On 2016-11-09, at 7:57 PM, David Bofinger wrote:
Rick,
I like the idea of psionic monsters. Maybe there's a hymenopteran caste that does it too? And a psychic fungus that infects the brain of a humanoid or animal and makes them a psion that spreads the fungus,
Good ideas. I'll use them when I write up the monsters.
I never used D&D 1e psionics so I'm not comparing, just looking at these rules themselves.
I'm curious why you wanted to replicate the D&D 1e psionics rules in TFT. Was there some feature of those rules that you thought especially clever or fun to play?
Two reasons, DMG had created rules to use D&D style psionics which
got me thinking about them. Second, years ago, I had tried to fix those
rules and failed miserably. So it was a bit of a personal challenge to
see if I had grown as a game designer.
I've nothing against short term brain damage, that could be quite a good mechanism. But I've never seen permanent damage to characters work well.
It is the way I see mental combat working. See also the lyrics to the
song "Veteran of the Psychic Wars" by Blue Oyster Cult.
I would be interested to see your design for a 32-point psion character who could effectively use a short sword. It is, I suppose, barely possible - but all you'd be doing is delaying the character's psionic relevance for longer.
I agree, he would be a poorish shortswordman.
The issue as I see it is that a playable psion can't be built on 32 points. So any game that starts at that point is going to make playing a psion boring. That's a huge downside and I can't see why you'd want to leave it in the system. The rules would be much better with that issue fixed.
In my campaigns, people do not stay at 32 attributes very long. I guess
I am not as worried about it as you are. Further, i think most characters
will be a wizard, or fighter, or thief first, with psionics being a sideline
that gradually grows in importance.
A wizard being weak is one issue. I think the linear fighter quadratic wizard feature is one of the many examples of bad game design in D&D. It isn't something it's a good -idea to replicate.
Fair enough.
Incidentally I don't think parties carry wizards in the expectation they will some day become strong. Parties are made of PCs and don't throw PCs out just because they are weak.
But far worse than being weak is being bored. Players want their characters to be doing something. If they spend the first three turns saying, "My character sits there trancing," and the fourth one saying, "oh, so you killed them all then?" that's not much fun.
If a character is a decent wizard, who occasionally gets to use a cool power
that most people have little defence against, then things won't be boring for
that character. I expect that people won't be using psionics in battle (if all
they have is Trance transfer mode), but rather will be planning ambushes
where the psion is behind a wall or something. I don't really see psionics in
combat until you have Probe at least.
Rick
I understand the advantage of pPSI over PSI. I'm unclear why you'd ever choose PSI. What do you need PSI for, other than making pool?
--
David