Psionics...am I unbalanced?


Product Discussion

101 to 134 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Alzrius wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Feats can also be negated by DM fiat. As for gear being more controlled by the DM in that he says 'none available', it only takes one feat - Craft Rod - and the restriction is circumvented unless the DM really puts his foot down and says 'not in my world, at all, I do not allow them' which is absolutely no different from saying 'you cannot have that feat'.
Yes, but that's not the same. Even leaving aside issues of potentially having to wait multiple levels to take that feat, and the issue of having to take a feat for what's otherwise the ability to purchase a single item, there's the fact your feats can't be sundered, disarmed, dispelled, etc. the way an item can.

Yes, but they are still factors that must be taken into account. I've discovered when theorycrafting that you have to take into account everything that can be brought to bear. Not just the bits some people want.

Alzrius wrote:
Quote:
Ultimately, yes, everything must be play-tested and tested well. I don;t think it should be assumed in such tests that anything official will be disallowed.
For playtesting there's probably some merit to that, but this isn't playtesting - it's theorizing using carefully-constructed situations, and for those I think that part of the folly is that they operate under the assumption that anything "official" is allowed.

Then you are in great danger of carefully constructing what others will then refer to as a 'strawman' argument by assuming that some things will be disallowed and not others. For example it's easy to claim that psions are more powerful than wizards if we assume the wizard's spellbook got stolen. If you are insisting that Overchannel is a problem, then it's not unreasonable to assume that it may be disallowed in the same way that metamagic rods maybe disallowed.

If you are theorycrafting to see how relatively powerful a wizard is compared to a psion when they go nova, then the only way to test it is to build a wizard going all-out to nova, and build a psion designed to all-out nova, and then compare them. To suddenly say 'ah, well, they may not have X, Y or Z' that helps them nova is to break the initial condition established.

If, on the other hand, you want to argue that it's easier to nova with a psion than with a wizard, you are establishing an entirely different set of criteria to build for, because you then want 'typical' rather than 'specialised' builds. All the same, your conditions should be clearly established, and I cannot see any reason to assume any official feats, items or class options would be disallowed - save, perhaps, on the basis of 'core only'.

Scarab Sages

Since this thread is already completely derailed from the OP, I'll add my thoughts. The comparison of a psion to a wizard is, I think, flawed at the core. I have always wanted a psionic class that approximated the wizard class. The problem is that none can exist by the very nature of psionics, since they are made to be so flexible. While the psion is made to be the ultimate in flexibility, the wizard is the ultimate in preparedness. They are different on fundamental levels. A much more appropriate comparison would be comparing a psion to a sorcerer.

As a side note, I also think it is in the spirit of the rules that Etherial Jaunt would break a Projected Image by virtue of the caster being on another plane. That the caster is on another plane is not in question, and the effect is clearly "similar" to Plane Shift. The school of magic involved is not relevant, it is the effect that matters. If I were the GM, I would not allow it. If I were a player, I would be both angry at and disappointed with the GM who used a tactic that was so obviously against RAI, regardless of wheather or not it is RAW (and I do not agree that it is). I think the issue is a candidate for FAQ. Perhaps a new thread could allow others to add thoughts to this use of Ethereal Jaunt and draw the attention of the developers for clarification.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
Yes, but they are still factors that must be taken into account. I've discovered when theorycrafting that you have to take into account everything that can be brought to bear. Not just the bits some people want.

The entire thing is "just the bits some people want," where "some people" are the ones doing the theorizing. The lesson here is that this is why "theorycrafting" is in-and-of-itself inherently flawed without (good) play-testing to back it up.

Dabbler wrote:
Then you are in great danger of carefully constructing what others will then refer to as a 'strawman' argument by assuming that some things will be disallowed and not others. For example it's easy to claim that psions are more powerful than wizards if we assume the wizard's spellbook got stolen. If you are insisting that Overchannel is a problem, then it's not unreasonable to assume that it may be disallowed in the same way that metamagic rods maybe disallowed.

First of all, that's not a straw man. A straw man is based around misrepresenting your opponent's position with a similar-but-still-different position, and then refuting the latter.

A correct example of a straw man would be if you said that I'm arguing that it's easier for a psion to go "nova" than it is for a wizard - that's a straw man because it's not actually what I'm arguing, which is that such comparisons, particularly in the case of Overchannel versus metamagic rods, are inherently flawed when restricted to a purely-theoretical level.

Secondly, I'm not insisting Overchannel is a problem. I don't think that psionics in general or Overchannel specifically are overpowered. What I'm saying is that armchair theorizing in general and the "compare Overchannel to metamagic rods" theorizing in particular is inherently flawed, as neither produces any sort of tangible results that are useful in actual gameplay.

dabbler wrote:
If you are theorycrafting to see how relatively powerful a wizard is compared to a psion when they go nova, then the only way to test it is to build a wizard going all-out to nova, and build a psion designed to all-out nova, and then compare them. To suddenly say 'ah, well, they may not have X, Y or Z' that helps them nova is to break the initial condition established.

This still doesn't pass the necessary premise that these things will not only happen in actual gameplay, but happen repeatedly (that's to say nothing of, if they do happen repeatedly in actual gameplay, what to then do about it). To say "they may not have X, Y, or Z" is to point out why the theory itself is inherently flawed.

Dabbler wrote:
If, on the other hand, you want to argue that it's easier to nova with a psion than with a wizard, you are establishing an entirely different set of criteria to build for, because you then want 'typical' rather than 'specialised' builds. All the same, your conditions should be clearly established, and I cannot see any reason to assume any official feats, items or class options would be disallowed - save, perhaps, on the basis of 'core only'.

I'm not trying to argue anything about the ease with which a manifester or spellcaster could go "nova." I'm attempting to point out why comparing Overchannel to metamagic rods is futile, at least insofar as trying to point out how things will go when actually taking it to the table.

Likewise, I haven't said anything about "official" materials being "disallowed." I'm saying they may not be part of the equation when such a scenario actually (that is, "not theoretically") happens.


Alzrius wrote:
{stuff}

I understand what you are getting at, I think, and I don't believe we are particularly disagreeing with one another.

Obirandiath wrote:
Since this thread is already completely derailed from the OP, I'll add my thoughts. The comparison of a psion to a wizard is, I think, flawed at the core. I have always wanted a psionic class that approximated the wizard class. The problem is that none can exist by the very nature of psionics, since they are made to be so flexible. While the psion is made to be the ultimate in flexibility, the wizard is the ultimate in preparedness. They are different on fundamental levels. A much more appropriate comparison would be comparing a psion to a sorcerer.

There was the Erudite, but that hasn't made it into Psionics Unleashed for various reasons. You can use psychic reformation, but that's not available until fairly high level.

I take your point about the psion vs wizard/sorcerer, and flexibility vs preparedness. Comparing a psion to a sorcerer, the latter gets more spells than the psion gets powers, but the powers are more flexible. The sorcerer gets more raw casting power per day than the psion has power points available, but power points are a more versatile resource.

On the whole, psions balance against sorcerers and wizards as well as they balance against one another.

Dreamscarred Press

The Erudite is in Psionics Expanded, just FYI ;)

In Unlimited Possibilities, to be exact.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
I understand what you are getting at, I think, and I don't believe we are particularly disagreeing with one another.

I don't disagree with that. ;)


Obirandiath wrote:
If I were a player, I would be both angry at and disappointed with the GM who used a tactic that was so obviously against RAI, regardless of wheather or not it is RAW (and I do not agree that it is). I think the issue is a candidate for FAQ. Perhaps a new thread could allow others to add thoughts to this use of Ethereal Jaunt and draw the attention of the developers for clarification.

Aw, really? You wouldn't just learn to play and rock that wizard's world? That's why this tactic is gnarly. Because people see it, realize they can't fight it like any other brute enemy, and then cry foul. Fighting high level wizards is like playing chess. You lay some traps, anticipate the next move, and take advantage of openings.

So what happens when your party splits? Some go ethereal and the others remain material? Suddenly, this tactic isn't quite as awesome anymore, as the wizard can only see through either his own projected image, or his eyes, but not both at the same time. How does being blind vs even 25% of your enemies sound to you?

Also, like Wraithstrike said, get sight on the ethereal critter and greater dispel magic, and hope to burst the bubble. At 17th+ level, you instead use disjunction. Or you can have your entire party go ethereal and just fight the wizard the old fashioned way.

Even the solars, powerful though they are, are still extraplanar outsiders. Their reduced HD reduces their saving throws significantly and a single utterance of dismissal, banishment, or blasphemy would effectively destroy them in a single action.

Giant celestial T-Rex grapple you? Activate x/day dimension door or freedom of movement as a standard action and gain distance or ground on the Wizard. Use dimensional anchor as a no-save blocker. Cast wall of stone between the etheric wizard and the image to break LoS and force the wizard onto the defensive.

'Cause obviously just learning to play would be breaking what was obviously RAI... /sarcasm


Wraithstrike and tactics for the win. :)


Ashiel wrote:
Obirandiath wrote:
If I were a player, I would be both angry at and disappointed with the GM who used a tactic that was so obviously against RAI, regardless of wheather or not it is RAW (and I do not agree that it is). I think the issue is a candidate for FAQ. Perhaps a new thread could allow others to add thoughts to this use of Ethereal Jaunt and draw the attention of the developers for clarification.
Aw, really? You wouldn't just learn to play and rock that wizard's world? That's why this tactic is gnarly. Because people see it, realize they can't fight it like any other brute enemy, and then cry foul.

Even you, Ashiel, have to concede that there is most definitely a grey area here as to whether this tactic should be considered legal. It's definitely one for the rules question.


Dabbler wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Obirandiath wrote:
If I were a player, I would be both angry at and disappointed with the GM who used a tactic that was so obviously against RAI, regardless of wheather or not it is RAW (and I do not agree that it is). I think the issue is a candidate for FAQ. Perhaps a new thread could allow others to add thoughts to this use of Ethereal Jaunt and draw the attention of the developers for clarification.
Aw, really? You wouldn't just learn to play and rock that wizard's world? That's why this tactic is gnarly. Because people see it, realize they can't fight it like any other brute enemy, and then cry foul.
Even you, Ashiel, have to concede that there is most definitely a grey area here as to whether this tactic should be considered legal. It's definitely one for the rules question.

Er, no, I think not. Project Image notes that spells that are similar to the ones mentioned that also break line of effect break Project Image. Even though one might be able to argue the first, the second is disprovable easily enough (I've already quoted the rules for Line of Effect from the magic chapter); which disqualifies ethereal jaunt from being included on that list.

So without an official errata, that is them actually publishing a change to the rules to make it so, I'll continue to say just that as long as it is just that. Since it is by no means an unbeatable strategy at 11th+ level, I don't have a problem with it. Like I said in my last post. You can learn how to play, or you can complain and whine. People need to get it out of their heads that high level play is somehow just low level play with bigger numbers.

Look at Wraithstrike's post. He was unfazed by the strategy. Odds are, Wraithstrike and whomever he plays with probably would have done fine. Does that change that it's a sweet nova tactic? Nope. Does it make it cheap, unbeatable, unbalanced, or clearly and obviously not RAI (like that's actually an argument or even means anything). Wraithstrike has my respect, because not only was Wraithstrike unfazed by such a tactic, but he hit the ground running. :P

Wraithstrike wrote:
Wraithstrike and tactics for the win. :)

Agreed 100%. Also another reason I put more stock in actual skill and knowledge rather than big numbers. The most overly optimized PC in that group was the first to snuff it, and the least obviously overpowered PC was the least troubled by the mage (the Paladin who kept spamming break enchantment scrolls; and incidentally he fled because he felt if they could defeat the lich that it would be too costly in resources to be worth it :P).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This thread needs more Ciretose.


Ashiel wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Obirandiath wrote:
If I were a player, I would be both angry at and disappointed with the GM who used a tactic that was so obviously against RAI, regardless of wheather or not it is RAW (and I do not agree that it is). I think the issue is a candidate for FAQ. Perhaps a new thread could allow others to add thoughts to this use of Ethereal Jaunt and draw the attention of the developers for clarification.
Aw, really? You wouldn't just learn to play and rock that wizard's world? That's why this tactic is gnarly. Because people see it, realize they can't fight it like any other brute enemy, and then cry foul.
Even you, Ashiel, have to concede that there is most definitely a grey area here as to whether this tactic should be considered legal. It's definitely one for the rules question.

Er, no, I think not. Project Image notes that spells that are similar to the ones mentioned that also break line of effect break Project Image. Even though one might be able to argue the first, the second is disprovable easily enough (I've already quoted the rules for Line of Effect from the magic chapter); which disqualifies ethereal jaunt from being included on that list.

Edit: Question for you Ashiel: if as you maintain line of effect is not broken by being on the ethereal plane, why do you need to bother with project image in the first place? If you have line of effect you can just chuck spells into the party from the safety of the ethereal plane and have done.
So without an official errata, that is them actually publishing a change to the rules to make it so, I'll continue to say just that as long as it is just that.

Except, of course, that a substantial number of people are of the opinion that it is not, in fact, just that, and have cited rules that back up their case. If it transpires that rules already in existence invalidate the tactic, it's not errata.

Interestingly, someone else has already mentioned in that thread that being on a separate plane always breaks line of effect, even if you still have line of sight.

Sovereign Court

How dare anyone question psionics! The infidels! They must be crushed!

What's that you say? Nobody in this thread is questioning psionics? Then I shall crush those whose devotion to psionics is less pure than my own!

Initiate empowered psionic-fan crush with ego-inflated powahs!


OK...we have the clue in Blink.

When you use Blink you are partially in the ethereal plane, and as a result there is a 20% chance that any spell you cast will fail when cast on a material target, because it goes off in the ethereal plane instead ... hence ... there isn't a line of effect from ethereal to material plane!

No line of effect means project image fails.


Gorbacz wrote:
This thread needs more Ciretose.

Equally as much as I need more auto-immune deficiency syndrome.

Dabbler wrote:

OK...we have the clue in Blink.

When you use Blink you are partially in the ethereal plane, and as a result there is a 20% chance that any spell you cast will fail when cast on a material target, because it goes off in the ethereal plane instead ... hence ... there isn't a line of effect from ethereal to material plane!

No line of effect means project image fails.

Nope. You don't lose line of effect. Most spells cast simply do not affect creatures that aren't the same frequency as yourself, but some do. Not being able to affect something is not the same thing as losing line of effect. If you cast fireball on a red dragon, it will not affect said dragon (in this case due to immunity to that fireball), but you can still throw the spell at the dragon. Likewise, you can throw a fireball spell at the material creature while you are ethereal. Line of effect is not blocked, but it has no effect on them either because it's ethereal.

You can't cast Projected Image from the ethereal plane onto the Material Plane, but you can cast it while material and then sustain it while Ethereal, because it only relies on Line of Effect; which again, I noted here:

Line of Effect wrote:

Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.

You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.

A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin).

An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.

Requires a solid barrier between the caster and the effect. Casting wall of stone is sufficient to break line of effect. Hemisphere pretty much assures the illusion breaks.


As for the Line of Effect stuff... you're saying that the rules are meant to let you get around limitations created by a planar barrier. A limit that you can break with a 7th level spell but not with a 9th level one that causes the same effect, such as Gate?

The planar barrier is solid. You need magic to cross it. Anything without that magic is unable to cross the barrier. Weapon Attacks are blocked by it. Magic is blocked by it. In fact, the only things that can go through it is specially designed magic.

You go to the Ethereal Plane when you cast Ethereal Jaunt. You aren't half on/half off, able to toss spells back and forth or jump between the two at will. You are there until the spell ends or is dismissed. You are behind the barrier and are taking advantage of it and you cannot be touched by material weapons or spells, as they are stopped by the barrier.

Most importantly, Line of Effect is not based on sight. It is LIKE Line of Sight, but sight (or lack there off) does not affect it. However, Line of Effect does cut out if something solid gets between you and the target, such as a pillar.

It also cuts out if you step behind a perfectly clear, millimeter thin wall of glass. Why is that? You can see them perfectly, but the glass is a solid barrier between you and your target. The opacity of the barrier is not the question, just if there is a barrier in the way.

So, since the glass blocks the line of effect, as it is something that blocks something from touching your target, take that to the Ethereal. You can see your target, but there is a planar barrier between you and them. You can see through it, like the glass, but you can't break past it without special magic. The spell you are using is not able to punch through it, so the planar barrier acts in the same way walking behind the sheet of glass did.

So, since there is a barrier between you and the material, and nothing can pass through it unless it is a force effect or a special abjuration effect, why are you able to keep line of effect while using Ethereal Jaunt but not when you step behind an infinitely thin wall of utterly clear glass?


Ashiel wrote:
Nope. You don't lose line of effect.

Yes, you do. It is quite clear from the description of the blink spell that line of effect does not exist between the material and ethereal plane.

Ashiel wrote:
Most spells cast simply do not affect creatures that aren't the same frequency as yourself, but some do.

Yes, and those spells specifically say so. Project image is most definitely not one that says so, and implies that it most definitely does not.

Ashiel wrote:
Not being able to affect something is not the same thing as losing line of effect.

<FACEPALM>

I swear, Ashiel, I could not make up a better oxymoron than that statement if I tried. When you can no longer affect something, you have BY DEFINITION lost line of effect. That's what line of effect MEANS.

Ashiel wrote:
If you cast fireball on a red dragon, it will not affect said dragon (in this case due to immunity to that fireball), but you can still throw the spell at the dragon. Likewise, you can throw a fireball spell at the material creature while you are ethereal. Line of effect is not blocked, but it has no effect on them either because it's ethereal.

In other words, although you can perceive them you no longer have line of effect, because your spell is confined to the ethereal plane. You have not cast the fireball on the dragon, you have cast the fireball on the same corresponding location on the ethereal plane as the dragon occupies on the material plane. This is because the line of effect does not cross the planar boundary.

Ashiel wrote:
You can't cast Projected Image from the ethereal plane onto the Material Plane, but you can cast it while material and then sustain it while Ethereal, because it only relies on Line of Effect

Just like casting fireball on the dragon requires only line of effect. Just like casting project image from the ethereal to the material plane only requires line of effect.

You are effectively trying to redefine line of effect to mean one thing in one circumstance and another thing in an identical circumstance. If you cannot cast project image onto the material plane when your only limitation is line of effect, then you cannot maintain it when doing so requires maintenance of line of effect. There's no "It's a barrier to casting spells requiring line of effect but not to spells requiring you maintain line of effect" rule in operation, they are the same rule. Line of effect either exists, or it doesn't.

We have demonstrated, via the example of the blink spell, that spells do not cross the planar boundary, implying that there is no line of effect across the boundary, something your own examples have reinforced. You can perceive the material plane from the ethereal, just as clairvoyance/clairaudience could enable you to view the location of your projected image from behind a solid wall; the line of effect is still broken because to the spell, the planar boundary IS that solid wall.

Can you show any example or site any rule that specifically and clearly states the at the planar boundary does NOT in general act as a barrier to line of effect? Hint: I already searched my PDF of the CRB looking for every reference to line of effect and reading it - there's no such rule. The only reference I could find to the planar boundary blocking or permitting spells is in project image (where planar travel blocks line of effect) and [i]blink[/] (where spells that go off on the ethereal cannot affect the material, hence implying there can be no line of effect).

You cannot have line of effect from the Astral plane to the material plane. You cannot have line of effect from any of the higher planes to the material plane. Why would the ethereal plane be any different?


...of course, we are both missing the bleeding obvious solution that definitely makes this tactic legal by RAW and RAI: Go ethereal first and then use Ectoplasmic Spell to cast project image from the ethereal into the material. Ectoplasmic Spell specifically allows line of effect to cross the dimensional barrier from material to ethereal, and while it's normally used to go the opposite way from material to ethereal, there is no rule that says it cannot do the reverse and I'd happily allow it.

Your wizard just needs a rod of metamagic...:D

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Actually we don't need Ciretose, Dabbler is just fine. :)


Dabbler wrote:

...of course, we are both missing the bleeding obvious solution that definitely makes this tactic legal by RAW and RAI: Go ethereal first and then use Ectoplasmic Spell to cast project image from the ethereal into the material. Ectoplasmic Spell specifically allows line of effect to cross the dimensional barrier from material to ethereal, and while it's normally used to go the opposite way from material to ethereal, there is no rule that says it cannot do the reverse and I'd happily allow it.

Your wizard just needs a rod of metamagic...:D

Not being able to affect something is not the same thing has not having line of effect. I can have line of effect to shoot something with an arrow. That arrow may not affect it at all however due to a certain condition (such as by being incorporeal vs mundane arrow).

The rules are very clear on what line of effect means. Give me a quote that says being ethereal breaks line of effect, and I'll bow out of the argument.

That being said, ectoplasmic spell is indeed very nasty. Makes the wizard more dangerous IMHO, because the wizard can use more direct spells without having to split its attention as much or risking LoE being broken by someone casting a spell like wall of stone.


GeraintElberion wrote:

How dare anyone question psionics! The infidels! They must be crushed!

What's that you say? Nobody in this thread is questioning psionics? Then I shall crush those whose devotion to psionics is less pure than my own!

Initiate empowered psionic-fan crush with ego-inflated powahs!

*manifests ego whip*

Time to deflate.


You guys talking about the 3.0 Egowhip which either stuns or causes dexterity damage (you never know) and is cast- er, I mean manifested automatically every round with other psionic combat modes? Or are you talking about the 3.5 ego whip which causes minor charisma damage and dazes and takes a standard action to manifest (augmented or not). 'Cause that makes quite a bit of difference.

EDIT: it's every round, not just the beginning of battle!


Ashiel wrote:
Dabbler wrote:

...of course, we are both missing the bleeding obvious solution that definitely makes this tactic legal by RAW and RAI: Go ethereal first and then use Ectoplasmic Spell to cast project image from the ethereal into the material. Ectoplasmic Spell specifically allows line of effect to cross the dimensional barrier from material to ethereal, and while it's normally used to go the opposite way from material to ethereal, there is no rule that says it cannot do the reverse and I'd happily allow it.

Your wizard just needs a rod of metamagic...:D

Not being able to affect something is not the same thing has not having line of effect.

As I said, this is an oxymoron - however, I do understand what you mean that there are many different reasons for a spell not having an effect than just not being able to target that subject with the spell. However, it is also fair to say that those circumstances where a spell has no effect that are not down to line of effect (where it would apply) are down to a property of the subject (dragon is immune to fire, demon has spell resistance, etc). Line of effect is down to geography of the caster and the subject, and this certainly does apply in this circumstance where the caster is in a separate, if geographically overlapping, universe to the subject. It is made clear in the description of project image specifically that changing your plane of reality breaks line of effect even if it is not stated in as many words, and there is no exception clause for the ethereal plane.

More to the point, you yourself concede that you cannot cast project image into the material plane from the ethereal, and if you don't have line of effect to cast the spell, you can't have line of effect to maintain it.

Ashiel wrote:
I can have line of effect to shoot something with an arrow. That arrow may not affect it at all however due to a certain condition (such as by being incorporeal vs mundane arrow).

If an arrow was a spell, you may even have a point. Problem is that there are many reasons why spells may not take effect, as I detail above. I would say that being in a separate universe is definitely one where line of effect as stated does not exist, because this is strongly implied.

Ashiel wrote:
The rules are very clear on what line of effect means. Give me a quote that says being ethereal breaks line of effect, and I'll bow out of the argument.

I'll give you three:

CRB page 250 'Blink' wrote:
Your own spells have a 20% chance to activate just as you go ethereal, in which case they typically do not affect the Material Plane (but they might affect targets on the Ethereal Plane).

In other words spells that go off on the ethereal plane do not have effects that extend across the planar boundary. If you could get line of effect across the boundary, this wouldn't happen in the majority of cases. Therefore the logical implication is that line of effect simply does not extend across the boundary.

CRB page 440 'The Planes' wrote:
Except for rare linking points that allow travel between them, each plane is effectively its own universe with its own natural laws.

When you are in a separate universe, I do not see how you can have line of effect to something in another universe. These are supported by:

CRB page 327 'Project Image' wrote:
You must maintain line of effect to the projected image at all times. If your line of effect is obstructed, the spell ends. If you use dimension door, teleport, plane shift, or a similar spell that breaks your line of effect, even momentarily, the spell ends.

Now you can use plane shift to travel to the ethereal plane, so if travel to the ethereal plane did NOT break line of effect, you'd think it would say so here, wouldn't you? It would say "plane shift (except to the ethereal plane)" and not just a blanket "plane shift" meaning anywhere including the ethereal plane. So clearly, using plane shift to travel to the ethereal plane DOES break line of effect. There's even a caveat there "or similar spells" - and ethereal jaunt is a similar spell in that it takes you to another plane.

Nowhere, anywhere, is there any clause that says you are ALLOWED to get line of effect between the ethereal and the material plane, but I can see plenty of implication that you cannot. Granted some spells may have effects on both material and ethereal planes, but these all have clauses in their spell descriptions, and rather than requiring a line of effect to the ethereal plane they require a line to an effect on the same plane of existence as the caster, with an effect that then extends from there into the ethereal plane. So there's a hell of a lot that says you can't get line of effect to and from the material plane to both the ethereal plane and all other planes in general.

You can argue it does not specifically say anywhere that you can't, but then I can answer that it doesn't say specifically that when I cast magic missile at a target, a three ton elephant doesn't drop out of the sky and squash them flat for 20d6 damage. My point here is, there are a vast number of things we cannot do in the game, and the rules do not list every last one. They list the things we can do, the general principals and the exceptions.

I think that the general principal is that spells cast on one plane of existence do not have line of effect to another, unless specifically stated otherwise in the spell description.

Ashiel wrote:
That being said, ectoplasmic spell is indeed very nasty. Makes the wizard more dangerous IMHO, because the wizard can use more direct spells without having to split its attention as much or risking LoE being broken by someone casting a spell like wall of stone.

Oh I agree, it's a powerful effect, but then back on subject the psionics system has similar metapsionics. What they don't have are items that replace the feats.


Dabbler wrote:
Oh I agree, it's a powerful effect, but then back on subject the psionics system has similar metapsionics. What they don't have are items that replace the feats.

Yeah, sad, right? :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:
In other words spells that go off on the ethereal plane do not have effects that extend across the planar boundary. If you could get line of effect across the boundary, this wouldn't happen in the majority of cases. Therefore the logical implication is that line of effect simply does not extend across the boundary.

If I understood the line of effect thingy correctly, you cannot target somebody or something if you don't have line of effect.

Thus you wouldn't even be able to cast that spell in the first place, thus not waste/loose the spell in the first place.

Ashiel compared it to shooting a bow, imho she is right... you cannot aim an arrow at somebody behind a wall of stone because you cannot see/detect/... him.
You might try to pinpoint him, but pinpointing him is not enough to target/aim the person, you could only target/aim the rough location.
When that wall is made out of glass you can see the target clearly, thus you can aim at the person even though there is an obstacle in between.

Animals are known to have big problems with glass because they cannot see/detect it:
Have you ever seen birds headbutt right into a window because they could not see the window and were trying to fly through the "opening"?
A bird will never be able to fly through but they will try unless dissuaded (bird-shapes glued on big windows). If the window is tainted/colored/foggy/... no bird will even attempt to fly through.


Kyoni wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
In other words spells that go off on the ethereal plane do not have effects that extend across the planar boundary. If you could get line of effect across the boundary, this wouldn't happen in the majority of cases. Therefore the logical implication is that line of effect simply does not extend across the boundary.

If I understood the line of effect thingy correctly, you cannot target somebody or something if you don't have line of effect.

Thus you wouldn't even be able to cast that spell in the first place, thus not waste/loose the spell in the first place.

Ashiel compared it to shooting a bow, imho she is right... you cannot aim an arrow at somebody behind a wall of stone because you cannot see/detect/... him.
You might try to pinpoint him, but pinpointing him is not enough to target/aim the person, you could only target/aim the rough location.
When that wall is made out of glass you can see the target clearly, thus you can aim at the person even though there is an obstacle in between.

Animals are known to have big problems with glass because they cannot see/detect it:
Have you ever seen birds headbutt right into a window because they could not see the window and were trying to fly through the "opening"?
A bird will never be able to fly through but they will try unless dissuaded (bird-shapes glued on big windows). If the window is tainted/colored/foggy/... no bird will even attempt to fly through.

Exactly. The game is very clear on what blocks line of effect. I've posted it a few times. An ethereal creature has line of effect to other creatures. If you have an ethereal creature on the battle-map with the rest of your characters, the characters and the ethereal creature can indeed have line of effect to one another. The thing is, even with that line of effect, there is another condition that specifically forces those effects to ignore anyone currently ethereal or material (as appropriate). It kind of reminds me of radio frequencies. Anyway, you have to have Line of Effect to cast spells at an ethereal creature at all. If being ethereal blocked line of effect, it wouldn't matter if a spell could affect the ethereal creature or not because you wouldn't have line of effect to cast it on the ethereal creature in the first place.

If you lack line of effect, you couldn't cast dispel magic on an ethereal creature, even though it can affect ethereal creatures as an abjuration spell. You have Line of Effect to ethereal creatures, however, and Dispel Magic happens to be one of the few spells that also functions on ethereal creatures. Again, this is not un-similar to the concept of shooting a red dragon with a scorching ray. The ray does not affect the dragon because of a condition (in this case immunity), but if the dragon was behind a wall of force, you wouldn't be able to target the dragon at all. It is the same for ethereal creatures. Many effects won't affect them because of a condition (they are ethereal) but you can still cast it at them in vain. If there was no Line of Effect, you couldn't cast it at all.

Once again, for for the audience!

PRD-Magic: Line of Effect wrote:

Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.

You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.

Just for poops and giggles, since it says it's like Line of Sight for ranged weapons, let's look at that too!

PRD-Combat wrote:

Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

Cover
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

Well look at that. You're not even allowed to make an attack against someone that you don't have Line of Effect to. Incidentally, Line of Effect is always blocked by a barrier. A "solid barrier". Line of Effect is clearly described in the game mechanics. It is not subject to different types of attacks. If you can magic missile an ethereal being then you can throw a scorching ray at it too! The difference is which one actually affects the being.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

So we have quotes of spells being unable to cross planar boundaries. (specifically blink).
We have quotes indicating that it takes exceptional methods to affect the material from the etheral. Nowhere does project image indicate it grants this ability. Furthermore being on another plane ends the spell, as indicated in the examples (all of which require transition to another plane)

And, from the GameMaster's Guide.

GMG, pg 191 wrote:

Normal Magic: Spells function normally on the Ethereal Plane, though they do not cross into the Material Plane.

The only exceptions are spells and spell-like abilities that have the force descriptor and abjuration spells that affect ethereal beings; these can cross from the Material Plane to the Ethereal Plane. Spellcasters on the Material Plane must have some way to detect foes on the Ethereal Plane before targeting them with force-based spells. While it’s possible to hit ethereal enemies with a force spell cast on the Material Plane, the reverse isn’t possible. No magical attacks cross from the Ethereal Plane to the Material Plane, including force attacks.

(Emphasis mine)

Aside, even ectoplasmic spell doesn't call out it reaches from the etheral. Just to the Etheral.


GMG, pg 191 wrote:

Normal Magic: Spells function normally on the Ethereal Plane, though they do not cross into the Material Plane.

The only exceptions are spells and spell-like abilities that have the force descriptor and abjuration spells that affect ethereal beings; these can cross from the Material Plane to the Ethereal Plane. Spellcasters on the Material Plane must have some way to detect foes on the Ethereal Plane before targeting them with force-based spells. While it’s possible to hit ethereal enemies with a force spell cast on the Material Plane, the reverse isn’t possible. No magical attacks cross from the Ethereal Plane to the Material Plane, including force attacks.

If you rule that there is no line of effect between the material plane and the ethereal plane, I'd expect your spellcaster to find a way to target a creature on the ethreal plane. Because while the spell might affect a creature, it does not allow your spellcaster to target said creature.

Imho, if you need to detect your foe to target it with force-based spells that would mean, you also need to do this with dispel magic (targeted), even though it is an abjuration.
And since divination spells are not cited, this brings me to "True Seeing":

CRB wrote:
You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are. The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things. Further, the subject can focus its vision to see into the Ethereal Plane (but not into extradimensional spaces).

How can you just focus you vision to another dimension/universe (ie the ethereal plane) but not to extradimensional spaces (ie other "universes", as Dabbler put it)... with a spell that isn't "force" or "abjuration"?

So, plenty of spells apparently have line of effect between the material plane and the ethereal plane. Where is the rule that explains the difference in line of effect according to the types of spells (force, abjuration, transmutation, divination)?
The CRB is thick enough as it is, if the Devs need to spell out every possible combination of spells that book would be enormous, and then you have to factor in the new books.


Kyoni wrote:
So, plenty of spells apparently have line of effect between the material plane and the ethereal plane. Where is the rule that explains the difference in line of effect according to the types of spells (force, abjuration, transmutation, divination)?

Right here, to most extents.

Matthew Morris wrote:

GMG, pg 191 wrote:

Normal Magic: Spells function normally on the Ethereal Plane, though they do not cross into the Material Plane.

The only exceptions are spells and spell-like abilities that have the force descriptor and abjuration spells that affect ethereal beings; these can cross from the Material Plane to the Ethereal Plane. Spellcasters on the Material Plane must have some way to detect foes on the Ethereal Plane before targeting them with force-based spells. While it’s possible to hit ethereal enemies with a force spell cast on the Material Plane, the reverse isn’t possible. No magical attacks cross from the Ethereal Plane to the Material Plane, including force attacks.
(Emphasis mine)

On another note, while it saddens me somewhat, it is funny how quickly it became a "Casters are OP anecdote" + "Rules were wrong" argument.


Taking the material-ethereal rules argument to the thread others made for it:
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5kfx?Project-Image-Ethereal-Jaunt-Legal


Ashiel wrote:
Doesn't break line of effect, a requirement according to the projected image spell. The spell must be both similar and break line of effect. I quoted line of effect. Ethereal jaunt do it not.

While I disagree with you, that doesn't even matter. The spell would have to specifically state it works from the ethereal to the material for it to function, due to the rules on ethereal plane and magic.

Normal Magic: Spells function normally on the Ethereal Plane, though they do not cross into the Material Plane. The only exceptions are spells and spell-like abilities that have the force descriptor and abjuration spells that affect ethereal beings; these can cross from the Material Plane to the Ethereal Plane. Spellcasters on the Material Plane must have some way to detect foes on the Ethereal Plane before targeting them with force-based spells. While it's possible to hit ethereal enemies with a force spell cast on the Material Plane, the reverse isn't possible. No magical attacks cross from the Ethereal Plane to the Material Plane, including force attacks.

Emphasises mine. The projected image spell isn't a force effect, so it doesn't reach the ethereal spellcaster. Any spell the spellcaster casts can't reach the projected image, as that would cause them to cross from the ethereal to the material and only force effects do that.


Ashiel wrote:
Doesn't break line of effect, a requirement according to the projected image spell. The spell must be both similar and break line of effect. I quoted line of effect. Ethereal jaunt do it not.

Even if you are right here (and I do not believe you are), it doesn't matter.

You have used ethereal jaunt You are subject to the rules of that spell. What does ethereal jaunt say about spells you cast? "An ethereal creature can't attack material creatures, and spells you cast while ethereal affect only other ethereal things."

Emphasis mine.

So even if you are right and you can keep directing the image after an ethereal jaunt, when you cast spells and have them originate at the image, they still only effect ethereal targets. (Project image says your spells can originate at the image, but it also still says these are spells you cast.) So the tactic of using a material project image to affect material creatures with spells you cast as ethereal is explicitly forbidden. No matter where those spells originate, if you cast them while ethereal, they affect only ethereal creatures.

Which is why the tactic won't work RAW, and is clearly the intent RAI, no errata required.


Dungeon Grrrl wrote:
Obviously as GM you can make any rules all you want. Claiming that such rules calls are evidence that wizards are universally superior to psionics is silly.
Ashiel wrote:
Are you familiar with the term "Oberoni Fallacy"?

The Rule 0 Retort. Sure. It's one reason I said making weird rulings as a GM, which you are free to do, does nothing to support a general contention about two classes using RAW.


Ashiel wrote:
{stuff}

Let's agree to differ in this thread, and take the discussion (very civilised, I will add) to the other thread where it belongs.

101 to 134 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Third-Party Pathfinder RPG Products / Product Discussion / Psionics...am I unbalanced? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Product Discussion