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."

 

[Yaarel]

Says who?

If Int. is the mental equivalent of Dex...and Dex is the physical attribute that covers agility... then how does "Mental Agility" = Wisdom?

Intelligence *should be* ‘mental dexterity’ and thereby responsible for all Perception checks.

But it isnt.

 

[Hussar]

The warlord has been brought up as an example of a class that should have gotten its own class. OTOH, there's some pretty good reasons why it didn't. Healing was never really the main thrust of a warlord. It got healing because it was a leader, but, that wasn't why you played a warlord. A warlord was all about tactical positioning and buff/debuff. Thing is, in 5e, a warlord's focus loses a lot of purpose. Tactical positioning in 5e is far less important than in 4e. There's no flanking rules, so, shifting your allies about doesn't actually do anything. Because everyone can move - attack - move, gaining that extra movement doesn't change the battlefield as much as it did in 4e.

So, one aspect of the warlord doesn't really work in 5e. The other aspect - buff/debuff is a lot more difficult to add into 5e. With bounded accuracy, once you've granted advantage, how much of a bonus would be acceptable? +1-4 seems to be the highest numbers you can get (by and large) in 5e. And even that is often called out as being too powerful. Granting bonuses and/or making monsters easier to hit would have to be a lot more limited in 5e. A very large chunk of the warlords powers simply won't translate over into the math of 5e.

Once you lose tactical positioning and buff/debuff, what's left of a warlord? The warlord class mechanics are extremely tightly tied to a battle map. But 5e is a lot less battle map dependent than 4e is. So, you strip out all that from a warlord and all you really have left is a Battlemaster.

Hey, I understand the disappointment. Warlords are, by far, my favourite class in 4e, and in point of fact, probably my favourite class ever. One of my players once remarked that when you play a warlord, you don't just play you character, you play the entire party. It's fantastic, as far as I'm concerned. But, that all being said, I understand why it didn't make the cut to 5e. 5e is far too different of a game for a warlord to get translated over. You can get something that is kind of close - either a valor bard or a battle master - but, at the end of the day, a 4e style warlord just wouldn't really function in a 5e game.

That being said, that perhaps explains why I'm not adverse to the idea of a psionic subclass. I'm also not saying that it can't be a full class. It might wind up that it makes more sense to add another base class. I just want to see attempts at both before making a decision. 4e did show that you can use an existing template of classes and create psionic classes. The 4e classes were not radical departures mechanically. They used a modified AEDU structure, just like every single other class in the game and worked pretty darn well. I'm not convinced that psionics must have completely different resolution mechanics in order to be different enough to play.

I mean, heck, there isn't that much of a difference between a wizard and a sorcerer (although warlock is pretty far removed) or a druid and a cleric. Strip any cleric mechanics from a druid and all you have left is wild shape, by and large. They cast spells in exactly that same manner, use similar weapon proficiencies (although there are differences there), have similar skill packages, that sort of thing. But, wild shape is more than enough to differentiate druid from cleric. It's a very big deal. In 3e, there was, perhaps, an even bigger difference, with a pet, which druids don't get in 5e.

But, at the end of the day, all that really differentiates them is wild shape and a variant spell list. It quite easily could have gone the other way with druids being a cleric subclass. There have been calls to fold paladin into fighter since 3e. So, it's not like it's impossible to imagine how it could be done. Now, they went with full classes, and that's fine. That works too. But, I think that's my point:

It works too.​

It should not be carved in stone before even trying that psions MUST be either way - subclass or full class. Both options should be explored.

 

[steeldragons]

And besides, even if it's kinda shoehorn/doesn't work for "All Psionic disciplines everywhere"...we are up to our eyeballs in Wisdom and Charisma reliant classes.

I also rather like the dichotomy [or is it symmetry?] of having the Barbarian: Strength guy + Con. be the "color wheel" opposite of a Psychic: Int. guy + Con.

Someone who's all about the braun vs. someone who's all about the brain. Can make for some interesting combos/in-party/in-world situations. Works for me.

Nah. I'll stick to my Int. design with a Con. chaser.

 

[steeldragons]

The D&D definition of the Intelligence ability is irrelevant to the concept of projecting mental influence.

To my knowledge, the D&D definition of Intelligence includes: deduction, reasoning, memory & recall, capacity to learn and think.

mmmm...pretty much all of that says "applicable to using and mastering psychic powers" to me.

 

[Yaarel]

Barbarian Str-Con

is the parallel of

Psion Cha-Wis



(especially if someone opines Int to parallel Dex)

Cha : Str :: Wis : Con :: Int : Dex

 

[Yaarel]

Int-Con = calculating robot

 

[Tony Vargas]

The warlord has been brought up as an example of a class that should have gotten its own class. OTOH, there's some pretty good reasons why it didn't. Healing was never really the main thrust of a warlord. It got healing because it was a leader, but, that wasn't why you played a warlord.

There were 54 warlord powers that healed, 17 that granted temps, and another 16 that removed conditions or granted saves.

A warlord was all about tactical positioning

There were 32 warlord powers that re-positioned allies.

and buff/debuff.

34 warlord powers modified attack rolls or defenses.

Thing is, in 5e, a warlord's focus loses a lot of purpose. Tactical positioning in 5e is far less important than in 4e. There's no flanking rules, so, shifting your allies about doesn't actually do anything. Because everyone can move - attack - move, gaining that extra movement doesn't change the battlefield as much as it did in 4e.

Even if you completely discount the value of the 32 powers in question, that still leaves just over 300 warlord powers. And, there's no reason tactical movement couldn't be modeled in other ways, for TotM. Any power that let an ally shift, for instance, could get him out of an enemy's threatened area, which is equivalent of Disengaging. Not a useless thing, in 5e, letting an ally disengage without blowing his action on it.

The other aspect - buff/debuff is a lot more difficult to add into 5e. With bounded accuracy, once you've granted advantage, how much of a bonus would be acceptable? +1-4 seems to be the highest numbers you can get (by and large) in 5e. And even that is often called out as being too powerful. Granting bonuses and/or making monsters easier to hit would have to be a lot more limited in 5e. A very large chunk of the warlords powers simply won't translate over into the math of 5e.

They might translate with slightly smaller numbers (most leader buffs didn't add large bonuses to hit, because the 4e treadmill was as sensitive to excessive bonuses as Bounded Accuracy is - in both cases, even a +1 is meaningful). Some might give advantage instead of a bonus to hit. Damage bonuses are still legit under bounded accuracy.

Even if you do want to discount them, the warlord had 20 attack bonus powers, 14 defense bonus powers- that might impact Bounded Accuracy - if we ignore that such powers impacted 4e's tight math at least as much as they would BA, and 18 not-so-relevant-to-bounded-accuracy damage buff powers.

Once you lose tactical positioning and buff/debuff, what's left of a warlord?

Healing (54 powers), attack granting (40), temp hps (17), condition mitigating (16), condition imposing (15), etc.. But, I don't believe you lose buff/debuff. That's still going on in 5e. A lot of attack and defense bonuses might get tossed onto the Advantage/Disadvantage pile, but that doesn't obviate the buff/debuff function of 'leader' type classes.

The warlord class mechanics are extremely tightly tied to a battle map. But 5e is a lot less battle map dependent than 4e is. So, you strip out all that from a warlord and all you really have left is a Battlemaster.

You strip out the battle-map-dependent movement powers from the Warlord, he's still a leader with 300 powers. The Battlemaster is a Striker with 18 maneuvers, 3 of which do things the Warlord did. Not even close.

And the DMG options did expand the use of the grid, so even if we buy that losing 32 of 334 powers cripples the concept for PH inclusion, it's still good as tactical-module option.

13th Age weaned itself off the grid even more successfully than 5e, and was able to add the Commander class, which does only /some/ of what the 4e Warlord did.

That being said, that perhaps explains why I'm not adverse to the idea of a psionic subclass. I'm also not saying that it can't be a full class. It might wind up that it makes more sense to add another base class. .. I'm not convinced that psionics must have completely different resolution mechanics in order to be different enough to play.

I disagree with a lot of what you said, above, but I'm also OK with the idea of a psionic sub-class (or several). That could be in addition to a full class psion, of course.

It should not be carved in stone before even trying that psions MUST be either way - subclass or full class. Both options should be explored.

Reasonable conclusion.

 

[steeldragons]

Barbarian Str-Con

is the parallel of

Psion Cha-Wis



(especially if someone opines Int to parallel Dex)

Cha : Str :: Wis : Con :: Int : Dex

Oh no. No no no. I was just following what someone else said about Int = Dex. I think the lot of this line of thinking is rubbish. I've never felt Str-to-Cha., Int-to-Dex. etc... That's a load of fabricated nonsense. There's Str/Dex/Con...they cover, mostly, the body. There's Int/Wis/Cha...they cover the, mostly, the elements of a person that are not physical. That's all they are. There is no correlation, whatsoever, that I have ever seen defined or expected from the game.

For me, the Brawn=Str. vs. the Brain=Int., the Warrior vs. the Wizard, is a classic fantasy trope from the dawn of the genre. Swords and [where "and" was almost always "vs."] Sorcery.

So, in the spectrum of archetypes, which interests me far more than trying to categorize and define abstractions of the game, the "Strong guys[Fighters]" are faced off by the "Smart guys[Mages]". Str. opposes Int....again, as far as I am concerned. So the sub-/specific-Fighter archetype that is the Barbarian is Str. & con. focused. So why not let the Mages have a "+ Con." guy too? but since they're mages, it's Int. instead of Str. that's the primary...

My POINT is, through all of these recent posts, that these declarative "this is what is/defining things as I think make sense to me" statements mean NOTHING in D&D...because the next guy at the next table [or laptop, in this case] can come up with their own "definitions" of things that make [more] sense...to them... and that "making sense" trumps your [general "you"] "making sense" (and certainly trumps "branding") and adds to their enjoyment of their game.

So, as I said, what "works/makes sense/is the 'right way'" for my psychic class/PCs/powers...will remain an Int.=based class. Thanks.

 

[Minigiant]

I always saw it is Ouput-Processing-Intake. Power-Speed-Toughness

Str-Dex-Con
Cha-Int-Wis

You taking information in and link yourself to others with Wisdom. You process and analyze information with a speed based on Intelligence. And you project your information with Charisma.

It would be interesting to have Psionics as a 3 stat "magic" which works.

For example, you can use psionic telepathy to frighten a foe.

If you use a Wisdom based DC, it's an AOE as you can enter more minds by spotting the holes in their psyches.
If you use a Intelligence based DC, it stuns as well as you can quickly search the target's mind for their greater fears.
If you use a Charisma based DC, it causes psychic damage as your pack a punch as you break into their mind.

 

[Yaarel]

D&D 5e Players Handbook (p12):



Wisdom: ‘Awareness, intution’, ... plus willpower.

Wisdom = Psion



Charisma: ‘Eloquence, leadership’ ... plus innate magic.

Charisma = Telepathy, including Psionic Charm, Psionic Dominate, Psionic Suggestion, etcetera.



Intelligence: ‘Information recall, analytical skill’ ... plus bookish education.

Intelligence ≠ Psion



Constitution: ‘Health, stamina’ ... plus physical toughness.

Constitution ≠ Psion