Would you like to see Psionics as core rules?

[Oni]

Very simply, would you like to see psionics in one form or another included in the revision of core rules. Even better if you want to post the reasons behind your answer.

 

[Apok]

Yes, absolutely. I love psionics, and if they are popular enough that every edition of D&D has had a book on them, then why not put them directly into the Core Rules? It will be there for those who use them, and those who don't can ignore them.

 

[MerricB]

No, it dilutes the fantasy idea of D&D.

I'd far rather see them in a supplement... or portable over from something like D20 Modern.

Cheers!

 

[Drayan]

I would LOVE to see psionics in the core books, that way, i could use them more often. Our DM doesn't like to use anything out of a book that's not PHB, DMG, or MM.

 

[Skullfyre]

Yes, absolutely. I love psionics, and if they are popular enough that every edition of D&D has had a book on them, then why not put them directly into the Core Rules? It will be there for those who use them, and those who don't can ignore them.

What Apok said.

 

[TeaBee]

Yes. And if it's the type that plays nice with normal magic, I see no reason not to.

Err... other than for $$$ reasons. So, it won't happen. Not from WotC anyways.

 

[shadow]

Yes!

I would like to see Psionics in the core rules! Why? It's a lot better financially to get them in the core rules rather than having to shell out another $25 just to be able to use psionics. People need not fear psionics since they are balanced in 3rd edition (if anything the psion is a little weaker than the wizard of sorcerer since he needs a high score in all six attributes to get high level powers) Some people dislike them because they feel they are too "sci-fi", but fantasy liteature is full of characters being able to do things with there mind. (The sorcerers in David Eddings' Belgariad are more akin to pisonicists in D&D game terms.) Perhaps to satisfy complaints psionics could be included in the DMG as an optional rule, just as rules for firearms and bombs are included in the DMG.

 

[Zappo]

No. Too many people consider them out of place in most fantasy. For too many people, it would mean 50+ useless extra pages. And it would increase the complexity for newbies: it's effectively a new magic system, substantially different from the other and with independant spells. I can't think of any other gaming system that comes with two very different magical systems in the core book without an extremely good setting reason. Let alone of a gaming system that does so by adding a system that many players dislike.

BTW, I personally like psionics. And I think that they are a good answer to everyone who asks for a mana-based system for D&D ("just call them magic").

 

[Oni]

Do you really think it would require that much extra room, if you were to integrate the psionic powers list into the existing spelllist?

 

[Alzrius]

Despite the fact that I really like psionics, I voted "no".

The fact is, neither the PHB nor the DMG are getting enough new pages to justify the inclusion of psionics. Psionics rules would thusly have to be cut down and trimmed to a horrid degree just to make them fit the page count. It would also invalidate the previous PsiHB, and I've had enough with having just three books I spent money on be declared worthless, thank you very much.

I'd go on about how bad an idea I think putting psionics in the revised core rules is, but for the fact that I feel totally confident that they won't do it. WotC knows they can't squeeze it in, and they still want people to buy the PsiHB, so I'm not worried.