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

[Milieu]

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.

Sure, but examples are examples, not the absolute outer bounds. The spell doesn't say anything like "if the DM determines the command is more powerful than the examples, the spell ends".

Climb - requires a skill check which may fail, causing the target to fall and take damage. It's entirely possible that the target literally is not capable of climbing whatever it is that you want it 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.

The definition of the spell doesn't say "the target can only move toward or away from the caster or just not move at all". Unless you interpret the potential for falling as "directly harmful to it" (and unless there are circumstances that make falling particularly dangerous or likely, I wouldn't), this isn't an abuse of the definition of the spell.

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.

The spell doesn't say "you can cause the target to drop something at their feet but that's it". Drop is just an example, not a limit.

It also doesn't say "you can't make the NPC take an action". Attacking is not expressly prohibited. You might argue that it is implicitly prohibited, since if it were allowed, they would probably have given that as an example. That's not an unreasonable position, but nothing in the text of the spell says a dog can't play basketball you can't command them to attack or take an action.

But on the other hand commands like "attack" aren't usually a very good idea, since you can't tell them whom to attack, so maybe they were just trying to list a few that are more generally useful.

It's fine if you want to interpret it as not being able to force the target to take an action, but arguing that people who don't interpret it that way are "rewriting" the spell is not correct.

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".

It's only clearly more powerful than "Drop" if you assume the direct object has to be "your weapon" and the indirect object has to be "a PC". But you can't command them to give a PC their weapon, only "Give".

In my interpretation, a low intelligence enemy would probably give something already in their hands to the nearest creature, but if they're a bit clever, they'll choose to give something unimportant or give something to their friend. So it's more circumstantial than drop.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

The text of fireball says "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame." That sentence does not say what the effects of that are in the game.

Imagine if the text stopped there. How much damage would fireball do? Maybe it would be up to the DM to determine the conditions (it does less damage in a damn or humid environment, more in a dry or arid. Maybe it depends on the amount of flammable material around, with reduced damage in snow and increased damage in a forest). Should the base damage be 3d6, 8d6, or 20d6? Would you be ok if the DM determined how much damage it did? And what if there was no guidance on what is appropriate damage for a 3rd level spell?

That's my problem with Command. Sometimes you get an effect no better than Prestidigitation and other times it's a Dominate Monster. That's way too much variance for a level 1 spell. And believe me, the effects people are championing are the ones that should be reserved for higher level spells. Which is why, if we're not going to have a comprehensive list of commands, we need a very clear list of what kinds of effects it can produce, both to give a player what to expect and to give a DM tools to adjudicate it.

Because I would hate to hear "well, you're standing in a pile of dead leaves, so you take 20d6 fire damage. Save for half."

 

[Oofta]

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'm always amazed how many people come on these threads, particularly ones that seem to be critical of most things WotC does that occasionally drop "I don't play D&D and really dislike 5E". Like, what the what? What are you doing here then?

I'm not a big fan of professional sports of any kind. I don't go on an NFL forum to discuss my issues with the game which would take a few paragraphs. So I just don't get why people come to this forum just to talk about how terrible the game is because it always feels like trolling even if that's not the reason.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm always amazed how many people come on these threads, particularly ones that seem to be critical of most things WotC does that occasionally drop "I don't play D&D and really dislike 5E". Like, what the what? What are you doing here then?

I'm not a big fan of professional sports of any kind. I don't go on an NFL forum to discuss my issues with the game which would take a few paragraphs. So I just don't get why people come to this forum just to talk about how terrible the game is because it always feels like trolling even if that's not the reason.

It's for engagement. It's the same behavior as people who rail how they aren't going to see the latest Marvel movie (and haven't seen one since Age of Ultron, but THIS new one is the death of the MCU) or go on a businesses social media and complain how their food is terrible and they never eat there. People thrive off the engagement that conflict brings.

Look how many threads about elements of the game get either sidetracked into arguments about wotc, debates about preferred play style, or die after a dozen posts. Think how many times constructive criticism or attempts to fix an issue get ignored in favor of rehashing the same tired talking points. People don't want solutions, they want to be angry and they want to be right.

And wotc is a great punching bag because it's so big and they routinely shove their foot in their mouth. No one would hang out on Paizos boards everyday telling them they are a crap company or make their public persona trolling Matt Corvelle, but wotc is the big fish and is fair game.

And I get it's tiring to deal with that in your fandom every day. I am tired of going into the comments section of some media brand I like and seeing it flooded with hate, stale memes, and negativity. But that's what drives conversations. If it didn't, the algorithms wouldn't promote it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm always amazed how many people come on these threads, particularly ones that seem to be critical of most things WotC does that occasionally drop "I don't play D&D and really dislike 5E". Like, what the what? What are you doing here then?

I'm not a big fan of professional sports of any kind. I don't go on an NFL forum to discuss my issues with the game which would take a few paragraphs. So I just don't get why people come to this forum just to talk about how terrible the game is because it always feels like trolling even if that's not the reason.

People get on internet forums to talk about subjects they find interesting to talk about. There is no requirement that they engage personally in the specific activity, just that they have an interest. You don't want to tell folks they can't engage in a thread about something they haven't and don't want to personally experience.

 

[Oofta]

People get on internet forums to talk about subjects they find interesting to talk about. There is no requirement that they engage personally in the specific activity, just that they have an interest. You don't want to tell folks they can't engage in a thread about something they haven't and don't want to personally experience.

I'm not going to tell people they can't post. Doesn't mean I understand their reasons other than to stir up arguments.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's for engagement. It's the same behavior as people who rail how they aren't going to see the latest Marvel movie (and haven't seen one since Age of Ultron, but THIS new one is the death of the MCU) or go on a businesses social media and complain how their food is terrible and they never eat there. People thrive off the engagement that conflict brings.

Look how many threads about elements of the game get either sidetracked into arguments about wotc, debates about preferred play style, or die after a dozen posts. Think how many times constructive criticism or attempts to fix an issue get ignored in favor of rehashing the same tired talking points. People don't want solutions, they want to be angry and they want to be right.

And wotc is a great punching bag because it's so big and they routinely shove their foot in their mouth. No one would hang out on Paizos boards everyday telling them they are a crap company or make their public persona trolling Matt Corvelle, but wotc is the big fish and is fair game.

And I get it's tiring to deal with that in your fandom every day. I am tired of going into the comments section of some media brand I like and seeing it flooded with hate, stale memes, and negativity. But that's what drives conversations. If it didn't, the algorithms wouldn't promote it.

I think it's also worth noting regarding engagement that, if a person is interested in and wants to talk about a broad topic (like TTRPGs), and nearly all the conversation centers around a specific part of that topic (like 5e, or WotC, or 5.5), that person may very well engage even if they don't like the sub-topic, because the alternative is no engagement at all.

You are at a conversational disadvantage if you don't like the most popular thing.

 

[Remathilis]

I think it's also worth noting regarding engagement that, if a person is interested in and wants to talk about a broad topic (like TTRPGs), and nearly all the conversation centers around a specific part of that topic (like 5e, or WotC, or 5.5), that person may very well engage even if they don't like the sub-topic, because the alternative is no engagement at all.

You are at a conversational disadvantage if you don't like the most popular thing.

People on the Paizo boards have no problem talking about Pathfinder and still discussing the broad topic on TTRPGs. You're in a D&D forum. Of course the topic is going to be the most recent version of D&D. The question is why do you continue to discuss it if it angers you so deeply? What do you hope to accomplish?

 

[Micah Sweet]

People on the Paizo boards have no problem talking about Pathfinder and still discussing the broad topic on TTRPGs. You're in a D&D forum. Of course the topic is going to be the most recent version of D&D. The question is why do you continue to discuss it if it angers you so deeply? What do you hope to accomplish?

Engagement and entertainment. When I started posting here, I liked the current version of D&D, and I liked the degree of engagement in the community I was at. To maintain that degree, I now have to talk about stuff I don't like. Plus a lot of general TTRPG topics I want to engage with are framed in the context of 5.5 now. I have no choice but to post in those threads about a game I don't like if I want to engage with those topics.

In short, that's where the community is.

 

[Remathilis]

Engagement and entertainment. When I started posting here, I liked the current version of D&D, and I liked the degree of engagement in the community I was at. To maintain that degree, I now have to talk about stuff I don't like. Plus a lot of general TTRPG topics I want to engage with are framed in the context of 5.5 now. I have no choice but to post in those threads about a game I don't like if I want to engage with those topics.

In short, that's where the community is.

I would buy that, but you're posting in topics specific to the new game: if you don't care about 5.5 and have no interest in it, why are you commenting on the PHB? The new books in 2025? I don't care about Pathfinder and I don't give a flying fig about their upcoming products. I certainly don't chill in the forum and comment how much I can't stand how Pathfinder changed and now it sucks in every thread posted there.

There is a general RPG discussion board on this forum. There is a Level Up forum. It's the Official Forum. You don't need to be in the 5e forum if you don't want to engage in general topics or LU specific ones.

You're here because you want to be. Because you enjoy the conflict. So I ask again, why?