The new, and slightly improved, iron heart surge thread

[eggynack]

Since the last thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?362476-So-I-ve-made-the-ultimate-Anti-Mage) was drifting off onto this topic from pretty much the time it was created, here is the new iron heart surge thread, for all of your IHS related needs. For those who don't want to lurk through about a dozen pages of IHS talk (it's like I don't even know you), the two main topics at hand are whether the condition summary qualifies as a definition of the term "condition", with particular attention paid to other uses of the word throughout the books, and whether a duration that isn't listed in terms of rounds qualifies as "one or more rounds". With that said, arguing is afoot. Huzzah!

[Irk]

Isn't any duration greater than a round equal to one or more rounds?
Also, it lists a few example conditions, pretty much anything affecting you is a condition of some description.

[eggynack]

Isn't any duration greater than a round equal to one or more rounds?
Yes. Yes, it is.

[Irk]

Yes. Yes, it is.
Well then. Now what? And then the opposition descended as a horde to rival the greatest armies of any empire!

[eggynack]

Well then. Now what?
Presumably, other folks from the old thread come in to disagree.

[Vogonjeltz]

Yes. Yes, it is.

It is similar to, but not the same as.

The distinction is meaningful when you come to an ability like IHS requiring the duration be in rounds.

[Irk]

requiring the duration be in rounds.
It does not say that.

[Vogonjeltz]

It does not say that.

Yes it does, 1 or more rounds.

[eggynack]

Yes it does, 1 or more rounds.
That is a different thing from saying that a thing must be written in rounds. A minute is one or more rounds, for example, without being written that way.

Edit:
1) we discussed this already, the list doesn't rule out future additions of conditions, but in core it is comprehensive on that count.

There are also no other listed conditions. So it's comprehensive on all counts.
It doesn't say it's comprehensive. Also, there actually are listed conditions elsewhere, though it's not particularly relevant. The two big ones thus far are feeblemind and dehydrated.


2) it says in rounds, that's specific.
It doesn't say in rounds. It says one or more rounds. As above, so too here. The way the duration is written is irrelevant.

[Irk]

Yes it does, 1 or more rounds.
Yes, that is in fact found in the text describing IHS. I was asking about the part where it says the duration it end must be explicitly measured in rounds instead of an amount of time equal to 1 or more rounds, as the text you presented would suggest.

[georgie_leech]

Copied from the other thread:




2) it says in rounds, that's specific.

No, it says one or more. The same argument that 1 minute is not the same thing as 10 rounds also says that 100cm does not equal 1m; that 10x10=/=100. This line of reasoning requires that you disregard the fundamental laws of mathematics that the game requires to function. It would be great if it said duration expressed in rounds (it would also be great if some of the worse language holes were plugged too), but it doesn't, was never errata'd, so remains one or more rounds.

[OldTrees1]

I forget, when the rules do not permit or forbid, is the default to permit or forbid?

Just as you are pointing out that it _could_ be interpreted as not being restricted to being described in rounds, others have pointed out that it _could_ be interpreted as not being permitted to being described in measurements other than rounds.

I thought the RAW ruling was that just because the rules do not prohibit doing the Hokey Pokey to have __heal all party members__(I forget the effect mentioned in the ruling), it does not mean that doing the Hokey Pokey will have that effect.

[eggynack]

I forget, when the rules do not permit or forbid, is the default to permit or forbid?

Just as you are pointing out that it _could_ be interpreted as not being restricted to being described in rounds, others have pointed out that it _could_ be interpreted as not being permitted to being described in measurements other than rounds.

I thought the RAW ruling was that just the rules do not prohibit doing the Hokey Pokey to have ____(I forget the effect mentioned in the ruling), it does not mean that doing the Hokey Pokey will have that effect.
The interaction between permission and forbiddance is mostly irrelevant in this case. This is an issue of semantics, and a minute is absolutely one or more rounds. That's just how math and units work. Moreover, this isn't really a case of you just doing whatever you want, because the rules don't say you can't. This is a case of you doing what the rules say you can, because the rules aren't sufficiently restrictive.

[georgie_leech]

I forget, when the rules do not permit or forbid, is the default to permit or forbid?

Just as you are pointing out that it _could_ be interpreted as not being restricted to being described in rounds, others have pointed out that it _could_ be interpreted as not being permitted to being described in measurements other than rounds.

I thought the RAW ruling was that just the rules do not prohibit doing the Hokey Pokey to have ____(I forget the effect mentioned in the ruling), it does not mean that doing the Hokey Pokey will have that effect.

For all IHS's holes, I don't think this is one of them. I don't understand how one can consider 1 minute and 10 rounds fundamentally different things when all it says is "one or more rounds." From context, we know it's referring to a measure of time, as it's dealing with duration; when measuring, it doesn't matter which units you use. 1000mm=100cm=10dm=1m; 12 inches=1 foot.

If you want to be pedantic you should conserve significant digits when measuring, so 100cm=1.00m, but that's really not helpful out of scientific contexts.

[Nettlekid]

That is a different thing from saying that a thing must be written in rounds. A minute is one or more rounds, for example, without being written that way.

Edit:
It doesn't say it's comprehensive. Also, there actually are listed conditions elsewhere, though it's not particularly relevant. The two big ones thus far are feeblemind and dehydrated.


It doesn't say in rounds. It says one or more rounds. As above, so too here. The way the duration is written is irrelevant.

+1 on this. Compare Iron Heart Surge's wording to that of the requirement of Metabreath feats that the creature must have a breath weapon with a recharge time expressed in rounds. 1/minute is not expressed in rounds, but once every 1d4 rounds is. Iron Heart Surge says "lasting more than one round" but not "expressed in rounds."

[Vogonjeltz]

That is a different thing from saying that a thing must be written in rounds. A minute is one or more rounds, for example, without being written that way.

Edit:
It doesn't say it's comprehensive. Also, there actually are listed conditions elsewhere, though it's not particularly relevant. The two big ones thus far are feeblemind and dehydrated.


It doesn't say in rounds. It says one or more rounds. As above, so too here. The way the duration is written is irrelevant.

1) In what book is Feeblemind listed as a condition? Dehydrated was added in its hot outside right?

The list doesn't have to say it is comprehensive, in the same way the skill list in PHB doesn't say it's comprehensive (but it is until another book adds skills).

I found a definitive answer in the 3.5 FAQ, which I'll defer to as it is the official answer:

"What exactly can or can't iron heart surge (ToB 68) remove?
Instantaneous effects can't be removed by iron heart surge.
However, any effect with a duration of 1 or more rounds, including permanent-duration spells or effects, can be removed by iron heart surge, nor does iron heart surge restore damage or ability drain.
Iron heart surge doesn't replace lost levels (though it would remove any negative levels resulting from a single spell or effect). It would neutralize a single poison coursing through your system, or a single disease that afflicted you."

I guess that resolves that.

[georgie_leech]

1) In what book is Feeblemind listed as a condition? Dehydrated was added in its hot outside right?

The list doesn't have to say it is comprehensive, in the same way the skill list in PHB doesn't say it's comprehensive (but it is until another book adds skills).

I found a definitive answer in the 3.5 FAQ, which I'll defer to as it is the official answer:

"What exactly can or can't iron heart surge (ToB 68) remove?
Instantaneous effects can't be removed by iron heart surge.
However, any effect with a duration of 1 or more rounds, including permanent-duration ... effects, can be removed by iron heart surge, nor does iron heart surge restore damage or ability drain.
Iron heart surge doesn't replace lost levels (though it would remove any negative levels resulting from a single spell or effect). It would neutralize a single poison coursing through your system, or a single disease that afflicted you."

I guess that resolves that.

Not so much.

To elaborate, this doesn't resolve whether it's (spells or effects) with a permanent duration, or if it's permanent spells and other effects.

[Irk]

including permanent-duration spells or effects
These are not measured in rounds, and the FAQ is rarely observed as an absolute answer for anything.

[eggynack]

1) In what book is Feeblemind listed as a condition? Dehydrated was added in its hot outside right?
On the latter count, yes, and on the former, it's listed as such in the spell heal.


The list doesn't have to say it is comprehensive, in the same way the skill list in PHB doesn't say it's comprehensive (but it is until another book adds skills).
Sure. It's somewhat besides the point, I suppose.


I found a definitive answer in the 3.5 FAQ, which I'll defer to as it is the official answer:

"What exactly can or can't iron heart surge (ToB 68) remove?
Instantaneous effects can't be removed by iron heart surge.
However, any effect with a duration of 1 or more rounds, including permanent-duration spells or effects, can be removed by iron heart surge, nor does iron heart surge restore damage or ability drain.
Iron heart surge doesn't replace lost levels (though it would remove any negative levels resulting from a single spell or effect). It would neutralize a single poison coursing through your system, or a single disease that afflicted you."

I guess that resolves that.
Y'know, I'ma just do what I did at the beginning of the last argument. Blah blah blah, rulings rather than rules, bloodee blahde bleh, official is meaningless in this context, semantics semantics semantics, counterargument.

[Raven777]

Is that FAQ answer limiting wath IHS can remove to the things listed in said answer? Or is it open ended?

[georgie_leech]

Is that FAQ answer limiting wath IHS can remove to the things listed in said answer? Or is it open ended?

The wording in the question implies a search for the complete list, but it unfortunately remains vague in answer.

[eggynack]

Is that FAQ answer limiting wath IHS can remove to the things listed in said answer? Or is it open ended?
It looks open ended. Really, the FAQ mostly seems to agree with me, so if everyone who would disagree with the duration thing otherwise happens to be on the FAQ loving side of things, I guess that works out. Not the nicest win, but there's no way I actually want to have the FAQ argument after the IHS argument. I hate that one even more, if anything.

[The Random NPC]

Isn't any duration greater than a round equal to one or more rounds?
Also, it lists a few example conditions, pretty much anything affecting you is a condition of some description.


It is similar to, but not the same as.

The distinction is meaningful when you come to an ability like IHS requiring the duration be in rounds.

Wait... are you trying to argue that a minute is less than 1 or more rounds?

[Sir Chuckles]

Wait... are you trying to argue that a minute is less than 1 or more rounds?

No, he's trying to argue that "1 or more rounds" means that the duration must be listed in rounds, meaning that anything with hours/minutes per level is ineligible to be IHS'd.

[Lanaya]

I don't think this argument is ever going to be satisfactorily resolved. Can I use IHS to end it right now?

[Svata]

Y'know, because they really should have expressed it in 10/100/600 rounds/level for all those spells, rather than gong for the simpler minutes/10 minutes/hours.

[Snowbluff]

Isn't any duration greater than a round equal to one or more rounds?

It has to be in a multiple of six seconds, and you have to know that for a fact.

[eggynack]

It has to be in a multiple of six seconds, and you have to know that for a fact.
Two issues with that. First, does it actually have to be in a multiple of six seconds? I'm not so sure. As I mentioned in the other thread, fractional rounds are also a unit of measure. After all, 33.2 rounds is one or more rounds, and the game never specifies that we're necessarily working with integers. Second, is it actually possible for something to not last a multiple of six seconds without outside intervention? My impression was always that stuff happens along the rounds axis, no matter what it is.

[Cowardly Griffo]

Presumably, other folks from the old thread come in to disagree.It's... it's like you're psychic! :smallbiggrin:

Hilarious mental gymnastics aside, I can think of two very important questions:

1. Does Iron Heart Surge cure clinical depression?

2. Is it a substitute for Stop, Drop and Roll?

[Killer Angel]

Wait... are you trying to argue that a minute is less than 1 or more rounds?

It depends. If you desperately need a bathroom, a round seems longer than one minute.

[Bronk]

It has to be in a multiple of six seconds, and you have to know that for a fact.

Is there a workaround for that? As in, the world's time is made up of rounds, it had to start and had to end on a round?

[Melcar]

To me its pretty simple... The spell ends any effect that are counted in rounds/level. Anything in min/level or hour/level are not affected by IHS. The effects include spells, effects and conditions... pretty much any adverse thing which is counted in rounds/level. No more.. no less. I know that anything could be counted it rounds/level, but as I see it, it cant be used to end Mage Armor

EDIT: Since it any effect, it could be beneficial effects as well, since its up to the caster of IHS I believe it to be used more often on debilitating effects!

[Brookshw]

Hmmmm, nice new thread you have here Eggy, nice and roomy, good colors, useful emoticons, I approve. And is that fresh baked bread I smell? Delightful!

Steps up to podium Now, without further ado, Ladies, Gentlemen, Anthropomorphic bats, playgroundians alike, I shall be continuing to address the Condition aspect of the discussion.

@Eggy - without linking back to the last thread a few points to address where we left off. Also I'm off today and for the first time this week I'm at home with my books so aren't we in for a treat :smallbiggrin:

On the nature of spell, effect and condition likewise I'm unsure regarding the nature of effect as a defined term. Certain things, such as acid effect, certainly use it as part of a definition, but I don't know if there's a more general applicable usage for the games purposes. I'd certainly be interested in knowing if such a thing does exist, so if you do recall or can find any of the past attempts at defining it you've mentioned that could provide some interesting insights.

On the usage of condition in the ToB - I do in fact believe there is substantial reason to consider how they've used it that's applicable to the discussion. If I was reading a title that used housing in reference to Victorian and Colonial style buildings I think it might be a bit odd to suddenly think they might be using in to reference Igloos.

Back to lists, other than a recent reference by Vogon you've been the one presenting that it must be a complete list to be considered a definition (though the DMG does say on page 289 that it is comprehensive of a characters conditions so I suppose there is that). If I listed Norway, Germany, Span, France and Italy and said they were European countries it would be a bit silly to say they aren't because it's not a complete list of European countries. Where does that leave us in our discussion? Well, a list can provide a context to understand what a thing is now can't it and means to evaluate if a thing might fall into the same category. Where that matters for IHS is as my earlier point regarding the consistent usage of a term or word in the ToB.

But let's move on a bit to some other elements and see if we can define this aspect of the discussion, we seem to be left with three scenarios.
1) The conditions listed in the DMG are in fact the conditions of the game and are the conditions IHS uses in reference.
2) The conditions listed in the DMG are in fact a partial list of conditions in the game but other things labled as conditions may in fact also be conditions and suitable candidates for IHS to use in reference.
3) There is no such thing as a condition in the game and we must rely upon common usage of condition for to use in reference.

Does that seem right to you? It's the list, it's the list + others, it's general English meaning.

Further things: conditions such as stun you can find repeatedly listed and labeled as conditions in a great many locations. This isn't something that Lighting can avail itself to in establishing its a condition even if the word "condition" is used. Looking at page 164 of the PHB "Vision and Light" I see no reference to the word condition. Looking at page 67 of the DMG titles "Illumination" I likewise find no reference to the word condition.

Back to the ToB, the book makes substantial parallels to maneuvers being comparable to magic does it not? Page 5 : "Maneuver: A maneuver is a specific is a specific, one-shot effect that a martial adept initiates. In this way a maneuver is functionally similar to a spell". Page 37 "Think of this material as analogous to that in Chapter 10 of the Player's Handbook [Spells]", Page 40 "In general martial maneuvers and stances that create supernatural effects are transparent to magic or psionics". I could go on for a quite a while but currently I see a substantial basis for considering maneuvers to be pretty comparable to spells for intensive purposes (heck, one section's even entitled "Blade Magic"). Now look at page 181 of the PHB, "Spell Effects and Conditions: If a spell causes it's subject or subjects to be affected by one or more conditions (such as blind, incorporeal, invisible, or stunned), refer to the glossary for details of how that condition affects the subject. Chapter 8 of the Dungeon Master's Guide has more information on the various conditions." Interestingly chapter 8 has the condition summary list (which is also simply entitled "Condition" rather than "Condition Summary" in that doc I directed you to previously, the one labeled "Abilities and Conditions".

Now let's continue a bit more what this might actually mean in regarding to the three possibilities I've listed earlier. If we apply the first possibility we're left with the notion that a character can not be subject to the conditions listed. Sure, no one's arguing otherwise. If we apply the second possibility we have some more interesting outcomes which I'm happy to discuss further. If we apply the third possibility which I understand you to be arguing for regarding the common English definition things such as line of effect rules, leveling when you've gained experience, and anything such thing we can think of can be removed from the game. However this would mean that the ToB can change the rules of the game (rejoice, rejoice, the mythical tier 0 has arrived. Pun Pun has been cast from the mountain, Eggy shall be heralded as a triumphant hero and I shall be a villain cast to the shadows and whose name is used to scare children!). We know this is possibility must however be false as the ToB has no mandate, power or authority to change the rules. As such we can discount option three as being the possible correct interpretation of condition as used and we're left with the first two options.

[Akkristor]

As far as the feat Rapid Spell is concerned, a time listed in minutes is not the same as a time listed in rounds. A spell with a casting time of 1 minute and a spell with a casting time 10 rounds are both very different as far as this feat cares, not effecting the first, but reducing the second to 1 round.

Now, this feat cares about casting time, and not duration, and it's applicability to Iron Heart Surge's interpretation is debatable, but it may be used as a bit of precedence that '1 or more rounds' is not triggered by 'minutes'. If all times could be broken into rounds (A duration of 1 hour being 600 rounds), than any rapid spell would be cast in 1 round.




Rapid Spell:
http://dndtools.eu/feats/complete-divine--56/rapid-spell--2378/

[The Random NPC]

As far as the feat Rapid Spell is concerned, a time listed in minutes is not the same as a time listed in rounds. A spell with a casting time of 1 minute and a spell with a casting time 10 rounds are both very different as far as this feat cares, not effecting the first, but reducing the second to 1 round.

Now, this feat cares about casting time, and not duration, and it's applicability to Iron Heart Surge's interpretation is debatable, but it may be used as a bit of precedence that '1 or more rounds' is not triggered by 'minutes'. If all times could be broken into rounds (A duration of 1 hour being 600 rounds), than any rapid spell would be cast in 1 round.




Rapid Spell:
http://dndtools.eu/feats/complete-divine--56/rapid-spell--2378/

Yes, but Rapid Spell specifically says that it has to be measured in rounds. If there was a spell that had a duration of 10000000 rounds, it would be cast in 1 round after Rapid Spell. If, on the other hand, it had a duration of 0.1 minutes, the spell would have a casting time of 1 minute after Rapid Spell. The issue is that IHS doesn't care how a duration is measured, just that it has one that lasts 1 or more rounds.

[Brookshw]

Sigh.....well this is disappointing, I was hoping for a discussion while I had reference material on hand and time to evaluate Eggy. Not your fault I'm sure but I'd like to to have an opportunity to discuss when we're on equal footing.

[eggynack]

Now let's continue a bit more what this might actually mean in regarding to the three possibilities I've listed earlier. If we apply the first possibility we're left with the notion that a character can not be subject to the conditions listed. Sure, no one's arguing otherwise. If we apply the second possibility we have some more interesting outcomes which I'm happy to discuss further. If we apply the third possibility which I understand you to be arguing for regarding the common English definition things such as line of effect rules, leveling when you've gained experience, and anything such thing we can think of can be removed from the game. However this would mean that the ToB can change the rules of the game (rejoice, rejoice, the mythical tier 0 has arrived. Pun Pun has been cast from the mountain, Eggy shall be heralded as a triumphant hero and I shall be a villain cast to the shadows and whose name is used to scare children!). We know this is possibility must however be false as the ToB has no mandate, power or authority to change the rules. As such we can discount option three as being the possible correct interpretation of condition as used and we're left with the first two options.
This logic doesn't really follow. The tome of battle didn't change the definition of condition in the process of making use of the term. The word was just never defined in any sense, and the tome of battle was likely the first book to care about that fact. The tome of battle is actually allowed to change the rules of the game, in that it's perfectly capable of saying, "I am adding this maneuver to the game rules," and even if the book were redefining condition with its words, rather than the words of the original book, that would still be enough, because I ultimately only really care about the definition of condition with reference to IHS, which is something ToB can determine. It doesn't change the definition though. There's no specific ToB thing overriding a general DMG thing. There's just a word that was always defined in the dictionary, even before IHS came on the scene.

Really, the only evidence you've presented that's at all meaningful is the line from the PHB referencing conditions, but that book also references conditions in a pile of other places without pointing at that definition, or the condition summary, at all. What makes this usage of the term more special than those other ones? Also, this is a place where that feeblemind thing comes back into relevance a bit. The PHB, by your reckoning, is calling out the condition summary as a complete one, but due to feeblemind, from the PHB's perspective, the list isn't complete. There's some good implication in the text that this is just the list of conditions as applies to the results of spells, but already, from square one, we can effectively call it an incomplete list from that perspective. Thus, as always, there can be other conditions, and the summary isn't defining.

[Brookshw]

Wait, what? You've replied to 10% of my argument and ignored the rest. I'm on my phone again but what you've proposed is not an argument and fails to address q number of salient points.

[eggynack]

Wait, what? You've replied to 10% of my argument and ignored the rest. I'm on my phone again but what you've proposed is not an argument and fails to address q number of salient points.
I don't think I actually missed any stuff that was core to the argument, or I at least missed little of it (if we consider things in terms of argument-space rather than word space. The point, I think, is that if the logic of the conclusion is under attack, then I suppose I can hit up some of the less critical stuff as well though.


Back to lists, other than a recent reference by Vogon you've been the one presenting that it must be a complete list to be considered a definition (though the DMG does say on page 289 that it is comprehensive of a characters conditions so I suppose there is that). If I listed Norway, Germany, Span, France and Italy and said they were European countries it would be a bit silly to say they aren't because it's not a complete list of European countries. Where does that leave us in our discussion? Well, a list can provide a context to understand what a thing is now can't it and means to evaluate if a thing might fall into the same category. Where that matters for IHS is as my earlier point regarding the consistent usage of a term or word in the ToB.

In this case, comprehensive actually does seem to be in connection to the individual conditions, rather than the list overall. In any case, the list provides context, but other things also provide context in the opposite direction, and it all seems to cancel itself out.


Does that seem right to you? It's the list, it's the list + others, it's general English meaning.
Sure, that sounds about like the three positions currently at hand.


Further things: conditions such as stun you can find repeatedly listed and labeled as conditions in a great many locations. This isn't something that Lighting can avail itself to in establishing its a condition even if the word "condition" is used. Looking at page 164 of the PHB "Vision and Light" I see no reference to the word condition. Looking at page 67 of the DMG titles "Illumination" I likewise find no reference to the word condition.

You can also see stun listed in a number of locations without reference to its being a condition. There's no onus on a condition to always be mentioned as one.

I think that's all of it, as I covered the second to last paragraph in my last post to some extent, even if it's in an unlisted way.

[Segev]

I'm just going to chime in with my support for the idea that "a duration equal to or greater than 1 round" does not equate to "a duration measured in rounds" in a semantic sense. The latter would, indeed, preclude things of minute, hour, day, or permanent duration, whereas the former does not. A minute is, in fact, equal to or greater than a round. As is a day, hour, month, millennium, year, century, or eternity. A minute, hour, day, week, month, year, century, or eternity is not, however, "a duration measured in rounds," when the duration is listed as one of those non-round intervals.

Since IHS specifies that it works on conditions with durations equal to or greater than 1 round, but does not say anything about the duration having to be measured in rounds, it works on conditions which are measured in natural numbers of minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, centuries, millennia, or eternities.

[Snowbluff]

Two issues with that. First, does it actually have to be in a multiple of six seconds? I'm not so sure. As I mentioned in the other thread, fractional rounds are also a unit of measure. After all, 33.2 rounds is one or more rounds, and the game never specifies that we're necessarily working with integers. Second, is it actually possible for something to not last a multiple of six seconds without outside intervention? My impression was always that stuff happens along the rounds axis, no matter what it is.
1) Arguable, but that's a good point. We should try removing .8 of an effect while we are at it.

Segev is misreading the text, though.

2) Out of combat. Effects from outside the fight, like a torch, would be based on that scale.

So far I am convinced this only works on spells now.

[ddude987]

actually it isn't just natural numbers, but all non-negative real numbers*. To add my opinion here, one or more rounds is a logical statement. If rounds >= 1, then IHS applies. Is 1 hour >= 1 round?


Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world.

So yes, 1 hour is >= 1 round, therefore the logical conclusion that is draw is that IHS applies to durations expressed in minutes, hours, et cetra.

*This assumes it is impossible to have a round expressed in negative notation

[Vogonjeltz]

On the latter count, yes, and on the former, it's listed as such in the spell heal.

Oh, I see. It's italicized, so it's referring to what is going on when the spell Feeblemind is in effect on the character (which is the standard practice used in D&D text, italics refer to spells). Feeblemind is instantaneous though, so it can't be removed by iron heart surge: "Instantaneous effects can't be removed by iron heart surge."


Is that FAQ answer limiting wath IHS can remove to the things listed in said answer? Or is it open ended?

Based on the question, Yes. It still excludes things without duration, or where the duration is instantaneous, and ability drain/any damage.


Wait... are you trying to argue that a minute is less than 1 or more rounds?

No, I was arguing (though I am not now as shown by the subsequent post) that the way the ability was written only allows for removing spells/effects/conditions where the duration was presented by the authors of the text in round format. So if the authors wrote the duration of an effect was 1 day, it would be excluded from removal, but if they wrote it was 10 rounds, it could be removed.

I reiterate, I'm not still forwarding that position because the official answer is in the FAQ, which I'll repost:


What exactly can or can't iron heart surge (ToB 68) remove?
Instantaneous effects can't be removed by iron heart surge.
However, any effect with a duration of 1 or more rounds, including permanent-duration spells or effects, can be removed by iron heart surge, nor does iron heart surge restore damage or ability drain.
Iron heart surge doesn't replace lost levels (though it would remove any negative levels resulting from a single spell or effect). It would neutralize a single poison courinsg through your system, or a single disease that afflicted you.

This still excludes any effect (and they use effect as synonymous with spell/condition) with no duration at all.

[eggynack]

2) Out of combat. Effects from outside the fight, like a torch, would be based on that scale.
I can't see all that much evidence that things just spontaneously leave the round system when you're out of combat. I mean, you don't always measure things in that fashion, but it's not like rounds just disappear. If they did, then things with actually listed durations seem like they would be somewhat wonky.

Edit:
Oh, I see. It's italicized, so it's referring to what is going on when the spell Feeblemind is in effect on the character (which is the standard practice used in D&D text, italics refer to spells). Feeblemind is instantaneous though, so it can't be removed by iron heart surge: "Instantaneous effects can't be removed by iron heart surge."
Likely true, but irrelevant (you should probably not quote the FAQ as though it's rules text, because it's somewhat misleading, but I happen to think the ruling is a correct one without the FAQ). The point was establishing ways in which the condition list is incomplete, thus poking holes in its ability to serve as a definition.

[Brookshw]

Your objections continue to dodge points but whatever. I remain on my phone so I'm limited in my response. As to point 3, do you agree or disagree that its invalid for our options?

[eggynack]

Your objections continue to dodge points but whatever. I remain on my phone so I'm limited in my response. As to point 3, do you agree or disagree that its invalid for our options?
I disagree, as I pointed out in my first post on the topic. ToB isn't changing the rules in order for condition to be not a game defined term. It just was never a game defined term in the first place.

[Snowbluff]

Eggynack, what do a sunburned penguin, zebra with paper cuts, and a newspaper have in common?

[eggynack]

Eggynack, what do a sunburned penguin, zebra with paper cuts, and a newspaper have in common?
Man, isn't it obvious? They can all be exploded with iron heart surge.

[Segev]

Segev is misreading the text, though.

2) Out of combat. Effects from outside the fight, like a torch, would be based on that scale.

I speak only to the duration argument. While I would contend that a torch is not a "condition" specified in the rules, nor is "being in light," the actual RAW of IHS is such that one can make silly arguments regarding "dazzled" allowing you to extinguish the torch rather than merely throw off the effect of being dazzled, so I find that debate fruitless.

The duration argument stands; anything that qualifies for the rest of its requirements which lasts for a round or longer, regardless of in what units that round-or-longer is measured, is a valid thing to IHS away.

[Phelix-Mu]

Way late in this discussion, but let me add fuel to what seems to be a forest fire-caliber conflagration:

One of the problems with the term "duration" is that not all things have duration as the game defines it. A character's lifespan, for instance, is a kind of duration, but it's not like duration as the game usually uses the term. Some status things (such as they exist in game) don't have a duration listed (even if logically they don't last forever). Basically, just because a thing can be measured in units of time doesn't confer a duration, and likewise something that lasts forever doesn't have a permanent duration per se. Just like condition, the game has a use of the word "duration" that doesn't encompass all things that persist over time.

If your character is poisoned, the poison itself doesn't have the same duration as it's effects, so here we have a weird interaction between conditions and "durations." Poison caused the ability damage (let's say), but after the second save is made, IIRC, you aren't really poisoned anymore, just suffering from generic ability damage.

Likewise, being injured has a kind of duration, but it's impossible to nail down how long because so many factors are involved (character levels, feats, sleeping, bed rest, active, and so forth). So some things exist over time, but quantifying how long may be difficult or impossible (especially from an in-character perspective).

---------

My general position is that RAW terminology in 3e D&D (and back even further) is generally not exhaustive or internally consistent. Attempts to ferret out just where the line between "x means x" and "x has no specific meaning that can be connected to other instances of x" are perilous at best. There was a weird confluence of good and bad writing at WotC, I suspect, and perhaps a dearth of those versed in logic and proof. So, I approach much of the finer points of RAW terminology in an artistic manner, and apply needed interpretation, as opposed to a proof-oriented logical manner. And thus save myself much time (at least when I am the DM and get to make such calls myself).

Sorry, but basically, my view boils down to "these discussions are rarely fruitful."

They are good fun, however, and occasionally enlightening, and what else is the internet for besides teaching one things that one didn't necessarily need to know?

[eggynack]

One of the problems with the term "duration" is that not all things have duration as the game defines it.
Does the game define it? It only seems to have any sort of definition with particular reference to spells.

[Snowbluff]

Which is why I say it only works with spells.


The duration argument stands; anything that qualifies for the rest of its requirements which lasts for a round or longer, regardless of in what units that round-or-longer is measured, is a valid thing to IHS away.

One or more rounds. It can be measured in minutes and hours, but not seconds. Seconds make up rounds.

[Melcar]

Originally Posted by Wizards of the Coast 3.5 D&D FAQ
What exactly can or can't iron heart surge (ToB 68) remove?
Instantaneous effects can't be removed by iron heart surge.
However, any effect with a duration of 1 or more rounds, including permanent-duration spells or effects, can be removed by iron heart surge, nor does iron heart surge restore damage or ability drain.
Iron heart surge doesn't replace lost levels (though it would remove any negative levels resulting from a single spell or effect). It would neutralize a single poison courinsg through your system, or a single disease that afflicted you.



I personally find this ruling to ##¤%&'ed up! Its way too powerful in my oppinion and thus would rule it only to handle effect with a duration counted in rounds!

[Segev]

One or more rounds. It can be measured in minutes and hours, but not seconds. Seconds make up rounds.

If it's 6+ seconds, it is one or more rounds.

If it is 0-5 seconds, it is not one or more rounds.

Nothing in D&D is ever measured in seconds, to my knowledge, other than to note that a round is "about six seconds," though.

[eggynack]

Which is why I say it only works with spells.
I don't think that necessarily holds up. It's not like duration is defined as having to do with spells. It just defines how the duration line works. I think this might be another of those no game term cases, at least with non-spells, which might mean that this argument will lead to the destruction of all of mankind. Just how it works.



One or more rounds. It can be measured in minutes and hours, but not seconds. Seconds make up rounds.
Well, unless the fractional duration argument holds up, because I can't really think of a good argument against it doing so. It's certainly an odd claim to make though.

[Segev]

I personally find this ruling to ##¤%&'ed up! Its way too powerful in my oppinion and thus would rule it only to handle effect with a duration counted in rounds!

Why? What does this ruling make vulnerable to IHS that you feel is overpowered?

[Melcar]

Why? What does this ruling make vulnerable to IHS that you feel is overpowered?

permanent epic spells would be affected...

[Phelix-Mu]

Does the game define it? It only seems to have any sort of definition with particular reference to spells.

That's the definition to which I was referring, clearly not meant to be comprehensive. Other things are given something akin to a duration, but not really, so let's call that other thing something else, to avoid conflation. It seems to me that IHS was guilty of a mighty dose of conflation, and, in an ideal world, would just be rewritten in a way that better acknowledged that broad effects need small print, since the rest of the books make such a hash of language that broad effects extrapolate in purely hyperbolic manner without small print.

[eggynack]

That's the definition to which I was referring, clearly not meant to be comprehensive. Other things are given something akin to a duration, but not really, so let's call that other thing something else, to avoid conflation. It seems to me that IHS was guilty of a mighty dose of conflation, and, in an ideal world, would just be rewritten in a way that better acknowledged that broad effects need small print, since the rest of the books make such a hash of language that broad effects extrapolate in purely hyperbolic manner without small print.
I definitely agree that any actual game use should use a fix. I tend towards the unofficial errata method in my opinion of how it should be fixed, as I think I've mentioned in the last thread. It's tricky figuring out how to deal with the thing in an internet setting though, and even with a stricter interpretations of what the ability is capable of, it's still too good to be ignored in figuring power level. Tricky junk.

[Snowbluff]

Yeah, if I were to write the game, I would have all of this defined, and have more descriptors. All abilities would have their workings made into steps, so if something has several parts, it tells you in what order they would resolve.

For example, you could have immunity to cold damage, and immunity to [Cold]. I might have stacking type descriptors like in 4e (if this is Radiant, Fire, and Cold damage, use the worse resistance/immunity), but I don't know how to do that without being OP. Maybe I would have a Type Pyramid for effect. [Death] overrides [Cold], but is in turn overridden by [Necromancy].

[Phelix-Mu]

I definitely agree that any actual game use should use a fix. I tend towards the unofficial errata method in my opinion of how it should be fixed, as I think I've mentioned in the last thread. It's tricky figuring out how to deal with the thing in an internet setting though, and even with a stricter interpretations of what the ability is capable of, it's still too good to be ignored in figuring power level. Tricky junk.

Hmm can I get a link or quote on IHS from the unofficial errata? I seem to remember reading it before, but I've been playing Exalted for almost a year now, and its rules have marginalized the more arcane elements of my D&D headcanon.

[eggynack]

Hmm can I get a link or quote on IHS from the unofficial errata? I seem to remember reading it before, but I've been playing Exalted for almost a year now, and its rules have marginalized the more arcane elements of my D&D headcanon.
Here ya go (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13292.0). The basic philosophy of that part of the errata is to just frigging list everything that IHS works on. It's a cool method.

[Icewraith]

permanent epic spells would be affected...

Only if they affected the initiator. Furthermore, you'd probably need to make an initiator level check to try and IHS an epic spell since anything that would auto-dispel spells still has to succeed on a caster level check to work on an epic spell.

[Vogonjeltz]

Edit:
Likely true, but irrelevant (you should probably not quote the FAQ as though it's rules text, because it's somewhat misleading, but I happen to think the ruling is a correct one without the FAQ). The point was establishing ways in which the condition list is incomplete, thus poking holes in its ability to serve as a definition.

The FAQ is official, it's a ruling, ergo it is rules text.


I speak only to the duration argument. While I would contend that a torch is not a "condition" specified in the rules, nor is "being in light," the actual RAW of IHS is such that one can make silly arguments regarding "dazzled" allowing you to extinguish the torch rather than merely throw off the effect of being dazzled, so I find that debate fruitless.

The duration argument stands; anything that qualifies for the rest of its requirements which lasts for a round or longer, regardless of in what units that round-or-longer is measured, is a valid thing to IHS away.

The condition (being dazzled) has no duration at all. Therefore iron heart surge cannot remove it.

Let's not conflate the condition with the source of the condition, two distinct things. One of which surge has no stated ability to affect.


Way late in this discussion, but let me add fuel to what seems to be a forest fire-caliber conflagration:

One of the problems with the term "duration" is that not all things have duration as the game defines it. A character's lifespan, for instance, is a kind of duration, but it's not like duration as the game usually uses the term. Some status things (such as they exist in game) don't have a duration listed (even if logically they don't last forever). Basically, just because a thing can be measured in units of time doesn't confer a duration, and likewise something that lasts forever doesn't have a permanent duration per se. Just like condition, the game has a use of the word "duration" that doesn't encompass all things that persist over time.

If your character is poisoned, the poison itself doesn't have the same duration as it's effects, so here we have a weird interaction between conditions and "durations." Poison caused the ability damage (let's say), but after the second save is made, IIRC, you aren't really poisoned anymore, just suffering from generic ability damage.

Likewise, being injured has a kind of duration, but it's impossible to nail down how long because so many factors are involved (character levels, feats, sleeping, bed rest, active, and so forth). So some things exist over time, but quantifying how long may be difficult or impossible (especially from an in-character perspective).

---------

My general position is that RAW terminology in 3e D&D (and back even further) is generally not exhaustive or internally consistent. Attempts to ferret out just where the line between "x means x" and "x has no specific meaning that can be connected to other instances of x" are perilous at best. There was a weird confluence of good and bad writing at WotC, I suspect, and perhaps a dearth of those versed in logic and proof. So, I approach much of the finer points of RAW terminology in an artistic manner, and apply needed interpretation, as opposed to a proof-oriented logical manner. And thus save myself much time (at least when I am the DM and get to make such calls myself).

Sorry, but basically, my view boils down to "these discussions are rarely fruitful."

They are good fun, however, and occasionally enlightening, and what else is the internet for besides teaching one things that one didn't necessarily need to know?

same as before, poisons have a duration, hence surge can remove them. Ability damage and damage in general can not be removed because the FAQ made clear it isn't an option.

People aren't spells, conditions, or effects, so we don't even need to worry about the metaphysical question of if lifespans count as durations (they do not).

[eggynack]

The FAQ is official, it's a ruling, ergo it is rules text.

Rulings aren't rules. Seriously, I'm pretty sure we have had this conversation before. You know that not everyone considers the FAQ valid rules text. It's intellectually dishonest to cite it as though it's just any old book quote.

Edit:
The condition (being dazzled) has no duration at all. Therefore iron heart surge cannot remove it.
Really depends on how you define duration. You hang out outside for a few rounds, boom, dazzled has a duration.


Let's not conflate the condition with the source of the condition, two distinct things. One of which surge has no stated ability to affect.
Well, not that way, probably. You just need to hit it another way. If we're trying to extinguish a torch, or otherwise remove its light, it currently seems that using lighting condition is the most ironclad approach. It's just a big ol' semantics game.

[Phelix-Mu]

My understanding is that FAQ is clarification on RAI, but not actual errata, and so not given the same standing as actual rules. The real problem with WotC is that they dumped lots of work into new materials for 3e, but not into quality-control and errata after stuff hit the market. Some of the errata is quite useful (some is not). But it's the general absence of errata for stuff that needs it that is noteworthy.

[Karnith]

Some of the errata is quite useful (some is not). But it's the general absence of errata for stuff that needs it that is noteworthy.
I like to think that, somewhere on a computer at WotC, there exists a non-merged Tome of Battle errata file that fixed Iron Heart Surge.

[Snowbluff]

My understanding is that FAQ is clarification on RAI, but not actual errata, and so not given the same standing as actual rules.

Which is ironic, since I think the FAQ is only obfuscating this.

[Phelix-Mu]

I like to think that, somewhere on a computer at WotC, there exists a non-merged Tome of Battle errata file that fixed Iron Heart Surge.

No doubt the initiator of the errata was such a fan of IHS that he unintentionally IHS'd away the errata. A nice little circle of non-irony there.

EDIT: And also conveniently satisfies my desire to cast the copy editors over at WotC into the fires of perdition. My hatred is only equaled by my knowledge that such an expansive system could never be perfect, that hindsight is 20-20, and that asking for logical completeness in something going by the name D&D implicitly violates some originator's bargain with Pazuzu.

[The Grue]

Good lord, are we actually going to go through this whole debate yet again?

[Phelix-Mu]

Good lord, are we actually going to go through this whole debate yet again?

Between Pazuzu, Godwin, and Berners-Lee, I think the power of destiny probability compels us to.

[Brookshw]

Sorry, but basically, my view boils down to "these discussions are rarely fruitful."

They are good fun, however, and occasionally enlightening, and what else is the internet for besides teaching one things that one didn't necessarily need to know?

If I wanted fruit I'd head for the orchard. If I wanted to waste time arguing I'd head for the internet.
:smallwink:

[Phelix-Mu]

If I wanted fruit I'd head for the orchard. If I wanted to waste time arguing I'd head for the internet.
:smallwink:

See? Good fun.:smallamused:

[Vogonjeltz]

Rulings aren't rules. Seriously, I'm pretty sure we have had this conversation before. You know that not everyone considers the FAQ valid rules text. It's intellectually dishonest to cite it as though it's just any old book quote.

Edit:
Really depends on how you define duration. You hang out outside for a few rounds, boom, dazzled has a duration.

Well, not that way, probably. You just need to hit it another way. If we're trying to extinguish a torch, or otherwise remove its light, it currently seems that using lighting condition is the most ironclad approach. It's just a big ol' semantics game.

It takes real brass to make an appeal to intellectual honesty in the same post as an admission that the poster has been resorting to the disingenuousness of semantic word games.

Some people think lots of incorrect things, It's not incumbent on any of is to start humoring them. The FAQ is an official document about the rules of the game. As such it's official rules text and will continue to be quoted as such.

Dazzled has no duration if it has no duration. Show a printed duration or it remains ineligible.

[eggynack]

It takes real brass to make an appeal to intellectual honesty in the same post as an admission that the poster has been resorting to the disingenuousness of semantic word games.
IHS discussions are nothing but semantic word games. That's just the sort of argument this is, on a fundamental level. To my knowledge, I've been nothing but upfront and honest with all of my sources and arguments. Intellectual honesty, or dishonesty, has nothing to do with the extent to which an argument relies on semantics. In fact, I could go as far as to say that I'm being incredibly intellectually honest by spelling out the fact that I'm making use of semantic word games.


Some people think lots of incorrect things, It's not incumbent on any of is to start humoring them. The FAQ is an official document about the rules of the game. As such it's official rules text and will continue to be quoted as such.
Pretty sure we've had this argument before, possibly multiple times, and also pretty sure that you've not unambiguously won a single time, or even ambiguously won at that. You may think that the FAQ is rules text, but you have no evidence for that idea whatsoever, and it's just silly to ignore that fact by skipping the citation. Really, something as simple as, "As the FAQ indicates," or something of that sort would be sufficient. It's also just a generally helpful thing to do, as a bonus.

Dazzled has no duration if it has no duration. Show a printed duration or it remains ineligible.
Find me a definition of duration that isn't specific to spells, or things default to English. If things default to English, well, it looks a lot like we're working with something that has a duration here.

[Brookshw]

This logic doesn't really follow. The tome of battle didn't change the definition of condition in the process of making use of the term. The word was just never defined in any sense, and the tome of battle was likely the first book to care about that fact. The tome of battle is actually allowed to change the rules of the game, in that it's perfectly capable of saying, "I am adding this maneuver to the game rules," and even if the book were redefining condition with its words, rather than the words of the original book, that would still be enough, because I ultimately only really care about the definition of condition with reference to IHS, which is something ToB can determine. It doesn't change the definition though. There's no specific ToB thing overriding a general DMG thing. There's just a word that was always defined in the dictionary, even before IHS came on the scene. Sure it's allowed to change the rules of the game by adding rules that don't contradict earlier ones. It's not allowed to touch the earlier rules though from primary sources. It's not errata or anything. But your interpretation is very much granting it the power to decide to remove and add as long as we can semantics judo the word condition into it somehow. Whether condition is defined or not is irrelevant to establish that it cannot make such changes so the complete broad application of using the general English for condition as a meaning is amazingly dubious in my eyes.


Really, the only evidence you've presented that's at all meaningful is the line from the PHB referencing conditions, but that book also references conditions in a pile of other places without pointing at that definition, or the condition summary, at all. What makes this usage of the term more special than those other ones? Also, this is a place where that feeblemind thing comes back into relevance a bit. The PHB, by your reckoning, is calling out the condition summary as a complete one, but due to feeblemind, from the PHB's perspective, the list isn't complete. There's some good implication in the text that this is just the list of conditions as applies to the results of spells, but already, from square one, we can effectively call it an incomplete list from that perspective. Thus, as always, there can be other conditions, and the summary isn't defining. So first, it's the DMG that calls out the notion that the conditions list is complete, not the PHB. What the PHB does do is reference that list as the list of conditions in the game relevant to spells, and by extension, maneuvers. I'll grant feeblemind is an interesting case regarding being a condition but it's effects match those of one of the conditions outlined on the condition list so I'm not really so concerned.



You can also see stun listed in a number of locations without reference to its being a condition. There's no onus on a condition to always be mentioned as one.
Sure, I agree it's not always flagged as a condition, but it certainly is in a great many places. But as you've already brought up the idea of context, if something is only mentioned in relation to the word condition in a single instance doesn't that seem to indicate that the word is being used in a colloquial manner rather having any form of actual game meaning?

Another thing I was thinking on regarding the list being comprehensive element of the discussion in terms of establishing if it's a definition for condition, there's also simply the possibility that it may simply be a dysfunctional rule (700 and counting) that things such as dehydration apparent to not be a condition since it's not on the list and the list isn't updated by errata. I think we need to disprove the possibility of it being a matter of dysfunctions to completely narrow down the possibilities and evaluate them thoroughly. Food for thought.

[Chambers]

Here's how I houserule IHS in the games I run (changes and additions are in Bold). So far I haven't had any problems with the ruling.


Iron Heart Surge

Your fighting spirit, dedication, and training allow you to overcome almost anything to defeat your enemies. When you use this maneuver, select one condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds. That effect ends immediately. Alternatively select one spell or effect currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds. You ignore that spell or effect until the end of your next turn.

You also surge with confidence and vengeance against your enemies, gaining a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls until the end of your next turn.

----

This change still allows IHS to remove things like negative levels, fatigue, poison, etc while nixing the ability to dispel spells. In effect the spell or effect is suppressed, but only in relation to the character using IHS. He/She could walk through Black Tentacles with no problem (and without being attacked by them), ignore the effects of an Anti-Magic Field or another AoE spell with a duration, but the maneuver does not dispel anything.

[eggynack]

Sure it's allowed to change the rules of the game by adding rules that don't contradict earlier ones. It's not allowed to touch the earlier rules though from primary sources. It's not errata or anything. But your interpretation is very much granting it the power to decide to remove and add as long as we can semantics judo the word condition into it somehow. Whether condition is defined or not is irrelevant to establish that it cannot make such changes so the complete broad application of using the general English for condition as a meaning is amazingly dubious in my eyes.
If this is changing a rule from a primary source, where is that rule written?


So first, it's the DMG that calls out the notion that the conditions list is complete, not the PHB. What the PHB does do is reference that list as the list of conditions in the game relevant to spells, and by extension, maneuvers. I'll grant feeblemind is an interesting case regarding being a condition but it's effects match those of one of the conditions outlined on the condition list so I'm not really so concerned.
I was referring to your citation of 181 of the PHB, which seemed somewhat more convincing than the comprehensive line from the DMG.


Sure, I agree it's not always flagged as a condition, but it certainly is in a great many places. But as you've already brought up the idea of context, if something is only mentioned in relation to the word condition in a single instance doesn't that seem to indicate that the word is being used in a colloquial manner rather having any form of actual game meaning?
It doesn't really matter whether the term lighting conditions is only used once, because there are a lot of other terms that see connection with the word condition a whole bunch of times, including the rather similar visibility and illumination. If the fact that the connection is only mentioned once is a sign of colloquial usage, then I've gotta figure that, at least to some extent, rather consistent usage is indicative of actual game meaning (even if neither is a perfect indicator in either direction.

[The Grue]

Oh great. Now we're doing that thing where we dissect each others' posts paragraph by paragraph until the discussion balloons into seventeen parallel semantic arguments.

[eggynack]

Oh great. Now we're doing that thing where we dissect each others' posts paragraph by paragraph until the discussion balloons into seventeen parallel semantic arguments.
Are you full of jealousy over the crazy IHS fun we're having? I think ya are. I think that, in your heart, ya wanna join in the insanity.

[Sir Chuckles]

Oh great. Now we're doing that thing where we dissect each others' posts paragraph by paragraph until the discussion balloons into seventeen parallel semantic arguments.

Isn't that how most, if not all, threads that go past three pages ends up going?

[Necroticplague]

Oh great.
I know, isn't it?




Now we're doing that thing where we dissect each others' posts paragraph by paragraph
Not always paragraph by paragraph, just relevant point by relevant point. Sometimes you can skip because its unimportant side discussion





until the discussion balloons into seventeen parallel semantic arguments.

Only seventeen? I'm pretty sure we can do better than that.

[Brookshw]

If this is changing a rule from a primary source, where is that rule written? Which? Dealers choice. Can a rule be described as a condition? Yes. Does that mean by accepting the general English usage of condition IHS could remove it? Yes. Can IHS remove rules? No. Whatever the condition may be IHS references it can't be the general English definition.



I was referring to your citation of 181 of the PHB, which seemed somewhat more convincing than the comprehensive line from the DMG. I think that's the first time you've acknowledged something as convincing in this debate, I'm going to take a moment to appreciate that :smallbiggrin:



It doesn't really matter whether the term lighting conditions is only used once, because there are a lot of other terms that see connection with the word condition a whole bunch of times, including the rather similar visibility and illumination. If the fact that the connection is only mentioned once is a sign of colloquial usage, then I've gotta figure that, at least to some extent, rather consistent usage is indicative of actual game meaning (even if neither is a perfect indicator in either direction.

Such as the light and illumination sections I cited earlier that make no use of the word? :smallconfused: otherwise I agree that we may be nearing a game meaning for some nebulous value by establishing consistency. Low light vision I believe used it a lot in racial descriptions (as an aside I assume as a result of cutting and pasting, but that's just dm observation, I'm not advancing it as an objection).



Only seventeen? I'm pretty sure we can do better than that.

I know right? Your post alone used about twice as many words alone, each that we can inspect carefully for context and meaning. Who needs paragraphs?

[eggynack]

Which? Dealers choice. Can a rule be described as a condition? Yes. Does that mean by accepting the general English usage of condition IHS could remove it? Yes. Can IHS remove rules? No. Whatever the condition may be IHS references it can't be the general English definition.
That doesn't seem like a fair argument. Rules are a metagame construct, rather than an actual in-game object, so you can't remove them. Similarly, despite the fact that I am within 400 feet of a game piece when playing a game, said game piece cannot fireball me. Besides that, y'know, I'm not entirely sure what rule is being broken by IHS being capable of removing rules.

If the rule is the rule that rules are just generally immutable unless explicitly stated otherwise, then there ya go, and the problem is solved by the power of a fundamental rule that overrides all others. This isn't a real objection to this reading, in other words. Worst case scenario, specific overrides general, and if IHS says that it can turn off rules, then that's its right. ToB isn't calling the PHB rules wrong, which wouldn't be allowed by primary source rules. It's saying they're right until IHS says so, which is perfectly allowed by specific vs. general rules.



Such as the light and illumination sections I cited earlier that make no use of the word? :smallconfused: otherwise I agree that we may be nearing a game meaning for some nebulous value by establishing consistency. Low light vision I believe used it a lot in racial descriptions (as an aside I assume as a result of cutting and pasting, but that's just dm observation, I'm not advancing it as an objection).
Some sections do, and some don't. I was putting forth multiple use with that example, instead of universal use, as the former is what you were claiming as a non-element of lighting conditions.

[Vogonjeltz]

Oh great. Now we're doing that thing where we dissect each others' posts paragraph by paragraph until the discussion balloons into seventeen parallel semantic arguments.

This can be avoided if we adhere to the precept to embrace brevity.

[georgie_leech]

This can be avoided if we adhere to the precept to embrace brevity.

Polonius never followed his own advice anyway. :smallamused:

[Brookshw]

That doesn't seem like a fair argument. Rules are a metagame construct, rather than an actual in-game object, so you can't remove them. Similarly, despite the fact that I am within 400 feet of a game piece when playing a game, said game piece cannot fireball me. Besides that, y'know, I'm not entirely sure what rule is being broken by IHS being capable of removing rules. So it can't possibly mean that because were grown men and woman playing make believe with figures? :smallwink: whether the rules may be a meta concept the general definition of condition has no such concern, frankly you can express just about anything using "condition of" or "condition of not", especially if you follow either one with "being". It's lingual shenanigans by far but its in alignment with the standard definition.


If the rule is the rule that rules are just generally immutable unless explicitly stated otherwise, then there ya go, and the problem is solved by the power of a fundamental rule that overrides all others. Well there is, you just cited it below.
This isn't a real objection to this reading, in other words. Worst case scenario, specific overrides general, and if IHS says that it can turn off rules, then that's its right. ToB isn't calling the PHB rules wrong, which wouldn't be allowed by primary source rules. It's saying they're right until IHS says so, which is perfectly allowed by specific vs. general rules. not really unless you're short changing how abusable the wording can potentially be. The ToB by virtue of your proposed definition can tell the phb where it can stuff its rules completely, which you just admitted it can't.




Some sections do, and some don't. I was putting forth multiple use with that example, instead of universal use, as the former is what you were claiming as a non-element of lighting conditions. Great but multiuse is perhaps support for option 2 in establishing what could be conditions but is irrelevant to option 3.

Did you trim your post, could have sworn there was something about me altering my stance when I skimmed it last night.

[eggynack]

So it can't possibly mean that because were grown men and woman playing make believe with figures? :smallwink: whether the rules may be a meta concept the general definition of condition has no such concern, frankly you can express just about anything using "condition of" or "condition of not", especially if you follow either one with "being". It's lingual shenanigans by far but its in alignment with the standard definition.
The issue is primarily that the rules are a non-object. There's nothing for a character to point at and say, "I IHS that." Further, arguing that rules are a condition is probably one of the harder things out there to justify semantically. The rules for falling aren't a mode of being for a person. The falling itself is. The other definition, "a restricting, limiting, or modifying circumstance," actually isn't one I've been making use of, though I don't know if that fact has any impact on things. Probably has at least a little impact, as a word probably can't be defined in two ways at once, even if it can possibly be read both ways. In any case, the point is that rules are a condition out of game, rather than a condition in game, and characters can't impact things out of game, no matter how many times pun-pun says that you totally can.


Well there is, you just cited it below. not really unless you're short changing how abusable the wording can potentially be. The ToB by virtue of your proposed definition can tell the phb where it can stuff its rules completely, which you just admitted it can't.
Either the rules support it or they don't. If they do, then they do, and that doesn't change just because it's ridiculous, or because of primary source rules. If they don't, then that's all there is to it. There's no real step here where the English language definition of condition, and its applications with reference to IHS, are called into question.


Great but multiuse is perhaps support for option 2 in establishing what could be conditions but is irrelevant to option 3.
Not really. My point is that, with all of these uses and definitions flying around, there just isn't an in-game definition. I don't think that a term can have two in-game definitions, after all. That'd be weird.

Did you trim your post, could have sworn there was something about me altering my stance when I skimmed it last night.
I don't recall, actually.

Edit: Basically, in the first argument majig, two of your premises need more support. First, the premise that the English definition of condition's use as applies to IHS would lead to the ability to remove rules. It's not the least supported idea in existence, because semantics can get you to a lot of odd places, but I don't think it works. Second, the premise that, if IHS can remove rules, then the reading must logically be false. I'm not sure what your support is for that one at all. Feels like you're going for some variety of primary source argument, on the idea that those rules mean that you can't remove rules from a more primary source, which the PHB is, but as I've pointed out above, that claim just doesn't really hold up. Without both of those premises proved, this particular argument against the dictionary reading of IHS doesn't work.

[Vogonjeltz]

Polonius never followed his own advice anyway. :smallamused:

Juffo wup acknowledges the existence of the unvoidable non

[Brookshw]

The issue is primarily that the rules are a non-object. There's nothing for a character to point at and say, "I IHS that." Further, arguing that rules are a condition is probably one of the harder things out there to justify semantically. The rules for falling aren't a mode of being for a person. The falling itself is. The other definition, "a restricting, limiting, or modifying circumstance," actually isn't one I've been making use of, though I don't know if that fact has any impact on things. Probably has at least a little impact, as a word probably can't be defined in two ways at once, even if it can possibly be read both ways. In any case, the point is that rules are a condition out of game, rather than a condition in game, and characters can't impact things out of game, no matter how many times pun-pun says that you totally can. Since when did the original English definition require an object in which for condition to apply?
con·di·tion
kənˈdiSHən/
noun
noun: condition; plural noun: conditions

1.
the state of something, especially with regard to its appearance, quality, or working order.
"the wiring is in good condition"
synonyms: state, shape, order More
"check the condition of your wiring"
a person's or animal's state of health or physical fitness.
"he is in fairly good condition considering what he has has been through"
synonyms: fitness, health, form, shape, trim, fettle More
"she was in top condition"
an illness or other medical problem.
"a heart condition"
synonyms: disorder, problem, complaint, illness, disease, ailment, sickness, affliction, infection, upset More
"a liver condition"
a particular state of existence.
"a condition of misery"
archaic
social position or rank.
"those of humbler condition"
2.
the circumstances affecting the way in which people live or work, especially with regard to their safety or well-being.
"harsh working and living conditions"
synonyms: circumstances, surroundings, environment, situation, setup, setting, habitat More
"they lived in appalling conditions"
the factors or prevailing situation influencing the performance or the outcome of a process.
"present market conditions"
the prevailing state of the weather, ground, sea, or atmosphere at a particular time, especially as it affects a sporting event.
"the appalling conditions determined the style of play"
3.
a state of affairs that must exist or be brought about before something else is possible or permitted.
"for a member to borrow money, three conditions have to be met"
synonyms: stipulation, constraint, prerequisite, precondition, requirement, rule, term, specification, provision, proviso More
"a condition of membership"

verb
verb: condition; 3rd person present: conditions; past tense: conditioned; past participle: conditioned; gerund or present participle: conditioning

1.
have a significant influence on or determine (the manner or outcome of something).
"national choices are conditioned by the international political economy"
synonyms: constrain, control, govern, determine, decide; More
affect, touch;
form, shape, guide, sway, bias
"their choices are conditioned by the economy"
train or accustom (someone or something) to behave in a certain way or to accept certain circumstances.
"we have all been conditioned to the conventional format of TV"
synonyms: train, teach, educate, guide; More
accustom, adapt, habituate, mold, inure
"our minds are conditioned by habit"
2.
bring (something) into the desired state for use.
"a product for conditioning leather"
synonyms: treat, prepare, prime, temper, process, acclimatize, acclimate, season More

Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condition)

You've proposed a completely arbitrary requirement upon the word that is not necessary. Nouns may make reference to the objects definition but the word itself can also be used as a noun without the requirement for an object to be present or in other fashions without any need for an object, it's amazing what the shenanigans one can pull off with applications of the word "of". Further are you saying that "panicked" or "frightened" aren't conditions? They aren't objects after all and while a character may experience them, they also may experience conditions of existential doubt right? Just about any formal or symbolic logic course you take is going to cover this on day one, or at least the first week. A person is falling The use of the word "is" creates equivalency and the statement can be expressed "Person = Falling". Now you've also created a distinction between "in game" and "out of game" condition which is bunk, you're argument is predicated upon there being no "in game" definition of condition to begin with and defaults to "out of game". I would reject the idea also that the rules exist "out of game" as the rules are effectively "how reality works" for a character and very much as in game relevant and applicable. Lastly you've also argued I believe that the player determines what "condition" is being targeted, didn't you and The Insanity go over this and you rejected his proposal that the player can't decide which the target condition being removed it? Well, I chose to target the rules. Semantics are silly but there you go.


Either the rules support it or they don't. If they do, then they do, and that doesn't change just because it's ridiculous, or because of primary source rules. If they don't, then that's all there is to it. There's no real step here where the English language definition of condition, and its applications with reference to IHS, are called into question. I don't even need to go to argue it's a matter of ridiculous when I can simply point out it's a violation of the rules. You can't even avail yourself to saying "well it's a matter of specific vs. general" with IHS specifically making you non-subject to the rules rather than changing them in general due because things that are exemptions tend to specifically call out they are making you exempt do they not? Does IHS? Nope, not so much.



Not really. My point is that, with all of these uses and definitions flying around, there just isn't an in-game definition. I don't think that a term can have two in-game definitions, after all. That'd be weird.

snip

Edit: Basically, in the first argument majig, two of your premises need more support. First, the premise that the English definition of condition's use as applies to IHS would lead to the ability to remove rules. It's not the least supported idea in existence, because semantics can get you to a lot of odd places, but I don't think it works. Second, the premise that, if IHS can remove rules, then the reading must logically be false. I'm not sure what your support is for that one at all. Feels like you're going for some variety of primary source argument, on the idea that those rules mean that you can't remove rules from a more primary source, which the PHB is, but as I've pointed out above, that claim just doesn't really hold up. Without both of those premises proved, this particular argument against the dictionary reading of IHS doesn't work. Yeah, RAW sure is weird, kinda like how you can't disintegrate trees or, my personal favorite from a recent dysfunction discussion, disarming someone's feet so that they fall at their feet, I mean, where do they go? Is it kinda like hammer space but they go to feet space? You're not being consistent even since earlier you've said "If they do, then they do, and that doesn't change just because it's ridiculous" but now your arguing a matter of "That'd be weird".

Finally to your edit, the first is your subjective rejection which I've bolded, but not an argument. At this point I think I've replied to both of the objections to the premises you've raised so I suppose I'll have to wait for your response.

As a reward for anyone who trudged through this mire of semantics juggling I'll point out, if you weren't aware, that the first printings of the PHB, page 136, saving throws, under examples of when a reflex save can be used is used they misspelled "Lightning bolt" as "Lighting bolt", so apparently no matter what you get a saving throw against light. Go figure and I don't even want to begin trying to untangle that change since it's not covered in the errata.

[ddude987]

So if arguing dnd physics kills catgirls, what does arguing dnd grammar do?

@Brookshw, there is a distinction in the game of in-game defined words vs not-in-game defined words. Condition is one of them. A condition is a character experiencing one of the listings on the condition summary index: SRD link here (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm). An in-game defined word would take precedence over its out-of-game definition (if one exists). As to the lightning bolt vs lighting bolt, lighting bolt is listed in examples. Examples given are not rules, and have no bearing on RAW. Although, I do suspect if there was such thing as a Lighting Bolt it would allow a reflex save.

[Brookshw]

So if arguing dnd physics kills catgirls, what does arguing dnd grammar do?

@Brookshw, there is a distinction in the game of in-game defined words vs not-in-game defined words. Condition is one of them. A condition is a character experiencing one of the listings on the condition summary index: SRD link here (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm). An in-game defined word would take precedence over its out-of-game definition (if one exists). As to the lightning bolt vs lighting bolt, lighting bolt is listed in examples. Examples given are not rules, and have no bearing on RAW. Although, I do suspect if there was such thing as a Lighting Bolt it would allow a reflex save.

The first, great question, girlcats?

The second, I know, Eggy's challenging that list being a definition and arguing that we need to default to out of game definitions.

As to lighting bolt, I know, its just a funny typo I felt like pointing out.

[eggynack]

You've proposed a completely arbitrary requirement upon the word that is not necessary. Nouns may make reference to the objects definition but the word itself can also be used as a noun without the requirement for an object to be present or in other fashions without any need for an object, it's amazing what the shenanigans one can pull off with applications of the word "of". Further are you saying that "panicked" or "frightened" aren't conditions? They aren't objects after all and while a character may experience them, they also may experience conditions of existential doubt right? Just about any formal or symbolic logic course you take is going to cover this on day one, or at least the first week. A person is falling The use of the word "is" creates equivalency and the statement can be expressed "Person = Falling". Now you've also created a distinction between "in game" and "out of game" condition which is bunk, you're argument is predicated upon there being no "in game" definition of condition to begin with and defaults to "out of game". I would reject the idea also that the rules exist "out of game" as the rules are effectively "how reality works" for a character and very much as in game relevant and applicable. Lastly you've also argued I believe that the player determines what "condition" is being targeted, didn't you and The Insanity go over this and you rejected his proposal that the player can't decide which the target condition being removed it? Well, I chose to target the rules. Semantics are silly but there you go.
I think you miss what I meant by "objects". What I meant was that they just don't exist at all in-game. They're less than just some non-visible condition, or the very physics of the universe. They're non-existent. You can't poof them out of existence, because they never existed in the first place. You can maybe poof some outcomes of those rules, but the rules themselves are generally untouchable by merit of the fact that they're just not there. As for the idea of rules not being out of game, I don't particularly see how. Rules can have ramifications in-game, and you can generally change those, but when it comes to reaching out into our verse and saying, "I shall make it so that natural 20's are no longer critical threats," that seems like a pretty clearly out of game thing.


I don't even need to go to argue it's a matter of ridiculous when I can simply point out it's a violation of the rules. You can't even avail yourself to saying "well it's a matter of specific vs. general" with IHS specifically making you non-subject to the rules rather than changing them in general due because things that are exemptions tend to specifically call out they are making you exempt do they not? Does IHS? Nope, not so much.
You really do need to argue that one, because it doesn't seem to hold up much. There's nothing in the rules that directly says that you can't turn off the rules, and if there's something implied that does it, then that's all there is to it, and I've just won in a different way. If this definition of IHS has some theoretical breakage of this rule in one of its usages, then that doesn't mean that the definition of IHS is wrong. It just means that that usage is against the rules.

I mean, I used the fireball example before, which works imperfectly because of range issues (for distances should be calculated from an in-game perspective), but consider the possibility of casting a sending targeting you from within the game. The rules don't really seem to specifically disallow for it at all, as they don't strictly require that the target be on a plane at all, and yet you're not going to find some message from within the game. That specific use is against the rules, because you just can't interact with anything outside of the game


Yeah, RAW sure is weird, kinda like how you can't disintegrate trees or, my personal favorite from a recent dysfunction discussion, disarming someone's feet so that they fall at their feet, I mean, where do they go? Is it kinda like hammer space but they go to feet space? You're not being consistent even since earlier you've said "If they do, then they do, and that doesn't change just because it's ridiculous" but now your arguing a matter of "That'd be weird".
It's a thing that is, at the very least, unprecedented to my knowledge. We do know it's not happening here though, because neither term has anything like an explicit definition.


Condition is one of them. A condition is a character experiencing one of the listings on the condition summary index: SRD link here (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm).
That is not explicitly stated anywhere, and is in fact the thing we're arguing about currently.

[ddude987]

I submit, eggy is right. The PHB uses "condition" and "conditions" to mean a whole slew of things, from bad weather to being bothered while spellcasting.

[Brookshw]

I submit, eggy is right. The PHB uses "condition" and "conditions" to mean a whole slew of things, from bad weather to being bothered while spellcasting. Sure, that's not being contested. A quick recap since you seemed to have had it backwards, we're evaluating a list of possibilities of which I'm especially arguing against the third. Whether alternative uses may be applicable in a definition of condition is point two which we haven't really gone into depth on, just touched upon tangentially, but hasn't been rejected by either side whole sale (at least as far as Eggy and my debate is concerned, Snowbuff, Vogon and The Insanity have there own arguments going on though there's certainly some overlap).
1) The list in the back of the DMG is the list of conditions and serves as a definition.
2) The list plus other uses of condition serves as a definition of condition.
3) There is no definition of condition so we default to the standard English definition.


I think you miss what I meant by "objects". What I meant was that they just don't exist at all in-game. They're less than just some non-visible condition, or the very physics of the universe. They're non-existent. You can't poof them out of existence, because they never existed in the first place. You can maybe poof some outcomes of those rules, but the rules themselves are generally untouchable by merit of the fact that they're just not there. As for the idea of rules not being out of game, I don't particularly see how. Rules can have ramifications in-game, and you can generally change those, but when it comes to reaching out into our verse and saying, "I shall make it so that natural 20's are no longer critical threats," that seems like a pretty clearly out of game thing. Actually I quite understand exactly what your saying which is not the same thing as agreeing with it. Whole sale changes to the rules of reality (the rules expressed in game) are fairly equivalent to a change in the rules themselves. For example the condition of "missing" which is a suitable condition per the English definition exists in game does it not? If we're using the IHS under the notion that the standard English definition applies I could choose then to IHS away the condition of possibly missing which effects that everything hits, and everything hitting is not something that's a part of the rules, it rather bypass a massive portion of them. The alternative would be what, there's a rule that exists out of game but not in or has no bearing in the game when otherwise it would? There has been no new rule introduced saying that IHS behaves in this fashion so the in game application has to be using a different set of rules wouldn't it? The semantics that can be stretched into this fashion can be far reaching indeed. "I IHS the condition of having to memorize spells to refresh them", "I IHS the condition of needing to regain a memorized spell up after I cast it", "I IHS the condition of creatures being able to resist spells" and so on. Every one of these does have an in game meaning and effect that can be removed, but IHS has, as I've said, no mandate or authority to actually change these thing. It's not specific vs. general, it's silence vs. general.



You really do need to argue that one, because it doesn't seem to hold up much. There's nothing in the rules that directly says that you can't turn off the rules, and if there's something implied that does it, then that's all there is to it, and I've just won in a different way. If this definition of IHS has some theoretical breakage of this rule in one of its usages, then that doesn't mean that the definition of IHS is wrong. It just means that that usage is against the rules.

I mean, I used the fireball example before, which works imperfectly because of range issues (for distances should be calculated from an in-game perspective), but consider the possibility of casting a sending targeting you from within the game. The rules don't really seem to specifically disallow for it at all, as they don't strictly require that the target be on a plane at all, and yet you're not going to find some message from within the game. That specific use is against the rules, because you just can't interact with anything outside of the game Frankly there doesn't really need to be a rule saying you can't turn off the rules, that's kinda the point of having rules. See above regarding specific vs. general. You're pretty much explicitly arguing here "it doesn't say I can't". I really don't think I need to point out that this is incorrect. And if we do arrive at particular usages being against the rules that demonstrates there's a problem with the definition you've chosen since it has lead to such ends, so there must be some alternative definition. I think I'd need to see more support for the argument permanently and universally turning off a rule is something different from changing a rule.

Also, please demonstrate that the definition of condition is not a matter of a dysfunction. Considering things added to the game that have come up, such as dehydration, cannot actually be a condition since the DMG claims a complete list of conditions as you've pointed out. This does remain a possibility and should be addressed to say we've examined the full scope of the matter.



That is not explicitly stated anywhere, and is in fact the thing we're arguing about currently. You and I have both cited the passage where this is explicitly stated in fact have we not? A "Character's Condition" blah blah blah, comprehensive list and so on? I believe one of the largest points of your argument is that it can't actually be comprehensive so we need to default to English.....

Edit: I don't know about you but this is kinda reminding me of a drinking contest except with semantics and we're simply the last two people with the stomach to continue.

[eggynack]

Actually I quite understand exactly what your saying which is not the same thing as agreeing with it. Whole sale changes to the rules of reality (the rules expressed in game) are fairly equivalent to a change in the rules themselves. For example the condition of "missing" which is a suitable condition per the English definition exists in game does it not? If we're using the IHS under the notion that the standard English definition applies I could choose then to IHS away the condition of possibly missing which effects that everything hits, and everything hitting is not something that's a part of the rules, it rather bypass a massive portion of them.
Bypassing rules is fine. That's fundamentally what IHS does, after all, if you really think about it. I mean, the rules say that a condition lasts for this length of time (even using the summary), and hey, lookit that, totally bypassed it. I don't know if it'd work on missing though, because a single miss has such a short duration (maybe that rule does have application after all). The possibility of missing doesn't seem like a state of being, but rather a potential state of being, which may be different.


The alternative would be what, there's a rule that exists out of game but not in or has no bearing in the game when otherwise it would? There has been no new rule introduced saying that IHS behaves in this fashion so the in game application has to be using a different set of rules wouldn't it? The semantics that can be stretched into this fashion can be far reaching indeed. "I IHS the condition of having to memorize spells to refresh them", "I IHS the condition of needing to regain a memorized spell up after I cast it", "I IHS the condition of creatures being able to resist spells" and so on. Every one of these does have an in game meaning and effect that can be removed, but IHS has, as I've said, no mandate or authority to actually change these thing. It's not specific vs. general, it's silence vs. general.
Really, I think the issue here is that you're using a definition apart from the one that makes sense, which is what I would use. Sure, if you use the "a restricting, limiting, or modifying circumstance," definition, all of this makes sense, but it makes less sense with the, "a particular mode of being of a person or thing; existing state; situation with respect to circumstances," definition. Rules themselves aren't really a mode of being, an existing state, or a situation with respect to circumstances, at least in game. As for it being silence vs. general, I don't particularly see how. It says you can remove conditions. If certain things are conditions, it can remove those.


Frankly there doesn't really need to be a rule saying you can't turn off the rules, that's kinda the point of having rules. See above regarding specific vs. general. You're pretty much explicitly arguing here "it doesn't say I can't". I really don't think I need to point out that this is incorrect. And if we do arrive at particular usages being against the rules that demonstrates there's a problem with the definition you've chosen since it has lead to such ends, so there must be some alternative definition. I think I'd need to see more support for the argument permanently and universally turning off a rule is something different from changing a rule.
So, if rules can't be turned off, by a fundamental meaning of rules, then that seems like it's it. I don't think there needs to be a different definition, primarily because no such definition exists, and secondarily because it seems to already be handled by this ultra-rule.


Also, please demonstrate that the definition of condition is not a matter of a dysfunction. Considering things added to the game that have come up, such as dehydration, cannot actually be a condition since the DMG claims a complete list of conditions as you've pointed out. This does remain a possibility and should be addressed to say we've examined the full scope of the matter.

It actually doesn't necessarily claim that. Let's assume that not all conditions are within the summary. In that case, when it says "This is a comprehensive summary of character conditions," what it's really saying is that the summaries of various character conditions in that section are comprehensive. Thus, where it says that a condition does this list of stuff, that list is comprehensive, so you need not go elsewhere for definitions of those conditions. Incidentally, dehydration wouldn't particularly harm your argument, as it falls under the banner of specific versus general. The same logic applies to the PHB, which effectively claims that its 11 classes are the only ones.

You and I have both cited the passage where this is explicitly stated in fact have we not? A "Character's Condition" blah blah blah, comprehensive list and so on? I believe one of the largest points of your argument is that it can't actually be comprehensive so we need to default to English.....
I've seen the passage, but my argument is that it can easily have a different meaning, as noted above.

Edit: I don't know about you but this is kinda reminding me of a drinking contest except with semantics and we're simply the last two people with the stomach to continue.
Pretty much. These things rarely end satisfactorily, though I think that at least some of the analysis was interesting.

[Vogonjeltz]

Brookshw has the right of it. I am contending the first position, that the condition summary list is definitive up until another published source adds something as a condition.

This happened in Sandscape with dehydration.

[eggynack]

Brookshw has the right of it. I am contending the first position, that the condition summary list is definitive up until another published source adds something as a condition.

There just doesn't seem to be any support for that position, is the thing. There's nothing there that absolutely makes that "definition" any more official than any other.

[ddude987]

In the slew of books we have in 3.5, the word condition is used so many times with a variety of contextual meanings. There is also a game state in which a character is under the effect of a condition as defined by the game. This seems to reason condition is the dictionary definition and the rules append an additional meaning which is when a character is experiencing a specified quality as listed in the conditions index.

[Seppo87]

If "condition" is something inside that specific list, what is an "effect" ?

[Vogonjeltz]

There just doesn't seem to be any support for that position, is the thing. There's nothing there that absolutely makes that "definition" any more official than any other.
1) The support for the position is inherent in the existence of an entire section of game rules on Conditions (with a capital c). I'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't seem to be any support", as there is support from in the Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG), and it doesn't really get more supported than by the core rules. You can also locate the information on the SRD20 here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm
2) Official, like perfect, is an absolute term. Those terms don't function with degrees, they function as boolean operators, either on or off. In this case, the condition summary is "On".

3) The Condition Summary is printed in the DMG, that makes it an official list of defined conditions.

What isn't official is working off some slapdash cherry-picked jury-rigged dictionary definition. You're free to resort to a homebrewed thing like using dictionary definitions, but it's not how the game works, officially.

4) We also have the official 3.5 game rules FAQ which provides additional clarification on what is meant. It's my understanding we're discussing how iron heart surge works in the official rules, not homebrew, so dictionary definitions aren't necessary when we have 2 official sources that explain what it does.


If "condition" is something inside that specific list, what is an "effect" ?

The type descriptions often refer to things as effects:


•Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).

Checking under the Special Abilities section reveals its use there too:


•A charmed character who is openly attacked by the creature who charmed him or by that creature’s apparent allies is automatically freed of the spell or effect.

Were those examples helpful in answering your question Seppo87?

[Brookshw]

Bypassing rules is fine. That's fundamentally what IHS does, after all, if you really think about it. I mean, the rules say that a condition lasts for this length of time (even using the summary), and hey, lookit that, totally bypassed it. I don't know if it'd work on missing though, because a single miss has such a short duration (maybe that rule does have application after all). The possibility of missing doesn't seem like a state of being, but rather a potential state of being, which may be different. That's an interesting point regarding the duration being a rule it bypasses but I don't know, we know durations and such can be ended early (Hello Dispel Magic!). Is ending a duration the same as changing or removing a rule? I don't really think so but it's food for thought.



Really, I think the issue here is that you're using a definition apart from the one that makes sense, which is what I would use. Sure, if you use the "a restricting, limiting, or modifying circumstance," definition, all of this makes sense, but it makes less sense with the, "a particular mode of being of a person or thing; existing state; situation with respect to circumstances," definition. Rules themselves aren't really a mode of being, an existing state, or a situation with respect to circumstances, at least in game. As for it being silence vs. general, I don't particularly see how. It says you can remove conditions. If certain things are conditions, it can remove those.

Sure, that's what launched you and I into this discussion in the first place. If we're making a claim that we go with the definition then any aspect of it can be fair game for declaring something to be a condition and if we're not restricted to something listed in the book in some fashion and that's where we really get into the murky water. I guess it's a matter of a priori vs. a posteriori in terms of determining what it can effect. If we're restricted to things the book has at lease tagged in some manner as a condition then that may be one thing, but it's a different thing from using the entirety of the definition which could be applied in an a priori application and, if I'm right, permit things that would in fact be changing the rules. The other problem with determining which aspect of the definition makes sense is there's a subjective nature to it and one could potentially say argue for alternatives.



So, if rules can't be turned off, by a fundamental meaning of rules, then that seems like it's it. I don't think there needs to be a different definition, primarily because no such definition exists, and secondarily because it seems to already be handled by this ultra-rule. So you agree then that if the application of condition results in the turning off of rules then that application must be false? I'm not entirely sure what to make of this passage.


It actually doesn't necessarily claim that. Let's assume that not all conditions are within the summary. In that case, when it says "This is a comprehensive summary of character conditions," what it's really saying is that the summaries of various character conditions in that section are comprehensive. Thus, where it says that a condition does this list of stuff, that list is comprehensive, so you need not go elsewhere for definitions of those conditions. Incidentally, dehydration wouldn't particularly harm your argument, as it falls under the banner of specific versus general. The same logic applies to the PHB, which effectively claims that its 11 classes are the only ones. Ya know, I'm not at a book at the moment so I'm going back through what I posted regarding it's description but I believe it wasn't "comprehensive summary" though honestly I'm not entirely sure. What I noted earlier was "comprehensive of a characters conditions" which would be a different thing entirely but really I'd want to double check the wording. As to dehydration, meh, it's RAW oddness to be sure but if the list is indeed comprehensive as it claims I think in a weird way that might actually disqualify it without an errata. Stranger things have happened in RAW. Regarding the classes, I think I was looking and could find the title specifically calling them out as comprehensive, did you note anything of the sort?



Pretty much. These things rarely end satisfactorily, though I think that at least some of the analysis was interesting. True enough.


In the slew of books we have in 3.5, the word condition is used so many times with a variety of contextual meanings. There is also a game state in which a character is under the effect of a condition as defined by the game. This seems to reason condition is the dictionary definition and the rules append an additional meaning which is when a character is experiencing a specified quality as listed in the conditions index. Could be. Might be that the conditions are the definitions and in specific instances certain elements of the English definition supersede them. My objections to accepting the entirety of the English definition remain though now I really am wondering if there's a certain disconnect here based on whether we're approaching this from an a priori or a posteriori position.

Edit: Actually the most important thing here is to keep poor Keledrath from being IHS' out of the game again when he's DMing. The DM preservation society does not take kindly to such things.

[The Grue]

Well done, everyone. I didn't think it was even possible for the IHS debate to become more pedantic and nitpicky.

[Brookshw]

Well done, everyone. I didn't think it was even possible for the IHS debate to become more pedantic and nitpicky.

Thank you! We couldn't do it without your support :smallbiggrin:

[The Insanity]

Good lord, are we actually going to go through this whole debate yet again?


Oh great. Now we're doing that thing where we dissect each others' posts paragraph by paragraph until the discussion balloons into seventeen parallel semantic arguments.


Well done, everyone. I didn't think it was even possible for the IHS debate to become more pedantic and nitpicky.
Fine, have it your way. *removes knife from The Grue's throat* You're free to leave now.

[Vhaidara]

Edit: Actually the most important thing here is to keep poor Keledrath from being IHS' out of the game again when he's DMing. The DM preservation society does not take kindly to such things.

And here I thought no one had actually read my post. Thank you for caring, Brookshw.

[eggynack]

1) The support for the position is inherent in the existence of an entire section of game rules on Conditions (with a capital c). I'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't seem to be any support", as there is support from in the Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG), and it doesn't really get more supported than by the core rules. You can also locate the information on the SRD20 here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm
So, if there's a section that uses the word in a core book, and if they use capital letters (ignoring the fact that the actual paragraph in the section does not capitalize conditions), then that's sufficient evidence? In that case, page 63 of the PHB has a big ol' header for favorable and unfavorable conditions. Defined. Except not, because just having a header, or even a section, does not a term define.

2) Official, like perfect, is an absolute term. Those terms don't function with degrees, they function as boolean operators, either on or off. In this case, the condition summary is "On".
In this case, every other use of condition is also "On". If it's so absolute that this use is official, and every other one is unofficial, then prove it. They're all used in the same book, after all.


3) The Condition Summary is printed in the DMG, that makes it an official list of defined conditions.
Many of my found uses of the term condition are also printed in the DMG. That makes them official conditions.


What isn't official is working off some slapdash cherry-picked jury-rigged dictionary definition. You're free to resort to a homebrewed thing like using dictionary definitions, but it's not how the game works, officially.
Yes, it is. Without a game definition, we need to use the dictionary one, and there is not a game definition.



4) We also have the official 3.5 game rules FAQ which provides additional clarification on what is meant. It's my understanding we're discussing how iron heart surge works in the official rules, not homebrew, so dictionary definitions aren't necessary when we have 2 official sources that explain what it does.
Leaving aside the whole FAQ RAW issue, I didn't really notice anywhere that absolutely states that condition is being defined in this way. Not leaving aside the FAQ RAW issue, the FAQ is still not RAW. As for homebrew, I've used none of it in my arguments.


That's an interesting point regarding the duration being a rule it bypasses but I don't know, we know durations and such can be ended early (Hello Dispel Magic!). Is ending a duration the same as changing or removing a rule? I don't really think so but it's food for thought.
In a sense, yes. It's just the way that specific versus general game systems, which is most game systems, work. You can't become enveloped in magic armor, but then you can. That magic armor lasts a certain period of time, but then it doesn't. It's pretty difficult to define where you leave behind rule breaking that's totally cool, and find yourself in super not legal rule breaking world.


Sure, that's what launched you and I into this discussion in the first place. If we're making a claim that we go with the definition then any aspect of it can be fair game for declaring something to be a condition and if we're not restricted to something listed in the book in some fashion and that's where we really get into the murky water. I guess it's a matter of a priori vs. a posteriori in terms of determining what it can effect. If we're restricted to things the book has at lease tagged in some manner as a condition then that may be one thing, but it's a different thing from using the entirety of the definition which could be applied in an a priori application and, if I'm right, permit things that would in fact be changing the rules. The other problem with determining which aspect of the definition makes sense is there's a subjective nature to it and one could potentially say argue for alternatives.
The main issue is that the multiple definitions version just seems illogical. Most of the other uses of the term (aside from the summary, as it's being debated) are just standard English uses of the term. Jumping in and saying that all of these uses totally adds up to make some super-definition doesn't reflect the way the game works anywhere else, and it doesn't even really make sense. A word can theoretically be defined in multiple ways, but when that word is used, it's only generally referring to one of those meanings (unless you're playing word games). As for choosing a definition, I suppose it's not perfectly justified, but it seems to be the definition best supported by IHS.


So you agree then that if the application of condition results in the turning off of rules then that application must be false? I'm not entirely sure what to make of this passage.
Well, if turning off rules is against the rules, then yes, such a particular application would be false. If it's not, then it wouldn't be false, but then IHS still works fine. My point is that if such an ultra-rule exists, then it handles this conundrum, and allows this reading to run free.


Ya know, I'm not at a book at the moment so I'm going back through what I posted regarding it's description but I believe it wasn't "comprehensive summary" though honestly I'm not entirely sure. What I noted earlier was "comprehensive of a characters conditions" which would be a different thing entirely but really I'd want to double check the wording. As to dehydration, meh, it's RAW oddness to be sure but if the list is indeed comprehensive as it claims I think in a weird way that might actually disqualify it without an errata. Stranger things have happened in RAW. Regarding the classes, I think I was looking and could find the title specifically calling them out as comprehensive, did you note anything of the sort?

The exact quote is, "You can find a comprehensive summary of character conditions," which could easily hold with my reading. As for classes, I believe the quote used to justify it is, "The eleven classes, in the order they’re presented in this chapter, are as follows:" The main point being the use of the word "the" there, over even something like, "The eleven classes in this chapter, blah blop blimp."

[Vogonjeltz]

So, if there's a section that uses the word in a core book, and if they use capital letters (ignoring the fact that the actual paragraph in the section does not capitalize conditions), then that's sufficient evidence? In that case, page 63 of the PHB has a big ol' header for favorable and unfavorable conditions. Defined. Except not, because just having a header, or even a section, does not a term define.

In this case, every other use of condition is also "On". If it's so absolute that this use is official, and every other one is unofficial, then prove it. They're all used in the same book, after all.

Many of my found uses of the term condition are also printed in the DMG. That makes them official conditions.

Yes, it is. Without a game definition, we need to use the dictionary one, and there is not a game definition.

Leaving aside the whole FAQ RAW issue, I didn't really notice anywhere that absolutely states that condition is being defined in this way. Not leaving aside the FAQ RAW issue, the FAQ is still not RAW. As for homebrew, I've used none of it in my arguments.

Just responding to my half.

1) There is no heading on page 63; it's on 64, but it deals with conditions of checks, not conditions of characters, a key difference.

2) as mentioned in 1, you're mixing apples and orangutangs, and we are only talking about fruit. Metaphorically speaking.

3) we have a game definition provided in the DMG.

4) homebrew is when you substitute the game rules (for example, forgoing game meanings for dictionary ones)

[eggynack]

1) There is no heading on page 63; it's on 64, but it deals with conditions of checks, not conditions of characters, a key difference.
True on the page, but it's still a condition. It's also big, bolded, capitalized, and in core. That's all you stated is necessary for a definition, or so it would seem.


2) as mentioned in 1, you're mixing apples and orangutangs, and we are only talking about fruit. Metaphorically speaking.
I don't even know what you're talking about here, but how do you know that IHS is talking about apples rather than orangutans?


3) we have a game definition provided in the DMG.
It is not defined anywhere there. We've been over and over this, and you've proved absolutely nothing.


4) homebrew is when you substitute the game rules (for example, forgoing game meanings for dictionary ones)
I've forgone nothing, because there is nothing to forgo. The book never says that the summary is a definition of the term, so it's not one. There's really nothing like homebrew going on here. It's just a standard rules argument, with no invention required.

[Brookshw]

And here I thought no one had actually read my post. Thank you for caring, Brookshw. The DM Preservation Society cares Keledrath, it always cares. Through TPK and unbalanced party, through short prep time and players ignoring hooks, it cares and is here for YOU.



In a sense, yes. It's just the way that specific versus general game systems, which is most game systems, work. You can't become enveloped in magic armor, but then you can. That magic armor lasts a certain period of time, but then it doesn't. It's pretty difficult to define where you leave behind rule breaking that's totally cool, and find yourself in super not legal rule breaking world. Ya know, I'm not even sure it's a matter of specific vs. general as much as two rules interacting which doesn't actually create a rules violation. I don't think either o fus is objecting to the the idea of rules interacting (Hello optimization!) or S v. G, I bolded the part that's exactly my objection to the standard definition. Don't think we really need to circle on this too much since you're addressing it further below.



The main issue is that the multiple definitions version just seems illogical. Most of the other uses of the term (aside from the summary, as it's being debated) are just standard English uses of the term. Jumping in and saying that all of these uses totally adds up to make some super-definition doesn't reflect the way the game works anywhere else, and it doesn't even really make sense. A word can theoretically be defined in multiple ways, but when that word is used, it's only generally referring to one of those meanings (unless you're playing word games). As for choosing a definition, I suppose it's not perfectly justified, but it seems to be the definition best supported by IHS.

Ddude987 did have a point about the Conditions potentially being an added subdefinition to the word condition itself. That doesn't solve the problem of what conditions/Conditions IHS can work against nor help eliminate potentially problematic sub definitions, but it does resolve the multiple definition concern you've voiced. Also, "Dear my dear Eggy, I was trying to read the books to figure out if sense motive lets one read someones face but all I read was "This lets a character read the surface thoughts of a single target (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#senseMotive)" (we're all over the place there when it comes to read's definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/read)). As you say, the position isn't perfectly justified so doesn't that leave room for subjectivity? (As if this discussion isn't testimony enough!)

On the topic of word games I've always liked this one



tl;dr: Elfy elves elf elfier than unelfy elves elf. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Bu ffalo_buffalo)



Well, if turning off rules is against the rules, then yes, such a particular application would be false. If it's not, then it wouldn't be false, but then IHS still works fine. My point is that if such an ultra-rule exists, then it handles this conundrum, and allows this reading to run free. Okay then, so if it your in agreement (I'm not sure you are) then we're saying particular applications can be false and it's a matter of adjudication. Maybe not even every instance but some certainly, doubly so I should think if we're applying it in an apriori sense rather than in reference to the use of condition.



The exact quote is, "You can find a comprehensive summary of character conditions," which could easily hold with my reading. As for classes, I believe the quote used to justify it is, "The eleven classes, in the order they’re presented in this chapter, are as follows:" The main point being the use of the word "the" there, over even something like, "The eleven classes in this chapter, blah blop blimp." Thanks. Sure, you could parse it that way as well. Clearly not everyone reads it that manner. The bit about the classes is a bit of a stretch :smalltongue: but that's entirely irrelevant anyway.

[eggynack]

Ddude987 did have a point about the Conditions potentially being an added subdefinition to the word condition itself. That doesn't solve the problem of what conditions/Conditions IHS can work against nor help eliminate potentially problematic sub definitions, but it does resolve the multiple definition concern you've voiced.
It seems like it would almost take a higher standard to show that there's some odd subdefinition that holds game sway. Ultimately, the presence of other uses of condition doesn't alone justify the lack of condition definition, as that's occasionally true of other defined terms. It's really only a necessary component as an answer to the vaguely implied claim, "Well, if it's the only way the word is ever used in the books, then that's almost like a definition."


Also, "Dear my dear Eggy, I was trying to read the books to figure out if sense motive lets one read someones face but all I read was "This lets a character read the surface thoughts of a single target (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#senseMotive)" (we're all over the place there when it comes to read's definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/read)). As you say, the position isn't perfectly justified so doesn't that leave room for subjectivity? (As if this discussion isn't testimony enough!)
I'm not sure the extent to which you're capable of face reading, though it might just fall under the banner of a hunch. I doubt you'd be able to, by the text, know stuff about folks through sense motive unless they're saying something with some unknown level of trustworthiness, at least before that epic usage.


Okay then, so if it your in agreement (I'm not sure you are) then we're saying particular applications can be false and it's a matter of adjudication. Maybe not even every instance but some certainly, doubly so I should think if we're applying it in an apriori sense rather than in reference to the use of condition.

My agreement status is admittedly a somewhat confusing one. Basically, you have this premise, that rule destruction is against the rules, and depending on that premise's truth value, my argument changes. However, assuming the premise is true, it does look like this quote represents my position reasonably.


The bit about the classes is a bit of a stretch :smalltongue: but that's entirely irrelevant anyway.
True on both counts. I think Pickford brought up the argument once, so I frittered it away for cases like this one. I think I must have used the phrase, "Eleven base classes argument," as shorthand to refer to the thing at some point in the past. Works well for reductio ad absurdium arguments, like, "Well, if dehydration isn't a condition, then I guess the power level of warblade doesn't matter all that much in the first place," and then you make some sarcastic jab about how the argument is over and everyone can go home.

[Brookshw]

True on both counts. I think Pickford brought up the argument once, so I frittered it away for cases like this one.

On my phone so long form response delayed, but this point, right here? You're using Pickford's arguments? What a low opinion of me you must hold...

[eggynack]

You're using Pickford's arguments? What a low opinion of me you must hold...
Well, sometimes you make use of your big and fancy arguments, and sometimes the situation calls for something a little more... Pickfordy.

[Brookshw]

Well, sometimes you make use of your big and fancy arguments, and sometimes the situation calls for something a little more... Pickfordy.

Oh cripes, a week of civil discourse and you're busting out the P guns?

P guns, your welcome for that imagery :smallbiggrin:

[eggynack]

Oh cripes, a week of civil discourse and you're busting out the P guns?

P guns, your welcome for that imagery :smallbiggrin:
The struggle is that it would probably be better to have the absurd stance be non-Pickford based, but I've yet to find a better source of reductio ad absurdum as applies to specific vs. general. It's a tragic thing, really. Maybe the real solution is to stop telling folks that they're technically Pickford in these arbitrary argument constructs. I wouldn't get that cool "History of the argument" effect then though, which I've always felt adds depth. Ya gotta admit though, having Pickford be the reduced to absurd is pretty fitting for the argument's form.

[Brookshw]

The struggle is that it would probably be better to have the absurd stance be non-Pickford based, but I've yet to find a better source of reductio ad absurdum as applies to specific vs. general. It's a tragic thing, really. Maybe the real solution is to stop telling folks that they're technically Pickford in these arbitrary argument constructs. I wouldn't get that cool "History of the argument" effect then though, which I've always felt adds depth. Ya gotta admit though, having Pickford be the reduced to absurd is pretty fitting for the argument's form.

You do realize that I'm currently arguing that followed to the full extent your argument proves false by negating a premise right :smallconfused: I'm sure there have been a few reducto positions put forth, but were arguing, like a billion things and only need to be right about one. I think someone said that once, someone in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?284357-how-i-broke-the-wizard-and-became-the-most-powerful-person-in-the-party/page8) perhaps :smallamused:

Edit: because my phone hates formatting sometimes.

[eggynack]

You do realize that I'm currently arguing that followed to the full extent your argument proves false by negating a premise right :smallconfused: I'm sure there have been a few reducto positions put forth, but were arguing, like a billion things and only need to be right about one. I think someone said that once, someone in this thread (e[URL="http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?284357-how-i-broke-the-wizard-and-became-the-most-powerful-person-in-the-party/page8) perhaps :smallamused:
I'm pretty sure my Pickford themed argument was only meant as applies to the specific claim of dehydrated being a non-condition, which ultimately goes on to slightly support your side, I think. The idea is that "Here's all the conditions," and, "Here's all the classes," are basically the same, and that they can both be overridden by specific stuff from other books. It's pretty much irrelevant to all things ever, in other words.

[Brookshw]

I'm pretty sure my Pickford themed argument was only meant as applies to the specific claim of dehydrated being a non-condition, which ultimately goes on to slightly support your side, I think. The idea is that "Here's all the conditions," and, "Here's all the classes," are basically the same, and that they can both be overridden by specific stuff from other books. It's pretty much irrelevant to all things ever, in other words.

Dangit Eggy, and here I was all excited to say "Looks like someone brought a P knife to a P gun fight" and then you have to go being all logical. A pox on you!

Sigh....go ahead, IHS the pox

[ImNotTrevor]

I'm wondering if the duration thing ever got worked out. I didn't see a post where that was worked out with satisfaction. So lemme see if I can't logic the issue away entirely.

Step 1: establishing a few postulates, which I don't think are going to make waves.
Postulate A: the "=" symbol means that two things are equal, or, effectively the same thing.
Postulate B: The following terms: Second, Round, Minute, Hour, Day, Month, Year, etc. Are units of measurement and not self existant things within the universe. (Ie, a character will never find a Round walking about in the forest.)

Good? Good. Carrying on.
According to RAW, 6 seconds = 1 Round.
This means, by postulate A, that to say "6 seconds" or to say "1 round" is effectively the same. Both terms describe the same duration of time.
According to basic math:
60 seconds = 1 minute
60 seconds = 10 rounds
1 minute = 10 rounds
According to postulate A, to say "60 seconds" or "10 rounds" or "1 minute" is effectively the same. All three terms describe the same duration of time.

You can extrapolate this upwards as you see fit.

IHS affects conditions and spells with a "duration longer than 1 round." Any duration longer than 1 round, regardless of the unit of measurement used to describe it, is subject to IHS interference. Why? Because all measurements longer than 1 round ARE measured in rounds, which have been converted up to more efficient renderings. You could say an effect lasts "600 rounds." But "1 hour" says the exact same thing and is more elegant to write.

To say otherwise is to assert that unit of measurement has higher precedent than actual length of time. This is like saying the following discussion makes sense:
"You must be 48 inches tall to ride this ride."
"My son is 4 feet tall."
"He cannot ride this ride."

No matter what unit of time longer than 1 round a spell uses in its description, It can always be converted back to rounds in the same way any amount of feet can be converted into inches.

If you have a problem with this logic, then logic, math, and reason may not be your strongsuit. Open challenge to anyone that they can't find a spell duration of longer than 1 round in any WoTC D&D 3.5 book that I can't convert back into rounds.

[Vogonjeltz]

True on the page, but it's still a condition. It's also big, bolded, capitalized, and in core. That's all you stated is necessary for a definition, or so it would seem.

I don't even know what you're talking about here, but how do you know that IHS is talking about apples rather than orangutans?

It is not defined anywhere there. We've been over and over this, and you've proved absolutely nothing.


It's the wrong kind of condition. IHs (and thus our conversation) only cares about conditions in terms of characters.
Apples to Orangutangs is referencing the consideration of Apples (conditions of characters) to Orangutangs (conditions of skill checks). IHs is only concerned with the former.

You forwent (?word?) the entire section on conditions that affect characters. And yes, it is a definition even without the use of the word definition or defined.

Similar examples where things are defined within the game rules can be found on this page:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm
Attack and Damage don't use the word defined, but those are clear definitions.



I've forgone nothing, because there is nothing to forgo. The book never says that the summary is a definition of the term, so it's not one. There's really nothing like homebrew going on here. It's just a standard rules argument, with no invention required.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Explain your position to me clearly please, do you agree that the Conditions Summary in the DMG is official rules text or not?
If it is, we have our definition. If it weren't, we wouldn't, but I don't yet see a reason why it's not official rules text.


I'm pretty sure my Pickford themed argument was only meant as applies to the specific claim of dehydrated being a non-condition, which ultimately goes on to slightly support your side, I think. The idea is that "Here's all the conditions," and, "Here's all the classes," are basically the same, and that they can both be overridden by specific stuff from other books. It's pretty much irrelevant to all things ever, in other words.

I don't want to get in the middle of whatever is going on with you two, but Sandstorm says Dehydrated is a new condition.

dehydrated-a new condition described here.

That DMG list is complete as of its printing. The book can't magically rewrite itself after new material becomes available.

[Somensjev]

That DMG list is complete as of its printing. The book can't magically rewrite itself after new material becomes available.

earlier didn't we find conditions in the players handbook/ dungeon master's guide, that weren't in the list?
i might be misremembering, but i'm sure someone mentioned it :smallconfused:

[Vogonjeltz]

earlier didn't we find conditions in the players handbook/ dungeon master's guide, that weren't in the list?
i might be misremembering, but i'm sure someone mentioned it :smallconfused:

I think we found the word condition, but nothing listed as a condition.

[Somensjev]

I think we found the word condition, but nothing listed as a condition.

that sounds plausible, of course, someone might come around and correct that, pointing out something listed as a condition, in wich case the table becomes very questionable. But, if not, then the table seems better than anything else we have
(although, i think i'd just use houserules, and decide what a "condition" is on a case-by-case basis)

[eggynack]

It's the wrong kind of condition. IHs (and thus our conversation) only cares about conditions in terms of characters.
Favorable and unfavorable conditions apply directly to characters, and the way they proceed with their doings. Of course, this still hasn't reached the main point. A big bold header is not a definition. It's just a big bold header.

Apples to Orangutangs is referencing the consideration of Apples (conditions of characters) to Orangutangs (conditions of skill checks). IHs is only concerned with the former.
As always, prove it. I suspect that you cannot.


You forwent (?word?) the entire section on conditions that affect characters. And yes, it is a definition even without the use of the word definition or defined.
It says they're the conditions that affect characters, but there's no real implication that they're the only conditions that affect characters, or that they're the conditions being referred to by IHS. As for it being a definition, it's not one. You can define things without those words, and the game does so all the time, but they didn't do so here. It's just a completely undefined term.


Similar examples where things are defined within the game rules can be found on this page:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm
Attack and Damage don't use the word defined, but those are clear definitions.
Not really. Neither term is particularly defined in that section, unless I'm missing something, and the definition you would take, at least in terms of attack, would likely be an accurate one. In truth, both terms are defined in the glossary.



I don't understand what you're saying here. Explain your position to me clearly please, do you agree that the Conditions Summary in the DMG is official rules text or not?
If it is, we have our definition. If it weren't, we wouldn't, but I don't yet see a reason why it's not official rules text.
The condition summary is official rules text that makes no move whatsoever to define condition. Something being official rules text does not automatically give that rules text particular meaning. The use of the phrase "weather condition" is also official rules text, after all, and also is not a definition of the term condition.



I don't want to get in the middle of whatever is going on with you two, but Sandstorm says Dehydrated is a new condition.


That DMG list is complete as of its printing. The book can't magically rewrite itself after new material becomes available.
That is indeed the side I am claiming, at least the part about dehydrated being a condition, even within a "Condition summary is complete" perspective. It's mostly irrelevant though, and if anything slightly weakens my position.

Edit:
I think we found the word condition, but nothing listed as a condition.
The example used to the contrary was feeblemind, which is listed in the spell heal as a condition.

[Brookshw]

That is indeed the side I am claiming, at least the part about dehydrated being a condition, even within a "Condition summary is complete" perspective. It's mostly irrelevant though, and if anything slightly weakens my position.

Edit:
The example used to the contrary was feeblemind, which is listed in the spell heal as a condition.

Er, points of order, feebleminds effects align perfectly with conditions from the summary. Second the term condition summary was replaced with straight forward condition in the current srd so the terms seem, as applicable to the list, to be synonymous. Heck the document itself is labeled abilities and conditions.

I have half a longer post currently saved re: our last large exchange, will finish as able.

Vogon: its not a private conversation, your free to comment etc.

[eggynack]

Er, points of order, feebleminds effects align perfectly with conditions from the summary.
True, but it's not on the list, which indicates incompleteness, and thus something of a lack of definition.

Second the term condition summary was replaced with straight forward condition in the current srd so the terms seem, as applicable to the list, to be synonymous. Heck the document itself is labeled abilities and conditions.
I don't thing we can particularly take SRD stuff as RAW (to the extent that it conflicts with actual RAW), or headers as especially meaningful. That's the main point, I think, that just having a big header that says conditions isn't necessarily enough to claim a list of all existing conditions. It's probably enough to say that these things are all conditions, but little beyond that.

[Brookshw]

that sounds plausible, of course, someone might come around and correct that, pointing out something listed as a condition, in wich case the table becomes very questionable. But, if not, then the table seems better than anything else we have
(although, i think i'd just use houserules, and decide what a "condition" is on a case-by-case basis)

I think someone mentioned immobalized as an example, could be wrong.

[Vogonjeltz]

Favorable and unfavorable conditions apply directly to characters, and the way they proceed with their doings. Of course, this still hasn't reached the main point. A big bold header is not a definition. It's just a big bold header.

As always, prove it. I suspect that you cannot.

It says they're the conditions that affect characters, but there's no real implication that they're the only conditions that affect characters, or that they're the conditions being referred to by IHS. As for it being a definition, it's not one. You can define things without those words, and the game does so all the time, but they didn't do so here. It's just a completely undefined term.

Not really. Neither term is particularly defined in that section, unless I'm missing something, and the definition you would take, at least in terms of attack, would likely be an accurate one. In truth, both terms are defined in the glossary.

The condition summary is official rules text that makes no move whatsoever to define condition. Something being official rules text does not automatically give that rules text particular meaning. The use of the phrase "weather condition" is also official rules text, after all, and also is not a definition of the term condition.

That is indeed the side I am claiming, at least the part about dehydrated being a condition, even within a "Condition summary is complete" perspective. It's mostly irrelevant though, and if anything slightly weakens my position.

Edit:
The example used to the contrary was feeblemind, which is listed in the spell heal as a condition.

It isn't just a header: *dmg text

This section describes the adverse conditions that weaken, slow, or even kill characters.

IHS requires that the condition be affecting the character, conditions that affect skill checks are, by definition, not of interest. It isn't the skill check that is using IHS, it's the character.

The text quoted above indicates the list was a complete one ("the" adverse conditions, not some of the adverse conditions)

As the list is complete each condition is defined therein, it's a closed system.

There's no reason to think IHS is referring to anything other than the core definition of condition, the tome of battle is for use with the core rule books.

[eggynack]

It isn't just a header: *dmg text
That's the logic you were putting forth.


IHS requires that the condition be affecting the character, conditions that affect skill checks are, by definition, not of interest. It isn't the skill check that is using IHS, it's the character.
Conditions that affect a character's skill checks in turn affect him.


The text quoted above indicates the list was a complete one ("the" adverse conditions, not some of the adverse conditions)

As the list is complete each condition is defined therein, it's a closed system.
At the very best, it is only a complete list of the adverse conditions that weaken, slow, or kill characters. That doesn't really stop a great deal of the arbitrary junk I can pull, and brings us back to the proposition of beneficial conditions. At worst, it defines absolutely no limits, as we can point to both other adverse conditions that weaken, slow, or kill characters in the DMG, and to things actually referred to as conditions in the PHB.


There's no reason to think IHS is referring to anything other than the core definition of condition, the tome of battle is for use with the core rule books.
There is no core definition of condition, so IHS can't refer to it. There's plenty of reason to think that IHS wouldn't point to something that doesn't exist.

[Somensjev]

IHS requires that the condition be affecting the character, conditions that affect skill checks are, by definition, not of interest. It isn't the skill check that is using IHS, it's the character.

The text quoted above indicates the list was a complete one ("the" adverse conditions, not some of the adverse conditions)

except it possibly isn't a complete one, even when it was printed, it doesn't include feebleminded (or possibly immobilized), does it? because that (possibly both) were referred to as conditions in core, and they definitely fit the "weaken, slow, or even kill" definition

also, the fact that the skill check conditions aren't of interest is debatable, they can still be affecting the player, with the right semantic word play. unless there's a definition of "affect" in any book?

[Brookshw]

It seems like it would almost take a higher standard to show that there's some odd subdefinition that holds game sway. Ultimately, the presence of other uses of condition doesn't alone justify the lack of condition definition, as that's occasionally true of other defined terms. It's really only a necessary component as an answer to the vaguely implied claim, "Well, if it's the only way the word is ever used in the books, then that's almost like a definition." Just for the record, I blinked a few times when I read "doesn't alone justify the lack of condition definition". Kinda goes back to context and my point regarding igloos and ultimately boils down to the value and validity of an inference to establish meaning as far as determinations of "which" would be concerned. It's a tough standard to meet I'd concur, but not by any value of necessity an impossible one. It almost sounds like you're sort of leaning towards possibility two except that the "others" becomes the dictionary definition for certain applications.



I'm not sure the extent to which you're capable of face reading, though it might just fall under the banner of a hunch. I doubt you'd be able to, by the text, know stuff about folks through sense motive unless they're saying something with some unknown level of trustworthiness, at least before that epic usage. Huh? I was just having fun demonstrating the alternative meanings of various subdefinitions of "dear" and "read". Okay, guess maybe that wasn't clear.


My agreement status is admittedly a somewhat confusing one. Basically, you have this premise, that rule destruction is against the rules, and depending on that premise's truth value, my argument changes. However, assuming the premise is true, it does look like this quote represents my position reasonably. Not that confusing, it's "red light go, green light stop" really, possibly with the condition of you might decide to go a different route depending on traffic once/if it hits green.

Okay then, so that's the next piece I suppose I should work on. Kinda strange really to have to prove the rules are the rules and they themselves don't change. I suppose the DMG speaks to the point on multiple levels creating distinctions between when you change and remove a rule it's a house rule rather than the rules, under the section for variant rules it specifies "The basic rules presented in this book [. . .] apply to the baseline D&D campaign" (pg 4). That removing rules is house rules rather than rules might be enough. I suppose there's also the primary/secondary priority element and authority granted to errata as the only official change to rules. None of that is of course to say that new rules can't be introduced and relate to rules that already exist (kinda the backbone of optimization really) but a new rule letting you remove the original rule is not something really called out anywhere, only that they might at times make you exempt.

Just for fun I noticed also that pg4 says for the DM to reference the glossary for DM related topics.

[eggynack]

Just for the record, I blinked a few times when I read "doesn't alone justify the lack of condition definition". Kinda goes back to context and my point regarding igloos and ultimately boils down to the value and validity of an inference to establish meaning as far as determinations of "which" would be concerned. It's a tough standard to meet I'd concur, but not by any value of necessity an impossible one. It almost sounds like you're sort of leaning towards possibility two except that the "others" becomes the dictionary definition for certain applications.
It would work theoretically, but I just don't think it's much of a rules supported argument. Realistically, even if the game has multiple definitions of the term, IHS should only be referring to one of them.



Not that confusing, it's "red light go, green light stop" really, possibly with the condition of you might decide to go a different route depending on traffic once/if it hits green.
Pretty much, I suppose.


Okay then, so that's the next piece I suppose I should work on. Kinda strange really to have to prove the rules are the rules and they themselves don't change. I suppose the DMG speaks to the point on multiple levels creating distinctions between when you change and remove a rule it's a house rule rather than the rules, under the section for variant rules it specifies "The basic rules presented in this book [. . .] apply to the baseline D&D campaign" (pg 4). That removing rules is house rules rather than rules might be enough. I suppose there's also the primary/secondary priority element and authority granted to errata as the only official change to rules. None of that is of course to say that new rules can't be introduced and relate to rules that already exist (kinda the backbone of optimization really) but a new rule letting you remove the original rule is not something really called out anywhere, only that they might at times make you exempt.
Yeah, it's definitely one of the trickier little majigs. The odd part might be figuring out where the line is between specificing a general, and removing a rule, especially because that line might just not exist. Nearly everything in the entire game breaks or changes the rules in some manner. To some extent, it's just a matter of degree and scale.

[Brookshw]

It would work theoretically, but I just don't think it's much of a rules supported argument. Realistically, even if the game has multiple definitions of the term, IHS should only be referring to one of them. Well okay then, but the English definition carries the various subdefinitions which I believe are used inconsistently through out the game. IHS has to be pointing to one of them as you've said, so which is it? Context alone doesn't really cut it unless we've prescribed which subdefinition we're accepting. Still seems to come down to subjective interpretation and adjudication.




Pretty much, I suppose. Wow I knew I was tired and coffee deprived on the ride in this morning, didn't realize to the extent that I'd type "red light go, green light stop", but now I'm a bit worried you agreed with that position. Well, you were probably being generous or something.



Yeah, it's definitely one of the trickier little majigs. The odd part might be figuring out where the line is between specificing a general, and removing a rule, especially because that line might just not exist. Nearly everything in the entire game breaks or changes the rules in some manner. To some extent, it's just a matter of degree and scale. Indeed it's a tricky one. I suppose another element is that you can only do what the rules say you can do and they don't say you can remove them. In a certain light we're kinda trying to prove a negative which, yeah, that's easy. The logically equivalence of "it says you can't" and "it doesn't say you can". But even breaking or changing the rules is still a different thing entirely from removing them from play and semantic juggling being what it is with such a widely applicable word as condition, well, easy enough to knock just about any one out of the game.

[eggynack]

Well okay then, but the English definition carries the various subdefinitions which I believe are used inconsistently through out the game. IHS has to be pointing to one of them as you've said, so which is it? Context alone doesn't really cut it unless we've prescribed which subdefinition we're accepting. Still seems to come down to subjective interpretation and adjudication.
Well, it's probably between the first definition, "A particular mode of being of a person or thing," the second definition, "State of health," or the fifth, "A restricting, limiting, or modifying circumstance." I don't think the second fits, because blown away is both a condition and not a state of health, and the fifth is just horrific, so I'd stick with the first, which seems to be the general default anyway. I suppose it could be the second if you were to argue that the condition summary contains things that are just not conditions with respect to IHS, though that's an odd thing to argue, I think. The way I figure it, these things are conditions, but just not a definition of them.


Indeed it's a tricky one. I suppose another element is that you can only do what the rules say you can do and they don't say you can remove them. In a certain light we're kinda trying to prove a negative which, yeah, that's easy. The logically equivalence of "it says you can't" and "it doesn't say you can". But even breaking or changing the rules is still a different thing entirely from removing them from play and semantic juggling being what it is with such a widely applicable word as condition, well, easy enough to knock just about any one out of the game.
Well, once we're in the territory where you only can if the rules say you can in the most explicit way possible, IHS would work fine with respect to this argument regardless of how you define condition. In any case, it seems plausible that you'd only be able to hit rules with respect to yourself. Thus, you would possibly be able to say, "My condition is that I miss all the time," but perhaps not, "My condition is that there exists missing." By that line of reasoning, you definitely wouldn't be diving into the PHB and stripping everything away from it. You'd just be merrily skipping over said rules.

[Brookshw]

On phone, long response later, blah blah blah, you know the drill.

Quick question, which dictionary were you using again? Oxford was it? Or more specifically which subdefinitions are you ruling out?

[eggynack]

Quick question, which dictionary were you using again? Oxford was it? Or more specifically which subdefinitions are you ruling out?
I was just using the first set of definitions on dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condition?s=t), and I was arguing for the first definition over the second and fifth.

[Brookshw]

Well, it's probably between the first definition, "A particular mode of being of a person or thing," the second definition, "State of health," or the fifth, "A restricting, limiting, or modifying circumstance." I don't think the second fits, because blown away is both a condition and not a state of health, and the fifth is just horrific, so I'd stick with the first, which seems to be the general default anyway. I suppose it could be the second if you were to argue that the condition summary contains things that are just not conditions with respect to IHS, though that's an odd thing to argue, I think. The way I figure it, these things are conditions, but just not a definition of them. Indeed it would be an odd things to argue (and not that it matters in the slightest but I found " Turned undead flee for 10 rounds (1 minute)" under the condition summary list if you ever need to argue round duration translations again, not that you should have had to in the first place but there you go, equivalency).

1.a particular mode of being of a person or thing; existing state; situation with respect to circumstances.
2.
state of health: He was reported to be in critical condition.
3.
fit or requisite state: to be out of condition; to be in no condition to run.
4.
social position: in a lowly condition.
5.
a restricting, limiting, or modifying circumstance: It can happen only under certain conditions.

Anyway, I can see the logic behind using 1, it's generic enough it fits any circumstance. Still doesn't necessarily change much if the rules is rules position carries out and can still be used to jury rig just about anything into the state of being a condition/Condition whatever. Taking your feeblemind example (as an example only, not saying I find it convincing in terms of evidence regarding the invalidating of option one of our greater discussion) definition 2 can work as well, mental health and all that, 3 as well for that matter. 4 would be harder in this example to argue for but then again, I don't know, village idiot or some such. 5 agreed seems to work.

Well that got us nowhere :smallannoyed: though I appreciate on some level that definition 1 uses my "of being" in the text. I'm not so sure really that any of these can be ruled out, social condition diplomacy, sense motive, bluff, and I think the FAQ even explicitly uses the term at one point "social condition". 3 likewise is applicable in many situations but not all. I suppose if you were looking for primacy in the sub definitions 1 is the best fit, I mean, the "existing state" can be anything, a sword for is in an existing state. The application can be finagled in so many ways. The condition of being a [fighter], IHS, now I don't have a class! Wait, I'm arguing semantics on the internet, probably doesn't count as having class to begin with. Guess you could default to a racial class level but I suppose we can take care of that one as well once we arrive at it.



Well, once we're in the territory where you only can if the rules say you can in the most explicit way possible, IHS would work fine with respect to this argument regardless of how you define condition. In any case, it seems plausible that you'd only be able to hit rules with respect to yourself. Thus, you would possibly be able to say, "My condition is that I miss all the time," but perhaps not, "My condition is that there exists missing." By that line of reasoning, you definitely wouldn't be diving into the PHB and stripping everything away from it. You'd just be merrily skipping over said rules. Issue, this seems to invalidate your earlier point regarding removing sources. Honestly I wasn't paying too much attention when you and (The Insanity?) were arguing the point but I don't believe you had retracted it. If you're removing the source you'd be removing the rules regarding missing, possibly hitting as well now that I think about it but you were making the claim at one point about eliminating positive conditions so there is that I guess. Before you say it, I know, FAQ not RAW, but I thought I'd point out that it (or maybe it was the Sage) rather agreed with you to an extent regarding a source, providing an example of removing a condition, the example being an Antimagic field, from you and everyone else it would effect.

[eggynack]

Anyway, I can see the logic behind using 1, it's generic enough it fits any circumstance. Still doesn't necessarily change much if the rules is rules position carries out and can still be used to jury rig just about anything into the state of being a condition/Condition whatever. Taking your feeblemind example (as an example only, not saying I find it convincing in terms of evidence regarding the invalidating of option one of our greater discussion) definition 2 can work as well, mental health and all that, 3 as well for that matter. 4 would be harder in this example to argue for but then again, I don't know, village idiot or some such. 5 agreed seems to work.

Well that got us nowhere :smallannoyed: though I appreciate on some level that definition 1 uses my "of being" in the text. I'm not so sure really that any of these can be ruled out, social condition diplomacy, sense motive, bluff, and I think the FAQ even explicitly uses the term at one point "social condition". 3 likewise is applicable in many situations but not all. I suppose if you were looking for primacy in the sub definitions 1 is the best fit, I mean, the "existing state" can be anything, a sword for is in an existing state. The application can be finagled in so many ways. The condition of being a [fighter], IHS, now I don't have a class! Wait, I'm arguing semantics on the internet, probably doesn't count as having class to begin with. Guess you could default to a racial class level but I suppose we can take care of that one as well once we arrive at it.
Yeah, you can definitely do nearly anything with it, though to be fair, that is the essence of my position. It is notable, however, that if my argument below holds up, then one of the few things you wouldn't be able to do is explode the rules themselves.


Issue, this seems to invalidate your earlier point regarding removing sources. Honestly I wasn't paying too much attention when you and (The Insanity?) were arguing the point but I don't believe you had retracted it. If you're removing the source you'd be removing the rules regarding missing, possibly hitting as well now that I think about it but you were making the claim at one point about eliminating positive conditions so there is that I guess. Before you say it, I know, FAQ not RAW, but I thought I'd point out that it (or maybe it was the Sage) rather agreed with you to an extent regarding a source, providing an example of removing a condition, the example being an Antimagic field, from you and everyone else it would effect.

I'm aware that it seems somewhat contradictory, but I'm not entirely sure that it is. When you're standing in the middle of a web, you're being affected by this one big object. It doesn't matter if you phrase it as, "The web that I'm standing in," or, "The web that the party is standing in," because it's the same web. However, it actually does matter, because you might just not be allowed to phrase it in the second manner. If we return to the first definition of condition, then it seems fair to note that, "The fact that I miss all the time," seems to be a particular mode of being for the character, while, "The fact that missing exists," does not. Thus, we arrive at the main point, which is that while my web and the party's web are the same, my missing and the party's missing are different. There's nothing inextricably linking the two, and that might mean that you can't cause a full bodied rulesplosion.

[toapat]

Has anyone tried to exploit the Tower Shield's full cover option that negates LoE and LoS?

we would just need Mindblank, Immunity to sonic, and a way to attack then. Granted, Attack is the difficult part of that

[Brookshw]

Has anyone tried to exploit the Tower Shield's full cover option that negates LoE and LoS?

we would just need Mindblank, Immunity to sonic, and a way to attack then. Granted, Attack is the difficult part of that

Ya know, I was thinking this thread was missing something and I believe you've just provided it. Let me respond by saying, what?

[toapat]

Ya know, I was thinking this thread was missing something and I believe you've just provided it. Let me respond by saying, what?

When you hold a towershield and use the total cover ability of a towershield, this bestows total cover to the person wielding the shield, and to the shield itself. The result is that you no longer have LoS/LoE to yourself but you have LoS/LoE to your targets. The shield and you also get total concealment because of the total cover.

Most spellcasting requires Line of Sight/Line of Effect. theres ecological combat but that has a 10 minute delay minimum or cant be aimed to hit a target which snuck upto you with a fly speed and total cover, as well as divinations and Holy word/Dictum/Blasphemy/Word of Chaos/Word of Balance which i know ignore LoE. We can discount weather by simple virtue of it takes too long. Mindblank is one of a few ways to deal with Mindsight, while Immunity to sonic negates all 5 word spells.

now, i have to assume the shieldbearer is Flight Capable, which negates detection through tremorsense.

[eggynack]

Snip
Wait, just figured it out. I think you want one of the anti-mage threads, which were the root of this thread, rather than this thread, which is currently just IHS in all of its forms.

[Brookshw]

Yeah, you can definitely do nearly anything with it, though to be fair, that is the essence of my position. It is notable, however, that if my argument below holds up, then one of the few things you wouldn't be able to do is explode the rules themselves. Before I reply I'm a bit curious, without going back to the beginning do you recall the exact point we're in disagreement about? I'm just curious if it was lost in the shuffle.

Anyway, I suppose there are two ways I could respond. The first would be to demonstrate that other sub-definitions could take precedence in certain situations, but that wouldn't negate whether the first would be applicable and frankly would be so much sophistry and unpalatable. The second would be to demonstrate that the book uses condition in a manner too restrictive for the general application. I think we managed that when we reviewed how spells (and possibly by extension, maneuvers) reference the specific list of conditions in the glossary, a point you acknowledge has come legitimacy.



I'm aware that it seems somewhat contradictory, but I'm not entirely sure that it is. When you're standing in the middle of a web, you're being affected by this one big object. It doesn't matter if you phrase it as, "The web that I'm standing in," or, "The web that the party is standing in," because it's the same web. However, it actually does matter, because you might just not be allowed to phrase it in the second manner. If we return to the first definition of condition, then it seems fair to note that, "The fact that I miss all the time," seems to be a particular mode of being for the character, while, "The fact that missing exists," does not. Thus, we arrive at the main point, which is that while my web and the party's web are the same, my missing and the party's web are different. There's nothing inextricably linking the two, and that might mean that you can't cause a full bodied rulesplosion. The issue I see with this is that, again, you're still looking at the same source being the rules. Further if I extend this position to look at other condition you can end up with logical paradoxes. Pick a condition imposed by a creature, level drain, poison, whatever you think suitable, it doesn't make much difference. Assume it's hit several party members. You IHS it and remove the condition, possibly the creature* by your source position, yet the other party members are still effected. This is all fine and good for such things, I can dig "I'm not poisoned anymore but the rest of you are", however in the instance of it being a rule that's imposing it they couldn't still be under the effect of missing as there's no rule for missing. It just kinda boils down to a paradox. Anyway, doesn't seem correct though I'm not so sure I've adequately explained my objection.

*I get a bit of a chuckle thinking about conditions imposed by creatures and what that means if the source if removed. The snake bit you or whatever, you're poisoned, you remove the source, is it the bite attack? The poison ability? The creature itself? This was discussed earlier but nailing down what constitutes the source gets pretty comical and isn't clear to my mind.

[Vhaidara]

*I get a bit of a chuckle thinking about conditions imposed by creatures and what that means if the source if removed. The snake bit you or whatever, you're poisoned, you remove the source, is it the bite attack? The poison ability? The creature itself? This was discussed earlier but nailing down what constitutes the source gets pretty comical and isn't clear to my mind.

Which one covers the most bases? If you remove the poison, the sources of bite and snake are still there. Remove the bite, and all you have left is the snake. Remove the snake, and all sources are gone.

Actually, let's go a step further. Something caused the snake to develop the poison, some evolutionary point or divine intervention (take your pick). That's the source of the snake's poison, and therefore the source of you being poisoned. BOOM, you just exploded a god/history.

[Brookshw]

Which one covers the most bases? If you remove the poison, the sources of bite and snake are still there. Remove the bite, and all you have left is the snake. Remove the snake, and all sources are gone.

Actually, let's go a step further. Something caused the snake to develop the poison, some evolutionary point or divine intervention (take your pick). That's the source of the snake's poison, and therefore the source of you being poisoned. BOOM, you just exploded a god/history.

Let's keep killing gods out of it, that's yet another long discussion (also for yucks if you go that route, IHS an outsider and kill a plane). Really though if you want a serious response its a conflation of direct and indirect source.

[Vhaidara]

Sorry, just fixed my post.

[Brookshw]

Sorry, just fixed my post.

Thanks, this is after all an absurd long winded maddeningly semantic circular convoluted serious RAW conversation

Also just noticed my earlier post omitted a word, gotta go back and fix that!

[eggynack]

Before I reply I'm a bit curious, without going back to the beginning do you recall the exact point we're in disagreement about? I'm just curious if it was lost in the shuffle.
I can't really be certain, as I suppose it depends on what your current opinion on the rules is. I'm still pretty much of the stance that the first definition of condition is the correct one in this case, so if your position differs from that one, that would presumably be the place of difference.


The second would be to demonstrate that the book uses condition in a manner too restrictive for the general application. I think we managed that when we reviewed how spells (and possibly by extension, maneuvers) reference the specific list of conditions in the glossary, a point you acknowledge has come legitimacy.
That would be closer to working, except it's notable that not even spells are consistent in using a single definition for condition. There are a few examples of a triggering condition, like with binding and contingency, cloudy conditions, as with call lightning, quiet conditions, as with alarm, and we're not even past C yet.


The issue I see with this is that, again, you're still looking at the same source being the rules. Further if I extend this position to look at other condition you can end up with logical paradoxes. Pick a condition imposed by a creature, level drain, poison, whatever you think suitable, it doesn't make much difference. Assume it's hit several party members. You IHS it and remove the condition, possibly the creature* by your source position, yet the other party members are still effected. This is all fine and good for such things, I can dig "I'm not poisoned anymore but the rest of you are", however in the instance of it being a rule that's imposing it they couldn't still be under the effect of missing as there's no rule for missing. It just kinda boils down to a paradox. Anyway, doesn't seem correct though I'm not so sure I've adequately explained my objection.
The idea here, I suppose, is that you're not really touching the base rule at all, just like you're not removing all poison in the entire multiverse. Instead of removing the rules for missing, you're just removing the fact that you have the capacity to miss, ignoring the rule instead of deleting it. I don't think there's really a paradox in that claim.

[Brookshw]

I can't really be certain, as I suppose it depends on what your current opinion on the rules is. I'm still pretty much of the stance that the first definition of condition is the correct one in this case, so if your position differs from that one, that would presumably be the place of difference. At it's essence, as far as I was concerned at least, it was whether the general English definition would land you in DM adjudication land.



That would be closer to working, except it's notable that not even spells are consistent in using a single definition for condition. There are a few examples of a triggering condition, like with binding and contingency, cloudy conditions, as with call lightning, quiet conditions, as with alarm, and we're not even past C yet. Eh, we've gone over this point enough about whether these are considered specific applications vs. a (potential) general, it's not something we'll resolve without solidifying a definition of condition. And regardless that they may be used in this context has not been conclusively resolved regarding options two or three.

I suppose there remains a point I brought up many moons pages ago regarding if everything is a condition, then there's no reason in game to call anything a condition if it's expected to carry any meaning. And yet as the game call out specific things as conditions, such as feeblemind by your position, there wouldn't be any reason to do so in the first place. It has no in game meaning as a condition because everything is a condition. There's no reason to even distinguish between the elements that IHS actually identifies, (spells etc) since they're all effectively the same thing. In so far that this distinction is indeed made we are logically forced to assume, even if we're not sure what they mean, that condition cannot be this all encompassing element. Actually, the more that I think about it, we know since the word is used distinctly from spells that whatever a condition is, it can't even be the same condition as spells in regards to IHS since the ability creates a distinction. I have to admit that the full ramifications of this had escaped me earlier.



The idea here, I suppose, is that you're not really touching the base rule at all, just like you're not removing all poison in the entire multiverse. Instead of removing the rules for missing, you're just removing the fact that you have the capacity to miss, ignoring the rule instead of deleting it. I don't think there's really a paradox in that claim. I admit to a high level of skepticism here on two levels. The first, to work this we need to assume a character has an intrinsic capacity to miss. We know that the game says the world acts pretty much how we expect other than where the game/rules say otherwise. Well, the game says otherwise in by having rules in the first place. The capacity to miss, by virtue of the rules existence, is not a function directly and inherently of a character rather than a function of a character by virtue of there being rules. The second objection is that, if we accept the notion it's a characters inherent capacity towards susceptibility as a basis for creating this distinction, we're left with the notion that it's not the sun or whatever source that's the cause and the contradiction remains regardless of the semantic juggling, i.e. the capacity to be effected by light is the source, not the light. While I speak to specific examples, the larger issues when you expand these notions are fairly extensive.

[eggynack]

At it's essence, as far as I was concerned at least, it was whether the general English definition would land you in DM adjudication land.
That's a fair position, I suppose. Really puts you in a no-win proposition with the whole maneuver, as you're at least somewhat in DM adjudication territory at the outset. I mean, it's not like I'm actually going to be like, "Sure, you can explode the Sun. Totally fair game. This is fun for everyone."


I suppose there remains a point I brought up many moons pages ago regarding if everything is a condition, then there's no reason in game to call anything a condition if it's expected to carry any meaning. And yet as the game call out specific things as conditions, such as feeblemind by your position, there wouldn't be any reason to do so in the first place. It has no in game meaning as a condition because everything is a condition. There's no reason to even distinguish between the elements that IHS actually identifies, (spells etc) since they're all effectively the same thing. In so far that this distinction is indeed made we are logically forced to assume, even if we're not sure what they mean, that condition cannot be this all encompassing element. Actually, the more that I think about it, we know since the word is used distinctly from spells that whatever a condition is, it can't even be the same condition as spells in regards to IHS since the ability creates a distinction. I have to admit that the full ramifications of this had escaped me earlier.
I can see the argument, though I don't know that it has an impact on how the rules are. Actually, come to think of it, there probably are some ways for there to be differences. Like, say there's a single spell that has produced two forcecages, one around me, and one around an ally. If you make use of the spell version, then you would hit both cages, as they're intrinsically the same spell, but if you make use of the condition version, say, "I'm in the condition of being in this jerk forcecage," then you'd only be able to hit your own cage.


I admit to a high level of skepticism here on two levels. The first, to work this we need to assume a character has an intrinsic capacity to miss. We know that the game says the world acts pretty much how we expect other than where the game/rules say otherwise. Well, the game says otherwise in by having rules in the first place. The capacity to miss, by virtue of the rules existence, is not a function directly and inherently of a character rather than a function of a character by virtue of there being rules. The second objection is that, if we accept the notion it's a characters inherent capacity towards susceptibility as a basis for creating this distinction, we're left with the notion that it's not the sun or whatever source that's the cause and the contradiction remains regardless of the semantic juggling, i.e. the capacity to be effected by light is the source, not the light. While I speak to specific examples, the larger issues when you expand these notions are fairly extensive.
I think my issue here is that I'm not really sure what we're working with. What's the exact semantic magic that's being used to make missing into a condition, and thus delete it? Further, as missing can't actually be deleted by IHS (as you can never be in the condition of missing as you miss), is there some analogous rule that can actually be deleted? It feels like that actually hits on the other issue presented too, as it can somewhat resolve the degree to which hitting is or is not analogous to sunlight.

[Brookshw]

That's a fair position, I suppose. Really puts you in a no-win proposition with the whole maneuver, as you're at least somewhat in DM adjudication territory at the outset. I mean, it's not like I'm actually going to be like, "Sure, you can explode the Sun. Totally fair game. This is fun for everyone." Well, a pyrrhic victory is still a victory I suppose. Two threads and fifteen pages later. Anywho, the analysis is still interesting.



I can see the argument, though I don't know that it has an impact on how the rules are. Actually, come to think of it, there probably are some ways for there to be differences. Like, say there's a single spell that has produced two forcecages, one around me, and one around an ally. If you make use of the spell version, then you would hit both cages, as they're intrinsically the same spell, but if you make use of the condition version, say, "I'm in the condition of being in this jerk forcecage," then you'd only be able to hit your own cage. We're back to forcecage eh? Well played :smallbiggrin: Good question regarding one spell causing two cages, the obvious ways of doing so that spring to mind are twin and repeat, both of which if memory serves require the same target so I'm not sure how you'd get two forcecages off of one casting. Might be a way.



I think my issue here is that I'm not really sure what we're working with. What's the exact semantic magic that's being used to make missing into a condition, and thus delete it? Further, as missing can't actually be deleted by IHS (as you can never be in the condition of missing as you miss), is there some analogous rule that can actually be deleted? It feels like that actually hits on the other issue presented too, as it can somewhat resolve the degree to which hitting is or is not analogous to sunlight. I don't think the semantics are of particular concern unless you think there's no way to semantically juggle it. Something to the effect of "condition of", "condition of being" or "condition of not being" would allow just about anything to be muscled into position. I'm not entirely sure which part of my objection your addressing regarding the sunlight bit, happy to respond if you could clarify. Or do you mean both aspects?

[eggynack]

We're back to forcecage eh? Well played :smallbiggrin: Good question regarding one spell causing two cages, the obvious ways of doing so that spring to mind are twin and repeat, both of which if memory serves require the same target so I'm not sure how you'd get two forcecages off of one casting. Might be a way.
Even if there's not, there are probably examples that are simpler along both axes. Say, a wall of thorns that's in two distinct parts, separated by some distance, each containing one character.



I don't think the semantics are of particular concern unless you think there's no way to semantically juggle it. Something to the effect of "condition of", "condition of being" or "condition of not being" would allow just about anything to be muscled into position. I'm not entirely sure which part of my objection your addressing regarding the sunlight bit, happy to respond if you could clarify. Or do you mean both aspects?
My issue with the semantic juggling at work is that rule destruction is an intrinsically odd thing. I mean, do you say, "I'm in the condition of being in a multiverse where missing exists,"? I suppose that could work but it's a bit dubious. As for sunlight, I figured that the objection would come together more once the rule-destroying protocol was established. So, if we use my example rule destroyer above, a fair difference between the two is that sunlight is something that our warblade is currently experiencing, while missing is not. In a sense, it would be like saying, "I'm in the condition of there being sunlight," while sitting in a cave.

[Segev]

Step 1: establishing a few postulates, which I don't think are going to make waves.
Postulate A: the "=" symbol means that two things are equal, or, effectively the same thing.
Postulate B: The following terms: Second, Round, Minute, Hour, Day, Month, Year, etc. Are units of measurement and not self existant things within the universe. (Ie, a character will never find a Round walking about in the forest.)

Good? Good. Carrying on.
According to RAW, 6 seconds = 1 Round.
This means, by postulate A, that to say "6 seconds" or to say "1 round" is effectively the same. Both terms describe the same duration of time.
According to basic math:
60 seconds = 1 minute
60 seconds = 10 rounds
1 minute = 10 rounds
According to postulate A, to say "60 seconds" or "10 rounds" or "1 minute" is effectively the same. All three terms describe the same duration of time. So far, so good.


IHS affects conditions and spells with a "duration longer than 1 round." Any duration longer than 1 round, regardless of the unit of measurement used to describe it, is subject to IHS interference.Absolutely! I agree with your conclusion and interpretation of the rules, but...


Because all measurements longer than 1 round ARE measured in rounds, which have been converted up to more efficient renderings.This is inaccurate. Something that says "10 minutes/level" is not, in fact, measured in rounds. It is measured in minutes. So, if you have an effect which specifies that it only works on "effects measured in rounds," it would not work on your effect that has a duration listed as "10 minutes/level."

Fortunately, that is not what IHS says. IHS says "a round or longer." Since IHS says nothing about what units in which the target effect is to be measured, your conclusion that what it lists the measurement in doesn't matter is correct. 600 rounds, 60 minutes, 3600 seconds, 1 hour: these all are longer than one round (and are, in fact, the same amount of time). IHS will work on an effect that lasts this long.


If you have a problem with this logic, then logic, math, and reason may not be your strongsuit. Open challenge to anyone that they can't find a spell duration of longer than 1 round in any WoTC D&D 3.5 book that I can't convert back into rounds.
I would not use such language; it is insulting and will get people's backs up, not drive home the point you hope to.

[Vogonjeltz]

except it possibly isn't a complete one, even when it was printed, it doesn't include feebleminded (or possibly immobilized), does it? because that (possibly both) were referred to as conditions in core, and they definitely fit the "weaken, slow, or even kill" definition

also, the fact that the skill check conditions aren't of interest is debatable, they can still be affecting the player, with the right semantic word play. unless there's a definition of "affect" in any book?

I suppose your only recourse to those not being included on the definitive list is to write a strongly worded letter to the editor of the book. They probably won't do anything as 3.5 is no longer supported, but I really don't see what else can be done at this point to fix the problem you're describing.

That leaves us with those not being on the list. Luckily feeblemind is a spell with a valid duration for removal, so it doesn't matter that it's not a condition under the rules.

Skill check conditions are conditions affecting skill checks, not conditions affecting the well being of characters.


That's the logic you were putting forth.

Conditions that affect a character's skill checks in turn affect him.

At the very best, it is only a complete list of the adverse conditions that weaken, slow, or kill characters. That doesn't really stop a great deal of the arbitrary junk I can pull, and brings us back to the proposition of beneficial conditions. At worst, it defines absolutely no limits, as we can point to both other adverse conditions that weaken, slow, or kill characters in the DMG, and to things actually referred to as conditions in the PHB.

There is no core definition of condition, so IHS can't refer to it. There's plenty of reason to think that IHS wouldn't point to something that doesn't exist.

That's the logic of the rules as written, don't put it on me.

No they don't, they only affect the check, the player is none the worse for wear.

At the very best it's a complete list of conditions because there is no other list of conditions. Find another list and I'll happily go over it with you to see if they are valid targets for IHS. If you don't have one to present, I see nothing left to discuss on this tangent.

Here's the core definition, for the third(<?) time:

This section describes the adverse conditions that weaken, slow, or even kill characters.

[eggynack]

That leaves us with those not being on the list. Luckily feeblemind is a spell with a valid duration for removal, so it doesn't matter that it's not a condition under the rules.
You seem to be missing the point. Talking about feeblemind isn't about directly defining what IHS does,


That's the logic of the rules as written, don't put it on me.
I haven't seen you prove it at all. Just saying that it's the RAW is nowhere near enough.


No they don't, they only affect the check, the player is none the worse for wear.
Yes, the character is, because otherwise they would have succeeded where here they failed. Being made worse at something is something that affects you.


At the very best it's a complete list of conditions because there is no other list of conditions. Find another list and I'll happily go over it with you to see if they are valid targets for IHS. If you don't have one to present, I see nothing left to discuss on this tangent.
But it never even says it's a complete list of conditions, and there are conditions all over the place, as I've pointed out. That's also missing the fact that you don't need a list for IHS to function. Just because your argument makes use of a list, doesn't mean that any competing claim must also heavily a list.

Here's the core definition, for the third(<?) time:
That's not a definition of condition. That's a definition of what things are on that list. For example, let's say I had a list in the book that said, "Here's a description of the fruits that are all pointy," and then just had pineapple. Would that be a definition of fruit? Obviously not.

[georgie_leech]

That's not a definition of condition. That's a definition of what things are on that list. For example, let's say I had a list in the book that said, "Here's a description of the fruits that are all pointy," and then just had pineapple. Would that be a definition of fruit? Obviously not.

Well obviously; it leaves out the Prickly Pear.

[Sith_Happens]

My group has just agreed to use an "common sense" definition of what qualifies as an "effect or other condition."

...Usually. Most of us appreciate the occasional bit of Rule of Cool, so IHS is a handy excuse for me to go full Spiral Power on things on a case by case basis. Like last night, when I used it to force my way through a dimensional barrier and save an NPC that would otherwise have been effectively killed off.:smallcool:

[Brookshw]

My group has just agreed to use an "common sense" definition of what qualifies as an "effect or other condition." No doubt most groups will put some form of limitation upon it. Also good rule of cool application :smallcool:


Even if there's not, there are probably examples that are simpler along both axes. Say, a wall of thorns that's in two distinct parts, separated by some distance, each containing one character. Ultimately it doesn't seem relevant since we're still left with the wording of IHS creating a distinction between a spell and a condition. Maybe you just hit yours, maybe you hit both, but it's a minor semantic element relating to which causes validity in the targeting matter, but that doesn't change that spells have been specifically excluded from the meaning of condition and thus the English definition cannot account for certain things being considered conditions, which by it's definition should be, if the whole is to remain logically sound. Seems like your point is more related to sourcing matter than the definition of condition.




My issue with the semantic juggling at work is that rule destruction is an intrinsically odd thing. I mean, do you say, "I'm in the condition of being in a multiverse where missing exists,"? I suppose that could work but it's a bit dubious. As for sunlight, I figured that the objection would come together more once the rule-destroying protocol was established. So, if we use my example rule destroyer above, a fair difference between the two is that sunlight is something that our warblade is currently experiencing, while missing is not. In a sense, it would be like saying, "I'm in the condition of there being sunlight," while sitting in a cave. Things being "odd" and "dubious" do not make them incorrect and based on the premises outlined the argument remains true and but invalid (in so far that it violates other premises, i.e. rulez iz rulez), or if the premise provided by the English definition is false then so all arguments fall apart and option 3 is rejected. Remember that missing isn't the only rule with in game application you can target by using the English definition. Don't get me wrong, I agree not only that rules destruction is odd and dubious but also have noted that the only rule we have for how one destroys/removes a rule is by the application of house rules. Want to go with "I'm in a condition of being in a multiverse where X exists", or maybe even "where X doesn't exist"? Guess it works based off of the English definition and resolves your sunlight concern though we still have others to contend with.

[eggynack]

Ultimately it doesn't seem relevant since we're still left with the wording of IHS creating a distinction between a spell and a condition. Maybe you just hit yours, maybe you hit both, but it's a minor semantic element relating to which causes validity in the targeting matter, but that doesn't change that spells have been specifically excluded from the meaning of condition and thus the English definition cannot account for certain things being considered conditions, which by it's definition should be, if the whole is to remain logically sound. Seems like your point is more related to sourcing matter than the definition of condition.
I don't see how spells have been specifically excluded from the meaning of condition. Even the most strict readings would have pretty much identical results as concerns the nature of something like blindness/deafness. Conditions can be spells, and spells can be conditions, so the point is just to prove that spells aren't always conditions, such that it makes at least some sense that both are in the maneuver.



Things being "odd" and "dubious" do not make them incorrect and based on the premises outlined the argument remains true and but invalid (in so far that it violates other premises, i.e. rulez iz rulez), or if the premise provided by the English definition is false then so all arguments fall apart and option 3 is rejected. Remember that missing isn't the only rule with in game application you can target by using the English definition. Don't get me wrong, I agree not only that rules destruction is odd and dubious but also have noted that the only rule we have for how one destroys/removes a rule is by the application of house rules. Want to go with "I'm in a condition of being in a multiverse where X exists", or maybe even "where X doesn't exist"? Guess it works based off of the English definition and resolves your sunlight concern though we still have others to contend with.

I suppose the question then is whether "Where X exists" qualifies as a mode of being/existing state. After all, it's not actually a thing that's touching on his being at that moment, and the existing state of the universe doesn't necessarily perfectly equal the existing state of an object in that universe, which is what would be implied by that reading.

There's also the second, far more awful possibility, which is that you can just do this. I don't think that much has happened to invalidate my position on that count, that if this lets you destroy rules, then that's just what it lets you do. It's eminently possible that the only thing standing between IHS and rule destruction is some intrinsic quality possessed by rules, and whether that quality exists or not is the sole determinant of what happens here, without any impact on underlying definitions.

[Brookshw]

I don't see how spells have been specifically excluded from the meaning of condition. Even the most strict readings would have pretty much identical results as concerns the nature of something like blindness/deafness. Conditions can be spells, and spells can be conditions, so the point is just to prove that spells aren't always conditions, such that it makes at least some sense that both are in the maneuver. they're specifically excluded since IHS creates the distinction between the terms. Now near identical applications can be conditions? (Hello feeblemind, good thing your indistinguishable now). Honestly this is just forcing an equivocation. We seem to have agreed the standard English definition includes everything and since the spell usage distinguishes between everything there has to be some problem here.




I suppose the question then is whether "Where X exists" qualifies as a mode of being/existing state. After all, it's not actually a thing that's touching on his being at that moment, and the existing state of the universe doesn't necessarily perfectly equal the existing state of an object in that universe, which is what would be implied by that reading. Sure its touching on his being, I might not be falling currently but I'm still subject to conditions that permit such. Works under English.


There's also the second, far more awful possibility, which is that you can just do this. I don't think that much has happened to invalidate my position on that count, that if this lets you destroy rules, then that's just what it lets you do. It's eminently possible that the only thing standing between IHS and rule destruction is some intrinsic quality possessed by rules, and whether that quality exists or not is the sole determinant of what happens here, without any impact on underlying definitions.

Well let's see, we have errata as one source of rules changing and houserules being the other. IHS isn't errata (ha! ToB errata) so we're left with houserules. If you really want to put forth an argument rules can be destroyed because of houserules be my guest.

[eggynack]

they're specifically excluded since IHS creates the distinction between the terms. Now near identical applications can be conditions? (Hello feeblemind, good thing your indistinguishable now). Honestly this is just forcing an equivocation. We seem to have agreed the standard English definition includes everything and since the spell usage distinguishes between everything there has to be some problem here.
IHS creates a distinction between the terms, but that in no way means that there cannot be an overlap. At best, it merely means that the two terms cannot be nothing but overlap, but it technically doesn't necessitate that either. I think I've shown reasonable non-overlap though. As a sort of example, imagine if instead of iron heart surge we had some arbitrary maneuver called "No more green things or apples", and it said that you have the ability to eliminate any green thing or apple that you're holding. Not all green things are apples, and not all apples are green, but some subset of each falls within the other category, and the maneuver reasonably works as written.

Meanwhile, I've gotta note that, on rereading the maneuver, there's the implication that it works the exact opposite of how you've indicated that it does. The maneuver specifically says, "select one spell, effect, or other condition..." which implies that spells and effects are actually subsets of conditions, such that there actually is nothing but overlap, and that it's that way by intent.


Sure its touching on his being, I might not be falling currently but I'm still subject to conditions that permit such. Works under English.
It's definitely plausible, though I wouldn't put it at 100% under this definition, as the condition is so far removed from the character it's supposedly impacting. By that point, you wouldn't need to go nearly as far out of the way as rule destruction to find oddity, as this would presumably also support direct wizard-splosion, through the state of being of existing five steps from a wizard. Of course, there's also always the silly output from silly input solution, wherein IHS'ing the fact that you exist in a universe where missing exists causes you to teleport somewhere that it doesn't (maybe even somewhere with nothing to attack), and the fact that you're five steps away from the wizard merely removes the condition of your distance. It becomes somewhat more difficult to create an ironclad IHS setup with things this far removed from ordinary usage, in other words.



Well let's see, we have errata as one source of rules changing and houserules being the other. IHS isn't errata (ha! ToB errata) so we're left with houserules. If you really want to put forth an argument rules can be destroyed because of houserules be my guest.
Well then, we still reasonably fall under one of the two situations. This definition would allow you to kill rules, but there is an overriding factor stopping you, so you merely have the ability to do everything else.

Edit: I just realized that, as the rule destruction thing pertains to the whole of the maneuver and its capacity for destruction, the rest of the rules of IHS's use is somewhat pertinent. Thus, the fact that the condition must be currently affecting you is relevant to at least some of these possible formations. You definitely wouldn't be able to eliminate all of missing as a result, due to a combination of that and the duration thing (any longer duration is something that's necessarily not affecting you at the moment), though other possibilities are still viable.

[Brookshw]

IHS creates a distinction between the terms, but that in no way means that there cannot be an overlap. At best, it merely means that the two terms cannot be nothing but overlap, but it technically doesn't necessitate that either. I think I've shown reasonable non-overlap though. As a sort of example, imagine if instead of iron heart surge we had some arbitrary maneuver called "No more green things or apples", and it said that you have the ability to eliminate any green thing or apple that you're holding. Not all green things are apples, and not all apples are green, but some subset of each falls within the other category, and the maneuver reasonably works as written.

Meanwhile, I've gotta note that, on rereading the maneuver, there's the implication that it works the exact opposite of how you've indicated that it does. The maneuver specifically says, "select one spell, effect, or other condition..." which implies that spells and effects are actually subsets of conditions, such that there actually is nothing but overlap, and that it's that way by intent. That first paragraph is pretty "eh" and I could mount an attack on it easily but had forgotten the specification of "other" which I'll grant resolves the matter far more conclusively, so well done on that one.



It's definitely plausible, though I wouldn't put it at 100% under this definition, as the condition is so far removed from the character it's supposedly impacting. By that point, you wouldn't need to go nearly as far out of the way as rule destruction to find oddity, as this would presumably also support direct wizard-splosion, through the state of being of existing five steps from a wizard. Of course, there's also always the silly output from silly input solution, wherein IHS'ing the fact that you exist in a universe where missing exists causes you to teleport somewhere that it doesn't (maybe even somewhere with nothing to attack), and the fact that you're five steps away from the wizard merely removes the condition of your distance. It becomes somewhat more difficult to create an ironclad IHS setup with things this far removed from ordinary usage, in other words. well the "in the universe" isn't all that relevant since it could be worded to exclude that and even if it weren't does such a place even exist. The far realm I suppose or perhaps we've figured out how one gets to the ordial where such a rule could conceivably not exist.




Well then, we still reasonably fall under one of the two situations. This definition would allow you to kill rules, but there is an overriding factor stopping you, so you merely have the ability to do everything else. So houserules or the definition collapses, check.


Edit: I just realized that, as the rule destruction thing pertains to the whole of the maneuver and its capacity for destruction, the rest of the rules of IHS's use is somewhat pertinent. Thus, the fact that the condition must be currently affecting you is relevant to at least some of these possible formations. You definitely wouldn't be able to eliminate all of missing as a result, due to a combination of that and the duration thing (any longer duration is something that's necessarily not affecting you at the moment), though other possibilities are still viable.

I don't believe this is strictly correct but will think on it.

Edit: doesn't seem like that follows really, its a continuous source and continuous condition after all.

[eggynack]

That first paragraph is pretty "eh" and I could mount an attack on it easily but had forgotten the specification of "other" which I'll grant resolves the matter far more conclusively, so well done on that one.
Nifty, though it must be stated that, if this fully holds up, then it'd seem to destroy the summary position, owing to the fact that spells and effects don't seem to be a subset of condition by the summary.


well the "in the universe" isn't all that relevant since it could be worded to exclude that and even if it weren't does such a place even exist. The far realm I suppose or perhaps we've figured out how one gets to the ordial where such a rule could conceivably not exist.
I suppose it's plausible that there would be other ways to form these, though it's a bit difficult to do so without it being attached to some variety of location.

So houserules or the definition collapses, check.
I'm not really sure where this comes in.


I don't believe this is strictly correct but will think on it.

Edit: doesn't seem like that follows really, its a continuous source and continuous condition after all.
The point is, how is the existence of missing affecting you as you stand in the middle of an empty field?

Edit: I guess you could always claim some vague emotional distress in this and all cases. That would be a rather amusing way of bypassing that whole clause.

[Brookshw]

Nifty, though it must be stated that, if this fully holds up, then it'd seem to destroy the summary position, owing to the fact that spells and effects don't seem to be a subset of condition by the summary. Actually that's a good point, hadn't thought that far down the line yet. Are you refining the position? Alternatively I'm wondering where the relationship falls regarding the Spells section making reference to the Condition Summary but I'm not especially convinced that has any bearing. Need to think on it.



I suppose it's plausible that there would be other ways to form these, though it's a bit difficult to do so without it being attached to some variety of location. Well, unless you're raising an objection I'm not sure how to respond.


I'm not really sure where this comes in. It's kinda simple I think, if the definition holds true then it has to allow for the destruction of rules by the positions you've put forth. If it can't account for the destruction of rules then the definition has a problem that needs to be worked out and saying "oh, well these things aren't covered by the definition" doesn't fly since we've agreed they are. The way it works itself out is by making avail of houserules. Alternatively if it doesn't avail itself of houserules then the definition simply collapses since it doesn't mean what it means. I don't really like this argument but it plays out as true and valid as I've analyze it. And what a bittersweet irony it would be if after almost three weeks of discussion we ultimately prove that IHS relies on house rules as so many people suggested to begin with.



The point is, how is the existence of missing affecting you as you stand in the middle of an empty field?

Edit: I guess you could always claim some vague emotional distress in this and all cases. That would be a rather amusing way of bypassing that whole clause.

Simply by affecting my capacities I should think. It's a bit existential perhaps but sound none the less. Whether those capacities are in play at a given time is fairly irrelevant as far as there's a condition affecting them.

And I do rather like the idea, at least for comic value, that being depressed or upset gives you super powers. Works for the Hulk. Amusing indeed (or quite, or rather, pick your Briticism poison and then don't IHS it away). Technically the semantics work itself out to be a real position. I feel like this was the plot of an anime, or several......

Edit: spelling and clarity.

[eggynack]

Actually that's a good point, hadn't thought that far down the line yet. Are you refining the position? Alternatively I'm wondering where the relationship falls regarding the Spells section making reference to the Condition Summary but I'm not especially convinced that has any bearing. Need to think on it.
Well, presumably this would fully limit things to the realm of the second two possibilities, if the logic holds.


Well, unless you're raising an objection I'm not sure how to respond.
I suppose the only real objection being raised is that the actual semantic form being used would necessarily have to not have ties to location, at least for rules that are somewhat tied to a location. For example, this argument would impact the ability to remove gravity, as weightless planes are a thing.


It's kinda simple I think, if the definition holds true then it has to allow for the destruction of rules by the positions you've put forth. If it can't account for the destruction of rules then the definition has a problem that needs to be worked out and saying "oh, well these things aren't covered by the definition" doesn't fly since we've agreed they are. The way it works itself out is by making avail of houserules. Alternatively if it doesn't avail itself of houserules then the definition simply collapses since it doesn't mean what it means. I don't really like this argument but it plays out as true and valid as I've analyze it. And what a bittersweet irony it would be if after almost three weeks of discussion we ultimately prove that IHS relies on house rules as so many people suggested to begin with.
I don't really see any house rules. Either rules are sacrosanct, and the definition of IHS is irrelevant, or they're not, and you can kill them all you want. It'd be like a big ol' set of laws of robotics as applies to D&D rules, such that every rule has written next to it, "except where said rule would come into conflict with the first law." I suppose that in itself could be considered a house rule, but if it is, then you just are allowed to make there be no rules.




Simply by affecting my capacities I should think. It's a bit existential perhaps but sound none the less. Whether those capacities are in play at a given time is fairly irrelevant as far as there's a condition affecting them.
I guess that would hold, especially if you vaguely think of it as some variety of infinite bonus to attack rolls, as it's not like a condition has to be impacting anything at the moment for it to be on you.

[Brookshw]

Well, presumably this would fully limit things to the realm of the second two possibilities, if the logic holds. So the List+others then? You seem dubious as to the logic of this so spell out your analysis and view and let's evaluate. It would be a rather large concession if it holds.



I suppose the only real objection being raised is that the actual semantic form being used would necessarily have to not have ties to location, at least for rules that are somewhat tied to a location. For example, this argument would impact the ability to remove gravity, as weightless planes are a thing. I suppose certain semantics could be problematic based on local factors but sounds like more of a phrasing matter than a problem with the logic. I'm not really convinced of it's impact in so far as the existential conditions potential.



I don't really see any house rules. Either rules are sacrosanct, and the definition of IHS is irrelevant, or they're not, and you can kill them all you want. It'd be like a big ol' set of laws of robotics as applies to D&D rules, such that every rule has written next to it, "except where said rule would come into conflict with the first law." I suppose that in itself could be considered a house rule, but if it is, then you just are allowed to make there be no rules. Sure, I agree that the definition of condition as regards to IHS and the rules would be irrelevant, that's why I'm flagging it as problematic. The house rule would, presumably, come into effect if you did IHS the rules which otherwise can't be done outside of house rules, which short the same retains them as sacrosanct. Anyway, it's possibly not even relevant if we're refining the evaluation to discount option three and replacing it with option two so may as well table it for the moment.

My kingdom for a cup of coffee.

[eggynack]

So the List+others then? You seem dubious as to the logic of this so spell out your analysis and view and let's evaluate. It would be a rather large concession if it holds.
I think I still have about the same objection to the multiple book-definition version of things that I always do, which is primarily that I don't think that non-conditions summary stuff sets definitions any more than the summary does, and secondarily that it'd be somewhat ridiculous for a single rule word to refer to several different definitions at the same time. There's just not much, if any, precedent for it in the game, and beyond that, it might be opposed to the way the rules work.

I suppose certain semantics could be problematic based on local factors but sounds like more of a phrasing matter than a problem with the logic. I'm not really convinced of it's impact in so far as the existential conditions potential.
Yeah, it's probably not an excessively meaningful thing, as it likely falls apart under the sheer weight of a veritable infinity of phrasing options.

Sure, I agree that the definition of condition as regards to IHS and the rules would be irrelevant, that's why I'm flagging it as problematic. The house rule would, presumably, come into effect if you did IHS the rules which otherwise can't be done outside of house rules, which short the same retains them as sacrosanct. Anyway, it's possibly not even relevant if we're refining the evaluation to discount option three and replacing it with option two so may as well table it for the moment.
Well, yeah, it was pretty problematic at the outset. That's just about the entire premise, I think, which is why I get wacky immunity to the majority of reductio ad absurdum arguments. As for rules being otherwise sacrosanct, there's almost certainly nothing on this same scale, but there're a lot of specifics out there that override general rules.

[Brookshw]

I think I still have about the same objection to the multiple book-definition version of things that I always do, which is primarily that I don't think that non-conditions summary stuff sets definitions any more than the summary does, and secondarily that it'd be somewhat ridiculous for a single rule word to refer to several different definitions at the same time. There's just not much, if any, precedent for it in the game, and beyond that, it might be opposed to the way the rules work. So that's the "against" element as you're viewing it, what's the "for"? Seemed like you had something there. Ridiculous is sort of the bread and butter of D&D as it were.

[eggynack]

So that's the "against" element as you're viewing it, what's the "for"? Seemed like you had something there. Ridiculous is sort of the bread and butter of D&D as it were.
Well, mostly just the fact that it has less horrible outcomes. I mean, you can still start pulling definitions for condition from every D&D book, including fun ones like contingency's, but it obviously wouldn't go nearly as far as just spontaneously unmaking anything in the fabric of reality, including the fabric itself, on a whim.

[Brookshw]

Well, seems like we've run out of road and either it holds or it doesn't. Unless you wanted to revisit any points I think its time to pack it in and when the next IHS discussion comes around we can link back and the cycle can begin anew :smallwink:

[eggynack]

Well, seems like we've run out of road and either it holds or it doesn't. Unless you wanted to revisit any points I think its time to pack it in and when the next IHS discussion comes around we can link back and the cycle can begin anew :smallwink:
Seems possible. There's at least more evidence now than before that the condition summary isn't what's being referenced, at least not entirely, which was probably my main goal hereabouts.