Would 5e benefit from a "act or move, not both" condition?

[Boci]

So I was thinking about 5e combat, and how advantage or disadvantage represents much of the changes you can make, and was wondering if perhaps there should be a condition that restricts actions without using disadvantage, but also without just taking away all actions like stunned, paralyzed or stunned does. Restrained is the closest, but it does use disadvantage too. Now there is the slow spell, but the slow spell is quite complicated to make into a condition. The slow condition, if it were to just be the spell, would entail:

1. -2 to AC and dexterity saves
2. Can't take reactions
3. Can only use either an action or a bonus action
4. Cannot make more than 1 ranged or melee attack with the Attack action
5. 50% chance to delay casting a spell with a casting time of 1 action

That's a lot to remember, and tossing around that condition as a rider effect on attacks is begging for some mistakes. So how about a simpler condition:

Staggered: The creature is left reeling and must mend its stance, regain balance or otherwise take a small amount of time to recover itself, leaving it less prepared to act. On their turn, a staggered creature can either move up to their speed or take an action, but not both. In either case, they may take a bonus action but may not make reactions. Creatures capable of dashing as a bonus action may do so to move up to their speed and still take an action.

I feel this would be an interesting addition to 5e combat, especially since it effects different characters in different ways. Melee will care if they are staggered when not adjacent to an enemy, whilst range and casters will care about being staggered when they are. Mobile melee will likely care about both, but the allowance to use dash to still move and act allows them to mitigate it, though at a cost.

Some examples of what kind of attacks monsters coul have this condition could be:

Pummeling Slam: Melee attack. +7, 2d8+5 bludgeoning damage and the target is staggered until the end of their next turn.

Piercing Shot: ranged 100/200. +5, 1d8+5 and the target must make a DC: 13 constitution save or be staggered until the end of their next turn.

Mindshock: 15ft cone, creatures within must make a DC: 15 wisdom save. They take 6d6 psychic damage and are slowed until the end of their next turn. A successful save halves the damage and negates the stagger.

Viscious Goo: Range 60ft. All creatures in a 10ft cube must make DC: 14 dexterity saving throw. They take 3d6 acid damage and are staggered. A successful dexterity save halves the damage and neagtes the staggered until the end of their next turn. If the creature fails the save by 5 or more, they are instead restrained.

So what do you think? Could that add something new to 5e combat? Obviously not every monsters should have a way of inflicting stagger, its to add variety and so should be used sparingly. Another question would be how to give it to PCs, since the intention isn't, or shouldn't, be to only give the DM some new toys, players should be able to use it too. Magical items are an obvious answer, but you could also use it to buff some underwhelming archetypes by giving them the option to stagger.

Edit 1: Added inability to make reactions to the Stagger condition.

Also, ideas for PC classes/archetypes that could use stagger:
All barbarians whilst raging
A Battlemaster maneuvre
Have some spells use it
Monks, as an earlier version of stunning strike

[TigerT20]

Well, there's the obvious Battlemaster Manuver to give it.
Possibly make a spell or two?
It seems like a good idea, but I haven't had much experience with conditions.

More on how to give it to PCs...
Perhaps an option for monks? Sort of an earlier Stunning Strike, or even a replacement?

Edit: We could kill two threads with one post and say Barbarians can inflict it when raging (though that wouldn't do much for them using Strength as a utility option)

[ZorroGames]

I do not think you gain as much as you add what in war-games we call grit to the action economy with this kind of change.

Pass.

[Crucius]

Movement is a bit of a finicky resource in 5e I feel. Either you need it or you don't at all; Melee characters need it to instigate the fight, while back line casters probably don't spend it if they don't need to.

Now, coming at it from a player perspective, the choice is then between movement and an action. It might be useful to consider under which circumstances movement is more precious than an entire action.
-You are squishy and someone is in your face. Sadly you cannot take a disengage action here to get away safely AND move, so this case there is basically no choice to make; the action is worth more.
-You are in a channeled AoE or other lingering hazard. Here movement may be more valuable than attacking or casting a spell, but still situational I would say.
-You are trying to flee. Here I think the condition gets the most mileage, as you have to chose between running and cover fire.

In general I like the ability to debuff action economy without completely debilitating the subject in question like with stunned and paralyzed, which can feel really bad if it happens to a player character. I like that there is a choice. I just don't think that the scales are loaded the same on both sides; an action is so much more valuable than movement in 90% of the cases.

HOWEVER, this is out of the box; If you make movement a much more important resource in your game(s) then it could very well be an excellent condition. Excellent as in it ruins your day hehehe. Combo it with lingering hazards or slow but lethal foes. Combo it with prone for a very nasty choice between offense and defense.

[Boci]

Movement is a bit of a finicky resource in 5e I feel. Either you need it or you don't at all; Melee characters need it to instigate the fight, while back line casters probably don't spend it if they don't need to.

Now, coming at it from a player perspective, the choice is then between movement and an action. It might be useful to consider under which circumstances movement is more precious than an entire action.
-You are squishy and someone is in your face. Sadly you cannot take a disengage action here to get away safely AND move, so this case there is basically no choice to make; the action is worth more.

Important to note though: monster's can't multiattack on AoO. So it could be that moving away without disengaging will have you targeted by one attack, but staying will net you 2 or even 3. Also, whilst more situational, but for spellcasters, they can use magic to disengage. Misty step and then a cantrip for example.

You also didn't mention melee being staggered by a ranged effect when they are not in reach of an enemy to attack. They then have to move, or delay, ready, not delay, that doesn't exist in 5e.

[Crucius]

Important to note though: monster's can't multiattack on AoO. So it could be that moving away without disengaging will have you targeted by one attack, but staying will net you 2 or even 3. Also, whilst more situational, but for spellcasters, they can use magic to disengage. Misty step and then a cantrip for example.


Yes, you are right! However, with only 30 feet movement on a player character, the monster can just walk up to the same player that just walked away and still make that multi-attack. Granted with team-coordination that monster could then take multiple AoO's itself, or the monster could be CC'd before it could chase the player. The dodge action would probably be the best course of action for the PC in this scenario. Which is cool, people don't dodge enough. It could see more love!

This game has *breathes in deeply*... a lot of nuance.


You also didn't mention melee being staggered by a ranged effect when they are not in reach of an enemy to attack. They then have to move, or delay, ready, not delay, that doesn't exist in 5e.

Ah good one! This is an interesting scenario for sure.

So in the end it is another tool in the toolbox with quite specific applications. I can appreciate that!

P.S.: what are you going to do about staggering smite? I mean... the name alone warrants this condition :P

[Dienekes]

Yeah, I personally use this sort of thing. Though I called it Dazed, and I have a few other of these minor conditions.

Other than just having more options to play with, which is fun. I’ve noticed it can actually help make epic monsters feel epic without resorting to Legendary Resistance, which was a mechanic I never really liked. Basically instead of the usual Legendary Resistance, I have it so boss monsters are immune to effects that cause these minor conditions, but using effects that cause the big ones such as Stun will instead grant them the corresponding minor condition.

So now the caster can get to use their big spell, but the boss isn’t impossibly gimped right after the first failed save. And that’s worked pretty well so far.

[Boci]

This game has *breathes in deeply*... a lot of nuance.

Yeah, precisely. As you note in the ranged charactrer being best off with dodge, its not just action vs. movement, sometimes the requirement to choose, whilst making action the obvious choice, will change which action the player takes. Another example would be asorceror who wanted to cast burning hands, but then gets hit with a piercing shot, fails their save and is staggered. They still want to to act, but now that they can't move first, they decide not to use flaming hands and instead use firebolt. So even though action was the obvious choice, the condition still had an effect on what they did.


P.S.: what are you going to do about staggering smite? I mean... the name alone warrants this condition :P

Yeah, you're right, hard not to have it on a spell of that name. I think tacking the condition onto the spell without changing anything should work, doesn't seem like it would be OP. Its a paladin smite spell after all.


Yeah, I personally use this sort of thing. Though I called it Dazed, and I have a few other of these minor conditions.

Yeah it was a toss up between dazed and staggered, I went with staggered since it was largely the same in 3.5 to what I'm trying to do here. Daze was a little different in both 3.5 and 4e. What other conditions do you have?

Another way of using it I thought of was an alternative to reckless attack. Instead of giving itself and attackers advantage, it gives itself advantage, then ends its turn and makes it staggered on the next. Call it swinging wild or something.

[BurgerBeast]

I like it. I think the writing needs an edit and some simplifying, but it’s good.

Do you think a staggered character should be incapable of using reactions? It would fit the theme and give more reason to use it: stagger the enemy so the squishies don’t have to disengage.

[Limited Gish]

This is really just a complicated way of saying your movement is used up at the start of your turn. And if they want to move, they just need to dash.

[Boci]

I like it. I think the writing needs an edit and some simplifying, but it’s good.

Do you think a staggered character should be incapable of using reactions? It would fit the theme and give more reason to use it: stagger the enemy so the squishies don’t have to disengage.

That's a good idea and would increase its applications whilst still keeping it fairly situational. I like it, I'll add it.


This is really just a complicated way of saying your movement is used up at the start of your turn. And if they want to move, they just need to dash.

I don't think either way of wording it is that complicated, its a fairly intuitive condition and describing it as "move or act, not both" and "your movement is used up at the start of your turn" both work well enough.

[Mr Adventurer]

This is pretty similar to a more complicated version of Immobilised, isn't it? Except you could choose to Dash. So it's lesser than Immobilised. Except the Reaction loss. Is that the primary purpose?

[BurgerBeast]

This is pretty similar to a more complicated version of Immobilised, isn't it? Except you could choose to Dash. So it's lesser than Immobilised. Except the Reaction loss. Is that the primary purpose?

I don’t want to speak for the OP but I think the idea is to simulate being stunned or rattled by a heavy blow, or something like a concussive blast, such that you can’t operate at full capacity.

It’s like being temporarily slowed down a bit, but less complicated than the spell... as the OP said.

[Boci]

This is pretty similar to a more complicated version of Immobilised, isn't it? Except you could choose to Dash. So it's lesser than Immobilised. Except the Reaction loss. Is that the primary purpose?


I don’t want to speak for the OP but I think the idea is to simulate being stunned or rattled by a heavy blow, or something like a concussive blast, such that you can’t operate at full capacity.

It’s like being temporarily slowed down a bit, but less complicated than the spell... as the OP said.

Yeah pretty much what BurgerBeast said. It is different from immobolized in a few ways that I feel are a good thing.

[KorvinStarmast]

SRe: Would 5e benefit from a "act or move, not both" condition? No, it would not.
We did that before.
OD&D (but elves had split move and fire) and AD&D 1e and, let me tell you, it's not a good idea.
Not At All.
When you add everything else.
1. you are overthinking this.
2. you are not streamlining the game, you are adding complexity without value.

We've been there, done that, and I use that t-shirt to wax the car.

[Anonymouswizard]

Such conditions lose a lot of their bite in 5e. In most systems that use such conditions you have one of three things:
Full round actions or the equivalent that these conditions lock you out of.
Tactical movement, facing, or other such elements that make moving every round advantageous (I love combat in The Fantasy Trip for doing this with fairly simple rules).
Something useful you can do instead of your move action.


5e has none of the first two and precious few of the third under the default rules, which means a lot of the time if you're standing where you want to be losing your movement isn't a massive deal. That makes the in theory main part of this rather situational.

Losing your Reaction is in many ways a much bigger deal, because of losing the ability to act on another's turn. That's really where the meat of this is, getting Bonus Action Daze abilities or the ability to Run as a Bonus Action allows you to bonk somebody over the head and disengage if their melee is causing you trouble. It also cuts off access to a few spells and abilities you might rather didn't go off, a lot more keys off your Reaction than your Movement.

It's definitely something I'd add to some attacks just for that reason. Tail Slap, +8, 4d6+12 damage, target is Dazed until the start of their next turn. A Dragon may make this attack as a Bonus Action if they do not take an Attack action this torn could make fighting a dragon a lot more memorable, especially if Dazing is not an easy rider for PCs and standard monsters to get.

[Pleh]

Staggered: The creature is left reeling and must mend its stance, regain balance or otherwise take a small amount of time to recover itself, leaving it less prepared to act. On their turn, a staggered creature can either move up to their speed or take an action, but not both. In either case, they may take a bonus action but may not make reactions. Creatures capable of dashing as a bonus action may do so to move up to their speed and still take an action.

Some examples of what kind of attacks monsters coul have this condition could be:

Pummeling Slam: Melee attack. +7, 2d8+5 bludgeoning damage and the target is staggered until the end of their next turn.

Piercing Shot: ranged 100/200. +5, 1d8+5 and the target must make a DC: 13 constitution save or be staggered until the end of their next turn.

Mindshock: 15ft cone, creatures within must make a DC: 15 wisdom save. They take 6d6 psychic damage and are slowed until the end of their next turn. A successful save halves the damage and negates the stagger.

Viscious Goo: Range 60ft. All creatures in a 10ft cube must make DC: 14 dexterity saving throw. They take 3d6 acid damage and are staggered. A successful dexterity save halves the damage and neagtes the staggered until the end of their next turn. If the creature fails the save by 5 or more, they are instead restrained.

Also, ideas for PC classes/archetypes that could use stagger:
All barbarians whilst raging
A Battlemaster maneuvre
Have some spells use it
Monks, as an earlier version of stunning strike

End of the post comments. Writing this out, it comes to my attention that parts of how this gets balanced is how long the staggered condition normally lasts.

Barbarian feature: Thundering Rage (maybe level 2?)
While raging, when a Barbarian deals damage with a melee weapon, the target must make a Constitution save (8+proficiency+barbarian's str bonus) or they become Staggered until the end of the Barbarian's next turn.

I assume Constitution is the most appropriate for enduring a Barbarian's rage.

Battlemaster Maneuver: Dizzying Strike
When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to stagger the target. You add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll, and the target must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, it is staggered until the end of your next turn.

This version is more technical, like when you see a martial artist in hollywood slap an opponent on both ears to ring their skull. This feels less like enduring with Constitution and more reflexsively dodging the battlemaster getting that strike on your senses. So I picked Dexterity Save.

Monk: adding it to the Ki feature
At second level, you learn a fourth Ki feature: Staggering Strike.
Staggering Strike You can minimally disrupt the flow of ki in an opponent's body. When you hit another creature with a melee attack, you can spend 1 ki point to attempt a staggering strike. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be staggered until the end of your next turn.

So, I decided to change Stunning Strike's prerequisite of a Melee Weapon Attack to just a Melee Attack with the idea that you could trigger it on an unarmed strike. This way, Staggering Strike will always be weaker than Stunning Strike (and will likely become obsolete after stunning strike, because they cost the same Ki), but remains a backup option if the Monk is for any reason disarmed.

I'll leave the spells to someone more familiar with them. You can homebrew a few, but it seems like you could add stagger to a few existing spells that otherwise are low tier and are usually not worth taking. Some spells could apply stagger in addition to other effects when the save is failed, while others may add it only if the save is failed, while other spells may add it even if the more primary effects are negated by the save.

[Mr Adventurer]

I don’t want to speak for the OP but I think the idea is to simulate being stunned or rattled by a heavy blow, or something like a concussive blast, such that you can’t operate at full capacity.

It’s like being temporarily slowed down a bit, but less complicated than the spell... as the OP said.

Thanks but this doesn't make sense, since Immobilised or other conditions can do the things you are describing. Hence my original post. Because I read the OP.


Yeah pretty much what BurgerBeast said. It is different from immobolized in a few ways that I feel are a good thing.

My question is, can you be more specific about those ways?

[Pleh]

Thanks but this doesn't make sense, since Immobilised or other conditions can do the things you are describing. Hence my original post. Because I read the OP.



My question is, can you be more specific about those ways?

Immobilized isn't one of the listed conditions in 5e. Looks like a holdover term from previous editions

[Boci]

My question is, can you be more specific about those ways?

But immobilised doesn't exist in 5e either. It was added in 3.5 splat and became a core condition in 4e, and was dropped for 5e. So in 5e both immobilized and staggered would be new conditions. As for why staggered over immobolised, the former has several advantages.

Staggered is more flexible. The purpose of this thread was to test a new condition for 5e that didn't involve advantage or disadvantage, and restriction the actions available without removing them like incapacitated, paralyzed or stunned did. Staggered is more vague in what it does, which allows a group to customize how it operates. The "no reactions" part was added based on posters suggestion, and staggered works well with or without it. Immobolized is more restritive, you'd be hard pressed to add no reactions to such a condition. Then there is the fact that immobolize is a much more gamey condition. Staggered fits with the naming convention of other conditions, but immobilized is harder to rationlize, both in fluff and just, well what the name means. Back in 3.5, I remember one player being excited about a spell they'd found, only to be dissapointed when I showed them immobilized only prevented movement. The player had quite reasonable assumed that immobilized would also prevent them from taking physical actions.

Most importantly IMO though, staggered gives a choice, and choice is good. It can let melee move into combat and just not attack, but still hope to lock down a monster, rather than just having them skip a turn like immobilized would, and it also lets mobile characters, rogues and monks, still move and act at a cost. But also, with choices, even when there is a better option, choice is still good. Its a learning expirience, additionally in a rpg, the ability to make bad choices can help when the player feels the character will do something rash or questionable.

So yeah, small reasons, but several of them for why I like staggered better than immobilized, and I can't think of a single reason why immobilised is better.

[Segev]

Not really sure it's needed. Movement in 5e is deliberately "free." You just have it. If you're denied it, it's by having your speed reduced (possibly to 0), not by denying you a "move action." It's sometimes hard for 3e veterans to wrap their heads around, but it's a lot more intuitive to new players (as evidenced by how hard teaching the move/attack rules in 3.5 could be to new players).

The easiest way to implement this in the rare cases where it's important would be, "Your speed is reduced to 0 ft. You can lift this condition until the end of your turn by spending an Action." I would do this not as a condition, but as something some monsters can inflict, or some class features can inflict. It's less work overall, and less to remember/look up.

[Boci]

The easiest way to implement this in the rare cases where it's important would be, "Your speed is reduced to 0 ft. You can lift this condition until the end of your turn by spending an Action." I would do this not as a condition, but as something some monsters can inflict, or some class features can inflict. It's less work overall, and less to remember/look up.

But it hurts rogues and monks more, since they now can't bonus action dash. Not a problem neccissarily, but worth baring in mind about the subtle differences between the two. And does it matter whether staggered is a condition or not. The advantage of a condition is you can say "13 damage and you're staggered" rather than "13 damage and your speed drops to 0 unless you spend your action, (and you can't use reactions)".

[Segev]

But it hurts rogues and monks more, since they now can't bonus action dash. Not a problem neccissarily, but worth baring in mind about the subtle differences between the two. And does it matter whether staggered is a condition or not. The advantage of a condition is you can say "13 damage and you're staggered" rather than "13 damage and your speed drops to 0 unless you spend your action, (and you can't use reactions)".

With how I worded it, they absolutely could bonus-action dash. Lifting the restriction with an Action restores their move rate. With a bonus-action dash, they can add their move rate again.

[Boci]

With how I worded it, they absolutely could bonus-action dash. Lifting the restriction with an Action restores their move rate. With a bonus-action dash, they can add their move rate again.

That is not nearly as clear as you seem to think it is. Groups could definitly confuse your intent there.

[BurgerBeast]

Thanks but this doesn't make sense, since Immobilised or other conditions can do the things you are describing. Hence my original post. Because I read the OP.

Okay... so you read the OP... and you’re not sure how the proposed condition is different than Immobilized.

It doesn’t make sense to you that a condition which specifically allows movement is different than immobilized, then?

The difference is that if you are immobilized, you can’t move. This condition allows you to move.

Since you read the OP and are still confused.

[Zalabim]

Incapacitated another thing people overlook in the conditions a lot. You can have it just be incapacitated until (duration) and you can end the condition (or ignore the condition for part of a longer duration) by spending movement equal to your speed.

That would look like this
STAGGERED:
The creature is incapacitated.
The creature can end this condition by spending movement equal to its speed, if any.


This is really just a complicated way of saying your movement is used up at the start of your turn. And if they want to move, they just need to dash.
Another way of saying this is "Grappled" (escape DC automatic) or until end of turn.

So, I decided to change Stunning Strike's prerequisite of a Melee Weapon Attack to just a Melee Attack with the idea that you could trigger it on an unarmed strike. This way, Staggering Strike will always be weaker than Stunning Strike (and will likely become obsolete after stunning strike, because they cost the same Ki), but remains a backup option if the Monk is for any reason disarmed.
It staggers me that people ever think monks cannot stunning strike with unarmed attacks. It's explicitly a melee weapon attack, and it used to be the only way to stunning strike was unarmed.

Not really sure it's needed. Movement in 5e is deliberately "free." You just have it. If you're denied it, it's by having your speed reduced (possibly to 0), not by denying you a "move action." It's sometimes hard for 3e veterans to wrap their heads around, but it's a lot more intuitive to new players (as evidenced by how hard teaching the move/attack rules in 3.5 could be to new players).

The easiest way to implement this in the rare cases where it's important would be, "Your speed is reduced to 0 ft. You can lift this condition until the end of your turn by spending an Action." I would do this not as a condition, but as something some monsters can inflict, or some class features can inflict. It's less work overall, and less to remember/look up.
The most similar effect is Grappled, with it ending at a certain time or being able to escape as an action as normal. Grappled has very different underlying fiction, of course.

But it hurts rogues and monks more, since they now can't bonus action dash. Not a problem neccissarily, but worth baring in mind about the subtle differences between the two. And does it matter whether staggered is a condition or not. The advantage of a condition is you can say "13 damage and you're staggered" rather than "13 damage and your speed drops to 0 unless you spend your action, (and you can't use reactions)".
Normally, bonus actions are included in actions. They're not not actions. Specifically allowing bonus action dash is a really weird call out to make.

[BurgerBeast]

Normally, bonus actions are included in actions. They're not not actions. Specifically allowing bonus action dash is a really weird call out to make.

Except the wording is that you can use your move or your action, but not both. (Action, not actions.) That makes it pretty clear that it’s referring to your Action, and not to all action types. So bonus actions and reactions are not mentioned. There’s no reason to assume that they behave differently... which is why I suggested the limit to reactions.

[Pleh]

It staggers me that people ever think monks cannot stunning strike with unarmed attacks. It's explicitly a melee weapon attack, and it used to be the only way to stunning strike was unarmed.

Not to derail the thread, but then why not just call it a melee attack? Why call it a melee weapon attack if unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks?

[Zalabim]

Not to derail the thread, but then why not just call it a melee attack? Why call it a melee weapon attack if unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks?

Melee attack is a very broad term. It includes melee spell attacks [Thorn Whip to a lich's paralyzing touch], melee weapon attacks [longswords to slams], and even special melee attacks [grappling and shoving].

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Not to derail the thread, but then why not just call it a melee attack? Why call it a melee weapon attack if unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks?

5e was made, changed, and then they didn't go through the rules with a fine pick comb to make sure everything was good to go.

5e is riddled with spots that look like they didn't even have an editor to make sure everyone was working on the same revision of 5e

[trtl]

I honestly don't see you getting enough bang for your buck with this idea. Every time you add a rule, you are adding another thing to keep track of. If it doesn't add a lot to keep track of, or if it does a lot for your game, then it can still be a good idea.

This condition, however, seems to have a lot of rules, and while it can introduce an interesting dilemma occasionally, I feel it won't be of much note that majority of times, indeed, you'll be taking options away from the player, which means in many situations the player will actually have fewer legitimate choices.

Take this with a grain of salt of course, obviously I haven't play tested this or anything.

[firelistener]

I agree with the other posts stating this isn't really needed. It's not different than just reducing speed to zero and requiring an action to free yourself, like from a grapple or Web spell unless you specifically want characters to be able to use bonus actions like a Rogue's Cunning Action Dash to circumvent the lack of movement.

[Segev]

One thing I think 5e did that was clever was de-generalize a lot of effects. Even some that are more-or-less the same across several monsters are special abilities of those monsters. This both means that anybody looking up the monster doesn't have to page through several sub-sections of conditions to figure out what the monster is doing, and that if a particular monster should have a variation on the ability for theme or balance, that monster's special ability is written uniquely for that monster and can be whatever it needs to be.

This really shows in the way they use conditions like Charmed and Poisoned. The conditions themselves are actually very underwhelming ("advantage on Cha checks vs. the creature and it can't attack you" and "creature has Disadvantage on all attack rolls and ability checks," respectively), but the way they're used is as a tag. "While the creature is Poisoned in this fashion, it is unconscious," or "While the creature is Poisoned in this fashion, it can perform no movement other than attempting to climb or jump as high as it can," or "While the creature is Charmed in this way, it attempts to carry out the task you set for it."

This enables these effects to be varied, while having an underlying condition to which other hooks can be tied.