Psionic Artificer without imitating spells?

[Tvtyrant]

Has anyone played one of these? The whole "crystals and robes" ascetic is appealing but psionic items don't get brought up much in guides (except some of the skins) and the Psionic Artificer only gets talk about abusing it.

[Troacctid]

The big problem is that since you can't imitate spells for crafting or infuse them with spell-storing item, your options are way more limited than a normal artificer for not much benefit. Sure, you can use psionic powers for prerequisites if they're a direct analogue to the spell, but a lot of spells don't have psionic equivalents.

[Falontani]

Sure, you can use psionic powers for prerequisites if they're a direct analogue to the spell, but a lot of spells don't have psionic equivalents.

Every arcane spell below ninth has a psionic equivalent due to StP Erudite's existence. Somewhat cheesy, but definitely lets a psionic artificer do what an artificer is supposed to do.

From magic of Eberron there is the Power Crystal, and from ECS any magic (or psionic) item can be created as an integrated component. You can create integrated cognizance crystals, which would be power points stored within your body. With enough money and prep time you have unlimited powers per day

[Troacctid]

Every arcane spell below ninth has a psionic equivalent due to StP Erudite's existence. Somewhat cheesy, but definitely lets a psionic artificer do what an artificer is supposed to do.
Unfortunately, since you don't have the convert spell to power ability, it doesn't matter that someone else could theoretically have it. Without the ability, you, personally, cannot treat spells as powers.

[Benoojian]

Unfortunately, since you don't have the convert spell to power ability, it doesn't matter that someone else could theoretically have it. Without the ability, you, personally, cannot treat spells as powers.

Okay, but if this was true then it would cut both ways "Sorry Artificer, it says you emulate spells, but not whose spells, so you get nothing." When everyone and their mother accepts taking haste off the Trapsmith list.It is convert spell to power not treat spell as power. It's cut and dry that if CStP Erudite and Psionic Artficer exist in the same world then spells that have been converted exist as powers. Now you might have an interesting roleplay exercise in discovering whether your specific desired power exists or finding an Erudite to force it to exist, but it's not a rules question on whether they ARE powers.

If you want weirdness, do the permanently altered powers from Metapower feat count as separate powers?

[Troacctid]

Okay, but if this was true then it would cut both ways "Sorry Artificer, it says you emulate spells, but not whose spells, so you get nothing." When everyone and their mother accepts taking haste off the Trapsmith list.
I don't agree that that follows from the premise, but even if it did, I'd be fine with that. Eliminating the ability to cheese underleveled spells from prestige classes is all upside as far as I'm concerned.


It is convert spell to power not treat spell as power. It's cut and dry that if CStP Erudite and Psionic Artficer exist in the same world then spells that have been converted exist as powers. Now you might have an interesting roleplay exercise in discovering whether your specific desired power exists or finding an Erudite to force it to exist, but it's not a rules question on whether they ARE powers.

If you want weirdness, do the permanently altered powers from Metapower feat count as separate powers?
A lyric thaumaturge who learns a wizard spell doesn't add that spell to the bard list for every future bard in the universe. Why should the erudite be any different?

[Benoojian]

A lyric thaumaturge who learns a wizard spell doesn't add that spell to the bard list for every future bard in the universe. Why should the erudite be any different?

The difference in wording is massive "are treated as part of YOUR class spell list" vs "convert an arcane spell into a power"

If I had two plates and said "this is food" and then "this should be treated as food for you" I'd bet you wouldn't eat the second.

The closer analogue would be whether a custom spell could be learned by a sorceror once he is aware of it.

[Crichton]

A lyric thaumaturge who learns a wizard spell doesn't add that spell to the bard list for every future bard in the universe. Why should the erudite be any different?

The CStP wording doesn't support this line of argument, though. No mention of adding it to lists, just that it's converted to a power, is effectively a power, and the Erudite can use the rules for learning discipline powers to learn it.

I'm not, at this time, going to weigh in on the greater question of whether Psionic Artificers can emulate 'powerified' spells, but this particular point does not apply to the issue.

[Tvtyrant]

Every arcane spell below ninth has a psionic equivalent due to StP Erudite's existence. Somewhat cheesy, but definitely lets a psionic artificer do what an artificer is supposed to do.

From magic of Eberron there is the Power Crystal, and from ECS any magic (or psionic) item can be created as an integrated component. You can create integrated cognizance crystals, which would be power points stored within your body. With enough money and prep time you have unlimited powers per day

This is the exact cheese I am not interested in, as I said in the OP all conversations become about StP and not about psionic items and what you can do with just psionics. For the sake of this thread I am hoping to focus on a StPless world.

[Falontani]

This is the exact cheese I am not interested in, as I said in the OP all conversations become about StP and not about psionic items and what you can do with just psionics. For the sake of this thread I am hoping to focus on a StPless world.

Sorry didn't realize you didn't want gouda from the op. I still recommend the two items mentioned. The other psionic only item that I believe is absolutely lovely, is the psionic tattoo.

[ShurikVch]

From the Magic Item Compendium:

PSIONICS AND CRAFTING MAGIC ITEMS
Many of the items in this book can also be created by a character with the appropriate psionic item creation feat.
For the purpose of meeting item prerequisites, a character who has the Craft Psionic Arms and Armor feat is treated as having Craft Magic Arms and Armor. Likewise, a character who has Craft Universal Item meets the feat prerequisite for items that require Craft Wondrous Item.
If an item includes a spell prerequisite, but the effect of the item does not directly implement that spell, then a psionic power of similar flavor can be substituted. If the item replicates a spell effect, then only the psionic version of that spell or a psionic power that replicates the same effect can be used to satisfy the prerequisite. For example, a character can create a helm of teleportation using psionic teleport as a power prerequisite, or energy burst as a power to create a necklace of fireballs.
The prerequisites of some items, such as the eldritch blast required for gauntlets of eldritch energy, have no psionic equivalent, and so cannot be created by a psionic character without the aid of a character who does meet the requirement.
If you are using the Psionics Is Different variant (EPH 65), then an item created by a psionic character using a psionic item creation feat would be a psionic item. The guidelines given above should be used to determine the psionic item’s feat and power prerequisites.

[magicalmagicman]

Psionic Artificer is worthless.

The thing that puts Powers above Spells is being able to Augment powers through the statosphere with Overchannel, Wild Surge, Quori Power Link Shards, etc. Psionic Artificers cannot augment powers.

The thing that puts Spells above Powers is powerful out of combat combos. StPless world means Psionic Artificer doesn't have that over Psions.

There's like... 1 construct you can build with Psionic Craft Construct making Psionic Artificers inconceivably worse than normal artificers.

If you follow MiC's rules, you're gonna say to your DM "please please pleaaaaaaaassssse let me use Planar Champion to substitute Planar Binding or Planar Ally in psionic item creation despite Planar Champion being in no way similar to the spells other than having the word "planar" in them!"

The only thing and I mean the ONLY think I see the Psionic Artificer doing is doing the Mind Switch + Astral Seed combo at level 13. But without Gate, Simulacrum, or Planar Binding the Artificer is restricted to monsters he finds or Sibyllic Guardian or Cerebrilith to swap minds with.

So in the end you gotta use Reality Revision to create magic items of 25,000gp or less like a scroll of Gate or Simulacrum at level 15 and then the Mind Switch Astral Seed Combo to turn yourself into a powerful physical outsider.

Just play a normal artificer and dress yourself all shiny and crystal ball-y.

[Psyren]

From the Magic Item Compendium:

Exactly, this is the passage that makes Psionic Artificer potentially more powerful than a regular one. If you don't use MiC and therefore don't allow them to make magic items too, they become substantially weaker.

[magicalmagicman]

Exactly, this is the passage that makes Psionic Artificer potentially more powerful than a regular one. If you don't use MiC and therefore don't allow them to make magic items too, they become substantially weaker.

I disagree. If an item replicates a spell effect you can't make it. And the spell effects are what makes Artificer and magic items so powerful.

Psionic Aritficer > Artificer solely because of StP erudite. No StP = no spells, power augmentations, or any of the good magic items = weaksauce.

[Psyren]

I disagree. If an item replicates a spell effect you can't make it.

That only applies if there isn't a power that replicates that spell. The example given (helm of teleportation) is legal because psionic teleport exists. And given that energy burst can be used to make necklace of fireballs (despite being capable of much more than balls of fire) the interpretation there seems to be fairly broad.

In addition, there are many useful items that don't replicate spells directly. For example, Belt of Giant Strength doesn't directly replicate Bull's Strength, so animal affinity can be used to make it.

And that's all before StP Erudite as you stated.

[magicalmagicman]

That only applies if there isn't a power that replicates that spell. The example given (helm of teleportation) is legal because psionic teleport exists. And given that energy burst can be used to make necklace of fireballs (despite being capable of much more than balls of fire) the interpretation there seems to be fairly broad.

In addition, there are many useful items that don't replicate spells directly. For example, Belt of Giant Strength doesn't directly replicate Bull's Strength, so animal affinity can be used to make it.

And that's all before StP Erudite as you stated.

Useful =/= Powerful.

If there is a psionic version of the spell, a Psion is better than the Psionic Artificer in every way not only because of augmentation but also because the Psion gets to use it for free. No StP Erudite Psionic Artificer is like tier 3 not 0 or 1.

Unless you can show me a list of psionic items or magic items converted into psionic items that will render a character ridiculously powerful, I'm gonna stick to my opinion that a Psionic Artificer is a tier 3 utility support class with no power.

[Nifft]

I think you'd need to do some adaptation work to fill out the adaptation idea.

You'd need to work out what items in specific can or can't be created.

You'd need to decide if the spell-centric Infusions also get psionic adaptations.

You'd need to adapt Artificer feats on a one-by-one basis to see what's already usable with psionic items, and what needs to be adapted.


If you did all that, you might end up with something in the same tier as the regular Artificer.

[Troacctid]

Crafting is still pretty strong but yeah, it's definitely lower-tier.

[gogogome]

Has anyone played one of these? The whole "crystals and robes" ascetic is appealing but psionic items don't get brought up much in guides (except some of the skins) and the Psionic Artificer only gets talk about abusing it.

As others have mentioned, it's because Psionic Artificers have no advantages. No PrC power lists. Most powers are suited for a sorcerer rather than a wizard as in they're mostly blasting and nothing else, and the best powers are augmented low level powers so the PA's early access to powers doesn't really do much.

[Psyren]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here a bit; I agree that a psionic artificer is weaker than a Psion with access to StP powers, and may in practice be weaker even than one that doesn't. But a psion is itself at the upper end of T2 (The community rankings (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?600635-Why-each-class-is-in-its-tier-2019-update!) put it at 1.78, though I personally think it could stand to be higher) so I think there is still room in that band. I find it challenging to place a class that can do just about everything a psion can do while also having several advantages they don't (e.g. able to craft wondrous items and magic weapons/armor, crafting psionic items it doesn't have the prerequisite powers for, disenchanting useless items to create items the party actually needs more cheaply, trapfinding, and using metapsionic feats without needing a psionic focus) in T3. They also have an easier time buffing their party in several ways, because unlike many psionic powers, infusions can be used on others (placed into items, or used on construct party members directly.) They also have two advantages over a regular artificer - their items are typed (psionic), so psionic party members can use them (and learn from them, in the case of an erudite) without UMD/UPD checks; and second, some psionic items tend to be more useful than their magic counterparts (dorjes vs. wands especially, not to mention special psionic items like psychoactive skins and manifester arrows.) If nothing else, I would be more apt to use a Psionic Artificer as the skillmonkey/trapmonkey in a psionic party ahead of a Lurk, and likely even a Psychic Rogue, unless item creation and/or Eberron classes were off the table entirely.

EDIT: A lot of the tricks in the No-Crafting Artificer guide (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?427628-Disregard-Money-Acquire-Buff-Spells-Artificers-without-the-Artifice) apply to Psionic Artificers too, because they have the same infusion list (and can spontaneously cast everything on that list.) And once you get your hands on Quintessence things really take off, because you can then prepare a bunch of infused items far in advance of when you might need them.


As others have mentioned, it's because Psionic Artificers have no advantages. No PrC power lists. Most powers are suited for a sorcerer rather than a wizard as in they're mostly blasting and nothing else, and the best powers are augmented low level powers so the PA's early access to powers doesn't really do much.

You can craft power completion and power trigger items at a higher ML, which causes them to automatically augment to that higher level, so they can blast pretty competently too. They also get Dorje Mastery as a bonus feat, which is another +4 ML of augmentation free of charge for any dorjes you make/use.

[magicalmagicman]

EDIT: A lot of the tricks in the No-Crafting Artificer guide (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?427628-Disregard-Money-Acquire-Buff-Spells-Artificers-without-the-Artifice) apply to Psionic Artificers too, because they have the same infusion list (and can spontaneously cast everything on that list.) And once you get your hands on Quintessence things really take off, because you can then prepare a bunch of infused items far in advance of when you might need them.

So we got two tricks in favor of Psionic Artificer.
Astral Seed + Mind Switch 2 levels earlier than normal.
A growing stockpile of power storing items immersed in quintessence activated with Dorje Mastery.

It takes a move action to retrieve the item and another move action to scrape the quintessence off so there is a 1 round delay before you can use the power you need.

[Nifft]

Psi Artificer gets access to all Discipline powers, right? That's something.

There aren't many (any?) PrC power lists but there are some PrCs which give powers at lower level, like Elocator which gives psi teleport and psi plane shift as if they were 3rd level powers. Not sure if that's usable.

Psychic Warrior gets a few powers at lower level than Psion; do any other base classes like the Lurk / Psi Rogue / Ardent do the same?

[Psyren]

Well, there are ways to get your dorjes out faster than a move action, such as a Wand Bracelet (swift in MiC, free action in MoE).

But my main point is that "weaker than a psion" doesn't mean "bad". and it doesn't even necessarily mean "T3."

[Troacctid]

EDIT: A lot of the tricks in the No-Crafting Artificer guide (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?427628-Disregard-Money-Acquire-Buff-Spells-Artificers-without-the-Artifice) apply to Psionic Artificers too, because they have the same infusion list (and can spontaneously cast everything on that list.)
Not exactly the same infusion list. There's one pretty key infusion that's missing: spell-storing item, which is replaced by a psionic equivalent that only works for powers, not spells.

[Tvtyrant]

Not exactly the same infusion list. There's one pretty key infusion that's missing: spell-storing item, which is replaced by a psionic equivalent that only works for powers, not spells.

I am going to look into that. The powers that stand out immediately are Call Item and Minor Creation, granting poison abilities at low levels is pretty good (known cheese.)

The best abilities are going to be ones that are instantaneous and don't require augmenting, such as Hustle, Lion Charge or Dimension Door.

[Psyren]

Not exactly the same infusion list. There's one pretty key infusion that's missing: spell-storing item, which is replaced by a psionic equivalent that only works for powers, not spells.

Sure - but even if you throw out StP Erudite powers - you can solve a lot of problems with 4th-level and below powers. Hell, Dominate Monster is 4th level in psionics.

[Nifft]

Sure - but even if you throw out StP Erudite powers - you can solve a lot of problems with 4th-level and below powers. Hell, Dominate Monster is 4th level in psionics.

Yeah, and Psi Plane Shift might be a 3rd level power.

[magicalmagicman]

But my main point is that "weaker than a psion" doesn't mean "bad". and it doesn't even necessarily mean "T3."

Yup. That's my bad. I shouldn't have said worthless.


I am going to look into that. The powers that stand out immediately are Call Item and Minor Creation, granting poison abilities at low levels is pretty good (known cheese.)

The best abilities are going to be ones that are instantaneous and don't require augmenting, such as Hustle, Lion Charge or Dimension Door.

Poison abilities are not cheese. Complete Adventurer gave them a stupidly high craft DC so you need to invest everything into craft poisonmaking including feats and spells that boost skill checks in order to have a shot at hitting those DCs at low level.

[Tvtyrant]

Yup. That's my bad. I shouldn't have said worthless.



Poison abilities are not cheese. Complete Adventurer gave them a stupidly high craft DC so you need to invest everything into craft poisonmaking including feats and spells that boost skill checks in order to have a shot at hitting those DCs at low level.


There is an incredible abuse here in the form of Myconid potions. Myconids can make mundane potions from a list, which gives you access to magical healing and other goodies.

bull's strength, cure light wounds, cure moderate wounds, cure serious wounds, delay poison, endurance, endure elements, greater magic fang, invisibility to animals, lesser restoration, magic fang, negative energy protection, neutralize poison, protection from elements, remove blindness/deafness, remove disease, remove paralysis, resist elements

That is a lot of spells for one psionic power.

"Minor Creation and Major Creation: Plant and mineral based poisons
Craft DC 15/None: Belladonna (Monster Manual). Ingested: DC 13, 1d6 Str damage/2d6 Str damage. No craft check necessary for just the raw plant, which is poisonous.
Craft DC 15/None: Yew (Online). Ingested: DC 13, 1d2 Con damage/2d6 Con damage. No craft check necessary for just the raw bark or leaves, which is poisonous.
Craft DC 15/None: Striped Toadstool (DMG). Ingested: DC 11, deals 1 Wis/2d6 Wis and 1d4 Int. Presumably no craft check necessary for just the raw toadstool.
Craft DC 15?: Stun Gas (Underdark). Inhaled: DC 12, Stun effect.
Craft DC 15/None: Volcanic Gas (Sandstorm). Inhaled: DC 13, Unconsciousness/1d6 Con. Major Creation should work with this.
Craft DC 15: Blue Whinnis (DMG). Injury: DC 14, deals 1 Con/Unconsciousness
Craft DC 15: Bloodroot (DMG). Injury: DC 12, deals 0/1d4 Con +1d3 Wis
Craft DC 15: Arsenic (DMG): DC 13 Ingested, 1 Con/1d8 Con. The "King of Poisons" is quite tame in D&D, and can be crafted with Major Creation.
Craft DC 15: Sleeping Vine (A&E 37): DC 13, slowed/1d4 Dex
Craft DC 15: Id Moss (DMG): DC 14 Ingested, 1d4 Int/2d6 Int
Craft DC 15: Good-Bye Kiss (C. Scoundrel) Contact: Exhaustion/Exhaustion, Fatigued on a successful save)
Craft DC 15: Drow Poison (DMG) Injury DC 13, Unconsciousness/Unconsciousness. *Noted as being distilled from fungi and roots in C. Scoundrel
Craft DC 17: Psychotropic Rot (DoTU 94): Ingested: DC 15, deals 1d4 Wis/3d8 Hp.
Craft DC 20: Vapid Leaf Extract (A&E 37): DC 16, Dazed/2d6 Int.
Craft DC 20?: Spotted Toadstool Venom (Player's Guide to Eberron). Injury: DC 16, 1d6 Str/1d6 Con.
Craft DC 20: Malyss Root paste (DMG). Injury DC 16, deals 1 Dex/2d4 Dex damage.
Craft DC 20: Sassone leaf residue (DMG): Contact DC 16, deals 2d12 damage/1d6 Con.
Craft DC 21: Cave Terror (Underdark). DC 20, Confusion effect.
Craft DC 25: Terinav Root (DMG). Contact DC 20, deals 1d6/2d6 Dex.
Craft DC 25?: Sinmaker's Surprise (Manual of the Planes). Injury DC 24, Ingested DC 18. Deals 1d6 Con/2d6 Con, and 1d6 Acid for 3 rounds.
Craft DC 28: Darklight Brew (DoTU 94): Injury DC 23, Deals an initial 2d6 Con and 1d6 Strength damage, and blindness as a secondary effect! Can be crafted with Major Creation.
Craft DC 35: Black Lotus Extract (DMG). DC 20, deals 3d6/3d6 Con.
Craft DC 35?: Greensickness (Dungeonscape, MMIII). DC 33, deals 2d6 Str + 1d4 Con/2d6 Str + 1d4 Con. *Confirmed that this is plant-based - it's from the Plague Brush in MMIII, an extraplanar house-sized tumbleweed of death. Words fail me. Craft DC given is an estimate by PlzBreakMyCampaign, my own inclination would be to make it DC 40 or 45.
"

So you get access to a lot of potions and very powerful poisons using a first level slot. That is pretty old, well known cheese.

[magicalmagicman]

So you get access to a lot of potions and very powerful poisons using a first level slot. That is pretty old, well known cheese.

How are you hitting those craft DCs?

Major Creation is 5th level or higher so you will not be using it out of a first level slot.
Only a handful of poisons have their recipes stated somewhere in lore.
Only a handful of handful of poisons are entirely vegetative matter.
Only a handful of handful of handful of them are usable in combat because a good deal of them have to be ingested, or the good effects happen 1minute later which is 8-9rounds longer than it takes to kill the creature with brute force.
The ones that can see practical use at low levels have such high craft DC that if you are high enough to hit them the enemies you face have saves so high the poisons don't matter.

I went down this route and failed miserably. That is how I know it's not cheese. And power storing item requires XP to cast so unless you don't care about that you will be using it out of the 4th level slot Concurrent Infusions to get around that XP cost.

[Nifft]

How are you hitting those craft DCs?

Major Creation is 5th level or higher so you will not be using it out of a first level slot.

Psi Minor Creation (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/minorCreationPsionic.htm) is a 1st level power which emulates a 4th level spell.

[magicalmagicman]

Psi Minor Creation (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/minorCreationPsionic.htm) is a 1st level power which emulates a 4th level spell.

And your point?

[Nifft]

And your point?

Poisons are a single substance, not a complex item.

There's no craft DC necessary, and from the psi side it's available early.

[magicalmagicman]

Poisons are a single substance, not a complex item.

There's no craft DC necessary, and from the psi side it's available early.


The DC depends on the complexity of the item to be created.
...
When casting the spell minor creation, you must succeed on an appropriate Craft check to make a complex item.
...
Complex or superior item (lock) Varies DC 20

By RAW poisons are a complex item, at least if their DCs are 20 or higher.

[Nifft]

By RAW poisons are a complex item, at least if their DCs are 20 or higher.

A lock is an item composed of several distinct parts, and the parts need to move in specific ways for the lock to function. It's an example of a complex item, and it's a good example because it won't work if the parts are imprecisely formed, incorrectly aligned, or so forth.

Poison is absolutely nothing like that.

[magicalmagicman]

A lock is an item composed of several distinct parts, and the parts need to move in specific ways for the lock to function. It's an example of a complex item, and it's a good example because it won't work if the parts are imprecisely formed, incorrectly aligned, or so forth.

Poison is absolutely nothing like that.

So by your logic a drink with 100 different ingredients is not a complex item?

We have RAW that says the DC of any craft check is directly proportional to the complexity of the item and nothing else.
Poisons require a craft check to create.
We have RAW that says DC 20 items are considered complex.

What exactly is your argument? Are you saying Black Lotus Extract is obtained simply by squeezing it and the DC35 craft check to create it is unrelated to the poison's complexity?

[Troacctid]

A lock is an item composed of several distinct parts, and the parts need to move in specific ways for the lock to function. It's an example of a complex item, and it's a good example because it won't work if the parts are imprecisely formed, incorrectly aligned, or so forth.

Poison is absolutely nothing like that.
The fact remains that there are listed crafting DCs for poison, so if you cannot meet those DCs, you should not expect to be able to successfully generate that poison. Black lotus extract in particular is very difficult, requiring a DC 35. Drow sleep poison, on the other hand, is fairly simple, and much more accessible to low-level characters—but hardly broken at only DC 13.

[magicalmagicman]

The fact remains that there are listed crafting DCs for poison, so if you cannot meet those DCs, you should not expect to be able to successfully generate that poison. Black lotus extract in particular is very difficult, requiring a DC 35. Drow sleep poison, on the other hand, is fairly simple, and much more accessible to low-level characters—but hardly broken at only DC 13.

I recall somewhere that Drow Poison has non vegetative matter mixed in.

[Nifft]

So by your logic a drink with 100 different ingredients is not a complex item?

We have RAW that says the DC of any craft check is directly proportional to the complexity of the item and nothing else.
Poisons require a craft check to create.
We have RAW that says DC 20 items are considered complex.

What exactly is your argument? Are you saying Black Lotus Extract is obtained simply by squeezing it and the DC35 craft check to create it is unrelated to the poison's complexity?

I'm saying that a single substance can't be considered a complex item.

You personally could never extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and then combine it into a living plant in order to construct hemp rope -- the Craft DC for such a feat would be superlative -- but luckily you don't need to do any such thing, since the substance isn't constrained by any craft check. You just get the substance for free. (You probably get the rope's structure for free, too, since it's not very complex.)

It's the complexity of the item which has a tax, and that's exactly why poisons are a well-known exploit.


EDIT:

The fact remains that there are listed crafting DCs for poison, so if you cannot meet those DCs, you should not expect to be able to successfully generate that poison. Black lotus extract in particular is very difficult, requiring a DC 35. Drow sleep poison, on the other hand, is fairly simple, and much more accessible to low-level characters—but hardly broken at only DC 13.

Even if your DM adds this constraint, which isn't unreasonable, it's not like a high-Int Artificer will be unable to exploit a large segment of the range.

[magicalmagicman]

I'm saying that a single substance can't be considered a complex item.

You personally could never extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and then combine it into a living plant in order to construct hemp rope -- the Craft DC for such a feat would be superlative -- but luckily you don't need to do any such thing, since the substance isn't constrained by any craft check. You just get the substance for free. (You probably get the rope's structure for free, too, since it's not very complex.)

It's the complexity of the item which has a tax, and that's exactly why poisons are a well-known exploit.


EDIT:


Even if your DM adds this constraint, which isn't unreasonable, it's not like a high-Int Artificer will be unable to exploit a large segment of the range.

Once again I ask you to produce the rules that support your claim. I don't see a single rule citation in your post saying poisons are simple items and the extremely high craft dc is just attributed to the squeezing of the black lotus extract like an orange which is really hard for some reason instead of it being a complicated mixture of many ingredients.

Nothing is cheese if it requires a lenient DM. I've had people say Vow of Poverty is cheese because he had a player have a party member hire a hireling to serve the VoP character, and that hireling received the VoP character's share of the loot, and then that hireling spent all that money buying things the VoP character wanted, and then the VoP character would borrow from that hireling through out the rest of the adventure. So is VoP cheese because of this lenient DM? y/n

[Nifft]

Once again I ask you to produce the rules that support your claim.

Here's some rules text:



You create a nonmagical, unattended object of nonliving, vegetable matter — linen clothes, a hemp rope, a wooden ladder, and so forth. The volume of the item created cannot exceed 1 cubic foot per caster level. You must succeed on an appropriate skill check to make a complex item, such as a Craft (bowmaking) check to make straight arrow shafts.


You must succeed on a Craft check related to item structure (straight arrow shafts), but no Craft check is required for a substance.

Linen, hemp, and wood with a simple enough structure are all created without the mention of a Craft check.


I don't see a single rule citation in your post You had already cited it. I explained why the quote you posted said this. Above you'll find another quote, from an even more explicit source.

Can you find me a rule which says every liquid is a "complex item"?

[magicalmagicman]

Here's some rules text:



You must succeed on a Craft check related to item structure (straight arrow shafts), but no Craft check is required for a substance.

Linen, hemp, and wood with a simple enough structure are all created without the mention of a Craft check.

You had already cited it. I explained why the quote you posted said this. Above you'll find another quote, from an even more explicit source.

Can you find me a rule which says every liquid is a "complex item"?

So something as simple as creating a straight arrow shaft requires a craft check from minor creation. Why would poisons be any different?

Alchemical items are liquids. They require craft checks. Are you saying alchemical items are also simple items?

I've already shown you that any item that requires a craft check is a complex item. Liquids get no special treatment. Its on you to find the exception, not me to provide a specific instance of the general rule holding true. If you cannot find anywhere that liquids are exempt from this rule then the general rule holds true even to liquids. It's that simple.

[Nifft]

So something as simple as creating a straight arrow shaft requires a craft check from minor creation. Why would poisons be any different? You're insulting generations of fletchers.

I explained why it was different -- twice, and with citations -- and now you need to come up with a citation showing otherwise.


I've already shown you that any item that requires a craft check is a complex item. No, that's the thing you're trying to prove.

This is a fallacy known as "petitio principii", google it if you're curious why it's not a valid argument.

[magicalmagicman]

You're insulting generations of fletchers.

I explained why it was different -- twice, and with citations -- and now you need to come up with a citation showing otherwise.

No, that's the thing you're trying to prove.

This is a fallacy known as "petitio principii", google it if you're curious why it's not a valid argument.


The DC depends on the complexity of the item to be created.

Just because you ignore the proof doesn't turn it into a fallacy.
Complex items require high craft DC
Non complex items require low DC
Because The DC depends on the complexity of the item to be created.

Black Lotus Extract requires a DC 35 craft check therefore it is a complex item.

You on the other hand
Haven't said whether a liquid with 100 different things mixed in is a complex item or not.
Haven't said whether liquid Alchemical items are complex or not.
Try to equate an item that requires a DC35 check to craft as in the same category as rope.
And then somehow act like what you just did refutes the direct unambiguous definition of a complex item I provided.
And then say my argument isn't valid because of some fallacy.

Nice try. Find a rule that makes poisons the exception to the crafting general rules. Or find a rule that equates a DC35 crafted object to wood or hemp.

[Psyren]

Guys - there is no hard and fast definition of "complex item." We know that complex locks are those with DC 20+, but not all items are locks. Let's accept that there's going to be table variation here and move on.

[gogogome]

Guys - there is no hard and fast definition of "complex item." We know that complex locks are those with DC 20+, but not all items are locks. Let's accept that there's going to be table variation here and move on.

The rules clearly state that the DC of a craft check is determined solely by the product's complexity. Their state of matter has no impact on the DC. By this fact alone all of Nifft's arguments are invalid.

The DC for complex items (locks are one example) is 20.

Therefore any poison that requires a DC20 or higher check to craft is a complex item. Because the complexity of an item is measured by their craft DC and nothing else. And state of matter has no impact on the DC.

This is as cut and dry as the rules get. I don't see any room for other interpretation.

[magicalmagicman]

Because the complexity of an item is measured by their craft DC and nothing else. And state of matter has no impact on the DC.

This is as cut and dry as the rules get. I don't see any room for other interpretation.

Yes. Exactly this. It doesn't matter how many times Nifft tries to equate Black Lotus Extract to that of wood or hemp. D&D's definition of complexity is measured by their craft DC. Period. End of Story. Unless there is a rule that puts poisons as the exception to the rule.


I'm saying that a single substance can't be considered a complex item.

Show me the rule saying this and I will concede. Otherwise, this is proof of you just making stuff up out of thin air and trying to pass it off as RAW. And quoting fallacies as a way to smokescreen.

Alchemist's fire is a single substance. I guess minor/major creation can create that too without a craft check right?


We know that complex locks


Complex or superior item (lock) Varies DC 20

It's complex ITEMS not locks. Don't fall for Nifft's attempts to subvert direct unambiguous clear RAW.

[Tvtyrant]

The rules clearly state that the DC of a craft check is determined solely by the product's complexity. Their state of matter has no impact on the DC. By this fact alone all of Nifft's arguments are invalid.

The DC for complex items (locks are one example) is 20.

Therefore any poison that requires a DC20 or higher check to craft is a complex item. Because the complexity of an item is measured by their craft DC and nothing else. And state of matter has no impact on the DC.

This is as cut and dry as the rules get. I don't see any room for other interpretation.



The rules clearly state that the DC of a craft check is determined solely by the product's complexity. Their state of matter has no impact on the DC. By this fact alone all of Nifft's arguments are invalid.

The DC for complex items (locks are one example) is 20.

Therefore any poison that requires a DC20 or higher check to craft is a complex item. Because the complexity of an item is measured by their craft DC and nothing else. And state of matter has no impact on the DC.

This is as cut and dry as the rules get. I don't see any room for other interpretation.

So that gives us the following poisons:
Craft DC 15/None: Belladonna (Monster Manual). Ingested: DC 13, 1d6 Str damage/2d6 Str damage. No craft check necessary for just the raw plant, which is poisonous.
Craft DC 15/None: Yew (Online). Ingested: DC 13, 1d2 Con damage/2d6 Con damage. No craft check necessary for just the raw bark or leaves, which is poisonous.
Craft DC 15/None: Striped Toadstool (DMG). Ingested: DC 11, deals 1 Wis/2d6 Wis and 1d4 Int. Presumably no craft check necessary for just the raw toadstool.
Craft DC 15?: Stun Gas (Underdark). Inhaled: DC 12, Stun effect.
Craft DC 15: Blue Whinnis (DMG). Injury: DC 14, deals 1 Con/Unconsciousness
Craft DC 15: Bloodroot (DMG). Injury: DC 12, deals 0/1d4 Con +1d3 Wis
Craft DC 15: Sleeping Vine (A&E 37): DC 13, slowed/1d4 Dex
Craft DC 15: Id Moss (DMG): DC 14 Ingested, 1d4 Int/2d6 Int
Craft DC 15: Good-Bye Kiss (C. Scoundrel) Contact: Exhaustion/Exhaustion, Fatigued on a successful save)
Craft DC 15: Drow Poison (DMG) Injury DC 13, Unconsciousness/Unconsciousness. *Noted as being distilled from fungi and roots in C. Scoundrel
Craft DC 17: Psychotropic Rot (DoTU 94): Ingested: DC 15, deals 1d4 Wis/3d8 Hp.

Also as mentioned the Myconid potions, in addition you can summon Yellow Mold and Brown Mold. Yellow Mold is extremely risky as you would take the 3d6 con damage as well, but Brown Mold is quite impressive as a weapon. 3d6 damage, any scenario with fire it wipes out a huge region of the map.

[Nifft]

The rules clearly state that the DC of a craft check is determined solely by the product's complexity. Their state of matter has no impact on the DC. By this fact alone all of Nifft's arguments are invalid. The examples of complexity are always structural. The examples which can be produced without a Craft check could be crafted, but their structures are too simple to qualify as "complex items".

Locks and arrows are the two example items which aren't "simple". Both feature a large number of different parts, and both feature parts which must be put together with precision. Arrows are a great example of a thing that's much easier to use than it is to construct. Locks are precision machinery whose operation depends on the quality of the construction.

It's not impossible to take a stab at the designer's intent -- simple objects are things like their example list (hemp rope, a wooden ladder, and so on) which could be constructed from a single substance and which does not need moving parts (lock), and doesn't need several different materials put together with precision (arrow).

Many poisons are just a single substance, and I can't think of a single one which includes moving parts, let alone precise machinery.




It's complex ITEMS not locks. Don't fall for Nifft's attempts to subvert direct unambiguous clear RAW. Jesus Christ, dude.

[gogogome]

Many poisons are just a single substance, and I can't think of a single one which includes moving parts, let alone precise machinery.

There is no rule defining complex items as requiring moving physical parts. This is a definition you created, not d&d, much like your earlier definition of how a single substance cannot be complex. And I disagree with it as I believe complicated chemical mixtures are complex despite being a "single substance".

So I must ask that you produce a rule saying complex items must be solid objects with moving objects to qualify as complex items, and that complicated chemical, alchemical, or poisonous mixtures cannot be defined as "complex".

[Psyren]

...Getting back on topic...

Since there are folks here who appear to understand the base artificer better than I do - can you use Metamagic Spell Trigger or Metamagic Spell Completion to apply more than one of those feats to a single item activation/casting?

[gogogome]

...Getting back on topic...

Since there are folks here who appear to understand the base artificer better than I do - can you use Metamagic Spell Trigger or Metamagic Spell Completion to apply more than one of those feats to a single item activation/casting?

No.


Same Effect with Differing Results

The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

The same spell can produce varying effects. Elemental Immunity, Resist Energy, Metamagic Spell Trigger, and Metamagic Spell Completion all can produce varying effects.
The rules directly say in such a situation only the last casting stays in effect.

So the answer to your question is no. If you cast a second Metamagic Spell Trigger the first one will become inactive.

[Nifft]

There is no rule defining complex items as requiring moving physical parts. This is a definition you created, not d&d, much like your earlier definition of how a single substance cannot be complex. And I disagree with it as I believe complicated chemical mixtures are complex despite being a "single substance".

So I must ask that you produce a rule saying complex items must be solid objects with moving objects to qualify as complex items, and that complicated chemical, alchemical, or poisonous mixtures cannot be defined as "complex".

I've produced examples of things which are not called "complex items", and examples of things which are.

I've shown a reasonable way to interpret this distinction.

You are ignoring what the rules say in order to pretend there is no distinction.

I've got circumstantial evidence, and you've got no evidence.

Sure, my circumstantial argument isn't the strongest possible argument, and there are probably other ways to interpret the rules -- but what you're offering is not an alternate reading of the rules, it's just your own decision to ignore part of the examples.

No opinion on alchemy -- it's a weird space with weird custom rules that don't seem to interact reliably with the rest of the system. ("Alchemical bonus", anyone?)


...Getting back on topic...

Since there are folks here who appear to understand the base artificer better than I do - can you use Metamagic Spell Trigger or Metamagic Spell Completion to apply more than one of those feats to a single item activation/casting?



Metamagic Spell Trigger (Su): At 6th level, an artificer gains the ability to apply a metamagic feat he knows to a spell trigger item (generally a wand). He must have the appropriate item creation feat for the spell trigger item he is using. Using this ability expends additional charges from the item equal to the number of effective spell levels the metamagic feat would add to a spell.

For example, an artificer can quicken a spell cast from a wand by spending 5 charges (4 additional charges), empower the spell by spending 3 charges, or trigger it silently by spending 2 charges. The Still Spell feat confers no benefit when applied to a spell trigger item.

An artificer cannot use this ability when using a spell trigger item that does not have charges, such as prayer beads.


Looks like it's just one feat.

[magicalmagicman]

Jesus Christ, dude.

I mean, this is your current argument:
"D&d only used locks as examples of complex items, therefore only things like locks can be complex"

You're saying because d&d didn't use a liquid in an example therefore liquids are exempt from the general rule I posted earlier.

And you've shifted your burden of proof on me. Saying I must show that liquids aren't exempt from the general rule because d&d used only locks as examples.

It doesn't work like that. I don't have to prove that the general rule affects liquids. You need to prove that liquids are exempt from the rule.

[Psyren]

So the answer to your question is no. If you cast a second Metamagic Spell Trigger the first one will become inactive.

"Cast?" I meant the class feature, not an infusion etc, I don't think it is cast. But I don't think that changes the answer regardless, so thank you.



Looks like it's just one feat.

Thanks - so the psionic versions would generally be limited to 1 metapsionic feat per casting like another psionicist. However, you just apply the feat, so it shouldn't use up psionic focus - Letting you apply your metapsionic feat and then use your focus (if you have one) for something else, like Psionic Shot.

[gogogome]

You are ignoring what the rules say in order to pretend there is no distinction.

I am not ignoring anything. Don't accuse me of ignoring anything because I don't do that.

Lets get the facts straight.
The rules say complexity is measured by their craft DC. This is iron clad.
There is nothing that says liquids are exempt from the rule.
D&D used locks as an example of complex items.

You are trying to say d&d not using liquids as an example is d&d distinguishing between solid objects and liquids for the definition of complexity. And this line of reasoning is bizarre.

If I may make a simple analogy. If I say this:
Black things absorb light.
Black socks and Black T-Shirts absorb light.

You are saying
Black cars are not black because I used only clothing in my examples. I have made a distinction by not mentioning black vehicles therefore black cars don't absorb light. This is circumstantial evidence.

D&D not using a liquid example in their, what, two examples? Does not prove anything. Your "circumstantial evidence" does not in any way exempt Liquids from the general rule.


I've shown a reasonable way to interpret this distinction.

There is no distinction. You are trying to force a distinction because you want to use Black Lotus Extract for free with your 1st level character.

[Nifft]

I mean, this is your current argument:
"D&d only used locks as examples of complex items, therefore only things like locks can be complex" That's not even close to honest. I've been arguing that the examples of complex items are examples of structural complexity, shown that the evidence supports this argument, and I laid out what that probably means.

Misrepresenting my argument won't get you a win.


And you've shifted your burden of proof on me.

Actually what I did was support my argument with evidence, and then ask you to meet the same standard. So far you've been unable to do so.


Thanks - so the psionic versions would generally be limited to 1 metapsionic feat per casting like another psionicist. However, you just apply the feat, so it shouldn't use up psionic focus - Letting you apply your metapsionic feat and then use another one, like Psionic Shot. Yeah, you could expend your focus on a Deep Impact or Psionic Shot just fine.

I'm curious about psicrowns in this context -- would the "additional charges from the item" clause mean that you expend additional psicrown power points to fuel your metamagic modification?

That'd be a decent buff over what the ability does for wand-users.

(Dorje users don't get this buff but eh.)

[Psyren]

Yeah, you could expend your focus on a Deep Impact or Psionic Shot just fine.

I'm curious about psicrowns in this context -- would the "additional charges from the item" clause mean that you expend additional psicrown power points to fuel your metamagic modification?

That'd be a decent buff over what the ability does for wand-users.

(Dorje users don't get this buff but eh.)

I think WotC forgot that psicrowns don't have charges like staves do, instead they have a dedicated PP reserve of their own. You'd have to finagle some kind of charge-to-PP conversion surcharge for metapsionic triggered psicrowns to keep them balanced.

[Nifft]

There is no distinction. You are trying to force a distinction because you want to use Black Lotus Extract for free with your 1st level character. Nah, son, I'm the DM most of the time.

As a DM, I need the confidence to change the rules when necessary, but to have that I need to first know what the rules say.

Here's what this rule says:


https://i.imgur.com/rFfk53a.jpg

The blue items don't demand a Craft check. They're what you get without a Craft check. The yellow item does require a Craft check. It's different. The book says it's different because it's a "complex item".

Can you explain the difference in a way that encompasses the other examples we've seen?

I can, and I did.



I think WotC forgot that psicrowns don't have charges like staves do, instead they have a dedicated PP reserve of their own. You'd have to finagle some kind of charge-to-PP conversion surcharge for metapsionic triggered psicrowns to keep them balanced.

Sssh! Don't tell them!

It's the one nice thing we've found so far!

[gogogome]

Nah, son, I'm the DM most of the time.

As a DM, I need the confidence to change the rules when necessary, but to have that I need to first know what the rules say.

Here's what this rule says:

The blue items don't demand a Craft check. They're what you get without a Craft check. The yellow item does require a Craft check. It's different. The book says it's different because it's a "complex item".

Can you explain the difference in a way that encompasses the other examples we've seen?

I can, and I did.

If I flip your own logic on you.

The rules for Minor Creation only used solid objects as examples. Therefore Minor Creation cannot create liquids like orange juice or Poisons. Because even if "vegetable matter" encompasses liquids, the lack of liquid examples is a distinction in the rules.

How is what you're saying different from the above?

The rules for complex items only use objects of structural complexity as examples. Therefore the Complex Item rules don't apply to liquids like orange juice or Poisons. Because even if the word "item" in "complex items" encompasses liquids, the lack of liquid examples is a distinction in the rules.

Be very clear and precise.

[Troacctid]

I think WotC forgot that psicrowns don't have charges like staves do, instead they have a dedicated PP reserve of their own. You'd have to finagle some kind of charge-to-PP conversion surcharge for metapsionic triggered psicrowns to keep them balanced.
Yes, but metapsionic feats also cost a number of additional power points rather than raising the power's level like metamagic feats do. So, I think it works out.

[Nifft]

If I flip your own logic on you.

The rules for Minor Creation only used solid objects as examples. Therefore Minor Creation cannot create liquids like orange juice or Poisons. Because even if "vegetable matter" encompasses liquids, the lack of liquid examples is a distinction in the rules.

How is what you're saying different from the above?

The rules for complex items only use objects of structural complexity as examples. Therefore the Complex Item rules don't apply to liquids like orange juice or Poisons. Because even if the world "item" in "complex items" encompasses liquids, the lack of liquid examples is a distinction in the rules.
You're misusing words. The lack of a liquid example isn't a distinction. You can't infer anything special about liquids.

Given that, the general rule applies.

You are reaching for straws and that kills turtles.




Yes, but metapsionic feats also cost a number of additional power points rather than raising the power's level like metamagic feats do. So, I think it works out.

It works out in the Psi-guy's favor, which isn't usually the case.

Hmm, plus there are some [Metapsionic] feats which usually cost only your Focus, so I guess those would be free for even Dorjes.

Enlarge Power is the only one I see in the SRD.

[magicalmagicman]

So that gives us the following poisons:
Craft DC 15/None: Belladonna (Monster Manual). Ingested: DC 13, 1d6 Str damage/2d6 Str damage. No craft check necessary for just the raw plant, which is poisonous.
Craft DC 15/None: Yew (Online). Ingested: DC 13, 1d2 Con damage/2d6 Con damage. No craft check necessary for just the raw bark or leaves, which is poisonous.
Craft DC 15/None: Striped Toadstool (DMG). Ingested: DC 11, deals 1 Wis/2d6 Wis and 1d4 Int. Presumably no craft check necessary for just the raw toadstool.
Craft DC 15?: Stun Gas (Underdark). Inhaled: DC 12, Stun effect.
Craft DC 15: Blue Whinnis (DMG). Injury: DC 14, deals 1 Con/Unconsciousness
Craft DC 15: Bloodroot (DMG). Injury: DC 12, deals 0/1d4 Con +1d3 Wis
Craft DC 15: Sleeping Vine (A&E 37): DC 13, slowed/1d4 Dex
Craft DC 15: Id Moss (DMG): DC 14 Ingested, 1d4 Int/2d6 Int
Craft DC 15: Good-Bye Kiss (C. Scoundrel) Contact: Exhaustion/Exhaustion, Fatigued on a successful save)
Craft DC 15: Drow Poison (DMG) Injury DC 13, Unconsciousness/Unconsciousness. *Noted as being distilled from fungi and roots in C. Scoundrel
Craft DC 17: Psychotropic Rot (DoTU 94): Ingested: DC 15, deals 1d4 Wis/3d8 Hp.

Also as mentioned the Myconid potions, in addition you can summon Yellow Mold and Brown Mold. Yellow Mold is extremely risky as you would take the 3d6 con damage as well, but Brown Mold is quite impressive as a weapon. 3d6 damage, any scenario with fire it wipes out a huge region of the map.

Double checked Drow Poison, you're right. They can be made from fungi, and they can also be extracted from spiders, scorpions, etc. so they're not mandatory.
The striked out poisons are unusable in combat either because they are ingested, or because the good effects come out 1min later which is when combat is long over.
Myconid Potions are Su meaning they're magical not nonmagical so you can't create them with minor creation.

Yellow and Brown Mold, how are you going to use it? Minor Creation has a range of 0 so even if you used Linked Power to shorten the casting time, it's gonna appear where you are standing when you manifested the power.

Drow Poison is strong but I wouldn't call it cheese. But if your weaponization of mold sounds plausible then I will concede.

[gogogome]

You're misusing words. The lack of a liquid example isn't a distinction. You can't infer anything special about liquids.

Given that, the general rule applies.

I said be very clear and concise. I don't understand how you can differentiate Complex Items excluding liquids for using locks as examples, but not Vegetable Matter excluding liquids when they use locks as examples too.

This is what you said

That's not even close to honest. I've been arguing that the examples of complex items are examples of structural complexity, shown that the evidence supports this argument, and I laid out what that probably means.

Lets just change words

"That's not even close to honest. I've been arguing that the examples of vegetable matter are examples of solid objects, shown that the evidence supports this argument, and I laid out what that probably means."


You are reaching for straws and that kills turtles.

This line pisses me off so this will probably be my last post in the subject. You are one very irrational person and I've spent enough time dealing with you

Complex items are items with a craft DC of 20. The type of craft (metalworking, poisonmaking, etc.) is irrelevant. State of matter is irrelevant.
Items includes liquids. Flasks of oil are "Items". And alchemical items. Alchemist's Fire is explicitly said to be DC20.
Therefore poisons are complex if their craft DC is 20.

You on the other hand, is saying that a few examples in a nonexhaustive list
Let me repeat that, not in game definitions, not dictionary definitions, not rule text,
but few examples in a nonexhaustive list
exempts an entire class of matter from the general crafting rules.

And I'm reaching?

Well goodbye.

[magicalmagicman]

You're misusing words. The lack of a liquid example isn't a distinction. You can't infer anything special about liquids.

It's not a lack of liquid example. Its that all examples are solid objects. You can infer that only solid objects can be created with minor creation.


Well goodbye.

Yup, me too. Let me just say flipping it on him was beautiful, I must commend you on that.

[sorcererlover]

You can't infer anything special about liquids.

Inferred rules???
You were talking about inferred rules???
And were saying that this invisible inferred rule trumps a explicit not inferred rule???

Dude... you're reaching. Really, really, hard.

[Psyren]

Yes, but metapsionic feats also cost a number of additional power points rather than raising the power's level like metamagic feats do. So, I think it works out.

They do. but the cost of Metapsionic Power Trigger is measured in charges rather than PP, so you have to do some kind of conversion.

Take a dorje of Psionic Fly (1 charge per use.) Say the PA wants to use Extend on it - that makes each use now cost 3 charges: 1 charge base + (1+(0.5*2)). This is the equivalent of 21 PP per casting, instead of the 7 or 9 PP you'd spend manifesting it yourself - pretty straightforward.

Now do that with an Evader Psicrown instead, which has 400 PP and no charges. How does this ability calculate the "charges" that should be in that psicrown? Is one use of Psionic Fly a charge? What if you manifest Hustle (5PP) or Catfall (1PP) instead? Is every 1 PP s a charge? Or is it 5? Or 7 PP a charge? How many times can you do it before the psicrown runs empty, and does that number depend on the specific powers you manifest? Unfortunately it's not clear.

[magicalmagicman]

Inferred rules???
You were talking about inferred rules???
And were saying that this invisible inferred rule trumps a explicit not inferred rule???

Dude... you're reaching. Really, really, hard.

Inferred rules from 2 examples. Lock and Straight Arrow Shaft. These two examples creates an inferred rule that trumps an explicit not inferred rule.

[newguydude1]

fungi is not vegetable matter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungus
"A characteristic that places fungi in a different kingdom from plants, bacteria, and some protists is chitin in their cell walls"

so you cant make drow poison with minor creation.

[magicalmagicman]

fungi is not vegetable matter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungus
"A characteristic that places fungi in a different kingdom from plants, bacteria, and some protists is chitin in their cell walls"

so you cant make drow poison with minor creation.

Welp, that settles it. Yellow and Brown mold are out because mold is a fungus therefore not a plant therefore not vegetable matter. Which leaves...

Craft DC 15?: Stun Gas (Underdark). Inhaled: DC 12, Stun effect.
Craft DC 15: Sleeping Vine (A&E 37): DC 13, slowed/1d4 Dex

These two are the only two poisons that are usable in combat that you can create. Far from "cheese". So I stand by my earlier statement, creating poisons with minor creation is far from cheese.

[Tvtyrant]

fungi is not vegetable matter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungus
"A characteristic that places fungi in a different kingdom from plants, bacteria, and some protists is chitin in their cell walls"

so you cant make drow poison with minor creation.

No only is this utterly unrelated to game mechanics, but fungi are plants in D&D (see the aforementioned Myconids.)

[newguydude1]

No only is this utterly unrelated to game mechanics, but fungi are plants in D&D (see the aforementioned Myconids.)

vegetable matter is not a in game term. its a real life term.
"matter produced by plants or growing in the manner of a plant"

its related to game mechanics because it defines what you can make with minor creation.

[Psyren]

fungi is not vegetable matter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungus
"A characteristic that places fungi in a different kingdom from plants, bacteria, and some protists is chitin in their cell walls"

so you cant make drow poison with minor creation.

I enjoy a good bit of pedantry as much as the next gamer, but you may want to read DMG 76: "For purposes of spells and other special effects, all slimes, molds, and fungi are treated as plants." I'd call a fantasy poison a special effect.

[newguydude1]

I enjoy a good bit of pedantry as much as the next gamer, but you may want to read DMG 76: "For purposes of spells and other special effects, all slimes, molds, and fungi are treated as plants." I'd call a fantasy poison a special effect.

wow why didnt you tell me this back when i made a thread about making poison with minor creation.

do you know how tv tyrant is gonna use brown or yellow mold? i like damage more than saves.

im gonna drench my warforged and geodite in drow poison. stupid devils wont know what hit them with their stupid dr and fire immunity. back to shaper psion from egoist psion.

[gogogome]

vegetable matter is not a in game term. its a real life term.
"matter produced by plants or growing in the manner of a plant"

its related to game mechanics because it defines what you can make with minor creation.

Fungi grow in the manner of a plant. I think. Google has failed me.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Same Effect with Differing Results

The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

The same spell can produce varying effects. Elemental Immunity, Resist Energy, Metamagic Spell Trigger, and Metamagic Spell Completion all can produce varying effects.
The rules directly say in such a situation only the last casting stays in effect.

So the answer to your question is no. If you cast a second Metamagic Spell Trigger the first one will become inactive.


"Cast?" I meant the class feature, not an infusion etc, I don't think it is cast. But I don't think that changes the answer regardless, so thank you.

Note that the SRD omits examples from the rules text in the Magic Overview section, and the example for that one provides a very important bit of clarifying context:


Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail. In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

So that rule is actually only talking about multiple effects that cannot coexist, with "trumping the others" referring to the fact that you can't be a mouse and a lion or a lion and a snail at the same time.

Meanwhile, multiple copies of a multiple-choice effect like energy immunity or resist energy effects could coexist just fine, and the other rules in the same page make it clear that multiple effects with similar properties all stay active and are cumulative:


For example, if a wizard is using a shapechange spell to take the shape of an eagle, a polymorph spell could change her into a goldfish. The shapechange spell is not negated, however

In this case, the geas/quest spell doesn’t negate charm person, but it does reduce its effectiveness, just as nonmagical devotion to a quest would. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows.

Spells with opposite effects apply normally, with all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply.

...so you can benefit from multiple resist energy effects for multiple energy types or use multiple feats with Metamagic Spell Trigger at the same time with no problem.

[gogogome]

Note that the SRD omits examples from the rules text in the Magic Overview section, and the example for that one provides a very important bit of clarifying context:



So that rule is actually only talking about multiple effects that cannot coexist, with "trumping the others" referring to the fact that you can't be a mouse and a lion or a lion and a snail at the same time.

Meanwhile, multiple copies of a multiple-choice effect like energy immunity or resist energy effects could coexist just fine, and the other rules in the same page make it clear that multiple effects with similar properties all stay active and are cumulative:





...so you can benefit from multiple resist energy effects for multiple energy types or use multiple feats with Metamagic Spell Trigger at the same time with no problem.

That's how I ruled it at first, but by RAW:
Same spell producing varying effects, only the last one is active and the others are inactive.

That RAW is just too Iron Clad.
Energy Immunity is a spell producing varying effects. Therefore the rest of that RAW applies. The rules don't say different spells or just spells producing varying effects. It specifically addresses the same spell producing varying effects.

Your examples don't have "same spell" in them. All three of them use different spells, including the multiple mental control one. So by RAW they don't negate any text.

I'd be happy if you proved me wrong though. I want to stack multiple Weapon Augmentation, Personal on my artificers.

[Psyren]

wow why didnt you tell me this back when i made a thread about making poison with minor creation.

This is honestly the first thread I've seen that's tried to say you couldn't make fungi with PMC, so I never needed to provide that quote until now.

[newguydude1]

This is honestly the first thread I've seen that's tried to say you couldn't make fungi with PMC, so I never needed to provide that quote until now.

nevermind. demons and devils, the only creatures that are immune or almost immune to fire at low levels, are also immune to poison. got excited for nothing.

if tv tyrant doesnt tell me how yellow and brown mold can be used to kill things this thread doesnt help me at all. not that its supposed to.

[Rijan_Sai]

nevermind. demons and devils, the only creatures that are immune or almost immune to fire at low levels, are also immune to poison. got excited for nothing.

if tv tyrant doesnt tell me how yellow and brown mold can be used to kill things this thread doesnt help me at all. not that its supposed to.


Yellow Mold (CR 6)

If disturbed, a 5-foot square of this mold bursts forth with a cloud of poisonous spores. All within 10 feet of the mold must make a DC 15 Fortitude save or take 1d6 points of Constitution damage. Another DC 15 Fortitude save is required 1 minute later—even by those who succeeded on the first save—to avoid taking 2d6 points of Constitution damage. Fire destroys yellow mold, and sunlight renders it dormant.

Brown Mold (CR 2)

Brown mold feeds on warmth, drawing heat from anything around it. It normally comes in patches 5 feet in diameter, and the temperature is always cold in a 30-foot radius around it. Living creatures within 5 feet of it take 3d6 points of nonlethal cold damage. Fire brought within 5 feet of brown mold causes it to instantly double in size. Cold damage, such as from a cone of cold, instantly destroys it.

As far as I can tell, neither demons nor devils are immune to either CON or cold damage; you would just need a way to bring the mold to them! (Without, you know, killing yourself in the process...)

[PairO'Dice Lost]

That's how I ruled it at first, but by RAW:
Same spell producing varying effects, only the last one is active and the others are inactive.

That RAW is just too Iron Clad.

The issue with that line of reasoning is that the only thing defining what "varying effects" and "trumps the others" actually mean in the original context is that example. You can't declare the example-less form solid RAW because the example isn't just a restatement of existing rules in concrete terms like e.g. most of the examples in the character-building sections of the PHB, it's actually clarifying text that changes the meaning of the rule if it's omitted.

Without the example, the rule could mean anything from multiple-choice spells like resist energy to form-changing spells like polymorph to open-ended spells like silent image (because you can't have two illusions occupy the same space and both be visible, right?) to something entirely different, or any combination of the above. With the example, at least one of those cases is nailed down and the rationale is made clear so that you can reason which of those cases it would apply to.

It's as if you had a rule section about, say, "Spells that Impose Afflictions" that didn't define what an "affliction" was in the SRD, but in the PHB it had an extra line that started with "For example, both bestow curse and contagion..." that let you extrapolate that "afflictions" were meant to include curses and diseases (at least; it might also include, say, poisons and geases). In that case, a DM who only read the SRD version might rule differently (for instance, deciding that "affliction" includes diseases and poisons but not curses) than one reading the PHB version, just as the Varying Effects rule can be interpreted differently if you omit the example.


Your examples don't have "same spell" in them. All three of them use different spells, including the multiple mental control one. So by RAW they don't negate any text.

The important portion of those examples is not that they use the same spells, but that in all of those cases multiple spells are additive and continue to apply their benefits, even seemingly contradictory ones, unless one actually completely cancels out another (such as in the case of multiple shapechanging effects). Resist energy (fire) and resist energy (cold) coexisting just fine both fits with the example and follows the same logic as those other sections; resist energy (fire) canceling out an existing resist energy (cold) doesn't fit with the other rules and is a totally different case from the example given.

Note also that casting resist energy (fire) on someone already subject to resist energy (fire) would certainly fall under the "renders another spell irrelevant" rule (because they literally have the same effect, without even different pools of resistance like protection from energy has), and in that case the two spells explicitly both continue to apply with no canceling/dismissal/dispelling involved. Again, resist energy (fire)+resist energy (cold) coexisting matches precedent much better than a weird case where RE (fire)+RE (fire) coexist but RE (fire)+RE (cold) negates one of the two spells.

[nijineko]

As a side comment, there are around 784 unique powers in the entire 3.x game (after removing duplicates across books) listed on the Master Psionics List.

That's a non insignificant resource for psi-artificers. Not nearly as many as spells, obviously, but still a pretty nice selection to choose from, even without StP Erudite possibilities, and not considering any possible fuzzy crossover items based on the MIC item creation ruling.

[Psyren]

...so you can benefit from multiple resist energy effects for multiple energy types or use multiple feats with Metamagic Spell Trigger at the same time with no problem.

I don't think the spell stacking rules apply to using multiple feats with a class feature.


As a side comment, there are around 784 unique powers in the entire 3.x game (after removing duplicates across books) listed on the Master Psionics List.

That's a non insignificant resource for psi-artificers. Not nearly as many as spells, obviously, but still a pretty nice selection to choose from, even without StP Erudite possibilities, and not considering any possible fuzzy crossover items based on the MIC item creation ruling.

Not to mention that getting some really situational powers (including discipline powers) on demand is very useful. You're not likely to find a PC Psion who decided something like Object Reading or Sensitivity to Psychic Impressions was worth burning a power known on (much less an Expanded Knowledge feat) - but when the Psionic Artificer can get it on a stick within a minute, you'll find that they can solve a lot of awkward problems.

[gogogome]

The issue with that line of reasoning is that the only thing defining what "varying effects" and "trumps the others" actually mean in the original context is that example. You can't declare the example-less form solid RAW because the example isn't just a restatement of existing rules in concrete terms like e.g. most of the examples in the character-building sections of the PHB, it's actually clarifying text that changes the meaning of the rule if it's omitted.

Without the example, the rule could mean anything from multiple-choice spells like resist energy to form-changing spells like polymorph to open-ended spells like silent image (because you can't have two illusions occupy the same space and both be visible, right?) to something entirely different, or any combination of the above. With the example, at least one of those cases is nailed down and the rationale is made clear so that you can reason which of those cases it would apply to.

It's as if you had a rule section about, say, "Spells that Impose Afflictions" that didn't define what an "affliction" was in the SRD, but in the PHB it had an extra line that started with "For example, both bestow curse and contagion..." that let you extrapolate that "afflictions" were meant to include curses and diseases (at least; it might also include, say, poisons and geases). In that case, a DM who only read the SRD version might rule differently (for instance, deciding that "affliction" includes diseases and poisons but not curses) than one reading the PHB version, just as the Varying Effects rule can be interpreted differently if you omit the example.

You're the second person in this thread to say examples create an inferred rule that trumps direct text.

We are just gonna have to agree to disagree here. I believe examples do not create inferred rules. They are simply one instance of the rule in action. The fact that they only used one and only one example and it didn't include the case we are talking about doesn't prove anything.

Silent Image is not a valid use of the rule because we are talking about same spell stacking on the same creature. You can't "stack" two silent images because silent images are not an ongoing effect on a target. So assuming you have a way around the duration:concentration you can have as many as you want.

You agreed that if we just look at the text, my ruling is correct. And I'm disagreeing that the example is binding legal text that limits this rule to just that example instead of just being an example of one instance of the rule in effect.

As further proof this is Rule Compendium

Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

The example has been removed further showing that the example is just an example and not an additional rule.

[nijineko]

Not to mention that getting some really situational powers (including discipline powers) on demand is very useful. You're not likely to find a PC Psion who decided something like Object Reading or Sensitivity to Psychic Impressions was worth burning a power known on (much less an Expanded Knowledge feat) - but when the Psionic Artificer can get it on a stick within a minute, you'll find that they can solve a lot of awkward problems.

Lol, I actually have a character concept based around a theme including those powers. =D

I just don't like the burning gold (material components) aspect of artificers for nearly every little infusion. Not unless there is an regular and improved eschew materials feat or option that is available to artificers to eliminate the lower cost ones.

[Psyren]

Lol, I actually have a character concept based around a theme including those powers. =D

I just don't like the burning gold (material components) aspect of artificers for nearly every little infusion. Not unless there is an regular and improved eschew materials feat or option that is available to artificers to eliminate the lower cost ones.

Aren't the amounts really negligible? Plus you can fall back on the free ones.

[nijineko]

Aren't the amounts really negligible? Plus you can fall back on the free ones.

I am decidedly against having to spend hard earned gold just to use my own class features. If I want to spend gold to do something, I'll buy a psionic or magic item. or bribe an NPC. or learn a new skill. or gain a title. maybe buy lands and lord it over them.... there are any number of infinitely more useful things to do with gold, why should I have to spend gold just to activate my own class abilities? artificers are supposed to be manipulating the very stuff of mana or whatever, surely they can figure out a way to not have to burn money each and every single time? Craft some tools or foci or something?

But then again, that's sort of built into the whole vancian magic system concept, which I thoroughly detest anyway, so... anything that is or is like the vancian system gets a big NO from me.

[Psyren]

artificers are supposed to be manipulating the very stuff of mana or whatever, surely they can figure out a way to not have to burn money each and every single time? Craft some tools or foci or something?

I mean they kinda did, it's called eternal wands minor schema :smalltongue:

But as I mentioned - there are plenty of infusions with no material component. 1st-level for instance has Magic Vestment, Magic Weapon, Magic Stone, Weapon Augmentation, Armor Enhancement, Skill Enhancement, Resistance Item, Shield of Faith, and Light. Those are plenty to get you through the early levels where you're broke (and beyond). Psionic Artificer gets all of these, they just get a new coat of paint.

[Nifft]

Inferred rules???
You were talking about inferred rules???
And were saying that this invisible inferred rule trumps a explicit not inferred rule???

Dude... you're reaching. Really, really, hard.

All the arguments against manifesting poisons are based on inferred rules.

If y'all are dismissing that category of argument, then you're agreeing with me that poisons can be manifested. Thanks for the assist.


Yup, me too. Let me just say flipping it on him was beautiful, I must commend you on that. Oh my, looks like you are buying into his argument.

Without the inferred rule about every expensive item being complex, which were the foundation of your argument -- and really you didn't manage to build much on it, your argument was pretty much just a foundation and some personal attacks -- but anyway, without that foundation, what you're left with is nothing more than your incivility.

You have no remaining arguments if you want to "flip" your own foundation on me.

Was it worth the brief taste of victory, before we noticed that you were scoring on your own goal?



I mean they kinda did, it's called eternal wands minor schema :smalltongue:

But as I mentioned - there are plenty of infusions with no material component. 1st-level for instance has Magic Vestment, Magic Weapon, Magic Stone, Weapon Augmentation, Armor Enhancement, Skill Enhancement, Resistance Item, Shield of Faith, and Light. Those are plenty to get you through the early levels where you're broke (and beyond). Psionic Artificer gets all of these, they just get a new coat of paint.

Could it be argued that Psi Artificer uses power rules for Infusions rather than spell rules?

That might remove some material component costs, though as mentioned above they are pretty trivial overall.

[newguydude1]

All the arguments against manifesting poisons are based on inferred rules.

If y'all are dismissing that category of argument, then you're agreeing with me that poisons can be manifested. Thanks for the assist.

Oh my, looks like you are buying into his argument.

Without the inferred rule about every expensive item being complex, which were the foundation of your argument -- and really you didn't manage to build much on it, your argument was pretty much just a foundation and some personal attacks -- but anyway, without that foundation, what you're left with is nothing more than your incivility.

You have no remaining arguments if you want to "flip" your own foundation on me.

Was it worth the brief taste of victory, before we noticed that you were scoring on your own goal?




Could it be argued that Psi Artificer uses power rules for Infusions rather than spell rules?

That might remove some material component costs, though as mentioned above they are pretty trivial overall.

you say all example of complex objects made by minor creation is "structurally complex" therefore inferred rule is liquid cannot be complex.
he say all example of objects made by minor creation is "solid object" therefore inferred rule is minor creation cannot make liquids.

either all examples being solid makes inferred rule that minor creation can only make solid objects.
or all examples being solid does not make an inferred rule and its just pure nonsense.

instead of accepting your illogicalness you just throw insults at whatever people who point out just how wrong you are.

[sorcererlover]

All the arguments against manifesting poisons are based on inferred rules.

What?


The DC depends on the complexity of the item to be created.

Complex or superior item (lock) Varies 20

Where is the inferred part?

If you're trying to make it sound like d&d is "inferring" something when they tell you directly that anything with a craft DC of 20 is a complex item, you're reaching man. Really, really reaching. You are reaching for straws and that kills turtles.


If y'all are dismissing that category of argument, then you're agreeing with me that poisons can be manifested. Thanks for the assist.

What?

Poisons can be manifested, you just need a craft check.
Just because you tell yourself that "The DC depends on the complexity of the item to be created." and "Complex or superior item ... DC 20" are inferred rules doesn't make it true.


Oh my, looks like you are buying into his argument.

Without the inferred rule about every expensive item being complex, which were the foundation of your argument -- and really you didn't manage to build much on it, your argument was pretty much just a foundation and some personal attacks -- but anyway, without that foundation, what you're left with is nothing more than your incivility.

You have no remaining arguments if you want to "flip" your own foundation on me.

Was it worth the brief taste of victory, before we noticed that you were scoring on your own goal?

People, this is the definition of a strawman.

But then why am I not surprised? You quoted "petitio principii" when magicalmagicman shared the above two "explicit" rules.

[Nifft]

you say all example of complex objects made by minor creation is "structurally complex" therefore inferred rule is liquid cannot be complex.
he say all example of objects made by minor creation is "solid object" therefore inferred rule is minor creation cannot make liquids. Poisons can also come in powders and blocks. Inhaled poisons can't be liquids, for example. Asserting otherwise is illogical.

But remember, it's your side which both built on a foundation of inferred rules and then did a victory dance about dismissing inferred rules.


either all examples being solid makes inferred rule that minor creation can only make solid objects.
or all examples being solid does not make an inferred rule and its just pure nonsense. Solid objects includes many poisons, as proved above.


instead of accepting your illogicalness you just throw insults at whatever people who point out just how wrong you are. Pointing out the incivility of others isn't the same as throwing insults at them.

Pointing out the flaw in your logic -- you assume all potions are liquid when they demonstrably cannot be all liquid -- isn't an insult.

You're wrong, and that's not an insult.

[Nifft]

What?

Where is the inferred part?

The part where you need to infer that poisons are complex.

If you could justify the assertion that Poisons are a complex object, then this argument would be over.

So far nobody has been able to justify that assertion.

[Psyren]

Maybe the poison + psionic minor creation thing could be taken to another thread?



Could it be argued that Psi Artificer uses power rules for Infusions rather than spell rules?

That might remove some material component costs, though as mentioned above they are pretty trivial overall.

As written they work just like the regular infusions, which mean they use material components. I personally would have no problem letting them use XP instead for theme, but that would be a houserule.

[sorcererlover]

Poisons can also come in powders and blocks. Inhaled poisons can't be liquids, for example. Asserting otherwise is illogical.

But remember, it's your side which both built on a foundation of inferred rules and then did a victory dance about dismissing inferred rules.

Solid objects includes many poisons, as proved above.

Pointing out the incivility of others isn't the same as throwing insults at them.

Pointing out the flaw in your logic -- you assume all potions are liquid when they demonstrably cannot be all liquid -- isn't an insult.

You're wrong, and that's not an insult.

So you're saying if minor creation can create liquids, you are wrong?
gogogome already has. A Flask of Oil is an Item. Minor Creation creates items. Done. Just because there isn't an explicit example in RAW directly stating that you can make a flask of oil with Minor Creation doesn't mean you can't. Lack of example proves nothing. And it certainly doesn't trump actual rule text.


So far nobody has been able to justify that assertion.

Nope, people have. Just because you deny it doesn't make it true.

Why don't you walk us through exactly what's going on in your head? Type <--- where you disagree.


The DC depends on the complexity of the item to be created.

The DC is proportional to the complexity of the item to be created. Explicitly stated fact.
Nothing else influences the DC. Explicitly stated fact.
Complex item = high DC
Not complex item = low DC.


Complex or superior item (lock) Varies 20

Complex item has a DC 20 or higher. Explicity stated fact.
Black Lotus Extract has a craft DC of 35. Therefore it is complex. Explicitly stated fact.

{Scrubbed}
"Lack of official examples proves liquids and other not structurally complex objects and items are not complex and therefore ignores the explicit rules"
"Minor creation can only make solid objects because if it can make liquids my entire line of reasoning falls apart and I don't want that."

Type <--- where you disagree.

[newguydude1]

Poisons can also come in powders and blocks. Inhaled poisons can't be liquids, for example. Asserting otherwise is illogical.

so if minor creation can make liquids, you admit you wrong?

[magicalmagicman]

I made a thread regarding this topic:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?614169-Do-you-need-to-make-a-craft-check-when-creating-Poisons-with-Minor-Creation&p=24568379

And there Nifft's claim that examples create inferred rules that trump explicit rules is unanimously rejected. Unanimously.

So lets just sum this up.


so if minor creation can make liquids, you admit you wrong?
From the other thread


definition of vegetative matter
"matter produced by plants or growing in the manner of a plant."

matter includes liquids
apple is produce by plant
therefore apple juice is vegetative matter
therefore minor creation can create liquids
and the argument that examples make an inferred rule is nonsense. pure nonsense.

all examples of polymorph in phb are animals. does that create an inferred rule that says polymorph can only turn you into animals?
its just nonsense. pure nonsense.

So Nifft's claim that examples create inferred rules that trump explicit rule text is "pure nonsense".


I've shown a reasonable way to interpret this distinction.
Nope, you have not. Just because you say so doesn't make it true.


You are ignoring what the rules say in order to pretend there is no distinction.
Nope, there is no distinction. Just because you say so doesn't make it true.


I've got circumstantial evidence, and you've got no evidence.
Nope, I got explicit RAW, you got no evidence which is evident by the fact that both in this thread and the other your "evidence" has been unanimously rejected.


Sure, my circumstantial argument isn't the strongest possible argument, and there are probably other ways to interpret the rules -- but what you're offering is not an alternate reading of the rules, it's just your own decision to ignore part of the examples.
Nope, just because you say its circumstantial doesn't make it true. It's nothing.


Actually what I did was support my argument with evidence, and then ask you to meet the same standard. So far you've been unable to do so.
Nope. You have no evidence. Your claim that a few examples is "evidence" that trumps explicit rule text has been unanimously rejected.


You're misusing words. The lack of a liquid example isn't a distinction. You can't infer anything special about liquids.

Given that, the general rule applies.

You are reaching for straws and that kills turtles.

Was it worth the brief taste of victory, before we noticed that you were scoring on your own goal?
Nope. You being condescending or "incivil" does not negate the "pure nonsense" that is your entire argument, which again I repeat has been unanimously rejected by all the people in this thread and the other thread.


You're wrong, and that's not an insult.

You're correct.

Your entire argument is "pure nonsense". You have convinced 0 people in both this thread and the other that examples create inferred rules that trump explicit text. You are completely wrong. And this is not an insult.



So in conclusion, you're wrong, your entire position is "pure nonsense", and no amount of declaring yourself right is gonna change that.

I know that there is literally nothing anyone can say or do to make you change your mind. But that doesn't matter. The opinion of one person using "pure nonsense" and endlessly declaring himself right to keep his 1st level munchkin cheese tactic that doesn't work doesn't matter at all. But still, if you want to continue asserting that that you're right, convince all the people in the other thread that you are right first before you talk to me. Convince them that "vegetable matter" doesn't include liquids because you and only you say so because examples create inferred rules.

[Psyren]

All this aggression over a boardgame where we play make-believe. :smallsigh: