Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Delemental" data-source="post: 1203970" data-attributes="member: 5203">The problem with enchantment-type spells is not so much in mechanics, but lies in the fact that any player is going to naturally resist being forced to take actions they don't want to do, just as any DM is going to resist having his NPCs do things he doesn't want them to.  When you're dealing with mind-control type powers, you have two choices - either leave the effects open to interpretation (which can lead to the problems you see described above), or layer on clauses and limitations to define as many contingencies as possible (which limits the flexibility of such spells).I think that if you are going to make use of enchantment magic, or mind-affecting psionics, or whatever, there has to be an agreement of some sort (either implied or openly negotiated) between the players and DM.  Either both sides have to agree to play by the spirit of such abilities, or agree to play by the letter of such abilities.  If your DM casts a geas on your PC and you start pulling the "the best way for me to get you a ham sandwich is to kill you" trick, expect the DM to do the same.  If this is the kind of game that you are going to run, then probably it would be better to just ignore the enchantment school altogether, because the results will always disappoint.Personally, I would rather play in a game where if I cast a geas to have the bad guy get me a ham sandwich, then the bad guy would do his level best to get me a ham sandwich.  But if in return the bad guy geased me to get him a Pepsi to go with his sandwich, I'd do my level best to get his Pepsi.  I guess the term I'd use is 'necessary and sufficient'.As far as that part about 'clever recipients subverting instructions',  what I would say to that was that if my character happened to have a slab of salt pork and a couple of chunks of moldy bread in the bottom of my pack, I could slap them together and fulfill the geas;the quality of the delivered product was not defined.There is one argument I saw that I think bears examination.  In the case where someone was saying "I can't deliver your sandwich if I don't know where you are, so I'll kill you so you'll be right here" - I think this is obviously a gross violation.  However, what I would say is that in order for the geas to be considered closed-ended, the geased character must be able to actually deliver.  Thus if I were charged with said sandwich quest, and the caster then immediately vanished and I had no way to track them down, then I'd say that it was now an 'open-ended' geas, and would only last 1 day/level.  If the caster said "I'll be waiting in my fortress on the seventh layer of Hell" and vanishes, well, then...I suppose that if I were going to 'fix' geas/quest and the lesser version, I would change one thing; increase the casting time to something like a minute.  It sounds like the main problem encountered with these spells are when they are used in the heat of battle, whene there isn't time to fully spell out your  request.  On the other hand, the successful examples I've seen come from situations where there's not a combat going on, and the PCs are in the midst of negotiations.  I say save geas/quest for those type of situations, and for those combat scenes, stick with suggestion, command, etc.</blockquote>

Verification