The psionic classes and psionics in general weren't invented to cover folklore archetypes. The origin of psionics is actually AD&D 2e's attempt to embody the sorcerer-kings presented in the Darksun novels (hardly worthy to be categorized as folklore).
I'm not sure about the assertion that the psionics weren't invented to cover folk lore archetypes. Psionics has been a part of Dungeons and Dragons since, at least, 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (covered in both the AD&D Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide), including mindflayers (AD&D Monster Manual) and githyanki (see AD&D Fiend Folio). And, a number of devils and demons had psionics, well before Dark Sun came along. Actually, the fact that the demons and devils had psionics in 1E proves that psionics were invented to cover powers from folklore.
With 3.5e's RAW plus the "complete" series and a handfull of inginuitive spells, you could do that easiy without ever requiring the invention of psionics.
True, but the psionics system presented in 3.5 seems like a decent system, to me (I'm not a fan of the crystals and such, but I still like the overall system).
In my system there are no psionics/meldshaping/vestige-binding/shadowmagic/truenaming/etc. I find no reason for so many categories of different mechanics when all the different means of wielding magic can be explained using 6 base classes: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Mage, Sorcerer and Witch. And they all wield the same forces - only with slightly differet attitudes. Everything else is just a combination of the above or stretching the boundaries just a bit further.
Fair enough. Ultimately, it's your decision. I think the various systems of magic are refreshing to use from time to time.
You really should read entry #3 for a more detailed description of how I view magic.
Just read it and it's clear, to me, that we approach the game from different paradigms. I like Vancian magic. There's a lot of flavor to it, especially if you accept the idea that prepared casters are precasting the majority of the spell. The memory of the spell is wiped from their mind as a side effect of releasing the spell. That's why it works contrary to how you understand memory to work (Gygax explains why this is in the AD&D DMG and suggests reading Jack Vance's Dying Earth books and other works for more info). As to 3.5 casters being able to prepare all their spells in about an hour? That probably has to do with the changes that occurred in the default cosmology related to Vecna's (Vance misspelled) rise to godhood from 2nd to 3rd edtion. But, that's only my conclusion based on incomplete information. But, all that doesn't really have to effect how magic works in your own game. But, I find it interesting.
The gish archetype is covered by the Spellblade PrC and the Bladesinger Bard variant (entry #9, Appendix C, 1st spoiler) Don't forget to go over the PrCs. There is the Eldritch Weaver that combins the eldritch with the arcane.
OK. I don't use prestige classes, at this point. And, I don't think that the gish archetype should be reserved for a prestige class. It should, at least, be fairly common among low level elves, for example. At least, as I see things. But, I don't believe in a lot of high level characters in a campaign setting. For me,
Aragorn, and Conan were about 5th or 6th level, at most. Gandalf may have been anywhere from 5th to 10th level. So, prestige classes don't make a lot of sense, to me.
As for the Erdritch-Divine combo..... never got to it and never came up with an archetype that required one.
Anyway, there's nothing to stop you from inventing one yourself. 18 PrC examples should be more than enough as a reference to the scope of abilities it should be expected to encompass.
I wouldn't do it as a prestige class. I don't think it would be hard to do as a base class. Already have something in mind, actually.
Again, thanks for sharing your house rules. They're not the flavour that I'd choose, but some of the ideas are interesting.
