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

[pemerton]

I'd like something D&D adjacent that is not Yet Another OSR B/X Clone for a campaign eventually and reading every single Fantasy Heartbreaker out there would take a literal year. Need some way of sorting things into "nope!" and "interesting!" piles that is fast. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be good enough.

It's probably not D&D-adjacent enough for you, but I strongly recommend Torchbearer 2e.

 

[mellored]

Old Testament,

God doesn't take free will away in the old testament.

"the power of God compels you" stuff.

That's againt devils and possession.

Exorcism could certainly be a spell.

It's a big part of the class fantasy the cleric is built upon.

Show me a priest that tells people to "Jump" off a boat?

 

[mellored]

Excellent question! Also: why is Frisky Chest a cleric spell? That makes no sense at all!

Pretty sure that was only for a specific domain.

A cleric of Tyranny getting Command makes sense.

 

[Oofta]

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've judged a lot of public games. I've had real people get upset when I say no to exploits.

 

[Remathilis]

Indeed. And I absolutely do rely on the honour of those who I've invited into my house to particpate in my game to not steal my wallet.

This is so crazy to me. I don't even read my player's character sheets.

Maybe I'm an alien and human D&D is a hostile exercise where nerds show dominance over each other in an attempt to impress the pizza guy.

Maybe it's time I go to bed.

I will assume neither of you play in a public space such as Adventures League, conventions, public play in stores or school groups, or pick up games online. I too have a stable private group, but I played those types of public games in the past and not every group gets to know each other's limits.

 

[Oofta]

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.


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

This seems to be going nowhere. I had a simple question of where we draw the line and who gets to decide, I think it's useful to talk about actual scenarios. So again, the example. There is a combat on a ship at sea. A command is given to "swim" or "jump" and the target fails their save. I see two options.

1. The target has to jump off the ship into the ocean to go swimming, even if they will likely eventually drown unless rescued because the danger is not immediate.
2. The target simply makes swimming motions because the command was not "Jump off the ship and go swimming in the ocean"?

Typical answers to questions along a similar vein have had conflicting responses*. If the target is an NPC option #1 is a creative use of the spell. If the DM answers #2 it's bad DMing because they're neutering the spell. On the other hand if the target is a PC and the player decides #2 but the DM corrects them and says they must use option #1, it's bad DMing.

I think there are times when addressing simple examples like this and answering why you would rule that way helps clarify things. For me? Command under the old rules is interpreted by the target because the target needs to understand the word. If the command is "swim" the target likely simply loses their action and makes swimming motions. If the command is "jump", they jump in place. I've had a DM tell my PC they had to jump off the ship which I felt was antagonistic DMing. Meanwhile the examples having very specific responses which are somewhat odd. So I prefer the 2024 version. Even if it is an infinitesimally minor reduction of creativity.

If you don't want to give a clear response to my specific example for whatever reasons, that's fine. I'll stop asking.

*The actual posts were "Swim" as a creative command given to make the NPC target go for a swim in an adjacent body of water, "Jump" and the DM telling me I had to jump into the ocean.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've judged a lot of public games. I've had real people get upset when I say no to exploits.

Yeah anything that's public people feel they're getting called out when it's pointed out that something isn't just cheese but actually an exploit, and it can absolutely lead to upsets, people feeling like they got called a cheat (which like, is to be avoided in most cases), and so on. My personal experience is that the same person in a home game being told "That's not how we're running that!" or similar is usually going to react a lot better than even the most polite "I'm sorry, but that's an exploit" in public.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah anything that's public people feel they're getting called out when it's pointed out that something isn't just cheese but actually an exploit, and it can absolutely lead to upsets, people feeling like they got called a cheat (which like, is to be avoided in most cases), and so on. My personal experience is that the same person in a home game being told "That's not how we're running that!" or similar is usually going to react a lot better than even the most polite "I'm sorry, but that's an exploit" in public.

It's never been a real issue when I say no. I just calmly explain how I rule and briefly state why. If they want to discuss it after the game we can. Eventually some people refused to sit at my table (specifically one group of people that we called "The cheese weasels") because I didn't allow exploits and that's their choice. I always had plenty of people who wanted to play with me.

I have had people cheat, in an example during 4E they totally misrepresented how a power worked. The first time, I asked them to double check the wording because it didn't sound right. The second time I asked them to provide the book so I could read the rule myself. I never directly accused them of cheating, I just didn't allow it.

I've only witnessed one game at another table where a person was asked to leave the table, fortunately issues are rare.

 

[mellored]

The "defined middle ground" is "the DM says what it does, end of story." That's always worked fine for me.

I let my players decide.
But remind them it goes both ways.

A few "creative" used later and they stopped using Command.

 

[SableWyvern]

I will assume neither of you play in a public space such as Adventures League, conventions, public play in stores or school groups, or pick up games online. I too have a stable private group, but I played those types of public games in the past and not every group gets to know each other's limits.

Correct. I have zero interest in playing in those sorts of environments, in part because dealing with those sorts of behavioral problems from random strangers sounds utterly unfun to me (and, since my tolerance for it is basically nil, stricter language that reduces some of the conflict is of no value to me).