"one or more rounds"

[Random832]

This discussion seems to be getting too long for the Q&A thread, so I've made a new thread

Q 408
by RAW can Iron heart surge (ToB) be used to disable an Antimagic field.
an antimagic field is a spell that is affecting you. when used effect imediatly ends.
thus does it stop affecting everyone or just you?
How about dominate humanoid? if someone has cast dominate humanoid can you take a standard action to iron heart surge it away?

Remember by RAW.

A 408 No.

The Iron Heart Surge maneuver will immediately end "one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds." As this specification is grammatically distinct from "1 round or longer", the Surge is only effective against impediments with a stated duration of some number of rounds; durations expressed in minutes or other units of time are unaffected. Antimagic Field has a duration of 10 min./level.

Q 408 Clarification.
sorry i ment Dominate Person.
1/day per lvl is greater than one round per lvl?
since one round is just another way of saying 6 seconds.

Yes, it's greater; however, that is irrelevant because of the specific language used. The Surge is limited to effects with a duration listed in rounds. If they had specified "1 round or longer" an effect with a duration of 1 day/level would be affected; however, they specified "1 or more rounds". The language used does not allow for numeric equivalencies, and thus Iron Heart Surge can do nothing to Dominate Person.

Is there any RAW saying "Language like '1 or more rounds' only applies to effects with a duration measured in rounds"? Because the language "duration measured in rounds" is used elsewhere in the rules, and there is a valid counterargument that it would have been used here if that were the intended meaning.

Conversely, the phrase "10 rounds/level" is found nowhere in the SRD, and 1 minute is "more rounds" [the language you highlighted] than 1 round.

In other words - is this your ruling, or is there a glossary entry or even an official ruling (e.g. The Sage) to this effect?

For an analogy, consider names. Enrique is the Spanish equivalent of Henry. However, there was no king Enrique VIII with six wives in England; there was only Henry VIII.

that's news to me.

[Yuki Akuma]

Claiming that a spell with a duration measured in minutes does not last "one or more rounds" is ridiculous nitpicking.

Rounds are the basic measurement of time in D&D. Everything that lasts any time at all has a duration of "one or more rounds".

The prohibition is against anything that's instantaneous.

[Glimbur]

Your Dominate Person question is flawed because if you're dominated you shouldn't be able to take actions that end the effect. That would make Dominate Person not worth casting.

Now, flavorwise, letting Iron Heart Surge get rid of Dominate makes tons of sense and would be a reasonable houserule if you can find a way to make Dominate still useful.

[AstralFire]

Uh... everyone who's not a martial adept can't shrug it off? I'm pretty sure IHS has a prerequisite, so it's not like you can one-level dip for it until really high levels when there are numerous ways to deal with domination anyway.

[Killer Angel]

Before entering the discussion on timing, one thing is unclear to me:
the Iron Heart Surge maneuver will immediately end "one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds."
Antimagic field is a spell centered on the caster.
If you enter in an antimagic field, you become affected by an area spell... it doesn't affect "you", 'cause you are not the target. You suffer the effects, but they're not affecting you directly: you can leave the area any time you want.

Am I wrong?

[AstralFire]

It's you, not You. Generally capitalization indicates a game term, lack indicates normal speech. I don't think it was intended to do so, though... I usually don't allow it to because it doesn't make sense to me, but I clamp down on magic in other ways to balance it out. I do let people use it to resist domination and such.

[Random832]

Am I wrong?

I think that it depends on the spell - I'd agree with you for antimagic field, but I'd think that for something like Zone of Truth where each individual affected gets their own will save, you could end it (applying only to you, not to the whole area) with IHS.

Anyway, I found an official ruling.

It cannot remove instantaneous effects, but is not otherwise limited by how the duration is measured (including permanent). The ruling also mentions it can't revert damage already done, but doesn't touch on what qualifies as "affecting you" or whether it ends it for others (IMO it logically does not.)

[Douglas]

or whether it ends it for others (IMO it logically does not.)

That brand of logic is not relevant to RAW. By RAW, the effect ends. Period. The lack of any qualifier means that the entire effect ends, and it ends for everyone. If someone casts Mass Suggestion on a group that happens to include you and you use Iron Heart Surge to end it, everyone else who failed the save is also freed from the spell's effect.

Changing this is a common house rule, but it is a house rule.

[Killer Angel]

I think that it depends on the spell - I'd agree with you for antimagic field, but I'd think that for something like Zone of Truth where each individual affected gets their own will save, you could end it (applying only to you, not to the whole area) with IHS.
Anyway, I found an official ruling.
It cannot remove instantaneous effects, but is not otherwise limited by how the duration is measured (including permanent)

Yep, the "including permanent-duration spells or effects" is pretty clear, and resolves the OP's doubt on round duration.
Also, I agree on ZoT

[JeenLeen]

I'm reminded of another effect in ToB. I forget what it's called, but it's a move the monk-type shadow PrC can get.

It sets the target to -10 HP. It does not do damage or lower their HP to -10, but sets it there. Thus, Contingencies set for 'when I reach 1 HP' or spells such as Indomitability do not activate. Nor is it a death effect, since it does not kill you, your being at -10 HP kills you.

ToB seems to be worded to get around some tricky situations. It's up to the DM how Iron Heart Surge is used, but I think it's an interesting concept to go by the RAW wording, to have to work with the tricks.

[Random832]

That brand of logic is not relevant to RAW. By RAW, the effect ends. Period. The lack of any qualifier means that the entire effect ends, and it ends for everyone. If someone casts Mass Suggestion on a group that happens to include you and you use Iron Heart Surge to end it, everyone else who failed the save is also freed from the spell's effect.

I was moving a bit beyond strict RAW with that last bit, to be honest.

Although... it may be possible to lawyer your way around the wording to make it work with RAW - i.e. say the spell doesn't directly affect you, it rather creates a condition or effect that affects each person separately.

ZoT is a bit of a weird example that may actually justify this even when other things (like antimagic) don't, since it's an AOE spell that has a save on entering the area.

[Curmudgeon]

Is there any RAW saying "Language like '1 or more rounds' only applies to effects with a duration measured in rounds"? Because the language "duration measured in rounds" is used elsewhere in the rules, and there is a valid counterargument that it would have been used here if that were the intended meaning.

English grammar rules (which are RAW, just not the RAW you were thinking of) make "1 or more rounds" specific to a duration expressed in rounds. However, if you want a D&D RAW precedent which states that numeric equivalence is not relevant to expressions of duration, look to Draconomicon on page 66:

To take a metabreath feat, a creature must have a breath weapon whose time between breaths is expressed in rounds. Therefore, a hell hound (which can breathe once every 2d4 rounds) can take metabreath feats, whereas a behir (breath weapon usable 1/minute) cannot.

10 rounds: yes. 1 minute: no.

[Random832]

English grammar rules (which are RAW, just not the RAW you were thinking of) make "1 or more rounds" specific to a duration expressed in rounds.

I don't agree, since the real world doesn't have a notion of what the "right" unit to express a duration in is in the first place. And a minute is "more rounds" (or more seconds) than nine rounds.

However, if you want a D&D RAW precedent which states that numeric equivalence is not relevant to expressions of duration, look to Draconomicon on page 66

Um, right. The one that specifically (unlike IHS) refers to how the duration is expressed; which was my RAW precedent, contrasted with the language for IHS to make my argument. I was actually going to cite that specific text, but I couldn't verify it (and actually had it wrong in an inconsequential way; I thought it said "measured") since I don't have the book on me right now.

[Talya]

English grammar rules (which are RAW, just not the RAW you were thinking of) make "1 or more rounds" specific to a duration expressed in rounds. However, if you want a D&D RAW precedent which states that numeric equivalence is not relevant to expressions of duration, look to Draconomicon on page 66: 10 rounds: yes. 1 minute: no.

The official ruling linked earlier in this thread disagrees with you.

[AstralFire]

Many people stand by the statement that FAQ is not RAW. While I agree with them, it's very often a good guideline, and I agree with Yuki Akuma that it seems like hairsplitting here - and I cannot understand or perceive an intent here to restricting it to spells that have a duration of less than a minute or so. With metabreath feats, it's clearly intended to give bonuses to creatures with breaths already on a short recharge.

[Random832]

Many people stand by the statement that FAQ is not RAW.

I wouldn't have brought it up if not for the fact that the "grammar-based" ruling is dubious in the first place (what, two minutes is not "more rounds" than twelve seconds? In my grammar, different units of the same physical quantity are interchangeable if the proper conversion factor is used.)

[Curmudgeon]

I don't agree, since the real world doesn't have a notion of what the "right" unit to express a duration in is in the first place.

The real world does have such a notion in the rules of English grammar, specifically in the scope of comparatives. I recommend Warriner's English Grammar and Composition if you want to educate yourself on "real world notions".

The difference between that language and the language for IHS is that it specifically makes reference to how a duration is measured, rather than how long it is.

The thing is, that choice of grammatical syntax is just another way of expressing that the duration is measured in rounds. "1 round or longer" is an open-ended specification of duration. "1 or more rounds" means just that: a duration in rounds.

[Random832]

The real world does have such a notion in the rules of English grammar, specifically in the scope of comparatives.

So a sentence like "one meter is about four more inches than three feet" is grammatically invalid? I don't even have to resort to prescriptive vs descriptive to say how ridiculous that sounds. You can't say you're [e.g.] an eighth of an inch taller than me because height is not normally expressed in eighths of inches?

The thing is, that choice of grammatical syntax is just another way of expressing that the duration is measured in rounds.

Says you. I say it is a way of expressing that the duration; divided by the length of a round; must be one or more.

[quick_comment]

There is a difference between "a duration measured in rounds" and a "duration of 1 or more rounds"

One specifies that it matters how you express it, the other only cares what it actually is.

So IHS works on things with durations expressed in rounds, minutes, microcenturies and fortnights

[Fixer]

The thing is, that choice of grammatical syntax is just another way of expressing that the duration is measured in rounds. "1 round or longer" is an open-ended specification of duration. "1 or more rounds" means just that: a duration in rounds.

You play the game your way, everyone else is free to disagree with you.

For the record, I disagree with your interpretation of that phrase. A duration of 1 or more rounds includes all durations that aren't instantaneous. Why they didn't say that I am not sure, maybe there are other effects that have wonky durations.

And you *CAN* use IHS to break a domination, unless the person who has you dominated has given you instructions that preclude your doing so, like doing something else. If you are dominated, and your dominator tells you to kill your friends, you can't use IHS to break the domination until you have completed what you were told to do and don't have further instructions.

[AstralFire]

And you *CAN* use IHS to break a domination, unless the person who has you dominated has given you instructions that preclude your doing so, like doing something else. If you are dominated, and your dominator tells you to kill your friends, you can't use IHS to break the domination until you have completed what you were told to do and don't have further instructions.

That depends on how much of a literalist the DM is with regards to how exactly you must finish your instructions when dominated.

Frex, if the command is 'wait here for now' - how long is a 'now'? Does being told to wait preclude taking any other actions at all?

[Random832]

And you *CAN* use IHS to break a domination, unless the person who has you dominated has given you instructions that preclude your doing so, like doing something else. If you are dominated, and your dominator tells you to kill your friends, you can't use IHS to break the domination until you have completed what you were told to do and don't have further instructions.

Does this still apply if your strategy for killing them leaves at least one round in which your standard action is not occupied?

[quick_comment]

Does this still apply if your strategy for killing them leaves at least one round in which your standard action is not occupied?

Yes, because using IHS is not devoting all your effort to killing your friends.

Its like saying a frenzied berserker in frenzy can choose to attack a tree.

[Curmudgeon]

So a sentence like "one meter is about four more inches than three feet" is grammatically invalid?

No, that's just awkward. (But your sentence is numerically invalid, because one meter is about three inches more than three feet.)

[Mr.Moron]

The ability states a minimum duration in rounds it does not state any restriction on how those rounds expressed. "duration of 1 or more rounds" is not the same as "with a duration of 1 rounds or more that is expressed in rounds". A 1 minute duration is still a duration of 1 or more rounds it's simply not expressed in rounds.

However, since the ability does not state anything about how "1 or more rounds" must be expressed anything with a duration longer than 1 round is a valid target. You could have a spell with a duration of "6 seconds/level" as well, it's not expressing the duration in rounds but it still has a duration of 1 or more rounds.

[Saph]

Yeah, Curmudgeon, I have to join in with the "this is ridiculous nitpicking" camp. Saying that Iron Heart Surge can end something with a duration of 20 rounds but can't end something with a duration of 2 minutes is ludicrous because twenty rounds and two minutes are two ways of describing the exact same length of time.

[Curmudgeon]

"duration of 1 or more rounds" is not the same as "with a duration of 1 round or more that is expressed in rounds".

But it is the same.

A specification of "one or more cars" isn't satisfied by either an 18-wheel tractor-trailer or 10 motorcycles. In both cases you can consider those as more than "one car". Why do you have difficulty with the language construct when it's used with a specific measure of duration?

[quick_comment]

But it is the same.

A specification of "one or more cars" isn't satisfied by either an 18-wheel tractor-trailer or 10 motorcycles. In both cases you can consider those as more than "one car". Why do you have difficulty with the language construct when it's used with a specific measure of duration?

No, trailers and motorcycles arent cars. A better analogy is 1 or more dollars, and you claiming that 4 quarters arent a dollar. It doesnt say 1 more more dollar bills, it says 1 or more dollars.

[AstralFire]

But it is the same.

A specification of "one or more cars" isn't satisfied by either an 18-wheel tractor-trailer or 10 motorcycles. In both cases you can consider those as more than "one car". Why do you have difficulty with the language construct when it's used with a specific measure of duration?

...That's a really weird analogy. Rounds are a unit of measurement, and can be converted to any other unit which measures the same dimension. Cars are not a unit of measurement, and when someone makes a statement that a rig or 10 motorcycles is more than one car, there's an implicit reference to a dimension - be it mass, volume, power, etc.

[Mr.Moron]

But it is the same.

A specification of "one or more cars" isn't satisfied by either an 18-wheel tractor-trailer or 10 motorcycles. In both cases you can consider those as more than "one car". Why do you have difficulty with the language construct when it's used with a specific measure of duration?

We have defined equivalences for minutes, rounds, hours and seconds. There are no defined equivalences between cars, motorcycles and 18-wheelers. There are no cars in 10 motorcycles because we have no way to convert between the units. 1 minute is the same as 10 rounds because that is how a round is defined.

The word "Round" is just shorthand for "a period of 6 seconds in the game world". That we refer to those 6 seconds as a round doesn't change the fact that they are 6 seconds and that there are 60 seconds in 1 minute.