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

[Remathilis]

Completely up to the DM to adjudicate. I kind of loved that it allowed so much creativity while at the same time also kind of hated how it required the DM to completely make up the rules as they go

This reminds me of a meme where a witch flies off on her magic broom to escape, and the paladin tries to get her to return by issuing the command "come".

And the DM announced the paladin heard faint moaning as the witch flew off.

 

[mellored]

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".

Seems like they just don't always put in the space.

Donaud ampf schifffahrt sgesells chafts kapitän.

Otherwise
Danubesteamshipcompanycaptain is a 29 letter "word"

 

[Oofta]

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.

I was just curious and then joking about German. But I can still say that I appreciate the change for two reasons. First, the target not being able to understand makes it more versatile. Oftentimes the caster may not know if the target understands them. Second, the old version relies on the interpretation of the command by the target. My example from my previous post of having to jump off the edge of a ship in response to "jump" when it was just one of many possible interpretations is a simple example. Personally while I went along with the command and made light of it, it was an abuse of a first level spell.

But take something as supposedly simple as "grovel". Does that mean prostate yourself? Because that's only one definition of the word. The first definition is "to humble oneself or act in an abject manner, as in great fear or utter servility" which could just mean bowing, curtseying or begging for mercy, maybe simply bowing your head. Heck for some creatures it could mean exposing their neck to attack, there are all sorts of ways of showing submissive behavior.

I don't remember the last time I saw command used, it's extremely rare. I think one of the reasons is because it's so vague and open to interpretation.

 

[Nefermandias]

But not death saves apparently. I mean, it’s fine, it’s just more codification and what I call “lawyerese.”

Death saves have always been a subtype of Saving Throw.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The official 4e ruling was that you could knock gelatinous cubes prone.

Yeah, and it was great.

You might not literally knock it prone, but you could stir it's core up and discombobulate it or something else that would impose the same penalty as prone, so it left it in the players' hands to get created rather than shutting them down with semantics.

Open flavor helps creativity instead of hurting it.

 

[MoonSong]

I agree with OP. The old Command was IMO how a spell should be; some listed mechanical effects but also flavor that allowed you to freely play with the idea of the spell. I much prefer that as opposed to just mechanical effects.

It would be better for the game overall if spells relied just a bit more on user interpretation. IMO, that's what makes magic cool -- how we interpret it.

But then they wouldn't be able to program it into an automatic VTT would they?

 

[Lanefan]

I think that’s a nice change. Honestly I’ve always disliked languages in D&D. I’d rather get rid of stuff like Comprehend Languages and just deal with Common.

Heh - to me languages are a quite-realistic obstacle that the PCs (and, sometimes, their opponents) have to overcome.

Doing away with Common entirely is probably a step too far, but I don't even mandate that every PC has to speak it (it's up to the players to decide or roll what languages their characters speak) and they know full well that - other than traders and some specialists - not all that many people in the setting will speak it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Heh - to me languages are a quite-realistic obstacle that the PCs (and, sometimes, their opponents) have to overcome.

Preach it man. I love when RPGs have a bunch of languages, especially if they're cultural rather racial or the like - the very best I've seen in a D&D product was Taladas, all the way back in 1989, which had a ton of languages, and a cool flow chart with like dots on the flow to show how the languages related to each other, so like if you were a perfect speaker of one language, you might understand about 70% of what was being said in another, closely-related one, and about 20% of a more a distantly related one, and so on.

I do think it's fine for Command to supersede actually knowing the language in question, because I see it as a supernatural command, like in the language of the universe or whatever, the language the gods spoke to bring the world into being. But generally? I like complex language setups.

 

[TiQuinn]

Heh - to me languages are a quite-realistic obstacle that the PCs (and, sometimes, their opponents) have to overcome.

Doing away with Common entirely is probably a step too far, but I don't even mandate that every PC has to speak it (it's up to the players to decide or roll what languages their characters speak) and they know full well that - other than traders and some specialists - not all that many people in the setting will speak it.

In theory, it totally makes sense. Why would you understand Orc?! Why would the orcs understand you?!

But short of giving Comp. Languages a reason to exist, I’ve yet to see languages known be used in a fun way - it’s always a hurdle and more of a nuisance than a challenge. It’s always the first thing forgotten on one’s character sheet too. It’s the first thing the DM forgets to start incorporating into the game.

 

[James Gasik]

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

I wouldn't expect any of my current players to be so pithy, but I've seen and heard of it happening in other groups. At any rate, I don't think this is a case of "blame the players/DM" not the rules- if an ability is so up to interpretation that you can't reasonably expect similar results in two different games, I find it problematic. Better to have a cut and dry interpretation of what said ability is meant to do, and let individual groups go from there as a starting point.