What’s with all the psionics hate?


RPG Superstar™ 2008 General Discussion


Title pretty much sums it up.

If I cared enough to bother looking at the stat blocks (sorry guys & gals, it’s hook or nothing for me), I’d be worried the judges aren’t familiar with the psionics rules (which I find just downright odd).

Dark Archive Contributor, RPG Superstar aka Leandra Christine Schneider

I have a theory about that.

I like psionics and for me, they always were an integral part of D&D. Disliking, disregarding or even hating them never occurred to me, because I started playing after they were introduced.

I didn't need to scrutinize them and think about how to work them "into my game", they were there from the beginning.

Maybe some of the anti-psi people didn't like the "scifi" flavor (for the record: I don't think of psi as scifi only...but this maybe because of d&d) and how it could fit in an already established gameworld(including characters, stories etc.).

It just didn't make it through when it was new...

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter Season 6

Ah where to begin...

Psionics are the redheaded stepchildren of fantasy. Even though they have a long (Darkover, Barsoom) and prolithic (Valdemar) history in 'swords and sorcery' fantasy. 2e psionics didn't help with its easily abusable system.

3.0 psionics were a nightmare, horribly non scaling, horribly multiple ability dependant (MAD) and horribly broken combinations were possible.

Last 3.0 psychic warrior I played was a high level Psychic Warrior and once I scored a crit, I was dropping hill giant zombies and clay golems in one round, on top of quickening metapsioniced powers. Deep Impact + Power Attack + Mindfeeder Keen Falchion = Novas to make you DM cry

Most of the XPH hate comes from misperception and lack of comprehension. Horror stories of 1st level psions doing 5d10 points of damage with Mindthrust, or 20th level psions doing 60d6 empowered energy balls come from misunderstandings or deliberate misreadings of the rules.

Ironically, Psionics will have to have the most changes in a 4.x system as the power point system is built purely for daily management, and is one of the tactical reasons I love it.

Check out the Wizards' Psionics boards (God I hated typing that) we are a small but passionate community, with lots of sticky posts debunking psionic myths. Mark Jindra did a wonderful job fighting for our community and kept the Minds Eye the best set of web articles as long as possible


I have played under every guise of AD&D/D&D thats been out and in many of the settings that have encouraged the use of Psionics. (Gods I miss Darksun) No psionic system that has been presented has really been as efficient as the magic system imho. First edition psionics was scary and clunky to the extreme, Second Ed was almost as bad. No in the 3.* incarnations it gets a little better and easier to play but you still run into a major flaw in that there is no hard and fast rule stating how it interacts with magic. The best one there is states that its up to the DM to determine if its the same as magic or different.

This is what leads to so much depression and dislike of psionics I think, I am personally hoping that 4th ed can get a good psionic system running but we will have to see.

The Exchange

There is ignorance of how it actually works, and no real desire to find out. There is the flavour, as I suspect some people are happy with magic and "psionics" feels a bit SF to them. Personally I like them, in their place, mainly as a DM tool to keep the PCs on their toes.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

When Magic of Incarnum came out, my suspicions were that it was another attempt to introduce a "psionics-feel" magic system. Notice how Incarnum-manifesters have set the D&D world afire.

I've read through the psionics rules, but never played, played with, or been asked to DM a psionics character. The system doesn't seem either overbalanced or oddly-flavored. But just as warlocks seem to be tied to either the lower planes or to the fey, and the flavor of sorcerers is tied to dragons, it seems natural for psions to be tied to abberations.

Two questions for the experienced psionic fans here: how do you prefer to handle the magic / psionics transparency problem? It looks to me like the system is more balanced, and gets the fun of interacting with more of the world, if the campaign assumes "psionics are just magic under a different guise."

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32 aka Aotrscommander

mwbeeler wrote:

Title pretty much sums it up.

If I cared enough to bother looking at the stat blocks (sorry guys & gals, it’s hook or nothing for me), I’d be worried the judges aren’t familiar with the psionics rules (which I find just downright odd).

I must say as I was bit surprised, too at the judge's responses to psionics in they they said weren't all that familiar with it. Considering that they gave the contestants a slapped-wrist for asking what was in the SRD (justifiably, mind), I was sort of assuming that they ought have been familiar with the entire SRD, not just Core SRD...

Chris Mortika wrote:

Two questions for the experienced psionic fans here: how do you prefer to handle the magic / psionics transparency problem? It looks to me like the system is more balanced, and gets the fun of interacting with more of the world, if the campaign assumes "psionics are just magic under a different guise."

The default is magic-psionics transparency. I.e., magic and psionics interact with each other like they interact with themselves. Dispel Magic can dispel psionics Power Resistance functions against spells. The XPH does include options for the reverse, but it requires a boat-load extra work (adding SR to anything that had PR and so on).

Dark Archive Contributor, RPG Superstar aka Leandra Christine Schneider

I also use magic-psionics transparency for the stated reason and I agree that previous rules for psi were a little...ummm...whack. (but so were certain 3.0 spells, feats etc.)

The 3.5 rules are ok and have a nice feel to them (but I expect improvement for 4th).

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter Season 6

LeandraChristine wrote:

I also use magic-psionics transparency for the stated reason and I agree that previous rules for psi were a little...ummm...whack. (but so were certain 3.0 spells, feats etc.)

The 3.5 rules are ok and have a nice feel to them (but I expect improvement for 4th).

I use transparency or as I call it, "Psionics and magic are transparent, unless it benefits the psion." I also allow spellcraft/psicraft to be used for the other and Use Psionic Device is folded into Use Magic Device.

You expect improvement for 4th? Christine, either that's a translation error or you are very optimistic :o)


I use transparency for a very lazy reason. As DM, I use mostly published adventures. But there are rarely (or should I say, never?) any psion NPCs in those adventures. So if psionics and magic were not transparent, none of my NPCs would be able to dispel any psionic effects and my psion PC (who's actually quite the nasty high level cerebramancer now) would just go to town.

It makes life easier for me this way.

Greg


Weirdly enough, I'm more interested in psionics these days. I had some traumatic experiences with them as a young DM during my 1E days, so when I came back with third I entirely skipped them. Friends have tried to convince me they are worth looking at, and the contest has actually solidified that a bit.


Why the psionics hate? Simple answer.

Psionics suck. ;-)

I won't use them in my own games *ever* and I've never played in psionics-friendly games where the powers didn't get madly out of hand, resulting in the psions becoming the most munchkined campaign-killing douchebag characters.

All my own opinion, of course. If people love the psi stuff that's cool and dandy!

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32 aka Spar

Too many times I've played in games where the only guys that were interested in the Psionics were the twinks and power gamers who wanted to make their uber characters capable of destroying all, thus leaving us role players behind. I have never met a role player (save one and he was a min-maxer) who liked them.

That said, after looking at the villains and reading this thread, I may just have to look at them for my own games.

This has been an interesting thread guys, and something I think we have all discussed over a drink or two at least once.

WC


Maybe she meant 'expect' as in,"And I EXPECT this rule to be obeyed."


Queeg, you haven't answered why you dislike psionics. The fact that some people you've encountered who play psionicists are losers doesn't mean that psi itself is bad, just like the fact that some people who play wizards are jerks doesn't mean that magic stinks.

Dark Archive Contributor, RPG Superstar aka Leandra Christine Schneider

Ok, ok it was more a "hope for"...but yes, I am optimistic. They are trying to simplify everything and that might at least solve some of the balancing issues. (Note: I also hope for "not too simple")

Some psions can get terribly powerful, but properly executed metamagic-casters can do that too. Also, balance swings both ways: the soulknife is mechanically inferior in my eyes.


jocundthejolly wrote:
Queeg, you haven't answered why you dislike psionics. The fact that some people you've encountered who play psionicists are losers doesn't mean that psi itself is bad, just like the fact that some people who play wizards are jerks doesn't mean that magic stinks.

I don't use psionics primarily because I've never felt comfortable or satisfied with the rules for them in 1e and 2e. I did use psions in those editions, but they were simply wizards with the word "wizard" scratched out and "psion" written in. It was an easy fix for me that way. ;-)

To be honest, I haven't used the 3e psionics rules because none of my players have ever wanted to be a psi, and I haven't ran any campaigns where psi powers are present in the PC races of game world. So, in all seriousness -- and my post above was meant more as jest than anything else -- I can't fairly comment on whether the rules have gotten better or not.

As far as "campaign feel" goes, I generally don't like mental powers mixing with magic powers. It's just a personal preference, really. Not so much that psionics are really sucky in and of themselves. Call it a case of I don't like peanut butter mixed with my chocolate. :-)

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16 , Marathon Voter Season 6 aka Core

I actually liked 1st edition psionics, although for a DM tool rather than for players. I always found it interesting to have some power that is mysterious, quite powerful, and circumvents traditional defenses. A good example is the hermit in Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, who is defenseless otherwise.

3.x psionics.. well its a poorly guised alternate magic system. It is annoying on the part of the DM to have to learn alternate rules for something that is simply alternate magical effects. Very underwhelming.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter Season 6

LeandraChristine wrote:

Ok, ok it was more a "hope for"...but yes, I am optimistic. They are trying to simplify everything and that might at least solve some of the balancing issues. (Note: I also hope for "not too simple")

Some psions can get terribly powerful, but properly executed metamagic-casters can do that too. Also, balance swings both ways: the soulknife is mechanically inferior in my eyes.

There is a 'rebalanced soulknife' in untapped potential, as well as a varient in the Mind's Eye on the Wizards page.

Dark Archive

Samuel Kisko wrote:
3.x psionics.. well its a poorly guised alternate magic system. It is annoying on the part of the DM to have to learn alternate rules for something that is simply alternate magical effects. Very underwhelming.

Agreed, and yet, while I've heard of proposals to remove some abilities that 'feel' like psionics from magic lists to make them more exclusively psionic, such as mind-reading or telekinetic effects, I don't really like that idea either.

Check out the Green Ronin Complete Psychic's Handbook. It's an interesting alternative system (using Feats and Skills) for psychic powers, and I like it a lot better than the 3.x Psionics system(s). The variant system makes it feel a lot different than just 'spells that cost pp.'


The Green Ronin books is great - it really gives "psychic-ness" a different vibe to magic and is a cinch to integrate into a game. One of the PbP games I DM has a PC with a psychic power. Easy to use; I just said "OK here's the Wild Talent feat, take some ranks in your power as a cross class skill and away you go."

Scarab Sages

First of all, you kids really need to stop using words like "hate" when in fact you mean "dislike". I know, I know, its hip and cool, but it is poor English. And frankly, poor English means poor communicating.

That said, I dislike psionics. I have ever since 1st ed. There are a number of reasons, such as the clunky rules throughout the editions which have led to grognards such as myself to disregard psionics from the outset. I suspect this is Paizo and co.

For me its more to do with the "super-hero" feel of psionicists. I dislike sorcerer for EXACTLY the same reason. My distaste for both is equal and for equal reasons. I like my games to be heroic, not super-heroic, and classes such as these really push you into the super-heroic right at level one (warlock, don't think I haven't noticed you in the shadows).

What these classes need is a response cost for their powers. Wizard types have a limited selection, must choose before hand, and must be careful not to blow it all in one encounter. Now, I understand Vancean magic isn't all that popular, but there is a response cost for casting. The at will powers, the power-points, or like the sorcerer where the limits are set such that you never notice there is a limit. These things fundamentally change the role of magic in the game from one of low fantasy to high fantasy (perhaps even super fantasy).

Would designers have something like Warhammers magic system, where castings (powers) are pretty much at will but every time you cast there is a chance for mishap, I'd be more inclined to accept psionics.

Heck, I'd accept vancean psionics, but why go that route when its clearly not what the community wants.

Honestly, if there is a silver lining to the PR nightmare that is 4E is that I suspect that PHBII or PHBIII will have psionics and it will be at the very least, internally consistent with the rest of the game.

4E may very well turn out to be "The edition where psionics become mainstream."


Um, they're synonyms:

1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.
–verb (used without object) 3. to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.
–noun 4. intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.
5. the object of extreme aversion or hostility.

Hate just tends to imply a deeper level of dislike.


The GR book provides a cost in the form of power use inflicting non-lethal damage upon the user.

Scarab Sages

mwbeeler wrote:


Hate just tends to imply a deeper level of dislike.

precisely


I love Psionics! I love the flavor and the system. I feel that just like anything else in D&D, munchkins can run away with the powers and dominate the game, but communication and good DMing can take care of a lot of this.

Heck, without psionics I've had a first level character do 57 damage consistantly when I first started DMing because I wasn't careful with allowing the chosen races and feats. With munchkins you have to be stern, or else they'll bite you. Bite you hard.

The Green Ronin psychic sounds really fun. I'll have to try it.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

No hate from me, I just don't think it fits in a traditional D&D campaign. As an alternate magical system, it's OK, but it doesn't fit the flavor of most games I play/run (I also don't like "if it's published, it's allowed" games). For instance, a campaign where psionics replaces arcane magic, while divine magic follows the rules in the PHB, would be interesting, but would require a lot of changes from a standard setting.


Matthew Morris wrote:
I use transparency or as I call it, "Psionics and magic are transparent, unless it benefits the psion." I also allow spellcraft/psicraft to be used for the other and Use Psionic Device is folded into Use Magic Device.

I hadn't used psionics until about a year ago, then got the XPH in a bundle of books I picked up in an eBay auction. After reading through it, checking the WoTC psionics boards, I gave it a whirl. I agree that most previous editions of psionics are broken, but with 100% transparency and making psi/spellcraft checks interchangeable, I've come to enjoy the newer system. Like any other class out there you can turn nearly any psionic character into a munchkin, but with good player/DM interaction, I like psionics, a lot, and don't think that you should automatically throw them out as a player or DM based on previous sub par versions.

Who doesn't love a psionic blasting, brain munching Mind Flayer?

Dark Archive

I really, really like the psionic rules too; at least in 3.5 . The previous psionics rules were bad for reasons that have already been excplained numerous times in this thread, so I won't add to that.
I always liked the cliche of the unarmed monk-styled guy that can blast away enemies with the power of his thoughts.
In my opinion this is cool stuff, even for a standard fantasy campaign and doesn't feel like SF to me at all.
I always wanted to have psionics in my campaigns, but never found useable and blanced rules to do so, until the XPH was released.
Since then psionics were part in nearly all of my games and I never found them to be overpowered or unbalanced.
Sure, they can be abused, but this is not exclusive to psionics...

I chose to make psionics different from magic and I never regreted the decision.
Sure, it can get a bit complicated from time to time, but this gives psionics a truly unique feel and gets rid of the perception, that psionics are just a different kind of magic.
Sure, some of the powers duplicate magical effects, but the majority of the powers are different.
Why use psionics at all, if it isn't different?!
In my homebrew psionics are not uncommon so spells like 'Detect Psionics' or similar effects aren't that rare and are quite useful to arcane casters or clerics.
I like the power point mechanic and that the effects can be augmented.
This is really cool.
And so I found it to be great, that some of the villains make use of these rules!
If this motivates readers to have a second look at the rules (or to check them out in the first place), than the inclusion of psionics is even cooler! :)

And, as Jason Tuttle already said, who doesn't like mind-blasting illithids?
I think the psionic versions of monsters like mind-flayers, aboleths, githyanki and so on are much, much better than their MM counterparts and portray them in a way they should be.
I always found it dull, that the abilities of mind flayers were linked to magical effects.
So, this is another good argument to include psionics into the game.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
mwbeeler wrote:

Title pretty much sums it up.

Evil psionisists made me do it.

GGG


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

I like psionics and would like to use it in my campaign, but it's too much work. Why, I tweaked the spellcasting system to fit my style and my player's preferences. To balance psionics against magic I'd have to tweak that too and I'm just not interested in doing that because none of my players are overly interested in playing a psionic character.


Personally I think the sense that many people have expressed that psionics are outside the fantasy realm is partly because that western society which most of us here come from is monotheistic. And for centuries it has been ingrained in us that magic except for divine miracles were always things that foreign/ heretical and ultimately the other, not of us people did. So there has been very little rationalization under such circumstances just what magic is and where it comes from.

In societies where magic was allowed to exist by culture, religion and other social constructs, psionics were the rationalization of how such were possible without the help of outside intervention.

Personally the explanation of the origin of magic and how a wizard learns and shapes it has always in d&d seemed what contrived. In the sense I that I can see people believing people practice magic that way but not actually the practitioners or that it would work.

Personally I like psionics as you probably can guess and am much more like to play a psion then a traditional spell caster. Seeing all the psionic entries was like a child in a candy store experience for me.


Well, I get demoralized when these psionics threads appear, usually b/c I'm tired of feeling put on the defensive; of continually having to explain why they're not broken, etc. Luckily, Matthew Morris makes a great, literate defender of all things psionics.

This will repeat other posts I've made, but for those who haven't read them...I think the 3.5 psionics rules finally nailed them, balance wise. I've been a fan since 1st edition, but would readily admit they've been broken...at least until 3.5. I wonder how many people turn their nose up at psionics just b/c they've got at least passing experience w/ earlier versions.

As long as you use magic/psionics transparency, it really is just an alternate magic system. And as much as I've always enjoyed the Vancian spell-casting system, I think the power point system works even better.

In my world, psionics is just starting to come out. Psionicists remain rare and feared for being different, but if run RAW, they're no more overpowered than any other class. And as others have mentioned, the RAW Soulknife is a bit underpowered. But I'm running one right now, and enjoying the flavor aspect of it immensely.

3.5 psionics are like the Goldilocks' perfect porridge; and are a great combination of crunch and fluff. IMO. I'm honestly worried what 4.0 will do to them, b/c it took so long to get the mechanics right.

I can see where people don't like them b/c of the "sci-fi" vibe, but that's as much your own perceptions as reality. Matt has already pointed out their roots in sword and sorcery tradition. To me, they've always seemed more "life-like" than D&D magic. The simple "mind-over-matter" mantra. We can see tidbits of this in our very own world. Anyone familiar w/ those horrific Vietnam-era photos of the Buddhist monk that set himself on fire? I've seen them, and I'm still amazed. He never even flinched. If that's not a perfect example of mind-over-matter, I don't know what is. Anyway, to me, psionics rounded out the arcane/divine magic triangle. Arcane magic: power pulled from the outside world; Divine magic: power pulled from a divine intermediary; Psionics: power pulled from within yourself; your own psychic potential.

Here we are playing a fantasy game that allows you to explore the heroic potential w/in us all; and yet, the one system that overtly lets you tap into that heroic potential...is offputting to many people. Ironic, isn't it?


Matthew Morris wrote:
we are a small but passionate community, with lots of sticky posts debunking psionic myths.

The "why psionics is not overpowered" thread was a real motivator towards me picking up the XPH a while back.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 , Dedicated Voter Season 6 aka Eyebite

I'm not a huge fan of psionics, I think I just like my D&D a little more "traditional."

But, I DO really love the Soulknife class.


I haven't really used psionics and I'm not that enthustiatic to adding it as a player option (because for the most part it just feels like "yet another magic system"). I like it with monsters and maybe some selected races, but otherwise it does feel either scifi-y or redundant.


mwbeeler wrote:

Um, they're synonyms:

1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.
–verb (used without object) 3. to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.
–noun 4. intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.
5. the object of extreme aversion or hostility.

Hate just tends to imply a deeper level of dislike.

Actually the problem is not one of word usage so much as sentence structure. A better way to have said it is: "What's with all this hate towards psionics?"

The structure you used is not conducive towards the understanding of what you were trying to say.

But I digress...

;p


But I'm hip! With the...kids. Right? Aw hell.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Personally, I've been a fan of psionics since I first saw them. I like them as separate and different from magic, as it adds an interesting twist in a campaign, e.g.:

Adventurer: "I cast dispel magic at the enchanted looking monk."

Enchanted Looking Monk (Psion) - no effect. He grins a malevolent grin.

Adventurer: "Oh sh*t!"

And with 3.5, I thought that Psionics not only became more manageable, but more common-sensical than magic in many ways, e.g., power points (mana points), augmented powers (metamagic).


mwbeeler wrote:
Title pretty much sums it up.

Because psionics suck!

OK, I was kidding. I don't really know the answer, but I think more than one poster has touched on good points.

For many players psionics have a bad history in D&D, starting with the utterly horrible, unbalanced, cheese-weaseling rules of 1/e -- and things didn't really improve much from there. IMO only the 3.x rulebooks finally made them a balanced and viable option.

I think the worst problem, though, is that psionics really don't fit into mainstream fantasy; it's more of a fringe interest. And unfortunately, there are more cheesy power-gamers than those that are interested in the unusual twist such rules might provide characters -- so who do we think will buy more of the psionics books?

My two cents :)


Lots of small issues both with rules and flavor (modern and historical) that seem to force psionics towards the fringe.

Lack of appearance in a core book can't help.

I don't much care about it either way. Doesn't offer much new to make me want to learn an alt system, but I've DMed a few psionic characters in the past.

I think I would detest it more than dislike or hate--but I just don't care enough about it. I cope well enough so long as the rules don't slow its usage down


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LeandraChristine wrote:
I also use magic-psionics transparency for the stated reason and I agree that previous rules for psi were a little...ummm...whack.

Heh... if you poke around my 2e house rules, you'd see I had the spiritual equivalent of the transparency rule even then. Even then, I considered "opaqueness" the root of huge balance problems with psionics.


I personally ban psionics from my games, since they're far too easily abused- especially when the DM, myself, has only a vague grasp of Psionics. That being said, of the 3 psionic villians presented, I voted for two of them- they were simply that well done flavourwise. :)

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Light Dragon wrote:
I personally ban psionics from my games, since they're far too easily abused- especially when the DM, myself, has only a vague grasp of Psionics. That being said, of the 3 psionic villians presented, I voted for two of them- they were simply that well done flavourwise. :)

I think you've hit on the key point: It is not that psionics is inherently more abusable than any other kind of magic; it is that the player playing a psi character is likely to know psionics far better than the DM, which allows them to--on purpose or by accident--get away with a great deal more than traditional magic casters. Whether in the RAW it is abusable/munchie, it comes out that way in actual play.


Psionics in AD&D were literally a pain in the back of any DM, since they essentially were seperate rules. 3E/RE done away with that, but still - much like Shadowcasters et al and their magic - you need a seperate book and additional time to get a grasp of psionics. And additional work is something that does not (always) go down well the throats of younger gamers - just see what WotC have done to pacify the latter in 4E. Make it easier, faster, more powerful and all that.

I have no problem with psionics, actually try my luck with a soulknife these days ... and they are quite neat in their own roles. Haven't dug too deep into the other classes so far though ...

Dark Archive Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4

Jason Nelson 20 wrote:


I think you've hit on the key point: It is not that psionics is inherently more abusable than any other kind of magic; it is that the player playing a psi character is likely to know psionics far better than the DM, which allows them to--on purpose or by accident--get away with a great deal more than traditional magic casters. Whether in the RAW it is abusable/munchie, it comes out that way in actual play.

Well said, sir.

And I think that in instances where one guy plays the odd-man-out, you'll always have a grass-is-greener feeling. Hilariously, when I ran a one-shot, three-night, high-level "XPH/d20 Modern" game, it was the one Warlock in the mix that was universally seen as "OMG, Borken!"

Kyle, Player of Psion-Maug-Kyle: "What do you mean, he can do that every round?"

DM Booms: "Yep."

Corey, Player of Psychic-Warrior/Ninja-Corey: "Bull. I have to reload my shotguns, but he doesn't have to reload his . . . 'spirit-lazers', or whatever?"

DM Booms: "No, that's how his class works."

Greg, Player of Mega-Damage-Wilder-Greg: "Oh, and he can fly. You suck, Boomer."

DM Booms: "Sigh."

Community / Forums / Archive / Paizo / RPG Superstar™ / Previous Contests / RPG Superstar™ 2008 / General Discussion / What’s with all the psionics hate? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion
Losing items