D&D 5E Command and spike growth

[Oofta]

If the target knows an action will cause damage, they will not follow the command. You can't command someone to run into a woodchipper.

 

[plisnithus8]

Preceding events were not established, so it is possible that the target had not seen the spikes, and the possibility that they wouldn't know referred to such an eventuality. But yes, it is likely that they would know. We however can easily imagine other similar situations where they would be unaware of the danger. For example there is a trap the target is not aware of.


I am merely expressing my opinion. The ideas presented seemed absurd to me.

In any case, my ruling would simply be that the spell doesn't grant anyone any special knowledge or awareness, and creatures generally understand what's harmful to them. If a creature is commanded to do a thing they perceive to be harmful, their self preservation instinct kicks in and overrides the compulsion.

I had never considered using Command to detect traps until someone mentioned it here so am processing it “aloud” here. We are discussing magic which naturally seems absurd IRL.

To help clarify things for myself, I looked up Jeremy Crawford’s Tweet regarding Flee:
“Command: Flee isn't directly harmful; OA may or may not happen. ‘Jump in the lava’& ‘Stab yourself’—harmful.”

From this, I am understanding RAI to regard:

• harm be interpreted by each target,
• and “directly” means only circumstances that would be automatically damaging to the target such as any movement within Spike Growth.

Honestly, I am having a hard time with the OA not being harmful --considering the target is interpreting what is harmful, if a Thug knows that moving through Spike Growth causes harm, why would it not consider moving around enemies it is in combat who bear weapons potentially more damaging than spikes as not harmful? Shouldn't it know how OA work just like a PC do? Flee doesn't make them scared, just comes them to move away.

And what do you say to the PC that tries to use the Command-Awake on a sleeping creature that they can see within range (non-undead, that speaks their language)? Seems to fall outside of RAI but might be RAW.

 

[Lyxen]

Honestly, I am having a hard time with the OA not being harmful --considering the target is interpreting what is harmful, if a Thug knows that moving through Spike Growth causes harm, why would it not consider moving around enemies it is in combat who bear weapons potentially more damaging than spikes as not harmful? Shouldn't it know how OA work just like a PC do? Flee doesn't make them scared, just comes them to move away.

The difference for me is that the OA can miss, whereas all the other exemples including a spike growth that you are aware off, directly and automatically damage you.

And what do you say to the PC that tries to use the Command-Awake on a sleeping creature that they can see within range (non-undead, that speaks their language)? Seems to fall outside of RAI but might be RAW.

It's not just an order, it's magical, and even asleep, there are thing that you will hear, I agree that it's in the DM's domain but I would allow it, it's a 1st level spell after all...

 

[Ancalagon]

The way I interpret it, the spell causes a compulsion to flee, not the actual ability to flee.
Consider a caster that fails the save. He looks around at the spiked growth, and formulates a plan! On his turn, he casts dispel magic to drop the spiked growth, and then moves away.
Now consider an ordinary goblin. He fails his save, looks around, sees he's stuck... and the spell fizzles, so he gets to act normally?

The goblin manages to evade command when a wizard does not? because the wizard is smarter and has access to an arsenal of spells to help him out?

I dunno... that doesn't make sense to me. From a narrative perspective, if nothing else, the goblin shouldn't fail its save, but then shrug off the spell anyway just because it's not sufficiently bright or well-equipped escape. It more interesting, imo, that the goblin might just fret that it can't get away while futilely using his axe to try to hack down the spiky growth, or something.

And from a game perspective, I think it's a fair compromise. Eliminating the target's next action without causing harm or movement distance means the spell probably isn't as useful as the caster hoped, but it's still not a complete waste of the spell. And by keeping it situational, such a ruling also leaves future castings of the spell a little uncertain-- and therefore interesting.

YMMV.

What if instead of a goblin and a wizard, we had a goblin and an ogre?

Both of them are tied up with twine (... low budget heroes) and then are commanded to flee (really badly coordinated heroes). The goblin can't flee, but the ogre can easily snap its bond and run away.

Capacity to follow the command is an issue. If someone is ordered to flee, but can't because the conditions don't allow it, the spell doesn't work.

To me the really interesting case is when the harm is hidden - like spike growth. I would rule that the creature moves 5 feet into the hazard, takes damage, learns of the hazard, and stop fleeing.

 

[Kobold Stew]

To me the really interesting case is when the harm is hidden - like spike growth. I would rule that the creature moves 5 feet into the hazard, takes damage, learns of the hazard, and stop fleeing.

This exactly.

 

[Iry]

The target starts digging furiously.
It loses a round, which is still a decent outcome for the spell, and it's slightly funny.

 

[billd91]

Honestly, I am having a hard time with the OA not being harmful --considering the target is interpreting what is harmful, if a Thug knows that moving through Spike Growth causes harm, why would it not consider moving around enemies it is in combat who bear weapons potentially more damaging than spikes as not harmful? Shouldn't it know how OA work just like a PC do? Flee doesn't make them scared, just comes them to move away.

The difference here is the OA may be harmful - but it's neither inevitable nor automatic. Any OA might miss, anyone in position to take an OA might already be distracted (have not reaction left), any number of things that make the OA neither inevitable nor automatic - unlike jumping off a cliff or swimming in lava.

 

[jgsugden]

I'd consider the totality of circumstances. Essentially, I'd ask, "Would the target go through the area with the information they have to achieve an important objective?" If so, they'll go through the danger. So, for example, a high level barbarian with 250 hp might shrug off running through a wall of fire, while a goblin would avoid taking a single point of damage.

 

[plisnithus8]

I'd consider the totality of circumstances. Essentially, I'd ask, "Would the target go through the area with the information they have to achieve an important objective?" If so, they'll go through the danger. So, for example, a high level barbarian with 250 hp might shrug off running through a wall of fire, while a goblin would avoid taking a single point of damage.

That’s not what the spell says though —“The spell has no Effect…if your command is directly harmful to it.” There’s no weighing of choices. In the barbarian case, the spell works because they are “brave enough” to take damage?

 

[Iry]

I don't think we should take it so literally. This one seems pretty firmly in the "Case By Case Basis" category.