D&D General So, how much did/do you use psionics?

[Tonguez]

Never played psionics before 3e (didnt play much DnD besides BECMI either) but played a Psychic Warrior and a Willowisp Psion in 3.5e

 

[jmartkdr2]

I don't recall using it ever in the few 1e games I played in - but I can't say if it was because we didn't use those rules or it just never came up.

• In the other older ones, including OD&D, 2e, 3/3.5e did you use them?

Sometimes, but only rarely. I would like to have played a psionic warrior and/or psion but most dms I played with were against psionics generally.

• Did you like having them front and center in 4e?

Yes, and I loved them being connected to monks.

• Does 5e have enough, too much, or not even close?

Way less than I'd like - I could live with it being an extension of a general maneuvers system, but I think a full class is more likely to actually scratch the itch.

• If you didn't use them in 1e, what did you do if a monster was listed as having them?

Do not recall.

• Do you think there should be able to be multi-part polls that limit you to one answer in each part?

I guess that would be nice but only if it's not too much work for the site managers.

 

[Oofta]

Another thread brought up how the question of how central psionics were to 1e. While this poll is just about 1e, the thread is about any version of the game so chime in below!

Maybe about things like:

• In the other older ones, including OD&D, 2e, 3/3.5e did you use them?
• Did you like having them front and center in 4e?
• Does 5e have enough, too much, or not even close?
• If you didn't use them in 1e, what did you do if a monster was listed as having them?
• Do you think there should be able to be multi-part polls that limit you to one answer in each part?

Edit: But feel free to add your own!

Edit 2: Note the percent doesn't show you what percent of people who played 1e used psionics because of the two responses for folks who never played 1e. Doh!

I've never used psionics and I've played all editions but I don't count monsters like illithid that have psionic abilities. I've never had a pscionicist NPC. I guess I just never really saw the point, to me psionics is just space magic or magic by another name. I don't mean that as being derogatory, there's nothing inherently wrong with psionics it's just that I don't associate it with fantasy.

 

[Greg K]

In 1e, I think it showed up once or twice in campaigns I was in. I never used it in campaigns I ran as I did not like the rules.
2e: For 2e, psionics was used in a Dark Sun campaign that I played in and one that I briefly ran. I was not a fan of the 2e mechanics for psionics, but found them better than 1e.
3e: I did not use the official Psionic rules as, again, I was not a fan of the mechancs. However, I did allow and use Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook.
4e: I never played 4e.
5e: I am not a fan of the official attempts. If I run 5e, I might give KibblesTasty's version a try by allowing it.

 

[Krachek]

In 1ed I remember that two friends roll high to have psionic abilities. They were the only two.

 

[Voadam]

I thought the 1e psionics entries on monsters was a waste of stat block lines and should have just been noted under special attacks and special abilities similar to spell like abilities.

 

[John Quixote]

▯

 

[Greg K]

Banishing psionics from the game is akin to removing arcane magic or divine magic. You can do it, but it makes a statement: "this setting is different; it isn't your standard fare, vanilla Gygaxian D&D." So it's a big deal, and something to be done only with purposeful intent.

Actually, Gary Gygax has stated that he regretted putting psionics into the game and that he did not use them (much like he regretted including and did not use weapon vs. armor modifiers) .

 

[John Quixote]

▯

 

[Cadence]

So far the psionics not being commonly used is leading by a lot. (9 used it in roughly 1/2 or more campaigns, 10 used it in a few campaigns, and 33 just a few times or never).

Also, people who didn't play 1e are apparently very likely to be angry and non-communicative. ;-)