Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Pandaemoni 03-20-07, 01:40 PM	I was considering playing a PsyWar 5/War Mind 3 in an upcoming game and have been trying to figure out whether those two classes stack for purposes of figuring out manifester level. I searched (via Google) and found an old thread that says they do stack, based on the "Normal" language of the Overchannel feat ("Your manifester level is equal to your total levels in all classes that manifest powers.") That seems to conflict, though, with the language of the Practiced Manifester feat (which suggests that that feat applies only to one manifester class at a time and that a Psion/Psywarrior might benefit from that feat). The language in the Overchannel feat is much more clear than the implication from the Practiced Manifester feat, but Practiced Manifester is from a more recent publication. What is the current thinking on how one calculates manifester level in multiclass situations? Would War Mind levels stack with PsyWarrior, or not?
Despana 03-20-07, 02:01 PM	They do not. Really the only time manifester/caster levels will stack is if one of the classes in question (almost(?) always a PrC) says it gives +1 level of existing manifesting(or casting) class. Warmind and Fist of Zuoken both give their own manifester progression. They progress like their own base class for manifesting. Multiclass Psionic Characters If you have levels in more than one psionic class, you combine your power points from each class to make up your reserve. You can use these power points to manifest powers from any psionic class you have. While you maintain a single reserve of power points from your class, race, and feat selections, you are still limited by the manifester level you have achieved with each power you know.
crizhII 03-20-07, 02:06 PM	Your manifester level is equal to your total levels in [all] classes that manifest powers. Firstly the word 'all' above isn't in the EPH text. Secondly, I think you need to read that more carefully. Equal to your total levels. Sounds like something you might say in casual conversation. You also might use double negatives in casual conversation. Perhaps if we replace the everything after 'in' with: 'each class that manifests powers.' As it stands it is a little ambiguous but certainly doesn't say what you imagine it does. If it said: 'Your manifester level is equal to the sum of all your levels in classes that manifest powers.' Then it would mean what you imagined it did. The important point is that 'total levels in' and 'classes that manifest powers' are seperate terms, the former being a function of the latter.
Pandaemoni 03-20-07, 03:56 PM	Firstly the word 'all' above isn't in the EPH text. Secondly, I think you need to read that more carefully. Equal to your total levels. Sounds like something you might say in casual conversation. You also might use double negatives in casual conversation. Perhaps if we replace the everything after 'in' with: 'each class that manifests powers.' As it stands it is a little ambiguous but certainly doesn't say what you imagine it does. If it said: 'Your manifester level is equal to the sum of all your levels in classes that manifest powers.' Then it would mean what you imagined it did. The important point is that 'total levels in' and 'classes that manifest powers' are seperate terms, the former being a function of the latter. I'm going to assume you didn't mean the condescending tone that I perceive in your message,and that it's just a function of the way in which I read it. You're absolutely right that the word "all" was an accidental addition from me and not in the text. What do you imagine the word "total" means in that sentence? To me, the most natural reading is that it means one adds things together (in this case one adds together one's "levels in classes that manifest powers" to arrive at a "total"). I believe that is a pretty fair reading of it. In any event, in searching the site, I can say that the reading I suggested was the common answer given on the boards (so far as google reveals) prior to the publication of the Complete Psionic. I am persuaded that Despana's SRD reference, though not 100% clear because it still fails to tell you how "manifester level" is determined, throws the weight of the evidence against stacking. (Though what it is about "+1 class level of manifesting class" under the heading "Powers Known" that increases one's manifester under that interpretation is still unclear. I have to chalk that one up to "unexpressed understanding.")
AntiDjinn 03-20-07, 04:07 PM	The explicit and unambiguous rules for multiclassing manifesting classes are on pages 17-18 of the XPH. If you mix manifesting base classes then your points go into a single pool, but manifester level, powers known, and other ML-based mechanics are tracked separately for each class. In the case of PrCs, if the class says +1 manifester level in an existing class then it adds to your ML. If you have more than one previous manifesting classes then it only adds to one of them. If the PrC has its own manifesting progression then it doesn't add to anything (although if you later take levels in a PrC that adds MLs then you can chose to have that apply to your progression in the Prc).
Tempest Stormwind 03-20-07, 04:14 PM	The FAQ at the top of the forum discusses this as well. It essentially works like caster level does, with the exception that power points are pooled. If there's a conflict in the rules, the primary source tends to be correct -- and that primary source is the rules on manifester levels in general, which says it's your level in that class. You'll find similar editing mistakes when it comes to psicrystal levels, by the way. Check out the FAQ at the top of the forum for a few examples.
Red12 03-20-07, 04:19 PM	Frankly, I wouldn't have an issue with people stacking the manifester levels. I would actually make people (gosh!) see multi-classing as a viable alternative.
Pandaemoni 03-20-07, 04:22 PM	I agree, based on the rule quoted in the SRD (I do not have the XPH itself), but does the XPH actually say: In the case of PrCs, if the class says +1 manifester level in an existing class then it adds to your ML. PrC's never actually say "+1 manifester level" as I recall it, but rather "+1 level of existing manifesting class". The related class description then clarifies this to mean that "power points per day and access to new powers" increase as if you had an additional level in that class, but those provisions also say that the player does not gain "any other benefit a character of that class would have gained". I'm not sure why "manifester level" isn't covered by "any other benefit," read literally, save that no one plays it that way.
Platstud 03-20-07, 04:40 PM	I agree, based on the rule quoted in the SRD (I do not have the XPH itself), but does the XPH actually say: PrC's never actually say "+1 manifester level" as I recall it, but rather "+1 level of existing manifesting class". The related class description then clarifies this to mean that "power points per day and access to new powers" increase as if you had an additional level in that class, but those provisions also say that the player does not gain "any other benefit a character of that class would have gained". I'm not sure why "manifester level" isn't covered by "any other benefit," read literally, save that no one plays it that way. You're right, it is confusing. The reason most people consider it simple is because it works like caster level. The "any other benefit" refers to things like bonus feats, class abilities, BAB and saves, etc..
crizhII 03-20-07, 06:36 PM	I'm going to assume you didn't mean the condescending tone that I perceive in your message,and that it's just a function of the way in which I read it. You're absolutely right that the word "all" was an accidental addition from me and not in the text. What do you imagine the word "total" means in that sentence? To me, the most natural reading is that it means one adds things together (in this case one adds together one's "levels in classes that manifest powers" to arrive at a "total"). I believe that is a pretty fair reading of it. In any event, in searching the site, I can say that the reading I suggested was the common answer given on the boards (so far as google reveals) prior to the publication of the Complete Psionic. I am persuaded that Despana's SRD reference, though not 100% clear because it still fails to tell you how "manifester level" is determined, throws the weight of the evidence against stacking. (Though what it is about "+1 class level of manifesting class" under the heading "Powers Known" that increases one's manifester under that interpretation is still unclear. I have to chalk that one up to "unexpressed understanding.") Sorry, wasn't trying to be condescending, just clear. 'Your manifester level is equal to your total levels in classes that manifest powers.' That isn't very clear, it is a summary of the rules that Tempest, and others have given references for. The word total does indeed imply a sum but a sum of the levels in each discrete manifesting class. e.g. Psion5/Wilder2/Ardent1 The character level is 8 but the manifester level for each class is equal to the sum of the number of levels of that class that you possess. So in this example Psion ML is equal to the sum of the 'total levels' of Psion the character has, or 5. To be fair its a rubbish piece of grammar, although it is only a summary of a complex rule that is found tacked onto the end of a single feat. However it is a rubbish description of class level and not a rubbish description of character level or of 'the' total 'of all' levels in manifesting classes. In summary it should specify that it refers to multiple totals. It fails to do so but does strongly imply that to be the case by not explicitly refering to a singular total. Even the most stumblingly awkward description of a singular total would have included the word 'the' in extremely close proximity to the word 'total'. 'Your manifester levels are equal to your total level in each class that manifests powers.' Would have been optimal.