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."

 

[Mercule]

That's enough material to completely replace virtually every class in the game. I wouldn't use 90% of it.

That actually is my idea of "fully developed" psionics. I definitely think that psionics should be able to fully replace "arcane" magic, in the game, which mean Wizard, Sorcerer, Eldritch Knight, and Arcane Trickster for sure. Potentially Warlock and Bard, as well. Additionally, as I indicated, upthread, I don't like Clerics without gods at all -- like think it's an oxymoron. The Ardent is a very viable, even compelling, option for the "cleric" of a philosophy.

The end result of the above is that, with the exception of Paladin and Ranger, psionic could be used as a full replacement for PHB casters. The Paladin makes no sense in a world where Ardents have replaced Clerics, and there's already an option for a spell-less Ranger. So, have at it, if you want.

That said, I'm not likely to go that far. I like psionic to be an oddity, in my game. I'd allow any of the above, but I wouldn't really promote them or have them as major themes. In some settings, I might only use pure Psions and forget the others -- or use Ardents instead of Clerics, just to get the Arcane/Divine split. Any rules for psionics needs to be balanced against cherry-picking, but I think at least a 96 page hardcover is appropriate for WotC to say they've really "done" psionic. Anything between that and a sorcerer subclass is going to feel half-baked.

 

[Mercule]

@Mercule

A Bard or Cleric psi archetype makes a great Psywar, competent in melee, and can excel at psychometabolic healing. Add force armor or shapeshift toughness to replace mundane armor.

The difference between a fully magical Wizard and a fully magical Swordmage, is the magic of the Swordmage happens within melee range (within the bodily aura), sometimes touching without weapons. By contrast, the Wizard tends to evade melee range casting from a distance.

Albeit, the Jedi is gishy in the sense of being able to mix melee magic and distance magic.

I think I'm going to have to go with "It might work, but I just don't see it" on this one. The Bard makes a good case for competent in melee, with full caster progression, but it still "feels" wrong. That's not really a good reason for not doing it, just a good reason for not having me do it.

So, I'll go with: I'd rather not spend much effort on it, but if it comes together, so be it.

 

[Yaarel]

The problem is: ‘magic and psionics are different’.

To replace every magical archetype with its psionic equivalent is an eventuality.



If, however, magic and psionics are the same. Then use a Cleric psionically. And done.

That is why a subclass that can change the flavor of a core class, is better than creating yet an other class.

Psionics only needs one full class.

For anything else, tweak the core classes, for familiar mechanics with a dash of psi flavor.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For me, the proper bare minimum of Psi classes would be:

Psion: analogous to the full caster, with narrowly focused disciplines, like Telepaths, Telekineticists, Empaths, etc. There would be no generalist. There might not be a Psychometabolic Psion who can boost his combat prowess- that would be the specialty of the Psychic Warriors.

Psychic Warriors: analogous to half-casting warriors, their powers are almost all combat related Psychometabolic boosts & buffs, some would be related to movement. A small smattering would be Telepathy and Telekinetic. Soul Knives might work best as a subclass of the PsyWar. Ditto past classes like Ardents, Lurks, Divine Minds, or a Psionic Monk, if they're included.

Wild Talent: not a class, but a feat driven way for anyone to gain a power.

 

[Yaarel]

The Bard makes a good case for competent in melee, with full caster progression, but it still "feels" wrong. That's not really a good reason for not doing it, just a good reason for not having me do it.

5e still lacks the 4e Swordmage, which is a popular class.

If the 5e psi content offers a melee full caster - a psi version of Swordmage - it brings something new to 5e.

 

[bogmad]

A full psion should be more Professor X than Luke Skywalker.
Save Jedi for the subclass equivalent to Eldritch Knight, I agree.

 

[shadow]

If Mike Mearls wants to change the 'flavor' of psionics, I would rather see a pseudo-Asian mysticism flavor rather than a Cthulhu-esque flavor with all the mentions of the 'far-realm'.

 

[bogmad]

Psions can function as a party face. Theyre telepaths and charmers. They know what people want, know how to convince, and can even psychically predict the best way to do it.


Actually ... Spock has extremely high Charisma.

Presence and all.

They can function as the face; I never said they couldn't, but they shouldn't default to that. I knew that some folks would insist Spock had high CHA, which is why I even mentioned that in my post.

Force of personality in some instances, sure, but Spock is not a guy that doesn't rub [arguably] most people the wrong way -Unless they're attracted to his intellect. In that way he has low Charisma. D&D doesn't really model this very well, as has been pointed out.

The defining attribute of Spock (and all Vulcans who posess mild psionics) is Intelligence. Others have detailed better than I can why INT may be an applicable stat for psionics.

Also, I like the idea of a psion who is in practice pretty bad at influencing others to agree with him. That is, until he takes over the other's mind to force them to agree with him. That's more fun than if if he's good always good at convincing others naturally (through his strong CHA) and need not rely on his mind powers.

But more importantly, WotC and Mearls have already said that INT will probably be the primary stat to save against psionic attacks, which leads me to infer that it will be the main stat used to inflict those saves.

As much as I've argued for my possibly idiosyncratic point of view of psionics [but who knows until actual survey data comes in?] I think that INT as a primary stat is more or less already going to be the default. I'm not sure that arguing for CHA or variable attributes for casting is going to get very far.

Also, mechanically, I think there's enough CHA casters. Also, that variable primary stats for a class is way too complicated for 5e's pedigree.

 

[Mercule]

5e still lacks the 4e Swordmage, which is a popular class.

If the 5e psi content offers a melee full caster - a psi version of Swordmage - it brings something new to 5e.

The Eldritch Knight is sufficient, for my tastes, though I wouldn't be opposed to something at the level of an arcane Paladin. I've never seen the 4E Swordmage, though, so there may be something there that I'm missing.

If Mike Mearls wants to change the 'flavor' of psionics, I would rather see a pseudo-Asian mysticism flavor rather than a Cthulhu-esque flavor with all the mentions of the 'far-realm'.

Amen. Bring on the chakras, ki, etc. Even in 3E, the Monk seemed to fit very well into the psionics "source". I'd like to see that continue.

 

[steeldragons]

The Eldritch Knight is sufficient, for my tastes, though I wouldn't be opposed to something at the level of an arcane Paladin. I've never seen the 4E Swordmage, though, so there may be something there that I'm missing.

I get what you're saying on the arcane warrior/paladin-style...and I rather agree, with the principle, not necessarily the psionic option...it's been several (well, ALL) editions of the default Fighter/Cleric = Paladin, Fighter/Druid (or Fighter/Thief to some) = Ranger....but they've never really tackled the Fighter/Mage = complete own class (since the "Elf" class of BECM).

And that's the problem with the idea of doing this with a Psychic Warrior type...it would mean, aside from the Psion/Psychic/Psionicist "base" class, the Psychic Warrior would be another totally own "base" class...and I don't really want to see that. Something arcane-based that is a "Swordmage/Spellsword/Bladesinger [for everyone, not just elves]" en par with a Paladin or Ranger [so is that "Half caster" as far as 5e is concerned?] deserves its own class. But I don't think (or think I want) a Psy. option to be that.

One "base" psionic class, + subclasses of its own, + a few [not everybody!] subclasses for the existing classes, + a Wild/Random Talent feat seems like it covers an AWFUL lot of ground.

Fighter + limited psychic powers, Thief/Rogue + limited psychic powers, Monk + limited psychic powers, I can totally see/get on board with (or the Fighter and Monk, for sure. The Rogue...eh. But I don't really know from a "Lurk" so I guess some people like that.).