Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Yokinobu 07-18-07, 12:36 AM	I never play in Eberron games or with Eberron races, but I couldn't stand the idea of missing out on the power behind the Kalashtar. So I considered proposing a change to the Elan to my DM. Do you think it would be possible to change the Naturally Psionic from 2 bonus PP to 1 bonus PP per char level and still be balanced at +0 LA? Thanks for any input, I'm not that good at balancing character races/classes.
Sarlax 07-18-07, 12:47 AM	I think it's balanced. It does make the elan stronger - the effect is that you can always manifest your highest-level power at least one more time every day. This does compensate for the fact their normal abilities - resistance and resilience - become weaker at higher levels.
Grimmsfeld 07-18-07, 12:49 AM	Probably not gonna be LA 0 anymore. Makes it so even a non-manifesting Elan can use its abilities far more often or to greater effect than the norm. It's a weak LA +1, but it's a bit too strong for no adjustment.
Yokinobu 07-18-07, 01:27 AM	Probably not gonna be LA 0 anymore. Makes it so even a non-manifesting Elan can use its abilities far more often or to greater effect than the norm. It's a weak LA +1, but it's a bit too strong for no adjustment. I was thinking that as well. However, they aren't really good as any other class, and psions would be able to use their racial abilities many times a day anyway, so I don't see how they would be much better than a Kalashtar in that respect. In any case, its frustrating, they should have had that ability from the beginning since they are supposed to be made for psionics, but they don't have anything on the Kalashtar. I would would be willing to sacrifice most of their other racial abilities for this.
Tempest Stormwind 07-18-07, 01:30 AM	2pp +1/2 levels would probably be the upper limit of what you could cram in there and not set off any alarms.
InkBlot 07-18-07, 01:34 AM	Their other racial abilities are just the aberration type and the three R's. The three R's are what makes an elan an elan, so I guess you would have to nix the aberration type. Make them humanoids. Now they can be targeted by affects that only target humanoids, like hold person or charm person, and an elan egoist can no longer metamorphose into a mindflayer. That seems like it might be a fair trade. Lose one minor benefit for another minor benefit.
CrimsonDeath 07-18-07, 04:23 AM	Their other racial abilities are just the aberration type and the three R's. The three R's are what makes an elan an elan, so I guess you would have to nix the aberration type. Make them humanoids. Now they can be targeted by affects that only target humanoids, like hold person or charm person, and an elan egoist can no longer metamorphose into a mindflayer. That seems like it might be a fair trade. Lose one minor benefit for another minor benefit. Why can't the humanoid Elan metamorphose into an aberration? Anyone else can-- they're not constructs, outsiders, elementals, or undead...
Jhaelen 07-19-07, 03:27 AM	Why can't the humanoid Elan metamorphose into an aberration? Anyone else can-- they're not constructs, outsiders, elementals, or undead...Funny, and here I thought nobody could metamorphose into anything anymore. Wasn't the power effectively removed with the polymorph errata?
Kyuketsukiouji 07-19-07, 07:10 AM	Change the 3 'r's so they operate more than one per round. That'll solve the problem. In particular, if Resiliance becomes a Free action instead of a Swift action, it'll be useful in combat past level 6.
ck2001wendt 07-19-07, 08:57 AM	Why don't you just play a Kalashtar? If Elan can be integrated into Eberron, certainly a Kalashtar can be integrated into game world X with minimal flavor tweaking? Otherwise, no I wouldn't consider it balanced to give the Elan 1/level. I like Tempest's suggestion, but make it 1/2 levels with no 2 pp at 1st.
Sarlax 07-19-07, 10:07 AM	Funny, and here I thought nobody could metamorphose into anything anymore. Wasn't the power effectively removed with the polymorph errata? Because Metamorphosis isn't a spell, it is effectively untouched by polymorph changes by RAW, according to some. I tend to believe differently, thinking that magic-psionics transparency means that such a revision extends to Metamorphosis, particular since the power really is based on Polymorph, just with a new name and a secondary ability to shape into objects.
Tempest Stormwind 07-19-07, 11:01 AM	Because Metamorphosis isn't a spell, it is effectively untouched by polymorph changes by RAW, according to some. I tend to believe differently, thinking that magic-psionics transparency means that such a revision extends to Metamorphosis, particular since the power really is based on Polymorph, just with a new name and a secondary ability to shape into objects. Actually, it was covered by the errata in *exactly* the same fashion as Polymorph. That is, anything referencing it was changed to reflect Alternate Form instead, and Metamorphosis was placed on the RPGA restricted list.
Sarlax 07-19-07, 11:57 AM	Actually, it was covered by the errata in *exactly* the same fashion as Polymorph. That is, anything referencing it was changed to reflect Alternate Form instead, and Metamorphosis was placed on the RPGA restricted list. Which errata do you mean? Metamorphosis itself does not refer to Polymorph at all.
Salla 07-19-07, 12:41 PM	Why don't you just play a Kalashtar? If Elan can be integrated into Eberron, certainly a Kalashtar can be integrated into game world X with minimal flavor tweaking? I was kinda wondering that myself.
Tempest Stormwind 07-19-07, 01:14 PM	Which errata do you mean? Metamorphosis itself does not refer to Polymorph at all. That errata update hit a LOT of books, including the XPH. Look for blue text.
Sarlax 07-19-07, 03:30 PM	That errata update hit a LOT of books, including the XPH. Look for blue text. Really, I'm not seeing this. I just downloaded the latest errata here (http://wizards.com/dnd/files/ExpPsiHdbk_Errata02062006.zip) and the power is only updated like so: Page 117: Metamorphosis, Greater Power The assumed form cannot have more Hit Dice than your manifester level (to a maximum of 25 HD). There's no other mention. Where is this other errata you refer to? I can't find an actual rules update. I only see a reference in the Main FAQ: *The question and answer uses "polymorph” to refer specifically to spells that rely on the polymorph or alter self spell to adjudicate their effect (including alter self, polymorph, polymorph any object, and shapechange), psionic powers based on the metamorphosis power (including metamorphosis and greater metamorphosis), and any other effect based on either of these lists.
Tempest Stormwind 07-19-07, 04:58 PM	That's because it didn't actually impact Metamorphosis itself. Look at the creatures section. Just like the PHB errata doesn't actually change Polymorph (or Alter Self / Shapechange) at all, but changes everything in the game that mentions it. The impact on the XPH is identical. Now, let's look at Andy Collins' announcement on this. It shouldn’t come as news to any serious D&D player that the polymorph spell presents some problems for players and DMs alike. From ever-changing stat blocks to “what happens to my stuff,” nothing grinds the game to a halt like somebody casting polymorph. In fact, if there’s a family of spells that has created more rules arguments, errata, and FAQ entries than the polymorph tribe (which includes alter self, animal shapes, baleful polymorph, polymorph any object, and shapechange, along with the metamorphosis and greater metamorphosis psionic powers), we’d be surprised. ... The latest errata doesn’t seek to “fix” polymorph. Instead, it seeks to end polymorph’s stranglehold on other elements of the game—from class features (the druid’s wild shape) to related spells (animal shapes, baleful polymorph) to the many monsters who use powers based on the same effect (such as the succubus and yuan-ti)—by revising those elements so that they can function without referring to the problematic polymorph spell. This means that players and DMs who don’t mind their spellcasters using the polymorph spell can continue to use it as written in their home games, but the number of times they come across the spell in other aspects of the game will greatly diminish. The same is not true in the RPGA’s Mark of Heroes campaign. As part of our continuing effort to ensure a fair and equitable play experience for all participants, the polymorph spell and several related game elements have been designed as “restricted,” meaning that they are now unavailable for use in that campaign. If you’ve found these game elements to be problematic in your home game, we recommend that you implement the same change. See this announcement for more details on that restriction. Note that the first paragraph mentions a LOT of different Polymorph effects, but the rest of the article just says "polymorph", likely as shorthand. Now, a look at his linked Mark of Heroes RPGA announcement (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebmoh/20060210a) explicitly calls out alter self, polymorph, polymorph any object, shapechange, greater metamorphosis, and metamorphosis. Those were referred to in the initial announcement simply as "polymorph". Note the big bolded paragraph? That means that they abandoned Polymorph and all related effects. You now can clip it out and ignore it. If you had no problems with it the way it was (likely due to mind-altering drugs), you can continue to use it the way it was, though. There's no errata to Polymorph itself, but rather everything in the game that mentioned it or something similar. For instance, the psionic coatl could use Metamorphosis... oh, wait, errata removes that. And it was the only example of something other than Metamorphosis and Greater Metamorphosis that referenced either of those in the XPH, no?
Yokinobu 07-21-07, 06:52 AM	I was kinda wondering that myself. Then allow me to indulge you. I'm more of a by the book kinda guy, and I really don't feel comfortable taking things that are campaign specific and putting them in another campaign setting that is the sometimes seen as the anathema to the aforementioned setting. In other words, it just doesn't seem right putting a Kalashtar in the Realms. Now changing the mechanics of a race that I know exists in a certain setting is less disruptive I think; the race retains it's basic identity and it's role in such a campaign setting, but it has a few different abilities that, in the case of the Elan, are somewhat obscure from a role-playing perspective, although not from a mechanic perspective. In any case, Elans are so rare in the Realms that almost noone knows of them, so upsetting common knowlege about Elans impossible if their is no existing common knowlege to contradict. Besides, I don't feel like trying to convince my DM to allow me to play a Kalashtar in a Realms campaign.
ck2001wendt 07-21-07, 08:12 AM	Nothing is really "campaign specific". For example, Kalashtar could be bound to the spirits of one of the Lost Empires. If this doesn't work, take something away from the Elan...1) increase their Cha penalty, or 2) remove their ability to soak damage or 3) their save bonus and remove their bonus 2 PP at 1st level, then give them 1 PP/level. It shouldn't be something for nothing.
AdventChild 07-21-07, 08:19 AM	I am going to risk revealing a bit of information about elans in eberron from one of the source books:( Elans: When a quori commits a heinous crime against its own kind, it receives a terrible punishment: It is bound into a human vessel against its will. Unlike the normal process by which the Inspired are created, the bound spirit has no power or influence over its host. Condemned to eternal powerlessness in its living prison, the quori's energy sustains and empowers the host as it becomes an elan. There is no elan council in Eberron, and no one undergoes the transformation voluntarily.
ck2001wendt 07-21-07, 01:06 PM	I am going to risk revealing a bit of information about elans in eberron from one of the source books:( For the record, I hate that origin. But YMMV.