Magic Mantle

[Bauglir]

Ok, this has been bugging me for a while. The Magic Mantle in CPsi says

Granted Ability: You gain Use Magic Device as a class skill. If you purchased ranks in Use Magic Device or Use Psionic Device at the cross-class rate, you get additional ranks in Use Magic Device or Use Psionic Device as if it had always been a class skill for you.
In addition, you always treat magic and psionics as identical. Therefore, powers such as dispel psionics work for both magic and psionics. Most campaigns already treat them in this manner, so this mantle is most useful in campaigns where they are considered different systems.

(Emphasis mine)

Now, I keep seeing people saying that having the Magic Mantle lets you do things like add Metamagic feats to powers, use Orange Ioun stones to boost your ML, etc. That bolded sentence, though, makes it clear to me that the ability just forces Magic-Psionic transparency in campaigns where it doesn't ordinarily exist, and last time I checked that that only covered interactions between spell and power effects, not feats, character statistics, or other aspects of the systems that aren't actual in-game effects.

The wording is, at best, vague, and that final sentence makes fairly obvious the intent of the rules, and I was under the impression that we at least made some effort to consider the likely intent of a rule.

[Rymosrac]

I'm inclined to agree with your interpretation, the last sentence is fairly explicit. However, in games already using transparency, I'd be tempted to HOUSERULE some manner of "Transparency+" for that character, just so the mantle's granted power isn't useless.

[Bauglir]

I'm inclined to agree with your interpretation, the last sentence is fairly explicit. However, in games already using transparency, I'd be tempted to HOUSERULE some manner of "Transparency+" for that character, just so the mantle's granted power isn't useless.

Yeah, a houserule would be very reasonable. UMD is the best skill in the game, but it's not hard to trick out (same with all skills) even if it isn't a class skill. I just object to using it as a license to do very silly things (the aforementioned application of metamagic feats, for instance) because it's not crystal clear. But I'd be down with giving a few specific examples of extra transparency (bonuses to caster level, for instance).

[Bastian]

Ok, this has been bugging me for a while. The Magic Mantle in CPsi says

Granted Ability: You gain Use Magic Device as a class skill. If you purchased ranks in Use Magic Device or Use Psionic Device at the cross-class rate, you get additional ranks in Use Magic Device or Use Psionic Device as if it had always been a class skill for you.
In addition, you always treat magic and psionics as identical. Therefore, powers such as dispel psionics work for both magic and psionics. Most campaigns already treat them in this manner, so this mantle is most useful in campaigns where they are considered different systems.

(Emphasis mine)

Now, I keep seeing people saying that having the Magic Mantle lets you do things like add Metamagic feats to powers, use Orange Ioun stones to boost your ML, etc. That bolded sentence, though, makes it clear to me that the ability just forces Magic-Psionic transparency in campaigns where it doesn't ordinarily exist, and last time I checked that that only covered interactions between spell and power effects, not feats, character statistics, or other aspects of the systems that aren't actual in-game effects.

The wording is, at best, vague, and that final sentence makes fairly obvious the intent of the rules, and I was under the impression that we at least made some effort to consider the likely intent of a rule.

RAI the mantle was clearly meant to make it normal transparency. However, that last sentence doesn't effect the cheap interpretation in the slightest. While having complete transparency is insanely useful in normal transparency games, it is just a bit more useful in non-transparency games. As for the first part of the sentence, who is to say what most other games treat psionics and magic as, you only know about the games you've heard of.

[Bauglir]

RAI the mantle was clearly meant to make it normal transparency. However, that last sentence doesn't effect the cheap interpretation in the slightest. While having complete transparency is insanely useful in normal transparency games, it is just a bit more useful in non-transparency games. As for the first part of the sentence, who is to say what most other games treat psionics and magic as, you only know about the games you've heard of.

You're right that, relatively speaking, the majority of its usefulness in a non-transparency campaign comes from forcing normal transparency, regardless of uber-transparency. That has nothing to do with it, though; the bold text makes it pretty clear that this doesn't have any effect on "most games", and because there's no indication in the XPH of the game EVER working the way people seem to be interpreting the Magic Mantle, it doesn't matter what, precisely, I think is the most common of the rulesets presented there. Since the XPH never suggests that you can apply metamagic feats to powers (as my favorite example of a silly thing to do), that is almost certainly not how most games work, so it can't be what the Magic Mantle does, because otherwise it wouldn't be redundant.

[PhaedrusXY]

Orange Ioun stones already explicitly increase manifester level. I think this is explained in XPH.

[Bauglir]

Orange Ioun stones already explicitly increase manifester level. I think this is explained in XPH.

It's not explicitly called out (the word "orange" appears only in the text of Dweomer of Transference, and in CPsi in the fluff for a crystal node), but it would fit with the Magic Items for Psionic Characters reasoning, and I also wouldn't object to an item that serves precisely the same purpose for a psionic character. My inner rules-nazi is just annoyed by people saying that Magic-Psionics Transparency directly allows it because CL is equivalent to ML for the purposes of the transparency, or something like that. Similarly with UMD and UPD, or Spellcraft and Psicraft, although I don't see those very often.

In this case I was MOSTLY responding to the use of Magic Mantle as a step in some cheesy build that applies magic mechanics to psionics in preposterous, ill-defined ways (can't think of any examples off-hand, but it's a sense I've gotten over the past couple of weeks).

[veekie]

Other than using CL for bonus power points, I don't think I see any, really, considering most of what matters really are negated by transparency.

[Bauglir]

Other than using CL for bonus power points, I don't think I see any, really, considering most of what matters really are negated by transparency.

Well, no, that's the misconception I was talking about. Transparency is very limited in what it explicitly applies to. You have some wiggle-room out of the bolded part below, but considering the surrounding text it seems fairly clear (although this is my own interpretation) that the rule only governs how spells interact with powers, and does not suggest that the two systems interact with one another in any other way. Still, even if you do go with that interpretation, the Magic Mantle can't grant any additional benefits over standard transparency, and that's what this thread is really about (not my own crusade for a strict interpretation of Magic/Psi transparency).

spells, spell-like abilities, and magic items that could potentially affect psionics do affect psionics

[PhaedrusXY]

Orange Ioun stones already explicitly increase manifester level. I think this is explained in XPH.

It's not explicitly called out (the word "orange" appears only in the text of Dweomer of Transference, and in CPsi in the fluff for a crystal node), but it would fit with the Magic Items for Psionic Characters reasoning, and I also wouldn't object to an item that serves precisely the same purpose for a psionic character. My inner rules-nazi is just annoyed by people saying that Magic-Psionics Transparency directly allows it because CL is equivalent to ML for the purposes of the transparency, or something like that. Similarly with UMD and UPD, or Spellcraft and Psicraft, although I don't see those very often.

In this case I was MOSTLY responding to the use of Magic Mantle as a step in some cheesy build that applies magic mechanics to psionics in preposterous, ill-defined ways (can't think of any examples off-hand, but it's a sense I've gotten over the past couple of weeks).

Hmm... I thought that one was called out specifically somewhere... but in any case, several other ones are: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/basics.htm#magicItemsForPsionicCharacters

[Nunkuruji]

There are rules for converting metamagic feats to metapsionic feats
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm

[Bauglir]

There are rules for converting metamagic feats to metapsionic feats
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm

Those are for Epic feats, are 3.0, and more specifically are designed for 3.0 Psionics, which functioned differently (for instance, you'll notice that those rules lack mention of a psionic focus). Finally, they're discussing the creation of a feat that would have to be taken separately, and wouldn't allow a character to use the same feat on both spells and powers, which is how the Magic Mantle usually seems to be applied.

But, that's slightly off-topic. Any argument against my objection to the use of the Magic Mantle as doing anything that Magic-Psionic Transparency does not?

[awaken DM golem]

Dragon #349 has "Cerebremetamagic" feat ... and that's quite a mouthful.
This lets metamagic or metapsi works or the other, but it's a full paragraph of info. I don't have current access.
Combined with Chameleon Crafting feat in the same section, you can make meta-either on items-either.

**

I think the old psi-board just assumed, that that part of Magic Mantle,
referred to the old 3.0 psi/magic transparency rules, that were just barely updated into 3.5.
Of course it didn't do as much as what's being discussed here.

Clearly that sentence in isolation CAN mean what's on the table.
Similarly, if the 3.0 into 3.5 psionic transition difficulties are not considered, it CAN mean all these goodies too.
Dragon #349 Psiotheurgist stuff, knocks down most of the psi/magic wall anyway.

EDIT - overlap posts red warning

[Nunkuruji]

There are rules for converting metamagic feats to metapsionic feats
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm

Those are for Epic feats, are 3.0, and more specifically are designed for 3.0 Psionics, which functioned differently (for instance, you'll notice that those rules lack mention of a psionic focus). Finally, they're discussing the creation of a feat that would have to be taken separately, and wouldn't allow a character to use the same feat on both spells and powers, which is how the Magic Mantle usually seems to be applied.

But, that's slightly off-topic. Any argument against my objection to the use of the Magic Mantle as doing anything that Magic-Psionic Transparency does not?

Hmm, I guess the general formula for 3.5 is:

Metapsionic PP cost = 2 x (Metamagic Spell Level Adjustment - 1) & Expend Psionic Focus

edit: (probably minimum 2pt, based on extend)

In any case, it's a precedent for flexible DM's to convert the feats

[Bauglir]

There are rules for converting metamagic feats to metapsionic feats
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm

Those are for Epic feats, are 3.0, and more specifically are designed for 3.0 Psionics, which functioned differently (for instance, you'll notice that those rules lack mention of a psionic focus). Finally, they're discussing the creation of a feat that would have to be taken separately, and wouldn't allow a character to use the same feat on both spells and powers, which is how the Magic Mantle usually seems to be applied.

But, that's slightly off-topic. Any argument against my objection to the use of the Magic Mantle as doing anything that Magic-Psionic Transparency does not?

Hmm, I guess the general formula for 3.5 is:

Metapsionic PP cost = 2 x (Metamagic Spell Level Adjustment - 1) & Expend Psionic Focus


In any case, it's a precedent for flexible DM's to convert the feats

I could live with that, because it's a sensible houserule setup with logical precedent, although the lack of metapsionic feats like Persist always helped balance psionics in my mind. It's just that I don't think Magic-Psionics Transparency is why justifies it. Still, if magic gets to be broken, psionics should get equal opportunity.

[Bastian]

RAI the mantle was clearly meant to make it normal transparency. However, that last sentence doesn't effect the cheap interpretation in the slightest. While having complete transparency is insanely useful in normal transparency games, it is just a bit more useful in non-transparency games. As for the first part of the sentence, who is to say what most other games treat psionics and magic as, you only know about the games you've heard of.

You're right that, relatively speaking, the majority of its usefulness in a non-transparency campaign comes from forcing normal transparency, regardless of uber-transparency. That has nothing to do with it, though; the bold text makes it pretty clear that this doesn't have any effect on "most games", and because there's no indication in the XPH of the game EVER working the way people seem to be interpreting the Magic Mantle, it doesn't matter what, precisely, I think is the most common of the rulesets presented there. Since the XPH never suggests that you can apply metamagic feats to powers (as my favorite example of a silly thing to do), that is almost certainly not how most games work, so it can't be what the Magic Mantle does, because otherwise it wouldn't be redundant.

Who is to say what most games use as a ruleset? For all you know, every game but what you have heard of plays with non-transparency or complete transparency. This most games bit shows clearly what the RAI was but in no way effects the interpretation of RAW.

[Bauglir]

RAI the mantle was clearly meant to make it normal transparency. However, that last sentence doesn't effect the cheap interpretation in the slightest. While having complete transparency is insanely useful in normal transparency games, it is just a bit more useful in non-transparency games. As for the first part of the sentence, who is to say what most other games treat psionics and magic as, you only know about the games you've heard of.

You're right that, relatively speaking, the majority of its usefulness in a non-transparency campaign comes from forcing normal transparency, regardless of uber-transparency. That has nothing to do with it, though; the bold text makes it pretty clear that this doesn't have any effect on "most games", and because there's no indication in the XPH of the game EVER working the way people seem to be interpreting the Magic Mantle, it doesn't matter what, precisely, I think is the most common of the rulesets presented there. Since the XPH never suggests that you can apply metamagic feats to powers (as my favorite example of a silly thing to do), that is almost certainly not how most games work, so it can't be what the Magic Mantle does, because otherwise it wouldn't be redundant.

Who is to say what most games use as a ruleset? For all you know, every game but what you have heard of plays with non-transparency.

It doesn't matter what I know about it. The developers set Magic-Psionic transparency as the default, and as a result that's almost certainly what THEY believe to be the most common (and thus what they were referring to when writing the rule). Even were that not the case, it's preposterous to suggest that most games are run in a way not even written in the books, which is what you have to do when you say, "I treat magic and psionics as identical, so I'm gonna apply Persist Spell to this power!"

[Bastian]

RAI the mantle was clearly meant to make it normal transparency. However, that last sentence doesn't effect the cheap interpretation in the slightest. While having complete transparency is insanely useful in normal transparency games, it is just a bit more useful in non-transparency games. As for the first part of the sentence, who is to say what most other games treat psionics and magic as, you only know about the games you've heard of.

You're right that, relatively speaking, the majority of its usefulness in a non-transparency campaign comes from forcing normal transparency, regardless of uber-transparency. That has nothing to do with it, though; the bold text makes it pretty clear that this doesn't have any effect on "most games", and because there's no indication in the XPH of the game EVER working the way people seem to be interpreting the Magic Mantle, it doesn't matter what, precisely, I think is the most common of the rulesets presented there. Since the XPH never suggests that you can apply metamagic feats to powers (as my favorite example of a silly thing to do), that is almost certainly not how most games work, so it can't be what the Magic Mantle does, because otherwise it wouldn't be redundant.

Who is to say what most games use as a ruleset? For all you know, every game but what you have heard of plays with non-transparency.

It doesn't matter what I know about it. The developers set Magic-Psionic transparency as the default, and as a result that's almost certainly what THEY believe to be the most common (and thus what they were referring to when writing the rule). Even were that not the case, it's preposterous to suggest that most games are run in a way not even written in the books, which is what you have to do when you say, "I treat magic and psionics as identical, so I'm gonna apply Persist Spell to this power!"

It doesn't matter what they believe to be the most common or what they intended a sentence to mean, it's what is written that matters.

To say that most games follow the rules to the letter is a extremely broad generalization, every game I've ever played in has had some variation on the normal rules. I know people who play with truly ridiculous variations on the rules such as ignoring hit dice of a race when making characters or DM's who ban almost everything simply because they don't like one thing.

Also, it is not what you are stating when you use complete transparency, it simply is what the developers stated with their badly written rules.

[EjoThims]

Bauglir, it's most certainly not practical CO, but that is certainly one meaning that can be taken from the paragraph.

And, iirc, if the TO interpretation is not the correct one, then the bolded sentence from your quote is contradictory, as even in full transparency there are some differences, meaning that they are certainly not identical systems in most games.

But, the most reasonable (and most definitely RaI) way to read the paragraph is indeed that it forces transparency.

[Phoenix00]

This is a RAW vs RAI debate and should be treated as such.  Personally I find these debates silly for there is no one way people play, almost every group is going to have houserules, thus you should bring it up to your group, discuss what is the best interpretation for you and move on.

If your game allows DMM, then I personally see no reason not allow Naenhoon for psionics.  (Good for the goose is good for the gander).  Furthermore Naenhoon is limited to up to 4 powers at once (persistent+extend*2 sigils).  Same reasoning for other metamagic such as Anima Mage.