Erudite Convert Spell to Power ACF - Spells or powers, and what are the consequences?

[ApologyFestival]

On the assumption that there are no stupid questions: When an erudite converts a spell to a power using the "convert spell to power" alternative class feature, is it a spell, or is it a power?

I'm pretty certain that the class feature is OGL, and it can be found here (https://web.archive.org/web/20201112012333/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070629a).


You [can] attempt to convert an arcane spell into a power you can add to your repertoire.
The fluff text (and the name) implies that you are converting the spell into a power.


Each spell costs a certain number of power points to manifest. The higher the level of the spell, the more power points it costs. The table below describes each spell's cost.
However, through the rest of the text the converted spells are referred to as... spells. Many times. They are never referred to as powers.


Because the spells are now effectively psionic powers, they are no longer affected by metamagic feats. However, metapsionic feats can affect them as they would a psionic power.
So... they are effectively psionic powers, but the next sentence implies that they are not psionic powers? They're spells, but you apply metapsionics instead of metamagic to them?


As with casting a spell, manifesting a spell may require certain components (see page 174 of the Player's Handbook). Some of the components remain unchanged, such as verbal, somatic, and XP cost.
The rules constantly refer to manifesting one of these converted spells as "manifesting a spell", and never "manifesting a power". They have verbal and somatic components, which powers don't have. There's a big gap where it should explain how to treat schools, disciplines, and feat interactions.

So, I have a lot of questions about these mechanics. I don't think they have a RAW answer, but I'd love to know what the Playground thinks.

- Stupid question first. Are they spells? Or are they powers?
- Do they have schools? Displays? Disciplines?
- In the case of no magic-psionics transparency: Does spell resistance or power resistance apply? Are they stopped by a globe of invulnerability? Can they be counter-spelled? Do they work in anti-magic? How about anti-psionics? Hoo, boy...

- Do they gain benefits that the manifester might have that apply to spells? Or powers?
- Do they gain benefits that the manifester might have that apply to casting a spell or spells that you cast, given that the mechanic is referred to as "manifesting a spell"?
- As above, but flipped: do they gain benefits that the manifester might have that apply to manifesting a power, since you're manifesting a spell?

I've read this over so many times that my eyes have crossed, and I'm thinking this is just classic, awful Complete Psionic -- unclear rules text that require homebrewing. But I'm hoping that -- maybe -- other people have figured some of this out through the years of arguments on how erudites work.

[Darg]

You are not casting a spell, but it doesn't change from being a spell. So combat casting wouldn't work and you would need the manifesting version. It is also considered psionic instead of magic. It requires power points.

Everything else stays the same. So you would be able to take the Spell Focus feat and it would affect the manifested spell.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

If you convert a painting to a digital recreation, is it a painting or is it a digital file? Basically: Yes. But you can't continue to add paint, because it's a digital file.

[Fizban]

I'm pretty certain that the class feature is OGL, and it can be found here (https://web.archive.org/web/20201112012333/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070629a).
OGL/OGC specifically refer to the Open Gaming License, which allows anyone to use the game mechanics of stuff made with that license, even if they're selling it. Unless something specifically calls itself out as such, it is not. Aside from the core mechanics (usually called the SRD), very, very little of WotC's output was actually ever OGL. What you've got there is a web article, provided for free at the time, but which is probably still be under normal copyright. Of course people quote copyrighted stuff all the time 'cause fair use.

However, through the rest of the text the converted spells are referred to as... spells. Many times. They are never referred to as powers.
So... they are effectively psionic powers, but the next sentence implies that they are not psionic powers? They're spells, but you apply metapsionics instead of metamagic to them?
They're spells, which you use as powers, because you use powers rather than casting spells.

- Stupid question first. Are they spells? Or are they powers?
Depends on what is interacting with them and how.

- Do they have schools? Displays? Disciplines?
They have school and component data, so they have schools and components. They do not have display or discipline data, so they have no displays or disciplines.

- In the case of no magic-psionics transparency: Does spell resistance or power resistance apply? Are they stopped by a globe of invulnerability? Can they be counter-spelled? Do they work in anti-magic? How about anti-psionics? Hoo, boy...
Spell-to-Power Erudite seems pretty massively inappropriate for a game that has a hard-line separation between magic and psionics. If you do it anyway, pick one: either they're spells that are fueled by power points in spite of the separation, or they're powers that look uncannily like spells.

- Do they gain benefits that the manifester might have that apply to spells? Or powers?
- Do they gain benefits that the manifester might have that apply to casting a spell or spells that you cast, given that the mechanic is referred to as "manifesting a spell"?
- As above, but flipped: do they gain benefits that the manifester might have that apply to manifesting a power, since you're manifesting a spell?
Depends on what the possible interaction is.


I've read this over so many times that my eyes have crossed, and I'm thinking this is just classic, awful Complete Psionic -- unclear rules text that require homebrewing. But I'm hoping that -- maybe -- other people have figured some of this out through the years of arguments on how erudites work.
Well first of all, it's not even Complete Psionic: it's a short web article variant that is obviously doing pretty much the exact opposite of what the system was intended to do, only slightly more fleshed out than the variant in ToB that says you could put spells on a Swordsage. Even then, I don't see what the confusion is if you're using it as intended. Normally an Erudite, being a manifester, is not going to have anything that asks about them "casting a spell," so that entire line of questioning is moot. Your spell-powers explicitly don't work with metamagic and require metapsionic, the logical continuation is that they function with other power related feats and abilities (which as a manifester you might actually have), and not with magic ones. Since they don't have disciplines but still have schools, it would be reasonable to let them work with Spell Focus.

The only reason to be confused is if you intend to deliberately build a multiclass spellcaster/Erudite with feats and abilities that apply to all powers and all spells. But if you're doing that, you shouldn't be using a spell-to-power variant, because you can already cast spells. The problem comes from looking for trouble, not something inherent in the variant. If all you want to do is swipe some spells 'cause there are a bunch of spells with no psionic version and/or your DM will drop wizard books or sell spells but won't let you learn extra powers, the given variant gets the job done.

[Psyren]

- Stupid question first. Are they spells? Or are they powers?

They are powers (with verbal and somatic components.) For material components and foci, you either need to have those handy or increase the manifestation cost by 2/4.



- Do they have schools? Displays? Disciplines?


They have the same spell schools they had before conversion. They don't need displays since they have the component issues above.



- In the case of no magic-psionics transparency: Does spell resistance or power resistance apply? Are they stopped by a globe of invulnerability? Can they be counter-spelled? Do they work in anti-magic? How about anti-psionics? Hoo, boy...

Genuine advice, don't play without transparency, it just creates a lot of mess. In this situation especially.


- Do they gain benefits that the manifester might have that apply to spells? Or powers?

They are powers, so ML boosts do apply. Without transparency, CL boosts won't, which again is inadvisable.


- Do they gain benefits that the manifester might have that apply to casting a spell or spells that you cast, given that the mechanic is referred to as "manifesting a spell"?
- As above, but flipped: do they gain benefits that the manifester might have that apply to manifesting a power, since you're manifesting a spell?

You need to be specific about which benefits/features you're thinking of here for an accurate response, as well as whether transparency is being used or not.

[Maat Mons]

Personally, I think the biggest consequence of this "spells or powers" question is whether or not knowledge of them can be given to others with Psychic Chiurgery.

Yes, I know Erudites can't learn Psychic Chiurgery by normal means. But someone who knows Psychic Chiurgery can give them knowledge of it by casting Psychic Chiurgery.

[Psyren]

Well, if you're allowing StP Erudites to exist in your world anyway... balance is more or less out the window at that point already, so why not?

(Also - an Epic Erudite can learn PC, without having to be taught it by a telepath)