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

[SableWyvern]

Scream is a noun. Fails to work.

Salute is a noun. Fails to work.

Not a verb.

Not a verb. And, even if it was, casting a spell in front of the lord and then forcing someone to spit is probably not going to work.

"Yes, it's true. My name is Hussar."

"I cannot tell a lie. I did fart a few minutes ago.

So, we're allowing 1st level spells to recreate the effect of 3rd level spells now? Moonbeam? Wow, that's a hell of a spell.

Yeah, because mind controlling someone to commit a crime isn't going to be a problem. And, "The NPC puts a hand in front of their face" They're defaced. Since you cannot force somone to act on another object using this spell it doesn't work.

Umm, because all the basic descriptions of the standard Commands are combat effects?

But, yeah, all these "creative" uses either rely on the DM ignoring the actual rules of the spell (forcing the NPC to take an action using an object they they are not holding) or ignore the rules of the English languages. You want to a mind control spell? Take Domination. You want a short term duration action denial and battlefield control spell? Take Command.

I already conceded quite some time ago that if the GM wishes to obstruct every imaginative use then it will be impossible to use the spell imaginatively.

 

[SableWyvern]

Considering that we've spent the last 40 years trying to iron out all the crap rules in the spells that Gygax put into the game from back then, I would respectfully disagree.

There's a reason Sleep no longer instantly kills things. Create Water is no longer a Save or Die effect. Invisibility is no longer an auto win. On and on and on. I would argue that Gygax's intent are EXACTLY what we want to avoid.

Clearly, there are many people not part of your "we."

I do agree that the 1e version of sleep isn't the ideal one -- the B/X version with no saving throw is my preferred iteration.

 

[Hussar]

I already conceded quite some time ago that if the GM wishes to obstruct every imaginative use then it will be impossible to use the spell imaginatively.

Yeah, sorry, answered before I realized how far back in the thread I was. My bad. But, the point is, you're not using the spell "imaginatively". You are flat out cheating. The spell specifically states you have to use a verb. And that goes all the way back to the 1e version of the spell, so, that's pretty clearly the intent of the spell. Most of your examples weren't valid because they were flat out not allowed by the spell and not because the DM is being obstructive.

But, isn't it funny how all these examples of "creative" uses of the spell are ones that are in clear violation of the intent of the spell? Gee, it's almost like DM's have had to deal with this sort of thing for decades - players clearly violating the RAI of the effect - and WotC decided to finally close the loophole that was never open in the first place.

IOW, the spell was never as open ended as you wanted. You just chose to ignore the rules.

Clearly, there are many people not part of your "we."

I do agree that the 1e version of sleep isn't the ideal one -- the B/X version with no saving throw is my preferred iteration.

The 1e version doesn't allow for a save. I believe the first time Sleep gets a save is in 3e. But I could be wrong. Does 2e Sleep allow for a save?

But, specific spells aside, as @Lanefan has said, this is something that D&D has struggled with for years. These open ended spells that are easily abused - even to the point of the people abusing the spells not actually knowing what the spell actually does - have very, very slowly been getting fixed. And it's a long, laborious process since every single time they write better mechanics, and yes, mechanics that are less prone to abuse are better mechanics, the fandom goes up in arms like this.

 

[SableWyvern]

The spell specifically states you have to use a verb. And that goes all the way back to the 1e version of the spell, so, that's pretty clearly the intent of the spell.

Salute, drink and spit are all commonly used as verbs. If you are denying them on the grounds that they can also be used as nouns, then almost every possible command can be disallowed on a similar basis (in spite of the whole "suicide" thing in the 1e description, which appears to be just a very poor example by Gygax).

I do not agree that these words were against the original intent -- those are the sorts of uses that I consider to be the entire point of earlier iterations of D&D. Numerous GMs in this thread (myself included) have made it clear that we don't see these uses as abuses or opposed to the our reading of intent, and that we like it when players come up with some uses.

Feel free to have a different opinion and rule differently in your own game, but again, I suggest you stop using words like "jerk", "abuse" and "cheese" to describe players and a playstyle that is simply different to your preference.

So, we're allowing 1st level spells to recreate the effect of 3rd level spells now? Moonbeam? Wow, that's a hell of a spell.

No, the intent is that a creature with the ability to transform will use it. I would not expect it to have any effect on someone without the ability to shapechange in the first place. As I stated, the intended use case was to prove that someone else is a shapechanger.

 

[Hussar]

The thing is, this little back and forth with @SableWyvern encapsulates everything I don't like about open ended design. Because with open ended design, it means I have to police EVERY SINGLE THING the players do. I have to check and double check every spell, every ability, every single thing on every single character sheet. Because the players will "creatively interpret" mechanics to their own advantage. Maybe not every time. Maybe it's only once in a while. But, because it does happen, it means that I have to check and double check every single thing.

@SableWyvern posted a lengthy list of creative words to use for Command. But, most of that list is invalid because the spell very specifically states that the words must be verbs. But, if I didn't take the time to reread the spell description, I wouldn't have known that. If I relied on the player actually knowing how the mechanics of his own character worked, I would never know that.

And because I KNOW that players will, from time to time, interpret things to their advantage, whether intentionally or entirely by accident, it means I have to test out every single thing from the players. I can't just trust the players or the game.

With more concretely worded effects, even if the effects allow for a broad number of results, I can actually trust the players not to make "mistakes". And when there are literally hundreds of spell effects in the game, there's just no way I can possibly memorize all of them.

 

[Hussar]

Salute, drink and spit are all commonly used as verbs. If you are denying them on the grounds that they can also be used as nouns, then almost every possible command can be disallowed on the same basis (in spite of the whole "suicide" thing in the 1e description, which appears to be just a very poor example by Gygax).

I do not agree that these words were against the original intent -- those are the sorts of uses that I consider to be the entire point of earlier iterations of D&D. Numerous GMs in this thread (myself included) have made it clear that we don't see these uses as abuses or opposed to the our reading of intent, and that we like it when players come up with some uses.

Feel free to have a different opinion and rule differently in your own game, but again, I suggest you stop using words like "jerk", "abuse" and "cheese" to describe players and a playstyle that is simply different to your preference.


No, the intent is that a creature with the ability to transform will use it. I would not expect it to have any effect on someone without the ability to shapechange in the first place. As I stated, the intended use case was to prove that someone else is a shapechanger.

Yes, that's what Moonbeam does. Forces a shapechanger to change back to its natural shape.

And, again, I don't care how common these words are. They are not verbs. You are flat out not using the spell as intended. Which is the point. The spell was NEVER meant to be as open ended as you wanted. It was only open ended because you ignored the limitations of the spell. Which, as DM, is absolutely your prerogative. Fine and dandy. But, you don't then get to complain about cleaning up the language in the new version when it's not really any different than what came before.

IOW, the mechanics you were using were not how the spell was intended to be used. That's why the go to examples earlier in the thread were "defecate" and "defenestrate" because these are both clearly verbs, as is at least in keeping with the intent of the rules. You said it yourself. Almost every possible command (almost but not all) can be denied on the same basis.

Which means that the spell was never as open ended as you intended.

 

[SableWyvern]

The thing is, this little back and forth with @SableWyvern encapsulates everything I don't like about open ended design. Because with open ended design, it means I have to police EVERY SINGLE THING the players do. I have to check and double check every spell, every ability, every single thing on every single character sheet. Because the players will "creatively interpret" mechanics to their own advantage. Maybe not every time. Maybe it's only once in a while. But, because it does happen, it means that I have to check and double check every single thing.

@SableWyvern posted a lengthy list of creative words to use for Command. But, most of that list is invalid because the spell very specifically states that the words must be verbs. But, if I didn't take the time to reread the spell description, I wouldn't have known that. If I relied on the player actually knowing how the mechanics of his own character worked, I would never know that.

And because I KNOW that players will, from time to time, interpret things to their advantage, whether intentionally or entirely by accident, it means I have to test out every single thing from the players. I can't just trust the players or the game.

With more concretely worded effects, even if the effects allow for a broad number of results, I can actually trust the players not to make "mistakes". And when there are literally hundreds of spell effects in the game, there's just no way I can possibly memorize all of them.

I've already conceded multiple times that if you say the rule change makes life at your table easier, I will take your word for it.

The list of possible effects you quoted was me responding to the assertion that imaginative uses aren't possible. I disagree with that assertion, and gave examples of imaginative uses.

If your assertion is instead that "imaginative uses are to much work for me to adjudicate" then you'll get no argument from me. They're not too much work for me, but if you say it's too much for you, I believe you.

Edit
I overlooked this initially.

I don't care how common these words are. They are not verbs.

They most certainly are verbs.

 

[SableWyvern]

Yes, that's what Moonbeam does. Forces a shapechanger to change back to its natural shape.

I'm good with a 1st level spell being able to manage this.

 

[MichaelSomething]

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?

People play D&D for a wide variety of reasons. Some of those reasons will clash with your's. What are you gonna do about it?

May I suggest removing those people from the D&D space?? Then they won't stand in your way as you make D&D rulings based??

 

[DrJawaPhD]

And, again, I don't care how common these words are. They are not verbs. You are flat out not using the spell as intended.

I have no dog in this fight but Drink, Salute, and Spit are all obviously verbs, and would've been completely in line with how the 2014 version of the spell was intended to be used.

You can't argue that the spell only works with words that are exclusively used as verbs and impossible to use as a noun, because 3 of the 5 official commands can be both a verb and a noun (approach, drop, and halt).