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

[Hussar]

That seems pretty broad and potentially a point in argument against the spell being useful in most combat situations. Groveling or surrendering or even fleeing could be “directly harmful.”

Like if someone is climbing a wall and I say “Jump” and even if they jump in place they will most likely fall is that “directly harmful?”

And again, the primary reason why I detest plain English spell definitions. It’s such a huge pain to deal with this over and over again. Is it this? Or that? What about this?

Screw that. Spells should have rock solid lists of specific effects. Full stop. The worst thing in the game is open ended effects subject to interpretation.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

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.

The problem is that every DM doesn't know to cause those commands to fail.

That's the issue.
Command and other open-ended spells rely on there being a sense of meta knowledge of a curated fanbase.

D&D is too broad and diverse for that.

 

[Clint_L]

That seems pretty broad and potentially a point in argument against the spell being useful in most combat situations. Groveling or surrendering or even fleeing could be “directly harmful.”

Like if someone is climbing a wall and I say “Jump” and even if they jump in place they will most likely fall is that “directly harmful?”

"Directly harmful" takes some arbitration, but I'm okay with that. I don't think putting someone in a disadvantageous position counts as directly harmful; to me that seems like a textbook example of a potentially harmful situation, which the spell allows. On the other hand, the DM who adjudicated that the command meant the player had to jump off the side of a ship while wearing heavy armour was both extrapolating too much from the one word command, and forcing the character to do something directly harmful. So that's a double no-no.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And again, the primary reason why I detest plain English spell definitions. It’s such a huge pain to deal with this over and over again. Is it this? Or that? What about this?

Screw that. Spells should have rock solid lists of specific effects. Full stop. The worst thing in the game is open ended effects subject to interpretation.

But this is always going to be a big divide in the hobby. That kind of closed definition of an ability is the opposite of what someone like myself wants. Neither preference is better or worse. But this is just one of those things where it really boils down to preference

 

[Hussar]

I do have to say that it is really amusing watching people with zero experience with VTTs try to conspiracy theory these changes as being all about WotC turning the game digital. That’s hilarious.

 

[Minigiant]

But this is always going to be a big divide in the hobby. That kind of closed definition of an ability is the opposite of what someone like myself wants. Neither preference is better or worse. But this is just one of those things where it really boils down to preference

That's why they should be 2 separate spells.

 

[MarkB]

That seems pretty broad and potentially a point in argument against the spell being useful in most combat situations. Groveling or surrendering or even fleeing could be “directly harmful.”

Like if someone is climbing a wall and I say “Jump” and even if they jump in place they will most likely fall is that “directly harmful?”

Well, the example from an existing option is "Halt". If used on a flying creature they hover in place and don't descend. If the creature cannot hover, they move the minimum distance rather than halting and falling.

On the other hand, "Approach" and "Flee" don't mention taking any account of opportunity attacks, so it seems that opening oneself up to being attacked doesn't qualify as direct harm.

The problem is that every DM doesn't know to cause those commands to fail.

The ones who read the spell description do.

 

[Minigiant]

The ones who read the spell description do.

the spells says

"If the target can't follow your command, the spell ends".

not

"If the target can follow the command without negative consequence, they do so. "

 

[el-remmen]

And again, the primary reason why I detest plain English spell definitions. It’s such a huge pain to deal with this over and over again. Is it this? Or that? What about this?

You’ve made your position abundantly clear and that’s cool. Not everyone agrees and that’s cool too.

But my point was just that even as written, with just the limited number of allowed commands there is room for wide interpretation that could deny any of the existing examples. The idea that any spell or other feature can be written to avoid the possibility of multiple interpretations is a fool’s errand. Now sure, they could be clearer. But I think the openness is a feature not a plug.

Then again, I’d rather house rule away the “direct harm” verbiage than limit the spell just to the X number of choices. But that’s me.

 

[MarkB]

the spells says

"If the target can't follow your command, the spell ends".

not

"If the target can follow the command without negative consequence, they do so. "

If we're talking about the open-ended 2014 version, it says "The spell has no effect if the target is undead, if it doesn't understand your language, or if your command is directly harmful to it."