The New Design Philosophy?

[JRRNeiklot]

Ah, but did they use the same half?

I used the upper half, otherwise no bite attack. And the bottom half....well, I don't know about you, but I don't wanna get hit with that thing...

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I would have absolutely no problem with that, as long as you didn't have a problem with your throat being cut in your sleep.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

You lost me. You seem to be saying that anything the rules don't expressly forbid is allowed?

I concur. If I invite you over and tell you you MAY have a beer, and you MAY have some chips, that does not mean you MAY sleep with my daughter just because I didn't expressly forbid it.

 

[wayne62682]

Well.. that depends on how how hot your daughter is.

... oh come on, you knew someone was going to say it. For what its worth, I agree completely.

 

[Banshee16]

I just noticed something about the 3.5 Command spell:



Nowhere does it say that these are the only options, or that other options are prohibited. It doesn't say certain commands are disallowed or not applicable. All it does is describe the general effect (give a single command) and then give a few specific instances of that command.

People are interpreting limitations where there are none. Nothing says that other commands can't be used. So they can. They just require that all-famous DM judgement call. Which Command as a spell required in general anyway.

As for the "If it ain't broke" crowd, I'll give you a few things to chew on:

1 - It is broke. D&D needs to compete with other things that sieze your gaming dollar. If nothing was changed, it would not survive, and that means it is malfunctioning.
2 - A rusty jalopy may run, but if you want a Ferrari, it's not going to satisfy you.
3 - Change is inevitable. D&D will adapt or die.

I don't think that statement's correct.....it's not broke just because it has to adapt.

It might have to evolve. It's broken if it's broken. Which it's not.....though returning more elements of 3.0, like getting rid of the paladin's instant horse, and other cheese factors (IMO) might make it a better game.

As it stands, the rules actually work pretty well. Change for change's sake is not a virtue. Change for a specific reason (ie. something is broken, or no longer competes well against other games on the market) *is*.

Last I checked, D20/D&D 3.0/3.5 has a pretty thorough dominance of the RPG industry...and it's stronger now than it was 10 years ago.

To establish how quickly the game must evolve to compete against others, you'd likely have to determine whether D20/D&D has lost popularity against other alternative games in the industry....which is completely separate from whether it's selling as well as it was in 2003, for example, given that the entire industry is not selling as well.

Banshee

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Well.. that depends on how how hot your daughter is.

... oh come on, you knew someone was going to say it. For what its worth, I agree completely.

Heh, I don't even have a daughter, I was just speaking hypothetically.

 

[Mark CMG]

I usd the upper half, otherwise no bite attack. And the bottom half....well, I don't know about you, but I don't wanna get hit with that thing...

Yup. That's gonna leave a mark . . .

 

[FireLance]

I concur. If I invite you over and tell you you MAY have a beer, and you MAY have some chips, that does not mean you MAY sleep with my daughter just because I didn't expressly forbid it.

Is that the extent of your hospitality? If I invited someone over, and he asked for something that I didn't explicitly offer, but wasn't out of line with what I was prepared to, like a soda instead of a beer, I'd be quite happy to provide it to him.

 

[Taraxia]

We-ell, not quite, in that a Command lasts for 1 round during which there's only so much info you can hope to get, while a Charm can last for ages. (though it may have been cut back in 3 or 3.5, in 1e the target got a new save at a frequency based on intelligence, but a series of failed saves could keep someone average charmed for weeks)

Lanefan

What I mean is that what you were trying to do with Command you could do *better* with Charm Person, given that it would have actually worked (instead of cutting you off after six seconds).

 

[Taraxia]

I just noticed something about the 3.5 Command spell:



Nowhere does it say that these are the only options, or that other options are prohibited. It doesn't say certain commands are disallowed or not applicable. All it does is describe the general effect (give a single command) and then give a few specific instances of that command.

This is the problem with shifts in the use of colloquial English. Nowadays people often say "may" to mean "can, possibly" -- i.e. "There may be a thunderstorm today", with the strong implication that the *other* possibilities are also quite likely. ("I may pass the test" implies I think I might not.)

On the other hand, the older definition of "may" is "are allowed to", with the implication that the other possibilities are not allowed. "You may have a cookie" doesn't mean "You could, possibly, have a cookie, but you could also have none, or thirty -- we'll just wait and see", it means "You are allowed to take one cookie if you want, but no more." This is the far more useful definition of "may" for rules.

People are interpreting limitations where there are none. Nothing says that other commands can't be used. So they can. They just require that all-famous DM judgement call. Which Command as a spell required in general anyway.

I may polymorph into an aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin. It doesn't explicitly say I may not polymorph into something else. May I polymorph into undead?

Anyway, the menu encompasses basically everything useful you could command a monster to do in one round with one word anyway.