Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scribble" data-source="post: 4773997" data-attributes="member: 23977">Possibly, but not intentionally. I honestly don't understand how you see a difference. But the same is true for many spells. I guess that's what is confusing to me. I feel like you've given elements that make a mundane thing into a spell, but not the reverse, and I feel that's equaly important.Sure you do. You are dictating that the enemy stop being hostile.  Ok I can accept that for the shaken part, and going by your points below, it's not a spell. (It doesn't go on a scroll, it can't be counterspelled, isn't effected by anitmagic, doesn't require components well I guess you could say maybe verbal and somantic...)Which is why I guess this way of thinking is weird for me. Because essentialy I see the same overal effect if you DID make a spell for achieving this effect, so a "spell" version wouldn't need to be handled in a different way. The same end result applies, so why do I need a second system to handle it? It just seems redundant to someone like me.  Ok so Cagi:Can't be counterspelled, dispelled, or effected by antimagic, can't be placed on a scroll, and doesn't need components (unless you count weapon?)</blockquote>