PDA

View Full Version : About Psychic Warrior [3.5]



Fortuna
2010-04-28, 04:28 AM
I can't find anywhere where its manifester level is specified. Does it get a loser manifester level, or a full one? If a full one, does that mean they can augment up to that limit despite not being able to manifest powers that cost that many pp (if that makes sense)?

Melayl
2010-04-28, 04:36 AM
IIRC, they have a full manifester level, and can augment powers exactly like a psion. They just (generally) have a smaller PP pool to do so with.

KillianHawkeye
2010-04-28, 04:45 AM
As far as I know, the only base classes whose Caster Level/Manifester Level are not equal to their Class Level are the ones who do not start out with the ability to cast/manifest. Id est non-full-casters (Ex: Paladin, Ranger). Basically, any spellcasting or psionic manifesting class gets their full level to their CL/ML unless noted otherwise.

Psychic Warriors are full casters. Their ML is equal to their Class Level. The Psychic Warrior powers known chart is the only thing that stops them from manifesting higher level powers at the same rate as Psions.

kamikasei
2010-04-28, 04:47 AM
"The variables of a power’s effect often depend on its manifester level, which is equal to your psionic class level."* (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#manifesterLevel)

And yes, a fifth-level psywar can spend five points manifesting an augmented first-level power even though he can't manifest an unaugmented third-level power for the same cost.

Optimystik
2010-04-28, 05:28 AM
Psywars have full ML. The one with lower ML than their class level is the Divine Mind... which is yet another reason to hate Divine Minds :smallsigh:

Person_Man
2010-04-28, 09:21 AM
Note that if you multi-class or go into a prestige class with it's own power progression (War Mind, Psionic Fist, etc) the manifester levels do not stack, even if they use the same power list.

Scorpions__
2010-04-28, 10:17 AM
There is the Soulborn, which uses only half its class levels to determine its meldshaper level... But I don't think it's the case with psychic warrior.






DM[F]R

Draz74
2010-04-28, 10:21 AM
There is the Soulborn, which uses only half its class levels to determine its meldshaper level...

Which is extra sad, because even non-Incarnum classes get to use half their levels to determine their meldshaper level. :smallfrown:

Starbuck_II
2010-04-28, 10:30 AM
Which is extra sad, because even non-Incarnum classes get to use half their levels to determine their meldshaper level. :smallfrown:

Yeah, if they take shape soulmeld feat.
Really, they were over cautious.

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-28, 02:00 PM
Yeah, if they take shape soulmeld feat.
Really, they were over cautious.Is it my imagination, or is a fighter who takes nothing but incarnum feats and instances of Shape Soulmeld better than the soulborn?

jindra34
2010-04-28, 02:05 PM
Is it my imagination, or is a fighter who takes nothing but incarnum feats and instances of Shape Soulmeld better than the soulborn?

At meldshaping, yes. But they don't get all the other class features.

Optimystik
2010-04-28, 02:09 PM
Rather like how a Fighter can rival a CW Samurai with the TWF feat chain.

Now we just need to make a Fighter better at psionics than a Divine Mind and we'll achieve a proper singularity.

Can we get one to Truename too?

Kalaska'Agathas
2010-04-28, 02:11 PM
Can we get one to Truename too?

I think a Fighter spending cross-class skillpoints in Skill: Truenaming gets worse at truenaming faster than a Truenamer, so it is better at doing what the Truenamer does, objectively speaking.

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-28, 02:14 PM
I think a Fighter spending cross-class skillpoints in Skill: Truenaming gets worse at truenaming faster than a Truenamer, so it is better at doing what the Truenamer does, objectively speaking.Clever girl fellow.

Optimystik
2010-04-28, 02:15 PM
I think a Fighter spending cross-class skillpoints in Skill: Truenaming gets worse at truenaming faster than a Truenamer, so it is better at doing what the Truenamer does, objectively speaking.

Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that? :smallamused: