Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Inconsequenti-AL" data-source="post: 1529075" data-attributes="member: 6584">I was burned years ago (like so many others) by a combination of: playing in a group with a serious powergamer, no GM control, 2nd Ed Psionics.I was very cagey about allowing them into my 3.0 game, but I'm glad I did. The end results were worthwhile and I felt it added to the game, once we'd ironed out a couple of issues that it bought up. I was converted!I like the different flavour of Psionics and I don't think it could be recreated from another magic using class without a serious amount of work - which I doubt is going to produce anything as well thought through, polished and balanced as the Psi system?However, on the original point, the bits (some of) my players were not keen on: The wow factor of some of the psionic powers - particularly the feats - did cause a certain amount of envy when they were first used... before the trade offs became visible.When it was being introduced to the game there was a tendancy for it to feel 'tacked on'. They didn't meet other psionic users and Psionics wern't well integrated into the game world. Fully a GM failing, hopefully I'm not the only one whose managed to mess that aspect of it up.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> Eventually it got sorted out. I'd bear it in mind during the design stage of future games - not a problem.Like Henry said, Monte's mind witch is a great idea! In fact the whole concept of AU witchery is nicely handled and appeals strongly to me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Inconsequenti-AL, post: 1529075, member: 6584"] I was burned years ago (like so many others) by a combination of: playing in a group with a serious powergamer, no GM control, 2nd Ed Psionics. I was very cagey about allowing them into my 3.0 game, but I'm glad I did. The end results were worthwhile and I felt it added to the game, once we'd ironed out a couple of issues that it bought up. I was converted! I like the different flavour of Psionics and I don't think it could be recreated from another magic using class without a serious amount of work - which I doubt is going to produce anything as well thought through, polished and balanced as the Psi system? However, on the original point, the bits (some of) my players were not keen on: The wow factor of some of the psionic powers - particularly the feats - did cause a certain amount of envy when they were first used... before the trade offs became visible. When it was being introduced to the game there was a tendancy for it to feel 'tacked on'. They didn't meet other psionic users and Psionics wern't well integrated into the game world. Fully a GM failing, hopefully I'm not the only one whose managed to mess that aspect of it up. :confused: Eventually it got sorted out. I'd bear it in mind during the design stage of future games - not a problem. Like [B]Henry[/B] said, Monte's mind witch is a great idea! In fact the whole concept of AU witchery is nicely handled and appeals strongly to me. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification