|
5 years ago ::
Apr 20, 2008 - 2:45PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 20, 2008
|
I was disappointed to find out that psionics are being left out of the initial Player's Handbook despite the class/powers having been around since AD&D 2nd Edition.
Has there ever been an official reason behind not including psionics in the "core" material? Are they not popular enough? Are they too far removed from traditional fantasy magic but still fun enough to get included as a supplement? Are they cut simply due to space requirements?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 20, 2008 - 3:04PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2007
|
Don't worry unlike in 3.5 they are actually making sure Psionics are going to fit right into the game.
They simply are not appearing in PHB1, Primal, Shadow and Psionic classes will be appearing most likely first in PHB2 next year.
So it will actually be more core then it was in 3.5.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 20, 2008 - 3:07PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
I was disappointed to find out that psionics are being left out of the initial Player's Handbook despite the class/powers having been around since AD&D 2nd Edition.
Has there ever been an official reason behind not including psionics in the "core" material? Are they not popular enough? Are they too far removed from traditional fantasy magic but still fun enough to get included as a supplement? Are they cut simply due to space requirements?
Psionics were never in the original PHBs at any edition that I can recall. They've always come in a year or two later with their own handbook. They'll be in soon enough.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 20, 2008 - 3:23PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2004
|
AD&D 1 DMG.
One big reason.... The fanbase find it controversial. Somes hate it because of bad past mechanics, and others because they dub it science-fiction and not fantasy (there is quite purist visions of what should be fantasy, you know the drill...).
As much as I like the idea, WOTC really don't have much choices. There would be complains otherwise.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 20, 2008 - 3:24PM
#5
|
|
|
AD&D 1 had some Psionics related stuff in its DMG, IIRC.
But, yes, there has never been psionics in a Player's Handbook.
I believe it's been left out for 2 big reasons.
1) Psionics is the single most polarizing aspect of D&D. Some people love it beyond all reason. Others feel it is the most vile, hateful abomination ever made. The pro-Psi extremists are used to having to wait a bit, and generally are not angered by that as much as the anti-psi extremists would be if it were put in to the book. The anti-side has "tradition" on their side... and we all know how pissy some people can get over tradition.
2) Psionics has needed a lot of space to describe its internal mechanical differences. Psi has both a wildly different than core flavor as well as wildly different from core mechanic. And unless 4E Psi is dramatically different on both accounts, it will need a bit of space for its own uniqueness.
One lesser reason why it has been left out of 4E's PHb is that is a different power source than the big three they are pushing. The highest icons of sword-and-sorcery mythic/epic/heroic fantasy are easiest to represent with martial, divine or arcane classes (not saying all are, but definitely most).
edit; ninja'd by ubbergeek
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 20, 2008 - 3:32PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2006
|
Psionics were never in the original PHBs at any edition that I can recall. They've always come in a year or two later with their own handbook.
AD&D 1 had some Psionics related stuff in its DMG, IIRC.
But, yes, there has never been psionics in a Player's Handbook.[/quote]
Wrong. 1e PHB had it in one of the appendices--after the bard and before the planes, IIRC.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 20, 2008 - 3:35PM
#7
|
|
|
Wrong. 1e PHB had it in one of the appendices--after the bard and before the planes, IIRC.
The Planes were not detailed int he PHb, I think you are confusing it with the DMG.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 20, 2008 - 3:49PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2006
|
The Planes were not detailed int he PHb, I think you are confusing it with the DMG.
The PHB doesn't describe the planes, just lays out a diagram of which goes where; I'd call it the Great Wheel, but it was a square shape. 
But psionics were definitely in the PHB. I don't have my PHB on me, so I can't quote you anything, but I have my 1e DMG right here and there's nothing in there on psionics.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 20, 2008 - 3:57PM
#9
|
|
|
Hmm, If my books weren't in storage, I would have double-checked them. I guess I did not recall correctly.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 20, 2008 - 4:19PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Apr 20, 2008
|
Thanks for the responses, guys!
I didn't get into AD&D until some years after 2nd edition was already out and only found the softcover psionics supplement by accident some time after that.
I think I can see the reasoning, though, especially after reading the explanations about differing mechanics and taking up space. I don't think that "legacy" or "tradition" is going to hold a lot of water this time around, though. Greyhawk and Dragonlance have been set aside (at least for the time being and I've only heard rumors about Dragonlance making a return later on).
|
|
|
