why psionics is not in PHB? [Archive] - Wizards Community

why psionics is not in PHB? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
tomas_q
06-04-07, 04:54 PM Hi
why is it that psionics is barely mentioned in the PHB?
i just don´t know how they work because of this :(
Fireclave
06-04-07, 05:02 PM Bam (www.d20srd.org)!
glacialcat
06-04-07, 05:03 PM Because... Psionics is in its own book, which was developed after the Player's Handbook came out? That's like asking why Tome of Battle or the Artificer or Divine Metamagic or the Truenamer aren't in the Player's Handbook.

If you want to learn how psionics works, all the rules are here. (http://www.d20srd.org/) Just look under the Psionics Rules section.
Breetai
06-04-07, 05:03 PM Mostly because Magic is a fundamental part of D&D in the sense that casting spells summoning stuff has a flavor to it that is the backbone of D&D. Psionics is about having Powers for the sake of having powers not much flavor there for most so the use of psionics tends to change the tone of the game so it's seperated so those who are into that can have it.
Kursk
06-04-07, 05:21 PM Hi
why is it that psionics is barely mentioned in the PHB?
i just don´t know how they work because of this :(

Because, it was a failure in 1st Ed and they knew that they could sell it as a non-core add on to those who liked it and thus make more $.
Tempest Stormwind
06-04-07, 05:24 PM Mostly because Magic is a fundamental part of D&D in the sense that casting spells summoning stuff has a flavor to it that is the backbone of D&D. Psionics is about having Powers for the sake of having powers not much flavor there for most so the use of psionics tends to change the tone of the game so it's seperated so those who are into that can have it.Bollocks. Psionics is no less magical than the magic presented in the PHB. When I think magic, I may think of staves, but I definitely don't think of spell slots.

For the record, psionics first appeared in D&D in the original Player's Handbook appendix, along with the monk. It was a totally different system, but it was there.
turalisj
06-04-07, 05:38 PM Because psionics is the red-headed stepchild of Dnd, that the designers just love to beat over the head with a +5 club of nerfing.
AntiDjinn
06-04-07, 09:58 PM I am sure page count was also a consideration. They could have included material from the 3.0 splats, the PsiHB, and previous spell compendiums when they made the jump to 3.5. They could have made the PHB 500 pages thick with a $150 price tag and it would have been a flop. Instead, having the PHB priced within the reach of most gaming geeks (did anyone actually have to put the book on layaway?) and then charging us extra for optional bonus material has worked well for them.

Also, remember the mood of fans when news of 3.5 dropped; people were not happy being told they would need to re-purchase books they already owned to stay current with the supported system. If the price tag also took a huge jump specifically to include material that many 3.0 fans hated (3.0 psionics was not even nearly on a par with the XPH) then there would have been a fan mutiny (as it happened, a noticeable exodus to GURPS, HERO, and other systems did occur).

I can only think that had the 3.0 PsiHB been updated as part of the same project as the PHB the result would have been markedly inferior to the XPH we got. There would probably only be the psion and psychic warrior (the two base psionic classes from the PsiHB) with no reason to have developed the wilder or soulknife.
Slagger the Chuul
06-05-07, 03:20 AM Because psionics is the red-headed stepchild of Dnd, that the designers just love to beat over the head with a +5 club of nerfing.

Although Eberron is a step in the right direction; having a campaign setting that employs psionics is something of a help.
Particle_Man
06-05-07, 10:46 AM Some people just hate psionics. So Wotc made a separate book so the lovers could get it and the haters didn't have to see it in their precious rulebooks.

Personally, I think it does a better job than arcane magic, but there ya go.
Lycanthromancer
06-05-07, 12:35 PM How does psionics not have magical flavor?

I mean, when I think "science," I think bespectacled old men bent over bubbling beakers over bunsen burners, studying books of mathematical formulas, jotting down notes and attempting to figure out the secrets of the universe through chemical experimentation. Mixing nitrogen (which is in bat poo) with other chemicals to create an explosive compound in order to make a fireball? Science.

When I think magic and mysticism, I think of someone who hones their mind into a weapon to wield the forces of the universe, or one who attempts to meditate in order to unlock the secrets of the cosmos.

So, which of those describes a wizard, and which describes a psion? I mean, really.
Ecalsneerg
06-05-07, 01:33 PM I've never used it, but I see nothing wrong with it. For example, Chemistry and Biology are different subjects, but both share common ground, and both are science. Psionics and magic both come under 'spell'-casting.

And, the PHB has two different systems called Divine and arcane (well, when I say different...)
RavinRay
06-05-07, 07:24 PM I mean, when I think "science," I think bespectacled old men bent over bubbling beakers over bunsen burners, studying books of mathematical formulas, jotting down notes and attempting to figure out the secrets of the universe through chemical experimentation...

So, which of those describes a wizard, and which describes a psion? I mean, really.
Tellingly, there's a picture of a wizard with a bubbling beaker and bunsen burner in my 2e Complete Wizards Handbook. Alchemy is more often associated with magic than psionics. Until Bruce mentioned the word "reagents" in his Dragon article about additional psicrystal abilities, I haven't come across a laboratory-style reference to psionics.
Tempest Stormwind
06-05-07, 08:37 PM Tellingly, there's a picture of a wizard with a bubbling beaker and bunsen burner in my 2e Complete Wizards Handbook. Alchemy is more often associated with magic than psionics.http://www.telusplanet.net/~sdupuis/Tempest/angrywizard.jpg

...I wish I were joking.

Check out the backdrop. I guess that in traditional Greyhawk or Blackmoor, even a 1950s bungalow kitchen would be considered highly magical. Or, at the very least, would be described as the wizard's arcane lab where he works incomprehensible experiments.

...How does that saying go? Science starts in the kitchen?
Lycanthromancer
06-05-07, 09:02 PM Hey, they apparently had running water, ceiling fans, and combustion engines in ancient Greece. Why not?
balor64
06-05-07, 09:59 PM Didn't that adventure have something to do with a time-traveling wizard?
InkBlot
06-05-07, 10:12 PM How does psionics not have magical flavor?

I mean, when I think "science," I think bespectacled old men bent over bubbling beakers over bunsen burners, studying books of mathematical formulas, jotting down notes and attempting to figure out the secrets of the universe through chemical experimentation. Mixing nitrogen (which is in bat poo) with other chemicals to create an explosive compound in order to make a fireball? Science.

When I think magic and mysticism, I think of someone who hones their mind into a weapon to wield the forces of the universe, or one who attempts to meditate in order to unlock the secrets of the cosmos.

So, which of those describes a wizard, and which describes a psion? I mean, really.

Sigged!
Pandaemoni
06-05-07, 10:25 PM For the record, psionics first appeared in D&D in the original Player's Handbook appendix, along with the monk.

Since this is "for the record" (apparently :D), I figure I'd earn myself a few "Old Points" by correcting you...psionics was in the appendix with Bards (as a sort of proto-PrC with nigh impossible pre-requisites). Monks were in the PHB proper, with all the other base classes.

Psionics was in Appendix I, though, beating out Bards (Appendix II) and even material on the planes of existence (Appendix IV).
Tempest Stormwind
06-05-07, 10:47 PM Since this is "for the record" (apparently :D), I figure I'd earn myself a few "Old Points" by correcting you...psionics was in the appendix with Bards (as a sort of proto-PrC with nigh impossible pre-requisites). Monks were in the PHB proper, with all the other base classes.

Psionics was in Appendix I, though, beating out Bards (Appendix II) and even material on the planes of existence (Appendix IV).

Ack, right, I keep mixing up where bard and monk showed up. I haven't played the original D&D in ages (literally almost a decade now; I'm too young to have played it when it first came out). Thanks!

Lycanthromancer: the devices you indicate were never confirmed to have been used in Greece, although I believe something similar to a vending machine was, along with a steam-engine-like power assist on big doors. I'd have to double check my sources, but I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of these existed only in theory, from the writings of Heron (occasionally Hero; both names refer to the same person) of Alexandria. Claiming they existed in real life without any hard evidence would be like someone digging up Da Vinci's notebooks and thinking that the airplane existed in the Renaissance from the drawings of the ornithopter (or, I suppose, a more physically plausible device from his work).

Balor64... yeah, but that's beside the point. You're ruining the poignancy of the cover. ;)
Archangel62
06-05-07, 10:58 PM Part of it was the mechanical work of psionics, also some people just don't like it and if these boards are any indication even if they made psionics core and said it with constant anouncements and having it in the SRD people would still scream that it wasn't part of it because they so strongly dislike it.
Sleepwalker13666
06-05-07, 11:06 PM As mentioned back in first edition it was in the PHB, however even back then it was only considered optional, and many players didn't like it (as well as DMs). Second edition brought it back as a separate system for core, or in the Darksun campaign setting where virtually everybody had some degree of psionic power. Back in second most DMs considered it too powerful and it didn't mesh too well with the system. So when 3rd came out Wizards decided it would be a good idea to release as an optional supplement that way those that like it can use it, and those that don't don't have it taking up space in the core book. (That and not being in the core book only a play who buys the EPH can ask about using those rules).
Enchanter_Tom
06-05-07, 11:15 PM Re: Why?

Psionics is, unfortunately, an entirely different system than arcane/divine magic. Since the base system is Vancian, and psionics deviates from that, the two (three?) aren't in the same book. If psionics were Vancian, then they could be in the same book.

Furthermore, the name of "psionics" is the issue. It conjures up entirely different connotations of what to expect--and that's a large part of the issue. Psionics wants the "purely mental" aspect of Jean Grey, but psionics also wants to be analogous to arcane/divine magic.

A friend of mine, who despises psionics, makes a good point: psionics could just be PrCs like Master of the Unseen Hand and the Mindspy and various spells. He views psionics strictly from a science fiction perspective, though, while many people on the boards see psionics as magic. However, his main complaint about psionics is that it incorporates an entirely new system (as touched upon earlier), which is also why he hates Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, and Magic of Incarnum.

*Shrugs.* That's just my two cents.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tomas_q 06-04-07, 04:54 PM	Hi why is it that psionics is barely mentioned in the PHB? i just don´t know how they work because of this :(
Fireclave 06-04-07, 05:02 PM	Bam (www.d20srd.org)!
glacialcat 06-04-07, 05:03 PM	Because... Psionics is in its own book, which was developed after the Player's Handbook came out? That's like asking why Tome of Battle or the Artificer or Divine Metamagic or the Truenamer aren't in the Player's Handbook. If you want to learn how psionics works, all the rules are here. (http://www.d20srd.org/) Just look under the Psionics Rules section.
Breetai 06-04-07, 05:03 PM	Mostly because Magic is a fundamental part of D&D in the sense that casting spells summoning stuff has a flavor to it that is the backbone of D&D. Psionics is about having Powers for the sake of having powers not much flavor there for most so the use of psionics tends to change the tone of the game so it's seperated so those who are into that can have it.
Kursk 06-04-07, 05:21 PM	Hi why is it that psionics is barely mentioned in the PHB? i just don´t know how they work because of this :( Because, it was a failure in 1st Ed and they knew that they could sell it as a non-core add on to those who liked it and thus make more $.
Tempest Stormwind 06-04-07, 05:24 PM	Mostly because Magic is a fundamental part of D&D in the sense that casting spells summoning stuff has a flavor to it that is the backbone of D&D. Psionics is about having Powers for the sake of having powers not much flavor there for most so the use of psionics tends to change the tone of the game so it's seperated so those who are into that can have it.Bollocks. Psionics is no less magical than the magic presented in the PHB. When I think magic, I may think of staves, but I definitely don't think of spell slots. For the record, psionics first appeared in D&D in the original Player's Handbook appendix, along with the monk. It was a totally different system, but it was there.
turalisj 06-04-07, 05:38 PM	Because psionics is the red-headed stepchild of Dnd, that the designers just love to beat over the head with a +5 club of nerfing.
AntiDjinn 06-04-07, 09:58 PM	I am sure page count was also a consideration. They could have included material from the 3.0 splats, the PsiHB, and previous spell compendiums when they made the jump to 3.5. They could have made the PHB 500 pages thick with a $150 price tag and it would have been a flop. Instead, having the PHB priced within the reach of most gaming geeks (did anyone actually have to put the book on layaway?) and then charging us extra for optional bonus material has worked well for them. Also, remember the mood of fans when news of 3.5 dropped; people were not happy being told they would need to re-purchase books they already owned to stay current with the supported system. If the price tag also took a huge jump specifically to include material that many 3.0 fans hated (3.0 psionics was not even nearly on a par with the XPH) then there would have been a fan mutiny (as it happened, a noticeable exodus to GURPS, HERO, and other systems did occur). I can only think that had the 3.0 PsiHB been updated as part of the same project as the PHB the result would have been markedly inferior to the XPH we got. There would probably only be the psion and psychic warrior (the two base psionic classes from the PsiHB) with no reason to have developed the wilder or soulknife.
Slagger the Chuul 06-05-07, 03:20 AM	Because psionics is the red-headed stepchild of Dnd, that the designers just love to beat over the head with a +5 club of nerfing. Although Eberron is a step in the right direction; having a campaign setting that employs psionics is something of a help.
Particle_Man 06-05-07, 10:46 AM	Some people just hate psionics. So Wotc made a separate book so the lovers could get it and the haters didn't have to see it in their precious rulebooks. Personally, I think it does a better job than arcane magic, but there ya go.
Lycanthromancer 06-05-07, 12:35 PM	How does psionics not have magical flavor? I mean, when I think "science," I think bespectacled old men bent over bubbling beakers over bunsen burners, studying books of mathematical formulas, jotting down notes and attempting to figure out the secrets of the universe through chemical experimentation. Mixing nitrogen (which is in bat poo) with other chemicals to create an explosive compound in order to make a fireball? Science. When I think magic and mysticism, I think of someone who hones their mind into a weapon to wield the forces of the universe, or one who attempts to meditate in order to unlock the secrets of the cosmos. So, which of those describes a wizard, and which describes a psion? I mean, really.
Ecalsneerg 06-05-07, 01:33 PM	I've never used it, but I see nothing wrong with it. For example, Chemistry and Biology are different subjects, but both share common ground, and both are science. Psionics and magic both come under 'spell'-casting. And, the PHB has two different systems called Divine and arcane (well, when I say different...)
RavinRay 06-05-07, 07:24 PM	I mean, when I think "science," I think bespectacled old men bent over bubbling beakers over bunsen burners, studying books of mathematical formulas, jotting down notes and attempting to figure out the secrets of the universe through chemical experimentation... So, which of those describes a wizard, and which describes a psion? I mean, really. Tellingly, there's a picture of a wizard with a bubbling beaker and bunsen burner in my 2e Complete Wizards Handbook. Alchemy is more often associated with magic than psionics. Until Bruce mentioned the word "reagents" in his Dragon article about additional psicrystal abilities, I haven't come across a laboratory-style reference to psionics.
Tempest Stormwind 06-05-07, 08:37 PM	Tellingly, there's a picture of a wizard with a bubbling beaker and bunsen burner in my 2e Complete Wizards Handbook. Alchemy is more often associated with magic than psionics.http://www.telusplanet.net/~sdupuis/Tempest/angrywizard.jpg ...I wish I were joking. Check out the backdrop. I guess that in traditional Greyhawk or Blackmoor, even a 1950s bungalow kitchen would be considered highly magical. Or, at the very least, would be described as the wizard's arcane lab where he works incomprehensible experiments. ...How does that saying go? Science starts in the kitchen?
Lycanthromancer 06-05-07, 09:02 PM	Hey, they apparently had running water, ceiling fans, and combustion engines in ancient Greece. Why not?
balor64 06-05-07, 09:59 PM	Didn't that adventure have something to do with a time-traveling wizard?
InkBlot 06-05-07, 10:12 PM	How does psionics not have magical flavor? I mean, when I think "science," I think bespectacled old men bent over bubbling beakers over bunsen burners, studying books of mathematical formulas, jotting down notes and attempting to figure out the secrets of the universe through chemical experimentation. Mixing nitrogen (which is in bat poo) with other chemicals to create an explosive compound in order to make a fireball? Science. When I think magic and mysticism, I think of someone who hones their mind into a weapon to wield the forces of the universe, or one who attempts to meditate in order to unlock the secrets of the cosmos. So, which of those describes a wizard, and which describes a psion? I mean, really. Sigged!
Pandaemoni 06-05-07, 10:25 PM	For the record, psionics first appeared in D&D in the original Player's Handbook appendix, along with the monk. Since this is "for the record" (apparently :D), I figure I'd earn myself a few "Old Points" by correcting you...psionics was in the appendix with Bards (as a sort of proto-PrC with nigh impossible pre-requisites). Monks were in the PHB proper, with all the other base classes. Psionics was in Appendix I, though, beating out Bards (Appendix II) and even material on the planes of existence (Appendix IV).
Tempest Stormwind 06-05-07, 10:47 PM	Since this is "for the record" (apparently :D), I figure I'd earn myself a few "Old Points" by correcting you...psionics was in the appendix with Bards (as a sort of proto-PrC with nigh impossible pre-requisites). Monks were in the PHB proper, with all the other base classes. Psionics was in Appendix I, though, beating out Bards (Appendix II) and even material on the planes of existence (Appendix IV). Ack, right, I keep mixing up where bard and monk showed up. I haven't played the original D&D in ages (literally almost a decade now; I'm too young to have played it when it first came out). Thanks! Lycanthromancer: the devices you indicate were never confirmed to have been used in Greece, although I believe something similar to a vending machine was, along with a steam-engine-like power assist on big doors. I'd have to double check my sources, but I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of these existed only in theory, from the writings of Heron (occasionally Hero; both names refer to the same person) of Alexandria. Claiming they existed in real life without any hard evidence would be like someone digging up Da Vinci's notebooks and thinking that the airplane existed in the Renaissance from the drawings of the ornithopter (or, I suppose, a more physically plausible device from his work). Balor64... yeah, but that's beside the point. You're ruining the poignancy of the cover. ;)
Archangel62 06-05-07, 10:58 PM	Part of it was the mechanical work of psionics, also some people just don't like it and if these boards are any indication even if they made psionics core and said it with constant anouncements and having it in the SRD people would still scream that it wasn't part of it because they so strongly dislike it.
Sleepwalker13666 06-05-07, 11:06 PM	As mentioned back in first edition it was in the PHB, however even back then it was only considered optional, and many players didn't like it (as well as DMs). Second edition brought it back as a separate system for core, or in the Darksun campaign setting where virtually everybody had some degree of psionic power. Back in second most DMs considered it too powerful and it didn't mesh too well with the system. So when 3rd came out Wizards decided it would be a good idea to release as an optional supplement that way those that like it can use it, and those that don't don't have it taking up space in the core book. (That and not being in the core book only a play who buys the EPH can ask about using those rules).
Enchanter_Tom 06-05-07, 11:15 PM	Re: Why? Psionics is, unfortunately, an entirely different system than arcane/divine magic. Since the base system is Vancian, and psionics deviates from that, the two (three?) aren't in the same book. If psionics were Vancian, then they could be in the same book. Furthermore, the name of "psionics" is the issue. It conjures up entirely different connotations of what to expect--and that's a large part of the issue. Psionics wants the "purely mental" aspect of Jean Grey, but psionics also wants to be analogous to arcane/divine magic. A friend of mine, who despises psionics, makes a good point: psionics could just be PrCs like Master of the Unseen Hand and the Mindspy and various spells. He views psionics strictly from a science fiction perspective, though, while many people on the boards see psionics as magic. However, his main complaint about psionics is that it incorporates an entirely new system (as touched upon earlier), which is also why he hates Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, and Magic of Incarnum. Shrugs. That's just my two cents.