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

[Staffan]

I like psionics. I allow them in my games unless there's a setting reason not to, and would like to play them in other people's games (though the DM in the campaign I'm a player in doesn't like psionics and thus doesn't allow it ).

 

[Thanee]

Dislike 'em! Only use if campaign demands (like Darksun).

This sounds about right.

Do you allow the use of psionics or did you ban them? Why or why not?

Banned them, but mostly because of the system; the rules are not thought out well enough and it's too much trouble to update them to a balanced 3.5 ruleset (and there is very little in there, which would justify that trouble), or the other way around update the core rules to fit well into the psionics framework, which would work as well, of course.

As a DM, (Sp) and (Su) is more than enough for the flavor of psionics (i.e. for mind flayers).

As a player I couldn't care less.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Zander]

They're OK in SF but with their pseudo-scientific rationale (power of the mind etc), I feel that they don't belong in a fantasy setting. I ban psionics in all my D&D campaigns.

Frankly, I wish that Col Pladoh had never introduced them.

 

[Shadow of Thoughts]

I love psionics, flavours good, but the mechanics could use a tweak. The thing that rubs me the wrong way, is magic. That's mainly due to the fact that magic with out the caster can be good or evil, and with the caster, both can be used for the oppisite of there use, while psionics is ones self power, and is good or evil if used in such a way.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

I like Psionics. I used them to make a culture in my campaign different.

The whole crystal flavor text and "hey man, feel the vibes" undercurret works fine for me as it gives a look and feel for psionics that make it distinct.

Maybe psionics can muck up a traditional medieval fantasy game but so do spiked chains, half gensai sorceror/paladins, a unifrom coin based economic system, 50% of kids not succumbung to disease by age eight and many other purely fantastic/not-medieval elements.

one of my favorite rants: Psionics is no more Sci-Fi then wizards and dragons. There is NO scientific basis for psionics. It is just as fanciful as any other so called "traditional" fantasy element.

 

[devilbat]

I fall in the neutral side of this discussion. In my opinion, psionics don't fit into my view of a classic fantasy setting. But if a player wanted to play a psion or psychic warrior, then I wouldn't stand in their way.

 

[Psion]

Can anyone venture a guess what my answer here is?

Psionics is an important part and a boon to my game. It's unfamiliar enough to many players that it retains some mystery, a refreshing change from the all-too-well understood players. Yet it is well integrated and well supported, making it so it's not a hassle for me to use and it remains in the realm of possibilities for players.

Further, gith* and Mindflayers are central edifices to the D&D game and doing them without psionics would just seem wrong to me.

I don't think Soulknife should be a core class and see it as a bit too blatant a jedi-wannabe so I am not currently allowing it in my game.

 

[MonsterMash]

Don't really like and will only use if setting demands it. Luckily none of my players have ever seemed to want to play a psionicist.

 

[Gez]

psionics requires a self-lobotomy and goes against what I want from D&D.

So that's why you want to be called just "Jeff" rather than Jeff Wilder!

 

[Henry]

I've allowed psionics in most of my games, especially since the XPH came out, but very few have expressed interest. I now have my Co-DM and 1 other player more accepting of Psionics, since we got some good use out of them in our last Eberron campaign, but whether they will be more widespread with our group remains to be seen.