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."

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yup. It's a lot of hair splitting that people are super-passionate about. Just take a look at Kamikazee Midget's thread about the Artificer to get a perfect example of it.

Yah.

FWIW, it's this point that makes it cool in my mind:

Such as - no psionic power duplicates a spell, and vice versa. Psionics uses a distinct mechanic, so no spell slots

If you could say the same thing about artificers - no magic item duplicates a spell and vice versa, infusions use a distinct mechanic, so no spell slots - you'd be half the way to a viable artificer class (the other half would be saying what the magic items they made DID do and what that infusoin mechanic looked like, making it robust on three pillars, and so on).

But this being about flavor: I don't personally mind the pulpy sci-fi vibe of psionics. It's almost adorable, in a "cheap Star Trek Special Effects and XANADU" kind of way. I've got room in my games for warforged and monks and modrons and none of those are exactly pungent with medievalosity, and pulpy sci-fi is right within the broad D&D gumbo of "Chwebacca, Merlin, Harry Potter, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer return the One Ring to the Last Starfighter" vibe that I've always appreciated.

Mechanically, it needs to be distinct, and it sounds like they've got a good handle on that. Fluff-wise...I don't share Mike's antipathy toward the pseudo-science.

Not that there's not room for something a little more medievalesque within the pseudo-science. Gifted Nobles, the Guild of Dreams, and the Champions of the Kingdom all take it away form "it's charm person, but with POINTS!" vibe.

But were I to have iron-fisty control over D&D, I'd probably go hard and embrace the Crystal Spires And Togas atmosphere. Yup, psionics is weird sci-fi magical evolution. It's the Apple Computer of magitech, invisible and ephemeral. It is deliberately dissonant with the gritty medieval world of darkness and fear. That's what's special about it, that's what it offers your game, that's why it's different - use this if you want to have optimistic Apple-like utopias and the like.

And Dark Sun shows the twist of that: an obilterated, blasted world where psionics is a kind of primitive magic. "Bombed back to the psionic age."

 

[Parmandur]

I'd disagree with this for symmetry. Because there ARE spells that read minds, move objects, creates fire, etc. It's super hard to have a pyrokinetic character - aka a Firestarter - and not have them do effects simmilar to a burning hands, scorching ray or fireball.



Psionics should just be a different source for magic, ala divine or arcane. Don't just duplicate spells, give them the same darn spells as needed. Something like detect thoughts or mage hand should just be on a psion's list.





This gets tricky from a balance perspective. Spell slots are weird but they work. And you can freely swap between Vancian casting and spell points using the DMG.





This is the tricky one. It's totally doable, and going for a more fantastic feel might help sell psionics. But those terms are kinda legacy now, after 35+ years in the game.





I'm not sure what they refers to... Old psions and psionicists were not much like binders IIRC.

Context is everything: in the back and forth on Twitter, Mearls is saying that Old One Pact Warlocks are like Binders,not like Psions.

 

[Ainamacar]

I tend to think psionics works best embracing "internal" notions of power: granting power to thought and, especially, subjective perception. Go full "there is no spoon." A wizard can influence reality, but a psionicist tells you what it really was all along. A retcon given form, at least from the perspective of the player.

For example, in my view a wizard that charms or dominates a creature is overriding that creature's autonomy, an act that tends to leave traces. Even when the subject remembers nothing afterward, it is because the wizard has wiped or altered memories, etc. A telepath, on the other hand, perceives a helpful person, and while the telepath is doing so that person is actually helpful. So what makes many psionic "far realms" creatures terrifying is that reality derives from their wholly alien perspectives. In this case psionics meshes well with Cthulu-type elements, but old ones are by no means its fundamental source.

Another example. A buddy of mine played a half-giant in a Dark Sun game who was completely oblivious to being psionic, and whose signature power was growing in size. This character was always grateful the world gets smaller when he's in danger. A wizard might scoff at the stupid half-giant (albeit only from a safe distance), but a psionicist realizes the half-giant has grasped something fundamental.

I'm not a fan of the pseudoscience nomenclature in general, and to me it definitely thematically clashes with the perspective on psionics suggested here.

I usually like when fantastical elements arising from drastically different sources have mechanical distinctions, although I wouldn't go so far as to say there should be no overlap with arcane magic, etc. Heck, psionicists might be able to cast some spells by believing they can, something which would be deeply disturbing to wizards and clerics alike. (Bards won't mind, though!) In any case, differences in mechanics should speak to the strongest thematic distinctions. This post will never be finished if I start thinking too specifically about mechanics, so I'll abstain.

 

[GobiWon]

Use 5e Feat Mechanic

I talked about what I'd like to see psionics be a while ago, and I stand by it:


I don't really care that much if psionic powers have pseudoscientific or new-agey names. I mean, there's a couple spells that sound like that, too. More importantly, I don't really imagine psionic powers to be so expansive that there would even be an in-world nomenclature for each one. You might not even need to break it down any farther than the six psionic disciplines:


And the names the practitioners of these disciplines sound more like medieval-level mysticism. Psychoportators are called Nomads, Psychometabolists are called Egoists, and Clairsentients are called Seers.

Fifth edition should use the feat mechanic to access minor psionic powers that progress with level like cantrips but are flavored using one of the six psionic disciplines that you mentioned. It should also be a prerequisite to a class with six distinct sub-classes modeled along those disciplines. That would give it both a 1st edition feel where it is a power that can be possessed by anybody, but also allow for characters to specialize in characters that feel like psychic warriors and psions. Intelligence saves will become important. I like the medieval name conversions.

 

[CM]

Adapt 2e psionics to 5e. That was the most flavorful version, imo, even if its balance was questionable. Pseudoscience and all.

 

[doctorhook]

I liked how psionics was handled in 3rd edition... specifically, the Expanded Psionics Handbook was pretty awesome.

Of all the things for Mearls to be concerned about and working on right now, I would have guessed psionics to be dead last. Doing it wrong has the potential to really screw up the game and then you can say goodbye to whole "evergreen" idea for 5E. Seems like a big risk for little gain when WotC could more easily and safely set future APs in places that do not require psionics like Dragonlance, Eberron, Greyhawk, etc...

I agree with your post, but for the record, Eberron needs psionics, even if not every campaign set there does.

 

[lynnfredricks]

I pretty much wrote off psionics with 3rd edition, with all the duplications of abilities from wizards and clerics (psychic food and crystal familiars seemed silly).

Psionics should be as game changing as magic user spells and cleric's whatevers; it doesn't need the same scope as the former but should have its own unique system, with all the classic psychic powers. That said, magic user spells and cleric spells have, for the most part, been based around tapping into external sources (yes, I know how that's been changed a few times). So start with "self powered" as a basis and use that to create a system that supports the classic psychic powers.

 

[Uchawi]

Psionic flavor is fine. There will never be a lack of material in D&D. The problem with psionic abilities in any RPG I have played is making it different, just for the sake of being different. It is like comparing encounter abilities versus daily abilities in 5E and asking your self why?

 

[I'm A Banana]

But were I to have iron-fisty control over D&D, I'd probably go hard and embrace the Crystal Spires And Togas atmosphere. Yup, psionics is weird sci-fi magical evolution. It's the Apple Computer of magitech, invisible and ephemeral. It is deliberately dissonant with the gritty medieval world of darkness and fear. That's what's special about it, that's what it offers your game, that's why it's different - use this if you want to have optimistic Apple-like utopias and the like.

IN FACT!!!!!

I know I am probably the icon of vanity here quoting myself, but thinking more on this gave me an idea:

Psionics is the Greco-Roman stuff hiding out in our D&D.

Lair of the chimera? Ruin of a psionic empire that dominated beasts. The Medusa? Remnant monster of a great psionic nation that worshipped snakes. Illithids? Aboleths? What destroyed it. Githyanki/Githzerai are their remnants (they've even got a bit of a Sparta/Athens dynamic!). Centaurs and cyclopes were barbarians in the forests and mountains when it happened (mmmm, centaur psionicists!). Gorgons and cockatrices and basilisks were their inventions. Flumphs watched them fall.

....now to introduce some psionic amazon tribe into the game I'll be running for no reason....

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I think this is a tough nut to crack. As far as I can remember back, most of the fan base has never really taken to psionics and there is no real definitive version of what the flavor is or how to mechanically represent it. Any system they come up with is probably going to be unacceptable to 75% of players because of that so I would probably just go with a very Dark Sun orientation because that is the only place in the game where psionics are actually necessary and there are enough of fans of that approach that might actually use it and get something out of it.