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]

You simply write the new subclass with a couple of filters to strip out some of the unwanted goodies (music playing, spell book) from the base class at 1st level and replace it with other stuff. This isn't rocket science and is a heck of a lot easier to deal with than writing an entirely new system, complete with "different" mechanics that has to interact with original mechanics without causing anything to break.

I'd say this is a heck of a lot easier.

Easier sure, but is it a heck of a lot better? Especially for those who want the option of psionics being different? Why not take a crack at making a new system that still fits in with the guidelines of not overly complicating things, and that interacts well with existing mechanics? Is it impossible to make that work?

If it's not impossible to make a new simple system that interacts well with existing mechanics, then I say go for that.

Even if it's difficult to do, that's why you playtest the hell out of it til you have something that works.
Why go for the less satisfying solution just because it's easy? That's a very disappointing road for the biggest and highest profile ttrpg to go down...

 

[Remathilis]

What? Three of the nine subclasses DO work that way. That's what precedence means. Warlocks choose their patrons at 1st level, which, in a large way, defines a lot of their class. Clerics choose their domains at 1st level.

You simply write the new subclass with a couple of filters to strip out some of the unwanted goodies (music playing, spell book) from the base class at 1st level and replace it with other stuff. This isn't rocket science and is a heck of a lot easier to deal with than writing an entirely new system, complete with "different" mechanics that has to interact with original mechanics without causing anything to break.

I'd say this is a heck of a lot easier.

I'm convinced you don't know what a subclass is in 5th edition.

Look at the 36 examples of them in the Player's Handbook. NONE of them remove anything from the base class. None of them change the nature of the base class. 3/4ths of them don't give you a damn thing at first level (and those three specifically are written to give you your subclass abilities at first level, not wait 2-3 levels to get them.) Even the ones that DO introduce new elements (such as battlemaster or arcane trickster) do not invalidate anything the base fighter or rogue class is.

You are proposing a new system where you choose your subclass levels before you should, that radically re-writes the class in question, and can cause all manner of conflicts now or later (Can a wizard who doesn't use a spellbook use rituals? How does he learn additional spells for leveling up?) In short, you're re-writing the subclass system to fit your own desire for some steadfast notion of "NO NEW CLASSES EVAR!" and your willing to change the Player's Handbook to do it.

Besides, when a subclass strips the base class of his proficiencies, spell system, base class features, 90% of his fluff, and even bends how subclasses work, you haven't won me over that its easier. In fact, a single new class (which you can ignore at your leisure) is a helluva lot easier than changing how subclasses work and re-writing PHB classes to make it work.

 

[Hussar]

The problem I see with the new class thing is that historically it hasn't worked. Every edition has seen major issues when you start trying to bolt on completely new mechanics. 2e psionics is a perfect example here. Very new mechanics and very easy to break.

The more new class mechanics you add, the more moving parts there are and the easier it is for bad things to happen.

Granted I could be convinced that a new class might be the way to go. But I remain very, very skeptical that it won't be either over or under powered. History is not on your side.

 

[Uchawi]

Subclasses are a perfect example of what should not be done, like combining the champion, battlemaster and eldritch knight under the same roof, where those would have been much better as unique classes. You run a greater risk of a mismatch with psionics.

Psionics should have been considered when developing all the classes at the beginning, even if it was released later. The same applies to other classes like the shaman from 4E.

 

[fuindordm]

The problem I see with the new class thing is that historically it hasn't worked. Every edition has seen major issues when you start trying to bolt on completely new mechanics. 2e psionics is a perfect example here. Very new mechanics and very easy to break.
...

History is not on your side.

Isn't it?

2E introduced the single-class bard, which stayed through future editions.
3E introduced the raging barbarian and sorcerer, which stayed through future editions.
3.5E introduced the warlock, which was a big hit and stayed through future editions--and this was a major departure from previous class structures.

Some other novel classes such as Artificer and Knight had less traction in their first iteration, but the archetypes they portrayed were compelling enough to merit publication in future editions with different mechanics (e.g. Knight --> Warlord --> Battlemaster).

And yes, introducing new mechanics can break things, but 2E psionics wasn't THAT broken. You could achieve a couple of powerful tricks at low-mid levels but using them would consume nearly all your resources and leave you without any tricks or useful class abilities to fall back on. Even 1E psionics wasn't that broken, although the extra power at low levels was mainly balanced by extra vulnerability at high levels.

Psionics has already seen 3 major iterations with unique mechanics, all of them significantly different from magic in the corresponding edition, and personally I don't think that any of them were detrimental to campaigns. And if they try something new, and it seems over/underpowered in play... then I'm a big boy and I know how to keep it from breaking my game.

But really, it's not that hard to establish offensive/defensive benchmarks from the other classes and design a new class that gives a similar power curve for the combat pillar, while also delivering a different play experience through limitations, resource management, and signature abilities.

 

[Hussar]

I should have been more specific. Base classes in core are generally fine because they receive sufficient play testing that the kinks get ironed out.

It tends to be supplemental classes that get wonky.

 

[Yaarel]

3e created psi classes that were redundant with core classes.

3e created the Psion to serve as a Wizard that worked well as a spontaneous spell casterl. So Wizard spells were rewritten to calibrate the spell point system to work with ‘novas’ or ‘spamming’. This need no longer exists, since the 5e Wizard is now designed as spontaneous caster. There is no need for a separate system.

 

[Yaarel]

Creating psionic or ki archetypes for core classes accomplishes ten good things.

• I use the normal familiar rules of core D&D.
• I avoid a learning curve of rules that only exist for the sake of being weird and complex.
• I get rules that are balanced, rigorously tested, and publicly reviewed.
• I avoid wonky broken mechanics. (Even 4e psionic broke the game, a char-op nightmare).
• I get elegant gaming design, where every rule is useful, efficient, and fun.
• I avoid proliferation of redundant classes, and the power creeping that comes with them.
• My Wizard archetype enjoys the excellent spells that are clearly psionic (mind, body, force).
• My psionic adventurer avoids the ‘left overs’, after the Wizard and Cleric stole everything.
• I get the psionic flavor that I love: personal mindful power.
• I replace the flavors that I hate: external sources, gods, patrons, weave, material components.

 

[Vael]

I should have been more specific. Base classes in core are generally fine because they receive sufficient play testing that the kinks get ironed out.

It tends to be supplemental classes that get wonky.

And yet it's 3.5 with the holy broken trinity of Wizard, Cleric and Druid. 5e magic actually takes a page from 3.5 psionics, by no longer having spells scale by caster level, instead by spell slot (iow, they are augmentable).

 

[Mercule]

What? Three of the nine subclasses DO work that way. That's what precedence means. Warlocks choose their patrons at 1st level, which, in a large way, defines a lot of their class. Clerics choose their domains at 1st level.

You simply write the new subclass with a couple of filters to strip out some of the unwanted goodies (music playing, spell book) from the base class at 1st level and replace it with other stuff. This isn't rocket science and is a heck of a lot easier to deal with than writing an entirely new system, complete with "different" mechanics that has to interact with original mechanics without causing anything to break.

I'd say this is a heck of a lot easier.

I'm not entirely clear on what you're advocating. It sounds like you want add subclasses to some classes (e.g. psion to wizard) that breaks the existing sub-class pattern for those classes, by starting at 1st level instead of 3rd. Either that or revamping all classes so that they pick their sub-class at 1st level. Neither one strikes me as a good idea.

The first idea (some sub-classes start early) isn't really so much adding a new sub-class as a new class. The sub-class patterns of when you gain abilities is there for a reason, if nothing more than consistency. I could certainly see violating it in a home-brew hack, but it's not something I'd want to post too publicly. Even if there are no balance issues, it adds unnecessary convolutions to what should be a simple mechanic -- and, I suspect that there would be at least a couple of minor balance issues. Square peg, round hole.

The second idea (rewrite all classes to pick a sub-class at 1st) is a massive redesign of the PHB. It's an edition change, plain and simple. As a home brew, I say "go for it", but it sounds like a ton of work. It's probably the better choice, though, if you're intent on re-using the existing classes. It's just cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing (YMMV for aesthetics, obviously).

Either way, what may work for a house rules would make Wizards look like they have no idea what they're doing and call into question a bunch of core design decisions. It's commercially unviable. I also think it'd be mechanically sub-par, but that's just speculation.