To pro persistent touch spell people, how do you refute war weaver?

[gogogome]

Enlarged Tapestry (Su): At 5th level, you can stretch your magic across your eldritch tapestry beyond normal distances. Spells you cast through an eldritch tapestry have their range category increased: touch spells become close range, close-range spells become medium range, and medium-range spells become long range. Long-range spells and spells with fixed ranges are unaffected.

So this is pretty much RAW that touch spells and spells with fixed ranges are two separate things.

I recall that someone had a counter argument to this but I can't seem to remember it.

I previously ruled you can persist touch spells because of the stat block in elder evils, but right now it looks like I'm gonna have to reverse that ruling since because stat blocks are so error-riddled I put them on the bottom in terms of RAW rank.

[Cruiser1]

So this is pretty much RAW that touch spells and spells with fixed ranges are two separate things. I recall that someone had a counter argument to this but I can't seem to remember it.
Not necessarily. Here's a counter argument: Picture a Druid spell "Wrath of Nature" which deals 10d6 fire damage to everything in a large area. In addition it says "Trees turn into Treants under your control. Plants are unaffected by this spell." The existence of this spell doesn't mean trees aren't a type of plant. Similarly, a general statement covering all fixed range spells doesn't mean a more specific statement can't apply to a subsection of fixed range spells (i.e. touch spells).

That reference deep within a source book is a good and interesting find! However it's not a definitive resolution of ambiguity. Like many things in D&D, it comes down to how the DM wants to rule it.

[Kayblis]

Touch range isn't fixed, you can easily raise your touch range by changing your size, having special reach, using spells and powers to alter it, etc. The baseline is, if I ask you "what's the range of a touch spell?", the right answer is "depends on the size of the caster". This is a variable range, just as if I asked "what's the range of a Close range spell?". It depends on CL.

[Cruiser1]

Touch range isn't fixed, you can easily raise your touch range by changing your size, having special reach
By that argument Fixed Range spells aren't "fixed" either, because a Colossal creature can make Detect Magic (range 60 feet) extend farther from the center point of the creature's space than can a medium size creature. However, a spell's range starts from the point it's cast from. Creatures usually cast from a corner on the outer edge of their space. Colossal or medium, Detect Magic has a fixed range of 60 feet from that point of casting, and similarly touch spells always have a fixed range of zero from their point of casting.

If a creature were hit with a curse saying "All your spell ranges are halved", that wouldn't suddenly reduce that creature's reach, and it wouldn't affect its ability to deliver touch spells. Half of zero is still zero. :smallwink:

[Kayblis]

By that argument Fixed Range spells aren't "fixed" either, because a Colossal creature can make Detect Magic (range 60 feet) extend farther from the center point of the creature's space than can a medium size creature. However, a spell's range starts from the point it's cast from. Creatures usually cast from a corner on the outer edge of their space. Colossal or medium, Detect Magic has a fixed range of 60 feet from that point of casting, and similarly touch spells always have a fixed range of zero from their point of casting.

Actually, you don't cast from a point in your reach, so you can't say a touch spell has a range of zero in any way. That's a false statement. You cast from a point in your space. No matter where a Colossal creature places the center of Detect Magic, it's a 60ft radius from that point. You don't gain more range just because you chose a different spot, you still have a fixed radius from that point and any range you gain in one direction you lose in the other. That's fixed range. On the other hand, if you get larger you can increase your touch range to whatever you can reach, and it's very much a variable range.


If a creature were hit with a curse saying "All your spell ranges are halved", that wouldn't suddenly reduce that creature's reach, and it wouldn't affect its ability to deliver touch spells. Half of zero is still zero.

First of all that doesn't exist in the system, second it wouldn't affect reach because touch range is dependant on reach, not the other way around. If such an effect existed, you could very much argue that it halves your touch range for spells because it's a poorly worded curse you just came up with on the spot. It would also conflict with Personal range, because you can't just assume the number "0" whenever it suits you, so any such curse would need text defining what happens. We have effects like AMF that can affect half of a character, not negating equipped items and spells from body parts outside the range, so it's not logical to assume "touch" and "personal" are suddenly converted to "0" whenever you want, specially when you can use a Touch spell on a target 20ft away if you have enough reach.

[YellowJohn]

From my chair, saying 'Touch isn't a fixed range because ways to increase your reach exist' feels a lot like saying 'Detect Magic doesn't have a fixed range because you can enlarge it'. The fact that a cloud giant has a longer reach than a pixie is a property of the caster, not the spell.

[Crake]

From my chair, saying 'Touch isn't a fixed range because ways to increase your reach exist' feels a lot like saying 'Detect Magic doesn't have a fixed range because you can enlarge it'. The fact that a cloud giant has a longer reach than a pixie is a property of the caster, not the spell.

This is the logic I've always had regarding it.

That, and the fact that the initial iteration of the feat from FRCS used the same wording, and then had an extra specific clause that removed touch spells from it's list of compatible spells implies to me that touch spells would otherwise be usable. That line was then removed in future versions, so the only conclusion I can arrive to is that they initially did not want touch spells to be persistable, but then changed their mind.

[gogogome]

Can we talk about war weaver here? It directly classifies touch spells as in the same category as close, medium, and long, and not fixed range.

I believe if we use the english language touch range is fixed. The range of the spell starts and stops at the palm of your hands. So touch range is fixed range.

But here we have war weaver saying that touch range, although fixed, is not "fixed range" by d&d mechanics terminology.


This is the logic I've always had regarding it.

That, and the fact that the initial iteration of the feat from FRCS used the same wording, and then had an extra specific clause that removed touch spells from it's list of compatible spells implies to me that touch spells would otherwise be usable. That line was then removed in future versions, so the only conclusion I can arrive to is that they initially did not want touch spells to be persistable, but then changed their mind.

The no touch explanation exists only in the FRCS errata. So the argument could be made that they didn't remove it from the 3.5 update, they just forgot to include the errata changes.

[Crake]

The no touch explanation exists only in the FRCS errata. So the argument could be made that they didn't remove it from the 3.5 update, they just forgot to include the errata changes.

That is a fair point, I was using a certain 3rd party website which already had the errata included it would seem, so I wasn't aware of this fact.

That makes it a bit harder to know if it was an intentional choice to remove that line, or simply, as you said, that they forgot to include the errata.

[Crichton]

Yeah, I've always been of the same mind as Crake here. The fact that at one point they included specific text that prohibited Touch, and then removed that text, errata or no, was pretty good evidence that Touch wasn't prohibited.


This War Weaver text definitely muddies the waters back up a bit.

[Yogibear41]

Elder Evils has a cleric with a 2nd level touch spell persisted and prepared as an 8th level spell. I believe it was bear's endurance.

Edit:
Page 117. Persisted Bear's Endurance


Oops totally missed the fact that you also quoted that.

How about this for you then:

Touch spells can be increased.
Fixed range non-touch spells cannot be increased.

A spell with a flat 30ft range has no standard to be increased by. Where a touch spell can be increased to the next base length of short range.


For a geometry metaphor:

A Square is also a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.

[Unavenger]

Because D&D lacks definitions for certain things, it has to fall back on English and rely on context for certain phrases: "Fixed range" is one of those phrases. What that phrase means in one case isn't necessarily the same thing as what it means in another sense. Even when words do have specific D&D meanings, they sometimes use them to mean multiple different meanings for the same word. For example, you might be too threatened or distracted to take 10 even if you're not in a creature's reach (threatened), you haven't just been hit by an attack roll high enough that it might be a critical (threatened), you're not nauseated due to a swarm (distracted) and you haven't just been whacked with a 1st-level telepathy (distracted).

Just as the rules on threatening a critical and the rules on threatening an area are unrelated, so are spells with a fixed (unchanging with level) range and spells with a fixed (nonrandom) range.

[Necroticplague]

So this is pretty much RAW that touch spells and spells with fixed ranges are two separate things.

I recall that someone had a counter argument to this but I can't seem to remember it.

I previously ruled you can persist touch spells because of the stat block in elder evils, but right now it looks like I'm gonna have to reverse that ruling since because stat blocks are so error-riddled I put them on the bottom in terms of RAW rank.
Specific over general means there isn't a contradiction. Generally, fixed range range spells don't get affected by it, but the specific allowance for touch spells would overrule it.

That's a bit like using this line:

Attack Your Opponent

You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a –4 penalty on such attacks.

You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons.
To conclude that UAS are neither light nor natural weapons, ignoring the possibility that categories can overlap and their wording is sometimes redundant.

[Asmotherion]

So this is pretty much RAW that touch spells and spells with fixed ranges are two separate things.

I recall that someone had a counter argument to this but I can't seem to remember it.

I previously ruled you can persist touch spells because of the stat block in elder evils, but right now it looks like I'm gonna have to reverse that ruling since because stat blocks are so error-riddled I put them on the bottom in terms of RAW rank.

In any case (on a pure raw perspective) you can turn a touch spell into one with a fixed range via occular spell or the Archmage PrC. This reading (touch = fixed range) just saves a feat tax.

Your DM will chose witch reading to apply either way if it comes up.

[AvatarVecna]

To me the argument in favor of Persistent Spell working with Touch Range spells has never been one of RAW - "fixed" range spells basically never change, while "close/medium/long" spells change with your CL (which normally changes when you level, but can be altered with some temporary CL boosters without leveling), and of those two, "touch range" is most similar to the latter (since "how far you can touch" can vary a lot more wildly than your Caster Level can. To me, the argument in favor of Persistent Spell working with Touch Range spells has been more about pragmatism and RAI - however "not fixed" touch range may technically be, if you had asked the community "are touch spells fixed range" before Persistent Spell existed that didn't specifically exclude touch spells, they would've said "yes, of course" because that's...just what makes sense. It's only when it becomes an important point of RAW contention that we must address the question of whether Touch range is "fixed enough". But that's honestly not even the best argument in favor of it.

By default, Persistomancy is very straightforward, unambiguous RAW. I have the Persistent Spell feat, I'm applying it exactly as I'm supposed to, and I'm just using some kind of metamagic reduction/replacement nonsense to get it for free, making certain spells just absurdly overpowered. 99% of "how does Persistomancy shenanigans works" isn't really RAW that can be argued; it can be argued that the mechanics that lead to it are overpowered - that metamagic reduction/replacement shouldn't be a thing, that Persistent Spell's increase cost should be relative to the existing spell's duration in a similar manner to how you get permanent spells built into magic items, and so on - but at the end of the day, that Persistomancy works for fixed/personal range spells can't really be argued by RAW.

So then we turn to the next point: if this overpowered thing is perfectly legal, how do we prevent it from making the game unfun to play? And the perfect answer to that question is actually the basic idea behind War Weaver: it doesn't matter if the party is using overpowered buffs, as long as everybody benefits from them. If the whole party is twice as powerful as they should be, the DM can simply upgrade challenges without having to just ban certain mechanics - it makes things a little weirder, but the group's all having fun still, so it's something that can be handled without whipping out the banhammer (after all, 3.5 isn't exactly balanced just because you get rid of persistent spell). But if the whole group isn't benefiting from the OP buffs? If only one person is arbitrarily twice as powerful as a PC of their level should be? That's harder to handle. A lot harder. War Weaver doesn't have that problem by default - yeah, the caster can choose not to share their buffs with everybody, but why wouldn't they? The whole point of the class is essentially getting to chain your buff spells for free. But with persistomancy, the default is that it basically can't be shared. There's ways around this by RAW (Ocular Spell is the common go-to, IIRC) but they make it a more costly process for the caster. And whether it's done via Ocular Spell or DM Fiat, adding touch spells to the list of persistable spells increases the average power level - but again, this can be handled by the DM giving slightly tougher challenges to match the party's new capabilities.

The best argument in favor of touch-range persistomancy has never been that it's RAW compliant, it's that it encourages teamwork in a game where optimization frequently encourages the opposite.

[Crake]

To me the argument in favor of Persistent Spell working with Touch Range spells has never been one of RAW - "fixed" range spells basically never change, while "close/medium/long" spells change with your CL (which normally changes when you level, but can be altered with some temporary CL boosters without leveling), and of those two, "touch range" is most similar to the latter (since "how far you can touch" can vary a lot more wildly than your Caster Level can.

Yellowjohn put it best though, how far you can touch isn't a property of the spell, it's a property of the caster. The distance between your hand and the target remains the same.

[gogogome]

Touch Range persistomancy doesn't make one character significantly stronger than the other because of dispel magic. The other party members whose wealth is allocated to other things than +CL against dispel and party members whose spell slots are used for other things are usually stronger than the persistomancer. What the persistomancer does accomplish is either a stronger alpha strike or waste NPC actions on dispel magic.


To conclude that UAS are neither light nor natural weapons, ignoring the possibility that categories can overlap and their wording is sometimes redundant.

I don't see that here.


In any case (on a pure raw perspective) you can turn a touch spell into one with a fixed range via occular spell or the Archmage PrC. This reading (touch = fixed range) just saves a feat tax.

Your DM will chose witch reading to apply either way if it comes up.

Ocular spell doesn't work. By RAW the range of the spell changes when you use it, not while it's stored in your eyes.

Reach Spell too. By RAW the spell's range remains touch but you can touch something 30ft away, effectively making it a ray. It's not actually a ray, it's just effectively a ray. Same with Archmage.

[Asmotherion]

Touch Range persistomancy doesn't make one character significantly stronger than the other because of dispel magic. The other party members whose wealth is allocated to other things than +CL against dispel and party members whose spell slots are used for other things are usually stronger than the persistomancer. What the persistomancer does accomplish is either a stronger alpha strike or waste NPC actions on dispel magic.



I don't see that here.



Ocular spell doesn't work. By RAW the range of the spell changes when you use it, not while it's stored in your eyes.

Reach Spell too. By RAW the spell's range remains touch but you can touch something 30ft away, effectively making it a ray. It's not actually a ray, it's just effectively a ray. Same with Archmage.

"When you choose, you can then cast both of the ocular spells as a full-round action; the spells become brilliant blasts that shoot out from your eyes. You can choose different targets for the two ocular spells. When you release an ocular spell, its effect changes to a ray with a range of up to 60 feet."

RAW crystal clear on this one.

I'll give you Arcane reach can be read both ways though. But either way, occular spell works exactly as intended.

[gogogome]

"When you choose, you can then cast both of the ocular spells as a full-round action; the spells become brilliant blasts that shoot out from your eyes. You can choose different targets for the two ocular spells. When you release an ocular spell, its effect changes to a ray with a range of up to 60 feet."

RAW crystal clear on this one.

I'll give you Arcane reach can be read both ways though. But either way, occular spell works exactly as intended.

Yup RAW is crystal clear


Example: Ferno, an 11th-level wizard with the Ocular Spell feat, could prepare two scorching ray spells as ocular spells, casting them at the beginning of the day. In combat, he can take a full-round action to fire off both scorching ray spells. He can fire each spell at a different target, and he gets all three rays from each spell.

The spell's range is modified after you cast them. Since you can only apply DMM when you're casting the spell, you need to apply DMM before the spell's range is changed. Therefore you cannot use ocular spell to make a touch ranged spell a fixed range spell.

[Segev]

Here's a better question for practical gaming: Are touch spells in general specifically so powerful that they are inherently broken if they work with Persist Spell? If "no," then why bother banning them?

While rhetorical, that latter question is a valid one to try to answer. What is it you're trying to prevent from being Persisted if your criterion is "is it touch-range?"

[gogogome]

Here's a better question for practical gaming: Are touch spells in general specifically so powerful that they are inherently broken if they work with Persist Spell? If "no," then why bother banning them?

While rhetorical, that latter question is a valid one to try to answer. What is it you're trying to prevent from being Persisted if your criterion is "is it touch-range?"

RAW leads to some very powerful shenanigans. It also makes no sense. If my players want to use RAW to its fullest then they also gotta deal with the parts that make no sense. That's why I enforce 25PB. Not because it's broken but because that's RAW.

I'm pretty sure at the time "fixed range" spells were exclusively auras centered around you. So the goal of Persistent Spell is to persist personal or aura spells.

As I said in the OP I've been allowing persisted touch range spells until now and the reason is RAW, not balance.

[Unavenger]

If you want to allow persisting personal or aura spells, just houserule it to do that. If you want to follow the RAW, you gotta bite the fact that the RAW is far from unambiguous (Ocular spells are apparently cast twice? "Fixed range" is never defined, so it could mean "Fixed for a given caster level", "Fixed distance away from the caster's body" or "Fixed under all circumstances", which would include almost all spells, touch spells but not short/medium/long, and almost no spells respectively, I'm sure there are more weird problems here). If you don't houserule, you're still going to have to make a ruling that makes the feat do what you think is reasonable for it to do.

[Crichton]

That's why I enforce 25PB. Not because it's broken but because that's RAW.

Not to derail things, but all of the 8 variant ability score generation methods in the DMG pg 169-170(including 25PB) are all equally RAW. They're also all variants to "the standard method"(does that make it the 'most' RAW?), which according to that same passage in the DMG is the 4d6 drop 1 method from the PHB.


25PB is presented as an optional variant to the standard method. So yes, it's RAW, in the sense that it works as written, but it's neither more nor less RAW than the higher/lower point buy methods, or the arrays, or any of the other listed variant methods, and it's still 'less' standard than the PHB 4d6 method.


Edit: the words "the standard method" above are in quotes because that's the exact wording DMG 169 uses to refer to it, in the first line of the section in which it goes on to introduce the 8 variant methods.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Yellowjohn put it best though, how far you can touch isn't a property of the spell, it's a property of the caster. The distance between your hand and the target remains the same.

Caster Level (which determines range) is a property of the caster not the spell as well, but spells that derive range from caster level are explicitly not affected by persist.

[Crichton]

Caster Level (which determines range) is a property of the caster not the spell as well, but spells that derive range from caster level are explicitly not affected by persist.

Two things:

First, I think you're drawing a false equivalency there. Caster Level is an abstract variable that exists only in the caster/spell rules and is there specifically to set the values of progressive/incremental aspects of spell effects. That's not the same thing as how far a creature can reach, which is a natural, general aspect of any creature, and is used for all sorts of things, both as a concept in reality and in the game rules. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Caster Level is a property of their Spellcasting Ability(whether class feature or monster ability), while their reach is a property of the actual base creature. Two different things.

Second, as you say, with CL based range, the exclusion from persist is explicit. No question there, but neither does it really have bearing on the argument that touch is considered a fixed range because its range is essentially zero, from the point of contact.

[Unavenger]

I don't see the line explicitly mentioning s/m/l ranges that people seem to be referring to.

[Segev]

This is a pointless discussion when we try to say whether the RAW support or deny Touch range spells being Persistable. The RAW that are in effect don't mention Touch-range at all, and nothing other than errata that has been overridden by more recent printings even suggests there is a distinction between Touch and Fixed Range.

You can make arguments either way: that "fixed range" means it has to have a specified number of units of distance that are unchanged by any non-metamagic factors, or that "touch" counts as "fixed range" because it doesn't require a formula-based calculation to determine the actual range when it's cast this time.

The RAW support either interpretation.

It takes a DM to make a decision.

[gogogome]

This is a pointless discussion when we try to say whether the RAW support or deny Touch range spells being Persistable. The RAW that are in effect don't mention Touch-range at all, and nothing other than errata that has been overridden by more recent printings even suggests there is a distinction between Touch and Fixed Range.

You can make arguments either way: that "fixed range" means it has to have a specified number of units of distance that are unchanged by any non-metamagic factors, or that "touch" counts as "fixed range" because it doesn't require a formula-based calculation to determine the actual range when it's cast this time.

The RAW support either interpretation.

It takes a DM to make a decision.

No it does not.

The Errata and the War Weaver are both RAW that says touch range =/= fixed range. That is two sources of RAW that says they are not the same.

[Segev]

No it does not.

The Errata and the War Weaver are both RAW that says touch range =/= fixed range. That is two sources of RAW that says they are not the same.

The errata is not valid RAW anymore. We can speculate whether the change from what it said is a transcription error or intended, but it is overrulled.

The War Weaver doesn't say "they're two different things." It suggests that they might be, but it also could be calling out one subcategory specifically.

In the end, insisting that your interpretation is the only right way to read it doesn't make it true. It is a perfectly valid way to interpret it, but so is the alternative. There simply isn't a definition, provided in the RAW, that spells out whether "touch range" is a subcategory of "fixed range" or not.

[AvatarVecna]

War Weaver doesn't explicitly say "Touch spells aren't fixed spells", nor does it explicitly say "Touch spells are fixed spells". It has one statement about how fixed spells work with War Weaver mechanics, and one statement about how touch spells work with War Weaver mechanics. It can be read as implying that Touch is not a kind of Fixed range, but it doesn't outright state anything either way on the relationship between spells of varying ranges, it only cares about how that one ability relates to every official spell range.

The errata is a stronger argument, since it's an explicit statement on touch vs fixed, but the reason people tend to consider errata kinda shaky RAW is because it's not the most consistent thing; holding up errata as proof of RAW is technically better than holding up example statblocks, since errata doesn't contradict RAW that frequently, but it's still messy.

[Troacctid]

The errata is a stronger argument, since it's an explicit statement on touch vs fixed, but the reason people tend to consider errata kinda shaky RAW is because it's not the most consistent thing; holding up errata as proof of RAW is technically better than holding up example statblocks, since errata doesn't contradict RAW that frequently, but it's still messy.
Well, contradicting RAW is literally the whole point of errata, isn't it? I mean it would be pretty weird if an errata document was like, "This rule is correct as is and requires no change."

[gogogome]

The errata is not valid RAW anymore. We can speculate whether the change from what it said is a transcription error or intended, but it is overrulled.

The War Weaver doesn't say "they're two different things." It suggests that they might be, but it also could be calling out one subcategory specifically.

In the end, insisting that your interpretation is the only right way to read it doesn't make it true. It is a perfectly valid way to interpret it, but so is the alternative. There simply isn't a definition, provided in the RAW, that spells out whether "touch range" is a subcategory of "fixed range" or not.

I can't help but think you're not being objective here. I think you really want touch spells to be persistable so you're deliberately ignoring the most simplest explanation for a convoluted one.


War Weaver doesn't explicitly say "Touch spells aren't fixed spells", nor does it explicitly say "Touch spells are fixed spells". It has one statement about how fixed spells work with War Weaver mechanics, and one statement about how touch spells work with War Weaver mechanics. It can be read as implying that Touch is not a kind of Fixed range, but it doesn't outright state anything either way on the relationship between spells of varying ranges, it only cares about how that one ability relates to every official spell range.

The errata is a stronger argument, since it's an explicit statement on touch vs fixed, but the reason people tend to consider errata kinda shaky RAW is because it's not the most consistent thing; holding up errata as proof of RAW is technically better than holding up example statblocks, since errata doesn't contradict RAW that frequently, but it's still messy.

I don't see it. The War Weaver classified touch spells in the same category as short, medium, and long range. So I don't think touch range is a specific subcategory of fixed range, but a subcategory of short, medium and long range.

If you squint real hard you might be able to see it Segev's way, but I don't think we're supposed to be squinting real hard. I've had a similar debate with people who think Shades replicates any conjuration spell and not just summoning or creation.

[Segev]

War Weaver doesn't explicitly say "Touch spells aren't fixed spells", nor does it explicitly say "Touch spells are fixed spells". It has one statement about how fixed spells work with War Weaver mechanics, and one statement about how touch spells work with War Weaver mechanics. It can be read as implying that Touch is not a kind of Fixed range, but it doesn't outright state anything either way on the relationship between spells of varying ranges, it only cares about how that one ability relates to every official spell range.

The errata is a stronger argument, since it's an explicit statement on touch vs fixed, but the reason people tend to consider errata kinda shaky RAW is because it's not the most consistent thing; holding up errata as proof of RAW is technically better than holding up example statblocks, since errata doesn't contradict RAW that frequently, but it's still messy.

I agree with most of what you said here, but factual quibble: isn't the errata for the 3.0 version of the feat, and the 3.5 version of the feat reverts the language? The reason the errata holds any weight at all is because of confusion over whether this is a transcription error (i.e. they just forgot to include the errata language) or is a deliberate change (i.e. they meant for touch spells, previously mentioned explicitly to be excluded, to be included).


I can't help but think you're not being objective here. I think you really want touch spells to be persistable so you're deliberately ignoring the most simplest explanation for a convoluted one.

I expressly spelled out both sides. I don't actually care at the moment, because I don't have a character who'd use Persist. And if I wanted to use it, I'd talk to the DM about what he would nad wouldn't allow and determine from there. Winning a "it's totally RAW, folks!" argument doesn't help in the slightest with a game with a DM, unless the DM is swayed by that argument. I...have not played with DMs who are. At "best," they're as amused by the cleverness as I am and permit it because of that, not because they're unwilling to rule against the RAW for their games.

So, conversely, I could accuse you of being unobjective, wanting touch spells NOT to work and denying it, and thus reading it in a way that conflates unrelated statements to try to change their meaning. "The Hindenberg went down in flames. The Nazis had secret experiments with diabolism," might (or might not, but let's pretend they are) be true statements. Put together this way, they imply that Nazi experiments in diabolism caused the Hindenberg to go down in flames. That, however, is all but certainly a false statement, even if the two individual statements are independently and objectively true.

One could accuse you of doing similarly, strictly to engender a meaning you WANT to see that isn't there.

[gogogome]

So, conversely, I could accuse you of being unobjective, wanting touch spells NOT to work and denying it, and thus reading it in a way that conflates unrelated statements to try to change their meaning. "The Hindenberg went down in flames. The Nazis had secret experiments with diabolism," might (or might not, but let's pretend they are) be true statements. Put together this way, they imply that Nazi experiments in diabolism caused the Hindenberg to go down in flames. That, however, is all but certainly a false statement, even if the two individual statements are independently and objectively true.

One could accuse you of doing similarly, strictly to engender a meaning you WANT to see that isn't there.

As I said in the OP I've been allowing persisted touch spell until now. I personally think all spells should be persistable and this fixed range distinction is ludicrous. So i have no bias here. Persisted touch spells have not caused trouble for me.

[Segev]

As I said in the OP I've been allowing persisted touch spell until now. I personally think all spells should be persistable and this fixed range distinction is ludicrous. So i have no bias here. Persisted touch spells have not caused trouble for me.

In that case, I would advise you to rule that they can apply them to any spell regardless of range. It's a house rule, but if you think they should be, and it hasn't caused problems, go for it.

It's a weirdly worded feat in some ways, with the intent behind the restrictions unclear. In general, my advice is for DMs to consider whether it breaks anything, and disallow what it breaks in their games. Discuss this with players before they decide to take the feat: if they take it, they HAVE a use in mind. If the use they intend is okay, allow it, and just be open that it might not work on other things if they prove broken. This shouldn't seem a "gotcha" to them, since they'll ahve already gotten the use they intended out of it.

[gogogome]

In that case, I would advise you to rule that they can apply them to any spell regardless of range. It's a house rule, but if you think they should be, and it hasn't caused problems, go for it.

It's a weirdly worded feat in some ways, with the intent behind the restrictions unclear. In general, my advice is for DMs to consider whether it breaks anything, and disallow what it breaks in their games. Discuss this with players before they decide to take the feat: if they take it, they HAVE a use in mind. If the use they intend is okay, allow it, and just be open that it might not work on other things if they prove broken. This shouldn't seem a "gotcha" to them, since they'll ahve already gotten the use they intended out of it.

Problem with that is that the game ceases to be d&d 3.5

If one of my players brags to his friends about how he slew a dragon, and his friend later learns my player did something he shouldn't be able to do because of a house rule like fighters being able to fly or ignore DR, or has a plot weapon that makes slaying dragons much easier, he'll shrug off my player's accomplishment saying he cheated and didn't really slay the amazing creature.

I stick to RAW to give my players a d&d 3.5 experience. If my players slay a highly optimized dragon, I want them to feel like they accomplished something and not feel like I gave it to them.

[Segev]

Problem with that is that the game ceases to be d&d 3.5

If one of my players brags to his friends about how he slew a dragon, and his friend later learns my player did something he shouldn't be able to do because of a house rule like fighters being able to fly or ignore DR, or has a plot weapon that makes slaying dragons much easier, he'll shrug off my player's accomplishment saying he cheated and didn't really slay the amazing creature.

I stick to RAW to give my players a d&d 3.5 experience. If my players slay a highly optimized dragon, I want them to feel like they accomplished something and not feel like I gave it to them.

So, then, if a player asks to do something that isn't covered in the rulebooks, do you come up with a skill you can say covers it and have them roll? If the DC isn't provided, do you do your best to extrapolate from existing, similar DCs?

If you do either of these things, you're making a ruling.

In this case, fine, you want to stick to the RAW. The RAW are unclear. So stick to the RAW where they're clear, and make a ruling where they're not.

Which do you value more? An "impressive" victory over a highly-optimized dragon using nothing that is possibly out-of-the-RAW, or a fun experience where you let your players engage in RAW-compliant-to-the-best-of-your-knowledge play?

Because even if the RAW do permit the use of Persist Spell with Touch-range spells, if you forbid it, your players might be disallowed from something they "should" be allowed "by RAW," but they certainly aren't engaging in house rule territory giving them the ability to violate the RAW.

That is to say, if I build a character with Persist Spell, but never apply it to any spell at all, I may be playing sub-optimally, but I'm not breaking the RAW. Likewise, if I never apply it to a Personal-range spell, but use it on other definitely-fixed-range spells that are legal targets, I'm not breaking the RAW, even though Persist Spell definitely would permit me to use it on Personal-range spells.

Therefore, even if Persist Spell explicitly allowed Touch-range spells to be persisted, if you ban it, your players using Persist Spell will never be violating the RAW.

So, if you are uncomfortable with ruling something to be RAW-compliant at your table where teh RAW is at all ambiguous, and you want somebody to brag about what they did at your table to definitely have been playing within a subset of rules that is in the lower approximation of what the RAW say (i.e., they're 100% RAW-compliant, with 0 chance of any RAW violations), always rule as restrcitvely as you can.

[gogogome]

Because even if the RAW do permit the use of Persist Spell with Touch-range spells, if you forbid it, your players might be disallowed from something they "should" be allowed "by RAW," but they certainly aren't engaging in house rule territory giving them the ability to violate the RAW.

RAW isn't being unambiguous here. War Weaver is not a stat block and it clearly categorizes touch spells with short, medium, and long which are definitely not "fixed range".

Feat description alone is ambiguous, but War Weaver sets the RAW straight.

[JNAProductions]

Question! Why does it matter?

The RAW is borked (maybe not here, but certainly is in other places) and it’s not balanced anyway. So, why not just rule what works best for your table, and have fun? Especially since I’d bet there are spells that are broken when persisted cheaply and are touch range, and some that are not.

[Crichton]

RAW isn't being unambiguous here. War Weaver is not a stat block and it clearly categorizes touch spells with short, medium, and long which are definitely not "fixed range".

Feat description alone is ambiguous, but War Weaver sets the RAW straight.

I don't think you're giving the other side of this the consideration that it's due. It's not nearly as clear cut as you're making it out to be. As Segev and AvatarVecna pointed out, the War Weaver text you posted doesn't explicitly name Touch as non-fixed, nor as fixed. What it does do is describe what changes it makes to each range category (in this case increasing Touch to Close). Given that its stated goal is to increase the range of spells, well, Close is a longer range than Touch, so it does exactly that. As both of the others mentioned, it could be read as implying that Touch and Fixed are two separate things, but the other reading, that it's a subcategory, or that it's not claiming full descriptive authority either way, is truly equally valid, given the specific text they put in there. It really doesn't say with any unambiguous, irrefutable clarity, and certainly not anything like as clear as you're portraying it to be. What we're left with is that 'Fixed' isn't a Range Category as outlined in the definitions of those categories, so we still have the ambiguity of whether it's a catch-all term for any Range that doesn't vary or scale up with CL, or if it's a synonym for the actual Range Category that's named 'Range Expressed in Feet'

[Segev]

RAW isn't being unambiguous here. War Weaver is not a stat block and it clearly categorizes touch spells with short, medium, and long which are definitely not "fixed range".

Feat description alone is ambiguous, but War Weaver sets the RAW straight.

War Weaver isn't categorizing them at all.

All it's doing is specifying how the feature in question interacts with various specific ranges.

"Blue cars cost $100000. Red, yellow, and sky blue cars cost $90000." Does this mean that sky blue cars are not blue? If there are royal blue, navy blue, sky blue, cherry red, crimson, watermelon, canary yellow, and yellow-gold cars on the lot, is it ambiguous which cars cost how much?

No, to all of those. Blue cars cost a certain amount. Sky blue cars are spelled out as costing a different amount. This doesn't mean sky blue cars are not blue, nor does it mean that royal blue and navy blue cars are not blue nor are they unspecified in price.

[Necroticplague]

RAW isn't being unambiguous here. War Weaver is not a stat block and it clearly categorizes touch spells with short, medium, and long which are definitely not "fixed range".

1. Using a single class's ability as a ruling for a more general rule makes no sense. By that logic, you can equally argue that bonus feats requires prerequisites (fighter), or that they don't (monk).
2. I'm not seeing how you're getting that 'touch' is 'in' any group, other than the word appearing in the same sentence. It mentions five categories of spells (touch, short, medium, long, fixed), but it does not establish any grouping or hierarchy to them.

[Asmotherion]

Yup RAW is crystal clear



The spell's range is modified after you cast them. Since you can only apply DMM when you're casting the spell, you need to apply DMM before the spell's range is changed. Therefore you cannot use ocular spell to make a touch ranged spell a fixed range spell.

Witch in turn is specified that "casting" consists of the act of releasing the rays (of a 60ft range). Thus you can easyly apply persist at that point.

[gogogome]

Question! Why does it matter?

The RAW is borked (maybe not here, but certainly is in other places) and it’s not balanced anyway. So, why not just rule what works best for your table, and have fun? Especially since I’d bet there are spells that are broken when persisted cheaply and are touch range, and some that are not.

I want to play d&d 3.5. Not a game based on d&d 3.5. Also I believe the players have more than enough tools at their disposal to warrant 0 DM leniency.


is truly equally valid'

It's not equally valid. It's an extreme remote possibility. It's like saying drown healing is intentionally implemented. It's "possible" but extremely unlikely.

Path of least resistance is a law of nature. Which side here has more resistance?


1. Using a single class's ability as a ruling for a more general rule makes no sense. By that logic, you can equally argue that bonus feats requires prerequisites (fighter), or that they don't (monk).

It makes sense because the way d&d is written, you need to extrapolate the rules. It is mandatory. If you find something ambiguous and unclear, you dive into the books to find a non-stat-block official usage of the rules in question to determine what the rules actually are.


2. I'm not seeing how you're getting that 'touch' is 'in' any group, other than the word appearing in the same sentence. It mentions five categories of spells (touch, short, medium, long, fixed), but it does not establish any grouping or hierarchy to them.

if a 1round/level duration is increased to 1min/level duration, that's a grouping/hierarchy.
touch increased is short
short increased is medium
medium increased is long.

One of the anti-persistent-touch spell arguments was that "touch" isn't fixed because "touch" is a separate category to "fixed range". So while technically touch is "fixed ranged" it's a different category. I previously dismissed this argument but this War Weaver excerpt confirms that this argument was in fact valid.

War Weaver directly states touch is a separate range category to fixed.


War Weaver isn't categorizing them at all.

All it's doing is specifying how the feature in question interacts with various specific ranges.

"Blue cars cost $100000. Red, yellow, and sky blue cars cost $90000." Does this mean that sky blue cars are not blue? If there are royal blue, navy blue, sky blue, cherry red, crimson, watermelon, canary yellow, and yellow-gold cars on the lot, is it ambiguous which cars cost how much?

No, to all of those. Blue cars cost a certain amount. Sky blue cars are spelled out as costing a different amount. This doesn't mean sky blue cars are not blue, nor does it mean that royal blue and navy blue cars are not blue nor are they unspecified in price.

Once again i will refer you to nature's law of path of least resistance. You go up to a DM and explain the rules. Which one is more believable? touch and fixed range are separate categories, or touch is a subset of fixed range while using druid spells and talks of car colors as reasoning for touch being a subset of fixed range when there is even a 3.0 errata that separates the two categories.


Witch in turn is specified that "casting" consists of the act of releasing the rays (of a 60ft range). Thus you can easyly apply persist at that point.

I am going to allow my players to persist ocular spells, not because of what you said, but because the exact language of DMM is that you can apply a metamagic to any spell that you know as a free action. Nothing about timing. Nothing about applying it while casting.

Illumian's naenhoon however directly says you apply while casting so it has to be DMM.

[Necroticplague]

if a 1round/level duration is increased to 1min/level duration, that's a grouping/hierarchy.
I''m not sure I see how this is the case, could you explain this more clearly?

War Weaver directly states touch is a separate range category to fixed.
No it doesn't. It indicates that they are both categories. It is as quiet as the grave on the matter of them being separate, or if one it a subcategory of another. The ability still works perfectly fine if touch spells are a sub-category of fixed range spells.

[Segev]

At this point, gogogome, you’ve made your decision how you’re going to rule it and are trying to justify why it is “clearly” the right answer by virtue of being “the most believable.” Which is subjective.

Im glad you’ve got a ruling that you feel satisfied with. It is not an invalid one by the RAW. Your only logical error is assuming it is the only ruling to me made within the RAW. The RAW can be read either way, and either is valid.

To demonstrate that a DM is not going to necessarily find your argument so blatantly persuasive as you think, I point back to the sky blue car analogy. You never addressed it, unless you mean to say that you believe that a DM would be convinced that sky blue cars are not blue, while royal blue and navy blue ones are.

[Crichton]

Yeah, at this point at least 5 different people have come in and told you that your interpretation of those words isn't accurate, or at least isn't as clearcut as you're making it out to be, and proposed other readings of those same words that are equally possible/probable, so at this point your 'path of least resistance' and 'extreme remote possibility' points have pretty much fallen apart. I think you're hung up on it as the reading that made sense to you when you read it, and are writing off any other interpretation as preposterous without giving them the consideration that they're truly due.

[Gnaeus]

Once again i will refer you to nature's law of path of least resistance. You go up to a DM and explain the rules. Which one is more believable? touch and fixed range are separate categories, or touch is a subset of fixed range while using druid spells and talks of car colors as reasoning for touch being a subset of fixed range when there is even a 3.0 errata that separates the two categories

I’d say the path of least resistance absolutely says that text in war weaver was intended to apply to war weaver and not be a stealth errata to how a category of spells interacts with feats in other books. I’d say the path of MOST resistance was that authors had a clear and coherent opinion on how this should work and they decided to hide it in an otherwise unrelated PRC.

[JNAProductions]

I want to play d&d 3.5. Not a game based on d&d 3.5. Also I believe the players have more than enough tools at their disposal to warrant 0 DM leniency.

Right, but we have eight complete threads and one 42-page thread (found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?508514-Dysfunctional-Rules-IX-1d3-Dysfunctions-from-the-8th-Level-List)) about rules dysfunctions. As in, places where the RAW doesn't work, and sometimes even where RAI is unclear or ambiguous.

One ruling does not change the game from 3.5 to "Sorta like 3.5 but not really."

Plus, do you follow WBL 100% of the time, no exceptions? Do you, for instance, not allow a player to swing on a chandelier as part of their move, because that's not an explicit rule? (Least as far as I know-it might be, given how many books there are.)

[gogogome]

I''m not sure I see how this is the case, could you explain this more clearly?

No it doesn't. It indicates that they are both categories. It is as quiet as the grave on the matter of them being separate, or if one it a subcategory of another. The ability still works perfectly fine if touch spells are a sub-category of fixed range spells.

The ability also works "fine" if we claim medium is a subcategory instead of a different range category of long.
The ability also works "fine" if we claim close is a subcategory instead of a different range category of long.
The ability also works "fine" if we claim touch is a subcategory instead of a different range category of long.
The ability also works "fine" if we claim long is a subcategory instead of a different range category of medium.
The ability also works "fine" if we claim close is a subcategory instead of a different range category of medium.
The ability also works "fine" if we claim touch is a subcategory instead of a different range category of medium.

etc. etc.

It's awfully convenient that only touch spells get to be a subcategory.


At this point, gogogome, you’ve made your decision how you’re going to rule it and are trying to justify why it is “clearly” the right answer by virtue of being “the most believable.” Which is subjective.

You are incorrect. All evidence points to touch range spells not being fixed range. I am not looking for reasons to make my ruling correct. My ruling comes from all evidence presented. Your argument is hella weak. According to your car example long, medium, and close range are all blue as well.


I’d say the path of least resistance absolutely says that text in war weaver was intended to apply to war weaver and not be a stealth errata to how a category of spells interacts with feats in other books. I’d say the path of MOST resistance was that authors had a clear and coherent opinion on how this should work and they decided to hide it in an otherwise unrelated PRC.

No errata is necessary. The rules always worked this way. War Weaver is just an example of the rules in use.

You have a 3.0 errata directly saying touch spells are not fixed range.

First you need rule lawyer away that errata claiming the errata of where the feat originated from has no relevance.
Then you need to rule lawyer away the war weaver saying it's not an example of the rules in use.
Then you need to rule lawyer that touch range is not a separate ranged category of fixed range.



Yeah, at this point at least 5 different people have come in and told you that your interpretation of those words isn't accurate

When i was pro persistent touch spell I also had a ton of people in my face saying I'm wrong. And when their sole argument was that reach makes touch not "fixed range" i rejected it because that argument is also hella weak.

Give me an argument that isn't hella weak like "touch COULD be a subcategory of fixed range while close, medium, and long can't be subcategories of touch range because I say so. And the 3.0 FRCS errata also has no relevance here because I say so too/"


Plus, do you follow WBL 100% of the time, no exceptions? Do you, for instance, not allow a player to swing on a chandelier as part of their move, because that's not an explicit rule? (Least as far as I know-it might be, given how many books there are.)

I do actually. I even ran a few campaigns where I did 0 loot and just had the organizations the PCs worked for give them their WBL at the start of every level.

I don't let them swing on chandeliers in combat unless they find rules for it. Another poster a while back made a good point. A person who looks up rules to build their character to be able to slide under creatures in combat should be the only ones who get to slide under creatures in combat. A "roleplayer" who just does that without any rule research or character building completely screws over someone who did put in the time and effort.

[Segev]

No errata is necessary. The rules always worked this way. War Weaver is just an example of the rules in use.

You have a 3.0 errata directly saying touch spells are not fixed range.

First you need rule lawyer away that errata claiming the errata of where the feat originated from has no relevance.
Then you need to rule lawyer away the war weaver saying it's not an example of the rules in use.
Then you need to rule lawyer that touch range is not a separate ranged category of fixed range.First you need to lawyer in errata from a different edition in order to invent the rule that touch spells are excluded. Then, you need to lawyer in the notion that naming "touch" and "fixed" in the same list means one cannot be a subcategory of the other. Then you need to lawyer up a claim that something which obviously is not blue might be blue if you allow that sky blue might be blue in order to justify denying that sky blue is blue.

Every one of your "path of least resistance" arguments really are "path to justifying this ruling;" there's no "least resistance" involved.

You may think you've ruled "based on all available evidence." It may not be your personal preference to ban persisting touch spells. But you settled on a ruling, and now you're stuck on insisting it's the only possible ruling, rather than the rules being ambiguous enough that, heaven forfend, you had to make a judgment call as a DM.

[InvisibleBison]

I want to play d&d 3.5. Not a game based on d&d 3.5.

D&D 3.5 isn't one thing, it's a category of things. There are lots and lots of 3.5 rulebooks; is someone who doesn't use all of them not playing 3.5? There are many, many rules that are ambiguous; how do you determine what the "real" way of ruling is in these cases? And the DM is explicitly allowed (almost encouraged, actually) to make houserules, so playing with houserules doesn't make a game not D&D 3.5 any more, either.

[Necroticplague]

The ability also works "fine" if we claim medium is a subcategory instead of a different range category of long.
The ability also works "fine" if we claim close is a subcategory instead of a different range category of long.
The ability also works "fine" if we claim touch is a subcategory instead of a different range category of long.
The ability also works "fine" if we claim long is a subcategory instead of a different range category of medium.
The ability also works "fine" if we claim close is a subcategory instead of a different range category of medium.
The ability also works "fine" if we claim touch is a subcategory instead of a different range category of medium.[.

etc. etc.
Exactly. Since the ability functions perfectly well regardless of any heirarchies or structures in place, it can't be used as evidence for the existent of such hierarchies.


It's awfully convenient that only touch spells get to be a subcategory. Actually, it's rather inconvenient. Would be nice to have a clear-cut, non-contradicted rule on the matter. But sadly, there isn't any that I'm aware of. My argument is neither pro- or anti- Persistent Touch spells. My position is merely that this piece of evidence doesn't provide support in either way.

Since both the potential hypothesis at play here can exist consistently alongside this rule, this can't be something that falsifies them.

[magicalmagicman]

Since both the potential hypothesis at play here can exist consistently alongside this rule, this can't be something that falsifies them.

3.0 errata does. It shows the intent of the feat and since War Weaver, the only other time fixed range is ever mentioned in the entirety of the RAW, conforms to the errata, I think it's pretty obvious which side is correct here.

And the whole subcategory argument is hard to swallow. I know if I use it to argue to my DM he'd label me a munchkin or a rule lawyer, not that he hasn't already.

[Crichton]

3.0 errata does. It shows the intent of the feat and since War Weaver, the only other time fixed range is ever mentioned in the entirety of the RAW, conforms to the errata, I think it's pretty obvious which side is correct here.

That's not how it works, though. The only mention in errata was for a 3.0 book, and given the fact that they didn't carry that same text through in the later 3.5 text, we're left with one of two options:


A) they somehow forgot or neglected to include the mention of touch in the 3.5 version found in Complete Arcane, despite writing that version of the feat's rules later (a full 3 entire years after that FRCS errata was released - 11/2001 to 11/2004).

B) they intentionally reverted their previous change, and the omission of any mention of touch in the 3.5 version is on purpose.


We don't really have any way of knowing which option is the correct one, so we get stuck with that ambiguity, and have to make a ruling. There's no way around that. Personally, I think B is more likely, given the length of time involved, but even if it isn't, the current version of the persist rules still specifically omits any mention of touch, by name.



And the whole subcategory argument is hard to swallow. I know if I use it to argue to my DM he'd label me a munchkin or a rule lawyer, not that he hasn't already.

Here's the thing I think you're overlooking, in all the back and forth banter that makes this seem like more of a stretch than it really is:

"Fixed" is not a Range category, nor is it a word that's even ever used in the rules for Range categories. So when other rules later come in and use that word in reference to spell Range, it can only logically mean one of 2 things:


A) it's being used as a synonym for the actual Range category that's named "Range Expressed in Feet" (perhaps because they regret their cumbersome choice of phrase to name that category)

B) it's being used to divide multiple Range categories into separate groups of Ranges. In this case, the ones that scale up, and the ones that don't. Both Touch and Range Expressed in Feet fall into that latter category.


Once again, we don't have any clarification on which of these is correct. At all. As you yourself say, the only other use of 'Fixed' in this context is War Weaver. But the War Weaver rules, when you actually look at them and compare them to the 2 options I just presented, don't actually offer any clarity either. That text could equally apply to either option, without needing any squinting or looking at it funny or anything.

If it's option A, then the WW text works just fine: Touch, Close, and Medium get specifically increased, and Long and Range Expressed in Feet don't change(because they're using the word 'Fixed as a synonym for it).
If it's option B, then the WW text works just fine: Touch, Close, and Medium get specifically increased, and Long and Range Expressed in Feet don't change(because 'Fixed' is referring to all the non-scaling Range categories, and it's the only one of those that's left).


And of course all of that is still based on the additional assumption that they used the word "Fixed" to refer to the same thing in both instances, which they had no obligation to do, given that it is not a rules-defined term and so doesn't actually have any referent in the rules, so that's really not an assumption we can put any faith in anyway, which further removes any clarity we might find on the issue.

[martixy]

Problem with that is that the game ceases to be d&d 3.5

If one of my players brags to his friends about how he slew a dragon, and his friend later learns my player did something he shouldn't be able to do because of a house rule like fighters being able to fly or ignore DR, or has a plot weapon that makes slaying dragons much easier, he'll shrug off my player's accomplishment saying he cheated and didn't really slay the amazing creature.

I stick to RAW to give my players a d&d 3.5 experience. If my players slay a highly optimized dragon, I want them to feel like they accomplished something and not feel like I gave it to them.

This is the root personal issue behind the whole argument. Color me surprised that this attitude actually exists in the wild.

I'm curious, why does it matter?

See, I come from the exact opposite end, which makes it hard for me to have a stake in this argument. On that note, I tend to consider the rules more as imperfect guidelines and without going all set theory on the text, it does seem the wording of the War Weaver implies touch =/= fixed range. But then again I don't give a flying f. about the wording and if I decide that I want it to include touch spell, or all spells, I just make it so.

Hence, my curiosity about a position so diametrically opposed to mine.

[gogogome]

You may think you've ruled "based on all available evidence." It may not be your personal preference to ban persisting touch spells. But you settled on a ruling, and now you're stuck on insisting it's the only possible ruling, rather than the rules being ambiguous enough that, heaven forfend, you had to make a judgment call as a DM.

Your argument is very weak. I've been repeating this. You've explained yourself well, but your argument is still very weak. And all you've been doing is repeating this same weak argument over and over and calling me predisposed because I keep rejecting your same identical weak argument.

All of 3.0 is included in 3.5 by default. That's RAW. 3.5 feat description of persistent spell overrides the FRCS errata but the 3.5 feat does not indicate whether touch spells are fixed or not. So if it was in fact a conscientious decision to include touch spells the 3.0 errata has no relevance.

But War Weaver repeats touch spells =/= fixed range spells. So the 3.0 errata has relevance since this is most likely an overlooked printing error, and definitely shows the intent behind the feat.

If you want to change my mind present evidence that has higher authority than war weaver and the 3.0 errata instead of forcing an incredibly shakey reading that not only requires you to ignore the errata of where the feat originated from, but also can only obtain a "maybe" at best.


Since both the potential hypothesis at play here can exist consistently alongside this rule, this can't be something that falsifies them.

One hypothesis requires you to ignore the errata where the feat originated from, squint your eyes real hard, and at best can only obtain an unclear "maybe". The other hypothesis requires no reasoning. Touch and fixed range are separate range categories. Simple as that.


We don't really have any way of knowing which option is the correct one, so we get stuck with that ambiguity, and have to make a ruling. There's no way around that. Personally, I think B is more likely, given the length of time involved, but even if it isn't, the current version of the persist rules still specifically omits any mention of touch, by name.

War Weaver ends the ambiguity.


"Fixed" is not a Range category, nor is it a word that's even ever used in the rules for Range categories. So when other rules later come in and use that word in reference to spell Range, it can only logically mean one of 2 things:

Fixed is a ranged category. What do you think "range:30ft" is?

This is where I'm ending the discussion. Either present new evidence or I am finished repeating myself.




This is the root personal issue behind the whole argument. Color me surprised that this attitude actually exists in the wild.

I'm curious, why does it matter?

See, I come from the exact opposite end, which makes it hard for me to have a stake in this argument. On that note, I tend to consider the rules more as imperfect guidelines and without going all set theory on the text, it does seem the wording of the War Weaver implies touch =/= fixed range. But then again I don't give a flying f. about the wording and if I decide that I want it to include touch spell, or all spells, I just make it so.

Hence, my curiosity about a position so diametrically opposed to mine.

You just need to experience bad DMs to understand my firm stance on RAW.

I had DMs who had very little system mastery yet employ sweeping house rules that mangled the game to the point it's unrecognizable. Instead of learning how to deal with things like polymorph within the game rules, they just make up a bunch of house rules that make polymorph unusable. And it's not limited to only polymorph. They changed everything. At which point I think to myself, am I playing d&d 3.5? Or am I playing some dumbass's terrible homebrew tabletop game that is very loosely based on d20srd?

Even house ruling something trivial like alignment system has huge consequences since entire splat books have been created based on that alignment system, making all of those splat books unusable.

I took up DMing in order to experience D&D 3.5. I want to play in an official setting. I want to play in a game where all the factions i've read about and researched exist like the Eberron houses. I want to play using all the books. I want to experience high level combat with all the high end monsters which never happen because all the DM's I've met are mundane lovers who cut more than half the game and house rule all spellcasters into tier 4 pure support roles like healbot or buffbot. I want to be at WBL and buy all the neat stuff in MIC instead of only having 1/3 of WBL and stuck with no equipment.

Personally I rather be a player than a DM but since there are no DMs in my area that are interest in playing d&d 3.5 instead of whatever homebrew thing they've made, I have to DM myself, and I will never homebrew or house rule anything. d&d 3.5 has more than enough tools for players to make any character they want.

[AvatarVecna]

Imagine making a thread pretending to ask what people think about a particular rules interaction and then getting mad when people don't respond with the opinion you wanted them to have.

[gogogome]

Imagine making a thread pretending to ask what people think about a particular rules interaction and then getting mad when people don't respond with the opinion you wanted them to have.

I don't care what your opinion is. I made this thread to hear the devil's advocate before I reversed my ruling. The best they came up with is "touch is a subset of fixed and you can't disprove that without the errata which i'm ignoring" which is worse than "touch isn't fixed range because of reach" so I reject it.

5 people pounding on me online by repeating the same weak argument over and over and then another person insulting me for not giving into this weak argument. Nice. I suppose I'm an ******* if I agree with segev too right? Because there's quite a few number of people in this thread who agree with me that I'd be ignoring by siding with him.

Why don't you post something productive instead of being a snarky .

[AvatarVecna]

I don't care what your opinion is. I made this thread to hear the devil's advocate before I reversed my ruling. The best they came up with is "touch is a subset of fixed and you can't disprove that without the errata which i'm ignoring" which is worse than "touch isn't fixed range because of reach" so I reject it.

5 people pounding on me online by repeating the same weak argument over and over and then another person insulting me for not giving into this weak argument. Nice. I suppose I'm an ******* if I agree with segev too right? Because there's quite a few number of people in this thread who agree with me that I'd be ignoring by siding with him.

Why don't you post something productive instead of being a snarky .

Taking a side isn't what makes you an *******. Opening the thread giving the impression you're seeking advice when actually you're seeking validation is.

EDIT: And for somebody who doesn't care what my opinion is, you sure are getting prickly about it. XD

[magicalmagicman]

Imagine making a thread pretending to ask what people think about a particular rules interaction and then getting mad when people don't respond with the opinion you wanted them to have.

Plenty of people have responded with the opinion he wanted. They're just not repeating themselves over and over in a yelling match.

[AvatarVecna]

Plenty of people have responded with the opinion he wanted. They're just not repeating themselves over and over in a yelling match.

Indeed. Interesting how playing devil's advocate doesn't apply to the side he already agrees with? :smalltongue:

[martixy]

You just need to experience bad DMs to understand my firm stance on RAW.

I had DMs who had very little system mastery yet employ sweeping house rules that mangled the game to the point it's unrecognizable. Instead of learning how to deal with things like polymorph within the game rules, they just make up a bunch of house rules that make polymorph unusable. And it's not limited to only polymorph. They changed everything. At which point I think to myself, am I playing d&d 3.5? Or am I playing some dumbass's terrible homebrew tabletop game that is very loosely based on d20srd?

Even house ruling something trivial like alignment system has huge consequences since entire splat books have been created based on that alignment system, making all of those splat books unusable.

I took up DMing in order to experience D&D 3.5. I want to play in an official setting. I want to play in a game where all the factions i've read about and researched exist like the Eberron houses. I want to play using all the books. I want to experience high level combat with all the high end monsters which never happen because all the DM's I've met are mundane lovers who cut more than half the game and house rule all spellcasters into tier 4 pure support roles like healbot or buffbot. I want to be at WBL and buy all the neat stuff in MIC instead of only having 1/3 of WBL and stuck with no equipment.

Personally I rather be a player than a DM but since there are no DMs in my area that are interest in playing d&d 3.5 instead of whatever homebrew thing they've made, I have to DM myself, and I will never homebrew or house rule anything. d&d 3.5 has more than enough tools for players to make any character they want.

Oh, that's cool (in that you explained your reasons well).

I have had my fair share of bad experiences with DMs. I do not think I am exaggerating if I say anyone who has played this game for an extended period of time has had their fair share of bad gaming experiences. It's actually what turned me off of online play completely.

And I am, in a sense, that which you are afraid of. I am the guy that has a dozen page-long documents of homebrew touching every single aspect of the game in one way or another.

But also not in a big way. I am a munchkin by heart and a ForeverDM in the sense that no one would ever create the game I want to play in, so I have to do it and run it myself. Yet the game is created in a very player-centric way in that there have always been things that are "I wish the DM would let this work" or "I wish the DM would let me create a character like this", which now as a DM I am allowed to say, yes - you can do that to myself, and by extension to my players. (It is causing me some amount of grief on the DM side, as throwing sheer numbers at my players rarely works, but on the other hand it forces me into creative encounter design.)

Otherwise my cravings are much the same as yours - I want to use all the books, heck even Pathfinder, and all the settings. So I have a sort of kitchen sink setting where Toril or Eberron or Dark Sun are just planets in a bigger universe (that's another thing that has always bugged me - we have spatially infinite planes, but it's always just 1 planet that's described as basically the entirety of the plane; and don't get me started on the outer planes).

The difference between us, I suppose, is that I eventually decided that the original designers, while they laid very solid foundations (and I do mean solid, many people don't understand how many subtle things underpin the system to make it even remotely self-consistent, conscious design decisions which are hidden from plain view), they are not infallible and made many mistakes, some clerical in nature, some design-wise, and that I know what's best for my own game. While you seem to have decided that everything has an answer within the rules themselves if you are willing to look long and hard enough. Perhaps I'm just lazy that way.

[Crichton]

Fixed is a ranged category. What do you think "range:30ft" is?

Range:30ft does not belong to a range category named "Fixed" it belongs to a range category named "Range Expressed in Feet"

Here's the actual rules text (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#range), so you can see for yourself what the actual rules say.

Honestly it's like you don't even read the posts we're putting out there. This was literally explained in the post you cherry picked that quote from.

[Arael666]

[...]Picture a Druid spell "Wrath of Nature" which deals 10d6 fire damage to everything in a large area. In addition it says "Trees turn into Treants under your control. Plants are unaffected by this spell." The existence of this spell doesn't mean trees aren't a type of plant. [...]

Actually it does. Plant is a creature type and trees are objects in D&D. Thus, the spell affects trees (a specific object) but doesn't affect plants (the creatures).

[Unavenger]

Actually it does. Plant is a creature type and trees are objects in D&D. Thus, the spell affects trees (a specific object) but doesn't affect plants (the creatures).

Except that there are numerous references to non-creature plants, such as blight ("A plant that isn’t a creature doesn’t receive a save and immediately withers and dies."), but the point is that the spell description itself would not prevent trees from being plants.

[Segev]

Your argument is very weak. I've been repeating this. You've explained yourself well, but your argument is still very weak. And all you've been doing is repeating this same weak argument over and over and calling me predisposed because I keep rejecting your same identical weak argument.Your assertion that my argument is weak is subjective. You've offered no evidence I have not refuted for why you make this claim, save for your feeling about this "path of least resistance" that is premised on the conclusion you've already drawn.


All of 3.0 is included in 3.5 by default. That's RAW. 3.5 feat description of persistent spell overrides the FRCS errata but the 3.5 feat does not indicate whether touch spells are fixed or not. So if it was in fact a conscientious decision to include touch spells the 3.0 errata has no relevance.This is actually evidence in favor of my position that it's ambiguous and requires a DM to make a ruling. Not an argument in favor of your position that a DM ruling anything but "Persistant Spell cannot be used on touch attacks" is house ruling.

It's ambiguous. It can be ruled either way. Claiming that my argument is weak and then agreeing with all factual points of my argument, only to then try to spin it as if that means it's unambiguous when you just got done acknowledging that the 3.0 point is not useful... I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. But it seems to me that you're undermining your own position of unambiguity.


But War Weaver repeats touch spells =/= fixed range spells. So the 3.0 errata has relevance since this is most likely an overlooked printing error, and definitely shows the intent behind the feat.You're asserting something that isn't true, here. For War Weaver to be saying that, it would have to actually say that. Nowhere does it say "touch spells are not fixed range spells." And nothing in what it says implies that, unless you already believe that to be the case.


If you want to change my mind present evidence that has higher authority than war weaver and the 3.0 errata instead of forcing an incredibly shakey reading that not only requires you to ignore the errata of where the feat originated from, but also can only obtain a "maybe" at best.I can't, but you haven't presented evidence that War Weaver says what you claim it does. You've merely dismissed without refutation any attempt to point out how your reading is acceptable, but not the only valid one.




One hypothesis requires you to ignore the errata where the feat originated from, squint your eyes real hard, and at best can only obtain an unclear "maybe". The other hypothesis requires no reasoning. Touch and fixed range are separate range categories. Simple as that.
Hardly. You're squinting to find that distinction.



War Weaver ends the ambiguity.
Only if you've already concluded it does. If you don't start with the conclusion as your premise, it remains ambiguous.



Look, your ruling is FINE. It is definitely within the RAW. It is not the only way to read the RAW, but it is the more restrictive way to read it. For your goals, gogogome, of ensuring that your players never have advantages that the RAW would not give them, you're making the right call. (The same could be said for a DM who bans Persistant Spell entirely: the PCs still can't be getting away with powers beyond those permitted by the RAW, even if they ARE banned from powers that definitely would be thus permitted.) But you're making a call, not following unambiguous RAW. And if anybody rules the other way, they're not house ruling any more than you are. It remains ambiguous.

[Necroticplague]

One hypothesis requires you to ignore the errata where the feat originated from, squint your eyes real hard, and at best can only obtain an unclear "maybe". The other hypothesis requires no reasoning. Touch and fixed range are separate range categories. Simple as that.

1. Errata that itself would have been overwritten by later printing that did not have that text, and which was errata for a different game entirely. The errata was for a 3.0, not 3.5. 3.5 printing that lacked that text would override any 3.0 errata.
2. Both are based around squinting and getting an unclear 'maybe'. Unless you can find something explicitly says they are two separate categories, you have no ground to stand on.
3. Repeating an assertion is not evidence.

I get the impression that my own position, however, is unclear, so let me clarify: I do not think there is a certain answer either way. This is an insolvable issue caused by them using a term that doesn't have an in-game definition as if it was one. I'm not pro-touch-persisting, so the tenuity of that position is irrelevant. I hold that both positions are on shaky grounds.

[Crichton]

It is definitely within the RAW.

I really like that wording. When there is no clear unambiguous reading of the rules on a subject, the best we can do is make a ruling that's consistent with what is provided by the text that we do have.
This current example is far from the only one in this ruleset, and it's hardly the worst offender therein, as well.

[Gnaeus]

I'm not pro-touch-persisting, so the tenuity of that position is irrelevant. I hold that both positions are on shaky grounds.

I have less of a position than that. I think that the books are so riddled with inconsequential errors and so many writers playing the games their own way that the text of a PRC is good for novelty value only. I don’t know which of the 3 authors wrote that class. And even if it were David Noonan I have no reason to think he was trying to do anything but say how War Weaver worked. He could easily have clarified fixed/touch in actual rules text in a section on magic in a dozen places. If you want me to read his mind and infer his position then my psychic powers tell me he didn’t care about the issue enough to define the terms clearly.

[NigelWalmsley]

I agree. Fundamentally, trying to divine authorial intent in cases of ambiguity mostly just leads to conclusions that are stupid. Whatever the authorial intent was, they could have made it explicit if they wanted to. Try to read tea leaves is just going to drive you insane. If the rules are bad or unsatisfying, you should start by asking "what should the rules say", not engage in ...whatever this is.

[Crichton]

I agree. Fundamentally, trying to divine authorial intent in cases of ambiguity mostly just leads to conclusions that are stupid. Whatever the authorial intent was, they could have made it explicit if they wanted to. Try to read tea leaves is just going to drive you insane. If the rules are bad or unsatisfying, you should start by asking "what should the rules say", not engage in ...whatever this is.

That's true to a degree, and it's how most DMs decide to implement things or not, at their table.

But that doesn't discount the value of starting from the foundation instead being the question "What do the rules say, and not say, even if there are gaps, holes and question marks", especially in a rules discussion forum like this one, where people come for advice, and where people come to compare build ideas and options (which requires as close to a shared implementation of rules as is feasible). Yes, sometimes that results in people bantering about minutia that almost every actual table would find trivial or pointless, but it also results in that shared foundation for discussion ending up a bit firmer, despite the ruleset having plenty of question marks left in it.

[NigelWalmsley]

The level of evidence presented here is not high enough to be persuasive to anyone who has not already made up their mind. If you're asking "how does this thing in an unrelated book impact rules it never directly references", you are looking for evidence for a decision you have already made. Having an objective foundation to discuss the rules is important, but this kind of argument is not how you build an objective foundation.

[Crichton]

The level of evidence presented here is not high enough to be persuasive to anyone who has not already made up their mind. If you're asking "how does this thing in an unrelated book impact rules it never directly references", you are looking for evidence for a decision you have already made.

Yes. Which is precisely why all of my posts here, and those of several others, have been dedicated to outlining the points of the rules that do exist on the topic, the potential ambiguities, and the reasons why the presented 'evidence' is not nearly so persuasive or clearcut as it was being presented to be, as well as the reasons the issue falls under the 'must make a ruling, the rules text is unclear' category.