D&D 5E Command and spike growth

[pming]

Hiya!

Command cannot cause a creature to do something “directly harmful” to itself. If I cast command on a creature standing in the area of a spike growth spell and tell it to flee, will it run through the area, taking 2d4 damage per five feet? Or is fleeing in this case considered to be something directly harmful?

Yes. It will run 5', stop because of the pain, and the spell will be broken.
At least that's how I'd rule it.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Are you saying the spell knows who is immune to taking certain types of damages and works on some and not on others?

I'm saying the target knows what is harmful to it.

And that certainly is far less absurd than your idea that the spell could work as a trap detector.

 

[Charlaquin]

But then you can't command them to "run onto a spike" either, which is what you used above.

It seems like a very, very arbitrary distinction you are making.

I just don’t see the damage as a direct result of fleeing in the scenario under discussion.

 

[lingual]

I'm saying the target knows what is harmful to it.

And that certainly is far less absurd than your idea that the spell could work as trap detector.

As would any sane ruling. Trying to use the spell as a trap detector is very rules-lawyery-munchkin imo.

 

[plisnithus8]

I'm saying the target knows what is harmful to it.

And that certainly is far less absurd than your idea that the spell could work as trap detector.

If the target knows what is harmful to it, then it could not (assuming piercing thorns damage it) run 5 feet (or jump or any other move) through them causing itself damage.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If the target knows what is harmful to it, then it could not (assuming piercing thorns damage it) run 5 feet (or jump or any other move) through them causing itself damage.

They knows spikes will harm them, like any normal person would. They might not know the spikes are there. There is a perception check specified for that in Spike Growth description. This isn't really that hard.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I just don’t see the damage as a direct result of fleeing in the scenario under discussion.

Frankly, that is blatantly absurd. Of course it is!

 

[MarkB]

I just don’t see the damage as a direct result of fleeing in the scenario under discussion.

If you know that moving will cause spikes to pierce your foot and deal damage to you, how is that damage any less direct than the damage you'd take from falling after running off a cliff? If anything, it seems like the falling damage is less direct. I just can't parse the logic you're applying here.

 

[plisnithus8]

They knows spikes will harm them, like any normal person would. They might not know the spikes are there. There is a perception check specified for that in Spike Growth description. This isn't really that hard.

Spike Growth says “Any creature that can't see the area at the time the spell is cast must make a Wisdom (Perception) check…to recognize the terrain as hazardous before entering it.”

The target would see the area they are in at the time of casting — they are not entering it — and know the spikes are there. They do not need to make a perception check.

And could you please refrain from calling ideas you don’t agree with absurd or saying things are really not that hard when clearly there is nuance here?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Spike Growth says “Any creature that can't see the area at the time the spell is cast must make a Wisdom (Perception) check…to recognize the terrain as hazardous before entering it.”

The target would see the area they are in at the time of casting — they are not entering it — and know the spikes are there. They do not need to make a perception check.

Preceding events were not established, so it is possible that the target had not seen the spikes, and the possibility that they wouldn't know referred to such an eventuality. But yes, it is likely that they would know. We however can easily imagine other similar situations where they would be unaware of the danger. For example there is a trap the target is not aware of.

And could you please refrain from calling ideas you don’t agree with absurd or saying things are really not that hard when clearly there is nuance here?

I am merely expressing my opinion. The ideas presented seemed absurd to me.

In any case, my ruling would simply be that the spell doesn't grant anyone any special knowledge or awareness, and creatures generally understand what's harmful to them. If a creature is commanded to do a thing they perceive to be harmful, their self preservation instinct kicks in and overrides the compulsion.