likely to be the de facto "rules as intended".

Personally, I think the sorcerer narrative is a bit win for 5e in part because it does away with the obtuse "arcane magic" jargon that doesn't make much sense from an outside perspective (and the fact that the little sidebar on the weave reintroduces that jargon is just another reason to really dislike that little sidebar). "I was born with awesome abilities" vs. "I learned awesome abilities" is totally a thing that even someone brand new to D&D can grok pretty easily.

I think the psion needs that, too. It doesn't need to abandon the idea of internal, self-directed power, but it needs to liberate its view of that from the sorcerer's "My ability comes from me" vibe. And that's where this connects to the fiction that Mearls was talking about - the narrative of the Far Realm distinguishes that, even if it might not be the direction we want to go in 5e.

I actually don't mind the sorcerer flavor in 5E (well, except the wild mage, which I don't like in any form). I just think it's odd that they're actually born with spells. It seems odd that someone would have an inherent knowledge of the right words in a foreign language, where to put their hands, and what to be holding. You can make the case that sorcerers are containers for the magic but still need to figure out/learn the trappings to channel it. That opens the door to the idea that they could learn a different way of channeling their born power, which would look a lot like a psion sub-class for sorcerer.

Glomming onto something like the Far Realm just to underscore "I'm not a sorcerer" is a very bad idea, IMO. It's artificial and bakes in flavor where you really don't need it. If you grant that the psion has innate power (seems solid) and that power is not entirely dissimilar to other magic (bone of contention, but play along), there really isn't much separating it from sorcerer, thematically, unless you add more fluff on top of the class. A Far Realms sorcerer could serve the "touched by non-patron madness" just as well, mechanically, as building out a 96 page hard-cover.

That 96 page hard-cover is my benchmark because that's the size of "Hoard of the Dragon Queen" which seems like the smallest delivery that would make the whole exercise worthwhile. I'd take something bigger, sure. If it's a set of Unearthed Arcana posts, though, we aren't going to see anything more involved than a reskinned sorcerer.

If you're correct, and the question Mike's asking is whether or not the psion should be considered self-powered or external, then I fall emphatically on the side of self-powered. I think the rules could be written somewhat neutral on the topic, but I see no external source that could be married to the psion and leave it usable to me (or even recognizable, for that matter). Likewise, I think the rules could be neutral on the question of "psionics is different", but that would require some contortions to keep it balanced (including not underpowered) in both styles. If the decision was inescapable, I'd come down on the side of "psionics are the same", but that's just a vote for what I'd find more useful.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Makes sense to me.

Also, the story of the Monk is different from the story of the Sorcerer, even though both might use innate points to power Fire spells from the Wizard's list.

So, how do these sound:

The Monk uses physical and spiritual training to learn magical techniques.

The Sorcerer gains innate power through having a powerful ancestor.

The Psion has a unique understanding of the nature of (energy, thoughts, flesh, time & space, matter, or information), and this enlightenment allows the psion to shape the world.

The Ardent has explored a philosophy and discovered the secret ways in which that philosophy influences the universe.

The Erudite has a flexible mind, but not a strong one, which can mimic the thought-patterns of others easily, but has difficulty snapping out of those patterns after using them. Could be a selfless seeker of knowledge or a two-faced charlatan.


Hmm, the Psychic Warrior still needs a story which doesn't overlap the Monk. Can't just combine enlightenment with physical training. Hmm.

I like them, at least as starting points. A pretty significant point, though: sorcerers aren't dependent on an ancestor in 5e - draconic is perhaps based on ancestry, but wild magic might "just happen" and being a favored soul is like something a god does to you. Sorcery in 5e is innate to you, but it just comes from your "magical origin."

A psion, in this comparison, wouldn't have a magical origin - they'd have some sort of awakening or vision that allowed them to access psionics.

I really like that. Even the "divine" classes don't milk that story of "sudden revelation" well and it fits nicely with the semi-Buddhist 3e fluff pretty nicely. The closest is the Favored Soul, but even that is more about a god than about your own realization of the world. I also like it because it's distinctly medieval in flavor, just not European-medieval, which means we don't have to traffic in the science-y terms. We can loot the language of Buddhism and yoga and Himalayan spiritualism and that creates a place for psionics in the campaign world. And you can still work in bits of Far Realm or crystals or pulpy science stuff at the edges if you wanted to.

I'd groove on a psion that was pseudo-Tibetan in flavor with a skill-based roll-to-activate powers system that had points that you could spend to ramp up or sustain a given power.

 

[Yaarel]

[MENTION=22953]SteelDragon[/MENTION]

The essence of psionics is to emphasize mental power. So, the requirement of physical toughness is counterproductive.

Eliminate dependence on the Constitution ability.

Instead, use willpower - Wisdom (balance) or Charisma (force) - to maintain Concentration under stress.

 

[bogmad]

In practice, most people who play psionics do so either because a) they want to focus on some other class, but want a single cool power or b) like magic, like D&D, but don't care for the pain of slots. All the other conversation is somewhat moot to most folks. In fact, I'm not sure that 5E doesn't handle both these cases out of the PHB with a combination of Magic Initiate and either Warlock or the refined preparation rules for other casters. Everything else is a victim of the 80/20 rule.

It keeps getting said over and over again "I think think people play psionics for this reason and the rest is moot" as if that's a reason to go the easy route and do the minimum work for this perceived anecdotal "majority." What I want may or may not be part of the minority, but I think that if I get what I want where "psionics is different" (whether magic or not), then it also meets the criteria of the "most people" who only play it for the 2 reasons you list above. You and I presumably have more specific views on psionics than "most people." I'd go on a limb to say most posters in this thread are in the minority of people who have as strong of an opinion on the subject.

Before we start invoking the 80/20 rule to support our argument I'd like to see more than anecdotal evidence, such as a real playtest and survey. If everyone hates psionics that interact differently than base spellcasting mechanics I'll concede some, but I'd like to see a system than can leave the "is psionics magic" debate up to the fluff (unlike 3e, which required a choice between base or alternate rules) and just have psionics be different like it was in 2e (which most of the hardline psionics fans tend to prefer).

If you're going to playtest it you might as well figure out what kind of psionics people prefer. I'll concede that what I want requires more design work and playtesting to get right, so we might as well start with trying that out and deciding if people like it or not.

[Though I could see it coming in an UA article next month with a subclass such as we got with the artificer and determining whether that is "good enough," I'm hoping the artificer response was enough for them to try something different.]

 

[Yaarel]

This is an appealing conceptualization of magic/psionics.

In many literary and real-world magical traditions, having "talent" is a prerequisite to learning ritual magic. People with the potential to become wizards (spellcasters close to the D&D archetype) are born with at least one natural ability, which more often than not we would recognize as psionic: prophetic dreams, second sight, aura reading, minor telekinesis, etc. So I think it's perfectly all right to say that wizards learn to use their innate gifts to connect with and manipulate external sources of power (the Weave, pseudo-sentient arcane spirits, or whatever), while psions build upon their innate gifts as much as possible--eventually unlocking and expanding on more categories of psionic talent. This implies some transparency between powers and spells, which I think is OK. It also implies that all cantrips are basically innate psionic talents, which I also think is OK.

...

Returning to the subject of magic/psi transparency, it makes perfect sense to me that psions can detect magic and wizards can detect psionics, and that the supernatural signatures of the two effects are similar enough for one spell/power can do the job. (Detect Magic: detect any supernatural effect. You can measure the strength of the aura. If the effect is from a tradition in which you have class levels, you can also attempt to identify the specific spell or power.) Similarly, if makes sense to me that a spell/power designed to end supernatural effects can work on either. (Dispel Magic: dispel any supernatural effect. If the effect is from a magical tradition in which you have class levels, the dispel works automatically for levels <= the level of the slot used to cast Dispel Magic. If the effect is from a different tradition, make a caster level check against DC 10+spell level.) And frankly, I think that's enough--any other kind of transparency is very situational and can be ruled based on the spell/power descriptions. For example, a nomad psion might have a power similar to banishment, that works on summoned demons. A wizard casting detect thoughts would be foiled by a psion with Thought Shield, and so on. No special rules needed.

Psionics and Arcane are fundamentally identical but diverge during training and techniques.

On an other topic the post brought up. Bodily transformation and other psychosomatic effects are necessary for a number of psionic concepts. Not all psionic characters should do this, but some should.

 

[Yaarel]

A convenience of dividing the psionic power list into different disciplines is, the DM can easily ban a discipline that makes less sense in a particular setting.

For example, I would normally ban the ‘psionic necromancy’ discipline. However, someone running a Pathfinder-Occult-style setting, might want to use this necromancy discipline for a concept resembling the Spiritualist class.


I want any psionic character to choose two or three disciplines to define their character concept. The number of disciplines depends on how many powers are in that discipline to choose among. Customizability is vital. Maybe the character can use powers from other disciplines as well, but I prefer if they only use the powers from them that are at a lower level than the ones that they are using in their chosen disciplines.