I'm really happy that Paizo are releasing 6 new character classes in the Advanced Players Guide. It's nice to have more options when trying to individualize your character at creation time. However, I hope they don't take this too far. I'm thinking another 6 character classes in another book after the Advanced Players Guide would be more than enough. I just don't want to see Pathfinder devolve into the mess that was 3.5 where you had so many books released with so many classes and options that munchkin abominations such as a Half-Archon Malconvoker3/Priest of Ur9/Necrobinder2/Frenzied Berzerker5 nonsense could be created. Does anyone know what Paizo's plans are for future class releases? I think they have struck a really nice balance now with single class selection being more powerful and a nice variety of classes to choose from with the impending release of the Advanced Players Guide. What are people's thoughts on this?
I'm really happy that Paizo are releasing 6 new character classes in the Advanced Players Guide. It's nice to have more options when trying to individualize your character at creation time. However, I hope they don't take this too far. I'm thinking another 6 character classes in another book after the Advanced Players Guide would be more than enough. I just don't want to see Pathfinder devolve into the mess that was 3.5 where you had so many books released with so many classes and options that munchkin abominations such as a Half-Archon Malconvoker3/Priest of Ur9/Necrobinder2/Frenzied Berzerker5 nonsense could be created. Does anyone know what Paizo's plans are for future class releases? I think they have struck a really nice balance now with single class selection being more powerful and a nice variety of classes to choose from with the impending release of the Advanced Players Guide. What are people's thoughts on this?
I also hope they dont go to far with this. The way they have balanced the classes has been great so far and i hope they dont fall into that trap. I wouldnt mind more prestige classes but i would leave the core classes alone. Or come up with more feats to choose from or anything like that to expand on the material they have. I understand they are in this to make money just like any other buisness but pray they keep in mind the mistakes that 3.5 did.
I'm pretty sure they're aware of the direction the predecessor went, and what to avoid.
Look at the diminished role of Prestige classes in the product. I think that's a good indication of the direction they're moving.
They've said that the new classes were to fill holes in the potential PC lineup, and I believe it. I think there are still a few holes, and I think they should be closed, one at a time, over the next few years.
If it ever becomes 6 new classes per year, I will be very disappointed.
Off course one way to avoid that would be to rule that a PC may have 2 base clases and one Prestige class and no more than that.
With the variant class features in the APG I can see most off the holes being plugged without recourse to new Classes at all
|
Sometimes I cant figure out why people say certain things. Such as, "I will be very dissapointed if paizo puts out 6 new classes a year." Or, "I dont want pathfinder to evolve into a 3.5 munchkin abomination..."
Paizo will publish what Paizo wants to publish. What we as buyers do with that information is up to us. In the games I play, I will make a character that I want to play that is approved by my GM.
If that is a monk4/rogue11/fighter5 with a few feats from the splat books of WotC 3.5, then that is my choice. How does that affect your opinion of Paizo? Who cares what I play?
If there are 6 new 20 level classes a year, then so be it. It gives me versatility and character options, which is the whole reason I didnt go 4.0 and why I buy Paizo products in the first place.
CC
Off course one way to avoid that would be to rule that a PC may have 2 base clases and one Prestige class and no more than that.
With the variant class features in the APG I can see most off the holes being plugged without recourse to new Classes at all
That's how we roll! (Yo!)
//
Regarding the classes -- as much as anything else, there's something in our nature, that drives us to leave a mark.
The Paizo designers have inherited alot from previous designers, with all the madness and merits that entials.
Seemingly, above and beyond extra choice/more variety etc, the new classes are about adding somethign new to a well established system...
..which can be tricky...
..and the whole process has got to have been healthy. Making use of large collection of playtesters, working essentially for free (with all the madness that can create), finding support/testing your clients expectations, responding-reacting-rewarding, *the whole process* etc etc..
..healthy. Gotta be! Sanity-testing but hey, what doesn't kill you..* :D
//
*..leaves you in screaming, agonising pain?
Sometimes I cant figure out why people say certain things. Such as, "I will be very dissapointed if paizo puts out 6 new classes a year." Or, "I dont want pathfinder to evolve into a 3.5 munchkin abomination..."
Paizo will publish what Paizo wants to publish. What we as buyers do with that information is up to us. In the games I play, I will make a character that I want to play that is approved by my GM.
If that is a monk4/rogue11/fighter5 with a few feats from the splat books of WotC 3.5, then that is my choice. How does that affect your opinion of Paizo? Who cares what I play?
If there are 6 new 20 level classes a year, then so be it. It gives me versatility and character options, which is the whole reason I didnt go 4.0 and why I buy Paizo products in the first place.
CC
I'd hope that Paizo would, as they have in the past, pay some attention to their fan base and produce the stuff we want rather than the stuff they say we should have.In contrast to certain other Seattle based gaming companies who basically take the attitude off 'This is what you want because we say it is'
I like new classes. I like variety and options. One of my favorite "splatbooks" is the Tome of Magic, which introduced 3 new kinds of magic, 3 new base classes, and lots of support PrCs for those new systems. They're different, but still work well with 3.5/Pathfinder material.
The cool thing about new classes is: if you don't want to play one, you don't have to.
I also like new classes. As long as Paizo does their usual good job of making sure things aren't outlandish (not completely balanced - I have no illusions that they are and no desire for them to be, just as long as no new class is crazily more or less powerful than those already released), I don't mind them releasing a bunch more.
Especially when they have new ways to do things - another caster of the same sort we have now isn't so appealing, but something like psionics, with its point based casting, would be awesome. Or a spontaneous caster that uses the druid list (they have the oracle as spontaneous cleric in the APG, but still no druid-list one).
|
I like new classes. I like variety and options. One of my favorite "splatbooks" is the Tome of Magic, which introduced 3 new kinds of magic, 3 new base classes, and lots of support PrCs for those new systems. They're different, but still work well with 3.5/Pathfinder material.
The cool thing about new classes is: if you don't want to play one, you don't have to.
Yeah and it's never that simple...because as soon as the AGP hits I know for a fact that there will be much talk from players who demand they use X class and DM who don't wanna because it's "broke". The whole idea behind the splat books of old and the slew of PrC was that if you didn't like it, you didn't have to use it...but practically speaking, they were all used and any DM who would rue to say no was deemed a draconian evil DM. Yes I am exaggerating (sadly not by much...) but I don't particularly like the idea of going back to that level of must have rules bloat. I kinda like tha paizo is focused on APs and little companion world books. They may not make as much money as rules books, but they are much more sustainable without having the rules get bloated every few years and needing a reset button.
|
|
I have read a lot of threads on here that suggest a LOT of fans want MORE base classes. Seems the concept of base class has replaced Prestige classes. People want the "prestige" of certain classes but want 20 levels of it, and the more classes the better.
There are already several more base classes offered by 3PP, and I think we can all prepare for a glut of more to come.
Now, that being said, I have no problem with well conceived base classes that bring something new to the table. These new APG classes are not only new thematically but also new mechanically as well.
I was against the idea of more and more classes at first, but have warmed to the idea now. As player and GM I can manage to reign in stupidity (well okay I sometimes get stupid and have to be reigned in too). But the more variety, the more options the better.
Choose what YOU want to play, and let other choose what they want to play. Works out better for everyone that way...
What are people's thoughts on this?
Personally, I find myself wondering if multi-classing base classes is becoming obsolete (other than to meet the prerequisites for a Prestige Class).
Actually if they now occasionally (more like when the players really demand a concept, like with that fighter/mage, 1 or 2 per year max) released a class in an AP (like they did with the hellkinight PrC) or in the companion, I'd be fine with it.
Count me in on the list of players (and DMs) who want more options.
Look, I get it, some of you want to keep it simple and avoid the rules bloat. I totally get that. But here's the thing. If Paizo puts out too much stuff, you (and I, and everyone else) can always just disallow certain things. It's a very easy thing to say, for example, "Nope, no summoners or alchemists in MY campaign."
That's all it takes, one simple sentence, and you're done. You get what you want.
That's what I did with 3.5. There's whole scads of stuff I banned, starting with Bo9S, half the stuff in BoVD and BoED, Frenzied Berserker, and a handful of other things scattered here and there. It took me all of 5 minutes to type up a list of disallowed material.
But, on the other hand, for those players who want variety, who want more stuff, who think the game gets better with more stuff, well, if Paizo does NOT put out enough stuff, we have to make up our own. I gotta say, while I'm willing to make up 20 new character classes if the mood should ever strike, that is far, far, far more work than the one-sentence that you guys get.
So, if it's a choice between some players getting a one-sentence "Nope, not gonna allow that" or other players having to put in weeks or months of their own sweat and labor (when they could have been writing adventures rather than rules), then yeah, I'm all for Paizo putting out as much stuff as they can; even though I probably won't use all of it.
5 minutes to type up the list, or many months of labor. That's not a fair trade.
Is it really necessary for anyone to chime in here and rain on everybody else's parade? Do you really need to suggest to Paizo that they're 'doing it wrong' if they put out more stuff than YOU want?
Blake I have no problem with additional base classes provided they add something new to the choices available..but honestly 90% of the stuff in the "Complete" series added nothing to my game.
My house rule is as I stated above..a player may have two base classes and a PrC. My Players are happy with this.
Well we have a Spell caster Weapon User the Magus Confirmed for Next Years Ultimalte Magic from Erik at Paizocon
Oh and by the way I would love to see 3-6 new core classes every year and and 10 to 20 prestige classes
|
Myself and a few friends in my gaming group have been playtesting with the new APG classes in our Pathfinder Society games. So far, our Society games have been a mix of standard and APG classes. The APG classes have been an interesting new addition to our group. They felt new and interesting, but but also fit well among a group of standard characters performing necessary adventuring roles.
Yesterday, I GMed the Free RPG Game Day intro scenario: Master of the Fallen Fortress, which featured six pre-gen characters built from each of the new APG classes. The overwhelming feeling I felt after GMing the session was reminiscent of my first days of gaming with the D&D Basic boxed set, and for a player of over 25 years who's grown a little tired of the standard classes, this is a breath of fresh air.
These classes were fresh and new, players were learning what they were capable of, and yet the classes stood on their own. They didn't need a Cleric, Fighter, Rogue or Wizard as a member of the party, in fact playing a scenario with only APG classes, you could envision an entire campaign in which these were the only classes available.
With these six new classes being OGL, I'd be surprised if third-party companies didn't jump onto these with fresh new concepts and options. One of the reasons some customers have grown tired of third-party splatbooks, is because how do you write something about Fighters or Rogues or Wizards that hasn't been written before? But Alchemists and Eidolons and Witches are entirely new ground for development, not only for splatbooks, but campaign settings too!
I really like classes that enable me to portray a character concept I have in mind. For example, I'm currently playing a high Str voodoo witch-doctor from the deep Mwangi jungles. I could probably have built this using the druid class or a cleric, sorcerer or wizard, but the witch class works really well for me. I didn't want to build a stereo-typical witch, instead I wanted to see what else I could craft using this class, and if the mechanics supported my roleplaying, and I have to say it does remarkably well.
So I'm looking forward to see what other character concepts I can craft using the other new classes. I'm also looking forward to meeting other original concepts player's bring to convention sessions I GM.
Blake I have no problem with additional base classes provided they add something new to the choices available..but honestly 90% of the stuff in the "Complete" series added nothing to my game.
My house rule is as I stated above..a player may have two base classes and a PrC. My Players are happy with this.
All the complete books added something to my campaign, they were a bit overdone on the PrC, easy-cheesy design fillers. But in general they looked pretty good, had a few useful PrC and were otherwise pretty decent.
You prolly won't use more than 10 - 20 % from any splatbook, but the part we did use was probably worth it. I already prepare to ban summoner, but I think the other APG classes are fair game.. 5 out off 6 new classes I like enough to allow in my campaign and have a good chance to be picked by my players. That is pretty damn good.
|
I played almost nothing but multiclassed elves or whatever in 1st and 2nd edition. I've played almost nothing but single-classed humans in 3rd edition.
If the game system encourages single-classed dedication, which 3.X kinda did, and Pathfinder even more does, I'll happily stick to one class to get the job done.
That being said, the more options, the better. And I'd prefer for the new classes to be regarded as a toolkit that provides options for expanding or tweaking the core classes.
An 'alchemist' bloodline sorcerer who has a minor version of the bomb throwing ability as his bloodline power could be funky, and allow someone who doesn't want to deal with the Alchemist class to kinda/sorta weasel that into the game, for instance, so I'd be interested in seeing some Class Variants that play around with ideas from the APG classes (without invalidating them, obviously!).
That chart of evolutions looks like it might be a fun thing to apply to other classes, in some way, perhaps through some sort of 'mutation' spell that one can cast on their Animal Companion or upon Summoned monsters.
And a Paladin variant that swaps out some divine LOH / Channel Energy options for Tactical Feat abilities, a la the Cavalier, or a Ranger variant that swaps out Favored Enemy for an Inquisitors challenges, could be funky as well.
The problem with the new 20 level "core" classes is that most of them could be Prestige Classes for the already existing cores.
Look at Cavalier, he could easily be a prc for a Fighter/Paladin, Inquisitor -> Cleric/Ranger or Paladin/Ranger, Oracle, this class features could easily be some bloodlines for Sorcerer or he could be a prc for Cleric
Even my beloved Witch could be Gypsy(or something like this) bloodline for Sorcerer with little imagination, but she is the most unique from the three above so ok i accept this.
By my point of view Summoner is a nice core because is the only of the three (ranger,druid,summoner) classes with pets(not familiars) who specializes on his pet without having the combat prowess of the ranger nor the spellcasting capabilities of druid.(that depends on how you are going to play him)
The same goes for the Alchemist too. He is a well made core class that is all about inventions, potions and kaboom! stuff. He is the most versatile of the new 6 "core" and its a very unique themed class, who can support, tank, deal enormous amounts of dmg and cause panic in the battlefield.
I have no problem with new core classes if they can offer different abilities and are truly unique themed.
|
Paizo's philosophy of PrC goes in the direction of tying them to organizations/groups/factions and moves away from the 3.5 philosophies which went pretty much either like this: "hmmm we can't achieve this idea using a base class ... hey, let's slap a PrC !" or this: "the base class sucks or is bland, so instead of bending over and releasing an upgrade let's make a zillion PrCs to make up for the shortcomings".
As someone who compulsively creates new base classes (I just can't help myself), I look at it this way. Since there are a finite number of classes and an infinite number of character concepts, not every concept is going to fit perfectly within the bounds of a certain class. The game could have evolved into a true point purchase game, like Tru20, but it didn't. Like them or hate them, classes are a sacred cow of DnD. Making new classes allows the system to evolve to fit new ideas, experiment with new crunch, and keep the game interesting. Any class not in the Core Book is an optional addition to your game. Hopefully Paizo will continue to make new classes that fill new roles in a balanced and interesting way. I don't care if they make 100 new classes a year, as long as the ones they do release are compelling and stand up on their own. .
Paizo's philosophy of PrC goes in the direction of tying them to organizations/groups/factions and moves away from the 3.5 philosophies which went pretty much either like this: "hmmm we can't achieve this idea using a base class ... hey, let's slap a PrC !" or this: "the base class sucks or is bland, so instead of bending over and releasing an upgrade let's make a zillion PrCs to make up for the shortcomings".
Agreed.
From the sounds of things, the APG is going to include alternative rules for classes.
So instead of having a PrC with generic requirements and generic abilities, it sounds like it'll be a class feature swap on an existing base class that can already do "most" of the concept.
So likely no weapon masters, and rather feat trees and Fighter ability swaps, and that sort of thing.
Which I find as a far more agreeable approach. A player that qualifies for a PrC feels entitled to it, and might get bad feelings towards a person who denies it.
A request for a class feature swap is far easier to handle when denied. There's no "built-in" sense of entitlement there.
|
|
Paizo's philosophy of PrC goes in the direction of tying them to organizations/groups/factions and moves away from the 3.5 philosophies which went pretty much either like this: "hmmm we can't achieve this idea using a base class ... hey, let's slap a PrC !" or this: "the base class sucks or is bland, so instead of bending over and releasing an upgrade let's make a zillion PrCs to make up for the shortcomings".
Agreed.
From the sounds of things, the APG is going to include alternative rules for classes.
So instead of having a PrC with generic requirements and generic abilities, it sounds like it'll be a class feature swap on an existing base class that can already do "most" of the concept.
So likely no weapon masters, and rather feat trees and Fighter ability swaps, and that sort of thing.
Which I find as a far more agreeable approach. A player that qualifies for a PrC feels entitled to it, and might get bad feelings towards a person who denies it.
A request for a class feature swap is far easier to handle when denied. There's no "built-in" sense of entitlement there.
Cool words about the entitlement element. As far as we can see, the bulk of new options in the APG will be Archetypes which allow you to replace class features with variant or new ones.
|
|
I am in favor of more base classes. Personally I think PrC's should be used for campaign specific things. Red Mantis for example. Sure a few generic ones like assassin makes sense. But mostly I would rather see base classes and then some campaign specific PrC's.
So as long as Paizo keeps the new classes balanced with the old classes and makes them interesting. Then I say the more the better as long as that holds true. I don't like all the new classes but i think they are all interesting and with in the current power range of base classes.
I love the new classes, and look forward to more. This wont be 3.5, because if it is, we wouldnt have 6 new classes we'd have 36 or more. Paizo is basically releasing 1 book a year with such options. I think there is very little glut to fear. I like new options, and so does my group. What I dont get is why people who dont want additional options have a problem with them being added. Just dont use them. Its really really easy. Where as for those who want more classes and options its much harder to make them up our selves then to simply skip over a few pages in a book.
Long before Paizo was even a household name, much less the purveyor of a whole gaming system, I was inventing new "core" classes. The idea of prestige classes never struck the right chord with me, so I took it upon myself to develop 20-level classes, like alchemist, archer, brawler, chronomancer, darknight, etc, etc. It's a lot of fun to put thought into things like that.
That said, if someone else does the work for me, and the results are intriguing and balanced with everything else in the campaign, well...that's just gravy.
If Paizo develops more "core" classes to fill niche areas of the world, then I'm all for that. If they put as much thought into their development and solicit as much input from their customers as they have thus far, then, frankly, it'll be good stuff that I'll be excited to peruse (whether I allow it in my games or not). If, however, they "dump" a never-ending stream of ill-prepared, not-so-well-thought-out material on us just so they can meet a sales quota (which is what WotC seemed to being doing), then I will be gravely disappointed.
Regardless, each of us is at liberty to accept or reject Paizo's future material and ideas for use in our campaigns, and to that end I say, "Bring it on!"
A lot of new classes were really just original ones with a twist - swashbuckler was essentially a fighter, for example, and wu-jen an elemental wizard. Having different class options and expanded feats goes a long way toward making extra classes redundant. While I'm all for more options, I see no need for unnecessary ones. Having classes with good capstones makes for less multi-classing.
So even if you get 3 to 6 Core classes a year next year will be the classes from Ultimate magic more then likly going to be on the lower end of classes.
Then the year after next lets hope they do Psionist looking at maybe 4 new core classes and maybe 5 or 10 prestige classes
So in 4 years thats if they do Psionics and if they have that many core classes in Ultimate magic you are looking at under 25 core classes after 4 years. Dont worry about the expansion its at a slow and steady pace
Then the year after next lets hope they do Psionist looking at maybe 4 new core classes and maybe 5 or 10 prestige classes
They don't plan on doing psionics at all in the near future, but they may endorse the Dreamscarred Press's 'psionics for pathfinder' project if it yields good results.
|
|
Actually if they now occasionally (more like when the players really demand a concept, like with that fighter/mage, 1 or 2 per year max) released a class in an AP (like they did with the hellkinight PrC) or in the companion, I'd be fine with it.
I would honestly hate it if they went this route. I would prefer something like the AGP, but possible smaller released once a year with the rules upgrade in it. After about a decade's worth of rules updates, then it would be a good time for a reset with PF 2.
Actually if they now occasionally (more like when the players really demand a concept, like with that fighter/mage, 1 or 2 per year max) released a class in an AP (like they did with the hellkinight PrC) or in the companion, I'd be fine with it.I would honestly hate it if they went this route. I would prefer something like the AGP, but possible smaller released once a year with the rules upgrade in it. After about a decade's worth of rules updates, then it would be a good time for a reset with PF 2.
Well, I'm suggesting this rate because I'd rather hate to receive X classes a year if there weren't good ideas behind them. Just remember the samurai. I'd rather receive one scout in two years than three samurai, one ninja and three wu-jen every year.
Then the year after next lets hope they do Psionist looking at maybe 4 new core classes and maybe 5 or 10 prestige classesThey don't plan on doing psionics at all in the near future, but they may endorse the Dreamscarred Press's 'psionics for pathfinder' project if it yields good results.
So Eric or James has said this or did we assume this?
James has said he has no plans whatsoever for doing psionics within the next few years, and they are writing it out of the new Campaign book because of this; there have been hints (but nothing concrete) that they may be waiting to see what the DSP version plays like. Right now, so far as I know, Dreamscarred are the only company doing a set of Psionics, for Pathfinder - I know individuals have done versions of the classes, but some of the powers need extensive reworking as well, and aspects of the psionics system need examining in the light of Pathfinder's changes to 3.5.
That, I'm afraid, is all I know of Paizo's stance on the matter.
James has said he has no plans whatsoever for doing psionics within the next few years, and they are writing it out of the new Campaign book because of this; there have been hints (but nothing concrete) that they may be waiting to see what the DSP version plays like. Right now, so far as I know, Dreamscarred are the only company doing a set of Psionics, for Pathfinder - I know individuals have done versions of the classes, but some of the powers need extensive reworking as well, and aspects of the psionics system need examining in the light of Pathfinder's changes to 3.5.
That, I'm afraid, is all I know of Paizo's stance on the matter.
Thats to bad I wanted to see Paizos take not a 2nd dary company no disrespect to Dreamscarred I know they did all kinds of Psionics in 3.5 but for me its not the same as having Paizo do it
Thats to bad I wanted to see Paizos take not a 2nd dary company no disrespect to Dreamscarred I know they did all kinds of Psionics in 3.5 but for me its not the same as having Paizo do itJames has said he has no plans whatsoever for doing psionics within the next few years, and they are writing it out of the new Campaign book because of this; there have been hints (but nothing concrete) that they may be waiting to see what the DSP version plays like. Right now, so far as I know, Dreamscarred are the only company doing a set of Psionics, for Pathfinder - I know individuals have done versions of the classes, but some of the powers need extensive reworking as well, and aspects of the psionics system need examining in the light of Pathfinder's changes to 3.5.
That, I'm afraid, is all I know of Paizo's stance on the matter.
I know what you mean. On the other hand, one reason for this according to James is that they don't have any psionics buffs on their staff right now. In that case, better it's done by those that really know it well.
There are several problems with Paizo doing psionics. Mostly, how to integrate them into APs and Golarion books ? A feat/spell/item from APG or any other book can be easily inserted into an adventure - you can't do that with a whole new rules subsystem.
And this is another reason! One suggestion was to make psionics a 'vancian' system, which to me would just rob it of it's uniqueness. I mean, a vancian psion would to all intents and purposes be a sorcerer, and if I want to play a sorcerer I'll play a sorcerer.
Leaving the system as an 'optional' part available for those that want to play it but not forcing it on anyone is maybe the best way to go.
There are several problems with Paizo doing psionics. Mostly, how to integrate them into APs and Golarion books ? A feat/spell/item from APG or any other book can be easily inserted into an adventure - you can't do that with a whole new rules subsystem.
You can't? Why not?
|
Now, that being said, I have no problem with well conceived base classes that bring something new to the table. These new APG classes are not only new thematically but also new mechanically as well.
I think you've got something there. If Paizo's releasing new classes, I want them to be something that isn't attainable with the other base classes so far.
They've been good so far with the APG classes, each one introduces new elements that we haven't seen so far.
|
|
There are several problems with Paizo doing psionics. Mostly, how to integrate them into APs and Golarion books ? A feat/spell/item from APG or any other book can be easily inserted into an adventure - you can't do that with a whole new rules subsystem.
We play Rise of the Runelords with Psionics. No problem at all :)
There are several problems with Paizo doing psionics. Mostly, how to integrate them into APs and Golarion books ? A feat/spell/item from APG or any other book can be easily inserted into an adventure - you can't do that with a whole new rules subsystem.You can't? Why not?
What happens if you don't have the rules for it? It's easy enough to slot in a witch with just half a page of explanation so someone with just the core rules can play it. Quite another to put in a psion - you would either have to:
1) Include all the rules in the AP (impractical).2) Include alternate stat blocks to change the unknown class into a known one (rejected by Paizo as taking up excess space and reducing the presentation value of their products).
3) Mark them as only usable if you have the supplement (restricting the sales potential).
The other option is to leave them out for DM's and players to slot in or not as they wish.
|
|
There are several problems with Paizo doing psionics. Mostly, how to integrate them into APs and Golarion books ? A feat/spell/item from APG or any other book can be easily inserted into an adventure - you can't do that with a whole new rules subsystem.You can't? Why not?
I mean Paizo inserting it in written modules.
There's no point of printing new rules if you don't use them in your products. If Paizo does psionics, people will expect them to slap it into an AP here and there. And it's hard to slap psionics into an AP - sure, you can write a psionic monster and direct people to online SRD, but a) there's always that person who can't access the net while playing and b) there's always that many persons who hate psionics with passion and will demand a second statblock for a non-psionic version of said monsters.
And dual statblocks eat a lot of space.
How is that any different from anything in the APG? You can't just assume people know all the Summoner rules by heart, either. And yet, Paizo already did six brand new classes, plus half a dozen or more new archetypes for each Core Rulebook class.