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

[Micah Sweet]

For you.

They drastically reduced the number of commands you can give. How is that not less versatile?

 

[Oofta]

They drastically reduced the number of commands you can give. How is that not less versatile?

I don't think it matters to 99% of the time and the removal of the target understanding the words greatly increases it's utility. I can't imagine how this one spell makes more than the tiniest of dents in the versatility of things that happen in a D&D game.

It's such a minor change to be a hill to die on.

 

[Lanefan]

Yet somehow every time this spell is mentioned it's in context of doing something gross or juvenile and bragging about "outsmarting" the DM.

Commanding a target standing next to a clifftop to "Fly" is creative.
Commanding a target precariously balanced on a narrow ledge to "Jump" or "Walk" is creative.
Commanding a target on horseback to "Dismount" is creative; even better if the horse is moving fast at the time.
Commanding a swimming target to "Dive" is creative
Commanding a target holding its breath while enveloped in poisonous gas to "Breathe" is creative
Commanding a target (preferably one that doesn't have a bite attack!) to "Eat" is creative
Commanding a sneaking target to "Scream" or "Yell" is creative

Are any of those more-or-less creative ideas on the list of approved commands? Somehow I doubt it.

If you're an adult man and your full extend of creativity is gross toilet humor, you're not creative.

And were the bolded the case it would be true; however gross toilet humour is often just one (perhaps minor) aspect or element of someone's much broader creativity. Put another way, it's just one more tool in a full box of 'em, to be pulled out and used now and then as the occasion warrants.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think it matters to 99% of the time and the removal of the target understanding the words greatly increases it's utility.

Yeah, it's that latter change I'd find annoying; but then language is a fairly big deal in my games.

 

[overgeeked]

Nor can you trust them to release 5.5 to the creative commons, nor to let Youtubers flip through their books, nor to attempt to turn D&D into World of Warcraft again...

It's clear they're tightening things up for their VTT. It's also somewhat wild that command was used in a certain live play show and the command given was "fap." They likely want to reign in that kind of stuff.

I'd welcome them turning D&D into WoW "again." At least WoW is balanced and martials get to do interesting stuff. Here's to hoping Hight will re-release 4E.

 

[Oofta]

Commanding a target standing next to a clifftop to "Fly" is creative.
Commanding a target precariously balanced on a narrow ledge to "Jump" or "Walk" is creative.
Commanding a target on horseback to "Dismount" is creative; even better if the horse is moving fast at the time.
Commanding a swimming target to "Dive" is creative
Commanding a target holding its breath while enveloped in poisonous gas to "Breathe" is creative
Commanding a target (preferably one that doesn't have a bite attack!) to "Eat" is creative
Commanding a sneaking target to "Scream" or "Yell" is creative

Are any of those more-or-less creative ideas on the list of approved commands? Somehow I doubt it.

And were the bolded the case it would be true; however gross toilet humour is often just one (perhaps minor) aspect or element of someone's much broader creativity. Put another way, it's just one more tool in a full box of 'em, to be pulled out and used now and then as the occasion warrants.

The target has to follow the letter and their interpretation of the command in the old version of the spell. The caster does not get to decide how the command is followed, it's just one word.

"Fly": A creature without wings would either stand their looking confused or futilely flap their arms. Falling is not flying.
"Walk": They walk along the edge or in any other direction
"Jump": Jump in place, away from or along the edge.
"Dismount": if on a horse stopping the horse is just part of dismounting. But even if it's not the worst case is that they fall prone and would typically take a d6 falling damage. Might work for someone riding a flying mount but it depends if they're buckled in.
"Dive": they just move.
"Breathe": I generally rule that you can't hold your breath to avoid poisonous gas, that's why we have con saves.
"Eat": umm ... they start pulling out a sack lunch?
"Scream": you have to see the target to cast command, why not just use a free action to point out where they are?

These, to me, sound an awful lot like the DM that said my PC had to jump off the side of a ship at sea, even though that was only one direction they could jump. If a target is intelligent, I have them do what I would have a PC do in their situation.

 

[KYRON45]

Urg! Poorly written spell descriptions with vague interpretations are the thing I hate the most about D&D. To the point in my current campaign, I've flat out banned all full caster classes. I'm just sick to death of dealing with it. No thanks.

Don’t partial casters use the same spells full casters use? Eventually you’re going to encounter the same spells you banned for full casters.

 

[MarkB]

Commanding a target standing next to a clifftop to "Fly" is creative.
Commanding a target precariously balanced on a narrow ledge to "Jump" or "Walk" is creative.
Commanding a target on horseback to "Dismount" is creative; even better if the horse is moving fast at the time.
Commanding a swimming target to "Dive" is creative
Commanding a target holding its breath while enveloped in poisonous gas to "Breathe" is creative
Commanding a target (preferably one that doesn't have a bite attack!) to "Eat" is creative
Commanding a sneaking target to "Scream" or "Yell" is creative

Are any of those more-or-less creative ideas on the list of approved commands? Somehow I doubt it.

And were the bolded the case it would be true; however gross toilet humour is often just one (perhaps minor) aspect or element of someone's much broader creativity. Put another way, it's just one more tool in a full box of 'em, to be pulled out and used now and then as the occasion warrants.

Some of them will just straight-up fail. A creature cannot be commanded to do anything that will directly harm itself. Nobody's going to be deliberately jumping off a cliff or inhaling poison.

 

[KYRON45]

I think people making assumptions about changing things so an AI can run a game is a bit farfetched. There are quite a few things in D&D that just don't mix well with automation and likely never will. If there were an AI that could run a game they could just limit what the AI does and nobody would be the wiser. Yes, the AI only tells you to do the things that are on a short list but most players will only use a limited option as well.

Occam's Razor tells me that it's just something they find people don't use very often because it's so open to DM interpretation and it's too vague for a lot of people. That, and it's only a first level spell that in the old version needed to be understood and interpreted by the target. The new version is not the target interpreting the spell, it's the caster invoking something from a list of options. It's actually more powerful for the majority of players because the target doesn't need to understand the language.

farfetched Is a fun word.

 

[Oofta]

Some of them will just straight-up fail. A creature cannot be commanded to do anything that will directly harm itself. Nobody's going to be deliberately jumping off a cliff or inhaling poison.

Good point. From the spell: "The spell has no effect if ... your command is directly harmful to it." I'll have to remember that the next time a DM tells me that "jump" means "jump off the ship and into the ocean because I say so."