Command Spell and Airborne Riders [Archive] - Wizards Community

Command Spell and Airborne Riders [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Inyotef
09-03-07, 06:03 PM I'm wondering how the Command spell would be adjudicated it if was sucessfully targeted at an airborne rider (not the flying mount). For example, could the commands "Fall" or "Flee" be used on the rider to get them to jump off the flying mount?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/command.htm

Or could the "Flee" command just cause the rider to spur the flying mount away?
Some_call_me_Tim
09-03-07, 07:48 PM For example, could the commands "Fall" or "Flee" be used on the rider to get them to jump off the flying mount?I'm assuming you are trying to get the rider to basically commit suicide--much too powerful a result for a mere first level spell. If the mount was only 5' off the ground then sure I would count 'fall' as a dismount. Otherwise I would treat 'fall' as a command to either land of cause the mount to plummet at its maximum rate if it is too high above the ground to land safely.
Or could the "Flee" command just cause the rider to spur the flying mount away?That would be the appropriate response, as the mount flying away is very likely much faster than any other method.
Nom
09-03-07, 08:55 PM I agree with Tim: "flee" would make the rider cause his mount to flee. Having just re-read the spell description, I'm not convinced that "fall" would do anything. "Fall" makes the target fall prone, but said target is already sitting and isn't really in a position to fall. About all you could make him do is slump in the saddle for negligible effect.
Inyotef
09-03-07, 08:57 PM What about casting it on the flying mount, ordering it to "Drop" its rider?
heffroncm
09-04-07, 12:08 AM Sure, why not? Get past the Mount's will check, the Rider gets a Ride check to stay on (not a very hard one either), and if you're high enough a mount has a chance to dive for the save. Lots of chances for nothing to happen but a round's delay.
Nom
09-04-07, 03:31 AM What about casting it on the flying mount, ordering it to "Drop" its rider?Ignoring the "language-dependent" issue, I'd still be dubious about allowing this. This isn't "drop", it's "throw", or the equivalent of commanding a normal creature to remove an item of equipment.

And before you asked, "fall" on a flyer would make it attempt to land and drop prone, not stall and fall like a stone.
mvincent
09-04-07, 12:17 PM "fall" on a flyer would make it attempt to land and drop prone, not stall and fall like a stone.I don't feel that is a truism. Even though the spell describes what "fall" does to a walking opponent, it is still not a D&D term, and the regular usage of "fall" would seem clear (and applicable) to a flyer.

Also, a tripped flyer stalls instead of going prone. This also seems applicable to most other things that would make a flyer go prone.
eamon
09-05-07, 03:33 PM I agree with mvincent's reasoning - Commanding a mount to fall would cause it to stall. I'm not sure this would apply to perfect maneuverability flight - can anyone reference the section about tripping flyers (or something to clear it up?)?

I have no problem with a 1st level spell being situationally good however. Depending on the circumstances, even on the ground a command might be suicide. It's the effect that counts, not the unfortunate circumstances. At best, you'd get a bonus on your will save.
mvincent
09-05-07, 04:29 PM I'm not sure this would apply to perfect maneuverability flight - can anyone reference the section about tripping flyers (or something to clear it up?)?From the Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060321a):
"Creatures that fly without wings (and any creature with perfect maneuverability) can't be tripped while flying."

But note that the RotG (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040706a) also says:
"A flying creature that cannot maintain its minimum forward speed because it has been rendered unconscious, has become paralyzed, has become magically held, or becomes unable to move for some other reason stalls at the beginning of its first turn after the debilitating effect occurs."
and
"A successful trip forces the defender to stall (even if the tripped creature doesn't have a minimum forward speed)"

So even though wingless (or perfectly maneuverable) creatures cannot be tripped, they should still be able to stall for other reasons (say, if they went unconscious or somesuch).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Inyotef 09-03-07, 06:03 PM	I'm wondering how the Command spell would be adjudicated it if was sucessfully targeted at an airborne rider (not the flying mount). For example, could the commands "Fall" or "Flee" be used on the rider to get them to jump off the flying mount? http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/command.htm Or could the "Flee" command just cause the rider to spur the flying mount away?
Some_call_me_Tim 09-03-07, 07:48 PM	For example, could the commands "Fall" or "Flee" be used on the rider to get them to jump off the flying mount?I'm assuming you are trying to get the rider to basically commit suicide--much too powerful a result for a mere first level spell. If the mount was only 5' off the ground then sure I would count 'fall' as a dismount. Otherwise I would treat 'fall' as a command to either land of cause the mount to plummet at its maximum rate if it is too high above the ground to land safely. Or could the "Flee" command just cause the rider to spur the flying mount away?That would be the appropriate response, as the mount flying away is very likely much faster than any other method.
Nom 09-03-07, 08:55 PM	I agree with Tim: "flee" would make the rider cause his mount to flee. Having just re-read the spell description, I'm not convinced that "fall" would do anything. "Fall" makes the target fall prone, but said target is already sitting and isn't really in a position to fall. About all you could make him do is slump in the saddle for negligible effect.
Inyotef 09-03-07, 08:57 PM	What about casting it on the flying mount, ordering it to "Drop" its rider?
heffroncm 09-04-07, 12:08 AM	Sure, why not? Get past the Mount's will check, the Rider gets a Ride check to stay on (not a very hard one either), and if you're high enough a mount has a chance to dive for the save. Lots of chances for nothing to happen but a round's delay.
Nom 09-04-07, 03:31 AM	What about casting it on the flying mount, ordering it to "Drop" its rider?Ignoring the "language-dependent" issue, I'd still be dubious about allowing this. This isn't "drop", it's "throw", or the equivalent of commanding a normal creature to remove an item of equipment. And before you asked, "fall" on a flyer would make it attempt to land and drop prone, not stall and fall like a stone.
mvincent 09-04-07, 12:17 PM	"fall" on a flyer would make it attempt to land and drop prone, not stall and fall like a stone.I don't feel that is a truism. Even though the spell describes what "fall" does to a walking opponent, it is still not a D&D term, and the regular usage of "fall" would seem clear (and applicable) to a flyer. Also, a tripped flyer stalls instead of going prone. This also seems applicable to most other things that would make a flyer go prone.
eamon 09-05-07, 03:33 PM	I agree with mvincent's reasoning - Commanding a mount to fall would cause it to stall. I'm not sure this would apply to perfect maneuverability flight - can anyone reference the section about tripping flyers (or something to clear it up?)? I have no problem with a 1st level spell being situationally good however. Depending on the circumstances, even on the ground a command might be suicide. It's the effect that counts, not the unfortunate circumstances. At best, you'd get a bonus on your will save.
mvincent 09-05-07, 04:29 PM	I'm not sure this would apply to perfect maneuverability flight - can anyone reference the section about tripping flyers (or something to clear it up?)?From the Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060321a): "Creatures that fly without wings (and any creature with perfect maneuverability) can't be tripped while flying." But note that the RotG (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040706a) also says: "A flying creature that cannot maintain its minimum forward speed because it has been rendered unconscious, has become paralyzed, has become magically held, or becomes unable to move for some other reason stalls at the beginning of its first turn after the debilitating effect occurs." and "A successful trip forces the defender to stall (even if the tripped creature doesn't have a minimum forward speed)" So even though wingless (or perfectly maneuverable) creatures cannot be tripped, they should still be able to stall for other reasons (say, if they went unconscious or somesuch).