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

[Belen]

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.

I understand; however, the DM violated both RAI and RAW in your scenario and was just a jerk. Unless it was a friend, I would have found another game. If a friend or if I thought the DM was salvageable, then I would have talked to them in private.

As a DM, I always make it clear that a player should address things with me if there is a concern and I consistently ask for feedback from them on how the game is running.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

I was not arguing for the copper coins. But unless it was the first floor, what would stop them hurling themselves out, would be the act being obviously harmful. They would move towards the window and nope out before jumping, the obvious danger snapping them out of the trance.

 

[Remathilis]

If a DM is trying to "screw you"....the problem is with the DM and not the spell.
The DM should be the PC's biggest fan. Otherwise he's just wasting everyone's time.

Oh, if you're insinuating I am a DM who likes to screw with my players, you are absolutely barking up the wrong tree. I have been accused of the opposite of that! But I'm also not the DM who lets players abuse rule loopholes to make first level spells mimic higher level effects.

 

[Belen]

I was not arguing for the copper coins. But unless it was the first floor, what would stop them hurling themselves out, would be the act being obviously harmful. They would move towards the window and nope out before jumping, the obvious danger snapping them out of the trance.

If it was the first floor or the NPC knew he could make it and it would help him get away, then I would roll with it.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

The last part which is just saying, the DM decides, which I think is fine because if it’s a DM who’s following the “fan of the PC’s” or “neutral and fair” philosophy, then it should all work out. Also IMO.

Honestly, I can’t think of the last time I had an NPC use command.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh, if you're insinuating I am a DM who likes to screw with my players, you are absolutely barking up the wrong tree. I have been accused of the opposite of that! But I'm also not the DM who lets players abuse rule loopholes to make first level spells mimic higher level effects.

I don't see anything in any version of the Command spell description that says the intent of the spell is to get an opponent in combat to waste a turn. Spells do what the flavor descriptor says they do, or why is that descriptor even present? This is exactly the problem I had with 4e. The flavor descriptor was clearly presented as an afterthought that didn't really matter. It looks like 5.5 is going that same way.

 

[Remathilis]

You're welcome to poo poo the options and not use them in your game. However, not every game has to have legal process matching your preferences, nor does the possibility that the trial wasn't going to fair suddenly render the options useless. The fact that a particular use of a spell might make you question the caster's is irrelevant to the point I was making. How obvious the spell casting is will depend on the table. The degree to which any given game is grounded, serious, realistic, crazy, heroic, funny or whatever is a matter for each table to decide for themselves. And the fact that that the spell doesn't need to do these things is irrelevant. Not individual spell is needed at all, unless you decide it is.

Like seriously, I'm OK if you wouldn't allow this sort of thing in your game. I am simply responding to the notion that there is no way to use this spell imaginatively, and all it can possibly be good for is causing someone to waste a turn during combat. At no point was I arguing that you, @Remathilis, have any obligation to encourage such uses at your own table.

My point was that in most reasonable situations, those commands do nothing to actually advance the casters goals unless the caster wants chaos or hostility (and if that's the case, there are dozens of better spells that will earn that effect).

What does "confess" do? In any court that vaguely resembles a modern one, that would be inadmissible as evidence. In a less enlightened court, you could probably get the same effect arguing spectral evidence (the ghost of the murder victim is standing here and pointing at you!). In a slapstick game, I imagine two lawyer-priests screaming "Confess" "Recant" at the target over and over until he fails a save or they run out of spell slots. And if that's how you want to run your game, fine with me. But you are basically having command do what charm person, dominate person or suggestion should do so I'm not going to bother wasting spell slots on those when for a level 1 effect I can force confessions, throw people out windows or make them commit suicide with handy poison vials.

And that's my only issue: the more "creative" and potent you allow command to be, the less you need other spells to do the same things.

 

[KYRON45]

Oh, if you're insinuating I am a DM who likes to screw with my players, you are absolutely barking up the wrong tree. I have been accused of the opposite of that! But I'm also not the DM who lets players abuse rule loopholes to make first level spells mimic higher level effects.

I made a statement. What gets inferred from it is beyond my ability to control.
Play the game however you like.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My point was that in most reasonable situations, those commands do nothing to actually advance the casters goals unless the caster wants chaos or hostility (and if that's the case, there are dozens of better spells that will earn that effect).

What does "confess" do? In any court that vaguely resembles a modern one, that would be inadmissible as evidence. In a less enlightened court, you could probably get the same effect arguing spectral evidence (the ghost of the murder victim is standing here and pointing at you!). In a slapstick game, I imagine two lawyer-priests screaming "Confess" "Recant" at the target over and over until he fails a save or they run out of spell slots. And if that's how you want to run your game, fine with me. But you are basically having command do what charm person, dominate person or suggestion should do so I'm not going to bother wasting spell slots on those when for a level 1 effect I can force confessions, throw people out windows or make them commit suicide with handy poison vials.

And that's my only issue: the more "creative" and potent you allow command to be, the less you need other spells to do the same things.

So what? The spell does what it says it does, as written in the rules and interpreted by the DM with player input.

 

[Minigiant]

Confess/Recant would be useless in a court of law. Everyone would see you cast the spell (unless you're a sorcerer) and know the target is under coercion. I guess if it's a corrupt court, that's fine but you weren't exactly getting a fair trial in the first place.

Drink is just breathe toxic gas but in liquid form. If the target suspects the drink is poisoned, they refuse. (And if they don't know, I seriously question your alignment).

Spit and salute again is easily dismissed because SOMEONE CASTS A SPELL RIGHT THERE to make them do it. The offended party would be more angry at the person saying the command than the person doing the forced action.

And again, the Command lasts six seconds. "Yeah your honor, I was at the Kings Ball and OHMYPELORWHATAMISAYING?! I'm innocent and someone is using magic to frame me! That's the REAL criminal!"

These aren't corner cases, these are so contrived that they will never happen unless the DM conspires to make them happen. The target must take the action in full view of a witness who is unaware of the caster or the spell and make a snap judgement on the target within 6 seconds before the target and return to acting normal. Even if the King is a powerful caster who removes all the target's skin in 6 seconds after being spit upon, the odds that circumstance happens again isn't enough to justify.

There is a whole school of magic focused on getting targets to do these types of things. There is no need to cram them all into one spell.

The thing is you have to remember you have a new generation of DMs where a quarter of them think that a natural 20 on a persuasion role means that you can persuade King to give up their crown.

When half of your customer base are completely new to the game you have to tell them directly how the game is supposed to work. And if you're not willing to do that you have to put in hard limitations to save themselves.