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."

 

[Hussar]

In many fantasy novels, the ‘magic’ is explicitly explained as psionic mental powers.

Novels by Christopher Stasheff, come to mind.

Oh, totally. In Sf circles, psi is generally considered magic by any other name. There's a reason you rarely see it in any hard sf. Generally, and I'm painting with a broad brush here, you get one freebie for breaking "science" in hard sf. So maybe you have FTL drives in an otherwise hard sf story. Psi tends to feature much more often in soft sf or slipstream stuff.

Psi as an actual scientific fact tends to be pretty rare in SF. Although I'm sure there are examples.

 

[Yaarel]

In reallife Norse texts, the Norse concept of magic is understood as ‘mindforces’ - and a Volva who enchants someone else as someone using her own mind to ‘play with the mind’ of others. Sending the mind outofbody or just the influence of ones mind outofbody, is a standard part of this worldview.

 

[Yaarel]

The 3e Psion has mental ‘focus’, roughly like the 5e Wizard ‘concentration’.

 

[GobiWon]

Sort of. Jedi are magic. Carrie and Firestarter both have magic psionics. In fiction psionics was generally just the way a writer could add magic to an sf story.

McCaffery's teleporting, telepathic, time traveling dragons might as well have been magic. Eddings calls it the Will and the Word. Could go either way. The Bene Geserit Voice of Dune could easily be magic.

There's hardly a cut and dried line here. It's mostly in presentation rather than substance.

Presentation is important. This new system has to feel distinct. They way you present it is important. I'm done with "is it magic or isn't it magic" discussion. It's like a dog chasing it's own tail. It has to be different enough from traditional magic found in the core to be worth doing, though, without any overly complex system completely alien to the current system. It has to be a fine balance between the familiar and the new.

 

[fuindordm]

Although I'm a strong advocate for mechanical and thematic differences between psionics and magic, I don't think it's necessary for them to have no overlap whatsoever.

Consider:

In many literary and real-world magical traditions, having "talent" is a prerequisite to learning ritual magic. People with the potential to become wizards (recognizable spellcasters close to the D&D archetype) are born with at least one natural ability, which more often than not we would recognize as psionic: prophetic dreams, second sight, aura reading, minor telekinesis, etc. So I think it's perfectly all right to say that wizards learn to use their innate gifts to connect with and manipulate external sources of power (the Weave, pseudo-sentient arcane spirits, or whatever), while psions build upon their innate gifts as much as possible--eventually unlocking and expanding on more categories of psionic talent. This implies some transparency between powers and spells, which I think is OK. It also implies that all cantrips are basically innate psionic talents, which I also think is OK.

However, the wizard and the psion are training in very different directions from a small foundation. I DO want to see a psionics subsystem that has very little overlap with the arcane and divine spell lists. In particular, psionics should:

• Avoid flash-bang effects. A pyrokinetic can make things catch fire, but I don't want her throwing ectoplasmic fireballs.
• Excel at telepathy/charm effects. Psionic charm person should still be first level, but objectively better than arcane charm person (or else the psion class should provide abilities that make charm effects objectively better). Some powers in this category should simply work differently from the similar spell, e.g. invisibility.
• Avoid body transformation. I'm OK if Bill the pyschic warrior charges his unarmed strikes with ki to do more damage, but not if he changes his forearm into a longsword blade. I don't think psionics should allow any polymorph-type effect either.
• Excel at mind-over-body effects such as feign death, poison resistance, self-healing, and subtle things like weight control (run across water, levitate)
• Include A FEW signature high-level effects (sciences), such as energy absorption, quintessence, mind seed, dream travel...
• Be much better at sustaining concentration than other classes (e.g. can always sustain two with no problem, proficiency in Con saves, feats or class abilities to maintain more than two...)
• Finally, and most importantly, break the rules of arcane/divine spellcasting in some interesting ways, so that playing a psion feels very different from playing a wizard or cleric.

That's enough to satisfy players, in my book, even if they keep the spell slots/spells known chassis.

Returning to the subject of magic/psi transparency, it makes perfect sense to me that psions can detect magic and wizards can detect psionics, and that the supernatural signatures of the two effects are similar enough for one spell/power can do the job. (Detect Magic: detect any supernatural effect. You can measure the strength of the aura. If the effect is from a tradition in which you have class levels, you can also attempt to identify the specific spell or power.) Similarly, if makes sense to me that a spell/power designed to end supernatural effects can work on either. (Dispel Magic: dispel any supernatural effect. If the effect is from a magical tradition in which you have class levels, the dispel works automatically for levels <= the level of the slot used to cast Dispel Magic. If the effect is from a different tradition, make a caster level check against DC 10+spell level.) And frankly, I think that's enough--any other kind of transparency is very situational and can be ruled based on the spell/power descriptions. For example, a nomad psion might have a power similar to banishment, that works on summoned demons. A wizard casting detect thoughts would be foiled by a psion with Thought Shield, and so on. No special rules needed.

 

[steeldragons]

Let me see if this will work...[I've never tried to attach a pdf as an image before.]

Ah. I see. No dice. the image attacher won't take a pdf. So change it to a jpg then? That should work, right?

I believe the term is "PEACH" ...? Constructive criticisms welcomed.

EDIT/OS: Just noticed the details of the Telepath feature "Investigative Probe" are nearly entirely missing. Need to fix that, but I think the feature name gives you a pretty good idea what it does. Kinda an aggressive "Detect Thoughts" that breaks through some defenses/mind-hiding magics./EDIT

View attachment 68951View attachment 68952View attachment 68953View attachment 68954View attachment 68955View attachment 68956View attachment 68957

 

[Mercule]

In the interest of moving on to something passingly constructive (I know, Internet)....

How important is it to anyone that the "psionics is different" concept is baked in/vacated from the mechanics? What I mean by that, is does it need to be a sticking point for the conversation? Also, is there anything that would prevent/interfere with a system that's agnostic on the issue?

For my part, I think the more neutral the mechanic is, the better. I don't every plan to run a "psionics is different" game, but I also think it's great if someone can. Ultimately, D&D should provide tools over flavor, when possible. Published settings provide specific flavor around the mechanics.

As far as why I want psionics, I've realized that I just don't think that the sorcerer fills its stated purpose very well. It makes no sense to me that someone with "magic in his veins" would use the same sort of structured spells that a scholar does. I expect them to throw around semi-structured effects by force of will. That's how I've always used psionics -- very literally innate magic. I do like Dark Sun and Eberron, though, which both have slightly different psionics, and I'd like to see those supported.

Based on the above, the quickest and easiest path to implementation for my goals would be to rebuild the sorcerer with an ability to replace the VSM components to something else; I only wish I knew exactly what because I don't think ectoplasm is particularly appropriate for a dragon-blooded "psion" to manifest. Throw in a feat that's equivalent to Magic Initiate for Wild Talents using the reskinned powers, and I'm good. The weakness, here, is that it leaves the Psychic Warrior, Lurk, and Ardent out in the cold and those were all interesting concepts.

On the other extreme, I could also handle a complete rebuild. I don't know that power points would be my first choice, but I wouldn't complain, either. Some of the trappings of 3.5 psionics (ecto-snot, tinkling bells, crystals, tattoos) fell flat for me, so I'm tempted to say a spiritual port of 2E would be best, but I don't remember it well enough to be confident in that statement. Regardless, both those editions were compatible with "psionics is magic" theme, so I'd be able to use them.

 

[fuindordm]

Steeldragons, your class is definitely heading in the right direction. Some brief thoughts:
* There doesn't seem to be an equivalent to 6th-9th level powers, although Collective Cognition and some of the specialty capstones come close. Maybe when you reach 5 ranks in one of the disciplines, it could also unlock a couple of higher-level powers that become available when the psychic reaches a certain level. For example, Heal could have the requirement of 5 ranks in the metabolic discipline and 13th level psychic.
* Any kind of healing spell should not be at-will (Cure Wounds, Heal)--does this class use the common spell slots table to activate powers?
* What's the advantage of being able to maintain concentration with an Int check? Are you meant to use either Int or Con, whichever is better, or do you get the Int check first and only have to roll Con if that fails?

 

[Mercule]

Let me see if this will work...[I've never tried to attach a pdf as an image before.]

Ah. I see. No dice. the image attacher won't take a pdf. So change it to a jpg then? That should work, right?

I believe the term is "PEACH" ...? Constructive criticisms welcomed.

EDIT/OS: Just noticed the details of the Telepath feature "Investigative Probe" are nearly entirely missing. Need to fix that, but I think the feature name gives you a pretty good idea what it does. Kinda an aggressive "Detect Thoughts" that breaks through some defenses/mind-hiding magics./EDIT

This is close to one of the variations I've had in my head during this conversation. I like it because 1) it's markedly different from casters, 2) it provides thematic structure that's easy to expand, and 3) still balanced with the 5E mechanic (or could be, with some play-testing).

I'm not enamored with it because 1) it's still fairly limited in scale (not complete, which may be the difference between beta and RTM) and 2) it feels like psions would either end up very narrow ponies or broad enough to be very samey.

 

[fuindordm]

How important is it to anyone that the "psionics is different" concept is baked in/vacated from the mechanics? What I mean by that, is does it need to be a sticking point for the conversation? Also, is there anything that would prevent/interfere with a system that's agnostic on the issue?

Not very important, the level of transparency can be a campaign option rather than baked into the class. But given the prevalence of magic spells in the game, I think it makes sense if the psion class has access to a couple of powers that interact with magic spells in any setting, like the more general versions of detect and dispel magic that I suggested above. Then the campaign option would be a matter of slightly revising those spells.

As far as why I want psionics, I've realized that I just don't think that the sorcerer fills its stated purpose very well. It makes no sense to me that someone with "magic in his veins" would use the same sort of structured spells that a scholar does. I expect them to throw around semi-structured effects by force of will. That's how I've always used psionics -- very literally innate magic. I do like Dark Sun and Eberron, though, which both have slightly different psionics, and I'd like to see those supported.

I totally agree. In fact, the implied setting of this version of D&D is one where structured spells are baked into the fabric of magic and researching new spells is very difficult. Every class casts exactly the same version of Fireball--the only difference is how they learn it. Sorcerers are the only class that can change spells on the fly (which is very cool and definitely the saving grace of the class), and even they can only change the spell's parameters in a few limited ways.