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

[el-remmen]

"Directly harmful" takes some arbitration, but I'm okay with that.

Exactly my point. I don’t disagree with you.

 

[Minigiant]

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."

What is considered directly harmful?

Again it's a concept that differs table to table.

 

[MarkB]

What is considered directly harmful?

Again it's a concept that differs table to table.

And the existing examples provide some guidance. They won't do anything that will cause them to take falling damage, but they will walk right past hostiles who might choose to take the opportunity to attack them.

 

[Minigiant]

And the existing examples provide some guidance. They won't do anything that will cause them to take falling damage, but they will walk right past hostiles who might choose to take the opportunity to attack them.

But that is directly harmful.

 

[overgeeked]

Under the hood it's pretty clearly a question of who's in charge of the game: the referee or the rules?

Some people would be happier with the rules in charge, others prefer the referee to be in charge.

 

[Oofta]

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. "

The 2014 command spell (bold added): "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."

Telling someone to "jump" while climbing a cliff for one.

 

[MarkB]

But that is directly harmful.

Is it? The person may or may not choose to attack them. It's not a direct result of the target's action, it's the result of someone else's decision.

And thus the parameters are pretty narrow. Anything that will definitely directly harm them, like the cruel certainty of gravity, is off the cards. Anything that is less direct or less certain is not.

 

[the Jester]

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

This certainly doesn't match my experience. Have I ever seen it used for toilet humor? I'm going to say probably, as I have been playing D&D since I was a kid, and that's more than 40 years ago; but the fact that no example immediately comes to mind means that it's certainly an exception and not the rule for all the groups I have been in. And while I do recall reading a few stories about it over the years, I have read or been involved in at least as many creative accounts of command being used creatively in other ways, such as making a villain "confess", a dude performing a ritual being forced to "blather", etc. Clearly, YMMV, but I don't think this is as big of a problem as you make it out to be.

So some gross jerk's preference being forced on everyone else is okay but I'm a puritan for not liking that? Honestly, it feels to me you guys think the fart jokes are One True Way and get in uproar someone dares treatign this game more seriously.

Keep fart jokes out of your game. That's fine. But don't tell me to keep them out of mine, should I want to include them.

I know such situations happen to other people enough for it to be a problem,

Does it, though?

 

[the Jester]

AGAIN my issue is I feel the 2014 Command ENCOURAGED PROBLEM PLAYERS TO IGNORE SESSION ZERO AND LINES AND VEILS and then cry "muh creativity!" when called on it.

Dude. Okay, lines and veils and session zero are part of the social contract at the table. They aren't rules in the same way that the text of a spell in the PH is. They're two entirely different things.

No rule in the game prevents pcs from doing horrible things to each other. The social contract at the table (hopefully) does. If a player cries "muh creativity!" when called on breaking the social contract, the answer is, "You broke the social contract". It doesn't have anything to do with the rules of the game.

I certainly don't have the right to say I don't want toilet humor on my table, according to thins thread.

Literally no one has said that (unless I missed a post).

Well I guess you could be respectful enough to not use fallacious argument, but you're clearly not.

What fallacy? I'm pointing something out by analogy: that the rules aren't the problem here. A person's behavior is. The solution to a person's bad behavior isn't to change the rules of the game, it's to address the problem player's behavior with that player, up to and including, if necessary, kicking them from the table.

Put another way, I am pointing out that the negative effects of restricting command to a list of functions outweighs the gains, as it doesn't really stop bad players from being bad. In fact, I would say that the only thing that does is addressing their behavior with them and having them either knock it off or leave the table.

Play some ptbA or Forged in the Dark games.

I haven't played either, so I honestly am not sure what you're getting at.

 

[Minigiant]

Is it? The person may or may not choose to attack them. It's not a direct result of the target's action, it's the result of someone else's decision.

Fleeing into a dangerous situation can be seen as directly harmful to some.