D&D (2024) Command is the Perfect Encapsulation of Everything I Don't Like About 5.5e

[Kobold Avenger]

That's totally ok IMO.

Spells should be fun, not little mechanical packages. I'm ok with mechanical packages, but being able to interpret spells to change the output of them is something that I think is core to roleplaying "magic" in any kind of context. It requires a human to moderate this output so it doesn't ruin the experience of the game, but that's why we play TTRPG over boardgames. There is a GM who I trust to make a good decision, and who I'm willing to go with their arbitration. That inherent trust is core to the experience as well, and I feel like designing around that trust makes for a more stifled game.

It also might be weaker in other languages, like "1 word" might make it weak in Chinese (I don't think there's a Chinese version, but theoretically if there was) since maybe the standard expectations of what Command might do, is a phrase that generally requires at least 2 words/characters to describe, and it's really ambiguous if you just use a 1 word/character phrase.

But in German "1 word" might be too much, since compound words do count as one word in German. And there might be plenty of compound words in German that could lead to more ways of self-harm beyond the assumed baseline of English.

 

[Oofta]

It also might be weaker in other languages, like "1 word" might make it weak in Chinese (I don't think there's a Chinese version, but theoretically if there was) since maybe the standard expectations of what Command might do, is a phrase that generally requires at least 2 words/characters to describe, and it's really ambiguous if you just use a 1 word/character phrase.

But in German "1 word" might be too much, since compound words do count as one word in German. And there might be plenty of compound words in German that could lead to more ways of self-harm beyond the assumed baseline of English.

German can't be that bad can it? I mean ... quick google search later ... holy ****. Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän is a word in German. It means "Danube steamship company captain".

Meanwhile you can also just create words like Donaudampfschifffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft, which has 80 letters and means "Association for Subordinate Officials of the Head Office Management of the Danube Steamboat Electrical Services". However, that's not an official word since it's not found in dictionaries. Which means that a word for Danube steamship company captain is.

The more you know.

 

[Belen]

Personally, I'm on the fence here. Removing the need for the target to understand you, while admittedly a PITA, is kind of nonsensical. I'd add that it weakens the point of learning different languages, but that ship has sailed into the sunset, lol.

OTOH, I'm so tired of people coming up with ridiculous commands that are too OP, I have no idea how to interpret, or are just in poor taste.

Like telling an armored character to strip or m*st*rb*t*, ffs. I've had nothing but problems with open-ended spells in the decades I've been gaming. Illusions, suggestion, wish- these are always moments where player expectations and DM expectations collide.

The player is always trying to see what they can get away with, and the DM is constantly trying to make sure the game's balance doesn't implode- the end result is a lot of "meh".

Honestly I wish suggestion was simply removed from the game- the constant arguments about what is "reasonable" made it not worth casting (but somehow it always works out for the NPC's, lol). But removing that word from the spell has just made it worse, IMO.

People on both sides of the DM screen will end up attempting to abuse it, and it's going to be fun for nobody.

What type of players do you have at your table?!

 

[MarkB]

Someone pointed out that Command if it allowed any single word, might be even more powerful in some of the non-English international versions of D&D.

That's not so bad. It's when players start arguing that "Well, it's just one word in Elvish" that you can have trouble.

 

[Bohandas]

There was no 2.5E.

The second (really ugly) printing-run/edition of the 2E core books just corrected typos and slightly re-arranged text. Skills & Powers etc. weren't a 2.5E as they just added on top of all the stuff already in 2E.

Skills & Powers that's what I was thinking of. I knew there was some big rules supplement that was unofficially dubbed "2.5e".

It didn't change any of the spells then?

 

[Warpiglet-7]

What type of players do you have at your table?!

A long sword does or did 1-8 dmg. A player could eviscerate innocents at will if they were so inclined. Maybe not without world consequences.

I don’t think the rules mechanics are the only tool to stop undesirable game behavior.

Someone using command to make someone self gratify falls under this too at least if it’s my turn to DM.

If it’s my friends and and putting back beers maybe I laugh and say they lose their action. If it’s creepy for the audience “dude, no. We are not doing that.” Can discuss later

 

[Crimson Longinus]

German can't be that bad can it? I mean ... quick google search later ... holy ****. Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän is a word in German. It means "Danube steamship company captain".

Meanwhile you can also just create words like Donaudampfschifffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft, which has 80 letters and means "Association for Subordinate Officials of the Head Office Management of the Danube Steamboat Electrical Services". However, that's not an official word since it's not found in dictionaries. Which means that a word for Danube steamship company captain is.

The more you know.

Finnish works like this too. But I really don't think this is the sort of nuance rules balancing needs to be concerned with. Like sure, I can convey more information with 25 words in Finnish than in English due compound words and the lack of separate articles and prepositions, but English has bigger vocabulary due raiding of several other languages, so it has more specific and bespoke words for various concepts. This really is not a meaningful balance issue.

 

[the Jester]

Let's not forget that command only lasts one round. So, for instance, if you command a king to resign, he might announce, "I resign from the crown!" and then immediately follow it up with "Just kidding!" or "What was I thinking?" or "Belay that!"

 

[Quickleaf]

Huzzah! @Daztur Well said.

There are definitely ways to do "rules not rulings", but I think games like 4e and PF2e do a much better job. WotC seems to have difficulty – imho – sticking the landing with concise precise clear rules language. I get it – that sort of writing is very difficult.

As for me a lot of the fun is having to make rulings and respond to unexpected ideas / creative uses of magic. I think one of the great strengths of D&D / TTRPGs is inspiring creativity, and I like rules that support that.

One of the design challenges (there are maaany) for 5th edition is they're trying to bridge both groups – "rules not rulings" / "rulings not rules" – but I think the younger audience (who is and should be their target audience) may be more interested in "rules not rulings" right now. Not 100% positive on that, but that's my hunch.

 

[Minigiant]

That's totally ok IMO.

Spells should be fun, not little mechanical packages. I'm ok with mechanical packages, but being able to interpret spells to change the output of them is something that I think is core to roleplaying "magic" in any kind of context. It requires a human to moderate this output so it doesn't ruin the experience of the game, but that's why we play TTRPG over boardgames. There is a GM who I trust to make a good decision, and who I'm willing to go with their arbitration. That inherent trust is core to the experience as well, and I feel like designing around that trust makes for a more stifled game.

I think that keyword is trust.

A spell like command requires trust in the player and trust in the DM that is far beyond normal RPG gaming.

Because it's not just trust that you will handle it well as much as trust that you maintain the same expectations. And this would require a session zero conversation.

Which then becomes "how many spells are you going to discuss during Ssssion Zero?".

Which is not a problem if you have a small group of friends that all think similarly and have similar experiences, ideas, wants, desires within the game.

But the size that D&D grew and how much WOTC wants D&D to grow such open and spells just are problematic before you talk about video games in VTTs. D&D is slowly becoming too mainstream for such open-endedness.