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."

 

[Corpsetaker]

Class: Psionicist.

Subclasses: Psion, Soul Knife, Psychic Warrior.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Psion deserves a base class, period. No core class does it justice without heavy hacking into it and rewriting its mechanics and/or fluff. At the very least, it deserves its own class with its own power list and its own subclasses (representing the disciplines of yore).

Here's a point where I differ. I think a pre-judging like this limits possible design directions and stifles creative use of existing frameworks. "Deserve" I think is a pretty negative choice of words, somehow implying that assassins and arcane tricksters and battlemasters and illusionists are somehow "not deserving." A psionic subclass isn't somehow an insult to psionics, it's not a lessening or other-ing of it. It's simply an easy, effective way to realize the gameplay important to psionics.

A subclass isn't a lesser version of anything. It's not a second-run, also-ran, backup-copy. It's the full character, floating on top of existing mechanics as much as it needs to. It's a tool for realizing your character, one that is more fine-tuned, easier to apply, and less expensive in many ways than an entirely new class could ever be. A new class is a blunt, expensive instrument - it takes more effort to get right, even when right it occludes other choices, and even when perfectly executed there's a significant downside to it. It's appropriate, sometimes, but it is never something that should just be presumed to be the case. A new official class in 5e always needs to be a conscious and intensely thorough process. When they said a few months ago that the entire lifetime of 5e could see no more classes than what's in the PHB, that should be seen as good news, because it shows that they realize that there's no gameplay necessity for any class - that every new class is an opt-in situation.

Furthermore, a new class turns existing classes into narrower stereotypes. If I can play a wizard or sorcerer as a psion today, then if they make a psion class, I suddenly am not playing a "real" psion. Pre-judging that a psion absolutely cannot be a sorcerer is also saying that there is no way that you can play a character like a psion using the sorcerer - now being born with powerful mental abilities is off the table for them. It draws unnecessary boundaries, and limits the diversity of existing choices.

To treat a class as a sort of medal we give a character concept that is somehow more worthy of being expressed than, say, "illusoinist" or "turnip farmer" is to put a hierarchy in place where none currently exists, and fails to recognize the inherent arbitrariness of all classes.

What is important to me is what happens in play at the table, which is why this insistence seems bizarrely disconnected. It doesn't care what happens in play, it just makes a vehement mandate based on previous presentation. It matters more in this view that the psion is a class than it matters what that class plays like, which rings entirely hollow to me. It's not like "you're a full class!" is some gold star that is given to the bestestest and brightestest of imaginary elf jobs that are better than all the rest(est). It doesn't so much matter what is written on your character sheet at first level or what you call what you gain levels it, it matters what actions you take when you play the character across the course of a year (give or take).

All of which is not to say that new classes are verboten, just that we need to get our priorities straight. We can have new classes, but lets admit to ourselves that it's basically arbitrary - there's no objective reason to have a psion class and not have an illusionist class or a brazen strumpet class or a bohemian ear-spoon specialist class. It's not like there's some threshold one crosses that another doesn't. And once we allow ourselves the freedom to design outside of a class, lets see what we come up with. It might still be a class, but that'll be the result of discussion, development, and active choices, not simply a meaningless design criteria made in a void, and it'll be a better class for it.

 

[Mercule]

Warlord to battlemaster was a punt IMHO; they didn't want a martial healer in the PHB. I hope WotC will one day make a proper warlord, btw. Sounds ripe for a UA.

I see battle master as more of a kensai and cavalier replacement, not warlord. Kensai and cavalier really don't (IMO) need separate classes with the 5E structure, but I do like them represented.

I would love to see UA tackle the warlord, though. I think that'd be the right place for it, too. "Keep a stiff upper lip, lads, and have a few hit points," takes a level of buy-in to the HP abstraction that I think isn't automatic. Then again, maybe it's easier for someone who hasn't been playing since 1984.

Here is my absolute minimums.

We seem to be on different sides of a few issues, so let's compare notes.

1.) Psion deserves a base class, period. No core class does it justice without heavy hacking into it and rewriting its mechanics and/or fluff. At the very least, it deserves its own class with its own power list and its own subclasses (representing the disciplines of yore).

Agreed -- mostly. I think it's possible to do a passible psion as a sorcerer subclass, but it wouldn't be my first choice. That would be the "screw it, there are too many disagreements on psionics," punt. Also, my openness to the psionic-sorcerer option is a consequence of thinking that the VSM, just a caster mechanic is a poor fit for the sorcerer fluff, anyway. At least I might be able to get something out of a psionics option.

Odds are, given a stand-alone psion class, I'd kill the sorcerer and convert the sorcerer sub-classes into psion subclasses. But, that'd be home brew territory and depend on the specifics of the psionics mechanics.

2.) It deserves unique capabilities that fit its flavor. (In essence, I don't just want a list of PHB spells with "pretend their psionic" written over them; even if their is overlap (IE: Psionic Charm Person; see PHB XXX) I want them to have unique ones that other caster's don't get.

Again, mostly agree. It's a very fine line, for me. I think the psion needs something that makes it feel like its powers are more flexible than a standard caster's. I don't have a ton of concrete thoughts on exactly what that looks like, though. The powers write-ups could end up looking like spells and be labeled as spells, but the psion class itself have some way of adjusting the effects. The 25 word or less version would sound a lot like meta-magic, but I'd want it to be a ton more flavorful and key to playing a psion with little in common besides "spell modifiers with a balance mechanism".

Without compromise, psionics cannot use VSM components, at least not the way standard casters do. I can see where some powers might require a crystal focus or the psion might have to point his finger for a flame that starts at him, but those are oddities. Even if psionic charm uses the entry for standard charm person, the psion would need a caveat that says "substitute ectoplasm for verbal components", etc. Or, they'd have to be balanced against an exemption from using components at all, whatever that means.

3.) It deserves one unique mechanic on par with warlock invocations or sorcerer metamagic. Something to give the psion his own niche.

Now, do I want a unique system for psionics separate from how spells are cast? Yeah, I think that'd be cool. Will I be bummed if the psion looks more like 3.5 than 2e? A bit, but I'll live. The only thing I actively dislike is the idea of some subclass eating all of psionic's history, lore, and powers and tell me "be a regular spellcaster and pretend its psionics." I can do that now, I don't need WotC to give me that. I need WotC to give me a proper psion class and powers, since that is the harder route.

Agreed on both points. The ideal implementation of psionics will handle the flavor of wild talents and the slightly unpredictable nature of the gifts. I also thought they went a bit too weird in 3.5. Ectoplasm and wind chimes do not really equate to psionics, for me. The tattoos were cool, but I didn't get the connection to psionics, either. More than any other class, the psion is one with his power. That's the piece I want to come out in the mechanic.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

What particular flavor has psionics had? In games I've played in they were mainly asked about, or played by, munchkin power gamers wanting to play paladin/jedi. I can live with magic and ki, personally.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Deserve" I think is a pretty negative choice of words, somehow implying that assassins and arcane tricksters and battlemasters and illusionists are somehow "not deserving."

Rather, it implies that they deserve more. Well, not the arcane trickster, so much.

A subclass isn't a lesser version of anything. It's not a second-run, also-ran, backup-copy. It's the full character, floating on top of existing mechanics as much as it needs to.

It is when it's standing in for a full class not much like the parent class. Assassins and Illusionists are very much like their parent classes. Sorcerer is at least mechanically close to psionics in some ways, it's powers are in-born, it uses a point system (though not much like psionics used there's), but it's not as close as an Illusionist is to a Wizard.

this insistence seems bizarrely disconnected. It doesn't care what happens in play, it just makes a vehement mandate based on previous presentation. It matters more in this view that the psion is a class than it matters what that class plays like, which rings entirely hollow to me. It's not like "you're a full class!" is some gold star that is given to the bestestest and brightestest of imaginary elf jobs that are better than all the rest(est).

In a way, that's a lot of what 5e has been about. 5e has - more or less successfully - catered to a broad swath of D&D fans, by appealing to and validating bits of their favorite editions, particularly classes. Most classes are strongly reminiscent of their 0e D&D and 1e AD&D roots - Clerics still heal & turn undead, Wizards still cast sleep and look for spells to add to their books, etc. The Illusionist as sub-class evokes the 2e Illusionist as specialist wizard, the fighter's high DPR is evocative of it's role in 2e parties. The Rogue get's the 3.0 Rogue's combat boost from SA, the Sorcerer manages a little of the feel of the 3.0 original (in spite of it's spontaneous casting essentially being given to everyone), while the Bard is a generalist '5th wheel' full-caster as in 3.0, not the oddity it was in 1e. The Warlock is very much like the original 3.5 Warlock, and the EK & AT sub-class were PrCs in the 3.5 DMG, but feat stands in rather poorly for the cool reach tricks you could do with a 3.x fighter. And, of course, psionics is notably absent...

I think the bard of valor was an attempt to recreate the warlord.

Hardly. The Bard is a spellcaster, the Warlord was martial. That's not even analogous to a psionc-sub-class of the Sorcerer being 'arcane not psionic,' that's like touting the GOO Warlock as all the psionics you'll ever need, because he has telepathy and is associated with the Far Realm.

 

[Remathilis]

What particular flavor has psionics had? In games I've played in they were mainly asked about, or played by, munchkin power gamers wanting to play paladin/jedi. I can live with magic and ki, personally.

Which is fine for you. I've had players play (either in my own or played along with) the wisened guru type (exploring the mysteries of the universe through meditation and discovery), a freak who had to hide his powers (dwarf in 2e), a clairvoyant who used her powers to help wayward spirits and people (Ravenloft) and even a completely normal barmaid who one day discovered she could read thoughts and opted to do something special with her gift. None of these were munchkin players or even character; elven fighter mages were the rage for those guys.

 

[Remathilis]

Here's a point where I differ. I think a pre-judging like this limits possible design directions and stifles creative use of existing frameworks. "Deserve" I think is a pretty negative choice of words, somehow implying that assassins and arcane tricksters and battlemasters and illusionists are somehow "not deserving." A psionic subclass isn't somehow an insult to psionics, it's not a lessening or other-ing of it. It's simply an easy, effective way to realize the gameplay important to psionics.

Here's what I think. Subclasses are augments to the base class; they change the taste but not the substance. An assassin isn't all that different than a rogue and they can share 90% of same features. Any subclass that starts changing the base classes regular features is drifting (at the very least) into alternative class or new class territory. Subclasses don't remove or change how class features work, they don't remove or change proficiencies, and they don't change spell lists or remove spell access. Its too radical a change for a subclass to handle.

Subclasses have finite limits on how much they can change a class. Did you notice WotC didn't give us a "spell-less ranger subclass" that you take instead of beastmaster or hunter? They gave a bloody re-write of the class! It was beyond the scope of a subclass to remove spellcasting from the ranger and replace it with superiority dice. Psionics, if done right, should be just as radical of a change.

Which is my reason for pushing hard on this; psionics should be a game changer. It should be an opt-in for DMs who want another type of magic and ignored by DMs who don't. Not all DMs will; they've been optional in every edition so far (though 4e put them in A PHB, so perhaps not in 4e?). Anything less is a cop-out, its a punt to the anti-psionics crowd who can live with a sorcerer with telepathy or a GOO warlock as psionics and be done.

And yes, a subclass is lesser; that's what the prefix SUB means.

 

[Tony Vargas]

they've been optional in every edition so far (though 4e put them in A PHB, so perhaps not in 4e?).

In 4e, psionics appeared in Dark Sun and the PH3. They were core only because WotC had this 'everything is core' conceit going at the time (a sort of marketing ploy that I don't think really fooled anyone). Psionics was it's own Source, the Monk was integrated into it because a Ki source was politically incorrect or they couldn't come up with a psi striker or something. There was no 'psionics is magic' option, per se. But, even in 4e, psionics was mechanically a little different, and a little broken: instead of encounter attack powers, the 3 non-Monk psionic classes got power points that they could use to 'Augment' an at-will. The net result was pretty similar to having encounter powers. Where it broke was that you were supposed to re-train your at-wills for 'better' higher-level powers, but a few 1st level powers turned out to consistently have the best augments (mainly an issue with the Psion, IIRC).

Anything less is a cop-out, its a punt to the anti-psionics crowd who can live with a sorcerer with telepathy or a GOO warlock as psionics and be done.

A sorcerer sub-class as a psionic isn't downright anti-psionic, "no psionics in D&D ever, because they're science fiction and have no place in it," that's anti-psionic.

'Psionics-is-magic should be an option' or 'psionic sub-classes would be better than nothing' is still pro-psionic, I hope.

 

[Yaarel]

Charisma is at least suggestive of projecting will, so seems ideal. Wisdom represents mental resilience (WIS saves). Intelligence might analogous to 'mental agility,' but seems the least appropriate of the three. Of course, the psion could be MAD, using CHA for attack modes, WIS for power points, INT for disciplines & sciences or something along those lines.

Yeah, it seems in 5e, Intelligence has switched to the role of ‘mental agility’. The parallel between body and mind, seems something like the following:

Intelligence : Dexterity :: Wisdom : Constitution :: Charisma : Strength



The problem however is Wisdom conflates both perceptiveness and willpower, which have little to do with each other.

If Intelligence is ‘mental dexterity’, then Intelligence should be responsible for all of the perception checks, to see if it notices new opportunities that it can maneuver with.

It is a problem. Even in its fifth edition, the abilities of D&D remain largely incoherent and meaningless.



I noticed, in the Dragon Age ‘Adventure Game Engine’ system, they disentangled the three mental abilities to create five mental abilities. So there are eight abilities altogether.

Cunning (≈ Knowledge Skills ≈ Intelligence)
Perception (≈ Mental Dexterity)
Willpower (≈ Mental Constitution ≈ Wisdom)
Communication (≈ Persuasion ≈ Charisma)
Magic (≈ Casting Ability)

plus Strength, Dexterity, Constitution



Note, in D&D, any mental ability can be the casting ability. There are different flavors for actualizing magic.

In D&D, the Wisdom ability is way overpowered compared to the other two mental abilities. If Wisdom split into two abilities, Willpower and Perception, the four would become more balanced with each other. Even if Intelligence absorbed Perception, becoming responsible for both Knowledge and Perception checks, the three classic abilities would become more balanced with each other.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm still thinking about the type of power determining the casting stat, while Con determines whether the manifester can continue using powers at full efficacy or becomes fatigued. (IOW, NOT a point based system.)

To clarify: power types determine the casting stat and the potency of the ability used. Like we've bandied about, Telepathy would be Int based, Psychometabolic powers would be Con based, perceptive abilities would be Wis based, etc.

The manifester would then have to make a Con-Based check to see if they become fatigued. As they level, they'd get bonuses to making those Con checks.

Powers would be broadly defined, with a list of abilities as opposed to discrete spells for each kind of ability. Each ability beyond the base use would add a certain amount to the difficulty of manifestation- base level checks would be easy to pass, but the more you push a power, the more effort is required, and the more likely the manifester becomes fatigued.