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

[mellored]

Maybe we can have Command replicate other 3rd level spells? "Ignite" can make the foe light himself on fire? "Dispel" can make an enemy caster end his spell early? "Slow" can make them move at half-speed and take only an action OR a bonus action? "Rest" or "Heal" can make the target use a HD? The options are endless when Command is a first level Power Word spell.

Level 1 cleric cast Command "Wish" on the level 1 fighter.

The fighter volunteeraly fails its saving throw.

The fighter then follows the command and casts Wish.

 

[Remathilis]

Cleric: I approach the guard.
Guard: halt! state your name and purpose.
Cleric [casts command] KNEEL!!
Guard: ok Neal, nice to meet you. Why are you here?

 

[the Jester]

Level 1 cleric cast Command "Wish" on the level 1 fighter.

The fighter volunteeraly fails its saving throw.

The fighter then follows the command and casts Wish.

Cleric: "I cast command on the fighter: 'Wish!'"

Fighter: "Man, I wish I had a vorpal sword."

The fighter can wish all they want, but they can't cast wish. (At least without some way to do so.) You can try commanding someone to "Melt!" but most of the time, they simply can't, so you waste your spell. Commanding someone to fly doesn't allow them to take to the air if they couldn't otherwise.

 

[mellored]

Cleric: "I cast command on the fighter: 'Wish!'"

Fighter: "Man, I wish I had a vorpal sword."

The fighter can wish all they want, but they can't cast wish. (At least without some way to do so.) You can try commanding someone to "Melt!" but most of the time, they simply can't, so you waste your spell. Commanding someone to fly doesn't allow them to take to the air if they couldn't otherwise.

Cleric cast Command "Develop" on himself.

Cleric gains a level.

 

[James Gasik]

Cleric: "I cast command on the fighter: 'Wish!'"

Fighter: "Man, I wish I had a vorpal sword."

The fighter can wish all they want, but they can't cast wish. (At least without some way to do so.) You can try commanding someone to "Melt!" but most of the time, they simply can't, so you waste your spell. Commanding someone to fly doesn't allow them to take to the air if they couldn't otherwise.

What if they had a Luck Blade?

 

[the Jester]

Cleric cast Command "Develop" on himself.

Cleric gains a level.

Ambiguous commands are always a fail.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What if they had a Luck Blade?

Then that fighter better have a wish in mind, or this is going to get very interesting.

 

[the Jester]

What if they had a Luck Blade?

Then you might just force them to use it. That would be an incredible moment.

 

[mellored]

Ambiguous commands are always a fail.

All commands are ambiguous.

A verb. With no noun.

 

[Lanefan]

I think there is a particular reason why traditional D&D spells require so many rulings: it's because they typically do not factor into any general resolution process (traditional D&D not having any general resolution process for non-combat actions), and so end up being adjudicated by way of a combination of direct adjudication of the fiction and purely mechanical specifications of their effects. And there is generally no consequence for casting an unsuccessful spell, nor any sense of difficulty or risk in magic use, so the GM's rulings carry a lot of weight in determining the ebb and flow of success and failure.

Agreed re the bolded, particularly in modern D&D. In 1e at least spells were sometimes difficult to cast and a few key ones had some risk built in (teleport failure, expanding fireballs, etc.), but all that has since gone away.

In our games we've added a wild magic subsystem that kicks in when a spell is interrupted, and that certainly adds an element of risk and-or chaos.

Also...

Implementing a Command or Compel-type spell in Torchbearer, say, would be pretty straightforward, because it would allow a difficulty to be set (say, base Ob equal to the target's Will or Nature, with additional factors applying if the command would be (i) embarrassing, (ii) dangerous or (iii) deadly to perform, and/or (iv) contrary to the target's Instinct and/or Belief). And the higher the obstacle, the greater the likelihood of failure and hence the greater the risk involved in trying wacky commands against powerful targets. The system also has a clear action economy outside of as well as within combat (ie the Grind), which can be used to determine the effect of commands (eg a command that lasts for 1 turn is different from the Wormtongue spell that has a permanent effect).

But D&D doesn't have any of this: no simple way of modulating difficulty based on desired consequence; and no system for failure (eg your attempt to magically compel the victim to drown themself angers the spirit of these waters, who now manifests to challenge you!).

...not sure about 5e but some compel spells in 1e had it that the target did become enraged with the caster either on a made save or when the compulsion ended.

As to the bolded, a simple and circumstance-driven + to the target's saving throw can account for these factors, but there'd be no real way to codify that into hard rules as every situation is different. All you can do is mention it as a guideline for the DM and then let each one deal with it as suits their games.

In D&D, if the target makes their saving throw the only setback to the player is a "wasted" action. So the player is incentivised to try and find cunning commands that can have higher impact for the same risk; and the GM is incentivised to rely on their adjudication of the fiction, and/or their "rulings", to push back. I share @Hussar's dislike for this sort of dynamic.

I'm fine with this dynamic but I also want there to be some risk attached to the potential reward.