Valid Interpretation?

[Koury]

So, this came up in the QnA thread.


Quicken Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit
Casting a quickened spell is an swift action. You can perform another action, even casting another spell, in the same round as you cast a quickened spell. You may cast only one quickened spell per round. A spell whose casting time is more than 1 full round action cannot be quickened. A quickened spell uses up a spell slot four levels higher than the spell’s actual level. Casting a quickened spell doesn’t provoke an attack of opportunity.


Time Stop

This spell seems to make time cease to flow for everyone but you. In fact, you speed up so greatly that all other creatures seem frozen, though they are actually still moving at their normal speeds. You are free to act for 1d4+1 rounds of apparent time. Normal and magical fire, cold, gas, and the like can still harm you. While the time stop is in effect, other creatures are invulnerable to your attacks and spells; you cannot target such creatures with any attack or spell. A spell that affects an area and has a duration longer than the remaining duration of the time stop have their normal effects on other creatures once the time stop ends. Most spellcasters use the additional time to improve their defenses, summon allies, or flee from combat.

Since there is, as far as I am aware, no definition of apparent time as a game term we must go with the dictionary definition.


Main Entry: : ap·par·ent
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈper-ənt, -ˈpa-rənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French apparant, from Latin apparent-, apparens, present participle of apparēre to appear
Date: 14th century

1 : open to view : visible
2 : clear or manifest to the understanding
3 : appearing as actual to the eye or mind
4 : having an indefeasible right to succeed to a title or estate
5 : manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid

Using definition 3 and 5, could it be argued that, by RAW, you can only use one quickened spell per Time Stop?

I in no way believe this to be intended. But is this a valid RAW interpretation?

By the way, I am mostly just bored :smallbiggrin:

[SurlySeraph]

In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.

Similar wording, no? Therefore, by your interpretation you could only do in a Time Stop what you could do in one normal round. Good luck getting the party wizard to agree with that. :smallwink:

[Koury]

I should also add in why this came up.

I asked if you could cast a quickened spell as your swift action, trade your move out for another swift action (another quickened spell) and then use your standard as normal (a spell).

I had the "One quickened spell per round" pointed out to me. I don't know why that is that way, seeing as you should be able to trade out move actions for swift actions on a 1:1 no problem, but its still RAW.

Made me think of this.

[FishAreWet]

I should also add in why this came up.

I asked if you could cast a quickened spell as your swift action, trade your move out for another swift action (another quickened spell) and then use your standard as normal (a spell).

I had the "One quickened spell per round" pointed out to me. I don't know why that is that way, seeing as you should be able to trade out move actions for swift actions on a 1:1 no problem, but its still RAW.

Made me think of this.

Swift actions are special. The game is balanced around only doing one per round. They usually give boosts that are intended only for that round, and double dipping on them would be really powerful. That's why it's the capstone of the Ruby Knight Vindicator, to be able to get more swift actions per round.

[JaronK]

Timestop gives you a bunch of extra rounds that only you can use. Quickened spells can be used once per round. Thus, you may use them a bunch in a Timestop. So no, I don't buy this interpretation.

JaronK

[Typewriter]

My guess(interpretation) is that since the time is apparent to you, you would be able to treat it as normal time.

[Tyndmyr]

Similar wording, no? Therefore, by your interpretation you could only do in a Time Stop what you could do in one normal round. Good luck getting the party wizard to agree with that. :smallwink:

This.

The interpretation that makes time stop entirely meaningless is probably wrong. It's also important to consider that when describing it, they inherently had to use some method to describe that rounds for the caster are happening at a different rate than for others.

I think the intent is pretty clear from the rules, and it's difficult to rules-lawyer something different using the dictionary as a source of RAW.

[Optimystik]

I was the one who contradicted the OP in the first place. And Surly's explanation summed up the issue nicely.

For you to get 1 Swift Action in the Time Stop, you would also have to get just one Standard and one Move. But you don't, you get 1d4.

This is about relativity. If you're able to move and think so fast that you get up to 4 rounds of activity into 1, all the actions you can take during those rounds go with them.

[Koury]

Let me reiterate that I'm arguing a definition I believe to be obviously counter to RAI using technicalities. I don't believe anyone ever WILL or SHOULD make this ruling.

I'm simply arguing it is valid as per RAW. Mostly for the sake of it. I have no point to prove here, I'm simply arguing :smallbiggrin:


Timestop gives you a bunch of extra rounds that only you can use. Quickened spells can be used once per round. Thus, you may use them a bunch in a Timestop. So no, I don't buy this interpretation.

It gives apparent rounds. This is key to my stance. As for you not buying it, cool. Its ridiculous. But that has nothing to do with anything RAW. :smallbiggrin:


The interpretation that makes time stop entirely meaningless is probably wrong. It's also important to consider that when describing it, they inherently had to use some method to describe that rounds for the caster are happening at a different rate than for others.

I think the intent is pretty clear from the rules, and it's difficult to rules-lawyer something different using the dictionary as a source of RAW.

Probably wrong is not wrong. That is purely your opinion.

Your assertion that "when describing it, they inherently had to use some method to describe that rounds for the caster are happening at a different rate than for others" is also wrong. They could have said the spell grants a number of actions equal to 1d4 rounds, and they must all be taken on the turn you cast the spell.

And as for it being difficult to argue using the dictionary definition of a word, I simply ask this: If we don't have a defined game term, how else but via standard definition could we possible try and interpret something?


For you to get 1 Swift Action in the Time Stop, you would also have to get just one Standard and one Move. But you don't, you get 1d4.

I said nothing about swift actions. I was referring to quickened spells, which explicitly state you only get one per round. I can see an argument for RKVs only getting one per round regardless of how many swift actions they get.

Now, all that being said, let me reiterate: I agree with all of you. Intent is clear. The wording used, however, allows this interpretation, does it not? It does not make it the ONLY one that is valid, but it is valid nonetheless. See: Dragonwrought Kobold thread.

I like devils advocate :smallbiggrin:

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Mind Crush!

There, problem solved.

[Tyndmyr]

Let me reiterate that I'm arguing a definition I believe to be obviously counter to RAI using technicalities. I don't believe anyone ever WILL or SHOULD make this ruling.

I'm simply arguing it is valid as per RAW. Mostly for the sake of it. I have no point to prove here, I'm simply arguing :smallbiggrin:

But your "RAW" logic relies on points not found in RAW. That's the main problem.


It gives apparent rounds. This is key to my stance. As for you not buying it, cool. Its ridiculous. But that has nothing to do with anything RAW. :smallbiggrin:

The stance basically relies on an apparent round not being a round. For the person it is apparent to.

It literally says "You are free to act for 1d4+1 apparent rounds". RAW does not define any modification to rounds for being "apparent". The "you are free to act" bit is also pretty clear that you can use those rounds.


Probably wrong is not wrong. That is purely your opinion.

Your assertion that "when describing it, they inherently had to use some method to describe that rounds for the caster are happening at a different rate than for others" is also wrong. They could have said the spell grants a number of actions equal to 1d4 rounds, and they must all be taken on the turn you cast the spell.

And as for it being difficult to argue using the dictionary definition of a word, I simply ask this: If we don't have a defined game term, how else but via standard definition could we possible try and interpret something?

You are cherry picking specific interpretations of specific definitions of the word. Nothing about the time stop wording indicates that the perceptions of the caster might be not be factually valid.


I said nothing about swift actions. I was referring to quickened spells, which explicitly state you only get one per round. I can see an argument for RKVs only getting one per round regardless of how many swift actions they get.

True. I can definitely see that, unless someone has a ruling from say, Rules Compendium or something.

However, for a caster in a time stop, he is clearly acting in accordance with the rounds it grants him, and he is bound by the action restrictions that those rounds have, not the rounds other people are acting by.

[taltamir]

Similar wording, no? Therefore, by your interpretation you could only do in a Time Stop what you could do in one normal round. Good luck getting the party wizard to agree with that. :smallwink:

oh snap! good catch...

yes, by the interpretation that the time you get in time stop is "apparent" and you can only perform 1 swift action because it is only 1 actual round, then you can only perform just one standard, and one move action...

in other words, time stop does absolutely nothing except waste duration on your buffs / debuffs.

[Koury]

:smalleek: Ack, I'm being crushed. Curse you, incorrect position!

OK, lets see here.


RAW does not define any modification to rounds for being "apparent"

Then why make the distinction at all? I've given a valid alternate wording that doesn't use an undefined game term.


You are cherry picking specific interpretations of specific definitions of the word.

Of course I am. I am choosing the ones I believe to be pertinent to the situation. Why would I not? Definition 1 (open to view) has nothing to do with this and is therefore disregarded.


Nothing about the time stop wording indicates that the perceptions of the caster might be not be factually valid.

Except the rounds that he experiences being 'apparent' as opposed to simply rounds.


But your "RAW" logic relies on points not found in RAW. That's the main problem.

Yes, it is. 'Apparent' is not a defined game term. Therefore we use the standard definition. After discarding the definitions that are irrelevant, I believe this to be a valid stance. Dumb. But valid.

I am not trying to annoy anyone with the stupidity of this (again, see: Dragonwrought Kobold thread). If anyone seems to get too heated over this I will simply withdraw my stance, since I don't really support it ever being used anyway.

[ocdscale]

Your argument:
Only one Quicken Spell per round is permitted
Time Stop grants 1d4 +1 "apparent" rounds.
Apparent is defined (in relevant part) as:

3 : appearing as actual to the eye or mind
...
5 : manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid
Therefore, only one Quicken Spell per Time Stop is permitted.

Is that right?

I don't see how your conclusion follows.
The definitions of "apparent" that you bolded don't support the conclusion.
All they say is "a thing that is apparent appears as real, but may not actually be real."
It seems that you are reading the definitions to say "something that is apparent appears as if it is real or true, but is not actually real or true."

Apparent rounds should act just as normal rounds do, but it's possible they aren't actually 'real' rounds, per the definition of 'apparent'.
But so long as they act like real rounds, that's all we care about. Real rounds grant a quickened spell each, apparent rounds should do so as well (unless explicitly stated to do otherwise). If they did not, the rules wouldn't call them 'apparent rounds', they would be closer to 'pseudo-rounds'.

[Tyndmyr]

Then why make the distinction at all? I've given a valid alternate wording that doesn't use an undefined game term.

Because it's apparent to the caster. Nobody else benefits from the additional rounds. They needed to specify that.


Of course I am. I am choosing the ones I believe to be pertinent to the situation. Why would I not? Definition 1 (open to view) has nothing to do with this and is therefore disregarded.

Appearing as actual does not mean its....not actual.

Likewise, the possibility of invalid perceptions does not mean that this case MUST be invalid. And there's nothing in the rules to support this leap you make.


Except the rounds that he experiences being 'apparent' as opposed to simply rounds.

So? They are round. Regardless of what other qualifiers they possess, they are, by RAW, rounds. If you can find rules regarding that qualifer, you would apply it to the rounds.

If you can't, then, no, your interpretation is not RAW.


Yes, it is. 'Apparent' is not a defined game term. Therefore we use the standard definition. After discarding the definitions that are irrelevant, I believe this to be a valid stance. Dumb. But valid.

No...lets look at the first two definitions from Dictionary.com


ap⋅par⋅ent  [uh-par-uhnt, uh-pair-] Show IPA
Use apparent in a Sentence
–adjective
1. readily seen; exposed to sight; open to view; visible: The crack in the wall was readily apparent.
2. capable of being easily perceived or understood; plain or clear; obvious: The solution to the problem was apparent to all.


You're trying to make apparent mean "not real". That's not what the word means.


I am not trying to annoy anyone with the stupidity of this (again, see: Dragonwrought Kobold thread). If anyone seems to get too heated over this I will simply withdraw my stance, since I don't really support it ever being used anyway.

That was actually a RAW debate, since it was rules discussion. Trying to pull in unusual alternative interpretations from the dictionary isn't RAW.

[Koury]

OK, I concede.

The error in my stance has been pointed out a number of times now. I am simply wrong. I knew that when I started, however.

Thank you guys for participating in this discussion with me. I agree with certian posters (Optimystik, Tanaric and Tyndmyr, for example) about 99% of the time. I was having trouble justifying this in the first place.

It was fun trying though :smallbiggrin:

[JaronK]

Hey, making people think about the rules is always a good excercise for knowing them better!

JaronK

[taltamir]

hi that was a really cool and interesting interpretation. Don't be dissuaded...

Would be hilarious btw to extend that "apparent round" issue to all actions taken during a time stop. talk about nerfing the spell out of existence.

[Tyndmyr]

Hey, making people think about the rules is always a good excercise for knowing them better!

JaronK

This is true. It's probably the best justification for all the RAW shenanigans we pull, come to think of it.

[JaronK]

This is true. It's probably the best justification for all the RAW shenanigans we pull, come to think of it.

That's a big reason I get into debates like this (and the Kobold thing). It really helps clarify in the long run. And knowing what the rules truly are makes it SO much easier to make reasonable fixes for them!

JaronK

[Optimystik]

Not to mention, finding genuine loopholes helps the cracks get sealed in later editions.

(Or remakes - d20r, Pathfinder, etc.)

[Tyndmyr]

Not to mention, finding genuine loopholes helps the cracks get sealed in later editions.

(Or remakes - d20r, Pathfinder, etc.)

In theory....

[Optimystik]

In theory....

Plenty DO get sealed. They just open new ones. :smallsigh:

[taltamir]

sometimes they even print erratas... like the errata that says you cannot use arcane thesis to lower a spell's slot below its starting slot (so no level 0 fireballs of doom)... but that still leaves you with -1 reductions that can be stacked but not to lower the overall level below where it started.

[JaronK]

Which allowed the creation of Kablooie the Resourceful Halfling. Oh Locate City, how I love thee...

JaronK

[KillianHawkeye]

NOTE: You can trade a Standard Action for an extra Move Action, but you cannot trade either for an extra Swift Action. Swift Actions are balanced under the assumption that you can only use 1 in a round. You only get 1 per round unless you have some ability or item which specifically grants them.

Both Star Wars Saga Edition and D&D 4th Edition allow this type of action trading, but D&D 3.5 does not. Those later games were designed with that sort of action trading in mind and thus the things performable as Swift/Minor Actions are balanced considering the fact that they may be done more than once per round. For example: SWSE allows aiming with a ranged weapon if you spend 2 swift actions immediately before making your attack.

[Moriato]

It gives apparent rounds. This is key to my stance. As for you not buying it, cool. Its ridiculous. But that has nothing to do with anything RAW. :smallbiggrin:


But that's not true. It gives you 1d4+1 rounds.


You are free to act for 1d4+1 rounds of apparent time.

Those rounds happen to take place in apparent time, but they're still rounds, not apparent rounds.

If the rules said you can only take one swift action per 6 seconds you might have something, but it doesn't say that, it's one per round, and you have 1d4+1 rounds, even if they happen to be very short rounds, from other people's perspective.