Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Daztur" data-source="post: 9440284" data-attributes="member: 55680">In this specific "defenestrate" case, I was speaking more broadly.I'd probably roll a d20 with bigger numbers being more valuable things within arm's reach and smaller numbers being less valuable things so he might chuck his sword out the window and he might chuck some pocket change. Would be random. I like rolling a luck dice in that sort of situation where any decision of mine would be arbitrary. For example, "Is there a place to buy X in this random town that the DM never mapped out specifically?" Me: "Dunno" rolls luck diceAs far as the intent, let's go back a bit... To quote the 1e PHB:"Explanation/Description: This spell enables the cleric to issue a command of a single word. The command must be uttered in a language which the spell recipient is able to understand. The individual will obey to the best of his/her/its ability only so long as the command is absolutely clear and unequivocal, i.e. "Suicide!" could be a noun, so the creature would ignore the command. A command to "Die!" would cause the recipient to fall in a faint or cataleptic state for 1 round, but thereafter the creature would be alive and well. Typical command words are: back, halt, flee, run, stop, fall, fly, go, leave, surrender, sleep, rest, etc. Undead are not affected by a command. Creatures with intelligence of 13 or more, and creatures with 6 or more hit dice (or experience levels) are entitled to a saving throw versus magic. (Creatures with 13 or higher intelligence and 6 hit dice/levels do not get 2 saving throws."The original intent of the spell was a good bit broader than you're implying. And yes I know that the intent behind D&D has changed a good bit across editions, but a lot of 5e spells have a decades old legacy. I don't think that using spells with the same kind of intent as Gygax had is anything too disruptive.Also I think you're missing the wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide latitude for non-combat uses of Command that are perfectly in line with how the spell is written up. It all depends on the situation of the spell. That's why I like it, it makes you pay attention to the specifics of what is going on around you, not just try to parse the rules text.To take an extreme example, if you're guaranteed to have only one first per long rest then casters can absolutely unload their best spells every fight which takes the already precarious class balance that exists in a lot of editions of D&D and utterly shreds it. Have had short adventuring days really overturn any pretenses of balance once in a 3.5e campaign and once in a 5e campaign campaign. I was not a fan.Of course. That's what good DMs should do, but a lot of DMs are just OK DMs or newbie DMs and don't do that. In my experience it's the single biggest newbie 5e DM naughty word-up and it's something that WotC should take seriously for 6e. There are various ways this could be done (1e and 4e both don't really have a 10 minute adventuring day problem, although they are very different).Well ideally yes, but I don't expect perfection from D&D devs. In any case I like spells with tightly nailed down flavor but some mechanical flexibility (like Command) so it's going to be impossible to completely eliminate all RAW fuckery.</blockquote>

Verification