how does metapower work?

[newguydude1]

From the book:

"You choose one power known to you to become permanently modified by one metapsionic feat you know. The cost of modifying your chosen power with metapsionic feats is reduced by 2 power points (to a minimum extra cost of 0 power points). When you manifest the modified power with that metapsionic feat, you must still obey any restrictions of that feat (for example, expending your psionic focus). Once a metapower is created by taking this feat, it cannot be changed. The metapower can be used normally with other metapsionic feats you know."

From the errata that never got released

"Metapower, Benefit:
Fix: replace the entire benefit text with the following, more comprehensible explanation:
“Choose one power and one metapsionic feat you know. From now on, whenever you manifest the chosen power, it is modified with the metapsionic feat you chose. The total power point cost of the metapower is 2 less than it would cost to manifest the power with the metapsionic feat normally. Except for the reduced power point cost, all other prerequisites for using the metapsionic feat and power together still apply (for example, you may still be required to expend your psionic focus). Once a metapower is created, it cannot be changed. A metapower can be used, as if a regular unmodified power, with other metapsionic feats you know"

1st ruling says each modification reduces power point cost by 2. so applying synchronicity with two linked powers results in -4 to cost.
2nd ruling says only one modification is reduced by 2 power points. so applying synchronicity with two linked powers results in -2 to cost.

1st ruling says minimum cost of modification is 0. so synchronicity with linked power will cost at least 1pp (cost of synchronicity)
2nd ruling doesnt have a minimum cost. so i can link synchronicity with psionic minor creation and have it cost 0pp.

1st ruling enables power point regeneration at level 3.
2nd ruling enables me to manifest psionic minor creation an infinite amount of times at level 1.

so which metapower do i use?

[nijineko]

A metapower can be used, as if a regular unmodified power, with other metapsionic feats you know"

Side comment: that last sentence strongly implies that one psionic focus can power multiple metapsionic feats, which would resolve a long standing issue and argument. Especially since the errata states previously that one may still have to expend focus to use the metapower, depending on choices.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Both versions are a mess, so I suggest using a hybrid.

(1) Choose a power and a metapsionic feat.
(2) The cost of applying that metapsionic feat to that power is reduced by 2 pp.
(3) You can't reduce the cost of the power below 1 pp.

I would remove the whole "must always use this metapsionic feat with this power" restriction, and also the "any metapsionic feat is 2 pp cheaper" benefit. If the restriction must be reinstated, I would compensate by removing the psionic focus cost for that metapsionic feat.

[sorcererlover]

Side comment: that last sentence strongly implies that one psionic focus can power multiple metapsionic feats, which would resolve a long standing issue and argument. Especially since the errata states previously that one may still have to expend focus to use the metapower, depending on choices.

What debate....

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm

When you expend your psionic focus, it applies only to the action for which you expended it.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Side comment: that last sentence strongly implies that one psionic focus can power multiple metapsionic feats, which would resolve a long standing issue and argument. Especially since the errata states previously that one may still have to expend focus to use the metapower, depending on choices.

Not at all, since you can have a second psionic focus (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#psicrystalContainment) to spend on a second metapsionic feat.

[nijineko]

What debate....

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm

The debate as to whether using one metapsionic feat or three on the same power counts as a single action or not.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The debate as to whether using one metapsionic feat or three on the same power counts as a single action or not.

No, there is no debate, some people just want there to be a debate because they want to ignore the clear and unambiguous rules. If you pay a cost, you only get one thing for paying that cost. You don't get to go to the store and pay 2,000 gp for a +1 Ring of Protection and a +1 Amulet of Natural Armor, because both are the same cost and you bought both at the same time.

[magicalmagicman]

From a pure legal perspective.

The "errata that never got released" is
1. Harder to find than Dragon Magazine
2. Didn't get released and had to be leaked instead
3. Not on the official WotC site at all

You go with the first ruling and ignore the second ruling. It's one thing to use the "errata that never got released" to discern the intent of the developers or what they meant when both texts are supposed to be mechanically identical, it's another thing entirely if the texts are not mechanically identical and one has to replace the other.

[nijineko]

No, there is no debate, some people just want there to be a debate because they want to ignore the clear and unambiguous rules. If you pay a cost, you only get one thing for paying that cost. You don't get to go to the store and pay 2,000 gp for a +1 Ring of Protection and a +1 Amulet of Natural Armor, because both are the same cost and you bought both at the same time.

No wishful thinking here, because I don't care either way.

I just thought I recalled that there was a debate from something I read, but since I don't care about it, I'm not going to bother to track down. I'll just take your word for it until I read otherwise.


From a pure legal perspective.

The "errata that never got released" is
1. Harder to find than Dragon Magazine
2. Didn't get released and had to be leaked instead
3. Not on the official WotC site at all

You go with the first ruling and ignore the second ruling. It's one thing to use the "errata that never got released" to discern the intent of the developers or what they meant when both texts are supposed to be mechanically identical, it's another thing entirely if the texts are not mechanically identical and one has to replace the other.

Regarding the "errata that was never released", I'm the one who obtained it from the author of the book. It was in Word format, I converted it to PDF and made it available with the permission from the author. You can read about it on the RPG stack exchange: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/123698/is-there-a-complete-psionic-errata-document

For the record, it was submitted to be added to the website, but what with the shift to 4th ed, it was lost in the shuffle, and never actually posted to the website somehow.

[magicalmagicman]

Regarding the "errata that was never released", I'm the one who obtained it from the author of the book. It was in Word format, I converted it to PDF and made it available with the permission from the author. You can read about it on the RPG stack exchange: [/FONT]https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/123698/is-there-a-complete-psionic-errata-document

For the record, it was submitted to be added to the website, but what with the shift to 4th ed, it was lost in the shuffle, and never actually posted to the website somehow.


Doesn't change the fact that it is unofficial, unpublished, and never will be published. It's a pity since that 12 hour Elemental Envoy cooldown can be extrapolated to finally get an official ruling regarding Psicrystal replacement. But it is what it is. That errata is less "official" than Unearthed Arcana and Dragon Magazine. Unless miraculously someone gets WotC to finally publish it.

[nijineko]

Doesn't change the fact that it is unofficial, unpublished, and never will be published. It's a pity since that 12 hour Elemental Envoy cooldown can be extrapolated to finally get an official ruling regarding Psicrystal replacement. But it is what it is. That errata is less "official" than Unearthed Arcana and Dragon Magazine. Unless miraculously someone gets WotC to finally publish it.

Hmmm. Make it worth my while and I'll track someone down at WotC and try to get it posted.

Any suggestions for how to make it worth my while? I have a Bribe the DM list, if nothing else.

It won't be the first time I've done that sort of thing, actually, though last time it was because the head of the company in question gave me permission to track their IP down, so I did. Succeeded too. Turned out EA had picked up the rights they were looking for from a defunct company and I found the person inside EA who had negotiating authority. That IP is now in the hands of the head of the company in question.

[magicalmagicman]

Hmmm. Make it worth my while and I'll track someone down at WotC and try to get it posted.

Any suggestions for how to make it worth my while? I have a Bribe the DM list, if nothing else.

It won't be the first time I've done that sort of thing, actually, though last time it was because the head of the company in question gave me permission to track their IP down, so I did. Succeeded too. Turned out EA had picked up the rights they were looking for from a defunct company and I found the person inside EA who had negotiating authority. That IP is now in the hands of the head of the company in question.

If you do, or fail and tell us a story about how it happened, I think everyone here and in other forums would greatly appreciate it. Because that errata does some nice things. But other than gratitude I have nothing to offer you.

[newguydude1]

Hmmm. Make it worth my while and I'll track someone down at WotC and try to get it posted.

Any suggestions for how to make it worth my while? I have a Bribe the DM list, if nothing else.

It won't be the first time I've done that sort of thing, actually, though last time it was because the head of the company in question gave me permission to track their IP down, so I did. Succeeded too. Turned out EA had picked up the rights they were looking for from a defunct company and I found the person inside EA who had negotiating authority. That IP is now in the hands of the head of the company in question.

dont do that. i like power point regeneration at 3 more than free psionic minor creation.

[magicalmagicman]

dont do that. i like power point regeneration at 3 more than free psionic minor creation.

It's not just free Minor Creation. It's also free Matter Agitation and more importantly free Synchronicity to give your Geodite infinite attacks per round by using Share Powers. That's much better than power point regeneration.

[sorcererlover]

dont do that. i like power point regeneration at 3 more than free psionic minor creation.

Sorry to burst your bubble but it doesn't work that way.

Metapower reduces the metapsionic cost by two when the power you chose is modified by metapsionic featS.
Not each metapsionic feat. When you modify it with featS.

So if you modify the chosen power with metapsionic featS the cost drops by 2. It doesn't matter if it's 1 or 10 feats, the cost drops by 2 and only 2.

So the errata version is superior in all ways.