Create Astral Construct Ruling

[alex1g]

One of the players is arguing that Complete Astral Construct power in the 3.5 Complete Psionic book is an errata and not an update. His argument is that the primary 3.0 from the Psionic Handbook description of this the one to go to cause of the two different descriptions.
WoTC website: Errata Rule: Primary Sources When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.
His argument is that since there's a confusion on these two versions that then the Primary Source rule comes into effect.
My argument is that this is not an ERRATA this is an UPDATE from 3.0 to 3.5. They specifically nerfs this power.
What do you guys think?

[Venger]

it wasn't an update from 3.0 to 3.5. the xph is 3.5, as is cpsi.

cpsi did nerf astral construct along with a lot of other powers. many circles don't use their nerfs since they are pretty universally agreed upon as unnecessary, but if you're talking about strict RAW, then they are technically the most up to date versions.

[Sleven]

Since it's freely available on the web, I believe I'm able to provide a full quote of it:


Player's Handbook v.3.5 Errata
Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

My understanding of the debate is that, since the Expanded Psionics Handbook is the primary source for 3.5 psionics, only Errata for the Expanded Psionics Handbook has the authority to change rules in the Expanded Psionics Handbook while Complete Psionic does not.

[Venger]

yes, that is correct. this is the rationale most people use for not using cpsi's nerfs

[Telok]

yes, that is correct. this is the rationale most people use for not using cpsi's nerfs

My rationale has always been that CPsi is 80% rubbish, 10% 'heck no' action and pp economy busting extra power, and I'm not bothering to wade through all the crap to find the last 10% that might be useful.

[Uckleverry]

Since it's freely available on the web, I believe I'm able to provide a full quote of it:

My understanding of the debate is that, since the Expanded Psionics Handbook is the primary source for 3.5 psionics, only Errata for the Expanded Psionics Handbook has the authority to change rules in the Expanded Psionics Handbook while Complete Psionic does not.

"Authority" is such a weird word to use in this case. If the DM and the group agrees with the CPsi changes, then those are "authorized". If the group as a whole doesn't agree with the XPH errata, then those aren't "authorized" for their game.

[Anymage]

CPSi, page 65, explicitly says that any powers reprinted in it from XPH are updates. RAW, it's pretty clear and unambiguous.

Although in practice, while I wouldn't use 3.0 material when there's a 3.5 update, CPsi is garbage enough to avoid using it. Luckily, the XPH updates are also available for free online (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm). You might need a little work on the character, but they're better than 3.0's model of every stat being a casting stat.

[Nifft]

WotC does not seem to ever print alternate versions of Core material with the intention of selling errata.

If that was the intent of C.Psi, then they did a weird and confusing thing.


Note that I don't think Complete Psionic was a good book, so I'm pretty happy to ignore it almost entirely -- there are neither Ardents nor Lurks nor Divine Minds in my games, for example, because those classes seem poorly written.

IMHO the correct version of Astral Construct is this one, in the 3.5e SRD: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/astralConstruct.htm

[Zanos]

yes, that is correct. this is the rationale most people use for not using cpsi's nerfs
That same ruling applied consistently also invalidates any other book that updated previously printed 3.5 content, like SpC, MIC, and RC.

And of course there's always the good old "There are 11 base classes" line in the 3.5 PHB, which is the primary source on classes. So other books can't contradict that by adding more.

Primary Source arguments are bad arguments, especially because there's no official index. You could just as easily say that while XPH is the primary source for psionics overall, Complete Psionics is the "Primary Source" for rules regarding individual powers.

If you don't like CPsi don't use CPsi, but don't build an argument that breaks a good number of books and completely invalidates RC. And I'm playing a Psion in OPs campaign.

[edathompson2]

That same ruling applied consistently also invalidates any other book that updated previously printed 3.5 content, like SpC, MIC, and RC.

And of course there's always the good old "There are 11 base classes" line in the 3.5 PHB, which is the primary source on classes. So other books can't contradict that by adding more.

Primary Source arguments are bad arguments, especially because there's no official index. You could just as easily say that while XPH is the primary source for psionics overall, Complete Psionics is the "Primary Source" for rules regarding individual powers.

If you don't like CPsi don't use CPsi, but don't build an argument that breaks a good number of books and completely invalidates RC. And I'm playing a Psion in OPs campaign.

So use 5th edition rules. Since it's an update to 3.0.

[Zanos]

So use 5th edition rules. Since it's an update to 3.0.
5th edition isn't an update to 3.0.

[Sleven]

That same ruling applied consistently also invalidates any other book that updated previously printed 3.5 content, like SpC, MIC, and RC.

And of course there's always the good old "There are 11 base classes" line in the 3.5 PHB, which is the primary source on classes. So other books can't contradict that by adding more.

Primary Source arguments are bad arguments, especially because there's no official index. You could just as easily say that while XPH is the primary source for psionics overall, Complete Psionics is the "Primary Source" for rules regarding individual powers.

If you don't like CPsi don't use CPsi, but don't build an argument that breaks a good number of books and completely invalidates RC. And I'm playing a Psion in OPs campaign.

The problem with this argument is that it's entirely based on a selective reading of the rules using your own interpretation (you willfully ignored the section of the player handbook that allows for character race, class, etc. customization, page 110). It attempts to incite people to agree with you because it sounds shocking (they don't want to play the game with only 11 classes!), but it doesn't change the fact that it's a factually incorrect argument.

Nowhere in the PHB does it say there are only 11 base classes. In fact, the closest thing I can find is on page 21, "The eleven class, in the order they're presented in this chapter, are as follows:". So there's eleven classes in the PHB, but I don't see where it says that number is exclusive.

Furthermore, most primary source books allow for the addition of classes, feats, items, abilities, etc. (as I mentioned earlier with the PHB) and provide guidelines for doing so. I haven't seen a primary source that says new things cannot be made. Heck, they even allow the core rules of how the game works to be changed, but it explicitly notes that these fall under rule 0, and are house rules.

You also seem to be under the impression that rules and books become useless/irrelevant only under primary source rules. That's also factually incorrect. Just as many (if not more) rules get disregarded when you don't follow primary source rules. For example, a significant number of prestige classes, feats, abilities, and other features/functions of primary and non-primary sources become non-functional by not following primary source rules and using a rules system based on the recency (and purported authority) of newer books.

My understanding of the primary source rules created by Wizards of the Coast has been that it followed this order of operations:

For Players: PHB Errata > PHB > Compendiums > All other books pretty much equal, with most of their actual rules only applying to that specific book > Adventure paths

For Monsters: MMI Errata > MMI > Compendiums > All other books pretty much equal, with most of their actual rules only applying to that specific book > Adventure paths

For General Rules (not addressed by PHB or MMI): DMG Errata > DMG > Compendiums > All other books pretty much equal, with most of their actual rules only applying to that specific book > Adventure paths

(I will admit that I cribbed some of the wording of this past Compendiums from users like Emperor Tippy)


Keep in mind, this does not prohibit the creation of new classes, features, or abilities or the clarification of rules where there are none like Zanos would have you believe. It doesn't mean books like the Rules Compendium are entirely useless. It merely prevents the core rules/spells/items/etc. for playing the game from being changed short of house rules or errata. There are plenty of rules, spells, items, etc. changed by Compendiums (especially when it comes to campaign specific sources). There are also plenty of rules that are clarified by the Compendiums where no rule/clarification existed. In fact, most of the content in the Compendiums is a reprint of preexisting rules, spells, etc. They don't change a thing. However, where they do (and when it contradicts a primary source) they are to be considered incorrect. That doesn't mean you throw out the entire book.

Why did Wizards of the Coast find it necessary to create the primary source rules? Because it's nearly impossible for later books (particularly ones being published at the same time) to account for all possible rules in previous (and currently unpublished) books and understand exactly how they would/would not be impacting those rules.

Whether you like it or not, primary source rules are Wizards of the Coast's offical stance on how the rules work.

Does this mean you shouldn't allow new rules or house rules that disagree with primary source rules? No. Play the game how you want. It's about fun. But you also shouldn't say your campaign follows RAW if it doesn't adhere to Wizard's official primary source rules.


My recommendation to the DM would be to make or use whatever rules you want to follow. If you say there can only be one astral construct at a time, there can only be one astral construct at a time. Simple as that, you are the DM. However, I would also recommend trying to be consistent or creating a list of all your house rules so players aren't surprised when rules don't work as written.

[Zanos]

The problem with this argument is that it's entirely based on a selective reading of the rules using your own interpretation (you willfully ignored the section of the player handbook that allows for character race, class, etc. customization, page 110). It attempts to incite people to agree with you because it sounds shocking (they don't want to play the game with only 11 classes!), but it doesn't change the fact that it's a factually incorrect argument.
Well, yeah, because it is shocking. Under your logic WoTC can write in CPsi "Hey guys, this is an explicit update of a previously written thing, use this instead", and you say "Ah, but you didn't grant yourself authority to update your own thing!"

That's stupid.

[Nifft]

Well, yeah, because it is shocking. Under your logic WoTC can write in CPsi "Hey guys, this is an explicit update of a previously written thing, use this instead", and you say "Ah, but you didn't grant yourself authority to update your own thing!"

That's stupid.

I dunno, I mean, WotC can and did make mistakes.

Do you think the Swordsage gets (6+Int) x 6 skill points at level 1?

IMHO that sort of slavish adherence to blatant rules-violations is nothing but willful blindness.

That's willfully stupid.

[Zanos]

I dunno, I mean, WotC can and did make mistakes.

Do you think the Swordsage gets (6+Int) x 6 skill points at level 1?

IMHO that sort of slavish adherence to blatant rules-violations is nothing but willful blindness.

That's willfully stupid.
Slavish adherence applies more to primary source evangelists than anything I've said.

[Nifft]

Slavish adherence applies more to primary source evangelists than anything I've said.

Stupid applies more to Complete Psionic than anything in this thread.

[Zanos]

Stupid applies more to Complete Psionic than anything in this thread.
Hey, I didn't say I liked that book. I'm playing a psionic character, after all.

[Segev]

While there is often value in trying to discern the One True RAW, this is not one of those cases. Since there are two options with no ambiguity over umpteen variants or the like, we can simply preface any discussion with a comment as to whether this rule change to Astral Construct is in play or not. If people are wedded to one position or the other, they're unlikely to be swayed. Just set it for a given discussion.

As to the OP, it's probably a needless nerf, in my opinion. I would not try to argue whether it is errata or an optional rule-change, and instead discuss with your table whether it should be used at your table.

[Sleven]

It attempts to incite people to agree with you because it sounds shocking (they don't want to play the game with only 11 classes!), but it doesn't change the fact that it's a factually incorrect argument. [...]

Well, yeah, because it is shocking.

Okay, so you're unwilling to address the fact that all of your "shocking" supporting arguments were proven to be nonsense you just made up (per the rest of my post). Yet you reuse the word "shocking" like it still has meaning?

It doesn't.


Under your logic WoTC can write in CPsi "Hey guys, this is an explicit update of a previously written thing, use this instead", and you say "Ah, but you didn't grant yourself authority to update your own thing!"

No. My personal recommendation (understood to be my logic) was that the DM rule as they think best (which, ironically, is Wizards of the Coast's most consistent rule). But I also made that recommendation with the caveat that the DM be transparent and/or consistent about where and how they intend to apply the rules (if at all).

The rest of my post was applying WotC's own rules to their own source material, mostly to debunk the false information you tried to peddle as fact.


Slavish adherence applies more to primary source evangelists than anything I've said.

I like your use of the words "slavish" and "evangelist". Especially when your entire point of view on WotC's primary source rules seems to be incapable of incorporating new information about how they actually work. Either that, or I have to wonder if the entire point of your posts on the matter has been to intentionally mislead because you don't like primary source rules, and don't think anyone else should either.

If that is indeed the case, I guess we're done here.

[RoboEmperor]

The One True RAW incorporates all 1st party materials, be it books, erratas, and web enhancements including the FAQ. I was against the FAQ at first, but I actually found a few articles that used to be on the wotc website where the original authors of the books specifically say their intent/ruling will be reflected in a sage article.

So to rule that Astral Construct is not limited to 1 at a time without PrCs is to homebrew/houserule.

[Sleven]

The One True RAW incorporates all 1st party materials, be it books, erratas, and web enhancements including the FAQ. I was against the FAQ at first, but I actually found a few articles that used to be on the wotc website where the original authors of the books specifically say their intent/ruling will be reflected in a sage article.

So to rule that Astral Construct is not limited to 1 at a time without PrCs is to homebrew/houserule.

In a perfect world we would be able to rely upon the FAQ and every other source of rules equally, unfortunately, by Wizards of the Coast's own admission on the FAQ page (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a):


(These game rule FAQs do not cover errata found in the errata documents.)

Not to mention the other plethora of rules contradictions made by the writers of the FAQ. So by their own admission, the FAQ doesn't hold as much rules weight as the official errata. It's probably more accurate to describe it as a RAI source. Of course, the folks at rpgstackexchange (the user KRyan, in particular) do a much better/more in-depth job of explaining this (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/60044/what-is-wrong-with-the-dd-3-5-faq) than I currently care to. If you look further down, another user (Hey I Can Chan) creates a short list of known issues where the FAQ explicitly contradicts the rules in WotC's own source material.

[Sagetim]

Just to be clear, the Expanded Psionics Handbook is the primary source for 3.5 dnd. You can just throw out the 3.0 psionic's handbook entirely with regards to the rules (it can still be fun to look through, but anything from it that was carried forward from 3.0 to 3.5, is in Expanded Psionics Handbook). The Expanded Psionics Handbook is related to the Psionics Handbook in the same way that the 3.5 Player's Handbook is related to the 3.0 Player's Handbook.

Then we get to Complete Psionics. To be clear, Complete Psionic is both a rules update and expansion on psionics, building off of the Expanded Psionics Handbook. Now, that doesn't mean that you have to keep the revisions that Complete Psionics does to the powers that it reprints, but that is the intention in the book.

As mentioned, the page 65 paragraph in question:


This chapter presents new and revised psionic powers for psionic characters. Most of the powers in this chapter are new. A handful of them (including astral construct, energy missile, energy stun, hostile empathic transfer, and psionic dimension door) are updated versions of powers from Expanded Psionics Handbook. More than two dozen are updated versions of powers that appeared in various older DUNGEONS & DRAGONS books, collected here in one place for your convenience. This chapter also describes the mantles from which ardents and divine minds choose their powers.


It's rather unambiguous that the powers reprinted are supposed to update and replace those printed in prior sources. In this case, there's pretty much only one source: The Expanded Psionics Handbook.

Good luck and have fun with psionics Zanos.

[Nifft]

So to rule that Astral Construct is not limited to 1 at a time without PrCs is to homebrew/houserule.

Using non-core content is a houserule.

Limiting the game to Core is also a houserule.

D&D can't be played without houserules.

Houserule is not a pejorative.

[Sleven]

Using non-core content is a houserule.

Limiting the game to Core is also a houserule.

D&D can't be played without houserules.

Houserule is not a pejorative.

I could not agree more.

May I sig?

[Nifft]

I could not agree more.

May I sig?

Sure thing.

[RoboEmperor]

Using non-core content is a houserule.

Limiting the game to Core is also a houserule.

D&D can't be played without houserules.

Houserule is not a pejorative.

Did i ever say it's pejorative? Stabilizing dying people by dunking their head in water is RAW. House Ruling so that doesn't work is smart. How is that pejorative?

I disagree with the Astral Construct nerf, and if I were to play a psionic character, i would definitely switch over to Pathfinder since 3.5's psionic content is tiny, on par or possibly even less than Pathfinder's psionic content, and it doesn't have that stupid nerf.

But that doesn't mean I block my ears and go into denial. The One True RAW is clear, Astral Construct is nerfed to 1 at a time, and a DM not abiding by this is house ruling. They're not playing by RAW or even RAI, because the One True RAI is unambiguously clear here too. They wanted to nerf Astral Construct for god knows why, but they wanted to, and the intent is clear.

edit: I forgot to mention the FAQ.

It is true that I have 0 respect for the FAQ. Their entry on thought bottle was "NO! It's too strong! It wasn't meant for that!" without even talking about how rules work. But that doesn't deny the fact that original authors of the books did order the FAQ writers to write their clarifications/changes. Yes some of it contradicts the erratas, that's just wotc being a horrible mess, but if original authors used the FAQ to relay their will, I have no choice but to recognize its legitimacy.

[Nifft]

Did i ever say it's pejorative? Stabilizing dying people by dunking their head in water is RAW. House Ruling so that doesn't work is smart. How is that pejorative? Because that's what it means when you frame a counter-argument in those terms.

However, the frame that you're trying to use is a false binary. If you use the FAQ, you're using it based on your local ruling (a "house ruling"). If you don't use the FAQ, you're doing so based on a local ruling.

WotC cannot break into your house and force you to buy all their supplements (and this is exactly why 4e failed). If you don't own Complete Psionic, then you have chosen wisely-- er, then you can't use it, and it's not a rational position to assert that you must use the contents of a book you don't have.



But that doesn't mean I block my ears and go into denial. The One True RAW is clear, Astral Construct is nerfed to 1 at a time, and a DM not abiding by this is house ruling.

That's the same false binary.

Watch this:

- "A DM who allows Unearthed Arcana content in her game is making a house ruling."

Now consider:

- "A DM who allows Complete Psionic content in her game is making a house ruling."

Both of these statements are true.

[RoboEmperor]

Because that's what it means when you frame a counter-argument in those terms.

However, the frame that you're trying to use is a false binary. If you use the FAQ, you're using it based on your local ruling (a "house ruling"). If you don't use the FAQ, you're doing so based on a local ruling.

WotC cannot break into your house and force you to buy all their supplements (and this is exactly why 4e failed). If you don't own Complete Psionic, then you have chosen wisely-- er, then you can't use it, and it's not a rational position to assert that you must use the contents of a book you don't have.




That's the same false binary.

Watch this:

- "A DM who allows Unearthed Arcana content in her game is making a house ruling."

Now consider:

- "A DM who allows Complete Psionic content in her game is making a house ruling."

Both of these statements are true.

My argument is:

- "A DM that doesn't allow all source books, web enhancements, erratas, any 1st party content, is house ruling"

Now people can argue whether Dragon Magazine or Unearthed Arcana is part of the One True RAW or not, same with the FAQ, but intentionally excluding source materials because either you don't have it, you didn't read it, or because you don't like it, is house ruling.

It's like buying a game with 100 DLCs, but for your local LAN tournament, or 3rd party online tournament, you exclude 10 DLCs for whatever reason, don't update to the most recent patch, and you add in a few mods to the game. The One True Version of the game (a.k.a. Official Version) is the latest version of the game with all DLCs, updates, and no Mods, and the local tournament or the 3rd party tournament without all DLCs, updates, and with Mods is an unofficial "house rule" version. Even if the house rule version is more popular and better, it's still an unofficial version, and some close minded people will call those players cheaters for using mods.

[Nifft]

My argument is:

- "A DM that doesn't allow all source books, web enhancements, erratas, any 1st party content, is house ruling"

Now people can argue whether Dragon Magazine or Unearthed Arcana is part of the One True RAW or not, same with the FAQ, but intentionally excluding source materials because either you don't have it, you didn't read it, or because you don't like it, is house ruling.

That's half-true.

The other half, which is also true, is:

- "A DM that allows any particular source books, web enhancements, errata, etc. is house ruling."


The act of adding, or declining to add, any particular source is a house ruling.

The house stands supreme over all rules, because the house is what allows the other rules to enter the game.

[RoboEmperor]

That's half-true.

The other half, which is also true, is:

- "A DM that allows any particular source books, web enhancements, errata, etc. is house ruling."


The act of adding, or declining to add, any particular source is a house ruling.

The house stands supreme over all rules, because the house is what allows the other rules to enter the game.

I get your point, I do. d&d is designed so you choose what books are in and what books are out. It is also designed for every DM to make their own unique version of the game by mix-matching a **** ton of variant rules. But people like me believe there is a true "official version" of the game where all material is in, and in that version astral construct must be limited to 1 at a time. If playing a game that is different from this theoretical "official version" doesn't bother you, then everything I am saying is meaningless, but if you do care then there really is no way to exclude complete psi's nerfs.

[Nifft]

I get your point, I do. d&d is designed so you choose what books are in and what books are out. It is also designed for every DM to make their own unique version of the game by mix-matching a **** ton of variant rules. But people like me believe there is a true "official version" of the game where all material is in

That's just the thing, though.

If you include Complete Psionic, there are two official versions.

There's the version in the XPH, which has published errata (get it here (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata)), and you can see that the Astral construct creature got two errata-edits.

That is the official errata for the Expanded Psionics Handbook.

The version in the SRD is official.

If you house-rule your game to also allow Complete Psionic, then you have two official versions. You must then house-rule which of those two is applicable in your game.

[RoboEmperor]

That's just the thing, though.

If you include Complete Psionic, there are two official versions.

There's the version in the XPH, which has published errata (get it here (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata)), and you can see that the Astral construct creature got two errata-edits.

That is the official errata for the Expanded Psionics Handbook.

The version in the SRD is official.

If you house-rule your game to also allow Complete Psionic, then you have two official versions. You must then house-rule which of those two is applicable in your game.

I don't see a conflict in including both XPH errata and Complete Psionic. If there is I guess you can argue which is valid and which is not, but if your argument is "Errata updated it so Complete Psi can't update it" then....

I am not very "experienced" with psionics so if you say there is a conflict, then I will agree with you.

[Nifft]

I don't see a conflict in including both XPH errata and Complete Psionic. If there is I guess you can argue which is valid and which is not, but if your argument is "Errata updated it so Complete Psi can't update it" then....

I am not very "experienced" with psionics so if you say there is a conflict, then I will agree with you.

It's got nothing to do with Psionics.

It's about the procedure by which rules get updated.

If you want to change the contents of a Core book, you do so via errata.

The official errata exists, and it didn't modify the astral construct power, so the version in the XPH is official.

You can bring up the way that Complete Psionic disagrees, and all that'll get you is: sure, if you want to use that, then you can use that. It's at most equally official. It is not in any way more official.

[sorcererlover]

You can bring up the way that Complete Psionic disagrees, and all that'll get you is: sure, if you want to use that, then you can use that. It's at most equally official. It is not in any way more official.

I think he's asking why can't you use both. Add in XPH's changes and Complete Psi's changes.