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

[EzekielRaiden]

Or possibly, games like PF2e don't meet their preferences? I only had to play it once and flip through the corebook to know it wasn't for me.

Their litmus test is "does this one spell have zero limits" and, frankly, I find that flippant at best.

 

[Lanefan]

Thanks to 5E’s philosophy of rulings over rules you can still use command for ideas outside those given in the 2024 book if that’s what your group wish to do.

Has that philosophy carried forward into 5.5e?

 

[Lanefan]

Their litmus test is "does this one spell have zero limits" and, frankly, I find that flippant at best.

What they did with the one spell can serve as a quick bellwether for the general philosophy behind the game's design and-or how the designers expect it to be played.

Illusion spells serve that same function for me now and then.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What they did with the one spell can serve as a quick bellwether for the general philosophy behind the game's design and-or how the designers expect it to be played.

Illusion spells serve that same function for me now and then.

"A quick bellwether" is simply a nice way of saying "substituting actual knowledge for a flippant test."

 

[Lanefan]

"A quick bellwether" is simply a nice way of saying "substituting actual knowledge for a flippant test."

When I can look at a couple of key spells for their degree of open-ended-ness and get a sense from those spell write-ups as to how welcome and-or encouraged player-side creativity is in the system's run of play, it saves me having to read the whole rule-set to almost certainly come to the same conclusion.

For @KibblesTasty it's Command, which to be honest wouldn't have been the first spell I'd have thought of. For me it'd be illusion spells - first, does the game even have them and then second, if it does what can I-as-player make them do.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

There are things that can't be done, sure. I don't concede that that reduces creativity.

If the spell is intended to be one-round dominate, it should be straightforward to spell it out as such. But I think it clearly is not intended in that way: it doesn't permit "Attack" as a command (does it?). But why is that not acceptable?

It may be. I'm not arguing against the change. I have issues with the change being made to fix bad behavior. My argument is purely on the reasoning for the change.

But you haven't answered my question which basically comes down to "Who decides what malice is?"

A PC targets an NPC with a command, the command does not have the effect the player desired. Is that malice? Because we've had people state that if the NPC doesn't do what the player intended it's malice because the DM is taking away the player's creativity.

Turning in around, an NPC targets a PC with a command, the DM decides what the PC does, is that malice? Because I've given my example of when that happened to me and it was decided that the DM was a bad actor.

Take an example. The command "jump" while on a ship. Can the target decide it means jump straight up? Does the caster get to decide it means jump off the ship? Because I've seen people say that if I were a DM that said "swim" doesn't mean they jump in a nearby body of water and swim the DM is the bad guy. When I related the story of the DM telling me "jump" meant jump off the boat, the DM was the bad guy. But they're basically the same thing.

It's easy to say that it works just fine if there are no bad actors, but what does that really mean?

I struggle to see why this is hard to understand. To help illustrate my thoughts, I will state a few things about the game in general, and than give a few examples of why a bad faith actor, especially in the DM chair, causes the system to stop functioning.

In short, the DM's power, as illustrated in the DMG, is limitless. This, effectively, means any rules based attempt to limit that power is going to fail. Because the DM has the job of interpreting their own limits. With this in mind we can probe bad and good faith within the descretion used with the 2014 command spell.

DM malice in this case would be a ruling, made purposefully, that effectively nueters the player's spell to the point of ineffectiveness. Good faith here, would be a ruling that gives the player a reasonable effect that comes somewhere close to the command word. The DM acts as a filter to prevent the "1st level dominate" theory so many argue. And if the DM wishes to use the spell in that way, there is also no way to stop them as they are the arbiter of the rules.

We can see this in other contexts as well. The use of the "haunted one" background, for example. The feature provided is titled "Heart of Darkness." Link below if you wish to read it. We can, again, probe the differences between bad and good faith in the actions of a DM.

It is simple for a DM to act in good faith and have commoners give special treatment to the PC with this feature. This feature works fine if good faith is presumed. However, one could argue that because of there being no mechanical benefit, that the feature does nothing because it could be "trampled over" by the DM. In essence, the DM could ignore it purposefully to avoid giving a benefit. One could, falsely, frame this as an innate multi-target friends spell. But both are red herrings. The DM could also ignore the mechanical benefit, and could easily stop the overly generous friends application. The DM could also enforce either in spite of any change.

We can see this across the system. When I say the system doesn't function under bad faith, this is why. Any saving throw is pointless if the DM is acting in bad faith. Any skill check is subject to that DM's ill-conceived desires. Every rule filters through the DM's intentions. The entire house of cards comes crumbling down as soon as you presume such intent.

So any time someone proposes "reigning in" DMs or that DM malice causes an issue, or hypothetically could, they are fighting a battle that can't be won. The game requires good faith to function, in this respect.

Maybe the rule needs cleaning up for confusion reasons. Maybe it need changing for some other reason. But changing it to prevent "malice" is a doomed attempt at changing human behavior and has no hope of success. The DM's power is, in fact, only limited by their players willingness to tolerate it.

I hope that makes my argument more clear, and why good faith is required. I don't really want to keep rehashing it.

EDIT: Forgot my citation: https://www.dndbeyond.com/backgrounds/34-haunted-one

 

[Remathilis]

Well, then I suppose you're the Ratslayer of Neverwinter. If someone actually wants to do this with their (IMO) doofus of a PC, you either let them or you don't. Either way, you have a talk and find out why they're doing something so non-sensical from a setting point of view. To me, that's what matters.

Forcing the issue via global rules change does nothing positive IMO.

because being a doofus can allow me to have a dozen attacks in one round, potentially ending a difficult encounter in one round. That's the problem with exploits, you can't just rely on the honor system to not abuse the system. And while bag of rats is more theorycraft than practical, it's a good example of how RAW can contradict RAI and I don't want a game where all the designers can do is beg "please don't" when another exploit is found.

 

[Micah Sweet]

because being a doofus can allow me to have a dozen attacks in one round, potentially ending a difficult encounter in one round. That's the problem with exploits, you can't just rely on the honor system to not abuse the system. And while bag of rats is more theorycraft than practical, it's a good example of how RAW can contradict RAI and I don't want a game where all the designers can do is beg "please don't" when another exploit is found.

I'm pretty sure you can rely on the honor system, in an actual game at your table.

And theory craft is never a good example when you're dealing with how real people will act.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm pretty sure you can rely on the honor system, in an actual game at your table.

And theory craft is never a good example when you're dealing with how real people will act.

I live in a nice neighborhood. I still lock my door and don't rely on the honor of my neighbors to walk into my house and take my wallet.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I live in a nice neighborhood. I still lock my door and don't rely on the honor of my neighbors to walk into my house and take my wallet.

Not the same thing. At all.