What's Today on Mike Mearl's Twitter Feed?

From Twitter:
@tbok1992 Any chance in hell of Warforged and Thri-Keen becoming core races?
@mikemearls It's best to think of "core" as elf, dwarf, halfling, ftr, wiz, clr, rog. Rest is for group/DM/campaign setting to add as needed.
@mikemearls That said, we'll develop both since people converting Eberron and Dark Sun campaigns will need them.


@tbok1992 Also, any chance of a brand new setting for D&D Next?
@mikemearls Probably not early on for a new setting.

 
@SethdeReus I know it is still early days for DnDNext, but are psionics intended to be part of the core rules?
@mikemearls Likely build them along with core, but present them as an option for DMs.

Discuss

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

What's a Tweeter?
Good news for 'Forges and 'Kreens, and adept of the True Way!

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

DOES THAT MEAN HUMANS AREN'T CORE UUHUHUHUHUHUHUHUHUHUHUHUH.

I'm glad they have an initiative to revitalize some campaign settings that haven't had much attention as of late. Not that I've ever played in any of them, but still.  
What's a Tweeter?


Gosh and now i can't edit the title    

Thanks for pointing out Hocus. I will warm a bro :P

EDIT Title was changed, Thanks Monkey!  

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

You can always ask an ORC to do it...
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
DOES THAT MEAN HUMANS AREN'T CORE UUHUHUHUHUHUHUHUHUHUHUHUH.

I'm glad they have an initiative to revitalize some campaign settings that haven't had much attention as of late. Not that I've ever played in any of them, but still.  

Yes, you beat me too it, I was going to write some fake diatribe about how it's official, humans are a modular optional add on, and we can ignore them being overpowered now since they are just a module. :P
Psionics (apparently) in the first round of books?  That is interesting.
What's a Tweeter?



I have no clue. I've always called those people that use twitter "twits" or "twit" for singular. Twitter is basically an app that you type your thoughts into and people that are subscribed to your feed get texted the thoughts you type.

Its like facebook, but less useful...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Making psionic “optional” is the same thing as making it redundant. The inability to integrate psionic into the normal gaming mechanics persists to be a problem.

I feel the key to making psionic work is, “innate magic” is - by definition - psionic.
Making psionic “optional” is the same thing as making it redundant. The inability to integrate psionic into the normal gaming mechanics persists to be a problem.

I feel the key to making psionic work is, “innate magic” is - by definition - psionic.


By your definition, which is not the same one as many of the fans of psionics.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Making psionic “optional” is the same thing as making it redundant. The inability to integrate psionic into the normal gaming mechanics persists to be a problem.


I'm not sure I follow.  In what way are we unable to integrate psionics into normal games in 3E or 4E?
Making psionic “optional” is the same thing as making it redundant. The inability to integrate psionic into the normal gaming mechanics persists to be a problem.

I feel the key to making psionic work is, “innate magic” is - by definition - psionic.


By your definition, which is not the same one as many of the fans of psionics.



By the definition of Gary Gygax.

Psionic is “internal”. The whole point of originally having no psionic classes, is psionic is innate and cannot be learned.

Arcane is “external”. Non-innate. And requires research. According to Gygax.
Psionic can still use normal D&D mechanics, such as a psionic class. Psionic magic is innate, having a strong psyche-soul (mindforce-lifeforce, spirit-aura) is like having strong muscles. But it is still necessary to exercise these strengths, and train in techniques.



The problem with psionic is, arcane magic already does everything that psionic magic does, making psionic “options” redundant in the game. At first I felt the solution is to define every magical mental effect as psionic, so delusions and illusions are, by definition, psionic telepathic magic. And theres some truth to this.

The problem is psionic telekinesis. The innate ability to manipulate matter with the mind, removes all differences with arcane effects. Elemental pyromancy achieves the same effects as telekinetic pyrokinesis. Both are a kind of “fire bending”.

In reallife folkbelief, psionic magic (the power of the mind) can effect everything from flying to passing thru stone, to spontaneous healing, to making plants grow, to werewolf shapechanging. So, physical and vital magic are just as psionic as mental magic.



Ultimately, the only difference between the arcane magic of protoscientific universal forces and the psionic magic of ones own psyche-soul, is their source respectively. Arcane is external and artificial. Psionic is internal and innate.

Perhaps, it is possible to come up with different mechanics to express the flavors of these respective sources. For example, the spellbook works well for the external arcane protoscientific source.
The real issue is:  Is psionics 'magic' and thus subject to effects which block or enhance magic OR is psionics not-magic, in which case it sidesteps that which would affect magic?


Carl
The problem with psionic is, arcane magic already does everything that psionic magic does, making psionic “options” redundant in the game.

Arcane magic does everything that everyone does. Except heal. So far (this edition). Without any limits on its design space, it always ends up poaching everyone's stuff. Granted, it doesn't always poach everything from the first book, but within a few supplements it tends to take over.

In reallife folkbelief, psionic magic (the power of the mind) can effect everything from flying to passing thru stone, to spontaneous healing, to making plants grow, to werewolf shapechanging. So, physical and vital magic are just as psionic as mental magic.

If psionics can do everything that arcane magic can do, then how are they different in any way?  Why not just give them the exact same rules, with a side-note that you can fluff it either way?

My vote is to take the iconic psionic abilities (ESP, telekinesis) and remove them from the wizard so that the psion has a reason to exist.  Even with just those two schools, you can get a lot of mileage out of it.

The metagame is not the game.

Psionic as an alternative to divine would be good enough for me.

Clerics would go "burn the witch" on them, and I could happily hate and kill clerics. 
In reallife folkbelief, psionic magic (the power of the mind) can effect everything from flying to passing thru stone, to spontaneous healing, to making plants grow, to werewolf shapechanging. So, physical and vital magic are just as psionic as mental magic.

If psionics can do everything that arcane magic can do, then how are they different in any way?  Why not just give them the exact same rules, with a side-note that you can fluff it either way?

My vote is to take the iconic psionic abilities (ESP, telekinesis) and remove them from the wizard so that the psion has a reason to exist.  Even with just those two schools, you can get a lot of mileage out of it.




My first reaction to your suggestion was, If Arcane casters don't have Mage Hand/Telekinesis I won't play them. But I think this exactly the point, the presence or lack of something as basic as telekinesis can drastically change how a class feels and interacts with their surroundings.

Making certain things exclusive to Psionic classes would certainly make them a distinct class set apart from arcan casters.

Maybe give them (exclusively) Telekinesis, Mind Altering abilites (Mind Control, Suggestion, etc.), Precognition, etc.

I think Arcance can still have illusion, but maybe cut back on the spells that mimic Mind Altering abilites like Fear.



Also I think the use of Psionic Focus could be a good way to distiguish them from Arcane casters. It is a pseudo encounter power resource that the other point based casters (currently Sorcerers) don't have.

Also I think that if they worked on the concept of Psicrystals, and made it so they are not just familiars of Psions, that would be interesting. Make it a class feature and part of their mechanical distinction.

I certainly think there is room for some Psionics in the core. 
Also I think the use of Psionic Focus could be a good way to distiguish them from Arcane casters. It is a pseudo encounter power resource that the other point based casters (currently Sorcerers) don't have.


If sorcerers use points, I expect that psions will use something else.

Which is a bit weird, since power points have been a defining feature of psionics for a long time now.  But it'd also be weird if a sorcerer played more like a psion than a wizard.
Also I think the use of Psionic Focus could be a good way to distiguish them from Arcane casters. It is a pseudo encounter power resource that the other point based casters (currently Sorcerers) don't have.


If sorcerers use points, I expect that psions will use something else.

Which is a bit weird, since power points have been a defining feature of psionics for a long time now.  But it'd also be weird if a sorcerer played more like a psion than a wizard.



Power Points recent after a short rest in 4E. They don't have to be a daily resource like the Sorc's spellpoints. But then it would be similar to Warlock favors.

In the end power points can still work, but they won't b the defining feature of the Psion.  Resources that refresh every round/encounter/day already exist (Fighter/Warlock/Sorcerer). The Psion can still use power points, they just need something else the sets them apart mechanically. I think giving them exculsive rights to kinds of abilities already listed, plus giving Psionic Focus and Psicystals a larger role would make them feel distinct enough (IMO) to be in the core.
Or just make it a Tradition for the Wizard or a Heritage for the Sorceror.  Psion's are fun, but really aren't that distinctive when used in game.
Or just make it a Tradition for the Wizard or a Heritage for the Sorceror.  Psion's are fun, but really aren't that distinctive when used in game.



The basis (read: fluff) for the Psion is that they don't cast spells from an external source, but manifest their own inner power. Making them Arcane isn't really and option.

And I think that there is enough design space to make them a distinctive class. That's what my posts have been about. Kind of just brainstorming how to make a Psion fit, because I know plenty of people want it in the core.
That's pretty much the sorcerors schtick as well, so...
That's pretty much the sorcerors schtick as well, so...



Disagree. All arcane magic comes from an external source. Sorcerer has an innate ability to summon those powers, but the powers are still external.
Well, that's your take on the Sorceror then, not mine.  The power to manipulate External factors by use of an Internal means, whether that's the Sorceror or Psion, seems the same to me.
Well, that's your take on the Sorceror then, not mine.  The power to manipulate External factors by use of an Internal means, whether that's the Sorceror or Psion, seems the same to me.



I think of it as the Sorcerer's Spells are an external force that they manipulate with their own internal power. While the Psion's powers are an external manifestation of their internal power.

I know it is a vague distinction but it is still there. Think of the Psion's powers as an extension of himself. 


The main point of my initial statement about their power source is that, themeatically, Psions don't work as a Wizard or Sorcerer build (or any other Arcane caster).


Again, I think that there is enough design space to make them their own distinctive class.
Write the powers for telekinesis, clairvoyance, telepathy.

Under the wizard description write "Through years of dedicated study you have mastered the formulas that let you manipulate the weave of magic to cause these effects."

Under the Sorceror description write "Using the power innate in your bloodline, you can manipulate the weave of magic to cause these effects."

Under the Psion description write "Using the secret mysteries of your mind you can generate psionic power to cause these effects." 

I see no reason this can't work UNLESS your conception of psionics is based, not on "It should be able to do X", but instead on "It's not important what psionics do; it's only important that it does something different than magic."

Someone tell me what I'm missing.
Write the powers for telekinesis, clairvoyance, telepathy.

Under the wizard description write "Through years of dedicated study you have mastered the formulas that let you manipulate the weave of magic to cause these effects."

Under the Sorceror description write "Using the power innate in your bloodline, you can manipulate the weave of magic to cause these effects."

Under the Psion description write "Using the secret mysteries of your mind you can generate psionic power to cause these effects." 

I see no reason this can't work UNLESS your conception of psionics is based, not on "It should be able to do X", but instead on "It's not important what psionics do; it's only important that it does something different than magic."

Someone tell me what I'm missing.



I don't think that anyone wants them to be different just for the sake of being different. It is just that they need to be different enough to warrant being a seperate core class.

Write the powers for telekinesis, clairvoyance, telepathy.

Under the wizard description write "Through years of dedicated study you have mastered the formulas that let you manipulate the weave of magic to cause these effects."

Under the Sorceror description write "Using the power innate in your bloodline, you can manipulate the weave of magic to cause these effects."

Under the Psion description write "Using the secret mysteries of your mind you can generate psionic power to cause these effects." 

I see no reason this can't work UNLESS your conception of psionics is based, not on "It should be able to do X", but instead on "It's not important what psionics do; it's only important that it does something different than magic."

Someone tell me what I'm missing.

Look up thread where people are asking why we need a Psion class when we have the Sorcerer. While different flavor requires different classes due to the flavor-locked nature of classes in D&D, needing different flavor isn't sufficient reason to create a new class (though it is sufficient reason to desire a different class). You wouldn't take the Fighter class, copy over all the mechanics, change the flavor, and call it a Samurai. Each class has a mechanical niche, and a new class needs its own mechanical niche as well as its own flavor niche to justify its existence.

While I'm sure there are many people who wouldn't mind playing a "Wizard in Psion drag," there are also people want a Psion to feel different in play from a Wizard, and that requires both a flavor difference and a mechanical difference to convey that feel.

Write the powers for telekinesis, clairvoyance, telepathy.

Under the wizard description write "Through years of dedicated study you have mastered the formulas that let you manipulate the weave of magic to cause these effects."

Under the Sorceror description write "Using the power innate in your bloodline, you can manipulate the weave of magic to cause these effects."

Under the Psion description write "Using the secret mysteries of your mind you can generate psionic power to cause these effects." 

I see no reason this can't work UNLESS your conception of psionics is based, not on "It should be able to do X", but instead on "It's not important what psionics do; it's only important that it does something different than magic."

Someone tell me what I'm missing.

Look up thread where people are asking why we need a Psion class when we have the Sorcerer. While different flavor requires different classes due to the flavor-locked nature of classes in D&D, needing different flavor isn't sufficient reason to create a new class (though it is sufficient reason to desire a different class). You wouldn't take the Fighter class, copy over all the mechanics, change the flavor, and call it a Samurai. Each class has a mechanical niche, and a new class needs its own mechanical niche as well as its own flavor niche to justify its existence.

While I'm sure there are many people who wouldn't mind playing a "Wizard in Psion drag," there are also people want a Psion to feel different in play from a Wizard, and that requires both a flavor difference and a mechanical difference to convey that feel.




Exactly. And since Psion's mechanical difference can no longer be their Power Points or Augmenting (Sorcerers will probably have both of these), maybe their mechanical difference should be focusing their powers around the Telekinesis/Mind-based powers and concentrating their features around Psionic Focus and maybe Psicrystal.

While I'm sure there are many people who wouldn't mind playing a "Wizard in Psion drag," there are also people want a Psion to feel different in play from a Wizard, and that requires both a flavor difference and a mechanical difference to convey that feel.

I'm going out on a limb with this one, but I still think it's enough of a mechanical difference if the psion is a wizard who casts telekinesis/ESP/precognition spells, on the condition that the wizard can't cast those spells.  Likewise, there's nothing that says a cleric needs to cast spells in a different manner than the wizard; it should be enough that she casts different spells.

All of these needlessly different mechanics for the sake of difference merely detract from the core of the game.

(Not that it needs to be Vancian-style, of course.  They should just pick something and stick with it.  My preference would be the old sorcerer-style.)

The metagame is not the game.

I'm going out on a limb with this one, but I still think it's enough of a mechanical difference if the psion is a wizard who casts telekinesis/ESP/precognition spells, on the condition that the wizard can't cast those spells.  Likewise, there's nothing that says a cleric needs to cast spells in a different manner than the wizard; it should be enough that she casts different spells.

All of these needlessly different mechanics for the sake of difference merely detract from the core of the game.

(Not that it needs to be Vancian-style, of course.  They should just pick something and stick with it.  My preference would be the old sorcerer-style.)


Agreed, especially on the point of needlessly different mechanics. I was simply explaining that it's not necessarily enough to just take the wizard and change a couple of sentences of fluff. The cleric has the same casting mechanics as the wizard, but has a different array of spells and class features to differentiate them. I would have no problem with the psion using the same casting mechanic as the sorcerer (i.e. spell points and spells known), but with a different array of powers and associated class features.
I just don't see the need to make a Psion class, it doesn't have anything that really separates it from functioning as Sorceror or Wizard.  3Ed's only real difference was how power points worked.   That was it, and the Fluff.  Otherwise, within the party, they functioned in the same manner as any other Caster.  Most of the time Psionics ended up being treated as Magic in game anyways.

As far as definitions go, I could argue that Mages uses their Will (Internal) to impose un-natural effects on their surroundings (External).  Wizards study how to channel their will, Sorcerors innately know how to do so.  Still not seing how thats different from a Psion.

Then again, I don't see a need for a Barbarian class.  And I'd be okay with Cleric being a tradition of a broader Mage class.  Less classes, more (and expanded beyond skills and feats) Specialties and Backgrounds. 
I'm going out on a limb with this one, but I still think it's enough of a mechanical difference if the psion is a wizard who casts telekinesis/ESP/precognition spells, on the condition that the wizard can't cast those spells.  Likewise, there's nothing that says a cleric needs to cast spells in a different manner than the wizard; it should be enough that she casts different spells.

All of these needlessly different mechanics for the sake of difference merely detract from the core of the game.

(Not that it needs to be Vancian-style, of course.  They should just pick something and stick with it.  My preference would be the old sorcerer-style.)


Agreed, especially on the point of needlessly different mechanics. I was simply explaining that it's not necessarily enough to just take the wizard and change a couple of sentences of fluff. The cleric has the same casting mechanics as the wizard, but has a different array of spells and class features to differentiate them. I would have no problem with the psion using the same casting mechanic as the sorcerer (i.e. spell points and spells known), but with a different array of powers and associated class features.



I am fine with a Psion who uses Power Points to cast Telekinesis/Mind-based powers. And if we are just cloning the Wizard but with Power Points, i'd say use the Sorcerer's spells known number. And in order to flesh it out a little more, drop the Spellbook and Arcane Knowledge features and maybe add some Psiony features like Psionic Focus, or just give them light armor and/or d6 Hit Die.

Also I think the use of Psionic Focus could be a good way to distiguish them from Arcane casters. It is a pseudo encounter power resource that the other point based casters (currently Sorcerers) don't have.


If sorcerers use points, I expect that psions will use something else.

Which is a bit weird, since power points have been a defining feature of psionics for a long time now.  But it'd also be weird if a sorcerer played more like a psion than a wizard.

It seems to me, the “Sorcerer” is the same thing as a Psion.

At least, there are no meaningful differences between them, as far as I can tell. Unless the Sorcerer is more like a Psywar.  

I just don't see the need to make a Psion class, it doesn't have anything that really separates it from functioning as Sorceror or Wizard.  3Ed's only real difference was how power points worked.   That was it, and the Fluff.  Otherwise, within the party, they functioned in the same manner as any other Caster.  Most of the time Psionics ended up being treated as Magic in game anyways.

As far as definitions go, I could argue that Mages uses their Will (Internal) to impose un-natural effects on their surroundings (External).  Wizards study how to channel their will, Sorcerors innately know how to do so.  Still not seing how thats different from a Psion.

Then again, I don't see a need for a Barbarian class.  And I'd be okay with Cleric being a tradition of a broader Mage class.  Less classes, more (and expanded beyond skills and feats) Specialties and Backgrounds. 

Personally, I agree, except they should delete the Sorcerer and rename it the Psion.

A Psion (or “Scion") with different heritages makes sense to me.



Alternatively, each Wizard Specialist *Tradition* could be “Psionic”, where the mindforce of the individual Wizard has innate special affinity with certain kinds of magic. And, it is this psionic magic that allows the Wizard to recast the spell multiple times.

   
I just don't see the need to make a Psion class, it doesn't have anything that really separates it from functioning as Sorceror or Wizard.  3Ed's only real difference was how power points worked.   That was it, and the Fluff.  Otherwise, within the party, they functioned in the same manner as any other Caster.  Most of the time Psionics ended up being treated as Magic in game anyways.

As far as definitions go, I could argue that Mages uses their Will (Internal) to impose un-natural effects on their surroundings (External).  Wizards study how to channel their will, Sorcerors innately know how to do so.  Still not seing how thats different from a Psion.



If you don't see the difference that is your own shortcoming. In 3E, there is certainly a larger seperation between Psion and Wizard that there is between Sorcerer and Wizard, both in fluff and mechanics.

It seems to me, the “Sorcerer” is the same thing as a Psion.

At least, there are no meaningful differences between them, as far as I can tell. Unless the Sorcerer is more like a Psywar.  



There are certainly meaningful differences between them even if they are only the type of spells that they cast. The Cleric clearly shows that differenct type of spells is different enough to warrent a seperate class.

I just don't see the need to make a Psion class, it doesn't have anything that really separates it from functioning as Sorceror or Wizard.  3Ed's only real difference was how power points worked.   That was it, and the Fluff.  Otherwise, within the party, they functioned in the same manner as any other Caster.  Most of the time Psionics ended up being treated as Magic in game anyways.

As far as definitions go, I could argue that Mages uses their Will (Internal) to impose un-natural effects on their surroundings (External).  Wizards study how to channel their will, Sorcerors innately know how to do so.  Still not seing how thats different from a Psion.

Then again, I don't see a need for a Barbarian class.  And I'd be okay with Cleric being a tradition of a broader Mage class.  Less classes, more (and expanded beyond skills and feats) Specialties and Backgrounds. 

Personally, I agree, except they should delete the Sorcerer and rename it the Psion.

A Psion (or “Scion") with different heritages makes sense to me.



Alternatively, each Wizard Specialist *Tradition* could be “Psionic”, where the mindforce of the individual Wizard has innate special affinity with certain kinds of magic. And, it is this psionic magic that allows the Wizard to recast the spell multiple times.

   


@Haldrik,
I am fully aware of your Pro-Psionics agenda (in this thread and many others). And while I can understand your preference for Psionics, I don't understand why you so adamantly insist on Psionics replacing Arcane Casting, specifically the Psion replacing the Sorcerer. You even suggest making the Wizard traditions Psionic. What do you have against Arcane casters? The only thing that I can think is that you think the Psion should be in the core and the Sorcerer is the only thing standing in its way. I am sorry if you feel like Psions are treated like second class citizens but that is no reason to encourage the Genocide of Sorcerer Class.

I think that it is possible to have Wizard, Sorcerer AND Psion in the core. I think that there is enough design space and they are each different enough, that they can each be their own class with distinct flavor and mechanics. I don;t understand why anyone would be against this.


For me, I don't mind a world with psionics.  But they do seem out of place in a world with magic as well.  I could take either one but don't find both very interesting.  

I don't see the issue though if it's a class.  As long as everyone gets their class whats the big deal?  I don't want everything that could possibly be psionic related taken away from the wizard.  Because in a world with wizards I might not have a psionicist.

 
It seems to me, the “Sorcerer” is the same thing as a Psion.

At least, there are no meaningful differences between them, as far as I can tell. Unless the Sorcerer is more like a Psywar.  



There are certainly meaningful differences between them even if they are only the type of spells that they cast. The Cleric clearly shows that differenct type of spells is different enough to warrent a seperate class.

LOL, instead of telling me, “There are certainly meaningful differences”, please tell me what they are! Because I honestly cant see any meaningful differences.

Even look at the Playtest Sorcerer. (Well, its magic seems awefully “external” and non-innate. There is some kind external “dragon spirit” who possesses this Sorcerer. That actually makes sense for what the English word “sorcery” means.) But, if the idea is, the dragon nature is truly an inborn part of the mage, except this part is alien to and incompatable with the human nature, so the two natures war within - then fine. The dragon nature comprises a powerful soul, a wild mindforce, a psionic entity. If the magic of dragons is innate because they are inherently magical beings - namely beings with inherently powerful psyches-souls, so dragon magic is actually psionic, and thats why they dont write spellbooks - then great. That works too.

It seems “innate” magic always makes most sense when it is the power of the mind doing it.