D&D 5E Command and spike growth

[Ancalagon]

The amount of damage doesn’t matter. If the target perceives any direct harm, the spell fails: 5’ of spike growth or a 10’ cliff.

But a dozen hostile bugbears plus a couple of trolls they have flee past with potential OA, surely no direct harm can come from that.

And that's why ultimately you need a ruling from the GM.

If there is a way to flee the foe will take it. If the creature can't flee - because a gauntlet of AOE, spike growth, lava, the spell fails. And command is a mind affecting spell - ultimately, it's a roleplaying decision on part of the monster/npc. As others pointed out, command is not a "magical danger detector" - the target of the spell determines what is harmful or not. A troll probably wouldn't care for an AOE or two, they regenerate! A kobold might care a lot - but in both cases, this is a ruling the GM makes, and different GMs may disagree on the ruling and that's fine.

(edit: syntax)

 

[Lyxen]

And that's why ultimately you need a ruling from the GM.

Exactly. There are so manny edge cases and combinations that you have only three possibilities, all outlined in a few sentences in the SAC: "
The DM is key. Many unexpected things can happen in a D&D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable [this is 3e]. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D [this is 4e]. The direction we chose for the current edition [5e] was to lay a foundation of rules that a DM could build on, and we embraced the DM’s role as the bridge between the things the rules address and the things they don’t."

It constantly amazes me that very clever people who spend hours looking at the rules in great detail cannot integrate what these few sentences mean and, while still imaginatively coming up with new edge cases that defy any set of rules as written, still think that a complete set of rules that covers everything can be written. It's been tried before and has always failed. Even PF2, which is trying really hard to pursue the road started with 3e and then PF1, and which has created an unbelievable amount of jargon to do so, fails at covering all edge cases, despite being extremely complicated and intricate.

It's simply not the direction chosen for 5e (and for what is for me very good reasons), deal with it, folks.

@Ancalagon has laid it out clearly, creatures targeted have many possibilities, and they will obey the spell unless, to their perception (and again, so many edge cases here when the game does usually not define exactly what is seen, felt of perceived by a creature - again for good reason as the possibilities are truly endless), doing so would automatically do them harm. And neither does it mean that they have to obey blindly or without thinking. Fleeing does not mean taking an AoO if one can disengage first for example, it's clearly part of a flight.

 

[plisnithus8]

Fleeing does not mean taking an AoO if one can disengage first for example, it's clearly part of a flight.

I agree with most of you said, that there is a lot of rulings that likely will occur; this is even addressed in the spell description.

However, I don’t think it’s clear that disengaging is an option when Fleeing: “The target spends its turn moving away from you by the fastest available means.” Spending its entire turn moving as fast as possible does seem to not give the option of disengaging if if Dashing is an option that allows it to move faster. An OA is indirect harm so would not have ended the spell.

The other Command examples in the spell description seem to supersede the target using reason: dropping a valuable item, approaching a terrifying monster.
Command uses Enchantment magic — “Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior. Such spells can make enemies see the caster as a friend, force creatures to take a course of action, or even control another creature like a puppet.” Nothing in the spell description says that logic is retained except that the if the target perceives direct harm the spell does not take effect. The description of Enchantment magic lists multiple ways spells in that category twist logic and ignore reason.

 

[Lyxen]

I agree with most of you said, that there is a lot of rulings that likely will occur; this is even addressed in the spell description.

However, I don’t think it’s clear that disengaging is an option when Fleeing: “The target spends its turn moving away from you by the fastest available means.” Spending its entire turn moving as fast as possible does seem to not give the option of disengaging if if Dashing is an option that allows it to move faster. An OA is indirect harm so would not have ended the spell.

The other Command examples in the spell description seem to supersede the target using reason: dropping a valuable item, approaching a terrifying monster.
Command uses Enchantment magic — “Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior. Such spells can make enemies see the caster as a friend, force creatures to take a course of action, or even control another creature like a puppet.” Nothing in the spell description says that logic is retained except that the if the target perceives direct harm the spell does not take effect. The description of Enchantment magic lists multiple ways spells in that category twist logic and ignore reason.

It's an interesting point of view, and indeed the description is clear. Thanks for this. Honestly, the "indirect" argument is not that strong for me, it's only a tweet and it's not the same thing for a mage surrounded by guards and a warrior in full plate with one opponent. For the first one, fleeing without disengaging is almost suicidal and goes beyond "self-harm", so I would still consider it in some cases, but in the general case I would probably insist on the dash/move.

 

[MarkB]

It's an interesting point of view, and indeed the description is clear. Thanks for this. Honestly, the "indirect" argument is not that strong for me, it's only a tweet and it's not the same thing for a mage surrounded by guards and a warrior in full plate with one opponent. For the first one, fleeing without disengaging is almost suicidal and goes beyond "self-harm", so I would still consider it in some cases, but in the general case I would probably insist on the dash/move.

The one thing that's off the table here is the disengage+move. If the target believes they can move without inevitably taking harm, they'll do the dash+move. If they truly believe that harm is inevitable if they obey the command, the spell will fail.

 

[Lyxen]

The one thing that's off the table here is the disengage+move. If the target believes they can move without inevitably taking harm, they'll do the dash+move. If they truly believe that harm is inevitable if they obey the command, the spell will fail.

I don't agree. If someone is standing with his back to lava, but he can flee on the side, he will flee on the side, even though it might mean not getting as far away from the caster. In the same vein, if someone has the choice of fleeing like a madman and very potentially taking damage on the one hand and disengaging to flee, I would not rule out either behaviour depending on the exact situation.

 

[abirdcall]

I'm leaning toward disengage to avoid OA. A character won't run through a cloud of daggers because it is direct harm. So why would it be indirect harm if those daggers are held by people.

If we allow for OAs it makes Command a very powerful 1st level spell which is not necessarily a bad thing but should be considered. Causing a melee enemy to lose 2 actions and take a bunch of hits for a 1st level spell is beyond what others do.

Compare to Dissonant Whispers which is designed to triggers OAs. It only uses the targets reaction and they don't move as far as a dash. So all that damage is good but it doesn't also take them out of the fight.

I already consider DW one of the top 10 1st level spells.

Command:Flee for a dash and triggering OAs would be far ahead of every other offensive 1st level spell.

 

[MarkB]

I don't agree. If someone is standing with his back to lava, but he can flee on the side, he will flee on the side, even though it might mean not getting as far away from the caster. In the same vein, if someone has the choice of fleeing like a madman and very potentially taking damage on the one hand and disengaging to flee, I would not rule out either behaviour depending on the exact situation.

But again, this is a Command - personal judgement plays no part here, caution is not an option. If direct damage is not a factor, the target must flee as fast as possible. If it is a factor, they are simply unaffected by the spell.

 

[Lyxen]

But again, this is a Command - personal judgement plays no part here

Of course it does, for example the target is still free to choose his path, it's not necessarily straight away from the caster, especially if there are threats. obstacles, etc.

caution is not an option.

Why ?

If direct damage is not a factor, the target must flee as fast as possible. If it is a factor, they are simply unaffected by the spell.

As fast as possible considering all the conditions. This is not 4e where the conditions were severely restricted to master forced movement, it's an open game where all things can be taken into account.

 

[Lyxen]

I'm leaning toward disengage to avoid OA. A character won't run through a cloud of daggers because it is direct harm. So why would it be indirect harm if those daggers are held by people.

If we allow for OAs it makes Command a very powerful 1st level spell which is not necessarily a bad thing but should be considered. Causing a melee enemy to lose 2 actions and take a bunch of hits for a 1st level spell is beyond what others do.

Compare to Dissonant Whispers which is designed to triggers OAs. It only uses the targets reaction and they don't move as far as a dash. So all that damage is good but it doesn't also take them out of the fight.

I already consider DW one of the top 10 1st level spells.

Command:Flee for a dash and triggering OAs would be far ahead of every other offensive 1st level spell.

I agree, I did not mention it specifically, but the overall effect of Command if you take into account a full round wasted, pus the distance taken plus potentially multiple AoO is a bit too much, which is why, without totally negating the spell, if there are intermediate options, I would be prone to considering them disengaging is still fleeing forcing to disengage and flee is still fleeing.