Topic: New Psionic Fields Later in the Game

[thedoctor]

I've got a player who's an Adept. The group is now a few levels up, and he's wanting to get more latent psionic talents. I made it clear when they were making characters that he'd have to make his decisions on his powers at first level as he won't be able to change them after creation as stated in the rules. I'm not really sold on going back on that ruling, but I did tell him that I would consider it and ask for advice here. His character also a doctor and is selling it on medical research and manipulation. If I were to allow it, I'd say that there'd have to be hefty price to pay for it. Not necessarily money, either. Any thoughts, suggestions?

[markc]

1 levels worth of DP and or special situation in which other PC's are compensated in some way for the PSI PC gaining more power.
MDC

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

Unless the character has superb science skills and access to the very best and most experimental technology, then absolutely no chance. Even if the character does have this, then the research should take years of game-time and a lot of Development Points, and still probably end up leading to an undesirable result. In the Tintamar universe, even the specialist organisations that focus on psi don't have enough of an understanding of the phenomena to try this sort of thing.

At a GM level, just say No. The player was warned that latent fields had to be purchased at 1st level, and from a game balance point of view, this is an attempt at power-gaming.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[thedoctor]

Thanks. It's good to have others lay out reasonings as to why this is not a good idea for players to see that I'm not just being a jerk about it. Psionics are very powerful in this game, and the trade off is obviously their high DP price and limited accessibility. All players have to make a conscious choice on how to develop their characters as well as what they're willing to give up to get what they want. You can either spread out your DP and be decent at a variety of things, or you can specialize to be awesome in one or two things and not so good in others. I just think that this character wasn't fully aware of the level of sacrifice he was going to have to make for the amount of power that he's getting.

[Warborn]

So page 198 should be disregarded as it is an attempt at power-gaming then?
SysOp's choice: Gaining Psychic Potential After 1st level
[Sic] In some situations, SysOps may wish to allow characters to develop the Talent after first level. Plausible in-game explanations could be that the potential is the result of mutations caused by exposure to radiation, abnormal healing of the brain following serious head trauma, or even deliberate reengineering of a character's brain by an advanced civilization.[Sic]

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

So page 198 should be disregarded as it is an attempt at power-gaming then?
SysOp's choice: Gaining Psychic Potential After 1st level
[Sic] In some situations, SysOps may wish to allow characters to develop the Talent after first level. Plausible in-game explanations could be that the potential is the result of mutations caused by exposure to radiation, abnormal healing of the brain following serious head trauma, or even deliberate reengineering of a character's brain by an advanced civilization.[Sic]

Page 198 provides a way by which the gamemaster can allow it if he or she so wishes (it's not power-gaming if the SysOp decides to do it but the risk of imbalance remains) rather than saying it is always impossible.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[GMLovlie]

I think this would be setting and context dependant.

Strictly speaking I'd say no in most cases, but given the right circumstances and reasoning from the player, heavy investment on many levels when it comes to how, why, who and what I may allow it. More likely it would be something I'd grant the player(s) as part of the plot of the campaign. Whether the player wanted it or not.

[Zhaleskra]

Warborn, I usually see [Sic] used to mean "this is what what was said, the way it was said, and there's something grammatically incorrect about it." Not saying the way you're using it is invalid, stating how I'm used to seeing [Sic] used.