<little question about> Psychic Characters

How often do you have psychic/psionic characters in your campaigns?


No one plays in an all-psionic game? Sad.
I run a purely psionic game (though it recently stalled thanks to a board move and the loss of a lot of our game data). It's working out pretty well so far, and provides a nice change of flavor from high-fantasy to more of an Age of Enlightenment cultural feel. I'm using psionics alongside the Warlock (with the "spelllike ability" filed off and replaced with "psilike ability") and the Hexblade rebuilt in the same manner (using the warlock's "casting" system). Even light on combat all the players have had a chance to shine in the low-level combats they've become involved in so far.

I'm enjoying running the game a great deal, and the party (two psions, a psychic warrior, a fighter/barbarian, and a warlock, all at or around 3rd level) are about to run through their first meat-grinder adventure... time to see how good they are at rationing power points :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sammael said:
Jdvn1 said:
No one plays in an all-psionic game? Sad.
Why? I've never played in an all-wizard game, or all-cleric game, either, and I don't see how psionics are different (other than having the "naturally psionic" contrived made-up races from the XPsiHB).

Presumably because an 'all-psionic' game could mean, from least restrictive to most:

1. A game in which no magic is available, but psionics is. Players wishing to play a psi/spell-using character must use a psionic class, but non-magical options are available.

2. A game in which all PCs must have psionic ability. That includes the Wild Talent feat, the naturally psionic races (of which at least two, half-giant and thri-kreen, were hardly contrived for the XPsiHB and one 3e-viable choice, the Kalashtar, isn't even in the book) and, of course, the psionic classes.

3. A game in which all PCs must come from a psionic class. That includes a FullBAB class (Soulknife), a second fighting class (Psychic Warrior), two types of "spellcaster" (Psion and Wilder), and ample multiclassing and PRC options. Plus variants like the Psychic Rogue on WotC's site.

On the other hand, an all-wizard game makes all PCs the same class. An all-cleric or all-druid game makes all PCs the same class and likely involves munchkining.
 


I had a psionicist for the full duration of my 3-year 2e campaign and while the mechanics were unique (meaning "dissimilar to the rest of the rules) the psionicist wasn't particularly more or less powerful than the wizard. The rules weren't bad, per se, they just weren't good nor were they integrated with the rest of the system.

Darksun's wild talent system was a bad idea but that wasn't the psionic system's fault. The person who decided that *every* power should be on the list is the responsible for that snafu. This didn't keep us from having 2 different (short-lived) Darksun games, though.

In 3e I thought it was still a bit too different and there were some hazy bits I wasn't entirely fond of, but it was much more workable than 2e. Had one person consider psi-warrior but decided the setting-based restrictions were too troublesome.

3.5 has made some of the PrCs appealing so I've got 2 characters with the pre-reqs but no actual psi class levels yet. Tthe party's sufficiently high level that the setting-based restrictions are a null issue.
 



Jdvn1 said:
Is "interesting" the same as "surprising"?
The numbers are not surprising because the poll choices are (no offense to the OP) poorly worded. 80% of my campaigns have psionics. I love psionics. Nobody I know in real life (aside from over the internet) likes psionics more than I do. A large number of my characters are psionic if the GM will let me. But which choice did I pick? Choice #2: A few. Why? Well I couldn't pick the last one because I sometimes play without one and I couldn't pick those other three above it because psionics exists but is rare in my games. I imagine this is true for a lot of people.
 

Remove ads

Top