Do you use psionics in your games?

[KarinsDad]

I allow psionics and typically (although not always) play psionic characters.

If a DM I'm looking to play under doesn't allow psionics, if the reason it isn't allowed isn't sound, I won't play with that DM, because that's usually an indication that we won't get along (either because it's a heavy-handed DM or simply based upon different gaming styles).

Interesting.

What do you consider sound reasons? Campaign flavor only, or balance ones as well?


Btw, I voted Psionics allowed with House Rules, although this is fairly skewed. I have something like one or two house rules that define better how Psionics works with magic (with regard to Psicraft, Spellcraft, and Detect Magic/Psionics), but have about 30 house rules on the rest of the game.

My last PC was an Elan Egoist and my next PC will probably be a Warforged Egoist or Shaper. The only reason I'm playing a Psion a second time in a row (usually, I play Wizards when I'm not DMing) is because I only got one level of Illithid Slayer last time before the campaign ended and I wanted to delve further into my "Illithid Hatred" mode.

In the last two years, we have had 5 Psionic PCs out of about 18 to 20 PCs. This is a fairly high percentage.

 

[Bacris]

Mostly DMs who are unfamiliar with psionics or new to DM'ing and don't know psionics. I can understand that being a bit daunting for a new DM and know that being a DM is not an easy job. However, I'd much rather work with a DM on what I plan to do with my PC and let him / her decide if what I'm doing is going to be a problem or not instead of flat-out disallowing it.

In my opinion, the game should not be solely about the players or the DM, but about both and if the DM is feeling overwhelmed, I'm not going to push it, but if the DM won't allow it simply because he doesn't want to, that typically means we're not going to see eye to eye on a lot of other issues (and typically also means houserules I won't agree with) and instead of hoping for the best or not enjoying the campaign or causing conflict that will spoil the fun of the other games, I'll instead simply bow out. It'd be just like not allowing divine magic at all just because you don't like divine magic - without a good reason, I'd definitely not game under that DM.

In my opinion, any balance issues should be addressed on a point by point basis, not on a system-level restriction. One of my current DM's simply limited what is accessible via the shapechanging options instead of banning entirely - everyone was happy with that, which wouldn't have been the case if it was simply not allowed.

Flavor reasons have to be pretty specific, as psionics can easily be reflavored as a different form of magic, instead of being the eastern style many like to flavor it as.

 

[KarinsDad]

Flavor reasons have to be pretty specific, as psionics can easily be reflavored as a different form of magic, instead of being the eastern style many like to flavor it as.

I often use campaign flavor reasons to disallow certain races, classes, etc. in the game.

For example, in my current campaign, I wanted the PCs to be (good) heroes. So, I nixed many races and classes for PCs that were not heroic. For example, half orcs. I think the concept of half orcs being heroes was introduced in 1E, but it just feels wrong to me. Ditto for Warlocks and Warmages. Their sole purpose is to kill and only killing is not heroic.

On the other hand, I nixed any +1 or higher level adjustment races for PCs. I did this not because they are necessarily unbalanced or for campaign flavor reasons. I just did it because I did not want to hassle with weaving in campaign plots and subplots as to why some wierd fish dude or underground race would fit in with other more standard race heroes and why his reoccurring villains from half way around the globe would be interested in constantly chasing him down. I don't really like the concept of monster PCs (which many level adjustment creatures are). I also nixed Elans because I think they are too powerful for +0.

So, you might not like my current campaign.

 

[Bacris]

I often use campaign flavor reasons to disallow certain races, classes, etc. in the game.

...

On the other hand, I nixed any +1 or higher level adjustment races for PCs. ... I also nixed Elans because I think they are too powerful for +0.

So, you might not like my current campaign.

So, I have to ask - did you also limit the use of the core races that are a bit high for a +0 LA (like the dwarf and grey elf?) I find it hard to believe that you think the elan is better than the dwarf or grey elf.

And it doesn't sound like our game styles would be compatible, you're right, which is why I typically try to outline for the DM what I'd like to play (usually with one or two fall-back ideas) and if it just doesn't jive, so be it

 

[Venator]

No psionics in our home game.

The DM and players have experienced psionics ruin games, and very much disagree how the current pisonic rule system (and several of the most popular powers) fits into the world. It simplely lacks the same flavor it used to have in the past.

We do agree there there is a place for psionics in the world, and do not dislike the concept at all. We just feel 3.x psionics has a greater potential for ruining or "cheesing" encounters (and games) than it does for making it more enjoyable for everyone at the table, which is what its all about.

We absolutely have better games when we do not use psionics.

 

[Drowbane]

other: Hell yeah!

Yes, my group uses Psionics.

In fact, our first party for our first campaign together consisted of...

Psion (Shaper)...
Psion (Telepath)...
Psychic Warrior...

 

[kenobi65]

Not in my home games. I don't believe that they're well-balanced with non-psionic abilities of similar levels.

That said, I play in several RPGA campaigns, and a non-RPGA Living-style campaign, that use psionics, and I play a psion in one of them, mostly because I can. Yes, that probably makes me a hypocrite.

 

[Nail]

Not if I can help it.

 

[KarinsDad]

So, I have to ask - did you also limit the use of the core races that are a bit high for a +0 LA (like the dwarf and grey elf?) I find it hard to believe that you think the elan is better than the dwarf or grey elf.

As a non-psionic PC, Elans are fine. Having a special ability once or twice a day is ok.

But, psionic Elans (i.e. ones with a lot of PP) are just too uber for my tastes. That's more or less a +4 to most saves most of the time which stack with all other save bonuses. That's nearly as useful as a 16,000 GP Cloak of Resistance handed out to a first level PC. Not quite as useful since it cannot be used all of the time, but nearly so (and Resistance actually stacks with a Cloak of Resistance).

Add to that Resilience, Repletion, their immunity to several mind spells like Charm, Dominate, and Hold Person. Their ability to eventually (if desired) gain the Metamorphisis power and change into one of many useful aberrations, etc.

For this, they give up 2 points of Charisma, a skill point per level, and a feat compared with a human (the baseline).

 

[Liquidsabre]

I avoid it where possible and am always wary of players wanting to play psionics in a core game.