What was so bad about complete Psionics? [Archive] - Wizards Community

What was so bad about complete Psionics? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Viktor_Von_Doom
01-29-08, 02:18 AM I see alot on these boards that the Complete book was an utter travesty. I personally liked a good deal of the book and don't get what was so bad about it. Can somone please explain?
CrimsonDeath
01-29-08, 03:57 AM A huge list of feats that could've been condensed down to one or two. (For example, there are about five feats that turn the Mind Blade into an exotic double weapon, which could've been one feat that turns the mind blade into an exotic double weapon of the player's choice. Also, each psionic race with a psi-like ability got a separate feat for extra uses of that ability, all of which could've been condensed into one feat that just gives two extra uses of the selected racial psi-like ability).

The unnecessary nerf to Astral Construct, which (judging by later publications like the Malconvoker of Complete Scoundrel, not to mention powers in the same book like Larval Flayers) was printed solely to make the Ectopic Adept and Ectopic Form feat more attractive. Speaking of Ectopic Form, it's useless by level five and actively harmful by level 7. The nerf to instantaneous metacreativity powers, which for some reason does not apply to instantaneous conjurations (the absoulte best school for arcane magic).

The Anarchic Initiate, which not only breaks the general rule that psionic prestiege classes give up a manifester level, but is also impossible for a Wilder, the intended base class, to enter without using setting-specific material (the Educated feat from either the Forgotten Realms or Eberron).

The Illithid Heritage feats in general, which defy the Illithid reproductive cycle, and Illithid Blast in specific, which lacks sufficient information to indicate how it's intended to work.

The Divine Mind, which not only breaks psionic flavor (deriving psionic power from an outside source) but also consists entirely of class features that would've made the Ardent too powerful (although with a little toning down it might not be too bad as a psionic NPC class).

Although I personally find it convenient, some people are irritated that the entire Psion/Wilder and Psychic Warrior power lists were duplicated from the XPH, wasting valuable page space that could've gone to material that was cut instead.

I could go on. Don't get me wrong; there are nice things in there, like the Soulknife PrCs and the Ardent base class, but overall it's pretty shoddy.
Mesiolan
01-29-08, 04:41 AM The main thing about CPSi is the wasted opportunity to clear some dire questions from XPsi, i.e.
- What if the PSi-crystal is destroyed? Can I get a new one? Does it cost XP?
- May a PSi-crystal take feats?

I was missing a good fix for the metamind.

To describe specific astral constructs is nice for flair, but they overdid it (less types would have been better) and some of them are weaker then the reagular version of the AC. Remember, you need additional feats for the specific constructs, and you need Boost Construct too. Some of the specific constructs were without the bonus menue picks from the feat.

The book was badly edited. Some entries conflict with XPSi (i.e. Xephs get Xeph burst 3/day, but in the racial feats of CPSi they assume 1/day), others contradict entries of the same book (i.e. compare the feat "Privileged Energy" to the feats which base on it). Some of the new energy powers of CPSi lack the description of "fire +1 HP/die, cold +1HP/die and Fort save, sonic -1 HP/die but ignore hardenss, electricity +2 to DC and +2 to overcome SR".

The material on the flayerspawn contradicts some of the material of "Lords of Madness" and the material from 2nd ed. "Illithiad".

All in all, there are some gems in the book. But the total consensus is disappointment for the book - missed opportunities, wasted space, and downright errors.
Izax19
01-29-08, 04:57 AM I think perhaps the most frustrating thing for me about Complete Psionic is that there seems to be some potential there, but it then all goes to hell in a handbasket. The Ardent having its schtick broken into two separate classes by the powers that be sticks out as an example in my mind. Basically, Wizards gave put out the Psionics community had been clamoring for it for so long, but put so little effort into it that it gave psionics a bad name. More than that, the book is absolutely rife with all sorts of editing errors (there was a thread somewhere that tried to find them all, not sure if it ever succeeded), and simply feels like a half-finished product. Finally, they practically refuse to acknowledge any of the errors that are in the book, and have not issued a lick of errata for it when many other recent books have had pages of errata issued. The book was short, but the amount of good stuff that was in it was an even smaller amount.
The board reaction to CPsi was so bad, that a few of the members decided they could do better and founded Dreamscarred Press, of whom I am a big fan. That was the one good thing to come of the book, I think.
Viktor_Von_Doom
01-29-08, 11:48 AM Hmm, now that I think about it your all right.
Bacris
01-29-08, 01:36 PM The board reaction to CPsi was so bad, that a few of the members decided they could do better and founded Dreamscarred Press, of whom I am a big fan. That was the one good thing to come of the book, I think.

Glad to have you! :)

In all fairness, Complete Psionic has its good points. It's just a lot more bad and mediocre mixed in with the good.
Lycanthromancer
01-29-08, 01:45 PM Copied from another thread:

For one, it's one of the worst-edited books since the advent of 3.0. There are more mistakes and flagrant stupidity than I've come across in any book, ever. Take a good look at the Illithid Blast feat. Can you see what's wrong with it? Build a mockup character and try to use the feat. Can you do it? Nope. And that's just the very beginning.

For two, they wasted huge amounts of space when they could easily have condensed half the feats and several pages in the powers section down to almost nothing (such as the racial and soulknife feats). That they had to cut out a few dozen pages to make room for what's in there means that we got wasted space, in the place of potentially excellent material.

For three, we have very, very little in the way of expanding psionics as it is; instead, we got NEW base classes, and most of the support is for them. What if I want to actually have options for my current characters? What if I LIKE the classes in the XPHB? CPsi does very little for them.

For four, they reprinted a bunch of broken powers and such without editing or clarifying anything (which were definitely needed - check out Synchronicity + Affinity Field, or + Twin Power, or + Link Power, or + Extend Power). And who needs to have the same power printed in CPsi, when it's already in 2 other places?

For five, they nerfed several aspects of psionics (such as powers vs DR and Astral Construct) into near-unusability.

For six, a huge portion of the book is errata that we have to pay for (and it's not even frikken OGL!!!). Why not put it on this website? Nobody else has to pay for their errata.

For seven, most of the errata is stuff that was neither wanted nor needed. What happened to all of the dozens of questions we NEEDED answered, such as "How do you get your psicrystal back after it dies?" and "How the hell does Metaconcert actually work?" and "What kinds of actions can Schism do?" and "Why is the metamind such a sucky class?" and so on and so on. They completely ignored all of the things we've been asking about for years, and instead put up errata for things that nobody thought was broken, to fix problems that didn't exist.

For eight, there are so many parts of CPsi that can so break psionics. Link power has so many potential abuses it's not even funny. Anarchic initiate isn't for wilders (they can't even take the class until after 10th level, which means that they can't finish it out until epic); it's for psions...and it breaks them all to pieces. (See my gripe about Synchronicity above.)

For nine, we've waited several years to get some support for psionics, and all we get is a crappy book that is mostly wasted space, errata we have to pay for, brokenness, and editing errors out the wazoo, all in fewer pages than any of the other Completes. It's a throwaway book to placate the people who love psionics, and it does its job very, very badly.
AntiDjinn
01-30-08, 03:55 AM It really all comes down to this: There have been questions which 3.5 psionic fans have asked since the XPH landed. These questions were ignored. Instead, we were provided with answers to questions that no one asked.

As for the nerfs, I can live with them if they are applied globally instead of just to psionics. My shaper would be very happy to be limited to only one astral construct at a time, if the spam-summoning druid he is squaring off against faced the same restriction in how many critters he can have in play. Similarly, if the crystal shard nerf were applied to those damned orb spells, then I would live with the ruling happily. But instead, it seems no such limitations are forthcoming for arcane casters in this edition.

The stuff I like: The ardent, the lurk (good class for the DM to challenge the party, I have no interest in playing one), several powers, and a few items.
Nephlite
01-30-08, 09:38 AM It really all comes down to this: There have been questions which 3.5 psionic fans have asked since the XPH landed. These questions were ignored. Instead, we were provided with answers to questions that no one asked.

As for the nerfs, I can live with them if they are applied globally instead of just to psionics. My shaper would be very happy to be limited to only one astral construct at a time, if the spam-summoning druid he is squaring off against faced the same restriction in how many critters he can have in play. Similarly, if the crystal shard nerf were applied to those damned orb spells, then I would live with the ruling happily. But instead, it seems no such limitations are forthcoming for arcane casters in this edition.

The stuff I like: The ardent, the lurk (good class for the DM to challenge the party, I have no interest in playing one), several powers, and a few items.

Only Force would be applicable if they appliued the DR nerf to Arcane orbs. DR never applies to energy damage. I don't count force as energy (neither does Rules Comprehendruim).
Otakkun
01-30-08, 09:53 AM This brings back memories when I was actually playing 2E.

Someone: Psionics is SO broken!
Me: Yeah, but I like the flavor so much more than that stupid vancian mage. Let's just houserule the stupid stuff.
Someone: We could, but it would be a pain to explain all the changes needed to everyone playing ... let's just wait until 3E
Me: Ok ... I guess they'll fix it since Dark Sun is a somewhat known world and it's psi heavy

You all know what happened later...

Me: Yeah 3E is stupid, perhaps they'll errata...
And then now...

Me: 4E should have integrated psionics that work hand to hand with arcane & divine. There is no longer the vancian system to screw things up, there is even Eberron that is psionic active...

Let's just hope I've actually guessed right this time.
Nephlite
01-30-08, 01:16 PM This brings back memories when I was actually playing 2E.

Someone: Psionics is SO broken!
Me: Yeah, but I like the flavor so much more than that stupid vancian mage. Let's just houserule the stupid stuff.
Someone: We could, but it would be a pain to explain all the changes needed to everyone playing ... let's just wait until 3E
Me: Ok ... I guess they'll fix it since Dark Sun is a somewhat known world and it's psi heavy

You all know what happened later...

Me: Yeah 3E is stupid, perhaps they'll errata...
And then now...

Me: 4E should have integrated psionics that work hand to hand with arcane & divine. There is no longer the vancian system to screw things up, there is even Eberron that is psionic active...

Let's just hope I've actually guessed right this time.

Wait, why was 3E stupid? Unless you meant 3.0, than yeah.
MnemonicSV
01-30-08, 02:07 PM While I do agree with 99% of what is mentioned above, I really don't think the metacreativity nerf was really a nerf at all. I feel it was more of a clarification. I mean lets face it, why on earth would they specifically list the effects as "slashing" or "piercing" if this wasn't the original intention? Applying DR was always implied for those powers, but never clearly spelled out in the XPH. CPsi just spelled it out.

If this "nerf" was mentioned in the XPH in the first place... we wouldn't even be talking about it right now. Would those powers be slightly weaker? Of course. Would they be weakened to the point of imbalanced? Hardly.

The people this ticked off the most were the people who assumed DR didn't apply, then got angry when WOTC chose to clarify what should have been stated in the XPH all along. This isn't a nerf; It's XPH errata. Should this have been covered by the official XPH errata? Yes, but hey, how often is that updated? Not once since first released IIRC. They just saved time, did some damage control, and printed this errata in a more "official source," namely CPsi.

(On a personal note, the news of the "nerf" didn't faze me in the slightest, since I always assumed DR applied to those powers in the first place. I always played crystal shard that way, and never found it underpowered in the slightest. Yes, yes, I know full well that the core RAW says it shouldn't... but I chose RAI in this case, since it is quite obvious. People who choose RAW over RAI in such an obvious case as this, are the same folks who argue that psicrystals should have a feat progression, which is also a blatently obvious perversion of RAI.)

Besides, even though such effects are exceptionally rare, they are not completely without precedent. The daggerspell mage for instance can sacrifice a spell to add "magical slashing damage" to which DR applies. I believe there's also a druid spell out there that deals a specific damage type... though the name and effect escapes me at the moment.

Don't get me wrong, CPsi was still a monumental letdown (the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook comes in second IMHO). But anybody who says that the "piercing" and "slashing" metacreativity powers were never ever intended to deal a specific damage type, are just lying to themselves. The only reason it's called a "nerf" here is because it appears in a book that does genuinely nerf other things unnecessarily (such as astral construct). We've just come to expect so little from CPsi, that errata such as this gets "lost" in the other crap and indirectly loses it's credibility as a result.
jbsaff
01-30-08, 02:48 PM Applying DR on those powers probably wouldn't have made as much of a splash if it was also "clarified" for arcane and divine magic. My understanding is that this is not the case.

On the feats for psicrystals arguement, I think the position generally put forward on the boards was along the lines of "Contrary to all other similar situations, this one works according to the rules. You can go RAI and it won't mess with your game. But not even the designers can give us a real reason why this doesn't work RAW." In a similar way to how the Theoretical Optimization boards find all kinds of fun ways to break things that can be done but shouldn't be, psicrystals gaining feats is another loophole that many DMs will say simply shouldn't follow RAW. Just another example of something that could have been addressed in CompPsi and wasn't.
CrimsonDeath
01-30-08, 03:41 PM Besides, even though such effects are exceptionally rare, they are not completely without precedent. The daggerspell mage for instance can sacrifice a spell to add "magical slashing damage" to which DR applies. I believe there's also a druid spell out there that deals a specific damage type... though the name and effect escapes me at the moment.

I believe you're thinking of Splinterbolt, which specifically permits DR. Contrast with the Core spell Evard's Black Tentacles, which deals bludgeoning damage with no indication that it allows DR.

Also recall the fact that the rule in CPsi applies specifically to instantaneous metacreativity powers. Consider a hypothetical Metacreativity power called Crystal Field, which functions in a manner similar to the Druid spell Spike Stones, creating crystals on the ground which deal piercing damage to creatures that pass through that area, and which disappear when the duration expires. The clarification from CPsi wouldn't apply to it, either, since the power is non-instantaneous.
Lycanthromancer
01-30-08, 06:13 PM While I do agree with 99% of what is mentioned above, I really don't think the metacreativity nerf was really a nerf at all. I feel it was more of a clarification. I mean lets face it, why on earth would they specifically list the effects as "slashing" or "piercing" if this wasn't the original intention? Applying DR was always implied for those powers, but never clearly spelled out in the XPH. CPsi just spelled it out.There are other effects of damage types, such as slashing damage on certain oozes, you know.
MnemonicSV
01-31-08, 12:47 AM Yep, well aware.
SkipSandwich
02-01-08, 11:43 AM I believe you're thinking of Splinterbolt, which specifically permits DR. Contrast with the Core spell Evard's Black Tentacles, which deals bludgeoning damage with no indication that it allows DR.

Also recall the fact that the rule in CPsi applies specifically to instantaneous metacreativity powers. Consider a hypothetical Metacreativity power called Crystal Field, which functions in a manner similar to the Druid spell Spike Stones, creating crystals on the ground which deal piercing damage to creatures that pass through that area, and which disappear when the duration expires. The clarification from CPsi wouldn't apply to it, either, since the power is non-instantaneous.

you don't even have to make up a hypothetical example, what about burrowing bonds, taken right from the very same book?
CrimsonDeath
02-01-08, 01:30 PM you don't even have to make up a hypothetical example, what about burrowing bonds, taken right from the very same book?

Sure, go with that.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Viktor_Von_Doom 01-29-08, 02:18 AM	I see alot on these boards that the Complete book was an utter travesty. I personally liked a good deal of the book and don't get what was so bad about it. Can somone please explain?
CrimsonDeath 01-29-08, 03:57 AM	A huge list of feats that could've been condensed down to one or two. (For example, there are about five feats that turn the Mind Blade into an exotic double weapon, which could've been one feat that turns the mind blade into an exotic double weapon of the player's choice. Also, each psionic race with a psi-like ability got a separate feat for extra uses of that ability, all of which could've been condensed into one feat that just gives two extra uses of the selected racial psi-like ability). The unnecessary nerf to Astral Construct, which (judging by later publications like the Malconvoker of Complete Scoundrel, not to mention powers in the same book like Larval Flayers) was printed solely to make the Ectopic Adept and Ectopic Form feat more attractive. Speaking of Ectopic Form, it's useless by level five and actively harmful by level 7. The nerf to instantaneous metacreativity powers, which for some reason does not apply to instantaneous conjurations (the absoulte best school for arcane magic). The Anarchic Initiate, which not only breaks the general rule that psionic prestiege classes give up a manifester level, but is also impossible for a Wilder, the intended base class, to enter without using setting-specific material (the Educated feat from either the Forgotten Realms or Eberron). The Illithid Heritage feats in general, which defy the Illithid reproductive cycle, and Illithid Blast in specific, which lacks sufficient information to indicate how it's intended to work. The Divine Mind, which not only breaks psionic flavor (deriving psionic power from an outside source) but also consists entirely of class features that would've made the Ardent too powerful (although with a little toning down it might not be too bad as a psionic NPC class). Although I personally find it convenient, some people are irritated that the entire Psion/Wilder and Psychic Warrior power lists were duplicated from the XPH, wasting valuable page space that could've gone to material that was cut instead. I could go on. Don't get me wrong; there are nice things in there, like the Soulknife PrCs and the Ardent base class, but overall it's pretty shoddy.
Mesiolan 01-29-08, 04:41 AM	The main thing about CPSi is the wasted opportunity to clear some dire questions from XPsi, i.e. - What if the PSi-crystal is destroyed? Can I get a new one? Does it cost XP? - May a PSi-crystal take feats? I was missing a good fix for the metamind. To describe specific astral constructs is nice for flair, but they overdid it (less types would have been better) and some of them are weaker then the reagular version of the AC. Remember, you need additional feats for the specific constructs, and you need Boost Construct too. Some of the specific constructs were without the bonus menue picks from the feat. The book was badly edited. Some entries conflict with XPSi (i.e. Xephs get Xeph burst 3/day, but in the racial feats of CPSi they assume 1/day), others contradict entries of the same book (i.e. compare the feat "Privileged Energy" to the feats which base on it). Some of the new energy powers of CPSi lack the description of "fire +1 HP/die, cold +1HP/die and Fort save, sonic -1 HP/die but ignore hardenss, electricity +2 to DC and +2 to overcome SR". The material on the flayerspawn contradicts some of the material of "Lords of Madness" and the material from 2nd ed. "Illithiad". All in all, there are some gems in the book. But the total consensus is disappointment for the book - missed opportunities, wasted space, and downright errors.
Izax19 01-29-08, 04:57 AM	I think perhaps the most frustrating thing for me about Complete Psionic is that there seems to be some potential there, but it then all goes to hell in a handbasket. The Ardent having its schtick broken into two separate classes by the powers that be sticks out as an example in my mind. Basically, Wizards gave put out the Psionics community had been clamoring for it for so long, but put so little effort into it that it gave psionics a bad name. More than that, the book is absolutely rife with all sorts of editing errors (there was a thread somewhere that tried to find them all, not sure if it ever succeeded), and simply feels like a half-finished product. Finally, they practically refuse to acknowledge any of the errors that are in the book, and have not issued a lick of errata for it when many other recent books have had pages of errata issued. The book was short, but the amount of good stuff that was in it was an even smaller amount. The board reaction to CPsi was so bad, that a few of the members decided they could do better and founded Dreamscarred Press, of whom I am a big fan. That was the one good thing to come of the book, I think.
Viktor_Von_Doom 01-29-08, 11:48 AM	Hmm, now that I think about it your all right.
Bacris 01-29-08, 01:36 PM	The board reaction to CPsi was so bad, that a few of the members decided they could do better and founded Dreamscarred Press, of whom I am a big fan. That was the one good thing to come of the book, I think. Glad to have you! :) In all fairness, Complete Psionic has its good points. It's just a lot more bad and mediocre mixed in with the good.
Lycanthromancer 01-29-08, 01:45 PM	Copied from another thread: For one, it's one of the worst-edited books since the advent of 3.0. There are more mistakes and flagrant stupidity than I've come across in any book, ever. Take a good look at the Illithid Blast feat. Can you see what's wrong with it? Build a mockup character and try to use the feat. Can you do it? Nope. And that's just the very beginning. For two, they wasted huge amounts of space when they could easily have condensed half the feats and several pages in the powers section down to almost nothing (such as the racial and soulknife feats). That they had to cut out a few dozen pages to make room for what's in there means that we got wasted space, in the place of potentially excellent material. For three, we have very, very little in the way of expanding psionics as it is; instead, we got NEW base classes, and most of the support is for them. What if I want to actually have options for my current characters? What if I LIKE the classes in the XPHB? CPsi does very little for them. For four, they reprinted a bunch of broken powers and such without editing or clarifying anything (which were definitely needed - check out Synchronicity + Affinity Field, or + Twin Power, or + Link Power, or + Extend Power). And who needs to have the same power printed in CPsi, when it's already in 2 other places? For five, they nerfed several aspects of psionics (such as powers vs DR and Astral Construct) into near-unusability. For six, a huge portion of the book is errata that we have to pay for (and it's not even frikken OGL!!!). Why not put it on this website? Nobody else has to pay for their errata. For seven, most of the errata is stuff that was neither wanted nor needed. What happened to all of the dozens of questions we NEEDED answered, such as "How do you get your psicrystal back after it dies?" and "How the hell does Metaconcert actually work?" and "What kinds of actions can Schism do?" and "Why is the metamind such a sucky class?" and so on and so on. They completely ignored all of the things we've been asking about for years, and instead put up errata for things that nobody thought was broken, to fix problems that didn't exist. For eight, there are so many parts of CPsi that can so break psionics. Link power has so many potential abuses it's not even funny. Anarchic initiate isn't for wilders (they can't even take the class until after 10th level, which means that they can't finish it out until epic); it's for psions...and it breaks them all to pieces. (See my gripe about Synchronicity above.) For nine, we've waited several years to get some support for psionics, and all we get is a crappy book that is mostly wasted space, errata we have to pay for, brokenness, and editing errors out the wazoo, all in fewer pages than any of the other Completes. It's a throwaway book to placate the people who love psionics, and it does its job very, very badly.
AntiDjinn 01-30-08, 03:55 AM	It really all comes down to this: There have been questions which 3.5 psionic fans have asked since the XPH landed. These questions were ignored. Instead, we were provided with answers to questions that no one asked. As for the nerfs, I can live with them if they are applied globally instead of just to psionics. My shaper would be very happy to be limited to only one astral construct at a time, if the spam-summoning druid he is squaring off against faced the same restriction in how many critters he can have in play. Similarly, if the crystal shard nerf were applied to those damned orb spells, then I would live with the ruling happily. But instead, it seems no such limitations are forthcoming for arcane casters in this edition. The stuff I like: The ardent, the lurk (good class for the DM to challenge the party, I have no interest in playing one), several powers, and a few items.
Nephlite 01-30-08, 09:38 AM	It really all comes down to this: There have been questions which 3.5 psionic fans have asked since the XPH landed. These questions were ignored. Instead, we were provided with answers to questions that no one asked. As for the nerfs, I can live with them if they are applied globally instead of just to psionics. My shaper would be very happy to be limited to only one astral construct at a time, if the spam-summoning druid he is squaring off against faced the same restriction in how many critters he can have in play. Similarly, if the crystal shard nerf were applied to those damned orb spells, then I would live with the ruling happily. But instead, it seems no such limitations are forthcoming for arcane casters in this edition. The stuff I like: The ardent, the lurk (good class for the DM to challenge the party, I have no interest in playing one), several powers, and a few items. Only Force would be applicable if they appliued the DR nerf to Arcane orbs. DR never applies to energy damage. I don't count force as energy (neither does Rules Comprehendruim).
Otakkun 01-30-08, 09:53 AM	This brings back memories when I was actually playing 2E. Someone: Psionics is SO broken! Me: Yeah, but I like the flavor so much more than that stupid vancian mage. Let's just houserule the stupid stuff. Someone: We could, but it would be a pain to explain all the changes needed to everyone playing ... let's just wait until 3E Me: Ok ... I guess they'll fix it since Dark Sun is a somewhat known world and it's psi heavy You all know what happened later... Me: Yeah 3E is stupid, perhaps they'll errata... And then now... Me: 4E should have integrated psionics that work hand to hand with arcane & divine. There is no longer the vancian system to screw things up, there is even Eberron that is psionic active... Let's just hope I've actually guessed right this time.
Nephlite 01-30-08, 01:16 PM	This brings back memories when I was actually playing 2E. Someone: Psionics is SO broken! Me: Yeah, but I like the flavor so much more than that stupid vancian mage. Let's just houserule the stupid stuff. Someone: We could, but it would be a pain to explain all the changes needed to everyone playing ... let's just wait until 3E Me: Ok ... I guess they'll fix it since Dark Sun is a somewhat known world and it's psi heavy You all know what happened later... Me: Yeah 3E is stupid, perhaps they'll errata... And then now... Me: 4E should have integrated psionics that work hand to hand with arcane & divine. There is no longer the vancian system to screw things up, there is even Eberron that is psionic active... Let's just hope I've actually guessed right this time. Wait, why was 3E stupid? Unless you meant 3.0, than yeah.
MnemonicSV 01-30-08, 02:07 PM	While I do agree with 99% of what is mentioned above, I really don't think the metacreativity nerf was really a nerf at all. I feel it was more of a clarification. I mean lets face it, why on earth would they specifically list the effects as "slashing" or "piercing" if this wasn't the original intention? Applying DR was always implied for those powers, but never clearly spelled out in the XPH. CPsi just spelled it out. If this "nerf" was mentioned in the XPH in the first place... we wouldn't even be talking about it right now. Would those powers be slightly weaker? Of course. Would they be weakened to the point of imbalanced? Hardly. The people this ticked off the most were the people who assumed DR didn't apply, then got angry when WOTC chose to clarify what should have been stated in the XPH all along. This isn't a nerf; It's XPH errata. Should this have been covered by the official XPH errata? Yes, but hey, how often is that updated? Not once since first released IIRC. They just saved time, did some damage control, and printed this errata in a more "official source," namely CPsi. (On a personal note, the news of the "nerf" didn't faze me in the slightest, since I always assumed DR applied to those powers in the first place. I always played crystal shard that way, and never found it underpowered in the slightest. Yes, yes, I know full well that the core RAW says it shouldn't... but I chose RAI in this case, since it is quite obvious. People who choose RAW over RAI in such an obvious case as this, are the same folks who argue that psicrystals should have a feat progression, which is also a blatently obvious perversion of RAI.) Besides, even though such effects are exceptionally rare, they are not completely without precedent. The daggerspell mage for instance can sacrifice a spell to add "magical slashing damage" to which DR applies. I believe there's also a druid spell out there that deals a specific damage type... though the name and effect escapes me at the moment. Don't get me wrong, CPsi was still a monumental letdown (the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook comes in second IMHO). But anybody who says that the "piercing" and "slashing" metacreativity powers were never ever intended to deal a specific damage type, are just lying to themselves. The only reason it's called a "nerf" here is because it appears in a book that does genuinely nerf other things unnecessarily (such as astral construct). We've just come to expect so little from CPsi, that errata such as this gets "lost" in the other crap and indirectly loses it's credibility as a result.
jbsaff 01-30-08, 02:48 PM	Applying DR on those powers probably wouldn't have made as much of a splash if it was also "clarified" for arcane and divine magic. My understanding is that this is not the case. On the feats for psicrystals arguement, I think the position generally put forward on the boards was along the lines of "Contrary to all other similar situations, this one works according to the rules. You can go RAI and it won't mess with your game. But not even the designers can give us a real reason why this doesn't work RAW." In a similar way to how the Theoretical Optimization boards find all kinds of fun ways to break things that can be done but shouldn't be, psicrystals gaining feats is another loophole that many DMs will say simply shouldn't follow RAW. Just another example of something that could have been addressed in CompPsi and wasn't.
CrimsonDeath 01-30-08, 03:41 PM	Besides, even though such effects are exceptionally rare, they are not completely without precedent. The daggerspell mage for instance can sacrifice a spell to add "magical slashing damage" to which DR applies. I believe there's also a druid spell out there that deals a specific damage type... though the name and effect escapes me at the moment. I believe you're thinking of Splinterbolt, which specifically permits DR. Contrast with the Core spell Evard's Black Tentacles, which deals bludgeoning damage with no indication that it allows DR. Also recall the fact that the rule in CPsi applies specifically to instantaneous metacreativity powers. Consider a hypothetical Metacreativity power called Crystal Field, which functions in a manner similar to the Druid spell Spike Stones, creating crystals on the ground which deal piercing damage to creatures that pass through that area, and which disappear when the duration expires. The clarification from CPsi wouldn't apply to it, either, since the power is non-instantaneous.
Lycanthromancer 01-30-08, 06:13 PM	While I do agree with 99% of what is mentioned above, I really don't think the metacreativity nerf was really a nerf at all. I feel it was more of a clarification. I mean lets face it, why on earth would they specifically list the effects as "slashing" or "piercing" if this wasn't the original intention? Applying DR was always implied for those powers, but never clearly spelled out in the XPH. CPsi just spelled it out.There are other effects of damage types, such as slashing damage on certain oozes, you know.
MnemonicSV 01-31-08, 12:47 AM	Yep, well aware.
SkipSandwich 02-01-08, 11:43 AM	I believe you're thinking of Splinterbolt, which specifically permits DR. Contrast with the Core spell Evard's Black Tentacles, which deals bludgeoning damage with no indication that it allows DR. Also recall the fact that the rule in CPsi applies specifically to instantaneous metacreativity powers. Consider a hypothetical Metacreativity power called Crystal Field, which functions in a manner similar to the Druid spell Spike Stones, creating crystals on the ground which deal piercing damage to creatures that pass through that area, and which disappear when the duration expires. The clarification from CPsi wouldn't apply to it, either, since the power is non-instantaneous. you don't even have to make up a hypothetical example, what about burrowing bonds, taken right from the very same book?
CrimsonDeath 02-01-08, 01:30 PM	you don't even have to make up a hypothetical example, what about burrowing bonds, taken right from the very same book? Sure, go with that.