Ending Everything (TO trick)

[Jormengand]

This is a really, really silly trick. It, as usual for me, involves truespeak.

This begins in a way that we've already seen, but for those of us who haven't:


We'll go truenamer 1.

You require one, or possibly two donkeys. A masterwork tool of knowledge (religion) is a good idea, and if you can craft a makeshift altar, that's a good start.

Torture the donkeys, do a little ceremonial dance, make sure the donkeys you buy haven't mated (you can use mules instead, which are unlikely at best to have mated), go to a public place which no-one actually uses any more for the ceremony, craft a crude altar, make sure the donkeys actually have some hit dice (they have 2), and either invite some followers of the god to join the fun, or dupe the donkey into thinking it's going to be having happy fun times, and you end up with a nice little +8 on your check.

By using a few feats and a trait and being an illumian, you can get a +16 on your check. (Illumian (1) int 18 (4) skill ranks (4), skill focus (3), improved power sigils from flaw (1), MWK tool (2), Illiterate (1)) Add the +8, that's +24 on your check. Utter Universal Aptitude on yourself. +29. Now we're in business.

Wait until ten minutes to midnight, kill the donkey, and ask your deity for a creature who can grant you either Wish or Guidance of the Avatar. If your god is a cheapskate and you get GotA, tell the demon to cast it on you just after the clock strikes midnight, and then kill the other donkey with another universal aptitude on yourself. You now have a +49. Ask your deity for a wish.

Now, we can wish for more wishes if we need to, but here's the fun part. Let's grab a hold of the spell Truename Dispel. This ultimately rather silly spell resides in the Tome of Magic, page 260. Here's the important bit of what it does:


Effects you want to dispel are automatically removed.

That's it. All it does is remove (not dispel. Just... remove) any effect that you want to dispel. They don't even have to be magical effects affecting the target (though the spell does reveal any magical effects affecting the target). The mental image you get from that is pretty silly. Things like a dryad's tree dependence can't be dispelled, so you might really, really, deeply desire to dispel the dryad's dependence on the tree, but you can't, so you just remove it instead.

Now, what is an effect?

Spells, powers, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, damage, die modifiers, anything that grants armour or shield bonuses and isn't armour or a shield, anything that grants deflection bonuses, anything that dodge bonuses protect against, morale bonuses, and the effects of attacks are effects, and feats, conditions, being lost, quicksand, altitude, and several other things not linked to below (including traps, and, by and large, the weather) have them.

A spell is a one-time magical effect. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/magicOverview.htm) A psionic power is a one-time psionic effect. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm) You can gain [Feat] multiple times. Its effects (do not) stack. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#featDescriptions) If more than one condition affects a character, apply them all. If certain effects can’t combine, apply the most severe effect. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm) Effects of Being Lost (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#gettingLost), Effects of Quicksand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#marshTerrain), Undead, constructs, and other creatures that do not breathe are immune to altitude effects. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#mountainTravel) The effects [of being underwater] are summarized in the accompanying table. [...]Spells or spell-like effects[...] A supernatural fire effect[...] (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#underwaterCombat) If any attacks also have some special effect other than damage, that information is given here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm) In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#stacking) An armor bonus applies to Armor Class and is granted by armor or by a spell or magical effect [read the rest of this page, there are others] (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#armorBonus)

What this means is that with a single spell, you can end:

- Every spell, power, spell-like, psi-like or supernatural ability in existence.
- The benefits of feats.
- The effects of being underwater. Creatures are now no longer affected by being underwater.
- The effects of being lost. Creatures now no longer suffer from being lost.
- The effects of wind, rain, snow, and other weather.
- Damage. Creatures and objects are no longer damaged.
- Traps. The effects of traps are ended.
- Morale bonuses. All morale bonuses cease to be.
- Anything that might be avoided by a dodge bonus. The effects of attacks, and anything that is negated with reflex, end.

What you do with this newfound power, I leave up to you.

[Extra Anchovies]

I'm sorry, what? It's extremely clear that that isn't how Truename Dispel works.

This functions like the dispel magic spell, except that it always targets a creature, you learn the nature of each ongoing magical effect currently affecting the target creature, and effects you want to dispel are automatically removed (no caster level check is necessary).

This functions like the dispel magic spell, except that... effects you want to dispel are automatically removed (no caster level check is necessary).
So not only are they still dispelled (because it removes effects as Dispel Magic does, but without the CL check), but it can only remove ongoing magical effects, a quality that it inherits from Dispel Magic.

As an aside, anything that's just a way to cheese a level-1 Wish or that depends on cheesing a level-1 Wish hasn't been impressive since 2005 (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1013486).

[Jormengand]

I'm sorry, what? It's extremely clear that that isn't how Truename Dispel works.


So not only are they still dispelled (because it removes effects as Dispel Magic does, but without the CL check), but it can only remove on going magical effects, a quality that it inherits from Dispel Magic.

This argument has been had:


Right, only it doesn't say that. It says: "Effects you want to dispel are automatically removed." So you might really, really, deeply desire to dispel the dryad's dependence on the tree, but you can't, so you just remove it instead.

It reveals magical effects only, but then you can remove any effect that you want to dispel...it reveals magic effects on the creature, and also, as a separate subordinate clause, removes effects that you want to dispel. It's weird, because it's like spell rebirth: it targets a creature, and then proceeds to have an effect which is absolutely nothing to do with that creature (Spell rebirth is even weirder because it actually affects a spell that's been dispelled, and we're not quite sure if you can really talk about where a spell that's been dispelled is. In Truename Dispel's defence you're definitely at least reading effects from the creature, even if you can end them from anywhere).
No, it's not dispelling them. It doesn't say it dispels them. It says that it works like dispel magic, with some exceptions (including the fact that its functionality is basically unrelated to that of dispel magic). All it says is that if you want to dispel them, what happens is that they're removed. It's like how if you want to cast a spell on someone with spell turning, what happens is that you hit yourself. You choose which effects you want to dispel, sure, but what the spell actually does isn't to dispel them. It's just to remove them.
Because the spell explicitly lets you remove each effect you wish to dispel. This therefore means that it must be removing them in a way other than dispelling them, otherwise "Effects you want to dispel are automatically removed." simply wouldn't be true. So because that sentence is true (because it's written in the description), the removal must be unrelated to the dispulsion.

Which is silly, but there we go.


As an aside, anything that's just a way to cheese a level-1 Wish or that depends on cheesing a level-1 Wish hasn't been impressive since 2005 (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1013486).

Oh, yeah, I know, but I thought I'd better be explicit about it rather than just go "There are ways you can do this, okay! Just... believe me!"

[Extra Anchovies]

This argument has been had:

All of that would be true if "effects you want to dispel are automatically removed" were not one of the modifications it makes to the normal function of dispel magic.

You can use dispel magic to end ongoing spells that have been cast on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the magical abilities of a magic item, to end ongoing spells (or at least their effects) within an area, or to counter another spellcaster's spell.
Truename Dispel "functions like the dispel magic spell", and does not have a clause that lets you ignore the normal restriction on what Dispel Magic can and cannot do. Truename Dispel functions exactly like Dispel Magic, except as follows:

"It always targets a creature", and thus cannot be used as a counterspell or an area dispel.
"you learn the nature of each ongoing magical effect currently affecting the target creature", self-explanatory.
"effects you want to dispel are automatically removed (no caster level check is necessary)", meaning that you do not need to make any rolls to remove any effects that dispel magic is capable of removing and that are affecting the target of the Truename Dispel. Also arguable that things that prevent ongoing magical effects on a character from being dispelled are ignored by Truename Dispel, as are effects that trigger when an ongoing magical effect is dispelled.
"If you succeed on the Truespeak check, you can choose which effects you want to dispel", self-explanatory.

Anything else is intentionally ignoring how one or both spells actually work so that you can claim to have come up with another "TO Trick".

[Jormengand]

effects that dispel magic is capable of removing

No. It simply removes all effects that you want to dispel. It works like DM, sure, but then it also goes ahead and removes any effects that you want to dispel on top of the normal functionality of dispel magic. If you succeed on your check, you can choose which effects you want to dispel. You are not limited in this choice. You freely choose, out of all those things which are effects, which ones you want to dispel. Then, the spell ends them. At most you can argue that it acts as a creature-targeted dispel magic, and then also has those effects, but you can't try to argue that something it specifically adds as an additional functionality of the spell isn't true. Again, the spell explicitly lets you remove each effect you wish to dispel. This therefore means that it must be removing them in a way other than dispelling them, otherwise "Effects you want to dispel are automatically removed." simply wouldn't be true.

[Extra Anchovies]

No. It simply removes all effects that you want to dispel.

Effects that you want to dispel that can be removed by Dispel Magic, yes, because it inherits all of its properties (including what it can and cannot affect in the first place) from Dispel Magic. The line you're hung up on is only there to say that you don't need to roll.


It works like DM, sure, but then it also goes ahead and removes any effects that you want to dispel on top of the normal functionality of dispel magic.

Without a clause stating that it can remove things other than ongoing magical effects, it can only remove ongoing magical effects.


If you succeed on your check, you can choose which effects you want to dispel. You are not limited in this choice.

You are limited in that choice, because there it says "dispel", so you're dispelling them and thus can't choose things other than ongoing magical effects. Either that or you're not dispelling them, and succeeding on the check does nothing.


You freely choose, out of all those things which are effects, which ones you want to dispel. Then, the spell ends them.

No, you freely choose, out of all those things which dispel magic can affect, which ones you want to dispel, because Truename Dispel functions as dispel magic.


At most you can argue that it acts as a creature-targeted dispel magic, and then also has those effects, but you can't try to argue that something it specifically adds as an additional functionality of the spell isn't true.

Again, it's a modifier to Dispel Magic, so anything it doesn't say that it doesn't inherit from dispel magic, is inherited from dispel magic. Like which sorts of things it can remove from the target.


Again, the spell explicitly lets you remove each effect you wish to dispel. This therefore means that it must be removing them in a way other than dispelling them, otherwise "Effects you want to dispel are automatically removed." simply wouldn't be true.

The most you can get out of that is that it overcomes any immunity to dispelling that an ongoing magical effect has, because it removes dispellable effects instead of dispelling them. However, making the Truespeak check lets you "choose which effects you want to dispel", implying that they are dispelled.

[sovin_ndore]

I am with Anchovies on this one.

If it functions "exactly like dispel magic, except ..." the further text would explain how it is different from Dispel Magic. This is really a gramatical function and not really a matter of interpretation. Dispel Magic has already defined a set of 'effects' which are affected by the spell. The fact that it references caster level checks being modified as a part of the same sentance you are wanting to have override everything we know about dispelling also helps clarify the subject matter they are referring to as being the text of Dispel Magic. Basically the RAW grammer argument provides, at multiple points, a level of disambiguation which is not in favor of your 'TO trick' interpretation.

[Jormengand]

Effects that you want to dispel that can be removed by Dispel Magic, yes, because it inherits all of its properties (including what it can and cannot affect in the first place) from Dispel Magic.

Right, but dispel magic ENDS and DISPELS things, and is restricted on the types of things it can END and DISPEL. Dispel Magic has no stipulations on the types of things it can REMOVE. The only stipulation on what Truename Dispel can REMOVE is that it must be an effect that you WANT to DISPEL, except that it doesn't DISPEL it, it REMOVES it. It works very much like dispel magic inasmuch that it stops things from functioning, but the mechanics of how it does this are different.

[sovin_ndore]

Right, but dispel magic ENDS and DISPELS things, and is restricted on the types of things it can END and DISPEL. Dispel Magic has no stipulations on the types of things it can REMOVE. The only stipulation on what Truename Dispel can REMOVE is that it must be an effect that you WANT to DISPEL, except that it doesn't DISPEL it, it REMOVES it. It works very much like dispel magic inasmuch that it stops things from functioning, but the mechanics of how it does this are different.

If it only "works very much like Dispel Magic", I don't think it would read that it "functions exactly like Dispel Magic".

[daremetoidareyo]

Assuming Anchovies interpretation is not the case. Can you remove the "king"?

[Brova]

How is this in any way different from iron heart surge, except that the ability is more ambiguous?

[Enran]

"I cast Truename Dispel!" "I Iron Heart Surge it!"

And thus did the universe cease to be.

[Jormengand]

If it only "works very much like Dispel Magic", I don't think it would read that it "functions exactly like Dispel Magic".

No, it doesn't say it functions exactly like dispel magic. It says it functions like dispel magic except that it affects different targets, does additional things, is restricted in different ways, and requires a different check. Hence, "This functions like the dispel magic spell, except that it always targets a creature, you learn the nature of each ongoing magical effect currently affecting the target creature, and effects you want to dispel are automatically removed (no caster level check is necessary)."


How is this in any way different from iron heart surge, except that the ability is more ambiguous?

Because "Effects you want to dispel" covers a lot more things than "spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds." It's very hard to argue that you on the Prime Material are really being affected by that fighter duking it out with the Rabble of Devilkin in Avernus and his whirlwind attack or heavy armour proficiency.

Also, you can do it a lot faster: one spell will cover every effect in existence.


"I cast Truename Dispel!" "I Iron Heart Surge it!"

And thus did the universe cease to be.

Unfortunately, TD does not have a duration of 1 or more rounds, and cannot be IHSed.

[Chronos]

We agree that Truename Dispel can remove spells with a caster level of 20, right? Dispel Magic can't do that. So there's already precedent that Truename Dispel can work on things that Dispel Magic can't. How many other things can it do that Dispel Magic can't?

[Jormengand]

We agree that Truename Dispel can remove spells with a caster level of 20, right? Dispel Magic can't do that. So there's already precedent that Truename Dispel can work on things that Dispel Magic can't. How many other things can it do that Dispel Magic can't?

Choose which effects to remove, reveal all effects on the creature, "See[...] strands of magic and[...] separate them", "Cause a grey haze to swirl around your target briefly". Oh, and remove effects, rather than just spells, of course.

[Brova]

Because "Effects you want to dispel" covers a lot more things than "spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds." It's very hard to argue that you on the Prime Material are really being affected by that fighter duking it out with the Rabble of Devilkin in Avernus and his whirlwind attack or heavy armour proficiency.

You are being affected by the condition of "creatures existing which pose a credible threat to you". Those creatures have a duration of more than 1 round. There's no indication the condition has to be one you know about, or that it can't be multiple things.

[Jormengand]

You are being affected by the condition of "creatures existing which pose a credible threat to you".

That's not what a Condition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm) is, though. The Conditions are Ability Damaged, Ability Drained, Blinded, Blown Away, Checked, Confused, Cowering, Dazed, Dazzled, Dead, Deafened, Disabled, Dying, Energy Drained, Entangled, Exhausted, Fascinated, Fatigued, Flat-Footed, Frightened, Grappling, Helpless, Incorporeal, Invisible, Knocked Down, Nauseated, Panicked, Paralyzed, Petrified, Pinned, Prone, Shaken, Sickened, Stable, Staggered, Stunned, Turned and Unconscious. In the same way that negative levels undeniably damage you in a literal sense, but they are not damage and enervation is not a damage-dealing spell, so an ability that countered damage-dealing spells or prevented the taking of damage wouldn't stop it.

[AvatarVecna]

FWIW, Iron Heart Surge isn't broken because it ends conditions, but because it ends spells, conditions, and "effects" that affect you for more than 1 round. "Spell" and "condition" are well-defined by the rules, but effect is unfortunately very open-ended, leading to interpretations like "gravity is an effect, so I IHS the planet away, since it was causing the effect of gravity to affect me". While it's silly, it seems about as silly as this particular interpretation of Truename Dispel, at least IMO, but whatever.

[Jormengand]

FWIW, Iron Heart Surge isn't broken because it ends conditions, but because it ends spells, conditions, and "effects" that affect you for more than 1 round. "Spell" and "condition" are well-defined by the rules, but effect is unfortunately very open-ended, leading to interpretations like "gravity is an effect, so I IHS the planet away, since it was causing the effect of gravity to affect me". While it's silly, it seems about as silly as this particular interpretation of Truename Dispel, at least IMO, but whatever.

Right, okay, but at least we have an idea of certain things which explicitly are, or have, effects. Even if you decide that only the specific effects called out as being effects are in fact effects, Ending Everything is still extremely effective, whereas IHS... isn't, reall

Further, because IHS only ends the effect, not the cause, it would end gravity, not the earth. The earth isn't an effect.

[AvatarVecna]

Further, because IHS only ends the effect, not the cause, it would end gravity, not the earth. The earth isn't an effect.

True, but you're forgetting: anything can be considered an "effect" if you nitpick hard enough.

[Jormengand]

True, but you're forgetting: anything can be considered an "effect" if you nitpick hard enough.

An effect is "A change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause." Gravity counts, or at least the impulse caused by gravity counts, but the earth is not a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

[AvatarVecna]

An effect is "A change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause." Gravity counts, or at least the impulse caused by gravity counts, but the earth is not a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

Certainly. But I'm pretty sure the Earth will have some issues if the gravity gets shut off. Recall that IHS doesn't just end the effect on you, it ends the effect period. That could cause some issues.

[Jormengand]

Certainly. But I'm pretty sure the Earth will have some issues if the gravity gets shut off. Recall that IHS doesn't just end the effect on you, it ends the effect period. That could cause some issues.

True, but more issues could be caused by ending all effects.

[MorgromTheOrc]

No, it doesn't say it functions exactly like dispel magic. It says it functions like dispel magic except that it affects different targets, does additional things, is restricted in different ways, and requires a different check. Hence, "This functions like the dispel magic spell, except that it always targets a creature, you learn the nature of each ongoing magical effect currently affecting the target creature, and effects you want to dispel are automatically removed (no caster level check is necessary)."



Because "Effects you want to dispel" covers a lot more things than "spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds." It's very hard to argue that you on the Prime Material are really being affected by that fighter duking it out with the Rabble of Devilkin in Avernus and his whirlwind attack or heavy armour proficiency.

Also, you can do it a lot faster: one spell will cover every effect in existence.



Unfortunately, TD does not have a duration of 1 or more rounds, and cannot be IHSed.

If it permanently removes it then doesn't it technically have a duration of infinite rounds? :smallcool: At least if we want to take loopholes in the wording as rules binding around here.

[Brova]

FWIW, Iron Heart Surge isn't broken because it ends conditions, but because it ends spells, conditions, and "effects" that affect you for more than 1 round. "Spell" and "condition" are well-defined by the rules, but effect is unfortunately very open-ended, leading to interpretations like "gravity is an effect, so I IHS the planet away, since it was causing the effect of gravity to affect me". While it's silly, it seems about as silly as this particular interpretation of Truename Dispel, at least IMO, but whatever.

Eh, looks like I guessed wrong as to which of those was rigorously defined. I think my point still stands, however. IHS did everything this trick tries to do.

[Jormengand]

If it permanently removes it then doesn't it technically have a duration of infinite rounds? :smallcool: At least if we want to take loopholes in the wording as rules binding around here.

Duration instantaneous. :smalltongue:



Incidentally, another reason ending all effects is better is that you have degrees of response, and can end your own ending all effects spell if you mess up. Because IHS doesn't have a duration either (that's a point, too: the earth's duration isn't measured in rounds) you can't undo a slip up. With ending all effects, you have more options than just "I turn off earth/gravity/the sun". IHS may be as powerful in terms of how much you can screw up, but ending all effects is actually more selective. It's like the difference between familicide, and choosing whether to kill each individual black dragon, and you can change your mind later. And we all know how much better that would have turned out.

I've decided that it's now called Ending All Effects, in tribute to the webcomic Gaia. :smalltongue:

[Brova]

I'm still not seeing a difference. There's no reason why "the set X (contains A, B, and C)" could be ended by iron heart surge but "the set Y (contains A and B)" couldn't be.

[Jormengand]

I'm still not seeing a difference. There's no reason why "the set X (contains A, B, and C)" could be ended by iron heart surge but "the set Y (contains A and B)" couldn't be.

The trouble is, you end up having to phrase what you want to do with IHS like the way you would do with Wish if you take the interpretation that anything you like is an effect. Take your example of "creatures existing which pose a credible threat to you". This effect could be ended by your utter destruction: there would therefore be no creatures existing which pose a credible threat to you. If you take the interpretation that only things which are actually effects are effects (the same way only things called out as dealing damage deal damage, and only things that are called out as letting you fly let you fly), then you'll need to end each one individually. For example, the effect of each fighter bonus feat has to be ended. Plus, you have to find a convincing reason why each one of those is affecting you, now, personally. Ending all effects bypasses that.

[Brova]

This effect could be ended by your utter destruction: there would therefore be no creatures existing which pose a credible threat to you.

No it can't, or at least, the permutation of request where it can't is trivial. Things which have the property "credible threat to me" don't stop having that property if I don't exist, it's just not a useful property.

Also, I'm not sure why this trick doesn't require rigorous definitions as well.


If you take the interpretation that only things which are actually effects are effects (the same way only things called out as dealing damage deal damage, and only things that are called out as letting you fly let you fly), then you'll need to end each one individually. For example, the effect of each fighter bonus feat has to be ended. Plus, you have to find a convincing reason why each one of those is affecting you, now, personally. Ending all effects bypasses that.

There's no definition of "effect". Nor is there any logic to suggest that effects have to be singular. Considering Power Attack. Power Attack existing at all is a threat to me. There's zero reason in any description that Power Attack has to be ended for each creature that has it.

As far as "affecting" goes, that also has no definition (in game terms). You can make the claim that things which can kill you affect you by existing, and thus causing you to be afraid of death.

[Jormengand]

No it can't, or at least, the permutation of request where it can't is trivial. Things which have the property "credible threat to me" don't stop having that property if I don't exist, it's just not a useful property.

The effect "There are things with a credible threat to me" is removed, because it's quite clearly not true if there is no you to threaten.


Also, I'm not sure why this trick doesn't require rigorous definitions as well.
It does, it's just that, where was I, oh yes:

"Spells, powers, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, damage, die modifiers, anything that grants armour or shield bonuses and isn't armour or a shield, anything that grants deflection bonuses, anything that dodge bonuses protect against, morale bonuses, and the effects of attacks are effects, and feats, conditions, being lost, quicksand, altitude, and several other things not linked to below (including traps, and, by and large, the weather) have them."

That's a lot of things. But notice that feats have effects. They don't have an effect between them. You can't end the effects of multiple things with one IHS.


There's no definition of "effect". Nor is there any logic to suggest that effects have to be singular. Considering Power Attack. Power Attack existing at all is a threat to me. There's zero reason in any description that Power Attack has to be ended for each creature that has it.

Please. The effects of more than one Extra Turning, Greater Spell Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialisation, Skill Focus, Spell Focus, Toughness, Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialisation on the same person are called out as plural.


As far as "affecting" goes, that also has no definition (in game terms). You can make the claim that things which can kill you affect you by existing, and thus causing you to be afraid of death.

Well, you're clearly not shaken, panicked or frightened by death, so I wouldn't say you were affected at all. In fact, one might even say it's not having any effect on you. :smallamused:

[Troacctid]

Regardless of whether you think Truename Dispel can affect non-spell effects, it still only affects the target, and it can't affect anything outside its range.

[Brova]

The effect "There are things with a credible threat to me" is removed, because it's quite clearly not true if there is no you to threaten.

Depends. Consider the phrase "taller than me". If I'm 6' 1", then people who are 6' 2" or taller are "taller than me". That's just a property they have, set off of a base value. Similarly, "credible threat to me" works the same way.


That's a lot of things. But notice that feats have effects. They don't have an effect between them. You can't end the effects of multiple things with one IHS.

You can end "people having Power Attack". Similarly, you can end "people having feats" or "elves having immunity to sleep". Or whatever.


Well, you're clearly not shaken, panicked or frightened by death, so I wouldn't say you were affected at all. In fact, one might even say it's not having any effect on you. :smallamused:

"Affected" is not defined by the rules. Nothing in the game suggests that you can't feel fear without being shaken, simply that it has no game mechanical effect.

[Jormengand]

Regardless of whether you think Truename Dispel can affect non-spell effects, it still only affects the target, and it can't affect anything outside its range.

No, it doesn't.
"
Effects you want to dispel are automatically removed.
That's it. All it does is remove (not dispel. Just... remove) any effect that you want to dispel. They don't even have to be magical effects affecting the target (though the spell does reveal any magical effects affecting the target)."

As for the range, that's fine: just wish for a CL 10100,000 item of the spell and hope that covers it.


Depends. Consider the phrase "taller than me". If I'm 6' 1", then people who are 6' 2" or taller are "taller than me". That's just a property they have, set off of a base value. Similarly, "credible threat to me" works the same way.

Right, so a credible way of ending the effect "There are people taller than me" is to increase your own height.


You can end "people having Power Attack". Similarly, you can end "people having feats" or "elves having immunity to sleep". Or whatever.

Right, only those aren't actually effects because nothing says they are effects.


"Affected" is not defined by the rules. Nothing in the game suggests that you can't feel fear without being shaken, simply that it has no game mechanical effect.

Right, so you aren't actually affected by it, from a game mechanic point of view.

[Troacctid]

No, it doesn't.
Yes it does.

Target: One creature
Spells only affect their targets, and only out to the limits of their range. That's just how the rules for spells work. Truename Dispel doesn't have any power over anyone or anything other than the targeted creature.

[Extra Anchovies]

That's it. All it does is remove (not dispel. Just... remove) any effect that you want to dispel. They don't even have to be magical effects affecting the target (though the spell does reveal any magical effects affecting the target).

If you're going to keep taking that clause without the remainder of the sentence, removing it from the only context in which it can be applied, then you're going to keep reading the spell incorrectly. When you quote that one part of the sentence and say "that's it", you are wrong. That isn't it.


This spell enables you to see the strands of magic surround- ing your target and selectively separate them. This functions like the dispel magic spell, except that it always targets a creature, you learn the nature of each ongoing magical effect currently affecting the target creature, and effects you want to dispel are automatically removed (no caster level check is necessary). If you succeed on the Truespeak check, you can choose which effects you want to dispel. Thus, you can eliminate harmful effects while retaining beneficial ones—or vice versa.
Truename Component: When you cast this spell, you must correctly speak the personal truename of the creature you’re targeting with truename dispel.
That's it. Everything I've said in my second and third posts here (posts 4 and 6 in the whole thread) still holds true, and you're still either completely ignorant of how the two spells work or you're willingly ignoring how the two spells work, but either way your "trick" doesn't hold any water.

[Jormengand]

Spells only affect their targets

Oh do they?


Target or Targets

Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.

If the target of a spell is yourself (the spell description has a line that reads Target: You), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The Saving Throw and Spell Resistance lines are omitted from such spells.

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Funny how it doesn't say anything about how spells only affect their... hang on, there's a better example. Ghoul Touch.


Target: Living humanoid touched

causes all living creatures (except you) in a 10-foot-radius spread to become sickened (Fortitude negates).




If you're going to keep taking that clause without the remainder of the sentence, removing it from the only context in which it can be applied, then you're going to keep reading the spell incorrectly. When you quote that one part of the sentence and say "that's it", you are wrong. That isn't it.


That's it. Everything I've said in my second and third posts here (posts 4 and 6 in the whole thread) still holds true, and you're still either completely ignorant of how the two spells work or you're willingly ignoring how the two spells work, but either way your "trick" doesn't hold any water.

Tempting though it is to ignore you until you start debating with some level of respect rather than acting all high and mighty, let's have a look at the except clause.


This functions like the dispel magic spell, except that it always targets a creature, you learn the nature of each ongoing magical effect currently affecting the target creature, and effects you want to dispel are automatically removed (no caster level check is necessary). If you succeed on the Truespeak check, you can choose which effects you want to dispel. Thus, you can eliminate harmful effects while retaining beneficial ones—or vice versa.

Right, so what do we know? We know that:

- It no longer targets "One spellcaster, creature, or object; or 20-ft.-radius burst" and now targets "A creature".
- It has the additional functionality of revealing "The nature of each ongoing magical effect currently affecting the target creature".
- It no longer has the restriction of only affecting spells. It instead has the restriction of only affecting effects you want to dispel.
- It no longer dispels or ends spells. It now removes effects.
- It no longer requires a caster level check. Instead, it requires a truespeak check.

Obviously, "Effects you want to dispel are automatically removed" is explicitly an exception to the normal rules of dispel magic, which is why it says "Except that". It is not also subject to their rules, it repeals and replaces the normal rule of them having to be spells. It automatically removes effects you want to dispel.

[Brova]

Right, so a credible way of ending the effect "There are people taller than me" is to increase your own height.

It depends on whether "taller than me" is evaluated once (it snapshots your height, tags everyone taller than that, and removes them), or continuously (it makes changes until "is there someone taller than me?" comes up "no").


Right, only those aren't actually effects because nothing says they are effects.

There's no exclusive or inclusive definition of "effects". There are examples, but no definition.


Right, so you aren't actually affected by it, from a game mechanic point of view.

Again, no definition.

[Troacctid]

Ghoul Touch is dysfunctional, as its area extends past its range. There are a bunch of other spells that are similarly dysfunctional, probably because the writers just forgot about that rule.

[Jormengand]

It depends on whether "taller than me" is evaluated once (it snapshots your height, tags everyone taller than that, and removes them), or continuously (it makes changes until "is there someone taller than me?" comes up "no")

There's no exclusive or inclusive definition of "effects". There are examples, but no definition.

Again, no definition.

The whole point, really, is that nothing's actually an effect unless:

- It's called out as one.
- There is a definition.

You can say "Well, there's no definition to rule out the sun, so I say it's an effect" and I can say "Well, nothing in the fireball description says it doesn't let you fly, so clearly the spell must let you fly."


Ghoul Touch is dysfunctional, as its area extends past its range. There are a bunch of other spells that are similarly dysfunctional, probably because the writers just forgot about that rule.

Right, and that's fine, but that doesn't stop TD affecting nontarget creatures.

[Brova]

You can say "Well, there's no definition to rule out the sun, so I say it's an effect" and I can say "Well, nothing in the fireball description says it doesn't let you fly, so clearly the spell must let you fly."

That depends on whether "effects" is an inclusive or exclusive set. And frankly, I don't think the analogy of granting an ability versus being in a category is very compelling.

[Extra Anchovies]

- It no longer dispels or ends spells. It now removes effects.

...no.

If you succeed on the Truespeak check, you can choose which effects you want to dispel.
So you're still dispelling something. In this case, it's the effects on the target. They're still dispelled, because it inherits that from Dispel Magic (due to its lacking a clause about how in addition to being removed they also aren't dispelled).


Right, and that's fine, but that doesn't stop TD affecting nontarget creatures.

Targeted dispel magic doesn't affect nontarget creatures, truename dispel inherits all of its rules from dispel magic unless otherwise specified, there's nothing in TD's description that lets you remove non-magical effects even if you're removing rather than dispelling them, and there's nothing in TD's description that lets you affect nontarget creatures. It's that simple.

[Troacctid]

And you wouldn't be able to get rid of extraordinary effects regardless, because Truename Dispel is an effect that negates or disrupts magic, and effects that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities.


Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities.(And, of course, the spell says it only negates magical effects, so there's that.)

[Jormengand]

...no.

So you're still dispelling something. In this case, it's the effects on the target. They're still dispelled, because it inherits that from Dispel Magic (due to its lacking a clause about how in addition to being removed they also aren't dispelled).


Targeted dispel magic doesn't affect nontarget creatures, truename dispel inherits all of its rules from dispel magic unless otherwise specified, there's nothing in TD's description that lets you remove non-magical effects even if you're removing rather than dispelling them, and there's nothing in TD's description that lets you affect nontarget creatures. It's that simple.

Right, so you're saying that because DM dispels effects on the target creature, TD's completely unrelated clause on removing effects you want to dispel (not do, want to. I thought I'd made that clear) but apparently not) is also affected? If there were a spell which also dealt damage to the target creature, would you say it didn't work because it's still restricted to only affecting spells? Come on.


And you wouldn't be able to get rid of extraordinary effects regardless, because Truename Dispel is an effect that negates or disrupts magic, and effects that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities.

(And, of course, the spell says it only negates magical effects, so there's that.)

So's stabbing someone in the face. That's more a problem with the description of ex abilities than Ending Everything, but Ex abilities aren't effects anyway so TD doesn't remove them.

No, it reveals magical and removes all.

[Extra Anchovies]

Right, so you're saying that because DM dispels effects on the target creature, TD's completely unrelated clause on removing effects you want to dispel (not do, want to. I thought I'd made that clear) but apparently not) is also affected? If there were a spell which also dealt damage to the target creature, would you say it didn't work because it's still restricted to only affecting spells? Come on.

something something high and mighty

Ignoring your tone, the assertion that your favorite part of Truename Dispel is unrelated to Dispel Magic (despite appearing in the sentence in which the spell is inherently linked to Dispel Magic) is not on any solid foundation. As is your continued belief that the fact that Truename Dispel does not explicitly dispel the effects that it removes expands the list of effects it can remove beyond those removable by Dispel Magic.

Truename Dispel would have to explicitly state that it works on effects that Dispel Magic does not work on in order to work on effects that Dispel Magic does not work on. Truename Dispel does not explicitly state that it works on effects that Dispel Magic does not work on in order to work on effects that Dispel Magic does not work on. Truename Dispel does not work on effects that Dispel Magic does not work on.

That's how things work in an exception-based rules system. I don't know how I can make it any clearer than that.

[Jormengand]

Ignoring your tone, the assertion that your favorite part of Truename Dispel is unrelated to Dispel Magic (despite appearing in the sentence in which the spell is inherently linked to Dispel Magic) is not on any solid foundation. As is your continued belief that the fact that Truename Dispel does not explicitly dispel the effects that it removes expands the list of effects it can remove beyond those removable by Dispel Magic.

Truename Dispel would have to explicitly state that it works on effects that Dispel Magic does not work on in order to work on effects that Dispel Magic does not work on. Truename Dispel does not explicitly state that it works on effects that Dispel Magic does not work on in order to work on effects that Dispel Magic does not work on. Truename Dispel does not work on effects that Dispel Magic does not work on.

That's how things work in an exception-based rules system. I don't know how I can make it any clearer than that.

I'm just going to repeat my point about dealing damage to the creature. Under your interpretation, a spell which "Works like dispel magic, except that it deals 10d6 damage to each creature affected" flat out would not work, because the damage can only be dealt to spells, because only spells can be dispelled, and the fact that damage and dispulsion are not the same thing doesn't seem to bother you.

As another example, would you say that greater glyph of warding's spell glyph can only "Store any harmful spell of 3rd level or lower that you know," because while it "Can store a spell of 6th level or lower," this doesn't actually remove the restriction that it has to be of 3rd level or lower. Or worse, do you think that it allows you to store two spells, one third level or lower, and one 6th level or lower? Of course not: it's a replacement effect. And it just so happens that truename dispel affecting effects, and not even mentioning spells in the entire description, is also a replacement for the usual effects of dispel magic, which is why it is in fact part of a clause whose sole purpose in life is to describe ways in which this spell is not the same as dispel magic.

[Extra Anchovies]

I'm just going to repeat my point about dealing damage to the creature. Under your interpretation, a spell which "Works like dispel magic, except that it deals 10d6 damage to each creature affected" flat out would not work, because the damage can only be dealt to spells, because only spells can be dispelled, and the fact that damage and dispulsion are not the same thing doesn't seem to bother you.

My point is that if a spell that inherits from another spell makes no mention of a particular aspect of a certain part of the first spell, that certain part of the first spell (for TD and DM, the fact that only ongoing magical affects on the target are dispelled and/or removed) carries over. This is not about adding new effects (which makes the whole dispel+damage thing irrelevant, so I won't take the time to talk about how it's wrong), because "effects you want to dispel are automatically removed (no caster level check is necessary)" is not adding a new part to the spell. It is, in fact, removing a part of the first spell, that part being "You make a dispel check (1d20 + your caster level, maximum +10) against the spell or against each ongoing spell currently in effect on the object or creature".


As another example, would you say that greater glyph of warding's spell glyph can only "Store any harmful spell of 3rd level or lower that you know," because while it "Can store a spell of 6th level or lower," this doesn't actually remove the restriction that it has to be of 3rd level or lower. Or worse, do you think that it allows you to store two spells, one third level or lower, and one 6th level or lower? Of course not: it's a replacement effect.

This isn't about replacing or altering parts of a spell, either. "effects you want to dispel are automatically removed (no caster level check is necessary)" is not an addition, and it is not a replacement - it is a removal, specifically of the need for a caster level check. And nothing more.


And it just so happens that truename dispel affecting effects, and not even mentioning spells in the entire description, is also a replacement for the usual effects of dispel magic, which is why it is in fact part of a clause whose sole purpose in life is to describe ways in which this spell is not the same as dispel magic.

Without a clause saying that TD can affect things that DM cannot, the correct way to read "effects you want to dispel are automatically removed (no caster level check is necessary)" is "effects you want to dispel [that can be affected by Dispel Magic] are automatically removed (no caster level check is necessary)". It's a removal of the caster level check, not an expansion of the list of effects that can be removed by the spell.

At least this thread is exercising my ability to determine whether I should be using "affect(s)" or "effect(s)".

[Jormengand]

This isn't about replacing or altering parts of a spell, either. "effects you want to dispel are automatically removed (no caster level check is necessary)" is not an addition, and it is not a replacement - it is a removal, specifically of the need for a caster level check. And nothing more.

No, it is removal of effects. Dispel magic only stipulates what kind of effects can be dispelled or ended. It does not talk about what kind of effects can be removed. While truename dispel may only have any effect on effects that you want to dispel, it does not actually dispel them. The only stipulation on what dispel magic can effect is "Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this". All other stipulations only refer to what happens when something is dispelled or ended, not when it is removed. So in fact, "effects you want to dispel [that can be affected by Dispel Magic] are automatically removed (no caster level check is necessary)" include all effects that are not artifacts or deities.

Which is a pain, because I was looking forward to screwing with deities.

[Extra Anchovies]

No, it is removal of effects. Dispel magic only stipulates what kind of effects can be dispelled or ended.

I think you're confused about what removal I was talking about. I was referring to TD's removal of the DM stipulation that you have to make a CL check.


It does not talk about what kind of effects can be removed.

Dispel Magic actually does talk about what effects it can remove - the effects of ongoing spells and spell-like effects.

You can use dispel magic to end ongoing spells that have been cast on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the magical abilities of a magic item, to end ongoing spells (or at least their effects) within an area, or to counter another spellcaster's spell.

...

Dispel magic can dispel (but not counter) spell-like effects just as it does spells.


While truename dispel may only have any effect on effects that you want to dispel, it does not actually dispel them.

The bolded section is true, but because TD inherits from DM unless stated otherwise, DM dispels the effects that it removes, and TD doesn't state that the removed effects aren't also dispelled, TD does dispel the effects that it removes. TD doesn't need to affirm that they're dispelled because DM already does so and it inherits from DM, but it would need to affirm that they aren't dispelled because this is an exception-based rules system.


The only stipulation on what dispel magic can effect is "Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this".

No. It also states that it can be used to "end ongoing spells that have been cast on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the magical abilities of a magic item, to end ongoing spells (or at least their effects) within an area, or to counter another spellcaster's spell".


All other stipulations only refer to what happens when something is dispelled or ended, not when it is removed.

No, see above re: stipulations on what dispel magic can affect.


So in fact, "effects you want to dispel [that can be affected by Dispel Magic] are automatically removed (no caster level check is necessary)" include all effects that are not artifacts or deities.

No, see above re: what kind of effects DM can remove.

[Jormengand]

The bolded section is true, but because TD inherits from DM unless stated otherwise, DM dispels the effects that it removes

No, because dispulsion and removal are unrelated. Dispulsion is a subset of ending, but hasn't anything to do with removal. If TD said it ended spells, I might buy that argument, but it doesn't. It removes them. It's like you saying that my hypothetical Burning Dispel dispels the creature it deals damage to. It doesn't, because dealing damage isn't actually the same thing as dispelling.

[Extra Anchovies]

No, because dispulsion and removal are unrelated. Dispulsion is a subset of ending, but hasn't anything to do with removal. If TD said it ended spells, I might buy that argument, but it doesn't. It removes them.

If you think that removing an effect doesn't end it and ending an effect doesn't remove it, then I don't know what to say to you. Casting dispel magic on someone ends, and thus removes, ongoing magical effects affecting them, and casting TD removes, and thus ends, ongoing magical effects affecting them.


It's like you saying that my hypothetical Burning Dispel dispels the creature it deals damage to. It doesn't, because dealing damage isn't actually the same thing as dispelling.

I still don't get what you're saying about this. DM targets a creature, object, or area. DM+damage would target (and thus deal damage to) a creature, object, or area unless otherwise stated. DM does not target spells. DM+damage would not deal damage to spells. DM dispels ongoing magical effects on the target. DM+damage does the same. DM does not dispel creatures. DM+damage would not dispel creatures unless it explicitly said that it did, because it otherwise inherits DM's not dispelling creatures.

[Jormengand]

If you think that removing an effect doesn't end it and ending an effect doesn't remove it, then I don't know what to say to you. Casting dispel magic on someone ends, and thus removes, ongoing magical effects affecting them, and casting TD removes, and thus ends, ongoing magical effects affecting them.

Right, of course, except that you're trying to say that because DM dispels things, TD must also dispel them, even when removal isn't necessarily the same thing as dispulsion.


I still don't get what you're saying about this. DM targets a creature, object, or area. DM+damage would target (and thus deal damage to) a creature, object, or area unless otherwise stated. DM does not target spells. DM+damage would not deal damage to spells. DM dispels ongoing magical effects on the target. DM+damage does the same. DM does not dispel creatures. DM+damage would not dispel creatures unless it explicitly said that it did, because it otherwise inherits DM's not dispelling creatures.

My point is this: Removal is not necessarily dispulsion. You are declaring that because DM dispels things, anything that TD does that could possibly be dispulsion, is dispulsion. You might as well state that dealing damage to someone is dispulsion, just because Burning Dispel does it, and Burning Dispel is based on DM, so BD isn't allowed to do things that DM does (like damage, removal, or revealing all magic effects on the target).

[Extra Anchovies]

Right, of course, except that you're trying to say that because DM dispels things, TD must also dispel them, even when removal isn't necessarily the same thing as dispulsion.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying.

DM dispels the things that it removes/ends
TD inherits from DM expect where stated otherwise
TD does not state that it does not dispel the things that it removes/ends,
∴
TD dispels the things that it removes/ends


My point is this: Removal is not necessarily dispulsion. You are declaring that because DM dispels things, anything that TD does that could possibly be dispulsion, is dispulsion. You might as well state that dealing damage to someone is dispulsion, just because Burning Dispel does it, and Burning Dispel is based on DM, so BD isn't allowed to do things that DM does (like damage, removal, or revealing all magic effects on the target).

What I'm declaring is that because DM removes/ends ongoing magical effects by dispelling them, anything that TD does that removes/ends ongoing magical effects is also dispelling them. Does damage remove/end an ongoing magical effect? No. Even if it kills a creature and the creature's death causes an ongoing magical effect to end, it's the creature's death that removed/ended the ongoing magical effect, not the damage. And if the damage breaks active concentration on a spell? It was the lapse in concentration that removed/ended the effect, not the damage.

[Jormengand]

What I'm declaring is that because DM removes/ends ongoing magical effects by dispelling them, anything that TD does that removes/ends ongoing magical effects is also dispelling them.

What, even if they're entirely unrelated effects that aren't even worded in the same way, and which explicitly affect a different type of thing from dispel magic, so dispelling them doesn't even make any sense? Not buying it.

[Extra Anchovies]

Again, without a clause explicitly stating that TD can affect things that DM cannot, TD cannot affect things that DM cannot. There is no such clause. The clause "effects you want to dispel are automatically removed (no caster level check is necessary)" removes the need for a caster level check, and does not change the list of effects that can be removed/ended by TD to be different from those that can be removed by DM. The only effects that DM can remove/end are the effects of ongoing spells and spell-like effects:

You can use dispel magic to end ongoing spells that have been cast on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the magical abilities of a magic item, to end ongoing spells (or at least their effects) within an area, or to counter another spellcaster's spell.

...

Dispel magic can dispel (but not counter) spell-like effects just as it does spells.

[Jormengand]

"effects you want to dispel are automatically removed (no caster level check is necessary)" removes the need for a caster level check, and does not change the list of effects that can be removed/ended by TD to be different from those that can be removed by DM.

Yes, it does. It changes it to "Effects you want to dispel".

Let's be clear about this. TD stipulates that "Effects you want to dispel are automatically removed." That means that if there is an effect that you wanted to dispel, and it wasn't just removed, you didn't just cast truename dispel.

[Extra Anchovies]

Yes, it does. It changes it to "Effects you want to dispel".


Again, without a clause explicitly stating that TD can affect things that DM cannot, TD cannot affect things that DM cannot. There is no such clause.
Even if it changes it to "effects you want to dispel", it's still subject to the constraint imposed by Dispel Magic, because Dispel Magic has a set list of effects that it can dispel (i.e. the effects of ongoing spells, and the effects of ongoing spell-like effects), and Truename Dispel does not say that it ignores that constraint.



Let's be clear about this. TD stipulates that "Effects you want to dispel are automatically removed." That means that if there is an effect that you wanted to dispel, and it wasn't just removed, you didn't just cast truename dispel.

Well, yeah. TD dispels ongoing magical effects. A dispelled ongoing magical effect is removed.

Also, if you're going to keep taking that clause outside of the rest of the sentence, at least take the full clause:

effects you want to dispel are automatically removed (no caster level check is necessary)
Since this clause is all one list item, it removes the need for a caster level check, and does not do anything else.

[Balmas]

I'm going to have to side with Anchovies, here. In order to come to the conclusion that truename dispel can effect any magical condition and remove it, you have to focus entirely on one clause and take it out of the context of the sentence in which it is found. If you actually read the spell description, it states that truename dispel is essentially dispel magic, with the exceptions that:
-It can only be used to target a creature, instead of being used on an area as you could with dispel magic.
-You gain a knowledge of the magical effects currently affecting said creature.
-You can choose selectively which effects to dispel.
-When you remove effects, you do not need to make a caster level check, as you normally would with dispel magic.

As such, it's really not a be-all-end-all spell. If anything, it's more of a magical diagnosis and cure. "You're currently Exhausted and Blinded; that lich did a number on you. But our cleric's buff spells are still active. Let's get rid of those two deleterious effects, and keep the good ones going."

Incidentally, if, when I show off a spell and its new interpretation, the people I show it to immediately and in perfect unison say, "It doesn't work like that," I find that's a pretty good reason to go back and check my work.

[Jormengand]

I should point out that Truename Dispel can remove at least some effects beyond DM's purview (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19708475&postcount=14). So if you decide by fiat that the removal is subject to the same restrictions as the dispulsion, the spell just has this arbitrary limitation that doesn't line up with what it actually says it can do: remove all effects automatically without need for a CL check.


Since this clause is all one list item, it removes the need for a caster level check, and does not do anything else.

The parentheses clarify one of the many, many consequences of the alteration.

[Socratov]

"I cast Truename Dispel!" "I Iron Heart Surge it!"

And thus did the universe cease to be.

you know, wit this kind of thinking you could argue that "I am affected by someone else being alive, and his condition of being alive is something I can IHS". Which is all kinds of silly.

[sovin_ndore]

Okay, lets step back and take a look at some things that have already been posted in here, in particular, the description of extraordinary abilities:


Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities.

So, we have a general rule in place that defines that effects that negates or disrupt magic explicitly cannot effect extraordinary abilities. Now specific rules do have priority over general rules so, lets take the case of Iron Heart Surge:


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

You will note that this ability does not conflict with the general rule at all, as the ability actually only affects one thing (at the time of activation). Thus no conflict of spells and extraordinary abilities.

Now lets take a look at Truename Dispel:


This functions like the dispel magic spell, except that it always targets a creature, you learn the nature of each ongoing magical effect currently affecting the target creature, and effects you want to dispel are automatically removed (no caster level check is necessary).

This does not state any exception to the general rule as wold be required to allow this to affect an extraordinary ability in addition to magical effects. Although not written out in this manner, this was essentially the crux of the first counterargument against this TO trick working.


Without a clause stating that it can remove things other than ongoing magical effects, it can only remove ongoing magical effects.

So, based on all this, it pretty explicitly can't work on extraordinary abilities if it works on spells.

So this brings us directly to discussions of grammer and the nature of that dispel/removal function. It seems most logical that it would have to inherit the definition of "effects you want to dispel" from the Dispel Magic spell (as it doesn't otherwise define 'dispel') and further explains how this is modified. Even if you assume that it defines a new set of effects, the only set that it has referenced previously in the spell description would be "each ongoing magical effect currently affecting the creature"; essentially still a set of spell effects.

It would seem that the only argument which has persisted after both of those were pointed out was an attempt to take the last part of the sentance out of context on the assumption that "effects you want to dispel" somehow creates a wholy new defined set of targets and doesn't care if such effects are even subject to being dispelled. This assumption ignores both the only definition we have for 'dispel' (the Dispel Magic spell) and the entire rest of the Truename Dispel description.

It also begs the question of why the Truename Dispel would have even referenced Dispel Magic if it doesn't inerit any targeting factors and if the parenthesis are not meant to define 'auto-success' using the same mechanics...either of which would cause the TO trick to cease functioning in the wished method.

[Jormengand]

extraordinary abilities
That's more a problem with the description of ex abilities than Ending Everything, but Ex abilities aren't effects anyway so TD doesn't remove them.

There is a list of things that Ending Everything does remove:

Spells, powers, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, damage, die modifiers, anything that grants armour or shield bonuses and isn't armour or a shield, anything that grants deflection bonuses, anything that dodge bonuses protect against, morale bonuses, and the effects of attacks are effects, and feats, conditions, being lost, quicksand, altitude, and several other things not linked to below (including traps, and, by and large, the weather) have them.

Ex abilities is not on that list. I never claimed that Ex abilities was on that list, and in fact denied it when it was brought up. It may end the result of some Ex abilities, most likely damage, but it does not actually end the Ex ability itself and nor did I ever claim it did.