Hostile Empathic Transfer - too powerful?

[Thanee]

Just because WotC puts out a new book does not make it "CORE."

Such as the XPH...

Bye
Thanee

 

[Egres]

Just because WotC puts out a new book does not make it "CORE." The statement of "like it or not..." is really the same as someone saying "Like it or not, you have to let in my variant sorcerer from the PHB II." If a person doesn't play with a book, they need not "like it or not." They are welcome to play with the books they think are worthwhile.

Please, note the bolded part.

The powers in the CPsi are updated, not variant versions of the powers in the XPH.

That's quite different.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Empathic Transfer is not D10 per PP. It starts at 2D10 for 3 PP (or about 4 points per PP) and maxes at 10D10 for 7 PP (or 8 points per PP).

I stand corrected - it was late at night for me and I was too fuzzy!

Still, the fact that the spell guarantees damage (and quite a lot of it) seems wrong to me, and the fact that you can do far more with it than any other touch spell.

Mind you, there is the balancing factor that nobody has particularly highlighted in that it is a touch spell WITH a saving throw, putting it in the small category of spells which is a touch attack and gives a save (most touch attacks don't allow a save).

I find the most interesting comment to be Piratecats - that using it in actual play it has been good but not too good.

I also looked at Complete Psionic and decided that it wasn't worth spending money on. Far too much bleh stuff, not enough to make it compelling.

That said, I wish that they would publish any suggested errata to spells like HET and Astral Construct publicly - if they could do with fixing, surely they could do with fixing (and not having a fix hidden away in a supplement that only a portion of the original XPH market will ever own)

Cheers

 

[Thanee]

What would this do?

Minimize AC, as Piratecat had said.

And you get something in return at least for lowering your AC.
Not sure if that actually works well in practice, but maybe it does.

Bye
Thanee

 

[KarinsDad]

Mind you, there is the balancing factor that nobody has particularly highlighted in that it is a touch spell WITH a saving throw, putting it in the small category of spells which is a touch attack and gives a save (most touch attacks don't allow a save).

And for a PsyWar, probably a low DC save to boot.

I find the most interesting comment to be Piratecats - that using it in actual play it has been good but not too good.

I find this to be the case when we analyze a game element. Typically, if we drill down, on the surface uber factors tend to be mitigated under closer scrutiny.

I also looked at Complete Psionic and decided that it wasn't worth spending money on. Far too much bleh stuff, not enough to make it compelling.

I actually bought it. Course, after reading it, I have barely cracked it open since. What a waste. Ditto for PHB II (which does have actual uber features).

That said, I wish that they would publish any suggested errata to spells like HET and Astral Construct publicly - if they could do with fixing, surely they could do with fixing (and not having a fix hidden away in a supplement that only a portion of the original XPH market will ever own)

Agreed.

 

[glass]

Well, I for one only own the ExPH. Anything in a different book certainly can't be said to be errata for it, unless the CPsi actually says: "Consider this book errata for the EPH."

Or even if it does, IMO.

Play as you like, but accept it: they updated the powers. The fact that they didn't put in the on-line errata is pretty meaningless.

Au contraire, the fact that they didn't put it in the errata is everything. Only the errata can override what is printed in the books.


glass.

 

[Deset Gled]

Please, note the bolded part.

The powers in the CPsi are updated, not variant versions of the powers in the XPH.

That's quite different.

Except for the problem of:

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

Unless WotC makes a statement in the new book that it is to be considered errata (like they did for polymorph in Masters of the Wild), the original book is the Primary Source, so the new book is technically the error.

This is a case of two things: 1) WotC not following the rules they set out for themselves, and 2) A very bad practice of requiring customers to pay for updates instead of publishing them as errata (which would be free).

 

[glass]

Please, note the bolded part. The powers in the CPsi are updated, not variant versions of the powers in the XPH.

CPsi is not the primary source, XPH is. Therefore anything in CPsi that contradicts XPH is either:

1. An optional variant, or

2. A mistake.

An update is not an option, whatever CPsi says.


glass.

 

[Deset Gled]

An update is not an option, whatever CPsi says.

I'm not 100% sure about being this cut-and-dry. If the new books states that it is errata, I believe it should be treated as such. While it is clear that only errata (that must be identified as such) can change the rule, I don't know of any policy that states all errata must be present on the WotC website. I think WotC could choose to publish a book of errata if they wanted, or place errata in a different book. However, this must be clearly stated.

You'll get no arguement from me that requiring someone to purchase a new book to get errata is a bad business practice, though.

 

[Egres]

CPsi is not the primary source, XPH is. Therefore anything in CPsi that contradicts XPH is either:

1. An optional variant, or

2. A mistake.

An update is not an option, whatever CPsi says.


glass.

I'm sure you have a quotable source to confirm what you wrote.

Am I wrong?