Transparency rules...

[Sleven]

I see a lot of people recommend using Limited Wish for Psychic Reformation on Sorcerers around here. I've done it myself at tables where such interpretations were allowed.

However, I often found I ran into a problem (even at these liberal tables) when I wanted to continue that allowance through its natural course (e.g. using PrCs or feats like Recaster or Wyrm Wizard to learn Crystal Shard, Touchsight, etc. or Unseen Seer to learn Metafaculty).

Assuming spell = power is part of your transparency rules (beyond just interaction), why don't we see more of people taking this further without having to recommend material like Dragon Magazine's Chameleon Crafting or Mental Pinnacle + Psychic Chirurgery shenannigans? If taken far enough, isn't there grounds for using Psychic Chirurgery as a spell + other powers learned as spells to disseminate all powers as spells?

Just found it interesting that the 1st interpretation was so widely accepted, while the second was not. Thoughts?

[Fizban]

Creating an [effect] in order to duplicate an [effect] of another type is far closer to the stricter readings of transparency than trying to transplant a power onto a spell list when it specifically lacks many required entries for a spell description. Games which allow full magic mart access can simply buy a power stone or hire a psion to use Psychic Reformation anyway, so there's little reason to disallow the Limited Wish dupe except as an inconvenience. Especially when they could have been doing it six levels ago and hundreds of xp cheaper if they actually played a psion or erudite. If the DM has a problem with Psychic Reformation being available, they should probably just ban Psychic Reformation.

In short, it's a reasonable use of Limited Wish, while trying to learn powers as spells is not.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The first is using an existing spell to copy the effect of a power, and is largely covered by the text-- given that you can explicitly copy 4th level spells, using Limited Wish to copy a 4th level power is well in line with "any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects." It's a ruling, perhaps, but not one that requires a great deal of adaptation.

The second is a significantly bigger step because it requires adaptation. A power may be "an effect whose power level is in line" with a spell, but it's not a spell. The equivalence isn't a problem as much as the mechanics-- agreeing that you can turn a power into a spell means actual homebrew and consideration of how scaling works, since powers and spells work differently.

[Sleven]

And here I was hoping that people would say, "under that ruling it does work that way," in order to allay my confusion with their ruling inconsistency. Let's dive into my madness, shall we?

It's always seemed like a pretty inconsistent ruling to me to turn this:

"Duplicate any other spell of 4th level or lower, even if it's of a prohibited school."

Into this:

"Duplicate any other spell or power of 4th level or lower, even if it's of a prohibited school."

Without allowing a similar conversion for this:

"choose a spell up to one level lower than the highest-level spell you can cast from any class's spell list. You can add this spell to the spell list of the same arcane spellcasting class to which you added your increased spellcasting ability at that level."

Just because of a line with little to no rules weight or demarcation like this:

"Produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects"

You don't see people ruling that Bestow Curse can create the effect of equivalent level psionic powers for debuffs, or even equivalent level debuff spells for that matter (otherwise, why learn any others?).

Not to mention the fact that under the transparency rules presented in XPH, spells =/= powers. All transparency rules do is make them interact in most of the ways that matter. This makes the use of Limited Wish to produce a power nowhere near, "in line with the above effects," given that they are all listed as spells. Spells have similar mechanics to one another when casting, while powers do not.

So really, by the book, Limited Wish shouldn't work for Psychic Reformation (most tables I've played at throughout my D&D career say this). But if you were to allow it to, you should also allow it for classes that allow you to learn spells from any class's list, if consistency is also a goal.


The first is using an existing spell to copy the effect of a power, and is largely covered by the text-- given that you can explicitly copy 4th level spells, using Limited Wish to copy a 4th level power is well in line with "any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects." It's a ruling, perhaps, but not one that requires a great deal of adaptation.

As mentioned previously, not following the logic here.


The second is a significantly bigger step because it requires adaptation. A power may be "an effect whose power level is in line" with a spell, but it's not a spell. The equivalence isn't a problem as much as the mechanics-- agreeing that you can turn a power into a spell means actual homebrew and consideration of how scaling works, since powers and spells work differently.

This makes my point though, doesn't it? Because I can just as easily cast powers like Crystal Shard with Limited Wish by your interpretation and run into the same conversion problems. It's "homebrew" either way, and the argument presented here just makes it seem like a matter of degree. Psychic Reformation seems to be the more acceptable "homebrew" for you (and others), which is the source of my confusion on this issue.

Which brings me back to my larger point: I see too many awkward rulings on transparency, even when people claim they're by the book. An example of such would be people allowing Reserves of Strength or Arcane Mastery to be taken by Psions. It's as if they don't understand what the Psionic Mastery feat is there for. If caster level converts, then why can't they take Metamagic feats? Just because one conversion is easy doesn't mean caster level suddenly becomes manifester level when and where you want it to. Just because they interact doesn't mean boosting one also boosts the other. Yes, I'm fully aware the transparency rules have made allowances for magic items, but not for feats.

All I'm really saying is: if people are going to expand transparency, why not be consistent about it?

[Nifft]

Just because of a line with little to no rules weight or demarcation like this:

"Produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" That line does have rules weight.

AFAICT, it's the only thing allowing a Psionic power to be duplicated.


You don't see people ruling that Bestow Curse can create the effect of equivalent level psionic powers for debuffs, or even equivalent level debuff spells for that matter (otherwise, why learn any others?). http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/bestowCurse.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/insanity.htm

Bestow Curse can already create the effect of a lower-level Insanity.


Not to mention the fact that under the transparency rules presented in XPH, spells =/= powers. All transparency rules do is make them interact in most of the ways that matter. This makes the use of Limited Wish to produce a power nowhere near, "in line with the above effects," given that they are all listed as spells. Spells have similar mechanics to one another when casting, while powers do not.

So really, by the book, Limited Wish shouldn't work for Psychic Reformation (most tables I've played at throughout my D&D career say this). But if you were to allow it to, you should also allow it for classes that allow you to learn spells from any class's list, if consistency is also a goal. There's no consistency problem.

"Produce any other effect" means non-spells are included.

"Learn a spell" means only spells.



That said, there's no real problem with prohibiting Limited Wish from being able to produce the effect of a Psionic power. It's not the usual reading of the rules, but it's not going to break anything. You'll want to be sure you tell PCs what retraining / rebuilding options are available so they know that they aren't stone-walled or crippled by this prohibition.

[Sleven]

That line does have rules weight.

AFAICT, it's the only thing allowing a Psionic power to be duplicated.

No, that's your assumption of it's function. It's undefined and up to the table.


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/bestowCurse.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/insanity.htm

Bestow Curse can already create the effect of a lower-level Insanity.

Really? There's no consistency here. They are functionally different and nowhere near equal in level.


There's no consistency problem.

"Produce any other effect" means non-spells are included.

"Learn a spell" means only spells.

There absolutely is a consistency problem. As Grod mentioned (and is part of my larger point) spells don't convert to powers nicely. Their effects vary widely based on augmentation. Because they are so mechanically different (in that a 1st level power can be the equivalent of a 9th level spell by putting extra PP into it), their effects can never be equivalent without a ruling from the table on what those equivalencies are.

[Grod_The_Giant]

There's a world of difference between saying "a power is analogous to a spell" and "a power is interchangeable with a spell."

[Nifft]

No, that's your assumption of it's function. It's undefined and up to the table. Apparently, it's sufficiently well defined for most people. :xykon: Make of that what you will.


Really? There's no consistency here. They are functionally different and nowhere near equal in level. "Lose your action 50% of the time" => 3rd level effect.

"Lose your action 90% of the time" => 7th level effect.

Ba-da-boom.


There absolutely is a consistency problem. As Grod mentioned (and is part of my larger point) spells don't convert to powers nicely. Their effects vary widely based on augmentation. Because they are so mechanically different (in that a 1st level power can be the equivalent of a 9th level spell by putting extra PP into it), their effects can never be equivalent without a ruling from the table on what those equivalencies are. You seem to have figured out exactly how to make the effect consistent -- spoiler: it's by measuring total PP expended rather than only looking at the base power level -- yet instead of doing something productive with that knowledge, you're trying to use it to demonstrate a lack of consistency. Thus you must know quite well how to measure whether a psionic effect's "power level is in line with the above effects".

What a puzzle.

It's almost like you already have an answer which you want to justify, and you're going to ignore everything contradictory in pursuit of the conclusion.

[Sleven]

There's a world of difference between saying "a power is analogous to a spell" and "a power is interchangeable with a spell."

A power has to be interchangeable with a spell in order to work under Limited Wish. Powers aren't interchangeable with spells. You seem to think a power only has to be analogous to a spell to work with Limited Wish. But, if one were to rule that they only had to be analogous, then other conversions should work if consistency is a concern. There's also the underlying problem with all this, in that powers are only a limited analogue. Due to augmentations, they break when it comes to spell levels, which is what Limited Wish is based on. There is no analogue between a fourth level power (or lower) that's scalable (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/dominatePsionic.htm) and a spell that is static (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm).

That pretty much sums it up for me.

[Nifft]

A power has to be interchangeable with a spell in order to work under Limited Wish. Powers aren't interchangeable with spells. You seem to think a power only has to be analogous to a spell to work with Limited Wish. But, if one were to rule that they only had to be analogous, then other conversions should work if consistency is a concern. There's also the underlying problem with all this, in that powers are only a limited analogue. Due to augmentations, they break when it comes to spell levels, which is what Limited Wish is based on. There is no analogue between a fourth level power (or lower) that's scalable (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/dominatePsionic.htm) and a spell that is static (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm).

That pretty much sums it up for me.

By default, power effects are interchangeable with spell effects.

Shatter Mind Blank works on an active Mind Blank power or an active Mind Blank spell.

Protection from Energy: Fire works on a Fireball or an Energy Ball: Fire.

[Sleven]

By default, power effects are interchangeable with spell effects.

Shatter Mind Blank works on an active Mind Blank power or an active Mind Blank spell.

Protection from Energy: Fire works on a Fireball or an Energy Ball: Fire.

You're examples are all interaction-based. That's not what this discussion is about.

A more apt example for this thread would be the fact that a 20d6 (or more) damage ranged touch attack is not in line with a 5d8 damage ranged touch attack.

[Grod_The_Giant]

A power has to be interchangeable with a spell in order to work under Limited Wish.
No, it doesn't. It's not slipping in under the "any other spell of 4th level or lower" clause, it's under the "any other effect of similar power" bit. You evaluate the effect holistically and make a judgment call.

[Sleven]

No, it doesn't. It's not slipping in under the "any other spell of 4th level or lower" clause, it's under the "any other effect of similar power" bit. You evaluate the effect holistically and make a judgment call.

Funnily enough, I'm not contesting the "any other effect of similar power" line in Limited Wish. I think it should be able to do that in creative ways, and some of the DM bargaining that goes on with a spell like that is one of the reasons why it's fun. What I am contesting, is that powers are a valid example of "effects of similar power" in a game that is attempting to play as close to RAW as possible. So I suppose we must agree to disagree. I just don't see how something infinitely scalable is of similar power to something that is capped (per rules as written). Obviously very little in D&D is balanced.

I don't want to make it seem like I don't understand your side of the argument either from a judgement standpoint, because I have played with Limited Wish that way a number of times before. The implications of any such ruling just tend to get out of hand at some of the tables I've played at, since they tend to be high-op. At these tables, seemingly simple or "common sense/agreement" rulings can get out of hand when there's no clear boundary.