Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls on D&D Psionics: Should Psionic Flavor Be Altered?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7673242" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>That's easy to achieve, given 5e's presentation as a starting point rather than as RAW graven in stone. As long as the mechanics, themselves, aren't tightly coupled to the explanation/origin of psionics, there wouldn't be a problem. You could change 'triggered by Far Realms incursions in the distant past' to 'developed by mystic sages in the distant past,' or 'mysterious inborn powers that just arise in individuals for no discernible reason' anything else you wanted it. </p><p></p><p>And, even if rules are tightly coupled to concept, the DM is still free to change them, and couple them to some alternate concept.</p><p></p><p></p><p> That's a very substantial change. From no casting at all to casting is much more dramatic than from, say, casting because one of your distant ancestors was a dragon, to casting because some of your distant ancestors fought off an incursion from the Far Realms. And, isn't the 'nature' of Draconic vs Chaos sorcerers' magic already different, anyway? </p><p></p><p> I is assuming the 'psionics is magic' approach, at least mechanically. That's not a bad thing. It keeps the game simpler and reduces the sheer amount of redundant new material that'd be required to bring psionics to 5e. </p><p></p><p>That economy of design and page count from leveraging existing magic systems is why it seems like something WotC might go for, 5e development seems to have been leaning that way, so far.</p><p></p><p> Mechanical differentiation and flavor are separable. The Dragon and Chaos sorcerers have different flavors even though they're sub-classes, for instance. A Psionic sorcerer sub-class would, as well. </p><p></p><p>Not that I'm in any way against Psionics getting it's own magic sub-system and full class or set of classes. If a whole book were devoted to it, that'd be a perfectly reasonable way to go, and very exciting for fans of Psionics, I'm sure. </p><p>But even a sub-class or few would be more than we have now, and new 'splat' books don't seem to be something we can expect right away...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7673242, member: 996"] That's easy to achieve, given 5e's presentation as a starting point rather than as RAW graven in stone. As long as the mechanics, themselves, aren't tightly coupled to the explanation/origin of psionics, there wouldn't be a problem. You could change 'triggered by Far Realms incursions in the distant past' to 'developed by mystic sages in the distant past,' or 'mysterious inborn powers that just arise in individuals for no discernible reason' anything else you wanted it. And, even if rules are tightly coupled to concept, the DM is still free to change them, and couple them to some alternate concept. That's a very substantial change. From no casting at all to casting is much more dramatic than from, say, casting because one of your distant ancestors was a dragon, to casting because some of your distant ancestors fought off an incursion from the Far Realms. And, isn't the 'nature' of Draconic vs Chaos sorcerers' magic already different, anyway? I is assuming the 'psionics is magic' approach, at least mechanically. That's not a bad thing. It keeps the game simpler and reduces the sheer amount of redundant new material that'd be required to bring psionics to 5e. That economy of design and page count from leveraging existing magic systems is why it seems like something WotC might go for, 5e development seems to have been leaning that way, so far. Mechanical differentiation and flavor are separable. The Dragon and Chaos sorcerers have different flavors even though they're sub-classes, for instance. A Psionic sorcerer sub-class would, as well. Not that I'm in any way against Psionics getting it's own magic sub-system and full class or set of classes. If a whole book were devoted to it, that'd be a perfectly reasonable way to go, and very exciting for fans of Psionics, I'm sure. But even a sub-class or few would be more than we have now, and new 'splat' books don't seem to be something we can expect right away... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls on D&D Psionics: Should Psionic Flavor Be Altered?
Top