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."

 

[steeldragons]

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

This has been suggested and answered many times (in this thread alone) already.

Just as you can have a Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock class, and all of their subclasses, using arcane magic and then have Eldritch Knights & Arcane Tricksters that also use arcane magic but are subclasses of other fields, it should/would be/is trivially easy to justify, "Here's a Psychic Class, with their sub-class archetypes, using psionic powers...and here's a Psychic Warrior subclass, that also uses psionic powers, but is a subclass of the Fighter instead of the psion/psychic class."

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

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

What distinguishes this from a philosophy cleric?

 

[Yaarel]

Admittedly, 3e psionics conceived the Psychic Warrior as a half-caster. But I prefer the concept to be a full-caster, in the same way that the 4e Swordmage is. In other words, the melee weapon attacks are fully psionic effects.

I like the nickname Psywar.

Regarding story, the Psywar has worked well with the flavor of magical Berserkers and Valkyries. The Berserker embraces the savage impulses, while the Valkyrie is more civilized with the flavor of inescapable fate.

 

[steeldragons]

[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.

The point is they are not physically tough, hence the danger and risk of using the mechanic...and doing potentially serious harm to one's body....which is, I think it safe to say, something of a trope of many psychic characters, pushing themselves beyond their "normal" limits and "exhausting" themselves, not just mentally, but being physically weakened or compromised by doing so.

But I appreciate the suggestion and agree, in all other ways, the psychic is about using the mind.

 

[Yaarel]

Heh, I would call the Valkyrie a ‘Valkyr’ to avoid genderizing the archetype.

 

[Yaarel]

But I appreciate the suggestion and agree, in all other ways, the psychic is about using the mind.

That Constitution mechanic guarantees most players will build their psionic character with extremely high Constitution.

Virtually every psionic player character will defacto be an Olympic level triathalon athlete.

This Constitution mechanic causes anti-psionic flavor.

 

[fuindordm]

This is an appealing conceptualization of magic/psionics.



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.

You're right, that is a matter of personal taste. I like psychometabolism in my psionics, but not gross physical transformations like polymorph.

 

[fuindordm]

Regarding ability score dependence:

I would like the ability score driving powers to be intelligence, because we need more classes that are dependent on intelligence and because traditionally genius-level intelligence is something D&D associates with psionics (both characters and monsters).

I also like the 2E interpretation where different disciplines are driven by different ability scores, but I don't want too much MAD in the class either. So I'd suggest making Intelligence the primary and having certain signature abilities in the different disciplines/specializations key off of different secondaries.

This is analgous to Wis-->spellcasting and Cha-->channeling for clerics.

For example:

Psychometabolism, Nomad -- Con (disciplines very difficult on the body)
Telepathy, Clairsentience -- Wis (perception and willpower very important)
Metacreativity, Telekinesis -- Cha (imposing your will on the physical world takes Cha, similar to Sorcerer)

But I agree with Yaarel that not all psions should be healthy as horses--there's an important archetype of the frail monk/psion.

 

[Staffan]

Old habits. I'm sure you don't need the history lesson, but... It used to be that only clerics could heal -- wizards were all but explicitly barred from it in BECMI and 1E. The Bard has slowly pushed his way in, but I think there's a fear that if too many folks gain healing, the cleric might actually have to rely on his priestly shtick, rather than buff-and-heal.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about it. One the one hand, it's an arbitrary divide and potentially forces someone into playing a character they really don't want, in the name of "greater good". On the other, most of the divine/arcane(/psionic) divide in D&D is pretty arbitrary, so why not allow people to mark territory and/or have to make trade-offs?

IMO, the divine/arcane divide is useless. Having class-based distinctions is of course useful, but not saying "this set of classes won't get effect X, and that set won't get effect Y."

Further, one of my main problems with D&D over the last 15 or so years has been that probably the most necessary cornerstone of a party, the healer, is the one with the strongest fluff restriction, that of divine worship. I mean, in most 3e parties, you can get by fairly well with a paladin, barbarian, or maybe a ranger instead of a fighter, and a sorcerer can fulfill most of the stuff you want a wizard to do. But the druid makes a very poor substitute for a cleric, because they can't swap out spells to heal, and they get delayed access to most healing spells (other than neutralize poison), or no access at all to relief for some conditions (blindness, fear, paralysis).

One of the things I actually liked about 4e was that it made a cleric-less party possible, by providing significant self-powered healing as well as one other core class with in-combat healing (the Warlord, with more classes coming later), plus moving condition relief to rituals which were technically available to anyone. 5e also makes cleric-less parties possible by putting bards and druids on mostly equal footing with non-Life clerics - condensing healing spells into cure wounds, lesser restoration, and greater restoration (there are some others like healing word​, but those three are what I'd consider to be the basic "healing kit"), and letting all three classes have access to them (and not requiring bards or possible future limited-selection casters to spend half their selection on remove fear, remove paralysis, remove blindness/deafness, remove disease, neutralize poison, and so on).

Ehrm, I guess that moved into a tangent. Anyway, suffice to say that I don't mind psions getting access to healing that rivals a cleric's one bit.

 

[steeldragons]

That Constitution mechanic guarantees most players will build their psionic character with extremely high Constitution.

Virtually every psionic player character will defacto be an Olympic level triathalon athlete.

This Constitution mechanic causes anti-psionic flavor.

Well that goes to, I suppose, how one defines their Constitution. Con., to my understanding, is not your "strength" but you "endurance." A person can be "tough" internally, and I have known a few, without necessarily being as "strong" as an athlete.

Min-maxers/optimizers/abusers will always choose to do the things that -to them are "fun"- make the game less challenging. That is their choice and I have firmly believed that, while one should look to close gross loopholes and avoid obvious balance problems, one can not design for every/any possible corner case contingency of what some powergamers might [will probably] do. The fact that some psionic characters will go that route is inevitable. IF we based it on Wis. or Cha., those same players would have characters with pumped up Wis. or Cha.

...and you'd have players who want their psionic characters to be [and/or think psionic PCs should be] "tougher/stand their own" in a fight, using their powers or not, whin-er-um-complaining about what "glass canons" the psion class is.

I don't want them all to be physically muscular/Str., I don't want them all to be automatically agile/reflexive/Dex...but they can all be "tough"/have a high tolerance for enduring physical discomfort/hardship.

EDIT to further add: AND, as a final defense if the mechanic is to be tied to/effect levels of Exhaustion [that could conceivably lead to death], then Con. makes complete sense.