you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 1 year ago (15 children)

However it is worth noting that the spell also says the condition to end the spell must be something the DM agrees to AND is likely to happen in the next decade. So it won't be a cakewalk to be suddenly immune to aging.

The first part is hard, but 9.5 years passing is guaranteed to happen in the next decade.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Depends how gonzo you get with the fantasy, the setting's cosmology, and whether your gm is an engineer who does relativity math.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I'd say since spells work the way they do, they always use the relative frame of reference of the caster when cast and the relativ frame of reference of whatever it affects when counting the duration.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    So it's not certain that 9.5 years will pass in the next decade, if you do relativity shenanigans?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    9,5 year for whom in whose decade? 9,5 years for you in your next decade? Guaranteed to happen. 9,5 years for me in your next decade or for you in mine? Not guaranteed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Feywild would be possible but by RAW the time difference is only calculated once you leave the feywild.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    There's a 5% chance that days become years. Based on just that alone, for every 20 days spent in the feywild you're missing a year in the rest of the world. I got a factor of 22.7 on average for a 7-day week, and 23.3 if it's ten.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    "Subjectively true" is really the only kind of true anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I wholeheartedly disagree. The passage of time within a given frame of reference is an objective fact. Relativity existing doesn't negate objectivity. If anything, it makes the gathering of objective evidence and reference points more necessary.

  • source
  • parent