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]

Just to add to my thought about about nine subclasses.

If WOTC were to publish this, either pdf or book, doesn't matter, it would mean I wouldn't use it. It's far, far too much material. That's enough material to completely replace virtually every class in the game. I wouldn't use 90% of it. Anyone coming to my table wanting to play a psionicist would also be disappointed. I have no intention or reading another player's handbook worth of material just to play D&D. Psionics should add to the game, not overwhelm it.

I honestly think that if this is your benchmark of success, you're going to be disappointed. I'm thinking two, maybe three subclasses total. Anything more than that is just a waste.

Reading comprehension fail.

One full class with 5 subclasses of its own (far less than wizards or clerics) and a psi themed one for fighter, monk, and rogue. And one feat.

One complete class and three new subclasses are too much for you, you aren't the target audience anyway. Stick with your "PHB only" game.

 

[Remathilis]

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.).

Yeah, lurk isn't all that popular, so skipping it would not be the end of the world.

 

[Mercule]

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).

The biggest problem with a Fighter/Mage is what archetype does it fill. The Paladin and Ranger may both be a hot mess, and arguably redundant with 5E mechanics, but they both fill a standard trope. The Paladin is the "knight in shining armor" whose valor sets him apart from other warriors. The Ranger is the borderlander who isn't really wild so much as solitary.

The Fighter/Mage is just that: someone who practices two disciplines. Sure, stories are filled with legendary heroes who master both, but game balance demands that to be just another way of saying high-level and such a character to be no more dangerous than a Battle Master or Evoker of the same level. What theme is missing?

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.

I see the Psychic Warrior best served by being a sub-class of Fighter, like Eldritch Knight. I'm not opposed to a half-caster [term I use because of the multi-classing math, along with third-caster for EK/AT] Psychic Warrior, but I think it would end up stepping on the Monk's toes a bit, if the flavor of psionics was left neutral.

I do not think we need both a Psychic Warrior and a Soulknife class. I've never thought there was enough distinction to warrant both classes. The mind blade could be handled very much like the Warlock blade pact, where augments can be applied to either the mind blade or a specific physical weapon. If the Psychic Warrior was turned into a half-caster, the Soulknife makes sense as one of the sub-classes, though. The other option is to turn the Soulknife into a Monk sub-class and let players choose which way they want to play out their prowess. I think I actually like that last option best.

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.).

That's my feeling, as well. I didn't particularly care about the Lurk, either way, but it's an existing concept that fills a niche, should a group want to completely swap out "arcane" (or all) magic for psionics. It would take up a couple of pages, max.

I do like the Ardent, though I'm not sure whether it makes more sense as a stand-alone class or a sub-class of Psion. In the end, that would probably depend on exactly how the underlying mechanics for psionics work. Which, come to think of it, might determine whether or not Psychic Warrior makes sense as a sub-class or stand-alone half-caster.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The Eldritch Knight is sufficient, for my tastes, though I wouldn't be opposed to something at the level of an arcane Paladin.

Having actually played an "Arcane Paladin" in 3.5Ed- a multiclass of Marshal/Duskblade/BttlSorc- I can say it was a fun PC with some interesting aspects to it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My dream set up...

Psion: full class, with 5 subclasses (kineticist, telepath, egoist, seer, nomad).
Psychic warrior: fighter subtype like EK for psionics.
Lurk: rogue subtype like AT for psionics.
Soul knife: monk subclass that gives mind blade to monk.
Wild Talent: feat that grants minor psionics to anyone, like magical adept.

That'd be awesome.

I'd like to seen an Ardent in there somewhere, too. Maybe a psion sub-class, Paladin-like class, or oddly, possibly even barbarian sub-class (Ardents are supposed to be less trained/disciplined and more emotional).

Of course, I'd also be pleased to see the psion even as a sorcerer-sub-class.

More thoughts on this...

Psion. Full "caster" analogue; either akin to warlock or wizard in HD/Wpns/Armor (depending on how psionic rules are set up).
Kineticist: Specializes in Telekinesis. More "offensive" than other psions.
Telepath: Mind control and dominating. Can act as a face (charms) or can try to turn foes.
Egoist: Mind over Body powers; healing, shapeshifting, etc.
Nomad: Teleportation and transporation, but also some battlefield control.
Seer: Clairvoyant, master of divination-like powers and learning things.

That would be a very full, full caster, second only to the Cleric & Wizard in number of sub-classes. Ideal for a settings like Dark Sun where psionics is the primary form of (or alternative to) magic.

Psychic Warrior. If psionics is truly different enough, a fighter subclass (as well as the rogue and monk versions) would work to make them feel "psionic" However, if psionics ends up being Spells in a different model (IE 3e psionics) then a paladin-like base class with its own subtypes (Soul Knife for Jedi, Battle Mind for a kinda leader-y type) might work.

In the 'worst'-case, where psionics is just a selection of spells, an EK could just be given access to them, or a similar class set-up would work fine.

Regardless, it makes sense to have a fighter sub-class for the Battlemind (not a leader, but a defender, btw) or Psychic Warrior so as to share the Fighter's DPR potential, like the EK, keeping them solid in that combat-contribution side.

 

[Tony Vargas]

LOL! Like I said, the six abilities in D&D are largely incoherent and meaningless.

I hope these past two pages disabused you of any sentiments to the contrary.

Not at all, no. Any set of stats in an RPG is going to draw arbitrary lines through the varied realm of human potential, but while that's arbitrary, it's not incoherent, and is a necessary abstraction.

 

[Mercule]

My dream set up...

Psion: full class, with 5 subclasses (kineticist, telepath, egoist, seer, nomad).
Psychic warrior: fighter subtype like EK for psionics.
Lurk: rogue subtype like AT for psionics.
Soul knife: monk subclass that gives mind blade to monk.
Wild Talent: feat that grants minor psionics to anyone, like magical adept.

Having thought about it, I think this is the right base list. I'll add one more, though: Ardent. I'm not sure whether that needs a stand-alone class, though. It might work fine as a Psion sub-class. I guess it depends on just how fully we'd want psionics to be able to fully replace the existing casters. For my money, it would be a shame to miss by just one class.

 

[Minigiant]

Do not like. No cohesion to the power.

Whadaya mean?
You telepathically enter a foe's enemy and scare them with a horrible image. A wise psion can sense and enter more minds. A smart psion can build a scarier image. And the charismatic psion wrecks the mind as he or she enters with their force of personality.

 

[steeldragons]

For those not in the know [and me ] What is/was the Ardent? Their flavor/story, I mean? Their differentiating feature(s)?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

More or less a Psionic Cleric. Divine mind was a Psi-ladin. Lurks were the sneaky ones.