The Campaign Builder's Guild

Back in the days of olde, psionics were a goofy afterthought in first edition.  
XPH, in my opinion, is a fabulous treatment of an oft abused and maligned D&D stepchild.
How do you feel?
Do you use psionics?

OTHER: I find Psionics a fun and interesting magic system, but will rarely alow them in a world unless it is a key point. I find that psionics often serve to degrade the feel of many settings.

I voted the 4th option. As a player, I am a big fan of psionics (and dream of actually playing one some day ;)), but in my campaign setting, I haven't set up a specific place for them, and I think my approach will be: psionics will be in an Orden's Mysteries campaign only when a player wants to play a psionic character.
Túrin

I've never read a psionics book, nor been in a campaign with it.  Personally, I'm fine with the magic system as is and I don't really care much about adding psionics.  Maybe that's just being a stick in the mud, but there you have it. :)

Yeah, but exceptions lead to additions, additions lead to the kitchen sink, the kitchen sink leads to anger, anger leads to the dark side.

Embrace the dark side, meatbags!

If it's not in the Core 3, leaving it out isn't an exception.  :p

The kitchen sink and exceptions are very different. The trick is in limiting the exceptions to what you need for your setting. Everything that fits with the theme is potentially in, anything that isn't is out.

I'd like to play in a setting with psionics, and I think it offers a great deal of options for both setting material and actual play.  however, as has been said, it would be difficult to incorporate such a "sci-fi" type element into a Cs without altering the feel.

Sorry for the confusion. I was repling to Turin.

i really, really wish psionics had been set up to be easier to drop in an existing campaign. like, even if they hadn't gone the stupid route of calling spellcasting "manifesting", it would have made things easier to parse. the "give a psionic item creation feat for every magic item creation feat" bit was annoying too. (encode stone = scribe scroll, craft dorje = craft wand, etc.) it gives more stuff to keep up with without any benefit. if i want flavor, my character can call his spells 'powers', and say he writes his scrolls on crystals. there's no reason to make things confusing by using a lot of synonyms to describe pre-existing mechanics.

also, one thing to keep in mind: there's no reason the players and or adventuring party have to be a part of a whole. the party seriously can be the only career adventurers in the entire world. similiarly, the party can have the only psion, ever. ditto the party favoured soul. you don't have to have a new class-based academy and npcs if a single player takes a new class ;) (it's just harder to do this if the class also introduces and entire new subsytem of rules to remember)

I have loved psionics for as long as I can remember. I know I'm going to find a place for them in Sulos...it's just a metter of where...

Psionics (as of yet) do not have any place in my setting - nor can I see that changing any time soon.  I'm operating on a little too traditionalist a level to allow them.  I do agree however that the XPH is an excellent book, and I've allowed psionics in other games I've run - just not my Tasothilos.

Quote from: brainfacei really, really wish psionics had been set up to be easier to drop in an existing campaign. like, even if they hadn't gone the stupid route of calling spellcasting "manifesting", it would have made things easier to parse. the "give a psionic item creation feat for every magic item creation feat" bit was annoying too. (encode stone = scribe scroll, craft dorje = craft wand, etc.) it gives more stuff to keep up with without any benefit. if i want flavor, my character can call his spells 'powers', and say he writes his scrolls on crystals. there's no reason to make things confusing by using a lot of synonyms to describe pre-existing mechanics.

also, one thing to keep in mind: there's no reason the players and or adventuring party have to be a part of a whole. the party seriously can be the only career adventurers in the entire world. similiarly, the party can have the only psion, ever. ditto the party favoured soul. you don't have to have a new class-based academy and npcs if a single player takes a new class ;) (it's just harder to do this if the class also introduces and entire new subsytem of rules to remember)

 I find 3.5 to be the easiest "drop-in" of any incarnation of psionics.  Certainly better fitted to the rules than 1E.

QuoteI find 3.5 to be the easiest "drop-in" of any incarnation of psionics. Certainly better fitted to the rules than 1E.

Amen brother. 1st edition psionics were a mess. Although I actually did enjoy the 2nd edition psionics handbook and the psionicist class; my only gripe with that system was it's complete mechanical independance from the rest of AD&D. Non-psionicist were putty in the hands of a psionic character.

The XPH is easy to impliment mechanically, so all you need to do is find a flavorful means of integreting it. It's not too hard, if you put your mind to it.

I love Psionics, but I rarely find the need to use them in my campaigns. I've always wanted to play a Psiforged Telepath, but I've never gotten around to it. >.<

I too was really annoyed by the "lets recreate all the item creation feats, but give them weird names and make them all out of crystals!" side of 3.x psionics.

I also feel like the artwork and some of the items (tatoos) gave these psionics an undeserved "sci-fi punk" or "crystalpunk" feel - it can be incorporated, I think in to your traditional fantasy if you wish.  (I simply don't wish it.)

Well, there is a lot of flavor in the renaming of things.  i personally haven't tried to mix the system in with anything yet though, so I could regret saying that later.  i like the crystals look myslef, and the tattos give psionic character s an exotic look.  but that's just me, and i've never claimed to be normal...

what i'm saying though, is that the renaming should've been done in the play stage--just like a necromancer can say all his wands are enchanted skulls or something. (i'm a big fan of taking mundane dnd abilites and giving them whatever flavor you want ;))

But as is, like, a psion with craft dorje can't make a cure light wounds wand with the cleric's help, like the wizard with craft wand can--they do exactly the same thing and are completely incompatible just because of different names.

Quote from: Kalos MerI too was really annoyed by the "lets recreate all the item creation feats, but give them weird names and make them all out of crystals!" side of 3.x psionics.

I also feel like the artwork and some of the items (tatoos) gave these psionics an undeserved "sci-fi punk" or "crystalpunk" feel - it can be incorporated, I think in to your traditional fantasy if you wish.  (I simply don't wish it.)

The renaming convention fits with the "psionics are different" approach, which is how I like it.  It is different.  It ain't magic, it is psionics. ;)

And psionics(though not by that name) is traditional fantasy, just not the narrow Tolkienoid subgenre.  

meh, "psionics are different", as described in XPH, breaks everyone's defences, and leaves attacks intact. i think it would result in a bunch of warring mage & psions dying real, real quick.

Quote from: brainfacemeh, "psionics are different", as described in XPH, breaks everyone's defences, and leaves attacks intact. i think it would result in a bunch of warring mage & psions dying real, real quick.

Yes!  Leaving the fighters and clerics laughing.

But are the tatoos and funky crystals?  They just rub me the wrong way - where do they occur in 'traditional' fantasy as opposed to some weird sci-fi thing?

I voted "Indifference," just because I have no interest in learning what seems to be a completely new ruleset for inside the game.  Seriously, if you have to come up with a whole new set of rules inside of an already existing ruleset (such as the PHB/DMG), then it's just too much to learn.  Just my opinion anyway.

most of it's just the same rules renamed, making it look much more difficult. hence my gripe ;)

My setting allready has a sci-fi-ish feel, so I'm 90% likely going to put Psionics in, depending on how Complete Psionics handles them.

Quote from: Kalos MerBut are the tatoos and funky crystals?  They just rub me the wrong way - where do they occur in 'traditional' fantasy as opposed to some weird sci-fi thing?

Burroughs and Moorcock are the obvious choices.

Tattoed monk PrC?  Also, oriental feeling cultures, and who's to say street thugs can't find a place in fantasy...

EDIT:  And evil cults can tattoo their members as well.  Am I spelling tattoo right?

Eh, Moorcock.  If you want to call him 'tradtional fantasy', that's your choice, but...

Now that's two issues I've got to have a great war with you about. ;)

Quote from: Kalos MerEh, Moorcock.  If you want to call him 'tradtional fantasy', that's your choice, but...

Now that's two issues I've got to have a great war with you about. ;)

Well Moorcock has been writing fantasy longer than even I have been alive, so he is pretty traditional.
If by traditional you mean a Tolkienoid, well..........have at thee!!! :p

this may not fit in directly with current dicussion, but WoTC just put out an article on the effects of Psionics that I found to be both conveniently timed and pertinent, so here's a link (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060310a) for you.

QuotePsionics are a tricky beast in D&D. Always have been.

This struck me as silly.
The grappling rules in D&D are harder to follow than 3.5 psionics.
And the psionics power point system was the inspiration for my resource point system in Altvogge.
All one has to do to integrate psionics is to integrate it.

QuoteThe grappling rules in D&D are harder to follow than 3.5 psionics.

dude, i second you there ;)

I don't mean "tolkienoid" by traditional, though I do feel he exemplifies "Traditional" fantasy.

I guess my definition involves being set in a world similar to our own (most often in an ancient day) and being grounded in legends and 'traditional' stories of 'fey'.  Moorecock isn't that.  How are you defining "traditional"?  Based merely on his being older than you? ;)

As far as grappling, I think we can all agree that a lot of the 'advanced' combat options in 3.x are harder than psionics could ever be.

Quote from: Kalos MerI don't mean "tolkienoid" by traditional, though I do feel he exemplifies "Traditional" fantasy. I guess my definition involves being set in a world similar to our own (most often in an ancient day) and being grounded in legends and 'traditional' stories of 'fey'. Moorecock isn't that. How are you defining "traditional"? Based merely on his being older than you? ;) As far as grappling, I think we can all agree that a lot of the 'advanced' combat options in 3.x are harder than psionics could ever be.

By your own definition, Moorcock is "traditional"!Ã,  Corum is based on Cornish fey legends, Von Beck is grounded in Christian European legends, Elric is fey. Etcetera....

I suppose you have a point.  I'll have to reconsider my definition.

Though Elric struck me as too much of a moody anti-hero to be traditional fey.  Antiheros bother the hell out of me in D&D.

I am very sorry to here that anti heroes really bother you. Conversely I think traditional Lancalot inspired heroes are very boring.

You do know that Gygax and Arneson drew heavily upon Moorcock's work when they first conceived of D&D right?

Quote from: Kalos MerI suppose you have a point. I'll have to reconsider my definition. Though Elric struck me as too much of a moody anti-hero to be traditional fey. Antiheros bother the hell out of me in D&D.

Well, the Melniboneans are fey, and while it is true Elric is quite the anti-hero, Elric novels are a just a part of the cycle of the Eternal Champion.Ã, 

EDIT:Ã,  the smileys situation sucks!!!!!

Yes, I know that Gygax and Arneson drew on Moorcock etc.  

Look, I'm not arguing that he was not a highly influential writer.  I'm even coming around to calling him 'traditional' under the definition previously established.  If you recall what started this tangent, all I'm really trying to say is that something like this:
(http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/xph_gallery/44249.jpg)
cannot be said to merge well with the traditional pseudo-medieval D&D that many gamers are comfortable with, and this explains the reaction which some people have to psionics as being alien to D&D.

Further, I'm trying to assert that the 'alien' feel engendered by artwork like that is not somehting intrinsic to the psionics system, and those of us who (like me) are very traditional pseudo-medievalists could with little difficulty strip away these elements and have a working system.

Well, there is no denying some of the artwork is alien and not what I would have chosen if they had only asked me for my opinion.

On the other subject, I think Lancelot is actually a very good example of the kind of hero which I find LEAST boring.  Flawed, but not Anti-Heroic.

Seriously, what happened to morality being cool?

Quote from: Kalos MerOn the other subject, I think Lancelot is actually a very good example of the kind of hero which I find LEAST boring.  Flawed, but not Anti-Heroic.

Seriously, what happened to morality being cool?

Morality is cool, but the Lancelot stereotype is usually an amoral holier-than-thou prig.


I prefer flawed yet heroic characters like Ulric Von Bek(The Warhound and the World's Pain), a man who undertakes the quest  for the Holy Grail for Satan not because he feels he is "more humble than thou art," but because he must.

Or Tarzan.  Tarzan is moral and ethical.

Or Sam Vimes, who is moral and ethical because he fears his personal demons will overtake him if he ever puts a toe over the line.

Even Elric over his entire series struggles to do the "right" thing, though he must come to grips with the fact that "right" means different things for Melniboneans and humans.

Of course, Aragorn, having all the qualities of a noble horse(as one critic said decades ago), is quite a likeable moral hero.



King Arthur? :hammer:

A very senstible rebutal Cymro, I couldn't haven't said it better myself. The self-righteous stick in my craw like nobody's business. Give me a Han Solo, or a Dread Pirate Roberts, or an Elric any day, and I'll be pleased as pie. I want my heroes to seem human in emotion and personal creed, but heroic in deed and action.

Aragorn though not my favorite fictional character, is certainly a memorable and heroic individual that doesn't adhere to the stereotypical knight in shining armor. He felt very much human to me. Particulaly his reluctance to claim the throne and his love-life. He seemed far more noble in my eyes than Lancalot, who at times seemed down right devious and almost alien.

One of my favorite PCs ever, was a paladin with low self-esteem who always doubted himself, his devotion to his faith, and worth as a hero. He felt as though no matter how hard he tried, he wasn't ever going to meet his own self imposed standards of heroism.

My paladin was humble and shy, and though throughout his career he was lavished with praise, he always felt as though somebody else deserved the credit more than he.

To this day he was perhaps my most beloved character, because he was flawed, and he knew it. A flawed character who glosses over their own imperfections (like Lancalot) is boderline unlikable.

-Peace-

Aragorn?  Reluctant to claim the throne?  Huh?

Anyway, you may not 'like' Lancelot, but one can hardly fail to admit that he is quite *real*.  I think we were arguing different issues - I thought you disliked him because he was a bad (ie, unreal) character, not because he was an inherently unlikeable person.

Quote from: Kalos MerAragorn?  Reluctant to claim the throne?  Huh?

Anyway, you may not 'like' Lancelot, but one can hardly fail to admit that he is quite *real*.  I think we were arguing different issues - I thought you disliked him because he was a bad (ie, unreal) character, not because he was an inherently unlikeable person.

Yes Aragorn...strider the ranger who sought to live among the elves and the wilds, rather than to accept his destiny as king. Sure he did by the end of TLotR trilogy, but he avoided it his whole life.

Yes Lancalot was an inherently unlikeable character. He was supposedly soo pure, but um he was sleeping with his best friends wife. He failed to live up to his own reputation, and yet he faked it well enough so that people didn't suspect him. How can anyone respect a guy like that?

Human(ish)...sure we all make mistakes, but heroes don't lie about them. *Real* well I don't know about that. He wasn't even human. His mother was the lady of the lake (some sort of druidic spirit thing) so what was Lancalot? He didn't react to situations in a believable or consistent manner. Sometimes he was a shining pillar of virtue, and other times he was devious and underhanded. There was no believable rationale to his behavior. Any one so self-righteous had better be sure of their own convictions before they preach them.

Ghalihad was the real hero. Much more human, and much more consistent. He made mistakes, but they weren't directly contrary to his previously established character.

Mordred has always been my favorite.  You gotta love a guy who overcomes some serious early handicaps, like a father attempting infanticide.  Then, when he grows up he confronts said child murdering king, demanding justice and gets rebuked.  And what does he do?  He takes down the whole facade!

QuoteAragorn? Reluctant to claim the throne? Huh?

Well, he did refuse the crown of Gondor when Ecthelion offered it to him.  Lazy, shiftless wanderer.... :horse:

Hm.  I can just remember a lot of passages where he very strongly indicated his full intention to seize upon the throne.  The Ecthelion thing is part of his backstory, yes, but not the character as we see him.

And the love story?  Barely played out.  (Of course, both of these are different in the movie, but I assume unless stated  that we're discussing the book.)

I'm still not seeing anything to convince me that Lancelot was an 'unreal' character, in that he didn't behave exactly the way many types of humans behave.  Call me a pessimist.

Ah but the love story in the LotR was at least cute and innocent, not an affair that brought down a kingdom.

I have no problem with people liking Lancalot, I just don't personally feel that many of the knights of the round table were not particularly endearing fellows, and that much of their behavior was irrational and self-righteous.

Where as the LotR characters were very noble likable fellows. Frodo was more paladinly than Lancalot IMHO.
None-the-less I don't seek to dismiss the opinions of others, or even influence them. I seem to agree more or less with Cymro in the types of chracters I find endearing or interesting.

No biggie, just a difference of personal taste I suppose.

-Nasty-

I still prefer the old 2e system of Psionics. I'm not too keen on the spell-looking things of 3.x and the whole psionics=magic. Psionics are one of those things you have to know about BEFORE you create your setting, so you can tie it in without duct tape and an ice cream scoop(it's a messy process). My general dislike of d20(though I do use it . . . for the most part) stems primarily from the artwork, which I consider to be overly Planescape/Magic the Gathering as opposed to the old Mystara feel.

my only problem with 3e art is the 'any nasty female monster must, absolutely, under all circumstances, be topless' theme.

i think i could do without that.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG41.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG45.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG181.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG193.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mm2_gallery/88268_620_30.jpg

whatever that has to do with psionics...

You think there was LESS nudity in older editions?

I've got a few books that I think would make me disagree...

it's not the nudity per se that bothers me. it's the nude wasp-demons. erg?

never looked much at 2e art. may be doing myself a favor ;)

Heh. All I can say is teh boobies.

And not always in a good way.

EDIT: Also, another main principle behind 3e art was "sexiness with practicality." People actually have gear that is usable and logical, but in some instances (Hennet's skin-tight beltness and bare chest, as well as certain wasp demons), there just isn't a need to cover teh boobies. Therefore, they don't, because it's still fantasy.

Hey now, Planescape art is much classier than the 3e stuff.  

Planescape was not traditional fantasy / Mystara style, I grant, but 3e seems more Magic the Gathering than anything else.

yeah, planescape art was pretty hit or miss with me, but i can't figure it being much like 3e art.

i need to d/l one of those 5$ mystara pdfs to look at the art.  ..

In the current incarnation of my campaign setting (where I'm using the D&D classes relatively as-is and not using my alternate magic system), I found an interesting compromise to stop assuming that Psionics are Sci-Fi; treat them as Ki power. We already have the Monk, and that seems to fit into the fantasy feel.

Psionics then changes from being the power of the mind to being the power of life energy. It makes sense when you think about what effects the powers can muster.

In order for this to be better felt in my games, I removed the energy damage powers from the Psion and changed them to "Ki" powers. They technically utilize positive energy (the life-force of living creatures) as an offensive weapon; it's only special property other than d6 damage is that it would deal an extra point of damage per die against undead. Because the damage is more difficult to resist, it balances with the fact that I've removed the Psion's ability to change their damage types on a whim (but then again, the psion has piercing/slashing/force damage powers as well).

All in all, it's worked out nicely. I even merged my setting's Psychic Warrior and Monk to be a single class. Try it out, it makes Psionics feel more like fantasy and less like Science Fiction (also you could look into changing the naming conventions to be less scientific, even though "scientific" is really latin).

Quote from: brainfacemy only problem with 3e art is the 'any nasty female monster must, absolutely, under all circumstances, be topless' theme.

i think i could do without that.

Most male monsters are topless and bottomless ... hah.

Just thought I'd throw that in.

I love them... and my current campaign we have a human neutrul evil charisma-based Psion and a crazy-ass chaotic evil dwarf Psyhic Warrior as some of the character (out of like 10 PC's in the party at the momment).

Quote(out of like 10 PC's in the party at the momment).

I feel for the DM in campaign. That's an aweful lot of people to try and manage.

-Nasty-

Quote from: nastynate

Quote(out of like 10 PC's in the party at the momment).

I feel for the DM in campaign. That's an aweful lot of people to try and manage.

-Nasty-

But what fun when it works!

Best I've managed was actually around eight I think, not counting a co-DMing thing with 15 players which was a logistical nightmare.

Anymore than eight and I have trouble letting individuals really shine, without losing the party related focus. I really like letting my players have their own specialized encounters from time to time.

*Oh wait, I ran with nine in an old planescape campaign with level 20+ PCs...I don't recall too many issues either...hmm that was fun.

-Nasty-

Quote from: nastynateBest I've managed was actually around eight I think, not counting a co-DMing thing with 15 players which was a logistical nightmare.

Anymore than eight and I have trouble letting individuals really shine, without losing the party related focus. I really like letting my players have their own specialized encounters from time to time.

*Oh wait, I ran with nine in an old planescape campaign with level 20+ PCs...I don't recall too many issues either...hmm that was fun.

-Nasty-

20+!?!?
No that is a group!
CRs really go out the window with those numbers.......
 

No such thing as CRs in those days...

Quote from: nastynateNo such thing as CRs in those days...

Ahh the old days........

I came into this discussion a little late, but I'm surprised to see that I'm the only "Hate psionics" vote in the poll at this stage in the game, even though that poll option's worded a little more strongly than I would have phrased it myself.

In terms of game mechanics, I am an elementalist. I want to make some simple and flexible building blocks available to players for the task of building the characters they want to play. With this in mind, we already have a well-realized set of mechanics for the alteration of reality, and psionics are redundant when stuck on top of this magic. The PHB alone contains numerous ways to make a "psionic-style" mentalist or thought-powered reality-shaper without touching those psionic rulesets at all.

So it's partially that, and partially a flavor thing. Handled properly (but that's another issue entirely!), magic is entirely magical enough to lend interest to a game and a world without being supplimented by psionics. (If you use psionics and use them skillfully, the reverse should also be true. I'd have no problem with using the psionic rules exclusively and getting rid of the magic ones; I just don't think the two coexist well.) The idea of a world where psionics and magic both exist as distinct and seperate supernatural forces strikes me as suited for a highly-specialized niche game, but as a "baseline" idea, I don't like that sort of duality much at all.

As an aside, I've played in psionics-enabled games where many of the other players looked at psionics vs. magic in terms of "which system has mechanics that will be easier for me to exploit?" That's not the kind of thought process I try to encourage. Maybe it's just those players. *shrug*

Quote from: Luminous CrayonI came into this discussion a little late, but I'm surprised to see that I'm the only "Hate psionics" vote in the poll at this stage in the game, even though that poll option's worded a little more strongly than I would have phrased it myself.

In terms of game mechanics, I am an elementalist. I want to make some simple and flexible building blocks available to players for the task of building the characters they want to play. With this in mind, we already have a well-realized set of mechanics for the alteration of reality, and psionics are redundant when stuck on top of this magic. The PHB alone contains numerous ways to make a "psionic-style" mentalist or thought-powered reality-shaper without touching those psionic rulesets at all.

So it's partially that, and partially a flavor thing. Handled properly (but that's another issue entirely!), magic is entirely magical enough to lend interest to a game and a world without being supplimented by psionics. (If you use psionics and use them skillfully, the reverse should also be true. I'd have no problem with using the psionic rules exclusively and getting rid of the magic ones; I just don't think the two coexist well.) The idea of a world where psionics and magic both exist as distinct and seperate supernatural forces strikes me as suited for a highly-specialized niche game, but as a "baseline" idea, I don't like that sort of duality much at all.

As an aside, I've played in psionics-enabled games where many of the other players looked at psionics vs. magic in terms of "which system has mechanics that will be easier for me to exploit?" That's not the kind of thought process I try to encourage. Maybe it's just those players. *shrug*

I think honestly that anyone who has ever played in the old Dark Sun campaign setting (like myself) realizes that magic and psionics can harmoniously exist and even compliment one another. The big problem with psionics is that as an additional mechanic tacked onto an already exisiting setting, they serve no purpose.

I tend to think of magic as the ability to harness the latent arcane power present in the fundimental make up of the world (like another form of science) through various incantations, and complicated formulas. Psionics on the other hand is simply something that exists potentially in all intelligent creatures; it is the harnessed power of the mind.

For psionics to be part of a setting, it needs to be accounted for throughout history, and have documented or at least understood, impact upon society and the world. Magic has had an impact upon the world, and psionics should have the same. Without this equal footing, there is no way psionics can really be seen as anything other than a secondary and obscure entity.

Mechanically it is a bummer that psionics and magic are different entities. It would be nice if a single system were embraced to handle both magic and psionics, and the differences were simply based upon flavor like visual characteristics, components, and effects. However it is difficult to get rid of the Vancian magic system; after so many years, it has become almost synonomous with D&D. Psionics has a better system of mechanics (I know people will contests this, but it really is true), but it has less over-all acceptance, because of a long history of broken and imbalanced effects in both first and second edition.

In summation psionics is not liked because of mechanical differences from the the widely accepted and understood Vancian system of magic, and because the current settings really haven't focused upon making psionics part of the world. Eberron has taken steps towards incorperating psionics, but the designers still stuck it on a distant continent, where it could easily be ignored by those with misgivings. If psionics can be ignored, they will be.

-Nasty-

That's pretty much exactly it. Psionics are often an afterthought mechanic, and settings don't incorporate them well. Dark Sun did, and Eberron tries really hard (Kalashtar are a pretty neat way to pull psionics into the lore rather than just the mechanics, if you ask me), but many settings barely even try to justify psionics with their history and cultures.

So I guess our only differences on the issue of psionics, is that I love them despite the failure of specifc WotC "official," setting support. But that's why we have homebrews now isn't it?

-Nasty-

Quote from: Luminous CrayonThat's pretty much exactly it. Psionics are often an afterthought mechanic, and settings don't incorporate them well. Dark Sun did, and Eberron tries really hard (Kalashtar are a pretty neat way to pull psionics into the lore rather than just the mechanics, if you ask me), but many settings barely even try to justify psionics with their history and cultures.

As a 25 year veteran of the game, I find the Psionics mechanics of 3.5 superior to the magic mechanics, which is why my CS uses the base psionics mechanic to flush Vancian crap magic in favor of spell points etal.

I, for one, took psionics into account as soon as I started creating my CS.  It was really quite simple.

It is true there is redundancy in psionics and magic, but there is redundancy in the magic subcategories of divine and arcane.  There are redundancies throughout the game.