Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tyroki 06-23-07, 01:37 AM	Is there an Errata on the Elans lifespans somewhere? My DM's looking at the XPH in the age section, which has an actual max age... The SRD says there isn't one, but he doesn't want to go via SRD. So, is there an Errata somewhere that I can use to prove they have no max age? He says max age, 2000 years.
glacialcat 06-23-07, 01:39 AM	http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a Expanded Psionics Handbook errata, page one.
Tyroki 06-23-07, 01:51 AM	And can a Venerable Elan still look young due to their bodies constantly rebuilding themselves psionically? And thank you for the Errata page ^^ Edit: -.- He refuses to use the Errata or the SRD -.-
AntiDjinn 06-23-07, 01:57 AM	Not that it really matters though. Think of the last time you played a PC until he died of atherosclerosis or infected bed sores. Most PCs basically live until something kills them (e.g., going out in a blaze of glory or meeting a violent end in a dungeon). If they die of natural causes (in the course of a generation-spanning campaign) it generally happens "off-camera" as part of the campaign narrative. About the only time maximal life-span really matters in the course of an adventure is if you encounter an effect that ages you unnaturally (or conversely, restores your youth unnaturally). If you get aged by a magical effect then having an exceptionally short life-span hurts you worse than having an extended one helps.
Tyroki 06-23-07, 02:10 AM	Oh. Well that makes sense. But can an Elan who is, say, venerable, look young?
Zarreth_Nessad 06-23-07, 02:24 AM	Think of the elves.. Can't really tell how old an elf is after their childhood years until they reach venerable, and then only because they look like they've gained a few years. Basically up to the DM, though. I'd rule them always the same looks as when they were created Elans.
DrowBattlemind 06-23-07, 02:31 AM	Elans could live forever... right? Not if the Kurgan finds them...
AntiDjinn 06-23-07, 02:56 AM	According to their creature entry, "younger" elan (defined as those created in the last 200 years or so) all look roughly alike. So beings who are two centuries apart in actual age appear enough alike to be considered of the same generation as far as outsiders are concerned. So you can assume your 200 year old elan can still pass for a newly minted one. The appearance of a particular generation of elan probably reflects the current selection criteria of the cullers (or maybe just their aesthetic) more than anything else. Once you start getting into higher levels, if appearance is particularly important, there are powers and items you can pick up to look like whatever you like.
Sarlax 06-23-07, 03:12 AM	Not that it really matters though. Not mechanically, but it's an important roleplaying question. An elan is a human who has voluntarily given up her species and even all acquired skills in order to live longer. I think it's a big deal whether that means they might live another 1,000 years or whether they can potentially live for eternity. True immortality (or agelessness anyway) is a fantastic lure, much more so than a couple more centuries, particular in a world when your best bud Gelf the Elf might live a 1,000 years anyway.
AntiDjinn 06-23-07, 03:17 AM	It does matter from an PR and storyline standpoint, but mechanically immortality does not even rate a level adjustment.
ArcTan 06-23-07, 03:24 AM	The flavor is that Elans are truly immortal, and this is why it's such a big deal (and why so many people would be willing to give up most of their former identity to achieve Elan-hood).
Celsun 06-23-07, 07:05 AM	I wouldn't want to be immortal if I'd end up like Tithonus. I think it's better to completely remove age categories from the elan race.
Zarreth_Nessad 06-23-07, 08:17 AM	I believe (working from memory, not quoting) that the physical detriments of aging were removed from the Elan's age progression, while the mental bonus' still apply. That would be the only reason for keeping it.
Tyroki 06-23-07, 10:06 AM	And my DM was fine with the really old, can't die via old age, yet looks young thing... And now, while my character has been said to look young, he suddenly wants him to look like an old man O.o The campaign started a few months ago me things it was... >.< Gah... Thats just killing the flavour for me, and half-killing my character. He took pride in looking young, though he was an old man, so he acted old while looking young and somewhat railed on about it like an old man would... So why force me to change it when we've already got all of that established? Now I'm suddenly... bored with it... I couldn't even be bothered RPing him fully, just sticking him at the back of the group saying "He follows the fighter" *Sighs*
Caterpillar 06-23-07, 10:10 AM	Tyroki: You should talk to the DM and tell him they "Elans don't age and through their psionic restoration they will always appear youthful". Maybe there is some reason he wants/needs you to look like an old man? If he is just being bull-headed then he just lost a gamer IMO. It's not fair for him to just suddenly say (after the game has started) that 'oh by the way your guy looks old.'
Tyroki 06-23-07, 10:31 AM	Alright. He says that my character can stay looking young (I told him that the fact it's all suddenly being changed midgame is screwing with my RPing the character, as it was) However, he's still going by the book age. I have a feeling he wants to pull age effecting stuff on us later... Though... There are so many other ways he could kill us...
ck2001wendt 06-23-07, 01:10 PM	If your DM refuses to accept the Errata because it interferes with his "story" or "plan", and not on mechanical or flavor grounds, that's a good sign that you need a new DM.
Chimaera2000 06-23-07, 01:22 PM	Edit: -.- He refuses to use the Errata or the SRD -.- Obviously, what the DM says goes in a game, but this seems really odd. Errata are official rules changes to the game; if a reprint of the XPH came out tomorrow, those would be changes that would be made in the book. Unless there's a really compelling reason for why he doesn't want to use a given rule, it doesn't make much sense to not use the errata. The elan's flavor even agrees with it!
ReverendBSB 06-24-07, 11:27 AM	If the DM does not like how the Elan is written, he should simply not allow you to play it. I hate when DMs do this, tell you you can play a certain class, race, etc. or build a character using certain feats, then tell you once you start playing that according to his world or his house rules that some parts of your character wont work. One of my last groups I played a Swordsage with most of his feats grouped in Two Weapon Fighting. That was the whole concept behind the character in combat. Then I find out that the DM uses some strange house rules on multiple attacks, that effectively rendered most of my feats useless in most combat situations. I told him I should be allowed to rebuild my character because of this, he refused, so that was it for me.
El_Machinae 06-24-07, 11:34 AM	The flavor is that Elans are truly immortal, and this is why it's such a big deal (and why so many people would be willing to give up most of their former identity to achieve Elan-hood). DnD has always been counter to the concept of 'good' PCs becoming immortal. The Elan is finally a method, but with a heavy price. Thematically, it's interesting, even though in the real world aging is merely a biological process. Of course, we probably don't have Outer Planes dependant upon what happens, spiritually, to people.
Enchanter_Tom 06-24-07, 04:32 PM	Edit: -.- He refuses to use the Errata or the SRD -.- Then he's an idiot.
El_Machinae 06-24-07, 06:26 PM	That's a little harsh. Though the Errata is a bit different from the FAQ, in that the Errata is what they wish they'd written in the first place. The Errata might replace some other rule that the DM is fond of, which is why he rejects it.
Tyroki 06-24-07, 10:15 PM	Well I thought about it for a good hour or so before telling him this: "It makes sense that people would want to become an Elan to get rid of the issue of mortallity. And it makes sense, because of that, that few are chosen to actually gain it. Being able to look at your elf partymember who is likely to live till a good 1000 years old, and know you could live forever so long as you don't die of un-natural means, makes The entire process worthwhile. To gain an extra two millenia is one thing. To gain as many as you can survive through is another. Eternity is a powerful lure." He said "it is a powerful lure, and not one Elans receieve, their bodies and minds do eventually wear down, hence why they have age categories and you are able to be veteran" And my reply was "Well, their bodies do wear down while their minds increase. Remember though, the Elan was a human who willingly gave up their entire species to become something higher. Their bodies are psionically 'tainted' so to speak. And via psionics, their bodies regenerate the mere basics. Of course, via basic principal, what you don't use, gets weaker, while what you use constantly gets stronger. Hence why the basic D&D age catagories make sense, though they can't go further after the specific age of 1000. Your mind grows stronger, and because the Elans cells and body structure is directly linked to their mind (Via the brain), the cells can continuously regenerate so long as their essense of life isn't depleted (Via being killed in some way or another) So even if the Elan gets bored of life, after so many years, he can't simply will the cycle to stop, as it's all involuntary. The only way said Elan could die, is via other means, in which there are far too many of in D&D anyway. So, I don't see why the 'never dying of old age' thing is such an issue. If you want him to die, you could easily do it via so many other methods its not funny. I'm just Trying to keep to the flavour I signed up for ^_-" The reply? "max age possible is still 2000 years, you wont be changing my mind anytime soon" Then, you won't believe this... He thought by the SRD, I meant COMPLETE FRICKIN PSIONICS! So, I sent him to the SRD site, and he goes "Oh THAT thing." And when I showed him the Elan age there, he went silent and I never got an answer back about the age T-T I feel so jibbed.
Salla 06-24-07, 10:55 PM	Well I thought about it for a good hour or so before telling him this: Geez.
Tyroki 06-25-07, 02:10 AM	Yeah... I have no life T-T
Enchanter_Tom 06-25-07, 04:30 AM	Yeah... I have no life T-T Your DM is a retard. Tell him that Enchanter_Tom has stated it as being so. Like it or not, Complete Psionic is official, as are the rulings within it (including the atrocity that is astral construct, revised). Smack him once for that. Then, explain to him that only an idiot would confuse an abbreviation with the letters "SRD" as being shorthand for Complete Psionic. Smack him again for that. Thirdly, tell him to stop raping your character concept because he can't not screw with the rules. Smack him twice more for that.
El_Machinae 06-25-07, 07:41 AM	Yeah... I have no life T-T Remember that your Elan still has many thousand years to figure out how to actually become Immortal. Step one was buying himself a millenia to figure out how to permanently stop his aging. It kinda reminds me of actuarial escape velocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuarial_escape_velocity).
ArcTan 06-25-07, 08:25 AM	That's a little harsh. Though the Errata is a bit different from the FAQ, in that the Errata is what they wish they'd written in the first place. The Errata might replace some other rule that the DM is fond of, which is why he rejects it. Something's wrong if, in the very few instances when designers are finally willing to admit they made a mistake big enough to errata, the DM is so "fond of" the mistake that he hangs onto it. (This is not the same thing as rejecting new rules in sourcebooks -- errata are never exciting new ideas that WotC wants to experiment with, and only get put out when something is really clearly obviously wrong and bad.)
Tyroki 06-25-07, 10:26 AM	Besides... Considering the Elans description in the book, a max age doesn't make much sense >.>
Wizard Random 06-25-07, 11:18 AM	Elan,Warforged,Kilorans and a few others that escape me ATM are all immortal and can be played by PCs. I don't see what his problem is and frankly if he is just worried about aging effects you can always refer back to dungeon 354 and use the Endless trait. That way you are immortal anyway and don't receive the negative effects. I am still reeling from him not wanting to use the SRD or Errata
AntiDjinn 06-25-07, 12:12 PM	The SRD is a resource provided by WotC as a courtesy to 3rd party game developers. Its purpose is to show those portions of the text that are available by the open game license. If you are writing a new setting, adventure, or supplement, you might want to know that you can include a character who is a "Slayer" (prc), but not an "Illithid Slayer" because one of these appears only in the XPH and not in the SRD. This does not mean the SRD version of this PRC is errata that trumps the version in the XPH. If your DM wants to ignore the SRD, then as long as he is never going to publish his campaign setting or write a 3rd party supplement, he is fine. The official errata, on the other hand, is meant to reflect the most current version of the rules as the authors intended. The word means: "A list of corrected errors appended to a book or published in a subsequent issue of a journal." So, by definition, an erratum is not a new rule, it is a correction of a mistake or omission. When WotC publishes errata, it is a service to users of the product and basically amounts to: "Here is what you should have got in the printed text you purchased. Our bad." If your DM is choosing to ignore official errata (if he is ignoring the XPH errata, the he must not be using the DMG or PHB corrections either) then read through them yourself, find the fixes where the original was hopelessly broken, and use the original version as printed. He will either have to relent and read the errata, or suffer as you chew up his game by exploiting errors that have already been fixed for more savvy DMs.
Tyroki 06-25-07, 01:31 PM	The funny thing is though, the Errata of the Elans age appears both in the actually Errata document, and in the SRD >.> "Elans have no maximum age" states the errata. The SRD just has a line through the maximum age spot xD Same difference really. He hasn't read Complete Psionics yet... But I dread the day he does... -.- I've been scouring the forums for hints of what to do when he starts saying the stuff in that book are also Errata, including what Bruce himself said. >.> And the other problem is... If I leave his campaign, I don't know any other online DM's. I have no hope in real life, because I simply don't know anyone. So I'm trying to do this without being kicked out, leaving, but still getting the desired end result... It's difficult, to say the least.
InkBlot 06-25-07, 02:38 PM	If you're worried about being able to find another game if you anger the DM -- or if you're just fed up with him and want to find a better game -- you should check out The RPG Gamer Classifieds (http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=347). They even have a whole section for online games. (http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=598) Beyond that, try googling for online gaming websites. I know there are a few, although I can't recall any of their names specifically. Also google for OpenRPG, if you haven't heard of it already. I feel so jibbed. The word is gypped. As in gypsies.
SpoonNinja 06-25-07, 03:22 PM	What's an Elan look like anyway? Any pictures?
El_Machinae 06-25-07, 03:32 PM	Basically human, actually. Which makes them a great Alter Self target for Aberrations.
Tyroki 06-26-07, 03:52 AM	Does anyone in here DM over the internet? >.> I'd like to give another campaign a go outside of the one I'm currently in... I want to try more stuff out ^^; Even if I am a newbie xD
InkBlot 06-26-07, 01:10 PM	What's an Elan look like anyway? Any pictures? Elans are made from humans. They resemble an idealistic picture of the humans they once were. The vestige Arete, The First Elan, has describes it as "your body's colors alter to become slightly off. Blonde hair becomes too golden, green eyes become too emerald green, and your skin becomes faultless and has no pores." The Cullers, the group of elans which decides who to turn into a new elan, have a preference for red hair and green eyes. In the past they have held other aesthetics. Since elans live forever, there should still be some elans left from that period. It's also possible that the Cullers may suddenly change their preferences, or that some other trait could convince them to turn you into an elan despite not being a red head. This is a picture of some of the races from the Expanded Psionics Handbook. The elan is the woman to the left of the half-giant. http://wizards.com/dnd/images/xph_gallery/80443.jpg This picture is from the elan's monster entry in the Expanded Psionics Handbook. His hair isn't made of snakes or anything. It's just matted (maybe with sweat) and wind blown. http://wizards.com/dnd/images/xph_gallery/80491.jpg
Deekin 06-26-07, 01:35 PM	Does anyone in here DM over the internet? >.> I'd like to give another campaign a go outside of the one I'm currently in... I want to try more stuff out ^^; Even if I am a newbie xD K Man's Adventures (http://kmansadventures.proboards2.com/index.cgi) has some games running. I don't think any are open at the moment, but you can always ask around.
El_Machinae 06-27-07, 08:56 AM	Elans are made from humans. It's part of a newer (to me) theme of 'transformed humans'. Illumians were made from humans too. Of course, there are now a few PrCs that let humans change their type.
InkBlot 06-27-07, 05:41 PM	Illumians are just cheap knock-offs of elans.
Rageheart 06-28-07, 09:48 AM	Elans are made from humans. ...Just like Soylent Green!
Psionx 06-28-07, 02:11 PM	Actually, if you really want to be "immortal" and you are willing to give a little in level adjustment, be a dragon. If you get hit by magical aging, it actually makes you a hell of a lot stronger and they have no max age category, they just gain 1 every 200 years at some point.
Manyfist 06-28-07, 06:22 PM	Actually, if you really want to be "immortal" and you are willing to give a little in level adjustment, be a dragon. If you get hit by magical aging, it actually makes you a hell of a lot stronger and they have no max age category, they just gain 1 every 200 years at some point. Draconomicon states diffrently. Dragons to in fact die, just that Dragons are strongest at the time they die.
Enchanter_Tom 06-28-07, 06:30 PM	Actually, if you really want to be "immortal" and you are willing to give a little in level adjustment, be a dragon. Shame on you.
Tealgorthian 06-28-07, 06:43 PM	I believe the Elan's hair in in dreads, personally. Elans are immortal. If your DM is going to be fair, he should let you play your character as he is, and use the new rules next game. Unless you are gonna get your ass kicked by a ghost, I dont see it mattering much.
Salla 06-29-07, 12:18 PM	Actually, if you really want to be "immortal" and you are willing to give a little in level adjustment, be a dragon. If you get hit by magical aging, it actually makes you a hell of a lot stronger and they have no max age category, they just gain 1 every 200 years at some point. You know, in a game when someone was playing a Dragon, I went looking for magical effects that age you ... And I don't think they exist anymore. Part of me wonders if this DM is an elf fanboy. Nobody can outlive his precious swishy elves!
Tyroki 06-30-07, 09:16 PM	My DM has bias for Druids. He loves them. >.> Yet he always said Psionics was broken. It was only this game he let me be a psion from the beginning but... Last night, because the rules were 'vague' on making power stones and addressing them (Theres nothing that says you can't reroll psicraft), he decided to "Spice things up" by saying if I failed the roll, the stone is worthless. That may not seem like much, but currently, he's not letting me buy any psionic items at all because the continent we're on is extremely against psionics... So I can't really buy anything, and now he's screwing with the crafting stuff just to irritate me. *Sighs* I ended up arguing against it, and he started to get '****** off' So he asked me why I wanted to **** him off. I ended up saying "Because it makes having to follow the crap worth my time. It 'spices things up'" XD Probably not my best move... but most certainly the one that felt good. And the session before that, he threatened to take psionics completely out of the game if I didn't shut up about the Elan age being a max of 2000 years. I said "Well I could always play a cleric or a druid" I mean, what would it matter. Druids his favourite class, and another player just joined as one. I wonder how much he would think is broken if I utterly destroyed his campaign with his favourite class o.o
Salla 06-30-07, 09:21 PM	My DM has bias for Druids. He loves them. >.> Yet he always said Psionics was broken. Right. He's pushing Hammergun. I mean, what would it matter. Druids his favourite class, and another player just joined as one. I wonder how much he would think is broken if I utterly destroyed his campaign with his favourite class o.o I'm not normally one for the petty revenge ploy ... but in this case, I'd say go for it.
Tyroki 06-30-07, 09:28 PM	I'm really getting sick of the crap -.- I want an online DM who'll let me give psionics a real try, not some half-assed try where the world is completely against the character, and rules on making my own items because I can't buy them are shot to hell -.-
Salla 06-30-07, 09:31 PM	I'm really getting sick of the crap -.- I want an online DM who'll let me give psionics a real try, not some half-assed try where the world is completely against the character, and rules on making my own items because I can't buy them are shot to hell -.- If I did online, I'd letcha at it. :)
Nite_shade 06-30-07, 10:07 PM	I'm really getting sick of the crap -.- I want an online DM who'll let me give psionics a real try, not some half-assed try where the world is completely against the character, and rules on making my own items because I can't buy them are shot to hell -.- Heh. You're like the exact opposite of me. I DM a game and love Psionics. But none of my players will try it.
Salla 06-30-07, 10:15 PM	The part that most gets me about this is ... there's no game balance issue with the Elan's age. It absolutely positively does not matter what the Elan's maximum age is, or if it even exists. No PC EVER dies of old age!
Tyroki 07-01-07, 12:09 AM	Yeah. So the DM's not killing a mechanic, but flavour. Nite_Shade, do you DM online o.o I love Psionics too. I'd play and be Psionic in your campaign =D I'm too much of a newbie to DM xD
Fafnir 07-01-07, 07:03 AM	Yeah. So the DM's not killing a mechanic, but flavour. Nite_Shade, do you DM online o.o I love Psionics too. I'd play and be Psionic in your campaign =D I'm too much of a newbie to DM xD Words of wisdom form a DM: you stop being a newbie after DMing a few sessions. Not before. Two years ago, I was a D&D newbie. One year ago, a was a newbie DM. Today, pretty much everyone in my group has left the mastering to me... even the veterans. If you need a DM, become the DM. If you can't win the argument, lead by example. If your DM's attitude ticks you off, show him you are better. Actions speak louder than words.
El_Machinae 07-01-07, 08:51 AM	Yeah. So the DM's not killing a mechanic, but flavour. It seems the flavour is being attacked, but only as a victim of the larger battle against psionic crunch.
The Livewire 07-01-07, 10:12 AM	Heh. You're like the exact opposite of me. I DM a game and love Psionics. But none of my players will try it. Welcome to my world...
Azzy 07-01-07, 12:17 PM	I hate to be directly insulting, Tyroki, but your DM is a complete twit and is the type of person that gives DMs a bad name. I was goint to go on a tirade about how a DM should act (and this coming from the default DM of most game I participate in *sigh*), but it would be like singing to the choir here. I just want to reiterate's Inkblot a great suggestion of trying to find another gaming group on The RPG Gamer Classifieds (http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php%3Ff%3D347).
CrimsonDeath 07-01-07, 01:15 PM	Just out of morbid curiosity, Tyroki, what's he done to the crafting rules? (As far as I can tell, they're just about identical to the magical crafting rules...)
Enchanter_Tom 07-02-07, 02:59 AM	Bwuh? Druids? Not broken? d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, two good saves (for save-or-dies/save-or-sucks), animal companion, wildshape, and ninth-level spells isn't broken? Your DM needs to DIAF.
ArcTan 07-02-07, 10:22 PM	The SRD is a resource provided by WotC as a courtesy to 3rd party game developers. Its purpose is to show those portions of the text that are available by the open game license. If you are writing a new setting, adventure, or supplement, you might want to know that you can include a character who is a "Slayer" (prc), but not an "Illithid Slayer" because one of these appears only in the XPH and not in the SRD. This does not mean the SRD version of this PRC is errata that trumps the version in the XPH. If your DM wants to ignore the SRD, then as long as he is never going to publish his campaign setting or write a 3rd party supplement, he is fine. Well, basically all it means is that he's forgoing a very useful online resource (sites like d20srd.org moreso than the actual Online SRD) for no good reason. The only *important* place I can think of where d20srd.org differs from the actual rules that isn't a typo is the Slayer PrC, though. And I think it should already be de rigeur for DMs to alter the Illithid Slayer to be the Something Else Slayer if they don't want to run an Illithid-based campaign anyway.
ArcTan 07-02-07, 10:23 PM	The part that most gets me about this is ... there's no game balance issue with the Elan's age. It absolutely positively does not matter what the Elan's maximum age is, or if it even exists. No PC EVER dies of old age! Well, there are ways to arrange it, if convoluted ones. It is mainly a flavor thing, but of course flavor affects what you can do in a campaign.
ArcTan 07-02-07, 10:25 PM	He hasn't read Complete Psionics yet... But I dread the day he does... -.- I've been scouring the forums for hints of what to do when he starts saying the stuff in that book are also Errata, including what Bruce himself said. >.> They're not officially errata. The stuff that acts like errata is actually highly controversial among Psionics fans, because a lot of it seems to pointlessly nerf Psionics for no reason (like making DR apply to psionic damage of the appropriate kind, or only letting you have one Astral Construct at once).
Enchanter_Tom 07-03-07, 12:39 AM	Sorry, but I think metacreativity powers should have DR applied against them--and the precedent is set by the daggerspell mage's "invocation of the knife" ability.
Nite_shade 07-03-07, 01:51 AM	Hmm. I was just reading the FAQ today (updated 6/17/07) and it says, like spells, powers like Crystal Shard etc. are not affected by DR. Can someone point out the finer points of the debate? I'm sure I'm missing something.
CrimsonDeath 07-03-07, 02:56 AM	Hmm. I was just reading the FAQ today (updated 6/17/07) and it says, like spells, powers like Crystal Shard etc. are not affected by DR. Can someone point out the finer points of the debate? I'm sure I'm missing something. In Complete Psionic, page 79, in the sidebar "Metacreativity and Damage Reduction", it states that metacreativity powers (like Crystal Shard) do not automatically overcome DR if they specify piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning damage. Hopefully, the FAQ takes precedence...
Salla 07-03-07, 03:08 AM	Sorry, but I think metacreativity powers should have DR applied against them--and the precedent is set by the daggerspell mage's "invocation of the knife" ability. I accept this if and only if spells that deal slashing, bludgeoning, or piercing damage are also subject to DR.
El_Machinae 07-03-07, 07:41 AM	I'd imagine that they are. It's one of the main reasons to specify the damage type done by the spell.
Changling_Bob 07-03-07, 10:59 AM	My DM has bias for Druids. He loves them. >.> Yet he always said Psionics was broken.I'm going to copy everyone ever and say play a druid and make a point. Then point out that psionics are balanced compared to this monstrosity. And/or find a new DM.
Tempest Stormwind 07-03-07, 11:30 AM	I'd imagine that they are. It's one of the main reasons to specify the damage type done by the spell. Not really; a lot of them were older spells (Evard's Black Tentacles, for instance) written in a time when "immune to slashing", "half damage from piercing" or similar was still a part of the rules. DR didn't apply (it was a spell) but immunity did (things that couldn't be crushed were unaffected by crushing). Text like that showed up in third edition itself, but not 3.5. Check any new spell nowadays and they skip the damage type description. If they are subject to DR, there's questions that arise that simply aren't answered. For instance, do they count as magic?
TheCarrionCrawler 07-03-07, 01:56 PM	He hasn't read Complete Psionics yet... But I dread the day he does... -.- I've been scouring the forums for hints of what to do when he starts saying the stuff in that book are also Errata..... Here's what I'd do. Next time you're online, print out a bunch of nudey pictures and paste them on the offending material in Complete Psionic. He'll never utter the word eratta. :P
Enchanter_Tom 07-03-07, 07:54 PM	I accept this if and only if spells that deal slashing, bludgeoning, or piercing damage are also subject to DR. I would assume they are. If they are subject to DR, there's questions that arise that simply aren't answered. For instance, do they count as magic? I would assume they are.
Tempest Stormwind 07-03-07, 08:50 PM	I would assume they are. Assume away, but point to the rules to support your claim or deny the alternate assumption. Much like the roleplay restrictions in playing a cleric or druid ("revere nature": do you heal every wounded animal you see as nature is sacred, or do you heal NO wounded animals ever because natural selection says the weak must perish?), it's simply not defined in the rules. Chalk it up to Complete Psionic editing and poor development, and ignore it.
Enchanter_Tom 07-03-07, 10:28 PM	Assume away, but point to the rules to support your claim or deny the alternate assumption. The source of damage is magical; therefore, it is counted as magic for bypassing DR/magic. SRD, under "Damage Reduction": The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Now, one could argue that these rules contradict the daggerspell mage's, and one would be right--however, it's a specific class ability and thus subject to rules anomalies. However, that does not mean that metacreativity powers automatically bypass damage reduction because the effect of them is to produce a crystal that does the damage--akin to a conjuration spell.
Tempest Stormwind 07-03-07, 10:37 PM	The orb spells bypass DR, despite 'creating' the effects that are launched. Some don't do energy damage (orb of force). The damage is not reduced by DR, since it's from a spell. You say force, I say crystal.
Enchanter_Tom 07-03-07, 10:42 PM	The orb spells bypass DR, despite 'creating' the effects that are launched. Some don't do energy damage (orb of force). The damage is not reduced by DR, since it's from a spell. You say force, I say crystal. Force damage is completely different from crystal, though. "Crystal" is the composition of the shard; "force" is the type of damage done by an orb. But, either way, I meant that it was like a conjuration spell in that actually summoned a physical weapon that did damage.
Tempest Stormwind 07-03-07, 11:48 PM	Force damage is completely different from crystal, though. "Crystal" is the composition of the shard; "force" is the type of damage done by an orb. But, either way, I meant that it was like a conjuration spell in that actually summoned a physical weapon that did damage. Orb of Force (and other Orb spells) is an instantaneous creation effect, meaning its created substances (here, an orb of force) are real and physical. Crystal Shard (and other crystal powers) is an instantaneous creation effect, meaning its created substances (here, a fragment of crystal) are real and physical. Note that the whole antimagic-field-not-stopping-a-ray-power/spell argument kicked in and different DMs interpret it different ways, but RAW that's how they function. However, no one denies that Orb of Force deals damage that is not blocked by DR. (The other Orb spells are energy effects, but Orb of Force is not. It is ONLY covered by the "spells" part of your DR wording.) Crystal Shard is in exactly the same boat -- non-energy damage stemming directly from a spell (Crystal Shard, the spell, does the damage, unlike, say, Astral Construct, which does no damage on its own although the created construct certainly does).
AntiDjinn 07-04-07, 12:14 AM	Regarding DR and effects such as Antimagic Field, I would say you can't have it both ways. If an orb of acid is created by magic, but is merely mundane acid thereafter, then the fact that it ignores antimagic is evidence that it should respect DR. On the other hand, anything that is stopped by AMF/NPF must, by definition, be magic and therefore not subject to mundane DR. If crystal shard is being held to this, then those insane orb spells certainly should too. I actually have no problems with the DR ruling, so long as it is applied across the board to all similar effects instead of just being a psionics nerf.
InkBlot 07-04-07, 01:45 AM	I completely agree with you AntiDjinn, but I just have to be a pedant and point out one little thing. Even mundane acid ignores damage reduction. Your point still holds, of course. If we consider a hypothetical "orb of iron" spell which deals bludgeoning damage, then it's plain to see.
Tempest Stormwind 07-04-07, 01:57 AM	I'm not disputing it either. I'm just saying that if you apply DR to Crystal Shard, you have DR blocking spell damage, and the justification is that it's instantaneous creation. That means that DR also blocks Orb of Force in that ruling. Which seems odd. This is trying to find other rule precedent for that mistake of Complete Psionic. One could make similar statements regarding Ice Storm. The only core spell that specifies a damage type that I know of is Evard's Black Tentacles, and there it's at least a bit clearer (the spell isn't doing damage, it conjures tentacles which do damage, thus it's subject to DR just like summoned monsters are).
El_Machinae 07-05-07, 06:45 AM	I completely agree with you AntiDjinn, but I just have to be a pedant and point out one little thing. Even mundane acid ignores damage reduction. Your point still holds, of course. If we consider a hypothetical "orb of iron" spell which deals bludgeoning damage, then it's plain to see. I'd think "Orb of Force" should be like "Orb of Iron" then? I've never read "Orb of Force". Is SR applicable to it?
Salla 07-05-07, 11:20 AM	I'd think "Orb of Force" should be like "Orb of Iron" then? I've never read "Orb of Force". Is SR applicable to it? No.
ck2001wendt 07-05-07, 11:36 AM	I'm just saying that if you apply DR to Crystal Shard, you have DR blocking spell damage, and the justification is that it's instantaneous creation. That means that DR also blocks Orb of Force in that ruling. Which seems odd. Other force effects bypass DR, for ex. the Force weapon property in the MIC. So an Orb of Force should still bypass DR if it is a physical manifestation. This seems more like inconsistency on the designers' part than anything else. We shouldn't have to read tea leaves to figure this out.
Tempest Stormwind 07-05-07, 11:55 AM	Other force effects bypass DR, for ex. the Force weapon property in the MIC. So an Orb of Force should still bypass DR if it is a physical manifestation. This seems more like inconsistency on the designers' part than anything else. We shouldn't have to read tea leaves to figure this out. Not really. It's not a property of force damage to ignore DR. It's a property of SPELL damage to ignore DR on the most part. Energy damage is specified in the DR description, force is not. The Force weapon property explicitly says they are unaffected by DR, in a manner similar to the Mountain Hammer maneuver or the like. Thus, it isn't force damage, it's the Force weapon that bypasses DR. Magic Missle bypasses DR because it's a spell. Orb of Force? It's a spell, but it's an instantaneous creation effect that isn't affected by SR and is in most other ways identical to a similarly-costed Crystal Shard. Does it bypass DR?
ck2001wendt 07-05-07, 12:52 PM	Not really. It's not a property of force damage to ignore DR. It's a property of SPELL damage to ignore DR on the most part. Energy damage is specified in the DR description, force is not. The Force weapon property explicitly says they are unaffected by DR, in a manner similar to the Mountain Hammer maneuver or the like. Thus, it isn't force damage, it's the Force weapon that bypasses DR. Magic Missle bypasses DR because it's a spell. Orb of Force? It's a spell, but it's an instantaneous creation effect that isn't affected by SR and is in most other ways identical to a similarly-costed Crystal Shard. Does it bypass DR? Orb of Force, as a non-energy, Instantaneous Effect, shouldn't bypass DR. That does not mean that the OTHER Orbs should not bypass DR, as all energy damage is explicitly precluded in that description. Sloppy design for not recognizing this, or modifying the Force property (which I think they're moving toward). Crystal Shard should probably be treated as an Instantaneous Effect that does not bypass DR and is not affected when entering an AMF (but cannot be manifested inside an AMF). The "rail" part of the "rail gun" (which is how I've always described it) starts and ends at the character, rather than guiding the crystal the entire way to the target.
El_Machinae 07-05-07, 03:41 PM	I cannot really imagine a non-magical Force object. "Ball of acid" I can picture (and have even worked with), but I don't think that there's such thing as a "Ball of Force" in a fantasy setting that's not magical. I guess the SR bypassing refutes my imagination, though.