Fiend of Blasphemy + Ardent: Am I interpreting this right? How does this work?

[123456789blaaa]

Here's what the Magic Mantle on an Ardent does:


MAGIC MANTLE
Granted Ability: You gain Use Magic Device as a class
skill. If you purchased ranks in Use Magic Device or Use
Psionic Device at the cross-class rate, you get additional ranks
in Use Magic Device or Use Psionic Device as if it had always
been a class skill for you.

In addition, you always treat magic and psionics as identical.
Therefore, powers such as dispel psionics work for both magic
and psionics. Most campaigns already treat them in this
manner, so this mantle is most useful in campaigns where
they are considered different systems.

And here's some text detailing a particularly interesting fact:


Psi-Like Abilities (Ps)
The manifestation of powers by a psionic character is considered a psi-like ability, as is the manifestation of powers by creatures without a psionic class (creatures with the psionic subtype, also simply called psionic creatures). Usually, a psionic creature’s psi-like ability works just like the power of that name. A few psi-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described.

Take the Magic Mantle and PLA's count as SLA's (I think...the Magic Mantles wording is pretty vague).

Now open your Fiend Folio's and look for the Fiend of Blasphemy PRC. At level 2, this prestige class allows you to transfer uses of your SLA's from yourself to someone that has participated in a specific ritual with you. At-will abilities are turned into 4/day and you lose a use every time you transfer a use.

Therefore, you should be able to transfer your Ardent psionic powers to other people. As per the title, my questions are: Am I interpreting this right? How does this work?

[Troacctid]

Take the Magic Mantle and PLA's count as SLA's (I think...the Magic Mantles wording is pretty vague).
Nope. Magic Mantle doesn't say that.

You're right that it's vague, but the key is to understand that it is referring to the psionics-magic transparency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#psionicsMagicTransparenc y) rule, which describes in more detail what it means to treat psionics and magic as identical.

[123456789blaaa]

Nope. Magic Mantle doesn't say that.

You're right that it's vague, but the key is to understand that it is referring to the psionics-magic transparency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#psionicsMagicTransparenc y) rule, which describes in more detail what it means to treat psionics and magic as identical.

Can you show me where it says it is referring to the transparency rules?

[Raenel]

Yeah, it looks like that combo might let you transfer over PLAs as well as SLAs..... but I will say that it is a strange and kind of confusing combo. Does it make you able to only manifest your own powers 4/per day? If I was dm, I would say that it would work, but that you couldn't manifest that power while it was transferred. But that's more of a house rule

[Troacctid]

Can you show me where it says it is referring to the transparency rules?
"Therefore, powers such as dispel psionics work for both magic and psionics. Most campaigns already treat them in this manner, so this mantle is most useful in campaigns where they are considered different systems."

[lord_khaine]

Hmm.. i would actually not say it work by a strict reading of the rules. It dont go directly out and say that you should treat Psy-like as spell-like. Only that spells and psionic should be treated as the same for things that would affect one or the other.

But all the same i would certainly allow it, it seems like your going though a lot of efford to get this transfer working. And i would look at the spirit of the rules her, and say you can give over the use of a power, as well as enough PP to manifest it, losing the same number of PP yourself.

[Tiri]

Nope. Magic Mantle doesn't say that.

You're right that it's vague, but the key is to understand that it is referring to the psionics-magic transparency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#psionicsMagicTransparenc y) rule, which describes in more detail what it means to treat psionics and magic as identical.

The mantle does actually do more than the default rule, because the rule doesn't explicitly say that it makes psionics and magic identical (which it doesn't). So if the only mitigating factor was that I think you would be wrong.


Psi-Like Abilities (Ps)
The manifestation of powers by a psionic character is considered a psi-like ability,

However, the description of Psi-like abilities state that the manifestation of powers is such an ability. It says nothing about the powers or powers known themselves. Not to mention that the Fiend of Blasphemy's class ability has limits based on how many times a day a specific SLA is available. Powers do not have a fixed number of times a day they are available, which means that even if it was possible there would be no way to figure out how many times a day the giver and recipient could now use the powers. Or at least not by RAW.

[ExLibrisMortis]

There is a power in Magic of Incarnum, soul crystal, that allows something like this. Basically, you put a power and some pp into the crystal. For the next hour/level, anyone can pick up the crystal and manifest the power, using the pp in the crystal. You can't refuel the crystal, or manifest the power with your own pp, but otherwise it's manifested at your full ML (at time of creation) and fully augmentable. Soul crystal is a 7th-level power, which somewhat limits its use, and it's not on any mantle; at the same time, it's not discipline-specific, it doesn't require specific PrC levels or mantles, and it doesn't require any unusual rulings.

[VisitingDaGulag]

OP is correct. Identical is identical. Basically you pretend that the psionic versions are 100% the magic versions. The 'therefore' sentence is just one outcome of treating psionics as being identical to magic.

[Troacctid]

OP is correct. Identical is identical. Basically you pretend that the psionic versions are 100% the magic versions. The 'therefore' sentence is just one outcome of treating psionics as being identical to magic.
That isn't what the rule means, but even if you think that is what the rule means, how do you get from "psionics and magic are identical" to "psi-like abilities and spell-like abilities are identical"? That leap isn't supported by the text AFAICT. Treating the overarching power sources as the same doesn't necessarily extend to every parallel aspect of the two systems—sure, it sounds reasonable to treat powers as identical to spells, and psionic items as identical to magic items, but are you also going to treat Use Psionic Device as identical to Use Magic Device? That doesn't make much sense in conjunction with the mantle's other ability. Are you going to treat metapsionic feats as identical to metamagic feats? I don't even know how that would work.

[VisitingDaGulag]

That isn't what the rule means, but even if you think that is what the rule means, how do you get from "psionics and magic are identical" to "psi-like abilities and spell-like abilities are identical"? That leap isn't supported by the text AFAICT. Treating the overarching power sources as the same doesn't necessarily extend to every parallel aspect of the two systems—sure, it sounds reasonable to treat powers as identical to spells, and psionic items as identical to magic items, but are you also going to treat Use Psionic Device as identical to Use Magic Device? That doesn't make much sense in conjunction with the mantle's other ability. Are you going to treat metapsionic feats as identical to metamagic feats? I don't even know how that would work.if x is identical to y and there is a x-like feature, there must be a y-like feature as well. Otherwise, x and y are not identical. Substitution is one of the most basic properties of logic.

Anyways, the ability merely apply to the "overarching power source" it applies to the whole system. It says "magic" not "magical" whatever.

Yes, you do have to treat UPD as exactly equal to UMD. Since the designers were clearly hesitant about transparency, skill ranks themselves are one of the things that would not be transparent. This makes doubly sure that you actually get the ranks in UMD if you invested in UPD so that a DM doesn't say 'specific trumps general' when you need to get into a UMD class but don't have the ranks for it since you invested in UMD.

And the last answer is "yes." I'll let your imagination run wild.

[Troacctid]

That interpretation requires willfully ignoring context and reading things into the text that aren't there (and wouldn't make sense if they were). The rules say that treating magic and psionics as identical is the default rule, and treating psionics as different is an optional variant rule.


if x is identical to y and there is a x-like feature, there must be a y-like feature as well. Otherwise, x and y are not identical. Substitution is one of the most basic properties of logic.
Okay, then what is the magic-equivalent of metaconcert?

[Tiri]

Ok, my personal opinion on this is that UMD and UPD would be treated differently, because they are designed for different things.

They specify in their descriptions that they work on certain things like wands or dorjes. Therefore even if UMD was psionic (which it would be using the mantle) it wouldn't work on a dorje simply because a dorje isn't on the list of things it can be used for.

On the other hand, I would treat Metapsionic feats as Metamagic ones because they affect powers, which are now spells under the effects of the mantle, and adjust the cost of the powers in accordance with how similarly-named Metamagic ones adjust spell level. Most of them do the same thing anyway.

[Feint's End]

That interpretation requires willfully ignoring context and reading things into the text that aren't there (and wouldn't make sense if they were). The rules say that treating magic and psionics as identical is the default rule, and treating psionics as different is an optional variant

Yes. And yes this part of the magic mantle is most likely just referring to magic transparency for games it isn't a thing in anyways. However this is RAI (at least you could argue for it) and most likely not RAW. I would expect you to know the difference by know.

Imagine it like this .... the magic mantle states A and B wherein A is the transparency and B is that Magic and Psionics are treated (and treated is the important word, since that also means they aren't the same but shenanigans considering one of them also works for the other one) identical. You could argue that only A is intended to be said here (which would likely be RAI) but that doesn't change the fact that there is more, namely B.

So what OP said works although how it works is up to interpretation (and as somebody mentioned only the manifesting part let's it count as a pla so before that by really strict RAW it still is a power/spell). Arguing on how magic mantle works is beating a dead horse at this point since it has been discussed over and over again by more experienced players than you and I.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Transparency, and the Magic mantle, is about treating the effects of magic and psionic as identical. If you cast dimension door, that is exactly the same as manifesting psionic dimension door - both can be counterspelled, absorbed, reflected, and detected as if they were both spell and power. It seems to me that 'treating magic and psionics as identical', without further rule clarification, refers only to the 'power sources' (to use one ugly 4e term), without any specific mechanical impact. The reference to default transparency ("most campaigns already treat them this way") is the only RAW you've got; the ability doesn't add anything otherwise. Psionic and magical power are treated as identical, not their mechanics.

If you do allow radical transparency, keep in mind that treating magic and psionics as identical doesn't do all that much when it comes to spell slots/power points. You can't metamagic a power, because you can't get a 'higher-level power slot', and by the same reasoning, you can't metapower a spell by using a higher-level slot - you need PP and psionic focus. You can't use magic-advancing prestige classes on psionic classes, or at least, you won't get any bonus power points from it (you might get additional ML/powers known), and in the same way, you won't get extra spell slots from psionic-advancing classes. Certain free metamagic abilities might work, depending on how they're worded, but why were you stacking metamagic feats and abilities on a psionic character again?



In this specific case, it's pretty useless to transfer, even if it's allowed. You can normally use your psionics at will, but that becomes 4/day; meanwhile, your cultist get to use a psionic power 1/day, but first has to rest eight hours to regain power points, if they can even get any. I suppose bestow power might work (it's not on any mantle, so play a mantled erudite or something), if you do it after transferring your psionic ability (else your target would have ML 0/be unpsionic, ineligible), but that puts you at three more uses of your psionic powers. Seems a lot of effort for something that can be duplicated with a 7th-level power.

[Feint's End]

Transparency, and the Magic mantle, is about treating the effects of magic and psionic as identical. If you cast dimension door, that is exactly the same as manifesting psionic dimension door - both can be counterspelled, absorbed, reflected, and detected as if they were both spell and power. It seems to me that 'treating magic and psionics as identical', without further rule clarification, refers only to the 'power sources' (to use one ugly 4e term), without any specific mechanical impact. The reference to default transparency ("most campaigns already treat them this way") is the only RAW you've got; the ability doesn't add anything otherwise. Psionic and magical power are treated as identical, not their mechanics.

If you do allow radical transparency, keep in mind that treating magic and psionics as identical doesn't do all that much when it comes to spell slots/power points. You can't metamagic a power, because you can't get a 'higher-level power slot', and by the same reasoning, you can't metapower a spell by using a higher-level slot - you need PP and psionic focus. You can't use magic-advancing prestige classes on psionic classes, or at least, you won't get any bonus power points from it (you might get additional ML/powers known), and in the same way, you won't get extra spell slots from psionic-advancing classes. Certain free metamagic abilities might work, depending on how they're worded, but why were you stacking metamagic feats and abilities on a psionic character again?



In this specific case, it's pretty useless to transfer, even if it's allowed. You can normally use your psionics at will, but that becomes 4/day; meanwhile, your cultist get to use a psionic power 1/day, but first has to rest eight hours to regain power points, if they can even get any. I suppose bestow power might work (it's not on any mantle, so play a mantled erudite or something), if you do it after transferring your psionic ability (else your target would have ML 0/be unpsionic, ineligible), but that puts you at three more uses of your psionic powers. Seems a lot of effort for something that can be duplicated with a 7th-level power.

Treat magic and psionics as identical is pretty clear RAW and actually has far wider effects than just transparency between those 2. So while you might argue that it only refers to transparency in a RAI sense, by RAW it actually has much bigger consequences and uses than it was likely intended to have. An oversight? Probably. Still ruled as written? Yes very much so.

I agree with the rest of what you said though.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Treat magic and psionics as identical is pretty clear RAW and actually has far wider effects than just transparency between those 2. So while you might argue that it only refers to transparency in a RAI sense, by RAW it actually has much bigger consequences and uses than it was likely intended to have. An oversight? Probably. Still ruled as written? Yes very much so.
I wasn't arguing that anything refers to transparency in a RAI sense, I'm not really sure what you mean by that :smallconfused:. If you're talking about 'fluff' or in-universe knowledge, then yes, that's what the text gives you, nothing else. That's still RAW though.

Treating magic and psionics does not have "pretty clear RAW" at all. It's RAW that you should, but there are no rules for it, other than the default transparency rules alluded to. 'Magic' includes supernatural abilities, and, by certain readings, also psionics (as per the MM1 statement that psionics are SLAs). As written, all we can be sure of is that an antimagic field suppresses psionics, and that the default transparency rules apply (which include the AMF thing as well).

I think the Magic mantle doesn't tell you to how to treat magic and psionics differently in the first place, so it can't tell you how to treat them as identical.

[Segev]

Objectively, the answer here is "depends on the DM," because you have to make a lot of interpretive decisions on what the rules mean. 3.5 usually is pretty good about having a true RAW answer, but whether psi-like and spell-like abilities are "equivalent" enough that making psionics act like magic would allow you to treat "you can do this with spell-like abilities" as if it said "you can do this with psi-like abilities" is not clearly stated.

You can go with an interpretation that says there is no equivalence because the names are different, or you can go with an interpretation that says that the only difference is their power source so the transparency induced by that mantle males them equivalent.

It genuinely is a judgment call as to how you interpret this combination of rules. Is the source of the difference between "psi-like" and "spell-like" purely (but importantly) semantic, such that it takes explicit rules to say "treat things labeled psi-like as if they were spell-like" to allow the equivalence, or is the source of the difference merely their power source, so making their power source identical for all purposes would make them identical for all purposes under the rules?



Given this, there is no One True Answer under the RAW. It is more constructive to discuss consequences of this being allowed in order to help DMs decide whether they wish to or not. And the converse: consequences of this not being allowed when the magic mantle is otherwise in full effect.

[Troacctid]

Yes. And yes this part of the magic mantle is most likely just referring to magic transparency for games it isn't a thing in anyways. However this is RAI (at least you could argue for it) and most likely not RAW. I would expect you to know the difference by know.
If you willfully ignore the parts of the rules that are inconvenient for your interpretation, that's not RAW. RAW includes all the rules and all the text. One of the things in the text is that most games already treat psionics and magic as identical. Which means that if you truly believe your reading is correct, you'd also have to believe that, by RAW, it works that way even without the mantle in most games.

You could bend over backwards and take things out of context to produce a weird and wacky unintuitive interpretation that is dysfunctional in many ways, or you could use the obvious interpretation that makes sense in context, follows the rules more closely, and is not dysfunctional.

[Tiri]

Well, that part of the mantle's text is wrong. It's not as if the writers could possibly have known exactly how every DM used psionics in their game.

By RAW, it makes magic and psionics become completely identical. Identical means identical, not using psionics-magic transparency that doesn't make them identical.

[Vortenger]

Just my 2cp, but I have to agree with Feint and Tiri. Identical is identical. Transparency is no longer applicable in this circumstance as the two are now one and the same. The Magic mantle is thankfully unique in this and easily bannable by DM's if troublesome.