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

[UngeheuerLich]

This is certainly debatable, but I think it does. It takes an action to drop a shield, but there is nothing preventing them from doing that as they will not be taking a different action if they fail their save.

I don't think they loose the shield. I'd probably rule that they lose the AC bonus from the shield because you loosen the grip, but the strap prevents it from falling to the ground.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think they loose the shield. I'd probably rule that they lose the AC bonus from the shield because you loosen the grip, but the strap prevents it from falling to the ground.

And next round it's assumed they resume the grip, or is there a roll for such?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And next round it's assumed they resume the grip, or is there a roll for such?

I'd just allow it as a free object interaction.
But that is just a ruling, so no RAW to back it up.
Maybe you could give enemies advantage on attack rolls against the shield wearer instead of -shield bonus, because it still protects but is dangling around annyoingly.
Maybe a cleaner solution for 5e.

 

[TwoSix]

Simple, it is magic ....... unassailable and all powerful.

That has massive worldbuilding implications, though.

If we assume that Command: Flee works that way, the only possible supporting narrative is that the spell creates a function that does perfect information gathering for an area several hundred feet in radius around the target, AND has sufficient mental access to the target to be aware of their capabilities, AND has sufficient mental agency to make determinations based on the collected information.

That's an incredibly powerful set of assumptions for something a novice minstrel can cast.

I know when you're grinding out modules every three months there isn't time to think about this stuff, but I think there are several of us that like to think through the diegetic implications of the narratives we assign.

 

[ECMO3]

That has massive worldbuilding implications, though.

If we assume that Command: Flee works that way, the only possible supporting narrative is that the spell creates a function that does perfect information gathering for an area several hundred feet in radius around the target,

This yes mostly. Not several hundred feet unless the target has a several Hundred foot move, but other than that yes. If it is a plant with a 10 foot move then perfect information in a 10 foot radius around it. If it is a Dragon with an 80 foot move than an 80 foot radius. If the target is restrained or grappled or otherwise has a 0 move then no information.

AND has sufficient mental access to the target to be aware of their capabilities, AND has sufficient mental agency to make determinations based on the collected information.

Not this. The target of the spell does not have to be aware at all nor have any mental agency, nor does it generally have to make any determinations, the magic does all that. In fact my reading of the spell would be that the target can't even make such determinations or decisions about where it going unless more the one route that is exactly equal and choosable exists.

That's an incredibly powerful set of assumptions for something a novice minstrel can cast.

Like I said magic is all powerful and inassailable.

 

[ECMO3]

I'm not implying anything about cheating or being adversarial. I just think it's unrealistic to think that the DM has prepared a list of every single item in the inventory of every single NPC that you come across. This isn't a video game. Improvising details on the fly is standard operating procedure, not "cheating"

Ok, I guess I misunderstood. I'll say I think it is extremely rare an enemy would have an equivalent back up weapon, especially if it is a high level boss. If I make the bad guy drop his Greatsword and then pick it up and the DM says he pulls out a dagger, sure. If he pulls out another Greatsword I would say that is pretty adversarial.

Also I would the DM often needs to prepare a complete inventory or maybe have a standard inventory (every Gladiator has these things) as players will often loot dead enemies. If they don't have an inventory what do the players get when they do such? So if every Gladiator we drop in the hideout has a Greatsword and crossbow when we loot them, but then this one we happened to cast Command-Drop on has a Greatsword, Crossbow and also happens to have a dagger ......

 

[TwoSix]

Not this. The target of the spell does not have to be aware at all nor have any mental agency, nor does it generally have to make any determinations, the magic does all that. In fact my reading of the spell would be that the target can't even make such determinations or decisions about where it going unless more the one route that is exactly equal and choosable exists.

Not the target of the spell. The spell itself, as a diegetic construct.

 

[Lanefan]

This yes mostly. Not several hundred feet unless the target has a several Hundred foot move, but other than that yes.

This ruling opens up a rather nasty exploit: if you think there's a secret door in a wall with no other exits but you can't find it, cast Command: Flee on someone expendable between you and the wall and thanks to the knowledge gained from the spell they'll find it for you.

If it is a plant with a 10 foot move then perfect information in a 10 foot radius around it. If it is a Dragon with an 80 foot move than an 80 foot radius. If the target is restrained or grappled or otherwise has a 0 move then no information.

The spell IMO just makes the target flee, period. One of two things happens next depending on whether one rules the fleeing is in panic or not:

1 - if not panic, the target's own knowledge and choice then kicks in as to where to go if-when moving directly away from the caster isn't (or is no longer) a viable option due to hazard or obstacle.
2 - if panic, the target flees in a straight line away from the caster ignoring any hazards; if an impassable obstacle (e.g. a wall) blocks flight or if a choice must be made (e.g. the target reaches a T junction), which way the target goes next is determined randomly.

In either case, the spell is not telling the target where to go other than directly (or as near as possible) away from the caster.

If it's ruled that the target's movement doesn't have to be directly away from the caster AND that the target has choice in where to go as long as it's no closer to the caster then the door opens for all kinds of rules-lawyering, shenanigans, and arguments.

Like I said magic is all powerful and inassailable.

Meh - this goes a bit far for me.

 

[ECMO3]

Not the target of the spell. The spell itself, as a diegetic construct.

Ok sure. Magic!

 

[ECMO3]

This ruling opens up a rather nasty exploit: if you think there's a secret door in a wall with no other exits but you can't find it, cast Command: Flee on someone expendable between you and the wall and thanks to the knowledge gained from the spell they'll find it for you.

I don't think it is much of an exploit. I think it is a waste of a spell slot.

This works only if you know a secret door is there and if you know the direction and if it is within the target's movement and if it does not require an action to open it, and if you have Command prepared and choose to spend a spell slot, and if the target fails the save and if running through the secret door is a good idea ...... well then yes in theory it could be used for this. I don't think this has ever come up in play though, for anyone, and it is hardly very powerful even if it did come up.

This costs a 1st level spell slot and is generally much less powerful than many things that could be used for this purpose which have a lower resource cost.

The guidance Cantrip for example is generally much more powerful at finding secret doors and only marginally or slightly less powerful even when all 8 of the above caveats apply. Same for Tactical Mind, same for Bardic Inspiration. These things are not just a little better at finding secret doors, they are a lot better and don't cost nearly as much to use.

The spell IMO just makes the target flee, period.

That is your opinion, but that is not what the text of the spell says.

One of two things happens next depending on whether one rules the fleeing is in panic or not:

1 - if not panic, the target's own knowledge and choice then kicks in as to where to go if-when moving directly away from the caster isn't (or is no longer) a viable option due to hazard or obstacle.
2 - if panic, the target flees in a straight line away from the caster ignoring any hazards; if an impassable obstacle (e.g. a wall) blocks flight or if a choice must be made (e.g. the target reaches a T junction), which way the target goes next is determined randomly.

"Panic" is not a condition so it has no mechanical bearing on play. Frightened is a condition but the spell does NOT cause frightened and frightened in and of itself has no requirement to flee at all.

In either case, the spell is not telling the target where to go other than directly (or as near as possible) away from the caster.

It is not telling the target anything it is forcing the target to move.