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

[Oofta]

Is this not just presuming player intent? Why assume the motive here? What do we gain under that presumption?

What if the player was just trying to find a creative solution to the problem presented and was acting on flavor alone without so much as a thought to the underlying mechanic? To me this is a difference worth exploring. Mainly because if we act under the assumption of malice, the game kind of fails at many levels.

It is easy to come up with many examples of places where DM malice could break the game in unpleasant ways. And it is equally as easy to imagine instances where players can, with malicious intent, twist the rules to suit an ill-conceived motive. Whether the DM allows it, would be an open question.

If we are presuming malice, I'd argue the focus on command is wholly too small in scope and a large scale expansion on the rules, the likes we have never seen, would be required to even make the smallest dent on such behavior.

If we presume good faith, we have to ask ourselves what purpose removing options like this serves. As any removal of options limits player and DM agency. For instance, one can argue the ease of memorization of rules versus the ease of making a ruling in the role of being a DM when debating a change. But to argue potential malicious intent is to cite an unsolvable problem as justification for a rules change. In my opinion the latter is misguided as the underlying goal is unachievable.

All of this is why I want a set list. If a DM tells a player the intent of "jump" is to jump off a ship at sea, it's a bad DM. If a player tells an NPC to "jump" while on board a ship at sea and the DM says they jump in place, it's DM malice.

There are only so many options that make sense to me.

1. The caster (DM for NPCs) gets to decide how the command is followed which is a type of mind control, a mini-dominate.
2. The target (player for a PC, DM for the NPC) gets to decide how to follow the command which means the command may not be followed as the caster was hoping. Can be just as creative as option 1.
3. We have a set list of commands that are followed with clear results. Since it's no longer something the target is interpreting, they don't even need to know what the command was.

Obviously I prefer option #3.

 

[AnotherGuy]

For those vociferously taking issue with the Command spell, pray tell, how do you navigate the complex waters of the word "reasonable" in the Suggestion spell?

 

[Remathilis]

The way you fix that is by clarity in what counts as a "creature".

Your move.

Rat

Your move.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

All of this is why I want a set list. If a DM tells a player the intent of "jump" is to jump off a ship at sea, it's a bad DM. If a player tells an NPC to "jump" while on board a ship at sea and the DM says they jump in place, it's DM malice.

There are only so many options that make sense to me.

1. The caster (DM for NPCs) gets to decide how the command is followed which is a type of mind control, a mini-dominate.
2. The target (player for a PC, DM for the NPC) gets to decide how to follow the command which means the command may not be followed as the caster was hoping. Can be just as creative as option 1.
3. We have a set list of commands that are followed with clear results. Since it's no longer something the target is interpreting, they don't even need to know what the command was.

Obviously I prefer option #3.

Every rule change has a cost. Every time a rule specifies more precise action, you remove a tiny bit of creative freedom from the players. Each table becomes slightly more homogenized. You inch closer to determinism.

So anytime you propose a more specific rule, you are making a cost benefit analysis of that trade off. What is gained versus what is lost.

In my post, I tried to articulate that malicious intent is not a goal that you can make reasonable progress against. And as a whole, cannot be eliminated. We see this as true in law as well. Criminals exist.

So any argument that starts with "well one could ..." largely falls flat. Because we know from human behavior, and 2000+ years of governance, that you can't stop bad behavior. A DM that would rule the way you describe, will simply twist the words in another way, or move the malice to another rule. So you paid the cost, but gain no benefit.

It's a never ending game of whack-a-mole that ends with a game where no agency remains. Everything is scripted by rule as all creativity was found to be abused by bad actors.

Potential malice is simply not a sustainable or productive reason for rule changes.

 

[Remathilis]

For those vociferously taking issue with the Command spell, pray tell, how do you navigate the complex waters of the word "reasonable" in the Suggestion spell?

By removing it in 2024. (Seriously, the reasonable clause is gone).

 

[AnotherGuy]

By removing it in 2024. (Seriously, the reasonable clause is gone).

Ok I just found it on Google. You were right.

Command (2014) 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.

Suggestion (2024) ...forcing a creature within 30 feet to make a Wisdom saving throw, having to carry out the suggestion you made to them as long as it is not obviously harmful to them.

Can we stop pretending that Command is so difficult to adjudicate. NPCs cannot be forced to walk off ledges or leap off sea vessels.

 

[ECMO3]

Is this not just presuming player intent? Why assume the motive here? What do we gain under that presumption?

Yes it is IMO. That line was intended to be in a quoted gray box and what I was replying to, it was not mine. I fixed this in my post.

I largely agree with what you posted.

 

[Oofta]

Every rule change has a cost. Every time a rule specifies more precise action, you remove a tiny bit of creative freedom from the players. Each table becomes slightly more homogenized. You inch closer to determinism.

So anytime you propose a more specific rule, you are making a cost benefit analysis of that trade off. What is gained versus what is lost.

I don't believe the slippery slope argument, I do believe in improving spells when the intent has always been clear.

In my post, I tried to articulate that malicious intent is not a goal that you can make reasonable progress against. And as a whole, cannot be eliminated. We see this as true in law as well. Criminals exist.

So any argument that starts with "well one could ..." largely falls flat. Because we know from human behavior, and 2000+ years of governance, that you can't stop bad behavior. A DM that would rule the way you describe, will simply twist the words in another way, or move the malice to another rule. So you paid the cost, but gain no benefit.

It's a never ending game of whack-a-mole that ends with a game where no agency remains. Everything is scripted by rule as all creativity was found to be abused by bad actors.

Potential malice is simply not a sustainable or productive reason for rule changes.

I don't know what that means. I gave my 3 options above and in either of the first 2 options it seems like the DM is the bad guy unless the player decides how the command is implemented whether they are target or caster. That to me is a bad spell implementation unless you always follow the examples ... but then you may as well have a concrete list.

 

[mamba]

The way you fix that is by clarity in what counts as a "creature".

Your move.

I am not aware of a definition for creature that would exclude rats. So does that work with the current understanding of what constitutes a creature? Sounds like your answer is ‘yes, unfortunately’…

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I don't believe the slippery slope argument, I do believe in improving spells when the intent has always been clear.

I dont think it's a slippery slope argument. The argument is any change under this reasoning of "preventing malicious behavior" is incorrect. And it's incorrect because it won't achieve the stated goal.

I'm arguing against the reasoning for the change, not the change itself.

I don't know what that means. I gave my 3 options above and in either of the first 2 options it seems like the DM is the bad guy unless the player decides how the command is implemented whether they are target or caster. That to me is a bad spell implementation unless you always follow the examples ... but then you may as well have a concrete list.

It doesn't matter how you change the rule, the rule change is presumed incorrect because the reason is unachievable. The presumption of DM malice is the problem.

We can look at this another way. If I want to change magic missile to have 7 darts. My reasoning is 7 is my lucky number and therefore I'll do more damage if it has 7 darts. That justification holds no weight. Its absurd. So is presumed malice.

We should change rules under the presumption of good faith, and not malice. Because if malice is presumed, the entire system is, largely, unworkable.

Hopefully that better states my position