Talk:World-Shaker (3.5e Feat)
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Doubling Every Spell[edit]
Seems like a pretty extreme bonus, especially when all of the preceding bonuses continue to be useful. That by itself could certainly be a Very High feat, probably with a level of metamagic adjustment or two thrown in there for good measure. The rest makes sense and scales reasonably, though. --Foxwarrior 00:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- This was discussed in chat -- I think we generally decided that the issue was a misunderstanding of how that mechanic worked. Surgo 15:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- The abuses I've thought of so far were, yes. But I maintain hope for the future. --Foxwarrior 17:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Can someone explain why that feature wouldn't work with Time Stop? If it doesn't maybe the feat text should be clarified :/. --Aarnott 18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- The round after you cast Time Stop, you're in a Time Stop, and you specifically cannot cast Time Stop while already in a Time Stop. Surgo 19:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I may be mistaken on that point. Is that a 3.0ism? Surgo 19:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Time stop is only "apparent time", and is you just doing things super fast. Since reality is casting the spell for you on the next real round, it seems like the spell would happen again on your next round of real time. - Tarkisflux Talk 19:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Time progresses within a time stop for any effects that occur on the caster -- which means that, one round later, while you are Time Stop'd, Time Stop takes effect again. This rule implies that, while only one of any two identical effects on a single target actually does anything, they are both present and active, which means that both of them count down independently. So casting Time Stop while in Time Stop means that you will effectively just extend the duration if your second d4 roll is at least as high as the first. --DanielDraco 20:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. Wonder what I was thinking about with my "no Time Stop in a Time Stop" thing? Must be a 3.0ism. Surgo 20:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
