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

[UngeheuerLich]

It says "away from [the caster]" the direction is away.

Change the analogy a little a nuclear weapon is about to land in the city and I tell you - "Get in your car and drive away from here by the fastest means available" Your interpretation is driving 150mph in a circle which are slightly ever widening meets that requirement and follows those directions. I think in terms of the strict literal meaning of the words in quotes it does, but it is not consistent with my intepretation of what the sentance actually means.

Good analogy. Would you run your car over a cliff or would you know about an invisible something if you were told that?

No, it specifically says you spend your turn "moving", these things require an action. This is also why you can't open a door that requires the utilize action or cast misty step or cast teleport or Haste. Those things are not movement.

Also just an interpretation. Wouldn't you open your garage to get the car out?

You can do things which can be done as part of movement, for example drawing a weapon or calling out instructions to another PC or using your interaction.

Oh. I would actually not allow that, as those actions don't help you get away.

If you are concentrating on Conjure Celestial you could move the Celestial to a new position to hurt enemies or heal allies as that is part of your movement per the wording of the spell.

Neither would I allow that.

If you were incorporeal, like if the target is a ghost it absolutely would go through a wall. If the target had the ability to shift into the border ethereal without an action or bonus action it would be open to interpretation, but I don't actually think that puts you further away than being on the material plane in the same place, but I could see that you could argue it would (and most enemies would choose to anyway).

If you are standing in front of a portal that you do not need a Utilize or Magic action to go through, then yes I think you would run through it to whatever plane is on the other side.

Maybe.

These are all highly situational strawmen that are being thrown up though.

Nice way of trying to discredit other interoretations...

If the spell was worded differently and it said you need to take an action to get as far away as you can possibly get, then yes you would need to cast those, but that would actually be way OP and would be substantially different mechanically.

I'd rule the same. But even that is not actually clear.

 

[ECMO3]

Good analogy. Would you run your car over a cliff or would you know about an invisible something if you were told that?

You took the analogy out of context. The comparison was focused on the meaning of "fastest means possible" and whether there is a direction component to it. It was not focused on the rest of the spell and driving a car is not the same as movement in 5E. That said to answer your question:

To start with we need to discuss the ramifications of driving off a cliff. In D&D, jumping off of Mount Everest and falling 33000 feet will not kill most enemies PCs will face at level 2 and above. So if I could drive my car off a cliff and survive 90% of the time there is not an imperative not to drive off the cliff, especially if I am fleeing from what I perceive as likely death.

That said, assuming that we are in the real world and it actually would likely might kill me - If I did not drive off the cliff I would not be following the literal directions, and if I had agency to control what I did might stop and I might say "I didn't follow your directions, I stopped so I did not go off the cliff" Heck I might even say "I don't want to drive at all, I will just go make a gin and tonic and hope for the best". If I am being magically compelled though, as in the spell I don't have those options and off the cliff I go!

There are not "invisible walls" IRL, so it is a bit difficult to answer, but if there were and there was magic causing me to get as far away as possible, then yes the car would go around the invisible wall. Think of it like you are in a Tesla and it has the maps with all the walls and all the cliffs and the corrupted softwar must just move you as far away as possible, period, whether you know the best way or not.

Let's reword that anaolgy to better fit:

"If you fail the save you drive away from NYC by the fastest available means." and this MUST happen - off the cliff or around the wall I go.

Also just an interpretation. Wouldn't you open your garage to get the car out?

Not if all I could do is drive and I was not able to do other things like get out and open the garage (i.e. utilize) or fill up the car with gas, or change a flat tire.

Oh. I would actually not allow that, as those actions don't help you get away.

Doesn't matter. Nothing in the spell says you need to "get away" or that you can't do things that don't help you get away. You have to move, those are done as part of moving according to the rules.

Further this interpretation puts in a logical inconsistency in your argument - you claim the target has the option to stop moving or not move as far as possible (i.e. off a cliff). So you have some level of agency to limit compliance with the thing the spell requires you to do; yet you don't have the agency to do other things that are RAW part of your move even when they don't limit compliance with what the spell requires.

Why is it I can stop at the cliff edge and not jump off, but at the same time I am not permitted to tell Clyde the Cleric to come heal me when both are part of my movement but only the first goes against what the spell compels?

Neither would I allow that.

Ok you wouldn't at your table. RAW you can. You do it as part of your movement.

Note you can not do these things with some of the other commands, but you can with "Flee" RAW.

 

[Clint_L]

You took the analogy out of context. The comparison was focused on the meaning of "fastest means possible" and whether there is a direction component to it. It was not focused on the rest of the spell and driving a car is not the same as movement in 5E. That said to answer your question:

To start with we need to discuss the ramifications of driving off a cliff. In D&D, jumping off of Mount Everest and falling 33000 feet will not kill most enemies PCs will face at level 2 and above. So if I could drive my car off a cliff and survive 90% of the time there is not an imperative not to drive off the cliff, especially if I am fleeing from what I perceive as likely death.

That said, assuming that we are in the real world and it actually would likely might kill me - If I did not drive off the cliff I would not be following the literal directions, and if I had agency to control what I did might stop and I might say "I didn't follow your directions, I stopped so I did not go off the cliff" Heck I might even say "I don't want to drive at all, I will just go make a gin and tonic and hope for the best". If I am being magically compelled though, as in the spell I don't have those options and off the cliff I go!

There are not "invisible walls" IRL, so it is a bit difficult to answer, but if there were and there was magic causing me to get as far away as possible, then yes the car would go around the invisible wall. Think of it like you are in a Tesla and it has the maps with all the walls and all the cliffs and the corrupted softwar must just move you as far away as possible, period, whether you know the best way or not.

Let's reword that anaolgy to better fit:

"If you fail the save you drive away from NYC by the fastest available means." and this MUST happen - off the cliff or around the wall I go.




Not if all I could do is drive and I was not able to do other things like get out and open the garage (i.e. utilize) or fill up the car with gas, or change a flat tire.



Doesn't matter. Nothing in the spell says you need to "get away" or that you can't do things that don't help you get away. You have to move, those are done as part of moving according to the rules.

Further this interpretation puts in a logical inconsistency in your argument - you claim the target has the option to stop moving or not move as far as possible (i.e. off a cliff). So you have some level of agency to limit compliance with the thing the spell requires you to do; yet you don't have the agency to do other things that are RAW part of your move even when they don't limit compliance with what the spell requires.

Why is it I can stop at the cliff edge and not jump off, but at the same time I am not permitted to tell Clyde the Cleric to come heal me when both are part of my movement but only the first goes against what the spell compels?



Ok you wouldn't at your table. RAW you can. You do it as part of your movement.

Note you can not do these things with some of the other commands, but you can with "Flee" RAW.

I’m curious that with my example you resort to RAI, admitting that RAW the spell does not require the target to try to get as far away as possible. But then you insist on RAW when it otherwise suits you. It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways.

I’m straight up about the fact that I don’t care about RAW.

Also, pointing out exceptions is not the same as a straw man argument, so please stop calling it that. It is highly insulting because it implies that we are being dishonest, when we in fact simply disagree with you and are showing evidence to support our various contentions that your argument has holes.