Do you use Psionics in your campaign?

[ichabod]

I answered yes to the survey, but I don't use the psionics handbook. Instead I modified the psionics in Call of Cthulhu d20 and use those.

So far it's worked really well. One of the players has run with the insanity aspect of it, and claims there are voices that speak to him, warning him about certain places.

 

[MerricB]

Well, after 117 votes, the ayes are in the lead... something I find very surprising indeed!

Did many of you use psionics in 1st or 2nd edition?

Cheers!

 

[arwink]

I used psionics in 2e, but while I liked the concept I didn't like the mechanics of it and it mostly got left out unless someone really, really wanted to play a psion.

3E fixed the problems enough that I incorporate it as a third strand of magic in nearly every game I run.

 

[sellars]

Personally, I love psionics, one of the reasons is that I do not particularly like "standard" fantasy settings. for me psionics adds just an extra bit of flavour.

 

[Psion]

I've got a theory that despite the 19/11 split in favour of psionics, in truth people who don't use psionics don't look at this thread and so don't vote...

I doubt it. Like any given group of people who thinks the game should be different than it is, the psionics-despisers spare no opportunity to let people know their take. Further, previous polls of this sort have shown similar results.


Anyway, yes I use psionics. Though psions are rare any mysterious in my game, they have been there for some time (i.e., since the psionicist article in the dragon back in 1e), strange wandering mystics with inexplicible powers at their command.

I like the concept someone brought up about "monstrous experimentation" and the "arcane means of accessing comatose gods" idea -- grounds psionics well within the background of the campaign.

 

[MerricB]

I didn't say it was a good theory, did I?

I'm impressed, though. This is a significant number of people using the Psionic rules.

Cheers!

 

[maddman75]

I hadn't used them much in the past, mostly for the flavor reasons. But I was running a game in a renissance setting and wanted to give a different feel. Allowed psion and psychic warrior and disallowed druid and barbarian (unless you were a foreigner, which no one was). I was really impressed with the rules, and decided to keep them around.

 

[Desdichado]

The poll's possible responses are too simple. I picked yes, but here's why.

In my d20 Modern game we don't use them.

In my "guy only" D&D campaign we don't use them. Or, well, see below anyway.

In my "guys and gals" campaign we have one Psion PC.

Really, though, it isn't that we don't use them per se in any given campaign, it's just that it's so seldom that anyone thinks about them one way or another, frankly. There's little point in psionics in most campaigns -- we have to struggle to make them meaningful in a world that already has two base arcane spellcaster classes and two base divine spellcaster classes.

IMO, psionics works best as an alternative to magic rather than as a supplemental force alongside magic. That's what it usually ends up being, but I don't like it as much.

 

[TroyXavier]

A definite yes for psionics. We use them quite a bit in our games. My current character is a psion. We've also used Psychic Warrior, and we are working on our own psionic class, the Psi-Rogue.

 

[Orias]

I like the idea of psionichs, but not as things that are readily avaliable to the player characters (except in Dark Sun). I mean, there is a mystique to the Illithids & Druegar & such, & I think having any player being able to use those abilities takes away from the mystique & the exotic nature of those races, & the real danger of facing a psionic enemy.

Not to mention I play in the Forgotten Realms, & it states very clearly that psionics are VERY VERY rare, not to mention I don't think there has ever been any event described in the Realm's history that dealt with psionics.