Do psicrystals get feats?

[Katana1515]

Hi! I have heard both sides of this argument and was wondering if the playground could resolve it for me. Answers from both a RAW perspective as well as RAI /Game balance would be appreciated

[thethird]

They have an INT score and they have HD.

RAW they do.

RAI? Who knows? I'll probably say yes. (Actually I would say that familiars should get too, but that is not RAW)

[RustyArmor]

Assume not since they are constructs and constructs don't get feats.

[NEO|Phyte]

Short answer: yes.

Long answer:

A familiar is a normal animal that gains new powers and becomes a magical beast when summoned to service by a sorcerer or wizard. It retains the appearance, Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was, but it is treated as a magical beast instead of an animal for the purpose of any effect that depends on its type.

...
Hit Dice

For the purpose of effects related to number of Hit Dice, use the master’s character level or the familiar’s normal HD total, whichever is higher. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#familiars)


A psicrystal’s characteristics depend on its master. Its Hit Dice are equal to its master’s Hit Dice (counting only levels in psion or wilder), its hit points are equal to half its master’s, and its saving throw bonuses are the same as its master’s. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/psicrystal.htm)
A familiar has its normal hit dice, but can treat itself as having the same amount as its master for things like Sleep/Holy Word/etc

A psicrystal actually gains HD as its master does.

[Katana1515]

So we have established that they gain HD but how does that interact with the fact they are constructs (which don't get feats as far as I can find). Apologies if I am being obtuse about this.

[Rubik]

Assume not since they are constructs and constructs don't get feats.Correction: mindless creatures do not get feats. Most constructs don't because they are mindless. Non-mindless constructs such as psicrystals and warforged do gain feats as they gain HD.

[Yuki Akuma]

Assume not since they are constructs and constructs don't get feats.

So warforged don't get feats?

[thethird]

So we have established that they gain HD but how does that interact with the fact they are constructs which don't get feats as far as I can find.


Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die, if the construct has an Intelligence score. However, most constructs are mindless and gain no skill points or feats. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm)

i.e. if they are not mindless they gain skills and feats.

[Psyren]

In 3.5, yes they do. In PF, no.

[Rubik]

In 3.5, yes they do. In PF, no.Yet another reason to dislike Pathfinder.

[RFLS]

Yet another reason to dislike Pathfinder.

Eh. By and large, they're no more flawed than WotC, and have thus far produced a game with slightly tighter power and versatility caps in both directions. They've made some rather silly editing errors or balance, yes, but in that case, WotC made far, far more. I'm not saying Pathfinder is perfect, and I'm not saying 3.5 is terrible. All I'm saying is that it's unreasonable to criticize Pathfinder for things that 3.5 did to a greater extent, unless you're willing to admit that 3.5 was, by and large, poorly edited and badly maintained.

[olentu]

Yet another reason to dislike Pathfinder.

As much as pathfinder is a rather poor system (even when compared against 3.5 which was by no means perfect) in my judgement, I believe that the psionics conversion was made by a third party.

[Andion Isurand]

I usually play 3.5 and adopt and borrow from pathfinder as I go, usually for the sake of non-casters.

[Lord Vukodlak]

There are a few things missing from the psicrystal rules such how do you get the crystal back if its destroyed. As it stands by RAW if your psicrystal is destroyed its gone unlike familiars there is no dialog.

While by RAW they do indeed gain feats its my belief that the RAI is they do not.


As much as pathfinder is a rather poor system (even when compared against 3.5 which was by no means perfect) in my judgement, I believe that the psionics conversion was made by a third party.

It was indeed made by a third party, I've looked over it and its really not all that different then 3.5 psionics.
One nice change is Psion's discipline does more then just add a domain of potentially available powers and adjust class skills.
8th level telepaths for instance get telepathy out to 400ft and so long as they maintain there psionic focus blindsense out to 30ft(using said telepathy).

A rather sad change is energy powers are more restricted about what element you can expend.(except for kineticists) You can only be attuned to one energy type at a time. That attunement picked at the start of each day or by regaining your psionic focus. So if your attuned to fire but what to manifest energy bolt as dealing electricity damage you'd need to regain your psionic focus to attune yourself to electricity.

[Rubik]

A rather sad change is energy powers are more restricted about what element you can expend.(except for kineticists) You can only be attuned to one energy type at a time. That attunement picked at the start of each day or by regaining your psionic focus. So if your attuned to fire but what to manifest energy bolt as dealing electricity damage you'd need to regain your psionic focus to attune yourself to electricity.That's not even right. The only reason to take energy powers is the ability to change energy types on the fly. What's the point of bothering now?

[Lord Vukodlak]

That's not even right. The only reason to take energy powers is the ability to change energy types on the fly. What's the point of bothering now?

Well if your kineticists you don't have that issue and if you've taken psionic meditation its only a move action to regain your focus and thus switch what energy type your attuned too. You can then expend that psionic focus normally(for empower, for endowment etc) and keep the elemental attunement until you regain your focus again.

Over all its a minor inconvenience.

[Big Fau]

Yet another reason to dislike Pathfinder.

DSP did the PF Psionics revision. It's solid, even with the minor nerfs.

[Rubik]

Well if your kineticists you don't have that issue and if you've taken psionic meditation its only a move action to regain your focus and thus switch what energy type your attuned too. You can then expend that psionic focus normally(for empower, for endowment etc) and keep the elemental attunement until you regain your focus again.That still makes direct damage -- especially elemental damage that is PR: yes and requires either an attack roll or a save -- far less valuable, and it's already lacking in all sorts of ways.

What idiot would anyone think nerfing blasting is a good idea? Honestly.

[Lord Vukodlak]

That still makes direct damage -- especially elemental damage that is PR: yes and requires either an attack roll or a save -- far less valuable, and it's already lacking in all sorts of ways.

What idiot would anyone think nerfing blasting is a good idea? Honestly.
I'd say its 5% less valuable, Chances are your going to be expending your psionic focus every round anyway to use greater psionic endowment in order to boost the save DC anyway.

All the element choices still have the same special effects as before. No other caster type gets to pick elements at all they have to learn entirely different powers.
The draw back is easily rendered entirely trivial by taking psionic meditation which is so common in psion builds it might as well have been a class feature in place of a bonus feat.

Some powers got better Mind Control(psionic dominate) is exactly the same as 3.5 but the duration is at 1/day per level rather then making you spend any on augmentation.

[Rubik]

I'd say its 5% less valuable, Chances are your going to be expending your psionic focus every round anyway to use greater psionic endowment in order to boost the save DC anyway.

All the element choices still have the same special effects as before. No other caster type gets to pick elements at all they have to learn entirely different powers.
The draw back is easily rendered entirely trivial by taking psionic meditation which is so common in psion builds it might as well have been a class feature in place of a bonus feat.And direct damage via energy damage is considered the weakest thing to do with pretty much any caster. Making it worse for the only class it's decent for is just stupid.


Some powers got better Mind Control(psionic dominate) is exactly the same as 3.5 but the duration is at 1/day per level rather then making you spend any on augmentation.Domination effects are really powerful already. Good to know that I have more reasons to avoid Pathfinder at all costs, since apparently nobody involved has a clue.

[The Glyphstone]

Psicrystals explicitly getting no feats in DSP's psionics rules doesn't seem like a big deal, considering the only real uses for Psicrystals having feats in 3.5 were A) Feat Leech abuse, or B) infinite psicrystal loops. Anything actually useful had prerequisites a crystal really struggled to meet.

[NEO|Phyte]

There's also the use of an Egoist that throws bunches of Personal-range buffs on its crystal and sends it into combat. Best part of that is, after 15th level (or sooner, if you throw feats at Improved Psicrystal), you don't even have to be in touch range of your crystal to apply the buffs, so you can do things like give it a psionic lion's charge midfight.

[Rubik]

Psicrystals explicitly getting no feats in DSP's psionics rules doesn't seem like a big deal, considering the only real uses for Psicrystals having feats in 3.5 were A) Feat Leech abuse, or B) infinite psicrystal loops. Anything actually useful had prerequisites a crystal really struggled to meet.Except for Darkstalker, Mindsight, Life Sense, Martial Study, Martial Stance, Hidden Talent, all the things that could be used on The Big Guy Is With Me, and basically anything else you could think of that could be useful for an all-purpose pet rock. Really, there's a LOT you can do with it, if you think about it a bit.

[Psyren]

That's not even right. The only reason to take energy powers is the ability to change energy types on the fly. What's the point of bothering now?

You can still change on the fly. You rechoose your AET every time you regain focus, which means you can still change round to round, it just costs you your move now. Kineticists maintain the free selection of 3.5, and Wilders can change during a surge. The idea being to make Kineticists and Wilders the premier blasters in the system.


Except for Darkstalker, Mindsight, Life Sense, Martial Study, Martial Stance, Hidden Talent, all the things that could be used on The Big Guy Is With Me, and basically anything else you could think of that could be useful for an all-purpose pet rock. Really, there's a LOT you can do with it, if you think about it a bit.

Familiars and psicrystals are intended to be less powerful, because you have direct control over them. Animal companions, which do gain feats, also require a skill check to control and have less range of actions.

Eidolons have the best of both worlds of course, but they are subject to other weaknesses (such as being dismissed.) And while the Summoner was intended to be much weaker on its own, their spell list is unfortunately not very representative of this fact.

[Rubik]

You can still change on the fly. You rechoose your AET every time you regain focus, which means you can still change round to round, it just costs you your move now. Kineticists maintain the free selection of 3.5, and Wilders can change during a surge. The idea being to make Kineticists and Wilders the premier blasters in the system.Then buff them rather than castrating everyone else.


Familiars and psicrystals are intended to be less powerful, because you have direct control over them. Animal companions, which do gain feats, also require a skill check to control and have less range of actions.It also kills the psicrystal's awesomeness points, which kills a lot of interest I have in even getting one.


Eidolons have the best of both worlds of course, but they are subject to other weaknesses (such as being dismissed.) And while the Summoner was intended to be much weaker on its own, their spell list is unfortunately not very representative of this fact....So? What does this have to do with psicrystals, again?

[Lord Vukodlak]

It also kills the psicrystal's awesomeness points, which kills a lot of interest I have in even getting one.
Many DM's believe the RAI of psicrystals in 3.5 is no feats. The idea of a splinter personality of your self gaining feats you don't possess is rather ridiculous. If you want to go by RAW then if your psicrystal is destroyed its gone forever.
And if there supposed to be recovered just like familiars then maybe they aren't supposed to have feats just like familiars.


Then buff them rather than castrating everyone else.
Why do you insist on comparing an almost trivial hindrance to castration?

[olentu]

Many DM's believe the RAI of psicrystals in 3.5 is no feats. The idea of a splinter personality of your self gaining feats you don't possess is rather ridiculous. If you want to go by RAW then if your psicrystal is destroyed its gone forever.
And if there supposed to be recovered just like familiars then maybe they aren't supposed to have feats just like familiars.

Eh, just cast psychic reformation twice.

[erikun]

RAW, they gain HD and have an Intelligence score, so they would get feats as the manifester gains levels.

At my table, no. That's just silly and has potential to break the game. I might modify a few other aspects of the psicrystal - I see no reason why a psicrystal can't benefit from a select number of the Psion's feats - but I'm not allowing some silly rules interpretation like that.

[Mithril Leaf]

Why do you insist on comparing an almost trivial hindrance to castration?

To be fair, it is rather absurd for DSP to nerf what is already the weakest choice. I thought they knew better than that, but apparently not.


Many DM's believe the RAI of psicrystals in 3.5 is no feats. The idea of a splinter personality of your self gaining feats you don't possess is rather ridiculous. If you want to go by RAW then if your psicrystal is destroyed its gone forever.
And if there supposed to be recovered just like familiars then maybe they aren't supposed to have feats just like familiars.

You don't have to recover them like familiars, you just psychic reformation yourself to reacquire psycrystal affinity. And if we're arguing that RAI is explicitly counter to RAW, what's saying that familiars shouldn't have feats?

[Kalaska'Agathas]

As has been said, by RAW, Psicrystals gain feats.


The idea of a splinter personality of your self gaining feats you don't possess is rather ridiculous.

If you want to interpret it that way, sure. However, if you choose to fluff it that the Psicrystal starts out as a shard of your personality, but as you and your Psicrystal progress, its own experiences and the experiences it shares with you allow it to develop as its own entity - inextricably linked to you, yes, but no longer just a fragment of yourself - then their ability to gain feats you do not possess is made perfectly sensible, and not at all ridiculous (and a pretty cool piece of fluff at that, if I do say so myself).

Now, on the subject of RAI:

According to correspondence between Nijineko (over on the Min/Max boards (http://www.minmaxboards.com)) and Bruce Cordell,


"...psicyrstals weren't intended as a way for a PC to gain access to more feats." (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1187.msg17313#msg17313)

So the RAI may be that they weren't intended to gain feats. However, even if that clarification comes from the author himself, it does not change the fact that, by the rules, Psicrystals gain feats. One might choose to make a house-rule based on that clarification, but it doesn't change the fact that it'd be a house-rule.

Personally, I don't think the fact that Psicrystals gain feats is going to do any harm to the game. Feat Leeching your Psicrystals Psionic and Metapsionic feats isn't likely to enable anything game-breaking that the character wasn't already capable of doing. It's most likely to give a character occasional access to otherwise too-situational-to-use abilities, and I don't see that as being a particularly bad thing.

[Chronos]

Another good feat for a psicrystal is Draconic Aura. The healing one works just fine at only +1, and if you want a higher bonus, just throw in Dragontouched, too (which the crystal can't qualify for right off the bat, but it only needs an additional +1 Cha).

[Hecuba]

As mentioned, by RAW, yes.

If you're concerned with RAI, this is one of the few places where we have some fairly outright statements from the authors to the contrary. But authorial intent should only be your primary measuring stick when considering game design (this is a very good case study in how to write rules better). It is a secondary concern (though still a concern) when considering game adjudication.

For practical advise:

If you're the player: The community consensus (both here and elsewhere) when this comes up seems to be that many DMs will rule against it. It's worth asking about in a well-optimized game. You may come off as a munchkin if you ask about it an a game that is not well-optimized. Either way, it's house-ruled commonly enough that you should presume you need to ask.
If you are the DM: Your primary concern should be outcome rather than intent. This is a fairly straightforward and discrete power increase. If giving the character access to those feats would harm things (ex.: you strongly expect the psion to dominate the spotlight without it), say no. Otherwise, strongly consider saying yes (to the basic premise, not to the more abusive options The Glyphstone mentions). Outside of the abusive cases, the psicrystal having feats will generally have a far lower impact on balance than the manifesting choices of the psion.

[Psyren]

It also kills the psicrystal's awesomeness points, which kills a lot of interest I have in even getting one.

"...Awesomeness points?" I can't help but picture you with a backwards cap and skateboard saying "radical!" when I read this. :smallconfused:

The psicrystal is plenty "awesome" without feats.



...So? What does this have to do with psicrystals, again?

Psicrystals are in the same category as familiars; less powerful but easier to control. Giving them feats goes against that design. BC admitted it was a mistake on his part, and DSP corrected that mistake.



Why do you insist on comparing an almost trivial hindrance to castration?

Hyperbole is kind of his thing.


To be fair, it is rather absurd for DSP to nerf what is already the weakest choice.

Are you serious? How is a psicrystal weak? Even without this, no manifester should ever hesitate to get one. That's a clear sign that feats aren't needed at all.



And if we're arguing that RAI is explicitly counter to RAW, what's saying that familiars shouldn't have feats?

In PF, the guidelines are pretty clear; if your companion is more powerful than a familiar, it should be an animal companion or cohort instead. Something under the DM's control that you attempt to influence, rather than a second character under your command.

[olentu]

Psicrystals are in the same category as familiars; less powerful but easier to control. Giving them feats goes against that design. BC admitted it was a mistake on his part, and DSP corrected that mistake.

Correcting a mistake that inadvertently gave a more favorable outcome seems like a poor choice to me.

[Psyren]

Correcting a mistake that inadvertently gave a more favorable outcome seems like a poor choice to me.

Psicrystals are still plenty useful, and psions/psywars/etc. didn't need the help.

[Lateral]

Are you serious? How is a psicrystal weak? Even without this, no manifester should ever hesitate to get one. That's a clear sign that feats aren't needed at all.

...I think he was talking about blasting.

[Psyren]

...I think he was talking about blasting.

The "weakness" of blasting is very often overblown on these forums. It's not the strongest course of action in combat, sure, but there are plenty of weaker things you could be doing in a fight, like divination or healing. While blasting is not quite as efficient at ending threats as battlefield control due to the nature of hit points, it at least has a chance at inflicting the most important status effect of all (dead), and certainly makes progress towards the end of the battle unless totally resisted. All the blinds, entangles, paralyzes and dazes in the world don't remove the need to actually finish the job, and they're all easier to remove than the condition of death. If you and another party member (say, the Rogue) act before the enemy does, paralyzing him for a CdG or blasting him to within one stab of death are functionally the same outcome from an action economy standpoint.

Furthermore, blasting is often a very effective vector for rider effects, like those of Dazing Spell, Toppling Power or Rime Power.

[olentu]

Psicrystals are still plenty useful, and psions/psywars/etc. didn't need the help.

Right. But the real question is if psions/psywars/etc. needed the nerf. If not then why make the change.

[TuggyNE]

Right. But the real question is if psions/psywars/etc. needed the nerf. If not then why make the change.

Psions arguably did (although it doesn't make that much difference to their real power). PsyWars probably didn't.

[Psyren]

Right. But the real question is if psions/psywars/etc. needed the nerf. If not then why make the change.

"Because the buff was never intended in the first place" is a simple enough reason, isn't it? But I already told you the main justification - psicrystals fall in the "familiar" category rather than the "animal companion" one because they are directly player-controlled. The change was made to bring them in line with familiars.


Psions arguably did (although it doesn't make that much difference to their real power). PsyWars probably didn't.

It doesn't make that much difference to a Psywar's real power either.

[olentu]

Psions arguably did (although it doesn't make that much difference to their real power). PsyWars probably didn't.

That seems reasonable, but it was more of a rhetorical device to bring up the point that, so far as I can tell, such an assessment was not really alluded to.


"Because the buff was never intended in the first place" is a simple enough reason, isn't it? But I already told you the main justification - psicrystals fall in the "familiar" category rather than the "animal companion" one because they are directly player-controlled. The change was made to bring them in line with familiars.

It is a simple reason, but not necessarily a good reason. I wouldn't throw out a cure for cancer just because I intended to make a cure for baldness, I wouldn't throw out cold fusion just because I was trying to make a better toaster, and I wouldn't revert one weapon flurry just because I intended flurry to work in one particular way. Just because it was a mistake doesn't mean it should be eradicated without thought.

Right, so why was it changed to be more in line with familiars. Was it that psycrystals getting feats was overpowered. Was it that psycrystals getting feats was too fiddily. Was it blind adherence to a set of guidelines for no reason other then that they exist. And so on and so forth, plus the various combinations of reasons. Some of those are good and some are not so good.

[Psyren]

It is a simple reason, but not necessarily a good reason.

It's not necessarily a bad one either. (And comparing a minor nerf to a cancer cure? Seriously?)



Right, so why was it changed to be more in line with familiars. Was it that psycrystals getting feats was overpowered. Was it that psycrystals getting feats was too fiddily. Was it blind adherence to a set of guidelines for no reason other then that they exist. And so on and so forth, plus the various combinations of reasons. Some of those are good and some are not so good.

Unifying a system up front like this prevents unforeseen balance issues/unintended interactions down the road. For example, when Paizo created Familiar Feats, rather than have to balance them extensively as individuals or worry about how they may interact with existing feats, they could rely on their existing rules for familiars to ensure that most familiars would only get one of these, and getting more than one would largely mean getting an Improved Familiar - a process that requires a greater investment, and over which the DM has a bit more oversight.

But we were talking psicrystal power levels. One of the main causes for concern with psicrystal feats is Feat Leech, which allows your character to snap the feat economy in two. Feats are intended to be tradeoffs, but being able to cram situational and low-prereq, yet still useful, feats like Aligned Attack and Psionic Shot into your psicrystal not only gives you benefits on the fly, it removes the need to make that choice/tradeoff from your own build. Using Feat Leech this way has zero drawbacks for you - you get full control over the feats you have access to instead of getting less certain benefits from a foe or ally, and you can guarantee your success by instructing your psicrystal to fail its save. You can also cause your psicrystal to learn feats it has no intention of using itself, e.g. Overchannel and metapsionics, giving you more freedom to take things like crafting feats. And Feat Leech isn't even the only way to do this thanks to powers like Fusion.

Even without Feat Leech there are unintended interactions however. A psicrystal with feats in PF can learn and use every psionic cantrip in the game at will, a capability no familiar can match. Feats like Open Minded let your psicrystal break the skill economy as well as the feat economy, by cross-classing a bunch of skills you don't want to use in your own build. Or it can just take Psionic Talent a bunch of times to refill your cognizance crystals/psicrowns for you, or help fuel your metaconcerts.

Rather than go through playtesting every single interaction that could come of this ability, DSP simply took one look at the whole mess and said no. So bummer for you if all you wanted was to make your pet rock slightly sneakier or something, but I don't think any of the interactions above were intended or balanced and this is a quick and easy way to amputate them all.

[Hecuba]

It is a simple reason, but not necessarily a good reason. I wouldn't throw out a cure for cancer just because I intended to make a cure for baldness, I wouldn't throw out cold fusion just because I was trying to make a better toaster, and I wouldn't revert one weapon flurry just because I intended flurry to work in one particular way. Just because it was a mistake doesn't mean it should be eradicated without thought.

I agree, at least to the point that its not necessarily a reason for the game audience to throw the option out. But on the other side, designers (almost by definition) must have an idea of what they want to design. It is not unreasonable for them to explain the idea and, where the opportunity for a redesign presents, attempt to move closer to it.

[Fax Celestis]

As mentioned, by RAW, yes.

If you're concerned with RAI, this is one of the few places where we have some fairly outright statements from the authors to the contrary. But authorial intent should only be your primary measuring stick when considering game design (this is a very good case study in how to write rules better). It is a secondary concern (though still a concern) when considering game adjudication.

For practical advise:

If you're the player: The community consensus (both here and elsewhere) when this comes up seems to be that many DMs will rule against it. It's worth asking about in a well-optimized game. You may come off as a munchkin if you ask about it an a game that is not well-optimized. Either way, it's house-ruled commonly enough that you should presume you need to ask.
If you are the DM: Your primary concern should be outcome rather than intent. This is a fairly straightforward and discrete power increase. If giving the character access to those feats would harm things (ex.: you strongly expect the psion to dominate the spotlight without it), say no. Otherwise, strongly consider saying yes (to the basic premise, not to the more abusive options The Glyphstone mentions). Outside of the abusive cases, the psicrystal having feats will generally have a far lower impact on balance than the manifesting choices of the psion.


Funny, I would recommend exactly the opposite priority on those items. RAW is a good measuring stick for theorycrafting; RAI (or RAMS, if you prefer) is a better measuring stick for actual play.

[Hecuba]

Funny, I would recommend exactly the opposite priority on those items. RAW is a good measuring stick for theorycrafting; RAI (or RAMS, if you prefer) is a better measuring stick for actual play.

Design isn't theorycrafting. Understanding the desired result of a rule (or trying to) is integral in understanding whether a rule is written well (and potentially, how to write it better).

What I think one should be primarily concerned with when interpreting rules under differing situations:

Design: Designer's intent for rule
Theorycrafting: RAW (w/ mutually accepted changes)
Standard play: the DM and player's intent for play

The last one is generally, in my eye, the most applicable. If one interpretation of the rules is counterproductive (ex.: harms party balance or breaks immersion for certain players), I would not generally back that interpretation even if it was clearly the designer's intent.

Likewise, if a specific interpretation of the rules is productive to the table (improves balance for the table, improves role playing, what have you), I would generally back it even if the designer noted they intended something else.

[Fax Celestis]

If one interpretation of the rules is counterproductive (ex.: harms party balance or breaks immersion for certain players), I would not generally back that interpretation even if it was clearly the designer's intent.

How often do you find the designer's intent is to screw up the game, rather than enhance it?

I would venture that in nearly every case, the problem is that the designer's writing or memory is flawed, not their intention.

[Psyren]

The last one is generally, in my eye, the most applicable. If one interpretation of the rules is counterproductive (ex.: harms party balance or breaks immersion for certain players), I would not generally back that interpretation even if it was clearly the designer's intent.

Likewise, if a specific interpretation of the rules is productive to the table (improves balance for the table, improves role playing, what have you), I would generally back it even if the designer noted they intended something else.

I don't see a problem with this, but I'm not sure how it applies to the topic in this thread. The designer's intent in this case neither harms balance nor breaks immersion. (If anything, it enhances immersion - that a fragment of your personality could end up more knowledgeable/skilled than you yourself, or capable of feats you cannot match, would be more immersion-breaking.)

[erikun]

As mentioned, by RAW, yes.

If you're concerned with RAI, this is one of the few places where we have some fairly outright statements from the authors to the contrary. But authorial intent should only be your primary measuring stick when considering game design (this is a very good case study in how to write rules better). It is a secondary concern (though still a concern) when considering game adjudication.

For practical advise:

If you're the player: The community consensus (both here and elsewhere) when this comes up seems to be that many DMs will rule against it. It's worth asking about in a well-optimized game. You may come off as a munchkin if you ask about it an a game that is not well-optimized. Either way, it's house-ruled commonly enough that you should presume you need to ask.
If you are the DM: Your primary concern should be outcome rather than intent. This is a fairly straightforward and discrete power increase. If giving the character access to those feats would harm things (ex.: you strongly expect the psion to dominate the spotlight without it), say no. Otherwise, strongly consider saying yes (to the basic premise, not to the more abusive options The Glyphstone mentions). Outside of the abusive cases, the psicrystal having feats will generally have a far lower impact on balance than the manifesting choices of the psion.


Right. But the real question is if psions/psywars/etc. needed the nerf. If not then why make the change.
I have a slightly related question.

At my table, psicrystals have never had feats. It's never been sensible for them to have any, there have never been rules or mention about them acquiring feats, and the design intent has never indicated that they were intended to have feats.

To restate the question presented: Why make the change? Indeed, what is it about psicrystal-feats that are so beneficial to the game that implementing them is somehow worth doing? What does it add to the game?

[123456789blaaa]

I have a slightly related question.

At my table, psicrystals have never had feats. It's never been sensible for them to have any, there have never been rules or mention about them acquiring feats, and the design intent has never indicated that they were intended to have feats.

To restate the question presented: Why make the change? Indeed, what is it about psicrystal-feats that are so beneficial to the game that implementing them is somehow worth doing? What does it add to the game?

Well it gives more options. It adds more customizability. There are feats which you might pick for your psicrystal that you might never pick for yourself so it opens up more options. All this is 3.5's greatest strength.

[erikun]

So the only benefit is to provide the character more feats?

If this is the intended effect, would it not be more practical to just give characters more feats? Besides providing manifesters with the same benefit without such an awkward work-around, it seems like providing the same options and customization to other classes as well, especially ones that could really use it.

If the only beneficial change this makes is providing more feats to a character, then I can think of far better ways of doing it than giving feats to a psicrystal and requiring one of a handful of powers to make use of it.

[Psyren]

So the only benefit is to provide the character more feats?

If this is the intended effect, would it not be more practical to just give characters more feats? Besides providing manifesters with the same benefit without such an awkward work-around, it seems like providing the same options and customization to other classes as well, especially ones that could really use it.

If the only beneficial change this makes is providing more feats to a character, then I can think of far better ways of doing it than giving feats to a psicrystal and requiring one of a handful of powers to make use of it.

Exactly - all it does is give psionic characters more feats than non-psionic ones. Even without Feat Leech, the manifester can still benefit from feats like Mindsight or Open Minded or Access Psionic Talents used by the psicrystal on his behalf.

[Rubik]

Familiars tend to be extremely fragile, and are generally not worth using because of this. Granting actual HD (and therefore, stat boosts and feats) keeps their survivability up, and therefore makes them more worthwhile options.

I honestly don't see a problem with that.

[123456789blaaa]

So the only benefit is to provide the character more feats?

If this is the intended effect, would it not be more practical to just give characters more feats? Besides providing manifesters with the same benefit without such an awkward work-around, it seems like providing the same options and customization to other classes as well, especially ones that could really use it.

If the only beneficial change this makes is providing more feats to a character, then I can think of far better ways of doing it than giving feats to a psicrystal and requiring one of a handful of powers to make use of it.

You're correct but the advantage of the psicrystal method is that it stays within RAW. This means that it can be used most of the time in internet discussions. There's also a certain pleasure that some people get from mostly staying within the RAW. Navigating such a byzantine maze is quite fun and being able to make use of a nice little unexpected bonus that comes from doing so feels good.

iI'd say everyone houserules at least a little bit but there are degrees. If you're going to implement a houserule like giving characters more feats, then yeah, it mostly comes down to personal preference.

[Hecuba]

I don't see a problem with this, but I'm not sure how it applies to the topic in this thread. The designer's intent in this case neither harms balance nor breaks immersion. (If anything, it enhances immersion - that a fragment of your personality could end up more knowledgeable/skilled than you yourself, or capable of feats you cannot match, would be more immersion-breaking.)

It can be made to work, and can probably be made to work well.
Ex: A fragment of your personality, that is physically and psionically separated from the rest might develop different skills and interests than the remaining whole.

Regardless certainly be cases where the reading the author did not intend could be beneficial to the table. In this case, there are any number of cases where the RAW interpretation might help balance (ex: a PsiWarrior or Ardent trying to keep up with a high tier 2/low tier 1 party).

There are also plenty of cases where it could enhance role-playing without hurting immersion or significantly altering balance. (I can think of several options to play it off of altered mental state).

The key is: what the player intends to do with the interpretation is more salient to its effect to the table than what the designer intended to do with the rule.

[Psyren]

Familiars tend to be extremely fragile, and are generally not worth using because of this. Granting actual HD (and therefore, stat boosts and feats) keeps their survivability up, and therefore makes them more worthwhile options.

I honestly don't see a problem with that.

Share Spells alone makes Familiars worth it, regardless of HD, never mind the fact that they are basically a second roll (complete with additional set of actions) for most of your skill attempts. And while Familiars lack sturdiness, they also get half the master's HP, so they aren't exactly going to die to a stiff breeze either if you have decent Con. Given that neither they nor psicrystals are intended to be in combat anyway, the fact that they are on the physically weaker side is a feature, not a bug.

Psicrystals are even more useful than familiars. Hardness is a big deal as far as survivability goes because it applies to every hit, they are naturally innocuous, Diminutive size makes them difficult targets, they can see in absolute and even magical darkness, and they can relay messages without making a sound. And psions can heal them more easily than most wizards can with a familiar, having on their list specific powers designed for that purpose. So I don't think pointing to familiar fragility (whatever relevance that may have for creatures that are not designed for combat) is particularly effective justification.


You're correct but the advantage of the psicrystal method is that it stays within RAW.

I know it's RAW (in 3.5) but I can see why (a) individual tables might want it changed, and (b) why DSP went out of their way to excise it from PF.



Regardless certainly be cases where the reading the author did not intend could be beneficial to the table. In this case, there are any number of cases where the RAW interpretation might help balance (ex: a PsiWarrior or Ardent trying to keep up with a high tier 2/low tier 1 party).

I can think of few instances where actively aiming/designing for a T2/T1 balance point is beneficial. I think the game already has enough of that.



The key is: what the player intends to do with the interpretation is more salient to its effect to the table than what the designer intended to do with the rule.

Agreed, but when the DM is deciding what to allow and what to deny, having more information is helpful. Authorial intent, and the rationale for it where available, are useful data points to have even if the DM ultimately ends up ruling against them.

[Hecuba]

Agreed, but when the DM is deciding what to allow and what to deny, having more information is helpful. Authorial intent, and the rationale for it where available, are useful data points to have even if the DM ultimately ends up ruling against them.

I don't disagree that it can be useful. I simply don't think that it should be the primary goal behind the ruling. It can* make an excellent means for facilitating a ruling, but I don't think it makes a particularly lucrative ends.



*I say "can" because in most cases, the authors don't make the kind of outright statements they do in this case. That means that sometimes it can be a LOT of work to reasonably demonstrate authorial intent.

Edit: grammar. Also, just noticed earlier typos. Sadness.

[Psyren]

I don't disagree that it can be useful. I simply don't think that it should be the primary goal behind the ruling. It can* make an excellent means for facilitating a ruling, but I don't think it makes a particularly lucrative ends.

Which is why I dove in deeper and looked at the kinds of consequences not making this change could have before deciding for myself. I then judged the outcome ("Manifesters should get more feats than non-manifesters... because!") to not be a compelling reason.

[olentu]

It's not necessarily a bad one either. (And comparing a minor nerf to a cancer cure? Seriously?)

I suppose that assuaging the conscience of the person who originally made the mistake could be seen as a good reason, but in light of all the bad that could be done that is rather minor balancing point.

Eh, I assumed you would understand that I do not actually think the situation is as grave as a cure for cancer, but that is my fault for making that assumption. I apologize for my incorrect estimation.



Unifying a system up front like this prevents unforeseen balance issues/unintended interactions down the road. For example, when Paizo created Familiar Feats, rather than have to balance them extensively as individuals or worry about how they may interact with existing feats, they could rely on their existing rules for familiars to ensure that most familiars would only get one of these, and getting more than one would largely mean getting an Improved Familiar - a process that requires a greater investment, and over which the DM has a bit more oversight.

But we were talking psicrystal power levels. One of the main causes for concern with psicrystal feats is Feat Leech, which allows your character to snap the feat economy in two. Feats are intended to be tradeoffs, but being able to cram situational and low-prereq, yet still useful, feats like Aligned Attack and Psionic Shot into your psicrystal not only gives you benefits on the fly, it removes the need to make that choice/tradeoff from your own build. Using Feat Leech this way has zero drawbacks for you - you get full control over the feats you have access to instead of getting less certain benefits from a foe or ally, and you can guarantee your success by instructing your psicrystal to fail its save. You can also cause your psicrystal to learn feats it has no intention of using itself, e.g. Overchannel and metapsionics, giving you more freedom to take things like crafting feats. And Feat Leech isn't even the only way to do this thanks to powers like Fusion.

Even without Feat Leech there are unintended interactions however. A psicrystal with feats in PF can learn and use every psionic cantrip in the game at will, a capability no familiar can match. Feats like Open Minded let your psicrystal break the skill economy as well as the feat economy, by cross-classing a bunch of skills you don't want to use in your own build. Or it can just take Psionic Talent a bunch of times to refill your cognizance crystals/psicrowns for you, or help fuel your metaconcerts.

Rather than go through playtesting every single interaction that could come of this ability, DSP simply took one look at the whole mess and said no. So bummer for you if all you wanted was to make your pet rock slightly sneakier or something, but I don't think any of the interactions above were intended or balanced and this is a quick and easy way to amputate them all.

Ah, so you are saying that it is a balance concern. Why did you not just say that psicrystals with feats was too powerful in the first place and leave it at that. I may or may not agree with that assessment (perhaps I believe that casters should be better then mundanes) but at least I can respect attempting to create better balance as a motivation.


I agree, at least to the point that its not necessarily a reason for the game audience to throw the option out. But on the other side, designers (almost by definition) must have an idea of what they want to design. It is not unreasonable for them to explain the idea and, where the opportunity for a redesign presents, attempt to move closer to it.

Eh, the real problem I have with it is that assuaging some designer's sensibilities should really be of lesser concern to providing a good product. Now that does not mean that psicrystals should keep feats, they may be overpowered with them or whatever.


I have a slightly related question.

At my table, psicrystals have never had feats. It's never been sensible for them to have any, there have never been rules or mention about them acquiring feats, and the design intent has never indicated that they were intended to have feats.

To restate the question presented: Why make the change? Indeed, what is it about psicrystal-feats that are so beneficial to the game that implementing them is somehow worth doing? What does it add to the game?

Eh, it makes certain character paths available that would not otherwise be so. In the end the game breaking power of psicrystals with feats might overwhelm the increased character diversity. Or perhaps the incredible power of psicrystals with feats would have had to been balanced by forcing characters to take an improved psicrystal feat. The issue is that whatever the final result the assessment should be made, alternate options should be considered, and the benefits and detriments weighed before making the decision. Changing it purely because it was an accident or something is not really what I would consider good process.