Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 9442570" data-attributes="member: 22779">So commands to &quot;emote!&quot;, &quot;email!&quot; and &quot;Rasterize!&quot;&nbsp; should work too?In any case, you're ignoring the fact that your &quot;Salute&quot; example doesn't work because that sort of gesture - &quot;a gesture the begins some attempted betrayal&quot; (your exact words) doesn't work.&nbsp; What gesture are you envisioning the target doing that is both a recognizable salute and that would signal some sort of betrayal?And the fact that you've now completely ignored the whole Change thing, plus all the rest pretty much says it all.&nbsp; You're fixating on a single element while ignoring the larger context.Again, you're fixating on the trees and not seeing the forest.&nbsp; Tightening up the rules means less friction at the table.&nbsp; The rules that don't cause friction are already tight enough and are no problems.&nbsp; Which means, most of the time, there is no problem.&nbsp; The problem comes with these mechanics that are poorly written, using open ended, vague language which causes the problem. I mean, in this thread, it's been shown that you are more than willing to ignore what's actually written in the spell - you have no problem with the &quot;Change&quot; command and have repeatedly said so.&nbsp; Which means you've never actually interpreted the mechanics the way they are intended by the game.&nbsp; The game mechanics are never intended to grant clerics access to a spell that's higher level and not even on their spell list.Which is why I don't want these open ended mechanics.&nbsp; I don't want to constantly have to police the players who, like you, are misinterpreting the intent of the spell in order to gain more power and options that aren't part of the actual mechanic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 9442570, member: 22779"] So commands to "emote!", "email!" and "Rasterize!" should work too? In any case, you're ignoring the fact that your "Salute" example doesn't work because that sort of gesture - "a gesture the begins some attempted betrayal" (your exact words) doesn't work. What gesture are you envisioning the target doing that is both a recognizable salute and that would signal some sort of betrayal? And the fact that you've now completely ignored the whole Change thing, plus all the rest pretty much says it all. You're fixating on a single element while ignoring the larger context. Again, you're fixating on the trees and not seeing the forest. Tightening up the rules means less friction at the table. The rules that don't cause friction are already tight enough and are no problems. Which means, most of the time, there is no problem. The problem comes with these mechanics that are poorly written, using open ended, vague language which causes the problem. I mean, in this thread, it's been shown that you are more than willing to ignore what's actually written in the spell - you have no problem with the "Change" command and have repeatedly said so. Which means you've never actually interpreted the mechanics the way they are intended by the game. The game mechanics are never intended to grant clerics access to a spell that's higher level and not even on their spell list. Which is why I don't want these open ended mechanics. I don't want to constantly have to police the players who, like you, are misinterpreting the intent of the spell in order to gain more power and options that aren't part of the actual mechanic. [/QUOTE]

Verification