Heroics and the Dark Chaos Feat Shuffle

[Heliomance]

I see these mentioned together fairly often. What's the justification for allowing the subject to keep the Shuffled feat once the duration of Heroics expires? Heroics grants you a temporary feat, DCFS replaces that feat with a different one. Why wouldn't the new feat be exactly as temporary?

[OldTrees1]

People that want it to work say the feat is from Shun the Dark Chaos which is not temporary.

People that don't want it to work say the feat is from Heroics which is temporary.

I am guessing that both of us fall in that second category.

[Heliomance]

People that want it to work say the feat is from Shun the Dark Chaos which is not temporary.

People that don't want it to work say the feat is from Heroics which is temporary.

I am guessing that both of us fall in that second category.

Not quite - I want it to work, I just can't see a convincing argument that it does, and I'm not the DM :P

[Brova]

There's not really an argument. embrace the dark chaos doesn't care that the feat is temporary, and the feat it grants is permanent. Same deal for shun the dark chaos. Now, it is separately true that those spells are kinda broken and really dumb, but they don't temporarily grant feats. The spell takes a feat and replaces it with a different feat.

[JeenLeen]

There's not really an argument. embrace the dark chaos doesn't care that the feat is temporary, and the feat it grants is permanent. Same deal for shun the dark chaos. Now, it is separately true that those spells are kinda broken and really dumb, but they don't temporarily grant feats. The spell takes a feat and replaces it with a different feat.

To rephrase, those who claim it works say to get a feat which we will call feat C:
1. You get feat A via Heroics. This feat is temporary.
2. You cast Embrace the Dark Chaos to turn feat A into feat B. Feat B is not temporary because Embrace the Dark Chaos takes a feat (regardless of if it is temporary or not) and turns it into another feat (which, by default, is permanent.)
3. You cast Shun the Dark Chaos to turn feat B into feat C. Feat C is still permanent.

I can see the argument that it works by RAW (not convinced, but I see it), but I wouldn't allow this as a GM and I'd be surprised if a GM allowed it.

[Brova]

I can see the argument that it works by RAW (not convinced, but I see it), but I wouldn't allow this as a GM and I'd be surprised if a GM allowed it.

Honestly, banning this particular application is simply not all that useful. You can get the same effect (infinite feats) by combining the Elf's bonus feats, true reincarnate, and wish:

1. Be an Elf. You get some bonus feats.
2. Chaos shuffle those feats.
3. Kill yourself.
4. Get someone to pop true reincarnate on you, restoring you to life as not-an-Elf.
5. Use wish to become an elf again, gaining more bonus feats.*
6. Chaos shuffle new feats.
7. Kill yourself.

*This step may not strictly work by RAW depending on if true reincarnate works with the "wish back to old form" clause from reincarnate.

Or just take a level that grants a bonus feat, chaos shuffle, then difference engine that level away.

Honestly, the only non-broken application of the chaos shuffle is to let people re-pick feats and people should just be able to do that anyway. Frankly, you could ban the whole thing and that wouldn't even be a problem.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The heroics spell doesn't grant you a temporary feat, because there is no such thing as a temporary feat. What the spell does grant you, is a feat, from the fighter bonus feat list, which you can use "as if it were one of those the creature had selected". The spell effect happens to be temporary, but that's mostly unrelated.

Once the spell stops temporarily granting the completely standard, non-temporary feat, you lose the feat. However, embrace the dark chaos takes a feat, and replaces it with another feat. This replacement feat is not granted by heroics, it is granted by embrace the dark chaos, which, as an immediate effect, is permanent. When heroics wears off, the spell's benefits end too, which has no effect*.

You could say that the spell descriptions are not compatible - that having a feat granted to you, and possessing a feat, are not the same thing. However, neither 'grants' nor 'possesses' have any D&D-specific meaning, and the heroics spell is pretty unambiguous, containing no ifs and buts about the feat granted. There aren't many things that use the word 'grant' to compare with ('gains' is more popular), but the Otyugh Hole, for example, can only 'grant' its benefit (a bonus feat) once per week.



*The crazy interpretation (that I haven't seen mentioned, but for fun...) is that the spell grants you the feat for the whole duration, so you can DCS the same feat away ever other round (or every round with arcane spellsurge), as long as the spell keeps granting the feat (persist at your leisure). In that case, you would still have the original heroics feat when the spell wears off.

[Troacctid]

The exact language used is "This Abyssal heritor feat replaces one feat of the subject's choice that it already possesses." Since it's taking the place of a feat granted by a temporary effect, it expires when the effect does, just like the original feat would.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The exact language used is "This Abyssal heritor feat replaces one feat of the subject's choice that it already possesses." Since it's taking the place of a feat granted by a temporary effect, it expires when the effect does, just like the original feat would.
Why would it go away? The post-EDC feat isn't granted by heroics, is it? In fact, it can't be, since it's not a fighter feat.

In any case, it's possible to replace a feat, granted by a temporary effect, with another feat, granted by a permanent (well, instantaneous) effect. Or, if you prefer, to replace a feat that you only have for an hour with a feat you have forever. That is a valid use of the verb 'replace'.

Feats - for the purpose of EDC/SDC - don't remember where they came from. Abilities that give you the benefit of a feat do, abilities that allow you to ignore prerequisites do, but not feats, those are just on your list of feats.

[Troacctid]

It replaces a feat, it's not taking the place of a feat.

That's what "replace" means.

It could theoretically be possible to replace a temporary feat with a permanent one, but Embrace the Dark Chaos doesn't say anything about overriding the feat's original duration. To do so would require specific language a la Permanency.

[ExLibrisMortis]

That's what "replace" means.

It could theoretically be possible to replace a temporary feat with a permanent one, but Embrace the Dark Chaos doesn't say anything about overriding the feat's original duration. To do so would require specific language a la Permanency.
Sorry, I edited my post while you replied, that bit is now gone (consider the point withdrawn). (I still disagree, in the sense that 'replace' doesn't mean you take over every place of the item you replaced. You could replace Weapon Focus with an ioun stone of something-or-other, for the same +1 to hit, but that doesn't mean it takes the same feat slot).

When it doesn't say anything about overriding the feat's duration, wouldn't the general rule be: you keep a feat forever, including the one granted by EDC? There's no specific rules stating that you don't keep it, therefore you do. It would require specific wording to keep the feat's original duration, as that is not something you'd automatically copy.

[Curmudgeon]

In any case, it's possible to replace a feat, granted by a temporary effect, with another feat, granted by a permanent (well, instantaneous) effect. Or, if you prefer, to replace a feat that you only have for an hour with a feat you have forever. That is a valid use of the verb 'replace'.
This debate is based on a fundamental error: that there exists such a thing as a "permanent" feat.

Permanency isn't a property of feats; there's nothing in the general rules for feats nor in any feat descriptions that I know of (don't know all 3K+ of them, obviously) which talks about durations of those feats. Feats are usually acquired through the level advancement process, which happens immediately when you acquire enough XP. As a "do this and move on" sort of operation, a feat normally stays around unless you lose the level at which you acquired it. That doesn't make the feat "permanent"; it just means that it takes something fairly uncommon (level loss) to make it go away.

If you acquire a feat through something that's got a duration (magic, naturally; it's always magic that causes the problems in D&D), like Alter Self to assume a form which comes with a racial bonus feat, the feat goes away when the temporary effect expires. This is what happens when you use Heroics. If you replace the specific feat, you haven't replaced the effect which sets the duration for that feat unless there's an explicit statement to that effect in your replacement mechanism. Embrace the Dark Chaos/Shun the Dark Chaos lack any such statement about duration.

[Troacctid]

When it doesn't say anything about overriding the feat's duration, wouldn't the general rule be: you keep a feat forever, including the one granted by EDC? There's no specific rules stating that you don't keep it, therefore you do. It would require specific wording to keep the feat's original duration, as that is not something you'd automatically copy.

I don't know of any general rule that says feats are kept forever. If there were one, Heroics's temporary feat would constitute a specific exception.

Edit: Swordsage'd.

[Gullintanni]

That's what "replace" means.

It could theoretically be possible to replace a temporary feat with a permanent one, but Embrace the Dark Chaos doesn't say anything about overriding the feat's original duration. To do so would require specific language a la Permanency.

The problem here is that the Feat doesn't have a duration, Heroics does. Once the spell ends, it takes away that feat that it granted. In the case of DCFS, the Feat granted by Heroics is already gone, and so when the spell duration expires, the Feat that the spell tries to remove no longer exists.

So goes the logic anyway. I'm not convinced myself, but absent clarification from a RAW source, this interpretation seems valid.

[Brova]

I don't know of any general rule that says feats are kept forever. If there were one, Heroics's temporary feat would constitute a specific exception.

Edit: Swordsage'd.

Yes, but the issue isn't about heroics. It's about embrace the dark chaos. embrace the dark chaos makes you lose a feat (the temporary feat from heroics) and gain a feat (some abyssal heritor feat). The duration of the second is in no way dependent on the duration of the first. Just like if you get some temporary hit points from false life and use them to make a Necrocarnum Zombie, the zombie doesn't go away when false life wears off.

[Pippin]

This is what happens when you use Heroics. If you replace the specific feat, you haven't replaced the effect which sets the duration for that feat unless there's an explicit statement to that effect in your replacement mechanism. Embrace the Dark Chaos/Shun the Dark Chaos lack any such statement about duration.
To me this isn't objective reasoning though.


For the duration of the heroics spell, the subject can use the feat as if it were one of those the creature had selected.

This Abyssal heritor feat replaces one feat of the subject's choice that it already possesses.

You decide to "use" the feat granted by Heroics for the effect of Embrace the Dark Chaos.

[Curmudgeon]

Once the spell ends, it takes away that feat that it granted. In the case of DCFS, the Feat granted by Heroics is already gone, and so when the spell duration expires, the Feat that the spell tries to remove no longer exists.

For the duration of the heroics spell, the subject can use the feat as if it were one of those the creature had selected.
There's no "taking away" mechanism in Heroics, nor "tries to remove"; the spell simply expires.
Timed Durations
Many durations are measured in rounds, minutes, hours, or some other increment. When the time is up, the magic goes away and the spell ends.
The magic goes away. A feat created by magic, even when transformed by other magic, goes away.

[Renen]

But... if the magic created feat say... power attack, how does a feat called "Improved initiative" go away upon spell ending? (After you shuffled PA for II)

The feat wasnt "transformed" it was taken away, and you got a different feat.

[Pippin]

A feat created by magic, even when transformed by other magic, goes away.
But the feat isn't transformed in any way. It is outright replaced.

[Curmudgeon]

But the feat isn't transformed in any way. It is outright replaced.
OK, it's replaced. The feat itself doesn't set the duration.

[Renen]

I think the point is that the spell gives you feat A, then that feat is taken away and you get feat B. Spell disappears, taking with it the feat it granted... oh wait, the feat's gone, it got taken away.

[Rubik]

The feat granted by Heroics is temporary. DCFS changes the feat that Heroics grants you. When Heroics expires, the feat it grants you, which was altered by DCFS, evaporates.

It's not hard.

[Curmudgeon]

I think the point is that the spell gives you feat A, then that feat is taken away and you get feat B. Spell disappears, taking with it the feat it granted... oh wait, the feat's gone, it got taken away.
What part of the rules says the bolded part happens? I haven't found anything which agrees with that.

[Chronos]

Cast Heroics. You now have Power Attack, granted by the spell.

Cast Embrace the Dark Chaos. You replace Power Attack with an abyssal feat. So go through your sheet, and everywhere it says "Power Attack", replace that with "Abyssal Feat".

So now, that second sentence of my post reads "You now have Abyssal Feat, granted by the spell.".

Of course, you could take this reasoning one step further, and say that since the abyssal feat isn't a fighter feat, it's not a valid choice for Heroics, so at the point that EtDC is cast, the spell fizzles for being invalid, and now you have neither feat.

[Hecuba]

Cast Heroics. You now have Power Attack, granted by the spell.

Cast Embrace the Dark Chaos. You replace Power Attack with an abyssal feat. So go through your sheet, and everywhere it says "Power Attack", replace that with "Abyssal Feat".

So now, that second sentence of my post reads "You now have Abyssal Feat, granted by the spell.".

Of course, you could take this reasoning one step further, and say that since the abyssal feat isn't a fighter feat, it's not a valid choice for Heroics, so at the point that EtDC is cast, the spell fizzles for being invalid, and now you have neither feat.

You are inserting into the rules the idea of a "feat slot"-- that is to say, something that has memory of where the feat came from. This is a perfectly sensible idea and useful for balancing, but it's not actually attested to in the rules.

Heroics has the effect of making you have thing A for a duration. During that duration, we have no indication that the thing A you get from Heroics is in any way different from a thing A you would get in any other source. When the duration ends heroics is no longer granting you thing A. If you don't still have the feat, well, that's nice: there is no indication Heroics cares.

Embrace/Shun the Dark Chaos has the effect of taking thing A you have and giving you thing B instead (well, there's actually the intermediary step, but I think everyone's clear on that). Neither one makes any stipulation on where you got thing A. Both are instantaneous: they do not expire and there is no ongoing magic involved in you having thing B.


The result is that thing B is the instantaneous effect of the Shun the Dark Chaos and not the duration-limited effect Heroics. It works.




This is, of course, stupidly broken: it breaks several aspects of the fluff involved and I have sent someone to sit in the corner with a dunce cap for trying to sell it in a real game.
But I've not yet seen a convincing argument that it is not RAW.

[daremetoidareyo]

It's only TO where heroics and shuffling could possibly be entertained. No DM would allow it at the table. And even in the theoretical optimization circles, you have the problem of trying to permanently get free feats via a few spells in a rules environment wherein even other optimizers are all like: yeah, maybe.

It doesn't matter how many times that one explains that the temporary feat is replaced by an abyssal feat that is invalid for the heroics spell and there for the new feat should be permanent, we have a fundamental disagreement of the order of operations.

Think of it like parenthesis in an algebra problem

heroics= ((cleric + feat X)/heroics duration)
Embrace dark chaos: feat x = feat y
Which becomes: heroics + embrace dark chaos = ((cleric + feat X FEAT Y)/heroics duration)

The contention on this board is that casting dark chaos can break the feat out of the spell effects' "parenthesis" in order to get it away from denominator coming from the heroics spell. Many of us don't agree that an instantaneous replacement of the heroics feat is enough to supercede the duration of heroics. It doesn't matter that embrace the dark chaos is permanent, because the source stock of the feat is from a temporary source.

Casting shun the dark chaos just adds another floor to a sandcastle that will be washed away by the rising tide of Heroics duration limit.

Heroics = ((cleric+ Feat X)/duration of heroics)
Embrace dark chaos: Feat X = Feat Y
Shun the dark chaos: Feat Y = Feat Z
Heroics + Embrace Dark Chaos + Shun dark chaos = ((Cleric + Feat X, Feat Y, Feat Z)/Duration of Heroics)

That is why people are saying that you need to have specific text saying that the feat is permanent, cuz that is the only force strong enough to assume that the chaos feats wouldn't be washed away with Heroics duration.

EDIT:
What you're trying to do is have a spellcaster cast bulls strength on you at xp 3,999, gain a single xp during that duration, level up, and then lock in the enhancement bonus with your 4th level ability score increase, which is an instantaneous affect that stacks on top of the enhancement bonus, therefor locking it in. With the argument that the level raise ability score doesn't know what your true ability score is, therefor you can have a 23str human at level 4.

[Renen]

Sorry... How does that work? You add +1 to your base strength, how does the enhancement bonus stay forever? As

[daremetoidareyo]

Sorry... How does that work? You add +1 to your base strength, how does the enhancement bonus stay forever? As

How does the +1 know what the base strength is? It doesn't, it lands on top of the enhancement bonus and locks it in.

That is the same line of thinking taking place with the replacement of the temporary magic feat.

[Renen]

It knows because there's a "base attribute" and an "enhancement bonus to atttibute".
Meanwhile there are "feats" but no "temporary feats" only "magic that temporarily grants feats"

[Hecuba]

It's only TO where heroics and shuffling could possibly be entertained. No DM would allow it at the table. And even in the theoretical optimization circles, you have the problem of trying to permanently get free feats via a few spells in a rules environment wherein even other optimizers are all like: yeah, maybe.

It doesn't matter how many times that one explains that the temporary feat is replaced by an abyssal feat that is invalid for the heroics spell and there for the new feat should be permanent, we have a fundamental disagreement of the order of operations.

Think of it like parenthesis in an algebra problem

heroics= ((cleric + feat X)/heroics duration)
Embrace dark chaos: feat x = feat y
Which becomes: heroics + embrace dark chaos = ((cleric + feat X FEAT Y)/heroics duration)

The contention on this board is that casting dark chaos can break the feat out of the spell effects' "parenthesis" in order to get it away from denominator coming from the heroics spell. Many of us don't agree that an instantaneous replacement of the heroics feat is enough to supercede the duration of heroics. It doesn't matter that embrace the dark chaos is permanent, because the source stock of the feat is from a temporary source.

Casting shun the dark chaos just adds another floor to a sandcastle that will be washed away by the rising tide of Heroics duration limit.

Heroics = ((cleric+ Feat X)/duration of heroics)
Embrace dark chaos: Feat X = Feat Y
Shun the dark chaos: Feat Y = Feat Z
Heroics + Embrace Dark Chaos + Shun dark chaos = ((Cleric + Feat X, Feat Y, Feat Z)/Duration of Heroics)

That is why people are saying that you need to have specific text saying that the feat is permanent, cuz that is the only force strong enough to assume that the chaos feats wouldn't be washed away with Heroics duration.

And I agree that is a perfectly sensible ruling. It's how I adjudicate it at actual tables. But it's not how the actual mechanics of spells in general interact.

Consider the following example:
A very injured wizard casts vampiric touch on something, gaining temp hp with a duration of 1 hour. They then use a lesser spell matrix containing Bedevil, which normally had a duration of one day. Despite having low hp, he survives -- because of the temporary HP. Does Bedevil now end in one hour instead, simply because one of the effects of Lesser Spell Matrix (the damage) interacted with the effects of another spell with shorter duration (the temp hp)?

In abstract terms, this is no different than the Heroics/DCS chain: we have 3 spell effects of differing duration whith no direct interaction between the spells (no dispel, counter, suppress, etc) but where the effects of one spell are relevant to the outcome of the others.

It just so happens that the Heroics/DCS chain is stupid and the other example is not. But stupid rules are still rules. The proper response to stupid rules is not to twist them so that you can pretend they are not stupid, but rather to throw them out and replace them with something sane.

Math geek nitpit: Arithmatic operators are only appropriate for algebra over arithmetic fields. Instead of addition and subtraction, your operations here should be Heroics, EtDC, and StCD.

[atemu1234]

That's what "replace" means.

It could theoretically be possible to replace a temporary feat with a permanent one, but Embrace the Dark Chaos doesn't say anything about overriding the feat's original duration. To do so would require specific language a la Permanency.

But it isn't that feat. It also doesn't say it's subject to the same time constraints as the original feat.

[bekeleven]

I think that anyone who plays Magic the Gathering would view this trick as functional. It's basically flickering a feat in response to removal. "Sorry man, different game object, doom blade has no legal targets and is countered."

[atemu1234]

I think that anyone who plays Magic the Gathering would view this trick as functional. It's basically flickering a feat in response to removal. "Sorry man, different game object, doom blade has no legal targets and is countered."

Good thing I play that game. Sometimes. When I have money. To buy things.

[torrasque666]

Good thing I play that game. Sometimes. When I have money. To buy things.
True, but if you want to ruin your life, crack is cheaper. And less addictive.

[Troacctid]

I think that anyone who plays Magic the Gathering would view this trick as functional. It's basically flickering a feat in response to removal. "Sorry man, different game object, doom blade has no legal targets and is countered."

I play Magic: The Gathering, and I happen to know that flickering works that way because rule 400.7 specifically says it works that way. Are you contending that Magic: The Gathering's rule 400.7 also applies to D&D 3.5, or can you cite an equivalent rule that's actually from the same game? Because normally, in D&D, when an object changes zones, it's not considered a new object with no memory of or relation to its previous existence.

[atemu1234]

I play Magic: The Gathering, and I happen to know that flickering works that way because rule 400.7 specifically says it works that way. Are you contending that Magic: The Gathering's rule 400.7 also applies to D&D 3.5, or can you cite an equivalent rule that's actually from the same game? Because normally, in D&D, when an object changes zones, it's not considered a new object with no memory of or relation to its previous existence.

True, but in this case the object is a feat. Which is gone. End of story. Nothing to remove.

[tonberrian]

Both Embrace and Shun use the wording "replace". That means, at least to me, that it should be replaced anywhere and everywhere it could be replaced.

According to this, Heroics grants a fighter feat. Embrace replaces it with a heritor feat, so Heroics is currently granting a heritor feat. Shun replaces that heritor feat with any non heritor feat, but heroics is still granting that feat. When heroics expires, the feat it grants (the Shunned feat, since that replaces the original fighter feat for all intents and purposes) goes away. Cast heroics again, and the Shunned feat is surpressed because spell stacking.

It's a perfectly valid way of reading the rules. That it prevents picking up any non-exalted feat for 500 xp and spell slots is a happy coincidence.

[Heliomance]

Both Embrace and Shun use the wording "replace". That means, at least to me, that it should be replaced anywhere and everywhere it could be replaced.

According to this, Heroics grants a fighter feat. Embrace replaces it with a heritor feat, so Heroics is currently granting a heritor feat. Shun replaces that heritor feat with any non heritor feat, but heroics is still granting that feat. When heroics expires, the feat it grants (the Shunned feat, since that replaces the original fighter feat for all intents and purposes) goes away. Cast heroics again, and the Shunned feat is surpressed because spell stacking.

It's a perfectly valid way of reading the rules. That it prevents picking up any non-exalted feat for 500 xp and spell slots is a happy coincidence.

This is my reading. It is both the most balanced reading, and, IMO, the reading that makes the most sense. I honestly believe this is RAW.

If the wording was that it granted an Abyssal Heritor feat and removed one of your other feats, the commonly accepted interpretation would be true. As it uses the word "replace", I don't think it is.

[nedz]

Specific Trumps General


...
Once the subject has the Abyssal heritor feat, only a miracle, shun the dark chaos, or wish spell can reverse the change.

Since Heroics duration expiring isn't mentioned on this list: the trick works.

[Rubik]

Specific Trumps General

Since Heroics duration expiring isn't mentioned on this list: the trick works.Except Heroics isn't reversing which feat the DCFS changes the Heroics feat to, so it's still fine.

[Heliomance]

Specific Trumps General



Since Heroics duration expiring isn't mentioned on this list: the trick works.

Heroics expiring doesn't reverse the change (from the Fighter bonus feat to the Abyssal Heritor feat), it just gets rid of the feat. No problem there.

[Chronos]

Quoth Hecuba:

You are inserting into the rules the idea of a "feat slot"-- that is to say, something that has memory of where the feat came from. This is a perfectly sensible idea and useful for balancing, but it's not actually attested to in the rules.
If there isn't such a concept implicit in the rules, then Heroics grants you permanent feats all by itself. Power Attack wouldn't "know" that it was granted by Heroics, so when Heroics wore off, Power Attack would remain.

I think we all agree that that's not how Heroics works. So there must be something that "remembers" that the feat was granted by Heroics, and wears off after an hour. Why would that something, whatever it is, not be subject to the replacement of EtDC?

[Hecuba]

If there isn't such a concept implicit in the rules, then Heroics grants you permanent feats all by itself. Power Attack wouldn't "know" that it was granted by Heroics, so when Heroics wore off, Power Attack would remain.

I think we all agree that that's not how Heroics works. So there must be something that "remembers" that the feat was granted by Heroics, and wears off after an hour. Why would that something, whatever it is, not be subject to the replacement of EtDC?

Heroics grants a feat for a duration. Having that feat is the effect of the spell, and when the spell ends you no longer have it. The only way that heroics would grant that feat permanently would be if had a duration of instantaneous or permanent.

EtDC is not subject to the duration of heroics because it is a seperate spell with its own duration - instantaneous. That doesn't get changed just because part of its effect interacts with the outcome of another spell.

The "replace" reading above would introduce such a mechanic, but that's far broader than the normal reading of "replace". If my bard replaces my dead rogue in the party, he does no suddenly become subject to the same things the rogue had been. If I replace my car with a new one, the new one does no inherit the warrantee of the old car.

[Pippin]

The feat granted by Heroics is temporary. DCFS changes the feat that Heroics grants you. When Heroics expires, the feat it grants you, which was altered by DCFS, evaporates.

It's not hard.
I think it remains to be established that the newly acquired Abyssal heritor feat has anything at all to do with the feat it was traded for.


The subject immediately gains one Abyssal heritor feat for which it qualifies, chosen by you at the time of casting. [...] This Abyssal heritor feat replaces one feat of the subject's choice that it already possesses.
You gain a new, independent feat that isn't linked to the previous feat in any way. It is an exchange, the RAW says it is a replacement. You lose one and gain another.

[Heliomance]

public void DCFS(ref feat replaced_feat, feat desired_feat)
{
replaced_feat = desired_feat;
caster.xp -= 500;
}

Buff HeroicsFeat = new Heroics();
HeroicsFeat.featValue = someFighterFeat;
HeroicsFeat.duration = x rounds;

DCFS (HeroicsFeat.featValue, otherFeat);

Console.WriteLine(HeroicsFeat.featValue);
Console.WriteLine(HeroicsFeat.duration);

Output:

otherFeat
x rounds

[Pippin]

-snip-
Again, you're coding this as if the new feat had a relation with the previous feat. You should delete the object from the feat vector and add a new one as a replacement. That's not what you're doing.

I hope I'm not seen as supporting this trick by the way. Any sane DM should ban Heroics. I'm just saying you can't use RAW as a valid argument to make this trick invalid.

[Brookshw]

I hope I'm not seen as supporting this trick by the way. Any sane DM should ban Heroics. I'm just saying you can't use RAW as a valid argument to make this trick invalid.

Oh I don't know, Tonberrian seemed to do a nice job or it.

Aside, are you actually opposed to Heroics or just trying to use it for these types of shenanigans?

[daremetoidareyo]

It knows because there's a "base attribute" and an "enhancement bonus to atttibute".
Meanwhile there are "feats" but no "temporary feats" only "magic that temporarily grants feats"

Not what the players handbook says. There is no concept of "base attribute" so RAW, one could argue that the additional point of ability upon an enhanced score at a 4th level up permanently renders the increase permanent. It says right there, add 1 point to ANY score. That implies anywhere along the spectrum of the ability score, even on top of the enhancement bonus. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe this, but the text doesn't outright ban this interpretation. With the exception of barbarian rage, there aren't temporary ability changes, only magic and supernatural processes that grant higher ability scores. The ability itself is inert, it doesn't know what is temporary and what is not.

Page 10 of PHB: "add 1 point to any score upon attaining 4th level and every fourth level your character attains thereafter."...."When an ability score changes, all attributes associated with score change accordingly."


This isn't substantively different than arguing that the dark chaos spells are locking the feat into place. Why is the magic with a duration that grants an enhancement bonus being treated differently in the ability score level up scenario? RAW doesn't not support this interpretation. The analogy stands

[Segev]

Tangential quibble: spell effect stacking doesn't prevent multiple instances of heroics from granting multiple different feats. Same spell, but different effects (i.e. different feats granted). It would prevent it from granting the same feat multiple times; there are a few that actually could otherwise be stacked this way, but few people would want to spend heroics on Toughness.



As for spell-granted feats being DCS'd... The car replacement analogy is a good one, but not when discussing owning a car.

If you're leasing a car, and your leasing agency allows you to pay a one-time surcharge to replace that car with another under the same lease, you still have to turn back over the replacement car when the lease expires. This is the closest analogy to the heroics-DCShuffle: heroics "leases" you a fighter feat, and the DCS lets you spend XP to replace it with any feat of your choosing. However, it does so under the original lease, because it's replacing a feat, not adding a feat. The lease/spell still expires, and you still have to return the car/feat.

[ExLibrisMortis]

As for spell-granted feats being DCS'd... The car replacement analogy is a good one, but not when discussing owning a car.

If you're leasing a car, and your leasing agency allows you to pay a one-time surcharge to replace that car with another under the same lease, you still have to turn back over the replacement car when the lease expires. This is the closest analogy to the heroics-DCShuffle: heroics "leases" you a fighter feat, and the DCS lets you spend XP to replace it with any feat of your choosing. However, it does so under the original lease, because it's replacing a feat, not adding a feat. The lease/spell still expires, and you still have to return the car/feat.
That's not what DCS does, you're (again) trying to read 'replace' in a very specific way, which is not at all reflected in the EDC spell description.

You're leasing a car from a leasing agency with infinite cars of specific models. You then trade the leased car for another - of a non-leasable type - at an abyssal car dealer, and since it's effectively a stolen car, there's a 500 xp fee. When the time comes to return the lease, you tell the agency that you lost the car. The leasing agency proceeds to count its cars, finds that they still have the same number of cars left (that is, infinite), concludes there is no problem, and send you on your merry way with no further questions.

[gooddragon1]

Bestow power (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/bestowPower.htm) actually has rules to prevent using a power stone and other methods to break your power point cap. There's other ways to do it, but as I understand it, temporary can become permanent through an application that would allow it.

As a DM, I'd say "It works by RAW, but I won't allow it in my game."


Because of the intimate nature of this power, it cannot be fabricated into a psionic item—only power points generated by a psionic creature in the moment can be shared using bestow power.

[Pippin]

Oh I don't know, Tonberrian seemed to do a nice job or it.

Aside, are you actually opposed to Heroics or just trying to use it for these types of shenanigans?
Me? Well if the trick is allowed, then wizards can have as many feats as they want, and that implies they have an arbitrarily high number of slots for each spell level, that they have all metamagic feats, that they know all Wizard/Sorcerer spells, and that they have Arcane Thesis for every single one of them. Among other things :smallsigh:

No fun there, so these shenanigans should be prohibited, yes.

[Heliomance]

Bestow power (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/bestowPower.htm) actually has rules to prevent using a power stone and other methods to break your power point cap. There's other ways to do it, but as I understand it, temporary can become permanent through an application that would allow it.

As a DM, I'd say "It works by RAW, but I won't allow it in my game."

I'm not seeing how that's relevant - Bestow Power doesn't grant temporary power points. There's nothing teporary happening there at all.

[gooddragon1]

I'm not seeing how that's relevant - Bestow Power doesn't grant temporary power points. There's nothing teporary happening there at all.

It has language that prohibits it from using temporary power points to grant power points that wouldn't go away normally. Such as using a mindfeeder weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/weapons.htm#mindfeeder) and bestowing the power points to yourself to keep them. How this is relevant is that it shows a precedent where the case of temporary being permanent is disallowed within the usage of the ability. Chaos shuffle doesn't seem to do that and neither does heroics. Likely because they were printed so far apart whereas bestow power and mindfeeder weaponry are in the same book.

[Heliomance]

It has language that prohibits it from using temporary power points to grant power points that wouldn't go away normally. Such as using a mindfeeder weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/weapons.htm#mindfeeder) and bestowing the power points to yourself to keep them. How this is relevant is that it shows a precedent where the case of temporary being permanent is disallowed within the usage of the ability. Chaos shuffle doesn't seem to do that and neither does heroics. Likely because they were printed so far apart whereas bestow power and mindfeeder weaponry are in the same book.

No it doesn't - that text has absolutely nothing to do with stopping that. The purpose of that text is to disallow making psionic items of Bestow Power. No precedent there, and the case is different, anyway - you're paying power points to manifest a power, that's all. And what happens when temporary power points expire is well defined.

[Brookshw]

Me? Well if the trick is allowed, then wizards can have as many feats as they want, and that implies they have an arbitrarily high number of slots for each spell level, that they have all metamagic feats, that they know all Wizard/Sorcerer spells, and that they have Arcane Thesis for every single one of them. Among other things :smallsigh:

No fun there, so these shenanigans should be prohibited, yes.

Oh, sorry, I think maybe my question was vaguely worded. I'm taking away that its the shenanigans and not the spell itself (heroics) you object to.

[Segev]

That's not what DCS does, you're (again) trying to read 'replace' in a very specific way, which is not at all reflected in the EDC spell description.

You're leasing a car from a leasing agency with infinite cars of specific models. You then trade the leased car for another - of a non-leasable type - at an abyssal car dealer, and since it's effectively a stolen car, there's a 500 xp fee. When the time comes to return the lease, you tell the agency that you lost the car. The leasing agency proceeds to count its cars, finds that they still have the same number of cars left (that is, infinite), concludes there is no problem, and send you on your merry way with no further questions.

Except nowhere in either of the spells involved in the DCS does it say that. I do not, in fact, "report he car stolen." When the spell ends, the leasing agency stops letting me have the car. It doesn't matter whether it's "the same" car. It's the car registered in their system as the one they leased me. That the abyssal agency swapped the plates doesn't change that the leasing agency revokes "their" car.

[gooddragon1]

Hmm, actually, looking at it I can see that it probably doesn't specify other things.

However, I'd still look at heroics+chaos shuffle like

Tainted Sorcerer blood component (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/taint.htm#bloodComponent) and temporary hit points. The effect is the final result, it doesn't care where the source came from.

[icefractal]

Depends on what "replace" means. If "replace" is like polymorph, then it still goes away. If you summoned a badger and then polymorphed it into a dwarf, it would still disappear when the summon spell expired. If you read it as "destroy X, gain Y", then the duration of X doesn't matter.

I'm always going to go with the "feats remember their origin" interpretation, but more so because that one yields a playable game than because I have iron-clad wording.

[Jormengand]

Let's have some hypothetical abilities:

Ability A: For one minute, the caster gains a hammer.
Ability B: Target hammer is removed from existence and replaced with a screwdriver.

Are people who don't think heroics+DCS works going to say, then, that the screwdriver disappears after 1 minute too?

[Segev]

Let's have some hypothetical abilities:

Ability A: For one minute, the caster gains a hammer.
Ability B: Target hammer is removed from existence and replaced with a screwdriver.

Are people who don't think heroics+DCS works going to say, then, that the screwdriver disappears after 1 minute too?

The argument is more that that isn't what's happening. DCS isn't removing the hammer from existence and creating a screwdriver. DCS is changing the tool you have from Abilty A to be a screwdriver. When Ability A goes away, your tool goes away too.

[Jormengand]

The argument is more that that isn't what's happening. DCS isn't removing the hammer from existence and creating a screwdriver. DCS is changing the tool you have from Abilty A to be a screwdriver. When Ability A goes away, your tool goes away too.

DCS itself says "Replaces" not "Changes".

"This Abyssal heritor feat replaces one feat of the subject's choice that it already possesses."

It is a repeal-and-replace, not a change.

Further, it refers to the feat granted by heroics as being "Lost" when you cast EtDC. That's pretty damning.

[Hecuba]

I'm always going to go with the "feats remember their origin" interpretation, but more so because that one yields a playable game than because I have iron-clad wording.

Feat's don't just have to remember their origin. There has to be a intermediary container of some form.
Heroics givens you specific feat you choose from those available. It does not give you a slot in which you put specific feat you choose from those available.

DCS replaces feats. Replace is not the same as transform. Heroics gives you A and DCS replaces A with B. It does not change A into B, even though that would be a more sensible way to write the spell given that it is a transmutation effect.

If there were a spell that summoned a weapon (which would be temporary because it was summoned) and a spell that called the abyssal in charge sword barter to trade a sword for a different non-magical item, we wouldn't suggest that the non-magical item you traded the sword for disappeared by RAW when the summoning spell expired-- unless that were written in one of the spells.

Such a decision would probably be counter to the intent behind the spell design and would certainly be incredibly offensive in practice. As point of fact, I would probably have the called being attack your character for attempting it.
But saying that they mechanics do not interact in that way would require reading content into the rules that is not there. Likely something about the nature of swords/weapons or the way magic works, or potentially presumptions about elements of the spell effects that aren't there.

Likewise, saying that the DCS/Heroics chain doesn't work requires reading into the rules something that isn't there: something about the functioning of feats or something about the nature of the magics involved (change would be much more appropriate for a Transmutation spell).

If you have to read such a thing into the rules, you've already exited the realm of RAW and entered the realm of trying to make a sensible ruling.

Which gets us to the more important points

If your goal is to reach a sensible ruling, there is no reason to try to get there by a strained semantic argument.
Instead, preserve some dignity for the DM and some intellectually honesty: acknowledge that you are adjudicating against a problematic and unintended interaction of 2 rules because they have untenable results. This is, after all, why we have DMs.

If your interest in in the logical exploration of Pure RAW, you should be approaching it from a position of dispassion and disinterest: if you choose one interpretation over the other because you like the outcome, you have abandoned reason for rationalization.
When you reach a point where you have to actively choose an unusual definition of a word, you're probably dwelling here.

If your interest in in the logical exploration of semantics, then you must find the word "replace" far more interesting than I do.
Seriously, it's not even a particularly interesting construction. While "replace" and "take the place of" have identical denotations, the second construction is preserved in usage almost exclusively because it has a connotation emphasizing the transference of intangibles like the one here (or duty, or roles, or debts). Trying to convey that is "replace" is not particularly interesting or effective.

[Renen]

DCS itself says "Replaces" not "Changes".

"This Abyssal heritor feat replaces one feat of the subject's choice that it already possesses."

It is a repeal-and-replace, not a change.

Further, it refers to the feat granted by heroics as being "Lost" when you cast EtDC. That's pretty damning.

I agree. It's like replacing a mechanical part. Do you take the broken part and use it to smith a replacement (thus making replacement disappear if some weird event causes the original materials to disappear) or do you replace the part by throwing out the old one, and installing a new one that has jack to do with the old part?

[tonberrian]

"Power Attack (granted by Heroics)"
"Power Attack (granted by Heroics)"
"Claws of the Beast (granted by Heroics)"

Is a perfectly valid method of reading replace. Not some ridiculous loophole jumping. It is exactly as valid as reading it the other way. Painting it as inferior (or superior!) merely based on grammatical construction is ludicrous.

It is superior solely because it doesn't lead to a degenerate game state. It requires just as much DM adjucation to use either interpretation.

And really, using Heroics is inefficient. Get an item that grants a feat, shuffle it away, take off the item, and then put it back on. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[atemu1234]

"Power Attack (granted by Heroics)"
"Power Attack (granted by Heroics)"
"Claws of the Beast (granted by Heroics)"

Is a perfectly valid method of reading replace. Not some ridiculous loophole jumping. It is exactly as valid as reading it the other way. Painting it as inferior (or superior!) merely based on grammatical construction is ludicrous.

It is superior solely because it doesn't lead to a degenerate game state. It requires just as much DM adjucation to use either interpretation.

And really, using Heroics is inefficient. Get an item that grants a feat, shuffle it away, take off the item, and then put it back on. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Except "replace" is not a defined game term. We have to go with the nearest common language definition. And that's an Appeal to Consequences, a noted logical fallacy.

Replace, as far as we can tell, is removing a feat and gaining a new one. That 'Claws of the Beast' is not granted by Heroics, it's granted by Embrace the Dark Chaos. Which has no further time constraints. And does not cease to exist.

[Renen]

"Power Attack (granted by Heroics)"
"Power Attack (granted by Heroics)"
"Claws of the Beast (granted by Heroics)"

Is a perfectly valid method of reading replace. Not some ridiculous loophole jumping. It is exactly as valid as reading it the other way. Painting it as inferior (or superior!) merely based on grammatical construction is ludicrous.

It is superior solely because it doesn't lead to a degenerate game state. It requires just as much DM adjucation to use either interpretation.

And really, using Heroics is inefficient. Get an item that grants a feat, shuffle it away, take off the item, and then put it back on. Lather, rinse, repeat.

My logic broke. You are saying that a spell that grants a feat for as long as it's on you takes the feat away (after DCS) after it ends.
But an item that grants a feat for as long as it's on you DOESNT take the feat away (after DCS) after its removed from you?


Whaaaaaaaaaaaa?

[Lorddenorstrus]

"Power Attack (granted by Heroics)"
"Power Attack (granted by Heroics)"
"Claws of the Beast (granted by Heroics)"

Is a perfectly valid method of reading replace. Not some ridiculous loophole jumping. It is exactly as valid as reading it the other way. Painting it as inferior (or superior!) merely based on grammatical construction is ludicrous.

It is superior solely because it doesn't lead to a degenerate game state. It requires just as much DM adjucation to use either interpretation.

And really, using Heroics is inefficient. Get an item that grants a feat, shuffle it away, take off the item, and then put it back on. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Congratulations you can interpret. Oh wait that's RAI. Which is entirely not the point of matter here. We're not discussing what will regularly hit a table and be played this is stupid over powered. We're talking RAW which is a list of dysfunctions so long theres been what 7 something threads talking about it? By RAW that functions, it's stupid and blatantly broke. So when you hit TO and pass the line of being played at tables on a regular basis you enter some pretty BS areas when it comes to power. This combo functioning like that is just another OP thing DMs will just not allow. It is perfectly OK for you to never allow this combo at YOUR tables. It's not right to intentionally fudge RAW to think that game isn't broken that way, that's again going to RAI for functionality's sake. The game IS broken the only thing keeping it together is the DM, but those changes are not for discussions of RAW.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Except nowhere in either of the spells involved in the DCS does it say that. I do not, in fact, "report he car stolen." When the spell ends, the leasing agency stops letting me have the car. It doesn't matter whether it's "the same" car. It's the car registered in their system as the one they leased me. That the abyssal agency swapped the plates doesn't change that the leasing agency revokes "their" car.
See, now we hit the core of the problem. You're assuming the abyssal agency swapped the plates, which is not something they do. The abyssal trader takes the original car, plates and all, and gets you a totally new one, with shiny abyssal plates.


You don't have no car?
He'll get you one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrxePKps87k)

There's no rental agency in the world that takes 'a car' from you if you fail to return the specific one you rented from them.

[tonberrian]

I'm saying that either interpretation is equally (in)valid, from RAW. That's not hard to comprehend, is it? Just because one reading is valid by RAW does not mean an opposite reading is not. Rules as written has issues, news at 11.

If you're going to do it, with a dm allowing it, items are better than heroics anyways.

[OldTrees1]

I'm saying that either interpretation is equally (in)valid, from RAW. That's not hard to comprehend, is it? Just because one reading is valid by RAW does not mean an opposite reading is not. Rules as written has issues, news at 11.

If you're going to do it, with a dm allowing it, items are better than heroics anyways.

People that want it to work say the feat is from Shun the Dark Chaos which is not temporary.

People that don't want it to work say the feat is from Heroics which is temporary.

Apparently it was that hard to comprehend, since it was the very first reply and they are still arguing. If it is any consolation, your post was clear as day to me.

[Aldrakan]

I think that anyone who plays Magic the Gathering would view this trick as functional. "

Yes the comparison to Magic was where I went too, except that my take was "If you were playing Magic, the trick would be functional".

D&D rules are not written in the same way. They have holes in them and people are expected to fill in these holes with things that make sense when they come up against situations the rules don't cover because they are unusual situations and the authors don't want write 5 pages to explain what could take a short paragraph by going into exhaustive detail about exceptions. That's why drowning is not actually good cure for fatal stab wounds.

The idea that you can gain a feat temporarily granted to you through magic and use that feat as fuel (because how else do you explain that spell working?) to grant you another feat which will be permanent is completely stupid. And given the current semantic argument over the precise definition of the word "replace", the working of which is not actually defined, any sensible DM should have very good standing to say that no, that's against the rules and also stop trying to pull nonsensical tricks because they're "RAW legal".

[Hecuba]

"Power Attack (granted by Heroics)"
"Power Attack (granted by Heroics)"
"Claws of the Beast (granted by Heroics)"

Is a perfectly valid method of reading replace. Not some ridiculous loophole jumping. It is exactly as valid as reading it the other way. Painting it as inferior (or superior!) merely based on grammatical construction is ludicrous.

It's not merely based on grammatical construction. For one thing, the target of EtDC is a character in-game and not the text on your character sheet.

For another interpreting it in that manner poses a kind of reverse Ship of Theseus issue: is it really gone if aspects of the original remain. This becomes an issue, because in addition to the word "replaced" we also have text talking about the feat as "lost."


It is superior solely because it doesn't lead to a degenerate game state.
At minimum, that is a reason to suspect that your logic is biased by a desired result.

If you're looking for a balanced ruling, you are served just as well (I would actually posit better) by acknowledging the evident system flaw and deciding it can't be used. The only way that your reading would serve you better is if you have some investment in the idea that there aren't mechanical flaws in 3.5 (in which case I have a bridge to sell you).

If you are concerned with RAW as a logic exercise, you are served better by removing any investment in the outcome that could cause bias.

To take it even farther, if you are interested as an inquiry into mechanical game design you are actually served better by actively adopting a bias that would lead to over-identification of broken things. You can decide a theoretical problem is to trivial to fix, but you can't fix a problem you didn't find (except on accident).


Editing to avoid a double post


People that want it to work say the feat is from Shun the Dark Chaos which is not temporary.

People that don't want it to work say the feat is from Heroics which is temporary.
Apparently it was that hard to comprehend, since it was the very first reply and they are still arguing. If it is any consolation, your post was clear as day to me.

I disagree. I would ultimately prefer it not work, because it is an undesirable situation. I would far prefer the rules excluded it. When I DM, I rule against it consistently: the two exceptions I can think of were explicitly TO exercises.
But I do think that, in the vacuum of RAW, the case for it working is by far logically stronger than the case against it.

[Brookshw]

Apparently it was that hard to comprehend, since it was the very first reply and they are still arguing. If it is any consolation, your post was clear as day to me.

Yup, you pretty much called it back at the beginning. Now shush, the internet is arguing pointlessly :smalltongue:

[tonberrian]

Also, for MtG players, there is a replacement effect detailed in the rules. Doubling Season is a prime example of one, replacing one token with two. If you splinter twin a token, which goes away at end of turn, you end up with two tokens. That go away at the end of turn.

Which is not a perfect analogy, and also has no bearing because it's a different game with different rules.

[Aldrakan]

See, now we hit the core of the problem. You're assuming the abyssal agency swapped the plates, which is not something they do. The abyssal trader takes the original car, plates and all, and gets you a totally new one, with shiny abyssal plates.

There's no rental agency in the world that takes 'a car' from you if you fail to return the specific one you rented from them.

That's actually not a bad analogy if you accept the particular way you're using the word "Replace", except that you seem to be conveniently stopping before the end. There's also no rental agency in the world that takes "oh I traded the car you gave me for another car" as an acceptable answer and just lets you walk off.

At absolute minimum they would probably refuse to rent you another car, which in this analogy I guess would be never being able to cast Heroism or have it cast on you again.

[Renen]

items are better than heroics anyways.

You missed my reply. How are items that give a feat only for as long as you wear the item any better than spells that give feat for as long as you are under spell effect? Howwwwww?

[tonberrian]

You missed my reply. How are items that give a feat only for as long as you wear the item any better than spells that give feat for as long as you are under spell effect? Howwwwww?

I did not miss it. They are better in that if you have a dm allowing shuffle of temporary feats, items are easier than constantly casting heroics.

[icefractal]

The only thing that bugs me is when people take the "Heroics grants permanent feats" interpretation, use it in a build, and then act like the build is still normal and not in TO territory. If the only reason you don't have NI hp and NI spell slots is because you didn't happen to feel like it - yet, you're pretty firmly in the TO realm. :smalltongue:

[Renen]

I did not miss it. They are better in that if you have a dm allowing shuffle of temporary feats, items are easier than constantly casting heroics.

Wait... we are talking strict RAW and TO. You are talking actual games with DMs. Its like coming to a punpun discussion and saying "well if you have a DM that allows this..."

This is a discussion if this is workable on a RAW level, I thought you meant that items are somehow more "valid" way to do the feat shuffle. But you are totally off from the discussion bringing in RAI, and games with "reasonable DMs". I assure you, everyone knows that no sane DM would allow this, but thats not what we are discussing.

[Brookshw]

Wait... we are talking strict RAW and TO. You are talking actual games with DMs. Its like coming to a punpun discussion and saying "well if you have a DM that allows this..."

This is a discussion if this is workable on a RAW level, I thought you meant that items are somehow more "valid" way to do the feat shuffle. But you are totally off from the discussion bringing in RAI, and games with "reasonable DMs". I assure you, everyone knows that no sane DM would allow this, but thats not what we are discussing.

Oooooorrrr, its an offhand RAI comment that accompanies a point about RAW :smalltongue:

[Hecuba]

The only thing that bugs me is when people take the "Heroics grants permanent feats" interpretation, use it in a build, and then act like the build is still normal and not in TO territory. If the only reason you don't have NI hp and NI spell slots is because you didn't happen to feel like it - yet, you're pretty firmly in the TO realm. :smalltongue:

Agreed, though I've rarely seen that outside of TO exercises. More often I see suggestions to play an elf and DCS away the racial proficiencies: this is still entirely inappropriate in a huge number of games, but it's at least in the PO range instead of the TO range.

Banal Nitpicky P.S. -- Heroics doesn't grant the permanent feats. StDC does.

[ExLibrisMortis]

That's actually not a bad analogy if you accept the particular way you're using the word "Replace", except that you seem to be conveniently stopping before the end. There's also no rental agency in the world that takes "oh I traded the car you gave me for another car" as an acceptable answer and just lets you walk off.

At absolute minimum they would probably refuse to rent you another car, which in this analogy I guess would be never being able to cast Heroism or have it cast on you again.
Aha, but here's the thing: heroics car rental has infinite cars. This is not a real thing on Earth, but you can understand how that would change their attitude to customers not returning cars.

Alternatively, heroics car rental is a pop-up venture that goes bankrupt after ten minutes per caster level, and the next time you cast it, you open up another agency.

Thirdly, let's not forget that heroics is a not-for-profit organization with no particular use or goal but to rent out cars, combined with either of the above two points.

In short, the car rental analogy is useless where it assumes economical viability. Heroics is not a business venture, it's a D&D spell. D&D doesn't even have conservation laws, let alone sensible magic.

[Aldrakan]

Aha, but here's the thing: heroics car rental has infinite cars. This is not a real thing on Earth, but you can understand how that would change their attitude to customers not returning cars.

Alternatively, heroics car rental is a pop-up venture that goes bankrupt after ten minutes per caster level, and the next time you cast it, you open up another agency.

Thirdly, let's not forget that heroics is a not-for-profit organization with no particular use or goal but to rent out cars, combined with either of the above two points.
.

Really, is that in the rules? That if you create a temporary bonus or object or anything that is not created for the purpose of being removed for existence and then do so anyway the magic doesn't care and there are no consequences? I can't think of any examples where that's laid out, and if there aren't then what you said is very much not in RAW, its you filling in the holes in a way that lets you do this without consequence.
I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, it's a perfectly valid interpretation, but it's not RAW. Which is my point, that this is an area the rules do not properly cover, and if you're going to fill holes in the rules you should do so with concrete, not dynamite.

[Renen]

Oooooorrrr, its an offhand RAI comment that accompanies a point about RAW :smalltongue:

RAI like never accompanies RAW. The developers never intended punpun to be real. But saying that is worth absolutely nothing.


Really, is that in the rules? That if you create a temporary bonus or object or anything that is not created for the purpose of being removed for existence and then do so anyway the magic doesn't care and there are no consequences? I can't think of any examples where that's laid out, and if there aren't then what you said is very much not in RAW, its you filling in the holes in a way that lets you do this without consequence.
I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, it's a perfectly valid interpretation, but it's not RAW. Which is my point, that this is an area the rules do not properly cover, and if you're going to fill holes in the rules you should do so with concrete, not dynamite.

I think my example was better, the mechanical parts one.

It's like replacing a mechanical part. Do you take the broken part and use it to smith a replacement (thus making replacement disappear if some weird event causes the original materials to disappear) or do you replace the part by throwing out the old one, and installing a new one that has jack to do with the old part?

[OldTrees1]

Wait... we are talking strict RAW and TO. You are talking actual games with DMs. Its like coming to a punpun discussion and saying "well if you have a DM that allows this..."

This is a discussion if this is workable on a RAW level, I thought you meant that items are somehow more "valid" way to do the feat shuffle. But you are totally off from the discussion bringing in RAI, and games with "reasonable DMs". I assure you, everyone knows that no sane DM would allow this, but thats not what we are discussing.

The poster was talking strict RAW(since in strict RAW discussions with multiple valid interpretations, you need something to collapse the superposition). The poster pointed out that both interpretations were valid RAW legal interpretations. The poster then went on to say:

IF: Operating under the interpretation that temporary feats can be shuffled into permanent feats)
Then: Item based temporary feats are more efficient than Heroics
With the implied conclusion of: Independent of which valid interpretation you use, Heroics shuffle is a waste of time.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Really, is that in the rules? That if you create a temporary bonus or object or anything that is not created for the purpose of being removed for existence and then do so anyway the magic doesn't care and there are no consequences? I can't think of any examples where that's laid out, and if there aren't then what you said is very much not in RAW, its you filling in the holes in a way that lets you do this without consequence.
I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, it's a perfectly valid interpretation, but it's not RAW. Which is my point, that this is an area the rules do not properly cover, and if you're going to fill holes in the rules you should do so with concrete, not dynamite.
I don't think minor creation cares if you disintegrate the ladder you create with it? It's not going to take away an equivalent mass in wood, just to run out properly. A spell running out isn't like going out there and getting that leased car (or ladder, or feat) back in force. That's way beyond the spell description. The examples I gave were just ways to fit that argument into our car leasing metaphor.

No matter how you cast it in a metaphor, a spell running out doesn't care if its effect had already been negated somehow, it just runs out. Spells run out in an antimagic field, for example. Unless a spell specifically states it cares about being negated in some specific fashion, it doesn't care at all.

So yes, it is definitely RAW that an otherwise negated spell runs out without further consequence.

[Renen]

The poster was talking strict RAW. The poster pointed out that both interpretations were valid RAW legal interpretations. The poster then went on to say:

IF: Operating under the interpretation that temporary feats can be shuffled into permanent feats)
Then: Item based temporary feats are more efficient than Heroics
With the implied conclusion of: Independent of which valid interpretation you use, Heroics shuffle is a waste of time.

Ah. He wasnt quite as clear in the 1st post, and I did not read the second one that specifically said "assuming DM allows" quite in-depth enough

[OldTrees1]

Ah. He wasnt quite as clear in the 1st post, and I did not read the second one that specifically said "assuming DM allows" quite in-depth enough

Fair enough, although his 1st post was much clearer than the 2nd one. It just wasn't a position you were expecting to see and thus assumed it was the opposition position instead.

[gooddragon1]

Also, for MtG players, there is a replacement effect detailed in the rules. Doubling Season is a prime example of one, replacing one token with two. If you splinter twin a token, which goes away at end of turn, you end up with two tokens. That go away at the end of turn.

Which is not a perfect analogy, and also has no bearing because it's a different game with different rules.

A better analogy is polymorphing a ball lightning after attacking.
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=234722&type=cardhttp://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=191380&type=card

You are supposed to sacrifice ball lightning at the end of the turn, but it's dead from polymorph. Does your creature from polymorph go away? No. Seriously, try that in mtgo. See what happens. The feat has no memory of its source.

People who simply can't stand to see another instance where RAW allows something, perhaps because they like to DM, don't want to see another broken thing and will argue strenuously against it.


...stop trying to pull nonsensical tricks because they're "RAW legal".

Not "RAW legal". RAW legal. I wonder how much theoretical optimization ground has been ceded where it didn't have to be because of posters who can't stand to see it advanced. The wording of pun-pun allowing for anything and people just saying "Oh but the gods..." or some other irrelevant things to the spirit of TO. Guys, TO is not meant to actually see play in the game, feel free to object if it shows up in a game, but please leave it be otherwise (as in, please don't take the attitude of a DM into a TO discussion*).

*If the following example offends your sensibilities, you might not want to even open a TO discussion:
In The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind game for the PC and console, if you make a custom spell with heal target for 1 for 1 second and a secondary effect of X on self for 1 second, the secondary effect becomes permanent as long as you cast it on a wall. This was obviously not intended in the game but it works. Thus you can make Heal on target 1 for 1 second, Fortify Strength 10 for 1 second and get your strength up to 1000 with a little under 100 castings on a wall.

[Aldrakan]

I don't think minor creation cares if you disintegrate the ladder you create with it? It's not going to take away an equivalent mass in wood, just to run out properly. A spell running out isn't like going out there and getting that leased car (or ladder, or feat) back in force. That's way beyond the spell description. The examples I gave were just ways to fit that argument into our car leasing metaphor.

No matter how you cast it in a metaphor, a spell running out doesn't care if its effect had already been negated somehow, it just runs out. Spells run out in an antimagic field, for example. Unless a spell specifically states it cares about being negated in some specific fashion, it doesn't care at all.

So yes, it is definitely RAW that an otherwise negated spell runs out without further consequence.

Disintegrate doesn't actually destroy matter, it reduces it to fine dust. Obviously a material doesn't have to be in the same form, and presumably that dust stops existing after 1 hour/level. You specifically cannot "annihilate" an item created this way by using it as a spell component. So I don't think that adds any weight to your argument, the opposite if anything.
In an anti-magic field, the spell still exists but is being suppressed by another spell. If you left the field it would start effecting you again. Not at all the same as destroying the result completely.

[gooddragon1]

Thank you! That's what I was looking for (not the power points thing):


Minor Creation
Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: 0 ft.
Effect: Unattended, nonmagical object of nonliving plant matter, up to 1 cu. ft./level
Duration: 1 hour/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

You create a nonmagical, unattended object of nonliving, vegetable matter. The volume of the item created cannot exceed 1 cubic foot per caster level. You must succeed on an appropriate skill check to make a complex item.

Attempting to use any created object as a material component causes the spell to fail.
Material Component

A tiny piece of matter of the same sort of item you plan to create with minor creation.

They have specific examples of not allowing something temporary to be used for something that could potentially be permanent. This is why they don't allow you to use minor creation for spell components, because otherwise you could use something temporary for something permanent or otherwise use it up for an effect that isn't reversable (such as a fireball (wrong component but w/e) and then have to reverse(?) the damage when the component expired). It's straightforward logic.

Knew they'd have to state it somewhere in the rules and that they did, but I wouldn't have remembered if you hadn't brought up minor creation.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Disintegrate doesn't actually destroy matter, it reduces it to fine dust. Obviously a material doesn't have to be in the same form, and presumably that dust stops existing after 1 hour/level. You specifically cannot "annihilate" an item created this way by using it as a spell component. So I don't think that adds any weight to your argument, the opposite if anything.
Disintegrate destroys most matter - the fine dust doesn't come close to being a full ladder, does it? And I'm curious what you think of the heat produced by burning wood created with temporary magic. Does it go away? Am I suddenly cold, after my campfire winks out of existence? Is heat absorbed from fire burning on magically temporary logs radiated out first, or do I radiate my body heat first? Do you get a lot of free oxygen that was previously bound to the carbon you generated with minor creation?

I don't mean that I want to get into an argument on the physics of temporary magical objects. I also don't mean that disintegrate is a perfect cleanup, I know it leaves dust - that was just an example using a well-known spell. What I do mean, and what I would like you to take away from this, is that minor creation doesn't care if you perfectly, irrevocably destroy the spell's material result, except for the one exception it specifically mentioned. I think it is pretty clear that that is what I meant, and I feel like you're deliberately trying to misunderstand me. Unless you have a counterargument, I think we're finished with this topic.



In an anti-magic field, the spell still exists but is being suppressed by another spell. If you left the field it would start effecting you again. Not at all the same as destroying the result completely.
In an antimagic field, the spell exists, but its effect does not. That is exactly the situation heroics is in, after you shuffle away the feat it grants. EDC doesn't dispel or end heroics, but it does remove the granted feat. The vestigial heroics can run out with no consequence, just like it would in an antimagic field.


@Gooddragon1: I'm glad something useful came out of me bringing it up :P.

[Renen]

Thank you! That's what I was looking for (not the power points thing):



They have specific examples of not allowing something temporary to be used for something that could potentially be permanent. This is why they don't allow you to use minor creation for spell components, because otherwise you could use something temporary for something permanent or otherwise use it up for an effect that isn't reversable (such as a fireball (wrong component but w/e) and then have to reverse(?) the damage when the component expired). It's straightforward logic.

Knew they'd have to state it somewhere in the rules and that they did, but I wouldn't have remembered if you hadn't brought up minor creation.

I see the path of thinking, but its specifically only talking about the stuff it talks about. I dont think we can look at it, and generalize this specific example to all other scenarios.

[Aldrakan]

I don't mean that I want to get into an argument on the physics of temporary magical objects. I also don't mean that disintegrate is a perfect cleanup, I know it leaves dust - that was just an example using a well-known spell. What I do mean, and what I would like you to take away from this, is that minor creation doesn't care if you perfectly, irrevocably destroy the spell's material result, except for the one exception it specifically mentioned. I think it is pretty clear that that is what I meant, and I feel like you're deliberately trying to misunderstand me. Unless you have a counterargument, I think we're finished with this topic.

The spell says that the thing is "entirely disintegrated", a word which means breaking up into tiny sometimes subatomic parts, and it explicitly leaves visible remnants. Nowhere in the spell or the definition of the word does it suggest the thing has been removed from existence. So no, I do not find that convincing. You provided one bad example, I point out that it's a bad example, you offer no other example and suggest that I'm arguing in bad faith. I point that other your given example specifically disallows a method of doing what you suggest, you dismiss it as a single exception. I know what you mean, I don't think you've laid actual grounding for the claim.


In an antimagic field, the spell exists, but its effect does not. That is exactly the situation heroics is in, after you shuffle away the feat it grants. EDC doesn't dispel or end heroics, but it does remove the granted feat. The vestigial heroics can run out with no consequence, just like it would in an antimagic field.


If you left the anti-magic field, the effect would come back. The spell is there, it's being actively suppressed by another spell. That is a completely different situation from your claim that you can trade away a feat from a spell and now the spell literally does nothing and has no connection to the feat you replaced its feat with.

[martixy]

I'm exceedingly curious:
Has anyone ever played a game in which DCFS was allowed?
Did the DM know about it before being served the results?
How did it go over?
How did the campaign generally go?

[Hecuba]

They have specific examples of not allowing something temporary to be used for something that could potentially be permanent.
Indeed they do. Those are examples of good design. Sadly, I'm not aware of any of them that apply here.



I'm exceedingly curious:
Has anyone ever played a game in which DCFS was allowed?
Did the DM know about it before being served the results?
How did it go over?
How did the campaign generally go?

DCS in general, or in conjunction with heroics?

In the former case, yes: the most memorable was a fairly hi-op evil campaign that ended at 20 with the characters ruling the world. It was a setip for the next campaign, where the players would be overthrowing the evil empires their prior characters had built. It was a headache to DM at times, but it went fairly well. 2 of the PCs were elves who shuffled away their proficiency fats.

As to using DCS with heroics or similar, only twice. Both times were for a explicit optimization exercise rather than a campaign: the first was an attempt to defeat an atropal worth an ECL 20 party. The 2nd was seeing which statted deities the same group could defeat without having to worry about portfolio sense (though that didn't much matter, as we left that of Avery the second intermediate deity). Those were challenging to DM, but enjoyable.

[Rubik]

2 of the PCs were elves who shuffled away their proficiency fats.That's why elves are always portrayed as stick-thin.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm exceedingly curious:
Has anyone ever played a game in which DCFS was allowed?
Did the DM know about it before being served the results?
How did it go over?
How did the campaign generally go?
Oh, sure. I've traded Ranger Track and Endurance for more archery feats; there was never a problem. Of course I always start from a base of moderate to weak power, so my optimization efforts make for a better and more interesting character without breaking the game.

[gooddragon1]

Indeed they do. Those are examples of good design. Sadly, I'm not aware of any of them that apply here.

That's actually my point. Without a portion of the ruling dedicated to preventing the feat being used as a component (which the designers probably never imagined possible at that point), it is possible to use the feat as a component even if it's temporary. The spirit of the rules would quite obviously be against it, but the letter of the rules does not contradict it. This indicates only that it falls under the realm of Theoretical Optimization rather than Practical Optimization.

Even after reading the heroics spell carefully, and I can see where the feeling comes from, all you need to do is look at the feat as a component that is used up to see how this works. With an example of prohibition of components in minor and especially relevant with major creation (as the permanent stuff with costly components generally requires valuable materials), it is a precedent that shows that temporary can cause a permanent result if not prohibited. Also, even if the final result (a feat) is similar to the initial input (a different feat), using major creation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/majorCreation.htm) to provide the gold dust and iron for a wall of iron (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfIron.htm) (if it were not prohibited), would result in a permanent wall of iron just the same as normal because the components were used up at the time of casting. Iron for iron, but temporary for permanent. While not formally listed as a component, it is used up by the spell as a material component would be.

[Segev]

A better analogy is polymorphing a ball lightning after attacking.
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=234722&type=cardhttp://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=191380&type=card

You are supposed to sacrifice ball lightning at the end of the turn, but it's dead from polymorph. Does your creature from polymorph go away? No. Seriously, try that in mtgo. See what happens. The feat has no memory of its source.

People who simply can't stand to see another instance where RAW allows something, perhaps because they like to DM, don't want to see another broken thing and will argue strenuously against it.

And yet in D&D, polymorph does not destroy the original creature and create a new one. So obviously replacing a feat with a different one doesn't end all effects on the original feat wrt the new feat.

Is that a nonsensical counter-argument? Absolutely; however, it makes just as much sense as bringing an M:tG card which explicitly states "destroy the original creature; it cannot be regenerated" as an example to back up a claim that "replace a feat" in a completely different game means "destroy the original feat and especially any time limitations on your possession of it and replace it with a feat that lacks none of that baggage."

Why can that guy park in the convenient, blue-lined parking space without getting a ticket and I cannot? Because the rules specifically state that he can; he has a handicapped tag on his rear-view mirror.

You can't use that to prove that "replace a feat" means "and don't worry about the fact that the original one would have expired," either. Because it's different rules for a different situation.

[gooddragon1]

And yet in D&D, polymorph does not destroy the original creature and create a new one. So obviously replacing a feat with a different one doesn't end all effects on the original feat wrt the new feat.

Is that a nonsensical counter-argument? Absolutely; however, it makes just as much sense as bringing an M:tG card which explicitly states "destroy the original creature; it cannot be regenerated" as an example to back up a claim that "replace a feat" in a completely different game means "destroy the original feat and especially any time limitations on your possession of it and replace it with a feat that lacks none of that baggage."

Why can that guy park in the convenient, blue-lined parking space without getting a ticket and I cannot? Because the rules specifically state that he can; he has a handicapped tag on his rear-view mirror.

You can't use that to prove that "replace a feat" means "and don't worry about the fact that the original one would have expired," either. Because it's different rules for a different situation.

It's the logic involved segev, not the precise outcome. Look at my above explanation about components and effects. I wish people who have a problem with theoretical optimization would not get involved in theoretical optimization conversations. It's probably not going to come up in your game, and if it does feel free to ban it, but please stop stifling it's innovations just because you don't like it.

[Segev]

It's the logic involved segev, not the precise outcome. Look at my above explanation about components and effects. I wish people who have a problem with theoretical optimization would not get involved in theoretical optimization conversations. It's probably not going to come up in your game, and if it does feel free to ban it, but please stop stifling it's innovations just because you don't like it.

I actually love RAW discussions. The trouble here is that the rule you're trying to cite - that the original is destroyed and the replacement is a new object - is not explicitly supported in the D&D rule for the DCS, but is explicitly stated in the M:tG rule you're using to try to create an analogy.

So, not only are they two different games with somewhat different assumptions, but even if you tried to conflate them as if they were one and the same game and thus used the same rules structures, the fact that one explicitly calls it out as happening the way you describe and the other does not lends more credence to the latter NOT working that way.

The M:tG argument, at best, is as pointless as citing Chess rules in a Checkers game, and is potentially worse (for your position) undermining your argument.

[Hecuba]

I actually love RAW discussions. The trouble here is that the rule you're trying to cite - that the original is destroyed and the replacement is a new object - is not explicitly supported in the D&D rule for the DCS, but is explicitly stated in the M:tG rule you're using to try to create an analogy.

So, not only are they two different games with somewhat different assumptions, but even if you tried to conflate them as if they were one and the same game and thus used the same rules structures, the fact that one explicitly calls it out as happening the way you describe and the other does not lends more credence to the latter NOT working that way.

The M:tG argument, at best, is as pointless as citing Chess rules in a Checkers game, and is potentially worse (for your position) undermining your argument.

Well, I wouldn't say its that problematic. It does however, get away from the disagreement that seems to persist ("what is meant by 'replace'") because it uses more precise wording.

Still, trying to use "replace" to mean "change" is a stretch. To my eye, it falls just short of blatant misuse of the term. You could use "change" or "transform" or even "take the place of" and get inordinately closer to that meaning. That to me indicates that the argument has become one about lexicology. Lexicology can be important to understanding RAW (and for that matter, real-life laws), but I would take a reading that is only marginally lexically tenable as weakening the case for a particular reading rather than strengthening it.

[gooddragon1]

I actually love RAW discussions. The trouble here is that the rule you're trying to cite - that the original is destroyed and the replacement is a new object - is not explicitly supported in the D&D rule for the DCS, but is explicitly stated in the M:tG rule you're using to try to create an analogy.

So, not only are they two different games with somewhat different assumptions, but even if you tried to conflate them as if they were one and the same game and thus used the same rules structures, the fact that one explicitly calls it out as happening the way you describe and the other does not lends more credence to the latter NOT working that way.

The M:tG argument, at best, is as pointless as citing Chess rules in a Checkers game, and is potentially worse (for your position) undermining your argument.

Okay, then look at my example of temporary spell components and major creation (specifically how it disallows the use of them as such) if that's a problem.

I'm using a line of logic. MTGO being programmed into a computer uses logic. I'm showing how logically it works (RAW is heavily based on logic).

Worst case scenario imo, we have the two circumstances where it can be interpreted either way. For the DM's this can mean that it doesn't work, for the TO it means that it does. I'd rather just not hear from people who have a problem with TO.

This:

5. Intent matters.
I know, I know..."Blasphemy! No man may know the intent of the Most Holy Designers!"

Except that, in some cases, we can. In some cases, the intent is glaringly, painfully obvious. In other cases, the intent has been clarified by various WotC sources, such as CustServ.

It makes sense to take these sources at their word, people. They work with the folks who design the game, they have access to them. If a conflict comes up, then it can be resolved, but I can't help but notice that for all the talk about how CustServ never gives the same answer twice, they've been remarkably consistent of late.

It's one thing to say "This rule is vaguely worded, and we don't know the intent." It's another thing to say, "The rule is vaguely worded, and therefore I can ignore the intent."

The first is sensible caution; the second is rules lawyering. When an ambiguity has been clarified, that should be the end of it.

Is practical optimization (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1046771). It has no place in a discussion of TO. The rule is vaguely worded. We can ignore the intent... for the purposes of TO.

[Renen]

I think RAI is based waaaaay more on logic. RAW is usually illogical and silly

[Segev]

Okay, then look at my example of temporary spell components and major creation (specifically how it disallows the use of them as such) if that's a problem.This is a slightly better argument; it calls out a case where something was specifically stated, in contrast to this one, where it is not. However, it's still not quite the same: "This cannot be used in this fashion (implied due to its temporary nature)" is not the same thing as "change out this temporary thing for this other, similar thing."


I'm using a line of logic. MTGO being programmed into a computer uses logic. I'm showing how logically it works (RAW is heavily based on logic).The trouble is that RAW logic is the purest kind: it starts with premises and follows rules of logic to conclusions. You're trying to inject a premise that is not there. In MTG, it's there. In this D&D case, it is not.


Worst case scenario imo, we have the two circumstances where it can be interpreted either way. For the DM's this can mean that it doesn't work, for the TO it means that it does.False. In fact, usually, it means the contrary, since TO tends to assume a DM who does permit anything explicitly allowed by the RAW, but who rules in your disfavor when the RAW calls for a "DM call" due to lack of clarity.


I'd rather just not hear from people who have a problem with TO.Perhaps valid, but you sound petulant/sulky about it, and dismissive, rather than (as I imagine you intend to) straight-forward and clear. I would suggest pointing out, as you do later, the difference between TO and PO, and pointing out that this is a TO discussion. Telling others to sit down and shut up is rarely a good way to get them to do either, let alone to persuade them.



I think RAI is based waaaaay more on logic.Sort-of. It's based on a combination of common sense, logic, and attention to fluff to try to figure out what the goal of a rule was to simulate or to prevent.


RAW is usually illogicalFalse; the RAW is quite logical. It just has weird premises that don't always reflect our expectations from reality very well.


and sillyAbsolutely.

[atemu1234]

Can I point out my experience with MtGO involves them using a stripped down version of the rules, not the rules themselves?

[martixy]

I'm okay with discussion, but honestly, for me it's a non-issue.

Either it goes away at the end of Heroics or simply doesn't work, because it's a temporary feat.

And we all know the might-as-well-be-RAW rule for temporary things.

KISS, damn it, KISS!

[gooddragon1]

This is a slightly better argument; it calls out a case where something was specifically stated, in contrast to this one, where it is not. However, it's still not quite the same: "This cannot be used in this fashion (implied due to its temporary nature)" is not the same thing as "change out this temporary thing for this other, similar thing."

I'm going to pretend you didn't use the word petulant and focus on this.

"change out this temporary thing for this other, similar thing." -> "change out this temporary thing for this other, similar yet permanent thing. The slab of iron used in wall of iron as a material component into a permanent wall of iron. If it were possible to use it from a major creation spell, that would be temporary to permanent. I'm treating the feat as a component that is being expended to create something similar in a permanent fashion.

If you want to take refuge in semantics though, I'm going to leave that to people who like arguing semantics rather than rules and bid you good day.

[Renen]

I'm going to pretend you didn't use the word petulant and focus on this.

"change out this temporary thing for this other, similar thing." -> "change out this temporary thing for this other, similar yet permanent thing. The slab of iron used in wall of iron as a material component into a permanent wall of iron. If it were possible to use it from a major creation spell, that would be temporary to permanent. I'm treating the feat as a component that is being expended to create something similar in a permanent fashion.

If you want to take refuge in semantics though, I'm going to leave that to people who like arguing semantics rather than rules and bid you good day.

But there are no rule in DnD that says that you cant use something temporary to create something permanent. Sure, minor creation doesnt allow it's things to be used for spells, but that in no way means that ALL other temporary stuff cant be used to create permanent things.

[Segev]

I'm going to pretend you didn't use the word petulant and focus on this. Like I said, I didn't think you meant to; my apologies if I offended. It was meant as a warning as to how your tone could come across.


want to take refuge in semantics though, I'm going to leave that to people who like arguing semantics rather than rules and bid you good day.

RAW discussions hinge on semantics. >_>

[Aldrakan]

RAW discussions hinge on semantics. >_>

Kind of. I feel that a huge number of RAW discussions really end with the answer "RAW doesn't say", and then everything else is people arguing over interpretation, because English is not actually a programming language and a single sentence or word can have multiple meanings.
So saying "this is what these words mean in this context, if you disagree you're arguing semantics instead discussing the rules" is really just demanding to be able to define everything yourself.


Going back to "replace" the idea that if you replace something nothing that was going to happen to the old thing will happen to the replacement thing is very much not built into the definition of the word.

I replace an apple with an orange. If the apple was rotten, the orange is not. If the apple was about to get smashed with a hammer, the orange is still about to get smashed with a hammer.

Heroics doesn't give you a "temporary feat" (actually, if you go by http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Heroics_(3.5e_Spell) it very specifically grants you the benefits of a feat, not the feat itself, so...), that might be traded away and replaced with a permanent feat 'cause the writers didn't remember temporary feats existed when they wrote the spell, it is a spell that gives a feat and at the end takes the feat away. If you replace the feat there is nothing in the rules one way or another that says whether that feat still counts as being the one granted by Heroics.

[atemu1234]

Kind of. I feel that a huge number of RAW discussions really end with the answer "RAW doesn't say", and then everything else is people arguing over interpretation, because English is not actually a programming language and a single sentence or word can have multiple meanings.
So saying "this is what these words mean in this context, if you disagree you're arguing semantics instead discussing the rules" is really just demanding to be able to define everything yourself.


Going back to "replace" the idea that if you replace something nothing that was going to happen to the old thing will happen to the replacement thing is very much not built into the definition of the word.

I replace an apple with an orange. If the apple was rotten, the orange is not. If the apple was about to get smashed with a hammer, the orange is still about to get smashed with a hammer.

Heroics doesn't give you a "temporary feat" (actually, if you go by http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Heroics_(3.5e_Spell) it very specifically grants you the benefits of a feat, not the feat itself, so...), that might be traded away and replaced with a permanent feat 'cause the writers didn't remember temporary feats existed when they wrote the spell, it is a spell that gives a feat and at the end takes the feat away. If you replace the feat there is nothing in the rules one way or another that says whether that feat still counts as being the one granted by Heroics.

That's not the spell, FYI.

[Aldrakan]

That's not the spell, FYI.

Yeah I just mentioned it in passing cause I figured people probably wouldn't have missed something that obvious, but I actually couldn't find any other version of the spell.

[atemu1234]

Yeah I just mentioned it in passing cause I figured people probably wouldn't have missed something that obvious, but I actually couldn't find any other version of the spell.

Spell Compendium.