D&D 5E Starter Set Command Spell

[Stormonu]

Funny, I felt the 3E version was the right mix of text of keywords. It got a little too detailed under each command word, but it felt overall, right. I'd feel most comfortable with something like this:

[h=4]Command[/h] Enchantment (Compulsion) [Language-Dependent, Mind-Affecting] [TABLE="class: statBlock"] [TR] [TD]Level:[/TD] [TD]Clr 1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Components:[/TD] [TD]V[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Casting Time:[/TD] [TD]1 standard action[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Range:[/TD] [TD]Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Target:[/TD] [TD]One living creature[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Duration:[/TD] [TD]1 round[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Saving Throw:[/TD] [TD]Will negates[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Spell Resistance:[/TD] [TD]Yes[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] You give the subject a single command, which it obeys to the best of its ability at its earliest opportunity. Listed below are some command options. The DM may allow others, and must determine their effect.

[h=5]Approach[/h] On its turn, the subject moves toward you as quickly and directly as possible for 1 round.

[h=5]Drop[/h] On its turn, the subject drops whatever it is holding.

[h=5]Fall[/h] On its turn, the subject falls to the ground and remains prone for 1 round.

[h=5]Flee[/h] On its turn, the subject moves away from you as quickly as possible for 1 round.

[h=5]Halt[/h] The subject stands in place for 1 round.

Also, why does this spell specifically only work on living creatures? The spells that animate zombies and skeletons clearly grants the caster the ability to give commands to the undead - why wouldn't this spell give you a one-word override? Likewise, why wouldn't it work on say, a vampire - who could clearly hear and understand the command?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, it depends on what one means by user-friendly, right? Different people use the rules in different ways.

The 4e power could be printed on a character sheet or carried on a card and would always tell you everything you need to know about what that power did. That is immensely portable and convenient.

The 5e version takes up more space, so that strength is largely out the window. A new player who doesn't know the spell very well needs to cart around the book with all the spells in it to reference at the table, and needs to carefully read those paragraphs before launching the spell. That can be a drain.

The 5e version takes up less "brain space," however, in that the spell's fluff is also the spell's rules: you tell someone what to do, and on a failed save they waste their next turn to do it. It's intuitive in a way that the 4e format doesn't quite capture. So it's harder to reference, but likely easier to learn...which is curious.

I wonder if this dovetails with the "limited splats" WotC is planning for in 5e. If the cleric's spell list is fairly static, if they don't just slam a bunch of new spells into the game, players will see and experience spells like command over and over again, and this means that these spells become more iconic and ingrained.

Perhaps every 5e spell is more like a rule you need to learn than an effect you need to reference, and in that respect, keeping the mechanics striaghtforward and open-ended but grounded in what is happening in the fiction is smart. A DM knows that if the player commands the orc to CRY!, that the orc can lose its turn blubbering on the ground, or that if they command the orc to DANCE! that they can make the orc move to a spot and end their turn dancin' up a storm without having to reference the spell itself.

In that light, the "no undead" prohibition makes a little less sense -- special exceptions can be hard to remember. But maybe it hit within the realm of acceptable complexity for the devs and benefits the play experience in some other way (undead typically do not respond to enchantments, sure!).

I wonder if that's not the intent. The idea isn't that DMs memorize every word of that description, or that they open up the book and read the rules carefully. The only thing more convenient than a 4e statblock would be a 5e where just by the name and the description of the spell, you know what to do.

That could be quite clever, if they pull it off well. No on would complain about spells being hard to reference because no one would need to be referencing spells because D&D just teaches you how to use that particular rule.

....maybe the best 4e-formatted version would be something like

Command <> 1st-Level Enchantment
You issue a one-word command with the authority of the gods that your target obeys
Range 2
Save WIS
Failed Save: The target spends its next turn obeying your one-word command. Undead creatures or creatures that don't understand your language automatically succeed on their saves.

...that's pretty compact! I just stripped out the embedded examples, which are useful, but unnecessary if all you're looking for is a reference.

Definitely learning stuff with their track here....

 

[CM]

Also, why does this spell specifically only work on living creatures? The spells that animate zombies and skeletons clearly grants the caster the ability to give commands to the undead - why wouldn't this spell give you a one-word override? Likewise, why wouldn't it work on say, a vampire - who could clearly hear and understand the command?

My memory may be fuzzy but wasn't "undead are immune to enchantment spells" the norm at one time? Sacred Bovines.

 

[Remathilis]

For sake of comparison, AD&D 1e and 2e. Note there is very little difference in the actual text.

 

[Blackbrrd]

No. It's not a more/less thing.

It's a different thing.

Both games work on a basically different principles here. You are welcome to prefer one, but it doesn't make the other more or less user-friendly.

Sure there is more or less user friendly ways of writing up spells*. I don't quite see how you can argue otherwise? If 4e or 5e's way of doing it more user friendly is something we don't know yet.

*Just compare the 2e and 3e versions of the command spell. The 2e one is nearly completely open-ended which easily ends up in endless arguments about what happens when you use command x.

 

[Remathilis]

My memory may be fuzzy but wasn't "undead are immune to enchantment spells" the norm at one time? Sacred Bovines.

Undead were immune to Mind-affecting magic (charm, sleep, hold) in every edition of D&D before 4e. It was either spelled out in the monster description or in the Undead type.

 

[Blackbrrd]

...
that's pretty compact! I just stripped out the embedded examples, which are useful, but unnecessary if all you're looking for is a reference.
...

Great post!

Anyway, I have always written my spells and powers on my character sheet in short-hand. Something like this:
Command 60' 1+1/lvl, wis, 1rnd: approach, drop, flee, grovel, halt.

You are going to use the spells a lot, so just having the basics written down is enough to remember the rest.

 

[Scorpio616]

Undead still immune to charmy stuff, good to hear.

OK, the spell fails if the command is directly harmful to it. That should kill off a lot of so called "creative" uses.

A 2 round screw over for a Level 1 action denial spell. (First round, victim acts out the command, second round victim spends pick up stuff / standing up / running back )

 

[jcrowland]

On being able to understand you (language dependency) it would be interesting if you allowed Supernal as a language (is it in the playtest?), then you could cast command on nearly anyone.

On the restriction of hazards, I've always ruled you could Command say "Approach" and if there was a trap between you and the target, they would approach with the chance to detect the trap. If they detect it, spell breaks, if they don't, then boom, trap goes off then spell breaks.

I had a couple of players who liked the minor illusion of solid ground plus command combo.

Bottom line, if the target doesn't perceive the hazard, the spell works.

 

[Dausuul]

I assume it's because there's something wrong with me, but I far prefer the 5e presentation. I understand, intellectually, how the 4e presentation increases readability and puts important info in stable, easy to find places. And yet the "wall of text" just feels better to me.

I also prefer the 5E presentation, for reasons that are summed up in my sig: I regard the 4E presentation as pushing a distinction ("fluff" versus "crunch") that should not exist. As far as I'm concerned, everything in that block of text is equally a rule--from the fact that the creature must make a Wisdom save, to the fact that it must speak your language, to the fact that casting the spell involves speaking a one-word command and the subject follows the command spoken. All of it affects how you interact with the game world. For example, if I see an enemy cleric cast command, and we speak the same language, I know what command was given even if I totally blow my Intelligence check to identify the spell.

That said, the all-text presentation does require a good editor to make sure the text is as clean, concise, and readable as possible. Some of the stuff in older editions was horribly written--see the 1E and 2E versions Remathilis posted above. This looks much better. I can see a few places where it could be tightened up, but only a few.