Stacking Like Metapsionics

[Zombulian]

Ok guys, quick question.
I know that you can’t apply the same metamagic feat more than once to the same spell. As seen here

Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell
A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative. You can’t apply the same metamagic feat more than once to a single spell.

I cannot, however, find any evidence that this rule applies to metapsionics. The only limitation seems to be that you have to expend your focus and expend the requisite number of power points (to a maximum of your ML). So, is this true? Could a level 5 Psion with Psicrystal Containment theoretically manifest a double empowered energy ray?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

You have the right of it. You can apply multiples of the same metapsionic feat so long as you spend enough foci and power points. Every other metamagic-type feat specifies only one, except metapsionics. (And maybe metabreath? Not sure.) It's never mentioned once in all of the psionic books printed for 3.5. They have other limits.

But many metapsionic feats don't work well applied multiple times, such as Maximize and Quicken. Empower, Extend, and Linked Power, however...

[Anthrowhale]

Metabreath allows unlimited stacking of most feats as far as I know.

[Segev]

Stacking metapsionic feats is made a lot harder in general by the need to expend psi focus for each you're activating.

[Zombulian]

Stacking metapsionic feats is made a lot harder in general by the need to expend psi focus for each you're activating.

Right, so in general it seems you’re limited to 2 per manifestation.

With that cleared up, I have a related question regarding Metapower. Is the feat’s pp reduction a flat adjustment, or is it applied for every time you apply the Metapsionic? Taking the Empower Power example, if you expended your Psionic Focus twice, would the PP cost stay the same as an unaltered (because +2 then -2 then +2 then -2 again)?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Stacking metapsionic feats is made a lot harder in general by the need to expend psi focus for each you're activating.There's at least one way I know of to bypass this for one mantle of your choice. The ardent's 10th level dominant ideal (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070629a) (preferably combined with substitute mantle, from the same page) allows you to use any amount of metapsionic feats you like on one mantle without expending your focus. It also gives you a -2 reduction in pp costs for doing so. Note that if you combine this with Metapower, you can apply Empower any number of times you like, adding +150% damage to it each time. Enlarge can do something similar for infinite range.

[Zombulian]

There's at least one way I know of to bypass this for one mantle of your choice. The ardent's 10th level dominant ideal (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070629a) (preferably combined with substitute mantle, from the same page) allows you to use any amount of metapsionic feats you like on one mantle without expending your focus. It also gives you a -2 reduction in pp costs for doing so. Note that if you combine this with Metapower, you can apply Empower any number of times you like, adding +150% damage to it each time. Enlarge can do something similar for infinite range.

Why would you need to combine with Metapower for this trick? Empower only costs an extra 2pp. Unless you mean that Metapower is applying to each application of Empower?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Why would you need to combine with Metapower for this trick? Empower only costs an extra 2pp. Unless you mean that Metapower is applying to each application of Empower?I was thinking back about another conversation about this I had online, and I was talking about Widen then so you can energy blast everything. Everything.

I guess I wasn't thinking about the pp cost difference and just 'ported it over to here.

[RoboEmperor]

Ok so if I'm reading this correctly, you can manifest Extended Extended Astral Construct for 4rounds/ML right? Because there is no rule saying you can't apply the same metapsionic feat twice on the same power. And time multipliers in d&d stack multiplicatively because it's a real-world term.

[Pippin]

That's one advantage manifesters have over spellcasters yes. But if your main focus is extended Astral Constructs, just go Constructor 5 really.

[RoboEmperor]

That's one advantage manifesters have over spellcasters yes. But if your main focus is extended Astral Constructs, just go Constructor 5 really.

One is available at level 3 and the other is available at level 11.

[Pippin]

One is available at level 3 and the other is available at level 11.
Have you even read the entry?

Extended Construction: At 5th level, astral constructs manifested by the constructor have a duration of 1 minute per manifester level instead of their normal duration. This ability is active only when the constructor has psionic focus.
Which can be extended to 2 minutes per manifester level if you expend your psicrystal's focus.

[Menzath]

Ok so if I'm reading this correctly, you can manifest Extended Extended Astral Construct for 4rounds/ML right? Because there is no rule saying you can't apply the same metapsionic feat twice on the same power. And time multipliers in d&d stack multiplicatively because it's a real-world term.


Every time I have found a multiplier increase in 3.5 it has always been additive, the only exception being magic item creation costs.

In fact let me quote rules compendium pg.5


Multiplying
Sometimes a special rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll. When two or more multipliers apply to any abstract value such as die roll modifiers, combine them into a single multiple, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. Thus, a double (×2) and a double (×2) applied to the same number results in a triple (×3, because 2 + 1 = 3). Three doubles results in a quadruple (×4 because 2 + 1 + 1 = 4). When applying multipliers to what are considered real-world values (such as weight or distance), the normal rules of math apply instead.

And yes in dnd time is not a real-world value, because real life does not happen in rounds.

So extend twice would make it 3rounds/ml, a minor difference, I know, but anything to make less books fly at tables.

[RoboEmperor]

Every time I have found a multiplier increase in 3.5 it has always been additive, the only exception being magic item creation costs.

In fact let me quote rules compendium pg.5



And yes in dnd time is not a real-world value, because real life does not happen in rounds.

So extend twice would make it 3rounds/ml, a minor difference, I know, but anything to make less books fly at tables.

If the duration of a power was 1min/level, would your answer change? If so then I really don't see why you would differentiate between 6 seconds and a round.


Have you even read the entry?

Which can be extended to 2 minutes per manifester level if you expend your psicrystal's focus.

Not doubting its awesomeness, but you get it way too late for me to care about it.

[Menzath]

If the duration of a power was 1min/level, would your answer change? If so then I really don't see why you would differentiate between 6 seconds and a round.

My answer would not change, because in dnd ft=ft, meters=meters ilbs=ilbs
But 1min=10rounds.
1hr= 600rounds.

Even though you can get durations on a spell to equal a real world value time, in dnd it is still converted to rounds, a non-real world value.

[Rebel7284]

There isn't and won't ever be consensus on if duration uses real-world math or D&D math.

[Buufreak]

Multiplying
Sometimes a special rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll. When two or more multipliers apply to any abstract value such as die roll modifiers, combine them into a single multiple, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple.

Emphasis mine. Time, as a metric unit of measurement, isn't abstract. It is in fact very concrete. Therefore, the whole "sometimes" and "abstract value" qualifiers that are used for this rule are not met, and thusly do not apply.

[RoboEmperor]

There isn't and won't ever be consensus on if duration uses real-world math or D&D math.

Nah. Time and duration are real world values. Rounds is merely units, like minutes or hours. What Menzath is saying is that because d&d created a new time unit called rounds it is no longer time. You see how he converted minutes into rounds and claimed the two are different things when they're interchangeable?

[Menzath]

Yeah, it might just be me, but I'm under the impression that because dnd created a new non-real world value of time, all real world values of time can/will be converted to this unit for game purposes (i.e. durations of anything and combat) and should be used as such.
But to each their own. Guess it's something to check with your DM from now on, along with everything else from the rules dysfunction page.

[Buufreak]

It still wouldn't matter because a round isn't an abstract value. It is well defined and a static value, measurable in exact units. A round to me, a round to you, and a round to someone else are all exactly identical, unlike something like a strength modifier applied to a dice based damage roll.

[Menzath]

It still wouldn't matter because a round isn't an abstract value. It is well defined and a static value, measurable in exact units. A round to me, a round to you, and a round to someone else are all exactly identical, unlike something like a strength modifier applied to a dice based damage roll.

Yes, and no. What happens when time stop or a planar Shepard comes into play?
Rounds are no longer an equally measured between characters.
Just because we have a RL abstract conversion of a game unit, doesn't make it a RL abstract. At least that's my contention.
I mean, just look at the emerald dream setup. Free re-do's of an insane amount of time.

And just because something is a well defined unit does not make it a RL value, even if it can be converted to such. Actions happen in rounds, not in seconds. Overland movement might happen in RL time, but otherwise all other movement is considered to happen in a round per round state.

Again, this is how I view it, and others won't always see things the same way I do, and vice versa. I mean the game uses RL rules for the speed at which things fall(barring magic or other anomalies) but uses special rules for how those falling things hurt others.
In the case of time, the game uses rounds, which can be converted to standard concepts of time in order to feel "normal".

So I guess what I am arguing is that even though dnd makes heavy references to real world time, it isn't actually used, because everything technically happens in rounds, or actions within rounds. It really is odd that once things happen faster than per round, it switches to actions, so in dnd there is no measurement of time lower than 6secs. So dnd time=\= RL time value in that sense.

And that's why I think time values in dnd are not a real world value and should be treated as such.

[Segev]

Er, no. Rounds are not hard to understand. Nor are actions. That said, the "doubled doubling" rule applies because it is applying a doubling twice when you apply Extend twice. If you were changing the base duration then extending it, you'd double the changed base duration. But if you're extending it and extending it again, you're just adding another instance.

Sorry if that bursts any bubbles.

Is Persist Power not available? I don't recall if that exists.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The weird "D&D math" doesn't apply to real world values like time and distance. A round is a unit of a real-world value (ie, time), and thus a doubled doubling is a quadrupling. "Doubled doubling is a tripling" applies to things like damage dice that are not real-world values.

The relevant passage can be found here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#Multiplying).


Multiplying
Sometimes a rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll. As long as you’re applying a single multiplier, multiply the number normally. When two or more multipliers apply to any abstract value (such as a modifier or a die roll), however, combine them into a single multiple, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. Thus, a double (×2) and a double (×2) applied to the same number results in a triple (×3, because 2 + 1 = 3).

When applying multipliers to real-world values (such as weight or distance), normal rules of math apply instead. A creature whose size doubles (thus multiplying its weight by 8) and then is turned to stone (which would multiply its weight by a factor of roughly 3) now weighs about 24 times normal, not 10 times normal. Similarly, a blinded creature attempting to negotiate difficult terrain would count each square as 4 squares (doubling the cost twice, for a total multiplier of ×4), rather than as 3 squares (adding 100% twice).
Note that the tripling explicitly affects only abstract stuff (die rolls), and real-world values are explicitly multiplied normally.

[Segev]

The weird "D&D math" doesn't apply to real world values like time and distance. A round is a unit of a real-world value (ie, time), and thus a doubled doubling is a quadrupling. "Doubled doubling is a tripling" applies to things like damage dice that are not real-world values.

The relevant passage can be found here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#Multiplying).


Note that the tripling explicitly affects only abstract stuff (die rolls), and real-world values are explicitly multiplied normally.

Ah, then yes, the second paragraph does explicitly state that time (which is very akin to distance for this purpose) would be multiplied normally. So 2x Extend is 2x(2x duration) for 4x duration.

[Menzath]

I understand why a few are arguing that in dnd time is a real world value, and shouldn't follow dnd's rules for multiplying abstracts is additive, and not multiplicative.

But I would still argue that dnd uses rounds for it's measument of time, which has a conversion to real life time, but is not real life time because a real life time value under a certain amount in dnd does not exist.
They are similar, but not equal.

[Segev]

I understand why a few are arguing that in dnd time is a real world value, and shouldn't follow dnd's rules for multiplying abstracts is additive, and not multiplicative.

But I would still argue that dnd uses rounds for it's measument of time, which has a conversion to real life time, but is not real life time because a real life time value under a certain amount in dnd does not exist.
They are similar, but not equal.

By that argument, distance also would not be in the category of real-world values, because D&D has no distances under 5 ft squares. Sorry, you're fishing for a distinction that isn't there. It's interesting that this actually has a rules difference, though.

[Buufreak]

Further, any argument you've come up with thus far is a case of specific over general. Specifically, time stop alters how rounds work by giving more, but doesn't change the definition of a round. Specifically, a planar shepherd tied to a realm that has different time flow operates differently, but that still doesn't change what a round is.

As stated, you are fishing, and poorly at that.

[Menzath]

By that argument, distance also would not be in the category of real-world values, because D&D has no distances under 5 ft squares. Sorry, you're fishing for a distinction that isn't there. It's interesting that this actually has a rules difference, though.

I do not believe your 5ft square theory works out, cases like bull rushing and creatures of the small, tiny and diminutive categories all have a distinction of being under 5ft. The reason why 5ft is so prevalent is to be used with grid maps. There are rules in dmg for using hex grid and converting 5ftsq grid maps(and vernacular) to work, or even for using no grid map a la mind's eye.

But in dnd there is no time frame under 1 round. And I understand why you would argue time as a real world value in dnd, and as I have said I would still argue against it. Does arguing make me right? As right as anyone else I suppose. But I would argue it none the less.

And buufreak, why I pointed out those specific cases is to showcase that time in dnd, unlike real life, can be altered, changed, and controlled. I would not say I am fishing, rather arguing in what I believe.

[Crichton]

And buufreak, why I pointed out those specific cases is to showcase that time in dnd, unlike real life, can be altered, changed, and controlled. I would not say I am fishing, rather arguing in what I believe.

But as Buu pointed out, none of the specific cases you pointed out actually change what a round is. Manipulating the subjective speed at which someone experiences time doesn't make it an abstract value to change how the rules apply to it. Heck, modern physics can manipulate the subjective speed at which time is experienced in the real world, too. Just go real fast.

As for dnd time, Just because they don't use measures of time less than a round, it doesn't mean they don't express it in normal real-life terms or measure it that way. While the rules text in the Multiplying section didn't choose to use it as an example to illustrate their reference to real-world values, it requires far far fewer mental gymnastics to consider time a real world value. Heck, just look at the two categories:




Which of these two categories does time fit into most simply and easily?

A) real-world values (such as weight or distance)

or

B) abstract value (such as a modifier or a die roll)





Given a lack of any other rules text to specify, it's a pretty massive mental leap to try to fit time into category B, even moreso when you look at the two category definitions side by side...

[Menzath]

But as Buu pointed out, none of the specific cases you pointed out actually change what a round is. Manipulating the subjective speed at which someone experiences time doesn't make it an abstract value to change how the rules apply to it. Heck, modern physics can manipulate the subjective speed at which time is experienced in the real world, too. Just go real fast.

As for dnd time, Just because they don't use measures of time less than a round, it doesn't mean they don't express it in normal real-life terms or measure it that way. While the rules text in the Multiplying section didn't choose to use it as an example to illustrate their reference to real-world values, it requires far far fewer mental gymnastics to consider time a real world value. Heck, just look at the two categories:




Which of these two categories does time fit into most simply and easily?

A) real-world values (such as weight or distance)

or

B) abstract value (such as a modifier or a die roll)





Given a lack of any other rules text to specify, it's a pretty massive mental leap to try to fit time into category B, even moreso when you look at the two category definitions side by side...

I know that how time affects us in real life can be altered, but in dnd it can be made to function completely differently.

On the case of
A) a real life value (time)
And
B) a game abstract value (rounds)

Which would take precedence, true rounds can be measured in time, but a round is not a measurement of time, a round is a distinction of how combat occurs.

Even in the phb description, it says a round represents 6 seconds, not that it is, nor is equal to, but a representation of. That sounds like a game abstract to me.

[Crichton]

I know that how time affects us in real life can be altered, but in dnd it can be made to function completely differently.

On the case of
A) a real life value (time)
And
B) a game abstract value (rounds)

Which would take precedence, true rounds can be measured in time, but a round is not a measurement of time, a round is a distinction of how combat occurs.

Even in the phb description, it says a round represents 6 seconds, not that it is, nor is equal to, but a representation of. That sounds like a game abstract to me.

See my previous comment about requiring mental gymnastics to make it fit your interptation. There's no rules text to specify, and what rules text there is points to it being a real world value, when viewed in the most straightforward way.

[Menzath]

See my previous comment about requiring mental gymnastics to make it fit your interptation. There's no rules text to specify, and what rules text there is points to it being a real world value, when viewed in the most straightforward way.

Mental gymnastics? Doesn't feel that way to me.
Let me throw out some quotes from phb. Pg138.


In the same way, a round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round.

An action’s type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform


So yes, a round is a measurement of time, and is a representation of 6 seconds of real life time.
But, as in the quote is not described as functioning as such. Action types in dnd are a dnd function of time, and how long it takes to do something. Again it's in the first sentence of actions. That action types and rounds = time is what is being stated, that most certainly does not sound like a real world value, even if it can be likened to one.

And it does take a bit of digging, but no more than the time it would take to make average lvl10 build. I wouldn't exactly call that mental gymnastics. Especially with the debates people have had over other rules that have spanned years.

And I know the writers/editors/proof readers of 3/3.5 we not the most concise, but why then the whole conversion of things to rounds, and spell durations in rounds, when they could easily use a real world time, rather than a made up representation?

God after reading extend spell, it's exact words as well are

twice as long as normal
So this whole argument is moot, because it only extends based on it's normal duration regardless.
Edit:yep extend power reads the exact same.

[Pippin]

I must admit that Menzath's point makes a lot of sense too. I don't mean to chime in, I just felt like this wasn't said loudly enough.

[Crichton]

Mental gymnastics? Doesn't feel that way to me.
Let me throw out some quotes from phb. Pg138.





So yes, a round is a measurement of time, and is a representation of 6 seconds of real life time.
But, as in the quote is not described as functioning as such. Action types in dnd are a dnd function of time, and how long it takes to do something. Again it's in the first sentence of actions. That action types and rounds = time is what is being stated, that most certainly does not sound like a real world value, even if it can be likened to one.

And it does take a bit of digging, but no more than the time it would take to make average lvl10 build. I wouldn't exactly call that mental gymnastics. Especially with the debates people have had over other rules that have spanned years.

And I know the writers/editors/proof readers of 3/3.5 we not the most concise, but why then the whole conversion of things to rounds, and spell durations in rounds, when they could easily use a real world time, rather than a made up representation?

Neither of those quotes indicate what you seem to say they do, though. The first literally says a round is a span of time, but that like any span of arbitrary length, the start and end points of where you measure it are relative. The second doesn't say anything about rounds, it says that an action type represents how long the action takes (Well, if you'd put in the rest of the quote, it actually says an action type represents the amount of time it takes to take that action 'within the framework of the 6-second combat round' thus indicating that time is still time, and a round is just an arbitrary measure of time to help break up combat)



On that very same page, a round is described as a 'framework of the 6-second combat round,' a 'span of time' from initiative count to initiative count, an 'opportunity... to take an action,' and of course as '6 seconds in the game world.' From all that, including the quotes you posted, one could make the argument that 'the Round' is an abstraction, but I don't see that you can make the argument from any of that that time itself is an abstraction in-game. Even the round is in multiple places defined and described as a function of real time: '6 seconds in the game world' and 'anything a person could reasonably do in 6 seconds' and 'the 6-second combat round.' If anything, the round is a framework for describing and adjudicating actions inside of combat, but it's not saying that it's replacing time as a real value.






God after reading extend spell, it's exact words as well are

So this whole argument is moot, because it only extends based on it's normal duration regardless.
Edit:yep extend power reads the exact same.



Now that side of things can't be argued with, regardless of how we see time in the game.

[Segev]

Now that side of things can't be argued with, regardless of how we see time in the game.

O Ye of Little Faith: allow me to present an argument.

A normal extended psionic charm lasts for 2 hours per CL, so an extended extended psionic charm lasts for twice as long as 2 hours/level. (Or, if properly augmented, days instead of hours.)



On whether rounds are an abstract concept or not, they represent a unit of time. Time is not an abstract game mechanical concept, like hit points or crit modifiers; time is directly analogous to real-world time, just as distance is directly analogous to real-world distance.

Rounds aren't abstract; they represent time. Hit point are abstract; they represent a wide variety of aspects of what make you not get killed by a given damage source.

[Crichton]

O Ye of Little Faith: allow me to present an argument.

A normal extended psionic charm lasts for 2 hours per CL, so an extended extended psionic charm lasts for twice as long as 2 hours/level. (Or, if properly augmented, days instead of hours.)



I stand corrected. Thank you!



On whether rounds are an abstract concept or not, they represent a unit of time. Time is not an abstract game mechanical concept, like hit points or crit modifiers; time is directly analogous to real-world time, just as distance is directly analogous to real-world distance.

Rounds aren't abstract; they represent time. Hit point are abstract; they represent a wide variety of aspects of what make you not get killed by a given damage source.


Sometimes it just takes someone to come in and be way better able to articulate the thoughts than I am, to make it seem so simple. Thanks again!

[Pippin]

A normal extended psionic charm lasts for 2 hours per CL, so an extended extended psionic charm lasts for twice as long as 2 hours/level. (Or, if properly augmented, days instead of hours.)
I sense some intellectual dishonesty here. Since when is an extended Psionic Charm the normal use of said power?


An extended power lasts twice as long as normal.
The RAW is quite adamant, there's no room for negotiation.

[Segev]

I sense some intellectual dishonesty here. Since when is an extended Psionic Charm the normal use of said power?


The RAW is quite adamant, there's no room for negotiation.

No, the RAW says "than normal." The normal duration for an extended psionic power is twice the duration of an un-extended one.

It all comes down to whether "normal" is strictly applied to the un-augmented power, or if you can have a normal instance of an augmented power.

And you'd better be very careful before you say "normal duration" can only mean the duration of the power with no augmentation. That would mean an Extended Psionic Charm on which you spend 4 pp to augment its duration to 1 day/ML would actually still only last 2 hours/ML, because it changed the duration to 2x the "normal" duration of 1 hour/ML.

The normal duration of a 4pp-augmented Psionic Charm is 1 day/ML, so an Extended [4pp-augmented psionic charm] lasts 2x(1 day/ML).

The normal duration of an extended 4pp-augmented psionic charm is 2 days/ML (i.e. 2x(1 day/ML)), so the duration of an extended [extended 4pp-augmented psionic charm] is 4 days/ML (i.e. 2x(2x(1 day/ML))).

It all comes down to the fact that "normal" means "without this instance of extend used on it." Or, alternatively, it means "whatever I'm adding Extend to would have without the Extend." It can't really mean anything else, unless you start having Extend be generally useless on any psi power that has augmentations for duration.

Heck, I could construct an argument that it sets it to 2x(duration of the power as manifested at level 1), because that's the most normal duration you'll find based on there being more level 1 manifesters than any other level.

[Pippin]

An extended power lasts twice as long as normal.
You can extend an already extended power. It will last twice as long as normal, which was already the case after the first extension. No amount of words will change that.

[Segev]

You can extend an already extended power. It will last twice as long as normal, which was already the case after the first extension. No amount of words will change that.

Yep. It will last twice as long as an extended power normally would. No amount of words will change that.

I get it; you're arguing for a different interpretation. I do understand your position. I just disagree with it, and read the noun to which the adjective "normal" applies to be different than the one you do. You read it to strictly and only apply to the unaugmented, unmetapowered power. I read it to apply to whatever you insert as the argument to Extend ( ).

[Menzath]

Yep. It will last twice as long as an extended power normally would. No amount of words will change that.

I get it; you're arguing for a different interpretation. I do understand your position. I just disagree with it, and read the noun to which the adjective "normal" applies to be different than the one you do. You read it to strictly and only apply to the unaugmented, unmetapowered power. I read it to apply to whatever you insert as the argument to Extend ( ).

The way I read "normal" when referrencing a spells duration though, would be it's printed un-modified duration, not it's extended duration.
By definition when something's normal base value changes, it is no longer normal.

I guess this is another thing to DM rule 0, the definition of normal.

Edit: maybe that's part of the problem with dnd, it was rai written as math, but raw was written as a word puzzle.

[Segev]

The way I read "normal" when referrencing a spells duration though, would be it's printed un-modified duration, not it's extended duration.
By definition when something's normal base value changes, it is no longer normal.

I guess this is another thing to DM rule 0, the definition of normal.

Edit: maybe that's part of the problem with dnd, it was rai written as math, but raw was written as a word puzzle.

The trouble with that definition is that you now have, for example, Extended Psionic Charm lasting 2 hours per ML, even if the psion also spent 4 pp to change the duration to 1 day/level. Because you've excluded anything that alters the base power's duration from consideration.

Whereas my reading on it says "normal" means "what would happen without Extend applied." And that Extend is being applied to whatever comes after it. If you apply Extend twice, you're extending an Extended Psionic Charm. The Extended Psionic Charm already lasts 2 hours/level. That is what Extended Psionic Charm normally has for a duration. Extended Extended Psionic Charm, then, has twice what Extended Psionic Charm normally has for a duration. 4 hours/ML.

[RoboEmperor]

The normal duration of an extended psionic charm is 2hr/level just like the normal spell level of a heightened silent image is 9th level and the normal range of a reach spell is 30ft. Once a metamagic or metapsionic is applied it's a new spell/power. Or are you saying persistent reach spell isn't a thing?

[Menzath]

The normal duration of an extended psionic charm is 2hr/level just like the normal spell level of a heightened silent image is 9th level and the normal range of a reach spell is 30ft. Once a metamagic or metapsionic is applied it's a new spell/power. Or are you saying persistent reach spell isn't a thing?

What I am saying, is that after meta(magic/psionic) alteration, the spell modified values are no longer normal, as in not what is listed in the spell description.
A spell heightened to 9th level is a 9th level spell, but that's not the spells normal value, that's it's heightened value.

An altered spell isn't a new spell, but an altered one. Even the phb and rules compendium refer to it as having modifications.
And metamagic does "stack" but after reading the wording of certain modifiers I believe some of them no longer stack as I believed they used to, in the case of persistent spell and extend. You would end up with the "duration is increased to 24hrs" followed by "twice the spells normal duration", not twice the spells modified duration, or twice the spells duration, or double the duration.

I mean even if we use rl analogies it doesn't work. When you modify a car, it is no longer normal(stock). When you modify plants(genetically) they are gmo's or become a new breed, not "normal". So why when you modify a spell, would it stay normal?

[Menzath]

Neither of those quotes indicate what you seem to say they do, though. The first literally says a round is a span of time, but that like any span of arbitrary length, the start and end points of where you measure it are relative. The second doesn't say anything about rounds, it says that an action type represents how long the action takes (Well, if you'd put in the rest of the quote, it actually says an action type represents the amount of time it takes to take that action 'within the framework of the 6-second combat round' thus indicating that time is still time, and a round is just an arbitrary measure of time to help break up combat)

On that very same page, a round is described as a 'framework of the 6-second combat round,' a 'span of time' from initiative count to initiative count, an 'opportunity... to take an action,' and of course as '6 seconds in the game world.' From all that, including the quotes you posted, one could make the argument that 'the Round' is an abstraction, but I don't see that you can make the argument from any of that that time itself is an abstraction in-game. Even the round is in multiple places defined and described as a function of real time: '6 seconds in the game world' and 'anything a person could reasonably do in 6 seconds' and 'the 6-second combat round.' If anything, the round is a framework for describing and adjudicating actions inside of combat, but it's not saying that it's replacing time as a real value.

Now that side of things can't be argued with, regardless of how we see time in the game.

I am not arguing that a round isn't a span of time, quite the opposite. I am arguing that a round is an abstract game value for time.

Yes a round is a framework that represents 6 seconds, I have never denied that. What I have been saying is that a representation is not the same as what it is trying to represent.

People have made computer representations of 4th dimensional objects, but they are not 4th dimensional objects. A lawyer can represent me in court, but they are not me. By every definition in the dictionary of the word represent used, if used in how a round is an analogy of time it doesn't work. So it stands to reason that with the words used that a round is not real life time.

[Segev]

What I am saying, is that after meta(magic/psionic) alteration, the spell modified values are no longer normal, as in not what is listed in the spell description.
A spell heightened to 9th level is a 9th level spell, but that's not the spells normal value, that's it's heightened value.The trouble is that you don't seem to understand why others are disagreeing with you. We understand your argument. We find it flawed. The flaw is that you are insisting that "normal" can only apply to the thing without any options applied to it. Our point is that "normal" for a thing-with-options is the value of that thing-with-those-particular-options.


An altered spell isn't a new spell, but an altered one. Even the phb and rules compendium refer to it as having modifications.Irrelevant. The modified/altered spell/power still has a normal value for that modified/altered spell/power.


I mean even if we use rl analogies it doesn't work. When you modify a car, it is no longer normal(stock). When you modify plants(genetically) they are gmo's or become a new breed, not "normal". So why when you modify a spell, would it stay normal?Fortunately, we don't need to use analogies to the real world. However, we can, so I'll humor you here: If I perform the same modification to a thousand otherwise-stock cars, is the behavior of those modified cars roughly the same, within bounds of the quality of my parts and my work? Of course it is. These thousand cars have a normal function for their current modification.

If I buy a hybrid version of a car that has a "normal," non-hybrid option, is there a normal amount of gas mileage achieved by my hybrid car? Of course there is; they advertise normal average MPGs for hybrid versions of cars. (I believe the Honda Accord gets about 10 MPG more in its hybrid form than its non-hybrid form.)

See, we do understand your argument; we just find it wrong, because it pretends that there can be no "normal" for a modified spell or power.

You've also failed as of yet to even acknowledge, let alone address, the issue of whether Extend Power would shorten the duration of a Psionic Charm that is augmented with 4pp to make it operate on the scale of days, rather than hours, based on your interpretation of what "normal" means.


I am not arguing that a round isn't a span of time, quite the opposite. I am arguing that a round is an abstract game value for time.

Yes a round is a framework that represents 6 seconds, I have never denied that. What I have been saying is that a representation is not the same as what it is trying to represent.

People have made computer representations of 4th dimensional objects, but they are not 4th dimensional objects. A lawyer can represent me in court, but they are not me. By every definition in the dictionary of the word represent used, if used in how a round is an analogy of time it doesn't work. So it stands to reason that with the words used that a round is not real life time.
Irrelevant. And nothing to do with 4D objects. Time is not an abstract concept. HP are. AC is. Saving throws and their bonuses are. Time is a concrete concept exactly as analogous to the real world's time as D&D distances are to the real world's distances. That's probably where people are pulling in 4D; that equivolates time and space (if you'll permit me to make up a word). But it's not necessary. Time is not abstract. Rounds are not a measure of an abstraction.

[Pippin]

The trouble is that you don't seem to understand why others are disagreeing with you. We understand your argument. We find it flawed. The flaw is that you are insisting that "normal" can only apply to the thing without any options applied to it. Our point is that "normal" for a thing-with-options is the value of that thing-with-those-particular-options.
Menzath often articulates well-thought argumentation and quotes excerpts from books to support his claim though. If he's wrong and you're right, you should do more than that, at the very least, you should do as much.

[Segev]

Menzath often articulates well-thought argumentation and quotes excerpts from books to support his claim though. If he's wrong and you're right, you should do more than that, at the very least, you should do as much.

I have. I've referenced his very quotes. The dispute is over the definition of "normal," which he asserts means "this spell or power with no modifications at all to it, no, not even the ones that are included before you apply Extend." He does so with no textual backup, because there isn't any; it's all contextual and depending on what "normal" means.

I have pointed out that his reading, adhered to consistently, means Extend Psionic Charm reduces the duration of a Psionic Charm to which 4pp augmentation have been applied, because Psionic Charn "normally" has a duration of 1 hour/ML, not 1 day/ML as the 4pp augmentation gives it.

I have also described how "normal" can mean "normal for the argument of this function, which includes additional modifications," which would indeed permit a 4pp-augmented Psionic Charm's 1 day/ML duration to be "normal" for such augmented Psionic Charms, and thus Extend 4pp-augmented Psionic Charm would last for 2 days/level, not 2 hours/level as Menzath's interpretation of "normal" would require.

This then leads to the normal duration of Extend Psionic Charm (otherwise unaugmented) to be 2 hours/level. When you apply Extend Power to Extend Psionic Charm, therefore, the duration is twice what it otherwise would normally be for Extend Psionic Charm. i.e., it is 2x(2x(1 hour/level)), because the normal duration for Extend Psionic Charm is (2x(1 hour/level)).

Claiming I have not backed it up when Menzath has is to ascribe more backup to Menzath than he's provided, unless you can show me where it states that "normal" always refers to 100% unaugmented, unmodified versions.

[Menzath]

The trouble is that you don't seem to understand why others are disagreeing with you. We understand your argument. We find it flawed. The flaw is that you are insisting that "normal" can only apply to the thing without any options applied to it. Our point is that "normal" for a thing-with-options is the value of that thing-with-those-particular-options.

Irrelevant. The modified/altered spell/power still has a normal value for that modified/altered spell/power.

Fortunately, we don't need to use analogies to the real world. However, we can, so I'll humor you here: If I perform the same modification to a thousand otherwise-stock cars, is the behavior of those modified cars roughly the same, within bounds of the quality of my parts and my work? Of course it is. These thousand cars have a normal function for their current modification.

If I buy a hybrid version of a car that has a "normal," non-hybrid option, is there a normal amount of gas mileage achieved by my hybrid car? Of course there is; they advertise normal average MPGs for hybrid versions of cars. (I believe the Honda Accord gets about 10 MPG more in its hybrid form than its non-hybrid form.)

See, we do understand your argument; we just find it wrong, because it pretends that there can be no "normal" for a modified spell or power.

You've also failed as of yet to even acknowledge, let alone address, the issue of whether Extend Power would shorten the duration of a Psionic Charm that is augmented with 4pp to make it operate on the scale of days, rather than hours, based on your interpretation of what "normal" means.


Irrelevant. And nothing to do with 4D objects. Time is not an abstract concept. HP are. AC is. Saving throws and their bonuses are. Time is a concrete concept exactly as analogous to the real world's time as D&D distances are to the real world's distances. That's probably where people are pulling in 4D; that equivolates time and space (if you'll permit me to make up a word). But it's not necessary. Time is not abstract. Rounds are not a measure of an abstraction.

I'll answer the augment powers after the next quote. And I do understand the point of view you are arguing from, I just disagree with it in these cases.

The reason for me saying that rounds are a game abstract, is that it is used in place of real time.
I mean, the game has real life equivalent descriptors of other stats and things, but you don't see me arguing that they are not game abstracts.


I have. I've referenced his very quotes. The dispute is over the definition of "normal," which he asserts means "this spell or power with no modifications at all to it, no, not even the ones that are included before you apply Extend." He does so with no textual backup, because there isn't any; it's all contextual and depending on what "normal" means.

I have pointed out that his reading, adhered to consistently, means Extend Psionic Charm reduces the duration of a Psionic Charm to which 4pp augmentation have been applied, because Psionic Charn "normally" has a duration of 1 hour/ML, not 1 day/ML as the 4pp augmentation gives it.

I have also described how "normal" can mean "normal for the argument of this function, which includes additional modifications," which would indeed permit a 4pp-augmented Psionic Charm's 1 day/ML duration to be "normal" for such augmented Psionic Charms, and thus Extend 4pp-augmented Psionic Charm would last for 2 days/level, not 2 hours/level as Menzath's interpretation of "normal" would require.

This then leads to the normal duration of Extend Psionic Charm (otherwise unaugmented) to be 2 hours/level. When you apply Extend Power to Extend Psionic Charm, therefore, the duration is twice what it otherwise would normally be for Extend Psionic Charm. i.e., it is 2x(2x(1 hour/level)), because the normal duration for Extend Psionic Charm is (2x(1 hour/level)).

Claiming I have not backed it up when Menzath has is to ascribe more backup to Menzath than he's provided, unless you can show me where it states that "normal" always refers to 100% unaugmented, unmodified versions.

So it all comes down to psionics, and their in power printed augmentations.
How does my reading go against this?

It is printed in the stat block of the power, the whole "Augment" vernacular was probably a poor choice of words for this on the writers part.

It is basically purchased level adjustment scaling of powers, rather than automatic that spells have, for finer pp usage control.

Even if the description of augmenting powers lists it as


gain the indicated benefit according to how many power points you have already decided to spend

It is still text of the power and affects it's base "normal" statistics, because it is part of the printed power, not an outside source changing the "normal" values of the power.

[RoboEmperor]

I mean even if we use rl analogies it doesn't work. When you modify a car, it is no longer normal(stock). When you modify plants(genetically) they are gmo's or become a new breed, not "normal". So why when you modify a spell, would it stay normal?

You want rl analogies? I have red car. I strip its paint and paint it blue. Now it's a blue car. By your logic it's not a blue car it's still a red car and it's not "normal". Or in fact it's not a car but a pile of weirdly shaped and assembled metal so you can't call it a car because a car is not "normal". An Iron ore is normal and this alteration is not normal so you call a car a "modified iron ore".


Menzath often articulates well-thought argumentation and quotes excerpts from books to support his claim though. If he's wrong and you're right, you should do more than that, at the very least, you should do as much.

I don't see this. Makes me wonder why you're kissing his ass so much and denouncing Segev. Segev accurately pointed out the game uses "squares" as a measure of distance and everything can be converted into "squares". Even in monster descriptions their speed is represented in "squares". Now according to Menzath a creature's speed measured in feet is not a real world value but an abstract game one because it can be converted into squares and we should totally ignore the fact that they can be converted back to feet just like how he is ignoring the fact that rounds can be converted into minutes or seconds.

What if we call every round a 0.1 minute? Duration: 0.1minute/level. Is that an abstract game value? Of course not but we have Menzath saying it is because the game gave a new name for 0.1 minute called a round and you call this a well-thought argumentation and quotes excerpts from books.

How about a rl example here? I can hold my breath for 20 rounds before needing to come up for air. Unlike hit points and attack bonus I just used rounds in real life yet it's an abstract game value that's not real world?

[Menzath]

unless you can show me where it states that "normal" always refers to 100% unaugmented, unmodified versions.

Here is where I believe it comes down to a problem with how the books were written.
They re-used old material from previous books or editions without properly checking terminology, and also how in certain cases some things aren't described at all.

I mean the word normal(ly) is used 590 times in the phb. And after checking them all it only tends to mention normal in relation to actions available, BaB, movement, and sight. With some call outs for familiars/mounts.

But when later printed material comes out that references or uses something that was never clearly specified it does cause confusion.

[gogogome]

You want rl analogies? I have red car. I strip its paint and paint it blue. Now it's a blue car. By your logic it's not a blue car it's still a red car and it's not "normal". Or in fact it's not a car but a pile of weirdly shaped and assembled metal so you can't call it a car because a car is not "normal". An Iron ore is normal and this alteration is not normal so you call a car a "modified iron ore".



I don't see this. Makes me wonder why you're kissing his ass so much and denouncing Segev. Segev accurately pointed out the game uses "squares" as a measure of distance and everything can be converted into "squares". Even in monster descriptions their speed is represented in "squares". Now according to Menzath a creature's speed measured in feet is not a real world value but an abstract game one because it can be converted into squares and we should totally ignore the fact that they can be converted back to feet just like how he is ignoring the fact that rounds can be converted into minutes or seconds.

What if we call every round a 0.1 minute? Duration: 0.1minute/level. Is that an abstract game value? Of course not but we have Menzath saying it is because the game gave a new name for 0.1 minute called a round and you call this a well-thought argumentation and quotes excerpts from books.

How about a rl example here? I can hold my breath for 20 rounds before needing to come up for air. Unlike hit points and attack bonus I just used rounds in real life yet it's an abstract game value that's not real world?

Menzath is saying the opposite actually. He's saying feet is a real world value despite the game using squares and no distance is ever smaller than 1 square yet minutes are not a real world value because the game uses rounds to define 6 seconds.

[gogogome]

Here is where I believe it comes down to a problem with how the books were written.
They re-used old material from previous books or editions without properly checking terminology, and also how in certain cases some things aren't described at all.

I mean the word normal(ly) is used 590 times in the phb. And after checking them all it only tends to mention normal in relation to actions available, BaB, movement, and sight. With some call outs for familiars/mounts.

But when later printed material comes out that references or uses something that was never clearly specified it does cause confusion.

Let me ask you a question.

One persisted divine favor lasted 24 hours and another lasted 17 hours. Which one of these had an abnormal duration? Which duration is normal?

[Menzath]

You want rl analogies? I have red car. I strip its paint and paint it blue. Now it's a blue car. By your logic it's not a blue car it's still a red car and it's not "normal". Or in fact it's not a car but a pile of weirdly shaped and assembled metal so you can't call it a car because a car is not "normal". An Iron ore is normal and this alteration is not normal so you call a car a "modified iron ore".



I don't see this. Makes me wonder why you're kissing his ass so much and denouncing Segev. Segev accurately pointed out the game uses "squares" as a measure of distance and everything can be converted into "squares". Even in monster descriptions their speed is represented in "squares". Now according to Menzath a creature's speed measured in feet is not a real world value but an abstract game one because it can be converted into squares and we should totally ignore the fact that they can be converted back to feet just like how he is ignoring the fact that rounds can be converted into minutes or seconds.

What if we call every round a 0.1 minute? Duration: 0.1minute/level. Is that an abstract game value? Of course not but we have Menzath saying it is because the game gave a new name for 0.1 minute called a round and you call this a well-thought argumentation and quotes excerpts from books.

How about a rl example here? I can hold my breath for 20 rounds before needing to come up for air. Unlike hit points and attack bonus I just used rounds in real life yet it's an abstract game value that's not real world?

For the car>paint anaolgy, that's a bad one.

Lets use mine on people, if someone shaves their head, or puts on makeup, does that change their normal value as a person? No. But if they lose an arm, or have a pacemaker put in, does that change them fundamentally? I'd say yes.
But if we use yours, the answer to the first two would also be yes.

Yeah, I wouldn't say my arguments are entirely coherent at times either, I mean I re-read them like 6 times before I post and still end up editing them. But that's cause of personal issues 😒.

For the 5ft squares I also already gave an answer to that in that the game has rules for not using them as well, and how to convert into other measurements. As well as instanes of when less than 5ft is used in various cases.

Okay, how about then for another game statistic that isn't a real world value, but can be converted to one similar to rounds=time.
Int score=iq.
There is a clear conversion table printed for making this into a real life value and vice versa. But int score is not a real life value. It is a game abstract.

I propose the same to rounds as a measurement of time. Why would they even have an int score if you could use iq?
Why would we ever use rounds, when we have real life time values that are more accurate and can be used to make much more sense. Because, it is a game abstract.
It's is likened to 6secs, represents 6secs, a framework for 6secs, but is not 6secs.

[Menzath]

Let me ask you a question.

One persisted divine favor lasted 24 hours and another lasted 17 hours. Which one of these had an abnormal duration? Which duration is normal?

Because of the wording on persist, the persisted duration would be 24hrs. But the normal duration would still be 1minute.

In this case both the 24hr and 17hr durations would be abnormal, in that they both deviate from the original spell.
But again this is my interpretation of normal since it is not definfed anywhere in the book.

[gogogome]

Because of the wording on persist, the persisted duration would be 24hrs. But the normal duration would still be 1minute.

I'm not talking about Divine Favor. I'm talking about Persisted Divine Favor. Don't separate Persisted and Divine Favor. I'm asking you, what is the normal duration of a Persisted Divine Favor?


In this case both the 24hr and 17hr durations would be abnormal, in that they both deviate from the original spell.
But again this is my interpretation of normal since it is not definfed anywhere in the book.

This is the problem. Normal is not defined anywhere yet you defined it as meaning "The spell stripped of all metamagic and class feature modifiers.". To us it doesn't. To us it means usual, or normal. If someone asks me what is the normal amount of damage a maximized fire ball does on a failed save, I'd say 60. I would not say "35" because "maximized is not normal". I'd tell my friend a maximized fireball normally does 60. So if a creature with 100% fire vulnerability gets hit by a maximized fireball, I'd say he gets hurt for 120 damage instead of 95.

The only way your interpretation works is if you define normal as some kind of adjective that strips away metamagic and class feature modifiers which is wildly different from the English language's definition of normal.

The normal duration of Divine Favor is 1minute.
The normal duration of an Extended Divine Favor is 2minutes.
The normal duration of Persistent Divine Favor is 24 hours.
The normal duration of Persistent Extended Divine Favor is 24 hours.
The normal duration of Extended Persistent Divine Favor is 48 hours.

Normal does not mean "no metamagics or class features" just like the normal damage of a maximized fireball is 60 not 35. Nowhere in the game or in the English Dictionary does the word Normal strip away metamagic or class features.

Two minutes is abnormal for Divine Favor, but it is not abnormal for Extended Divine Favor.

[RoboEmperor]

For the car>paint anaolgy, that's a bad one.

Lets use mine on people, if someone shaves their head, or puts on makeup, does that change their normal value as a person? No. But if they lose an arm, or have a pacemaker put in, does that change them fundamentally? I'd say yes.
But if we use yours, the answer to the first two would also be yes.

Your idea of using a simpler analogy is accessing the value of humans? That's... interesting. In any case if we're defining human value as their potential to make money, a half shaved person has less chance of getting employed at a high paying office job than a fully shaved or unshaved person. So yes make up and the like do change the value of a human being. Not always but it does.

The point of my analogy is that if you modify something it becomes a new entity entirely. If I want to enter a custom car competition and I have a store-bought car, by making modifications my store bought car is now a custom car eligible to enter the competition. When an engineer asks me for the "normal specs" of my custom car so he can use it to diagnose whether my car has a problem or not, I don't give him the specs of my store bought car. I give him the specs of my custom car which has an entirely different engine with a custom fuel injector and turbo installed.

So likewise an Extended Astral Construct is a different entity than Astral Construct and when you extend an Extended Astral Construct, you use the Extended Astral Construct's duration and not Astral Construct's duration.


Okay, how about then for another game statistic that isn't a real world value, but can be converted to one similar to rounds=time.
Int score=iq.
There is a clear conversion table printed for making this into a real life value and vice versa. But int score is not a real life value. It is a game abstract.

I propose the same to rounds as a measurement of time. Why would they even have an int score if you could use iq?
Why would we ever use rounds, when we have real life time values that are more accurate and can be used to make much more sense. Because, it is a game abstract.
It's is likened to 6secs, represents 6secs, a framework for 6secs, but is not 6secs.

Where is this int score to IQ conversion? The only instance I found of this is in the FAQ.

Also immediate and swift actions. Or even standard and move actions. They take time less than 1 round since you can perform multiples of them. So how many seconds does it take to draw a dagger? Is it always 6 seconds? How about outside combat. I use a spell with casting time:swift. We're not in combat so there is no "rounds" to keep track of. When is the next time I can use another swift spell? It's after 6 seconds, not rounds, because we're not in combat, unless you're saying even out of combat a character has to spend 6 seconds for every action be it sitting down, standing up, or drinking from a mug. Buff spells stay up out of combat, and if a DM says "31 seconds has passed and you now have 29 seconds left on your Bull's Strength" then that is exactly what happens.

[Menzath]

I'm not talking about Divine Favor. I'm talking about Persisted Divine Favor. Don't separate Persisted and Divine Favor. I'm asking you, what is the normal duration of a Persisted Divine Favor?

This seems like a rhetorical question, the answer is yes and yes, you cannot choose no.
And as I said, the persisted duration is 24hrs.



This is the problem. Normal is not defined anywhere yet you defined it as meaning "The spell stripped of all metamagic and class feature modifiers.". To us it doesn't. To us it means usual, or normal. If someone asks me what is the normal amount of damage a maximized fire ball does on a failed save, I'd say 60. I would not say "35" because "maximized is not normal". I'd tell my friend a maximized fireball normally does 60. So if a creature with 100% fire vulnerability gets hit by a maximized fireball, I'd say he gets hurt for 120 damage instead of 95.

The only way your interpretation works is if you define normal as some kind of adjective that strips away metamagic and class feature modifiers which is wildly different from the English language's definition of normal.

The normal duration of Divine Favor is 1minute.
The normal duration of an Extended Divine Favor is 2minutes.
The normal duration of Persistent Divine Favor is 24 hours.
The normal duration of Persistent Extended Divine Favor is 24 hours.
The normal duration of Extended Persistent Divine Favor is 48 hours.

Normal does not mean "no metamagics or class features" just like the normal damage of a maximized fireball is 60 not 35. Nowhere in the game or in the English Dictionary does the word Normal strip away metamagic or class features.

Two minutes is abnormal for Divine Favor, but it is not abnormal for Extended Divine Favor.

To reach where I did for normal I used where it references monster stat blocks, and when you polymorph or otherwise change into or alter one.

If in templates the "base" creature is it's normal values, and in polymorphing you use the normal statistics for a creature of that type, then the spell block is it's normal values for spells.

[gogogome]

This seems like a rhetorical question, the answer is yes and yes, you cannot choose no.
And as I said, the persisted duration is 24hrs.




To reach where I did for normal I used where it references monster stat blocks, and when you polymorph or otherwise change into or alter one.

If in templates the "base" creature is it's normal values, and in polymorphing you use the normal statistics for a creature of that type, then the spell block is it's normal values for spells.

It doesn't matter how you ended up with your definition. If d&d does not give a definition of a word you use the English dictionary. For example. If someone asks what normal is in d&d do you:
a. Show them the definition of the word normal in an English Dictionary or
b. Show them 590 instances of the word being used in d&d, select the few that matches the definition you want, and claim this is the true meaning of the word when it is completely different from the English language?

You talk as if WotC took special legalistic care writing the rules instead of writing them like a layman and result in tons of inconsistencies, loop holes, and different interpretations.

[Pippin]

You talk as if WotC took special legalistic care writing the rules
That's what everyone is doing all the time. And you can't blame them: the edition ended many years ago, the support is long gone too. The only thing we have left is the text. That's the only logical development for this kind of situation: you stick to the text and you take it more seriously than the authors themselves.

I sympathise more with Menzath's point (although I would very much prefer the opposite ruling at an actual table) because it makes more sense than the other posts. I'm under the impression (you're not, but that's what you might look like) that people are endlessly gesticulating and arguing because the trick they want does not work like they thought it should. The way Drysdan first reacted to his argument indicates that the literal way to read the feat is more legitimate than the broad, convenient reading. And now you are building castles to "prove" what "normal" should and shouldn't mean.

[Crichton]

That's what everyone is doing all the time. And you can't blame them: the edition ended many years ago, the support is long gone too. The only thing we have left is the text. That's the only logical development for this kind of situation: you stick to the text and you take it more seriously than the authors themselves.

I sympathise more with Menzath's point (although I would very much prefer the opposite ruling at an actual table) because it makes more sense than the other posts. I'm under the impression (you're not, but that's what you might look like) that people are endlessly gesticulating and arguing because the trick they want does not work like they thought it should. The way Drysdan first reacted to his argument indicates that the literal way to read the feat is more legitimate than the broad, convenient reading. And now you are building castles to "prove" what "normal" should and shouldn't mean.



Hey, don't go putting words in my mouth. :smallsmile:


I'm of the opinion that Segev and the gogogome and RoboEmperor are right, here.


But I also think that trying to tie the argument to the lexical definition of 'normal' is the wrong take on things.


What we have here is what's called a grammatical ambiguity, in the linguistic world. It's not the definition of 'normal' that's in question(that would be a lexical ambiguity instead), it's what 'normal' is comparing to, in the Extend Power description.

Menzath seems to think that the only thing that 'normal in the Extend Power rules can refer to is a completely unmodified (even by things other than the feat in question) version of the power. That's one possible take. The rest of us, rather, think that 'normal' in the Extend Power rules is referring to 'what would happen without this instance of Extend applied', regardless of what else is done to modify the power (since any modifications other than those of this instance of Extend Power aren't subject to the rules of Extend Power).

Both are possible interpretations of the grammatical structure of the text. I lean towards the latter because A) 'normal' isn't a defined game term, so it doesn't get to have any special meaning, and because B) the rules text of the feat doesn't have the authority to reach outside the effects of the feat to limit what other modifications can be applied.

Thus, given those two tenets, the most natural reading of what 'lasts twice as long as normal' refers to is to say that when you apply this instance of Extend Power, the thing that 'lasts twice as long' is the thing that would have happened if you didn't apply this instance of Extend Power.

[Pippin]

Hey, don't go putting words in my mouth. :smallsmile:
Where did I do that? I saw what your opinion is.

[gogogome]

That's what everyone is doing all the time. And you can't blame them: the edition ended many years ago, the support is long gone too. The only thing we have left is the text. That's the only logical development for this kind of situation: you stick to the text and you take it more seriously than the authors themselves.

I sympathise more with Menzath's point (although I would very much prefer the opposite ruling at an actual table) because it makes more sense than the other posts. I'm under the impression (you're not, but that's what you might look like) that people are endlessly gesticulating and arguing because the trick they want does not work like they thought it should. The way Drysdan first reacted to his argument indicates that the literal way to read the feat is more legitimate than the broad, convenient reading. And now you are building castles to "prove" what "normal" should and shouldn't mean.

I can't help but think it's the opposite. You are resorting to saying initial interpretation is the correct interpretation. I've seen people think Skeletons and Zombies don't lose class levels. I've seen people think Trolls can get CdG'd by a weapon that can't deal lethal damage to it. I've seen people think a Vow of Poverty character can hire a hireling and have that hireling spend wealth on his behalf.

Rules become clearer the more you review it not less.

How come you are singling Drysdan out? Other's first reaction, including mine, is that when you extend and extended power or spell, you don't ignore the first extend. Why does Drysdan get the special treatment?

When someone resorts to such desperate arguments such as initial interpretations always being the correct one, i think the argument is settled.

There are no castles here. To everyone but you and Menzath this case is open and shut. Our "castle building" is trying to get Menzath to understand why he is incorrect. Why are Menzath's arguments the truth while our arguments are castle building? I mean seriously, how is the English Dictionary and some examples of how the word Normal is used in real life "castle building" while quoting 590 instances of the word normal being used and then singling out Alter Self's usage of the word "normal form" as the one and only true definition of Normal not castle building?

And I'm the DM at my tables and there are no psionic characters in my campaign. I couldn't be more impartial to the topic at hand.

Is pointing out that buff remaining durations can be non-multiples of 6 "castle building" when Menzath's entire claim for pages is that rounds is an abstract value because d&d made it an impossibility to have a time frame not in multiples of 6?

You've shown incredible irrational bias favoring Menzath in this thread. I can't help but think you two know each other.

[zergling.exe]

I can't help but think it's the opposite. You are resorting to saying initial interpretation is the correct interpretation. I've seen people think Skeletons and Zombies don't lose class levels. I've seen people think Trolls can get CdG'd by a weapon that can't deal lethal damage to it. I've seen people think a Vow of Poverty character can hire a hireling and have that hireling spend wealth on his behalf.

Rules become clearer the more you review it not less.

How come you are singling Drysdan out? Other's first reaction, including mine, is that when you extend and extended power or spell, you don't ignore the first extend. Why does Drysdan get the special treatment?

When someone resorts to such desperate arguments such as initial interpretations always being the correct one, i think the argument is settled.

There are no castles here. To everyone but you and Menzath this case is open and shut. Our "castle building" is trying to get Menzath to understand why he is incorrect. Why are Menzath's arguments the truth while our arguments are castle building? I mean seriously, how is the English Dictionary and some examples of how the word Normal is used in real life "castle building" while quoting 590 instances of the word normal being used and then singling out Alter Self's usage of the word "normal form" as the one and only true definition of Normal not castle building?

And I'm the DM at my tables and there are no psionic characters in my campaign. I couldn't be more impartial to the topic at hand.

Is pointing out that buff remaining durations can be non-multiples of 6 "castle building" when Menzath's entire claim for pages is that rounds is an abstract value because d&d made it an impossibility to have a time frame not in multiples of 6?

You've shown incredible irrational bias favoring Menzath in this thread. I can't help but think you two know each other.

I agree with Menzath, and cite the interaction between Empower and Maximize as RAI of how metamagic feats interact when they affect the same parameter of the spell: They overlap, not stack.

[gogogome]

I agree with Menzath, and cite the interaction between Empower and Maximize as RAI of how metamagic feats interact when they affect the same parameter of the spell: They overlap, not stack.

If you want to talk RAI


As a general guideline, whenever the rules don’t stipulate an order of operations for special effects (such as spells or special abilities), you should apply them in the order that’s most beneficial to the “controller” of the effect.

[zergling.exe]

If you want to talk RAI

I don't understand how that is relevant to what I said. (10-60) * .5 + 60 is the same regardless of which way you do it. Likewise, (1 * 2) or (1 * 2) is the same regardless of how you do it. When they OVERLAP there is no order of operations to apply in the most beneficial way.

[Pippin]

I can't help but think it's the opposite. You are resorting to saying initial interpretation is the correct interpretation.
Where did I say that? I never said that, I talked about legitimacy. You are reporting "A says the dress is white" whereas A actually said "the dress is whiter than black". Your terms are more decided than my own.


I've seen people think Skeletons and Zombies don't lose class levels. I've seen people think Trolls can get CdG'd by a weapon that can't deal lethal damage to it. I've seen people think a Vow of Poverty character can hire a hireling and have that hireling spend wealth on his behalf.
Irrelevant content. See above.


Rules become clearer the more you review it not less.
If you are a computer, sure. If you are a living creature, it depends on how long you keep reviewing them.


How come you are singling Drysdan out? Other's first reaction, including mine, is that when you extend and extended power or spell, you don't ignore the first extend. Why does Drysdan get the special treatment?
I'm not singling anybody out. This is what I read earlier:


Now that side of things can't be argued with, regardless of how we see time in the game.
That was the first response to Menzath's post, after my own. Who said something similar?


When someone resorts to such desperate arguments such as initial interpretations always being the correct one, i think the argument is settled.
What argument is that? See first quote.


There are no castles here. To everyone but you and Menzath this case is open and shut. Our "castle building" is trying to get Menzath to understand why he is incorrect. Why are Menzath's arguments the truth while our arguments are castle building? I mean seriously, how is the English Dictionary and some examples of how the word Normal is used in real life "castle building" while quoting 590 instances of the word normal being used and then singling out Alter Self's usage of the word "normal form" as the one and only true definition of Normal not castle building?
To most people in USSR communism was open and shut too: a rule isn't necessarily accurate just because it's the majority rule. I'm not interested in involving myself with this word usage battle, I just look at the two sides and read for myself the clever things people have to say.


And I'm the DM at my tables and there are no psionic characters in my campaign. I couldn't be more impartial to the topic at hand.
How does that have anything to do with anything?


Is pointing out that buff remaining durations can be non-multiples of 6 "castle building" when Menzath's entire claim for pages is that rounds is an abstract value because d&d made it an impossibility to have a time frame not in multiples of 6?
This is moot, D&D has always allowed players to use readied actions, immediate actions and the like inside one round. So of course, it's easy to find the duration of something that isn't a multiple of 6 seconds. What you're missing is this: the game cuts rounds into actions and initiative turns, not into more seconds.


You've shown incredible irrational bias favoring Menzath in this thread. I can't help but think you two know each other.
Not really. My grammar is poor, I'm not from the English-speaking world, how could we know each other.

[gogogome]

I don't understand how that is relevant to what I said. (10-60) * .5 + 60 is the same regardless of which way you do it. Likewise, (1 * 2) or (1 * 2) is the same regardless of how you do it. When they OVERLAP there is no order of operations to apply in the most beneficial way.

It's relevant because you claimed the RAI of stacking metamagic is that there is no order of operations when the actual RAI is that everything does in fact have an order of operations.

Even RAW says there is an order of operations. Searing Spell only applies to fire spells, so can you cast a Searing Energy Substitution (Fire) Cone of Cold? According to you no because there is no order of operations. But take a look at Divine Metamagic. If you have a Energy Substitution (Fire) Cone of Cold prepared, can you apply Searing Spell with divine metamagic on the fly? The answer is yes because an Energy Substitution (Fire) Cone of Cold as a whole is in fact a spell with a fire descriptor. The original cold descriptor of the spell is completely irrelevant and to claim Energy Substitution (Fire) Cone of Cold is still a spell with the cold descriptor because you claim RAI says to completely ignore the first metamagic effect because Maximize Spell said it has a special interaction with Empower Spell is ludicrous.

I'm getting a little exhausted arguing with people making up rules and distinctions on the fly under the banner of RAI. First we were talking about whether metapsionics can be applied twice to the same power. Then we talk about how "rounds" is an abstract in game value when it is in fact just a unit of time and you can have 5/6th of a round duration left. Then we talk about how "normal" actually means "stripped of all metamagic, class features, and other modifiers" and you're "building castles" when you point out how it makes no sense to ignore previously applied metamagic modifiers, and now we are talking about a new rule you just made up under the banner of RAI saying metamagics don't use order of operations when they clearly do.

I'll ask you a similar question I asked Menzath. What is the Energy Descriptor of Energy Substitution (Fire) Cone of Cold?


Where did I say that? I never said that, I talked about legitimacy. You are reporting "A says the dress is white" whereas A actually said "the dress is whiter than black". Your terms are more decided than my own.

The way Drysdan first reacted to his argument indicates that the literal way to read the feat is more legitimate than the broad, convenient reading. And now you are building castles to "prove" what "normal" should and shouldn't mean.

So you're not saying here Drysdan's first interpretation is more legitimate because he didn't think about it?

Actually, I'm done. Peace out. There is no reason for me to stay and wrestle with people who make up the most craziest nonsensical arguments just because they don't like a particular trick. Calling 6 seconds an abstract in game exclusive value because a spell like time stop does... I don't even know anymore. Or that a metamagic modified spell should have all of his modified parameters stripped when applying a second metamagic because of the 590 instances of the word "normal" used in the game one of them refered to the "normal form" or because maximize spell and empower spell has a special interaction whose RAI is that this interaction be extrapolated and applied to every metamagic interaction in the game.

The worst is the one who says using the English dictionary to define a word that isn't a mechanical game term defined by d&d as building castles. Believe what you want.

[zergling.exe]

It's relevant because you claimed the RAI of stacking metamagic is that there is no order of operations when the actual RAI is that everything does in fact have an order of operations.

Even RAW says there is an order of operations. Searing Spell only applies to fire spells, so can you cast a Searing Energy Substitution (Fire) Cone of Cold? According to you no because there is no order of operations. But take a look at Divine Metamagic. If you have a Energy Substitution (Fire) Cone of Cold prepared, can you apply Searing Spell with divine metamagic on the fly? The answer is yes because an Energy Substitution (Fire) Cone of Cold as a whole is in fact a spell with a fire descriptor. The original cold descriptor of the spell is completely irrelevant and to claim Energy Substitution (Fire) Cone of Cold is still a spell with the cold descriptor because you claim RAI says to completely ignore the first metamagic effect because Maximize Spell said it has a special interaction with Empower Spell is ludicrous.

I'm getting a little exhausted arguing with people making up rules and distinctions on the fly under the banner of RAI. First we were talking about whether metapsionics can be applied twice to the same power. Then we talk about how "rounds" is an abstract in game value when it is in fact just a unit of time and you can have 5/6th of a round duration left. Then we talk about how "normal" actually means "stripped of all metamagic, class features, and other modifiers" and you're "building castles" when you point out how it makes no sense to ignore previously applied metamagic modifiers, and now we are talking about a new rule you just made up under the banner of RAI saying metamagics don't use order of operations when they clearly do.

I'll ask you a similar question I asked Menzath. What is the Energy Descriptor of Energy Substitution (Fire) Cone of Cold?

If you look back at what I originally said, you'll find that I said NOTHING about meta(magic/psionics) that affect DIFFERENT parameters of the spell, only ones that affect the SAME parameter:


I agree with Menzath, and cite the interaction between Empower and Maximize as RAI of how metamagic feats interact when they affect the same parameter of the spell: They overlap, not stack.

Energy Substitution changes the energy descriptor, and Searing Spell checks what the energy descriptor is and makes fire spells have a special property for their damage. If I have a +2 bonus to strength from an emerald ioun stone (just making something up), and a +2 bonus to strength from an emerald ioun stone, do I have a +2 or +4 bonus to strength?

[Crichton]

So you're not saying here Drysdan's first interpretation is more legitimate because he didn't think about it?




This. I changed my mind in the very next post! Why is my not-thought-out kneejerk reaction being considered in any way here!!!


If you want my actually-thought-out response, it was the first post on page 3, where everyone ignored it in favor of arguing about castles or something. :smallcool:

[Segev]

I'll answer the augment powers after the next quote. And I do understand the point of view you are arguing from, I just disagree with it in these cases.Okay. WE can agree to disagree if it comes down to it.


The reason for me saying that rounds are a game abstract, is that it is used in place of real time.
I mean, the game has real life equivalent descriptors of other stats and things, but you don't see me arguing that they are not game abstracts. Rounds aren't used "in place of" real time. They ARE real time. As real as the squares of distance that are 5 feet on a side.

Int is abstract. It doesn't even directly equate to IQ; you can witness this in the way IQ doesn't map well to it if you follow the FAQ. And IQ is a highly abstract and questionably accurate measure of the abstract concept of "intelligence" IRL. Stats in games are almost invariably abstractions meant to encapsulate broad stretches of character capability.

Rounds are six seconds. The closest you can come to saying they're "abstract" is pointing out that they are "approximately six seconds," but that's not abstraction so much as imprecision for ease of estimation. Standard actions are closer to being abstract; they take some amount of time that fits into a round, but not the full six seconds, but more than it takes to move your movement speed (which is also less than six seconds) and significantly more than it takes to perform a swift action, which is as fast as a free action but too difficult to pull off more than once per six seconds. Turns are abstract; no question here: you do all your round's actions on your turn, but your turn happens at an arbitrarily precise moment in those six seconds while technically being spread out over those six seconds. Combat timing is an abstraction.

Rounds, however - especially as measuring duration of spells - are absolutely not. They are (approximately) six seconds, and there are precisely 10 rounds in a minute, under the assumption that any imprecision in the six seconds of the round will average out over 10 rounds. Alternatively, a "minute" is an imprecise measure that is approximately 60 seconds, but again averages out to that over time.

You can't consistently argue that rounds are abstract because they're a game term, but that squares on the battlefield aren't. And the game calls out distance as not being abstract in the very passage that describes the point over which we're contending.


So it all comes down to psionics, and their in power printed augmentations.
How does my reading go against this?

It is printed in the stat block of the power, the whole "Augment" vernacular was probably a poor choice of words for this on the writers part.

It is basically purchased level adjustment scaling of powers, rather than automatic that spells have, for finer pp usage control.

Even if the description of augmenting powers lists it as



It is still text of the power and affects it's base "normal" statistics, because it is part of the printed power, not an outside source changing the "normal" values of the power.And the normal effect of an Extended power is right there in the description of Extend Power. And the point we disagree on is whether "normal Extend Psionic Charm" has any meaning at all. I believe it does; your argument hinges on it being as meaningless as "dry water" or "honest liar" or "good live-action anime adaptation."


If someone asks me what is the normal amount of damage a maximized fire ball does on a failed save, I'd say 60. I would not say "35" because "maximized is not normal". I'd tell my friend a maximized fireball normally does 60. So if a creature with 100% fire vulnerability gets hit by a maximized fireball, I'd say he gets hurt for 120 damage instead of 95.This is a perfect way to explain it; thanks gogogome. I don't think I can do better.


I'm of the opinion that Segev and the gogogome and RoboEmperor are right, here.


But I also think that trying to tie the argument to the lexical definition of 'normal' is the wrong take on things.Hm, interesting. *reads on*



What we have here is what's called a grammatical ambiguity, in the linguistic world. It's not the definition of 'normal' that's in question(that would be a lexical ambiguity instead), it's what 'normal' is comparing to, in the Extend Power description.

Menzath seems to think that the only thing that 'normal in the Extend Power rules can refer to is a completely unmodified (even by things other than the feat in question) version of the power. That's one possible take. The rest of us, rather, think that 'normal' in the Extend Power rules is referring to 'what would happen without this instance of Extend applied', regardless of what else is done to modify the power (since any modifications other than those of this instance of Extend Power aren't subject to the rules of Extend Power).

Both are possible interpretations of the grammatical structure of the text. I lean towards the latter because A) 'normal' isn't a defined game term, so it doesn't get to have any special meaning, and because B) the rules text of the feat doesn't have the authority to reach outside the effects of the feat to limit what other modifications can be applied.

Thus, given those two tenets, the most natural reading of what 'lasts twice as long as normal' refers to is to say that when you apply this instance of Extend Power, the thing that 'lasts twice as long' is the thing that would have happened if you didn't apply this instance of Extend Power.I hesitate to agree that Menzath's reading is valid, lexically, because it requires pretending that "Extend Psionic Charm" doesn't exist as a valid argument to "Extend [Power]." But we know that you can stack metapsionic feats, so [Metapsionically enhanced power] must be a valid argument for metapsionic feats.


I agree with Menzath, and cite the interaction between Empower and Maximize as RAI of how metamagic feats interact when they affect the same parameter of the spell: They overlap, not stack.Note that it required explicit and specific writing in the two feats to achieve this effect, suggesting that the default, absent these exceptions in the rules, would be to allow you to apply either in whichever order you wished, e.g. Maximized Empowered Fireball having the Nd6 empowered to a variable 1.5x(Nd6), then that variable numeric value maximized to Nx9 (as a maximum value on 1.5x(1d6) is 9). Conversely, without the rules text saying otherwise, an Empowered Maximized Fireball would do Nx6 damage, because it would first Maximize all N d6, and then Empower has no variable, numeric value to modify further. Instead, the rules for one or both feats call out that the interaction of the two is to Maximize the base Nd6, then roll Nd6 and divide by two to determine the contribution of Empower.

Exception-based rules call out alterations to the default.

[Crichton]

I hesitate to agree that Menzath's reading is valid, lexically, because it requires pretending that "Extend Psionic Charm" doesn't exist as a valid argument to "Extend [Power]." But we know that you can stack metapsionic feats, so [Metapsionically enhanced power] must be a valid argument for metapsionic feats.




Not that his argument is valid, so much as that he's providing something that could be a valid referent for 'normal' to be pointing to, grammatically.

My point was mostly that we aren't really arguing about what the word 'normal' means, but rather arguing about what it's pointing to in that grammatical structure.

In other words the question we should ask ourselves to clarify the meaning should be: 'Normal as compared to what?'




I still think your first take on it was the correct one: Normal as compared to what? Normal as compared to what would happen if we didn't apply this instance of Extend Power? What would the duration be if we didn't? Ok, then it's normal as compared to that, so it's twice as long as (the duration if we weren't applying this instance of Extend Power).

[Segev]

Not that his argument is valid, so much as that he's providing something that could be a valid referent for 'normal' to be pointing to, grammatically.

My point was mostly that we aren't really arguing about what the word 'normal' means, but rather arguing about what it's pointing to in that grammatical structure.

In other words the question we should ask ourselves to clarify the meaning should be: 'Normal as compared to what?'




I still think your first take on it was the correct one: Normal as compared to what? Normal as compared to what would happen if we didn't apply this instance of Extend Power? What would the duration be if we didn't? Ok, then it's normal as compared to that, so it's twice as long as (the duration if we weren't applying this instance of Extend Power).
Okay, fair enough. I definitely agree that the disagreement is over "normal as compared to what?"

[PrinceBird]

just popping in my 2 cents

the normal is what you apply the Meta[feat] to
If you apply a Maximize spell to a fireball, the normal is the fireball.
Now to my point
if you apply a Maximize spell to an empowered fireball, the normal is the Empowered Fireball. Effects stack as normal, to include spell level because the "normal" is fireball

If this is not the case then it should be the normal is always the spell?
Well then that means I can apply Invisible Spell to a
Energy Admixture (Acid), Energy Admixture (Cold), Energy Admixture (Electricity), Empower, Maximize, Twinned, Quicken spell, Repeating, Fell Animate, Fell Frighten, Fell Drain, Explosive, Widen, Enervate, Entangling, Consecrate, Corrupt, Blistering, Coercive, Deafening, Deceptive, Energize, Enlarge, Fell Energy, Fell Weaken, Fiery, Flash Frost, Sculpted, Silent, Still, Transdimensional Fireball
and all that for the cost of a 3rd lvl spell slot
All because "A spell modified using the Invisible Spell feat uses a spell slot of the spell's normal level"
This means either
A) Is cost a lvl 3 spell slot, because the normal spell is fireball
or
B) the cost is a Lvl 56 Spell slot because the normal spell includes the previously mentioned Metamagic feat.

[Menzath]

Wow that is alot to respond to. I wish I had more time today to hit it all, sadly won't have much time till late Saturday/Sunday.

Segev and/or robo, you are correct about the int=iq being a player made construct. I will have to look for a better example.

Yes we are arguing what the writers meant over normal. Because it seems only one or two evidently wanted to even describe what it means in very specific examples. And the others seem to have had differences on what normal meant.
If we could get the writers feedback after all these years that would indeed be fantastic.

So for the latest example given for metamagic and spell level alteration the specific example given is incorrect based on the feat text of how metamagic works


Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell: A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative. A silent, stilled version of charm person, for example, would be prepared and cast as a 3rd-level spell (a 1st-level spell, increased by one spell level for each of the metamagic feats). You can’t apply the same metamagic feat more than once to a single spell (for instance, you can’t cast a twice empowered magic missile to get +100% damage).
Bolded for emphasis.

Since regardless of what invisible spells spell level alteration is, it is still added to the other metamagic spell level alteration total as according to the rules, which modifies the level slot used.

My problem is the broad usage of the term normal for something that is specifically called out to be modified. If we use the same usage for normal to apply to other aspects of the game, something that would return a character or monster to normal, would then also cure curses, old age, blindness(natural), death, and a host of other effects simply because they are abnormal.
That's in the same realm as iron heart surging the sun.
But even then, if after something is altered or modified the new state is normal, that means certain things in the game that do reference normal will no longer work as intended.

The reason I gave an example of when normal is used to refer to a stat block, is because it is the only time(s) a mostly clear definition of normal is given. It's the closest definition we have of a raw and rai answer to what is normal in dnd. We can't cure a ythraks blindness, because it's normal state is blind. We can't normalize old age, because aging is normal.(except curses and such where it is called out as abnormal)

[Segev]

The reason I gave an example of when normal is used to refer to a stat block, is because it is the only time(s) a mostly clear definition of normal is given. It's the closest definition we have of a raw and rai answer to what is normal in dnd. We can't cure a ythraks blindness, because it's normal state is blind. We can't normalize old age, because aging is normal.(except curses and such where it is called out as abnormal)

And yet, if you were to perform a Third Eye graft of a beholder eye into a ythrak, it would be able to see from that eye. If it were then Blinded, you could cure that blindness, because that grafted ythrak's normal state would be to see out of its grafted eye.

[Menzath]

And yet, if you were to perform a Third Eye graft of a beholder eye into a ythrak, it would be able to see from that eye. If it were then Blinded, you could cure that blindness, because that grafted ythrak's normal state would be to see out of its grafted eye.

And that is a prime example of specific > general. In this case the granted sight despite being out of the norm, specifically says it functions as normal.
That doesn't change how the general rulings of how normal should be taken into account.

And again that is from later books adding in more rules without looking at how they should function with the original rules.

Because there really isn't a rule, just what we are extrapolating from what is written.

[Segev]

And that is a prime example of specific > general. In this case the granted sight despite being out of the norm, specifically says it functions as normal.
That doesn't change how the general rulings of how normal should be taken into account.

And again that is from later books adding in more rules without looking at how they should function with the original rules.

Because there really isn't a rule, just what we are extrapolating from what is written.

The case of an Extended Psionic Charm is more specific than the general case of the duration of any old Psionic Charm.

Seriously, any of the arguments you're making just wind up backing up my interpretation.

[Menzath]

The case of an Extended Psionic Charm is more specific than the general case of the duration of any old Psionic Charm.

Seriously, any of the arguments you're making just wind up backing up my interpretation.

A very specific graft.
Vs
How metamagic and metapsionics generally work.

A very specific usage of a feat with a very specific power.
Vs
General rulings that I think should apply because these specific cases don't show any contradictory wording.

You are making a nice straw man there.
I am arguing how normal is read in dnd. Others seem to be arguing when to apply normal, and what it means to them.

Also the case of extended psionic charm was a specific case brought up by others.
I am arguing it should still follow general rulings.

[Segev]

A very specific graft.
Vs
How metamagic and metapsionics generally work.

A very specific usage of a feat with a very specific power.
Vs
General rulings that I think should apply because these specific cases don't show any contradictory wording.I have a guess or two to what you're referring, here, but...my examples are "specific" because it's easier to talk in specifics. Extend Psionic Charm could be any Extend [Power]. Extend Extend Psionic Charm could be any Extend [Extend [Power]].


You are making a nice straw man there.You're misusing "straw man" here. I'm not attributing to you anything you haven't said, nor am I knowingly misinterpreting nor misrepresenting your position to make it easier to demolish the flimsy variation on it.

I am arguing how normal is read in dnd. Others seem to be arguing when to apply normal, and what it means to them.

Also the case of extended psionic charm was a specific case brought up by others.
I am arguing it should still follow general rulings.

You're not arguing it should follow general rulings, though. You're arguing that some very specific examples that are unrelated to metamagic application somehow translate to what you want "normal" to apply to.

What I'm arguing is that "normal" is a standard English word, used in its standard English denotation, which, in context, refers to whatever the state of the argument of the function Extend ([Power]).

You mentioned a specific monster which doesn't have sight, and thus can't have remove blindness "restore" sight it never had. I brought up a case where the monster is modified to have sight, which changes its "normal" to "having sight."

This is literally no different than changing the "normal" of a given power's duration based on it being modified by Extend. The normal duration of an Extended Power is the non-Extended Power's duration x2.

[Menzath]

I have a guess or two to what you're referring, here, but...my examples are "specific" because it's easier to talk in specifics. Extend Psionic Charm could be any Extend [Power]. Extend Extend Psionic Charm could be any Extend [Extend [Power]].

You're misusing "straw man" here. I'm not attributing to you anything you haven't said, nor am I knowingly misinterpreting nor misrepresenting your position to make it easier to demolish the flimsy variation on it.


You're not arguing it should follow general rulings, though. You're arguing that some very specific examples that are unrelated to metamagic application somehow translate to what you want "normal" to apply to.

What I'm arguing is that "normal" is a standard English word, used in its standard English denotation, which, in context, refers to whatever the state of the argument of the function Extend ([Power]).

You mentioned a specific monster which doesn't have sight, and thus can't have remove blindness "restore" sight it never had. I brought up a case where the monster is modified to have sight, which changes its "normal" to "having sight."

This is literally no different than changing the "normal" of a given power's duration based on it being modified by Extend. The normal duration of an Extended Power is the non-Extended Power's duration x2.

Here is another problem then, with the standard English usage of modified, how does that equal the standard English usage of normal?

I started giving specific examples because I guess English definitions we're not enough.

[Menzath]

an Extended Psionic Charm is more specific than the general case of the duration of any old Psionic Charm.

This is the straw man, what is being arguing isn't anything that specific.

What is being argued is powers with an augmentable duration, versus powers with an augmentable duration and metapsionics that also effect duration.

That is a general case. And general rules apply.

And as I said augmenting is part of the power block, part of the "base" power. It's augmented values are still part of it's normal effects. Not because of some special reading. But because it is part of how the power naturally functions.

Using dnd references I found that a creatures printed stat block=normal.
Using that same assumption would mean a spell/powers description block=normal.

Power augmentation is listed as part of the function of a power. It is not an outside source explicitly modifying it. It is in fact listed as part of the variable effects of the power.

I am arguing it as a case of the spell/power and it's listed effects are normal. And outside sources are not.

The other cases that seem to be argued is that after something is modified that becomes the new normal.(at least this is my interpretation of what is being argued)

[Crichton]

Using dnd references I found that a creatures printed stat block=normal.
Using that same assumption would mean a spell/powers description block=normal.




Because there really isn't a rule, just what we are extrapolating from what is written.


That's just it, though. There really ISN'T a rule. They didn't define the word 'normal' as a specific rules term. And you're attempting to create one by bringing in all kinds of examples that don't really apply, and so your extrapolation is full of, more than anything, just what you personally want it to mean, not what it actually does mean. You're not going to find a definitive, binding RAW definition of the word 'normal' that creates an airtight case in your favor by bringing in a bunch of barely-related examples.

The rules authors didn't really put a lot of specificity into the text of the feat. You keep wanting it to refer to something very narrow, very specific, but it just doesn't. If they'd wanted it to mean something as narrow and specific as you want it to mean, they'd have had to do one of two things. They'd have to A) define 'normal' as a specific rules term with a specific meaning, or B) use a lot more words when writing the feat description than they did, to narrow down their meaning. They didn't do either of those things.


We don't have a rule. What we do have is context. The sentence in question is "An extended power lasts twice as long as normal." Since we lack any clarifying text or a specific definition, the most straightforward and clear way to interpret that sentence is 'when you use this feat to extend the power, it lasts twice as long as when you don't.'

Did they intend for you to apply Extend Power twice to the same manifestation? Probably not. Do the rules allow it? Pretty clearly yes, they do. At the very least they very much don't clearly forbid it.

[Segev]

Replying on my phone, so I can’t quote and edit easily. I just wanted to ask: what is it you think “straw man” means? Because even were I arguing incorrectly, what you’re calling a “straw man” isn’t one. I’m therefore curious what you actually mean by it (beyond an expression dismissing my argument without consideration).

[RoboEmperor]

I just looked up the exact language of Extend Power. It just says normal. It doesn't say "normal duration" or anything that makes it sound like an in-game mechanical term. It just says normal.

So we've been debating for pages because a guy extrapolated a meaning of normal from Alter Self's usage of the phrase "normal form"? I mean it's not even used as a noun here, it's used as an adjective and he claims it's the same thing?

You know what, I'm done here too. Good luck Segev and Drysdan, I'm out.

[Menzath]

God after reading extend spell, it's exact words as well are


twice as long as normal

So this whole argument is moot, because it only extends based on it's normal duration regardless.
Edit:yep extend power reads the exact same.


I just looked up the exact language of Extend Power. It just says normal. It doesn't say "normal duration" or anything that makes it sound like an in-game mechanical term. It just says normal.

So we've been debating for pages because a guy extrapolated a meaning of normal from Alter Self's usage of the phrase "normal form"? I mean it's not even used as a noun here, it's used as an adjective and he claims it's the same thing?

You know what, I'm done here too. Good luck Segev and Drysdan, I'm out.

Thats what I quoted?

The feats extend spell and extend power change duration. It refers to a normal value lasting twice as long. If that value is not duration, what is it?

[Menzath]

Replying on my phone, so I can’t quote and edit easily. I just wanted to ask: what is it you think “straw man” means? Because even were I arguing incorrectly, what you’re calling a “straw man” isn’t one. I’m therefore curious what you actually mean by it (beyond an expression dismissing my argument without consideration).

You are right, I was very incoherent in this case. It was completely my mistake, I meant to reply with that to another post, but had used it for yours for I have no idea why.

I am sorry for that.

Not being able to quote on your phone, iphone? I don't have that issue on my Droid.

[Promethean]

Guys, This is a thread about how best to stack meta-psionic feats that just spent 2 pages arguing about how multipliers work for durations of times. I think it's safe to to say we're Way off topic.

On the topic at hand, is there any way besides Ardent levels to stack more than one meta-psi feat onto a power?

[Menzath]

That's just it, though. There really ISN'T a rule. They didn't define the word 'normal' as a specific rules term.



I guess this is another thing to DM rule 0, the definition of normal.

We agree!


And you're attempting to create one by bringing in all kinds of examples that don't really apply, and so your extrapolation is full of, more than anything, just what you personally want it to mean, not what it actually does mean. You're not going to find a definitive, binding RAW definition of the word 'normal' that creates an airtight case in your favor by bringing in a bunch of barely-related examples.

The rules authors didn't really put a lot of specificity into the text of the feat. You keep wanting it to refer to something very narrow, very specific, but it just doesn't. If they'd wanted it to mean something as narrow and specific as you want it to mean, they'd have had to do one of two things. They'd have to A) define 'normal' as a specific rules term with a specific meaning, or B) use a lot more words when writing the feat description than they did, to narrow down their meaning. They didn't do either of those things.


We don't have a rule. What we do have is context. The sentence in question is "An extended power lasts twice as long as normal." Since we lack any clarifying text or a specific definition, the most straightforward and clear way to interpret that sentence is 'when you use this feat to extend the power, it lasts twice as long as when you don't.'

Well, I did find a time normal was used in dnd to relate to a stat block. It is not a definition in how the game uses the term normal, since it uses it in a variety of ways. But when referencing a creature normal refers to it's information block. So I would assume that normal referring to a spell, would be the spells information block.

We then argued over how normal was used, and came to use the English definition, which the terms for how metamagic/psionics affects spells indicate that the usage of normal in this case also refers to how the spell/power is written as it's normal values, and that these feats modified them.



Did they intend for you to apply Extend Power twice to the same manifestation? Probably not. Do the rules allow it? Pretty clearly yes, they do. At the very least they very much don't clearly forbid it.

I never said you cannot apply it twice, in fact the rules seem to explicitly allow it as long as you can expend your psionic focus enough times. I am arguing over how extending it more than once would work, by adding another "twice as long as normal".

[Menzath]

Guys, This is a thread about how best to stack meta-psionic feats that just spent 2 pages arguing about how multipliers work for durations of times. I think it's safe to to say we're Way off topic.

On the topic at hand, is there any way besides Ardent levels to stack more than one meta-psi feat onto a power?

I think it was already mentioned, but the feat psi Crystal containment. And the feat epic psionic focus.

I though there was more, but my late night search didn't turn up what was not already found, especially since the ardent web content was mentioned.

[Promethean]

I think it was already mentioned, but the feat psi Crystal containment. And the feat epic psionic focus.

I though there was more, but my late night search didn't turn up what was not already found, especially since the ardent web content was mentioned.

Huh, So that's a (pathfinder)feat that let's you have 2 focuses up in any one encounter, a class feature that let's you use 1 psionic feat without expending focus, and an epic feat that let's you use 2 psionic feats for every expended focus. Odd, I would have thought there were more.

I wonder if Dreamscarred press released anything on it? I know they released an absolutely mind boggling amount of supplements for Psionics and are reputable enough that many DMs will accept their material.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

There's also the psychic weapon master (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040827d)'s bonded weapon. It holds an additional psionic focus for you.

Unfortunately, it's a terrible PrC due to the massive mountain of awful prereq feats and the 50% manifesting levels lost. (As well as the lack of other decent class abilities.)

It's a 3 level dip, at most, and an extra psionic focus just isn't worth it.

If you want the extra focus from the weapon, just take three levels of illithid savant and eat someone for it. It's a lot less painful than wasting all your feats, and you can get one sooner because illithid savant is a lot easier to qualify for.

[zergling.exe]

Guys, This is a thread about how best to stack meta-psionic feats that just spent 2 pages arguing about how multipliers work for durations of times. I think it's safe to to say we're Way off topic.

On the topic at hand, is there any way besides Ardent levels to stack more than one meta-psi feat onto a power?

The argument was about what happens when you apply Extend twice to the same power, so does that not count as 'stacking like meta-psionics'? Sounds like it was entirely on topic to me.

[Segev]

The pathfinder feats which relate to god include:

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/feats/power-perfection-psionic/

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/feats/metapsionic-mastery-psionic/

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/feats/deep-focus/

And the classic from 3.5:
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/feats/psicrystal-containment-psionic/

[Crichton]

I never said you cannot apply it twice, in fact the rules seem to explicitly allow it as long as you can expend your psionic focus enough times. I am arguing over how extending it more than once would work, by adding another "twice as long as normal".

Fair enough. And as I pointed out above, given the lack of rules text to clarify, the most natural way to read that clause, in the context it's found in (the text of a metapsionic feat), is to say it lasts twice as long as if you didn't apply that metapsionic feat.


Here's how it works, then.


I manifest Skate. How long does it last? 1 minute per level


I manifest Skate with Extend Power? How long does it last? Twice as long as if i didn't use Extend, so 2 minutes per level.

I manifest Skate with Extend Power1 from my focus and with Extend Power2 from my psicrystal's focus. How long does it last? Well, simple. Twice as long as if I didn't use Extend1 makes it 2 minutes per level, and then twice as long as if I didn't use Extend2 makes it 4 minutes per level.


The way you want it to work would require, as I said before, either more text in the feat description to narrow down the meaning, or for 'normal' to be a specific defined rules term, to narrow down the meaning. We have neither of those things, so we have to go with the most natural reading of it, in the context it's found.

[Menzath]

Fair enough. And as I pointed out above, given the lack of rules text to clarify, the most natural way to read that clause, in the context it's found in (the text of a metapsionic feat), is to say it lasts twice as long as if you didn't apply that metapsionic feat.


Here's how it works, then.


I manifest Skate. How long does it last? 1 minute per level


I manifest Skate with Extend Power? How long does it last? Twice as long as if i didn't use Extend, so 2 minutes per level.

I manifest Skate with Extend Power1 from my focus and with Extend Power2 from my psicrystal's focus. How long does it last? Well, simple. Twice as long as if I didn't use Extend1 makes it 2 minutes per level, and then twice as long as if I didn't use Extend2 makes it 4 minutes per level.


The way you want it to work would require, as I said before, either more text in the feat description to narrow down the meaning, or for 'normal' to be a specific defined rules term, to narrow down the meaning. We have neither of those things, so we have to go with the most natural reading of it, in the context it's found.

So, using the English language definitions is not natural, and is instead my bias on how I want something.

Using natural in the same manner as every other instance in the book is also my trying to "narrow down the meaning".

I'm not sure how else to respond.

[Crichton]

So, using the English language definitions is not natural, and is instead my bias on how I want something.

Trying to artificially limit it to refer to a more narrowly defined set of things than it necessarily has to, by the 'English language definitions' is the part I referred to where it needs more words, or a specific game rules term definition, otherwise it's stretching the bounds of naturally reading it.

As I said somewhere back in the mess of posts, the thing you want 'normal' to refer to is, technically speaking, a potentially valid thing for it to refer to. But it's not the most natural or straightforward thing for it to refer to, so the other proposed thing is the better fit, here. In order for it to necessarily mean what you want, or even for your meaning to be the most probable one, they'd have had to use more words, or a more clear reference to the state they were comparing to.

You want it to mean 'X, only X and nothing but X, ever at all' but it doesn't really apply that strict of limits to what it refers to. You're trying to get from A to C by means of DEFGHIJ and K, instead of just taking the simple path of B, which in this case is this:

What happens if I apply this feat? The power lasts twice as long as if I don't apply this feat.




Using natural in the same manner as every other instance in the book is also my trying to "narrow down the meaning".

Your attempt to bring in other uses of the word in other contexts isn't valid here, because 'normal' is an adjective that requires something to compare to, and in the other usages they don't use it to refer to the same thing. Heck, you even said the same thing a few posts ago: "It is not a definition in how the game uses the term normal, since it uses it in a variety of ways." Anything after that is just an assumption.