D&Dnext Psionics

I've been taking part of the DNDNEXT playtest sense packet 081712 and to date no sign of the Psionic rules for dndnext, I've been waiting patiently to playtest the Psionics rule and yet there is no sign of them what's the deal here?
Psionics are almost guaranteed to be a post release addition. They've already bitten off quite a bit by promising to model classes/sub-classes from every previous initial PHB from every edition. They're just now even considering mathematical balance, which will likely lead to massive class changes as preconceived developer notions clash with the changes in system mechanics. If they're planning on getting D&D Next out in 2014, psionics can't be on the table right now.
I'm a big fan of psionics, don't get me wrong. But the developers have bitten off a lot, possibly (in my mind definitely) more than they can chew. It'll have to wait. I see no other logical way.
As I recall they also promised all the classes would be in the PHB of the new edition so are they going to mahe me wait until the product release only to find out the class I've been waiting for sucks due to insufficient playtesting
As I recall they also promised all the classes would be in the PHB of the new edition so are they going to mahe me wait until the product release only to find out the class I've been waiting for sucks due to insufficient playtesting

They've backed off of that promise a little, deciding that some classes (like the Warlord) will be modeled as subclasses (in this specific example, a subclass of Fighter) rather than full classes in their own right. It is why my first post was written the way it was.
But yes, they are going to make you and me wait until after the product releases before we see classes we've both been waiting for, and both the quality and balance of those classes as a result will be completely unknown.
Psionics has rarely been a core part of the game.  It was in 1E, but highly ignored by many groups.
I hate to burst your bubble but you wont see psionics for awhile. Psionics have never been a priorty for any edition and are one of the harder rule sto implement. The only time I thought psionics where decently implemented was 4th edition. Not trying to argue about it, just didnt like them in any of the other editions.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

Psionics are also almost the wrong genre (more sci fi AKA Dune etc). 1st ed was the only edition where they were in a core book and IIRC they were an optional rule. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Psionics are also almost the wrong genre (more sci fi AKA Dune etc). 1st ed was the only edition where they were in a core book and IIRC they were an optional rule. 


While that is true, as long as they work with the system, you can  always reflavor them as magic.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

If for some reason I was trying to playtest NEXT in say Eberron or Darksun where Psionics are a big part of the setting, right now that is what I would do just reflavor magic.

The mage would have a focus crystal as an implement instead of a wand, book, ect...he would keep his powers like a spell book in the crystal.

For wild talents I would use the new horrible feats that grant spells.

For Kalashtar or other psionic races, I would use high elves and make the cantrip they get a psionic power.

It will be a long time before they give us published psionic rules, probably a year or so after the game comes out.  The first setting will be Forgetten Realms probably and not until they publish stuff for Eberron or Darksun will they even think about psionics.

Remember this is a public forum where people express their opinions assume there is a “In my humble opinion” in front of every post especially mine.  

 

Things you should check out because they are cool, like bow-ties and fezzes.

https://app.roll20.net/home  Roll20 great free virtual table top so you can play with old friends who are far away.

http://donjon.bin.sh/  Donjon has random treasure, maps, pick pocket results, etc.. for every edition of D&D.

Psionics are also almost the wrong genre (more sci fi AKA Dune etc).



That's such an incredibly stupid statement.  It drives me crazy.  Saying something doesn't belong in a Fantasy game is one of the most ridiculously stupid things any Human being can say.  There is NOTHING that doesn't belong in a Fantasy game.  NOTHING.  There are no rules in Fantasy.  None whatsoever.  That's what the genre is.  Whatever you want.  If you want psionics, then you can have it.  If you want guns, you can have it.  If you want dinosaurs, you can have it.  It's Fantasy.  That's what it is. 

It just baffles me that people think that if something is set in the past then it's Fantasy and if it's set in the future then it's Science Fiction.  That's not what those genres are.  If it's possible, it's Science Fiction and if it's impossible it's Fantasy.  That's it.  That's the distinction.  Most stories that are set in the future and have space ships and laser guns are called Science Fiction just because they have space ships and laser guns but most of them are really Fantasy.  If it has time travel, for example, it's Fantasy.  It doesn't matter if it's in the future and has space ships.  Star Trek has time travel.  It's Fantasy.  Blade Runner isn't Science Fiction because it's set in the future, it's Science Fiction because it's possible.  No, we don't have androids with self-aware artifical intelligence at the present time, but it's possible that some day we will and that's what makes it Science Fiction. 

Fantasy doesn't mean a land with Elves and Dwarves and Dragons.  Yes most Fantasy games and stories have those elements but that's because most people are too lazy or talentless to come up with anything original so they just copy what's come before.  The sad thing is that people just assume that Fantasy has to have those things and it has to be a certain way.  Elves have to live in the forest.  Dwarves have to live in the mountains and mine.  Why?  Because that's how Tolkien wrote it so that's how it has to be, except that it isn't.  That was Tolkien's Fantasy world, not THE Fantasy World.  You can create a Fantasy world were Dwarves shoot rainbows out of their butts while being chased by velociraptors with laser guns implated into their heads if you want.  That's what Fantasy is.  Whatever the creator wants.  If Wizards wants to put Psionics into their game then they have every right to and anyone that argues that "it doesn't belong" is flat out wrong.
There are no rules in Fantasy.


Two Dwarves enter. One dwarf leaves.

... Sorry, I had to.

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

Psionics are also almost the wrong genre (more sci fi AKA Dune etc).



That's such an incredibly stupid statement.  It drives me crazy.  Saying something doesn't belong in a Fantasy game is one of the most ridiculously stupid things any Human being can say.  There is NOTHING that doesn't belong in a Fantasy game.  NOTHING.  There are no rules in Fantasy.  None whatsoever.  That's what the genre is.  Whatever you want.  If you want psionics, then you can have it.  If you want guns, you can have it.  If you want dinosaurs, you can have it.  It's Fantasy.  That's what it is. 

It just baffles me that people think that if something is set in the past then it's Fantasy and if it's set in the future then it's Science Fiction.  That's not what those genres are.  If it's possible, it's Science Fiction and if it's impossible it's Fantasy.  That's it.  That's the distinction.  Most stories that are set in the future and have space ships and laser guns are called Science Fiction just because they have space ships and laser guns but most of them are really Fantasy.  If it has time travel, for example, it's Fantasy.  It doesn't matter if it's in the future and has space ships.  Star Trek has time travel.  It's Fantasy.  Blade Runner isn't Science Fiction because it's set in the future, it's Science Fiction because it's possible.  No, we don't have androids with self-aware artifical intelligence at the present time, but it's possible that some day we will and that's what makes it Science Fiction. 

Fantasy doesn't mean a land with Elves and Dwarves and Dragons.  Yes most Fantasy games and stories have those elements but that's because most people are too lazy or talentless to come up with anything original so they just copy what's come before.  The sad thing is that people just assume that Fantasy has to have those things and it has to be a certain way.  Elves have to live in the forest.  Dwarves have to live in the mountains and mine.  Why?  Because that's how Tolkien wrote it so that's how it has to be, except that it isn't.  That was Tolkien's Fantasy world, not THE Fantasy World.  You can create a Fantasy world were Dwarves shoot rainbows out of their butts while being chased by velociraptors with laser guns implated into their heads if you want.  That's what Fantasy is.  Whatever the creator wants.  If Wizards wants to put Psionics into their game then they have every right to and anyone that argues that "it doesn't belong" is flat out wrong.


And yet alot of people have this view.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

Psionics are also almost the wrong genre (more sci fi AKA Dune etc).



That's such an incredibly stupid statement.  It drives me crazy.  Saying something doesn't belong in a Fantasy game is one of the most ridiculously stupid things any Human being can say.  There is NOTHING that doesn't belong in a Fantasy game.  NOTHING.  There are no rules in Fantasy.  None whatsoever.  That's what the genre is.  Whatever you want.  If you want psionics, then you can have it.  If you want guns, you can have it.  If you want dinosaurs, you can have it.  It's Fantasy.  That's what it is. 

It just baffles me that people think that if something is set in the past then it's Fantasy and if it's set in the future then it's Science Fiction.  That's not what those genres are.  If it's possible, it's Science Fiction and if it's impossible it's Fantasy.  That's it.  That's the distinction.  Most stories that are set in the future and have space ships and laser guns are called Science Fiction just because they have space ships and laser guns but most of them are really Fantasy.  If it has time travel, for example, it's Fantasy.  It doesn't matter if it's in the future and has space ships.  Star Trek has time travel.  It's Fantasy.  Blade Runner isn't Science Fiction because it's set in the future, it's Science Fiction because it's possible.  No, we don't have androids with self-aware artifical intelligence at the present time, but it's possible that some day we will and that's what makes it Science Fiction. 

Fantasy doesn't mean a land with Elves and Dwarves and Dragons.  Yes most Fantasy games and stories have those elements but that's because most people are too lazy or talentless to come up with anything original so they just copy what's come before.  The sad thing is that people just assume that Fantasy has to have those things and it has to be a certain way.  Elves have to live in the forest.  Dwarves have to live in the mountains and mine.  Why?  Because that's how Tolkien wrote it so that's how it has to be, except that it isn't.  That was Tolkien's Fantasy world, not THE Fantasy World.  You can create a Fantasy world were Dwarves shoot rainbows out of their butts while being chased by velociraptors with laser guns implated into their heads if you want.  That's what Fantasy is.  Whatever the creator wants.  If Wizards wants to put Psionics into their game then they have every right to and anyone that argues that "it doesn't belong" is flat out wrong.




 Just saying psionics is more of a sci fi staple than fantasy that is all. I'm not saying it can't exist in fantasy but it is very common in sci fi, rare in fantasy at least in novels and outside D&D. If it does exist it is usually rare like in Raymond E Feists Midkemia which was apparently an AD&D world before it was added to Magician. I don't recall it being in Tolkein, Game of Thrones, most Feist books, Eddings, David Gemmel. 

 I do not mind it myself but it has usually been non core in D&D with the exception of 1st ed. And maybe 4th ed with the everything is core  so I should probably limit it to the PHB.  

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

The psionic powers must be in the first corebook, but the psionic classes can wait until the second, the demicore books (player handbook 2).

I want psionics powers in the core because I don´t like two monster stats, one with and other without psionic powers.

* Wilder need a interesting game mechanic, because "to bet" psionic power points was useless or boring for me. It can be the psionic equivalent to sorcerer, with a background closer to mutants from marvel comics (or metahumans from DC).

I like the idea of ardent/divine mind, a "psionic cleric", a great potentital to create stories about hate-love relation between ardents vs clerics, conflicts regalism vs caesaropapism.  
 
* Psiloi could be the name of a psionic fighter without armour.

* I imagine the idea of "cofrater" (=member of brotherhood), closer to concept of jedi knights from Star Wars.

*  Lurker could be a rogue subclass.

* I don´t like the name battlemind for physic warrior. (the tree-keens had got a special name for it)

* Psionic sciencies could be a second PPP pool for daily powers.  

* A soulknife subclass ought to can get and cast PPPs. 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Psionics are also almost the wrong genre (more sci fi AKA Dune etc). 1st ed was the only edition where they were in a core book and IIRC they were an optional rule. 

Psychic powers are common in many old culture.
The stupid decision to attach SF theme to psychic powers came with OD&D, at a time when it was considered okay to put ninjas, new age, and robots everywhere.
Psionics are based on the physical world while psychic powers in mythologies were based on the spiritual world. Why did the devs of OD&D and the following ones have kept the physical psychic powers for D&D ? I certainly don't know. Why do they keep putting psychic powers as an alternative to wizards (and similar classes), a successful concept, when it's clear that it would be a more successful alternative to religious classes ?

We can't keep saying that psionics go against any traditional fantasy genre or against the alchemical rules of the D&D universe, and keep them as they are in the name of the D&D tradition.

There are two traditionally botched concepts in D&D, psychic powers and the witch, maybe it's time to merge the two concepts and do something good with the result. I would have proposed the shaman instead, but it seems that pop culture has turned them into spirit slavers.

I can perfectly see psionics as a build supported by feats for a traditional class, like the witch or the occultist, but I think that a old fashioned psychic power specialist deserves its presence in a first PHB.
The psionic powers are perfect for D&D oriental adventures. And the fraals (little grey aliens from Star*drive) were canon in AD&D. If there are mutants in Red Steel/Savage Coast (Mystara spin-off).. mutant monsters with psionic powers ought´s be a surprise. 

Ki and psionic are two different power sources, aren´t they? The monk is a ki user..(but if she is fist of Zuoken she is psionic too).

* Could the enchantress, a wizard subclass use psionic telepatic powers?

* Should "ki" classes use a game mechanic like incarnum, with chakras and points of essence, or more like manevuers from "Tome of Battle: book of nine swords"?  

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

The Psion is strictly redundant with the D&D Next Wizard.

Telepath = Enchanter Mage done.



If you want to reflavor the spellbook as a crystal that seems fine.

If you want to use an alternate spell system, even better.



There is no reason for a Psion class to exist in D&D Next. That said, there is no reason for a Paladin to exist in D&D Next either. So, in the same way the Paladin survives as a “gimmick” class with a flavorful mechanic, the Psion can survive as a gimmick class with a flavorful mechanic. But for a player who really wants fully developed mind magic, just play a Wizard or a Bard.
Why do psychic power specialists would have to be as weak physically as wizards ?

Perception and control of a psyche is not necessarily reserved to target another creature. Telepathy (I'd prefer a less connoted term) used on self can give access to a total control of body functions, and can drastically increase resilience through body and morale.
A psychic can perfectly have a d12 HP each level.

Thinking about psychic power users in term of wizard point of view as already been done, and shown little interest beside being an alternative spellcasting.

A fact is that many psionicists (2nd ed. psion) players liked the fact that psionicists were something like a rogue/wizard/cleric, mostly being single target, self, ally or or foe.
A psionicist was played more like a rogue than a spellcaster (as 3.5 warlock is not  a spellcaster).
Why do psychic power specialists would have to be as weak physically as wizards ?

Perception and control of a psyche is not necessarily reserved to target another creature. Telepathy (I'd prefer a less connoted term) used on self can give access to a total control of body functions, and can drastically increase resilience through body and morale.
A psychic can perfectly have a d12 HP each level.

Thinking about psychic power users in term of wizard point of view as already been done, and shown little interest beside being an alternative spellcasting.

A fact is that many psionicists (2nd ed. psion) players liked the fact that psionicists were something like a rogue/wizard/cleric, mostly being single target, self, ally or or foe.
A psionicist was played more like a rogue than a spellcaster (as 3.5 warlock is not  a spellcaster).


In 2nd edition they had better hitpoints, armor and weapon profs. #rd had 2 or 3 main classes I believe. One was basiccally the psionic version of a wizard or sorcerer. $th versions where more gish like I believe with a defender and leader(and the monk).

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

You are talking about a archeytpe of characters like the akashic brotherhood from Mage: Ascesion rpg, by White wolf.





"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

I never needed psionics in my game so the fact that they don't even get mentioned in D&D Next yells to me a loud "meh"...
Seriously though, DnD Next still needs a little work in other areas and a tad bit of polishing so talking about psionics now is out of place and time.
I would love it if they made the monk a core psionic class and used it to test out some basic ideas.

Psionics is core to a couple settings so they should most certainly have them in NEXT, I just doubt we will see them in the main book.  

But again it would be nice if they did some of the ground work now with the monk or mystic.  I would like the MindFlayer for instance to be psionic out the gate not have to rework it later on. 

Remember this is a public forum where people express their opinions assume there is a “In my humble opinion” in front of every post especially mine.  

 

Things you should check out because they are cool, like bow-ties and fezzes.

https://app.roll20.net/home  Roll20 great free virtual table top so you can play with old friends who are far away.

http://donjon.bin.sh/  Donjon has random treasure, maps, pick pocket results, etc.. for every edition of D&D.

I would love it if they made the monk a core psionic class and used it to test out some basic ideas.

Psionics is core to a couple settings so they should most certainly have them in NEXT, I just doubt we will see them in the main book.  

But again it would be nice if they did some of the ground work now with the monk or mystic.  I would like the MindFlayer for instance to be psionic out the gate not have to rework it later on. 


They basically called the monk psionic in 4th. because they cancelled the ki power source, it didnt work along the same lines as the othwer psionic classes.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

We don´t need a complete class in the first player handbook, only a little list of psionic powers and maybe a subclass like fist of Zuoken for monks or mentalist for arcane spellcasters. 

And rebember Dark Sun was a settin where psionic powers were more used that arcane magic.  

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Why do psychic power specialists would have to be as weak physically as wizards ?

Perception and control of a psyche is not necessarily reserved to target another creature. Telepathy (I'd prefer a less connoted term) used on self can give access to a total control of body functions, and can drastically increase resilience through body and morale.
A psychic can perfectly have a d12 HP each level.

Thinking about psychic power users in term of wizard point of view as already been done, and shown little interest beside being an alternative spellcasting.

A fact is that many psionicists (2nd ed. psion) players liked the fact that psionicists were something like a rogue/wizard/cleric, mostly being single target, self, ally or or foe.
A psionicist was played more like a rogue than a spellcaster (as 3.5 warlock is not  a spellcaster).


In 2nd edition they had better hitpoints, armor and weapon profs. #rd had 2 or 3 main classes I believe. One was basiccally the psionic version of a wizard or sorcerer. $th versions where more gish like I believe with a defender and leader(and the monk).

Yes, 3rd edition was a mess with multiple standards between the psion (flufless spell point sorcerer with crystals everywhere), the soulknife, the psychic warrior, and spell point wizard (erudite ?).
4th edition didn't make a better work.

Each time psionics end with little or no support, but the devs keep trying to force the concept on the game instead of revamping it to simply match with the D&D alchemical nature and mysticism.


They basically called the monk psionic in 4th. because they cancelled the ki power source, it didnt work along the same lines as the othwer psionic classes.



Yeah but ki and psionics are very close to each other, I am ok with monks or call them "mystics" like old school rules cyclopedia did being psionic.

Ki, Chi, Prana, are all words that mean "energy"  so having that be psionic strength points is fine by me.  The whole concept of those real world martial arts, chakras, ect..seem very psionic.

Eberron and Darksun both are settings that use a lot of psionics, in Eberron they have Kalashtar who come from a whole continent flooded with psionics, Sarlona.



Remember this is a public forum where people express their opinions assume there is a “In my humble opinion” in front of every post especially mine.  

 

Things you should check out because they are cool, like bow-ties and fezzes.

https://app.roll20.net/home  Roll20 great free virtual table top so you can play with old friends who are far away.

http://donjon.bin.sh/  Donjon has random treasure, maps, pick pocket results, etc.. for every edition of D&D.

Psionics are also almost the wrong genre (more sci fi AKA Dune etc).



That's such an incredibly stupid statement.  It drives me crazy.  Saying something doesn't belong in a Fantasy game is one of the most ridiculously stupid things any Human being can say.  There is NOTHING that doesn't belong in a Fantasy game.  NOTHING.  There are no rules in Fantasy.  None whatsoever.  That's what the genre is.  Whatever you want.  If you want psionics, then you can have it.  If you want guns, you can have it.  If you want dinosaurs, you can have it.  It's Fantasy.  That's what it is. 

It just baffles me that people think that if something is set in the past then it's Fantasy and if it's set in the future then it's Science Fiction.  That's not what those genres are.  If it's possible, it's Science Fiction and if it's impossible it's Fantasy.  That's it.  That's the distinction.  Most stories that are set in the future and have space ships and laser guns are called Science Fiction just because they have space ships and laser guns but most of them are really Fantasy.  If it has time travel, for example, it's Fantasy.  It doesn't matter if it's in the future and has space ships.  Star Trek has time travel.  It's Fantasy.  Blade Runner isn't Science Fiction because it's set in the future, it's Science Fiction because it's possible.  No, we don't have androids with self-aware artifical intelligence at the present time, but it's possible that some day we will and that's what makes it Science Fiction. 

Fantasy doesn't mean a land with Elves and Dwarves and Dragons.  Yes most Fantasy games and stories have those elements but that's because most people are too lazy or talentless to come up with anything original so they just copy what's come before.  The sad thing is that people just assume that Fantasy has to have those things and it has to be a certain way.  Elves have to live in the forest.  Dwarves have to live in the mountains and mine.  Why?  Because that's how Tolkien wrote it so that's how it has to be, except that it isn't.  That was Tolkien's Fantasy world, not THE Fantasy World.  You can create a Fantasy world were Dwarves shoot rainbows out of their butts while being chased by velociraptors with laser guns implated into their heads if you want.  That's what Fantasy is.  Whatever the creator wants.  If Wizards wants to put Psionics into their game then they have every right to and anyone that argues that "it doesn't belong" is flat out wrong.



At least I am unoriginal in a Robert Howard way instead of a Tolkien way :-)


Nah, just kidding.  But you are right.  The game should fit many fantasy models.  And in my opinion psionics is just what medieval and ancient people call magic.  I always liked the idea of the sorcerer being the psion.  And wizards are humans without the ability to use magic directly so they use verbal, somatic, and material components to focus the energies of the universe that their minds can not.  It works for me.     
Some ideas from "Magic of incarnum" could be used for psionic and ki. The chakrams or body slots can be used for all power source, and the points of essence would be at-will psi o ki powers. But the points of essence are too complicated to be used by minions monsters, but only can be changed after encounter. 

Could psionic powers points be spend for metamagic effects? For example for a mind-affecting spell or a ki maneuver.

* If Fist of Zuoken is a monk with psionic powers.... a soulknife subclass could use ki maneuvers like ones from "Tome of Battle: Book of nine swords"?

A Sohei subclass could use psionic powers, a equivalent to fist of Zuoken.

* Do you like the name "Battlemind" for psychic warrior? Do you suggest other? For example psymakher, psychimachus or psimacher.  

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

The psionic powers are perfect for D&D oriental adventures. And the fraals (little grey aliens from Star*drive) were canon in AD&D. If there are mutants in Red Steel/Savage Coast (Mystara spin-off).. mutant monsters with psionic powers ought´s be a surprise. 

Ki and psionic are two different power sources, aren´t they? The monk is a ki user..(but if she is fist of Zuoken she is psionic too).

* Could the enchantress, a wizard subclass use psionic telepatic powers?

* Should "ki" classes use a game mechanic like incarnum, with chakras and points of essence, or more like manevuers from "Tome of Battle: book of nine swords"?  



Ki and psionics are the same thing to me.  No criticism meant, just how I worked it in my settings.
So how would you like to see the Psionicist work?  I could see the Monk's Ki ability as a model, with the abilities tied to the Science they study. The abilities would have to be flexible and scale based on the amount of Psi put into it. There'd have to be a couple 'cantrip' like abilities, but far more low-key than the mage's abilities. Or, the Sciences have a default use with no PSP involved.

I don't think it's a good idea to head into PSP territory-- they never worked right and were a huge pain to keep track of. A Psionicist could be balanced as a short rest only spellcaster with a little more flexibility.

I could see a telepathy ability that with no PSP allows you to communicate with an attuned character. Putting PSPs into it might let your use Commands, Dominate, and eventually mind blank targets. 
Do you like the name "Battlemind" for psychic warrior? Do you suggest other? For example psymakher, psychimachus or psimacher.


    For Psychic Warrior, I suggest the name “Bard”.



Combat magic, prescience, enchantment, shapeshift, gishy swordfighting, ... psionics seem strictly redundant.

Maybe, it is better to think of the psionic power source as one of the alternate spellcasting systems, rather than a set of classes.



Arcane = spell slots (aka socalled vancian)
Psionic = spell points (aka mana)



So a “Psion” is a Mage that is using spell points. A “Psychic Warrior” is a Bard that is using spell points. And so on.



Personally, I would rather call it the “Psychic” power source ... to help the tradition fit in better within the medieval-esque flavor of the D&D tradition.
Do you like the name "Battlemind" for psychic warrior? Do you suggest other? For example psymakher, psychimachus or psimacher.


    For Psychic Warrior, I suggest the name “Bard”.



Combat magic, prescience, enchantment, shapeshift, gishy swordfighting, ... psionics seem strictly redundant.


If you go to the specifics, the psychic warrior was far more aggressive and combat focused. A bard was a ballerina compared to the psychic warrior.

General : Combat magic, specificity : mostly brutal close combat, unlike bard.

General : prescience, specificity : mostly personnal combat stats buffs, unlike bard.

General : enchantement, specific : only two powers in the SRD, distract and catapsi, two very circumstancial debuffs, not first choices. so enchantement is definitely not a psychic warrior defining trait, unlike bard.
If you meant enchantement = telepathy, it doesn't match with the other PsyWar telepathic powers :
Conceal Thoughts - abjuration
Detect Hostile Intent - divination
Empathic Feedback (damage shield) evocation or necromancy
Empathic Transfer, Hostile (transfer damage) necromancy
Empty Mind : abjuration
Metaconcert : divination (based on communion spell, but there's no equivalent I can think about)
Mind Blank, Personal : abjuration
Thought shield : abjuration

General :shapeshift, specific : personal combat buffs, healing, a lot of animal inspired abilities for combat and utility, aggressive weapons enhancements, and a single total shapeshift, form of doom, strictly combat form, unlike bard. Bard only have alter self.

General : gishy swordfighting, specific : PsyWar is close combat oriented with strong physical damage (often two-handed weapons), buffs and defense, and strong psychic defenses.
The bard does weak physical damage, his (good after some levels) physical defenses are mostly about magical avoidance, his psychic defenses are almost inexistant, and he relies heavily on illusions and ranged enchantements.

So, in general, instead of Combat magic, prescience, enchantment, shapeshift, and gishy swordfighting, we should have :
Close physical combat magic, stronger abjuration, far stronger shapeshift (bard only has alter self), and heavy weapons "gishy" fighting not using the usual gish pattern at all.

I'm not even a fan of psychic warriors, but the comparison with the bard was too far-stretched for me Wink
The Norse archetypes of the Bard - the Berserkr Skald - are less so a “ballerina”.



The recent discussions about the Bard class emphasize the Celtic (Fili) and Norse (Skald) sources for the archetype. In this light, the Bard is a high concept that enjoys dignity. The Bard is first and foremost a sage, seer, enchanter, shapechanger, and magical ward, in addition to brutal warrior.

There is still room for the more humorous whimsical archetype of the emotional tavern minstrel, like Elan. But generally, the Bard is competent and scary.
The norse and celtic bards are described as having the same place in their societies, unlike bards in other parts of the world.
Depending on the source, they are conan-like adventurers, spellcasters, rogues, spies… almost anything, even Merlin has sometimes been tagged as a bard. Designing Skald as being different than celtic bards is pure personal or practical choice.

It's like if we called a class a military man and another army soldier. Army like being a legendary bard, propose many functions, from the most physical to the most intellectual (DARPA researcher or spellcaster). It's impossible to capture all the possible military or bard careers in one or two classes.

If you take Conan, the barbarian is agile while having muscles too big to be agile, the barbarian is supernaturally strong, the barbarian can survive anything, the barbarian can quickly charm any woman, and so on.
But if you take a barbarian, you realize you can't, because there's no barbarian left.

If you take James Bond, a spy can tell his name everywhere and still infiltrate any place or organization, a spy can survive anything, a spy destroy half a city and keep his cover, a spy can quickly charm any woman (there's a pattern here !), a spy can try any extreme task and succeed, a spy knows how to pilot/drive/ride anything, a spy has a pet providing magic items, and so on.
If you take a spy, you realize you can't, because if he does his job well and is not betrayed, nobody will know he is a spy except for his boss. And giving his name evreywhere, destroying cities with vehicles and weapons, womanizing, or being at the center of every actions are all bad ideas when you are a spy.

So even by splitting the bard in two classes, there's no way to put everything met in bards or skalds legends in them… not without having two powerful solo classes
Psionics are also almost the wrong genre (more sci fi AKA Dune etc).



That's such an incredibly stupid statement.  It drives me crazy.  Saying something doesn't belong in a Fantasy game is one of the most ridiculously stupid things any Human being can say.  There is NOTHING that doesn't belong in a Fantasy game.  NOTHING.  There are no rules in Fantasy.  None whatsoever.  That's what the genre is.  Whatever you want.  If you want psionics, then you can have it.  If you want guns, you can have it.  If you want dinosaurs, you can have it.  It's Fantasy.  That's what it is. 

It just baffles me that people think that if something is set in the past then it's Fantasy and if it's set in the future then it's Science Fiction.  That's not what those genres are.  If it's possible, it's Science Fiction and if it's impossible it's Fantasy.  That's it.  That's the distinction.  Most stories that are set in the future and have space ships and laser guns are called Science Fiction just because they have space ships and laser guns but most of them are really Fantasy.  If it has time travel, for example, it's Fantasy.  It doesn't matter if it's in the future and has space ships.  Star Trek has time travel.  It's Fantasy.  Blade Runner isn't Science Fiction because it's set in the future, it's Science Fiction because it's possible.  No, we don't have androids with self-aware artifical intelligence at the present time, but it's possible that some day we will and that's what makes it Science Fiction. 

Fantasy doesn't mean a land with Elves and Dwarves and Dragons.  Yes most Fantasy games and stories have those elements but that's because most people are too lazy or talentless to come up with anything original so they just copy what's come before.  The sad thing is that people just assume that Fantasy has to have those things and it has to be a certain way.  Elves have to live in the forest.  Dwarves have to live in the mountains and mine.  Why?  Because that's how Tolkien wrote it so that's how it has to be, except that it isn't.  That was Tolkien's Fantasy world, not THE Fantasy World.  You can create a Fantasy world were Dwarves shoot rainbows out of their butts while being chased by velociraptors with laser guns implated into their heads if you want.  That's what Fantasy is.  Whatever the creator wants.  If Wizards wants to put Psionics into their game then they have every right to and anyone that argues that "it doesn't belong" is flat out wrong.

The world of elves, dragons, wizards and magic applies to HIGH fantasy. There are many different types of fantasy.  However, in the context of Psionics it seems to me that it isn't as popular as magick.


I found this link, which you might find of interest. The article talks about the history of psionics.

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...
    

Myself, I have seen over the many years of playing D&D, that there tends to be three schools of thought when regarding psionics with the people I've seen:

1. Psionics is a broken system, and thus banned.
2. Psionics is a completely different thing as magick, and thus dispel magick and the like will not affect it.
3. Psionics is the same thing as magick, simply a different type


Of the three types, I tend to think of psionics as option #3. If psionics is to be treated as magick, then it should be treated as magick in all things - in complexity, in power, and in the disadvantages as well (no wearing armor etc...)

There must be a balance in all things.            
Psionics has rarely been a core part of the game.  It was in 1E, but highly ignored by many groups.



Even in 1e it was an optional roll for some additional abilities, nothing, or brain damage.  It wasn't a class.  I highly doubt psionics will make the 5e PHB.
Psionics are also almost the wrong genre (more sci fi AKA Dune etc). 1st ed was the only edition where they were in a core book and IIRC they were an optional rule. 


While that is true, as long as they work with the system, you can  always reflavor them as magic.



Mind abilities are fantasy as well as sci-fi.  How you fluff psionics determines which.

Psionics are also almost the wrong genre (more sci fi AKA Dune etc). 1st ed was the only edition where they were in a core book and IIRC they were an optional rule. 


While that is true, as long as they work with the system, you can  always reflavor them as magic.



Mind abilities are fantasy as well as sci-fi.  How you fluff psionics determines which.


IIRC, wasn't fantasy and sci-fi originally considered the same genre as far as literature goes?

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Psionics are also almost the wrong genre (more sci fi AKA Dune etc). 1st ed was the only edition where they were in a core book and IIRC they were an optional rule. 


While that is true, as long as they work with the system, you can  always reflavor them as magic.



Mind abilities are fantasy as well as sci-fi.  How you fluff psionics determines which.


IIRC, wasn't fantasy and sci-fi originally considered the same genre as far as literature goes?



They might not have been the same but there was a lot of overlap.  Sword-and-sorcery stories and sword-and-planet stories both had guys in loinclothes with swords rescuing half nekkid princesses from evil emperors while fighting off savage beasts.  Only the trappings were different.


Psionics came from sword-and-planet stories much as dinosaurs came from lost world stories and the undead turning cleric came from Hammer horror films.  D&D has been taking from other genres since day one and it's not going to change.

  

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/10.jpg)

It is the other way around. “Science fiction” and “fantasy” were originally seen as separate genres. However popculture blurred the lines between them irreparably, via Star Wars, Dr Who, and so on.

At a certain point, all mainstream bookstores and videostores simply combined them into a single genre on the same shelves: “sci-fi”.

TV channels like “Syfy” encompass all subgenres of the scifi genre, broadly.



Currently, I notice bookstores are unsure what to do with “urban fantasy”, which is sometimes in scifi section and sometimes in the romance section.