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]

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.

It reads like cramming flaming sphere, fireball, and wall of fire into a single spell. All three burn multiple people. An intimidating (charismatic) wizard rolls over people. A smart (precise) wizard hits just the right point. A willful (wisdom) wizard uses it for defense as well as offense.

I can justify it, but it's a stretch. The end effects are just too varied. They should be separate spells/powers that are only available to different classes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

I'm not sure what their history was prior to 4e, but in 4e they were a 'grid-filling' leader class. Like any leader, they healed some. They had a 'mantle,' an aura around them that bolstered their allies mentally. They were not trained like psions or disciplined like battleminds or monks, rather their psionics were self-discovered, driven by emotion, like zeal for a cause or elation in battle. They project negative or disruptive emotions at enemies, and focused/positive/constructive (in context) ones to their allies.

 

[Mercule]

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

As stated, they were psi-clerics, which is why they'd be the last piece for a full replacement of full casters (Bards are still there, but I'm ignoring them). They actually work very well for a "spiritual atheist" or a philosophy priest. Since I consider godless Clerics to be a non-sequiter, they also represent the middle ground on that, to me.

 

[Remathilis]

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

Ardent's were philosophers as clerics were to priests; somoene who drew knowledge around a set of beliefs (called mantles) and had powers only tied to said belief. They were psionic leaders when they appeared in 4e (they were first in Complete Psionics in 3.5).

Stripped down to brass tacks, I'm not sure they have a lot of room to explore in 5e. If anything, they might be the best example of a "spellcaster psionic subclass" akin to taking a caster (like the cleric) and giving him a bit of a psionic boost atop of his normal (divine) spellcasting. They serve a vital role in a "psionics replaces magic" world, but in a "psionics co-exists with magic" world, they really feel redundant with cleric and psion classes.

For what its worth, I feel the same way about Wilder (hmmm... people want your psionic sorcerer subclass, this might be fertile ground) and divine mind (which should probably merge with the psychic warrior and be done). I could even argue the lurk (who has little going beyond being the psionic equivalent to the arcane trickster) isn't even all that strong as to warrant inclusion. If I got a good psion class and something that blends psionics with melee, I'd be happy. (And mind blades, those are too cool to lose).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Even though I really like Psionics, I never had much use for the Ardent and Lurk as distinct classes. I liked the Divine Mind because of the mechanic of the Psionic auras- something I always felt had merit. But thematically, neither the Ardent or DM as Psions sourcing their psi from the divine made much sense to me. It seemed...it seemed like the combination of divine (outside) sourcing of psi (internal power) were in logical conflict.

Better, IMHO, to have the classes remain purely internal in their Psi, and have them be drawn to serve their faiths' hierarchies just like other, non-divine classes are free to do.

The one exception I could see is that I think it is entirely within the scope of the internal logic of a divinely fervent Psionic manifester to be able to "flavor" their powers with a bit of divine energy through a holy symbol, probably via a feat.

The lurk role I saw as something that could have been handled via the Soulknife- possibly with a modest rewrite. And both, I felt, could work as modified PsyWars. Like I (think I) said, Hyperconscious was a well-done take on Psi, and I personally found it indispensable for inclusion in 3.5Ed's handling of psi. Ditto dragon #341 (as I recall), which did a better job of enhancing the Soulknife than CompPsi did by miles.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

If players can use almost any ability to represent the same concept, it means the abilities themselves lack conceptual consistency and are meaningless.

There are no lines being drawn between one ability and an other. There are no definitions.

 

[Remathilis]

Even though I really like Psionics, I never had much use for the Ardent and Lurk as distinct classes. I liked the Divine Mind because of the mechanic of the Psionic auras- something I always felt had merit. But thematically, neither the Ardent or DM as Psions sourcing their psi from the divine made much sense to me. It seemed...it seemed like the combination of divine (outside) sourcing of psi (internal power) were in logical conflict.

Better, IMHO, to have the classes remain purely internal in their Psi, and have them be drawn to serve their faiths' hierarchies just like other, non-divine classes are free to do.

The one exception I could see is that I think it is entirely within the scope of the internal logic of a divinely fervent Psionic manifester to be able to "flavor" their powers with a bit of divine energy through a holy symbol, probably via a feat.

When I was working on my (never finished) Psionics Only world, Ardent, DM, Erudite, and Lurk (and along with Psion, Wilder, Soulknife, and Psychic Warrior) were great; they replaced all the caster classes in the PHB with choices to spare (I kept the monk, barbarian, rogue, and fighter, and swapped scout for ranger). In the era of 3.5, they made sense and fit. Now, not so sure. I'd rather a sufficiently strong Psion class than having his (already kinda niche) role spread among the Ardent and like. YMMV, but I don't feel ardent did much but grid-fill (even in 3.5). Give the Egoist Psion good healing ability and his mechanical niche is gone.

 

[Yaarel]

A ‘psychic healer’ is a vibrant concept. Psionics deserves full healing, as much as or more than a Cleric.

 

[Remathilis]

A ‘psychic healer’ is a vibrant concept. Psionics deserves full healing, as much as or more than a Cleric.

Agreed, just not sure the ardent is needed to do that. (Nor am I sure I want psionics raising the dead).

 

[Nifft]

Even though I really like Psionics, I never had much use for the Ardent and Lurk as distinct classes. I liked the Divine Mind because of the mechanic of the Psionic auras- something I always felt had merit. But thematically, neither the Ardent or DM as Psions sourcing their psi from the divine made much sense to me. It seemed...it seemed like the combination of divine (outside) sourcing of psi (internal power) were in logical conflict.

Well, yeah. The Divine Mind was bad both in background and in implementation. The Dragon Shaman did his thing better.

If you use the Ardent as being a philosopher rather than a worshiper, then it can work in a world with (or without) Clerics.

Lurk was very limited and very combat-oriented, which was weird because it didn't have any combat staying power. I've seen it said that the Lurk was intended as an Assassin rather than a Rogue, but it never worked out in play for us. Maybe it's a playstyle thing, and we would have had to move to a more Assassin-oriented style of play. (Spellthief never worked out for us either, so maybe it's us, or maybe it's just late-edition Rogue-class design issues.)

The one exception I could see is that I think it is entirely within the scope of the internal logic of a divinely fervent Psionic manifester to be able to "flavor" their powers with a bit of divine energy through a holy symbol, probably via a feat.

Yeah, that'd be cool. Augmenting one type of power with another. That could work for Nature and Arcane guys, too.

A ‘psychic healer’ is a vibrant concept. Psionics deserves full healing, as much as or more than a Cleric.

Absolutely yes.

I don't want to see the same trick which was used to make 3.5e psi healing valid, though.