Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ancoulainn" data-source="post: 9872176" data-attributes="member: 7056539">I understand that this is your opinion and that all good and fair. But from what passage in the rules do you gather this?I have the spell right here. It says "The Charmed target pursues the suggestion to the best of its ability." I post a screenshot of the spell to the response.As for the action part, you seem to insuinuate that changing your disposition, your thoughts, and the like wouldn't be actions? So, learning, thinking, etc are not actions to you?Yes, I think I said somewhere that I don't care about RAI. First of all, if you haven't spoken to the creators, you don't know what they intended. If you had, you could just quote them and say, "Here, Jeremy Crawford said this", but instead, you give me your personal opinion and try to elevate it by calling it RAI. It doesn't add weight to your opinion, just because you provide a different word for it.All that matters is RAW. Think about it! If a cop stopped you for speeding and you were going 30 where the signs say 30 and he told you that they intended for it to be 25, would you be cool with that? The basic concept of life that rules only determine what they say with the words, symbols, or expressions that they have and not some imaginary superseeding meaning behind them doesn't change just because it's a TTRPG. And you're not the Supreme Court of DnD.And things like "believe me", "trust me", "like me", etc are courses of action. There is nothing in the English language that says that they would not.If instead of rambling, you could at least argue that in the English language, we distinguish between action verbs and stative verbs, we would get somewhere. Just say that "to love" is a stative verb, but that "to fall in love" is an action verb and it's an argument. We could discuss whether there would be a way to phrase the suggestion in a manner that it complies with the requirements of the spell and maybe we'd find out that we can't. That would be progress. But this tug of war of personal opinions, like they meant something, is just tedious.That's your opinion, not established by the rules. Nothing you say is founded in the rules. Suggestion talks about a course of action. "Be willing" or "make yourself willing" is a course of action and, as I said before, the phenomenon of autosuggestion illustrates that it's achievable. It says nowhere that it has to be a physical act and cannot be a mental one.Again, your opinion. I don't ask. Never have asked. Never will ask. Always expect the DM to provide a clear list of what goes and what not before or at session 0. And never encountered a DM who said they were not allowed. Nor would I play with one. If you want to handle this differently, I'm not stopping you. And since you don't, why are trying to tell me what to do? It doesn't even apply to you.Yes, that is an argument against my position that I myself provided. It's great that the best argument all you passionate antagonists can provide is something I already thought of and mentioned myself.The "bending over backwards" is with regards to not having an argument besides a personal opinion, not with regards to the result. My point is not that I am correct or that y'all are not. Why would it be? Every table decides and rules differently on all sorts of game mechanics all the time. Or do you really think I would change my disposition towards anything at my table just because somebody here says something? Do you think that I expect you to do so at your table because I said something? Why would I even care about that? It doesn't involve me and it doesn't affect me. My point is that y'all are arguing without having a single valid argument aside from the one I provided y'all with. Y'all are arguing only to antagonize. And the other dude all but said so explicitly by saying that he wanted to make sure that inexperienced DM coming to forums would see dissenting viewpoints.</blockquote>

Verification