Range see text
Target, Effect, Area see text
Duration see text
Saving Throw none, see text; Spell Resistance yes
Guess which one you don't need to see text for?
Casting Time 1 standard action
then you still simply need to Plane Shift back to the Material Plane from the Astral Plane.
That works, yes.
Furthermore, spellbane prevents that magic from functioning in the area. The spell itself is inside that area so the Dispel will not function.
That's not true though. A spell doesn't need to reach _inside_ what it is targeting, or you could hardly cast anything as you wouldn't have line of effect to it. Also, otherwise Antimagic Field wouldn't need to state that regular (not greater) dispel magic doesn't work against it.
It doesn't need to target you are correct. But it will have no effect in Aroden's Spellbane's Area. Which includes Aroden's Spellbane.
The Geas order would most certainly prevent you from Spell Sundering yourself.Depends on how long of an order you get. I would assume there are higher priorities, like "please don't hurt me". There's the open-ended "obey me" but that one's been argued more times than I care to count in whether or not a GM would allow it, based purely on the RAW wording (is "obey me" a single service or is it a series of services?"). So again we're past the pure-RAW territory.
Simply saying "Obey me for X days." (within your limit imposed by Geas) would work. And that is RAW. Though were I to cast it I would add more qualifiers, but as a general example that works.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Range see text
Target, Effect, Area see text
Duration see text
Saving Throw none, see text; Spell Resistance yesGuess which one you don't need to see text for?
Casting Time 1 standard action
Assuming that this was in reference to my post - you're basically in the 'it doesn't say that I can't!' territory. Except for the part I've pointed out twice now - it says "Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 6th level or lower" - it does NOT say "Duplicate the effect of any sorcerer/wizard spell of 6th level or lower".
No. It says it's casting time is not variable. It duplicates a 6th level spell. In 1 standard action. Every other part is defined by the target spell. Hence the "see text". If what you are arguing was true, Limited Wish would have set values for those and then merely "duplicate" the spell (after 1 Standard action). Either that or the Casting Time line would read 1 Standard Action + (other spells casting time here). However, if that were the case the line would read 1 Standard action + See text. IT does not. This isn't "The rules don't say you can't". This is very explicitly, "the rules say you can".
It doesn't need to target you are correct. But it will have no effect in Aroden's Spellbane's Area. Which includes Aroden's Spellbane.
Simply saying "Obey me for X days." (within your limit imposed by Geas) would work. And that is RAW. Though were I to cast it I would add more qualifiers, but as a general example that works.The Geas order would most certainly prevent you from Spell Sundering yourself.Depends on how long of an order you get. I would assume there are higher priorities, like "please don't hurt me". There's the open-ended "obey me" but that one's been argued more times than I care to count in whether or not a GM would allow it, based purely on the RAW wording (is "obey me" a single service or is it a series of services?"). So again we're past the pure-RAW territory.... Or you can reiterate the point I just called into question without providing any evidence for your viewpoint. Which is pretty much pointless.
One could very easily say that "obey me" is not a single service. Or one can argue that it is. But at the point that it becomes questionable, we've shifted outside of the "100% RAW" territory.
Obey me for X days is not one task. It cannot be interpreted as such in the English language. However "Obey me for X days" is a single service, albeit not a single task. Let's look at the spell:
A lesser geas places a magical command on a creature to carry out some service or to refrain from some action or course of activity, as desired by you.
Carrying out some service to you is easy. In this case that service is obedience for X duration. That is the service. So it is 100% RAW territory, since the spell says what happens if the task is open ended:
If the instructions involve some open-ended task that the recipient cannot complete through his own actions, the spell remains in effect for a maximum of 1 day per caster level.
This is 100% RAW.
It says what the casting time is. Your position is the one that relies on "The rules don't say it *doesn't* have additional casting time". For your argument to hold water the Casting Time would have to read: 1 standard action; see text.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It says what the casting time is. Your position is the one that relies on "The rules don't say it *doesn't* have additional casting time".
It says what the casting time for Limited Wish is. Then you use Limited Wish to duplicate a spell - said spell has a seperate casting time.
Edit: I'm not saying that there isn't an argument for it being a standard action. I said that there was in the first post. I'm just annoyed that you simply refuse to admit any ambiguity in the RAW in any sort of rule - and you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is a moron.
It says what the casting time is. Your position is the one that relies on "The rules don't say it *doesn't* have additional casting time".It says what the casting time for Limited Wish is. Then you use Limited Wish to duplicate a spell - said spell has a seperate casting time.
Again, if that were the case then the other lines would need to be changed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, if that were the case then the other lines would need to be changed.It says what the casting time is. Your position is the one that relies on "The rules don't say it *doesn't* have additional casting time".It says what the casting time for Limited Wish is. Then you use Limited Wish to duplicate a spell - said spell has a seperate casting time.
Or if it always takes a single standard action it should say that it duplicates the spell's effect instead of duplicating the spell.
It says what the casting time is. Your position is the one that relies on "The rules don't say it *doesn't* have additional casting time".It says what the casting time for Limited Wish is. Then you use Limited Wish to duplicate a spell - said spell has a seperate casting time.
Edit: I'm not saying that there isn't an argument for it being a standard action. I said that there was in the first post. I'm just annoyed that you simply refuse to admit any ambiguity in the RAW in any sort of rule - and you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is a moron.
There really isn't an argument for it though. Not one that meshes with the information provided. You can make an argument for anything. The question is how good is that argument.
|
|
There really isn't an argument for it though. Not one that meshes with the information provided. You can make an argument for anything. The question is how good is that argument.It says what the casting time is. Your position is the one that relies on "The rules don't say it *doesn't* have additional casting time".It says what the casting time for Limited Wish is. Then you use Limited Wish to duplicate a spell - said spell has a seperate casting time.
Edit: I'm not saying that there isn't an argument for it being a standard action. I said that there was in the first post. I'm just annoyed that you simply refuse to admit any ambiguity in the RAW in any sort of rule - and you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is a moron.
The spell Geas has a casting time.
Limited wish duplicates the spell Geas.
Therefore it duplicates every part of Geas - including the casting time.
I don't see how that's NOT a decent argument.
(Though your last post sort of exemplifies the edit which you quoted. Lol - I'm done here.)
It's a fine argument. It's just not as good as the one that points out that if what you are suggesting is true, the casting time line would be 1 Standard Action; see text. Parts of the spell are variable based on what spell you duplicate. They direct you to the text. Since that can't be overcome with your argument, while the other interpretation fits extremely easily into all the information. One of those interpretations is more valid.
|
The text for wish/miracle is a bit murky, but I think it's fairly safe to say that Anzyr's interpretation is more likely.
And on the note of "a single task," it would be equally easy to just say, "sit there for X amount of time" and then finish off the geas'd individual while they are sitting there doing nothing.
Of course, defying a geas is only a -3 to ability scores. Which hurts, but not as much as doing nothing while a caster pokes at you with insert spell here.
It says in the text you can use open ended tasks lol.Which is still subject to the limitation of "task".
"Kill everybody who walks through the door" is a single task, and you'd be hard-pressed to contend otherwise.
However, by definition it cannot be completed in full (short of cheating by doing something like nuking the door, but we'll assume that's not possible). So it's an open-ended task and subject to those rules.
Not after the first person it isn't. I don't see how you can say that's a single task, but "obey me" isn't. Their literally the same thing.
Not after the first person it isn't. I don't see how you can say that's a single task, but "obey me" isn't. Their literally the same thing.It says in the text you can use open ended tasks lol.Which is still subject to the limitation of "task".
"Kill everybody who walks through the door" is a single task, and you'd be hard-pressed to contend otherwise.
However, by definition it cannot be completed in full (short of cheating by doing something like nuking the door, but we'll assume that's not possible). So it's an open-ended task and subject to those rules.
*Shrug* You're free to interpret the word "service" differently from I do.
The key word there is interpret.
Your interpretation still of course runs into the snag that something open ended is allowed so again, while you can make an argument for anything, your interpretation is not the better one.
|
|
The text for wish/miracle is a bit murky, but I think it's fairly safe to say that Anzyr's interpretation is more likely.
And on the note of "a single task," it would be equally easy to just say, "sit there for X amount of time" and then finish off the geas'd individual while they are sitting there doing nothing.
Of course, defying a geas is only a -3 to ability scores. Which hurts, but not as much as doing nothing while a caster pokes at you with insert spell here.
"Sit there and do nothing" is perfectly legitimate-- but the geas cannot be something that would result in their certain death, so once you attack them all bets are off. And if you could finish them with a single spell anyway, why did you bother burning a Limited Wish?
The -3 is for if you can't follow the geas though, not if you're unwilling. You literally cannot simply choose not to obey the geas.
Oop, looks like you're right on the -3 thing.
As for the first part, it could always just be that you don't have the means to finish them off immediately. You're tapped out for the day, or don't have the right spells.
The "perform acts that result in certain death" part is incredibly murky, though, and is going to rely on GM interpretation. For example, if the geas caster says, "Sit there and allow the next spell I cast to affect you," is that certain death? The caster could simply cast a baleful polymorph spell, flesh to stone, dominate person or some other "non-lethal" spell that would make the geassed character a complete non-threat. What if the geas-er intends to kill the rabbit or shatter the stone?
The text for wish/miracle is a bit murky, but I think it's fairly safe to say that Anzyr's interpretation is more likely.
And on the note of "a single task," it would be equally easy to just say, "sit there for X amount of time" and then finish off the geas'd individual while they are sitting there doing nothing.
Of course, defying a geas is only a -3 to ability scores. Which hurts, but not as much as doing nothing while a caster pokes at you with insert spell here.
"Sit there and do nothing" is perfectly legitimate-- but the geas cannot be something that would result in their certain death, so once you attack them all bets are off. And if you could finish them with a single spell anyway, why did you bother burning a Limited Wish?
The -3 is for if you can't follow the geas though, not if you're unwilling. You literally cannot simply choose not to obey the geas.
Oop, looks like you're right on the -3 thing.
As for the first part, it could always just be that you don't have the means to finish them off immediately. You're tapped out for the day, or don't have the right spells.
The "perform acts that result in certain death" part is incredibly murky, though, and is going to rely on GM interpretation. For example, if the geas caster says, "Sit there and allow the next spell I cast to affect you," is that certain death? The caster could simply cast a baleful polymorph spell, flesh to stone, dominate person or some other "non-lethal" spell that would make the geassed character a complete non-threat. What if the geas-er intends to kill the rabbit or shatter the stone?
SUPERSTITION.
CAN'T NOT SAVE.
AM SORRY FOR WRENCH IN WORKS, BARBARIAN AM TOO AWESOME TO FOLLOW ORDERS.
NO IDEA HOW MUCH TROUBLE THAT AM IN KINDERGARDEN. NOT TO MENTION ALL SMASHED WALLS FROM TELLING BARBARIAN 'BARBARIAN, AM NOT SMASH WALL.'
It doesn't need to target you are correct. But it will have no effect in Aroden's Spellbane's Area. Which includes Aroden's Spellbane.
Sorry, that's not how it works. With that argument, the barbarians' skin stops the line of effect for the explosive runes.
It's language dependent. He can just wear ear plugs.
Edit: Disclaimer - I think self-imposed deafness would trump a language dependent spell, but haven't checked.
If the spell fails if the target can't understand you, then it absolutely should fail if the target can't even hear you.
Second edit: there we go!
Language-Dependent: A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or hear what the caster of a language-dependent spell says, the spell has no effect, even if the target fails its saving throw.If you can't hear the caster, then limited wish -> geas fails outright, just like a suggestion spell would.
Hmmm. The 3Cp earplugs don't actually do it, because they don't deafen you. Stupid cheap earplugs!
I imagine AM BARBARIAN is hardcore enough to take a needle to his eardrums, though.
Self imposed deafness, while imposing other penalties, is a pretty good answer to Geas, I must admit. Though a Wizard with telepathy and Truespeech/Permanent Tounges could get around it.
Though actually getting telepathy could be challenging if the wizard isn't a Lashunta...
At any rate, to everyone else saying Spell Sunder (like I would have missed that), I assume the wizard would order the Barbarian into a state of helplessness.
I don't think "Sleep for 100 days and nights" is too outlandish of an order. Or even, "Fall asleep now for 1 hour" because I'm sure we can pretty much all assume that a wizard can take out a sleeping helpless Barbarian. Or at least summon something that can.
Unless the Barbarian is immune to critical hits or something, he should be eating a Coup De Grace. Even if he is immune to critical hits or something, can't the wizard simply shove him into a Gate to the Positive Energy dimension?
If items are what allow the Barbarian to survive, then the wizard can easily tell him to disrobe first. Would also allow him to have a little bit of fun, too...if you catch my drift. (Yeah I totally went there. Sorry) >.>
Demanding he act helpless and then trying to shove him into a Gate would render the Geas void-- that falls into the "certain death" clause.
Not really.
"While a geas cannot compel a creature to kill itself or perform acts that would result in certain death, it can cause almost any other course of activity.
Unless the Barbarian has some way of seeing the future, falling asleep is not in any way "an act that would result in certain death." Falling asleep is the only action he needs to take.
Whatever happens after that is caster's choice. Coup de Grace with a beefy summon, or Gate into Positive Energy Realm. I'm sure there are other ways to bypass a strong save (especially one that is only truly strong when raging).
I'm fairly certain you can't geas something into doing something they can't do, like fall asleep. Just like you can't geas someone to flap their arms and fly (unless they can actually fly...). Unless they have an ability that lets them fall asleep immediately, it just wouldn't do much.
So you would geas him into sleeping, he would be forced to try to fall asleep but can of course do anything else too, so while he's trying to fall asleep he spell sunders geas or drinks a potion of remove curse.
You can make Perception checks when you're unconscious? News to me. Then again, I guess if you can make Reflex saves when you're paralyzed, it's not such a huge jump.
How about this, order him to sleep in a box that has some type of Protection from planar abilities. Then, throwing him and the box into the Positive Energy Plane won't result n his death.
Well, as long as he never leaves the box, that is.
Speaking of which, why can't we just tell him to stay in one place and don't ever move? We could even give him a Ring of Sustanence, then he could stay there forever until he dies a natural death of old age. Since he can't move, he can't Spell Sunder and he can't drink potions (which we should easily be able to disarm him of prior).
@ Kaouse - being asleep just gives a -10 penalty on the check. Sneaking up on superhumans isn't easy.
Since geas is a language dependent compulsion effect that forces the subject to carry out a course of action, you may want to look at its little brother, suggestion, for a little more guidance on what it can and cannot do.
(Honestly, a simple house rule fix would be to change geas's target line to "one willing or helpless creature" - leaving limited wish -> geas still on the table, but requiring you nail the subject with something else (like hold monster) before you can use limited wish -> geas as a finishing move.)
Asleep is -10 to your Perception checks. Heck-- if you're playing with Unchained's skill unlocks? Asleep is only -5 at five ranks and -0 at fifteen. Unchained's Perception unlock is subtly awesome when you really look at it.
It says in the text you can use open ended tasks lol.Which is still subject to the limitation of "task".
"Kill everybody who walks through the door" is a single task, and you'd be hard-pressed to contend otherwise.
However, by definition it cannot be completed in full (short of cheating by doing something like nuking the door, but we'll assume that's not possible). So it's an open-ended task and subject to those rules.
Ok, I think the problem here is that I'm not being clear enough so I'm going to break my argument down.
"Kill everyone who walks through the door." You agree that this counts as a single service, even though the task may involve killing multiple people who walk through the door, correct?
If you do believe the above, lets look at what I've been saying.
"Obey me for X days." In very much the same as above, only one service is being requested. That the caster be obeyed for X days. The single service is comprised of that obedience over the course of those days. It is still only one service. Even if you order them to do something else, that still falls under the singular service of "Obey me for X days" even though it may involve multiple tasks.
"Kill everyone who walks through the door" and "Obey me for X days" are both single services that are open-ended. In the case of "Kill everyone who walks through the door" the single service of killing everyone who walks through the door may require tracking down a person who walked through the door and fled before they could be killed. In much the same way, "Obey me for X days" is a single service of obeying that person for a set period time. Even if you order them to do something else that still falls under the single service of "Obey me for X days", since performing that something else is part of the single service of "Obey me for X days".
Does this make it clearer? Because I cannot see how you can say the first is a single service, but not the second.
Sorry, that's not how it works. With that argument, the barbarians' skin stops the line of effect for the explosive runes.
Actually that proves my point. If what you said was true that would be the case, a Barbarian's skin could somehow grant cover. However, the outermost part of Aroden's Spellbane is (much like the Barbarians skin) still part of the area affected by Aroden's Spellbane (or the Barbarian, thus why the Barbarians skin does not provide cover, it is part of the Barbarian). There is no part of the Aroden's Spellbane that is "outside" of it's own range. Aroden's Spellbane range naturally contains itself, including it's outermost portion. Thus, there is no part of Aroden's Spellbane where the Dispel Magic can take effect.
Lots of stuff"Do one thing multiple times" and "Do different things multiple times under the aegis of being a single thing" are not synonymous in my mind.
I'm not sure why that's hard to understand. As such, it is my interpretation of the spell as written that "Obey Me" is not a legal Geas and would cause a spell to fizzle.
It is your interpretation that "Obey Me" is legal. And that's fine. But the simple fact that we're having this argument, and that I can have a different position than you based on nothing but dictionary definitions should make it abundantly clear that the "100% RAW" position you're fond of taking is flawed at best.
Ok, lets try this. How is "Obey me for X days." not one thing? It is only requesting one thing of the subject, that they obey the caster for a set period of time. There is no further additional request. Yes, obeying the caster may result in the target having to perform further tasks for the caster, but those are not multiple commands, those tasks are merely the result of obedience to the caster, in the same way that "Kill everybody who enters." may require multiple things of the target.
I don't see the distintion between the two. Please further explain your interpretation as at the moment I can see no reason your example and my example are not both one thing, just multiple times. I further would request an explanation how your interpretation can achieve a distinction between the two.
"Obey me for X days" is not one thing. It is a way to get multiple services out of one command. A slick way to get around it, mind, but one that you'll have to sell each time to different GMs who may or may not agree with your interpretation of what one and many are.
I think kestral's problem is in the vein of telling a Genie, "I wish for more wishes."
"Obey me for X days" is not one thing. It is a way to get multiple services out of one command. A slick way to get around it, mind, but one that you'll have to sell each time to different GMs who may or may not agree with your interpretation of what one and many are.
Explain how you interpret it to be more commands then "Kill everyone who walks through this door." Certainly it will lead to more tasks being imposed under one command and why yes that is terribly clever, but that is ultimately the point. It's only asking one thing. All you are asking for with the geas is obedience. It's like in Code Geass when Lelouch finally stops playing softball and starts issuing universal "Always obey me" commands. His power allows him to give an absolute command (literally a Geass!) that only works once on a given person, but by using his power to give the order "Always obey me" he is able to naturally circumvent that trait. He has only given one command and can no longer give a command to that person. But as a result of the "always obey me" command, the target will continue to accept commands. That's called being clever, it's something players are supposed to do.
I think kestral's problem is in the vein of telling a Genie, "I wish for more wishes."
I mean I get that, but you aren't exactly wishing for more wishes. This is more like Wishing the universe manifested your wishes. And even then purely from a language standpoint, what's preventing wishing for more wishes? Why would "You can wish for anything you want." "Ok, I want 3 Wishes." fail? What is the possible English interpretation what would prevent such a thing. Obviously the result is very powerful, but that's not a language interpretation issue.
Edited for clarity and to include Kaouse's post and response.
"Obey me for X days" is not one thing. It is a way to get multiple services out of one command. A slick way to get around it, mind, but one that you'll have to sell each time to different GMs who may or may not agree with your interpretation of what one and many are.Explain how you interpret it to be more commands then "Kill everyone who walks through this door." Certainly it will lead to more tasks being imposed under one command and why yes that is terribly clever, but that is ultimately the point. It's only asking one thing. All you are asking for with the geas is obedience. It's like in Code Geass when Lelouch finally stops playing softball and starts issuing universal "Obey me" commands.
"Kill everyone who walks through this door" is a single command requiring the person to attack whatever comes through the door. It's actually a bit broad for my tastes, but it could be considered one service. If you wanted to be really strict as a GM you could say that the service is over after one attack; you didn't say for how long, how many targets and so forth.
You do not seem confused if you got the point that you are being clever and trying to get around a restriction. You are trying for multiple services -- my suggestion is to get a GM that buys what you are selling.
Your example from whatever anime (I assume?) is lost on me. All I can say is that much like trying for multiple wishes, I'd advise you, in my game, to narrow your command.
"Obey me for X days" is not one thing. It is a way to get multiple services out of one command. A slick way to get around it, mind, but one that you'll have to sell each time to different GMs who may or may not agree with your interpretation of what one and many are.Explain how you interpret it to be more commands then "Kill everyone who walks through this door." Certainly it will lead to more tasks being imposed under one command and why yes that is terribly clever, but that is ultimately the point. It's only asking one thing. All you are asking for with the geas is obedience. It's like in Code Geass when Lelouch finally stops playing softball and starts issuing universal "Obey me" commands."Kill everyone who walks through this door" is a single command requiring the person to attack whatever comes through the door. It's actually a bit broad for my tastes, but it could be considered one service. If you wanted to be really strict as a GM you could say that the service is over after one attack; you didn't say for how long, how many targets and so forth.
You do not seem confused if you got the point that you are being clever and trying to get around a restriction. You are trying for multiple services -- my suggestion is to get a GM that buys what you are selling.
Your example from whatever anime (I assume?) is lost on me. All I can say is that much like trying for multiple wishes, I'd advise you, in my game, to narrow your command.
I need more differentiation. In the same way "Kill everyone who walks through this door" is a single command requiring the person to attack whatever comes through the door, "Obey me for X days" is a single command requiring the person to obey the caster for X days. How are these in the English language different?
And honestly, no "Kill everyone who walks through this door" could not be completely with one attack. I would be *very* curious as to how one could interpret it that way.
I edited the anime example to give a short explanation on it.
I need more differentiation. In the same way "Kill everyone who walks through this door" is a single command requiring the person to attack whatever comes through the door, "Obey me for X days" is a single command requiring the person to obey the caster for X days. How are these in the English language different?
And honestly, no "Kill everyone who walks through this door" could not be completely with one attack. I would be *very* curious as to how one could interpret it that way....
The difference is a one stage command versus a two (or multiple) stage command. "Kill everyone who walks through this door" is a one stage command with no further intervention by the caster needed.
"Obey me for X days" is a two or more stage command requiring the caster to continue to input commands.
This is as simple, in the English language, as I can make it. You are trying to get multiple commands out of one. It's clever, and as I said if you can sell that to a GM then more power to you. Not everyone is going to buy it, however.
I need more differentiation. In the same way "Kill everyone who walks through this door" is a single command requiring the person to attack whatever comes through the door, "Obey me for X days" is a single command requiring the person to obey the caster for X days. How are these in the English language different?
And honestly, no "Kill everyone who walks through this door" could not be completely with one attack. I would be *very* curious as to how one could interpret it that way....
The difference is a one stage command versus a two (or multiple) stage command. "Kill everyone who walks through this door" is a one stage command with no further intervention by the caster needed.
"Obey me for X days" is a two or more stage command requiring the caster to continue to input commands.
This is as simple, in the English language, as I can make it. You are trying to get multiple commands out of one. It's clever, and as I said if you can sell that to a GM then more power to you. Not everyone is going to buy it, however.
No, you are still only giving one command. The only command is "Obey Me for X days." There is no "multiple stages" to that command. It stands by itself as a singular command. Please explain where you can get a second command from that single command. To me it seems you are confusing the commands you issue later (that the target will then obey as part of the initial singular command) as part of "Obey me for X days" command. The later commands cannot in English be called "part" of the original command and are separate and distinct from the initial singular command of "Obey me for X days".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, you are still only giving one command. In plain English, the only command is "Obey Me for X days." There is no "multiple stages" to that command. It stands by itself as a singular command. Please explain where you get second command from that. To me it seems you are confusing the commands you issue later that the target will then obey as part of the initial singular command. Which is not how English works.I need more differentiation. In the same way "Kill everyone who walks through this door" is a single command requiring the person to attack whatever comes through the door, "Obey me for X days" is a single command requiring the person to obey the caster for X days. How are these in the English language different?
And honestly, no "Kill everyone who walks through this door" could not be completely with one attack. I would be *very* curious as to how one could interpret it that way....
The difference is a one stage command versus a two (or multiple) stage command. "Kill everyone who walks through this door" is a one stage command with no further intervention by the caster needed.
"Obey me for X days" is a two or more stage command requiring the caster to continue to input commands.
This is as simple, in the English language, as I can make it. You are trying to get multiple commands out of one. It's clever, and as I said if you can sell that to a GM then more power to you. Not everyone is going to buy it, however.
I'll be honest here: you do not seem as confused as you would like us to believe. It's a very nice try, and again, if you can get someone to allow you to get away with this sort of thing then more power to you.
This, incidentally, fits in with how to shut down spell casters: don't play word games with them. Don't allow them to convince you that what you believe to be a skewed view is correct. I suggest going through the spells one by one and making notes on what you might see as broken, might see as something someone will try to manipulate or "creatively word" and set ideas for rulings in your house rules documents. That way Bob the Caster knows where you stand right away.
Use these boards and others as a resource to see what people like to attempt as well. No sense reinventing the wheel when so many thoughtful people are willing to hash these spells out.
'll be honest here: you do not seem as confused as you would like us to believe. It's a very nice try, and again, if you can get someone to allow you to get away with this sort of thing then more power to you.
This, incidentally, fits in with how to shut down spell casters: don't play word games with them. Don't allow them to convince you that what you believe to be a skewed view is correct. I suggest going through the spells one by one and making notes on what you might see as broken, might see as something someone will try to manipulate or "creatively word" and set ideas for rulings in your house rules documents. That way Bob the Caster knows where you stand right away.
Use these boards and others as a resource to see what people like to attempt as well. No sense reinventing the wheel when so many thoughtful people are willing to hash these spells out.
No, I am genuinely confused. It seems very odd to me that someone would argue that "Obey me for X days." is not one command. I honestly can't get my head around the argument that your side is making. I can't think of a way to bend the English language to say "Obey me for X days." is anything other then one command without redefining words.
To me, you seem to be arguing "The result you are trying to achieve is to powerful" rather then "The language can be read to say something else". Could you please only address the language issue, as I feel the arguments are getting confused. I also must disagree with the premise that my viewpoint on what words mean in English is skewed. I think that if you asked the vast majority of English speaking people "Is 'Obey me for X days' a single command?", their answer would be "Yes."
So just to be sure I'm clear on your position:
"Is 'Obey me for X days' a single command?"
If you could say Yes or No to the above question and why you think that way, it would help me to understand your argument better. I'll answer it first.
"Is 'Obey me for X days' a single command?"
Yes. Because there is only one verb that directs a singular action to the subject of the sentence "you understood".
This should make what I think has become muddled argument much clearer.