Should Psionics be part of the core in 4th edition?

[GeorgeFields]

Psionics ought to be in their own book simply because it takes far too much room to do the whole thing justice.

Agreed 100%

 

[frankthedm]

Sure, that is one way to spin it.

In most campaigns I've seen that allow both, magic is Magic... and psionics is too.

I am talking about the fictional sourse Psi powers hail from. Of course they can be balanced to work better in heroic fantasy game as opposed to sci fi fiction, but doing so does dillute it. It is like taking sci fi rifles that can blast holes through a spaceship's hull, if you balance them down to a 1d8 damage die, balance is acheived, but at the cost of theme.

Psionics have a different flavor than magic. If you change the flavor, it's no longer psionics, it's mind magic or mentalism. If that's the case, it should follow the same rules as magic--spell slots, schools, counterspelling, etc.

 

[Gargoyle]

I voted for an XPH like supplement, and would like to see it released as the fourth book. I like psionics, but do not consider it a part of the core.

That said, I wouldn't be against having some basic psionic rules in the DMG and MM as optional rules. When I run monsters like mind flayers, I prefer to use psionics. It would be nice to have some initial support for 3E psions in the DMG for that, and to give players something to use until the psionics book is done.

 

[Sejs]

There should be a brief section in the DMG about psionics, the basics of the system, etc in the same area where alternative magic mechanics are bundled. Then put out an XPH type book that expands on it and handles psionics on its own, in depth.

So not core as such, no. Mentioned as an option in the core, expanded upon elsewhere.

 

[Zaukrie]

I do agree with one thing that all of you NO people are saying: I don't know what the core is.

If the core is the introductory, basic material needed to play, then maybe not.

If core = it is an assumed part of the rule set, I say yes.

If core = only what can fit in 3 books, maybe not.

To me, core is anything that is assumed to be part of the game, and not some kind of add on, that does not necessarily mean it fits in three books. I'd like to see core start with a much smaller rule set, that can be expanded on as people see fit. The game is very complicated to start up - it isn't something you can just buy your average 13 year old and say "here, go find 4 friends and start playing" if they have no one teach them. It is just too much information to absorb.

 

[Psion]

I noted no. Psionics have a different flavor than magic. If you change the flavor, it's no longer psionics, it's mind magic or mentalism.

Just what is psionics then...

Anywhossier, I have yet to answer the poll because I don't know just what is meant by "part of the core."

I don't think Psionics is done justice by being stuffed in an appendix or given a similar slapdash treatment if you were to put it in the PHB. Past experience teaches us the folly of that.

But do I think it deserves to be an early supplement with lots of support frequently referenced in other books? Yup.

 

[Nyaricus]

CORE:
Player's Handbook: Classes/skills/feats/equipment
Dungeon Master's Guide: No need to change the outline of the current DMG, just update it to a new edition
Book of Magic: Include sections on arcane/divine/invocations/psionics. Each section is optional and the game can function without it (although creating magic items w/o arcane or divine magic might be tough....)

I don't really see any need to consider the monster books core. To me CORE should be the rules of the game and the character generation stuff. Let the monster books (cause we all know there'll be more than one) just be monster books.

Y'know, I tend to agree with you NLF. I mean, sure this doubles what players have to buy initially, but heck, it sure would be useful.

I mean, let's see what 3.xe Has taught us: that the PHBII was a better tool for RPing than the PHB itself, and boy oh boy, do I wish my players had read the PHBII first. With the above guidelines, you can make the core rulebook all about the roleplaying and the crunchy aspects of D&D, going over the basic stuff that one needs to know to play the game. Then, with the Magic Handbook (or what have you) you can check out all the spells, powers and systems that can change the gameplay. It would give enough room for a Spell Compendiums' worth of magic lore, and enough room for an extra few classes, a few more races and an expansion on Roleplaying advice adn guidelines in the PHB itself.

Heck man, I'm on board. Now, to see if they do something like this

cheers,
--N

 

[EricNoah]

I would say no. I love psionics, but I don't think they need to be in the core game.

That said... I would like to see either a) a better or more interesting distinction between divine and arcane magic (something both flavorful and mechanically different), to which then psionics becomes yet a third alternative, or b) forget the artificial distinction currently in place and just put all the spells in one big list and call it "magic", to which psionics becomes a second alternative.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Absolutely not. Wrong flavor and no need for an additional, separate mechanical system. I don't think they belong in the game at all.

But enough peoplelike them, so it doesn't bother me too much if there is a separate supplement. But keep it out of the core books. Why? because I consider core what any player should expect the game to contain -- and it would save me from arguments as to why I've banned a component of the core system in my campaigns.

 

[Zaukrie]

I agree with Eric on that. Magic either needs to feel more different, or just admit it is the same.