D&D 5E Synergy with Command spell

[jgsugden]

Years back in an AD&D 1st edition game I was running, the players had beaten a wizard's warriors and thought they had him cornered. He popped out his potion of gaseous form and drank it down and began to move toward the door. The PCs were only 3rd level so there was not much they could do to stop him... or so I believed. The cleric pulled an empty flask from his belt and opened it, stepped toward the gaseous wizard, and cast command, saying "Enter," while thrusting the open container into the cloud. The wizard failed his saving throw, and obediently went into the flask.

And the fact that you remember it, clearly, as a fond memory, decades later, says you nailed it. A lot of people miss out on so many of these opportunities.

 

[toucanbuzz]

I feel it's simpler if the DM adjudicates the spell forces an involuntary physical action, given the examples are all physical ones, to avoid subjective "how would the target perceive this order" arguments. In the original AD&D version, the word had to be "clear and unequivocal" or it would fail, though surrender was in the example list. At the very least, the target would stop fighting.

Regardless of the word, as a DM I wouldn't want it having multiple effects or duplicating the effect of a higher level spell. That's abusive. It also cannot be qualified (e.g. "bash" that door).

Synergy: Ages ago I DM'd a 2E game where the command spell killed a 15th level character. The synergy came with the terrain. Barbarian player got in fight with other players and split the party by scaling an 800' cliff with his bare hands. At the top of that cliff was a red dragon that knew the command spell (back when dragons knew spells). Rather than blast him with fire, the dragon sadistically uttered the command "Jump!" Player failed the save and jumped, falling 800' to his death.

Now, that wouldn't work in today's game because the text was changed to avoid anything "directly harmful" to the creature. So, it'd have to be an unknown hazard.

So, I think the spell shines best when there's synergy with terrain. On a ship? Tell the target to "disembark" (shouldn't be directly harmful unless the target doesn't know how to swim). Know there's a trap in the back hall? Command them to "flee" and clear the way.

 

[ad_hoc]

I feel it's simpler if the DM adjudicates the spell forces an involuntary physical action, given the examples are all physical ones, to avoid subjective "how would the target perceive this order" arguments. In the original AD&D version, the word had to be "clear and unequivocal" or it would fail, though surrender was in the example list. At the very least, the target would stop fighting.

Regardless of the word, as a DM I wouldn't want it having multiple effects or duplicating the effect of a higher level spell. That's abusive. It also cannot be qualified (e.g. "bash" that door).

Synergy: Ages ago I DM'd a 2E game where the command spell killed a 15th level character. The synergy came with the terrain. Barbarian player got in fight with other players and split the party by scaling an 800' cliff with his bare hands. At the top of that cliff was a red dragon that knew the command spell (back when dragons knew spells). Rather than blast him with fire, the dragon sadistically uttered the command "Jump!" Player failed the save and jumped, falling 800' to his death.

Now, that wouldn't work in today's game because the text was changed to avoid anything "directly harmful" to the creature. So, it'd have to be an unknown hazard.

So, I think the spell shines best when there's synergy with terrain. On a ship? Tell the target to "disembark" (shouldn't be directly harmful unless the target doesn't know how to swim). Know there's a trap in the back hall? Command them to "flee" and clear the way.

Yes.

Basically have fun with the environment.

The spell gives examples of all the standard combat uses but allows for creative uses depending on circumstance.

"Raise" might get the guard to raise the portcullis or "unlock" to unlock a door. Even something like "block" to have the target block a passageway against their comrades would be a fun use that is in the spirit of the spell.

 

[Dausuul]

Unlike most other commands, submission doesn't take an Action, Move, or Bonus action. In fact, they can take whatever actions they want. You didn't make them actually do anything but lose their ability to resist. In other words, they become a willing subject for any spell that takes effect on their turn.

Obviously, this requires a coordinated sequence of party actions for full effect. If the Command fails, it's likely the contingent spells (most of which can only be cast by others) will also.

So, two questions:
Would you let it work this way in your game?

Hell no. Anything that lets you meddle with the enemy's saving throws is a danger flag. Offhand I can see a couple of ways this could be abused, albeit with drawbacks. Perhaps, in practice, the drawbacks would balance it out. Perhaps not.

But there is no reason to venture into such "playing with fire" territory with command. It's the DM, not the player, who decides how any nonstandard command is interpreted; I would rule that "submit" gets the same response as "grovel."