Would you like to see Psionics as core rules?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'd like to see the PsiH revised.
I don't think it should be in the Player's Handbook (no space), and I certainly don't want to see spell and power lists "integrated."

Besides, it won't be in the core books, and wishing won't make it so.

 

[Voneth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Worst Thing About Psionics in DD3E Is Its Lack of Support

It IS splitting hairs. I want fantasy like Tolkien, and Conan, and Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar -- and I just don't see psionics as part of those worlds.

YMMV.

And what does a Jack Vance "Spell Slot" magic system have to do with Tolkien, and Conan, and Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar compared to a spell point system? If you create the right powers for either system, you still get "fireballs" or "ESP."

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Only once the existing spell system is fully play tested, balanced and updated should wotc think of adding psionics. That and psionics should be easy to ignore.

 

[Voneth]

yes, because then they would have to include it in all new DND video games

LOL! this is probably the most logical reason why!

From what I understand, DnD PC games make a dumptruck's worth of money compared the the rpg market. (From what I am getting, Hasbro and Marvel Comics see thier properties in a similar light, the "flagship" product barely keeps the lights on and the licencing is what makes the real profit.) And I can see where adding psionic rules to the computer games wouldn't be worth the effort compared to the "easy money" of pretty pictures and the fine tuning of the source code that does 3e.

 

[kenjib]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Worst Thing About Psionics in DD3E Is Its Lack of Support

And what does a Jack Vance "Spell Slot" magic system have to do with Tolkien, and Conan, and Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar compared to a spell point system? If you create the right powers for either system, you still get "fireballs" or "ESP."

Okay, if they change the name "psionics" to something else, got rid of all the crystals and just used staves, talismans, and the like instead, changed lots of the spell names that are based on modern terminology (aka biofeedback) and said that the power was a diffuse inherent power like the sorcerer rather than a heightened consciousness/manifestation of ego, then sure, I'd be all for putting "psionics" in the core book. I think mana based is better than spell slots. Oh, wait though, that's not even psionics anymore, is it?

I don't think the question presented is whether a point based magic system should be in the core rules. It's whether something called "psionics" that uses lots of modern, non-medieval, imagery and terminology should be in the core rules. I find that words like "transmutation" and "glammer" are far more typical to fantasy than words like "pyrokineticist" and "psychometabolism." The details are important.

 

[zorlag]

I'd like it

I think integrating psionic system would take far less pages than most of you think.

"I play D&D for the medieval sword & sorcery fantasy feel. Inherent mental powers, as opposed to "arcane" powers, just aren't part of my conception of that genre. "

That's sort of funny, why do you let monsters have "spell-like" abilities in your games then? They are psionics. Think about it... So there is absolutely no reason to reject them on these basis. It's foolish fear of a simple term. If I changed psions name to sorcerer and put it in a PHB, would you play it?

Z.

 

[hong]

Re: I'd like it

It's foolish fear of a simple term. If I changed psions name to sorcerer and put it in a PHB, would you play it?

If you change the name from psionics to magic, then it's no longer psionics, is it?

Like kenjib said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a mana- or point-based system for wielding supernatural powers. It could easily be used as the basis for a magic system that does away with spell slots and spells per day. The point is that the underlying _concept_ of psionics isn't one that sits well in a typical pseudo-medieval fantasy world, where there are already lots of ways of manipulating the supernatural. The psionic schtick is one that's usually associated with SF or space opera settings, not fantasy, and then it exists because it's a way of manipulating the supernatural that avoids the unwanted connotations of "magic". If you already _have_ magic, the psi's schtick becomes sorta irrelevant.

 

[nHammer]

Re: I'd like it

That's sort of funny, why do you let monsters have "spell-like" abilities in your games then? They are psionics. Think about it... So there is absolutely no reason to reject them on these basis. It's foolish fear of a simple term. If I changed psions name to sorcerer and put it in a PHB, would you play it?
Z.

I disagree. I don't think a monster's spell- like ability is psionics.

To me psionics is mental powers. The use of an innate power that comes from with-in.

I suppose some of the Monks abilities could fall under this desciption, but I don't mind.

A monster's spell-like ability and the ability of Sorcerers comes from with-out. They just draw it into themselves and then shape it to their needs. (monsters do this as an involuntary action)

At least that's the way it works in my game.

 

[Mordane76]

I'm part of the "Vanguard Agaisnt Psionics in Fantasy" ideal.

It just doesn't feel right for the genre; wizards and sorcerers manipulate arcane energy, using the very essence of the world around them through rote ritual or birthright.

Psions bend reality with their will, bringing into being what their minds allow.


For some, this is the same thing. For me, it isn't. I'm also not too fond of magic in modern settings and post-modern settings; I like my fantasy to have wizards, and my tech-age or cybertech to have psions.


Beyond that, I never played 1E, but I did play 2E, and psionics there made me want to gag. When I heard that 3E was doing psionics, I was skeptical, but I did pick it up... and I was disappointed. In a campaign where psions were the only option, maybe I would be comfortable -- like a windswept far-away world where psions were the only "mystical" class (no wizards or sorcerers), but with 3E magical/psionic transparency, weak (IMO) attack and defense modes, and the feeling that psionics was just "tacked-on," so to speak, at the last minute by Wizards, I think that they should just leave it as a supplemental rule set, and think about revising it at a later date.

 

[hammymchamham]

No. I love psionics, but it should be a variant. I get to play a Psion with my new charecter. Yeah!