PDA

View Full Version : Do you CONSIDER Psionics to be core material?



That Lanky Bugger
2007-02-06, 04:24 PM
I've noticed that there's some people who consider Psionics to be just as much a part of the core material as the DMG and MM, while others treat it as a splatbook and don't really use it much, if at all. If you use it, why do you like it? If you don't, why not?

Edit for clarification: By core here I mean not core as in "Does it say 'Core' on it?" and more "Do you consider Psionics to exist as a default in the games you play?"

Sorry for the confusion.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-06, 04:26 PM
I treat XPH as core. I also treat the Complete books and Races books as core, even though most people treat that as "extended core".

EDIT: Actually, I'd go so far as to say anything that isn't setting-specific is core.

Khantalas
2007-02-06, 04:28 PM
Well, I don't consider psionics to be core material.

However, they are a core part of my game, more important than magic. So, no, but...

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-06, 04:29 PM
If it isn't in the three core rulebooks, it isn't core. That's what core means.

Tormsskull
2007-02-06, 04:33 PM
If it isn't in the three core rulebooks, it isn't core. That's what core means.

Exactly.

In addition, I ran this almost exact same poll before, I'll see if I can track it down for comparison purposes.

Emperor Tippy
2007-02-06, 04:41 PM
It's not one of the official core books (PHB, DMG, MM) but it is core for all of my games. So Yes i consider it core for my games.

LotharBot
2007-02-06, 04:41 PM
The way I define it, "core" is the stuff you're pretty well guaranteed to see in any D&D [insert your preferred version here] game you happen to join or drop in on with players and DMs of any skill/experience level. In other words, the stuff in the PHB, DMG, and MM1 (3.5 for me.) Fighters, feats, skills, magic missile, trolls, dragons, gnolls, dwarves, half-orc barbarians... these are all things you can just assume, if you sit down with an unknown D&D 3.5 group, will be allowed/present in the game, or else explicitly replaced with some houserule. Psionics is outside of this -- you'll find big groups of D&D players, especially novices, who have never even heard of psionics, and others who know of them but don't play with them (like me -- they sound like a cool idea, but I'm just not that interested in spending the money and learning them and then modifying my core-based modules to account for them.) Definitely not core.

I consider psionics "extended core" -- they create a whole new mechanic that can be widely used on top of the preexisting core. New prestige classes, new base classes, new skills, etc. are what I'd call "expansion" -- they're just adding another thing to the set of things already in the game. Anything that, at its heart, is a modified form of a core class/mechanic/whatever meant to be used as a replacement is a "variant". That's my set of definitions.

Arceliar
2007-02-06, 04:50 PM
Well, it IS in the official SRD from Wizards of the Coast..

In our campaigns that's enough to allow it under virtually all circumstances.

daggaz
2007-02-06, 04:59 PM
It IS in one of the three core books, and if you don't think so, I recommend a little tour to page 136 of the Monster Manual, ie 'Core Rulebook III,' for the entry on the 'Mind Flayer.'

Mind Blast and Psionics (hereby defined as astral projection, charm monster, detect thoughts, levitate, plane shift, and suggestion as at will supernatural powers) are explicitly described.

Now, the use of monsters as player races isn't explicity outlined in these books, but I do remember somewhere in the DM where it says, 'you can do anything you want to do.'

Of course, the advanced descriptions for player psionics (levels, skills, and abilities) isn't in the core books, but I would definitely call that extended core (much more so than say, the rest of the complete series). At any rate, the very idea of illithids is so fundamental to the DnD world, I would have to include it as core.

pestilenceawaits
2007-02-06, 05:02 PM
As I said the last time this poll was run I consider it core in my games but it isn't officially core material. It is OGL but not core.

NullAshton
2007-02-06, 05:04 PM
I think of it as core because it's in the SRD.

LotharBot
2007-02-06, 05:11 PM
daggaz, the word "psionics" is used when describing mind flayers... but the mechanic used is just spell-like/supernatural abilities. If you scribble out the word "psionics" and just go from the descriptions, it's not really the same thing as described in the psionics handbooks (though, IIRC, they rebuild the mind flayers/illithids with the PsiHB mechanic.) Conceptually, the idea of psionic powers exists in the core, but the mechanic for playable psionics doesn't.

Again, think about the expectations you'd have joining a completely random unknown D&D 3.5 (or your preferred version) group. If it's moderately likely you won't have access to something, it's not core. "Extended core", sure, but not "core" without any qualifiers.

Rei_Jin
2007-02-06, 05:20 PM
I consider it core, but that's just because for me the Psion is what the Sorceror SHOULD have been.

That being said, too many people I know won't use it because of memories from 2nd edition of how terrible it was.

TheOOB
2007-02-06, 05:27 PM
Your topic and poll question ask slightly different questions. Psionics are not core material, only three rulebooks are marked by WotC as being core, so in that capacity it's not a matterer of opinion but a matter of fact that psionics are not core.

Thats said, psionics are a core part of many peoples games, and those people see the XPH as being just as important as the core rulebooks

I barely even consider the PHB to be "core" to my games, for example I outright don't allow paladins, and I use a homebrewed varient of fighters, rogues, rangers, and barbarians who have manuver progressions a'la Tome of Battle.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-06, 05:28 PM
I consider it core, but that's just because for me the Psion is what the Sorceror SHOULD have been.

That being said, too many people I know won't use it because of memories from 2nd edition of how terrible it was.

Indeed, the sorcerer and psion are rather too similar for my tastes, especially given the magic/psionic transparency, zero-preperation use of powers, autolearning with advancement, identical BAB, saves, HD, armour, etc.



Anyway, on topic: the SRD and Core are not the same thing. The SRD contains most of what is in the Core, and some things besides. The SRD also lacks some things that are in the Core, such as certain "product identity" monsters (Illithids, Belholders, etc) and character creation and advancement tips, etc.

The Core is defined as DMG, PH and MM.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-06, 05:33 PM
I consider it to be core. It's one of the few books to get an updated edition, which seems to me to be a pretty good indication that WoTC thinks it's important.

Interesting that this poll has gotten primarily straight yes or no answers.

Sir_Banjo
2007-02-06, 05:47 PM
I don't use simply because I don't believe that dnd needs two magic systems. If I ever got rid of the standard system (a distinct possibility; magic's overdone), I would consider it.

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-06, 06:39 PM
I think of it as core because it's in the SRD.
Being in the SRD makes it Open Gaming Content, not core. Those are two entirely separate things.

Fat Daddy
2007-02-06, 06:46 PM
It is not core. So, no but in can be 'core' to your campaign. I've played in campaigns without psionics and in campaigns that couldn't have survived without psionics. The difference here is you can't really play the game without the PHB and DMG but you can without XPH and CPsi.

And Renegade Paladin is correct, being in the SRD designates OGL content not Core content.

Lord Iames Osari
2007-02-06, 06:48 PM
... The question in this topic isn't whether or not it is core, but whether people consider it to be core. Those are two distinct questions, and the answer to one does not necessarily dictate the answer to the other.

Scorpina
2007-02-06, 06:51 PM
I don't consider psionics core.

I do not use them, I have never used them and I have no intention of using them in the future.

Dausuul
2007-02-06, 06:56 PM
I've noticed that there's some people who consider Psionics to be just as much a part of the core material as the DMG and MM, while others treat it as a splatbook and don't really use it much, if at all. If you use it, why do you like it? If you don't, why not?

Conceptually, I despise psionics. With the exception of settings like Dark Sun, which specifically integrate the idea of psionics into the game world, I consider it to be a tacked-on afterthought which doesn't connect to anything else, added in purely because somebody wanted to play a MIND-READER LIKE ON STAR TREK OMFG!!!!

...ahem. Excuse me.

I'm not familiar with the mechanics of psionics and so can't comment on them. From what I've heard, it actually might be quite a good magic system, and I keep meaning to browse the SRD one of these days and have a look.

To address the original question: It ain't in the Player's Handbook, the Monster Manual, or the DMG. Therefore, it ain't core. As another poster pointed out, if you walked into a random D&D game and wanted to play a fighter, you could reasonably expect that you'd be allowed to, barring a specific "no fighters" house rule. The same is not true of psionicists.

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-06, 07:06 PM
... The question in this topic isn't whether or not it is core, but whether people consider it to be core. Those are two distinct questions, and the answer to one does not necessarily dictate the answer to the other.
Which is exactly the problem. The issue simply isn't up for debate; voting that psionics is core merely means you don't know what you're talking about.

jayphonic
2007-02-06, 07:14 PM
It is not Core. Only PHB, DMG and MM are Core. Do I consider it Core? No, by the very definition of what Core is to D&D, there are only three Core books.

Do I think it is cool? Yep.

Lord Iames Osari
2007-02-06, 07:15 PM
@ Gaheris: No, certain people, such as myself, can consider it "core" to the games that I/we run, while recognizing that it is not core in any officially defined sense. I think that people can usually be counted on to know what they're talking about when the topic is one of their own subjective judgement.

Fat Daddy
2007-02-06, 07:19 PM
Perhaps then the question is worded poorly. "Do you consider psionics integral to your campaign?" may have been a better question. As I stated I don't consider it core because by definition it is not. However I can (and have) consider it integral based upon the particular campaign.

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-06, 07:24 PM
No, because it doesn't have "Core Rulebook IV" stamped on the cover.

I like psionics, but that has nothing to do with it.

LotharBot
2007-02-06, 07:30 PM
I want to revise my earlier statement. If I may be permitted to wax philosophical for a moment:

We use language in order to communicate information. Or, perhaps, misinformation, or even information to one person and misinformation to another (D&D has a mechanic for this, built in to the bluff skill.) But communication doesn't happen in a vacuum -- it happens within a particular conversation or setting with its own implied assumptions. What language we choose to use depends on those implied assumptions.

Rather unfortunately, the thread title (Do you CONSIDER Psionics to be core material?) and the poll question (Do you consider Psionics a core part of the game?) have two slightly different sets of implications, which means people are answering very differently. Whether the word "core" applies to psionics or not depends on which of those questions (as written) you're answering.

The question "is it core material?" has a simple, universal answer: no. In this question, "core" is a technical term -- there are books marked "core", and XPH is not one of them. If you say to someone "I'm playing core rules" the implication is that you're not using psionics.

The question "is it a core part of the game?" or "is it an important part of your game?" will be answered differently by different individuals. It may be a core (meaning important and widely-used) part of some games and not of others.

The original poster should revise his question to clarify what exactly he wants to know.

Marius
2007-02-06, 07:47 PM
The original poster should revise his question to clarify what exactly he wants to know.

I think it's pretty clear what he meant and I'm not even native to the english language so I don't think it's that hard to understand despite some people comments.

And to answer the question: Yes, in my games the XPH is core

TomMc
2007-02-06, 08:13 PM
No, I don't.
I've never liked the whole idea of psionics, I have successfully ignored existence of such material (without any impact at all on the rest of the core rules, which I consider to be evidence against psionics being part of them), and I hope these will never find their way into core rules in coming editions.

As long as no standart character class or race utilizes psionics and no psi-related items appear in standard treasure tables, I can happily continue to play as if no such thing exists.

TheOOB
2007-02-06, 08:56 PM
Well, like I mentioned earlier, the question in the thread title "Do you consider psionics to be core material" is pretty silly, as psionics is not core material, as core material is defined as the PHB, DMG, and MM.

However, the question on the poll is "Do you consider Psionics a core part of the game?" which asks if you consider that psionics is an important part of D&D and in your campaigns, that is a valid question of opinion albiet worded poorly, it brings about the "level" "level" sillyness that is part of OotS.

A better question, perhaps, would be "How important do you think psionics is to D&D" with poll results ranging from "Psionics are integral to D&D" to "Bah, I won't play a game with psionics in it" and everything in between (such as a "Great, but not neccesary", "Take it or Leave it", and "Don't like but will tolerate".)

the_tick_rules
2007-02-06, 09:59 PM
it's not in the core books so now. Plus i've seen some broken psionics in my day.

Marius
2007-02-07, 03:19 AM
it's not in the core books so now. Plus i've seen some broken psionics in my day.

Psionics are not broken, not nearly as much as magic anyway. If you don't like the system it's fine but it's not broken.

Ted_Stryker
2007-02-07, 03:28 AM
In my games, psionics aren't core in either of the two discussed senses of the word. I haven't learned the psionics system, and don't plan to for the foreseeable future.

Kaerou
2007-02-07, 03:47 AM
Yes but...

Yes but only for psionic races (Illithid / Thri-Kreen)

And of course, in Psionic settings (Darksun)

In settings such as Faerun i run? Only psionic races like Illithid have psionics.

Telonius
2007-02-07, 09:34 AM
No, but ...

Psionics could very easily be core materials, if they just put a "Core Rulebook" label on it. It's different enough to merit its own (expanded) book, and adds enough to the system to be core. If they put psionics in the Player's Handbook, it would be undeniably core, but that'll have to wait until 4th edition.

That Lanky Bugger
2007-02-07, 10:39 AM
Personally speaking, I'm in the "Yes, but..." crowd. I like the dimension that psionics add to the game, but the book-keeping with Power Points can be a bit too much to handle sometimes, especially post level 10 or so. I've got a lot of games where I use Psionics but sometimes I decide not to implement them, just for variety. For the most part I consider Psionics an important part of play.

I also don't like a couple of the character races in the XBH. I really don't like Dromites, Duergar, and Elans as player races. Especially Elans. I've seen Elan Psions with a high Intelligence do scary things with Resiliance, which is just a twinky ability any way you look at it. It's fine for a few levels, but when that Elan hits level 20 and has a Power Point reserve in the mid-400s...

I think the main problem with Psionics is a lack of understanding. I'm noticing that there was at least one poster who said they'd never tried them and never would, which is really a shame.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 10:41 AM
it's not in the core books so now. Plus i've seen some broken psionics in my day.

Man, anything is breakable. Psionics is significantly weaker than arcane magic, lemme tell ya.

The thing to remember about Resilience is that it takes an immediate action.

Harstrack
2007-02-07, 11:04 AM
I consider it extended core as the completes and the races, but as I hate psionics I simpli never have one in my campaings unless some player wants to play with a psion.:smallfurious:

Gerrtt
2007-02-07, 07:11 PM
Short answer: Nope.

Long answer: Nope. I think it's a cool concept and one that fits well within DnD if you really take a look at what it is instead of buying into the idea that it's all different and such, but I still dont think that a) it belongs in every game or is b) necessary to every game. Because it does not meet those two requirements, for me, Psionics is not core.

Swordguy
2007-02-07, 08:13 PM
Absolutely the hell not. I've had absolutely awful experiences with psionics in the past (granted in 1st/2nd ed), and feel no compulsion to include a second form of magic that either everyone or nobody has defenses against.

I say this with the point that I'm currently running a game in which I've been convinced/coerced to have psionics (granted, the Lone Wolf RPG-style psi), and I'm just about to give the 2 folks in the party magic items that give them psi defenses, because they've been absolutely OWNED up until this point by even minor psi-capable NPCs.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-07, 08:31 PM
Sword: just FYI, you can read the 3.5 Psionics rules in the SRD--they are very different than they were in previous editions, and much better balanced. "Psionic combat" and offense/defense modes no longer exist; psions manifest powers in much the same way that spellcasters cast spells. The default rule for psionics is magic is that they interact as though they were the same for many things--Dispel Magic dispels powers, for example, and Spell Resistance works as Power Resistance (and vice versa). Defending against psionics is pretty much just like defending against magic.

A big thing to keep in mind is that one can only spend as many Power Points on a single power as one's Manfiester Level.

The Valiant Turtle
2007-02-07, 08:45 PM
Yes I allow psionics by default in my games, excepting some of the races, but I don't allow all the races in "Core" either, or all the spells. I really don't give a darn what WoTC chooses to label "Core". I certainly don't see why the MM is considered "Core".

If you ignore the title "Psionics" I think you'll find it suits the style of most of the classic fantasy out there.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2007-02-07, 09:02 PM
Stuff that I see in the SRD is "Core" for me.

hehe that rhymes.