Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Armandrik 06-25-07, 01:46 AM	Hello, My friend let us play a D&D v.3.0 game. I play a Grumbar cleric in the Forgotten Realms. I have a question about the COMMAND spell that a cleric could cast. I Know that in the D&D core book in the version 3.5 the rule are very clear about the COMMAND spell description..but in the v.3.0..i'm not sur how far I can COMMAND a single personn. Can I COMMAND a personn ato TELL me something when I interrogate him ? That was the litige of tonight session....If we read the COMMAND spell description it is said that I can give a one-word command. So if I COMMAND a personne to TELL me what He know....in six seconds..like a name of somebody...or did my ennemy kill my friend ? etc...Can It work ? CAn I order someone to SING or to play chess for one round ?
unundindur 06-25-07, 07:28 AM	I would say "tell" makes him say something, but with a very little chance of it beeing anything useful. He is only enforced to tell something. That said, it should be perfectly fine to make him "sing", although not which song. Thats at least my 1 cent :)
Leilond 06-25-07, 07:38 AM	I would say "tell" makes him say something, but with a very little chance of it beeing anything useful. He is only enforced to tell something. That said, it should be perfectly fine to make him "sing", although not which song. Thats at least my 1 cent :) Totally agree. You've to use a single word, and that means you cannot tell me to talk about something specific
ArcTan 06-25-07, 07:47 AM	It's this ambiguity that made them change the spell in the first place. (I'm a little mystified by hardcore 3.0 players, since, unlike the change from 2e to 3e, 3.0->3.5 wasn't about changing the nature of the system so much as fixing the huge and glaring bugs in it.)
Armandrik 06-25-07, 09:24 AM	I would say "tell" makes him say something, but with a very little chance of it beeing anything useful. He is only enforced to tell something. The spell is a "Mind affecting" area, so why a personn be on a "Command" spell could not tell the name of an ennemy ? If my character have interrogated over 30 minutes an elf and after that time...I want a name..or a place...Why the elf could not tell me the name of the place or the name of the personne I want to search? I have set the decor for this "command" spell...It's not like my ennemi doesn't know what I'M asking. It is a reasonnable command, no? I know that in v.3.5 it is clear about the COMMAND spell..but my friend play with the v.3.0..so I have to deal with that...and since another player an I have a little disagreament on the interpretation of this spell..I have to ask your light on this :) Here what I have done..After 5 minutes of interrogation, I want to know if the elf did kidnap another personn : "So, Jhaer was kidnapped last night. Did you do it ? You will tell me now. TELL." So..this was the Setting before I ask my question...Could it be reasonnable to use the COMMAND spell for that ?
Leilond 06-25-07, 09:32 AM	Disagree The command spell is "TELL" No matter what you say before or after the command order. The "tell" order isn't related to anything... it is a spell, and force me only to "tell" something, not "somethig special" The spell isn't influenced by nothing else than the word commanded. Dot If you let use the spell that way, you're simply changing the spell rules It doesn't matter that your enemy know what you want to ear... he can say you something different, because the "TELL" command force him to TELL something, and he won't tell you what you want if he can And most of all... command is a standard action, so you cannot simply put it inside a phrase. You must concentrate for 2-3 seconds and shout the command
Armandrik 06-25-07, 10:36 AM	The spell isn't influenced by nothing else than the word commanded. Dot THe explanation is now clearer in my head. Thank you for that. But in the new light of your explanation..if I say command word like COOPERATE...and then ask a the same question.....can I do this ? THe only reason I ask is because the description of the spell let us make some interpretation....So if the ennemy must do the COMMAND WORD and nothing else...Could I COmmand him to cooperate for one round ?
Leilond 06-25-07, 11:02 AM	THe explanation is now clearer in my head. Thank you for that. But in the new light of your explanation..if I say command word like COOPERATE...and then ask a the same question.....can I do this ? THe only reason I ask is because the description of the spell let us make some interpretation....So if the ennemy must do the COMMAND WORD and nothing else...Could I COmmand him to cooperate for one round ? First of all we must remember that the spell isn't related on what you told before or after. He will find the worst way he can think to cooperate with you. For example telling you who isn't his boss, or telling you where is hidden a bounch of gold goins he hides, or giving you the key of a door he knows you're going to open also without that key, or trying to help some of the group member to put on the armor. Or trying to help someone to cook, or any other possible thing that can reasonably sounds "cooperative". I'm your enemy and I'll try to do all I can to give you less help than I can. It can work, but the enemy will try to make it won't work with all his will
Armandrik 06-25-07, 11:17 AM	He will find the worst way he can think to cooperate with you. Again, I must thank you for taking the time answering my question ; it's being helpful. On the COOPERATE thing...I must disagree on what it is in the Quote section. I don't think that the ennemy will do the worst part of the cooperation...since in the spell description it is clearly said that "wich she obey to the best of her ability". So I think that if I COMMAND my ennemy to cooperate..for the duration of the spell..and against his will (if he failed the saving throw), the ennemy will do his best ti cooperate...After that, it's another story:)
Leilond 06-25-07, 11:27 AM	It's a matter of opinion. Cooperate is a vaguely word. I'm cooperating helping you to cook, and I will try to do it at the best of my possibility. You're assuming that "cooperate" mean I've to cooperate on an argument because I know the things that interest you. But it isn't a "dominate" nor a "charme" and I will help you cook as well as I can The only things needed is that I make something cooperative (not usefull) and I do it at best of my possibility. It isn't required that I do the most usefull thing for you