Psionics - core or not?

[SensoryThought]

With all the modules there is a limited amount that 5e can include in the core first release. What so you all think of psionics?

They go back to AD&D where you could roll for talents and really got pushed in terms of flavor in 2e dark sun. So they have a long history with D&D. But they are also often added in subsequent post release expansions.

Personally though, I tend to omit psionics entirely from my games as they often gel poorly with my fantasy game worlds. I would definitely not miss them if removed.

Topic question: psionics - take them or leave them?

 

[Yora]

I really like the mechanic of 3.5e and often use psions in place of wizards and clerics with a few custom powers. But so far, nobody was ever really able what the difference between a psion and a sorcerer is, except that psions shave their heads and stare very intensely.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

A thousand times, no.

Psionics are what expansion modules are made for.

 

[Oni]

People always complain about them how unbalanced psionics are, put them in the main book so they get properly playtested, make sure the properly mesh with the rest of the rules. People complain they fell tacked on? The reason for that may well be because in the past that's what they were, always just tacked on. Besides, new edition means its time to roll out a new class for the core, psionics has a long history, it's time for it to get the nod. It's a good way to show, right in the core, that there is more than one way to do fantasy. It helps to define other spellcasters by being something they're not, take those mental powers and slide them over to the psion and at the same time give more structure and focus to wizards and sorcerers and the like. I frankly can't think of any compelling reason not to. I say bring it on.

 

[gweinel]

core

I vote for core. I think the reason that they are so unbalanced is because the don't get attuned with the other core classes. Also, although they are #1 class that we are looking of, always was one of our favorites. They are more popular than many core classes.

 

[Mattachine]

I love psionics: in my homebrew setting, Under A False Sky, it is the default magic system. I also like Dark Sun.

Still, I don't think it should be core. It really is an alternative magic system. Though there are fantasy literature examples, it is unusual enough to stand as a module.

 

[Minigiant]

Not Core unless they do one thing they they wont do: give psionics a magical niche (AKA remove telepathy, telekinesis, and mind control form divine and arcane).

BUT

Psionics MUST be designed at the same time as core magic. It MUST or psionics will be unbalanced, boring, or misunderstood once again.

 

[Thanee]

Yep. Psionics, right now, are completely superfluous. It's just magic with some different flavor.

Unless they really add something new and not just take the same stuff that already exists and alter it slightly, adding them on top of arcane/divine magic just burdens the core rules unnecessarily. Even if they do, it might be too much.

And removing arcane or divine magic instead, obviously, is no option at all.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Aeolius]

5e needs to establish a framework for alternative "magics" into which psionics, incarnum, warlocks, witches, binders and the like can be grouped. The crunch should be similar, to allow for seamless integration into digital assistants, but the fluff would be different for all.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'd say not in core. Frankly I don't think they have a place in magical fantasy, it is a sci-fi trope. In a fantasy game they are just spell casters with a different backstory IMO.