Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
So, how much did/do you use psionics?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9348473" data-attributes="member: 6799660"><p>Much of my bitd gameplay was BX/BECMI (with AD&D add-ons as we saw fit). For both that and AD&D, psionics was much like weapon vs armor, name level keep & commander play, or the comeliness attribute: the first time we were exposed to it, we got really excited about it. Then actual play happened and it ranged from relatively trivial to a pain in the butt to deal with (often with only the DM and one player really participating). And then it faded into the background until someone new entered the group, found the rules, and got really excited about them.</p><p>In 2nd edition psionics saw activity when each iteration of the psionic rules came out (with all-too-quick assertions that "look, they fixed the psionic rules!"), as well as when Dark Sun came out. I have to say that 1) the addition of a psionicist class really did help give psionics more of a 'role' and seem less like a footnote; and 2) an interesting campaign where everyone was supposed to interact with the psionic rules made more people put in the effort.</p><p>In 3.0, I think we noticed early on that the rules were kind of troublesome, but with D&D we were still used to balance being all over the place. The psionic warrior was a big hit.</p><p>In 3.5, I think we decided that they did all right. Psionics was just one of many expansion systems (one of the most supported ones). It was fairly balanced (honestly if the rest of the edition were balanced within the range amongst the psionic classes provided, it would not have been bad). Overall, I think people thought it a win, perhaps with some consternation as to whether these weird tattoo&crystal mages that <a href="https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CallARabbitASmeerp" target="_blank">called wands dorjes and staves crowns</a> were accurate to theme to whatever we thought psionics should look like.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It was an interesting departure and more power to them for making those choices. I don't love the idea of making monk abilities and psionics the same source, but that's personal preference.</p><p></p><p>I don't think it would be horrible if there wasn't more mechanical support than 3-4 sub-classes. Totally new rulesets alongside existing magic hasn't had the greatest track record (otoh the playtest mystic was not a bad first try, the could have become something if they had kept going). That said, either way I think there should have been an expansion (or a chapter within a XGtE/TCoE-like book) calling those abilities psionics (optionally) and discussing the ins and outs of including psionics (thematically) in your campaign.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 9348473, member: 6799660"] Much of my bitd gameplay was BX/BECMI (with AD&D add-ons as we saw fit). For both that and AD&D, psionics was much like weapon vs armor, name level keep & commander play, or the comeliness attribute: the first time we were exposed to it, we got really excited about it. Then actual play happened and it ranged from relatively trivial to a pain in the butt to deal with (often with only the DM and one player really participating). And then it faded into the background until someone new entered the group, found the rules, and got really excited about them. In 2nd edition psionics saw activity when each iteration of the psionic rules came out (with all-too-quick assertions that "look, they fixed the psionic rules!"), as well as when Dark Sun came out. I have to say that 1) the addition of a psionicist class really did help give psionics more of a 'role' and seem less like a footnote; and 2) an interesting campaign where everyone was supposed to interact with the psionic rules made more people put in the effort. In 3.0, I think we noticed early on that the rules were kind of troublesome, but with D&D we were still used to balance being all over the place. The psionic warrior was a big hit. In 3.5, I think we decided that they did all right. Psionics was just one of many expansion systems (one of the most supported ones). It was fairly balanced (honestly if the rest of the edition were balanced within the range amongst the psionic classes provided, it would not have been bad). Overall, I think people thought it a win, perhaps with some consternation as to whether these weird tattoo&crystal mages that [URL='https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CallARabbitASmeerp']called wands dorjes and staves crowns[/URL] were accurate to theme to whatever we thought psionics should look like. It was an interesting departure and more power to them for making those choices. I don't love the idea of making monk abilities and psionics the same source, but that's personal preference. I don't think it would be horrible if there wasn't more mechanical support than 3-4 sub-classes. Totally new rulesets alongside existing magic hasn't had the greatest track record (otoh the playtest mystic was not a bad first try, the could have become something if they had kept going). That said, either way I think there should have been an expansion (or a chapter within a XGtE/TCoE-like book) calling those abilities psionics (optionally) and discussing the ins and outs of including psionics (thematically) in your campaign. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
So, how much did/do you use psionics?
Top