|
If I may, as another player at said table, make an observation...
What caused the "pedantics" to occur has only been glossed over here, and may have been missed entirely.
The situation is that we had encountered a pair of enemies- human mercenaries- and had just finished telling them their boss was dead and they could leave quietly with their lives. They had not yet given the indication if they were or were not going to leave when the skeletons they had been disturbing rose to attack us all.
The caster decided to control one of the skeletons, and was trying to find a good way to tell them to attack other skeletons, but -not- the other human enemies in the room, as we were not sure if they had decided to go peacefully or not. This was where the issue of what the exact command for the skeleton was had arisen.
So, using the second-level spell, Command Undead, we were trying to find a way that the skeleton could attack the other skeletons and leave all the humans, not all of them our allies, alone.
RE: Undead vs the Living. How I've seen this handled in almost every published module/scenario/adventure/encounter is living creatures (including animals and vermin) and mindless undead simply don't exist in the same areas unless the undead are under the direct control of some other power (presumably because such creature see the undead and leave, as any natural creature should). When undead are under the direct control of some other power, a list of orders are provided (which are almost always phrased in such a way that keeps the undead inactive until the PCs arrive).
Being deliberately flippant/provocative, if that were the case, there wouldn't be a single cobweb anywhere in any crypt, no earthworms in the graveyard etc etc and everything would be virtually spotless. From a game perspective, the number one way to destroy skeletons and zombies becomes to throw a bag of ants into the middle of them and whilst they are busy attacking them as they are the closest living creatures either safely despatch with missle fire or walk away.
Being more serious, if you're going to make nerfing rules look out for players finding ways to take advantage of them later. This is the reverse argument of the player with the unbalancing trick finding the NPCs use the same trick against the player.
...using the second-level spell, Command Undead, we were trying to find a way that the skeleton could attack the other skeletons and leave all the humans, not all of them our allies, alone.
This is a completely reasonable use of that spell. Even if the player couldn't figure out the right way to word it, an Intelligence check, or appropriate Knowledge check should have been enough for the character to figure out how to tell the creature "attack the undead, don't attack the living".
|
Being deliberately flippant/provocative, if that were the case, there wouldn't be a single cobweb anywhere in any crypt, no earthworms in the graveyard etc etc and everything would be virtually spotless. From a game perspective, the number one way to destroy skeletons and zombies becomes to throw a bag of ants into the middle of them and whilst they are busy attacking them as they are the closest living creatures either safely despatch with missle fire or walk away.
Taking you seriously here for a moment... undead are rare and only come about naturally (for lack of a better word) in highly unusual circumstances, and usually only after being an ordinary corpse for a really really long time. Just because the spiders left their webs when the dead started to walk doesn't mean they took their webs with them.
As for distracting undead with other living creatures, I'm surprised no one has actually done something like this in your games. A sack of ants is kinda weird to carry around, but a bag of tricks would be fantastic here, as would summon monster/swarm, figurines of wondrous power and other things that are commonly used for this purpose with other mindless creatures. Normal critters kept in a sack would just run away from the undead unless specifically trained to attack them.
Of course, if the undead have orders they follow their orders and might just ignore the distraction in favor of humanoid (the shape, not creature type) targets.
Being more serious, if you're going to make nerfing rules look out for players finding ways to take advantage of them later. This is the reverse argument of the player with the unbalancing trick finding the NPCs use the same trick against the player.
I'm hardly nerfing anything. In what ways have I made use of this specific 2nd level spell ineffective or even less useful than any other GM? It does what it says in its description, nothing more.
|
|
...using the second-level spell, Command Undead, we were trying to find a way that the skeleton could attack the other skeletons and leave all the humans, not all of them our allies, alone.This is a completely reasonable use of that spell. Even if the player couldn't figure out the right way to word it, an Intelligence check, or appropriate Knowledge check should have been enough for the character to figure out how to tell the creature "attack the undead, don't attack the living".
Which, just to remind everybody, is what happened (though I didn't involve the actual Int check and just helped him phrase the command).
As Trystan mentioned, it was important to have the command phrased so I would understand how the undead would react to the 3rd group in the room, even if it was only to determine if the commanded skeleton would see them as apparent allies of the caster.
Given the group were fighting skeletons (4 hp) I'm surprised the caster didn't just let the 4th level cleric with the sun domain do his thing, but I guess that's beside the point.
Reading through the thread, it sounds rather like the GM made a call which several of the players disagreed with. The GM effectively reversed his decision by helping the player craft a suitable set of words rather than just hand-waving the original intent through. Both sides have subsequently expressed their view and continued disagreement in this forum and the consensus has been with the players, both with the spell's effect and the intention. It also reads as though the GM has some particular views on undead within his game world that are more detailed and simulationist than is generally adopted.
My advice (although this is the Rules forum) is for the players and GM to agree and set their expectations over:
- when a character (PC, NPC or monster) can speak and give orders
- how undead and potentially other non/low sentient life react to stimuli
- How the various control spells function (if Command undead causes problems, what about Charm person)
- Agree how they will resolve future in-game disputes
|
|
My advice (although this is the Rules forum) is for the players and GM to agree and set their expectations over:
- when a character (PC, NPC or monster) can speak and give orders
- how undead and potentially other non/low sentient life react to stimuli
- How the various control spells function (if Command undead causes problems, what about Charm person)
- Agree how they will resolve future in-game disputes
Seeing as this is PFS, wish is luck.
However, seeing how this ultimately has an insignificant effect on how the game is played, I'm chalking it up to table variation and calling it a day.
Okay, I'm completely lost as to where you are coming from now. If the rules took a back seat to anyone's desire, it was your desire to treat Command Undead as Control Undead.
If all you want to argue here is that something could be said that could have got you want you wanted, then we've already established, here and at the table that you are correct. If you want to argue that what you actually said would have got you what you wanted, then you are wrong. If you are wrong only by virtue of table variation then so be it, but I did not deny you anything. I also allowed/prompted/asked you to rephrase your command so you did get what you wanted. The only point at which you didn't get what you wanted was when another PC killed you commanded skeleton.
I fail to see how getting what you wanted gives you room to continue to complain.
Now, if you want to argue how your commanded skeleton should have just stood there doing nothing when a previous command became impossible to follow (commanded to attack a specific target that didn't exist by the start of the skeleton's turn), that's fine, but again here I already said I could be wrong. I can't find any RAW answer to determine what a commanded undead does in that circumstance, and I'm open to input from other players.
I wasn't even going to respond to this thread after everyone else was overwhelmingly stating that your pedantic manipulations of the spell were out of line, but when you started blaming it on the fact that I couldn't put together a reasonable command, I do take issue with that.
You don't like control spells in general. I have seen you butcher charm person and then tell players before they had a chance to respond to take it up with you after if you have issue because you knew it wasn't right. I have seen you tell new players wrongly that it can't be used on the battlefield. I have seen you disregard won charisma checks. I've also seen you change your definition of threaten from the general word to the mechanical term to make it the most unfriendly in the circumstance to the players. I never chimed in on this because I didn't feel like arguing about it, but disliking control spells is as far as I can tell the heart of this issue.
In this case you were trying to do whatever you could to make this spell not control the undead. You limited the times commands can be given, and stand by that without any rules sited but you dismiss rules without explanation. You have had controlled undead attack allies, though you now at least said that shouldn't have happened. You pick and choose their level of vocabulary without justification. You specifically said my character didn't know how to use the spell because he wasn't a necromancer. You were trying to make the spell not work. It had nothing to do with my ability to phrase a sentence.
The bottom line is that you don't like control spells, but don't pass it off on me that I can't put together a coherent sentence.
If I may, as another player at said table, make an observation...
What caused the "pedantics" to occur has only been glossed over here, and may have been missed entirely.
The situation is that we had encountered a pair of enemies- human mercenaries- and had just finished telling them their boss was dead and they could leave quietly with their lives. They had not yet given the indication if they were or were not going to leave when the skeletons they had been disturbing rose to attack us all.
The caster decided to control one of the skeletons, and was trying to find a good way to tell them to attack other skeletons, but -not- the other human enemies in the room, as we were not sure if they had decided to go peacefully or not. This was where the issue of what the exact command for the skeleton was had arisen.
So, using the second-level spell, Command Undead, we were trying to find a way that the skeleton could attack the other skeletons and leave all the humans, not all of them our allies, alone.
You were another observer, but being the GMs wife is also noteworthy when claiming a lack of bias.
I never once cared one bit if the undead attacked the tomb robbers and never suggested that I did. Every bit of wording I ran through was simply to try and make the spell be useful in some way. I used "Attack only undead" as a simple command that might be useful on offense while preventing us from being hit again.
|
|
Stuff
You have a severely skewed view of what you describe, at best. Most of what you say is false. If you want to debate interpretations of the rules, that's fine, but if all you are going to do is complain about me personally and insult me in a public forum, keep it to yourself or contact me privately.
I suggest this thread be locked at this time.
|
|
StuffYou have a severely skewed view of what you describe, at best. Most of what you say is false. If you want to debate interpretations of the rules, that's fine, but if all you are going to do is complain about me personally and insult me in a public forum, keep it to yourself or contact me privately.
I suggest this thread be locked at this time.
Pretty much everyone on this thread has agreed that this was a bad ruling on your part.
For his part Sitri just came here asking a question without mentioning who was involved. You came here and announced the GM in question was you and tried to justify a terrible ruling.
1) Would allowing the players obvious intent have unreasonably skewed the balance of power in favor of the PCs? A skeleton has the same CR as most of the critters on the level 1 monster summoning list. So I don't think a lenient ruling in favor of the players intent would have broken your encounter.
2) Would allowing the players obvious intent have slowed down the game? No, but nitpicking over precise wording would cause the game to drag and would definitely not be fun for the players waiting or the one struggling to meet the GMs criteria and isn't the purpose of the game just for everyone to have fun.
I fail to see any possible way that simply allowing what the player originally wanted would in any way affect the game more negatively than the way it was handled or the way you have handled this entire thread. I personally after seeing your tone and behavior here wouldn't sit at your table if it were the last game on earth.
|
|
I'm not trying to justify my ruling, I'm saying I actually made the ruling many here keep saying I did not.
1) I did allow the player's intent to have effect, all I asked for was a different rephrasing of the command. He still got what he wanted as far as that was concerned.
2) The game wasn't slowed down at all.
It seems too many are thinking the way I arrived at my ruling was my actual ruling. I don't know. All I do know is at the table, I needed a specific understanding of what command was being given so I would no how to have the skeleton react given the unusual circumstances of the encounter.
I do NOT believe this is an appropriate place for player to post personal attacks or begin discussions of unrelated events in an effort to discredit me.
I made a fair, if unpopular, request of a player which ultimately took no time away from the game and resulted in his intent coming into effect. I still fail to see how this is terrible or bad.
The only real issue that developed from this is the player honestly thought Command Undead functioned identically to a different and much higher level spell, and he became upset when I informed him otherwise.
Silly discussion now, but I'm intrigued as to where it leads. I made a deliberately flippant and provocative statement to show how looking too deeply into the 'realities' could cause problems and rather than help sense others see that looking too deeply is a bad thing it has raised some interesting responses. So to follow up on your responses:-
@Dust Raven: you seem to agree that using insects would be a good counter to undead (I picked ants because they were small, relatively slow moving and couldn't fly so were unlikely to scurry away quickly) but also countered that you would describe the humanoid shape as the thing to watch for - could you provide the wording that you would allow in your game for mindless undead to attack humanoids, bearing in mind the limit on the simplicity of the instruction. To save an immediate follow-up response could you also describe how it would work with polymorphed or disguised humanoids (e.g. lets sneak through the crypt wearing horse costumes)?
@Stargazer_Dragon: I like your life force idea, but I take it that constructs would be immune and how is life force measured? My initial thought was hit points, creatures with less than 1hp at full health would not trigger the response. But would they naturally attack the largest life force and is that measured at current hit points, maximum hit points or some other way. If hit points are used how does life force marry up with energy drain - or should levels be used instead. If going down this route, this would be important because it would dictate how the undead attack and who they would target - e.g. all the undead mob the strong and healthy fighter, ignoring the weedy wizard, but once the fighter has been badly wounded they go after the weedy wizard because his life force is now the strongest and they disengage from the fighter.
For my part, as I've said already, I think pursuing this too deeply is silly and leads to the GM getting into all sorts of logic knots. Isn't it better to assume the core programming/instinct/whatever is sufficiently detailed to cope with fundamental game mechanics without requiring intelligence?
|
|
@Dust Raven: you seem to agree that using insects would be a good counter to undead (I picked ants because they were small, relatively slow moving and couldn't fly so were unlikely to scurry away quickly) but also countered that you would describe the humanoid shape as the thing to watch for - could you provide the wording that you would allow in your game for mindless undead to attack humanoids, bearing in mind the limit on the simplicity of the instruction. To save an immediate follow-up response could you also describe how it would work with polymorphed or disguised humanoids (e.g. lets sneak through the crypt wearing horse costumes)?
For me, terms like "undead" and "humanoid" are game terms, and shouldn't be used as part of any sort of command in the same way we wouldn't (or shouldn't) use terms like Base Attack Bonus or Will Save as part of our characters' speech. But given that the term humanoid also function as a descriptive shape, it would suffice for anything appearing to have 2 legs, 2 arms, 1 head (other appendages such as wings would still count as humanoid), so obviously all humanoids, most outsiders and elementals, and a number of other creatures would quality. As far as disguises (including polymorph effects) anything that's not mind-effecting could potentially fool a mindless undead, though illusions which allow a save could be seen through.
If the PCs know the entrance to the Cave of Awesome Treasure is guarded by mindless undead with orders to kill any humanoid who approaches, they could indeed "sneak" past by polymorphing themselves into horses (automatic success) or wearing horse costumes (if the undead fail an opposed perception/disguise check).
As a side note, I know you've indicated such discussion is silly, but to me it is not. Not necessarily serious or important, but definitely fun and entertaining. I'm getting the impression I've put far more thought into how undead behave (as well as their creation, natural or otherwise) than most others. I've done the same for other creatures as well (particularly outsiders and aberrations).
|
|
Does anyone ever rule that any of this is language dependant? Can you order around an ork skeleton in common? How about a chelaxian zombie? Do you need to make the order in Chelaxian. I know an assumption that most humanoids know common probably avoids this in most circumstances, but I could see it as an issue.
|
|
Does anyone ever rule that any of this is language dependant? Can you order around an ork skeleton in common? How about a chelaxian zombie? Do you need to make the order in Chelaxian. I know an assumption that most humanoids know common probably avoids this in most circumstances, but I could see it as an issue.
This would only ever be a question with the 2nd level spell, the 7th level Control Undead spell and the Command Undead divine ability (which functions as Control Undead) both allow the commands to be delivered regardless of language and the undead understand both the words and intent behind them (they do, as noted in their monster description have "an evil cunning" and are clearly capable of some basic understanding).
I think in most cases if you *were* to require specific languages then as you noted, common, would enable almost every standard undead to understand commands. The Command Undead spell is second level and certainly not more powerful than Summon Monster so it seems sensible to not throw any overly stringent controls upon it.
The thing that most caught my attention from a detail perspective was this:
Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the commanded undead (regardless of its Intelligence) breaks the spell.
So if you command an undead, send it towards a bandit and he calls out "Great work my friend I'm ready to destroy it!" does that count? Its very perplexing how exactly the undead determines who counts as your 'apparent' allies and how one qualifies as an ally.
|
|
If the PCs know the entrance to the Cave of Awesome Treasure is guarded by mindless undead with orders to kill any humanoid who approaches, they could indeed "sneak" past by polymorphing themselves into horses (automatic success) or wearing horse costumes (if the undead fail an opposed perception/disguise check).
One of the problems is that you are inconsistent in applying your reasoning. You say that an skeleton because of its lack of intelligence can't recognized "undead" when commanded to attack only undead. They are only capable of recognizing a specific shape.
However, you then say that it can make a perception check to reveal a disguise. However, the reason intelligent beings get a chance to see through a disguise is because they can reason out that something is "off" about whatever they are looking at.
By your reasoning above not only should the skeletons not get a perception/disguise check, but the PCs should not even need a disguise. If they crawl in on hands and knees the skeletons should not be able to recognize them as humanoid. They should not be able to figure out that if the PCs stood up they would be the right shape because that requires reasoning skills.
For me, terms like "undead" and "humanoid" are game terms, and shouldn't be used as part of any sort of command in the same way we wouldn't (or shouldn't) use terms like Base Attack Bonus or Will Save as part of our characters' speech. But given that the term humanoid also function as a descriptive shape, it would suffice for anything appearing to have 2 legs, 2 arms, 1 head (other appendages such as wings would still count as humanoid), so obviously all humanoids, most outsiders and elementals, and a number of other creatures would quality. As far as disguises (including polymorph effects) anything that's not mind-effecting could potentially fool a mindless undead, though illusions which allow a save could be seen through.
If the PCs know the entrance to the Cave of Awesome Treasure is guarded by mindless undead with orders to kill any humanoid who approaches, they could indeed "sneak" past by polymorphing themselves into horses (automatic success) or wearing horse costumes (if the undead fail an opposed perception/disguise check).
So in your game world definition the core programming of an undead understands the concepts of arms, legs and heads and is able to recognise things as such but not humanoids? Also, by your definition of a humanoid, Ettins having two heads would be unmolested, as would merfolk. Whilst I agree that 'will saves' and 'base attack bonus' are pure game mechanics, terms like undead and humanoid are descriptors of things that have certain characteristics and are used outside of the mechanics of role playing games - is it really unreasonable for it to understand that descriptor?
|
|
Does anyone ever rule that any of this is language dependant? Can you order around an ork skeleton in common? How about a chelaxian zombie? Do you need to make the order in Chelaxian. I know an assumption that most humanoids know common probably avoids this in most circumstances, but I could see it as an issue.
Seeing how Command Undead is not language dependent, I would definitely rule the language is unimportant when commanding mindless undead, but might require an intelligent undead understand the language of the caster for commands more complex than those you could give to the mindless variety.
|
|
However, you then say that it can make a perception check to reveal a disguise. However, the reason intelligent beings get a chance to see through a disguise is because they can reason out that something is "off" about whatever they are looking at.
I disagree. It's just as much an ability to spot an inconsistency or a tell-tale sign that gives something away. It's possible to spot the humanoid shape within the disguise. Imagine you disguise yourself as a rock or a bush and attempt to scoot up and past the undead... the perception check is there to see if the undead spot your humanoid feet under the disguise, and not to realize rocks or bushes don't walk.
It's a similar case for illusions, though you have much more flexibility as some illusions don't cease to function just because a save is made. In some cases they'll fool the undead completely every time. Surrounding the undead by a wall that doesn't disappear when they realize it's fake will still prevent them from seeing the humanoids on the other side.
|
|
So in your game world definition the core programming of an undead understands the concepts of arms, legs and heads and is able to recognise things as such but not humanoids? Also, by your definition of a humanoid, Ettins having two heads would be unmolested, as would merfolk. Whilst I agree that 'will saves' and 'base attack bonus' are pure game mechanics, terms like undead and humanoid are descriptors of things that have certain characteristics and are used outside of the mechanics of role playing games - is it really unreasonable for it to understand that descriptor?
Unreasonable, probably not, but that's not the way I run my game. Those terms are highly subjective. Take a look as how many players and GMs think Hold Person affects outsiders despite the rules being quite clear it doesn't. In the game, the character's can't make the distinction either, which is why there are knowledge skills to identify what a creature is. So if a PC must make a knowledge check to know that humanoid shaped thing is actually an outsider or monstrous humanoid, why would mindless creatures be exempt from such a skill check and get an automatic pass at identifying things?
I'm okay with an automatic identifying of "living creature", "other creatures of its own kind" and even "creature vs not a creature" but unless given specific instructions or informed how to distinguish further, mindless undead can't get more specific than this.
It kinda but not quite falls under the same umbrella as druids who can't wild shape into an animal they don't know exists or have never encountered. Some GMs just don't care and will allow a druid to wild shape into a dinosaur despite never having even heard of one, others would not.
StuffYou have a severely skewed view of what you describe, at best. Most of what you say is false. If you want to debate interpretations of the rules, that's fine, but if all you are going to do is complain about me personally and insult me in a public forum, keep it to yourself or contact me privately.
I suggest this thread be locked at this time.
I had no desire to complain about you. I never desired to have this line of discussion and I do not desire to continue it. But as long as you keep expressing blatant falsehoods to make it look like I am some moron that couldn't put a sentence together and you were trying to help me, I will provide examples both around that event and of others that establish a pattern to counter those misrepresentations.
For instance, even since my last post you keep talking like you were guiding me as to how the spell should be done and it took no extra table time. After several failed attempts at commands with various different reasons for error, and you telling me my character didn't know how to use the spell as if to imply it wasn't worth me continuing to try, I held up combat for at least two minutes to press you on your specific interpretation of the rules. When I finally asked you "What words do you want to hear to make this spell work?" you finally provided what I saw as a capricious ruling that goes against RAW, but one that was clearly defined enough that I could work with it. That is when we moved on. (Added edit to rebut a bit more of what has been recently said, you did not know that the feat was different from the spell Command Undead at the time this happened. I told you after the fact when I reread the feat. Never once was the spell Control Undead mentioned before I brought it up at that time. You did state that you thought me being able to claim the undead was too powerful for a second level spell.)
I came here trying to give you the benefit of the doubt because I realized that the spell is slightly different than I thought it was too; that fact is in the title of the thread. I wanted to see where others' opinions were on the spectrum and have them cite rules for that opinion. I am still satisfied that the spell works within the confines of what I wanted it to do and to that end this thread is serving its purpose. If you do not wish to continue to rehash the specific events that lead up to this thread, as I do not, then it is a pretty simple matter.
|
|
However, you then say that it can make a perception check to reveal a disguise. However, the reason intelligent beings get a chance to see through a disguise is because they can reason out that something is "off" about whatever they are looking at.I disagree. It's just as much an ability to spot an inconsistency or a tell-tale sign that gives something away. It's possible to spot the humanoid shape within the disguise. Imagine you disguise yourself as a rock or a bush and attempt to scoot up and past the undead... the perception check is there to see if the undead spot your humanoid feet under the disguise, and not to realize rocks or bushes don't walk.
It's a similar case for illusions, though you have much more flexibility as some illusions don't cease to function just because a save is made. In some cases they'll fool the undead completely every time. Surrounding the undead by a wall that doesn't disappear when they realize it's fake will still prevent them from seeing the humanoids on the other side.
Isn't spotting "an inconsistency or tell-tale sign that gives something away" exactly what reasoning out "that something is off"?
Also you originally said that undead could recognize humanoid as two arms, two legs, one head now they can recognize a humanoid from just a part of a foot sticking out from under a bush.
I'll leave it to Hugo and anyone else interested to argue with you further because you are either unwilling to or incapable of recognizing the glaring inconsistencies in your arguments.
Sitri, My advice would find another game with a different GM.
Does anyone ever rule that any of this is language dependant? Can you order around an ork skeleton in common? How about a chelaxian zombie? Do you need to make the order in Chelaxian. I know an assumption that most humanoids know common probably avoids this in most circumstances, but I could see it as an issue.This would only ever be a question with the 2nd level spell, the 7th level Control Undead spell and the Command Undead divine ability (which functions as Control Undead) both allow the commands to be delivered regardless of language and the undead understand both the words and intent behind them (they do, as noted in their monster description have "an evil cunning" and are clearly capable of some basic understanding).
I think in most cases if you *were* to require specific languages then as you noted, common, would enable almost every standard undead to understand commands. The Command Undead spell is second level and certainly not more powerful than Summon Monster so it seems sensible to not throw any overly stringent controls upon it.
Edit my last post. It seems to imply that you can get your simple commands regardless of language, but it is not spelled out.
Unreasonable, probably not, but that's not the way I run my game. Those terms are highly subjective.
And therein lies the problem, you have arbitrarily drawn a highly subjective line in the sand about what is and isn't known by unintelligent undead. From what I understand from your previous posts you are then playing with unfamiliar groups of players who will have different subjective views. Unfortunately, without any pre-warning (and in the middle of combat) you have then subjected your game world view which, from the consensus on this forum, is far stricter than generally accepted. It is hardly surprising that the players get upset and stop having fun. The ruling you have may well work in a familiar group where players can learn and adapt to your game world's standard behaviour. But in PFS and similar unfamilar group games perhaps you should consider adjusting your style to let things flow and slide more where it is a reasonable, or even mildly dubious subjective call and not gross munchkinism or broken power gaming.
The at table issues aside, I am interested in the resolution of what commands a Mindless undead can understand and how much can be said as a free action.
My understanding for free actions is it's use and limitations where in large up to the DM description. Thus ruling that more then a few quick words might be ruled outside of the scope of a free action taking up a swift action, move action or even a standard action depending on the time and complexity of the speech and how much said conversation might interfere with the characters normal ability to act. Such as requiring pointing and other semantics.
this of cource is based on this
""In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.""
""Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn.""
Thus more then a few quick words would require it to be the characters turn. Also these quick words would require nothing more then words or other actions that can be considered free actions.
As for what the undead can identify, Undead are described as hating life and it is widely implied that undead have a kind of sixth sense when it comes to living creatures. This would more then likely exclude insects and other creatures with life force so insignificant that it is essentially stealthed. Though if such creatures crawled on the undead I could see them being ether ignored for larger life forces or killed.
However this implied living detector would not extend to knowing that a undead was anything more then a pile of bones. The Mindless undead would see it as simply lacking the life force it inherently hates so much.
Since it can't think it can't identify more then does it have a life force or doesn't it.
As for not attacking allies, I personally view that as a form of protection spell weaved into the control/command undead. It isn't that the undead does...
A can't see anything that would prevent simple commands (how most people play a low level melee only character) from being said on anyone's turn. However, if I were to ever play with a GM in the future that requires it be on the player turn, my first command would be to delay until my next turn. Giving specific commands and then watching the battlefield change before they are carried out is quite troublesome.
|
|
More stuff
I'm happy so consider any argument or debate over the specific events to be settled. If not, I encourage you to contact me privately; there is no need to stir up the masses over details of events they could not have witnessed. You have my personal email address and you know where I am every Saturday.
|
|
A can't see anything that would prevent simple commands (how most people play a low level melee only character) from being said on anyone's turn. However, if I were to ever play with a GM in the future that requires it be on the player turn, my first command would be to delay until my next turn. Giving specific commands and then watching the battlefield change before they are carried out is quite troublesome.
I would highly encourage this tactic.
To be honest, I can't find anything which is specific to this spell or one's like it, though I can find precedent elsewhere in the rules. For example, animal companions (an actual "pet") and trained animals can only be handled on the handler's turn, and such handling requires an action (either a free, move or standard, depending on the circumstances). There is also an explicit rule stating that directing or redirecting the effects of a spell requires a move action. Even using a command word (a single word!) is a standard action. I see no reason why spells like Command Undead, Summon Monster or Charm Person should be treated differently. In the specific case of Command Undead, I rule issuing a command is a free action, and while such an action obviously uses speech, it is not an action you may take while it is not your turn.
|
|
Unreasonable, probably not, but that's not the way I run my game. Those terms are highly subjective.And therein lies the problem, you have arbitrarily drawn a highly subjective line in the sand about what is and isn't known by unintelligent undead.
I would say I have merely pointed out that such a line already exists, and lacking any rule to indicate where that line falls, I have invested a significant amount of careful thought in an attempt to deduce where it should be.
From what I understand from your previous posts you are then playing with unfamiliar groups of players who will have different subjective views. Unfortunately, without any pre-warning (and in the middle of combat) you have then subjected your game world view which, from the consensus on this forum, is far stricter than generally accepted. It is hardly surprising that the players get upset and stop having fun. The ruling you have may well work in a familiar group where players can learn and adapt to your game world's standard behaviour. But in PFS and similar unfamilar group games perhaps you should consider adjusting your style to let things flow and slide more where it is a reasonable, or even mildly dubious subjective call and not gross munchkinism or broken power gaming.
I plan on discussing this with my VC this Saturday. I have no experience with GMing for players who control/command undead, and this is the first time this spell has ever been cast in my presence by a player. So my "game world view" has only existed behind the GM screen until know, and even then I feel it's not having a significant enough impact to call "far stricter" and save for one player no one has gotten upset or stopped having fun. If it is true I'm standing alone in a cold dark corner on how I'm handling this I'll have no issues making allowances for PFS games. It won't change my opinion on how such spells should be handled, but I'll go with whatever my VC says is best.
A can't see anything that would prevent simple commands (how most people play a low level melee only character) from being said on anyone's turn. However, if I were to ever play with a GM in the future that requires it be on the player turn, my first command would be to delay until my next turn. Giving specific commands and then watching the battlefield change before they are carried out is quite troublesome.I would highly encourage this tactic.
To be honest, I can't find anything which is specific to this spell or one's like it, though I can find precedent elsewhere in the rules. For example, animal companions (an actual "pet") and trained animals can only be handled on the handler's turn, and such handling requires an action (either a free, move or standard, depending on the circumstances). There is also an explicit rule stating that directing or redirecting the effects of a spell requires a move action. Even using a command word (a single word!) is a standard action. I see no reason why spells like Command Undead, Summon Monster or Charm Person should be treated differently. In the specific case of Command Undead, I rule issuing a command is a free action, and while such an action obviously uses speech, it is not an action you may take while it is not your turn.
I can't find where using handle animal is only on a players turn. For some of the handle checks it might make sense, for stay and sick and the like not so much. Either way I simply don't see anything about the time it takes.
Redirecting a spell effect would require concentration on the part of the caster where as pointing and saying kill would not. Command Undead specifically says the creature is following your verbal commands and not your mental activities. Would an intelligent undead be able to react to verbal commands not on your turn? It would seem very odd if not, and there is nothing in the spell to say unintelligent require any more time.
It is the activating of the magic item that requires a standard action and not necessarily the command word. The command word is just one of the means to accomplish this goal, all of which have the same time. Logically should the command word activation of magic items be less than that of other types of activation? Probably, but it is specifically spelled out as all of them being a standard action to keep mechanical balance. I would say the same thing of Power Word Kill. If there weren't special rules to distinguish it from normal speech, spouting off six kill spells as a free action on someone else's turn would be quite abusive. The fact that command undead does not say there are special speech time requirements and its effect simply makes the spell normally functional and not abusive, I don't see any reason it should be otherwise.
While my solution of telling the undead to delay until my turn would satisfy a GM that was extrapolating restrictions from the rules, it also requires the character to use Meta-knowledge, which I generally try to avoid (as when you saw me play my character quite ineffective when he wasn't able to see through the fog). The character in game would have no idea that if the skeleton waited three seconds it would then be able to immediately and effectively follow commands, but otherwise things will often be dying and moving before it gets a chance to try to follow any commands. The only reason I would ever have a character do this is because I didn't believe in the ruling that got him in the predicament in the first place.
|
Gentlemen, this thread has devolved into nothing more than an Internet shouting match and its my professional opinion that you simply look at both spells described (Control Undead and Command Undead) as well as the specific Command Undead feat and decipher the rules as you will. However, always refer back to Rule Zero when playing. Is the GM always right? Not necessarily. But talk it over with said GM as opposed to hashing it out via alternative means. Please try to refrain from any other sort of arguments of this tendency because this is the exact type of thread people coming to Paizo's website probably DON'T want to see.
Ultimately, let's try to remain civil and get this thread back on course before it gets so far past the original question that the thread needs to be locked.
That's my professional opinion. Please take it or leave it as you will.
Thank you.
|
|
Sitri, I recommended reading the rules for Handle Animal. It details exactly what type of action it is for actions related to it's use. You may also want to check out the Druid for special rules concerning handling an animal companion.
For directing a spell, it's a specific entry in the list of "move actions" and is also called out in the Aiming a Spell section of the Magic chapter of the CRB.
Regarding your comments on Command Words... this is precisely why I restrict issuing commands to a creature to the caster's turn. To do otherwise would open the spell to abuse as I have illustrated in previous posts. I only do so though because while there are no rules which specify when commands can/cannot be given, there are rules concerning similar tasks which do limit when and how often commands can be given to creatures or items under the character's control. I find it wiser to go with an existing precedent than a flat "the rules don't say I can't" mentality.
RE: using meta-knowledge: This is unavoidable in any game, and in my opinion shouldn't be avoided for it's own sake. As for the concern of having to wait to give the target a command, ready the casting of the spell until the target acts. With a readied action, your spell still goes off before it acts. Since the target couldn't follow any commands until its own turn anyway, you lose no time.
Might alter how my undead respond slightly, perhaps have them target the creature with the highest Con, or perhaps the lowest con that is significant in size enough to warrant it as a living creature (above say tiny sized)
I think Con multiplied by a Size modifier (not necessarily straight Con*Size) might be a good approach if following that route to measure life force. It would also be something to pass on to a player with a sufficiently high knowledge score.
Playing devil's advocate, how does an ability to detect life force interact with stealth or invisibility?
For me (as I've already intimated), I've gone down the route of assuming the core programming of mindless undead has more smarts and use that to cover off questions such as: how do they recognise a target, how do they know to use weapons, why don't they all attack the same person, why don't they all trip over a rope pulled tight across the corridor etc.
@Stargazer_Dragon - sounds like a cool house rule to make undead a bit more different to the normal monster, thanks for sharing. I think it's well worth considering the typical reactions different types of creatures have to mix encounters up a bit. This particular one is not for me as a GM because the life force detector runs into similar problems that infravision had in 1e and 2e AD&D (yes the rogue is hidden in the shadows but his heat signature is obvious) but I could see how your players would enjoy the variety.
|
|
I as a gm I do things slightly different then some others, I do not ask for what the player does until it is there turn and all controlled creatures and summoned monsters act on the players turn. Thus in this situation the controlled undead would execute the orders given to it as soon as the orders where given. We do this for a multitude or reasons the largest is to assure one of the NPC or pets/controlled creatures is not forgotten. But also because we have found it greatly speeds up the game play and has over all lead to faster and more enjoyable combats.Have used this house rule for so long now that I forget that people do it differently.
I think this is exactly the reason why Summon Monster has the summoned creature acting on your turn, it saves bookkeeping, it speeds up play and it avoids weird situations like this one where the orders are no longer relevant when the creature acts.
Any time a creature is controlled it's initiative should probably default to the same as the controllers.
Sitri, I recommended reading the rules for Handle Animal. It details exactly what type of action it is for actions related to it's use. You may also want to check out the Druid for special rules concerning handling an animal companion.
For directing a spell, it's a specific entry in the list of "move actions" and is also called out in the Aiming a Spell section of the Magic chapter of the CRB.
Regarding your comments on Command Words... this is precisely why I restrict issuing commands to a creature to the caster's turn. To do otherwise would open the spell to abuse as I have illustrated in previous posts. I only do so though because while there are no rules which specify when commands can/cannot be given, there are rules concerning similar tasks which do limit when and how often commands can be given to creatures or items under the character's control. I find it wiser to go with an existing precedent than a flat "the rules don't say I can't" mentality.
RE: using meta-knowledge: This is unavoidable in any game, and in my opinion shouldn't be avoided for it's own sake. As for the concern of having to wait to give the target a command, ready the casting of the spell until the target acts. With a readied action, your spell still goes off before it acts. Since the target couldn't follow any commands until its own turn anyway, you lose no time.
I don't know why I didn't see the action paragraph on Handle animal before. My first thoughts on why the action economy may be different is because it doesn't really specify that you are issuing this order by a short verbal command. There is nothing to prevent you from taking these actions while say underwater or under the effects of silence.
Again the move action to change effects for spells is through telepathic use, Command undead says the command is not telepathic, the monster is listening to your words.
How does allowing a short command as a free action open up to abuse? I just don't see it. You had a straw man before of a scenario of making several complex commands and then altering them. But since those words are more complicated, there is a limit to the number of free words you can have, and there would be no need to change commands if they are taking action immediately, it doesn't seem like a valid example. The only thing that I can see it doing is allowing the monster to act exactly as you say it should if you tell it to delay to your turn. So the abuse is if you run the spell RAW the creature fails to get bumped down in initiative order a few spots?
Also I have still seen no one address, can an intelligent undead accept new simple orders at any time.
A can't see anything that would prevent simple commands (how most people play a low level melee only character) from being said on anyone's turn. However, if I were to ever play with a GM in the future that requires it be on the player turn, my first command would be to delay until my next turn. Giving specific commands and then watching the battlefield change before they are carried out is quite troublesome.I as a gm I do things slightly different then some others, I do not ask for what the player does until it is there turn and all controlled creatures and summoned monsters act on the players turn. Thus in this situation the controlled undead would execute the orders given to it as soon as the orders where given. We do this for a multitude or reasons the largest is to assure one of the NPC or pets/controlled creatures is not forgotten. But also because we have found it greatly speeds up the game play and has over all lead to faster and more enjoyable combats.
Have used this house rule for so long now that I forget that people do it differently.
I have played under GM's that force you to say what your going to do before the round starts and then resolves the round and invalid targets cause the player to wast there action. Led to some interesting situations and a lot more tactical planning so wasn't bad but defiantly not how I prefer to run my table.
Edit: for that matter even if I allowed the player to issue command at any time I have the undead act on the players turn so that's when the commands would take place. Pulling myself away from my at table games I realize that again other GM's might not handle the initiative in this way perhaps having the undead retain it's initiative; in which case I would break my usual ruling on when a command can be given and fully allow such commands to be given on the Undead s initiative.
This thread has got me thinking a lot about speech and how I normally rule when it can be made, I think I will over all change my ruling in...
Every time I have owned an undead, save one, we have done something very similar to this. In the combat it was taken it keeps its initiative order, but in all subsequent combats it just runs off the player initiative for the ease you mentioned.
OK this seems to have gotten a bit .. confrontational, Dust Raven and Sitri, as your resident VC please bring issues to me instead of the board next time.
I in no way anticipated this to go the direction it did. It was meant as a simple rules question.
|
|
OK this seems to have gotten a bit .. confrontational, Dust Raven and Sitri, as your resident VC please bring issues to me instead of the board next time.I in no way anticipated this to go the direction it did. It was meant as a simple rules question.
There has been a phenomenal amount of miscommunication and misunderstanding surrounding the questions raised here. I had no idea the thread would turn into what it did, but I'm happy to have it at a civil level of discussion as it seems to be now.
AZhobbit, I do intend to discuss some of what has been brought up here with you on Saturday. Had I known how controversial my opinions were, I'd have done so far earlier.
|
|
Mildly side topics how many of you guys have put thought into the different ways creatures should perceive and act in given situations...
I have to a point. My gaming background and experience includes a large helping of the Hero System. For those not familiar, it's a point based kit style system where you build effects with game mechanics and the "special effects" of those mechanics can be absolutely anything. As far as senses go, I'm used to thinking in terms of "normal sight" and how "normal sight" might be modified. Doesn't matter what organ is being used, or even if one is, only that if a creature has "normal sight" it functions identically to any creature with the same ability, even if it has a different special effect tied to it. So humans have eyes which see, and skeletons have glowing dots of light in their eye sockets which see, and both can be blinded or fooled by the same methods (well, except that skeletons also have darkvision).
|
|
Again the move action to change effects for spells is through telepathic use, Command undead says the command is not telepathic, the monster is listening to your words.
How does allowing a short command as a free action open up to abuse? I just don't see it.
I tend to see a lack of telepathic control as a restriction rather than allowing more freedom.
As for abusing the use of commands... It's not that it's a free action, it's the idea a command can be issued at any time even when it's not your turn. For a less strawy example, imagine it is your turn, and you have issued the command "attack the sorcerer" (and for the sake of simplicity, you point out who the sorcerer is so the skeleton understands), then sometime between your turn and the skeleton's turn, someone successfully casts sleep on that sorcerer. Knowing that if the skeleton successfully carries out your command it will wake the sorcerer, you want to command it to do something else. Should you be able/allowed to?
My opinion is no, you have already issued a command and should not be allowed to issue another until your next turn.
To resolve this, I'm planning to recommend the caster ready the casting of the spell so he acts just before the target. This way the two are always acting at effectively the same time. Having more than one target commanded at a time might make it more complicated, but at the time I feel this is a worthwhile starting point.
|
|
I got a chuckle from the idea of the undead perceiving a healing spell as a hostile action. :)
Interestingly enough, I'd interpret "defend" to be to stand adjacent to a random ally and use the Aid Another action to grant an AC bonus.
If I wanted to be really silly, I could see "attack that guy there" to cause the undead to attempt to grapple and move or otherwise reposition "that guy" back to "there" so it can attack him. :)
I was hoping to stay out of any further discussion on when and how someone can speak as it is already mentioned in the PRD. A quick look at the PRD rules on the Speech Action states:
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
Getting into the mechanics, a round is 6 seconds long - it would be quite difficult to actually fit a few sentences into that time period without continuously talking. As the round only has turns rather than simultaneous actions for convenience, it seems grossly unfair that the player isn't allowed to issue a command at the start of the controlled creature's turn. What's more the talking at any point of the turn is specifically and explicitly allowed under the rules.
Again the move action to change effects for spells is through telepathic use, Command undead says the command is not telepathic, the monster is listening to your words.
How does allowing a short command as a free action open up to abuse? I just don't see it.
I tend to see a lack of telepathic control as a restriction rather than allowing more freedom.
As for abusing the use of commands... It's not that it's a free action, it's the idea a command can be issued at any time even when it's not your turn. For a less strawy example, imagine it is your turn, and you have issued the command "attack the sorcerer" (and for the sake of simplicity, you point out who the sorcerer is so the skeleton understands), then sometime between your turn and the skeleton's turn, someone successfully casts sleep on that sorcerer. Knowing that if the skeleton successfully carries out your command it will wake the sorcerer, you want to command it to do something else. Should you be able/allowed to?
My opinion is no, you have already issued a command and should not be allowed to issue another until your next turn.
To resolve this, I'm planning to recommend the caster ready the casting of the spell so he acts just before the target. This way the two are always acting at effectively the same time. Having more than one target commanded at a time might make it more complicated, but at the time I feel this is a worthwhile starting point.
Lack of telepathy is a restriction if you are concerned with wanting or needing to be silent, but there is some implied effort built into that action seeing as it is slotted as a move action. Speech while not as effective in the restrained or subterfuge department, is very easy to accomplish under normal circumstances. A fast food burger isn't the quality of a steak, but if I must eat something fast, it can be the superior option.
So the answer is "Yes, allowing a command to function as desired without there being a slight change to initiative order is abusive"?