[D&D 3.5] Why is IHS So Hard?

[Kevingway]

Iron Heart Surging away the sun? Iron Heart Surging away a Paladin's Code of Conduct? Really guys?

I never looked that closely at the text of IHS before, but it explicitly calls for a duration measured in rounds. Is the sun measured in rounds? No. Personally, I think the text is quite clear that, at the very most, you may end an effect that has a nonpermanent duration.

Has this really not been called to attention before, or is it just a fun running joke with no actual merit? I have to be missing the brokenness of this--you know, besides the fact that it's at least a powerful ability.

[eggynack]

Does the Sun have a permanent duration now? My impression was that it, like most things in the universe, will eventually collapse under the unceasing weight of entropy. Someday there shall be no Sun, and the time between now and then can be easily measured in rounds. Thus, duration. It's reasonably solid, RAW-wise. It's kinda irrelevant from a game perspective, because no one is likely to do such a thing, but it's interesting to understand the limits of a given power, and extrapolate the lower power things it can do from there.

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's the same insano-literal RAW reading quality that spawns threads on "all the stuff you can do [read: aren't explicitly un-allowed from doing] while dead." Some people like to conjecture about it, I don't know why.

I do think IHS works on any non-Instantaneous duration condition, though. Which includes permanent ones. And it explicitly can shut down entire areas of effect.

But it should only work on things directly affecting you. Not dissolving the sun because it makes you hot. Not dispelling a summoned monster because it's grappling you (you'd escape the grapple, though). And not making a paladin fall because...hell if I even know the convoluted and idiotic reasoning behind that one....
Not by proxy, I suppose.

(I also houserule it to be Su; and to be able to be used when you otherwise cannot move or cannot use Su abilities, but only to remove the effect preventing you from moving or using Su (like anti-magic field). Because it not being Su is silly; and not being able to rage your way out of being paralyzed because as a maneuver you have to be able to move to use it is also silly)

[Deophaun]

I never looked that closely at the text of IHS before, but it explicitly calls for a duration measured in rounds.
Must be a very special definition of explicit that requires inference on the part of the reader.

[JaronK]

I never looked that closely at the text of IHS before, but it explicitly calls for a duration measured in rounds. Is the sun measured in rounds? No.

Actually, the FAQ (IIRC) says that IHS can remove diseases, which are not measured in rounds. Another example involves removing Antimagic Fields, which are measured in minutes. What it says is one or more rounds, and anything with a duration of a minute or hour or more is definitely one or more rounds.

The fact is, it's just very poorly worded by RAW, causing everyone who uses it to come up with their own interpretation.

JaronK

[Kevingway]

Does the Sun have a permanent duration now? My impression was that it, like most things in the universe, will eventually collapse under the unceasing weight of entropy. Someday there shall be no Sun, and the time between now and then can be easily measured in rounds. Thus, duration. It's reasonably solid, RAW-wise. It's kinda irrelevant from a game perspective, because no one is likely to do such a thing, but it's interesting to understand the limits of a given power, and extrapolate the lower power things it can do from there.

That's assuming that in a DM's campaign setting, the sun follows real-world physics. Nearly everything in D&D is magical and deific, and therefore probably not subject to the same limitations as actual physics. Then again, I'm also assuming the same, but these sorts of circumstances are subject to only the specificity of the campaign itself.


It's the same insano-literal RAW reading quality that spawns threads on "all the stuff you can do [read: aren't explicitly un-allowed from doing] while dead." Some people like to conjecture about it, I don't know why.

I do think IHS works on any non-Instantaneous duration condition, though. Which includes permanent ones. And it explicitly can shut down entire areas of effect.

In this instance, I feel that magic item creation rules would apply. You pay a different price for durations measured in permanent than you do durations measured in rounds, therefore providing some premise for the fact that permanent isn't the same as x/round. "1 or more rounds," as is the wording for IHS, specifically calls out rounds, and therefore would exclude permanent durations from being expelled by IHS.


Actually, the FAQ (IIRC) says that IHS can remove diseases, which are not measured in rounds. Another example involves removing Antimagic Fields, which are measured in minutes. What it says is one or more rounds, and anything with a duration of a minute or hour or more is definitely one or more rounds.

JaronK

Does the Antimagic Field mention also come from the FAQ? I would actually debate the FAQ. By my experience, the FAQ nearly forgets just about every rules premise that it attempts to clarify. If I remember correctly, the FAQ practically had no idea about its own Slam and Trample rules. Granted, these are entirely different from the subject of IHS, but I'm imagining that for these questions to even crop up, the writer of the FAQ probably didn't even look at the RAW to give a good answer, but just said, "Sure, why not?"

[eggynack]

That's assuming that in a DM's campaign setting, the sun follows real-world physics. Nearly everything in D&D is magical and deific, and therefore probably not subject to the same limitations as actual physics. Then again, I'm also assuming the same, but these sorts of circumstances are subject to only the specificity of the campaign itself.

By my recollection, the standard campaign setting assumes that things are generally near Earth-like. Anyways, I'm only assuming that the Sun is like the Sun. I guess that if it's not the Sun, the rules might change a little, but turning it into some giant magic orb might have consequences that you didn't intend.

[StreamOfTheSky]

In this instance, I feel that magic item creation rules would apply. You pay a different price for durations measured in permanent than you do durations measured in rounds, therefore providing some premise for the fact that permanent isn't the same as x/round.

Uh, what are you talking about?

You get a +5 weapon, dispel magic only blocks it for 1d4 rounds before it comes roaring back.

You get, say... a +5 enhancement made permanent via Greater Magic Fang + Permanency -- because the Scorpion Kama didn't freaking exist in 2003 and my high level monk needed *something* to boost his unarmed strike -- and it goes pop FOREVER on the first successful dispel magic, just as easily as a 1 round duration spell does. It doesn't even get some sort of bonus to "resist" to reflect its immortal duration.

Believe me, I know. Because the first 3E monk I ever played was 17th level and you'd better believe the second encounter of his very existence, he got hit with a Greater Dispel. I sure as heck wasn't noticing a grand difference between "permanent" and "round/level" then. :smallfurious:

[Kevingway]

Uh, what are you talking about?

This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm):


If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.

It's a different ruleset for an entirely different topic, but the point I'm trying to make is that equating the meanings of durations into the same thing is what is warping the IHS definition into something entirely unintended.

[Deophaun]

By my recollection, the standard campaign setting assumes that things are generally near Earth-like.
Not simply Earth-like, but:

The Material Plane tends to be the most Earthlike of all planes and operates under the same set of natural laws that our own real world does.
So there you have it. The DMG kills all the cat girls.

[eggynack]

Not simply Earth-like, but:

So there you have it. The DMG kills all the cat girls.
Nice. I remember that coming up in a previous discussion on this topic, but I didn't recall the source. Anyways, now I've got to wonder if this means that physics is RAW, and that weird stuff like the commoner railgun and other wacky things of that nature are back on the rhetorical table.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This discussion is already in progress.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311068&page=7

It starts about half way down the page and dominates most of the pages of the thread.

The RAW does -not- explicitly say that the target effect must be measured in rounds but it -may- imply such.

Also, condition's definition is hotly contested. It may or may not have a proper, in-game definition.

Also also, effect definitely has no proper in-game definition.

The RAW for IHS is a sad, half-finished joke. It is my heartfelt opinion that, since the maneuver absolutely -must- be interpreted by a DM to function, it should be ignored in RAW discussions.

[Deophaun]

Anyways, now I've got to wonder if this means that physics is RAW, and that weird stuff like the commoner railgun and other wacky things of that nature are back on the rhetorical table.
Did a google search for that thread just to find out where the quote was from.

Yeah, have to re-evaluate a lot of things as RAW legal due to that. Probably best to just pretend page 147 doesn't exist though, and save everyone a mess of trouble.

[eggynack]

Did a google search for that thread just to find out where the quote was from.

Yeah, have to re-evaluate a lot of things as RAW legal due to that. Probably best to just pretend page 147 doesn't exist though, and save everyone a mess of trouble.
Seems like a decent plan, unless the inverse becomes arbitrarily convenient for me in some sort of argument. I mean, I'm basically morally obligated to respond to at least one "Physics is not RAW" post with the evidence that it is, just for the fun of it. Even more amusing, it looks like physics is RAW, unless you're off the prime material plane, in which case all of this stuff stops being part of the game. There is a horror lurking under our game, and its name is RAW-physics.

[StreamOfTheSky]

This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm):



It's a different ruleset for an entirely different topic, but the point I'm trying to make is that equating the meanings of durations into the same thing is what is warping the IHS definition into something entirely unintended.

And apparently you missed the part where an effect with a duration of permanent is none of those things. Again, dispel only suppresses those for 1d4 rounds. It completely wipes out a permanent effect.
IHS is like a dispel that works on more stuff and auto-succeeds.

There's also the fact that "continuous" is used for personal items, and not offensive items used against others. I'm not sure there is a way to inflict a foe with a "continuous" effect, whether by magic item or other means. And IHS only works on effects affecting the adept, not the other guy's +6 dexterity gloves.

[Kevingway]

The RAW does -not- explicitly say that the target effect must be measured in rounds but it -may- imply such.


When you use this maneuver, select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds.

Exact wording. Rounds is a measurement common to most abilities, either listed as X Round or X Round/level, etc.

I'm not really sure where you're getting the "imply" portion... as it stands, that wording is pretty clear.

And yes, there are conversions for Rounds to Minutes and Minutes to Rounds, but those units of measurement have their own labels in certain abilities; otherwise, every ability should simply say 6 Rounds as opposed to 1 Minute. There's a reason they're separate, and this ability is one of them.

[eggynack]

It's a different ruleset for an entirely different topic, but the point I'm trying to make is that equating the meanings of durations into the same thing is what is warping the IHS definition into something entirely unintended.
First of all, IHS never says that the duration has to be listed in rounds. It merely says that there has to be one or more rounds, which is true of just about any duration that's longer than a round. Second of all, of course this is warping the IHS definition into something entirely unintended. Wasn't that obvious? It's practically the whole point. The fact remains, however, that an unintended thing can still be a true thing, and understanding the truth is the best way to figure out how to proceed. You can't really fix what you don't understand.

Edit:
Exact wording. Rounds is a measurement common to most abilities, either listed as X Round or X Round/level, etc.

I'm not really sure where you're getting the "imply" portion... as it stands, that wording is pretty clear.

And yes, there are conversions for Rounds to Minutes and Minutes to Rounds, but those units of measurement have their own labels in certain abilities; otherwise, every ability should simply say 6 Rounds as opposed to 1 Minute. There's a reason they're separate, and this ability is one of them.
The ability says that the duration has to be one or more rounds, but it does not say that it must be expressed as such. Abilities could say 10 rounds/level (not 6) if they wanted to, and there would be no change to the rules, unless such a change were explicitly listed in the text. There is no express requirement for a listing in rounds here, so things work within the rules.

[Deophaun]

I'm not really sure where you're getting the "imply" portion... as it stands, that wording is pretty clear.
I don't get where he's getting "implying" either, as the FAQ's mention of IHS affecting permanent effects means that the writers likely implied no such thing.

However, you are inferring that IHS is limited to only effects measured in rounds, as the part you quoted does not say it.

This has been a warning from the grammar police.

[georgie_leech]

And yes, there are conversions for Rounds to Minutes and Minutes to Rounds, but those units of measurement have their own labels in certain abilities; otherwise, every ability should simply say 6 Rounds as opposed to 1 Minute. There's a reason they're separate, and this ability is one of them.

No, it's for the same reason we use hours and minutes and don't count time in seconds since last midnight. Not everyone wants to do the math every time they need to know how long a 14400 round/level spell lasts in strategic and not tactical terms.

[Kevingway]

And apparently you missed the part where an effect with a duration of permanent is none of those things. Again, dispel only suppresses those for 1d4 rounds. It completely wipes out a permanent effect.
IHS is like a dispel that works on more stuff and auto-succeeds.

There's also the fact that "continuous" is used for personal items, and not offensive items used against others. I'm not sure there is a way to inflict a foe with a "continuous" effect, whether by magic item or other means. And IHS only works on effects affecting the adept, not the other guy's +6 dexterity gloves.

I'm afraid I have to ask you to slow down and give me some context. You're bringing in full-force item arguments when I used but one example, and so far the only thing I can see is that you're equating IHS to Dispel Magic, which has its own set of specific rules for specific situations of which IHS does not.

Most effects that borrow from another subset of rules will say to treat as Dispel Magic, but with exceptions, or something of that sort. IHS doesn't do that.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Exact wording. Rounds is a measurement common to most abilities, either listed as X Round or X Round/level, etc.

I'm not really sure where you're getting the "imply" portion... as it stands, that wording is pretty clear.

And yes, there are conversions for Rounds to Minutes and Minutes to Rounds, but those units of measurement have their own labels in certain abilities; otherwise, every ability should simply say 6 Rounds as opposed to 1 Minute. There's a reason they're separate, and this ability is one of them.

Q: What is a "round"?

A: Six seconds.

A: The smallest amount of time quantified by the rules (a free action may take "practically no time" and such, but there's no exact numerical value given).

Both answers are correct. But what does that mean? 1) You're turning the term "round" into some special, sanctified distinction when it's really just a specific increment of time, 6 seconds in this case. 2) By definition, anything that is a duration longer than 6 seconds can be measured in rounds (including decimal values, like 1.25 rounds, though the game sticks to integer multiples).

You're reaching worse than an enlarged whip using Tall Deformity Inhuman Reach Warshaper, dude.



I'm afraid I have to ask you to slow down and give me some context. You're bringing in full-force item arguments when I used but one example, and so far the only thing I can see is that you're equating IHS to Dispel Magic, which has its own set of specific rules for specific situations of which IHS does not.

Most effects that borrow from another subset of rules will say to treat as Dispel Magic, but with exceptions, or something of that sort. IHS doesn't do that.

I'm using dispel magic as an example because it's about the closest thing you'll get to IHS, and a much better tool for comparison than magic items, which is what you were using.

Since the debate between us started when I said permanent effects ARE removed by surge, and you claimed otherwise. And dispel magic actually explicitly works on permanent spell effects (infinite duration), but not instantaneous effects (no duration, magic's done and gone). While as the item creation rules you cite don't even mention "permanent" items but "continuous" ones.

[eggynack]

Most effects that borrow from another subset of rules will say to treat as Dispel Magic, but with exceptions, or something of that sort. IHS doesn't do that.
And most (read: all) things that require a duration to be expressed in rounds to operate will explicitly say so. As is, one minute is one or more rounds, as is one hour, and billions of years.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Exact wording. Rounds is a measurement common to most abilities, either listed as X Round or X Round/level, etc.

I'm not really sure where you're getting the "imply" portion... as it stands, that wording is pretty clear.

And yes, there are conversions for Rounds to Minutes and Minutes to Rounds, but those units of measurement have their own labels in certain abilities; otherwise, every ability should simply say 6 Rounds as opposed to 1 Minute. There's a reason they're separate, and this ability is one of them.

I'm pretty sure the duration of the sun's existence is more than one round, which fits the exact definition you just cited.

[Talya]

Explicit would be saying, "IHS only affects conditions that have a duration expressed in rounds." That wording is used for other such effects in game. It is not used for IHS.

Now, IHS can't extinguish the sun. The sun is not an effect or condition. You being dazzled/sunburned/whatever is a condition/effect. However, IHS can pretty much cancel any effect upon you that doesn't prevent you from taking an action against it.

[Augmental]

I'm pretty sure the duration of the sun's existence is more than one round, which fits the exact definition you just cited.

About 5.256e+16 rounds, to be exact. (Assuming a "duration" of 10 billion years".)

[Deophaun]

Now, IHS can't extinguish the sun. The sun is not an effect or condition.
It's a bit more involved, but it can be done through RAW and that page that shall not be named.

-Gravity is called out as an effect. It lasts longer than 1 round. You can IHS the Sun's gravity.

-As the prime material operates on our rules, without its gravity holding it together, the Sun explodes.

-Again, the prime material operates on our rules. It will take several minutes for the explosion to reach the planet, giving the Warblade time to refresh his maneuvers.

-Explosions are also called out as an effect. The resulting explosion from the Sun will last more than 1 round (once again, operates on our rules). Assuming our Warblade survives that round, he can IHS the explosion.

End result: Pelor is sad.

[Captnq]

Side note, my group just calls it Flex.

Hit with a curse? Flex it off.

Got a disease? Flex those muscles.

Sort of like a bad Chuck Norris joke.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I say imply because of the specific use of "one or more rounds" as opposed to "one round or longer." The latter would have been crystal clear whereas the former, regardless of designer intent, creates the situation where that choice of phrasing could be interpreted to mean the designer -did- intend for the maneuver to be limited to items whose durations were measured in rounds.

While there is no correct way to play, some groups -do- want to cleave to designer intent and that is why the implication, intended or not, matters.

[Captnq]

When you use this maneuver, select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds.

Hate to tell ya this, but I've torn enough contracts apart to know that this means any unit of time from 1 round to infinity.

This is just a poorly written power. Way too many loopholes.

Select one effect? What's an Effect? Technically a fart that lasts for more then six seconds is an effect. If you smell it and flex, you end the fart.

That's dumb as hell, but that's how it reads.

[georgie_leech]

While there is no correct way to play, some groups -do- want to cleave to designer intent and that is why the implication, intended or not, matters.

In that case such groups could probably look up the FAQ and see what they intended though.

[eggynack]

I say imply because of the specific use of "one or more rounds" as opposed to "one round or longer." The latter would have been crystal clear whereas the former, regardless of designer intent, creates the situation where that choice of phrasing could be interpreted to mean the designer -did- intend for the maneuver to be limited to items whose durations were measured in rounds.

While there is no correct way to play, some groups -do- want to cleave to designer intent and that is why the implication, intended or not, matters.
Except that I don't even think that that's true. While it can't really be used as a source of RAW, by my reading at least, the FAQ makes for a pretty decent resource when it comes to determining RAI. The FAQ explicitly mentions durations that aren't listed in rounds being destroyed by IHS, so I've gotta assume that that was the intended result. The fact that it matches with the RAW of the situation helps, as does the fact that creating arbitrary distinctions between units of time measurement, especially when that distinction is not an explicit one, feels a bit, well, arbitrary.

[Kelb_Panthera]

In that case such groups could probably look up the FAQ and see what they intended though.

The problem with that is that the faq answer didn't necessarily come from the designer that actually wrote IHS or even one of the designers that worked on ToB at all. To whit, many faq answers are copy-pasted from ask the sage answers, all of which were written by either Andy Collins or Skip Williams. More than one of those questions is about material that neither of them worked on.

Further weakening this position is the fact that many of these answers were written several weeks or even a month or more after the book was printed, when the designers are well into their next project and may or may not clearly remember their original intent, even when it is the same designer or when the writer of the faq answer has access to that designer.

This is an unfortunate but real concern when looking at the rules as legal code, in which intention and precedent matter, as opposed to computer code, where they don't.

Edit: just putting this out there; I'm actually on the 1 round or longer side, as a DM. I just think it's important to understand the other side's position.

[eggynack]

This is an unfortunate but real concern when looking at the rules as legal code, in which intention and precedent matter, as opposed to computer code, where they don't.
They could matter, if we had the designer's intent in front of us, but we don't. You can say that you see some intent, and I can (and do) say that I see a different intent, and it gets nowhere. That's why we rely on RAW in the first place. As is, the FAQ is certainly imperfect, but it's about as close as we're going to get to being told what the intent is. It's basically that, random guesswork and arguments based on nothing, or just using the rules as they were intended. It looks like you favor the second option, and I just don't see the point.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's the thing of it. Intent and precedent matter more to some than others. It becomes relevant to everyone when there's ambiguity, even if that ambiguity is a result of poor editing.

Not that I really expect it to matter to anyone, but just in case someone's curious, I tend to weigh precedent more than designer intent and only really care about either in cases of ambiguity.

[eggynack]

That's the thing of it. Intent and precedent matter more to some than others. It becomes relevant to everyone when there's ambiguity, even if that ambiguity is a result of poor editing.

Therein lies the problem though. Intent and precedent can matter a lot to one person, and very little to another person, and the amount that it matters can depend on ambiguity, but it's all rather irrelevant if the intent and precedent are unclear, which I think they are in this case. There's precedent both ways on this, and I think that there may actually be more on the side of the one round or more interpretation. The big example is on metabreath feats, where it having to be expressed in rounds is explicitly spelled out, which indicates that they have language for this purpose that wasn't used. Similarly, there was the dispel magic example. Using intent to solve ambiguity only works if the intent is less ambiguous than the text that the intent is meant to resolve.

[TuggyNE]

This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm):



It's a different ruleset for an entirely different topic, but the point I'm trying to make is that equating the meanings of durations into the same thing is what is warping the IHS definition into something entirely unintended.

Interesting point. However, there's something I don't think you quite considered, and that is that the magic item creation guidelines are deliberately full of redundancies and overlapping conditions. You're supposed to pick the most specific guideline that applies.

In this case, sure, nearly all spells have durations [that could be] measured in rounds. Some have durations measured as 1 min/level too, though, and in such cases you don't use the rounds guideline, you use the 1 min/level guideline. Similarly, just because a first-level hours/level spell at CL 1 costs 2000 gp to make continuous doesn't mean you can get Bracers of Armor +4 v2 for 1/8 price; you have to look at the price of an armor bonus in the table.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Therein lies the problem though. Intent and precedent can matter a lot to one person, and very little to another person, and the amount that it matters can depend on ambiguity, but it's all rather irrelevant if the intent and precedent are unclear, which I think they are in this case. There's precedent both ways on this, and I think that there may actually be more on the side of the one round or more interpretation. The big example is on metabreath feats, where it having to be expressed in rounds is explicitly spelled out, which indicates that they have language for this purpose that wasn't used. Similarly, there was the dispel magic example. Using intent to solve ambiguity only works if the intent is less ambiguous than the text that the intent is meant to resolve.

I agree completely. What you've just outlined is precisely why I can say with no small degree of certainty that no general consensus will -ever- be reached on what exactly the RAW for IHS actually means. It is because of this near certain state of irrevocable ambiguity that I advocate ignoring IHS in RAW discussions. It definitely does something, but noone can say what, exactly, that something is.

One thing that's generally accepted is that it can end the effect of a spell affecting the initiator. Even this doesn't clearly indicate if the effect ended is the spell itself or the effect the spell is having on the initiator. Maybe it nullifies the AMF or maybe it only allows the initiator to ignore the AMF, having ended the spell's effect but not the spell itself.

The only genuinely unambiguous effect that IHS actually has is that it grants a +2 morale bonus to attacks.

[TuggyNE]

The only genuinely unambiguous effect that IHS actually has is that it grants a +2 morale bonus to attacks.

And it's only a matter of time before some trollface Warblade decides to make even that no longer clear. :smalltongue:

[Big Fau]

All of WotC's good editors are working on Magic cards (not the novels though) and Next, so no one really bothered to fix the Bo9S.

[Deophaun]

The latter would have been crystal clear whereas the former, regardless of designer intent, creates the situation where that choice of phrasing could be interpreted to mean the designer -did- intend for the maneuver to be limited to items whose durations were measured in rounds.
And that's inference, not implication. It is consistent with the reading, but the logic could be turned completely around to be consistent with the opposite (the designers also could have said "expressed in rounds" to be crystal clear the other way). Thus, the writers have implied nothing and it is the reader inferring the meaning.

[nedz]

Explicit would be saying, "IHS only affects conditions that have a duration expressed in rounds." That wording is used for other such effects in game. It is not used for IHS.

Now, IHS can't extinguish the sun. The sun is not an effect or condition. You being dazzled/sunburned/whatever is a condition/effect. However, IHS can pretty much cancel any effect upon you that doesn't prevent you from taking an action against it.

IHS also has a range of Personal — so unless you are playing an awakened Sun, with Warblade levels, you cannot IHS away the Sun.

[eggynack]

Anyways, I think it's safe to say that we've at least answered the OP's question. Why is IHS so hard? Because IHS is really frigging hard.

[Gwendol]

IHS also has a range of Personal — so unless you are playing an awakened Sun, with Warblade levels, you cannot IHS away the Sun.

Not only is the range personal, but the target is"you". You can't IHS away anything outside yourself.

[eggynack]

I'd rather not do this whole thing again, but suffice to say that the "personal" argument is ambiguous at best, and completely in IHS' favor at worst (in the terms of your argument). The personal range for maneuvers explicitly gives leave to affect things outside of the initiator, and the maneuver in question indicates that it affects things outside of the initiator, so that rule is invoked. Alternatively, the sunlight can be considered a single game object which is attached to the warblade, and the warblade is removing that game object from the game, because that's what IHS does.

[johnbragg]

IHS also has a range of Personal — so unless you are playing an awakened Sun, with Warblade levels, you cannot IHS away the Sun.

This may be a stupid question, as I don't have the Book of Nine Swords, but could a vampire with warblade levels Iron Heart Surge away sunlight? Would that suppress the sunlight effect on the vampire for a short time, would the sun not effect the vampire for the rest of the day, or what?

Or is there a way to read IHS that the effect (the sun) is dispelled/cancelled/negated completely?

[Pex]

The problem with Iron Heart Surge is that it works on things it shouldn't and doesn't work on things it should.

If you are nauseated you should be able to get rid of it but can't since you can't take a standard action.

If you are held or paralyzed you should be able to end it but can't since you can't move as required to use a maneuver.

If you are in an anti-magic field or black tentacles area you can end it for everyone involved but really shouldn't since the effects are acting upon an area you just happen to be in rather than you personally directly. This is where end the sun comes in for creatures who are adversely affected by it. At best, if anything, it should only negate the penalties for one round until the end of your next turn.

Hopefully when Dream Scarred Press finishes its Pathfinder Tome of Battle update they will have fixed this.

[Gwendol]

I'd rather not do this whole thing again, but suffice to say that the "personal" argument is ambiguous at best.

Then don't.

[Gwendol]

Actually, you can't just IHS out of a grapple: you need to win an opposed grapple check first.

[eggynack]

Then don't.
But you keep bringing it up, despite the fact that I feel like the argument didn't really end up in your favor last time.

[Angelalex242]

IHS away the sun?

If I were the DM, I'd say, "Okay, you IHS the Sun. Unfortunately, there's no no heat on the prime material plane earth, and everything not immune to cold is instantly killed as temperatures drop to 'void of space' levels. Roll up new characters for the next campaign." ;)

[StreamOfTheSky]

Actually, you can't just IHS out of a grapple: you need to win an opposed grapple check first.

Why? You can use Su abilities while grappled and IHS technically isn't even Su.

If you're PINNED, I'd say you can't use it, but grappling only restricts your movement a lot, it doesn't prevent you from moving at all.

Not all references to "being able to move" are referring to movement between squares/spaces.

[Gwendol]

You must be able to move to make a maneuver, and you can't move normally while grappling. It goes for all martial maneuvers.

[Andezzar]

IHS also has a range of Personal — so unless you are playing an awakened Sun, with Warblade levels, you cannot IHS away the Sun.You are not IHSing the sun, you are IHSing its effects which affect you. So the sun does not cease to exist but the sun stops emitting electromagnetic waves.


You must be able to move to make a maneuver, and you can't move normally while grappling. It goes for all martial maneuvers.Correct.

[Lanaya]

This may be a stupid question, as I don't have the Book of Nine Swords, but could a vampire with warblade levels Iron Heart Surge away sunlight? Would that suppress the sunlight effect on the vampire for a short time, would the sun not effect the vampire for the rest of the day, or what?

Or is there a way to read IHS that the effect (the sun) is dispelled/cancelled/negated completely?

IHS removes the effect, not its source. It would remove any penalties inflicted upon you by being in sunlight, but the sunlight itself and the sun would be unaffected. As for how long it would last, who knows? That's up to DM interpretation.

[eggynack]

IHS removes the effect, not its source. It would remove any penalties inflicted upon you by being in sunlight, but the sunlight itself and the sun would be unaffected. As for how long it would last, who knows? That's up to DM interpretation.
Yeah, that's my interpretation too. You have to word the thing such that the Sun or sunlight itself is the spell, condition, or effect. Probably the condition, because that's the vaguest term, but there're a few effect based methods.

[nedz]

IHS removes the effect, not its source. It would remove any penalties inflicted upon you by being in sunlight, but the sunlight itself and the sun would be unaffected. As for how long it would last, who knows? That's up to DM interpretation.
I agree.

This may be a stupid question, as I don't have the Book of Nine Swords, but could a vampire with warblade levels Iron Heart Surge away sunlight? Would that suppress the sunlight effect on the vampire for a short time, would the sun not effect the vampire for the rest of the day, or what?

Or is there a way to read IHS that the effect (the sun) is dispelled/cancelled/negated completely?
This is much debated.

I'd rather not do this whole thing again, but suffice to say that the "personal" argument is ambiguous at best, and completely in IHS' favor at worst (in the terms of your argument). The personal range for maneuvers explicitly gives leave to affect things outside of the initiator, and the maneuver in question indicates that it affects things outside of the initiator, so that rule is invoked. Alternatively, the sunlight can be considered a single game object which is attached to the warblade, and the warblade is removing that game object from the game, because that's what IHS does.


Range
Personal: The manoeuvre affects only you (but might give you an unusual power or ability that affects others for the rest of your turn)
IHS mentions no such unusual power. For spells effecting multiple characters including the Warblade the Range of IHS clips this effect removal to only the Warblade using IHS. That spells effect on other characters is outside of the range of IHS.

[Andezzar]

IHS removes the effect, not its source. It would remove any penalties inflicted upon you by being in sunlight, but the sunlight itself and the sun would be unaffected. As for how long it would last, who knows? That's up to DM interpretation.No it's not just the penalties someone may incur from being in sunlight that can be canceled, it is all of the effect caused by the sun's electromagnetic waves hitting the initiator. So the sun no longer warms, it no longer allows things to be seen, it no longer darkens the skin of humans (and possibly other humanoids) etc.

[Chronos]

Quoth Lanaya:

IHS removes the effect, not its source. It would remove any penalties inflicted upon you by being in sunlight, but the sunlight itself and the sun would be unaffected.
This is a perfectly reasonable houserule, and if they ever got around to writing errata for Tome of Battle, it would be a good thing to include in the rules. Unfortunately, it's not in there yet.

All this talk about surging away the Sun, though, while amusing, is actually kind of counterproductive. When people see us talking about extinguishing the Sun, the natural reaction is going to be "Don't be silly, of course you can't do that. This is why the game has a DM, to say no to such absurdities.". Which is true: Nobody gets into arguments around the dining room table that they ought to be allowed to put out the Sun. But it distracts from the fact that there really are cases with IHS that really are arguable. Say the party gets caught in a Web spell, and the warblade uses IHS on it. Does the whole Web go away? The rules seem to imply that it does, and a player might very well expect that it would. But at the same time, the DM might reasonably disagree. Getting rid of a Web spell isn't nearly as absurd as extinguishing the Sun, but it can cause real arguments in real play.

[Andezzar]

It basically is the same argument though. The rules they "The effect ends immediately". The rules do not say "The effect immediately stops affecting you/the initiator". So it is RAW that the whole web disappears ceases to affect anyone. This does not fit very well with the fluff part of the maneuver. So a sensible houserule would be to change the rule to the aforementioned text, unless you want the ability to cancel the whole effect.

The other "problem" with IHS is that while the fluff implies that it could remove conditions like paralysis, the general rules about initiating maneuvers make that impossible. Each table has to decide whether IHS should be subject to that general rule.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It basically is the same argument though. The rules they "The effect ends immediately". The rules do not say "The effect immediately stops affecting you/the initiator". So it is RAW that the whole web disappears ceases to affect anyone. This does not fit very well with the fluff part of the maneuver. So a sensible houserule would be to change the rule to the aforementioned text, unless you want the ability to cancel the whole effect.

The other "problem" with IHS is that while the fluff implies that it could remove conditions like paralysis, the general rules about initiating maneuvers make that impossible. Each table has to decide whether IHS should be subject to that general rule.

That's another thing though, as I said before IHS doesn't specifically say that it ends the effect of the spell for all effected targets.

It says "... select one spell ... currently affecting you ... That effect ends immediately." It doesn't specify if the effect ended is the spell, the spell's effect, or only the effect that the spell is having on the warblade.

With the web example, it could be ending the spell, making the web disappear, the effect of the web, freeing all the creatures trapped in it, or only the entangling and immobilizing effect the web is having on the warblade. The non-specific language of the maneuver doesn't eliminate any of these as the correct interpretation.

[Andezzar]

That's another thing though, as I said before IHS doesn't specifically say that it ends the effect of the spell for all effected targets.It says that the (whole) effect ends, not that only part of it (the one affecting you ) ends.


It says "... select one spell ... currently affecting you ... That effect ends immediately." It doesn't specify if the effect ended is the spell, the spell's effect, or only the effect that the spell is having on the warblade.

With the web example, it could be ending the spell, making the web disappear, the effect of the web, freeing all the creatures trapped in it, or only the entangling and immobilizing effect the web is having on the warblade. The non-specific language of the maneuver doesn't eliminate any of these as the correct interpretation.You omitted the important part in your quote. Yes you could select the web spell, but you could just as well select the web spell's effect.

When you use this maneuver, select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds. That effect ends immediately.

Effect: Webs in a 20-ft.-radius spread

[Lanaya]

This is a perfectly reasonable houserule, and if they ever got around to writing errata for Tome of Battle, it would be a good thing to include in the rules. Unfortunately, it's not in there yet.

It isn't a houserule. IHS says that it ends the effect. 'The sun' is not the effect, the effect is 'I am currently dying because I'm a vampire in sunlight'. That's what ends, nothing else.

[Andezzar]

It isn't a houserule. IHS says that it ends the effect. 'The sun' is not the effect, the effect is 'I am currently dying because I'm a vampire in sunlight'. That's what ends, nothing else.While this is one of the effects the sun can have it is not the only one that can be removed. There are a lot others (making the initiator detectable by normal vision, warming him, darkening his skin etc.) any one of them can be ended with IHS. You could even end the sun's gravity (gravity is an effect that affects the initiator for more than one round).

[Kelb_Panthera]

It says that the (whole) effect ends, not that only part of it (the one affecting you ) ends.

You omitted the important part in your quote. Yes you could select the web spell, but you could just as well select the web spell's effect.

But then you're invoking the prickly question of "what is an effect?" The effect of web is that it conjures an object. One could easily argue that it isn't an effect that's affecting the warblade but an object and the effect of the spell is creating and sustaining that object. The alternative is that you can say that the celestial dire badger gnawing on your ankle is the effect of SMIII and that it's affecting you, allowing the initiator to IHS away the badger.

[The Glyphstone]

Do we really have yet another 'IHS is so simple, I understand how it works, there is no reason for everyone to be arguing about it' thread? That seems to be the only reason it gets threads in most cases, people convinced they've figured out what every other debate thread on the subject missed.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Do we really have yet another 'IHS is so simple, I understand how it works, there is no reason for everyone to be arguing about it' thread? That seems to be the only reason it gets threads in most cases, people convinced they've figured out what every other debate thread on the subject missed.

Apparently.

Does it help at all that the core of my argument is that the RAW of IHS is so vague as to be useless in RAW discussions and that it should just be ignored?

[Chronos]

To rephrase my earlier post, the problem with IHS isn't that nobody can understand what it means. That would be easy to deal with. The problem is rather that everyone understands what it means, but different people have different understandings.

[Gwendol]

To rephrase my earlier post, the problem with IHS isn't that nobody can understand what it means. That would be easy to deal with. The problem is rather that everyone understands what it means, but different people have different understandings.

QFT!

Yeah, pretty much this. But Kelb is right too: the maneuver is so badly written it allows for quite a wide range of understandings.

[eggynack]

But then you're invoking the prickly question of "what is an effect?" The effect of web is that it conjures an object. One could easily argue that it isn't an effect that's affecting the warblade but an object and the effect of the spell is creating and sustaining that object. The alternative is that you can say that the celestial dire badger gnawing on your ankle is the effect of SMIII and that it's affecting you, allowing the initiator to IHS away the badger.
Not really. Effect would normally be very ambiguous, which is actually a problem for IHS already, but the word "effect" in this context is clearly referring to the phrase "spell, condition, or effect." Thus, whatever its definition in general, this is its definition in this context. There's definitely a massive pile of ambiguous cases, because this maneuver is stupid, but I don't really think that web is one of them, because you're ending a spell. Web doesn't create an object. It creates a spell object, which can be dispelled, and which has a duration. Now wall of stone, that creates an object.


Do we really have yet another 'IHS is so simple, I understand how it works, there is no reason for everyone to be arguing about it' thread? That seems to be the only reason it gets threads in most cases, people convinced they've figured out what every other debate thread on the subject missed.
Oh, absolutely this.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not really. Effect would normally be very ambiguous, which is actually a problem for IHS already, but the word "effect" in this context is clearly referring to the phrase "spell, condition, or effect." Thus, whatever its definition in general, this is its definition in this context. There's definitely a massive pile of ambiguous cases, because this maneuver is stupid, but I don't really think that web is one of them, because you're ending a spell. Web doesn't create an object. It creates a spell object, which can be dispelled, and which has a duration. Now wall of stone, that creates an object.


Oh, absolutely this.

Compare the entries for web and summon monster. Both create a magically sustained object at some point within a given range. More specifically, they both have a range, effect, and non-instantaneous duration in their header. If web can be nuked by IHS why not that grapple-monster that's squeezing the warblade to death in its jaws? Both are affecting the warblade, are they not?

[Andezzar]

Compare the entries for web and summon monster. Both create a magically sustained object at some point within a given range. More specifically, they both have a range, effect, and non-instantaneous duration in their header. If web can be nuked by IHS why not that grapple-monster that's squeezing the warblade to death in its jaws? Both are affecting the warblade, are they not?There is a significant difference. A summoned monster does not affect the warblade for one round or more unless it grapples the warblade (normal attacks do not have a duration). If the warblade is grappled, he cannot move and thus cannot initiate IHS. Additionally since the monster can release the warblade at any time during its turn, you cannot determine whether the monster is affecting the warblade for one entire turn or more.

[eggynack]

Compare the entries for web and summon monster. Both create a magically sustained object at some point within a given range. More specifically, they both have a range, effect, and non-instantaneous duration in their header. If web can be nuked by IHS why not that grapple-monster that's squeezing the warblade to death in its jaws? Both are affecting the warblade, are they not?
That does seem true, though I'm inclined to think that it indicates that you can poof summoned monsters, rather than that you can't poof things that aren't summoned monsters. They would probably have to be grappling or something, as you mentioned, but yeah, it seems like it'd work in that manner. Better yet, if there are two celestial badgers created by the same spell, then they'd both be poofed by the same IHS. That's the really funny thing about IHS. So, yeah. A celestial badger is a spell, with a duration, and it's affecting you, so I can't see why IHS couldn't end it.

Edit:
There is a significant difference. A summoned monster does not affect the warblade for one round or more unless it grapples the warblade (normal attacks do not have a duration). If the warblade is grappled, he cannot move and thus cannot initiate IHS. Additionally since the monster can release the warblade at any time during its turn, you cannot determine whether the monster is affecting the warblade for one entire turn or more.
I'm inclined to think that there's a way around this issue. I'm sure there's some monster that affects warblades for a duration, and doesn't stop IHS during that time, and even if there isn't, it's fine to consider some theoretical case.

Edit: Would dire weasel do it, with the attach ability? Alternatively, summon swarm could maybe manage it.

[Talya]

It says that the (whole) effect ends, not that only part of it (the one affecting you ) ends.

The effect is only what's happening to the warblade in question. It is not the photons approaching him from 8 light minutes away, nor their source.

IHS's entire effect is explicitly and always personal.

[eggynack]

The effect is only what's happening to the warblade in question. It is not the photons approaching him from 8 light minutes away, nor their source.

IHS's entire effect is explicitly and always personal.
The light touching the warblade is one continuous game object which is attached to him at the point of personal range. You end the entire effect, not just the stuff touching the warblade, because that's what the maneuver says it does.

[nedz]

The light touching the warblade is one continuous game object which is attached to him at the point of personal range. You end the entire effect, not just the stuff touching the warblade, because that's what the maneuver says it does.

It also says Range: Personal which limits this.

You see the same things with spells.

Say I use Sculpt Spell to change the area of Burning Hands into a 120' line, now because the Range of Burning Hands is 15' the spell cannot effect things beyond this range: thus you get a 15' line.

[Talya]

The light touching the warblade is one continuous game object which is attached to him at the point of personal range. You end the entire effect, not just the stuff touching the warblade, because that's what the maneuver says it does.


None of this is correct. The sun and the light is not an effect. What the light does to the warblade is the effect. (Note that if the light has no in game, mechanical effect on the warblade, then there's nothing for IHS to end.)

Hence, if you're a drow warblade, you can end the effect that the sunlight is having on your warblade. You cannot end the fact that your warblade is bathed in light, because this is not an effect of any kind at all.

[Vortenger]

I didn't notice it mentioned yet, but the Unofficial Errata Project covered ToB already and their results were pretty good, its what my groups use for rules clarification.

edit: Read as: made the IHS maneuver usable and understandable by all with no room for these kinds of heated debates...

Linky (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=084ljkig6aahqkfh68hlen4ea3&topic=335.0)

[eggynack]

None of this is correct. The sun and the light is not an effect. What the light does to the warblade is the effect. (Note that if the light has no in game, mechanical effect on the warblade, then there's nothing for IHS to end.)

Hence, if you're a drow warblade, you can end the effect that the sunlight is having on your warblade. You cannot end the fact that your warblade is bathed in light, because this is not an effect of any kind at all.
The condition being discussed here is being within the light, not some sort of drow based light condition, which would probably just remove the status effect. IHS would end this condition, probably by removing the light from existence, but possibly by some sort of teleportation, which has been one claimed conclusion. I don't see any way to resolve the condition of, "The warblade is within the sunlight."

[georgie_leech]

The condition being discussed here is being within the light, not some sort of drow based light condition, which would probably just remove the status effect. IHS would end this condition, probably by removing the light from existence, but possibly by some sort of teleportation, which has been one claimed conclusion. I don't see any way to resolve the condition of, "The warblade is within the sunlight."

My preferred interpretation is a non magical batch of shade is generated such that the Warblade (and no one else) is out of the sun's direct light.

Actually I use my house-ruled version that let's him temporarily ignore environmental effects, because I'm in the camp of "The RAW of IHS is such a mess that no one can say definitively what it actually does."

[eggynack]

Actually I use my house-ruled version that let's him temporarily ignore environmental effects, because I'm in the camp of "The RAW of IHS is such a mess that no one can say definitively what it actually does."
That's actually my stance as well. This isn't the way I think it should be. It's just the way that it is. That's the version of IHS from the unofficial errata, yeah? That's usually the one which I advise. Just a very explicit, "This is the stuff that happens." I've seen versions of IHS that try to do it in a style similar to IHS, with overarching language that covers a pile of situations, and it's just an exercise in futility.

[Talya]

The condition being discussed here is being within the light

There is no mechanical game-defined effect or condition of "being within the light."

[eggynack]

There is no mechanical game-defined effect or condition of "being within the light."
It's not game defined. It's English defined. Condition is a term that's undefined in the game, so it's defined in English. Seriously, it feels like we're going around in circles here.

[Talya]

It's not game defined. It's English defined.
Condition is a term that's undefined in the game, so it's defined in English.

Usually I would agree. But...

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#

[eggynack]

Usually I would agree. But...

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#
Which nowhere defines what a condition is, and if you check the relevant section of the actual books, it's indicated that the list of conditions is not comprehensive.

[Talya]

Which nowhere defines what a condition is, and if you check the relevant section of the actual books, it's indicated that the list of conditions is not comprehensive.

Which doesn't really matter. If you look at the list of defined conditions in that section, they have common qualities -- the most obvious one that they all have a numerically defined mechanical effect.

"Being in the light" does not.

As a side note, even if you mistakenly call "Being in the light" a condition, then ending that condition with IHS is simply going to get you out of the light. The quickest way to do this is to have you trade places with the dirt you're standing on.

[eggynack]

Which doesn't really matter. If you look at the list of defined conditions in that section, they have common qualities -- the most obvious one that they all have a numerically defined mechanical effect.

"Being in the light" does not.
Commonalities are a bit on the irrelevant side, unless there's an actual definition there. I mean, sure, that might have been the intent, but if we're talking about killing the sun, it's basically a pure RAW discussion. Also, there's not always a numerical effect, if you want to get technical. Dazed has no number on it, and neither does a number of others.

Edit: As for transposition with the dirt, it seems unlikely, because that wouldn't even be a game object that's attached to you for the purposes of the maneuver, but some kind of teleportation is somewhat valid. It's not like one or the other would be the absolute outcome though, even if sun killing isn't the only possibility. It might actually be weirder than just sun killing, in other words.

[Emperor Tippy]

All this talk about surging away the Sun, though, while amusing, is actually kind of counterproductive. When people see us talking about extinguishing the Sun, the natural reaction is going to be "Don't be silly, of course you can't do that. This is why the game has a DM, to say no to such absurdities.". Which is true: Nobody gets into arguments around the dining room table that they ought to be allowed to put out the Sun. But it distracts from the fact that there really are cases with IHS that really are arguable. Say the party gets caught in a Web spell, and the warblade uses IHS on it. Does the whole Web go away? The rules seem to imply that it does, and a player might very well expect that it would. But at the same time, the DM might reasonably disagree. Getting rid of a Web spell isn't nearly as absurd as extinguishing the Sun, but it can cause real arguments in real play.
No, but I've seen arguments for IHS putting the Sun back in an Elder Evil's game where we were debating whether or not it could remove the various Sign's and what would happen.

One position that can be supported is that so long as you are within range of an EE's sign then you can IHS the Elder Evil away.