SableWyvern
Hero
Yes, people claiming it's not possible really confuse me.
Is it really so inconceivable that a group of people can have an understanding as to what is and is not acceptable at their table and play within those agreed norms?
D&D (2024) Command is the Perfect Encapsulation of Everything I Don't Like About 5.5e
- Thread starter Daztur
- Start date
Is it really so inconceivable that a group of people can have an understanding as to what is and is not acceptable at their table and play within those agreed norms?
SableWyvern
Hero
Indeed. And I absolutely do rely on the honour of those who I've invited into my house to particpate in my game to not steal my wallet.
DinoInDisguise
A russian spy disguised as a t-rex.
This is so crazy to me. I don't even read my player's character sheets.
Maybe I'm an alien and human D&D is a hostile exercise where nerds show dominance over each other in an attempt to impress the pizza guy.
Maybe it's time I go to bed.
Daztur
Hero
Yeah, I did phrase it in a flippant way. But am I wrong? This thread is now very very long (98 pages
and going strong) and it has ranged quite a bit beyond Command into a whole bunch of other areas and in those 98 pages all of the people who prefer the 5.5e of Command over the 5.0e version have had some VERY big philosophical differences with me about how to DM D&D. Every.
Single.
One.
Meanwhile, while I have a few quibbles with the people who have preferred the 5.0e version of Command over the 5.5e version we've tended to be on the same page about broader philosophical ideas about how to approach DMing.
Every.
Single.
One.
Seems like a very VERY effective litmus test to me. So far it's batting at 1.000. Small issues can be a way to check about deeper issues. That's what a litmus test is.
Similarly, if I was reading a 5.0e hack and I came across a line that they'd changed sneak attack from d6 to d4 since sneak attack is OPed and needs to be nerfed then I'd know there would be no need to read the rest of the hack, someone who gets that sort of thing wrong doesn't understand 5.0e rules well enough to make a good hack. It wouldn't matter if I wasn't planning on playing a rogue or if nobody else in the party was planning to play a rogue. It shows that they don't understand how the rules work on a fundamental level.
I'd be every bit as leery about trusting someone's 5.0e hack who preferred the 5.5e version of Command. This is all subjective instead of objective, since I can't break out DPS math about how Sneak Attack isn't OPed but this subjective stuff matters just as much to me. If I'm playing a D&D (or D&D-ish) game I want the designer to see eye to eye to me about really basic stuff like whether fiction trumps mechanics or mechanics trump fiction. What would be the point otherwise?
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Yes. That's why I called it out as flippant. It isn't a litmus test. Litmus reliably identifies acid from base objectively. This does nothing of the sort. It doesn't even indicate the kinds of things you're wanting it to indicate, and your alleged batting average is not, even remotely, an actual assay of whether things are or are not any particular thing. For claiming you aren't going about this in any objective way, you're quite keen to add the impression of objectivity when it's useful to you.
Maybe it would be more useful to, I dunno, actually read through a book? Read other things the designers have said about it? I know D&D makes this extremely difficult, given WotC has legit actively erased most of the history of 5.0 and its playtest stuff. (I still remember the rather inconvenient poll that showed that Druids weren't as popular as Warlords, for example, one of the very last times the 5e designers ever gave anything more than lip service to the Warlord class.)
A litmus test is supposed to be objective and clear-cut--e.g. political litmus tests are things like asking for a particular judge candidate's stance on politically volatile topics. (I won't specifically mention any here because they're obviously controversial things, but I'm sure you can think of a recent high-profile SCOTUS case that affected half the population of the US as an example of a relevant hot-button topic prone to litmus testing by folks of various political affiliations.) Yours is vague, flippant, and easily unrepresentative. Whether you intend it to be vague, flippant, or unrepresentative is not really relevant to what it actually achieves.
I prefer to judge things based on trying to genuinely understand them, rather than dismissing a pretty massive effort from tiny and usually unrepresentative data. Hence why I like to do things like run statistical analyses, inquire about underlying design goals (both whether they have been successfully implemented, and whether they were even wisely-chosen to begin with). This is part of why, even though I was pretty upset with how things went with 5e, even though I had spoken stridently against various choices during the playtest, even though I had actually played a test game (which ended up being essentially identical to how 5.0 played on release), I still genuinely tried to give 5e a shot. Several, in fact. I was burned enough times that I generally avoid it (except for genuinely kind invitations, like what Hussar gave me, hence why I remain at his virtual table.)
mellored
Legend
Why would it only apply to the DM?
Monsters can cast Command just as easily, and the PCs can be "bad faith" (a.k.a. creative) in their response as well.
So you either end up with a spell that is
- useless, because neither side follows the intention of the caster and bad faith / creatively find a way out.
- overpowered because either side follows the intention of the caster.
- Needs to have a defined middle ground.
Also, why exactly do clerics get mind control? It seems much more like an enchanter or bard spell.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Old Testament, "the power of God compels you" stuff. It's a big part of the class fantasy the cleric is built upon.
Daztur
Hero
I would also like to point out that the thread title is actually perfect for me. This is how the discussion has gone from my point of view:
OP: I don't like how the new Command spell removes the ambiguity, open nature of the Command Spell.
Me: I actually really like that. I find that the open nature of the Command spell and other similarly written spells, cause all sorts of friction at my table.
Others: Oh, you just have bad players. No good player would ever argue with the DM's ruling.
OP: Here are a bunch of examples of creative Commands that are no longer allowed.
Me: Good. Most of those are abusing the rules and I wouldn't allow most of them.
Others: You are a terrible DM for not allowing player creativity.
Me: So, unless I 100% agree with every single use of "Creative Command", I'm a bad DM. But, anyone arguing with my rulings is a bad player... Ummm... Doesn't this make the OP a bad player for arguing with the DM's ruling?
OP: Nope, you're a bad DM that I'd never want to play under because you hate player creativity.
It's a total no-win situation for me. And that's called compromise?
This thread 100% encapsulates EXACTLY what happens at my game table over and over and over again because of these poorly written spells and effects. Players either deliberately or mistakenly "misunderstanding" the mechanics in order to grab as many advantages as they can.
There's give and take here. I like for DMs to be as flexible as possible with PC shenanigans but when the DM brings down his foot and makes a ruling the players should accept it. I like that give and play with the players constantly trying to push up against the line and the DM drawing a firm line between fun shenanigans and abuse. I find that back and forth of creativity channeled by the DM a whole lot of fun. You don't like policing that line, fair enough. You're not a bad DM, just a very different DM from me.
Personally my biggest source of inspiration for D&D is myths, legends, and fairy tales in which characters are constantly being sneaky and taking the wording of spells/prophesies/curses and utterly undermining the intent of them by playing word games. So when my characters do that same thing I'm happy but I can see how in an Epic Fantasy campaign that kind of sneaky rat-bastard "technically correct, the best kind of correct!" undermines the tone.
My cleric knows no such thing. My cleric knows that she says a word and people obey. At least that's how I RPed her.
Exactly. "You speak a one word command" is what she knows. So that's what she does. She doesn't think about it being "limited to movement and free actions" as that isn't in the fluff. I just have her "speak a one word command" that I think would make the most sense for her in character and let the DM figure out what happens. Sometimes it works out to my benefit, sometimes it doesn't. I'm fine with that. As she's a sneaky trickery cleric, her trying to do sneaky naughty word with Command (based solely on her IC understanding of it) makes sense for her. Having her sneaky tricks blow up in her face sometimes also is very on-brand for trickster figures, so I'm also fine with that.
Daztur
Hero
The "defined middle ground" is "the DM says what it does, end of story." That's always worked fine for me.
I'm taking a broader definition of litmus test: "a test in which a single factor (such as an attitude, event, or fact) is decisive." It's not objective, it's just a shortcut that's been useful so far.
Do you know how long that would take?
I'm running Beyond the Wall for my next campaign after binning my planned 5.5e campaign but a lot of OSRisms rub me the wrong way despite me liking their design goals but I'd like something D&D adjacent that is not Yet Another OSR B/X Clone for a campaign eventually and reading every single Fantasy Heartbreaker out there would take a literal year. Need some way of sorting things into "nope!" and "interesting!" piles that is fast. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be good enough.I guess I could get off my ass and write up my own rule-set. But am lazy and spend too much time arguing on the internet.
Excellent question! Also: why is Frisky Chest a cleric spell? That makes no sense at all!
