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]

It took you until page 54 to answer people from page 30, none of whom seem to be talking to you right now.

That's ... special. Thanks for sharing.

I've been debating the same issues for 20 pages, Jonny-come-lately.

Since you haven't added anything to this discussion that hasn't been said before (except snark), welcome to the block list.

 

[Nifft]

I've been debating the same issues for 20 pages, Jonny-come-lately.

Since you haven't added anything to this discussion that hasn't been said before (except snark), welcome to the block list.

You like the conversation from page 30, and you want to keep having that conversation.

You don't like the conversation which is going on now, so you're insulting new people for not being in the older conversation.

Is this... an edition war? About the edition of the thread?



It's mildly unfortunate that you'll never see this post, nor the humor in how very meta your objections have become. Oh well. The humor shall persist, for others to enjoy.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Okay, can you say what it is then? I thought it was having an ancestor, but you say that's wrong, and all I'm seeing by way of explanation is "not like other classes".

Magical origin. "Sorcerers carry a magical birthright conferred upon them by an exotic bloodline, some otherworldly influence, or exposure to unknown cosmic forces." / "The most important question to consider when creating your sorcerer is the origin of your power." PHB mentions the demon's touch, the blessing of a dryad at birth, or the taste of water from a mysterious spring, a gift from the deity of magic, exposure to the Inner Planes or Limbo, or a glimpse into the inner workings of reality. Favored soul is "fundamentally changed by the touch of his or her deity, which awakens powerful magical abilities."

Wizards learn to be magical. Warlocks barter to be magical. Cleircs pray to be magical. Paladins are devoted, and thus tap magic. Druids and rangers know magical secrets of the natural world. A sorcerer is different because sorcery isn't knowledge, it's nature.

Perhaps I miscommunicated.

All the major 5e spellcasters use spell-slots like a 3.5e Psion used augmentation.

Psions can do the same, because augmentation was originally a Psionic thing.

It's not specifically like Metamagic.

I follow you there.

 

[Hussar]

You aren't the only one who I'm referring to. Go back to page 30 and start reading Tony, Yaarel, and Hussar's posts. We'll wait until you catch up.

Sorry, you're still failing reading comprehension.

I repeatedly stated that there might be more than one way to skin the cat. Heck, i believe I posted a pretty lengthy addendum to your own list that was, on its face, pretty complex. OTOH, I think that flat out refusing to even consider a simple psion, such as what you posted, is a big mistake. Why does everyone who wants to play a Psion have to learn an entire BOOK of mechanics - a la the 2e Psionics Handbook? No other class comes even close to that level of complexity. Why can't we have both?

 

[Remathilis]

Sorry, you're still failing reading comprehension.

I repeatedly stated that there might be more than one way to skin the cat. Heck, i believe I posted a pretty lengthy addendum to your own list that was, on its face, pretty complex. OTOH, I think that flat out refusing to even consider a simple psion, such as what you posted, is a big mistake. Why does everyone who wants to play a Psion have to learn an entire BOOK of mechanics - a la the 2e Psionics Handbook? No other class comes even close to that level of complexity. Why can't we have both?

Where is the alternative spellcasting mechanics that don't use finite spell (slot/points) per day? Where is the ADEU like martial classes? Why should psionics have to cater to multiple methods of activation?

I'd rather WotC do one system and do it right than try to make psionics work using spell slots, power points, and ability checks or have redundant subclasses and core classes. Psionics didn't need to be a toothpaste, floor cleaner and dessert topping.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

An Ardent saw the power of philosophy and tried to comprehend it.

A Cleric saw the power of philosophy and got down on his knees.

So, evidentialist vs presuppositionalist. Probably not the way i'd go, but I can see the merit in that approach.

 

[bogmad]

Sorry, you're still failing reading comprehension.

I repeatedly stated that there might be more than one way to skin the cat. Heck, i believe I posted a pretty lengthy addendum to your own list that was, on its face, pretty complex. OTOH, I think that flat out refusing to even consider a simple psion, such as what you posted, is a big mistake. Why does everyone who wants to play a Psion have to learn an entire BOOK of mechanics - a la the 2e Psionics Handbook? No other class comes even close to that level of complexity. Why can't we have both?

I'd say sure, we can have both, but your argument seems to be that we go with only the one simple sorcerer subclass like Remalthis detailed and leave it at that. If you're saying to try it both ways, then my apologies.

No need it need be as complicated as the 2e psionicist handbook since 5e is set up to be a simpler system overall than 2e, but there's a big difference between doing something as simple as an uninspired sorcerer subclass or general spellcasting class, and going so far as to be as complicated and complex as the 2e Psionics Handbook. Looking through the forums it looks like a lot of people do actually want a psionics sourcebook for 5e. I'd like one myself, but rather than something as complicated as 2e I'd like to see a relatively simple and new mechanic (sure, influenced by 2e) and sure different and possibly more complicated than spellcasting, but not overly so. If that's something that doesn't make sense to release a sourcebook for, then fine I'm totally ok with a players guide that's around the same wordcount we got for elemental evil.

If anything, Remalthis and everyone elses homebrew subclass just proves how easy it is for you to have your way with psionics. I haven't rejected to consider anything; I have considered a simple psion, and determined it doesn't work for what I want. Why should I be forced into only considering that instead of advocating for the psion I want? Even if I get what I want, what you want is very easily accomplished.

What I want ruins what you want in your game? Then it's an optional module that you don't have to use! Easily fixed. Worst case you have to say no to annoying players like myself and perhaps stomach it for a storyline in organized play if that's something you do.

 

[bogmad]

the main concern, is don't build it broken, as 2e could be.
But that's a no brainer

 

[SkidAce]

Perhaps the simplest solution is make the power dictate the manifesting stat. Psychometabolic powers depend on Con, telepathic ones rely on Int, Psychoperceptive abilities rely on Wis, or some such.

...but I still think a Fatigue mechanic models very well the way pistons are commonly limited in the fiction.

I was starting a writeup doing this.

But I just cant decide what route to take. My 2e conversion notes also look good. (where the powers vary by stat)

 

[SkidAce]

I am also looking at making the mechanics of anything I design complement the monk, and the abilities listed in the MM for gith and mind flayers, for consistencies sake.

Lots of INT saves there....hmmmmm.