Geas/Quest

[Christian]

OK, I know this has been hashed out several times on this board. I was wondering if anyone has ever seen an official ruling on the issue. The question: can the subject of the sixth level Geas/Quest spell choose to refrain from obeying the caster's command, suffering the hit point damage and sickness instead; or does the spell compel obedience, with the listed penalties kicking in only if the subject is somehow prevented from following the geas/quest.

To reiterate: I know the arguments on both sides, both from game logic and from the wording of the spell. I don't care to hear it all again; all I want to know is, has anyone ever written the Sage or something and gotten an 'official' answer?

Thanks!

 

[Christian]

Bumpity-bump-bump-bump.

 

[gfunk]

Well, I don't have the official word, but from looking at the description of Lesser Geas, PHB p. 221,

"The geased creature must follow the given instructions until the geas is completed, no matter how long it takes."

Seems pretty self-explanatory to me, the geas is mandatory.

From a power-standpoint, Lesser Geas is somewhat more potent than Suggestion (3rd). Also Dominate Person (5th) is like Geas but w/ a save and you exercise full control.

All in all, the spell seems to rely on a lot of DM arbitration. For instance, if you say to the subject, "Take this coin and return it to the Temple of Tyr in Town X," then does the subject take penalties if he doesn't make a bee-line to Town X? I mean obviously he has to stop for resting, eating and such. What if he stops at a few places to do a few chores?

Seems like the spell requires a hell of a lot of work, I'm kind of surprised there is no errata...

 

[Christian]

(Sigh.) The description of Lesser Geas is quite clear, gfunk. The description of Geas/Quest is much less clear, in some peoples' opinions, and has caused no end of argument on the boards here ... Actually, the real problem is that many people think the description of Geas/Quest is perfectly clear, but have conflicting interpretations of what it says with such perfect clarity. That's why I was wondering if there had ever been an 'official' ruling. It's definitely not in the PHB errata-which makes sense, as it's not a mistake per se. I expected to see it in the D&D FAQ, but didn't find it. That's why I was wondering if it had ever turned up in the Sage Advice column or as a response to anyone's letter to the Sage.

 

[IceBear]

I don't think anyone has.

If you need to know the answer, then his email address is:

thesage@wizards.com

IceBear

PS Please post his response