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."

 

[Remathilis]

In the case of the EK, the mechanics are just 'additions,' yes. But the conceptual change is night & day. The Paladin and Ranger, in that conceptual sense, are no more different from the Fighter than the EK, yet they are classes.

To me, that says that a sub-class can radically alter a class concept - to a degree comparable to being a different class.

Which raises two points: 1.) Some classes get to be classes by virtue of their storied history in D&D. Paladin, Ranger, and Eldritch Knight all are variants of the "sword and spell" guy, but two got full class treatment rather than being crammed into subclasses. Why? Because at a certain point, history deemed it so. History deemed psionics a full class circa 1990ish, (perhaps sooner in Dragon). It remained so in 3e, 3.5 and 4e. That's enough prestige to give me the thumbs up. I mean, warlock got in with half as many editions.

But to your point about radically altering a concept; Yes and no. An EK, for all his extra bonus spellcasting, is really still a fighter. He still straps on plate, get d10 HD, can eventually hit four times per round, and fills all the niche in combat a champion or battlemaster can. Yeah, his spellcasting edges him in versatility, but in the end he never breaks the rules of the basic fighter; he just gets extra toys (different extra toys) than his bros. If someone told me they were playing a fighter, I could still make some assumptions about him without knowing if he is a champion or an EK.

Put another way, subclasses are like creamer; you can get them very plain (half-and-half) or fancy (french vanilla) but you're still drinking coffee. A psionic sorcerer is more like pouring Mountain Dew in your coffee; you're going to get a radically different taste and experience.
.

They'd be picked as they always were. Your choice would be psionic at 1st or arcane at 1st with the Bard. Psionic does whatever it does to make it an Ardent, say, and Arcane makes it like the existing bard, including picking something else later.

So your suggestion is to add a new checkpoint in the character generation schema; Step 4a). Pick a Power Source. Which I guess could open a bunch of new options (divine bards? martial clerics?) but at the same time adds a new layer of complexity to the game (since your adding a new decision point, during char-gen) I still think a new class is simpler than adding a new element of character generation, but whatever.

I wouldn't rule that out. It's not like every class to show it's face in a past PH1 got the royal treatment in the 5e PH1.

Warlords got screwed, assassins did ok (if compared to the 1e assassin), and everyone else did just fine.

I'm sure there are. I'm not so sure it's an important consideration in 5e design. I think we'd be justified in expecting power points, attack/defense modes, &c - from a full psion, or even, in some form, from a Psion sub-class of Sorcerer.

The question will be how much of that can fit into four class abilities and still remain balanced against (say) wild surges or draconic wings. Its a lot easier to balance it against its own thing thant to keep it balanced against all the sorcerer options as well.

Now you're sounding more nearly reasonable.

Never had a problem with a fighter/rogue psychic class; much like I don't have a problem with EK/AT giving them spells. I have a MAJOR issue with ripping out the guts of the sorcerer and replacing them with the psion. Because either you are gutting the sorcerer to near nothing (basically rebuilding a new class atop the sorcerer's HD and proficiencies) for no reason except to avoid the 13th class, OR you're making psionics just regular arcane magic with some bonus telepathy added on.

 

[Remathilis]

When the Wizard picks a cantrip at level 1, it can be a psi/ki cantrip that additionally allows the Wizard to substitute psi/ki as the source of all other effects, instead of arcane.

At level 2, the requirement to take a psi/ki archetype/tradition can be the ability to cast a psi/ki cantrip.

Can I take the psi-ki cantrip, claim all my powers are now psionic, and then take the necromancer tradition at second instead?

Does the pk cantrip change spellbooks, arcane implements, ritual casting, and any of my first level spell selections?

Since I claimed my powers are now pk, can I now mix arcane spells and psi powers?

What happens when if I take a pk cantrip at 4th level (or any other level where I get a new cantrip). Can I declare my powers are pk then?

What about if I take Spell Sniper, Magic Initiate, or am a High Elf? What about a Tome Warlock?

Could I use my pk cantrip to make other (nonwizard) classes psionic? (Such as, being a high elf, taking a pk cantrip, declaring my powers psionic, and then taking levels in cleric? Are my cleric spells now pk?)

 

[GobiWon]

However, looking at it, I do see some keen ideas, not for USING the sorcerer, but COPYING the sorcerer.

Hmmmmm.

You can do this for a lot of things. I don't like the Eldritch Knight, but you can use the Paladin as a template for a Swordmage. You substitute the paladin spell list for a very limited arcane list that concentrates on spells that boost melee attacks and improve defenses. Smite becomes arcane strike. It's not a sub-class of paladin ... it's an arcane sword wielder.

 

[Hussar]

Can I take the psi-ki cantrip, claim all my powers are now psionic, and then take the necromancer tradition at second instead?

Does the pk cantrip change spellbooks, arcane implements, ritual casting, and any of my first level spell selections?

Since I claimed my powers are now pk, can I now mix arcane spells and psi powers?

What happens when if I take a pk cantrip at 4th level (or any other level where I get a new cantrip). Can I declare my powers are pk then?

What about if I take Spell Sniper, Magic Initiate, or am a High Elf? What about a Tome Warlock?

Could I use my pk cantrip to make other (nonwizard) classes psionic? (Such as, being a high elf, taking a pk cantrip, declaring my powers psionic, and then taking levels in cleric? Are my cleric spells now pk?)

But, isn't this why we write mechanics? You keep bringing up all these questions, but, wouldn't they be answered by, I dunno, actually WRITING a class/subclass?

Can you mix arcane and psi powers? Well, maybe. Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to write a paragraph or two at the beginning of the Psionics Rules, that states something like options where Psi is a type of magic (and thus can be mixed) or Psi is Different (and can't be mixed). Kind of like exactly the same way it was done for other versions of Psionics?

And, let's be honest here, any psionicist should have its own powers list - that's not a big shocker is it? I was always on the assumption that the lists would be different.

If you make a completely new Psi class, what's to stop those exact same issues from happening when someone dual classes? How does making it a totally new class stop Spell Sniper or Tomelock?

All that stuff has to be addressed no matter if you make a new class or a subclass. That's not the issue. I guess my point is, if I'm just copying the template from once class and then bolting on new mechanics, why not just use subclasses. It's the same difference.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Which raises two points: 1.) Some classes get to be classes by virtue of their storied history in D&D. Paladin, Ranger, and Eldritch Knight all are variants of the "sword and spell" guy, but two got full class treatment rather than being crammed into subclasses. Why? Because at a certain point, history deemed it so.

Nod. 5e is very concerned with that 'classic D&D feel.' The EK is almost at odds with it - I suppose it's an echo of the elven fighter/magic-user.

But to your point about radically altering a concept; Yes and no. An EK, for all his extra bonus spellcasting, is really still a fighter.

The concept of a character who has no magical abilities is radically different from one who casts spells. The mechanics may not be that dramatic, but the change in concept is.

Taking a class from casting spells to using 'psionics' is really less of a change, because both spellcasting and vaguely-defined 'mental powers' are clearly supernatural and do many of the same things.

Step 4a). Pick a Power Source. Which I guess could open a bunch of new options (divine bards? martial clerics?) but at the same time adds a new layer of complexity to the game (since your adding a new decision point, during char-gen)

That's an interesting generalization (or slippery slope fallacy) of the idea of introducing a few psionic sub-classes, and might have worked well done earlier, with a smaller number of magic-using classes. Not really relevant to the original idea, but interesting.

I still think a new class is simpler than adding a new element of character generation, but whatever.

Sub-classes are not a new element of character generation.

Warlords got screwed, assassins did ok (if compared to the 1e assassin), and everyone else did just fine.

As with a class choosing it's sub-class at 1st level, it only takes one to set a precedent.

Never had a problem with a fighter/rogue psychic class; much like I don't have a problem with EK/AT giving them spells. I have a MAJOR issue with ripping out the guts of the sorcerer and replacing them with the psion.

No gutting required. The sorcerer already uses a point system that could evoke pps, and spells can easily handle most psionic effects - where they don't, you expand the list. That's the point, really, that it would require very little development to insert a psion as a sorcerer sub-class.

OR you're making psionics just regular arcane magic with some bonus telepathy added on.

Psionics are just another kind of magic: a vague rationale for wielding supernatural powers that's not held up to much scrutiny. Divine & arcane magic can use the same mechanics and draw from the same spell lists, no reason psionics can't, as well.

 

[Remathilis]

Nod. 5e is very concerned with that 'classic D&D feel.' The EK is almost at odds with it - I suppose it's an echo of the elven fighter/magic-user.

That is my assumption; the fighter/mage (especially as it relates to the "ELF" class) is ancient, but there has never been a single solid manifestation of it. Prime candidate for reduction to subclass (Assassin, which bounced from class to kit to prestige class to class again, is very close to that as well).

The concept of a character who has no magical abilities is radically different from one who casts spells. The mechanics may not be that dramatic, but the change in concept is.

Mechanics is what concerns me. I mean, I can create a Pony-based subclass that uses the power of Love and Tollerance to cast spells, but that don't mean doo-doo unless it has some mechanic to back it up. Unlike 4e, fluff and crunch are separated by a wall of flaming tigers anymore.

Taking a class from casting spells to using 'psionics' is really less of a change, because both spellcasting and vaguely-defined 'mental powers' are clearly supernatural and do many of the same things.

Only if psionics = spells. I propose something different.

That's an interesting generalization (or slippery slope fallacy) of the idea of introducing a few psionic sub-classes, and might have worked well done earlier, with a smaller number of magic-using classes. Not really relevant to the original idea, but interesting.

Not really; You have now choose Psi or No Psi at first level when selecting the Bard, Wizard, or any other spellcaster than modifies your spells but doesn't give you your subclass features at first level. Because choosing Bard at first level will now come with an extra step; do I want psionic or arcane casting. This will change things majorly for the class. Effectively, you are adding a new step.

Sub-classes are not a new element of character generation.

But when you pick them (and gain their benefit) is different per class, and you are suggesting they must now be picked at first level. New rule.

As with a class choosing it's sub-class at 1st level, it only takes one to set a precedent.

Yet out of 44 produced, none (save three base classes) have done that. It seems to be a precedent WotC doesn't want to set.

No gutting required. The sorcerer already uses a point system that could evoke pps, and spells can easily handle most psionic effects - where they don't, you expand the list. That's the point, really, that it would require very little development to insert a psion as a sorcerer sub-class.

Psionics are just another kind of magic: a vague rationale for wielding supernatural powers that's not held up to much scrutiny. Divine & arcane magic can use the same mechanics and draw from the same spell lists, no reason psionics can't, as well.

So psionics is a sorcerer and is un-needed. No unique mechanics. No unique power effects. Just another "pew, pew, fireball!" sorcerer.

Dear WotC: if that's your plan, don't bother.

But, isn't this why we write mechanics? You keep bringing up all these questions, but, wouldn't they be answered by, I dunno, actually WRITING a class/subclass?

Yarael suggested an idea, I was trying to flesh it out for him.

Can you mix arcane and psi powers? Well, maybe. Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to write a paragraph or two at the beginning of the Psionics Rules, that states something like options where Psi is a type of magic (and thus can be mixed) or Psi is Different (and can't be mixed). Kind of like exactly the same way it was done for other versions of Psionics?

But pure wizards couldn't learn psionic powers (short of multi-classing or a psionic feat). Allowing them to mix allows them to cherry pick the best options from both classes; effectively making psionics just a giant expansion of the wizard spell list. Unless you are keeping them separate, which means you now have two possible spell lists a wizard could potentially be using.

And, let's be honest here, any psionicist should have its own powers list - that's not a big shocker is it? I was always on the assumption that the lists would be different.

Meet [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]. He thinks psionics should just be wizard spells.

If you make a completely new Psi class, what's to stop those exact same issues from happening when someone dual classes? How does making it a totally new class stop Spell Sniper or Tomelock?

No more so than multi-classing now, but Yarael's idea was that a single cantrip could change your casting mechanics. I wanted to see how that interacted with the rest of the cantrip rules.

All that stuff has to be addressed no matter if you make a new class or a subclass. That's not the issue. I guess my point is, if I'm just copying the template from once class and then bolting on new mechanics, why not just use subclasses. It's the same difference.

I don't. I want a new mechanic that emulates earlier edition psionics but with a balanced, updated twist (like how current casting emulates Vancian in a way). I want a bunch of powers with the familiar pseudo-science names and a class (with its own unique subclasses) that is an easy way to enter into it (and perhaps a feat or subclasses to give psy power to non-casters). In essence, I want a psi-system so robust it could REPLACE magic if I wanted it to, not BE magic because some people find psionics "icky".

I get neither of you don't. That's fine. But don't take it away from me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Mechanics is what concerns me. I mean, I can create a Pony-based subclass that uses the power of Love and Tollerance to cast spells, but that don't mean doo-doo unless it has some mechanic to back it up. Unlike 4e, fluff and crunch are separated by a wall of flaming tigers anymore.

So, the differences among the 2 Sorcerer and 3 Warlock sub-classes are doo-doo, because they still cast spells the same way?

Only if psionics = spells. I propose something different.

Which is fine, I'd like to see psionics get an extensive treatment, too. I'm just open to a more realistic, lower-development-threshold alternative, like leveraging the existing systems of casting and list of spells - something every class already does.

Because choosing Bard at first level will now come with an extra step; do I want psionic or arcane casting. This will change things majorly for the class. Effectively, you are adding a new step.

Meh, you're blowing it out of proportion. Three classes, including the one best suited to a psoinc sub-class choose their sub-classes at 1st level. Three others don't start with casting. That's half the classes that can be afflicted with psionic sub-classes without the imagined consequences you're so upset about.

But when you pick them (and gain their benefit) is different per class, and you are suggesting they must now be picked at first level. New rule.

Even if that were valid, one new rule vs how many to create a selection of new classes and not-spell supernatural powers that mostly do things spells already do? Dozens? Hundreds? (hint: none of that's valid)

none (save three base classes) have done that. It seems to be a precedent WotC doesn't want to set.

None "save 3" is not none, it's 3. Three precedents is not a precedent WotC doesn't want to set, it's a precedent they've already set. Three times.

He thinks psionics should just be wizard spells.

A /lot/ of classes have Wizard spells on their lists. Doesn't mean they're wizards.

I don't. I want a new mechanic that emulates earlier edition psionics but with a balanced, updated twist (like how current casting emulates Vancian in a way). I want a bunch of powers with the familiar pseudo-science names and a class (with its own unique subclasses) that is an easy way to enter into it (and perhaps a feat or subclasses to give psy power to non-casters). In essence, I want a psi-system so robust it could REPLACE magic if I wanted it to, not BE magic because some people find psionics "icky".

Sounds lovely: except for the last bit. 3.5 had the right idea there, let the DM choose whether psionics is 'different' from other supernatural powers in the setting.

I get neither of you don't. That's fine. But don't take it away from me.

Not trying to. You're the one drawing the line in the sand, who wants his way or nothing.

 

[Uchawi]

If the choice is between a class and a subclass, then always choose class. In the end you have more design space to work with. If the choice is to simplify the game, then don't include psionics as a as a separate system (point system or otherwise) and just implement more spells.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Not that I can think of any reason to have a psionic barbarian.

The Maenad, reimagined as a barbarian subclass.

 

[Remathilis]

So, the differences among the 2 Sorcerer and 3 Warlock sub-classes are doo-doo, because they still cast spells the same way?

Its certainly smaller than radical changes to spells lists (don't use the sorcerer list, use this special psionic list) or caster mechanic (psionic sorcerers use spell points, all others use spell slots).

S Which is fine, I'd like to see psionics get an extensive treatment, too. I'm just open to a more realistic, lower-development-threshold alternative, like leveraging the existing systems of casting and list of spells - something every class already does.

Which is why we should demand them be held to higher level. They could have cut one full page piece of art from the PHB and fit the psion in the sorcerer section if what they intended to do was just let them be sorcerers with telepathy. It appears they don't want to take that route, so we should demand they stick to that. Lets not let another Wizardficer debacle come down; lets demand they do it the right way.

S Meh, you're blowing it out of proportion. Three classes, including the one best suited to a psoinc sub-class choose their sub-classes at 1st level. Three others don't start with casting. That's half the classes that can be afflicted with psionic sub-classes without the imagined consequences you're so upset about.

I'll be blunt, I dislike the idea of selecting a subclass at before the level you're required to (1st for Sorc/Wlk/Clr, 2nd for Wiz, 3rd for all else). I think that goes against the spirit of what they wanted to do with subclasses. If they wanted you to pick EK, College of Valor, or Oath of the Ancients before 3rd level, they'd have done so. They wanted characters to get a feel for their class, then choose (except for the aformentioned three, since bloodline/pact/deity is a hugh part of their identity). I don't want psionics coming in and mucking up that dynamic when there is no real reason to.

S A /lot/ of classes have Wizard spells on their lists. Doesn't mean they're wizards.

It does mean they are generally arcane casters. Psionics should not be arcane magic. If it is, then it pointless and redundant. Either psionics should be different or it doesn't need to be. We already have a bunch of arcane casters, we don't need another.

S Sounds lovely: except for the last bit. 3.5 had the right idea there, let the DM choose whether psionics is 'different' from other supernatural powers in the setting.

You misread my intent; I want a psionic system that could fill the role of magic in a game if the DM wished. 3.5 did do it right; between the Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psionics, you could run a game without clerics, wizards, or the like. My dream is that; I'll settle for one good base class and some supplemental stuff.

SNot trying to. You're the one drawing the line in the sand, who wants his way or nothing.

Feet to the fire. I don't want WotC to get the idea from its audience that "subclasses are a viable replacement for new rules." That a sorcerer is a good enough psion. That artificers throw fireballs and magic missiles. I want them to know people want real psionics like they had in 2e, 3e, and 4e. Half-measures are a no deal. If it means a hardline stance, so be it.