Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 JPS42 Dec 11, 2014 19:03:30	I was in a session as a half-elf warlock and one of my starter spells was Command. We were running through Lost Mine of Phandelver and encountered some goblins by a fire. I pointed to the fire and commanded one of the goblins to 'Embrace'. He jumped into the flame and died. Is this legal? (The DM allowed it.)    I wouldn't consider it directly harmful. My main concern is whether the pointing is legal, and I'm wondering if the goblin would have just given me a hug had the rules been followed.
#2 Lucas_Blackstone Dec 11, 2014 19:12:33	JPS42 wrote:
#3 Ganymede425 Dec 11, 2014 19:20:33	JPS42 wrote:
#4 Novacat Dec 11, 2014 19:32:16	You wouldn't call jumping into a fire directly harmful? I'm not sure what could possibly qualify, then.
#5 JPS42 Dec 11, 2014 19:40:42	Jumping into a fire is directly harmful of course, but the command to embrace a fire doesn't strike me as directly harmful; at least not as much so as 'die', 'self-immolate', etc. Embracing doesn't directly relate to harm any more than undressing or approaching, even though it could result in harm just like both of those things. I think that the pointing is where the legality of the spell becomes contentious, as said above.
#6 Novacat Dec 11, 2014 19:59:54	Jumping is also not inherently harmful, but jumping off a cliff is. You have to take the context of the action into account. In this case, embracing a fire and self-immolation are the same thing. You can't just re-phrase a harmful command to make it non-harmful.
#7 El_Condoro Dec 11, 2014 20:12:02	The examples given in the spell's description allow some leeway in how the command is interpreted by the target, with any form of harm being avoided.   The word "directly" in directly harmful is misleading when the Halt example is considered - the flying creatures that can't hover can still move even though halting in the air is not "directly" harmful to them (the ground will break the fall!). I would interpret the harm to be any harm that affects the target directly is avoided (falling out the sky, approaching across a chasm, embracing a fire).   The examples of Approach and Flee indicate that interpretation is required by the target: approach what? flee where? One word is not enough to convey the details of these commands.
#8 Novacat Dec 11, 2014 20:41:57	The implied object of the Command, when one is needed, seems pretty consistently to be the caster. So issuing the Embrace command would result in the goblin giving you a hug.
#9 Imaculata Jan 12, 2015 8:06:43	The DM was wrong, this is not an allowed use of the command spell. Command is a single word compulsion effect, that compells creatures to do things that are reasonable. Jumping into a fire is not something any creature would do under any circumstances, so what the DM did was like treating a Command spell as if it were a Dominate spell. It is a common mistake, but the DMG is extremely clear on this.   It has to be a reasonable request, such as "Surrender", "Flee", "Duck", "Cough". If you ask a creature to embrace, it will listen to the word only, and not the gesture. It will decide for itself who it wants to embrace. It might choose to embrace you, or one of its buddies.   The more reasonable the request, the bigger the penalty the target gets on its save against the spell (the spell is more likely to succeed if the action you command him to do seems logical given the context). In the case of a life threatening command, I would have instantly made the spell fail, or given the monster a +6 bonus on its save.
#10 Dyndrilliac Dec 12, 2014 6:37:04	I agree with the others that this was an obvious blunder in the interppretation of the spell.   IMHO, the best legal use of the spell is the built-in command Grovel. Forcing a creature to spend it's next turn doing nothing but going prone is fantastic, and even more so with a 5th-level warlock slot to affect more enemies.
#11 Badasterisk Dec 12, 2014 19:15:20	Moreover, there's room to debate a target's ability to effectively comprehend the caster. There may be language barriers or, as in an example above, use of academic diction: does an orc or goblin know what 'grovel' means?
#12 mellored Dec 13, 2014 13:22:46	I'd be fine with pointing and saying embrace, but fire is directly harmful.   But, if you pointed at a sleeping bear, then it would be fine. Dyndrilliac wrote:
#13 BRJN Dec 17, 2014 11:38:28	RUN (and you know there are traps down the opposite hallway) would work for me.   One of the the more-fun (but not char-op-loved) 4e Invoker powers made everybody in a burst drop prone and GROVEL before you, or suffer damage.  I put it on my megalomaniac DMPC Invoker of Tharizdun for effect.
#14 Greenstone.Walker Jan 07, 2015 19:27:27	Dyndrilliac wrote:
#15 Ganymede425 Jan 08, 2015 6:41:06	Greenstone.Walker wrote:
#16 mellored Jan 08, 2015 6:43:50	"exfoliate" can also be fun, paticularly for those who wear armor, or have claws.
(Reply to #15) Llenlleawg	Ganymede425 wrote:
#18 taycrens Jan 08, 2015 11:21:41	If I'm is in battle and a goblin was engaging in melee combat with my party member, but it is my turn and I command the goblin "come" or "approach," ....would this invoke my party member to have opportunity attack? Or is this too close to directly harmful?
#19 mellored Jan 08, 2015 11:25:12	taycrens wrote:
(Reply to #18) AaronOfBarbaria	taycrens wrote:
#21 Orethalion Jan 08, 2015 12:06:47	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#22 mellored Jan 08, 2015 12:33:34	Orethalion wrote:
#23 Orethalion Jan 08, 2015 12:44:00	mellored wrote:
#24 mellored Jan 08, 2015 12:51:48	Orethalion wrote:
#25 Orethalion Jan 08, 2015 12:59:03	mellored wrote:
#26 AaronOfBarbaria Jan 08, 2015 13:02:56	I don't see any reason why the "approach" command would prevent the target from choosing to use the Disengage action, and thus I don't see any reason to consider it the "approach" command that is harmful rather than the target's poor choice to use some other action on their turn.   Where the command spell limits actions being taken by the target is stated in each of the command examples.
#27 Noctaem Jan 08, 2015 13:16:38	Orethalion wrote:
#28 mellored Jan 08, 2015 13:20:52	Orethalion wrote:
#29 Ganymede425 Jan 08, 2015 13:52:03	Llenlleawg wrote:
(Reply to #29) Ninja_Ferret	Ganymede425 wrote:
(Reply to #29) Macv12	Ganymede425 wrote:
#32 OoftaMeg Jan 09, 2015 6:53:50	I don't know about you, but I can't vomit at will. I know some people can using their fingers ... but I would rule that the target just stands there looking confused for a few moments.
(Reply to #32) Ninja_Ferret	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #31) Ganymede425	Macv12 wrote:
#35 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 7:58:21	Noctaem wrote:
#36 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 8:00:21	mellored wrote:
#37 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 8:05:27	When confronting an angry enemy, I prefer to use the command spell "SMILE!".   It just irritates them all the more, my having made them just do that...
#38 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 8:14:25	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#39 mellored Jan 09, 2015 8:58:27	Orethalion wrote:
#40 mellored Jan 09, 2015 9:05:27	Heck, even out of combat, "flee" and "approach" could be dangerous, since you might trip and fall, or trigger a trap. "Grovel" or "Halt" could be dangerous since there might be a meteor falling right at you, or an invisible bull charging in your direction. "Drop" could be dangerous, as the object might land on your foot, or bounce into you. ect...     But what do you think if you told 3 creatures to "flee" (casting it as a level 3 slot).  Only 1 can get hit by an OA.... so the other 2 are safe... but no one knows which one...
#41 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 9:08:11	mellored wrote:
#42 mellored Jan 09, 2015 9:09:32	Orethalion wrote:
#43 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 9:12:13	mellored wrote:
#44 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 9:13:02	mellored wrote:
#45 mellored Jan 09, 2015 9:33:26	mellored wrote:
#46 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 9:52:00	mellored wrote:
#47 OoftaMeg Jan 09, 2015 9:53:18	Did I miss something? Where does it say you can't command someone to do something dangerous?
#48 mellored Jan 09, 2015 10:08:32	If the goblin ignores the wizard by standing still, he is allowing the wizard a chance to hurt him. If a goblin runs away from a fighter, he's allowing the fighter a chance to hurt him.
#49 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 10:11:15	OoftaMeg wrote:
#50 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 10:12:35	mellored wrote:
#51 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 10:17:38	I'm not a big fan of arbitrary spell negation flimsiness...
#52 mellored Jan 09, 2015 10:20:54	IMO your ruling based on power, not circumstances, or story.
#53 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 10:23:44	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#54 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 10:22:42	mellored wrote:
#55 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 10:27:54	Orethalion wrote:
#56 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 10:30:48	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#57 mellored Jan 09, 2015 10:31:48	A goblin stops fighting and drops to his knees, allowing the fighter an easy strike at his neck vs. a goblin stops fighting and turns to run, allowing the fighter an easy strike at his back. How is one directly more dangerous then the other?
#58 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 10:31:48	Orethalion wrote:
#59 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 10:32:34	mellored wrote:
#60 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 10:35:43	mellored wrote:
#61 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 10:36:57	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#62 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 10:37:42	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#63 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 10:42:50	Orethalion wrote:
#64 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 11:22:16	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#65 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 11:30:29	Orethalion wrote:
#66 Jamwes Jan 09, 2015 11:34:27	One could argue that it is "directly benificial" for a goblin to "flee" from a PC because there is nothing more "directly harmful" than staying in melee with an adventurer. Same with "grovel" because perhaps the adventurer will spare the goblin after showing reverence to the PC.
#67 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 11:39:57	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #49) OoftaMeg	Orethalion wrote:
#69 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 11:56:50	Orethalion wrote:
#70 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 11:57:49	OoftaMeg wrote:
#71 iserith Jan 09, 2015 12:03:27	As for the original situation presented, my ruling would be that, yes, jumping into the fire is directly harmful and would seem to be against the intent of the command spell. I would advise the player of my thoughts on the matter before making a ruling under the assumption his or her character would know it is directly harmful and won't work.   As for the ensuing tangent, if you have to sniff a dictionary and grammar book to suss out the intent of a player's use of a single command word when he or she is right there in front of you, then something has gone horribly awry with your social skills. Just ask the player what he or she means for flumph's sake.
#72 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 12:06:41	iserith wrote:
#73 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 12:11:36	Orethalion wrote:
#74 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 12:13:57	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #29) Llenlleawg	Ganymede425 wrote:
#76 iserith Jan 09, 2015 12:26:24	Player: Full of Pelor's light, I point to the goblin and shout "Flee!" I'm casting the command spell. DM: So the goblin is currently engaged with the rogue who would get an opportunity attack against the goblin if it bolts. I think this might be "directly harmful." Player: I was thinking that it wasn't because the goblin could disengage or since the OA probably won't automatically hit it's not directly harmful. DM: Fair enough, I'll make a save for it. *rolls*   or   Player: You know, that does seem directly harmful. I'd like to tell him to grovel instead if that's okay. "Grovel!" DM: Sure, and I'll make a save for it. *rolls*   Those sound like reasonable interactions to me that don't involve thumbing through a dictionary or grammar book and neither ruling is wrong. Don't even get me started on "vomit."
#77 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 12:27:04	Llenlleawg wrote:
#78 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 12:29:44	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #18) DungeonKrusher	taycrens wrote:
#80 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 12:55:26	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #21) DungeonKrusher	Orethalion wrote:
#82 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 13:11:10	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#83 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 13:14:23	Orethalion wrote:
#84 Ganymede425 Jan 09, 2015 13:15:08	Orethalion wrote:
#85 DungeonKrusher Jan 09, 2015 13:16:32	I hate when I comment after a thread has already produced the answer I provide. Blah.    @OP #1  Pointing is 'allowed' but the goblin shouldn't take it into consideration. I believe the goblin hears the spell and reacts only to it, like it's the voice of a deity coming from Above. #2  I'm usually fast-and-loose with terminology, but I can't conceive of "embracing fire". Fire isn't something you can embrace, since it lack consistency and shape, but a goblin is likely to simply hug the nearest thing/person to it. #3  The intent to embrace the fire is basically asking it to burn itself. Base intelligence knows that fire burns, and it would not enter the flames or move near enough to hurt itself.   @commentors If you tell something to "jump" while it is standing on a ledge, it's obviously not going to jump off if it knows the danger, but... jump means a lot of things. Why wouldn't it just jump straight up? I guess I'm asking how you would attempt to direct a creature, short of "come" or "run"?
#86 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 13:18:00	"Plummet"
#87 iserith Jan 09, 2015 13:22:12	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#88 iserith Jan 09, 2015 13:23:47	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#89 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 13:27:14	iserith wrote:
#90 iserith Jan 09, 2015 13:29:02	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#91 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 13:29:52	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#92 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 13:36:32	Ganymede425 wrote:
(Reply to #83) DungeonKrusher	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #90) DungeonKrusher	iserith wrote:
#95 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 13:43:00	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#96 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 13:43:54	Orethalion wrote:
#97 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 13:46:02	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #87) DungeonKrusher	iserith wrote:
#99 iserith Jan 09, 2015 14:07:00	DungeonKrusher wrote:
(Reply to #99) DungeonKrusher	iserith wrote:
#101 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 14:28:03	"Autodefenestrate!"
(Reply to #101) DungeonKrusher	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#103 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 14:46:17	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#104 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 14:48:57	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#105 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 14:51:08	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#106 iserith Jan 09, 2015 15:09:06	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#107 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 15:26:21	Orethalion wrote:
#108 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 15:29:13	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #106) DungeonKrusher	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #108) DungeonKrusher	Orethalion wrote:
#111 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 15:53:04	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#112 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 15:59:43	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#113 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 16:03:35	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#114 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 16:10:08	Orethalion wrote:
#115 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 16:12:58	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#116 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 16:22:52	...to which you've shown a propensity to poo-poo them because "the goblin might get hurt."   Arbitrary.
#117 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 16:23:23	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #82) DungeonKrusher	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #112) DungeonKrusher	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #114) DungeonKrusher	quote="ChrisCarlson"] Clearly not the case. Or the player would not have tried to cast the spell you just poo-poo'ed with your arbitrary ruling...   Which you arbitrartily decide... [/quote]   Be cautious of "clearly" statements; they're usually signs that it's only clear because you don't get it. Uhoh!   O_o   If the action is considered harmful because the creature sees danger, then there is a reason and it's not arbitrary. If you see a car coming and you jump out of the way, the jump was not arbitrary: it was a reaction to visual stimuli and experience of knowing that the metal box coming at you could hurt or kill you.
(Reply to #116) DungeonKrusher	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#122 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 19:02:56	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#123 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 19:05:33	Orethalion wrote:
#124 Ganymede425 Jan 09, 2015 19:41:33	Orethalion wrote:
#125 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 20:52:59	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #122) DungeonKrusher	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #124) DungeonKrusher	Ganymede425 wrote:
(Reply to #125) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
#129 Orethalion Jan 10, 2015 9:06:30	Bloodscythe wrote:
#130 ChrisCarlson Jan 10, 2015 11:05:44	Orethalion wrote:
#131 Orethalion Jan 10, 2015 11:06:55	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#132 ChrisCarlson Jan 10, 2015 11:12:00	Orethalion wrote:
#133 ChrisCarlson Jan 10, 2015 11:12:45	Orethalion wrote:
#134 Orethalion Jan 10, 2015 11:15:36	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #128) DungeonKrusher	Bloodscythe wrote:
#136 ChrisCarlson Jan 10, 2015 11:45:37	Orethalion wrote:
#137 Orethalion Jan 10, 2015 11:47:06	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #129) DungeonKrusher	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #132) DungeonKrusher	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #136) DungeonKrusher	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#141 ChrisCarlson Jan 10, 2015 12:31:01	DungeonKrusher wrote:
(Reply to #141) DungeonKrusher	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#143 Orethalion Jan 10, 2015 13:20:34	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#144 Noon Jan 11, 2015 14:55:41	JPS42 wrote:
(Reply to #143) DungeonKrusher	Orethalion wrote:
#146 ChrisCarlson Jan 12, 2015 6:21:40	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#147 Orethalion Jan 12, 2015 6:53:17	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#148 ChrisCarlson Jan 12, 2015 7:02:40	Sure you have. Just now in fact. You arrbitrarily ruled that groveling is "directly harmful" severaltimes in this very thread.
#149 ChrisCarlson Jan 12, 2015 7:15:40	FYI (because I'm tired of you trying to invalidate my opinion based on your faulty understanding of the English language)...
#150 Noctaem Jan 12, 2015 7:21:03	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#162 Orethalion Jan 12, 2015 8:03:53	Noctaem wrote:
#163 Noctaem Jan 12, 2015 8:12:47	Orethalion wrote:
#164 Orethalion Jan 12, 2015 8:17:26	Noctaem wrote:
#165 Noctaem Jan 12, 2015 8:35:26	Orethalion wrote:
#166 Orethalion Jan 12, 2015 9:37:41	Noctaem wrote:
#167 Coredump00 Jan 12, 2015 9:46:39	The reason "arbitrary" has become an issue, is its being used as an insult about someone's decision.  To state a decision was "arbitrary" is to state there was no reason for it, that no system exists to help create that decision.... it means it is more or less randomly decided....   Arbirtraty is not *just* a personal whim, it is a choice made for no reason.
#168 Noctaem Jan 12, 2015 10:16:33	Orethalion wrote:
#169 mellored Jan 12, 2015 10:12:53	Orethalion wrote:
#170 Noctaem Jan 12, 2015 10:22:10	mellored wrote:
(Reply to #149) DungeonKrusher	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #168) DungeonKrusher	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #167) DungeonKrusher	Coredump00 wrote:
#174 Orethalion Jan 12, 2015 10:53:06	Noctaem wrote:
#175 Noctaem Jan 12, 2015 11:13:06	Orethalion wrote:
#176 Orethalion Jan 12, 2015 11:30:04	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #175) DungeonKrusher	Noctaem wrote:
#178 mellored Jan 12, 2015 11:34:58	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #176) DungeonKrusher	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #178) DungeonKrusher	mellored wrote:
#181 Orethalion Jan 12, 2015 11:45:41	mellored wrote:
(Reply to #181) DungeonKrusher	Orethalion wrote:
#183 mellored Jan 12, 2015 12:14:41	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#184 Noctaem Jan 12, 2015 12:23:23	I just realized there's another main problem to this discussion:   I'm sorry but where and how are you guys factoring in what the target believes?  Why should that be a factor at all in detemining if this spell works?  Where in the spell description does it ever even hint that the creature's belief of direct harm should ever factor in?  And also, there's actually examples provided including grovel as things that you can command a creature to do.  I mean they provide actual examples of stuff you can command which aren't directly harmful.  What more do you need?   If the target has a phobia about water and believes any amount of water can harm it, does the spell fail because it believes that a puddle that it can't possible drown or be harmed by will harm it?
(Reply to #183) DungeonKrusher	mellored wrote:
#186 mellored Jan 12, 2015 12:46:14	I couldn't find Waldo.
(Reply to #186) DungeonKrusher	mellored wrote:
#188 Orethalion Jan 12, 2015 13:02:26	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#189 Noctaem Jan 12, 2015 13:07:08	Orethalion wrote:
#190 Orethalion Jan 12, 2015 13:07:28	Noctaem wrote:
#191 mellored Jan 12, 2015 13:10:47	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#192 mellored Jan 12, 2015 13:11:53	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #184) DungeonKrusher	Noctaem wrote:
#194 Orethalion Jan 12, 2015 13:18:17	Noctaem wrote:
#195 mellored Jan 12, 2015 13:18:36	Orethalion wrote:
#196 Noctaem Jan 12, 2015 13:19:13	Orethalion wrote:
#197 Noctaem Jan 12, 2015 13:21:25	Orethalion wrote:
#198 mellored Jan 12, 2015 13:24:58	Orethalion wrote:
#199 Noctaem Jan 12, 2015 13:27:54	mellored wrote:
(Reply to #189) DungeonKrusher	Noctaem wrote:
#201 Noctaem Jan 12, 2015 13:52:45	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#202 ChrisCarlson Jan 12, 2015 13:51:40	So...   Lets say the party (a wizard and a fighter to keep it easy) walks in, sees that lone goblin in a room, and the Wizards instead casts Command (Grovel)...   Because there is a fighter standing next to the wizard in the doorway, and said fighter could potentially move up to that goblin, the spell would fail?   Cuz "directly harmful"?
(Reply to #196) DungeonKrusher	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #202) DungeonKrusher	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#205 Noctaem Jan 12, 2015 14:06:14	DungeonKrusher wrote:
(Reply to #205) DungeonKrusher	Noctaem wrote:
#207 Orethalion Jan 12, 2015 14:32:52	Noctaem wrote:
#208 Orethalion Jan 12, 2015 14:42:01	mellored wrote:
#209 Orethalion Jan 12, 2015 14:47:26	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#210 ChrisCarlson Jan 12, 2015 14:45:19	Isn't, perhaps, your choice to force in "likely" a bit odd?   Doesn't the combination of words "directly" and "harmful" imply diffinitively and not potentially?   I just think "Directly LIKELY to cause harm" doesn't even parse properly and is not the intent.   But "Directly to cause harm" does...
#211 ChrisCarlson Jan 12, 2015 14:47:38	Orethalion wrote:
#212 Orethalion Jan 12, 2015 14:50:07	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#213 Orethalion Jan 12, 2015 14:52:41	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#214 Noctaem Jan 12, 2015 14:54:39	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#215 ChrisCarlson Jan 12, 2015 14:53:46	Orethalion wrote:
#216 Orethalion Jan 12, 2015 14:57:18	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#217 DungeonKrusher Jan 12, 2015 14:57:38	Does anybody notice that this is a really, really, really ridiculous conversation? How about a few opinions be presented, examples and rulings shared, and we call it a day?  :oD    It's starting to look like a police interrogation room with minced words and hoping for somebody to say the wrong thing so that the judge can throw the book at 'em! Since everybody is mincing words anyway, this conversation is definitely on the low end of the productivity bell curve. Heh.
(Reply to #214) DungeonKrusher	Noctaem wrote:
#219 Noon Jan 12, 2015 19:23:02	Orethalion, I think you would agree that two DM's, given the same situation information, could come to two very different conclusions. Certainly over 10 DM's, you wont get a consistant answer.   That's why people are calling it an arbitrary decision - as in it's a subjective evaluation.   When 10 DM's give a range of responces to a question, it's fair enough to call it an arbitrary answer. Even if you were giving an answer!
#220 Orethalion Jan 12, 2015 21:12:33	Noon wrote:
#221 Noon Jan 12, 2015 22:30:43	But at the same time you're probably disinclined to, say, guess the next roll of a D10 where if you get it wrong, you lose $50.   And in the same way, you're probably disinclined to say on of the GM's picked at random will give the same answer as you would give, where if you get it wrong you lose $50.   Because at a certain level you recognise the similarity.
(Reply to #198) Coredump00	mellored wrote:
#223 Noon Jan 13, 2015 0:42:48	When you ram the knife toward your neck...it's the blade doing it, not you! Totally how anyone would think about it.
#224 mellored Jan 13, 2015 5:20:00	Orethalion wrote:
#225 Noctaem Jan 13, 2015 5:28:53	mellored wrote:
#226 Orethalion Jan 13, 2015 5:47:38	Noon wrote:
#227 mellored Jan 13, 2015 5:54:37	Noctaem wrote:
#228 Orethalion Jan 13, 2015 5:59:08	mellored wrote:
#229 Noctaem Jan 13, 2015 6:15:09	mellored wrote:
#230 Orethalion Jan 13, 2015 6:23:41	Noctaem wrote:
#231 mellored Jan 13, 2015 6:36:05	Orethalion wrote:
#232 mellored Jan 13, 2015 6:38:05	Noctaem wrote:
#233 Noctaem Jan 13, 2015 6:43:32	mellored wrote:
#234 mellored Jan 13, 2015 6:54:52	Noctaem wrote:
#235 Orethalion Jan 13, 2015 6:57:53	mellored wrote:
#236 mellored Jan 13, 2015 7:11:51	Orethalion wrote:
#237 Orethalion Jan 13, 2015 7:12:43	mellored wrote:
#238 mellored Jan 13, 2015 7:13:42	Orethalion wrote:
#239 Orethalion Jan 13, 2015 7:18:50	mellored wrote:
#240 mellored Jan 13, 2015 7:20:56	Orethalion wrote:
#241 Orethalion Jan 13, 2015 7:25:02	mellored wrote:
#242 Orethalion Jan 13, 2015 7:28:43	mellored wrote:
#243 mellored Jan 13, 2015 7:37:01	Orethalion wrote:
#244 Orethalion Jan 13, 2015 7:36:16	mellored wrote:
#245 mellored Jan 13, 2015 7:38:42	Orethalion wrote:
#246 mellored Jan 13, 2015 7:42:05	Orethalion wrote:
#247 Orethalion Jan 13, 2015 7:46:07	mellored wrote:
#248 Orethalion Jan 13, 2015 7:50:20	mellored wrote:
#249 mellored Jan 13, 2015 7:54:28	Orethalion wrote:
#250 Orethalion Jan 13, 2015 8:09:30	mellored wrote:
#251 mellored Jan 13, 2015 8:20:01	Orethalion wrote:
#252 Orethalion Jan 13, 2015 8:22:51	mellored wrote:
(Reply to #219) DungeonKrusher	Noon wrote:
(Reply to #234) DungeonKrusher	mellored wrote:
(Reply to #236) DungeonKrusher	mellored wrote:
#256 Noctaem Jan 13, 2015 11:57:03	mellored wrote:
#257 Orethalion Jan 13, 2015 14:26:32	Noctaem wrote:
#258 randl Jan 13, 2015 15:09:22	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #257) DungeonKrusher	Orethalion wrote:
#260 Orethalion Jan 13, 2015 16:02:02	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#261 ChrisCarlson Jan 13, 2015 16:12:00	All I know is, were I a player and some of you (as the DM) has an opponent command me to do anything, I'd rather quickly explain how my character's perspective would negate the spell because it could lead to harm...
(Reply to #260) DungeonKrusher	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #261) DungeonKrusher	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#264 Orethalion Jan 13, 2015 16:31:48	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#265 ChrisCarlson Jan 13, 2015 16:37:59	Orethalion wrote:
#266 ChrisCarlson Jan 13, 2015 16:38:42	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#267 Orethalion Jan 13, 2015 16:43:12	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #266) DungeonKrusher	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#269 Coredump00 Jan 13, 2015 18:09:42	I think the Halt! description is very informative regarding how to adjudicate things.   Halt. The target doesn’t move and takes no actions. A flying creature stays aloft, provided that it is able to do so. If it must move to stay aloft, it flies the minimum distance needed to remain in the air.
#270 Orethalion Jan 13, 2015 18:14:53	Coredump00 wrote:
#271 Noctaem Jan 14, 2015 5:10:19	Orethalion wrote:
#272 Orethalion Jan 14, 2015 5:17:11	Noctaem wrote:
#273 ChrisCarlson Jan 14, 2015 6:18:19	Orethalion wrote:
#274 Orethalion Jan 14, 2015 6:54:37	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#275 iserith Jan 14, 2015 6:57:25	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#276 ChrisCarlson Jan 14, 2015 6:57:42	Orethalion wrote:
#277 Noctaem Jan 14, 2015 7:02:20	@ Orethalion   Um, the description says nothing about being harmful or not.  All it says is that if you target a flying creature and command it Halt!, if it must move in order to stay in the air it gets to move the minimum distance.  You're extrapolating and adding words where there's no need.  Furthermore you're attaching the exception to the rest of the spell from a section that specifically talks about the Halt command and nothing else.  They probably added that part because Halt is designed to stop movement and they knew some creatures who fly must keep moving every turn to keep flying.  I haven't seen one of those monsters yet and I don't have my MM with me right now but that's my guess.     For you to be correct Orethalion and Coredump, the exception would have been:   1.  Worded differently to encompass the entire spell instead of being very specifically about the Halt command. 2.  The exception would have been in the main body of the spell instead of in the Halt command example which restricts it even further to being only for the Halt command. 3.  Would have been present in every example provided if it was really meant to be applied to every command you gave if not as 1 describes. 4.  The exception itself would not simply be about a flying creatures and what happens when you use the halt command on it, it would use more broad terms to include all possible commands and not just be about flying creatures.   And btw, even if you were correct and the exception should be applied to all commands it would still only be restricted to flying creatures (since that's the cause for the entire exception to begin with).  Because if you change the entire wording and reason and cause for the exception to suit your argument, it is no longer a coherent statement.  You can't eat your cake and have it as well.
#278 Orethalion Jan 14, 2015 7:15:41	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#279 Orethalion Jan 14, 2015 7:18:43	Noctaem wrote:
#280 Noctaem Jan 14, 2015 7:25:45	Orethalion wrote:
#281 Orethalion Jan 14, 2015 8:26:23	Noctaem wrote:
#282 Noctaem Jan 14, 2015 9:25:55	You're seriously saying that the part where they say: A flying creature stays aloft, provided that it is able to do so. If it must move to stay aloft, it flies the minimum distance needed to remain in the air.   Is not an exception to the previous sentence?  Anyone?  And are the two sentences together not directly related to the Halt command itself and how it specifically deals with flying creatures?   Halt. The target doesn’t move and takes no actions. A flying creature stays aloft, provided that it is able to do so. If it must move to stay aloft, it flies the minimum distance needed to remain in the air.   Anyway I'm not interested in getting into a grammatical debate with you.  I just don't think you have any ground to stand on when it comes to the above by virtue of the fact this is an exception based game system and this is basically how exceptions work throughout the system.  It states the way things work "The target doesn't move and takes no actions" then states the exception(s) if any afterwards.  I don't see how you can possibly argue otherwise.  You also failed to understand which part of the sentence quoted is the exception and what is the default result of using the Halt command.  Hopefully the above helps.  You also tried to claim that I was talking about every example given instead of specifically the Halt command which to fair, is a mirepresentation of the statements I'm making or at worse is you trying to strawman those statements.  You're the one trying to broaden the exception within the halt command to everything else remember?  Not me.   It does not encompass the entire spell at all.  It's very specifically talking about the halt command and how that specific command interacts with both targets and specifically flying targets and even more specifically flying targets that need to continue moving to stay in the air.  There's a chain of exceptions within the structure of the phrase that you're denying exists and choose to apply to the entire spell instead of how it's meant to be specifically related to that one command.  And you're right that Directly Harmful applies the spell as a whole, but that's not what the text in Halt talks about, regardless of if the flying creature was to stop moving, it wouldn't fall.  The words clearly say that it stays aloft.  However should the creature's fly speed require that it keeps moving to stay in the air, it gets to move the minimum.  There's nothing there about falling or directly harmful.  So again, you can't claim that it's about the creature becoming directly harmed, the words don't say that at all.   Your following statement is already addressed above, you can't claim that the exception is there because of flying creature's being directly harmed by the halt command, that's not what it says.  You're extrapolating from the exception (changing the reason why it exists, the reasoning behind it and the cause for it being there) to create the argument you're presenting.  Furthermore you're adding more to the context by claiming that the spell also follows the safest route possible, which again isn't what the spell does at all in any of the examples provided or the main body of the spell.  So again, I don't feel you have ground to stand on for these statements.   As for your next statement, I don't think you using the excuse "paying for redundant wording and examples" makes any sense.  If their goal was to create an exception in one example that then stretched to create an exception for the entire spell, should they not place that exception in the main body of the spell it should then follow that they should place the exception in every example given so that people understood that it was meant to apply globally.  They didn't, so it doesn't.  Again the exception is specifically about the Halt spell, how it the halt command deals with flying creatures and finally how flying creatures who must continue to move to stay in the air get to move the minimum amount in order to remain aloft.  Which is directly related to the sentence about flying creatures remaining aloft and not the spell as a whole as well as any command you give.
#283 Jamwes Jan 14, 2015 9:35:02	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#284 Noctaem Jan 14, 2015 10:06:11	Jamwes wrote:
#285 Orethalion Jan 14, 2015 10:18:33	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #273) DungeonKrusher	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#287 ChrisCarlson Jan 14, 2015 10:24:46	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#288 Orethalion Jan 14, 2015 10:26:38	DungeonKrusher wrote:
(Reply to #284) DungeonKrusher	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #287) DungeonKrusher	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#291 ChrisCarlson Jan 14, 2015 10:33:14	Orethalion wrote:
#292 ChrisCarlson Jan 14, 2015 10:31:59	DungeonKrusher wrote:
(Reply to #287) randl	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#294 ChrisCarlson Jan 14, 2015 10:37:54	randl wrote:
(Reply to #280) DungeonKrusher	Noctaem wrote:
#296 Orethalion Jan 14, 2015 10:47:18	DungeonKrusher wrote:
(Reply to #295) Bloodscythe	DungeonKrusher wrote:
(Reply to #277) DungeonKrusher	Noctaem wrote:
#299 Noctaem Jan 14, 2015 11:11:27	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #297) DungeonKrusher	Bloodscythe wrote:
#301 ChrisCarlson Jan 14, 2015 11:17:14	Agreed.   The fighter and rogue are engaged in melee combat with a nasty stone giant.   The cleric casts command on the giant and orders it to "grovel" (lets assume a failed save would result).   So what happens?
(Reply to #296) DungeonKrusher	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #299) DungeonKrusher	Noctaem wrote:
#304 Noctaem Jan 14, 2015 11:33:41	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#305 Orethalion Jan 14, 2015 11:35:14	Noctaem wrote:
#306 Orethalion Jan 14, 2015 11:36:38	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#307 Orethalion Jan 14, 2015 11:57:19	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#308 Noctaem Jan 14, 2015 12:07:51	Orethalion wrote:
#309 Orethalion Jan 14, 2015 12:12:46	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #306) DungeonKrusher	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #309) DungeonKrusher	Orethalion wrote:
#312 Noctaem Jan 14, 2015 12:41:56	I feel I need to point this out here.  Flying creatures STAY ALOFT.  Flying creatures who MUST move in order to stay aloft get to move the minimum distance to stay aloft.  So actually, this whole thing about falling down or whatever is completely moot.  They've created a closed circuit here.  If you're flying and told to halt, you stop moving and STAY ALOFT and the only way to move at all is IF you MUST do so to stay in the air.  So no you don't get to circle around, you stop moving.   The flying creature CAN NEVER fall so the command will NEVER be directly harmful to a flying creature on its own because of the exception they put in for flying creatures.  Specific vs general, specific always wins.  That's why I said that Orethalion had no basis for his statement that it was directly harmful.  It simply cannot be on its own when it comes to flying creatures.
(Reply to #307) DungeonKrusher	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #312) DungeonKrusher	Noctaem wrote:
#315 Noctaem Jan 14, 2015 12:56:02	Right, the exception specifically called out for flying creatures tells us that they stay aloft if they were flying, and if they MUST move to stay in the air they get to move the minimum distance.  They will NEVER be directly harmed by the spell alone.  It's impossible unless you break one of the two or both exceptions for flying creatures.
#316 Jamwes Jan 14, 2015 12:58:29	Orethalion wrote:
#317 Coredump00 Jan 14, 2015 13:31:36	DungeonKrusher:  I was going to quote you, but couldn't decide which part.... and there was a lot to choose from. ;)   I like what you are saying, and I have to say there is merit to the logic you are applying.  I'm not sure I agree completely, but I am also not sure it matters if our results end up the same.  From what you are saying, the target is allowed some flexibility in order to complete the spirit of the command as best as it is able.  Since the Eagle *can't* literally Halt, it will slow down as much as possible.   Let me ask you about an example:   Cleric is standing in front of a puddle of Acid, and Commands the barefoot human to "Approach".  What happens: A) The Human walks through the Acid to approach the Cleric B) The Human walks around the Acid to approach the Cleric C) Since obeying the command would be Harmful, the spell fizzles   Thanks
#318 Orethalion Jan 14, 2015 13:34:55	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#322 Noctaem Jan 14, 2015 13:53:51	Orethalion wrote:
#323 Orethalion Jan 14, 2015 14:10:34	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #317) DungeonKrusher	Coredump00 wrote:
#325 Noctaem Jan 14, 2015 14:16:58	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #318) DungeonKrusher	Orethalion wrote: