Iron Heart Surge: A Trap?

[Vaz]

Yes yes, badly designed wording, means Iron Heart surging the Sun away. But if you include effects to mean those in Status Effects on the d20srd only (or any other 'effects' specifically listed as such), most of the nastiest ones don't allow Actions, meaning IHS cannot be triggered. Is it the trap I see it as, or is it a lot better than what i see it as?

[Big Fau]

Look at how many spells have ongoing effects that don't impose one of those statuses. Just off the top of my head Ray of Enfeeblement and Web and Entangle and Glitterdust and so on. IHS not only removes the effect from the Warblade, but from EVERYONE in the area of that spell.

This is a huge advantage, and should not be ignored.

[Red Fel]

Look at how many spells have ongoing effects that don't impose one of those statuses. Just off the top of my head Ray of Enfeeblement and Web and Entangle and Glitterdust and so on. IHS not only removes the effect from the Warblade, but from EVERYONE in the area of that spell.

This is a huge advantage, and should not be ignored.

This.

IHS targets the effect, not the person. As long as you can move and act, it completely ends it, on you and everyone else.

Even if you only use it on "proper" effects, that's still a huge advantage, not only to the Warblade but to the entire party.

This has not been fixed by errata, nor will it be. IHS is, and ever shall be, the one maneuver that can un-debuff the entire party in a single surge.

And it's tons of fun to bellow across the gaming table.

[Deophaun]

It's not a trap; IHS is still insanely useful.

But it is funny that the so-called "unofficial errata" for ToB explicitly calls out many of those status effects as things IHS can remove, yet still doesn't let you trigger IHS while affected by them.

[Big Fau]

It's not a trap; IHS is still insanely useful.

But it is funny that the so-called "unofficial errata" for ToB explicitly calls out many of those status effects as things IHS can remove, yet still doesn't let you trigger IHS while affected by them.

Sinfire isn't known for being a good editor. :smallbiggrin:

[Vaz]

How do you end spells without having the requisite Spellcraft to identify them?

You might be able to point out 'this one', but that is then down to DM's interpretation: a Black Tentacles spell for example he can point out, but how does the PC 'know' what it is ending? Saying 'it effects him' results in daftness like 'i'm grappled, I IHS the grappler', or 'the sun lolz'.

[Psyren]

How do you end spells without having the requisite Spellcraft to identify them?

IHS ends effects; you don't have to identify anything, just target something like "whatever is keeping me from moving" or "whatever is impairing my vision."

[Big Fau]

How do you end spells without having the requisite Spellcraft to identify them?

Nothing in IHS says you need to ID the spell before you can end it. If a Warblade would be sickened by a spell he could easily say "I IHS whatever is making me feel ill".

[Red Fel]

How do you end spells without having the requisite Spellcraft to identify them?

You might be able to point out 'this one', but that is then down to DM's interpretation: a Black Tentacles spell for example he can point out, but how does the PC 'know' what it is ending? Saying 'it effects him' results in daftness like 'i'm grappled, I IHS the grappler', or 'the sun lolz'.

Who says you have to know specifically what it is?

When someone waves his hands and says some weird-sounding words, and suddenly you're slower, or sleepy, or the ground grabs your legs, it's not hard to figure out that something ain't right. And when that happens, you can always try to IHS your way out of it. (Assuming you can move, etc.)

That said, if it's not an "effect" affecting you? For instance, if it's just the sun, or you're just naturally tired from being awake for 72 hours straight? IHS can and should fizzle.

What happens when you fire Magic Missiles at the darkness? Nothing. Fizzle. What happens when you IHS an itch on your nose? Nothing. It's an itch.

But what happens when you hurl a Fireball into the darkness, and it happens to hit the spider hiding there? Dead spider. And what happens if you IHS that funny feeling in your gut that happens to be poison? No more poison.

Does it border on metagaming? Easily. Would your character have to be completely flipping paranoid to IHS everything? Yep. Is an in-character understanding that you are actually subject to an effect or condition a prerequisite to using IHS? Not by RAW.

Edit: Swordsage'd in stereo.

[Vaz]

IHS ends effects; you don't have to identify anything, just target something like "whatever is keeping me from moving" or "whatever is impairing my vision."

So if you've lost an eye, IHS regrows it?

[Big Fau]

So if you've lost an eye, IHS regrows it?

Limb loss and maiming aren't conditions defined by the rules AFAIA, so no.

[Lord_Gareth]

So if you've lost an eye, IHS regrows it?

If you've lost an eye due to a fluff thing? No.

If you've lost an eye to a Gadacro's eyethief ability? Then yes.

[Psyren]

So if you've lost an eye, IHS regrows it?

Losing an eye sounds like it would have a duration of "instantaneous" to me.

[Red Fel]

If you've lost an eye due to a fluff thing? No.

If you've lost an eye to a Gadacro's eyethief ability? Then yes.

This.

Just throwing IHS at every inconvenience is attacking the darkness; you can do it, but you won't get a result.

But every now and then, there is actually something in the darkness. When that happens, even if you aren't aware of its presence, you may score a hit.

[Chronos]

Before taking IHS, ask your DM what houserules he's using for it. Almost any reasonable set of houserules will still leave it usable for something or another.

[Urpriest]

It's not conditions anyway, though. The only rules definition of "effect" is the Effect: line of a spell.

[Psyren]

It's not conditions anyway, though. The only rules definition of "effect" is the Effect: line of a spell.

Except conditions are also called effects. DMG 300/RC 34:


Conditions

If more than one condition affects a creature, apply them all. If certain effects can’t combine, apply the most severe one.

[Pickford]

Vaz:

Yes yes, badly designed wording, means Iron Heart surging the Sun away. But if you include effects to mean those in Status Effects on the d20srd only (or any other 'effects' specifically listed as such), most of the nastiest ones don't allow Actions, meaning IHS cannot be triggered. Is it the trap I see it as, or is it a lot better than what i see it as?

Is there an explanation of how this works? From what I can see, it only ends a spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting the user.

Maybe I'm just an old fashioned country doctor...but the Sun ain't no spell....it's definitely no condition, and from what I understand using my decades of experience with the English language, it's not an effect. Can you enlighten me as to what invisible phrasology allows this miracle of medieval doohickery?

While in no way an official writ, I found this otherwise helpful list that appears to indicate what constitutes a condition: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm

It also happens to mention these things are effects...which makes a condition and an effect, much the same thing. (And yes, I immediately thought of Effect vs Target vs Area as well, but it's not immediately clear that this is the definition being used)

(Incidentally, when did the Sun get a duration in rounds?)

[tyckspoon]

Vaz:


Is there an explanation of how this works? From what I can see, it only ends a spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting the user.


It's.. mostly a joke. But basically, stare up at the sun. You are probably now Dazzled (if not, be an Orc or similar creature with a Light Sensitivity sort of rule.) The Sun is affecting you with a condition. Iron Heart Surge it! Iron Heart Surge ends the source of the effect, not just removes it on you. The Sun is gone.

[Pickford]

It's.. mostly a joke. But basically, stare up at the sun. You are probably now Dazzled (if not, be an Orc or similar creature with a Light Sensitivity sort of rule.) The Sun is affecting you with a condition. Iron Heart Surge it! Iron Heart Surge ends the source of the effect, not just removes it on you. The Sun is gone.

Like I said....duration in rounds doesn't exist.

[Sith_Happens]

It's.. mostly a joke. But basically, stare up at the sun. You are probably now Dazzled (if not, be an Orc or similar creature with a Light Sensitivity sort of rule.) The Sun is affecting you with a condition. Iron Heart Surge it! Iron Heart Surge ends the source of the effect, not just removes it on you. The Sun is gone.

Alternatively, you no longer have the Light Sensitivity ability.

[Lanaya]

It's.. mostly a joke. But basically, stare up at the sun. You are probably now Dazzled (if not, be an Orc or similar creature with a Light Sensitivity sort of rule.) The Sun is affecting you with a condition. Iron Heart Surge it! Iron Heart Surge ends the source of the effect, not just removes it on you. The Sun is gone.

No, it ends the effect. So it will end, for instance, an air elemental's whirlwind ability and force it back into its usual form, which is rather silly and odd, but if you are dazzled from looking into the sun, it will end the dazzled effect. People like to pretend IHS has much more permissive, open-ended wording than it actually does.

[Deophaun]

Like I said....duration in rounds doesn't exist.
10 billion years = 52.56 quadrillion rounds. Or around there. Didn't take leap years into account. :smallbiggrin:

[Pickford]

10 billion years = 52.56 quadrillion rounds. Or around there. Didn't take leap years into account. :smallbiggrin:

But it's not written anywhere, nor is it written in rounds. IHS requires that it have a duration AND be expressed in rounds.

For example: IHS cannot end AMF, because AMF's duration is expressed in minutes.

[olentu]

But it's not written anywhere, nor is it written in rounds. IHS requires that it have a duration AND be expressed in rounds.

For example: IHS cannot end AMF, because AMF's duration is expressed in minutes.

I do not see the word "expressed" in the maneuver description. Perhaps you could point out where that word is used.

[Artillery]

But it's not written anywhere, nor is it written in rounds. IHS requires that it have a duration AND be expressed in rounds.

For example: IHS cannot end AMF, because AMF's duration is expressed in minutes.


When you use this maneuver, select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds.
It needs to be non-instantaneous for it to work.

You can Iron Heart Surge a curse from Bestow Curse just fine and that has a permanent duration.

[Curmudgeon]

I do not see the word "expressed" in the maneuver description. Perhaps you could point out where that word is used.
It's in the grammar, and the way the rules make a distinction about units of time.

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.)

[Sephoris]

It's in the grammar, and the way the rules make a distinction about units of time.

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.)

But that does specifically say expressed in rounds. And I don't see why, if that's what they wanted IHS to say, they wouldn't have said that. Is there anywhere that actually states that "more than 1 round" and "1 round or longer" have different meanings?

[Artillery]

It's in the grammar, and the way the rules make a distinction about units of time.

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.)

... I really wish there was more internal consistency or better editing.

Well RAW is silly, yep. Makes me appreciate the fact that my DM subscribes to the "does it makes sense?" clause of keeping the game going.

Its a shame the errata for ToB never will exist and that the FAQs are considered RAI.

[AMFV]

It's in the grammar, and the way the rules make a distinction about units of time.

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.)

I don't see that once every ten minutes ceases to exist in terms of rounds. Ten minutes is a number of rounds, just because it's not stated that way doesn't mean that it ceases to be so.

It's the same as if I said, this object must be two or more inches, it would not preclude an object that was hundreds of miles long. It's just a question of units, there is no special property for things that are expressed in rounds to the best of my knowledge, any more than feet to miles.

Even by strict interpretation I think at best that qualifies as grammatical wiffle and not any meaningful interpretation for the reasons that I provide above, if time is measured in more than one way, then it doesn't cease to exist as a measurement of the smaller unit, just because it is expressed as the larger.

[Curmudgeon]

I don't see that once every ten minutes ceases to exist in terms of rounds. Ten minutes is a number of rounds, just because it's not stated that way doesn't mean that it ceases to be so.
It doesn't have to "cease to be so" to not be a number of rounds. It's a number of minutes which can be (with appropriate arithmetic) converted to a number of rounds, but it isn't in rounds. Iron Heart Surge is specific to a duration of "1 or more rounds", so it works with durations expressed in rounds, rather than durations convertible to rounds. If Iron Heart Surge said "1 round or longer" that would allow conversion. The grammatical rules of expression make the difference.

In addition to needing an exception from the usual rules of grammar, you would need to show a D&D rule which generally allows time conversion when evaluating a duration. I've already posted an instance which specifically forbids conversion between rounds and other units of duration (from Draconomicon).
Timed Durations

Many durations are measured in rounds, minutes, hours, or some other increment. When the time is up, the magic goes away and the spell ends. If a spell’s duration is variable the duration is rolled secretly (the caster doesn’t know how long the spell will last). Spell effects are always measured in the durations given.

[AMFV]

It doesn't have to "cease to be so" to not be a number of rounds. It's a number of minutes which can be (with appropriate arithmetic) converted to a number of rounds, but it isn't in rounds. Iron Heart Surge is specific to a duration of "1 or more rounds", so it works with durations expressed in rounds, rather than durations convertible to rounds. If Iron Heart Surge said "1 round or longer" that would allow conversion. The grammatical rules of expression make the difference.

In addition to needing an exception from the usual rules of grammar, you would need to show a D&D rule which generally allows time conversion when evaluating a duration. I've already posted an instance which specifically forbids conversion between rounds and other units of duration (from Draconomicon). Spell effects are always measured in the durations given.

The rule you showed only applies to a specific category of feats. In fact if they had to spell it out for that specific case it would suggest that the general case is otherwise, why else would they have to specify that?

It is not an exception to the regular rules of grammar, which are certainly argued about far more than RAW, just ask Safire about that. I work with measurements that frequently require conversion, and I can see no space in this case that would be prohibitive of a conversion. Now you could rule the other way, but that is a ruling, and not explicitly as outlined in the rules, unless we are applying metabreath feats, which we are not.

Edit: Additionally the Draconomicon is not a primary source for spell rules in general and is in fact only a primary source when regarding the True Dragons from Monster Manual 1, so even if your example were relevant to this case (and it's not) then it would still not be an explicit ruling regarding the matter.

[olentu]

It's in the grammar, and the way the rules make a distinction about units of time.

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.)

1 minute is 10 rounds. Since one minute is ten rounds (albeit differently expressed) I can not say that a duration in minutes is not a duration in rounds without contradicting the rules. How the duration is expressed only matters when the ability says that the expression chosen matters, as shown in the metabreath feat explanation.

Edit: Or wait, are you arguing that effects change their applicable units depending on the way in which they are expressed, barring the specific exception of 1 minute = 10 rounds. That is a spell with a duration in say hours does not actually change until a complete hour has elapsed. This would mean that any modifications to the duration made in a measure other then the appropriate unit would not effect the duration since the different measuring systems are incompatible. That would explain why metabreath feats can only be taken when one has a breath weapon with duration expressed in rounds since adding rounds to the duration of a breath weapon with a longer unit recharge time would have no effect. Huh, that leads to some strange interactions like having a breath weapon with a sufficiently long (or short) recharge time means that one can stack metabreath feats while ignoring the the increase in recharge time so long as one qualifies for the feats with some other breath weapon.

[Sephoris]

It seems like this argument plays (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119707) out (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=287788) every time anyone asks about what IHS can and can't do.

For what it's worth, there is a ruling (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070426a) on this. It's not terribly helpful in actually defining what IHS can do, but it does call out permanent duration effects as falling under "one or more rounds".

[Jan Mattys]

Who says you have to know specifically what it is?

When someone waves his hands and says some weird-sounding words, and suddenly you're slower, or sleepy, or the ground grabs your legs, it's not hard to figure out that something ain't right. And when that happens, you can always try to IHS your way out of it. (Assuming you can move, etc.)

That makes sense for everything except mind-affecting tricks.

Can you IHS a Charme spell? It affects you, but you probably wouldn't even know the effect is there. You just feel the guy is a good lad and you want him no harm.

[AMFV]

That makes sense for everything except mind-affecting tricks.

Can you IHS a Charme spell? It affects you, but you probably wouldn't even know the effect is there. You just feel the guy is a good lad and you want him no harm.

If you know a charm spell is there you can IHS it away, at least that would be my ruling, since it doesn't directly restrict your actions. But you'd have to know it was there, probably by making a sense motive check on whomever told you it was there, since your inclination would be to not believe.

For domination effects it is more explicit, since you can't act unless ordered to, then you can't IHS it away, you could Mad Foam Rager it though.

Note: The ruling on Charm is entirely my own ruling and isn't really necessarily RAW, I think RAW is completely silent on this issue, that's just how I'd handle it.

[Segev]

You can IHS away a Charm, definitely. It isn't actively hostile to the one who Charmed you, and you have your free will (save for really liking that person). They would have to actively use the "So, I've Charmed you, and you would hate me if you stopped being Charmed; you don't want to stop being Charmed and hate me, do you?" style of argument - possibly with an opposed Charisma check - to convince you not to. Otherwise, you're just shaking off the effect because you're awesome and want to.

If you want to get really pedantic about the rules and argue that "blindness" is a condition that is permanent in duration (even if what applied it was instantaneous), you could IHS away the "blind" status. This wouldn't regrow your eyes, if an instantaneous effect removed them. It would, however, make you able to see without them.

...actually, thinking again about it, IHS says it removes effects that cause statuses, not the statuses themselves. That might prevent it from removing blindness if it can't remove the effect that caused it.

Technically, this means that it probably removes your racial "ability" of Light Sensitivity when you use it, not the light itself.

[Snowbluff]

For what it's worth, there is a ruling (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070426a) on this. It's not terribly helpful in actually defining what IHS can do, but it does call out permanent duration effects as falling under "one or more rounds".

Which is weird, because we know ability damage/drain is a condition, but he says it's not.:smalltongue:

Also, I think only the spells might be ones limited by duration. There are some commas in there.

[Pickford]

Which is weird, because we know ability damage/drain is a condition, but he says it's not.:smalltongue:

Also, I think only the spells might be ones limited by duration. There are some commas in there.

I checked the commas, it's an if-then clause use of the comma.

First part: When you use this maneuver (,)

Second part: select on spell, effect, or other condition (note, these commas are an oxford comma list) currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds.

The sage is, strictly speaking, wrong. Permanent durations do not have a duration in rounds. I don't think this would be the first time someone has mentioned the sage wrote something that proved to be incorrect.

[Snowbluff]

What I mean is that it can be read 2 ways.

1:
IHS get rid of
Conditions,
Effects,
Spell with a duration of 1 round or more.

2:
Conditions with a duration of 1 round or more,
Effects with a duration of 1 round or more,
Spell with a duration of 1 round or more.

[Red Fel]

What I mean is that it can be read 2 ways.

1:
IHS get rid of
Conditions,
Effects,
Spell with a duration of 1 round or more.

2:
Conditions with a duration of 1 round or more,
Effects with a duration of 1 round or more,
Spell with a duration of 1 round or more.

And a panda eats, shoots, and leaves. Hooray for comma usage!

Seriously, though, at the end of the day, your DM will tell you if your IHS usage crosses the line. Or, he won't.

[Oscredwin]

WRT to IHS and charm, would it be reasonable for a warblade to, after everything that might be an encounter (talking to someone, some interval of travelling, after a fight, etc) when she might have two consecutive standard actions to spare, IHS then recover maneuvers? It might be a good habit of getting into, in case you were hit by conditions you didn't know were there (and prevent's metagaming)

[Harrow]

"As long as you're in the sun" isn't a duration. I know, it sounds a lot like a duration, but in this context 'duration' refers to a 'duration' entry, an entry which Light Sensitivity lacks. However, I would agree that minutes and rounds have equivalencies and just because an effect isn't measured in rounds doesn't mean you can't IHS.

Also, people are confusing 'conditions' with 'things that cause conditions'. The sun is doing nothing, besides being the sun. It's Light Sensitivity that's causing the condition. But IHS says nothing about ending things that cause conditions, it just ends conditions. It can, however, end conditions that cause other conditions.

Let's say, in an act of desperation, an enemy caster uses a custom spell that gives everyone in range Nausea for 1 minutes (10 rounds). He's forced to use it in an area where it affects his Initiator enemy as well as himself and his allies. The Initiator could IHS the spell away, but that would fix his opponents Nausea too. So, instead, he IHSs only his own Nausea. He's still technically being affected by the spell, but it's not actually doing anything. What's more, his Nausea is separate from his enemies, so they stay Nauseated.

This works really well with Anti-Magic Field.

[Icewraith]

I think the duration thing is to make it so you can't IHS away the damage from fireball or other instantaneous effects.

[Thiyr]

It's in the grammar, and the way the rules make a distinction about units of time.

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.)

Biggest reason to discount this line of argumentation (Aside from it being used to describe an entirely different situation. A cooldown is not a duration): There is an additional word present in the Draconomicon language that isn't present. "Expressed in". Think back to math/science-y classes. If someone asks for you to get the velocity of a train given variables, even if the traditional expectation is in m/s, if you show what you're doing and show the proper conversions, mph is still a correct answer. This is why more often than not the question is worded as "give me the speed, expressed in m/s". It means that even if you give them m/hr or mph, no matter how right it is, you're not correct until it's in the correct units. Draconomicon uses expressed in for this purpose, making the units relevant. ToB does NOT use expressed in, leaving it open to any duration which is greater than one round (which is synonymous with one or more rounds.)

[Boci]

But it's not written anywhere

Page 147 DMG:

"Material Plane: This Plane is the most familiar to characters and is usually the "home base" for a standard D&D campaign. The Material Plane tends to be the most Earthlike of all planes and operates under the same set of natural laws that our real world does."

So it arguable is.

[Pickford]

Page 147 DMG:

"Material Plane: This Plane is the most familiar to characters and is usually the "home base" for a standard D&D campaign. The Material Plane tends to be the most Earthlike of all planes and operates under the same set of natural laws that our real world does."

So it arguable is.

It's still not written in rounds then, if you're taking the plane to inherit the traits of the material universe. Rounds, only rounds.

[Snowbluff]

And a panda eats, shoots, and leaves. Hooray for comma usage!

Seriously, though, at the end of the day, your DM will tell you if your IHS usage crosses the line. Or, he won't.
I think keeping it to spells and conditions is a good way to play it safe.

I think the duration thing is to make it so you can't IHS away the damage from fireball or other instantaneous effects.

I think I agree with this. Durations might not mean it has to have an expressed and limited duration, just one that is not instantaneous.

[Boci]

It's still not written in rounds then, if you're taking the plane to inherit the traits of the material universe. Rounds, only rounds.

I know, that's why I cut the rest of your post off with my quote. I was only commenting on the issue of the sun having a finite lifespan.

[Deophaun]

It's still not written in rounds then, if you're taking the plane to inherit the traits of the material universe. Rounds, only rounds.
As stated, "rounds, only rounds" is irrelevant, as the only wording in support of that interpretation a) is in a supplemental book that has primacy only with regards to true dragons and b) doesn't even use the same language. Meanwhile, you have the FAQ which affirms that IHS does affect things whose durations are not expressed in rounds. In this case, I'd say the on-point FAQ is more authoritative than the round peg of an unrelated supplemental being forced into a square hole.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, someone tried to errata it, but then someone Iron Heart Surged the errata away.

[olentu]

As stated, "rounds, only rounds" is irrelevant, as the only wording in support of that interpretation a) is in a supplemental book that has primacy only with regards to true dragons and b) doesn't even use the same language. Meanwhile, you have the FAQ which affirms that IHS does affect things whose durations are not expressed in rounds. In this case, I'd say the on-point FAQ is more authoritative than the round peg of an unrelated supplemental being forced into a square hole.

Oh no, no, no, the supplement is very important. The supplement demonstrates that if the designers wanted it to mean a duration expressed in rounds they would say a duration expressed in rounds, thus iron heart surge does not require a duration expressed in rounds. The lack of that language demonstrates what the designers meant with no possibility for misinterpretation.

[Jack_Simth]

This has not been fixed by errata, nor will it be. IHS is, and ever shall be, the one maneuver that can un-debuff the entire party in a single surge.
You mean you haven't checked the errata (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a)? There is a file for the Tome of Battle.


And it's tons of fun to bellow across the gaming table.BY CROM!

[Icewraith]

Oh no, no, no, the supplement is very important. The supplement demonstrates that if the designers wanted it to mean a duration expressed in rounds they would say a duration expressed in rounds, thus iron heart surge does not require a duration expressed in rounds. The lack of that language demonstrates what the designers meant with no possibility for misinterpretation.

If I squint at it long enough, I can get it to justify my interpretation of the ruleset.

[holywhippet]

No actions? No problems: http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=407

[Rubik]

No actions? No problems: http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=407Could the author have made that any more annoying to read?

[Ravens_cry]

Could the author have made that any more annoying to read?
I have a certain fondness for Another Gaming Comic, though my favourite Arc was the Matrix-expy game.
If you want annoying, someone on another forum I am part of used Magenta and Cyan . . . on a light grey background. I think there was some yellow there too.
To quote Vaarsuvius, "Sweet merciful gods, my poor useless eyes!":vaarsuvius:

[Scow2]

I have a certain fondness for Another Gaming Comic, though my favourite Arc was the Matrix-expy game.
That was probably the favorite because the power level and cheese the players were using fit the theme of the game, and there were a lot fewer interplayer arguments.

The Deep Sky One was shaping to be good, until it was aborted :(

[Worira]

I like AGC, but holy crap that one's messy.

[Ravens_cry]

That was probably the favorite because the power level and cheese the players were using fit the theme of the game, and there were a lot fewer interplayer arguments.

Exactly. Rules exploits actually made sense in the game since it was a game (sadly fictional) about trying to survive in a computer simulation with the rules stacked against you.

The Deep Sky One was shaping to be good, until it was aborted :(
That was the Eberron one where everyone was was warforged, right? Yeah, it was going pretty good.

[TuggyNE]

Could the author have made that any more annoying to read?

AGC is good people, but yes, that's definitely Attack of the 50-Foot Wall of Text there.

[Pickford]

Deophaun:

As stated, "rounds, only rounds" is irrelevant, as the only wording in support of that interpretation a) is in a supplemental book that has primacy only with regards to true dragons and b) doesn't even use the same language. Meanwhile, you have the FAQ which affirms that IHS does affect things whose durations are not expressed in rounds. In this case, I'd say the on-point FAQ is more authoritative than the round peg of an unrelated supplemental being forced into a square hole.

IHS itself says the duration must be 1 or more rounds. That means 1 or more rounds and nothing else.

[Thiyr]

Deophaun:


IHS itself says the duration must be 1 or more rounds. That means 1 or more rounds and nothing else.

One minute is more than one round, in much the same way that 1 kilometer is more than 1 meter. IHS makes no mention of requiring the units of measure to remain the same, only that it need be a duration which is 1 or more rounds. As a minute, an hour, etc. fulfills the requirement of being more than 1 round, they are fine per what the text says. If it used the same verbiage that Draconomicon did, then it would be definitively limited to durations measured in rounds, but it doesn't.

[olentu]

Deophaun:


IHS itself says the duration must be 1 or more rounds. That means 1 or more rounds and nothing else.

Man, you're not even trying to argue. At least if you are going to make random statements of "fact" make ones that actually counter your opponents argument. If you don't go into more detail this is just saying a = a which is a non sequitur.

[Chronos]

The duration of the Sun is either:
a: One or more rounds
or it's
b: Less than one round
Those two possibilities exhaustively cover all possible durations. I assume you're not arguing for b?

[Curmudgeon]

The duration of the Sun is either:
a: One or more rounds
or it's
b: Less than one round
Those two possibilities exhaustively cover all possible durations. I assume you're not arguing for b?
Actually, it's

c: Neither of the above.
The phrase "one or more rounds" implies a measurement in an exact number of rounds, and there's no physical constraint on the Sun's duration to be an exact multiple of 6 seconds. "One round or longer" allows non-round durations.

[Chronos]

So, does that mean that the effects of Color Spray don't have a "duration of one or more rounds", either? Because that's not an exact number of rounds; it's random. Or maybe you're just objecting to it not being an integer number of rounds? I'm not sure how "one or more" implies it must be an integer, but everything in D&D can potentially have a duration that's not an integer number of rounds: Things can be dispelled on any initiative count, which ends their duration. "One or more rounds" means exactly what it says, all right: It's exactly synonymous with "not less than one round".

[Thiyr]

Actually, it's

c: Neither of the above.
The phrase "one or more rounds" implies a measurement in an exact number of rounds, and there's no physical constraint on the Sun's duration to be an exact multiple of 6 seconds. "One round or longer" allows non-round durations.

Which the FAQ (I realize that needs to be taken with a grain of salt) disagrees with. Permanent is a duration which does not have an exact round-based measurement, but would be a valid target.

Honestly, "one round or longer" and "one or more rounds" are synonymous. Without any external clarification, it is only valid but reasonable to read it in this way, and there is no clarification outside of the FAQ.

[Segev]

Guys! Guys! Guys! Guys!

Clearly, the Sun is not an effect. Sunlight is. And the Sun is an entity or object that re-activates "sunlight" as an effect every round, and can reflexively re-activate it as a non-action at any point when it is deactivated.

[Pickford]

One minute is more than one round, in much the same way that 1 kilometer is more than 1 meter. IHS makes no mention of requiring the units of measure to remain the same, only that it need be a duration which is 1 or more rounds. As a minute, an hour, etc. fulfills the requirement of being more than 1 round, they are fine per what the text says. If it used the same verbiage that Draconomicon did, then it would be definitively limited to durations measured in rounds, but it doesn't.

Ah but it isn't 'in' rounds, which the way the ability if phrased, is a requirement.

edit: Thank you Curmudgeon.

double edit: No, they are not synonymous.

Tell me, when you have a paper edited, do you complain of 'happy to glad' changes? Because those don't actually exist. Every word in language has a qualitative difference, and the placement and order matter significantly.

[Segev]

Does it actually say "measured in rounds" or merely that the duration must be "one or more rounds?"

The former does have a specific rules meaning saying that it has to be measured in rounds.

It would be even clearer if it said "expressed in rounds."

[Red Fel]

Guys! Guys! Guys! Guys!

Clearly, the Sun is not an effect. Sunlight is. And the Sun is an entity or object that re-activates "sunlight" as an effect every round, and can reflexively re-activate it as a non-action at any point when it is deactivated.

"Who did what with my what, now?" - Pelor, God of the Sun (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15720209&postcount=9)

[olentu]

Does it actually say "measured in rounds" or merely that the duration must be "one or more rounds?"

The former does have a specific rules meaning saying that it has to be measured in rounds.

It would be even clearer if it said "expressed in rounds."

It says "with a duration of one or more rounds." Interpretations may vary but that is what is being interpreted.

[ddude987]

Actually, it's

c: Neither of the above.
The phrase "one or more rounds" implies a measurement in an exact number of rounds, and there's no physical constraint on the Sun's duration to be an exact multiple of 6 seconds. "One round or longer" allows non-round durations.

So by this logic you can't IHS away a spell affecting you because if you die in the middle of a round then the spell duration ends making it not an exact multiple of 6 seconds

edit: furtermore the SRD defines rounds as below


a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round.
So regardless if the sun's duration is an exact multiple of 6 seconds, its life is measured in rounds until it ceases to exist in the initiative count. If it was not a multiple of exactly 6 seconds, the round it is removed from the initiative count is the last round it exists for and thus defines its duration in rounds.

[AMFV]

Actually, it's

c: Neither of the above.
The phrase "one or more rounds" implies a measurement in an exact number of rounds, and there's no physical constraint on the Sun's duration to be an exact multiple of 6 seconds. "One round or longer" allows non-round durations.

This does not matter in any scenario that does not involve computation and programming. We aren't limited by specific units per any source that we can produce that has anything to do with effects in general, only with certain metabreath feats.

If somebody says: "How far under the Earth is the Mesosphere?" And I say roughly 10 Kilometers, it is equivalent to saying roughly 33,000 feet, and that is using completely disparate systems of measurement, metric and imperial, which is a greater disparity.

Because IHS doesn't include the language "expressed in rounds" we have to reason to assume it exclusive on that level, in fact a previous poster pointed out that answering a question regarding velocity in MPH would be exactly as valid as m/s, even if m/s is the convention without further direction

[olentu]

This does not matter in any scenario that does not involve computation and programming. We aren't limited by specific units per any source that we can produce that has anything to do with effects in general, only with certain metabreath feats.

If somebody says: "How far under the Earth is the Mesosphere?" And I say roughly 10 Kilometers, it is equivalent to saying roughly 33,000 feet, and that is using completely disparate systems of measurement, metric and imperial, which is a greater disparity.

Because IHS doesn't include the language "expressed in rounds" we have to reason to assume it exclusive on that level, in fact a previous poster pointed out that answering a question regarding velocity in MPH would be exactly as valid as m/s, even if m/s is the convention without further direction

That's not really what he seems to mean. He is arguing that if the sun has a duration that is not an integer multiple of 6 seconds it can not be converted into a number of rounds as one could with a duration in minutes, hours, and so forth and thus does not qualify. Presumably, this means he has conceded on the point of converting between units as otherwise he could just say that since the duration of the sun is not expressed it is not expressed in rounds and thus does not qualify.

[illyahr]

"Who did what with my what, now?" - Pelor, God of the Sun (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15720209&postcount=9)

Don't worry, Pelor, nobody can IHS the sun. The sun isn't an effect, it's an object. The object gives off light that produces and effect, but the object remains untouched.

I've always taken IHS to work as such:

"Negate any spell, spell's affect, or ability's effect that affects you (yourself only, in the case of multiple targets) and does not have an instantaneous duration."

IHS the sun: no, as it is not an ability, spell, or spell affect.

IHS Negative Levels: yes, as it is an effect of a spell or ability that targets you. Negative levels last for, at most, 24 hours. After that, your level is permanently drained. You couldn't IHS the level drain, because the initial cause (the Negative Level) has already expired (an instantaneous effect).

IHS dazzled from Light Sensetivity: yes, as you are not removing Light Sensetivity (the ability) but the dazzled effect of the abilty.

Thoughts?

[ddude987]

IHS Negative Levels: yes, as it is an effect of a spell or ability that targets you.

I like your interpretation except for the quotes line. What if you gain a negative level from a source that didn't target you?

[illyahr]

I like your interpretation except for the quotes line. What if you gain a negative level from a source that didn't target you?

Are there any such cases? Everything that I know of that bestows Negative Levels require targets, whether that target is ranged touch for enervation or a vampires Energy Drain requiring an attack.

[eggynack]

Don't worry, Pelor, nobody can IHS the sun. The sun isn't an effect, it's an object. The object gives off light that produces and effect, but the object remains untouched.

Well, I guess we can only IHS away the Sun's light then. Seems pretty comparable. As another note, the condition in question here doesn't need to be dazzled, or be related to light sensitivity at all. It can just be something like, "Is within the light."


Are there any such cases? Everything that I know of that bestows Negative Levels require targets, whether that target is ranged touch for enervation or a vampires Energy Drain requiring an attack.
There's always holy weapons.

[Rubik]

Are there any such cases? Everything that I know of that bestows Negative Levels require targets, whether that target is ranged touch for enervation or a vampires Energy Drain requiring an attack.An evil creature holding a holy weapon would do it.


Don't worry, Pelor, nobody can IHS the sun. The sun isn't an effect, it's an object. The object gives off light that produces and effect, but the object remains untouched.

I've always taken IHS to work as such:

"Negate any spell, spell's affect, or ability's effect that affects you (yourself only, in the case of multiple targets) and does not have an instantaneous duration."What about items that bestow status effects?

[edit] Gah! Monk'd by an edit!

(Would've been a swordsage and/or ninja, except it was an edit what done it.)

[eggynack]

[edit] Gah! Monk'd by an edit!

(Would've been a swordsage and/or ninja, except it was an edit what done it.)
Eh, the edit existed before your post, so I call it a small victory for me. Woot. Also, "It was an edit what done it," is a fantastic thing, and one I have to make some use of at some point.

[Rubik]

Eh, the edit existed before your post, so I call it a small victory for me. Woot. Also, "It was an edit what done it," is a fantastic thing, and one I have to make some use of at some point.The edit occurred as I was putting my reply together, when I wasn't looking.

Monkish git.

Gah. I've been reading too many H.Potter fanfics.

[Thiyr]

Ah but it isn't 'in' rounds, which the way the ability if phrased, is a requirement.

edit: Thank you Curmudgeon.

double edit: No, they are not synonymous.

Tell me, when you have a paper edited, do you complain of 'happy to glad' changes? Because those don't actually exist. Every word in language has a qualitative difference, and the placement and order matter significantly.

Trying to figure out what changes you're talking about in your edit, as I am unfamiliar with...well, the entire concept you're talking about. But consider the following example as yet another example of why the linguistic distinction being made is at best pedantic. You have a medication you are supposed to take. It comes in the form of a powder which must be dissolved in water. The instructions say it must be dissolved in "one or more cups of water" before you drink all of it. If you put it in a pitcher and poured a two-liter bottle of water in and drink it, the meds won't mysteriously not work. If you pour in a gallon, it will still work.

(Heck, if we really want to take this argument far, saying the effect must have a duration expressed in rounds would mean most spells and powers wouldn't be able to be stopped either, rendering the maneuver pretty much worthless. A spell like, say, fear, doesn't have a duration expressed in rounds. It is expressed in rounds/level, which is a distinction that IHS doesn't allow for. Pretty much the only thing it could overcome, then, are things dropped by truenamers. But that's a silly interpretation that I find follows from trying to argue it requires the units to be in rounds)

[AMFV]

That's not really what he seems to mean. He is arguing that if the sun has a duration that is not an integer multiple of 6 seconds it can not be converted into a number of rounds as one could with a duration in minutes, hours, and so forth and thus does not qualify. Presumably, this means he has conceded on the point of converting between units as otherwise he could just say that since the duration of the sun is not expressed it is not expressed in rounds and thus does not qualify.

Fair enough, however it is worth noting that 1.1 or 1.00001 rounds is still a unit of rounds greater than one. There is nothing in the rules that limits us to integers. Per the rules rounding is generally down, so any number greater than six seconds will always round to a 1 round or greater interval. Nothing in that passage suggests or even implies that rounding does not or cannot occur. So the argument is still not a conclusive one.

[Pickford]

Eggynack:

There's always holy weapons.

No duration, in rounds or otherwise, however.

Thiyr:

Trying to figure out what changes you're talking about in your edit, as I am unfamiliar with...well, the entire concept you're talking about. But consider the following example as yet another example of why the linguistic distinction being made is at best pedantic. You have a medication you are supposed to take. It comes in the form of a powder which must be dissolved in water. The instructions say it must be dissolved in "one or more cups of water" before you drink all of it. If you put it in a pitcher and poured a two-liter bottle of water in and drink it, the meds won't mysteriously not work. If you pour in a gallon, it will still work.

As you admit you are unfamiliar with the concepts, then you should avoid calling them pedantic. The medication analogy is terrible as all medication becomes less effective when diluted.


(Heck, if we really want to take this argument far, saying the effect must have a duration expressed in rounds would mean most spells and powers wouldn't be able to be stopped either, rendering the maneuver pretty much worthless. A spell like, say, fear, doesn't have a duration expressed in rounds. It is expressed in rounds/level, which is a distinction that IHS doesn't allow for. Pretty much the only thing it could overcome, then, are things dropped by truenamers. But that's a silly interpretation that I find follows from trying to argue it requires the units to be in rounds)

X rounds/level is simply the formula to determine the duration, it has a definite answer: For example, Charm Person, which lasts 1 hour per level could not be removed by IHS, because its duration is in hours. Fear can't be removed because the subject is panicked for the duration (if they save the character could IHS the shaken condition, as it has a 1 round duration).

AMFV:

Fair enough, however it is worth noting that 1.1 or 1.00001 rounds is still a unit of rounds greater than one. There is nothing in the rules that limits us to integers. Per the rules rounding is generally down, so any number greater than six seconds will always round to a 1 round or greater interval. Nothing in that passage suggests or even implies that rounding does not or cannot occur. So the argument is still not a conclusive one.

We all get that as thinking creatures we can convert one form of measure into its equivalent. That doesn't change the underlying concept. The Sun has no game identified duration, nor is the sun a spell, effect, or condition, but it is an object. Both of those things (spell, effect, or condition lasting 1 or more rounds affecting user) are conditions of using IHS at all, and having failed those tests, it will not work.

[eggynack]

We all get that as thinking creatures we can convert one form of measure into its equivalent. That doesn't change the underlying concept. The Sun has no game identified duration, nor is the sun a spell, effect, or condition, but it is an object. Both of those things (spell, effect, or condition lasting 1 or more rounds affecting user) are conditions of using IHS at all, and having failed those tests, it will not work.
The sun itself is absolutely not a condition. Having sunlight bearing down upon your skin, however, is. Additionally, the sun does not need a game identified duration to work with IHS. It merely needs a duration, which it has. The fact of the matter is, neither of these terms is defined within the game rules, which is the source of many of these problems. Well, the condition part is anyway. The duration part actually seems pretty logical and intuitive to me.

[Red Rubber Band]

As you admit you are unfamiliar with the concepts, then you should avoid calling them pedantic. The medication analogy is terrible as all medication becomes less effective when diluted.

Just on this. If you drink all the water that the medication has been diluted in to, you're still taking all of your medication. I mention this because I think you may be assuming that you're only taking one or two cups of water, not the whole gallon.


X rounds/level is simply the formula to determine the duration, it has a definite answer: For example, Charm Person, which lasts 1 hour per level could not be removed by IHS, because its duration is in hours. Fear can't be removed because the subject is panicked for the duration (if they save the character could IHS the shaken condition, as it has a 1 round duration).

Charm Person cannot be removed by IHS because its duration is in hours not seconds? :smallconfused:
What the frick are hours made up of? Don't be a smart ass and say minutes.

[Pickford]

The sun itself is absolutely not a condition. Having sunlight bearing down upon your skin, however, is. Additionally, the sun does not need a game identified duration to work with IHS. It merely needs a duration, which it has. The fact of the matter is, neither of these terms is defined within the game rules, which is the source of many of these problems. Well, the condition part is anyway. The duration part actually seems pretty logical and intuitive to me.

Show that the sun bearing down on your skin is a condition. Where is that written?

[eggynack]

Show that the sun bearing down on your skin is a condition. Where is that written?
Once again, it does not need to be written. Condition is not a term that is defined within the game, so we default to standard English, in which such a thing is a condition.

[Pickford]

Once again, it does not need to be written. Condition is not a term that is defined within the game, so we default to standard English, in which such a thing is a condition.

They ARE defined in the game within the DMG. Those are conditions, if it's not there, it's not a condition.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

You are affected by gravity... want to fly? IHS away gravity's effect on you.

Flight... BY CROM!

[eggynack]

They ARE defined in the game within the DMG. Those are conditions, if it's not there, it's not a condition.
Have I not explained this in this thread? It's kinda weird that this is kinda spreading to three threads at once. Anyway, as I've noted somewhere, at some point, that section of the book does not define what a condition is. It only lists what the conditions are. This would theoretically be enough, but the text specifies that this is a list of adverse conditions with some specific effects, which leaves the door open to other conditions that lack that quality.

[olentu]

Show that the sun bearing down on your skin is a condition. Where is that written?

Sunlight could also be an effect rather then a condition in much the same way that an explosion is an effect.

[AMFV]

We all get that as thinking creatures we can convert one form of measure into its equivalent. That doesn't change the underlying concept. The Sun has no game identified duration, nor is the sun a spell, effect, or condition, but it is an object. Both of those things (spell, effect, or condition lasting 1 or more rounds affecting user) are conditions of using IHS at all, and having failed those tests, it will not work.

Well per the rules regarding the planes... The material plane is earth-like. Therefore it's sun should be assumed to have earthlike properties. Ergo it has a beginning and will eventually end and collapse. That's a duration, even if we don't have a written duration. Technically, "When I am in the sunlight" is a duration too, it's a length of time.

Furthermore the section of the game dealing with durations has only a few sections. Timed, which as we have established, the sun may likely be, as it's existence can be measured in billions of years, depending on setting. Instantaneous, clearly not the case. Permanent, again not very likely, arguable depending on setting, although then you could dispel the sun instead of IHSing it. Concentration, that's extremely unlikely given the God's have better things to do.


So the only likely answer is a timed duration with a length greater than 1 round, so it is eligible for IHS on a theoretical level.

Edit: Additionally any time measured in hours, minutes, months, weeks, or years has an integer number of rounds duration.

For example 1 year would last 5260000 rounds, exactly, well depending on leap years in the world where you were. So it's not even rounding it's simple conversion in all cases.

1 minute is ten rounds there is no reason that this could be converted, no stated game law, we aren't coding, we aren't programming, ergo it is not relevant what units are listed in.


You are affected by gravity... want to fly? IHS away gravity's effect on you.

Flight... BY CROM!


Steering would be difficult though... Also not flying into space would be a bit of a hassle. Although that would be an awesome backstory for a Warblade...

He drifted from another world after IHSing away gravity on him and crashed on another world. He'd have to be able to eat the 20d6 damage, but that's certainly workable. And we'd have to rule that it wasn't gravity in general but rather that specific planet's gravity.

[Pickford]

Sunlight could also be an effect rather then a condition in much the same way that an explosion is an effect.

If you can provide game text to that effect, I would be inclined to agree. You do have to provide proof though, your opinion just isn't enough.

AMFV: Not good enough, you must provide actual game text that

1) Whatever is affecting the Warblade is a spell, effect, or condition.
2) It has a duration of 1 or more rounds.

[eggynack]

1) Whatever is affecting the Warblade is a spell, effect, or condition.
Condition is defined (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condition?s=t) as, "A particular mode of being of a person or thing." Being within the sunlight is a particular mode of being of our warblade. Thus, being within the sunlight is a condition.

2) It has a duration of 1 or more rounds.
A duration is defined (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/duration?s=t) as, "The length of time something continues or exists." A round is defined as 6 seconds, per the game rules, because that is actually a game defined term. The sunlight lasts for more than 6 seconds, so it has a duration of more than 6 seconds, so it has a duration of 1 or more rounds. If you wish to provide concrete and universal game definitions for the terms I've defined, you are free to do so.

[olentu]

If you can provide game text to that effect, I would be inclined to agree. You do have to provide proof though, your opinion just isn't enough.

That an explosion is an effect, PHB p. 310.

Or alternatively the dictionary "something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence." If you wish to provide a D&D rules definition of effect then feel free, but barring that we are left to the English definition.

[Pickford]

That an explosion is an effect, PHB p. 310.

The explosion mentioned there is Fireball, which is instantaneous, so it doesn't apply.

Eggynack: Condition is defined in the DMG, which makes the English definition moot.

Duration is ALSO defined in the PHB and Bo9S which, again, makes the English definition moot.

[eggynack]

Eggynack: Condition is defined in the DMG, which makes the English definition moot.

Duration is ALSO defined in the PHB and Bo9S which, again, makes the English definition moot.
Neither of those things are true, as I've already shown. The DMG absolutely does not define what a condition actually is. It merely provides a list of adverse conditions, which means that non-adverse conditions are fair game. Duration is also not defined in either source. It's merely explained what duration means in reference to those two game objects: spells, and maneuvers.

[Pickford]

Neither of those things are true, as I've already shown. The DMG absolutely does not define what a condition actually is. It merely provides a list of adverse conditions, which means that non-adverse conditions are fair game. Duration is also not defined in either source. It's merely explained what duration means in reference to those two game objects: spells, and maneuvers.

No it defines all the things that 'are' conditions. That's an exhaustive list.
edit: The point being, if it isn't in the DMG, it's not a condition according to the rules.

[olentu]

The explosion mentioned there is Fireball, which is instantaneous, so it doesn't apply.

No, you are making that up as far as I can tell. The quote is

"Line of effect tells you whether an effect (such as an explosion) can reach a creature."

If you wish to claim some sort of connection between that and a different example two sentences later you need to show some actual text. If you can provide rules text to that effect, I may be inclined to agree. You do have to provide proof though, your opinion just isn't enough.

[eggynack]

The explosion mentioned there is Fireball, which is instantaneous, so it doesn't apply.

Actually, he's referring to the part above that, which does not reference fireball. Specifically, the line, "Line of effect tells you whether an effect (such as
an explosion)." That part does not specify fireball, so it is not limited to fireball. I guess that for this line of reasoning, the Sun is an explosion, which is pretty much true, so therefore it is an effect. That's a pretty crazy line of reasoning, but it is also an amazing one, because it uses ridiculous explosion logic. I'm considering switching my position over to ridiculous explosion logic.

[illyahr]

No duration, in rounds or otherwise, however.

This exactly.

We have all agreed that the description of IHS is extremely poorly worded. Why, then, are we trying to use this poorly worded description as a base? We can't use RAW since RAW makes no sense in the context it is given. In fact, by RAW, IHS doesn't work AT ALL.

The best we can do is determine RAI and work from there. For that, we need to agree on a definition of "condition" that we can all agree with.

I put forth: "Any abnormal status that alter's your character's parameters." Fatigued would be a condition, as it changes your parameters, but HP damage would not as it is changing your state, not your parameters.

[eggynack]

This exactly.

We have all agreed that the description of IHS is extremely poorly worded. Why, then, are we trying to use this poorly worded description as a base? We can't use RAW since RAW makes no sense in the context it is given. In fact, by RAW, IHS doesn't work AT ALL.

The best we can do is determine RAI and work from there. For that, we need to agree on a definition of "condition" that we can all agree with.

I put forth: "Any abnormal status that alter's your character's parameters." Fatigued would be a condition, as it changes your parameters, but HP damage would not as it is changing your state, not your parameters.
I'm pretty sure that Pickford was arguing from the perspective that his claims were RAW, rather than some houserules that we should use instead of the RAW. Sure, using not-RAW is a fine and logical thing in this instance, but the RAW actually does both make sense and work. It just produces a number of results that range from non-intuitive to idiotic. If the goal here is evaluating how powerful IHS is, then understanding the limits of the actual ability is critical, and discussing potential houserules is pointless. The Sun destroying thing isn't a particularly useful usage of IHS, but it defines limitations of other things you can do to some extent. Anyways, if house rules are all you're looking for, unofficial ToB errata (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13292.0) seems like it'd be up your alley. The thing you came up with seems to be replacing poorly defined terms with other poorly defined terms, when just listing stuff that can be affected would likely work better.

[Chronos]

Where does it say that the list of conditions in the DMG is exhaustive? From what I can see, it just says that it's a list of conditions, but doesn't say anything at all about the possibility of conditions not on that list.

[illyahr]

when just listing stuff that can be affected would likely work better.

The problem we then come upon is: What if a new condition is added later? The very nature of IHS requires house ruling.

That's what I meant when I said IHS can't be used with RAW. The RAW make absolutely no sense. It references undefined terms by using undefined terms, hence why the "I IHS the sun" joke even got started. It eventually comes down to the DM making a ruling on it, which is house rules.

[eggynack]

The problem we then come upon is: What if a new condition is added later? The very nature of IHS requires house ruling.

I was talking about the implementation of a houserule, which doesn't use your still vaguely ambiguous set of rules. My way would have worked fine had it been done that way anyway, as they could always just say that any new condition is a new condition. That's what they did for dehydration in Sandstorm, and it would be trivial to continue to do that in the future. Just have a list in the first book, say that it comprises all conditions, and amend new ones to it. Completely unambiguous, or open to abuse of any kind. Also, I think it's what that unofficial errata I posted did, so that's a bonus in its favor.

[Shining Wrath]

Yes yes, badly designed wording, means Iron Heart surging the Sun away. But if you include effects to mean those in Status Effects on the d20srd only (or any other 'effects' specifically listed as such), most of the nastiest ones don't allow Actions, meaning IHS cannot be triggered. Is it the trap I see it as, or is it a lot better than what i see it as?

Every DM I have played ToB with has insisted on house ruling IHS...

[Big Fau]

Also, I think it's what that unofficial errata I posted did, so that's a bonus in its favor.

The other bonuses in it's favor is that it is actually useful errata...


Although it would be nice if Sinfire edited the damn thing.

[Icewraith]

If I'm reading it correctly, Iiyahir's houserules would STILL allow any race that takes penalties in sunlight to IHS the sun.

What's kind of hilarious is if the sun is actually just an epic level continuous, permanent, or just extremely long-lasting spell effect, IHS probably would end it.

What about effects with a duration of concentration? Something with a duration of (concentration) rounds is probably fair game, but are there any effects with a duration of (concentration) minutes? If there are (or were), would they be fair game for IHS?

[illyahr]

If I'm reading it correctly, Illyahr's houserules would STILL allow any race that takes penalties in sunlight to IHS the sun.

Not really, because the sun isn't a spell, spell effect, or ability effect (that we know of). You could IHS the penalties, as they are an effect of an ability, the ability being Light Blindness or Light Sensetivity.


What about effects with a duration of concentration? Something with a duration of (concentration) rounds is probably fair game, but are there any effects with a duration of (concentration) minutes? If there are (or were), would they be fair game for IHS?

I would say yes. The duration is still measured in a stated amount of time so I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[Icewraith]

Here's an interesting question... if you can IHS light blindness/sensitivity, and instead of removing the sun it removes the penalties, does it come back at some point? The next time you're affected by sunlight? The next round? Never because the penalty has been ended?

If it doesn't come back ever, what about racial stat penalties? Half-Orc warblades get pretty nifty that way. Colossal creatures (with lots of racial HD) take a level of warblade and IHS their size penalities to ac and DEX etc.

Sure, it solves the shivering touch problem, but now you've got Great Wyrms running around with even bigger ACs and martial maneuvers.

[georgie_leech]

Not getting into one of those debates again. Ugh. However, now I'm curious. In my games, I've usually houseruled it like this:


IHS takes No Action, but using it counts as using your Standard Action from this or your next turn. (if you use it out of turn)
If the effect or condition was caused by a spell that directly affects you, such as Slow or Confusion, it ends the spell. If the spell affects multiple creatures, it only ends for you.
If the effect or condition is caused by some persistent environmental factor (like the Sun dazzling an orc), IHS allows you to ignore that condition for 5 rounds.
If a spell affects you by creating some exernal condition that then affects you (e.g. Boreal Wind, Entangle, Web, etc.), it is treated as a persistent condition as above and you can ignore it for 5 rounds.
Unless IHS ends the source of the condition, IHS cannot let you ignore damage; for instance, being immersed in Lava will still damage you even if you use IHS.


Can anyone see any obvious holes in this ruling? The section on indirect spells is a bit sparse, as it would require me to write out the interaction of IHS with several thousand individual spells, but are there any common things you'd expect IHS to work on that this doesn't?

[illyahr]

Here's an interesting question... if you can IHS light blindness/sensitivity, and instead of removing the sun it removes the penalties, does it come back at some point? The next time you're affected by sunlight? The next round? Never because the penalty has been ended?

I would say it ends the dazzle effect from that exposure. Light Sensetivity only gives you the dazzled condition for a few rounds. After that, your eyes have adjusted.


•IHS takes No Action, but using it counts as using your Standard Action from this or your next turn. (if you use it out of turn)
•If the effect or condition was caused by a spell that directly affects you, such as Slow or Confusion, it ends the spell. If the spell affects multiple creatures, it only ends for you.
•If the effect or condition is caused by some persistent environmental factor (like the Sun dazzling an orc), IHS allows you to ignore that condition for 5 rounds.
•If a spell affects you by creating some exernal condition that then affects you (e.g. Boreal Wind, Entangle, Web, etc.), it is treated as a persistent condition as above and you can ignore it for 5 rounds.
•Unless IHS ends the source of the condition, IHS cannot let you ignore damage; for instance, being immersed in Lava will still damage you even if you use IHS.

1. Not sure I agree with this one, but I can see where you were going. I would say, instead, that you can only take a partial action (move or standard action, not both) on your next turn if I were to use something like this.
2. Yes, agreed.
3. Don't agree with this one. Dazzle effects and the like only last for a few rounds anyway, the IHS would just negate the status until it could be inflicted again.
4. Again, see number three. The effect of the spell creates a temporary state (Web entangles, for instance) that you could IHS out of (you end the entangling effect completely with a Strength or Escape Artist check). A secondary effect of Web creates difficult terrain, but that one is up to the DM, I guess, as I could see it both ways.
5. Agree with this also.

[georgie_leech]

1. Not sure I agree with this one, but I can see where you were going. I would say, instead, that you can only take a partial action (move or standard action, not both) on your next turn if I were to use something like this.

The intent was to still allow for additional actions if they can be gained from an outside source, like from a Belt of Battle, while still "using" the same action originally set for IHS.



3. Don't agree with this one. Dazzle effects and the like only last for a few rounds anyway, the IHS would just negate the status until it could be inflicted again.

The intent on this one is to clarify how IHS interacts with effects it makes no sense for IHS to be able to end. Personally, I think that, say, an Orc should be able to "By Crom!" his way through sunlight, at least temporarily, but it shouldn't work by removing the Sun.

It's not that something is giving you "Condition: Dazzled" (or slowed, or weakened, or whatever) that this part deals with, it's that the conditions are being imposed by something that shouldn't be able to be removed. Does that make sense?


4. Again, see number three. The effect of the spell creates a temporary state (Web entangles, for instance) that you could IHS out of (you end the entangling effect completely with a Strength or Escape Artist check). A secondary effect of Web creates difficult terrain, but that one is up to the DM, I guess, as I could see it both ways.

In this case I'm the DM so I generally say you ignore the entire spell. :smallwink:

Again, the intent with this one is to let you ignore environmental effects, even if the effects themselves are temporary. Though now that you mention it, it does seem like Web or something else that involves a Strength Check or similar to break out would be IHSed away by essentially auto-succeeding on said check. Hm. I need to think about that one.

Thanks for the input.

[illyahr]

The intent was to still allow for additional actions if they can be gained from an outside source, like from a Belt of Battle, while still "using" the same action originally set for IHS.

Belt of Battle gives extra actions by expending charges, or actions +1. It would still work if they were stuck with a partial action to start with, I think.



The intent on this one is to clarify how IHS interacts with effects it makes no sense for IHS to be able to end. Personally, I think that, say, an Orc should be able to "By Crom!" his way through sunlight, at least temporarily, but it shouldn't work by removing the Sun.

It's not that something is giving you "Condition: Dazzled" (or slowed, or weakened, or whatever) that this part deals with, it's that the conditions are being imposed by something that shouldn't be able to be removed. Does that make sense?

I understand your reasoning, yes. I had thought that the dazzled condition was temporary, but it isn't. It remains until the creature leaves direct sunlight, so technically IHS wouldn't work on it anyway. Which is kind of silly. :smallconfused:


In this case I'm the DM so I generally say you ignore the entire spell. :smallwink:

Got me on that one. :smallbiggrin:


Again, the intent with this one is to let you ignore environmental effects, even if the effects themselves are temporary. Though now that you mention it, it does seem like Web or something else that involves a Strength Check or similar to break out would be IHSed away by essentially auto-succeeding on said check. Hm. I need to think about that one.

Thanks for the input.

Could we say, then, that IHS is basically saying you auto-succeed to break free of the effect? This would only apply to conditions that you could break free from, which I think sound about right actually.

[georgie_leech]

Belt of Battle gives extra actions by expending charges, or actions +1. It would still work if they were stuck with a partial action to start with, I think.

By strict reading, limiting actions taken to a partial action doesn't care if you can get extra actions, it just denies any other action types. I borrowed the phrasing from the Swift/Immediate action rules, because I figured that was a good place to start.



I understand your reasoning, yes. I had thought that the dazzled condition was temporary, but it isn't. It remains until the creature leaves direct sunlight, so technically IHS wouldn't work on it anyway. Which is kind of silly. :smallconfused:

Huh, you know you're right. Maybe changing it so that it's just "any effect that is non-instantaneous" or similar would work?

...Hm, that means you can IHS away a grapple. If I go that route, I should probably figure out how that works, and if it even should work. If it doesn't, hopefully there's some wording that would prevent it without specifically calling out Grappling; specific exemptions always strike me as inelegant.



Could we say, then, that IHS is basically saying you auto-succeed to break free of the effect? This would only apply to conditions that you could break free from, which I think sound about right actually.

Yeah, that does make sense. Something like "Upon using IHS, you can automatically break free of any effect that a successful Strength Check can end." IHS your way out of those chains? Sure, why not.

[Pickford]

No, you are making that up as far as I can tell. The quote is

"Line of effect tells you whether an effect (such as an explosion) can reach a creature."

If you wish to claim some sort of connection between that and a different example two sentences later you need to show some actual text. If you can provide rules text to that effect, I may be inclined to agree. You do have to provide proof though, your opinion just isn't enough.

Try using the whole quote, the third sentence of which reads:


For instance, a fireball's explosion doesn't care if a creature is invisible or hiding in darkness.

So no, I'm not making things up, there's your proof.

eggynack: The sun is a ball of superheated plasma, not an explosion. It is an object, not an effect.

Furthermore, the Light Sensitivity has no duration, so it's not a valid target for IHS.

[olentu]

Try using the whole quote, the third sentence of which reads:



So no, I'm not making things up, there's your proof.



If you wish to claim some sort of connection between that and a different example two sentences later you need to show some actual text. If you can provide rules text to that effect, I may be inclined to agree. You do have to provide proof though, your opinion just isn't enough.

[eggynack]

Try using the whole quote, the third sentence of which reads:

So no, I'm not making things up, there's your proof.
I don't exactly see what that's proof of. Those sentences seem entirely disconnected. The lines clearly indicate that an explosion is an effect. They separately indicate that a fireball is an explosion, but that doesn't really stop the possibility of other things being explosions.


The sun is a ball of superheated plasma, not an explosion. It is an object, not an effect.
It may be an object, though as you know it is never defined as such within the rules. However, the sun might also be considered a continuous explosion, due to its very nature as the Sun. I'm not sure if there's any rule that states that an object can't also be an effect. Seriously, the deeper into the rules logic this line of reasoning goes, the more awesome it gets.


Furthermore, the Light Sensitivity has no duration, so it's not a valid target for IHS.
I don't think I've used light sensitivity in any of my arguments. If the sun is an effect, as I am now contending it is, then it satisfies the first condition of the maneuver. The Sun absolutely affects your character, because it causes there to be light and heat (and gravity), which you are experiencing. Thus, it satisfies the second condition. As the Sun can now be considered to be satisfying both conditions of the maneuver, you can foom away the actual Sun, because the Sun is the effect that is being discussed, rather than its light.

[Pickford]

If you wish to claim some sort of connection between that and a different example two sentences later you need to show some actual text. If you can provide rules text to that effect, I may be inclined to agree. You do have to provide proof though, your opinion just isn't enough.

That's not a different example, that's the entry under line of effect you tried to use to show what an effect is. The problem is that isn't what an effect is, that's how you determine line of effect. The entry used was showing that a Fireball IS an effect, but it's also (as we know from the fireball entry) instantaneous which renders your example incorrect.

Eggynack: You are asserting because one cannot prove the sun is not and effect, it must be? :smallconfused:

That is antithetical to the functioning of D&D. Things are not a thing until they are stated as being so.

For example: No requirement is necessary to show that all creatures don't have Light Sensitivity just because they aren't labeled "Not Light Sensitive".

[eggynack]

That's not a different example, that's the entry under line of effect you tried to use to show what an effect is. The problem is that isn't what an effect is, that's how you determine line of effect. The entry used was showing that a Fireball IS an effect, but it's also (as we know from the fireball entry) instantaneous which renders your example incorrect.
They are completely different examples. The explosion is being used as an example of an effect, when it says, "whether an effect (such as
an explosion)," and the fireball is being used as an example of how line of effect works. There's no implication that all explosions work the same as fireballs, or that certain explosions are not effects.


Eggynack: You are asserting because one cannot prove the sun is not and effect, it must be? :smallconfused:

That is antithetical to the functioning of D&D. Things are not a thing until they are stated as being so.

For example: No requirement is necessary to show that all creatures don't have Light Sensitivity just because they aren't labeled "Not Light Sensitive".
Where did I argue that? My argument is just olentu's argument. Explosions are effects, and the Sun is an explosion, so the Sun is an effect. The only flaw in the logic is the premise that the Sun is an explosion, though it seems to be a reasonable assertion.

[Pickford]

They are completely different examples. The explosion is being used as an example of an effect, when it says, "whether an effect (such as
an explosion)," and the fireball is being used as an example of how line of effect works. There's no implication that all explosions work the same as fireballs, or that certain explosions are not effects.


Where did I argue that? My argument is just olentu's argument. Explosions are effects, and the Sun is an explosion, so the Sun is an effect. The only flaw in the logic is the premise that the Sun is an explosion, though it seems to be a reasonable assertion.

You make the claim the Sun is an explosion, but offer no proof therein. Show me the textual citation from the game that says the Sun is an explosion which is an effect (which affects a character) which allows IHS to work.

So far it's just a hack job of making spurious claims.

[georgie_leech]

Where did I argue that? My argument is just olentu's argument. Explosions are effects, and the Sun is an explosion, so the Sun is an effect. The only flaw in the logic is the premise that the Sun is an explosion, though it seems to be a reasonable assertion.

Eh, if anything the Sun would be a massive Permanent Emanation. The continual lack of rapid expansion makes "explosion" an unsuitable descriptor. It might have been considered so once, at the start of its life cycle, but not any more.

[olentu]

That's not a different example, that's the entry under line of effect you tried to use to show what an effect is. The problem is that isn't what an effect is, that's how you determine line of effect. The entry used was showing that a Fireball IS an effect, but it's also (as we know from the fireball entry) instantaneous which renders your example incorrect.

You are the one that originally claimed that the two examples are related. Since you made the original claim about the relationship between the examples you must provide the proof. You do have to provide proof though, your opinion just isn't enough.

[eggynack]

You make the claim the Sun is an explosion, but offer no proof therein. Show me the textual citation from the game that says the Sun is an explosion which is an effect (which affects a character) which allows IHS to work.

So far it's just a hack job of making spurious claims.
Well, the Sun in the game is effectively the Sun in real life, because folks have noted some sort of thing that indicates that things here are as things there. As there is no explosion definition in the game, as far as I know, we can once again return to the world of standard English. So, the question isn't whether the game's Sun explodes. It's whether our Sun explodes. Georgie made an interesting point on that topic that I've yet to seriously consider, so I'll probably have to do that. My essential claim would be that the constant fusion reaction taking place within the Sun constitutes an explosion, but it'll take some analysis of precisely what explosion definition we're using, how the Sun works, and a comparison of the two.

[Pickford]

Well, the Sun in the game is effectively the Sun in real life, because folks have noted some sort of thing that indicates that things here are as things there. As there is no explosion definition in the game, as far as I know, we can once again return to the world of standard English. So, the question isn't whether the game's Sun explodes. It's whether our Sun explodes. Georgie made an interesting point on that topic that I've yet to seriously consider, so I'll probably have to do that. My essential claim would be that the constant fusion reaction taking place within the Sun constitutes an explosion, but it'll take some analysis of precisely what explosion definition we're using, how the Sun works, and a comparison of the two.

If there are no stats, and no listed duration for what you're claiming is an effect, then there is no way IHS can be used.

[olentu]

If there are no stats, and no listed duration for what you're claiming is an effect, then there is no way IHS can be used.

So you are claiming that the sun does not have "A period of existence or persistence," as you must be in order to claim that the sun does not have a duration.

[Deophaun]

The sun is no more an explosion than a pressure cooker is an explosion. A key any explosion is a large increase in volume over a teeny-tiny time-span. That's not what's happening to the sun in general.

Now, it's unlikely that you're going to find a giant ball of plasma as a documented setting... unless you're looking at planes. So, I took a little walk through the DMG to see if planar traits were effects. The results seem to be that the terms "trait" and "effect" are closely related, and may even be interchangeable. For example:

There may be particular locations within a plane where the rules are different, perhaps because of natural effects, godly interference, or magical localities.
Traits can be the result of effects.

You can choose to decrease gravity even further, doubling or tripling the effect for a particular plane.
Certain traits, such as gravity, are referred to as effects.

So basically, while you might not be able to IHS the Sun's light away, you could IHS the Sun's gravity away. At that point, the lid of the pressure cooker pops off, and it is an explosion. Now, if that explosion has a duration greater than 1 round (and if it follows the rules of this world and so obliterates an entire race of catgirls, it absolutely does), you could then IHS the resulting supernova.

[eggynack]

If there are no stats, and no listed duration for what you're claiming is an effect, then there is no way IHS can be used.
At what point, during your repeated claims that this is true, are you going to prove that this is true? You don't need a listed duration, because there is a duration.

The sun is no more an explosion than a pressure cooker is an explosion. A key any explosion is a large increase in volume over a teeny-tiny time-span. That's not what's happening to the sun in general.
Yeah, that stuff is probably true, so I'll likely end up having to ditch explosion logic. It's all somewhat tragic.


Now, it's unlikely that you're going to find a giant ball of plasma as a documented setting... unless you're looking at planes. So, I took a little walk through the DMG to see if planar traits were effects. The results seem to be that the terms "trait" and "effect" are closely related, and may even be interchangeable. For example:

Traits can be the result of effects.

Certain traits, such as gravity, are referred to as effects.

So basically, while you might not be able to IHS the Sun's light away, you could IHS the Sun's gravity away. At that point, the lid of the pressure cooker pops off, and it is an explosion. Now, if that explosion has a duration greater than 1 round (and if it follows the rules of this world and so obliterates an entire race of catgirls, it absolutely does), you could then IHS the resulting supernova.
That's some pretty fancy logic right there. I mean, if you're removing the Sun's gravity, you probably won't have to remove the Sun's explosion, but that'd be a cool thing to do. I wonder what other random Sun qualities can be defined as effects, or if there actually is some way to define the Sun as an effect in its current state, rather than in a state where its being an effect is irrelevant.

[Pickford]

So you are claiming that the sun does not have "A period of existence or persistence," as you must be in order to claim that the sun does not have a duration.

Incorrect, please don't tell me what I'm saying thank you.

I said it doesn't have a listed duration. Not what you said, as those are not the same thing. Duration is a game mechanic, and as such has meaning outside the English definition.

[georgie_leech]

I said it doesn't have a listed duration. Not what you said, as those are not the same thing. Duration is a game mechanic, and as such has meaning outside the English definition.

Which is?

Seriously, this has been brought up time and again. What's the game definition? Not specific kinds of duration, like "Spell duration" or whatever, but "Duration" itself?

[Pickford]

Which is?

Seriously, this has been brought up time and again. What's the game definition? Not specific kinds of duration, like "Spell duration" or whatever, but "Duration" itself?

If you don't own the Bo9S we can stop having this conversation. If you do own it, you can open it to the correct page on durations and we're done having it. Either way, we don't need to continue.

[georgie_leech]

If you don't own the Bo9S we can stop having this conversation. If you do own it, you can open it to the correct page on durations and we're done having it. Either way, we don't need to continue.

That has nothing to do with Duration or its definition. Try again, proper sourcing please.

[olentu]

Incorrect, please don't tell me what I'm saying thank you.

I said it doesn't have a listed duration. Not what you said, as those are not the same thing. Duration is a game mechanic, and as such has meaning outside the English definition.

No, since you have yet to demonstrate the general definition of duration in the game rules then we default to English. Thus you are claiming that the sun does not have "A period of existence or persistence," as you must be in order to claim that the sun does not have a duration.

[Pickford]

That has nothing to do with Duration or its definition. Try again, proper sourcing please.

You're right, the entry on "Duration" on page 45 has NOTHING to do with Duration.

[georgie_leech]

You're right, the entry on "Duration" on page 45 has NOTHING to do with Duration.

So what is it?

[eggynack]

You're right, the entry on "Duration" on page 45 has NOTHING to do with Duration.
Correction: it has nothing to do with duration's definition. It does not list a definition, and it certainly doesn't list a definition that would apply generally. The word "duration" there is being used in a manner interchangeable with its standard English usage, so the standard English usage applies.

[illyahr]

You have to remember that there is duration and then there is Duration. The Duration of an effect or ability falls into the same category as it's Target, Components, Casting Time, etc.

So, yes, the sun has a duration (a non-zero, non-infinite span of time), but it does not have a Duration (an in-game reference to how long something lasts) as an explicit length of time is not given.

For another example: an evil character holding a Holy weapon gets a negative level. This negative level does have a duration (as long as the weapon is weilded) but the amount of time is not specified so it doesn't have a Duration to qualify for use of IHS.

[Deophaun]

For another example: an evil character holding a Holy weapon gets a negative level. This negative level does have a duration (as long as the weapon is weilded) but the amount of time is not specified so it doesn't have a Duration to qualify for use of IHS.
I just checked my copy of ToB. It says "duration," not "Duration."

[Deox]

Pickford's posts make me giggle uncontrollably.

Since giggling is now a condition affecting me, and probably one or more rounds I'd imagine, can I IHS him away?

[illyahr]

I just checked my copy of ToB. It says "duration," not "Duration."

Sorry, I'll clarify a bit. I use the capital letter only as a reference to a specific usage of the word duration, not that the word itself needs to be capitalized in this particular instance. I refer to the duration given in the description of any given spell/effect/ability.

Since the negative level gained from weilding equipment of an opposed alignment does not give an exact set of time, only the conditional "as long as it's held," it wouldn't qualify for IHS. You are welcome to interpret this as you see fit, however. :smallsmile: