Ruled as Written Psicrystals only take a standard action to recreate

[gogogome]

It has been pointed out to me that ruled as written, all psionic feats are supernatural abilities, supernatural abilities are standard actions unless otherwise noted, therefore using the Psicrystal Affinity feat to create and replace a deceased Psicrystal is a standard action. And unlike familiars there is no repercussion to Psicrystal death.

My knee jerk reaction to this is highly uncomfortable, but I'd like to know what the playground thinks about this. It has been pointed out to me that a Psion can manifest metamorphosis on the psicrystal and send it into combat with reckless abandon because its destruction is meaningless. Also as a trap monkey and expendable scout.

So my question is, is there a problem here? Or did I get the rules wrong? Or is this something I need to tone down by saying your psicrystal is not suicidal so it won't do anything that you yourself won't normally do such as be an expendable decoy in a scouting mission.

[zlefin]

As far as I can tell, those rulings are correct by RAW.
It does seem like an oversight, and there should be some sort of limit imho.
While it's true you need to spend an actual feat on it, which is a real expense, letting them come back for free seems a bit easy, especially letting them come back so fast.

Whether it's a problem depends in part on the optimization level of the campaign; at higher op levels I don't think it'd be an issue given how much other silly stuff there is (of course higher op would also be making more use of it).

I'd recommend some sort of tone down; not sure which one though. probably some sort of backlash effect if its destroyed.

[frogglesmash]

I'd recommend some sort of tone down; not sure which one though. probably some sort of backlash effect if its destroyed.

Imo the fact that it costs a feat to acquire justifies not having a penalty for when it dies, I'd be more in favour of a daily limit on the number of times you can create them as this would prevent most of the exploitative uses for the psicrystal, without punishing the player.

[Akkristor]

Personally, I only allow Psicrystals to be replaced once per day, when PP are restored; somewhat similar to Druids being able to replace their Animal Companion. Still expendable, but not an every round thing.

[Eldariel]

Familiars and ACs take 24 hours to acquire/recover so that seems like a reasonable starting point. Whether you want to include any costs or not is of course up to you (FWIW, Psicrystal is closer to a familiar than an AC as a "shard of the wielder's mind", so familiar-like cost may be more natural - but again, since it costs a feat, the XP loss is probably quite unnecessary).

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Familiars take a year and a day and ACs take 24 hours to acquire/recover so that seems like a reasonable starting point. Whether you want to include any costs or not is of course up to you (FWIW, Psicrystal is closer to a familiar than an AC as a "shard of the wielder's mind", so familiar-like cost may be more natural - but again, since it costs a feat, the XP loss is probably quite unnecessary).Fixed that for you.

Combined with horrible XP loss, there're major reasons why people around here don't like having familiars and trade them out whenever possible.

Meanwhile, psicrystals take a standard action. :3 Of course, the horrid penalties familiars suffer will mean most people won't use their psicrystals anywhere outside their clothing where it can't be targeted, as losing one is absolutely crippling.

[Sleven]

Fixed that for you.

Combined with horrible XP loss, there're major reasons why people around here don't like having familiars and trade them out whenever possible.

Meanwhile, familiars take a standard action. :3 Of course, the horrid penalties familiars suffer will mean most people won't use their psicrystals anywhere outside their clothing where it can't be targeted, as losing one is absolutely crippling.

Familiars are underrated because people have a hard time understanding what action economy is if it isn't their actual character taking the actions.


It has been pointed out to me that a Psion can manifest metamorphosis on the psicrystal and send it into combat with reckless abandon because its destruction is meaningless. Also as a trap monkey and expendable scout.

So my question is, is there a problem here? Or did I get the rules wrong? Or is this something I need to tone down by saying your psicrystal is not suicidal so it won't do anything that you yourself won't normally do such as be an expendable decoy in a scouting mission.

Yes, there is a problem here. If that psicrystal moves more than 5ft away from you it loses metamorphosis.

[RoboEmperor]

Familiars are underrated because people have a hard time understanding what action economy is if it isn't their actual character taking the actions.



Yes, there is a problem here. If that psicrystal moves more than 5ft away from you it loses metamorphosis.

You didn't read the second part where it says you can manifest a personal power as a touch range spell on the psicrystal instead of on yourself and the psicrystal. This isn't limited to 5ft.

[Segev]

The idea of shared (rather than used-as-touch-range) Metamorphosis requiring they stay within 5 ft. of each other makes me want to find a way to apply templates to Metamorphosis forms, so that the Psion and psicrystal can use shared Metamorphosis to become a Symbiont creature.

I know, Fusion is a thing, but this is cool in a different way. I'm not even sure it's necessarily broken.

[Doctor Awkward]

I mean... with that literal of a rules reading, the Psicrystal Affinity feat technically doesn't do anything. It tells you that you are allowed to gain a psicrystal, but it doesn't tell you how that is actually accomplished. The general rules on psicrystals only direct you back to the feat.

Such a reading implies that Psionic Meditation also doesn't do anything since, as a supernatural ability, you would be required to activate it with your standard action before you are allowed to use a move action to become psionically focused. This applies to a majority of the psionic feats, like Speed of Thought, Overchannel, Up the Walls, etc.

[Sleven]

You didn't read the second part where it says you can manifest a personal power as a touch range spell on the psicrystal instead of on yourself and the psicrystal. This isn't limited to 5ft.

You think that sentence is independent of the one right before it? Lol.

The entry for familiars has the same option. Doesn't change the limitations.

[Crichton]

You think that sentence is independent of the one right before it? Lol.

The entry for familiars has the same option. Doesn't change the limitations.

I can see why, since they're under the same heading, you'd think that. But the way it's worded, with 'Additionally' to separate them and with all of the wording of the 5ft rule directly referencing the shared power option of the sentences before, it's clear that they just pigeonholed what should have been 2 features into one. Nothing in any of the 5ft rule wording indicates that it reaches outside the 'he can have any power (but not any psi-like ability) he manifests on himself also affect his psicrystal' feature.



Edit: not that I'm buying into the disposable psicrystals as a standard action line of thought. Just the not being limited to 5ft when not sharing, but applying powers directly to your psicrystal.

[RoboEmperor]

I mean... with that literal of a rules reading, the Psicrystal Affinity feat technically doesn't do anything. It tells you that you are allowed to gain a psicrystal, but it doesn't tell you how that is actually accomplished. The general rules on psicrystals only direct you back to the feat.

The psicrystal entry in the Psion class description explicitly says you bring the psicrystal to life with the Psicrystal Affinity feat.


Such a reading implies that Psionic Meditation also doesn't do anything since, as a supernatural ability, you would be required to activate it with your standard action before you are allowed to use a move action to become psionically focused. This applies to a majority of the psionic feats, like Speed of Thought, Overchannel, Up the Walls, etc.

Those directly specify it is used with another action or doesn't use an action. It's a huge leap in logic to say "while you're psionically focused" or "while manifesting a power" is the same as no action stated.

There is no alternative interpretation for Psicrystal Affinity simply because there is nothing. Literally nothing. So when there's absolutely nothing, you have no choice but to use the default rule designed to encompass everything that has no rules for it.

[gogogome]

You think that sentence is independent of the one right before it? Lol.

The entry for familiars has the same option. Doesn't change the limitations.

The d20srd makes it look like those two are separate but if you look up the actual book all the share spells or powers, be it animal companions, paladin mount, familiar, or psicrystal, all share the same paragraph. So I'm gonna say Sleven is right.

It doesn't really matter. A polymorphed hydra psicrystal isn't gonna do anything due to its horrendous BAB so this wasn't what I was worried about.

Since it seems the consensus is that psicrystals are in fact a standard action to recreate I'll let it fly for now. It can't be that much worse than summon elemental reserve feat at least until level 15.

[Segev]

Since it seems the consensus is that psicrystals are in fact a standard action to recreate I'll let it fly for now. It can't be that much worse than summon elemental reserve feat at least until level 15.

House rules are a thing, and perfectly acceptable when done with deliberation or to be in line with existing material. It's pretty clear from the way psicrystals are overall treated that they're not meant to be standard action replaceable. Not that you can't or shouldn't rule it that way if it's more fun at your table, but they're treated pretty much as psionic familiars, and using at least a 24-hour or "when you next regain psi points" recharge time is not unreasonable.

I think familiars take too long at "a year and a day." That's dumb. That's essentially saying "it cannot be replaced" in most campaigns, where even months passing is relatively rare. But some wait time is not inappropriate.

But if you're comfortable with no wait time, go for it!

[Crichton]

The d20srd makes it look like those two are separate but if you look up the actual book all the share spells or powers, be it animal companions, paladin mount, familiar, or psicrystal, all share the same paragraph. So I'm gonna say Sleven is right.


Still gonna have to disagree, both in RAW and RAI. The change in formatting doesn't negate the content of the text.

The 2 mentions of the 5ft limitation clearly refer to shared powers that affect both you and your psicrystal, the first mention being that it has to be within 5 feet to "receive the benefit." What benefit? The benefit it just mentioned of having a power affect both the manifester and the psicrystal. The second mention is limited to referring to the text of the previous sentence by the phrase "If the power..." Not that it's not "if a power' which could possibly refer to the later line, but it's "if the power...' which can only be referring to the power mentioned in the previous sentences, the power that has had it's effect shared between both the manifester and the crystal.


The line saying "Additionally, the owner can manifest a power with a target of “You” on his psicrystal (as a touch range power) instead of on himself" is a separate thought, a separate sentence, and the 5ft limitation text in the previous lines doesn't structure itself in such a way as to reach forward to this sentence in any way.


As an aside, what does the text of animal companion, mount, or familiar have to do with anything? Yes, they feel like similar class features, but since the psicrystal text doesn't mention any of them in any way at all, let alone specifically say it inherits any rules text for them, they are all completely irrelevant to a discussion of the RAW of psicrystals. They could conceivably factor into a discussion of how the rules were intended, but not in any way to the RAW.


It doesn't really matter. A polymorphed hydra psicrystal isn't gonna do anything due to its horrendous BAB so this wasn't what I was worried about.

Again, not that I'm really buying into this disposable standard action psicrystal stuff, but is 3/4 BAB really 'horrendous'????

[Crichton]

I mean... with that literal of a rules reading, the Psicrystal Affinity feat technically doesn't do anything. It tells you that you are allowed to gain a psicrystal, but it doesn't tell you how that is actually accomplished. The general rules on psicrystals only direct you back to the feat.



The psicrystal entry in the Psion class description explicitly says you bring the psicrystal to life with the Psicrystal Affinity feat.




Not exactly...


A)A line of text outside the rules text of the feat can't and doesn't have any mechanical rules effect on how the feat functions. It's just a description of what a psicrystal is, and points to the feat that allows you to have one.

B)And more specifically, the line in the Psion class description, just like the line in the Psicrystal Affinity feat text, is in past tense: 'brought into physical form.' It's a description of what's already happened if you have a psicrystal.

C)It doesn't say, just like the text of Psicrystal Affinity doesn't say, that you can create a psicrystal whenever you want. In fact it doesn't actually say you can create one at all. Strictly speaking, neither does Psicrystal Affinity. It says in the descriptive text section(fluff) that you already have created one, and in the 'benefit' section(crunch) that the feat allows you to 'gain' one. Not make one, create one, or that 'using' the feat(regardless of what type of action that would be) gives you one.

[Segev]

It says in the descriptive text section(fluff) that you already have created one, and in the 'benefit' section(crunch) that the feat allows you to 'gain' one. Not make one, create one, or that 'using' the feat(regardless of what type of action that would be) gives you one.

If a rule says you can "gain" something, and provides no other mechanics detailing how, then it basically says you do so by declaring you do. Note that Leadership and Thrallherd don't specify ways you acquire your minions (though they provide fluff to explain it); you just...have them.

[Crichton]

If a rule says you can "gain" something, and provides no other mechanics detailing how, then it basically says you do so by declaring you do. Note that Leadership and Thrallherd don't specify ways you acquire your minions (though they provide fluff to explain it); you just...have them.

Can you provide a more clear example of 'allows you to gain' being used in this way? The Leadership feat and the Thrallherd class don't use the word 'gain' in that sense anywhere in their descriptions, and so aren't valid to use as evidence of your claim...

I'm not saying you're incorrect, per se, but off the top of my head can't think of an example of anything, much less a feat, that simply says 'allows you to gain' and is clearly intending it to operate as an 'activate this, get that' function. I need some other example, or a clear piece of rules text that defines that...

[Segev]

Can you provide a more clear example of 'allows you to gain' being used in this way? The Leadership feat and the Thrallherd class don't use the word 'gain' in that sense anywhere in their descriptions, and so aren't valid to use as evidence of your claim...

I'm not saying you're incorrect, per se, but off the top of my head can't think of an example of anything, much less a feat, that simply says 'allows you to gain' and is clearly intending it to operate as an 'activate this, get that' function. I need some other example, or a clear piece of rules text that defines that...

I can't off the top of my head, no, but I am defaulting to plain English, here. It says you can gain it. It doesn't specify how. By expressly granting permission to do so, it clearly implies that you're supposed to expect to do so, so it's not like saying, "Well, you CAN get a +5 Luckblade Holy Avenger that is an intelligent item...if you can figure out how to find one," but rather like telling somebody, "Sure, you can come to the party with us." It implies the means of doing so is obvious to the person being directed.

In game terms, then, it's as easy as the player saying, "I gain it." IF he wants to fluff gaining it in a particular way, he's free to, because fluff isn't specified. Just the mechanic that he can gain it and what happens when he does. He gains it by deciding to do so, just as the fly spell lets you fly by deciding to do so.

[Crichton]

I can't off the top of my head, no, but I am defaulting to plain English, here. It says you can gain it. It doesn't specify how. By expressly granting permission to do so, it clearly implies that you're supposed to expect to do so, so it's not like saying, "Well, you CAN get a +5 Luckblade Holy Avenger that is an intelligent item...if you can figure out how to find one," but rather like telling somebody, "Sure, you can come to the party with us." It implies the means of doing so is obvious to the person being directed.

In game terms, then, it's as easy as the player saying, "I gain it." IF he wants to fluff gaining it in a particular way, he's free to, because fluff isn't specified. Just the mechanic that he can gain it and what happens when he does. He gains it by deciding to do so, just as the fly spell lets you fly by deciding to do so.



Thing is, it doesn't say 'activating' the feat lets you gain it. It says 'you have created' and then says 'this feat allows you to gain a psicrystal.' The RAI is totally clear, and the RAW pretty close to it, that taking the feat gives you one psicrystal. Where does it say it's an ability you can activate at-will? It's a passive effect, just like taking Iron Will grants you a permanent passive +2. Feats that have a specific usable ability attached to them specify the conditions for using them, such as Combat Casting, or Power Attack, or Overchannel, or Psionic Fist.

[Segev]

Thing is, it doesn't say 'activating' the feat lets you gain it. It says 'you have created' and then says 'this feat allows you to gain a psicrystal.' The RAI is totally clear, and the RAW pretty close to it, that taking the feat gives you one psicrystal. Where does it say it's an ability you can activate at-will? It's a passive effect, just like taking Iron Will grants you a permanent passive +2. Feats that have a specific usable ability attached to them specify the conditions for using them, such as Combat Casting, or Power Attack, or Overchannel, or Psionic Fist.

Agreed, more or less. But since we're being pedantic, it says you can gain one. If you lose your current one, you can gain another. *shrug*

[Crichton]

Agreed, more or less. But since we're being pedantic, it says you can gain one. If you lose your current one, you can gain another. *shrug*

It doesn't mean that, either from the rules text or from general logic. You've already gained it. Just because you let your psicrystal die doesn't mean you didn't already gain 'a psicrystal,' and since it doesn't provide means of replacing it, you can't. If you could do as you suggest, that would be gaining 'two psicrysals' (or more). The text doesn't allow for that.

That's one of the big holes in the psicrystal rules that has been discussed often over the years. Lots of houserule fixes have been suggested, but the only 100% RAW method that I know of to replace a dead psicrystal is to use Psychic Reformation (or maybe retraining rules?) to remove the feat, then take it again.

[Segev]

It doesn't mean that, either from the rules text or from general logic. You've already gained it. Just because you let your psicrystal die doesn't mean you didn't already gain 'a psicrystal,' and since it doesn't provide means of replacing it, you can't. If you could do as you suggest, that would be gaining 'two psicrysals' (or more). The text doesn't allow for that.

That's one of the big holes in the psicrystal rules that has been discussed often over the years. Lots of houserule fixes have been suggested, but the only 100% RAW method that I know of to replace a dead psicrystal is to use Psychic Reformation (or maybe retraining rules?) to remove the feat, then take it again.

Eh, perhaps. Sucks if so, but fortunately most DMs will probably treat it, at worst, as a familiar. (Not that that's much better, if he handles that by RAW.)

[Crichton]

Eh, perhaps. Sucks if so, but fortunately most DMs will probably treat it, at worst, as a familiar. (Not that that's much better, if he handles that by RAW.)

Indeed. Most DMs that I've talked to go with some combination of the various proposed houserules for replacing them, such as 24 hours waiting period, waiting until level up, various xp or gp costs, etc...

[Psyren]

The issue with this ruling is that it means every single other psionic feat without an action specified defaults to a standard action activation too. This renders a number of them difficult or impossible to use. Psionic Fist? Can't punch. Power Penetration? Hope you quickened. Metamorphic Transfer? Got a schism handy? Overchannel/Talented? You can't ever use these together. And so on.

[Segev]

The issue with this ruling is that it means every single other psionic feat without an action specified defaults to a standard action activation too. This renders a number of them difficult or impossible to use. Psionic Fist? Can't punch. Power Penetration? Hope you quickened. Metamorphic Transfer? Got a schism handy? Overchannel/Talented? You can't ever use these together. And so on.

Not quite, though I agree that the interpretation is problematic. These various other feats generally specify actions they augment, which means they do "say otherwise" wrt being a standard action to activate. Instead, they are part of those other actions. Psionic Fist? You punch, and it does its thing.

Alternatively, Psionic Fist takes a standard action to use and your punch is part of the use.

[Doctor Awkward]

Those directly specify it is used with another action or doesn't use an action. It's a huge leap in logic to say "while you're psionically focused" or "while manifesting a power" is the same as no action stated.

I have to disagree on the grounds that the only rules on expending a psionic focus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/skills/concentration.htm#gainPsionicFocus) for feats state only, "You can also expend your focus to gain the benefit of a psionic feat—many psionic feats are activated in this way."

This all but outright states that psionic feats are activated, rather than being a continuous benefit that applies in certain specific circumstances like normal feats, and thus because they are supernatural abilities this would default to a standard action unless otherwise specified. I'll accept the argument that you can interpret some of the feats as being part of another action (like Psionic Fist), but a great majority of them simply state, "To use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus," and then instruct you to do something else. These feats don't actually do anything if they then only affect something that takes a standard action, such as all Metapsionic feats.


If a rule says you can "gain" something, and provides no other mechanics detailing how, then it basically says you do so by declaring you do. Note that Leadership and Thrallherd don't specify ways you acquire your minions (though they provide fluff to explain it); you just...have them.

I have to disagree with this comparison on the grounds that the Leadership feat has extensive rules for how many followers you gain, what they typically are, and how cohorts are different. There is also a great deal of fluff that states that these are people who have heard of the character and show up to offer their services. Thrallherd in turn explicitly uses these same rules, just with the fluff that the followers are compelled rather than showing up of their own free will.

In turn, the Psicrystal Affinity feat says nothing. Thus, it does nothing.

[RoboEmperor]

I have to disagree on the grounds that the only rules on expending a psionic focus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/skills/concentration.htm#gainPsionicFocus) for feats state only, "You can also expend your focus to gain the benefit of a psionic feat—many psionic feats are activated in this way."

This all but outright states that psionic feats are activated, rather than being a continuous benefit that applies in certain specific circumstances like normal feats, and thus because they are supernatural abilities this would default to a standard action unless otherwise specified. I'll accept the argument that you can interpret some of the feats as being part of another action (like Psionic Fist), but a great majority of them simply state, "To use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus," and then instruct you to do something else. These feats don't actually do anything if they then only affect something that takes a standard action, such as all Metapsionic feats.

The issue with this ruling is that it means every single other psionic feat without an action specified defaults to a standard action activation too. This renders a number of them difficult or impossible to use. Psionic Fist? Can't punch. Power Penetration? Hope you quickened. Metamorphic Transfer? Got a schism handy? Overchannel/Talented? You can't ever use these together. And so on.

If you read the psionic feats section


Many psionic feats can be used only when you are psionically focused; others require you to expend your psionic focus to gain their benefit. Expending your psionic focus does not require an action; it is part of another action (such as using a feat). When you expend your psionic focus, it applies only to the action for which you expended it.

I think this qualifies as "otherwise stated"


Thing is, it doesn't say 'activating' the feat lets you gain it. It says 'you have created' and then says 'this feat allows you to gain a psicrystal.' The RAI is totally clear, and the RAW pretty close to it, that taking the feat gives you one psicrystal. Where does it say it's an ability you can activate at-will? It's a passive effect, just like taking Iron Will grants you a permanent passive +2. Feats that have a specific usable ability attached to them specify the conditions for using them, such as Combat Casting, or Power Attack, or Overchannel, or Psionic Fist.

You declare everything outside the feat description as inapplicable because it is fluff, but you take the fluff part of the feat as complete undeniable RAW? Kind of hypocritical don't you think? If you're gonna be legalistic you need to discard all fluff as fluff has 0 impact on mechanics. And the psicrystal entry in the psion class description is NOT fluff. It is the most authoritative rule text concerning psicrystals along with its monster entry.

The feat does not give you a psicrystal. It lets you get one but does not explicitly say you get one. Getting a Psicrystal is completely optional. A person can grab the feat now but decide to get a psicrystal 2 levels later. You need to prove a person who gets the feat has 0 choice in whether he gets the psicrystal now or later. Otherwise Segev is right. You just declare you gain a psicrystal and you get one, which defaults to a standard action.

[Psyren]

If you read the psionic feats section



I think this qualifies as "otherwise stated"

That's the action to expend your focus - not the action to use the feat. Furthermore, not all psionic feats require expending focus, e.g. Overchannel.

[RoboEmperor]

That's the action to expend your focus - not the action to use the feat. Furthermore, not all psionic feats require expending focus, e.g. Overchannel.

Overchannel says while manifesting a power you can increase its manifester level. Manifesting a power = standard action. You can use this feat while manifesting a power, therefore this feat is part of another action, therefore it is not a standard action to activate the feat. Why is this so hard to understand?

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying the default standard action rule for (Su) doesn't exist and needs to be ignored because other feats don't directly and explicitly say they are non-actions when it's very clear that they are? You can't ignore rules just because you don't like them.

[gogogome]

Still gonna have to disagree, both in RAW and RAI. The change in formatting doesn't negate the content of the text.

The 2 mentions of the 5ft limitation clearly refer to shared powers that affect both you and your psicrystal, the first mention being that it has to be within 5 feet to "receive the benefit." What benefit? The benefit it just mentioned of having a power affect both the manifester and the psicrystal. The second mention is limited to referring to the text of the previous sentence by the phrase "If the power..." Not that it's not "if a power' which could possibly refer to the later line, but it's "if the power...' which can only be referring to the power mentioned in the previous sentences, the power that has had it's effect shared between both the manifester and the crystal.


The line saying "Additionally, the owner can manifest a power with a target of “You” on his psicrystal (as a touch range power) instead of on himself" is a separate thought, a separate sentence, and the 5ft limitation text in the previous lines doesn't structure itself in such a way as to reach forward to this sentence in any way.

Additionally means in addition to all of this as in all the previous restrictions still apply. I believe the rule is there so that the spellcaster or manifester can utilize their companion creature's typing. For example, a psion cannot metamorphosis into a golem so he can't metamorphosis his psicrystal into a golem unless the target of metamorphosis is his psicrystal and not himself.


As an aside, what does the text of animal companion, mount, or familiar have to do with anything? Yes, they feel like similar class features, but since the psicrystal text doesn't mention any of them in any way at all, let alone specifically say it inherits any rules text for them, they are all completely irrelevant to a discussion of the RAW of psicrystals. They could conceivably factor into a discussion of how the rules were intended, but not in any way to the RAW.

Because it's the exact same ability. Change spells to power and mount, AC, or familiar to psicrystal and it's identical.


Again, not that I'm really buying into this disposable standard action psicrystal stuff, but is 3/4 BAB really 'horrendous'????

On a Hydra it is. Hydras have a hard enough time hitting high AC creatures and 3/4 BAB really hurts its already low attack. But I thought psicrystals got half BAB because I thought they used their master's BAB but I was mistaken so it's not that bad. +14 to hit will still hit a lot of mid level creatures but those creatures usually have 10+ DR so the hydra is still horrible.


That's the action to expend your focus - not the action to use the feat. Furthermore, not all psionic feats require expending focus, e.g. Overchannel.

Even if you're right a dysfunction in the rules in one area has nothing to do with anything else. Drown healing doesn't mean we ignore hitpoint rules. We may house rule to fix it especially when players abuse it with hide life but this dysfunction has nothing to do with anything else other than drowning rules. Likewise if there is a dysfunction in the rules with overchannel then it has nothing to do with the other psionic feats. But I believe Robo is right here. You need to butcher the English language to interpret overchannel as anything other than use with another action.


The feat does not give you a psicrystal. It lets you get one but does not explicitly say you get one. Getting a Psicrystal is completely optional. A person can grab the feat now but decide to get a psicrystal 2 levels later. You need to prove a person who gets the feat has 0 choice in whether he gets the psicrystal now or later. Otherwise Segev is right. You just declare you gain a psicrystal and you get one, which defaults to a standard action.

Interesting. The feat does seem to say you can get a psicrystal anytime you want after you get the feat not right when you get the feat.

I think the feat is fine, it's the lack of penalty of psicrystal death that is the problem here. So if there is an oversight it's in the psicrystal entry in the psion class description rather than in psicrystal affinity feat description.

[Psyren]

Overchannel says while manifesting a power you can increase its manifester level. Manifesting a power = standard action.

Not necessarily - some are swift and full-round too.


You can't ignore rules just because you don't like them.

Well actually I can, quite easily :smalltongue: but that's not what I'm saying; I'm saying that an overly literalist reading can have consequences elsewhere.

[RoboEmperor]

Well actually I can, quite easily :smalltongue: but that's not what I'm saying; I'm saying that an overly literalist reading can have consequences elsewhere.

True but that's not what I'm saying here though. I'm saying that the default standard action rule is a catch-all for all no-rules/oversights and the psicrystal stuff is a no-rules/oversight. That's really it. Everyone knows psicrystal replacement is a giant gaping hole in the rules so why aren't we using the default catch-all to solve this problem?

The consensus is that the feat does give you a replacement psicrystal but fails to mention how, so I'm here to point out that the feat itself doesn't even tell you how to get your 1st psicrystal so lets use the catch-all default rule to fix this since it is in fact applicable here by RAW instead of resigning psicrystals as something unusable without house rules.

I don't expect standard action with no cooldown psicrystal replacement to fly at any table so i have no intention of using psicrystals other than psionic focus generators with the wild affinity feat but I am also extremely uncomfortable using something that is permanently lose-able which is why I dug up this interaction in the first place in my other thread. So instead of a no-rule->house rule to fix, it's now OP-rule->house rule to nerf. I'm pretty sure some of my DMs will use PF's ruling that the Psicrystal reforms after 24 hours since that's also the customer service's suggestion and the unreleased Complete Psionic errata says you get new Elemental Envoys 12 hours after the last one died at no cost to you.

[Calthropstu]

There is no repurcussion for losing a psicrystal, but it is definitely not a standard action as it takes 24 hours. Literally speaking, it doesn't take an action at all. Simply 24 hours after losing it, it respawns.

[Crichton]

This all but outright states that psionic feats are activated, rather than being a continuous benefit that applies in certain specific circumstances like normal feats, and thus because they are supernatural abilities this would default to a standard action unless otherwise specified.

"Many psionic feats are activated in this way" is not equal to "the default is that all psionic feats are activated this way unless otherwise specified. The fact is that some psionic feats are activated as part of another action, such as metapsionic feats and such which require you to expend your focus, and also require that you still spend the action to do the thing that they modify(the manifesting time of the power they modify, for example), and that some psionic feats are completely passive, and require no activation nor take any action, such as Psionic Body or Psionic Talent or, I'd argue, Psicrystal Affinity.




I have to disagree with this comparison on the grounds that the Leadership feat has extensive rules for how many followers you gain, what they typically are, and how cohorts are different. There is also a great deal of fluff that states that these are people who have heard of the character and show up to offer their services. Thrallherd in turn explicitly uses these same rules, just with the fluff that the followers are compelled rather than showing up of their own free will.


As I previously stated, the Thrallherd and Leadership descriptions do not use the word 'gain' in any sense even remotely similar to the sense that Psicrystal Affinity uses 'gain,' and so have no bearing on the RAW argument for psicrystals.



If you read the psionic feats section


I think this qualifies as "otherwise stated"


The psionic feats that require expending your focus modify an existing thing that itself requires an action, so while expending your focus doesn't require an action, the power or other effect that the feat modifies still requires expending whatever action type it normally would.



You declare everything outside the feat description as inapplicable because it is fluff,

No, I declare everything outside the Feat entry to be unable to provide specific rules for how the Feat functions. That's not the same thing as calling it all fluff. It's more akin to saying that the rules entry for a beholder can't have any RAW effect on the rules for how wizard spellcasting works, even though beholders use spells.


but you take the fluff part of the feat as complete undeniable RAW? Kind of hypocritical don't you think?
I don't take it to be undeniable RAW, nor ever said so. But it 100% confirms the RAI of Psicrysal Affinity. Though divorcing it completely from the rest of the text is being unfaithful to the feat entry, I'd argue.


If you're gonna be legalistic you need to discard all fluff as fluff has 0 impact on mechanics.
The subject line of this thread begins with the words 'rules as written' so being legalistic is the name of the game.


And the psicrystal entry in the psion class description is NOT fluff. It is the most authoritative rule text concerning psicrystals along with its monster entry.
It most certainly is fluff, in regards to how the feat Psicrystal Affinity functions. Nothing outside the description of a given feat can be taken as rules text for how a feat functions by RAW, much less a class feature or monster entry.


The feat does not give you a psicrystal. It lets you get one but does not explicitly say you get one. Getting a Psicrystal is completely optional. A person can grab the feat now but decide to get a psicrystal 2 levels later. You need to prove a person who gets the feat has 0 choice in whether he gets the psicrystal now or later. Otherwise Segev is right. You just declare you gain a psicrystal and you get one, which defaults to a standard action.

Your first statement does not necessarily imply the second. The descriptive entry 'You have created a psicrystal' absolutely confirms the RAI of the feat, but even ignoring it completely, the text 'This feat allows you to gain a psicrystal' does not equate to 'This feat gives you the ability to get a new psicrystal whenever you want one.' As I mentioned in a previous post, that text only implies that you can gain one psicrystal, and whatever happens to that psicrystal, that text does not imply that you can get a second, third or any more replacement psicrystals. Once you've 'gained' a psicrystal, that's it. You've already gained it, even if it dies.



I don't understand your argument. Are you saying the default standard action rule for (Su) doesn't exist and needs to be ignored because other feats don't directly and explicitly say they are non-actions when it's very clear that they are?
Not at all. It's just that some feats aren't actions or activatable at all. They're passive effects, like Psionic Talent or Psionic Body, or Psicrystal Affinity. They're not things that can be 'used' over and over again, they just provide a benefit, and don't get activated or use any actions at all... Psicrystal Affinity fits into this category of feats because nowhere in the Psicrystal Affinity feat does it say you 'use' or 'activate' this feat to get a new psicrystal. It doesn't even say that this feat gives you one, just that 'this feat allows you to gain' one. So even if you could 'use' or 'activate' this feat(you can't), it would just be activating your 'allowance' to have one.



Additionally means in addition to all of this as in all the previous restrictions still apply.
Additionally does mean 'in addition to' but it does not logically or linguistically mean that limiting phrases that grammatically only attach to one thing can be applied to another thing. The phrases that the 2 mentions of the 5ft limitation attach to don't really allow for them to be applied to this other use, where you don't share the effects of the power, but rather can instead target your psicrystal with Personal range powers as Touch range instead...


I believe the rule is there so that the spellcaster or manifester can utilize their companion creature's typing. For example, a psion cannot metamorphosis into a golem so he can't metamorphosis his psicrystal into a golem unless the target of metamorphosis is his psicrystal and not himself.
I guess I don't follow what you mean with this? The feature does allow you to manifest metamorphosis on your psicrystal and not yourself, so....??




Because it's the exact same ability. Change spells to power and mount, AC, or familiar to psicrystal and it's identical.
Doesn't have any relevance in a RAW discussion though. In a RAI discussion? Sure, similar features like that can help clarify what they intended(and these ones do, when people try to develop a fair houserule to use for replacing psicrystals), but when it comes to Rules As Written, other entries -no matter how thematically similar- have absolutely zero bearing on the entry under discussion.




On a Hydra it is. Hydras have a hard enough time hitting high AC creatures and 3/4 BAB really hurts its already low attack. But I thought psicrystals got half BAB because I thought they used their master's BAB but I was mistaken so it's not that bad. +14 to hit will still hit a lot of mid level creatures but those creatures usually have 10+ DR so the hydra is still horrible.
Ok, I can see how, by comparison, it would be not so great.



Interesting. The feat does seem to say you can get a psicrystal anytime you want after you get the feat not right when you get the feat.
Perhaps, but even if you can delay getting it, it says you are allowed to gain 'a' psicrystal. Just one. So even if you could specify when you gained it, you'd only gain the one, regardless of what happens to it later on.



There is no repurcussion for losing a psicrystal, but it is definitely not a standard action as it takes 24 hours. Literally speaking, it doesn't take an action at all. Simply 24 hours after losing it, it respawns.

Uh... Where are you finding this 24 hour rule for psicrystals? A big part of the discussion at hand is that there are no rules at all for how to replace a psicrystal that's been lost.

[Sleven]

Additionally does mean 'in addition to' but it does not logically or linguistically mean that limiting phrases that grammatically only attach to one thing can be applied to another thing. The phrases that the 2 mentions of the 5ft limitation attach to don't really allow for them to be applied to this other use, where you don't share the effects of the power, but rather can instead target your psicrystal with Personal range powers as Touch range instead...

[...]

Sure, similar features like that can help clarify what they intended

All that line is saying is that you can choose to manifest a power on your psicrystal and not yourself as an additional option.

Familiars are relevant because the share spell wording is exactly the same. So you must think it works that way for spellcasters too. Besides, (at least one or all of) the DMG, Player's Handbook, and Rules Compendium explicitly tell us to look at similar rules and abilities if the rules for something ever seem ambiguous or questionable for guidance as to how that something should function.

[Crichton]

All that line is saying is that you can choose to manifest a power on your psicrystal and not yourself as an additional option.
As an additional option, yes, but that doesn't necessarily inherit the tacked on limitations of the first option. Those limitations use grammatical structures that limit them to being applied to only that first option. As below(brackets/emphasis mine):


Option 1: At the owner’s option, he can have any power (but not any psi-like ability) he manifests on himself also affect his psicrystal. The psicrystal must be within 5 feet of him at the time of the manifestation to receive the benefit[of the power that's also affecting it]. If the power has a duration other than instantaneous, it[the power that's also affecting the psicrystal] stops affecting the psicrystal if it moves farther than 5 feet away, and will not affect the psicrystal again, even if it returns to its owner before the duration expires.

Option 2: Additionally, the owner can manifest a power with a target of “You” on his psicrystal (as a touch range power) instead of on himself. The owner and psicrystal cannot share powers if the powers normally do not affect creatures of the psicrystal’s type (construct).




Familiars are relevant because the share spell wording is exactly the same. So you must think it works that way for spellcasters too. Besides, (at least one or all of) the DMG, Player's Handbook, and Rules Compendium explicitly tell us to look at similar rules and abilities if the rules for something ever seem ambiguous or questionable for guidance as to how that something should function.(Emphasis mine)

Agreed. That's what I said above. You can use those other similar classes/features to figure out how this one was intended to function. But this was a question of pure RAW, so what other similar classes/features do with their similar wording doesn't factor in to how the rules are written for this class/feature.

[RoboEmperor]

No, I declare everything outside the Feat entry to be unable to provide specific rules for how the Feat functions. That's not the same thing as calling it all fluff. It's more akin to saying that the rules entry for a beholder can't have any RAW effect on the rules for how wizard spellcasting works, even though beholders use spells.
...
It most certainly is fluff, in regards to how the feat Psicrystal Affinity functions. Nothing outside the description of a given feat can be taken as rules text for how a feat functions by RAW, much less a class feature or monster entry.

Ok, so if we follow your logic, everything in the creating magic item rules must be ignored because they're not in the item creation feat entry, or even in the same book. And the additional rules in magic item compendium must also be ignored because they're outside the item creation feat entry. And Vow of Poverty does nothing because all the benefits you gain from that feat are also outside the feat entry. And Obtain Familiar doesn't do anything because familiars are in a different book than the feat.

In fact if we go by your interpretation you need to completely disregard the entirety of the psion class description because nowhere in the psicrystal's monster entry does it specify that the psicrystal gains abilities as its hd increases. So psicrystals can never get deliver touch powers, Telepathic speech, Flight, Power Resistance, Sight Link, or Channel Power because nothing outside the description of a given monster entry can be taken as rules text for how a monster functions. There is literally nothing in the psicrystal monster entry that says that the Psicrystal gains Deliver Touch Spells as it increases in hd.

Or you can accept the fact that sometimes feats are only part of a set of rules and that in no way renders other rules obsolete especially when they don't conflict.


I don't take it to be undeniable RAW, nor ever said so. But it 100% confirms the RAI of Psicrysal Affinity. Though divorcing it completely from the rest of the text is being unfaithful to the feat entry, I'd argue.
...
The subject line of this thread begins with the words 'rules as written' so being legalistic is the name of the game.
...
Your first statement does not necessarily imply the second. The descriptive entry 'You have created a psicrystal' absolutely confirms the RAI of the feat, but even ignoring it completely, the text 'This feat allows you to gain a psicrystal' does not equate to 'This feat gives you the ability to get a new psicrystal whenever you want one.' As I mentioned in a previous post, that text only implies that you can gain one psicrystal, and whatever happens to that psicrystal, that text does not imply that you can get a second, third or any more replacement psicrystals. Once you've 'gained' a psicrystal, that's it. You've already gained it, even if it dies.

RAI means ignore the RAW because this is how it was intended to be so you're not using the phrase RAI correctly. And the Intent of this feat is to give the player a psicrystal. Nothing I have said betrays this intent.

And your interpretation doesn't work. Only the psion class description says psicrystal affinity creates psicrystals. If you disregard this then nothing creates psicrystals as the feat itself doesn't say it creates psicrystals.

And the benefit of the feat is that you can get a psicrystal. If you don't have a psicrystal then you are not receiving the benefit of the feat so you can get another one. Disagree with this interpretation? It's the official one. 100% of the WotC customer service answers was "you get another one" so if your interpretation disagrees then you're the one in the wrong. If you're going to disregard the WotC customer service then look no further than Elemental Envoy. Elemental Envoy says "When you are able to acquire a new psicrystal, you can select an Elemental Steward instead" which means you can get new psicrystals after your first one because if we go by your interpretation that you can only get a psicrystal the moment you grab the Psicrystal affinity feat and you can never, ever get a 2nd one, then Elemental Envoy is literally unusable even by a 1st level human. So do we go with the interpretation that doesn't render a feat in a book that serves as an errata to XPH literally unusable or do we go with the interpretation that does?

And if we say you're right and the feat only lets you gain one psicrystal ever then psychic reformation won't let you get another one because according to you, you already gained one, so how is retraining the feat out and back in changing the fact that you gained one previously? The feat doesn't say "you get a psicrystal every time you select this feat." or "your capacity to acquire psicrystals increases by one every time you select this feat"

Anyways if you're gonna disregard the psion's class description and Elemental Envoy's feat description then we have nothing else to discuss. I have no interest in further arguing the validity of non-conflicting-RAW rules presented at various parts of the system.

edit: Envoy Cognizance says "Because you have chosen to replace your psicrystal with an elemental steward", which means you can select Elemental Envoy after you gain a psicrystal and dismiss it (that's what the word replace means) so there is no question you get new psicrystals after your first one dies.

edit2: In conclusion, Elemental Envoy and Envoy Cognizance indirectly and very clearly state you get replacement psicrystals, no action is specified for creating even your 1st psicrystal so it defaults to a standard action, and since there is no mention of a penalty to a psicrystal death there is no penalty to psicrystal death.

[Doctor Awkward]

"Many psionic feats are activated in this way" is not equal to "the default is that all psionic feats are activated this way unless otherwise specified. The fact is that some psionic feats are activated as part of another action, such as metapsionic feats and such which require you to expend your focus, and also require that you still spend the action to do the thing that they modify(the manifesting time of the power they modify, for example), and that some psionic feats are completely passive, and require no activation nor take any action, such as Psionic Body or Psionic Talent or, I'd argue, Psicrystal Affinity.

For the record, I agree that none of the interpretations I've posted make any logical sense, but neither does the premise of this thread.

But anyway...

I agree that "many" does not equal "all", but it's also a fact that some psionic feats do not require you to expend your psionic focus to use them. Most of them do, and explicitly start out with "You must expend your psionic focus." I'd argue this is the distinction the rules are indicating when they say "many psionic feats".

As these feats must be "activated", and because they are stated to be supernatural abilities without any exception to the general rules on supernatural abilities, then by RAW expending your psionic focus in this manner is a standard action.

[gogogome]

As these feats must be "activated", and because they are stated to be supernatural abilities without any exception to the general rules on supernatural abilities, then by RAW expending your psionic focus in this manner is a standard action.

I think you're deliberately trying to twist words to force an interpretation that makes the rules dysfunctional even though others have noted in this thread the feat description states that these feats are used alongside another action and expending psionic foci takes no action.

And as I mentioned above even if you are correct a dysfunction in one part of the rules has absolutely nothing to do with other rules. So pitching the idea that feat descriptions that are perfectly fine are actually dysfunctional, and that this dysfunction is grounds to completely ignore supernatural ability rules is heavily flawed.

I'm all for finding a way to make psicrystals harder to replace but heavily flawed arguments are not the way to go. As convoluted as Robo's posts are, his reasoning is sound along with Segev's. Complete Psionics confirmed psicrystals can be replaced, you can just declare that you gain a psicrystal, due to no action stated it defaults to a standard action, and due to no penalty stated the loss of a psicrystal has no penalty. And because AC, familiar, and special mount's death rules and rules to obtain are all different you can't extrapolate familiar rules onto psicrystals.

[Doctor Awkward]

I think you're deliberately trying to twist words to force an interpretation that makes the rules dysfunctional even though others have noted in this thread the feat description states that these feats are used alongside another action and expending psionic foci takes no action.

And it's also noted explicity in the Concentration skill description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/skills/concentration.htm#gainPsionicFocus) that "You can also expend your focus to gain the benefit of a psionic feat—many psionic feats are activated in this way." Nothing in the feat description contradicts this. It's simply restated in slightly different way "Expending your psionic focus does not require an action; it is part of another action (such as using a feat)." Using a feat, i.e. "activating the feat".

Some of the psionic feats do explicitly state that their activation is part of another action. A lot of them do not.

For example, Wounding Attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#woundingAttack):


"To use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus. You can make an attack with such vicious force that you wound your opponent. A wound deals 1 point of Constitution damage to your foe in addition to the usual damage dealt.

You must decide whether or not to use this feat prior to making an attack. If your attack misses, you still expend your psionic focus."

As the rules state, expending your psionic focus is how you activate this feat. As the second line of the feat benefit states, you must decide whether or not to activate it "prior to making an attack". Activating this feat is therefore not part of the attack. It is a separate action. Since the feat does not specify what type of action this activation is, as a supernatural ability this defaults to a standard action. Since making an attack is also a standard action, this feat either a) does nothing at all, or b) affects the next attack you make in the subsequent round after activating the feat.

The logic applied here is exactly the same logic that is applied in the ruling of "Psicrystal Affinity allows you to recreate your psicrystal as a standard action, because psicrystals are created with the feat, and no action is specified. Thus as a supernatural ability it defaults to a standard action."

Both of these rulings are taking advantage of the same obvious oversight in the Rules As Written. The only difference is that one of them is massively beneficial to the player and the other renders large portions of the XPH nonfunctional.

This is what happens when you attempt to apply the equivalent of Biblical literalism to rules interpretations that fly in the face of common sense. You end up creating dysfunctions that would not otherwise exist in other nearby areas of the game.

So if you want a real answer to your question, "Technically, yes if you squint real hard you can make a case that you should be allowed to do this thing with psicrystals, but it is clearly not the intent of the feat and no sane DM should rule it that way. Ask them how they would house-rule that feat into something reasonable."

[Segev]

As the rules state, expending your psionic focus is how you activate this feat.

It then goes on to spell out the action as part of which you expend your psionic focus. If you can point to an action specified in Psicrystal Affinity, then I'll agree that the base "Supernatural abilities are standard actions unless otherwise stated" rule is overridden by something stating otherwise.

[Doctor Awkward]

It then goes on to spell out the action as part of which you expend your psionic focus.

It does nothing of the sort. It states the benefit you receive once the feat is activated.

Wounding Attack, in particular, has explicit language that activating the feat must be done prior to making the attack. That is what makes it a separate action.


If you can point to an action specified in Psicrystal Affinity, then I'll agree that the base "Supernatural abilities are standard actions unless otherwise stated" rule is overridden by something stating otherwise.

...What? :smallconfused:

[Crichton]

And it's also noted explicity in the Concentration skill description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/skills/concentration.htm#gainPsionicFocus) that "You can also expend your focus to gain the benefit of a psionic feat—many psionic feats are activated in this way." Nothing in the feat description contradicts this. It's simply restated in slightly different way "Expending your psionic focus does not require an action; it is part of another action (such as using a feat)." Using a feat, i.e. "activating the feat".

Some of the psionic feats do explicitly state that their activation is part of another action. A lot of them do not.

For example, Wounding Attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#woundingAttack):



As the rules state, expending your psionic focus is how you activate this feat. As the second line of the feat benefit states, you must decide whether or not to activate it "prior to making an attack". Activating this feat is therefore not part of the attack. It is a separate action. Since the feat does not specify what type of action this activation is, as a supernatural ability this defaults to a standard action. Since making an attack is also a standard action, this feat either a) does nothing at all, or b) affects the next attack you make in the subsequent round after activating the feat.

The logic applied here is exactly the same logic that is applied in the ruling of "Psicrystal Affinity allows you to recreate your psicrystal as a standard action, because psicrystals are created with the feat, and no action is specified. Thus as a supernatural ability it defaults to a standard action."

Both of these rulings are taking advantage of the same obvious oversight in the Rules As Written. The only difference is that one of them is massively beneficial to the player and the other renders large portions of the XPH nonfunctional.

This is what happens when you attempt to apply the equivalent of Biblical literalism to rules interpretations that fly in the face of common sense. You end up creating dysfunctions that would not otherwise exist in other nearby areas of the game.

So if you want a real answer to your question, "Technically, yes if you squint real hard you can make a case that you should be allowed to do this thing with psicrystals, but it is clearly not the intent of the feat and no sane DM should rule it that way. Ask them how they would house-rule that feat into something reasonable."


It then goes on to spell out the action as part of which you expend your psionic focus. If you can point to an action specified in Psicrystal Affinity, then I'll agree that the base "Supernatural abilities are standard actions unless otherwise stated" rule is overridden by something stating otherwise.



Help me out here and explain why Psicrystal Affinity requires any activation at all? Y'all are assuming that every psionic feat needs some kind of activating, but they don't... As I see it, it falls in to the same category as Psionic Talent or Psionic Body. You don't 'activate' those, there's no action involved, it's just a passive benefit. You simply select the feat at level up, and then you have the benefit they describe. What, specifically, makes Psicrystal Affinity any different? You select the feat, and then from that point forward you have a psicrystal.

If you lose it, it's undefined how to get it back, but we've all pointed out that it's intended for you to be able to get it back, they just didn't do a very good job of providing rules for how. Either way, that part has no bearing on whether Psicrystal Affinity is even an 'activatable' feat.


The strict RAW is horribly vague, considering it's literally only 8 words long, but the feat's description ("You have created a psicrystal.") makes it really clear that it's supposed to be a passive benefit.

[gogogome]

And it's also noted explicity in the Concentration skill description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/skills/concentration.htm#gainPsionicFocus) that "You can also expend your focus to gain the benefit of a psionic feat—many psionic feats are activated in this way." Nothing in the feat description contradicts this. It's simply restated in slightly different way "Expending your psionic focus does not require an action; it is part of another action (such as using a feat)." Using a feat, i.e. "activating the feat".

Some of the psionic feats do explicitly state that their activation is part of another action. A lot of them do not.

For example, Wounding Attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#woundingAttack):



As the rules state, expending your psionic focus is how you activate this feat. As the second line of the feat benefit states, you must decide whether or not to activate it "prior to making an attack". Activating this feat is therefore not part of the attack. It is a separate action. Since the feat does not specify what type of action this activation is, as a supernatural ability this defaults to a standard action. Since making an attack is also a standard action, this feat either a) does nothing at all, or b) affects the next attack you make in the subsequent round after activating the feat.

The logic applied here is exactly the same logic that is applied in the ruling of "Psicrystal Affinity allows you to recreate your psicrystal as a standard action, because psicrystals are created with the feat, and no action is specified. Thus as a supernatural ability it defaults to a standard action."

Both of these rulings are taking advantage of the same obvious oversight in the Rules As Written. The only difference is that one of them is massively beneficial to the player and the other renders large portions of the XPH nonfunctional.

This is what happens when you attempt to apply the equivalent of Biblical literalism to rules interpretations that fly in the face of common sense. You end up creating dysfunctions that would not otherwise exist in other nearby areas of the game.

So if you want a real answer to your question, "Technically, yes if you squint real hard you can make a case that you should be allowed to do this thing with psicrystals, but it is clearly not the intent of the feat and no sane DM should rule it that way. Ask them how they would house-rule that feat into something reasonable."

You quoted the text that directly says expending psionic foci requires no action. It doesn't say "sometimes expending a psionic focus requires no action". It doesn't say it requires no action only when used along with something else. It says expending psionic foci requires no action. So you are incorrect. The supernatural abilities defaulting to a standard action renders no part of the XPH dysfunctional.


Help me out here and explain why Psicrystal Affinity requires any activation at all? Y'all are assuming that every psionic feat needs some kind of activating, but they don't... As I see it, it falls in to the same category as Psionic Talent or Psionic Body. You don't 'activate' those, there's no action involved, it's just a passive benefit. You simply select the feat at level up, and then you have the benefit they describe. What, specifically, makes Psicrystal Affinity any different? You select the feat, and then from that point forward you have a psicrystal.

If you lose it, it's undefined how to get it back, but we've all pointed out that it's intended for you to be able to get it back, they just didn't do a very good job of providing rules for how. Either way, that part has no bearing on whether Psicrystal Affinity is even an 'activatable' feat.


The strict RAW is horribly vague, considering it's literally only 8 words long, but the feat's description ("You have created a psicrystal.") makes it really clear that it's supposed to be a passive benefit.

Even if you are correct gaining a Psicrystal or the ability to even have a Psicrystal is a supernatural ability. But you're not as the psion class feature description says the feat creates the psicrystal. If you wish to ignore this that's fine but I agree with Robo that feats are only part of the rules and in no way invalidates other rule texts.

[Doctor Awkward]

You quoted the text that directly says expending psionic foci requires no action. It doesn't say "sometimes expending a psionic focus requires no action". It doesn't say it requires no action only when used along with something else. It says expending psionic foci requires no action. So you are incorrect. The supernatural abilities defaulting to a standard action renders no part of the XPH dysfunctional.

Expending your focus is a non-action. Activating the feat is a standard action.
You are expending your focus as part of the standard action needed to activate the feat. And you must do this because psionic feats that do not specify otherwise are supernatural abilities, and must be activated before they can be used.




Even if you are correct gaining a Psicrystal or the ability to even have a Psicrystal is a supernatural ability. But you're not as the psion class feature description says the feat creates the psicrystal. If you wish to ignore this that's fine but I agree with Robo that feats are only part of the rules and in no way invalidates other rule texts.

I don't know why you are so hung up on the idea that pointing out that psionic feats needed to be activated with a standard action somehow disproves your position. I never once claimed that. All I'm doing is explaining the logical extension of your base assumption.

[gogogome]

Expending your focus is a non-action. Activating the feat is a standard action.
You are expending your focus as part of the standard action needed to activate the feat. And you must do this because psionic feats that do not specify otherwise are supernatural abilities, and must be activated before they can be used.

No. Activating the feat is a non-action. The feat is activated when you expend your focus. Expending your focus is a nonaction. Therefore the feat is activated when you use a nonaction. This is "otherwise noted".

If you want to interpret this as "you must spend a standard action declaring to use this feat" that's fine. But your interpretation is not the only possible interpretation from the given text so saying your one of many possible interpretations is the only possible interpretation is incorrect and saying that your incorrect interpretation renders the supernatural rules unusable is not only incorrect but also completely irrelevant as I have repeatedly stated dysfunction in one rule doesn't matter in the slightest.


I don't know why you are so hung up on the idea that pointing out that psionic feats needed to be activated with a standard action somehow disproves your position. I never once claimed that. All I'm doing is explaining the logical extension of your base assumption.

I was talking to Drysdan.

[Crichton]

Even if you are correct gaining a Psicrystal or the ability to even have a Psicrystal is a supernatural ability.

If it's a passive feat like Psionic Talent, it being a supernatural ability would have no significance at all...


But you're not as the psion class feature description says the feat creates the psicrystal.
No, it says a psicrystal is 'brought into physical existence and a semblance of life (via the Psicrystal Affinity feat).' That's not at all the same thing as saying the feat 'creates' a psicrystal. It doesn't say 'push this button, get that thing.'


If you wish to ignore this that's fine but I agree with Robo that feats are only part of the rules and in no way invalidates other rule texts.

Perhaps text from outside a feat can be relevant(I'm not sold on his Item Creation feats example, since those are explicitly rules from a section of rules that defines how item creation works, and the line in the Psion class is just a one line definition of what a psicrystal is from a section outlining the psicrystal's abilities, not defining how to get one - that's not an equivalent thing), but even so, the line "A psicrystal is a fragment of a psionic character’s personality, brought into physical form and a semblance of life (via the Psicrystal Affinity feat)" does not imply that 'activating' the feat is how that happens, any more than saying that you gain bonus PP (via the Psionic Talent feat) would imply that you have to activate that feat every time you want to get the bonus PP. That line is not mutually exclusive with my claim that the feat is a passive benefit. Nothing in the language even hints at being mutually exclusive with being a passive feat.


That line is just a description of what a psicrystal is, the same way a monster entry has a brief description of what the monster is. It's fluff, pure and simple, but even if you decide to take it as crunch(and if you choose to take a line that's clearly just a description as crunch, then you really gotta take the feat description line as crunch too, which totally rules out activating the feat, since it describes your creation of a psicrystal in the past tense), it doesn't imply that 'activating' the feat is what brings the psicrystal into existence. It merely implies that you can't have a psicrystal until you have taken the feat.


No way in heck is the RAI of psicrystals that they are supposed to be disposable at-will minions. And the RAW of it is so vague, considering how few words we have to actually put boundaries on their meaning, that it's way questionable as well. It's just one of a few different ways to interpret what little text we have, and it's not even the most straightforward way.

[gogogome]

If it's a passive feat like Psionic Talent, it being a supernatural ability would have no significance at all...


No, it says a psicrystal is 'brought into physical existence and a semblance of life (via the Psicrystal Affinity feat).' That's not at all the same thing as saying the feat 'creates' a psicrystal. It doesn't say 'push this button, get that thing.'



Perhaps text from outside a feat can be relevant(I'm not sold on his Item Creation feats example, since those are explicitly rules from a section of rules that defines how item creation works, and the line in the Psion class is just a one line definition of what a psicrystal is from a section outlining the psicrystal's abilities, not defining how to get one - that's not an equivalent thing), but even so, the line "A psicrystal is a fragment of a psionic character’s personality, brought into physical form and a semblance of life (via the Psicrystal Affinity feat)" does not imply that 'activating' the feat is how that happens, any more than saying that you gain bonus PP (via the Psionic Talent feat) would imply that you have to activate that feat every time you want to get the bonus PP. That line is not mutually exclusive with my claim that the feat is a passive benefit. Nothing in the language even hints at being mutually exclusive with being a passive feat.


That line is just a description of what a psicrystal is, the same way a monster entry has a brief description of what the monster is. It's fluff, pure and simple, but even if you decide to take it as crunch(and if you choose to take a line that's clearly just a description as crunch, then you really gotta take the feat description line as crunch too, which totally rules out activating the feat, since it describes your creation of a psicrystal in the past tense), it doesn't imply that 'activating' the feat is what brings the psicrystal into existence. It merely implies that you can't have a psicrystal until you have taken the feat.


No way in heck is the RAI of psicrystals that they are supposed to be disposable at-will minions. And the RAW of it is so vague, considering how few words we have to actually put boundaries on their meaning, that it's way questionable as well. It's just one of a few different ways to interpret what little text we have, and it's not even the most straightforward way.

You missed my point. The ability to gain a psicrystal is a supernatural ability. Even if we go by your interpretation and we don't "activate the feat" as you put it, then the feat gives you the ability to obtain psicrystals and this ability is supernatural since it's given to you by a supernatural ability which is what all psionic feats are. However you interpret the feat there is no doubt obtaining a psicrystal is a supernatural ability.

I agree that it is not the intent of the feat to make psicrystals expendable disposable at-will minions. Nobody here thinks it is. All Robo is saying is that there is a RAW method of replacing psicrystals without needing to turn to house rules. I view what Robo said on the same level as drown healing, but just because it betrays intent and makes no sense does not change how the rules work.

[Crichton]

You missed my point. The ability to gain a psicrystal is a supernatural ability. Even if we go by your interpretation and we don't "activate the feat" as you put it, then the feat gives you the ability to obtain psicrystals and this ability is supernatural since it's given to you by a supernatural ability which is what all psionic feats are. However you interpret the feat there is no doubt obtaining a psicrystal is a supernatural ability.

Ok? Never said it wasn't a supernatural ability. Just that it was a passive benefit, like Psionic Talent. It can be both(I think?), but if it's passive, what relevance does it being Su have? And if it can't be both, then how would you categorize Psionic Talent and Psionic Body?


I agree that it is not the intent of the feat to make psicrystals expendable disposable at-will minions. Nobody here thinks it is. All Robo is saying is that there is a RAW method of replacing psicrystals without needing to turn to house rules. I view what Robo said on the same level as drown healing, but just because it betrays intent and makes no sense does not change how the rules work.

Fair enough, though I'm still not convinced this works by RAW, not because of it being Su or not, but because it requires reading the words 'allows to gain' and 'brought into physical form...' to mean something they don't necessarily mean. Y'all seem to think that those combinations of words absolutely must mean that 'using' the feat 'creates' a psicrystal, but they don't mean that, or at the very least don't necessarily mean that. They can more naturally mean that 'having' the feat means you 'have' a psicrystal. Just because psionic feats are supernatural abilities and using a supernatural ability is a standard action doesn't mean that every psionic feat must be 'used' in order to benefit from it.

Additionally, if we're gonna take that descriptive line from the Psion entry as crunch, we gotta take the 'You have created a psicrystal' line as crunch too. They're both just descriptions, and one is actually found inside the feat entry.


And if we're just looking for a RAW way to replace psicrystals, I still say just use Psychic Reformation to remove the feat, then get it again. Just like removing Psionic Talent would remove the bonus PP, and re-taking it would re-add them, doing so with Psicrystal Affinity would take away your old psicrystal (even if it's already dead) and give you a new psicrystal (and let you choose a different personality for it, if you so choose. I think if it were me I'd probably still just houserule a more 'normal' way to replace them, but this way works.

[gogogome]

Ok? Never said it wasn't a supernatural ability. Just that it was a passive benefit, like Psionic Talent. It can be both(I think?), but if it's passive, what relevance does it being Su have? And if it can't be both, then how would you categorize Psionic Talent and Psionic Body?



Fair enough, though I'm still not convinced this works by RAW, not because of it being Su or not, but because it requires reading the words 'allows to gain' and 'brought into physical form...' to mean something they don't necessarily mean. Y'all seem to think that those combinations of words absolutely must mean that 'using' the feat 'creates' a psicrystal, but they don't mean that, or at the very least don't necessarily mean that. They can more naturally mean that 'having' the feat means you 'have' a psicrystal. Just because psionic feats are supernatural abilities and using a supernatural ability is a standard action doesn't mean that every psionic feat must be 'used' in order to benefit from it.

Additionally, if we're gonna take that descriptive line from the Psion entry as crunch, we gotta take the 'You have created a psicrystal' line as crunch too. They're both just descriptions, and one is actually found inside the feat entry.


And if we're just looking for a RAW way to replace psicrystals, I still say just use Psychic Reformation to remove the feat, then get it again. Just like removing Psionic Talent would remove the bonus PP, and re-taking it would re-add them, doing so with Psicrystal Affinity would take away your old psicrystal (even if it's already dead) and give you a new psicrystal (and let you choose a different personality for it, if you so choose. I think if it were me I'd probably still just houserule a more 'normal' way to replace them, but this way works.

I have a question for you. How do you get psicrystals with your interpretation? How do you replace psicrystals with your interpretation? Because the ability to replace psicrystals is not in question here as complete psionics says you can replace psicrystals.

[Crichton]

I have a question for you. How do you get psicrystals with your interpretation?
By taking the feat. Because once you have taken the feat, 'you have created a psicrystal.'


How do you replace psicrystals with your interpretation?
By only RAW? You don't without PsyRef because they don't define how to. They should have, and they later act as if they had, but they didn't.


Because the ability to replace psicrystals is not in question here as complete psionics says you can replace psicrystals.

CPsi mentions replacing them in an offhand reference (assuming you mean the EE feat mention?), which makes it clear that they intend you to be able to. What it doesn't do is set rules for how to do it. I think we can all agree they should have been more specific, all around.

For me it comes down to the idea of activating it. Yes, activating Su abilities is a standard action, but the wording of this feat doesn't seem to imply that it's a feat that you activate to get the benefit. I can't judge the feat by how I wish it was worded, just by what words are there.

[gogogome]

By taking the feat. Because once you have taken the feat, 'you have created a psicrystal.'


By only RAW? You don't without PsyRef because they don't define how to. They should have, and they later act as if they had, but they didn't.



CPsi mentions replacing them in an offhand reference (assuming you mean the EE feat mention?), which makes it clear that they intend you to be able to. What it doesn't do is set rules for how to do it. I think we can all agree they should have been more specific, all around.

For me it comes down to the idea of activating it. Yes, activating Su abilities is a standard action, but the wording of this feat doesn't seem to imply that it's a feat that you activate to get the benefit. I can't judge the feat by how I wish it was worded, just by what words are there.

So lets put everything together.
1. Psicrystal Affinity lets you get a psicrystal (crunch)
2. Psicrystal Affinity creates Psicrystals (fluff)
3. You can delay getting a Psicrystal. You don't have to get a Psicrystal immediately after getting the feat.
4. You can replace Psicrystals.
5. No rules are given for getting and replacing psicrystals.

By your own admission it is the supernatural ability called Psicrystal Affinity that creates (action verb) psicrystals. Therefore obtaining psicrystals is a supernatural action. "Activating" a feat is irrelevant here. Whether you "activate" the feat or not obtaining a psicrystal requires an action and this is a supernatural effect. Put two and two together and obtaining psicrystals is a supernatural ability.

There are multiple ways you can interpret the Psicrystal Affinity feat. But only one is the correct one. Your interpretation conflicts with 3 and 4. Ours don't. So why do you keep insisting you are correct here? The English language is far from perfect. You can interpret the same sentence different ways, so why do you say the one that doesn't fit is the correct one when there are other interpretations that do fit with everything?

Segev's Interpretation, where the feat gives you the ability to gain a psicrystal, and that you can just declare that you gain a psicrystal, fits with everything. There are no problems with this interpretation. It works by RAW. It even works with Complete Psionics. So why do you keep insisting your interpretation is the correct one?

You can't say "I'm right and the rules are dysfunctional" when there are equally valid interpretations that don't make the rules dysfunctional and fits more closely to intent which is in this case is that psicrystals are replaceable. That's the issue I have with you and Doctor Awkward.

[Akkristor]

So, here's a question. What do we know about Psicrystal creation?

We know you need the Psicrystal Affinity feat.

We know Psicrystals are constructs.

We know Psicrystals are made from mundane crystal (XPH pg. 182).

[RoboEmperor]

We know Psicrystals are made from mundane crystal (XPH pg. 182).

It's actually deep crystal not mundane crystal.


By your own admission it is the supernatural ability called Psicrystal Affinity that creates (action verb) psicrystals. Therefore obtaining psicrystals is a supernatural action. "Activating" a feat is irrelevant here. Whether you "activate" the feat or not obtaining a psicrystal requires an action and this is a supernatural effect. Put two and two together and obtaining psicrystals is a supernatural ability.

I don't think this part is entirely correct. The RAW is that (Su) abilities are standard action to activate not (Su) actions or (Su) effects. So you gotta say Psicrystal creation is part of a (Su) ability. Part of Psicrystal Affinity. Which is not a problem since the psion class feature says Psicrystal Affinity creates the Psicrystal. So Psicrystal Creation is part of the feat.

If you want more fluff Complete Psionic's Erudite says it creates psicrystals by encoding its personality into a crystal or gem. And the crunch is "you gain Psicrystal Affinity as a bonus feat".

[Crichton]

So lets put everything together.
1. Psicrystal Affinity lets you get a psicrystal (crunch)
2. Psicrystal Affinity creates Psicrystals (fluff)
3. You can delay getting a Psicrystal. You don't have to get a Psicrystal immediately after getting the feat.
4. You can replace Psicrystals.
5. No rules are given for getting and replacing psicrystals.

1. Yes
2. Yes, but fluff.
3. Where is the citation for 3? Not saying that point is incorrect, just haven't seen the rules text for it.
4. They make passing mention of it in Elemental Envoy, acting as if they had allowed this, which shows that you're *supposed* to be able to, but doesn't actually imply that you *can*
5. Yes

If you're going to use the fluff of number 2 as the fulcrum of your argument that the feat 'creates' Psicrystals, why are you still ignoring 'you have created a psicrystal' from the actual feat's text?





By your own admission it is the supernatural ability called Psicrystal Affinity that creates (action verb) psicrystals.
I didn't say that. I admitted that the feat Psicrystal Affinity was a Psionic Feat which are categorized as Supernatural Abilities. That's not the same thing as saying the feat 'creates' Psicrystals. The feat says you 'have created' (completed past action verb) a psicrystal.



"Activating" a feat is irrelevant here. Whether you "activate" the feat or not obtaining a psicrystal requires an action and this is a supernatural effect. Put two and two together and obtaining psicrystals is a supernatural ability.

Where does it say it requires an action? Why is that a necessity? There are passive feats that require no action. There are passive psionic feats that require no action. The text of this feat makes it seem like one of those. I've stated this multiple times and that point has been ignored.




There are multiple ways you can interpret the Psicrystal Affinity feat. But only one is the correct one. Your interpretation conflicts with 3 and 4. Ours don't. So why do you keep insisting you are correct here? The English language is far from perfect. You can interpret the same sentence different ways, so why do you say the one that doesn't fit is the correct one when there are other interpretations that do fit with everything?

Yes, there are multiple ways you can interpret it. They did a pretty poor, rushed job of writing this one. It has fewer words than any other psionic feat, I think. As for your points of conflict, 3 I haven't seen your citation for, and 4 isn't based on rules saying you can, just a mention of 'when you do.' That shows that they intended to let you replace it, but as 5 shows, it doesn't show that they gave you a method to do so. An oversight on their part, I'm sure, but it doesn't let us use EE's text as binding rules law.

And I'm not insisting mine is the only way. Just that it's the most natural reading of the feat's text itself, without bringing in any passing references or needing any logical inferences.

If we're looking to find conflicts, your interpretation conflicts with the 'you have created a psicrystal' line, and with 'this feat allows you to gain a psicrystal' (not 'gain psicrystals, and not 'create' them by 'activating' this feat), and with the fact that this feat's text is a lot more like the text in the passive feats like Psionic Body or Psionic Talent than it is the other psionic feats that actually have repeatable effects to activate.


Segev's Interpretation, where the feat gives you the ability to gain a psicrystal, and that you can just declare that you gain a psicrystal, fits with everything. There are no problems with this interpretation. It works by RAW.
Except for the part where the feat doesn't say it's a repeatable action, and strongly implies that it isn't.


You can't say "I'm right and the rules are dysfunctional" when there are equally valid interpretations that don't make the rules dysfunctional
The rules aren't dysfunctional. There's a hole in them, where they apparently intended to write rules for replacing a psicrystal but forgot to and didn't bother to change their mistake in Errata or later books. But by RAW it works just fine, and you can even replace your crystal with PsyRef.


and fits more closely to intent which is in this case is that psicrystals are replaceable.
What does intent have to do with RAW?

Rules as Intended are clear that you should be able to replace them, and they clearly intended to give you a method to do so, but it's also pretty clear that 'activating' a feat because it happens to fall under the Su abilities heading isn't what they intended. Are there *any* other psionic feats that don't bother to specify how to use them and thus force you to fall back on that as a default? Are there any other similar 'minion' style features that use such a method to replace? If we're discussing their intention, we gotta start this whole thread over from the top.



That's the issue I have with you
Sorry you have issue with me. I have none with any of you. You're generally clear in your writing, and polite in your tone. I attempt to be both as well.

[gogogome]

I guess the issue I have with you, rather than what I said before, is that you ignore rule text on the grounds that it's not located in the feat description. You seem like a decent guy which is why I'm spending so much effort trying to convince you as I do appreciate what you say in other threads but I can't help but feel your dislike of the rule interaction is giving you a bias.

If we are going to get anywhere with this discussion we need to lay some ground rules first otherwise we'll keep going in circles. The one I'm setting is that all rule text that don't conflict are valid. The only time you call on the primary source rule to invalidate another rule is when there is a conflict.


When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.

If there is no disagreement then all rules are valid.

So we have two different interpretations. Yours is that the feat is not "repeatable". Ours is that it is. Your reasoning is that the fluff text of the feat description says in past tense that you have created a psicrystal. Our reasoning is that the feat lets us get a psicrystal whenever we don't have one because it gives us the ability to "gain a psicrystal". You're saying the "a" means once forever. We're saying "a" means one at any time.

So who is right and who is wrong? We need a tie breaker and the tie breaker is how WotC officially uses the feat. If WotC gives us no example of psicrystals being replaced it will forever be unknown. If WotC officially says a psion lost his psicrystal and could never replace it, be it in some adventure module or an example npc in a book, you are right. If WotC anywhere mentions psicrystals being replaced then we're right.

Complete Psionics has two rule texts, one in Elemental Envoy, and another in Envoy Cognizance, that says psicrystals can be replaced. I will repeat that these are rule texts and not fluff texts. If psicrystals didn't have rules on whether it can be replaced or not it now has two. The only time you call on the primary source rule to invalidate another rule is when there is a disagreement and there is no disagreement here. We can interpret the original psicrystal affinity text as repeatable as Robo, Segev, and I have been doing. This is not intent. This is RAW.

It all comes down to this. If you disregard the rule texts in Elemental Envoy and Envoy Cognizance, your interpretation can still be valid. But if you don't your interpretation is incorrect. There is no scenario where your interpretation and the rule texts in Elemental Envoy and Envoy Cognizance can co-exist.

So if we don't disregard rule texts that don't conflict, we're left with a giant gaping hole in the rules that don't explain how psicrystals are replaced and this is where Robo rule-lawyered the standard action in here.

If you are going to disregard Elemental Envoy and Envoy Cognizance's rule text as disregard-able fluff then this is our point of disagreement and this is where we agree to disagree.

[Crichton]

A) I guess the issue I have with you, rather than what I said before, is that you ignore rule text on the grounds that it's not located in the feat description. You seem like a decent guy which is why I'm spending so much effort trying to convince you as I do appreciate what you say in other threads but I can't help but feel your dislike of the rule interaction is giving you a bias.

If we are going to get anywhere with this discussion we need to lay some ground rules first otherwise we'll keep going in circles. The one I'm setting is that all rule text that don't conflict are valid. The only time you call on the primary source rule to invalidate another rule is when there is a conflict.



If there is no disagreement then all rules are valid.

B) So we have two different interpretations. Yours is that the feat is not "repeatable". Ours is that it is. Your reasoning is that the fluff text of the feat description says in past tense that you have created a psicrystal. Our reasoning is that the feat lets us get a psicrystal whenever we don't have one because it gives us the ability to "gain a psicrystal". You're saying the "a" means once forever. We're saying "a" means one at any time.

So who is right and who is wrong? We need a tie breaker and the tie breaker is how WotC officially uses the feat. If WotC gives us no example of psicrystals being replaced it will forever be unknown. If WotC officially says a psion lost his psicrystal and could never replace it, be it in some adventure module or an example npc in a book, you are right. If WotC anywhere mentions psicrystals being replaced then we're right.

C) Complete Psionics has two rule texts, one in Elemental Envoy, and another in Envoy Cognizance, that says psicrystals can be replaced. I will repeat that these are rule texts and not fluff texts. If psicrystals didn't have rules on whether it can be replaced or not it now has two. The only time you call on the primary source rule to invalidate another rule is when there is a disagreement and there is no disagreement here. We can interpret the original psicrystal affinity text as repeatable as Robo, Segev, and I have been doing. This is not intent. This is RAW.

It all comes down to this. If you disregard the rule texts in Elemental Envoy and Envoy Cognizance, your interpretation can still be valid. But if you don't your interpretation is incorrect. There is no scenario where your interpretation and the rule texts in Elemental Envoy and Envoy Cognizance can co-exist.

So if we don't disregard rule texts that don't conflict, we're left with a giant gaping hole in the rules that don't explain how psicrystals are replaced and this is where Robo rule-lawyered the standard action in here.

If you are going to disregard Elemental Envoy and Envoy Cognizance's rule text as disregard-able fluff then this is our point of disagreement and this is where we agree to disagree.



I follow your logic, and it seems generally sound. Honestly I don't even fully disagree that it's a valid reading. Just that there are also some valid counterpoints (in a pure RAW discussion), and I think you might be making some logical leaps that aren't fully supported by the text's basest meaning.

To clarify:

A) I don't ignore rules text that's not located in the feat. I made that claim and backed somewhat off of it, although it's still yet to be shown that outside text (especially in a creature description, rather than a section outlining rules for something specific) can supersede or modify how the actual feat text applies. I do, however, hold that the line from the Psion entry is probably a fluff line, and even if it's not, it doesn't say that you can use Psicrystal Affinity to create a psicrystal. Nowhere in any text does it state 'use Psicrystal Affinity to create psicrystals' or any semantically equivalent wordage.

B) Part of my reasoning is the fluff text, not my entire reasoning. The crunch text 'This feat allows you to gain a psicrystal' is worded ambiguously enough that it could be read to mean what you say it does, but it doesn't necessarily mean that. The words don't say it 'gives you the ability' to gain a psicrystal, which is what you are claiming. It says the feat 'allows' you to. Unlike all the other psionic feats, they didn't use clear language to describe what needs to happen to use this feat's benefit, and so we just have that text, and the context it's in. The fluff text may not be binding, but it absolutely does shed light on what the following text means. Only by ignoring it completely can you come up with your interpretation.

C) I don't discount the EE and EC text as fluff. It is rules text, just not rules text directly relating to Psicrystal Affinity. More importantly, both EE and EC mention replacing your psicrystal, but they don't explicitly say that you can. One says 'When you are able' and the other says 'Because you have chosen to.' While that clearly shows WotC's intent to make psicrystals replaceable, it does not bestow upon a character the ability to do so, nor a method for doing so, nor bindingly imply that such an ability must come from Psicrystal Affinity itself. So if your argument rests on those two feats absolutely meaning that by the rules, psicrystals are replaceable and that Psicrystal Affinity is absolutely the means of doing so, that's a possible hole in your evidence.


And again, thanks for your friendly discussion and tone. A rarity, these days.

[RoboEmperor]

I do, however, hold that the line from the Psion entry is probably a fluff line

Feats don't exist in fluff. Feats are crunch exclusively. So while the description of what a psicrystal is is fluff, the "(via Psicrystal Affinity)" is crunch. The class description is telling us how to create psicrystals.


, and even if it's not, it doesn't say that you can use Psicrystal Affinity to create a psicrystal. Nowhere in any text does it state 'use Psicrystal Affinity to create psicrystals' or any semantically equivalent wordage.

Gaining is the same as creating. The feat lets us gain a psicrystal. The feat lets us create a psicrystal.


B) Part of my reasoning is the fluff text, not my entire reasoning. The crunch text 'This feat allows you to gain a psicrystal' is worded ambiguously enough that it could be read to mean what you say it does, but it doesn't necessarily mean that. The words don't say it 'gives you the ability' to gain a psicrystal, which is what you are claiming. It says the feat 'allows' you to. Unlike all the other psionic feats, they didn't use clear language to describe what needs to happen to use this feat's benefit, and so we just have that text, and the context it's in. The fluff text may not be binding, but it absolutely does shed light on what the following text means. Only by ignoring it completely can you come up with your interpretation.

So we agree the crunch text is ambiguously worded enough that it conforms with Complete Psionics and we need a tie-breaker here. Your tie-breaker is the fluff text, our tie-breaker is the crunch of Complete Psionics.


C) I don't discount the EE and EC text as fluff. It is rules text, just not rules text directly relating to Psicrystal Affinity. More importantly, both EE and EC mention replacing your psicrystal, but they don't explicitly say that you can. One says 'When you are able' and the other says 'Because you have chosen to.' While that clearly shows WotC's intent to make psicrystals replaceable, it does not bestow upon a character the ability to do so, nor a method for doing so, nor bindingly imply that such an ability must come from Psicrystal Affinity itself. So if your argument rests on those two feats absolutely meaning that by the rules, psicrystals are replaceable and that Psicrystal Affinity is absolutely the means of doing so, that's a possible hole in your evidence.

1. Our claim is that Psicrystal Affinity already gives us the ability to replace psicrystals so whether EE and EC bestows upon us the ability to replace psicrystals is irrelevant.
2. EC says you can replace your psicrystal with an Elemental Stewards.
EE says you get an Elemental Steward by selecting it over a psicrystal the next time you can obtain one. Which means you can select a psicrystal.
Put them together and you get "you can replace your psicrystal with an Elemental Steward or another Psicrystal".
Remove Elemental Steward because you don't have the feat and you get "you can replace your psicrystal with another psicrystal"
And you don't need to select either feat to do this because EE says "When you are able to acquire a new psicrystal" which means you already have this ability before you grab the feat.

This is rule-lawyering but I'd say it's enough to bestow upon all psionic characters the ability to replace psicrystals. Not that it matters because of 1.

And that leaves us with the giant gaping hole in the rules of how to accomplish this which is where my previous rule-lawyering comes in.

So this comes down to fluff text of Psicrystal Affinity v.s. crunch text of Complete Psionics. I think we know who the winner here is.

[Crichton]

Feats don't exist in fluff. Feats are crunch exclusively. So while the description of what a psicrystal is is fluff, the "(via Psicrystal Affinity)" is crunch. The class description is telling us how to create psicrystals.
Is it? Or is it telling you to look at the text of Psicrystal Affinity, and not making any rules claim itself that they're created by using the feat? This is a core assumption of your position, so we need to be absolutely certain that the line 'via Psicrystal Affinity' is actually a rules line that clearly grants you that ability.



Gaining is the same as creating. The feat lets us gain a psicrystal. The feat lets us create a psicrystal.
But 'allows' is not the same as 'enables' or 'grants you the ability to.' This is the part where I said the ambiguity comes in. This is another core assumption of your position, so if there can be any question about whether this line of text grants you the ability to gain a psicrystal by 'using' this feat, then your whole position comes into question.



So we agree the crunch text is ambiguously worded enough that it conforms with Complete Psionics and we need a tie-breaker here. Your tie-breaker is the fluff text, our tie-breaker is the crunch of Complete Psionics.
Not quite. My tie breaker includes the fluff text, but also includes the questionable nature of the claim that the feat grants you the ability to create psicrystals by 'using' it. My basic claim was that it's a passive feat like Psionic Body or Iron Will, and that claim hasn't really been addressed.



1. Our claim is that Psicrystal Affinity already gives us the ability to replace psicrystals so whether EE and EC bestows upon us the ability to replace psicrystals is irrelevant.
2. EC says you can replace your psicrystal with an Elemental Stewards.
EE says you get an Elemental Steward by selecting it over a psicrystal the next time you can obtain one. Which means you can select a psicrystal.
Put them together and you get "you can replace your psicrystal with an Elemental Steward or another Psicrystal".
Remove Elemental Steward because you don't have the feat and you get "you can replace your psicrystal with another psicrystal"
And you don't need to select either feat to do this because EE says "When you are able to acquire a new psicrystal" which means you already have this ability before you grab the feat.

That the logic of this line of reasoning isn't as sound as you guys are portraying it. Here's my counterpoints, again:

"2. EC says you can replace your psicrystal with an Elemental Stewards."

No, it says 'because you have chosen to.' That doesn't mean that you can, and doesn't necessarily mean that the ability to exists at all. It only means that you have chosen to. It does indicate WotC's intent that you can, but it doesn't imply that the RAW ability to be able to exists.

"EE says you get an Elemental Steward by selecting it over a psicrystal the next time you can obtain one. Which means you can select a psicrystal."

It doesn't mean you can create one or replace one, though. It says 'when you are able to acquire a new psicrystal.' Again, that doesn't logically enable you to have that ability, nor does it signify that such an ability even exists, nor that Psicrystal Affinity is the source of that ability. It only sets the condition that, were you to be able to, you could instead get the elemental steward.


You seem to be ascribing more power/meaning to those two conditional phrases than they actually carry, by RAW. They imply that such an ability might exist, not that it actually does, nor that Psicrystal Affinity is the source of that ability.


That leaves us with only your number 1 claim, that Psicrystal Affinity grants you the ability to (repeatably) create new psicrystals. That claim is the one that's central here. The line 'This feat allows you to gain a psicrystal' is the only crunch text we have, and it's ambiguously worded enough that your reading of it *could* be valid, but it isn't the most likely reading of it, in the context that we find it(The fluff text, and the vastly different wording of all other psionic feats that have repeatable, activatable effects, as opposed to the wording of the passive ones).

[RoboEmperor]

Not quite. My tie breaker includes the fluff text, but also includes the questionable nature of the claim that the feat grants you the ability to create psicrystals by 'using' it. My basic claim was that it's a passive feat like Psionic Body or Iron Will, and that claim hasn't really been addressed.

gogogome did. He said regardless of whether you "use" the feat or not, everything that results from the feat is a supernatural ability including the ability to gain a psicrystal. Even if you don't "use" the feat gaining a psicrystal is an unstated action from a supernatural ability.


That the logic of this line of reasoning isn't as sound as you guys are portraying it. Here's my counterpoints, again:

"2. EC says you can replace your psicrystal with an Elemental Stewards."

No, it says 'because you have chosen to.' That doesn't mean that you can, and doesn't necessarily mean that the ability to exists at all. It only means that you have chosen to. It does indicate WotC's intent that you can, but it doesn't imply that the RAW ability to be able to exists.

"EE says you get an Elemental Steward by selecting it over a psicrystal the next time you can obtain one. Which means you can select a psicrystal."

It doesn't mean you can create one or replace one, though. It says 'when you are able to acquire a new psicrystal.' Again, that doesn't logically enable you to have that ability, nor does it signify that such an ability even exists, nor that Psicrystal Affinity is the source of that ability. It only sets the condition that, were you to be able to, you could instead get the elemental steward.


You seem to be ascribing more power/meaning to those two conditional phrases than they actually carry, by RAW. They imply that such an ability might exist, not that it actually does, nor that Psicrystal Affinity is the source of that ability.

Why do you keep saying "intent" and "might". This is rule text. RAW. So there is no "intent" or "might". You either can or can't. If we use the drown healing example, setting hp to 0 when you're negative is not "intent" or "might". Your hp becomes 0 when your head is dunked in water. It betrays intent. There is no might. This is rule text so it happens. So if the rule text implies that you can, then you can because this is rule text.

You do realize if such an ability does not exist these two feats are completely unusable right?

So you admitted the language is ambiguous enough that both of our interpretations are valid. One interpretation does not render two feats literally unusable and complies with what these two feats implied that you can do. One interpretation is mutually exclusive with these two feats. So how can you keep saying your interpretation is valid by trashing on two feats whose rule text clearly imply that you can replace psicrystals? Rule text is not intent. If they directly or indirectly say something then that's how it works. So you either interpret the rules in a way that accommodates all rule texts or call the rule texts dysfunctional, and since an interpretation exists that can accommodate all rule texts you can't call "dysfunction". "Unclear" maybe, "poorly worded", or "terrible", but not "dysfunction.

[Calthropstu]

Uh... Where are you finding this 24 hour rule for psicrystals? A big part of the discussion at hand is that there are no rules at all for how to replace a psicrystal that's been lost.

Oh. I guess PF changed that, I thought it had always worked that way.

[Crichton]

Sorry for the rushed response, I'm headed out the door.


gogogome did. He said regardless of whether you "use" the feat or not, everything that results from the feat is a supernatural ability including the ability to gain a psicrystal. Even if you don't "use" the feat gaining a psicrystal is an unstated action from a supernatural ability.
But if it's a passive benefit, you can't keep doing it. I'm using the words 'use' and 'activate' to indicate your position of the supernatural ability being a standard action, which you are equating to being able to, as a standard action, create a new psicrystal. If it's a passive benefit, there's no doing it over and over, just like you can't as any kind of action get more bonus PP from Psionic Talent.



Why do you keep saying "intent" and "might". This is rule text. RAW. So there is no "intent" or "might". You either can or can't. If we use the drown healing example, setting hp to 0 when you're negative is not "intent" or "might". Your hp becomes 0 when your head is dunked in water. It betrays intent. There is no might. This is rule text so it happens. So if the rule text implies that you can, then you can because this is rule text.

I used the word 'intent' to show contrast between WotC's RAI with the feats and the actual RAW implications and lack of implications. That was the whole point. EE and EC clearly show WotC's intention that you can replace a psicrystal, but they have no bearing by RAW on whether you actually can or not.


You do realize if such an ability does not exist these two feats are completely unusable right?
Yes I do, but that has no bearing at all on whether such an ability actually exists, by RAW. Just because they say 'because you have chosen' or 'when you..' doesn't mean you actually can. Unless it's spelled out somewhere in their text that you can, it doesn't matter that the make those conditional passing references to it, thus EE and EC don't have any RAW bearing on whether you can replace a psicrystal. They don't factor in to our RAW discussion, only to a RAI discussion.




So you admitted the language is ambiguous enough that both of our interpretations are valid. One interpretation does not render two feats literally unusable and complies with what these two feats implied that you can do. One interpretation is mutually exclusive with these two feats. So how can you keep saying your interpretation is valid by trashing on two feats whose rule text clearly imply that you can replace psicrystals? Rule text is not intent. If they directly or indirectly say something then that's how it works. So you either interpret the rules in a way that accommodates all rule texts or call the rule texts dysfunctional, and since an interpretation exists that can accommodate all rule texts you can't call "dysfunction". "Unclear" maybe, "poorly worded", or "terrible", but not "dysfunction.

By using those two feats as evidence, you move this discussion into RAI territory. IF they actually said you 'can' do it, even if they didn't say how, then they could have RAW weight, but they don't, not to mention that even if they did say that, they'd have to specifically call out Psicrystal Affinity as the method for doing so, or they still wouldn't have any RAW weight on whether Psicrystal Affinity can be used to replace a psicrystal.

And since they don't have any RAW bearing on whether Psicrystal Affinity allows you to create new psicrystals, the entire argument rests on the text of Psicrystal Affinity itself.

[Akkristor]

It's actually deep crystal not mundane crystal.



Mundane crystal is used for many items of psionic manufacture, such as dorjes, power stones, and psicrystals. Deep crystal is a better grade.


10 characters

[RoboEmperor]

Yes I do, but that has no bearing at all on whether such an ability actually exists, by RAW. Just because they say 'because you have chosen' or 'when you..' doesn't mean you actually can. Unless it's spelled out somewhere in their text that you can, it doesn't matter that the make those conditional passing references to it, thus EE and EC don't have any RAW bearing on whether you can replace a psicrystal. They don't factor in to our RAW discussion, only to a RAI discussion.

By using those two feats as evidence, you move this discussion into RAI territory. IF they actually said you 'can' do it, even if they didn't say how, then they could have RAW weight, but they don't, not to mention that even if they did say that, they'd have to specifically call out Psicrystal Affinity as the method for doing so, or they still wouldn't have any RAW weight on whether Psicrystal Affinity can be used to replace a psicrystal.

And since they don't have any RAW bearing on whether Psicrystal Affinity allows you to create new psicrystals, the entire argument rests on the text of Psicrystal Affinity itself.

What RAI? Why do you keep saying intent or RAI? There is no intent in Rule Text. Rule Text is RAW. If the rules say you can do something then you can do that something. It doesn't have to be spelled out. If the rule text act like you can do something then you can. Because if you can't then the rule text (aka RAW) won't be using those rules. EE and EC are NOT RAI. EE and EC are RAW. Stop dismissing them as "intent" because they are RAW. You cannot ignore their RAW. Ever. For whatever reason. You can't. They are not an optional or variant rule. So whatever interpretation you come up with it needs to comply with EE and EC as well because they are mandatory RAW.

Does Psicrystal Affinity say you can replace psicrystals? Maybe.
Does Psicrystal Affinity say you can't replace psicrystals? Maybe.
Does the rule text (aka RAW) in EE and EC say you can replace psicrystals? Yes.
Does Yes disagree or conflict with Maybe? No.
So can you replace psicrystals? Maybe + Yes = Yes.
So is there anything forbidding you from replacing psicrystals? Maybe + Yes for the other side of the argument = Maybe + !Yes = Maybe + No = No.

Stop saying intent. Rule Text is not intent. This is not RAI. This is RAW because this is rule text. You need to give us a RAW reason why the RAW in EE and EC must be invalidated or ignored.



Let me give you a different example. Can you apply +0 metamagic to spells you are casting from scrolls or wands on the fly? The rules don't say. But Artificers have a class feature that lets them use metamagic on scrolls or wands. So does this mean we have to interpret the rules in a way so that the Artificer's class feature is not obsolete? Or can we say we can apply metamagic to scrolls and wands and the Artificer's class features are "intent" and completely irrelevant in a RAW discussion?

Everything, be it feat description, class feature description, feat description from another feat, general rules, etc. are all relevant and if there is a conflict one of these is dysfunctional. There is no conflict here so none of them are dysfunctional. The only problem here is your interpretation.

Just like the existence of the Artificer's class feature is enough RAW evidence that you cannot apply metamagic to wands or scrolls without a class feature explicitly saying you can, the existence of EE and EC's RAW text is proof enough that you can replace psicrystals therefore your interpretation, which requires psicrystals to be irreplaceable, is wrong.


10 characters

Huh, you're right. Why the hell is it in the Deep Crystal section then.

[Crichton]

What RAI? Why do you keep saying intent or RAI? There is no intent in Rule Text. Rule Text is RAW. If the rules say you can do something then you can do that something. It doesn't have to be spelled out. If the rule text act like you can do something then you can. Because if you can't then the rule text (aka RAW) won't be using those rules. EE and EC are NOT RAI. EE and EC are RAW. Stop dismissing them as "intent" because they are RAW. You cannot ignore their RAW. Ever. For whatever reason. You can't. They are not an optional or variant rule. So whatever interpretation you come up with it needs to comply with EE and EC as well because they are mandatory RAW.

Does Psicrystal Affinity say you can replace psicrystals? Maybe.
Does Psicrystal Affinity say you can't replace psicrystals? Maybe.
Does the rule text (aka RAW) in EE and EC say you can replace psicrystals? Yes.
Does Yes disagree or conflict with Maybe? No.
So can you replace psicrystals? Maybe + Yes = Yes.
So is there anything forbidding you from replacing psicrystals? Maybe + Yes for the other side of the argument = Maybe + !Yes = Maybe + No = No.

Stop saying intent. Rule Text is not intent. This is not RAI. This is RAW because this is rule text. You need to give us a RAW reason why the RAW in EE and EC must be invalidated or ignored.



I can see that because I used the word 'intent' to draw a contrast between what they wanted to do with the rules vs what their words actually accomplished, you've misunderstood me as dismissing entire parts of your argument as RAI, when I'm not. Rather, I'm pointing out that you're claiming the text of the feats says something that they don't say.





You claim that EE and EC say you can replace psicrystals, and you claim that they say that Psicrystal Affinity is how you replace them. Neither of those claims is supported by the text of EE or EC.

EC says 'Because you have chosen to...' That doesn't signify that you have the ability to do the thing you've chosen to do, nor does it signify that Psicrystal Affinity is how you would do it. Even if it did signify the first, it wouldn't matter to this discussion, because it doesn't signify the second, and this discussion is about whether Psicrystal Affinity lets you take a standard action to recreate a psicrystal by RAW.

EE says 'When you are able to...' Again, that doesn't mean that you are able to, nor does it mean that, should you have the ability to, that Psicrystal Affinity is the way you do so.

Both of those conditional phrases do indicate that the authors wanted you to be able to, assumed that you'd be able to, yes, intended you to be able to, but not that, by RAW alone, you actually are able to. And only that RAW ability matters. What they wanted you to be able to do but didn't bother to check whether the rules allow you to do doesn't matter. This is Rules as Written, and as Written, those two conditional phrases don't give you the ability to do it.





That's why I dismiss EE and EC as being irrelevant to a discussion of whether Psicrystal Affinity lets you recreate psicrystals. They don't say you have the ability to recreate them, and even IF they did say that, they don't say that Psicrystal Affinity is how, and in this RAW discussion, only the question of whether Psicrystal Affinity lets you do it matters, not the general question of whether the ability exists at all.



(I'm doing my darndest to keep my points clear, logical, and from the text, since you've expressed in the past that text-based evidence rather than opinion and general arguing are what matters.)

[RoboEmperor]

(I'm doing my darndest to keep my points clear, logical, and from the text, since you've expressed in the past that text-based evidence rather than opinion and general arguing are what matters.)

I appreciate it. Thanks

Fluff and Crunch

an erudite can seed a crystal or gem with a fragment of his personality, creating a psicrystal as a class feature.
So Fluff says psicrystals are created when you seed a crystal or gem with a fragment of your personality. And the crunch is getting the Psicrystal Affinity as a bonus feat.

A psicrystal is a fragment of a psionic character’s personality, brought into physical form and a semblance of life (via the Psicrystal Affinity feat).
So fluff says psicrystals are created by bringing a psionic character's personality into physical form. And the crunch is via the Psicrystal Affinity feat. (i still maintain the entirety of this sentence is crunch)

So Crunch is supposed to represent Fluff in mechanical game terms right? So let me ask you these questions:
1:Can "This feat allows you to gain a psicrystal." be interpreted as "This feat allows you to create a psicrystal whenever you don't have a psicrystal"?
2a:Is this your interpretation "Psicrystal Affinity only gives you a psicrystal slot, and something completely unrelated and never mentioned creates the psicrystal for you"
2b:Or is this your interpretation: "Psicrystal Affinity creates a Psicrystal but it only ever creates one"?
3: Which of these interpretations are closest to the fluff?

So while the RAW is ambiguous enough that 1, 2a, and 2b are all possible interpretations, fluff completely shuts down 2a leaving only 1 & 2b. The difference between 1 & 2b is simply whether the creation of a psicrystal can be repeated. The Psicrystal Affinity Fluff text, "you have created a psicrystal", does not in anyway remove the possibility of creating replacement psicrystals. So we are still stuck with 1 & 2b.


Logic
Elemental Cognizance and Elemental Envoy: let's look at what these two feats tell us about psicrystals. Not how they function since none of us are going to be taking this feat. So forget about how these feats work. let's just focus on what these two feats tells us.
1. "Because you have chosen to replace your psicrystal with an elemental steward"
a. This is in past tense, meaning it already happened, which means this is possible.
b. It is possible to replace your psicrystal with an elemental steward. This is direct RAW.
c. Doesn't mention how. Just tells you it is possible.

2. "When you are able to acquire a new psicrystal, you can select an elemental steward instead."
a. This tells us that when you are able to acquire a new crystal, you can select a Psicrystal OR Elemental Steward. This is direct RAW
b. Doesn't mention when will we be able to acquire a new psicrystal. Just that the next time we can, we can choose either Elemental Steward or Psicrystal.

3. Both 1. and 2. are direct RAW facts. So if we combine them the result would be an indirect RAW fact.
a. This indirect RAW fact is that: It is possible to replace your psicrystal with another psicrystal.
b. Doesn't mention how we can replace your psicrystal. Only that it is possible. Replacing Psicrystals are possible.

4. As you pointed out the rule text does not mention Psicrystal Affinity. It does however mention Psicrystal Affinity as a prerequisite for Elemental Envoy, and since literally the only way to obtain Psicrystals is via the Psicrystal Affinity feat it is not a leap in logic to say Psicrystal Affinity creates replacement Psicrystals. But this is not RAW. This is Logic.

So, if we combine both sections here, Logic dictates that 1: is right and 2b: is wrong and the feat gives you the ability to create replacement psicrystals not only because Psicrystal Affinity is literally the only method to obtain Psicrystals, but also because 2b renders EE and EC dysfunctional as there are literally no other possible method that can create replacement psicrystals. So is the interpretation that fits perfectly the correct one, or is the interpretation that renders things dysfunctional the correct one?

Without Logic we are forever stuck in a stalemate. So if you say "Logic is not RAW so it doesn't apply here" then this is the end. We're stuck in a stalemate forever. And if you say "Fluff is not RAW so it cannot be used to determine which interpretation is valid" then we're stuck in a bigger stalemate forever. You can never win, only draw.

Is creating a Psicrystal a (Su) ability? (assuming it is repeatable)
1. if the feat is "activated" to create the psicrystal, yes.
2. If the feat is not "activated", then that means the feat passively gives you the ability to create psicrystals. Since this new ability is a result of a Supernatural Ability, it is still a Supernatural Ability so if you declare that you create a psicrystal, it will take a standard action unless otherwise noted.

That's all. Again if you disregard fluff and logic we're stuck at a stalemate. If we don't you're wrong and I'm right. If you want to not be stuck in a stalemate and be right you need to definitively prove psicrystals cannot be replaced, that the ability to create psicrystals is not a supernatural ability, and that your interpretation does not render EE and EC dysfunctional.

[gogogome]

So, if we combine both sections here, Logic dictates that 1: is right and 2b: is wrong and the feat gives you the ability to create replacement psicrystals not only because Psicrystal Affinity is literally the only method to obtain Psicrystals, but also because 2b renders EE and EC dysfunctional as there are literally no other possible method that can create replacement psicrystals. So is the interpretation that fits perfectly the correct one, or is the interpretation that renders things dysfunctional the correct one?

Without Logic we are forever stuck in a stalemate. So if you say "Logic is not RAW so it doesn't apply here" then this is the end. We're stuck in a stalemate forever. And if you say "Fluff is not RAW so it cannot be used to determine which interpretation is valid" then we're stuck in a bigger stalemate forever. You can never win, only draw.

Just because it's a RAW debate doesn't mean it should be devoid of all logic. In fact logic is necessary because of how indirect and unclear the rules often are. And fluff is a perfectly reasonable tie breaker when it doesn't betray the crunch. Fluff cannot overwrite crunch but it can certainly be used as a tie-breaker. If Drysdan does in fact say we should disregard logic and fluff then this is where I will agree to disagree.

edit: I think the fact that Psicrystal Affinity is a prerequisite is RAW rather than logic because a feat cannot use an ability you cannot have. So either manifester level 1st or Psicrystal Affinity would give you the ability to replace psicrystals by RAW. So the Logic section of your post is actually RAW.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

One thing I hadn't thought of is that the ability to recreate psicrystals as a standard action means that Hyperconscious's detonate psicrystal (http://www.psionics.info/powers/detonate-psicrystal/) is actually useful.

It turns your pet rock into a serial suicide bomber.

(A high Fort save and multiple rerolls are highly recommended.)

[edit] Never mind. The power negates your ability to gain another psicrystal for 6 months. Even more reason to never touch that useless waste of ink.

[Psyren]

Hyperconscious has some very cool PrCs and what appears to be workable psionic combat rules, though I haven't tried the latter. Beyond that I don't really use it.

[RoboEmperor]

Hyperconscious has some very cool PrCs and what appears to be workable psionic combat rules, though I haven't tried the latter. Beyond that I don't really use it.

Because Hyperconscious couldn't even write the cost of creating a permanent Astral Construct correctly (by RAW Astral constructs are unaffordably expensive), my DMs view it as crap 3rd party.

[Remuko]

One thing I hadn't thought of is that the ability to recreate psicrystals as a standard action means that Hyperconscious's detonate psicrystal (http://www.psionics.info/powers/detonate-psicrystal/) is actually useful.

It turns your pet rock into a serial suicide bomber.

(A high Fort save and multiple rerolls are highly recommended.)

[edit] Never mind. The power negates your ability to gain another psicrystal for 6 months. Even more reason to never touch that useless waste of ink.

your edit and the text of it which you got the edit info from does however either give us a general rule for how long it takes to replace one, or the more logical (imo) reading that its meant to be a restriction on how you normally replace one, which would imply replacing one normally takes less time than that.

[Psyren]

Because Hyperconscious couldn't even write the cost of creating a permanent Astral Construct correctly (by RAW Astral constructs are unaffordably expensive), my DMs view it as crap 3rd party.

And that's completely fine - for me though, the PrCs have some gems like the Colorless Adept (basically psionic Mage of the Arcane Order), Chronorebel (a functional time-mage), Ghostbreaker (gets turn undead onto a psionic class) and others. I also love the fluff and crunch of some of the metapsionics like Subconscious and Preconscious power.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

your edit and the text of it which you got the edit info from does however either give us a general rule for how long it takes to replace one, or the more logical (imo) reading that its meant to be a restriction on how you normally replace one, which would imply replacing one normally takes less time than that.It's a 3rd party rule that makes psicrystals as terribad as familiars.

Hyperconscious psicrystals SUCK with that rule in place. You wanna ensure that nobody EVER uses a psicrystal in your games outside of a pocket pet? Enforce that rule.

[RoboEmperor]

your edit and the text of it which you got the edit info from does however either give us a general rule for how long it takes to replace one, or the more logical (imo) reading that its meant to be a restriction on how you normally replace one, which would imply replacing one normally takes less time than that.

If you want to extrapolate, extrapolate from the unreleased Complete Psionic errata where it says you get a new Elemental Steward 12 hours after it dies at no repercussion to you which means you get a new psicrystal 12 hours after it is destroyed.

[ericgrau]

Iirc from faq or elsewhere you may replace a psycrystal after a day at no cost. But yes the rules are very hazy about multiple points for psicrystals.

Googling this topic might reveal the source of that.

[RoboEmperor]

Iirc from faq or elsewhere you may replace a psycrystal after a day at no cost. But yes the rules are very hazy about multiple points for psicrystals.

Googling this topic might reveal the source of that.

It was from an unofficial fan made FAQ. And it said "there's no rule, but i'd like to house rule 24 hours"

[ericgrau]

It was from an unofficial fan made FAQ. And it said "there's no rule, but i'd like to house rule 24 hours"

Boo on that forum post then. Thanks.

I found this: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?162605-What-happens-when-a-psicrystal-dies

It says 3.0 had some rules. For some reason 3.5 failed to provide details. 3.0 says it takes a day and 100 gp to make a psicrystal, if destroyed you make a fort save or lose 200 xp per level, and a destroyed psicrystal cannot be replaced for 6 months.

And if you're going by RAW, the feat doesn't provide a way to replace your psicrystal at all. So it's unclear if you even can. Sure the action may default to a standard action, but that's it. The feat only says "You have created a psicrystal. " and "This feat allows you to gain a psicrystal. " So if you want to be super strict with RAW in 3.5, once destroyed you may or may not be able to ever replace the psicrystal. Without further details often you would think no.

[RoboEmperor]

Boo on that forum post then. Thanks.

I found this: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?162605-What-happens-when-a-psicrystal-dies

It says 3.0 had some rules. For some reason 3.5 failed to provide details. 3.0 says it takes a day and 100 gp to make a psicrystal, if destroyed you make a fort save or lose 200 xp per level, and a destroyed psicrystal cannot be replaced for 6 months.

And if you're going by RAW, the feat doesn't provide a way to replace your psicrystal at all. So it's unclear if you even can. Sure the action may default to a standard action, but that's it. The feat only says "You have created a psicrystal. " and "This feat allows you to gain a psicrystal. " So if you want to be super strict with RAW in 3.5, once destroyed you may or may not be able to ever replace the psicrystal. Without further details often you would think no.

Elemental Envoy made it clear that you can get new psicrystals, and that it's psicrystal affinity gets you new psicrystals.

1. By RAW Elemental Envoy assumes you have the ability replace psicrystals
2. All abilities the feat assumes you have is obtained from the feat's prerequisites
3. Psicrystal affinity is the prerequisite of that feat.
4. Therefore Psicrystal Affinity gives you the ability to replace psicrystals.

So you can do it, but it's not stated, so it defaults to a standard action.