Psionic poll

[Sajach]

I wanted to see how many people who dm use psionics as a character type in there game. Please respond and tell me why or why not.

[The Glyphstone]

For 3.5, at least:

I love psionics, and encourage them for new players whenever possible who want to be a 'caster' class. They're far more balanced compared to arcane or divine casting, and incredibly intuitive to any newbie who's played a video game with MP/Mana/Energy on its spellcasting. Just last night I was talking with a DM who didn't even know the game had psychic rules, and once I said "it's like how video game wizards use MP" he got it instantly.

[Emmerask]

Sure I use and or allow psionic characters in 3.5.

Psionics in my opinion is far more fun then arcane classes, they are way better balanced and are extremely fun for multiclassing.

I would rather ban arcane and divine in my games then psionics, I don´t but if I would the order would be arcane, divine, psionics ^^.

[Yora]

3.5e Psionics are an incredible magic system with really weird fluff text. I'd even say that it's by far the best spell system in any edition of D&D, but would be much better suited as the mechanic of sorcerers than for a rather obscure concept of not-magic that most people don't seem to see any place for in their games.

[pffh]

I have never used psionics in my games. I would like to but none of my players have chosen to so in my next game I'm making psionics an integral part of the world.

[Bearpunch]

I love psionics. Though I haven't implemented them in 3.5, my 4e group constantly has at least one. I really like the fluff because its so out there for fantasy and makes things feel really different. I've also been into the whole telekenetic thing since I was a kid so that helps.

[dsmiles]

...
...
...
...I guess you didn't get my telepathetic answer.

Yes. I use psionics, and make them available to my players in every campaign I run, but I seem to be the only one who uses them. I'm also a user of the "psionics are different" optional rules.

[erikun]

I like psionics and I've used them, but I've never had a player of mine want to do so. They offer a good and interesting alternative to magic, different enough to have their own feeling but not so different that it feels like you're playing another game.

[eggs]

WotC/Paizo D&D: Sure. They're cool systems. The fluff is kind of weird for the old-school sword-and-sorcery style, but it's got its own kung-fu-Cronenberg style that can be pretty nifty on its own. And these versions of D&D, with their heaps and heaps of magic items and ubiquitously effortless casters, are clumsy for old-school sword-and-sorcery anyway.

TSR D&D: Oh god no.

[Dimers]

Sure. I like psi in 3.X, 4th ed and AD&D. I don't know enough about it in White Wolf, but I suspect it'd be okay. GURPS psionics seems to have balance issues, but if a player wanted to be a psi, I'd rework the mechanics rather than saying "no you can't". Psi doesn't exist in Shadowrun, but I've homebrewed a magical tradition and called it psi.

To answer "why" ... why not? It makes a player happy and doesn't hurt anything. *shrug*

[Empedocles]

Generally I include psionics for NPCs. If a player wanted to use a psionic character I wouldn't say no, but that hasn't happened. I (as a player) have played a shaper who was actually pretty badass and blew up some drow city.

Personally, I prefer to use incarnum since I think it's a little bit more unique and creative of a system, and it's Tier 3 while Psions (and possibly wilders, depending who you ask) are Tier 2.

[nedz]

I used them in 1E, but not since. The 2E version was a little strange, and none of the groups I play with use the 3E version.

[TARDIS]

Ye gods, yes! I enjoyed the psionics flavour of D&D 3.5 et al, as well as the support it got from WotC - it wasn't just a tacked-on system, it really did feel like it was part of the core game to me. Therefor, I made it part of my core game, with psionic villains, nations, organizations, etc. It took a bit of work to make certain that psionics read as different from arcane and divine magic, but that issue ultimately made a more in-depth setting, having to go behind the scenes and explain how Magic A is not like Magic B. And I like to belive the players appreciated it, with the odd ones picking up a psychic warrior or a soulknife to try out

If you can understand the rules and you think you can run with it, I encourage you to do so. It adds to the experience and helps expand your D&D game in myriad ways.

[Nero24200]

I don't DM that often as of late, but when I do I allow. My group isn't particularly enthusiastic about them though, so "allowing" them is kinda pointless since I'm really the only one that would play a Psionic Character.

[Lord Loss]

My players haven't run into them just yet, but there's a nation that has psychics in the place of spellcasters (for the most part). Spellcasters still exist, they're just rare. I use the Green Ronin Psychic's Handbook rules in the place of the WotC rules, though.

Psychic abilities are the result of Illithid technology - Illithids are big on Psychics, and this nation (mainly composed of Gnomes and Warforged) fought fire with fire in a war with the Illithids long ago. Now, their connection with arcane and divine magic is very weak, but people are often born psychics there and their ruler is one of the most powerful psychics ever seen.

Besides that nation, a few groups of Nomads in the desert region of the setting, and of course the Illithid-Drow occupied continent, psychics are very rare in most cultures and few, if any people are born with such abilities. It often runs in the family, the children or descendants of psychics have a higher chance of acquiring these abilities than random people do.

I like Psionics because they help add cool powers to a Steampunk campaign and both in terms of flavor and mechanics, they feel different from regular magic and help give cultures a different feel than standard mages.

Not just Psionics, but other alternative magic systems are often relegated to one or a few geographic areas and help give or accentuate a flavor or tone i'm going for. Like I have a half-minotaur village that uses Incarnum (MoI) in my current setting, and another area is big on Binders (ToM). Stuff like that.

[Beowulf DW]

I haven't DM'd (yet) but I love it when we use psionics. It's only happened once so far, but I find that it makes much more sense than the magic system used in the rest of DnD and Pathfinder. With spell slots it feels like...like loading a gun with bullets that do x, y, and z. With psionics, it feels like you're using a portion of your mental energy to achieve the desired effect; like the power is a part of you, not just a piece of equipment.

[kaomera]

Bucking the trend here, but I prefer to avoid them. I'd prefer not to simply ban them completely, but I'm just not a fan of the fluff and I find the mechanical differences generally not a benefit to my game. Unfortunately that means that if someone is going to play a psion then pretty much all of the burden of making the character cool is going to be on them, and the general response from players has been to either make a different character (on the basis that they can play a psion in a different game where the GM is going to be more excited about the idea) or else to miss the point completely and start arguing balance at me.

[Randomguy]

I don't particularly mind psionics, but I'm much more familiar with arcane/divine magic. Also, I know what most spells do, but not most powers.



It seems that a common problem is that DM's can't get their players to diversify into psionics. I heard on these forums somewhere that one DM banned arcane and divine magic completely for one game, in an attempt to get his players to diversify into psionics, incarnum and other magic systems. I recall him saying it was very effective.

[Elfinor]

I use psionics regularly (D&D 3.5) and it is mechanically a fairly well designed system. Not a fan of most of the flavor though. In most of my campaigns psionics exists and is well known, but it takes a backseat to arcane/divine magic. In the one campaign I ran where psionics was the primary type of magic, I had to do a bit of work to reflavor it. My players use psionic characters only occasionally.

[Das Platyvark]

My all time favorite alt magic system, except maybe Warlocks. My normal DM always outlaws them on a bias of unfamiliarity, so I'm actually getting to play one for the first time outside a one-shot. It's wonderful.

[Empedocles]

I don't particularly mind psionics, but I'm much more familiar with arcane/divine magic. Also, I know what most spells do, but not most powers.



It seems that a common problem is that DM's can't get their players to diversify into psionics. I heard on these forums somewhere that one DM banned arcane and divine magic completely for one game, in an attempt to get his players to diversify into psionics, incarnum and other magic systems. I recall him saying it was very effective.

My DM did that. I've ended up playing a psychic rogue alongside a ghostly eidolon (from Ghostwalk), a knight, a warlock, and a dragon shaman. It's pretty cool, although we haven't gotten to see how it plays out.

(not trying to get off topic here by the way...)

[Lhurgyof]

I really enjoy psions, I run it just as often as any other type of character.

[Emmerask]

I don't DM that often as of late, but when I do I allow. My group isn't particularly enthusiastic about them though, so "allowing" them is kinda pointless since I'm really the only one that would play a Psionic Character.

Spoiler

Show

duno, your text reminded me of that meme

[shadow_archmagi]

No, but-

I love psionics, and I DM a lot. Honestly, it just completely slipped my mind that I could use this system for anything other than making characters.

I NEED TO START USING PSIONICS RIGHT AWAY

[Winter_Wolf]

I'd love to use psionics in D&D, but I don't play or GM anymore. I've never had the opportunity either way, since most DMs seem to hate it.

I have made use of it in Mekton Z (uses Interlock rules system) with some home brewing to give it a little more day-to-day importance (everyone has a little bit) without making it world-ending.

I'm a fan of using spellpoints/powerpoints to fuel mystical abilities, though. 3.5 Unearthed Arcana has variant rules for magic use that mimic the psionics model, and I'd love to give that a shot if I ever ran another game.

I never played 1E, but I gather that psionics was a bit of a gimme and really arbitrary. Apparently it scarred many D&D players and DMs for life, given how much hatred I hear for psionics from longtime gamers.

[Sdonourg]

I like psionics! In my homebrew Dragonstar-like setting psionics is an important part of the world.
My players play psionic characters, I (as the DM) use psionics for NPC. Why not?

[Eldan]

My opinion on psionics is basically the word "meh".

People tell me the mechanics are better than those in Vancian core casting. Fair enough, and a good argument.

But they are so. Damn. Bland. Even with all the splat books there's probably around a dozen interesting abilities in the system. Almost everything is copied from Arcane and then hammered into the new system. And from the most boring Arcane spells at that, in most cases.

The fluff also just isn't very engaging to me and, which is the bigger crime, the rules don't suggest any fluff. I think there aren't enough limitations to it, really, and not enough weird little features like Arcane has to really build a world around. Its Mana Bars, and Mana bars are not interesting.

So, to make it short: Psionics are too generic for my tastes.

[Psyren]

WotC/Paizo D&D: Sure. They're cool systems. The fluff is kind of weird for the old-school sword-and-sorcery style, but it's got its own kung-fu-Cronenberg style that can be pretty nifty on its own. And these versions of D&D, with their heaps and heaps of magic items and ubiquitously effortless casters, are clumsy for old-school sword-and-sorcery anyway.

TSR D&D: Oh god no.

This.

I do have some problems with the system though; it makes playing a "buffer" character nigh-impossible, its "summons" are extremely lacking in variety, and it's very mediocre on the "illusion" and "necromancy" fronts. I love the casting mechanic but would need to tweak it to give these archetypes expression.

[JoshuaZ]

This.

I do have some problems with the system though; it makes playing a "buffer" character nigh-impossible, its "summons" are extremely lacking in variety, and it's very mediocre on the "illusion" and "necromancy" fronts. I love the casting mechanic but would need to tweak it to give these archetypes expression.

Yeah, you can't use psionics well to do every single archetype. The lack of illusion abilities is really annoying given the easy fluff of psionics messing with the mind (cue "The mind makes it real" as a good explanation for why believing in the illusion matters). I've never understood that.

As for using psionics, played them before. I haven't DM before although I'm going to be running a game this summer, and psionics will be allowed.

[Jay R]

When psionics first came out in Eldritch Wizardry in 1976, I was already playing D&D. Everyone in my group bought the supplement, read it, and eventually decided not to use it independently.

The primary reason is that D&D was a game of simulating High Fantasy, and psionics didn't simulate any high fantasy novels or epics.

I have never used it, and nobody in my current group wants to use it either. (We're all older gamers, ages 43-56. Most of us started with OD&D, a couple with 1E, and one with 2E.)

Over the decades, D&D has slowly stopped trying to simulate and started trying to invent its own genre. And that's why I won't play the latest editions. I'm still primarily interested in the simulation of classic fantasy, and Warforged, infinite multi-classing and psionics don't fit that vision.

For people who discovered D&D before they were deeply into high fantasy, there's nothing wrong with it, but I prefer my traditional fantasy, and psionics aren't a part of it.