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."

 

[Tony Vargas]

Which is why we should demand them be held to higher level.

Because you'd rather get nothing? Nothing is a very real option. It's super-low in needed development resources.

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).

Yeah, I caught that.

Still, it's not an issue with classes that don't start with casting abilities, and not an issue classes that already pick at 1st level. Together, that's half the classes in the PH. Not too shabby. We could have a psion-Sorcerer, psychic-warrior-Fighter, and soul-knife-Rogue without running up against that particular objection.

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.

Again with the clear message that you'd be happier with nothing.

I don't want WotC to get the idea from its audience that "subclasses are a viable replacement for new rules."

I think that ship's sailed. Two years of playtesting, and we did see several PH1 classes reduced to sub-classes in the 5e PH. Sources are gone, all classes have some access to spells, either as casters, or as underlying mechanics.

Half-measures are a no deal. If it means a hardline stance, so be it.

Keep demanding nothing, and you just might get it.

 

[Shasarak]

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.

From your keyboard to Mikes eye.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Indeed. I have the genesis of two viable systems in my head. One of them is, essentially, a replacement for Sorcerer that would pretty much just be "internally powered by [select from list]", with the option for the various archetypes to swap out the VSM components for something else (like 3E did, but expanded as appropriate to the other archetypes). I have no idea what I'd do for psychic warrior, etc., but it might be as simple as "use multiclassing rules" or an Eldritch Knight knock-off archetype.

The other is a new subsystem that works by providing base devotions (a.k.a. spells) that can be augmented with talents, which are gained as the character advances. Most devotions would also have a "Maintain" tag in their description that would give the on-going effect if the psion maintains concentration. This would call for a new base Psion class (to cover a couple 3E Psion sub-classes, Wilder, and Ardent) as well as a Fighter archetype for Psychic Warrior (that would nick the soul knife's stuff) and a Lurk archetype for Rogue.

I like both ideas, and would welcome either in my game. But, either would alienate half(ish) the fans.

You're kind of getting at my main point.

If you go big and have a new class, that's great. Lets get a psion with unique mechanics and maybe a pulpy sci-fi feel, and/or a more medieval feel (crystal spires and togas! )

If you go small and don't have a new class, that's also great. Lets get a sorcerer subclass with a few distinct tricks or a "psionic" feat that gives anyone access to a few psi-themed spells or whatever.

You could have both. A little repetitive, maybe, but super great.

What you can't do is go small and have a new class. You can't take reskinned spells and a reskinned sorcerer and call it a new class. You can't just say "psionics is very different than magic!" and just swap some jargon around ("oh, see, it's inner power from the mind that I use to cast charm person I mean manifest the charm devotion!"). That's meaningless. That's a waste of pagecount.

You also can only go so big before you need to have a new class, but with subclasses and feats, it's actually pretty big. I can't think of anyone proposing a subclass that has something too big to fit in that subclass - if a subclass can grant superiority dice and spells, then a subclass can grant psionic combat and manifestation or whatever.

The main thing I see in a lot of these discussions is people insisting on a difference that is pretty academic should actually be enough to warrant a whole new class, and that's pretty weak sauce. They see things like spell lists, proficiencies, and hit dice as part of a class's identity rather than just one of many things that you could change with relatively little effort. They refuse to imagine nonacademic wizards or sorcerers born with weird mental powers instead of weird "arcane" powers.

Mearls seems to have the right of it - "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." That implies more an approach in the second vein, a big class, with new things in it. That sounds good to me!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

At least one alternative mechanical system has been proposed in here- I'm thinking pros probably have a few ideas themselves.








I sure hope so.

 

[GobiWon]

 

[GobiWon]

His point needs to be stressed. I cannot stress it enough. Psionics will be different, if it is treated different even if it shares some mechanical similarities to the "magic" system. If it is treated as separate from magic, it will become it's own thing. Psionics must have it's own concentrations and focus. Just like divine has healing which arcane is rarely allowed to intrude upon. Psionics must concentrate on mental abilities that rarely overlap with things that arcane and divine casters can do. A previous poster mentioned psionic invisibility which would only affect a single opponent. You wouldn't become invisible. Your opponent would simply "think" you had disappeared. This is how these powers need to work and feel.

I win. I got Tony Vargas and Remathilis to give me xp for this post.

 

[I'm A Banana]

At least one alternative mechanical system has been proposed in here- I'm thinking pros probably have a few ideas themselves.

Probably! But which mechanic they go with probably has something to do with the flavor they're pursuing. A more pulpy sci-fi flavor would produce a different mechanic than a more medieval flavor.

 

[aramis erak]

Yes, it was explicit in 4e. In earlier editions, though, the kinds of monsters that had psionics included the sort that eventually became associated with the Far Realms. The most notorious of psionic monsters, the Mind Flayer, being the prime example. So, in a sense, the association has roots going all the way back to the 1977 1e Monster Manual.

So the question isn't why add that association, now, but 'why remove it?'

And the answer is because 5e is a rule set presented as a starting point for the DM. It's not just that it doesn't need to be definitive, it's that it should avoid making anything too definitive for a DM to change/adapt/add-to easily. A given DM might not use anything like the Far Realm. Linking psionics the Far Realm can be accommodated - there can be plenty of nasty Far-Realm/Abberation monsters with psionics, for instance - but it needn't be hard-coded in.

It's a very different question from whether psionics should be 'magic' in the sense of leveraging existing mechanics and being subject to the few checks on magical power the game presents.

because "real D&D" (IE: Anything pre 4E) lacks the existence of the Far Realms. The whole cosmology in 4E was changed. 5E has changed it back towards something closer to the great wheel.

4E making something explicit really carries little weight with the fans they're courting: the D&D OE, AD&D 1E, AD&D 2E, D&D 2 (moldvay/cook, Mentzer, and Alston/Denning). The 3E crowd is starting to need to replace books, and that makes them targets of opportunity. But the 4E crowd still can find some on shelves, and is unlikely to need to replace it yet.

And, while 4E was a great tactical game, it was lousy D&D for everyone I gamed with. Too much worked too differently. Including the fluff.

 

[Staffan]

because "real D&D" (IE: Anything pre 4E) lacks the existence of the Far Realms. The whole cosmology in 4E was changed. 5E has changed it back towards something closer to the great wheel.

The Far Realm, as previously established, was introduced in 2e with Gates of Firestorm Peak, and a similar concept ("Outside") was alluded to in the Illithiad. 3e books included it as well - Tome & Blood had the Alienist with mastery over pseudonatural creatures, and the Epic-Level Handbook had the Brain Collectors who were said to be from the Far Realm and a pseudonatural template that made regular monsters into epic ones with extra tentacles. The 3e Manual of the Planes included the Far Realm as a variant plane. And of course Eberron had the plane of Xoriat, which was essentially the Far Realm, as a core (albeit distant) concept.

So no, the Far Realm was not introduced as a 4e concept. It gained prominence in 4e, but it was added to the game long before that.

 

[GobiWon]

The question we have to ask ourselves is counterspell going to work against psionics? I think about half this board says yes. The other half says no. I come down on the side of no. In my mind, it has to be something other than magic or what is the point.