Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 5340142" data-attributes="member: 57112">State the point instead of making wild, baseless comparisons then <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />And I'm arguing in my post (which you've somehow determined to be a red herring) that the DM having to rule the spell's effects from the ground up isn't bad game design and in fact used to be the hallmark of non-combat magic in D&D. You may not particularly miss this aspect of D&D of yore, but that does not make it bad game design.Inconsistent with 4e to this point? Yeah, that's inarguable. But something that, I think anyway, 4e has been sorely missing.Also inarguable is how overblown the effectiveness of this power has been in the thread. No, you can't charm level 30+ solo creatures. No, you can't make somebody murder their best friend. Would you murder your close friend (or really, anybody) at the behest of your trusted friends? "Aiding somebody any way you can" does not mean "betraying everyone else close to them as well as your own core principles."This is not a mental domination effect and its need to be stopped being treated as such.The problem with the way the power's effects are worded, I believe, comes from the listing of exceptions. When you list exceptions what you're indirectly saying is that everything else you haven't listed as an exception flies. That's the only reason the power could possibly be interpreted as broken. Once again Wizards underestimates the ability of DMs to fear the sky falling.And nothing changes the fact that any potential problems with the power can be mitigated by proper DMing. I won't even go so far to say "good" DMing; any DM worth playing with should be able to easily keep the power within the bounds of "effective, but not broken."</blockquote>

Verification