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

[mamba]

See, I don't think intent has priority, especially when it isn't clearly spelled out. In that absence, again the fictional descriptor has precedence.

what do you consider to be the descriptor for the chest, to me it is all rules text / mechanics and no definitive intent

 

[Micah Sweet]

I want to bring this back to Command insofar as the I feel intent is important to understanding the limitations of a game effect. Just like how Frisky Chest was not designed to move gold idols out of dungeons, Command was not designed to force certain effects (particularly harmful ones or ones often created higher level spells) on the target. The fact it leaves (or left) that door open means the DM must now become the interpreter of intent. And its fine if you are the DM who decides that Command can force an enemy to take a long fall out a window as long as you know you are going against the intent of the rules. (See also: coffeelocks, bag-of-rats whirlwind cleaves, or nat-20 always succeeds skill checks). But I don't necessarily feel it is terrible for the rules to be refined to better match the intent rather than the law.

Change the rules however you like, but if the mechanics and the fiction descriptor allow an action, disallowing that action, intended or otherwise, is changing the rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

what do you consider to be the descriptor for the chest, to me it is all rules text / mechanics and no definitive intent

Everything the spell says it does is the fictional descriptor; ie, what happens in the fiction when you cast the spell. The mechanics are simply the way what happens is modeled at the table. Design intent doesn't come into it, unless that intent is explicit.

 

[Remathilis]

Change the rules however you like, but if the mechanics and the fiction descriptor allow an action, disallowing that action, intended or otherwise, is changing the rules.

Does that include the whirlwind attack/great cleave/bag of rats exploit? The rules/fiction clearly imply you get an extra attack everytime you kill a creature, and if you kill 12 rats in one whirlwind attack, you get 12 attacks against the foe standing next to you (plus the whirlwind one). Per your ideology, that should be 100% acceptable and allowed.

 

[billd91]

The problem I see here is I don't see that as fictional descriptor, I see that as mechanics. The fictional description of the spell describes how an object attempts to elude your grasp as part of a ward put on it. The spell spends a lot of time describing how to catch said object and what prevents the movement, signaling the idea of the spell is a ward that uses various movement types to escape the persuer's clutches. It's clear the creator of the spell never suspected that the spell would be used to play a game of keep away on a valuable object too heavy to move otherwise. But the mechanics of the spell, divorced from the flavor and intent of the spell, DO allow it. In essence, the mechanics of the spell allow its abuse in ways the designer did not foresee when designing it. The fact it is one level higher than Tenser's Floating Disc (a spell explicitly designed to move stuff) and is superior by virtue of lack of weight limitation shows how badly designed the spell was.

Were the spell to ever resurface in a new edition, I would assume the designers would most likely provide either a weight limit (obvious choice) or a radius the item could run around in, creating a finite if perpetual wild goose chase. Ideally both; it's only a 2nd level spell after all. And I could imagine some people would be upset with the fact that exploit is closed down. But it would better match both the intent and the in-game fictional description of what the effect should have been rather than what exploiting the actual mechanics does. By altering the mechanics, you align them both better with the intent and description of the effect. At the cost of a cheesy exploit of the rules as written.

I’m not entirely sure the ability to potentially herd a frisky chest would be an unintended exploit. It seems like it could flow quite freely from the description. The people designing that stuff, I expect, weren’t so uncreative as to miss that idea. And, by extension, I think they would have understood that for an object fitting the 10 x 10 x10 foot cube.

A solid gold statue, now, that’s a different story. And that was on the DM. Because you know players were going to try to find a way to get it out if they could…

 

[ECMO3]

2. Expanding Command - most of the "creative uses" of Command require, and this is the important part, rewriting the rules of the game. The Command spell is pretty clear - it forces a character to move (if the caster wishes) and take a most a free action (drop). It does not force a target to take actions. None of the examples given force a target to take actual actions. So, Drop causes the target to take a free item interaction to drop their held item in their square.

In the "Creative Command" example, the players are not engaging with the game world at all. They are rewriting the rules of the game world - rewriting the definition of the spell - in order to gain advantages that are not granted by the mechanic.

Most of the descriptions in the spell actually prevent the target from taking an action (but not all of them), moreover few of the creative options I have seen in play actually require an action. Most of them do not require an action because directing an action would generally be very difficult in one word.

That said the 5E version of the spell also says specifically that the DM resolves uses other than the "typical" uses described. This means the DM has full authority to determine whether it includes actions or not and nothing in the spell states or implies it shouldn't.

Finally if you look at the wording of the spell it would not seem to preclude actions:

"The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or follow the command on its next turn."

That would imply it includes anything needed to follow that command on the next turn, including actions it must take.

 

[ECMO3]

Command was not designed to force certain effects (particularly harmful ones or ones often created higher level spells) on the target. The fact it leaves (or left) that door open means the DM must now become the interpreter of intent. And its fine if you are the DM who decides that Command can force an enemy to take a long fall out a window as long as you know you are going against the intent of the rules.

I would argue that command does not rely in the intent of the caster, it relies on the definition and literal wording of the command.

In that respect, commanding someone to "take a long fall out of a window" would need to be done unambiguously in one word and it is difficult for me to figure out how to do that. Commanding someone to "fall" in this example would not work at all as he would simply fall to the ground where he is standing, not fall out that window over there.

Now it might work if he was climbing several hundered feet up on a rock wall and you told him to "fall". This does make it a very high powered use of a 1st level spell .... however using Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Sleep or Thunderwave would also make him plummet to his death, as would a simple athletics check using a shove action without spending a spell slot at all. So under that condition I don't think it is out of line with other spells.

Similarly command-grovel on a flying creatur will make him drop prone, which RAW makes him fall and would kill many a flying creature at high altitude (as would shoving the same creature or casting ensnaring strike on it or a number of similar things).

 

[DinoInDisguise]

In the "Creative Command" example, the players are not engaging with the game world at all. They are rewriting the rules of the game world - rewriting the definition of the spell - in order to gain advantages that are not granted by the mechanic.

Is this not just presuming player intent? Why assume the motive here? What do we gain under that presumption?

What if the player was just trying to find a creative solution to the problem presented and was acting on flavor alone without so much as a thought to the underlying mechanic? To me this is a difference worth exploring. Mainly because if we act under the assumption of malice, the game kind of fails at many levels.

It is easy to come up with many examples of places where DM malice could break the game in unpleasant ways. And it is equally as easy to imagine instances where players can, with malicious intent, twist the rules to suit an ill-conceived motive. Whether the DM allows it, would be an open question.

If we are presuming malice, I'd argue the focus on command is wholly too small in scope and a large scale expansion on the rules, the likes we have never seen, would be required to even make the smallest dent on such behavior.

If we presume good faith, we have to ask ourselves what purpose removing options like this serves. As any removal of options limits player and DM agency. For instance, one can argue the ease of memorization of rules versus the ease of making a ruling in the role of being a DM when debating a change. But to argue potential malicious intent is to cite an unsolvable problem as justification for a rules change. In my opinion the latter is misguided as the underlying goal is unachievable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Does that include the whirlwind attack/great cleave/bag of rats exploit? The rules/fiction clearly imply you get an extra attack everytime you kill a creature, and if you kill 12 rats in one whirlwind attack, you get 12 attacks against the foe standing next to you (plus the whirlwind one). Per your ideology, that should be 100% acceptable and allowed.

The way you fix that is by clarity in what counts as a "creature".

Your move.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is this not just presuming player intent? Why assume the motive here? What do we gain under that presumption?

What if the player was just trying to find a creative solution to the problem presented and was acting on flavor alone without so much as a thought to the underlying mechanic? To me this is a difference worth exploring. Mainly because if we act under the assumption of malice, the game kind of fails at many levels.

It is easy to come up with many examples of places where DM malice could break the game in unpleasant ways. And it is equally as easy to imagine instances where players can, with malicious intent, twist the rules to suit an ill-conceived motive. Whether the DM allows it, would be an open question.

If we are presuming malice, I'd argue the focus on command is wholly too small in scope and a large scale expansion on the rules, the likes we have never seen, would be required to even make the smallest dent on such behavior.

If we presume good faith, we have to ask ourselves what purpose removing options like this serves. As any removal of options limits player and DM agency. For instance, one can argue the ease of memorization of rules versus the ease of making a ruling in the role of being a DM when debating a change. But to argue potential malicious intent is to cite an unsolvable problem as justification for a rules change. In my opinion the latter is misguided as the underlying goal is unachievable.

That is a big issue with the philosophy I'm arguing against. I don't see how it doesn't presume bad faith on one part or the other. Please explain to me, proponents of stricter rules, how it doesn't.