I think I might have came up with an OP combo for level 5 characters. Here's what's needed:
1. someone with Command that commands the target "accept", "comply/obey", "accompany", "teleport", or something. 2. Someone with Thunder Step, sorcerer with Distant Spell works best, but the metamagic adept feat works. 3. someone with Feather Fall. Can't be thunder step caster.
PC 1. Any sorcerer will do. PC 2. Eloquence Bard would be best for the 1d8 they can subtract from Command's save. This is assuming the bard has access to the optional additional spell lists for command.
PC 1 Casts command on target. PCs 2 has thunder step held, with the trigger to be when the target accepts, and tells target to come. On target's turn, they become willing to join PC 2 with thunder step. PC 2 goes 90 or 180 feet into the air. PC 1 or someone besides 2 uses their reaction to cast feather fall on PC 2. target takes 9d6 or 18d6 bludgeoning damage.
I haven't found any sage advice that counter this, but link it if you have it. Addressing counter arguments or issues: Q: Why is Thunder Step held? A: Thunder Step has to be held, as Command is only active on target's turn.
Q: Why can't Thunder Step caster be the one with Feather Fall? A: Thunder Step caster has to use their reaction to trigger Thunder Step on target's turn, so they've used up their reaction.
Q: Is the command directly harmful? A: I don't think following the command is directly harmful, as the target doesn't know where the caster is going to go. Target only knows they're going to be teleported. Accepting a teleport is as dangerous as someone commanding you to "approach". We all know the PCs are doing it do something harmful, but it's fine so long as it's not "directly"harmful. "Indirectly" is fine.
Q: Misty Step doesn't work with Distant Spell; why does it work with Thunder Step? A: Misty Step has a range of Self. Thunder Step has a range of 90 feet, so it follows distant spell's rules. it's a bit inconsistent, but it follows RAW.
Q: Isn'T dOMInAte PERsOn BetTer FOr ThIs? A: Congrats, you're level 9 and not within scope. Reduce the player level to 5 and you don't have that spell. What do?
I think you could Command a creature to approach the Thunder Step caster but, you couldn't command them to take a ride with them and be willing. Why? Because command says it's one word to explain the order, not approach then designated PC, trust the designated PC, etc. Maybe in multiple steps/saves, you could get this to work I guess but, after multiple rounds, would it still be worth it?
The command word could just be "obey" or "teleport" and the Thunder Step caster could say "come; we are teleporting away" and hold the spell. Trust isn't needed. The target only needs to understand the command and to not think it's directly harmful.
Also, This would take one round, three turns: command, hold thunder step, and target's turn.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
If it takes two or three PCs' turns, two 1st and a 3rd level spell and affects a single opponent (who needs to be susceptible to Command), I think doing 18d6 probably isn't too overpowered. A single Fireball does almost half as much already, to potentially multiple opponents, and a 5th level rogue does 3d6 in sneak attack damage alone (probably 1d8+3d6+3 or something close to that, assuming a regular non-magical weapon).
If it takes two or three PCs' turns, a 3rd level spell and affects a single opponent (who needs to be susceptible to Command), I think doing 18d6 probably isn't too overpowered. A single Fireball does almost half as much already, to potentially multiple opponents, and a 5th level rogue does 3d6 in sneak attack damage alone (probably 1d8+3d6+3 or something close to that, assuming a regular non-magical weapon).
It would only take two PCs' turns, three spells with feather fall reaction. Thunder step would still be doing it's AoE to anyone still on the ground. You get to waste the target's turn while it follows your command. It probably end up prone or dead after falling. You might even be able to aim your thunder step where your target lands on one of your enemies, making the target a projectile.
When using Command, I guess it depends on your interpretation of: "The spell has no effect if the target is undead, if it doesn't understand your language, or if your command is directly harmful to it". It seems very situational and possibly, based on intent not necessarily the perception of threat/harm by the target. Let's use some examples.
1) Flee! The target leaves the area of combat with no repercussions.
2) Flee! The target breaks into a run a front of predatory animals, who suddenly attack the target.
1) Cross. The target safely crosses a narrow bridge over a large ravine.
2) Cross. The narrow bridge is lit with flames in the middle. The party wants to determine if the fire is real or not.
In the 2nd Flee example, it could be determined a harmful command by circumstance, the presence of the predatory animals. The awareness of the target may perceive the threat of the animals. The caster's intent may be harmful regardless of the target's perception.
In the 2nd Cross example, walking through fire is generally considered harmful as a target might suspect. The caster may not have a directly harmful intent but, is certainly apathetic to the possible peril of the target.
In the dropping a target on it's head example. The intent is overtly harmful whether the target is aware or not.
When using Command, I guess it depends on your interpretation of: "The spell has no effect if the target is undead, if it doesn't understand your language, or if your command is directly harmful to it". It seems very situational and possibly, based on intent not necessarily the perception of threat/harm by the target. Let's use some examples.
1) Flee! The target leaves the area of combat with no repercussions.
2) Flee! The target breaks into a run a front of predatory animals, who suddenly attack the target.
1) Cross. The target safely crosses a narrow bridge over a large ravine.
2) Cross. The narrow bridge is lit with flames in the middle. The party wants to determine if the fire is real or not.
In the 2nd Flee example, it could be determined a harmful command by circumstance, the presence of the predatory animals. The awareness of the target may perceive the threat of the animals. The caster's intent may be harmful regardless of the target's perception.
In the 2nd Cross example, walking through fire is generally considered harmful as a target might suspect. The caster may not have a directly harmful intent but, is certainly apathetic to the possible peril of the target.
In the dropping a target on it's head example. The intent is overtly harmful whether the target is aware or not.
No example is provided regarding dropping someone on their head.
"Directly harmful" simply means that it will result in harm, not that it will open you up for harm.
Telling someone to "approach" will open them up to attacks of opportunity, not directly harmful. Telling someone to "flee" result in the same. Telling someone to "drop" results in them losing their shield spell focus or whatever, making them easier targets, not directly harmful. Making someone "grovel" will make them open to being hurt easier, not directly harmful. Telling someone to "cross" a bridge that is on fire will, without anyone else's interference, result in burns, directly harmful. First four example are indirectly harmful because others need to take action to result in harm. Last example is directly harmful because the act itself results in harm. Essentially, if it's the target's actions that result in damage, it's direct and fails. If it's others' reactions to the target's actions that result in harm, it's indirect and acceptable.
I don't think Command would be sufficient in this circumstance.
Of the suggested commands:
1) 'Come' : The target approaches the caster, but that is not the same as not resisting the Thunderstep.
2) 'Obey' : Way too open ended to be allowed. It is like wishing for more wishes. If 'Obey' worked there would be no point to the 'one word' limitation since it does a complete end run around that.
3) 'Teleport' : the target having no ability to teleport does not do so. Even if the Thunderstep is held, it is not 'be teleported,' which is what the Thunderstep would do.
Now this combination with a suggestion spell would be different. "My friend is going to teleport us all somewhere safer. I suggest you don't resist," would likely work, IMO.
1) Yeah, the word is ambiguous. 2) Follows RAW. Only lasts for 6 seconds. 3) Teleport: (especially in science fiction) transport or be transported across space and distance instantly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
I've never liked Charm type spells, and Command is one of them. It's like Suggestion, but only one word. It's much more limited, but just like all Charm spells, people play them like the target doesn't get to think. That's not how it works. For that you need a Domination spell.
The examples on the list are fine except for Grovel. I wouldn't allow that one. It's obviously harmful to grovel in front of anyone who might be nearby and posses a weapon. Also, there is nothing in that spell that I see that says the target can't tell that a spell has been cast on them. I use Passive Insight as a check to see if people realize they are being manipulated. For something like Grovel, that's probably a DC of 5. It's pretty easy to tell something strange happened unless the caster really is scary enough to make them grovel, and if so, the caster doesn't need the spell.
Obey and Accept are much too broad. Obey who? Accept what? So the target at most just stands there wondering, and whatever you say is just ignored. Obey Me is two words. No good. Accept would work if you handed them something. Accepting a spell being cast? Passive Insight at the least, or just nothing happens.
I won't debate any of the rest of it. That's what the friendly folks at Rules & Mechanics are for.
If it takes two or three PCs' turns, a 3rd level spell and affects a single opponent (who needs to be susceptible to Command), I think doing 18d6 probably isn't too overpowered. A single Fireball does almost half as much already, to potentially multiple opponents, and a 5th level rogue does 3d6 in sneak attack damage alone (probably 1d8+3d6+3 or something close to that, assuming a regular non-magical weapon).
It would only take two PCs' turns, three spells with feather fall reaction. Thunder step would still be doing it's AoE to anyone still on the ground. You get to waste the target's turn while it follows your command. It probably end up prone or dead after falling. You might even be able to aim your thunder step where your target lands on one of your enemies, making the target a projectile.
Well, there's no overlap in casters with Feather Fall and with Command without optional rules or spending an ASI on a feat (which is optional to begin with as well, but to me it's silly not to allow them given the number of ASIs some classes get), so having only two PCs puts some significant restraints on the proposition.
The timing is a bit tricky as well, since the target has to be next to the Thunder Step caster when it gets its turn (as moving can't be part of the readied action).
And Thunder Step potentially affects the party as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Here's the problem I have primarily, it's a first level spell. I don't personally believe the spell's purpose(designer's purpose?) is to set up a target like you are attempting. With the phrasing included, it indicates diffusing a violent possibility, not creating one. That's just my opinion, I know that. There are many other spells and effects that could care less if you intend to create harm or not and I feel these are better choices for your strategy than Command.
If it takes two or three PCs' turns, a 3rd level spell and affects a single opponent (who needs to be susceptible to Command), I think doing 18d6 probably isn't too overpowered. A single Fireball does almost half as much already, to potentially multiple opponents, and a 5th level rogue does 3d6 in sneak attack damage alone (probably 1d8+3d6+3 or something close to that, assuming a regular non-magical weapon).
It would only take two PCs' turns, three spells with feather fall reaction. Thunder step would still be doing it's AoE to anyone still on the ground. You get to waste the target's turn while it follows your command. It probably end up prone or dead after falling. You might even be able to aim your thunder step where your target lands on one of your enemies, making the target a projectile.
Well, there's no overlap in casters with Feather Fall and with Command without optional rules or spending an ASI on a feat (which is optional to begin with as well, but to me it's silly not to allow them given the number of ASIs some classes get), so having only two PCs puts some significant restraints on the proposition.
The timing is a bit tricky as well, since the target has to be next to the Thunder Step caster when it gets its turn (as moving can't be part of the readied action).
And Thunder Step potentially affects the party as well.
I made a note about the optional class rules, so yeah.
The sorcerer can be 30 feet away or next to the target at the end of their turn. Either works, as nothing is preventing the target from moving to the target. Only issue with timing is you'd prefer the bard to go before the sorcerer.
Fireball affects the part near same as thunder step.
Here's the problem I have primarily, it's a first level spell. I don't personally believe the spell's purpose(designer's purpose?) is to set up a target like you are attempting. With the phrasing included, it indicates diffusing a violent possibility, not creating one. That's just my opinion, I know that. There are many other spells and effects that could care less if you intend to create harm or not and I feel these are better choices for your strategy than Command.
A lesson on how to not allow your PCs to creatively use their spells: "Here's the problem I have primarily, it's a first level spell." Spell level doesn't matter. That's the worst reason not to allow something when it's RAW. Give an example of a spell that's better. You might say Suggestion, but listening to an enemy doesn't "sound reasonable" to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
When using Command, I guess it depends on your interpretation of: "The spell has no effect if the target is undead, if it doesn't understand your language, or if your command is directly harmful to it". It seems very situational and possibly, based on intent not necessarily the perception of threat/harm by the target. Let's use some examples.
1) Flee! The target leaves the area of combat with no repercussions.
2) Flee! The target breaks into a run a front of predatory animals, who suddenly attack the target.
1) Cross. The target safely crosses a narrow bridge over a large ravine.
2) Cross. The narrow bridge is lit with flames in the middle. The party wants to determine if the fire is real or not.
In the 2nd Flee example, it could be determined a harmful command by circumstance, the presence of the predatory animals. The awareness of the target may perceive the threat of the animals. The caster's intent may be harmful regardless of the target's perception.
In the 2nd Cross example, walking through fire is generally considered harmful as a target might suspect. The caster may not have a directly harmful intent but, is certainly apathetic to the possible peril of the target.
In the dropping a target on it's head example. The intent is overtly harmful whether the target is aware or not.
No example is provided regarding dropping someone on their head.
"Directly harmful" simply means that it will result in harm, not that it will open you up for harm.
Telling someone to "approach" will open them up to attacks of opportunity, not directly harmful. Telling someone to "flee" result in the same. Telling someone to "drop" results in them losing their shield spell focus or whatever, making them easier targets, not directly harmful. Making someone "grovel" will make them open to be hurt easier, not directly harmful. Telling someone to "cross" a bridge that is on fire and will, without anyone else's interference, result in burns, directly harmful. First four example are indirectly harmful because others need to take action to result in harm. Last example is directly harmful because the act itself results in harm. Essentially, if it's the target's actions that result in damage, it's direct and fails. If it's others' reactions to the target's actions that result in harm, it's indirect and acceptable.
To any vaguely reasonable person, attacks of opportunity would be harm.
Them being caused by fleeing, likewise.
Drop, or Grovel, in combat, are less clear
It's not "directly harmful". Indirectly harmful doesn't matter. Read the spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
I've never liked Charm type spells, and Command is one of them. It's like Suggestion, but only one word. It's much more limited, but just like all Charm spells, people play them like the target doesn't get to think. That's not how it works. For that you need a Domination spell.
The examples on the list are fine except for Grovel. I wouldn't allow that one. It's obviously harmful to grovel in front of anyone who might be nearby and posses a weapon. Also, there is nothing in that spell that I see that says the target can't tell that a spell has been cast on them. I use Passive Insight as a check to see if people realize they are being manipulated. For something like Grovel, that's probably a DC of 5. It's pretty easy to tell something strange happened unless the caster really is scary enough to make them grovel, and if so, the caster doesn't need the spell.
Obey and Accept are much too broad. Obey who? Accept what? So the target at most just stands there wondering, and whatever you say is just ignored. Obey Me is two words. No good. Accept would work if you handed them something. Accepting a spell being cast? Passive Insight at the least, or just nothing happens.
I won't debate any of the rest of it. That's what the friendly folks at Rules & Mechanics are for.
Imagine failing to resist a spell, but still resisting the spell. I won't argue the mechanics of why this doesn't make sense, so I'll allow Sage Advice do it: "Do you always know when you’re under the effect of a spell? You’re aware that a spell is affecting you if it has a perceptible effect or if its text says you’re aware of it (see PH, 204, under “Targets”). Most spells are obvious. For example, fireball burns you, cure wounds heals you, and command forces you to suddenly do something you didn’t intend. Certain spells are more subtle, yet you become aware of the spell at a time specified in the spell’s description. Charm person and detect thoughts are examples of such spells." If it doesn't directly harm you, you're forced to do it when you fail the spell save.
I would be rather picky with Command as a DM and follow this sentence:
"The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or follow the command on its next turn."
"Being willing" is not something the target can follow in its next turn.
"'Being willing' is not something the target can follow in its next turn." If under the effects of Command, why not? This is why Thunder Step is being held for the target's turn.
Playing D&D is more than playing according to RAW but, by all means use the creative idea if it suits you. Don't expect everyone to back it. To counter your opinion, doing something just because it can be done by RAW via loopholes or otherwise, doesn't make it creative or even a good idea to put into play. It's called a hypothetical. Yes, your idea falls in this classification because it is stretching the limits of what may be possible with many opinions on whether this is good or bad. It also requires several judgement calls that you make in its favor that not all would agree on, whether this really is RAW at all.
Are all the characters involved irrevocably evil? Go ahead, enact your plan. If not, maybe honorbound characters would frown heavily on this plan, I know mine would. How far do you think you can push creative ideas before either the players or the DM call cheese? This decision is going to be incumbent on the people you play with. In any case, it's should be obvious to all that you are trying to go well beyond what most find standard application of an ability and inevitably, there will be a difference of opinion. You did post this in Discussion so, you will get an equal measure opinion and rules related responses.
The difference my friend, is if you don't murder with overkill measures, the enemy can retreat or surrender. You can evolve from murder hobo to role play, if you choose.
Is there a reason it must be Command - wouldn't spells like Suggestion or Dominate be better choices for making somebody "willing"? If you're not in combat, Friends and Charm Person/Monster might be better.
I wouldn't allow it through Command, but would with other spells, and unless using Dominate, you'd only manage it once (as after that, they'll be aware of the trick and not be willing and I would not allow anything short of Dominate 'force' willingness, because it wouldn't fit the definition of "willing"). So, it's not overpowered when you consider other options characters can get with less resources/teamwork. So, not a huge thing, really.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I think I might have came up with an OP combo for level 5 characters. Here's what's needed:
1. someone with Command that commands the target "
accept", "comply/obey", "accompany", "teleport", or something.2. Someone with Thunder Step, sorcerer with Distant Spell works best, but the metamagic adept feat works.
3. someone with Feather Fall. Can't be thunder step caster.
PC 1. Any sorcerer will do.
PC 2. Eloquence Bard would be best for the 1d8 they can subtract from Command's save. This is assuming the bard has access to the optional additional spell lists for command.
PC 1 Casts command on target. PCs 2 has thunder step held, with the trigger to be when the target accepts, and tells target to come. On target's turn, they become willing to join PC 2 with thunder step. PC 2 goes 90 or 180 feet into the air. PC 1 or someone besides 2 uses their reaction to cast feather fall on PC 2. target takes 9d6 or 18d6 bludgeoning damage.
I haven't found any sage advice that counter this, but link it if you have it.
Addressing counter arguments or issues:
Q: Why is Thunder Step held?
A: Thunder Step has to be held, as Command is only active on target's turn.
Q: Why can't Thunder Step caster be the one with Feather Fall?
A: Thunder Step caster has to use their reaction to trigger Thunder Step on target's turn, so they've used up their reaction.
Q: Is the command directly harmful?
A: I don't think following the command is directly harmful, as the target doesn't know where the caster is going to go. Target only knows they're going to be teleported. Accepting a teleport is as dangerous as someone commanding you to "approach". We all know the PCs are doing it do something harmful, but it's fine so long as it's not "directly" harmful. "Indirectly" is fine.
Q: Misty Step doesn't work with Distant Spell; why does it work with Thunder Step?
A: Misty Step has a range of Self. Thunder Step has a range of 90 feet, so it follows distant spell's rules. it's a bit inconsistent, but it follows RAW.
Q: Isn'T dOMInAte PERsOn BetTer FOr ThIs?
A: Congrats, you're level 9 and not within scope. Reduce the player level to 5 and you don't have that spell. What do?
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
I think you could Command a creature to approach the Thunder Step caster but, you couldn't command them to take a ride with them and be willing. Why? Because command says it's one word to explain the order, not approach then designated PC, trust the designated PC, etc. Maybe in multiple steps/saves, you could get this to work I guess but, after multiple rounds, would it still be worth it?
The command word could just be "obey" or "teleport" and the Thunder Step caster could say "come; we are teleporting away" and hold the spell. Trust isn't needed. The target only needs to understand the command and to not think it's directly harmful.
Also, This would take one round, three turns: command, hold thunder step, and target's turn.
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
If it takes two or three PCs' turns, two 1st and a 3rd level spell and affects a single opponent (who needs to be susceptible to Command), I think doing 18d6 probably isn't too overpowered. A single Fireball does almost half as much already, to potentially multiple opponents, and a 5th level rogue does 3d6 in sneak attack damage alone (probably 1d8+3d6+3 or something close to that, assuming a regular non-magical weapon).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It would only take two PCs' turns, three spells with feather fall reaction. Thunder step would still be doing it's AoE to anyone still on the ground. You get to waste the target's turn while it follows your command. It probably end up prone or dead after falling. You might even be able to aim your thunder step where your target lands on one of your enemies, making the target a projectile.
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
When using Command, I guess it depends on your interpretation of: "The spell has no effect if the target is undead, if it doesn't understand your language, or if your command is directly harmful to it". It seems very situational and possibly, based on intent not necessarily the perception of threat/harm by the target. Let's use some examples.
1) Flee! The target leaves the area of combat with no repercussions.
2) Flee! The target breaks into a run a front of predatory animals, who suddenly attack the target.
1) Cross. The target safely crosses a narrow bridge over a large ravine.
2) Cross. The narrow bridge is lit with flames in the middle. The party wants to determine if the fire is real or not.
In the 2nd Flee example, it could be determined a harmful command by circumstance, the presence of the predatory animals. The awareness of the target may perceive the threat of the animals. The caster's intent may be harmful regardless of the target's perception.
In the 2nd Cross example, walking through fire is generally considered harmful as a target might suspect. The caster may not have a directly harmful intent but, is certainly apathetic to the possible peril of the target.
In the dropping a target on it's head example. The intent is overtly harmful whether the target is aware or not.
No example is provided regarding dropping someone on their head.
"Directly harmful" simply means that it will result in harm, not that it will open you up for harm.
Telling someone to "approach" will open them up to attacks of opportunity, not directly harmful.
Telling someone to "flee" result in the same.
Telling someone to "drop" results in them losing their shield spell focus or whatever, making them easier targets, not directly harmful.
Making someone "grovel" will make them open to being hurt easier, not directly harmful.
Telling someone to "cross" a bridge that is on fire will, without anyone else's interference, result in burns, directly harmful.
First four example are indirectly harmful because others need to take action to result in harm.
Last example is directly harmful because the act itself results in harm.
Essentially, if it's the target's actions that result in damage, it's direct and fails. If it's others' reactions to the target's actions that result in harm, it's indirect and acceptable.
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
1) Yeah, the word is ambiguous.
2) Follows RAW. Only lasts for 6 seconds.
3) Teleport: (especially in science fiction) transport or be transported across space and distance instantly.
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
I've never liked Charm type spells, and Command is one of them. It's like Suggestion, but only one word. It's much more limited, but just like all Charm spells, people play them like the target doesn't get to think. That's not how it works. For that you need a Domination spell.
The examples on the list are fine except for Grovel. I wouldn't allow that one. It's obviously harmful to grovel in front of anyone who might be nearby and posses a weapon. Also, there is nothing in that spell that I see that says the target can't tell that a spell has been cast on them. I use Passive Insight as a check to see if people realize they are being manipulated. For something like Grovel, that's probably a DC of 5. It's pretty easy to tell something strange happened unless the caster really is scary enough to make them grovel, and if so, the caster doesn't need the spell.
Obey and Accept are much too broad. Obey who? Accept what? So the target at most just stands there wondering, and whatever you say is just ignored. Obey Me is two words. No good. Accept would work if you handed them something. Accepting a spell being cast? Passive Insight at the least, or just nothing happens.
I won't debate any of the rest of it. That's what the friendly folks at Rules & Mechanics are for.
<Insert clever signature here>
Well, there's no overlap in casters with Feather Fall and with Command without optional rules or spending an ASI on a feat (which is optional to begin with as well, but to me it's silly not to allow them given the number of ASIs some classes get), so having only two PCs puts some significant restraints on the proposition.
The timing is a bit tricky as well, since the target has to be next to the Thunder Step caster when it gets its turn (as moving can't be part of the readied action).
And Thunder Step potentially affects the party as well.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Here's the problem I have primarily, it's a first level spell. I don't personally believe the spell's purpose(designer's purpose?) is to set up a target like you are attempting. With the phrasing included, it indicates diffusing a violent possibility, not creating one. That's just my opinion, I know that. There are many other spells and effects that could care less if you intend to create harm or not and I feel these are better choices for your strategy than Command.
I made a note about the optional class rules, so yeah.
The sorcerer can be 30 feet away or next to the target at the end of their turn. Either works, as nothing is preventing the target from moving to the target. Only issue with timing is you'd prefer the bard to go before the sorcerer.
Fireball affects the part near same as thunder step.
A lesson on how to not allow your PCs to creatively use their spells: "Here's the problem I have primarily, it's a first level spell." Spell level doesn't matter. That's the worst reason not to allow something when it's RAW.
Give an example of a spell that's better. You might say Suggestion, but listening to an enemy doesn't "sound reasonable" to me.
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
It's not "directly harmful". Indirectly harmful doesn't matter. Read the spell.
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
I would be rather picky with Command as a DM and follow this sentence:
"The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or follow the command on its next turn."
"Being willing" is not something the target can follow in its next turn.
Imagine failing to resist a spell, but still resisting the spell. I won't argue the mechanics of why this doesn't make sense, so I'll allow Sage Advice do it:
"Do you always know when you’re under the effect of a spell? You’re aware that a spell is affecting you if it has a perceptible effect or if its text says you’re aware of it (see PH, 204, under “Targets”). Most spells are obvious. For example, fireball burns you, cure wounds heals you, and command forces you to suddenly do something you didn’t intend. Certain spells are more subtle, yet you become aware of the spell at a time specified in the spell’s description. Charm person and detect thoughts are examples of such spells."
If it doesn't directly harm you, you're forced to do it when you fail the spell save.
"'Being willing' is not something the target can follow in its next turn." If under the effects of Command, why not? This is why Thunder Step is being held for the target's turn.
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
Playing D&D is more than playing according to RAW but, by all means use the creative idea if it suits you. Don't expect everyone to back it. To counter your opinion, doing something just because it can be done by RAW via loopholes or otherwise, doesn't make it creative or even a good idea to put into play. It's called a hypothetical. Yes, your idea falls in this classification because it is stretching the limits of what may be possible with many opinions on whether this is good or bad. It also requires several judgement calls that you make in its favor that not all would agree on, whether this really is RAW at all.
Are all the characters involved irrevocably evil? Go ahead, enact your plan. If not, maybe honorbound characters would frown heavily on this plan, I know mine would. How far do you think you can push creative ideas before either the players or the DM call cheese? This decision is going to be incumbent on the people you play with. In any case, it's should be obvious to all that you are trying to go well beyond what most find standard application of an ability and inevitably, there will be a difference of opinion. You did post this in Discussion so, you will get an equal measure opinion and rules related responses.
The difference my friend, is if you don't murder with overkill measures, the enemy can retreat or surrender. You can evolve from murder hobo to role play, if you choose.
Is there a reason it must be Command - wouldn't spells like Suggestion or Dominate be better choices for making somebody "willing"? If you're not in combat, Friends and Charm Person/Monster might be better.
I wouldn't allow it through Command, but would with other spells, and unless using Dominate, you'd only manage it once (as after that, they'll be aware of the trick and not be willing and I would not allow anything short of Dominate 'force' willingness, because it wouldn't fit the definition of "willing"). So, it's not overpowered when you consider other options characters can get with less resources/teamwork. So, not a huge thing, really.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Command is too limited to do what you want it to do. Charm Person, Suggestion, or Dominate have much a more broad usage.
Curious how you get the 180 feet? I must have missed something, please restate.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Nothing says that the target of "approach" or "flee" can't use a Withdraw action to avoid the OA.