Fun Finds v6.0

[SorO_Lost]

A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures
So at this point your debating semantics on "targeting".

And at this point I'm pointing out Ring Gates, Portable Holes, and other likened Extra-Dimensional abilities that can connect NI spaces together. Because why waste time arguing about something no one will agree on when you can just take things to sub-infinite levels without trading a single word anyway?

[7h39]

i dont' know if this is the right place... but the Psionic Tricks Handbook is locked (and there isn't no mention to this trick), so...

7h39's "SplatBook Light" Psi Recharge

(click to show/hide)

Feats: Psicrystal Affinity + Psicrystal containment + Linked Power + Metapower (Linked Power, Bestow Power)
Powers: Bestow Power
RAW interpretation of multiple Metapsionic
Minimum Level:5

Method: Get two psionic focuses (you and psicrystal). Manifest a Bestow Power double Linked to Bestow Power. Profit
Math: Lose Bestow Power: 3pp + Linked Bestow Power: 3pp -2pp (metapower) + Linked Bestow Power: 3pp -2pp (metapower) = 5pp | Gain Bestow Powerx3: 2ppX3=6pp | Net Gain: +1pp

[Ice9]

If you use a 1st level power (any, but Deflection Field would allow you to recharge slightly faster), then you can do this at 3rd level.
Deflection Field + 2x Linked Bestow Power: 1 + (3-2) + (3-2) pp = 3 pp spent, 4 pp gained.
You would need to be human (or take a flaw) to get all the feats required.

[phaedrusxy]

You can't apply metamagic/metapsionic feats more than once to a particular manifestation of a spell, unless the individual feat specifies otherwise.

[Ice9]

The thread 7h39 linked states otherwise.  Metamagic feats do certainly have that wording, Metapsionic feats lack it, perhaps because being able to apply multiple of them at all wasn't really considered.

[7h39]

If you use a 1st level power (any, but Deflection Field would allow you to recharge slightly faster), then you can do this at 3rd level.
Deflection Field + 2x Linked Bestow Power: 1 + (3-2) + (3-2) pp = 3 pp spent, 4 pp gained.
You would need to be human (or take a flaw) to get all the feats required.

Thx for the optimization

You can't apply metamagic/metapsionic feats more than once to a particular manifestation of a spell, unless the individual feat specifies otherwise.

The thread 7h39 linked states otherwise.  Metamagic feats do certainly have that wording, Metapsionic feats lack it, perhaps because being able to apply multiple of them at all wasn't really considered.

From expanded psionic handbook 3.5, pg 41, Metapsionc Chapter

Manifestation Cost: To use a metapsionic feat, a psionic character must both expend his psionic focus (see the Concentration skill description earlier in this chapter) and pay
an increased power point cost as given in the feat description.
Limits on Use: As with all powers, you cannot spend more power points on a power than your manifester level. Metapsionic feats merely let you manifest powers in different
ways; they do not let you violate this rule.

There is no mention of 1 metapsi limitation

Btw, in Psionic Handbook 3.0, pg 23, metapsionic chapter
A psionic character can use multiple metapsionic feats on a power, and the extra power point cost is cumulative, but a power altered by metapsionic feats can never cost more
power points than the manifester's level minus one (minimum one).

The use of multiple metapsionic feats is hardcoded but another type of limitation (ML-1) is presented.

[Jackinthegreen]

The limit with metapsionics is expending the psi focus.  Get around that somehow and you can use two or more metapsionic effects on the same power.

From the wording here it seems there's mention of applying the same metapsionic feat more than once to a single power?  That gets into iffy territory.

[phaedrusxy]

From the wording here it seems there's mention of applying the same metapsionic feat more than once to a single power?  That gets into iffy territory.

I guess it's not explicitly prohibited. I'd never known (or more likely forgotten...) that.

[SorO_Lost]

Lack of rules is not rules supporting you.

And...

As long as you know the rules, the players need be concerned only with their characters and how they react to what happens to them in the game. Have players tell you what they want their characters to do, and translate that into game terms for them. Teach them how the rules work when they need to learn them, on a caseby-case basis. For example, if the player of a wizard wants to cast a spell or the player of a fighter wants to attack, the player tells you what the character is attempting. Then you tell the player which modifier or modifiers to add to the roll of a d20, and what happens as a result. After a few times, the player will know what to do without asking.

You must translate what you want into Game Rules, so literately the lack of rules is an invalidate discussion.

And more goddamn and...

Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description. In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.

By default you cannot stack two Metapsionic Feats together in the first place, and this is actual rules telling you no unless you want to be an epic pain in the ass splitting hairs, in which case see the DMG quote.

Please stop making me cite the basics, it's old.

[Ice9]

I don't really see how that DMG quote follows.  Lack of a restriction on something is not the same as lack of rules for that thing.  For example, Weapon Finesse is not limited to bladed weapons.  That doesn't mean using it on a gauntlet is some kind of gray area, it means it's clearly legal.  Sure, the DM could add all sorts of extra limits beyond what's in the rules.  This entire thread is based around that kind of house-rule not existing.

If anything, the fact that metamagic feats do have a restriction against applying the same one more than once, and metapsionic feats don't, is strong support that this is actually RAI.

Also, I don't know why you even posted that PHB quote.  Nobody is taking any feat twice.  Linked Power is taken a total of one (1) times.

Please don't use unwarranted condescension, it's old.

[SorO_Lost]

Please don't use unwarranted condescension, it's old.

You have no idea how old is it to ask someone for a rules quote that proves anything they just vomited on the keyboard has more value than a turd at a dog market.

Speaking of, how is that citation coming for you? Got anything yet?

If anything, the fact that metamagic feats do have a restriction against applying the same one more than once, and metapsionic feats don't, is strong support that this is actually RAI.

Speaking of,

Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits {catnqp style editor's note: the feat's benefits. Not both feats, Not one of, but the Feat's benefits as in the the very benefit section it's self of every Feat printed ever} do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description. In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.

Special: You can apply Fortify Power to the same power multiple times.

[Ice9]

You keep posting that PHB quote. 

Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description. In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.

If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

If a character has the same feat more than once

It has nothing to do with this situation.  There is no feat being taken more than once.  We're not trying to take Improved Initiative twice for +8 to Initiative here.  Which is what that quote is referring to.


Also!

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20020426b

Published 04/26/2002

Published April 2004

I am too lazy to make a Willy Wonka image, but I'd like you to imagine him saying:
"I'm sorry, why did you think material for the 3.0 psionics system applied to the significantly different 3.5 psionics system again?"

[SorO_Lost]

So you're bringing your personal interpretation to the table instead of RAI after all.

Well I mean I knew that but it's fun to watch you dance, so let's call this one

Does a monk with a monk’s belt and the Superior Unarmed Strike feat benefit from both, or does just the highest benefit apply?
In this case, the better benefit will prevail. These effects technically do not have a bonus, so they would not use the stacking rules. One effect will end up overshadowing the other.

Seizure.

Where you jiggle around like jello on the floor praying to deaf ears about how you think you should ignore the FAQ's ruling that Feat based none-bonuses follow the better-benefit-only effect rules that'd negate any possibility of stacking them.

And all because you just don't want to Augment Bestow Power, or use a Mindfeeder weapon, or use Mental Pinnacle, or Trigger Power, or w/e other PP recovery mechanics I can't think of in an instant that just don't happen to advertise them selves as "Ice9's incorrect usage of an eleven year old trick".

[Amechra]

Core only PP recharge?

Wilder + Bestow Power.

A 7th-level Wilder expends 3pp on Bestow Power, applies the effects as if they had spent 6pp, and gets back 4pp. Shame about the Enervation, but you can just do this out of combat.


Also, by stupid RAW, a Wilder's Wild Surge pays for all augmentation costs:

In all cases, the wild surge effectively pays the extra power point cost that is normally required to augment the power; only the unaugmented power point cost is subtracted from the wilder’s power point reserve.

If you can get that past the DM, the Wilder up there is spending 3pp to get 6pp.

[linklord231]

Soro, my gut reaction says you're correct, but for crying out loud, take a second to form a coherent argument. 

Also, the FAQ quote you posted is blatantly incorrect.  The monk's belt and SUS absolutely stack.  A character with one Monk level, a Monk's Belt, and SUS would have his Unarmed Strike damage calculated as if he were a 10th level monk.  If the character in question did not have any monk levels, he would treat his UAS damage as either that of a 5th level monk or whatever his damage is based off the SUS table.  However, the fact that he is a monk means he uses the "Special" line of SUS. 

[Ice9]

...

I'm curious, SorO, does this 'debating style' work on anybody?  Because from where I'm sitting, all you've done is throw random quotes that don't particularly apply to the situation while loudly proclaiming how stupid anyone who disagrees with you is.  Are you being intentionally disingenuous or do you just like to post things without reading them?  And now, in a new low, you've gone with the "well it doesn't matter, it's a stupid trick anyway, there are better options" tactic.

Why would that matter?  Despite your rantings, it's not even "my" trick anyway.  And it's not one I would actually use in a campaign - because in no campaign that I've ever played would the GM have been on board with infinite PP.  It's a fun quirk of the rules, like much of this thread, but for some unknown reason you felt obligated to go ballistic about it.

So let's be clear - I'm arguing with you because you're wrong and obnoxious about it; that's reason enough.

[Keldar]

Oh lord, he's gone and quoted the FAQ.  Which stands for Frequently Wrong Answers, last I heard.

[Captnq]

Does a monk with a monk’s belt and the Superior Unarmed Strike feat benefit from both, or does just the highest benefit apply?
In this case, the better benefit will prevail. These effects technically do not have a bonus, so they would not use the stacking rules. One effect will end up overshadowing the other.

Actually, what's strange is that this statement says NOTHING.

"The better benefit will PREVAIL."
Okay, what's prevail mean? The benefits will engage in combat?

"These effects technically do not have a bonus, so they would not use the stacking rules."
This doesn't mean they won't stack. it means you don't use the stacking rules. Which rules are we using? Damned if I know.

"One effect will end up overshadowing the other."
What the hell is overshadowing? We aren't using stacking rules, so we are using overshadowing rules?

As far as RAW is concerned, this statement is a steaming pile of fluff text.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Core only PP recharge?
Wilder + Bestow Power.
A 7th-level Wilder expends 3pp on Bestow Power, applies the effects as if they had spent 6pp, and gets back 4pp. Shame about the Enervation, but you can just do this out of combat ...

Yeah, that's it ... except Enervation takes 15% * 7 ppoints (via level) = -1.05
Basically a coin flip, unless one more 1 ppoint discount shows up, like the pre-Mic Torc.
Wilder 4 into Anarchic Initiate iirc overlaps instead of stacking on enervation, so that one works.  (been awhile)

[Amechra]

You still end up with a net bonus; just do it whenever the party's got a breather.