Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6316188" data-attributes="member: 2067">It's interesting to compare....[ATTACH]62205[/ATTACH]Curious facts to me include....<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> Range. It seems like the playtest version of the spell had 4e's range, but the release version of the spell bumped it up 10 ft. I wonder if that's to fit within TotM-style ranges. A range of 60 ft = "two move actions away." </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> Components. I always half-expected this to be one of the things that got nuked in the playtest in some way (like a general "you must be able to speak, move your hands, and have some spellcating implement to use any magic spell"), it's a little curious that they made it in. I imagine this benefits imagination strongly: it tells you precisely what your character is doing to cast the spell (here, simply speaking a word infused with divine authority). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> "Ineffective" categories. The 5e spell doesn't work against undead, and I wonder a bit why not? Possibly because Enchantment? I like the bit about not understanding the language (In 5e, you cannot command the nameless horror from beyond the stars to grovel). It's also interesting that it notes that the spell fails in these cases -- not that you can't cast it, just that the target automatically saves. That's an interesting move back to "no safety net" gameplay, and bodes well for being able to strip out particular spells or effects. 5e is OK with you wasting a spell slot. It also means that you don't need to know beforehand if the character shares your language or is undead or whatever. It's a tool with a lot of uses (forex, you could try to command that pale duke that has been hanging around that old castle on a suspicion that he might be undead...). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> Action Denial Plus. The mechanical grit of the spell remains largely the same -- a denial of actions. But while the 4e version was exclusively good at that, the 5e version seems a lot more interestingly open-ended. There's only so much you can do with one word, but I like the creativity that engenders, the little temptation to see what other things you might be able to do with the spell. That untapped horizon is interesting. It's also interesting that the 5e version is strictly stronger -- it's a "WIS save or lose your turn" spell. While the net effect in 4e was largely the same (you still had a minor action, but dazed + prone is almost a lost turn, too), it's a lot simpler and clearer and more straightforward in 5e. Plus, additional effects (like dropping items, and the awesomeness of GROVEL!). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> Save vs. Attack. I'm a fan of having the defender have to resist this. It emphasizes the agency here a little better -- the cleric just told you what was going to happen, now it's on YOU to tell them otherwise. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> Wordy as heck. I thought one of the things 5e would be bringing after the playtest was a little better...formatting. They're clearly going the "wordy" route, which means I'll probably re-format them into 4e-style blocks pretty quickly, just for the sake of readability. Kind of disappointed they went with a wall o' text. But perhaps it was the most efficient way to capture the info? I tried throwing this into a 4e-style stat block and the gains in readability were...not exactly significant. Though they weren't nothing, either. Hmmm..</li> </ol>It's also interesting to throw the <a href="http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/command" target="_blank">Pathfinder</a> version up in there and see the differences. We're out of the realm of lots of key words (compulsion, language-dependent, mind-affecting.....), note no distinction between saves and spell resistance (bodes well for no "conjuration loophole"), and the change from "fall" to "grovel" is awesome. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Interesting to note that the PF version just says you can't target undead with it, which is interesting in terms of not knowing if a creature is undead or not...hmm...Anyhoo, quite curious!</blockquote>

Verification