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

[ECMO3]

If the magic doesn't turn the character into a brainless automaton, then I let the characters behave as intelligently as they normally are-- just under whatever compelling influence they were given.

IMO it does not make them brainless or in any way change their state of mind. Nothing in the spell description says they are frightened or scared either, so they would not be running like it was Jason Vorhees IMO.

They have all their faculties, they know exactly what is happening, but the spell does control what they do. It is the same as hold person - they know they are paralyzed and completely aware there is just nothing they can do about it. Same here they are aware they are running, but they are not in control of it and if they were in control of it they would usually not move at all.

 

[ECMO3]

So now we are changing rules, because we don't want to deal with spell ambiguits.

RAW there is no ambiguity here. If you step on caltrops and fail the save (which you can choose to do) your speed is reduced to zero so you stop, period. If you have a fly speed you can't even fly further away because your speed is zero.

I'd really be careful to give the spell the extra power. Otherwise some player could try to use the spell and cancel other things. Force someone to go through an illusion.

They could in theory yes, but that is hardly an example of a powerful spell use and it is so situational it would likely never come up in play.

As far as commands go, flee is not a very powerful one. Drop is. Drop will flat destroy most high level martial-type big bads at the cost of a 1st level spell.

Or maybe allow you to move despite being affected by Otto's irresistible dance. Which spell has priority anyway?

Assuming the target is currently in the charmed condition, they both take affect, there is no conflict. The target uses all its movement to dance in place, the target must spend its turn moving away and the fastest available means ... there are no means to move, so it spends its turn dancing.

The only conflict I can actually see is with the Frightened condition where you make the target flee towards the thing that is frightening him. In that case I would suggest the "fastest available means" is whatever way takes him away from the caster in a fashion that takes him no closer to what is frightening him. if he can't move away from the caster without moving closer to the thing that frightened him then he doesn't move at all, just like if he was grappled or restrained or his speed was 0 or he was under Otto's dance.

A good question. It does circumvent fear and charm resistance.
But fleeing does not always have to be done out of fear.

The spell does not cause Frightened or Charmed and nothing in the spell says it cancels these effects either.

I can't think of a way charmed would come into play, but Frightened flat stops any movement towards the source of your fear. You can not "Flee" from a caster towards something that is Frightening you any more than you can "Flee" while you are Restrained or Grappled.

The spell can cause you to move towards something that will hurt or kill you, but it can not bypass conditions such as Frightened, Restrained, Paralyzed, Grappled etc. If it could that would make it extremely powerful -

Fighter can't get into melee with the Dragon because he is frightened. Cleric casts Command on him, he chooses to fail and runs right up to it. Or player is stuck in Terrasque's mouth, Cleric casts Command on him and he choses to fail and gets out and runs away. That would be a huge power boost to the spell!

 

[Mistwell]

The spell does not say anything about changing the creature's personality or awareness or anything else. It plants a singular, specific compulsion in the target's mind. The target then follows that compulsion as if of its own free will.

The flee command requires it move away from the target the fastest way it can. That's it. As long as the creature follows that directive it can still pick its route and method.

Given you don't need to understand the command (which was a change) and you don't need to do it anymore protecting your own safety (which was a change) I disagree. You are not functioning by your own free will. You don't even know what you're doing. You don't even understand what the command was. All you know is you're fleeing against your will directly away from the person who cast the spell with no control.

If they wanted you to have free will and choice and route choosing, they would have left that language in the spell. There is every reason to think they removed it intentionally.

 

[Reynard]

Given you don't need to understand the command (which was a change) and you don't need to do it anymore protecting your own safety (which was a change) I disagree. You are not functioning by your own free will. You don't even know what you're doing. You don't even understand what the command was. All you know is you're fleeing against your will directly away from the person who cast the spell with no control.

If they wanted you to have free will and choice and route choosing, they would have left that language in the spell. There is every reason to think they removed it intentionally.

You are making a big leap based on negative information.

 

[Lanefan]

I'd really be careful to give the spell the extra power. Otherwise some player could try to use the spell and cancel other things. Force someone to go through an illusion.

If the viewer believes the illusion is real - say, of a wall where no wall really exists - then they'd react accordingly, I think.

If the illusion is of a floor where in reality there's a pit, however, the viewer would also react accordingly and run on to it.

Or maybe allow you to move despite being affected by Otto's irresistible dance. Which spell has priority anyway?

Three ways to rule on this, I think, and IMO either works fine but it has to be kept consistent across all examples:

Level priority - the higher level spell always trumps the lower if there is a conflict
Timestamp priority - the newer spell always overwrites the older if there is a conflict.
The spells both try to work as best they can - here for example the Otto's dancer's dancing would carry them away from the Command's caster but not at full speed.

Probably. But if it is just a 5ft patch, do you really have to take the risk? Is it not faster on average to go around? Maybe it depends on the character's dex save.

Again, situational I think.

A good question. It does circumvent fear and charm resistance.
But fleeing does not always have to be done out of fear.

Personally I don't see Command as being a fear effect, but I can see how some might interpret it that way parciuarly in its "flee" version.

There's an argument to be made, I suppose, that it falls under the "charm" umbrella and that charm resistance should apply. Fortunately, perhaps, nobody's ever brought that one up in my games (though to be fair, Command is rarely seen here in any case).

Interesting in that all of these questions are almost edition-agnostic.

 

[Reynard]

Just reading over the 2024 definition of the Flee command: it does not indicate what sorts of actions the target must take. That means they are free to cast Plane shift if that is something they have. They can dash. What if they are a rogue -- can they disengage?

 

[James Gasik]

Just reading over the 2024 definition of the Flee command: it does not indicate what sorts of actions the target must take. That means they are free to cast Plane shift if that is something they have. They can dash. What if they are a rogue -- can they disengage?

I've often wondered, given the text, if the target should have to Dash or not.

 

[Mistwell]

You are making a big leap based on negative information.

It's not negative information. That would be no context where it just doesn't include those words. But we have context.

We know it changed from, "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." They intentionally removed that language.

We know there was also an exchange of power in that removal involving loss of flexibility of the other words they removed, which were, "Some typical commands and their effects follow. You might issue a command other than one described here. If you do so, the DM determines how the target behaves."

So it now can be directly harmful to the target, but you can't Command them to "disrobe" for example, which used to be a popular one for armored foes.

I just don't see how you can read back into the spell the "not directly harmful" language, without reading back into it the "issue a command other than one described here." In which case, just use the old version entirely. There was obviously a re-balancing done with the spell which both increased and decreased the power depending on how you used to use it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Just want to add that in BG3 Command can be used at level 3 to get the most powerful weapon in the game....

 

[DrJawaPhD]

As far as commands go, flee is not a very powerful one. Drop is. Drop will flat destroy most high level martial-type big bads at the cost of a 1st level spell.

DROP is great for securing extra loot (and for wasting their turn), but all the high level martial-type big bad has to do is draw another weapon during their next attack