So many powers! 400 POWERS!

[Amechra]

Alright, here is the setup:
1. You have a power, right? Let's use Astral Construct for this example.
2. Take Linked Power as a feat as soon as you can. Now Metapower that sucker to our chosen power, also known as Astral Construct.
3. Manifest Astral Construct; it auto-activates Linked Power, which you then use to link... Astral Construct, which is also so linked, and so on and so forth.
4. Now, you should have two psionic focuses at max; I seem to remember a way to get a third, but that is inconsequential at the moment.
5. Now, let's say you manifest like so: Astral Construct->Astral Construct->Astral Construct. Cost to manifest is: 1pp+1pp+3pp-2pp-2pp=1pp and two psionic focuses. So, in other words, you get 3 constructs, two at level 1 and one at level 2 for the price of a single 1st level construct.

Now, that's just to demonstrate the basic concept; alright, now let's imagine an Ardent with that ACF that lets you manifest metapsionic'd powers from one of your dominant mantles without the use of a Psionic focus...

I'm seeing Ardent 10/Constructor 10, just plain churning out millions of constructs for almost no cost; In fact, if you keep it to a pattern of 1->3->1->3->1->3->1->..., you should get infinite astral constructs...







for. ONE. POWER. POINT.

Powerful? Probably not. Funny as hell? Kinda. Cost Effective? HELL YEAH!!!!

[skydragonknight]

I do not think it means does what you think it means does.

[Amechra]

Please explain: Linked Power doesn't deny you use of any metapsionics on the linked power, that I know of, and Metapower makes the power automatically affected by the metapsionic feat of your choice.

So, where did my thinking go crazy?

[skydragonknight]

Classic doesn't say I can't vs. doesn't say I can. See the "10 Rules of Practical Optimization".

I lean towards "you can't" because you can't have an Empowered Empowered Fireball or two instances of any other metamagic/metapower, so why should you be able to have two instances of Linked Power in the same manifesting? If it's an exception, then it should say as much imho.

[Saeomon]

Classic doesn't say I can't vs. doesn't say I can. See the "10 Rules of Practical Optimization".

I lean towards "you can't" because you can't have an Empowered Empowered Fireball or two instances of any other metamagic/metapower, so why should you be able to have two instances of Linked Power in the same manifesting? If it's an exception, then it should say as much imho.

Unlike Metamagic feats, you can apply the same Metapsionic feat to a single manifestation multiple times. As many times as you have psionic foci.

For reference purposes, see the "Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell" subsection of the Metamagic Feats section of this page, and then compare it to the Metapsionic Feats section of this page. Simply put, there is no equivalent restriction on multiple Metapsionic feats on a power in that section.

This is why the Dominant Ideal ACF for Ardents (which is what Amechra was referring to) is broken. By RAW, you could take a power that does variable, numeric damage, use the Metapower feat to permanently modify it with the Empower Power feat, and do infinite damage. Do it with Swarm of Crystals and they don't even get a save, and SR/PR won't help 'em.

[bearchucks]

So wait...psionics ARE broken.

Just like the rest of 3.5. 

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

So wait...psionics ARE broken.
Just like the rest of 3.5. 

It's casting. No one said you can't do imba things with psionics, only that it is relatively more balanced than spells (probably through lack of material tho...)

and yup broken interpretation

[Saeomon]

So wait...psionics ARE broken.
Just like the rest of 3.5. 

It's casting. No one said you can't do imba things with psionics, only that it is relatively more balanced than spells (probably through lack of material tho...)

and yup broken interpretation

Heh...for the record, I'd never allow what I described into a campaign. :-)

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Classic doesn't say I can't vs. doesn't say I can. See the "10 Rules of Practical Optimization".

I lean towards "you can't" because you can't have an Empowered Empowered Fireball or two instances of any other metamagic/metapower, so why should you be able to have two instances of Linked Power in the same manifesting? If it's an exception, then it should say as much imho.

Unlike Metamagic feats, you can apply the same Metapsionic feat to a single manifestation multiple times. As many times as you have psionic foci.

For reference purposes, see the "Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell" subsection of the Metamagic Feats section of this page, and then compare it to the Metapsionic Feats section of this page. Simply put, there is no equivalent restriction on multiple Metapsionic feats on a power in that section.

This is why the Dominant Ideal ACF for Ardents (which is what Amechra was referring to) is broken. By RAW, you could take a power that does variable, numeric damage, use the Metapower feat to permanently modify it with the Empower Power feat, and do infinite damage. Do it with Swarm of Crystals and they don't even get a save, and SR/PR won't help 'em.

Unlike metamagic feats, metapsionic feats don't have text that allows you to apply multiple metapsionic feats to the same power.  So there isn't anything explicitly allowing you to have a burrowing chain power, for example.

[CantripN]

Is there any DM here that allows stacking of the same Metapsionic feats, and who doesn't allow for several different ones to be used at once? Doubt it. You'd need multiple Focus, but sure. Yes, Focus, not Foci.

[carnivore]

you can stack different Metapsionic Feats... but you must expend a Separate Foci for each metapsionic Feat ..... thus normally you will have one psionic Focus, an Additional Foci for psicrystal Containment, possibly one more for a Legacy Weapon, maybe one additional if you had a +5 enhancement bonded Weapon from Psychic Weapon master.

that would be 4 Focus max Pre-EPIC

 

[PhaedrusXY]

Metapower and Linked Power are from CPsi. CPsi says you can't have more than 1 astral construct.

[lianightdemon]

many people ignore that though, cause it sucks

[PhaedrusXY]

many people ignore that though, cause it sucks

Yeah, but we're talking RAW here, obviously. If you're going to argue something works by the rules, you can't just pick and choose which rules to follow and ignore other ones.

[awaken DM golem]

... but during Christmas you can, please Santa 

[lianightdemon]

Santa is a creepy old fat guy that watches you while you sleep, breaks into your house, eats your food, and then leaves a present under your tree. You don't need that.

[SorO_Lost]

Hellbreaker's HiPS-like ability doesn't say you can't hide in your shadow.
Genesis doesn't say you can't alter the time trait.
Fighter doesn't say you don't get epic spells.

Eer... This trick seems to be an equal par with some other TO stuff.

[lianightdemon]

RAW is retarded. The books were written assume the readers have some common sense and they could not possibly come up with every possible loophole that would occur with interaction between all the spells abilities and what not. If you know in your gut that is broken as hell, then it was not meant to work like that and shouldn't be.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Hellbreaker's HiPS-like ability doesn't say you can't hide in your shadow.
Genesis doesn't say you can't alter the time trait.
Fighter doesn't say you don't get epic spells.

Eer... This trick seems to be an equal par with some other TO stuff.

Fighter also doesn't say you're allowed to use your class abilities on Sunday.

[Ithamar]

A fighter has class abilities?  I never noticed...