D&D 5E Starter Set Command Spell

[Agamon]

My brother is playing a cleric in my game and he made an excel sheet to use as a personal character sheet. One page of it has spells and he reduced each cantrip and 1st level spell on the cleric list to one line of text. And it works. So, it's pretty easy to squeeze the essence of most of the spells to something easy of you want to, while still having a complete description in the book if you need to refer to it.

 

[TheBlueKnight]

View attachment 62220

For sake of comparison, AD&D 1e and 2e. Note there is very little difference in the actual text.

Wow, looking at that 1e list of examples is confusing (2e has a similar problem.)

It seems like they were saying "Suicide" wouldn't work because it's a verb and a noun when most of the good examples they gave are verbs as well as nouns. Not to mention that in many languages into which the game would have been translated there are imperative (command) forms of words that are different from the nouns, where they might be the same in English. That must have been fun for the DM to deal with.

For instance, if I recall my High School Spanish correctly, the noun of suicide is "suicidio" and the command form would be "suicidete". Does that mean it works in Spanish D&D?

 

[Agamon]

For instance, if I recall my High School Spanish correctly, the noun of suicide is "suicidio" and the command form would be "suicidete". Does that mean it works in Spanish D&D?

Man, some languages have a verb for that? Not morbid at all...

 

[gyor]

I remember reading somewhere about amore erotic mischievious use for command using words like Masturabate, Strip, and Orgasm. I guess if you use it in a higher slot and have your targets close enough you could make f@@@ you command word.

 

[Snapdragyn]

I remember reading somewhere about amore erotic mischievious use for command using words like Masturabate, Strip, and Orgasm. I guess if you use it in a higher slot and have your targets close enough you could make f@@@ you command word.

That would be two words. You'd have to use the single-word command, and let the DM decide whether they did it with the nearest target or specifically focused their attentions on you.

 

[pemerton]

Its bland, legalese jargon-spew with a pretty-little italic bow on top to keep int from being code.

<snip>

4e's is a math problem: Compare X vs. Y. If X > Y, then Y is A, B, or C else Null [return] is all I see. You could replace the italic type with "you dress in drag and dance the hula. All those who see it cannot help but watch. Some faint, flee in terror, or approach you with their tongues dragging on the floor." and it wouldn't change any of the mechanics under it.

You could do that with the plain-language Command spell, too. In fact, Unearthed Arcana did it - it's called Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I wonder if that's not the intent. The idea isn't that DMs memorize every word of that description, or that they open up the book and read the rules carefully. The only thing more convenient than a 4e statblock would be a 5e where just by the name and the description of the spell, you know what to do.

That could be quite clever, if they pull it off well. No on would complain about spells being hard to reference because no one would need to be referencing spells because D&D just teaches you how to use that particular rule.

....maybe the best 4e-formatted version would be something like

Command <> 1st-Level Enchantment
You issue a one-word command with the authority of the gods that your target obeys
Range 2
Save WIS
Failed Save: The target spends its next turn obeying your one-word command. Undead creatures or creatures that don't understand your language automatically succeed on their saves.

...that's pretty compact! I just stripped out the embedded examples, which are useful, but unnecessary if all you're looking for is a reference.

Definitely learning stuff with their track here....

Good stuff.

The only problem with spell memorizing is that long experience of 2E/3E tells me that errors tend to creep in, spells get misremembered, and no-one ever looks at then again (well, not for years), which can result in some interesting divergences on how spells work in different groups.

Sure there is more or less user friendly ways of writing up spells*. I don't quite see how you can argue otherwise? If 4e or 5e's way of doing it more user friendly is something we don't know yet.

*Just compare the 2e and 3e versions of the command spell. The 2e one is nearly completely open-ended which easily ends up in endless arguments about what happens when you use command x.

Sorry, I think my point must be unclear.

1E, 2E, 3E and 5E do spells one way. It's been discussed at length here - basically "memorize if possible, refer directly to it only for confusion/detail, has broad application" (i.e. everyone who casts Command casts the same spell).

4E does spells/powers a different way. "Don't bother to memorize, just refer to it as it is hyper-convenient, has narrow application".

They're entirely different approaches. 5E's is an improvement on 1/2/3E versions - but it's different to the 4E version, rather than an improvement.

Obviously 5E is more of the D&D "tradition" if that matters!

 

[I'm A Banana]

The only problem with spell memorizing is that long experience of 2E/3E tells me that errors tend to creep in, spells get misremembered, and no-one ever looks at then again (well, not for years), which can result in some interesting divergences on how spells work in different groups.

True, but if your game is robust enough to handle those divergences, it might be fine. If 5e is fine with spellcasters wasting the occasional spell (as is evidenced by having the spell fail vs. undead or due to linguistic barriers, rather than requiring that in the targeting of the spell), some mild divergences are probably well within the realm of table customization that 5e is robust enough to handle.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Sorry, I think my point must be unclear.

1E, 2E, 3E and 5E do spells one way. It's been discussed at length here - basically "memorize if possible, refer directly to it only for confusion/detail, has broad application" (i.e. everyone who casts Command casts the same spell).

4E does spells/powers a different way. "Don't bother to memorize, just refer to it as it is hyper-convenient, has narrow application".

They're entirely different approaches. 5E's is an improvement on 1/2/3E versions - but it's different to the 4E version, rather than an improvement.

Obviously 5E is more of the D&D "tradition" if that matters!

Something that's different can be an improvement. They aren't mutually exclusive. For instance using bar codes to identify goods at the food store instead of manually punching the individual prices is different AND an improvement.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Something that's different can be an improvement. They aren't mutually exclusive. For instance using bar codes to identify goods at the food store instead of manually punching the individual prices is different AND an improvement.

I agree, but that's not remotely a good comparison for what's going on here. This is a fundamentally different approach and both the 4E and 5E ways have advantages and disadvantages which do not match up well to each other. They're different game systems (despite the name) with different goals and different ways of achieving those goals. It's fine to prefer one, but it doesn't make much sense to directly compare them on points like ease of memorization. Because it's so different, trying to force the comparison and claim one is "better" smacks very much of edition war, which I think is worth avoiding.

Whereas 5E is doing the same thing with essentially the same goals as 2/3E (1E is debatable), and it's a sound comparison there.