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

[Jeff Wilder]

See, here we go in circles again.

Yes. And, again, you fail to explain why the language was removed in the Mind Blade description between 3.0 and 3.5. Whether you acknowledge it or not, that removal is important.

The language in Wild Talent is vestigial. It doesn't even explicitly say that a PP reserve is required. It only implies it. And the reason it only implies it is that in an earlier version of the Soulknife, a PP reserve was explicitly required ... in the Mind Blade description. When that requirement was removed, the editors simply forgot to remove the implicit reminder.

This is not analogous to other instances of misplaced rules you've pointed out. Those are rules, wherever they're located. The language in Wild Talent is simply a reminder of what Wild Talent does, along with a vestigial note of why the class used to require the feat.

This is basic canon of construction stuff.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes. And, again, you fail to explain why the language was removed in the Mind Blade description between 3.0 and 3.5. Whether you acknowledge it or not, that removal is important.

I addressed that before- you chose to ignore it.

There is language ADDED to the 3.5PHB and other books in the Complete series (the aforementioned language about fists being natural weapons) that apparently has zero game effect according to WotC and the majority of players.

Whether they intended to remove the language about pp being required to manifest a Mind Blade or not is something we cannot know without asking. Until WotC actually addresses the issue, what we have is the RAW. As it stands, that language is not contradictory to any other language within the class entry.

The language in Wild Talent is vestigial. It doesn't even explicitly say that a PP reserve is required. It only implies it.

I disagree:

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

seems pretty explicit to me.

This is not analogous to other instances of misplaced rules you've pointed out. Those are rules, wherever they're located. The language in Wild Talent is simply a reminder of what Wild Talent does, along with a vestigial note of why the class used to require the feat.

Sure its a rule. The text in the Soulknife entry is a unique modifier to a rule elsewhere in the XPH.

Wild Talent has, in its primary text, one purpose- to provide a PP reserve for PCs that otherwise wouldn't have one.

The section in the Soulknife is both a reminder of that function PLUS a mechanical addition to the text of the feat, a modification unique to that class. In that, its no less a rule than treating Monks' unarmed strikes as both natural and manufactured weapons, or their ability to use only certain weapons with FoB.

Really, you're asking for a level of drafting sophistication in this game that is often absent in the Codes of Law I deal with for work.

 

[blargney the second]

FWIW, Dragon #330 had an article on Umbragen drow in Eberron that included a racial substitution level for soulknife. It traded away Wild Talent, stating that these dark elves drew upon shadow energy instead of psychic energy to manifest their mind blades.

I'd go with you need power points in reserve to pop out mind blades. Pretty much everything psionic requires you to have at least one pp left unspent.
-blarg

 

[irdeggman]

Yes. And, again, you fail to explain why the language was removed in the Mind Blade description between 3.0 and 3.5. Whether you acknowledge it or not, that removal is important.

And you have failed to address how the wording on Prestige Classes that said they didn't count towards multiclass penalties was removed (your logic is that things not presence were deliberately removed) from the 3.5 DMG (and not included in the errata) is different.

These are real similar cases and the arguement for one should apply to the other if being consistent.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

And you have failed to address how the wording on Prestige Classes that said they didn't count towards multiclass penalties was removed (your logic is that things not presence were deliberately removed) from the 3.5 DMG (and not included in the errata) is different.

Of course I did. Specifically, i said, "That's correct, which is why it's been errataed."

At which point it was pointed out that it was actually corrected in the FAQ, not errata, which I didn't dispute, because I don't find it relevant. The point is that it was specifically corrected.

 

[Jhaelen]

How about a different angle?

In WotC's 'The Mind's Eye' article series they introduced different options for psionic classes similar to the ones in PHB2. Here's the article containing the soulknife.

It replaces Wild Talent with Hidden Talent and remove's Hidden Talent's restriction that it can only be taken at level 1. Now the soulknife gains two PP AND the ability to use a power.

Imho, now that the soulknife character gets a way to actually use and expend his power points, it's a lot more reasonable to keep the restriction of not being able to manifest the mindblade when at zero PP.

I'd like to add that one of the players in my campaign is playing a soulknife using that option. So far he's never been reduced to zero PP.

How many ways are there to lose PP involuntary, anyway?
I can only think of a handful of powers and monsters that can do this. The former are typically pretty ineffective and thus rarely used, the latter will never show up in most campaigns. And, finally, all of these are encountered _only_ if the DM chooses to. You don't like the soulknife losing the ability to manifest his blade, well don't use the powers/monsters that will cause it!

Or are you worried about the players being able to easily 'disarm' npc soulknives?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And if you're playing a Soulknife in a campaign in which PP drainers pop up with any frequency, carry a backup weapon or multiclass into something that has more PP or doesn't need them.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Or are you worried about the players being able to easily 'disarm' npc soulknives?

Me? I avoid psionics like the plague, despite being an Eberron DM.

This is just a rules-lawyer thing for me. It boggles my mind that although the text requiring PP reserve was completely removed from the Mind Blade class feature, people still claim it's required.

That said, if I were playing a human soulknife and my DM told me I'd just been been completely neutered by a 2nd-level spell, I'd be flabbergasted. And the suggestion to multiclass is pretty damn funny, too. "Sure, you're a wizard, but now this 2nd-level spell has drained all your spells. Bet you wished you'd taken a few levels of fighter now, huh?"

 

[irdeggman]

That said, if I were playing a human soulknife and my DM told me I'd just been been completely neutered by a 2nd-level spell, I'd be flabbergasted. And the suggestion to multiclass is pretty damn funny, too. "Sure, you're a wizard, but now this 2nd-level spell has drained all your spells. Bet you wished you'd taken a few levels of fighter now, huh?"

Sort of like how the 2nd level spell Ray of Stupidity (no save) causes a loss of 1d4 +1 points of Int - which will neutralize a wizard rather quickly - since each "hit" drops the spell level the caster can cast by 2 (assuming a starting Intelligence score of less than 20). This also affects wand use since you must meet the Ability score requisite in order to use the spell in addition to having it on your spell list.

Help me out with the spell specifics for the spell that drains pp - I can't off hand recall the details.

 

[irdeggman]

This is just a rules-lawyer thing for me. It boggles my mind that although the text requiring PP reserve was completely removed from the Mind Blade class feature, people still claim it's required.

Yeah this is just a reflection of how poorly WotC actually writes and arranges their material.

There are many examples of how the actual rule for something is not in the place where it "should" be.

When I look for rules meaning I always try to use the preponderance of evidence basis. That is, I look for as many places as I can to determine what the meaning of the rule is and try not to take a single sentence out of context.

In this case there is, IMO, a preponderance of evidence towards requiring pp to manifest a mindblade.

The class's text under the wild talent feat and the 2 separate articles descibing racial substitution levels. If they had meant that all that was required ws to be a psionic character they would have stated that - since you can still be a psionic character without a pp pool but you can't manifest psionics powers/abilities without one.

Since the racial substitution levels were written after the xcpanded psionics book was there was ample opportunity for WotC to place in "corrected" text - which they have done in many other cases.

I have run at least 3 different soulknife PCs - so I am placing a restriction on myself by so reading the rules. Just to give a reference to my stance and not solely as an impartial DM, but as a player who "suffers" with the restriction.