Are Psionic's now Core Rules?

[Ryltar]

The Sovelior_Sage SRD has monsters using the new XPH Psi-Like abilities. It's okay, I think, to regard Psionics as "core" as they have even appeared in recent WotC novels.

 

[Zappo]

They aren't core, because they, well, aren't. WotC decides what it's core, and that's the three books and no more.

I don't think they should be core, either. Psionics aren't too much entrenched in fantasy tradition. Now if they decided to file the serials off and call it a magic system, it might have a core place - that is, if slot-based magic wasn't a sacred cow. Besides, I like slot-based magic. Mana points feel like a videogame.

I like a minimal cross-referencing. Enough that noncore books have a bit of support, but not so much that you need those noncore books.

 

[Garnfellow]

Personally, I don't dig psionics. Never have, in any edition.

But I can also understand and respect that other people really do like psionics. In fact, I think a pretty persuasive argument can be made that a (the?) signature aspect of D&D is the very presence of such science fantasy elements as psionics.

I really like the way 3e has handled psionics so far -- a modular, non-intrusive approach. People that want to drink the Kool-Aid can buy the Psionics Handbook.

 

[Henry]

Don't necessarily care, because the rules are pretty smooth, but no, they aren't core in a strict sense; what they are, right now, is fun for people to play with and use, and that's what's happening. The XPH fixed the most egregious power-problems of the 3.0 Psionics Handbook, and coupled with the release of Eberron it's getting people's mindshare at the moment. Ask again in one year if it's "Core" and see what the answer is to determine the truth.

 

[diaglo]

My hat of psionics know no limit.

but how are we gonna run into the gith revolution without psionics?

 

[Henry]

but how are we gonna run into the gith revolution without psionics?

Spell-like abilities, duh!

 

[Psion]

If you ask me, they have done too much to make it optional. To wit, making Gith and Mind Flayers with "non-psionic" versions. Bleh. What's up with that? It's like.. caffeine free Mountain Dew... it totally misses the point.

 

[diaglo]

If you ask me, they have done too much to make it optional. To wit, making Gith and Mind Flayers with "non-psionic" versions. Bleh. What's up with that? It's like.. caffeine free Mountain Dew... it totally misses the point.

or it is like d02.... my hat of which know no limits.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

Psionics has never been done right in all editions prior to 3E. It was done so poorly that I could care less if the standard psionic problems were fixed in 3E.

I hate it with a passion.

Psionics, as far as I'm concerned, removes the fantasy aspect of a good game in the same manner that an arquebus does.

When I run a game, I outlaw it.
If I play in a game that has a psionic character, I play a chaotic neutral ranger who specializes in dual-wielding tire irons with a history of mental problems and hatreds with psionicists.

Usually the only protection from psionics is psionics. Hence the need for tire irons and a quote from my character:
"Do you know that when a skull gets crushed it really does sound like an eggshell cracking?"

 

[Henry]

What's up with that? It's like.. caffeine free Mountain Dew... it totally misses the point.

I blame Canada.

In one sense, I'm glad it's not core; in another sense, I like the idea of a third "type" of magic, because the concept of triangles in fantasy always interests me more than dualities. That's why I liked Weis & Hickman's Dragonlance take on alignments, too, and how they fit into that world. Eberron's inclusion of Psionics and a "dream world" where important things go on really jives well with me, even if such were to become a core concept.