Iron Heart exploit?

[Arts.Edge]

I've heard people say that there's a serious exploit with the Iron Heart maneuver from the Tome of Battle. The maneuver is Iron Heart Surge. The exploit is that when it's used to end an active effect on a player, the maneuver as written ends the cause of the effect as well as the effect itself. So, for instance, if the character is in an anti-magic field and uses the maneuver, the spell itself is dispelled. This is exploitive.

But I don't see that the text does support the reading of this maneuver as exploitive, or at least, it doesn't seem like a necessary reading:

"Your fighting spirit, dedication, and training allow you to overcome almost anything to defeat your enemies. When you use this maneuver, select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds. That effect ends immediately."

As the last sentence from the maneuver description states, "That effect ends immediately". It states you should specify a spell or condition affecting you, and then the effect ends immediately. The spell or condition is the cause of the effect. If it was true that the cause of the effect was ended, it seems unlikely the unambiguous sentence "that effect ends immediately" would have occurred. The word "effect" in the final sentence quoted is far less likely to refer to the cause of the effect than it is to refer to the effect of the cause.

Therefore, I believe that if this maneuver were to be activated in an anti-magic field, the effect of the field on the character would be ended. And not the converse, that the anti-magic field itself would be ended.

I'm bringing this up here because I think what I'm saying here is against the common wisdom in reference to the direct reading of the maneuver's description.

To be totally clear, I'm not talking at all about what's permissible in a campaign or a game. I just don't agree with the people who've told me that this maneuver as written is exploitive. What do you guys think?

[arguskos]

To be totally clear, I'm not talking at all about what's permissible in a campaign or a game. I just don't agree with the people who've told me that this maneuver as written is exploitive. What do you guys think?

Define, in D&D terms alone, what a "condition" is. It's never fully clarified. This means that a player can, using RAW and twisting logic, claim that nearly anything is a "condition" and thus "end" it with IHS. Therein lies the issue. The ability is ambiguous, which causes issues. Ambiguity in 3.5 causes problems.

[Urpriest]

Example logic: the sun is in my eyes! Iron Heart Surge to END THE SUN!!

[arguskos]

Example logic: the sun is in my eyes! Iron Heart Surge to END THE SUN!!

And, sadly, this can be argued to work using the wording of that ability. IHS is just stupidly put together.

[Vangor]

And, sadly, this can be argued to work using the wording of that ability. IHS is just stupidly put together.

No. The problem is this requires RAW for constituting an effect with an extremely loose RAI for duration. Yes, the sun has a duration in terms of physics. No, the sun does not have a duration in terms of the d&d world. You likewise could not remove a mountain collapse because eventually erosion and tectonic forces will, thus giving this a duration.

The issue with IHS is effect can, as I recall, apply to AMF itself, amongst other things. You are not under the effect of magic suppression or similar but under the effect anti-magic field, and thus if you end the effect you end the field.

[VirOath]

IHS as written will end the effect on them, the condition on them. So while the sun may be in their eyes, using it wouldn't end the sun, just end the negative effect of being partly blinded by the sun. They get a pair of shades in other words.

But on the flip side, using IHS to end an AMF is actually the BALANCED way of reading it. It isn't exploitive, excessive or anything of the like, because consider the alternative.

IHS to end the effect of an AMF, so the AMF no longer affects them, yet is still up and affecting everyone else. So the Warblade is the only one with Magic in an Anti-Magic area. If that isn't overpowered, I don't know what is.

[Arts.Edge]

Urpriest: As I tried to clarify, the cause of the sun being in one's eyes is the sun itself. The sun being in one's eyes is the effect. Ending the effect does not logically imply ending the cause. As VirOath says, "they gey a pair of shades".

I'm not saying you're necessarily incorrect, just that there is nothing in the description to force the interpretation you suggest.

Vangor: The effect of a mountain's existence on a warblade with IHS is it being apparent in the visual field or otherwise sensually present. It seems quite logical to me that the result of using IHS to end this "effect" would be making the warblade ignorant of the mountain's existence, though everyone else still is.

VirOath: I really can't speak to whether or not that's a balanced usage of IHS. I'm trying to argue for what seems to me to be the most logical interpretation of RAW. And I think the most logical interpretation, that is, the logical consequence of the words written in the description, is that only the warblade is affected by IHS, and nothing external to her.

I think the key point here is the distinction between what is a cause and what is an effect. The maneuver description specifically states that an effect can be ended, and while it doesn't mention the cause, the fact that it specifies that the effect is what is ended implies to me that the cause is not ended.

Cause and effect can always be logically separated: in any cause-effect pair one could exist without the other, logically speaking at least. Therefore, there is no case in which it is logically necessary that the cause is ended because the effect is ended.

[awa]

people need to read the first post whether the sun can be affected like a spell is irrelevant to his question

[Urpriest]

A more serious answer: you're reading the word effect as the word in the phrase "cause and effect", but in doing so you're essentially murdering catgirls. Effect has a meaning in D&D (though not IIRC a rigorously defined one) that functions as an abbreviation for "status effect", i.e. the occupier of the "debuff slot" on a character. What precisely occupies that slot (the spell? the condition, like stun or nauseated? the sun?) is unfortunately something that D&D has very little precedent on, so you're essentially defaulting to metaphysics, and unfortunately modern analytical metaphysics hasn't really seen fit to publish on D&D.

[Arts.Edge]

Haha, thanks urpriest. Good point. I just finished a philosophy degree; that is exactly how I'm looking at it. I'm still not convinced that the reading I'm arguing against is necessary, but I think it's probably true that, as you suggest, there's no real answer to the question.

This still supports the conclusion that people who insist that the RAW interpretation means that the "cause of the effect", as I've used that term, is ended by IHS are making a conclusive claim from inconclusive evidence.

[The Glyphstone]

Every time this comes up, I always end up reminding the same thing. No one seriously tries to argue that IHS can put out the sun. It's just used as the shorthand for "IHS is horribly written" - it's supposed to be able to fix things like Stunning, Domination/Charm, Paralysis, etc. It can't, because it's a standard action, but it can do things like evaporate antimagic fields and Walls of Fire, which it shouldn't be able to.

[Lhurgyof]

Define, in D&D terms alone, what a "condition" is. It's never fully clarified. This means that a player can, using RAW and twisting logic, claim that nearly anything is a "condition" and thus "end" it with IHS. Therein lies the issue. The ability is ambiguous, which causes issues. Ambiguity in 3.5 causes problems.

By RAW, conditions don't exist, therefor you can't use that function of Iron Heart Surge.

[arguskos]

By RAW, conditions don't exist, therefor you can't use that function of Iron Heart Surge.

'cept that IHS calls them out. See the issues? It's so badly worded it can't even be conclusively determined what the damn thing DOES.

We all know (probably) what it was meant to handle, as Glyphstone points out, but my point here is that the wording is SO bad that you can argue almost anything if you are feeling bullish enough. That's all I'm saying.

[Lhurgyof]

'cept that IHS calls them out. See the issues? It's so badly worded it can't even be conclusively determined what the damn thing DOES.

We all know (probably) what it was meant to handle, as Glyphstone points out, but my point here is that the wording is SO bad that you can argue almost anything if you are feeling bullish enough. That's all I'm saying.

Yeah, I'd have to rule that it can end status effects (which would've been a MUCH better wording).

Also, is it just me or does wizards like to use abilities and stuff that never get seen again... I remember a magic card that is actually completely useless because wizards screwed it up. It was a rare too. A rare I happened to get. Dx

[Esser-Z]

Every time this comes up, I always end up reminding the same thing. No one seriously tries to argue that IHS can put out the sun. It's just used as the shorthand for "IHS is horribly written" - it's supposed to be able to fix things like Stunning, Domination/Charm, Paralysis, etc. It can't, because it's a standard action, but it can do things like evaporate antimagic fields and Walls of Fire, which it shouldn't be able to.

This. Exactly this. IHS does what it shouldn't, but doesn't do what it should.

[Arts.Edge]

Well, Glyphstone, why are you sure that IHS can end Wall of Fire or anti-magic fields? As I've argued, it seems legit that such things would be made, by usage of IHS, to stop effecting the warblade, and the Wall of Fire or AMF itself would not be ended.

Maybe it should be a swift action counter, written so it can end status effects before they begin such as paralysis, stun and dominate, but not prevent HP damage, which isn't a status effect.

[Lamech]

Every time this comes up, I always end up reminding the same thing. No one seriously tries to argue that IHS can put out the sun. It's just used as the shorthand for "IHS is horribly written" - it's supposed to be able to fix things like Stunning, Domination/Charm, Paralysis, etc. It can't, because it's a standard action, but it can do things like evaporate antimagic fields and Walls of Fire, which it shouldn't be able to.

I don't see what the big deal with ending spell effects is. Obviously not working on what it should is a big deal, but have you looked at what other extrordinary ablities, and manuvers can pull off? Regeneration. Mimicing the heal spell, making someone get an extra turn? A dispel isn't really a big deal.

[Douglas]

By RAW, conditions don't exist, therefor you can't use that function of Iron Heart Surge.

Then what are these?

[Lhurgyof]

Then what are these?

Oh, then I guess IHS isn't broken at all.

[Mando Knight]

And, sadly, this can be argued to work using the wording of that ability. IHS is just stupidly put together.

Especially if you're a sun-vulnerable race with initiator levels.

"IRON DROW SURGE! TREMBLE IN DARKNESS, HAPPY SURFACE-DWELLING FOOLS! AHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

[Tiki Snakes]

Then what are these?

Ah, good to see. As being Dead is a condition and it doesn't prevent taking actions, you can IHS your way to immortality.
Admittedly, you may need some way to take actions while unconcious, as your temp hp is greater than your current, afaik.

[VirOath]

Ah, good to see. As being Dead is a condition and it doesn't prevent taking actions, you can IHS your way to immortality.
Admittedly, you may need some way to take actions while unconcious, as your temp hp is greater than your current, afaik.

But! Only once per combat, until you refresh the maneuver. Get nicked again, and you die. Or would your current HP IHS you out of death, but back into unconscious and bleeding out? So a 10% chance to not die?

[Tiki Snakes]

Well, you stopped bleeding out when you died, and stopped being dead when you IHS'ed. You haven't gained any HP yet though, so you'd probably still be snoozing.

You'd effectively be stable, but wouldn't actually have the stable condition, I suppose.

[VirOath]

So stable, but without the stable condition? So just normal then, no condition? So you would regain hp back as per normal healing rules. Yikes, getting knocked into the deep negs then IHSing out of death could leave you in a coma for months!

And then, you'd die from dehydration without assistance.

[Tiki Snakes]

Forgive my lack of knowledge, doesn't IHS refresh after an extended rest/daily or anything?

[VirOath]

Hmmmm, true. Forgot that one, after about 5 minutes of rest it would refresh. Thanks for the reminder. But dear god, waking up to find yourself a -60 would break the pain scale.

[DragoonWraith]

Each initiator has ways of refreshing it (a Warblade or Swordsage could use it every other round, refreshing as a Swift+Standard or Full-Round action, respectively; a Crusader could use it every third round, or every other round if they take Extra Granted Maneuver, refreshing as a Free action - the Crusader and Swordsage would also have to take Martial Study to learn IHS in the first place), and in any case outside of combat would have it readied every (minute, five minutes; I've heard different DMs use different times) or so, depending on how you handle "per encounter" mechanics outside of combat.

[Tiki Snakes]

So you IHS out of being dead, wait five minutes and IHS off the unconciousness, get up and walk to a hospital.

Again, assuming you can take an action to activate it whilst unconcious anyway (as your nonlethal hp would have been above your current whilst dead) but I'm pretty sure there are ways to do this. Possibly Psionic ones?

[VirOath]

Or just flat out being immune to Non-Lethal damage. You ignore the rule as your tally for that damage is always Null.

[dgnslyr]

Or just flat out being immune to Non-Lethal damage. You ignore the rule as your tally for that damage is always Null.

Which makes my Warforged Warblade all the more deadly. Warforged are automatically inert, which is the same as stable, so none of the bleeding out problem. Thematically appropriate, too.
OBJECTIVE INCOMPLETE
INITIATING CONTINGENCY PROTOCOL