Psionics - core or not?

[Minigiant]

I also supposed that psionics powers were in fact specialized on mind-affecting stuff (targetting both enemies, friends, and self) and were the best at that. It is also however possible for them not to be the best but just on par, if psions are intended to replace wizards and sorcerers in some settings rather than coexist.

That is part of my point.

Psions that replace wizards and clerics should not be core. Replacements and alternates are for modules.

Psions that serve a different purpose that clerics and wizards do not fill could be core. Completely unique archetypes are allowed in core.

Mind wizards, no.
Super psychics, okay.

 

[Savage Wombat]

The problem with a "psionics supplement" as I see it is likely WotC's point of view - low sales.

A book that's exclusively for psionics-users only gets purchased by people who want it in their games. I suspect they want to put out modules in books that will sell better than that.

No, I'm not sure how they'll handle that.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think that there's a conspicuously large divide between "what psionics is to its fans" and "what official published rules exist for psionics".

The 3.X psion is pretty much a spell-point mage, but the 2e psionicist or the 3.X 3rd party psychic are not.

I certainly wouldn't advocate a return of the XPH. It's balanced, but it's boring.

Oh I know that it was designed at the same time. But it did not seem to be designed with arcane and divine magic. Psionics is an alternate system with no purpose. It's different just to be. One could make an illusionist with telepathy, telekinesis and mind control spells and copy to purpose of a psion.

For example divine casters have the best healing and evil creature control but lacks the raw damage and rule bending. Arcane caster excel at blasting and rule/reality bending but has fewer healers and an armor limitation. Psionics needs to have a clear strength and weakness alongside other casters. This goes for primal casters if the druid is moved to its own type of magic.

I think this misses the point. The difference between magic and psionics is not that the effects shouldn't overlap. The difference is in how the effects are generated.

A psion should be able to do anything he can think of, if he's powerful enough. Magic is more limited in scope; you have to learn a spell, and possibly even prepare it in advance. A psion should be able to use his powers anytime he is conscious, a spellcaster draws from some arbitrary mystical reserve that runs out quickly. Spellcasters often have to study magic, or bargian for it, or pray for it, while a psion's power is strictly from himself. These are substantial differences; such that a sorcerer's fireball and a ball of flame created by a pyro should both deal the same damage, but should have very different mechanics behind their use.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't really care much for psions, they're basically psychic versions of the base 5 classes, so being in supplementary material would be fine. Now, if they can produce a psion who isn't just a Psylocke wanna-be or a clone of a base class, that could be included in core.

 

[mach1.9pants]

100% NOT core. DnDNext looks like having a very small and pure core (to allow older edition emulation) and having psionics in as core would be ridiculous. It something I have not used in 30 yrs of gaming until 4E, in which psionics is no dif to any other magicy power source. It will be out there as an add on module (like minis, attacks of opportunity, 3e style skills, etc etc) so that is all it needs.

 

[BobTheNob]

I was going to say non-core, then I read the posts, and the people who said core convinced me!

Psionics has, in every edition, been an after-thought. They have always been published after and outside of initial core source, and I cant help but feel that if they broke that pattern and made psionics core, it would get more of the love it needs both from designers and fan base.

I do like psionics, I really do, and feel it can be part of a good fantasy setting. I disagree that its "sci-fi" and think there is alot of room in a fantasy setting for it.

To those that dont like psionics, leave it out of your game.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

While I would definitely like it if psions appeared in the 1st PHB, I think that there should be Monks as the the initial and primary source of psionics first. Followed by wild talents, since that was in the core in 1e, and the goal here is to unite the editions.

Whether or not the Psion appears in the PHB1 or Psionics handbook, would be the next question. Though if wild talents are in the original core, then it can serve as a preview for later.

Without a doubt Battleminds/Psychic Warriors and Ardents and Soulknives should always be in a follow-up expansion.

 

[Minigiant]

I think that there's a conspicuously large divide between "what psionics is to its fans" and "what official published rules exist for psionics".

The 3.X psion is pretty much a spell-point mage, but the 2e psionicist or the 3.X 3rd party psychic are not.

I certainly wouldn't advocate a return of the XPH. It's balanced, but it's boring.

I think this misses the point. The difference between magic and psionics is not that the effects shouldn't overlap. The difference is in how the effects are generated.

A psion should be able to do anything he can think of, if he's powerful enough. Magic is more limited in scope; you have to learn a spell, and possibly even prepare it in advance. A psion should be able to use his powers anytime he is conscious, a spellcaster draws from some arbitrary mystical reserve that runs out quickly. Spellcasters often have to study magic, or bargian for it, or pray for it, while a psion's power is strictly from himself. These are substantial differences; such that a sorcerer's fireball and a ball of flame created by a pyro should both deal the same damage, but should have very different mechanics behind their use.

This is my point.
The 3.5 "spell point mage" psion should not be core. Such a class is an alternate of an existing archetypical class, the wizard, and this class already has an alternate version, the sorcerer. A 3.5 style psion would be redundant and therefore should not be core.

The 2e style psionicist could maybe be different enough to to be placed in core if it is done right.

Core can't have too many redundant classes. This is why I hope the ranger, assassin, and paladin all get something that really differentiates them form the fighter and rogue.

 

[Steely_Dan]

It seems Psionics is a bit damned either way, if it's included in Basic/Core, that might not go down so well (and looking at that poll...), but if they add it later, it might have the tacked on thing it's always been a bit cursed with.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

One thing though I'm against was what they had in 3.5 with there being both a spell called Charm Person, and a Psionic power called Charm Person, Psionic.

For the next edition they should just have one Charm Person, one Dimension Door, one Dominate Person and so on, if the Psion was meant to get such a powers. There should still be powers/spells that are unique to Wizards and to Psions, but there should be less of them.