Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

[Grek]

Frank, are you being intentionally dense? Nobody here thinks that Blink continues effecting thrown objects. The question is instead "What happens to a thrown object when Blink stops effecting it?" Does it A] return to its plane of origin, or B] remain on the plane it was last on?

Most of the people in the thread are saying B. You're saying A on the basis of "Because it would be cool if it worked that way" and especially "My favourite rogue build doesn't work otherwise." Forgive me if I disagree with the former (it's actually cooler the other way around, because it means you can build ethereal castles and floating islands starting at level 5) and openly sneer at the later.

[Mord]

This stupid argument has inspired me to write some stupid flash fiction to celebrate it. I hope you like SCPs.

Item #: SCP-3.5

Object Class: Euclid

Special Containment Procedures: SCP-3.5 is to be kept on a publicly accessible Web page that has been excluded from search indexing using a no-store directive. The URL of this Web page is currently ▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮, but it may be relocated as deemed necessary by a designated agent of the SCP Foundation's Information Technology Containment department.

Description: SCP-3.5 is an article clarifying an obscure rules interaction for the third edition of the popular role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons. Specific details regarding its contents or identifying metadata are integral with the SCP object.

The anomalous properties of SCP-3.5 are memetic in nature and manifest in any person who reads and understands its contents within the framework of the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game. Experiments in which D-Class personnel without any history of engaging in the role-playing games hobby have been exposed to SCP-3.5 have established that SCP-3.5 is harmless to ordinary persons. Test subjects report that the text of SCP-3.5 is rife with specialized jargon and written in a dry, technical manner; test subjects claim to be unable to recall any specific details regarding the contents of the article immediately after reading. It is unclear as to whether this is due to a memory-affecting property of the text or a failure of reading comprehension on the part of the test subjects. Dr.▮▮▮▮▮ had proposed use of electrical stimulation as a means of negative reinforcement to promote retention, but this is unlikely to ever take place due to later developments (see Addendum).

The dangers of exposure to SCP-3.5 only manifest in persons who are very familiar with the rules of Dungeons & Dragons or similar games. D-Class personnel who were self-described "role-playing gamers" prior to exposure to SCP-3.5 became irrationally and inappropriately belligerent when questioned about the contents of the text. The general pattern of responses was that the contents were "obvious" and that the experimenters' inquiries were made "in bad faith." At no point did affected test subjects disclose any information pertaining to the specific contents of the article by means of direct quotation or paraphrase. Affected test subjects universally became increasingly agitated and insulting as the interview continued. Several appeared to develop a persecution complex, claiming apropos nothing that they were being unreasonably expected to provide "citation after citation." Most of the affected test subjects were able to regain their composure when the interview questions were redirected to a different topic, but a few persisted and became physically violent in the face of efforts to change the subject. These subjects displayed uncontrollable violent aggression and necessitated that additional security staff be called in to restrain them. Fortunately, affected test subjects were generally below the population mean for physical strength. The remains of these subjects are presently in deep freeze in Morgue 347-A.

Despite its cognitohazardous nature, the article must remain online and publicly accessible because otherwise you stupid cocksuckers are going to keep asking me about this stupid goddamn bullshit that I know you ALL KNOW is FUCKING OBVIOUS at this point, but are still saying otherwise for some fucking reason, because I have provided all the references you should need to figure out that ▮▮▮▮▮ ▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮ ▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮ ▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮
▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮, you stupid goddamn monkeys.

Addendum: Dr. ▮▮▮▮▮ was placed on administrative leave in Psychiatric Holding Facility 3 shortly after completing his initial experiments probing the nature of SCP-3.5. This was due to his inadvertent exposure to the object and his undisclosed affinity for tabletop gaming. His supervising psychiatrist, Dr. ▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮, recommends that the containment procedures that Dr. ▮▮▮▮▮ devised for SCP-3.5 be reviewed and revised in light of the unknown date of Dr. ▮▮▮▮▮'s exposure to the object.

[Username17]

Nobody here thinks that Blink continues effecting thrown objects.

That's a load of horseshit. This is just a denial in depth act. You got people here arguing that Blink continues to affect thrown objects. DDMW's argument is that the 20% miss chance still applies to thrown objects because the thrown object is still being affected by blink. merxa is also claiming that objects continue being affected by spells when they cease being attended objects.

Now those people are wrong. And obviously wrong. Because the argument that spells affect things that they don't affect is clearly, tautologically false. But that really is the argument they are making.

You're the guy who's making the claim that blink can end with you being on the ethereal instead of the material. That argument is also clearly bullshit. I mean, it's just obviously not how the spell works. As near as I can tell, you are the only person making that argument, and no one else has jumped on it because it's fucking retarded.

And that's one of the reasons we know you aren't making sincere or good faith arguments. If you thought your argument had any real merit at all, you wouldn't be claiming to be on the same side as the people who are making arguments you think are so laughably weak that you just tried to convince us that no one was ever making them at all. You'd be saying "Yeah, fine merxa is completely full of shit, here's this other way I think things work" and we could maybe pretend you were at all serious. But you don't. You just do denial in depth where you pretend that arguments against merxa's position are gauche and pointless distractions but also smugly claim that merxa's support of your position counts for something. That isn't the mark of good faith intellectual disagreement. That's Fox News bullshit.

-Username17

[Trill]

DDMW's argument is that the 20% miss chance still applies to thrown objects because the thrown object is still being affected by blink.

As far as I understood, his Argument is that a released object stays on the plane it was released on, and that the 20% miss chance is the chance to fire it while on the ethereal plane

You're the guy who's making the claim that blink can end with you being on the ethereal instead of the material.

The spell drops you off on Material when it ends. Because fucking obviously.

Also: the argument is not whether YOU return to the material plane. It's whether stuff you released returns to the material plane. If not then it's like bungee jumping with an object: As long as you're still holding it it will move with you. But if you release it on the ground it will stay there and not move back up with you.

That argument is also clearly bullshit. I mean, it's just obviously not how the spell works. As near as I can tell, you are the only person making that argument, and no one else has jumped on it because it's fucking retarded.

How is it obvious? Please explain.

---

Everyone here seem to be getting incredibly agitated. Maybe it's time to stop this particular topic, or at least pause it to allow everyone to calm down.

[Kaelik]

Just like you are still doing right now. Because after your "I just want a citation" I GAVE you one, and then you promptly ignored that post and every post I've made since

I checked. You gave two. Neither was sufficient to disprove the claim that there does not exist a general rule of what happens to personally attended objects.

I'm not trying to prove the non existence of a rule that doesn't exist. That's not how the burden of proof works. Even if I provide a rule that conclusively states something mutually contradictory, that still wouldn't prove there aren't two mutually contradictory rules.

But hey, since you are apparently claiming this rule exists that a general rule says that spells activate on items not just people, maybe you could point to this rule?

Because here: That rule doesn't exist. Now, the way you address this is by citing this imaginary rule.

I think your problem is you don't actually understand the conversation at all. No one is claiming there is a clear unambiguous rule about what happens to items that a spell is not cast on that literally says "this, you idiot" in fact, the entire point everyone has been making is that such a rule doesn't exist.

But the fact there isn't a clear unambiguous statement doesn't mean that the rules don't provide that answer. They do. They provide the same answer for levitate, and blink, and any other spell with a target of you that doesn't have a specific contradiction.

And that rule is that shit you don't have isn't you.

Why make up an arbitrary claim of a rule that exists no where in the rules "shit you don't have is still you if you had it 6 seconds ago" why not say "six hours ago" why not "six minutes ago"

And of course, the answer is because you know every possible thing you can do by having a spell continue to effect a non valid target for time is bad, so you are trying to limit the bad to "just" 6 seconds. But there is no reason based on any actual rules to believe that things you don't have are you 6 seconds later, but not 7 seconds later.

[deaddmwalking]

I maintain that spells are inconsistent. While it would certainly be advisable that a universal rule for dropped items should exist, they do not. Thus, spells do what they say they do and they don't do things that they don't say they do. Enlarge Person and Giant Form do effectively the same thing - in the first your thrown weapons don't do damage based on your size but in the second they do - the difference is the spell description.

If there was a universal discernible rule regarding dropped objects on spells targeting a creature, and it was that the item immediately ceases to be affected by the spell, it is still possible that the rules text of blink is complete and ranged attacks are included in the miss chance. If you consider that 'the magic' is moving you back and forth, a dropped item is no longer moved. It remains on the plane that it is dropped on. Your arrows fired on the ethereal plane remain there indefinitely.

As far as the flask rogue is concerned, a 20% miss chance doesn't 'ruin the exploit'. I don't see applying the rule as written as 'ruining the fun', nor do I object to anyone on this forum changing the rule to suit their game better. If you play with house rules, I do think you should be aware of the fact and when the rules as written 'break' but your house rules don't that you shouldn't defend the overwritten original rule.

Regarding ethereal jaunt, the description does specifically say that it applies to your equipment. In that specific case, since there is no clarifying text about dropped items (as exists in invisibility) I believe that your equipment remains ethereal until the duration of the spell expires.

The rules for magic being largely inconsistent shouldn't surprise anyone. Spells have been amalgamated from multiple sources and multiple editions. If you posit any general rule, considering the total number of examples available, I expect that you could find at least one spell with descriptive text that is inconsistent with that rule.

In any case, I stand by my original and still unrequited position - spells do what they say on the tin. If a spell says you have a 20% miss chance to your attacks you have a 20% miss chance - even if the logic is stupid or wrong. Enlarge Person happens to provide a perfect example of this - the logic behind why a thrown weapon does damage based on the original weapon's size while projectile weapons do damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them is just... wrong. It's wrong based on real world physics and it is wrong based on the game rules - a bow doesn't have a damage entry - only arrows do.

I can accept magic being stupid and inconsistent.

[virgil]

A consequence of Blink (and therefore jaunt) not affecting projectile attacks: janni are TPK machines.

[merxa]

The first thing i wrote was there is no general rule for what happens when your drop an object. I believe everyone agrees with that statement.

Now if you drop an object while invisible, the spell invisibility tells you exactly what happens to it. Is that an example of some super secret general rule that exists? Some people apparently believe this is the case because they want their flask rogue to use blink in a super-cool-special way.

And ultimately, I'm totally ok with that, and I don't even really think of it as a 'house rule', it's just an interpretation which I don't especially agree with, but that's all ok. Frank pulling out people who disagree with him as playing the wrong way or being enemies of fun, or having bad wrong fun is a bullshit argument. People play the game differently, Frank of all people should have the mental capacity to acknowledge that.

I am curious however how the same people who believe a blinking rogue who drops an item that the item becomes non-blinking (and presumably reverts to being on the material plane), how they rule a number of other spells.

Take the original spell in question, ethereal jaunt. People might cast that for multiple reasons, but presumably one reason is to have the party raid some ethereal encampment of monsters. Well apparently the super-cool-special flask rogue is shit out of luck because he can't throw his flasks at the ethereal monsters because they immediately revert to the material plane -- is that fun for everyone or GM bullshit?

How about resist energy fire. Let's say the party is briefly on the elemental plane of fire and the cleric casts resist energy fire communal, now later on they engage in an exchange with say another group of adventures, does the scroll case they hand over for gold suddenly burst into flames since it left their possession? Is that really cool emergent effects of your super secret rule or just more bullshit?

Take astral projection, is the archer and flask rogue again shit out of luck because as soon as they toss an item it vanishes? Another example of your super awesome gameplay?

Levitate is a cute example, but again mostly playing to an audience that doesn't exist. The spell doesn't say anything at all about objects continuing to float. You are allowed to target unattended objects when it is cast, but all it says about attacking is the caster becomes unstable, you would think it would add a sentence about the levitation physics of projectiles right about there if there was any intention that objects continue to levitate.

People should reread ethereal jaunt, the first sentence is really damn clear on how it works and how it effects items, it says nothing about dropped items or projectiles reverting, and to say they do is just mind caulk, which is completely fine, because everyone uses mind caulk to play any god damn rpg, but trying to pronounce your mind caulk as the one true best-fun way to play the game is childish crap.

[Mistborn]

Frank I'm sorry to say it but you're being that guy. The spell description of Blink says that your attacks have a 20% miss chance, that's just the fucking RAW. That's also the fucking RAI, the intent of the Blink Spell is to be a buff with a moderate drawback, that's why in splatbooks there's Greater Blink the higher level version of the spell without that drawback.

Like seriously this is the same level of special pleading that you mocked people for using with the Factotum.

[OgreBattle]

In D&D when is a fetus considered a character that can be targeted separate from the bearing mother

[Omegonthesane]

Just like you are still doing right now. Because after your "I just want a citation" I GAVE you one, and then you promptly ignored that post and every post I've made since

I checked. You gave two. Neither was sufficient to disprove the claim that there does not exist a general rule of what happens to personally attended objects.

I'm not trying to [dis]prove the non existence of a rule that doesn't exist. That's not how the burden of proof works.

Which is a pity. Because that is what you have to fucking do if you want to state that the general rules say something so strongly that other spells do not even have to be errata'd if they contradict those general rules.

Because Blink's RAW is flatly contradicted by the assertion that your shit instantly stops being affected by spells the moment it leaves your person. And that RAW was never, ever errata'd in all the years of 3.5's run. And they'd have needed to add literally one word to the spell description to make it not conflict with what you think is the only way to read the rules.

But hey, since you are apparently claiming this rule exists that a general rule says that spells activate on items not just people, maybe you could point to this rule?

Because here: That rule doesn't exist. Now, the way you address this is by citing this imaginary rule.

Huh, you're right. I jumped to conclusions based on how most personal spells impact your equipment in practice even though they generally spell out how they do so and the limits to which they do so. Which is actually pretty silly. Oh dear.

I think your problem is you don't actually understand the conversation at all. No one is claiming there is a clear unambiguous rule about what happens to items that a spell is not cast on that literally says "this, you idiot" in fact, the entire point everyone has been making is that such a rule doesn't exist.

That's funny, earlier people were saying there was a "trivial" to find article which stated in no uncertain terms that this was how it worked, and that this was how it worked so hard as to override RAW itself. And I went looking for this article in good faith, and it was not trivial to find. So not trivial in fact that I never actually found it.

But the fact there isn't a clear unambiguous statement doesn't mean that the rules don't provide that answer. They do. They provide the same answer for levitate, and blink, and any other spell with a target of you that doesn't have a specific contradiction.

And that rule is that shit you don't have isn't you.

Why make up an arbitrary claim of a rule that exists no where in the rules "shit you don't have is still you if you had it 6 seconds ago" why not say "six hours ago" why not "six minutes ago"

And of course, the answer is because you know every possible thing you can do by having a spell continue to effect a non valid target for time is bad, so you are trying to limit the bad to "just" 6 seconds. But there is no reason based on any actual rules to believe that things you don't have are you 6 seconds later, but not 7 seconds later.

Ranged attacks with Blink have a 20% miss chance. The fact that this was never errata'd indicates that, no matter what the implications, that is just how Blink works. Any flavour text or fantasy physics intended to apply to RAW has to be back solved from the fixed point conclusion that ranged attacks with Blink have a 20% miss chance. To do otherwise requires either for you to flatly admit you are applying house rules to allow physics to be less stupid, or for Blink to have been errata'd so that ranged attacks do not have a 20% miss chance.

The so-called Frank Cheat does not violate RAW, it applies RAW. The lack of a coherent definition of a "day" means that by RAW Wizards (and Sorcerers and Bards...) can when pressed for some construction project or similar long time investment where the extended period of vulnerability is justifiable chuck their "daily" number of spells about 2.5 times a day, they just need to spend at least 16 hours resting and 30 minutes preparing spells (or concentrating for spontaneous casters). So you can justify wizards working the world's least strenuous 14 hour shift on a construction site instead of showing up, shooting their wad, and then wanking themselves to sleep for 15 hours.

By contrast, the flat assertion that there is a general rule about when your equipment stops caring about Personal spells which contradicts and overrides Blink... contradicts Blink, and come to think of it even if there was such a general rule specific trumps general.

[angelfromanotherpin]

In D&D when is a fetus considered a character that can be targeted separate from the bearing mother

I don't think it's ever directly addressed, but I will say you're going to have a hard time getting line-of-sight or line-of-effect until well into the birthing process.

[Omegonthesane]

In D&D when is a fetus considered a character that can be targeted separate from the bearing mother

Given the level of tech and cultural advancement associated with the aesthetics of D&D, I'd say either quickening or first breath.

[OgreBattle]

In D&D when is a fetus considered a character that can be targeted separate from the bearing mother

I don't think it's ever directly addressed, but I will say you're going to have a hard time getting line-of-sight or line-of-effect until well into the birthing process.

There's an escape artist check to fit in there, or shrink

[Kaelik]

I maintain that spells are inconsistent. While it would certainly be advisable that a universal rule for dropped items should exist, they do not. Thus, spells do what they say they do and they don't do things that they don't say they do. Enlarge Person and Giant Form do effectively the same thing - in the first your thrown weapons don't do damage based on your size but in the second they do - the difference is the spell description.

No one is claiming that specific rules about what happens when you put an object down or pick one up don't apply. The point is that there must also be a rule you apply when no specific rule applies, and that that rule is that things you put down are not you.

Frank I'm sorry to say it but you're being that guy. The spell description of Blink says that your attacks have a 20% miss chance, that's just the fucking RAW. That's also the fucking RAI, the intent of the Blink Spell is to be a buff with a moderate drawback, that's why in splatbooks there's Greater Blink the higher level version of the spell without that drawback.

Like seriously this is the same level of special pleading that you mocked people for using with the Factotum.

Your inability to understand how that is not "RAW" is the problem that was addressed so long ago that even the person who originally made that claim is now pretending he never made that claim.

How about resist energy fire. Let's say the party is briefly on the elemental plane of fire and the cleric casts resist energy fire communal, now later on they engage in an exchange with say another group of adventures, does the scroll case they hand over for gold suddenly burst into flames since it left their possession? Is that really cool emergent effects of your super secret rule or just more bullshit?

...... While some people (6 second rule) would involve the scroll apparently burning up, the You rule does not, because the person you hand it to is also immune to or resistant to fire, you can tell because how they aren't on fire.

[Kaelik]

I checked. You gave two. Neither was sufficient to disprove the claim that there does not exist a general rule of what happens to personally attended objects.

I'm not trying to [dis]prove the non existence of a rule that doesn't exist. That's not how the burden of proof works.

Which is a pity. Because that is what you have to fucking do if you want to state that the general rules say something so strongly that other spells do not even have to be errata'd if they contradict those general rules.

No you idiot, the thing you are saying is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. So I am not committed to disproving the existence of a secret special rule written in a book I've never heard of. If such a rule existed, it would be your job to provide a citation, my declaration that it doesn't exist is sufficient to lay out my end of the burden of proof on this rule.

Ranged attacks with Blink have a 20% miss chance. The fact that this was never errata'd indicates that, no matter what the implications, that is just how Blink works. Any flavour text or fantasy physics intended to apply to RAW has to be back solved from the fixed point conclusion that ranged attacks with Blink have a 20% miss chance. To do otherwise requires either for you to flatly admit you are applying house rules to allow physics to be less stupid, or for Blink to have been errata'd so that ranged attacks do not have a 20% miss chance.

No, see that's the thing. What I literally started this discussion out by saying is that your version of how you think rules work is flatly NOT how people commit their lives to figuring out what rules mean determine how rules work.

This version where you claim "Ah, but a part of the spell entry says a thing which if you assume X is false, means X is false, therefore X is false because the RAW says X is false" is wrong.

If you instead, assume X is true, then the line in Blink doesn't contradict X. That's how this works. If X is true, you don't need to errata blink. The specific words of the blink spell are not doing any work towards proving either side right about what things are or are not effected by the blink spell, because the argument is about what things ARE effected by the blink spell and when.

[Omegonthesane]

Not dignifying the bit where you simultaneously claim you aren't trying to prove the existence of a rule and that the general rule definitely exists so hard as to override a specific rule.

Ranged attacks with Blink have a 20% miss chance. The fact that this was never errata'd indicates that, no matter what the implications, that is just how Blink works. Any flavour text or fantasy physics intended to apply to RAW has to be back solved from the fixed point conclusion that ranged attacks with Blink have a 20% miss chance. To do otherwise requires either for you to flatly admit you are applying house rules to allow physics to be less stupid, or for Blink to have been errata'd so that ranged attacks do not have a 20% miss chance.

No, see that's the thing. What I literally started this discussion out by saying is that your version of how you think rules work is flatly NOT how people commit their lives to figuring out what rules mean determine how rules work.

I'm going to cut you off there, because the 3.5 rules were not intended to be parsed by experts and applied in a court of law. They were intended to be parsed at a surface level by laymen who had never seen any wider context. The correct interpretation of Blink is not the interpretation that requires understanding of D&D physics because most players and most refs are not expected to understand D&D physics.

Thus, at the accessibility level that the rules were meant to be read at, an errata that Blink affects only melee attacks is necessary, because not everyone wants to read a dissertation on why you should interpret a general rule that personal spells don't affect your former equipment as overriding a specific rule that arrows you shoot while under a spell that makes your attacks have a 20% miss chance have a 20% miss chance.

ETA: The real world does not have the same hard line between fluff and crunch that tabletop RPGs inherently have. Thus the Second Amendment "explanatory clause" bullshit is indeed bullshit, because the explanation for why states should have guns is part of the amendment that states should have guns, and not a bit of pop up text to entertain you while you give individual people guns.

Whereas in an RPG, the fluff is explicitly subordinate to the crunch if the two should conflict. If the fluff text for a game mechanic is incompatible with how the game mechanic actually works, and you've already gone to print, then at the GM's end the fluff changes to meet the game mechanic, because only errata can change the game mechanic to meet the fluff.

(And the moment you say shit about "house rules" it's no longer a discussion about how the rules that were actually published deal with dissonance between fluff and crunch.)

[Kaelik]

Not dignifying the bit where you simultaneously claim you aren't trying to prove the existence of a rule and that the general rule definitely exists so hard as to override a specific rule.

Hey, you are really dumb, but there is in fact a difference between saying something is true and trying to logically prove a negative. Again, I'm not trying to logically prove a negative because that is not a thing that is possible. Your inability to understand the difference does not in fact, reflect badly on everyone but you.

I'm going to cut you off there, because the 3.5 rules were not intended to be parsed by experts and applied in a court of law. They were intended to be parsed at a surface level by laymen who had never seen any wider context. The correct interpretation of Blink is not the interpretation that requires understanding of D&D physics because most players and most refs are not expected to understand D&D physics.

That's not how constitutions or statutes are written either. Interpreting texts as a process doesn't require, and in fact is mostly practiced, on things not created by people aiming for the Court's attention.

But sure, keep telling me how D&D is different, so in D&D the correct way to interpret things is to ignore context.

[Jason]

No one is claiming that specific rules about what happens when you put an object down or pick one up don't apply. The point is that there must also be a rule you apply when no specific rule applies, and that that rule is that things you put down are not you.

Your entire line of reasoning is based on the assumption, that spells with a duration are continously reapplied throughout the entire duration of the spell. Otherwise, dropping an item wouldn't even matter unless specifically specified under the rules of the spell.

Take Ethereal Jaunt for example. The spell even states that is applies to your carried equipment as well.
If you now assume that spell once cast retains ist effect throughout the duration, it wouldn't matter whether the projectiles at some Point cease to be in your Possession as they would retain the effect throughout the duration, unless the spell is dispelled at which Point they would lose their effect even if they are no longer in possession of your character.

So, the question is: does a spell get continously recast throughout its duration or is the effect cast once and then persists throughout the duration?

Do we have a rule that specifies this? That's an honest question, because I don't know the answer to that. But seeing as your entire line of reasoning hinges on this particularity it might be nescessary to establish that.

So I am not committed to disproving the existence of a secret special rule written in a book I've never heard of.

You have not been asked to disprove anything, in fact. You have been asked to prove your argument that unattended items, as a general rule, lose spell benefits on spells with a duration.

No, see that's the thing. What I literally started this discussion out by saying is that your version of how you think rules work is flatly NOT how people commit their lives to figuring out what rules mean determine how rules work.

This version where you claim "Ah, but a part of the spell entry says a thing which if you assume X is false, means X is false, therefore X is false because the RAW says X is false" is wrong.

If you instead, assume X is true, then the line in Blink doesn't contradict X. That's how this works. If X is true, you don't need to errata blink. The specific words of the blink spell are not doing any work towards proving either side right about what things are or are not effected by the blink spell, because the argument is about what things ARE effected by the blink spell and when.

That's not how game rules work, Kaelik. Rules do what they say and nothing else. You can't just bring additional Monopoly money to a Monopoly game to hand out to yourself after the game started just because there is no rule forbidding it. Again, that's not how rules work.

[Kaelik]

Your entire line of reasoning is based on the assumption, that spells with a duration are continously reapplied throughout the entire duration of the spell. Otherwise, dropping an item wouldn't even matter unless specifically specified under the rules of the spell.

...

So, the question is: does a spell get continously recast throughout its duration or is the effect cast once and then persists throughout the duration?

Do we have a rule that specifies this? That's an honest question, because I don't know the answer to that. But seeing as your entire line of reasoning hinges on this particularity it might be nescessary to establish that.

Anyone who put even the TINIEST amount of work into reading what I've said in this thread would realize why this is fucking stupid and nothing to do with what I have said. Learn to read or fuck off.

You have not been asked to disprove anything, in fact. You have been asked to prove your argument that unattended items, as a general rule, lose spell benefits on spells with a duration.

He very specifically whined about how the rules I did provide don't prove that there's not a secret hidden rule I'm not providing, and specifically claimed I hadn't disproved the hypothetical existence of this magic rule.

[Username17]

The only arguments against blink flask are one of the following two:

• The claim that blink can end with the subject on the Ethereal plane.
• The claim that a personal spell can continue affecting objects that are no longer attended object.

Both of those arguments are absurd. Like, really obviously absurd. We don't have to take either one of them seriously because even the people making them admit that they are ridiculous arguments and it's just plain rude to distract from the conversation by even bringing up the fact that those arguments are so laughably weak. Multiple people have claimed that no one is making those arguments, having conceded that they are stupid beyond belief.

So we get into special pleading. Having admitted that yes, obviously blink ends with the subject on the material plane, Grek has retreated to "but what if a portion of the subject could get left on the ethereal plane through a completely unexplained mechanism?" Having admitted that yes, obviously a rock you are no longer holding is no longer subject to the effects of your personal spells, Omegonthesane has retreated to "but what if there's a completely undefined time frame after a rock is no longer being held where the spell still affects it because the magic hasn't had a chance to turn off yet?"

Those are bullshit rabbit holes of bullshit. I mean obviously. If you've conceded the general points above, you don't get to make up rules to argue about. And you especially don't get to be taken seriously on a "Prove me wrong!" argument when you've made up a distinction that doesn't exist to plant your flag into.

There is no possible way to find citations to disprove that kind of moving goalpost. And no, we aren't going to play that game.

-Username17

[erik]

Is there anywhere an example of a personal spell affecting an object after it becomes an unattended object?

[Ice9]

The claim that blink can end with the subject on the Ethereal plane.

Ok, come on, this is a pretty blatant straw man. Objects are not the same as creatures in D&D. Things affect them in different ways. And in particular, something ceasing to be affected when it leaves your possession is not the same situation as the spell expiring on you.

Example: Fly. If you drop a rock while flying, does it gently float downward for 1d6 rounds? Because that's what happens to the target creature if Fly expires or is dispelled.

[Username17]

The claim that blink can end with the subject on the Ethereal plane.

Ok, come on, this is a pretty blatant straw man. Objects are not the same as creatures in D&D. Things affect them in different ways. And in particular, something ceasing to be affected when it leaves your possession is not the same situation as the spell expiring on you.

Example: Fly. If you drop a rock while flying, does it gently float downward for 1d6 rounds? Because that's what happens to the target creature if Fly expires or is dispelled.

Fly is a weird example because it has two different ways to end. If it ends abruptly, as is the case by entering an anti-magic field, things fall at the normal rate. If it ends via dispel magic or having the duration end, then things drift slowly to the ground. Spells that don't have that kind of extremely specific rule about ending in a non-standard fashion would always end the same way.

In the specific case of fly, you could make an argument about whether a dropped rock falls (as it is abruptly ended by no longer being the subject of the spell for targeting reasons, similar to being stripped by an anti-magic field) or drifts slowly (as being removed as a target causes the spell to end for it, triggering the end of duration clause). Personally, I would rule that the rock falls, because moving from a position where the rock is subject to the spell to a position where it is not seems more similar to moving across an anti-magic field to me than it does to having a spell have dispel magic cast on it. But that's obviously a reasonable debate people could have, because there are a metric fuck tonne of ways a spell effect can end and only 3 of them are actually listed in the spell. I don't have strong opinions on whether Mordenkainen's Disjunction is more similar to dispel magic or anti-magic field, for example.

But it's also important to note that spells that don't have special cases for how they end in different ways don't do anything different when they end in different ways. They just stop doing whatever they were doing however it is that they are stopped. Very notably, blink is not a spell that has different ways to end. So people claiming that there is some kind of secret rule where some circumstance might make it end in a way that produces opposite outcomes from the way everyone agrees it actually ends are not sincere. That is deeply bullshit special pleading.

It's just inventing a distinction that doesn't exist and challenging people to provide a citation that the non-distinct case functions the way things normally function. That's just goalpost moving. We don't have to pretend it's a good faith argument. Even if we directly addressed the non-distinct case, the people involved would obviously just split hairs and invent another equally non-existent distinction and issue the same challenge again. And again and again. Like they've already been doing.

-Username17

[shlominus]

the object is let go. it ceases to be affected by a spell that allows it to "blink" between planes. because it is no longer affected by said spell it is stuck on the plane it is let go on. i don't see any reason to assume that the object in question somehow aquires the ability to change plane by itself. it only did so because it was attached to the caster, who was in turn affected by the spell that allowed him to do so.

the effect of blink is to be able to travel between planes incredibly quickly. the object loses that ability, so it will always be stuck on the plane it is on when no longer attached to the caster. the poor thing. the effect of blink is not "be on the ethereal plane". if it was, then the object would return to the material plane. but it isn't.

if a spell turns you invisible, the item dropped stops being invisible.
if a spell allows you to "blink" between planes quickly, the item stops doing that.

but this is just me being nice and trying to explain what actually happens when you apply raw. the rules couldn't be more explicit: your attacks miss 20% of the time while blinking. i wish all rules were that clear.