RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Okay, flipping through Ultimate Magic I came across this spell called forbid action. Here it is:
Forbid Action
School enchantment (compulsion) [language-dependent, mind-affecting]; Level cleric 1, inquisitor 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Component V
Range close (25 ft. +5 ft./2 levels)
Target one creature
Duration 1 round
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yesYou forbid the target a single course of action, which it avoids to the best of its ability. You may demand the target not take actions that fall into one of the following options.
Attack: The target cannot take any action that involves an attack roll, or uses a spell or ability that targets a foe or an area that includes a foe.
Cast: Target cannot cast spells or use spell-like abilities.
Communicate: The target cannot take any actions that allow it to communicate with anyone. This includes such acts as speaking, Bluff checks to pass secret messages, writing, and using telepathy. It does not prevent verbalizations made for purposes other than communication, such as command words or the verbal component of spellcasting.
Draw: Target cannot ready or prepare any item, weapon, component, or equipment.
Move: The target can take no act that would cause it to end up in a different location. The target does not resist being moved by others (and thus can be picked up or dragged, or can float along on a raft), but does not consciously attempt to move (including not directing a mount to move).
The target is free to take any actions not forbidden by the caster. For example, a target affected by this spell’s demand to not move is still free to cast spells, make attacks, or shout for help.
Okay, that's all fine and good, but my question is, what can it do that command doesn't already do better?
Command
School enchantment (compulsion) [language-dependent, mind-affecting]; Level cleric 1, inquisitor 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one living creature
Duration 1 round
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yesYou give the subject a single command, which it obeys to the best of its ability at its earliest opportunity. You may select from the following options.
Approach: On its turn, the subject moves toward you as quickly and directly as possible for 1 round. The creature may do nothing but move during its turn, and it provokes attacks of opportunity for this movement as normal.
Drop: On its turn, the subject drops whatever it is holding. It can't pick up any dropped item until its next turn.
Fall: On its turn, the subject falls to the ground and remains prone for 1 round. It may act normally while prone but takes any appropriate penalties.
Flee: On its turn, the subject moves away from you as quickly as possible for 1 round. It may do nothing but move during its turn, and it provokes attacks of opportunity for this movement as normal.
Halt: The subject stands in place for 1 round. It may not take any actions but is not considered helpless.
If the subject can't carry out your command on its next turn, the spell automatically fails.
Same level, same caster lists, same school, same descriptors, same EVERYTHING in the top section.
Now, pay particular attention to the use of command under "Halt." It says "The subject stands in place for 1 round. It may not take any actions but is not considered helpless."
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that pretty much like forbid action "everything" all rolled into one? The only difference I can see is that forbid action could prevent someone from moving (while still allowing them to attack or cast spells) or forbid them from casting (while still allowing them to move). But... why would you want to do that? If you're impairing someone's ability to act, why not impair it all the way? I'm just trying to figure out the purpose of this spell. It seems like a lesser version of command, but its the same spell level and on the same lists... am I missing something?
EDIT: On closer inspection, I notice that forbid action is "one creature" while command is "one LIVING creature." However, as forbid action still bears the mind-affecting descriptor, the only things this opens up is intelligent undead, which is a pretty narrow group. Still, its something.
Forbid Action can affect nonliving creatures that are vulnerable to mind-affecting spells????
|
Obviously, there are more uses for command than forbid. However:
First, keep in mind that a 5-foot step is listed as no action. So a halted character can, theoretically, still take a 5-foot step. (Yes, it's wonky. Yes, a lot of people house-rule that. But, still...)
Second, sometimes you have to let an NPC do one thing, but want to forbid other things. for example, if you have taken a prisoner and are rushing away with them, you need them to run. If you see a group of guards up ahead, you don't want to 'halt' your prisoner, but a forbid - communicate would be great.
If a creature offers to help you with beneficial magic, but you don't rust it, forbidding an attack can be useful. for that matter, any time you need to work with someone you don't trust (let him open a door, say a password, whatever) it can be useful to forbid an attack for a round.
Myself, I'd make the duration 1 round/2 levels (1 round minimum), but I do think the spell as written is too powerful to be 0-level, and that just leaves 1st level. And since it is useful in a few situations, I can see having it.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Forbid Action can affect nonliving creatures that are vulnerable to mind-affecting spells????
Yeah, I noticed that. Still, that's an exceedingly narrow margin of usefulness. If the language-dependant descriptor was dropped from forbid action, that would make it useable against animals, magical beasts, and several aberrations as well...... but again, that is not the case.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Obviously, there are more uses for command than forbid. However:
First, keep in mind that a 5-foot step is listed as no action. So a halted character can, theoretically, still take a 5-foot step. (Yes, it's wonky. Yes, a lot of people house-rule that. But, still...)
Second, sometimes you have to let an NPC do one thing, but want to forbid other things. for example, if you have taken a prisoner and are rushing away with them, you need them to run. If you see a group of guards up ahead, you don't want to 'halt' your prisoner, but a forbid - communicate would be great.
If a creature offers to help you with beneficial magic, but you don't rust it, forbidding an attack can be useful. for that matter, any time you need to work with someone you don't trust (let him open a door, say a password, whatever) it can be useful to forbid an attack for a round.
Myself, I'd make the duration 1 round/2 levels (1 round minimum), but I do think the spell as written is too powerful to be 0-level, and that just leaves 1st level. And since it is useful in a few situations, I can see having it.
The duration is the big problem. Yes, the situations you present are practical, but with a 1 round duration, hardly useful. Sure you keep your prisoner silent for a round... but then he calls out his warning a moment later and it hardly matters. Not to mention the spell itself has a verbal component, so unless you're casting it silent, someone will probably hear the casting.
In the offered beneficial magic situation, the creature could simply do nothing for a round, and THEN cast the harmful spell it wanted (of course, it does pretty effectively call the creature's bluff).
Yep, i think that instead a new spell, they should have modified the command Spell, adding the Forbid option.-
Duration is a big issue too.-
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I guess that theoretically, you could use Forbid Action on a falling/flying creature. The 'Halt' option could possibly be considered impossible for such a creature, causing the spell to automatically fail. Not sure how often this would come up in play, but it is a difference.
I don't think the "halt" command would fail on a flying creature. The creature would simply stop trying to move (and would thus begin to fall). There's nothing to prevent command from having a creature "approach" you through a wall of fire for example, so I see no reason why a creature wouldn't yield to the "halt" command, even if doing so were obviously going to be harmful.