The more I read the rules...

[Pielorinho]

Which is fine, but it doesn't bother me that the rules are as they are.

To be clear, our disagreement is over what constitutes "the rules as they are." I believe that the rules as they are exist only as we interpret them, that language lacks meaning independent of an interpretive mind, and that for me, an interpretive strategy using multiple approaches (only one of which is literal) provides a stronger understanding of "the rules as they are" than does a single-approach interpretive strategy.

Daniel

 

[Rystil Arden]

Then that is one of the cool benifits of existing outside of time. And if they annoy you then it makes a great plot point as this enity starts hunting down and killing high level wizards that use Time Stop a lot. So, it gives me a great high level plot and mystery to use for my game. By pointing out how wierd it is, it becomes cool and useful.

Sure, then it could work great in your games, and that could make for an interesting adventure (crotchety old time elemental seeks to annihilate all beings in the universe that bother it by casting Time Stop).

I would guess, though, that it could be quite difficult to arbitrate for many others, and multiply that times 100 if one of the PCs ever gained that ability.

 

[Crothian]

I would guess, though, that it could be quite difficult to arbitrate for many others, and multiply that times 100 if one of the PCs ever gained that ability.

Except unless this creature immune to time is being used it doesn't matter. Just like it doesn't matter what happens to the inn keeper the day after the PCs fight off the bad guys and destroy his inn. If the DM wants to chase that story he can, but if it doesn't matter to the campaign that focuses on the PCs then why worry about it?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Except unless this creature immune to time is being used it doesn't matter. Just like it doesn't matter what happens to the inn keeper the day after the PCs fight off the bad guys and destroy his inn. If the DM wants to chase that story he can, but if it doesn't matter to the campaign that focuses on the PCs then why worry about it?

Right, and so it usually won't be an issue, but when it begins to affect a PC or important NPC, it could be a sticking point (and probably a PC or important NPC will eventually be in an antimagic field or other such situation). For someone who is very specifically trying to take advantage of others' Time Stops, there is also the Spellcasting Stowaway epic feat, for instance.

All in all, it is a bit cleaner if it only affects the target, though it is by no means untenable to play it the other way--either way can work with the right GM and players, which is, I suspect, true for most things in rules.

 

[BryonD]

It's not a modification to the rules as written if you follow what they actually mean.

It is if you follow the "gurus" in every thread I've followed in this forum.

Though I agree with you.

 

[Thurbane]

I voted RAW is where I start, and I modify as needed.

I never (rarely, anyway) let the RAW get in the way of common sense, or the flow of the game...my group are very much in agreement on this, no matter which of us is DMing.

 

[Crothian]

Right, and so it usually won't be an issue, but when it begins to affect a PC or important NPC, it could be a sticking point (and probably a PC or important NPC will eventually be in an antimagic field or other such situation).

The spell doesn't say that time doesn't stop in an anti magic field, just that one under Time Stop spell cannot walk into one. The magic is effecting time not the people in the anti magic field. Since time is not effected by an anti magic field then time should stop for them as well.

 

[TheEvil]

The most major house rule I use is that Rope Trick doesn't not interact poorly with extra/non-dimensional space items. That one always irritated me.

 

[werk]

That implies carelessness on part of the rules.

I see this complaint thrown around often, but I don't think it is fair.

I believe that in an attempt to make the rules more readable or easier to understand, it has produced unneeded specifications which are in fact general examples not meant to set a precedent.
Like in the mounted overrun, it says hoof, but that may be because they didn't want to over-confuse the issue, and grammar, by listing all sorts of distal appendages for all kinds of mounts (which is pointless anyway because they will be bound to forget tentacle, and then there will be a thread about someone complaining that their octo-mount can't overrun because it is the only exclusion.)

Generalizations are good most of the time, but not good if you are holding them to every letter of every word.

I'll take the RAW as written over some unreadable iron-clad document any day.

 

[glass]

Like in the mounted overrun, it says hoof, but that may be because they didn't want to over-confuse the issue,

The trouble is, how does one know if they say hoof because they mean hoof, or because they mean hoof/claw/tentacle etc?

In another thread, someone suggested that it was common sense that fighters shouldn't get better at resisting spells as they go up in levels. That is just his common sense, so by your way of thinking, he would have no need to warn me about it if I brought a fighter to his game. I would find that unacceptable, to say the least.

I do make alterations to the game based on my 'common sense', but I like to know how they differ from the RAW so I can warn my players about them, just in case their 'common sense' is a little different.


glass.