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

[KYRON45]

"Salute" shouldn't work - it's a noun as well as a verb. Likewise "spit" and "drink:. Likewise "halt", for that matter!

This right here is why people don't like "open ended" rules.
If the DM is playing word games....they are the problem, not the spell.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why are you assuming that GMs should choose the most antagonistic way of interpreting the player's/character's intent?

If a character says "smash" at someone just standing around in a group, I'll most likely rule the target won't do much of anything.

If a character says "smash" at someone with a mace standing in front of an ice sculpture, that target will be smashing the ice sculpture.

You can rule differently at your own table, but don't be telling everyone else what should or should not happen in their own games.

I do find it amusing that there are people telling me that it's impossible to use the spell imaginatively, and then when I give examples it's all, "I wouldn't allow that. I wouldn't allow that. You shouldn't allow that." I mean, of course it's hard to use imaginatively if the GM just says "no" and accuses players of abusing the spell any time they try and come up with imaginative uses.

Yep. I assume the command is an instant hypnotic compulsion, and the target certainly will not be able to rules-lawyer it. They will do the most obvious thing that fulfils the command.

 

[Oofta]

...
I really don't think that's a fair reading of what people have been saying in this thread. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but I don't think it should be too much to ask to understand why some people have a different perspective on this issue than you.

It's fine that you have a different opinion. I happen to like the change and think we may see more use of it. Don't like the new version of the spell at your table? Most games have minor house rules here and there, this would be a really minor one.

But this change is not about destroying creativity. It is not changing D&D into (your words) "a board game". That's the hyperbole I'm talking about. It's a clarification and enforcing intent while also improving the spell.

 

[Daztur]

Yep. I assume the command is an instant hypnotic compulsion, and the target certainly will not be able to rules-lawyer it. They will do the most obvious thing that fulfils the command.

Or when the most obvious course of action is unclear, I break out the luck die.

 

[Oofta]

Why are you assuming that GMs should choose the most antagonistic way of adjudicating the spell's effect?

If a character says "smash" at someone just standing around in a group, I'll most likely rule the target won't do much of anything.

If a character says "smash" at someone with a mace standing in front of an ice sculpture, that target will be smashing the ice sculpture.

You can rule differently at your own table, but don't be telling everyone else what should or should not happen in their own games.

I do find it amusing that there are people telling me that it's impossible to use the spell imaginatively, and then when I give examples it's all, "I wouldn't allow that. I wouldn't allow that. You shouldn't allow that." I mean, of course it's hard to use imaginatively if the GM just says "no" and accuses players of abusing the spell any time they try and come up with imaginative uses.

How to implement the command, under the 2014 version, up to the target of the spell.

 

[Belen]

Mocking of the player? Seriously? You're not going to have a pissed off player for deliberately misinterpreting their intent by abusing the letter of the rule?

Not a single nose out of joint? Not a whisper of unhappiness? All sunshine and rainbows around the table?

You have some seriously understanding players.

Like I said. I'm all about RAI. RAW can jump in the lake.

Not in my games. The NPC will still have lost an action or have been otherwise distracted. It is the job of the DM to interpret the actions of the NPCs and this happens all the time in my games. It is not mocking the players. They got creative and the DM is allowed to be equally creative.

My players like it when unexpected things happen and generally roll with it. I do not play a gotcha game with them and I never screw them over.

 

[SableWyvern]

It's a clarification and enforcing intent while also improving the spell.

One reason I sometimes do poorly in these sorts of discussions is I have zero respect for designer intent if it clashes with my own preferences.

How to implement the command, under the 2014 version, up to the target of the spell.

Case in point. That sounds unfun and mostly unworkable to me. But if I'm disregarding all this, I will admit it makes it much harder to discuss meaningfully.

1e Command for the win, in my book. With a one minute round, to boot.

 

[Oofta]

One reason I sometimes do poorly in these sorts of discussions is I have zero respect for designer intent if it clashes with my own preferences.

Case in point. That sounds unfun and mostly unworkable to me. But if I'm disregarding all this, I will admit it makes it much harder to discuss meaningfully.

1e Command for the win, in my book. With a one minute round, to boot.

These things always seem to come down to "My opinion and preference is.." countered by "I have a different opinion and preference is..." followed by "I'm just trying to explain...". Which, by the time we get to the last bit everyone knows what the different sides are. It all just comes down to what we happen to like or not like and occasionally reasons why.

For example, I don't like the caster deciding how to implement the action because I've had bad experiences as a player. My PC was on a boat, the NPC commanded "jump"* and instead of one of many reasonable options of jump in place, towards the middle of the ship or to the side the DM stated "You know what I mean, jump overboard." There were several options for my PC to follow the command that didn't have them sink to the bottom of the ocean.

If you are going to have the caster decide what the result is, I think it should be a clear and short list. If it's open ended, it should be up to the target to decide how to implement it. In my opinion.

*I know I keep bringing this same example up, to me it's just a clear example of the abuse of the word.

 

[Belen]

For those who say 6e by 2030, I think this may be wrong. They wanted One D&D and I think they will make it happen. A 6e that was truly different from 5e would mean millions in extra work to fix D&D Beyond. It was fine when it was just books or a character creator but Beyond and the VTT will heavily affect game design.

D&D will have to be doing poorly for them to do an edition overhaul that will cost 10 times the price due to the tech factor.

 

[pemerton]

Why are you assuming that GMs should choose the most antagonistic way of adjudicating the spell's effect?

1e Command for the win, in my book. With a one minute round, to boot.

From the AD&D PHB (p 43):

This spell enables the cleric to issue a command of a single word. The command must be uttered in a language which the spell recipient is able to understand. The individual will obey to the best of his/her/its ability only so long as the command is absolutely clear and unequivocal, i.e. "Suicide!" could be a noun, so the creature would ignore the command. A command to "Die!" would cause the recipient to fall in a faint or cataleptic state for 1 round, but thereafter the creature would be alive and well. Typical command words are: back, halt, flee, run, stop, fall, fly, go, leave, surrender, sleep, rest, etc.​

Now admittedly that's already contradictory, given that back, halt, run, stop, fall, leave, surrender, sleep and rest can all be nouns as well as verbs - just like suicide.

I assume the command is an instant hypnotic compulsion, and the target certainly will not be able to rules-lawyer it. They will do the most obvious thing that fulfils the command.

In this case, why would defenestrate have them throwing copper coins out the window, when the most salient - and presumably the intended - thing is that they hurl themself out.