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."

 

[bogmad]

Hey look, I want "serious" and "robust" and "complete" psionics as much as the next guy...moreso, probably, than many since my homebrew world actually has psychics and psychic organizations in it...[thus why I don't just want to see "Psi in Dark Sun"]

But I don't really want, nor see a need for, a whole separate 1/2-PHB book of over 100 pages.

....

Now, powers, as noted...let's be generous and say 50 pp will be necessary, though I struggle to see how that would be possible unless you ARE reprinting all of the psionic powers-with-spell-equivalents...but be that as it may. We'll just say 50 (we could take this to include art, as well).

Still brings us in, just under/kissing 100 pp. Now, obviously, if they go one direction or another on the amount of art [presuming layout will be in keeping with the rest of the line] and this could be moderately to significantly closer to 75-80...or could expand well above 100 [with primarily "wasted"/padded space, imo].

SO, yeah...a "not more than 1/3 of the PHB/DMG" is more than sufficient, imho, to get a solid "Bringing Psionics into 5e" manual in our hands, with significant and usable options -a smattering of races and enough classes to cover the major archetypes- without going all bloaty/crazy/"everything psi that ever was."

Is there anything seriously "pressing", that I missed/didn't remember, for introducing/including psionics ...into 5e in a usable form? [and this last is crucial to remember/think instead of just, "But I like/want X from Y edition, cuz mememe!" Does this give you enough to get you rolling with psionics in your 5e game?]

I like most of this well enough, especially the "simple" subclass solution included for those that prefer it (though Remalthis is right that it should be a UA article or free download as well since nobody wants to pay $50 for just that).

Now I think you could get it even shorter, not by having "see PHB spell X for description" [please no, not that ever] but just by having the base psionic system be simpler/different. Unlike spells, don't a prescriptive hard definition for every psionic effect generated listed as a discrete power/spell.

For those that want psionics that can replace arcane spellcasting in their campaigns: Does it require that there be as many psionic powers as spells, or just that a smaller amount of psionic powers have more flexible effects than spells in the PHB do?

 

[I'm A Banana]

There are lots like Hussar and I though. I see no problem with having options for both our crowds. I want a simple add on, something akin to a sub-class. You want a whole caster class and new add on sub-classes, new unique spell (power) system, new psi feats, new psi magic items; a whole slew of new options. That would make you and many others happy I am sure. Though not everyone. I would like a sorcerer origin and maybe a monk subclass. Perhaps some new spells and magic items and feats. that would make me happy.

I think the question also asserts itself: what does all that added complexity get you in terms of play experience? What's the value of that in play? It's another barrier to entry, another hoop to jump through for newbs, another hassle to remember as a DM, another thing to watch for broke-ness, another incompatibility, another wonky rule.

The price to pay for some people getting the weird and distinct psion of their dreams is that the rest of us get a game that is (perhaps ever-so-slightly) more bloated and confusing than what we have now, or we have to say no a lot.

A subclass is easier to say yes to. It's more likely to see actual play. It's something a newbie can enjoy. It's not going to mandate that I learn the rules of another 160 page splatbook. It's accessible, understandable, easy to pick up and play with.

Part of what 5e has going for it is its simplicity and directness and dare-I-say "elegance," and one should not lightly throw that all out just because a subclass doesn't have the same pagecount-ego as the 2e/3e rules.

 

[steeldragons]

I like most of this well enough, especially the "simple" subclass solution included for those that prefer it (though Remalthis is right that it should be a UA article or free download as well since nobody wants to pay $50 for just that).

Sure. No reason not to do that.

Now I think you could get it even shorter, not by having "see PHB spell X for description" [please no, not that ever] but just by having the base psionic system be simpler/different. Unlike spells, don't a prescriptive hard definition for every psionic effect generated listed as a discrete power/spell.

Agreed. This would be a good way to go, afaiac.

I just want to call out the "please no, not that ever". I see this attitude over and over...and I just don't get it. Are you [anyone?!] getting the psionics book without having the PHB already? The whole point of this book (or any other supplement), is that you're adding [some/all] of this material to your "base" game. So this "they'd better not redirect me to the PHB [cuz having to open a second book is just too much work/trouble?!]" really confuses/doesn't make sense to me. Who is getting a psionics manual without already having a set of the rules?

For simplicity's sake, I could see/meet half-way and say there are no psionic powers that emulate spells from the PHB that do not appear in the free PDF Basic Rules! OR we could save ALL of the pages and supply the entire Psionics Powers list as a free PDF. While I am all for that as an additional medium for access, people, including myself, will yell about not always having access to a computer/allowing/wanting devices at their tables. I do NOT want the PnP TTRPG to become dependent on having a computer/online access!

For those that want psionics that can replace arcane spellcasting in their campaigns: Does it require that there be as many psionic powers as spells, or just that a smaller amount of psionic powers have more flexible effects than spells in the PHB do?

I'd be all for that. But I suspect it would further aggravate those who are already up-in-arms about "rulings not rules" [not that I feel they are deserving of any concession, myself. But WotC seems to want to dance that knife's edge.] and could make any/all use of psionics nearly exclusively DM-dependent material/choices. I'm not sure that can really work in the existing game framework. It may be possible, I'm just not sure how without turning all psi-stuff into pure DM fiat/imagination.

 

[steeldragons]

Not to get too picayune with requests, I think, [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION], psionic monsters are already in the Monster Manual and/or belong in other Monster-related supplements (which are sure to come, eventually).

I could see granting 3-5 pages towards "psionic magic items" (..."Psitems"? I hear it's what the cool kids are doing these days. ). But, really, beyond the amulet of mind-shielding and or helm/diadem/headband of telepathy...what real need is there for psitems?

Other than setting up/presuming/imposing, again, a setting-specific thing where you'd have a whole society of psychic individuals/creatures who would be creating magical items that are psi-based...and it is dependent on the Psionics system, entirely. e.g. If they use Power Points, then you can get into psitems that conserve/replace/minimize point costs, maximize effect/damage without expending extra PP, or slots or bonuses to skill checks or whatever the system happens to be. But those, ultimately, are all fairly...boring and system-gaming.

 

[bogmad]

Sure. No reason not to do that.



Agreed. This would be a good way to go, afaiac.

I just want to call out the "please no, not that ever". I see this attitude over and over...and I just don't get it. Are you [anyone?!] getting the psionics book without having the PHB already? The whole point of this book (or any other supplement), is that you're adding [some/all] of this material to your "base" game. So this "they'd better not redirect me to the PHB [cuz having to open a second book is just too much work/trouble?!]" really confuses/doesn't make sense to me. Who is getting a psionics manual without already having a set of the rules?

For simplicity's sake, I could see/meet half-way and say there are no psionic powers that emulate spells from the PHB that do not appear in the free PDF Basic Rules! OR we could save ALL of the pages and supply the entire Psionics Powers list as a free PDF. While I am all for that as an additional medium for access, people, including myself, will yell about not always having access to a computer/allowing/wanting devices at their tables. I do NOT want the PnP TTRPG to become dependent on having a computer/online access!

Maybe I was a bit hyperbolic, but the main reason is "why bother?" If a power is just going to recreate a spell, just call it the spell. I'd be more on board with a "see spell in phb" than Id Attacker: See Phantasmal Killer (phb pg. xxx). Talk about adding complexity and confusion...

I'd be all for that. But I suspect it would further aggravate those who are already up-in-arms about "rulings not rules" [not that I feel they are deserving of any concession, myself. But WotC seems to want to dance that knife's edge.] and could make any/all use of psionics nearly exclusively DM-dependent material/choices. I'm not sure that can really work in the existing game framework. It may be possible, I'm just not sure how without turning all psi-stuff into pure DM fiat/imagination.

Yeah, it is a fine line, and I'm not pretending to be an actual designer, but I think there are ways to limit things without having to have 50 pages of discrete effects. Something along the lines of "No discipline can inflict more than x hp in damage per slot level/pp consumed"/ "Unable to teleport more than 50 ft/pp" etc.
And for classic and "sacred cow" type effects you'd definitely need some hard guidelines (like how psionic invisibility differs from the invisibility spell, and such).

Just spitballing, but maybe you could even portray possible psionic effects in tables to cut down on space?
E.g. Here's a table for the telekinetic discipline with different effects that can be generated and their corresponding power point cost

 

[steeldragons]

Maybe I was a bit hyperbolic, but the main reason is "why bother?" If a power is just going to recreate a spell, just call it the spell. I'd be more on board with a "see spell in phb" than Id Attacker: See Phantasmal Killer (phb pg. xxx). Talk about adding complexity and confusion...

Oh that! Agreed! Yeah, I hate that. If what the power is doing is the Phantasmal Killer spell effect, then list Phantasmal Killer. Maybe with a single line of description: "You create illusory images in the target's mind of their greatest fears that scare them enough to kill." So you have the flavor you need to work with off the bat. But for all of the details, I don't need or want space used up for "full spell stat block/write up reprint, take 2."

Yeah, it is a fine line, and I'm not pretending to be an actual designer, but I think there are ways to limit things without having to have 50 pages of discrete effects. Something along the lines of "No discipline can inflict more than x hp in damage per slot level/pp consumed"/ "Unable to teleport more than 50 ft/pp" etc.

I had something like that for a homebrewed psychic powers system, using PP, but basically saying each point gets you 1 mind and/or 20 + 5 per point feet or pounds (depending on the power). It worked pretty well, but that was with a group of folks who all shared a common vision of what psychic powers were/how they worked and a "comic book/X-Men" kind of sensibility.

And for classic and "sacred cow" type effects you'd definitely need some hard guidelines (like how psionic invisibility differs from the invisibility spell, and such).

Right. Of course.

Just spitballing, but maybe you could even portray possible psionic effects in tables to cut down on space?
E.g. Here's a table for the telekinetic discipline with different effects that can be generated and their corresponding power point cost

Oh yeah. Did that already (very basically). hahaha. See my psychic class write up...some pages back now or in the Homebrew forum.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A subclass is easier to say yes to. It's more likely to see actual play. It's something a newbie can enjoy. It's not going to mandate that I learn the rules of another 160 page splatbook. It's accessible, understandable, easy to pick up and play with.

Honestly, "easier" isn't necessarily better...or what I'm looking for. Sometimes, something different has an intrinsic value, and I think this is one area.

When I go to an ice cream parlor, I don't want to see a half-dozen variants of vanilla and chocolate- so easy to include and accept. I want to see real variation, because that is an invitation to a new experience.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Honestly, "easier" isn't necessarily better...or what I'm looking for. Sometimes, something different has an intrinsic value, and I think this is one area.

When I go to an ice cream parlor, I don't want to see a half-dozen variants of vanilla and chocolate- so easy to include and accept. I want to see real variation, because that is an invitation to a new experience.

I like new experiences, too, but I've got 12 major ice cream dishes (classes) with 2-8 different kinds of flavors each (subclasses) and a dozen or more toppings (races), with each meal taking a YEAR to finish eating. I've got a HUGE amount of variety right here in front of me!

I am honestly not that hungry right now. I am in fact just starting in on my first helping. Why the heck would I want a brand new dish with 5 flavors of its own right now?

Variety is easy in D&D. More of it doesn't necessarily add much.

Plus, the analogy doesn't account for the cost of development compared to the amount of pepole using it, the particular niche that we're in (not as popular as ice cream!), barriers to entry for newbies, etc., etc.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I am honestly not that hungry right now. Why the heck would I want a brand new dish with 5 flavors of its own right now?

Answer: they're not all for you. There's a reason why Baskin Robbins has hundreds of flavors (and only has 31 offered at any one time). Ditto Paciugo gelato.

Plus, the analogy doesn't account for the cost of development compared to the amount of pepole using it, the particular niche that we're in (not as popular as ice cream!), barriers to entry for newbies, etc., etc.

That is what the free market is for.

 

[Big J Money]

Sorry Mike, I disagree with the assumptions behind the question.

"Agree/Disagree: The flavor around psionics needs to be altered to allow it to blend more smoothly into a traditional fantasy setting"

What he means by traditional fantasy setting (and probably doesn't even realize it) is basically the D&D brand setting that D&D created. Fantasy as a genre is an open book. Just because Tolkien did it one way and Howard did it one way doesn't mean those are the only two options. I think people should stop using the term traditional; it's limiting to the genre. He should just say what that actually means, which is "Tolkien imitation" fantasy.

I've had 40 years of that kind of fantasy with D&D, and some of the best settings over the years were the ones that strayed from it. So Mike, the further you can stray from what you call traditional fantasy the more likely I am to become interested. IMO don't put a set of old rules on your creative contributions.

PS: I'm not old enough to personally have 40 years. I just meant D&D's years.