Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 8677262" data-attributes="member: 97077">What is or isn't an action the player can take in the "spirit of the game" isn't spelled out in the spell description. That exists at the level of table rules and your table rules appear to allow the DM to unilaterally take control of the player's character if they don't agree with what the player is doing. Fair enough, that's your table. That's not a table rule I would entertain at mine, nor would I play under a table that has one like that.As DM, I would hate to be the one deciding what is or isn't a reasonable decision for a player to make for their own character or hold them to some standard based on my interpretation of their "history" or "style." I'd just spend the action, like the spell says I can do. It doesn't say I can sit in judgment of the player and take over their character without spending that action if they aren't acting in a way I think they should.I would think it's better to just change the spell and require that character at least use cantrips or highest level spells or their full suite of melee or ranged attacks or something specific when commanded to attack another creature. As it's written, it leaves it wide open as to what attacks the character might use.</blockquote>