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

[Micah Sweet]

But then you get accused of being a bad DM because you're abusing the rules* to punish your players.

Player: I cast Command and tell the target to jump out a window.
DM: the spell doesn't work that way.
Player: why are you such a bad DM?
--or--
DM: ok, he jumps. The next round the NPC cleric casts Command tells you to jump out the same window.
Player: why are you such a bad DM?


* Nevermind they started it.

I can live with that. PCs are not special creatures to whom the rules apply differently.

 

[Oofta]

I can live with that. PCs are not special creatures to whom the rules apply differently.

Which I disagree with. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

This seems to be going nowhere. I had a simple question of where we draw the line and who gets to decide, I think it's useful to talk about actual scenarios. So again, the example. There is a combat on a ship at sea. A command is given to "swim" or "jump" and the target fails their save. I see two options.

1. The target has to jump off the ship into the ocean to go swimming, even if they will likely eventually drown unless rescued because the danger is not immediate.
2. The target simply makes swimming motions because the command was not "Jump off the ship and go swimming in the ocean"?

Typical answers to questions along a similar vein have had conflicting responses*. If the target is an NPC option #1 is a creative use of the spell. If the DM answers #2 it's bad DMing because they're neutering the spell. On the other hand if the target is a PC and the player decides #2 but the DM corrects them and says they must use option #1, it's bad DMing.

I think there are times when addressing simple examples like this and answering why you would rule that way helps clarify things. For me? Command under the old rules is interpreted by the target because the target needs to understand the word. If the command is "swim" the target likely simply loses their action and makes swimming motions. If the command is "jump", they jump in place. I've had a DM tell my PC they had to jump off the ship which I felt was antagonistic DMing. Meanwhile the examples having very specific responses which are somewhat odd. So I prefer the 2024 version. Even if it is an infinitesimally minor reduction of creativity.

If you don't want to give a clear response to my specific example for whatever reasons, that's fine. I'll stop asking.

*The actual posts were "Swim" as a creative command given to make the NPC target go for a swim in an adjacent body of water, "Jump" and the DM telling me I had to jump into the ocean.

To be clear. I actually don't care at all about the change to command, personally. I was unaware the spell was ever used.

For your specific example, I feel it's out of the scope of what I'm discussing. But in my opinion, people are weird. It is not "bad DMing" to not allow abusive uses that are obviously against the intent, and rules, of the spell. In the specific case, I would simply have the "walking" end at the edge of the boat. I would have the enemy end their turn there. In the case of swim, it really doesnt matter if you follow the command. Unless danger was present in the water, its fine. It's not a big deal.

I think there is a lot of hyperbole in this discussion, and much of it is unproductive. But that is, largely, the norm around here and it does make discussions more interesting. So I am happy people feel free to engage in such wild discussions.

Why would it only apply to the DM?

Monsters can cast Command just as easily, and the PCs can be "bad faith" (a.k.a. creative) in their response as well.

So you either end up with a spell that is

• useless, because neither side follows the intention of the caster and bad faith / creatively find a way out.
• overpowered because either side follows the intention of the caster.
• Needs to have a defined middle ground.

Also, why exactly do clerics get mind control? It seems much more like an enchanter or bard spell.

First question, it only applies to the DM because the player "bad faith" is filtered through that same DM. Players have no objective agency. They can't do anything without the DM's permission. So attempts at player bad faith just hit a wall and ends. Good DMs will have limited patience for this behavior, so with the attempt at bad faith ending with the DM, so may that player's time at the table if its a recurring issue.

I will reiterate. I am not arguing against the spell changes, per say. I really don't care. I was arguing that a justification being used was deeply flawed.

Finally, on clerics getting mind control. The answer is because people find it fun. And it doesn't actually hurt anything if good faith is the norm. Remember that WotC, per the DMG, expects DMs to act as referees. So individual DMs can, and do, interpret the spell differently - and this is by design.

I will assume neither of you play in a public space such as Adventures League, conventions, public play in stores or school groups, or pick up games online. I too have a stable private group, but I played those types of public games in the past and not every group gets to know each other's limits.

I DM for randoms off reddit constantly. Probably, on average, for 9 months out of the year, I have a game running with randoms in it. Never had an issue. I adore DMing for people I've never met. It is very freeing in a strange way. Most players I've played with, and the number is over 100, have never caused an issue. If they were cheating it simply didnt make any difference to the game.

While I agree that the players and DM should presume good faith, and I further agree that the rules should be written in a way that presumes good faith (since the alternative leads to repetitive and dull prose), I disagree with your conclusions.

I think there are a number of (mostly) spells, (but potentially class features as well) that if interpreted in good faith by both sides, will lead to certain classes to be more powerful than others. I do not think this is a fun outcome for the group.

I had one campaign at the end of which the bard player came up to me and said that while he really enjoyed his character, he felt he had to auto-nerf his character not to overshadow the other players, and he found this exhausting and that it detracted from his enjoyment of the game.

I have not personally had the issue with Command, but it seems that other posters have. So, even without any reference to bad faith, I find it hard to argue against greater clarification of the spell, even if it reduces its utility. After all, even with reduced utility, it is still a pretty useful and versatile spell at a cheap cost.

It seems that the posters who don’t want it changed are arguing that it should remain more useful, more powerful and more versatile, independent of the power level of the spell compared to other spells or classes.

I'm not interested in the actual change. I don't think it matters. At best I think the change is pointless.

This is a hot take. I don't think class balance is a concern. In fact, I think its a battle that can't be won by any real world metric. DM's have a far larger impact on class balance than the rules do. DMs should be setting things up so players each get the spotlight. If a player hogs the spotlight when it's not intended for them, it's a player problem. So any balance issue, presuming a good DM, fades away in my experience. Even the lauded caster-martial divide is largely a by-product of DMs not wanting to design encounters that favor martials and not wanting to run more encounters. Dead magic zones, heavily resistant enemies, and the list goes on.

Giving martials more choice is fine. But this is a far smaller issue than the game breaking issue some would lead us to believe it is.

 

[billd91]

I will assume neither of you play in a public space such as Adventures League, conventions, public play in stores or school groups, or pick up games online. I too have a stable private group, but I played those types of public games in the past and not every group gets to know each other's limits.

I run multiple Adventurer's League events every year at Gamehole Con and there's no WAY I have enough time to police everyone's character sheets. So, yeah, I rely on the honor system. Nor have I ever had to clamp down on ridiculous exploits. So I can easily see someone, even in those environments, not encountering players being that problematic. I've seen players maybe pout a little as their plans or suggestions haven't been embraced by the rest of the group and I've seen players get uncooperative with each other to the extent of heightening the risk for other PCs, but that's about it.

 

[Remathilis]

The game should not, IMO, be defined or even influenced by AL or similar public settings.

Damn that is some Vintage badwrongfun

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which I disagree with. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

This post is ambiguous. What do you disagree with?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Damn that is some Vintage badwrongfun

I stand by that subjective opinion. I think changing the design of a game, for everyone, to lean the rules towards official play can actively make the game worse for home tables. You're welcome to disagree. I'm not presenting my opinion as fact.

 

[Oofta]

This post is ambiguous. What do you disagree with?

I take a different approach and apply rules equally. A spell or feature works the same, PC or NPC.

 

[KibblesTasty]

When I can look at a couple of key spells for their degree of open-ended-ness and get a sense from those spell write-ups as to how welcome and-or encouraged player-side creativity is in the system's run of play, it saves me having to read the whole rule-set to almost certainly come to the same conclusion.

For @KibblesTasty it's Command, which to be honest wouldn't have been the first spell I'd have thought of. For me it'd be illusion spells - first, does the game even have them and then second, if it does what can I-as-player make them do.

I am not sure why I am tagged here. This isn't my thread. Not that mind being tagged, I'm just confused so please let me know if I'm missing some as I'm not going to read the full 1,000+ comments of this thread

Personally, I don't have a huge problem with D&D 2024 Command, though I generally prefer 5e 2014 Command. Players enjoy trying to use their own words to weasel things out, and usually anything they do is weaker than the default options unless they start trying to do things that won't work.

I do think that in many ways a system can be judged by the 'high water mark' if allowance and power, since at the end of the day things weaker than the 'high water mark' of the most powerful thing matter less then the most powerful thing.

 

[Epic Meepo]

I take a different approach and apply rules equally. A spell or feature works the same, PC or NPC.

Having read both of your posts, I'm pretty sure you and @Micah Sweet are in agreement on this topic. You're both explaining the same approach to the rules in slightly different words.