Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9442608" data-attributes="member: 42582">In my view the things you say here are a red herring.I mean, I could criticise the use of a very tight action economy in D&D on exactly the same basis - ie that those who insist on a tight action economy in combat, who object to fighters of less than 5th level being allowed to perform multiple attacks each round, etc, are just non-believers in the possibility of groups existing where there is a strong sense of trust and mutual respect. I mean, Prince Valiant is one of my favourite RPGs and it doesn't have an action economy of the D&D variety. Nor does Apocalypse World.But D&D does have an action economy, and much of the game is built around it. The pedantic distinctions drawn between categories of action declaration (movement, action, bonus action, reaction, a thing you can do that is part of another action and is not its own distinct action, etc) infuse the games rules for character features, including spells, and for combat (and some other action) resolution.And as [USER=22779]@Hussar[/USER] has pointed out, the Command spell fits into that action economy framework, as well as the broader mechanical framework for character abilities. It is a first level spell. All the examples given involve the spell caster controlling the victim's movement (whether that be to close, to withdraw, or to be still) and/or denying actions for a turn. They don't compel the taking of an action - there is no attack or hurl or shoot or grapple command, no summon/conjure/cast command, nor a take or steal command, in the examples given. And that does seem deliberate. (A possible exception: does the reference under flee to "fastest available means" mean the victim's best movement rate or most rapid mode of conveyance or does it mean including taking the Dash action? I don't think it's clear.)I think it would be helpful for the spell to be more express about what its parameters are, spelled out by reference to the game's rules. Eg does the spell permit jump or leap as a command, compelling the victim to leap across a gap that is no wider, in feet, than the victim's STR score? The answer should probably be "yes" - and it would be helpful, I think, for the spell to say as much rather than put the burden of interpretation and balancing back onto the GM.</blockquote>

Verification