D&D 5E Immunity to Charm, Command spell

[Charles Rampant]

Hey all,

In my last game the players were fighting a Doppelganger, albeit they didn't know that it was one. Regardless, the Cleric cast the 1st-level enchantment spell Command on the Doppelganger. I was confused about the interaction between Command and the Doppelganger's Immunity to Charm.

Here is the wording of the two offending items:

Command
1st level Enchantment

You speak a one-word command to a creature you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or follow the command on its next turn. The spell has no effect if your target is undead, if it doesn't understand your language, or if your command is directly harmful to it.
Some typical commands and their effects follow...

Doppelganger - Medium Monstrosity (shapechanger), neutral
Condition Immunities: Charmed

So when the player cast the spell, I looked at it and didn't see the word 'Charm' anywhere in its entry. Thus the spell went off, the Doppelganger failed the check, and subsequently had a bad day. Was this correct? I think that it was, but I'd just like to find out if I am missing something.

As an aside, the player issued the 'Grovel' command, making the Doppelganger bite the dust, which allowed the Rogue to leap onto its back daggers-first. I suppose that this might break the 'directly harmful' element, but I find it hard to imagine how any of the suggested words could be used in combat if it was taken with such a strict interpretation of 'directly', so I allowed it. I'd imagine that directly harmful would be stuff like issuing 'Grovel' when standing on a trap or something.

Thanks!

 

[1of3]

Having a target drop prone is alright. It could be done with Shove action.

And you are right, Command does not imply the Charmed condition. So the Doppelgänger is affected.

 

[Charles Rampant]

Danke.

 

[DreamChaser]

I suppose that this might break the 'directly harmful' element.

This isn't directly harmful. Directly harmful would be "Swim" when the creature knows (or suspects) that the body of water near it is acid or "auto-defenestrate" out a 10th story window.

Creating an opportunity for harm is not direct harm.

 

[steeldragons]

I would have gone the exat opposite way. Enchantment magic, by my understanding of definitions, are "Charm" spells. The creature effected by an enchantment spell, has been charmed to act/react in a certain fashion against their conscious will. That is, most definitely, what the Command spell does.

I would have ruled the other way. Namely, it wouldn't have worked.

Now, the PCs have no way of knowing this or that the target was a doppleganger. As far as they're concerned, the spell just didn't work.

But, as written, the material is definitely vague enough that I think how you ruled could easily be considered proper/justifiable. No harm. No foul.

Just one of many lil' grey areas that has always made D&D tons of fun fer ev'ryone.

 

[Uchawi]

I would go to the source spell when discussing immunity to charm, i.e. charm person. That spells uses the keywords, charm and charmed, when describing the effects.

One of my pet peeves with the PHB is it does not call out key words. The same thing occurs under the barbarian class when discussing resistance. It would have been so easy to list keywords for spells and abilities, so you know the definition may be somewhere else. With that stated, my interpretation is command is not a charm effect.

 

[SigmaOne]

I agree with @Uchawi. The command spell says nothing about the condition "charmed", and the doppelganger is immune to the "charmed" condition. So it is not immune to this spell. I think stating that anything immune to the charmed condition is immune to all enchantment effects gives it too much power. This is true with elves and their saving throw against being charmed. It is a one time, instantaneous effect of compelling the creature to an action, which is different from "being charmed". Edit: More to the point, it doesn't seem like the PHB is vague about this.

I do agree it would have been nice if these words were somehow called out as tags or key words, perhaps by bolding or italicizing them.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The doppelganger's immunity is to the charmed condition.
Command does not create the charmed condition.
Not all enchantment spells charm, just as not all necromancy spells raise the dead.

"auto-defenestrate"

 

[the Jester]

I would have gone the exat opposite way. Enchantment magic, by my understanding of definitions, are "Charm" spells. The creature effected by an enchantment spell, has been charmed to act/react in a certain fashion against their conscious will. That is, most definitely, what the Command spell does.

I, on the other hand, would rule that "immunity to the charmed condition" applies only to things that actually apply the condition called "charmed" to the target.

 

[Curmudjinn]

I would have gone the exact opposite way. Enchantment magic, by my understanding of definitions, are "Charm" spells. The creature effected by an enchantment spell, has been charmed to act/react in a certain fashion against their conscious will. That is, most definitely, what the Command spell does.

I would have ruled the other way. Namely, it wouldn't have worked.

I have to agree with the OP, in that the spells function on completely different concepts. If it was immune to Enchantments, it would say that and not just Charm. Charm Person is a specific spell, causing a target to see the enemy as a friend for a duration. You cannot tell a Charmed creature to do anything it does not want to do, unless it would normally do that for an ally. Command is a mind-domination spell that supersedes the emotions of a target and essentially offers limited puppet-mastery, causing them to do things way out of character, regardless of who or what they do it against.

Very, very different concepts. Now, if it was immune to charm and dominate effects, I could see it not working.