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

[Daztur]

You see no difference between trying to push the boundaries of the wording and intent of the spell and interacting with the fiction of the world? One is saying "I'm attempting to change the rules of the game, the way my character interacts with the world, in order to gain an advantage." The other is "I'm doing something in the world and engaging with the fiction". It sounds like a fundamental difference, not using the rules to engage in a fictional world, but engaging in a set of rules to play a game.

Inspiration one of the few examples of a metacurrency in D&D*, in other cases it's a crude simulation. Not a simulation of the real world of course, that would be boring. To me it's more of a simulation of an action movie with magic, even something like second wind is seen time and again in movies and TV. When playing D&D I'm running a character that is engaging with the world, not the rules. Which is one of the reasons I don't care for the direction some other games work, I don't want metacurrency.

*about the only other metacurrency I can think of off the top of my head is the luck feat or halfing's luck. But even those are just representing things that just happen to go our way, not that I'm suddenly changing how the world works because I can.

Honestly...no?

My rogue knows that he has a pot of honey and that bears like honey. My cleric knows that he has a spell called command that can make people that understand it do one verb that he wants. Both the rogue throwing the honey at the owl bear and the cleric casting Command at someone is the character acting in character based on information that character knows.

I honestly can't see any difference. Now metagaming based on stuff my character wouldn't know IC? That's something else.

 

[Hussar]

I would also like to point out that the thread title is actually perfect for me. This is how the discussion has gone from my point of view:

OP: I don't like how the new Command spell removes the ambiguity, open nature of the Command Spell.
Me: I actually really like that. I find that the open nature of the Command spell and other similarly written spells, cause all sorts of friction at my table.
Others: Oh, you just have bad players. No good player would ever argue with the DM's ruling.
OP: Here are a bunch of examples of creative Commands that are no longer allowed.
Me: Good. Most of those are abusing the rules and I wouldn't allow most of them.
Others: You are a terrible DM for not allowing player creativity.
Me: So, unless I 100% agree with every single use of "Creative Command", I'm a bad DM. But, anyone arguing with my rulings is a bad player... Ummm... Doesn't this make the OP a bad player for arguing with the DM's ruling?
OP: Nope, you're a bad DM that I'd never want to play under because you hate player creativity.

It's a total no-win situation for me. And that's called compromise?

This thread 100% encapsulates EXACTLY what happens at my game table over and over and over again because of these poorly written spells and effects. Players either deliberately or mistakenly "misunderstanding" the mechanics in order to grab as many advantages as they can.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly...no?

My rogue knows that he has a pot of honey and that bears like honey. My cleric knows that he has a spell called command that can make people that understand it do one verb that he wants. Both the rogue throwing the honey at the owl bear and the cleric casting Command at someone is the character acting in character based on information that character knows.

I honestly can't see any difference. Now metagaming based on stuff my character wouldn't know IC? That's something else.

But, here's the thing. Your cleric knows he can cast Command to do one LIMITED thing that he wants. It's limited to movement and free actions. Anything you want to do that's more than that is abusing the mechanics. And, note, it's not like the spell is written from an in game perspective. There's no such thing as "ends his turn" in the game world. Yes, the Command spell exists, but, the definition of the spell is 100% out of game abstraction with zero connection to the in game fiction.

This is the 2014 version of the spell:

You speak a one-word command to a creature you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or follow the command on its next turn. The spell has no effect if the target is undead, if it doesn't understand your language, or if your command is directly harmful to it.


Some typical commands and their effects follow. You might issue a command other than one described here. If you do so, the DM determines how the target behaves. If the target can't follow your command, the spell ends.


Approach: The target moves toward you by the shortest and most direct route, ending its turn if it moves within 5 feet of you.


Drop: The target drops whatever it is holding and then ends its turn.


Flee: The target spends its turn moving away from you by the fastest available means.


Grovel: The target falls prone and then ends its turn.


Halt: The target doesn't move and takes no actions. A flying creature stays aloft, provided that it is able to do so. If it must move to stay aloft, it flies the minimum distance needed to remain in the air.

Other than, "You speak a one word command", nothing of that is part of the in game fiction. It's 100% abstraction and mechanics.

 

[SableWyvern]

I would also like to point out that the thread title is actually perfect for me. This is how the discussion has gone from my point of view:

OP: I don't like how the new Command spell removes the ambiguity, open nature of the Command Spell.
Me: I actually really like that. I find that the open nature of the Command spell and other similarly written spells, cause all sorts of friction at my table.
Others: Oh, you just have bad players. No good player would ever argue with the DM's ruling.
OP: Here are a bunch of examples of creative Commands that are no longer allowed.
Me: Good. Most of those are abusing the rules and I wouldn't allow most of them.
Others: You are a terrible DM for not allowing player creativity.
Me: So, unless I 100% agree with every single use of "Creative Command", I'm a bad DM. But, anyone arguing with my rulings is a bad player... Ummm... Doesn't this make the OP a bad player for arguing with the DM's ruling?
OP: Nope, you're a bad DM that I'd never want to play under because you hate player creativity.

It's a total no-win situation for me. And that's called compromise?

This thread 100% encapsulates EXACTLY what happens at my game table over and over and over again because of these poorly written spells and effects. Players either deliberately or mistakenly "misunderstanding" the mechanics in order to grab as many advantages as they can.

I don't think anyone has said you have to use our preferred version of command. I certainly have no problem with you saying you prefer a more restricted version, and playing with a more restricted version with people who are good with that. All I've been doing is saying I agree with the OP, and defending my right to a non-RAW preference.

But, look at what you've said in the quote above -- yet again, you've indicated that the way I'd prefer to run my games isn't simply my preference -- it's actually "abusing the rules". Do you not see how someone might dispute that?

I've got no problem with you wanting a restrictive version, but if that's what you want, you make that clear in discussion with your players and then you play. It's really that simple. However, whenever anyone gives an example of how they would implement the rule differently in order to promote more creative uses, you respond by telling them only jerks would do that, that their method of doing things is an abuse, and then for some reason you provide us examples of tortured ways in which you would rule at the table if someone tried that, including telling players that "salute won't work, because salute is not a verb," even though salute absolutely is a verb. Then, when that was pointed out, you doubled down and said salute still won't work, because the concept of the modern salute didn't enter Western society until the 16th Century, and went on to say that it therefore should not be allowed as an anachromism. That is absolutely a petty way to go about things, given that anachronism has always been a part of D&D, and is no less so today than it ever was; that many, many people do believe in a "Roman salute" (I only found out it probably didn't actually exist because of this thread), and that there is absolutely no reason something similar to a salute could not exist in a fantasy world at any point.

Like, really, that's how you would respond? You wouldn't instead say, "Hey, I don't enjoy having to adjudicate the edge cases that come up when using a broad interpretation of Command, so when I'm DMing, it's limited to the specific list of options given in the description"?

For the record, I have no interest in convincing you that my way is the best of or that you should adopt my views. I just can't help but respond when I see you repeatedly claiming that my way is for jerks and uncreative cheesemonkeys and is abusive.

I will agree that I have suggested you have (or had) a dysfunctional group, but that's only because you are the one telling us that you've had to deal with lots of disputes and arguments that grind the game to a halt -- and that, to me, makes the group dysfunctional.

I would like to highlight these two lines:

OP: Nope, you're a bad DM that I'd never want to play under because you hate player creativity.

I don't think you hate player creativity, but I am pretty sure I wouldn't want to play with you as DM. That doesn't make you a bad person, that just means it's pretty clear we have very different playstyles and I don't have anything to gain by being a player in your game.

If we were friends outside gaming, the situation would potentially be different, and I'd be willing to compromise a fair bit if you really, really wanted to run a 5e game using your particular preferences, and our group as a whole was up for it.

This thread 100% encapsulates EXACTLY what happens at my game table over and over and over again because of these poorly written spells and effects. Players either deliberately or mistakenly "misunderstanding" the mechanics in order to grab as many advantages as they can.

But you're not arguing with me because the spell is poorly written -- you're arguing with me because we have different preferences. That's not the fault of the rules. As I just mentioned above, the simple solution is to not play with people that have such mismatched expectations -- in the real world, you wouldn't have to deal with me arguing with you at the table, because I wouldn't want to play at your table in the first place and, if I was in your position, with your preferences, I count that as a win because would not want me there in the first place.

However, as I also mentioned, if I did end up at your table, it would in a situation where I was willing to accede to your preferences as DM -- as long as you're clear about them. Again, "I prefer the stricter interpretation of Command by RAW, rather than a more open-ended one," would be perfectly fine, and I'd accept that for what it is, saving any questions/concerns about style for reasoned discussions between sessions, not during them. On the other hand, if your method of making your style clear ended up involving petty quibbling about verbs not being verbs, "gotcha" comments involving obscure anachronisms, or calling me an abusive jerk, then the result would be me walking away.

And, to finish off, I will say it again, because I want this to be clear: I have zero problem with you wanting a strict, limited version of Command at tables where you play or DM.

 

[mellored]

If your table wants to have level 1 characters mind controlling others...

Just use Intimidation or Persuasion.

Cleics can use Thaumaturgey to get advantage on Intimidation, yell "Defenestrate" at someone, and roll to see if the guy throws himself out the window or not.

All the DM adjudication you want, and any character can do it at-will.

 

[Hussar]

But you're not arguing with me because the spell is poorly written -- you're arguing with me because we have different preferences. That's not the fault of the rules. As I just mentioned above, the simple solution is to not play with people that have such mismatched expectations -- in the real world, you wouldn't have to deal with me arguing with you at the table, because I wouldn't want to play at your table in the first place and, if I was in your position, with your preferences, I count that as a win because would not want me there in the first place.

No, I'm pretty sure I'm arguing with you because the spell is poorly written. Because, with the 2024 version, there would be no argument. Which makes the 2024 spell better written. And, note, it's not really JUST about Command. If it was one spell, I wouldn't care. It's that there are 50 other spells with exactly the same problem, most of which are simply legacy issues brought forward because of when they were originally written.

 

[Remathilis]

If your table wants to have level 1 characters mind controlling others...

Just use Intimidation or Persuasion.

Cleics can use Thaumaturgey to get advantage on Intimidation, yell "Defenestrate" at someone, and roll to see if the guy throws himself out the window or not.

All the DM adjudication you want, and any character can do it at-will.

Roll to persuade the guy to throw himself out a window. DC 1,000. There is no automatic success for a nat 20 per RAW.

 

[mellored]

Roll to persuade the guy to throw himself out a window. DC 1,000. There is no automatic success for a nat 20 per RAW.

Then I assume anyone casting Command "Defenestrate" would get the same answer.

I just don't understand why you need a spell to do it.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I just don't understand why you need a spell to do it.

If you can do it another way, as you described, why bother changing the spell?

This comes up a lot. People advocate rules changes to "fix" an issue when the rules change doesn't actually fix the issue. Largely, this is because it's a DM issue, if it's an issue at all.

An example would be to change a feature to give a more mechanical benefit, because the role-playing benefit is being ignored by DMs. Well, bad DMs can just ignore the mechanics, and good DMs wouldn't ignore a feature. So what did we accomplish?

It's really intriguing. It's almost like DMs have more influence over the game then the rules do. This puts many of this forum's discussions into context, if you come to that conclusion. Many seem superficial even.

 

[plisnithus8]

The new version actually empowers players.
The way it was written in 2014 left interpretation of a Command word in the DM’s hands. Yell Tip or Duck (both from the OP’s example list), and there are multiple meanings; the caster does not decide which. By definition an 1-word command is vague and likely to not be interpreted by the NPC as the caster intended.

Stating that such a list is useful seems to imply that all of those words and more have fixed interpretations in the same way those listed in the spell itself do (they seem to be chosen for their lack of ambiguity) s as d will work the way a caster intends even though the spell specifically says they are for the Dm to decide.