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

[AnotherGuy]

Most creatures that can inherently self-immolate aren't harmed by doing so.

That is fair. I'd certainly allow it - as it would be creative.

As for Moonbeam it is nothing like Command. It is wrong to equate the two.
I like the idea of commanding a werewolf to "revert" or "transform". It is a temporary lapse in judgment (if they failed their saving throw).

If a player at my table came up with a creative way to use a spell, that isn't breaking the game or ruining people's fun, I'm not going to disallow it.
If I think the creature may not understand the Command instruction and if I deem that the character may know that, I'd tell the player (so that he make select a different Command) or if there was a chance the character did not know, I'd ask for a Knowledge or Intelligence check and let the dice decide.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Logical sense in the fiction is if you are in the center of a 40 ft sphere of fire, you die. No save, no hit points, death. But fireball has rules for not dying despite the logical sense; heck a high enough HP character can be ground zero for a fireball hot enough to ignite combustibles, fail the save, take full damage, and walk out of the blast as combat capable as when he was born up. And 8 hours of rest later be good as new without scarring or burn trauma.

Logical sense ends when game mechanics begin.

All of that stuff is, IMO, ridiculous and at the very least needs to be abstracted if not removed to preserve as much logical sense as possible.

I cannot disagree more with you on this. Game mechanics end where logical sense begins.

 

[Oofta]

Again, the spell does what the flavor descriptor says it does. Not my fault if their examples are unimaginative.

LOL. The text that clarifies what they mean and always has are meaningless because you want to make it into a 1 round dominate ... okely dokely.

In any case, I like the 2024 version. It clearly spells out what the spell is supposed to do, that it's just a first level spell with limited power. It can still be used creatively, like many other options in the game, without violating the clear intent.

 

[Remathilis]

All of that stuff is, IMO, ridiculous and at the very least needs to be abstracted if not removed to preserve as much logical sense as possible.

I cannot disagree more with you on this. Game mechanics end where logical sense begins.

I'm sure you could fix this with a complex and realistic system of wounds, trauma, and healing, but I would argue that doesn't fit D&D's abstract combat rules over fiction first style that has existed for 50 years. At a certain point you accept limitations and absurdity in the name of game balance and playability.

 

[Micah Sweet]

LOL. The text that clarifies what they mean and always has are meaningless because you want to make it into a 1 round dominate ... okely dokely.

In any case, I like the 2024 version. It clearly spells out what the spell is supposed to do, that it's just a first level spell with limited power. It can still be used creatively, like many other options in the game, without violating the clear intent.

I don't want it to do anything more than what the flavor descriptor allows for. Please don't give me ulterior motives.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm sure you could fix this with a complex and realistic system of wounds, trauma, and healing, but I would argue that doesn't fit D&D's abstract combat rules over fiction first style that has existed for 50 years. At a certain point you accept limitations and absurdity in the name of game balance and playability.

I do, but my tolerance is not the same as yours, and your line is not objectively the best for anyone but yourself. Please don't assume otherwise.

 

[Oofta]

I don't want it to do anything more than what the flavor descriptor allows for. Please don't give me ulterior motives.

The text gives clear examples of what the intent of the spell can accomplish and always has. The examples aren't "unimaginative", they're giving guidance as to what the spell can accomplish. They're just as important as the rest of the text of the spell.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The text gives clear examples of what the intent of the spell can accomplish and always has. The examples aren't "unimaginative", they're giving guidance as to what the spell can accomplish. They're just as important as the rest of the text of the spell.

If you're right, then the flavor descriptor should have always said that it allows only these things. It didn't, so more creative choices were available. The fact that this is no longer true saddens me.

 

[Oofta]

If you're right, then the flavor descriptor should have always said that it allows only these things. It didn't, so more creative choices were available. The fact that this is no longer true saddens me.

There's a big difference between giving clear guidance and "allow anything". I like the new version of the spell because I can now cast it on a wider variety of targets and it does give clear guidance. Which has always been the issue - how will the DM interpret the command.

IMHO most of the examples of "creative" commands go far beyond the clear intent of the spell, if not the explicit restrictions of the spell.

In any case, there's nothing new here. Have a good one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's a big difference between giving clear guidance and "allow anything". I like the new version of the spell because I can now cast it on a wider variety of targets and it does give clear guidance. Which has always been the issue - how will the DM interpret the command.

IMHO most of the examples of "creative" commands go far beyond the clear intent of the spell, if not the explicit restrictions of the spell.

In any case, there's nothing new here. Have a good one.

That is not my issue; that "clear guidance" you are so happy about is unwanted by me, at least in this instance. To me, restrictions are restrictions, but nothing else is.

In any case, there's nothing new here. Have a good one.