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

[mellored]

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

To reduce the gap between casters and martials.

DM adjudication is, and always has been, on the table.

 

[Hussar]

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.

The "Defenestrate" example is actually really interesting.

Originally, the intent was that the target of the spell would launch themself out the window, presumably dealing damage from a fall. Then when it was demonstrated that no version of Command actually allowed for that - since the spell will not force a character to deal damage to itself, nor can the spell force the character to take an actual action - the joke was made that the character would throw something (a few cp) out the window.

This was then spun as DM's hating creativity and being bad DM's for pulling a "gotcha" on the players. Much in the same way that "Salute" has now been spun as a "gotcha". The fact that the player is 100% wrong in trying to use the spell this way doesn't apparently enter into it. "Salute" is just "grovel" really. Or even "Halt". Only, the original example of "Salute" wasn't actually saluting, it was, "get them to salute, which could in turn be a gesture the begins some attempted betrayal, leaking the knowledge that this will be the signal, so that individual appears to be the instigator."

Note that this form of salute doesn't actually exist in a D&D world. I'm sorry, but, it doesn't. The idea of a military style salute is something from much later.

But, again, apparently things like facts don't matter. Anyone who actually knows the history of words is apparently engaged in "gotcha's" for the players.

So, it's apparently perfectly acceptable for players to misuse, misinterpret or force specific definitions onto the DM - This is obviously a verb! - and the DM is 100% beholden to accept the player's words or be accused of being a bad DM and engaging in "gotcha's".

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Correct. The spell fails because the target would not do harm to itself per the rules. Maybe an open window at ground level might work, the target spending it's time to crawl out (and presumably back in) the window, but if there was an inkling or would take a 1d6 of fall damage, spell fails, slot wasted, GG.

 

[plisnithus8]

Correct. The spell fails because the target would not do harm to itself per the rules. Maybe an open window at ground level might work, the target spending it's time to crawl out (and presumably back in) the window, but if there was an inkling or would take a 1d6 of fall damage, spell fails, slot wasted, GG.

The spells fails because the target would hardly ever know what that word means.

And what kind of “historically” are we talking about? A history that includes magic and dragons?

 

[SableWyvern]

Note that this form of salute doesn't actually exist in a D&D world. I'm sorry, but, it doesn't. The idea of a military style salute is something from much later.

OK, now that you have unambiguously declared yourself the official arbiter of whether or not saluting is allowed to exist in any D&D world, I really, truly am done wasting my time engaging with you.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

The new version actually empowers players.

I'm, mostly, uninterested in the topic at hand. But this phrase intrigues me.

Am I wrong to assume, from reading your reply, that you believe it empowers players because it removes DM discretion?

Another thread had an interesting discussion on DM-Player antagonism and it's prevalence in these boards. Your answer is interesting, to me, in that context.

To reduce the gap between casters and martials.

DM adjudication is, and always has been, on the table.

This is kind of a weird response. Both categories of PCs can do the action you described, using intimidation and such. So is taking away redundancy effective at reducing a perceived power gap?

If you will humor me on this. I want to dig into it a bit further. If an issue can be overcome by good DMing, does that issue warrant a rules based "fix?" If respecting niche protection, as a DM, does the same thing, isn't the rule change just superficial?

I think this is important. This caster-martial divide is purely a mechanical construct. Filtering those mechanics through a human DM can, without question, change things dramatically. A DM that is mindful of niche protection can, and will, cover this instance.

That leaves us at a place, where we are making rules, and changing them, to cover for DMs that ignore niche protection. So the question is, when does the blame fall on DM skill as opposed to the rules? I think the answer ultimately informs how rules should be changed.

 

[Remathilis]

The spells fails because the target would hardly ever know what that word means.

And what kind of “historically” are we talking about? A history that includes magic and dragons?

Clearly the spell should only work if the Command is uttered in Old English (Latin as an acceptable substitute).

bídsteall!

 

[SableWyvern]

Am I wrong to assume, from reading your reply, that you believe it empowers players because it removes DM discretion?

Another thread had an interesting discussion on DM-Player antagonism and it's prevalence in these boards. Your answer is interesting, to me, in that context.

I find this part of the discussion interesting because, while I can agree that tighter language may serve to reduce player-DM friction, I feel that this is at best going to reduce the issues slightly, not eliminate them, and the ideal solution must surely be to have participants that aren't working at cross-purposes or antagonistically in the first place.

The thing is, it seems to me that many of the people who want the tighter language genuinely don't believe it's actually possible for groups to exist where there is a strong sense of trust and mutual respect, where players aren't expecting the GM to be screwing them over and ruining their fun, and where GMs don't feel players are willing to do anything it takes, in game or out, to gain an advantage at the expense of the fun.

And if they really do believe such groups can't exist, then I can kind of understand why they would look to rules for help (even though, if I felt such groups couldn't exist, my solution would be to cease playing and find a less frustrating hobby).

 

[Hussar]

OK, now that you have unambiguously declared yourself the official arbiter of whether or not saluting is allowed to exist in any D&D world, I really, truly am done wasting my time engaging with you.

So commands to "emote!", "email!" and "Rasterize!" should work too?

In any case, you're ignoring the fact that your "Salute" example doesn't work because that sort of gesture - "a gesture the begins some attempted betrayal" (your exact words) doesn't work. What gesture are you envisioning the target doing that is both a recognizable salute and that would signal some sort of betrayal?

And the fact that you've now completely ignored the whole Change thing, plus all the rest pretty much says it all. You're fixating on a single element while ignoring the larger context.

And if they really do believe such groups can't exist, then I can kind of understand why they would look to rules for help (even though, if I felt such groups couldn't exist, my solution would be to cease playing and find a less frustrating hobby).

Again, you're fixating on the trees and not seeing the forest. Tightening up the rules means less friction at the table. The rules that don't cause friction are already tight enough and are no problems. Which means, most of the time, there is no problem. The problem comes with these mechanics that are poorly written, using open ended, vague language which causes the problem.

I mean, in this thread, it's been shown that you are more than willing to ignore what's actually written in the spell - you have no problem with the "Change" command and have repeatedly said so. Which means you've never actually interpreted the mechanics the way they are intended by the game. The game mechanics are never intended to grant clerics access to a spell that's higher level and not even on their spell list.

Which is why I don't want these open ended mechanics. I don't want to constantly have to police the players who, like you, are misinterpreting the intent of the spell in order to gain more power and options that aren't part of the actual mechanic.

 

[SableWyvern]

I mean, in this thread, it's been shown that you are more than willing to ignore what's actually written in the spell - you have no problem with the "Change" command and have repeatedly said so. Which means you've never actually interpreted the mechanics the way they are intended by the game. The game mechanics are never intended to grant clerics access to a spell that's higher level and not even on their spell list.

And yet, despite my flagrant disregard for RAW, the RPG Police have never been able to catch me and send me off for reeducation.