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

[Hussar]

If we take a casual look at the sheer number of people citing, lets say, interesting justification for why the change was needed. It becomes clear that DM discretion comes up a lot. So trust in your DM, absolutely plays into that discussion.

But my criticism has very little to do with that.

My issue is that open ended spells are more difficult to interpret. Which means there is a greater chance of someone’s interpretation being mistaken. No one is acting in bad faith.

I absolutely do not think the example of “change” to force a shape changer to change shape was made in any sort of bad faith. None whatsoever. I do think it’s wrong though and not in keeping with the RAI of the spell.

What that means is that I now have to treat every single use of an open ended spell as potentially a misunderstanding of what the spell does. So every time a spell is cast, I need to check if it’s one of these open ended spells, then if it is, then check if the player is interpreting the mechanics correctly then check if the open ended effect is in keeping with the game overall.

And it’s exhausting. I can’t possibly keep track of every spell in my head. Because we change campaigns about every 18 months, I have to track five or six new characters each with new suites of spells every campaign.

For example, my current campaign does not have any character that can cast Command AFAIK. So it will be another year before I need to look up the Command spell. I’ll never remember that.

The last time I saw a Suggestion spell used was about two years ago since no one has used it recently. Which means the next time, I’ve got to stop and examine and rule. And the next time will be with a different player and a different player/campaign/group the time after that.

Over and over and over again.

So yeah, a tiny bit of tightening up the spell description does freaking wonders for my stress levels during games because tighter spells require less policing.

 

[pemerton]

I think that it does matter in this: if you play with a doucherocket DM/players you better keep things tight and limited.

But if your group tries to be reasonable and fair, you can have some more open ended-ness to give more room to creativity.

I have noticed those “scarred” by bad DMs often want something different from those who have had more positive ongoing experiences.

@Hussar is posting from the perspective of a GM, not a player.

My own view - that I prefer a spell like Command to specify, in general terms, what sort of interference with action economy it permits - is also from the perspective a a GM. In a RPG with intricate and pedantic rules for action economy, spell power and the like - and D&D is the most intricate and pedantic of such RPGs! - I want the rules to tell me how things work. I don't want to have to make it up on the fly as I GM.

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.

<snip>

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.

All this is so far from what I am looking for in a RPG, it's close to the exact opposite.

When I GM, I frame scenes and adjudicate outcomes as the rules require me to. The players declare actions for their PCs, and establish salient backstory, as the rules require them to. I have no interest in policing them and their engagement with the game, in playing their game for them.

In a class-based game, I want the classes to give players more-or-less the same capacity to engage the fiction and declare effective actions. This strikes me as a minimum requirement for player positions in any game, including a RPG.

 

[Hussar]

When I GM, I frame scenes and adjudicate outcomes as the rules require me to. The players declare actions for their PCs, and establish salient backstory, as the rules require them to. I have no interest in policing them and their engagement with the game, in playing their game for them.

I agree with what you are saying here and phrase it slightly differently: I want to be able to trust the mechanics so I can just get on with the game. It's the primary reason I left 2e for 3e - being able to trust the mechanics (the Frisky Chest example above is just the tiniest tip of a HUGE ice burg of nonsensical, contradictory and outright baffling mechanics that make up AD&D 1e and 2e). And, frankly, the biggest issues with 3e come from poorly worded or vague mechanics - how many versions of Polymorph were there?

Now, I do think 4e went too far. But, my bigger issue with 4e was the proliferation of fiddly bit mechanics that made play such a slog - constantly being interrupted by this or that power and the analysis paralysis of players combined with players who were... less than diligent about reading what their characters could actually do.

5e is a big improvement on D&D, IMO. But, one area where I think 5e could be better is cleaning up these legacy elements (and, if you look at most of these open ended effects, nearly all of them are legacy mechanics brought forward for the whole nostalgia trip that powered the early days of 5e) by tightening them up. Not choking them off. No one is calling for a Command spell that has one single result and nothing else. No one wants the 4e version of Command back. At least, I've never seen anyone claim to want that.

But I think that the 2024 version nicely splits the difference here. It makes the overhead on the DM less which, to me, should always be a goal of any mechanic. Within reason. Because I know, as soon as I post this, people will be quoting that and claiming that I hate creativity. To me, the 2024 version really is the compromise. We could go back to the 4e version where the effect is identical no matter how its used - target is dazed and can be slid 3 squares or knocked prone. Does anyone want that? I don't.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

But my criticism has very little to do with that.

My issue is that open ended spells are more difficult to interpret. Which means there is a greater chance of someone’s interpretation being mistaken. No one is acting in bad faith.

I absolutely do not think the example of “change” to force a shape changer to change shape was made in any sort of bad faith. None whatsoever. I do think it’s wrong though and not in keeping with the RAI of the spell.

What that means is that I now have to treat every single use of an open ended spell as potentially a misunderstanding of what the spell does. So every time a spell is cast, I need to check if it’s one of these open ended spells, then if it is, then check if the player is interpreting the mechanics correctly then check if the open ended effect is in keeping with the game overall.

And it’s exhausting. I can’t possibly keep track of every spell in my head. Because we change campaigns about every 18 months, I have to track five or six new characters each with new suites of spells every campaign.

For example, my current campaign does not have any character that can cast Command AFAIK. So it will be another year before I need to look up the Command spell. I’ll never remember that.

The last time I saw a Suggestion spell used was about two years ago since no one has used it recently. Which means the next time, I’ve got to stop and examine and rule. And the next time will be with a different player and a different player/campaign/group the time after that.

Over and over and over again.

So yeah, a tiny bit of tightening up the spell description does freaking wonders for my stress levels during games because tighter spells require less policing.

I was not arguing for or against the new language. If you look back, you will find that I repeatedly said, I don't actually care about the change. My argument this entire thread has been one based on the merits of the justifications used. Those justifications, with reasonable frequency amount to, "but DM said wrong thing."

I will push back being afraid of potential disagreements. This goes back to social dynamics within the game. I have no such fear, as I have full trust in my players to take my ruling in good faith. And that any disagreement can be discussed in between sessions if there was a major issue.

As others have said, it's clear in this very thread, that the experience of people with trusted groups and those without is very clearly different. And the expectations out of the rules reflect these social differences.

In my experience, at least online, 5e players are very understanding of DM rulings, and give enormous leeway as long as you respect their time.

All this is so far from what I am looking for in a RPG, it's close to the exact opposite.

When I GM, I frame scenes and adjudicate outcomes as the rules require me to. The players declare actions for their PCs, and establish salient backstory, as the rules require them to. I have no interest in policing them and their engagement with the game, in playing their game for them.

In a class-based game, I want the classes to give players more-or-less the same capacity to engage the fiction and declare effective actions. This strikes me as a minimum requirement for player positions in any game, including a RPG.

You are free to disagree with me. I will not hold it against you. I have nothing that will change your mind. I am only here to argue my opinion when I think it's productive.

I will note that this is a spectrum. There are both players and systems that align with places all across that spectrum. That variety of thought and style is part of what makes this hobby so great.

 

[Daztur]

But my criticism has very little to do with that.

My issue is that open ended spells are more difficult to interpret. Which means there is a greater chance of someone’s interpretation being mistaken. No one is acting in bad faith.

I absolutely do not think the example of “change” to force a shape changer to change shape was made in any sort of bad faith. None whatsoever. I do think it’s wrong though and not in keeping with the RAI of the spell.

What that means is that I now have to treat every single use of an open ended spell as potentially a misunderstanding of what the spell does. So every time a spell is cast, I need to check if it’s one of these open ended spells, then if it is, then check if the player is interpreting the mechanics correctly then check if the open ended effect is in keeping with the game overall.

And it’s exhausting. I can’t possibly keep track of every spell in my head. Because we change campaigns about every 18 months, I have to track five or six new characters each with new suites of spells every campaign.

For example, my current campaign does not have any character that can cast Command AFAIK. So it will be another year before I need to look up the Command spell. I’ll never remember that.

The last time I saw a Suggestion spell used was about two years ago since no one has used it recently. Which means the next time, I’ve got to stop and examine and rule. And the next time will be with a different player and a different player/campaign/group the time after that.

Over and over and over again.

So yeah, a tiny bit of tightening up the spell description does freaking wonders for my stress levels during games because tighter spells require less policing.

In my experience players can find ways of prying open even the most locked down spells. For example:

1. The classic setting naughty word on fire with fire spells.

2. Crap, the Duke is coming for dinner and we have no way to cool down the drinks and nobody has the right cantrip for that, quick cast Ice Knife at the bucket of water!

3. I launch the object across the room with Catapult to get it to Touch the Big Button/yank the lever that triggers the device.

4. During the baking contest I sneak some goodberries into the pie. One goodberry provides enough nutrition for 24 hours so the judge won't be hungry anymore when he's judging the other pies and that will give us an edge!

As a DM you're always going to be judging the PCs do goofy things. In the campaigns I've played in cooking for/entertaining NPCs comes up a LOT so people trying to hack combat spells into non-combat uses is something that the DMs have to constantly adjudicate.

For me that kind of adjudication is part of D&D and I don't want it to go away. But I like it when the adjudication has a lot of clear guidelines to help the DM while still leaving things open for player creativity. Illusions are just too wide-open for me and I'd like their effects nailed down more, the same with Suggestion. On the other end of the extreme there are a lot of 4e abilities where the flavor text is so incredibly vague that there's just nothing for the DM to work with if the players try to MacGyver it.

Overall there's a spectrum between wide open (a lot of illusion spells which I agree are a pain to adjudicate) and completely locked down ("the spell does ice damage and nothing else, you can't use it to chill water or put out a fire, or distract people, or put on a show, or freeze muddy ground, all non-combat uses are VERBOTEN!").

For me Command hits the exact sweet spot of that spectrum. It has an effect that's clearly explained in fiction, players can be creative with it, but there are clear boundaries and limits.

Other people like other parts of the spectrum but few like either of the two extremes as if everything is completely wide open D&D isn't a game anymore, just improv storytelling and if everything is 100% utterly completely locked down then D&D has nothing separating it from a board game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

We could go back to the 4e version where the effect is identical no matter how its used - target is dazed and can be slid 3 squares or knocked prone. Does anyone want that?

YES!

ONE BILLION TIMES YES.

 

[Hussar]

1. The classic setting naughty word on fire with fire spells.

2. Crap, the Duke is coming for dinner and we have no way to cool down the drinks and nobody has the right cantrip for that, quick cast Ice Knife at the bucket of water!

3. I launch the object across the room with Catapult to get it to Touch the Big Button/yank the lever that triggers the device.

4. During the baking contest I sneak some goodberries into the pie. One goodberry provides enough nutrition for 24 hours so the judge won't be hungry anymore when he's judging the other pies and that will give us an edge!

But none of those examples require the DM to adjudicate anything. Fire spells set things on fire. That's right in the description of many of the fire spells.

Ice knife actually explodes, so, I'm not sure it would work, but, meh, that's not exactly breaking anything, so, fair enough. It's not trying to make the spell more powerful than it already is.

Note, since Catapult is in a direct line, it can't actually be used to yank (pull) anything, but, since the spell specifically describes what happens when a catupulted object strikes another object, how is this a creative use of the spell? It's doing exactly what's described by the spell.

And, again, your use of Goodberry is exactly as the spell is defined. How do you know that a Goodberry provides enough food for 24 hours? Because the spell description tells you so.

None of these examples are anything similar to rewording the definition of a spell to make it do something it normally couldn't do- like forcing a character to jump out a window of forcing a character to spend an action to change shape.

You keep conflating the issue here. Ruling how the mechanics interact with the in game fiction is fine. Fireball sets paper on fire. Ok. No one really argues with that. At least not seriously. Ruling that fireball would cause the building to explode because of the force of the fireball is a whole different thing though. Not that you suggested that, but, I've certainly seen that sort of thing suggested in the past - that a fireball cast into a smaller volume would cause the "container" (be it a building or whatever) to blow apart in a massive explosion.

That's the issue at hand. Taking the vague wording of the spell to change what the RAI of the spell in order to make it do things that it wasn't intended to do. It's gaming the system, not actually playing the game.

 

[Daztur]

And, again, your use of Goodberry is exactly as the spell is defined. How do you know that a Goodberry provides enough food for 24 hours? Because the spell description tells you so.

None of these examples are anything similar to rewording the definition of a spell to make it do something it normally couldn't do- like forcing a character to jump out a window of forcing a character to spend an action to change shape.

We've gone around and around this point on this thread but I literally DO NOT SEE the line that you're drawing here. I'm not trying to put on a rhetorical pose or be argumentative here I'm just confused.

When you compare:

A. Taking the exact reading into the exact wording of "the berry provides enough nourishment to sustain a creature for one day" an jumping from there to "so it must make you feel full, therefore it must make food that you eat after eating a goodberry less appetizing" needs several logical leaps and inferences to do something that the designers didn't really foresee or intend (giving you an edge on a pie baking contest).

B. Reading the spell description of Command and seeing in black and white "You might issue a command other than one described here. If you do so, the DM determines how the target behaves." and then doing exactly what the spell says to do.

I just cannot wrap my mind about A being fine despite it requiring a bit of MacGyvering and some logical leaps and B being bad when it's exactly what the spell text tells you to do. Now nothing in B makes people jump out of windows or turn into a werewolf, the black and white text says the DM determines what happens not the player.

Here's some Commands I've used personally:

-Climb

-Repent

-Spin

-Hug

-Throw

-Give

-Dismantle

-Dismount

I don't see how any of those are abusive, and when I cast them I just give the DM the single word, not an explanation of what I want the critter to do after hearing the word. What the DM does with that word is up to the DM.

I agree with what you are saying here and phrase it slightly differently: I want to be able to trust the mechanics so I can just get on with the game. It's the primary reason I left 2e for 3e - being able to trust the mechanics (the Frisky Chest example above is just the tiniest tip of a HUGE ice burg of nonsensical, contradictory and outright baffling mechanics that make up AD&D 1e and 2e). And, frankly, the biggest issues with 3e come from poorly worded or vague mechanics - how many versions of Polymorph were there?

Now, I do think 4e went too far. But, my bigger issue with 4e was the proliferation of fiddly bit mechanics that made play such a slog - constantly being interrupted by this or that power and the analysis paralysis of players combined with players who were... less than diligent about reading what their characters could actually do.

5e is a big improvement on D&D, IMO. But, one area where I think 5e could be better is cleaning up these legacy elements (and, if you look at most of these open ended effects, nearly all of them are legacy mechanics brought forward for the whole nostalgia trip that powered the early days of 5e) by tightening them up. Not choking them off. No one is calling for a Command spell that has one single result and nothing else. No one wants the 4e version of Command back. At least, I've never seen anyone claim to want that.

But I think that the 2024 version nicely splits the difference here. It makes the overhead on the DM less which, to me, should always be a goal of any mechanic. Within reason. Because I know, as soon as I post this, people will be quoting that and claiming that I hate creativity. To me, the 2024 version really is the compromise. We could go back to the 4e version where the effect is identical no matter how its used - target is dazed and can be slid 3 squares or knocked prone. Does anyone want that? I don't.

resist urge to go off on a rant about the problems with 3e mechanics

OK, if we lay things out as a spectrum with 1e on one end (very open-ended) and 4e on the other end (very locked down) then my preferences would be somewhere between 2e and 3e. 5e is faaaaaaaaaaaaaar to close to 4e to be ideal for me but I could put up with that annoyance, but then 5.5e takes another few steps towards 4e and the camel's back snapped for me.

Although there is some open-ended stuff in 5e they are really outnumbered by the more locked down effects. Looking at 1st level spells most are pretty locked down with only a handful like Catapult, Command, Disguise Self, and Unseen Servants having more open-ended effects. Similarly with class abilities there aren't that many that are open-ended although I do love Fast Hands and Performance of Creation. Later on the summon spells are very open ended since there are all kinds of things you can do with a horse besides attacking people with it. Most of these were targeted in 5.5e with WotC proposing gutting my beloved Fast Hands in a UA in a way that would've made my favorite 5e character completely unplayable before backing down. And yeah, I can understand 5e summons needing nerfing but summoning spells not summoning anything is just lame and they didn't even fix them being overpowered (the 5.5 summoning spells seem to keep popping up in DPS maxing combos) although they do make the action economy less borked (perhaps commanding summoned creatures should take your whole action to make the action economy less naughty word by summoning?).

We can argue where 5.5e lies on the spectrum between 0e and 4e, but certainly 5.5e is closer to 4e in this way (although not in other ways) than any other edition of D&D? As far as a mid-point on the spectrum I think 3.0e is about in the middle.

 

[Hussar]

We've gone around and around this point on this thread but I literally DO NOT SEE the line that you're drawing here. I'm not trying to put on a rhetorical pose or be argumentative here I'm just confused.

Whereas I cannot see how you cannot see the difference.

 

[Daztur]

Whereas I cannot see how you cannot see the difference.

OK then, are any of the Command I listed above as things I've used in games a problem? I think they're all fine.

I'm just confused you keep on saying that there's a clear difference but all I can see is me doing EXACTLY what 5e command tells me I should be able to do with the spell in black and white and then you telling me I'm abusing the intent of the spell and trying to cheese the mechanics and I just don't have any idea how you're coming to that conclusion.