Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hendel 03-04-07, 11:58 PM	Can anyone tell me why a wizard/psion with Maximize Spell should not be able to use the same feat to maximize a power, or vice versa. If all things are transparent (and the EPH has a few written exceptions), then why should these feats be any different? After all a wizard/cleric can use the same feat for the same effect on arcane or divine. Why not psionics too, if all things are pretty much "transparent?" The cost in added spell levels versus more power points and expended psionic focus would be different, but those differences exist due to the nature of casting versus manifesting and are a part of the rules. Anyone??
Tempest Stormwind 03-05-07, 12:02 AM	Can anyone tell me why a wizard/psion with Maximize Spell should not be able to use the same feat to maximize a power, or vice versa. If all things are transparent (and the EPH has a few written exceptions), then why should these feats be any different? After all a wizard/cleric can use the same feat for the same effect on arcane or divine. Why not psionics too, if all things are pretty much "transparent?" The cost in added spell levels versus more power points and expended psionic focus would be different, but those differences exist due to the nature of casting versus manifesting and are a part of the rules. Anyone?? Because all things are not transparent. Feats are NOT listed anywhere as things that are transparent. This is why there's Combat Casting and Combat Manifesting, by the way. If you're concerned about cerebremancers, think of it this way: Mystic Theurge: Feat duality. Cerebremancer: Single-ability dependency.
Thomar_of_Uointer 03-05-07, 12:08 AM	Because metamagic feats reference rules constructs (spell slots) that psionics does not have, and psionics-magic transparency does not address this. In addition, they have been superceded by metapsionic feats that do almost exactly the same thing.
Hendel 03-05-07, 12:23 AM	Can a wizard/psion with Craft Wondrous Item use a power to make a wondrous item?
Thomar_of_Uointer 03-05-07, 12:49 AM	Can a wizard/psion with Craft Wondrous Item use a power to make a wondrous item? No, he won't meet any of the prerequisites for any wondrous items. Psionic versions of powers can't replace their spell versions.
Hendel 03-05-07, 01:01 AM	"No, he won't meet any of the prerequisites for any wondrous items." How so?? If I am wizard 5/Psion 5/Cerebremancer 10, and I have Psionic Plane Shift and Craft Wondrous Item, then I have all the prerequisites for making an amulet of the planes. Boom, I spend the gold, money and time and the amulet is mine. "Psionic versions of powers can't replace their spell versions." What are you talking about? That is the whole reason for psionic-magic transparency, powers CAN replace spell versions and vice versa.
InkBlot 03-05-07, 01:13 AM	Not for item creation. Of course your DM might let you replace the spells anyway, just like he or she might let you make up your own new magic items.
Hendel 03-05-07, 01:17 AM	Not for item creation. I have yet to see where it says that under the transparency rules. If it says so somewhere, I am okay with that, otherwise the RAW would suggest that they can be substituted.
Fireclave 03-05-07, 02:01 AM	I have yet to see where it says that under the transparency rules. If it says so somewhere, I am okay with that, otherwise the RAW would suggest that they can be substituted. Well, let's just see what the tranparency rules have to say. Psionics-Magic Transparency Though not explicitly called out in the spell descriptions or magic item descriptions, spells, spell-like abilities, and magic items that could potentially affect psionics do affect psionics. When the rule about psionics-magic transparency is in effect, it has the following ramifications. Spell resistance is effective against powers, using the same mechanics. Likewise, power resistance is effective against spells, using the same mechanics as spell resistance. If a creature has one kind of resistance, it is assumed to have the other. (The effects have similar ends despite having been brought about by different means.) All spells that dispel magic have equal effect against powers of the same level using the same mechanics, and vice versa. The spell detect magic detects powers, their number, and their strength and location within 3 rounds (though a Psicraft check is necessary to identify the discipline of the psionic aura). Dead magic areas are also dead psionics areas. That's it. That's all that's transparent under the RAW. Anything else, such as allowing psionic version of spells to function as spells for creating items, is a house-rule.
Thomar_of_Uointer 03-05-07, 02:37 AM	"No, he won't meet any of the prerequisites for any wondrous items." How so?? If I am wizard 5/Psion 5/Cerebremancer 10, and I have Psionic Plane Shift and Craft Wondrous Item, then I have all the prerequisites for making an amulet of the planes. Boom, I spend the gold, money and time and the amulet is mine. "Psionic versions of powers can't replace their spell versions." What are you talking about? That is the whole reason for psionic-magic transparency, powers CAN replace spell versions and vice versa. Plane shift is a spell listed as a prerequisite for an amulet of the planes. Psionic plane shift is not. Anyways, it's a moot point because psionics already has the Craft Universal Item feat. Psionics-magic transparency only says this: Psionics-Magic Transparency Though not explicitly called out in the spell descriptions or magic item descriptions, spells, spell-like abilities, and magic items that could potentially affect psionics do affect psionics. When the rule about psionics-magic transparency is in effect, it has the following ramifications. Spell resistance is effective against powers, using the same mechanics. Likewise, power resistance is effective against spells, using the same mechanics as spell resistance. If a creature has one kind of resistance, it is assumed to have the other. (The effects have similar ends despite having been brought about by different means.) All spells that dispel magic have equal effect against powers of the same level using the same mechanics, and vice versa. The spell detect magic detects powers, their number, and their strength and location within 3 rounds (though a Psicraft check is necessary to identify the discipline of the psionic aura). Dead magic areas are also dead psionics areas. Anything else is DM interpretation. Just because mage armor doesn't say it grants you a fly speed of 90' doesn't mean it does.
Hendel 03-05-07, 10:38 AM	The problem is you guys keep forgetting to quote the very first line on page 55 of EPH that says, "The default rule for the interaction of psionics and magic is simple: Powers interact with spells and spells interact with powers in the same way a spell or normal spell-like ability interacts with another spell or spell-like ability. This is known as psionics-magic transparency." I maybe wrong, but when I see the word "interact" and then I see, in this example, a prerequiste that is clearly the same whether it be a power or a spell and I see no problem with the two being equal. Don't get me wrong, I see your points about feats perhaps interacting with spells and powers diferently than spells and powers do with each other. I just don't think that rules are really clear on that issue. I agree with Thomar in that some is left to DM interpretation. I don't agree with some using the rules to flat out say that it is NOT possible to use Maximize Power or Maximize Spell interchangebly (or Craft Wondrous Item or Craft Universal Item). That is just simply not supported enough. The point that another attempted to make earlier by saying that the existence of metapsionic feats proves that the feats do not interact in this same way is also false. The existence of metapsionic feats proves that there are ways that pure psionic characters have of affecting their powers like wizards do their spells. Also, that they can craft items just like a wizard can. I am talking about this special hybrid character that uses both spells and powers. The feats work on any type of spell, arcane or divine, from any type of caster, bard, cleric, wizard, etc.., then why won't they work on powers. Either there is a transparency or there is not. Once more, I don't think the rules are clear enough on this issue or else I would never had posted this in the first place. If WotC final answer is that is a DM decision, then I think it is a cop out, but I am fine with that. If someone knows of some errata, sage advice, or FAQ somewhere on this subject, then please let me know.
Thomar_of_Uointer 03-05-07, 11:29 AM	"The default rule for the interaction of psionics and magic is simple: Powers interact with spells and spells interact with powers in the same way a spell or normal spell-like ability interacts with another spell or spell-like ability. This is known as psionics-magic transparency." Metamagic feats are not powers, spells, or spell-like abilities. Metapsionic feats are not powers, spells, or spell-like abilities. Item creation feats are not power, spells, or spell-like abilities. Thus, they do not interact.
Fireclave 03-05-07, 11:56 AM	I don't agree with some using the rules to flat out say that it is NOT possible to use Maximize Power or Maximize Spell interchangebly (or Craft Wondrous Item or Craft Universal Item). That is just simply not supported enough. Except that Maximize Spell affects spells, and Maximize Power affects powers. Spells are not powers. Powers are not spells. Nowhere does it say the powers are spells and spells are powers. I am talking about this special hybrid character that uses both spells and powers. The feats work on any type of spell, arcane or divine, from any type of caster, bard, cleric, wizard, etc.., then why won't they work on powers. Either there is a transparency or there is not. The magic-psionic transparency is there. In fact, I quoted exactly what it covers. You, however, want it to cover additional material. Spells and powers are fundamentally different in the same way that spells are different from spell-like abilities. You can't use Maximize Spell on powers any more than you can use Maximize Power on spell-like abilities any more than you can use Maximize Spell-like Ability on spells. While the overall effects may be identical, spells, powers, and spell-like abilities are all fundementally different from each other. That's why there are distinctions between them. Once more, I don't think the rules are clear enough on this issue or else I would never had posted this in the first place. If WotC final answer is that is a DM decision, then I think it is a cop out, but I am fine with that. If someone knows of some errata, sage advice, or FAQ somewhere on this subject, then please let me know. Look at the section of the SRD I quoted. The rules are quite clear on the issue. No errata needed here.
Hendel 03-05-07, 12:15 PM	Well Fireclave, I am obviously missing something when I read that quoted portion of the SRD as I don't see it answering my question. I do not believe the rules to be as clear on the subject as you do. "Spells and powers are fundamentally different in the same way that spells are different from spell-like abilities." There is no rule for spell-spell-like ability transparency! So, that statement is not wholly true. Different, yes, but transparent as well. To Thomar's point of "Metamagic feats are not powers, spells, or spell-like abilities. Metapsionic feats are not powers, spells, or spell-like abilities. Item creation feats are not power, spells, or spell-like abilities." That is true, but the feats DO interact with the powers and spells and that is what this transparency rule is all about.
Thomar_of_Uointer 03-05-07, 12:27 PM	That is true, but the feats DO interact with the powers and spells and that is what this transparency rule is all about. Where does transparency say that?
Jerks 03-05-07, 12:35 PM	It's is pretty clear what transparency covers. The text is right there. Now if you think it is logical to expand the "transparency" to other things then by all means do that, but the previous posters have told you the truth in what exactly transparency covers. Metapsionic feats are not interchangeable with metamagic feats. The rules on transparency don't have to specifically say that they don't because the rules clearly delineate exaclty what transparency covers.
Hendel 03-05-07, 01:12 PM	To answer Thomar, transparency says nothing about feats. I know and understand that. I agree with Jerks, that much is true, true, tue. What I meant is that feats do interact with spells and/or powers, correct? Like algebra or logic, if feat A + Spell B = effect C and Spell B = Power D, then feat A + Power D = effect C. Fine though, I do not wish to beleaguer this point any more. I have the feedback for which I asked. If anyone has anything different to add, great, if not, so long and thanks for all the fish...
Red12 03-05-07, 01:33 PM	I agree that the meta- feats should be interchangable. Not RAW per-se, but I think the only reason they made new feats was to use the expend psionic focus mechanic. If they are truely transparent, then thats the way it should be. As for Item creation, Craft Universal Item is about as assanine as, well, anything. However, I think it is also due to the fact that item creation feats are stupid in general. Why do I need a different feats for wands and staves? I use the Arcana Evovled Item Creation feats. (Craft Constant Item, Craft Charged Item, Craft Single-Use Item, Craft Spell-Completion Item, Craft Magic Arms + Armor). It would be pretty easy to classify psionic items as conterparts in exsisting item creation feats.
Racinante 03-05-07, 03:36 PM	Metamagic feats are not powers, spells, or spell-like abilities. Metapsionic feats are not powers, spells, or spell-like abilities. Item creation feats are not power, spells, or spell-like abilities. Thus, they do not interact. So based on transparency, metamagic and metapsionic feats are not interchangable, and magical and psionic item creation feats are not interchangable. However, the use of spells and powers in the creation of items is interchangeable. A ring of flying, for example, is a ring of flying regardless of whether the spell Fly was used to create it or the power Fly, Psionic was used to create it. The cost remains the same, as does the effect granted by the item.
Fireclave 03-05-07, 05:52 PM	"Spells and powers are fundamentally different in the same way that spells are different from spell-like abilities." There is no rule for spell-spell-like ability transparency! So, that statement is not wholly true. Different, yes, but transparent as well. Except that, in that particular instance, I wasn't arguing for spell to spell-like ability transparency. I was arguing the three sources of supernatural energies are both flavorwise and, more importantly, mechanically different on a fundamental level (as shown above). And because of the differences in the mechanics, not everything that works with one will translate completely to another. Well Fireclave, I am obviously missing something when I read that quoted portion of the SRD as I don't see it answering my question. I do not believe the rules to be as clear on the subject as you do. I think you are either trying to read too much into the passage, or you are trying to read what's not there. The section I quote explains exactly how magic-psionic transperancy works. You want it to cover metamagic, metapsionic, and item creation feats, but it doesn't. Nor does it need to. Those rules are already addressed elsewhere. For metamagic and metapsionic feats, by the RAW, they're not interchangeable. Let's take Maximize Spell and Maximize Power, for example. The end effect of the two feats is the same: all variables are maximized. However, you can't use Maximize Spell on a power because Maximize Spell 1) the feat only makes allowances for spells 2) makes the spell use up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell's actual level. Powers aren't spells and psionics has no spell slots. So Maximize Spell is not only unable to even affect the power, even if it was able to, the psion lacks spell slots for the increased level of the power. Likewise, you can't use Maximize Power on a spell because that feat 1) the feat only makes allowances for powers 2) increases the power point cost of the power by 4. Spells aren't powers and the magic system has no power points. So Maximize Power is not only unable to even affect the power, even if it was able to, the spellcaster lacks the power points to increase the spell's level. And as for item creation feats, the guidelines are already in place and are quite clear on the requirements for making item. The rules don't need to be restated in the magic-psionic transparency section. For example, let's say I wanted to create some winged boots. Let's see what I need: Boots, Winged These boots appear to be ordinary footgear. On command, the boots sprout wings at the heel and let the wearer fly, without having to maintain concentration, as if affected by a fly spell. He can fly three times per day for up to 5 minutes per flight. Faint transmutation; CL 5th; Craft Wondrous Item, fly; Price 16,000 gp;Weight 1 lb. First of all, note that the prerequisite feat is Craft Wondrous Item, not Craft Universal Item. As similar in function as those two feats are, they are not the same feat. Second, note that the prerequiste spell is Fly. Though they my be identical in effect, Fly is not Psionic Fly. You might think this is a nerf to psionics, but also note that the prerequiste spell is not Mass Fly, Overland Flight, Polymorph, Air Walk, or Flight of the Dragon. All those spells function either similarly to Fly and fit thematically with Winged Boots, but they are not the prerequisite spell for making the item either. You might disagree with the RAW, which is well within your DMG-given right to do. But that doesn't change the RAW. Feel free to houserule otherwise.
Racinante 03-05-07, 07:02 PM	And as for item creation feats, the guidelines are already in place and are quite clear on the requirements for making item. The rules don't need to be restated in the magic-psionic transparency section. For example, let's say I wanted to create some winged boots. Let's see what I need: First of all, note that the prerequisite feat is Craft Wondrous Item, not Craft Universal Item. As similar in function as those two feats are, they are not the same feat. Second, note that the prerequiste spell is Fly. Though they my be identical in effect, Fly is not Psionic Fly. You might think this is a nerf to psionics, but also note that the prerequiste spell is not Mass Fly, Overland Flight, Polymorph, Air Walk, or Flight of the Dragon. All those spells function either similarly to Fly and fit thematically with Winged Boots, but they are not the prerequisite spell for making the item either. You might disagree with the RAW, which is well within your DMG-given right to do. But that doesn't change the RAW. Feel free to houserule otherwise. Also note that when the DMG was written, the Psionicists Handbook did not exist, so no reference would be made to Craft Universal Item or any other psionic feat or power in the DMG. That's like saying an internal combustion engine can't be used to power a train because at the time the train was invented it ran on steam power. Now Craft Universal Item specifically states that any item not covered under one of the previous listed psionic creation feats falls under this category. Therefore, winged boots would naturally fall under this category. Creating winged boots using Craft Universal Item and Fly, Psionic would results in an item, that cost-wise and effect-wise would be identical to the winged boots, and would be indistinguishable from the magical version for all game purposes. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
Red12 03-05-07, 07:15 PM	A difference that makes no difference is no difference. I agree with this sentiment in a lot of different ways, and applying to a lot of different things in D&D, especially when dealing with psionics. He's right.
Jaid 03-05-07, 10:01 PM	Also note that when the DMG was written, the Psionicists Handbook did not exist, so no reference would be made to Craft Universal Item or any other psionic feat or power in the DMG. That's like saying an internal combustion engine can't be used to power a train because at the time the train was invented it ran on steam power. Now Craft Universal Item specifically states that any item not covered under one of the previous listed psionic creation feats falls under this category. Therefore, winged boots would naturally fall under this category. Creating winged boots using Craft Universal Item and Fly, Psionic would results in an item, that cost-wise and effect-wise would be identical to the winged boots, and would be indistinguishable from the magical version for all game purposes. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.right then, so i guess i'll take craft universal item and start making all the magic items i want (none of them fall under any of the other psionic item creation feat categories, after all) using scrolls, wands, and staves with my Use Magic Device skill. because hey, that's what it says, right?
Racinante 03-06-07, 12:29 AM	right then, so i guess i'll take craft universal item and start making all the magic items i want (none of them fall under any of the other psionic item creation feat categories, after all) using scrolls, wands, and staves with my Use Magic Device skill. because hey, that's what it says, right? Hey go for it. Everything can be taken to extremes. Scrolls, wands, and staves have psionic equivalents, but if you want to apply that type of asinine logic, please go right ahead. And yes, I got the sarcasm.
Fireclave 03-06-07, 12:46 AM	Also note that when the DMG was written, the Psionicists Handbook did not exist, so no reference would be made to Craft Universal Item or any other psionic feat or power in the DMG. Still doesn't change the RAW. If it did, there would be some errata to update the PH, and the XPH metapsionic and psionic item creation feats would have included clauses to allow for spells. That's like saying an internal combustion engine can't be used to power a train because at the time the train was invented it ran on steam power. That's a faulty analogy. It assumes that psionics (the combustion engine) and magic (steam engine) are running the mechanic (the train). That's not the case. Psionics feats are for psionics and magic feats are for magic. Here's a better anology: magic:gasoline powered care::psionics:battery powered car Now Craft Universal Item specifically states that any item not covered under one of the previous listed psionic creation feats falls under this category. Therefore, winged boots would naturally fall under this category. Creating winged boots using Craft Universal Item and Fly, Psionic would results in an item, that cost-wise and effect-wise would be identical to the winged boots, and would be indistinguishable from the magical version for all game purposes. No it doesn't. It actually says... Universal Items This is a catchall category for any psionic item that doesn’t fall into the other groups. Anyone can use a universal item (unless specified otherwise in the description). A difference that makes no difference is no difference. As it has already been pointed out, it does make a difference under the RAW. And again, feel free to houserule as you deem fit, but that does not change the RAW. I hope that you are not assuming that I disagree with your point that metamagic, metapsionic, and item creation feats should have complete transparency. I can see the merit in doing so, and I can see how that makes sense. Reguardless, whether you like it or not, your displeasure with the RAW does not change the RAW. Do what your DMG suggests and houserule otherwise.
Tralan 03-06-07, 12:48 AM	Not for item creation. Of course your DM might let you replace the spells anyway, just like he or she might let you make up your own new magic items. Why is this always an issue? Isn't that half the fun? Making up new things that aren't in the books? Or do rules make you all feel safe?
Red12 03-06-07, 01:03 AM	Still doesn't change the RAW. If it did, there would be some errata to update the PH, That one made me laugh out loud. I'm not being an ass, its just the thought of WotC *actually* giving errata for an add on system is quite funny. Regardless, Craft Universal Item and Craft Wondrous Item have the EXACT same functionality. Same with Craft Psionic/Magic Arms + Armor. Now heres the thing. If psionics are transparent, then these feats really don't need to exist. HOWEVER, psionics is also designed to be Different, as well as transparent. If that was the case, then there would be a need for these feats, correct? Because the system was designed to be both, they needed to be included. However, most DM's who would use the transparency would see that the feats are identical to their magic counterpart, and should rule accordingly. If you replaced Psionic with Magic and Universal with Wondrous, they are the EXACT SAME FEAT. If you play with a transparency, magic = psionics, and therefore the feats are quite literally no different. Also, if you really need to say 'RAW' more than twice on any given subject, then you are probably taking too literal a definition. :P Out of curiosity, would anyone allow a cerebremancer to say, brew a potion of body adjustment?
Fireclave 03-06-07, 02:14 AM	Regardless, Craft Universal Item and Craft Wondrous Item have the EXACT same functionality. Same with Craft Psionic/Magic Arms + Armor. I agree Now heres the thing. If psionics are transparent, then these feats really don't need to exist. HOWEVER, psionics is also designed to be Different, as well as transparent. If that was the case, then there would be a need for these feats, correct? Because the system was designed to be both, they needed to be included. YES!!!! I completely agree. That sums up this argument nicely. If you replaced Psionic with Magic and Universal with Wondrous, they are the EXACT SAME FEAT. If you play with a transparency, magic = psionics, and therefore the feats are quite literally no different. Well, that's one way to go about it, but that's still technically a houserule. A very understandable houserule, but a houserule none the less. Personally, I prefer to keep them a bit more differentiated and make magic ~= psionics; not because that's how it is in the RAW, but rather because I like the idea of having psionics being different from magic. But that's just me. YMMV. Also, if you really need to say 'RAW' more than twice on any given subject, then you are probably taking too literal a definition. :P I'd normally agree with you on this. But in this situation, I felt that it was necessary to point out to the OP what was explicitly stated in the RAW, since it is disagreements with the RAW that we are arguing over. Still, it pains me to have to type "RAW" so often, but I will endure :P Out of curiosity, would anyone allow a cerebremancer to say, brew a potion of body adjustment? Most likely...no. But only due to fluff reasons than for any mechanical reasons (but I won't bore you with that fluff). I don't think it wouldn't be unbalanced at all to allow it.
Uchiha_Arthas 03-06-07, 05:00 AM	Think of it this way, According to the Transparency rule, Magic can affect Psionics and Vice Versa. However Magic is not Psionics and Psionics is not Magic. If you learn to enchant a sword using magic, you have not necessarily learnt how to enchant a sword using Psionics as well.
Racinante 03-06-07, 10:17 AM	Still doesn't change the RAW. If it did, there would be some errata to update the PH, and the XPH metapsionic and psionic item creation feats would have included clauses to allow for spells. The assumption here being that everything that needs errata has errata. I'm not arguing that transparency applies to metapsionic feats or item creation feats. My argument is that the magical and psionic item creation feats overlap. You can create a +1 sword with either Craft Magical Arms and Armor or Craft Psionic Arms and Armor, either way the resultant sword is identical. Any item construction path that leads to the same result and can be accomplished using either psionics or magic results in an overlap. I'm not saying the item creation feats are identical, but I am saying that even by the RAW, there is overlap. Now Craft Universal Item specifically states that any item not covered under one of the previous listed psionic creation feats falls under this category. Therefore, winged boots would naturally fall under this category. Creating winged boots using Craft Universal Item and Fly, Psionic would results in an item, that cost-wise and effect-wise would be identical to the winged boots, and would be indistinguishable from the magical version for all game purposes. No it doesn't. It actually says... Universal Items This is a catchall category for any psionic item that doesn’t fall into the other groups. Anyone can use a universal item (unless specified otherwise in the description). Since articles of clothing do not fall under any of the following feats: Craft Cognizance Crystal Craft Dorje Craft Psicrown Craft Psionic Arms and Armor Craft Psionic Construct Imprint Stone Scribe Tattoo There construction falls under Craft Universal Item. Constructing a pair of psionic boots that allow you to fly and are comparable to Winged Boots would logically require Craft Universal Item and Fly, Psionic. The result would be a pair of boots that are functionally and game equivalent to the Winged Boots, and by the rules of magic and psionic item construction would cost the same. It would be impacted and interact with anything magical in the same manner as the magically constructed Winged Boots, hence my assertion that there is no game difference between the two. Under transparency, whether the Winged Boots are magical or psionic is irrelevant. If I had used Craft Wondrous Item and had a Psion add Fly, Psionic in a cooperative process, this would have resulted in an equivalent pair of Winged Boots being made. Likewise, a Psion using Craft Universal Item and getting his friend the wizard to supply the Fly would still have resulted in an equivalent pair of boots being made. Again, a difference that makes no difference is no difference. I hope that you are not assuming that I disagree with your point that metamagic, metapsionic, and item creation feats should have complete transparency. Ah, I do not believe that there should be complete transparency between the metamagic and metapsionic feats, because of the differences between scaling and psionic focus. However I can see no reason not to have complete transparency between the item creation feats. At this point, however I am debating the point from a non-transparent POV.
Fireclave 03-06-07, 11:56 AM	The assumption here being that everything that needs errata has errata. I've never once assumed that. I'm merely arguing that the RAW does not support what the OP wants it to support. If even the raw makes a horrible mistake, it is still the RAW *coughfightercoughhalfdragoncoughabjuran tchampioncough*. Instead, I think the assumption being made on the side of the OP is that because it would make sense to make metamagic, metapsionic, and item creation feats transparent, the RAW should support that. But as Red12 said, psionics were meant to be different AND transparent. These feats are one of the ways that they are different. The raw is very clear on what it considers transparent and what it doesn't. If you OP wants to go beyond that scope that transparency allows, and make other stuff transparent, not only can he do so, but I would back him up on his decision 100%. "Houserule" is not a dirty word. I'm not saying the item creation feats are identical, but I am saying that even by the RAW, there is overlap. I realized and acknowledge that several times. The overlap is very obvious. Constructing a pair of psionic boots that allow you to fly and are comparable to Winged Boots would logically require Craft Universal Item and Fly, Psionic. The result would be a pair of boots that are functionally and game equivalent to the Winged Boots, and by the rules of magic and psionic item construction would cost the same. It would be impacted and interact with anything magical in the same manner as the magically constructed Winged Boots, hence my assertion that there is no game difference between the two. Under transparency, whether the Winged Boots are magical or psionic is irrelevant. If I had used Craft Wondrous Item and had a Psion add Fly, Psionic in a cooperative process, this would have resulted in an equivalent pair of Winged Boots being made. Likewise, a Psion using Craft Universal Item and getting his friend the wizard to supply the Fly would still have resulted in an equivalent pair of boots being made. Again, a difference that makes no difference is no difference. If you make custom items, then you are using houserules, not RAW. There is no psionic equivalent for Winged Boots in the SRD. If you are houseruling the existance of Psionic Wing Boots, then no, there is no difference at all. But like I said, "houserule" isn't a dirty word. And if you're going to make custom, psionic versions of magic items, why even bother arguing feat transparency? You can just make psionic versions of the items you want. However I can see no reason not to have complete transparency between the item creation feats. I can. If you're in a game where the DM doesn't allow his players to houserule a lot of custom items, then there are many items that don't have a parallel. You would need Craft Magic Weapons and Armor if you wanted the flaming property added to your +1 Deep Crystal Greatsword. Likewise, you would needCraft Universal Item if you wanted a Skin of the Hero. But, if in your game where the DM allows custom items and allow people to make psionic versions of magic items, and vice versa, then what you are saying is very true. There would be no reason to not have complete transparency between item creation feats. But this is a matter of playing style. And there's no use arguing over that because every group has their own playing style.
Racinante 03-06-07, 12:21 PM	... If you make custom items, then you are using houserules, not RAW. Not true. The RAW is very specific on creating custom items that duplicate spell / power effects and provides a table for determining the cost. It also specifies to compare the new item to similar existing items to determine an appropriate cost. I can. If you're in a game where the DM doesn't allow his players to houserule a lot of custom items, then there are many items that don't have a parallel. You would need Craft Magic Weapons and Armor if you wanted the flaming property added to your +1 Deep Crystal Greatsword. Likewise, you would needCraft Universal Item if you wanted a Skin of the Hero. But, if in your game where the DM allows custom items and allow people to make psionic versions of magic items, and vice versa, then what you are saying is very true. There would be no reason to not have complete transparency between item creation feats. But at this point we've moved from a discussion of generalities to specific gaming situations and DM styles. In general, I see no reason to differentiate between Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Psionic Arms and Armor (for example), however some DMs may have specific reasons for doing so.
InkBlot 03-06-07, 02:15 PM	Not true. The RAW is very specific on creating custom items that duplicate spell / power effects and provides a table for determining the cost. It also specifies to compare the new item to similar existing items to determine an appropriate cost. Creating new magic items is a variant rule. RAW, in a standard game, a player can't invent new kinds of magic items. See the side bar on page 214 of the Dungeon Master's Guide - "Variant: New Magic Items."
Hendel 03-06-07, 02:47 PM	I'm merely arguing that the RAW does not support what the OP wants it to support. Instead, I think the assumption being made on the side of the OP is that because it would make sense to make metamagic, metapsionic, and item creation feats transparent, the RAW should support that I am sorry that I ever brought up RAW and I believe that originally I only mentioned it once. Since I started this rant, let me reply with some of my thoughts behind it. Yes, I think it would make sense that metapsionic and metamagic feats worked interchangeably (Item creation feats as well). Yes, I agree that no where in the rules does it say that. That is why I started this thread, to get opinions. I really see this as a being a problem that no rule book is going to be able to cover every contingency that a player or a DM can think up or throw at it (Grapple rules are a great example of this). So, it was my original question, as "OP," that I would like input into this, because maybe I was missing something. What I got in reply were some pretty dogmatic answers of "No." Since then, the argument has shifted and developed a little. I think to try and summarize this whole idea that it can be said that while the rules do not authorize cross-utilization of feats between magic and psionics, it also does not specifically prohibit such (other than each set of feats has it's own game mechanics behind them). Thus, as Fireclave has put it, it is up to the DM and the players to come up with an understanding of how to adjudicate the use of these various feats. Having played D&D since 1st edition, I am okay with making stuff up and adapting to fit certain situations. I think I really just wanted to see if there was an official stamp of approval on my original idea.
Racinante 03-06-07, 03:25 PM	Creating new magic items is a variant rule. RAW, in a standard game, a player can't invent new kinds of magic items. See the side bar on page 214 of the Dungeon Master's Guide - "Variant: New Magic Items." Interesting. I do not have the DMG handy to verify. No where in the SRD does it mention or imply that creating new magic items is a variant. So from a RAW standpoint, if the Core Rulebooks define RAW, then it is a variant, if the SRD defines RAW, then it is not a variant, unless I missed something in the SRD.
Jhaelen 03-06-07, 04:36 PM	Interesting. I do not have the DMG handy to verify. No where in the SRD does it mention or imply that creating new magic items is a variant.And that's why it's dangerous to play D&D using just the SRD as a source! At the very least every player should have read the complete books once before making use of the SRD. I realized this a long time ago: Having bought the 3.0 rule books I didn't want to buy the 3.5 versions in the beginning, so I tried playing using the SRD alone. That was really a pain in the ***. Some of the rules are less than clear if you only have the SRD descriptions. The examples in the books often eliminate potential questions. Add to this that whole sections are missing and you realize why there are so many questions on these boards that seem asinine. So from a RAW standpoint, if the Core Rulebooks define RAW, then it is a variant, if the SRD defines RAW, then it is not a variant, unless I missed something in the SRD.:eek: I hope, you don't really believe the latter is a realistic possibility...<insert long rant about people invoking RAW to defend ridiculous interpretations> On topic: The Magic-Psionic Transparency rules are clearly an invitation to create some house-rules. I treat many psionic feats and skills as being equal to their non-psionic counterparts for most purposes. This was a gradual process, however. For a long time I didn't trust my judgement on the potential effects of fidgeting with the rules. After a couple of years of DMing with the 3.5 rules, I'm much more comfortable making modifications, now.
Racinante 03-06-07, 05:07 PM	So from a RAW standpoint, if the Core Rulebooks define RAW, then it is a variant, if the SRD defines RAW, then it is not a variant, unless I missed something in the SRD. :eek: I hope, you don't really believe the latter is a realistic possibility... Unfortunately, any other gaming company that wishes to produce d20/OGC material must use the SRD as THE rules as written when designing their products (although with the OGL they are free to alter at will, while d20 licensees are restricted from altering certain terms and definitions). Wizards' products do not generally contain open source material. The DMG, for example, contains no open source material and can only be referenced by chapter, heading and sub-heading. So there is a precedence for the SRD as the RAW for all non-WotC development.
Red12 03-06-07, 05:25 PM	Calling creating new magic items a variant is misleading. Here's the thing, in a little variant box about 2 inches wide, the DMG says that, like a spellcaster researching a new spell, so too can players create new magic items. However, looking on, you will find that if you are creating anything using the table provided, then that is *not* a variant and simple item creation. It's really splitting hairs, I think, and I reject creating new magic items as a "variant"- at least in the sense of using the table. Now, as too psionics. There are 3 (4 if you include partial effects) ways someone could incorporate psionics into their game. 1. Psionics are just another form of magic, like Arcane or Divine. This would be the 'ultimate' or 'true' transparency: where metamagic, item creation, and other feats or abilities that effect spells or magic effect psionics one in the same. 2. Psionics interacts with magic, but is not magic (different). This is the *default* setting. Feats and the like are not synonymous, but SR and the like apply to all. 2b. Psionics kinda interacts together. Also called *partial effect*. 3a. Psionics is completely different, and magic/spells do not interact. Now, as these are generally the accepted ways to incorporate psionics, the designers had to make a decision. As 3/4 ways to use psionics include them being *different*, all the rules have to be made accordingly. However, for those who want to use it as a *True* transparency, I believe the option is there to simply get rid of redundant feats or skills. It may not be RAW, but it is definitely a valid RAI argument.