Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Akris 04-26-07, 08:13 PM	Well Im sure for the majority of you this might not be a new discovery, but I was curious about your opinions about this subject, especially since I had to learn that the point of view is strongly polarised between "Beleivers" and "None-Beleivers". Well whenever I deal with a chosen of Mystra I ask myself how has this spell immunity to be read? Well after going over the rules I just came to figure being "immune" against a spell whose range is personal, and the target has to be you yourself, the caster of the spell, and you are the only one upon whom the spell has an effect, means if this spell is cast by a character with such an "immunity" it doesn't grant this character any benefit it normally would do. My problem here in is simply looking at the Characters of Mr. Greenwood it doesnt seem reasonable to assume that he would give his characters any disadvantage of any kind. What forces me to the conclusion that the intended meaning is another one. Seen from that perspective I suppose some chosen of Mystra have been given this immunity to prevent another character from utilizing this spell against them. And here the opinions start to differ. The "Beleivers", as I call them claim that it is supposed to be interpreted as I came to realize after I had to achknowledge the intended invincibility of the chosen of Mystra, from their point of view it doesnt matter if it looks like being inconsistent to some. The "None-Beleivers" say that it is a violation of the letter and the spirit of the rules to make such an immunity work. After all I beleive such an immunity is valid, it just does not help a chosen at all when someone else casts the particular spell in question, in this case "Time Stop", upon him- or herself, since the chosen is not the target of the spell or its effects anyways and therefore not affected directly by the spell itself or its effects after all. Everything else isnt in harmony with the rules. You cant be immune to the new situation a spell creates through its effects, since that is an indirect consequence of the spell that has nothing to do with an immunity. For Instance if I have a Mageduel with Elminster and he is fighting me from a cliff above me and I cast the spell "fly" to get up to him and beat his head with my staff, he cant tell me:"Hey Dude that doesnt work, since Im immune to the spell "fly" after all." I can come up with countless examples like this one. I mean Superman might be bulletprove, but he cant be "gunprove", meaning guns still work next to him and if a bullet hits a device that sets free Cryptonite after that triggering Superman cant claim that this event has no effect on him since he is bulletprove. You can be immune to specific effects of an event but you cant be immune to the consequences these effects create around you. That rule functions within a cascading chain of events the same way. For instance, if you have an immunity against fire you will remain unaffected by a certain source of extrem heat and if such a fire causes to create other sources of heat you stay perfectly immune to this particular effect of any caused event in your environment, it doesnt matter how many explosions occur you stay unharmed, but if the building you are in, which isnt invulnarable to fire collapses under its own weight it has become unable to support any further, this collapse may still have the potential to kill you immediatelly. I figure if the chosen are meant to be able to bypass the consequences the "Time Stop"-spell's effects may have, have it cast upon another entity, they had to have a supernatural ability that lets them perceive the passing of time from the view of multiple timeframes completely simultaneously. Or else they just are existing in a "Timenexus" in which time is not advancing by any means and isnt perceived in a different way than the three dimensions of the room. Which means they can move within the forth dimension "time" the same way they can geographicaly change their position. Theoretically that works, but such a supernatural ability has not been mentioned in any entry of any chosen of Mystra. P.S.: Personally I really dont care if Elminster or another Character in the FR is supposed to be invincilbe or nearly invincible, but it must be stated in a sustainable, rule conform way.
Myssa Rei 04-26-07, 10:52 PM	I do believe that Elminster's immunities (and indeed, most of the statted-out Chosen of Mystra) have been errata'd with the advent of 3.5 Edition, what with the change in spell levels of some of the spells and all. El is no longer immune to Time Stop; instead he is immune to, I believe, temporal stasis (the Simbul can correct me on this one)... Which is ironic, given the fact that, at the beginning of the Temptation of Elminster, that's precisely the state that El was found in: in stasis. ^^; And the Chosen are not invulnerable. Each and everyone of them have been defeated, even killed, several times (note Khelben's musings in Blackstaff and Elminster's flashbacks in Elminster in Hell).
Bloodtide_the_Red 04-26-07, 11:30 PM	To answer the basic question. Back in 2E, TimeStop was an Area effect spell. It had an area of effect of 15 feet and did in fact stop time for the folks effected by the spell....it is where they get the name. So you can see where being immune to TimeStop would be useful. Now 3E comes along and changes things, it's now a personal spell that speeds up time for the caster and effects no one else. Saddly, the lazy folks who make D&d miss this tiny footnote, but it's only the most popular FR chatracter on page like 7 of the Hardcover. You should note Elminster, and the rest, is more of a story character. He is there to have stories told about him. And when every you bring in the Rules, they will just never work out. It's no diffrent in the movies, the hero is always far above reality. Thoughj reality is boring, we live reality everyday so people want to see fantasy. BT
The Simbul 04-27-07, 02:54 AM	Well Im sure for the majority of you this might not be a new discovery, but I was curious about your opinions about this subject, especially since I had to learn that the point of view is strongly polarised between "Beleivers" and "None-Beleivers". Well whenever I deal with a chosen of Mystra I ask myself how has this spell immunity to be read? Well after going over the rules I just came to figure being "immune" against a spell whose range is personal, and the target has to be you yourself, the caster of the spell, and you are the only one upon whom the spell has an effect, means if this spell is cast by a character with such an "immunity" it doesn't grant this character any benefit it normally would do. My problem here in is simply looking at the Characters of Mr. Greenwood it doesnt seem reasonable to assume that he would give his characters any disadvantage of any kind. What forces me to the conclusion that the intended meaning is another one. Seen from that perspective I suppose some chosen of Mystra have been given this immunity to prevent another character from utilizing this spell against them. And here the opinions start to differ. The "Beleivers", as I call them claim that it is supposed to be interpreted as I came to realize after I had to achknowledge the intended invincibility of the chosen of Mystra, from their point of view it doesnt matter if it looks like being inconsistent to some. The "None-Beleivers" say that it is a violation of the letter and the spirit of the rules to make such an immunity work. After all I beleive such an immunity is valid, it just does not help a chosen at all when someone else casts the particular spell in question, in this case "Time Stop", upon him- or herself, since the chosen is not the target of the spell or its effects anyways and therefore not affected directly by the spell itself or its effects after all. Everything else isnt in harmony with the rules. You cant be immune to the new situation a spell creates through its effects, since that is an indirect consequence of the spell that has nothing to do with an immunity. For Instance if I have a Mageduel with Elminster and he is fighting me from a cliff above me and I cast the spell "fly" to get up to him and beat his head with my staff, he cant tell me:"Hey Dude that doesnt work, since Im immune to the spell "fly" after all." I can come up with countless examples like this one. I mean Superman might be bulletprove, but he cant be "gunprove", meaning guns still work next to him and if a bullet hits a device that sets free Cryptonite after that triggering Superman cant claim that this event has no effect on him since he is bulletprove. You can be immune to specific effects of an event but you cant be immune to the consequences these effects create around you. That rule functions within a cascading chain of events the same way. For instance, if you have an immunity against fire you will remain unaffected by a certain source of extrem heat and if such a fire causes to create other sources of heat you stay perfectly immune to this particular effect of any caused event in your environment, it doesnt matter how many explosions occur you stay unharmed, but if the building you are in, which isnt invulnarable to fire collapses under its own weight it has become unable to support any further, this collapse may still have the potential to kill you immediatelly. I figure if the chosen are meant to be able to bypass the consequences the "Time Stop"-spell's effects may have, have it cast upon another entity, they had to have a supernatural ability that lets them perceive the passing of time from the view of multiple timeframes completely simultaneously. Or else they just are existing in a "Timenexus" in which time is not advancing by any means and isnt perceived in a different way than the three dimensions of the room. Which means they can move within the forth dimension "time" the same way they can geographicaly change their position. Theoretically that works, but such a supernatural ability has not been mentioned in any entry of any chosen of Mystra. P.S.: Personally I really dont care if Elminster or another Character in the FR is supposed to be invincilbe or nearly invincible, but it must be stated in a sustainable, rule conform way. Hmm...you likely would have saved yourself a fair bit of trouble in writing this by checking the Errata file for the Epic Level Handbook first. Though admittedly since the NPCs first appeared in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (and because the errata for that book was silent on the issue), it is understandable why one would not likely notice the errata or easily find it.Appendix I: Epic NPCs of Faerūn Page 292, Elminster, Chosen Immunities: Elminster is unaffected by attacks that duplicate these effects: magic missile, detect thoughts, fireball, Evard’s black tentacles, feeblemind, geas/quest, finger of death, sunburst, temporal stasis. ... Page 301, Alustrial, Chosen Immunities: Alustriel is unaffected by attacks that duplicate these effects: chill touch, web, lightning bolt, polymorph other, feeblemind, disintegrate, flesh to stone, forcecage, maze, temporal stasis.Underlined/red " emphasis" mine. They also may need to issue an errata for the errata in order to spell Alustriel's name correctly. Also bear in mind that the Epic Level Handbook is a 3rd Edition (not 3.5) rulebook, and therefore under that ruleset temporal stasis is still a 9th level spell, and is one without a saving throw--making it a fairly good choice for spell immunity. As for the broader issue. In AD&D several of the Seven Sisters, as well as the Magister, and presumably anyone else whose Art was mighty enough to accomplish thus, did/could possess an immunity against timestop, either through Mystra's blessings or through spells cast for that purpose. This was because under the AD&D rules timestop was a spell that affected an area, and one that actually stopped time within that locale, rather than being a disingenuous spell that advertised under a false name and simply "sped you up" instead. In AD&D Alustriel Silverhand, Syluné Silverhand, and the Magister Talantha Vaervoree of Innarlith all selected timestop as their 9th level spell immunity. Meanwhile, the Simbul used magical experimentation on her lifeforce to acquire a partial immunity to the spell, allowing her a saving throw against any casting that would affect her. In 3E Alustriel was given timestop as her 9th level spell immunity, probably for a mixture of continuity, direct conversion of her previous edition statistics, and/or a simple misreading of the spell itself by Rob Heinsoo. Meanwhile, Talatha Vaervoree the Magister, whose statistics appeared in Magic of Faerūn, had timestop as her 9th level immunity as well, however there is evidence in her stats that suggest Sean K Reynolds (or whomever else wrote them) composed those statistics long before the FRCS itself was published. I can hypothesize such since her stat block clearly uses the original version of the Archmage prestige class, which --thanks to Sean K Reynolds' notes on his website-- we know was modified substantially for balance reasons before being published. Therefore, the Magister's timestop immunity may have been left in place due to continuity, perhaps with the idea that it would be more precisely explained, and then never rectified with the publication of the FRCS. In the case of Elminster, he was not immune to timestop in AD&D, but instead was immune to imprisonment. This could have likely been changed when his 3E stat block was created, probably if a peak at Alustriel's stat block illustrated a more viable spell immunity choice in timestop, even if that choice would later be proven to be incompatible with the new edition of the rules. However the fact of the matter is, there are plenty of errors or inconsistencies with many NPC stat blocks, including those of the Chosen, which defy many rules and guidelines for NPC stat block creation and the conversion of characters from 2nd edition to 3rd. In those cases, the errors or inconsistencies act greatly to the detriment of these NPCs rather than giving them some game-breaking ability. As for it not being fixed in the Epic Level Handbook itself (the 2nd publication to feature their stat blocks), it could likely be attributed to both the overall minimal effort spent on updating many of these characters in that book, in addition to its introduction of variant rules dealing with timestop, namely one entitled "spell resistance for timestop", which if used would make immunity to it viable. Moreover, being immune to 1 of 1,000 or so spells, even if one cannot normally be immune to it, is hardly game breaking nor a sign of "invincibility". In fact, given the obscenely broken nature of the spell in 3.0, having even a handful of NPCs that are (impossibly) "immune" to it is, if anything, a half-hearted attempt to give PC pause before exploiting it ad infinitum. On a different note, regarding the idea of it being preposterous to be "immune" to someone else's personal range spell that affects no one else but the caster...I could not agree more. In fact, I would welcome anyone who thinks so to take that argument over to the Magic and Spells section of the Core D&D boards, and engage the chorus of group-think that afflicts board members who categorically and fervently insist that nondetection protects against someone else's see invisibility or true seeing spells, despite the fact that these spells do not target the warded creature as a targeted spell, nor include them in any area as an area spell, nor create any effect that interacts with them as an effect (i.e. scrying) spell would. In fact, by implication, such an argument would proclaim that nondetection equally "protects" against foresight, true strike, and any other divination spell that never impinges upon or interacts with the protected creature.
Akris 04-27-07, 03:34 AM	To answer the basic question. Back in 2E, TimeStop was an Area effect spell. It had an area of effect of 15 feet and did in fact stop time for the folks effected by the spell....it is where they get the name. So you can see where being immune to TimeStop would be useful. Now 3E comes along and changes things, it's now a personal spell that speeds up time for the caster and effects no one else. Saddly, the lazy folks who make D&d miss this tiny footnote, but it's only the most popular FR chatracter on page like 7 of the Hardcover. BT Hey thats interesting, I didnt know that. However, I anyways lost Track upon the Erratras, but this explanation shows that it was in fact a "mistake" and not a "rule bent". Hmm...you likely would have saved yourself a fair bit of trouble in writing this by checking the Errata file for the Epic Level Handbook first. Though admittedly since the NPCs first appeared in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (and because the errata for that book was silent on the issue), it is understandable why one would not likely notice the errata or easily find it.Underlined/red " emphasis" mine. They also may need to issue an errata for the errata in order to spell Alustriel's name correctly. Also bear in mind that the Epic Level Handbook is a 3rd Edition (not 3.5) rulebook, and therefore under that ruleset temporal stasis is still a 9th level spell, and is one without a saving throw--making it a fairly good choice for spell immunity. As for the broader issue. In AD&D several of the Seven Sisters, as well as the Magister, and presumably anyone else whose Art was mighty enough to accomplish thus, did/could possess an immunity against timestop, either through Mystra's blessings or through spells cast for that purpose. This was because under the AD&D rules timestop was a spell that affected an area, and one that actually stopped time within that locale, rather than being a disingenuous spell that advertised under a false name and simply "sped you up" instead. In AD&D Alustriel Silverhand, Syluné Silverhand, and the Magister Talantha Vaervoree of Innarlith all selected timestop as their 9th level spell immunity. Meanwhile, the Simbul used magical experimentation on her lifeforce to acquire a partial immunity to the spell, allowing her a saving throw against any casting that would affect her. In 3E Alustriel was given timestop as her 9th level spell immunity, probably for a mixture of continuity, direct conversion of her previous edition statistics, and/or a simple misreading of the spell itself by Rob Heinsoo. Meanwhile, Talatha Vaervoree the Magister, whose statistics appeared in Magic of Faerūn, had timestop as her 9th level immunity as well, however there is evidence in her stats that suggest Sean K Reynolds (or whomever else wrote them) composed those statistics long before the FRCS itself was published. I can hypothesize such since her stat block clearly uses the original version of the Archmage prestige class, which --thanks to Sean K Reynolds' notes on his website-- we know was modified substantially for balance reasons before being published. Therefore, the Magister's timestop immunity may have been left in place due to continuity, perhaps with the idea that it would be more precisely explained, and then never rectified with the publication of the FRCS. In the case of Elminster, he was not immune to timestop in AD&D, but instead was immune to imprisonment. This could have likely been changed when his 3E stat block was created, probably if a peak at Alustriel's stat block illustrated a more viable spell immunity choice in timestop, even if that choice would later be proven to be incompatible with the new edition of the rules. However the fact of the matter is, there are plenty of errors or inconsistencies with many NPC stat blocks, including those of the Chosen, which defy many rules and guidelines for NPC stat block creation and the conversion of characters from 2nd edition to 3rd. In those cases, the errors or inconsistencies act greatly to the detriment of these NPCs rather than giving them some game-breaking ability. As for it not being fixed in the Epic Level Handbook itself (the 2nd publication to feature their stat blocks), it could likely be attributed to both the overall minimal effort spent on updating many of these characters in that book, in addition to its introduction of variant rules dealing with timestop, namely one entitled "spell resistance for timestop", which if used would make immunity to it viable. Moreover, being immune to 1 of 1,000 or so spells, even if one cannot normally be immune to it, is hardly game breaking nor a sign of "invincibility". In fact, given the obscenely broken nature of the spell in 3.0, having even a handful of NPCs that are (impossibly) "immune" to it is, if anything, a half-hearted attempt to give PC pause before exploiting it ad infinitum. On a different note, regarding the idea of it being preposterous to be "immune" to someone else's personal range spell that affects no one else but the caster...I could not agree more. In fact, I would welcome anyone who thinks so to take that argument over to the Magic and Spells section of the Core D&D boards, and engage the chorus of group-think that afflicts board members who categorically and fervently insist that nondetection protects against someone else's see invisibility or true seeing spells, despite the fact that these spells do not target the warded creature as a targeted spell, nor include them in any area as an area spell, nor create any effect that interacts with them as an effect (i.e. scrying) spell would. In fact, by implication, such an argument would proclaim that nondetection equally "protects" against foresight, true strike, and any other divination spell that never impinges upon or interacts with the protected creature. Yes, its true I have the EL, but I didnt recognize that the NPC-stats were changed through the erratra. Though, the nondetection - spell is a funny example of the iusse I was presenting. Thank you for input to this matter anyways. Above that I beleive if a player always sticks to the rules and is true to them he deserves that the ruleset isnt betrayed in the moment when he would become able to use it for his ends. That has nothing to do with "exploiting", its only fair to have all play the game by the same rules.
boggler65 05-01-07, 05:24 PM	For what it's worth the time stop spell in 3.5 is in fact totally ridiculous. It's not about stopping time, it's simply an ultimate version of the haste spell, except that the rules surrounding it are completely illogical to the point of being ridiculous. First of all, if you're moving so fast that everyone around you appears to be standing still why is it that you cannot attack them? Why can't you attack them for a coup de grace? After all this is a 9th level spell right? You can't even cast spells that target another creature, which again makes no sense, since if you're moving ridiculously fast, the spell would just seem suspended to you while you did whatever after casting it. Furthermore if you're just moving so fast that everyone else seems to be standing still to you, wouldn't they still be acting? Thus if you cast a fireball from "time stop" they should still be affected normally by it. If you have allies attacking enemies that shouldn't stop. Bottom line the current rules for time stop defy pretty much everything. It doesn't matter that we're talking about a magical spell, it's effects should still make sense within the mechanics of the spell. Personally I simply use the 2nd edition rules for time stop in my game. Those still have some things about them that don't make sense, but at least they aren't just flat out retarded!
Braekor Dragonfang 05-02-07, 03:57 PM	IMHO if you were going with immunity to 3.0/3.5 timestop it would be less of a spell 'immunity' and more of a spell 'hijacking' in that you ARE affected by timestop, literally as if it were cast on you, putting you into the caster's timestream and be able to move freely, hence making you subsequently immune (or more aptly put, you're active when you shouldn't be)... i think... time is confusing...
Stigger 05-02-07, 04:04 PM	That was usually the way I interpreted an immunity to Time Stop myself Braekor. Went alont with the whole Mystra as guardian of the time stream thing from the 2e Chronomancer book.
Braekor Dragonfang 05-03-07, 09:14 AM	That was usually the way I interpreted an immunity to Time Stop myself Braekor. Went alont with the whole Mystra as guardian of the time stream thing from the 2e Chronomancer book. someone agreed with me? this is a sure sign that ragnarok is near!
Terraneaux 05-04-07, 03:53 AM	I would just replace it with Spell Stowaway (Time Stop). If they really had the ability to act in every time stop cast on the plane, they'd have little time to hang around with anyone else in real-time considering the vast number of high-level casters in FR able to cast Time Stop.
Ramenth 05-07-07, 01:21 PM	I've always just gone with the 2E version of Time Stop and andded the 3.5E version of timestop as another spell. They each have their own uses.