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

[billd91]

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.

I think for many of your examples, it's less that making that command would be disallowed - more like it won't have the results you're hoping for. As a DM, I'd be pointing that out to the caster. And if they persist, let them chips fall where they may.

 

[Oofta]

So because they clarified what the command spell does the game is a sad, lifeless drudgery. There's no creativity or initiative without exploits and without looking for ways to use a spell in a way not intended. Clarifying what a first level spell can do (while also improving it because by no longer requiring the target understanding the word is truly soul crushing. The level of exaggeration and hyperbole is just silly.

This thread is making a huge issue out of an incredibly minor change that clarifies the intent of the spell. I get that some people don't like the change. I'm sure there will be other changes I don't care for. But at some point everyone has to decide if they can make a few minor house rules here and there to make the game what they want or maybe D&D just isn't the game for them.

No game can be for everyone. If this one spell is the straw that breaks the straw that breaks the camel's back, then it seems like the issue isn't this spell. It sucks when things move on without you, I'm sure we've all had that experience in some form or other. But I'm a pragmatic person, at a certain point it's just healthier to accept and move on.

 

[SableWyvern]

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.

Agreed, I would actually have them toss the most convenient thing (most likely, something they're already holding).

 

[SableWyvern]

I think for many of your examples, it's less that making that command would be disallowed - more like it won't have the results you're hoping for. As a DM, I'd be pointing that out to the caster. And if they persist, let them chips fall where they may.

Yes, and that's a fair conversation to have, if necessary. I'm simply pointing out that what's reasonable is going to vary from table to table, and possibly even from game to game at the same table. I certainly don't run Blades in the Dark with the same assumptions about the nature of the world and what's reasonable as I do when I'm running Traveller.

 

[Daztur]

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.

Yeah, and that's what I like about the spell. A lot of the verbs are only useful in incredibly narrow circumstances so they require careful thought and really thinking about the details of the fictional situation that your character is in. Really thinking about the fictional situation that your character is in is great for immersion.

This thread is making a huge issue out of an incredibly minor change that clarifies the intent of the spell. I get that some people don't like the change. I'm sure there will be other changes I don't care for. But at some point everyone has to decide if they can make a few minor house rules here and there to make the game what they want or maybe D&D just isn't the game for them.

No game can be for everyone. If this one spell is the straw that breaks the straw that breaks the camel's back, then it seems like the issue isn't this spell. It sucks when things move on without you, I'm sure we've all had that experience in some form or other. But I'm a pragmatic person, at a certain point it's just healthier to accept and move on.

I really don't think that's a fair reading of what people have been saying in this thread. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but I don't think it should be too much to ask to understand why some people have a different perspective on this issue than you.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

Inventing things about 4e wholecloth is now a decade-spanning tradition as well beloved by the fandom as blaming rules problems on the DM not changing the rules.

 

[KYRON45]

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...

If a DM is trying to "screw you"....the problem is with the DM and not the spell.
The DM should be the PC's biggest fan. Otherwise he's just wasting everyone's time.

 

[Daztur]

If a DM is trying to "screw you"....the problem is with the DM and not the spell.
The DM should be the PC's biggest fan. Otherwise he's just wasting everyone's time.

Yup, the DM's job is to build sandcastles for the PCs to kick over, I'm not going to hide rocks in those sand castles for the players to stub their toe on.

 

[pemerton]

"Salute" shouldn't work - it's a noun as well as a verb. Likewise "spit" and "drink:. Likewise "halt", for that matter!

 

[SableWyvern]

"Salute" shouldn't work - it's a noun as well as a verb. Likewise "spit" and "drink:. Likewise "halt", for that matter!

Why are you assuming that GMs should choose the most antagonistic way of adjudicating the spell's effect?

If a character says "smash" at someone just standing around in a group, I'll most likely rule the target won't do much of anything.

If a character says "smash" at someone with a mace standing in front of an ice sculpture, that target will be smashing the ice sculpture.

You can rule differently at your own table, but don't be telling everyone else what should or should not happen in their own games.

I do find it amusing that there are people telling me that it's impossible to use the spell imaginatively, and then when I give examples it's all, "I wouldn't allow that. I wouldn't allow that. You shouldn't allow that." I mean, of course it's hard to use imaginatively if the GM just says "no" and accuses players of abusing the spell any time they try and come up with imaginative uses.