Is Iron Heart Surge a problem?

[shadow_archmagi]

Last week I was talking with some friends and they were saying how broken Iron Heart Surge was because you could stop water from being wet etc etc. I did what my DM had always taught me to do in such situations, and kicked them in the shins really hard.

Yes yes yes I know the stupid semantical argument of it.

What I'm asking is whether this was a discussion that needed to be had. Has anyone ever played a game where the DM consistently let another player, I don't know, extinguish the sun? I just can't imagine this actually coming up often enough to be a problem.

[Malachei]

This is not official, but you'll not get official errata for ToB from WOTC anymore, anyway, so this may be of use for you:


Page 68 - Iron Heart Surge [Clarification]
Iron Heart Surge is capable of removing any one of the following conditions each time it is initiated:
Blinded, Confused, Dazzled, Deafened, Energy Drained, Entangled, Exhausted, Fatigued, Flat-Footed, Frightened, Immobilized, Knocked Down, Nauseated, On Fire, Prone, Shaken, Sickened, Slowed, Staggered, Turned.
Any spell/power, spell-like/psi-like ability or supernatural ability with a duration lasting longer than one round, provided you are either being targeted by the spell or are within the spell's radius.
Any racial trait currently affecting the initiator (such as Light Sensitivity or a vampire's weakness to sunlight). The source of this detriment is not removed, only the condition caused by the racial trait.
Any extraordinary ability currently affecting the initiator (such as the Frenzy ability of a Frenzied Berserker, or the "Bleeding Wounds" inflicted by certain creatures).
Any ability hindering the initiator caused by an item (alchemical, mundane, magical, or otherwise), such as a caltrop wound.
Any effect not listed above is outside of Iron Heart Surge's range of influence. These conditions cannot be removed, even if their source is a spell's effect or similar ability (such as being dazed by a psionic power, or being affected by a bard's Fascinate ability).

Additionally, some effects can be reinstated at any point during the rest of the round, after you have initiated Iron Heart Surge (for example, a vampire's weakness to sunlight will reinstate its effects at the end of the vampire's turn, unless he uses his move action to exit the sunlight. The move action would be possible immediately after initiating Iron Heart Surge).

In case of Iron Heart Surge affecting a spell or other ability that affects an area (such as the web spell), the entire effect is ended for everyone involved when Iron Heart Surge resolves.

[Ernir]

Yes, IHS is a problem. It's twofold, really.

The maneuver doesn't define well what it can end. You can extrapolate, but it leads to weird places. The maneuver is not easily usable in conditions you would expect it to, such as when you are stunned or paralyzed.
The mechanics of the thing are barely usable. It's not just a question of the DM "letting the player get away with things".

[Tenno Seremel]

Alternatively you can say that it will only work against non-mundane effects targeted directly at you provided you know enough to use IHS and have a free will to do so (i.e. no "I negate domination over me" things). No AMF negation, no sun stops working, no nothing :} Because, really, if ongoing effect is not on you… you a just freeing yourself for a fraction of a second and become affected again.

[IdleMuse]

As a player, I'd be perfectly happy to let my DM rule on a instance-by-instance basis what it affected.

[Cicciograna]

Unofficial ToB Errata
Where does this come from?

[Malachei]

Where does this come from?

Unofficial ToB Errata from BG. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13292.0)

I don't agree with all of it, but it is still a great help.

[FearlessGnome]

[Unofficial Errata]

For all the attention that must have gone into that, it still bugs me that it lets a level 5 warblade walk into the area of an epic spell and just end it. And even without discussing epic effects, there are some spells that just have no business being taken out by a 3rd level maneuver. A 20th level Shadowcaster who's invested a few feats can pull a 1 mile radius chunk of the Plane of Shadow into the prime (or where ever they are), effectively creating a supernatural maze that swallows up both sides in a large scale battle for 1 day/2 caster levels. Can't be dispelled. Even Disjunction will just carve out a small area, leaving the rest of it untouched. But a fifth level Warblade can apparently take out as many as they like a day.

[Dusk Eclipse]

For all the attention that must have gone into that, it still bugs me that it lets a level 5 warblade walk into the area of an epic spell and just end it. And even without discussing epic effects, there are some spells that just have no business being taken out by a 3rd level maneuver. A 20th level Shadowcaster who's invested a few feats can pull a 1 mile radius chunk of the Plane of Shadow into the prime (or where ever they are), effectively creating a supernatural maze that swallows up both sides in a large scale battle for 1 day/2 caster levels. Can't be dispelled. Even Disjunction will just carve out a small area, leaving the rest of it untouched. But a fifth level Warblade can apparently take out as many as they like a day.

I think that would be covered by this clarification:
Additionally, some effects can be reinstated at any point during the rest of the round, after you have initiated Iron Heart Surge (for example, a vampire's weakness to sunlight will reinstate its effects at the end of the vampire's turn, unless he uses his move action to exit the sunlight. The move action would be possible immediately after initiating Iron Heart Surge).

[Myth]

I don't agree about the FB frenzy.


While frenzied, the character cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Intimidate), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration, nor can she cast spells, drink potions, activate magic items, or read scrolls. She can use any feat she has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, or metamagic feats. She can use her special ability to inspire frenzy (see below) normally. During a frenzy, the frenzied berserker must attack those she perceives as foes to the best of her ability.\

No way Is IHS activate-able during those conditions.

[Gnaeus]

The simpler, but less precise version that I would use is more like:

Any effect that you could imagine an epic barbarian like Conan or John Carter of Mars shaking off by virtue of their immense strength, cat like reflexes, or indomitable will can be ended by Iron Heart Surge.

If the effect in question denies the target actions (like paralysis) or limits him to move actions, it can still be ended by Iron Heart Surge on the initiators normal initiative, but it costs the initiator his next full round of actions.

Can Conan make water not wet or the sun not shine? If not, then neither can IHS.

[lorddrake]

Can Conan make water not wet or the sun not shine? If not, then neither can IHS.

I think averyone here agrees that it is what it was meant to be (RAI) but the text is very unclear (RAW).

I guess any DM with a little common sense won't let the players stop the sunshine. I, as a DM, would rule it as a case-by-case basis. Mostly because my group is more into fun and silly I might let them stop water's ability to be wet.

It would be fun... in a twisted way...

[Hirax]

I'm not keen on IHS being able to end things like dimensional lock and AMF personally. I'd be fine with it allowing you to temporarily ignore them, but ending them with no check doesn't seem appropriate.

[Godskook]

IHS, by my reading of RAW, only works on things with a duration measured in rounds. For durations measured in longer units, or for ones with unspecified duration, players are abusing a rule that isn't actually there.

See metabreath feats for precedence on the game actually caring about what unit a duration is measured in.

[ericgrau]

I'm not keen on IHS being able to end things like dimensional lock and AMF personally. I'd be fine with it allowing you to temporarily ignore them, but ending them with no check doesn't seem appropriate.

That's true even if you don't IHS the sun the RAI ability to IHS away a room magically warded with X is a load of bull. But then again ToB in general never made much sense to me as popular as it may be. Needs some re-fluffing and DM decisions on what works and what doesn't.

EDIT: The round limit duration prevents most such things but mainly by coincidence. I'm sure there are some round/level things that don't make sense too and some minute/level things that would make sense. Are you telling me you can't IHS a ray of enfeeblement, the biggest anti-melee debuff starting at level 1??

[The-Mage-King]

IHS is not a problem, grasshopper.


It is a solution.[/OldMentor]

[Taelas]

Unofficial ToB Errata from BG. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13292.0)

I don't agree with all of it, but it is still a great help.

Brilliant Gameologists moved (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=335.0).

This is more up to date as a result.

[LordBlades]

I don't agree about the FB frenzy.

\

No way Is IHS activate-able during those conditions.

Well, IHS also gives you +2 to attack, so using it while in frenzy does improve your ability to attack.

By RAW it works, RAI is debatable, but it ultimately depends on how much the DM wants to screw the FB over.

[Myth]

Ending your greater bonuses of the Frenzy to get the lesser bonus of +2 attack? Nope.

Also, I don't have ToB in front of me, but wasn't it an either/or case with IHS ending the sun or giving you a +2?

edit: It's not a matter of screwing. I've allowed much stronger PrCs and stuff fly in my games than Frenzied Berzerkers (though I do like them a lot!). However when in a Frenzy the DM takes over the character until the effect ends. As the DM I'd play him/her like any other NPC. If only the party is around, the optimal way to play is to still keep Frenzy up and go hit something.

[Roderick_BR]

As a general rule, it can only end effects with temporary duration, so no, you can't stop the sun from shining (classic example), unless you can confirm that it is an "effect" AND that it'll eventually end.

Ironically, you could use it to get out of a normal hold person, but not paralizy from a Lich's touch, since it's permanent untill dispelled, therefore not temporary.

Just assume that "temporary" is anything with an exact time limit, and you are set.

[Myth]

So you can IHS out of Maze or even The Lady of Pain's special Maze, but not Imprisonment?

[LordBlades]

Ending your greater bonuses of the Frenzy to get the lesser bonus of +2 attack? Nope.

Also, I don't have ToB in front of me, but wasn't it an either/or case with IHS ending the sun or giving you a +2?

I recall it being +2 to attack after you end 1 effect (away from books as well atm).
Also, Frenzy/Range come with a bunch of penalties (-to AC for example) so in some circumstances ending it might actually be the superior option to attack the enemy.


edit: It's not a matter of screwing. I've allowed much stronger PrCs and stuff fly in my games than Frenzied Berzerkers (though I do like them a lot!). However when in a Frenzy the DM takes over the character until the effect ends. As the DM I'd play him/her like any other NPC. If only the party is around, the optimal way to play is to still keep Frenzy up and go hit something.

Nowhere does it say the DM takes control of the character in Frenzy. You deciding that is just messing with the player.

[Acanous]

a FB with IHS is scary indeed. You can IHS while frenzied, meaning your friends can't just hit you with hold person or entangle.

[Morph Bark]

This is not official, but you'll not get official errata for ToB from WOTC anymore, anyway, so this may be of use for you:

Swallowed Whole is an extraordinairy ability that can currently be affecting you.

Say it with me: Iron... Heart... SUUURGE!!

[FearlessGnome]

Swallowed Whole is an extraordinairy ability that can currently be affecting you.

Say it with me: Iron... Heart... SUUURGE!!

All the points. You may have them.

[Big Fau]

Swallowed Whole is an extraordinairy ability that can currently be affecting you.

Say it with me: Iron... Heart... SUUURGE!!

Swallow Whole is considered grappling. You cannot initiate maneuvers while grappling (except stances).

[Hiro Protagonest]

Swallow Whole is considered grappling. You cannot initiate maneuvers while grappling (except stances).

Where does it say that? I checked the "initiating maneuvers and stances" section.

[DeltaEmil]

Some people think that being grappled prevents you from moving (unless you win the grapple check), and therefore, you cannot initiate maneuvers or stances. However, the unclearness regarding grapple and the line in the ToB is a point of discussion that has no clear answers for now.

[Morph Bark]

Some people think that being grappled prevents you from moving (unless you win the grapple check), and therefore, you cannot initiate maneuvers or stances. However, the unclearness regarding grapple and the line in the ToB is a point of discussion that has no clear answers for now.

Correct. Page 39: "Enemy interference might make certain maneuvers impossible to complete. For example, if an enemy who readied an action to trip you when you started your turn knocks you prone, you would not be able to use a maneuver that required you to charge. Similarly, if you begin your turn grappled or pinned, you might find that most of the maneuvers available to you simply won't be of any use until you get free."

Iron Heart Surge does not require physical movement. It gets worse from here.

Valkyries get martial maneuvers inherently known. What if one is pregnant? The baby is a valkyrie. There are no stats specifically for a baby valkyrie, so you use the valkyrie stats (perhaps scaled back about halfway, reasonable enough). Pregnancy is sort-of-kind-of like Swallow Whole (both are "you are inside another creature"). What if it has Iron Heart Surge?

The baby Iron Heart Surges itself out of the womb.

[Slayn82]

This is how i imagine Iron Heart Surge working in game. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrk9JtZhc1o)

[dgnslyr]

This is how i imagine Iron Heart Surge working in game. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrk9JtZhc1o)

Wait, why is this video questionably dubbed?
*checks Slayn82's location*
Oh.

Also, dem special effects, dat haircut. :smallbiggrin:

[Tenno Seremel]

questionably dubbed
Unless Youtube implemented automatic language selection for sound it's Russian :}

[Morph Bark]

This is how i imagine Iron Heart Surge working in game. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrk9JtZhc1o)

What is the title of that movie? I think I'd like to see the original undubbed English version.

[molten_dragon]

Iron heart surge can cause some issues if RAW is adhered to slavishly, due to the vague nature of how it's written. It will lead to being able to end things you probably shouldn't be allowed to, and not able to end things (stun, daze, domination, etc.) that you probably should.

If your DM is sensible, then you won't have any issues at all.

[Curmudgeon]

If you're having a problem with Iron Heart Surge, there is a remedy ─ based on grammar and precedent elsewhere in the D&D rules.

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. So you can Surge out of a tanglefoot bag (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#tanglefootBag), which stays sticky for 2d4 rounds, but not out of a lava flow, which doesn't have a duration. You also can't cancel some impediment with a duration not expressed in rounds, such as poison (ability damage lasting 1 day per point).

The D&D rules really do make this distinction between the units used for various effects.

Metabreath Feats, Draconomicon 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.
Breath weapon says "once every 10 rounds"? Eligible. Breath weapon that says "once every minute"? Not eligible. Are they the same amount of time? Absolutely! And thus the picky attention to grammar with Iron Heart Surge.

[FearlessGnome]

If you're having a problem with Iron Heart Surge, there is a remedy ─ based on grammar and precedent elsewhere in the D&D rules.This sounds much more reasonable to me. But that's from an outsider perspective, never having played Warblade. I'm sure fans will want to be able to get rid of some of the lower level penalties that last longer.

[Curmudgeon]

This sounds much more reasonable to me. But that's from an outsider perspective, never having played Warblade. I'm sure fans will want to be able to get rid of some of the lower level penalties that last longer.
Fans will always want more power; that's not going to change. (Hey, I'm a big fan of the Rogue class, but my fandom isn't going to add stacking language to the Rogue's sneak attack description. You still have to acquire that by multiclassing with a class which does have stacking language for sneak attack.) If you're going to start talking about house rules, you might instead consider allowing Iron Heart Surge to work against conditions which prevent the martial adept from moving; you can't execute any maneuver when you can't move. I wouldn't budge on effects that don't have a duration expressed in rounds, because that way leads to madness (Surge a lava flow out of existence, for instance.)

[Tenno Seremel]

and not able to end things (stun, daze, domination, etc.) that you probably should.

You don't have free will in 1 case and can't act in others. How would you do it?

[Viktyr Gehrig]

You don't have free will in 1 case and can't act in others. How would you do it?

Iron Heart Surge is an act of pure willpower and determination. Being stunned or dominated is for weak, civilized men.

[ericgrau]

This is how i imagine Iron Heart Surge working in game. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrk9JtZhc1o)

Looks like a strength check to me. In fact considering that this was what the whole thing was about, I'm pretty sure it was a strength check. He took so long because it took a few rolls, if not taking a 20.

[molten_dragon]

Iron Heart Surge is an act of pure willpower and determination. Being stunned or dominated is for weak, civilized men.

What he said. And in the case of domination, you still clearly have free will, it's just being suppressed. Otherwise being forced to take actions against your nature wouldn't grant a new saving throw with a bonus and the spell would let your controller force you to commit suicide.

From a thematic perspective, it's fairly clear that the whole point of IHS is to allow you to end conditions that prevent you from acting normally. Not being able to end daze, stun, dominate, etc is counter to that theme.

And from a balance perspective, allowing a warblade to waste their precious standard action for a round to end a condition that a spellcaster has laid on them is hardly unbalanced.

[candycorn]

In anime, and other sources, you see people push off effects through act of will.

And then later, they are totally crushed by something that just laughs at their willpower.

IHS is that will.

Many effects can be forced off. But some things? Laugh at it. Hence, Stun can't be stopped.

[Tenno Seremel]

Iron Heart Surge
Initiation Action: 1 standard action

I wasn't aware of the fact you can take standard action while stunned unless it is directly specified that you can.


And in the case of domination, you still clearly have free will, it's just being suppressed.
That's quite a definition of free you have here…

EDIT: Also, if you failed a save vs mind-affecting effect you are unaware of the fact AFAIR.

[candycorn]

When magic is suppressed, it doesn't function. Same with free will. It rears up to react against orders that go against the very fibre of your being... But that's reactive. It doesn't peek out to take an action every now and again, although it may let you pervert an order that is unclearly worded.

"Kill your ally" - AoE effect that includes the ally and the dominator. Legal, and wily.

But an order to do nothing? Would stop you from IHSing.

An order to not take any action to end the domination effect, or allow the effect to happen through inaction... Well, only someone with an ethos of personal freedom (such as a paladin of freedom) would get an "against nature" save... and that would prevent IHS as well.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Fans will always want more power; that's not going to change. (Hey, I'm a big fan of the Rogue class, but my fandom isn't going to add stacking language to the Rogue's sneak attack description. You still have to acquire that by multiclassing with a class which does have stacking language for sneak attack.) If you're going to start talking about house rules, you might instead consider allowing Iron Heart Surge to work against conditions which prevent the martial adept from moving; you can't execute any maneuver when you can't move. I wouldn't budge on effects that don't have a duration expressed in rounds, because that way leads to madness (Surge a lava flow out of existence, for instance.)
Uh huh. I decided some time ago that I'd never game with you, but I'm going to argue anyway. Maze, Stinking Cloud and Cloudkill (but only for me, not ending it altogether), Solid Fog and Acid Fog (as the other two, but maybe not the acid damage), Baleful Polymorph, Resilient Sphere and Telekinetic Sphere and Wall of Force and Forcecage ("I punch through it!" Iron Heart Surge is a standard action, I can fluff it as a punch).

EDIT: Also, if you failed a save vs mind-affecting effect you are unaware of the fact AFAIR.

The DMG straight out states in the example for a vampire's Dominate Person that Lidda felt a force suppressing her will. And I think you'd be able to tell when someone casts Hold Person on you. Only Charm Person is iffy.

[molten_dragon]

When magic is suppressed, it doesn't function. Same with free will. It rears up to react against orders that go against the very fibre of your being... But that's reactive. It doesn't peek out to take an action every now and again, although it may let you pervert an order that is unclearly worded.

"Kill your ally" - AoE effect that includes the ally and the dominator. Legal, and wily.

But an order to do nothing? Would stop you from IHSing.

An order to not take any action to end the domination effect, or allow the effect to happen through inaction... Well, only someone with an ethos of personal freedom (such as a paladin of freedom) would get an "against nature" save... and that would prevent IHS as well.

Wait a sec here. You're arguing that IHS, which is clearly designed to end status effects, cannot be used to end domination, but just 'having an ethos of personal freedom' (which I could write into the backstory of every character I ever made) grants me an extra save against it? That's just ridiculous.

It's irrelevant anyway. I realize that by RAW you can't use iron heart surge when dominated. I'm not arguing RAW though. I don't feel the need to adhere to it slavishly when doing otherwise is more beneficial to my game.

[Hiro Protagonest]

In anime, and other sources, you see people push off effects through act of will.

And then later, they are totally crushed by something that just laughs at their willpower.

IHS is that will.

Many effects can be forced off. But some things? Laugh at it. Hence, Stun can't be stopped.

When does that happen?

No seriously, when does the hero in an anime fight someone who defeats them when they're alone? In One Piece, Luffy and Zoro are undoubtedly warblades. In Naruto, everyone is an arcane swordsage, except Lee, who's a warblade. I haven't read any Bleach yet, past the first volume at a bookstore.

[Tenno Seremel]

The DMG straight out states in the example for a vampire's Dominate Person that Lidda felt a force suppressing her will. And I think you'd be able to tell when someone casts Hold Person on you. Only Charm Person is iffy.

Well, SRD says on psionic powers:


Failing a Saving Throw against Mind-Affecting Powers

If you fail your save, you are unaware that you have been affected by a power.
It's either all mind-affecting effects are like that or at least psionic mind-affecting ones are.

[candycorn]

Wait a sec here. You're arguing that IHS, which is clearly designed to end status effects, cannot be used to end domination, but just 'having an ethos of personal freedom' (which I could write into the backstory of every character I ever made) grants me an extra save against it? That's just ridiculous.No, it's not, because it can't fit into every backstory. Personal freedom is first, the realm of the Chaotic alignment, and does not fit into lawful alignments.

Second, an ethos is a defining aspect of a character. It is the nature of the character. Just as a paladin will get a save if he's ordered to violate his paladin code, a champion of freedom will get one if he's ordered to submit to an order, or to force others to submit.

Think it's ridiculous all you like, but when a spell explicitly grants saves for acts going against a character's nature, then what that character's nature is DOES have bearing.


It's irrelevant anyway. I realize that by RAW you can't use iron heart surge when dominated. I'm not arguing RAW though. I don't feel the need to adhere to it slavishly when doing otherwise is more beneficial to my game.There's a difference between not adhering to the rules slavishly, and ignoring them whenever you don't like what they say. If we only follow the rules when we feel like it, they're not really rules, now are they?

It's irrelevant anyway. You realize that the rules do not allow for the actions you allow, so there is no disagreement. Whatever houserules you personally wish to use in your personal games? That's your personal business. They're not my cup of tea... But then, I'm not in your game, so I don't have a dog in that fight.

When does that happen?

No seriously, when does the hero in an anime fight someone who defeats them when they're alone? In One Piece, Luffy and Zoro are undoubtedly warblades. In Naruto, everyone is an arcane swordsage, except Lee, who's a warblade. I haven't read any Bleach yet, past the first volume at a bookstore.

Bleach actually has several scenes where Kenpachi completely paralyzes several people, including the main protagonist, just by being there.

Ichigo, the main protagonist, also gets defeated several times while alone. In addition, where does being alone have any bearing? Most PC's will be in a group with 3 others.


Well, SRD says on psionic powers:


It's either all mind-affecting effects are like that or at least psionic mind-affecting ones are.
There's a difference between being unaware that you're affected by a power, and unaware that something is WRONG. If you can't move, you're aware that SOMETHING is going on (after all, you have the option with Hold Person to attempt to end the effect. You couldn't ever take that option, unless you were aware that you were affected by SOMETHING).


A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack.If one were to fail, and felt a tingle, but couldn't deduce the nature of the attack, then it would meet all requirements of your quote (they would not know they were affected by something, but they would not know it was a spell/power, necessarily).

So, the rules leave leeway. There is a difference between not knowing that anything happened, and knowing something happened, but not that it's a power. And either could be interpreted from that.

[prufock]

IHS is written poorly. The unofficial errata is reasonable, but I think that it's only a "problem" to the extent that it's interpreted as broadly as it's written.

First of all, you need to specify what a "spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds."

"Conditions" are all laid out nicely in the official material. No problems there. Same with "spell."

"Effect" is a little more vague, but the second clause is important.

A "duration" to me implies that it is an effect listed in an official source somewhere with a duration. Being able to eliminate the atmosphere of the planet is not a reasonable use, because the atmosphere of a planet is not an effect with a listed duration (in fact it's not listed anywhere as an effect at all).

You could make the argument that anything that occurs has a duration, in simple English, but I'd counter that we aren't using simple English, we're using WotC published terminology.

Of course, this still makes it a very powerful ability.

[Tenno Seremel]

There's a difference between being unaware that you're affected by a power, and unaware that something is WRONG. If you can't move, you're aware that SOMETHING is going on (after all, you have the option with Hold Person to attempt to end the effect. You couldn't ever take that option, unless you were aware that you were affected by SOMETHING).
Hmm… Well, hold person is just a paralyze.

A paralyzed character cannot move, speak, or take any physical action. He is rooted to the spot, frozen and helpless. Not even
friends can move his limbs. He may take purely mental actions, such as casting a spell with no components.
so you definitely understand the fact you are paralyzed, true.

While dominated you think everything is ok and you are doing what you want to. It's only when you are forced to do thing against your nature you are like "What? I'm not doing those things." Otherwise it would be body control not mind control.

[Godskook]

If you're having a problem with Iron Heart Surge, there is a remedy ─ based on grammar and precedent elsewhere in the D&D rules.

Wait, I swordsage'ed Curmudgeon? Isn't that like pulling the mask off the ole lone ranger?
(Your post was at least more eloquent and detailed)

[candycorn]

While dominated you think everything is ok and you are doing what you want to. It's only when you are forced to do thing against your nature you are like "What? I'm not doing those things." Otherwise it would be body control not mind control.

Incorrect. It isn't mind control, it isn't body control. It's choice control. You think it, they do it. Think Nanex (from Gamer). Kable doesn't know exactly why he's raising a gun to his friend's head. It messes him up pretty bad, actually. But he does it anyway. Because he's compelled to.


You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind.

If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities. If no common language exists, you can communicate only basic commands, such as “Come here,” “Go there,” “Fight,” and “Stand still.” You know what the subject is experiencing, but you do not receive direct sensory input from it, nor can it communicate with you telepathically.

Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth).
It doesn't mention anything about altering perceptions. The subject doesn't feel like it's doing what it wants, because the spell doesn't SAY it does that.

What it does is compel the creature to obey your orders. It lets you telepathically talk to it. That's what it says it does. The creature hears your voice, and then obeys it. Much like being paralyzed, it may be horrified, it may not know WHY it is doing what you say, but it knows it does.

[Tenno Seremel]

It isn't mind control
Even mind control is fake in D&D. Bah…

Also, debuffers and enchanters are now useless (swift+standard, swift+standard…) :}

[candycorn]

Even mind control is fake in D&D. Bah…

Also, debuffers and enchanters are now useless (swift+standard, swift+standard…) :}

Nope. Using Iron Heart surge is a choice. You will the action to happen, it happens.
When you aren't making your own choices, you can't use IHS.

Debuffers can also apply multiple effects quickly to a target. This prevents a target from getting rid of more than one at a time. It's not as effective, but it can be done... And it prevents the IHSer from doing anything else.

[ericgrau]

And from a balance perspective, allowing a warblade to waste their precious standard action for a round to end a condition that a spellcaster has laid on them is hardly unbalanced.
Some might think his standard, move and swift actions for the remainder of the combat are more precious.

[molten_dragon]

No, it's not, because it can't fit into every backstory. Personal freedom is first, the realm of the Chaotic alignment, and does not fit into lawful alignments.

Sure it can. You can't control what I write in my backstory. I don't have to be chaotic to believe in not being controlled by someone else.


Second, an ethos is a defining aspect of a character. It is the nature of the character. Just as a paladin will get a save if he's ordered to violate his paladin code, a champion of freedom will get one if he's ordered to submit to an order, or to force others to submit.

Sorry, but that's still ridiculous. You're ignoring the rules every bit as much as I am. Simply having a chaotic alignment and believing in personal freedom is no reason to get a second save against dominate person. Just because you are a champion of freedom does not mean that you recognize no authority over your own.


Think it's ridiculous all you like, but when a spell explicitly grants saves for acts going against a character's nature, then what that character's nature is DOES have bearing.

Then the spell is completely useless, because unless the person controlling me is telling me to do exactly what I wanted to do in the first place, then anything he tells me to do is against my nature by your argument. Face it, your argument ignores the rules just as much as mine does.

[molten_dragon]

Some might think his standard, move and swift actions for the remainder of the combat are more precious.

Of course they are, otherwise IHS would be useless. IMHO, anything reasonable that allows non-casters to more effectively compete with casters is good balance, not bad.

[Hiro Protagonest]

No, it's not, because it can't fit into every backstory. Personal freedom is first, the realm of the Chaotic alignment, and does not fit into lawful alignments.

Lolno. Cap is lawful good. Cap upholds the ideals of America. American ideals are personal freedom and a strong government.

[candycorn]

Sorry, but that's still ridiculous. You're ignoring the rules every bit as much as I am. Simply having a chaotic alignment and believing in personal freedom is no reason to get a second save against dominate person. Just because you are a champion of freedom does not mean that you recognize no authority over your own.Strawman alert! Strawman alert!

I said you would get a save if you were given a specific order: That order being, "submit to control, and don't attempt to end it in any way, or allow it to end".

That is different than "you get a second save because you believe in xxx"...

Granted, you DO get a second save when you strongly believe in xxx... when orders go against that. That is explicitly written in the spell.

Yes, there is a clause in the text of dominate effects that reads, "Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus."

Yes, the above text is RAW.
Yes, ignoring that text is ignoring RAW.
Yes, following that text is following RAW.

No, following that text is not ignoring RAW.


Then the spell is completely useless, because unless the person controlling me is telling me to do exactly what I wanted to do in the first place, then anything he tells me to do is against my nature by your argument. Face it, your argument ignores the rules just as much as mine does.See above. Following the rules is not ignoring the rules, regardless of what picture you'd like to paint. You haven't stated a single rule that I'm ignoring, despite this huff and puff. I have showed you the specific rule that you're trying to brush under the rug.

Face it, you're constructing a fallacious argument. DM's exist to rule on that, you keep you from being able to BS the system.

If your character worships a god of Justice and good, swears fealty to a liege, and makes his oath on pain of death, then it's safe to say that such a character would get a second save if ordered to attack his liege.

If your character worships a god of nature and freedom, robs from the rich, gives to the poor, and risks persecution in the eyes of the law by rejecting their authority, then it's safe to say that such a character would get a second save if ordered to surrender his will, and help imprison a nearby town of farmers who haven't paid their taxes to their liege.

But the first would not get the second save for the second's order, and vice versa. No matter what you write into your backstory. Why not? Because if you're part of an order that promotes order, then individual freedom is not a major part of your nature.

See? That's why DM's exist. To rule on things that require ruling. Such as the nature clause (which is an actual rule, with actual effects) of dominate.

Because some players will try to abuse that, and swear that restraining party members is against their nature, or rendering the mountain pass unusable is... And such players are trying to abuse the clause.

Such players generally get books thrown at them, when they act indignant because the paladin got a second save when ordered to burn down the orphanage.

Now that your little bit of sarcasm and misdirection is dealt with, can we PLEASE move on now?

For one: Level 9 Wizard, 26 intelligence, Spell focus enchantment, and greater spell focus enchantment. Save DC for dominate person: 25.

Fighter 9, with a will save of +6 (same as a CR 9 stone giant).
90% fail rate on the save.
80% fail rate if forced to take actions against his nature.
Means if he was the very image of chastity, and you ordered him to boff every working girl in the brothel, you'd have a 72% chance of having a very exhausted fighter.
If he also had a vow of nonviolence, and you then ordered him to kill each of those ladies? Well, there's a 57.6% chance such a character would fail all three saves, and you'd have a lot of mess to clean up.
Useless? Only to the people who don't understand how to use it.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Strawman alert! Strawman alert!

I said you would get a save if you were given a specific order: That order being, "submit to control, and don't attempt to end it in any way, or allow it to end".

Do you even know what strawman means, or do you just say that every time your opponent can't read your mind?

No, you were saying that if you were chaotic and being given any specific order, you would automatically get a second save.

[candycorn]

Do you even know what strawman means, or do you just say that every time your opponent can't read your mind?

No, you were saying that if you were chaotic and being given any specific order, you would automatically get a second save.

Really? Odd, I don't recall saying that... I know I said that lawful characters WOULDN'T get a save vs a "submit" order, generally, because the ethos of the lawful includes adherence to order. I didn't, however, say that chaotic characters get it automatically. But I DO recall saying this:

an ethos is a defining aspect of a character. It is the nature of the character. Just as a paladin will get a save if he's ordered to violate his paladin code, a champion of freedom will get one if he's ordered to submit to an order, or to force others to submit.

So, "submit to my orders and do not attempt to end my control over you" would be being ordered to submit to an order.

And it's not Chaotic. You can't really be a champion of personal freedom without being chaotic...

Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
But being chaotic alone isn't enough to be a defining part of your nature, to be a champion of freedom. If you believe that, but you still obey the law in most cases, even if you kinda disagree with it, because it's just not worth the trouble... It's not your nature to buck authority (because in most cases, you don't). See, such situations must be ruled by the DM, based on actions that your character takes. The wizard who occasionally fireballs the party along with the enemy won't get a second save if ordered to fireball the party. That sorta thing. And that's why dominators have to carefully word orders, and that's why knowing something about your target makes dominate more effective.

And even if you were a champion of freedom, receiving an order to destroy the arms stores of a town guard wouldn't likely violate that (especially if phrased in a way to showcase that it hinders a town's ability to enforce the regulations which oppress the freedoms of the people).

No. What I was saying is that if an order goes against a defining part of your character, you get a second save.

What you (and he) replied with was, "so chaotic aligned people get to make a second save whenever they get any order at all".

That was not my position, though it is one easier to attack.

Since you are creating a false position that I did not state, and attacking that, instead of discussing my actual views, you are committing a Straw Man Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

Now that we've clarified the nitpicking of my response to nitpicking, can we PLEASE move on? Pretty please?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Really? Odd, I don't recall saying that... I know I said that lawful characters WOULDN'T get a save vs a "submit" order, generally, because the ethos of the lawful includes adherence to order. I didn't, however, say that chaotic characters get it automatically. But I DO recall saying this:


So, "submit to my orders and do not attempt to end my control over you" would be being ordered to submit to an order.

And it's not Chaotic. You can't really be a champion of personal freedom without being chaotic...

But being chaotic alone isn't enough to be a defining part of your nature, to be a champion of freedom. If you believe that, but you still obey the law in most cases, even if you kinda disagree with it, because it's just not worth the trouble... It's not your nature to buck authority (because in most cases, you don't). See, such situations must be ruled by the DM, based on actions that your character takes. The wizard who occasionally fireballs the party along with the enemy won't get a second save if ordered to fireball the party. That sorta thing. And that's why dominators have to carefully word orders, and that's why knowing something about your target makes dominate more effective.

And even if you were a champion of freedom, receiving an order to destroy the arms stores of a town guard wouldn't likely violate that (especially if phrased in a way to showcase that it hinders a town's ability to enforce the regulations which oppress the freedoms of the people).

No. What I was saying is that if an order goes against a defining part of your character, you get a second save.

What you (and he) replied with was, "so chaotic aligned people get to make a second save whenever they get any order at all".

That was not my position, though it is one easier to attack.

Since you are creating a false position that I did not state, and attacking that, instead of discussing my actual views, you are committing a Straw Man Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

Now that we've clarified the nitpicking of my response to nitpicking, can we PLEASE move on? Pretty please?
Again, calling me a straw man because I didn't read your mind and figure out exactly what you meant.

In any case, you seem to have missed my post...

Lolno. Cap is lawful good. Cap upholds the ideals of America. American ideals are personal freedom and a strong government.

[molten_dragon]

I said you would get a save if you were given a specific order: That order being, "submit to control, and don't attempt to end it in any way, or allow it to end".

That is different than "you get a second save because you believe in xxx"...


I misunderstood what you were arguing.

However, if playing by RAW, there is no need to give an order not to attempt to end the spell, because by RAW, you can take no actions other than those given to you or those required to keep you alive.


Granted, you DO get a second save when you strongly believe in xxx... when orders go against that. That is explicitly written in the spell.

I never disagreed with this.


Yes, there is a clause in the text of dominate effects that reads, "Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus."

Yes, the above text is RAW.
Yes, ignoring that text is ignoring RAW.
Yes, following that text is following RAW.

No, following that text is not ignoring RAW.

Correct. What is not RAW is your interpretation of how alignment and 'personal ethos' interact with this clause. That's what I was arguing against, not the clause above.


See above. Following the rules is not ignoring the rules, regardless of what picture you'd like to paint. You haven't stated a single rule that I'm ignoring, despite this huff and puff. I have showed you the specific rule that you're trying to brush under the rug.

Strawman Alert! Strawman Alert! At no point did I try to argue against what the rule stated. I'm not arguing what the rule says, I'm arguing your interpretation of it.


Face it, you're constructing a fallacious argument. DM's exist to rule on that, you keep you from being able to BS the system.

My argument is not fallacious at all. Your opinion does not equate to RAW.


If your character worships a god of Justice and good, swears fealty to a liege, and makes his oath on pain of death, then it's safe to say that such a character would get a second save if ordered to attack his liege.

I agree, this case is relatively clear cut.


If your character worships a god of nature and freedom, robs from the rich, gives to the poor, and risks persecution in the eyes of the law by rejecting their authority, then it's safe to say that such a character would get a second save if ordered to surrender his will, and help imprison a nearby town of farmers who haven't paid their taxes to their liege.

Also relatively clear cut, though because of the order to imprison the farmers, not because of being ordered to surrender his will. Simply by the fact that he failed the initial save, he has already surrendered his will.


But the first would not get the second save for the second's order, and vice versa. No matter what you write into your backstory. Why not? Because if you're part of an order that promotes order, then individual freedom is not a major part of your nature.

This is your opinion, not RAW, and the heart of what I'm arguing against here. Depending on the alignment of the town in question in the second scenario, it could certainly be argued that the character in the first scenario would get a second save in the second scenario, though for a different reason.


See? That's why DM's exist. To rule on things that require ruling. Such as the nature clause (which is an actual rule, with actual effects) of dominate.

Because some players will try to abuse that, and swear that restraining party members is against their nature, or rendering the mountain pass unusable is... And such players are trying to abuse the clause.

Precisely my point. It's a DM call, and your opinion on how it works carries no more weight than anyone else's.


Can we PLEASE move on now?

Indeed we can. As I've made clear, I was never arguing the 'nature' clause, only your interpretation of it, and you're never going to convince me that your interpretation is correct, so further discussion would be pointless.

[candycorn]

However, if playing by RAW, there is no need to give an order not to attempt to end the spell, because by RAW, you can take no actions other than those given to you or those required to keep you alive.No, by RAW, once given an order, you perform that order to the exclusion of anything else, except tasks needed for life.

However, when you've completed that order... You are not under such action limitations.



Strawman Alert! Strawman Alert! At no point did I try to argue against what the rule stated. I'm not arguing what the rule says, I'm arguing your interpretation of it.No, you accused me of ignoring rules. I stated that you haven't pointed out a single rule that I've ignored.

You still haven't. That's not a strawman, because I'm not attacking your position. I'm stating that your argument is not supported by cited fact. In other words, "Cite your sources" is not strawman.


My argument is not fallacious at all. Your opinion does not equate to RAW.My opinion is in accordance with RAW. It is a reasonable ruling, based on RAW. It does not violate RAW.

Ignoring the "nature clause", because you think applying it makes the spell "useless"? That is a violation of RAW.


Also relatively clear cut, though because of the order to imprison the farmers, not because of being ordered to surrender his will. Simply by the fact that he failed the initial save, he has already surrendered his will.Incorrect. In absence of orders, the character is free to do as he pleases.

"Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth)."
Emphasis mine. If the creature has no active command, it has no imposed action by the spell, and is free to act as it will.


This is your opinion, not RAW, and the heart of what I'm arguing against here. Depending on the alignment of the town in question in the second scenario, it could certainly be argued that the character in the first scenario would get a second save in the second scenario, though for a different reason.And a DM could certainly throw a book at the arguer's head. There are a lot of things that COULD be argued. But the bottom line is that the action must go against something that the character puts their foot down on and says, "NO". That should be demonstrated, though DM's are certainly free to rule it however they wish. However, if they ignore it entirely, they are in Rule 0 territory, as they are not following the rules.


Precisely my point. It's a DM call, and your opinion on how it works carries no more weight than anyone else's.Unless that opinion is "ignore it". Because ignoring a rule is a violation of RAW. And violations of RAW don't have a place in a RAW discussion.


Indeed we can. As I've made clear, I was never arguing the 'nature' clause, only your interpretation of it, and you're never going to convince me that your interpretation is correct, so further discussion would be pointless.And you're never going to convince me that you weren't arguing the 'nature' clause.

If "seeking ways to shuck the bonds of authority" is established to be your character's nature (obviously by the standards set in the game you are playing in... sheesh, that goes without saying), and you are ordered to go against that nature (and not seek ways to shuck those bonds), it triggers the 'nature clause'. You argued against that, at the very beginning of this whole mess.

[molten_dragon]

wall of text removed for easier quoting.

Guess you didn't really want to move on after all.

[candycorn]

Guess you didn't really want to move on after all.

Not when you're still trying to claim I said something that I didn't.

[Abies]

IHS is only a problem for those who choose to misinterpret the ability. IHS ends the effect, not the thing initiating the effect... Only the sloppiest possible interpretation of the ability description could be construed to allow IHS to "turn off the sun" or "make lava disappear" or whatever other overly optimistic/insane effect one would choose to attribute.

The ability ends status effects. This is clear from the published description. Any other interpretation is overly ambitious and/or munchkiny

[molten_dragon]

Not when you're still trying to claim I said something that I didn't.

So in other words you only want to move on if you can feel like you won the argument. Very mature.

Yeah, I think we're done here.

[candycorn]

So in other words you only want to move on if you can feel like you won the argument. Very mature.

Yeah, I think we're done here.

That's not what I said at all... AGAIN.

You're welcome to your view. It's not about winning or losing. It's about representing my view correctly. You can disagree with the view, as long as you don't claim I said something that I didn't.

Are you willfully misinterpreting me now? Because that's what it seems like.

[Hiro Protagonest]

That's not what I said at all... AGAIN.

You're welcome to your view. It's not about winning or losing. It's about representing my view correctly. You can disagree with the view, as long as you don't claim I said something that I didn't.

Are you willfully misinterpreting me now? Because that's what it seems like.

Uh, he replied to you without agreeing with your views, and said he wanted to end the argument just like you did, then you replied to him and continued the argument.

So yeah, it sounds like you want to stop arguing, but won't until the person you're arguing with submits to your views.

[Curmudgeon]

Wait, I swordsage'ed Curmudgeon? Isn't that like pulling the mask off the ole lone ranger?
(Your post was at least more eloquent and detailed)
I do apologize. I only skimmed the previous posts and searched for "grammar" and "Draconomicon" to see if someone had made the same point. My search, alas, was inadequate. :smallsigh:

[FearlessGnome]

Last week I was talking with some friends and they were saying how broken Iron Heart Surge was because you could stop water from being wet etc etc. I did what my DM had always taught me to do in such situations, and kicked them in the shins really hard.

Yes yes yes I know the stupid semantical argument of it.

What I'm asking is whether this was a discussion that needed to be had. Has anyone ever played a game where the DM consistently let another player, I don't know, extinguish the sun? I just can't imagine this actually coming up often enough to be a problem.It will come up. If someone wants to play a ToB character, the DM needs to bring up IHS (very briefly) at the get go. It's a maneuver they will get if they can, and it needs to be clear what it can and can't do. No one is expecting it to actually extinguish the sun, but if it's not brought up until someone actually wants to use it to get out of a sticky situation (Or even to be 'clever'), frowns will ensue.

And as a caster facing an NPC warblade, I'd be pretty pissed too if I was told my high-investment 9th level spell could be knocked over by a warblade 15 levels lower than me.

[candycorn]

Uh, he replied to you without agreeing with your views, and said he wanted to end the argument just like you did, then you replied to him and continued the argument.

So yeah, it sounds like you want to stop arguing, but won't until the person you're arguing with submits to your views.

...really?


No, you accused me of ignoring rules. I stated that you haven't pointed out a single rule that I've ignored.

You still haven't. That's not a strawman, because I'm not attacking your position. I'm stating that your argument is not supported by cited fact. In other words, "Cite your sources" is not strawman.
-View misrepresented.


Not when you're still trying to claim I said something that I didn't.
My response to "so you don't want to drop it".
Note: This is not: "Not when you're still representing a wrong view". The correctness or incorrectness of the view? Not even mentioned.

You're welcome to your view. It's not about winning or losing. It's about representing my view correctly.
Response to "you have to be right".
Note: I'm not saying I have to be right. Quite the opposite.

This isn't "MUAH HAHAHAHA SUBMIT TO MY VIEW WRETCHES"

Right or wrong, the point is to understand the other view, then argue your point based on that understanding. Disagree with me all you want, just don't put words in my damn mouth that I didn't put there.

Get it? I don't give a hoot what you think or believe. What I DO care about is when you represent me, and do so poorly. Let me represent me. You do you. I'm sure you're more informed on your views than mine, k?