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."

 

[steeldragons]

So, the document in my previous post (which seems to be getting completely bypassed) includes common and unique mechanics, powers structure without "power points", a concentration feature, an exhaustion/con-burning mechanic, and distinct sub-class types.

Basically, for those disinclined to download/view the pdf:

1. All psychics have at-will "talents." These are your traditional "psychic combat" abilities, more or less, but unlike 1e, they are all usable against [or to defend] non-psychic individuals, in addition to mental combat. You get 3 to start and it goes up from there, based on level.

2. All psychics then receive "ranks" they can apply to suites [groups] of powers of different traditional psionic types + a few more (like Empathic or Medium). Each grouping has 5 ranks/levels, each with more powerful abilities than the former, scaled, roughly with existing "power tiers" as used for spell levels. You can select and use any of the powers listed for which you have "spent" ranks...up to level + Int. mod. times per day.

The powers included herein are, essentially, sorted/pulled from various spell lists. I have little to no tolerance for "Psionic Charm Person" or "Consciousness Shutdown [to describe Sleep]". So the known/common understanding names are used. The possibility for expansion of these groupings or adding distinct "spell-effects" to existing ones is totally in the hands of the DM.

To get the ball rolling, I began with suites for: Telepathic, Telekinetic, Pyro- or Cryo-kinetic (for distinct fire or ice powered individuals), Clairsentient, Metabolic (healing and shapshifitng), Medium (for detecting/talking to spirits), Teleportational, and Empathic (emotion based powers).

3. Your subclass choice, then, delivers your final "layer" of powers. Your subclass, like all PHB subclasses, gives you unique features that are in keeping with that flavor/discipline. These are independent of your "rank power" uses, either at will or usually with a 5e "rest-reliant" recharge. I went with: Telepath, Telekinetic, Seer, or Metamind ...for starters, anyway.

Maybe it's too complex, having different powers operate on different mechanics...but I don't think so...no moreso than play a warlock or a cleric or really any other class, in 5e.

 

[Mercule]

The way I see it, magic is the shaping of an external force. A spell is its own thing, independent of the spellcaster who created it. You can attack the spell, counter it, suppress it. And the creator can in many cases walk away from the spell and leave it doing its thing.

Psionics is the mind acting directly on the world around it. There's no intermediate entity that you can target with a dispelling effect. You can oppose the effect with an effect of your own, or you can attack the psion, but those are your only options. Likewise, the only way to suppress psionics is to suppress the psion's mind (via unconsciousness, feeblemind, etc.).

This is the point of divergence, then. Magic could be a literal force or just some arcane rules for messing with reality. Whatever the underlying explanation, I see psionics as being another way of kicking it into motion. So, if a wizard moves "The Weave" through words and gestures, a psion does it with his will, or just by supplying enough internal energy to grease the skids, so to speak. If the wizard has discovered the language of creation, then the psion rewrites creation with his soul. It just skips the middle step.

I don't really worry to much about the underlying, in-game rationale behind magic, other than to acknowledge that one must exist. If I'd consider it supernatural IRL, then it's magic in D&D. Put another way, I guess I work on the idea that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's pretty likely to be a duck.

The wheels come off the wagon pretty darn quickly, if you try to explain it too much. For example, the idea that clerics and wizards both tap into the same "weave" is a Forgotten Realms conceit that has no bearing on any other setting (Eberron clerics might share a source, but it's for different reasons). The rules explicitly allow for a monotheistic creator deity. The "psionics is different" concept is a complete non-starter if you can't explain why a 5th level wizard can dispel something done by the Chosen of G-d, but an archmage has no possibility to break an effect from Jim Bob, the wild talent.

As I've said before, I'm okay with "psionics is different" for anyone's table and/or having rules balanced against that option. I just don't think it has any case for being the default assumption.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

These get at the same thing - something that complies with the laws of physics in a way we don't understand or as-yet unknown without breaking them is still magic, because "magic" isn't exclusionary or specific. Anything can be magic. Battlemaster superiority dice can be magic. Anything can not be magic. A wizard's fireball can be nanobots or a flamethrower. XP can be magic. HP can be magic. Level can be magic. Laser pistols can be magic.

I have to firmly disagree here.

Seems like magic and are magic are two very different things, ESPECIALLY when you're placing them writhing the context of an RPG system in which definitions of such things may have mechanical/gameplay repercussions & in-world implications.

Something that seems like magic may be outlawed and feared in some societies, but because it actually isn't, it may not be affected by the antimagical countermeasures they have enacted.

And a wise sage in such a world might make that key insight. "Verily, it looks like a drake, yet it neither strides nor bellows like one- mayhaps it is not a drake."

 

[Nifft]

So, just trudged through the last few pages. A couple of points of discussion seemed worthy of reply.

First, so far as I can tell, ever edition of Psionics has referenced spellcasting. I didn't even have to read a whole page of my 1e PHB to find this:

... and it's not the only example of such. I don't think there has ever been an edition of D&D which had a completely separate powers list, and that's okay. There's also never been an edition which had no special, unique, interesting powers. So, I'd prefer if we didn't worry about being different just for the sake of being different, and instead decided that Psionics can be cool as long as it's cool on its merits, even if part of the scaffolding is shared with almost every other supernatural powers class in the game.


The second thing is, in all the discussion about what is and isn't "magic" seems to overlook the fact that 5e changed how magic worked. Now a Wizard / Cleric has one set of spell slots, unlike in every previous edition. That's interesting, and it says something: Magic in 5e is not conforming to your 3e or 4e assumptions.

One thing 5e magic says to me is: hey, we're outright stealing the scaling mechanics from 3.5e Psionics.

Thus, putting 5e Psionics into the 5e spellcasting mold isn't removing psionic flavor -- it's just realizing that 5e magic was already kinda psionics flavored.


Finally, I noticed some debate about the word "arcane", and then I looked up words on the internet, and then I did some math. Here's what I found.

Classes with access to some Arcane spells (spells from the Wizard list, or which are traditionally Wizard spells in 1e, 2e, and 3e):
- Barbarian: no
- Bard: yes
- Cleric: yes (Burning Hands, Identify, Polymorph, etc.)
- Druid: yes (Mirror Image, Melf's Acid Arrow, Haste, etc.)
- Fighter: yes (Eldritch Knight)
- Monk: yes (Elemental, and it even calls them spells in the rules text)
- Paladin: maybe (Vengeance)
- Ranger: no
- Rogue: yes (Arcane Trickster)
- Sorcerer: yes
- Warlock: yes
- Wizard: duh (yes)

Thus, the majority of classes have some access to Arcane spells. Hmm. That's interesting, given what "arcane" means:

Pretty solid, right? I mean, maybe you have to be initiated to be in a class at all, right? Let's just make sure by checking what "obscure" means...

Oh. Huh. Since the vast majority of classes are "initiated", it's kinda the opposite of obscure.

Unlike Psionics, which isn't mentioned at all, and is therefore very obscure... which means Psionics are arcane.

---

Therefore, Psionics cannot be the same as Arcane magic, because Psionics are arcane magic, and Arcane magic isn't arcane.

I hope that clears everything up.

 

[Mercule]

If a human being flies due purely to their own will, it's pretty clearly magical. It might be planar energies or breaking the laws of physics or a pact with a demon or the granted ability of a god or just thinking happy thoughts - that's still magical, it's still magic, it's clearly not natural.

This example crystallizes things, for me. A human can't fly in D&D without it being magic. Period.

You can say that it's a different kind of magic. You can say the magic is "out of phase" with clerics/wizards so they can't dispel/detect it. Put whatever mechanic trappings you want around it to separate it from the PHB spells. It's still magic, period.

To shift metaphors, this isn't arguing whether potassium and water are the same thing as gunpowder. It's arguing whether they explode. You can present all that reasons you want that you can't use the same suppressants or counters, but they both still explode violently. Same with picnics and PHB spells -- they may be wildly different kinds of magic, but psionics are freaking magic.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, its a damn spellcaster again.

I honestly didn't see this until after I'd posted almost the exact same words.

 

[Staffan]

I don't think there has ever been an edition of D&D which had a completely separate powers list, and that's okay.

2nd edition, Complete Psionics Handbook. Completely self-contained power list. Pretty much the only mention of spells were a list near the end which listed how psionics interacted with particular spells (usually not at all).

 

[steeldragons]

To riff off a former post (mighta been this thread, but honestly who can keep track anymore?)

Wizards: I learned the formulae from books, tutelage, and study to make this magic energy do what I want. With the right books/tools/research, I can figure out how to do just about anything with reliable repeat-able results.

Sorcerers: I have the ability to make magic energy do what I want inside me. I can only make the magic do certain kindsa stuff, BUT I can take that stuff and "stretch" it in different ways that books won't tell you.

Warlocks: I have found a way to access magic energy -which may include books or learning or ancestry or innate ability or forgotten knowledge or simple chance/luck- to do what I want...from what my patron has imbued in and shown/taught to me.

Clerics: I devote myself to my deity and for my faithful service they grant me the formulae and knowledge I need to work their will with their divine energy.

Druids: I devote myself to the natural world and through my in depth enlightenment and understanding of nature have discerned and been taught the knowledge I need to work nature's energy.

Psychics: I have discovered or developed, been taught, imbued by a god, nature, the cosmos, or simply innately know how to access my own mental energy.

Can it be "just another magic" Yes. Is it the same thing as "just another magic"? That is a simple matter of perspective with no actual "right" answer.

For me, that answer is No. Since other magics are not all the same as each other. Describe/define them as different "sources", call them different names, say they have different gods as the common origin for each, believe the energy is the same but the "harnessing/directing/casting" mechanic is different and thus different "kinds" of magic are really only a matter of "appearance" and specific training techniques, believe them to be varying vibrations of the same kind of "radiation" or "wavelength" if you want to get all scientificalish with your magic. None of that matters to anyone but your own table.

Is the class/subclass/feat viable? Does it interact with the game and other classes [e.g. "balanced enough"] fairly and, preferably, well? Can I get the kinds of characters I want when I am feeling like playing a psychic-powers-based character? Is it interesting to play?

Those are really the only concerns the designers need or can or should be answering.

 

[Hussar]

Or complying with the laws of physics in a way we don't understand.


Lots of things today in the real world would have been called magic by those that didn't understand them, doesn't mean they were magic. Like when you referenced Arthur C. Clarke, they may "seem" like magic, but are not.

Why does that argument not apply to wizard or cleric spells? Why are they "magic"? Why can't they be complying with the laws of physics in a way we don't understand?

 

[Hussar]

Just spit-balling a couple ideas. I have no idea if they are balanced, usable, or what...

0.) Powers do not have verbal, somatic, or material components. They are unaffected by grapples, silence, or the like.

1.) Powers require a "check". Each power has a power score (basically, a DC to activate) and the psion must make a power check (1d20 + Prof + Int) to activate it; succeed and your power goes off as normal, fail and the power has half or no effect. This could possibly replace savings against psionics as well, but I'm not sure yet on that.

Truenamers in 3e used a similar mechanic in the Tome of Magic. Additionally, the DC went up by two every time you used a power. Given that 5e proficiency bonuses are pretty easy to keep in line (unlike 3e, where it was fairly easy to game the system), I could see this working very well. Could you do without power points entirely here and just use the rising DC to limit abilities per day? Maybe the first one is free, and then subsequent castings (errr uses, whatever) get more difficult.

2.) Powers don't have a "power level" akin to spell level. (IE telepathy is a first level power) but some powers have a minimum character level to take (IE: you must be 11th level to take the Mind Blast power). Most powers are differentiated by power point cost.

Riffing off of number 1 above, why not just use the "use" DC? Scale that DC by class level vs a given "Use DC"? For powers you have "proficiency" in (which could be limited by class level) your first shot is free and the DC's scale fairly moderately. Maybe disadvantage and a high DC for non-proficient manifestations.

You could, possibly, add in a second layer in that psionic characters have various fields of specialisation (metabolism, telepathy, etc) which could set the use DC's. Stuff that's in your field, but, you don't have proficiency in (not actual, literal proficiency, but, I suck at making up names) has a relatively low DC, while the further you go from your baseline, the higher the DC.

3.) Powers don't have durations, but instead have a maintenance cost of power points to keep going for every round past the first one.

Since I'm leaning towards doing away with power points, this becomes a problem. But, again, scaling DC to the rescue. Each round of maintaining raises the DC to keep the effect going. Different powers could call for different periods of time for checks - a damage effect would likely be measured in rounds, while an illusion effect might be measured in minutes.

4.) There are actually very few powers (maybe a dozen or so) but they can be augmented by spending more power points. Telekinesis might start out weak (on par with mage hand) but by using more power points, you can use it lift more, hurl heavy objects, push or slam foes, crush their windpipes, hold the steady, or even create whirlwinds of telekinetic force. Clairvoyance might start out as a scrying tool, but eventually expand to seeing the past and or future.

Not sure if scaling DC would work for this and I like this idea, so, I'm not sure how I'd include it. I suppose scaling DC might work - you jack up the use DC to get a stronger effect. This might get awfully complicated though.

5.) Psionics doesn't grant a save as normal, but instead "attacks" an ability score. (IE: telepathy requires the psion to roll 1d20 + prof + int mod against the victims Int SCORE, which acts as the DC). Non-psionic minds might impose disadvantage, while psionic combat might grant the psion advantage on further psionic powers used on the victim. Could be used with 1 above as well.

Again, just brainstorming there. There is plenty of room for new, innovative mechanics that don't involve rehashing spellcasting.

I don't think I like number 5, for the simple reason that it makes Psi too powerful. I mean, if I'm getting d20+5-10 (roughly) vs baseline abilities, that seems pretty strong. OTOH, since most monsters only use their base stat for a saving throw anyway, this wouldn't actually come into play that often.

 

[Nifft]

2nd edition, Complete Psionics Handbook. Completely self-contained power list. Pretty much the only mention of spells were a list near the end which listed how psionics interacted with particular spells (usually not at all).

Really? Let's just fact-check that.

vs.

... nah. Same crunch, different editor.

Looks like basically the same deal for Psionic Teleport vs. Arcane Teleport.


Is this debunked now? Can we move on to new arguments?