PDA

View Full Version : [2e] What did psionics do wrong?



Insert Name Here
2009-02-11, 10:54 AM
Alright, I've seen psionics in second edition be referenced as a big mistake or what we don't want again. I'm not disagreeing or anything, I just don't know where it's coming from, and I'd appreciate if someone could explain.

its_all_ogre
2009-02-11, 10:59 AM
erm where do you start?
they made it totally incompatible with the rest of the 2e system
you had two choices of character:
1 you suck and there is no point in you even playing
2 you rock so much, your powers have no saves allowed and nothing in the world can stop you mwa ha ha


erm loads more but those were the major issues

The Glyphstone
2009-02-11, 11:01 AM
And wasn't psionics not a voluntary character option, but a random d% roll for every character?

Tsotha-lanti
2009-02-11, 11:06 AM
And wasn't psionics not a voluntary character option, but a random d% roll for every character?

A big no and a little yes.

No, actual psionicists got to choose everything like they wanted. I never saw a real problem with them.

Yes, when it came to wild talents. This idea was originally from Dark Sun, I think; it was later also found in Player's Option: Skills & Talents, but was always most strongly part of Dark Sun, where every single PC was a wild talent. In PO:S&T, you had a percentage chance of being a wild talent. In either case, you randomly rolled what your power was, and it could be crap like disintegration. At first level. Yeah, that's a great idea.

Fax Celestis
2009-02-11, 11:07 AM
And wasn't psionics not a voluntary character option, but a random d% roll for every character?

Yup. And when you randomly acquired powers, they meant "randomly". You rolled on this gigantic table that contained powers ranging from "weaker than a cantrip" to "better than time stop."

Insert Name Here
2009-02-11, 11:13 AM
Alright, got it.
The wild talents seemed like a bad idea. The class is what I was more curious about

Tsotha-lanti
2009-02-11, 11:19 AM
Now, let's be factual. In The Complete Psionics Handbook (my bad; wild talents were in there already), the table is a page and a half, with 85 devotions and 31 sciences. Hardly gigantic. As I said, it only applies for wild talents. Psionicists choose their devotions, sciences, and attack and defense modes.

The list does include pretty much everything, including superior invisibility, disintegrate, and summon planar creature, but there's really no psionic powers that are as strong as even 8th-level wizard spells, that I can see. Time shift isn't anything near time stop.

The Player's Option: Skills & Powers version has maybe a few fewer devotions and 17 sciences - no disintegrate this time, but death field is there...

Edit: The PO:S&P table takes up maybe a third of a page. The same table in the Dark Sun booklet The Way of the PSionicist takes up one page's sidebar.

Matthew
2009-02-11, 11:27 AM
There were a number of different approaches. If you want to "build" an AD&D psionicist then you need to look at Skills & Powers. The other systems can be found in the:

Dungeon Master's Guide (first edition)
Complete Psionicist's Handbook
Dark Sun Campaign Setting (and supplements)

Fax Celestis
2009-02-11, 12:09 PM
...the table is a page and a half...


Hardly gigantic.

These two statements do not agree.

its_all_ogre
2009-02-11, 12:37 PM
a lot of the powers had no saving throws and magic resistance did not typically apply.
most 3x players/dms wince at the idea of psionics purely because of 2e experiences.

was probably the worst thing ever done to 2e dnd imo

Kurald Galain
2009-02-11, 12:37 PM
The main problem is that non-psionics have little or no defense against psionics.

The secondary problem is that because psionic powers don't have levels, some of the more powerful ones are available too soon.

And the tertiary problem is that randomly giving 1% of all players a cool ability is as unfair as rolling for ability scores (but not everybody minds, of course).

hamlet
2009-02-11, 12:37 PM
It always makes me chuckle - well, in the spirit of honesty, enraged - when people say that AD&D 2e psionics were "completely incompatible with the rest of the system." Most times people say idiotic things like that, it turns out that they never actually read the rules, or read a different set of rules and projected them elsewhere. The rules in the 1st edition PHB are NOT the same as in 2nd edition Complete Psionics Handbook. Nor are the Players Options rules for psionics the original (nor the best in many opinions).

The original 2nd edition psionics rules from the Complete Psionics Handbook(not the original rules for psionics in all D&D - those came with Supplement III) have mechanics based off of the non-weapon proficiency system with added, optional results for critical success and failure: i.e., roll d20 under score and succeed, over and fail. That, right there, is the summation of the nuts and bolts of how 9 out of 10 psionic powers functioned in 2nd edition (mental combat was a different can of worms).

Yes, the guidlines on how many powers of different sorts that you could gain were a little complicated, but hardly mindbending if you took the time to actually read them. Essentially, at character creation you chose a main discipline, a focus of your power like telepathy, psychokinesis, or psychoportation, and most of your powers were drawn from that "school" while you could only gain a smattering of powers from the other focci.

It is patently untrue that psionic powers granted no saves. It was explicit in the book that affected persons could save vs. spell to avoid and/or detect deleterious effects. Granted, as I recall that rule was stuffed in the back somewhere, but it was there.

As for the Wild Talent being "unbalancing," yes, it is possible to roll up a power like Disintigrate at first level (though the chance to be a wild talent in the first place was something on the order of about 3% and the chance of rolling a power on that table like that was something like 3-7% maybe). However, the way the system worked, a character was VERY unlikely to have enough psionic potential (PSP's) to be able to use that power more than once every 36 hours. On top of that, there's a very decent chance that a non-profesional can botch his roll and vaporize himself in the process. Also, remember that Wild Talents were entirely optional.

Let's also be honest about Dark Sun, too. It's not like a single wild talent is going to make a huge difference in the single deadliest campaign setting going where, literally, the entire world is out to get you and just travelling between cities is deadly without the chance of encountering monsters on the way.

Are psionics in the Complete Handbook version overpowered? Hardly. Even though by 20th level you could have hundreds of PSP's, few powers were ever "fire and forget" like magic and often simple effects resulted in huge drains on a psionicist's endurance. Not to mention that, as mentioned above, few powers compared to the raw, unthinking power a wizard could throw around casually with 8th and 9th level spells. It's not at all unlikely in practice for a psionicist to burn through large portions of his power accomplishing anything above a basic task (like moving a small object) or in a combat situation where multiple powers have to be maintained throughout. Plus, many powers scaled depending on what you tried to do. Moving a skipping stone around was cheap and easy. Moving a boulder was MUCH more costly.

I will say, though, that psionic combat in its original form was needlessly complicated and kludgy. However, it's very easy to fix. Plus, if you don't want to be bothered with the book keeping of gradual PSP regeneration (measured in points by the hour depending on activity), it was very simple to say that the PSP total was a "per day" allocation regenerated by 8 hours sleep or meditation. This actually would make psionics stronger since very powerful characters would have taken days, or even a week to regenerate fully.

its_all_ogre
2009-02-11, 12:44 PM
i have complete psionics on my bookshelf
in played numerous psionic characters, they were either pointless additions to a party or became incarnate god dependant on power selection.
the proficiency use to pull off powers is a good example of exactly why they could become useless/overpowered.

of course stats mattered a lot, if you had usual stats for 2e 12 15 8 9 12 11 then there was unlikely to be an issue but if someone rolled up a monster 12 18 13 9 16 16 then there was going to be trouble.

hamlet
2009-02-11, 12:49 PM
The main problem is that non-psionics have little or no defense against psionics.

Or, you could do like the book suggests and throw in a save vs. spells maybe? Especially for telepathic powers.




The secondary problem is that because psionic powers don't have levels, some of the more powerful ones are available too soon.



Yeah, it was certainly possible to get Detonate or Disintegrate at 1st level (IIRC), but chances are you'd probably only be able to use it once, maybe twice a day. Then, you were a sitting duck.




And the tertiary problem is that randomly giving 1% of all players a cool ability is as unfair as rolling for ability scores (but not everybody minds, of course).

A 1% chance for a cool power that had to be unlocked via the exceedingly dangerous power of Psychic Surgery, which involved finding somebody powerful enough to actually use said power on you (a prospect fraught with peril itself since anybody of sufficient skill to perform said psychic surgery could just as easily melt your brain in six seconds) and, if not successfull, stood a really good chance of doing permanent damage, or flat out killing the character.

All in all, your chances of being a successful, non-vegetable wild talent were about 1 in 500. In all my time gaming, there've been a grand total of 2 wild talents rolled. One had a few minor powers that were hardly "cool" and the other got thrown into a persistent vegetative state by a botched attempt to realize the power.

Plus, the wild talent shtick was entirely optional and was noted in the book as something the DM would want to consider carefully before permitting.

Fostire
2009-02-11, 12:58 PM
On wild talents:
-They were completely optional
-The highest chance you could have of being a wild talent on 1st level was 10% and that required a human with 18 on wisdom, intelligence, and constitution, and it also required you to be neither mage or cleric.
-If you chose to roll for wild talent, there was a chance of getting your wisdom, intelligence, and constitution permanently reduced if you rolled 97 or higher (if you rolled 00 you had to make a save vs death at a -5 penalty or have all three scores reduced by 3), and it's not like it was easy to raise your stats on 2e.

Fax Celestis
2009-02-11, 01:02 PM
On wild talents:
-They were completely optionalGranted.

-The highest chance you could have of being a wild talent on 1st level was 10% and that required a human with 18 on wisdom, intelligence, and constitution, and it also required you to be neither mage or cleric....which is silly. Is there any particular reason that not everyone can be a wild talent?

-If you chose to roll for wild talent, there was a chance of getting your wisdom, intelligence, and constitution permanently reduced if you rolled 97 or higher (if you rolled 00 you had to make a save vs death at a -5 penalty or have all three scores reduced by 3), and it's not like it was easy to raise your stats on 2e....which is also silly. Why should I be penalized for having good luck?

hamlet
2009-02-11, 01:07 PM
Granted.
...which is silly. Is there any particular reason that not everyone can be a wild talent?
...which is also silly. Why should I be penalized for having good luck?

1) Because despite what grade school or your mother may have told you, not everybody is special.

2) Because, as has been mentioned, psionics are a very dangerous force in a game world, both to targets, and to the users of said powers. Psychic Surgery (the required power to unlock a wild talent) is exactly brain surgery. Somebody going into your brain and fiddling with the wiring. Tell me again how that wouldn't be obscenely dangerous? It creates a choice for the player on whether or not they want to run the risk of exploring that potential.

No power comes without a cost.

its_all_ogre
2009-02-11, 01:07 PM
Granted.
...which is silly. Is there any particular reason that not everyone can be a wild talent?
...which is also silly. Why should I be penalized for having good luck?

did you never play 2e?
sometimes the game penalized you for PLAYING!

Starbuck_II
2009-02-11, 01:14 PM
did you never play 2e?
sometimes the game penalized you for PLAYING!

Not as bad as Traveler System: that one can kill you in the creation process.

Fax Celestis
2009-02-11, 01:15 PM
1) Because despite what grade school or your mother may have told you, not everybody is special.Not what I meant. I meant, "what about being a spellcaster precludes you from psionics?" The notion that I could have inborn psychic powers but then, when I multiclassed to priest, would lose them, is ridiculous.


2) Because, as has been mentioned, psionics are a very dangerous force in a game world, both to targets, and to the users of said powers. Psychic Surgery (the required power to unlock a wild talent) is exactly brain surgery. Somebody going into your brain and fiddling with the wiring. Tell me again how that wouldn't be obscenely dangerous? It creates a choice for the player on whether or not they want to run the risk of exploring that potential.

No power comes without a cost.

That choice and cost was made and paid when the Psychic Surgery was originally performed, what with the 10% (maximum) chance and all. But being penalized for succeeding too well (which is generally what the high 90 range of a d100 roll is for, especially after passing the initial pass/fail chance) is bad game design.

Fostire
2009-02-11, 01:16 PM
...which is silly. Is there any particular reason that not everyone can be a wild talent?
Everyone has a base chance of 1%. There are modifiers:
-A +3% for each 18 score on wisdom, intelligence, and constitution
-A +2% for each 17 score on wisdom, intelligence, and constitution
-A +1% for each 16 score on wisdom, intelligence, and constitution
-A +1% if character is 5th to 8th level
-A +2% if character is 9th level or higher
-A +2% if character is under the guidance of a psychic surgeon
-Half the chances if the character is Cleric, Mage, or Nonhuman (apply penalty once, round fractions up)


...which is also silly. Why should I be penalized for having good luck?
It's not good luck, to determine wild talent you had to roll low numbers on a d100 (lower than 1 + modifiers), if you rolled too high (97+) you had penalties. It's a risk the player takes if he wants to be a wild talent, he could get a really cool power or he could end up a vegetable.

Zen Monkey
2009-02-11, 01:16 PM
There seem to be a few categories of complaints against 2e psionics:

1. Wild Talents: These have been around since before 2nd ed, in the days when bard was essentially a prestige class. It's random and sometimes unfair, and kind of a pain when monsters have them and you don't.

2. Power Level: While being one-dimensional, your character could get some high level abilities at pretty low level (disintegrate, body stealing, etc). Remember that in those days a wizard had one spell at first level, fighters had no feats, etc. It isn't always abused, but it can be, and isn't offset by things like spell level that would prevent the mages and priests from skipping ahead.

3. A Separate Game: You and the DM are playing a card game of attack and defense modes and whatever other variables, playing out a mini-combat that the other characters can't see or participate in. The other players are bored while you're taking up all the combat time and attention.

4. DM Comfort: It forces the DM to learn a different set of rules, come up with mental armor class and power resistances/immunities for all of the monsters, and generally added an expansion pack to the game with alot of new rules. A number of DM's just didn't want the extra hassle or complexity.

Starsinger
2009-02-11, 01:18 PM
1) Because despite what grade school or your mother may have told you, not everybody is special.

I thought that's why adventurers (i.e.) PCs were better than NPCs because they all are special.

Fostire
2009-02-11, 01:23 PM
(the required power to unlock a wild talent)

That isn't exactly correct.

A character can test for wild powers only at specific times: when the character is first created; when the character's Wisdom increases to a higher point than it has ever been; the first time the character goes to a psionicist who can perform psychic surgery on him; when psionics is first introduced to the campaign.

@Fax: You wouldn't lose your wild talents if you multiclassed into priest (which isn't a class by the way, druids in 2e classify as priests too and don't get the penalty), the penalty applies only when you roll for wild talent.

Starbuck_II
2009-02-11, 01:27 PM
I thought that's why adventurers (i.e.) PCs were better than NPCs because they all are special.

Actually, there was alot of treasure and high level NPCs in the old days. Heck, the more Treasure you got: the more exp you got.

Only in 3.5, are high level NPCs less common. No one complained about the fact that there were Walmarts of magic stores until 3.5 (check the Paizo boards for the prevelance of it now).

So in 3.5, yes Adventures are special, but not in 2nd.

Fax Celestis
2009-02-11, 01:29 PM
@Fax: You wouldn't lose your wild talents if you multiclassed into priest (which isn't a class by the way, druids in 2e classify as priests too and don't get the penalty), the penalty applies only when you roll for wild talent.

Again, then: why bother with that qualification?

Fostire
2009-02-11, 01:35 PM
Again, then: why bother with that qualification?
If I remember correctly, the penalty was because cleric's and wizard's minds are trained in a specific manner that is completely different from psionics which makes it harder for any latent psionic powers to manifest.

Myrmex
2009-02-11, 01:38 PM
That choice and cost was made and paid when the Psychic Surgery was originally performed, what with the 10% (maximum) chance and all. But being penalized for succeeding too well (which is generally what the high 90 range of a d100 roll is for, especially after passing the initial pass/fail chance) is bad game design.

That's not how chance works.

You could have it so instead, rolling a 2, a 37, a 66 and a 99 be bad news bears, and the outcome is the same as if you had to roll a 97-00.

Fax Celestis
2009-02-11, 01:39 PM
That's not how chance works.

You could have it so instead, rolling a 2, a 37, a 66 and a 99 be bad news bears, and the outcome is the same as if you had to roll a 97-00.

Again, not the point. The Chance for Bad Things™ happened already, during the Psychic Surgery.

hamlet
2009-02-11, 01:47 PM
Not what I meant. I meant, "what about being a spellcaster precludes you from psionics?" The notion that I could have inborn psychic powers but then, when I multiclassed to priest, would lose them, is ridiculous.

That was actually addressed in the book. Specifically, magical type folk literally thought differently than psionic type folk. Magic and psionics functioned completely differently and being a mage or priest put you in the wrong mindset to realize psionic potential.

I don't remember the exact wording, but it was something on the order of magic being the ability to alter the forces around you while psionics was the ability to utilize the forces within yourself.


Plus, you would never lose your ability if you dual classed. It is a part of your character that is above and beyond class abilities in the case of wild talents.





That choice and cost was made and paid when the Psychic Surgery was originally performed, what with the 10% (maximum) chance and all. But being penalized for succeeding too well (which is generally what the high 90 range of a d100 roll is for, especially after passing the initial pass/fail chance) is bad game design.

No, the cost is not "made and paid for" right there. There are two rolls. The first is the check as to whether you are a wild talent or not, a basic 1-10% chance at most. After that, there's the roll to determine what abilities you have, which is actually the psychic surgery part and can have dangerous repurrcussions. That second roll is the indicator of you having sought out somebody who is a powerful mind bender and asking them to help you realize your power and having survived the process.

It's the same thing for wizards who want new spells. You don't get them safe and sound by sitting on your duff, you have to go out and find them, which can be a risky proposition.

Fostire
2009-02-11, 01:47 PM
Again, not the point. The Chance for Bad Things™ happened already, during the Psychic Surgery.

No, the chance for bad things happening during psychic surgery and the chances for bad things happening during wild talent rolling, are one and the same.
What psychic surgery does (amongst many other things) is give you the chance to roll for wild talent. You can also roll for wild talent on other specific times which I said on a previous post (on the quoted text)

hamlet
2009-02-11, 01:50 PM
That isn't exactly correct.


Nope, I am correct. That quote lists the times that you can check to see if you're a wild talent, not the process for unlocking the talent.

Separate things as I said.

Fostire
2009-02-11, 01:53 PM
Nope, I am correct. That quote lists the times that you can check to see if you're a wild talent, not the process for unlocking the talent.

Separate things as I said.

:smallconfused: Where does it say that?

hamlet
2009-02-11, 02:19 PM
:smallconfused: Where does it say that?

There are two rolls involved. The first is the check to see if you are psionically active, a wild talent. The first visit to a psionicist who can perform psychic surgery on him is the point where he can find out if he has psionic potential. That is a pretty much harmless process.

If he does test positive, the character must still undergo psychic surgery to unlock that potential and roll on the wild talent chart which includes the 3% chance of being lobotomized. Doing it "in game" though results in a -2 bonus to that check, thus reducing the negative potential, but introducing the chance that the psionicist botches his roll and causes even worse problems.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-11, 03:36 PM
I think the main reason why Psionic characters (not merely Wild Talent ones) were problematic in 2E is because they were "set" in a different system from the magic system.

2E Magic system involved scarce resources (very few Spells/Day) and could be countered and detected by fellow users.

2E Psionics involved far more plentiful resources (they were basically spontaneous casters in a Vancian World) and, unless you were in Dark Sun, very, very few people who can detect or counter you.

Additionally, Psionics did grant powers which were equivalent to Wizard powers, but could be spontaneously cast and were often a level or two below.

As for the "but it's not fair" comments: this is 2e we're talking about.

"Fair" didn't enter into any part of this game; the world is big and nasty and can kill you at any moment. You may lose your important Sword +1 to a failed Fireball save, and be unable to find another Wizard willing to sacrifice a permanent point of CON to make you another. If you didn't use Death's Door, any given longsword strike could kill you dead for the first couple of levels.

It was a design decisions; a different game for a different era.

LibraryOgre
2009-02-11, 04:06 PM
2nd edition psionics, as of the Complete Psionics Handbook, had several problems.

1) The powers were directly tied to ability scores. This meant that you either had rockin' scores, or you were nigh-incompetent.

2) Scores were very difficult to improve, carrying a very high opportunity cost to do so. Prior to Dark Sun's proficiency of "Crystal Focus", the only way to improve a power score was to get rid of one of your possible selections. At 2nd level, you can either learn a new power, or improve a power by 1. Those who started incompetent stayed incompetent, either through low scores or having no breadth of ability.

3) Either double jeopardy or sucks-to-be-you. Some psionic powers allowed a save, but that meant that psionicists were in double jeopardy... they could fail to activate their powers, or their power could be saved against. In either case, they lost an action (and PSPs). I think there were even some powers that were triple jeopardy... you could fail to activate them, you could miss, or the target could save. Those powers without saves were equally sucktastic, since you didn't have any defense if the psionicist happened to be good at that power.

4) Though some quote it, there's the chance of wild talents, with which I don't agree. I encountered these only once, and they weren't much of a problem. Given the problems mentioned with power scores, they were simply too chancy to use unless in a horrid situation. While free powers are a bad design choice, I didn't see this having a huge impact on the game.

The S&P system ameliorate some of these, but created its own problems.

1) While Power Scores got better, it was to the point of their being almost superfluous... which is bad. They were a mechanic that, for the most part, denoted only extreme failure or extreme success, in about equal amounts, and the penalty for extreme failure was usually worse then the benefit of success.

2) They borked up psionic combat, but I can't recall the details right now.

3) They did not significantly improve the no save situation, as I recall.

WickerNipple
2009-02-11, 05:01 PM
Ah, 2e Psionics... Ah, Darksun.

The Clone Wars.

You started at level 3 was it? A level 3 Psionist built purely for Disintegration was really good at his job 3-4 times a day. Certainly WAY better than the poor Wizards.

But they Disintegrated themselves 1/20 times.

A kid I played with must have cloned his same lvl 3 character at least 10 times. Rest of the party was level 10-11, he's still level 3 on clone #8. :smallbiggrin:

Which didn't make an ounce of difference when the lvl 3 was melting dragons. :smalltongue:

Lol. I can't believe there are 2e psionics apologists. You just can't argue it wasn't overpowered and ridiculous. But you could definitely argue it was fun in an insane sort of way...

hamlet
2009-02-11, 05:06 PM
2nd edition psionics, as of the Complete Psionics Handbook, had several problems.

1) The powers were directly tied to ability scores. This meant that you either had rockin' scores, or you were nigh-incompetent.

2) Scores were very difficult to improve, carrying a very high opportunity cost to do so. Prior to Dark Sun's proficiency of "Crystal Focus", the only way to improve a power score was to get rid of one of your possible selections. At 2nd level, you can either learn a new power, or improve a power by 1. Those who started incompetent stayed incompetent, either through low scores or having no breadth of ability.

3) Either double jeopardy or sucks-to-be-you. Some psionic powers allowed a save, but that meant that psionicists were in double jeopardy... they could fail to activate their powers, or their power could be saved against. In either case, they lost an action (and PSPs). I think there were even some powers that were triple jeopardy... you could fail to activate them, you could miss, or the target could save. Those powers without saves were equally sucktastic, since you didn't have any defense if the psionicist happened to be good at that power.
.



One might argue that a lot of this combined to balance out the fact that psionic powers were very dangerous. The fact that they were, generally, very difficult to use properly and well aleviates their power somewhat.

I might also point out that a psionicist with moderate or low scores might not be great at pulling powers in the heat of combat, but like any character, he should be aware of that limitation and plan accordingly. I've played psionicists with low scores, and it really wasn't a case of "nigh incompetence." It was merely a case of realizing that you can't always be the blaster or the in combat go to guy. A telepath with moderate scores can be absolutely devastating if he's crafty.

Plus, the rules that govern psionic item creation make it possible for even a crappy psionicist to build himself some sentient backup that can actually be better at some powers than he himself is (doubling and trippling power load into a device improves its score IIRC). An object can use powers independantly of the character and, as long as you're careful not to piss it off, is likely to use them in your interests.

Fostire
2009-02-11, 05:07 PM
But you could definitely argue it was fun in an insane sort of way...

And that's why I love it :smallbiggrin:

hamlet
2009-02-11, 05:21 PM
Lol. I can't believe there are 2e psionics apologists. You just can't argue it wasn't overpowered and ridiculous.

I can, and have argued that, though it's kind of pointless when people have effectively determined the outcome in their minds ahead of time.

Tengu_temp
2009-02-11, 05:49 PM
About Wild Talent - I'd like to point out that every character having a 0.2% chance of being way too overpowered at the start of the game is not balanced at all, especially for a game where someone has the luck to roll such a character. It's a similar case to "I can kill you in ten blows" being more balanced than "my attack has only 10% chance to hit, but if it lands I will kill you".

Of course, not that first edition or AD&D cared about balance in the slightest in the first place...

LibraryOgre
2009-02-11, 07:23 PM
About Wild Talent - I'd like to point out that every character having a 0.2% chance of being way too overpowered at the start of the game is not balanced at all, especially for a game where someone has the luck to roll such a character. It's a similar case to "I can kill you in ten blows" being more balanced than "my attack has only 10% chance to hit, but if it lands I will kill you".

Of course, not that first edition or AD&D cared about balance in the slightest in the first place...

Serf's Parma, but wasn't there usually an equal chance of severe brain damage?

Tsotha-lanti
2009-02-12, 01:59 AM
Serf's Parma, but wasn't there usually an equal chance of severe brain damage?

d100
97: Save vs. death or lose 1d6 Wis
98: Save vs. death or lose 1d6 Int
99: Save vs. death or lose 1d6 Con
00: Save vs. death at -5 or Wis, Int, and Con are reduced to 3

Unless you have excellent stats or are high-level, your odds of getting a bad result are higher than your odds of being a wild talent (which start at 1%).

I don't get people going on about psychic surgery - it's unnecessary. You can test at 1st level, when psionics is introduced into the campaign, or (the rarest of all) when your Wisdom goes up. (There's like precisely one way to increase your ability scores, and that one lasts a month or something.) Being 9th-level and getting psychic surgery increases your odds by 2%, but since the chances of reaching 9th level are pretty low in and of themselves...

Edit: hamlet basically has it entirely wrong. The risk is in rolling to see whether you are a wild talent. Once you are one, the actual table of sciences and devotions is completely risk-free. Indeed, it includes stuff like "roll three times" and "two sciences and four devotions" at the highest numbers, rather than "you are dying vegetable."

BobVosh
2009-02-12, 02:21 AM
Ah, 2e Psionics... Ah, Darksun.

The Clone Wars.

You started at level 3 was it? A level 3 Psionist built purely for Disintegration was really good at his job 3-4 times a day. Certainly WAY better than the poor Wizards.

But they Disintegrated themselves 1/20 times.

A kid I played with must have cloned his same lvl 3 character at least 10 times. Rest of the party was level 10-11, he's still level 3 on clone #8. :smallbiggrin:

Which didn't make an ounce of difference when the lvl 3 was melting dragons. :smalltongue:

Lol. I can't believe there are 2e psionics apologists. You just can't argue it wasn't overpowered and ridiculous. But you could definitely argue it was fun in an insane sort of way...

Sounds like all but one player were playing D&D. The last one was playing Paranoia.

The fan made update for Dark Sun is fun, but very different (mechanically) from 2ed's DS.

Tacoma
2009-02-12, 02:45 AM
Some people mentioned the often insane drawbacks of good powers. Disintegrate had a 1 in 20 chance of Disintegrating YOU! Metamorphosis, the "polymorph me into whatever" power, had a 1 in 20 chance of being permanent or something. I recall being changed into a boulder forever once.

And most monsters that had psionics were awesome at them. A low-level psionicist was pretty much screwed if he came up against a psionic monster. I know my psionicist (who got boulderized) refused to engage in psionic combat. If someone was psionic he would point the guy out and the party would converge on that one enemy and kill it dead. If he was alone and he encountered a psionic creature he shot at it with his bow.

If you got a wild talent there was only a very small chance of it being a good one. More often you ended up with something absolutely useless like "Hear Light" which gave you the ability to hear in Silence magic if there was enough light around. OH BOY just what I'd always dreamed of!

The double and triple jeopardy mentioned earlier where there were multiple rolls with a chance of failure were a big problem. Other spellcasters often had just an attack roll or more often just a save - and higher level spells offered no save.

While a psionicist could use his power points any way he wanted, and so was more versatile than a Magic-User during the day, he had access to only a few powers total unlike the Magic-User with a big spellbook library or a Cleric. So if the party had a chance to rest eight hours so the Magic-User could memorize just the right spell, the Magic-User suddenly has incredible versatility. The Psionicist in this case gains no versatility because he can't change his power loadout on a day to day basis.

Furthermore the psionicist had a limited number of psionic points to spend, which meant he was often as much at a loss after a fight or two as a Magic-User who blew through his spells. When people mention 4-5 Disintegrates a day, that assumes a lot of high stats that you can't count on when rolling (even when your DM lets you use the Arcana method, the most lenient statistic determination method short of giving everyone 109 points to split among their 6 scores).

The card-game mentality where the player and the DM declare their psionic actions using index cards or something (which is what we always did when it came up) was pretty stupid. If they designed it to be just powers and powers instead of rock-paper-scissors it would have gone much more smoothly. And do we need five of each attack and defense? How about an always-on but weak defense, a solid personal defense, and a moderate area-effect defense? The weak defense gives +2 to save against psionics, the strong personal defense gives +6, and the decent area defense gives +4 to everyone within 10'. And then the attacks would just be normal powers that allow saving throws.

Eliminating power checks and making everything require an attack roll or allow a saving throw would work. The psionicist's Wisdom modifier for mental attacks would act as a negative save modifier for enemies, while they get their Wis modifiers to offset that.

Cull the lame powers or combine them into others. Add more prerequisites to the best ones. Figure out what Psionicists do well that Magic-Users and Clerics don't do, so people aren't all stepping on each others' toes. And have a limited table for wild talents that includes mostly curiosities so the 1-6% who get one aren't so much more powerful. No chance for brain damage when rolling during chargen, but include a 1% chance of becoming a vegetable on a roll of 00 if using psychic surgery later on. Explain the modifiers for high stats as an expansion of the lower bound chance and not a bonus to the die roll (otherwise being smart makes the surgery more likely to ruin your junk).

Tsotha-lanti
2009-02-12, 06:19 AM
109 points to split into 6 abilities? But that's an average of 18 1/6 in each... that would be crazy even for Dark Sun.

I definitely agree about the attacks and defenses. While the "X is weak against Y but strong against Z" deal was sort of fun, the 3.5 system, where each attack and defense is a power that has uses outside of psion vs. psion mental combat is much better.

hamlet
2009-02-12, 08:27 AM
Edit: hamlet basically has it entirely wrong. The risk is in rolling to see whether you are a wild talent. Once you are one, the actual table of sciences and devotions is completely risk-free. Indeed, it includes stuff like "roll three times" and "two sciences and four devotions" at the highest numbers, rather than "you are dying vegetable."

Well I'm glad you're here to correct me in such things . . .:smallannoyed:

This is pointless.

Have it your way.

AD&D is the suxxors.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-02-12, 11:29 AM
Well I'm glad you're here to correct me in such things . . .:smallannoyed:

This is pointless.

Have it your way.

AD&D is the suxxors.

So instead of reading what I wrote, you jumped straight to martyrdom? I like how you apparently attributed other people's posts to me, too. Is this some kind of reverse trolling?

You were objectively wrong about facts (i.e. which portion of rolling for wild talents has the risk; you say the first roll is harmless, when it is, in fact, the only one with any risk associated). I corrected you. What is your major malfunction?

hamlet
2009-02-12, 11:51 AM
So instead of reading what I wrote, you jumped straight to martyrdom? I like how you apparently attributed other people's posts to me, too. Is this some kind of reverse trolling?

You were objectively wrong about facts (i.e. which portion of rolling for wild talents has the risk; you say the first roll is harmless, when it is, in fact, the only one with any risk associated). I corrected you. What is your major malfunction?

Martyrdom? No, just sick of this place generally speaking. The realization that this place is exactly like Dragonsfoot, just a polar opposite.

If I am factually incorrect (which is possible as I don't have the books in front of me here in the office) then I apologize, go about your business.

Fax Celestis
2009-02-12, 12:32 PM
If I am factually incorrect (which is possible as I don't have the books in front of me here in the office) then I apologize, go about your business.

This is, in fact, all he was saying.

Kyeudo
2009-02-12, 01:24 PM
I've never dealt with 2nd Edition, but when I found this on the Wizard's boards, illustrating the problems with psionic combat, it convinced me to never try:



I have used this model before, but to really appreciate how this "class feature" worked you should see how it would apply if ported to mainstream D&D where they haven't been conditioned to accept inferior mechanics without question. Lets take the big sacred moo, a Cleric's undead turning ability:

DM: "Before we get started, Cleric, I just want you to know that I am instituting some changes in your turn undead class feature that will make your class more different and give it a unique divine mechanic."

Player: "OK. How does it work now?"

DM: "Well, for starters, when you attempt to turn undead you will now have to burn a spell."

Player: "A spell???? What level?"

DM: "Different levels. It depends on what turning mode you want to use. Sanctified Gesture takes a level 1, Divine Dance of Power takes a level 2, High Holly Homina Homina takes a level 3, and...."

Player: "Wait, I assume I will get a bonus on the roll based on the level of spell slot I sacrifice?"

DM: "Sometimes you will. Other times you will get a penalty based on the turning defense mode the opponent selects. Turning and turning defense modes will interact on a table. The table determines the actual DC of the roll, not the level of the spell slot burned. Choosing a given defense mode may actually mean you pay a spell to get a penalty on the save, but it will still be better than being defenseless."

Player: "The undead will get defense modes?"

DM: "Sure, so will you. Each round you will select a turning attack mode and a defense mode. In fact, you will need to select a defense mode against each undead opponent each and every round and each will cost you spell slots."

Player: "Wwwwwwhat????!!!!!! What if I am facing undead who do not cast spells, I assume they won't get to mount a defense?"

DM: "It doesn't matter if you face undead without casting ability because their turning and turning defense modes are free."

Player: "Wait a minute! This is stupid! One of my 3rd level spell slots could be spent on Searing Light which fries undead; why would I ever spend it on an attack mode that might help me on a turning attempt? And why would I ever take a turning defense mode, much less a separate one vs. each undead opponent? I would simply choose to ignore undead or cast spells against them or go at them with weapons. I would have to have brain damage to choose to turn with these rules!"

DM: "If you fail to mount a defense then each unblocked undead gets a special +8 bonus to hit you for having this wonderful class feature and choosing not to use it. They also get to drain your stats if they hit. This will apply also to anyone who adds a level of Cleric; multiclassing will be very flavorful."

Player: "But I am a spellcaster, I need to be able to cast spells. How can I do my job if my spell slots get sucked away every time we run into undead?"

DM: "Well, how can you do your job if you are dead or reduced to a mindless state? You need to use your spells this way or you may not live long enough to cast them anyway."

Player: Head down, silently weeping into his hands.

DM: "I should mention too that you will be able to make turn undead attempts vs. nonundead; if you succeed they will be stunned for a few rounds. Of course, everyone who does not have this feature will get a huge bonus on the save DC. The best part: If you blow a 5th level spell to use High Holy Hokey Pokey then everyone in a large area could be stunned for a long while and they don't get a bonus vs. this one mode -- that makes the entire system usable and balanced."

Player: "They should all be stunned if they ever see me willingly use these rules. This is preposterous! I need my spells to heal and buff and perform all the functions of a Cleric. How am I going to be of any use to the party if I hemorrhage spell slots every time we run into undead?"

DM: "That is the beauty of it: You get to choose whether to use your spell slots as they were intended or save your own hide by using them to turn. Come on and at least give it a chance. It will be a mechanic unique to your class so it must be a benefit. You don't want to be just another spellcaster do you? This will add so much flavor and.... Hey! Get him off of me!"

Player: "How ya like that fist flavor?"

LurkerInPlayground
2009-02-12, 01:39 PM
I thought that's why adventurers (i.e.) PCs were better than NPCs because they all are special.
I think the "old school" philosophy was that you weren't anybody special. You were a scoundrel, a part of the fringe, crazy enough to comb dungeons instead of plowing a field.

You had a chance of becoming a hero. And that's assuming that you didn't want to be end up as some sort of feudal lord instead.

sonofzeal
2009-02-12, 01:44 PM
I've never dealt with 2nd Edition, but when I found this on the Wizard's boards, illustrating the problems with psionic combat, it convinced me to never try:
Having recently looked at Psionics Handbook... I believe that's 3e Psi, not 3.5e Psi or 2e Psi. It may be the same in 2e Psi, but the mechanic is very close to 3e Psi. I spent five minutes with that book, and I found every one of the problems that poster is highlighting.

Something he didn't mention - Mind Blast ("High Holy Hokey Pokey") doesn't just work fine against non-psi opponents, it gets a +4 to DC in addition for stuning for 3d4 rounds in a 60' cone. That's pretty much a save-or-lose vs a solid area with a big DC bonus; I'd pay a 5th level spell for that!

Tsotha-lanti
2009-02-12, 02:01 PM
Having recently looked at Psionics Handbook... I believe that's 3e Psi, not 3.5e Psi or 2e Psi. It may be the same in 2e Psi, but the mechanic is very close to 3e Psi. I spent five minutes with that book, and I found every one of the problems that poster is highlighting.

Yeah, it looks more like 3.0, what with DCs. However, the 3.0 attacks and defenses were ported over direct from 2nd edition, along with their interactions.

The results described are 3.0, though, not 2nd edition (at least not the S&P version, which didn't differ all that much from the CPsi version, that I recall). In S&P (and, I'm pretty sure, CPsi), psionic attacks just depleted PSPs (until they hit 0), no ability scores seem to be drained, and there's no penalty I can find at a squick skim for not spending PSPs on a defense.

Edit: Also, in 2nd edition, psionic monsters had PSPs they used normally. In 3.0, psionic monsters had no PSPs and had at-will, free access to attack and defense modes they knew. That made them insanely powerful. Illithids especially.

Douglas
2009-02-12, 02:06 PM
The really fun part of 3.0 Mind Blast's "balance" is that you can learn it as early as you like and can use it as long as you have the requisite 9 power points.

The +4 DC isn't actually that great, though, as it's in place of rather than in addition to the +5 you'd get for using a 5th level power. It's still 3d4 rounds of stun in a huge area, which is way too powerful a disable for the cost.

From the little I remember of 2e I think the 3.0 psionic combat system was almost a direct conversion from 2e, so the rant is equally applicable to both systems. 3.5 finally got smart about it and converted each attack and defense mode into a reasonably balanced regular power.

Doug Lampert
2009-02-12, 02:32 PM
Having recently looked at Psionics Handbook... I believe that's 3e Psi, not 3.5e Psi or 2e Psi. It may be the same in 2e Psi, but the mechanic is very close to 3e Psi. I spent five minutes with that book, and I found every one of the problems that poster is highlighting.

Something he didn't mention - Mind Blast ("High Holy Hokey Pokey") doesn't just work fine against non-psi opponents, it gets a +4 to DC in addition for stuning for 3d4 rounds in a 60' cone. That's pretty much a save-or-lose vs a solid area with a big DC bonus; I'd pay a 5th level spell for that!

Five attack modes and defense modes, all costing points, all but one attack effectively pointless against non-psionics, and all the other problems mentioned could have been a description of the system in Eldrich Wizardry. (You know, the suplement to the original game which predates both the Basic Set and AD&D 1st edition.)

So if it's that way in 3.0 then I have no real doubt it was that way in AD&D2nd ed too, since it would otherwise be a heck of a coincidence for them to have independently reinvented the SAME broken system in 3.0 as what they had in OD&D.

kalt
2009-02-12, 02:43 PM
I kinda liked the old system. Some felt it was a bit bulk with all of the attack and defense modes, but once you got the hang of it I didn't really mind it.

TMZ_Cinoros
2009-02-12, 07:43 PM
I've never dealt with 2nd Edition, but when I found this on the Wizard's boards, illustrating the problems with psionic combat, it convinced me to never try:

Basing a decision of whether or not to try a system based entirely on a single highly optional mechanic is kind of silly, in my opinion (assuming you said you never played in 2nd edition because of the problems of psionic combat in 2nd edition. If that is not what you meant, please forgive me). It would be like not playing in 3.5 because of, say, Vow of Poverty in the Book of Exalted Deeds.

"What? I can be completely destitute and fall behind in power versus my friends, but I have to be holier than a paladin? That if I even THINK an evil thought or do not immediately attack every evil or morally gray person out there I lose all my powers?"

(Yeah, that is hyperbole, but so was the turning/psionics story.)

2nd edition has a lot of issues, and is EXTREMELY primitive in certain ways. But it has a very different attitude from 3.X and 4th editions that I personally find very refreshing from the "you're special" attitude of those newer systems. I could go on, but I don't want to turn this into one of the many (many many) edition war threads.

Starbuck_II
2009-02-12, 07:52 PM
The really fun part of 3.0 Mind Blast's "balance" is that you can learn it as early as you like and can use it as long as you have the requisite 9 power points.

The +4 DC isn't actually that great, though, as it's in place of rather than in addition to the +5 you'd get for using a 5th level power. It's still 3d4 rounds of stun in a huge area, which is way too powerful a disable for the cost.

From the little I remember of 2e I think the 3.0 psionic combat system was almost a direct conversion from 2e, so the rant is equally applicable to both systems. 3.5 finally got smart about it and converted each attack and defense mode into a reasonably balanced regular power.

Heh, I loved Mind Blast for that.
Plus, the DM never used any Psionic creatures with at will Combat abilities. So I never had to run from Brain moles (yes, they will do that since it is at will and you aren't).

Stunned a Gargoyle, etc.