Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A thought on the command spell
46 views
Skip to first unread message
Loren Pechtel
Apr 16, 2013, 1:13:23 AM4/16/13
to
Assuming you're using an old enough version that it could be done:
What would happen if you gave the command "exsanguinate"?
Assuming the target actually understands would he be compelled to
inflict wounds for the maximum bleeding in order to attempt to
accomplish this?
What would happen if you gave the command "exsanguinate"?
Assuming the target actually understands would he be compelled to
inflict wounds for the maximum bleeding in order to attempt to
accomplish this?
Tetsubo
Apr 16, 2013, 7:37:55 AM4/16/13
to
intentionally harm itself. Even if they did know what the word meant,
which is *highly* unlikely.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Spalls Hurgenson
Apr 16, 2013, 9:23:32 AM4/16/13
to
(1st Edition)
"Explanation/Description: This spell enables the cleric to issue a
command of a single word. The command must be uttered in a language
which the spell recipient is able to understand. The individual will
obey to the best of his/her/its ability only so long as the command is
absolutely clear and unequivocal, i.e. "Suicide!" could be a noun, so
the creature would ignore the command. A command to "Die!" would
cause the recipient to fall in a faint or cataleptic state for 1
round, but thereafter the creature would be alive and well. Typical
command words are: back, halt, flee, run, stop, fall,
fly, go, leave, surrender, sleep, rest, etc. Undead are not affected
by a command. Creatures with intelligence of 13 or more, and creatures
with 6 or more hit dice (or experience levels) are entitled to a
saving throw versus magic. (Creatures with 13 or higher intelligence
and 6 hit dice/levels do not get 2 saving throws!) "
(2nd Edition essentially says the same, with a clarification that the
spell will only control the creature for a single round. 3rd Edition
has the addition that it is a "very reasonable command", which would
seem to limit the ability of this spell to the point where your
request becomes unusable).
And just for completionists sake:
exsanguinate
verb (used with object)
1. to drain of blood; make bloodless.
verb (used without object)
2. to bleed to death.
If uninjured, I'd say the creature would be commanded to drain
/something/ of blood by the command, although not necessarily himself.
So I'd watch out, he might come lunging at you with a straw. ;-)
If injured, the command would essentially be the same as "don't
bandage that gushing wound there". It doesn't not necessarily imply
"cut oneself so you bleed". Although I suppose if the creature has
some sort of control of its blood flow it might be compelled to make
its heart pump the stuff out faster, but I can't think of any
creatures with that particular ability.
I think it would only work in the flawless way you assume if the spell
was laid as a trap and only the one character heard it. Unable to turn
his destructive impulses on anyone else, the victim would then turn
his blade upon himself in attempt to fulfil the requirements of the
spell.
Whether he would actually be able to bleed out in a single round is
doubtful given the way D&D handles damage, but I can imagine he might
give himself a really nasty cut that he needs to spend the next round
bandaging.
Tetsubo
Apr 16, 2013, 10:07:19 AM4/16/13
to
seconds with a self-inflicted wound achieved in a six second time
period. Probably not even bleed enough to pass out. Maybe of they
chopped off their own leg... The "very reasonable command" line though
makes this a non-starter for me.
David Lamb
Apr 16, 2013, 10:40:57 AM4/16/13
to
On 16/04/2013 9:23 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> I think it would only work in the flawless way you assume if the spell
> was laid as a trap and only the one character heard it. Unable to turn
> his destructive impulses on anyone else, the victim would then turn
> his blade upon himself in attempt to fulfil the requirements of the
> spell.
Whereupon he'd discover that wounds in D&D don't generally bleed and the
> I think it would only work in the flawless way you assume if the spell
> was laid as a trap and only the one character heard it. Unable to turn
> his destructive impulses on anyone else, the victim would then turn
> his blade upon himself in attempt to fulfil the requirements of the
> spell.
command was essentially 'try to hit yourself with whatever edged weapon
you might have at hand. If you succeed, take whatever damage your weapon
inflicts, which is unlikely to kill you.'
Possibly less nasty than 'die' which puts you in a more vulnerable
position trying to get up the next round. Slightly more nasty than many
other 'waste one round' commands.
Justisaur
Apr 16, 2013, 11:35:27 AM4/16/13
to
A wizard or cleric perhaps. Neither are often armed with something
that could accomplish that. Would the results be any different than
commanding bleed? one doesn't voluntarily start bleeding. I don't
think that would work.
- Justisaur
Anonymous Jack
Apr 16, 2013, 12:25:38 PM4/16/13
to
On Apr 16, 9:23 am, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgen...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "Explanation/Description: ... only so long as the command is
how many of the "typical" command words could also be nouns....
Back of what? Flea, I don't have any fleas! Run in my stocking? Door
stop, full stop? Fall... naw, it's spring. etc.
wrote:
> "Explanation/Description: ... only so long as the command is
> absolutely clear and unequivocal, i.e. "Suicide!" could be a noun, so
> the creature would ignore the command. ... Typical
> command words are: back, halt, flee, run, stop, fall,
> fly, go, leave, surrender, sleep, rest, etc.
Been a long time since I read the spell description, but just noticed
> fly, go, leave, surrender, sleep, rest, etc.
how many of the "typical" command words could also be nouns....
Back of what? Flea, I don't have any fleas! Run in my stocking? Door
stop, full stop? Fall... naw, it's spring. etc.
Joanna Rowland Stuart
Apr 16, 2013, 12:47:00 PM4/16/13
to
In article <cdnpm8da867c35ean...@4ax.com>,
lorenp...@hotmail.com (Loren Pechtel) wrote:
> exsanguinate
I would have the target do its best to cause its *enemies* to bleed, if
it did understand the term.
What actually would be nasty would be using _Command_ on an enemy who is
about to aid a fallen companion - "Kill" should cause them to administer
a /coup de grace/ on the companion, instead of whatever beneficial action
they were about to do.
The resulting confusion in the enemy ranks when they see this traitorous
behaviour by one of their own should give a significant advantage to the
party for at least one combat round, especially if the _Command_ is
delivered telepathically using Silent Spell metamagic by someone who is
telepathic (either from an ability or an ongoing _Telepathy_ spell).
Cheers
JOanna
lorenp...@hotmail.com (Loren Pechtel) wrote:
> exsanguinate
I would have the target do its best to cause its *enemies* to bleed, if
it did understand the term.
What actually would be nasty would be using _Command_ on an enemy who is
about to aid a fallen companion - "Kill" should cause them to administer
a /coup de grace/ on the companion, instead of whatever beneficial action
they were about to do.
The resulting confusion in the enemy ranks when they see this traitorous
behaviour by one of their own should give a significant advantage to the
party for at least one combat round, especially if the _Command_ is
delivered telepathically using Silent Spell metamagic by someone who is
telepathic (either from an ability or an ongoing _Telepathy_ spell).
Cheers
JOanna
Justisaur
Apr 16, 2013, 1:20:11 PM4/16/13
to
On AprOn Apr 16, 6:23 am, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgen...@gmail.com>
wrote:
'command' can be interpreted ambiguously. Let me show you.
> A command to "Die!"
Also a noun. I produce a 6 sider from my pocket.
> Typical
> command words are: back,
I have a back.
> halt
This one is pretty difficult, it could be either to halt speaking but
not moving, or vice versa, whichever the recipient doesn't mind.
> flee
What about my flea?
> run
I don't have a run in my stocking.
> stop
I put my stopper back in my waterskin.
> fall
It looks more like winter to me.
> fly
In my soup
> go
I'll continue to do whatever it was I was doing (as in go ahead).
> leave
Pretty difficult too, but might only work on trees.
> surrender
Alright, got me here. About the only thing I can think of would be
it's not specified who to surrender to, so perhaps you head off to the
local constable to surrender yourself to the law.
> sleep
sleep is a noun, much like suicide.
>rest
The rest of what?
- Justisaur
wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:13:23 -0700, Loren Pechtel
>
>
> <lorenpech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Assuming you're using an old enough version that it could be done:
> >What would happen if you gave the command "exsanguinate"?
> >Assuming the target actually understands would he be compelled to
> >inflict wounds for the maximum bleeding in order to attempt to
> >accomplish this?
>
> First off, let's see what the spell description says:
>
> (1st Edition)
> "Explanation/Description: This spell enables the cleric to issue a
> command of a single word. The command must be uttered in a language
> which the spell recipient is able to understand. The individual will
> obey to the best of his/her/its ability only so long as the command is
> absolutely clear and unequivocal, i.e. "Suicide!" could be a noun, so
> the creature would ignore the command.
The problem with this is it completely invalidates the spell. Any
> >Assuming you're using an old enough version that it could be done:
> >What would happen if you gave the command "exsanguinate"?
> >Assuming the target actually understands would he be compelled to
> >inflict wounds for the maximum bleeding in order to attempt to
> >accomplish this?
>
> First off, let's see what the spell description says:
>
> (1st Edition)
> "Explanation/Description: This spell enables the cleric to issue a
> command of a single word. The command must be uttered in a language
> which the spell recipient is able to understand. The individual will
> obey to the best of his/her/its ability only so long as the command is
> absolutely clear and unequivocal, i.e. "Suicide!" could be a noun, so
> the creature would ignore the command.
'command' can be interpreted ambiguously. Let me show you.
> A command to "Die!"
Also a noun. I produce a 6 sider from my pocket.
> Typical
> command words are: back,
> halt
This one is pretty difficult, it could be either to halt speaking but
not moving, or vice versa, whichever the recipient doesn't mind.
> flee
What about my flea?
> run
I don't have a run in my stocking.
> stop
I put my stopper back in my waterskin.
> fall
It looks more like winter to me.
> fly
In my soup
> go
I'll continue to do whatever it was I was doing (as in go ahead).
> leave
Pretty difficult too, but might only work on trees.
> surrender
Alright, got me here. About the only thing I can think of would be
it's not specified who to surrender to, so perhaps you head off to the
local constable to surrender yourself to the law.
> sleep
sleep is a noun, much like suicide.
>rest
The rest of what?
- Justisaur
dr...@bin.sh
Apr 16, 2013, 2:36:38 PM4/16/13
to
Alien mind control rays made Loren Pechtel <lorenp...@hotmail.com> write:
> Assuming you're using an old enough version that it could be done:
> What would happen if you gave the command "exsanguinate"?
a) they would spend the next several rounds searching for a dictionary
> Assuming you're using an old enough version that it could be done:
> What would happen if you gave the command "exsanguinate"?
b) they would cut you 'til you were bled out
--
dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Free Trader Beowulf, calling anyone...
Mayday, Mayday...
Jim Davies
Apr 16, 2013, 2:57:48 PM4/16/13
to
On the grave of Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> is inscribed:
>> halt
>
>This one is pretty difficult, it could be either to halt speaking but
>not moving, or vice versa, whichever the recipient doesn't mind.
Or holt. Which is a wooded hill, usually. Lots of places in England
called Something Holt.
Of course the idiocy of all this is that the rules are written in
English, but the command might be in orcish. I can well imagine a LE
tongue of some ilk containing lots of words that basically mean to
flog, prostrate, kil or otherwise abuse oneself.
"Autoasphyxiate" is probably unambiguous English, though possibly not
a single word. It's a matter of which dictionary the target is
carrying.
If the spell were retuned to have a list of specific permissible
commands (as in PF) and be mind-affecting but not language-dependent,
it might make sense. As it is, it's silly in any version.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
>> halt
>
>This one is pretty difficult, it could be either to halt speaking but
>not moving, or vice versa, whichever the recipient doesn't mind.
called Something Holt.
Of course the idiocy of all this is that the rules are written in
English, but the command might be in orcish. I can well imagine a LE
tongue of some ilk containing lots of words that basically mean to
flog, prostrate, kil or otherwise abuse oneself.
"Autoasphyxiate" is probably unambiguous English, though possibly not
a single word. It's a matter of which dictionary the target is
carrying.
If the spell were retuned to have a list of specific permissible
commands (as in PF) and be mind-affecting but not language-dependent,
it might make sense. As it is, it's silly in any version.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
Rast
Apr 16, 2013, 5:05:35 PM4/16/13
to
Spalls Hurgenson wrote...
the victim would attempt suicide?
> The command must be uttered in a language
> which the spell recipient is able to understand. The individual will
> obey to the best of his/her/its ability only so long as the command is
> absolutely clear and unequivocal, i.e. "Suicide!" could be a noun, so
> the creature would ignore the command. A command to "Die!" would
> cause the recipient to fall in a faint or cataleptic state for 1
> round, but thereafter the creature would be alive and well.
So if there was a language which had a single word for "kill yourself",
> which the spell recipient is able to understand. The individual will
> obey to the best of his/her/its ability only so long as the command is
> absolutely clear and unequivocal, i.e. "Suicide!" could be a noun, so
> the creature would ignore the command. A command to "Die!" would
> cause the recipient to fall in a faint or cataleptic state for 1
> round, but thereafter the creature would be alive and well.
the victim would attempt suicide?
Justisaur
Apr 16, 2013, 5:56:13 PM4/16/13
to
possible so that thier commands would be understood and followed.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Apr 16, 2013, 5:58:30 PM4/16/13
to
Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:83jqm819sm84g4g0b...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:13:23 -0700, Loren Pechtel
> <lorenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Assuming you're using an old enough version that it could be
>>done:
>
>>What would happen if you gave the command "exsanguinate"?
>
>>Assuming the target actually understands would he be compelled
>>to inflict wounds for the maximum bleeding in order to attempt
>>to accomplish this?
>
> First off, let's see what the spell description says:
>
> (1st Edition)
> "Explanation/Description: This spell enables the cleric to issue
> a command of a single word. The command must be uttered in a
> language which the spell recipient is able to understand. The
> individual will obey to the best of his/her/its ability only so
> long as the command is absolutely clear and unequivocal, i.e.
> "Suicide!" could be a noun, so the creature would ignore the
> command. A command to "Die!" would cause the recipient to fall
> in a faint or cataleptic state for 1 round, but thereafter the
> creature would be alive and well. Typical command words are:
> back,
Can also be a noun
> halt,
Can also be a noun
> flee,
In English, spoken, can easily be mistaken for "flea." A noun.
> run,
Can also be a noun.
> stop,
Can also be a noun.
> fall,
Can also be a noun.
> fly,
Can also be a noun.
> go,
Name of a popular game. A nounc.
> leave,
Almost the plural of a noun.
> surrender,
Can also be a noun.
> sleep,
Can also be a noun.
>rest,
Can also be a noun.
Pretty useless spell.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:83jqm819sm84g4g0b...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:13:23 -0700, Loren Pechtel
> <lorenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Assuming you're using an old enough version that it could be
>>done:
>
>>What would happen if you gave the command "exsanguinate"?
>
>>Assuming the target actually understands would he be compelled
>>to inflict wounds for the maximum bleeding in order to attempt
>>to accomplish this?
>
> First off, let's see what the spell description says:
>
> (1st Edition)
> "Explanation/Description: This spell enables the cleric to issue
> a command of a single word. The command must be uttered in a
> language which the spell recipient is able to understand. The
> individual will obey to the best of his/her/its ability only so
> long as the command is absolutely clear and unequivocal, i.e.
> "Suicide!" could be a noun, so the creature would ignore the
> command. A command to "Die!" would cause the recipient to fall
> in a faint or cataleptic state for 1 round, but thereafter the
> creature would be alive and well. Typical command words are:
> back,
> halt,
Can also be a noun
> flee,
In English, spoken, can easily be mistaken for "flea." A noun.
> run,
Can also be a noun.
> stop,
Can also be a noun.
> fall,
Can also be a noun.
> fly,
Can also be a noun.
> go,
Name of a popular game. A nounc.
> leave,
Almost the plural of a noun.
> surrender,
Can also be a noun.
> sleep,
Can also be a noun.
>rest,
Can also be a noun.
Pretty useless spell.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Tetsubo
Apr 16, 2013, 6:43:30 PM4/16/13
to
know I would not allow a player to pull such a stunt. Or use it once and
have me as a GM use it against their party next adventure... TPK.
On a different note, would the cleric's god be OK with that?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Apr 16, 2013, 7:34:56 PM4/16/13
to
Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:kkkk0u$ujh$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 4/16/2013 5:05 PM, Rast wrote:
>> Spalls Hurgenson wrote...
>>> The command must be uttered in a language
>>> which the spell recipient is able to understand. The
>>> individual will obey to the best of his/her/its ability only
>>> so long as the command is absolutely clear and unequivocal,
>>> i.e. "Suicide!" could be a noun, so the creature would ignore
>>> the command. A command to "Die!" would cause the recipient to
>>> fall in a faint or cataleptic state for 1 round, but
>>> thereafter the creature would be alive and well.
>>
>> So if there was a language which had a single word for "kill
>> yourself", the victim would attempt suicide?
>>
>
> I think such a commend goes beyond the scope and power of
> the spell. I
> know I would not allow a player to pull such a stunt. Or use it
> once and have me as a GM use it against their party next
> adventure... TPK.
>
> On a different note, would the cleric's god be OK with
> that?
>
Well, that would depend on which god, now wouldn't it?
news:kkkk0u$ujh$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 4/16/2013 5:05 PM, Rast wrote:
>> Spalls Hurgenson wrote...
>>> The command must be uttered in a language
>>> which the spell recipient is able to understand. The
>>> individual will obey to the best of his/her/its ability only
>>> so long as the command is absolutely clear and unequivocal,
>>> i.e. "Suicide!" could be a noun, so the creature would ignore
>>> the command. A command to "Die!" would cause the recipient to
>>> fall in a faint or cataleptic state for 1 round, but
>>> thereafter the creature would be alive and well.
>>
>> So if there was a language which had a single word for "kill
>> yourself", the victim would attempt suicide?
>>
>
> I think such a commend goes beyond the scope and power of
> the spell. I
> know I would not allow a player to pull such a stunt. Or use it
> once and have me as a GM use it against their party next
> adventure... TPK.
>
> On a different note, would the cleric's god be OK with
> that?
>
Joanna Rowland Stuart
Apr 16, 2013, 8:43:00 PM4/16/13
to
In article <MPG.2bd77fa1a...@news.eternal-september.org>,
minute in 1e, 6 seconds in 3e) permitted the target to fulfil the action.
If they didn't have a weapon in their hand, they would have to draw it
(standard action) and then be about to attempt suicide with said weapon
when the spell wore off. You are then faced with an armed, extremely
pissed-off enemy. Roll initiative. Run away. :-)
Cheers
JOanna
ra...@yahoo.com (Rast) wrote:
> So if there was a language which had a single word for "kill
> yourself", the victim would attempt suicide?
Japanese. And yes, providing the the single round duration of Command (1
> So if there was a language which had a single word for "kill
> yourself", the victim would attempt suicide?
minute in 1e, 6 seconds in 3e) permitted the target to fulfil the action.
If they didn't have a weapon in their hand, they would have to draw it
(standard action) and then be about to attempt suicide with said weapon
when the spell wore off. You are then faced with an armed, extremely
pissed-off enemy. Roll initiative. Run away. :-)
Cheers
JOanna
Nicole Massey
Apr 16, 2013, 9:02:25 PM4/16/13
to
"Joanna Rowland Stuart" <jrowlan...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2013041...@jrowlandstuart.cix.co.uk...
that human. He must be working for the guy -- we got to kill the traitor!"
Rast
Apr 17, 2013, 12:51:13 AM4/17/13
to
Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote...
So if he already had a weapon in hand (or quick draw), he'd CDG
himself. Nice save-or-die for a 1st level spell.
himself. Nice save-or-die for a 1st level spell.
Joanna Rowland Stuart
Apr 17, 2013, 6:09:00 AM4/17/13
to
In article <MPG.2bd7f44ce...@news.eternal-september.org>,
I'd house-rule that the victim would strongly resist something so
obviously self-destructive (huge bonuses to saving throw, or even
automatic save).
Even _Dominate_ _Person_ can't make a victim directly commit suicide, and
that's a 4th level spell.
As for quick-draw - not a starter, because the Command causes an
impulsive action - quick-drawing a weapon and killing oneself isn't in a
range of suitably impulsive actions (unlike "flee", "strike", "fight" etc)
unless the target is actually poised to do something (and the Command
just tips them into action).
OTOH if the victim was looking over a precipice and was Commanded to jump,
then yes, it's save-or-jump.
Cheers
JOanna
ra...@yahoo.com (Rast) wrote:
> So if he already had a weapon in hand (or quick draw), he'd CDG
> himself. Nice save-or-die for a 1st level spell.
He'd *try* to CDG himself. The Command spell RAW is broken anyway, and
> So if he already had a weapon in hand (or quick draw), he'd CDG
> himself. Nice save-or-die for a 1st level spell.
I'd house-rule that the victim would strongly resist something so
obviously self-destructive (huge bonuses to saving throw, or even
automatic save).
Even _Dominate_ _Person_ can't make a victim directly commit suicide, and
that's a 4th level spell.
As for quick-draw - not a starter, because the Command causes an
impulsive action - quick-drawing a weapon and killing oneself isn't in a
range of suitably impulsive actions (unlike "flee", "strike", "fight" etc)
unless the target is actually poised to do something (and the Command
just tips them into action).
OTOH if the victim was looking over a precipice and was Commanded to jump,
then yes, it's save-or-jump.
Cheers
JOanna
Joanna Rowland Stuart
Apr 17, 2013, 6:09:00 AM4/17/13
to
In article <kkksc0$7gv$1...@news.albasani.net>, ny...@gypsyheir.com (Nicole
Cheers
JOanna
Massey) wrote:
> Vocal would work too. "Hey, look, glurg just killed Pesht at the
> command of that human. He must be working for the guy -- we got to
> kill the traitor!"
This is true :-)
> Vocal would work too. "Hey, look, glurg just killed Pesht at the
> command of that human. He must be working for the guy -- we got to
> kill the traitor!"
Cheers
JOanna
Justisaur
Apr 17, 2013, 11:13:50 AM4/17/13
to
On Apr 16, 11:57 am, Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
> On the grave of Justisaur <justis...@gmail.com> is inscribed:
Perhaps if you could preface it with "I command you to" and it has to
make sense. The funny thing is one of the favorites "Die" doesn't
really make sense, it's not an action one has control over. I can't
die on command if someone tells me too, even if I wanted to.
I command you to "suicide" doesn't really make sense.
I command you to "halt" makes some sense, but interpretation is
difficult.
or "Freeze"
Some more codified things it can do might be good, but then you get
into 4e type stuff.
#1 delay 1 round
#2 drop weapons and delay 1 round
#3 fall over unconcious for 1 round (1 round sleep essentially)
#3 run away for 1 round (1 round fear essentially)
Jump is too hard to interpret I think and would fall into #1, stop,
halt, etc fall into #1.
Oh and I thought of something nasty - you wouldn't want to tell a
wizard to 'sleep' it's possible he's go the spell memorized or in a
device.
- Justisaur
> On the grave of Justisaur <justis...@gmail.com> is inscribed:
make sense. The funny thing is one of the favorites "Die" doesn't
really make sense, it's not an action one has control over. I can't
die on command if someone tells me too, even if I wanted to.
I command you to "suicide" doesn't really make sense.
I command you to "halt" makes some sense, but interpretation is
difficult.
or "Freeze"
Some more codified things it can do might be good, but then you get
into 4e type stuff.
#1 delay 1 round
#2 drop weapons and delay 1 round
#3 fall over unconcious for 1 round (1 round sleep essentially)
#3 run away for 1 round (1 round fear essentially)
Jump is too hard to interpret I think and would fall into #1, stop,
halt, etc fall into #1.
Oh and I thought of something nasty - you wouldn't want to tell a
wizard to 'sleep' it's possible he's go the spell memorized or in a
device.
- Justisaur
Justisaur
Apr 17, 2013, 11:15:20 AM4/17/13
to
On Apr 17, 3:09 am, jrowlandstu...@cix.co.uk (Joanna Rowland Stuart)
wrote:
> In article <MPG.2bd7f44cef13d124989...@news.eternal-september.org>,
One can jump in place. Even though that's in the example I would
still call no. If they were climbing something, or riding something
that could be disastrous still though.
- Justisaur
wrote:
> In article <MPG.2bd7f44cef13d124989...@news.eternal-september.org>,
still call no. If they were climbing something, or riding something
that could be disastrous still though.
- Justisaur
Loren Pechtel
Apr 17, 2013, 12:13:43 PM4/17/13
to
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:40:57 -0400, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
wrote:
Cut your throat. Coup de grace is a one-round action.
wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson
Apr 17, 2013, 12:30:05 PM4/17/13
to
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:07:19 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>On 4/16/2013 9:23 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:13:23 -0700, Loren Pechtel
>> <lorenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Assuming you're using an old enough version that it could be done:
>>
>>> What would happen if you gave the command "exsanguinate"?
>>
>>> Assuming the target actually understands would he be compelled to
>>> inflict wounds for the maximum bleeding in order to attempt to
>>> accomplish this?
working with earlier versions of the game. And of course, since we are
dealing with 1st and 2nd Edition rules, each round is actually a
minute.
I don't claim to know enough about bleeding out to say whether that's
enough time to die from blood loss (what I know, I've learned from
Hollywood, so I have to assume it's completely inaccurate). A jab to
the jugular or to one of the arteries in the leg might do it, perhaps.
Of course, the wording of the spell still doesn't necessarily imply
the victim must cause himself harm. And if most villians are like the
people I know, they'll assume that a papercut is a life-threatening
injury unless immediately treated so if they ignore an existing wound
it still might not do them any harm. ;-)
wrote:
>On 4/16/2013 9:23 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:13:23 -0700, Loren Pechtel
>> <lorenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Assuming you're using an old enough version that it could be done:
>>
>>> What would happen if you gave the command "exsanguinate"?
>>
>>> Assuming the target actually understands would he be compelled to
>>> inflict wounds for the maximum bleeding in order to attempt to
>>> accomplish this?
> I don't think a regular human in the real world could bleed out in six
>seconds with a self-inflicted wound achieved in a six second time
>period. Probably not even bleed enough to pass out. Maybe of they
>chopped off their own leg... The "very reasonable command" line though
>makes this a non-starter for me.
Agreed; the "reasonable command" seems to limit this spell only
>seconds with a self-inflicted wound achieved in a six second time
>period. Probably not even bleed enough to pass out. Maybe of they
>chopped off their own leg... The "very reasonable command" line though
>makes this a non-starter for me.
working with earlier versions of the game. And of course, since we are
dealing with 1st and 2nd Edition rules, each round is actually a
minute.
I don't claim to know enough about bleeding out to say whether that's
enough time to die from blood loss (what I know, I've learned from
Hollywood, so I have to assume it's completely inaccurate). A jab to
the jugular or to one of the arteries in the leg might do it, perhaps.
Of course, the wording of the spell still doesn't necessarily imply
the victim must cause himself harm. And if most villians are like the
people I know, they'll assume that a papercut is a life-threatening
injury unless immediately treated so if they ignore an existing wound
it still might not do them any harm. ;-)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Apr 17, 2013, 12:41:59 PM4/17/13
to
On 4/17/13 12:30 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:07:19 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/2013 9:23 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:13:23 -0700, Loren Pechtel
>>> <lorenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Assuming you're using an old enough version that it could be done:
>>>
>>>> What would happen if you gave the command "exsanguinate"?
>>>
>>>> Assuming the target actually understands would he be compelled to
>>>> inflict wounds for the maximum bleeding in order to attempt to
>>>> accomplish this?
>
>> I don't think a regular human in the real world could bleed out in six
>> seconds with a self-inflicted wound achieved in a six second time
>> period. Probably not even bleed enough to pass out. Maybe of they
>> chopped off their own leg... The "very reasonable command" line though
>> makes this a non-starter for me.
>
> Agreed; the "reasonable command" seems to limit this spell only
> working with earlier versions of the game. And of course, since we are
> dealing with 1st and 2nd Edition rules, each round is actually a
> minute.
>
> I don't claim to know enough about bleeding out to say whether that's
> enough time to die from blood loss
If you get the femoral artery and you cut it right, 30 seconds to loss
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:07:19 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/2013 9:23 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:13:23 -0700, Loren Pechtel
>>> <lorenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Assuming you're using an old enough version that it could be done:
>>>
>>>> What would happen if you gave the command "exsanguinate"?
>>>
>>>> Assuming the target actually understands would he be compelled to
>>>> inflict wounds for the maximum bleeding in order to attempt to
>>>> accomplish this?
>
>> I don't think a regular human in the real world could bleed out in six
>> seconds with a self-inflicted wound achieved in a six second time
>> period. Probably not even bleed enough to pass out. Maybe of they
>> chopped off their own leg... The "very reasonable command" line though
>> makes this a non-starter for me.
>
> Agreed; the "reasonable command" seems to limit this spell only
> working with earlier versions of the game. And of course, since we are
> dealing with 1st and 2nd Edition rules, each round is actually a
> minute.
>
> I don't claim to know enough about bleeding out to say whether that's
> enough time to die from blood loss
of consciousness. Get the carotid, even faster and there's no
possibility of applying a tourniquet; he's dead.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Jim Davies
Apr 17, 2013, 6:14:36 PM4/17/13
to
On the grave of jrowlan...@cix.co.uk (Joanna Rowland Stuart) is
inscribed:
Nitpick. Drawing a weapon is an ME action. It wouldn't allow a CdG
which is a full-round action (unless hasted under 3.0 rules), but
would allow an attack.
Of course a Samurai character (or such a character in a society that
has suicide as a commonly accepted action) would probably spend more
than six seconds on the process, eg tidying one's hair, writing one's
last will and testament, washing, kneeling, praying & confessing one's
sins and so on. Could easily be 5 minutes to several hours.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
inscribed:
which is a full-round action (unless hasted under 3.0 rules), but
would allow an attack.
Of course a Samurai character (or such a character in a society that
has suicide as a commonly accepted action) would probably spend more
than six seconds on the process, eg tidying one's hair, writing one's
last will and testament, washing, kneeling, praying & confessing one's
sins and so on. Could easily be 5 minutes to several hours.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
Jim Davies
Apr 17, 2013, 6:20:49 PM4/17/13
to
On the grave of Loren Pechtel <lorenp...@hotmail.com> is inscribed:
Which is fine if a) you have a dagger or conveniently sharp knife and
b) you're not wearing much armour. Trying to cut your throat with a
mace isn't going to work. Even bashing yourself over the head with it
is unlikely to do much if you're wearing a helmet as you can't get a
decent swing.
Most medieval swords would be pretty useless too: the edge won't be
sharp enough so you'd need to use the point which isn't hugely
convenient on anything longer than a shortsword. And it would be
trivial for an ally to knock the sword away from your throat once he
worked out what was happening.
So target the rogues. Poor will save, light armour and the right
weapon. Rogues suck.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
b) you're not wearing much armour. Trying to cut your throat with a
mace isn't going to work. Even bashing yourself over the head with it
is unlikely to do much if you're wearing a helmet as you can't get a
decent swing.
Most medieval swords would be pretty useless too: the edge won't be
sharp enough so you'd need to use the point which isn't hugely
convenient on anything longer than a shortsword. And it would be
trivial for an ally to knock the sword away from your throat once he
worked out what was happening.
So target the rogues. Poor will save, light armour and the right
weapon. Rogues suck.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
Jim Davies
Apr 17, 2013, 6:27:19 PM4/17/13
to
On the grave of Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> is
inscribed:
>Of course, the wording of the spell still doesn't necessarily imply
>the victim must cause himself harm. And if most villians are like the
>people I know, they'll assume that a papercut is a life-threatening
>injury unless immediately treated so if they ignore an existing wound
>it still might not do them any harm. ;-)
Depends on the villain.
"Kill myself? Pah! I have people for that! Minion! Come over here and
kill me, lackwit!"
Minion looks confused, but does what he's told. Unfortunately he's 15'
away so takes an ME to get there and so only gets one attack.
Or alternatively, channeling Alan Rickman:
"Minion! Disembowel me with a spoon!"
"A spoon, boss? Why not an axe?"
"Because it will hurt more!"
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
inscribed:
>Of course, the wording of the spell still doesn't necessarily imply
>the victim must cause himself harm. And if most villians are like the
>people I know, they'll assume that a papercut is a life-threatening
>injury unless immediately treated so if they ignore an existing wound
>it still might not do them any harm. ;-)
"Kill myself? Pah! I have people for that! Minion! Come over here and
kill me, lackwit!"
Minion looks confused, but does what he's told. Unfortunately he's 15'
away so takes an ME to get there and so only gets one attack.
Or alternatively, channeling Alan Rickman:
"Minion! Disembowel me with a spoon!"
"A spoon, boss? Why not an axe?"
"Because it will hurt more!"
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
Rast
Apr 17, 2013, 6:39:26 PM4/17/13
to
Justisaur wrote...
You give the subject a single command, which it obeys to the best of
its ability at its earliest opportunity. You may select from the
following options.
Approach: On its turn, the subject moves toward you as quickly and
directly as possible for 1 round. The creature may do nothing but move
during its turn, and it provokes attacks of opportunity for this
movement as normal.
Drop: On its turn, the subject drops whatever it is holding. It can't
pick up any dropped item until its next turn.
Fall: On its turn, the subject falls to the ground and remains prone
for 1 round. It may act normally while prone but takes any appropriate
penalties.
Flee: On its turn, the subject moves away from you as quickly as
possible for 1 round. It may do nothing but move during its turn, and
it provokes attacks of opportunity for this movement as normal.
Halt: The subject stands in place for 1 round. It may not take any
actions but is not considered helpless.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/command.html
> I command you to "suicide" doesn't really make sense.
> I command you to "halt" makes some sense, but interpretation is
> difficult.
> or "Freeze"
>
> Some more codified things it can do might be good, but then you get
> into 4e type stuff.
Pathfinder allows only five options:
> I command you to "halt" makes some sense, but interpretation is
> difficult.
> or "Freeze"
>
> Some more codified things it can do might be good, but then you get
> into 4e type stuff.
You give the subject a single command, which it obeys to the best of
its ability at its earliest opportunity. You may select from the
following options.
Approach: On its turn, the subject moves toward you as quickly and
directly as possible for 1 round. The creature may do nothing but move
during its turn, and it provokes attacks of opportunity for this
movement as normal.
Drop: On its turn, the subject drops whatever it is holding. It can't
pick up any dropped item until its next turn.
Fall: On its turn, the subject falls to the ground and remains prone
for 1 round. It may act normally while prone but takes any appropriate
penalties.
Flee: On its turn, the subject moves away from you as quickly as
possible for 1 round. It may do nothing but move during its turn, and
it provokes attacks of opportunity for this movement as normal.
Halt: The subject stands in place for 1 round. It may not take any
actions but is not considered helpless.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/command.html
Tetsubo
Apr 17, 2013, 6:40:57 PM4/17/13
to
level spell.
As a side note, I keep forgetting that we had one minute rounds back in
1E/2E. I keep wanting to forget the stupid. Like alignment languages...
*sigh*
>
> So target the rogues. Poor will save, light armour and the right
> weapon. Rogues suck.
Until the point of their dagger pokes out of the front of your shirt...
> So target the rogues. Poor will save, light armour and the right
> weapon. Rogues suck.
>
> --
> Jim
>
> http://www.aaargh.org
Tetsubo
Apr 17, 2013, 6:42:19 PM4/17/13
to
but not overpowered. No suicide.
Rast
Apr 17, 2013, 6:44:37 PM4/17/13
to
Jim Davies wrote...
or only allow it vs certain types of armour.
> >Cut your throat. Coup de grace is a one-round action.
>
> Which is fine if a) you have a dagger or conveniently sharp knife and
> b) you're not wearing much armour. Trying to cut your throat with a
> mace isn't going to work. Even bashing yourself over the head with it
> is unlikely to do much if you're wearing a helmet as you can't get a
> decent swing.
The rules don't require certain types of weapons for a coup de grace,
>
> Which is fine if a) you have a dagger or conveniently sharp knife and
> b) you're not wearing much armour. Trying to cut your throat with a
> mace isn't going to work. Even bashing yourself over the head with it
> is unlikely to do much if you're wearing a helmet as you can't get a
> decent swing.
or only allow it vs certain types of armour.
Joanna Rowland Stuart
Apr 17, 2013, 7:28:00 PM4/17/13
to
Joanna Rowland Stuart
Apr 17, 2013, 7:28:00 PM4/17/13
to
In article <MPG.2bd8efe27...@news.eternal-september.org>,
against someone else. CDG requires some precision as well - and a CDG
with a blunt instrument will be neither quick or precise, unless the
wielder is massively strong and the weapon is equally massive.
Common sense applies (assuming the DM has any)
Cheers
JOanna
ra...@yahoo.com (Rast) wrote:
> The rules don't require certain types of weapons for a coup de
> grace, or only allow it vs certain types of armour.
But that assumes you have the ROOM to use a bigger weapon for CDG - i.e.
> The rules don't require certain types of weapons for a coup de
> grace, or only allow it vs certain types of armour.
against someone else. CDG requires some precision as well - and a CDG
with a blunt instrument will be neither quick or precise, unless the
wielder is massively strong and the weapon is equally massive.
Common sense applies (assuming the DM has any)
Cheers
JOanna
Joanna Rowland Stuart
Apr 17, 2013, 7:28:00 PM4/17/13
to
In article <ac7um85ahr0duo6so...@4ax.com>,
no second.
http://l5r.wikia.com/wiki/Jigai
http://www.koryu.com/library/wwj2.html
Cheers
JOanna
j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org (Jim Davies) wrote:
> Of course a Samurai character (or such a character in a society that
> has suicide as a commonly accepted action) would probably spend more
> than six seconds on the process,
Jigai (female suicide) was usually a little less ceremonial, and required
> Of course a Samurai character (or such a character in a society that
> has suicide as a commonly accepted action) would probably spend more
> than six seconds on the process,
no second.
http://l5r.wikia.com/wiki/Jigai
http://www.koryu.com/library/wwj2.html
Cheers
JOanna
Mart van de Wege
Apr 18, 2013, 2:27:33 AM4/18/13
to
Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> writes:
>
> Most medieval swords would be pretty useless too: the edge won't be
> sharp enough so you'd need to use the point
Ahem.
>
> Most medieval swords would be pretty useless too: the edge won't be
> sharp enough so you'd need to use the point
Medieval swords are plenty sharp. The only bit not sharp enough to be
useful in a cut is the ricasso, and then only in late-medieval weapons.
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Jim Davies
Apr 18, 2013, 6:47:19 PM4/18/13
to
On the grave of Mart van de Wege <mvd...@mail.com> is inscribed:
>Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> writes:
>
>>
>> Most medieval swords would be pretty useless too: the edge won't be
>> sharp enough so you'd need to use the point
>
>Ahem.
>
>Medieval swords are plenty sharp. The only bit not sharp enough to be
>useful in a cut is the ricasso, and then only in late-medieval weapons.
There's a difference between sharp enough to hurt in a good chop and
sharp enough to slice meat. Heck, a kitchen knife is pretty poor at
carving a roast if you don't sharpen it, and kitchen knives are way
sharper than any normal sword. A sword that's been bashing armour
won't keep much of an edge.
Obviously it depends on the sword. A gladius is mostly for stabbing; a
cutlass mostly for slashing. A two-hander will have some edge along
part of the blade, an estoc will have none.
Bear in mind that this is a 1st level spell, so it's going to be used
against some fairly scummy opponents like hobgoblins and the town
guard who won't have the finest equipment. Though again that depends
on edition, eg in 1e the saving throw is the same for Command and Hold
Monster.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
>Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> writes:
>
>>
>> Most medieval swords would be pretty useless too: the edge won't be
>> sharp enough so you'd need to use the point
>
>Ahem.
>
>Medieval swords are plenty sharp. The only bit not sharp enough to be
>useful in a cut is the ricasso, and then only in late-medieval weapons.
sharp enough to slice meat. Heck, a kitchen knife is pretty poor at
carving a roast if you don't sharpen it, and kitchen knives are way
sharper than any normal sword. A sword that's been bashing armour
won't keep much of an edge.
Obviously it depends on the sword. A gladius is mostly for stabbing; a
cutlass mostly for slashing. A two-hander will have some edge along
part of the blade, an estoc will have none.
Bear in mind that this is a 1st level spell, so it's going to be used
against some fairly scummy opponents like hobgoblins and the town
guard who won't have the finest equipment. Though again that depends
on edition, eg in 1e the saving throw is the same for Command and Hold
Monster.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
Mart van de Wege
Apr 19, 2013, 3:22:07 AM4/19/13
to
Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> writes:
> On the grave of Mart van de Wege <mvd...@mail.com> is inscribed:
>
>>Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> Most medieval swords would be pretty useless too: the edge won't be
>>> sharp enough so you'd need to use the point
>>
>>Ahem.
>>
>>Medieval swords are plenty sharp. The only bit not sharp enough to be
>>useful in a cut is the ricasso, and then only in late-medieval weapons.
>
> There's a difference between sharp enough to hurt in a good chop and
> sharp enough to slice meat. Heck, a kitchen knife is pretty poor at
> carving a roast if you don't sharpen it, and kitchen knives are way
> sharper than any normal sword. A sword that's been bashing armour
> won't keep much of an edge.
>
At the end of a long fight, when the owner hasn't had time to do
> On the grave of Mart van de Wege <mvd...@mail.com> is inscribed:
>
>>Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> Most medieval swords would be pretty useless too: the edge won't be
>>> sharp enough so you'd need to use the point
>>
>>Ahem.
>>
>>Medieval swords are plenty sharp. The only bit not sharp enough to be
>>useful in a cut is the ricasso, and then only in late-medieval weapons.
>
> There's a difference between sharp enough to hurt in a good chop and
> sharp enough to slice meat. Heck, a kitchen knife is pretty poor at
> carving a roast if you don't sharpen it, and kitchen knives are way
> sharper than any normal sword. A sword that's been bashing armour
> won't keep much of an edge.
>
maintenance yet, yes, what you say is true.
However, fresh from the blacksmith, or just having maintenance done, let
me tell you that the average sword is almost razor-sharp.
Joanna Rowland Stuart
Apr 19, 2013, 8:01:00 AM4/19/13
to
In article <86r4i8s...@gaheris.avalon.lan>, mvd...@mail.com (Mart
combat against armoured opponents they have blunted to the point where
they are big steel hitting sticks with notched and relatively blunt edges.
Even drawing and resheathing the blade incorrectly can cause damage.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/damagededge.htm
It's why whetstones and files are carried by sword fighters!
There's no guarantee that a fighter's sword will be sharp if they've been
involved in any serious fighting that day.
Cheers
JOanna
van de Wege) wrote:
> Medieval swords are plenty sharp.
Correction - medieval swords start plenty sharp - by the middle of a
> Medieval swords are plenty sharp.
combat against armoured opponents they have blunted to the point where
they are big steel hitting sticks with notched and relatively blunt edges.
Even drawing and resheathing the blade incorrectly can cause damage.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/damagededge.htm
It's why whetstones and files are carried by sword fighters!
There's no guarantee that a fighter's sword will be sharp if they've been
involved in any serious fighting that day.
Cheers
JOanna
WDS906 (less the 906)
Apr 19, 2013, 9:24:04 AM4/19/13
to
went on the combatants ditched their own weapons and picked up those of
the fallen because their own were in bad shape. Shields, too.
Tetsubo
Apr 19, 2013, 9:31:19 AM4/19/13
to
tussock
Apr 22, 2013, 5:09:02 AM4/22/13
to
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
<snip>
> Pretty useless spell.
Isn't English a language where all verbs can be nouns? Even if no one's
used a particular verb that way yet, it still could be. Nouns and verbs not
having anything special about their structure or anything.
--
tussock
<snip>
> Pretty useless spell.
Isn't English a language where all verbs can be nouns? Even if no one's
used a particular verb that way yet, it still could be. Nouns and verbs not
having anything special about their structure or anything.
--
tussock
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Apr 22, 2013, 1:49:24 PM4/22/13
to
tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote in
news:eabf4ax...@scrub2.WOOLEY:
My examples weren't exactly obscure or hipter-ish.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:eabf4ax...@scrub2.WOOLEY:
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
David Lamb
Apr 22, 2013, 7:14:39 PM4/22/13
to
On 22/04/2013 5:09 AM, tussock wrote:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> Pretty useless spell.
>
> Isn't English a language where all verbs can be nouns?
Every noun can be verbed. Not sure if every verb can be nouned.
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> Pretty useless spell.
>
> Isn't English a language where all verbs can be nouns?
Ken Arromdee
Apr 23, 2013, 6:34:44 PM4/23/13
to
In article <memo.2013041...@jrowlandstuart.cix.co.uk>,
Joanna Rowland Stuart <jrowlan...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>I would have the target do its best to cause its *enemies* to bleed, if
>it did understand the term.
>What actually would be nasty would be using _Command_ on an enemy who is
>about to aid a fallen companion - "Kill" should cause them to administer
>a /coup de grace/ on the companion, instead of whatever beneficial action
>they were about to do.
Because the description in the book is nonsensical, I'd ignore it and use
common sense: it's a one word command, so it has to be an intransitive verb
(a verb that doesn't take a direct object). And no, you don't get to say
"I want to use a transitive verb, since there's only one thing the subject
can sensibly target". So "kill" fails.
Only the intransitive form of "exsanguinate" would work, so it acts the
same as "bleed": if the target can bleed by thinking it, he will, otherwise
it does nothing. The command is "bleed", it's not "cause bleeding", so he
won't attack himself; if he can't bleed as is, he won't.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
Some fanfic writers really like listening to Evanescence, so they decide to
make all the characters fans of it. Slash fiction is the same, but with
penises instead of Evanescence.
Joanna Rowland Stuart <jrowlan...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>I would have the target do its best to cause its *enemies* to bleed, if
>it did understand the term.
>What actually would be nasty would be using _Command_ on an enemy who is
>about to aid a fallen companion - "Kill" should cause them to administer
>a /coup de grace/ on the companion, instead of whatever beneficial action
>they were about to do.
Because the description in the book is nonsensical, I'd ignore it and use
common sense: it's a one word command, so it has to be an intransitive verb
(a verb that doesn't take a direct object). And no, you don't get to say
"I want to use a transitive verb, since there's only one thing the subject
can sensibly target". So "kill" fails.
Only the intransitive form of "exsanguinate" would work, so it acts the
same as "bleed": if the target can bleed by thinking it, he will, otherwise
it does nothing. The command is "bleed", it's not "cause bleeding", so he
won't attack himself; if he can't bleed as is, he won't.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
Some fanfic writers really like listening to Evanescence, so they decide to
make all the characters fans of it. Slash fiction is the same, but with
penises instead of Evanescence.
Ubiquitous
Apr 20, 2013, 6:52:18 PM4/20/13
to
lorenp...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Assuming you're using an old enough version that it could be done:
>What would happen if you gave the command "exsanguinate"?
It seems too ambigous and pointless to not bind your wounds for a round.
>Assuming you're using an old enough version that it could be done:
>What would happen if you gave the command "exsanguinate"?
Of course, if you are bleeding to death (between zero and -10 hit
points), you can't do anything about it anyway.
--
"Right now, the president is not solving the budget chaos because he
doesn't want to cut federal spending. That's the truth. And the spinners
are misleading you. They are lying to you. That makes me angry. So you
saw that and will most likely see it again in the future."
-- Bill O'Reilly
Ubiquitous
Apr 20, 2013, 6:52:18 PM4/20/13
to
spallsh...@gmail.com wrote:
>(2nd Edition essentially says the same, with a clarification that the
>spell will only control the creature for a single round. 3rd Edition
>has the addition that it is a "very reasonable command", which would
>seem to limit the ability of this spell to the point where your
>request becomes unusable).
Are you sure about the 3rd edition? I remember deciding it was a
useless spell after they nerfed it to only work for six or so commands:
halt, flee, approach, drop, fall, <something else>
>(2nd Edition essentially says the same, with a clarification that the
>spell will only control the creature for a single round. 3rd Edition
>has the addition that it is a "very reasonable command", which would
>seem to limit the ability of this spell to the point where your
>request becomes unusable).
Are you sure about the 3rd edition? I remember deciding it was a
useless spell after they nerfed it to only work for six or so commands:
halt, flee, approach, drop, fall, <something else>
0 new messages