Post/Author/DateTime	Post
heavenisme 04-06-08, 10:21 PM	Just like the title states . . . . Does the power Crystal shard bypass anti magic field in a campaign where magic transparency exists. Thanks
Lycanthromancer 04-06-08, 10:34 PM	It's an instantaneous creation effect, so yes, by the rules, it does. Some argue that the antimagic/null psionics field blocks line of effect, but I'm not in that particular camp.
heavenisme 04-06-08, 11:12 PM	Instantaneous conjurations Is what I see in the SRD, however crystal shard isn't a conjuration.
Lycanthromancer 04-06-08, 11:22 PM	Pg 57 in the XPH under Metacreativity: For the purpose of psionics-magic transparancy, metacreativity powers are equivalent to powers of the conjuration school [snip] Also, on the same page, under Creation: If the power has a duration other than instantaneous, psionic energy holds the creation together, and when the power ends, the created creature or object vanishes without a trace [snip] If the power has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through psionics. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on psionics for its existence.
Slagger the Chuul 04-07-08, 12:11 AM	Some argue that the antimagic/null psionics field blocks line of effect, but I'm not in that particular camp. That, and evidence like the burrowing crystal shard, which demonstrates that psychic power is still active during the instant in which it enters the antimagic/null psionics field. And if the power is still on, an antimagic field or null psionics field can turn it off. Creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected by a null psionics field because the power itself is no longer in effect, only its result. This segment from null psionics field tells us why creation powers aren't normally affected, but for crystal shard , the power is still in effect while it enters the field (within the instant of its duration), so the normal situation doesn't apply.
Lycanthromancer 04-07-08, 12:28 AM	Of course, that would depend wholly on whether or not the force behind firing the shard were sustained or instantaneous. It's the difference between turning on a rocket-booster and firing a gun; one is sustained, the other is instantaneous. Just because you hit the target within milliseconds with the bullet doesn't mean that it has to be supported the whole way. If the shard is fired in this way, it would take so little time as to remain Instantaneous in duration, while still able to fire through a null psionics or antimagic field.
CrimsonDeath 04-07-08, 01:57 AM	I believe we've had this discussion before. Last time, when somebody pulled out the Burrowing Power feat, someone else pointed out that metapsionic feats are technically Extraordinary abilities, which normally function in antimagic/null psionics fields anyway.
PhaedrusXY 04-07-08, 01:59 AM	The rules are clear. It is an Instantaneous Conjuration effect. Therefore, it can hit creatures in an AMF. Anything else is a house rule. Also, the Rules Compendium stated that AMFs do not block LoE anymore.
AntiDjinn 04-07-08, 02:54 AM	Is the Search feature still out? Hasn't this one already been beaten to a pulp on multiple threads?
Slagger the Chuul 04-07-08, 04:59 PM	Just because you hit the target within milliseconds with the bullet doesn't mean that it has to be supported the whole way. If the shard is fired in this way, it would take so little time as to remain Instantaneous in duration, while still able to fire through a null psionics or antimagic field. That's where effects like Burrowing Power can help to clarify the situation. Since they apply all the way to the destination, the power is in effect all the way to the destination. Also, the Rules Compendium stated that AMFs do not block LoE anymore. I haven't seen the Rules Compendium, but if it does have an applicable section or rule clarification, it could certainly modify the situation. Although it's not as completely helpful in providing a clear answer for crystal shard, since there's a ray effect penetrating the field, rather than it simply being a case of the line of effect getting blocked.
CrimsonDeath 04-07-08, 05:01 PM	That's where effects like Burrowing Power can help to clarify the situation. Since they apply all the way to the destination, the power is in effect all the way to the destination. Did you miss the part where Burrowing Power is an extraordinary ability?
Slagger the Chuul 04-07-08, 06:32 PM	Did you miss the part where Burrowing Power is an extraordinary ability? It's not relevant; the feat merely allows the manifester to modify powers in a specific way. The modification itself is always part of a power, and if that modification is still taking effect, the power must also still be in effect, regardless of whether the metapsionic feat that caused that modification is extraordinary or not. The burrowing effect merely demonstrates that the psionic power is still active. As the power is still in effect, the built-in reasoning that allows instantaneous creation powers to penetrate a null psionics field does not apply, and the crystal shard is unable to penetrate the field. ...at least with the initial manifestation. You could pick up some leftover crystal and manually lob it into the field without any difficulty.
NoldorForce 04-07-08, 06:58 PM	The rules are clear. It is an Instantaneous Conjuration effect. Therefore, it can hit creatures in an AMF. Anything else is a house rule. Also, the Rules Compendium stated that AMFs do not block LoE anymore.QFT. Slagger might have a point with Burrowing Power making things not quite Instantaneous (depending on the circumstance), but as likely as not the Rules Compendium ruling makes Burrowing Power obsolete with respect to antimagic.
calronmoonflower 04-07-08, 07:41 PM	It's not relevant; the feat merely allows the manifester to modify powers in a specific way. The modification itself is always part of a power, and if that modification is still taking effect, the power must also still be in effect, regardless of whether the metapsionic feat that caused that modification is extraordinary or not. The burrowing effect merely demonstrates that the psionic power is still active. As the power is still in effect, the built-in reasoning that allows instantaneous creation powers to penetrate a null psionics field does not apply, and the crystal shard is unable to penetrate the field. ...at least with the initial manifestation. You could pick up some leftover crystal and manually lob it into the field without any difficulty. That of course assumes that the metapsionic feat is not a sperate effect from the power.
CrimsonDeath 04-07-08, 07:42 PM	It's not relevant; the feat merely allows the manifester to modify powers in a specific way. The modification itself is always part of a power, and if that modification is still taking effect, the power must also still be in effect, regardless of whether the metapsionic feat that caused that modification is extraordinary or not. The burrowing effect merely demonstrates that the psionic power is still active. As the power is still in effect, the built-in reasoning that allows instantaneous creation powers to penetrate a null psionics field does not apply, and the crystal shard is unable to penetrate the field. ...at least with the initial manifestation. You could pick up some leftover crystal and manually lob it into the field without any difficulty. How is the power necessarily still in effect? An extraordinary ability may defy conventional laws of physics, but it's still a nonmagical ability. Why can't a non-magical ability modify the behavior of a (magically created) non-magical object in a non-magical way?
Slagger the Chuul 04-08-08, 02:29 AM	That of course assumes that the metapsionic feat is not a sperate effect from the power. The feat itself is separate. But the effect produced by the feat only ever occurs with relation to a power. How is the power necessarily still in effect? An extraordinary ability may defy conventional laws of physics, but it's still a nonmagical ability. Why can't a non-magical ability modify the behavior of a (magically created) non-magical object in a non-magical way? It doesn't matter whether or not it's extraordinary. The burrowing effect only applies to a power; the crystal shard no longer burrows once the power is completed. If the shard still burrows, the power is still in effect. If the power is still in effect, it can be blocked by a null psionics field.
calronmoonflower 04-08-08, 03:53 AM	The feat itself is separate. But the effect produced by the feat only ever occurs with relation to a power. That doesn't mean that it isn't separate, but linked trait. One cause can have more than one effect. It doesn't matter whether or not it's extraordinary. The burrowing effect only applies to a power; the crystal shard no longer burrows once the power is completed. See above. If the shard still burrows, the power is still in effect. If the power is still in effect, it can be blocked by a null psionics field. The same could be said of Orb spells and any meta-magic feat applied to spells. By the reasoning that you are using creation effects would practically always be negated by Antimagic Field. As this directly contradicts the rules the logic must not be valid.
Slagger the Chuul 04-08-08, 10:04 AM	That doesn't mean that it isn't separate, but linked trait. One cause can have more than one effect. There isn't an independent effect, only a power that functions in a slightly different manner. The same could be said of Orb spells and any meta-magic feat applied to spells. By the reasoning that you are using creation effects would practically always be negated by Antimagic Field. Orb spells are technically subject to the same limitation, since antimagic field includes a similar line explaining why instantaneous conjurations are not affected, and the orb spells do not match its explanation. As with the crystal shard, the leftover material from an orb spell can enter the antimagic field after the spell is completed. Yes, it could also be said of metamagic feats applied to spells and creation effects in general. However, many of those other creation effects do not need to make an attack roll within their duration in order to be effective. For example, a wall of stone could not be formed within the area of an antimagic field, but this doesn't greatly hinder its effectiveness because it can be formed outside the field. Once the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, the resulting wall is utterly impervious to an antimagic field. As this directly contradicts the rules the logic must not be valid. Please be more specific on what you believe to be the contradiction.
calronmoonflower 04-08-08, 03:36 PM	There isn't an independent effect, only a power that functions in a slightly different manner. You cannot prove a statement with itself. As the effect is instantaneous and the metapsionic feat is extraordinary, the effect must be separate or the effect wouldn't be instantaneous. Orb spells are technically subject to the same limitation, since antimagic field includes a similar line explaining why instantaneous conjurations are not affected, and the orb spells do not match its explanation. As with the crystal shard, the leftover material from an orb spell can enter the antimagic field after the spell is completed. Both create a physical effect that is launched into the field. The spell duration means the attack actually happens after the power is manifested. Yes, it could also be said of metamagic feats applied to spells and creation effects in general. However, many of those other creation effects do not need to make an attack roll within their duration in order to be effective. The attack roll is irrelevant. Also this contradicts the duration of instantaneous. Saying that an instantaneous isn't and therefor is negated by the field is contradictory. For example, a wall of stone could not be formed within the area of an antimagic field, but this doesn't greatly hinder its effectiveness because it can be formed outside the field. Once the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, the resulting wall is utterly impervious to an antimagic field. But by the reasoning that you are using the wall made by the spell would be negated if an antimagic field is moved over the area. Remember that some metamagics can affect the lasting effect of the spells. Please be more specific on what you believe to be the contradiction. The Rules As Written say that The effects of instantaneous conjurations, such as create water, are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only the result. With both Crystal Shard or Orb spells a effect is created along with build in momentum and thus has inherent motion. Any other explanation must contradict the spells duration. As it is one interpretation contradicts the Antimagic Field's text. The other doesn't.
CrimsonDeath 04-08-08, 05:22 PM	As with the crystal shard, the leftover material from an orb spell can enter the antimagic field after the spell is completed. So, according to your interpretation, what happens if one attempts to fire a Crystal Shard into an Antimagic Field? Obviously, they're moving fast enough to hurt someone standing just outside of the AMF. What happens when they enter it?
Racinante 04-08-08, 06:35 PM	I disagree with Slagger, and to add to the discussion: The shard cannot start or be manifested in the field, but if manifested outside of the field, the initial momentum the power provides to the instantaneously created shard deals normal piercing damage to anyone inside the field. Furthermore Because psionic feats are supernatural abilities...they do not function in areas where psionics is suppressed, such as a null psionics field. So you cannot burrow through, around or into an AMF. [Added] Note that Crystal Shard can be started at any point in Close range. It does not necessarily start from you. Burrowing power would allow you to start the ray on the other side of a barrier, but once started, it would not burrow any further. The power cannot be started in an AMF so burrowing power cannot be used to bypass it for that reason and the fact that burrowing power is a supernatural effect. As long as the ray starts outside of the field, then targets inside the field can be hit. So for example, you could use burrowing power in the following scenario Psion=P Barrier=X Start of Ray=S AMF=A Target=T P X S AAATAAA But not P X AASTAAA You could do this: P SX AAATAAA but all you would hit is the barrier.
CrimsonDeath 04-08-08, 08:22 PM	So you cannot burrow through, around or into an AMF. That SRD quote isn't applicable, because metapsionic feats aren't psionic feats. Note that Crystal Shard can be started at any point in Close range. Um... What? A Ray originates from the manifester. Close range is how far away the target can be.
Slagger the Chuul 04-09-08, 12:23 AM	You cannot prove a statement with itself. As the effect is instantaneous and the metapsionic feat is extraordinary, the effect must be separate or the effect wouldn't be instantaneous. There is never any mention made of an independent effect, only the feat itself (which is extraordinary and only grants the manifester the ability to do something), and the power, which is a power. Both create a physical effect that is launched into the field. The spell duration means the attack actually happens after the power is manifested. That's where you're mistaken. The attack happens as part of the instantaneous duration, which is something Burrowing Power helps to demonstrate. When you use a burrowing crystal shard, it can potentially burrow all the way to the target. For example, if you shoot a creature leaning against the opposite side of a wall, there is no intervening space in which to travel, so the shard is burrowing all the way to its destination. The attack roll is irrelevant. Also this contradicts the duration of instantaneous. Saying that an instantaneous isn't and therefor is negated by the field is contradictory. It's relevant because you make the attack as part of manifesting the power, instead of as a separate action. The attack is part of the power. It's not contradictory, it just means that the attack happens in the same instant that the shard is created. But by the reasoning that you are using the wall made by the spell would be negated if an antimagic field is moved over the area. Remember that some metamagics can affect the lasting effect of the spells. The wall can only be affected during the instant of its manifestation. After that moment it is no longer dependent on the power. The metamagic effects can change the result left from a spell. Since the spell's effect is to create a wall, metamagic feats can affect how that creation happens, but have no further bearing once the wall is created. The Rules As Written say that The part I'm referring to is "because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only the result". If the conjuration is still in effect the antimagic field can block it, even if it's only able to be blocked for an instant. With both Crystal Shard or Orb spells a effect is created along with build in momentum and thus has inherent motion. Any other explanation must contradict the spells duration. There's no contradiction with having an attack happen as part of an instantaneous duration. Within the instantaneous duration, the shard is created and its attack is completed. The attack is described as part of the power, so if you make it separately, you're contradicting the power's description. As it is one interpretation contradicts the Antimagic Field's text. The other doesn't. The antimagic field allows an exception for creation effects under a specific circumstance. The orb spells and crystal shard just don't happen to fit that circumstance.
calronmoonflower 04-09-08, 02:08 AM	There is never any mention made of an independent effect, only the feat itself (which is extraordinary and only grants the manifester the ability to do something), and the power, which is a power. By the same token nothing actually says that it is part of the power. That's where you're mistaken. The attack happens as part of the instantaneous duration, which is something Burrowing Power helps to demonstrate. That is your interpretation. However it violates the laws of motion. When you use a burrowing crystal shard, it can potentially burrow all the way to the target. For example, if you shoot a creature leaning against the opposite side of a wall, there is no intervening space in which to travel, so the shard is burrowing all the way to its destination. Note that the metapsionic feat says "Your power skips briefly through the Astral Plane to bypass the barrier." No matter how you slice that the burrowing isn't instantaneous. It's relevant because you make the attack as part of manifesting the power, instead of as a separate action. The attack is part of the power. Again that's how you interpret it, not how it must be. It's not contradictory, it just means that the attack happens in the same instant that the shard is created. That would mean that the crystal shard appears embedded in the target. That violates the description. The wall can only be affected during the instant of its manifestation. After that moment it is no longer dependent on the power. The result is a shard of crystal flying toward the target. The effect is creating the crystal. The metamagic effects can change the result left from a spell. Since the spell's effect is to create a wall, metamagic feats can affect how that creation happens, but have no further bearing once the wall is created. Signature Spell can have a permanent effect on the wall. The part I'm referring to is "because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only the result". Answered above. If the conjuration is still in effect the antimagic field can block it, even if it's only able to be blocked for an instant. That would require the crystal to form within the field. There's no contradiction with having an attack happen as part of an instantaneous duration. Within the instantaneous duration, the shard is created and its attack is completed. Only if you conclude that one cause my have only one effect. Oh, and that "and" means that two effects happen. The attack is described as part of the power, so if you make it separately, you're contradicting the power's description. You mean the part that says "Upon manifesting this power, you propel a razor-sharp crystal at your target." The rest of the deception is dealing with the effect that has already been created. The antimagic field allows an exception for creation effects under a specific circumstance. The orb spells and crystal shard just don't happen to fit that circumstance. Says you. I'm not convinced.
Slagger the Chuul 04-09-08, 03:17 AM	By the same token nothing actually says that it is part of the power. You could certainly make it a separate effect if you like. You just need to decide for yourself whether it will be extraordinary, supernatural, spell-like, or psi-like. That is your interpretation. However it violates the laws of motion. Creating a crystal from nothing also violates the law of conservation of energy, but that's physics, not psionics. Note that the metapsionic feat says "Your power skips briefly through the Astral Plane to bypass the barrier." No matter how you slice that the burrowing isn't instantaneous. If you really like physics, you should know that it's impossible for anything to happen absolutely instantly (any force must be applied over some period of time, however small), so we must work with the definition of an instant as being simply a very short period of time. Unless a fireball somehow manages to explode without ever taking the time to expand. Again that's how you interpret it, not how it must be. If your DM allows you to take a separate attack action to fire the crystal shard after manifesting, then I agree that it would penetrate a null psionics field. If you aren't taking a separate action, it's part of the power. That would mean that the crystal shard appears embedded in the target. That violates the description. More correctly, it hits the target by coming out of the Astral Plane. Explaining the details will require a discussion of planar physics. :) However, that's an issue with the way the Burrowing Power feat works. It's not directly related to the performance of crystal shard with regard to an antimagic field. The result is a shard of crystal flying toward the target. The effect is creating the crystal. The creation of the crystal, the propulsion, the touch attack, and the damage are all part of the power. That's why they appear in the power's description. That would require the crystal to form within the field. How or why it happens is not explained; that is something we can merely assume one way or the other. You mean the part that says "Upon manifesting this power, you propel a razor-sharp crystal at your target." The rest of the deception is dealing with the effect that has already been created. You could split it up that way, it would just make the power useless. The crystal itself does not deal damage; only the ray effect deals damage. I'm not convinced. I'm prepared to keep discussing it.
calronmoonflower 04-09-08, 03:24 AM	I'm prepared to keep discussing it. I'm not. At least not at this time.
BloodSpill 04-09-08, 04:43 AM	Just like the title states . . . . Does the power Crystal shard bypass anti magic field in a campaign where magic transparency exists. Thanks Yes: 6 votes. No: 1 vote.
Lycanthromancer 04-09-08, 09:55 AM	Yes: 6 votes. No: 1 vote.Addendum'd: Yes: 6 votes. No: 1 vote. Everyone: You can't manifest it inside the field regardless (barring zero transparency).
Racinante 04-09-08, 10:10 AM	That SRD quote isn't applicable, because metapsionic feats aren't psionic feats.Psionic feats are broken into three categories, psionic feats, metapsionic feats, and psionic item creation feats. The quoted text is general information for all types of psionic feats and is located under the major heading Psionic Feats. Metapsionic and psionic item creation feats are sub-headings under that major heading, with additional information on their usage and application. Um... What? A Ray originates from the manifester. Close range is how far away the target can be. Actually Range A power's range indicates how far from you it can reach, as defined in the Range entry of the power description. A power's range is the maximum distance from you that the power's effect can occur, as well as the maximum distance at which you can designate the power's point of origin. If any portion of the area would extend beyond the range, that area is wasted. Crystal shard has a range of close.
CrimsonDeath 04-09-08, 12:33 PM	Psionic feats are broken into three categories, psionic feats, metapsionic feats, and psionic item creation feats. The quoted text is general information for all types of psionic feats and is located under the major heading Psionic Feats. Metapsionic and psionic item creation feats are sub-headings under that major heading, with additional information on their usage and application. Note that you're quoting from the SRD. The primary source for psionics rules is the Expanded Psionics Handbook, which is organized differently. The "Feats and Psionics" section of Chapter 3 has three subheadings: "Psionic Feats", "Psionic Item Creation Feats", and "Metapsionic Feats". These three sets appear to be distinct and, until a feat is published that has two or more of the three tags, disjoint. Actually Crystal shard has a range of close. Interesting. If you check the Player's Handbook or the Expanded Psionics Handbook, the description of the Range of a spell or power includes, "A [spell's/power's] range is the maximum distance from you that the [spell's/power's] effect can occur, as well as the maximum distance at which you can designate the [spell's/power's] point of origin." Not that it matters very much. You still need line of effect both to the power's point of origin and to the target (or use Burrowing Power to bypass any barriers blocking line of effect).
Slagger the Chuul 04-09-08, 12:51 PM	Not that it matters very much. You still need line of effect both to the power's point of origin and to the target (or use Burrowing Power to bypass any barriers blocking line of effect). The only benefit I can really think of is if you wanted to avoid pinpointing yourself as the power's origin. That could be useful if you're hiding or pretending not to be the attacker, but it's not making the ray much better than a targeted spell or power in that respect. I'm not. At least not at this time. Quitter. :P Does anyone else have some valuable insight? Popular opinion seems in conflict with the rules, but I have yet to see anything which supports that view on the level of game mechanics.
CrimsonDeath 04-09-08, 04:08 PM	Does anyone else have some valuable insight? Well, you still haven't addressed my question of what happens if you try to fire a Crystal Shard into an Antimagic Field. As I said, the shards are already going fast enough to hurt someone in front of the field, and although I didn't say it earlier it's also true that since AMF doesn't block line of effect, they're still going fast enough to hurt someone behind the field. So why aren't they fast enough to hurt someone inside the field? Contrast with Telekinetic Thrust, which imparts momentum on an existing object. Even if that momentum happens to carry the object into an AMF, it still does the same amount of damage as it would to something outside the field. The only conceptual difference between that and Crystal Shard is that the crystals don't exist prior to the instant in which they are imbued with momentum.
Slagger the Chuul 04-09-08, 08:46 PM	Well, you still haven't addressed my question of what happens if you try to fire a Crystal Shard into an Antimagic Field. It won't hit the target, since the ray of the power is unable to reach the target. Exactly how this works is undescribed on a mechanical level. If you would explain the details of how the psychic power derives physical force and shards of crystal from nothing, I could probably give you a good answer. As I said, the shards are already going fast enough to hurt someone in front of the field, and although I didn't say it earlier it's also true that since AMF doesn't block line of effect, they're still going fast enough to hurt someone behind the field. So why aren't they fast enough to hurt someone inside the field? It doesn't block line of effect, but it can still exclude a ray. Tell me the physics behind a crystal shard, and I can give you more information on how the situation works. Contrast with Telekinetic Thrust, which imparts momentum on an existing object. Even if that momentum happens to carry the object into an AMF, it still does the same amount of damage as it would to something outside the field. Since crystal shard is actually a ray effect, it's possible that the crystal's propulsion is entirely dependent on being in a kind of psychic pathway to the target, and that without that space it loses all momentum. Or the crystal shard may still be in tentative formation since it's being created and fired in the same instant, so entering the field might cause it to fall apart. Or maybe it actually works by generating a force of attraction on the target and if you don't hit with the ray, the subject gets no attractive force to propel the crystal towards them, and it just doesn't move. There are plenty of potential explanations for how the effect might work.
CrimsonDeath 04-09-08, 09:04 PM	So now your entire argument is based upon the fact that it's possible to engage in conjecture regarding the (meta)physics of the power?
heavenisme 04-10-08, 02:59 AM	So no one has a definite answer?
CrimsonDeath 04-10-08, 03:28 AM	So no one has a definite answer? We have a definitive answer. Slagger just doesn't want to believe it because he thinks his intuition regarding a corner case involving a particular metapsionic feats trumps written rules for some reason.
Slagger the Chuul 04-10-08, 03:57 PM	So no one has a definite answer? We don't seem to have one yet. Allowing crystal shard to successfully penetrate is the popular opinion, even if it's wrong. So now your entire argument is based upon the fact that it's possible to engage in conjecture regarding the (meta)physics of the power? You asked why crystal shard wouldn't be "fast enough" to hurt someone inside an antimagic field. The answer is that you're assuming the power launches a fully-formed crystal like a bullet, with all the force applied at the very beginning of its movement. The power itself does not specify how the movement works, and any one of the possibilities I provided could easily explain why a crystal shard wouldn't hurt someone inside the field. Slagger just doesn't want to believe it because he thinks his intuition regarding a corner case involving a particular metapsionic feats trumps written rules for some reason. The "corner case" is merely supporting evidence that the power is still in effect at the time the attack is made (because a nonpsionic plane-hopping shard of crystal would be ridiculous). As for written rules, perhaps a return to one of the lines in question is in order (the psionic version, in this case). Creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected by a null psionics field because the power itself is no longer in effect, only its result. What this actually says is that the result of an instantaneous creation power isn't affected by a null psionics field. The power itself is just as vulnerable as any other kind of power. Crystal shard makes its attack as part of the power itself, not merely as a result after the power is completed. Thus, it cannot penetrate a null psionics field.
Lycanthromancer 04-10-08, 04:01 PM	The fact remains that crystal shard is an instantaneous Creation effect, thus, RAW, regardless of whatever else might (logically) apply, since neither crystal shard nor null psionics/antimagic field, nor anywhere else states otherwise, it does enter such a field without hindrance. Q.E.D. (Mostly, I just wanted to use 'Q.E.D.' in an actual argument. :P)
Slagger the Chuul 04-11-08, 02:46 AM	The fact remains that crystal shard is an instantaneous Creation effect, thus, RAW, regardless of whatever else might (logically) apply, since neither crystal shard nor null psionics/antimagic field, nor anywhere else states otherwise, it does enter such a field without hindrance. Why stop after reading "Creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected by a null psionics field" and completely ignore "because the power itself is no longer in effect, only its result."? Crystal shard can be blocked because it's part of the power, which can be blocked.
Lycanthromancer 04-11-08, 02:51 AM	Unless it's hurled by a single telekinetic pulse of gun-like magnitude, in which case that doesn't apply. Still, Creation effect, instantaneous duration. It bypasses the AMF/NPF. RAW.
CrimsonDeath 04-11-08, 02:59 AM	Why stop after reading "Creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected by a null psionics field" and completely ignore "because the power itself is no longer in effect, only its result."? Crystal shard can be blocked because it's part of the power, which can be blocked. Actually, what it says is that the effects of instantaneous conjurations are unaffected. Now let's look at the Crystal Shard power. Discipline: Metacreativity (equivalent to Conjuration under transparency) Duration: Instantaneous Effect: Ray So the ray, the effect of an instantaneous conjuration, is unaffected by the Antimagic Field, because the metacreativity itself is no longer in effect, only its result. You're arguing that the power is still in effect while the Antimagic Field spell itself is telling you otherwise.
calronmoonflower 04-11-08, 03:13 AM	I took my time and thought this over from several angles. Crystal Shard Metacreativity (Creation) Level: Psion/wilder 1 Display: Auditory and material Manifesting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Effect: Ray Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None Power Resistance: No Power Points: 1 Upon manifesting this power, you propel a razor-sharp crystal shard at your target. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack with the ray to deal damage to a target. The ray deals 1d6 points of piercing damage. Augment: For every additional power point you spend, this power’s damage increases by 1d6 points. Upon manifesting this power [A] you propel [->] razor-sharp crystal [B] at your target [->] You must succeed on a ranged touch attack... [C] A -> B -> C At point A the power can be disrupted by things like a antimagic field. However at point B the power moves over a a extraordinary effect. At point C then the damage is done. Burrowing Power would before the transition from A to B happens. Consider that the attack deals slashing damage and is subject to damage reduction (Complete Psionic page 79). Also consider that power resistance is "No". If the power itself was directly affecting the target it would logically be yes. So how can a power end up with part of it being extraordinary. What it true of the whole need not be true of each of its parts. To say otherwise is a fallacy of division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division). Consider another point on this. Antimagic Ray (Draconomicon page 108), it affects only the target and not anything worn by them. If the damage dealt is still psionic at that point the effect would be blocked by that spell. That would require the crystal shard to form on the target and that direct effect would allow for spell resistance as well as contradict the powers description. The only pint left is the point where the A -> B conversion actually happens. An anti-magic field doesn't block line of effect (Rules Compendium page 11), so an archmage could use the class feature that allows a square to be left out of a square to be their own and a psion could hit them with this power from right on the edge. That leaves two squares that the A -> B transition can occur in. The target square and the point of origin. The only displays of this power are auditory and material. Material only effects the subject or area (no area for this power) so that leaves only a sound for any clue that it is coming if the shard appears in the target's square. That can be canceled at 15+ feet. This would leave very little time for reaction therefor doesn't mesh well with the effect of the power. So the most likely is that the shard forms in the manifester's square leaving a big hunk of crystal that the target can see coming toward them.
CrimsonDeath 04-11-08, 03:50 AM	Burrowing Power would before the transition from A to B happens. I'm not sure where you get this. What stops the crystal from skipping through the Astral Plane after having been propelled toward the target? (Remember: Metapsionic feats are extraordinary abilities.)
calronmoonflower 04-11-08, 06:02 AM	I'm not sure where you get this. What stops the crystal from skipping through the Astral Plane after having been propelled toward the target? (Remember: Metapsionic feats are extraordinary abilities.) The feat specifically says that it affects the power. If the crystal shard is a physical object made by the power then it could be said that it couldn't be affected. However, you could say that extraordinary condition warrant an exception in this case, but I wanted to keep the argument as close to the literal reading of the rules as possible. I did point out later that the crystal could be extraordinary and part of the power, but I thought of that after I typed the first part and didn't retype the opening. So it could happen at any point before part C.
Slagger the Chuul 04-11-08, 07:43 AM	So the ray, the effect of an instantaneous conjuration, is unaffected by the Antimagic Field, because the metacreativity itself is no longer in effect, only its result. And if the metacreativity itself is still in effect, the ray will be affected by the antimagic field. I see a disparity of reasoning here. You're saying that the line tells us that the power itself has to be finished because the field allows it to pass. I'm saying that the field doesn't allow it to pass because the power hasn't finished. Perhaps the point of contention will become clearer if we address the basic point of disagreement. Here is a summary of what seem to be the two different ways of looking at the situation: The effect is already over because it is an instantaneous creation passing through an antimagic field. OR The antimagic field allows the effect to pass because the creation is already over. Does this sound like a correct summary of the points of view to you?
Racinante 04-11-08, 11:44 AM	Why stop after reading "Creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected by a null psionics field" and completely ignore "because the power itself is no longer in effect, only its result."? Crystal shard can be blocked because it's part of the power, which can be blocked. The following is an absolute statement without qualification: Creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected by a null psionics field. No exceptions are listed, therefore the only exceptions that exist are those that specifically state that they are exceptions. the phrasebecause the power itself is no longer in effect, only its result. is a statement that provides information on why the previous statement is true. It is not an exhaustive statement on the reasons why the first may be true. For example: The boy was absent because he was ill. consists of two statements The boy was absent which is absolutely true and the second statement because he was ill explains why the previous statement is true, but does not rule out other reasons why the first statement is true. If you later prove that the boy was not ill, this does not change the fact that he was absent. Demonstrating that the power itself is no longer in effect, only its result is false does not change the fact that creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected by a null psionics field.
CrimsonDeath 04-11-08, 04:04 PM	And if the metacreativity itself is still in effect, the ray will be affected by the antimagic field. But that's only true of metacreativity powers with non-instantaneous durations, like Psionic Minor Creation. (For the record, Null Psionics Field, the Psionic X of Antimagic Field, specifies "creation powers with an instantanous duration and calling powers" as being unaffected by an NPF, creation being a subdiscipline of metacreativity and calling being entire nonexistent. I'll spare you the trouble of looking it up and tell you that Crystal Shard is an instantaneous creation power, and Psionic Minor Creation is a non-instantaneous creation power.) I see a disparity of reasoning here. You're saying that the line tells us that the power itself has to be finished because the field allows it to pass. I'm saying that the field doesn't allow it to pass because the power hasn't finished. And what's telling you that the power hasn't finished? The Duration is "instantaneous" so that can't be it. The text of Antimagic Field clarifies the fact that the power has finished. What makes you think it hasn't? And don't tell me that something implies that it hasn't finished. In order to refute a stated rule, you need a stated rule, not an implied one. In fact, it's the other way around: A stated rule refutes an implied rule. Perhaps the point of contention will become clearer if we address the basic point of disagreement. Here is a summary of what seem to be the two different ways of looking at the situation: The effect is already over because it is an instantaneous creation passing through an antimagic field. OR The antimagic field allows the effect to pass because the creation is already over. Does this sound like a correct summary of the points of view to you? No, that didn't clarify anything at all. As far as I can tell, you said the same thing two different ways.
Slagger the Chuul 04-11-08, 04:19 PM	the phrase is a statement that provides information on why the previous statement is true. It is not an exhaustive statement on the reasons why the first may be true. It doesn't list all the possible reasons that the first part of the sentence could be true, but it does list the only given reason for it being true under the current circumstances. Unlike a real-world situation, there are no facts in existence anywhere other than within the text, so the only reason given is literally the only reason that the first statement is true. If you later prove that the boy was not ill, this does not change the fact that he was absent. That's true of an examination of an existing situation, since you are basing the first statement on an observable fact, thereby including an independent proof that the boy was absent. You could also later prove that the boy was not absent, without changing the fact given in the second section that he was ill. Demonstrating that the power itself is no longer in effect, only its result is false does not change the fact that creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected by a null psionics field. If we use this logic, then both the given facts are independently true. We have (in summary): The power can penetrate the field. The power is no longer in effect, only its result. By the definition of the second fact, instantaneous creation and calling powers are always no longer in effect. So by attempting to use crystal shard against a null psionics field, you will never have the opportunity to make your touch attack, because the power is already over. On the plus side, it's still a situation where null psionics field excludes instantaneous creation powers.
Slagger the Chuul 04-11-08, 04:33 PM	But that's only true of metacreativity powers with non-instantaneous durations, like Psionic Minor Creation. Having a duration of "Instantaneous" still allows for events to happen within that instant, including an attack. It just means that the power completes all its direct effects within the space of a few moments. I will attempt another clarification (discarding the previous one), since your responses indicate that you were reasoning along a different line than I originally thought. Is the "instantaneous" duration the reason you believe the crystal shard power itself to already be completed by the time it encounters the null psionics field?
Racinante 04-11-08, 05:07 PM	If we use this logic, then both the given facts are independently true. We have (in summary): The power can penetrate the field. The power is no longer in effect, only its result. By the definition of the second fact, instantaneous creation and calling powers are always no longer in effect. So by attempting to use crystal shard against a null psionics field, you will never have the opportunity to make your touch attack, because the power is already over. No, no, no. The power cannot penetrate the field. The resultant effect of the power can penetrate the field. The touch attack has nothing to do with the effect or manifestation of the power. The RTA merely tells you how to resolve the effect. You can create a rock using true creation then toss the rock into a NPF in an attempt to touch someone inside. You would still make a ranged touch attack to see if you were successful. If you had a method of quickening the manifestation, you could do both the creation and tossing in a single standard action. All you are doing with the ranged touch attack roll is trying to hit the target, and NPFs do not prevent an attempt at targetting. Based on your counter-argument, crystal shard never works, because you never have the opportunity to roll a ranged touch attack. As you said, the power is already over. Since we know that crystal shard does work, your argument must be flawed. For crystal shard to work, the momentum has to be defined at the moment the shard is created. The fact that you have to make a ranged touch attack suggests that once this momentum is determined, no magical / psionic force exists on the shard to guide or drive its passage. If there was, then there would be no attack roll (like magic missle) and there would be power resistance (again, like magic missle).
Slagger the Chuul 04-11-08, 05:51 PM	The touch attack has nothing to do with the effect or manifestation of the power. The touch attack made for crystal shard is a direct effect of the power. Based on your counter-argument, crystal shard never works, because you never have the opportunity to roll a ranged touch attack. As you said, the power is already over. Since we know that crystal shard does work, your argument must be flawed. That argument is using your logic, wherein the two facts provided operate separately. Perhaps you can tell me why that doesn't work in this case. For crystal shard to work, the momentum has to be defined at the moment the shard is created. The fact that you have to make a ranged touch attack suggests that once this momentum is determined, no magical / psionic force exists on the shard to guide or drive its passage. If there was, then there would be no attack roll (like magic missle) and there would be power resistance (again, like magic missle). Ranged touch attacks are the standard aiming method for ray effects, even when the attack form has no real substance or momentum (like the ray produced by disintegrate).
Racinante 04-11-08, 06:38 PM	The touch attack made for crystal shard is a direct effect of the power. I disagree. The touch attack is the process by which one adjudicates whether the ray attack was successful. It is not a direct effect of the power, but a process to resolve any ray effect. That argument is using your logic, wherein the two facts provided operate separately. Perhaps you can tell me why that doesn't work in this case. I believe a gap in understanding exists here. My argument is that the first statement "creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected by a null psionics field" is a simple statement of how the rules work and that the second statement "because the power itself is no longer in effect, only its result" is a restatement (reminder, parenthetical statement) of the definition of the effect of instantaneous creation and calling effects. Basically if (a) power is instantaneous and (b) power is creation or calling, then (c) the resultant effect is not affected by a NPF, period. Ranged touch attacks are the standard aiming method for ray effects, even when the attack form has no real substance or momentum (like the ray produced by disintegrate). No argument here. In fact, let me take the debate to an extreme level. Null Psionics Field: A null psionics field suppresses any power or psionic effect used within, brought into, or manifested into its area, but does not negate it. and Antimagic Field: An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. both state that you are not restricted from manifesting or casting spells into the field (although your are restricted from casting or manifesting within the field). You could manifest NPF, have someone manifest 3 or 4 buffs targeting you (even walking into the field to deliver them via a touch), then watch them all take effect when the NPF goes away. AMF and NPF do not prevent the completion of spells and powers, they just suppress the effect until the field is removed. NPF specifically states that "creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected" by it, therefore you can target and hit someone within the field, and by the wording, do so even if you created the instantaneous creation within the field itself (as long as the power was manifest outside the field). I am not trying to rationalize why it works (except when I mention momentum), I'm merely stating that by RAW it does.
Slagger the Chuul 04-11-08, 07:20 PM	I disagree. The touch attack is the process by which one adjudicates whether the ray attack was successful. It is not a direct effect of the power, but a process to resolve any ray effect. The ray is a direct effect of the power and the touch attack you make with it is part of employing that effect. My argument is that the first statement "creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected by a null psionics field" is a simple statement of how the rules work and that the second statement "because the power itself is no longer in effect, only its result" is a restatement (reminder, parenthetical statement) of the definition of the effect of instantaneous creation and calling effects. Basically if (a) power is instantaneous and (b) power is creation or calling, then (c) the resultant effect is not affected by a NPF, period. My view is that the second statement is the reason that the first statement is true (there being no other potential reason since we have only the reality provided to us by the rules), and if that statement is false, the ability to pass through the field is not granted. It tells us, for example, that once a wall of stone has been created, the spell that assembled the wall is gone, leaving only a nonmagical stone wall, which is why an antimagic field (or null psionics field) that comes later has no effect on it. On the other hand, because a crystal shard is being used to attack while the power that creates it is still present, its creation is effectively incomplete, which is why a null psionics field can stop it.
Racinante 04-11-08, 08:51 PM	My view is that the second statement is the reason that the first statement is true (there being no other potential reason since we have only the reality provided to us by the rules), and if that statement is false, the ability to pass through the field is not granted. I understand this, but the sentence structure does not support this. If the sentence structure was creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected, provided that | assuming | if the power itself is no longer in effect, only its result then I could agree with you, but because means due to the fact that which is not equivalent to any of those things.
CrimsonDeath 04-12-08, 02:44 AM	The ray is a direct effect of the power and the touch attack you make with it is part of employing that effect. And, as I've already pointed out, Antimagic Field cannot interfere with effects of that sort of power.
Slagger the Chuul 04-12-08, 04:46 AM	because means due to the fact that which is not equivalent to any of those things. In this case, it provides the same level of certainty, since there are no other possible causes. Antimagic Field cannot interfere with effects of that sort of power. It can't interefere with them once the power is completed. The attack is made before the power is completed, which makes it susceptible to interference. What would your opinion be if you did consider the attack to be made within the power's duration?
Lycanthromancer 04-12-08, 09:11 AM	The duration in which the attack is made is instantaneous, which, given that it's a Creation power, means it can bypass the null psionics field, as is stated in npf and amf themselves. What about this is so difficult?
CrimsonDeath 04-12-08, 11:57 AM	It can't interefere with them once the power is completed. Says who? What would your opinion be if you did consider the attack to be made within the power's duration? The same.
Slagger the Chuul 04-12-08, 02:27 PM	The same. That's good. It means we can eliminate the time at which the attack occurs as a point of contention. The duration in which the attack is made is instantaneous, which, given that it's a Creation power, means it can bypass the null psionics field, as is stated in npf and amf themselves. By the description in both antimagic field and null psionics field, the way the result of an instantaneous creation passes through the field is by remaining after the spell or power itself is gone. Because there is no longer any magic or psionics present, a field designed to block them has no effect. The creation effects are not being given a special exception to the field's influence. The designers did not just decide that a random magical effect would receive a free pass for no good reason whatsoever. We are simply being told that the results left after those effects take place are not magical or psionic, so they won't be affected. That's what the entire line tells us.
calronmoonflower 04-12-08, 02:46 PM	Effect and result can be synonymous. Look at the effect line of Wall of Stone. It is the wall. So, in this instance they are synonymous. Look at the effect line of Crystal Shard it's "ray" not damage. The ray is a result of the power. The result of the result (A -> B -> C) is damage. Also consider that a metacreativity power deals damage by creating something solid. In this case a crystal. The attack with the crystal is done in the form of the ray effect. result (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=result)
Slagger the Chuul 04-12-08, 09:21 PM	Effect and result can be synonymous. Look at the effect line of Wall of Stone. It is the wall. So, in this instance they are synonymous. I think this (or something very similar) is perhaps the source of the problem. Particularly with antimagic field (which directly refers to the "effect" penetrating the field, as opposed to the later null psionics field line, which misses this part), it is there to clarify that the nonmagical effect left afterwards as a result of the spell isn't subject to the field, even though it is described in the effect line. The complete line makes the point of telling us that the conjuration (or creation) is no longer present, so whether you call it an effect or a result, it can only be something that remains after the spell is completed, which allows us to know what they're talking about. Look at the effect line of Crystal Shard it's "ray" not damage. The ray is a result of the power. The result of the result (A -> B -> C) is damage. Looked at from that angle, the rules treat it as being the ray that deals damage, with the crystal being an incidental part of the fluffy description. The importance of the crystal is so secondary, in fact, that the power never even bothers to explicitly state that it creates a crystal (only that it propels one). :) As far as the pure rules go, there is no "crystal" object that deals damage, only a ray. The ray, being in the statistics of the power, is part of the power for as long as it lasts and (going by pure rules) is left behind as a result once the power is completed, after which point a null psionics field has no effect on it. It is only with the incorporation of these basic mechanics into the game world that a player or DM transforms it into a power-created crystal that flies along a ray-like path. Also consider that a metacreativity power deals damage by creating something solid. In this case a crystal. The attack with the crystal is done in the form of the ray effect. Agreed.
calronmoonflower 04-12-08, 11:16 PM	I think this (or something very similar) is perhaps the source of the problem. Particularly with antimagic field (which directly refers to the "effect" penetrating the field, as opposed to the later null psionics field line, which misses this part), it is there to clarify that the nonmagical effect left afterwards as a result of the spell isn't subject to the field, even though it is described in the effect line. The complete line makes the point of telling us that the conjuration (or creation) is no longer present, so whether you call it an effect or a result, it can only be something that remains after the spell is completed, which allows us to know what they're talking about. This counter to my counter (it isn't the bases of the argument) is based on that your theory is true. If it is wrong then the counter then has no meaning. You cannot base a counter argument on something like that. It is equivalent to saying "I'm right, therefor I'm right." As it is I can see the crystal as being inherently unstable and therefor rapidly dissolving, but yet being created and by the power and lasting long enough to deal damage. This meshes both with the discipline of the power, the fluff, and the effect. However, your theory doesn't mesh with any of these. It makes the power seem more like a telekinetic effect that should allow power resistance. Looked at from that angle, the rules treat it as being the ray that deals damage, with the crystal being an incidental part of the fluffy description. The importance of the crystal is so secondary, in fact, that the power never even bothers to explicitly state that it creates a crystal (only that it propels one). :) I covered this angle and you argued below. Therefor this argument is invalid. The fact that it is a metacreativity power and therefor creates something solid isn't an "incidental part of the fluffy description." It is the only logical way that the power could work. As far as the pure rules go, there is no "crystal" object that deals damage, only a ray. The ray, being in the statistics of the power, is part of the power for as long as it lasts and (going by pure rules) is left behind as a result once the power is completed, after which point a null psionics field has no effect on it. Look at the powers discipline, Metacreativity. Look at the powers name Crystal Shard. It's not exactly a huge leap to say that the power creates a crystal. It's a bigger leap to say that it doesn't. Oh, and once again you have tried to use your theory to prove itself. The completion of the power happens when the ray is created, not when it strikes the target. I could apply all this to the parts left behind by a Stone Wall spell. The wall itself is "in the statistics of the [spell]". It is only with the incorporation of these basic mechanics into the game world that a player or DM transforms it into a power-created crystal that flies along a ray-like path. No, it is the way you do it, not the only way. Agreed. Well, then lets move to the solid object that is created by the power with an instantaneous duration. Does the fact that no mention that a crystal hangs around after the power mean that it isn't a extraordinary result of the power that simply doesn't last long. No, it doesn't. It the ray was part of the power then the power resistance entry would say "Yes" however it is "No" thus logically the damage is caused by an object created by the power rather than being a direct result of the power itself. From the D&D Glossary spell resistance (SR): A special defensive ability that allows a creature or item to resist the effects of spells and spell-like abilities. The Expanded Psionics Handbook say that spell resistance is equivalent to power resistance so the above applies.
Slagger the Chuul 04-13-08, 12:07 AM	As it is I can see the crystal as being inherently unstable and therefor rapidly dissolving, but yet being created and by the power and lasting long enough to deal damage. This meshes both with the discipline of the power, the fluff, and the effect. I agree. Since the crystal is only held stable by the power until after the duration is complete, the null psionics field interferes with it. However, your theory doesn't mesh with any of these. It makes the power seem more like a telekinetic effect that should allow power resistance. The power is somewhat like a telekinetic effect in that it potentially applies force to a created object. It doesn't allow power resistance because the psionic energy involved is used to assemble an object and move it toward the target (rather than to directly strike the target with psychic force), but it can be surpressed by a null psionics field because the object being held together has to pass through the field. The fact that it is a metacreativity power and therefor creates something solid isn't an "incidental part of the fluffy description." It is the only logical way that the power could work. They don't always create solid objects, and a few (like psionic fabricate and create sound) don't create matter at all. Even if the final result is a situation that can only be fulfilled in only one practical way, it's not one explicitly described by the power (since it never mentions that it creates a crystal, and its only effect is a ray). Look at the powers discipline, Metacreativity. Look at the powers name Crystal Shard. It's not exactly a huge leap to say that the power creates a crystal. It's a bigger leap to say that it doesn't. Exactly. It's only a small leap, and it's the only one that really makes sense. The completion of the power happens when the ray is created, not when it strikes the target. I could apply all this to the parts left behind by a Stone Wall spell. The wall itself is "in the statistics of the [spell]". That's correct, except that the attack is also described in the power, so striking the target occurs as part of the power. If the attack were not merely a part of the power, you could retrieve the shard that the ray represents and keep using it to make touch attacks that deal the specified damage. It would also require you to make a separate attack action after manifesting the power. The only way to avoid using an attack action to make the ranged touch attack is by subsuming it into the power itself and including it within the instantaneous duration. The wall of stone is both the direct effect of the spell and the result left afterwards, which is why antimagic field has a line like that in the first place. It the ray was part of the power then the power resistance entry would say "Yes" however it is "No" thus logically the damage is caused by an object created by the power rather than being a direct result of the power itself. The ray is an attack method that is used to describe the way the crystal (which has no direct basis for existence in the rules) is directed at a target. Whether or not it allows power resistance depends on what the writer of that power thought described best how it works. In the case of crystal shard, though the ray directly strikes the target, it does not bring psychic energy directly to bear against that target, so it does not allow power resistance. As I mentioned, above, if the attack was independent of the power, the shard would continue to maintain those properties and you could continually use it for ranged touch attacks, but it would also require a separate attack action.
calronmoonflower 04-13-08, 12:31 AM	I agree. Since the crystal is only held stable by the power until after the duration is complete, the null psionics field interferes with it. Based on what? Ice melts at room temp, and many objects break down over time. Why cannot the crystal to the same, only faster. The power is somewhat like a telekinetic effect in that it potentially applies force to a created object. It doesn't allow power resistance because the psionic energy involved is used to assemble an object and move it toward the target (rather than to directly strike the target with psychic force), but it can be surpressed by a null psionics field because the object being held together has to pass through the field. Again, what is the bases for this. They don't always create solid objects, and a few (like psionic fabricate and create sound) don't create matter at all. Even if the final result is a situation that can only be fulfilled in only one practical way, it's not one explicitly described by the power (since it never mentions that it creates a crystal, and its only effect is a ray). Psionic Fabricate changes an already existing solid object. Sound is vibrations existing in the air, so manipulation of existing matter happens there as well. Exactly. It's only a small leap, and it's the only one that really makes sense. Ok, now will you deal with the crystal existing? That's correct, except that the attack is also described in the power, so striking the target occurs as part of the power. If the attack were not merely a part of the power, you could retrieve the shard that the ray represents and keep using it to make touch attacks that deal the specified damage. That doesn't really counter what I said. It would also require you to make a separate attack action after manifesting the power. The only way to avoid using an attack action to make the ranged touch attack is by subsuming it into the power itself and including it within the instantaneous duration. That supports my argument better than yours. The wall of stone is both the direct effect of the spell and the result left afterwards, which is why antimagic field has a line like that in the first place. And why doesn't that apply to Crystal Shard? The ray is an attack method that is used to describe the way the crystal (which has no direct basis for existence in the rules) is directed at a target. Whether or not it allows power resistance depends on what the writer of that power thought described best how it works. And? I could use this for why the power has an attack roll without it being separate from the manifestation. In the case of crystal shard, though the ray directly strikes the target, it does not bring psychic energy directly to bear against that target, so it does not allow power resistance. The argument wasn't countered by this. If the ray is an effect then it allow power resistance. If it isn't an effect then you're main argument is null. You need to rephrase your argument to match the facts. As I mentioned, above, if the attack was independent of the power, the shard would continue to maintain those properties and you could continually use it for ranged touch attacks, but it would also require a separate attack action. Based on what? You used an argument above that I could put right here to explain this away.
Slagger the Chuul 04-13-08, 01:39 AM	Ok, now will you deal with the crystal existing? I have no problem with the crystal existing. It just does so because it is the most logical way to describe the power, rather than being the way the power is explicitly described. And why doesn't that apply to Crystal Shard? It does. The wall of stone is also equally susceptible to being supressed by an antimagic field during the instantaneous duration in which it is assembled. The only real difference is that crystal shard makes itself more likely to encounter the field by making an attack with the power's duration. If the ray is an effect then it allow power resistance. Although spell resistance and power resistance do protect against effects, they only do so if the spell or power producing the effect has "Yes" on the relevant line. Based on what? You used an argument above that I could put right here to explain this away. Depending on what you are referring to, that may be because this is an alternate possibility that I don't agree with, but which is the consequence of not having the attack as part of the power. It would be easier to correctly respond if you provided details of the point to which you are referring.
Lycanthromancer 04-13-08, 01:45 AM	I have no problem with the crystal existing. It just does so because it is the most logical way to describe the power, rather than being the way the power is explicitly described.Because the most logical explanation wouldn't be that you create a shard of ectoplasmic crystal that is shot from your hand (or forehead, or testicle, or whatever) like a bullet from a gun, because it's too complicated? I mean, given the fact that instantaneous Creation effects are never suppressed in an antimagic or null psionics field (see the orb spells), once they're created, you'd think that the easiest interpretation that makes the most sense from actual written RAW would be that it bypasses the field because it's created and then propelled at an alarming rate, much like a burst of powder behind a bullet. This interpretation has rules to back it up. Yours has nothing more than supposition and speculation on how the shard is sustained in its flight (which the power makes no mention of) to support it. ...This argument is getting boring already. [edit: Since the shard is created before it enters the field, the shard is already in effect, so it continues as-is regardless, according to crystal shard's text. If you attempted to create it inside the field, it would fail, but crystal shard doesn't continue recreating the shard every few inches/feet/whatever, since it only creates a single shard, so the shard continues to exist even inside the field (and therefore has the effect of striking the intended target on a successful attack roll, regardless of whether it is inside an amf or not, according to the text of the power, since there is no mention of it failing in an area of antimagic/psionics).]
calronmoonflower 04-13-08, 02:06 AM	It does. The wall of stone is also equally susceptible to being supressed by an antimagic field during the instantaneous duration in which it is assembled. The only real difference is that crystal shard makes itself more likely to encounter the field by making an attack with the power's duration. :confused: The literal reading of this has you agreeing that the field will not stop the Crystal Shard from dealing damage. I do not think this is what you meant however. Although spell resistance and power resistance do protect against effects, they only do so if the spell or power producing the effect has "Yes" on the relevant line. The definition of spell resistance disagrees. Rules As Written are on my side on this point. If you refuse to change your argument to match then it must be dismissed. Depending on what you are referring to, that may be because this is an alternate possibility that I don't agree with, but which is the consequence of not having the attack as part of the power. It would be easier to correctly respond if you provided details of the point to which you are referring. "The ray is an attack method that is used to describe the way the crystal (which has no direct basis for existence in the rules) is directed at a target. Whether or not it allows power resistance depends on what the writer of that power thought described best how it works." Apply that to the attack roll being part of the power and it supports what I am saying.
Slagger the Chuul 04-13-08, 04:06 AM	Since the shard is created before it enters the field, the shard is already in effect, so it continues as-is regardless, according to crystal shard's text. If you attempted to create it inside the field, it would fail, but crystal shard doesn't continue recreating the shard every few inches/feet/whatever, since it only creates a single shard, so the shard continues to exist even inside the field (and therefore has the effect of striking the intended target on a successful attack roll, regardless of whether it is inside an amf or not, according to the text of the power, since there is no mention of it failing in an area of antimagic/psionics). The logical way of describing the power in-game as a projectile crystal is fine right up until the point you try to use that description to judge the mechanical rules behind it. The DM or player can freely decide to describe the power in any way they wish, as long as it meshes with the mechanics provided by the rules. You could easily describe it as a spike of crystal that lances from the ground underneath the target without impeding its function in any way. You could fire it as from a gun, continuously accelerate it along a charged path, sustain continuous artificial momentum, cause it to extend rapidly, or conduct pretty much any other movement you can squeeze into the idea of "propel". This freedom allows for a lot of flexibility of flavour which generally enhances the game, and because the descriptions don't define the rules, they are all equally valid versions of crystal shard. There is no basis in the rules for a distinction between the time of the attack and the creation of the crystal; they mechanically occur within the duration and no further distinction is made. What we do know is that the attack occurs as part of the power (since it is described in the power and requires no separate attack action), and that the crystal is fully formed by the time the power is completed (since it becomes impervious to a null psionics field after that point). If you attempted to create it inside the field, it would fail I will also point out here that the popular misconception about this power (that it receives a free pass simply by virtue of being an instantaneous creation) supports manifesting the power even while inside the field. The definition of spell resistance disagrees. Rules As Written are on my side on this point. If you refuse to change your argument to match then it must be dismissed. The definition says that the ability allows creatures to resist the effects of spells and spell-like abilities, and that is indeed what it does. It just only does so for effects that allow spell resistance. "The ray is an attack method that is used to describe the way the crystal (which has no direct basis for existence in the rules) is directed at a target. Whether or not it allows power resistance depends on what the writer of that power thought described best how it works." Apply that to the attack roll being part of the power and it supports what I am saying. It would help if you summarized what you're trying to say as a coherent whole instead of simply pointing at the parts and saying "use this on that". There are a few different ways you could mean that, and I am uncertain what you're trying to say here.
calronmoonflower 04-13-08, 04:52 AM	There is no basis in the rules for a distinction between the time of the attack and the creation of the crystal; they mechanically occur within the duration and no further distinction is made. Except the powers description where it says "Upon manifesting this power, you propel a razor-sharp crystal shard at your target." If it formed at the same time as the attack is made it couldn't be be propelled at the target. I will also point out here that the popular misconception about this power (that it receives a free pass simply by virtue of being an instantaneous creation) supports manifesting the power even while inside the field. Except that you cannot manifest powers in the field. Nor can the effect form within the field. From this statement it appears that you really are not getting the argument. The crystal forms before it enters the field, and therefor is not negated by the field. Lycanthromancer explicitly mentioned this in his post you ignored it. The definition says that the ability allows creatures to resist the effects of spells and spell-like abilities, and that is indeed what it does. It just only does so for effects that allow spell resistance. Read page 299 of the Dungeon Master's Guide. It lists why spell resistance applies and doesn't. It does seems to conflict a bit. Targeted spells allow resistance, but conjuration (and therefor metacreativity) usually doesn't unless they conjure energy. One part says it will apply and the other waffles. I'll take the solid statement and say that the power creates a physical effect that is extraordinary (therefor spell resistance is mute) and because of its nature can enter the antimagic field after it is formed. It would help if you summarized what you're trying to say as a coherent whole instead of simply pointing at the parts and saying "use this on that". There are a few different ways you could mean that, and I am uncertain what you're trying to say here. Whether or not the attack roll is part of the power, rather than a result depends on what the writer of that power thought described best how it works.
CrimsonDeath 04-13-08, 06:17 AM	Slagger, I'm going to issue a challenge: Quote a rule written in a book stating that an Antimagic Field will block Crystal Shard. We've already quoted a rule written in a book stating that an Antimagic Field will not block a Crystal Shard ("the effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an Antimagic Field"). If you want to refute us, you'll need more than speculation, conjecture, and flavor. You need a rule written in a book.
Lycanthromancer 04-13-08, 10:42 AM	You could easily describe it as a spike of crystal that lances from the ground underneath the target without impeding its function in any way. You could fire it as from a gun, continuously accelerate it along a charged path, sustain continuous artificial momentum, cause it to extend rapidly, or conduct pretty much any other movement you can squeeze into the idea of "propel". This freedom allows for a lot of flexibility of flavour which generally enhances the game, and because the descriptions don't define the rules, they are all equally valid versions of crystal shard.No. The rules for a ray state that the origination of the ray starts at your space, can be blocked by any intervening barriers, requires an attack roll exactly as if you were aiming a projectile, is potentially negated by concealment and cover (including a tower shield), can attack creatures above ground-level, and is otherwise basically treated exactly like a ranged-weapon attack, except that it has a fixed range (in this case, Close), and is a spell, power, or similar effect (compare rays to ranged weapon attacks, and see what the differences are). And, according to crystal shard's text (short as it is), you form a crystalline projectile and simultaneously fire it at your target. There is no mention of sustained force, which means that the touch attack, rather than being telekinetically maintained (as you're stating), could easily be resolved as such because the shard is fired at such an incredible velocity that it simply cuts through armor and natural armor like soft butter (again, just like a bullet; the reason why people no longer wear armor during wars is because guns, when first introduced, pierced armor extremely effectively; keep in mind, these were the early guns, with smooth barrels and round shot, not the ones we have today that have been improved in all ways by several thousands of percentile-points; I'd liken crystal shard to a standard bullet fired by a modern, mid-caliber gun, due to its accuracy and armor-piercing qualities). There is no basis in the rules for a distinction between the time of the attack and the creation of the crystal; they mechanically occur within the duration and no further distinction is made. What we do know is that the attack occurs as part of the power (since it is described in the power and requires no separate attack action), and that the crystal is fully formed by the time the power is completed (since it becomes impervious to a null psionics field after that point).Except for the fact that, due to the nature of a ray-attack, and the fact that the power actually creates an object, the shard is created in your space before it is propelled toward your target (see soft cover, for a sequential example; if a creature approximately the size of your target is between you and it, you must roll to see if you hit the soft-cover-target before you can hit your victim, and thus, the shard is fired from your space, then travels to your target). The instantaneous duration applies for two reasons: 1.) the crystal you create is an enduring, permanent object that cannot be suppressed or dispelled by any means once created, (except, perhaps, for time hop and the like) and 2.) the manifesting of the power (creation of the shard and the energy of the thrust behind it) takes a standard action, while releasing the energy (firing the shard) takes virtually no time at all (just because it's fast doesn't mean it takes no time to do; the time is simply so incrementally small that it doesn't register to a normal mind outside of a temporal acceleration - that doesn't mean that the shard is, say, teleported into your foe, which COULD potentially be suppressed by such a field). I will also point out here that the popular misconception about this power (that it receives a free pass simply by virtue of being an instantaneous creation) supports manifesting the power even while inside the field.Note the quote you're responding to. How is this a misconception? Either you totally missed the point, or it's a strawman argument. I said that once the shard was created, it could enter the field and be just fine. You can't reside within an antimagic/null psionics field and create the shard outside of the field, according to the ability descriptions. It would help if you summarized what you're trying to say as a coherent whole instead of simply pointing at the parts and saying "use this on that". There are a few different ways you could mean that, and I am uncertain what you're trying to say here.Instantaneous creation effects are never suppressed in areas of antimagic/psionics once put into play, and you're misrepresenting the rules due to the flavor you're adding to the power. It's as simple as that.
Slagger the Chuul 04-13-08, 12:52 PM	Except the powers description where it says "Upon manifesting this power, you propel a razor-sharp crystal shard at your target." If it formed at the same time as the attack is made it couldn't be be propelled at the target. There's no reason that the crystal can't be in the process of formation while flying through the air. Read page 299 of the Dungeon Master's Guide. It lists why spell resistance applies and doesn't. It does seems to conflict a bit. Targeted spells allow resistance, but conjuration (and therefor metacreativity) usually doesn't unless they conjure energy. I have read it. It provides some general descriptions that apply in most cases (just as it says). The ultimate arbiter is still the description of the spell in question. Whether or not the attack roll is part of the power, rather than a result depends on what the writer of that power thought described best how it works. Thank you, that's much better and more coherent. It's certainly possible to set the power up that way with the right wording. It just means that you'll be making the attack as a separate action outside of the power's duration. If you usually require a separate attack action for crystal shard, then I agree that it would penetrate a null psionics field since it is clearly operating beyond the duration of the original power. Power resistance is rather easier for the writer to define, since writing only involves choosing between "Yes" and "No" for the power resistance line. Slagger, I'm going to issue a challenge: Quote a rule written in a book stating that an Antimagic Field will block Crystal Shard. We've already quoted a rule written in a book stating that an Antimagic Field will not block a Crystal Shard ("the effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an Antimagic Field"). If you want to make a proper challenge, start out by quoting from a source other than the line we're debating. If you wish to use that line as your quote, I'm happy to use it as my response (as it also tells us the reason that those results are not blocked, and crystal shard doesn't match them), it will just be a very short challenge. No. The rules for a ray state that the origination of the ray starts at your space, can be blocked by any intervening barriers, requires an attack roll exactly as if you were aiming a projectile, is potentially negated by concealment and cover (including a tower shield), can attack creatures above ground-level, and is otherwise basically treated exactly like a ranged-weapon attack, except that it has a fixed range (in this case, Close), and is a spell, power, or similar effect (compare rays to ranged weapon attacks, and see what the differences are). All of which can be retained, since they apply to the ray which is a mechanical term, not necessarily a description of the power's flavour. Successfully pointing a ray at your target means that the attack will hit. Beyond that mechanical level, you can dispense with idea that the ray is anything more than a rule-based targeting beam and apply whatever flavour seems best. That could be a basic crystal that flies straight from your hand to the target, or it could be a crystal that bursts from a nearby wall, splits into fragments, and pincushions the victim from all different directions. The only thing that's important on a mechanical level is that you aim the ray in the normal way and deal the normal amount of damage. And, according to crystal shard's text (short as it is), you form a crystalline projectile and simultaneously fire it at your target. According to crystal shard's description, you propel a shard of crystal at the target. There is no mention of a projectile, or even the actual formation of a crystal (although I am happy to assume that it does make one). There is no mention of sustained force There's no mention of momentary force either. The propulsion provided to the crystal is not described in any way other than "propel". Except for the fact that, due to the nature of a ray-attack, and the fact that the power actually creates an object, the shard is created in your space before it is propelled toward your target (see soft cover, for a sequential example; if a creature approximately the size of your target is between you and it, you must roll to see if you hit the soft-cover-target before you can hit your victim, and thus, the shard is fired from your space, then travels to your target). The ray has to reach the target by the mechanics that normally apply to a ray. There is no particular reason that the description of how the crystal behaves has to match anything other than being propelled to the target. If we had to inextricably link the crystal flavour to the ray effect, there would be a literal ray made of crystal extending from the source to the target, because that's the shape of a ray. The instantaneous duration applies for two reasons: 1.) the crystal you create is an enduring, permanent object that cannot be suppressed or dispelled by any means once created, (except, perhaps, for time hop and the like) and 2.) the manifesting of the power (creation of the shard and the energy of the thrust behind it) takes a standard action, while releasing the energy (firing the shard) takes virtually no time at all (just because it's fast doesn't mean it takes no time to do; the time is simply so incrementally small that it doesn't register to a normal mind outside of a temporal acceleration - that doesn't mean that the shard is, say, teleported into your foe, which COULD potentially be suppressed by such a field). Mostly correct, except that the creation of the shard and the energy behind it are generated within the power's duration (along with the attack), not as part of the manifestation, which usually has no function other than initiating the duration and its effects. Note the quote you're responding to. How is this a misconception? Either you totally missed the point, or it's a strawman argument. I said that once the shard was created, it could enter the field and be just fine. You can't reside within an antimagic/null psionics field and create the shard outside of the field, according to the ability descriptions. That's why I called it the popular misconception, rather than your personal misconception, and only mentioned it as an afterthought. The popular one seems to be that a crystal shard is not affected in any way at all by a supressing field, simply because it's an instantaneous creation. Instantaneous creation effects are never suppressed in areas of antimagic/psionics once put into play, and you're misrepresenting the rules due to the flavor you're adding to the power. I'm not adding any particular flavour; I'm saying that the mechanics allow for a variety of different flavours to exist. I agree that the results of instantaneous creation effects are not supressed once put into play, I simply disagree on the exact point in time at which they are put into independent play.
Lycanthromancer 04-13-08, 01:18 PM	There's no reason that the crystal can't be in the process of formation while flying through the air.Actually, there most certainly is. Since the power is an instantaneous Creation effect, and that these are, by definition, never affected by an amf when manifested outside of its influence, RAW supports our argument, and not yours. I have read it. It provides some general descriptions that apply in most cases (just as it says). The ultimate arbiter is still the description of the spell in question.In this case, crystal shard states that it's an instantaneous Creation effect. Antimagic/null psionics fields say that they never suppress such effects (so long as they're initiated outside of said field). So you just made our point for us. If you want to make a proper challenge, start out by quoting from a source other than the line we're debating. If you wish to use that line as your quote, I'm happy to use it as my response, it will just be a very short challenge.If you'll notice, we're the ones quoting RAW. You're not. If you can't quote anything that will negate our arguments, don't try to make us quote yet more RAW to prove that the RAW we're already quoting is valid. It's a bad debating technique, and logically fallacious. All of which can be retained, since they apply to the ray which is a mechanical term, not necessarily a description of the power's flavour. Successfully pointing a ray at your target means that the attack will hit. Beyond that mechanical level, you can dispense with idea that the ray is anything more than a rule-based targeting beam and apply whatever flavour seems best. That could be a basic crystal that flies straight from your hand to the target, or it could be a crystal that bursts from a nearby wall, splits into fragments, and pincushions the victim from all different directions. The only thing that's important on a mechanical level is that you aim the ray in the normal way and deal the normal amount of damage.Actually, you're changing the mechanics through flavor-shifts. Forcing crystal out of the walls actually alters the landscape, and makes the power useless when you're outside and not near solid surfaces. You won't be able to use it against flying creatures, and cover and concealment no longer apply. It's not always true, but changing the flavor of an ability can drastically alter its functionality, which is what you are doing. According to crystal shard's description, you propel a shard of crystal at the target. There is no mention of a projectile, or even the actual formation of a crystal (although I am happy to assume that it does make one).It might not use the term 'projectile,' but you instantaneously create a 'shard of crystal' that you 'propel' at a target to do piercing damage. In other words, you're firing a sharp piece of glass through the air. How does a flying shard of glass not count as a 'projectile'? pro·jec·tile 1. an object fired from a gun with an explosive propelling charge, such as a bullet, shell, rocket, or grenade. 2. a body projected or impelled forward, as through the air. –adjective 3. impelling or driving forward, as a force. 4. caused by impulse, as motion. 5. capable of being impelled forward, as a missile.It's a piece of shrapnel flying at crazy speed at a target. It's a projectile. There's no mention of momentary force either. The propulsion provided to the crystal is not described in any way other than "propel".But the shard is instantaneously created outside of the field, due to the way that rays work. It exists before it even hits the amf, and due to the way that amfs interact with instantaneous Creation effects, it remains unaffected. Don't try to force the mechanics to bend around your preferred flavoring. The ray has to reach the target by the mechanics that normally apply to a ray. There is no particular reason that the description of how the crystal behaves has to match anything other than being propelled to the target. If we had to inextricably link the crystal flavour to the ray effect, there would be a literal ray made of crystal extending from the source to the target, because that's the shape of a ray.Except you're propelling a shard, not creating a pillar. Your flavor cannot override our RAW except by DM fiat. Mostly correct, except that the creation of the shard and the energy behind it are generated within the power's duration (along with the attack), not as part of the manifestation, which usually has no function other than initiating the duration and its effects.Fair enough, though the manifestation time could essentially mean that the shard is coalescing in front of you (it does have a material display, after all, which could be the ectoplasm being pulled from the Astral Plane, which gets all over everyone else). Since the act of manifesting a power isn't explicitly described, flavor-wise, either interpretation could be accurate; we just don't know. That's why I called it the popular misconception, rather than your personal misconception, and only mentioned it as an afterthought. The popular one seems to be that a crystal shard is not affected in any way at all by a supressing field, simply because it's an instantaneous creation.The manner in which your statement was tacked on to my quote made it seem as though you were attributing it to me. Next time, note that it's unrelated? I know that my words in your quote were clearly counter to what you followed up with, but it still seemed as though you were arguing against a point I was making, which confused me. I'm not adding any particular flavour; I'm saying that the mechanics allow for a variety of different flavours to exist.I'm all in favor of reflavoring mechanics to suit your needs; however, your particular flavoring alters the mechanical effects of the power, which isn't at all kosher unless it's through DM fiat (which doesn't apply to anyone but your particular group). I agree that the results of instantaneous creation effects are not supressed once put into play, I simply disagree on the exact point in time at which they are put into independent play.You're arguing against our quoting of RAW without any kind of RAW to back you up. Please at least concede that you're doing this (which, incidentally, means that you concede the debate, since RAW > lack of RAW that is explicitly superceded by existing RAW).
CrimsonDeath 04-13-08, 02:12 PM	If you want to make a proper challenge, start out by quoting from a source other than the line we're debating. If you wish to use that line as your quote, I'm happy to use it as my response (as it also tells us the reason that those results are not blocked, and crystal shard doesn't match them), it will just be a very short challenge. First of all, the criterion ("because the conjuration is no longer in effect, only its result") is irrelevant. The first half of the sentence is a fact; the second half merely describes why that fact is true. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume for the moment that the second half of the sentence can cause an instantaneous conjuration to be excluded by an Antimagic Field. What makes you think Crystal Shard doesn't fulfill that criterion? (Remember: Quote a written rule to support your argument.)
Slagger the Chuul 04-13-08, 02:22 PM	Actually, there most certainly is. Since the power is an instantaneous Creation effect, and that these are, by definition, never affected by an amf when manifested outside of its influence, RAW supports our argument, and not yours. Since my view is that the crystal shard is still a direct effect of the power (which is not yet completed) at the time of the attack, it does not occur outside the antimagic field, which is why it can be blocked. In this case, crystal shard states that it's an instantaneous Creation effect. Antimagic/null psionics fields say that they never suppress such effects (so long as they're initiated outside of said field). Antimagic/null psionics field says that the results of those powers are not supressed so long as the effects don't encounter the field until after the power itself is over. If you'll notice, we're the ones quoting RAW. You're not. If you can't quote anything that will negate our arguments, don't try to make us quote yet more RAW to prove that the RAW we're already quoting is valid. I've quoted the entire line frequently, since we've been discussing it for a long time. As I have mentioned before, the line requires that the conjuration (or creation, in this case) be no longer in effect. Since the attack is made as part of the power, the duration is not completed and the ray effect impinges on the field while the power is active, resulting in the effect being blocked. I will respond to the challenge when it's presented with something that isn't already being used for both views. Actually, you're changing the mechanics through flavor-shifts. Forcing crystal out of the walls actually alters the landscape, and makes the power useless when you're outside and not near solid surfaces. Having a crystal pull out from the wall does not require that you leave a hole or prevent you from having it create itself in midair when no walls are nearby; you're not really pulling it out of a wall anyway, since you're creating the crystal yourself. When I said there was no change to the mechanics, I meant it; the flavour is the only thing that's mutable. You won't be able to use it against flying creatures, and cover and concealment no longer apply. Cover and concealment still apply because you have to aim at the target with the ray, the crystal's behaviour is incidental. It might not use the term 'projectile,' but you instantaneously create a 'shard of crystal' that you 'propel' at a target to do piercing damage. In other words, you're firing a sharp piece of glass through the air. How does a flying shard of glass not count as a 'projectile'? The typical use of projectile that separates it from other forms of motion is that you apply an initial force after which the object is only subject to environmental effects that may modifiy its path. It is perfectly possible for the crystal to be moved all the way to the target at a continuous speed (sustained in spite of gravity or air resistance), or even accelerate all the way to the target. But the shard is instantaneously created outside of the field, due to the way that rays work. It exists before it even hits the amf, and due to the way that amfs interact with instantaneous Creation effects, it remains unaffected. Where does it say the the ray begins by only existing at its starting point, then extending to its finishing point? At the moment it is created, the ray exists all the way along its length. Except you're propelling a shard, not creating a pillar. Your flavor cannot override our RAW except by DM fiat. Propelling a shard is the flavour described; the rules create a ray, because that is on the "Effect" line of the power. Fair enough, though the manifestation time could essentially mean that the shard is coalescing in front of you (it does have a material display, after all, which could be the ectoplasm being pulled from the Astral Plane, which gets all over everyone else). Since the act of manifesting a power isn't explicitly described, flavor-wise, either interpretation could be accurate; we just don't know. The manner in which your statement was tacked on to my quote made it seem as though you were attributing it to me. Next time, note that it's unrelated? I know that my words in your quote were clearly counter to what you followed up with, but it still seemed as though you were arguing against a point I was making, which confused me. I'll try to make things clearer in future. :thumbsup: I recognize my own propensity for tangents of thought. You're arguing against our quoting of RAW without any kind of RAW to back you up. Please at least concede that you're doing this (which, incidentally, means that you concede the debate, since RAW > lack of RAW that is explicitly superceded by existing RAW). The only real quotes we've had are the line in question and elements from crystal shard. We already know the exact words written in them, and I have so far not required additional quotes to discuss the matter. It is unnecessary to repeat them after they have just been quoted or have been quoted with great frequency in the past. We have also made a lot of references to different rule elements without directly quoting them, and seem to currently be discussing the rules on a logical level, rather than picking at great length over a particular line.
Slagger the Chuul 04-13-08, 02:44 PM	However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume for the moment that the second half of the sentence can cause an instantaneous conjuration to be excluded by an Antimagic Field. What makes you think Crystal Shard doesn't fulfill that criterion? (Remember: Quote a written rule to support your argument.) You haven't provided a quote to support the idea that crystal shard will fulfill that criterion (in opposition to the idea that it doesn't, but since you're giving me the benefit of the doubt, I will politely oblige with a quote. Here is a segment from the Magic Overview on durations, with regard to "Subjects, Effects, and Areas". If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration. The effect might move or remain still. Since the crystal shard power does not create a ray (the ray is the effect, but not the created item), the ray only exists for the duration of the power. The attack is made with that ray, so it must also occur within the power's duration, as there is no ray to attack with afterwards.
calronmoonflower 04-13-08, 06:03 PM	Since my view is that the crystal shard is still a direct effect of the power (which is not yet completed) at the time of the attack, it does not occur outside the antimagic field, which is why it can be blocked. Prove that it is not yet completed at the time of the attack. You haven't provided a quote to support the idea that crystal shard will fulfill that criterion (in opposition to the idea that it doesn't, but since you're giving me the benefit of the doubt, I will politely oblige with a quote. Here is a segment from the Magic Overview on durations, with regard to "Subjects, Effects, and Areas". If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration. The effect might move or remain still. It that case it would allow spell resistance. I quote the Rules As Written to back me up on that. Also you are still trying to use your theory to prove itself. If what you say and is incorrect this would not apply. Thus your are relying on what you are saying being right to prove that you are right. That is circular logic and thus invalid. Since the crystal shard power does not create a ray (the ray is the effect, but not the created item), the ray only exists for the duration of the power. The attack is made with that ray, so it must also occur within the power's duration, as there is no ray to attack with afterwards. It creates a crystal that then makes an attack in the form of a ray. You've already agreed to that. From the Expanded Psionics Handbook page 57 Metacreativity Metacreative powers create objects, creatures, or some form of matter. So the ray is some form of matter. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it So it cannot be made in the area between you and your target. Also to be propelled it must not appear on your target. That leaves you for the surface that it appears on. Creation: A power with the creation subdisicipline creates an object or creature in the place the manifester designates. (subject to the limits above). If a power has a duration other than instantaneous, psionic energy holds the creation together, and when the power ends, the created object vanishes without a trace, except for a thin glistening ectoplasm that quickly evaporates. Note that is the bases or your argument and contradicts the rules. But wait, there's more If the power has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through psionics. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on psionics for its existence. So the Rules As Written directly support the view that the crystal/ray is a result of the power and therefor not affected by the antimagic field and contradict that it is negated by it.
Slagger the Chuul 04-13-08, 08:47 PM	It that case it would allow spell resistance. I quote the Rules As Written to back me up on that. Crystal shard has "Power Resistance: No". The description of the individual power takes precedence over generalizations. Saying "I quote" is also not a replacement for actually quoting. It creates a crystal that then makes an attack in the form of a ray. You've already agreed to that. Put more correctly, the power's "Effect" line notes a ray, and the created item appears to be a crystal. Careful review of the rules involved indicates that there is no mechanical requirement for a link between the two. Part of the fun of this discussion is examining how the rules work; I must admit that I am impressed by the degree to which they have managed to allow the mechanics and flavour to operate independently. There seems to be no need for the crystal to be any part of the power's effect as long as it can be the created item (though the created item can still be interrupted by a null psionics field if the power is not yet complete). By the mechanics of the rules, you make an attack with a ray in order to deal damage. By flavour (which does not include a mechanics-only effect like a ray), you hit the target with a crystal. From the Expanded Psionics Handbook page 57 So the ray is some form of matter. The ray is the effect of the power, but as it turns out, it does not need to actually be the created item. So it cannot be made in the area between you and your target. That's correct for the crystal, generally speaking, unless there is a surface for it to appear on, or the object itself can be supported by air (like a cloud). The latter is unlikely, since we might assume that the crystal is made of mundane crystal. Also to be propelled it must not appear on your target. It could theoretically appear on the target, since there is no requirement that it hit the nearest point of the target. You could, for example, make the crystal appear on a person's arm before it hits them in the chest. That leaves you for the surface that it appears on. Yes. In a lot of circumstances, the practicalities of the situation will require this to be true unless your DM agrees to having it appear on the target. So the Rules As Written directly support the view that the crystal/ray is a result of the power and therefor not affected by the antimagic field and contradict that it is negated by it. Those rules are consistent with the line from antimagic field, and I agree that the item will not be affected once the power has finished assembling it. As soon as the power is complete, the crystal is independent, and the ray disappears (since it is not the created item).
calronmoonflower 04-13-08, 09:37 PM	Crystal shard has "Power Resistance: No". The description of the individual power takes precedence over generalizations. Saying "I quote" is also not a replacement for actually quoting. Pardon, I forgot the "ed". Still I have quoted the Rules As Written on this and you countered with na-uh. So lets use you own argument here against your position. "Upon manifesting this power, you propel a razor-sharp crystal shard at your target." The hitting the comes after you propel the crystal which is done at the same time you manifest the power. Therefor it is no longer in effect, because "The description of the individual power takes precedence over generalizations." Put more correctly, the power's "Effect" line notes a ray, and the created item appears to be a crystal. Careful review of the rules involved indicates that there is no mechanical requirement for a link between the two. Part of the fun of this discussion is examining how the rules work; I must admit that I am impressed by the degree to which they have managed to allow the mechanics and flavour to operate independently. The mechanical link is the Rules As Written I supplied at the end of my last post. The link is RAW. There seems to be no need for the crystal to be any part of the power's effect as long as it can be the created item (though the created item can still be interrupted by a null psionics field if the power is not yet complete). Again this contradicts RAW. By the mechanics of the rules, you make an attack with a ray in order to deal damage. By flavour (which does not include a mechanics-only effect like a ray), you hit the target with a crystal. Again the RAW that I supplied with my last post says otherwise. The ray is the effect of the power, but as it turns out, it does not need to actually be the created item. I quote "Metacreativity Metacreative powers create objects, creatures, or some form of matter." That's correct for the crystal, generally speaking, unless there is a surface for it to appear on, or the object itself can be supported by air (like a cloud). The latter is unlikely, since we might assume that the crystal is made of mundane crystal. What if no other surface exists within range? You have made this argument before and it was rejected for changing the way the power functions by the Rules As Written. It could theoretically appear on the target, since there is no requirement that it hit the nearest point of the target. You could, for example, make the crystal appear on a person's arm before it hits them in the chest. "Upon manifesting this power, you propel a razor-sharp crystal shard at your target." If it appears on the target it cannot be propelled at the target. Therefor I must reject this as it changes the way the power functions by the Rules As Written. Missed some of the text, but I'll now deal with it. A nice round creature would not be able to be hit in such a way. Therefor the function must be changed. Yes. In a lot of circumstances, the practicalities of the situation will require this to be true unless your DM agrees to having it appear on the target. DM Fiat is Rule 0. Those rules are consistent with the line from antimagic field, and I agree that the item will not be affected once the power has finished assembling it. As soon as the power is complete, the crystal is independent, and the ray disappears (since it is not the created item). Except that you agreed earlier that the attack with the crystal was made in the form of a ray. You agreed that short of DM Fiat that the crystal must appear on you, and by the Rules As Written once formed the crystal doesn't need the power to sustain it. In essence the all points against the Crystal Shard working in the antimagic field have been agreed to and the rest are the Rules As Written. Once again quoting. creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected by a null psionics field because the power itself is no longer in effect, only its result. Metacreativity Metacreative powers create objects, creatures, or some form of matter. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it Creation: A power with the creation subdisicipline creates an object or creature in the place the manifester designates. (subject to the limits above). If a power has a duration other than instantaneous, psionic energy holds the creation together, and when the power ends, the created object vanishes without a trace, except for a thin glistening ectoplasm that quickly evaporates. If the power has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through psionics. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on psionics for its existence.
Slagger the Chuul 04-13-08, 10:27 PM	"Upon manifesting this power, you propel a razor-sharp crystal shard at your target." The hitting the comes after you propel the crystal which is done at the same time you manifest the power. Therefor it is no longer in effect, because "The description of the individual power takes precedence over generalizations." The attack is made with a ray. It occurs at the same time as the propulsion of the crystal. Both occur within the instantaneous duration of the power. I quote "Metacreativity Metacreative powers create objects, creatures, or some form of matter." You have yet to quote anything that explictly requires the effect of a metacreative power to be the created item. The power can have a separate effect and created item. This is consistent with the rules. What if no other surface exists within range? Then it must be created on the surface of the manifester. Incidentally, what are your thoughts on an incorporeal manifester? They have no surface that can support the object in question. You have made this argument before and it was rejected for changing the way the power functions by the Rules As Written. I described a purely flavour change. How others misconstrue it as relating to mechanics is not my doing. "Upon manifesting this power, you propel a razor-sharp crystal shard at your target." If it appears on the target it cannot be propelled at the target. Therefor I must reject this as it changes the way the power functions by the Rules As Written. There is no physical reason that you cannot propel an object directly against an object it is already touching. You can try this yourself with a knife and a piece of fruit (Kids, get your parent's help!). Except that you agreed earlier that the attack with the crystal was made in the form of a ray. I have altered that earlier conception based on a closer examination of the rules. The crystal itself is not the ray. There can be a difference between the effect described for the "Effect" line of the power and the actual item that is created. I am glad that this conversation has illuminated the point for me. You agreed that short of DM Fiat that the crystal must appear on you, and by the Rules As Written once formed the crystal doesn't need the power to sustain it. I am altering the agreement. Pray I do not alter it further. :D Joking aside, I still agree that once formed (as the crystal is after the power's duration is over) the crystal needs no psionic power to sustain it. Whether or not the crystal must appear on you depends on the exact circumstances under which the power is manifested. It is even possible that both you and your target could be incorporeal and flying in open sky, leaving nowhere for the crystal to be created in that situation.
calronmoonflower 04-13-08, 11:04 PM	The attack is made with a ray. It occurs at the same time as the propulsion of the crystal. Both occur within the instantaneous duration of the power. That would require that the crystal exist in multiple places at the same time. You have yet to quote anything that explictly requires the effect of a metacreative power to be the created item. The power can have a separate effect and created item. This is consistent with the rules. Such an argument is based on a lack of evidence, and thus invalid. One could also say that multiple reasons for a creation power being unaffected by an antimagic field, rather than just the one stated. Then it must be created on the surface of the manifester. Incidentally, what are your thoughts on an incorporeal manifester? They have no surface that can support the object in question. As a pointed out before extreme situation can call for an exception to a principle. In this case the crystal can effect incorporeal creature (as it is manifested by one) so the creature could support it. I described a purely flavour change. How others misconstrue it as relating to mechanics is not my doing. The flavor change necessitates a change in mechanics. Always the change means it that you are not following the description. There is no physical reason that you cannot propel an object directly against an object it is already touching. You can try this yourself with a knife and a piece of fruit (Kids, get your parent's help!). propel (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=propel) It is propelled at the target, not into the target. I have altered that earlier conception based on a closer examination of the rules. Then back it up with something. The crystal itself is not the ray. There can be a difference between the effect described for the "Effect" line of the power and the actual item that is created. Then, how exactly is the power dealing piercing damage that is subject to damage reduction? I am glad that this conversation has illuminated the point for me. :rolleyes: In other words what you thought was the most logical explanation didn't support your argument, so it must be wrong. I am altering the agreement. Pray I do not alter it further. :D :pbbbtt: Joking aside, I still agree that once formed (as the crystal is after the power's duration is over) the crystal needs no psionic power to sustain it. By the rules I quoted this also applies while the power is being manifested. Whether or not the crystal must appear on you depends on the exact circumstances under which the power is manifested. It is even possible that both you and your target could be incorporeal and flying in open sky, leaving nowhere for the crystal to be created in that situation. That's nice, but the main thrust of your argument is where the crystal must appear. If it can appear elsewhere then it is negated. As for the ray being separate from the crystal, the description say "Effect: Ray" it does not say that ray & crystal. The ray is a renaming of the crystal as "Metacreative powers create objects, creatures, or some form of matter.", leaving the only possibility that the ray falls under "objects, creatures, or some form of matter." When the ray enters the antimagic field is doesn't cease to be as "If the power has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through psionics. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on psionics for its existence." One argument has the Rules As Written to back it up and the other has conjecture and based off a lack of evidence.
Slagger the Chuul 04-13-08, 11:51 PM	One could also say that multiple reasons for a creation power being unaffected by an antimagic field, rather than just the one stated. Unless you have another reason given within the game mechanics, there is literally no other reason, since the entirety of existence is defined by the game rules (at least as far as the mechanical side is concerned). As a pointed out before extreme situation can call for an exception to a principle. In this case the crystal can effect incorporeal creature (as it is manifested by one) so the creature could support it. We have DMs to do the job of making exceptions. As far as the rules are concerned, you are simply unable to successfully manifest the power in the given situation. The flavor change necessitates a change in mechanics. Always the change means it that you are not following the description. I disagree that a change in the mechanics is required for the flavours described so far. If you have an issue with how a particular flavour does or does not fit the given rules, I will be happy to explain it. propel (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=propel) It is propelled at the target, not into the target. "At" is not inconsistent with "into", or the definition of propel you have provided. The crystal's motion results in it becoming closer to the object as a whole, which is consistent with propelling it "at" the target. Then, how exactly is the power dealing piercing damage that is subject to damage reduction? In game mechanics terms, a ray is dealing piercing damage to the target. In flavour terms, there is no "piercing" damage. There is a crystal that stabs into the target. The two parts complement each other nicely. :rolleyes: In other words what you thought was the most logical explanation didn't support your argument, so it must be wrong. I learned something additional and improved my understanding as a result. I have no sentimental attachment to my argument other than that I believe it to be true. If you present me with something that fits with the logic as I perceive it, I will change my view accordingly. I continue this discussion until we all agree on a single, correct answer. By the rules I quoted this also applies while the power is being manifested. To which quote are you referring? Nothing happens during the standard action with which you manifest the power (other than your attempt to initiate its effects). Once you successfully complete the manifestation of the power, its duration begins and the given effects apply. As for the ray being separate from the crystal, the description say "Effect: Ray" it does not say that ray & crystal. It does not mention the creation of crystal anywhere (only the propulsion of one). We merely assume that the crystal being propelled is also created by the power in order to fit what we believe to be logical. The fact that it does not mention the crystal in the "Effect" line does not automatically equate the crystal with the ray. The ray is a renaming of the crystal as "Metacreative powers create objects, creatures, or some form of matter.", leaving the only possibility that the ray falls under "objects, creatures, or some form of matter." The ray is merely a ray; a mechanical game idea. It is not an object created by the power unless the power says that it is one. Even if we ignore the fact that there are a number of existing metacreativity powers that do not create matter, the fact that a metacreativity power would create matter does not automatically mean that the created object is the effect mentioned on the "Effect" line of the power. If you wish to confirm your conjecture, provide a quote which explicitly says that the "Effect" line of a power is also the item being created.
calronmoonflower 04-14-08, 12:55 AM	If you wish to confirm your conjecture, provide a quote which explicitly says that the "Effect" line of a power is also the item being created. I provided several quotes that end up with that being the only conclusion that fits. I even provided a quote that says the effect would continue to exist without the power. At this point it has reached proof by assertion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion). Your argument and rebuttals are based off of lack of evidence and thus an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). One last quote of the rules. creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected by a null psionics field because the power itself is no longer in effect, only its result. Metacreativity Metacreative powers create objects, creatures, or some form of matter. Creation: A power with the creation subdisicipline creates an object or creature in the place the manifester designates. (subject to the limits above). If a power has a duration other than instantaneous, psionic energy holds the creation together, and when the power ends, the created object vanishes without a trace, except for a thin glistening ectoplasm that quickly evaporates. If the power has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through psionics. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on psionics for its existence. By the rules it creates an object or some form of matter and nothing supports that it creates anything else. Also the power has a instantaneous duration it not depend on psionics for its existence after the initial manifestation. Note that you did say this Nothing happens during the standard action with which you manifest the power (other than your attempt to initiate its effects). Once you successfully complete the manifestation of the power, its duration begins and the given effects apply. By this the power is complete so you are dealing with the result rather than the power.
Slagger the Chuul 04-14-08, 01:38 AM	I provided several quotes that end up with that being the only conclusion that fits. Having a separate ray and created item fits the evidence. The reasoning you have presented considers two items (the crystal and the ray) identical simply because they derive from the same source (the power). By the rules it creates an object or some form of matter and nothing supports that it creates anything else. Correct. In this case it creates a crystal. The ray has no existence as a physical object. Also the power has a instantaneous duration it not depend on psionics for its existence after the initial manifestation. The manifestation is the means by which you initiate the power's duration, not the entirety of the power (although the use of a power is sometimes referred to as a manifestation). By this the power is complete so you are dealing with the result rather than the power. Only its manifestation is complete. The power as a whole is not complete until you have finished manifesting it and its duration is over.
calronmoonflower 04-14-08, 02:03 AM	Having a separate ray and created item fits the evidence. What evidence? Please state out the premises of your argument like I have been doing. The reasoning you have presented considers two items (the crystal and the ray) identical simply because they derive from the same source (the power). This is a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) pure an simple. I have offered reasons to believe that it is, but not this one. You can say that they don't lead to that conclusion, or the evidence isn't strong enough, but you didn't. Correct. In this case it creates a crystal. The ray has no existence as a physical object. What exactly is the ray? I looked up the definition of ray in the Player's Handbook and it says "A beam created by a [power]. The [manifester] must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit with a ray." I looked up beam online and it describes it in many ways. The closest to your argument is a stream of light, but that would be both particle and wave. The Expanded Psionics Handbook also defines ray on page 60, in which it calls is a ranged weapon. The manifestation is the means by which you initiate the power's duration, not the entirety of the power (although the use of a power is sometimes referred to as a manifestation). Manifesting is clearly defined in the Expanded psionics Handbook however page 53 makes it clear it happens before the effect. Only its manifestation is complete. The power as a whole is not complete until you have finished manifesting it and its duration is over. This is wrong. Manifesting time is listed on page 59 of the Expanded Psionics Handbook. It is the time listed in the power like 1 standard action. Now why don't you lay out the premises for your argument, so we can actually have a two sided debate. Until you do I will not likely respond any more, as this basically holds one side to a higher standard than the other.
Slagger the Chuul 04-14-08, 03:36 AM	Please state out the premises of your argument like I have been doing. We have mention in the crystal shard power of two items, a "ray" and a "razor-sharp crystal shard". There is no explicit link between the two items. It is possible to have the items exist in separate places, because the only limit on effects or a created item's position is the standard that it be within the power's range. Whether or not we assume the crystal is created by the power (or must be added separately), no restriction prevents the crystal and ray from being in completely separate places. As they are capable of independent existence, they are separate items. I have offered reasons to believe that it is, but not this one. You can say that they don't lead to that conclusion, or the evidence isn't strong enough, but you didn't. The ray is a renaming of the crystal as "Metacreative powers create objects, creatures, or some form of matter.", leaving the only possibility that the ray falls under "objects, creatures, or some form of matter." The reasoning you have presented considers two items (the crystal and the ray) identical simply because they derive from the same source (the power). Describing the crystal as a "renaming" of the ray qualifies the two as identical in all but name. You have done so on the basis that "Metacreative powers create objects, creatures, or some form of matter.". What exactly is the ray? I looked up the definition of ray in the Player's Handbook and it says "A beam created by a [power]. The [manifester] must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit with a ray." I looked up beam online and it describes it in many ways. The closest to your argument is a stream of light, but that would be both particle and wave. There are no specific defined attributes for the physical nature of a ray. Given the differing effects it could potentially represent (for example, a crystal shard or an energy ray), it is not unreasonable to say that it would be impossible for any substance to possess all the properties demonstrated under the various circumstances. Without a particular form, there is no tangible attribute that can be correctly assigned to a "ray", leaving only the properties described by the game mechanics as established traits. Manifesting is clearly defined in the Expanded psionics Handbook however page 53 makes it clear it happens before the effect. I agree. Manifesting time is listed on page 59 of the Expanded Psionics Handbook. It is the time listed in the power like 1 standard action. A power that takes 1 round to manifest requires a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began manifesting the power. You then act normally after the power is completed. As demonstrated in this quote, the power only comes into effect after being manifested. While the manifestation can be considered an attribute of the power (the speed with which is can be initiated), the power is not in effect at the time of manifestation. Since it only comes into effect after the manifestation time, it can only conclude its effects (and leave results) after that point in time.
calronmoonflower 04-14-08, 06:47 AM	Sorry if my post is a bit wonky, it's late. We have mention in the crystal shard power of two items, a "ray" and a "razor-sharp crystal shard". There is no explicit link between the two items. It is possible to have the items exist in separate places, because the only limit on effects or a created item's position is the standard that it be within the power's range. Whether or not we assume the crystal is created by the power (or must be added separately), no restriction prevents the crystal and ray from being in completely separate places. As they are capable of independent existence, they are separate items. Can ≠ Will. To say that it is you must prove that the other options cannot be true. Without that you can only say that it is a possibility. Describing the crystal as a "renaming" of the ray qualifies the two as identical in all but name. You have done so on the basis that "Metacreative powers create objects, creatures, or some form of matter.". Actually I used more than that. The power resistance entry is no. Direct targeting by a power would mean that it is yes. You're previous counter to this didn't really measure up. There are no specific defined attributes for the physical nature of a ray. Given the differing effects it could potentially represent (for example, a crystal shard or an energy ray), it is not unreasonable to say that it would be impossible for any substance to possess all the properties demonstrated under the various circumstances. Energy Ray is an interesting example. The energy created by the power and the ray are by the Rules As Written one and the same. Also you counter assumes that there can be only one type of ray. It is possible for several different types of rays to posses to cover the possibilities listed. In fact by this logic the Energy Ray entry would mean that all rays are made of fire, electricity, cold, or sonic energy. As Enervation creates a ray made of negative energy this is disproved and more then one type of ray must exist. Without a particular form, there is no tangible attribute that can be correctly assigned to a "ray", leaving only the properties described by the game mechanics as established traits. Actually there are traits that can be attributed to this ray by the Rules As Written. It deals piercing damage and is subject to damage reduction (Complete Psionic page 79). Hmmm... by the definition of damage reduction in the back of the Player's Handbook damage reduction doesn't apply to spells (and therefor powers), but rather to weapons. The type of damage the ray does is by definition weapon damage. The ray for the effect created by Crystal Shard is clearly a type of weapon, so that is a third property. As demonstrated in this quote, the power only comes into effect after being manifested. While the manifestation can be considered an attribute of the power (the speed with which is can be initiated), the power is not in effect at the time of manifestation. Since it only comes into effect after the manifestation time, it can only conclude its effects (and leave results) after that point in time. OK So far your argument needs three exceptions to the standard ways the rules work. Power resistance reason for not working must be overridden and Damage reduction must apply to the power. The metacreative power must create something other than a object, creature or some form of matter. It also has the shard meanly being propelled toward the target without doing damage. That violates verisimilitude. My argument however needs the ray and the shard to be the same. It makes sense in the way the power functions, but requires a small leap. 3 vs. 1, the rules are leaning in my direction. Also until you offer proof to back up what you are saying if what I say is disproved then the best that will result is not knowing how the power truly functions. If you give the argument then I can see where your logic is coming from and the chances for a resolution will be greatly increased.
Slagger the Chuul 04-14-08, 08:48 PM	Can ≠ Will. To say that it is you must prove that the other options cannot be true. Without that you can only say that it is a possibility. The possibility of them not being in the same place is sufficient to determine that they are separate objects. If they were one and the same object, they would always have to occupy the same space. The power resistance entry is no. Direct targeting by a power would mean that it is yes. Spell resistance applies if the spell is targeted at the creature. Some individually targeted spells can be directed at several creatures simultaneously. In such cases, a creature’s spell resistance applies only to the portion of the spell actually targeted at that creature. If several different resistant creatures are subjected to such a spell, each checks its spell resistance separately. Spell resistance has no effect unless the energy created or released by the spell actually goes to work on the resistant creature’s mind or body. If the spell acts on anything else and the creature is affected as a consequence, no roll is required. Creatures can be harmed by a spell without being directly affected. Direct targeting applies to targeted spells, but only applies to effect spells when the energy created or released by the spell actually goes to work on the resistant creature's mind or body. The fact that the ray effect of crystal shard is used to make an attack roll against a creature does not ensure that the creature is actually being directly affected by the energy of the power. Energy Ray is an interesting example. The energy created by the power and the ray are by the Rules As Written one and the same. Also you counter assumes that there can be only one type of ray. It is possible for several different types of rays to posses to cover the possibilities listed. In fact by this logic the Energy Ray entry would mean that all rays are made of fire, electricity, cold, or sonic energy. As Enervation creates a ray made of negative energy this is disproved and more then one type of ray must exist. Which means that the concept of a "ray" (which is listed as single type of effect), is fundamentallly mutable in terms of composition. It could be composed of fire, negative energy, or nothing at all. The only constants are its mechanical functions. Energy ray is accorded substance (in the form of energy) because the power says that "You create a ray of energy of the chosen type". By comparison, there is no material form provided for the ray of a crystal shard, meaning that it possess only its mechanical game attributes unless you assign it arbitrary qualities. Actually there are traits that can be attributed to this ray by the Rules As Written. It deals piercing damage and is subject to damage reduction (Complete Psionic page 79). That's a distinction between "this" ray, and the conceptual idea of "a" ray. The ray that exists for the purposes of crystal shard has the normal mechanical qualities, deals piercing damage, and is subject to damage reduction. Hmmm... by the definition of damage reduction in the back of the Player's Handbook damage reduction doesn't apply to spells (and therefor powers), but rather to weapons. The type of damage the ray does is by definition weapon damage. The ray for the effect created by Crystal Shard is clearly a type of weapon, so that is a third property. Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You aim a ray "as if using a weapon", indicating that the ray is separate from a weapon, even though it behaves in much the same way. The exception to the normal rule of spells/powers bypassing damage reduction only applies to metacreativity powers that specify piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning damage because page 79 of Complete Psionic says that this is the case. So far your argument needs three exceptions to the standard ways the rules work. Power resistance reason for not working must be overridden and Damage reduction must apply to the power. The metacreative power must create something other than a object, creature or some form of matter. As noted above, crystal shard does not qualify for power resistance, and damage reduction is applied as a separate trait given to particular powers by an additional rule. It also has the shard meanly being propelled toward the target without doing damage. That violates verisimilitude. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack with the ray to deal damage to a target. The ray deals 1d6 points of piercing damage. By the rules, the ray is the element that deals damage. Unless you provide evidence that verisimilitude has a defined place in the mechanics of the rules, that is merely your opinion.
calronmoonflower 04-14-08, 11:21 PM	The possibility of them not being in the same place is sufficient to determine that they are separate objects. If they were one and the same object, they would always have to occupy the same space. You have not shown that. Merely the possibility that it might work that way. The possibility that they always occupy the same space still exists. Oh and in a weird quark of quantum physics an object can indeed occupy two different areas in space at once. Direct targeting applies to targeted spells, but only applies to effect spells when the energy created or released by the spell actually goes to work on the resistant creature's mind or body. The fact that the ray effect of crystal shard is used to make an attack roll against a creature does not ensure that the creature is actually being directly affected by the energy of the power. Alright, if the ray (and effect of the power) is not directly affecting the creature, then how does it manage to deal damage? By your argument the power has a direct effect on the target, so you cannot use this argument as a counter without negating your argument. You aim a ray "as if using a weapon", indicating that the ray is separate from a weapon, even though it behaves in much the same way. You missed the mark. I based it off the damage reduction description. This ray could very well be a weapon. In fact rays are called weapon-like effects else where. I cannot find a definition of weapon in the rules set, except by the type of damage that they do (Player's Handbook page 114). As it is a exception making theory not a weapon only exists if you choose to define it that way, and as far as I can tell has no rules to support it. The exception to the normal rule of spells/powers bypassing damage reduction only applies to metacreativity powers that specify piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning damage because page 79 of Complete Psionic says that this is the case. Actually it would also apply to conjuration power that do the same. The question as why there is an exception still exists. As noted above, crystal shard does not qualify for power resistance, and damage reduction is applied as a separate trait given to particular powers by an additional rule. Except that by your argument it would. You say the ray is an effect and not a result. The ray damages the target so it is effected by the ray. Therefor spell resistance should apply. By the rules, the ray is the element that deals damage. Unless you provide evidence that verisimilitude has a defined place in the mechanics of the rules, that is merely your opinion. Verisimilitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisimilitude) I didn't use it as a rules based argument (or even count it as a mark against yours), however, it is used in the Dungeon Master's Guide to show that NPC's should have a background and in that case could have a rules based in-game impact. Here however, it doesn't work with the games logic. You still have not put forth the presumes to your argument. Please do so.
Slagger the Chuul 04-15-08, 12:44 AM	You have not shown that. Merely the possibility that it might work that way. The possibility that they always occupy the same space still exists. That the ability for the objects to be placed within the power's range is not restricted allows for them to be placed separately. It is alway possible to place them separately (or together, should the manifester so choose) unless you have a confirmed restriction that prevents that possibility. Oh and in a weird quark of quantum physics an object can indeed occupy two different areas in space at once. These objects are not operating at a scale where that quirk applies. Alright, if the ray (and effect of the power) is not directly affecting the creature, then how does it manage to deal damage? The ray damages the target so it is effected by the ray. Therefor spell resistance should apply. The "energy created or released by the spell" must be what affects the creature. Having a ray affect the creature does not demonstrate interaction by the "energy" they are referring to, since no link is made between the ray effect and this energy. You still have not put forth the presumes to your argument. Please do so. I have already presented the premises for separation of the ray and crystal. The broader issues will have to wait, unless you wish to temporarily discard the current line of reasoning (indicate this in a post without other arguments).
calronmoonflower 04-15-08, 01:22 AM	That the ability for the objects to be placed within the power's range is not restricted allows for them to be placed separately. It is alway possible to place them separately (or together, should the manifester so choose) unless you have a confirmed restriction that prevents that possibility. So your counter is based off a lack of evidence. As it is you have offered nothing that allows them to be separate. in fact you have taken the stance that you are right because I nothing says you are wrong, thus you have used negative proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof) to back up what you say. These objects are not operating at a scale where that quirk applies. I don't think this line is worth following up. The "energy created or released by the spell" must be what affects the creature. Having a ray affect the creature does not demonstrate interaction by the "energy" they are referring to, since no link is made between the ray effect and this energy. So now we have three separate effects, a ray that apparently strikes the target for no damage, a crystal that is propelled toward the target with no other effect, and energy based on nothing directly stated in the power and deals piercing damage. Each separate from the others. Doesn't that seem a little contrived to you? Still the same question still applies. The energy is affecting the target, as it requires an attack roll to deal the damage it is targeted, so why is the power resistance entry "No". I have already presented the premises for separation of the ray and crystal. You used a argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). Nothing directly states that they are the same or different. I have backed up my statement with several odds and ends where that they are the same fits best and you have presented what? The broader issues will have to wait, unless you wish to temporarily discard the current line of reason (indicate this in a post without other arguments). No they don't. If you prove that it works the way you say then I would have no reason to continue this argument. The point is to find out how it works. The inference to the best explanation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference_to_the_Best_Explanation) fits my argument.
Slagger the Chuul 04-15-08, 03:21 AM	So your counter is based off a lack of evidence. As it is you have offered nothing that allows them to be separate. in fact you have taken the stance that you are right because I nothing says you are wrong, thus you have used negative proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof) to back up what you say. You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile it can move regardless of the spell’s range. The manifester is the designator of the objects' position. The ability to place them separately is simply a consquence of the manifester's ability to choose where he places them. So now we have three separate effects, a ray that apparently strikes the target for no damage, a crystal that is propelled toward the target with no other effect, and energy based on nothing directly stated in the power and deals piercing damage. Each separate from the others. Doesn't that seem a little contrived to you? Yes, it sounds contrived, as though someone designed a set of rules that artificially separated the mechanical laws of the universe from their perceived effects and from the reasoning behind them. Although you are incorrect to say that the energy deals piercing damage; the energy has no mechanical game effects whatsoever. It is the ray that deals piercing damage. Still the same question still applies. The energy is affecting the target, as it requires an attack roll to deal the damage it is targeted, so why is the power resistance entry "No". You have not demonstrated that the energy is affecting the target, only that the target is attacked and damaged by the ray. You are falsely assuming that the ray is energy. Nothing directly states that they are the same or different. If something directly stated that they were the same or different, we would not be discussing it. The answer would be obvious. No they don't. If you prove that it works the way you say then I would have no reason to continue this argument. The point is to find out how it works. I understand that you may not have followed the whole discussion, so I will recap: The results of an instantaneous creation can penetrate an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result. While the duration of a power continues, it is still in effect, and so will not penetrate the field. When a power creates an effect, that effect lasts for the duration, while in the special case of instantaneous creation effects, the created item can persist beyond the duration (making it a result). So, the ray effect does not persist beyond the power's duration unless it is also the item created by the power. The attack and damage of crystal shard are dealt by the ray. If it is considered to also be the crystal (a created item), it may be possible for the attack to occur outside of the power's duration. If the two are separate, the ray has no basis for existence beyond the end of the power's duration, and the attack must be made within the power's duration. To summarize, the duality of the crystal and ray determines whether or not the attack can occur after the power's duration is over, thereby determining its ability to penetrate the field. The inference to the best explanation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference_to_the_Best_Explanation) fits my argument. It is merely your opinion that your view is the most likely explanation.
calronmoonflower 04-15-08, 04:04 AM	The manifester is the designator of the objects' position. The ability to place them separately is simply a consquence of the manifester's ability to choose where he places them. We covered this. the crystal must appear on a surface that must support it and be propelled at the target. Your only counter was to say that it could appear on the target and that would prevent it from being "propelled at the target" as it would already be there. The ray is aimed as if was a ranged weapon, so it cannot appear within the distance between the manifester and target, as that would require aiming to be different than that of a ranged weapon. Not when they serve different purposes as a mechanical effect, a flavour-based created item, and a general concept that applies only with consideration of power resistance. By what you are saying one way or the other the target is still effected by the power and the power is targeted. So the question still hasn't been answered despite several chances to do so. You have not demonstrated that the energy is affecting the target, only that the target is attacked and damaged by the ray. You are falsely assuming that the ray is energy. No, you falsely assumed that was my argument. One or more of the three must affect the target. All three are targeted. Each of the three meet the requirements for power resistance applying. If something directly stated that they were the same or different, we would not be discussing it. The answer would be obvious. Yet, you seem to be unwilling to accept anything short of a direct statement. I understand that you may not have followed the whole discussion, so I will recap: Actually I have. No one point proves it either way, but the totality of the facts do support one over the other. The results of an instantaneous creation can penetrate an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result. While the duration of a power continues, it is still in effect, and so will not penetrate the field. The underlined part has not be been proved. I haven't even seem an argument that backs it up. It was assumed to work that way, I just found a quote that defines results and they can happen within the duration of the power (bottom of post). This counter is disproved. When a power creates an effect, that effect lasts for the duration, while in the special case of instantaneous creation effects, the created item can persist beyond the duration (making it a result). So, the ray effect does not persist beyond the power's duration unless it is also the item created by the power. You have assumed the definition of "result". Look on page 55 of the Expanded Psionics Handbook. It uses effect and result as the same. It does have a bit of ambiguity. Namely, if the target is affected then it is a result. The attack and damage of crystal shard are dealt by the ray. If it is considered to also be the crystal (a created item), it may be possible for the attack to occur outside of the power's duration. If the two are separate, the ray has no basis for existence beyond the end of the power's duration, and the attack must be made within the power's duration. By page 55 the ray can still be a result. To summarize, the duality of the crystal and ray determines whether or not the attack can occur after the power's duration is over, thereby determining its ability to penetrate the field. Actually no. I'll put the quote below. It is merely your opinion that your view is the most likely explanation. All arguments are opinions. I backed mine up so it is more than just an opinion. Whether i backe dit up well enough is a differnt question. Here's the quote that defines result, from theExpanded Psionics Handbook page 55. I wish I found this before. It negates about 2 pages of arguments. THE POWER'S RESULT Once you know which creatures (or objects or areas) are affected, and whether those creatures have made a successfully saving throw (if any are allowed), you can apply whatever result's a power entails. [->]Many powers affect particular types of creatures. For example, psionic dominate (in its unaugmented form) works only on humanoids. By this quote even under what you are saying the energy, ray, and crystal are all three results of the power, even if they happen within the duration. The only likely counter is to say that an antimagic field prevents the those within from being affected, therefor the result never happens, therefor the target it is unaffected. That would require the argument to be circular, and thus invalid. You might be able to come up with something else though.
Slagger the Chuul 04-15-08, 04:52 AM	We covered this. the crystal must appear on a surface that must support it and be propelled at the target. Your only counter was to say that it could appear on the target and that would prevent it from being "propelled at the target" as it would already be there. No, I actually think that it would still be propelled at the target. You must have covered it that way with someone else. The ray is aimed as if was a ranged weapon, so it cannot appear within the distance between the manifester and target, as that would require aiming to be different than that of a ranged weapon. That's about where you fire it from, not how it's aimed, and even so, it would not prevent the crystal being placed in a different location. By what you are saying one way or the other the target is still effected by the power and the power is targeted. So the question still hasn't been answered despite several chances to do so. The question you just asked was if I thought it was contrived. or more of the three must affect the target. All three are targeted. Each of the three meet the requirements for power resistance applying. The energy is affecting the target, as it requires an attack roll to deal the damage it is targeted, so why is the power resistance entry "No". For the purposes of spell/power resistance, it only matters whether or not the energy of the power affects the target; it is irrelevant whether or not the crystal or ray affect the target, as they are not the "energy" referred to by the spell resistance description. Making an attack does not prove that the energy of the power is at work upon the target. All it proves is that the ray is at work upon the target, as that is the element making the attack. Yet, you seem to be unwilling to accept anything short of a direct statement. On points of contention, certainly. Indirect is fine, once we reach consensus on the logic involved. The underlined part has not be been proved. I haven't even seem an argument that backs it up. It was assumed to work that way, I just found a quote that defines results and they can happen within the duration of the power (bottom of post). The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result. At the point where those instantaneous creations can penetrate the field, only the result is left. If the power is still present, the result cannot penetrate the field (because more than "only" the result remains). Namely, if the target is affected then it is a result. To penetrate an antimagic field, it must be a result and the creation itself must no longer be in effect.
calronmoonflower 04-15-08, 04:57 AM	To penetrate an antimagic field, it must be a result and the creation itself must no longer be in effect. Huh, no. Unless of course you can back this up with something that proved the power is in effect. Heck by the one interpation the exception line could mean that the power is no longer in effect at that time, leaving only the result.
Slagger the Chuul 04-15-08, 07:00 AM	Huh, no. Unless of course you can back this up with something that proved the power is in effect. A power that takes 1 round to manifest requires a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began manifesting the power. You then act normally after the power is completed. As demonstrated in this example, powers come into effect after their manifestation is complete.
CrimsonDeath 04-15-08, 12:31 PM	Crystal Shard only takes a standard action.
Slagger the Chuul 04-15-08, 01:12 PM	Crystal Shard only takes a standard action. Yes, that was just an example.
GuyrtheadamantineOne 04-15-08, 01:31 PM	Guys, you both did a good job. Its a good debate, but it has to end. Slagger, beside the arguing about fluff, you brought a good point: Powers with an instantaneous duration last for their casting time.(I don't have the exact quote, so if you don't mind giving it to me) But, D&D, in itself, is a game based on exceptions, they make the rules. The fact Instantaneous Metacreativity powers aren't affected by an AMF is an exceptions to the previous quote, therefore, the rule.
calronmoonflower 04-15-08, 02:11 PM	A power that takes 1 round to manifest requires a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began manifesting the power. You then act normally after the power is completed.As demonstrated in this example, powers come into effect after their manifestation is complete. In that case the power is no longer in effect as it has already been manifested , therefor you are dealing only with the result rather than the power itself . Thanks for that quote I forgot about it. Well lets try some more points that lead to the conclusion that the power has already run its course and you are with the result. The power is targeted. Being that it is and it directly affects the target it should allow for spell Resistance if it is still in effect. However, it does not. spell immunity A creature with spell immunity avoids the effects of spells and spell-like abilities that directly affect it. This works exactly like spell resistance, except that it cannot be overcome. Sometimes spell immunity is conditional or applies to only spells of a certain kind or level. Spells that do not allow spell resistance are not affected by spell immunity. Spell immunity is usually an extraordinary ability. As spell resistance is no spell immunity doesn't apply. however, spell immunity applied to the effects of spells (and therefor powers), so the power cannot be affecting the target directly. Therefor we are dealing with the result, rather than the power itself.
Slagger the Chuul 04-16-08, 08:23 PM	Powers with an instantaneous duration last for their casting time. Actually, they last for an instant after their manifesting time (and are only truly in effect for that instant).[/QUOTE] In that case the power is no longer in effect as it has already been manifested , therefor you are dealing only with the result rather than the power itself . As described by the quote, the power is manifested, then it comes into effect (for an instantaneous duration, in this case), then you act normally after it is completed. The power is targeted. Being that it is and it directly affects the target it should allow for spell Resistance if it is still in effect. However, it does not. It's not a targeted power, it's an effect power. It's only "targeted" in the sense that you're aiming a ray. As spell resistance is no spell immunity doesn't apply. however, spell immunity applied to the effects of spells (and therefor powers), so the power cannot be affecting the target directly. Therefor we are dealing with the result, rather than the power itself. A creature with spell immunity avoids the effects of spells and spell-like abilities that directly affect it. Spells that do not allow spell resistance are not affected by spell immunity. According to this, even when directly targeted by a spell, the spell resistance (or power resistance) line of the spell ultimately determines whether or not it is affected. As the full quote you provided reads, the spell must both directly affect the target and allow spell resistance in order to be affected.
calronmoonflower 04-16-08, 09:31 PM	According to this, even when directly targeted by a spell, the spell resistance (or power resistance) line of the spell ultimately determines whether or not it is affected. As the full quote you provided reads, the spell must both directly affect the target and allow spell resistance in order to be affected. It provides the reason why they are not effected. By the same logic that you are using with the antimagic field exception then it works the way I said. If you use a different standard for each then your argument is inconsistent and thus illogical. A creature with spell immunity avoids the effects of spells and spell-like abilities that directly affect it. If spell immunity doesn't apply then the power's effect doesn't directly affect the creature. That is a tautological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautological) when used side by side.
Slagger the Chuul 04-17-08, 01:14 AM	It provides the reason why they are not effected. By the same logic that you are using with the antimagic field exception then it works the way I said. The way it is written, "A creature with spell immunity avoids the effects of spells and spell-like abilities that directly affect it." and spells that do not allow spell resistance avoid the effect of spell immunity; in other words, they avoid the blocking effect. Whether or not the creature is directly affected by an effect only becomes important if the spell actually allows spell resistance. It is not providing a reason why the creatures are unaffected, since (unlike antimagic field), it does not use wording like "because". It tells you what happens, but not why.
CrimsonDeath 04-17-08, 03:34 AM	I'm not sure the reason is even relevant, since the word "because" is used. If it had been "if", it would be a different story, but because they used "because", the first clause, being a declaration of fact, insures that all necessary conditions for that clause to be true (such as the second clause) must necessarily also be true. You can't cast doubt on the first clause by proving the second clause false, because the second clause is proven true by the first clause.
calronmoonflower 04-17-08, 04:02 AM	The way it is written, "A creature with spell immunity avoids the effects of spells and spell-like abilities that directly affect it." and spells that do not allow spell resistance avoid the effect of spell immunity; in other words, they avoid the blocking effect. Whether or not the creature is directly affected by an effect only becomes important if the spell actually allows spell resistance. It is not providing a reason why the creatures are unaffected, since (unlike antimagic field), it does not use wording like "because". It tells you what happens, but not why. THERE IS NO "AND"! The entry tells you when it applies ("This works exactly like spell resistance, except that it cannot be overcome") and the reason behind it ("A creature with spell immunity avoids the effects of spells and spell-like abilities that directly affect it.") If you read it and other way the two statement contradict themselves and are thus illogical. You are supposed to use a reasonable interpretation, not the one that best supports your argument. If you go to the spell resistance entry it tells you why that allies as well. Guess what? They match. Anyway something seems a bit off so I looked into this. Burrowing Bonds (Complete Psionic page 79) is a metacreation power with a duration that deals damage, but has a spell resistance of "No". The result of the power is a physical object that deals damage, but the power is still in effect when it happens, but doesn't directly affect the target. So we are back to when exactly the power is in effect. Unless you force a way that the power must be manifested then the crystal can be made outside the field and then will not be affected by it, if you choose to do so. I looked up the metamagic feat entry and it says that it changes the way that powers are manifested so the Burrowing Power argument doesn't apply. It seems that your argument boils down to "I choose to interpret the rules in a way that antimagic field negates Crystal Shard, so it does." It might not be the way that you intended it (are actually did it), but it sure looks like that is your only backup to your premises. I've tried to back my argument up with a reasonable interpretation (that doesn't actually make it reasonable) and all the points I could find that don't directly tell if the power is effect of not. In fact the Burrowing Bonds does negate my main point. So the question to be asked is how to tell if the power is still in effect?
Slagger the Chuul 04-17-08, 04:02 AM	I'm not sure the reason is even relevant, since the word "because" is used. If it had been "if", it would be a different story, but because they used "because", the first clause, being a declaration of fact, insures that all necessary conditions for that clause to be true (such as the second clause) must necessarily also be true. You can't cast doubt on the first clause by proving the second clause false, because the second clause is proven true by the first clause. That assumes a static situation, where the fact and the reason are set in stone and not subject to other influences. The fact is not wrong for that static situation, but if that reason were not present in a specific situation, the first clause may no longer be true because other forces may be at work. It's like saying "The stone does not fall out of the air, because I'm holding it up." Within the static context of the statement, the fact that the stone will not fall is unchanging, just as the reason of it being held will not change. Equally, within the context of the statment, removing the reason would not alter the stated fact that the stone does not fall out of the air. In an actual application, however, the stone will fall out of the air if the reason for it remaining in place is removed. This is because the application has a standard course of action for the stone (a gravity-power fall), which occurs unless there is some force acting to prevent it. This force is not described in the original statement, which allows a single clause to describe an unchallenged reality, even without a reason. In application, a fact that may be observed "The stone does not fall out of the air", but that fact only arises because of the forces at work and changes if they change. In the situation of an antimagic field, magic is supressed for the reason that the field supresses it. Only an opposing reason that prevents magic being supressed allows the fact of an instantaneous creation to persist in any form and be observed as true. By nature, a fact is something that has been observed to be true. The game rules muddy this by using facts to define how situations operate, but if the reasons behind those facts become false in a specific application, the fact itself will change. If the rules do not provide a reason for a specific fact, we merely have to accept it (or make something up), but it we are provided with the reasoning that supports it, we can also determine when that reasoning does not produce the normal fact.
calronmoonflower 04-17-08, 04:12 AM	That assumes a static situation, where the fact and the reason are set in stone and not subject to other influences. The fact is not wrong for that static situation, but if that reason were not present in a specific situation, the first clause may no longer be true because other forces may be at work. Well, I suppose on the other side of this is the assumption that no other reason could exist because they are not listed. however, other reason logical must be proved in some other way to be used. If the rules do not provide a reason for a specific fact, we merely have to accept it (or make something up), but it we are provided with the reasoning that supports it, we can also determine when that reasoning does not produce the normal fact. Actually making up a reason behind the action is fine (but not logical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)), and you must be careful not to change the way that the rules function to do this, nor use it as a counter argument to something else.
Slagger the Chuul 04-17-08, 04:22 AM	You are supposed to use a reasonable interpretation, not the one that best supports your argument. If you go to the spell resistance entry it tells you why that allies as well. Guess what? They match. A "reasonable" interpretation would depend on what you find reasonable, which makes it ultimately subjective. You obviously do not find what it says to be reasonable. As for spell resistance, there's a reasonable amount in there, to which particular part are you referring? Anyway something seems a bit off so I looked into this. Burrowing Bonds (Complete Psionic page 79) is a metacreation power with a duration that deals damage, but has a spell resistance of "No". The result of the power is a physical object that deals damage, but the power is still in effect when it happens, but doesn't directly affect the target. So we are back to when exactly the power is in effect. Unless you force a way that the power must be manifested then the crystal can be made outside the field and then will not be affected by it, if you choose to do so. When separated from the rules, I am happy to accept the logic that the crystal is what harms the target. When dealing with the mechanics of the rules, it is the ray that deals damage, so we must determine whether or not the ray is encountering the field. I looked up the metamagic feat entry and it says that it changes the way that powers are manifested so the Burrowing Power argument doesn't apply. That would depend on what you've read. So the question to be asked is how to tell if the power is still in effect? A poweris in effect while its duration lasts, which begins when the manifestation is complete and ends when the duration expires. Within that time, it is in effect, outside of that time, it is not in effect.
calronmoonflower 04-17-08, 04:30 AM	A "reasonable" interpretation would depend on what you find reasonable, which makes it ultimately subjective. You obviously do not find what it says to be reasonable. The way that you read it is not the only way. It is that, that i find unreasonable. As for spell resistance, there's a reasonable amount in there, to which particular part are you referring? The reason that it applies. Not that this matters with the entry that I found. At least not on this debate. When separated from the rules, I am happy to accept the logic that the crystal is what harms the target. When dealing with the mechanics of the rules, it is the ray that deals damage, so we must determine whether or not the ray is encountering the field. No, you must determine if the ray is a result, and if the power is in effect at that time. The rest is irrelevant. That would depend on what you've read. It say that they change the way a power functions, therefor you cannot use that change to say how the power works without it. A poweris in effect while its duration lasts, which begins when the manifestation is complete and ends when the duration expires. Within that time, it is in effect, outside of that time, it is not in effect. That didn't really do anything to answer the question at all. :(
Slagger the Chuul 04-17-08, 04:32 AM	Well, I suppose on the other side of this is the assumption that no other reason could exist because they are not listed. however, other reason logical must be proved in some other way to be used. If a particular situation does provide an additional reason for an instaneous creation to penetrate an antimagic field (beyond the standard reason provided), it would certainly apply in that situation unless it contradicts any existing reason. Actually making up a reason behind the action is fine (but not logical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)), and you must be careful not to change the way that the rules function to do this, nor use it as a counter argument to something else. Agreed, any reason you make up should be consistent with the way the rules function.
Slagger the Chuul 04-17-08, 04:52 AM	The way that you read it is not the only way. It is that, that i find unreasonable. I am entitled to an opinion, as are you. We each currently believe our view is correct, based on the evidence we have gathered and the reasoning we have applied. I will naturally hold my position to be correct until my view changes, and I would not expect any more from you. If we changed our position on grounds other than those we believed to be reasonable, they would be ultimately false to us. The reason that it applies. Not that this matters with the entry that I found. At least not on this debate. A quote, please. It helps me to avoid confusing what you're talking about No, you must determine if the ray is a result, and if the power is in effect at that time. The rest is irrelevant. What we are literally trying to determine is whether or not the ray attacks a creature within the antimagic field while the crystal shard power itself is still in effect. Determining the ray as a result is important, since it allows for the possibility that the attack could be made after the power's duration, but proving that the power is still in effect is more decisive. It say that they change the way a power functions, therefor you cannot use that change to say how the power works without it. They also describe the particular changes made by each individual metamagic or metapsionic feat. That said, I can see how a DM might decide for themself that a burrowing crystal shard could be considered to be travelling in a different fashion to a regular crystal shard. In case you can see the humour of it, I think I may actually have been wrong about a burrowing crystal shard failing to penetrate an antimagic field in all situations. If the target is standing directly against the barrier being penetrated, the shard would return from the Astral Plane to strike the creature without ever passing through the area of the field. :D That didn't really do anything to answer the question at all. :( It is a way to tell if the power is in effect. You then need to determine that the power has completed its manifestation time and has also not reached the end of its duration. Those are more quantitative values, and should be easier to define clearly.
calronmoonflower 04-17-08, 05:01 AM	A quote, please. It helps me to avoid confusing what you're talking about "BURROWING POWER [METAPSIONIC] Your powers sometimes bypass barriers. Benefit: To use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus. You can attempt to manifest your powers against targets that are sheltered behind a wall or force effect. Your power briefly skips through the Astral Plane to bypass the barrier. The strength and thickness of the barrier determine your chance of success. To successfully bypass the barrier with your power, you make a Psicraft check against a DC equal to 10 + the hardness of the barrier + 1 per foot of thickness (minimum 1). Assign a hardness of 20 to barriers without a hardness rating, such as force effects (or a wall of ectoplasm). Force walls or walls of ectoplasm are assumed to have less than 1 foot of thickness unless noted otherwise. If a power requires line of sight (which includes most powers that affect a target or targets instead of an area), you cannot manifest it as a burrowing power unless you can somehow see the target, such as with clairvoyant sense. Using this feat increases the power point cost of the power by 2. The power’s total cost cannot exceed your manifester level." It doesn't really say how long it remains there, but is does alter the power and the result. What is listed could just as eaily be called a result. It is a way to tell if the power is in effect. You then need to determine that the power has completed its manifestation time and has also not reached the end of its duration. Those are more quantitative values, and should be easier to define clearly. In this case it doesn't really answer the question, even if it would for normal powers as "instant" is not defined by the rules, so we cannot say when the duration ends and the result alone remains.
Slagger the Chuul 04-17-08, 06:18 AM	It doesn't really say how long it remains there, but is does alter the power and the result. What is listed could just as eaily be called a result. True, it doesn't clearly specify the burrowing duration. The result part only becomes important if the power is no longer in effect. In this case it doesn't really answer the question, even if it would for normal powers as "instant" is not defined by the rules, so we cannot say when the duration ends and the result alone remains. Again true. That's part of the reason we turned to discussing the crystal against the ray. If the ray only exists as part of the power, the attack with it cannot occur beyond the end of the power, so the question of duration need never be asked. If the ray somehow exists beyond the duration of the power, it may be used for a separate attack (as an attack action), and we will still need to determine whether or not the power's duration has expired.
calronmoonflower 04-17-08, 04:55 PM	Again true. That's part of the reason we turned to discussing the crystal against the ray. If the ray only exists as part of the power, the attack with it cannot occur beyond the end of the power, so the question of duration need never be asked. If the ray somehow exists beyond the duration of the power, it may be used for a separate attack (as an attack action), and we will still need to determine whether or not the power's duration has expired. I can think of that might point to whether the power's duration has expired. The antimagic exception itself. Under one way of reading that it would state that the duration has past when the result comes fully into play. In the case of Crystal Shard that would be the crystal and/or ray depending on interpretation. The duration definition list on page 61 of the Expanded Psionics Handbook "The psionic every comes and goes the instant the power is manifested," doesn't really conflict with that. Also it can be interpreted that "manifested" is referring to when the power was completed. "Comes" would certainly refer to when you pay for the power points and "goes" would be the end of the manifestation, when the result of that power comes into play. Neither of these two interpretations are unreasonable, but that doesn't mean that other reading are not reasonable. However, the other readings leaves us with no answer so far.
Slagger the Chuul 04-17-08, 08:03 PM	Also it can be interpreted that "manifested" is referring to when the power was completed. "Comes" would certainly refer to when you pay for the power points and "goes" would be the end of the manifestation, when the result of that power comes into play. If that was the case, the condition of antimagic field would apply to most other powers (including non-instantaneous ones), since they would only be producing results as soon as you finished the manifesting time, even if they had a long duration. Considering that you can also still influence some powers for their duration (most notably those requiring concentration to maintain), I think it's safe to say that a power is at least still in effect until the end of its duration.
calronmoonflower 04-17-08, 11:34 PM	If that was the case, the condition of antimagic field would apply to most other powers (including non-instantaneous ones), since they would only be producing results as soon as you finished the manifesting time, even if they had a long duration. Considering that you can also still influence some powers for their duration (most notably those requiring concentration to maintain), I think it's safe to say that a power is at least still in effect until the end of its duration. The logic only works with instantaneous duration power as the duration is defined as: "psionic every comes and goes the instant the power is manifested,". therefor you cannot apply this to anything with another duration. Add that to Metacreative powers deal damage indirectly (or power resistance would apply) then you end up with a result that deals damage rather than the damage as the result, then all other power types with the same duration is ruled out.
Slagger the Chuul 04-18-08, 12:13 AM	The logic only works with instantaneous duration power as the duration is defined as: "psionic every comes and goes the instant the power is manifested,". therefor you cannot apply this to anything with another duration. Also it can be interpreted that "manifested" is referring to when the power was completed. "Comes" would certainly refer to when you pay for the power points and "goes" would be the end of the manifestation, when the result of that power comes into play. I think we may have some confusion as to what we're talking about here. The manifesting time of a power would be completed, but the power itself isn't completed until the duration is over. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with this, or trying to say something completely different? Add that to Metacreative powers deal damage indirectly (or power resistance would apply) then you end up with a result that deals damage rather than the damage as the result, then all other power types with the same duration is ruled out. The result still only becomes important if the duration is complete.
calronmoonflower 04-18-08, 02:35 AM	Are you agreeing or disagreeing with this, or trying to say something completely different? I was pointing to that the duration could to be said over right after the crystal and/or ray forms, but before it strikes. This only works because metacreative powers function in a different manner than other powers. That is the only thing that I could think of that gives a definite answer to the question. It really seems that you have a bad habit of forgetting points that I put forth in the post before the reply that you made to that post.
Slagger the Chuul 04-18-08, 03:52 AM	I was pointing to that the duration could to be said over right after the crystal and/or ray forms, but before it strikes. This only works because metacreative powers function in a different manner than other powers. That puts us back to the "created item" again, since the ray used to make the attack won't exist beyond the end of the power (being a game mechanic that is only sometimes related to the form of an actual ray, as in energy ray). The possibility of having the ray persist beyond the end of the duration (if this can be established by some means) also causes problems, since it means that it becomes a permanent item (a result) that can be continually used to attack. Although theoretically possible purely in terms of game mechanics, it doesn't seem like a good idea for a power to create reusable weapons of this kind. It really seems that you have a bad habit of forgetting points that I put forth in the post before the reply that you made to that post. It's just not always clear what you're trying to say. Part of this is probably due to the unclear terminology already involved in describing the powers.
calronmoonflower 04-18-08, 04:52 AM	I put forth why that metacreation powers function differently. I got it from the text of the antimagic exception. It can function within the the powers duration interpretation, when read with that exception. As it is, this is the only solution that either of us has come up with. So try looking three of my posts up and reread the argument that I put forth.
Slagger the Chuul 04-19-08, 12:17 AM	So try looking three of my posts up and reread the argument that I put forth. It would provide more clarity if you simply quote yourself on the segment you're referring to or restate the point in brief. I put forth why that metacreation powers function differently. I got it from the text of the antimagic exception. It can function within the the powers duration interpretation, when read with that exception. Under one way of reading that it would state that the duration has past when the result comes fully into play. In the case of Crystal Shard that would be the crystal and/or ray depending on interpretation. That depends on determining that the result has come to pass, which is similar to determining duration, except that we have no basis on which to found it. It also again causes the problem of creating a permanent weapon-ray, which is a natural consequence of having a ray that persists beyond the power's duration.
calronmoonflower 04-19-08, 05:03 PM	The bases for say that metacreation power are different is based on the metacreative power description in the Expanded Psionics Handbook and the power resistance entry being "No". While that entry tells you if it applies the rules for spell resistance (as power resistance is said to follow the same rules) and spell immunity tell yo why. The power itself cannot directly affect the target, or the power resistance would say yes. Also the metacreative powers work by creating or manipulating object, creatures, or matter. The conclusion to this should be clear. The power creates a form of matter that damages the target. After that object is completed there is not reason to say that the power itself is still active. With other disciplines the ray that they create directly affect the target and therefor have a power resistance entry of "Yes". Therefor there is reason to say that they are active. It is the in between step that allows for the indirect effect (A->B->C) that separates the effects of metacreative powers from other powers. Also the ray is used as an attack immediately. Ammunition normally has a 50% change of being lost or destroyed when used. A ray however is a ranged touch attack. The idea that the ranged touch attack is permanent is contradictory to the rules. On another interesting note, touch attack powers with an instantaneous duration allow the attack to be made on a separate round than the manifesting. However they allow for power resistance, so the power directly affects the target. In the case of these few power (more spells do this) we have reason to believe that the power is in effect at the time that the attack is made, so they are negated by the antimagic field. I do not know of any of these power that are metacreative, nor creation spells that works this way. I've noticed something odd about the power. "Upon manifesting this power, you propel a razor-sharp crystal shard at your target. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack with the ray to deal damage to a target. The ray deals 1d6 points of piercing damage." 1). Nowhere in the description does it actually say that it creates a ray. 2). In the second sentence it seem to be referring back as if it had already been created. As far as I know this is the only power that has a ray in the description and doesn't describe exactly what it is. Though a few powers have it in the effect line without mentioning it in the description. In those cases the text mentions other stuff that you make a ranged touch attack with (or the power wouldn't function). Now lets look at a few similar powers as the argument either way impinges on them as well. Hail of Crystals Metacreativity (Creation) Level: Shaper 5 Display: Auditory and visual Manifesting Time: 1 standard action Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./ level) Area: 20-ft.-radius burst Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Reflex half Power Resistance: No Power Points: 9 A tiny ectoplasmic crystal emanates from your outstretched hand and rapidly expands to a 2-foot-diameter ball of crystal as it speeds toward the location you designate. You can choose to aim this crystal at a single target or at a specific point in space (a grid intersection). If you aim the crystal at a single target, you must make a ranged touch attack to strike the target. Any creature or object struck by the ball of crystal takes 5d4 points of bludgeoning damage. Whether the crystal hits its target, misses, or was aimed at a point in space, it explodes upon arrival at the location you designated. Anyone within 20 feet of the explosion takes 9d4 points of slashing damage from the thousands of crystal shards that spray forth. Augment: For every additional power point you spend, this power’s damage from the explosion of the crystal increases by 1d4 points. Here it should be clear exactly what the result is. It also is clear that the crystals are doing the damage. Upon the expansion of the tiny crystal to the bigger one the power should be in effect as it is creating something. However, after this point nothing suggests that that the power itself is in effect. There is a saving throw however, but that is is made before applying the results of the power. Rather than the being applied after the results come into play. See the Expanded Psionics Handbook page 55. Swarm of Crystals Metacreativity (Creation) Level: Psion/wilder 2 Display: Material Manifesting Time: 1 standard action Range: 15 ft. Area: Cone-shaped spread Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None Power Resistance: No Power Points: 3 Thousands of tiny crystal shards spray forth in an arc from your hand. These razorlike crystals slice everything in their path. Anyone caught in the cone takes 3d4 points of slashing damage. Augment: For every additional power point you spend, this power’s damage increases by 1d4 points. Again it is clear that the crystals are doing the damage. Also no reason it given to suggest the power continues past the creation of the crystals. Crystalstorm Complete Psionic page 81 This has ray in the effect line, but clearly states in the description that the crystals are doing the damage. Again nothing suggests that the power continues past the creation of the crystals. The saving throw comes up again. Here is a few similar spells. Orb spells are listed on pages 150-151 of the Spell Compendium. The effect entry line says "One orb of [spell type]". There are "Conjuration (creation)" spells with a duration of "Instantaneous" They do sometimes allow a saving throw to throw off a related effect, but not the damage. The spell description make it clear that you do a ranged touch attack with the orb. No mention of ray is in any of the texts. With all these there is no reason given to say that the spell duration lasts beyond the creation of the orbs. From all of this I think it is safe to say that Crystal Shard was badly written and the text does not conform to normal way that the power should work. :headexplo That of course never helps. :hoppingma However, they way that is should work should be made clear. The power should create an crystal and then make a attack with that crystal. We would still have no reason to think that the power continues beyond the creation of that crystal.
Slagger the Chuul 04-19-08, 05:57 PM	After that object is completed there is not reason to say that the power itself is still active. If the power was not still active, attacking with the crystal (assuming we discard the discrepancy of crystal shard using a ray instead of employing the crystal directly like similar powers) would require a separate attack action. Only by including the attack as part of the power within its instantaneous duration do we avoid the normal need for an attack action in order to make an attack. On another interesting note, touch attack powers with an instantaneous duration allow the attack to be made on a separate round than the manifesting. However they allow for power resistance, so the power directly affects the target. In the case of these few power (more spells do this) we have reason to believe that the power is in effect at the time that the attack is made, so they are negated by the antimagic field. I do not know of any of these power that are metacreative, nor creation spells that works this way. The most interesting part of the way holding the charge works is that you can hold the charge beyond what would be considered the spell or power's normal duration. In this particular case, it is possible that such a power might still be considered to be in effect beyond its duration. But similarly to the situation with crystal shard, making an attack without using the spell or power requires a separate attack action.
calronmoonflower 04-19-08, 06:05 PM	If the power was not still active, attacking with the crystal (assuming we discard the discrepancy of crystal shard using a ray instead of employing the crystal directly like similar powers) would require a separate attack action. Prove it.
calronmoonflower 04-19-08, 07:46 PM	From the PowersOverview THE POWER’S RESULT Once you know which creatures (or objects or areas) are affected, and whether those creatures have made successful saving throws (if any were allowed), you can apply whatever results a power entails Metacreativity Metacreativity powers create objects, creatures, or some form of matter. Creatures you create usually, but not always, obey your commands. A metacreativity power draws raw ectoplasm from the Astral Plane to create an object or creature in the place the psionic character designates (subject to the limits noted above). Objects created in this fashion are as solid and durable as normal objects, despite their originally diaphanous substance. Psionic creatures created with metacreativity powers are considered constructs, not outsiders. A creature or object brought into being cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it. The creature or object must appear within the power’s range, but it does not have to remain within the range. For the purpose of psionics–magic transparency, metacreativity powers are equivalent to powers of the conjuration school (thus, creatures immune to conjuration spells are also immune to metacreativity powers). Creation: A power of the creation subdiscipline creates an object or creature in the place the manifester designates (subject to the limits noted above). If the power has a duration other than instantaneous, psionic energy holds the creation together, and when the power ends, the created creature or object vanishes without a trace, except for a thin film of glistening ectoplasm that quickly evaporates. If the power has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through psionics. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on psionics for its existence. DURATION Instantaneous: The psionic energy comes and goes the instant the power is manifested, though the consequences might be long-lasting. DESCRIPTIVE TEXT This portion of a power description details what the power does and how it works. If one of the previous lines in the description included “see text,” this is where the explanation is found. If the power you’re reading about is based on another power you might have to refer to a different power for the “see text” information. If a power is the equivalent of a spell an entry of “see spell text” directs you to the appropriate spell description. From the Magic Overview THE SPELL’S RESULT Once you know which creatures (or objects or areas) are affected, and whether those creatures have made successful saving throws (if any were allowed), you can apply whatever results a spell entails. Conjuration Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates (subject to the limits noted above). If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence. DURATION Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting. From Antimagic Field The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result. From Null Psionics Field Creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected by a null psionics field because the power itself is no longer in effect, only its result. The description of both Conjuration spells with the creation subschool and the Metacreativity descriptions says that what ever it creates no longer needs the power/spell for it to contunue. The Antimagic Field exception says the "effect" (like in the effect line) are not negated because the spell/power is already over. This is supported by the disruption of the metacreativity discipline. Here we have a text that directly supports when metacreativity powers with a instantaneous duration ends. The Null Psionics Field exception just plain says that powers are not affected because the power is already over (poor wording). The descriptive text quotes tells us that the text tells us how the power/spells works along with its effect. The inclusion of any text in this part of a power/spell does not make it inherently part of the spell/power. It is now quite clear that the power ends when the ray is created.
Slagger the Chuul 04-20-08, 02:46 PM	The description of both Conjuration spells with the creation subschool and the Metacreativity descriptions says that what ever it creates no longer needs the power/spell for it to contunue. That's correct once the object is assembled. The only point at which you can be sure the object is fully assembled is when the power is complete. The Antimagic Field exception says the "effect" (like in the effect line) are not negated because the spell/power is already over. This is supported by the disruption of the metacreativity discipline. Here we have a text that directly supports when metacreativity powers with a instantaneous duration ends. The Null Psionics Field exception just plain says that powers are not affected because the power is already over (poor wording). The spell/power being over is the reason that they're not affected. Normal logic flow does not apply when the facts (and the reasons that create them) are a direct product of the text, unlike a fact recorded as an observation of a real-world situation. This is the same application of logic that we have addressed before and it still does not provide a sound basis of reason for a game situation. The descriptive text quotes tells us that the text tells us how the power/spells works along with its effect. The inclusion of any text in this part of a power/spell does not make it inherently part of the spell/power. This portion of a power description details what the power does and how it works. It tells us how the power works and how it (the power) works. The inclusion of text in this part of a spell or power makes it part of the power unless it is describing the attributes of something that later becomes separate from the power. If the power was not still active, attacking with the crystal (assuming we discard the discrepancy of crystal shard using a ray instead of employing the crystal directly like similar powers) would require a separate attack action. Only by including the attack as part of the power within its instantaneous duration do we avoid the normal need for an attack action in order to make an attack. Prove it. Attack Making an attack is a standard action. Unless otherwise stated, attacking is an attack action. If the attack is not part of the power (which would allow it to occur in the instant of the duration), attacking is a standard action.
calronmoonflower 04-20-08, 03:38 PM	That's correct once the object is assembled. The only point at which you can be sure the object is fully assembled is when the power is complete. The text from Antimagic Field says when it is complete. The spell/power being over is the reason that they're not affected. Normal logic flow does not apply when the facts (and the reasons that create them) are a direct product of the text, unlike a fact recorded as an observation of a real-world situation. Incorrect. The rules of logic still apply, just in a different manner. In this case the text that you are using to support your argument actually say that the power is no longer in effect. To say otherwise would be a contradiction and therefor inconsistent. Consistency is an important part of logic. Without it no conclusion could even be drawn. This is the same application of logic that we have addressed before and it still does not provide a sound basis of reason for a game situation. A quote by the Rules As Written that says the power is no longer in effect means that the power is no longer in effect. That is a tautological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautological). It tells us how the power works and how it (the power) works. The inclusion of text in this part of a spell or power makes it part of the power unless it is describing the attributes of something that later becomes separate from the power. In other words you are saying that it isn't separate because it isn't separate, without anything to back it up. This statement tells us that an attack is made separate from the normal rules for attacks. Unless otherwise stated, attacking is an attack action. The power states that the attack is made, so it is stated as be being other than an attack action. Anyway you stated the each part of the whole must have the properties of the whole, This is a fallacy of division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division). If the attack is not part of the power (which would allow it to occur in the instant of the duration), attacking is a standard action. Prove it. From Antimagic Field The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result. Crystal Shard Metacreativity (Creation) Level: Psion/wilder 1 Display: Auditory and material Manifesting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Effect: Ray Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None Power Resistance: No Power Points: 1 Upon manifesting this power, you propel a razor-sharp crystal shard at your target. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack with the ray to deal damage to a target. The ray deals 1d6 points of piercing damage. Augment: For every additional power point you spend, this power’s damage increases by 1d6 points. 1). "The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result." (premise) 2). "For the purpose of psionics–magic transparency, metacreativity powers are equivalent to powers of the conjuration school." (premise) 3). The Crystal Shard is a metacreative power of an instantaneous duration. (premise) 4). The ray is an effect of the power. (premise) Therefor The ray of Crystal Shard is unaffected by Antimagic Field. (Conclusion) For the conclusion to be wrong here, I must have made a mistake (hard to do with quotes) or one of the premises must be wrong. Again I am quoting, so that is extremely unlikely.
Slagger the Chuul 04-20-08, 11:55 PM	The rules of logic still apply, just in a different manner. In this case the text that you are using to support your argument actually say that the power is no longer in effect. To say otherwise would be a contradiction and therefor inconsistent. Consistency is an important part of logic. Without it no conclusion could even be drawn. The power not being in effect is a fact of the general situation, with the consequence of allowing penetration of an antimagic field (but the normal rules of logic would not call it a fact). In a given situation, such as crystal shard, that fact may not be true (the power may still be in effect), which gives us the outcome that penetration of the field fails. In other words you are saying that it isn't separate because it isn't separate, without anything to back it up. I'm saying it isn't separate because the section is question is describing a power, and does not mention being a description of anything else. It could be a description of how bananas and fairies work, but there's no mention of them. This statement tells us that an attack is made separate from the normal rules for attacks. It just says that an attack is made. It doesn't function any differently to a normal attack unless stated to be so, since we already have a definition of the action used for an attack. The power states that the attack is made, so it is stated as be being other than an attack action. It never says that the attack is made as anything other than an attack action. The only basis for it occuring as anything other than an attack action is by having it occur as part of the power.
calronmoonflower 04-21-08, 02:11 AM	The power not being in effect is a fact of the general situation, with the consequence of allowing penetration of an antimagic field (but the normal rules of logic would not call it a fact). In a given situation, such as crystal shard, that fact may not be true (the power may still be in effect), which gives us the outcome that penetration of the field fails. The Rules As Written say where it ends for instantaneous metacreative powers. It is before the field or there would be no ray to interact with the field. As it is the Rules As Written disagreed with you, so you said that the Rules As Written are wrong. You also used your own argument to counter a rebuttal, thus this is an invalid counter. I'm saying it isn't separate because the section is question is describing a power, and does not mention being a description of anything else. It could be a description of how bananas and fairies work, but there's no mention of them. You are incorrect. The power does say that it creates a crystal. It just says that an attack is made. It doesn't function any differently to a normal attack unless stated to be so, since we already have a definition of the action used for an attack. Argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) From the Expanded Psionics Handbook page 60 Ray: Some effects are rays (for example crystal shard). You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. The power states that it creates a attack, therefor it that attack is made outside the normal rules. The attack is a result of the power, so it cannot be made on another round, but immediately after the power is completed. It never says that the attack is made as anything other than an attack action. The only basis for it occurring as anything other than an attack action is by having it occur as part of the power. A fallacy of division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division) backed up with an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). Also you failed to even reply to the logic chain that I used at the end. As it is if what you are saying is right, then one of more parts must be wrong. By failing to take on the strongest point of my argument you have used a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman). As long as that logic chain is not broken, what I say is logically correct. Here it is again. 1). "The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result." (premise) 2). "For the purpose of psionics–magic transparency, metacreativity powers are equivalent to powers of the conjuration school." (premise) 3). The Crystal Shard is a metacreative power of an instantaneous duration. (premise) 4). The ray is an effect of the power. (premise) Therefor The ray of Crystal Shard is unaffected by Antimagic Field. (Conclusion)
Slagger the Chuul 04-21-08, 03:39 AM	The Rules As Written say where it ends for instantaneous metacreative powers. It is before the field or there would be no ray to interact with the field. As it is the Rules As Written disagreed with you, so you said that the Rules As Written are wrong. They just don't apply to this particular situation, because the reasoning that causes them isn't applicable. The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result." If the power has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through psionics. If the power creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration. While the ray is an effect, it is not the created object and therefore does not persist beyond the duration of the power. Only if the ray manages to persist beyond the duration of the power by also being a created object will it be able to penetrate the field. Argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) The requirements for an attack action do not merely exist because nothing says otherwise, but because there is an existing and uncontradicted standard. From the Expanded Psionics Handbook page 60 The power states that it creates a attack, therefor it that attack is made outside the normal rules. The attack is a result of the power, so it cannot be made on another round, but immediately after the power is completed. The completion of the manifestation causes a number of consequences that occur as part of the power, and being caused directly by the power do not require separate actions. Anything beyond that point will take the normal action to perform. A fallacy of division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division) backed up with an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). That the power causes consequences without requiring a separate action is not a fallacy of division, nor (see above) is the lack of contradiction to a standard an argument from ignorance. As long as that logic chain is not broken, what I say is logically correct. The original premise is simply not applicable by virtue of the creation effect still being present.
calronmoonflower 04-22-08, 02:42 AM	The exception from the antimagic field doesn't state that the effect must be an object for the exception to take place. It also doesn't state how long that effect must last for this exception to take place. Both points that you made against this are invalid. On another point, If the ray was directly part of the power then the power it directly affecting the target. If the power is directly affecting the power spell resistance applies, do to psionics/magaic tranparancy. Spell resistance doesn't apply as the power resistance entry is no. Therefor either the ray cannot be a part of the power. See spell resistance on page 315 of the Monster Manuel for the details. After that the rest fall into place.
Slagger the Chuul 04-22-08, 04:25 AM	The exception from the antimagic field doesn't state that the effect must be an object for the exception to take place. It also doesn't state how long that effect must last for this exception to take place. Both points that you made against this are invalid. If the ray has already ceased to exist, it can't penetrate the field. On another point, If the ray was directly part of the power then the power it directly affecting the target. It just means that the ray is directly affecting the target (see below). If the power is directly affecting the power spell resistance applies, do to psionics/magaic tranparancy. Spell resistance doesn't apply as the power resistance entry is no. See spell resistance on page 315 of the Monster Manuel for the details. After that the rest fall into place. The energy behind the power (which spell resistance refers to) is what must affect the target for spell resistance to apply. The ray is a rules-based attack method without a tangible form, not the motive energy behind the power. Other thoughts: If the ray is not part of the power, why is it limited to the power's range? If the crystal created by crystal shard (which is not the "effect" of the power) is not directly part of the power, can it be deflected by Deflect Arrows.
calronmoonflower 04-23-08, 03:22 AM	:gah: It ate my post. If the ray has already ceased to exist, it can't penetrate the field. On an interesting note. The power never actually states that it even creates a ray. :confused: It is as hard to attack with something that never existed as something that doesn't exist. :P The standards for metacreative powers with the creation subdisicipline create object, creatures, or some form of matter. The ray as far as its properties are nailed down do not contradict this. Also the time that the ray exists is not nailed down either, so the duration of the ray is indefinite, as in unknown. However, this doesn't need to be true for the exception to apply. It just means that the ray is directly affecting the target (see below). Spell resistance says that it applied to spell that affect the target. Powers that bypass power resistance do so by an intermediate effect. Claws of the Beast for example create claws, which then deals damage, rather than the power itself dealing damage. The energy behind the power (which spell resistance refers to) is what must affect the target for spell resistance to apply. The ray is a rules-based attack method without a tangible form, not the motive energy behind the power. As it is this can be applied to Energy Ray. For the power to function is must go from a power at some point to something else. It can be said that the ray starts out as part of the power, but become separate later before it strike its target. This intermediate effect would allow the bypassing of power resistance and not require an extra action to attack with the ray as you stated earlier. The exact point of this is not nailed down, but the antimagic exception says that it happens before the ray enters the antimagic field. Without that step power resistance would apply. Other thoughts: If the ray is not part of the power, why is it limited to the power's range? If the crystal created by crystal shard (which is not the "effect" of the power) is not directly part of the power, can it be deflected by Deflect Arrows. 1). The limit of the ray is limited by the rules for rays. As it is they have a set range. Also I revised my statement a bit. It should now fit a bit better into the description. 2). The feat applies to ranged weapons. Under either interpretation the crystal isn't stated as a weapon.
Slagger the Chuul 04-23-08, 05:01 AM	On an interesting note. The power never actually states that it even creates a ray. :confused: It is as hard to attack with something that never existed as something that doesn't exist. :P That's the nice bit about being a rule-based mechanic; it doesn't even need to be created. :) The standards for metacreative powers with the creation subdisicipline create object, creatures, or some form of matter. The ray as far as its properties are nailed down do not contradict this. Also the time that the ray exists is not nailed down either, so the duration of the ray is indefinite, as in unknown. If it's not actually created as an item, that fits with it having no defined substance or duration (since the ray is defined purely by the power that employs it as a mechanic). Spell resistance says that it applied to spell that affect the target. Powers that bypass power resistance do so by an intermediate effect. Claws of the Beast for example create claws, which then deals damage, rather than the power itself dealing damage. Spell resistance has no effect unless the energy created or released by the spell actually goes to work on the resistant creature’s mind or body. It's a matter of determining whether or not the energy of the spell/power actually goes to work on the creature. Consistent with existance purely as a rule-based mechanic, the ray can potentially attack a creature without representing the energy of the power. As it is this can be applied to Energy Ray. For energy ray, the ray is accorded substance in the form of a particular type of energy (as given in the description), and it's not really an issue, since it isn't an instantaneous creation. For the power to function is must go from a power at some point to something else. It can be said that the ray starts out as part of the power, but become separate later before it strike its target. This intermediate effect would allow the bypassing of power resistance and not require an extra action to attack with the ray as you stated earlier. The exact point of this is not nailed down, but the antimagic exception says that it happens before the ray enters the antimagic field. Without that step power resistance would apply. If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration. The ray won't exist beyond the end of the power unless it's a created item, otherwise it ends when the duration does. 1). The limit of the ray is limited by the rules for rays. As it is they have a set range. Also I revised my statement a bit. It should now fit a bit better into the description. The ray range is the spell/power range, but if the power is over, there is no range. 2). The feat applies to ranged weapons. Under either interpretation the crystal isn't stated as a weapon. I was thinking more of the crystal as akin to the ammunition launched by a weapon (the item physically deflected, even though the rules literally dictate that the weapon itself is deflected).
GuyrtheadamantineOne 04-23-08, 10:12 AM	''Ray'' is a concept in D&D. Ray Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don’t have to see the creature you’re trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature you’re aiming at. If a ray spell has a duration, it’s the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists. If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. This is a ''ray'' in D&D. It never mentions beams of light or anything. It only is a ruleset for a category of spells. Stop trying to find the beam. The power uses the ''ray ruleset'', that's it.
calronmoonflower 04-24-08, 02:36 AM	I grow weary of this, but I'll give it one more try. "The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result." Therefor "The effects of [Crystal Shard] are not affected by an antimagic field because the [power] itself is no longer in effect, only its result."
Slagger the Chuul 04-24-08, 05:00 AM	I grow weary of this, but I'll give it one more try. "The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result." Therefor "The effects of [Crystal Shard] are not affected by an antimagic field because the [power] itself is no longer in effect, only its result." Naturally. Once the power is no longer in effect, the results are not affected, being nonmagical (or nonpsionic) in nature. I don't think that part has ever been in debate, just whether or not the power was still in effect. The power uses the ''ray ruleset'', that's it. I agree with that. Some other powers (like energy ray) actually produce a ray, but not crystal shard. Fortunately, I don't have a problem handling the discrepancies that exist between the game mechanics and the way an effect appears to behave to the characters in the game. The really fun part comes when you come to the border between the two.
calronmoonflower 04-24-08, 05:04 AM	Naturally. Once the power is no longer in effect, the results are not affected, being nonmagical (or nonpsionic) in nature. I don't think that part has ever been in debate, just whether or not the power was still in effect. It's no longer in effect after to does its task of creating an object, as that is how powers of this type work. Once this is done then the damage can be dealt.
Slagger the Chuul 04-24-08, 07:36 AM	It's no longer in effect after to does its task of creating an object, as that is how powers of this type work. Once this is done then the damage can be dealt. The attack and damage are part of the power as well, since they are mechanically enacted by the ray, which does not exist beyond the power's duration (and even if it did, it would have no range, since the range of the ray is a function of the power).
calronmoonflower 04-25-08, 02:04 AM	Something occurred to me today. "[T]he conjuration" could be referring to either 1). A spell of the conjuration school. 2). the act or process of conjuring (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjuration%20) So lets look at both to see which fits best, as we may have been arguing over the wrong thing for 5 pages. :nonono: Definition 1 "The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the [spell] itself is no longer in effect, only its result." This statement contradicts the rules for object created by instantaneous conjurations not needing the spell to exist. For example if you cast Wall of Iron unanchored. The wall itself doesn't need the spell itself to exist. Then the wall as part of the spell falls into an antimagic field, the wall would cease to exist as the spell is in effect. This is inconsistent and therefor illogical. Definition 2 "The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the [the act or process of conjuring] itself is no longer in effect, only its result." In this case the iron wall hits as part of the spell and continues to exist as the process of conjuring is over. This interpretation fits the rules for objects created by instantaneous conjurations no longer needing the spell to exist. This second statement is the standard that we need to use. The equivalent in psionics for conjuration is metacreation so, "The effects of [Crystal Shard] are not affected by an antimagic field because the [the act or process of metacreation] itself is no longer in effect, only its result." This means the antimagic field cannot stop the effects of the power, including the ray, only prevent it from forming in the first place. So the conclusion is that Antimagic Field only stops Crystal Ray if you choose to create the effect in the field.
Slagger the Chuul 04-25-08, 06:46 AM	The equivalent in psionics for conjuration is metacreation so, "The effects of [Crystal Shard] are not affected by an antimagic field because the [the act or process of metacreation] itself is no longer in effect, only its result." This means the antimagic field cannot stop the effects of the power, including the ray, only prevent it from forming in the first place. I'm sort of going with that interpretation anyway, but see below. This statement contradicts the rules for object created by instantaneous conjurations not needing the spell to exist. For example if you cast Wall of Iron unanchored. The wall itself doesn't need the spell itself to exist. The distinction I'd make is that during the process of conjuring (which only takes an instant), the wall does need the spell in order to exist, since it isn't fully conjured. For instantaneous conjurations (and creation powers), the process of conjuring takes the entire duration of the spell. So the conclusion is that Antimagic Field only stops Crystal Ray if you choose to create the effect in the field. I basically agree with this as far as the created item itself goes. Crystal shard is simply forced to make its attack while it's still being created.
Racinante 04-25-08, 11:33 AM	Crystal shard is simply forced to make its attack while it's still being created. ...and there is nothing in the rules that supports this supposition. Nothing defines whether the attack roll is made during the instantaneous duration or at its completion, for this or any other power with that duration. Both moments occur during the standard action used to manifest the power. Stating that the attack or attack roll occurs before, during, or after is merely conjecture. Basing an interpretation on this timing that contraindicates a direct rules based statement is, by definition, a house rule.
Slagger the Chuul 04-25-08, 08:08 PM	...and there is nothing in the rules that supports this supposition. Nothing defines whether the attack roll is made during the instantaneous duration or at its completion, for this or any other power with that duration. You could make it after the power's duration, you'd just be making the attack with a ray that has no range and doesn't exist. Both moments occur during the standard action used to manifest the power. Stating that the attack or attack roll occurs before, during, or after is merely conjecture. Basing an interpretation on this timing that contraindicates a direct rules based statement is, by definition, a house rule. Nothing actually occurs during the standard action used to manifest the power, only once that action is completed do any of the power's effects come into play. Notably, if your manifestation is interrupted, none of the power's effects occur.
calronmoonflower 04-26-08, 04:02 AM	The exception itself says that the conjuration is over. It doesn't say "if" it says "because". Both are meant to be true. The power is akin to creating a bullet and firing it. Any other interpretation require that a physical object crated by a instantaneous creation effect to be supported by the power and that it exactly the opposite of the way such powers work by the Rules As Written. If the interpretation that the object created needs the spell in order to be is true, that exception has no propose what-so-ever. Any effect that lasts after a spell/power is over is immune to Antimagic Field. Otherwise you could use the spell to reverse Disintegrate. In this part you must separate the metaphysics from the physics of the spell/power. The physical consequences of a spell/power has absolutely no impact on the whether the energy of that spell is still in existence. From the SRD Creation: A power of the creation subdiscipline creates an object or creature in the place the manifester designates (subject to the limits noted above). If the power has a duration other than instantaneous, psionic energy holds the creation together, and when the power ends, the created creature or object vanishes without a trace, except for a thin film of glistening ectoplasm that quickly evaporates. If the power has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through psionics. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on psionics for its existence.
Slagger the Chuul 04-26-08, 04:47 AM	If the interpretation that the object created needs the spell in order to be is true, that exception has no propose what-so-ever. Any effect that lasts after a spell/power is over is immune to Antimagic Field. Otherwise you could use the spell to reverse Disintegrate. The exception clarifies that spells like wall of stone (whose effect is also the object created) will not be affected after the duration is completed, even though it was originally the effect of a spell. If the power has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through psionics. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on psionics for its existence. As described here, the object relies on the power for its existence only while being assembled.
calronmoonflower 04-27-08, 02:42 AM	The exception clarifies that spells like wall of stone (whose effect is also the object created) will not be affected after the duration is completed, even though it was originally the effect of a spell. Wrong. Its says ""The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result." It says nothing about the duration, nor would there be any reason to exclude the effects of any other type of spell that lasts beyond the duration if what you say is true. For example Stone of Flesh has an instantaneous duration. The logical way to put that kind of clarification would be "The effects of instantaneous spells are not effected by antimagic field if the spell is no longer in effect, as only the result would remain." As it is it would be doing just the opposite of what you claim by suggesting that other spells do not work that way, making it less clear. If the power has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through psionics. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on psionics for its existence. As described here, the object relies on the power for its existence only while being assembled. That actually directly contradicts the wording of the text. The Rule As Written "The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result." Your Argument "The effects of instantaneous conjurations are [not] affected by an antimagic field [during its duration] because the conjuration itself is in effect, [not just] [only] the result." As it is you have put forth nothing to suggest the act or process of conjuring is in effect except the assertion itself. Also you argument only works in the conjuration takes up the whole duration. If it did take up the whole duration nothing that could be an affect of the result it existing would be able to happen during the duration as it would not yet exist. My Argument "The effects of [Crystal Shard] are not affected by an antimagic field because the [the act or process of metacreation] itself is no longer in effect, only its result." During the duration the following happens A: The ray (whatever it is composed of) is created. B: A ranged touch attack is made with the ray. C: The damage of the attack is dealt if any. A -> B -> C After step A the process of metacreation is completed and the ray can exist without the support of the power, thus being already created it can pass into an Antimagic Field without ceasing to exist as part of the power. Nothing within this argument contradicts the Rules As Written. Here is a separate proof to show when the conjuring process is over. "The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result." Substitute the spell and the definition of conjuration. "The effects of [Wall of Iron] are not affected by an antimagic field because the [the act or process of conjuring] itself is no longer in effect, only its result." Substitute the effects of the spell. "The [existance, falling over, and the damage of the wall] of [Wall of Iron] are not affected by an antimagic field because the [the act or process of conjuring] itself is no longer in effect, only its result." The direct substitution of the parts in brackets means that the end result is allowed by the Rules As Written. This is by-conditional to your argument. Therefor your argument must be wrong.
Slagger the Chuul 04-27-08, 12:36 PM	It says nothing about the duration, nor would there be any reason to exclude the effects of any other type of spell that lasts beyond the duration if what you say is true. For example Stone of Flesh has an instantaneous duration. There's no need to exclude those effects since they cease to exist at the end of their spell's duration. Only when the effect is also a created item does it become an issue. That actually directly contradicts the wording of the text. Being created by a psionic power, it is unavoidable that in some way or at some time it depends on psionics for its existence. "The effects of instantaneous conjurations are [not] affected by an antimagic field [during its duration] because the conjuration itself is in effect, [not just] [only] the result." As it is you have put forth nothing to suggest the act or process of conjuring is in effect except the assertion itself. Also you argument only works in the conjuration takes up the whole duration. Only your assertion claims that it refers to an act of conjuring, rather than a conjuration effect. A conjuration effect (a standard kind of effect established by the given rules) by definition lasts for its own duration. If it did take up the whole duration nothing that could be an affect of the result it existing would be able to happen during the duration as it would not yet exist. You're assuming that the act of creation is a digital process, where an object is either wholly created or not at all. It is perfectly possible for the shard to still be in the process of creation at the point the attack is made. Alternatively, it is possible that the energy of the power that creates it has not fully stabilized that structure and can thus cause it to destabilize before the end of the power's duration. This is consistent with the creation of a solid crystal, the lack of power resistance, and the ability to be disrupted by an antimagic field. My Argument "The effects of [Crystal Shard] are not affected by an antimagic field because the [the act or process of metacreation] itself is no longer in effect, only its result." During the duration the following happens A: The ray (whatever it is composed of) is created. B: A ranged touch attack is made with the ray. C: The damage of the attack is dealt if any. A -> B -> C After step A the process of metacreation is completed and the ray can exist without the support of the power, thus being already created it can pass into an Antimagic Field without ceasing to exist as part of the power. In the sense of a line between two points (which though nowhere explictly stated by these rules, is implict in the description as a ray), a ray's creation, contact with a target, and damage can, and indeed must, occur simultaneously. This is consistent with blocking by an antimagic field. "The [existance, falling over, and the damage of the wall] of [Wall of Iron] are not affected by an antimagic field because the [the act or process of conjuring] itself is no longer in effect, only its result." The direct substitution of the parts in brackets means that the end result is allowed by the Rules As Written. This is by-conditional to your argument. Therefor your argument must be wrong. The idea you're proposing depends on discarding the standard definition of a conjuration provided by the rules in favour of a "process of conjuring" made distinct from a conjuration. The fact that the psionic equivalent, null psionics field , describes a mechanical equivalent by referring directly to the power strongly suggests that the intent is for application to the whole power, rather than an ambiguous subsection.
calronmoonflower 04-27-08, 06:29 PM	I gave an example of a none conjuration with an instantaneous duration that had an effect that lasted beyond the duration of the power. To say that they do not exist when an example was given is non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29), as the statement itself already was disproved. Here's a few such core spells/powers Assimilate, sort of. The destruction of the body lasts beyond the duration. Fiery Discorporation, sort of again. Discorporation of your body is instantaneous, yet lasts beyond that instant. What's with these two duration powers? Reality Revision, see inherent bonuses Restore Extremity Sustenance Animate Dead Atonement Awaken Blasphemy Bless Water Break Enchantment, reverses instantaneous effects! Clone Color Spray Contagion Create Undead Curse Water Destruction Dictum Diminish Plants Disintegrate Enervation Erase Feeblemind Flare Flesh to Stone Freedom, to be fair this ends effect much like dispelling. Freezing Sphere Hallow Holy Word Imprisonment Insanity Mage’s Disjunction, The SRD doesn't contain trademarked names. Mage’s Lucubration Mnemonic Enhancer Move Earth Nightmare Plant Growth Poison Prismatic Spray Purify Food and Drink Raise Dead Reincarnate Remove Curse, another dispelling effect Rusting Grasp Shatter Shout Simulacrum Soften Earth and Stone Stone Shape Stone to Flesh Sunburst Transmute Metal to Wood Unhallow Warp Wood Waves of Exhaustion Waves of Fatigue Wish, gain the inherent bonuses. I also found this. From Dispel magic "The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can’t be dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel magic can take effect." That is what you are saying that the Antimagic Exception is saying. As it is there appears to be more none conjuration/metacreativity spells/powers with effects that last longer than the duration (I didn't include knowledge gained, damage, death, or teleportation effects in the above) than conjuration/metacreativity effects with the same. At this point I believe I can say that you Rules As Intended argument is disproved. conjuring 2 a: to summon by or as if by invocation or incantation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=conjuring) That matches the Rules As Written definition that a conjuration creates an creature, object, or some form of matter. That is the "the act or process of conjuring." No rules bases that I could find supports any else. To say because that it occurs within the duration it must be part of the process of creation doesn't follow. The conjuring is creating the effect, not the existence of the effect itself. The effect exists? True or False The the effect exists then by the Rules As Written it need not be supported by the power. If the effect is in the process of being created, then by definition it does not yet exist. If the effect doesn't exist then no consequence of that effect can happen. As it is no in between step is mentioned within the rules set. As this is metaphysics rather than physics it really isn't logical required. However, even if it exists, nothing suggest that it lasts until the end of the duration. If it did then the attack with the ray cannot be made until after the powers duration as by definition the ray doesn't exist until then. Even without the exception I can make the case for the ray being unaffected by the field. Not a strong one perhaps, but still there is one. As it is the rules say A because B. You say Not B, so therefor not A. Until you can prove "Not B" you claim is unsupported. I have looked for support of both "B" and "Not B", and the only things that I can find point to "B" As a fifth point, From Acid Orb on page 150 of the Spell Compendium. "An orb of acid about 3 inches across shoots from your palm at its target, dealing [...]" By the time this spell (it is an instantaneous creation spell) deals damage the thing dealing the damage is already in existence. As it is in existence it no longer needs the spell for support. From Null Psionics Field "Creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected by a null psionics field because the power itself is no longer in effect, only its result." This say the "power" is not effected, therefor the power is not effected. You cannot use this badly worded text to prove your point as it stated 100% the opposite of what you are saying.
Slagger the Chuul 04-27-08, 09:08 PM	I gave an example of a none conjuration with an instantaneous duration that had an effect that lasted beyond the duration of the power. To say that they do not exist when an example was given is non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29), as the statement itself already was disproved. I'm not sure exactly what you think I'm saying, so I'll avoid a specific response to this at the moment. What part of my post are you referring to, and are you talking about the results of a spell/power? I also found this. From Dispel magic "The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can’t be dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel magic can take effect." That is what you are saying that the Antimagic Exception is saying. As it is there appears to be more none conjuration/metacreativity spells/powers with effects that last longer than the duration (I didn't include knowledge gained, damage, death, or teleportation effects in the above) than conjuration/metacreativity effects with the same. Similarly here, I'm not completely sure of what you're trying to say (I assume this is related to the above point), although I agree that antimagic field is essentially effective or ineffective for the same reason as dispel magic. For both, the absence of magic prevents magic from being dispelled or supressed. conjuring 2 a: to summon by or as if by invocation or incantation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=conjuring) That matches the Rules As Written definition that a conjuration creates an creature, object, or some form of matter. That is the "the act or process of conjuring." No rules bases that I could find supports any else. A spell of the conjuration school is already a conjuration by virtue of being explicitly given that status by the rules. Attempting to replace that with an idea of conjuration based on the result of the word "conjuring" ignores the written rules in favour of an arbitrary definition. Antimagic field talks about a conjuration, which by the given definition is a spell of the conjuration school. Attempting to replace that with a term based on the dictionary definition of the word "conjuring" ignores the primary source provided by the rules. Our primary source is the SRD, not the dictionary. To say because that it occurs within the duration it must be part of the process of creation doesn't follow. The conjuring is creating the effect, not the existence of the effect itself. Because it occurs within the duration, it is part of a spell of the conjuration school. The process and duration of the actual process of creation are not sufficiently well described to determine when they might or might not be separate from the spell, except by the spell's duration. The effect exists? True or False The the effect exists then by the Rules As Written it need not be supported by the power. If the effect is in the process of being created, then by definition it does not yet exist. If the effect doesn't exist then no consequence of that effect can happen. As it is no in between step is mentioned within the rules set. As this is metaphysics rather than physics it really isn't logical required. If that were true, it would also apply to effects created by non-instantaneous spells of any school, such as spiritual weapon. The existence of such spells proves the ability for a fully created effect to exist while still requiring spell support. Instantaneous creations are free of the need for that support once the duration is complete. However, even if it exists, nothing suggest that it lasts until the end of the duration. If it did then the attack with the ray cannot be made until after the powers duration as by definition the ray doesn't exist until then. Even without the exception I can make the case for the ray being unaffected by the field. Not a strong one perhaps, but still there is one. If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration. The effect lasts for the duration, not longer, not shorter. As it is the rules say A because B. You say Not B, so therefor not A. Until you can prove "Not B" you claim is unsupported. I have looked for support of both "B" and "Not B", and the only things that I can find point to "B" "Not B" is simply a consequence of the spell/power's duration. As a fifth point, From Acid Orb on page 150 of the Spell Compendium. "An orb of acid about 3 inches across shoots from your palm at its target, dealing [...]" By the time this spell (it is an instantaneous creation spell) deals damage the thing dealing the damage is already in existence. As it is in existence it no longer needs the spell for support. Simply being in existence does not provide freedom from support by the spell. If the orb is truly free of the spell, why is it still unable to attack beyond the range of the spell? From Null Psionics Field "Creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected by a null psionics field because the power itself is no longer in effect, only its result." This say the "power" is not effected, therefor the power is not effected. You cannot use this badly worded text to prove your point as it stated 100% the opposite of what you are saying. What is your basis for calling it badly worded? It fits very consistently since the effect is still part of the power for the power's duration.
calronmoonflower 04-27-08, 10:34 PM	I'm not sure exactly what you think I'm saying, so I'll avoid a specific response to this at the moment. What part of my post are you referring to, and are you talking about the results of a spell/power? Similarly here, I'm not completely sure of what you're trying to say (I assume this is related to the above point), although I agree that antimagic field is essentially effective or ineffective for the same reason as dispel magic. For both, the absence of magic prevents magic from being dispelled or supressed. "There's no need to exclude those effects since they cease to exist at the end of their spell's duration." A spell of the conjuration school is already a conjuration by virtue of being explicitly given that status by the rules. Attempting to replace that with an idea of conjuration based on the result of the word "conjuring" ignores the written rules in favour of an arbitrary definition. No, conjuration is a description of a spell type, an action, not just a noun. I explained the logic of this when I posted it in the first place. In fact I've never really seen it used as a noun, but logically it could be used that way. If it is referring to the spell then the effect of the spell must both be supported by the power and independent of that power at the same time. That inherent contradiction rules that use out as a possibility. As the text goes from plural "effects" "result" to singular "conjuration" so the sentence structure itself doesn't support it being a noun. Antimagic field talks about a conjuration, which by the given definition is a spell of the conjuration school. Attempting to replace that with a term based on the dictionary definition of the word "conjuring" ignores the primary source provided by the rules. Our primary source is the SRD, not the dictionary. You have just said that my interpretation isn't valid, because it doesn't match yours. As it is no definition in any form other than a school of spells, doesn't exist. It isn't being used in that way. It is left as a noun or verb. The use is constant with the verb form. If you do the the school description then you will see that action that it being preformed is "Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (the summoning subschool), actually transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling), heal (healing), transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation), or create objects or effects on the spot (creation)." My definition matches the use in the Rules As Written. The process and duration of the actual process of creation are not sufficiently well described to determine when they might or might not be separate from the spell, except by the spell's duration. That would mean that neither argument is supported by the process. That leads you to the exception as the only source to say when it happens. If that were true, it would also apply to effects created by non-instantaneous spells of any school, such as spiritual weapon. The existence of such spells proves the ability for a fully created effect to exist while still requiring spell support. Wrong. Nothing states that can exist independent of the spell that creates then. Instantaneous creation effect have a text bases for the argument. Instantaneous creations are free of the need for that support once the duration is complete. This statement has no bases in the Rules As Written. The only statement say that they exist without support after they are created. The effect lasts for the duration, not longer, not shorter. Except for instantaneous creation effects. "Not B" is simply a consequence of the spell/power's duration. Quote some Rules As Written to back that up. Simply being in existence does not provide freedom from support by the spell. If the orb is truly free of the spell, why is it still unable to attack beyond the range of the spell? Except that instantaneous creation effect, such as the Orb spell, that explicitly say that they can. Missed a part. Because the orb exist independant of the spell, doesn't mean that it lasts very long seperate from the spell, or that the circomstances afterward allows it to be used as a weapon. What is your basis for calling it badly worded? It fits very consistently since the effect is still part of the power for the power's duration. ""Creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected by a null psionics field because the power itself is no longer in effect, only its result." In the first part the text says the power itself is not effected, not the effect. As long as you manifest it outside the field it says that you can get away with the power as it has ended before the effect reaches the field. That would in essence have the attack made separate from the energy of the power. Reading it the other way require an object that are created by creation power dependent on the power despite being able to exist separately from it. Either way an contradiction to another rule happens. It also goes from plural to singular. Somewhere an English teacher cries. :) Anyway a quote from the SRD as t appears you have forgot this. Conjuration Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (the summoning subschool), actually transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling), heal (healing), transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation), or create objects or effects on the spot (creation). Creatures you conjure usually, but not always, obey your commands. A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it. Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates (subject to the limits noted above). If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence. No matter the reading some instantaneous creation spells/powers create objects before they do something with those objects as part of the that spell/power. If the exception is read the way you say that it is, then it must contradict that those objects exist independent of the power once created. [edit] I just though something about the quoted Rules As Written above. "Conjurations [not creative stuff] create objects or effects on the spot (creation)." So we have a definition for "conjuration" that is entirely on the Rules As Written. though it will very based on the subschool/subdisicipline. "The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result." substitute "The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the [creation of objects or effects] itself is no longer in effect, only its result." substitute "The effects of [crystal shard] are not affected by an antimagic field because the [creation of objects or effects] itself is no longer in effect, only its result." substitute "The [ray and the damage it deals] of [crystal shard] are not affected by an antimagic field because the [creation of objects or effects] itself is no longer in effect, only its result." By the Rules As Written, your argument can now only apply if you can prove that the [creation of effects or objects] is still under way, and you can only do so by defining the creation in that manner.
calronmoonflower 04-28-08, 02:10 AM	here's some odds and ends from the Rules Compendium page 5 ORDER OF RULES APPLICATION The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to the specific exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. If the antimagic exception conflicts with any standard rule, then it applies instead of the standard rule. Page 125 STANDARD ACTION A spell that has a casting time of 1 standard action is cast on your turn, and the spell comes into effect after the standard action is complete. Page 127 INSTANTANEOUS The energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the effect might last longer. The energy of the Crystal Shard (or any other instantaneous spell/power) is no longer in effect when it encounter the field. They are then only negated if the Antimagic Field says so. Page 136 Attacks Casting time takes precedent over the normal rules for attacks, unless a spell's description says otherwise. If a spell allows its caster to make multiple attacks and has a casting time of one standard action, all those attacks occur during the standard action. Weird, attack spells are in effect during the action in which they are cast. Page 137 * If an ability provided by the power source functions like a spell, it follows the rules for spells. For example a psionic power functions like a spell All this applies to psionics.
Slagger the Chuul 04-28-08, 03:57 AM	"There's no need to exclude those effects since they cease to exist at the end of their spell's duration." Ah, I think I see now. The examples you presented are essentially just results (like ability damage, or conversion to a nonmagical petrified form), however, not continuing effects of the spell/power itself. If it is referring to the spell then the effect of the spell must both be supported by the power and independent of that power at the same time. That inherent contradiction rules that use out as a possibility. It's consistent with being supported by the power for its duration and independent afterwards. As the text goes from plural "effects" "result" to singular "conjuration" so the sentence structure itself doesn't support it being a noun. The plurality doesn't really have anything to do with being a noun. They even refer to both plural "conjurations" and the singular "conjuration" in the one sentence. You have just said that my interpretation isn't valid, because it doesn't match yours. As it is no definition in any form other than a school of spells, doesn't exist. It isn't being used in that way. It is left as a noun or verb. "Conjuration" as a spell of the conjuration school or the process of conjuring is a noun. For example, you can say "She will conjure the cat", "She is conjuring the cat", or "She conjured the cat", but not "She conjuration the cat". The use is constant with the verb form. If you do the the school description then you will see that action that it being preformed is "Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (the summoning subschool), actually transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling), heal (healing), transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation), or create objects or effects on the spot (creation)." That's not a verb form. The verbs there are "bring", "transport", "heal", "transport", and "create". That would mean that neither argument is supported by the process. That leads you to the exception as the only source to say when it happens. The spell or power's effects occur during its duration, which thereby includes any creation that happens as a direct part of the power. Nothing states that can exist independent of the spell that creates then. Instantaneous creation effect have a text bases for the argument. If a spiritual weapon can be used to attack, then by your logic it must be fully created, and yet it can be interrupted by an antimagic field, so it must still be dependent on the spell that created it. This demonstrates that it is certainly possible for an effect to be both fully created and completely dependent on a spell. So, it is possible for a crystal to be fully created by crystal shard, yet still dependent on that power for its existence until the end of the duration. This statement has no bases in the Rules As Written. The only statement say that they exist without support after they are created. The only time you can be certain that they are fully created is at the end of the power's duration, since after that point the power can have no further influence on creating them. Except for instantaneous creation effects. Which persist through their results, rather than the literal effects of the power. Quote some Rules As Written to back that up. A power that takes 1 round to manifest requires a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began manifesting the power. You then act normally after the power is completed. When the time is up, the psionic energy sustaining the effect fades, and the power ends. While they do not bother to explicitly tell us that powers with a standard manifesting time come into effect once their manifestation is completed, examples like this allow us to determine that a power comes into effect when its manifesting time is completed and ceases to be in effect when the duration is completed. Except that instantaneous creation effect, such as the Orb spell, that explicitly say that they can. Missed a part. The created object or creature might be fully created, but it's still the ray that has to penetrate the field, and the only potential exception provided for that is by the antimagic field itself; an exception which also requires the power to be complete. Because the orb exist independant of the spell, doesn't mean that it lasts very long seperate from the spell, or that the circomstances afterward allows it to be used as a weapon. As the result of an instantaneous creation, it lasts indefinitely, and since it can cause full damage after passing through the air for anywhere from 5 to 40 feet (for the minimum caster level), it will not change significantly over the space of an additional 5 feet. The only real reason for it ending at that exact point is that it is still reliant on the spell. ""Creation powers with instantaneous durations and calling powers are not affected by a null psionics field because the power itself is no longer in effect, only its result." In the first part the text says the power itself is not effected, not the effect. As long as you manifest it outside the field it says that you can get away with the power as it has ended before the effect reaches the field. That would in essence have the attack made separate from the energy of the power. Taken by that literal reading, an instantaneous creation power is never in effect (even if a null psionics field is not present), and therefore never does anything. Reading it the other way require an object that are created by creation power dependent on the power despite being able to exist separately from it. Either way an contradiction to another rule happens. The other possibility is that they're only referring to the power figuratively, as a proxy for the results (which is why they describe the power itself as no longer being in effect). It also goes from plural to singular. Somewhere an English teacher cries. :) If that teacher reads your previous paragraph, they may even resort to suicide. No matter the reading some instantaneous creation spells/powers create objects before they do something with those objects as part of the that spell/power. If the exception is read the way you say that it is, then it must contradict that those objects exist independent of the power once created. There are two possibilites for when the object "appears" on a solid surface capable of supporting it. Firstly, that it is considered to have appeared the instant any sign of it appears (in which case it can easily travel as its assembly is completed), and second that it has only appeared when it is fully formed (in which case it can easily be supported by whatever target it sticks into). The exception doesn't contradict those objects existing independently once created. "The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result." substitute "The [ray and the damage it deals] of [crystal shard] are not affected by an antimagic field because the [creation of objects or effects] itself is no longer in effect, only its result." You have switched the application of "conjuration" mid-sentence. The ray is an effect of an instantaneous [creation], but not of the [creation of objects or effects], which is the replacement you have used later in the sentence. Unfortunately, this reading treats "conjuration" inconsistently, by considering it an actual power in its first appearance (and thus replacing "instantaneous conjuration" with "crystal shard"), but switching to it being the process of conjuring for the second entry (thus replacing "conjuration" with "[creation of objects or effects]"). Applied consistently, the first substitution would read: "The effects of instantaneous [creation of objects or effects] are not affected by an antimagic field because the [creation of objects or effects] itself is no longer in effect, only its result." And the ray is only an effect of the power, not of the process of conjuring as you have defined it separately.
calronmoonflower 04-28-08, 04:25 AM	Perhaps you missed this, as it was on top of a new page, so here it is again. From the Rules Compendium page 5 ORDER OF RULES APPLICATION The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to the specific exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. If the antimagic exception conflicts with any standard rule, then it applies instead of the standard rule.
Slagger the Chuul 04-28-08, 05:00 AM	The time discrepancy is because I often open the reply and get distracted before I get around to finishing (I usually follow some interesting tangents while checking a detail). Weird, attack spells are in effect during the action in which they are cast. Doubly weird with that standard action bit; the way it reads, you would be making the attack before the spell came into effect. I don't currently have a Rules Compendium sitting around (and I only even have the Spell Compendium because it was going cheap) to check other potential rules that might affect this, but it sounds strange.
ChristopherGroves 05-01-08, 08:03 AM	Ok just to recap. This debate is on Crystal Shard. Is the supposition here is that this applies now to any instantaneous (conjuration/creation or similar) abilities? Narrow debate on Crystal Shard is one thing. Wholesale application to having instantaneous conjurations wink out in a field, another.
ChristopherGroves 05-01-08, 08:05 AM	And ... different than whether or not you can cast one of those with a target within the field.
Slagger the Chuul 05-01-08, 01:15 PM	Is the supposition here is that this applies now to any instantaneous (conjuration/creation or similar) abilities? It might. It depends on how you view the evidence and mainly hinges on whether or not the power is in effect at the time the relevant elements encounter the supressing field. If other instantaneous creations are sufficiently similar to crystal shard, they would reasonably be affected in the same way. But since we're talking about an instantaneous creation power with an effect (rather than an area or target) that also makes an attack, the number of other choices is small.
ChristopherGroves 05-02-08, 08:07 AM	So the question is really whether or not you can bring into a being an instantaneous conjuration which has a component part of its effect being in the AMF. (Just want to make sure we capture the debate properly) To restate with an extreme example ... the debate is whether or not you can summon a wall of iron where part of the wall would be "built" inside the AMF, not whether or not one you summon completely outside the AMF winks out once it is in the AMF (as the instantaneous effect has finished in the 2nd case).
Racinante 05-02-08, 09:54 AM	So the question is really whether or not you can bring into being an instantaneous conjuration which has a component part of its effect being in the AMF. (Just want to make sure we capture the debate properly) To restate with an extreme example ... the debate is whether or not you can summon a wall of iron where part of the wall would be "built" inside the AMF, not whether or not one you summon completely outside the AMF winks out once it is in the AMF (as the instantaneous effect has finished in the 2nd case). No, you missed the entire point of the debate. I believe everyone agrees that you cannot manifest/cast or start an instantaneous creation within an AMF/NPF, and that if any part of that creation overlaps with the field, that portion does not come into existence. The debate is centered around when and where Crystal Shard is complete. Once complete, no one questions that any permanent remaining effects can penetrate the field. Slagger's point is that the attack roll and ray both must be part of the power's effect that occur before the completion of the power, hence cannot penetrate the field. The other side of the debate is that the ray is merely a rules mechanism for aiming, and the attack roll occurs after the completion of the power and is used to adjudicate the results. Nothing in the rules clarifies this one way or the other, so the opposing view holders tend to debate the point until everyone is blue in the face. My opinion is based on the simplest direct rendering of the rules contained within the AMF description because specific rules override general rules and that is that a) Instantaneous creation effects manifested outside the field are unaffected by the field b) Crystal Shard is an instantaneous creation effect manifested outside the field c) Therefore Crystal Shard is unaffected by the field.
Slagger the Chuul 05-03-08, 02:09 AM	The debate is centered around when and where Crystal Shard is complete. Once complete, no one questions that any permanent remaining effects can penetrate the field. Slagger's point is that the attack roll and ray both must be part of the power's effect that occur before the completion of the power, hence cannot penetrate the field. In the more general sense, I also think that if the crystal is attacking like a power, then it's still part of the power. My opinion (but not necessarily my reasoning) would probably be different if it wasn't using the ray mechanics to make a ranged touch attack.