D&D (2024) Command is the Perfect Encapsulation of Everything I Don't Like About 5.5e

[Lanefan]

Ok, let's walk through these.

Climb - It's entirely possible that the target literally is not capable of climbing whatever it is that you want it to climb.

The target can still go through the motions for a round, however, of looking for handholds etc.; even if it never leaves the ground. (obviously you wouldn't use this command on someune unless there was something - a tree, a wall, etc. - nearby for it to try to climb)

Also, it's vague. Up or down? You are abusing the definition of the spell where the examples are all move towards the caster or move away from the caster or just not move at all.

Here's a key element: the examples do not define the limits (this was an issue with 5e's listed backgrounds, flaws, etc. as well if memory serves: people assumed they had to choose from what was on the examples list rather than seeing it as merely some suggested ideas from an infinite array of possibilities). They're just examples; and that they happen to only include toward-away movement is IMO probably a coincidence.

Repent - I don't even have any idea how this would be adjudicated. Note, when you use Command, the target does not even take the full round to take the action. It simply does something and ends its turn. What does "repent" even mean?

If the target has a divine class I'd say it prompts a momentary crisis of faith resuiting in no divinely-aided action this round. Otherwise this one wouldn't do much.

Spin - ummm, okay? How is this any different than "Halt"?

It might add a disorientation factor, even more so if someone follows it up with a Darkness or Blindness effect on the same target.

Hug - Now you are forcing the target to attack another target? Hug who? Yourself? Another target, initiating a grapple check? What effect are you expecting here?

This depends on whether one defines "hug" as an offensive action, and thus an attack. I personally do not - for example the wa I see it you could hug someone and not lose invisibility.

Throw - again, beyond the scope of the spell. The spell can cause you to drop something at your feet, but, that's it. Now you are making the NPC actually take an action, again, not permitted by the spell, and potentially attacking someone - after all, I can throw my spear at someone and attack, again expressly not permitted by the spell.

Give - Same as throw really. Give what? My opinion? My attention? The spell permits me to cause someone to drop what they are holding, but, handing it to someone else? Fantastic disarming spell - after all now all I have to do is get the NPC to give their weapon to another PC and we're golden. Clearly more powerful than "Drop".

Yeah, not sure I'd have 'Give' do anything unless the circumstances were perfect.

Dismantle - What does this even mean? I now have to break something? I have to take something apart? This isn't clearly a far more powerful option?

More to the point, dismantling pretty much anything is going to take longer than a round, unless the caster repeats the same Command round after round and the target keeps failing saves.

Dismount - How is this any different than Grovel?

The target can grovel while remaining mounted. Dismount separates rider from mount, a good idea given that a mounted foe is almost always more dangerous than one on foot. EDIT: And Dismount doesn't leave the target prone, where Grovel would.

So, five of your seven examples are clearly up powering the spell by abusing the terms of the spell to grant power to the spell that it should not have. The other two are covered by the existing commands.

Now do you see why this is a problem?

We disagree on the bolded. Perhaps that's because I've much less of an issue with a 1st-level spell occasionally being a lucky game-changer, just like a lucky critical hit or an unlucky fumble etc. can change the course of a combat.

 

[Daztur]

But deciding on the limits of the Command spell is not in the same territory as these. It's not adjudicating any fiction. It's just working out what is possible using a 1st level spell that is not all that clearly specified.

But why? I'm utterly confused as to what distinction you're drawing here. The fiction of fireball is that it makes a ball of fire so logically it should set things on fire. The fiction ice knife is that is make a knife of ice so logically it should chill water if you were a dumb wizard who didn't take prestidigitation, the fiction of goodberry is that it gives you all the nutrition you need for a day so logically it should make you feel full and logically feeling full would make the pie you eat in the future taste less appetizing, the fiction of command is that you say a verb and the target acts it out (as determined by the DM) so logically if you say a verb the target should act it out. The only difference here is that there's some logical leaps between "I feed a dude a goodberry" and "the dude likes the pies he eats next now" but no logical leaps whatsoever with Command as using any verb you want that doesn't cause harm is explicitly allowed by the text of the spell.

At least that’s upfront and honest and not trying to pretend that you’re not trying to gain advantages.

OF COURSE I want players to gain advantages by being smart and creative when I DM. THAT'S THE ENTIRE FREAKING POINT of how I DM. I absolutely love it when players do that when I DM. Makes my whole week. You'd doing the equivalent of telling a 4e DM that you hate it when their players use smart tactics to take less damage than you expected in a fight.

And I remain flummoxed that you continue to insist that dismounting and groveling are equivalent.

Maybe getting someone to get off a horse and fall prone and fine but getting someone to get off a horse and stay standing (so your archer buddy doesn't get disadvantage) is powergaming because reasons. I don't know. I'm getting increasingly confused.

So I was thinking of a way to provide the open ended option of Command that some people want and the finite power limit others want. This is a first draft, so it's clearly not tuned.

Command
(Spell stuff here)

You issue out a one word command to a target, such as Stop, Grovel, Flee, Come or Drop. The target makes a Wisdom save. If the target fails, it attempts to satisfy the command in the safest way possible. If the Command would cause the target to harm itself, the target cannot fulfill the Command, or if the target passes its saving throw, the spell fails.

The target will do one of the following actions on its turn, depending on the Command, as determined by the DM:

• Move its speed towards or away from you.
• Drop to the ground and gain the Prone condition
• Drop whatever it is holding into a space next to it.
• Stand still and take no actions except the dodge action on its turn.
• Engage in conversation with the caster. It will answer questions asked, but is under no compulsion to answer them truthfully.

Not really seeing how this is anything different than the 5.5e version, just more wordy.

 

[Remathilis]

Not really seeing how this is anything different than the 5.5e version, just more wordy.

The effects aren't tied to a specific word, so you have more freedom in utterance without leaving the effects so ambiguous. You have a set of parameters that the DM can use to adjudicate the effect and the player should expect. That way, the player doesn't expect his target to unalive themselves and the DM isn't prone to twist the command into doing nothing.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. @Remathilis’ version is the 4e version basically. Even I’m not really interested in going that far.

But again for those not seeing the difference between using a spell as written creatively and rewriting what a spell does in order to make it more powerful? I’m sorry but we’re not going to agree here.

I have zero problem with the first. That’s just playing the game. The second is gaming the system.

 

[Daztur]

Heh. @Remathilis’ version is the 4e version basically. Even I’m not really interested in going that far.

But again for those not seeing the difference between using a spell as written creatively and rewriting what a spell does in order to make it more powerful? I’m sorry but we’re not going to agree here.

I have zero problem with the first. That’s just playing the game. The second is gaming the system.

The text of the spells says: "You speak a one-word command to a creature you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or follow the command on its next turn."

When I read that I take that to mean: "You speak a one-word command to a creature you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or follow the command on its next turn." Because that is what the text says.

When you read the spell you take it to mean "You speak a one-word command to a creature you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or follow the command on its next turn but only if the command word does absolutely nothing except make the target move, drop to the ground, drop something on the ground, and certain other heavily restricted free actions."

And I'm rewriting what the spell does? You have invented a whole series of rules and restrictions that appear nowhere in the spell's text, to my great and increasing confusion.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Heh. @Remathilis’ version is the 4e version basically. Even I’m not really interested in going that far.

But again for those not seeing the difference between using a spell as written creatively and rewriting what a spell does in order to make it more powerful? I’m sorry but we’re not going to agree here.

I have zero problem with the first. That’s just playing the game. The second is gaming the system.

Emphasis is mine, because I think that's part of where these trains diverge in the station.

I'm not scared at all of a DM judgement call giving players more power.

What's there to lose? D&D is a cooperative game. Fly the eagles to Mordor, throw the BBEG off the cliff, poison the enemy camp instead of fighting them, burn down the town where the doppelganger is hiding, win the fight with a single well-placed turn. Does it cause delight? Then it's WORTH IT. My adventure, my encounter, my turn, is not so precious that I need to have it play out a certain way or be ruined. I am down to clown around. I am pretending to be a magical elf, let's have some dang FUN with it. "Is it more powerful?" is the wrong question. The question is only: "Does it spark joy?"

An important element here is that it is the DM's judgment call, though, because if someone was invested in that fight? If someone leans hard into the tactical gameplay and feels a little like we skip the fun part if we skip a fight? If someone in the game doesn't feel like an effective player because another player keeps dominating the spotlight? If someone thinks they're a clever clogs and that this is a hot new reliable exploit instead of a fun and novel thing to do? These are all very good reasons to veto. Nah, pick something on the list, sonny, we WANT this turn.

This is all part and parcel of running a co-op game - the essential skill of reading the room, skipping what bores people, balancing the spotlight, leaning into what excites them. If you're worried about exploits and power spikes, you're already on the back foot, playing a game where you're trying to out-systems-knowledge like four other people just to preserve an abstract balance. Power is not a concern when judging if it would be FUN. Fun things are often very powerful!

A spell rewritten to just be more powerful isn't helping me introduce more novel improvisation into my game. Power isn't the goal. Delightful imaginary elf time is the goal. And I get more of the latter with a command spell that lets me screw around and find out.

 

[Hussar]

And I'm rewriting what the spell does? You have invented a whole series of rules and restrictions that appear nowhere in the spell's text, to my great and increasing confusion.

So, the examples of what Command does, as in the bulk of the text of the spell, appears nowhere in your PHB? You should get that checked out. My PHB certainly includes them, as do every PHB since 1e.

But, yeah, this is going nowhere fast. I've pretty much laid out my objections and why I have no problems with the 2024 version. The loss of a tiny sliver of creativity is more than paid for by the reduction in the overhead I need to track while DMing. For @I'm A Banana, that loss is too much. For me, it's fantastic and I hope they go even further as time goes on.

To me, gaming the system is not creative. It's boring. It's easy to game the system. Actually engaging with the game and using the in game fiction to be creative? That's interesting. That brings me joy. Not having to play rules police every time a player casts a spell that I may not have memorized the effects of? That brings me joy. Knowing I can just trust the mechanics to work and I don't have to play amateur game designer in the middle of a session? That brings me joy.

What doesn't bring me joy is being forced by poor mechanics to treat the players with suspicion every time they claim that some effect does what they say it does. What doesn't bring me joy is watching players constantly try to test the boundaries of these poorly worded mechanics just to see what they can get away with.

No thanks.

So, folks, that's my last word on this. I know I said that before, but, I failed my save and go sucked back in. It's always interesting to see how other people treat the game. You all have good games and have fun.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

What's there to lose? D&D is a cooperative game. Fly the eagles to Mordor, throw the BBEG off the cliff, poison the enemy camp instead of fighting them, burn down the town where the doppelganger is hiding, win the fight with a single well-placed turn. Does it cause delight? Then it's WORTH IT. My adventure, my encounter, my turn, is not so precious that I need to have it play out a certain way or be ruined. I am down to clown around. I am pretending to be a magical elf, let's have some dang FUN with it. "Is it more powerful?" is the wrong question. The question is only: "Does it spark joy?"



An important element here is that it is the DM's judgment call, though, because if someone was invested in that fight? If someone leans hard into the tactical gameplay and feels a little like we skip the fun part if we skip a fight? If someone in the game doesn't feel like an effective player because another player keeps dominating the spotlight? If someone thinks they're a clever clogs and that this is a hot new reliable exploit instead of a fun and novel thing to do? These are all very good reasons to veto. Nah, pick something on the list, sonny, we WANT this turn.

I have this theory. A wild and crazy theory. 5e is polarizing to those of us who discuss it on the internet, but that's not my theory. It's not wild and crazy enough. Many want a vague system of rulings by a human. Many want a tight and balanced rule set that facilitates engaging game play. These two sides are forever locked in a form of intellectual combat. Each side armed with the latest and greatest brain-powered weaponry.

And this combat, well, It feels like two kids fighting over a piece of chocolate cake. Chocolate cake isn't either kid's favorite cake. It's not ideal by any stretch. In fact the favorite cake of both kids is still on the counter. No, both kids want the piece of chocolate cake, because it's the biggest piece of cake.

You don't see this "fight" in other systems to nearly the same extent. Why don't we see Pathfinder 2 fans bickering about having fewer rules? Well, because those pieces of cake aren't big enough to fight over. To some extent, this is occurring with the vigor that it does, not because of a lack of options, but because 5e is popular. And in human psychology there is great value in being a part of what's popular.

It sounds weird. But I would bet that if 5e was 5% of the market share, instead of 95%, it's fan base never has these discussions. People who never play it, never talk about how it should be. Because that would be a piece of cake that's too small to be worth the fight. 5e causes it's own drama and division by being a big piece of cake.

Now, at 3am, I kind of want some cake.

 

[SableWyvern]

I have this theory. A wild and crazy theory. 5e is polarizing to those of us who discuss it on the internet, but that's not my theory. It's not wild and crazy enough. Many want a vague system of rulings by a human. Many want a tight and balanced rule set that facilitates engaging game play. These two sides are forever locked in a form of intellectual combat. Each side armed with the latest and greatest brain-powered weaponry.

And this combat, well, It feels like two kids fighting over a piece of chocolate cake. Chocolate cake isn't either kid's favorite cake. It's not ideal by any stretch. In fact the favorite cake of both kids is still on the counter. No, both kids want the piece of chocolate cake, because it's the biggest piece of cake.

You don't see this "fight" in other systems to nearly the same extent. Why don't we see Pathfinder 2 fans bickering about having fewer rules? Well, because those pieces of cake aren't big enough to fight over. To some extent, this is occurring with the vigor that it does, not because of a lack of options, but because 5e is popular. And in human psychology there is great value in being a part of what's popular.

It sounds weird. But I would bet that if 5e was 5% of the market share, instead of 95%, it's fan base never has these discussions. People who never play it, never talk about how it should be. Because that would be a piece of cake that's too small to be worth the fight. 5e causes it's own drama and division by being a big piece of cake.

Now, at 3am, I kind of want some cake.

I don't particularly care about 5e D&D at all, and I'm definitely not a fan (Although I'm not a hater either. Plenty of people enjoy it, and I'm OK with that, and I'm not upset about it dominating the market.) But that actually supports your point -- you wouldn't find me in thread about Fate, which is another game I don't really care about, but here I am talking about 5e.

(And no, I'm not here just stirring the pot -- my overall lack of interest in 5e is why you won't find any posts from me in generally positive, or even more neutral/balanced discussions of the game, but I joined in this one because I could understand where @Daztur was coming from in the original post.)

 

[AnotherGuy]

OF COURSE I want players to gain advantages by being smart and creative when I DM. THAT'S THE ENTIRE FREAKING POINT of how I DM. I absolutely love it when players do that when I DM. Makes my whole week.

This.

A character recently dropped in a fight against some undead, and so the barbarian character rushed to his side with an apple piece which was enchanted with the Heal spell when consumed - trying to prevent his colleague from being raised as a spectre. I cheekily said that the apple is not a potion so how did he expect the unconscious character to chew and swallow the apple. There was a moment of panic at the table, they were looking at a TPK.

It took a moment or two, but the player of the barbarian quickly explained that his character opened the mouth of his colleague and squeezed the apple piece to create a few droplets of liquid hoping that it would be enough to rouse his fallen comrade awake, after which the roused character could consume the rest of the squashed apple piece during his turn.

The table loved this idea!