Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 9442419" data-attributes="member: 22779">Ok, let's see if I can explain this better.1.&nbsp; The Honey/Owlbear example is a perfect example of using the in game fiction to resolve events.&nbsp; In the game world, the honey, the owlbear and the characters all exist.&nbsp; To resolve this event, we'd probably use the Handle Animals skill with a DC set by the DM.&nbsp; All of this is pretty clearly defined before the event.&nbsp; No one is trying to change anything.&nbsp; They are simply using the resolution mechanics that exist - a skill check - in order to resolve an event.&nbsp; No problems.&nbsp; 2.&nbsp; Expanding Command - most of the &quot;creative uses&quot; of Command require, and this is the important part, rewriting the rules of the game.&nbsp; The Command spell is pretty clear - it forces a character to move (if the caster wishes) and take a most a free action (drop).&nbsp; It does not force a target to take actions.&nbsp; None of the examples given force a target to take actual actions.&nbsp; So, Drop causes the target to take a free item interaction to drop their held item in their square.&nbsp; Defenestrate forces them to actually take an action to throw an item in a different square than their own.&nbsp; &quot;Change&quot; forces a target to potentially take an actual game defined action. After all, a werewolf needs to actually take a full Action to shapechange.&nbsp; In fact, I think most NPC's who can shapechange in some manner must at least do it with a bonus action and most require a full action.&nbsp; This is a clear rewriting of the mechanics of the spell.It's pretty clear that 99% of the &quot;creative uses&quot; of Command are either already covered - what's the difference between &quot;Salute&quot; and &quot;Grovel&quot; really? - or examples of massively expanding the power of the spell - &quot;Change&quot; forces the target to actually take an action, never minding that it's creating an effect of a 2nd level spell (sorry, I said 3rd before) that clerics CAN'T ACTUALLY CAST.&nbsp; Moonbeam is a Druid spell.&nbsp; So, that's the difference.&nbsp; You aren't entirely off track with the whole associated/disociated thing, despite the massive amount of edition warring trash that Alexandrian essay carries with it.&nbsp; But, that's the difference.&nbsp; In the &quot;Honey/Owlbear&quot; example, the players are engaging with the game world directly.&nbsp; There's no distance between the actions declared by the players and the actions taken by the characters.&nbsp; In the &quot;Creative Command&quot; example, the players are not engaging with the game world at all.&nbsp; They are rewriting the rules of the game world - rewriting the definition of the spell - in order to gain advantages that are not granted by the mechanic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 9442419, member: 22779"] Ok, let's see if I can explain this better. 1. The Honey/Owlbear example is a perfect example of using the in game fiction to resolve events. In the game world, the honey, the owlbear and the characters all exist. To resolve this event, we'd probably use the Handle Animals skill with a DC set by the DM. All of this is pretty clearly defined before the event. No one is trying to change anything. They are simply using the resolution mechanics that exist - a skill check - in order to resolve an event. No problems. 2. Expanding Command - most of the "creative uses" of Command require, and this is the important part, [U]rewriting the rules of the game[/U]. The Command spell is pretty clear - it forces a character to move (if the caster wishes) and take a most a free action (drop). It does not force a target to take actions. None of the examples given force a target to take actual actions. So, Drop causes the target to take a free item interaction to drop their held item in their square. Defenestrate forces them to actually take an action to throw an item in a different square than their own. "Change" forces a target to potentially take an actual game defined action. After all, a werewolf needs to actually take a full Action to shapechange. In fact, I think most NPC's who can shapechange in some manner must at least do it with a bonus action and most require a full action. This is a clear rewriting of the mechanics of the spell. It's pretty clear that 99% of the "creative uses" of Command are either already covered - what's the difference between "Salute" and "Grovel" really? - or examples of massively expanding the power of the spell - "Change" forces the target to actually take an action, never minding that it's creating an effect of a 2nd level spell (sorry, I said 3rd before) that clerics CAN'T ACTUALLY CAST. Moonbeam is a Druid spell. So, that's the difference. You aren't entirely off track with the whole associated/disociated thing, despite the massive amount of edition warring trash that Alexandrian essay carries with it. But, that's the difference. In the "Honey/Owlbear" example, the players are engaging with the game world directly. There's no distance between the actions declared by the players and the actions taken by the characters. In the "Creative Command" example, the players are not engaging with the game world at all. They are rewriting the rules of the game world - rewriting the definition of the spell - in order to gain advantages that are not granted by the mechanic. [/QUOTE]

Verification