Iron Heart Surge fix (is it Monday already?)

[cheezewizz2000]

So, Iron Heart Surge gets a lot of love and a lot of hate. It's like marmite in its own way, except the Americans are aware of it, it's no good on toast and the Australians don't have their own (better) version, but anyway.

I propose the following fix:

Iron Heart Surge
Iron Heart
Level: Warblade 3
Initiation Action: 1 Immediate Action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: See text

The initiator may re-roll a failed save with a +2 bonus. The initiator must accept the new result, even if it is lower. You also surge with confidence and vengeance against your enemies, gaining a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls until the end of your next turn.

Other fixes:

Sophismata

I feel that that this captures the original intent: Any effect that would cause Conan to yell "CROM" and flex his mighty thews (and whoever made that comment originally, please step foward and recieve your cookie) and thus end what ever was causing him to have to flex his thews and yell "Crom", can be dealt with with this effect. In effect, this is a big red button labeled "no" and can be used as such.

Benefits of this: clearer as to what it does. Fail a save against charm? Initiate this maneuvre. You can, because it's immediate. Turned to stone? Initiate this maneuvre. Step inside an AMF? No, you can't as it does not allow a save. Warmed by the gentle rays of the sun? Sorry, you'll have to tan and burn with the rest of us.

Weaknesses: No good against things that do not allow a save and yet still have a duration, though I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Diliberations, criticisms and so on welcome.

[Emmerask]

Hm a bit underpowered in my opinion.

A fix I made was just saying that the effect only covers the players occupied square. ie you are in an amf and use it the amf is still there but not in your square or the square you move to. Same goes for sunlight or any other effect that you surge away.
Rest works normally of course.

[Sholos]

I'm confused as to why it needs a fix at all.

[Greenish]

Originally Posted by Sholos

I'm confused as to why it needs a fix at all.

Because of orc warblades.

[Edit]: And you can't use it when you're, say, paralyzed, which IMO goes against the image. As written, it can't remove Hold Person, but can cancel antimagic fields etc.

[Godskook]

Originally Posted by cheezewizz2000

So, Iron Heart Surge gets a lot of love and a lot of hate. It's like marmite in its own way, except the Americans are aware of it, it's no good on toast and the Australians don't have their own (better) version, but anyway.

You lost me......

Originally Posted by Sholos

I'm confused as to why it needs a fix at all.

I suggest you spend more time on these boards, if you want to know that. We get a "IHS is borken" thread or tangent about once every other week or so. A sane DM can adjudicate it alright since RAI aren't that bad, but to argue that's enough to make it non-broken is an Oberroni Fallacy.

--------------------------------------

Making it a free action that cost you your next standard action would help with some things, and better hold true to the original, in terms of intended balance.

[Greenish]

Originally Posted by Godskook

You lost me......

Marmite, British "delicacy" (yeah, oxymoron), and it's Australian cousin Vegemite.

[Tinydwarfman]

Originally Posted by Sholos

I'm confused as to why it needs a fix at all.

IHS says

When you use this maneuver, select one spell,
effect, or other condition currently
affecting you and with a duration of 1
or more rounds. That effect ends immediately."

By RAW you can end any effect with a duration of more than 1 round. Gravity got you down? IRON HEART SURGE can solve that. Pesky sunlight getting in your eyes? Poof, bye bye sun. Are you currently not an overdeity? IHS can do that too.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Tinydwarfman

By RAW you can end any effect with a duration of more than 1 round

Not quite. Grammatically, a "duration of 1 or more rounds" is not the same as a "duration of more than 1 round". The feat's statement requires a stated duration in rounds. Your revision allows anything that doesn't have a short duration. Huge difference. Like, world continuing to exist or not difference.

[Greenish]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Not quite. Grammatically, a "duration of 1 or more rounds" is not the same as a "duration of more than 1 round". The feat's statement requires a stated duration in rounds. Your revision allows anything that doesn't have a short duration. Huge difference. Like, world continuing to exist or not difference.

I've seen it argued that "round" is the shortest time unit that 3.5 acknowledges, so that anything lasting longer than 1/10 of a minute has a duration measurable in rounds.

My pet peeve with IHS is that when that pesky cleric Hold Persons you and comes to paint a mustache on your face as a taunt, you can't overcome the sheer indignity and punch him.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Greenish

I've seen it argued that "round" is the shortest time unit that 3.5 acknowledges, so that anything lasting longer than 1/10 of a minute has a duration measurable in rounds.

Such an argument is disingenuous, because it's changing the terms substantially. Adding "able" opens up things to all sorts of possibilities not included by design. That's the difference between "did you win" and "was it winnable", where a .001% chance of winning makes the latter true, but the former false.

"You must be at least 4' tall to go on this ride." "But my height is measurable in 4' increments!" Adding "able" removes qualifications, which is why that argument is bunk.

[Greenish]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Such an argument is disingenuous, because it's changing the terms substantially. Adding "able" opens up things to all sorts of possibilities not included by design. That's the difference between "did you win" and "was it winnable", where a .001% chance of winning makes the latter true, but the former false.

"You must be at least 4' tall to go on this ride." "But my height is measurable in 4' increments!" Adding "able" removes qualifications, which is why that argument is bunk.

Makes sense. Also makes another argument on why Iron Heart Surge is poorly worded, if you could use it to end an effect that lasts for 11 rounds, but not one that has the listed duration of 1 minute. (Not that I can think of any example for such an effect.)

[Emmerask]

so ironheart surge does not work against amf? duration is 10mins / level not rounds /level. If that is true it really is bad wording on wotcs part.
I don´t think there there was any word from costumer service regarding this?

[cheezewizz2000]

Originally Posted by Emmerask

Hm a bit underpowered in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Godskook

Making it a free action that cost you your next standard action would help with some things, and better hold true to the original, in terms of intended balance.

So perhaps to satisfy both of these suggestions, the wording would be changed to:

Iron Heart Surge
Iron Heart
Level: Warblade 3
Initiation Action: 1 Immediate Action, See text
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: See text

Upon failing a save, you may ignore the dice roll and treat it as a success. In doing so, you lose one standard action on your next turn, however you also surge with confidence and vengeance against your enemies, gaining a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls for the next two turns.

_____________

By that wording, you may not make an attack on your next turn, though you may make attacks of opportunity with a +2 morale bonus, and you still have that +2 attack bonus on the turn after that.

EDIT: Changed my wording a little more, to not negate haste. Yeah, I didn't think of that.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Greenish

Also makes another argument on why Iron Heart Surge is poorly worded, if you could use it to end an effect that lasts for 11 rounds, but not one that has the listed duration of 1 minute. (Not that I can think of any example for such an effect.)

Here's an actual D&D example: Metabreath Feats, from Draconomicon, page 66:

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

Breath weapon says "once every 10 rounds"? Eligible. Breath weapon that says "once every minute"? Not eligible. Are they the same amount of time? Absolutely! So the game really does make this sort of distinction about units of measurement for durations.

[Greenish]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

So the game really does make this sort of distinction about units of measurement for durations.

I already acknowledged that you're right, I'm just pointing out that IHS isn't very well written in this aspect either.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Greenish

I'm just pointing out that IHS isn't very well written in this aspect either.

You won't get any disagreement from me.

[Oslecamo]

Originally Posted by Greenish

My pet peeve with IHS is that when that pesky cleric Hold Persons you and comes to paint a mustache on your face as a taunt, you can't overcome the sheer indignity and punch him.

Your damn fault for not using IHS to remove the cleric's eyes before he could cast hold person. They were affecting you by looking at you after all!

[ericgrau]

How about "end any effect on yourself, but only on your person". So you could even iron heart surge to grant yourself sunblock, but without nuking the sun.

[cheezewizz2000]

Because I thought that passing a save achieves the same thing as iron heart surge, without the preventing sunburn, gravity, crime, not having a sandwich and not being Asmodeus that Iron Heart Surge as written comes with.

Saph's big list of effects it works on is too clunky, Sophismata's is too long and every other fix allows you to break out of one effect, but not ones that it would be most useful for. This just allows you to say "no" to your DM and then **** his favourite new NPC for being cocky once per encounter, which is what IHS should have been in the first place.

[dspeyer]

Originally Posted by Godskook

I suggest you spend more time on these boards, if you want to know that. We get a "IHS is borken" thread or tangent about once every other week or so. A sane DM can adjudicate it alright since RAI aren't that bad, but to argue that's enough to make it non-broken is an Oberroni Fallacy.

Conditions whose IHSability reasonable DMs disagree on (judging by discussion in a previous thread):

• domination
• fascination
• ability damage/drain/penalties (but not burn)
• poison (having it in your veins such that you will need a second save in the near future)
• paralysis
• entangled
• checked
• petrified
• ambush feats
• balefull polymorph
• disease
• effects of ambush feats

It has also been pointed out that IHS completely ignores how powerful the inflicter of the condition is. Shouldn't a 20th level wizard be able to bespell a 5th level warblade and make it stick?

[Zergrusheddie]

Originally Posted by dspeyer

It has also been pointed out that IHS completely ignores how powerful the inflicter of the condition is. Shouldn't a 20th level wizard be able to bespell a 5th level warblade and make it stick?

True, but that's one of the reasons why magic beats the everliving hell out of melee. They can do effects that are auto-win and melee sits there with a stupid look on their face. Magic beats Melee and most Magic requires Magic to break it. I believe it has been said before and might very well be said after this; "Melee should have nice things too."

IHS is a little wonky. I think they wrote it with the impression that the DM is sane and won't allow the "My condition about not being level 20 is hurting me. I wish to end that."

[dspeyer]

Originally Posted by Zergrusheddie

True, but that's one of the reasons why magic beats the everliving hell out of melee. They can do effects that are auto-win and melee sits there with a stupid look on their face. Magic beats Melee and most Magic requires Magic to break it. I believe it has been said before and might very well be said after this; "Melee should have nice things too."

Which is a good reason to throw off anything a 5th level wizard can inflict. Where it gets sketchy is where 15 levels of increased wizard power still mean nothing against that same warblade.

If you don't like wizards, how about gods? If a deity curses you, you probably shouldn't be able to shrug it off next round.

[Godskook]

Originally Posted by dspeyer

It has also been pointed out that IHS completely ignores how powerful the inflicter of the condition is. Shouldn't a 20th level wizard be able to bespell a 5th level warblade and make it stick?

A 20th level wizard has both a swift and standard spell to do this in. A 5th level warblade loses his standard action to negate one of them, assuming, between two spells, he even gets to his turn. A 20th level wizard's spells have huge DCs on them, and the warblade has pathetic saves. Sure, he *might* have a Diamond Mind save-replace, but that'll cost him dearly, since that means he has pre-spent his dangerous actions on saving himself for his turn, and he won't have Iron Heart Surge on his next turn to save him from the returning death.

Or the wizard can just cloudkill him. Most probably the DC is to avoid dying would be so high that a natural 20 would be required.

A L20 wizard's reaction to a 5th level warblade is not "Holy @#$%, my magic isn't working.", but rather "Interesting....I wonder what happens when I throw another spell at him."

[Saph]

Originally Posted by dspeyer

Conditions whose IHSability reasonable DMs disagree on (judging by discussion in a previous thread):

• domination
• fascination
• ability damage/drain/penalties (but not burn)
• poison (having it in your veins such that you will need a second save in the near future)
• paralysis
• entangled
• checked
• petrified
• ambush feats
• balefull polymorph
• disease
• effects of ambush feats

That was why I went for the 'exhaustive list' approach for my rewrite.

[Cieyrin]

Originally Posted by Godskook

A L20 wizard's reaction to a 5th level warblade is not "Holy @#$%, my magic isn't working.", but rather "Interesting....I wonder what happens when I throw another spell at him."

It's more like "Damn gnat won't stay down! Fell Drain Magic Missile!"

[Sholos]

My thoughts on IHS and these conditions:

Originally Posted by dspeyer

domination

You'd be able to if you had some reason to do so, but the spell by its very nature makes this extremely unlikely. Now, if someone dominated you on top of another domination, and then had you IHS the first one away, that'd work fine.

fascination

Much like dominate, the very nature of the effect makes it unlikely to be IHSed away, but technically possible.

ability damage/drain/penalties (but not burn)

Okay, I can see the argument here, since both ability damage and drain are conditions. Definitely yes on the penalties, though, because you can end whatever is causing them.

poison (having it in your veins such that you will need a second save in the near future)

Hmm, depends on if "poisoned" is a condition. It's certainly not listed under the condition summary on the SRD, but I could go either way on this one.

paralysis

Yes. Paralysis is a condition, and thus a valid target for IHS.

entangled

As in the spell? Well, IHS can make that spell stop affecting you. For a round, anyways.

checked

Checked? What is "checked"?

petrified

No, because you're incapable of taking any actions, including initiating IHS.

ambush feats

I'd say no, because they're not a spell or a condition. At the outside, I'd say maybe you're immune to them, but then you'd have to be aware of them in the first place, which, given the nature of the feats, seems unlikely.

balefull polymorph

If you retain your mental capacity, yes.

disease

I'd say no on this one, personally, but I can see the argument for it.

effects of ambush feats

I think I need more information if this is somehow different than what I addressed above.

It has also been pointed out that IHS completely ignores how powerful the inflicter of the condition is. Shouldn't a 20th level wizard be able to bespell a 5th level warblade and make it stick?

That's kinda the point of IHS, though, isn't it? To make it so you have to fight them on different terms than Hold-Person-coup-de-gace-with-scythe? Now you might have to use Scorching Ray, or Finger of Death, or Fireball, or any number of other spells that don't just autowin (even though there's still plenty of those, like Flesh to Stone or Power Word: Kill).

So, I guess I can see a few things that would need to be clarified, but nothing that requires anything more than talking to your DM; and, no, I'm not committing an Oberoni Fallacy, I'm saying that the problem isn't big enough to require a rewrite of IHS.

[Lysander]

What about this:

Pick any one ongoing harmful condition, spell, or effect that you received a saving throw to resist or that is subject to spell resistance. Ignore all further harm, impediment, or disadvantages from it.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Originally Posted by Lysander

What about this:

Pick any one ongoing harmful condition, spell, or effect that you received a saving throw to resist or that is subject to spell resistance. Ignore all further harm, impediment, or disadvantages from it.

Checked still effects you, off the top of my head. Not being able to IHS that is a bit problematic. Checked is the effect caused by strong winds that stops you moving towards them, BTW.

[Lysander]

Originally Posted by ScionoftheVoid

Checked still effects you, off the top of my head. Not being able to IHS that is a bit problematic. Checked is the effect caused by strong winds that stops you moving towards them, BTW.

True, but magic spells that cause wind often allow for saves or spell resistance. Gust of Wind does. Windwall does. Control Winds allows a fortitude save. I guess control weather could inconvenience you still, or natural weather conditions, but that doesn't seem to be that big a problem.