D&D 5E Command and spike growth

[toucanbuzz]

Does Command even say the target needs to be aware that the action will be directly harmful?

The addition of the word "directly" before "harmful" suggests yes. If the spell failed if the Command were simply "harmful," then anything that has the potential to cause damage would be included, such as a disguised spike growth. The word "directly" is included to exclude this possibility by requiring awareness of harm (harm directed to them if the Command is followed). This awareness is strong enough to cancel the spell.

 

[plisnithus8]

Fleeing means to run from a place of danger. Running through thorns, caltrops, or broken glass would be something harmful but only if someone moves. The Command to Flee would make someone move through something they should know is harmful. They would know there is danger from doing so; therefore the spell would fail because it commands them to do something they know would be harmful. The spell doesn’t make someone less intelligent.
a better ansnikogy than a cliff might be a very high pedestal: someone standing on it is in potential danger (risk), but only if they move. Similarly, someone in thorns are at risk but the risk only kicks in if they move, which they cannot be forced to do according to the spell.

It’s also similar to the Dune pain box. Is Paul in danger with his hand in the box and poison needle at his neck? Yes, but the harm (damage) only comes if he moves.

 

[J.Quondam]

I'd be inclined to rule that the Command to "flee" wouldn't work to force a creature through spiked growth, because of the damage. I suspect that generally goes against RAI for this one.

But I also wouldn't necessarily rule that the spell simply fails to trigger, because "flee" doesn't say much about how exactly to do that. It just says "by the fastest means available." If dangerous terrain blocks the obvious way, then the target will try the next fastest means available by trying other possibly methods, like flying, jumping, or burrowing; or using a spell or item; hunting for a hidden door; etc. It's a compulsion, after all. So imo this situation really depends on the specifics of the creature, encounter location, etc.

tl;dr: I might have the target burn its round trying to flee (even if it moves zero distance), but it wouldn't do anything that would cause itself harm.

 

[plisnithus8]

Command: “The spell has no Effect..,if your command is directly harmful to it.”

Moving within Spike Growth causes damage. If you Command to flee, you are forcing movement that will cause damage; therefore the spell fails completely.

Command doesn’t say the target has to be aware of the danger. The target doesn’t lose a turn if there there is no effect.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Command doesn’t say the target has to be aware of the danger.

But certainly this has to be the case? Otherwise Command also becomes bizarre danger detector. You can command your allies to enter into areas, and if they don't, you know there is traps/other danger there. I mean it is rather funny, but but metaphysically way too silly for me.

 

[ad_hoc]

The addition of the word "directly" before "harmful" suggests yes. If the spell failed if the Command were simply "harmful," then anything that has the potential to cause damage would be included, such as a disguised spike growth. The word "directly" is included to exclude this possibility by requiring awareness of harm (harm directed to them if the Command is followed). This awareness is strong enough to cancel the spell.

We're definitely into DM ruling territory here.

I could see it go either way.

Is it a matter of the target's willpower to resist the spell once they see the direct harm?

Is it an inherent aspect of the magic which prevents it from causing direct harm irrespective of what the target thinks of it?

We don't know.

 

[tommybahama]

What if it was a melee-only humanoid? If they don't move then they will be peppered to death by spells and arrows eventually. In that case they would need to get out of the spike growth anyways or die eventually, so the Command spell should work. Instead of attacking they will do the only other logical option which is to flee.

Edit: Even if it had a ranged attack, the option of fleeing with the possibility of survival is still there unlike with jumping off a cliff. Does it know the spell is temporary or would it assume it is permanent, meaning it will have to cross the spikes eventually anyway? Also, the creature could try a standing long jump to flee with minimal damage.

 

[MarkB]

What if it was a melee-only humanoid? If they don't move then they will be peppered to death by spells and arrows eventually. In that case they would need to get out of the spike growth anyways or die eventually, so the Command spell should work. Instead of attacking they will do the only other logical option which is to flee.

No - the command spell would fail, and then they'd get to choose what to do on their turn, whether that's continuing to attack or fleeing.

 

[ad_hoc]

What if it was a melee-only humanoid? If they don't move then they will be peppered to death by spells and arrows eventually. In that case they would need to get out of the spike growth anyways or die eventually, so the Command spell should work. Instead of attacking they will do the only other logical option which is to flee.

This reasoning would make all the standard commands fail.

Doing nothing on their turn will result in harm as they aren't contributing to the fight.

What you're arguing is the definition of indirect harm.

 

[plisnithus8]

Command uses the word "directly" which has 3 common definitions:
1. without changing direction or stopping.
2. with nothing or no one in between.
3. as soon as.

So to be directly harmful (using a combination of 3 definitions), the effect would have to happen immediately following the triggering effect, which in this case would be movement within the spikes (which would include flying or digging out). The spell says nothing about knowledge of the harm by either the caster or the target -- the do-no-harm aspect is part of the arcane parameters of the magic itself.

Using Command to find traps might be possible (using a 1st level spell rather than a 2nd level Find Traps spell), except that you are using your allies as guinea pigs that could suffer greatly from indirect harm. Find Traps also reveals "undesirable" effects that may not do harm (which Command may not), has a range of 120 feet, and reveals"the general nature of the danger posed."