Hostile Empathic Transfer - too powerful?

[Deset Gled]

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

Does the book specifically call out the spell as errata? If not, see my post #37. If so, see my post #39 as well. Please feel free to discuss.

Unless I'm on your ignore list for some reason, in which case you won't see this message either.

 

[KarinsDad]

Does the book specifically call out the spell as errata? If not, see my post #37. If so, see my post #39 as well. Please feel free to discuss.

IIRC, it calls them out as revisions.

 

[Thanee]

Only the errata can override what is printed in the books.

As much as I agree with you, that it should be done this way, experience shows, that WotC doesn't do it this way.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Egres]

Does the book specifically call out the spell as errata? If not, see my post #37. If so, see my post #39 as well. Please feel free to discuss.

No, they don't call it "errata".

But this isn't the first time WotC acts in this manner; just think of Wildshape update in MotW.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Such as the XPH...

Exactly my point. People need not play with psionics at all! That is a fine CORE understanding of the game. To add the XPH is to say "I'm playing a variant D&D 3.5 that includes psionics. To add CPsi is to say "I'm playing a variant D&D that includes XPH and CPsi."

Please note, I am not putting a higher standard on any of the variants. My personal preference is to allow CORE and XPH but not CPsi (Because I thought it poorly written). I not only admit but embrace that as my opinion and my preference. I welcome other people to embrace CPsi as their favorite and their preference. What I was objecting to was Egres' original that simply assumed that since Psi was published we all had to accept it - like it or not.

The truth is ... we don't. And as Thanee asserted (and I hope wasn't an attempt to be snyde with me...) not accepting psionics at all is the purest form of the game.

My point is merely to Egres that just because you like how CPsi is written and the things it changes, don't assume that the rest of us have to use it too. Anything in CPsi is a variant from CORE. Anything in XPH is a variant from CORE. That we must accept. But we do not all have to accept CPsi as erratta or as an update to XPH. I like XPH just the way it is without adding CPsi. I appreciate and respect your choice in allowing the book. I'd like a little more appreciation in respecting my decision to not allow it.

 

[Deset Gled]

No, they don't call it "errata".

But this isn't the first time WotC acts in this manner; just think of Wildshape update in MotW.

Err, yes. I gave that example in my post, too. But that was 3.0, and the Primary Source Rule is 3.5. So at the time, there was no provision in the rules dissallowing it. Now, Wotc has specifically published a docuement to explain what must be do to revise the rules (to save themselves from errors in editing in reprints, bad Sage advise, etc). MotW also specifically stated that its version superceded the version in the PHB, so it would arguably have become the primary source. I would very much like to discuss whether or not this revision is legit, but I would like to have more than just you saying "it is because WotC published it" to base that oppinion on.

IIRC, it calls them out as revisions.

Very interesting. Could you post the exact text sometime when you get a chance (I'm not about to go out and buy CP before I buy the XPH)?

 

[Ovistavin]

I checked my copy of CP and so far I haven't found any explicit mention of it being errata. It does say at the start of the powers section that it has revised powers from the XPH.

The Spell Compendium did the same thing for spells. While the spells in it are from other sources they were revised or updated before going in (even if they were from a 3.5 book).

 

[Egres]

My point is merely to Egres that just because you like how CPsi is written and the things it changes, don't assume that the rest of us have to use it too.

Please, try to avoid deliberate lies.

I never said that I like the CPsi (actually, I don't like it at all).

But this doesn't stop me to read that those powers have been updated.

Hiding your head under the ground just because you like to play multiple Astral Constructs will not change the fact that WotC can choose to update their products where they like to do it.

the Primary Source Rule is 3.5. So at the time, there was no provision in the rules dissallowing it. Now, Wotc has specifically published a docuement to explain what must be do to revise the rules (to save themselves from errors in editing in reprints, bad Sage advise, etc).

The primary source rule has nothing to do with an update.

We have not two conflicting texts, but we have an old text and an update of it.

That's quite different.

I would very much like to discuss whether or not this revision is legit, but I would like to have more than just you saying "it is because WotC published it" to base that oppinion on.

What about the fact that it's not only me "saying "it is because WotC published it" to base that oppinion on", but the fact they did publish it and update it?

I'll admit I can't see how you can seriously avoid to admit that they changed their mind about those powers.

 

[KarinsDad]

I checked my copy of CP and so far I haven't found any explicit mention of it being errata. It does say at the start of the powers section that it has revised powers from the XPH.

The back of Complete Psionics indicates that it is "clarifying concepts introduced in Expanded Psionics Handbook".

The Spell Compendium did the same thing for spells. While the spells in it are from other sources they were revised or updated before going in (even if they were from a 3.5 book).

The back of Spell Compendium indicates that the spells have been "updated to include official errata".


According to this, Complete Psionics has the equivalent of a FAQ (or clarification) within it's revised powers.

Spell Compendium has the equivalent of errata within it's revised spells.


I suspect that WotC does not see any difference though. To them, clarification is errata. To many in our community, errata is equivalent to core corrections and clarifications that are not in errata are opinions of designers. There are many reasons for this, but often it boils down to clarifications and FAQs sometimes have either errors or conflicts within them whereas errata deals directly with a written change of the actual rule sentences.

But, the bottom line is that although many here do not consider Complete Psionics to be an errata of Expanded Psionics Handbook, WotC probably considers it as such. I suspect that WotC uses the words updated, revised, and errata interchangeably, just like 3.5 is the revised version of 3E.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Hiding your head under the ground just because you like to play multiple Astral Constructs will not change the fact that WotC can choose to update their products where they like to do it.

See, this is the very personal attacks and lack of resect that I speak of. You know nothing of my gaming style. In fact, I would assume that you know nothing of the gaming style of the large majority of the people on these boards. If you want to know the truth, in my groups I have never (yes, not even once!) seen anyone use multiple astral constructs. In fact, we seldom even have shapers. And if we are going to talk about other abused powers in the XPH we seldom have a person abuse Energy Missle, either. That's largely because the group I play with self-corrects broken rules by simply choosing to not abuse them. God, it is great playing with a group like that who doesn't need to worry about D&D putting out new books so we can't abuse rules! I love playing with people in which powergaming is not the purpose, it does make rules decisions much easier.

My point is, Egres, that people on these boards get much further when they spend an ounce of forethought and respect the playing styles of other people. All books beside the CORE bopoks are optional books. Choosing to use/not use the CPsi is no different than choosing to use/not use the BoED or the Draconomicon or the CW, CArc, CD, or CAd, or any other book. They are variants and it is never correct to assume that because one person may allow one variant book and someone else doesn't (or the other way around) that one way is right and the other way is wrong.

Nor is it ever correct to assume that a person disallowing a book is "burrying their head in the sand." This is not the place for debate, but there have been many threads illustrating (most lost to the crash, I'd suspect) how the CPsi is a poorly written book. For example, there are many blatant typo-s in the book. There are several places where serious variations occur between text and table. There are a numbe of power level "fixes" or introductions of new powers that simply create their own problems in game. There are some seriously legit reasons for disliking the CPsi that go beyond personal preference and "burying one's head in the sand."

All I asked for was a bit of respect in viewing other people's gaming styles and I see that I have not gotten it nor will get it. So that this thread does not need to be regulated by mods ... I will do the mature thing and simply stop posting in it so that you may continue to not worry about showing respect for the gaming style of other people.

The back of Spell Compendium indicates that the spells have been "updated to include official errata".

According to this, Complete Psionics has the equivalent of a FAQ (or clarification) within it's revised powers.

Spell Compendium has the equivalent of errata within it's revised spells.

I suspect that WotC does not see any difference though. To them, clarification is errata. <snip>

But, the bottom line is that although many here do not consider Complete Psionics to be an errata of Expanded Psionics Handbook, WotC probably considers it as such. I suspect that WotC uses the words updated, revised, and errata interchangeably, just like 3.5 is the revised version of 3E.

I think this is probably very similar to the actual truth from the WotC perspective. Of course that shouldn't surprise anyone - because they did publish the boook so they should be in favor of considering their published rules as official errata.

That doesn't mean that all the people who play D&D have, though!