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

[SableWyvern]

You didn't ask for synonyms. I was saying that the results of these commands are already covered. Spin is just halt.

If the only thing you are thinking about is, "what effect will this have while I'm using the 5e combat system," then sure, spin and halt are similar, and it may be reasonable to rule they have equivalent effects in terms of the combat mechanics.

However, thinking of them in terms of a character engaging with the world, rather than just combat mechanics, they are clearly different.

I find it very hard to believe that you can't imagine any possible situations where the outcome of a spin command might be different than a halt command, or where dismount might be more useful than grovel or where the distinction between give and throw matter.

Edit to add:

Spin: maybe you want them distracted, or to attract attention, or for their skirt to rise up so you can see what shoes they're wearing.

Dismount: I mean, I assume you would use dismount instead of grovel because you want them to get down from their mount. I'm really not sure why you assume grovel works better for this? If you do assume grovel includes dismounting, maybe you don't want them to grovel after they've dismounted, in which case grovel would obvious be a stupid commend to use. I have no clue why you are assuming that a dismount command would involve the target ending up prone.

It just seems to me that if your position requires you to claim that halting and spinning are equivalent, that dismounting and groveling are equivalent and that throwing and giving are equivalent, you might want to reassess some of your axioms.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

We don't agree on everything here - I don't think I ever saw 4e Command in play, but have no problems with it: it covers Approach, Flee, Grovel and Halt, albeit with less action denial (daze rather than - effectively - stun). It doesn't cover Drop, but I think that's one's a bit wonky anyway!

But anyway, when I'm GMing, generally I want to adjudicate, not design. There are borderline cases, but I don't feel any urge for the Command spell to be one of them!

 

[pemerton]

The classic setting naughty word on fire with fire spells.

A non-issue in my experience. In AD&D and B/X and Rolemaster we took it to be obvious that a honking great ball of fire will set flammable things alight. 4e D&D made it crystal clear with the fire keyword.

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!

Sounds like it might blow up the bucket! Make an Arcana check to avoid that consequence. (I've never seen this one, but I've seen Bedevilling Burst used to create a disturbance by upsetting the tray of jellies being served for dessert.)

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

I don't know that spell, but this seems straightforward enough.

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!

This seems like it opens up the door to an Arcana or Nature or whatever the appropriate skill is check, to get an advantage in the skill challenge.

For me that kind of adjudication is part of D&D and I don't want it to go away.

Sure. It's part of all RPGing, given that all RPGing involves the fiction mattering.

But deciding on the limits of the Command spell is not in the same territory as these. It's not adjudicating any fiction. It's just working out what is possible using a 1st level spell that is not all that clearly specified.

 

[Hussar]

Spin might make them dizzy or nauseated a the DM's discretion. Or not.

Ahh, so, now we're clearly trying to over power the spell. Since the spell effect is single round only. But now we're dropping conditions on them. Even if it's only for the duration of the round - that's a clear upgunning of the spell which normally does not grant any conditions other than maybe prone.

 

[Hussar]

Of course, I'm still rather baffled by why you'd use an explosive Ice Knife spell to chill water when Prestidigitation is right there and can do that. But, hey, whatever.

But, again, we're looking at clear cut cases of the player trying to make the spell more powerful than it is most of the time with these "creative" uses of the spell. I don't believe that 5e uses the "nauseated" condition, but the 3e version stopped people from concentrating on spells, which is clearly not intended by the 5e version.

So, basically, the only reason people want to keep these "creative" uses is to powergame. Over a thousand posts and still not a single example that isn't powergaming. At best the effects are equivalent to the existing examples. The majority of times, the player is pretty clearly trying to game the system to gain an advantage.

Gee, I wonder why I approve of closing open ended loopholes?

 

[SableWyvern]

Right. Anyone who enjoys the game differently to @Hussar is a jerk, a cheesemonkey, someone who abuses the rules and now we can add powergamer to the list of insults. Someone using "dismount" to get someone off a horse instead of using "grovel" is clearly trying to game the system to gain an advantage.

 

[Daztur]

Since I'm old I'll go back to my greatest hits and beat the drum one more time: www.enworld.org/threads/very-long-combat-as-sport-vs-combat-as-war-a-key-difference-in-d-d-play-styles.317715 Basically the whole playstyle I like is what Hussar calls powergaming distilled into its purest form. I don't care what he calls it, I like it and it's how I run D&D and my players have always liked it. If that's powergaming then I'm the biggest munchkin in the world, because why would I care what that style of play is called, its a blast and I love it and I'm never going to run D&D any other way.

 

[Hussar]

Since I'm old I'll go back to my greatest hits and beat the drum one more time: www.enworld.org/threads/very-long-combat-as-sport-vs-combat-as-war-a-key-difference-in-d-d-play-styles.317715 Basically the whole playstyle I like is what Hussar calls powergaming distilled into its purest form. I don't care what he calls it, I like it and it's how I run D&D and my players have always liked it. If that's powergaming then I'm the biggest munchkin in the world, because why would I care what that style of play is called, its a blast and I love it and I'm never going to run D&D any other way.

At least that’s upfront and honest and not trying to pretend that you’re not trying to gain advantages.

 

[Hussar]

Right. Anyone who enjoys the game differently to @Hussar is a jerk, a cheesemonkey, someone who abuses the rules and now we can add powergamer to the list of insults. Someone using "dismount" to get someone off a horse instead of using "grovel" is clearly trying to game the system to gain an advantage.

Nice.

I said that dismount was equivalent to grovel. But sure it makes it easier to win arguments when you can pretend the other guy said stuff they didn’t say.



Again, I’m not the one trying to use Command to get a spell effect that’s not even on the cleric list.

 

[SableWyvern]

pretend the other guy said stuff they didn’t say.

No pretending required. I note you did say "cheese weasel" rather than "cheesemonkey" so my bad there.

These are your responses to people talking about what they feel are creative uses of Command:

"Repent" is not roleplaying. It's a jerk player deliberately going out of their way to screw with the game because they can.

The intent of the spell is for action denial and a bit of battlefield control. That's it. That's why I call it cheese weaseling when players try to do more with it than that.

Using the vaguely worded spells to try to cheese weasel your way into something? That's not being awesome.

Meh, that's not clever. That's just being a jerk

In the Command example, the player is not using the game at all. They are abusing the vagueness in the description of the spell so they can gain extra utiity out of the spell that was never really intended.

Your own words make it perfectly clear what you think of people who prefer a different implementation of Command to your own. They are jerks, cheese weasels and powergamers who are abusing the system and not being awesome.

And I remain flummoxed that you continue to insist that dismounting and groveling are equivalent.