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

[Lanefan]

I think the pacing issue as a reason for 5e being hard to GM carries a lot of weight. It's something I struggled with personally when I first started running 5e and it's something I've personally seen newer 5e DMs struggle with in a way that makes the game less fun.

Simply put 5e is built around the assumption that there will be more encounters per long rest than most groups can reasonably get done in a session. So what happens is generally either:
A. The party does fewer fights per long rest than the game's assumptions call for, which does bad things to class balance, refocuses the whole game on nova tactics and constant long drawn out brutal fights (to counter the nova tactics), and worsens a lot of the flaws of 5e that already exist. From the comments I've seen from 5e newbs this happens a lot and causes a lot of problems.
B. The party has more than one session per long rest. With a party of adults with constantly changing schedules this is a pain in the ass as you have to track partially-spent resources across sessions and have naughty word like the party getting attritioned down in the middle of the dungeon and then BAM! a fully rested cleric pops up among them since Bob couldn't make last session but could make this one and you can't tell him to wait until the party's out of the dungeon before rejoining the game since Bob is your friend and he's bringing pizza.

Your 'B' here is standard operating procedure in our games, EXCEPT just because Bob misses a session does not mean Bob's Cleric isn't still involved and doing stuff. It's just being played by those who did show up (and thus is to some degree at their mercy, though the DM always has veto over anything ridiculous) and thus won't be any more rested than anyone else when the next session starts.

This same problem was even worse in 3.5e (the infamous ten minute adventuring day) but not really an issue in TSR-D&D (due to combat being so fast and PCs having fewer resources) or 4e (since 4e works fine if you have just 1-2 big fights per long rest). I think that the playstyle of a lot of 5e newbies would really be muuuuuuuch better served by 4e than by 5e.

Don't get hung up about the ten-minute workday and all these problems wander away.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Honestly? Well, defenestrate means to throw someone or something out the window... not jump out the window. None of the Defenestrations of Prague (believe it or not it happened 3 times over 2 centuries) involved anyone jumping out a window - they were thrown.
So, word to the wise, don't try to be too clever with your commands.

Possibly caught in an edit, but the command was "autodefenestrate".

 

[Remathilis]

I'm in the third group, who just wants effects that say they do a certain thing to actually do that thing, by the standards of the setting.

Not following. Care to elaborate on how command is or isn't doing that?

 

[Hussar]

Why, then, is it an exception to that when a player introduces some open-ended gameplay due to a class feature they want to use? What's the difference between using the command spell to tell someone standing next to a window to "defenestrate" and shoving that same NPC out of a window, or a PC using acid to dissolve the hinges on a locked door, or a PC offering to cook a meal for the banquet and giving everyone food poisoning? Why is the former a bigger burden, when we are asked to do this same task as a DM, over and over and over again, in many other situations?

I know I said I was out, but, this is a very good question and doesn't rely on calling anyone a bad actor.

The difference to me is very clear. In your example of shoving someone out the window, the player is engaging the game, not manipulating the game rules to get a result. Same with all your other examples. In the Command example, the player is not using the game at all. They are abusing the vagueness in the description of the spell so they can gain extra utiity out of the spell that was never really intended.

Note, this isn't just about the Command spell. It's that the player does this over and over again with spell after spell - attempting to abuse the open ended nature of the poorly written mechanics in order to "win" the game.

In your other examples, there are clearly written, not at all vague mechanics for resolving them - to defenestrate someoen, you need to push them (or grapple and move them, whatever) out the window. To pour acid on the hinges, you actually need to have acid. To poison the meal, you actually have to have poison, or enough cooking skills to be able to do it.

IOW, at no point is the player manipulating the rules of the game to gain an advantage. They are directly interacting with the game world.

I get that some people don't see a difference here. To me there's a world of difference. When the players are manipulating the rules of the game, it's ... well... meta-gaming. It's not engaging with the in game fiction at all.

 

[TiQuinn]

Is a quadratic wizard a thing?

Definitely used to be.

 

[Hussar]

Ahhh...I didn't catch the bit about targets not having to understand the language. From what I was reading, it seemed like that was still a requirement.

It's the pre-determined command words that leads me to believe that it's set up easily for a VTT. Plus, the team whose job it was to make sure rules aligned with digital environments.

How?

HOw does this work with a VTT?

In the basic use of Command, in 5e(2014), you either make the enemy move away from you, move toward you, or go prone. Now, what does the digital environment have to do with that? The player is still going to declare which version of the spell is being used, the DM is still going to move the NPC in the required direction. The only thing the VTT does is adjudicate the saving throw. If the player uses a different use of Command, then the DM applies that effect to the token. At no point does the fact that you're on a VTT have any impact here.

Which is exactly how it works in the new spell as well. This has nothing to do with the VTT. This is about tightening vague spell descriptions which cause friction at game tables. That it didn't happen to cause friction at this or that table doesn't really matter. It is causing friction at some number of tables and WotC has decided that that number is large enough, or they've gotten enough complaints about it, or whatever, to do something about it and make the spell no longer cause friction at the table.

 

[Hussar]

Huh? Defenestrate means to throw something out the window. If a player casts Command: Defenestrate the NPC will throw something random out the window. Don't see the problem here, it's the spell working exactly as intended. No, they won't jump out the window. That's not what defenestrate means and that conflicts with the rules of the spell anyway (unless the window is so close off the ground that it won't hurt them to jump out of it).

Yeah, I can see that if the player casts Command, commands the NPC to "Defenestrate" and the DM replies with, "Ok, he throws three copper pieces out the window", that won't cause ANY friction at the table whatsoever. Nope. High fives all around. Everyone's going to pat that DM on the head for doing such a great job.

Sure.

 

[Hussar]

Meh, to me this one's not a cheesemonkey. That whoever cast the Mass Suggestion didn't take flight into consideration is reasonable, and good on the player for coming up with a possibly-valid workaround.

No, it was me, in the middle of a session, not really having the time or mental energy to come up with iron clad contract level wording of something where the intent was obviously clear.

And, I think that's the thing at the end of the day. I'm very much a Rules as Intended sort of player and DM. I have no problems with using the limitations of the game to spur creativity and be spontaneous. I don't feel the need to constantly test the boundaries just to "win" a game.

The intent was obvious, perfectly clear and the DM (me) didn't spend more than 30 seconds coming up with the exact wording of the Suggestion because I didn't think it needed it.

Silly me for not making contracts.

 

[SableWyvern]

Yeah, I can see that if the player casts Command, commands the NPC to "Defenestrate" and the DM replies with, "Ok, he throws three copper pieces out the window", that won't cause ANY friction at the table whatsoever. Nope. High fives all around. Everyone's going to pat that DM on the head for doing such a great job.

Sure.

Wouldn't cause any problems at my table (maybe some gentle mocking of the player, that's about it). It really is quite shocking to me how much friction and frustration you keep telling us you expect at your table, and for really minor things.

Edit to add: If it was a really critical moment, with a risk of a TPK or something like that, there's a good chance I'd clarify if the player understood what they were asking. Similarly, if the group was discussing a plan, and getting someone to jump out of a window was a key component, I'd probably speak up if none of the other players did.

Otherwise, the spell still takes an opponent out for a round, and does exactly what it should under the circumstances. I really, really don't see why anyone would expect players to respond with frustration and anger and, as I've mentioned previously, I would simply not play with people who would treat this as some terrible travesty or decide it's a good reason to halt the game for an argument.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Don't get hung up about the ten-minute workday and all these problems wander away.

Makes me wonder how many of 5e's issues are cause by the amazing idea that was the adventuring day. My theory is far too many for such a misguided idea.