Psi looks badly broken

[ljsteele]

CarlP, for your untrained psi, don't forget that the character needs to take the Natural PSI feat to avoid losing strength while aging.

I like the idea of DCs and a modifier based on PSI strength. Having a variable result means that game balance would not be hurt by reducing the DCs.

Feats, Feats...I'm not thrilled about multiplying the feats per Ron's proposal. Five feats (one per sphere), plus the option of Natural Psi and/or a beefed up training feat is more than enough.

I'd like to see psi as a flavor in general, with a few specialists.

The more a character has to invest in an ability, the more the player is going to want to make that investment "pay-off" by trying to use the ability as much as possible. I'd like to make low-strength psis viable by making it relatively easy to get Gil-the-Arm or Spock stuff.

I'd also like the option for powerful wild talents in the Steven King (Carrie, Firestarter) mode.

 

[Ran Malia]

Ran Malia and I disagree fundamentally on the philosophy of Traveller psi. My recollection of CT is that psi is an art. You can do basic testing and some training, but advanced training is solely by trial and error. That's why CT characters make monthly random checks. No further formal training is needed after testing and the 4 month "how to be a psi" course at the Institute.

Ran recalls CT as interpreted through MT and TNE that Psi became an actual science that could be learned and taught.

This difference effects how we see the feat issue. A typical character gets their initial feats, class feats and 9 feats over the course of 20 levels, plus usually 1 feat (from a limited set) over 2-3 levels for a normal class or 1 per level (from a limited set) for a prestige class.

Correct, but the difference is not in whether it is an art or a science, but between ideas about the game system. I am taking the concept of Traveller (in its various conceptions) and applying it to T20. The result of what I am doing is making a Traveller based psionic system for T20. Lisa, on the otherhand, is trying to recreate CT in the T20 system and the two don’t match.

Call it over the course of 20 levels an average of 19 feats (9+10 from classes). Of that, I think a typical psi should only have to spend 1 per sphere, with an option for natural psi or a revised psi training. For a versital 3 sphere psi that's 5 feats out of 19. About 25% of one's lifetime feats. (Skill ranks are seperate.) Ran is looking a typical psi needing about 8-10. half of one's lifetime's feats, for 3 spheres.

That actually is a misrepresenation of what I am presenting. First, I think that both Lisa and I agree that some psi spheres such as Telepathy have too many feats associated with it. Therefore we both proabably agree on the redistribution of psionic feats. Second, I am attempting to do two things with my redistribution. I am trying to lower the cost in feats to make someone an effective psionicist, while not overwhelming them with feat requirements and I am trying to add diversity to psionic abilities so that every psionicist can be a little different. Third, this is T20 and it is a feat-skill based system and there has to be a balance on how feats are handled. This means that the feats have to be comparable to the other feats.

If you take a look at the feats, my system and Lisa's example you will see that the number of feats required are the same, but the system I propose gives you variety.

Spheres with discplines (not that you do not pay for Sphere Affinity you roll for that, hence the only feats are the discipline feats, plus Psionic Training and Natural Affinity (if you want it): Note this is a work in progress so some names have changed.

Telepathy-Empathy, Telepathy, Mental Defense
Clairsentience-Clairsentience, Obscurement, Temporal Cognition
Awareness-Mental Awareness, Physical Awareness
Telekinesis-Telekinesis, Kinetic Defense, Thermokinesis
Teleportation-Teleport Object, Teleport Self

As you can see this result in the total number of psionic feats equals 13.

If we compare what Lisa proposes and I what I propose you will see that it is true that my system results in PCs that are slightly weaker broadly, but definitely more distinct. And, in my opinion reflects Traveller psionics in a T20 system, which we are all playing. The basic premise for this comparision is a psionicist with five feats, as per Lisa’s description with access to three spheres, Telepathy, Teleportation, Telekinesis.

Lisa’s System
Psionic Training or Natural Talent, one of which you would have to take
Telepathy, Teleportation, Telekinesis
Natural talent or psionic training, because you have no other options

Everyone who is a telepath would be the same, just as everyone who is a teleport or telekinetic would be the same. Every character with these three spheres would be exactly alike. IMHO one of the points in having feats is to allow differentiation between characters. Remember D&D fighters, fighter A was like fighter B and so on. Feats gave distinction.

Ran’s System
Psionic Training-a requirement if you don’t want to pay cross class cost and power points.
Options
1:Empath, Telepath, Mental Defense, Natural Talent
2: Empath, Telepath, Mental defense, Teleport Self
3: Empath, Telepath, Mental Defense, Teleport Object
4: Empath, Telepath, Mental Defense, Telekinesis
5: Empath, Telepath, Mental Defense, Kinetic Defense
6: Telepath, Telekinetic, Teleport self, Mental Defense
and so on and so on...

Yes it is somewhat limiting, if you take the telepath discipline only from the Telepathy sphere then you will be at a minus to use the others and rightly so you haven’t trained in them. But you can also do more in the narrower disciplines. An empath can detect emotions, read emotions, send emotions, change emotions, cause psychosomatic damage, and have mass influence. I think that is worth a feat.

Is there nobody out there with the books to hand that can illuminate this by some quotes from the books? (The guy with the books in our group is currently in Manchuria. It'll be a while before I get access to CT again.)

Between myself and my GM we probably have all the books, but I am not sure if that illuminates anything. If someone quotes a CT psionic book comparing psionic as an art another person can quote a Gurps book or T3 book where they say it is a science. (The guy with the book in Manchurina wouldn’t happen to be working on the monastery that they are trying to rebuild, would he?)

IMHO, ideally T20 should offer models for both views depending on the GM's preferences. Or perhaps pick one, then give a design box that explains how to do the other if the GM desires.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the above statement somewhat. I think that T20 developers should look at creating a complete system that fits into the T20 gaming system.

 

[clanmorrell]

Irregardless of who can quote which rule, the T20 rules,and especially the T20 Psionics are drawn from the CT rules. Therefore, as far as converting into TU canon CT would be the only source for the T20 rules. If we wanted to move Psionics towards the most 'up-to'date' official rulings then we would have to look at T4. T4 is good because it have skill checks to use the abilities, and even a Psion class. Unfortunately, T20 comes from CT, and it is from CT that we should look for a better conversion.

In CT the Psionic Institute carry out examinations and training based upon a parallel of our modern approach to the examination of 'psychics.' This is more of a scientific study today, but in the CTU it is a science - a very informal science. The development of psionic powers can be seen as the development of oneself, just as in Psychology (a rather debated science), but ultimately it is a 'personal' thing. Gaining greater power can be guided, but in the end it is the psychic alone who can unleash their potential. The Psionic Institute doesn't give you psionic powers, it tests to see if you have the potential. If it were truely a science, they would be able to give everyone the power whether they had potential or not.

The 6 abilities are tested for, and given that the psychic is able to use any of them, they gain each at Rank-1. This gives some of the abilities initial talents they can use. After each month of use, the psychic can if they have learnt from experience and gained an increase in that power. The Rank, however, doesn't reflect skill, but more of how much of the PSI strength potential has been gained. Thus, the ability Rank can only climb up to the psychic's PSI. At this point they have gained all their potential.

The current Psionics system follows this as closely as possible. The only other alternative, is to drop the need for Feats on each ability, and to give each the necessary talents as the skill rank rises high enough. An alternative to this, as has been proposed, is to give each ability a feat that has to be purchased before the skill can be raised.

The application of DC checks, is a concept that emerges from a reading of MT or any later edition of Traveller. This may in fact be the better way of handling Psionics, but the limitation faced is to stay faithful to CT.

If you stray away from CT, then I can't see any Psionic rule system being adopted as official T20. Psionics have to remain close to CT.

 

[ljsteele]

Lisa’s System
Psionic Training or Natural Talent, one of which you would have to take Telepathy, Teleportation, Telekinesis Natural talent or psionic training, because you have no other options

Psi Training, yes, per T20:186, which does not seem to require the Feat PSI Training T20:108. It appears that you can pay for the training or get a scholarship without the feat. (What's the feat for, darned if I know. See some of my posts up-thread.)

One would need either the Natural Talent or Psi Training feat to lock in one's skill and avoid aging penatlies. This is primarily a problem for characters who want significant of prior history, which does take time.

PSIs of similar power, spheres, and skill will have identical abilities. That's CT. I expect that the use will be what distinguishes one character from another.

As for DCs, they are intrinsic to the D20 system. I'm posted some ideas for how to handle it.

It is possible that the T20 folks don't have the licenses for MT, GT, or any of the other incarnations and have to limit their view of the universe to adapting CT.

 

[Ran Malia]

Actually, as a GM or someone trying to develop a psi system I am totally against using Hobby, for psionics. As a player part me says yes. I guess the problem is that in my opinion, psionics are difficult to learn, it takes time and effort. Without training, which has been developed over the centuries; with little or not contact for guidance, since it is illegal, and the energy necessary to use even the smallest of skill, I don't think that Hobby should apply to psi. If I take painting or writing as a hobby, I can go to the local book store, take an evening class or something of that nature. For psionics I have go onto the black market to find books, if they exist, practice training without any reference to what I am doing and things of that ilk. For those reason, that it takes effort hence cross class cost, I wouldn't allow psionics as a Hobby.

As far as a modifier for psi strength, I had always assumed that it was used for your skill rolls.

On another note, I think that people are missing the point with feats. I don't see what the huge opposition to feats is. As it stand at the momment you have 18 psionic feats plus natural talent and psi training. What I propose is somewhere between 13-15 plus the other two, that is not an increase in the number of feats. It also lowers the number of feats required to be an effective psionicist. Two feats, that is it, Psi Training and Telepathy-Telepathy and you are an effective Telepath taking approximately the same amount of time it would take you to become an effective mechanic or gunslinger. This adds flavor without overwhelming the game.

I do agree that some kind of sheet should be made so that people can see what I am actually talking about and try it out.

 

[ljsteele]

I've posted up-thread that the Hobby feat needs to be looked at carefully in conjuction with psi as it is currently written. It has very different consequences for a TK or T'port character, who's ability is limited solely by skill ranks than for a t'path or, to a lesser extent, clairvoy or awarens who is limited by feat slots and skill ranks.

Ran Malia and I disagree fundamentally on the philosophy of Traveller psi.

My recollection of CT is that psi is an art. You can do basic testing and some training, but advanced training is solely by trial and error. That's why CT characters make monthly random checks. No further formal training is needed after testing and the 4 month "how to be a psi" course at the Institute.

Ran recalls CT as interpreted through MT and TNE that Psi became an actual science that could be learned and taught.

This difference effects how we see the feat issue. A typical character gets their initial feats, class feats and 9 feats over the course of 20 levels, plus usually 1 feat (from a limited set) over 2-3 levels for a normal class or 1 per level (from a limited set) for a prestige class.

Call it over the course of 20 levels an average of 19 feats (9+10 from classes). Of that, I think a typical psi should only have to spend 1 per sphere, with an option for natural psi or a revised psi training. For a versital 3 sphere psi that's 5 feats out of 19. About 25% of one's lifetime feats. (Skill ranks are seperate.) Ran is looking a typical psi needing about 8-10. half of one's lifetime's feats, for 3 spheres.

Is there nobody out there with the books to hand that can illuminate this by some quotes from the books? (The guy with the books in our group is currently in Manchuria. It'll be a while before I get access to CT again.)

IMHO, ideally T20 should offer models for both views depending on the GM's preferences. Or perhaps pick one, then give a design box that explains how to do the other if the GM desires.

I prefer having characters that have mostly learned on their own through trial and error, with Psi Institutes mostly being places for new folks and for psis to hang out for mutual support. This makes it very hard for the Imperium to limit psi because training is very decentralized.

 

[Ran Malia]

From my understanding that Marc Miller holds the license and the only differences are specific directions that gaming companies are taking it. For example Gurps can only take it in the alternate timeline and now the Nth Interstellar wars.

Its obvious to me that debate has been played out, so what I am going to do is present my system as a word document or something and let people go from there.

 

[Ran Malia]

Clan, your points are good, but at the same time these are still two different systems and that changes how you have to run the game. I mentioned earlier that as a science, (which I believe) or an art (as other believe) don't make a difference. I know exactly how CT did it, but that was a different system. CT didn't have expansive skill list, until the other books such as High Gaurd came out, and they didn't have a feat system. Both of these are intrinsic to the T20 system.

Think about what you said, to stay true to CT psionics, which isn't a DC based system, T20 which is a DC based system should have psionics with DCs. That to me doesn't make sense. How you stay true to CT is buying looking at the intent and concepts behind the story of psionics, not the psionic gaming mechanics. If using the using the gaming mechanics for CT was how you determined if T20 was being 'true' to CT then what would be the status of T20? (rhetorical question)

T20 brought back prior history...good, but it isn't the same system used in CT, but it works just fine if not actually better.

I think that what I am proposing takes all of this into accunt. You roll for your spheres, you choose disciplines that you pay feats for and your rank is determined by skill level, thats it in a nutshell.

You have to be carefull when you compare CT and T20. Same base, but different system, different time, different players.

 

[clanmorrell]

Ran, the point I was trying to make was that although T20 may not be CT, the material and conversion has been based upon the CT rules. The reasoning behind why Psionics don't have a DC in T20 is because in CT they don't require a skill check, whilst all the other skills do. T20 parallels, all other skills require a D20 roll, whilst all that Psionics need is enough PSI points. T20 therefore stays faithful to CT Psionics, as it stands.

Personally, I would prefer to see DC's for use of Psionics. I was just making the point that Psionics are as they are right now, because CT treated them in the same fashion. Maybe that was a wrong way to go about it, but the designers must have had their reasons for it.

 

[JTSmythe]

Great discussion!

My log on the fire is to consider the Zhodani. A Zhodani noble is trained from a young age to awaken and presumably be trained in the psionic disciplines that he has the genetic aptitude for.

I wouldn't see it as a bad thing for a Zhodani noble to be able to substitute some of his starting noble feats for Psi Training (according to the rules under races, he automatically gets Natural Talent if his Soc & Psi are high enough). And then if he hasn't awakend his full potential by 18, then have Psi Training as an available (or even bonus feat for the Noble classes) feat.

And what about military? We realized that Zhodani Psionic Commandos would have to be at least 12th level to teleport in full gear (Skill Rank = 15)

I'm defintely going to have fun with this in my game!

 

[Ran Malia]

Now that I am working on psionic system working paper, some interesting questions have come up. For example should psionics be based off of a roll or automatic? As it now stands the T20 systems seems to make it automatic, you just pay the points, however that doesn't seem correct. If it is a science put into practice or an art form, there is still a chance that it won't work. If there is a decent chance that it won't work then are the psi strength cost to high? One option that I am considering is that an attempt cost 1 Psi point and you only pay the full cost if you succeed. What do people think?

 

[ljsteele]

I think it is more in keeping with d20 to have opposed checks. This would be a change from CT, but a good one, I think.

To keep the feel of Traveller psi, the psi should have a significant advantage in the checks. (This is contrary to my usual design philosophy that defense should be always cheaper than offense, but it is darn rare and expensive to be a psi at all.)

Costs could be reduced. Restricting one max. skill ranks to one's psi skill and having skill pre-reqs for the most powerful abilities will maintain some of balance and CT flavor.

See what happens if you reduce costs by 1/2, minimum cost 1 across the board.

 

[CarlP]

Lisa,

I like the idea of opposed checks. Rather a lot, in fact. Not just for psi, but wherever I think it's appropriate. I think it gives a better result than trying to figure out a target number to roll against, which I'm awfully bad at.

I don't know that it's appropriate for all disciplines. But certainly Telephathy could use it. And, of course, this opens us up to creating more Feats, to enhance a character's performance in one of these opposed checks. Feats that could be for psionics and non-psionics, in fact.

 

[CarlP]

Hey! I'm back after being sick for a week. Is anybody out there still working on this issue? Or has it fizzled out?

 

[JFalcon]

Hello.

Would the opposed check be something like:

WP+PSI+TPSkillRank+D20 vs WP+PSI+TPShieldRank+D20 ?

Would the opposed check only be for Telepathy, or are there any other PSI skills that can be opposed?

 

[hunter]

I'm listening folks. Just to let you know Your comments aren't going unheard. Haven't decided anything on this yet (I'm just now getting a chance to really look at it), but you've definately given me lots of ideas to ponder.

On the question of the material we can draw from, we can pull ideas and systems from CT, MT, TNE, or T4. With T20 I wanted to try and keep to the original core (CT) as much as possible.

On changing the rules as they stand. I'd rather come up with a solution that requires as minimal alteration to the rules in the THB as possible. The basic psionic rules were not intended to allow the creation of very powerful psionicists.

Originally there was a Psionicist class, but there were issues with it and eventually it was pulled and replaced with the current rules. The idea being to allow limited psionics and present a more fully developed system later.

So keep throwing out ideas and give me a chance now to review the material and we can see what we can come up with.

Hunter

 

[ljsteele]

Would the opposed check only be for Telepathy, or are there any other PSI skills that can be opposed?

Don't think of DCs as necessarily active opposition.

For telepathy, there might be active resistance by the target or a DC to find a specific memory, or find a specific mind in a large crowd.

For telekenisis, there might be a strength or dext check to disarm a foe, but a DC to touchtype a passcode into the brig computer from across the room.

The rules should suggest some DCs, maybe 2-5 per ability, but need not go into detail.

On to Hunter's design questions, the easiest change would be to ditch the idea of each sub-ability within a sphere as a feat. The minimum skill rank would cap levels just as effectively, expecially if one was not allowed to apply the hobby feat to psionics. The feat and rank approach seems a very expensive belt-n-suspenders approach that overly penalizes the psionic PC and limits what you can do with a psionic class, since most of its bonus feats would likely be taken up with the needed feats for 3 of the 5 affinities.

A larger change would be to adjust the skill level requirements, adjust costs, and add in some DC and skill checks. That would require a serious re-think of the system to keep it balanced, but would make skills more useful than merely as an advancement control mechanism.

 

[Flynn]

Hunter, et al,

I have recently (read, this morning) posted a suggested method for converting the current system from a "Skill Level/Feat Determines Ability" approach ala CT or T4 to a "Skill Check-Based Ability" approach ala MT, TNE and GT. You can find this suggestion on the web here at:

http://www.geocities.com/flynnwd/trav/T20_alt_psionics.html

The changes to the current implementation are quite minimal, and are detailed on the webpage itself.

Hope this helps as a suggestion,
Flynn

 

[sinbadsam]

Originally posted by Flynn:
Hunter, et al,

I have recently (read, this morning) posted a suggested method for converting the current system from a "Skill Level/Feat Determines Ability" approach ala CT or T4 to a "Skill Check-Based Ability" approach ala MT, TNE and GT. You can find this suggestion on the web here at:

http://www.geocities.com/flynnwd/trav/T20_alt_psionics.html

The changes to the current implementation are quite minimal, and are detailed on the webpage itself.

Hope this helps as a suggestion,
Flynn

Flynn,

I like the feel of this so far, I view Psi as more Art/Science than how T20 presents it. If you can locate "Powers of the Mind" by Judges Guild, you will find much to borrow from.

 

[clanmorrell]

What about Natural Talent? Should this provide a reduced DC when using that particular Talent?

D20 uses FEATS as well as DC's, so it would be unfair to the system to drop the need for FEATS completely out of the Psionics system.

PSI is an ability score, its listed right there on the Character sheet, to change that would require the character sheet to be changed as well. This of course follows along with the MT system, so I can understand where you are coming from on this. I don't agree though that PSI cannot be treated as an ability.

Why use INT as the ability score for the Psionic talent skills? Doesn't it make more sense to use WIS? Being smart doesn't make it easier to use an ability which is 'natural' to you, whilst having an innate knowledge of your ability and the world around you - WIS - would be more beneficial. Ultimately, though, if PSI were to remain an ability score, then it would serve well to add to 'sphere' skills.

I like the simple method of using a base DC of 13, however wouldn't 15 seem more natural, or 10? Maybe you could have the Natural Talent reduce the base DC from 15, to 13?

Hobby as a means to gain Psionic Spheres as 'class' skills is still debatable. Perhaps a better suggestion is to allow the character to gain the higher 'FEATS' of "[sphere] Expertise", where by each sphere's feat will allow it to be treated as a 'class' skill, and perhaps reduce the DC of its use?

However, I'll certainly adopt this method for use with T20. Hopefully Hunter is out there reading this too.