D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Soulknife - Does it need a power point reserve?

[Dannyalcatraz]

In 3.0, you mean? Technically, depending on other definitions and errata/FAQ, they may be right. Which is why that text was specifically added in 3.5, so that what the rules say matches what was intended.

No, actually, in 3.5.

I've always asserted that fists were natural weapons, however, each time, I've been shown to be in the minority. And in fact, each time I've contacted WizCustServ, they've said that fists are NOT natural weapons (the majority opinion)...with which I obviously and respectfully disagree.

Don't believe me? Start a thread about natural weapons.

 

[Runestar]

I've always asserted that fists were natural weapons, however, each time, I've been shown to be in the minority. And in fact, each time I've contacted WizCustServ, they've said that fists are NOT natural weapons (the majority opinion)...with which I obviously and respectfully disagree.

I have always been under the impression that only a monk's fists counted as natural weapons, and that natural weapons are actually a subset of unarmed strikes, rather than the other way around...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My take on it was that only a monk's fists (etc.) counted as both natural and manufactured weapons.

Over the course of several queries over the past couple of years, WizCustServ keeps telling me:

1) Unarmed Strike is, as the glossary says, a successful attack using no weapon. Protestations to the contrary miss the point...They also admit that (unfortunately for us) they also use the term interchangeably with the act of attacking without a weapon.

IOW, according to WotC, "Unarmed Strike" is both the act of striking AND a successful attack without using a weapon.

The thing is, both formulations are grammatically correct within their individual contexts, but the dual meaning leads to nothing but confusion.

2) Natural Weapons are not unarmed weapons/strikes. They are body parts used for attack (as per the glossary).

3) Fists, despite being body parts used for attacks and language in the 3.5PHB and CompWar, are not Natural Weapons. (To me, they're natural weapons, just not very good ones.)

At least they're consistent in their inconsistencies.

 

[Jhaelen]

No it is required to have a pp rreserve to manifest the mindblade just as the text says.

This. If the soulknife's pp reserve drops to 0, she's no longer able to manifest a soulknife. This is just like no longer being able to use psionic feats requiring a psionic focus.

 

[Starbuck_II]

My take on it was that only a monk's fists (etc.) counted as both natural and manufactured weapons.

Over the course of several queries over the past couple of years, WizCustServ keeps telling me:

1) Unarmed Strike is, as the glossary says, a successful attack using no weapon. Protestations to the contrary miss the point...They also admit that (unfortunately for us) they also use the term interchangeably with the act of attacking without a weapon.

IOW, according to WotC, "Unarmed Strike" is both the act of striking AND a successful attack without using a weapon.

The thing is, both formulations are grammatically correct within their individual contexts, but the dual meaning leads to nothing but confusion.

2) Natural Weapons are not unarmed weapons/strikes. They are body parts used for attack (as per the glossary).

3) Fists, despite being body parts used for attacks and language in the 3.5PHB and CompWar, are not Natural Weapons. (To me, they're natural weapons, just not very good ones.)

At least they're consistent in their inconsistencies.

It gets better Monks aren't proficient in Unarmed Strikes.
Yes, go check your PHB.

If Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapins: Monks still don't get proficiency.
Only Druids and non-humaniods and humaniods with Racial HD's above 1(humans use class levels so lack racial HD) do.

If Monks are simple wea;pons (which they are listed as in the Weapon Chart in the PHB) Monks still lack proficiency.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

FWIW, there was a similar thread a couple of years ago...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3r...2-soulknifes-useless-power-point-reserve.html

 

[Voadam]

However, the 3.5 soulknife's Wild Talent class feature notes: "This class feature provides the character with the psionic power he needs to materialize his mind blade, if he has no power points otherwise."

Is this extraneous text? It seems to me that it should have been cut from the class description and is merely a holdover from the 3.0 version of the class.

What do you folks think?

It looks like the parenthetical could be cut without problem.

To me it does not look like it requires a power point reserve. The text states explicitly the class feature provides the power he needs to manifest his mind blade, not that he needs unspent power points to do so. Even when he spends the power points he retains the class feature.

The last phrase, "if he has no power points otherwise", reads to me that it provides other possible options for having the psionic power needed to create a mindblade. This leaves the door open for things like feats for a psionic character/creature to generate a mindblade without the class or the racial substitution levels for psionic race soulknives such as done in the Eberron sourcebook and in Untapped Potential.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The text states explicitly the class feature provides the power he needs to manifest his mind blade, not that he needs unspent power points to do so. Even when he spends the power points he retains the class feature.

Except its not a class feature- its a specific bonus feat which does nothing else but provide PP, thus making a PC with the feat eligible for Psionic feats and certain PrCls.

And in this case, provide the PP for manifesting a Mind Blade.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

And in this case, provide the PP for manifesting a Mind Blade.

I can't find where in Mind Blade it requires a PP reserve. My bet is that you can't, either.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I can't find where in Mind Blade it requires a PP reserve. My bet is that you can't, either.

See, here we go in circles again. As I said before, just because it isn't listed under the heading "Mind Blade," doesn't mean that other language within the class description regarding the Mind Blade is without effect. The oft-quoted section on the bonus feat reads:

This class feature provides the character with the psionic power he needs to materialize his mind blade, if he has no power points otherwise.

IMHO, that's as good and effective as the aforementioned language in the PHB prohibiting the expenditure of XP in amounts to drop a class level when creating items is fully effective in modifying the Item Creation rules in the DMG. Its at least in the same entry and book as the rest of the relevant language about the class. (Or do you ignore that language in the PHB?)

The language's placement within the entry doesn't matter. If the second sentence of the Soulknife entry had been: "Manifesting a mind blade requires PP, which the Soulknife gets from his bonus feat, Wild Talent." it would be just as effective as if it appeared under the "Mind Blade" section...unless we use your logic.

Is it awkward? Sure, but its no more awkward than a lot of drafting and editing decisions WotC's made over the years.

Heck, its much less awkward than 4Ed's waiting a couple of hundred pages in its PHB to define the "W" for weapon damage that pops up in so many class power descriptions.