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

[DEFCON 1]

Well, Sleep plus coup-de-grace or double-tap has been very efficiently killing things since 1974, so I think the precedent is solidly established.

That's not the spell killing the person... that's other people doing things after the magic has been cast. You need the right combination of attacking character, no other enemies in the way to stop the advance, and low-enough hit point level of the sleeping creature to possibly assure an insta-kill in that case. As opposed to Command sending someone off a cliff and insta-killing most non-flying creatures. There are enough other steps required in the former that I can accept the possibility, as opposed to the rules interpretation of turning the creature mindless and with no sense of self-preservation on the latter. But that's just me.

 

[Reynard]

There is no decision point in the spell's description. It's intended, I think, to be weighed against forced movement. Given you don't need to even understand the command spoke, and it's a compulsion, I just don't see the creature having the option to think "But I might die and I need to avoid dying" in the spell anymore. They have the option to flee away from you by the fastest available means. Jumping off a cliff would be the fastest available means, if the cliff drop leads them away from you.

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.

 

[TwoSix]

This is a pretty solid example of why spells that create mental effects, but are using "natural language" to do so, shouldn't mix.

Either you leave it up to table adjudication, or you spell out exactly how the spell is impacting the target, explicitly factoring into account the perceptions of the target and what emotion or action is being compulsed.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

I don't see anything in the description as if of its free will. IME it is about as much "free will" as when the target is turned into a Zombie by Finger of Death.

As a matter of fact I think it is specifically against its 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.

Ok, but if the "fastest way" is over Lava or off a cliff or through a wall of fire and than that is what it does, because that is what is required.

 

[Reynard]

I don't see anything in the description as if of its free will. IME it is about as much "free will" as when the target is turned into a Zombie by Finger of Death.

As a matter of fact I think it is specifically against its free will



Ok, but if the "fastest way" is over Lava or off a cliff or through a wall of fire and than that is what it does, because that is what is required.

You can run it however you want but you are simply adding details that aren't in the spell description.

I will say that if players decided this is how they wanted it to work at the table, I would totally oblige them.

 

[TwoSix]

You can run it however you want but you are simply adding details that aren't in the spell description.

I will say that if players decided this is how they wanted it to work at the table, I would totally oblige them.

That's the great thing about natural language; we can all be wrong simultaneously!

 

[Sulicius]

This is a pretty solid example of why spells that create mental effects, but are using "natural language" to do so, shouldn't mix.

Either you leave it up to table adjudication, or you spell out exactly how the spell is impacting the target, explicitly factoring into account the perceptions of the target and what emotion or action is being compulsed.

For sure, and I think one of the goals for the revised 5e ruleset was to have less "Mother, may I?" rules, where the DM interpretation could arbitrarily take away intended design or player fun.

It's really hard to balance, where on the one hand a DM is a stabilizing factor of the game, making rules judgement to ensure fun and verisimillitude for all (which can be at odds often), while on the other hand, the DM can really do a number on what is intended design.

Some DM's, for instance, did believed that sneak attack was too strong, and often took away the rogue's ability to make use of the feature because of that.

As for Command, the intent seemed clear to me. The spell has been made more effective, though less flexible, and I really interepreted this change to be intentional.

Now we see some interpretations that make the PC find invisible doors on one hand, and have free will to comply on the other hand.

I just think this should be a level 2 spell, that's all.