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]

I see. So, as long as you get what you want, the rest of us can go hang? Really?

For me, I'd rather see a playtest cycle for development. Start as simple as possible, see if that works and then increase complexity with each iteration and see what makes the most people happy.

I'd say the pattern they seem to be using for the artificer is fantastic. Sure, the first artificer wasn't great and had issues. Ok, fine. Go back and fiddle with it, and try again. I'm pretty sure the next iteration will be better received. At some point, you'll make enough people happy that you're done.

Why start from a highly complicated point, adding entire new classes and mechanics, before determining if you could do it easier first? Wouldn't that be a lot easier to balance with existing mechanics? With your way, we get 2e Psionics and hope like heck that it isn't broken. With my way, we get a finalised version that has been through multiple playtest periods and won't be broken. Just because you want a Psion that is completely different from existing classes does not mean that's the best way to achieve it.

I look at like I saw the class debate of the playtest; some people were advocating for subclasses to handle EVERYTHING, including many of the core classes like paladin, bard, ranger, barbarian, and monk. I mean, we had 10/12 classes in their near final form and people on this board were calling for "scrapping the barbarian and make it a background" or "removing the ranger and making it a subclass" level changes. I imagine if WotC had started at a position of "make it a subclass, then branch out" we might have ended up up with 3-4 classes in the PHB and everything else a subclass of them.

In fact, that idea WAS tried c.f. the Mage playtest, when the wizard, sorcerer and warlock were all going to share a class and the subclasses determined your caster ability and spells. It was abandoned then due to people wanting those classes to have a unique identity and logistical headaches with three caster systems in one class. We never even got the sorcerer or warlock part to playtest it was so hard to splice systems. I can't imagine its easier now.

All of this leads me back to my position; WotC has tried the subclass route (wizardficer) and its tried the alt-casting wizard route (mage) and neither were well received. Trying again seems like waste of resources (and at this point it seems every resource at WotC is critical). We might just get a power-point class that feels like a direct conversion of the 3.5 psion (psicrystals and all), which while not flavorful (basically, a spell-point wizard) at least tries to capture the feel. We might get something more like 2e's psionicist class (incorporating ideas but balancing the system). We might get something totally new (though with 5e's pennant for nostalgia, I doubt so). I'm hoping that WotC is signalling doing psionics "right" and not leaving it a sorcerer sublcass in a UA, but I could be wrong. I was on warlord.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I look at like I saw the class debate of the playtest; some people were advocating for subclasses to handle EVERYTHING, including many of the core classes like paladin, bard, ranger, barbarian, and monk. I mean, we had 10/12 classes in their near final form and people on this board were calling for "scrapping the barbarian and make it a background" or "removing the ranger and making it a subclass" level changes. I imagine if WotC had started at a position of "make it a subclass, then branch out" we might have ended up up with 3-4 classes in the PHB and everything else a subclass of them.

The 'core 4' classes, presumably, if they'd gone heavily for sub-classing and multi-classing to deliver on the promised 'every class appearing in a prior PH1.'

OTOH, if they'd gone with a full class for everything, there'd've be 15 or so, instead of 12. So it's not like the sub-class idea was completely rejected. The Assassin and Illusionist became sub-classes. The EK (never in a PH1, but multi-class Fighter/Magic-Users at 1st level were in 1e & 2e) is conceptually very similar to the Ranger and Paladin (fighter-caster hybrid), but is just another sub-class. The Battlemaster fighter-sub-class stands in, very unsuccessfully, for two classes.

We might get something totally new (though with 5e's pennant for nostalgia, I doubt so). I'm hoping that WotC is signalling doing psionics "right" and not leaving it a sorcerer sublcass in a UA, but I could be wrong. I was on warlord.

As long as "right" is broader and leaves more room for options than your idea of 'right.'

Psionic effects like charm and illusion tend toward Charisma.

All three mental abilities seem vital: Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.

Charisma is at least suggestive of projecting will, so seems ideal. Wisdom represents mental resilience (WIS saves). Intelligence might analogous to 'mental agility,' but seems the least appropriate of the three. Of course, the psion could be MAD, using CHA for attack modes, WIS for power points, INT for disciplines & sciences or something along those lines.

 

[Mephista]

56 pages later, and the verdict? No one can agree on anything.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Welcome to humanity!

 

[Mercule]

Intelligence should be the primary stat. Constitution should be the secondary. Constitution would be secondary because it would come into play only you wanted to empower or extend the duration of a power. Intelligence would become the "concentration" statistic. Psions would use their intellect to focus a spell, but any attempt to "metamagic" a power would require physical stamina to avoid exhaustion.

I'd go with Charisma as primary stat because they have that much sense of self. Depending on your view, though, that could be Wisdom. Depending on exact definitions, my order would be: Charisma => Wisdom => Constitution.

I do like the image of a psion who went so mental-fueled, though, that he's totally neglected his body.

 

[Mercule]

Welcome to humanity!

This is the Internet. You won't find any humanity, here.

 

[Remathilis]

The 'core 4' classes, presumably, if they'd gone heavily for sub-classing and multi-classing to deliver on the promised 'every class appearing in a prior PH1.'

OTOH, if they'd gone with a full class for everything, there'd've be 15 or so, instead of 12. So it's not like the sub-class idea was completely rejected. The Assassin and Illusionist became sub-classes. The EK (never in a PH1, but multi-class Fighter/Magic-Users at 1st level were in 1e & 2e) is conceptually very similar to the Ranger and Paladin (fighter-caster hybrid), but is just another sub-class. The Battlemaster fighter-sub-class stands in, very unsuccessfully, for two classes.

FWIW, I was an advocate for the 15 classes idea, but I can see their justification. Assassin was only a full class in two editions (being a PrC and a kit in 3e and 2e respectively) and really didn't offer much over a the regular rogue class. Same with illusionist; which hadn't been a separate class since 1989. So I guess those two drew the short end on longevity. Warlord to battlemaster was a punt IMHO; they didn't want a martial healer in the PHB. I hope WotC will one day make a proper warlord, btw. Sounds ripe for a UA.

As long as "right" is broader and leaves more room for options than your idea of 'right.'

Here is my absolute minimums.

1.) Psion deserves a base class, period. No core class does it justice without heavy hacking into it and rewriting its mechanics and/or fluff. At the very least, it deserves its own class with its own power list and its own subclasses (representing the disciplines of yore).

2.) It deserves unique capabilities that fit its flavor. (In essence, I don't just want a list of PHB spells with "pretend their psionic" written over them; even if their is overlap (IE: Psionic Charm Person; see PHB XXX) I want them to have unique ones that other caster's don't get.

3.) It deserves one unique mechanic on par with warlock invocations or sorcerer metamagic. Something to give the psion his own niche.

Now, do I want a unique system for psionics separate from how spells are cast? Yeah, I think that'd be cool. Will I be bummed if the psion looks more like 3.5 than 2e? A bit, but I'll live. The only thing I actively dislike is the idea of some subclass eating all of psionic's history, lore, and powers and tell me "be a regular spellcaster and pretend its psionics." I can do that now, I don't need WotC to give me that. I need WotC to give me a proper psion class and powers, since that is the harder route.

 

[Tony Vargas]

FWIW, I was an advocate for the 15 classes idea, but I can see their justification. Assassin was only a full class in two editions (being a PrC and a kit in 3e and 2e respectively) and really didn't offer much over a the regular rogue class. Same with illusionist; which hadn't been a separate class since 1989. So I guess those two drew the short end on longevity. Warlord to battlemaster was a punt IMHO; they didn't want a martial healer in the PHB. I hope WotC will one day make a proper warlord, btw. Sounds ripe for a UA.

Sure. Point is, not everything got the full class treatment, so we can't rule out another sub-class treatment. But, psionics got no PH1 treatment at all. Maybe it will prove out that psionics gets something great for waiting. Hope springing eternal and all.

Here is my absolute minimums.

1.) Psion deserves a base class, period. No core class does it justice without heavy hacking into it and rewriting its mechanics and/or fluff. At the very least, it deserves its own class with its own power list and its own subclasses (representing the disciplines of yore).

The psion just doesn't resonate with me the same way. My impression of psionics was really formed in 1e, and the idea that anyone /might/ be psionic still has a certain nostalgic appeal. That in no way argues /against/ the inclusion of the psion (or other psionic classes), just for some Wild Talent & other options, as well. Even something as simple as a feat or background, though a sub-class (or sub-classes) analogous the EK or AT with psionics in place of wizardy spells would also be potentially cool.

2.) It deserves unique capabilities that fit its flavor. (In essence, I don't just want a list of PHB spells with "pretend their psionic" written over them; even if their is overlap (IE: Psionic Charm Person; see PHB XXX) I want them to have unique ones that other caster's don't get.

Every full caster has at least some spells it doesn't share with other casters, I think. Anyway, even if not, it's a reasonable expectation.

3.) It deserves one unique mechanic on par with warlock invocations or sorcerer metamagic. Something to give the psion his own niche.

Likewise, preferably something to do with psionic power points. Or psionic-on-psionic combat, for that matter.

Now, do I want a unique system for psionics separate from how spells are cast? Yeah, I think that'd be cool. Will I be bummed if the psion looks more like 3.5 than 2e? A bit, but I'll live.

The one thing I really hope to see from the 3.5 take is the psionics is magic/different choice for the DM. Hope to see that supported by mechanics that make that choice easy to implement either way.

The only thing I actively dislike is the idea of some subclass eating all of psionic's history, lore, and powers and tell me "be a regular spellcaster and pretend its psionics." I can do that now, I don't need WotC to give me that. I need WotC to give me a proper psion class and powers, since that is the harder route.

I can see how that could be as disappointing to a fan of psionics as the battlemaster was to fans of the warlord.

 

[GobiWon]

Warlord to battlemaster was a punt IMHO; they didn't want a martial healer in the PHB. I hope WotC will one day make a proper warlord, btw. Sounds ripe for a UA.

I think the bard of valor was an attempt to recreate the warlord. I would have liked the bardic healing to use the hit die mechanic instead of just mimicking cleric healing. I think this more actually reflects a bard's or warlord's ability to inspire and strengthen their companions. A Psion is more mystical and would not only allow a person to spend their own hit die, but could actually use his personal hit die to heal another person, but this would require physical contact unlike the bard or warlord.

 

[Nifft]

I think the bard of valor was an attempt to recreate the warlord. I would have liked the bardic healing to use the hit die mechanic instead of just mimicking cleric healing. I think this more actually reflects a bard's or warlord's ability to inspire and strengthen their companions. A Psion is more mystical and would not only allow a person to spend their own hit die, but could actually transfer hit die to a person, but would require physical contact unlike the bard or warlord.

Hmm. A Psion would have low HP due to being a primary caster, so transferring wounds might be problematic mechanically. In 3.5e that could be worked around with the very efficient Vigor power, but it wasn't exactly intuitive.

I'd prefer if the transfer-wounds thing were given to high-HP characters, like a Paladin or Fighter.

For the Psion, a neat high-level trick was Affinity Field + major healing on the Psion. That's a very flavorful and tactically interesting combo which could be unlocked earlier for 5e -- allow a Psion to share a healing or buff effect with everyone in some range.


Also, historical note: the 1e Bard cast Druid spells, so being able to heal in a Cleric-ish way is in keeping with at least one ye olde editione.