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

[Micah Sweet]

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?

Most of the talk on the entire forum is 5.5. If I refuse to discuss I am engaging with the community a lot less.

I do engage in the Level Up forum, but it's much less active in general, and a lot of the discussion is rules-related (which is less fun to talk about).

Again, I am here because this is where the community is.

 

[darjr]

This thread has gotten away from me. Apologies.

Mike posted something that I like that may be apropos.

(Aside: If I have a worry about D&D '24, it rests on its specificity. A good system is elastic. '24 seems to veer toward trying to cover every case, and in doing so could create a lot of weird corner cases. Elastic TTRPG systems are built to account for the wide range of possibilities in play by leaning into the DM as adjudicator. Elasticity is, in my opinion, one of the key design differentiators between TTRPGs and everything else.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

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."

The examples that are part of the rules of command do a pretty good job in expectation-setting, and, I'd argue, it could be better and clearer and more explicit (it takes some system knowledge to grok that the spell's main utility is combat action denial, after all). Examples and guidance and other ways to make DM adjudication easy and quick are welcome things.

The problem for me is when the game constrains the possibility space to ONLY those things. If I'm in a blighted, shriveled wood full of dead plant life and I cast fireball on a pile of leaves and detritus, maybe I start a forest fire ("[the fire] ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried"), if that would spark joy in the moment. The damage listed in the spell isn't a constraint - that's not all the spell can do. It's just a reliable expectation. That's a good thing. It's also a good thing that we're not tightly defining the possible outcomes of making a big firey explosion to "deal damage."

It's OK to let command or fireball or a called shot or a picked lock or or a confident lie or any improvised action jump off the rails and be a nothingburger or a session-defining action, if the DM and the player opt into it in the moment. That doesn't preclude having a solid basis on which to make the judgement of the action's impact. It just means we're not limiting the effect to a tightly defined bound. We're leaving room for potential shenanigans. If the DM allows it, and the player chooses it.

 

[Lanefan]

Delightful imaginary elf time ...

...or diet for short; so next time anyone says I should go on a diet this'll be how I interpret it...

 

[Daztur]

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."

I think the variance you're talking about goes in the feature not bug basket for me. I played a Trickery Cleric whose signature spell was Command so I have experience casting that spell over and over and over and over. And honestly, "flee" or "grovel" were the best uses of the spell most of the time. I often did other Command words even if they were strictly weaker in game terms just because spamming the same Command over and over was boring and didn't fit her personality and I REALLY like RPing in combat and having my PC's tactics be driven by their personality.

Now a few times Command did come through but they were mostly very situational such as "climb" to get a dude up a tree that the party's ogre ally then knocked down, which was a lot of fun. Not sure if that added up to more damage than just smacking the NPC directly but I enjoyed it a lot.

But having a spell be a bit more powerful than normal in a certain specific circumstance is something I think is good not bad. Like I like having Fireball be more powerful than normal vs. an NPC standing in a pool of oil. Now if the more powerful Command word is something that can be spammed in every fight I'd disallow it, but I think that the variance that comes from the players figuring out how to put just the right key in just the right hole and then getting a boost in power from that is just the kind of play that I think should be rewarded with more power.

For example Dissonant Whispers is basically a save or die spell in a lot of cases if it's cast in a dude with melee PCs all around him. Don't see people complaining about that, that's just good tactics to surround a dude then hit him with Dissonant Whispers. Same deal with the more niche uses of Command, they take some initiative on the player's part to set up and/or recognize the opportunity and rewarding the player for that good thinking is what I think D&D should be all about.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I think the variance you're talking about goes in the feature not bug basket for me. I played a Trickery Cleric whose signature spell was Command so I have experience casting that spell over and over and over and over. And honestly, "flee" or "grovel" were the best uses of the spell most of the time. I often did other Command words even if they were strictly weaker in game terms just because spamming the same Command over and over was boring and didn't fit her personality and I REALLY like RPing in combat and having my PC's tactics be driven by their personality.

Now a few times Command did come through but they were mostly very situational such as "climb" to get a dude up a tree that the party's ogre ally then knocked down, which was a lot of fun. Not sure if that added up to more damage than just smacking the NPC directly but I enjoyed it a lot.

But having a spell be a bit more powerful than normal in a certain specific circumstance is something I think is good not bad. Like I like having Fireball be more powerful than normal vs. an NPC standing in a pool of oil. Now if the more powerful Command word is something that can be spammed in every fight I'd disallow it, but I think that the variance that comes from the players figuring out how to put just the right key in just the right hole and then getting a boost in power from that is just the kind of play that I think should be rewarded with more power.

For example Dissonant Whispers is basically a save or die spell in a lot of cases if it's cast in a dude with melee PCs all around him. Don't see people complaining about that, that's just good tactics to surround a dude then hit him with Dissonant Whispers. Same deal with the more niche uses of Command, they take some initiative on the player's part to set up and/or recognize the opportunity and rewarding the player for that good thinking is what I think D&D should be all about.

I have enjoyed your tactical examples.

Never even tempted to play a trickery cleric so it’s fun to see the possibilities!!!

 

[Remathilis]

But having a spell be a bit more powerful than normal in a certain specific circumstance is something I think is good not bad. Like I like having Fireball be more powerful than normal vs. an NPC standing in a pool of oil. Now if the more powerful Command word is something that can be spammed in every fight I'd disallow it, but I think that the variance that comes from the players figuring out how to put just the right key in just the right hole and then getting a boost in power from that is just the kind of play that I think should be rewarded with more power.

You bring up an important point here: there is a difference between tactical play and broken options. I have absolutely no problem with tactical play, but I have been very skeptical of several of the suggested commands presented. For example, if an opponent had a flask of alchemist fire, I would certainly allow the "drop" command to make the opponent drop the flask in their area, potentially putting them in the AoE (even though that skirts the "harmful action" clause) but I would veto a "drink" command because intentionally drinking oil is suicidal. By the same token, I would probably veto "daydream" because ending concentration is far more abusable effect than the suggested ones. (Alternately, I'd consider a DC 10 concentration check, akin to getting hit with most low level damage spells). My issue has mostly been with people thinking it should do what charm or dominate person should do.

 

[Pedantic]

Only because it seems relevant to this back and forth... What is the appropriate level for a 1 round dominate spell with "save negates?"

 

[pemerton]

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.

Yes. This is why, upthread, I posted:

My primary argument is simple: to take the view that action economy and spell level matter for damage-dealing spells, but not for other spell effects, in a RPG that is one of the most pedantic ever written as far as those sorts of things are concerned, makes no sense. And to put the onus of ensuring the proper working and balance of those things onto the GM, in the moment of play, is poor design.

<snip>

I think the spell would be better if it specified the parameters of victim action that can be affected (movement; action denial; no direct harm) and then said that command will take effect within those parameters, as intended by the caster, and offered a few examples to illustrate.

Only because it seems relevant to this back and forth... What is the appropriate level for a 1 round dominate spell with "save negates?"

One thought on that:

A one-round dominate effect could then also be spelled out expressly, as a spell of the appropriate level (presumably 2nd or 3rd level? in 4e D&D Command is a 3rd level cleric power that combines action denial with knocking prone or forced movement; and one-round dominate is a 5th level bard power).

 

[pemerton]

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.

I don't understand your reasoning about Goodberry: in the real world people can feel full but be undernourished (if they fill up on, say, celery) or can be nourished yet feel hungry (I don't think I need to elaborate on this possibility!). So to me it seems an open question what effect Goodberry has, as far as feeling full is concerned.

As far as Command is concerned, as I've already posted D&D is incredibly pedantic about action economy and effects. Taking an action can range from (say) opening a door to (say) calling down a meteor swarm. From stepping over a buddle to (say) leaping over a cliff into a river of lava. And the game ranks these actions and their effects in all sorts of ways.

How does Command fit into that ranking? The only guidance the spell gives us is its examples. Thus I take these to set the parameters, and hence to preclude commands such as "Cast!" or "Attack!" or "Hurl!"