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

[MichaelSomething]

The thread is also serving to point out that this change is one more step down a slippery slope the designers have had us on for decades, where spells and effects that were once open-ended are continually being nerfed and-or codified into smaller and smaller boxes. Look at illusions in 1e, then go through the editions to see how they've been progressively nerfed and codified down to what exists today. Ditto Wish (and similar spells; do Limited Wish and Alter Reality even exist any more?).

What 5.5e wants to do to Command is merely a minor example of a much bigger and long-standing issue. I'm glad to see it's getting some pushback at last.

It's a lot easier to make a specific rule than it is to explain and teach the art of making rulings.

 

[Daztur]

How to implement the command, under the 2014 version, up to the target of the spell.

No, it's up to the DM.

For those who say 6e by 2030, I think this may be wrong. They wanted One D&D and I think they will make it happen. A 6e that was truly different from 5e would mean millions in extra work to fix D&D Beyond. It was fine when it was just books or a character creator but Beyond and the VTT will heavily affect game design.

D&D will have to be doing poorly for them to do an edition overhaul that will cost 10 times the price due to the tech factor.

Good point. 2030 seems impossible with how much work it'd require to do a rebooted D&D Beyond. Just don't think 5.5e will get a full ten years.

Now admittedly that's already contradictory, given that back, halt, run, stop, fall, leave, surrender, sleep and rest can all be nouns as well as verbs - just like suicide.

I think Gygax screwed up his wording a bit here, "suicide" is always a noun AFAIK, not something that can be a noun.

I don't see anything in any version of the Command spell description that says the intent of the spell is to get an opponent in combat to waste a turn. Spells do what the flavor descriptor says they do, or why is that descriptor even present? This is exactly the problem I had with 4e. The flavor descriptor was clearly presented as an afterthought that didn't really matter. It looks like 5.5 is going that same way.

Exactly. Flavor always and forever trumps mechanics. Flavor says what the spell does and the echanics is an attempt to translate that flavor into game terms. If there's a case where the spell is being used in a way so that the flavor and mechanics no long match you bend the mechanics to fit the flavor (as in "no, I don't care what the rules say, you can't knock a cube prone"). At least that's how I run things, other people running things in different ways is great if it works for them.

IMO, the biggest issue with command is how big of a gap it can be between expectations. Part of the 2024 goal is to get rid of the 'DM may I' ability.

Any DM can wiggle out of any Command with a little of their own creativity. 1 word is not clear. For instance, if a player tells a murder suspect to confess, the DM decides what that means.

Exactly. "Rulings not rules" was an important part of 5e design. 5.5e is rolling that back. I thought that the changes to 5.5e Command were the clearest example of that. Hence this thread.

They won't do it because the old guard does not like being told what to do.

That is the crux of the issue.

You have different demographics and constituencies in your customer base and half of them want something and the other half want to direct opposite of it.

Yes, exactly. That's why a compromise (like 5e) was a good idea and trying to go against the things that a big chunk of your customer base (who, as you say, is stubborn and doesn't like being told what to do) is not a good idea.

D&D is way too diverse in playstyles to ever get everyone on the same page. Any attempt to do so is going to create a lot of backlash. The same thing would happen if WotC lost their minds and put out "D&D Just the Way Daztur Likes It" as a canonical 6e, there'd be a firestorm of blacklash and it would be a financial disaster for them.

Meh. I don't really believe in "slippery slopes". The game can't be for everyone, but this change just clarifies what, to me, is the obvious intent.

Whose intent? The 5.5e version is very obviously not the intent of the person who first wrote up the Command spell? Mike Mearl's intent? Well he's not around anymore and I don't really trust the new batch of designers to do a better job of giving us Mike Mearl's intent than Mike Mearls did himself. The intent of the new batch of designers? Why should I care about what they intend? Either a rule is good or it's bad, I don't really care about the intent behind it, I care about the rules I have in the book.

It's a lot easier to make a specific rule than it is to explain and teach the art of making rulings.

It depends a bit on how things are set up. If the flavor of the rules is set up clearly then the DM has a good basis to make rulings on when things go unexpectedly. If the flavor of the rule is a tacked on bit of vagueness then the DM is being thrown off the deep end when it comes to the PCs being thrust into unexpected situations or use their powers in unexpected ways...unless the DM just says "no" and shuts down the PCs doing any kind of MacGyvering and never takes unexpected situations into account. But to me, that's like saying that you'll have less car accidents if you remove the engine of a car. That's true but it also defeats the whole purpose of having a car.

For me, THE ENTIRE AND ONLY REASON I prefer RPGs to other games is that they have a GM who's constantly making rulings. If you remove rulings then I just don't see the point of playing an RPG instead of some other kind of game. What other unique things do RPGs bring to the table that no other kind of game can do?

 

[SkidAce]

It's a lot easier to make a specific rule than it is to explain and teach the art of making rulings.

Easier yes, but there may be more value in the explaining and teaching the art of making rulings.

Its a worthy endeavor.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Just observing that the fighter can be burned to the ground in the name of 'simplicity' and that's apparently fine. One spell gets simplified and that's a major issue.

I'm not even against expending command's utility, but parity and consistency would be nice.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Easier yes, but there may be more value in the explaining and teaching the art of making rulings.

Its a worthy endeavor.

The last time they tried, it got called the "Trannay of Fun." (Or WOTC trying to force a playstyle on us) So I imagine WOTC is hesitant to try again.

 

[Daztur]

Just observing that the fighter can be burned to the ground in the name of 'simplicity' and that's apparently fine. One spell gets simplified and that's a major issue.

I'm not even against expending command's utility, but parity and consistency would be nice.

Well there's a couple different ways you can set it up:
1. Wizard and fighter both get hammers, wizard also gets a Swiss army knife (both classes get raw power, wizard also gets flexibility).
2. Wizard and fighter both get hammers, no Swiss army knives for anyone (both classes get raw power, wizard flexibility gets removed).
3. Wizards and fighters both get hammers and Swiss army knives (both classes get both raw power and flexibility).
4. Wizards get Swiss army knives, fighters get hammers (wizards get flexibility, wizards get raw power).
5. Wizards and fighters both get Swiss army knives (nobody gets raw power, everyone gets flexibility).
6. Wizards get sledgehammers and sonic screwdrivers, fighters get hammers (go home 3.5e, you're drunk).

1. Is more or less what we get in 5e. It's not ideal since it gives casters an obvious edge but I can work around this problem by playing ball with any harebrained schemes fighters have, make their superior HPs matter, give them sweet magic items, play at mostly lower levels, really work at attrition so the casters never have enough spell slots, encourage half casters over casters, etc. It's not ideal but I can make it work.

2. The 4e solution. There is a reason there was a big backlash against this solution.

3. Your solution. I'm fine with this for the most part, but it just feels more high magic than I like (but then so is 5e and 5.5e seems even more high magic) but would be great for a more mythical heroes game.

4. My solution. Smack casters enough with the nerf bat so that in a straight up fight or a DPS contest the fighter comes up obviously on top. Casters have to be cunning rat-bastards with spells like Command or rely on out of combat utility to compete with fighters. I like this. This closest I've seen to this in a D&D-ish game is d20 Conan, although lower level TSR-D&D also did it well enough since low level wizards were so damn squishy that it took longer for their quadratic curve to start getting them high above fighters.

5. This is not something D&D has ever tried to do. It's something I'm puttering with for a game I'm trying to write in which the PCs are fairy tale heroes faced with problems that they simply can't overcome with raw power (so kids vs. a giant) so they have to rely on their wits, collecting favors, and bits of magic and skill to come out on top. A lot of the skills would be things like "smell lies: you always know when someone is lying" so the "mundane" skills would have the potency that you often get in fairy tales.

6. Blech.

 

[Oofta]

No, it's up to the DM.
...

That's the crux of the issue, isn't it? Under the 2014 version of the spell if you're doing a non-standard command that has predefined result I think whoever is running the target should decide. If it's an NPC the DM decides, if PC the player decides.

It's a first level spell, not a one turn dominate. The caster gives the command they don't dictate how it's implemented. Just like someone in a zone of truth can give honest answers that are true but evasive.

 

[SableWyvern]

That's the crux of the issue, isn't it? Under the 2014 version of the spell if you're doing a non-standard command that has predefined result I think whoever is running the target should decide. If it's an NPC the DM decides, if PC the player decides.

It's a first level spell, not a one turn dominate. The caster gives the command they don't dictate how it's implemented. Just like someone in a zone of truth can give honest answers that are true but evasive.

"The target decides" is just an overly-complicated way of saying, "No non-standard effect can be useful." Why would the target ever interpret a command in an inconvenient way? If that's what you want, there's no point couching it as anything other than that.

Similarly, "The caster decides" is just saying, "The spell does anything you want."

I have no idea why anyone would use either of those implementations. On the other hand, "The GM decides" is using the GM for one of the GM's main intended purposes -- making rulings on things not explicitly covered by the rules.

Of course, if you only allow a fixed set of commands with exact effects, none of this matters.

 

[Oofta]

"The target decides" is just an overly-complicated way of saying, "No non-standard effect can be useful." If that's what you want, there's no point couching it as anything other than that.

Similarly, "The caster decides" is just saying, "The spell does anything you want."

I have no idea why anyone would use either of those implementations. On the other hand, "The GM decides" is using the GM for one of the GM's main intended purposes -- making rulings on things not explicitly covered by the rules.

Of course, if you only allow a fixed set of commands with exact effects, none of this matters.

Well if you have a DM that decides jump means jumping off a boat since drowning is not immediately deadly, it's not exactly fun. That and where is the creativity in how to respond to the command?

But if the DM doesn't have that option then I agree, a set list is better. Which is why I prefer the new rules.

 

[SableWyvern]

Well if you have a DM that decides jump means jumping off a boat since drowning is not immediately deadly, it's not exactly fun. That and where is the creativity in how to respond to the command?

Sure. Similarly, it's generally not much fun to have a DM who says, "There is a huge wave that capsizes your boat and you all drown!"

That's a reason not to play with GMs who insist on making the game unfun, not to ban the GM from making rulings. As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, if people want to make the game unfun, nothing in the rules can stop them.

Personally, I feel "how could this rule be abused by bad actors" is not something that should ever be considered in rule design, and I would much prefer that games were built on the assumption that they are played by groups where there is mutual respect and trust.

(It's also worth keeping in mind that some groups may feel that a "you jump off the boat" ruling is, in fact, fun.)