Iron Heart Surge vs the Sun

[RedDragons]

Question... if you have light sensitivity and you use Iron Heart Surge, would it make the sun go away?

[Ellrin]

It ends the daylight, and you get a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls against the sun.

[Douglas]

No, and this ridiculous caricature of the maneuver always aggravates me when it's brought up. Yes, it is poorly worded, but not that poorly worded.

Iron Heart Surge can end A) spells, B) effects, and C) conditions.

Is the Sun a spell? Obviously no.

Is the Sun an effect? "Effect" is not a very well defined game term, but I'm pretty confident in saying no on this one.

Is the Sun a condition? I don't see it listed here (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm), so no.

What you could do with Iron Heart Surge is end the condition of being dazzled. Whether and when the Sun would then re-dazzle you is unclear.

[Deophaun]

?Yes, RAW can be read to allow IHS to turn off the Sun. But, it doesn't matter:

Do you really think your DM will let you turn off the Sun with a maneuver that can be refreshed every other round? Unless your DM eats lead paint chips for breakfast, no.

Do your players really expect to be able to turn off the Sun with this? If so, you need new players.

[Waspinator]

Yeah, Iron Heart Surge is badly written. I would just give temporary immunity to the negative effects.

[Douglas]

?Yes, RAW can be read to allow IHS to turn off the Sun.
No, it can't. Not without stretching the definition of "effect" beyond all reason or ignoring the clear unambiguous game mechanical definition of "condition" (and also stretching the english definition beyond all reason).


Yeah, Iron Heart Surge is badly written. I would just give temporary immunity to the negative effects.
Badly written, yes. As badly written as would be required for this strawman interpretation to have any validity whatsoever, not even close.

[Boci]

Is the Sun an effect? "Effect" is not a very well defined game term, but I'm pretty confident in saying no on this one.

How can you be so sure? The vagueness of the word effect and the importance role it plays in the game is a source of confusion in a couple of cases. Not this one, where RAW hardly matters because it obviously falls outside the bound in intent, but in other more reasonable dilemas.

[Shining Wrath]

IHS ends the effect upon a character, rather than ending the source of an effect. You would stop having light sensitivity. It might come back the next round, DM's call.

[Gray Mage]

The way I see it, douglas is right. The Sun is what causes the dazzle, but the effect is the dazzle. Think of it like this, if a wizard (cause) casts a spell (what affect you) that you can use IHS on, the spell would end, the wizard wouldn't go away.

[Big Fau]

It could also be interpreted as your character being the source of the dazzled condition (it is your weakness, after all), thus IHS ends you.


What was that line about Soviet Russia? :smalltongue:

[Deophaun]

No, it can't.
Yes, it can. You have nothing to go on about the word "effect" but your own opinion. Your original post says so. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong or bad or not optimal, but as that's all you or anyone else has in this matter, it means yes, IHS can be interpreted as capable of turning off the Sun.

The way I see it, douglas is right. The Sun is what causes the dazzle, but the effect is the dazzle. Think of it like this, if a wizard (cause) casts a spell (what affect you) that you can use IHS on, the spell would end, the wizard wouldn't go away.
The problem is, in this respect, the Wizard is the Sun. The effect is the light. You IHS, you don't get rid of the Sun, but the solar system suddenly becomes very, very dark. Permanently. This is how CustServ interprets IHS to work (in a daylight spell, IHS would stop the spell, not simply the dazed condition you are suffering), which doesn't make it RAW, but there's nothing in RAW to contradict it.

Of course, if you want to start killing catgirls, nuclear fusion is the effect, which you turn off, gravity wins, and the Sun collapses into itself before going full nova.

[Gray Mage]

The problem is, in this respect, the Wizard is the Sun. The effect is the light. You IHS, you don't get rid of the Sun, but the solar system suddenly becomes very, very dark. Permanently. This is how CustServ interprets IHS to work (in a daylight spell, IHS would stop the spell, not simply the dazed condition you are suffering), which doesn't make it RAW, but there's nothing in RAW to contradict it.

Of course, if you want to start killing catgirls, nuclear fusion is the effect, which you turn off, gravity wins, and the Sun collapses into itself before going full nova.

Not really. The effect is still the dazzle, you're just being more specific on what the actual cause is. The light in the wizard analogy would be more akin to spellslots or something like that, IMO.

[Douglas]

Yes, it can. You have nothing to go on about the word "effect" but your own opinion. Your original post says so. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong or bad or not optimal, but as that's all you or anyone else has in this matter, it means yes, IHS can be interpreted as capable of turning off the Sun.
And that's where the "Not without stretching the definition of "effect" beyond all reason" part comes in.

I don't recall ever seeing official D&D material use the word "effect" in a manner that clearly refers to anything other than the results of in game mechanical abilities. In fact, "game mechanical result of an in game mechanical ability" would be a fairly good attempt at trying to define the term, and I don't recall ever seeing the term used in official D&D material in a way where that definition would not make sense. It is, in practice, the de facto definition, and stretching IHS into absurdity is the only D&D use I can think of that does not fit it.

There might be some specific cases or minor details my definition doesn't quite fit for, but I expect any adjustments needed for those to be minor. Classifying the Sun as an effect has no precedent or basis in official D&D usage, and no reason I've ever heard of other than to use IHS on it. It is, therefore, not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.


The problem is, in this respect, the Wizard is the Sun. The effect is the light. You IHS, you don't get rid of the Sun, but the solar system suddenly becomes very, very dark. Permanently. This is how CustServ interprets IHS to work (in a daylight spell, IHS would stop the spell, not simply the dazed condition you are suffering), which doesn't make it RAW, but there's nothing in RAW to contradict it.
The wizard may be analogous to the Sun, but the effect in both cases is you being dazzled. The Daylight case just happens to also have a spell as an intermediate cause, and its status as a spell allows IHS to affect it. With the Sun, you use IHS and choose what to end from a list of A) the dazzled condition. With Daylight, you use IHS and choose what to end from a list of A) the dazzled condition, or B) the Daylight spell.

[Deophaun]

And that's where the "Not without stretching the definition of "effect" beyond all reason" part comes in.
Then the dictionary is beyond reason. Those poor loons at Websters. Someone should really call the men in the white trucks.

The effect is still the dazzle...
That is one interpretation. It is no more RAW than the light being the effect. Which is the whole point. You can argue that dazzle can be an effect all you like. It doesn't change the fact that the light can be reasonably interpreted as an effect as well.

[Douglas]

Then the dictionary is beyond reason. Those poor loons at Websters. Someone should really call the men in the white trucks.
If you're bringing in a dictionary, then you're talking about the English definition. I was talking about the D&D definition.

[lsfreak]

If you're bringing in a dictionary, then you're talking about the English definition. I was talking about the D&D definition.

I'm pretty sure that's the core of the problem: there is no D&D definition. It is defined nowhere in the rules, and thus the dictionary comes in. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I've never seen a clear rules definition of what an "effect" is.

[Douglas]

No explicit D&D definition, no, but one can be inferred easily from common usage.

[Lupus753]

When I read it, I assumed that it lets you be determined and hotblooded enough to simply ignore negative effects. Thus, you can ignore the scorching rays, but they still exist. People saying, "YOU IRON HEART SURGE THE SUN AWAY!!ONE!" is because munchkins will find any ridiculous loophole they can get their hands on, even when it's obvious what the devs intended. Kinda like that 1st edition Warhammer petty spell that let you destroy any small object after one hour (long story).

[Shining Wrath]

RAW you can do a lot with IHS. Which is why my DM told me we'd have to work out RAI before I took it.

And why no DM is going to let you turn off the sun for the entire solar system with IHS, unless they are running a campaign with silliness that would make the Monty Python crew go "Say WHAT!?!?!?!".

[BowStreetRunner]

Don't forget the part where it states "select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds." [bold and underline added]

If it does not have a duration measured in rounds, IHS will not work. (Since all of the entries for Light Sensitivity that I have seen apply the dazzled condition continuously while in bright sunlight, IHS is useless here.)

[awa]

first just to clarify i don't think iron heart surge can turn off the sun. That said an argument could easily be made that continuous = more then 1 round.

[RFLS]

Question... if you have light sensitivity and you use Iron Heart Surge, would it make the sun go away?

No. The sun is not the effect. This is a stupid interpretation of a poorly worded feature that does not help an already much-maligned supplement.