Post/Author/DateTime	Post
awaken_D_M_golem 12-22-06, 04:41 PM	I figured that my first post ought to be a doozy. Not that I have any idea what I'm doing. I mean clearly from my "name", you can infer I've not just popped up, even though I also just have. (heh) (what?) without further ado: Cordell, Bruce R. and Christopher Lindsay. Complete Psionic, Renton, WA.: Wizards of the Coast, Inc., April 2006, Back Cover. QUOTE: For use with these DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (r) core book Player's Handbook (TM) Dungeon Master's Guide (TM) Monster Manual (TM) Expanded Psionics Handbook (TM) Yes, that's right, the XPH has been core since April, 2006 - over here in the far realm(s) of insanity (earth). Historically speaking, psionics is slightly more core than Bards, all the way back to 1E. I suppose the forthcoming histrionics is merely the Curse of the Gygaxian- Overdeity still fully in effect on the peanut gallery.
Jaid 12-22-06, 05:12 PM	think this was pointed out right when CPsi came out. and quite frankly, we get into quite enough discussions with psi-haters on the psionics boards. no point in calling them up and shoving it in their face, they're more than happy to jump in and make a nuisance of themselves on their own.
Daergal_the_Black 12-22-06, 06:06 PM	There were first edition bards. They were the first ever Prestige Class (and the hardest for which to qualify). They were in Appendix II to the AD&D PHB, right after Psionics.
Mitchell 12-23-06, 10:08 PM	There were first edition bards. They were the first ever Prestige Class (and the hardest for which to qualify). They were in Appendix II to the AD&D PHB, right after Psionics. But easier to qualify for than psionics. :cool:
zae 12-26-06, 12:57 AM	Psionics were easy to qualify for: Just roll well on the "Do you get free psionic abilities" table. Remember, there's a reason why old-schoolers remember them as unbalanced. Anyway, they're core in that they're in the SRD. They're core in that WotC says so. But let me go fetch my little "Core 3 books" bundle. You know, with the case that fits the three core books that were released there. DMG PHB MM Okay, so let's see where psionics are mentioned... Some monsters have (Sp) abilities listed as "Psionics". So you're right, it is core to have monsters with "Psionic" (Sp) abilities. Ok, seriously, it's great, they're core. But if they're core, it'd be good to actually advertise them as such - include them in the core bundle for instance, and not always make it a separate section in supplements. Actually make it core. But don't expect people to still allow it - I know people who understand that you're allowed to ban core material, so they don't allow (take your pick: elves, dwarves, gnomes, half-breeds, divine casters, arcane casters, barbarians, prestige classes, magic items, spiked chains, full plate, Asian weapons) tl;dr? It might be core, but it isn't treated as such, and people are still just as free to not use it, the same as they're free to not use Bards or Greatswords.
Da Black Cat 12-26-06, 01:42 PM	Merry Christmas to you, too! - =P
Mitchell 12-27-06, 12:38 AM	While the rolling was easy, the chances were slim (unless you cheated. Even if you had 18s in the three relevant stats, the chances were still slim). That was all I was saying.
awaken_D_M_golem 12-27-06, 04:36 PM	Thank's for the replies all. @ Daergal: Yep, Fighter 5-7, Thief 6-8, and S=15, D=15, C=10, I=12, W=15, Ch=15. Funny, with the prime requisite exp bonus, a "Role"-player 11 was soo outclassed by a Bard 10 reguardless of the route in that when OgreMages danced the hustle... well I'll stop there. The Bard had an "if your DM allows this" clause at the end of it's entry while Psi did not. The Balor/Balrog sucked without it's psionic stuff. And, you had to have the DMG to do psionic combat. Hence my claim slightly. @Zae: The MM stuff has Psi backhandedly core. At least now, the banning-ers have to acknowledge the fronthandedness of this treatment - casually of course. @Jaid: Apologies, I may have been paying more attention the Tleilaxu_Ghola's link power discussion at the time. Alas, I am all too willing to "shove" a tweak in the direction of what now should be called: ... old core fundamentalism ...
Tempest Stormwind 12-27-06, 07:12 PM	Actually, Ialdabode has shown up in two pieces of art since CPsi (suggesting that someone at Wizards other than Mark considers psionics worth thinking about). 1) He's in Cityscape, adventuring in the sewers. 2) This full-page painting (http://wizards.com/dnd/images/ph2_gallery/97179.jpg), which was apparently intended for the PHB2 but was cut from it, shows a bald man with no shirt lurking away from the party with a glowing crystal on his shoulder blade and what appears to be a green-coloured reflection from his head (like a tattoo). I can't think of a single iconic who looks more like that than Ialdabode. (A tiny, unclear shot is about par for the course for that book, where we got one small paragraph of support. The biggest blemish in an otherwise spectacular book, I feel.) Do note that this wasn't the only piece that didn't make the book -- a painting called Omnislash (http://wizards.com/dnd/images/ph2_gallery/97138.jpg) sparked a LOT of discussion around that time (for my bet, it's a mirror image where the images attack; the character looks like a beguiler). Still, just once I wish we were like the magic fans, not having to beg for the slightest recognition. On the upside, we've gotten more support than Incarnum or Pact magic.
Olskool 12-27-06, 07:29 PM	I dunno, I'm looking at all 3 of my core books right now. Nope, they still don't say nothing about psionics.
Jaid 12-27-06, 07:56 PM	I dunno, I'm looking at all 3 of my core books right now. Nope, they still don't say nothing about psionics. read the first post closely; the XPH is a core book according to the back of CPsi. thus "all 3 of [your] core books" leaves out the other corebook, the one that is most relevant to this discussion; the expanded psionics handbook. of course, ironically enough, it would be on the back of the book that many psionics supporters disavow, wouldn't it? :P
Lycanthromancer 12-27-06, 07:58 PM	Aboleth. Illithid. Couatl. All three are psionic.
Olskool 12-27-06, 08:35 PM	read the first post closely; the XPH is a core book according to the back of CPsi. thus "all 2 of [your] core books" leaves out the other corebook, the one that is most relevant to this discussion; the expanded psionics handbook. of course, ironically enough, it would be on the back of the book that many psionics supporters disavow, wouldn't it? :P Yeah, I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Seeing as how I probably won't be checking out that book any time soon.
Olskool 12-27-06, 08:36 PM	Aboleth. Illithid. Couatl. All three are psionic. They're not psionic. They just use spooky "brain magic".
AdventChild 12-27-06, 08:53 PM	Yeah, I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Seeing as how I probably won't be checking out that book any time soon. No need to check it, here is my scan of the backcover: http://www.geocities.com/sonatasilence/psi.jpg
Lycanthromancer 12-27-06, 08:54 PM	Whatever you say, Binky-Boy. [/YGO: TAS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV1wLYtoAR0&NR)] :D
Artector 12-27-06, 09:01 PM	Hey Tempest... that first link isn't what you described in the slightest...
Tempest Stormwind 12-27-06, 09:42 PM	Hey Tempest... that first link isn't what you described in the slightest... Fixed. Sorry, I posted that while I was working on my Sublime Way variant Marshal (see sig), and was considering changing the iconic picture.
lears_fool 12-27-06, 09:48 PM	Fixed. Sorry, I posted that while I was working on my Sublime Way variant Marshal (see sig), and was considering changing the iconic picture. Now I'm wondering what it WAS! lol
Tempest Stormwind 12-27-06, 09:58 PM	Now I'm wondering what it WAS! lol Hey, at least it wasn't NSFW. You never know. :p But, am I alone in thinking that's Ialdabode? (Note: That's a waterfall and river to his right, not an astral construct.) And, to derail this even more, what do you suppose Regdar, Lidda, Jozan, Soveliss and Mialee are joking about behind his back?
AdventChild 12-27-06, 10:12 PM	Hey, at least it wasn't NSFW. You never know. :p But, am I alone in thinking that's Ialdabode? (Note: That's a waterfall and river to his right, not an astral construct.) And, to derail this even more, what do you suppose Regdar, Lidda, Jozan, Soveliss and Mialee are joking about behind his back? I would say is either ialdabode or or Jozan the cleric. Here is a larger version of that painting: http://www.komarckart.com/int_16.jpg
Fargren 12-27-06, 11:10 PM	Sadly, I have to say he looks more like Josan than Ialdabode. The robe looks exactly like it does on the PHB.
Olskool 12-28-06, 01:13 AM	No need to check it, here is my scan of the backcover: http://www.geocities.com/sonatasilence/psi.jpg Nice try. You psionics people can't fool me with your cheap psionic forgeries.
Lycanthromancer 12-28-06, 01:19 AM	<Insert ellipsis here>
AntiDjinn 12-28-06, 01:39 AM	Yes, the book applies the word "core" to psionics on the back cover, but it also has the word "complete" applied to the same on the front, so you can't really trust that they have their definitions down.
AdventChild 12-28-06, 01:41 AM	Nice try. You psionics people can't fool me with your cheap psionic forgeries. :nonono:
awaken_D_M_golem 12-28-06, 04:56 PM	Hey, some action! @AdventChild: Your post should probably become, by itself, a reference thread. Wow. @Olskool: I'm suspicious that AdventChild's ranks in Forgery is zero, although it's nice to see you succeeded a Knowledge(Free D&D on-line) check with a DC of 2. Perhaps an edit to the name Ol-d core fundamentalism-skool would be a badge of "honor". @AntiDjinn: Yeah, the complaints of paid-for-errata, while entirely reasonable for the rest of Complete Psionic, are not in effect for the back cover or AdventChild's post. In this epoch of D&D, the un-paid-for-errata that this is will most likely be a one shot thing. @Tempest Stormwind: I'll be using your defense of psicrystals in an upcoming build. And I'm very curious how you got the space between your t and S as opposed to an underline_ _ annoying thing.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-28-06, 05:31 PM	Meh, 'Core' has never meant 'cumpulsory' anyway.
AntiDjinn 12-28-06, 11:30 PM	Core means: We suggest you buy this before material we are calling non-core. Alternately, it means other non-core material may assume you already have this book. For example, to get full use out of the Eberron setting you really should own the XPH, but the setting can work without it. A given DM might run a game without the monster manual, but all published modules assume you have it and don't reprint the rules for creature advancement, or the special rules associated with certain creature types. Complete Arcane assumes you own the PHB and does not reprint the wizard and sorcerer classes, although it builds on them.
awaken_D_M_golem 01-02-07, 05:52 PM	Thanks, more good stuff, guys. @Vaalingrade Ashland: Indeed, the SRD contains both Epic Spells and Salient Divine Abilities which really could make an Enchantment (compulsion) to force you to consider something which is core to also be compulsory. But by RAW, both are only in the extended core. There is an Overdiety beyond the Gygax-ian that compells us to misspell compulsory. @AntiDjinn: Hmmm, um...no. I'll take the contrarian position that IF one has a good enough imagination, the core is no longer necessary as a purchasing action. Rather, using the SRD and buying CPsi, Eberron, etc...encourages WotC to keep pumping out more books. This is a backhanded way to get another new Psi book eventually...(heh)
LostPassWordDoesNotWork 01-02-07, 06:19 PM	Of course Complete Psionics would say Expanded Psionics Handbook was core. What else would CP call it? EPH is the core of psionics, Complete Psionics extends off it. To CP the EPH is core. If you want to add psionics to your game you add the core of psionics. Geez... You know PrC's that use the words "Caster Level" in it's pre-req don't mean caster level as in the same thing spells mean when they say caster level. It means levels in a spellcasting class (it's in the FAQ, look it up.) Look at how many people argue other wise (OP Board). Look at how many will argue Psionics is core. Same meaningless argument in poor atemps to justify RAITAYCPIWN. No matter what you say, the DM can say no psionics. And theres plenty of players thet use non-psionic based classes they won't care if you refuse to play with them. (is reminding the minority their a minority a good thing?) If the DM is your friend then try talking to him/her. If at anypoint you say "I am right" then maybe the DM considers your his friend, but you sure the heck don't consider the DM to be yours... (I said so, who cares what you think, no I am not compensating, I am right. I will play psionics. blah blah blah) no offense to people or think the openion of others is worth somone. but then again, why would you be arguing on here if you did?
NoldorForce 01-02-07, 06:38 PM	You know PrC's that use the words "Caster Level" in it's pre-req don't mean caster level as in the same thing spells mean when they say caster level. It means levels in a spellcasting class (it's in the FAQ, look it up.)*Sigh* The FAQ actually talked about spellcaster level, which is different. Additionally, it explicitly distinguishes between that value (defined by "levels in a spellcasting class", to use your phrase) and caster level (a function of levels in that class, given a base value that's often but not always equal to your class level). Furthermore, few if any PrC's have the explicit requirement of "spellcaster level" as opposed to "caster level".
LostPassWordDoesNotWork 01-02-07, 07:51 PM	I really am starting to think eveyone here only logs in to correct people. They ignore the topic, the dissuion, posts, etc. in the way Hooked On Phonics tought us. They exam word for word looking for typo's misspells, or inaccute information. I dunno what kind of kick they get out of doing this. But to them it's enough to make up for the fact eveyone hates them. How long is it going to take before people get I love posting things like that just to draw them into revealing them selves as the donkeys they are? Here let me snip and fix my own post. Look at how many people argue other wise (anywhere on here).
Tsuul 01-02-07, 08:06 PM	They ignore the topic, the dissuion, posts, etc. in the way Hooked On Phonics tought us. They exam word for word looking for typo's misspells, or inaccute information.Loose teh apostlefy in tyop. I could not resist. Sorry.
awaken_D_M_golem 01-03-07, 07:22 PM	Dear LPWDNW, Honestly, I'm a bit clueless as to what the problem is. There is now, as has been since April 2006, no argument about whether XPH is core. It is. Kinda like that yellow thing up in the sky is called the sun. There is also no argument about whether any D&D fans DM can or can not rip a page out of any old-core-book and make delicate origami out of it. Clearly, I choose not to. You can do what you want. No correction here at all. My contention that an Overdeity above and beyond The Gygax-ian is in operation with anybodies' spelling presupposes an overdeity interested in spelling, which obviously may not be the case, otherwise more English teachers would look like an old Van Halen video vixen. My own shortcomings are clear. I don't know what RAITAYCPIWN means. Perhaps the William Shatner roast - Patton Oswalt section is in order. He lays out what LMFAOWIHAPFEFAAMMIMDYAMIRDMRFDNA means. Linky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3dsv9XLdzE)
awaken_D_M_golem 01-08-07, 04:34 PM	I retitled the thread due to Jan. 7 being the Eastern Orthodox Christmas, i.e. the 14 days of Christmas are over. Also noticed this gem - @Zae: quote: "They're core in that WotC says so." umm ... O.K. This is proof you can lead a horse to the Elemental Plane of Water, but you can't make it cast a Breath Water spell.
awaken_D_M_golem 01-16-07, 07:12 PM	So I did a Knowledge ( CO Board ) check with masterwork tool - google. And as "everyone" knows, that provides a +Autosuccess to a skill check. Very interesting ... RAITAYCPIWN means : rules as I interpret them and you can't prove me wrong, nyeah. Lost Vs. Zae boomerang effect vs zae's quote WotC is being opposed by two opposite opposers. lets see, where's my {calm emotions + lawful aligned} epic spell ...
ArcTan 01-16-07, 08:10 PM	No matter what you say, the DM can say no psionics. And theres plenty of players thet use non-psionic based classes they won't care if you refuse to play with them. The DM can ban anything he wants, including stuff from the Monster Manual (I know I'm not the only one who hates running beholders), DMG (I don't care for Arcane Tricksters or dust of sneezing and choking), or the PHB (polymorph, the spiked chain). Being able to ban something has nothing to do with "core". "Core" is just a term of convenience.
awaken_D_M_golem 01-18-07, 05:59 PM	Thanks for the post Arc Tan , and ... uh ... which of the smiley faces more approximates your name ? :rolleyes: I agree with what you posted, but ... (in game action) (my turn on far realm{s} of insanity - earth) I manifest : Detect Post-Modernism (DM in the sky rolls dice) {distended voice hollers} You may have succeeded ... Your statement : "Core" is just a term of convenience. Very interesting and ties in well with my original post / AdventChild's scan. You say : A is B And CPsi/WotC says : C is A And 8th grade math says then : C is B So ... PHB is just a term of convenience DMG is just a term of convenience MM(1) is just a term of convenience and XPH is just a term of convenience :D huh ... I like that very much !
Olskool 01-18-07, 06:47 PM	XPH is just a term of convenience Yeah, it conveniently lets me know it's not worth buying. Haiyo!!!!
Sir Elton 01-18-07, 07:00 PM	Oh well, D&D just can't compare to Real Life(tm). . . (Papers And Paychecks). I mean, the PHB, XPH, DMG, and MM are just luxury items to the characters in Real Life. They have to think about their jobs, how to make the bill payments in time, and have their needs taken care of. In other words, this thread is complete foolishness. :) Lets talk about something else besides convincing OlSkool that he's a Shaper.
awaken_D_M_golem 01-18-07, 07:35 PM	Welcome Sir Elton and welcome back Olskool. @ Olskool : You answer yourself again very well ! There is no need to buy the Core Four , conveniently or otherwise. Clickity click on the linky (http://www.d20srd.com) Doing so succeeds on Knowledge ( internet ) and Knowledge ( real world economics ) checks with DCs of 2. Alas Sir Elton, on the far realm(s) of insanity - earth ... Olskool is a Shaper , and hey , thats better than almost all ...
Olskool 01-18-07, 07:42 PM	Olskool is a Shaper , and hey , thats better than almost all ... Whatever that means, I am highly offended by it. Smells like psionic tomfoolery to me.
Artector 01-18-07, 07:47 PM	Whatever that means, I am highly offended by it. Smells like psionic tomfoolery to me. No, no, no. That would be a telepath.
Gothenem 01-18-07, 08:18 PM	Ummm, yeah. Ok. First, let me say that I do use psionics in my campaign. And While I personally consider the XPH to be a core book, I certainly understand that not all people do. I also really don't care what other people consider a core book. The book is there. The rules are there, and they are even free. Just like the Epic Level Handbook (Which I also consider a "core" book). Interesting that the following books all give support to Psionics: Epic Level Handbook Complete Psion Eberron Campaign Setting Magic of Eberron Players Guide to Faerūn Sandstorm Frostburn Stormwrack Complete Adventurer Players Guide to Eberron Secrets of Xen'drik Dragon Magic Dragons of Faerūn Monster Manual II Fiend Folio Amongst others (I can't think of right now)... That's a lot of books lending support to a non-core product.
Sir Elton 01-18-07, 10:43 PM	Whatever that means, I am highly offended by it. Smells like psionic tomfoolery to me. Hehehehe. Very well. If you don't want psionics in your game, OlSkool, no one's twisting your arm to include them. After all, it's your game.
Olskool 01-19-07, 01:03 AM	Hehehehe. Very well. If you don't want psionics in your game, OlSkool, no one's twisting your arm to include them. After all, it's your game. I know that man. I just saw a thread adreesed to psi haters, and I thought "Hey, That's me!" Course, just cuz I hate psionics does'nt mean that those who enjoy it should go without. But I figured that went without saying.
Sir Elton 01-19-07, 12:03 PM	Well. I think we aught to stop having these threads then. ;)
awaken_D_M_golem 01-19-07, 04:12 PM	well Olskool - The great DM in the sky , of the far realm(s) of insanity - earth obviously cast an Epic Spell / SDA version of Emotion : Hate on you and then ... cast the Epic Power / SDA entitled Tom-Fool-Larry ... { this functions the same as DejaVu } in the oh by the way category more free in the SRD stuff , includes the Unearthed Arcana gestalt stuff so if you use 1st Edition Psionics and UA gestalt as an analogy - together ... you end up with a fully playable psi- and not borkny 1stE character and the 1stE Demogorgon or Asmodeus doesn't suck, too
awaken_D_M_golem 01-22-07, 03:35 PM	hey! More cool stuff from WotC. the Complete Divine on p.108 says "quote" : Core D&D Gods ... Bahamut , Kurtulmak , Lolth , Tiamat ... four new additions to the core pantheon So I'm going to trot out a psychologists couch and ask Olskool to sit. "How do you feel about things from 1stEd being called new?" "Is the D&D world you overdeifically *Shape* threatened by this?" Also, Lost's post #31 says : "CPsi would say XPH was Core." extending the convenient / in-convenient arguement Does that mean : "CDivine would say B K L T are now Core." Now we have dueling TimeHop and TimeRegression problems. And Marvel/DC continuity mash-ups. Was and Are Now , Be , Fore-Ever-More , Alleluia , pass the tylenol.
Eiries 01-22-07, 10:41 PM	By the Sovereigns, I'm laughing so hard my side hurts. So, 50+ posts later, what have we learned? That the XPH is a core rulebook to everyone but psionics-haters, and Olskool the Shaper hates psionics. Is that about right? (Oh, and BTW, I <3 psionics. Don't hurt me. *cowers* I'll take the massive penalties to my AC, just don't hurt me!)
Sir Elton 01-23-07, 01:10 AM	You less than 3 psionics? Or are you speaking l33t? Yes, that's basically it. The XPH is core to everyone but psionics haters. Not that stopped them before . . . Can we talk about another thread?
Eiries 01-23-07, 11:27 AM	You less than 3 psionics? Or are you speaking l33t? No, I actually much more than three psionics. But yeah, I was going off the whole basis of people correcting others due to minor misconceptions and spelling errors. I find that a good amount of people on this forum has enough of a brain not to go all 1337 on someone, but I couldn't help it. It's just a little heart symbol! :D
Olskool 01-23-07, 02:34 PM	. So I'm going to trot out a psychologists couch and ask Olskool to sit. "How do you feel about things from 1stEd being called new?" "Is the D&D world you overdeifically *Shape* threatened by this?" Im not totally sure what you're talking about here, but I think I get the gist. I'm not "threatened" by psionics. I don't care if other DMs allow psionics. If a DM wants to break their game by adding unbalanced material that's his business. I'd be bummed out for you guys here if the psionics line was discontinued since you obviously enjoy it so much. But it would'nt make a difference in any other way, since psionics is totally broken in terms of how I run my game.
awaken_D_M_golem 01-23-07, 06:04 PM	hey all , welcome back Ok , Olskool's latest post : line 1 = good ;) line 2 = good :) line 3 = good :rolleyes: like Planar Shepard ... line 4 = why thank you line 5 !!! ... oh that's what the problem is ... my detect thoughts spells just were not working. Whether Psionics is broken or not is a different thread. Linky Whether , quote : " ... psionics is totally broken in terms of how I run my game. " is true or not is totally up to you. An arguement with yourself can't be resolved if you also have Demogorgon's dual personalities. { something well with-in the reach of any Overdeity , including my personality parasite } @ Eiries : Yes and we've also learned that Bahamut and Tiamat are core to all but Complete Divine Haters. I've addressed the overdeity in charge of spelling ... look for Van Halen video vixen on post #35. As for minor misconceptions - xph is core or xph is NOT core is as *minor* as good vs. evil , but only in the D&D universe.
Eiries 01-24-07, 08:03 PM	:rofl: You said it, friend! Only in the D&D universe!
Sir Elton 01-24-07, 10:38 PM	No, I actually much more than three psionics. But yeah, I was going off the whole basis of people correcting others due to minor misconceptions and spelling errors. I find that a good amount of people on this forum has enough of a brain not to go all 1337 on someone, but I couldn't help it. It's just a little heart symbol! :D :inlove: I think this is better than <3.
Eiries 01-25-07, 01:37 PM	:inlove: I think this is better than <3. Pssht... .gifs are SO overrated... :D
awaken_D_M_golem 01-25-07, 02:48 PM	Hey Eiries , I hear a bard with a perform check of 13 , singing : "thank you for being a friend , thank you for being a friend ..." does this mean i've moved in front of Tom on yer buddy list? and what if I want to be one of your torture(-ing) souls on baator? by the way , the perform check above didn't change most of the audience from *hateful* ... @ Gothenem : I didn't mean to ignore you - I hate it when a thread I post on ignores me. That's a great list. The rest of the post requires more meditation on my part { insert meditating smiley here }
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-25-07, 06:22 PM	hey! More cool stuff from WotC. the Complete Divine on p.108 says "quote" : Core D&D Gods ... Bahamut , Kurtulmak , Lolth , Tiamat ... four new additions to the core pantheon core instead of Core. The gods introduced in Complete Divine are supposed to be major gods (part of the central or 'core' pantheon) as opposed to hangers on like the various loser racial gods. That doesn't make them part of the Core game as the term is generally applied.
Eiries 01-25-07, 10:20 PM	Hey Eiries , I hear a bard with a perform check of 13 , singing : "thank you for being a friend , thank you for being a friend ..." does this mean i've moved in front of Tom on yer buddy list? and what if I want to be one of your torture(-ing) souls on baator? by the way , the perform check above didn't change most of the audience from *hateful* ... Haha! Sorry dude, but nobody beats Tom on my list. Ironically enough, Im pretty sure my Myspace title is Eiries too. It's actually Eiries just about everywhere. And yes, I'll be glad to torture your eternal soul. Just sign the contract here...
awaken_D_M_golem 01-26-07, 04:39 PM	robin : HOLY HAIR SPLITTING batman + robin : BAT MAN batman : ...jinks...:) (in game action) DM : robin suffers a 24 hour duration silence spell. The Overdeity - in charge of my contract with Eiries has Epic Spell-ed me { combining Control Object and a 2nd level Illusion } awaken_D_M_golem : "you say Potato..." Vaalingrade Ashland : "you say potato..." awaken_D_M_golem : "you say Tomato..." Vaalingrade Ashland : "you say tomato..." ............both............ : "Potato...potato..." ...both in harmony.... : "Tomato...tomato..." (slippery mind check suceeds) - A sybil's riddle : "who contingency teleports away"
Sir Elton 01-26-07, 11:20 PM	Okay, this thread's just gotten silly.
Lycanthromancer 01-27-07, 12:15 PM	I wish I had some idea of what Awaken_DM_Golem was talking about. Does anybody else have a clue?
Nephlite 01-27-07, 12:50 PM	Thanks for the post Arc Tan , and ... uh ... which of the smiley faces more approximates your name ? :rolleyes: I agree with what you posted, but ... (in game action) (my turn on far realm{s} of insanity - earth) I manifest : Detect Post-Modernism (DM in the sky rolls dice) {distended voice hollers} You may have succeeded ... Your statement : "Core" is just a term of convenience. Very interesting and ties in well with my original post / AdventChild's scan. You say : A is B And CPsi/WotC says : C is A And 8th grade math says then : C is B So ... PHB is just a term of convenience DMG is just a term of convenience MM(1) is just a term of convenience and XPH is just a term of convenience :D huh ... I like that very much ! I'd like to correct your logic. A can't be B without All, No, or Some. a can be b because lower case don't need the initial words. You: All A# is B Cpsi says: All C# is A your 8th grade math says: All C is B#. Your conclusion fits the Star test here if wrote this way. Also:, You: All A# is B (Core rulebooks is/are Core) Cpsi says: a is A (XPH is a Core rulebook) your 8th grade math says: a is B#. (XPH is Core) Passes. This is because conclusions star the undistrbuted. Universals star their subject. Just wanted to list the logic. This fails: PHB is just a term of convenience (p is T) DMG is just a term of convenience (d is T) MM(1) is just a term of convenience (m is T) and XPH is just a term of convenience (x is T) This is true only because all the p, d, m, x are in SRD. Each Capital letter must be starred at least once the argument or invalid. You pass assuming term of convenience is describing or a category (as all capitals are). Try the Star test with any argument: you'll see it is true. However, just because it is valid doesn't mean the argument is good.
awaken_D_M_golem 01-27-07, 02:35 PM	@ Lycanthromancer : To answer your question , We don't always know what I/we'm talking about , because of a pesky Personality Parasite from years ago ... this being the far realm(s) of insanity - internet , flowing time trait is more of a problem. I noodled Tempest about how or why he didn't have an _ between his Stormwind , and eventually the boards answered - with sign on dates , of before a certain point , board names got spaces , whereas now semi-noobs are stuck with _-es between their names. 'course Now , you've gone and made me *spaceless* ... @ Nephlite : Thanks for the schooling. I've managed to learn (over the years of flowing time trait) : English language logic ; high school Math logic ; Freshman Philosophy logic ; some Argument fallacy logic ; and Linguistic logic that undermines English language logic almost completely. Which is not to say that any of this translates from the far realm(s) of insanity - earth , :rolleyes: In other words , I had the right argument , just the wrong hand holding. ... { explaining joke - how many grades don't involve some sort of hand holding } ... ... { note to selves - if you have to explain the joke , your Epic Enchantment spell failed } ... NEWS FLASH !!! I just discovered the little module : The Twilight Tomb - via Forgotten Realms. And it says , semi-quote : Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting ... is core. this party keeps getting bigger and bigger :D
Olskool 01-28-07, 09:51 PM	@ Lycanthromancer : To answer your question , We don't always know what I/we'm talking about , because of a pesky Personality Parasite from years ago ... this being the far realm(s) of insanity - internet , flowing time trait is more of a problem. I noodled Tempest about how or why he didn't have an _ between his Stormwind , and eventually the boards answered - with sign on dates , of before a certain point , board names got spaces , whereas now semi-noobs are stuck with _-es between their names. 'course Now , you've gone and made me *spaceless* ... @ Nephlite : Thanks for the schooling. I've managed to learn (over the years of flowing time trait) : English language logic ; high school Math logic ; Freshman Philosophy logic ; some Argument fallacy logic ; and Linguistic logic that undermines English language logic almost completely. Which is not to say that any of this translates from the far realm(s) of insanity - earth , :rolleyes: In other words , I had the right argument , just the wrong hand holding. ... { explaining joke - how many grades don't involve some sort of hand holding } ... ... { note to selves - if you have to explain the joke , your Epic Enchantment spell failed } ... :D This guy is awesome. Seriously, he's the boards' greateset natural resource. If anyone could convince me to allow psionics it's him. For real, I could never get tired of reading his posts. You're allright awakened Dm golem guy.
Sir Elton 01-28-07, 09:57 PM	You know what Psions/Psionicists actually are? People who can consciously use Nuclear Physics to change their world. ;)
awaken_D_M_golem 01-30-07, 06:44 PM	No further example of Sir Eltons post , is in whether its pronounced : noo-kyoo-lar , or noo-clee-er :rolleyes: Olskool , don't try 'n butter me up ... i am curious though , are you : 3.0 -lskool , 2.0 -lskool , 1.0 -lskool , or really-really olskool ? @ Nephilite : take 2 The post you quoted included the back-handed disclaimer of post-modernism. Suddenly , I felt my hackles rising. My acceptance of your invalidation of my foundation , invalidates both my validation of your invalidation , and your invalidation in the first place. English Language logic , being what it is - i.e. not much , does not lend itself to "mind" reading. My intent was humor but with a smigen of accuracy. Now , I'm not accusing you of either mind reading or of Not mind reading. You responded as you did as if logic was primary to do with what I posted. And yet , capital L logic is not something i'm capable of in regards to the type of logic you were/are working with. Note , this is no "mind" reading of you , its merely a :duel: within my schism'd personality parasite. I only kept it suppressed by using no greater than a 3rd level power, but schism allows 4 more -fester levels on the primary mind , um ... which one is it ? My foundation is invalid under your invalidation , which invalidates your invalidation. I'm'n'a if I can rescue us boths (plural). I think I intended a Noun is Noun structure. Your post follows a Noun is Adjective structure. So the question is : are our posts modifiable into modified posts ? Or are our posts posts and thats that ? For both our posts to work , a Reality Revision would have to be -fested by quite an Overdeity ...
Olskool 01-30-07, 07:49 PM	Olskool , don't try 'n butter me up ... i am curious though , are you : 3.0 -lskool , 2.0 -lskool , 1.0 -lskool , or really-really olskool ? . A little of column A, A little of column B. At what point in your cosmic perambulations did you arrive at the preferred incarnation? What color is your ingested poison?
Lycanthromancer 01-30-07, 07:51 PM	Okay, then. Time for me to desubscribe to this thread.
Olskool 01-30-07, 07:55 PM	Okay, then. Time for me to desubscribe to this thread. Yeah butt out. Me and awakend dm golem man are trying to have a conversation about psonics here.
Gothenem 01-30-07, 08:03 PM	I noodled Tempest about how or why he didn't have an _ between his Stormwind , <*snip*> You noodled him? Are you a Pastafarian?
awaken_D_M_golem 02-10-07, 03:16 PM	well ... after some 'med'-itation , i've come to the realization that WotC's relative lack of ~care for the word : Core , has introduced some distinctives into the game. it seems as though the old core is self-referentially core. and what i was advancing is only exo-referentially core. and yet also in the srd. then some exo-referentially core stuff are not in the srd. or only back-handedly in the srd , certainly not directly cited. throw in a little D&D history such as 1e , 2e , and 3e. ala the baha/kur/lol/tia stuff shake it and stir it ... categories : Old Core - in SRD ......... phb dmg mm Core - in SRD ............... xph , smidgen of FRCS Core - not in SRD .......... b k l t , eberron Old Core - not in SRD .... some of FRCS not Core - in SRD .......... some of epic , deity , ua , (etc) Free D&D on-line ........... lots yikes ! i'm not really sure how to sort this !
Olskool 02-10-07, 03:28 PM	Sup ADMGGG? Maybe you're thinking about it too hard. Core doesn't mean compulsory, and every DM decides wht's core (ie: allowed) for their own campaign. Whatever you allow? That's your core right there. Psionics ain't core for me, but it is for you.
Cthulhu 02-10-07, 03:43 PM	thinking too hard yep! Sorry but to me Core means the three main books of DMG, PHB, and MM1. Everything else is an expansion on this. What you use for your games changes but this doesn't. Every D&D game needs those 3 books to function (yeah there are some wierdo campaigns out there that don't...exception.not rule). You don't need and need never have heard of the XPH to run a D&D game. That said I love psionics.
awaken_D_M_golem 02-28-07, 04:10 PM	I think , though , that Olskool on one side , and Cthulhu :coolcthul on the other side , prove my point rather well. Both say what they 'think' is core. Ultimately , WotC says what is core , and you have to live with it. Certainly , you can be grumpy or indifferent ... Cthulhu , a game can be run with just XPH and DMG , really !! You don't need and need never have heard of PHB or MM , etc. Not that I recommend this at all. Add in CPsi , and the DivineMind can be what all mid-level NPCs are , :rolleyes:
Khantalas 03-01-07, 04:45 AM	Alright, as a psionics lover who's banned magic from his games in psionics' favor, I have to say I don't think XPH is core. It's a great book, possibly more important than DMG, but it's not core. OK, sue and mock me according to your twisted desires.
awaken_D_M_golem 03-01-07, 06:25 PM	thanks for posting Khantalas , but there's the rub. ... core books : ... Expanded Psionics Handbook. so , what you "think" and what WotC says are at odds. What I 'think' doesn't matter. Mind you , there's no real way I could sue you. Sounds to me like a Thrallherd's been telling you stuff ... heh , my twisted desires are MindBar 'd. No Detect Thoughts 'll get them(all) out. although , i have been exposed to :pint: and :behold:
Khantalas 03-01-07, 07:38 PM	No, see, that's an editing mistake. Cause XPH doesn't have Core Rulebook IV written on it.
The White Sorcerer 03-02-07, 03:18 AM	So, XPH is a core book, then? In that case, so are all of these (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndlist&brand=dndcore&year=All&tablesort=1).
awaken_D_M_golem 03-08-07, 05:00 PM	mmm , Khantalas , good point on editing mistakes in general. Each new book gets an Errata thread almost immediately. Each new book gets a 'broken' thread almost immediately. "XPH is core" is paid for errata ; something much complained about here , and rightly so. Certainly not broken { cough } The White Sorcerer , welcome. That link leads to a Marketing Department dreamscape. :$$: If all D&D products were core , the CO board would be the normal game. Luckily , "core" web enhancements { heh } are not core ... speaking of broken ... the 60th level 'caster' that put up the Epic Ward at Kerleth's Tower is not automatic'ly a caster. He/She/It could be a -fester. If you use all D&D products as per TWS's suggestion , you'd be sloughing off : Infinite Loop A , Infinite Loop B , Infinite Loop C ... etc just to pretend why a caster/-fester needed to get to 60th level
Iry 03-19-07, 11:22 PM	Amusingly, of the so-called 'Core 3' the Monster Manual isn't even necessary. It's nothing more than a list of templates, pre-fabricated monsters, and the traits section. Of that, only the Traits section is even of immediate use. It's perfectly easy to construct your own monsters and enemies with the material presented in the DMG and PHB.
awaken_D_M_golem 03-20-07, 05:31 PM	Hey Iry , spot on. Just as fun is XPH and DMG only , which is also do-able. Could go all the way down to only DMG. Of course , the "role"-playing contigent :love: luh-uh-uh-uvz this ;) I -fest Epic Power + SDA : Stormwind Fallicity ( Mind-Affecting ) effect: One can't distinguish between roll-playing and role-playing with dice , for the duration of the Power. :D
awaken_D_M_golem 05-23-08, 05:10 PM	bump , :bump: , :hides: ahh ... those were the days ...
Paper_Weasel 05-23-08, 09:51 PM	So, XPH is a core book, then? In that case, so are all of these (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndlist&brand=dndcore&year=All&tablesort=1). Wait hold on, that doesn't work and you know it! The argument is that the XPH is core, not that it's a core rulebook. Nobody's disputed the rulebook part... yet. But something like the D&D Chess Set (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/9780786943111) is clearly not a book. I'm not saying it's not core, but it is not a book. Hence it's not a core rulebook. So your logic crumbles beneath my hyper-cognitive power.
Ecalsneerg 05-24-08, 06:21 AM	Alright, as a psionics lover who's banned magic from his games in psionics' favor, I have to say I don't think XPH is core. Another fellow arcane-banner! *tackle-hugs* Although I did it not out of preferring psionics more, although I do, but because I just wanted to be different.
serow_#R 05-24-08, 11:17 AM	Strange thread necromancy going on...
Ecalsneerg 05-24-08, 02:09 PM	Strange thread necromancy going on... In my defence I checked the dates on the prior two posts...
awaken_D_M_golem 09-18-08, 06:51 PM	SEND THIS THREAD TO THE NEW PSI-BOARD , PLEASE !!!
turalisj 09-18-08, 06:56 PM	I figured that my first post ought to be a doozy. Not that I have any idea what I'm doing. I mean clearly from my "name", you can infer I've not just popped up, even though I also just have. (heh) (what?) without further ado: Cordell, Bruce R. and Christopher Lindsay. Complete Psionic, Renton, WA.: Wizards of the Coast, Inc., April 2006, Back Cover. QUOTE: For use with these DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (r) core book Player's Handbook (TM) Dungeon Master's Guide (TM) Monster Manual (TM) Expanded Psionics Handbook (TM) Yes, that's right, the XPH has been core since April, 2006 - over here in the far realm(s) of insanity (earth). Historically speaking, psionics is slightly more core than Bards, all the way back to 1E. I suppose the forthcoming histrionics is merely the Curse of the Gygaxian- Overdeity still fully in effect on the peanut gallery. I can tell you from personal experience that those who truly hate psionics wouldn't care if Gygax was raised from the grave and said it himself.
Chrono Nexus 09-19-08, 09:40 PM	Hasn't every supplement WotC released for 3ed had "for use with the player's handbook, mm, dmg"? I'll dredge up my splat books to check, but If that's the case that would make a bunch of noncore books I own core, according to the same logic. Also, it could just be a typo: For use with these DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (r) core book Shouldn't it be "core books"?;) Besides. For this one example, I can think of numerous others where psionics was never mentioned as a core book.