So I've made the ultimate Anti-Mage???

[Svata]

That should be a given since it says round that it means round.

Is a year one or more months? If so, a minute/hour/day is on or more rounds. If not, where are you living?

[adriana]

BTW If Adriana didn't know that concentration spells were indefinite then that shows her lack of experience, thus invalidating her argument anyways.

So I had a brain fart and forgot about concentration spells and my arguments are null and void? Wow! I'm so glad you've never made a mistake. Oh wait here you were wrong about being able to widen an anti-magic field. I guess this makes all your arguments invalid.

Sorry if I'm coming across rude here but...

Any rate I've stated my point on this and I pretty much agree with Eggy on this one. Sorry for the hijack.

[Brookshw]

It's the in-game definition for the outsider type. You said the outsider type isn't defined, and that defines it.

Honestly I'm even happier to accept that as it creates a necessity, if we want consistent logic, to also accept that the condition summary lists are our list of conditions. Otherwise we're just cherry picking what we accept as a definition and what we don't.

That establishes the Outsider Type, or "tag" as you like calling it. What you are doing is creating a "condition" tag where none exists and comparing it to the Outsider type, which does exist. You know if something is an outsider because it will possess the Outsider tag.

And we know something is a condition when it's called out as one, as things are in the game. Maybe this is a better question, what's the point of the condition list if not to list conditions?

The game absolutely defines outsider. First, the game defines type, and does so in several places, including the PHB, and the monster manual, and defines outsider as one of those types. Further, the game gives certain meanings to type, and grants special importance to the type-line to establish a creature's type. Finally, the game says that outsiders have the following features, and then lists some. Does your human's type bestow that list of properties? No, so it's not an outsider, though it's an even more true thing because the creature just doesn't have the type within the rules. A word doesn't have to be defined in the glossary to be defined in game.

So you're moving the goal post? We know conditions are in the game don't we, just as types and outsiders are? Heck, you've even been using that whole "negative" element of conditions as a basis for argument. How can conditions have a "negative" element if it's not defined? This is just cherry picking what you want to accept as a definition.

Except, and here's the problem, this is just a bunch of stuff you're making up. There is no condition tag, and the game puts no apparent special importance on these listed conditions. IHS nowhere indicates that it specifically refers to this sort of condition, and hell, it doesn't even imply it. Your argument here seems a whole lot like a house rule to me.

Sure, by way of analogy I'm making up the notion of tag as a way to demonstrate a point. I'll repeat my question from earlier, what's the point of the condition list other than to establish conditions? Keep in mind it's already accepted there can be other conditions than those listed.

The fact that the word is used that way elsewhere in the book holds almost no implications about the word's usage as applies to IHS.

That's a load a bunk, consistent usage and application is why language works, you know this. If the book isn't using it in a manner that's supporting your position then maybe the problems with the position. You're claiming special status for one application only.

If there is a rules of the game, I think Curmudgeon has a higher pedigree than anyone else in this thread.

Now that's probably the truest statement of the thread concerning rules.

[Snowbluff]

Shhh. I was enjoying that delusion.

Dexter, no! It's not real!

In that instance, you are wrong eggy. Curmudgeon's view is expressly only in favour of effects with a listing of 1 round or more, not 1 hour or more, or 1 day or more.

If there is a rules of the game, I think Curmudgeon has a higher pedigree than anyone else in this thread.

I'll point out that this is a fallacy of authority or whatever.

[thedmring]

No, not at all. Someone being mistaken about one thing doesn't make their other arguments magically wrong. It, in fact, has no bearing whatsoever.

of course you would say that about someone agreeing with your side of the argument.

[eggynack]

And we know something is a condition when it's called out as one, as things are in the game. Maybe this is a better question, what's the point of the condition list if not to list conditions?

There is none. However, that doesn't mean that the point is to list all conditions.

So you're moving the goal post? We know conditions are in the game don't we, just as types and outsiders are? Heck, you've even been using that whole "negative" element of conditions as a basis for argument. How can conditions have a "negative" element if it's not defined? This is just cherry picking what you want to accept as a definition.

The goalposts are completely unmoved. The game absolutely defines the outsider type in the text, by saying, "An outsider is these things." It doesn't define condition at all. If the game said, "These are what a condition is," then that would be a different matter, but the game never says of conditions what it says of outsiders. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that when they make a rule that has to do with outsiders, they typically define what sort of outsider they're talking about right in the text. For reference, see the monk's perfect self ability, which says that they mean the extraplanar creature, rapidstrike, which explicitly calls for the outsider type, and as the frost, which also specifies that it's working with the creature type.

Sure, by way of analogy I'm making up the notion of tag as a way to demonstrate a point. I'll repeat my question from earlier, what's the point of the condition list other than to establish conditions? Keep in mind it's already accepted there can be other conditions than those listed.

As above, so too here, but to give a longer answer, it's right there in the header. The game talks about a lot of conditions, and it does so repeatedly, so they summarized what the conditions do in the back of your handy dandy rulebook. It's probably how I would format things in the same situation.

That's a load a bunk, consistent usage and application is why language works, you know this. If the book isn't using it in a manner that's supporting your position then maybe the problems with the position. You're claiming special status for one application only.

But it's not used consistently in the book. It's not used consistently in any book, to my knowledge, though I honestly can't say that I've checked. If it were just petrified and this, then that would be one thing, and you'd have the barest sliver of an argument (but not really, because the source of your condition list also has inconsistencies of usage), but it doesn't, and you don't.

Edit:

of course you would say that about someone agreeing with your side of the argument.

I'd say it about anyone, anytime, including you. For example, as Adriana points out, you haven't always been correct in rules discussions, and you say problematic things frequently, but I'll never arbitrarily dismiss an argument you make out of hand based on the fact that you've made it. To do so would just be using fallacious logic. The source of an argument doesn't matter at all, even if you might mentally place more weight with someone you tend to agree with, and see being right often. All that matters is the argument's logic, and everything else is just about superfluous.

[Killer Angel]

The wording on the spell again makes it simple. "select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds" So if some mage concentrated on x spell for one round or more, that was affecting me, then it would have a duration that would qualify for IHS to work.

Seems simple to me.

The "spell" part is simple. that generic "effect"? not so much.

Is a year one or more months? If so, a minute/hour/day is on or more rounds. If not, where are you living?

I get the reasoning behind "one hour is longer than one round, so it qualifies", but at what point do we draw a line? do we draw a line at all? because a permanent condition certainly lasts for longer than one round...

[eggynack]

The "spell" part is simple. that generic "effect"? not so much.

Yeah, I almost never make use of effect when I do these arguments, and I pretty much always end up regretting it when I do.

Plus, I get the reasoning behind "one hour is longer than one round, so it qualifies", but at what point do we draw a line? do we draw a line at all? because a permanent condition certainly lasts for longer than one round...

Probably nowhere, though instantaneous seems like it obviously wouldn't work. However, at that point you just switch to one of the other modes, and get rid of the thing anyway.

[adriana]

The "spell" part is simple. that generic "effect"? not so much.

yeah I probably could have used a better example.

[Brookshw]

, rapidstrike, which explicitly calls for the outsider type,

Back on my phone so a long response will have to wait, but where is the above coming from?
http://dndtools.eu/feats/draconomico...dstrike--3227/

[eggynack]

Back on my phone so a long response will have to wait, but where is the above coming from?
http://dndtools.eu/feats/draconomico...dstrike--3227/

Nah, that was a mistake, though still a mistake that makes the same point, as the prerequisite specifies that it's referring to type. It's still reasonably indicative overall of the game's tendency to clarify where this is concerned.

[Elderand]

my final comment on this is Occam's razor "With all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one."

Point of order, that's not what Occam's razor actually says. That's the flanderized theme park version.

What Occam's razor actually says is that if you're given several hypothesis to test, you start testing the simplest one first because it's the easiest one to test and falsify. More complex hypothesis may still be true.
Or if you're going to elaborate an hypothesis, make as few assumption as possible.

Occam's razor does not, and I can't state this emphaticly enough, say that the simplest things are usualy right.

[Brookshw]

Nah, that was a mistake, though still a mistake that makes the same point, as the prerequisite specifies that it's referring to type. It's still reasonably indicative overall of the game's tendency to clarify where this is concerned.

700 dysfunctions and counting and you think the game tends to clarify? A bold stance indeed

[Elderand]

700 dysfunctions and counting and you think the game tends to clarify? A bold stance indeed

Clarifications are like fossils.

The more fossils you have, the more missing links there are. You have a missing link between fish and lizard, you find a fossil to put in that spot, suddenly you have two missing links, between fish and fossil and fossil and lizard.

Clarification are the same, the more you have, the more you need. Because each clarification must be clarified in reguard to everything else.

[eggynack]

700 dysfunctions and counting and you think the game tends to clarify? A bold stance indeed

I think that the game often clarifies what you're dealing with when it's working with words that also have standard definitions, yes. Not always, but often. I'd be interested in seeing some cases where outsider is used in a manner that's ambiguous about what is being referred to, particularly as applies to rule creating text, however. Even where it's not perfectly indicated, the meaning is often made clear by context.

For example, just reading through spells with outsider in their text, affliction surrounds evil outsider with evil undead and evil elemental, anarchic rain specifies that we're dealing with creatures, and lawful ones at that, animate with the spirit also specifies alignment in that manner, and lists an example creature, and so on. These references are often imperfect, and leave open some theoretical room for ambiguity, but they at least provide some sort of context, and again, outsider is actually a game defined term, so that context is far less required.

[Brookshw]

I think that the game often clarifies what you're dealing with when it's working with words that also have standard definitions, yes. Not always, but often. I'd be interested in seeing some cases where outsider is used in a manner that's ambiguous about what is being referred to, particularly as applies to rule creating text, however. Even where it's not perfectly indicated, the meaning is often made clear by context.

For example, just reading through spells with outsider in their text, affliction surrounds evil outsider with evil undead and evil elemental, anarchic rain specifies that we're dealing with creatures, and lawful ones at that, animate with the spirit also specifies alignment in that manner, and lists an example creature, and so on. These references are often imperfect, and leave open some theoretical room for ambiguity, but they at least provide some sort of context, and again, outsider is actually a game defined term, so that context is far less required.

Kinda like how we can tell from context IHS doesn't consider the sun a condition? Or from context when its talking about a game Condition and simply using the word condition? Context doesn't give you a leg to stand on here if were universally applying it. You have a list of things called conditions right? Go ahead and compare other uses of condition to the things on that list, are the similar? I don't see anything resembling lighting on the list so I should know from context that's not a condition in the sense of what the game considers a Condition right?

[dextercorvia]

So? It doesn't have to.
A definition is can be compliated and misinterpreted. A list is simple and can be expanded on. I think that's why they went with that. Of course, how could they know that by doing it that way they would open it up to silly interpretations.

So, you claim the list to be a definition of condition, but you admit it is not definitional? I weep for all the logicians that have gone before us. Their efforts were in vain.

If there is a rules of the game, I think Curmudgeon has a higher pedigree than anyone else in this thread.

Curmudgeon is well versed in the game, exceptionally smart, and usually correct. He is not infallible.

[Stella]

Kinda like how we can tell from context IHS doesn't consider the sun a condition? Or from context when its talking about a game Condition and simply using the word condition? Context doesn't give you a leg to stand on here if were universally applying it. You have a list of things called conditions right? Go ahead and compare other uses of condition to the things on that list, are the similar? I don't see anything resembling lighting on the list so I should know from context that's not a condition in the sense of what the game considers a Condition right?

The exceptions do not define the rule.

[Brookshw]

The exceptions do not define the rule.

Can you please elucidate on how you mean that? Conditions are excluded from being understood by context?

[Dimers]

What Occam's razor actually says is that if you're given several hypothesis to test, you start testing the simplest one first because it's the easiest one to test and falsify. More complex hypothesis may still be true.
Or if you're going to elaborate an hypothesis, make as few assumption as possible.

*goes and finds a more complete explanation*

Well! Learn something new every day. (Good, I got today's quota out of the way, I can stop learning things. )

[Vaz]

Curmudgeon is well versed in the game, exceptionally smart, and usually correct. He is not infallible.

That is true. However, in this respect the wording of IHS supports the 'must be defined in rounds' interpretation.

An effect with a duration of 1 minute is 10 rounds

But an effect that has a duration of 1 or more rounds is an in game defined term and numerous examples. Otherwise, why would they not state '10 rounds/level'.

Of course, a sane DM is unlikely to make that distinction, but what the RAW states is a 'duration' of '1 or more rounds'. Unfortunately that means that you have to take the stupid with the good. Drown Healing for example.

And also, I don't see what will come from rehashing this argument out again. Aside from Monkday, this is possibly the most discussed thing in 3.5. In short a DM will rule in the way that breaks things the least. If a player is relying on IHS for brokenness, then they deserve the inability to use that unless that is what the game is out.

[eggynack]

Kinda like how we can tell from context IHS doesn't consider the sun a condition? Or from context when its talking about a game Condition and simply using the word condition? Context doesn't give you a leg to stand on here if were universally applying it. You have a list of things called conditions right? Go ahead and compare other uses of condition to the things on that list, are the similar? I don't see anything resembling lighting on the list so I should know from context that's not a condition in the sense of what the game considers a Condition right?

Except there isn't context here. The game just says condition, with absolutely zero indication as to its meaning. Similarly, I can't really see any context for the idea that the sun is or is not a condition, or for any sort of "game condition". Also, as I mentioned, context is a thing that helps, rather than a thing that proves. Outsider is a game defined term, because it's defined in game. Condition just isn't one.

[Brookshw]

Except there isn't context here. The game just says condition, with absolutely zero indication as to its meaning. Similarly, I can't really see any context for the idea that the sun is or is not a condition, or for any sort of "game condition". Also, as I mentioned, context is a thing that helps, rather than a thing that proves. Outsider is a game defined term, because it's defined in game. Condition just isn't one.

What?

Here grab the basic rules & legal zip. Open it, one doc is specifically called abilities and conditions. It's the same list were talking about but labeled "Conditions" rather than condition summary.

Does IHS reference conditions? Yes. Is there a list of things called officially conditions? Yes. That sounds like context to me. Were others added later? Sure.

[eggynack]

What?

Here grab the basic rules & legal zip. Open it, one doc is specifically called abilities and conditions. It's the same list were talking about but labeled "Conditions" rather than condition summary.

Does IHS reference conditions? Yes. Is there a list of things called officially conditions? Yes. That sounds like context to me. Were others added later? Sure.

No, I mean there's no context on the IHS side. The maneuver just says conditions, without indicating anywhere, by context or otherwise, that it's referring to that sort of condition. Context on the condition side is pretty much irrelevant, because obviously the condition side is going to have context for conditions being conditions. I mean, really, does IHS reference conditions? Yes. Is there a thing in the PHB officially called a lighting condition? Yes. That sounds like context to me. It's pretty much equally accurate, because the book in no way calls for one condition over another.

Edit:

An effect with a duration of 1 minute is 10 rounds

But an effect that has a duration of 1 or more rounds is an in game defined term and numerous examples. Otherwise, why would they not state '10 rounds/level'.

What they could have otherwise done is completely and utterly irrelevant. They could have written it in terms of half-minutes, or Floogledy shmorts, or whatever they wanted, and that would be entirely their prerogative. It would still be convertible into that rounds duration, and that would still mean a duration of one or more rounds. Their intent is the closest thing to meaningless. I see no real evidence that such a conversion is outside of the rules, and as I've mentioned, IHS makes no claim to requiring a specific method of expressing duration.

And also, I don't see what will come from rehashing this argument out again. Aside from Monkday, this is possibly the most discussed thing in 3.5. In short a DM will rule in the way that breaks things the least. If a player is relying on IHS for brokenness, then they deserve the inability to use that unless that is what the game is out.

Not really sure, though I do feel like we're making more progress, and like I'm standing on more solid arguing ground, than is usually the case.

[Brookshw]

No, I mean there's no context on the IHS side. The maneuver just says conditions, without indicating anywhere, by context or otherwise, that it's referring to that sort of condition. Context on the condition side is pretty much irrelevant, because obviously the condition side is going to have context for conditions being conditions. I mean, really, does IHS reference conditions? Yes. Is there a thing in the PHB officially called a lighting condition? Yes. That sounds like context to me. It's pretty much equally accurate, because the book in no way calls for one condition over another.

Is a lighting condition a Condition? It's not on the list so sounds like some context to me! You also provided some evidence regarding how ToB in general treats the use of condition as a word and provides some context there as well. One was in relation to a medusa's gaze attack (a Condition no less), and two were akin to specific v. general applications comparable to contingency providing some context on what IHS could mean. Does the ToB provide some context or reference to other conditions, such as lighting? No? Then we again have context that it's not considered in relation to IHS.

[eggynack]

Is a lighting condition a Condition? It's not on the list so sounds like some context to me! You also provided some evidence regarding how ToB in general treats the use of condition as a word and provides some context there as well. One was in relation to a medusa's gaze attack (a Condition no less), and two were akin to specific v. general applications comparable to contingency providing some context on what IHS could mean. Does the ToB provide some context or reference to other conditions, such as lighting? No? Then we again have context that it's not considered in relation to IHS.

Your only context in the ToB takes place a pile of pages away from IHS, so it's incredibly weak context at best. Definitely not what I was referring to when I talked about things that were fundamentally in the same description as what was being defined, in any case. Really though, as I mentioned, the context element is mostly a side note. What's important is that condition isn't defined at all, in any fashion, and that the word is used in a ton of different ways in the book with the condition summary, some of which are very rules relevant. Context always helps, even the context you mentioned to some extent, but it's just not nearly enough when the rules aren't there to support you.

Also, I really don't see any specific versus general at all in the situation you mention. There is no general rule applied by a specific usage of the word in conjunction with petrification, especially when, as usual, they don't even put down an actual definition for condition, and there is no specific exception put into place by the existence of the use of the word in another place.

[Brookshw]

Your only context in the ToB takes places a pile of pages away from IHS, so it's incredibly weak context at best. Definitely not what I was referring to when I talked about things that were fundamentally in the same description as what was being defined, in any case. Really though, as I mentioned, the context element is mostly a side note. What's important is that condition isn't defined at all, in any fashion, and that the word is used in a ton of different ways in the book with the condition summary, some of which are very rules relevant. Context always helps, even the context you mentioned to some extent, but it's just not nearly enough when the rules aren't there to support you.

Also, I really don't see any specific versus general at all in the situation you mention. There is no general rule applied by a specific usage of the word in conjunction with petrification, especially when, as usual, they don't even put down an actual definition for condition, and there is no specific exception put into place by the existence of the use of the word in another place.

Calling something weak is hardly an argument, I think it's very weak that you're conflating the usage of condition but I wouldn't hold that up as an evidence in and of itself to disprove anything.

As to specifics I'm mostly just drawing a distinction between specific application of the word condition, and Condition. I'd call it English v. Term but you don't buy it's a term. Though oddly you did seem to accept to Rubik that lists can be sufficient

Edit: Here's a question, Spell, Effect & Condition. We know spells are defined. Do you believe Effect is defined?

[eggynack]

Calling something weak is hardly an argument, I think it's very weak that you're conflating the usage of condition but I wouldn't hold that up as an evidence in and of itself to disprove anything.

It's a lot more of an argument when we're working with such circumstantial evidence. The fact that your context is in a whole different section of the book means that it's less meaningful than context that's right in the maneuver, primarily because context is far from an absolute thing. I mean, would you consider it equally valid context that the PHB has lighting conditions in it because the two sets of information are in the same game? Distance matters when dealing with context, because while you can't use distance as evidence in and of itself to disprove anything, you also can't use context of this form, in and of itself, to prove anything

As to specifics I'm mostly just drawing a distinction between specific application of the word condition, and Condition. I'd call it English v. Term but you don't buy it's a term. Though oddly you did seem to accept to Rubik that lists can be sufficient

I accept that lists can be sufficient when they're stated to be complete, or when they're lists of qualities. For example, something like: "The creature types are aberration, animal, construct, dragon, elemental, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, outsider, plant, undead, and vermin," is a reasonable definition for what the creature types are in the game, because there's an implication that it's all inclusive. The total list of features on an outsider is, similarly, a reasonable definition of an outsider, as that's really all a definition is, ultimately.

Edit: Here's a question, Spell, Effect & Condition. We know spells are defined. Do you believe Effect is defined?

I'm not all that sure on that count. Is there any place where they have a definition listed? The main reason I rarely use effect in arguments is that I'm not even sure what it would mean. I guess I could use the first definition in the dictionary, "Something that is produced by an agency or cause," but that just seems wonky. I've heard some folks show some definitions at some point, I think, indicated by some evidence, but I don't really recall it all that well.

[Vogonjeltz]

Kinda like how we can tell from context IHS doesn't consider the sun a condition? Or from context when its talking about a game Condition and simply using the word condition? Context doesn't give you a leg to stand on here if were universally applying it. You have a list of things called conditions right? Go ahead and compare other uses of condition to the things on that list, are the similar? I don't see anything resembling lighting on the list so I should know from context that's not a condition in the sense of what the game considers a Condition right?

Great point, there's also this little list on the srd20: http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm
The Condition Summary Index.

Here's the one trait they all share: These are descriptions how the character is. Lighting conditions aren't there, because those describe how the lighting is.

The character is <condition>.

Answers clearly delineated by the written rules:

Spoiler

Show

Ability Damaged
Ability Drained
Blinded
Blown Away
Checked
Confused
Cowering
Dazed
Dazzled
Dead
Deafened
Disabled
Dying
Energy Drained
Entangled
Exhausted
Fascinated
Fatigued
Flat-Footed
Frightened
Grappling
Helpless
Incorporeal
Invisible
Knocked Down
Nauseated
Panicked
Paralyzed
Petrified
Pinned
Prone
Shaken
Sickened
Stable
Staggered
Stunned
Turned
Unconcious

Activating IHS requires the use of a standard action however. Here's where we can do away with some things because it's impossible to activate IHS when under their effect:

Spoiler

Show

Ability Damaged or Drained to 0
Confused when the percentile result is anything but 11-20
Cowering
Dazed
Dead
Dying
Fascinated
Flat-Footed
Frightened
Helpless
Nauseated
Panicked
Paralyzed
Petrified
Stable
Stunned
Turned
Unconcious

After eliminating the ineligible conditions, that leaves possible removal of:

Spoiler

Show

Ability Damaged or Drained to 1 or more
Blinded
Blown Away
Checked
Confused when the percentile result is 11-20
Dazzled
Deafened
Disabled
Energy Drained
Entangled
Exhausted
Fatigued
Grappling
Incorporeal
Invisible
Knocked Down
Pinned
Prone
Shaken
Sickened
Staggered

Of course, most of these are almost always a non-round duration. Ability Damage is usually returned at the rate of 1/day, rather than 1/round, so it is ineligible. There are exceptions, but these are usually tied to spells like Shivering Touch (goes away when the spell ends), and can be ended as a spell effecting the target with the duration: 1 round/level.

I mean, seriously, it's not even called a list of conditions. It's just a summary of various conditions in the book.

Summary: A brief statement or account of the main points of something.

List: A number of connected items or names written or printed consecutively, typically one below the other.

A list contains less information than a summary. And it can easily be considered a list if you just use your hand to block out any text other than the names of the conditions. Or go to the Condition Summary Index for the list version.

[eggynack]

Summary: A brief statement or account of the main points of something.

List: A number of connected items or names written or printed consecutively, typically one below the other.

A list contains less information than a summary. And it can easily be considered a list if you just use your hand to block out any text other than the names of the conditions. Or go to the Condition Summary Index for the list version.

You're missing the point. I'm saying that, instead of summary indicating a brief statement or account of the main points of the conditions as a whole, it could indicate that it's a brief statement or account of the main points of the individual conditions. Like, "Here's a summary of dazing for you," instead of, "You want to know what all of the conditions are? Well, here ya go." It's mostly just a different way of looking at the header, rather than a core argument. Like many things, it can be argued for or against without significant impact on anything.