Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacris" data-source="post: 3014782" data-attributes="member: 42502">No.  No house rules, period.  We used psionic-magic transparency and that was it.  But he did use monsters that had spell resistance or turning...In some, yes.  In others, no.  It wasn't a problem in either.  One game had a cleric (played by the DM so we didn't die) hireling and a druid (played by a player who wasn't really good with playing druids) and, since the characters weren't being played to be broken, my psion was easily on the same level with the entire party.  Of course, if either of those characters had been played to be power-houses, my psion would have looked like a wuss (which he did pre XPH, btw...).It was actually the first time using psionics for 2 of the 3 DMs, so I don't think it was that the DMs were experienced using psionics.  My main DM, who handled 3 of my psionic characters (I had 5, not 4 - one kineticist, one egoist/druid multiclass, two psywars, and an erudite) simply used multiple encounters per day every now and then.  But he also understood that encounter doesn't mean combat and would fling traps at us or social situations that required the expenditure of limited use resources.  This was an issue for the other casters in their spell slots as well as for my power points.And the DM didn't do anything special in the encounters to counter psionics - he simply built encounters that took casters / manifesters into account as well as just melee / ranged combatants.  Pretty simple.I'm not a power-gamer, actually.  I am more of a roll-player than a role-player and readily admit to that, but I've always enjoyed psionics for the flavor of it (even back in 2E when the system could literally kill the user) as opposed to being able to pull off stupid combos.  If I wanted stupid combos, I would play a wizard...</blockquote>

Verification