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."

 

[Morlock]

My biggest want for Psionics rules is that they're comprehensive enough to replace arcane and divine magic. Something on the scale of Pathfinder's Ultimate Psionics.

Really, that's my best advice for Mearls; look at what they did with Ultimate Psionics. The powers, items, flavor, etc; I'm not really sold on the classes; I want a psion class that's as broad as the wizard in terms of what characters can achieve.

But I don't think I'll mind, whatever they do with Psionics, because I'm resigned to the idea that I'll have to do Psionics myself to get what I want.

I don't mind nomenclature like "psychokinetics." I see that stuff as player lingo, not in-setting terminology. That said, I wouldn't mind some good fantasy-setting-appropriate lingo.

I don't give a flip about duplicating existing spells, either, because I'm not looking at using psionics alongside magic.

3. I like the old psuedo science feel

Agreed.

 

[Chocolategravy]

Doesn't sound like he's too concerned about taking from previous editions, more about making sure it's different/weird but not warlock weird or like other casters.

 

[Goemoe]

I like where Mike is heading and I really hope his work on it is serious. Give us more input, Mike. Psionics are most dominant in Athas, but Eberron needs psionics as well. I do like real tomes over digital ones too...

Good thoughts though!

 

[Mercule]

I'd much rather it was another expression of the Monk's ki - something internal that some characters can draw on.

Missed that on my first read, but my thoughts should be obvious from the rest of my post. Tying psionics to aberrations, the Far Realm, etc. would be very, very bad, IMO. Eberron kinda gets away with it because I just view the Kalashtar, etc. as bringing a big battery with them. I definitely don't see your average human psion having any more relationship with anything alien than the average wizard. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a psion is less likely to have anything to do with some sort of Far Realm or outside entity because they are their own power source, whereas a wizard might actually learn something from an Old One.

If that's what Mike thinks the current flavor is, then I absolutely, unconditionally agree that it needs to be changed for 5E. Powered by sniffing unicorn farts would be more appropriate than tying it to alien entities/sources. Of course, I generally think the entire concept of the Far Realm should be dropped from D&D like rotten sausage.

And include a Psychic Warrior class, or similar, with distinctly Wuxia roots.

In 3E, I eventually just said, "You want to play a Monk? Do Psychic Warrior and learn to use your fists."

Nope, don't like that. Dark Sun's environmental issues were really about what happens when magic runs amok, with the psionic aspect representing a 'safe' alternative. Tying the environmental waste into psionics damages that setting, IMO.

Agreed. Psionics could be interpreted as an effect of the Athas apocalypse, but not a cause. I actually yanked the "extreme magical fallout can cause psionics" for my home brew. If someone used an artifact for very long (years), their offspring had a very high likelihood of manifesting psionics due to the residual power. Also, one particular evil empire had been using magic for a millennium to reshape their land and twist their subjects. Fully a quarter of their population had some level of psionic ability, even if minor.

Plus, I actually don't like being told "psionic is this" or "magic is that". That may well work for your settings, but that doesn't mean it will work for mine.

I'll agree with you, here -- unless, of course, the new decree comes down to match my opinion.

Of course, that opinion may change for my next campaign.

 

[Morlock]

Along the lines of being comprehensive, I'd like to see psionic wizards, psionic sorcerers, psionic druids, psionic clerics, psionic paladins, etc.

But I'm probably not the guy Mearls should be asking. I've got a pretty specific setting in mind that I want my psionics rules to work with. And I'm not even going to call it psionics, I'm going to call it magic, and just use the fluff, flavor, feel, mechanics, etc., of psionics as seen in 3e, Pathfinder, etc.

ETA:

The flavor of psionics is that it is mental/psychic powers, exhibiting/manifesting your own internal power. I do not understand/know what he could want to do/mean about changing that flavor and still call it psionics.

This is true, traditionally speaking, and another reason why my vision for psionics is quite divergent. My setting's going to use a form of psionics that is a lot like traditional magic in the sense that a lot of the effects involve tapping into a power source. The human brain doesn't generate the energy to do much in the physical world, you see. Internally-powered effects in this setting will be limited to telepathy and its derivatives, basically. That suite of internally-powered abilities will be used to tap into the ambient psionic energy suffusing the setting.

Much like Jedi and the Force (before the mitichlorian thing, anyway). So I suppose it's not that divergent.

Then there's my vision for things like summoning, which will be yet another paradigm, that of simply using telepathy to call forth beings from "elsewhere," who may or may not show up.

 

[fuindordm]

I agree with Mike. Psionics should absolutely have different mechanics, limitations, and consequences than arcane or divine magic. Playing a psion needs to feel very different from playing a wizard, cleric, or warlock, and there are lots of ways to accomplish this: tie powers to a skill/activation roll, involve the exhaustion mechanic or make HP a fungible resource for power use, give psions fewer but broader powers compared to traditional spellcasters, and so forth.

The power list of a psion should be distinct from that of a cleric or a wizard, and at least as different from both as the cleric and wizard lists are from each other. However, I don't mind if some powers work exactly like similar spells--Dominate and Detect Thoughts, for example. But I would like psionic invisibility to work differently from magical invisibility. Psionics should have a lot of unique stuff too: I'm personally fond of metacreativity powers with weird effects (like summoning a pseudo-monster or an ectoplasmic shroud), and completely uninterested in psionic fireball, psionic shard ranged attack, etc.

As for the source of psionic power, that is less important to me than the rule support that will make the psion a unique experience as a player. There are several possible sources: other planes of existence, harnessing one's internal power, or simply reaching a state of enlightenment that lets you manipulate reality. The choice of power source has some consequences on campaign setting and fluff, but as far as I'm concerned all sources can have identical rules.

The pseudoscience names have some charm, but don't really fit in a fantasy setting. But again, that's not a big concern.

Finally, some might argue that we have too many sources of "magic" in the game already. I tend to agree and disallowed sorcerers from my campaign for this reason. But I still would love to see a psionics book (or at least a big chapter of some other book) come out that gives the subject a treatment as complete as arcane magic or divine magic in the PH. Then I could run a modern horror campaign that only allows arcane or psionic, or a sci-fi campaign that only allows psionic and warlock, and so on. The more choices the better--they don't all need to go in the same game!

 

[Mistwell]

I much prefer the source of psionic power to be internal, like Ki. Or genetic based, like a sorcerer. It can even be fed by living things around you, like Dark Sun. But I really do not like "the old ones" as the source.

 

[delericho]

Psionics could be interpreted as an effect of the Athas apocalypse, but not a cause. I actually yanked the "extreme magical fallout can cause psionics" for my home brew. If someone used an artifact for very long (years), their offspring had a very high likelihood of manifesting psionics due to the residual power. Also, one particular evil empire had been using magic for a millennium to reshape their land and twist their subjects. Fully a quarter of their population had some level of psionic ability, even if minor.

I really like this.

 

[Banesfinger]

I've always imagined psionics as a psychic extension of the character...a summoned psychic avatar. Only those with "detect psionics" would see these psychic avatars.
A novice could call on their avatar, but would need to meditate (leaving his physical body vulnerable), while a master psionicist could call on his avatar (using a bonus action?) while doing other tasks (fighting actions, spellcasting actions, etc).
The psionic avatar could be directed to do many things:
- Attack (psychokinesis)
- Move and manipulate objects (telekinesis)
- Observe things from a distance (clairsentient)
- Help the PC lift things (psycometabolism)
- Move and call the PC to their position (psycoportation),
etc.
Two psionic creatures battling each other would actually send their avatars to battle one another (the outside observer wouldn't see any physical contact).

From a game mechanics stand-point, the avatar would be lite on stats (maybe 2-3), and would be similar to calling on a barbarian's rage (limited time, but added powers).

 

[Remathilis]

On the one hand, I get the desire to strip the new-age elements out of psionics (pseudoscience naming, crystals, chakra, etc), but I think that misses the point of psionics. Psionics isn't "magic under another name", its a whole different worldview and should embrace elements those elements.It should borrow from earlier psionics, incarnum, and elements of eastern and occult mysticism to make something very different from the classic model D&D magic tries to emulate. It should work in Kara Tur, Ravenloft, and Dark Sun equally, and while I don't mind an (obvious) connection to the Far Realm (or other planes of thought), I don't want to miss the opportunity to play an eastern yogi, a spiritualist, a jedi, or a X-Men like telepath as well; something doable in 3.5.