D&D 5E Starter Set Command Spell

[SigmaOne]

Could someone xp this for me, please?

I already tried! But apparently I recently XP'd him before. That comment is definitely the highlight of the thread so far. (The command spell itself would probably be if I hadn't already seen it on twitter.)

 

[ren1999]

I like it because the spell description gives you suggestions on how to use the spell.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Personally, I'd let a player use Command on anyone, but only allow actual action if they understood. Otherwise, I would just have them end their turn without acting. This way, there's less of a penalty for picking up a spell that may or may not be useful in every circumstance.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Personally, I'd let a player use Command on anyone, but only allow actual action if they understood. Otherwise, I would just have them end their turn without acting. This way, there's less of a penalty for picking up a spell that may or may not be useful in every circumstance.

That's a very interesting take, actually. If they don't understand, they're still hit with the divine force, but just stand around trying to puzzle it out. I probably wouldn't go with it for my main game, but it might work for certain settings.

 

[the Jester]

Oh, I see "Language Dependent" in the type-line. Still not sure I'd enforce that.

For the record, at least since 1e, command has required the target to understand the language that the cleric is speaking. This is nothing new.

On being able to understand you (language dependency) it would be interesting if you allowed Supernal as a language (is it in the playtest?), then you could cast command on nearly anyone.

If you're referring to the 'everyone hears it in their native tongue' rule from 4e, note that this only applies if the speaker is a god or angel (4e RC, pg 69).

 

[Mistwell]

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.



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!

Why would you ever want to carry around and refer to an instruction sheet, when the alternative is an easily memorized encapsulation of the concept? Sorry, but one IS superior to the other.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Why would you ever want to carry around and refer to an instruction sheet, when the alternative is an easily memorized encapsulation of the concept? Sorry, but one IS superior to the other.

You're confusing preference with objective fact, Mistwell. One is not superior, they're different. You prefer one, that's cool, doesn't make it superior.

(Before you claim it and have to take it back, I don't prefer the other - I don't actually prefer either.)

You've made a false equivalence, too, because you don't need to memorize just one spell, nor, really, is it as easy as you say to memorize spells accurately (decades of 2E and 3E shows me that!).

Yes I think the "we fixed the bag of rats even though it was not really a problem at anyone's table" is the source of their new plan to ask people if something is a real problem at people's table before they issue errata. If most people say "naw we dealt with that issue just fine on our own" they will not issue errata anymore. And I think it will be a better game for it. They are going to assume actual humans with logical thinking brains are playing the game, not robots who crash into walls unless instructed to go around them like a game of robo rally.

I'd be fascinated to know how they're going to determine the bolded bit, and why you believe this is the "new plan". Is there a L&L to that effect or something?

As for "a better game", well, I think that depends how much you like house rules. Personally, my experience with them is very mixed. I sometimes like my own. I almost never like other people's. I suspect most people are similar. My favourite games have required few/no house rules, though, and I doubt that's coincidence.

 

[pemerton]

If you're referring to the 'everyone hears it in their native tongue' rule from 4e, note that this only applies if the speaker is a god or angel (4e RC, pg 69).

I think there's an ambiguity over whether or not this applies to all immortals, including deva PCs. In my game I've stipulated that it doesn't, but I think in doing that I'm contradicting some more recent rules text (DMG p 171 says "gods and angels", RC p 69 says "immortals" - I go with the DMG).

 

[Echohawk]

I think there's an ambiguity over whether or not this applies to all immortals, including deva PCs. In my game I've stipulated that it doesn't, but I think in doing that I'm contradicting some more recent rules text (DMG p 171 says "gods and angels", RC p 69 says "immortals" - I go with the DMG).

I'm not seeing any ambiguity:

The gods have their own language, Supernal, which they share with their angelic servants. When a god or angel speaks Supernal, listeners who don’t speak Supernal understand the words as if the speaker used their own languages. The gods and angels can choose to disguise their speech, but in general Supernal is a universal language.

When a god or an angel speaks Supernal, it can choose to speak so that any creatures that understand a language can understand this divine speech, as if the speaker used their own languages. Immortals that speak Supernal can understand speech and writing in any language.

So only when gods and angels speak Supernal can everyone understand it. Immortals who speak Supernal can understand other languages, but others do not automatically understand their speech.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not seeing any ambiguity

That's because you're not looking at p 69 of the Rules Compendium, which I posted, and which says "immortals", not "gods and angels", hence picking up devas.