Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

[Kaelik]

That's the rule. Blink targets you. Arrows and flasks somewhere over there are not you, so Blink doesn't do anything to them.

This is literally what was explained to you from the beginning.

The surrounding context of other spells with Range: Personal indicates that "You" encompasses "yourself and all your equipment" and not just your body. Your clothes don't stay visible when you cast Invisibility, or burst when you cast Enlarge Self.

Spells that effect you also affect your attended items. That does not, in fact, mean that they affect items that you are not attending. You are not attending arrows that are not in your possession, you are attending arrows that are in your possession.

The spell has an effect on "You" and the definition of what is or isn't "You" changes. It doesn't have the effect on "the things that are classified as you at the time of spellcasting, but not the things that weren't you at that time."

If you cast Polymorph Any Object on yourself in a way that is permanent, you don't slowly turn back into your human form while slowly shitting out dragon parts because you are eating food that wasn't you and shitting out parts of you that were you when the spell was cast.

[Grek]

Frank, you're full of shit here. Give up, man. You were wrong.

[deaddmwalking]

I think we're approaching a more interesting place than simply what blink does (and by extension, ethereal jaunt. Regarding fire shield, no, it doesn't give you super-hot breath that can be used as a weapon. That'd be an effect that would be specifically called out as relevant.

Spell descriptions are important and weird. In the 3.5 PHB they go from page 181 to page 303. That's 40% of the book. Every single spell breaks 'reality' in some way - that's why they're called 'magic'. There are a lot of descriptions that use the same language; there are other descriptions that use call functions to other spells (sometimes nested call functions). Now, there is a chapter before the spells that lays out commonalities (like range and duration), but each spell description is a special snowflake - that's as deep as the rabbit hole goes. There is no underlying common metaphysics that makes it all work. If this were Shadowrun there would be. And we can make an argument that there should be, but you're crazy if you think there is.

But let me not try to convince you. Since invisibility has come up several times let me refer to it here.

The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. (Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions.) Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.

Consider the following questions. Why does attacking a creature end this spell, but attacking an unattended object does not? What if you attacked what you believed to be a normal statue (unattended object), but it was actually an animated statue (creature)? What does attacking a creature while invisible imply about any other spell with a range of personal and a duration? Do invisibility and sanctuary imply that protection from evil ends when you attack another creature?

Spell descriptions do what they say. The words that are printed on the page. Maybe they're consistent with designer intent, or maybe they're not, but they work the way they say they do, even when that's crazy...

For example, compare Giant Size (Compete Arcane) with Enlarge Person. Giant Size omits text about missile and projectile weapons reverting back to small size and doing lower damage. Enlarge Person is a little strange in that weapon damage is a combination of both size and power. A ballista bolt the size of a tree does more damage than an arrow in part because of the size - but an arrow fired from a ballista should do normal ballista damage according to the description of enlarge person??? Even though it doesn't make any sense, the spell works the way it works because that's the way it says it does.

It really is as simple as that. Sure, disappointing, but simple.

[Kaelik]

That's a whole lot of words to say that you refuse to address the arguments you begged for that had already been made and we all knew you were going to ignore, and that you still believe that spells effect things that they aren't cast on.

[Shiritai]

The thing is, etherealness isn't a property, it's a location. Ethereal items and material items only differ in whether they're on the ethereal or material plane. So if you shoot an arrow while under the effects of Blink then sure, it's not affected by the spell anymore, and it stays in whatever plane it was in when it left your possession. Right?

[Username17]

How so? The effect of the Fireshield is limited in scope, it doesn't even turn the weapons in your hands into flaming doom so why would it do any such thing to the air in your lungs.

Fireshield very much does change the weapons in your hand to flaming doom. It's a dumb spell, but if someone attacks "you" by attempting to sunder a shield or disarm your sword, they do get zapped. Because your sword and shield are attended objects and count as "you" while you are carrying them.

Now we could get into the weeds about how Fire Shield is weird as fuck and as written doesn't burn things when you touch them with your burning hands or face because the flames are only "warm" or "cool" to the touch unless other people are making attacks. But the flames nevertheless do burn people that attack things you are holding. Because that is how Personal spells work in D&D. But the flames do not burn people that attack things you own that you are not holding. Nor do they burn people who attack things that you used to be holding that you have since put down. Again, because that is how Personal spells work in D&D.

The thing is, etherealness isn't a property, it's a location. Ethereal items and material items only differ in whether they're on the ethereal or material plane. So if you shoot an arrow while under the effects of Blink then sure, it's not affected by the spell anymore, and it stays in whatever plane it was in when it left your possession. Right?

Blink doesn't have a 50% chance of leaving you stranded on the Ethereal Plane, so no.

Frank, you're full of shit here. Give up, man. You were wrong.

Wat.

Again and still: finding the appropriate Rules of the Game article is in fact trivial. The reason that Kaelik, angel, and myself are being so condescending to DDMW is that it genuinely does say in black and white that we are right and he is wrong. We haven't put the quote up because he's already said that he wouldn't accept a direct quote that he was wrong and is in fact arguing in extremely bad faith.

-Username17

[Grek]

The effect of the spell is that You (ie. your body and your attended items) move rapidly back and forth between the Material and Ethereal Planes. When you throw something (or drop it for that matter), the item stops being attended and gets left behind on the Plane you were on when you let go of it. If you were on Material when you let go, the now unattended item ends up on the Material Plane and if instead you were on Ethereal, it ends up on the Ethereal Plane instead. It doesn't automagically shift back to the Plane you started on. Nowhere in the spell does it say that. And because there's a 20% chance to accidentally let go while on the wrong Plane, there's a 20% chance that your thrown flask is accidentally thrown on the Ethereal Plane. Thus, the miss chance.

E: What the fuck do you think happens if you cast Ethereal Jaunt and drop something, Frank? Are you trying to claim that it will phase back in when you do? The second it gets dropped?

[Omegonthesane]

That's the rule. Blink targets you. Arrows and flasks somewhere over there are not you, so Blink doesn't do anything to them.

This is literally what was explained to you from the beginning.

The surrounding context of other spells with Range: Personal indicates that "You" encompasses "yourself and all your equipment" and not just your body. Your clothes don't stay visible when you cast Invisibility, or burst when you cast Enlarge Self.

Spells that effect you also affect your attended items. That does not, in fact, mean that they affect items that you are not attending. You are not attending arrows that are not in your possession, you are attending arrows that are in your possession.

That is not how any other spell range in the game works. Spells check whether or not a thing is within the spell range at the moment of casting and at no other time. What precedent do you have, in terms that the game keeps track of, to argue that there is a general - not specific, general - rule that Range: You is different from Range: 25' burst in this regard?

The spell has an effect on "You" and the definition of what is or isn't "You" changes. It doesn't have the effect on "the things that are classified as you at the time of spellcasting, but not the things that weren't you at that time."

If you cast Polymorph Any Object on yourself in a way that is permanent, you don't slowly turn back into your human form while slowly shitting out dragon parts because you are eating food that wasn't you and shitting out parts of you that were you when the spell was cast.

Could you stop with the arguments that rely on what would happen if D&D kept track of things that D&D doesn't keep track of? D&D does not track the present or future location of single body cells at any point. The sub-mechanical components of the object "your body" might change moment to moment but the whole object "your body" was targeted by the spell. Likewise if you were for some reason to cast Invisibility on your sword and make it permanent, the sword would not slowly turn effectively visible as its exposed metal oxidised thus containing oxygen cells that were not part of the original target range.

How so? The effect of the Fireshield is limited in scope, it doesn't even turn the weapons in your hands into flaming doom so why would it do any such thing to the air in your lungs.

Fireshield very much does change the weapons in your hand to flaming doom. It's a dumb spell, but if someone attacks "you" by attempting to sunder a shield or disarm your sword, they do get zapped. Because your sword and shield are attended objects and count as "you" while you are carrying them.

Now we could get into the weeds about how Fire Shield is weird as fuck and as written doesn't burn things when you touch them with your burning hands or face because the flames are only "warm" or "cool" to the touch unless other people are making attacks. But the flames nevertheless do burn people that attack things you are holding. Because that is how Personal spells work in D&D. But the flames do not burn people that attack things you own that you are not holding. Nor do they burn people who attack things that you used to be holding that you have since put down. Again, because that is how Personal spells work in D&D.

You cannot extrapolate a general rule from a single example. You yourself just conceded that Fireshield is a terrible starting point for any claim about what all Personal spells do because it's "weird as fuck". The flames of Fireshield do not work the way they do because of any property of Personal spells. The flames of Fireshield work the way they do because of the properties of the Fireshield spell and the Fireshield spell alone.

Again and still: finding the appropriate Rules of the Game article is in fact trivial. The reason that Kaelik, angel, and myself are being so condescending to DDMW is that it genuinely does say in black and white that we are right and he is wrong. We haven't put the quote up because he's already said that he wouldn't accept a direct quote that he was wrong and is in fact arguing in extremely bad faith.

-Username17

Well it's not under Reading Spell Descriptions and it's not under Magical Oddities and given that "Skip smokes crack" was a meme when 3.5 was active it's odd that he's suddenly a more authoritative source than the spell descriptions that went to print. If the idea that Blink only has a miss chance for melee attacks was how Blink actually worked there would in fact be errata to that effect because the book that was printed erred in not making that clear in the original text.

[maglag]

Man, this multi-page multi-day discussion sure is a good example of how 5e sucks.

Oh wait, you're discussing 3.5.

Maybe it's some obscure splatbook?

Oh wait, core mid-level spells.

A decade and half old, and people here still can't even agree on how 3.5 basic rules work.

Could it be... 3.5 rules are a clusterfuck of unclear wording, loops and self-contradictions and actually need a significant dose of mind-caulk to actually be played and each group develops their own personal version?

(I particularly liked the bit where somebody was going "I've found an online article that proves my point beyond my doubt, but I refuse to provide a link just because")

[Username17]

Grek, that's stupid. Like DDMW you are obviously not arguing in good faith. You have never in your life made someone roll a die to see if they were stranded on the Ethereal when their blink ended. You just obviously have never done that and you will never do it. This is a disengenous argument. You aren't arguing in good faith, so get fucked.

I'm not going to pretend you have a reasoned counter argument when you are obviously grasping at straws.

The thing where you can get a minor benefit from blink or ethereal jaunt by throwing things and have the spell end for them is kind of cool, but it's also super minor. The thing where it enrages you that someone could get a minor benefit from the limits of personal spells to the point where you would pretend to believe ridiculous things is hilarious. But it doesn't mean we take your objections seriously. Quite the opposite.

[Omegonthesane]

Grek, that's stupid. Like DDMW you are obviously not arguing in good faith. You have never in your life made someone roll a die to see if they were stranded on the Ethereal when their blink ended. You just obviously have never done that and you will never do it. This is a disengenous argument. You aren't arguing in good faith, so get fucked.

That is a total nonsequitur.
The effect of Blink is that relative to its starting position the target is flickering between ethereal and material. When the spell ends they return to the material. Until the moment the spell stops, they have a chance of being on the ethereal or the material at any given moment. Hence the miss chance.

I'm not going to pretend you have a reasoned counter argument when you are obviously grasping at straws.

Says the person who for once is grasping at straws. I've come to expect better from you Frank.

The thing where you can get a minor benefit from blink or ethereal jaunt by throwing things and have the spell end for them is kind of cool, but it's also super minor. The thing where it enrages you that someone could get a minor benefit from the limits of personal spells to the point where you would pretend to believe ridiculous things is hilarious. But it doesn't mean we take your objections seriously. Quite the opposite.

The only absurd things expressed in this discussion have been that the obvious interpretation of how all Personal spells work is one that is not only never spelled out but totally contradicted by multiple printed examples, and that an archived web article on the finer points of a fictional physical model that no one understands trump the printed, never-errata'd text of the Blink spell as a canon source of Rules As Written.

If Blink isn't meant to apply a 20% miss chance to ranged attacks then why doesn't it have errata to that effect?

There are no general rules that state that Personal spells always stop affecting your equipment when you drop said equipment. None. Not any. If there were then you would have pointed to them on the SRD instead of claiming that a contentious point is actually obvious in stark contradiction to the evidence right in front of your eyeballs.

[Username17]

Omegonthesane, what was that? That thing that happens when the spell ends? You agree that's what happens right? You just fucking said that's what happens.

Go read the spell again. Why do you know that you return to the material when the spell ends?

The reality is that you pig fuckers are doing denial in depth bullshit. I am not playing. I'm not going to go produce citation after citation that you have already admitted you won't accept. We're just going back to the basic issue where you fucking obviously know what happens when the spell ends

[deaddmwalking]

Omegonthesane, what was that? That thing that happens when the spell ends? You agree that's what happens right? You just fucking said that's what happens.

Go read the spell again. Why do you know that you return to the material when the spell ends?

The reality is that you pig fuckers are doing denial in depth bullshit. I am not playing. I'm not going to go produce citation after citation that you have already admitted you won't accept. We're just going back to the basic issue where you fucking obviously know what happens when the spell ends

Wow! This is really beneath you, Frank. I said I would accept the citation to the web article. Not having actually read it, I can't say that it will be convincing. But I'm willing to say that I'm 100% wrong on the web if I can read it. I've also explained that I've played 1st edition where the rules in the PHB were modified by the rules in the DMG and players were not supposed to read them. D&D has a long history of 'secret rules', so it wouldn't surprise me. There is no denial in depth. You claim the rules work a certain way. I'm not familiar with that claim. Apparently a web article on planar travel addresses it? It certainly seems relevant. Put up or shut up. One link. You don't even need to provide a page number. I'll read the whole thing. I think everyone on this site has gone off the rails once or twice, but generally I think you know your shit - I'd be happier believing that you had a firm basis for this belief even if I don't find it personally convincing.

And yes, I don't 100% find Sage Advice articles convincing. That doesn't mean I won't find this one to be so, but I generally do apply a hierarchy of 'truth' to D&D. The core books (with errata) typically rate highest with other published works rating next. I don't think Mike Mearl's lunch-time ideas are 'real D&D' so it's hard to say that I would 100% find a web article authoritative. I have not been told where it was published, who was cited as the author, whether it was considered official WotC material or 3rd party, etc. Setting a clear expectation is not 'refusing to accept a source'. If I were the one arguing in bad faith, you would have provided the web article (assuming you have access). Especially if it is trivial. I've looked for information to support YOUR argument. I haven't found it. Refusal to provide evidence to support your argument is on you.

From reading the various rules, I don't think that there is a general rule that when you drop an item, all spell effects on it end. When you cast a personal spell, many of them (like invisibility and blink make a point that it affects your equipment as well. In the case of invisibility it says what happens when you drop an item (it becomes visible) but it does not explicitly say in blink. The spell descriptions have a pretty good track record of laying out information that is relevant to your attacks while under the spell. Enlarge Person provides an example of that. Blink indicates that attacks have a 20% miss chance. They could have said 'melee attacks' or they could have added a sentence about ranged attacks. At the very least, the designers are guilty of an error of omission. When I choose to run the spell exactly as it is written, that doesn't make me crazy.

You're looking for a 'gotcha' because I don't apply a consistent rule about dropped items for spells with a duration. I'm the one holding a position that each spell works the way it says it does, and that trying to extend one spell's description to another spell puts you on infirm ground. If you're able to throw pieces of 'you' (like throwing your familiar into a creature) it doesn't do damage like a fireball or a flame breath or burning hands. If you shove your burning dick down an opponent's throat it doesn't do any damage - but if they bite you, suddenly they do. From a physics standpoint, that makes no sense. You brought up fireshield and yes, it is fucking weird. All of the spells are fucking weird. They're all special snowflakes with their own rules and the commonalities they share are described PRIOR to the spell descriptions.

Absent a citation to support your position, I assert that the description of blink is clear; the 20% miss chance applies to ranged attacks; exempting ranged attacks would have been trivial to do in writing the spell and that the deliberate choice not to do so makes any other reading nonsensical.

[Omegonthesane]

deaddmw: if it helps I already posted a link to all the Skip articles and skimmed the ones that sound like they should contain statements that apply a general case to what happens when objects stop being part of your equipment while a Range: You spell is running.

Well it's not under Reading Spell Descriptions and it's not under Magical Oddities and given that "Skip smokes crack" was a meme when 3.5 was active it's odd that he's suddenly a more authoritative source than the spell descriptions that went to print. If the idea that Blink only has a miss chance for melee attacks was how Blink actually worked there would in fact be errata to that effect because the book that was printed erred in not making that clear in the original text.

Then I went back and read all the "There, Not There" articles and they don't say shit about items that leave your possession mid Ethereal Jaunt either. The closest they come is something pertaining to ghost touch weapons and wielders who just are incorporeal all the time:

If an incorporeal creature fires ghost touch ammunition or throws a ghost touch weapon, the projectile or weapon becomes corporeal the moment it leaves the incorporeal creature's possession, though it retains the ghost touch property.

So yeah, actively been looking for citations in the place I was told was trivial to find them, and can't find them.

Omegonthesane, what was that? That thing that happens when the spell ends? You agree that's what happens right? You just fucking said that's what happens.

Go read the spell again. Why do you know that you return to the material when the spell ends?

The fuck does this have to do with when spells end? The claim was regarding whether the spell ends for a piece of equipment when that equipment leaves your possession.

Oh wait, I get it now: you're trying to compare extrapolating a perfectly reasonable thing from the actual text actually written (that there is not a general rule about what happens when equipment leaves your person, hence it has to be addressed on a case by case basis whenever relevant in spell descriptions) with extrapolating an absolutely ridiculous interpretation worthy of the Viking Hat from a failure to explicitly refuse it in the spell text (assuming that because 50% of your blinking time is spent on the ethereal there is a less than 100% chance that you are kicked to the material when the spell ends).

You haven't been asked to produce citation after citation. You've been asked to produce a citation, one, from a source that is so credible that it should be read as overriding the literal rules text of the Blink spell which states in no uncertain terms that attacks, not excluding ranged attacks, have a 20% miss chance because the arrow has a 20% chance of being on the ethereal at the moment of impact. The closest anyone has said to claiming citations will not be accepted was the claim that maybe a Skip Cracksmoker article is less credible than the text that went to print and was never errata'd in the event that the two should outright clash - and I couldn't even find the Rules Of The Game article you referred to that you said was trivial to find!

Condescending arrogance isn't that good a look when you're right, sure it entertains people who agree with you but not everyone on the fence is vulnerable to that sort of rhetoric and anyone outright opposing you will dig their heels due to feeling attacked. It's fucking insufferable when you're obviously wrong absent evidence you refuse to display.

Go on. If this Skip article is so easy to find surely you can remember its title, I gave you the list already.

[tussock]

It seems like an obviously bullshit reading of Ethereal Jaunt to suggest you can use normal ranged weapons while ethereal just because it's a personal spell with a duration.

An ethereal creature can’t attack material creatures, and spells you cast while ethereal affect only other ethereal things.

Even force effects and Ghost Touch doesn't hurt material creatures, when used while ethereal. That is the same detail in every part of the book about being ethereal, you can't attack material creatures, at all.

When you're blinking, you unpredictably go ethereal just as you strike on 20% of attacks and spells, leaving you with an invalid target and a failed attack or spell, because you can't attack material targets. If you want to go source diving, that's about where that ends.

I get y'all want to say, "but my flasks aren't blinking after I put them down", and I generally agree and would suggest you can totally place things on the ethereal plane that way (with a 20% failure chance), including using your ethereal equipment to attack ethereal creatures while you are ethereal like it says you fucking can in the fucking blink spell.

Since you spend about half your time on the Ethereal Plane, you can see and even attack ethereal creatures. You interact with ethereal creatures roughly the same way you interact with material ones.

You're welcome. Note, before you go crazy, they say "roughly" because no one's invisible to your ethereal opponents, so it's not the same, but it's roughly the same and you can figure it out without them repeating the whole column of text.

Oh, and the reason you pop out of the ethereal plane when the spell ends, is because that's what a duration means on a plane shifting spell, even a funny one like Blink where you're not always ethereal.

@maglag, this is why people like 3e. You can actually solve these problems rather than just buying extra pizza and hoping for the best. Generally goes a bit quicker with less dick waving, but whatever, there's just so many big dicks here.

[Grek]

You have never in your life made someone roll a die to see if they were stranded on the Ethereal when their blink ended. You just obviously have never done that and you will never do it.

The spell drops you off on Material when it ends. Because fucking obviously. Don't give me this shit, you know how the spell works. Everybody else has managed to figure this one out. Only you and Kaelik disagree here, and that's because Kaelik is a cock-grubbing sycophant incapable of original thought, while you have an ego the size of a blimp and don't want to admit that you got a rule wrong years ago on the fucking internet.

[Username17]

The point is that we're not going to do the game where we run through books and find citations and then you refuse to accept them and demand different citations and so on. It's a dumb game and we aren't going to do it because you've already given the game away right at the beginning that you aren't going to budge. So instead the answer is: get fucked. That's it. There was a time when I found it amusing to cite chapter and verse of D&D rules to show exactly how and why people were wrong on the internet, but now I don't. If you want to make an argument, go ahead and make it, but don't expect me to respond to demands that I refute it with much more than sneering condescension.

Your argument is dumb and I don't take it seriously. The. End.

The truth is that you know that Blink leaves you on the material plane when it ends. I know that you know that. Grek might pretend to not know that so he can try to win the argument but that's stupid. Obviously he knows that Blink ends with you on the Material and he is not arguing in good faith when he claims otherwise.

Further, the truth is also that you know that when you have Blink up that a rock in your possession blinks with you and a rock that leaves your possession stops blinking. Obviously you know that. And while merxa may pretend to not know that for purposes of winning the argument, it is obvious that he does know that and is arguing in bad faith.

So what is clear is that there are several people who are so offended by the reality that a rock that leaves your possession when you throw it with force simply becomes a non-blinking rock on the material plane that you will make bad faith arguments and pretend to not know things you obviously do know. But you know what? That's not reasoned debate. That's you throwing a temper tantrum. And I'm not going to take your wailing seriously. I am going to tell you to get fucked. So get fucked.

-Username17

[deaddmwalking]

Turns out that dropping an item on the ethereal plane and assuming it remains there at least through the duration of the spell isn't settled. And it looks like every single time this comes up the same people like to claim that this is 'settled' and have never provided any support. Believing that blink includes a 20% miss chance is awfully popular for a stupid reading that you'd have to be stupid to believe.

Kaelik knows this:

Things like blink not having a miss chance for ranged attacks, or rogues being able to disable Walls of Force have been TGD rules interpretations since 2004, and I'm just codifying them in the class so that if someone elsewhere doesn't have to look up decade old TGD threads to see blink arguments or "magical trap" arguments.

Good on Kaelik. Making it so that there's no miss chance for his Tome Ninja is certainly clear. Of course, it wouldn't be necessary if there were only one reasonable interpretation of the rules.

Trying to find examples where it was covered, I found this:

Fuck you. Flask rogue is common fucking knowledge.

It's really not. And I'm pretty sure that it never crops up in real games, and I'm doubly sure that most DMs would nerf it on the spot. And, yes, I'm going to bring up the fact that blink is such a poorly-written spell to say that I don't agree with you interpretation of it, and I think that it gives your own attacks a 20% miss chance.

Let the shitstorm commence.

Everywhere I've seen people claim that a projectile weapon immediately reverts to the material plane is based on an extrapolation from invisibility and enlarge person. I stand by my position. Blink has all the relevant text - it indicates a 20% miss chance on attacks which includes both melee and ranged attacks. If they had intended to exclude ranged attacks, they would have provided clarifying text similar to invisiblity and enlarge person. If they had meant to include it but did not, we can disregard authorial intent and instead apply the rule as written - once the book is published what was intended is immaterial - people will apply what is said.

I'm sorry to walk into a 14-year-old argument that people claim was 'solved'. I don't buy it. Maybe if I read the mysteriously relevant trivially easy to find but nobody wants to link to it web article I'd feel differently.

[Kaelik]

Turns out that dropping an item on the ethereal plane and assuming it remains there at least through the duration of the spell isn't settled. And it looks like every single time this comes up the same people like to claim that this is 'settled' and have never provided any support. Believing that blink includes a 20% miss chance is awfully popular for a stupid reading that you'd have to be stupid to believe.

I've never claimed that it is universally known. I've had endless arguments with bad faith lying shitfaces like you who "just ask for citations" and then when I provide them, ignore them.

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, pretending I'm not even in this conversation, because you know that you have no response to my point, so it's easier to just pretend you can't see it, and keep whining about how no one else will give you citations even after you've demonstrated your bad faith by refusing to acknowledge the one you were provided.

The surrounding context of other spells with Range: Personal indicates that "You" encompasses "yourself and all your equipment" and not just your body. Your clothes don't stay visible when you cast Invisibility, or burst when you cast Enlarge Self.

Spells that effect you also affect your attended items. That does not, in fact, mean that they affect items that you are not attending. You are not attending arrows that are not in your possession, you are attending arrows that are in your possession.

That is not how any other spell range in the game works. Spells check whether or not a thing is within the spell range at the moment of casting and at no other time. What precedent do you have, in terms that the game keeps track of, to argue that there is a general - not specific, general - rule that Range: You is different from Range: 25' burst in this regard?

1) Bursts are instantaneous dude. Like every single Burst in the game has an instantaneous duration.

2) Again, for the four thousandth time that none of you can read because your brains magically shut off whenever I say this to pick up again after.

THE RULES say that spells effect YOU, not "All the fucking arrows you are carrying."

The spell chooses to effect YOU and then does, for the entire duration. WHAT IS YOU changes.

If the rule said "you and all your equipment currently held" then SURE your arrows would keep blinking even after they left your possession. But they don't, because the spell effects YOU.

For a position who's entire argument is "BUT THE RULES SAYYYYYYYYY" it's really weird how you guys are really sure you can just make up a rule that says spells have a target besides you.

At the risk of giving you another thing to address on an unrelated point while continuing to refuse to address my actual point.

If you cast blink then polymorph, there isn't a man sized blinking person inside a dragon that doesn't blink because Blink decided at the time of casting what "you" was and won't change. The whole dragon blinks, because the whole dragon is you. Because the target doesn't change, you, but what is you changes.

[deaddmwalking]

THE RULES say that spells effect YOU, not "All the fucking arrows you are carrying."

Ethereal Jaunt does specify 'and all of your equipment.

You become ethereal, along with your equipment.

For your purposes, does that mean you agree that you cant' snipe from the ethereal plane using ethereal jaunt?

Edit - Regarding spells with a creature or personal target, it's pretty clear that your equipment is automatically included. Otherwise, if you were blinking, you would literally 'step out of your clothes' if you tried to move while you were on the ethereal plane.

As for your 'citation', can you repeat it? I missed it. I've been expecting a link to a web article. As far as I know, that's the only place I've been told it settles this. It's not 'bad faith' to say that I think the description of each spell applies exclusively to that spell. It's a self-consistent position and it doesn't require any 'dismissal' of the description of blink. There's some crazy double-think going on to say 'your attacks suffer a 20% miss chance' doesn't mean 20% miss chance on ALL attacks. I'm just playing it exactly as it says in the spell description. When I want to know how blink works, I read the description of blink. I don't read the description of web or teleport or enlarge person. If I'm supposed to, that's a pretty damning indictment of the 3.5 book layout.

[deaddmwalking]

That's the rule. Blink targets you. Arrows and flasks somewhere over there are not you, so Blink doesn't do anything to them.

This is literally what was explained to you from the beginning.

The surrounding context of other spells with Range: Personal indicates that "You" encompasses "yourself and all your equipment" and not just your body. Your clothes don't stay visible when you cast Invisibility, or burst when you cast Enlarge Self.

Spells that effect you also affect your attended items. That does not, in fact, mean that they affect items that you are not attending. You are not attending arrows that are not in your possession, you are attending arrows that are in your possession.

The spell has an effect on "You" and the definition of what is or isn't "You" changes. It doesn't have the effect on "the things that are classified as you at the time of spellcasting, but not the things that weren't you at that time."

If you cast Polymorph Any Object on yourself in a way that is permanent, you don't slowly turn back into your human form while slowly shitting out dragon parts because you are eating food that wasn't you and shitting out parts of you that were you when the spell was cast.

Looking back - responding specifically to this...

When a spell targets 'you', it affects all of your attended items at the time the spell is cast. If you are invisible, we know that all of your equipment is also invisible. If you pick up an item, it doesn't become invisible - you have to be holding it when the spell is cast.

In the case of invisibility, if you drop an item, it becomes visible. It is not because it is an 'unattended item', it is because the spell description says so.

If you're blinking and you drop an item, it presumably remains material if you're on the material plane or remains ethereal if you're on the ethereal plane - at least until the spell description ends. It's also possible that it continues blinking until the spell ends, but I don't know if it really matters. This reading is consistent with the spell description. Insisting that the item always becomes material conflicts with the 20% miss chance. Insisting it is true mandates that the spell description is incomplete. I don't see any reason to accept that is true. At least, not yet.

[Kaelik]

Except that actually, spells that effect you don't effect things that aren't you. The items you are holding are you, the items that you are not holding are not you.

This isn't hard.

It's actually amazing that you, in ONE POST managed to simultaneously argue that "a specific rule in the invisibility spell description proves that all spells always follow this rule" and "a specific rule in the invisibility description proves that the rule that all spells follow is the opposite."

Unless you have a RULE that says "something you were holding 9999999999999999999999999999 years ago is still you 9999999999999999999999999999 years later" then things you aren't holding aren't you. The spell is cast on You, not "you and everything you are holding."

[Omegonthesane]

Turns out that dropping an item on the ethereal plane and assuming it remains there at least through the duration of the spell isn't settled. And it looks like every single time this comes up the same people like to claim that this is 'settled' and have never provided any support. Believing that blink includes a 20% miss chance is awfully popular for a stupid reading that you'd have to be stupid to believe.

I've never claimed that it is universally known. I've had endless arguments with bad faith lying shitfaces like you who "just ask for citations" and then when I provide them, ignore them.

I have lurked here since before I went to university, because the Tomes were what I found when I googled for the rules of D&D. In the nearly ten years since, this is the first time that the claim that Blink doesn't have a miss chance for ranged attacks has been made before my eyes.

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.

deaddm, tell me, this is very important, what do "the rules" say happens when you cast blink, pick up an object, and then put down an object.

I'm going to actually think about this one. The obvious interpretation is that objects you pick up start blinking while they're on you and stop blinking once you put them down. This is supported by the fact the spell text does not say "Objects you pick up start blinking with you and continue blinking until the spell expires even if they leave your possession".

This does not necessarily contradict Blink having a 20% miss chance. An object doesn't have to stop blinking the very instant it leaves your possession to stop blinking before anyone can do anything about it leaving your possession. If adhering to the philosophy that things stop being impacted by personal spells when they leave your possession, the obvious gloss is to say that they stop being so impacted when your turn ends instead of "instantly" to explain why arrows continue to blink in and out of the ethereal until the moment of truth and then stop blinking after that. This does not require contradicting the rules that went to print.

Now, go read Astral Projection, now tell me, what do "the rules" say about if you planeshift to some other fucking plane, then cast Astral Projection?

This relates to your accusations of people being a Literal Word Idiot. Because Astral Projection unambiguously specifies the Material Plane and not any elemental or Outer Plane. However, it also fails to specify that it doesn't work from any other non-Astral plane, and this omission is worth the words saved because making the distinction between Astral and Not-Astral was the point of the clause, rather than an attempt to stop people projecting from Baator. The interpretation that it was never intended to outright exclude hell planes is straightforward and obvious, and does not lead to any particular contradiction with the effect described.

This relates because you compare it to reading "your own attacks have a 20% miss chance, since you sometimes go ethereal just as you are about to strike" and interpreting it as "your own attacks [including your ranged attacks] have a 20% miss chance, since you sometimes go ethereal just as you are about to strike". You compare it expecting that everyone be intimately familiar with the idea that objects leaving your possession always stop being affected by spells on your person so quickly as to prevent ranged attacks from suffering a drawback from a spell on your person based not on the game mechanics but on the flavour text.

In order to make the astral plane example work for literal word idiots, you would need to change the rules as follows, bolded words being the ones I added:

You project your astral self onto the Astral Plane, leaving your physical body behind on the Material Plane or such other plane as you may cast the spell from in a state of suspended animation.
...
If the second body or the astral form is slain, the cord simply returns to your body where it rests on the Material Plane, thereby reviving it from its state of suspended animation.
...
The spell lasts until you desire to end it, or until it is terminated by some outside means, such as... the destruction of your body back on the Material Plane (which kills you).

So, adding a clumsy clause to one paragraph and then removing rhetorical emphasis to two paragraphs. The alternative being to use a clumsy clause to be rhetorical emphasis in the other two.

In order to make Blink work the way you say Blink works for literal word idiots, you would instead need to change the rules as follows:

If the attacker can see invisible creatures, the miss chance is also only 20%. (For an attacker who can both see and strike ethereal creatures, there is no miss chance.) Likewise, your own melee attacks have a 20% miss chance, since you sometimes go ethereal just as you are about to strike.

You appear to be comparing the addition of literally one word to the addition of some clumsy legalese and removal of reiteration from the text.

...I guess I'll count the post where you directly quote Blink instead of making a function call as a third citation.

"You just have to assume without any evidence of any kind that spells effect things besides their targets. Why won't anyone present me with any evidence that this isn't true?"

Blink
Transmutation
Level: Brd 3, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 round/level (D)

That's the rule. Blink targets you. Arrows and flasks somewhere over there are not you, so Blink doesn't do anything to them.

This is literally what was explained to you from the beginning.

This is a strawman actually. No one ever was arguing that spells impact things that spells don't impact. The argument made was that spells check whether or not they impact something at the time of casting and don't give a general fuck thereafter unless and to the extent that the spell in question gives a specific fuck. It doesn't matter whether "something you were holding 9999999999999999999999999999 years ago is still you 9999999999999999999999999999 years later", if the spell was active on it ever then the spell has its described effects until the spell ends.

Spells that effect you also affect your attended items. That does not, in fact, mean that they affect items that you are not attending. You are not attending arrows that are not in your possession, you are attending arrows that are in your possession.

That is not how any other spell range in the game works. Spells check whether or not a thing is within the spell range at the moment of casting and at no other time. What precedent do you have, in terms that the game keeps track of, to argue that there is a general - not specific, general - rule that Range: You is different from Range: 25' burst in this regard?

1) Bursts are instantaneous dude. Like every single Burst in the game has an instantaneous duration.

This is a bad line of argument that shows a willingness to jump on any Gotcha! you can find, which in turn is more consistent with a desperate fear that you might not actually be in the right than it is with well founded confidence that your interpretation is correct and defensible. It's also just factually wrong.

2) Again, for the four thousandth time that none of you can read because your brains magically shut off whenever I say this to pick up again after.

THE RULES say that spells effect YOU, not "All the fucking arrows you are carrying."

The spell chooses to effect YOU and then does, for the entire duration. WHAT IS YOU changes.

I'm going to stop you there because nothing else that follows is relevant. In particular the "blinking man sized hole in a dragon" bit is a deranged refusal of my request that you not make arguments that rely on D&D tracking things that D&D doesn't track.

If the rules of the game specified that all personal spells stop affecting all equipment that leaves your person, instantly, then you would be able to easily point to where it said that. If this was the case, then Fireshield and Invisibility and Enlarge Person would not have to address what happens to equipment that leaves your person, because the fate of such equipment would be covered by a general rule.

Besides which, I already spelled out a way that one can reconcile the fact that Blink's miss chance was never, ever errata'd to not apply to ranged attacks with the fact that a lot of weird things occur if you have to keep track of what equipment was part of the blinking person at the time of casting which doesn't depend on making the text of Blink in need of errata. So I really don't have any stake in arguing that Personal spells remain active on dropped equipment for longer than the turn in which the equipment was dropped, but they really should have printed a literal general rule to that effect. That way the text of Enlarge Person and Invisibility and Blink could be read as clarifying how the general rules impact their specific situations, instead of defining the rules for their specific situations.

[Username17]

None of the dumb assholes arguing against blink flasks would dare make the argument that rocks dropped by characters under levitate do not fall. Claiming that a character under levitate could throw a rock at a point on the horizon because the levitation property continues on the rock after it leaves the character's possession is deeply absurd, and anyone who made such an argument would be laughed at as a crank.

The only reason making an exactly equivalent argument about a rock and blink is taken remotely seriously by anyone is that throwing a rock while blinking "feels like an exploit." So people who should know better are willing to accept arguments which are completely ridiculous so long as they get the intended result - that of punishing player agency.

But here's the thing: a terrible argument is still terrible even if it gets to the conclusion you want. And if the only arguments you can make for your preferred conclusion are terrible, you should consider the possibility that your preferred conclusion is in fact terrible.

And intentions do matter here. If your preference is for the answer that punishes players who do clever things with the game world physics, you're a terrible person to game with. Doing wacky things with portable holes and immovable rods and the durations of spell effects is the best fucking part about D&D. And people who reflexively shit on those things are bad for the hobby.

It's not just that I'm right here. I am right, but it goes well beyond that. You should want me to be right. If you want me to be wrong, you're a shitty person who makes your gaming table a shittier place. It's exactly like the old "The Frank Cheat" arguments about spell preparation and overlapping timeframes. It's not just that I'm right, it's that you know the people saying I'm wrong are shitty people because they wouldn't even want me to be wrong unless they were fuckweasels.

If your reaction to someone finds something cool to do with getting instantaneous advantage from their own buffs not applying, you should just politely golf clap and grab another handful of doritos. If your reaction is to try to bend the definition of "you" to include items you aren't carrying or whatever just to make their trick not work no matter how much damage it does to the rest of the magic physics fuck you. You are now officially "that guy." You're the shitty fucking neckbeard that ruins cooperative storytelling experiences by being a negative asshole. Stop it. Stop ruining D&D.

-Username17

[shlominus]