PDA

View Full Version : "one or more rounds"



Random832
2009-07-28, 10:00 AM
This discussion seems to be getting too long for the Q&A thread, so I've made a new thread


Q 408
by RAW can Iron heart surge (ToB) be used to disable an Antimagic field.
an antimagic field is a spell that is affecting you. when used effect imediatly ends.
thus does it stop affecting everyone or just you?
How about dominate humanoid? if someone has cast dominate humanoid can you take a standard action to iron heart surge it away?

Remember by RAW.


A 408 No.

The Iron Heart Surge maneuver will immediately end "one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds." As this specification is grammatically distinct from "1 round or longer", the Surge is only effective against impediments with a stated duration of some number of rounds; durations expressed in minutes or other units of time are unaffected. Antimagic Field has a duration of 10 min./level.


Q 408 Clarification.
sorry i ment Dominate Person.
1/day per lvl is greater than one round per lvl?
since one round is just another way of saying 6 seconds.


Yes, it's greater; however, that is irrelevant because of the specific language used. The Surge is limited to effects with a duration listed in rounds. If they had specified "1 round or longer" an effect with a duration of 1 day/level would be affected; however, they specified "1 or more rounds". The language used does not allow for numeric equivalencies, and thus Iron Heart Surge can do nothing to Dominate Person.

Is there any RAW saying "Language like '1 or more rounds' only applies to effects with a duration measured in rounds"? Because the language "duration measured in rounds" is used elsewhere in the rules, and there is a valid counterargument that it would have been used here if that were the intended meaning.

Conversely, the phrase "10 rounds/level" is found nowhere in the SRD, and 1 minute is "more rounds" [the language you highlighted] than 1 round.

In other words - is this your ruling, or is there a glossary entry or even an official ruling (e.g. The Sage) to this effect?


For an analogy, consider names. Enrique is the Spanish equivalent of Henry. However, there was no king Enrique VIII with six wives in England; there was only Henry VIII.

that's news to me. (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_VIII_de_Inglaterra)

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-28, 10:03 AM
Claiming that a spell with a duration measured in minutes does not last "one or more rounds" is ridiculous nitpicking.

Rounds are the basic measurement of time in D&D. Everything that lasts any time at all has a duration of "one or more rounds".

The prohibition is against anything that's instantaneous.

Glimbur
2009-07-28, 10:06 AM
Your Dominate Person question is flawed because if you're dominated you shouldn't be able to take actions that end the effect. That would make Dominate Person not worth casting.

Now, flavorwise, letting Iron Heart Surge get rid of Dominate makes tons of sense and would be a reasonable houserule if you can find a way to make Dominate still useful.

AstralFire
2009-07-28, 10:10 AM
Uh... everyone who's not a martial adept can't shrug it off? I'm pretty sure IHS has a prerequisite, so it's not like you can one-level dip for it until really high levels when there are numerous ways to deal with domination anyway.

Killer Angel
2009-07-28, 10:13 AM
Before entering the discussion on timing, one thing is unclear to me:
the Iron Heart Surge maneuver will immediately end "one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds."
Antimagic field is a spell centered on the caster.
If you enter in an antimagic field, you become affected by an area spell... it doesn't affect "you", 'cause you are not the target. You suffer the effects, but they're not affecting you directly: you can leave the area any time you want.

Am I wrong?

AstralFire
2009-07-28, 10:16 AM
It's you, not You. Generally capitalization indicates a game term, lack indicates normal speech. I don't think it was intended to do so, though... I usually don't allow it to because it doesn't make sense to me, but I clamp down on magic in other ways to balance it out. I do let people use it to resist domination and such.

Random832
2009-07-28, 10:19 AM
Am I wrong?

I think that it depends on the spell - I'd agree with you for antimagic field, but I'd think that for something like Zone of Truth where each individual affected gets their own will save, you could end it (applying only to you, not to the whole area) with IHS.

Anyway, I found an official ruling (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070426a).

It cannot remove instantaneous effects, but is not otherwise limited by how the duration is measured (including permanent). The ruling also mentions it can't revert damage already done, but doesn't touch on what qualifies as "affecting you" or whether it ends it for others (IMO it logically does not.)

Douglas
2009-07-28, 10:27 AM
or whether it ends it for others (IMO it logically does not.)
That brand of logic is not relevant to RAW. By RAW, the effect ends. Period. The lack of any qualifier means that the entire effect ends, and it ends for everyone. If someone casts Mass Suggestion on a group that happens to include you and you use Iron Heart Surge to end it, everyone else who failed the save is also freed from the spell's effect.

Changing this is a common house rule, but it is a house rule.

Killer Angel
2009-07-28, 10:29 AM
I think that it depends on the spell - I'd agree with you for antimagic field, but I'd think that for something like Zone of Truth where each individual affected gets their own will save, you could end it (applying only to you, not to the whole area) with IHS.
Anyway, I found an official ruling (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070426a).
It cannot remove instantaneous effects, but is not otherwise limited by how the duration is measured (including permanent)

Yep, the "including permanent-duration spells or effects" is pretty clear, and resolves the OP's doubt on round duration.
Also, I agree on ZoT

JeenLeen
2009-07-28, 10:31 AM
I'm reminded of another effect in ToB. I forget what it's called, but it's a move the monk-type shadow PrC can get.

It sets the target to -10 HP. It does not do damage or lower their HP to -10, but sets it there. Thus, Contingencies set for 'when I reach 1 HP' or spells such as Indomitability do not activate. Nor is it a death effect, since it does not kill you, your being at -10 HP kills you.

ToB seems to be worded to get around some tricky situations. It's up to the DM how Iron Heart Surge is used, but I think it's an interesting concept to go by the RAW wording, to have to work with the tricks.

Random832
2009-07-28, 10:33 AM
That brand of logic is not relevant to RAW. By RAW, the effect ends. Period. The lack of any qualifier means that the entire effect ends, and it ends for everyone. If someone casts Mass Suggestion on a group that happens to include you and you use Iron Heart Surge to end it, everyone else who failed the save is also freed from the spell's effect.

I was moving a bit beyond strict RAW with that last bit, to be honest.

Although... it may be possible to lawyer your way around the wording to make it work with RAW - i.e. say the spell doesn't directly affect you, it rather creates a condition or effect that affects each person separately.

ZoT is a bit of a weird example that may actually justify this even when other things (like antimagic) don't, since it's an AOE spell that has a save on entering the area.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-28, 10:45 AM
Is there any RAW saying "Language like '1 or more rounds' only applies to effects with a duration measured in rounds"? Because the language "duration measured in rounds" is used elsewhere in the rules, and there is a valid counterargument that it would have been used here if that were the intended meaning. English grammar rules (which are RAW, just not the RAW you were thinking of) make "1 or more rounds" specific to a duration expressed in rounds. However, if you want a D&D RAW precedent which states that numeric equivalence is not relevant to expressions of duration, look to Draconomicon on page 66:
To take a metabreath feat, a creature must have a breath weapon whose time between breaths is expressed in rounds. Therefore, a hell hound (which can breathe once every 2d4 rounds) can take metabreath feats, whereas a behir (breath weapon usable 1/minute) cannot. 10 rounds: yes. 1 minute: no.

Random832
2009-07-28, 10:48 AM
English grammar rules (which are RAW, just not the RAW you were thinking of) make "1 or more rounds" specific to a duration expressed in rounds.

I don't agree, since the real world doesn't have a notion of what the "right" unit to express a duration in is in the first place. And a minute is "more rounds" (or more seconds) than nine rounds.


However, if you want a D&D RAW precedent which states that numeric equivalence is not relevant to expressions of duration, look to Draconomicon on page 66

Um, right. The one that specifically (unlike IHS) refers to how the duration is expressed; which was my RAW precedent, contrasted with the language for IHS to make my argument. I was actually going to cite that specific text, but I couldn't verify it (and actually had it wrong in an inconsequential way; I thought it said "measured") since I don't have the book on me right now.

Talya
2009-07-28, 10:52 AM
English grammar rules (which are RAW, just not the RAW you were thinking of) make "1 or more rounds" specific to a duration expressed in rounds. However, if you want a D&D RAW precedent which states that numeric equivalence is not relevant to expressions of duration, look to Draconomicon on page 66: 10 rounds: yes. 1 minute: no.

The official ruling linked earlier in this thread disagrees with you.

AstralFire
2009-07-28, 10:55 AM
Many people stand by the statement that FAQ is not RAW. While I agree with them, it's very often a good guideline, and I agree with Yuki Akuma that it seems like hairsplitting here - and I cannot understand or perceive an intent here to restricting it to spells that have a duration of less than a minute or so. With metabreath feats, it's clearly intended to give bonuses to creatures with breaths already on a short recharge.

Random832
2009-07-28, 10:58 AM
Many people stand by the statement that FAQ is not RAW.

I wouldn't have brought it up if not for the fact that the "grammar-based" ruling is dubious in the first place (what, two minutes is not "more rounds" than twelve seconds? In my grammar, different units of the same physical quantity are interchangeable if the proper conversion factor is used.)

Curmudgeon
2009-07-28, 11:00 AM
I don't agree, since the real world doesn't have a notion of what the "right" unit to express a duration in is in the first place. The real world does have such a notion in the rules of English grammar, specifically in the scope of comparatives. I recommend Warriner's English Grammar and Composition (http://www.amazon.com/Warriners-English-Grammar-Composition-Complete/dp/B000EPR8S8/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248796744&sr=1-10) if you want to educate yourself on "real world notions".

The difference between that language and the language for IHS is that it specifically makes reference to how a duration is measured, rather than how long it is. The thing is, that choice of grammatical syntax is just another way of expressing that the duration is measured in rounds. "1 round or longer" is an open-ended specification of duration. "1 or more rounds" means just that: a duration in rounds.

Random832
2009-07-28, 11:06 AM
The real world does have such a notion in the rules of English grammar, specifically in the scope of comparatives.

So a sentence like "one meter is about four more inches than three feet" is grammatically invalid? I don't even have to resort to prescriptive vs descriptive to say how ridiculous that sounds. You can't say you're [e.g.] an eighth of an inch taller than me because height is not normally expressed in eighths of inches?


The thing is, that choice of grammatical syntax is just another way of expressing that the duration is measured in rounds.

Says you. I say it is a way of expressing that the duration; divided by the length of a round; must be one or more.

quick_comment
2009-07-28, 11:11 AM
There is a difference between "a duration measured in rounds" and a "duration of 1 or more rounds"

One specifies that it matters how you express it, the other only cares what it actually is.

So IHS works on things with durations expressed in rounds, minutes, microcenturies and fortnights

Fixer
2009-07-28, 11:12 AM
The thing is, that choice of grammatical syntax is just another way of expressing that the duration is measured in rounds. "1 round or longer" is an open-ended specification of duration. "1 or more rounds" means just that: a duration in rounds.You play the game your way, everyone else is free to disagree with you.

For the record, I disagree with your interpretation of that phrase. A duration of 1 or more rounds includes all durations that aren't instantaneous. Why they didn't say that I am not sure, maybe there are other effects that have wonky durations.

And you *CAN* use IHS to break a domination, unless the person who has you dominated has given you instructions that preclude your doing so, like doing something else. If you are dominated, and your dominator tells you to kill your friends, you can't use IHS to break the domination until you have completed what you were told to do and don't have further instructions.

AstralFire
2009-07-28, 11:16 AM
And you *CAN* use IHS to break a domination, unless the person who has you dominated has given you instructions that preclude your doing so, like doing something else. If you are dominated, and your dominator tells you to kill your friends, you can't use IHS to break the domination until you have completed what you were told to do and don't have further instructions.

That depends on how much of a literalist the DM is with regards to how exactly you must finish your instructions when dominated.

Frex, if the command is 'wait here for now' - how long is a 'now'? Does being told to wait preclude taking any other actions at all?

Random832
2009-07-28, 11:17 AM
And you *CAN* use IHS to break a domination, unless the person who has you dominated has given you instructions that preclude your doing so, like doing something else. If you are dominated, and your dominator tells you to kill your friends, you can't use IHS to break the domination until you have completed what you were told to do and don't have further instructions.

Does this still apply if your strategy for killing them leaves at least one round in which your standard action is not occupied?

quick_comment
2009-07-28, 11:27 AM
Does this still apply if your strategy for killing them leaves at least one round in which your standard action is not occupied?

Yes, because using IHS is not devoting all your effort to killing your friends.

Its like saying a frenzied berserker in frenzy can choose to attack a tree.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-28, 11:28 AM
So a sentence like "one meter is about four more inches than three feet" is grammatically invalid? No, that's just awkward. (But your sentence is numerically invalid, because one meter is about three inches more than three feet.)

Mr.Moron
2009-07-28, 11:40 AM
The ability states a minimum duration in rounds it does not state any restriction on how those rounds expressed. "duration of 1 or more rounds" is not the same as "with a duration of 1 rounds or more that is expressed in rounds". A 1 minute duration is still a duration of 1 or more rounds it's simply not expressed in rounds.

However, since the ability does not state anything about how "1 or more rounds" must be expressed anything with a duration longer than 1 round is a valid target. You could have a spell with a duration of "6 seconds/level" as well, it's not expressing the duration in rounds but it still has a duration of 1 or more rounds.

Saph
2009-07-28, 11:49 AM
Yeah, Curmudgeon, I have to join in with the "this is ridiculous nitpicking" camp. Saying that Iron Heart Surge can end something with a duration of 20 rounds but can't end something with a duration of 2 minutes is ludicrous because twenty rounds and two minutes are two ways of describing the exact same length of time.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-28, 12:03 PM
"duration of 1 or more rounds" is not the same as "with a duration of 1 round or more that is expressed in rounds". But it is the same.

A specification of "one or more cars" isn't satisfied by either an 18-wheel tractor-trailer or 10 motorcycles. In both cases you can consider those as more than "one car". Why do you have difficulty with the language construct when it's used with a specific measure of duration?

quick_comment
2009-07-28, 12:05 PM
But it is the same.

A specification of "one or more cars" isn't satisfied by either an 18-wheel tractor-trailer or 10 motorcycles. In both cases you can consider those as more than "one car". Why do you have difficulty with the language construct when it's used with a specific measure of duration?

No, trailers and motorcycles arent cars. A better analogy is 1 or more dollars, and you claiming that 4 quarters arent a dollar. It doesnt say 1 more more dollar bills, it says 1 or more dollars.

AstralFire
2009-07-28, 12:07 PM
But it is the same.

A specification of "one or more cars" isn't satisfied by either an 18-wheel tractor-trailer or 10 motorcycles. In both cases you can consider those as more than "one car". Why do you have difficulty with the language construct when it's used with a specific measure of duration?

...That's a really weird analogy. Rounds are a unit of measurement, and can be converted to any other unit which measures the same dimension. Cars are not a unit of measurement, and when someone makes a statement that a rig or 10 motorcycles is more than one car, there's an implicit reference to a dimension - be it mass, volume, power, etc.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-28, 12:14 PM
But it is the same.

A specification of "one or more cars" isn't satisfied by either an 18-wheel tractor-trailer or 10 motorcycles. In both cases you can consider those as more than "one car". Why do you have difficulty with the language construct when it's used with a specific measure of duration?

We have defined equivalences for minutes, rounds, hours and seconds. There are no defined equivalences between cars, motorcycles and 18-wheelers. There are no cars in 10 motorcycles because we have no way to convert between the units. 1 minute is the same as 10 rounds because that is how a round is defined (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#theCombatRound).

The word "Round" is just shorthand for "a period of 6 seconds in the game world". That we refer to those 6 seconds as a round doesn't change the fact that they are 6 seconds and that there are 60 seconds in 1 minute.

averagejoe
2009-07-28, 12:27 PM
But it is the same.

A specification of "one or more cars" isn't satisfied by either an 18-wheel tractor-trailer or 10 motorcycles. In both cases you can consider those as more than "one car". Why do you have difficulty with the language construct when it's used with a specific measure of duration?

No, that is not even similar. The notion "Number of cars," is not a notion that can be linguistically expressed using any other word in place of "Cars," since we have no collective terms for cars that rely on the number of them present. Also notice that this statement is grammatically identical to "One car or more." This statement still wouldn't be satisfied by tractor-trailers or motorcycles.

However, if we had a collective word for a specific number of cars in the English language, either statement would be satisfied by one of those.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-28, 01:20 PM
Rounds are a unit of measurement, and can be converted to any other unit which measures the same dimension. Yes, you can do the conversion. However, that doesn't mean that the converted term will satisfy the rules, as my quote from Draconomicon about metabreath feat qualifications shows. "1 or more rounds" expresses two qualifities about a duration: It's measured in rounds.
It is equal to or greater than 1. "1 round or longer" only expresses the latter quality. "10 rounds" meets the requirements for Iron Heart Surge. "1 minute" does not.

Can you think of an alternate reason why the Iron Heart Surge benefit was expressed in such a grammatically specific way? There's a similar duration expression in the Flesh Ripper Tiger Claw maneuver:
Duration: 1 round or more; see text
...
If your attack is a critical hit, these penalties last for a number of rounds equal to your weapon’s critical multiplier. Again, this is specific to a duration measured in rounds. "Duration: 1 round or more" implies "1 round or more rounds", and not a quantity of minutes or hours, and the descriptive text agrees with that.

quick_comment
2009-07-28, 01:22 PM
Can you think of an alternate reason why the Iron Heart Surge benefit was expressed in such a grammatically specific way?

Yeah, because nothing in DnD says if it lasts for more than 6 seconds or more than 1/10th of a minute.

Random832
2009-07-28, 01:24 PM
Yes, you can do the conversion. However, that doesn't mean that the converted term will satisfy the rules, as my quote from Draconomicon about metabreath feat qualifications shows.

Your quote from Draconomicon does NOT show any such thing because your quote from Draconomicon does not use the language "1 or more rounds".


"1 or more rounds" expresses two qualifities about a duration: It's measured in rounds.
It is equal to or greater than 1. "1 round or longer" only expresses the latter quality. "10 rounds" meets the requirements for Iron Heart Surge. "1 minute" does not.

Can you think of an alternate reason why the Iron Heart Surge benefit was expressed in such a grammatically specific way?

It's not "grammatically specific" just because it's different from how you would say it. Not every difference in phrasing makes a distinction in meaning. It is no more "grammatically specific" than "1 round or longer", it's just a different but equally valid way of saying the same thing.

AstralFire
2009-07-28, 01:27 PM
Can you think of an alternate reason why the Iron Heart Surge benefit was expressed in such a grammatically specific way?

Yeah.

1) Just about nothing lasts less than a round mechanically, except for instantaneous effects. Prevents people from saying they Iron Heart Surge with a readied action in the middle of someone's spellcasting because the flavor involves a quick effect.
2) The rules generally haven't shown themselves to be intended to be read with a fine-toothed, grammatical comb. They chose a wording that was convenient. I find rules discussions based on grammatical subtleties of language in D&D to be suspect at best in determining RAI.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-28, 01:51 PM
Yeah, because nothing in DnD says if it lasts for more than 6 seconds or more than 1/10th of a minute.
But if they didn't want to limit the benefit to only effects with a duration expressed in rounds, there are plenty of alternatives: 1 round or longer
non-instantaneous
at least 1 round None of those were chosen. The one phrasing that specifies the unit of measurement as well as the minimum duration was chosen instead of any of those.

You can assume that the D&D authors are grammatically obtuse, and really wanted Iron Heart Surge to be powerful. Or you can assume that the rules, as written, actually mean what they say, and this happens to put a cap on what the maneuver can accomplish.

AstralFire
2009-07-28, 01:58 PM
But if they didn't want to limit the benefit to only effects with a duration expressed in rounds, there are plenty of alternatives: 1 round or longer
non-instantaneous
at least 1 round None of those were chosen. The one phrasing that specifies the unit of measurement as well as the minimum duration was chosen instead of any of those.

You can assume that the D&D authors are grammatically obtuse, and really wanted Iron Heart Surge to be powerful. Or you can assume that the rules, as written, actually mean what they say, and this happens to put a cap on what the maneuver can accomplish.

If this had been intentional, I largely suspect they would have gone through pains to specifically indicate this; D&D isn't the Constitution and they do not expect most players to read it as carefully as such. This wording is too easily missed compared to the emphasis made on your comparison from the Draconomicon.

You can call it grammatical obtuseness, but this thread pretty clearly indicates quite a few people view the phrasings as interchangeable, which means that there's a good chance the writers did as well.

Random832
2009-07-28, 02:03 PM
You can assume that the D&D authors are grammatically obtuse, and really wanted Iron Heart Surge to be powerful. Or you can assume that the rules, as written, actually mean what they say

But that's NOT what they say. By the actual rules of english, "One minute is more than nine rounds" or, to take D&D specific meanings out of the equation, "One foot is more than eleven inches" are grammatically and factually correct statements.

Alleine
2009-07-28, 02:09 PM
I'm curious how many people, including the writers themselves, know as much about grammar as Curmudgeon apparently does. Because he linked to a book about grammar to help with rules interpretation, I'm going to say the answer is that very few people will know as much. The fact that he linked to a grammar book from 1965 is somewhat questionable, but since I have no idea about the way grammar changes over time, perhaps it is still completely relevant.

I am also curious about Curmudgeon's interpretation of, well, pretty much every other rule in the books. If he looks at them from a completely grammatical viewpoint, how much does that differ from the popular interpretation of those of us less well-versed in the nuances of the English language?

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-28, 02:19 PM
I'm curious how many people, including the writers themselves, know as much about grammar as Curmudgeon apparently does. Because he linked to a book about grammar to help with rules interpretation, I'm going to say the answer is that very few people will know as much. The fact that he linked to a grammar book from 1965 is somewhat questionable, but since I have no idea about the way grammar changes over time, perhaps it is still completely relevant.

I am also curious about Curmudgeon's interpretation of, well, pretty much every other rule in the books. If he looks at them from a completely grammatical viewpoint, how much does that differ from the popular interpretation of those of us less well-versed in the nuances of the English language?

You overloaded my sarcasm detector. I hope you're happy.

Typewriter
2009-07-28, 02:23 PM
By your logic Curmudgeon, doesn't that mean that anything that lasts minutes/level or hours/level doesn't do anything in combat since combat goes by rounds?

Curmudgeon
2009-07-28, 02:54 PM
By your logic Curmudgeon, doesn't that mean that anything that lasts minutes/level or hours/level doesn't do anything in combat since combat goes by rounds? That doesn't make any sense. I'm not using any logic that's different, merely pointing out the grammar, read precisely, is specific to duration units as well as their minimum value. That grammar, and its consequences, is limited to Iron Heart Surge.

Now, if you want funky logic, you can insist that you can't cast most spells outside of combat, because their casting time is specified in rounds or some portion thereof and rounds aren't used except in combat.
round

A 6-second unit of game time used to manage combat. Every combatant may take at least one action every round.
standard action

The most basic type of action. Common standard actions including making a melee or ranged attack, casting a spell, and using a magic item. In a typical round, a character can take a standard action and a move action, but he can't take a second standard action in place of his move action. :tongue:

sofawall
2009-07-28, 02:56 PM
So you're saying that we should use only grammar to interpret things, not logic?

Seems a bit silly, but then, that's logic talking.

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-28, 02:57 PM
Some spells have casting times measured in minutes and hours. So even your insane troll logic there is faulty. :P

Curmudgeon
2009-07-28, 03:00 PM
Now, if you want funky logic, you can insist that you can't cast most spells outside of combat, because their casting time is specified in rounds or some portion thereof and rounds aren't used except in combat.
Some spells have casting times measured in minutes and hours. So even your insane troll logic there is faulty. :P Having problems with qualifiers? Must be your "insane troll logic" at work. :smallamused:

Typewriter
2009-07-28, 03:11 PM
So is a round a measurement of time or is it 'a round'. You say that 'rounds' are different from time and that 'multiple rounds' is 'multiple rounds', while a set length of time doesn't apply.

But does it work in reverse? This spell last x hours/level. Combat occurs in 'rounds'. By your reading of RAW time and rounds cannot be used simultaneously, so either a spell with a duration of something other than rounds has no effect in combat, or it lasts the entire duration of the combat without the length of the combat counting against the spells duration, all because combat doesn't occur 'in time', but in 'rounds'.

I also would say that the thing your referencing is identifying itself as the exception to the rule. If in 100 instances the same rule appears, but in one of them it says, 'Oh, and just so you know, x=y' that doesn't mean that x=y always applies. It means that that the rule in that specific instance is diffferent.

It really seems to me like you're trying to nitpick something that makes no sense. 1 round = 6 seconds. 1 second = 1/60th of a minute. If an effect lasts 10 minutes, then it lasts 600 seconds, or 100 rounds.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-28, 03:27 PM
So you're saying that we should use only grammar to interpret things, not logic? Of course not. Logic is the study of statements and arguments. You can't understand statements if you can't understand the grammar used in those statements. Grammar is one of the tools required by logic.

Typewriter
2009-07-28, 03:34 PM
Of course not. Logic is the study of statements and arguments. You can't understand statements if you can't understand the grammar used in those statements. Grammar is one of the tools required by logic.

So is math, and if you are to assign a mathematical variable to a 'round' it would be the 'as defined' 6 seconds. And the mathematical variable of a 'minute' is 60 seconds.

One minute is more than one round because 60 is more than 6.

If rounds were undefined then I would agree with your interpetation of this, but since we know that a round is 6 seconds then we know that a minute is more than a round.

Lewin Eagle
2009-07-28, 03:39 PM
So if it's forbidden to bring more than 100 ml on a plane, I could just bring a few gallones since it only applies to ml?

sofawall
2009-07-28, 03:41 PM
Wait, if I want a piece of wood that's 3 or more feet long, and I measure it with a metric rule and find it's 300 cm, does that mean the piece of wood does not fit what I asked for?

EDIT: I love how everyone is now busting out other defined equivalencies to make his argument seem like a farce. Good on you, chaps!

Doc Roc
2009-07-28, 03:46 PM
I hate you all with a seething passion that lasts one or more rounds.

Round is a defined unit of time. A minute is defined as a number of rounds, ten to be precise. The game logic is utterly clear on this. I'm tired of people trying to directly obviate rules they don't like. Just houserule it, and admit that it is a houserule, please. My friends and I have a phrase, you see, for looking for trouble. We call it-hole fishing, after a friend who went fishing with a nice rod, some bait... You know, the usual gear. Except he was fishing on land, with his line down some weasel holes. The results were highly unpleasant for him, and we've kept the phrase ever since. You sir, are hole-fishing.

AstralFire
2009-07-28, 03:50 PM
While I do not agree with Curmudgeon here, I think it's only fair to note that he's not arguing that the values are not equivalent; he is arguing that the wording is meant to intentionally limit the effect to spells with values given in rounds.

My issue with that isn't from a grammatical standpoint - what he says makes sense there. My issue is that I believe:
1) If you don't stop to think about it closely, all but the most technically proficient English writers are going to read it the way most of us have. Therefore, I find it likely that if it was their intent, they would have spelled it out clearly the way it was done in Draconomicon.
2) It's a much less logical restriction than with the breath weapon - spell and supernatural durations vary very widely over the course of the game as a whole, while relatively few things have breath weapons, which are more easily segmented into "breath weapons with a short recharge" and "breath weapons with a long recharge.".

Talya
2009-07-28, 03:55 PM
My husband told me not to buy shoes more than $70 before payday. However, these shoes I can order from Tokyo, while more expensive, are ¥20,000. He didn't mention Yen, he only said dollars. He obviously intended I be able to buy the shoes from Japan!

Typewriter
2009-07-28, 03:58 PM
I understand the point he's making, and even agree with it to a certain degree, but I think he's putting a bit more faith in the 'grammar' then he should. Mathematically it's flawed. Logic wise, "I" feel it's flawed. Reading it directly from the book and imagining how it would look written in code(which when done right is a perfect translation of logic with no room for mis-interpretation) I think it's wrong.

The only way I would agree is like you said where it could be that they worded it that way to limit it, but that requires going away from literal translation(by assuming you know the intent of the writer) and two other things happening.

One is implementing intent, which you can not know simply based off the way it was written.
Two is ignoring the fact that we know intent is opposite of what Curmudgeon is saying, as evidenced by the link someone provided earlier.

ZeroNumerous
2009-07-28, 04:04 PM
While I do not agree with Curmudgeon here, I think it's only fair to note that he's not arguing that the values are not equivalent; he is arguing that the wording is meant to intentionally limit the effect to spells with values given in rounds.

But that's still wrong. Everything can be expressed in rounds 10 rounds and 1 minute are interchangeable. 3600 rounds and 1 hour are equally interchangeable. Etc, so on, so forth. Any duration of any effect greater than instantaneous can be expressed in rounds. There is no attempt to limit the usage of IHS because of the aforementioned interchangeability between minutes, hours, days, weeks, etc and rounds.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-28, 04:23 PM
While I do not agree with Curmudgeon here, I think it's only fair to note that he's not arguing that the values are not equivalent; he is arguing that the wording is meant to intentionally limit the effect to spells with values given in rounds.

My issue with that isn't from a grammatical standpoint - what he says makes sense there. My issue is that I believe ...
Thank you for this breath of reason in a deluge of silliness. Perhaps I've been doing the "by the RAW" bit over-much, but rules statements and the way most people would like those rules to work are occasionally at odds, yet unreasonableness doesn't change the RAW.
You make your Use Rope check only when someone makes their Escape Artist attempt, because the rules make a specific exception to the normal opposed check procedure. Of course your check modifiers at that time may be different from when you actually tied the rope. Silly, but still RAW.
You can't Hide when you're in an empty room. You have to wait for someone to enter and try to Spot you, because this skill follows the normal opposed check rules. Also, you Hide with no penalty while moving (i.e., changing which 5' square you're located in), which seems pretty wonky if you're trying to avoid catching someone's attention. Still RAW.
You provoke an attack of opportunity if you fire a ranged weapon as a standard action. But not if you make a full attack with that ranged weapon. Don't believe me? The rule about ranged attacks provoking is listed under Standard Actions in the "Combat" chapter, and not repeated in the Full-Round Actions section. Instead there's a table that states that full attacks provoke no AoOs. You're probably using a house rule here, and most people don't even realize they're doing so.
Iron Heart Surge's specific grammar happens to be one of those cases where careful attention to the RAW actually makes part of the game work a bit more reasonably.

Sinfire Titan
2009-07-28, 04:28 PM
I'm reminded of another effect in ToB. I forget what it's called, but it's a move the monk-type shadow PrC can get.

It sets the target to -10 HP. It does not do damage or lower their HP to -10, but sets it there. Thus, Contingencies set for 'when I reach 1 HP' or spells such as Indomitability do not activate. Nor is it a death effect, since it does not kill you, your being at -10 HP kills you.

ToB seems to be worded to get around some tricky situations. It's up to the DM how Iron Heart Surge is used, but I think it's an interesting concept to go by the RAW wording, to have to work with the tricks.

What page is that on? I can't find it. There isn't a Save or Die effect like that aside from a single strike (9th level, Tiger Claw at that), and the one that does says "they die", not their HP becomes -10.

ashmanonar
2009-07-28, 04:44 PM
You overloaded my sarcasm detector. I hope you're happy.

I just got this thing calibrated too.

*mutters and wanders off*

Typewriter
2009-07-28, 05:09 PM
Thank you for this breath of reason in a deluge of silliness. Perhaps I've been doing the "by the RAW" bit over-much, but rules statements and the way most people would like those rules to work are occasionally at odds, yet unreasonableness doesn't change the RAW.
You make your Use Rope check only when someone makes their Escape Artist attempt, because the rules make a specific exception to the normal opposed check procedure. Of course your check modifiers at that time may be different from when you actually tied the rope. Silly, but still RAW.
You can't Hide when you're in an empty room. You have to wait for someone to enter and try to Spot you, because this skill follows the normal opposed check rules. Also, you Hide with no penalty while moving (i.e., changing which 5' square you're located in), which seems pretty wonky if you're trying to avoid catching someone's attention. Still RAW.
You provoke an attack of opportunity if you fire a ranged weapon as a standard action. But not if you make a full attack with that ranged weapon. Don't believe me? The rule about ranged attacks provoking is listed under Standard Actions in the "Combat" chapter, and not repeated in the Full-Round Actions section. Instead there's a table that states that full attacks provoke no AoOs. You're probably using a house rule here, and most people don't even realize they're doing so.
Iron Heart Surge's specific grammar happens to be one of those cases where careful attention to the RAW actually makes part of the game work a bit more reasonably.

Never my intent to be involved in a deluge of silliness :)

I simply say that you're trying to read something as plain english when it's not plain english - it's a ruleset using numeric variables.

'1 or more rounds'

1 = 1 round
more rounds = more than 1 round

You say that:
'1 round', '3 rounds', '2 rounds' are viable because they're different instances of '1 round', even including '2(or 3 or more) rounds' where '2 rounds' is representing one power whose duration is described by 'X rounds' .

I say:
'one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds'

For this example I'll use mage armor, just for simplicities sake.

Mage armor lasts for '1 hour per level'.

What does the PHB have to say about spell duration?
On page 176 they have spell duration broken into categories. Timed(meaning 'rounds, minutes, hours, or some other increment'), instantaneous(unimportant), permanent(unimportant), concentration(unimportant), etc. etc.

Well, if you've never played D&D before you don't know what a round is, so back to the PHB!
Page 312: A 6 second unit of game time used to manage combat.

Okay, so I'm this character with 'Iron Heart Surge' and I have mage armor on and I dont like it. What is the duration? Let's say it was cast by a 1st level wizard so 1 hour.

Is 1 hour more than 1 round? Well, we know that spell duration has a category listed as timed that includes rounds and hours both. We know thanks to the glossary that a round is simply a reference for the amount of time that goes on each 'turn' of an encounter. So, is 1 round is 6 seconds. Period. There is no other interpretation that can be gathered without the rules specifically stating otherwise for a specific instance(as in your earlier example), or if the reader applies their own interpretation to that.

Timed spell = rounds, minutes hours.
Round = 6 seconds
6 seconds < 1 hour

You are using grammer to apply your own meaning to what a round is, and therefore not going by raw, but your own mis-interpretation.

averagejoe
2009-07-28, 05:38 PM
I would very much like to see a reference to this supposed grammatical rule. (Well, a reference besides a book which I don't own and appears to be old enough to be at least of questionable contemporary relevance.) There has been very little rationale presented for the opposing side, merely statements which we are supposed to take on faith. Even beyond the existence of such a rule, I have no reason to take on faith Curmudgeon's interpretation of the rule. While I don't doubt that he is more knowledgeable about grammar than I, the blatantly irrelevant car example leaves his judgment at least somewhat in question.

If I am wrong then I apologize, but I dislike trusting evidence I can't see.

Alleine
2009-07-28, 05:52 PM
You overloaded my sarcasm detector. I hope you're happy.

Erm... I wasn't really being sarcastic. I mean, sure a little, but no more than usual. I AM genuinely curious about what I said in the second paragraph. How much do his interpretations differ from everyone else? Of course, it isn't really fit to ask this question here as its off topic.

I kinda wish I knew a little more about grammar so I could actually understand how what he's arguing makes sense. As it stands I'm completely lost. My knowledge of grammar comes from years of reading for pleasure, not from conventional learning :/

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-28, 06:00 PM
I studied English Language and I can't make any sense of what he's saying. I think he's working on forty-year-old 'rules of grammar' that don't actually exist.

English is actually disgustingly flexible - there are few hard-and-fast rules. What most people used to think of as 'proper grammar' is 'the way Latin does it'.

You know that "never split infinitives" 'rule'? That was made because Latin doesn't.

Guess what? Latin can't. English can. So why shouldn't we?

Typewriter
2009-07-28, 06:03 PM
What he's getting at is the power can dispell effects whose descriptors are described as listing a specific number of rounds because the way it's worded is '1 or more rounds', and not 'a length of time exceeding one round', or 'an effect lasting longer than one round'. Saying one or more rounds means that it must be measured in rounds.

My problem with that is that the duration of a spell is described as being 1 round/level or 1 minute/level, etc. but that both '1 or more rounds' and '1 minute/level' ignores the fact that both are part of the 'timed' section of durations(referenced more thoroughly in my previous post).

Make sense?

Sinfire Titan
2009-07-28, 06:29 PM
Iron Heart Surge's specific grammar happens to be one of those cases where careful attention to the RAW actually makes part of the game work a bit more reasonably.[/LIST]

Question:

If someone asks you for a piece of pie, and you give them a whole pie instead, did or did you not fulfill their request?


Is one minute not 10 rounds? Isn't 1 day just another phrase for 144,000 rounds?

Alleine
2009-07-28, 06:49 PM
Make sense?

Yeah, I think so.

I'm going to echo averagejoe in asking where the heck this rule of English grammar came from. AFAIK, I've never read or heard anything that was interpreted this way.

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-28, 07:07 PM
Yeah, I think so.

I'm going to echo averagejoe in asking where the heck this rule of English grammar came from. AFAIK, I've never read or heard anything that was interpreted this way.

Psst: the 'rules of English grammar' are hidden in the way you speak English. If a rule makes absolutely no sense to you, it's probably not an actual rule, just something linguistics snobs use to make themselves feel 'better' than the uneducated masses.

Languages evolve and shift constantly. Anyone using 'grammar rules' from a book published in 1965 really has no idea what they're talking about.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-28, 08:48 PM
Let me try to break it down for you.

Essentially, "with a duration of 1 or more rounds" has a specific restriction in the allowed units of the duration due to the scope of the word "of" in the phrase. The word of (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/of) indicates possession, connection, or association, and is bound to the adjectival phrase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjectival_phrase) "1 or more rounds". Because of the implied comparative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative), this is the same as "with a duration of 1 round, or with a duration of more than 1 rounds". (Note: the override of the usual number agreement 1 ... rounds is intentional to preserve the original construction as much as possible.) The first case of this correlative conjunctive (http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/correlaconhterm.htm) expression is not at issue, so we're left to analyze the compound prepositional phrase (http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/prepositionalphrase.htm) "with a duration of more than 1 rounds".

The initial preposition (http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/preposition.htm) with (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/with) (meaning "having") is clear, as is "a duration (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/duration)", which is the subject of the noun clause (http://faculty.deanza.edu/flemingjohn/stories/storyReader$23) "a duration of more than 1 rounds"; this of course contains a second prepositional phrase.

There are two sticking points in analyzing the rest of the clause: the adjectival phrase (http://everything2.com/title/Adjectival+phrase) separating the preposition of from the subject, and
how that preposition binds the subject and object of the clause.
(a duration) of (more than 1) rounds
(subject) preposition (adjectival phrase) object

"more than 1" -- a phrase that functions as an adjective, modifying the object "rounds" -- is by its existence obscuring the binding of the preposition and object, and we can clearly show the binding by its removal: "a duration of ... rounds". But is this removal grammatically neutral? The adjective more (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/more) means "in greater quantity". Since a greater number of rounds remains a number of rounds, we can answer affirmatively. A quantitative change does not make a qualitative difference.

Thus we arrive at the specific association of subject ("duration") and object ("rounds"). A duration of rounds establishes a unit of measurement, and isn't the same as a duration of "rounds or longer", or "at least 1 round", because the associative binding of the preposition couples the RAW statement tightly. In the alternative formulations the binding is rendered nonspecific by comparative ("or"), or prepositional qualifier ("at least") and thus removes the requirement that the duration be expressed in rounds.

For a better analogy than my (lame) car/tractor-trailer/motorcycles example, let's consider this: "a payment of 100 or more dollars". While numerically equivalent (today) to "a payment of at least 70.47 Euros", it isn't identical in meaning. I can go to a nearby movie theater and pay in dollars. I can't do that with Euros/Yen/whatever. The specificity of units in the first example by the tight coupling of of is distinct from the association rendered loose by the "at least" qualifier in the second example.

Doc Roc
2009-07-28, 08:51 PM
I.... cannot believe you just did that. Literally, I am bowled over. I'm done.

I can hear Chomsky spinning so fast there's a nice ambient hum.

Lewin Eagle
2009-07-28, 08:56 PM
Your money example is lame as well. You can exchange euros for dollar but they aren't the same. Hund (the german word for dog) and dog are two names for the same thing your example is like comparing an boarhound to a poodle they both belong to the same category (dogs) but aren't the same. Similiar euro and dollar both belong to the money category but aren't the same. On the other hand 60 second and 1 minute or 10 years and one decade are the same thing.

Edit: I won't say anything about the grammar. English isn't my native language and fankly I don't care.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-28, 09:13 PM
I.... cannot believe you just did that. Literally, I am bowled over. I'm done.

I can hear Chomsky spinning so fast there's a nice ambient hum.
OK, so I did go to M.I.T. :smallbiggrin:

Doc Roc
2009-07-28, 09:32 PM
And I'm nominally a savant. That doesn't make me happier about your treatment of the issue. Here's my take:

The lexical structuring of the corpus of D&D works represents what we could comfortably call a fairly esoteric body of material with a consistent but not entirely cohesive style of language. We can describe a meaningful examination of their language in practice, one that suggests that the jargon round is meant to refer not to an exclusive object as you suggest but to a basic unit of measure. Thus the binding, while exclusive to the word rounds, allows a correct and grammatically neutral elimination, but is not representative of the way you portray its actual meaning. Taking into account the larger body of work, as any scholar should if he is not.... a spurious mad-man..... we see quite clearly the intent.
Fnord fnord fnord.
Leave me alone now please.

Mando Knight
2009-07-28, 09:42 PM
The combat round (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#theCombatRound) is the round referred to in the text in question, correct? And how is that round defined? I quote:

Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world.

What is the definition of a day, the other duration in question? It is a unit of time equal to 24 hours, each hour in turn is defined as 60 minutes, each of those minutes are defined as 60 seconds. Thus, a day is equal to 86400 seconds.

From these definitions (the definition of a day used is an approximation used for the time covered approximately by one day on Earth, but may vary in the campaign setting), a mathematically equivalent definition of a day relative to a round can be defined as "A time period equal to 14400 rounds." As a constant ("One day" is defined in terms of an absolute number of seconds, as is "one round"), the coefficient relating the two time periods does not change, and the terms can then be used interchangeably when the correct, constant coefficient is used.

The spell in question, Dominate Person, has a duration of 1 day per caster level. Now, a day, as has just been established, is now defined as 14400 rounds. 14400 > 1, and thus it can be affected by Iron Heart Surge, QED.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-28, 09:44 PM
We can describe a meaningful examination of their language in practice, one that suggests that the jargon round is meant to refer not to an exclusive object as you suggest but to a basic unit of measure. Already disproven by the treatment of the term as exclusive of other duration measurements in Draconomicon's restrictions on metabreath feats.
To take a metabreath feat, a creature must have a breath weapon whose time between breaths is expressed in rounds. Therefore, a hell hound (which can breathe once every 2d4 rounds) can take metabreath feats, whereas a behir (breath weapon usable 1/minute) cannot.

Sinfire Titan
2009-07-28, 09:53 PM
The combat round (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#theCombatRound) is the round referred to in the text in question, correct? And how is that round defined? I quote:


What is the definition of a day, the other duration in question? It is a unit of time equal to 24 hours, each hour in turn is defined as 60 minutes, each of those minutes are defined as 60 seconds. Thus, a day is equal to 129600 seconds.

From these definitions (the definition of a day used is an approximation used for the time covered approximately by one day on Earth, but may vary in the campaign setting), a mathematically equivalent definition of a day relative to a round can be defined as "A time period equal to 21600 rounds." As a constant ("One day" is defined in terms of an absolute number of seconds, as is "one round"), the coefficient relating the two time periods does not change, and the terms can then be used interchangeably when the correct, constant coefficient is used.

The spell in question, Dominate Person, has a duration of 1 day per caster level. Now, a day, as has just been established, is now defined as 21600 rounds. 21600 > 1, and thus it can be affected by Iron Heart Surge, QED.


I think your math is a bit off. 24 hours is 24*60 minutes. 60 minutes is 60*60 seconds. So it should be 24*60*60=(86,400 seconds/6)=14,400 rounds.

I added an extra 0 by accident myself (above), but that's it.

quick_comment
2009-07-28, 09:54 PM
"Expressed in rounds" is not equivalent to "1 or more rounds".

If I give you three different weights, labeled as 10N, 50N and 100lb, and I ask you "what is the biggest weight here expressed in newtons" and you say "that one weighs 100 pounds and is the heaviest", you are wrong.

If I give you the same three weights, and I ask you "which one is the heaviest" you can say "the 100lb one", "the 444 newton one", "the .05 tons one" or even "the one weighing 2.285*10^-29 solar masses" and all of them would be correct.

Typewriter
2009-07-28, 09:57 PM
And I would call that a bad example because euros are currency of one place, and dollars currency of another.

Rounds, minutes, and hours are all units to measure time with in the D&D rule books, and they are all considered part of the 'Timed Durations' portion of the duration section. If someone tried to implement a 'scene' from the WOD roleplaying system(which I believe to be 3 seconds) I would point out that they were going off topic. If someone expects to pay them in dollars(an american currency) and you pay them in currency from a different nation you are off topic. A round is seconds, an hour is seconds.

Stop trying to add definition to what a round is when we already have (a valid) one. The only definition needed is exactly what the book gives and that is a 6 second time period.

And this:


Already disproven by the treatment of the term as exclusive of other duration measurements in Draconomicon's restrictions on metabreath feats.

That proves nothing. That proves that that particular feat works that way. It has no bearing on anything.

I understand where you're coming from, and if the only thing we had to go off was a single sentance floating in the abyss that we all randomly chose to bicker over you would be right in using your grammer magic to try and prove a point. But with the resources available it is impossible for you to be right. You can keep spouting grammer nonsense all you like, but I've been doing a better job of explaining your argument to people than you have, and even I can see that it's a silly argument with no bearing.

Vikazc
2009-07-28, 10:07 PM
Just for the sake of popping in, the euro/dollar example is a terrible one because euros and dollars ARE the same thing. They are separate measurements that reference a portion of a given countries hard currency reserves. So while euros are dollars are physically two different things, they are comparable as far as quantities and both reference to one given value, though not one with a hard integer value. Just my two bits.

Random832
2009-07-28, 10:12 PM
Thus we arrive at the specific association of subject ("duration") and object ("rounds"). A duration of rounds establishes a unit of measurement, and isn't the same as a duration of "rounds or longer", or "at least 1 round", because the associative binding of the preposition couples the RAW statement tightly. In the alternative formulations the binding is rendered nonspecific by comparative ("or"), or prepositional qualifier ("at least") and thus removes the requirement that the duration be expressed in rounds.

This is where you go wrong.

The effect's duration is an amount of a physical quantity (in this case, time).

It is a duration of one minute, ten rounds, 1/1440 day, and 551 557 906 200 vibrations of a cesium atom, all at once. The question is not of how it is expressed, but rather of what it is. The duration section of the spell description is twice removed from this and entirely irrelevant. The duration is not "One day/level", it is an amount of the physical quantity called time that (for a tenth level caster) is ten minutes, is 600 seconds, and is 100 rounds, and is whatever number of whatever other real or imagined unit of time you might use.

Hat-Trick
2009-07-28, 10:15 PM
Random wins the debate. Expressed is different than is.

Doc Roc
2009-07-28, 10:16 PM
Already disproven by the treatment of the term as exclusive of other duration measurements in Draconomicon's restrictions on metabreath feats.

In design of large systems, exceptions arise. Mistaking exceptions for rules is the hallmark of a neophyte, not an experienced individual like yourself.

Random832
2009-07-28, 10:23 PM
Iron Heart Surge's specific grammar happens to be one of those cases where careful attention to the RAW actually makes part of the game work a bit more reasonably.[/LIST]

This is the key difference between you and me here.

I do not know or care how balanced or unbalanced this ability is. I don't know the wider context of what power level you can get it at, how often you can use it, or anything else like that. I am impartial. You have formed an opinion on which interpretation is more "reasonable" in some abstract terms, or what "makes sense"*. And that's not what RAW is about. That's what house rules are for.

*I'll tell you what would have made sense if they'd meant to stop it from applying to long effects; specify an explicit length limit. The same for metabreath, which is why I didn't appeal to this, because clearly they don't feel the need to make sense. But that's not really the point of this thread.

Mando Knight
2009-07-28, 10:33 PM
I think your math is a bit off. 24 hours is 24*60 minutes. 60 minutes is 60*60 seconds. So it should be 24*60*60=(86,400 seconds/6)=14,400 rounds.

I added an extra 0 by accident myself (above), but that's it.

Huh. I have no idea how I got my answer. That's what I get for barely looking at the calculator when typing it in rather than running the calculations myself by hand. :smallredface:

Sinfire Titan
2009-07-28, 10:38 PM
Huh. I have no idea how I got my answer. That's what I get for barely looking at the calculator when typing it in rather than running the calculations myself by hand. :smallredface:

I've done that math before and always end up with 144 as the first 3 numbers. For some reason, I thought it was 144000, but it's one 0 too many.


BTW, if anyone ever wants to calculate how many rounds/day their Psion can manifest powers, there's the number you need to meet to manifest 1/round.

oxinabox
2009-07-28, 11:08 PM
Wow, i never thought this would occasion so much debate.
~Win~ another victory for the forces of...um, chaos?

Hate do do this, but i can actually see Curmudgeon's point
one or more rounds.
I see the point, but interpret it differntly:
therefor if you had an effect that lasted 1.5 round or 9 seconds you couldn't use it, to stop.
But nothing has that sort of duration. and even then it's debateable that "one and a half rounds in't a number of rounds"

More importantly
The sage advice, overrides surly (like the rules of "Hero's of battle" overrides dmg siege engine rules)




Anyway, I found an official ruling (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070426a).




What exactly can or can’t iron heart surge (Tome of Battle p68) remove?

Instantaneous effects can’t be removed by iron heart surge. However, any effect with a duration of 1 or more rounds, including permanent-duration spells or effects, may be removed by iron heart surge, nor does iron heart surge restore damage or ability drain.[/QUOTE
Perminant duration isn't measured in rounds.
It does last for one or more rounds.
and it's removable


Looking at this from a balance side. (this is off topic)
Iron hear surge is
effectivly a 3rd lvl spell, like dispel.
It acts similar (by no means the same, but similar).
it can't fail, it can't counterspell, and it's only good agaist your self.
But now warlock get less spells than most anyone else.
and so there spells are also a bit more powerful (eg vicious dispell).

So it's vaguely balanced with warlock. (although warlock can use his once every turn, warblade only once every 5 rounds)


...[QUOTE]
BTW, if anyone ever wants to calculate how many rounds/day their Psion can manifest powers, there's the number you need to meet to manifest 1/round.
and that topic does come up in the psionic handbook

quick_comment
2009-07-28, 11:23 PM
therefor if you had an effect that lasted 1.5 round or 9 seconds you couldn't use it, to stop.
But nothing has that sort of duration. and even then it's debateable that "one and a half rounds in't a number of rounds"


No, its not debateable. 1.5 is a number.

MickJay
2009-07-29, 07:19 AM
Already disproven by the treatment of the term as exclusive of other duration measurements in Draconomicon's restrictions on metabreath feats.

The example you have provided is the exception to the general rule, its phrasing makes it clear that it is significantly different from the normal use of "rounds" as a unit of measure in that (in this particular example) it does matter if something is expressed in rounds or not. Plus, what Random wrote (expressed in =/= is).


Just for the sake of popping in, the euro/dollar example is a terrible one because euros and dollars ARE the same thing. They are separate measurements that reference a portion of a given countries hard currency reserves. So while euros are dollars are physically two different things, they are comparable as far as quantities and both reference to one given value, though not one with a hard integer value. Just my two bits.

The number of qualifiers and explanations you had to put in there just show that dollars and euros are not the same (even though they share a significant number of similarities). :smallwink: