The new, and slightly improved, iron heart surge thread

[Brookshw]

That's a fair position, I suppose. Really puts you in a no-win proposition with the whole maneuver, as you're at least somewhat in DM adjudication territory at the outset. I mean, it's not like I'm actually going to be like, "Sure, you can explode the Sun. Totally fair game. This is fun for everyone."

Well, a pyrrhic victory is still a victory I suppose. Two threads and fifteen pages later. Anywho, the analysis is still interesting.

I can see the argument, though I don't know that it has an impact on how the rules are. Actually, come to think of it, there probably are some ways for there to be differences. Like, say there's a single spell that has produced two forcecages, one around me, and one around an ally. If you make use of the spell version, then you would hit both cages, as they're intrinsically the same spell, but if you make use of the condition version, say, "I'm in the condition of being in this jerk forcecage," then you'd only be able to hit your own cage.

We're back to forcecage eh? Well played Good question regarding one spell causing two cages, the obvious ways of doing so that spring to mind are twin and repeat, both of which if memory serves require the same target so I'm not sure how you'd get two forcecages off of one casting. Might be a way.

I think my issue here is that I'm not really sure what we're working with. What's the exact semantic magic that's being used to make missing into a condition, and thus delete it? Further, as missing can't actually be deleted by IHS (as you can never be in the condition of missing as you miss), is there some analogous rule that can actually be deleted? It feels like that actually hits on the other issue presented too, as it can somewhat resolve the degree to which hitting is or is not analogous to sunlight.

I don't think the semantics are of particular concern unless you think there's no way to semantically juggle it. Something to the effect of "condition of", "condition of being" or "condition of not being" would allow just about anything to be muscled into position. I'm not entirely sure which part of my objection your addressing regarding the sunlight bit, happy to respond if you could clarify. Or do you mean both aspects?

[eggynack]

We're back to forcecage eh? Well played Good question regarding one spell causing two cages, the obvious ways of doing so that spring to mind are twin and repeat, both of which if memory serves require the same target so I'm not sure how you'd get two forcecages off of one casting. Might be a way.

Even if there's not, there are probably examples that are simpler along both axes. Say, a wall of thorns that's in two distinct parts, separated by some distance, each containing one character.

I don't think the semantics are of particular concern unless you think there's no way to semantically juggle it. Something to the effect of "condition of", "condition of being" or "condition of not being" would allow just about anything to be muscled into position. I'm not entirely sure which part of my objection your addressing regarding the sunlight bit, happy to respond if you could clarify. Or do you mean both aspects?

My issue with the semantic juggling at work is that rule destruction is an intrinsically odd thing. I mean, do you say, "I'm in the condition of being in a multiverse where missing exists,"? I suppose that could work but it's a bit dubious. As for sunlight, I figured that the objection would come together more once the rule-destroying protocol was established. So, if we use my example rule destroyer above, a fair difference between the two is that sunlight is something that our warblade is currently experiencing, while missing is not. In a sense, it would be like saying, "I'm in the condition of there being sunlight," while sitting in a cave.

[Segev]

Step 1: establishing a few postulates, which I don't think are going to make waves.
Postulate A: the "=" symbol means that two things are equal, or, effectively the same thing.
Postulate B: The following terms: Second, Round, Minute, Hour, Day, Month, Year, etc. Are units of measurement and not self existant things within the universe. (Ie, a character will never find a Round walking about in the forest.)

Good? Good. Carrying on.
According to RAW, 6 seconds = 1 Round.
This means, by postulate A, that to say "6 seconds" or to say "1 round" is effectively the same. Both terms describe the same duration of time.
According to basic math:
60 seconds = 1 minute
60 seconds = 10 rounds
1 minute = 10 rounds
According to postulate A, to say "60 seconds" or "10 rounds" or "1 minute" is effectively the same. All three terms describe the same duration of time.

So far, so good.

IHS affects conditions and spells with a "duration longer than 1 round." Any duration longer than 1 round, regardless of the unit of measurement used to describe it, is subject to IHS interference.

Absolutely! I agree with your conclusion and interpretation of the rules, but...

Because all measurements longer than 1 round ARE measured in rounds, which have been converted up to more efficient renderings.

This is inaccurate. Something that says "10 minutes/level" is not, in fact, measured in rounds. It is measured in minutes. So, if you have an effect which specifies that it only works on "effects measured in rounds," it would not work on your effect that has a duration listed as "10 minutes/level."

Fortunately, that is not what IHS says. IHS says "a round or longer." Since IHS says nothing about what units in which the target effect is to be measured, your conclusion that what it lists the measurement in doesn't matter is correct. 600 rounds, 60 minutes, 3600 seconds, 1 hour: these all are longer than one round (and are, in fact, the same amount of time). IHS will work on an effect that lasts this long.

If you have a problem with this logic, then logic, math, and reason may not be your strongsuit. Open challenge to anyone that they can't find a spell duration of longer than 1 round in any WoTC D&D 3.5 book that I can't convert back into rounds.

I would not use such language; it is insulting and will get people's backs up, not drive home the point you hope to.

[Vogonjeltz]

except it possibly isn't a complete one, even when it was printed, it doesn't include feebleminded (or possibly immobilized), does it? because that (possibly both) were referred to as conditions in core, and they definitely fit the "weaken, slow, or even kill" definition

also, the fact that the skill check conditions aren't of interest is debatable, they can still be affecting the player, with the right semantic word play. unless there's a definition of "affect" in any book?

I suppose your only recourse to those not being included on the definitive list is to write a strongly worded letter to the editor of the book. They probably won't do anything as 3.5 is no longer supported, but I really don't see what else can be done at this point to fix the problem you're describing.

That leaves us with those not being on the list. Luckily feeblemind is a spell with a valid duration for removal, so it doesn't matter that it's not a condition under the rules.

Skill check conditions are conditions affecting skill checks, not conditions affecting the well being of characters.

That's the logic you were putting forth.

Conditions that affect a character's skill checks in turn affect him.

At the very best, it is only a complete list of the adverse conditions that weaken, slow, or kill characters. That doesn't really stop a great deal of the arbitrary junk I can pull, and brings us back to the proposition of beneficial conditions. At worst, it defines absolutely no limits, as we can point to both other adverse conditions that weaken, slow, or kill characters in the DMG, and to things actually referred to as conditions in the PHB.

There is no core definition of condition, so IHS can't refer to it. There's plenty of reason to think that IHS wouldn't point to something that doesn't exist.

That's the logic of the rules as written, don't put it on me.

No they don't, they only affect the check, the player is none the worse for wear.

At the very best it's a complete list of conditions because there is no other list of conditions. Find another list and I'll happily go over it with you to see if they are valid targets for IHS. If you don't have one to present, I see nothing left to discuss on this tangent.

Here's the core definition, for the third(<?) time:

This section describes the adverse conditions that weaken, slow, or even kill characters.

[eggynack]

That leaves us with those not being on the list. Luckily feeblemind is a spell with a valid duration for removal, so it doesn't matter that it's not a condition under the rules.

You seem to be missing the point. Talking about feeblemind isn't about directly defining what IHS does,

That's the logic of the rules as written, don't put it on me.

I haven't seen you prove it at all. Just saying that it's the RAW is nowhere near enough.

No they don't, they only affect the check, the player is none the worse for wear.

Yes, the character is, because otherwise they would have succeeded where here they failed. Being made worse at something is something that affects you.

At the very best it's a complete list of conditions because there is no other list of conditions. Find another list and I'll happily go over it with you to see if they are valid targets for IHS. If you don't have one to present, I see nothing left to discuss on this tangent.

But it never even says it's a complete list of conditions, and there are conditions all over the place, as I've pointed out. That's also missing the fact that you don't need a list for IHS to function. Just because your argument makes use of a list, doesn't mean that any competing claim must also heavily a list.

Here's the core definition, for the third(<?) time:

That's not a definition of condition. That's a definition of what things are on that list. For example, let's say I had a list in the book that said, "Here's a description of the fruits that are all pointy," and then just had pineapple. Would that be a definition of fruit? Obviously not.

[georgie_leech]

That's not a definition of condition. That's a definition of what things are on that list. For example, let's say I had a list in the book that said, "Here's a description of the fruits that are all pointy," and then just had pineapple. Would that be a definition of fruit? Obviously not.

Well obviously; it leaves out the Prickly Pear.

[Sith_Happens]

My group has just agreed to use an "common sense" definition of what qualifies as an "effect or other condition."

...Usually. Most of us appreciate the occasional bit of Rule of Cool, so IHS is a handy excuse for me to go full Spiral Power on things on a case by case basis. Like last night, when I used it to force my way through a dimensional barrier and save an NPC that would otherwise have been effectively killed off.

[Brookshw]

My group has just agreed to use an "common sense" definition of what qualifies as an "effect or other condition."

No doubt most groups will put some form of limitation upon it. Also good rule of cool application

Even if there's not, there are probably examples that are simpler along both axes. Say, a wall of thorns that's in two distinct parts, separated by some distance, each containing one character.

Ultimately it doesn't seem relevant since we're still left with the wording of IHS creating a distinction between a spell and a condition. Maybe you just hit yours, maybe you hit both, but it's a minor semantic element relating to which causes validity in the targeting matter, but that doesn't change that spells have been specifically excluded from the meaning of condition and thus the English definition cannot account for certain things being considered conditions, which by it's definition should be, if the whole is to remain logically sound. Seems like your point is more related to sourcing matter than the definition of condition.

My issue with the semantic juggling at work is that rule destruction is an intrinsically odd thing. I mean, do you say, "I'm in the condition of being in a multiverse where missing exists,"? I suppose that could work but it's a bit dubious. As for sunlight, I figured that the objection would come together more once the rule-destroying protocol was established. So, if we use my example rule destroyer above, a fair difference between the two is that sunlight is something that our warblade is currently experiencing, while missing is not. In a sense, it would be like saying, "I'm in the condition of there being sunlight," while sitting in a cave.

Things being "odd" and "dubious" do not make them incorrect and based on the premises outlined the argument remains true and but invalid (in so far that it violates other premises, i.e. rulez iz rulez), or if the premise provided by the English definition is false then so all arguments fall apart and option 3 is rejected. Remember that missing isn't the only rule with in game application you can target by using the English definition. Don't get me wrong, I agree not only that rules destruction is odd and dubious but also have noted that the only rule we have for how one destroys/removes a rule is by the application of house rules. Want to go with "I'm in a condition of being in a multiverse where X exists", or maybe even "where X doesn't exist"? Guess it works based off of the English definition and resolves your sunlight concern though we still have others to contend with.

[eggynack]

Ultimately it doesn't seem relevant since we're still left with the wording of IHS creating a distinction between a spell and a condition. Maybe you just hit yours, maybe you hit both, but it's a minor semantic element relating to which causes validity in the targeting matter, but that doesn't change that spells have been specifically excluded from the meaning of condition and thus the English definition cannot account for certain things being considered conditions, which by it's definition should be, if the whole is to remain logically sound. Seems like your point is more related to sourcing matter than the definition of condition.

I don't see how spells have been specifically excluded from the meaning of condition. Even the most strict readings would have pretty much identical results as concerns the nature of something like blindness/deafness. Conditions can be spells, and spells can be conditions, so the point is just to prove that spells aren't always conditions, such that it makes at least some sense that both are in the maneuver.

Things being "odd" and "dubious" do not make them incorrect and based on the premises outlined the argument remains true and but invalid (in so far that it violates other premises, i.e. rulez iz rulez), or if the premise provided by the English definition is false then so all arguments fall apart and option 3 is rejected. Remember that missing isn't the only rule with in game application you can target by using the English definition. Don't get me wrong, I agree not only that rules destruction is odd and dubious but also have noted that the only rule we have for how one destroys/removes a rule is by the application of house rules. Want to go with "I'm in a condition of being in a multiverse where X exists", or maybe even "where X doesn't exist"? Guess it works based off of the English definition and resolves your sunlight concern though we still have others to contend with.

I suppose the question then is whether "Where X exists" qualifies as a mode of being/existing state. After all, it's not actually a thing that's touching on his being at that moment, and the existing state of the universe doesn't necessarily perfectly equal the existing state of an object in that universe, which is what would be implied by that reading.

There's also the second, far more awful possibility, which is that you can just do this. I don't think that much has happened to invalidate my position on that count, that if this lets you destroy rules, then that's just what it lets you do. It's eminently possible that the only thing standing between IHS and rule destruction is some intrinsic quality possessed by rules, and whether that quality exists or not is the sole determinant of what happens here, without any impact on underlying definitions.

[Brookshw]

I don't see how spells have been specifically excluded from the meaning of condition. Even the most strict readings would have pretty much identical results as concerns the nature of something like blindness/deafness. Conditions can be spells, and spells can be conditions, so the point is just to prove that spells aren't always conditions, such that it makes at least some sense that both are in the maneuver.

they're specifically excluded since IHS creates the distinction between the terms. Now near identical applications can be conditions? (Hello feeblemind, good thing your indistinguishable now). Honestly this is just forcing an equivocation. We seem to have agreed the standard English definition includes everything and since the spell usage distinguishes between everything there has to be some problem here.

I suppose the question then is whether "Where X exists" qualifies as a mode of being/existing state. After all, it's not actually a thing that's touching on his being at that moment, and the existing state of the universe doesn't necessarily perfectly equal the existing state of an object in that universe, which is what would be implied by that reading.

Sure its touching on his being, I might not be falling currently but I'm still subject to conditions that permit such. Works under English.

There's also the second, far more awful possibility, which is that you can just do this. I don't think that much has happened to invalidate my position on that count, that if this lets you destroy rules, then that's just what it lets you do. It's eminently possible that the only thing standing between IHS and rule destruction is some intrinsic quality possessed by rules, and whether that quality exists or not is the sole determinant of what happens here, without any impact on underlying definitions.

Well let's see, we have errata as one source of rules changing and houserules being the other. IHS isn't errata (ha! ToB errata) so we're left with houserules. If you really want to put forth an argument rules can be destroyed because of houserules be my guest.

[eggynack]

they're specifically excluded since IHS creates the distinction between the terms. Now near identical applications can be conditions? (Hello feeblemind, good thing your indistinguishable now). Honestly this is just forcing an equivocation. We seem to have agreed the standard English definition includes everything and since the spell usage distinguishes between everything there has to be some problem here.

IHS creates a distinction between the terms, but that in no way means that there cannot be an overlap. At best, it merely means that the two terms cannot be nothing but overlap, but it technically doesn't necessitate that either. I think I've shown reasonable non-overlap though. As a sort of example, imagine if instead of iron heart surge we had some arbitrary maneuver called "No more green things or apples", and it said that you have the ability to eliminate any green thing or apple that you're holding. Not all green things are apples, and not all apples are green, but some subset of each falls within the other category, and the maneuver reasonably works as written.

Meanwhile, I've gotta note that, on rereading the maneuver, there's the implication that it works the exact opposite of how you've indicated that it does. The maneuver specifically says, "select one spell, effect, or other condition..." which implies that spells and effects are actually subsets of conditions, such that there actually is nothing but overlap, and that it's that way by intent.

Sure its touching on his being, I might not be falling currently but I'm still subject to conditions that permit such. Works under English.

It's definitely plausible, though I wouldn't put it at 100% under this definition, as the condition is so far removed from the character it's supposedly impacting. By that point, you wouldn't need to go nearly as far out of the way as rule destruction to find oddity, as this would presumably also support direct wizard-splosion, through the state of being of existing five steps from a wizard. Of course, there's also always the silly output from silly input solution, wherein IHS'ing the fact that you exist in a universe where missing exists causes you to teleport somewhere that it doesn't (maybe even somewhere with nothing to attack), and the fact that you're five steps away from the wizard merely removes the condition of your distance. It becomes somewhat more difficult to create an ironclad IHS setup with things this far removed from ordinary usage, in other words.

Well let's see, we have errata as one source of rules changing and houserules being the other. IHS isn't errata (ha! ToB errata) so we're left with houserules. If you really want to put forth an argument rules can be destroyed because of houserules be my guest.

Well then, we still reasonably fall under one of the two situations. This definition would allow you to kill rules, but there is an overriding factor stopping you, so you merely have the ability to do everything else.

Edit: I just realized that, as the rule destruction thing pertains to the whole of the maneuver and its capacity for destruction, the rest of the rules of IHS's use is somewhat pertinent. Thus, the fact that the condition must be currently affecting you is relevant to at least some of these possible formations. You definitely wouldn't be able to eliminate all of missing as a result, due to a combination of that and the duration thing (any longer duration is something that's necessarily not affecting you at the moment), though other possibilities are still viable.

[Brookshw]

IHS creates a distinction between the terms, but that in no way means that there cannot be an overlap. At best, it merely means that the two terms cannot be nothing but overlap, but it technically doesn't necessitate that either. I think I've shown reasonable non-overlap though. As a sort of example, imagine if instead of iron heart surge we had some arbitrary maneuver called "No more green things or apples", and it said that you have the ability to eliminate any green thing or apple that you're holding. Not all green things are apples, and not all apples are green, but some subset of each falls within the other category, and the maneuver reasonably works as written.

Meanwhile, I've gotta note that, on rereading the maneuver, there's the implication that it works the exact opposite of how you've indicated that it does. The maneuver specifically says, "select one spell, effect, or other condition..." which implies that spells and effects are actually subsets of conditions, such that there actually is nothing but overlap, and that it's that way by intent.

That first paragraph is pretty "eh" and I could mount an attack on it easily but had forgotten the specification of "other" which I'll grant resolves the matter far more conclusively, so well done on that one.

It's definitely plausible, though I wouldn't put it at 100% under this definition, as the condition is so far removed from the character it's supposedly impacting. By that point, you wouldn't need to go nearly as far out of the way as rule destruction to find oddity, as this would presumably also support direct wizard-splosion, through the state of being of existing five steps from a wizard. Of course, there's also always the silly output from silly input solution, wherein IHS'ing the fact that you exist in a universe where missing exists causes you to teleport somewhere that it doesn't (maybe even somewhere with nothing to attack), and the fact that you're five steps away from the wizard merely removes the condition of your distance. It becomes somewhat more difficult to create an ironclad IHS setup with things this far removed from ordinary usage, in other words.

well the "in the universe" isn't all that relevant since it could be worded to exclude that and even if it weren't does such a place even exist. The far realm I suppose or perhaps we've figured out how one gets to the ordial where such a rule could conceivably not exist.

Well then, we still reasonably fall under one of the two situations. This definition would allow you to kill rules, but there is an overriding factor stopping you, so you merely have the ability to do everything else.

So houserules or the definition collapses, check.

Edit: I just realized that, as the rule destruction thing pertains to the whole of the maneuver and its capacity for destruction, the rest of the rules of IHS's use is somewhat pertinent. Thus, the fact that the condition must be currently affecting you is relevant to at least some of these possible formations. You definitely wouldn't be able to eliminate all of missing as a result, due to a combination of that and the duration thing (any longer duration is something that's necessarily not affecting you at the moment), though other possibilities are still viable.

I don't believe this is strictly correct but will think on it.

Edit: doesn't seem like that follows really, its a continuous source and continuous condition after all.

[eggynack]

That first paragraph is pretty "eh" and I could mount an attack on it easily but had forgotten the specification of "other" which I'll grant resolves the matter far more conclusively, so well done on that one.

Nifty, though it must be stated that, if this fully holds up, then it'd seem to destroy the summary position, owing to the fact that spells and effects don't seem to be a subset of condition by the summary.

well the "in the universe" isn't all that relevant since it could be worded to exclude that and even if it weren't does such a place even exist. The far realm I suppose or perhaps we've figured out how one gets to the ordial where such a rule could conceivably not exist.

I suppose it's plausible that there would be other ways to form these, though it's a bit difficult to do so without it being attached to some variety of location.

So houserules or the definition collapses, check.

I'm not really sure where this comes in.

I don't believe this is strictly correct but will think on it.

Edit: doesn't seem like that follows really, its a continuous source and continuous condition after all.

The point is, how is the existence of missing affecting you as you stand in the middle of an empty field?

Edit: I guess you could always claim some vague emotional distress in this and all cases. That would be a rather amusing way of bypassing that whole clause.

[Brookshw]

Nifty, though it must be stated that, if this fully holds up, then it'd seem to destroy the summary position, owing to the fact that spells and effects don't seem to be a subset of condition by the summary.

Actually that's a good point, hadn't thought that far down the line yet. Are you refining the position? Alternatively I'm wondering where the relationship falls regarding the Spells section making reference to the Condition Summary but I'm not especially convinced that has any bearing. Need to think on it.

I suppose it's plausible that there would be other ways to form these, though it's a bit difficult to do so without it being attached to some variety of location.

Well, unless you're raising an objection I'm not sure how to respond.

I'm not really sure where this comes in.

It's kinda simple I think, if the definition holds true then it has to allow for the destruction of rules by the positions you've put forth. If it can't account for the destruction of rules then the definition has a problem that needs to be worked out and saying "oh, well these things aren't covered by the definition" doesn't fly since we've agreed they are. The way it works itself out is by making avail of houserules. Alternatively if it doesn't avail itself of houserules then the definition simply collapses since it doesn't mean what it means. I don't really like this argument but it plays out as true and valid as I've analyze it. And what a bittersweet irony it would be if after almost three weeks of discussion we ultimately prove that IHS relies on house rules as so many people suggested to begin with.

The point is, how is the existence of missing affecting you as you stand in the middle of an empty field?

Edit: I guess you could always claim some vague emotional distress in this and all cases. That would be a rather amusing way of bypassing that whole clause.

Simply by affecting my capacities I should think. It's a bit existential perhaps but sound none the less. Whether those capacities are in play at a given time is fairly irrelevant as far as there's a condition affecting them.

And I do rather like the idea, at least for comic value, that being depressed or upset gives you super powers. Works for the Hulk. Amusing indeed (or quite, or rather, pick your Briticism poison and then don't IHS it away). Technically the semantics work itself out to be a real position. I feel like this was the plot of an anime, or several......

Edit: spelling and clarity.

[eggynack]

Actually that's a good point, hadn't thought that far down the line yet. Are you refining the position? Alternatively I'm wondering where the relationship falls regarding the Spells section making reference to the Condition Summary but I'm not especially convinced that has any bearing. Need to think on it.

Well, presumably this would fully limit things to the realm of the second two possibilities, if the logic holds.

Well, unless you're raising an objection I'm not sure how to respond.

I suppose the only real objection being raised is that the actual semantic form being used would necessarily have to not have ties to location, at least for rules that are somewhat tied to a location. For example, this argument would impact the ability to remove gravity, as weightless planes are a thing.

It's kinda simple I think, if the definition holds true then it has to allow for the destruction of rules by the positions you've put forth. If it can't account for the destruction of rules then the definition has a problem that needs to be worked out and saying "oh, well these things aren't covered by the definition" doesn't fly since we've agreed they are. The way it works itself out is by making avail of houserules. Alternatively if it doesn't avail itself of houserules then the definition simply collapses since it doesn't mean what it means. I don't really like this argument but it plays out as true and valid as I've analyze it. And what a bittersweet irony it would be if after almost three weeks of discussion we ultimately prove that IHS relies on house rules as so many people suggested to begin with.

I don't really see any house rules. Either rules are sacrosanct, and the definition of IHS is irrelevant, or they're not, and you can kill them all you want. It'd be like a big ol' set of laws of robotics as applies to D&D rules, such that every rule has written next to it, "except where said rule would come into conflict with the first law." I suppose that in itself could be considered a house rule, but if it is, then you just are allowed to make there be no rules.

Simply by affecting my capacities I should think. It's a bit existential perhaps but sound none the less. Whether those capacities are in play at a given time is fairly irrelevant as far as there's a condition affecting them.

I guess that would hold, especially if you vaguely think of it as some variety of infinite bonus to attack rolls, as it's not like a condition has to be impacting anything at the moment for it to be on you.

[Brookshw]

Well, presumably this would fully limit things to the realm of the second two possibilities, if the logic holds.

So the List+others then? You seem dubious as to the logic of this so spell out your analysis and view and let's evaluate. It would be a rather large concession if it holds.

I suppose the only real objection being raised is that the actual semantic form being used would necessarily have to not have ties to location, at least for rules that are somewhat tied to a location. For example, this argument would impact the ability to remove gravity, as weightless planes are a thing.

I suppose certain semantics could be problematic based on local factors but sounds like more of a phrasing matter than a problem with the logic. I'm not really convinced of it's impact in so far as the existential conditions potential.

I don't really see any house rules. Either rules are sacrosanct, and the definition of IHS is irrelevant, or they're not, and you can kill them all you want. It'd be like a big ol' set of laws of robotics as applies to D&D rules, such that every rule has written next to it, "except where said rule would come into conflict with the first law." I suppose that in itself could be considered a house rule, but if it is, then you just are allowed to make there be no rules.

Sure, I agree that the definition of condition as regards to IHS and the rules would be irrelevant, that's why I'm flagging it as problematic. The house rule would, presumably, come into effect if you did IHS the rules which otherwise can't be done outside of house rules, which short the same retains them as sacrosanct. Anyway, it's possibly not even relevant if we're refining the evaluation to discount option three and replacing it with option two so may as well table it for the moment.

My kingdom for a cup of coffee.

[eggynack]

So the List+others then? You seem dubious as to the logic of this so spell out your analysis and view and let's evaluate. It would be a rather large concession if it holds.

I think I still have about the same objection to the multiple book-definition version of things that I always do, which is primarily that I don't think that non-conditions summary stuff sets definitions any more than the summary does, and secondarily that it'd be somewhat ridiculous for a single rule word to refer to several different definitions at the same time. There's just not much, if any, precedent for it in the game, and beyond that, it might be opposed to the way the rules work.

I suppose certain semantics could be problematic based on local factors but sounds like more of a phrasing matter than a problem with the logic. I'm not really convinced of it's impact in so far as the existential conditions potential.

Yeah, it's probably not an excessively meaningful thing, as it likely falls apart under the sheer weight of a veritable infinity of phrasing options.

Sure, I agree that the definition of condition as regards to IHS and the rules would be irrelevant, that's why I'm flagging it as problematic. The house rule would, presumably, come into effect if you did IHS the rules which otherwise can't be done outside of house rules, which short the same retains them as sacrosanct. Anyway, it's possibly not even relevant if we're refining the evaluation to discount option three and replacing it with option two so may as well table it for the moment.

Well, yeah, it was pretty problematic at the outset. That's just about the entire premise, I think, which is why I get wacky immunity to the majority of reductio ad absurdum arguments. As for rules being otherwise sacrosanct, there's almost certainly nothing on this same scale, but there're a lot of specifics out there that override general rules.

[Brookshw]

I think I still have about the same objection to the multiple book-definition version of things that I always do, which is primarily that I don't think that non-conditions summary stuff sets definitions any more than the summary does, and secondarily that it'd be somewhat ridiculous for a single rule word to refer to several different definitions at the same time. There's just not much, if any, precedent for it in the game, and beyond that, it might be opposed to the way the rules work.

So that's the "against" element as you're viewing it, what's the "for"? Seemed like you had something there. Ridiculous is sort of the bread and butter of D&D as it were.

[eggynack]

So that's the "against" element as you're viewing it, what's the "for"? Seemed like you had something there. Ridiculous is sort of the bread and butter of D&D as it were.

Well, mostly just the fact that it has less horrible outcomes. I mean, you can still start pulling definitions for condition from every D&D book, including fun ones like contingency's, but it obviously wouldn't go nearly as far as just spontaneously unmaking anything in the fabric of reality, including the fabric itself, on a whim.

[Brookshw]

Well, seems like we've run out of road and either it holds or it doesn't. Unless you wanted to revisit any points I think its time to pack it in and when the next IHS discussion comes around we can link back and the cycle can begin anew

[eggynack]

Well, seems like we've run out of road and either it holds or it doesn't. Unless you wanted to revisit any points I think its time to pack it in and when the next IHS discussion comes around we can link back and the cycle can begin anew

Seems possible. There's at least more evidence now than before that the condition summary isn't what's being referenced, at least not entirely, which was probably my main goal hereabouts.