D&D 5E Using COMMAND to break a caster's concentration?

[R_J_K75]

5e has made the spell fairly specific: the target attempts to do what the word says, and if it can't - it doesn't.

I dont think 5e has made anything more specific (hence this thread), its still somewhat vague/ambiguous. If anything theyve made it shorter and given less examples. Anyone limiting the effects to the ones in the PHB are missing the point.

 

[Mort]

I dont think 5e has made anything more specific (hence this thread), its still somewhat vague/ambiguous. If anything theyve made it shorter and given less examples. Anyone limiting the effects to the ones in the PHB are missing the point.

I'm not limiting the effects to the PHB -the spell expressly says the list are examples. BUT it also says the target attempts to follow the command and then lists examples of commands that can be followed (though, as stated earlier, not without issue for something like 'drop").

But it seems pretty clear that the target attempts to follow the command not that his body physically reacts to the command. So "sleep" means the target tries to sleep, for example, not that he falls unconscious for a round. Or jump means the target attempts to jump, not that his body jumps.

 

[R_J_K75]

But it seems pretty clear that the target attempts to follow the command not that his body physically reacts to the command. So "sleep" means the target tries to sleep, for example, not that he falls unconscious for a round. Or jump means the target attempts to jump, not that his body jumps.

You could be 100% right but if thats the case then a simple sentence or two in the spells description could have clarified. My opinion is that in most cases it acts as you say, but can also cause an involuntary action just for the fact that at one point in the spells lineage DIE was used as an example for one of its effects.

 

[Helldritch]

You could be 100% right but if thats the case then a simple sentence or two in the spells description could have clarified. My opinion is that in most cases it acts as you say, but can also cause an involuntary action just for the fact that at one point in the spells lineage DIE was used as an example for one of its effects.

I would tend to side with you. Command makes the target do one action. Simple enough for me.

 

[Mort]

You could be 100% right but if thats the case then a simple sentence or two in the spells description could have clarified. My opinion is that in most cases it acts as you say, but can also cause an involuntary action just for the fact that at one point in the spells lineage DIE was used as an example for one of its effects.

That's one of the dangers of using past editions for any kind of rules clarification. 5e has changed enough that, often, that way lies madness.

I'm going by what the 5e spell says, and while there is some ambiguity - there would be more if I allowed prior editions to creep in.

 

[R_J_K75]

I would tend to side with you. Command makes the target do one action. Simple enough for me.

Out of curiosity I just looked up the 3.5 version and it specifically limited the effects to the ones listed, though it may have had errata. So that make makes me think that between 3.5 and 5E it changed. I dont have the 3E or 4E books so I cant check them. Interesting how spells change through editions.

 

[Oofta]

He was very unimaginative. I would have said swim.

But again, is I that hard to imagine that casters in a fantasy world with magic would have developped a word for losing concentration?
Innu have what? 12 words for different kinds of snow? I can easily imagine that casters would have developed a specific word/verb for that.

Why would they? No one benefits from knowing that word, at best it's a zero sum gain. If you know the word others can use it on you. If they don't know the word, it has no effect.

 

[Sithlord]

How about your one word command being “dispel”

 

[R_J_K75]

That's one of the dangers of using past editions for any kind of rules clarification. 5e has changed enough that, often, that way lies madness.

I'm going by what the 5e spell says, and while there is some ambiguity - there would be more if I allowed prior editions to creep in.

Fair enough. I do retain things from prior editions here and there.

 

[Oofta]

Out of curiosity I just looked up the 3.5 version and it specifically limited the effects to the ones listed, though it may have had errata. So that make makes me think that between 3.5 and 5E it changed. I dont have the 3E or 4E books so I cant check them. Interesting how spells change through editions.

In 4E it was dazed (no actions), prone and either move towards or away from you. I don't recall anyone ever using it, there were better powers/spells at that level most of the time.