PDA

View Full Version : Incantatrix, What am I missing?



EvilJoe15
2010-06-20, 09:56 PM
Okay, so I recently got the PGtF, and am planning om playing an Incantatrix. I've read it, and I can see why it's good, but I just not seeing what it's been accredited with.

What am I missing?

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-06-20, 09:58 PM
So, with a spellcraft check, you can add +yes amounts of metamagic to any and every spell for effectively free at 3rd level in the class. Plus, you get so many free metamagic feats, there's little reason not to take it over straight wizard.

EvilJoe15
2010-06-20, 10:01 PM
That's for spells already in effect. What I've heard is doing that as it's being cast.

Private-Prinny
2010-06-20, 10:03 PM
Y'know how DMM Clerics are considered broken because they can Persist buffs by burning Turn Undead uses? Incantatrix can Persist more of them with Spellcraft checks.

Also, Twinned Maximized Split Ray Enervation with Arcane Thesis and Easy Metamagic (Twin) is 16 negative levels from a 7th level slot. Energy Drain doesn't look so great now, does it?

And that's just the tip of the broken-tacular iceberg.

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-20, 10:12 PM
They get an ability at level 7 that lets them apply a free metamagic to a spell once per day (twice per day at level 9).

Douglas
2010-06-20, 10:26 PM
That's for spells already in effect. What I've heard is doing that as it's being cast.
Such references are most likely about the capstone, Improved Metamagic, which doesn't involve a spellcraft check and merely reduces cost but is unlimited use and scales with the number of metamagic feats applied. This is especially powerful in combination with the Arcane Thesis feat.

Before the capstone is reached, Incantatrix is primarily noteworthy as an in-combat casting class for simply providing significantly more than you give up to take it. In that regard, it's merely overpowered rather than truly broken.

The true brokenness comes in when you start applying metamagic to buff spells. Take a look at my sig to see what I mean.

nargbop
2010-06-20, 11:34 PM
There are two versions of Incantrix, one with Send Away (ignore that one) and the other with the ability to apply metamagic to an existing spell effect. This is very easy to abuse.

Obvious : Apply many metamagic effects to a single spell, like Delayed Fireball. Apply Persist to your buff spells for day-long buffs without costing any more than the original casting. Apply Maximize to your Wall of Blades for a very effective defense.
Less obvious : Apply Sculpt to your Wall of Blades, and keep applying it, to walk unmolested through the landscape, decimating everything that you see.
Obscure : Apply to a temporary summoning spell or undead-creating spell, like Elemental Monolith or a Fell Animate Acid Fog spell.
Downright sneaky : Apply to spells created using the Craft Contingent Spell feat. Your zombies can now explode with negative energy when they die, killing those nearby and immediately raising them as zombies.
Make your DM throw things at you : Apply to Dispel Screen, Antimagic Field, or Time Stop. Apply Maximize to Spell Turning for hilarity.

Private-Prinny
2010-06-21, 12:33 AM
There are two versions of Incantrix, one with Send Away (ignore that one) and the other with the ability to apply metamagic to an existing spell effect. This is very easy to abuse.

Obvious : Apply many metamagic effects to a single spell, like Delayed Fireball. Apply Persist to your buff spells for day-long buffs without costing any more than the original casting. Apply Maximize to your Wall of Blades for a very effective defense.
Less obvious : Apply Sculpt to your Wall of Blades, and keep applying it, to walk unmolested through the landscape, decimating everything that you see.
Obscure : Apply to a temporary summoning spell or undead-creating spell, like Elemental Monolith or a Fell Animate Acid Fog spell.
Downright sneaky : Apply to spells created using the Craft Contingent Spell feat. Your zombies can now explode with negative energy when they die, killing those nearby and immediately raising them as zombies.
Make your DM throw things at you : Apply to Dispel Screen, Antimagic Field, or Time Stop. Apply Maximize to Spell Turning for hilarity.

My personal favorite is to persist it so you can stop in the middle of the fight to replace all of your spell slots for the day.

Os1ris09
2010-06-21, 01:11 AM
My personal favorite is to persist it so you can stop in the middle of the fight to replace all of your spell slots for the day.

This may not even be legal though since it isn't a different day in real time therefore not granting you your ability to prepare extra spells. I will say you can rest 8 hours to regain hit points and all but not get back spells.

Private-Prinny
2010-06-21, 01:20 AM
This may not even be legal though since it isn't a different day in real time therefore not granting you your ability to prepare extra spells. I will say you can rest 8 hours to regain hit points and all but not get back spells.


Rest: To prepare her daily spells, a wizard must have a clear mind.
To clear her mind she must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does
not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but she must
refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation,
or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during
the rest period. If her rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1
hour to the total amount of time she has to rest in order to clear her
mind, and she must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately
prior to preparing her spells. If the character does not need
to sleep for some reason, she still must have 8 hours of restful calm
before preparing any spells. For example, elf wizards need 8 hours of
rest to clear their minds. Thus, an elf wizard could trance for 4 hours
and rest for 4 hours, then prepare spells.

Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions: If a wizard has cast
spells recently, the drain on her resources reduces her capacity to
prepare new spells. When she prepares spells for the coming day, all
the spells she has cast within the last 8 hours count against her daily
limit. If Mialee can normally cast two 1st-level spells per day, but she
had to cast magic missile during the night, she can prepare only one
1st-level spell the next day.

Preparation Environment: To prepare any spell, a wizard must
have enough peace, quiet, and comfort to allow for proper
concentration. The wizard’s surroundings need not be luxurious, but
they must be free from overt distractions. Exposure to inclement
weather prevents the necessary concentration, as does any injury or
failed saving throw the character might experience while studying.
Wizards also must have access to their spellbooks to study from and
sufficient light to read them by. There is one major exception: A
wizard can prepare a read magic spell even without a spellbook. A
great portion of her initial training goes into mastering this minor
but vital feat of magic.

Spell Preparation Time: After resting, a wizard must study her
spellbook to prepare any spells that day. If she wants to prepare all
her spells, the process takes 1 hour. Preparing some smaller portion
of her daily capacity takes a proportionally smaller amount of time,
but always at least 15 minutes, the minimum time required to
achieve the proper mental state.

Please note that it says nothing about having to be the next day.

Stompy
2010-06-21, 01:23 AM
To answer the OP's question: a conscience (just kidding)

You kids and your non-linear time.... back in my day....

Mystic Muse
2010-06-21, 01:23 AM
This may not even be legal though since it isn't a different day in real time therefore not granting you your ability to prepare extra spells. I will say you can rest 8 hours to regain hit points and all but not get back spells.

Well, this is totally reasonable anyway considering how cheesy a persisted timestop would be.

There's a reason it's in the "Make the DM throw books at you" section.

Bayar
2010-06-21, 01:26 AM
My personal favorite is to persist it so you can stop in the middle of the fight to replace all of your spell slots for the day.

You cannot apply persistent spell on instantaneous effects. This is a common mistake.

Private-Prinny
2010-06-21, 01:32 AM
You cannot apply persistent spell on instantaneous effects. This is a common mistake.

Which is why Time Stop having a duration of 1d4+1 rounds and not using the word "instantaneous" anywhere in the description is so much fun.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-06-21, 01:37 AM
Which is why Time Stop having a duration of 1d4+1 rounds and not using the word "instantaneous" anywhere in the description is so much fun.

I believe the errata for persist covers this through something akin to voodoo.

Os1ris09
2010-06-21, 01:39 AM
Please note that it says nothing about having to be the next day.

I stand corrected. However it still smells like cheddar. :smallwink:

PId6
2010-06-21, 01:49 AM
This may not even be legal though since it isn't a different day in real time therefore not granting you your ability to prepare extra spells. I will say you can rest 8 hours to regain hit points and all but not get back spells.
You're thinking of divine casters. Clerics require preparing spells at a certain time of day. Wizards/sorcerers, however, do it whenever as long as they've had rest.

Stompy
2010-06-21, 01:49 AM
I believe the errata for persist covers this through something akin to voodoo.

...but if it doesn't, then let's cast a time stop in a time stop until the universe collapses (or until the DM says "no").

PId6
2010-06-21, 01:50 AM
...but if it doesn't, then let's cast a time stop in a time stop until the universe collapses (or until the DM says "no").
Or until you get bored of your lonely existence?

sambo.
2010-06-21, 01:54 AM
...but if it doesn't, then let's cast a time stop in a time stop until the universe collapses (or until the DM says "no").

wouldn't you run out of ninth level spell slots first?

Private-Prinny
2010-06-21, 01:57 AM
wouldn't you run out of ninth level spell slots first?

Not when you can Persist it. :smallbiggrin:

Bayar
2010-06-21, 02:06 AM
Which is why Time Stop having a duration of 1d4+1 rounds and not using the word "instantaneous" anywhere in the description is so much fun.

Check again. The duration is instantaneous. That 1d4+1 rounds happen in that instantaneous duration. It is not even a literal time stop, just a good time compression.

Dracons
2010-06-21, 02:18 AM
Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 9, Trickery 9
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1d4+1 rounds (apparent time); see text

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.

You cannot move or harm items held, carried, or worn by a creature stuck in normal time, but you can affect any item that is not in another creature’s possession.

You are undetectable while time stop lasts. You cannot enter an area protected by an antimagic field while under the effect of time stop.





So, uh, where exactly does it state that its instant?

Private-Prinny
2010-06-21, 02:18 AM
Check again. The duration is instantaneous. That 1d4+1 rounds happen in that instantaneous duration. It is not even a literal time stop, just a good time compression.

I checked before my last post. And double checked again before this one. Occurring in a split second =/= Instantaneous Duration. The duration on Time Stop is 1d4+1 rounds of apparent time, which would be lengthened to 24 hours of apparent time by Persisting it. If you need more proof that it isn't instantaneous, you cannot enter an anti-magic field during a Time Stop, while AMF doesn't do anything against instantaneous duration spells.

Gametime
2010-06-21, 02:19 AM
As a matter of fact, nothing in the Complete Arcane errata says anything about Persistent Spell not working with Time Stop, and nothing in the SRD or Player's Handbook errata changes Time Stop's duration to be instantaneous.

Now, if the feat required a spell with a duration measured in rounds or minutes or hours or something like that, then I think there would be an argument that the rounds of "apparent time" don't qualify. But it doesn't. All it does is prohibit instantaneous durations, and Time Stop does not have one.

Myth
2010-06-21, 02:23 AM
OP check my questions on Incantatrix answered in this thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155653 I've also put a lvl 12 build which is almost complete (bar spell selection).

Teron
2010-06-21, 02:26 AM
Please note that it says nothing about having to be the next day.
It does say you can't refresh slots you've used in the last eight hours, though. Since time stop isn't "real time", your DM might not let you count the time you spend in it for that purpose.

Bayar
2010-06-21, 05:04 AM
Time Stop's 1d4+1 duration is only apparent. Persistent spell only increases the duration for real duration. No mention of the apparent duration of any spell. By RAW, it would increase the real duration to 24 hours while leaving the apparent duration at 1d4+1. If you can find proof that it will only apply to the apparent duration, then I will concede my point.

Oh, and I appologise, forgot about that apparent duration thing before.

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-21, 05:49 AM
The time stop argument has been made in another thread. Any points brought up here have probably already been brought up there.

The argument against wizards re-preparing spells in a persisted time stop stem from this line in the wizard entry:

Like other spellcasters, a wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table: The Wizard.Emphasis added.

This argument has also been used against the 15-minute adventuring day. Your mileage may vary, but it is a good thing to keep in mind as a DM should the DM want to stop a player who tries to pull a persisted time stop to prepare new spells.

Koury
2010-06-21, 06:02 AM
This argument has also been used against the 15-minute adventuring day. Your mileage may vary, but it is a good thing to keep in mind as a DM should the DM want to stop a player who tries to pull a persisted time stop to prepare new spells.

I'd just like to pipe in and say that a 'per day' ability needing 24 hours between uses, and not simply 8 hours of rest, is silly.

Bob the Wizard can use Abrupt Jaunt 4/day and cast 3 spells per day.
7:03 AM - Casts spell
8:46 AM - Uses Abrupt Jaunt
11:18 AM - Casts spell
11:19 AM - Uses Abrupt Jaunt
11:19 AM - Uses Abrupt Jaunt
12:32 PM - Casts spell
10:10 PM - Completes preparation of spells after resting 8 hours
11:52 PM - Tries to Abrupt Jaunt but can't! It hasn't been 24 hours since his first use!
11:53 PM - Tries to cast spell but can't! It hasn't been 24 hours since his first use!

I'm pretty sure thats not the way it works.

Telonius
2010-06-21, 08:59 AM
Regardless, the Time Stop issue is just one out of a mountain of others. It's like saying your Viking-Ninja-Pirate with a Tyrannosaurus Robot pet can't have laser beams attached to its pet's head.

EvilJoe15
2010-06-21, 09:19 AM
Many thanks everyone. I think I get it now.

Emmerask
2010-06-21, 09:38 AM
My personal favorite is to persist it so you can stop in the middle of the fight to replace all of your spell slots for the day.

Even pre Errata there is one little problem, Time stop does not actually stop time :smallwink:
it just makes you incredibly fast ie you get 1d4+1 rounds for every round the enemy gets... or you can make 30sec (max) of actions during a 6 sec round... after that however your enemies turn starts...
so even if you persist it you can´t rest because every 30 sec your enemies can smack away at you :smallwink:
which during an 8 hour rest means they can attack you 960 times :smalltongue:

Rothen
2010-06-21, 09:52 AM
it just makes you incredibly fast ie you get 1d4+1 rounds for every round the enemy gets... or you can make 30sec (max) of actions during a 6 sec round... after that however your enemies turn starts...
so even if you persist it you can´t rest because every 30 sec your enemies can smack away at you :smallwink:
which during an 8 hour rest means they can attack you 960 times :smalltongue:

The point is that persisting gives you more than 5 rounds max. Thus giving you time to resist. (Read up on the Persist Spell feat, it explains most of it.)

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-21, 09:54 AM
I'd just like to pipe in and say that a 'per day' ability needing 24 hours between uses, and not simply 8 hours of rest, is silly.

It may be silly, but that's the official definition.

Emmerask
2010-06-21, 10:00 AM
Then it makes your movements and body functions so fast that you basically explode the moment you cast it (physics work for the most part normally in d&d). ie 24h worth of motion/body functions in 6 secs, yep you are dead (every single bone broken, heart and lungs exploded, muscles ripped apart etc):smallbiggrin:

Fax Celestis
2010-06-21, 10:23 AM
Then it makes your movements and body functions so fast that you basically explode the moment you cast it (physics work for the most part normally in d&d). ie 24h worth of motion/body functions in 6 secs, yep you are dead (every single bone broken, heart and lungs exploded, muscles ripped apart etc):smallbiggrin:

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagic.

The Glyphstone
2010-06-21, 10:26 AM
(physics work for the most part normally in d&d except when magic says otherwise.

Fixed that for you. See also: Fireball lets you be 20 feet and 0.000001 millimeters away from the impact point and suffer no damage, or even feel the heat of the explosion. Fly and Feather Fall tell gravity to sit down and shut up. 3.X Haste doesn't age you prematurely.

Fluff is not rules, as fun as it would be. Before the errata, you could legally persist Time Stop.

Rothen
2010-06-21, 10:28 AM
Before the errata, you could legally persist Time Stop.

What errata? A poster on the first page claimed that there is nothing of the sort in the CArc errata.

The Glyphstone
2010-06-21, 10:29 AM
What errata? A poster on the first page claimed that there is nothing of the sort in the CArc errata.

It wouldn't be in the CArc, Time Stop is a PHB spell. Then again, the errata might not actually exist, though I always thought it did.

EDIT: It was in an FAQ apparently, so it's not actually official. RAI/RABalanced, but the sort of person who's going to persist Time Stop in the first place isn't going to let little things like balance stop them.

Emmerask
2010-06-21, 10:33 AM
It should be in the errata for persist not time stop I guess

/edit: edit ninja´d :smallsmile:

Rothen
2010-06-21, 10:44 AM
The possibilities with a Persisted Timestop are virtually endless. It deserves its own thread, if you ask me.

Draz74
2010-06-21, 10:46 AM
EDIT: It was in an FAQ apparently,

Finally someone gets it right.

Yes, Time Stop was ruled to be Instantaneous duration (IIRC), and specifically called out as being un-Persistable, in the FAQ. Which aren't official, but this is one entry that any sane DM should certainly adopt.

Oslecamo
2010-06-21, 10:51 AM
The possibilities with a Persisted Timestop are virtually endless. It deserves its own thread, if you ask me.

Indeed, a persisted time stop means that your extra 1d4+1 rounds take one whole day to complete... Meaning your oponent has literally all the time in the world to smack you down while you move exxxtttrrraaaa slow.:smallamused:

Plus, since when aren't Faq's official?:smallconfused:

No wonder 3.5 has such a bad reputation if people just read the version it's more suitable to them.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-21, 10:55 AM
1. No, the FAQ is not official. It's one guy giving his interpretations, and he specifically contradicts RAW in a number of places, intentionally or not.

2. Persist Spell changes the Duration line of a spell from whatever it is, to 24 hours. The Duration line of Time Stop refers only to apparent time, not real time, so that is what is changed. This RAW, not an interpretation. If Time Stop listed a duration of Instantaneous (real time); 1d4+1 rounds (apparent time), you'd have an argument, but as is, you are incorrect, by RAW.

Oslecamo
2010-06-21, 11:33 AM
2. Persist Spell changes the Duration line of a spell from whatever it is, to 24 hours. The Duration line of Time Stop refers only to apparent time, not real time, so that is what is changed. This RAW, not an interpretation. If Time Stop listed a duration of Instantaneous (real time); 1d4+1 rounds (apparent time), you'd have an argument, but as is, you are incorrect, by RAW.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're leaving out parts of the text, so your interpretation is the one incorrect by RAW.

Duration: 1d4+1 rounds (apparent time); see text

Time stop clearly tells you that it has a special duration and you should consult the text for details. The text then says it all happens in an instant actualy. This is open to interpretation, and that's where the FAQ steps in to clarify it as an actual instantaneous effect.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-21, 11:35 AM
That doesn't make it Duration: Instantaneous though, and neither does the FAQ. An Errata could have, but didn't.

Does your interpretation/houserule make massively more sense? Yes. Would it be absolutely retarded to play by RAW? Yes. Does that make your interpretation RAW? No.

Sliver
2010-06-21, 12:07 PM
Oh, it's a simple issue. Let's say that the Duration of Time Stop is 1 round, since you cast it, do your new actions, and then it's over.

Applying Persist spell to it, we have a Time Stop that lasts 24 hours instead of a single round. That is, within those 24 hours, you have 1d4+1 extra rounds you can use in apparent time.

Now seriously, the rules don't state Instantaneous in the spell description either. The "see text" only tells you that it basically works as if time frozen and for others it might seem instantaneous. But it's not, otherwise you wouldn't be hurt by stuff like fire, since it produces energy over time and if time is stopped, no energy is produced.

So yeah, you theoretically can persist it, and dealing with it is a houserule that a DM has to make. Also, if you use it to recharge and change spells, you are just immune to everything until you die of old age before your actual time... Since you just keep that obscure spell that lets you get a normal action out of turn and you can always have a persisted time stop ready, it's just a boring quick aging "I win" and... No body is going to do it.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-21, 12:21 PM
Oh, it's a simple issue. Let's say that the Duration of Time Stop is 1 round, since you cast it, do your new actions, and then it's over.

Applying Persist spell to it, we have a Time Stop that lasts 24 hours instead of a single round. That is, within those 24 hours, you have 1d4+1 extra rounds you can use in apparent time.

Now seriously, the rules don't state Instantaneous in the spell description either. The "see text" only tells you that it basically works as if time frozen and for others it might seem instantaneous. But it's not, otherwise you wouldn't be hurt by stuff like fire, since it produces energy over time and if time is stopped, no energy is produced.

So yeah, you theoretically can persist it, and dealing with it is a houserule that a DM has to make. Also, if you use it to recharge and change spells, you are just immune to everything until you die of old age before your actual time... Since you just keep that obscure spell that lets you get a normal action out of turn and you can always have a persisted time stop ready, it's just a boring quick aging "I win" and... Anybody who isn't worthy of several words we probably shouldn't say on these boards is going to do it.

Fixed it for you. There are peopole who would use this. There was a player in my 4e DM's last campaign (Which was 3.5 by the way) who would have pulled something like this. There was also a DM on these boards who had a player that tried to pull Punpun.

while most players won't do this, there are at least a few who would.

EvilJoe15
2010-06-21, 12:22 PM
I would, and probably will.

Emmerask
2010-06-21, 12:28 PM
Starting an arms race against the dm is never a good idea, mainly because you can not ever win it :smallwink:

Chen
2010-06-21, 12:34 PM
Even if we let Persist work on Time Stop, it changes the duration to 24 hours. Not 24 hours (apparent time). Its not even clear what the spell would do with a duration in real time anyways. There's no way, by RAW, to assume it gives you 24 hours of apparent time.

Sliver
2010-06-21, 12:34 PM
Starting an arms race against the dm is never a good idea, mainly because you can not ever win it :smallwink:

But you sure can ruin the fun for everybody in the process...

EvilJoe15
2010-06-21, 12:37 PM
Well actually I'm GMing an epic game over on Myth-weavers, and I think a persisted Time-stop would be great.

taltamir
2010-06-21, 12:43 PM
Then it makes your movements and body functions so fast that you basically explode the moment you cast it (physics work for the most part normally in d&d).

no they don't... D&D has absolutely nothing to do with real physics... and living creatures might be based on chemistry and physics IRL but in DnD they run on positive energy.

If real physics was introduced to DnD world then over 90% of its inhabitants will spontaneously die.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-21, 12:47 PM
Well actually I'm GMing an epic game over on Myth-weavers, and I think a persisted Time-stop would be great.

Well, if you as a GM would allow it that'd be fine. I meant more along the lines of players who pull this on their GMs out of nowhere.

QuantumSteve
2010-06-21, 12:49 PM
No, the FAQ is not official.

You mean this FAQ?

Official D&D Game Rule FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)


Well actually I'm GMing an epic game over on Myth-weavers, and I think a persisted Time-stop would be great.

Then you can houserule it. :smallsmile:

2xMachina
2010-06-21, 01:00 PM
You mean this FAQ?

Official D&D Game Rule FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)



But not RAW.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-21, 01:05 PM
But not RAW.

Doesn't the person also contradict himself several times?

Emmerask
2010-06-21, 01:07 PM
no they don't... D&D has absolutely nothing to do with real physics... and living creatures might be based on chemistry and physics IRL but in DnD they run on positive energy.

If real physics was introduced to DnD world then over 90% of its inhabitants will spontaneously die.

I think it was in the dmg which specifically states that so by raw it does :smalltongue:

QuantumSteve
2010-06-21, 01:14 PM
But not RAW.

If Official WOTC material isn't RAW, what is?

Mystic Muse
2010-06-21, 01:15 PM
If Official WOTC material isn't RAW, what is?

Personally, I don't even follow errata, or use several of the normal PHB classes, so I'm not going to listen to one specific guy telling me how to play my games.

Exarch
2010-06-21, 01:25 PM
I'm not sure where people are getting that a Persisted Time Stop makes the wizard act 1d4+1 rounds for the day. The Duration is 1d4 +1 (apparent time), the Persistence would make it 24 hours (apparent time), would it not as that is the Duration given? So wouldn't the wizard spend a day in that 6 seconds that everyone else is standing around going "uhh, wut?"

Draz74
2010-06-21, 01:28 PM
If Official WOTC material isn't RAW, what is?

Published sourcebooks and errata.

QuantumSteve
2010-06-21, 01:34 PM
Published sourcebooks and errata.

So published clarifications are not RAW? Why, then, is errata RAW?


I'm not sure where people are getting that a Persisted Time Stop makes the wizard act 1d4+1 rounds for the day. The Duration is 1d4 +1 (apparent time), the Persistence would make it 24 hours (apparent time), would it not as that is the Duration given? So wouldn't the wizard spend a day in that 6 seconds that everyone else is standing around going "uhh, wut?"

Two reasons.
1: Persist changes the duration of a spell to "24 hrs." not "24 hrs. (apparent time)

2: Persist does not change the text of a spell, so regardless of how long Time Stop lasts, the Wizard can only act for 1d4+1 rounds as per the text.

sofawall
2010-06-21, 01:50 PM
Errata is taking what is in the book and changing it. It's like crossing it out and writing in the errata'd version. As far as the errata cares, that is now how the book reads.

QuantumSteve
2010-06-21, 01:57 PM
Errata is taking what is in the book and changing it. It's like crossing it out and writing in the errata'd version. As far as the errata cares, that is now how the book reads.

The FAQ is taking what is in the book and clarifying it. It's like explaining the vague and muddied specifics. As far as the FAQ cares, that is now how the book should be interpreted.

EvilJoe15
2010-06-21, 01:58 PM
That makes it RAI, not RAW.

QuantumSteve
2010-06-21, 02:05 PM
That makes it RAI, not RAW.

No, RAI is "Rules as Intended" The FAQ makes interpretations (in a similar fashion to how a DM would interpret) of some potentially confusing "Rules as Written".

Mystic Muse
2010-06-21, 02:06 PM
No, RAI is "Rules as Intended" The FAQ makes interpretations (in a similar fashion to how a DM would interpret) of some potentially confusing "Rules as Written".

And, despite what WOTC might say, they're no more RAW than the rulings on this board.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-21, 02:06 PM
But despite being "official", in that the Sage was writing for Wizards, they are interpretations, many of which are wrong by RAW.

hamishspence
2010-06-21, 02:06 PM
"Rules as Interpreted" so to speak- by The Sage.

Koury
2010-06-21, 02:07 PM
Regardless, the Time Stop issue is just one out of a mountain of others. It's like saying your Viking-Ninja-Pirate with a Tyrannosaurus Robot pet can't have laser beams attached to its pet's head.

If by that you mean "Defeats the whole purpose," then yes.

Seriously, those things are worthless without the lasers. :smallannoyed:

Rothen
2010-06-21, 02:07 PM
That's a discussion you'll have to hold with other people. RAW is simply defined that way, always has been.


FAQ is not RAW.

The quote demands it.

sofawall
2010-06-21, 02:09 PM
You know, being the guy who wrote some of the rules, at least a couple of his entries are probably rules as intended, too.

QuantumSteve
2010-06-21, 02:11 PM
The quote demands it.

Now, see, if I just knew where to find that quote. I checked the FAQ and didn't see it.

Edit:
Also,

And, despite what WOTC might say, they're no more RAW than the rulings on this board.

Except WOTC published 3.x, so I think that gives them a little more say on the definition of what is and is not RAW.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-21, 02:17 PM
1. Unless specified otherwise, the original printing of material is correct.

2. FAQ does not specify otherwise; these are supposed to be explanations of RAW, not changes to them.

3. Errata does specify otherwise, as do the various Compendiums.

Thus, if the FAQ contradicts RAW (which it does often), it is meaningless; he got it wrong. When the FAQ says something new, then that is an interpretation, but not RAW, because an addition to the text would be a change, which the FAQ does not do. The FAQ does not in any way change RAW. He's either wrong, houseruling, or stating what RAW already says.

The Duration: of Time Stop as affected by Persist Spell is 1d4+1 rounds.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-21, 02:19 PM
Except WOTC published 3.x, so I think that gives them a little more say on the definition of what is and is not RAW.

Yes, but not when the guy outright contradicts the rules and contradicts his own rulings.

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-21, 02:24 PM
I'd just like to pipe in and say that a 'per day' ability needing 24 hours between uses, and not simply 8 hours of rest, is silly.

Bob the Wizard can use Abrupt Jaunt 4/day and cast 3 spells per day.
7:03 AM - Casts spell
8:46 AM - Uses Abrupt Jaunt
11:18 AM - Casts spell
11:19 AM - Uses Abrupt Jaunt
11:19 AM - Uses Abrupt Jaunt
12:32 PM - Casts spell
10:10 PM - Completes preparation of spells after resting 8 hours
11:52 PM - Tries to Abrupt Jaunt but can't! It hasn't been 24 hours since his first use!
11:53 PM - Tries to cast spell but can't! It hasn't been 24 hours since his first use!

I'm pretty sure thats not the way it works.

I agree for normal play. As I said, it's one of those things to keep in mind as a DM though, since it's good for shutting people down when they're too cheesy. Not that the DM needs a reason.:smallbiggrin:

Kind of sucks for clerics though that his wizard buddy can just sleep for 8 hours instead of waiting for a specific time of day, but I guess clerics have a lot of other things going for them.

sofawall
2010-06-21, 02:26 PM
Except WOTC published 3.x, so I think that gives them a little more say on the definition of what is and is not RAW.

You are totally, completely and utterly missing the point. The writers may be able to say RAI. In fact, nobody else can. They, however, can no more redefine RAW than you or me (unless they release an errata, I guess).

QuantumSteve
2010-06-21, 02:37 PM
1. Unless specified otherwise, the original printing of material is correct.

2. FAQ does not specify otherwise; these are supposed to be explanations of RAW, not changes to them.

3. Errata does specify otherwise, as do the various Compendiums.

I accept your premises.


Thus, if the FAQ contradicts RAW (which it does often), it is meaningless; he got it wrong.

I'll buy that.


When the FAQ says something new, then that is an interpretation, but not RAW, because an addition to the text would be a change, which the FAQ does not do. The FAQ does not in any way change RAW

I have to disagree on this. The FAQ is still an Official Document publish by WOTC. If The FAQ flatly contradicts a primary source, then the primary source is correct. But if the FAQ offers something new, the "primary source vs secondary source" argument does not apply. The FAQ exists as an Official interpretation of RAW, after all.

sofawall
2010-06-21, 02:41 PM
The FAQ exists as an Official interpretation of RAW, after all.

So what you are saying is that it is not RAW, but an interpretation of RAW?

In other words, exactly what we all have been saying?

DragoonWraith
2010-06-21, 02:42 PM
The addition of a new rule is a change. In this case, he adds an additional duration to Time Stop that did not exist previously. That changes the way the spell behaves, as per this entire discussion. The FAQ is explicitly not errata and cannot do that.

Effectively, if what he says changes anything, then he is wrong.

QuantumSteve
2010-06-21, 03:02 PM
So what you are saying is that it is not RAW, but an interpretation of RAW?

In other words, exactly what we all have been saying?

RAW is meaningless if one does not interpret how it affects the game. So, in a way, the FAQ is more important than RAW. (In a way)


The addition of a new rule is a change. In this case, he adds an additional duration to Time Stop that did not exist previously. That changes the way the spell behaves, as per this entire discussion. The FAQ is explicitly not errata and cannot do that.

Effectively, if what he says changes anything, then he is wrong.

I did not see a ruling on Time Stop in the FAQ, so I can't speak to that instance; however, in general:

1. RAW can be interpreted in several ways.

2. Not every interpretation can be valid. One must be right.

3. The FAQ is an Official interpretation of RAW

So, while the FAQ can't actually change RAW, it can interpret what RAW means.

sofawall
2010-06-21, 03:26 PM
1. RAW can be interpreted in several ways.

2. Not every interpretation can be valid. One must be right.

3. The FAQ is an Official interpretation of RAW

So, while the FAQ can't actually change RAW, it can interpret what RAW means.

And yet the FAQ still gets things wrong.

QuantumSteve
2010-06-21, 03:31 PM
And yet the FAQ still gets things wrong.

The Sage is only human. The can and does err. However, RAW is rife errors as well, so I don't really see much difference whose errors you abide by. But at least the Sage tries to make some sense out of RAW. Most of the errata deals only with typos and list discrepancies.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-21, 03:43 PM
I did not see a ruling on Time Stop in the FAQ, so I can't speak to that instance; however, in general:

1. RAW can be interpreted in several ways.

2. Not every interpretation can be valid. One must be right.

3. The FAQ is an Official interpretation of RAW

So, while the FAQ can't actually change RAW, it can interpret what RAW means.
If something is ambiguous, the Sage can only offer his own interpretation; this interpretation is a possible indicator of RAI, but it is not RAW.

If something is not ambiguous, then he either can explain it correctly or incorrectly, but in neither case does RAW change.

Time Stop very particularly has a listed Duration that is not Instantaneous (indeed, the spell would not function with an Instantaneous duration, even if it claimed "1d4+1 rounds (apparent time)/Instantaneous (real time)", this would result in a spell that simply does not work), making it eligible for Persist Spell and giving the effect of Persist Spell on that Duration. This is the RAW of the matter, and the FAQ cannot change that.

Bayar
2010-06-21, 03:44 PM
The Sage is only human. The can and does err. However, RAW is rife errors as well, so I don't really see much difference whose errors you abide by. But at least the Sage tries to make some sense out of RAW. Most of the errata deals only with typos and list discrepancies.

One is published in a nice book, or in case of eratta's, placed in a nice PDF (most of the times). Those are RAW.

The Sage and FAQ, they are official, but if they are not published in the same way as the other RAW material is, then they are simply RAI.

QuantumSteve
2010-06-21, 04:08 PM
One is published in a nice book, or in case of eratta's, placed in a nice PDF (most of the times). Those are RAW.

The Sage and FAQ, they are official, but if they are not published in the same way as the other RAW material is, then they are simply RAI.

Although Skip's column is not, the FAQ is published in a nice PDF.


If something is ambiguous, the Sage can only offer his own interpretation; this interpretation is a possible indicator of RAI, but it is not RAW.

RAW and RAI overlap, a lot (as one would expect) Furthermore, RAW must be interpreted by someone. Seeing as how the Sage (Skip not Andy) co-wrote the RAW, as long as it's not contrary to RAW, his interpretation is more right than random DMs'.

As far as Time Stop goes, let's go ahead and call the Sage's interpretation contrary. (Extending/Persisting Time Stop doesn't work the way one might think for an entirely different reason)

DragoonWraith
2010-06-21, 04:12 PM
Skip's interpretation is valuable in that he is a person with a lot of experience with the system and who also potentially has access to the authors for the purposes of determining RAI. However, he is still one person writing his own personal interpretations; though he is published on Wizards' website, there is no oversight on his interpretations, which is a marked difference from a published book.

nargbop
2010-06-21, 06:09 PM
And no one loves Maximized Spell Turning. Sigh. I swear, irresistable Plane Shift? What about Maximized Teleport? Can you dig the XP gained from being sent to the worst possible place, every single day? What about Maximized Pristmatic Sphere?
Come on, Time Stop is mundane, and, more importantly, has already been argued to death and back. Now, give me a Explosive Locate City Bomb or a Transdimensional Etherealness!

2xMachina
2010-06-22, 01:14 AM
Cooperative metamagic Invisible Spell on True Resurrection for lulz?