[poll] PSIONICS

[CYMRO]

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?

[Raelifin]

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.

[Túrin]

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

[Polycarp]

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. :)

[Raelifin]

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!

[Polycarp]

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

[Túrin]

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.

[Numinous]

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.

[Raelifin]

Sorry for the confusion. I was repling to Turin.

[brainface]

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)

[Soup Nazi]

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...

[Kalos Mer]

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.

[CYMRO]

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

[Soup Nazi]

I 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.

[Senkennomei]

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. >.<