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."

 

[GobiWon]

Ironically, the way to do that is the same way they gave arcane as much depth as divine and divine as much depth as arcane: by making Psionics neo-Vancian casters who pull from the same big list of spells in the PH, just with different lists, different sub-classes, and different features.

I personally would prefer a greater separation between the divine and arcane spells than exists currently. But psionic powers are not even spells ... they may be magic ... and they are definitely supernatural ... but they are not spells. I don't have a problem with the neo-vancian framework. It can work for resource management, but psionics are supernatural powers categorized by disciplines. I repeat ... they are not spells. They are powers that need to feel different in tone and character to that of spells.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I personally would prefer a greater separation between the divine and arcane spells than exists currently. But psionic powers are not even spells ... they may be magic ... and they are definitely supernatural ... but they are not spells. I don't have a problem with the neo-vancian framework. It can work for resource management, but psionics are supernatural powers categorized by disciplines. I repeat ... they are not spells. They are powers that need to feel different in tone and character to that of spells.

'Spells' in 5e are just mechanics that do stuff when you push a resource-allocation button and provide the necessary components. Totems and Ki powers aren't spell, either, but spells are referenced to describe them, mechanically. Some monsters still have 'spell like abilities' that aren't spells, aren't cast using components, but otherwise work exactly like a given spell.

Swap components for concentration, and psionic 'spellcasters' would be pretty appropriately differentiated.

I still think you'd lose classic flavor though. Power Points, for instance, are just too big a part of that to abandon.

 

[SkidAce]

Swap components for concentration, and psionic 'spellcasters' would be pretty appropriately differentiated.

How would this work?

 

[Tony Vargas]

How would this work?

The psionic would have to follow the concentration rules for any 'spell' he cast. He wouldn't have to follow the component rules. For instantaneous spells he'd prettymuch bet getting off scott free, I suppose. Likewise for those already requiring concentration. Though you might be able to fit in something to make concentrating while casting an issue.

 

[SkidAce]

The psionic would have to follow the concentration rules for any 'spell' he cast. He wouldn't have to follow the component rules. For instantaneous spells he'd prettymuch bet getting off scott free, I suppose. Likewise for those already requiring concentration. Though you might be able to fit in something to make concentrating while casting an issue.

Yeah, those were the same thoughts I was having. Thanks for the reply.

 

[GobiWon]

What if WotC only develops psionics for a single setting "expansion"? It would seem logical that this would be for Dark Sun, but the Eberron "expansion" is likely to be produced before Dark Sun given it's popularity. If WotC is going to treat rule set expansion in 5e like board game expansion, do we get two different types of psionics ... each tailored to the setting in which they are found? There seems to be a conscious attempt to keep new rules optional and tied to settings. They want the core to remain relevant while new rules remain optional in tone and execution.

 

[Yaarel]

Psionics too needs to be setting-neutral. The source is the adventurers own mind.

How a setting spins it, depends on the setting.

 

[Hussar]

Psionics too needs to be setting-neutral. The source is the adventurers own mind.

How a setting spins it, depends on the setting.

I'm not convinced. Some settings certainly don't need psionics - Dragonlance springs to mind. Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms never really used psionics particularly. Why make a generic psionics system when many D&D settings have no real need for it? Why not make psionics specific to specific settings? Maybe a fairly complex Psi system for Dark Sun, since the setting was so steeped in psionics (many of the iconic opponents and NPC's have psionic talents) and a fairly streamlined Psi system for Eberron.

With a complex and a simple system, anyone who wants to adapt for their own setting has lots of choices.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not convinced. Some settings certainly don't need psionics - Dragonlance springs to mind. Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms never really used psionics particularly. Why make a generic psionics system when many D&D settings have no real need for it? Why not make psionics specific to specific settings? Maybe a fairly complex Psi system for Dark Sun, since the setting was so steeped in psionics (many of the iconic opponents and NPC's have psionic talents) and a fairly streamlined Psi system for Eberron.

With a complex and a simple system, anyone who wants to adapt for their own setting has lots of choices.

You raise a very good point. Some settings really, really, don't need Psi.

I'm not sure I'd sign off on your suggestion of 2 (or more) different systems, though. However, I could see a full/stripped down dichotomy- leaving mechanics unchanged- working, depending on the details of the system.

 

[Hussar]

Well, something I was thinking about and bouncing around in my brain was the practicalities of adding psi to a game. If someone drops a psi character on the table, the DM is kinda obligated to add some psi stuff to the game, presuming he's allowing psi in the first place. Obviously if there's no psi at all, there's no problem.

But, if I drop a psion on a table, I'm kinda expecting to find psi magic items at some point in the campaign. If the detailed system has psionic combat, then I'm probably expecting to actually use those rules from time to time. I was thinking that a two tier psionic system - basic and advanced for lack of better terms - might resolve this. If the DM doesn't really want to have a psionic focused campaign, but, he's not adverse to someone playing a psionic character, use the basic psi rules which might be some sort of Sorcerer subclass or something like that. If the DM wants a full Psionic campaign, then he can go for the full rules, complete with a bunch of different classes and subclasses, psionic combat rules and whatnot.