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."

 

[Uchawi]

You could have psionics introduced in any setting, but it must be balanced against the PHB classes, versus becoming too specialized within a specific setting and then running havoc when introduced to another.

 

[Hussar]

You could have psionics introduced in any setting, but it must be balanced against the PHB classes, versus becoming too specialized within a specific setting and then running havoc when introduced to another.

I agree. There is additional practical issues to consider as well. Take Psionic Combat, for example. Traditionally, this has been a Psionics only mini-game. You resolved psionic combat outside of usual combat rules. Which, unfortunately, led to the "Decker Problem", to borrow from Shadowrun, where you had one player playing for however long, and the rest of the players being observers. Psionic combat might work great when everyone can play, but, if you include one psionic character and 4 non-psions, then you can wind up with some serious play issues.

OTOH, psionic combat was one of the primary means to distinguish psionics from the rest of the game. I would think that you lose a lot of psionic flavour if you don't have a psionic combat module at all.

 

[steeldragons]

I've often found the whole Psionic Combat [at least, as introduced in 1e] to be rather...confusing. I mean, sure, there are elements/times in comics books and such here you have once psychic in direct mental combat with another...but 999 out of 1000 times, that psychic is not going to be encountering/around other psychics.

They are entering/attempting to effect other "non-psi" minds, particularly in cases of using powers against, say, animal- or "savage-" level intelligences.

It never made sense to me that the psionic character would have waves of attacking and defending themselves in direct mental conflict, but those same powers couldn't be used to "Edo Whip" or "Id Insinuation" the orc patrol that came around the corner. It was, basically, an entire separate subsystem of what was already a subsystem that was practically never going to see use.

So, maybe something simple that lets us use "ye olde psyonyk" attack/defense modes against any mind and a simple ability score contest: like [just spitballing!], any being with an intelligence above X...[10?]...can use Wis. for defense/avoid damage. Use Cha. to resist an effect. Use Int. to attack/"fight back".

Basically, psionic attacking/entering a non-psi mind "opens" some piece of that mind's psychic potential -it has to "be there" [in the mind] in order to attack/effect it-...not that a non-psy could actually cause damage to a psionically active character, but they could, say, resist damage themselves, avoid effects and/or possibly "eject" the foreign "body" from their mind.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, something I was thinking about and bouncing around in my brain was the practicalities of adding psi to a game. If someone drops a psi character on the table, the DM is kinda obligated to add some psi stuff to the game, presuming he's allowing psi in the first place. Obviously if there's no psi at all, there's no problem.

But, if I drop a psion on a table, I'm kinda expecting to find psi magic items at some point in the campaign. If the detailed system has psionic combat, then I'm probably expecting to actually use those rules from time to time. I was thinking that a two tier psionic system - basic and advanced for lack of better terms - might resolve this. If the DM doesn't really want to have a psionic focused campaign, but, he's not adverse to someone playing a psionic character, use the basic psi rules which might be some sort of Sorcerer subclass or something like that. If the DM wants a full Psionic campaign, then he can go for the full rules, complete with a bunch of different classes and subclasses, psionic combat rules and whatnot.

I don't really see that as a problem: in published settings, you'll know there is psi or not ahead of time; in homebrew, the DM should tell players what classes, etc. are in or out.

 

[Bluenose]

I'm not convinced. Some settings certainly don't need psionics - Dragonlance springs to mind. Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms never really used psionics particularly. Why make a generic psionics system when many D&D settings have no real need for it? Why not make psionics specific to specific settings? Maybe a fairly complex Psi system for Dark Sun, since the setting was so steeped in psionics (many of the iconic opponents and NPC's have psionic talents) and a fairly streamlined Psi system for Eberron.

With a complex and a simple system, anyone who wants to adapt for their own setting has lots of choices.

Given that there's certainly far more people playing homebrew settings than play any published one, making a set of rules setting-specific doesn't seem all that sensible - unless the goal is to force people to buy something they otherwise wouldn't be interested in. Who knows how many people's homebrew settings need a set of psionics rules? Mine don't, but I do want some others and if they appear in a setting book then I'd probably resent buying that just for that set of rules.

 

[Hussar]

I was actually thinking that a Psionics book would be tied to a specific setting to be honest, not that it would appear in a specific setting book. So, just like the PHB is tied (loosely) to FR with examples of how to do things in other settings, the Psi book would be tied (maybe a bit less loosely) to Darksun with examples on how to do it in other settings.

OTOH, in my mind, a psionics book would be about 15 pages long and a free pdf on the WOTC site. I'm not really thinking about a full book. Like I said earlier, I have no interest in a psionics system that you can replace the PHB with.
[MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION], if you only have the complex version of psionics, then only those that are really invested in adding psionics to the game will use it. People like me will just ban it from the table because I have no interest in adding that much to my game. That's why I would like to see a two tier system. It appeals to everyone, rather than just those that really want psionics. The primary reason I have never used psionics to any great degree in any homebrew is that I have no interest in adding that many mechanics to the game. It's just not worth it to me.

 

[Yaarel]

Maybe WotC can introduce 5e psionics in two ways.

As part of a setting, such as Dark Sun, the rules for psi can remain setting-neutral but come with separate textboxes that explain how psionics fits into the narrative of the Dark Sun setting. Thus the textboxes flavor psi in ways that make sense in that setting. Separate textboxes can even add extra mechanical rules, for how healthy psi interacts with defiling magic, for instance. Even then, the psionic system itself can remain setting neutral and detach cleanly from the Dark Sun setting, for use in other settings.

At the same time, WotC can publish the setting neutral rules for psionics online, without any setting-specific embellishments.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

[MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION], if you only have the complex version of psionics, then only those that are really invested in adding psionics to the game will use it. People like me will just ban it from the table because I have no interest in adding that much to my game. That's why I would like to see a two tier system. It appeals to everyone, rather than just those that really want psionics. The primary reason I have never used psionics to any great degree in any homebrew is that I have no interest in adding that many mechanics to the game. It's just not worth it to me.

Not adding it is your prerogative, but "added complexity" seems more of an excuse than a justification. Historically, D&D is on the more complex side of the spectrum of RPGs; I don't think most players will balk at Psi because of complexity.

And, IME, stuff that gets banned from D&D games runs the gamut of complexity: individual spells, feats, races, classes (typically Paladins & Monks), whole splatbooks.

 

[Hussar]

Not adding it is your prerogative, but "added complexity" seems more of an excuse than a justification. Historically, D&D is on the more complex side of the spectrum of RPGs; I don't think most players will balk at Psi because of complexity.

And, IME, stuff that gets banned from D&D games runs the gamut of complexity: individual spells, feats, races, classes (typically Paladins & Monks), whole splatbooks.

Oh, fair enough. I was mostly thinking from my own perspective. As I said, Psi was never a big thing at any table I played or ran. It always seemed like an afterthought. And, typically, Psionics has been presented as a whole deal - "here is how you create a psionic campaign" style books. I have zero interest in a psionic campaign. I have no real beef with a psionic character, but, if that means I'm going to have to deal with things like psionic combat, distinct from the rest of the game, completely new resolution mechanics, etc. etc. then I'm just not interested.

I guess, IOW, I'm much more likely to include a "psionic sorcerer" than a psion in any game I run.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As much as psi vs psi mind-combat stuff works in fiction, it absolutely sucks in an RPG. It typically ruins the flow of the game session. (See also Shadowrun Deckers.) So that is something I hope they NEVER include.