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

[Remathilis]

@Oofta, But, the problem is, these 50 (or whatever the actual number is) exist. And that means I have to treat EVERY SINGLE instance as a problem. I have to police the players constantly to make sure that they are interpreting the spells correctly and that I am interpreting them correctly as well. I almost never get to play, so, I have pretty much zero idea what most spells do. Why would I? I never use them. I have to rely on the players knowing what their spells do and having spells that build in the idea of "ask your DM to do funky things with this spell" is a responsibility I have zero interest in.

One of my favorite stories like this was in an old issue of Dragon and was debated in the letters page for months.

In second edition's Tome of Magic, there was a spell called Frisky Chest. (You could never get away with that name today!) I will include the text of the spell here as its absolutely an obscure lost gem

Spoiler: Frisky Chest

Frisky Chest (Enchantment/Charm)
Level: 2
Sphere: Wards
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Permanent
Casting Time: 2
Area of Effect: 10-foot cube
Saving Throw: None
With this spell, the caster can enchant a chest, book, or any other nonliving object no larger than a 10'x10'x10' cube. When any creature other than the caster comes within three feet of the enchanted object, it instantly sprouts appendages and moves away from the creature as quickly as possible. The enchanted object continues to move until it is at least 10 feet away from the nearest creatures in the area.
After the enchanted object has moved a satisfactory distance from the nearest creature, the appendages disappear. When a creature again comes within three feet of the enchanted object, the enchanted object sprouts appendages and flees. This process continues until the enchantment is negated (through a dispel magic or similar spell) or the enchanted object is subdued or destroyed.
The enchanted object can sprout feet (MV 24), wings (Fl 24, maneuverability class B), or fins (Sw 24), whichever is most advantageous. Thus, a book on a shelf might sprout wings and fly away, while a table might gallop around a room. The enchanted object can freely and instantly trade appendages as necessary.
The enchanted object will move only through open spaces. It will not crash through windows, shatter a closed door, or dig through the earth. It cannot attack or take any actions other than movement. If surrounded or cornered, the enchanted object moves in random directions until it is restrained or destroyed.
The enchantment ends if the caster voluntarily negates it, if the enchanted object is destroyed (the object has the same vulnerabilities as it has in its normal state), or if the enchanted object is restrained for 2-5 (1d4+1) consecutive rounds. Restraint means that the object is prevented from fleeing; if a creature is able to grapple, lift, or sit on the object, it is considered restrained. A creature capable of lifting the object in its normal state is considered strong enough to restrain it (for instance, a person capable of lifting a 50-pound box is also capable of restraining such a box enchanted by frisky chest). The object may also be restrained by tossing a net or heavy blanket over it or by surrounding it with several characters.
The material components are a dried frog's leg, a feather, and a fish scale.

That's a horribly niche spell designed to frustrate PCs trying to open a chest or occasionally PCs trying to guard their stuff. However, a clever cleric used it once on a solid gold statue that was hundreds of pounds in weight but less than 10 ft in cubic size, and then they and the party played red-rover with the statue, chasing it out of the dungeon where they could later haul it back and melt it down into thousands of GP worth of gold.

Not bad for a couple of low-level adventurers using a 2nd level spell?

The debate, of course, was whether the PCs abused the spell in a way it was not intended to be used (treating it as spirited game version of Tenser's Floating Disc with no weight limit) or if it was just a "creative" use of the spell to obtain an object the DM didn't intend them to have by abusing the fact the designers obviously forgot to place a weight limit on the object. Moreover, the spell was intentionally put in the Ward sphere to be used as a defensive measure, not as a method of object movement. It was clearly against the RAI, but not RAW.

So none of this debate is exactly new; we were having it in the 90s. The issue of whether a spell should do only what its designed to do vs. using the effect in ways that the spell was not intended absolutely feels like the Command debate in a more egregious form.

 

[Oofta]

One of my favorite stories like this was in an old issue of Dragon and was debated in the letters page for months.

In second edition's Tome of Magic, there was a spell called Frisky Chest. (You could never get away with that name today!) I will include the text of the spell here as its absolutely an obscure lost gem

Spoiler: Frisky Chest

Frisky Chest (Enchantment/Charm)
Level: 2
Sphere: Wards
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Permanent
Casting Time: 2
Area of Effect: 10-foot cube
Saving Throw: None
With this spell, the caster can enchant a chest, book, or any other nonliving object no larger than a 10'x10'x10' cube. When any creature other than the caster comes within three feet of the enchanted object, it instantly sprouts appendages and moves away from the creature as quickly as possible. The enchanted object continues to move until it is at least 10 feet away from the nearest creatures in the area.
After the enchanted object has moved a satisfactory distance from the nearest creature, the appendages disappear. When a creature again comes within three feet of the enchanted object, the enchanted object sprouts appendages and flees. This process continues until the enchantment is negated (through a dispel magic or similar spell) or the enchanted object is subdued or destroyed.
The enchanted object can sprout feet (MV 24), wings (Fl 24, maneuverability class B), or fins (Sw 24), whichever is most advantageous. Thus, a book on a shelf might sprout wings and fly away, while a table might gallop around a room. The enchanted object can freely and instantly trade appendages as necessary.
The enchanted object will move only through open spaces. It will not crash through windows, shatter a closed door, or dig through the earth. It cannot attack or take any actions other than movement. If surrounded or cornered, the enchanted object moves in random directions until it is restrained or destroyed.
The enchantment ends if the caster voluntarily negates it, if the enchanted object is destroyed (the object has the same vulnerabilities as it has in its normal state), or if the enchanted object is restrained for 2-5 (1d4+1) consecutive rounds. Restraint means that the object is prevented from fleeing; if a creature is able to grapple, lift, or sit on the object, it is considered restrained. A creature capable of lifting the object in its normal state is considered strong enough to restrain it (for instance, a person capable of lifting a 50-pound box is also capable of restraining such a box enchanted by frisky chest). The object may also be restrained by tossing a net or heavy blanket over it or by surrounding it with several characters.
The material components are a dried frog's leg, a feather, and a fish scale.

That's a horribly niche spell designed to frustrate PCs trying to open a chest or occasionally PCs trying to guard their stuff. However, a clever cleric used it once on a solid gold statue that was hundreds of pounds in weight but less than 10 ft in cubic size, and then they and the party played red-rover with the statue, chasing it out of the dungeon where they could later haul it back and melt it down into thousands of GP worth of gold.

Not bad for a couple of low-level adventurers using a 2nd level spell?

The debate, of course, was whether the PCs abused the spell in a way it was not intended to be used (treating it as spirited game version of Tenser's Floating Disc with no weight limit) or if it was just a "creative" use of the spell to obtain an object the DM didn't intend them to have by abusing the fact the designers obviously forgot to place a weight limit on the object. Moreover, the spell was intentionally put in the Ward sphere to be used as a defensive measure, not as a method of object movement. It was clearly against the RAI, but not RAW.

So none of this debate is exactly new; we were having it in the 90s. The issue of whether a spell should do only what its designed to do vs. using the effect in ways that the spell was not intended absolutely feels like the Command debate in a more egregious form.

I agree but I think there's a difference. Let's say they had used that Frisky Chest (and by the way I had a very different interpretation of "frisky" which was definitely at least PG-13 ) as a weapon. After all, it says nothing about the object approaching other creatures, it's when a creature approaches it. Depending on how you interpret "when a creature comes within 3 feet" since it could be interpreted as the creature in that sentence is moving. Since this statue weighs several hundred pounds, if it can be forced to run into enemies it could do significant damage.

That to me would be closer for some of the ways people want to use command "creatively".

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree but I think there's a difference. Let's say they had used that Frisky Chest (and by the way I had a very different interpretation of "frisky" which was definitely at least PG-13 ) as a weapon. After all, it says nothing about the object approaching other creatures, it's when a creature approaches it. Depending on how you interpret "when a creature comes within 3 feet" since it could be interpreted as the creature in that sentence is moving. Since this statue weighs several hundred pounds, if it can be forced to run into enemies it could do significant damage.

That to me would be closer for some of the ways people want to use command "creatively".

I would say either use (your suggestion or that of @Remathilis ) would be fair, since the fictional descriptor allows both and the mechanics don't specifically exclude either.

 

[Oofta]

I would say either use (your suggestion or that of @Remathilis ) would be fair, since the fictional descriptor allows both and the mechanics don't specifically exclude either.

Which is the basic issue. I see it as an exploit, bending the rules to use the spell to mean something not intended and you don't. It's a different approach to playing the game.

 

[Oofta]

nm

 

[Remathilis]

I would say either use (your suggestion or that of @Remathilis ) would be fair, since the fictional descriptor allows both and the mechanics don't specifically exclude either.

Again, it comes down to intent vs letter of the rules. The intent was to make an object run from people who should not have access to it, not to chase a value heavy object out of a dungeon. They fact it could work doesn't negate that. I can use a butter knife to screw in a flat head screw, but that doesn't make it a screwdriver. However, the fundamental question is whether using a spell beyond it's intended purpose is bug or feature.

 

[AnotherGuy]

There are indeed things within D&D that are broken for lack of a better word.
Frisky Chest seems to fit that bill.
IMO Command did not, but that is all subjective and probably depends from table to table.

Personally, I find many things in the Artificer class which annoy me, particularly the Steel Defender for the Battle Smith. As it happens, there is such a character at our table. If I allow another Artificer again, I'd be cleaning up much of that class for things to make sense within the world. Thankfully, I do have a decent group of players, and many a time we discuss such issues openly before a decision is made. I'd expect most tables to work like that - unless ofc you're dealing with a much younger group of players who are looking at the DM for guidance and clarity.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again, it comes down to intent vs letter of the rules. The intent was to make an object run from people who should not have access to it, not to chase a value heavy object out of a dungeon. They fact it could work doesn't negate that. I can use a butter knife to screw in a flat head screw, but that doesn't make it a screwdriver. However, the fundamental question is whether using a spell beyond it's intended purpose is bug or feature.

See, I don't think intent has priority, especially when it isn't clearly spelled out. In that absence, again the fictional descriptor has precedence.

 

[Remathilis]

See, I don't think intent has priority, especially when it isn't clearly spelled out. In that absence, again the fictional descriptor has precedence.

The problem I see here is I don't see that as fictional descriptor, I see that as mechanics. The fictional description of the spell describes how an object attempts to elude your grasp as part of a ward put on it. The spell spends a lot of time describing how to catch said object and what prevents the movement, signaling the idea of the spell is a ward that uses various movement types to escape the persuer's clutches. It's clear the creator of the spell never suspected that the spell would be used to play a game of keep away on a valuable object too heavy to move otherwise. But the mechanics of the spell, divorced from the flavor and intent of the spell, DO allow it. In essence, the mechanics of the spell allow its abuse in ways the designer did not foresee when designing it. The fact it is one level higher than Tenser's Floating Disc (a spell explicitly designed to move stuff) and is superior by virtue of lack of weight limitation shows how badly designed the spell was.

Were the spell to ever resurface in a new edition, I would assume the designers would most likely provide either a weight limit (obvious choice) or a radius the item could run around in, creating a finite if perpetual wild goose chase. Ideally both; it's only a 2nd level spell after all. And I could imagine some people would be upset with the fact that exploit is closed down. But it would better match both the intent and the in-game fictional description of what the effect should have been rather than what exploiting the actual mechanics does. By altering the mechanics, you align them both better with the intent and description of the effect. At the cost of a cheesy exploit of the rules as written.

 

[Remathilis]

I want to bring this back to Command insofar as the I feel intent is important to understanding the limitations of a game effect. Just like how Frisky Chest was not designed to move gold idols out of dungeons, Command was not designed to force certain effects (particularly harmful ones or ones often created higher level spells) on the target. The fact it leaves (or left) that door open means the DM must now become the interpreter of intent. And its fine if you are the DM who decides that Command can force an enemy to take a long fall out a window as long as you know you are going against the intent of the rules. (See also: coffeelocks, bag-of-rats whirlwind cleaves, or nat-20 always succeeds skill checks). But I don't necessarily feel it is terrible for the rules to be refined to better match the intent rather than the law.