Can you alter a Demi-Plane's time flow?

[Tainted_Scholar]

So I got into a discussion with some people in another thread, however it was off topic so i created this thread.

Now then, can you alter the time flow of a demi-plane?

EDIT; And I made a typo in the title, lovely⸮ Does anybody know how to fix that?

[ColorBlindNinja]

I believe that you can for a couple reasons:

1. Genesis says that you can create virtually any trait you can visualize.

2. Planes are described as having variable time flows.

3. The term "environment" is broad enough to include planar traits.

4. Other versions of Genesis explicitly forbid time manipulation.

[flappeercraft]

IIRC you create them with any traits you want including time traits but you can't alter them at any other time although I might be wrong

[Shalist]

When you edit the original post, there should be a 'title' field that you can edit (i.e. see my post's title)

And it's worth noting that random demiplanes you stumble upon only have a 60% chance of being temporally 'normal,' suggesting that altered temporal traits aren't that big a deal (or at least, giving you a fallback plan).


TABLE 8–4: TIME TRAIT
..d% ....Trait
01–60. .Normal time
61–70.. Flowing faster: 1 day on the demiplane = 1 hour on the Material Plane
71–80 ..Flowing slower: 1 day on the demiplane = 1 week on the Material Plane
81–100 Timeless

[Tainted_Scholar]

When you edit the original post, there should be a 'title' field that you can edit (i.e. see my post's title)

Thank you.

[ColorBlindNinja]

IIRC you create them with any traits you want including time traits but you can't alter them at any other time although I might be wrong

Is there a subjective time trait? I know there's one for gravity.

[Florian]

4. Other versions of Genesis explicitly forbid time manipulation.

That.

Otherwise, you have to stumble upon and take into possession and already existing demi-plane, using the random generation chart of MotP to see how time flows.

That´s as solid a plan as counting to get an Avenger just because you play a Paladin.

[Tainted_Scholar]

IIRC you create them with any traits you want including time traits but you can't alter them at any other time although I might be wrong

I meant can you decide the plane's time trait when you create it, sorry if I was unclear.

[Psyren]

Even if you can, I see no reason why options not on that time traits table should be, well, on the table.

(This is incidentally the route Pathfinder took with Create Greater Demiplane.)

[ColorBlindNinja]

Even if you can, I see no reason why options not on that time traits table should be, well, on the table.

(This is incidentally the route Pathfinder took with Create Greater Demiplane.)

The speed of a plane's possible timeflow is ambiguous. There appear to be no meaningful limits in place.

[Florian]

The speed of a plane's possible timeflow is ambiguous. There appear to be no meaningful limits in place.

There is. Psyren is, as usual, correct on this.

[ColorBlindNinja]

There is. Psyren is, as usual, correct on this.

How so? Could you elaborate?

[Psyren]

The speed of a plane's possible timeflow is ambiguous. There appear to be no meaningful limits in place.

The OP was soliciting viewpoints. I already know ours differ too much for meaningful discussion and that that fact is unlikely to change.

The only point I'll make is that Pathfinder makes these limits explicit, while 3.5 is more vague, but I still believe them to be identical.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The OP was soliciting viewpoints. I already know ours differ too much for meaningful discussion and that that fact is unlikely to change.

The only point I'll make is that Pathfinder makes these limits explicit, while 3.5 is more vague, but I still believe them to be identical.

Fair enough.

[Florian]

How so? Could you elaborate?

You can not affect the "time" trait.
That´s why you have to go out and find a demi-plane with the right "time" trait and claim ir for yourself.

You can do that, but it´s akin to taking "Hank´s Energy Bow" for granted, which simply needs gm-approval.

We talk "RAW", we talk about what can be directly affected by a character using the available means. Going into possibilities is pointless.

[ColorBlindNinja]

You can not affect the "time" trait.
That´s why you have to go out and find a demi-plane with the right "time" trait and claim ir for yourself.

You can do that, but it´s akin to taking "Hank´s Energy Bow" for granted, which simply needs gm-approval.

We talk "RAW", we talk about what can be directly affected by a character using the available means. Going into possibilities is pointless.

Yes, RAW assumes that you can get any printed item. A character that can cast arcane Genesis doesn't need to find a demiplane and claim it; they can simply create one. That is the point of the spell.

The rules are vague on what speed a plane's timeflow can be; it would seem that no limits exist. If limits did exist, the rules would specify them.

Edit: You yet to demonstrate that you cannot affect the time trait.

[Psyren]

If limits did exist, the rules would specify them.

This cuts both ways; if the time trait was mutable, the rules would specify that. We are left instead with vagueness.

[Florian]

You should take your time and an relaxed weekend and actually read the rules, front to cover. The "player empowerment" portion and what´s actually written don´t match, by a long way.

[Tainted_Scholar]

This cuts both ways; if the time trait was mutable, the rules would specify that. We are left instead with vagueness.

Not really, The spell says "The spellcaster determines the environment within the demiplane when he or she first casts genesis, reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize."

It then gives a few limitations, thus defining what it means by "Most any desire". If it isn't in one of the limitations that it mentioned then you should be able to create it.

Psionic Genesis out right adds time to the limitations, thus reinforcing the idea that time manipulation isn't prohibited by Arcane Genesis.

[ColorBlindNinja]

You should take your time and an relaxed weekend and actually read the rules, front to cover. The "player empowerment" portion and what´s actually written don´t match, by a long way.

In game system where Pun Pun is a thing? Color me skeptical.

[Psyren]

Not really, The spell says "The spellcaster determines the environment within the demiplane when he or she first casts genesis, reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize."

Are time traits "environment?" Seems to me that time is something intangible.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Are time traits "environment?" Seems to me that time is something intangible.

The DMG says that time is part of the physical traits of the plane.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Are time traits "environment?" Seems to me that time is something intangible.

Environment isn't just limited to physical surroundings.

en·vi·ron·ment
Noun

the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates.



Planar Traits should qualify under that as a condition.

Again though, the fact that they added time to the list of limitations of Psionic Genesis while it's not a limitation of Arcane Genesis is also important.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Environment isn't just limited to physical surroundings.

en·vi·ron·ment
Noun

the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates.



Planar Traits should qualify under that as a condition.


Technically space and time are the same thing. Space is certainly part of your environment.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Technically space and time are the same thing. Space is certainly part of your environment.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Neko_Wikipe-tan.svg/220px-Neko_Wikipe-tan.svg.png

RIP

****-2017

You are correct, though.

[Anthrowhale]

I'm mostly with Psyren here.

The 3.5 versions (divine&psionic) of Genesis limit manipulation of the time trait while the 3.0 versions (arcane) are simply vague. Whether or not you can effectively "visualize" a fast time plane is at least unclear. The same applies to many other traits. What does Enhanced Magic[Persistent Spell] look like? How about Sentient? Static? A DM might say 'yes' to these things, but they might also say 'no'.

[Psyren]

Environment isn't just limited to physical surroundings.

en·vi·ron·ment
Noun

the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates.



Planar Traits should qualify under that as a condition.

Well hold on now, I can link definitions too.

en·vi·ron·ment
Noun

the natural world, as a whole or in a particular geographical area, especially as affected by human activity.

Nothing there about time; if we're resorting to dictionary definitions to solve this, we have to be sure which one the designers intended, since neither is RAW.



Again though, the fact that they added time to the list of limitations of Psionic Genesis while it's not a limitation of Arcane Genesis is also important.

That would matter if they were written simultaneously, but the psionic wording came out much later. Perhaps they felt the need to explain their intent more clearly? Or perhaps the psionics designers were simply better at their jobs? Who knows?

[ColorBlindNinja]

I'm mostly with Psyren here.

The 3.5 versions (divine&psionic) of Genesis limit manipulation of the time trait while the 3.0 versions (arcane) are simply vague. Whether or not you can effectively "visualize" a fast time plane is at least unclear. The same applies to many other traits. What does Enhanced Magic[Persistent Spell] look like? How about Sentient? Static? A DM might say 'yes' to these things, but they might also say 'no'.

I can visualize a fast time plane just fine, why couldn't a powerful spellcaster?

Enhanced magic, static, and sentience would all seem to be game, RAW. These are all traits that planes of existence are confirmed to have.

[Anthrowhale]

I can visualize a fast time plane just fine, why couldn't a powerful spellcaster?

The fact that you are on a fast time plane is unobservable when you are on the fast time plane. Given this, I'm skeptical that you can visualize it in a meaningful way.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Well hold on now, I can link definitions too.

en·vi·ron·ment
Noun

the natural world, as a whole or in a particular geographical area, especially as affected by human activity.

Nothing there about time; if we're resorting to dictionary definitions to solve this, we have to be sure which one the designers intended, since neither is RAW.

Planar traits would qualify as part of the natural world of the plane (Time most especially), so that definition still supports my interpretation.


That would matter if they were written simultaneously, but the psionic wording came out much later. Perhaps they felt the need to explain their intent more clearly? Or perhaps the psionics designers were simply better at their jobs? Who knows?

My point is, the fact that psionic Genesis blatantly forbids a different time flow just further illustrates the lack of such a limitation in the Arcane version.

Additionally if making different time flows was never part of game designers' intention, then the fact that they called attention to it with Psionic Genesis shows that they screwed up and made it possible to create a different time flow with Arcane Genesis.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The fact that you are on a fast time plane is unobservable when you are on the fast time plane. Given this, I'm skeptical that you can visualize it in a meaningful way.

Visualize is a synonym for imagine, which is simple enough.

You also could make Knowledge The Planes checks.

Or perform an experiment involving two different planes.

Plus you're wrong; you could tell that the plane's time is moving faster via Scry and other divination.

[Anthrowhale]

Visualize is a synonym for imagine, which is simple enough.
Free substitution of Synonyms is not generally allowed when reading RAW.


You also could make Knowledge The Planes checks.
Making up rules also is not allowed.


Or perform an experiment involving two different planes.

Plus you're wrong; you could tell that the plane's time is moving faster via Scry and other divination.
An experiment (like Scry) involving two planes is the only viable approach to observe the difference. However, the visualization must be of "...the environment within the demiplane..." not of an experiment involving the demiplane and another plane.

[Psyren]

Planar traits would qualify as part of the natural world of the plane (Time most especially), so that definition still supports my interpretation.

The physical ones would, sure. But Time is not.



My point is, the fact that psionic Genesis blatantly forbids a different time flow just further illustrates the lack of such a limitation in the Arcane version.

Additionally if making different time flows was never part of game designers' intention, then the fact that they called attention to it with Psionic Genesis shows that they screwed up and made it possible to create a different time flow with Arcane Genesis.

I know what your point is, I'm saying it doesn't demonstrate what you think it does. They were made by different designers, and the psionic one came after.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Free substitution of Synonyms is not generally allowed when reading RAW.

The words mean the same thing. RAW has no official definition for visualize, so we use the layman's definition.


Making up rules also is not allowed.

So it's impossible to use Knowledge checks to learn about planes and their properties?


An experiment (like Scry) involving two planes is the only viable approach to observe the difference. However, the visualization must be of "...the environment within the demiplane..." not of an experiment involving the demiplane and another plane.
I beg to differ. If you can determine what a fast flowing plane looks like, you can extrapolate from there.


The physical ones would, sure. But Time is not.

As I said earlier, time and space are one and the same. Space is certainly physical.

[Tainted_Scholar]

The physical ones would, sure. But Time is not.

Time is just as much a part of the natural world as physical aspects.

The planar traits are also naturally parts of the planes.


An experiment (like Scry) involving two planes is the only viable approach to observe the difference. However, the visualization must be of "...the environment within the demiplane..." not of an experiment involving the demiplane and another plane.

Do you have a citation on what the visualization must be? Because it seems to me that you made up the that requirement.

[Anthrowhale]

The words mean the same thing. RAW has no official definition for visualize, so we use the layman's definition.
No they don't. Synonyms generally have close-to-the-same meanings but they do differ as they do here. You can't freely substitute a word for it's synonym and expect to have the same meaning.

So it's impossible to use Knowledge checks to learn about planes and their properties?
There are no mechanics to use knowledge checks to determine which planar traits are allowed.

I beg to differ. If you can determine what a fast flowing plane looks like, you can extrapolate from there.
Maybe not if it looks exactly like a plane with a normal flow of time.

[Gullintanni]

There isn't really a way to resolve this question. Between the lack of explicit mention, and the vagueness of the word "environment" which is an undefined game term and requires the use of a dictionary definition; some of which support time as a component, some of which do not, it would appear that DM intervention is required to parse the outcome of this spell.

All of that may be rendered moot by the fact that most recent printing of the spell lists it exclusively as a Divine spell in the Creation domain. General convention is that when a spell is reprinted, the most recent printing supercedes all previous versions of the spell. Meaning that there's a strong argument to be made that the 3.5 version of Genesis overwrites the one found in the ELH and thereby precludes arcane use of the spell at all.

[Psyren]

1) You cannot actually visualize time. You can visualize things acted on by time (things that age, or spinning clocks/falling sand etc.) but not time itself.

2) The full clause in the spell states the following:

"The spellcaster determines the environment within the demiplane when he or she first casts genesis, reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize. The spellcaster determines factors such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and the general shape of the terrain."

That second sentence is an explanation of the first. Note that all of those are physical things, and that time is not included.

[Anthrowhale]

Do you have a citation on what the visualization must be? Because it seems to me that you made up the that requirement.

Yes, it's in the second paragraph of the 3.0 Genesis (www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/genesis.htm) which says:
The spellcaster determines the environment within the demiplane when he or she first casts genesis, reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize.

[ColorBlindNinja]

No they don't. Synonyms generally have close-to-the-same meanings but they do differ as they do here. You can't freely substitute a word for it's synonym and expect to have the same meaning.

You're twisting the meaning of the word visualize.


There are no mechanics to use knowledge checks to determine which planar traits are allowed.

Yes there is. The knowledge skill describes the process. The exact DC may be up in the air, but you can use that or divination spells to get the information you seek.


Maybe not if it looks exactly like a plane with a normal flow of time.

It won't because you can compare the timeflows of two plans with Scry.

[Tainted_Scholar]

1) You cannot actually visualize time. You can visualize things acted on by time (things that age, or spinning clocks/falling sand etc.) but not time itself.

Again, visualize can also mean imagine, and I can easily imagine time.

Also I guess that means the Demi-plane wouldn't have temperature since the only way to visualize that is by the way it affects things, but oh wait.


"The spellcaster determines the environment within the demiplane when he or she first casts genesis, reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize. The spellcaster determines factors such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and the general shape of the terrain."

That second sentence is an explanation of the first. Note that all of those are physical things, and that time is not included.

Also did you miss the "Such as"? Those were examples, not a specific list. I can include things outside that list.


Yes, it's in the second paragraph of the 3.0 Genesis (www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/genesis.htm) which says:

That's not what you claimed. You claimed that "the visualization must be of "...the environment within the demiplane..." not of an experiment involving the demiplane and another plane." even though there's no evidence to back up your claim.

[Anthrowhale]

You're twisting the meaning of the word visualize.
That's a very strange thing to say when you can cite no meanings for the word visualize that I have stated in this discussion. I have only rejected your attempt to substitute a synonym.


Yes there is. The knowledge skill describes the process. The exact DC may be up in the air, but you can use that or divination spells to get the information you seek.
Citation needed and I'm extremely skeptical you'll be able to find anything referring to the genesis spell in the knowledge skill.


It won't because you can compare the timeflows of two plans with Scry.
'Scry' is not a part of the environment of your demiplane so this is not a valid counter.



That's not what you claimed. You claimed that "the visualization must be of "...the environment within the demiplane..." not of an experiment involving the demiplane and another plane." even though there's no evidence to back up your claim.
In context, the visualization is of the environment within the demiplane. Scry is not a part of the environment.

Anyways, it's pretty clear at this point you both have no means to convince me that every DM must allow manipulation of time traits with Genesis by RAW. So, I'm where I started (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22095349&postcount=26): some might, and some might not depending on how they interpret the vague English.

[Tainted_Scholar]

That's a very strange thing to say when you can cite no meanings for the word visualize that I have stated in this discussion. I have only rejected your attempt to substitute a synonym.

vis·u·al·ize
ˈviZH(o͞o)əˌlīz
verb
1.
form a mental image of; imagine.

It's not even a synonym, it's part of the word's literal definition.


In context, the visualization is of the environment within the demiplane. Scry is not a part of the environment.

And I can visualize the time flow of my Demi-Plane compared to that of a normal's planes.


Anyways, it's pretty clear at this point you both have no means to convince me that every DM must allow manipulation of time traits with Genesis by RAW.

And you have shown no means of convincing me that manipulation of time traits isn't RAW.

Either of us saying that is meaningless.:smallannoyed:

[ColorBlindNinja]

That's a very strange thing to say when you can cite no meanings for the word visualize that I have stated in this discussion. I have only rejected your attempt to substitute a synonym.
You shouldn't, it's literally in the description of the word: "form a mental image of; imagine." You seem to think you can't visualize things that you in fact can. Tainted Scholar pointed out that the spell allows to visualize temperature, despite being abstract.


Citation needed and I'm extremely skeptical you'll be able to find anything referring to the genesis spell in the knowledge skill.

Then what is Knowledge Arcana for? I was talking about planes of existence, not Genesis itself.


'Scry' is not a part of the environment of your demiplane so this is not a valid counter. In context, the visualization is of the environment within the demiplane. Scry is not a part of the environment.

You misunderstand what I'm countering. You said that I can not visualize a fast flowing plane; I said you could use scry to help understand the nature of one and thus visualize it.


Anyways, it's pretty clear at this point you both have no means to convince me that every DM must allow manipulation of time traits with Genesis by RAW. So, I'm where I started (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22095349&postcount=26): some might, and some might not depending on how they interpret the vague English.

I suspect that you will not be convinced no matter what I say. I'm not relying on vague English words; I have provided multiple pieces of evidence from my first post on this thread. Your argument holds no water and seems to rely on an odd interpretation of the word "visualize".

[Gildedragon]

Free substitution of Synonyms is not generally allowed when reading RAW.

Making up rules also is not allowed.

An experiment (like Scry) involving two planes is the only viable approach to observe the difference. However, the visualization must be of "...the environment within the demiplane..." not of an experiment involving the demiplane and another plane.

Actually there's clocks that measure time differences between planes.
In the visualization one sees one such a clock running at the desired ratio

[Aracor]

As has been quoted several times from the Genesis spell itself:

The spellcaster determines the environment within the demiplane when he or she first casts genesis, reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize. The spellcaster determines factors such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and the general shape of the terrain.
I guess I have an obvious question. Is there anywhere in the rules that suggests planar traits in general are part of the environment? I've seen many different posts simply assuming that it's true, but I have yet to find an actual citation that suggests it.

Note that psionic genesis can actually be taken two ways: It can be taken either to say that since the arcane version doesn't say it, that psionic genesis specifically forbidding it suggests that it's allowable with the arcane version. It can ALSO be taken as to say this is a half-assed errata (such as we're used to seeing out of WotC) clarifying that it was never intended. I'm not saying either is accurate, but I'm asking for a more definitive citation that planar traits ARE part of the environment.

[ColorBlindNinja]

As has been quoted several times from the Genesis spell itself:

I guess I have an obvious question. Is there anywhere in the rules that suggests planar traits in general are part of the environment? I've seen many different posts simply assuming that it's true, but I have yet to find an actual citation that suggests it.

Note that psionic genesis can actually be taken two ways: It can be taken either to say that since the arcane version doesn't say it, that psionic genesis specifically forbidding it suggests that it's allowable with the arcane version. It can ALSO be taken as to say this is a half-assed errata (such as we're used to seeing out of WotC) clarifying that it was never intended. I'm not saying either is accurate, but I'm asking for a more definitive citation that planar traits ARE part of the environment.

There is no solid definition of environment in 3.5, that I know of. We're stuck with colloquial definition of the word.

Given that definition, I would say yes, but plenty of people seem to disagree.

Edit: Also, Genesis does say that you can create just about any trait you can visualize.

[Psyren]

Again, visualize can also mean imagine, and I can easily imagine time.

Also I guess that means the Demi-plane wouldn't have temperature since the only way to visualize that is by the way it affects things, but oh wait.

Temperature IS an effect on things. (Specifically, the effect of energy on a thing.) That is literally what it means. Time is not.



Also did you miss the "Such as"? Those were examples, not a specific list. I can include things outside that list.

"Such as" means the things you include must be similar to what's already on the list. Time is like nothing else on that list.

[rel]

If you are forging a new demiplane from the ether via the spell genesis then you can set the time trait (and any planar trait) to any value you feel like. Things get silly fast but such is the nature of 9th level magic.

If you have already created or found a demiplane and want to alter it's time trait I know of no ways to do so by RAW.


Here are a few ways to make an adventure out of altering a demiplanes time trait.

- Heist the strategic quintessence reserves of the githyanki empire and use them to power some sort of ritual

- journey to the far realms and harvest time crystals from the bones of powerful otherworldly monsters. Then use said crystals to construct a Device in the center of the demiplane you wish to change.

- Do a favor for one of the gods of time and get your demiplanes traits updated.

- Planar tour! Hit a dungeon on every major plane in the wheel. Then meet back at sigil with a sack of magguffins for a tense negotiation with the Lady of Pain herself.

- The old god of time lies dead and buried at the bottom of the deepest dungeon. Go collect some God Seeds and if you can avoid ingesting them immediately use them to upgrade your demiplane.

[Florian]

So, the whole argument is based in what a "high level wizard" could or should be able to visualize and try to sell that as RAW? That´s far from being air-tight and a good example for just wanting an interpretation to be true but not having any proof and repeating the argument ad-nauseam until no-one is interested in participating in that discussion anymore.

[vateruncer]

[QUOTE=Psyren;22096219]Temperature IS an effect on things. (Specifically, the effect of energy on a thing.) That is literally what it means. Time is not.

Actually depending on how you look at it yes time is an effect on things. Specifically it could be either the t-coordinate in which all energy must traverse through to have any actual rather than potential effect or looking at this as a closed system as it would be an isolated demi-plane the rate at which it achieves an even distribution of energy through entropy.

[Florian]

[QUOTE=Psyren;22096219]Temperature IS an effect on things. (Specifically, the effect of energy on a thing.) That is literally what it means. Time is not.

Actually depending on how you look at it yes time is an effect on things. Specifically it could be either the t-coordinate in which all energy must traverse through to have any actual rather than potential effect or looking at this as a closed system as it would be an isolated demi-plane the rate at which it achieves an even distribution of energy through entropy.

Using the Great Wheel as a basis, a closed system is impossible to do.

[ryu]

[QUOTE=Psyren;22096219]Temperature IS an effect on things. (Specifically, the effect of energy on a thing.) That is literally what it means. Time is not.

Actually depending on how you look at it yes time is an effect on things. Specifically it could be either the t-coordinate in which all energy must traverse through to have any actual rather than potential effect or looking at this as a closed system as it would be an isolated demi-plane the rate at which it achieves an even distribution of energy through entropy.

More importantly is the fact that time has been proven to be a mutable thing that changes with the speed a given object is moving. These differences are very minor barring dramatic speeds nearing the all-mighty speed of light, but time is very clearly an effect rather than a constant of the universe. This is actually more-so in D&D than real life where you have spells that literally directly effect your ongoing passage, or lack thereof, through time or even allow you to shift to an alternate state of reality defined as the ''past.'' Game. Set. Match.

[Necroticplague]

Someone earlier mentioned that 'found' demiplanes can have non-standard time movement, and mentioned that something like 40% of them do. Since the only way to create a demiplane that I'm aware of is through Genesis, doesn't that mean that Genesis must be able to alter time traits?

[Florian]

Someone earlier mentioned that 'found' demiplanes can have non-standard time movement, and mentioned that something like 40% of them do. Since the only way to create a demiplane that I'm aware of is through Genesis, doesn't that mean that Genesis must be able to alter time traits?

No. Look at example demi-planes and you´ll find that you are not able to copy them with Genesis.
We´re at the same point as using Craft feats and wanting to copy Artefacts.

[ColorBlindNinja]

No. Look at example demi-planes and you´ll find that you are not able to copy them with Genesis.

You've yet to prove this.


We´re at the same point as using Craft feats and wanting to copy Artefacts.

RAW, you need a divine salient ability to create artifacts.

Edit:




Using the Great Wheel as a basis, a closed system is impossible to do.

Demiplanes are finite.

[martixy]

I am not sure which book this is, but at some point I was put under the impression that the most recently printed version of the spell specifically disallows messing with the time trait.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I am not sure which book this is, but at some point I was put under the impression that the most recently printed version of the spell specifically disallows messing with the time trait.

That's the divine version. The arcane version (which is in the SRD) doesn't prohibit time manipulation.

[Florian]

That's the divine version. The arcane version (which is in the SRD) doesn't prohibit time manipulation

Your whole case rests on Planar Traits being a thing and the spell not using them / not calling them out specifically. What you have to prove is where you are allowed to use planar traits.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Your whole case rests on Planar Traits being a thing and the spell not using them / not calling them out specifically. What you have to prove is where you are allowed to use planar traits.

We already discussed that planar traits are plausibly part of the plane's environment.

We already discussed that Genesis allows the caster virtually any environmental trait imaginable, barring a few exceptions.

We already discussed how we know that demiplanes have variable time traits.

We already discussed that Psionic/Divine Genesis explicitly don't allow time traits to be manipulated.

The spell doesn't explicitly say that planar traits can be altered; but these are multiple pieces of evidence that being able to do so is perfectly plausible.

[The_Jette]

We already discussed that planar traits are plausibly part of the plane's environment.

We already discussed that Genesis allows the caster virtually any environmental trait imaginable, barring a few exceptions.

We already discussed how we know that demiplanes have variable time traits.

We already discussed that Psionic/Divine Genesis explicitly don't allow time traits to be manipulated.

The spell doesn't explicitly say that planar traits can be altered; but these are multiple pieces of evidence that being able to do so is perfectly plausible.

All of your evidence is circumstantial at best. But, at the end of the day, nobody is going to convince you that you can't affect the time flow in your demi-plane. And, nobody will convince your opposition that you can influence the flow of time. This whole thing has been broken down into an arugment of "Nuh-uh!" "Uh-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" "Uh-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" "Uh-huh!" "Night mum!" "Nuh-uh!" "Uh-huh!"

[Florian]

We already discussed that planar traits are plausibly part of the plane's environment.

We already discussed that Genesis allows the caster virtually any environmental trait imaginable, barring a few exceptions.

We already discussed how we know that demiplanes have variable time traits.

We already discussed that Psionic/Divine Genesis explicitly don't allow time traits to be manipulated.

The spell doesn't explicitly say that planar traits can be altered; but these are multiple pieces of evidence that being able to do so is perfectly plausible.

Yes, you have taken your time to say why you think things should be rules that way. The still are not.
Accept that what you think RAW should be and what RAW is are very different and your version doesn´t hold up. But it´s aways fun to see people trying to ride a dead horse and not accept when really no-one agrees with their claim.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Yes, you have taken your time to say why you think things should be rules that way. The still are not.
Accept that what you think RAW should be and what RAW is are very different and your version doesn´t hold up.

How doesn't it hold up? You keep saying that, but you never explain why.


All of your evidence is circumstantial at best. But, at the end of the day, nobody is going to convince you that you can't affect the time flow in your demi-plane. And, nobody will convince your opposition that you can influence the flow of time. This whole thing has been broken down into an arugment of "Nuh-uh!" "Uh-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" "Uh-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" "Uh-huh!" "Night mum!" "Nuh-uh!" "Uh-huh!"

There is no definitive airtight case either way. I can quote passages from the rules to support my arguments. All I have heard in response is people trying to redefine words to suit their own arguments.

[The_Jette]

Yes, you have taken your time to say why you think things should be rules that way. The still are not.
Accept that what you think RAW should be and what RAW is are very different and your version doesn´t hold up.

That is not what I said, at all. Neither of you will yield the point, so the best bet is to just move on and accept that you have different opinions on the matter.

[Aracor]

How doesn't it hold up? You keep saying that, but you never explain why.

It comes back to your original response to me. There is no definition of environment in 3.5, so you think it works based on the regular definition of the word 'environment'. You acknowledge that other people disagree, but don't give their opinions any credence or validity.

I'm of the opinion that it comes down to this: 3.5 is a permissive system. I can find nothing that allows you to determine planar traits when creating a demiplane, or that planar traits are a part of the environment. Since nothing says you CAN, it must be assumed that you cannot unless the rules suggest otherwise.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It comes back to your original response to me. There is no definition of environment in 3.5, so you think it works based on the regular definition of the word 'environment'. You acknowledge that other people disagree, but don't give their opinions any credence or validity.

Their arguments mostly consist of redefining words. That's semantics, not an argument. We have no choice but to use the colloquial definition of words if RAW doesn't give one. How else are we supposed to determine what environment means? Examining the text Genesis might help narrow it down, but it's extremely broad.


I'm of the opinion that it comes down to this: 3.5 is a permissive system. I can find nothing that allows you to determine planar traits when creating a demiplane, or that planar traits are a part of the environment. Since nothing says you CAN, it must be assumed that you cannot unless the rules suggest otherwise.

I would agree with you. That's generally how 3.5 works.

[martixy]

Hm.... regardless of right or wrong, I am going to agree with ColorBlindNinja that time is as much a physical trait of reality as space, light or matter.

Also, where is that mythical divine version of Genesis? Couldn't find it in Complete divine and the most recent one I can remember is in Deities and Demigods.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Hm.... regardless of right or wrong, I am going to agree with ColorBlindNinja that time is as much a physical trait of reality as space, light or matter.

Also, where is that mythical divine version of Genesis? Couldn't find it in Complete divine and the most recent one I can remember is in Deities and Demigods.

It's called Word of Genesis; it's in Tome of Magic.

It it explicitly says and I quote, "You can’t manipulate the time trait on your demiplane; its time trait is as the Material Plane."

[martixy]

It's called Word of Genesis; it's in Tome of Magic.

It it explicitly says and I quote, "You can’t manipulate the time trait on your demiplane; its time trait is as the Material Plane."

Right, thanks.

In general I agree with your arguments, but it seems clear to me, Psionic genesis, as confirmed later by Word of Genesis can be seen as a half-assed errata to the spell.

P.S. Virgo is old news... we now live in Laniakea.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Right, thanks.

In general I agree with your arguments, but it seems clear to me, Psionic genesis, as confirmed later by Word of Genesis can be seen as a half-assed errata to the spell.

It's almost certainly a half-assed attempt at errata. Why they decided to re-print the original Genesis in the SRD I'll never know.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Going back to an argument that doesn't rely on dictionary definitions of words, It has been mentioned already on the thread that there exist Demi-Planes in RAW that have faster time flows. The only objection I've seen to this fact is the claim that those Demi-Planes weren't created by Genesis. To which I respond, where did they come from then?

In RAW there are only three methods of creating demi-planes.

Psionic Genesis.
Word of Genesis.
And Genesis.

Of these three, Genesis is the only one that doesn't directly prohibit different time flows. Once we eliminate the impossible, whatever remains must be true. Meaning that in RAW the only way these fast flowing Demi-Planes could have been created is with Genesis.

Elementary, my dear Playground.

[lord_khaine]

All of that may be rendered moot by the fact that most recent printing of the spell lists it exclusively as a Divine spell in the Creation domain. General convention is that when a spell is reprinted, the most recent printing supercedes all previous versions of the spell. Meaning that there's a strong argument to be made that the 3.5 version of Genesis overwrites the one found in the ELH and thereby precludes arcane use of the spell at all.

I think thats the most relevant point so far. That since there is a reprinting of the spell the 3.0 version is no longer official.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I think thats the most relevant point so far. That since there is a reprinting of the spell the 3.0 version is no longer official.

Except that Word of Genesis is a different spell. Different name, different description, different caster.

Additionally, Arcane Genesis was reprinted in the SRD, and the SRD is 3.5 not 3.0. Meaning that the Arcane version is also 3.5.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I think thats the most relevant point so far. That since there is a reprinting of the spell the 3.0 version is no longer official.

The only versions of Genesis that I can find in the Creation domain are 3.0.

Edit: Except the one in the SRD.

[martixy]

Going back to an argument that doesn't rely on dictionary definitions of words, It has been mentioned already on the thread that there exist Demi-Planes in RAW that have faster time flows. The only objection I've seen to this fact is the claim that those Demi-Planes weren't created by Genesis. To which I respond, where did they come from then?

In RAW there are only three methods of creating demi-planes.

Psionic Genesis.
Word of Genesis.
And Genesis.

Of these three, Genesis is the only one that doesn't directly prohibit different time flows. Once we eliminate the impossible, whatever remains must be true. Meaning that in RAW the only way these fast flowing Demi-Planes could have been created is with Genesis.

Elementary, my dear Playground.

Do you mean to imply that everything in the D&D world was created by an ability?

Because that's what this argument rests on.

[The_Jette]

Okay, after thinking about it for a little bit, I decided to look into what a deity in 3.5 can do in crafting his own realm. Now, every deity of Divine Rank 1 or higher has their own realm in which they are at their most powerful. They are allowed to control the environment, in a similar manner to what's described in the Genesis spell. However, in order to change the planar traits, and time is mentioned specifically among those traits, a deity has to have a Divine Rank of 16 or greater. That means, in order to do to their own plane, the seat of their power, what you're saying this level 9 spell can do to any demiplane it creates, the deity has to be a Greater Deity or Over Deity. That just seems like a bit of a stretch to me. When God is restricted on what he can do with it, that level 17 Wizard should be, too.

[Quertus]

"The spellcaster determines the environment within the demiplane when he or she first casts genesis, reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize. The spellcaster determines factors such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and the general shape of the terrain."

That second sentence is an explanation of the first. Note that all of those are physical things, and that time is not included.


The DMG says that time is part of the physical traits of the plane.

Can set environment... time is a physical trait. That's not sufficiently convincing. Got any key words that match up?


An experiment (like Scry) involving two planes is the only viable approach to observe the difference. However, the visualization must be of "...the environment within the demiplane..." not of an experiment involving the demiplane and another plane.


1) You cannot actually visualize time. You can visualize things acted on by time (things that age, or spinning clocks/falling sand etc.) but not time itself.


Temperature IS an effect on things. (Specifically, the effect of energy on a thing.) That is literally what it means. Time is not.

You cannot visualize temperature, you can only visualize temperature's effects on physical objects.

You cannot visualize gravity, you can only visualize gravity's effects on other objects.

Heck, your character can't really visualize matter, only the light reflected off the matter.

Yet they are able to create these things.

Explain how time differs.


It comes back to your original response to me. There is no definition of environment in 3.5, so you think it works based on the regular definition of the word 'environment'. You acknowledge that other people disagree, but don't give their opinions any credence or validity.

I'm of the opinion that it comes down to this: 3.5 is a permissive system. I can find nothing that allows you to determine planar traits when creating a demiplane, or that planar traits are a part of the environment. Since nothing says you CAN, it must be assumed that you cannot unless the rules suggest otherwise.

Well, the rules suggest otherwise by explicitly calling it out as impossible in other similar spells. They wouldn't need to waste words on it if it weren't possible, now would they?

But that only suggests, not proves, that it is possible.


It's almost certainly a half-assed attempt at errata. Why they decided to re-print the original Genesis in the SRD I'll never know.

Because Genesis can? Or incompetence? The world may never know.


Going back to an argument that doesn't rely on dictionary definitions of words, It has been mentioned already on the thread that there exist Demi-Planes in RAW that have faster time flows. The only objection I've seen to this fact is the claim that those Demi-Planes weren't created by Genesis. To which I respond, where did they come from then?

In RAW there are only three methods of creating demi-planes.

Psionic Genesis.
Word of Genesis.
And Genesis.

Of these three, Genesis is the only one that doesn't directly prohibit different time flows. Once we eliminate the impossible, whatever remains must be true. Meaning that in RAW the only way these fast flowing Demi-Planes could have been created is with Genesis.

Elementary, my dear Playground.


Do you mean to imply that everything in the D&D world was created by an ability?

Because that's what this argument rests on.

Historically, everything in D&D was created, yes.

If you are limited to RAW, and everything is created, then there must exist an ability in RAW to create it. But...


Okay, after thinking about it for a little bit, I decided to look into what a deity in 3.5 can do in crafting his own realm. Now, every deity of Divine Rank 1 or higher has their own realm in which they are at their most powerful. They are allowed to control the environment, in a similar manner to what's described in the Genesis spell. However, in order to change the planar traits, and time is mentioned specifically among those traits, a deity has to have a Divine Rank of 16 or greater. That means, in order to do to their own plane, the seat of their power, what you're saying this level 9 spell can do to any demiplane it creates, the deity has to be a Greater Deity or Over Deity. That just seems like a bit of a stretch to me. When God is restricted on what he can do with it, that level 17 Wizard should be, too.

It looks like that is covered by deities.


We already discussed that planar traits are plausibly part of the plane's environment.

We already discussed that Genesis allows the caster virtually any environmental trait imaginable, barring a few exceptions.

We already discussed how we know that demiplanes have variable time traits.

We already discussed that Psionic/Divine Genesis explicitly don't allow time traits to be manipulated.

The spell doesn't explicitly say that planar traits can be altered; but these are multiple pieces of evidence that being able to do so is perfectly plausible.

Pun-Pun can change planar time traits. There's the answer to the OP.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Do you mean to imply that everything in the D&D world was created by an ability?

Because that's what this argument rests on.

Not everything, but Demi-Planes must be explicitly created, they aren't natural. Meaning that RAW those fast flowing demi-planes must have been created by an ability.


Okay, after thinking about it for a little bit, I decided to look into what a deity in 3.5 can do in crafting his own realm. Now, every deity of Divine Rank 1 or higher has their own realm in which they are at their most powerful. They are allowed to control the environment, in a similar manner to what's described in the Genesis spell. However, in order to change the planar traits, and time is mentioned specifically among those traits, a deity has to have a Divine Rank of 16 or greater.

Are the Planes created by God's Demi-plane's or Normal Planes?


That means, in order to do to their own plane, the seat of their power, what you're saying this level 9 spell can do to any demiplane it creates, the deity has to be a Greater Deity or Over Deity. That just seems like a bit of a stretch to me. When God is restricted on what he can do with it, that level 17 Wizard should be, too.

No, just because that makes sense doesn't mean it's the case RAW.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Okay, after thinking about it for a little bit, I decided to look into what a deity in 3.5 can do in crafting his own realm. Now, every deity of Divine Rank 1 or higher has their own realm in which they are at their most powerful. They are allowed to control the environment, in a similar manner to what's described in the Genesis spell. However, in order to change the planar traits, and time is mentioned specifically among those traits, a deity has to have a Divine Rank of 16 or greater. That means, in order to do to their own plane, the seat of their power, what you're saying this level 9 spell can do to any demiplane it creates, the deity has to be a Greater Deity or Over Deity. That just seems like a bit of a stretch to me. When God is restricted on what he can do with it, that level 17 Wizard should be, too.

This kinda of a silly argument. A god with levels in nothing but Fighter and bad Divine Salient abilities is going to be incapable of duplicating much of what a level 20 Wizard can accomplish.

[The_Jette]

This kinda of a silly argument. A god with levels in nothing but Fighter and bad Divine Salient abilities is going to be incapable of duplicating much of what a level 20 Wizard can accomplish.

So, you're saying that Kord, the God of Strength, cannot at all change the flow of time on the plane on which his powers are most magnified and dangerous, but a level 17 Wizard should be able to because the spell doesn't specifically call out time as one of the things that can't be affected? That seems like a sillier argument than saying that if a God can't do it in his area of strength that a Wizard shouldn't be able to do it by using what appears to be a weaker version of the deities' ability.

[ColorBlindNinja]

So, you're saying that Kord, the God of Strength, cannot at all change the flow of time on the plane on which his powers are most magnified and dangerous, but a level 17 Wizard should be able to because the spell doesn't specifically call out time as one of the things that can't be affected? That seems like a sillier argument than saying that if a God can't do it in his area of strength that a Wizard shouldn't be able to do it by using what appears to be a weaker version of the deities' ability.

That's irrelevant. The rules don't care that one is a god and one isn't. There's no clause that says that gods must be stronger than mortals.

Any god can take Alter Reality and do the same thing the wizard is doing.

[The_Jette]

That's irrelevant. The rules don't care that one is a god and one isn't. There's no clause that says that gods must be stronger than mortals.

Any god can take Alter Reality and do the same thing the wizard is doing.

I'm not talking about Salient Abilities here. I'm talking about an innate ability to form an entire realm of their own that all deities have. It's literally a God-like ability to form a demiplane in which that deity is stronger than anywhere else. You've taken a Deity and put them on steroids in this place. That place is restricted in ways that you are saying your spell that mere mortals can figure out without even reaching epic levels. And, you think that's not an issue? I'm gonna have to call BS. But, again, it's not like there was ever a chance that you were going to change your mind on this topic.

[The_Jette]

Are the Planes created by God's Demi-plane's or Normal Planes?

No, just because that makes sense doesn't mean it's the case RAW.

By the description, they appear to be demi-planes. Also, I find it humorous that you included in your argument that things don't have to make sense to be RAW. You're not wrong. But, it is funny.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I'm not talking about Salient Abilities here. I'm talking about an innate ability to form an entire realm of their own that all deities have. It's literally a God-like ability to form a demiplane in which that deity is stronger than anywhere else. You've taken a Deity and put them on steroids in this place. That place is restricted in ways that you are saying your spell that mere mortals can figure out without even reaching epic levels. And, you think that's not an issue? I'm gonna have to call BS. But, again, it's not like there was ever a chance that you were going to change your mind on this topic.

Have you seen the gods' stats? I suspect an epic wizard could kill them easily.

Your argument has no RAW basis. It doesn't have to make sense, just have rule support.

Edit: Non-epic wizards can kill gods too.

[The_Jette]

Have you seen the gods' stats? I suspect an epic wizard could kill them easily.

Your argument has no RAW basis. It doesn't have to make sense, just have rule support.

My argument is that a stronger version fueled by Divine Ranks is restricted in the sense of not being able to control the flow of time, so why would a lesser version of it not be? From reading the traits that can be affected by Genesis, time doesn't seem to be in the same ballpark. You don't control the gravity. You don't control what it's made of. You control temperature, light levels, water available, and things like that. Time flow is not like that. But, you're saying it is. Which brings us back to a yes/no argument that never gets resolved.

[ColorBlindNinja]

My argument is that a stronger version fueled by Divine Ranks is restricted in the sense of not being able to control the flow of time, so why would a lesser version of it not be? From reading the traits that can be affected by Genesis, time doesn't seem to be in the same ballpark. You don't control the gravity. You don't control what it's made of. You control temperature, light levels, water available, and things like that. Time flow is not like that. But, you're saying it is. Which brings us back to a yes/no argument that never gets resolved.

I've already explained why I think that Genesis allows time manipulation, and I think you should be able to control gravity annd materials too.

I repeat; your argument has no RAW basis.

I don't know what else to tell you.

Edit: What makes you think the gods' ability to manipulate their planes is stronger? There's no evidence to suggest that.

[Florian]

Which brings us back to a yes/no argument that never gets resolved.

It´s more the point when we have to deal with a mentality that accepts everything not forbidden to be allowed. That´s probably why talk about certain spells with very vague wording will always end this way.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It´s more the point when we have to deal with a mentality that accepts everything not forbidden to be allowed. That´s probably why talk about certain spells with very vague wording will always end this way.

That's typically how 3.5 works.

Plus, we know fast time traits exist. That's kinda important.

[Florian]

That's typically how 3.5 works.

Not really.

D20 as a system actually uses a relatively good design and is build around you having to enable an option to have it, then you´re permitted. You can´t describe the effect of, say, Power Attack and expect to gain it without having the actual feat, same as "roleplaying" your character singing an enticing aria without having Perform: Oratory.

The "problem" we talk about is a) "Legacy" spells from AD&D and b) those spells setting the standard for writers to just not care about the rules or basing new spells on the same sloppy standard and going by the old mentality that the gm should sort it out, which actually shouldn't fit in with the overall d20 mentality.

This is a red line that is a constant on this kind of discussions and probably led up to 4E.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Not really.

D20 as a system actually uses a relatively good design and is build around you having to enable an option to have it, then you´re permitted. You can´t describe the effect of, say, Power Attack and expect to gain it without having the actual feat, same as "roleplaying" your character singing an enticing aria without having Perform: Oratory.

The "problem" we talk about is a) "Legacy" spells from AD&D and b) those spells setting the standard for writers to just not care about the rules or basing new spells on the same sloppy standard and going by the old mentality that the gm should sort it out, which actually shouldn't fit in with the overall d20 mentality.

This is a red line that is a constant on this kind of discussions and probably led up to 4E.

Genesis isn't the only open ended spell/ability.

Shapechange and Ice Assassin are two other examples that come to mind.

Edit: In these cases, a list of parameters are given and anything that fits is game.

[Florian]

Genesis isn't the only open ended spell/ability.

Shapechange and Ice Assassin are two other examples that come to mind.

You should be able to see a pattern here. We have more than enough abilities/spells that work with the restrictive design, but we also have those outliers that reference non-PHB sources to actually work and these are the problematic ones when the accompanying material doesn´t stick to the same design rules. Shapechange is a good example, as the spell/ability was apparently created in a vacuum, as is the Zodar we recently talked about, which was not created with Shapechange in mind.

Edit: To sum it up - We can´t have a closed and permissive system at the same time, the same way we can´t have full Rule Zero in effect and have Player Empowerment at the same time. That doesn´t work and will only lead to arguments.

[ColorBlindNinja]

You should be able to see a pattern here. We have more than enough abilities/spells that work with the restrictive design, but we also have those outliers that reference non-PHB sources to actually work and these are the problematic ones when the accompanying material doesn´t stick to the same design rules. Shapechange is a good example, as the spell/ability was apparently created in a vacuum, as is the Zodar we recently talked about, which was not created with Shapechange in mind.

I think we can agree that WotC were incompetent?

[The_Jette]

Genesis isn't the only open ended spell/ability.

Shapechange and Ice Assassin are two other examples that come to mind.

Edit: In these cases, a list of parameters are given and anything that fits is game.

Ice Assassin is an interesting case of a spell being built for one purpose and being utilized in an entirely different fashion. By looking it over, it's obvious that the spell is meant to build a copy of someone that is then used to kill that person and take their place. The idea of using Ice Assassin to duplicate Gods isn't terrible, but also isn't practical. For one thing, the argument that you automatically have a part of a God in your magic component pouch because it doesn't have a gp cost assigned to it is dumb. For another thing, the spell cannot grant Divine Ranks to the Ice Assassin, so a lot of the amazing things that the Deity can do, like treating every attack roll as a natural 20 or just immediately killing a mortal by willing it, the Ice Assassin can't do. And, finally, the Ice Assassin is supposed to have an extreme hatred for their opposite and attempt to seek them out to kill them. Now, if you want to seek out the deity and kill them, and use the Ice Assassin to try to pull that off, that seems like a reasonable thing to attempt. But, that's the problem with some of these open ended spells. The reasonable way of dealing with it is to stick with things that are listed, and possibly a few other things that are similar. Want a waterfall in your demi-plane? Yeah, no problem. Want to have time flow at 86,400 times the usual rate so that one second on the Material Plane is a full day there? Not gonna happen.

[The_Jette]

I think we can agree that WotC were incompetent?

Agreed. :smallbiggrin:

[Florian]

I think we can agree that WotC were incompetent?

That´s harsh judgment. I would´t even phrase it that way. Keep in mind that turning everything into concrete rules will have the effect of turning the game into more or less some kind of board game. We could see what happens with Warhammer 3rd and FFG Star Wars.

I´d agree that WotC managed to create a game and system where one half of the classes is part of the restricted rules and the other is part of the open rules and the friction and differences here is what we all argue about since 3E came out.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Ice Assassin is an interesting case of a spell being built for one purpose and being utilized in an entirely different fashion. By looking it over, it's obvious that the spell is meant to build a copy of someone that is then used to kill that person and take their place. The idea of using Ice Assassin to duplicate Gods isn't terrible, but also isn't practical. For one thing, the argument that you automatically have a part of a God in your magic component pouch because it doesn't have a gp cost assigned to it is dumb. For another thing, the spell cannot grant Divine Ranks to the Ice Assassin, so a lot of the amazing things that the Deity can do, like treating every attack roll as a natural 20 or just immediately killing a mortal by willing it, the Ice Assassin can't do. And, finally, the Ice Assassin is supposed to have an extreme hatred for their opposite and attempt to seek them out to kill them. Now, if you want to seek out the deity and kill them, and use the Ice Assassin to try to pull that off, that seems like a reasonable thing to attempt. But, that's the problem with some of these open ended spells. The reasonable way of dealing with it is to stick with things that are listed, and possibly a few other things that are similar. Want a waterfall in your demi-plane? Yeah, no problem. Want to have time flow at 86,400 times the usual rate so that one second on the Material Plane is a full day there? Not gonna happen.

- Echew Materials is all that's needed to bypass the material component.

- RAW has nothing to do with reason.

- An Ice Assassin of a god will have all of its powers because the spell says so.

- I've already covered Genesis.

- You still have yet to provide evidence for any of your claims.

[Florian]

- Echew Materials is all that's needed to bypass the material component.

- RAW has nothing to do with reason.

- An Ice Assassin of a god will have all of its powers because the spell says so.

- I've already covered Genesis.

- You still have yet to provide evidence for any of your claims.

RAW is supposed to model an in-game reality for a fantasy world were magic, monsters and gods are an actual thing. So RAW actually has to do with "reason" as it should provide the tools to model that world and let us fool around with it.

That´s the point where our views of RAW and RAI clash.

Edit: The core assumption always has been that our physics hold true until a specific effect tells us otherwise.

[ColorBlindNinja]

RAW is supposed to model an in-game reality for a fantasy world were magic, monsters and gods are an actual thing. So RAW actually has to do with "reason" as it should provide the tools to model that world and let us fool around with it.

That´s the point where our views of RAW and RAI clash.

RAW stands for rules as written. It's a viewpoint that sticks to the most literal interpretation of the rules. What you're describing is more the rule set in general.

[Florian]

RAW stands for rules as written. It's a viewpoint that sticks to the most literal interpretation of the rules. What you're describing is more the rule set in general.

You contradict yourself.

Either we use rules to simulate something, or we use rules to define what the game is. We can´t have both at the same time.

[The_Jette]

- Echew Materials is all that's needed to bypass the material component.

- RAW has nothing to do with reason.

- An Ice Assassin of a god will have all of its powers because the spell says so.

- I've already covered Genesis.

- You still have yet to provide evidence for any of your claims.

Eschew Materials is the same case as a spell component pouch. For the spell of Ice Assassin, you need the bit of the person in order to copy the creature being copied. No bits, no person. Eschew Materials and spell component pouches were built in order to mitigate having to carry certain amounts of bat quano and sulfur, or a bit of pork rind. It wasn't meant to replace that bit of deity that you need in order to copy him. And, I will never accept the open ended description of "the ice assassin possesses all the skills, abilities, and memories possessed by the original" as granting Divine Ranks, or the abilities thereof. That is an interpretation that defies logic in all ways. As a level 40 Wizard you shouldn't be able to make an exact duplicate a deity, let alone a level 17. And, finally, this is an argument of opinion. I've pointed that out repeatedly. The "evidence" that you are showing only backs up my opinion on the meaning of the spell, just as any "evidence" that I provide will back up your opinion to you. It's not going to ever end because we disagree in how it works.

[Florian]

@The_Jette:

Your setting is not troubled by a constant rain of deity toe clippings? Who´d have though...

[ColorBlindNinja]

Eschew Materials is the same case as a spell component pouch. For the spell of Ice Assassin, you need the bit of the person in order to copy the creature being copied. No bits, no person. Eschew Materials and spell component pouches were built in order to mitigate having to carry certain amounts of bat quano and sulfur, or a bit of pork rind. It wasn't meant to replace that bit of deity that you need in order to copy him. And, I will never accept the open ended description of "the ice assassin possesses all the skills, abilities, and memories possessed by the original" as granting Divine Ranks, or the abilities thereof. That is an interpretation that defies logic in all ways. As a level 40 Wizard you shouldn't be able to make an exact duplicate a deity, let alone a level 17. And, finally, this is an argument of opinion. I've pointed that out repeatedly. The "evidence" that you are showing only backs up my opinion on the meaning of the spell, just as any "evidence" that I provide will back up your opinion to you. It's not going to ever end because we disagree in how it works.

- Whether or not you think it's ridiculous isn't an argument.

- Eschew Materials eliminates the need for the component; that's how the feat works.

- I can quote text from the rules to back up my opinions, while you have yet to do so.

Edit: Yes, RAW is absurdly powerful; but that doesn't change the fact that's how the rules work.

[The_Jette]

We're getting off topic, though. The answer to the OP's original question is this: depending on your opinion of the spell description, your DM may or may not allow the alteration of the time flow. My opinion, Time is not a part of the physical environment that you are allowed to alter. ColorBlindNinja's opinion, Time is a part of the physical environment that you are allowed to alter. RAW is too unclear for a definitive answer to this.

[ColorBlindNinja]

We're getting off topic, though. The answer to the OP's original question is this: depending on your opinion of the spell description, your DM may or may not allow the alteration of the time flow. My opinion, Time is not a part of the physical environment that you are allowed to alter. ColorBlindNinja's opinion, Time is a part of the physical environment that you are allowed to alter. RAW is too unclear for a definitive answer to this.

The DMG calls time a physical trait.

[Florian]

RAW is too unclear for a definitive answer to this.

This is the end point for this discussion. We can´t say and interpretation can go either way.

[The_Jette]

The DMG calls time a physical trait.

It calls it a physical Planar trait. Not an environmental one.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It calls it a physical Planar trait. Not an environmental one.

Can you provide evidence for that claim.

I've already discussed my reasoning, I would like you to explain yours.

[The_Jette]

Can you provide evidence for that claim.

I've already discussed my reasoning, I would like you to explain yours.

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Planar_traits

[Tainted_Scholar]

It calls it a physical Planar trait. Not an environmental one.

Planar Traits are part of the environment. Both definitions of environment presented on this thread would include Planar Traits.

Additionally, I don't know what your obsession with physical traits is, since the spell description never mentioned them.


http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Planar_traits

Okay, what are you trying to say?



Also, I was wrong about Demi-Planes only to being created. I double checked the MotP and they do occur naturally, so sorry about that.

[ColorBlindNinja]

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Planar_traits

I saw nothing to indicate that planar traits are not a part of the environment. These are physical laws we're talking about; how can they not be part of nature?

[Florian]

@Tainted Scholar:

To be blunt: Genesis allows you to design the environment but doesn´t go into Planar Traits that shape said environment. You´re just reading that out of the open-ended description.

So, Pazuzu...

[Tainted_Scholar]

@Tainted Scholar:

To be blunt: Genesis allows you to design the environment but doesn´t go into Planar Traits that shape said environment. You´re just reading that out of the open-ended description.

You have provided no evidence to support that argument. All you are doing is trying to place restrictions on the text that doesn't exist.

Yes I am reading the open-ended description, you aren't even doing that. If you are so certain that such a restriction exist then show me where it exists. Otherwise there is literally nothing stopping me from creating a Demi-Plane with a fast time flow.

Also, as I have stated before, planar traits are part of the plane's environment.

[Gildedragon]

You have provided no evidence to support that argument. All you are doing is trying to place restrictions on the text that doesn't exist.

Yes I am reading the open-ended description, you aren't even doing that. If you are so certain that such a restriction exist then show me where it exists. Otherwise there is literally nothing stopping me from creating a Demi-Plane with a fast time flow.

Also, as I have stated before, planar traits are part of the plane's environment.
More importantly: time's called out as being specifically excluded in similar versions of the spell, this indicates that without such a restriction it'd be a valid trait to modify.
Thus regardless of planar traits being environment or not: time is something an unrestricted demiplane-crafting spell (such as Genesis) can modify.

[ColorBlindNinja]

This is incorrect. The SRD references RAW. It cites sources from all over published material; without actually listing the sources it cites. It pulls the reference for arcane Genesis from the Epic Level Handbook. The Epic Level Handbook was updated from 3.0 to 3.5 in July of 2003 via the WoTC website. Complete Divine was subsequently published in May of 2004.

The SRD doesn't care about order of publication, because Complete Divine is not covered under the OGL, and therefore, the most up to date version of Genesis that CAN be published in the SRD, is the version printed in the Epic Level Handbook. This is similar to the way that the SRD doesn't include the errata for Astral Constructs within its text, because Complete Psionic does not exist as far as the SRD is concerned. It can't publish errata that is not covered under the OGL.

The conclusion, then, is that much like Complete Psionic overwrites the SRD rules for Astral Constructs, so too does Complete Divine overwrite the SRD rules for Genesis.

There's no Genesis spell in the Compete Divine. There's Word of Genesis in Tome of Magic, but all other Divine Genesis spells are 3.0.

[Gullintanni]

There's no Genesis spell in the Compete Divine. There's Word of Genesis in Tome of Magic, but all other Divine Genesis spells are 3.0.

Yeah, I was about to edit my post to that effect.

[The_Jette]

Also, as I have stated before, planar traits are part of the plane's environment.

Please provide a reference that indicates that Planar traits are part of the environment.

[Florian]

Please provide a reference that indicates that Planar traits are part of the environment.

Won´t come.

[Tainted_Scholar]

This is incorrect. The SRD references RAW. It cites sources from all over published material; without actually listing the sources it cites. It pulls the reference for arcane Genesis from the Epic Level Handbook. The Epic Level Handbook was updated from 3.0 to 3.5 in July of 2003 via the WoTC website. Complete Divine was subsequently published in May of 2004.

The SRD doesn't care about order of publication, because Complete Divine is not covered under the OGL, and therefore, the most up to date version of Genesis that CAN be published in the SRD, is the version printed in the Epic Level Handbook. This is similar to the way that the SRD doesn't include the errata for Astral Constructs within its text, because Complete Psionic does not exist as far as the SRD is concerned. It can't publish errata that is not covered under the OGL.

Except the SRD did indeed update the 3.0 information to 3.5. Just look at the epic monsters and you'll see that things like their DR was updated from the original 3.0 to the modern 3.5 rules. As a result Arcane Genesis is 3.5.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Please provide a reference that indicates that Planar traits are part of the environment.

As I have said before, RAW does not give a definition of environment. Using a dictionary definition of the word environment:

"1.
the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates.

2.
the natural world, as a whole or in a particular geographical area, especially as affected by human activity."

Time is a part of the laws of physics and thus part of the natural world.

Edit:


Yeah, I was about to edit my post to that effect.

OK, I didn't know that there wasn't a Complete Divine Genesis until yesterday.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Please provide a reference that indicates that Planar traits are part of the environment.

en·vi·ron·ment
inˈvīrənmənt/Submit
noun
1.
the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates.
synonyms: habitat, territory, domain; More
2.
the natural world, as a whole or in a particular geographical area, especially as affected by human activity.
synonyms: the natural world, nature, the earth, the planet, the ecosystem, the biosphere, Mother Nature;

Planar Traits would qualify as part of the environment by both of these definitions, as it is part of the surroundings and conditions of the plane, and it is certainly part of the natural world of the plane.

[The_Jette]

en·vi·ron·ment
inˈvīrənmənt/Submit
noun
1.
the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates.
synonyms: habitat, territory, domain; More
2.
the natural world, as a whole or in a particular geographical area, especially as affected by human activity.
synonyms: the natural world, nature, the earth, the planet, the ecosystem, the biosphere, Mother Nature;

Planar Traits would qualify as part of the environment by both of these definitions, as it is part of the surroundings and conditions of the plane, and it is certainly part of the natural world of the plane.

You simply stated a definition and attempted to extrapolate data that just isn't there. Please show me something from RAW that states that Planar Traits are a part of the environment, rather than vice versa. Or, admit that this is simply your interpretations of the rules and that this argument is pointless. Either way works for me.

[Florian]

@Colorblindninja:

If you can´t find an air-tight way to prove your point, maybe there isn´t?

[ColorBlindNinja]

@Colorblindninja:

If you can´t find an air-tight way to prove your point, maybe there isn´t?

You haven't shown any evidence that you're right.

I freely admit the rules are vague, but that doesn't mean the evidence I've cited doesn't support my conclusion.

[Tainted_Scholar]

You simply stated a definition and attempted to extrapolate data that just isn't there. Please show me something from RAW that states that Planar Traits are a part of the environment, rather than vice versa. Or, admit that this is simply your interpretations of the rules and that this argument is pointless. Either way works for me.

RAW doesn't have a definition for environment, meaning that have to use the dictionary definition of environment. At the same time however, you have failed to give a single reason for why planar traits shouldn't be part of the environment. Additionally you keep ignoring this part of the text. "The spellcaster determines the environment within the demiplane when he or she first casts genesis, reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize.

Give me one good reason as to why I can't create a fast time flow even though it says I can create almost anything I want in my Demi-Plane. Planar traits aren't among the list of things that are forbidden from being created, yet you keep acting like they are.

So tell me, why can't planar traits be one of the desires that I can visualize?

[The_Jette]

You haven't shown any evidence that you're right.

I freely admit the rules are vague, but that doesn't mean the evidence I've cited doesn't support my conclusion.

Actually, I have. You've ignored it. The evidence you've cited doesn't support your conclusion. You decided ahead of time what you wanted the spell to do, and refuse to see any evidence to the contrary. The spell lets you alter the environment, not the planar traits. There's a difference.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Actually, I have. You've ignored it. The evidence you've cited doesn't support your conclusion. You decided ahead of time what you wanted the spell to do, and refuse to see any evidence to the contrary. The spell lets you alter the environment, not the planar traits. There's a difference.

Give me one good reason why planar traits aren't part of the environment.

[The_Jette]

RAW doesn't have a definition for environment, meaning that have to use the dictionary definition of environment. At the same time however, you have failed to give a single reason for why planar traits shouldn't be part of the environment. Additionally you keep ignoring this part of the text. "The spellcaster determines the environment within the demiplane when he or she first casts genesis, reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize.

Give me one good reason as to why I can't create a fast time flow even though it says I can create almost anything I want in my Demi-Plane. Planar traits aren't among the list of things that are forbidden from being created, yet you keep acting like they are.

So tell me, why can't planar traits be one of the desires that I can visualize?

As I've stated repeatedly, Planar Traits are not the same as Environmental traits. If they were, it would have been stated. There's really nothing else to say about it beyond that.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Actually, I have. You've ignored it. The evidence you've cited doesn't support your conclusion. You decided ahead of time what you wanted the spell to do, and refuse to see any evidence to the contrary. The spell lets you alter the environment, not the planar traits. There's a difference.

You keep asserting your position without explaining why. You haven't quoted a single rule to support your arguments.

I am not close-minded, nor do I presuppose my conclusion. I need evidence for my mind to be changed. So far, you've only provided assertions.

Edit:


As I've stated repeatedly, Planar Traits are not the same as Environmental traits. If they were, it would have been stated. There's really nothing else to say about it beyond that.

Why do you say that? Can you quote some text to prove that?

[Tainted_Scholar]

As I've stated repeatedly, Planar Traits are not the same as Environmental traits. If they were, it would have been stated. There's really nothing else to say about it beyond that.

You have provided no evidence! D&D has no definition of environment, yet you keep acting like it does. As such you keep claiming that they're different yet you never provided any evidence to support your claim.

And you failed to address this part.


Additionally you keep ignoring this part of the text. "The spellcaster determines the environment within the demiplane when he or she first casts genesis, reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize. "

Give me one good reason as to why I can't create a fast time flow even though it says I can create almost anything I want in my Demi-Plane. Planar traits aren't among the list of things that are forbidden from being created, yet you keep acting like they are.

So tell me, why can't planar traits be one of the desires that I can visualize?

[The_Jette]

There's an entire list of planar traits that were provided. There are updated spells that specifically call out that you CANNOT change time as part of the spell. Why? Because people said, "it doesn't say I can't so I should be able to," and the publishers obviously didn't want you to. But, none of that is good enough for you. You want to be able to alter time, so you're going to insist that you can no matter what you're shown. There's zero evidence backing up the idea that Planar traits are a part of the environment other than your assertions they are, and then you insist that I'm only making assertions to back up my claims. We can both site the exact same words and get complete opposite meanings from it. So, why are you still insisting that I'm obviously completely wrong and you're completely right when the truth is the RAW is ambiguous and there is no official ruling to clear it up for anyone?

[Gildedragon]

There's an entire list of planar traits that were provided. There are updated spells that specifically call out that you CANNOT change time as part of the spell. Why? Because people said, "it doesn't say I can't so I should be able to," and the publishers obviously didn't want you to. if that was the case then Genesis ought have been errata-ed instead of the restriction applying to later spells that are not Wizard accessible.
Especially since Psi Gen made it into the SRD

[ColorBlindNinja]

There's an entire list of planar traits that were provided. There are updated spells that specifically call out that you CANNOT change time as part of the spell. Why? Because people said, "it doesn't say I can't so I should be able to," and the publishers obviously didn't want you to. But, none of that is good enough for you.

The fact that they changed the future spells to disallow time manipulation implies that Arcane Genesis can.


You want to be able to alter time, so you're going to insist that you can no matter what you're shown.

Appeal to motive fallacy. What I want is irrelevant.


There's zero evidence backing up the idea that Planar traits are a part of the environment other than your assertions they are, and then you insist that I'm only making assertions to back up my claims. We can both site the exact same words and get complete opposite meanings from it. So, why are you still insisting that I'm obviously completely wrong and you're completely right when the truth is the RAW is ambiguous and there is no official ruling to clear it up for anyone?

Tainted Scholar and I have cited dictionaries and the text of Genesis in support of our arguments; you just keep saying that we're wrong without showing why. Until you can do so you have no leg to stand on in this debate.

[Tainted_Scholar]

There's an entire list of planar traits that were provided. There are updated spells that specifically call out that you CANNOT change time as part of the spell. Why? Because people said, "it doesn't say I can't so I should be able to," and the publishers obviously didn't want you to. But, none of that is good enough for you.

Except they are different spells, and fact that such a distinction exist in one doesn't effect the other. Except to highlight the fact that they screwed up with the original version. If time manipulation wasn't possible with the original version then they wouldn't need to specifically call it out as an impossibility in other versions.


You want to be able to alter time, so you're going to insist that you can no matter what you're shown.

I am more than willing to change my stance on this. Except you have given me no reason to change my stance on this.


There's zero evidence backing up the idea that Planar traits are a part of the environment other than your assertions they are, and then you insist that I'm only making assertions to back up my claims.

I have posted the definition on environment multiple times on this thread and pointed out how planar traits fit that definition, you haven't done anything like that.


We can both site the exact same words and get complete opposite meanings from it.

Then explain how you got a different interpretation from the words, look at the definitions and explain why planar traits can't be part of the environment. Simply saying "they've never been specified as being part of the environment" isn't enough, because there is no definition for environment in 3.5.

All I ask is that you bring me a definition or rule and explain why it supports your interpretation.


So, why are you still insisting that I'm obviously completely wrong and you're completely right when the truth is the RAW is ambiguous and there is no official ruling to clear it up for anyone?

Because while the RAW may be ambiguous I have provided evidence to support my reasoning, and I have explained how the evidence supports my reasoning. You haven't done that.

[The_Jette]

The fact that they changed the future spells to disallow time manipulation implies that Arcane Genesis can. Appeal to motive fallacy. What I want is irrelevant. Tainted Scholar and I have cited dictionaries and the text of Genesis in support of our arguments; you just keep saying that we're wrong without showing why. Until you can do so you have no leg to stand on in this debate.

I disagree that changing future spells implies that the old version allowed it. Rather, it seems more likely that they added the caveat because people were attempting to use it ways not intended, that they didn't know about in the previous printing, and wanted to clear that up. As for the relevancy of what you want, I didn't say it mattered to the actual meaning of the spell. Its relevancy is due to you refusing to accept evidence presented. I brought up an entire list of planar traits that are listed completely separately from the DMG listing of environments, and not defined as an environment. It's not that I'm not showing evidence. It's that you're disregarding it. I showed that Gods themselves can't even do what you're suggesting, in a game where Gods are supposed to be more powerful than your average PC. If you have to have a Divine Rank of 16 or higher in order to shape your own demi-plane, the place that you're supposed to be at the absolute height of your power as a deity, then why would a 9th level spell be able to trump that? I've yet to see a reason why the flow of Time should be assumed to be included in a list that otherwise includes temperature, water, and weather. Literally, Tainted_Scholar's argument is he wants to alter time, so why can't he? It just does not fit the way that the spell is built, and makes absolutely no sense.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I disagree that changing future spells implies that the old version allowed it. Rather, it seems more likely that they added the caveat because people were attempting to use it ways not intended, that they didn't know about in the previous printing, and wanted to clear that up.

There's really no way to tell what the designers intended. I think that this line of reasoning is flimsy; even with your interpretation it's still reasonable that the original allows time manipulation.


As for the relevancy of what you want, I didn't say it mattered to the actual meaning of the spell. Its relevancy is due to you refusing to accept evidence presented.

It's still a fallacy and irrelevant.


I brought up an entire list of planar traits that are listed completely separately from the DMG listing of environments, and not defined as an environment.

The only mention of the word environment I could find were under the sections about subjective gravity and the morphic trait. Nothing is defined as under a listing called "environment".


It's not that I'm not showing evidence. It's that you're disregarding it. I showed that Gods themselves can't even do what you're suggesting,

I showed that they can do this.


in a game where Gods are supposed to be more powerful than your average PC.

"Supposed to be" is irrelevant. The reality is that gods are exceedingly powerful when optimized, hilariously weak when they aren't. Just like wizards.


If you have to have a Divine Rank of 16 or higher in order to shape your own demi-plane, the place that you're supposed to be at the absolute height of your power as a deity, then why would a 9th level spell be able to trump that?

Because the designers are incompetent? Divine Celerity lets you be hasted for certain number of rounds per day; Alter Reality lets you become hasted permanently. This is just one example of bad design. Your argument has no basis in the rules.


I've yet to see a reason why the flow of Time should be assumed to be included in a list that otherwise includes temperature, water, and weather. Literally, Tainted_Scholar's argument is he wants to alter time, so why can't he? It just does not fit the way that the spell is built, and makes absolutely no sense.

His argument involves that fact that Genesis allows virtually anything the caster can visualize. That's a pretty broad description.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I brought up an entire list of planar traits that are listed completely separately from the DMG listing of environments, and not defined as an environment. It's not that I'm not showing evidence. It's that you're disregarding it.

Show me where the DMG describes environment. Quote a passage, link to the relevant SRD article, or even just give me the page number in the DMG. If D&D does indeed have a definition of environment then show to me. Also you never brought this up before.


I showed that Gods themselves can't even do what you're suggesting, in a game where Gods are supposed to be more powerful than your average PC. If you have to have a Divine Rank of 16 or higher in order to shape your own demi-plane, the place that you're supposed to be at the absolute height of your power as a deity, then why would a 9th level spell be able to trump that?

That literally doesn't matter in RAW. Persistent Haste is far better than Divine Celerity, despite one being a spell and the other being a Salient ability.

Also by this logic, lower level spells could never be better than higher level ones since the higher level ones are suppose to be more powerful. Except this blatantly isn't the case.

Ultimately your arguing Creator intent here, despite the fact that intent has no place in RAW.


I've yet to see a reason why the flow of Time should be assumed to be included in a list that otherwise includes temperature, water, and weather.

Why do you keep ignoring this part of the text?

"reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize"

The list including water, temperature, and weather is just a list of potential examples. Because the text outright says that I can create anything I want with a few exceptions.


Literally, Tainted_Scholar's argument is he wants to alter time, so why can't he?

Exactly, The text says I can create "most any desire the [I] can visualize" and you have yet to give a reason why I cannot create a fast time flow.

[The_Jette]

http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/wildernessWeatherEnvironment.htm

[The_Jette]

Ultimately your arguing Creator intent here, despite the fact that intent has no place in RAW.

The ironic part about this statement is that you're arguing intent, as well, since you're saying that a specific trait that you want to be able to change is intended to be a part of this list that doesn't name it.

[ColorBlindNinja]

http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/wildernessWeatherEnvironment.htm

Those are environmental hazards. Not general environments.

I see nothing about caves in that section; by this logic I can't create those either.

Edit:

The ironic part about this statement is that you're arguing intent, as well, since you're saying that a specific trait that you want to be able to change is intended to be a part of this list that doesn't name it.

No, I'm arguing rules. Whether or not the designers intended for Genesis planes to allow time manipulation is irrelevant to RAW.

[Tainted_Scholar]

http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/wildernessWeatherEnvironment.htm

Those are environmental hazards not a definition for environment... In fact the only part where it says the word environment is in the title of the page.

Additionally that doesn't work with Genesis since the list of examples in Genesis has nothing to do with what you posted.


The ironic part about this statement is that you're arguing intent, as well, since you're saying that a specific trait that you want to be able to change is intended to be a part of this list that doesn't name it.

The list is one of potential examples, it includes the clause "such as" before the list. It's not a hard list of things I'm allowed to include, and I'm not forced to choose things from that list. In fact saying that I can only pick things from that list or similar things to those listed is arguing intent. I am not arguing intent since the text directly states that I can create anything I want with a few exceptions. I am arguing by the text.

[The_Jette]

So, what you're saying is that you can look at a list showing that Time is a physical planar trait, and extrapolate from that list that time must be a part of the environment that you have control over; but, I can't take an extensive list of environmental factors and extrapolate from that what parts of the environment are actually considered a part of the environment from RAW standpoint? Unless you have something new to add, I think we're going to have to agree this conversation is at an end. You haven't provided anything close to an argument I would consider compelling, and apparently it's vice versa. This is just an exercise in futility now.

[ColorBlindNinja]

So, what you're saying is that you can look at a list showing that Time is a physical planar trait, and extrapolate from that list that time must be a part of the environment that you have control over;

Partly yes, but also taking into account environment's dictionary definition and Genesis' text.


but, I can't take an extensive list of environmental factors and extrapolate from that what parts of the environment are actually considered a part of the environment from RAW standpoint?

No. Those are hazards, not a definition of the word environment. As I said, by this definition you couldn't create a cave. Do you stand by your interpretation?


Unless you have something new to add, I think we're going to have to agree this conversation is at an end. You haven't provided anything close to an argument I would consider compelling, and apparently it's vice versa. This is just an exercise in futility now.

I will agree that this discussion has long since become futile.

If you have anything else to support your arguments, I'll be happy to read them.

[Tainted_Scholar]

So, what you're saying is that you can look at a list showing that Time is a physical planar trait, and extrapolate from that list that time must be a part of the environment that you have control over; but, I can't take an extensive list of environmental factors and extrapolate from that what parts of the environment are actually considered a part of the environment from RAW standpoint?

Those were environmental hazards, it's just that, for some ungodly reason, they were listed under a chapter called environment. Additionally as I stated earlier, that list of environmental hazards didn't include some of the examples that Genesis gave for its environments.


Unless you have something new to add, I think we're going to have to agree this conversation is at an end. You haven't provided anything close to an argument I would consider compelling, and apparently it's vice versa. This is just an exercise in futility now.

That does appear to be true, unless you can somewhere find a complete list of definition for environment in a D&D book. Otherwise you provided nothing to convince me, and I have provided nothing to convince you.

[Schattenbach]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.htm

Physical Planar Traits are (alongside "Shape and Size" - i.e. Infinite, Finite Shape and Self-Contained Shape - and "Morphic Traits", I guess) Gravity and Time.

When I think about it ... in cases where someone replicates the Planar Traits of some Plane through a Planar Bubble or whatever, what would that person usually replicate? The environment OR the planar traits?

Another point of note is that Genesis wasn't printed in a vaccum. It was - among other things - printed in a context that - at least eventually - takes Deities and Demigods into account.

Something else is also quite interesting ...


Some demiplanes are self-contained.

... because the argument came up that "plenty of demiplanes are weird, demiplanes are created by genesis, so genesis can create weird demiplanes", I guess it makes sense to point out that it seems like most demiplanes weren't created (or at least not created the way they are now) by Genesis in the first place.

Edit: ... to quote some important things directly in case that some cannot be bothered to take a look at the SRD ...


Planar Traits

Each plane of existence has its own properties—the natural laws of its universe.

Planar traits are broken down into a number of general areas.

All planes have the following kinds of traits.

Physical Traits

These traits determine the laws of physics and nature on the plane, including how gravity and time function.

Elemental and Energy Traits

These traits determine the dominance of particular elemental or energy forces.

Alignment Traits

Just as characters may be lawful neutral or chaotic good, many planes are tied to a particular moral or ethical outlook.

Magic Traits

Magic works differently from plane to plane, and magic traits set the boundaries for what it can and can’t do.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I would like to say that the section that talks about subjective gravity seems to definitively link planar traits to the environment:

"This sort of environment can be very disorienting to the newcomer, but is common on “weightless” planes."

Emphasis mine.

[Schattenbach]

I would like to say that the section that talks about subjective gravity seems to definitively link planar traits to the environment:

"This sort of environment can be very disorienting to the newcomer, but is common on “weightless” planes."

Emphasis mine.

It seems to me like you're grasping on straws here. Obviously, the section about Planar Traits know about both
immediate environment as well as environment as a general descriptive laymans term, too, as that is what's being described in more detail in the morphic traits section (i.e. the section that talks about how difficult it is to alter the environment (landscape, temperatures, etc. and stuff that can be created with Genesis).


Alterable Morphic

On a plane with this trait, objects remain where they are (and what they are) unless affected by physical force or magic. You can change the immediate environment as a result of tangible effort.
Highly Morphic

On a plane with this trait, features of the plane change so frequently that it’s difficult to keep a particular area stable. Such planes may react dramatically to specific spells, sentient thought, or the force of will. Others change for no reason.
Magically Morphic

Specific spells can alter the basic material of a plane with this trait.
Divinely Morphic

Specific unique beings (deities or similar great powers) have the ability to alter objects, creatures, and the landscape on planes with this trait. Ordinary characters find these planes similar to alterable planes in that they may be affected by spells and physical effort. But the deities may cause these areas to change instantly and dramatically, creating great kingdoms for themselves.
Static

These planes are unchanging. Visitors cannot affect living residents of the plane, nor objects that the denizens possess. Any spells that would affect those on the plane have no effect unless the plane’s static trait is somehow removed or suppressed. Spells cast before entering a plane with the static trait remain in effect, however.

Even moving an unattended object within a static plane requires a DC 16 Strength check. Particularly heavy objects may be impossible to move.

Sentient

These planes are ones that respond to a single thought— that of the plane itself. Travelers would find the plane’s landscape changing as a result of what the plane thought of the travelers, either becoming more or less hospitable depending on its reaction.

Planar traits are simply defined as "Planar Traits ... Each plane of existence has its own properties—the natural laws of its universe." ... Genesis creating a Landscape is allowed through the spell, but there's nothing indicating in Genesis that it can set any Planar Traits, no matter how much you're going to talk about that "the landscape is physical, too", it still is no part of the laws of reality (and as far as planes are concerned, laws of physics are highly variable), be they the Physical Laws or Energy/Elemental related-laws or Alignment-related laws or Magic-related laws.

As far as other decriptive usages (besides the one use you already quoted) of environment are concerned ...

"The Plane of Shadow is a world of black and white; color itself has been bleached from the environment. It is otherwise appears similar to the Material Plane. "

"The Elemental Plane of Water is a sea without a floor or a surface, an entirely fluid environment lit by a diffuse glow."

... as you can see, when its being used, it is usually as a decriptive laymans term about how things look/might be experienced, without directly referencing any actual laws of reality (which are, as pointed out before, an entirely different ballgame compared to "the landscape and such").

[ColorBlindNinja]

It seems to me like you're grasping on straws here. Obviously, the section about Planar Traits know about both as well as environment as a general descriptive laymans term, too, as that is what's being described in more detail in the morphic traits section (i.e. the section that talks about how difficult it is to alter the environment (landscape, temperatures, etc. and stuff that can be created with Genesis).

Without a RAW definition for "environment", we're left with implications and the dictionary. This wasn't my only argument, either.



Planar traits are simply defined as "Planar Traits ... Each plane of existence has its own properties—the natural laws of its universe." ... Genesis creating a Landscape is allowed through the spell, but there's nothing indicating in Genesis that it can set any Planar Traits, no matter how much you're going to talk about that "the landscape is physical, too", it still is no part of the laws of reality (and as far as planes are concerned, laws of physics are highly variable), be they the Physical Laws or Energy/Elemental related-laws or Alignment-related laws or Magic-related laws.

Except for the colloquial definition of the word environment, the spell stating that you can create nearly any environmental trait you can imagine and the fact that revisions to Psionic Genesis and Word of Genesis imply that you can.


As far as other decriptive usages (besides the one use you already quoted) of environment are concerned ...

"The Plane of Shadow is a world of black and white; color itself has been bleached from the environment. It is otherwise appears similar to the Material Plane. "

"The Elemental Plane of Water is a sea without a floor or a surface, an entirely fluid environment lit by a diffuse glow."

... as you can see, when its being used, it is usually as a decriptive laymans term about how things look/might be experienced, without directly referencing any actual laws of reality (which are, as pointed out before, an entirely different ballgame compared to "the landscape and such").

I don't buy this. The descriptions include planar traits as part of the environment; it's being used as an umbrella term here. I specifically quoted the Subjective Gravity trait which is part of physics and calls itself an environment.

[Tainted_Scholar]

It seems to me like you're grasping on straws here.

Grasping at Straws!? We finally did what you've been asking, and showed you text in D&D that refers to a planar trait as part of the environment and you claim we're grasping at straws!?


Obviously, the section about Planar Traits know about both as well as environment as a general descriptive laymans term, too, as that is what's being described in more detail in the morphic traits section (i.e. the section that talks about how difficult it is to alter the environment (landscape, temperatures, etc. and stuff that can be created with Genesis).

Now you're just being dishonest, the Morphic traits mention the word "environment" exactly once.

"Alterable Morphic
On a plane with this trait, objects remain where they are (and what they are) unless affected by physical force or magic. You can change the immediate environment as a result of tangible effort."

That really doesn't back up your argument. They mention things like landscape and what not elsewhere, but never in conjunction with "Environment".



Planar traits are simply defined as "Planar Traits ... Each plane of existence has its own properties—the natural laws of its universe." ... Genesis creating a Landscape is allowed through the spell, but there's nothing indicating in Genesis that it can set any Planar Traits, no matter how much you're going to talk about that "the landscape is physical, too", it still is no part of the laws of reality (and as far as planes are concerned, laws of physics are highly variable), be they the Physical Laws or Energy/Elemental related-laws or Alignment-related laws or Magic-related laws.

Wrong again, Genesis doesn't say you can create a landscape, it says you can shape the "environment" to whatever the caster chooses. And going by both dictionary definitions of "environment", natural laws are part of the environment. Additionally, D&D itself stated that planar traits are part of the "environment".

You are literally changing the wording of the spell to suit your argument.


As far as other decriptive usages (besides the one use you already quoted) of environment are concerned ...

"The Plane of Shadow is a world of black and white; color itself has been bleached from the environment. It is otherwise appears similar to the Material Plane. "

"The Elemental Plane of Water is a sea without a floor or a surface, an entirely fluid environment lit by a diffuse glow."

... as you can see, when its being used, it is usually as a decriptive laymans term about how things look/might be experienced, without directly referencing any actual laws of reality (which are, as pointed out before, an entirely different ballgame compared to "the landscape and such").

And that doesn't change the fact that it still used environment to describe a planar trait. So what if it uses the word environment to also describe physical surroundings? it doesn't make the passage we quoted any less valid.

EDIT;
Also from the Manual of the Planes.

"The healing nature of Ysgard's exotic environment encourages personal heroics and bravery."

The "healing nature" referred to here is a planar trait (Minor Positive Dominant if you were wondering).

[DarkSoul]

The closest thing you'll get to a RAW definition of "Environment" is in the Monster Manual: "...a type of climate and terrain where the (a) creature is typically found..." It does account for some creatures having a plane for their environment entry, but also makes an argument for "environment" not including planar traits.

Because the spell and most references anyone has given so far neither confirm nor deny any one interpretation, everyone's likely going to have to relegate it to the realm of "DM's call".

For the original question: As it's created, you could probably set it to at least 1 material day : 1 demiplane week, or possibly up to 1 material round : 1 demiplane day, because those are the fastest time traits explicitly defined in the rules. Anything beyond that is up to the DM. The RAW might not say you can't set a time trait to be much faster than 1 round : 1 day, but they also don't say you can.

Altering the time trait of an extant demiplane? Permanently or temporarily? That's almost definitely up to the DM, and outside the scope of the written rules.

[Tainted_Scholar]

The closest thing you'll get to a RAW definition of "Environment" is in the Monster Manual: "...a type of climate and terrain where the (a) creature is typically found..." It does account for some creatures having a plane for their environment entry, but also makes an argument for "environment" not including planar traits.

Yes but, planar traits are part of the plane, and if a plane is an environment then planar traits should be part of the environment.

[DarkSoul]

Should be? Maybe. Shouldn't be? Also maybe. IS or IS NOT part of the environment? Undefined. It's up to the DM, as the RAW is insufficient to give a definite answer. Both sides can argue that they're right, and to be honest they both are. But they're also both wrong.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Should be? Maybe. Shouldn't be? Also maybe. IS or IS NOT part of the environment? Undefined. It's up to the DM, as the RAW is insufficient to give a definite answer. Both sides can argue that they're right, and to be honest they both are. But they're also both wrong.

I disagree entirely. RAW may be ambiguous, but that doesn't mean that there's no answer.

In this thread, Tainted Scholar and I have listed several pieces of evidence that heavily imply that you can indeed RAW manipulate a demiplane's time trait via Genesis.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I would appreciate it if you would tell us. What I grow tired of is people asserting things without providing any evidence that they're correct.

The definition of environment you supplied supports our argument, rather than contradicting it.

[DarkSoul]

I disagree entirely. RAW may be ambiguous, but that doesn't mean that there's no answer.

In this thread, Tainted Scholar and I have listed several pieces of evidence that heavily imply that you can indeed RAW manipulate a demiplane's time trait via Genesis.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I would appreciate it if you would tell us. What I grow tired of is people asserting things without providing any evidence that they're correct.

The definition of environment you supplied supports our argument, rather than contradicting it.Go look up the actual definition of "ambiguous". Google is nice enough to provide it in big letters as soon as you type the word and hit enter. Now take a moment to really think about how it applies to this discussion.

There isn't a clearly defined answer in the Rules As Written, therefore two people can quote the exact same text, make their cases for opposing interpretations, and both will be correct. However, both will also be wrong, because the RAW is ambiguous.

The definition of environment that I supplied does not support your argument, but neither does it contradict it. It is simply the extent to which the RAW defines the word "environment". Whether that definition supports or opposes a given position is up to the reader.

By the way, in this thread Tainted_Scholar asked a question which was immediately ignored in favor of five pages of arguing about whether a 3.0 wizard spell that creates a demiplane can set the rate at which time passes in that demiplane. That argument has nothing to do with the question that was asked. So again, for clarity's sake:



Can you set the time trait when you create a demiplane using the Genesis spell? That depends whether your DM considers the time trait to be part of the environment. By the RAW, it's undefined.
Can you alter the time trait of a demiplane (the question that was actually asked)? Definitely ask your DM. Again, by the RAW, it's undefined. Were I the DM it would probably be possible with something like wish or miracle, but only on a very local scale (100' radius at the most, and not permanently).

[ColorBlindNinja]

Go look up the actual definition of "ambiguous". Google is nice enough to provide it in big letters as soon as you type the word and hit enter. Now take a moment to really think about how it applies to this discussion.

Perhaps ambiguous wasn't the correct word; not explicit may have been more appropriate.


There isn't a clearly defined answer in the Rules As Written, therefore two people can quote the exact same text, make their cases for opposing interpretations, and both will be correct. However, both will also be wrong, because the RAW is ambiguous.

You make it sound as if there's no way determine an answer; that's simply not the case.


The definition of environment that I supplied does not support your argument, but neither does it contradict it. It is simply the extent to which the RAW defines the word "environment". Whether that definition supports or opposes a given position is up to the reader.

A plane is an environment and Genesis allows the manipulation of its environment. How does that not support my argument? It's not up to the reader, we have definitions for the word and RAW backing that link planar traits with the environment.


By the way, in this thread Tainted_Scholar asked a question which was immediately ignored in favor of five pages of arguing about whether a 3.0 wizard spell that creates a demiplane can set the rate at which time passes in that demiplane. That argument has nothing to do with the question that was asked.

What are you talking about? That's the exact question we've been answering this entire thread! Can you clarify what you meant?



Can you set the time trait when you create a demiplane using the Genesis spell? That depends whether your DM considers the time trait to be part of the environment. By the RAW, it's undefined.

No it isn't. By every definition of environment and virtually every mention of it in the Planes section of the DMG, suggest that you can.


Can you alter the time trait of a demiplane (the question that was actually asked)? Definitely ask your DM. Again, by the RAW, it's undefined. Were I the DM it would probably be possible with something like wish or miracle, but only on a very local scale (100' radius at the most, and not permanently).

Unless you can create a morphic time trait, I'd say no by RAW.

[Tainted_Scholar]

There isn't a clearly defined answer in the Rules As Written, therefore two people can quote the exact same text, make their cases for opposing interpretations, and both will be correct. However, both will also be wrong, because the RAW is ambiguous.

That hasn't happened though, I have quoted text and explained why it supported my interpretation, but the opposition hasn't. They didn't back up their arguments with passages from the rulebooks, nor did they explain why the dictionary definitions supported their side.


The definition of environment that I supplied does not support your argument, but neither does it contradict it. It is simply the extent to which the RAW defines the word "environment". Whether that definition supports or opposes a given position is up to the reader.

Yes it does support my argument, I explained how it supports my argument. If planes are an environment, and planar traits are part of the planes, then planar traits are part of the environment.

Explain how that's wrong.


By the way, in this thread Tainted_Scholar asked a question which was immediately ignored in favor of five pages of arguing about whether a 3.0 wizard spell that creates a demiplane can set the rate at which time passes in that demiplane. That argument has nothing to do with the question that was asked. So again, for clarity's sake:

Yes that does have to do with the question I asked. I wanted to know if you can set the rate of a Demi-plane's time flow when you created it.



Can you set the time trait when you create a demiplane using the Genesis spell? That depends whether your DM considers the time trait to be part of the environment. By the RAW, it's undefined


I have explained multiple times why planar traits are part of the Environment.

I have used the dictionary definition of environment to explain why it's possible.

I have quoted passages from the books that state that planar traits are part of the environment.

I even explained why the definition of environment given in the MM shows that planar traits are part of the environment.

All you have done however, is assert that we're wrong and there is no answer. Then when we point out the passages and definitions that support our claim, you simply say we're wrong without any evidence to support your claim. You never give a reason why were wrong other than "The rule is ambiguous" and you've failed completely to address any of the points we've made.


Can you alter the time trait of a demiplane (the question that was actually asked)? Definitely ask your DM. Again, by the RAW, it's undefined. Were I the DM it would probably be possible with something like wish or miracle, but only on a very local scale (100' radius at the most, and not permanently).

No, that was never the question. I outright said that wasn't the question I was asking on page 1.
I meant can you decide the plane's time trait when you create it, sorry if I was unclear.

[DarkSoul]

To be fair, I've also done nothing more than state that the opposing viewpoint is wrong as well. When you're discussing the Rules As Written, you don't get to assume intent. You read what is there and apply it as it's written. Nowhere in the Genesis spell does it specifically say that you can adjust the time trait of the demiplane you're creating. But it also doesn't say you can't.

As a player, I would support being able to create an extremely-fast time demiplane, and would probably make many of the same points you do. However, Genesis doesn't say, beyond any shadow of doubt, that doing such a thing is possible. So again, ask the DM, if you're a player looking for an answer. If you are the DM, great, decide however you want and let your players know so you don't have to have a pages-long argument again in the future.


...can you decide the plane's time trait when you create it, sorry if I was unclear.

Assuming that planar traits fall under the blanket "environment" term, and in the absence of a DM to let you know how the rules work for their game, then yes, you could set the time trait to any ratio you want. See the "Flowing Time" trait on page 168 of the DMG. However, if you're assuming the Great Wheel cosmology, then no, because it's explicitly stated that the flowing time trait doesn't exist in any form anywhere in the Great Wheel (also on page 168 of the DMG).

[ColorBlindNinja]

Assuming that planar traits fall under the blanket "environment" term, and in the absence of a DM to let you know how the rules work for their game, then yes, you could set the time trait to any ratio you want. See the "Flowing Time" trait on page 168 of the DMG. However, if you're assuming the Great Wheel cosmology, then no, because it's explicitly stated that the flowing time trait doesn't exist in any form anywhere in the Great Wheel (also on page 168 of the DMG).

It's possible and that's all I need.

[DarkSoul]

It's possible and that's all I need.I suppose you could say that, considering the whole "assumption" and "absence of a DM" part. So how do you reconcile your interpretation with the RAW statement that the flowing time trait doesn't exist in the D&D cosmology?

[ColorBlindNinja]

I suppose you could say that, considering the whole "assumption" and "absence of a DM" part. So how do you reconcile your interpretation with the RAW statement that the flowing time trait doesn't exist in the Great Wheel?

That hardly matters. By the rules it's possible for one to exist; it is a valid planar trait. The text of Genesis would allow fast time flow.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I suppose you could say that, considering the whole "assumption" and "absence of a DM" part. So how do you reconcile your interpretation with the RAW statement that the flowing time trait doesn't exist in the Great Wheel?

Just because there are no Fast Flowing Planes in the Great Wheel doesn't make alternate time flows an illegitimate planar trait for when you create your own demi-plane. Not allowing certain planar traits because the Great Wheel doesn't have any planes with those traits is like not allowing classes, monsters, and spells from Forgotten Realms because FR isn't the default setting.

Additionally RAW can allow for alternate cosmologies, class features, and (In certain circumstances) alternate rules.

[DarkSoul]

Just because there are no Fast Flowing Planes in the Great Wheel doesn't make alternate time flows an illegitimate planar trait for when you create your own demi-plane. Not allowing certain planar traits because the Great Wheel doesn't have any planes with those traits is like not allowing classes, monsters, and spells from Forgotten Realms because FR isn't the default setting.

Additionally RAW can allow for alternate cosmologies, class features, and (In certain circumstances) alternate rules.It's pretty clear, actually.


Here are some planar traits that aren't used in the D&D cosmology (not just the Great Wheel), but might make good building blocks for planes you design.Emphasis and parentheses mine.

Aren't used, as in "are not", as in not present. Considering that Genesis must be cast from the Ethereal plane, which is explicitly part of the D&D cosmology, this appears disturbingly like a black and white, RAW quote preventing the creation of a fast-time demiplane. There's not a lot of room for ambiguity, either. The flowing time trait isn't used. Whether it's possible in the FR or Eberron cosmology is, again (and again and again and again...) up to the DM, and if the DM says you can do it, go for it. It's a great resource to have, but there's not much beyond inference and assumption saying you can versus a direct printed line saying you can't. Speaking from an absolutely-RAW standpoint, that is.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Aren't used, as in "are not", as in not present. Considering that Genesis must be cast from the Ethereal plane, which is explicitly part of the D&D cosmology, this appears disturbingly like a black and white, RAW quote preventing the creation of a fast-time demiplane. There's not a lot of room for ambiguity, either. The flowing time trait isn't used. Whether it's possible in the FR or Eberron cosmology is, again (and again and again and again...) up to the DM, and if the DM says you can do it, go for it. It's a great resource to have, but there's not much beyond inference and assumption saying you can versus a direct printed line saying you can't. Speaking from an absolutely-RAW standpoint, that is.

The demiplane you create is separate from the Ethereal Plane; it's not a part of it.

So, your argument is that because the rest of the Planescape doesn't use flowing time, then it's not possible for demiplanes to have it either? Despite the fact that the Manual of the Planes confirms the existence of such demiplanes? Despite the fact that the rules say that they can exist?

It's not black and white at all; if that's all the evidence you've got, color me unimpressed.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Aren't used, as in "are not", as in not present. Considering that Genesis must be cast from the Ethereal plane, which is explicitly part of the D&D cosmology, this appears disturbingly like a black and white, RAW quote preventing the creation of a fast-time demiplane. There's not a lot of room for ambiguity, either. The flowing time trait isn't used. Whether it's possible in the FR or Eberron cosmology is, again (and again and again and again...) up to the DM, and if the DM says you can do it, go for it. It's a great resource to have, but there's not much beyond inference and assumption saying you can versus a direct printed line saying you can't. Speaking from an absolutely-RAW standpoint, that is.

Like I said though, Alternate cosmologies are often used in RAW, just like alternate class features are. And again, other settings are different cosmologies (Eberon explicitly has planes with different time flows BTW), so not allowing alternate Planar Traits because they're not part of D&D's cosmology is like not allowing feats, classes, spells, monsters, etc. from the none standard setting.

Also when it says "D&D's cosmology" it's talking about the standard cosmology, AKA the Great Wheel.

Also, here's the whole quote:
"Here are some planar traits that aren’t used in the D&D cosmology but that might make good building blocks for planes you design."

I'm designing my own plane with Genesis.

EDIT; Additionally Gods can alter the Time Trait of their own plane.

[Cisturn]

What would a timeless plane feel like? Would it be regular except those on the plane wouldn't age, or is it more of a, you are at every time at once thing?

[ColorBlindNinja]

What would a timeless plane feel like? Would it be regular except those on the plane wouldn't age, or is it more of a, you are at every time at once thing?

I suspect the former.

[Tainted_Scholar]

What would a timeless plane feel like? Would it be regular except those on the plane wouldn't age, or is it more of a, you are at every time at once thing?

About the Astral Plane's Timeless nature:

"Timeless. Age, hunger, thirst, poison, and natural healing don’t function in the Astral Plane, though they resume functioning when the traveler leaves the Astral Plane."

[Mato]

After reading six pages of discussion I am unmoved.

What something doesn't say cannot be used as logical proof.
Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence
What the psionic version of genesis says compared to what the spell version of genesis says has no bearing on the subject. It is a red herring the glosses over the fact that it should, or should not, be used by incorrectly assuming it does.
Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker believes is easier to speak to.

If anything it's a discussion of RAI, like RAW/RAI the SRD is a reference toolbox and not a substitute to a rulebook, so according to RAI is it possible for a 3.5 version of genesis to be consider an update to a 3.0 version? It's plausible and not impossible.

Secondly part of the debate is based on this.

Benefit: Your physical stature lets you function in many ways as if you were one size category larger.Do you know what this argument really is?
Wishful thinking – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.
It's a debate centered on they can do whatever they wish based on the part of the entry that doesn't go on to quantify what they can actually do.

It also appears I quoted the wrong thing as well, let me try again.

Not really, The spell says "The spellcaster determines the environment within the demiplane when he or she first casts genesis, reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize." The spellcaster determines factors such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and the general shape of the terrain. This spell cannot create life (including vegetation), nor can it create construction (such as buildings, roads, wells, dungeons, and so forth). The spellcaster must add these things in some other fashion if he or she desires.As we can see, the spell most certainly does not let you do whatever you can visualize.

Which brings us to the third point, the sentence in question says environment. Tainted_Scholar uses google's definition to include timespace but The Dungeon Master's Guide has a section called environment, the glossary has an entry for environment (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_environment&alpha=E), and even the rules compendium has an entry for environment. Time is not part of that, it's a physical planar trait found under a different heading and saying it is the same is a type of equivocation fallacy, specifically the
Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised against the original wording

And of course you cannot forget
Kettle logic – using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
Which is Tainted_Scholar's position explained in two words.

Here is something I know.

The speed of a plane's possible timeflow is ambiguous. There appear to be no meaningful limits in place.His first sentence, as an appeal, might be correct but his second is not.

Unless otherwise noted in a description, every plane in the D&D cosmology has the normal time trait.

So by simple criteria, ask your self if genesis (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/genesis.htm) does actually say in it's description that you are able to alter the flow of time or is someone just trying to convince you it does with a lot of fireworks and a fresh coat of paint on their strawmen. For me the answer is simple, but even hearing people out what they say to me is fairly unconvincing. And if you made it all the way through my post before hitting quote to angrily reply to me, I think you believe that too.

[DarkSoul]

The demiplane you create is separate from the Ethereal Plane; it's not a part of it.

So, your argument is that because the rest of the Planescape doesn't use flowing time, then it's not possible for demiplanes to have it either? Despite the fact that the Manual of the Planes confirms the existence of such demiplanes? Despite the fact that the rules say that they can exist?

It's not black and white at all; if that's all the evidence you've got, color me unimpressed.


The spell must be cast from a plane within the D&D cosmology.
Therefore the resulting demiplane is part of the D&D cosmology.
The flowing time trait is not used in the D&D cosmology.
Therefore the resulting demiplane cannot have the flowing time trait, because the RAW say so.

The manual of the planes doesn't matter, because the information in it regarding flowing time planes was updated in, and is thus trumped by, the 3.5 DMG. That being said, it also gives no indication that any flowing time trait with greater than a 1 hour : 1 day ratio is possible. That's the fastest option available in the printed rules, and every example demiplane in the MotP uses normal time anyway. So there is no RAW evidence that extremely fast time traits are possible in the default setting, while I provided the most current, relevant RAW evidence that even the 1 hour : 1 day flow is impossible in a Genesis-created demiplane because flowing time planes do not exist in the D&D cosmology.

So, the burden is on you to provide something more substantial than "the rules don't say I can't, so I can", which is all that's been done thus far. I've given book and page references saying you can't. Now it's your turn.

For what it's worth, I'll just restate my position on the issue here: If the DM says it's ok for their game, go for it. By the written rules, though, no you can't set a flowing time trait with Genesis in the default cosmology, though you might be able to in the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or another setting.

Edit: Good luck, Mato. Even printed statements saying no aren't good enough it seems.

[ColorBlindNinja]

What the psionic version of genesis says compared to what the spell version of genesis says has no bearing on the subject. It is a red herring the glosses over the fact that it should, or should not, be used by incorrectly assuming it does.

So it's a coincidence that the designers alter the Psionic version to disallow time manipulation? It implies to me that the original can.


If anything it's a discussion of RAI, like RAW/RAI the SRD is a reference toolbox and not a substitute to a rulebook, so according to RAI is it possible for a 3.5 version of genesis to be consider an update to a 3.0 version? It's plausible and not impossible.

It is impossible, because the only versions of the Genesis spell are 3.0. The Psionic version is distinct from it.



As we can see, the spell most certainly does not let you do whatever you can visualize.

It does, in fact allow the caster whatever they can visualize, barring a few exceptions. You've yet to prove that time isn't among them.


Which brings us to the third point, the sentence in question says environment. Tainted_Scholar uses google's definition to include timespace but The Dungeon Master's Guide has a section called environment, the glossary has an entry for environment (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_environment&alpha=E), and even the rules compendium has an entry for environment. Time is not part of that, it's a physical planar trait found under a different heading and saying it is the same is a type of equivocation fallacy

We already covered that argument; that definition can include planes, and thus planar traits. That, naturally, includes time.



So by simple criteria, ask your self if genesis (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/genesis.htm) does actually say in it's description that you are able to alter the flow of time or is someone just trying to convince you it does with a lot of fireworks and a fresh coat of paint on their strawmen. For me the answer is simple, but even hearing people out what they say to me is fairly unconvincing. And if you made it all the way through my post before hitting quote to angrily reply to me, I think you believe that too.

I read your entire post; but your arguments have no rules backing. I'm open to evidence that I'm wrong, but you've yet to provide any.

Edit:


The spell must be cast from a plane within the D&D cosmology.
Therefore the resulting demiplane is part of the D&D cosmology.
The flowing time trait is not used in the D&D cosmology.
Therefore the resulting demiplane cannot have the flowing time trait, because the RAW say so.

The manual of the planes doesn't matter, because the information in it regarding flowing time planes was updated in, and is thus trumped by, the 3.5 DMG. That being said, it also gives no indication that any flowing time trait with greater than a 1 hour : 1 day ratio is possible. That's the fastest option available in the printed rules, and every example demiplane in the MotP uses normal time anyway. So there is no RAW evidence that extremely fast time traits are possible in the default setting, while I provided the most current, relevant RAW evidence that even the 1 hour : 1 day flow is impossible in a Genesis-created demiplane because flowing time planes do not exist in the D&D cosmology.

So, the burden is on you to provide something more substantial than "the rules don't say I can't, so I can", which is all that's been done thus far. I've given book and page references saying you can't. Now it's your turn.

For what it's worth, I'll just restate my position on the issue here: If the DM says it's ok for their game, go for it. By the written rules, though, no you can't set a flowing time trait with Genesis in the default cosmology, though you might be able to in the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or another setting.

Edit: Good luck, Mato. Even printed statements saying no aren't good enough it seems.

So what about Eberron's Dal Quor? That's a plane with fast flowing trait. RAW includes all the rules and all the settings. If the the rules are there, they're allowed. The only exception to this are Variants and perhaps Adaptions.

[Tainted_Scholar]

The spell must be cast from a plane within the D&D cosmology.
Therefore the resulting demiplane is part of the D&D cosmology.
The flowing time trait is not used in the D&D cosmology.
Therefore the resulting demiplane cannot have the flowing time trait, because the RAW say so.


Yes, but according to RAW fast Time Flows are a thing, and RAW includes everything, not just the standard D&D cosmology.

Also you didn't even acknowledge the points I made about this matter.


If anything it's a discussion of RAI, like RAW/RAI the SRD is a reference toolbox and not a substitute to a rulebook, so according to RAI is it possible for a 3.5 version of genesis to be consider an update to a 3.0 version? It's plausible and not impossible.

As mentioned before, there is no 3.5 version of Genesis (Except the version in the SRD) there is a spell called Word of Genesis, but that's a different spell.


It also appears I quoted the wrong thing as well, let me try again.
As we can see, the spell most certainly does not let you do whatever you can visualize.

For the love of the Gods! You are still ignoring the text. Heck I even bolded the relevant part and you still ignored it. "reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize", it doesn't matter that it doesn't specifically say that I can visualize a fast time flow, because it says I can create whatever I want. Planar traits are not one of the restrictions that the spell lists, therefore I can create them.



Which brings us to the third point, the sentence in question says environment. Tainted_Scholar uses google's definition to include timespace but The Dungeon Master's Guide has a section called environment, the glossary has an entry for environment (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_environment&alpha=E), and even the rules compendium has an entry for environment. Time is not part of that, it's a physical planar trait found under a different heading and saying it is the same is a type of equivocation fallacy, specifically the
Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised against the original wording

I see you failed to notice that Planes themselves are listed as a type of environment. And planar traits are part of the planes. Therefore, if planes are an environment then planar traits are part of the environment. Which was something I already went over.:smallannoyed:

Additionally it D&D outright refers to a Planar Trait as the environment when it talks about subjective gravity.

I swear it's like you didn't even read any of our arguments before posting this.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The spell must be cast from a plane within the D&D cosmology.
Therefore the resulting demiplane is part of the D&D cosmology.
The flowing time trait is not used in the D&D cosmology.
Therefore the resulting demiplane cannot have the flowing time trait, because the RAW say so.


I double checked the text in question; it says that these traits are not used in the standard D&D cosmology not that they're forbidden.

"Here are some planar traits that aren’t used in the D&D cosmology but that might make good building blocks for planes you design."

Emphasis mine.

[DarkSoul]

So what about Eberron's Dal Quor? That's a plane with fast flowing trait. RAW includes all the rules and all the settings. If the the rules are there, they're allowed. The only exception to this are Variants and perhaps Adaptions.Dal Quor has no bearing on this, it's only about what Genesis does and does not say. As written, Genesis has to be cast within a plane that, as written, has no access to a flowing time trait. If the DM says you can somehow get to Eberron's ethereal plane and cast it there, make your flowing time demiplane move as fast as you want.

Right. Aren't used. Are not. In the D&D cosmology. Go to Eberron and make one, that's fine. In the default cosmology? No. You're inferring again. "Aren't used" is not anywhere close to "aren't used, but not forbidden".


Yes, but according to RAW fast Time Flows are a thing, and RAW includes everything, not just the standard D&D cosmology.

Also you didn't even acknowledge the points I made about this matter.As I said above, if you can get to Eberron's ethereal, make your fast time demiplane. In the D&D cosmology you can't.

Regarding your other points, the D&D cosmology includes the great wheel, but I would hesitate to say that the great wheel is the entirety of the D&D cosmology. It's the "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" idea. That's why I made the distinction, because if a plane references the great wheel planes, it would be considered part of the D&D cosmology without necessarily being part of the great wheel.

I used the whole quote, thanks for repeating it though. That doesn't change the fact that if you're in the Great Wheel ethereal, you can't get a flowing time demiplane because the line we both quoted says so. The fact that you're designing your own (demi)plane is completely irrelevant.

GREATER (Divine Rank 16+) deities can change their time trait. Genesis, and therefore you(r non-deific level 17+ arcane caster), cannot inside the Great Wheel. D&DG has nothing at all to do with what you can do with Genesis.

[Aracor]

I feel like I need to weigh in again based upon something Tainted Scholar said.

I see you failed to notice that Planes themselves are listed as a type of environment. And planar traits are part of the planes. Therefore, if planes are an environment then planar traits are part of the environment. Which was something I already went over.:smallannoyed:

This is actually a logical fallacy. Just because a plane is an environment, it does not logically follow that planar traits ARE part of the environment. Based on your logic, outsiders are part of the environment because they are a part of the planes themselves. If we accept that to be truth, then we have already proven that not all facets of the environment can be controlled by genesis, because it cannot create life.

We're back to my original question: Does genesis explicitly state that planar traits can be determined when a demiplane is created? Not that I've found. And since the ruleset is permissive, it needs to do so or you cannot.

[Keral]

I've been following this thread for a while. Why i'm not entirely sure whether i'm leaning more towards the ayes or the nays, i'd like to leave my copper piece about one of the arguments.

Specifically the one about deities and their power if they are divine rank of 16+.
Unless i've misread it. That allows them to *change* the time trait of their plane ( and i'm not sure if that includes real planes and not just demiplanes). Which, i believe, is a bit different than creating a brand new demiplane with a nonstandard time trait.

Choosing a time trait at the casting is quite different than changing it every other monday. Now i'm not entirely sure if i'm just dumb and got lost or what, but i feel there's a bit of mingling of the "you cannot create a different time flow for your demiplane" and the "you cannot change it on an existing demiplane"


Anyhow. I believe that the argument that goes "deities have to be DR 16+ to alter the time trait thus a simple spell cannot possibly be meant to do it" is a bit invalid. Since the two things appear to be quite different.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Dal Quor has no bearing on this, it's only about what Genesis does and does not say. As written, Genesis has to be cast within a plane that, as written, has no access to a flowing time trait. If the DM says you can somehow get to Eberron's ethereal plane and cast it there, make your flowing time demiplane move as fast as you want.

So you're saying that Genesis can create fast flowing planes on Eberron? I should think that Wish would get you there just fine.


Right. Aren't used. Are not. In the D&D cosmology. Go to Eberron and make one, that's fine. In the default cosmology? No. You're inferring again. "Aren't used" is not anywhere close to "aren't used, but not forbidden".

As I said above, if you can get to Eberron's ethereal, make your fast time demiplane. In the D&D cosmology you can't.

I don't buy this. I think that this passage is descriptive; it's say that they're not used, not that they can't be used.


Regarding your other points, the D&D cosmology includes the great wheel, but I would hesitate to say that the great wheel is the entirety of the D&D cosmology. It's the "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" idea. That's why I made the distinction, because if a plane references the great wheel planes, it would be considered part of the D&D cosmology without necessarily being part of the great wheel.

You will provide evidence for this claim?


I used the whole quote, thanks for repeating it though. That doesn't change the fact that if you're in the Great Wheel ethereal, you can't get a flowing time demiplane because the line we both quoted says so. The fact that you're designing your own (demi)plane is completely irrelevant.

Except your quote doesn't explicitly forbid anything.


GREATER (Divine Rank 16+) deities can change their time trait. Genesis, and therefore you(r non-deific level 17+ arcane caster), cannot inside the Great Wheel. D&DG has nothing at all to do with what you can do with Genesis.

Yet, you claim that fast flowing plane don't exist in the Great Wheel. If a god decided to make her realm fast flowing, that would contradict your argument.


I feel like I need to weigh in again based upon something Tainted Scholar said.


This is actually a logical fallacy. Just because a plane is an environment, it does not logically follow that planar traits ARE part of the environment. Based on your logic, outsiders are part of the environment because they are a part of the planes themselves. If we accept that to be truth, then we have already proven that not all facets of the environment can be controlled by genesis, because it cannot create life.

We're back to my original question: Does genesis explicitly state that planar traits can be determined when a demiplane is created? Not that I've found. And since the ruleset is permissive, it needs to do so or you cannot.

We've linked D&D planar traits to the environment in the rules. The section of the DMG that talks about subjective gravity refers to itself as an environment. We've also looked at dictionary definitions.

Barring some restrictions, Genesis is very broad about what it can create.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I feel like I need to weigh in again based upon something Tainted Scholar said.


This is actually a logical fallacy. Just because a plane is an environment, it does not logically follow that planar traits ARE part of the environment. Based on your logic, outsiders are part of the environment because they are a part of the planes themselves. If we accept that to be truth, then we have already proven that not all facets of the environment can be controlled by genesis, because it cannot create life.

Of coarse, Planar Traits are part of the environment, they are literally the laws of physics for the plane. They are as much a part of a plane's environment as gravity is a part of earth's.

As for the outsider bit, that's a Strawman of my argument. Because life is explicitly forbidden from being created by Genesis, while planar traits are not.


We're back to my original question: Does genesis explicitly state that planar traits can be determined when a demiplane is created? Not that I've found. And since the ruleset is permissive, it needs to do so or you cannot.

"reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize." You can not keep ignoring this part of the spell as you have been doing.

I have explained why planar traits are part of the environment, and the text says that I can create anything I want with a few exceptions. So please explain to me why Planar Traits are not something I can change. You are trying to impose restrictions on the text that don't exist.

Additionally, "And since the ruleset is permissive, it needs to do so or you cannot." what on earth are you talking about? When has D&D's ruleset ever worked that way!? I guess this means I can't create a sandwich with Polymorph Any Object since the spell doesn't say I can. I guess this means I can't Teleport to the moon since the spell doesn't say I can.

[Mato]

Additionally, "And since the ruleset is permissive, it needs to do so or you cannot." what on earth are you talking about? When has D&D's ruleset ever worked that way!? Since about seventeen years ago give to take a few months. I guess since you are still new to D&D and have not obtained any sort of mastery of the rules that you've put off reading the DMG. It's understandable but under teaching the game it remarks several times for new players who don't understand the rules to simply state what they want to be or do and let the DM handle putting it into D&D rules for them. Generally people intuitively grasp that you can't play a twenty armed human or blink your eyes to control spacetime because there are no rules that allow for it, but there are always exceptions. Like your self.

There is some very useful information in there that is worth reading. Specially if you want to continue debating on an Internet forum. Like it also has the official method that you are to use when you are to make a formal judgment and decisions about a problem or disputed matter and one of them is "Look to any similar situation that is covered in a rulebook. Try to extrapolate from what you see presented there and apply it to the current circumstance". Psionic genesis comes to my mind if you still have any questions about what the 3.0 spell can or cannot do.

But it's more than just rules, it also tries to teach good behavior. "If someone else at the table corrects your recollection of a rule or adds some point you hadn’t thought of, thank that player for his help. When people cooperate to make the game better, everyone benefits."

[ColorBlindNinja]

Generally people intuitively grasp that you can't play a twenty armed human or blink your eyes to control spacetime because there are no rules that allow for it, but there are always exceptions. Like your self.

Strangely, we have rules for fast flowing demiplanes.


There is some very useful information in there that is worth reading. Specially if you want to continue debating on an Internet forum. Like it also has the official method that you are to use when you are to make a formal judgment and decisions about a problem or disputed matter and one of them is "Look to any similar situation that is covered in a rulebook. Try to extrapolate from what you see presented there and apply it to the current circumstance". Psionic genesis comes to my mind if you still have any questions about what the 3.0 spell can or cannot do.

Psionic Genesis != spell Genesis.

Until you can provide some evidence to back up your claims, your arguments have no merit.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Since about seventeen years ago give to take a few months. I guess since you are still new to D&D and have not obtained any sort of mastery of the rules that you've put off reading the DMG. It's understandable but under teaching the game it remarks several times for new players who don't understand the rules to simply state what they want to be or do and let the DM handle putting it into D&D rules for them. Generally people intuitively grasp that you can't play a twenty armed human or blink your eyes to control spacetime because there are no rules that allow for it, but there are always exceptions. Like your self.

There is some very useful information in there that is worth reading. Specially if you want to continue debating on an Internet forum. Like it also has the official method that you are to use when you are to make a formal judgment and decisions about a problem or disputed matter and one of them is "Look to any similar situation that is covered in a rulebook. Try to extrapolate from what you see presented there and apply it to the current circumstance". Psionic genesis comes to my mind if you still have any questions about what the 3.0 spell can or cannot do.

But it's more than just rules, it also tries to teach good behavior. "If someone else at the table corrects your recollection of a rule or adds some point you hadn’t thought of, thank that player for his help. When people cooperate to make the game better, everyone benefits."

So in this post you insulted me, strawmanned my argument, and still completely failed to address any of the points I made in my post. I can only assume you are running out of ways to defend your opinion on the current matter and instead have just resorted to telling me that I'm wrong without backing up said claim.

[Aracor]

"reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize." You can not keep ignoring this part of the spell as you have been doing.
I'm not ignoring this part. But it says most. That's not in a vacuum. It then goes on to describe examples of things that the caster CAN do, which have already been quoted, but I'll reiterate anyway.

reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize. The spellcaster determines factors such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and the general shape of the terrain.
So these are examples of what CAN be done. Then, it goes on to describe things that cannot be done. You are seemingly using your quote as a blanket statement, and then assuming that the list of what cannot be done is complete and whatever is not on the list of what CANNOT be done is allowable. That's a gross assumption.

Now, taking the entire spell as a whole, it says you can make a demiplane, control things such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and general shape of the terrain. I agree that the words Such as in this case do suggest that the caster can do other things as well. But they're going to be similar in power to what is already provided on the list.


I have explained why planar traits are part of the environment, and the text says that I can create anything I want with a few exceptions. So please explain to me why Planar Traits are not something I can change. You are trying to impose restrictions on the text that don't exist.

And you are trying to vastly increase the power of the spell by assuming that such as is open-ended, and that the list of restrictions is not. The fact that the caster can only do general shape with terrain suggests that there ARE some rather sharp limitations as to what they can do. If the caster can't even do more than general shape for the terrain, that's a vast leap to go from there to being able to control all of the planar traits to such a fine degree that you can get exactly 10:1 time or set a highly morphic trait in the caster's new little corner of the multiverse.


Additionally, "And since the ruleset is permissive, it needs to do so or you cannot." what on earth are you talking about? When has D&D's ruleset ever worked that way!? I guess this means I can't create a sandwich with Polymorph Any Object since the spell doesn't say I can. I guess this means I can't Teleport to the moon since the spell doesn't say I can.It has ALWAYS worked like that! The ruleset is permissive. If a prestige class doesn't say that you gain caster levels by taking it, you don't! You can't just assume that since it doesn't say you DON'T gain caster levels, it's okay to boost them when you take levels.

Both of the provided examples are strawman arguments anyway, Polymorph Any Object specifies exactly how transformations take place, and that you can change one thing into another. Yes, sandwich is included. And teleport says you can travel. If your world's moon is within range for teleport, of course you can do that. Your examples aren't don't even come close to the vagueness that the Genesis spell has.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I'm not ignoring this part. But it says most. That's not in a vacuum. It then goes on to describe examples of things that the caster CAN do, which have already been quoted, but I'll reiterate anyway.

So these are examples of what CAN be done. Then, it goes on to describe things that cannot be done. You are seemingly using your quote as a blanket statement, and then assuming that the list of what cannot be done is complete and whatever is not on the list of what CANNOT be done is allowable. That's a gross assumption.

Nothing in the text suggests that. Anything you can visualize is broad, and the spell uses the words "such as".


Now, taking the entire spell as a whole, it says you can make a demiplane, control things such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and general shape of the terrain. I agree that the words Such as in this case do suggest that the caster can do other things as well. But they're going to be similar in power to what is already provided on the list.

Can you provide evidence of this claim?


And you are trying to vastly increase the power of the spell by assuming that such as is open-ended, and that the list of restrictions is not. The fact that the caster can only do general shape with terrain suggests that there ARE some rather sharp limitations as to what they can do. If the caster can't even do more than general shape for the terrain, that's a vast leap to go from there to being able to control all of the planar traits to such a fine degree that you can get exactly 10:1 time or set a highly morphic trait in the caster's new little corner of the multiverse.

How is this a "vast leap". We've already established planar traits as part of the environment. That would allow time traits.


It has ALWAYS worked like that! The ruleset is permissive. If a prestige class doesn't say that you gain caster levels by taking it, you don't! You can't just assume that since it doesn't say you DON'T gain caster levels, it's okay to boost them when you take levels.

That comparison is silly. We know that time traits exist. It's not like we want to create a Demiplane that gushes exploding cookies out of the ground.


Both of the provided examples are strawman arguments anyway, Polymorph Any Object specifies exactly how transformations take place, and that you can change one thing into another. Yes, sandwich is included. And teleport says you can travel. If your world's moon is within range for teleport, of course you can do that. Your examples aren't don't even come close to the vagueness that the Genesis spell has.

Genesis allows us to manipulate the environment and is broad enough to allow time traits.

[PanosIs]

Reading Genesis, I think that Aracor is right, I don't believe you can set planar traits such as gravity and time flow with that spell.

The spell says you can define the environment as you wish, but then goes on to give a series of examples that are quite specific and share the similarity of being part of the "environment" of the demiplane, were said environment includes physical aspects of the plane, composition of materials in it and et al. If the intent was to be able to alter planar traits then it would have been mentioned as one of those examples, I don't think that such a major aspect of the spell would have been omitted.

Now, since there's no RAW definition of environment, all this is arguing intent, and not actual rules. Yes the ruleset is permissive, but not clearly so, a lot of stuff is still open for interpretationl.

For me though, RAI is what really matters, and in this case intent was clearly to be able to alter a specific subset of a Demiplanes properties.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Reading Genesis, I think that Aracor is right, I don't believe you can set planar traits such as gravity and time flow with that spell.

The spell says you can define the environment as you wish, but then goes on to give a series of examples that are quite specific and share the similarity of being part of the "environment" of the demiplane, were said environment includes physical aspects of the plane, composition of materials in it and et al. If the intent was to be able to alter planar traits then it would have been mentioned as one of those examples, I don't think that such a major aspect of the spell would have been omitted.

Now, since there's no RAW definition of environment, all this is arguing intent, and not actual rules. Yes the ruleset is permissive, but not clearly so, a lot of stuff is still open for interpretationl.

For me though, RAI is what really matters, and in this case intent was clearly to be able to alter a specific subset of a Demiplanes properties.

It's worth noting that the DMG calls time a physical trait and calls subjective gravity part of the environment.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I'm not ignoring this part. But it says most. That's not in a vacuum. It then goes on to describe examples of things that the caster CAN do, which have already been quoted, but I'll reiterate anyway.

So these are examples of what CAN be done. Then, it goes on to describe things that cannot be done. You are seemingly using your quote as a blanket statement, and then assuming that the list of what cannot be done is complete and whatever is not on the list of what CANNOT be done is allowable. That's a gross assumption.

Why? Do you have any text at all that supports the idea that Planar Traits are one of the things that can't be created? The spell specifically says that I can create anything with a few exceptions. Planar traits aren't one of those exceptions. You are still trying to impose restrictions on the rules that don't exist.


Now, taking the entire spell as a whole, it says you can make a demiplane, control things such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and general shape of the terrain. I agree that the words Such as in this case do suggest that the caster can do other things as well. But they're going to be similar in power to what is already provided on the list.

Again, do you have any text to support that claim? The spell says "The spellcaster determines factors such as" not, "The spellcaster can only determine factors such as". However you act like it's the latter rather than the former. The text doesn't say that the things you create have to be similar to what's on the list.


And you are trying to vastly increase the power of the spell by assuming that such as is open-ended, and that the list of restrictions is not. The fact that the caster can only do general shape with terrain suggests that there ARE some rather sharp limitations as to what they can do. If the caster can't even do more than general shape for the terrain, that's a vast leap to go from there to being able to control all of the planar traits to such a fine degree that you can get exactly 10:1 time or set a highly morphic trait in the caster's new little corner of the multiverse.

A. The list of restrictions is a very clear cut list of restrictions. It doesn't include any clause like "Such as".
B. The reason the spell can allow for Time Flow is because they screwed up. It was never intended so of course it's not going to be similar to the rest of the spell.


It has ALWAYS worked like that! The ruleset is permissive. If a prestige class doesn't say that you gain caster levels by taking it, you don't! You can't just assume that since it doesn't say you DON'T gain caster levels, it's okay to boost them when you take levels.

Nice Strawman you got there. There would be nothing in the text to imply that you should get caster levels from the prestige class. Additionally, the way prestige classes work, is that they tell you when you gain an ability. Genesis isn't like that. It says I can create what ever I want with a few restrictions then gives a very brief list of examples.


strawman arguments anyway, Polymorph Any Object specifies exactly how transformations take place, and that you can change one thing into another. Yes, sandwich is included. And teleport says you can travel. If your world's moon is within range for teleport, of course you can do that. Your examples aren't don't even come close to the vagueness that the Genesis spell has.

Polymorph any object says that I can transmute whatever I want with a few restrictions. Genesis says I can create whatever I want with a few restrictions.

Teleport says I can go wherever I want with some restrictions. Genesis says I can create whatever I want with some restrictions.

Explain to me how Genesis is different from the two examples I gave.

[Aracor]

Nothing in the text suggests that. Anything you can visualize is broad, and the spell uses the words "such as".
Can you provide evidence of this claim?
How is this a "vast leap". We've already established planar traits as part of the environment. That would allow time traits.
That comparison is silly. We know that time traits exist. It's not like we want to create a Demiplane that gushes exploding cookies out of the ground.
Genesis allows us to manipulate the environment and is broad enough to allow time traits.


Why? Do you have any text at all that supports the idea that Planar Traits are one of the things that can't be created? The spell specifically says that I can create anything with a few exceptions. Planar traits aren't one of those exceptions. You are still trying to impose restrictions on the rules that don't exist.
Again, do you have any text to support that claim? The spell says "The spellcaster determines factors such as" not, "The spellcaster can only determine factors such as". However you act like it's the latter rather than the former. The text doesn't say that the things you create have to be similar to what's on the list.
The phrase "such as" is synonymous with "for example". If someone says you win a car such as a Honda Civic, a Toyota Corolla, or a Chevy Malibu; you wouldn't likely expect to be able to choose a lamborghini diablo.

And based on the definition of the phrase "such as", you're still trying to add greatly to the list. I will happily admit that the list is not complete and that you can adjust things not on the list. Other things I'd expect you to be able to decide: Is the ground dirt, sand, rock, clay, etc? Is it flat or hilly? Is there a "sun" in the sky, and does it move? Is the demiplane a sphere? A disc? A hemisphere? A cube?

However, there is no indication that the power of the spell is such that unless it explicitly says you CANNOT do something, that you CAN.

[Mato]

So in this post you insulted me, strawmanned my argument, and still completely failed to address any of the points I made in my post. I can only assume you are running out of ways to defend your opinion on the current matter and instead have just resorted to telling me that I'm wrong without backing up said claim.I said you were new to D&D, you've only been here for seven months and are a very poor debater that is ignoring multiple people trying to explain to you why you're wrong which is a high testament of inexperience. I know you struggle with word definitions but there is nothing insulting about it, we were all new at some point and continue to be new in new things as we learn and grow.

I also didn't strawman anything, I very clearly explained that the game requires rules in regards to your statement and even touched on how the rule books expects you to adjudicate rules, which also rebukes your statements, but I guess I was not clear enough for you to understand me.

But you are right on one thing, I am running out of ways to explain to you how you are wrong. You've never refuted any of them either, just clung to your partial quote taken out of context using an incorrect definition for a false equivalence. And now as people grow tired of telling you the same thing over and over again you have this idea that if they stop telling you that you are wrong then you are right. And that's just another logical fallacy on your part.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I also didn't strawman anything, I very clearly explained that the game requires rules in regards to your statement and even touched on how the rule books expects you to adjudicate rules, which also rebukes your statements, but I guess I was not clear enough for you to understand me.

You have consistently failed to address our arguments and nothing you have said has any rules support.


But you are right on one thing, I am running out of ways to explain to you how you are wrong. You've never refuted any of them either, just clung to your partial quote taken out of context using an incorrect definition for a false equivalence. And now as people grow tired of telling you the same thing over and over again you have this idea that if they stop telling you that you are wrong then you are right. And that's just another logical fallacy on your part.

You have refuted nothing, and you never had any arguments in the first place. You've just laid down strawman after strawman and asserted that we're wrong without proving anything.

[Tainted_Scholar]

The phrase "such as" is synonymous with "for example". If someone says you win a car such as a Honda Civic, a Toyota Corolla, or a Chevy Malibu; you wouldn't likely expect to be able to choose a lamborghini diablo.

You know, unless they said, "You can have any car you want!" before listing some examples. That would imply that I can have any car I want.


And based on the definition of the phrase "such as", you're still trying to add greatly to the list. I will happily admit that the list is not complete and that you can adjust things not on the list. Other things I'd expect you to be able to decide: Is the ground dirt, sand, rock, clay, etc? Is it flat or hilly? Is there a "sun" in the sky, and does it move? Is the demiplane a sphere? A disc? A hemisphere? A cube?

However, there is no indication that the power of the spell is such that unless it explicitly says you CANNOT do something, that you CAN.

You know, except for the part of the spell that says, "reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize"

If I could only create things similar to what's on the list, then that line of text would not be there.

Now in RAI you're right. They probably only meant for me to be able to determine factors similar to what's listed. But this is RAW, and the spell outright states that I can create anything with a few restrictions. So if it's not one of the restrictions then it falls under the " create anything I want" part.

Your argument is still just imposing restrictions on the text that don't exist.

[Aracor]

You know, unless they said, "You can have any car you want!" before listing some examples. That would imply that I can have any car I want.
But Genesis doesn't say that. I actually just had an epiphany. We've both been focusing on the wrong part of the phrase.


The spellcaster determines the environment within the demiplane when he or she first casts genesis, reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize. The spellcaster determines factors such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and the general shape of the terrain.
The definition of visualize is "form a mental image of". Now, every single thing in the examples is something that can be pictured. And even then, it only allows general shape of the terrain. So...it has to be something that you can mentally picture! Please explain to me how you can put a flowing time trait, an alignment trait, or a highly morphic trait into a picture or drawing. How can that even be conceptualized and captured into a still image? If you cannot picture it, then genesis can't do it.

Understand, I'm not a 30+ intelligence wizard, and I understand that you aren't either. I'm not asking you to make the picture. But I'm asking an explanation for how something like that can be captured in a picture.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The definition of visualize is "form a mental image of". Now, every single thing in the examples is something that can be pictured. And even then, it only allows general shape of the terrain. So...it has to be something that you can mentally picture! Please explain to me how you can put a flowing time trait, an alignment trait, or a highly morphic trait into a picture or drawing. How can that even be conceptualized and captured into a still image? If you cannot picture it, then genesis can't do it.

Understand, I'm not a 30+ intelligence wizard, and I understand that you aren't either. I'm not asking you to make the picture. But I'm asking an explanation for how something like that can be captured in a picture.

We already covered this earlier in the thread. Temperature is listed as something that Genesis can manipulate, but it's difficult to visualize that too.

I suggested that if that's really such a big deal, the Wizard could conduct an experiment between two planes with different time flows (via scrying) to better understand what a fast flowing plane would look like.

[Tainted_Scholar]

But Genesis doesn't say that.

Yeah a more accurate analogy would be if they said, "You can have almost any car you want, A Volkswagen is off the table though". And then listed some examples.


I actually just had an epiphany. We've both been focusing on the wrong part of the phrase.


The definition of visualize is "form a mental image of".

Dear gods not this argument again. Also you're wrong, visualize can also mean "imagine".


Now, every single thing in the examples is something that can be pictured.

Except temperature, basically confirming that they are going with the definition of visualize that just means, "to imagine". Because after all, how do you visualize a 78° F exactly?


And even then, it only allows general shape of the terrain. So...it has to be something that you can mentally picture! Please explain to me how you can put a flowing time trait, an alignment trait, or a highly morphic trait into a picture or drawing. How can that even be conceptualized and captured into a still image? If you cannot picture it, then genesis can't do it.

Understand, I'm not a 30+ intelligence wizard, and I understand that you aren't either. I'm not asking you to make the picture. But I'm asking an explanation for how something like that can be captured in a picture.

Rather easily, I can form a mental image of a fast time flow simply by comparing to a normal time flow in my mind. Just picture time going normally on my Demi-Plane while it's going super slowly on the normal planes. Not that it matters, because like I said, the spell is using a different definition of visualize.

[Aracor]

Except temperature, basically confirming that they are going with the definition of visualize that just means, "to imagine". Because after all, how do you visualize a 78° F exactly?
You can't. But based on the fact that you can only manage a general shape, you probably can't manage an exact specific temperature, either.

Not that it matters, because like I said, the spell is using a different definition of visualize.
You are of the opinion that it's using a different definition, but both are valid. So...Cite please?

[Tainted_Scholar]

Cite please?

I just explained this in my post, it can't be using the definition of "Forming an imagine in your mind" because you can't visualize temperature. Well you can to a degree, but only in the extent of, "is everything frozen/on fire?" It would be nigh impossible to form a mental image of 78° F, especially in an barren landscape with no life.


You can't. But based on the fact that you can only manage a general shape, you probably can't manage an exact specific temperature, either.

You're imposing restrictions on the text that don't exist again. It doesn't say general temperature, just temperature. So yes, RAW I can decide the exact the degree.

And even if I could only get the temperature 70ish° F, you still couldn't picture it.

[Aracor]

I just explained this in my post, it can't be using the definition of "Forming an imagine in your mind" because you can't visualize temperature. Well you can to a degree, but only in the extent of, "is everything frozen/on fire?" It would be nigh impossible to form a mental image of 78° F, especially in an barren landscape with no life.

You're imposing restrictions on the text that don't exist again. It doesn't say general temperature, just temperature. So yes, RAW I can decide the exact the degree.

Funny, I don't see the word exact in the Genesis spell. You are assuming that since it doesn't say general, that you can decide the exact temperature. But it simply says temperature. If I ask someone what the temperature is outside, I will gladly accept an answer of "warm" just as easily as I will accept an answer of "78° F". You are once again reading more specificity than is actually provided in the spell, and lambasting me when I don't accept that it's evident when reading the same passage, because I'm using the context of the entire spell.

I have yet to see any convincing evidence after reading through the entirety of the thread twice that genesis allows the caster to determine planar traits. If the spell included a single planar trait in the "such as" sentence, I would think otherwise.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Funny, I don't see the word exact in the Genesis spell. You are assuming that since it doesn't say general, that you can decide the exact temperature. But it simply says temperature. If I ask someone what the temperature is outside, I will gladly accept an answer of "warm" just as easily as I will accept an answer of "78° F". You are once again reading more specificity than is actually provided in the spell, and lambasting me when I don't accept that it's evident when reading the same passage, because I'm using the context of the entire spell.

Do you have any evidence that your interpretation is correct?


I have yet to see any convincing evidence after reading through the entirety of the thread twice that genesis allows the caster to determine planar traits. If the spell included a single planar trait in the "such as" sentence, I would think otherwise.

Despite the fact that we've quoted several passages from the rules linking planar traits to the environment? The very same environment that Genesis allows us to manipulate?

[Tainted_Scholar]

Funny, I don't see the word exact in the Genesis spell. You are assuming that since it doesn't say general, that you can decide the exact temperature. But it simply says temperature. If I ask someone what the temperature is outside, I will gladly accept an answer of "warm" just as easily as I will accept an answer of "78° F". You are once again reading more specificity than is actually provided in the spell, and lambasting me when I don't accept that it's evident when reading the same passage, because I'm using the context of the entire spell.

Time to drag this part of the text out again, "reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize". Because I can easily imagine my Demi-Plane being 78° F. And since I still can't picture what even a warm demi-plane looks like, they are clearing using the "imagine" definition of visualize.

This entire time you have been arguing RAI instead of RAW.


I have yet to see any convincing evidence after reading through the entirety of the thread twice that genesis allows the caster to determine planar traits. If the spell included a single planar trait in the "such as" sentence, I would think otherwise.

I have shown that Planar Traits are part of the environment, and the spell says I can create any environment I want when I create the spell. Therefore I can create a fast flowing Demi-Plane. It doesn't matter that the spell doesn't list any planar traits in the examples, because that is a very brief list that's not meant to be all encompassing.

[Aracor]

Do you have any evidence that your interpretation is correct?
My evidence is as stated...the spell itself. Reading the context of the spell, Genesis says you can control most things, such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and the general shape of the terrain. This means that this list, while not being complete, gives an idea of where to start. Again, as earlier: Other things I'd expect you to be able to decide: Is the ground dirt, sand, rock, clay, etc? Is it flat or hilly? Is there a "sun" in the sky, and does it move? Is the demiplane a sphere? A disc? A hemisphere? A cube?

None of these suggest that you can alter time, alignment traits, or any other planar traits.


Despite the fact that we've quoted several passages from the rules linking planar traits to the environment? The very same environment that Genesis allows us to manipulate?


Time to drag this part of the text out again, "reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize". Because I can easily imagine my Demi-Plane being 78° F. And since I still can't picture what even a warm demi-plane looks like, they are clearing using the "imagine" definition of visualize.

I have shown that Planar Traits are part of the environment, and the spell says I can create any environment I want when I create the spell. Therefore I can create a fast flowing Demi-Plane. It doesn't matter that the spell doesn't list any planar traits in the examples, because that is a very brief list that's not meant to be all encompassing.

Your passages haven't actually matched any keywords. It has been stated more than once that planar traits are "plausibly" part of the environment. As far as I can tell, we have all agreed that there is no definitive evidence either way.

I am interpreting the text of Genesis to include the context that there are definitive limitations. "Most" is not equivalent to "all". The caster can control most things that they can imagine, such as the list. If something is not ON the list, then I compare it to the list, which are explicitly examples of things that can be controlled. If the caster's desire not on that list seems related, then RAW it should be allowed. If it is NOT related, then contextually it seems to be beyond the power of the spell.

In conclusion, I will admit that RAW is unclear. However, I will not agree that "unclear" is equivalent to "anything goes". Since there is no definitive evidence that planar traits are part of the environment, and because they are listed under the separate heading of planar traits, I believe that RAW would have explicitly included examples or included the keyword of planar traits if their manipulation was allowed by the genesis spell. Since it does not, I am of the opinion that RAW does not allow it based on the fact that the ruleset is a permissive system. If it does not specifically say yes, then the answer is no.

It seems that people who say "yes" to altering the time flow are interpreting the spell in the opposite manner, that anything which isn't explicitly denied is allowed.

[ColorBlindNinja]

My evidence is as stated...the spell itself. Reading the context of the spell, Genesis says you can control most things, such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and the general shape of the terrain. This means that this list, while not being complete, gives an idea of where to start. Again, as earlier: Other things I'd expect you to be able to decide: Is the ground dirt, sand, rock, clay, etc? Is it flat or hilly? Is there a "sun" in the sky, and does it move? Is the demiplane a sphere? A disc? A hemisphere? A cube?

No, then.


None of these suggest that you can alter time, alignment traits, or any other planar traits.


You have to ignore the text about visualizing to come to that conclusion.



Your passages haven't actually matched any keywords. It has been stated more than once that planar traits are "plausibly" part of the environment. As far as I can tell, we have all agreed that there is no definitive evidence either way.

The rules directly link planar traits to the environment. One definition of environment can literally be a plane. What keywords are you referring to?


I am interpreting the text of Genesis to include the context that there are definitive limitations. "Most" is not equivalent to "all". The caster can control most things that they can imagine, such as the list. If something is not ON the list, then I compare it to the list, which are explicitly examples of things that can be controlled. If the caster's desire not on that list seems related, then RAW it should be allowed. If it is NOT related, then contextually it seems to be beyond the power of the spell.

You're quoting "most" out of context; "most any" is what the spell says. Your argument that there are limitations isn't supported by that text.


In conclusion, I will admit that RAW is unclear. However, I will not agree that "unclear" is equivalent to "anything goes". Since there is no definitive evidence that planar traits are part of the environment,

Despite the passages we've cited again and again...


and because they are listed under the separate heading of planar traits,

Despite subjective gravity calling itself an environment...


I believe that RAW would have explicitly included examples or included the keyword of planar traits if their manipulation was allowed by the genesis spell.

Despite the fact that a future spell explicitly forbids time manipulation...


Since it does not, I am of the opinion that RAW does not allow it based on the fact that the ruleset is a permissive system. If it does not specifically say yes, then the answer is no.

That's not how a permissive system works, and it's not how 3.5 works.


It seems that people who say "yes" to altering the time flow are interpreting the spell in the opposite manner, that anything which isn't explicitly denied is allowed.

We have rules for fast flowing time.

We have passages of the rules that link planar traits to the environment.

We have the text from Genesis broad enough to allow for planar traits.

Your interpretation ignores that Genesis says that you can create virtually any trait of the environment. Since the evidence points to planar traits being part of the environment, that heavily implies that Genesis can manipulate them.

[Tainted_Scholar]

My evidence is as stated...the spell itself. Reading the context of the spell, Genesis says you can control most things, such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and the general shape of the terrain. This means that this list, while not being complete, gives an idea of where to start. Again, as earlier: Other things I'd expect you to be able to decide: Is the ground dirt, sand, rock, clay, etc? Is it flat or hilly? Is there a "sun" in the sky, and does it move? Is the demiplane a sphere? A disc? A hemisphere? A cube?

None of these suggest that you can alter time, alignment traits, or any other planar traits.

Except you have no evidence to support your argument. The spell outright says I can create anything I want with a few restrictions, yet you are still trying to impose far more restrictions on the spell then the one that are actually listed. Nowhere in the spell does it say that the things I'm creating have to be similar to the examples listed.


Your passages haven't actually matched any keywords. It has been stated more than once that planar traits are "plausibly" part of the environment. As far as I can tell, we have all agreed that there is no definitive evidence either way.

We have an official definition of Environment in the MM that lists planes as an environment. Planar Traits are part of the Plane, therefore they are part of the environment. That is definitive evidence.


I am interpreting the text of Genesis to include the context that there are definitive limitations. "Most" is not equivalent to "all". The caster can control most things that they can imagine, such as the list. If something is not ON the list, then I compare it to the list, which are explicitly examples of things that can be controlled. If the caster's desire not on that list seems related, then RAW it should be allowed. If it is NOT related, then contextually it seems to be beyond the power of the spell.

Yes the spell does have limitations, and it tells us what they are. If something is not on the list of restrictions (Or impossible by the rules) then it will fall into the category of "most anything".

You aren't arguing RAW, you are arguing RAI. You think that Genesis can only create things similar to those listed as examples but the text doesn't actually say that.


In conclusion, I will admit that RAW is unclear. However, I will not agree that "unclear" is equivalent to "anything goes". Since there is no definitive evidence that planar traits are part of the environment, and because they are listed under the separate heading of planar traits, I believe that RAW would have explicitly included examples or included the keyword of planar traits if their manipulation was allowed by the genesis spell. Since it does not, I am of the opinion that RAW does not allow it based on the fact that the ruleset is a permissive system. If it does not specifically say yes, then the answer is no.

Except, the spell outright says that anything goes, with a few restrictions.
Except, there is definitive evidence of of Planar Traits being part of the Environment.
Except, it doesn't matter if D&D is a permissive system, because Genesis says I can create whatever I want with some restrictions, just like how Teleport says I can go anywhere I want with some restrictions, just like how Polymorph any object says I can transmute whatever I want with no restrictions.


It seems that people who say "yes" to altering the time flow are interpreting the spell in the opposite manner, that anything which isn't explicitly denied is allowed.

Because the spell outright says that anything which isn't explicitly denied is allowed. It says I create anything I want with a few restrictions.

Unless you can find some evidence that Planar Traits are one of those restrictions listed in the spell, you have no way to prove your claim.

[Aracor]

You have to ignore the text about visualizing to come to that conclusion.Howso? If it cannot be visualized (and the definition of an image is just as valid as the definition of imagine), then it can easily be argued that the caster cannot make it happen.


The rules directly link planar traits to the environment. One definition of environment can literally be a plane. What keywords are you referring to?I'm referring to the keywords of "planar trait" itself.


You're quoting "most" out of context; "most any" is what the spell says. Your argument that there are limitations isn't supported by that text.
If I own a restaurant that has several hundred things on the breakfast menu, and say "You can have most anything for breakfast", the fact that you can come up with twenty or thirty things not on the menu doesn't actually negate the statement. Not only that, it doesn't require a quantitative list of exceptions and everything else is by default included.


Despite the fact that a future spell explicitly forbids time manipulation...Here I'm going to throw one of your own quotes back in your face. How is this relevant? Just because a future spell says something has no bearing on whether something else can or cannot do something. There is no implication that the prior one can, otherwise it's just as valid to say that the new one is intended (in a poor, WotC driven way) to errata the old one, because they have done so in the past, such as the Complete Psionic book being an unofficial and arguably unnecessary and poor errata to the Expanded Psionics Handbook.


We have rules for fast flowing time.

We have passages of the rules that link planar traits to the environment.

We have the text from Genesis broad enough to allow for planar traits.In your opinion. The wording is vague enough that it can be taken either way.


Your interpretation ignores that Genesis says that you can create virtually any trait of the environment. Since the evidence points to planar traits being part of the environment, that heavily implies that Genesis can manipulate them.I have yet to see convincing evidence of this other than "I think it works this way and I have circumstantial evidence".


Except you have no evidence to support your argument. The spell outright says I can create anything I want with a few restrictions, yet you are still trying to impose far more restrictions on the spell then the one that are actually listed. Nowhere in the spell does it say that the things I'm creating have to be similar to the examples listed.
It says "most anything". There is nothing in the spell that says the three exclusions listed are the only exclusions. The implication based on the definition of the phrase "such as" is that these are examples and other things that can be controlled are similar.


We have an official definition of Environment in the MM that lists planes as an environment. Planar Traits are part of the Plane, therefore they are part of the environment. That is definitive evidence.That's as much of a logical fallacy as the first time you said it. The only way this is true is if literally everything that is part of a plane is part of the environment. Otherwise it's like arguing that since prime numbers are numbers, all positive numbers are prime numbers. Both are a subset of numbers, therefore you're equating them as equivalent to each other. For this to be valid without being a fallacy, it's still missing the proof that planar traits are equivalent to environment. As there are inarguably parts of the environment that are NOT planar traits, you are still making a false equivalency between the two.


Yes the spell does have limitations, and it tells us what they are. If something is not on the list of restrictions (Or impossible by the rules) then it will fall into the category of "most anything".The spell doesn't state that the limitations it lists are the only restrictions. This is because the spell is open to interpretation.


You aren't arguing RAW, you are arguing RAI. You think that Genesis can only create things similar to those listed as examples but the text doesn't actually say that.This is part of the definition of the phrase "such as". In the context of the spell, it provides a list of similar or like examples.


Because the spell outright says that anything which isn't explicitly denied is allowed. It says I create anything I want with a few restrictions.
Unless you can find some evidence that Planar Traits are one of those restrictions listed in the spell, you have no way to prove your claim.
Are you honestly suggesting that the language is tight enough that it can ONLY be interpreted as saying anything that isn't explicitly denied is allowed, and that there is no room at all for other interpretations based on the way the english language works?

[unseenmage]

Just to contribute to the 'visualizing time traits' angle, IIRC there are RAW Gates and Portals and planar tears that can be seen through.

So visializing such a planar phenomena wherein contrasting time traits are literally visibly occuring on both sides of the passage can happen.

[The_Jette]

Are you honestly suggesting that the language is tight enough that it can ONLY be interpreted as saying anything that isn't explicitly denied is allowed, and that there is no room at all for other interpretations based on the way the english language works?

Dude, just let it go. You'll never convince them that they're arguing RAI instead of RAW, because in their hearts they absolutely believe that this is RAW. Every argument either way is circumstantial, and it's become an argument of opinion vs opinion that nobody is ever going to win. That's why I ducked out. They'll ignore everything that you say, and claim that you're ignoring everything they say. You'll see their arguments as evidence against them. They'll see yours as evidence against you. That in itself should point to this entire thing being RAI. In the end, the only way that this would be 100% provable as RAW legal/illegal is if the 3rd edition spell flat out listed time in its entry. If it's not listed one place, your opposition will say it's legal in that one place, because it's listed elsewhere. So, why would they not list it there. It's just going to go round and round until all of you eventually throw your hands up in frustration and walk away.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Howso? If it cannot be visualized (and the definition of an image is just as valid as the definition of imagine), then it can easily be argued that the caster cannot make it happen.

So why can we change temperature, then?


I'm referring to the keywords of "planar trait" itself.

Which we've linked to environment.


If I own a restaurant that has several hundred things on the breakfast menu, and say "You can have most anything for breakfast", the fact that you can come up with twenty or thirty things not on the menu doesn't actually negate the statement. Not only that, it doesn't require a quantitative list of exceptions and everything else is by default included.

You assume that this is the case with Genesis without any evidence. The text is broad while listing a few exceptions.


Here I'm going to throw one of your own quotes back in your face. How is this relevant? Just because a future spell says something has no bearing on whether something else can or cannot do something. There is no implication that the prior one can, otherwise it's just as valid to say that the new one is intended (in a poor, WotC driven way) to errata the old one, because they have done so in the past, such as the Complete Psionic book being an unofficial and arguably unnecessary and poor errata to the Expanded Psionics Handbook.

You don't think that WotC altering a future spell to disallow time traits doesn't imply that Genesis is capable of altering them? This can't be stealth errata, because a Psionic power is not the same thing as a spell. That fact that you think that is could be is not evidence that Genesis can't change time.


In your opinion. The wording is vague enough that it can be taken either way.

I've back up my opinion with text from the rules. It's time you started doing the same.


I have yet to see convincing evidence of this other than "I think it works this way and I have circumstantial evidence".

Then perhaps we should drop this debate? It would seem that we're arguing in circles.


It says "most anything". There is nothing in the spell that says the three exclusions listed are the only exclusions.

There's nothing in the spell that implies the existence of other exclusions either.


The implication based on the definition of the phrase "such as" is that these are examples and other things that can be controlled are similar.

Planar traits being a part of the environment and Genesis' broad wording would indicate that time manipulation is possible. You are literally nitpicking one line of text in isolation and filtering all of your conclusions through it.


That's as much of a logical fallacy as the first time you said it. The only way this is true is if literally everything that is part of a plane is part of the environment.

Why does that matter? A small part of a plane is still part of a plane.


Otherwise it's like arguing that since prime numbers are numbers, all positive numbers are prime numbers. Both are a subset of numbers, therefore you're equating them as equivalent to each other. For this to be valid without being a fallacy, it's still missing the proof that planar traits are equivalent to environment. As there are inarguably parts of the environment that are NOT planar traits, you are still making a false equivalency between the two.

Whether or not there are parts of the environment that aren't planar traits is irrelevant. Planes can be an environment and every environment is part of a plane. This isn't the only passage I quoted that linked the two.


The spell doesn't state that the limitations it lists are the only restrictions. This is because the spell is open to interpretation.

Unless you can quote text that includes such restrictions, you have no case.


This is part of the definition of the phrase "such as". In the context of the spell, it provides a list of similar or like examples.

Again, you're obsessing over one line of text. You're not looking at the rest of the spell or the information about environments we provided.


Are you honestly suggesting that the language is tight enough that it can ONLY be interpreted as saying anything that isn't explicitly denied is allowed, and that there is no room at all for other interpretations based on the way the english language works?

No. What I'm suggesting is that there is more evidence for my position than there is for yours.

Edit:

Dude, just let it go. You'll never convince them that they're arguing RAI instead of RAW, because in their hearts they absolutely believe that this is RAW. Every argument either way is circumstantial, and it's become an argument of opinion vs opinion that nobody is ever going to win. That's why I ducked out. They'll ignore everything that you say, and claim that you're ignoring everything they say. You'll see their arguments as evidence against them. They'll see yours as evidence against you. That in itself should point to this entire thing being RAI. In the end, the only way that this would be 100% provable as RAW legal/illegal is if the 3rd edition spell flat out listed time in its entry. If it's not listed one place, your opposition will say it's legal in that one place, because it's listed elsewhere. So, why would they not list it there. It's just going to go round and round until all of you eventually throw your hands up in frustration and walk away.

You never could provide evidence for your position either. That's what it will take to change my mind: evidence.

[Mato]

You never could provide evidence for your position either. That's what it will take to change my mind: evidence.Posts lose tone sometimes so let me help you with that.

That's what it will take to change my mind: "evidence".
:smallsmile:


It's just going to go round and round until all of you eventually throw your hands up in frustration and walk away.Yep, that's what I said in my last post too.


In conclusion, I will admit that RAW is unclear.And that's all it takes.


Unless otherwise noted in a description, every plane in the D&D cosmology has the normal time trait.So by simple criteria, ask your self if genesis (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/genesis.htm) does actually say in it's description that you are able to alter the flow of time

[ColorBlindNinja]

*About planes usually having normal time flow*

Specific VS General.

The whole idea here is that I'm specifically giving my plane fast time flow.

[Aracor]

Specific VS General.

The whole idea here is that I'm specifically giving my plane fast time flow.
So you found a place in the description where it says that the caster of genesis can choose an alternate time flow? I must have missed that cite. Mato's evidence is actually pretty conclusive as far as the time trait.

[ColorBlindNinja]

So you found a place in the description where it says that the caster of genesis can choose an alternate time flow? I must have missed that cite. Mato's evidence is actually pretty conclusive as far as the time trait.

Mato's evidence isn't conclusive at all. It's a case of Specific VS General. In order for it to count at all, you need something more tangible to suggest that altering time with Genesis isn't possible.

No one has proposed valid objections to arguments TaintedScholar and I have put forth.

90% of their arguments consist of nitpicking the definitions of words and adding restrictions to the text of Genesis that don't exist.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Okay, so here's a list of our arguments.

-Planar Traits are part of the environment for a number of reasons, The MM lists Planes as an environment therefore Planar Traits are part of the environment due to being a part of the Planes, Selective Gravity refers to itself as an environment, the description of Ysgard in the MotP outright refers to a Planar Trait (Minor Positive Dominant) as part of the environment.

-The Spell says that you can create any thing you want with a few restrictions. The restrictions listed in the spell do not prevent a different time flow, and there is nothing in the text to suggest that there exist more restrictions than those listed.

-While Planar Traits are not listed under the examples in the spell, that list is incredibly sparse and not meant to be include everything that the spell can create. Additionally, at no point in the spell does it claim that what you create must be similar to the examples given.

[Aracor]

Okay, so here's a list of our arguments.

-Planar Traits are part of the environment for a number of reasons, The MM lists Planes as an environment therefore Planar Traits are part of the environment due to being a part of the Planes, Selective Gravity refers to itself as an environment, the description of Ysgard in the MotP outright refers to a Planar Trait (Minor Positive Dominant) as part of the environment.I'll actually cede on this one. You've convinced me that planar traits are part of the environment.


-The Spell says that you can create any thing you want with a few restrictions. The restrictions listed in the spell do not prevent a different time flow, and there is nothing in the text to suggest that there exist more restrictions than those listed.

-While Planar Traits are not listed under the examples in the spell, that list is incredibly sparse and not meant to be include everything that the spell can create. Additionally, at no point in the spell does it claim that what you create must be similar to the examples given.This is still suspect based on a reading of the spell itself.

I'll use an analogy.

The guide can do most anything in the wilderness to ensure survival. He can build a shelter, find food, and protect himself and those with him from animals. He cannot prevent someone from getting mauled if they stand between a bear cub and its mother, nor can he prevent someone from dying of a heart attack if they're in the wilderness.

The form of this paragraph is identical to Genesis. Reading this, would you expect the guide to be able to divert lightning? Protect their charges from a landslide or tsunami caused by a random earthquake in the area?

This is literally your argument for allowing planar traits to be modified. There are two common definitions for the phrase "such as".
1. for example.
"wildflowers such as daisies and red clover"
2. of a kind that; like.
"an event such as we've shared"

Using the first definition in genesis does suggest that the series is simply a random set of examples, and anything not explicitly denied in the exceptions is a valid part of the examples. In my example, that means that the guide can prevent someone from getting struck by lightning while holding a metal pole in the middle of a field during a thunderstorm.
The second definition suggests that the examples in the series are related, and that anything NOT in the series should be compared to the series and if similar, would probably be a reasonable addition.

I submit that using the first definition (which is the one you're both using) results in an absurdity that results in the guide needing to create a specific list of supernatural powers that they do not have in order to temper people's expectations of what they can and cannot do while leading people through the wilderness.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I'll actually cede on this one. You've convinced me that planar traits are part of the environment.

OK.


This is still suspect based on a reading of the spell itself.

I'll use an analogy.

The guide can do most anything in the wilderness to ensure survival. He can build a shelter, find food, and protect himself and those with him from animals. He cannot prevent someone from getting mauled if they stand between a bear cub and its mother, nor can he prevent someone from dying of a heart attack if they're in the wilderness.

The form of this paragraph is identical to Genesis. Reading this, would you expect the guide to be able to divert lightning? Protect their charges from a landslide or tsunami caused by a random earthquake in the area?

Genesis isn't like a guide in any way, shape, or form. We know what a normal person can do, what a plane of existence is capable of is a lot harder to pin down. We do have rules for planes with fast time flow.


This is literally your argument for allowing planar traits to be modified. There are two common definitions for the phrase "such as".
1. for example.
"wildflowers such as daisies and red clover"
2. of a kind that; like.
"an event such as we've shared"

Using the first definition in genesis does suggest that the series is simply a random set of examples, and anything not explicitly denied in the exceptions is a valid part of the examples. In my example, that means that the guide can prevent someone from getting struck by lightning while holding a metal pole in the middle of a field during a thunderstorm.
The second definition suggests that the examples in the series are related, and that anything NOT in the series should be compared to the series and if similar, would probably be a reasonable addition.

Except we know that planar traits are part of the environment, which is what we're altering.

This would be like claiming that the guide in your analogy can't perform basic math, since it wasn't listed in the examples. Yet, in all likelihood, that guide could perform basic addition.


I submit that using the first definition (which is the one you're both using) results in an absurdity that results in the guide needing to create a specific list of supernatural powers that they do not have in order to temper people's expectations of what they can and cannot do while leading people through the wilderness.

Absurdities are abound in RAW. Again, a plane of existence is very different from a human being.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I'll actually cede on this one. You've convinced me that planar traits are part of the environment.

Thank you, I appreciate that.


I'll use an analogy.

The guide can do most anything in the wilderness to ensure survival. He can build a shelter, find food, and protect himself and those with him from animals. He cannot prevent someone from getting mauled if they stand between a bear cub and its mother, nor can he prevent someone from dying of a heart attack if they're in the wilderness.

The form of this paragraph is identical to Genesis. Reading this, would you expect the guide to be able to divert lightning? Protect their charges from a landslide or tsunami caused by a random earthquake in the area?

Based on a literal reading of the text? yes. No, it would not make any logical or practical sense, but by taking the exact text at face value, then I would expect that.

Ultimately, that's all RAW is. Taking the text at face value, caring only about what the rules say and disregarding everything else if they contradict the text.


This is literally your argument for allowing planar traits to be modified. There are two common definitions for the phrase "such as".
1. for example.
"wildflowers such as daisies and red clover"
2. of a kind that; like.
"an event such as we've shared"

Using the first definition in genesis does suggest that the series is simply a random set of examples, and anything not explicitly denied in the exceptions is a valid part of the examples. In my example, that means that the guide can prevent someone from getting struck by lightning while holding a metal pole in the middle of a field during a thunderstorm.
The second definition suggests that the examples in the series are related, and that anything NOT in the series should be compared to the series and if similar, would probably be a reasonable addition.

It is true that there are two definitions of "Such as" and I am relying on the first. I do have a reason for using the first though, If they were using the second definition of the phrase then this sentence would be superfluous:
"The spellcaster determines the environment within the demiplane when he or she first casts genesis, reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize."

If that were cut then nothing would change in the spell if the second definition was being used. However due to the inclusion of that sentence I believe that the text is using the first definition.

Additionally, if the second definition was being used then the "most any" part of the spell would be incorrect. After all, if the spell only covered things related to that very limited list of examples, then you would by no means be able to create "most any desire [you] can visualize".

[PanosIs]

Guys, this thread has been going in circles for three days now over a discussion about rules interpretation that has absolutely no relevance to an actual game. It's something that's completely up to DM adjudication and has more to do with rules as intended than as written.

Now, I'm often one to enjoy theoretical debate and rules discussion, but you could try to be a bit more relaxed and friendly. Lots of negativity going around.

[Aracor]

OK.

Genesis isn't like a guide in any way, shape, or form. We know what a normal person can do, what a plane of existence is capable of is a lot harder to pin down. We do have rules for planes with fast time flow.I notice you're not actually answering my question.


Except we know that planar traits are part of the environment, which is what we're altering.

This would be like claiming that the guide in your analogy can't perform basic math, since it wasn't listed in the examples. Yet, in all likelihood, that guide could perform basic addition.Basic math has nothing to do with the duties that the guide is claiming in my example. This is a red herring and completely irrelevant.


Absurdities are abound in RAW. Again, a plane of existence is very different from a human being.You have completely missed the point. I'm not even talking about the rules of the game right now, I'm talking about functionality of the english language. Since the two paragraphs have exactly the same form, they'll use the same dictionary definitions for words, which is what a lot of this discussion has been about: How to actually read the spell and what the language actually means.

So I'll spell it out a bit more clearly:
1. In my example, which definition of "such as" would you use?
2. In the genesis spell, which definition of "such as" would you use?
3. If the answer to #1 and #2 are different, please explain why they differ based on the rules of english.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Guys, this thread has been going in circles for three days now over a discussion about rules interpretation that has absolutely no relevance to an actual game. It's something that's completely up to DM adjudication and has more to do with rules as intended than as written.

Now, I'm often one to enjoy theoretical debate and rules discussion, but you could try to be a bit more relaxed and friendly. Lots of negativity going around.

I agree that this debate has been going in circles for days. But...


https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png


Edit:

I notice you're not actually answering my question.

Your analogy is flawed. Humans and demiplanes aren't equivalents.


Basic math has nothing to do with the duties that the guide is claiming in my example. This is a red herring and completely irrelevant.

No it isn't. By your logic, the guide shouldn't be able to do math because it's nothing like the other examples.


You have completely missed the point. I'm not even talking about the rules of the game right now, I'm talking about functionality of the english language. Since the two paragraphs have exactly the same form, they'll use the same dictionary definitions for words, which is what a lot of this discussion has been about: How to actually read the spell and what the language actually means.

English does kinda take a backseat in RAW discussions.


So I'll spell it out a bit more clearly:
1. In my example, which definition of "such as" would you use?
2. In the genesis spell, which definition of "such as" would you use?
3. If the answer to #1 and #2 are different, please explain why they differ based on the rules of english.

I'd use the example of "such as" that's most consistent with the text. So "For example" not "of a kind like". You have to ignore that passage about visualizing otherwise.

[Tainted_Scholar]

You have completely missed the point. I'm not even talking about the rules of the game right now, I'm talking about functionality of the english language. Since the two paragraphs have exactly the same form, they'll use the same dictionary definitions for words, which is what a lot of this discussion has been about: How to actually read the spell and what the language actually means.

So I'll spell it out a bit more clearly:
1. In my example, which definition of "such as" would you use?
2. In the genesis spell, which definition of "such as" would you use?
3. If the answer to #1 and #2 are different, please explain why they differ based on the rules of english.

I answered this in my post, you may not have seen due to it being on a different page from ColorBlindNinja's

[Aracor]

I agree that this debate has been going in circles for days. But...

Your analogy is flawed. Humans and demiplanes aren't equivalents.Why not?


No it isn't. By your logic, the guide shouldn't be able to do math because it's nothing like the other examples.That's completely untrue. You are correct that the guide can likely do basic math. It's simply irrelevant to the subject of him being a guide and out of the scope of the claims being discussed.


English does kinda take a backseat in RAW discussions.Pray tell what language is RAW using then if not English? Also, see below as I expand upon this when I respond to Tainted Scholar.


I'd use the example of "such as" that's most consistent with the text. So "For example" not "of a kind like". You have to ignore that passage about visualizing otherwise.I'm going to address this part below in Tainted Scholar's similar argument.


Based on a literal reading of the text? yes. No, it would not make any logical or practical sense, but by taking the exact text at face value, then I would expect that.

Ultimately, that's all RAW is. Taking the text at face value, caring only about what the rules say and disregarding everything else if they contradict the text.Okay, I'm going to have to disagree with you 100% here. My definition of RAW: When the only reading of the rules results in something unbalanced, ridiculous, or arguably stupid (example: Shapechanging into a Zodar and using its supernatural wish, then doing it again the next round or two for the entire duration of the shapechange spell), this is undeniably how the rules are stated. The reason for that is because this is the only way the spell and abilities in conjunction can be read. You can certainly house rule it differently, but it is indeed a house rule because there is no room for interpretation based on how the abilities are worded.

You are suggesting that if there are two valid ways to read the ability, RAW requires you to take the absurd reading rather than the reasonable one. This is not RAW, it's deliberate misreading.


It is true that there are two definitions of "Such as" and I am relying on the first. I do have a reason for using the first though, If they were using the second definition of the phrase then this sentence would be superfluous:
"The spellcaster determines the environment within the demiplane when he or she first casts genesis, reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize."

If that were cut then nothing would change in the spell if the second definition was being used. However due to the inclusion of that sentence I believe that the text is using the first definition.

Additionally, if the second definition was being used then the "most any" part of the spell would be incorrect. After all, if the spell only covered things related to that very limited list of examples, then you would by no means be able to create "most any desire [you] can visualize".The only way you can back up it being false when using things related to the series is if you can actually quantify things allowed vs things not allowed and demonstrate that things not allowed are the majority, and even that is assuming that the sentence is taken literally rather than descriptively.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Why not?

Because we know that humans are incapable of the things you described in your analogy, but we know that planes can be fast flowing.


That's completely untrue. You are correct that the guide can likely do basic math. It's simply irrelevant to the subject of him being a guide and out of the scope of the claims being discussed.

That was my point. That list of examples isn't all that the guide is capable of. I argue similarly for Genesis.


Pray tell what language is RAW using then if not English? Also, see below as I expand upon this when I respond to Tainted Scholar.

I was referring mostly to word definitions. We only rely on dictionaries when RAW doesn't have definitions for words.


I'm going to address this part below in Tainted Scholar's similar argument.

Okay, I'm going to have to disagree with you 100% here. My definition of RAW: When the only reading of the rules results in something unbalanced, ridiculous, or arguably stupid (example: Shapechanging into a Zodar and using its supernatural wish, then doing it again the next round or two for the entire duration of the shapechange spell). The reason for that is because this is the only way the spell and abilities in conjunction can be read. You can certainly house rule it differently, but it is indeed a house rule because there is no room for interpretation based on how the abilities are worded.

OK.


You are suggesting that if there are two valid ways to read the ability, RAW requires you to take the absurd reading rather than the reasonable one. This is not RAW, it's deliberate misreading.

No. What I'm saying is that claiming that something is absurd isn't a valid argument in a TO debate.


The only way you can back up it being false when using things related to the series is if you can actually quantify things allowed vs things not allowed and demonstrate that things not allowed are the majority, and even that is assuming that the sentence is taken literally rather than descriptively.

Except that requires you to ignore parts of the text and other parts of the rules. This is also ignoring how permissive Genesis' text is. There are only a few prohibitions and unless you can prove that planar traits are part of them, you really have no case.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Okay, I'm going to have to disagree with you 100% here. My definition of RAW: When the only reading of the rules results in something unbalanced, ridiculous, or arguably stupid (example: Shapechanging into a Zodar and using its supernatural wish, then doing it again the next round or two for the entire duration of the shapechange spell).

I feel as though you failed to finish this sentence, and the rest of the paragraph confused me as a result.


You are suggesting that if there are two valid ways to read the ability, RAW requires you to take the absurd reading rather than the reasonable one. This is not RAW, it's deliberate misreading.

That is not what I said. I said that you must take the rules at face value, no matter how absurd the result.


The only way you can back up it being false when using things related to the series is if you can actually quantify things allowed vs things not allowed and demonstrate that things not allowed are the majority, and even that is assuming that the sentence is taken literally rather than descriptively.

Like I said, in RAW you must take the text literally.

[Aracor]

I feel as though you failed to finish this sentence, and the rest of the paragraph confused me as a result.

That is not what I said. I said that you must take the rules at face value, no matter how absurd the result.

Like I said, in RAW you must take the text literally.

You are correct above, and I edited the original post. But I'll cover it here in a summarized manner.

I finally figured out why I have a problem with this argument in general, and it's because it's not an argument about RAW.

In a RAW argument, there is only one way to interpret the text, and it results in an absurdity (such as the aforementioned free wishes from the Shapechange spell, or shapechanging into a balor and then selling the vorpal sword). It's almost definitely not what the designers intended, but it is there, and there is little or no debate about what the rules actually say and mean.

In this case, there is debate and I genuinely believe I have proven that there is more than one way for the text to be taken, and that it IS unclear. Regardless of whether or not you AGREE with my interpretation, I think both of our interpretations are valid within the context for how the English language works.

You're saying that RAW requires you to use the definition which results in the most power. I don't agree with this, because if there is more than one valid interpretation, there IS no one RAW.

[ColorBlindNinja]

In this case, there is debate and I genuinely believe I have proven that there is more than one way for the text to be taken, and that it IS unclear. Regardless of whether or not you AGREE with my interpretation, I think both of our interpretations are valid within the context for how the English language works.

I feel that you've provided little to no evidence for your interpretation, while TaintedScholar and I have more evidence for ours.


You're saying that RAW requires you to use the definition which results in the most power. I don't agree with this, because if there is more than one valid interpretation, there IS no one RAW.

That's not my position at all. We pick whatever interpretation is best supported by the evidence.

[Tainted_Scholar]

In this case, there is debate and I genuinely believe I have proven that there is more than one way for the text to be taken, and that it IS unclear. Regardless of whether or not you AGREE with my interpretation, I think both of our interpretations are valid within the context for how the English language works.

I will agree that the our two differing interpretations of the Spell are based entirely on how we define the phrase "Such as". I defined it the way I did because I feel it makes the most sense in conjunction with the rest of the spell (as I have explained). However, unlike with the word "visualize" I cannot find a truly definitive way to show that they are using the definition I think they're using. I do feel though that there is more evidence to support my definition of "such as".

Additionally, though I hate to use RAI, I do believe that they intended to use the "for example" definition. Ultimately though, RAI has doesn't matter in RAW.


You're saying that RAW requires you to use the definition which results in the most power.

That's not what I said, I said we have to take the text literally. RAW has gimped plenty of spells and class features in the past.

[Aracor]

I will agree that the our two differing interpretations of the Spell are based entirely on how we define the phrase "Such as". I defined it the way I did because I feel it makes the most sense in conjunction with the rest of the spell (as I have explained). However, unlike with the word "visualize" I cannot find a truly definitive way to show that they are using the definition I think they're using. I do feel though that there is more evidence to support my definition of "such as".This is my point. There is no definitive answer, so you're choosing to use the interpretation that results in the spell having a massive power boost.


That's not what I said, I said we have to take the text literally. RAW has gimped plenty of spells and class features in the past.
Do you have another example in which the text needs to be taken literally? Both zodar wishes and balor vorpal swords don't require literal interpretations, they simply require English...which I need to point out doesn't take a back-seat to RAW, it is the BASIS of RAW.
Common sense takes a back-seat to RAW? Absolutely. Balance takes a back-seat to RAW? For sure. But English? No. Understanding English is what creates RAW in the first place.

[ColorBlindNinja]

This is my point. There is no definitive answer, so you're choosing to use the interpretation that results in the spell having a massive power boost.

I choose the interpretation supported by the evidence.



Do you have another example in which the text needs to be taken literally? Both zodar wishes and balor vorpal swords don't require literal interpretations, they simply require English...which I need to point out doesn't take a back-seat to RAW, it is the BASIS of RAW.
Common sense takes a back-seat to RAW? Absolutely. Balance takes a back-seat to RAW? For sure. But English? No. Understanding English is what creates RAW in the first place.

You seem to still be focusing on one part of the text instead of looking at the rest of the spell. We've both said it before and I'll say it again; the definition of "such as" that we advocate is better supported by the "visualize" portion of Genesis.

[Tainted_Scholar]

This is my point. There is no definitive answer, so you're choosing to use the interpretation that results in the spell having a massive power boost.

No, I'm taking the interpretation that makes the most sense with the rest of the spell, I said that. The reason I'm taking the interpretation I am is because with your interpretation, this sentence is pointless:
"The spellcaster determines the environment within the demiplane when he or she first casts genesis, reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize."

Said interpretation also clashes with the above sentence. It doesn't contradict it, but they aren't exactly harmonious with each other.


Do you have another example in which the text needs to be taken literally? Both zodar wishes and balor vorpal swords don't require literal interpretations, they simply require English...which I need to point out doesn't take a back-seat to RAW, it is the BASIS of RAW.
Common sense takes a back-seat to RAW? Absolutely. Balance takes a back-seat to RAW? For sure. But English? No. Understanding English is what creates RAW in the first place.

I'm not sure what that has do with anything. By taking the text literally I mean that we can't care about things like logic or intent, see me reaction to your Guide example.

Although I will point out that English takes a back seat to RAW when they have clashing definitions for words. D&D and English describe the word "Mortal" differently, for example.

[Aracor]

By taking the text literally I mean that we can't care about things like logic or intent, see me reaction to your Guide example.Here's the problem with this statement: RAW actually is logical. It has nothing to do with intent, and it can easily be nonsensical, unbalanced, and downright stupid (Looking at you, drown-healing!). But it is logical based on the sentence structures. I'm still holding that this particular example is open to interpretation and can be interpreted multiple ways, neither of which are incorrect.


Although I will point out that English takes a back seat to RAW when they have clashing definitions for words. D&D and English describe the word "Mortal" differently, for example.I'll certainly give you that one. But our disagreements aren't based on any defined game terms, which is of course the main reason for the disagreements in the first place.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Here's the problem with this statement: RAW actually is logical. It has nothing to do with intent, and it can easily be nonsensical, unbalanced, and downright stupid (Looking at you, drown-healing!). But it is logical based on the sentence structures. I'm still holding that this particular example is open to interpretation and can be interpreted multiple ways, neither of which are incorrect.

Until you can post some evidence to prove your point, our position is better supported.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Here's the problem with this statement: RAW actually is logical. It has nothing to do with intent, and it can easily be nonsensical, unbalanced, and downright stupid (Looking at you, drown-healing!). But it is logical based on the sentence structures. I'm still holding that this particular example is open to interpretation and can be interpreted multiple ways, neither of which are incorrect.

Perhaps logic is the wrong word, common sense is a better term. You can't use normal logic (Common Sense), you have to use Game Logic.


I'll certainly give you that one. But our disagreements aren't based on any defined game terms, which is of course the main reason for the disagreements in the first place.

True, I'm still holding my interpretation of "such as" because that fits the spell better though.

EDIT; Actually, why are you using the definition of "such as" that you are?

[Aracor]

Perhaps logic is the wrong word, common sense is a better term. You can't use normal logic (Common Sense), you have to use Game Logic.

True, I'm still holding my interpretation of "such as" because that fits the spell better though.

EDIT; Actually, why are you using the definition of "such as" that you are?

Honestly? Because it fits the spell better. If "such as" was meant to be a list of random examples that WEREN'T related, I believe they would have added some that weren't so easily themed together. The fact that they DO fit a theme says to me that other additions to the list should also fit the theme.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Honestly? Because it fits the spell better. If "such as" was meant to be a list of random examples that WEREN'T related, I believe they would have added some that weren't so easily themed together. The fact that they DO fit a theme says to me that other additions to the list should also fit the theme.

Okay, I disagree though since it completely clashes with other parts of the spell. Unless...

What if the theme those examples fit is "environment"!? Planar Traits are part of the environment, so that means they do have something in common with the listed examples. Additionally, Since the spell calls out determining the environment in an earlier sentence, that would tie this interpretation into other parts of the spell. So even going with that interpretation you should be able determine Planar Traits.

EDIT; Also, the examples listed were all physical in nature, and Time is a physical trait.

[Aracor]

Okay, I disagree though since it completely clashes with other parts of the spell. Unless...

What if the theme those examples fit is "environment"!? Planar Traits are part of the environment, so that means they do have something in common with the listed examples. Additionally, Since the spell calls out determining the environment in an earlier sentence, that would tie this interpretation into other parts of the spell. So even going with that interpretation you should be able determine Planar Traits.The only part of the spell that it clashes with is the one open-ended sentence. I feel like the intent (I hate to use the word intent here because it can be misconstrued, but I'm speaking of grammatical intent rather than mechanical intent) of the sentence is more hyperbolic than literal. And even then, like you said: It's not really contradictory even if taken literally. But the very wording itself makes it seem like it's hyperbole.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The only part of the spell that it clashes with is the one open-ended sentence.

But it still clashes with part of the text. Our interpretation doesn't have that problem.


I feel like the intent (I hate to use the word intent here because it can be misconstrued, but I'm speaking of grammatical intent rather than mechanical intent) of the sentence is more hyperbolic than literal. And even then, like you said: It's not really contradictory even if taken literally. But the very wording itself makes it seem like it's hyperbole.

I think that "intent" of any sort is hard to pin down.

All I know is that the designers seem to have thought that they screwed up, and allowed time manipulation with Genesis and tried to correct that with Word of Genesis/Psionic Genesis.

[Aracor]

But it still clashes with part of the text. Our interpretation doesn't have that problem.

I think that "intent" of any sort is hard to pin down.

All I know is that the designers seem to have thought that they screwed up, and allowed time manipulation with Genesis and tried to correct that with Word of Genesis/Psionic Genesis.

I'll just need to accept that we disagree. I'm obviously not going to convince you, but I don't feel there is any discrepancy with my reading of the text and RAW. In the end, when there are two different valid ways to read it; one results in absurd power and the other does not, I don't feel that RAW requires the interpretation that results in more power. I will admit that your side has some evidence, but I don't feel it's more compelling than mine.

I accept that planar traits are a part of the environment, but it's nowhere near airtight that they can be modified with Genesis.

Have fun and Happy Gaming!