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

[mellored]

Yeah, I was pretty upfront with my players when we started a 5E game in 2018 that I will probably mix up rules from previous editions and had no interest in slowing the game down to look up rules unless it was extremely necessary, everyone was fine with it.

One example that comes to mind as an unnecessary change IMO from 3E-5E was the term for Attack of Opportunity (3E), then it went to Opportunity Attack in 4E I believe and then back to Attack of Opportunity in 5E, or is it a third term in 2014? I can only imagine what it's called now in the 2024 revision.

The only term changes from 2014 that I know of are.

Race -> Species
Ki points-> Focus Points
Feeblemind -> Befuddled
"Attacks, Saves, and ability checks" -> d20 Test.

 

[TiQuinn]

OP said gelatinous cube and in reference to 4e where flavor text and narrative control was largely left in the hands of the player using it. You know, encouraging creativity.

I don’t know if I’d allow that either BUT I also wouldn’t penalize the player by telling them “you try it, it doesn’t work, and you lose your turn”. I’d let them know upfront.

 

[mellored]

I got to admit I’m hearing about d20 Tests in the new edition now and I’m like “the what now?”

That's just a shorter version of "attacks, saves, and ability checks".

 

[Minigiant]

Now that's just silly. "Greater Command" would be ludicrously underpowered for a 5th level spell. And hell, if the original Command was overpowered I'd have no problem nerfing it. Lower its range, give the target advantage on the saving throw if the room is noisy, whatever. I'm not after the raw power, just how the spell rewards creativity and how the flavor and the mechanics of the spells match so beautifully.

In any case in terms of raw power 5.5e Command is, if anything, buffed. "Flee" and "grovel" are POWERFUL uses of the Command spells and they've just had the restrictions on being cast on undead and people who don't speak your language removed. WotC isn't changing Command because it's too powerful (if they were then why buff it?) but because they apparently don't like more open-ended spells and abilities

Greater Command doesn't exist.

Command is overpowered because Greater Command doesn't exist.

There should be more come and spells each with their own niche and choosing which one to prepare should be a struggle.

 

[MarkB]

I got to admit I’m hearing about d20 Tests in the new edition now and I’m like “the what now?”

Yeah, isn't a d20 test when you pre-roll them at the start of the session to see if they're running hot or cold?

 

[TiQuinn]

That's just a shorter version of "attacks, saves, and ability checks".

But not death saves apparently. I mean, it’s fine, it’s just more codification and what I call “lawyerese.”

 

[R_J_K75]

I got to admit I’m hearing about d20 Tests in the new edition now and I’m like “the what now?”

I saw that too and thought what's the point? I'm not bashing the game, it'd be unfair to do so because I've not read or played it, but I can say I don't recall reading any of the changes that were made and thinking "hey that actually sounds good and will improve the game".

 

[TiQuinn]

Yeah, isn't a d20 test when you pre-roll them at the start of the session to see if they're running hot or cold?

I remember my DM used to roll a bunch of d20s and write them down, and then tick them off as we were playing instead of rolling at the table. Always thought that was an interesting way of speeding up the game from his side.

 

[mellored]

But not death saves apparently. I mean, it’s fine, it’s just more codification and what I call “lawyerese.”

IMO it probably reduced the page count by 2 or so pages, given how many times that phrase was repeated.

I could take it or leave it.

 

[Daztur]

The whole 'flavor isn't free' deal feels like the opposite of what the rest of the arguments present; locking down the spell to one specific interpretation, largely to allow the DM to shut down players trying to have fun and do something off the wall.

I think that by locking down a mechanic to one precise flavor interpretation you open the door to players doing more fun off the wall things. If spells just give a general mechanical effect then there's nothing for the players to latch onto to figure out how to MacGyver it. But if the spell is very specific in is flavor then it's easier to figure out ways to logically use that flavor in ways that the mechanics don't address.

"The flavor of this spell says X therefore it should logically be capable of doing X" feels great "I made flavor X for my spell up myself, therefore the spell should do X that the statblock doesn't say it can do" feels a lot more exploitative.

If the flavor of a spell can be anything, then the flavor doesn't matter.

Must have missed the tripping an ooze example but doesn’t that at least have a clear rule - oozes can’t be knocked prone (in their description?)

Not in 4e.

OP said gelatinous cube and in reference to 4e where flavor text and narrative control was largely left in the hands of the player using it. You know, encouraging creativity.

The official 4e ruling was that you could knock gelatinous cubes prone. Of course DMs were free to ignore that ruling but the general philosophy of "flavor text doesn't matter" was a real thing in 4e.

There were a number of 4e powers where what the hell was actually going on in flavor terms was very unclear.