Can a R.C.C with psionics be a O.C.C class

[Prysus]

There are more PPCs then just 4 PPCs in the PF2 MB in the PF2 setting and ALL of them have the text forbidding them from changing class. So saying that there is only four PCCs that say that they can't change their class[color=#0000BF] is a bold faced misrepresentation.

Can we calculate a grand total for future reference as this is bound to come up again? I want to be able to remember 'The nine PCCs" or something like that.

Greetings and Salutations. To answer the question ... there are five. PF has a total of 5 P.C.C., and each of them has the bold note regarding not multi-classing. Note: eliakon likely overlooked the Illusionist in PF2: Old Ones.

1) PCC's are excluded from the changing class rules BY VARY SPECIFIC TEXT.

Not completely accurate. There are 5 P.C.C. excluded. While those are also the only 5 in the setting, there is no general rule written excluding all P.C.C.

Example: I grab a handful of geometric shapes from a store bin without looking. When I put them on the counter to buy them I discover all five of them are squares. We can safely determine that the samples I have before me are all squares. We cannot safely say that all geometric shapes are squares, nor that all geometric shapes from that particular store will be square. While we can make a guess that the others are squares, that is only guessing.

Now if you want me to make guesses and add opinions, we can do that. But then we're not really addressing the facts anymore.

2) the changing class rules as they had been written only covered OCCs.

Not entirely accurate.

The changing class rules as they've been written in Adventures of the High Seas only cover O.C.C. The changing class rules as they've been written in the official errata on the Cutting Room Floor also only cover O.C.C. while specifically allowing psychics.

The character must earn experience points equal to the new O.C.C.'s second level (if Men of arms or adventurers) or third level (if magical or psychic).

This official errata is also written specifically for Palladium Fantasy 2nd edition, which has P.C.C. Yet, in this errata, it refers to O.C.C. in general and includes psychics among them.

3) RUE said that PCCs were still in Rifts but were intentionally Mislabeled.

Not entirely accurate. They definitely admit that there are P.C.C. in Rifts and they did not use the term within Rifts. That's not the same as mislabeling them.

Example: I'm want to put a bird on display. The bird is an Antillean Mango (Anthracothorax dominicus). Realizing not everyone will know what that is by the name, or will be confused by it, I label the display as a "Hummingbird." This is an accurate label, though not as detailed as it could be. P.C.C. is a sub-category of O.C.C.

And in case you think that's opinion, let's look at the PF2 main book. Look at page 13 within the Glossary of Game Terms we have "Occupational Character Class (O.C.C.)" with P.C.C. listed as a sub-heading of that entry. Also turn to Page 62 where there's a list of "O.C.C." and on that list are all the "Psychics" that are also listed as P.C.C. Furthermore, each P.C.C. has categories such as "O.C.C. Skills" and "O.C.C. Related Skills." Even more so, within the race section of the book, they list "O.C.C.s Available" and include P.C.C. in that heading.

Beyond that, your case is predicated that the text "Multiple O.C.C.s are not possible" as excluding them from the multi-classing rules, but that is faulty logic. If they're not O.C.C., then all that text would actually mean is that you can selection one O.C.C. in addition to your P.C.C., as long as you don't extend it to two. You can't have "multiple" O.C.C. if you don't have one to begin with.

4) RUE directed rifts players to use the PF2 changing class rules.

I don't know the reference to this one to confirm it, but I see no reason to doubt it at this time. I'm willing to call it accurate in good faith. ((I'm familiar with PF2, not so much with Rifts.))

It is almost inconceivable not to come to the conclusion that Rifts' PCCs, even when mislabeled, can not change their class.

This only becomes inconceivable if you jump to conclusions, ignore the fact that at least one version of the multi-classing rules specifically allows psychics (while still referring to them as O.C.C.), and ignore the fact that P.C.C. is just a sub-category for O.C.C.

Anyways, that's all for now. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

[drewkitty ~..~]

What I said about PCCs being excluded by specific text is completely accurate. You had just noted about the specific text in the Illusionist PCC to Eli.

Squares…But after examining all the squares & finding that they are all are stone, when sorting out between stone and plastic shapes. It can be presumed that when holding a square you can just sort them as stone. And they cannot be put into the plastic reshaping mechanism.

Rifts…yep they have been not labeling PCCs as PCCs in rifts since the RMB. Examples being: the Mind Melter is but a lightly modified Mind Mage, which is also a PCC. And the Rifts Mystic is even a lightly modified Psi Mystic PCC. Both of which are still mislabeled in RUE.
*Yes, all of this is PCC stuff in rifts is confusing….because PB 1) Does not call most of them in rifts PCC's and 2) are not even consistent about to call them. As I have been saying all along they should just call them what they are…PCC's and get rid of the confusing mislabeling.

Hummingbird….the example you presented is incorrect. The latin or english name would be to say the class name like mind mage or buster. The "its a humming bird' (as one of a specific grouping of birds) would be to say 'it's a PCC. To take it further would be say that 'it's a bird' would be to say it's a Character class.


And then there are the actual words.
Occupational….this word means 'job related'. Which means that that is the job the char was trained for.

Psychic…Talks about the 'nature of the character' and the char following their natural in their learnings.

It is like trying to call a hippy a conformist, to call a PCC an OCC.

I can recognize when the books use OCC as to mean all Char. Classes (CC's) when they give the signs that is what they are doing. When they don't give any signs that is what they are doing the I can not conclude that is what they are doing. The Highseas' CCR does not give Any signs that they mean 'all CC's'.

Conclusions….This is one area where I just came to a conclusion based on where the published CCR text lead. There was no Jumping involved
----------------

Question for those who have bought the PF2 MB most recent printing. Is the text excluding PCCs from changing their class or been changed to still in the PF2MB?

@Eli.& Axe: This is a very relevant question to the discussion so unless you have bought the most recent printing of the PF2MB please withhold commenting. I ask this of you cause you did not answer my last question.
I presume the answer would of been 'no' if you had answered the question.

[eliakon]

What I said about PCCs being excluded by specific text is completely accurate. You had just noted about the specific text in the Illusionist PCC to Eli.

Um no. You are not accurate in the slightest.
The specific PCCs are excluded. Not all PCCs, just those five specific ones. You can pretend all you want that class specific rules, found in the individual class itself are really a meta-class rule that was for some reason not put in the section about the meta-class...
...but you are wrong. Your presenting your house rule as canon there.
The "PF 5" are each excluded yes. But that only proves that they all have to be specifically excluded, because if all PCCs were excluded they wouldn't need the text... it would be an automatic class feature.
It isn't though which is why they need the specific notation.

Squares…But after examining all the squares & finding that they are all are stone, when sorting out between stone and plastic shapes. It can be presumed that when holding a square you can just sort them as stone. And they cannot be put into the plastic reshaping mechanism.

But you still can not claim that all contents of the bin are squares.
That is the point you are taking 5 samples out of an unknown number of total possible ones, looking at them and declaiming that this proves that they are ALL squares.

Rifts…yep they have been not labeling PCCs as PCCs in rifts since the RMB. Examples being: the Mind Melter is but a lightly modified Mind Mage, which is also a PCC. And the Rifts Mystic is even a lightly modified Psi Mystic PCC. Both of which are still mislabeled in RUE.

Again its not mislabeled. The books explicitly explain how the label is applied NOW>
You may not like the fact that it doesn't mean what you want it to mean... but that is your problem not the books since the books get to write canon and decide what is accurate and you don't.

*Yes, all of this is PCC stuff in rifts is confusing….because PB 1) Does not call most of them in rifts PCC's and 2) are not even consistent about to call them. As I have been saying all along they should just call them what they are…PCC's and get rid of the confusing mislabeling.

No, what you want is for them to remove the current system and replace it with your personal fanon one.
They have said what PCCs are (they are a psychic sub-variety of OCC) you just don't like that.

And then there are the actual words.
Occupational….this word means 'job related'. Which means that that is the job the char was trained for.

Psychic…Talks about the 'nature of the character' and the char following their natural in their learnings.

Unfortunatey for you there are multiple examples of people training to be psychic as part of their job.
Which means that once again you are presenting your personal fanon and trying to replace the game canon with it

It is like trying to call a hippy a conformist, to call a PCC an OCC.

In your house rules maybe. But in canon PCCs are a sub catigerory of OCC now

I can recognize when the books use OCC as to mean all Char. Classes (CC's) when they give the signs that is what they are doing. When they don't give any signs that is what they are doing the I can not conclude that is what they are doing. The Highseas' CCR does not give Any signs that they mean 'all CC's'.

Conclusions….This is one area where I just came to a conclusion based on where the published CCR text lead. There was no Jumping involved

You mean Other than jumping to the conclusions that
PCCs are not OCCs, even though the book says they are
That the rules on OCCs do not apply to OCCs that you do not want them to
That the custom rule for the "PF 5" are not class specific rules to those 5 classes but really secretly an unmarked universal rule
That the books are full of errors that you are some how uniquely qualified to detect and decide what is an error and 'fix it' so that it is now canon
That sounds like an Olympic events worth of leaping there

Question for those who have bought the PF2 MB most recent printing. Is the text excluding PCCs from changing their class or been changed to still in the PF2MB?

There is not and never has been text excluding PCCs from changing there class.
There has been text in specific PCCs prohibiting that specific PCC from changing their class. But that in itself supports that PCCs CAN change their class...
...because if they couldn't the rule would logically be found in the section on PCCs and not have to be put in each class one at a time where it implies that it needs to be ruled on in a case by case basis.

@Eli.& Axe: This is a very relevant question to the discussion so unless you have bought the most recent printing of the PF2MB please withhold commenting. I ask this of you cause you made snide comments (while not answering the question) about my last question. I can presume the answer would of been 'no' if you had answered the question.

Your asking a question though about something that doesn't exist.
I will however give you the actual answer about the issue.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Like I said before the number of PCCs excluded does not matter. What does matter is that ALL OF THEM are excluded.

No I did not imply that all of the shapes in the bin are squares….I just implied that the squares in the example are PCCs.

Yep, I do what all the PCCs to be labeled as PCCs. For the reason that it would cut down on the confusion. And Yes, I stated it As My Opinion.

Oh thank you for misquoting my hippy example of what the words mean by breaking the simply worded comment they were an example of.
Next time maybe you should quote the parts as a whole when quoting. especially when I am not talking about game canon.

Eli you were asked to not comment unless you actually had the latest printing of the PF2 MB. For the Question was to a specific set of people. If you do not have the latest PF2 MB printing then this set of people did not include you.
(No I do not know what printing the PF2MB is up to. So you who answer the question will need to include the printing your book is from.)


And thank you for saying something totally different from yourself in saying that "There is not and never has been..." when you have already acknowledged that there is specific text in at least 4 PCCs, which are in the PF2 MB, that do forbid them from changing class.

[eliakon]

Like I said before the number of PCCs excluded does not matter. What does matter is that ALL OF THEM are excluded.

No, they each get excluded one at a time. The result is that all of them end up being excluded but the process is different than you are claiming.

No I did not imply that all of the shapes in the bin are squares….I just implied that the squares in the example are PCCs.

Which is nice, but it still doesn't tell us anything
Just because all S are P does not mean that all P are S after all.

Yep, I do what all the PCCs to be labeled as PCCs. For the reason that it would cut down on the confusion. And Yes, I stated it As My Opinion.

Um, when you say that it is mislabeled and that people need to use the 'right label' and then its obvious you are not presenting it as your opinion. You are claiming that your opinion is a fact.

Oh thank you for misquoting my hippy example of what the words mean by breaking the simply worded comment they were an example of.
Next time maybe you should quote the parts as a whole when quoting. especially when I am not talking about game canon.

You know as well as I do that I had your entire quote available, and was commenting on each sub part of the example. Please don't play the victim card here.

Eli you were asked to not comment unless you actually had the latest printing of the PF2 MB. For the Question was to a specific set of people. If you do not have the latest PF2 MB printing then this set of people did not include you.

Then don't ask questions in the forum. Sorry but its a public forum, if you ask questions then expect people to answer
Especially questions which you are asking a leading question with false wording

(No I do not know what printing the PF2MB is up to. So you who answer the question will need to include the printing your book is from.)

1st printing second edition April 1996 is my copy, dunno if there is a later one

And thank you for saying something totally different from yourself in saying that "There is not and never has been..." when you have already acknowledged that there is specific text in at least 4 PCCs, which are in the PF2 MB, that do forbid them from changing class.

There is not and never has been any text forbidding PCCs from changing classes.
There has been text forbidding specific PCCs from changing classes, but nothing has ever prevented all PCCs from changing class, just those specific five PCCs
To make this easy for you
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are numbers
However they are not the set [All numbers]
Thus the fact that 1 through 5 are < 7 does not mean that all numbers are <7

[guardiandashi]

my copy of Palladium Fantasy Role-Playing Game
Second Edition
is 4th printing October 2000

pg 22
Multiple Character Classes
Multiple or split O.C.C.s are not an option at this point. A future supplement may address the possibility of changing one's O.C.C., but a player can never change his race.

[drewkitty ~..~]

my copy of Palladium Fantasy Role-Playing Game
Second Edition
is 4th printing October 2000

pg 22
Multiple Character Classes
Multiple or split O.C.C.s are not an option at this point. A future supplement may address the possibility of changing one's O.C.C., but a player can never change his race.

The question was about the text listed inside the PCCs' text.

----------
Points out that the cuttingroom floor text only talk about changing 'to' a "psychic OCC". Not about changing 'from' a PCC.

[guardiandashi]

each of the classes has a block that says:
alignment
attribute requirements
Multiple O.C.C.s are not possible

however as I mentioned on pg 22 it also indicates that the book does not directly support multi O.C.C.s

and the Psychic O.C.C's in each example have a line in the class summary NOT in the Psychic classes as a whole implies to myself that it is a feature of those classes.

however in in the Palladium Fantasy Psychic writeup it does mention that psionic abilities are not able to be trained or developed, you either have them or you don't. Whereas in Rifts Psionic abilities specifically CAN be trained and developed by a number of methods.

[Prysus]

Like I said before the number of PCCs excluded does not matter. What does matter is that ALL OF THEM are excluded.

Greetings and Salutations. This is inaccurate, or a flat out lie. Palladium Fantasy has 5 P.C.C., and all 5 in that setting are excluded in specific text within their class. However, not all P.C.C. are listed as being excluded. I'll quote you to you ...

Rifts…yep they have been not labeling PCCs as PCCs in rifts since the RMB. Examples being: the Mind Melter is but a lightly modified Mind Mage, which is also a PCC. And the Rifts Mystic is even a lightly modified Psi Mystic PCC. Both of which are still mislabeled in RUE.
*Yes, all of this is PCC stuff in rifts is confusing….because PB 1) Does not call most of them in rifts PCC's and 2) are not even consistent about to call them. As I have been saying all along they should just call them what they are…PCC's and get rid of the confusing mislabeling.

So according to you, right here, Mind Melters are P.C.C. Mind Melters do NOT have text excluding them from multi-classing. So your own argument shows that not ALL P.C.C. are excluded, despite your repeated attempts to claim as much.

I'll save some time and address the point you're likely to make in reply: "What I was saying is that all P.C.C. in PF, the setting the changing class rules are written for, are excluded." (Wording may change, but I'd wager that's the heart of the matter).

Except, to quote you to you again ...

4) RUE directed rifts players to use the PF2 changing class rules.

So RUE took the time to say see PF2 for the changing class rules. If they wanted to exclude their P.C.C., then they'd have had to take the time to write the rules about them not being able to multi-class, except they didn't. RUE made the rules valid for RUE, and they did not invalidate their P.C.C. from those rules.

Humming Bird….the example you presented is incorrect. The latin or english name would be to say the class name like mind mage or buster. The "its a humming bird' (as one of a specific grouping of birds) would be to say 'it's a PCC. To take it further would be say that 'it's a bird' would be to say it's a Character class.

Your correction is incorrect. First, hummingbird really is one word. And you're trying to change my example to fit how you want it to read, and calling it wrong because it's not the way you wanted it. You also ignored the point of the example by trying to attack the wording, which in itself shows a lack of argument. I didn't do things like that to you, though I could have (like when you typed "1) PCC's are excluded from the changing class rules BY VARY SPECIFIC TEXT" I didn't pick on the fact you used "vary" which would imply the text keeps changing, instead of using the word "very" as likely intended).

If you think you can disprove that P.C.C. are a subcategory of O.C.C., then by all means do so with actual facts and book quotes because I'm not impressed by the attempted smoke screen. Attempting to attack my grammar and spelling (especially when you do so inaccurately) doesn't prove anything other than you can't disprove my actual point. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Hummingbird: my point of my comments were that there are several different species of humming birds and to put the correlating steps/levels together. Specific species name correlates to a specific PCC, the group name correlates to the grouping of PCCs, and the larger group name correlates to the term Character Class.

To take it a little farther with cats standing in for Power Categories, the word animal would be a stand in for Char Templates.

[Prysus]

Hummingbird: my point of my comments were that there are several different species of humming birds and to put the correlating steps/levels together. Specific species name correlates to a specific PCC, the group name correlates to the grouping of PCCs, and the larger group name correlates to the term Character Class.

To take it a little farther with cats standing in for Power Categories, the word animal would be a stand in for Char Templates.

Greetings and Salutations. I get it, but it's just nitpicking to avoid the point.

The example was given to show a term that might be confusing to people and using a term one step higher for clarity (e.g. listing a sub-category to the group it belongs to), in which it does the job it's supposed to. How many people do you think would know what an Antillean Mango is just by the name? Some people would probably even think it's just a type of mango (the fruit). I admit I never heard of it before I looked it up (searched for an example and found that rather quick). Using the term hummingbird could be done for clarity, and once someone comes to ask more about the hummingbird you could give more details (kind of like how RUE discusses P.C.C. later in its pages). But listing it as a hummingbird wouldn't be a mislabel. Though, if it makes you feel better, listing a hummingbird as a bird also isn't a mislabel.

So every time you say that Palladium is mislabeling P.C.C. as O.C.C., it's wrong (or a flat-out lie). If you think you're not wrong then try to prove prove P.C.C. are not a sub-category of O.C.C. (because so far everything I found in the books, both in RUE and PF2, says that P.C.C. are just a sub-category of O.C.C., and have even provided book and page numbers as support). Every time you try to nitpick on the hummingbirds instead of addressing the point, I'll just start addressing it as you know I'm right. I'll look forward to any meaningful contributions you may have to add to the discussion. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Axelmania]

RUE said that PCCs were still in Rifts but were intentionally Mislabeled.

Given that RUE never says "mislabeled" I think it is wrong for you to say that. Something more neutral would be "re-labeled" or "alternatively labeled".

4) RUE directed rifts players to use the PF2 changing class rules.

PF2 rules would be the official errata left out of the book, not alternative class-changing rules from some world book. If they meant that they would have said to use the rules in High Seas.

Yes, I chose to ignore typos and recognized the use of the term OCC to mean all character classes.

Axe….it is not the number of PPCs referenced…it is that ALL the PF2 PCCs have that text.

I'd still like to know the total to compare it to the total number of PCCs which exist outside of Palladium Fantasy which do not have that class limitation.

Yes Axe, I typically don't let typos change the meaning of the text I am reading and recognize the use of the term OCC to mean all character classes. There was no indication within the Highseas changing class text that they were talking about anything other then OCCs.

The description of PCCS being Psionic OCCs is too explicit to make sense as being a typo.

The recurring pattern of many PCCs and psychic RCCs being called OCCs is too constant to be a coincidental series of typos.

Typos are when your finger slips. We should expect to see "[CC" or as often as we do "OCC" since that key is just as adjacent to O as P is. This is not a spelling mistake or a finger slip, it is a recurring choice to describe some things as OCCs.

High Seas is a world book for a game whose core book refers to PCCs as psionic OCCs and lists PCCs in OCC lists for races, refers to Mind Mages as OCCs... so I pretty much do think its changing rules apply to PCCs too, except of course the new psychic classes which do not allow multi-classing.

There are 5 P.C.C. excluded. While those are also the only 5 in the setting, there is no general rule written excluding all P.C.C.

The "PF 5" are each excluded yes.

Thank you for tallying this. Now I have a way to remember.

the Mind Melter is but a lightly modified Mind Mage, which is also a PCC. And the Rifts Mystic is even a lightly modified Psi Mystic PCC. Both of which are still mislabeled in RUE.

Heh... this kind of overlooks that Rifts was where the Mystic OCC first appeared...

Or that the Mind Mage was introduced as a "Men of Magic" OCC in the Palladium RPG with level-ranked psi categories (still permissible to use in the Rifts Conversion Book BTW, you can use either variant for the Spectre)

If anything, the new Palladium Fantasy classes of Mind Mage PCC or Psi-Mystic PCC are based on the Mind Melter RCC (which was also an OCC) and the Mystic OCC from Rifts.

[eliakon]

Even better
If RUE says that it has rules for changing classes and referrers people to the PF book then that means that it was written for class changing.

Now if we accept that then we note a problem
The Mind Melt does not have text in its description saying that it can not change classes, but supposedly it is a PCC
The Cyber Knight does not have text in its description saying it can not change classes, but supposedly it is a PCC
Keeps checking.
Hmmm, Mystic? nope, Technowizard? Nope, Burster? Nope... hmmm
Oh what about Lemuria? It is RUE standard and was written for use with these rules. They even label the section Psychic O.C.C.s which could mean PCC. Surely they have the text right?
Checks
Odd, the Spouter is missing this restriction as well

And it gets even WORSE if you look at RMB era where they DID label them as PCCs. As none of THOSE PCCs had the text either.

Looks like the PF5 really are exceptions rather than the rule...

[Axelmania]

I thought historically that Cyber-Knights were classified as Men at Arms and Mystics/Techno-Wizards as Practitioners of Magic.

RMB era the Mind Melter and Burster were called psychic RCCs.

[eliakon]

I thought historically that Cyber-Knights were classified as Men at Arms and Mystics/Techno-Wizards as Practitioners of Magic.

RMB era the Mind Melter and Burster were called psychic RCCs.

They are...

But if the argument is going to be made that all classes with psionics as part of them are really "mislabeled" PCCs (Never mind that even when Rifts was using the PCC it did not call the Mystic a PCC... suggesting that if anyone is mislabeled it is the PF Mystic), then one has to accept that all the classes with psionics are PCCs.
No cherry picking which ones are "really" PCCs while letting others off as "well those are just OCCs" its either all, or none.
The only person who can cherry pick is KS and by extension any author he deputizes to cherry pick... Which I feel fairly comfortable in assuming includes no one involved in this discussion.

[Axelmania]

Nightbane also has PCCS and left the Mystic an OCC, agree that it was PF that erred.

[drewkitty ~..~]

If you look at the PCC's that there are, have their primary focus on their psychic powers like Mind Mages, or psi-healers, or Psi-Mystics.(using examples that can't be disputed) Not a Class that just having a psionic add-on, like the TW or Cyber-Kight.
[I don't dispute that there are mages that have been labeled as PCCs. *shrugs* Style filter.]

The thing is that the Mind Mage and psi-mystic have classes that are just slightly altered from them in rifts that are not called PCCs. In the RMB the MM was labeled as a RCC, and the Mystic was labeled as a OCC.

PB could of made things very simple by labeling the classes whom's core idea/concept are their psychic powers as PCCs and maybe actually provide a list of which classes in their old books that they were re-labeling to match their core concepts. They could of done the list as an errata. So RUE was a missed opportunity to actually make this simpler, instead of creating more reasons to argue.
[Racial Psionic classes would still be RCCs cause their core concepts are still racially based.]

The Mystic classes….they have intuitively (psychically) gained magic and have psychic powers. All you got to do is read the text and you see that the core concept is that they have psychic powers. Based on that how would you of labeled them? Far as I can see the PF2 MB is only one that got it right.

And the only only mystic class that isn't psychic based has all the trapping of a RCC, because it is restricted to a race. Well, now because of the NBSG a group of mutants or empowered individuals.

Thou I do recognize that y'all don't want to even acknowledge even part of what I'm saying. Even though all I am doing is saying what is there for everyone to read and think about for themselves.

All of you Be Well.

[eliakon]

The problem here Drew is that YOU are not 'reading the text'

The text is pretty explicitly clear.
1)RUE explicitly says that they use the PF2 rules for class changing.
2) That means that all RUE classes are written with the assumption that those rules are in play since they are core, canon RUE rules.
3) Thus we have to look at the RUE classes and see if they have the ban on Class Changing that the PCCs in PF2 have
4) When we check this, we see they do not
5a) Thus even if they are PCCs they can change classes because they do NOT have the excluding text.
5b) Since these PCCs do not have this text it proves that the PF2 classes are not the standard, but are each unique because there are now other PCCs (by your own claim, since you state that RUE still has PCCs) that do NOT have the text

The result is that no matter how you slice it one of two things is going on here
Either the classes in RUE are not PCCs, or PCCs can change class. Because the claim that there is text banning PCCs from changing classes in all PCCs is provably false.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Eli, you might want to note what I am not arguing with you about. It seams you misread my latest post.

Since I clearly was describing what I seeing what a Psi CC is; and pointing out how my opinon differs with your opinion about where "PB Got It Right or Wrong" in my latest post.

You might want to refrain for fighting old battles as if you had an opponent.

[Axelmania]

Mystics don't seem that much more psychic than Techno-Wizards, 1 super psi and some sensitives. Mystics get a few more powers but not enough for me to think of them as a PCC, which is why the Psi-Mystic is just this oddity that doesn't glow with other mystics across the Megaverse.

Heck there's a Nightbane Mystic who has no psi at all.

Even the Phase Mystic, probably the strongest psychic of all mystics, is still an OCC.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Mystics don't seem that much more psychic than Techno-Wizards, 1 super psi and some sensitives. Mystics get a few more powers but not enough for me to think of them as a PCC, which is why the Psi-Mystic is just this oddity that doesn't glow with other mystics across the Megaverse.

Heck there's a Nightbane Mystic who has no psi at all.

Even the Phase Mystic, probably the strongest psychic of all mystics, is still an OCC.

There is a Very big Difference between Mystics and TWs.

As I stated above, Mystics do not learn to make magic…they just 'know it.' Everything about the class stems from their psychic abilities

TW's learn how to be make magic. Where everything has come from striving and training.

It is like as if someone who has never seen a basketball and never heard of the game, just picking one up a ball and starts shooting free throws and three pointers without learning or being taught anything about the game.

verses

A kid who came up through the projects and had to watch learn and practice for years before (s)he was making those same free throws and three pointers.

The way they got their magic is the biggest difference. Look at the trees of the class Concepts, not the leaves and roots of the classes' details.

[Axelmania]

There is a difference in how they learn spells, but it's not a psychic one. The Nightbane Mystic also learns spells intuitively like that but they can't be psychic.

[eliakon]

Its easy
A PCC is an OCC that has psionic powers as a part of the required class features.
This is why it is a PSYCHIC sub class of the OCC meta-class.


Cyberknights are PCCs since all (100%) of Cyberknights get psionic powers.
Technowizards are PCCs since all (100%) of Techno-Wizards have psionic powers.
Operators are NOT a PCC since not all Operators have psionic powers as a result of their class.

Easy peasy, just read the book.

[Axelmania]

all (100%) of Techno-Wizards have psionic powers.

I think there was a non-psionic god in pantheons who was a TW so for non-psionic races who become a TW (since being psychic is not listed as an OCC requirement) they probably wouldn't get the powers. Kind of like how a non-psionic race becoming a Mystic (a Nightbane) doesn't gain psionics, but can still be a mystic.

I wish I could say the same of cyber-knights.

[eliakon]

And for bonus points CB1 gave Wizards and Diabolists who were level 3 or below to change classes into that of the Techno-Wizard...
...which meant that they were explicitly, by canon allowed to take a class that gave psionic powers via class changing.

[Axelmania]

True, and it didn't say anything about them needing to have been psionic to do so.

Given that Palladium RPG had multiple OCC rules, I always wondered... was that just maximum level 3 in either of those OCCs, the sum of the two, the sum of all OCCs, the highest level you could have in any?

Like if I was a level 3 diabolist AND a level 3 wizard, still work? What if also a level 6 summoner and level 10 healer?