Psionics: Do you use 'em or did you lose 'em

[fanboy2000]

I allow them in my games, and my players do sometimes play psionic characters. I've never played a psionic PC though. Psionics never bothered my in fantasy, but then I'm not a big fan of standard fantasy.

 

[Whisper72]

I dislike Psionics. The whole crystal stuff makes me regurgitate, and it is just one type of magic too much (next to mages, sorcery and priestly magic, I already dislike the addition of sorcerers next to mages).

 

[The_Gunslinger658]

Like 'em. But mostly as a DM. I haven't played a psionic character yet. Not because I don't like them, but because I like other archetypes more.

I like them also as a DM just because they are an option to use against players with SR. Also; if my players wanna use Psi they are welcomed to it.



Scott

 

[Sammael]

...when he blew the back out of a Rutterkin's skull and made its brains leak out of its nose, ears and eyesockets...

Rutterkins have brains? This must be an exception, as I wasn't aware of any demons with brains. Maybe vestigal brains, but certainly not functional ones?

 

[Gez]

Rutterkins have brains? This must be an exception, as I wasn't aware of any demons with brains. Maybe vestigal brains, but certainly not functional ones?

 

[the Jester]

I like psionics both as player and dm, though I've not played a psionic pc in years... since prolly the early 90s, when the 2e Complete Psionics HB came out.

Rhiannon, her name was.

 

[X-Marks!]

Think Outside the Toybox

If you can imagine a setting wherein magic pushes the conceptual definitions of a medieval setting -- or monks and ninjas for that matter pushing its physicalities -- I have no problem whatsoever realizing a place for metaphysical powers of the will as well. I enjoy all the tastes of the gaming spicerack (although you may want to fit them in piece by piece like Eberron does, admittedly).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If you can imagine a setting wherein magic pushes the conceptual definitions of a medieval setting -- or monks and ninjas for that matter pushing its physicalities

Heh. I hate monks and ninjas in standard D&D (and don't allow them in my game). I know what you mean by your former point, and it would bug me if I spent the time and effort to follow the logical trains to their respective stations. But I just shrug and accept it, because I don't want to be bugged by it. Monks, ninjas, and psionics, on the other hand, just can't be ignored.

Simply put, accepting a magical medieval society takes no effort and plays into what I want from D&D, while accepting monks, ninjas, and psionics requires a self-lobotomy and goes against what I want from D&D.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I've allowed them in the games I run, although I decide whether the game is psionic before the campaign starts. Find it needs to be incorporated into the setting right from the start, otherwise it feels kludged on. Would consider a 'discovery of psionics' campaign someday, that'd probably work too.

Yet to find a GM that wants to let me play a psion. Bah! Guess 2nd edition psionics left considerable scarring.

I really like the points based/focus mechanics for psionics... would like to see an optional system that uses the same for magic.

Don't like a lot of the flavour text - the names of the disciplines, powers and crystals make me feel like I'm reading some 70's self help book.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I don't want to master another set of rules and thus - no to psionics.

If I was going to use psionics, I would eliminate another magic subsystem so I don't get nose bleeds when putting together mid-level+ NPCs.