Does Fission lets you cast spells with xp component for free?

[alexstrasa81]

Hi. My DM wanted me to play a psion but I told him I don't play psionic stuff because there's no runesmith or dweomerkeeper like thing to make stuff free and that's when he said fission lets me cast any xp spell I want for free. Then another player said "yeah, but what's the point? Psion powers that cost xp are all trash except Reality Revision".

So before I take a look I was wondering if it's true. That fission lets me cast xp powers for free.

Reality Revision being the only spell worth casting is good enough for me so that's not an issue.

As I understand it, if I have my fission duplicate cast xp powers, my main character doesn't lose any xp because the fission duplicate is explicitly a separate character and rejoining does not affect my xp total and only death affects my xp total. Is this correct?

[Beni-Kujaku]

Fission is unclearly written, with notably a "and so on" and an "including". There is no other source for the power so no chance of figuring it out with no ambiguity. The problem lies in the interpretation of two sentences, related to creating and destroying the duplicate:

First, "You and your duplicate evenly split your power points, your remaining usages of pertinent special abilities for the day, and so on." Do you split your XP too? Hard to say. Does the duplicate even has XP? All other lines defining the duplicate use wordings like "for the purpose of determining the powers" or "all other physical traits". Nothing that could reasonably be used to infer the possibility of using the duplicate's XP.

And second, when the duplicate disappears, "All damage, including hit point damage, ability damage, ability drain, and ability burn damage, is added together." The problem with this sentence is that neither ability drain nor ability burn are damage. It implies that the "all damage" wording isn't the usual keyword for "HP or ability damage, nothing else" but any detrimental lingering effect on the duplicate that isn't the result of a power (or a spell, in the case of Psionics Transparency). With that interpretation, paying XP is definitely a lingering effect that is not linked to a power anymore.


The answer to your question relies on how you choose to read these two sentences, and there's no airtight RAW help on that. That said, your DM already said that it is possible, hence they must be in the "your duplicate has XP" and "XP cost isn't damage in the sense of Fission's last sentence", which, though abusable, is probably the closest to an interpretation-less RAW. So if you want to use Fission for that, go ham.

[alexstrasa81]

Fission is unclearly written, with notably a "and so on" and an "including". There is no other source for the power so no chance of figuring it out with no ambiguity. The problem lies in the interpretation of two sentences, related to creating and destroying the duplicate:

First, "You and your duplicate evenly split your power points, your remaining usages of pertinent special abilities for the day, and so on." Do you split your XP too? Hard to say. Does the duplicate even has XP? All other lines defining the duplicate use wordings like "for the purpose of determining the powers" or "all other physical traits". Nothing that could reasonably be used to infer the possibility of using the duplicate's XP.

The duplicate being able to receive level loss and it being able to be all purpose you I think makes it definitive.


And second, when the duplicate disappears, "All damage, including hit point damage, ability damage, ability drain, and ability burn damage, is added together." The problem with this sentence is that neither ability drain nor ability burn are damage. It implies that the "all damage" wording isn't the usual keyword for "HP or ability damage, nothing else" but any detrimental lingering effect on the duplicate that isn't the result of a power (or a spell, in the case of Psionics Transparency). With that interpretation, paying XP is definitely a lingering effect that is not linked to a power anymore.

So you're saying xp loss is "damage"? That makes sense.
So you're saying kill the fission to prevent rejoining and it's all good?


The answer to your question relies on how you choose to read these two sentences, and there's no airtight RAW help on that. That said, your DM already said that it is possible, hence they must be in the "your duplicate has XP" and "XP cost isn't damage in the sense of Fission's last sentence", which, though abusable, is probably the closest to an interpretation-less RAW. So if you want to use Fission for that, go ham.

DM is wrong all the time. We both correct each other often. I'm not gonna play psion by willfully ignoring something and hiding it from the DM just to cheat and get what I want.

I don't think it's abusable though. Spellcasters got lots of ways to make things free and got better spells. Much better. So I think using Fission like this is mandatory to keep up with spellcasters. Which is why I won't be playing Psion if this doesn't work.

[Darg]

At worst it cuts xp cost in half or you kill the duplicate to prevent rejoining and then remove the negative level.

I personally think the fission doesn't incur the xp cost on the main body (but would if the duplicate becomes the main body).

[Tzardok]

I would rule that both halves cast from the same pool of xp.

[alexstrasa81]

At worst it cuts xp cost in half or you kill the duplicate to prevent rejoining and then remove the negative level.

I personally think the fission doesn't incur the xp cost on the main body (but would if the duplicate becomes the main body).

I think level loss is damage and level loss affects xp so xp loss is damage or something like that.

My only hangup is that the duplicate follows my orders but won't do anything I won't normally do. I don't commit suicide nor do I let someone sacrifice me for any reason.

Is there a way around this other than doing bs roleplaying like "my guy would totally kill himself if he learns he's a duplicate"? If no then i'd probably go my guy is fully rational and would totally kill his temporary life for the greater good because its gonna end anyway but i wont be happy about it because i dont like it when people try to boost their power with roleplay.

[Crake]

anyone can get infinite free xp by just level draining themselves, using that level's half worth of xp, then using restoration to bring themselves back to their former level, rinse and repeat. Fission is not required. You will technically lose any xp you had above your current level, as you come back at the minimum xp needed for your level, so it's best done just after leveling up, but you can repeat it as many times as you like in your downtime.

Sources of level drain can include creating/controlling undead that can level drain, planar binding a succubus, or, if you're high enough level, the energy drain spell can work too. I'm sure there's plenty of other methods, having a soul eater cohort for example.

You in fact, can even do this to completely rebuild yourself multiple times over and have a bunch of simulacrums/ice assassins of yourself able to do it all for you.

[alexstrasa81]

anyone can get infinite free xp by just level draining themselves, using that level's half worth of xp, then using restoration to bring themselves back to their former level, rinse and repeat. Fission is not required.

No, FAQ sets a precedent that doesn't work.
FAQ that doesn't make a mistake is the final authority.
FAQ says supernatural transformation doesnt work with warlocks after interviewing the authors. So despite what text says it doesnt work.
Similarly FAQ says the thought bottle loops don't work.
If thought bottle loops don't work then restoration loops don't work either.

[Crake]

No, FAQ sets a precedent that doesn't work.
FAQ that doesn't make a mistake is the final authority.
FAQ says supernatural transformation doesnt work with warlocks after interviewing the authors. So despite what text says it doesnt work.
Similarly FAQ says the thought bottle loops don't work.
If thought bottle loops don't work then restoration loops don't work either.

The FAQ specifically mentions that the rules are silent on the matters presented, and as such automatically disqualify the following answers as being the rules, but rather instead being suggestions.

Also, it's pretty widely agreed that CustServ and FAQ are not sources of truth for rules, and are at best suggestions on what might be RAI. I think you might be confusing it with errata.

[alexstrasa81]

rpg stackexchange answered the question within the hour with rules only and no made up house rules trying to be passed of as actual rules anywhere.

The answer is no because the damage transference happens regardless of rejoining.

"All powers affecting a fissioned creature, either the original or the duplicate, end when the fission ends. All damage, including hit point damage, ability damage, ability drain, and ability burn damage, is added together. "

This paragraph is completely independent on whether a rejoining occurs, whether the duplicate is alive or dead, or anything else. Which means at the end of fisison duration, you're getting the xp hit if your DM says xp loss is damage 100% of the time with no way of dodging it. And saying xp loss is damage is a perfectly reasonable interpretation.

I'm not going psion, I'm going malconvoker.

And I'm gonna go over to rpg stackexchange. Good bye.

[Darg]

DM fiat is the answer all along, got it.

[alexstrasa81]

DM fiat is the answer all along, got it.

That's not dm fiat. It's RAW. Dodging Reality Revision cost via technicalities in Fission is RAW. So complaining about you receiving the Fission damage even though no rejoining has occurred because of RAW is hypocritical.

Reality Revision cost dodging does not work outside of RAW. And as it turns out, it doesn't work in RAW either. Therefore it doesn't work in any case except when DMs don't rule xp loss is "damage".

[JNAProductions]

This paragraph is completely independent on whether a rejoining occurs, whether the duplicate is alive or dead, or anything else. Which means at the end of fisison duration, you're getting the xp hit if your DM says xp loss is damage 100% of the time with no way of dodging it. And saying xp loss is damage is a perfectly reasonable interpretation.

Bolded some key words from there.

I wouldn't say, Darg, that it's DM fiat. It's a ruling. Fiat has some more negative connotations, while rulings are just what a DM does and is supposed to do for many instances.

[Wintermoot]

Dodging Reality Revision cost via technicalities in Fission is RAW.

Except it's Not.

Any 'technicality" or loophole is born out of unclear rules. Rules that "as written" present some unclear area that someone looking to game the system can use to initiate that gaming.

for it to be fully, clearly legal, the rule would have to say "This can be used to bypass the XP cost on spells/powers that cost XP." It doesn't say that. That's instead how people are INTERPRETING the rule. RAI not RAW.

Here's my OPINION. Nobody writing rules, writes those rules while thinking "I am going to write this in a way that can be exploited to unbalance the system I'm creating" . Therefore, if a rule is unclear and can be interpreted either in a way that DOESN'T create imbalance or can be interpreted in a way that DOES, I'm going to defer to the version that DOESN'T because I'm trying to play fairly and not break the system, not trying to game the system.

The person who wrote Fission wanted to make a power that lets you have two versions of yourself for a short period of time, one of which is two levels lower, so that you can use two characters worth of actions for that period of time. They didn't intend you to use this to bypass XP costs or get a permanent extra copy through carefully timed suicide tactics. If they HAD intended that, they would have clearly and specifically spelled that out in the text they wrote. Those were unintended technicalities that later readers INTERPRETED through the complex interactions of two or more powers. As a DM, presented by this, I would err toward disallowing it rather than allowing it.

That's not "DM Fiat". That's the core role given to the DM in the administration of the game.

[Darg]

That's not dm fiat. It's RAW. Dodging Reality Revision cost via technicalities in Fission is RAW. So complaining about you receiving the Fission damage even though no rejoining has occurred because of RAW is hypocritical.

Reality Revision cost dodging does not work outside of RAW. And as it turns out, it doesn't work in RAW either. Therefore it doesn't work in any case except when DMs don't rule xp loss is "damage".

RAW as adjudicated by the DM. XP loss is not damage in any version of RAW.


Bolded some key words from there.

I wouldn't say, Darg, that it's DM fiat. It's a ruling. Fiat has some more negative connotations, while rulings are just what a DM does and is supposed to do for many instances.

Fiat means it's officially authorized. Just because it has a negative connotation doesn't mean I can't use the word for its actual meaning.

[JNAProductions]

Fiat means it's officially authorized. Just because it has a negative connotation doesn't mean I can't use the word for its actual meaning.

It can be official, or it can be arbitrary. In TTRPGs, I generally hear fiat used when it's arbitrary, and I don't think I'm unusual in that.

Feel free to use it, but don't be surprised if people get the wrong takeaway from your words.

[alexstrasa81]

RAW as adjudicated by the DM. XP loss is not damage in any version of RAW.

I'm willing to discuss this. If you're right then psion is back on. Maybe. 10%. I might still just go malconvoker.

So I think whether xp loss is damage or not comes from negative levels, or energy drain.
Ability drain is considered damage despite not having the word damage in it so that says needing "damage" in its name is not required.

Which means Energy Drain can be considered damage, which in turn means negative levels and level loss can be considered damage.

Or can it? That's what you're saying.

Negative levels is a debuff rather than damage...
Or is it?
The official description of negative levels is "a fearsome supernatural ability to drain levels from those they strike in combat. "
So it's not a debuff, it's a result of having your level drained. AMF doesn't turn it off.
And that's a direct parallel to abilities being drained. Level being drained on hit. Ability being drained on hit.

Or something like that. Do you have a more convincing case than what I got here? tbh I don't think I have that strong of a case here either.

[Crake]

I'm willing to discuss this. If you're right then psion is back on. Maybe. 10%. I might still just go malconvoker.

So I think whether xp loss is damage or not comes from negative levels, or energy drain.
Ability drain is considered damage despite not having the word damage in it so that says needing "damage" in its name is not required.

Which means Energy Drain can be considered damage, which in turn means negative levels and level loss can be considered damage.

Or can it? That's what you're saying.

Negative levels is a debuff rather than damage...
Or is it?
The official description of negative levels is "a fearsome supernatural ability to drain levels from those they strike in combat. "
So it's not a debuff, it's a result of having your level drained. AMF doesn't turn it off.
And that's a direct parallel to abilities being drained. Level being drained on hit. Ability being drained on hit.

Or something like that. Do you have a more convincing case than what I got here? tbh I don't think I have that strong of a case here either.

Your entire argument is based on a false equivalency between level drain and xp expenditure.

One notable difference is that you can never spend enough xp that you lose a level, and level drain never directly targets your xp, but instead your level. A creature will never drain you of “450 xp” but will instead drain you of 1+ levels, so even IF you consider level drain as damage (which, considering you lose hp from it, and you can use it to deal negative energy sneak attack damage, is plausible), that doesnt necessarily equate xp loss as damage, because they arent the same thing.

Regardless though, areas of the rules like this are ambiguous enough that it’s plausible to rule either way, using different kinds of meta and in world logic