Where can I find the errata for time stop?

[Graypairofsocks]

I was looking at various posts that had the idea to use Persistent Spell and Time Stop together in order to make a 24 hour timestop.
In those threads people claimed that the FAQ, Errata, or/and Sage's answers said that Time Stop wouldn't work like that.
The thing is I have been unable to find those sections of text in any of the Errata or FAQ I have.

Does anyone know where that ruling is?

[nedz]

This has all been consolidated in the SRD here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/timeStop.htm).

[Graypairofsocks]

This has all been consolidated in the SRD here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/timeStop.htm).

The spell there is the same as it is in the SRD from the wizards website.
I don't think it has the errata applied (if there is any).

[Hiro Quester]

As far as I understand it, the important (errata'd?) clause is this:


You are free to act for 1d4+1 rounds of apparent time.

The spell is instantaneous in terms of actual duration, but the caster gets 1d4+1 rounds of personal time inserted into that instant.

Persist cannot be applied to an instantaneous spell.

[DarkSoul]

It can be maximized, empowered, or intensified, though. Persistent Spell cares about non-instantaneous duration. The other ones care about variable numeric values. The best you can do is a 10-round time stop at epic levels, assuming normal non-epic spells and metamagic.

[Cruiser1]

As far as I understand it, the important (errata'd?) clause is this: The spell is instantaneous in terms of actual duration, but the caster gets 1d4+1 rounds of personal time inserted into that instant. Persist cannot be applied to an instantaneous spell.
Another way of looking at it is that Persistent Spell changes the "Duration" part of a spell to "24 hours". Time Stop normally has a duration of "1d4+1 rounds of apparent time". Persistent Spell applied to it makes Time Stop have a duration of simply "24 hours". There's no longer any "apparent time" present, so a persistent Time Stop doesn't give you any free rounds of actions at all. Instead it becomes a worthless buff that lasts for a day, doing nothing. :smalltongue:

[AvatarVecna]

Another way of looking at it is that Persistent Spell changes the "Duration" part of a spell to "24 hours". Time Stop normally has a duration of "1d4+1 rounds of apparent time". Persistent Spell applied to it makes Time Stop have a duration of simply "24 hours". There's no longer any "apparent time" present, so a persistent Time Stop doesn't give you any free rounds of actions at all. Instead it becomes a worthless buff that lasts for a day, doing nothing. :smalltongue:

Not really; the "1d4+1 rounds of apparent time" is still in the spell's actual description, so you can't just say "lol it does nothing now".

Regardless, the 1d4+1 rounds is either the duration or the effect; that they originally didn't clarify which one it counted as for the purposes of the rules just means they didn't think it would come up (apparently because they figured nobody would be using multiple powerful metamagic rods on Time Stop, which is an option available in Core that also runs into this issue, albeit not to quite the same degree).

[Cruiser1]

Not really; the "1d4+1 rounds of apparent time" is still in the spell's actual description, so you can't just say "lol it does nothing now".
By the above logic, you can't effectively apply Extend Spell to Time Stop either, because making the "Duration" line be "(1d4+1)x2 rounds of apparent time", won't update the "You are free to act for 1d4+1 rounds of apparent time" in the actual spell text.

The only sane ruling is that if the same time period is in both the "Duration" line in the spell header as well as in the spell text, that any metamagic affects both areas. Therefore, applying Persistent Spell to Time Stop means the spell text also reads "You are free to act for 24 hours of time", without any "apparent" anymore, which still means a worthless 24 hour buff and no free actions for you when Time Stop is persisted. :smallyuk:

[AvatarVecna]

By the above logic, you can't effectively apply Extend Spell to Time Stop either, because making the "Duration" line be "(1d4+1)x2 rounds of apparent time", won't update the "You are free to act for 1d4+1 rounds of apparent time" in the actual spell text.

The only sane ruling is that if the same time period is in both the "Duration" line in the spell header as well as in the spell text, that any metamagic affects both areas. Therefore, applying Persistent Spell to Time Stop means the spell text also reads "You are free to act for 24 hours of time", without any "apparent" anymore, which still means a worthless 24 hour buff and no free actions for you when Time Stop is persisted. :smallyuk:

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking rules, not rulings. By the rules as they are, 1d4+1 is both the duration and the effect; changing one does not change the other by RAW. Yes, that is a stupid rule, and that's why having your duration be your effect is stupid. It's almost like the designers had no idea what they were doing when they wrote the Player's Handbook!

The only way to "make sense" of things is to either have the 1d4+1 rounds of apparent time be the effect or the duration, not both, because then you don't run into stupid crap like this. One option is declaring it the duration (with the effect being "time is stopped"), which allows Extend and Persist to be applied; another option is declaring it the effect (with an instantaneous duration), which allows Empower, Maximize, and Intensify to be applied. Personally, I would rule that the 1d4+1 rounds is the effect, because I feel that the effects Empower/Maximize/Intensify have on Time Stop are appropriate to their metamagic cost, while Extend and Persistent are grossly undercharging for the effect they're delivering. On this note, the designers had a similar thought, hence the errata.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

As far as I understand it, the important (errata'd?) clause is this:



The spell is instantaneous in terms of actual duration, but the caster gets 1d4+1 rounds of personal time inserted into that instant.

Persist cannot be applied to an instantaneous spell.If it was instantaneous, it would say "instantaneous (see text)." Since it does not, and it's not permanent, it's perfectly persistable. Anything else is houserules.

[AvatarVecna]

If it was instantaneous, it would say "instantaneous (see text)." Since it does not, and it's not permanent, it's perfectly persistable. Anything else is houserules.

They're talking about the errata'd version, where the Duration line has, in fact, been changed to Instantaneous.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

They're talking about the errata'd version, where the Duration line has, in fact, been changed to Instantaneous.I seem to be unable to find that line in the SRD, which is the most recent and most official version. It still says "Duration: 1d4+1 rounds (apparent time); see text" there. So either the "errata" doesn't actually exist, or it hasn't been incorporated into the SRD.

If the SRD is correct, it's both Persistable and Extendable.

[RhymarJared]

For what I discussed with one of my friends regarding this same issue, the spell is effectively with an Immediate duration: 1d4+1 rounds of apparent time is the effect (thus can be affected by Maximize, Empower or Itensify metamagic feat).

The conclusion went as far as us joking that if a DM allowed to put Persistent Spell on Time Stop, the caster would feel "1d4+1 rounds of apparent time" on a 24-hour period, which would cause him to be drastically slower than his regular speed (between 2880 and 7200 times slower, in fact) :P.

[AvatarVecna]

I seem to be unable to find that line in the SRD, which is the most recent and most official version. It still says "Duration: 1d4+1 rounds (apparent time); see text" there. So either the "errata" doesn't actually exist, or it hasn't been incorporated into the SRD.

If the SRD is correct, it's both Persistable and Extendable.

It's the latter...unless you're suggesting that errata that's been brought up in virtually every Time Stop thread ever doesn't actually exist? :smallamused:

After searching through about half-a-dozen old Time Stop threads, so far all the links I've found to the change lead to the now-nonexistent sections of Wizards.com, leaving it unfortunately out-of-reach for the moment. Perhaps there's a collection of errata somewhere...

[RhymarJared]

It's a difficult thing to find, but I got the source from the wizards of the coast archives from 2003. You need to get into the post for the updated FAQ, go into the 3rd edition (not 3.5, strangely) Main FAQ and Ctrl+F Time Stop, and you'll find the official answer. If you don't wish to look it up, I'll copy the text. I would have put the link, but my post count must be at least 10 in order to post links, and I'm a greenhorn here.


Assuming you are high enough level to cast a persistent time stop spell, could you use the virtual 24 hours the spell lasts to rest and recover your spells?
You can’t make time stop persistent. (Its duration is effectively instantaneous for purposes of the Persistent Spell feat.)

[MaxiDuRaritry]

It's a difficult thing to find, but I got the source from the wizards of the coast archives from 2003. You need to get into the post for the updated FAQ, go into the 3rd edition (not 3.5, strangely) Main FAQ and Ctrl+F Time Stop, and you'll find the official answer. If you don't wish to look it up, I'll copy the text. I would have put the link, but my post count must be at least 10 in order to post links, and I'm a greenhorn here.That goes against the rules, like half the other info in the FAQ.

[RhymarJared]

That goes against the rules, like half the other info in the FAQ.

I'm sorry, I'm a little lost here. What is against the rules, exactly?

[AvatarVecna]

I'm sorry, I'm a little lost here. What is against the rules, exactly?

The FAQ is stated to be clarifications on what the rules were supposed to be. The problem is that on a not insignificant number of occasions, the rule clarifications in the FAQ conflict with existing rules rather than clarifying on unclear rules. This particular situation (with Time Stop) is them attempting to clear up a weird part of the rules where the intent became unclear, but because a great deal of the FAQ conflicts with the RAW rather than clarifying on unclear parts of RAW, the FAQ as a whole is generally dismissed by the community as a valid source.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I'm sorry, I'm a little lost here. What is against the rules, exactly?AvatarVecna stated the general reasonings for ignoring the FAQ, but "effectively instantaneous" goes against the SRD, which says something entirely different. Unless there actually IS some legal errata changing the duration, the FAQ is flat out wrong on that point.

[Deophaun]

I seem to be unable to find that line in the SRD, which is the most recent and most official version.

No. Errata was never incorporated into the SRD, which is why things like PCGen that try to be 100% legal use out-of-date entries.

That said, the complete list of 3.5 errata can be found on WotC's site (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata). There is no mention of time stop in the PHB document.

[RhymarJared]

The FAQ is stated to be clarifications on what the rules were supposed to be. The problem is that on a not insignificant number of occasions, the rule clarifications in the FAQ conflict with existing rules rather than clarifying on unclear rules. This particular situation (with Time Stop) is them attempting to clear up a weird part of the rules where the intent became unclear, but because a great deal of the FAQ conflicts with the RAW rather than clarifying on unclear parts of RAW, the FAQ as a whole is generally dismissed by the community as a valid source.

Ok, I understand. Then, I have no further arguments against the "persistent Time Stop" idea. Other than the clarification between apparent duration and real time duration. On my understanding of the spell (and the way it's described), it seems the Time Stop cuts a very small time period (less than a second, which would probably count as an immediate duration) in which the players makes the 1d4+1 rounds worth of actions. For the other persons present, all the effects he made during this 1d4+1 rounds were made instantaneously. But that is no RAW argument. I think you're searching for RAW arguments here.

[AvatarVecna]

Ok, I understand. Then, I have no further arguments against the "persistent Time Stop" idea. Other than the clarification between apparent duration and real time duration. On my understanding of the spell (and the way it's described), it seems the Time Stop cuts a very small time period (less than a second, which would probably count as an immediate duration) in which the players makes the 1d4+1 rounds worth of actions. For the other persons present, all the effects he made during this 1d4+1 rounds were made instantaneously. But that is no RAW argument. I think you're searching for RAW arguments here.

That's essentially the problem. Time Stop, as it was first written, is broken...and not just in the "lol so overpowered" meaning, but also in the "doesn't function when held up to scrutiny" meaning, as was touched upon above when discussing how, by RAW, changing either the duration or the effect of Time Stop via metamagic does not change the other, and thus wouldn't change what actually happens when the spell is cast...which is incredibly stupid. Personally, both to fit the fluff and to keep things from being overpowered, I rule in my games that the duration line reads "Instantaneous (see text)", to cut down on both the confusion and the shenanigans (I've had IRL players try to Persist Time Stop, which was surprisingly the third most ridiculous thing they were trying to pull that day).

[nedz]

No. Errata was never incorporated into the SRD, which is why things like PCGen that try to be 100% legal use out-of-date entries.

That said, the complete list of 3.5 errata can be found on WotC's site (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata). There is no mention of time stop in the PHB document.

The version of the SRD I linked to in post #2 does include the Errata.

Neither the Errata nor the FAQ mention Timestop anyway.

So to answer the OP's question: There is no Errata.

[Deophaun]

The version of the SRD I linked to in post #2...
is not the SRD. Yes, d20SRD.com does reflect the errata; it is 100% current and a source of accurate information. No, precisely because of that, it is not the SRD. Yes, the site is misnamed.

[eggynack]

Persistent timestop fails to work because of the already visible text, rather than due to some errata or the FAQ. The spell's duration isn't 1d4+1 rounds, and that's not the duration you'd be persisting. The spell's duration is 1d4+1 rounds (apparent time); see text, and that creates complications. The spell specifies that all of the taken actions occur within one round, so that means that the 1d4+1 rounds cannot be the duration, which in turn means that the true duration, as defined by the fact that you're explicitly told to see the text to learn more about it, is the time during which the apparent time is taking place. Thus, by that interpretation, you're expanding the one round during which you experience 1d4+1 rounds into a day during which you experience 1d4+1 rounds. Which is bad. Alternatively, the text could be indicating that the non-apparent duration is instantaneous, which would mean that persist doesn't work anyway.

It doesn't really matter how you read it specifically beyond a certain point. One thing is made rather certain by the fact that the 1d4+1 rounds is only apparent with the caveat that you need to read the text, and that is that, when you mess with the duration, you're not touching that 1d4+1 rounds. Maybe you're persisting something that's not that, or maybe you're unable to persist at all. Either way, you're not getting an effective persist.

[P.F.]

Time Stop, as it was first written, is broken...and not just in the "lol so overpowered" meaning, but also in the "doesn't function when held up to scrutiny" meaning, as was touched upon above when discussing how, by RAW, changing either the duration or the effect of Time Stop via metamagic does not change the other, and thus wouldn't change what actually happens when the spell is cast...which is incredibly stupid.

I'm curious what would happen if one were to cast an Extended Maximized Empowered Time Stop. Which is to say, what happens when the duration is "(1d4+1)x2 rounds (apparent time)" and the effect is "7 rounds of apparent time?"

[Crake]

The way I personally rule persisted time stop is like this: The normal duration is 1d4+1 apparent time, but a persisted time stop is 24 hours real time. Thus, persisting a time stop puts you into a virtually permanent state of timelessness in which you are constantly assaulted by those time inevitables over and over and over until you dispel it.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The way I personally rule persisted time stop is like this: The normal duration is 1d4+1 apparent time, but a persisted time stop is 24 hours real time. Thus, persisting a time stop puts you into a virtually permanent state of timelessness in which you are constantly assaulted by those time inevitables over and over and over until you dispel it.Sounds like a good way to earn XP.

You'd think those packets of XP would learn, but apparently they're elementally Lawful Stupid.

[Graypairofsocks]

It's a difficult thing to find, but I got the source from the wizards of the coast archives from 2003. You need to get into the post for the updated FAQ, go into the 3rd edition (not 3.5, strangely) Main FAQ and Ctrl+F Time Stop, and you'll find the official answer. If you don't wish to look it up, I'll copy the text. I would have put the link, but my post count must be at least 10 in order to post links, and I'm a greenhorn here.

I found the 3.0 FAQ and here is that entry from it:


Assuming you are high enough level to cast a persistent
time stop spell, could you use the virtual 24 hours the spell
lasts to rest and recover your spells?

You can’t make time stop persistent. (Its duration is
effectively instantaneous for purposes of the Persistent Spell
feat.)

[RhymarJared]

I found the 3.0 FAQ and here is that entry from it

Yeah, I just got answered on this subject that the FAQ basically doesn't count as an official errata or for this kind of discussion. The summarized version for why it's not considered is that many of the answers on this FAQ contradict erratas or the basic working of some rules.

So if it's the only source we have, it's not valid proof, at least RAW. In my opinion, though, the answer makes sense. We just can't use it for a argument regarding rules.

[eggynack]

So if it's the only source we have, it's not valid proof, at least RAW. In my opinion, though, the answer makes sense. We just can't use it for a argument regarding rules.
Indeed. FAQ based arguments are at best the source of a crazy argument about the FAQ, and at worst completely meaningless. Or, I may have those backwards. Either way, I don't think the RAW argument for this not working relies on the FAQ at all.

[Graypairofsocks]

Indeed. FAQ based arguments are at best the source of a crazy argument about the FAQ, and at worst completely meaningless. Or, I may have those backwards. Either way, I don't think the RAW argument for this not working relies on the FAQ at all.

Do you think the 3.0 FAQ should apply to 3.5?

[TiaC]

Ok, you persist it. It has a duration of 24 hours, and an effect of 1d4+1 rounds of apparent time. Enjoy acting only 2-5 times over the next 24 hours.

[Âmesang]

This reminds me of an untested house rule that "if you can't do it with epic magic, you can't do it with regular magic." :smalltongue:

For example, the transport seed can work as a 5-round time stop, so five rounds is all you get. Any attempt at persisting cheese results in a self-inflicted temporal stasis.

…which also reminds me, why doesn't time stop actually stop time? Instead it just makes you really, really fast? :smallconfused:

[Graypairofsocks]

Ok, you persist it. It has a duration of 24 hours, and an effect of 1d4+1 rounds of apparent time. Enjoy acting only 2-5 times over the next 24 hours.

By this logic Extend Spell or Empower Spell wouldn't work properly with it either.

[eggynack]

Do you think the 3.0 FAQ should apply to 3.5?
Is there a particular reason why it would when I don't even think the 3.5 FAQ should apply to 3.5? The thing'd have to have some pretty hefty text to get to that point.

[Quertus]

…which also reminds me, why doesn't time stop actually stop time? Instead it just makes you really, really fast? :smallconfused:

Because some fool wizard somewhere was smart enough to create a spell that would stop time, and dumb enough to cast it. Being prescient, the gods foresaw this, and went down and smote were slaughtered by said wizard.

Remembering their limitations (they were in D&D, where the gods have stats - and are generally noticeably weaker than the PCs), they explained the problem to the wizard, and offered him godhood in exchange for finding a way to prevent this problem in the future.

So the wizard developed a personal acceleration spell, called it time stop, and nipped the problem in the bud.

Or, at least, that's the way I like to tell the story :smallwink:

[nedz]

…which also reminds me, why doesn't time stop actually stop time? Instead it just makes you really, really fast? :smallconfused:

Principle of Least Action: Do we put the whole multiverse on pause or simply speed up the caster ?

[Hiro Quester]

By this logic Extend Spell or Empower Spell wouldn't work properly with it either.

Extend spell would not work (or a crafty DM might make it that you have your 1d4+1 rounds during a slightly longer instant, during which all others in the encounter can take a free/immediate action).

Empower would work on the 1d4 part, adding an extra 50%.

I'd prefer maximize for that effect, so you KNOW you get 5 rounds. (Our DM always rolls in secret the die roll for apparent time you get, so you don't know how many rounds the Time Stop will last.)

[Graypairofsocks]

Extend spell would not work (or a crafty DM might make it that you have your 1d4+1 rounds during a slightly longer instant, during which all others in the encounter can take a free/immediate action).

Empower would work on the 1d4 part, adding an extra 50%.

I'd prefer maximize for that effect, so you KNOW you get 5 rounds. (Our DM always rolls in secret the die roll for apparent time you get, so you don't know how many rounds the Time Stop will last.)

Actually Empower would multiply the 1d4+1 by 1.5 (the example given in the "Player's Handbook" says so).


Looking back at Time Stop it seems that by RAW the time you can act for isn't the same as the duration of Time Stop.

[Hiro Quester]

Actually Empower would multiply the 1d4+1 by 1.5 (the example given in the "Player's Handbook" says so).


Adding an extra 50% is multiplying it by 1.5. .

It would not multiply the +1 part. Only the "variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half."

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Adding an extra 50% is multiplying it by 1.5. .

It would not multiply the +1 part. Only the "variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half."The example given for Empower in the Player's Handbook is magic missile, which is [1d4+1]x1.5, because the variable for the spell effect is 2-5, not 1-4 that has a +1 tacked onto the end.

If magic missile's 1d4+1 is Empowered by including the +1, I don't see why time stop's 1d4+1 should be different.

[Graypairofsocks]

Adding an extra 50% is multiplying it by 1.5. .

It would not multiply the +1 part. Only the "variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half."

I was referring to the +1 part of the spell.
The description of it in the Player's Handbook shows that you multiply that part as well.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

http://i.imgur.com/rgl9RxA.pngIf it was your intention to mess with my head, congratulations: you succeeded.

[Hiro Quester]

Hmmm. Yes. My bad. You empower the whole result, not just the variable numerical part (which I though was the die roll).

I never paid attention to that example. (I've never played a blaster, so never used that feat.)