Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Christian" data-source="post: 202485" data-attributes="member: 381">I hereby declare that this is the goofiest rules thread I've ever seen.Yes, the PsiH says all of that. It also says, and I quote, &quot;Psionics are spell-like abilities.&quot; End quote. OK?Yes, there's an optional 'Psionics are different' rule. Frankly, if a DM wants to use an optional rule, it's that DM's job to work through any conflicts between that optional rule and any other optional rules (eg. a PrC from a splatbook) that he or she chooses to include. (Really, the whole PsiH is an optional ruleset.) It is certainly not the job of the designers of the splatbooks to make sure that their optional rules work with the optional rules from every other author. This is explicitly the case under the WotC development methodology for 3rd Edition. Each book is supposed to stand on its own-the only relevant reference material is the Core Rulebooks. That's why feats are repeated between books when they're relevant to both subjects. Et cetera.As far as the MotW book is concerned, there is no such thing as psionics, as that's not part of the core. If you want to include multiple optional rulesets, you need to think through the consequences-the designers aren't going to do it for you.I suppose it's too much to ask that the DM think, though. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes&nbsp; &nbsp; :rolleyes:"&nbsp; data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />P.S. Oh, yeah-if the players want to complain about your rules decisions, that's their prerogative. Making the rules decisions is the DM's. They can complain all they want, but it won't change the fact that they'll lose their Forsaker powers if they accept psionic healing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Christian, post: 202485, member: 381"] I hereby declare that this is the goofiest rules thread I've ever seen. Yes, the PsiH says all of that. It also says, and I quote, "Psionics are spell-like abilities." End quote. OK? Yes, there's an optional 'Psionics are different' rule. Frankly, if a DM wants to use an optional rule, it's that DM's job to work through any conflicts between that optional rule and any other optional rules (eg. a PrC from a splatbook) that he or she chooses to include. (Really, the whole PsiH is an optional ruleset.) It is certainly not the job of the designers of the splatbooks to make sure that their optional rules work with the optional rules from every other author. This is [i]explicitly[/i] the case under the WotC development methodology for 3rd Edition. Each book is supposed to stand on its own-the only relevant reference material is the Core Rulebooks. That's why feats are repeated between books when they're relevant to both subjects. Et cetera. As far as the MotW book is concerned, there is no such thing as psionics, as that's not part of the core. If you want to include multiple optional rulesets, you need to think through the consequences-the designers aren't going to do it for you. I suppose it's too much to ask that the DM think, though. :rolleyes: P.S. Oh, yeah-if the players want to complain about your rules decisions, that's their prerogative. Making the rules decisions is the DM's. They can complain all they want, but it won't change the fact that they'll lose their Forsaker powers if they accept psionic healing. [/QUOTE]

Verification