12 replies to this topic

[Baltrek]

TGM-

I don't know if you would ever get around to a v2, but I figure I'll post my two cents on this anyway.

I don't feel they could be properly implemented in BG2.  Many people have noted that BG is different from PnP AD&D.  The problem is, I think many people started playing it because it was an AD&D CRPG.  To lose the connection as some modders have, results in a mod that is not as popular as it could be.

In order to implement psionics acceptably you would need psionic enemies.  Something beyond the "wow, another illithid stunned me".  Many of the psionic powers deal directly with psionic combat, not necessarily using psionics against a non-psionic enemy.  This was the uniqueness about it.  I feel the way most have discussed implementing it would not be in this spirit.  End up being more of a fighter/spellcaster-of-some-sort.  Only they do not split experience...sound unbalanced?  Seems like something that would fit the Sword Angel...

I don't know if you played the original AD&D.  In those rules, every character had the potential to have psionic powers.  While there was not a psionic class.  The potential was decided by random, and you may have one power, or you may have a bunch.  If I remember correctly, there were modifiers to the die roll such as wisdom, intelligence, class, and level.  I think they could only ever roll once, but could decide when they wanted to "cultivate" their powers.

If a psionic class or kit is incorporated, I think it should attempt to follow the guidelines in the 2D edition Psionics Handbook.  Properly modding a psionic would be nearly impossible, i think, without a new spell set.  Unless the original AD&D rules are looked at, where everyone may have them, but they only have a few.  This number could be based off of intelligence, wisdom, and class perhaps?  ATM, I don't recall what determined how often a psionic could use their abilities.

Some psionic defenses could be very useful, against Illithids, but I cannot recall anything else in the game that uses anything close to psionic powers.  If I recall correctly, in order to use psionics against an individual, you had to win "psionic combat" against them, using your attacks and defenses.  Only when their defenses were overcome could psionic attacks take place.  I think that this spirit of psionics could not be workable.

Conclusion?  Beyond "using the force", I don't think it is workable without unbalancing characters, or serious modding.  Psionics may be an idea for a mod on its own, rather than combining with refinements.

[T.G.Maestro]

Agreed.
Your words hold merit Baltrek.

[Rathwellin the Bard]

I don't feel they could be properly implemented in BG2. Many people have noted that BG is different from PnP AD&D. The problem is, I think many people started playing it because it was an AD&D CRPG. To lose the connection as some modders have, results in a mod that is not as popular as it could be.

This I will agree with in part, though I will note that I started playing BG in spite of the fact that it was based on PnP AD&D. I really don?t like AD&D very much so I had to overcome that feeling to even consider buying the game.

That said BG is different IMO the key to making a successful mod is making something that fits well into the BGII version of the rules even if it is not pure AD&D 2nd ed. Stray too far toward ?pure? 2nd ed and you loose folks. Stray too far away and ditto, as you mention.

In order to implement psionics acceptably you would need psionic enemies. Something beyond the "wow, another illithid stunned me". Many of the psionic powers deal directly with psionic combat, not necessarily using psionics against a non-psionic enemy. This was the uniqueness about it. I feel the way most have discussed implementing it would not be in this spirit. End up being more of a fighter/spellcaster-of-some-sort. Only they do not split experience...sound unbalanced?

I disagree with this on several fronts.

First I disagree that psi-vs-psi combat is the most ?unique? aspect of psionics. No doubt it is part of the feel of the whole thing, but it?s not the #1 factor IMO. Similarly the whole ?Power Point? cost of using powers is very important, even moreso than psi-vs-psi combat to me. But again this is not the key to giving psionics their uniquenss.

No the key is the powers themselves. Psionic characters had several unique abilities that no other character type can duplicate exactly. I say ?had? because in my mind a lot of the changes in late 2nd ed and in 3rd ed made this less so than in the past, but even after that they still had a pretty fun, though smaller, niche IMO.

I?ll also note that I was basing some of what I posted more on the 3rd ed version of the psychic classes than on 2nd ed. 3rd ed introduces the Psionic Warrior class. They are primarily fighters but have psionic powers ? though not nearly to the extent that a true Psion does. Given that Monks, Barbarians, and Sorcerers were all grabbed from 3rd ed it doesn?t seem like a huge stretch for me to try to do this class in BGII.

I think that the key to having a ?balanced? Psionic Warrior class would be to make them more warrior than Psion. The more psionic powers you give them the more you have to take away fighting ability. In the end I would envision something that fights a little less well than a Ranger or Paladin and has *slightly* more powers than these guys have spells. Should they look like a mage or even a bard in terms of number and selection of spells? Heck NO!

Also does the fact that there are 0 Sorcerer enemies and only 1 Monk foe make Monks and Sorcerers not acceptable?

I don't know if you played the original AD&D. In those rules, every character had the potential to have psionic powers. While there was not a psionic class. The potential was decided by random, and you may have one power, or you may have a bunch. If I remember correctly, there were modifiers to the die roll such as wisdom, intelligence, class, and level. I think they could only ever roll once, but could decide when they wanted to "cultivate" their powers.

Actually I *did* play in those days. I even still have the book. My favorite AD&D psionic class ever was the one based on these rules published in the Dragon mag somewhere before issue 100.

This even carried over to 2nd ed with ?Wild Talents? or some-such. Even so I?ve personally felt for a long time that a class based approach suits psionics best & 3rd ed pretty much does just that.

If a psionic class or kit is incorporated, I think it should attempt to follow the guidelines in the 2D edition Psionics Handbook. Properly modding a psionic would be nearly impossible, i think, without a new spell set. Unless the original AD&D rules are looked at, where everyone may have them, but they only have a few. This number could be based off of intelligence, wisdom, and class perhaps? ATM, I don't recall what determined how often a psionic could use their abilities.

Here I disagree.

To be done 100% right you would need a new spell set, a way to do psi-vs-psi combat, and have powers cost power points ? and these last two just will not happen gracefully in the BG II engine IMO.

So what you are left with is deciding if psionics can be modeled using spells or innate abilities. You have to give up power points. I personally would give up detailed psi-vs-psi combat and a pure psion class/kit too. IMO it would just take too much work to make these function properly and be balanced. What you are left with that is random psionics and the Psionic Warrior.

Given a choice between the two I would pick the Psionic Warrior. A mostly fighter like character with a *few* powers. Given the fact that your power list will be small I think that you could go with innates just fine without an entire new spell set.

Sure this would be half a cake at best ? but it?s doable *and* would fit better with the BGII ?rule? set IMO. Some of the 2nd ed PnP die hards might shake their heads in disgust but the folks who learned D&D on BGII probably wouldn?t ? in fact this would most likely be easier for them to understand and more seamless than a ?full and correct? implementation.

Heck if these guys don?t do it I may just have to take up modding on my own. I know I have the technical skills for it ? I would just have to find the time. Sigh.

[T.G.Maestro]

Heck if these guys don?t do it I may just have to take up modding on my own. I know I have the technical skills for it ?

Why not join the team then? We *ARE* in need of help for the future components, so if you are dedicated in one of our plans, I'd happily accept your helping hand. PM me if you think you are up to the task in the future.

[Baltrek]

Heh, people that learned AD&D on BG probably would never know any difference *what* you added. Monks and barbarians came from 1st edition, not 3rd. In fact, though I do not have an old handbook anymore, I think monks were an original class. Barbarians came out in a 1st ed supplement. Then both of those classes went away with 2d ed, only to be released a few years later in 2d ed with a player's supplement.

While you fight no sorcs and one monk (in ToB to boot), fighting a sorc is essentially like fighting a mage, and a monk essentially a fighter. There is nothing even close to a psionic opponent. It would not be beleivable that the PC would be the only one capable of mastering psionic power, which is exactly what you would have with no psionic opponents, not really talking about unique opponents but even some common BG2 enemies should have psionic powers. There is not a single creature that emulates even remotely psionic powers.

Last, I would love to see a psionic class. They were one of my favorite classes in 2d ed, and in 1st, we always cajoled a DM into letting us have a few powers. What I DO NOT want to see is a half-solution. Incorporating psionic opponents would do much to dispel that. So would a very well thought out class.

I reference the AD&D rules quite a bit because they were well thought out, and they worked. The classes were a model of balance, acheived through extensive playtesting. I can tell you that as a designer of one RPG, and working on a second, extensive testing is vital to a balanced game. I always take modded classes, kits, etc...with a very large grain of salt. Many were based off of solely the designers preference, and as such, do not fit seamlessly into the BG world, in spirit or in power. If a psion is designed, the entire BG world would have to change because of the introduction of a new power that was not present before. In AD&D (originally), you could select a class based solely on what you wanted to RP, because a high level thief was just as powerful as a high level mage or monk. Albeit a different type of power. Can you honestly say that about BG2 as is? I don't think so.

I would love to see a well built psionic class, but do not think one could be feasably built while retaining the flavor of psionics.

[Jinnai]

Well monks came from 3rd edition...i've seen them both, including how the abilites work and they are much closer to 3rd edition than 1st.

I don't know about barbarians though.

[Schatten]

i agree with Baltrek. except that it is different to fight a monk and to fight a fighter.
i think it isnt too much work to add 1-2 psi enemies and to give 5-6 enemies some psi powers if that is what you mean, Baltrek.

[T.G.Maestro]

One of the Dark Halflings in the Planar Sphere definitely uses some psionic powers, Detonate for example.

[Baltrek]

i think it isnt too much work to add 1-2 psi enemies and to give 5-6 enemies some psi powers if that is what you mean, Baltrek.

Definitely. The player should not feel like the only one. If a psionic class is developed, psionics should appear to be an integrated part of the game.

Well monks came from 3rd edition...i've seen them both, including how the abilites work and they are much closer to 3rd edition than 1st.

Thats because of the version of rules that BG2 uses. The spirit and flavor of the monk class did not change, along with most of their fundamental abilities and concepts. Those were, in fact, set out in first edition.

I don't know about barbarians though.

Same here. There are some differences between 1st and 3rd with both of these classes, but the concept and flavor remained the same throughout. Both of these are really besides the point though.

I would love to see someone tackle a psionics mod. I, unfortunately, lack the technical skills.

Conclusion? Beyond "using the force", I don't think it is workable without unbalancing characters, or serious modding. Psionics may be an idea for a mod on its own, rather than combining with refinements.

Just what I said. With very careful balancing, testing, and what I think a very intensive mod, it could be successful. If there is a group that would like to develop it, perhaps they could try to get a workroom since I think we all agree that refinements is not the place for it. I, personally, would love to follow the developments, and there may well be some ideas presented by those other than us that frequent this forum.

[Rathwellin the Bard]

Barbarians look more like the 3rd ed version as well.

In addition to the psionic halfling (more than one?) you have 3 major nests of Mind Flayers, two or three Githyanki encounters, and the psionic 'fish' in the Underdark. You could even consider Jan's NPC quest to be Psi based & some of the stuff going on in the Playhouse/Haer'Dalis quest struck me as psionic in nature.

The bottom line in my mind is that you already see a fair amount of psionic stuff in game ... it's just that the PC doesn't have direct access to those sorts of powers.

IMO any attempt at putting Psionic PCs into SoA/ToB should
1. Mirrior what is already there to some extent
2. Be based more on the 3rd ed Psionics system much as the Barbarian, Sorcerer, & Monk were based on their 3rd ed counterparts.

Yes there were analogues of Monks, Barbarians, & even Psionics in 1st & 2nd ed, but most of the new classes were based on 3rd ed rules. Only Sorcerers were new to 3rd ed ... but the point here is that BGII is really AD&D 2.5b or something. It is mostly 2nd ed but with strong influences from 3rd & plenty of custom changes to fit the developers conceptions and the limits of a CRPG.

Also most of the existing psionic foes seem to have innates not spells ... so going in that direction seems fitting IMO.

[Schatten]

One of the Dark Halflings in the Planar Sphere definitely uses some psionic powers, Detonate for example.

yep, ballistic attack. he actually killed me with it.

[GreyViper]

One way the PC could have it awoken is from suffereing a mental trauma while he was torured by Irenicus.
When in psi combat the Mindflyers would have a defenitive edge because the have natural talent, EXP and more levels in that class then PC. Some of the stuff from Dark Sun can be used in BG2.
When the actual work on this class starts I would be happy to help any way I can.

[T.G.Maestro]

I'll count on you GreyViper .