Psi-like abilities

[Yklikt]

If a manifester level isn't specified for a psi-like ability how do I know what the manifester level is? I was looking at the Mind's Eye and some of the ACFs give psi-like abilities that aren't the normal manifesting abilities of the class, but also don't say a manifester level.

[Beheld]

Just give them Manifester level = Character level if they are PCs, and CR if they are monsters.

[Buufreak]

Just give them Manifester level = Character level if they are PCs, and CR if they are monsters.

I'd sooner go with ML = HD before CR. Just my 2cp.

[Beheld]

I'd sooner go with ML = HD before CR. Just my 2cp.

Yes, because it's important that random templated creatures with large HD have a CR 10, and a ML of 25.

[Yklikt]

Is this actually some obscure rule that it equals HD or just a good houserule?

[Beheld]

Is this actually some obscure rule that it equals HD or just a good houserule?

There is no rule that it equals HD if it doesn't say that in the ability, and that would be a bad rule.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'd sooner go with ML = HD before CR. Just my 2cp.
Agreed. The default for SLAs is CL = HD, so I'd copy that over to ML.

[Yklikt]

There is no rule that it equals HD if it doesn't say that in the ability, and that would be a bad rule.

How come it's bad?

[Flickerdart]

If a manifester level isn't specified for a psi-like ability how do I know what the manifester level is? I was looking at the Mind's Eye and some of the ACFs give psi-like abilities that aren't the normal manifesting abilities of the class, but also don't say a manifester level.

For characters with psionic class levels, the same ML is used for powers and PLAs. A character only has one ML, unless specific PLAs say otherwise.

For monsters with SLAs:
A creature with no classes has a manifester level equal to its Hit Dice unless otherwise specified. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powerList.htm)

[Buufreak]

How come it's bad?

With the use of templates and other shenanigans, you can end up with a creature with a relatively low CR but dozens of HD. Based on that, they could be casting their SLA or PLA at levels well above what PCs would be able to handle.

That said, Ex is right, and that is exactly what I based my statement on.

[Cosi]

How come it's bad?

Powers (sometimes) scale with manifester level. If manifester level is not coupled to CR, you can get creatures with PLAs that are radically more (or less) powerful than is appropriate. There's no real benefit to doing that, so you shouldn't do it.

The rule about SLAs is a bad rule, and rather than mindlessly duplicating it, you should institute a better rule where possible.

[Beheld]

How come it's bad?

Manifester level is effectively a level based check.

If anything is related to Manifester level at all, better it be based on CR than HD because HD can vastly outstrip CR.

If a monster has a CR of 9, and has 21 HD, and then you do something to it that gives it +1CR and a psi like ability with an undefined Manifester level, which is better:

a) It energy bursts for 21d6 damage when it fights a level 10 party.
b) It energy bursts for 10d6 damage when it fights a level 10 party.

This is literally the "Half Fiend Elemental no save murders the entire party with CL 21 Blasphemey at CR 12" all over again.

It's bad then, it's bad if you do it with psi-like abilities too.

[Khedrac]

Looking over the SRD the answer appears to be "umm".

The ML for the SRD monsters varies wildly from 1/3 HD to rather more than HD.
The ML for race abilities is a bit better - I think slightly more are 1/2 HD than are HD but they don't seem to be anything else...

Next the SRD actually states: (I used this SRD (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/soveliorsage/psionicMonsters.html))

All creatures with psi-like abilities are assigned a manifester level, which indicates how difficult it is to dispel their psi-like effects and determines all level-dependent variables (such as range or duration) the abilities might have.
A strict RAW argument is that without a listed ML then a creature cannot actually use any PLAs it has!

More reasonable would the to rule that if unstated a creature's ML for its PLAs is the minimum necessary for a psionicist to use the power.
(Yes, some creatures break this rule, but they do that with SLAs, and the rule is for unspecified MLs so when it is specified the rule doesn't apply to be broken...)

[Yklikt]

For characters with psionic class levels, the same ML is used for powers and PLAs. A character only has one ML, unless specific PLAs say otherwise.

For monsters with SLAs:
A creature with no classes has a manifester level equal to its Hit Dice unless otherwise specified. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powerList.htm)

So that means if I have 1 level of Psion with a PLA ACF from Mind's Eye but 15 levels of Ardent, can I use the higher Ardent ML for my PLA?

And ok, guys, I get that some of you think what the rule actually might be is bad, but I'm asking what the rule is not what your personal opinion is it should be.

[Flickerdart]

So that means if I have 1 level of Psion with a PLA ACF from Mind's Eye but 15 levels of Ardent, can I use the higher Ardent ML for my PLA?

The psionic muticlassing rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/) seem to imply that if you have two separate classes, each class's features use the ML of that class, and ML does not "pool."

[Beheld]

And ok, guys, I get that some of you think what the rule actually might be is bad, but I'm asking what the rule is not what your personal opinion is it should be.

Who cares? I suggested a rule for undefined MLs, someone else suggested an objectively worse rule, I pointed out that was a bad suggestion, you asked why.

You literally asked "Why is that a bad rule?" and now you are like "Please don't tell me why this rule is bad, I want to use the bad rule because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy to know that I'm using the rule that the people who think Monks are as good as Druids think is a good rule."

[Buufreak]

Who cares? I suggested a rule for undefined MLs, someone else suggested an objectively worse rule, I pointed out that was a bad suggestion, you asked why.

You literally asked "Why is that a bad rule?" and now you are like "Please don't tell me why this rule is bad, I want to use the bad rule because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy to know that I'm using the rule that the people who think Monks are as good as Druids think is a good rule."

Wow. Someone is a little hostile today. Just because you disagree with someone's opinion doesn't make it a bad opinion. And making assumptions like you are is only really insulting yourself, mate.

[Yklikt]

Who cares?

I care. It's good to know why you think its bad but before I do whatever changes I want to know what the actual rule is first

Which is why there is this thread.

[Beheld]

Wow. Someone is a little hostile today. Just because you disagree with someone's opinion doesn't make it a bad opinion. And making assumptions like you are is only really insulting yourself, mate.

1) Which of the rules is better is not a matter of opinion. One of them is objectively worse.

2) People who ask a question, then try to say "You shouldn't be answering my question because I don't like your answer! Why are you answering the question I asked!" really shouldn't be doing that.

[Buufreak]

1) Which of the rules is better is not a matter of opinion. One of them is objectively worse.

2) People who ask a question, then try to say "You shouldn't be answering my question because I don't like your answer! Why are you answering the question I asked!" really shouldn't be doing that.

A) You are doing that assuming thing again.

B) No one did? He merely stated that he wanted the rule. Hard stop. You made a suggestion, which isn't what he was looking for.

C) Letters are better than numbers.

[Yklikt]

I was actually ok with what you were doing Beheld. Until you got rude. It's cosi who was being all 'you should'.

I'm good with suggestions as long as you're not saying: You have to use it


The psionic muticlassing rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/) seem to imply that if you have two separate classes, each class's features use the ML of that class, and ML does not "pool."

But that's talking about powers right? a PLA isnt exactly a power.

[Flickerdart]

Keying ML to CR would be silly, because then random unrelated templates would make the creature a better manifester. You could even arbitrarily assign it more CR with nothing to back it up, and it would get stronger. At least HD makes sense, even if you can't blindly slap templates around.

The DM can always make an under-CRed creature using templates, if he wants to. The "ML=HD" rule is not the only rule that results in under-CRed monsters.



But that's talking about powers right? a PLA isnt exactly a power.
Hence, imply. Generally, 3.5 rules tend to forget that multiclassing exists.

[Beheld]

A) You are doing that assuming thing again.

B) No one did? He merely stated that he wanted the rule. Hard stop. You made a suggestion, which isn't what he was looking for.

C) Letters are better than numbers.

1) No, it's not assuming to have knowledge about the rules, and understand the rules and their consequences. I'm not assuming that the world isn't flat, and I'm not assuming that Manifester level based on HD creates stupid results with literally no possible even conceivable gain.

3) They are usually equally viable, though in some circumstances one is better, this isn't one of them.

[Yklikt]

So if it's all talking about powers and not PLAs really, then the rules doesn't really work do they?

[Flickerdart]

So if it's all talking about powers and not PLAs really, then the rules doesn't really work do they?

The only thing talking about powers is my second link, which describes what stacks between psionic classes (PP, but not ML). This is something we can extend to PLAs, barring any specific rules.

My first post here talks specifically about PLAs. ML=HD, unless you have class levels, in which case levels determine ML.

[Buufreak]

The only thing talking about powers is my second link, which describes what stacks between psionic classes (PP, but not ML). This is something we can extend to PLAs, barring any specific rules.

My first post here talks specifically about PLAs. ML=HD, unless you have class levels, in which case levels determine ML.

Well see, that isn't always going to be true either. In the case of something like a Rakshasa who have built in casting, it ends up being a little of a and all of b. Or am I comparing apples and oranges again?

[Flickerdart]

Well see, that isn't always going to be true either. In the case of something like a Rakshasa who have built in casting, it ends up being a little of a and all of b. Or am I comparing apples and oranges again?

It doesn't matter whether or not the monster has built-in casting. If it has no class levels, ML=HD. That's the rule.

[Yklikt]

The only thing talking about powers is my second link, which describes what stacks between psionic classes (PP, but not ML). This is something we can extend to PLAs, barring any specific rules.

My first post here talks specifically about PLAs. ML=HD, unless you have class levels, in which case levels determine ML.

Uh, but isn't that section about powers which are not the same thing as PLAs?

Also isn't it kind of inconsistent to extend the power rules to PLA just because they are similar.

[Flickerdart]

Uh, but isn't that section about powers which are not the same thing as PLAs?

Also isn't it kind of inconsistent to extend the power rules to PLA just because they are similar.

The sentence "A creature with no classes has a manifester level equal to its Hit Dice unless otherwise specified" has no qualifiers. It's not "for the purposes of powers." It's not "for the purposes of psi-like abilities." Any time you need to refer to your ML, if you have no levels, use your HD.

[Yklikt]

Ok, sorry, Im a bit confused. So, if you have a PLA, its your HD as ML, and it is only implied that it should be your class? So its not an actual rule to use your class for PLA?

[Flickerdart]

Ok, sorry, Im a bit confused. So, if you have a PLA, its your HD as ML, and it is only implied that it should be your class? So its not an actual rule to use your class for PLA?

If you have PLAs and no class levels, your ML is equal to your HD. Your PLAs use that ML, unless they say otherwise.

If you have PLAs and class levels in one psionic class, that rule does not apply, and your ML is equal to your psionic class level. Your PLAs use that ML, unless they say otherwise.

If you have PLAs and class levels in two or more psionic classes, the rules become unclear. The rules say that psionic multiclass characters share power points, but not ML, between classes. Powers are manifested at the level of the class that you learned them from. This is the closest thing we have to a rule that explains how PLAs gained from classes interact with each other. It goes to follow, but there is no actual rule, that a PLA gained from a class uses that class's levels as ML.

[Dagroth]

If you have PLAs and no class levels, your ML is equal to your HD. Your PLAs use that ML, unless they say otherwise.

If you have PLAs and class levels in one psionic class, that rule does not apply, and your ML is equal to your psionic class level. Your PLAs use that ML, unless they say otherwise.

If you have PLAs and class levels in two or more psionic classes, the rules become unclear. The rules say that psionic multiclass characters share power points, but not ML, between classes. Powers are manifested at the level of the class that you learned them from. This is the closest thing we have to a rule that explains how PLAs gained from classes interact with each other. It goes to follow, but there is no actual rule, that a PLA gained from a class uses that class's levels as ML.

So a Phrenic Ogre Magi would have an ML of 5 (which is specified by the Phrenic Template, BTW). But a Phrenic Ogre Magi with one level of Psion would have an ML of 1 for his PLAs? And if he has 2 levels of Psion, he'd have access to Aversion & Blast PLAs, but would be at an ML of 2 for them, despite the Template specifically tying ML to HD?

[Flickerdart]

So a Phrenic Ogre Magi would have an ML of 5 (which is specified by the Phrenic Template, BTW). But a Phrenic Ogre Magi with one level of Psion would have an ML of 1 for his PLAs? And if he has 2 levels of Psion, he'd have access to Aversion & Blast PLAs, but would be at an ML of 2 for them, despite the Template specifically tying ML to HD?

No. Note the second sentence of the first two cases I listed, "Your PLAs use that ML, unless they say otherwise." Specific trumps general, Phrenic's rule trumps the "ML = class level" rule, and you get two manifester levels on your phrenic ogre mage psion.

[icefractal]

Tying it to HD would be the most consistent with the 3E "house style", since (especially in 3.0 and early 3.5) there was a concept that everything should be based on in-game constructs as much as possible. Prerequisites, for example, were always in the form of skill ranks/BAB/saves, rather than just being "6th level character", even though the latter would have been a better solution in most cases. Weapon Specialization was the one exception, and it wasn't until late 3.5 in PHB II that they followed up on that.

Pathfinder, however, tosses that out and bases things on CR. Spell Resistance for monsters is almost always CR-based, and so is CL (usually). The advantage is numbers that give better results (as in, less likely to be overwhelming or useless). And while CR is slightly more a metagame concept than HD, it's not like HD is something that the characters can usually perceive either.

So - IMO, use CR. But if you want it to feel just like SLAs, use HD.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Tying it to HD would be the most consistent with the 3E "house style", since (especially in 3.0 and early 3.5) there was a concept that everything should be based on in-game constructs as much as possible. Prerequisites, for example, were always in the form of skill ranks/BAB/saves, rather than just being "6th level character", even though the latter would have been a better solution in most cases. Weapon Specialization was the one exception, and it wasn't until late 3.5 in PHB II that they followed up on that.

Pathfinder, however, tosses that out and bases things on CR. Spell Resistance for monsters is almost always CR-based, and so is CL (usually). The advantage is numbers that give better results (as in, less likely to be overwhelming or useless). And while CR is slightly more a metagame concept than HD, it's not like HD is something that the characters can usually perceive either.

So - IMO, use CR. But if you want it to feel just like SLAs, use HD.
I think the whole "use in-game construct for in-game things" rule is very sensible. Keep CR for the DM's side of things, for estimating challenge levels and XP values. Keep HD for the character building side of things, including CL/ML and all that.

It's intuitively obvious that when designing a monster, it's easier to do it step-by-step, closing off each step as you go along. So: first, you build a monster, including setting its HD and ML. Then, you estimate the CR of the result. If it's not what you were looking for, you restart at the "build monster" phase, and fiddle around a bit. You are keeping in mind the CR you want to be at (as has been mentioned), but you don't use the CR in the build phase directly.


power of monster changes with caster level of SLAs (given)
power of monster changes with CR of monster (given)
caster level of SLAs changes with CR of monster (given)

CR of monster changes with power of monster changes with caster level of SLAs changes with CR of monster
CR of monster changes with CR of monster
Caster level of SLAs changes with Caster level of SLAs

Example:
Take a monster with abilities amounting to CR 10, and add an SLA/PLA.
The SLA has a caster level of 10, based on CR.
The monster's CR goes up because of the CL 10 SLA.
The SLA's CL goes up because of the CR increase.
The monster's CR goes up because of the CL increase.
Etcetera.

Now, realistically, it's easy to figure this out: for practically all monsters, there are only about 2-3 possible CR/CL pairings you need to review. I still object, on principle, against making any sort of character value depend on CR, preferring to keep CR as ad-hoc judgement for DM use only. Essentially, if a rule would result in a PC needing a CR value, I'd change that rule. Nobody needs to get XP off a PC, thank you very much :smalltongue:.