D&D 5E Starter Set Command Spell

[Thaumaturge]

Until the mods smash them together.

What my title lacked in wit, it made up for with moxie.

Or it just won an initiative roll.

Thaumaturge.

 

[tuxgeo]

I command you to read this.
http://ow.ly/i/5WsKg

Better thread titles win, it appears.
Thaumaturge.

Until the mods smash them together.

Assembling the pieces of this conversation after the fact, I feel the need to ask: I rolled a WIS saving throw of 15, but does that succeed against Remathilis' casting DC? (Do we even know yet, with the actual rules not out for two more weeks?)

Anyway, I did read the thing. The differences I saw from the October, 2013 packet were: Range of 60 feet instead of 50 feet; more targets at higher levels; and it doesn't work if the command would be directly harmful to the target(s).

 

[Stormonu]

Not much of a fan of the spell format for 5E. Seems wordy.

Interesting that there isn't a boosted option to increase the length of the command (2 words at second, 3 words at third, etc.)

Otherwise, eh - that looks like a Command spell to me.

 

[Remathilis]

Assembling the pieces of this conversation after the fact, I feel the need to ask: I rolled a WIS saving throw of 15, but does that succeed against Remathilis' casting DC? (Do we even know yet, with the actual rules not out for two more weeks?)

Well, DC is 8 + Proficiency + Caster stat.

<-- Says I'm 15th level, so that's +5 proficiency with tool (laptop). I also was tested with a 140 IQ when I was six, that's like a 14 Int score (+2).

So that's DC 15. You just got it. Congrats.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's interesting to compare....



Curious facts to me include....

1. Range. It seems like the playtest version of the spell had 4e's range, but the release version of the spell bumped it up 10 ft. I wonder if that's to fit within TotM-style ranges. A range of 60 ft = "two move actions away."
2. Components. I always half-expected this to be one of the things that got nuked in the playtest in some way (like a general "you must be able to speak, move your hands, and have some spellcating implement to use any magic spell"), it's a little curious that they made it in. I imagine this benefits imagination strongly: it tells you precisely what your character is doing to cast the spell (here, simply speaking a word infused with divine authority).
3. "Ineffective" categories. The 5e spell doesn't work against undead, and I wonder a bit why not? Possibly because Enchantment? I like the bit about not understanding the language (In 5e, you cannot command the nameless horror from beyond the stars to grovel). It's also interesting that it notes that the spell fails in these cases -- not that you can't cast it, just that the target automatically saves. That's an interesting move back to "no safety net" gameplay, and bodes well for being able to strip out particular spells or effects. 5e is OK with you wasting a spell slot. It also means that you don't need to know beforehand if the character shares your language or is undead or whatever. It's a tool with a lot of uses (forex, you could try to command that pale duke that has been hanging around that old castle on a suspicion that he might be undead...).
4. Action Denial Plus. The mechanical grit of the spell remains largely the same -- a denial of actions. But while the 4e version was exclusively good at that, the 5e version seems a lot more interestingly open-ended. There's only so much you can do with one word, but I like the creativity that engenders, the little temptation to see what other things you might be able to do with the spell. That untapped horizon is interesting. It's also interesting that the 5e version is strictly stronger -- it's a "WIS save or lose your turn" spell. While the net effect in 4e was largely the same (you still had a minor action, but dazed + prone is almost a lost turn, too), it's a lot simpler and clearer and more straightforward in 5e. Plus, additional effects (like dropping items, and the awesomeness of GROVEL!).
5. Save vs. Attack. I'm a fan of having the defender have to resist this. It emphasizes the agency here a little better -- the cleric just told you what was going to happen, now it's on YOU to tell them otherwise.
6. Wordy as heck. I thought one of the things 5e would be bringing after the playtest was a little better...formatting. They're clearly going the "wordy" route, which means I'll probably re-format them into 4e-style blocks pretty quickly, just for the sake of readability. Kind of disappointed they went with a wall o' text. But perhaps it was the most efficient way to capture the info? I tried throwing this into a 4e-style stat block and the gains in readability were...not exactly significant. Though they weren't nothing, either. Hmmm..

It's also interesting to throw the Pathfinder version up in there and see the differences. We're out of the realm of lots of key words (compulsion, language-dependent, mind-affecting.....), note no distinction between saves and spell resistance (bodes well for no "conjuration loophole"), and the change from "fall" to "grovel" is awesome. Interesting to note that the PF version just says you can't target undead with it, which is interesting in terms of not knowing if a creature is undead or not...hmm...

Anyhoo, quite curious!

 

[tuxgeo]

Well, DC is 8 + Proficiency + Caster stat.

<-- Says I'm 15th level, so that's +5 proficiency with tool (laptop). I also was tested with a 140 IQ when I was six, that's like a 14 Int score (+2).

So that's DC 15. You just got it. Congrats.

Thanks. (I think.) But wasn't it a Cleric/Paladin spell in the playtest, meaning you'd need a 14 WIS score to have DC 15, instead of a 14 INT? (Not that I don't think you do, or anything. . . .)

Actually, I was just worrying about whether the "8" base DC value carried over from the October playtest to the finished game. (I'm sure I don't get to add any Proficiency value to my save, as I don't have Class levels.)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Looks like a largely solid version of a perennially popular and useful spell. I am very glad to see the increased effect with higher spell-levels - that was missing from quite a number of playtest spells, even where there seemed to be relatively obvious ways to do it. Hopefully most or all spells now have some kind of increased effect.

The only thing that bothers me is the requirement that the target understand your language. This wasn't an element of the spell in 3E, as I recall (it's not in the SRD version, if it is), and one might think that a command backed by the power of the gods themselves might, y'know, not be deflected by Orc #112 just not speaking Common, neh? Presumably it also has no effect on creatures who cannot understand any language, such as animals and most magical beasts?

This seems especially strict as extra languages are not trivial to acquire in 5E, where they were pretty trivial to acquire in, say, 2E (you got them automatically from INT), which I presume is where they are getting that restriction from, though I confess that I don't remember it being true there, either.

I also note that you can't (or it's questionable, at least) do something like command a target to "halt" whilst standing on a trap that it's aware of (presumably the "directly harmful" element does at least require awareness of harm), or in a Blade Barrier or the like.

I wonder if 5E has rules for how enemies regard dangerous terrain. Like, if you tell an enemy to flee, and the only way is through some sort of damaging or risky field, will they just get to halt there? Do they make another save? What if they're really stupid? Hopefully there's some guidance here, because otherwise there could be an awful lot of special cases.

(Personally, unless I can see a convincing reason otherwise, I feel like I may well just remove the language requirement. I do hate having to go through and house-rule individual spells though...)

 

[Dausuul]

Not much of a fan of the spell format for 5E. Seems wordy.

Interesting that there isn't a boosted option to increase the length of the command (2 words at second, 3 words at third, etc.)

That would get way too powerful way too fast. Command is basically a 1-round stun; you trade one action of yours (casting the spell) for one action of the enemy's (its next turn). The potency of a stun effect increases drastically with each additional round. A 3-round stun, with no chance to break out, is pretty much a death sentence if you fail the initial save.

 

[Thaumaturge]

The only thing that bothers me is the requirement that the target understand your language. This wasn't an element of the spell in 3E, as I recall (it's not in the SRD version, if it is), and one might think that a command backed by the power of the gods themselves might, y'know, not be deflected by Orc #112 just not speaking Common, neh? Presumably it also has no effect on creatures who cannot understand any language, such as animals and most magical beasts?

This seems especially strict as extra languages are not trivial to acquire in 5E, where they were pretty trivial to acquire in, say, 2E (you got them automatically from INT), which I presume is where they are getting that restriction from, though I confess that I don't remember it being true there, either.

After rereading the spell, I'm liable to interpret "doesn't understand your language" as a restriction against wild animals and the like. I'm pretty sure if I hold up my hand between myself an orc he'd get the gist of "halt". Similarly, waving someone forward seems fairly universal. "Drop" is the only one listed that might be a bit difficult with only body gestures, but I'd probably allow it anyway with reasonably intelligent (orcs count) humanoids who have language.

I don't see this as a house rule but an interpretation.

Thaumaturge.

 

[reiella]

The only thing that bothers me is the requirement that the target understand your language. This wasn't an element of the spell in 3E, as I recall (it's not in the SRD version, if it is), and one might think that a command backed by the power of the gods themselves might, y'know, not be deflected by Orc #112 just not speaking Common, neh? Presumably it also has no effect on creatures who cannot understand any language, such as animals and most magical beasts?

The srd version does require the target understand your language. (See: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/command.htm )