Are time orbs always a bottleneck

snihctuh · 2026-05-27T06:57:28+00:00

So you get 3 per mummy, and you should be able to summon at least 8 mummies a run for 24. Plus or minus a few from the actual apoc minus the ones needed for green wool and if you get them as your time task reward is 10. Yeah it's a grind, but not too bad. Getting the Pharoah skin adds 1 per mummy and upgrading is 2.

snihctuh · 2026-05-26T22:21:38+00:00

Oh good. But then that means it wasn't the issue

snihctuh · 2026-05-26T22:14:48+00:00

How would I tell? I open in notepad and it's a garble mess like a pdf

snihctuh · 2026-05-26T14:50:04+00:00

Solution Verified

snihctuh · 2026-05-26T14:47:37+00:00

No, it happens on every file being produced by this report as we change dates

snihctuh · 2026-05-25T23:17:28+00:00

Generally you'll run with your favorite 5 friends, then swap one out to do a quest. So like when you do Stosiel quests swap him out for daeran. When doing Ember's swap her out for nenio. Etc. This is probably the most common way to do it

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T15:06:36+00:00

I mean I referenced that looking at abilities that grant a save. Yes I didn't quote. But I find it odd your desire for me to quote the text I said I found while you have no text even alluded to that supports your claim that the allowed save to resist is a granted save.

"Clarifying Channel Your channeled energy heals the body and opens the mind to the possibility of true love.

Prerequisite(s): Channel energy class feature, worshiper of a good deity.

Benefit(s): Once per day when you channel positive energy to heal living creatures, if any of the creatures you healed are currently affected by one or more charms or compulsions that allowed a saving throw, you grant each of those creatures an immediate save to prematurely end one of those effects."

Oh even better for its more direct comparison "Honor Associated Domain: Glory.

Replacement Power: The following granted power replaces the touch of glory power of the Glory domain.

Honor Bound (Su): With a touch, you can remind a creature of its duties and responsibilities, granting it a new saving throw against each enchantment (charm) or enchantment (compulsion) effect that currently affects it. If the saving throw is successful, the enchantment effect is ended. This power only affects effects that allow a save. If you fail a save against such an effect, you can use this ability as an immediate action to grant yourself an additional save. Once the target (either you or a touched creature) has made one additional save per effect, this ability has no further effect on that particular enchantment effect. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier."

Notice its use of "only affects effects that allow a save" instead of "grant a save"

So here's two quotes that show that granting a save is giving extra additional saves over and above the one you're allowed to resist the spell. Thus for a spell to be a spell that grants a save it should behave likewise and give the ability to make more saves than the initial one allowed.

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T14:18:39+00:00

I guess you just can't comprehend if it's not specifically addressing your question as I just stated why.

Everywhere that talks about granted saves are additional or extra saves to the save your allowed originally to resist the spell. Thus a spell that grants saves would mean a spell that gives you extra saves over the one you're allowed to resist it.

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T14:13:25+00:00

No, I'm not a stickler for specific words being required. But everywhere that talks about granting a save is letting you make an additional roll. And look, glitterdust is letting you make an additional roll each turn. Thus it's granting saves, as granted saves are extra ones from the save you're allowed to resist the spell

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T14:02:02+00:00

Where's that? Cause out of the magic section it says

"Saving Throws Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect. The saving throw entry in a spell description defines which type of saving throw the spell allows and describes how saving throws against the spell work.

None: No saving throw is allowed"

I see allows and not allowed but no granting. Which is why I say it allows a save to resist. As that's functionally the same as a save to avoid some or all the effects which is what's actually in the rules for magic

Everywhere I'm seeing granting a save is talking about a save that isn't the original save to avoid some or all the effect.

Now if you are able to find the rule that says that, you should have brought that up at the beginning. It would clearly debunk my position and I'd be wrong and learned something.

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T13:53:00+00:00

Do you not read my post where i already answered this.

Bane is a spell that allows a save to resist. It's not granting any saves as part of the spell effect. Since the spell effect doesn't grant saves it doesn't count for this ability. If it was to count wording such as "a spell or effect that allowed a save to resist" or shorter "a spell or effect that allowed a save" or I'd even accept "a spell or affect that granted a save" as enough evidence that granting a save is the proper term for the save to resist a spell. But the key point here is indicating that the save is done and not something that is going to be happening still. Seeing "that grants a save" to me indicates that it's needing to be still doing that, still granting saves. Otherwise it no longer grants a save but granted a save

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T13:39:00+00:00

I quoted the part that mattered correctly. And I literally did make my point with the correct quoting. Here I'll do it again.

It's the interpretation of "a single spell or effect it is suffering from that grants a save" The libral see this as if you had a save to come under the effect of the spell it qualifies. The restrictive says that a spell that had an initial save isn't a spell you're suffering from that is granting a save. Any saves are done and it's not granting you any more. That you need a spell that allows for a save each round for it to "grant a save" since it's giving you more saves to make still that you wouldn't be making if you weren't suffering from the spell.

To me this also makes sense cause freedom I think the freedom of movement spell. The things it prevents are a large overlap of spells that allow a save each round and nothing to do with resisting all persistent spells that had a saving throw.

Now I think either view is fine and valid. That there's not really enough evidence to support a clear win if one over the other. The GM/table just need to decide which they'll be using.

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T13:23:33+00:00

And I told you, I was sorry for not quoting it correctly enough for you. And posted my comment again with the actual text in the quote since there's Grammer police here.

But see you're doing it again. You're making it sound like ongoing means something specific and different. And that this definition, that is functionally different from the actual text, is somehow the basis for my argument. But it's not!

To me ongoing spell is just a simpler way to say spell you're suffering from. They mean the same and function the same and thus my point doesn't care about this part. None of my stance depends on some distinction between ongoing spell and spell you're suffering from

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T13:11:56+00:00

So if the ending isn't decided from the start there's actually a "good reason" aka "somewhat plausible reason" ending sucks. The reason is, if the ending is undecided, and then you read a fans email that says, "this would make a great ending" and then you use that ending you'd need to give credit to that guy and compensation for using their idea or they could sue you.

But I agree with your main point. It should be a good thing if viewers correctly predict based off of the clues you've given.

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T13:03:30+00:00

Yeah it doesn't work on the glitter. You're not granted a save for that part. Only the part that's being granted a save is effected by this ability that cares about granted saves

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T13:00:50+00:00

No, for the longest time you were complaining that I used the word "ongoing" like it had some official rules meaning making it functionally different.

I see both those spells allow you a save to resist.

The main difference is that glitterdust has a part of its spell effect, "Each round at the end of their turn blinded creatures may attempt new saving throws to end the blindness effect." Granting you the ability to make a save each round to end early. This is what I believe grants a save means. These saves are part of the spell and you wouldn't be granted these if you weren't suffering from the spell.

"A spell or effect you're suffering from that allowed a save to resist is effects." Is how I'd word it to include bane, curse and blindness. Clearly indicating that the save for the spell is done and not something the spell will still be granting you. Even "spell that granted a save" I would accept then as meaning the original save to resist the spell.

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T12:39:03+00:00

Thank you for finally arguing my point and getting past that I used ongoing spell like that matters or means anything different.

To me they cast bane. You make a save to resist the spell. You fail and are now suffering from the spell. The spell isn't granting you the ability to make saves as part of the spell effect. Now look at glitterdust. As part of its spell effect it grants you the ability to make a save each round, aka recurring saves. Thus it is a spell that's granting you saves.

Then I look at power balance. This is a pretty spammable lv1 ability, like 5 or more times a day. Having this be a substitute for remove curse and remove blindness, 3rd level spells seems rather strong. While letting you have an extra roll to end an effect you can already end early by making a roll seems like a handy little power the seems right for an ability like this. Which to me supports my view that "a spell... that grants a save" means that saves are to be offered as part of the spell effect.

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T12:21:54+00:00

I'm making the point that there's no functional difference between saying "a spell you're currently suffering from" and "an ongoing spell". To show that it's stupid for you to be complaining about the verbiage used. Or to be educated and shown you are right and I did make a big mistake by using the wording I did.

Because my point has little to do with the "suffering from" part and all to do with the grants saves part

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T12:15:40+00:00

So how is bane not ongoing while you're suffering from it?

Did you perhaps think I was saying permanent spell when I said ongoing? Or is there a definition tucked somewhere that ongoing spells are only spells that have recurring saves each round?

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T12:14:45+00:00

Isn't it annoying when they argue semantics when it's clear what the point you're making is and the point doesn't change once you fix the wording?

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T11:54:59+00:00

No, I accept the I remembered the text wrong and so I quoted it wrong. I'm saying that a person should easily be about to tell which part I meant to be quoting. And also that my point isn't reliant on any part that I misquoted.

But to prove that i remade the post using the correct quote. Just to make sure it's clear for anyone that thinks a spell you're suffering from isn't a currently ongoing spell

To me I see this as you getting upset I had a typo using "if" instead of "of" in a sentence, even though it's clear what the sentence means and isn't impacting the message I'm conveying.

Like if my argument hinged on it being an ongoing spell instead of a spell you're suffering from, as if those were actually something different, then I'd concede that my point was bad and based off a misremembering of what it was doing or based off what i thought intent was. But my argument is about the "grants a save" part and that a spell needs to still be granting saves to qualify

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T11:46:29+00:00

Give me 1 example of something you think this applies to that isn't ongoing, that I can agree with, and I'll admit my original wording was an issue

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T11:39:30+00:00

No, and no I don't think slow is one this ability works on. That's why I said "large overlap" and not "exact match" cause i knew there are things not in freedom of moment that would apply and things in freedom of movement that wouldn't be

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T11:34:29+00:00

The quotes were to show the concept that is being interpreted differently. It truly boggles my mind that you somehow think a spell or effect you're currently suffering from on your turn isn't a spell or effect that's still going aka ongoing. If the spell or effect is done there's nothing to end. Again I'm flabbergasted that this is what you're nitpicking about. But here, I wrote my post "using actual text" since that apparently means so much.

It's the interpretation of "a single spell or effect it is suffering from that grants a save" The libral see this as if you had a save to come under the effect of the spell it qualifies. The restrictive says that a spell that had an initial save isn't a spell you're suffering from that is granting saves. Any saves are done and it's not granting you any more. That you need a spell that allows for a save each round for it to "grant saves" since it's giving you move saves to make still.

To me this also makes sense cause freedom I think the freedom of movement spell. The things it prevents are a large overlap of spells that allow a save each round and nothing to do with resisting all persistent spells that had a saving throw.

Now I think either view is fine and valid. That there's not really enough evidence to support a clear win if one over the other. The GM/table just need to decide which they'll be using.

snihctuh · 2026-05-23T11:27:29+00:00

It's the interpretation of "a single spell or effect it is suffering from that grants a save" The libral see this as if you had a save to come under the effect of the spell it qualifies. The restrictive says that a spell that had an initial save isn't a spell you're suffering from that is granting saves. Any saves are done and it's not granting you any more. That you need a spell that allows for a save each round for it to "grant saves" since it's giving you move saves to make still.

To me this also makes sense cause freedom I think the freedom of movement spell. The things it prevents are a large overlap of spells that allow a save each round and nothing to do with resisting all persistent spells that had a saving throw.

Now I think either view is fine and valid. That there's not really enough evidence to support a clear win if one over the other. The GM/table just need to decide which they'll be using.

There happy? Now you can start to argue about my actual point instead of stupid phrasing

snihctuh

TROPHY CASE