| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Why is being a "multi-stage" command a problem?
Here, lets look at the text
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. The creature must have 7 or fewer HD and be able to understand you. 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.
Here is what the spell can make a creature do
a)refrain from taking some action or course of activity(not relevant for the purpose of this discussion)b)carry out some service
The only other caveat is that it cannot compel a creature to take actions that would result in certain death. The rules text also states that it can cause a creature to take pretty much any other course of action, which is a pretty good indication that the spell is intended to be able to make a creature do almost anything.
Service is not a defined rules term, so we go to the common English definition
Oxford Dictionaries: The action of helping or doing work for someone
Merriam-Webster:
the act of serving: as
a : a helpful act <did him a service>
b : useful labor that does not produce a tangible commodity —usually used in plural <charge for professional services>
From these, it is plain that service is an extremely broad term. Essentially, any actions taken for the benefit of another qualify as "services".
Lets take the command "Act as my utterly loyal and obedient servant who will carry out any task I ask of them other than kill themselves or perform acts that would result in certain death for X days".
The caveat is explicitly satisfied in the command using the same language as the spell text, so it is not relevant.
Is being an utterly loyal and obedient servant who will carry out any task the caster asks of them still being a servant? That is, if something is true in general for a servant, is it also true for an utterly loyal...etc servant? The answer would be yes - there is no reason why a servant cannot be utterly loyal or obedient or carry out any task the person they are serving asks them to besides effective suicide, so they still qualify as a servant.
Is being a servant an action of helping or doing work for someone...Yes, especially considering the term "Servant" literally means "one who serves others". Acting as a servant means that you are taking actions to serve others. Thus you are performing a "service" for the person you are serving.
Hence the above command does qualify as a service, and it satisfies the caveat about no effective suicide and is thus a legal command for Geas.
If anybody disagrees, feel free to point out where in my logical breakdown you disagree with me and the reasons why, or quote rules text that disagrees with me.
If you can't do any of the above, what possible reason do you have for saying that the above command isn't legal by the rules as written, given that I just explained how the common English interpretation of it supports the above command being legal(and there aren't any rules terms that supersede the common English terms).
And yes, this means the spell is incredibly broad and powerful and more or less a blank check. This does not mean there is a problem with some people's readings of it. It means that the spell by RAW is just really excessively broad in what it can allow, and if the game were more balanced would probably be more restrictive in what it could be used for. Welcome to the whole point of this thread - casters get really broadly useful tools with few caveats. It's part of the reason they are so much better than martials.
Saying that you can't give commands that amount to a blank check isn't a bad idea as a way of limiting Geas's power, but doing so would be a house rule. By the rules (as far as I can tell both written and intended), Geas can make a creature do almost anything.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Anzyrs defence, the traditional understanding of a Geas is a curse based quest of sorts. Under a Geas to solve the murder of a great druid, under a geas to protect the blade of the realms, under a geas to ensure the Kelda of the clan comes to no harm.
All of those are multi stage processes under one command.
I'd have no problem accepting Anzyrs interpretation. It would then depend on what he did with those X number of days as to whether it broke or not.
Mind you, traditional and historical references don't always go hand in hand with the way things are written in this game.
Cheers
Snowblind: First definition quoted, "A helpful act". "Obey me for X days" is not an act, but a series of distinct and unrelated acts.
Same dictionary definition, two different interpretations.
Can I stop bolding that word now?
In Anzyrs defence, the traditional understanding of a Geas is a curse based quest of sorts. Under a Geas to solve the murder of a great druid, under a geas to protect the blade of the realms, under a geas to ensure the Kelda of the clan comes to no harm.
All of those are multi stage processes under one command.
I'd have no problem accepting Anzyrs interpretation. It would then depend on what he did with those X number of days as to whether it broke or not.
Mind you, traditional and historical references don't always go hand in hand with the way things are written in this game.
Cheers
Most of the geases I can rattle off in fiction off-hand are distinctly single acts. They may be big acts, like "Become the Firelord" when you've never left your village and only know of the Firelord as a boogeyman used to scare children. But that's still a clear and concise single act.
Incidentally the Cycle of Fire is an awesome trilogy of books.
"Solve a murder" is also a big act, but it is one act.
By that logic, Geas is useless.
"Murder person X in the next room" consists of drawing the murder weapon, walking to the door, opening the door to the next room, walking to person X and running person X through. All of those are discreet acts.
Solving a murder mystery...oh boy. Collecting evidence, interviewing witnesses, interrogating suspects and so on. Plus this is in a fantasy setting, so part of it might involve fighting were-rat dopplegangers in the sewers or other unforseeable "acts". Your ultimate goal is fairly well defined, but what it entails is extremely nebulous.
Becoming the fire lord...This is ridiculous. You don't know what it will involve, you don't know how to do it, you basically know almost nothing about the task other than it will probably involve performing a lot of "acts".
Here is a question. What makes "Do X for Y amount of time" an illegal use of Geas. Pretty much any action can be broken down into smaller subtasks (unless you use the rules interpretation of "action", but I don't think Geas is just meant to force a creature to perform a single standard action). Why would something like "run along that path over there for 30 seconds" be ok while "Be my servant for 10 days" isn't?
Entailing actions not clear? Same with your examples.
Unrelated acts? Actions a)Fighting were-dopplegangers in a sewer (in order to find the magical murder weapon that was dropped down a grate) and b)asking a miller boy what they did on wednesday night(as part of interviewing witnesses) are unrelated in every meaningful way except that they are both done in order to perform the service required by the Geas (solve the murder mystery). By the same reasoning, actions a)Bringing the wizard the cup of hot cocoa they asked for, and b) rending somebody the caster wanted them to kill are totally unrelated except for the fact that both actions are done in order to follow the Geas and perform the specified service (be the obedient servant of the wizard).
Literally the only meaningful difference between some of your examples and "Act as my loyal and utterly obedient servant" is that my command isn't completable by the Geas'd creature's actions. The spell accounts for this - the creature is only affected by that Geas for at most a few days.
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.
No.
An effect only has to reach _to_ the target, not _inside_ the target. If you would need to reach inside the target, you couldn't dispel AMF and you couldn't blow up the barbarian.Since you only need to reach to the target, both work against those.
My solution to Limited Wish+Geas is to reach across the table and apply vinegar spray to the offending player.
Bad player!
BAD!
Stop ruining fun!
Also be wary of excessive rules lawyering. It summons the squiggly dark ones when done to excess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My solution to Limited Wish+Geas is to reach across the table and apply vinegar spray to the offending player.
Bad player!
BAD!
Stop ruining fun!
In other words, social expectations do far more for balance than the actual rules do.
I've always said RAW does not always translate to REALITY.
SO you're saying that when you design a game, it is totally ok for your rules to be broken?
I think that effects the quality of the game
Where the heck did you get that idea?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Anzyrs defence, the traditional understanding of a Geas is a curse based quest of sorts. Under a Geas to solve the murder of a great druid, under a geas to protect the blade of the realms, under a geas to ensure the Kelda of the clan comes to no harm.
All of those are multi stage processes under one command.
I'd have no problem accepting Anzyrs interpretation. It would then depend on what he did with those X number of days as to whether it broke or not.
Mind you, traditional and historical references don't always go hand in hand with the way things are written in this game.
Cheers
Protect someone is not the same as obey me. The difference should be clear.
I think there are good reasons to claim that there is a difference in power between Spell casters and martials. But Anzyrs examples are not doing anything but showing that RPG without a computer May be to complex for some guys,
I play an elven magus. I took "lingering pain" as a bonus arcana. Since that time, I have never encountered a single enemy spellcaster... Too bad, because they would have been toast.
All damage from that attack (including damage from a spell cast using the spellstrike ability) is considered continuous damage for the purposes of any concentration checks made by the target prior to the beginning of the magus’s next turn
Seriously, this is insane.Concentration DC 10+1/2 damage dealt + spell level, when you can easily deal 30+ damage with spellstrike... Too bad that I have not been able to use it, except for roleplay ("I make it squeal with lingering pain !").
However, as I know we are facing more and more demons in this campaign, it should be useful one day or another, right ?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, social expectations do far more for balance than the actual rules do.My solution to Limited Wish+Geas is to reach across the table and apply vinegar spray to the offending player.
Bad player!
BAD!
Stop ruining fun!
Doesn't that go without saying?
A jerk player who's seeking the ruin the game at the table is going to be trying to do so no matter what the system is.
And no matter what the system is, they'll probably be able to find a way - if your system actually gives the PCs options, then somewhere there's going to be something that can be exploited. (Unless your system is outright barren of options, anyways. In short, the more substance a game has, the less likely it'll be airtight.)
A jerk player is a jerk player. "But it's legal!" only changes him from being a culpable cheater to being a culpable troll.
(Same if the GM is using "but it's legal" to justify obnoxious stupid BS he's throwing at the players.)
heh. As to the current discussion - I'd allow "Obey my commands for X days" as a valid geas (just as I'd allow that for X hours as a valid suggestion), but
(1) I'd "fix" the targeting line of geas to "one willing or helpless living creature" (so that a limited wish -> geas stops violating the obvious spirit of the spell, but still works if you managed to land hold monster or whatever) or
(2) if stuck running RAW and someone's trying to immediately win a fight with this, I'd give the caster 6 actual seconds to give the barbarian an order that stops the barbarian from, say, ending the geas through spellsunder (or popping his own eardrums so he can't hear further orders) or splattering the caster.
In other words, social expectations do far more for balance than the actual rules do.My solution to Limited Wish+Geas is to reach across the table and apply vinegar spray to the offending player.
Bad player!
BAD!
Stop ruining fun!
Doesn't that go without saying?
A jerk player who's seeking the ruin the game at the table is going to be trying to do so no matter what the system is.
And no matter what the system is, they'll probably be able to find a way - if your system actually gives the PCs options, then somewhere there's going to be something that can be exploited. (Unless your system is outright barren of options, anyways. In short, the more substance a game has, the less likely it'll be airtight.)
A jerk player is a jerk player. "But it's legal!" only changes him from being a culpable cheater to being a culpable troll.
(Same if the GM is using "but it's legal" to justify obnoxious stupid BS he's throwing at the players.)
...
The issue with relying on the social contract is the following
a)Some people will think it is OK to "abuse" broken stuff up to a limit, but no more than that limit. Most people will find simulacrum and planar binding spam to be inappropriate behaviour. Some will find limited wish->Geas to be inappropriate, and some won't, because they are paying gold and a high level spell in order to do their trick. A non-trivial number, but by no means the vast majority of players would find SoD tactics, summoning spam and AM BARBARIAN inappropriate thins to bring to the table. The really, really broken stuff isn't that likely to be abused, because that stuff clearly puts the player in the jerk zone. The stuff that lies in the gray zone between broken and balanced is the stuff that creates problems, because that is the stuff that one player brings to the table thinking it is very strong but acceptable, and another player thinks is broken munchkin bull****.
b)A lot of the options can break the game by accident. Making simulacrums of the party to spam buffs and utility doesn't sound that bad, right? Well, now the party has double the action economy and triple the resources through the use of a drop in the bucket that is their WBL. Same with planar binding - A level 13 wizard might think that binding an angel and bringing it along with the party is cool, but having a pocket Planetar that is a threat to the entire party tag along makes things unbalanced fast.
This is why it is helpful to have a system that does one of the following
a)Have options that are not excessively imbalanced, and not include tools that a player can break the game with unless that player puts great efforts into intentionally breaking said game
b)Clearly acknowledge that it is possible to break the game, that it is easy and fairly effortless to break the game, and that players should not approach the game with the intention of attempting to create characters geared towards success, because those characters will almost certainly dominate to the point of ruining the game for the table
PF tries to be in category a), but fails badly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, raw doesn't match reality right? So if your rules are broken your players will understand not to use them?
Why bother fixing broken things when your players wont do them any way?
You're making the jump from the table to game design.
As a GM and a player I don't write the rules. I work with what's given.
Games are not defined by their rules, the rules merely provide structure and physics to work in.
Games are defined by the people who play them.
I've had pages long arguments with someone utterly convinced of the fighter's superiority.
Not the Wizard.
Not the Psion.
Not the, monk, paladin, slayer, investigator, summoner, Pun-pun, CODzilla, or the Omnificer.
The fighter.
Because he dealt a lot of damage. And that's bad.
We talk about balance here like some kind of holy shrine and beat ourselves over the head with massive posts asking about the definitions of words and phrases as if they'll have some meaning at the badwrongfun guy's table. But, at the end of the day, what's written in the book only has the importance you afford it.
You can change, exchange, and remove as you see fit. That's not a flaw. That's an expectation.
Is it a copout for broken rules?
No.
It's an understanding that your opinion of balance does not match up to mine. I think fighter-guy is objectively wrong on so many levels the whole exchange felt comical. But, fighter-guy is not wrong to change the game to suit his needs.
In the meantime designers work to make their rules a bit tighter, taking notes for the next go round, because a a "patch" is just not feasible in a print game. Errata here adn there helps but it can't fix fundamental issues. At least not without alienating all the people who gave you money so that you could be a print business in the first place.
This all sounds weird, blasphemous even from an optimization guy who spends an inordinate amount of time talking tactics.
But, the thing to understand is that I don't use optimization to break the game and show the filthy developers the superiority of my mighty mathematical dick.
Instead I use it to make things interesting, explore things within the boundaries of the rules, and spread those findings out. I try to show the things that can be done and how neat they are while still being effective enough to play. I don't try to empower individuals but focus on the group as a whole functioning unit.
That doesn't mean I care for nonsense that kills the fun. The nonsense can be useful to debate and can be entertaining to read but would it be allowed at an informed and sane table?
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.No.
An effect only has to reach _to_ the target, not _inside_ the target. If you would need to reach inside the target, you couldn't dispel AMF and you couldn't blow up the barbarian.Since you only need to reach to the target, both work against those.
The outermost edge of Aroden's Spellbane is still inside the area of Aroden's Spellbane. You can reach the target just fine. You can target it just fine. There is just no part of it's area you can affect.
My solution to Limited Wish+Geas is to reach across the table and apply vinegar spray to the offending player.
Bad player!
BAD!
Stop ruining fun!
Why? That seems like a problem with you and not with the player. It's a good combination. Do you also spray vinegar at players who use Power Attack + a two handed weapon. If not what is the difference to you between Power Attack + Two Handed Weapon and Limited Wish duplicating Geas?
Games are not defined by their rules, the rules merely provide structure and physics to work in.
Games are defined by the people who play them.
I must disagree. If games are not defined by their rules, is Settler's of Catan also D&D if I set down with the same group of people? Of course not. Their different games that are defined quite necessarily by their rules.
Instead I use it to make things interesting, explore things within the boundaries of the rules, and spread those findings out. I try to show the things that can be done and how neat they are while still being effective enough to play. I don't try to empower individuals but focus on the group as a whole functioning unit.
And (most) people don't "break" the game to show off. They break the game to show "look this is really powerful and should be changed" or in many more cases, don't even consider what they are doing gamebreaking. I for example don't consider Limited Wish/Wish duplicating spells with a high cast time to be gamebreaking. It's a strong tactic certainly, but there are many strong tactics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, social expectations do far more for balance than the actual rules do.My solution to Limited Wish+Geas is to reach across the table and apply vinegar spray to the offending player.
Bad player!
BAD!
Stop ruining fun!
Doesn't that go without saying?
A jerk player who's seeking the ruin the game at the table is going to be trying to do so no matter what the system is.
And no matter what the system is, they'll probably be able to find a way - if your system actually gives the PCs options, then somewhere there's going to be something that can be exploited. (Unless your system is outright barren of options, anyways. In short, the more substance a game has, the less likely it'll be airtight.)
A jerk player is a jerk player. "But it's legal!" only changes him from being a culpable cheater to being a culpable troll.
(Same if the GM is using "but it's legal" to justify obnoxious stupid BS he's throwing at the players.)
...
The issue with relying on the social contract is the following
a)Some people will think it is OK to "abuse" broken stuff up to a limit, but no more than that limit. Most people will find simulacrum and planar binding spam to be inappropriate behaviour. Some will find limited wish->Geas to be inappropriate, and some won't, because they are paying gold and a high level spell in order to do their trick. A non-trivial number, but by no means the vast majority of players would find SoD tactics, summoning spam and AM BARBARIAN inappropriate thins to bring to the table. The really, really broken stuff isn't that likely to be abused, because that stuff clearly puts the player in the jerk zone. The stuff that lies in the gray zone between broken and balanced is the stuff that creates problems, because that is the stuff that one player brings to the table thinking it is very strong but acceptable, and another player thinks is broken munchkin bull****.
b)A lot of the...
Huh. For one, I don't think a character geared towards success must be game-breaking. And furthermore, breaking the game isn't effortless - it takes deliberate action by a player to do so.
Now, "accidentally" breaking the game may happen in an inexperienced group, where people simply didn't realize something would be that strong and/or the GM isn't comfortable with telling a player "hey, that's causing an enormous problem, let's stop doing that."
Now, if the GM does tell the player that, and the player starts whining about the GM cramping his style...
A veteran player - the sort that actually would be trying to hide behind the "but it's legal!" defense, has no such excuse. Odds are good the veteran player understands exactly what he's doing, and is hoping to be allowed to get away with it.
A game that gives the players broad freedom to do stuff doesn't excuse the player deliberately trolling the table.
(Now, if the entire table is composed of trolls trying to one-up each other, than that's pretty much a whole different game.)
My solution to Limited Wish+Geas is to reach across the table and apply vinegar spray to the offending player.
Bad player!
BAD!
Stop ruining fun!
Why? That seems like a problem with you and not with the player. It's a good combination. Do you also spray vinegar at players who use Power Attack + a two handed weapon. If not what is the difference to you between Power Attack + Two Handed Weapon and Limited Wish duplicating Geas?
...
This is sad. You are damaging your cause, what ever it may be, with posts like this.
Many things, but most importantly:
Lets take the command "Act as my utterly loyal and obedient servant who will carry out any task I ask of them other than kill themselves or perform acts that would result in certain death for X days".
Specifics. In your post you give a specific and/or more detailed command. As far as I can remember from every article and discussion on wishes and geas-like commands, specifics are an important detail. This is why the spell documentation mentions "A clever recipient can subvert some instructions."
I put it this way to my players: be specific in your instructions, because the bad guys get the same spells to use." In other words, if you don't want spells cast on you with vague, hard to define parameters that aren't giving you the ability to be clever to subvert the commands, don't do it in return.
"Obey me" isn't a detailed command. It is at best half a command waiting for more details. Again, this is why it is important as a GM to have this sort of thing worked out, and as a player to check with the GM on how this spell and ones like it work before you drop it and then spend the rest of the night arguing over the definition of the word "service".
This is sad. You are damaging your cause, what ever it may be, with posts like this.My solution to Limited Wish+Geas is to reach across the table and apply vinegar spray to the offending player.
Bad player!
BAD!
Stop ruining fun!
Why? That seems like a problem with you and not with the player. It's a good combination. Do you also spray vinegar at players who use Power Attack + a two handed weapon. If not what is the difference to you between Power Attack + Two Handed Weapon and Limited Wish duplicating Geas?
...
There is no difference between the two as far as I can see. Both are very good tactics. Sure Limited Wish duplicating Geas is stronger in more situations then Power Attack + Two Handed Weapons, but it won't do much against enemies immune to it, while Power Attack + Two Handed Weapon will.
So if you could explain the difference beyond the above, it'd be very helpful.
Many things, but most importantly:
Lets take the command "Act as my utterly loyal and obedient servant who will carry out any task I ask of them other than kill themselves or perform acts that would result in certain death for X days".
Specifics. In your post you give a specific and/or more detailed command. As far as I can remember from every article and discussion on wishes and geas-like commands, specifics are an important detail. This is why the spell documentation mentions "A clever recipient can subvert some instructions."
I put it this way to my players: be specific in your instructions, because the bad guys get the same spells to use." In other words, if you don't want spells cast on you with vague, hard to define parameters that aren't giving you the ability to be clever to subvert the commands, don't do it in return.
"Obey me" isn't a detailed command. It is at best half a command waiting for more details. Again, this is why it is important as a GM to have this sort of thing worked out, and as a player to check with the GM on how this spell and ones like it work before you drop it and then spend the rest of the night arguing over the definition of the word "service".
If you could please answer the question directed at you it would really help. If you missed it:
"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.
I think once you answer that we can have a more productive discussion as I'm still not sure what exactly you are arguing.
I've answered that, but I'll answer it again so that you can better understand my argument.
No. That is not a valid single command. I am not going to play word games and say "Well gosh it is a single command, but not one that I believe is valid because blah blah blah."
Then you can come back with "But you DID say it was a single command, therefore blah blah blah."
Word games.
I am sorry if you aren't able to understand what I've clearly spelled out in my previous posts. There comes a point where we are talking about different things and aren't going to agree. I do not see this as a lack of understanding how this could be misconstrued in any language, but more that we do not agree with each other's basic argument.
And that is fine. I don't have to agree, or be right for your table. Just for mine.
I've answered that, but I'll answer it again so that you can better understand my argument.
No. That is not a valid single command. I am not going to play word games and say "Well gosh it is a single command, but not one that I believe is valid because blah blah blah."
Then you can come back with "But you DID say it was a single command, therefore blah blah blah."
Word games.
I am sorry if you aren't able to understand what I've clearly spelled out in my previous posts. There comes a point where we are talking about different things and aren't going to agree. I do not see this as a lack of understanding how this could be misconstrued in any language, but more that we do not agree with each other's basic argument.
And that is fine. I don't have to agree, or be right for your table. Just for mine.
So you are saying it is a single command just not a valid one? Your resistance to answering something very basic to the conversation is making me thing you are not arguing in good faith at this point. What we are talking about at the moment is purely English. "Is 'Obey me for X days' a single command?" is a yes/no thing. Your answer appears to be yes, but not valid. Is that correct? Because yes, I am going to build off your answer to set my argument. Because logically the only answer to the above question is "yes" for the reasons I've explained. There is one verb, directing one action, to one subject. Plain and simple English. What I'm trying to understand here is how you are somehow reaching "no". Or if you are reaching "no", since your answer isn't very clear on that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Word games. Move on, Anzyr. Some people do not agree with you.
Anzyr. Let me highlight part of his post for you.
No. That is not a valid single command.That's your answer. It's "no".
But it then goes on to say it is a "single command". Which is what the question asked. So the answer given reads to me as "No, even though I agree it is actually Yes, but I disagree with yes for reasons not stated." The question doesn't ask anything about validity. It simply asks "Is 'Obey me for X days' a single command?"
Word games. Move on, Anzyr. Some people do not agree with you.
It's not word games. It's rules. And your interpretation is best as I can tell is not keeping with the English language. Hence the question. It's hard to address your argument when you won't pin down details. I'm trying to argue in good faith here, but you are not really meeting me even a quarter of the way.
No, you are trying to manipulate the conversation to your liking.
You are welcome not to like my interpretation on how the spell works. We do not play at the same table, so that means roughly .. nothing.
I've said it before a number of times and I'll say it again: if you can find a GM that you can sell your interpretation to -- and that is all this is, this isn't a problem with English (or any other language) or with the rules, it is an interpretation -- then you are golden. Not everyone will buy it, and you will have to come to grips with that.
If a player would start arguing that "obey me for x days" is one service I'd argue that it doesn't include when those X days start and thus does nothing at all. Take better care on your wording next time.
Apart from that I think obay me is not a good command because he would then obey everyone he has reason to think is you. So if someone else disguised as you he would obey him.
No, you are trying to manipulate the conversation to your liking.
You are welcome not to like my interpretation on how the spell works. We do not play at the same table, so that means roughly .. nothing.
I've said it before a number of times and I'll say it again: if you can find a GM that you can sell your interpretation to -- and that is all this is, this isn't a problem with English (or any other language) or with the rules, it is an interpretation -- then you are golden. Not everyone will buy it, and you will have to come to grips with that.
I am trying to understand how you are achieving your interpretation. But you are giving me nothing to explain it. I shouldn't have to get someone to "buy" that "Obey me for X days." is a single command, any more I should have to get someone to buy that the subject of that sentence is "you understood". It's plain English. Which is why I can't fathom your argument.
From my point of view your argument looks like "That is only one command and there is no way to twist the English language to make it two, but I don't like that result and so will act as though the straightforward English interpretation is just word games."
I don't think that's what you are trying to say, but that's how it comes across to me. Please try to explain your argument as I would like to understand, but I am having a hard time doing so.
If a player would start arguing that "obey me for x days" is one service I'd argue that it doesn't include when those X days start and thus does nothing at all. Take better care on your wording next time.
Apart from that I think obay me is not a good command because he would then obey everyone he has reason to think is you. So if someone else disguised as you he would obey him.
I noted farther back in the thread my actual command would contain far more caveats. So those would be covered because the wording would be very airtight. The "Obey me for X days" was a simplification to demonstrate a point. I am glad to see you seem to agree that this is one command though and would allow it to work, since again my caveats would make it pretty airtight.
I play an elven magus. I took "lingering pain" as a bonus arcana. Since that time, I have never encountered a single enemy spellcaster... Too bad, because they would have been toast.
All damage from that attack (including damage from a spell cast using the spellstrike ability) is considered continuous damage for the purposes of any concentration checks made by the target prior to the beginning of the magus’s next turn
Seriously, this is insane.Concentration DC 10+1/2 damage dealt + spell level, when you can easily deal 30+ damage with spellstrike... Too bad that I have not been able to use it, except for roleplay ("I make it squeal with lingering pain !").
However, as I know we are facing more and more demons in this campaign, it should be useful one day or another, right ?
Yeah, Lingering Pain is a great Arcana. Plus you can get Disruptive and Spellbreaker as Arcana, and have all 3 of them by level 9 (earlier than Fighter).
By level 11, you can get Teleport Tactician and make escaping from you a real difficulty with a phase-locking weapon. Add Counterstrike at 16 and the Magus becomes a hardened Mage-killer.
You could even give your Blade the Distracting property, to make those Concentration checks even more difficult (Greater Distracting is a thing, but then you can't put Bane on your +1 Phase Locking Distracting weapon).
No, you are trying to manipulate the conversation to your liking.
You are welcome not to like my interpretation on how the spell works. We do not play at the same table, so that means roughly .. nothing.
I've said it before a number of times and I'll say it again: if you can find a GM that you can sell your interpretation to -- and that is all this is, this isn't a problem with English (or any other language) or with the rules, it is an interpretation -- then you are golden. Not everyone will buy it, and you will have to come to grips with that.
I am trying to understand how you are achieving your interpretation. But you are giving me nothing to explain it. I shouldn't have to get someone to "buy" that "Obey me for X days." is a single command, any more I should have to get someone to buy that the subject of that sentence is "you understood". It's plain English. Which is why I can't fathom your argument.
From my point of view your argument looks like "That is only one command and there is no way to twist the English language to make it two, but I don't like that result and so will act as though the straightforward English interpretation is just word games."
I don't think that's what you are trying to say, but that's how it comes across to me. Please try to explain your argument as I would like to understand, but I am having a hard time doing so.
Asked and answered. I've explained as much as I care to on the subject. We disagree on interpretations as much as we would disagree that using Limited Wish to duplicate Geas would or would not include the 10 minute casting time.
I don't think "Obey me for X days" being one command is really open to interpretation though. I can think of no way of interpreting the English language that could make one verb, directing one action, to one person, be defined as anything but "one command". Simply saying you have an alternate interpretation and then not explaining why your alternate interpretation is grammatically correct is not a strong argument. You are correct that we disagree, but I don't think it is matter of interpretation we disagree on.
If we were diagramming a sentence you might even be correct. We are not. We are discussing rules and not playing word games. Seriously, let it go. I have explained above, you don't agree, and now you are trying to badger me into another explanation that you can try to pick apart.
I do not agree with your interpretation. You will have to live with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I noted farther back in the thread my actual command would contain far more caveats. So those would be covered because the wording would be very airtight. The "Obey me for X days" was a simplification to demonstrate a point. I am glad to see you seem to agree that this is one command though and would allow it to work, since again my caveats would make it pretty airtight.If a player would start arguing that "obey me for x days" is one service I'd argue that it doesn't include when those X days start and thus does nothing at all. Take better care on your wording next time.
Apart from that I think obay me is not a good command because he would then obey everyone he has reason to think is you. So if someone else disguised as you he would obey him.
You misunderstood me.
I have yet to read anything from you that I agree to. But as everything you post always contains stuff that I consider to game the system I don't think this will happen, ever.
1. Ban broken spells.
2. Play E6.
My solution to Limited Wish+Geas is to reach across the table and apply vinegar spray to the offending player.
Bad player!
BAD!
Stop ruining fun!
Why? That seems like a problem with you and not with the player. It's a good combination. Do you also spray vinegar at players who use Power Attack + a two handed weapon. If not what is the difference to you between Power Attack + Two Handed Weapon and Limited Wish duplicating Geas?
Games are not defined by their rules, the rules merely provide structure and physics to work in.
Games are defined by the people who play them.
I must disagree. If games are not defined by their rules, is Settler's of Catan also D&D if I set down with the same group of people? Of course not. Their different games that are defined quite necessarily by their rules.
Instead I use it to make things interesting, explore things within the boundaries of the rules, and spread those findings out. I try to show the things that can be done and how neat they are while still being effective enough to play. I don't try to empower individuals but focus on the group as a whole functioning unit.And (most) people don't "break" the game to show off. They break the game to show "look this is really powerful and should be changed" or in many more cases, don't even consider what they are doing gamebreaking. I for example don't consider Limited Wish/Wish duplicating spells with a high cast time to be gamebreaking. It's a strong tactic certainly, but there are many strong tactics.
Pretty much every answer you have made here has justified the existence of the spray bottle.
If you cannot understand the concept of player sovereignty and rule exploitation than I'm wasting my time.
Rather than waste more time, I will go do something interesting.
Anzyr how you are arguing gives me the impression that you just don't understand (or don't like) the concept of "spirit of the game." Yes you can find combos in the rules or use gray areas and argue the English language (which is a joke,) but should you?
Your argument about English is poor because of this:
###1)
With no exposition I've asked 12 people (not a huge sample size I know) "Is obey me for x days, one command or multiple commands?" 10 out of 12 said multiple commands. Mainly citing any further instructions is a new command. The other 2 were gaming buddies and with a twinkle in their eye they said "yep, just one." (They've had this argument before.)
So as you can see you are on the minority side of "this is how English makes this sentence have to be interpreted."
Would you compromise at a table... I let you have your multiple days, but I control the Geased NPC and interpreting the Geas and any commands given within is up to me?.
I feel so bad that I brought up Limited Wish > Geas.
I wanted to end one silly debate and only prompted a new one.
I don't suppose we can all agree to disagree, chalk things up to table variance, and get back to the question at hand?
Now, somebody else brought up the Magus Arcana "Lingering Pain" which adds half of the damage dealt into a concentration check for the spellcaster's turn. Considering the amount of damage that the Magus can do with Spellstrike, this could conceivably be really good for stopping spellcasters, no?
On a Kensai, who gets competitive initiative and extra damage during surprise rounds, is there a way to beat it?
Would Quickened Spells be affected by continuous damage?
Anzyr how you are arguing gives me the impression that you just don't understand (or don't like) the concept of "spirit of the game." Yes you can find combos in the rules or use gray areas and argue the English language (which is a joke,) but should you?
Your argument about English is poor because of this:
###1)
With no exposition I've asked 12 people (not a huge sample size I know) "Is obey me for x days, one command or multiple commands?" 10 out of 12 said multiple commands. Mainly citing any further instructions is a new command. The other 2 were gaming buddies and with a twinkle in their eye they said "yep, just one." (They've had this argument before.)So as you can see you are on the minority side of "this is how English makes this sentence have to be interpreted."
Would you compromise at a table... I let you have your multiple days, but I control the Geased NPC and interpreting the Geas and any commands given within is up to me?.
It's not a "gray area" though. Speaking in plain English the spell is very strong and has never caused a problem at our table. I don't punish players for being creative with spells though. I find your sample difficult to believe because literally no one I've asked said "no" (which makes sense because in English it *is* only one command). If your sample size is correct I suspect there would have been more of an outrage when Lelouch started tossing out "Always obey me". Not a single person I have seen has said "That doesn't count as only one command" when discussing it, in fact most people had been expecting that to work since he gained the Geass power. So no, I;m very certain I'm in the majority, mostly because again that is literally how English works.
Also why would you not control the NPC under Geass? Though keep in mind the actual command (as stated further back in the thread) would be much more airtight.
Anzyr, Code Geass has nothing to do with Pathfinder or my question so it's irrelevant as a backing for your argumentation.
I spoke too early, you aren't in the minirity. You aren't in the majority either as it is still debatable how the text of the spell works. As each person considers what constitutes as one command or service, and if within performing a command would other commands override the first command.
Also did you ever answer my hypothetical about what a 5th level Wizard (played by you) given the choice of fighting a 5th lvl Ranger, Barbarian, Rogue, Wizard 《all parties using optimized builds from the guides》 or backing down?