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

[Lanefan]

Well, no, because the NPC who cast the spell has a considerably higher intelligence than I do - I'm not ashamed to think that Acererak has a higher Int that I do.

Even Acererak can have an off day...

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, but having to have someone else play your PC for you is a hassle. It's a hassle that might be worth it but it's still a hassle. I liked the 1e standard of having one session be (roughly) one expedition from safety into danger and back again, it made it so much easier to juggle people with different schedules.

Our adventures, in a 1e-adjacent system, average 8-10 sessions each.

Character sheets stay here between sessions just in case someone else does have to play your character(s) next week. Otherwise, really no hassle at all.

The ten minute adventuring day was a BIG issue in 3.5e for many tables and still crops up a lot in 5e. Telling newbie DM "don't get hung up" about it and the problem doesn't go away. Takes some workarounds and focus. Nothing insurmountable but they're things that need to be taught to newbie DMs as I have personally seen ten minute adventuring days derail campaigns in both 3.5e and 5e.

Not sure how it can derail a campaign. It can make the fights easier, sure, but derail? That seems a bit much.

The DM just has to make sure the world keeps going while the PCs rest, and that their task just might get progressively harder with each passing day or week. Because otherwise, if resting at every opportunity is what the characters would do (and it is, if they're the least bit wise) then IMO they've every right to try to do so.

A lot of things in 5e don't work as intended if you have more long rests than the designers intended. Looking at polls a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT of tables have more long rests than the designers intended. This mis-match of how the game was designed and how people actually play it is the biggest single issue in 5e and a lot of the other problems people have had with the game flow from that single cause.

For any hypothetical 6e fixing that mis-match should be the absolute top priority, honestly higher than any of my own personal gripes.

No idea why the designers - given that for guidance they could look at how 3e was played - didn't take into account that most players are going to, when possible, err on the side of caution and have their characters rest whenever they can.

I mean, 5e doesn't even have wandering monsters as a thing, and they make great rest disruptors (provided you ignore their stupid ruling that it takes an hour of combat to disrupt a rest. of course).

We both want RAI to trump RAW all week long and twice on Sunday, but our "I" doesn't quite match up.

Personally, I want RAW and RAI to mirror each other perfectly. It really shouldn't be that hard to do.

 

[Daztur]

Actually, the "I" does match up.

In this specific "defenestrate" case, I was speaking more broadly.

In the "defenestrate" example, the NPC chucks a couple of copper pieces out the window and ends his turn. How is that any different than the "Drop" command that is right there in the spell description? IOW, the spell is working exactly as intended. But, and here's the thing, people are insisting that that's not "creative" enough. That we must allow other commands in order to get different effects. Only thing is, we're not actually getting different effects. The flavor might be a bit different, but, at the end of the day, it's the exact same effect.

I'd probably roll a d20 with bigger numbers being more valuable things within arm's reach and smaller numbers being less valuable things so he might chuck his sword out the window and he might chuck some pocket change. Would be random. I like rolling a luck dice in that sort of situation where any decision of mine would be arbitrary. For example, "Is there a place to buy X in this random town that the DM never mapped out specifically?" Me: "Dunno" rolls luck dice

NPC does something or moves to a given location and ends its turn. That's what Command does. That's the intent of the spell. And the list of effects that are in the spell cover pretty much all the bases. After all, "defenestrate" is no longer creative. It's just another word for "drop". "Defecate" is just "Halt". So on and so forth.

The only "creative" examples of the uses of the spell that are left are directly harmful, which are very much against the intent of the spell. The intent of the spell is for action denial and a bit of battlefield control. That's it. That's why I call it cheese weaseling when players try to do more with it than that.

As far as the intent, let's go back a bit... To quote the 1e PHB:

"Explanation/Description: This spell enables the cleric to issue a command of a single word. The command must be uttered in a language which the spell recipient is able to understand. The individual will obey to the best of his/her/its ability only so long as the command is absolutely clear and unequivocal, i.e. "Suicide!" could be a noun, so the creature would ignore the command. A command to "Die!" would cause the recipient to fall in a faint or cataleptic state for 1 round, but thereafter the creature would be alive and well. Typical command words are: back, halt, flee, run, stop, fall, fly, go, leave, surrender, sleep, rest, etc. Undead are not affected by a command. Creatures with intelligence of 13 or more, and creatures with 6 or more hit dice (or experience levels) are entitled to a saving throw versus magic. (Creatures with 13 or higher intelligence and 6 hit dice/levels do not get 2 saving throws."

The original intent of the spell was a good bit broader than you're implying. And yes I know that the intent behind D&D has changed a good bit across editions, but a lot of 5e spells have a decades old legacy. I don't think that using spells with the same kind of intent as Gygax had is anything too disruptive.

Also I think you're missing the wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide latitude for non-combat uses of Command that are perfectly in line with how the spell is written up. It all depends on the situation of the spell. That's why I like it, it makes you pay attention to the specifics of what is going on around you, not just try to parse the rules text.

Not sure how it can derail a campaign. It can make the fights easier, sure, but derail? That seems a bit much.

To take an extreme example, if you're guaranteed to have only one first per long rest then casters can absolutely unload their best spells every fight which takes the already precarious class balance that exists in a lot of editions of D&D and utterly shreds it. Have had short adventuring days really overturn any pretenses of balance once in a 3.5e campaign and once in a 5e campaign campaign. I was not a fan.

The DM just has to make sure the world keeps going while the PCs rest, and that their task just might get progressively harder with each passing day or week. Because otherwise, if resting at every opportunity is what the characters would do (and it is, if they're the least bit wise) then IMO they've every right to try to do so.

Of course. That's what good DMs should do, but a lot of DMs are just OK DMs or newbie DMs and don't do that. In my experience it's the single biggest newbie 5e DM naughty word-up and it's something that WotC should take seriously for 6e. There are various ways this could be done (1e and 4e both don't really have a 10 minute adventuring day problem, although they are very different).

Personally, I want RAW and RAI to mirror each other perfectly. It really shouldn't be that hard to do.

Well ideally yes, but I don't expect perfection from D&D devs. In any case I like spells with tightly nailed down flavor but some mechanical flexibility (like Command) so it's going to be impossible to completely eliminate all RAW fuckery.

 

[pemerton]

A lot of the 4e-isms in 5e are under the hood.

<snip>

That's why I think that some 4e fans are confused by comments about WotC heading in a more 4e direction with 5.5e. The stuff they liked about 4e (tactically rich combat) isn't really coming back but a lot of basic assumptions of how the game is set up are such as more keywords and less natural language, more rules and less rulings, flavor being stripped out and made more generic, off-brand uses of spells and abilities being blocked off, etc. etc. A lot of 4e fans didn't care so much about that stuff (they're just there for the tactical richness) and they're not cheering that, say, a dragon's more specific bite and claw attacks are being replaced with a more generic "rend." While a lot of people who didn't like 4e see things like the "rend" and on the 5.5e monster statblock and think, "heeeeere we go again."

I don't know what this dragon's rend has to do with 4e D&D. The dragons in my 4e Monster Manuals have claw and bite (and other appropriate) attacks.

 

[Daztur]

I don't know what this dragon's rend has to do with 4e D&D. The dragons in my 4e Monster Manuals have claw and bite (and other appropriate) attacks.

I mean in the veeeeeeery general sense of dialing back specific flavor and putting flavor and mechanics in separate boxes.

 

[Remathilis]

Really?

You could use "scream" to cause someone to attract the attention of something that responds to sound.

"Salute" to get them to salute, which could in turn be a gesture the begins some attempted betrayal, leaking the knowledge that this will be the signal, so that individual appears to be the instigator.

"Drink" to force them to test the wine you suspect may be poisoned.

"Spit" to make them insult the lord you are meeting.

"Confess" when you have the thief (or a patsy) before the judge.

"Recant" similarly, for a witness.

"Transform" to prove they're a shapeshifter.

"Deface" as they gaze upon the King's portrait.

While these are pretty niche, that's the point -- the more versatile, the more niches it can be used for.

I'm not sure why you feel that the spell can or should only be used in combat.

Confess/Recant would be useless in a court of law. Everyone would see you cast the spell (unless you're a sorcerer) and know the target is under coercion. I guess if it's a corrupt court, that's fine but you weren't exactly getting a fair trial in the first place.

Drink is just breathe toxic gas but in liquid form. If the target suspects the drink is poisoned, they refuse. (And if they don't know, I seriously question your alignment).

Spit and salute again is easily dismissed because SOMEONE CASTS A SPELL RIGHT THERE to make them do it. The offended party would be more angry at the person saying the command than the person doing the forced action.

And again, the Command lasts six seconds. "Yeah your honor, I was at the Kings Ball and OHMYPELORWHATAMISAYING?! I'm innocent and someone is using magic to frame me! That's the REAL criminal!"

These aren't corner cases, these are so contrived that they will never happen unless the DM conspires to make them happen. The target must take the action in full view of a witness who is unaware of the caster or the spell and make a snap judgement on the target within 6 seconds before the target and return to acting normal. Even if the King is a powerful caster who removes all the target's skin in 6 seconds after being spit upon, the odds that circumstance happens again isn't enough to justify.

There is a whole school of magic focused on getting targets to do these types of things. There is no need to cram them all into one spell.

 

[KYRON45]

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.

I don't see the problem with this. The point of command is more to prevent someone from having a productive turn than it is to reshape the fabric of the universe. If the guy uses his action to throw whatever is handy out the window, he's not using his turn to stab you. Also is "defenestrate" considered a word in common use that EVERYONE will understand?

Issuing a one word command isn't as easy or as obvious as one might think. That's why the spell is limited. "draw"....draw a picture, draw a weapon, draw a conclusion? Not only does the command have to be a verb, it has to be relevant to the context of the moment. Abdicate? That's not an action so much as a process. Jump? No one is accidentally going to fall off the cliff because when they jumped up there was a cliff near by.

One has to assume that if someone doesn't like D&D because of "Command" the pain is much much deeper than a first level spell.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't see the problem with this. The point of command is more to prevent someone from having a productive turn than it is to reshape the fabric of the universe. If the guy uses his action to throw whatever is handy out the window, he's not using his turn to stab you. Also is "defenestrate" considered a word in common use that EVERYONE will understand?

The allowed command "Halt" achieves the same net effect (save the target is now 3 Copper poorer). So why do we need the defenestrate command? The vague hope the DM will turn it into an xd6 bludgeoning damage spell. No one expects the target to waste an action tossing coins out a window when they utter that command. This is why open-ended Command is a level one wish spell: the PC shoots for the best possible interpretation of their desire and the DM looks for ways to screw them out of it via technicality.

I came into this fairly neutral all things considered, but I have yet to see a nonofficial command that isn't the player trying to bend the spell into doing what is beyond its parameters. I'm starting to see why they got rid of the open ended clause, tbh...

 

[SableWyvern]

Confess/Recant would be useless in a court of law. Everyone would see you cast the spell (unless you're a sorcerer) and know the target is under coercion. I guess if it's a corrupt court, that's fine but you weren't exactly getting a fair trial in the first place.

Drink is just breathe toxic gas but in liquid form. If the target suspects the drink is poisoned, they refuse. (And if they don't know, I seriously question your alignment).

Spit and salute again is easily dismissed because SOMEONE CASTS A SPELL RIGHT THERE to make them do it. The offended party would be more angry at the person saying the command than the person doing the forced action.

And again, the Command lasts six seconds. "Yeah your honor, I was at the Kings Ball and OHMYPELORWHATAMISAYING?! I'm innocent and someone is using magic to frame me! That's the REAL criminal!"

These aren't corner cases, these are so contrived that they will never happen unless the DM conspires to make them happen. The target must take the action in full view of a witness who is unaware of the caster or the spell and make a snap judgement on the target within 6 seconds before the target and return to acting normal. Even if the King is a powerful caster who removes all the target's skin in 6 seconds after being spit upon, the odds that circumstance happens again isn't enough to justify.

There is a whole school of magic focused on getting targets to do these types of things. There is no need to cram them all into one spell.

You're welcome to poo poo the options and not use them in your game. However, not every game has to have legal process matching your preferences, nor does the possibility that the trial wasn't going to fair suddenly render the options useless. The fact that a particular use of a spell might make you question the caster's is irrelevant to the point I was making. How obvious the spell casting is will depend on the table. The degree to which any given game is grounded, serious, realistic, crazy, heroic, funny or whatever is a matter for each table to decide for themselves. And the fact that that the spell doesn't need to do these things is irrelevant. Not individual spell is needed at all, unless you decide it is.

Like seriously, I'm OK if you wouldn't allow this sort of thing in your game. I am simply responding to the notion that there is no way to use this spell imaginatively, and all it can possibly be good for is causing someone to waste a turn during combat. At no point was I arguing that you, @Remathilis, have any obligation to encourage such uses at your own table.

 

[billd91]

The allowed command "Halt" achieves the same net effect (save the target is now 3 Copper poorer). So why do we need the defenestrate command? The vague hope the DM will turn it into an xd6 bludgeoning damage spell. No one expects the target to waste an action tossing coins out a window when they utter that command. This is why open-ended Command is a level one wish spell: the PC shoots for the best possible interpretation of their desire and the DM looks for ways to screw them out of it via technicality.

I came into this fairly neutral all things considered, but I have yet to see a nonofficial command that isn't the player trying to bend the spell into doing what is beyond its parameters. I'm starting to see why they got rid of the open ended clause, tbh...

I think there might be good reasons for it, but under limited circumstances. For example, if you want them to rid themselves of what they're holding, make it hard to retrieve, AND they're near a window, it would work pretty well.

In a circumstance where someone's actually holding something, I think reaching into a pocket or pouch to toss out 3 copper is probably abusing the adjudication of the spell. If drop makes them drop what they're holding, defenestrate should make them toss what they're holding out the window.

Either way, I'm on the side of it being open ended but using the listed options as guides for what's an appropriate level of effect.