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

[Lidgar]

Why not drop?

The cleric who cast it selected grovel.

But yeah, long odds that thankfully paid off.

 

[ECMO3]

Which is quite nonsense if you compare this level 1 spell to spells which are way higher in level.

It is powerful for a 1st level spell, but that has nothing to do with anything that you quoted.

The "nonsense" you quoted though is not powerful at all in play and is so situational as to be irrelevant. Moreover, actually trying to leverage this would be one of the weakest possible uses of a 1st level spell slot in 5E.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It is powerful for a 1st level spell, but that has nothing to do with anything that you quoted.

The "nonsense" you quoted though is not powerful at all in play and is so situational as to be irrelevant. Moreover, actually trying to leverage this would be one of the weakest possible uses of a 1st level spell slot in 5E.

I do not speak about power. I speak about the implications.

 

[ECMO3]

I do not speak about power. I speak about the implications.

What implications? There aren't any as far as I can see.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What implications?

Already discussed at length.

In my games magic, is not allmighty.

And an enchantment spell is no divination spell.

 

[ECMO3]

And an enchantment spell is no divination spell.

Of course, that is why it doesn't allow the caster or target to divine anything.

I don't see any negative in-game implications to this and I don't see any discussed above.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Of course, that is why it doesn't allow the caster or target to divine anything.

You however want it to divine an invisible wall. Which is not what the spell can do.

I don't see any negative in-game implications to this and I don't see any discussed above.

See above. You say the magic guides the receipient around an invisible wall. Which is not something an enchantment should do.

 

[Clint_L]

@ECMO3 I think the point is that examples like the hidden door reveal an intuitive incoherence, for most folks, that arises from taking the wording of the rules so literally, much like my example of simply moving in an ever so slightly widening spiral around the person giving the command. You know, like a spacecraft. I just don't think most folks take RAW so literally as to invoke command imparting the victim with a God-level knowledge of everything in their potential path, or that you would jump into lava. They understand the wording in a conversational sense.

I'm interested: if you were DMing and had a caster give the command "flee," and I responded with my character doing the spiral gimmick, how would you rule? Let's assume my character has the "fly" spell active and so can turn with no loss of movement. Literal wording: "Flee. The target spends its turn moving away from you by the fastest available means." Check; nothing there about achieving the maximum distance from you.

My ruling would be simple: "Don't be dumb; your character tries to get away to the best of their ability given their circumstances, because that's what fleeing is." But I will always default to narrative coherence over RAW. But if you insist on RAW, wouldn't you have to agree to the silly spiral or the hidden door? It doesn't matter if you think those are the best uses of the spell; that's irrelevant.