John Crichton
First Post
Most certainly not. They should stay as they are, an option. I have no problem with them being put into a game but they do not jive with the basic D&D feel. But having them available is cool, just not in the Core books.
Would you like to see Psionics as core rules?
- Thread starter Oni
- Start date
Michael Tree
First Post
I love psionics, but I voted no, for the reasons others have covered above.
Actually, I would have liked to have voted "sortof". There isn't enough space to fully do psionics justice, but some psionic material should be added, to make the inclusion of psionics easier. For example, the current issue of dragon has spells which have a couple additional "psionics" lines in the writeup, so they can also be used as psionic powers. I would like that to be the norm in the PH.
I would also like the MM to contain psionics detail for the psionic monsters, for those who have the PsiH and want to use its additional psionics detail, such as combat modes and psionic powers. This extra info is purely optional, not neccessary for using the monster in a non-psionic world, but there if the DM wants it.
As for the "psionics in a fantasy world" debate, I think they definitely have a place, but the pseudo-scientific power names and emphasis on silly crystals and bad tattoos are just as ridiculous as the "Spikes, I must have more spikes! And, and... buckles! I can't adventure without dozens of buckles!" art emphasis of the core books.
Actually, I would have liked to have voted "sortof". There isn't enough space to fully do psionics justice, but some psionic material should be added, to make the inclusion of psionics easier. For example, the current issue of dragon has spells which have a couple additional "psionics" lines in the writeup, so they can also be used as psionic powers. I would like that to be the norm in the PH.
I would also like the MM to contain psionics detail for the psionic monsters, for those who have the PsiH and want to use its additional psionics detail, such as combat modes and psionic powers. This extra info is purely optional, not neccessary for using the monster in a non-psionic world, but there if the DM wants it.
As for the "psionics in a fantasy world" debate, I think they definitely have a place, but the pseudo-scientific power names and emphasis on silly crystals and bad tattoos are just as ridiculous as the "Spikes, I must have more spikes! And, and... buckles! I can't adventure without dozens of buckles!" art emphasis of the core books.
Last edited:
Oni
First Post
John Crichton said:
So I don't have the option of not using something in the core rules?
As for those of you that suggest that psionics just feel tacked on, well perhaps that is so, of course it will most likely remain so until the are fully integrated in the system in which case they will receive the appropriate design and playtesting attention they deserve to make the rules set as sound as it needs to be.
Personally I think will working and innerpower are very suited to fantasy. Reminds me a bit of magic from the Belgariad. He didn't wiggle his fingers in the air or shout gobbledygook. [On a side note an irritant of mine is that, by the rules, every single sorcerer cast fireball in an identical manner, you could even stand a sorcerer next to a wizard and have them both cast the same spell and you couldn't tell the difference, ick ick ick.]
Tiefling
First Post
Some people think that psionics is out of place in fantasy. Some people think it's not. Each opinion is just a preference. You can't possibly "reason" someone out of such a preference, so we should all stop trying. I think the bottom line is if most people don't care for psionics, then the extra page count and problems of integrating psionics into the core books can't be easily justified. If most people do care for psionics, then such action can be justified. What's really important is helping WotC know what the majority thinks so that they can cater to that majority and, when the time comes, integrate psionics into D&D core.
My preference? Well, I think standard faux-medieval fantasy doesn't have much place for psionics. But then, I'm pretty gosh darn sick of standard faux-medieval fantasy and I'm ready to move on to whatever will become 3E's Dark Sun. Bring on psionics.
My preference? Well, I think standard faux-medieval fantasy doesn't have much place for psionics. But then, I'm pretty gosh darn sick of standard faux-medieval fantasy and I'm ready to move on to whatever will become 3E's Dark Sun. Bring on psionics.
Oni
First Post
Tiefling said:
Pretty simple.
If you don't like D&D 3E, then a small revision probably isn't going to make you suddenly change your mind and go out and buy the book. So you can eliminate the portion of the gaming community that is against 3e from the equation.
The above goes for people that don't play 3e simply because they prefer another system as well. Current ed. or the next isn't going to make much difference to them.
People that don't play rpg's aren't going to care about a revision so they're not the target market (it'd be easier just to push an already existing product).
Lastly that brings us to people that play 3e. Admittedly that people that frequent the boards here are more likely more deeply involved in the hobby that the casual gamer, but the opinions here run the full gamut, it's like a mirror of the 3e fanbase in which everything is intensified.
A revision is only going to be appealing as a revision to those who care about it. For those who don't a revision may as well not exist (in this case as the changes are going to be rather unextreme from the look of things).
With all that in mind I think it is reasonable to assume that ENworld is a pretty good indication of the target market for this particular product.
Well that is my chain of thought on the matter anyway.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
