Can you alter a Demi-Plane's time flow?

[DarkSoul]

Should be? Maybe. Shouldn't be? Also maybe. IS or IS NOT part of the environment? Undefined. It's up to the DM, as the RAW is insufficient to give a definite answer. Both sides can argue that they're right, and to be honest they both are. But they're also both wrong.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Should be? Maybe. Shouldn't be? Also maybe. IS or IS NOT part of the environment? Undefined. It's up to the DM, as the RAW is insufficient to give a definite answer. Both sides can argue that they're right, and to be honest they both are. But they're also both wrong.

I disagree entirely. RAW may be ambiguous, but that doesn't mean that there's no answer.

In this thread, Tainted Scholar and I have listed several pieces of evidence that heavily imply that you can indeed RAW manipulate a demiplane's time trait via Genesis.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I would appreciate it if you would tell us. What I grow tired of is people asserting things without providing any evidence that they're correct.

The definition of environment you supplied supports our argument, rather than contradicting it.

[DarkSoul]

I disagree entirely. RAW may be ambiguous, but that doesn't mean that there's no answer.

In this thread, Tainted Scholar and I have listed several pieces of evidence that heavily imply that you can indeed RAW manipulate a demiplane's time trait via Genesis.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I would appreciate it if you would tell us. What I grow tired of is people asserting things without providing any evidence that they're correct.

The definition of environment you supplied supports our argument, rather than contradicting it.

Go look up the actual definition of "ambiguous". Google is nice enough to provide it in big letters as soon as you type the word and hit enter. Now take a moment to really think about how it applies to this discussion.

There isn't a clearly defined answer in the Rules As Written, therefore two people can quote the exact same text, make their cases for opposing interpretations, and both will be correct. However, both will also be wrong, because the RAW is ambiguous.

The definition of environment that I supplied does not support your argument, but neither does it contradict it. It is simply the extent to which the RAW defines the word "environment". Whether that definition supports or opposes a given position is up to the reader.

By the way, in this thread Tainted_Scholar asked a question which was immediately ignored in favor of five pages of arguing about whether a 3.0 wizard spell that creates a demiplane can set the rate at which time passes in that demiplane. That argument has nothing to do with the question that was asked. So again, for clarity's sake:

• Can you set the time trait when you create a demiplane using the Genesis spell? That depends whether your DM considers the time trait to be part of the environment. By the RAW, it's undefined.
• Can you alter the time trait of a demiplane (the question that was actually asked)? Definitely ask your DM. Again, by the RAW, it's undefined. Were I the DM it would probably be possible with something like wish or miracle, but only on a very local scale (100' radius at the most, and not permanently).

[ColorBlindNinja]

Go look up the actual definition of "ambiguous". Google is nice enough to provide it in big letters as soon as you type the word and hit enter. Now take a moment to really think about how it applies to this discussion.

Perhaps ambiguous wasn't the correct word; not explicit may have been more appropriate.

There isn't a clearly defined answer in the Rules As Written, therefore two people can quote the exact same text, make their cases for opposing interpretations, and both will be correct. However, both will also be wrong, because the RAW is ambiguous.

You make it sound as if there's no way determine an answer; that's simply not the case.

The definition of environment that I supplied does not support your argument, but neither does it contradict it. It is simply the extent to which the RAW defines the word "environment". Whether that definition supports or opposes a given position is up to the reader.

A plane is an environment and Genesis allows the manipulation of its environment. How does that not support my argument? It's not up to the reader, we have definitions for the word and RAW backing that link planar traits with the environment.

By the way, in this thread Tainted_Scholar asked a question which was immediately ignored in favor of five pages of arguing about whether a 3.0 wizard spell that creates a demiplane can set the rate at which time passes in that demiplane. That argument has nothing to do with the question that was asked.

What are you talking about? That's the exact question we've been answering this entire thread! Can you clarify what you meant?

Can you set the time trait when you create a demiplane using the Genesis spell? That depends whether your DM considers the time trait to be part of the environment. By the RAW, it's undefined.

No it isn't. By every definition of environment and virtually every mention of it in the Planes section of the DMG, suggest that you can.

Can you alter the time trait of a demiplane (the question that was actually asked)? Definitely ask your DM. Again, by the RAW, it's undefined. Were I the DM it would probably be possible with something like wish or miracle, but only on a very local scale (100' radius at the most, and not permanently).

Unless you can create a morphic time trait, I'd say no by RAW.

[Tainted_Scholar]

There isn't a clearly defined answer in the Rules As Written, therefore two people can quote the exact same text, make their cases for opposing interpretations, and both will be correct. However, both will also be wrong, because the RAW is ambiguous.

That hasn't happened though, I have quoted text and explained why it supported my interpretation, but the opposition hasn't. They didn't back up their arguments with passages from the rulebooks, nor did they explain why the dictionary definitions supported their side.

The definition of environment that I supplied does not support your argument, but neither does it contradict it. It is simply the extent to which the RAW defines the word "environment". Whether that definition supports or opposes a given position is up to the reader.

Yes it does support my argument, I explained how it supports my argument. If planes are an environment, and planar traits are part of the planes, then planar traits are part of the environment.

Explain how that's wrong.

By the way, in this thread Tainted_Scholar asked a question which was immediately ignored in favor of five pages of arguing about whether a 3.0 wizard spell that creates a demiplane can set the rate at which time passes in that demiplane. That argument has nothing to do with the question that was asked. So again, for clarity's sake:

Yes that does have to do with the question I asked. I wanted to know if you can set the rate of a Demi-plane's time flow when you created it.

• Can you set the time trait when you create a demiplane using the Genesis spell? That depends whether your DM considers the time trait to be part of the environment. By the RAW, it's undefined

I have explained multiple times why planar traits are part of the Environment.

I have used the dictionary definition of environment to explain why it's possible.

I have quoted passages from the books that state that planar traits are part of the environment.

I even explained why the definition of environment given in the MM shows that planar traits are part of the environment.

All you have done however, is assert that we're wrong and there is no answer. Then when we point out the passages and definitions that support our claim, you simply say we're wrong without any evidence to support your claim. You never give a reason why were wrong other than "The rule is ambiguous" and you've failed completely to address any of the points we've made.

Can you alter the time trait of a demiplane (the question that was actually asked)? Definitely ask your DM. Again, by the RAW, it's undefined. Were I the DM it would probably be possible with something like wish or miracle, but only on a very local scale (100' radius at the most, and not permanently).

No, that was never the question. I outright said that wasn't the question I was asking on page 1.

I meant can you decide the plane's time trait when you create it, sorry if I was unclear.

[DarkSoul]

To be fair, I've also done nothing more than state that the opposing viewpoint is wrong as well. When you're discussing the Rules As Written, you don't get to assume intent. You read what is there and apply it as it's written. Nowhere in the Genesis spell does it specifically say that you can adjust the time trait of the demiplane you're creating. But it also doesn't say you can't.

As a player, I would support being able to create an extremely-fast time demiplane, and would probably make many of the same points you do. However, Genesis doesn't say, beyond any shadow of doubt, that doing such a thing is possible. So again, ask the DM, if you're a player looking for an answer. If you are the DM, great, decide however you want and let your players know so you don't have to have a pages-long argument again in the future.

...can you decide the plane's time trait when you create it, sorry if I was unclear.

Assuming that planar traits fall under the blanket "environment" term, and in the absence of a DM to let you know how the rules work for their game, then yes, you could set the time trait to any ratio you want. See the "Flowing Time" trait on page 168 of the DMG. However, if you're assuming the Great Wheel cosmology, then no, because it's explicitly stated that the flowing time trait doesn't exist in any form anywhere in the Great Wheel (also on page 168 of the DMG).

[ColorBlindNinja]

Assuming that planar traits fall under the blanket "environment" term, and in the absence of a DM to let you know how the rules work for their game, then yes, you could set the time trait to any ratio you want. See the "Flowing Time" trait on page 168 of the DMG. However, if you're assuming the Great Wheel cosmology, then no, because it's explicitly stated that the flowing time trait doesn't exist in any form anywhere in the Great Wheel (also on page 168 of the DMG).

It's possible and that's all I need.

[DarkSoul]

It's possible and that's all I need.

I suppose you could say that, considering the whole "assumption" and "absence of a DM" part. So how do you reconcile your interpretation with the RAW statement that the flowing time trait doesn't exist in the D&D cosmology?

[ColorBlindNinja]

I suppose you could say that, considering the whole "assumption" and "absence of a DM" part. So how do you reconcile your interpretation with the RAW statement that the flowing time trait doesn't exist in the Great Wheel?

That hardly matters. By the rules it's possible for one to exist; it is a valid planar trait. The text of Genesis would allow fast time flow.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I suppose you could say that, considering the whole "assumption" and "absence of a DM" part. So how do you reconcile your interpretation with the RAW statement that the flowing time trait doesn't exist in the Great Wheel?

Just because there are no Fast Flowing Planes in the Great Wheel doesn't make alternate time flows an illegitimate planar trait for when you create your own demi-plane. Not allowing certain planar traits because the Great Wheel doesn't have any planes with those traits is like not allowing classes, monsters, and spells from Forgotten Realms because FR isn't the default setting.

Additionally RAW can allow for alternate cosmologies, class features, and (In certain circumstances) alternate rules.

[DarkSoul]

Just because there are no Fast Flowing Planes in the Great Wheel doesn't make alternate time flows an illegitimate planar trait for when you create your own demi-plane. Not allowing certain planar traits because the Great Wheel doesn't have any planes with those traits is like not allowing classes, monsters, and spells from Forgotten Realms because FR isn't the default setting.

Additionally RAW can allow for alternate cosmologies, class features, and (In certain circumstances) alternate rules.

It's pretty clear, actually.

Here are some planar traits that aren't used in the D&D cosmology (not just the Great Wheel), but might make good building blocks for planes you design.

Emphasis and parentheses mine.

Aren't used, as in "are not", as in not present. Considering that Genesis must be cast from the Ethereal plane, which is explicitly part of the D&D cosmology, this appears disturbingly like a black and white, RAW quote preventing the creation of a fast-time demiplane. There's not a lot of room for ambiguity, either. The flowing time trait isn't used. Whether it's possible in the FR or Eberron cosmology is, again (and again and again and again...) up to the DM, and if the DM says you can do it, go for it. It's a great resource to have, but there's not much beyond inference and assumption saying you can versus a direct printed line saying you can't. Speaking from an absolutely-RAW standpoint, that is.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Aren't used, as in "are not", as in not present. Considering that Genesis must be cast from the Ethereal plane, which is explicitly part of the D&D cosmology, this appears disturbingly like a black and white, RAW quote preventing the creation of a fast-time demiplane. There's not a lot of room for ambiguity, either. The flowing time trait isn't used. Whether it's possible in the FR or Eberron cosmology is, again (and again and again and again...) up to the DM, and if the DM says you can do it, go for it. It's a great resource to have, but there's not much beyond inference and assumption saying you can versus a direct printed line saying you can't. Speaking from an absolutely-RAW standpoint, that is.

The demiplane you create is separate from the Ethereal Plane; it's not a part of it.

So, your argument is that because the rest of the Planescape doesn't use flowing time, then it's not possible for demiplanes to have it either? Despite the fact that the Manual of the Planes confirms the existence of such demiplanes? Despite the fact that the rules say that they can exist?

It's not black and white at all; if that's all the evidence you've got, color me unimpressed.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Aren't used, as in "are not", as in not present. Considering that Genesis must be cast from the Ethereal plane, which is explicitly part of the D&D cosmology, this appears disturbingly like a black and white, RAW quote preventing the creation of a fast-time demiplane. There's not a lot of room for ambiguity, either. The flowing time trait isn't used. Whether it's possible in the FR or Eberron cosmology is, again (and again and again and again...) up to the DM, and if the DM says you can do it, go for it. It's a great resource to have, but there's not much beyond inference and assumption saying you can versus a direct printed line saying you can't. Speaking from an absolutely-RAW standpoint, that is.

Like I said though, Alternate cosmologies are often used in RAW, just like alternate class features are. And again, other settings are different cosmologies (Eberon explicitly has planes with different time flows BTW), so not allowing alternate Planar Traits because they're not part of D&D's cosmology is like not allowing feats, classes, spells, monsters, etc. from the none standard setting.

Also when it says "D&D's cosmology" it's talking about the standard cosmology, AKA the Great Wheel.

Also, here's the whole quote:
"Here are some planar traits that aren’t used in the D&D cosmology but that might make good building blocks for planes you design."

I'm designing my own plane with Genesis.

EDIT; Additionally Gods can alter the Time Trait of their own plane.

[Cisturn]

What would a timeless plane feel like? Would it be regular except those on the plane wouldn't age, or is it more of a, you are at every time at once thing?

[ColorBlindNinja]

What would a timeless plane feel like? Would it be regular except those on the plane wouldn't age, or is it more of a, you are at every time at once thing?

I suspect the former.

[Tainted_Scholar]

What would a timeless plane feel like? Would it be regular except those on the plane wouldn't age, or is it more of a, you are at every time at once thing?

About the Astral Plane's Timeless nature:

"Timeless. Age, hunger, thirst, poison, and natural healing don’t function in the Astral Plane, though they resume functioning when the traveler leaves the Astral Plane."

[Mato]

After reading six pages of discussion I am unmoved.

What something doesn't say cannot be used as logical proof.
Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence
What the psionic version of genesis says compared to what the spell version of genesis says has no bearing on the subject. It is a red herring the glosses over the fact that it should, or should not, be used by incorrectly assuming it does.
Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker believes is easier to speak to.

If anything it's a discussion of RAI, like RAW/RAI the SRD is a reference toolbox and not a substitute to a rulebook, so according to RAI is it possible for a 3.5 version of genesis to be consider an update to a 3.0 version? It's plausible and not impossible.

Secondly part of the debate is based on this.

Benefit: Your physical stature lets you function in many ways as if you were one size category larger.

Do you know what this argument really is?
Wishful thinking – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.
It's a debate centered on they can do whatever they wish based on the part of the entry that doesn't go on to quantify what they can actually do.

It also appears I quoted the wrong thing as well, let me try again.

Not really, The spell says "The spellcaster determines the environment within the demiplane when he or she first casts genesis, reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize." The spellcaster determines factors such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and the general shape of the terrain. This spell cannot create life (including vegetation), nor can it create construction (such as buildings, roads, wells, dungeons, and so forth). The spellcaster must add these things in some other fashion if he or she desires.

As we can see, the spell most certainly does not let you do whatever you can visualize.

Which brings us to the third point, the sentence in question says environment. Tainted_Scholar uses google's definition to include timespace but The Dungeon Master's Guide has a section called environment, the glossary has an entry for environment, and even the rules compendium has an entry for environment. Time is not part of that, it's a physical planar trait found under a different heading and saying it is the same is a type of equivocation fallacy, specifically the
Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised against the original wording

And of course you cannot forget
Kettle logic – using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
Which is Tainted_Scholar's position explained in two words.

Here is something I know.

The speed of a plane's possible timeflow is ambiguous. There appear to be no meaningful limits in place.

His first sentence, as an appeal, might be correct but his second is not.

Unless otherwise noted in a description, every plane in the D&D cosmology has the normal time trait.

So by simple criteria, ask your self if genesis does actually say in it's description that you are able to alter the flow of time or is someone just trying to convince you it does with a lot of fireworks and a fresh coat of paint on their strawmen. For me the answer is simple, but even hearing people out what they say to me is fairly unconvincing. And if you made it all the way through my post before hitting quote to angrily reply to me, I think you believe that too.

[DarkSoul]

The demiplane you create is separate from the Ethereal Plane; it's not a part of it.

So, your argument is that because the rest of the Planescape doesn't use flowing time, then it's not possible for demiplanes to have it either? Despite the fact that the Manual of the Planes confirms the existence of such demiplanes? Despite the fact that the rules say that they can exist?

It's not black and white at all; if that's all the evidence you've got, color me unimpressed.

1. The spell must be cast from a plane within the D&D cosmology.
2. Therefore the resulting demiplane is part of the D&D cosmology.
3. The flowing time trait is not used in the D&D cosmology.
4. Therefore the resulting demiplane cannot have the flowing time trait, because the RAW say so.

The manual of the planes doesn't matter, because the information in it regarding flowing time planes was updated in, and is thus trumped by, the 3.5 DMG. That being said, it also gives no indication that any flowing time trait with greater than a 1 hour : 1 day ratio is possible. That's the fastest option available in the printed rules, and every example demiplane in the MotP uses normal time anyway. So there is no RAW evidence that extremely fast time traits are possible in the default setting, while I provided the most current, relevant RAW evidence that even the 1 hour : 1 day flow is impossible in a Genesis-created demiplane because flowing time planes do not exist in the D&D cosmology.

So, the burden is on you to provide something more substantial than "the rules don't say I can't, so I can", which is all that's been done thus far. I've given book and page references saying you can't. Now it's your turn.

Spoiler

Show

For what it's worth, I'll just restate my position on the issue here: If the DM says it's ok for their game, go for it. By the written rules, though, no you can't set a flowing time trait with Genesis in the default cosmology, though you might be able to in the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or another setting.

Edit: Good luck, Mato. Even printed statements saying no aren't good enough it seems.

[ColorBlindNinja]

What the psionic version of genesis says compared to what the spell version of genesis says has no bearing on the subject. It is a red herring the glosses over the fact that it should, or should not, be used by incorrectly assuming it does.

So it's a coincidence that the designers alter the Psionic version to disallow time manipulation? It implies to me that the original can.

If anything it's a discussion of RAI, like RAW/RAI the SRD is a reference toolbox and not a substitute to a rulebook, so according to RAI is it possible for a 3.5 version of genesis to be consider an update to a 3.0 version? It's plausible and not impossible.

It is impossible, because the only versions of the Genesis spell are 3.0. The Psionic version is distinct from it.

As we can see, the spell most certainly does not let you do whatever you can visualize.

It does, in fact allow the caster whatever they can visualize, barring a few exceptions. You've yet to prove that time isn't among them.

Which brings us to the third point, the sentence in question says environment. Tainted_Scholar uses google's definition to include timespace but The Dungeon Master's Guide has a section called environment, the glossary has an entry for environment, and even the rules compendium has an entry for environment. Time is not part of that, it's a physical planar trait found under a different heading and saying it is the same is a type of equivocation fallacy

We already covered that argument; that definition can include planes, and thus planar traits. That, naturally, includes time.

So by simple criteria, ask your self if genesis does actually say in it's description that you are able to alter the flow of time or is someone just trying to convince you it does with a lot of fireworks and a fresh coat of paint on their strawmen. For me the answer is simple, but even hearing people out what they say to me is fairly unconvincing. And if you made it all the way through my post before hitting quote to angrily reply to me, I think you believe that too.

I read your entire post; but your arguments have no rules backing. I'm open to evidence that I'm wrong, but you've yet to provide any.

Edit:

1. The spell must be cast from a plane within the D&D cosmology.
2. Therefore the resulting demiplane is part of the D&D cosmology.
3. The flowing time trait is not used in the D&D cosmology.
4. Therefore the resulting demiplane cannot have the flowing time trait, because the RAW say so.

The manual of the planes doesn't matter, because the information in it regarding flowing time planes was updated in, and is thus trumped by, the 3.5 DMG. That being said, it also gives no indication that any flowing time trait with greater than a 1 hour : 1 day ratio is possible. That's the fastest option available in the printed rules, and every example demiplane in the MotP uses normal time anyway. So there is no RAW evidence that extremely fast time traits are possible in the default setting, while I provided the most current, relevant RAW evidence that even the 1 hour : 1 day flow is impossible in a Genesis-created demiplane because flowing time planes do not exist in the D&D cosmology.

So, the burden is on you to provide something more substantial than "the rules don't say I can't, so I can", which is all that's been done thus far. I've given book and page references saying you can't. Now it's your turn.

Spoiler

Show

For what it's worth, I'll just restate my position on the issue here: If the DM says it's ok for their game, go for it. By the written rules, though, no you can't set a flowing time trait with Genesis in the default cosmology, though you might be able to in the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or another setting.

Edit: Good luck, Mato. Even printed statements saying no aren't good enough it seems.

So what about Eberron's Dal Quor? That's a plane with fast flowing trait. RAW includes all the rules and all the settings. If the the rules are there, they're allowed. The only exception to this are Variants and perhaps Adaptions.

[Tainted_Scholar]

1. The spell must be cast from a plane within the D&D cosmology.
2. Therefore the resulting demiplane is part of the D&D cosmology.
3. The flowing time trait is not used in the D&D cosmology.
4. Therefore the resulting demiplane cannot have the flowing time trait, because the RAW say so.

Yes, but according to RAW fast Time Flows are a thing, and RAW includes everything, not just the standard D&D cosmology.

Also you didn't even acknowledge the points I made about this matter.

If anything it's a discussion of RAI, like RAW/RAI the SRD is a reference toolbox and not a substitute to a rulebook, so according to RAI is it possible for a 3.5 version of genesis to be consider an update to a 3.0 version? It's plausible and not impossible.

As mentioned before, there is no 3.5 version of Genesis (Except the version in the SRD) there is a spell called Word of Genesis, but that's a different spell.

It also appears I quoted the wrong thing as well, let me try again.
As we can see, the spell most certainly does not let you do whatever you can visualize.

For the love of the Gods! You are still ignoring the text. Heck I even bolded the relevant part and you still ignored it. "reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize", it doesn't matter that it doesn't specifically say that I can visualize a fast time flow, because it says I can create whatever I want. Planar traits are not one of the restrictions that the spell lists, therefore I can create them.

Which brings us to the third point, the sentence in question says environment. Tainted_Scholar uses google's definition to include timespace but The Dungeon Master's Guide has a section called environment, the glossary has an entry for environment, and even the rules compendium has an entry for environment. Time is not part of that, it's a physical planar trait found under a different heading and saying it is the same is a type of equivocation fallacy, specifically the
Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised against the original wording

I see you failed to notice that Planes themselves are listed as a type of environment. And planar traits are part of the planes. Therefore, if planes are an environment then planar traits are part of the environment. Which was something I already went over.

Additionally it D&D outright refers to a Planar Trait as the environment when it talks about subjective gravity.

I swear it's like you didn't even read any of our arguments before posting this.

[ColorBlindNinja]

1. The spell must be cast from a plane within the D&D cosmology.
2. Therefore the resulting demiplane is part of the D&D cosmology.
3. The flowing time trait is not used in the D&D cosmology.
4. Therefore the resulting demiplane cannot have the flowing time trait, because the RAW say so.

I double checked the text in question; it says that these traits are not used in the standard D&D cosmology not that they're forbidden.

"Here are some planar traits that aren’t used in the D&D cosmology but that might make good building blocks for planes you design."

Emphasis mine.

[DarkSoul]

So what about Eberron's Dal Quor? That's a plane with fast flowing trait. RAW includes all the rules and all the settings. If the the rules are there, they're allowed. The only exception to this are Variants and perhaps Adaptions.

Dal Quor has no bearing on this, it's only about what Genesis does and does not say. As written, Genesis has to be cast within a plane that, as written, has no access to a flowing time trait. If the DM says you can somehow get to Eberron's ethereal plane and cast it there, make your flowing time demiplane move as fast as you want.

Right. Aren't used. Are not. In the D&D cosmology. Go to Eberron and make one, that's fine. In the default cosmology? No. You're inferring again. "Aren't used" is not anywhere close to "aren't used, but not forbidden".

Yes, but according to RAW fast Time Flows are a thing, and RAW includes everything, not just the standard D&D cosmology.

Also you didn't even acknowledge the points I made about this matter.

As I said above, if you can get to Eberron's ethereal, make your fast time demiplane. In the D&D cosmology you can't.

Regarding your other points, the D&D cosmology includes the great wheel, but I would hesitate to say that the great wheel is the entirety of the D&D cosmology. It's the "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" idea. That's why I made the distinction, because if a plane references the great wheel planes, it would be considered part of the D&D cosmology without necessarily being part of the great wheel.

I used the whole quote, thanks for repeating it though. That doesn't change the fact that if you're in the Great Wheel ethereal, you can't get a flowing time demiplane because the line we both quoted says so. The fact that you're designing your own (demi)plane is completely irrelevant.

GREATER (Divine Rank 16+) deities can change their time trait. Genesis, and therefore you(r non-deific level 17+ arcane caster), cannot inside the Great Wheel. D&DG has nothing at all to do with what you can do with Genesis.

[Aracor]

I feel like I need to weigh in again based upon something Tainted Scholar said.

I see you failed to notice that Planes themselves are listed as a type of environment. And planar traits are part of the planes. Therefore, if planes are an environment then planar traits are part of the environment. Which was something I already went over.

This is actually a logical fallacy. Just because a plane is an environment, it does not logically follow that planar traits ARE part of the environment. Based on your logic, outsiders are part of the environment because they are a part of the planes themselves. If we accept that to be truth, then we have already proven that not all facets of the environment can be controlled by genesis, because it cannot create life.

We're back to my original question: Does genesis explicitly state that planar traits can be determined when a demiplane is created? Not that I've found. And since the ruleset is permissive, it needs to do so or you cannot.

[Keral]

I've been following this thread for a while. Why i'm not entirely sure whether i'm leaning more towards the ayes or the nays, i'd like to leave my copper piece about one of the arguments.

Specifically the one about deities and their power if they are divine rank of 16+.
Unless i've misread it. That allows them to *change* the time trait of their plane ( and i'm not sure if that includes real planes and not just demiplanes). Which, i believe, is a bit different than creating a brand new demiplane with a nonstandard time trait.

Choosing a time trait at the casting is quite different than changing it every other monday. Now i'm not entirely sure if i'm just dumb and got lost or what, but i feel there's a bit of mingling of the "you cannot create a different time flow for your demiplane" and the "you cannot change it on an existing demiplane"


Anyhow. I believe that the argument that goes "deities have to be DR 16+ to alter the time trait thus a simple spell cannot possibly be meant to do it" is a bit invalid. Since the two things appear to be quite different.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Dal Quor has no bearing on this, it's only about what Genesis does and does not say. As written, Genesis has to be cast within a plane that, as written, has no access to a flowing time trait. If the DM says you can somehow get to Eberron's ethereal plane and cast it there, make your flowing time demiplane move as fast as you want.

So you're saying that Genesis can create fast flowing planes on Eberron? I should think that Wish would get you there just fine.

Right. Aren't used. Are not. In the D&D cosmology. Go to Eberron and make one, that's fine. In the default cosmology? No. You're inferring again. "Aren't used" is not anywhere close to "aren't used, but not forbidden".

As I said above, if you can get to Eberron's ethereal, make your fast time demiplane. In the D&D cosmology you can't.

I don't buy this. I think that this passage is descriptive; it's say that they're not used, not that they can't be used.

Regarding your other points, the D&D cosmology includes the great wheel, but I would hesitate to say that the great wheel is the entirety of the D&D cosmology. It's the "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" idea. That's why I made the distinction, because if a plane references the great wheel planes, it would be considered part of the D&D cosmology without necessarily being part of the great wheel.

You will provide evidence for this claim?

I used the whole quote, thanks for repeating it though. That doesn't change the fact that if you're in the Great Wheel ethereal, you can't get a flowing time demiplane because the line we both quoted says so. The fact that you're designing your own (demi)plane is completely irrelevant.

Except your quote doesn't explicitly forbid anything.

GREATER (Divine Rank 16+) deities can change their time trait. Genesis, and therefore you(r non-deific level 17+ arcane caster), cannot inside the Great Wheel. D&DG has nothing at all to do with what you can do with Genesis.

Yet, you claim that fast flowing plane don't exist in the Great Wheel. If a god decided to make her realm fast flowing, that would contradict your argument.

I feel like I need to weigh in again based upon something Tainted Scholar said.


This is actually a logical fallacy. Just because a plane is an environment, it does not logically follow that planar traits ARE part of the environment. Based on your logic, outsiders are part of the environment because they are a part of the planes themselves. If we accept that to be truth, then we have already proven that not all facets of the environment can be controlled by genesis, because it cannot create life.

We're back to my original question: Does genesis explicitly state that planar traits can be determined when a demiplane is created? Not that I've found. And since the ruleset is permissive, it needs to do so or you cannot.

We've linked D&D planar traits to the environment in the rules. The section of the DMG that talks about subjective gravity refers to itself as an environment. We've also looked at dictionary definitions.

Barring some restrictions, Genesis is very broad about what it can create.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I feel like I need to weigh in again based upon something Tainted Scholar said.


This is actually a logical fallacy. Just because a plane is an environment, it does not logically follow that planar traits ARE part of the environment. Based on your logic, outsiders are part of the environment because they are a part of the planes themselves. If we accept that to be truth, then we have already proven that not all facets of the environment can be controlled by genesis, because it cannot create life.

Of coarse, Planar Traits are part of the environment, they are literally the laws of physics for the plane. They are as much a part of a plane's environment as gravity is a part of earth's.

As for the outsider bit, that's a Strawman of my argument. Because life is explicitly forbidden from being created by Genesis, while planar traits are not.

We're back to my original question: Does genesis explicitly state that planar traits can be determined when a demiplane is created? Not that I've found. And since the ruleset is permissive, it needs to do so or you cannot.

"reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize." You can not keep ignoring this part of the spell as you have been doing.

I have explained why planar traits are part of the environment, and the text says that I can create anything I want with a few exceptions. So please explain to me why Planar Traits are not something I can change. You are trying to impose restrictions on the text that don't exist.

Additionally, "And since the ruleset is permissive, it needs to do so or you cannot." what on earth are you talking about? When has D&D's ruleset ever worked that way!? I guess this means I can't create a sandwich with Polymorph Any Object since the spell doesn't say I can. I guess this means I can't Teleport to the moon since the spell doesn't say I can.

[Mato]

Additionally, "And since the ruleset is permissive, it needs to do so or you cannot." what on earth are you talking about? When has D&D's ruleset ever worked that way!?

Since about seventeen years ago give to take a few months. I guess since you are still new to D&D and have not obtained any sort of mastery of the rules that you've put off reading the DMG. It's understandable but under teaching the game it remarks several times for new players who don't understand the rules to simply state what they want to be or do and let the DM handle putting it into D&D rules for them. Generally people intuitively grasp that you can't play a twenty armed human or blink your eyes to control spacetime because there are no rules that allow for it, but there are always exceptions. Like your self.

There is some very useful information in there that is worth reading. Specially if you want to continue debating on an Internet forum. Like it also has the official method that you are to use when you are to make a formal judgment and decisions about a problem or disputed matter and one of them is "Look to any similar situation that is covered in a rulebook. Try to extrapolate from what you see presented there and apply it to the current circumstance". Psionic genesis comes to my mind if you still have any questions about what the 3.0 spell can or cannot do.

But it's more than just rules, it also tries to teach good behavior. "If someone else at the table corrects your recollection of a rule or adds some point you hadn’t thought of, thank that player for his help. When people cooperate to make the game better, everyone benefits."

[ColorBlindNinja]

Generally people intuitively grasp that you can't play a twenty armed human or blink your eyes to control spacetime because there are no rules that allow for it, but there are always exceptions. Like your self.

Strangely, we have rules for fast flowing demiplanes.

There is some very useful information in there that is worth reading. Specially if you want to continue debating on an Internet forum. Like it also has the official method that you are to use when you are to make a formal judgment and decisions about a problem or disputed matter and one of them is "Look to any similar situation that is covered in a rulebook. Try to extrapolate from what you see presented there and apply it to the current circumstance". Psionic genesis comes to my mind if you still have any questions about what the 3.0 spell can or cannot do.

Psionic Genesis != spell Genesis.

Until you can provide some evidence to back up your claims, your arguments have no merit.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Since about seventeen years ago give to take a few months. I guess since you are still new to D&D and have not obtained any sort of mastery of the rules that you've put off reading the DMG. It's understandable but under teaching the game it remarks several times for new players who don't understand the rules to simply state what they want to be or do and let the DM handle putting it into D&D rules for them. Generally people intuitively grasp that you can't play a twenty armed human or blink your eyes to control spacetime because there are no rules that allow for it, but there are always exceptions. Like your self.

There is some very useful information in there that is worth reading. Specially if you want to continue debating on an Internet forum. Like it also has the official method that you are to use when you are to make a formal judgment and decisions about a problem or disputed matter and one of them is "Look to any similar situation that is covered in a rulebook. Try to extrapolate from what you see presented there and apply it to the current circumstance". Psionic genesis comes to my mind if you still have any questions about what the 3.0 spell can or cannot do.

But it's more than just rules, it also tries to teach good behavior. "If someone else at the table corrects your recollection of a rule or adds some point you hadn’t thought of, thank that player for his help. When people cooperate to make the game better, everyone benefits."

So in this post you insulted me, strawmanned my argument, and still completely failed to address any of the points I made in my post. I can only assume you are running out of ways to defend your opinion on the current matter and instead have just resorted to telling me that I'm wrong without backing up said claim.

[Aracor]

"reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize." You can not keep ignoring this part of the spell as you have been doing.

I'm not ignoring this part. But it says most. That's not in a vacuum. It then goes on to describe examples of things that the caster CAN do, which have already been quoted, but I'll reiterate anyway.

reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize. The spellcaster determines factors such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and the general shape of the terrain.

So these are examples of what CAN be done. Then, it goes on to describe things that cannot be done. You are seemingly using your quote as a blanket statement, and then assuming that the list of what cannot be done is complete and whatever is not on the list of what CANNOT be done is allowable. That's a gross assumption.

Now, taking the entire spell as a whole, it says you can make a demiplane, control things such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and general shape of the terrain. I agree that the words Such as in this case do suggest that the caster can do other things as well. But they're going to be similar in power to what is already provided on the list.

I have explained why planar traits are part of the environment, and the text says that I can create anything I want with a few exceptions. So please explain to me why Planar Traits are not something I can change. You are trying to impose restrictions on the text that don't exist.

And you are trying to vastly increase the power of the spell by assuming that such as is open-ended, and that the list of restrictions is not. The fact that the caster can only do general shape with terrain suggests that there ARE some rather sharp limitations as to what they can do. If the caster can't even do more than general shape for the terrain, that's a vast leap to go from there to being able to control all of the planar traits to such a fine degree that you can get exactly 10:1 time or set a highly morphic trait in the caster's new little corner of the multiverse.

Additionally, "And since the ruleset is permissive, it needs to do so or you cannot." what on earth are you talking about? When has D&D's ruleset ever worked that way!? I guess this means I can't create a sandwich with Polymorph Any Object since the spell doesn't say I can. I guess this means I can't Teleport to the moon since the spell doesn't say I can.

It has ALWAYS worked like that! The ruleset is permissive. If a prestige class doesn't say that you gain caster levels by taking it, you don't! You can't just assume that since it doesn't say you DON'T gain caster levels, it's okay to boost them when you take levels.

Both of the provided examples are strawman arguments anyway, Polymorph Any Object specifies exactly how transformations take place, and that you can change one thing into another. Yes, sandwich is included. And teleport says you can travel. If your world's moon is within range for teleport, of course you can do that. Your examples aren't don't even come close to the vagueness that the Genesis spell has.