Persistent timestop.

[D4rkh0rus]

If a cleric had DDM persist and planning domain... would he be able to persist Time stop? How would it work?
As a matter of fact.... If he had access to two divine magic time stops each day... could he live an entire year and then just pop back in the middle of the fight? X D

[eggynack]

The general consensus is that it doesn't work. While the spell lists a duration of 1d4+1 rounds, that time is only apparent, and the entire spell effect is only taking a round. Thus, you experience 1d4+1 rounds of apparent time over the course of the new duration, which is a day. Kinda the opposite of your intent. Either that or it just fails completely.

[Emperor Tippy]

If you effectively want persistent time stop then you use Planar Bubble to carry around a demiplane with either super fast time or super slow time while making it selective.

That second one is real fun. Everything but you in a twenty foot radius (thanks to Widen spell) finds its self without a save or any kind of resistance in an area where time stands virtually still, and just for good measure its also a dead magic zone.

You can also do some hilariously fun stuff with shaping it so that it only covers your square and the five foot square directly ahead of you while playing with an accelerated time field. Stack it with a same area dead magic field that you aren't effected by and it is even funnier.

D&D becomes hilariously funny when the characters start really messing around with time.

[Rubik]

The general consensus is that it doesn't work. While the spell lists a duration of 1d4+1 rounds, that time is only apparent, and the entire spell effect is only taking a round. Thus, you experience 1d4+1 rounds of apparent time over the course of the new duration, which is a day. Kinda the opposite of your intent. Either that or it just fails completely.If that was the case, the duration would be "Instantaneous; see text." It's Persistable. That people don't like that fact is beside the point.

[eggynack]

If that was the case, the duration would be "Instantaneous; see text." It's Persistable. That people don't like that fact is beside the point.
If that were the case, the duration would be "1d4+1 rounds". It's not. It's " 1d4+1 rounds (apparent time); see text", which means that 1d4+1 rounds is very much not the duration of the effect. Duration is how long something actually takes, not how long a single wizard is experiencing that thing. What are you persisting here, if not the amount of time during which you experience these 1d4+1 rounds of apparent time? Granted, there's no indication that persist absolutely doesn't work on time stop, but there's even less indication that it would work in an actually helpful way.

[Rubik]

If that were the case, the duration would be "1d4+1 rounds". It's not.I think you need to look again at the Persistent Spell feat. Note that Persistent Spell doesn't place restrictions on what duration the spell it affects can have, other than not being Instantaneous or dischargeable. Since Time Stop is neither...


It's "1d4+1 rounds (apparent time); see text",And that simply means that the Persisted effect would be "24 hours (apparent time); see text."


which means that 1d4+1 rounds is very much not the duration of the effect.How does the fact that it's listed under the "Duration" heading and isn't Instantaneous or Dischargeable disqualify it for Persistent Spell, exactly? I mean, according to the text on the feat, it works, and there's not a single argument you can make against it that doesn't run counter to the very clear RAW of the feat.


Duration is how long something actually takes, not how long a single wizard is experiencing that thing.And from a subjective standpoint, the normal duration is 1d4+1 rounds. Would the fact that you're casting a spell on a plane with a different time frame than standard disqualify it for being Persisted? What if you crossed planar boundaries and the time frame changed? What if you had a planar bubble up that kept your original time frame? Would that disqualify it?

I strongly suspect that the answer to all of those questions is "no."


What are you persisting here, if not the amount of time during which you experience these 1d4+1 rounds of apparent time?That's exactly what you're Persisting, just like with the alternate time frames I mentioned above. The situation has zero effective difference between the different examples.


Granted, there's no indication that persist absolutely doesn't work on time stop, but there's even less indication that it would work in an actually helpful way.There're lots of indications that it works in a helpful way. Just read the feat description. It's not hard.

[eggynack]

I think you need to look again at the Persistent Spell feat. Note that Persistent Spell doesn't place restrictions on what duration the spell it affects can have, other than not being Instantaneous or dischargeable. Since Time Stop is neither...
I have read it. Persistent spell gives the spell an actual duration of 24 hours. It can work on this. It just doesn't work well.


And that simply means that the Persisted effect would be "24 hours (apparent time); see text."
The duration is the amount of time that something takes. 1d4+1 rounds is not the amount of time that this spell takes. The magical energy of time stop dissipates after one round, and now it dissipates after 24 hours, and the 1d4+1 rounds is completely unchanged.


How does the fact that it's listed under the "Duration" heading and isn't Instantaneous or Dischargeable disqualify it for Persistent Spell, exactly? I mean, according to the text on the feat, it works, and there's not a single argument you can make against it that doesn't run counter to the very clear RAW of the feat.
It does qualify. It just makes the spell terrible.


And from a subjective standpoint, the normal duration is 1d4+1 rounds. Would the fact that you're casting a spell on a plane with a different time frame than standard disqualify it for being Persisted? What if you crossed planar boundaries and the time frame changed? What if you had a planar bubble up that kept your original time frame? Would that disqualify it?
From any standpoint, the duration is not 1d4+1 rounds. It's made perfectly clear that the flow of time is moving forward unimpeded. The wizard is just moving really fast. I don't particularly see the relevant of planar boundaries and time distortion here. Ultimately, the spell indicates that the actual duration of the spell is a single round, or some other duration implied by the text, if you want to argue that. One actual duration that the spell definitely does not have is 1d4+1 rounds.

[Rubik]

I have read it. Persistent spell gives the spell an actual duration of 24 hours. It can work on this. It just doesn't work well.


The duration is the amount of time that something takes. 1d4+1 rounds is not the amount of time that this spell takes. The magical energy of time stop dissipates after one round, and now it dissipates after 24 hours, and the 1d4+1 rounds is completely unchanged.


It does qualify. It just makes the spell terrible.


From any standpoint, the duration is not 1d4+1 rounds. It's made perfectly clear that the flow of time is moving forward unimpeded. The wizard is just moving really fast. I don't particularly see the relevant of planar boundaries and time distortion here. Ultimately, the spell indicates that the actual duration of the spell is a single round, or some other duration implied by the text, if you want to argue that. One actual duration that the spell definitely does not have is 1d4+1 rounds.Hmm. Obviously you didn't pay attention.

[eggynack]

Hmm. Obviously you didn't pay attention.
I paid plenty of attention. I just don't agree with you. Persistent spell grants no ability to change the apparent duration of spells. It changes the actual duration of spells, which in this case is a round.

[Rubik]

I paid plenty of attention. I just don't agree with you. Persistent spell grants no ability to change the apparent duration of spells. It changes the actual duration of spells, which in this case is a round.That's actually worse than saying that you can't Empower a Fireball because the damage isn't listed under an "Effects" line.

[eggynack]

That's actually worse than saying that you can't Empower a Fireball because the damage isn't listed under an "Effects" line.
Not really. Effect is a thing that is, while not perfectly defined, at least reasonably defined. One of those effects is this damage, which happens to be numerical. The same can be said here, except we're talking about duration, which once again has some form of reasonable definition. That definition does not comport with the idea of time stop having a duration of 1d4+1 rounds. In fact, I could say that it is you arguing that thing about being unable to empower a fireball, because you're so needlessly bound to these description lines as the sole criteria for understanding a thing. Fireball has an effect, even if it's not listed under an effects line, and time stop has a duration that isn't 1d4+1 rounds, even if the spell's duration line has those numbers in it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Actually it was my understanding that the effect appears instantaneous to those other than the target. Not that it matters.

Persistent spell changes the duration from "1d4+1 rounds (apparent time); see text" to "24 hours." Note that is "24 hours" not "24 hours (apparent time); see text." It's at this point that the actual interaction becomes indecipherable.

Do both the apparent time and actual time the spell takes place both become 24 hours? Does only the actual time become 24 hours? Only the apparent time? It's unclear and must be interpreted. In two of those instances the spell becomes worse or dramatically worse and utterly useless in either case.

If both the actual and apparent time are reset to 24 hours then the spell makes the caster incapable of affecting the world around him for a day while the world around him can still harm him just fine.

If the real time is reset to 24 hours and the apparent time remains the same then not only does the caster become incapable of affecting the world for a day but also only gets 1d4+1 rounds worth of actions in that same time; a remarkably bad result.

If the apparent time is reset but the actual time remains, the most favorable interpretation, the caster gets a day in the span of an instant.

A fourth and more liberal interpretation that is not entirely inconsistent with RAW is that the real time is reset from near instantaneous to 24 hours and the apparent time is increased in scale. More extrapolation is necessary but it results in a lot of apparent time. For an arbitrary degree of scale let's call an instantaneous duration is 1/4th of a second. In that case the apparent duration becomes 345,600 rounds or 24 days.

Of course the fact that the spell's duration appears to be instantaneous from the perspective of real time is also the basis of the argument for persistent spell not applying in the first place.

[Phelix-Mu]

In summation, I think it's safe to say that the editor's screwed the pooch on making the spell persistable by RAW by muddying the waters with this "apparent time" issue, particularly in the Duration line in the stat block for the spell. The RAW is so murky already that any further muddying renders the spell fit only for DM interpretation.

What they really should have written was "1d4+1 rounds of apparent time; see DM."

In fact, the whole spell should just be rewritten. Call it superior haste, it grants free actions that can't interact meaningfully with the environment unless the actions create effects that could work after a period of 1d4+1 rounds after the spell had been cast.

Eh, really, the whole thing is ill-conceived. They grandfathered in a classic effect from the nebulous ruleset of 2e without realizing that, as time and space are dramatically abstracted for the purposes of the core mechanics, having something that stops time, creates apparent time, or otherwise screws with time is just a huge can of worms.

/rant

[Norin]

In summation, I think it's safe to say that the editor's screwed the pooch on making the spell persistable by RAW by muddying the waters with this "apparent time" issue, particularly in the Duration line in the stat block for the spell. The RAW is so murky already that any further muddying renders the spell fit only for DM interpretation.

What they really should have written was "1d4+1 rounds of apparent time; see DM."

In fact, the whole spell should just be rewritten. Call it superior haste, it grants free actions that can't interact meaningfully with the environment unless the actions create effects that could work after a period of 1d4+1 rounds after the spell had been cast.

Eh, really, the whole thing is ill-conceived. They grandfathered in a classic effect from the nebulous ruleset of 2e without realizing that, as time and space are dramatically abstracted for the purposes of the core mechanics, having something that stops time, creates apparent time, or otherwise screws with time is just a huge can of worms.

/rant

Aww, but moving super fast is not remotely as awesome as the idea of manipulating time itself to sit down and have a time out. :smallwink:

[Phelix-Mu]

Aww, but moving super fast is not remotely as awesome as the idea of manipulating time itself to sit down and have a time out. :smallwink:

Indeed, but, in general, I treat any hint of chronomancy with a ten-foot pole. The whole issue is just ripe for abuse, and time is one of the few areas of reality that arcane magic at least doesn't get to break over its knee (with numerous noted exceptions, of course, cause, hey, it's magic baby).

Then there's the psionics time-bending stuff that basically begs for exploitation. If there aren't rules for time travel and paradoxes and such in the core mechanics, then I don't want spells/powers that are going to lead inexorably in that direction.

[D4rkh0rus]

I lol'd so hard... This clearly will be turned into an encounter if the party I dm ends up breaking the game. Thanks for clarifying :p chronomancers ahoy