D&D 5E (2024) Changes to the Command spell and its use at the table.

[Lanefan]

Why wouldn’t you run into lava while fleeing something?

It depends whether the fleeing is considered controlled, as in the person fleeing still has some sense of self-preservation, or whether the fleeing is an uncontrolled mindless panic, in which case the person fleeing can easily run off a cliff, into lava, or on/in to whatever other hazards may lie in the path.

For me, spells like Command would produce the former while fright spells like Spook or something like the flee-in-terror effect of a Ghost would produce the latter.

The spell also prohibits actions that are directly harmful to the target.

Running away in itself isn't directly harmful. Running into a hazard while running away is IMO indirect harm.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My barbarian literally ran into lava after being commanded to flee by an ancient red dragon. Why wouldn’t he?

Why should he? Would you flee into lava?
Nothing says in a straight line or anything.
But if you use 1st level spells in this way at your table, have fun.

Most I did was using approach on our cleric, jumping a few feet down.

 

[Sulicius]

I’m just using what is in the text, and there’s

Why should he? Would you flee into lava?
Nothing says in a straight line or anything.
But if you use 1st level spells in this way at your table, have fun.

Most I did was using approach on our cleric, jumping a few feet down.

I didn’t know ignoring what the spell says to do was an option.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I’m just using what is in the text, and there’s

No. It does not say that. It says
"Flee. The target spends its turn moving away from you by the fastest available means."

I didn’t know ignoring what the spell says to t was an option.

Note that it says nothing about jumping into lava.

 

[Sulicius]

I was fighting on cooled rock that was surrounded by lava on all sides. Would that mean my barbarian would just stand still?

The reason I don’t agree with this reasoning, is that the sentence about not doing anything harmful has been removed, and because at that point you can argue yourself into anything to ignore the command spell. It opens up the spell to a lot of arguments.

 

[Reynard]

I am sorry to hear your game is nothing but hit point attrition. Do you want some help making things more interesting?

Cute.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The rules only matter if you treat D&D like a board game and not as a narrative being created. Some of you treat it like the former (which is your right)... but you shouldn't then be surprised if the results of the board game aren't as interesting than if you treated it as the latter.

For me, it is simple... I look between the lines, look at what the spells have done in the past, what their power levels are, and what would happen if the situation was a narrative decision rather than a board game rule one. Then I make a judgement for what "makes sense" in this story we are creating. I make a ruling and not worry about being beholden to a rule.

Should a 1st-level spell be able to "insta-kill" someone? No, in my opinion, I don't think it should. And thus at no point would I ever interpret the "Flee" Command to force a creature to run into lava or jump off a cliff to instantly kill themselves, regardless of whether or not the spell has written down in it "The create won't do anything to cause itself harm". I can read between the lines and can make a judgement for what makes the most sense for what this 1st-level spell is capable of.

I am not one of those DMs who needs a rule written down that I can choose to ignore. Instead, I am a DM who will happily make a ruling that I will add when one doesn't exist.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I had 4/5 pcs being able to cast it.

CR13 with crappy wisdom save may as well have been CR 0.

Wall of Fire approach/flee spam.

Nothing in the description says that you need to step through a wall of fire either...
Approach maybe. Flee does not.

They'll also spam it at bosses to overload legendary resistance.

And anyone can get it as an origin feat. Warlocks can get multiple origin feats.

Dragon Sorcerer gets it built in. You can twin it.

I had

Light Cleric
Warlock (via origin feat via invocation)
Glamour Bard
Dragon Sorcerer

Once 1 person started using it they all jumped in on the action.

You can also get it via fae touched.
Its basically the BG3 version of the spell.

Seriously thinking of every boss and elite fight with spell resistance gets a free upgrade to greater magic resistance.

 

[ECMO3]

The reason I don’t agree with this reasoning, is that the sentence about not doing anything harmful has been removed, and because at that point you can argue yourself into anything to ignore the command spell. It opens up the spell to a lot of arguments.

Especially since losing an action to do whatever is commanded in combat is pretty freaking harmful

 

[ECMO3]

Nothing in the description says that you need to step through a wall of fire either...
Approach maybe. Flee does not.

But you do have to move away. If the only way to do that is through a wall of fire or off of a cliff then you would move through the fire or off of a cliff. If you can go around the wall of fire or cliff it is a different story, but the spell compels you to do what it says to do and you would not stop unless you had to stop, like if you are in a dead end corridor and can't flee through a stone wall.