I’m sure I could find some other examples of high fantasy series with psionics; those are just the first 2 that come to mind.

I’ve never played a psionic character in any edition of D&D. The concept just doesn’t appeal to me. I never said the mechanics of psionics were broken in previous editions (although that does seem to be the popular opinion) I said I think that psionic characters are better suited to other types of RPGs and I don’t think they belong in D&D.

I know that a lot of people like the versatility Psionic classes present and I leave that exploration to them.

@Zek
As much I as personally dislike Psionics in D&D it does seem that Wizards of the Coast has gone to great lengths to make them more inclusive and mainstream in 4e D&D. Although psionics are still different they should at least keep PCs on the same power level (more or less) and reduce the number of people crying “broken.”

Personally, I am disappointed in 4e (although I still play). They have reduced unique and interesting character types into WOW equivalents. The differences in two players with the same class are, in my opinion, minimal and the idea of roles cramps my style and limits what I might want to do with my character. One my key attractions to psionics is that each character was unique in power selection and attitude (something many like about sorcerers).

I have not yet seen a copy of the new Psionic rules, but if they compare to 3.5 then I will be happy.

As for the “broken” cries of 3-3.5 psionics, it really came down to the whole psionics/magic transparency issue. In each splat book that had psionic material in it, there was a sidebar reminding both players and DMs alike that there was a choice….completely separate [probably what most people did and called broken] and melding. The melding meant that SR = PR, Dispel Magic == Dispel Psionics, Anti-Magic Field = Anti-Psionics Field, Catapsi hits Spellcasters too, etc. In my play experiences, this made things easier on DMs, players, and preserved the game better. This problem appears to be resolved in 4e, because there’s no attempt to differentiate it. Psionic powers get the keyword, but there is no mention of them being different. I’ve read some fluff that even refers to it as “psionic magic” — an inane term if I’ve heard it — but I believe that it is WotC’s attempt to bridge the gap.

My personal reasons that I liked the 3-3.5 psionics and played them over arcane/divine casters typically are twofold. One, I enjoyed the mechanics as I liked options. Versitility is always key, and not having to directly conform to the archetypical spell slots and having the ability to augment makes things more interesting for me. The second is the same reason I enjoyed monks. Self-sufficiency. All casters depend on something. Wizards upon their spellbooks, components, and depending on the campaign, the Weave or its equal. Clerics depend upon their deity. Druids upon their alignment and nature itself. Paladins upon their alignment and deity. The only ones break this to an extent are Sorcerers — provided the campaign doesn’t link them to a Weave-like plot device — and Psionicists.

As for monks, we must all remember that this is indeed referencing the eastern Monk, not the Western monk. Buddhist monks in particular, hence the quintessential reference to Quai Chang Kane from Kung Fu as an inspiration. Unforunately, monks don’t translate well to modern martial artists, but I doubt they ever truly well. After all, ever try to kneebar a griffon or put a dragon in a Thai Plum and knee its head? Not likely to happen easily. That’s why it’s Chi = Psionic, not Chi = Martial.

As for the Time of Troubles archetype, that would definitely raise psionicists to higher ranks. Always a plus to me, lol.

I do agree that reflavoring is always available, and switching the Psion’s power source to Arcane should eliminate the issue. Granted, it simply turns it into a controlling sorcerer, but to each his/her own, no?

@Ian Argent
I think the Monk was going to be a really powerful class regardless of which power source he was associate with. I agree that the “chi” power does have more of a psionic flavour than martial. I suppose I was thinking more of the raw martial arts, hand-to-hand combat when I suggested the Monk could be a Martial class.

As for monk being a Martial class – don’t we have enough people complaining about the Fighter being super-powered? In the monk’s case psionic == chi. They didn’t think they had enough material to do a whole chi powersource, so they folded it into psionic, where it more or less fits.