Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Arcane-surge 03-22-08, 10:51 AM	Lately, one of my players has taken to using Fabricate in combat, affecting the weapons and armor of the people he's fighting, essentially ruining them. I'm not really bitter about this, it's a smart idea, but I do want to make sure I've got all the rules straight on it. Fabricate doesn't allow a save, or have the usual clause about attended items. Nor does it say specifically that it only works on raw materials, rather than items. What I'm wondering is, have I missed something? Something in the general rules about using spells on weapons, perhaps?
blade265 03-22-08, 11:31 AM	As long as the item's aren't magical, I think that it is allowable. From the SRD on Fabricate "You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material. Creatures or magic items cannot be created or transmuted by the fabricate spell".
blade265 03-22-08, 01:50 PM	BTW, what are they being changed to. If the armor and the sword are different materials, it would then take 2 castings of the spell.
kjenks 03-22-08, 02:06 PM	SRD === To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any). === SRD === Fabricate [...] Material Component: The original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created. === So if you're gonna cast a Fabricate spell, you must "manipulate the material components" -- and that pretty much implies that you have them in your possession. So maybe that's what you're missing. Your Fab-happy PC must have the material component in-hand to cast the spell.
Arcane-surge 03-22-08, 05:04 PM	Blade: They're all mostly steel, and manipulating them in a way that makes them not swords and armor anymore is pretty much his goal. Jenks: That'd do it, yes. Good catch.
groveborn 03-22-08, 10:17 PM	I'd love to know how one would manipulate a stack of logs to make a bridge. I'd just plain not allow it. I'd say you cannot affect attended items at all.
kjenks 03-22-08, 10:32 PM	To build a bridge from logs, I'd start with a magical chainsaw. But I agree: You can't fabricate an item if someone else is holding the material component.
Arcane-surge 03-23-08, 02:06 PM	There is a small problem, or a large one, and it's based in the fact that I failed to explain myself completely, due to my desire to post on this board, rather than the psionics board, since Psionic Fabricate references the spell. My player is an Ardent, and is using Psionic Fabricate. Psionics don't use material components (Or would be it an exception, because that would mean he could create it all out of nothing? I hate powers that reference spells and yet use different rules).
kjenks 03-23-08, 04:50 PM	SRD === Fabricate, Psionic Metacreativity (Creation) Level: Shaper 4 Display: Material === SRD === Material: The subject or the area is briefly slicked with a translucent, shimmering substance. The glistening substance evaporates after 1 round regardless of the power’s duration. Sophisticated psions recognize the material as ectoplasmic seepage from the Astral Plane; this substance is completely inert. === So it looks like Psionic Fabricate could indeed be used as an offensive power, demonstrating yet again why most campaigns eschew psionics.
ArcTan 03-23-08, 05:51 PM	Don't blame this on psionics. The way the original spell is phrased is extremely confusing, and saying you have to *touch* the raw material being fabricated is, essentially, a loophole -- you have to refer back to the rule that you must "manipulate a material component", which *contradicts* the fact that the raw materials are both the "material component" and the *target* of the spell. And as the *target* of the spell, they only have to be within Range: Close. This is a contradiction. If they wanted to make clear that you had to touch the material component, they would've said Range: Touch. All psionics does is make this loophole clear. Since psionic fabricate just says "as fabricate", if they actually *had* said "Range: Touch" there would be no problem. But psionic fabricate has the same range as fabricate -- Range: Close -- with no "material component". See why the problem lies in the shoddy writing of the original spell?
ArcTan 03-23-08, 05:52 PM	My player is an Ardent, and is using Psionic Fabricate. Psionics don't use material components (Or would be it an exception, because that would mean he could create it all out of nothing? I hate powers that reference spells and yet use different rules). See? This is the problem. If you ignore the material component line, it's clear that the raw materials of fabricate are the *target* of the spell, not a component of the spell, and that you can fabricate something within Close range whether you're "manipulating" it or not.
kjenks 03-23-08, 08:52 PM	Blame whatever you want, the poorly-designed psionic power or the poorly-worded spell, but I still wouldn't let a character use a Fabricate spell without being in possession of the raw materials, so I would put the same restriction on a psionic character using the Psionic Fabricate power.
abyssalmole 03-23-08, 09:03 PM	Luckily we have the errata which says... *drum roll* nothing on the subject... Well that was awesome...
groveborn 03-23-08, 09:06 PM	You also have the Epic feat Ignore Material Components. Would this then allow you to make stuff from nothing? Hmmm.
Speedy 03-23-08, 11:08 PM	This is going to be a little long, but it will help. Fabricate, based on the examples in the spell description, essentially allows a spellcaster to take a raw material, such as iron or cotton, and turn it into a finished good, sword or shirt respectively without the need to make a Craft skill check(for mundane items) and without the time constraints. Example: Cotton is made into thread, thread is made into cloth, cloth is made into a shirt. Fabricate would allow a spellcaster to turn cotton into a shirt, spools of thread into a shirt, a bolt of cloth into a shirt. This is because cotton, thread, cloth are raw materials(or trade goods) in making clothing. It would not allow for a shirt to be turned into a pair of pants because a shirt is already a finished product. The Craft skill gives a better idea on how fabricate is intended to be used. If it were possible for somone to turn a steel sword into glass using Craft, then fabricate would work, but Craft doesn't so fabricate shouldn't. Polymorph any object (or psionic-equivalent) would allow a character to transmute a steel sword into another item or even turn it into a creature. "Crikey!!", cried the knight, "My blade turned into a putty tat!!":D
groveborn 03-23-08, 11:32 PM	This is going to be a little long, but it will help. Fabricate, based on the examples in the spell description, essentially allows a spellcaster to take a raw material, such as iron or cotton, and turn it into a finished good, sword or shirt respectively without the need to make a Craft skill check(for mundane items) and without the time constraints. Example: Cotton is made into thread, thread is made into cloth, cloth is made into a shirt. Fabricate would allow a spellcaster to turn cotton into a shirt, spools of thread into a shirt, a bolt of cloth into a shirt. This is because cotton, thread, cloth are raw materials(or trade goods) in making clothing. It would not allow for a shirt to be turned into a pair of pants because a shirt is already a finished product. The Craft skill gives a better idea on how fabricate is intended to be used. If it were possible for somone to turn a steel sword into glass using Craft, then fabricate would work, but Craft doesn't so fabricate shouldn't. Polymorph any object (or psionic-equivalent) would allow a character to transmute a steel sword into another item or even turn it into a creature. "Crikey!!", cried the knight, "My blade turned into a putty tat!!":D Cotton shirt is turned into a rag. A rag is turned into a sack. A sack is turned into a bag of holding. Everything is raw material in some form. Recycle, reuse, reduce.
Speedy 03-23-08, 11:55 PM	So, I guess you are running a GREEN campaign. :D "Foresoothe, we must slay the dragon. It leaves too large of a carbon footprint"
ArcTan 03-24-08, 12:04 AM	You also have the Epic feat Ignore Material Components. Would this then allow you to make stuff from nothing? Hmmm. No, because the rest of the spell description clearly says the raw material is the *target* of the spell ("Target: 10 cu. ft./level") and that it has to be within Close range ("Range: Close").
ArcTan 03-24-08, 12:05 AM	The Craft skill gives a better idea on how fabricate is intended to be used. If it were possible for somone to turn a steel sword into glass using Craft, then fabricate would work, but Craft doesn't so fabricate shouldn't. But it *is* possible to use Craft to melt down a steel sword and make a steel shield (or steel pot, or steel door handle, or big cube of steel) out of it. Really, fabricate just isn't a very good spell. It's clear the designers were thinking the same way as you when they wrote it -- it should only work to turn "raw materials" into "finished product" -- but there's no good way to actually *define* that that doesn't come down to DM fiat that won't make your players upset. ("Are you saying a carpenter couldn't turn this locked door into 300 small wooden soldiers if he had all his tools?") This is why a spell that gives you the power to do what a craftsman with all his tools could do in a week only using magic to do it instantaneously is a *bad spell* -- because a craftsman with all his tools and a week of time can perform enormously destructive acts on almost every object in the environment. A smart PC will use fabricate as a destructive smash-break-destroy spell far more than he'll actually use it to make masterwork swords for the party.
Arcane-surge 03-24-08, 12:18 AM	Blade doesn't need to turn into glass. All it has to do is turn into a big steel ball. Not much use as a sword anymore at that point (Though it might not make a bad shotput).
ArcTan 03-24-08, 01:44 AM	The more problematic issue is using fabricate to turn a locked door into a pile of wooden jigsaw pieces, or iron bars into iron filings, or the mechanism of a trap into the mechanism of a wind-up monkey.
groveborn 03-24-08, 02:00 AM	The more problematic issue is using fabricate to turn a locked door into a pile of wooden jigsaw pieces, or iron bars into iron filings, or the mechanism of a trap into the mechanism of a wind-up monkey. Somehow I doubt that's really such a problem when using a 5th level spell. Perhaps it would be for a 0 level.
LostPassWordDoesNotWork 03-24-08, 02:53 AM	The more problematic issue is using fabricate to turn a locked door into a pile of wooden jigsaw pieces, or iron bars into iron filings, or the mechanism of a trap into the mechanism of a wind-up monkey. Knock? Rusting Grasp? Summon Monster I? Oh right, those are lower level then Fabricate. Why are you wasting a 5th level spell slot when a 2nd level slot would do? *** As for using Fabricate as a kill all nonmagical equipment, that is far from powerful or even game breaking. You can cast Fabricate and render their gear worthless, or cast Cloud Kill and simply kill them. Actully, come to think of it. If you're facing nonmonsters at level 10 without at least +1 gear, chances are they have 1~3HD. Just fireball on them, you'll kill them even if they do make their saves.
Speedy 03-24-08, 08:29 PM	But it *is* possible to use Craft to melt down a steel sword and make a steel shield (or steel pot, or steel door handle, or big cube of steel) out of it. ("Are you saying a carpenter couldn't turn this locked door into 300 small wooden soldiers if he had all his tools?") A steel sword that is melted, is not a steel sword anymore, is it? It's slag, molten metal, a raw material. The molten steel can now be made into a shield, a differnt weapon, or bars and rods for storage or sale as a commodity. The carpenter comes upon a door, breaks it down into boards (depending on the door), hinges, nails, etc. Is it a door anymore? No, its just a bunch of pieces. It can be rebuilt as a door, or the carpenter can take the boards and turn them into wooden soldiers. Here the wooden boards are the raw materials for the soldiers. Fabricate can be used to create the steel shield form the molten metal, or wooden soldiers from the boards. Nothing in the spell's description says that it can alter an object's form or uncreate an object, only to be able to create an object from raw materials. Polymorph any object specifically states that it can directly alter the properties of any object or creature and that's an 8th level spell. Even in modern times, items to be recycled are broken down to a raw state first, then made into something else. There is not direct change from one item to another. If a character said that he was using a bunch a smashed wooden doors and fabricate to create a cart, I'd go with. The doors aren't really doors, just broken wood. If character wanted to take a broken sword and use fabricate to create bullets, I'd say that either he would have to smash the sword into splinters or have it melted down first. If the character wanted to use fabricate on a opponent's weapon or armor in the middle of combat, I would have to say no since the armor is still, well, armor not scrap metal. (Repairing items I think I'd use the rules presented under the Craft skill or mend spell.)
ArcTan 03-24-08, 11:22 PM	A steel sword that is melted, is not a steel sword anymore, is it? It's slag, molten metal, a raw material. The molten steel can now be made into a shield, a differnt weapon, or bars and rods for storage or sale as a commodity. The carpenter comes upon a door, breaks it down into boards (depending on the door), hinges, nails, etc. Is it a door anymore? No, its just a bunch of pieces. It can be rebuilt as a door, or the carpenter can take the boards and turn them into wooden soldiers. Here the wooden boards are the raw materials for the soldiers. 1) There is no good way to define "raw material" in this sense. It is a wholly subjective, not objective definition, and it's not at all clear what that definition really is. Two-by-fours are *less* raw, as material, than a log is -- there are certain applications you can't easily use the wood for once it's been sawed up into two-by-fours, like making a full mast out of it. But you sound like you're arguing I should have to chop down the tree and cut it up before I can cast fabricate on it, despite the fact that this is making material *less* raw. 2) Fabricate doesn't actually say I have to do this anyway. It explicitly doesn't -- it *never* says the materials have to be in "raw form", at all. It just says that I have to have materials that cost as much as raw materials -- which can, in fact, mean that it's *easier* to fabricate a bunch of iron pots from steel armor than from iron ore (since the armor has already been smelted and tempered). Fabricate can be used to create the steel shield form the molten metal, or wooden soldiers from the boards. Nothing in the spell's description says that it can alter an object's form or uncreate an object, only to be able to create an object from raw materials. Polymorph any object specifically states that it can directly alter the properties of any object or creature and that's an 8th level spell. Even in modern times, items to be recycled are broken down to a raw state first, then made into something else. There is not direct change from one item to another. Er, no. Often the process for recycling is not appreciably different from the process for using raw materials. Making new aluminum products out of recycled aluminum cans is *easier* than making new aluminum products out of raw bauxite, because half the work has already been done. This gets ridiculous if you take it super-literally. So making a desk with one drawer into a desk with two drawers requires that I smash the entire desk into kindling, first? In any case it's only your house rule, not the actual rule as written, and that's probably for a good reason -- your house rule is illogical and designed to create bitter arguments. (If I have a desk *and* a bunch of wooden boards, do I still have to smash up the whole desk into wooden boards to add a drawer to it? Must I melt down a sword into slag in order to refine the workmanship on it? Most of this not only runs contrary to common sense but to the actual process a real workman would use to improve the item, which fabricate is supposed to replicate.) If a character said that he was using a bunch a smashed wooden doors and fabricate to create a cart, I'd go with. The doors aren't really doors, just broken wood. If character wanted to take a broken sword and use fabricate to create bullets, I'd say that either he would have to smash the sword into splinters or have it melted down first. If the character wanted to use fabricate on a opponent's weapon or armor in the middle of combat, I would have to say no since the armor is still, well, armor not scrap metal. (Repairing items I think I'd use the rules presented under the Craft skill or mend spell.) Melting down the sword to make it into bullets is an application of the Craft skill. Fabricate is designed to replicate the Craft skill. If you can do it with the Craft skill, you're supposed to be able to do it with fabricate. Acting like "destructive" acts can't be replicated by fabricate is asking for rules-lawyering arguments -- there IS NO CLEAR DISTINCTION, in real life. The act of forging a sword into a different sword is not clearly different from the act of forging a blank iron bar into a different sword -- indeed, the former act is *easier*.
groveborn 03-25-08, 01:03 AM	*Nitpick* Slag is actually a waste product of smelting. It is good for nothing at all.
risner 03-25-08, 11:59 AM	Lately, one of my players has taken to using Fabricate in combat, affecting the weapons and armor of the people he's fighting, essentially ruining them. What I'm wondering is, have I missed something? Something in the general rules about using spells on weapons, perhaps? He can't effect anything someone else is holding.
icuall 03-25-08, 01:25 PM	He can't effect anything someone else is holding. Why not? (It seems the whole discussion in how the spell is being applied is up to question.)
risner 03-25-08, 08:24 PM	Why not? It seems there is debate about whether or not you must touch and manipulate the object. From my reading you need to manipulate the objects to cast (even with the psionic version which uses all parts from the PHB one for unspecified items), so you can't cast it on others items. Since there is debate, it comes down to "what does you DM say?"
ArcTan 03-25-08, 08:59 PM	No. That rule isn't explicitly stated. It comes from the fact that the PHB fabricate says that the "material component" of fabricate is the raw materials, and you have to "manipulate" a material component to use it. (For instance, you have to actually be holding a pinch of bat guano and sulfur in order to cast fireball.) Psionics explicitly has the rule that no psionic power ever requires verbal, somatic or material components. That part of the spell is therefore left out in the power. The *rest* of the spell states that the raw materials of the spell are the *target* of the spell, not its material component, and that the range of the spell is Close -- therefore it contradicts the line about the materials being a component, since Close-range spells let you target things from a few feet away rather than touching them. With the psionic version, this line takes precedence, since the psionic version has no contradictory line about material components.
kjenks 03-25-08, 11:25 PM	There is a rule stating that you need to hold the material component in your hand to "manipulate" it, though. It's in the "spellcasting while grappling" rules. SRD === Grappling or Pinned: The only spells you can cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. === So I'd say that you can only use a Fabricate spell on a thing you're holding, despite the Range entry in the spell description block. Because it doesn't require a material component, the Psionic Fabricate power does not seem to have that restriction.
ArcTan 03-26-08, 02:30 AM	Yes. But the material is listed *both* as a material component of the spell and as a target of the spell. As a material component, you have to manipulate it. As a target, it only has to be in Close range. And the psionic version doesn't have the material component part, because psionic powers *never* have material components.
Slaunyeh 03-26-08, 06:18 AM	See? This is the problem. If you ignore the material component line, it's clear that the raw materials of fabricate are the *target* of the spell, not a component of the spell, and that you can fabricate something within Close range whether you're "manipulating" it or not. Not to mention that material components disappear when the spellcasting completes... which would make Fabricate completely pointless if the material being fabricated was, in fact, the material component.
kjenks 03-26-08, 08:31 AM	Not to mention that material components disappear when the spellcasting completes... which would make Fabricate completely pointless if the material being fabricated was, in fact, the material component. SRD === Material (M): A material component is one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. === The way I think of the Fabticate spell, the target/material component is broken down and reassembled.
groveborn 03-26-08, 11:31 AM	SRD === Material (M): A material component is one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. === The way I think of the Fabticate spell, the target/material component is broken down and reassembled. This doesn't work. The quality of the product is determined by the quality of the materials used. If it were simply broken down, then reassembled, it'd be the best it could be. Also, describe how it'd work with a psionic version, which never uses material components.
ArcTan 03-26-08, 01:55 PM	Describing the raw materials as *both* the target and the material component is an inherent contradiction, is my point. I would simply prefer to ignore that material component line entirely, as a mistake. They clearly just threw that in because some writer was confused about how "material components" work -- the initial intention was obviously for it to be a Close range spell.
risner 03-26-08, 02:04 PM	This doesn't work. The quality of the product is determined by the quality of the materials used. If it were simply broken down, then reassembled, it'd be the best it could be. Also, describe how it'd work with a psionic version, which never uses material components. Psi-Like Abilities don't have a need for Material Components, but there isn't any rule (just flavor text) that says Psionic spells don't have material components. Fabricate is the example used when they describe "see text" rules and the psionic fab spell doesn't say anything in the description other than "see fabricate." The behind the scenes info (XPH p62) describes why some Psionic spells have XP costs (and goes on to say that any spell with a material component would have the that as an XP cost at the 1 XP per 5 GP ratio.) From this I conclude there are 3 ways to read this as RAW: 1) No material component needed, no XP needed, can change unattended objects without touching them. 2) No material component needed, can make a sword out of thin air using XP at (gp value)/5. 3) Material component function just as it does on the Sor/Wiz spell, meaning you need to touch the item to convert it. #1 seem to be way outside RAI (if that matters to you, it doesn't to me.) #2 is kinda cool and sounds Psionic like. #3 is probably the intended result and is probably the result most DM's would take. None of this addressed unattended items, which I think there is an position to be taken saying any attended item would be off limits. I'm not interested in that position right now, so without doing research there may be nothing in the rules to reject attended vs unattended. So my best reading of raw leaves us with the opinion a Psionic Fabricate person can make something from nothing (by using XP to pay the material component cost.)
risner 03-26-08, 02:08 PM	Describing the raw materials as *both* the target and the material component is an inherent contradiction, is my point. I would simply prefer to ignore that material component line entirely, as a mistake. They clearly just threw that in because some writer was confused about how "material components" work -- the initial intention was obviously for it to be a Close range spell. Not that I think the position you are taking is wrong, but I do disagree with your "theories" as to why the error is present. It could just as easily been that Material Component was a requirement (to prove the item needed touching during casting) and the Close Range was to show that you didn't have to be holding the 100 logs of oak to be able to make a bridge out of them. Both your theory (Material Components was a mistake) and my first stab at an alternate (the Close range should have been touch) are equally plausible for the "why".
Slaunyeh 03-26-08, 02:19 PM	Not that I think the position you are taking is wrong, but I do disagree with your "theories" as to why the error is present. It could just as easily been that Material Component was a requirement (to prove the item needed touching during casting) and the Close Range was to show that you didn't have to be holding the 100 logs of oak to be able to make a bridge out of them. Both your theory (Material Components was a mistake) and my first stab at an alternate (the Close range should have been touch) are equally plausible for the "why". If that's the case, then why isn't the material a Focus for the spell, instead of a material component that will be anihilated on casting?
ArcTan 03-26-08, 03:03 PM	Not that I think the position you are taking is wrong, but I do disagree with your "theories" as to why the error is present. It could just as easily been that Material Component was a requirement (to prove the item needed touching during casting) and the Close Range was to show that you didn't have to be holding the 100 logs of oak to be able to make a bridge out of them. Wait, what? Close range means you don't have to touch it. If you have to touch it, it has Range: Touch. Range: Touch never implies "holding" rather than "touching" the object. Indeed, if anything the spurious "material component" line would *introduce* that problem, since material components generally have to be held in order to be "manipulated", not just lying on the ground being touched. The idea of the raw materials of a spell being a "material component" and of that "component" being large enough that you can't carry it is a violent break from the way basically all other material components work. I still think it's pretty clear it's a mistake.
risner 03-26-08, 04:17 PM	If that's the case, then why isn't the material a Focus for the spell, instead of a material component that will be anihilated on casting? If it were a focus, you could use a pile of wood to make a bridge and be left with the wood and the bridge. I still think it's pretty clear it's a mistake. I agree, I was just pointing out that there are alternate lines of thinking that could conclude the material component line is required. I suppose your preference is to not have the material component line at all.
Jovknee 03-26-08, 06:29 PM	My two cents. I'd say that you can use this on attended object, but a) the person holding the object does get a Will save, and b) you have to make a touch attack against the attended object.
Suspect_Unusual 03-26-08, 11:53 PM	Psi-Like Abilities don't have a need for Material Components, but there isn't any rule (just flavor text) that says Psionic spells don't have material components. Psionic Fabricate states it has a Display of "Material". Are you saying that when a power states it is "as spell X, except as noted here", it would gain the spell's needed components as well as the displays it already has? That seems... silly. JovkneeI'd say that you can use this on attended object, but a) the person holding the object does get a Will save, and b) you have to make a touch attack against the attended object. (A) seems reasonable, but I don't see why (B) applies [unless you're talking about the arcane version of fabricate (instead of the psionic version)]
risner 03-27-08, 12:10 AM	Psionic Fabricate states it has a Display of "Material". Are you saying that when a power states it is "as spell X, except as noted here", it would gain the spell's needed components as well as the displays it already has? That seems... silly. I don't see it as silly at all, in fact I see the opposite silly. What do you mean by (Display of "Material") anyway?
Suspect_Unusual 03-27-08, 12:17 AM	I mean Display: Material as found here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/fabricatePsionic.htm So you really think a psionic version of a spell, like Psionic Dimension Door, should have a Verbal component on top of it's displays (which are the rough equivalent of spell components, explicitly so for XP)? Forgive me if that strikes me as strange.
risner 03-27-08, 04:26 AM	So you really think a psionic version of a spell, like Psionic Dimension Door, should have a Verbal component on top of it's displays (which are the rough equivalent of spell components, explicitly so for XP)? No, but I do think if there is an expensive material component, it would need to be paid via XP at 1 XP per 5 gp cost.
Slaunyeh 03-27-08, 04:59 AM	If it were a focus, you could use a pile of wood to make a bridge and be left with the wood and the bridge. Even if we can't asume that the matererial (focus) could change from one form into another (kinda the way Fabricate works?), that's still better than being left with neither. :p I understand Fabricate to work by changing a material into another form. Like a pile of wood being shaped into a bridge. What you suggest, is that the wizard has to touch a pile of wood... that wood evaporates, and a bridge poofs into existance within range of the spell., leaving you with a wooden bridge, that's specifically not made of the original material. I suppose you can read it that way. But I, for one, am not going to.
ToastedAmphibian 03-27-08, 11:01 AM	If a spell is interupted, the material component is wasted right? Why turn the door into 100 toy soldiers. Turn the wall into a wall, but have the fighter kick you in the ass when you try. then choose to fail your concentration check. Poof, no wall.
risner 03-27-08, 11:53 AM	lleaving you with a wooden bridge, that's specifically not made of the original material. That is funny, but you do misunderstand me. At no point did I say the bridge would not be made from the touched wood. If you touch cherry wood, you have a cherry bridge with the same knots as the wood had. If a spell is interupted, the material component is wasted right? Turn the wall into a wall, but have the fighter kick you in the ass when you try. then choose to fail your concentration check. Poof, no wall. Funny application of the system. It comes down to your definition of "manipulate" and whether or not your DM believes you can manipulate an object that is not free standing (i.e. attached to the dungeon.) I for one would say no. As for your root point, yea, fabricate could have nasty drawbacks if your casting is interrupted. It even makes sense that you lose the base materials (like you would if you failed the craft checks with the Craft skill.)
Suspect_Unusual 03-27-08, 12:40 PM	No, but I do think if there is an expensive material component, it would need to be paid via XP at 1 XP per 5 gp cost. That makes a lot of sense to me, and powers that reference spells with expensive material components or focuses (with a clear exception of Fabricate) do impose an XP penalty. The idea of Fabricate being able to make things out of thin air doesn't work for me, though. 1. The Target line still states you need to target the material you're fabricating with. 2. If you allowed Fabricate to create things by spending an XP cost instead of actually supplying the materials, that'd be heavily stepping on the toes of True Creation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/trueCreation.htm), effectively doing everything the 9th level power can do except limited to smaller (though still fairly large) quantities.
bluedsteel 03-27-08, 02:56 PM	My only serious contribution to this discussion: you can't make stuff out of thin air using Psionic Fabricate because you would have no target, no matter how much XP you spent. And I'm pretty sure ArcTan's got the right idea. And now to the good stuff. Possibilities: I PAO the dragon into a pile of logs. I Fabricate it into a bridge. What happens? Did I just create a fire-breathing bridge that attempts to eat whomever crosses it? :D As above, except I Fabricate it into sawdust and cast Gust of Wind. What happens? :D If the material targeted is also the material component... I PAO the above dragon. I then cast Fabricate. Doesn't matter into what... the material component is "annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process." Did I just annihiliate the dragon? :D Oh, oh... new idea. Can't believe I've never done this... I PAO the dragon into a material component of any sort. I cast the spell. Now what? :D I build a fighter/rogue/wizard with max ranks in Use Rope who charges people, grapples them, Fabricates their clothes into ropes and their armor into chains, then stands up and walks away from the now tied up enemy. Or, evil version, coup de gras them. :cool: This could be really fun.:D :D :D
ArcTan 03-28-08, 12:23 AM	I agree, I was just pointing out that there are alternate lines of thinking that could conclude the material component line is required. I suppose your preference is to not have the material component line at all. If you want to say that you have to touch the material rather than just be standing close to it, then it needs to be "Range: Touch", not "Range: Close". That's the best way to do it. Note that this doesn't prevent you from destructively fabricating someone's armor -- see the way heat metal works, for instance. To do that you'd have to have the spell specify an "Unattended item". If it did that, then a lot of problems would go away.