Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Telulu 12-23-07, 10:32 PM	All righty, one of my players has come up with a spell idea that sounds absolutely wonderful from a players' point of view, but horrible for me. Persistent time stop (24 hours to do whatever you want) with the feat improved metamagic taken multiple times. I have gone over all the rules I could find and no where can I find one that says this cannot be done. Frankly, I love the fact that this person has found such a potent combination but am worried one of my other players (a rules ***** to the extreme) will find a ruling against it. Before that happens I would like ya'll opinion on it? Can ya'll find a rule that will not allow it?
Novacat 12-23-07, 10:57 PM	The spell Time Stop does not have a true duration. It is, for all intents and purposes, an instantaneous spell. It cannot therefore be modified by the Persistent Spell or Extend Spell metamagic feats. This is stated in the FAQ somewhere, but can be derived by looking at the spell description: Time Stop Transmutation Level: Sor/Wiz 9, Trickery 9 Components: V Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 1d4+1 rounds (apparent time); see text
Kouk 12-24-07, 01:50 AM	The spell Time Stop does not have a true duration. It is, for all intents and purposes, an instantaneous spell. It cannot therefore be modified by the Persistent Spell or Extend Spell metamagic feats. This is stated in the FAQ somewhere, but can be derived by looking at the spell description: I would agree that Time Stop's "actual" duration is Instantaneous from the point of view of everyone else. More to the point though, since rules issues are requested: In order to apply Persistent Spell Metamagic to a spell, the spell takes up a spell slot 6 levels higher than normal. This would mean the character casting it would require level 15 spell slots, which is quite hard to do without being quite Epic or having Divine Ranks at the least. You couldn't even Extend Time Stop without being able to cast level 10 equivalent spells... Plus, it is just wrong on several other levels as well. What would he get from pausing the entire day and doing what he wants? "OK guys, the BBEG is at the end of this dungeon we are yet to enter, and our mission is to kill him and save the princess. You all wait here. *5 seconds later* Well, all done! That was some adventure huh? Oh yeah, you guys weren't there. Oh well, back to town to collect our reward!"
TheClance 12-24-07, 09:25 AM	Persistent Time Stop is tops. You get 1d4+1 rounds, everyone else gets 24 hours.
runestar 12-24-07, 09:35 AM	In order to apply Persistent Spell Metamagic to a spell, the spell takes up a spell slot 6 levels higher than normal. This would mean the character casting it would require level 15 spell slots, which is quite hard to do without being quite Epic or having Divine Ranks at the least. You couldn't even Extend Time Stop without being able to cast level 10 equivalent spells... Naturally, for all intents and purposes of this discussion, we assume that the player is able to achieve this somehow. Be it from him actually being epic, or using divine metamagic + trickery domain or whatever...:) Anyways, the 3.0 FAQ does clarify that time stop is treated as instantaneous for purposes of interacting with persistent spell.:)
Enigmis 12-24-07, 09:58 AM	couldn't a cleric use dmm peristent time stop, assuming you even can persist timestop?
Kyuketsukiouji 12-24-07, 10:56 AM	The sad part is that an Elan Nomad Metamind can do the same trick at around level 15ish. Except his lasts as long as he wants it to, not just 24 hours.
Taren 12-24-07, 11:48 AM	couldn't a cleric use dmm peristent time stop, assuming you even can persist timestop? any time you modify a spell using metamagic, and don't pay the cost of the metamagic you still have to be able to cast a spell of the level that the metamagic modification costs. in this case a 9th level persisted spell takes up a 15th level slot, even though he's using a 9th level slot to cast it he still has to have the power to cast a 15th level spell. easy to achieve in epic. but impossible otherwise.
Findright 12-24-07, 12:02 PM	Naturally, for all intents and purposes of this discussion, we assume that the player is able to achieve this somehow. Be it from him actually being epic, or using divine metamagic + trickery domain or whatever...:) Anyways, the 3.0 FAQ does clarify that time stop is treated as instantaneous for purposes of interacting with persistent spell.:) It could also be helped along with the Sudden Extend Feat in Complete Arcane. Those Sudden feats are handy.
Novacat 12-24-07, 12:06 PM	any time you modify a spell using metamagic, and don't pay the cost of the metamagic you still have to be able to cast a spell of the level that the metamagic modification costs. in this case a 9th level persisted spell takes up a 15th level slot, even though he's using a 9th level slot to cast it he still has to have the power to cast a 15th level spell. easy to achieve in epic. but impossible otherwise. You are incorrect. A first level cleric can use Divine Metamagic if he takes the feats. A DMM persistent Time Stop is achievable at 17th level (when the cleric gains 9th level spells).
CryoSilver 12-24-07, 12:19 PM	Even if this was legal by the rules (and I'm in the camp that says it isn't) I wouldn't allow it as a DM, on the basis that it's no fun for the other players, and if they're not having fun, they're drinking my beer twice as fast.
Taren 12-24-07, 12:26 PM	Even if this was legal by the rules (and I'm in the camp that says it isn't) I wouldn't allow it as a DM, on the basis that it's no fun for the other players, and if they're not having fun, they're drinking my beer twice as fast. point out there are things he doesn't know about, in realms he hasn't visited, when he tells you he's going to cast the spell, and the first time he does it just have a few low powered "Phane" show up. or even just one. play up the horror movie aspect. "I'm all alone and there something here!" =O
Novacat 12-24-07, 12:34 PM	point out there are things he doesn't know about, in realms he hasn't visited, when he tells you he's going to cast the spell, and the first time he does it just have a few low powered "Phane" show up. or even just one. play up the horror movie aspect. "I'm all alone and there something here!" =O That reminds me of a story I heard about, I think by Steven King, about a group of plane crash survivors that found out they had somehow dropped out of time. Everything in the world was still, and there were these creatures (I forget what they were called) that were devouring everything. Turns out these creatures are there to remove matter in the time-instances that have already passed, and they proved a serious danger to the survivor group. Since Time Stop is not quite the same circumstances, a different kind of creature would be needed. Some kind of hyper-accelerated creature which normally can't interact with normal creatures, due to the limitations of Time Stop. The species could even be humanoid in appearance, or have hidden empires that rise and crumble in the wink of an eye. The possibilities are endless.
Taren 12-24-07, 12:39 PM	That reminds me of a story I heard about, I think by Steven King, about a group of plane crash survivors that found out they had somehow dropped out of time. Everything in the world was still, and there were these creatures (I forget what they were called) that were devouring everything. Turns out these creatures are there to remove matter in the time-instances that have already passed, and they proved a serious danger to the survivor group. its called the Langoliers Since Time Stop is not quite the same circumstances, a different kind of creature would be needed. Some kind of hyper-accelerated creature which normally can't interact with normal creatures, due to the limitations of Time Stop. The species could even be humanoid in appearance, or have hidden empires that rise and crumble in the wink of an eye. The possibilities are endless. its called the "phane"
mvincent 12-24-07, 02:12 PM	the 3.0 FAQ does clarify that time stop is treated as instantaneous for purposes of interacting with persistent spell.:)For reference (if desired), from the 3.0 FAQ (still applicable here): "Assuming you are high enough level to cast a persistent time stop spell, could you use the virtual 24 hours the spell lasts to rest and recover your spells? You can’t make time stop persistent. (Its duration is effectively instantaneous for purposes of the Persistent Spell feat.)"
Tedronai 12-24-07, 06:20 PM	No 3.0 material is applicable in a 3.5 game unless specifically made so by the DM. The Time Stop referred to in the 3.0 FAQ no longer exists, despite any similarity (or exact duplication, I don't recall, and it doesn't matter) to any 3.5 spell of the same name. The same goes for Persistent Spell, or any other spell or feat that happens to share a name with another spell of feat from another edition. Make your arguments from the material that is ACTUALLY VALID, not from obsolete FAQs. I personally believe that it SHOULDN'T work, but that, unfortunately, it DOES. So ban it, if you're the DM, and if you're not, convince the DM to do it for you. Or show him a cleric that demonstrates why he should.
Taren 12-24-07, 08:52 PM	No 3.0 material is applicable in a 3.5 game unless specifically made so by the DM. that should read unless made so by the group. and all 3.0 material not updated is still valid in 3.5. to restate that in a different format...any material that addressed an issue that has not yet been readdressed in the 3.5 version is still a valid location to begin discussion. since 3.5 is not a different version, hence the point 5
runestar 12-24-07, 09:21 PM	No 3.0 material is applicable in a 3.5 game unless specifically made so by the DM. The Time Stop referred to in the 3.0 FAQ no longer exists, despite any similarity (or exact duplication, I don't recall, and it doesn't matter) to any 3.5 spell of the same name. The same goes for Persistent Spell, or any other spell or feat that happens to share a name with another spell of feat from another edition. Make your arguments from the material that is ACTUALLY VALID, not from obsolete FAQs. I personally believe that it SHOULDN'T work, but that, unfortunately, it DOES. So ban it, if you're the DM, and if you're not, convince the DM to do it for you. Or show him a cleric that demonstrates why he should. There is so much wrong in your statements that I do not know where to begin. Fortunately, the poster below you managed to get off to a very good start.:P
Axiomatic_vampire 12-25-07, 04:43 AM	that should read unless made so by the group. and all 3.0 material not updated is still valid in 3.5. to restate that in a different format...any material that addressed an issue that has not yet been readdressed in the 3.5 version is still a valid location to begin discussion. since 3.5 is not a different version, hence the point 5 I've heard that argument a lot, and as far as I'm concerned it should be true, but where does it come from? I haven't run across it in anything official. Is there a link to the source to be had? I'd love to be able, once and for all, to nail that one down.
Tedronai 12-25-07, 07:31 AM	I've heard that argument a lot, and as far as I'm concerned it should be true, but where does it come from? I haven't run across it in anything official. Is there a link to the source to be had? I'd love to be able, once and for all, to nail that one down. Yes, please do enlighten us. I would LOVE to be able to point to a definitive ruling on these matters (Persistent Time Stop and oh-so-many others), and if you can tell me where such text is, I would be quite grateful.
runestar 12-25-07, 08:02 AM	Make your arguments from the material that is ACTUALLY VALID, not from obsolete FAQs. In particular, is there any particular reason why a certain ruling would no longer be valid in a 3.5 game just because it was made under 3.0 rules? The circumstances surrounding the timestop+persistent spell entry in the 3.0 FAQ remains fundamentally unchanged in the transition to 3.5. The duration is time stop is still the same apparent 1d4+1 rounds, persistent spell works the same, and as such, I see no reason why the rationale behind said combo not working in 3.0 somehow not working in 3.5 just because it is a different edition, when the rules in this scenario still function in exactly the same manner! An argument should be correct for the right reasons. You would be right that a 3.0 ruling is no longer relevant only if the ability in question has been changed or revised, and as such, said ruling is no longer applicable. However, this is specifically a consequence of the rule being different, and not automatically just because of an edition change. Nor is there anything in newer editions of the FAQ which contradicts this entry. I personally feel that such statements like this are at best a delaying tactic, and frankly, I am getting irritated by these kind of baseless claims which contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand.:(
Avatar of Kokusho 12-25-07, 08:24 AM	The rules for Persistent Spell have not changed from 3.0 to 3.5, other than that I'm pretty sure the level adjustment of Persistent Spell used to be 4. The rules for Time Stop have not changed from 3.0 to 3.5- it still acts the exact same way it did, inculding spell level, duration, and everything else. You cannot use Persistent Spell and Time Stop in the way described in the original post. There are many reasons for this. The main one happens to be the fact that it's one of the dumbest things I think I've heard in quite awhile, and I've heard some dumb things- I DM epic games quite often. The rules reason is that it's considered to be instantanteous for the purposes of Persisten Spell, and therefore cannot be made to last 24 hours. Let the player use Extend Spell. Hell, let him Maximize it. Psions can get away with this. A player who attempts to Persist a Time Stop is begging to get his ass whipped by a couple of phanes who are curious as to who's creating their own static time stream. Improved Metamagic or not (which, by the way, removes the need for 15th level slots in which to put this monstrosity- it reduces the cost, thereby reducing the spell slot- it's what the feat does) this should never be allowed.
Axiomatic_vampire 12-25-07, 10:18 AM	If the language of both the spell and the feat haven't changed, and no applicable rules have changed, then the ruling should be clear on this. That said, other situations aren't as clear, and if anyone has some documentation on "3.0 material is always valid until specifically amended", that would be fantastic. There are a lot of situations that aren't as clear as the persistent time-stop issue, and having that officially would sure solve a lot of it for me without having to appeal to the "I heard that it's still legal" argument without having anything to back it up.
Kouk 12-25-07, 12:23 PM	If the language of both the spell and the feat haven't changed, and no applicable rules have changed, then the ruling should be clear on this. That said, other situations aren't as clear, and if anyone has some documentation on "3.0 material is always valid until specifically amended", that would be fantastic. There are a lot of situations that aren't as clear as the persistent time-stop issue, and having that officially would sure solve a lot of it for me without having to appeal to the "I heard that it's still legal" argument without having anything to back it up. There is this paragraph at the beginning of the Main FAQ: If you have a question about the D&D game rules, you might find them within this FAQ. Any new additions or major corrections in a version are provided in red text for your convenience. Red text changes to black text in the next version. This version of the D&D FAQ uses the 3.5 revision of the core rules and also contains questions covering material from a variety of books (such as Savage Species and Epic Level Handbook). If you haven’t yet adopted the revision, don’t worry—in the rare instance that the answer is different between 3rd edition and the 3.5 revision, we’ll bring it to your attention with a call out that says “Revision Alert.” If you have a question that isn’t answered here, please contact us via the following URL and ask away: <http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.php>. Or you can send an email to askdnd@wizards.com Not 100% necessarily, but an indicator. I will see if I can dig up some more :D EDIT: There is also the assertion in the PHB that 3.5 is not a new game, just a revision of the existing 3.0 rules.
Bopple 12-26-07, 12:23 AM	I am not sure why you guys are obsessed with written 3.5 RAW on this. We use RAW for default discussion, not because RAW is better than RAI, but because RAI is unclear until officially stated. In this case, RAI is 100% certain, because it's officially stated, though in 3.0 era.
Axiomatic_vampire 12-26-07, 02:10 AM	I'm obsessed with it because players want it. At least with my group, I can put a lot of draining arguments to bed for good with anything official and on-topic.
Bopple 12-26-07, 02:13 AM	Does it mean RAW always precedes RAI, even when RAI is 100% clear, in your group?
mvincent 12-26-07, 01:29 PM	Make your arguments from the material that is ACTUALLY VALID, not from obsolete FAQs.3.0 FAQ clarifications (like most 3.0 stuff) are generally still valid unless there is a demonstrated reason for them not to be (i.e. a rules change, superseded by a new rules or clarifications, etc.). Note that I too used to assume that the 3.0 FAQ was invalid for 3.5, but after research I concluded otherwise. The reasons include: 1) None of the 3.0 FAQ clarifications were carried over into the 3.5 FAQ 2) Many of those clarifications were still needed and used. 3) As a general WotC rule, all 3.0 material was declared as useable in 3.5 unless superseded (i.e. invalidated in some way). 4) The intent of the designers has not changed if the associated rules have not. 5) WotC custserv confirmed it. The matter has been discussed before (here (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-758553)), and the time stop issue has been (conclusively) discussed many times before also (links available on request). In any case, I generally just provide information and leave it to the individual reader to decide what they feel is authoritative. The 3.0 FAQ is likely going to be viewed as more authoritative than any particular person's opinion, and arguing against a good FAQ ruling doesn't really help anyone.
Telulu 12-28-07, 10:48 PM	To answer a previous statment, yes the player is epic. The ruling I gave is that since no specific time is listed on time stop then the duration is instantaneous, but the player decided to research an epic spell that has does the same thing, but with a set duration. I don't like to just up and say "no you can't do that" to a player, because I reward players who are creative. That being said, I did put a limitation on it by saying that the god of time (insert random name) does not appreciate a mortal messing with the natural order of his domain, so the person either 1)must pass a test from the god every cast 2)is punished every time they cast it by having 5years of their life used to fuel the spell 3)give themselves over to the god as a herald thus becoming an NPC. Whatever option I give them depends on my mood and how they roleplay with the god. As to what they would use it for..well the simple idea he has is the destruction of an entire city before a decent defense can be mounted. He would cast the spell and spend the time casting other spells, then rest. Wake up, regain spells, cast more spells, reapply time stop (since it will go into affect immediately after the fist time stop wears) and so on. In "real time" the effect would be he casts a spell saying words that make it sound as if he is defying the will of the gods.....after about 10 seconds and lots of flashes and bangs the city is gone. He wants to set himself up as a god and believes if he does this to an evil city/stronghold with many witnesses he can begin to gain followers and one day reach divinity. A lofty dream, but well thought out (at least from his perspective)
Avatar of Kokusho 12-28-07, 11:22 PM	There's a seed in the ELH that allows for Time Stop effects- and you can mess with that a little. Your idea concerning passing a test from the Time God is far more sound than aging him; if I were that player, well, I'd just make myself immune to aging effects! The third option's a worse nerf than telling him he can't do it, which is viable with any epic spell. Some spells should not be developed, no matter how epic you are.