I've already conceded that from a mechanical standpoint, you definitely make a compelling case in favor of your idea. The only sticking points rules wise is what I mentioned from the start. The semantic discord here is what constitutes "direct harm" as per the phrasing of the Command spell. It is somewhat ambiguous, and therefore subject to different interpretations. In my mind, you find many ways to justify or divorce an action from the context of "direct harm". This is just a lack of accountability to me. It's like the old RPG joke: "it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop". No, it's actually the spellcaster that drops you that kills you. This is NOT indirect harm.
Secondly, as I also mentioned from the start and others have backed more recently; Command is not being seen as a best choice for many of us as a spell that compels a target to become a willing victim of your plan.
Simply, the target doesn't know where the Thunder Step will go. Say you're a GM and you didn't know the whole plan and you allowed Command to work as caster intended, wouldn't you be surprised that Sorcerer say "I teleport 180 feet above me"? I would be, and that's what makes it indirect harm in this case, not knowing the results.
As I've countered, Command is still the best spell for it, unless you're level 9 and have Dominate Person, but that defeats being at level 5. Even then, Command is arguably the best spell, as you save a 5th level spell. The other spells simply aren't effective in combat as Command, which is designed for combat.
Again, I see your point. I've snipped down to what I feel is most relevant.
Let's discuss the big whoop de doo of your plan mechanics and why you are getting so much resistance.
You want to allow a lvl 1 spell to effectively disarm a targets saving throw against any follow up(potentially, that is the case. The fact you chose Thunder Step is irrelevant in the big picture of what exploit opportunities this logic brings to the table) that requires a save. You do realize that a saving throw is practically an autonomic response? You could be unconscious/incapacitated and still make a save against something that doesn't require you to move. Even with no awareness, you don't willingly fail saves.
Your shenanigans are really no different than the following example:
The Mage tells the target, "I want to cast the Fly spell on you, will you allow it?".
"Sure", says the target.
"Har Har Har, I lied. I cast Thunder Step, enjoy the flight...into the pavement!"
Now, the target agreed to accepting the Fly spell. Does that mean that they just lowered their defenses to any incoming attack? I would say no but, you seem to be saying yes. This is the root of the argument whether you see it or not.
People can choose to fail saves, for instance Polymorph or Zone of Truth, so people can and do willing fail saves. Considering one can choose to fail these saves, it could be commanded with the right word.
They were willing to accept a spell being casted on them, so, yes, they allowed a spell from The Mage to be casted on them. Maybe the caster needs a deception check opposed to a arcana check from the target. Does it allow any incoming attack? Probably not when the target realize it's an attack (directly harmful).
As for my idea, teleportation is instantaneous, so by the time the spell was casted, it's too late realize its intentions. The spell is a teleportation spell, so no deception is needed for that.
I'll give you an example why accepting a teleportation isn't directly harmful. Driving a car blindfolded: is it stupid? yes. Is it directly harmful? no. Is it directly harmful if it results in you hitting a wall? no. It's indirectly harmful. Driving a car into a wall: Directly harmful. What's the difference? One has it where you know the result (directly) and one has it where the result is unknown (indirectly). The target is teleporting with a blindfold on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
The point is, that there is a one word limit in addition to the 6 second limit. 'Obey' does an end run around the one word limit.
And the way you are using it, it also does an end run around the harm limit, since the obeying part means the command, buy your own logic, is only causing indirect harm. It 'merely' causes the person to obey, and then the obeying subsequently results in them following a second order, which causes them harm.
Even with the 6 second limit, you could do 'Obey' (so far no direct harm, so succeeds) then on their turn 'Kill yourself,' which they now do since that part is no longer subject to the anti-harm limit, being only indirect. See how that works?
-----------
What, exactly, does this being intended as a combat combo have to do with whether it should work or not? Command being more convenient if it works is not an argument that it should work. It would be even more convenient if your enemies just dropped dead simply when asked. That does not give you any ability to cause them to do so.
And why couldn't you simply open with it? Use deception to get close to the target then go through it all.
"Teleport" is better word to use. Has less potential for argument of slippery slope or "not as intended" or "I hate creativity".
The harm limit is only directlyharmful, so indirect harm, like AOO, being prone, defenselessness, or being a wizard next to the barbarian, is fine.
KYS fails because to follow that is directly harmful. It would be like commanding "approach", then flying over a lava pit. It's called "changing circumstances". Before someone thinks this is a counter argument to myself, target doesn't know the location of the teleport until after they've been teleported, so it doesn't apply.
My argument is that it is the best spell of the spells level 3 and below to accomplish this task, if there is one. You are misrepresenting my previous arguments.
You could. Regardless, I'm still limiting the discussion to combat has already begun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
I'll give you an example why accepting a teleportation isn't directly harmful. Driving a car blindfolded: is it stupid? yes. Is it directly harmful? no. Is it directly harmful if it results in you hitting a wall? no. It's indirectly harmful. Driving a car into a wall: Directly harmful. What's the difference? One has it where you know the result (directly) and one has it where the result is unknown (indirectly). The target is teleporting with a blindfold on.
I'll give you an example why your example is a bad choice.
Is texting while driving directly harmful? According to you, no. According to the majority of the world, statistically, yes. Using semantic understandings of "what is IS", that's just poor form.
If there were a word to use, it would probably be "Acquiesce", however, the bottom line is that Command forces outward behavior, not internal states. All of these arguments about semantics are beside the primary issue.
You can't command someone to be "willing" any more than you can command them to be "hungry", because it's not something they have conscious control over, and therefore not a viable option. The spell simply ends. (The valid alternatives would be "do" and "eat", which are categorically and mechanically different.)
Right, but it is a command, therefore by definition imperative.
Activating a device is again a self action. You activate the item and thus, you teleport.
If you get on a plane, while you are technically flying, the flight is at best tangentially related to your actions. The plane flies, or doesn't regardless of anything you do. Your action was getting on the plane. Unless you are in the cockpit, someone else flies the plane. If the plane was on the ground, a 'fly' command might cause the person to try to get into the cockpit to fly the plane themselves, but in most cases, it would simply fail, since the person cannot, themselves, fly (and likely could not fly the plane even if they were in the cockpit).
In the specific example in question, the person is hit by a spell and either resists or not. They do not have any ability to teleport until/unless they accept this willingly and have no reason to believe it is a teleport spell until it takes effect. Even if the person tells them it is a teleport spell, 'Teleport' does not force them to believe that. The person could tell them it is a teleport spell then cast hold person, or disintegrate or dominate, for that matter. Do they accept the spell because of an order to do something that may or may not actually be what is being offered to them?
I think this is the best example yet as to what the limits of Command are. Something that the target can perform under it's own power with no extenuating additional circumstances or requirements.
'Teleport' is first person, imperative, a self-action. 'I teleport.' The command you need is 'be teleported,' but that would be two words so fails. The target would have to be able to cast thunder step and then they would not likely choose to go straight up. Note that the target could have misty step, dimension door, teleport, or some other teleport ability themselves and thus use that, but again, not what you are trying to achieve.
If someone tells you "I want you to teleport to X city" and you don't have the ability to cast teleport but you know where you can get someone to teleport, how do you interpret their command? Yes, Misty Step etc. is an option, if they can cast it, as their interpretation.
Teleport: (especially in science fiction) transport or be transported across space and distance instantly. The target knows they're can be teleported by Thunder Step, so they will do what they can do be teleported.
Spell doesn't end. It has the means to teleport. It's the caster with thunder step.
Ahh, yes, it will act against the command while under the effects of Command... Does this need to be addressed?
Wow buddy, nice double standard here.
You say that the target will fail a saving throw and comply to be a target to follow it's given Command. It does so because it is unaware of any harm that may come to it.
Now you argue that it will teleport because it knows the Thunder Step will teleport it.
What a stupid(and smart?) target we have here...
Command can make you do stupid things when you have failed a save. If you're smart, it doesn't matter after you've failed. Also the caster say what they're casting for the target, as I've said before. If you see a double standard, actually draw one out, as I don't understand your point.
The target neither knows, the caster can cast Thunder Step, nor does the target know when Thunderstep is cast, that the particular spell is Thunder Step. That would be pure meta-game knowledge.
Furthermore, all triggers are totally off, relying on meta-knowledge.
Command only forces the target to act on a one word order. Not on some multi-layered interpretation of intent and some additional suggestions by the caster and their allies.
In regards to this comment and the one above: This is why Thunder Step's caster announces it so the target can know it, as I've said in this thread, already.
Command words should normal one-word commands you can understand without context. Things like Teleport and Accept are beyond that scope. If you have to explain the command, it's not a one-word command, so invalid for the 1st level spell.
Yes, this will make your combo extremely difficult to pull off, and you really, really want it to, but Command isn't going to let you get around the pesky "willing" barrier. It's almost like the designers did it on purpose. Those bastards!
Nothing says you can't plant the seed of an idea, then command it. One usage of Command is "confess", so one can plant the seed of what they want confessed.
"To go willingly" is an action. Just cutting out one word and pretending that's what I am talking about is silly. You might as well have cut out the word 'to' and said it was an infinitive marker, not an acton. It's not in contention that if the creature goes, it is willing for the purpose of thunder step. It's that you need one word that not only gets the creature to move toward a specific person, but also encapsulates them accompanying that person when they get there.
With you logic, if I commanded "approach" the target wouldn't approach me. The target would only approach whatever it wanted to approach. It just has to approach anything. We know by the examples that the Command spell forces your target to interpret what you want from the command, to the best of their abilities, and to do so in a manner that is not directly harmful to the target. The target doesn't get to maliciously comply with the command. The target follows the command to the what it thinks the caster wants.
This isn't about the target 'maliciously' complying. It's about the extent of what you can compel, which is one word. You are trying to embed more into command than one word ordinarily covers. That isn't in the spell until you factor in the DM's discretion. It's the difference between you adding specificity that isn't part of the command, and what must naturally occur in the fulfilment of the command.
'Approach' means to close the distance, and by conventional meaning, the target of that approach going to default to the speaker or source of the message unless otherwise specified. That's not a DnD thing. That's just English. As a one word imperative, it's synonymous with 'come here' or 'come toward me'. And while Common, Elvish, Infernal (et al) may not be English, that's the language we're using as players (though if you are playing in a different language and 'approach' as an imperative means something different, rad).
Even with approach, if you specify that they dash using a route that expends their full movement instead of taking the shortest route, the command only extends to 'approach' and not your specification, unless the DM says other wise.
Teleport: (especially in science fiction) transport or be transported across space and distance instantly.
I have embed exactly what is needed for someone to be teleported. Embed in every command is implied tasks. That's just English. That's just language.
Command forces the target to follow the command word to what the target thinks the caster means, so planting a seed is an effective use of the spell, so there's less misinterpretation or lack of understanding by the target.
As far as the "'[decision] to go willingly' is an action" semantics you're forcing, it's inanity. it's an action. It's not an action. It doesn't matter because the target is willing by the implied requirements of the command "teleport". If the target has another means of teleportation, then you have argument, but you haven't. "Go willingly" isn't an action.
I get you're excited about this thing you thought up, but maybe drop the attitude? "Inanity'. Yet you keep responding to a point not being made. This all came up in relation to why 'obey' should fail, and why 'teleport' might be discretionary. Can you seriously not follow a thread of conversation? You keep insisting that the target is willing when I have told you that isn't the issue. I don't understand what is so difficult about this to understand.
""Go willingly" isn't an action."
I mean, if we want to use basic grammar, it is. It's a verb and an adverb, so it very literally is, but the point of contention was not that it was an action in the first place. It's just strange you keep insisting on making statements that aren't, y'know... true. For the record, this has nothing to do with whether 'teleport' would or would not work. It's just strange you are being so defensive. You posted a thread asking for feedback. You are getting a lot of feedback that you are overextending 'Command'. Not how you play it at your table? Someone else also sees it your way? Rad, but at some point learn to take the critique you asked for.
Cool. You say "silly". I say "inanity". At someone point learn critique can be wrong. "willingly" isn't an action.
People can choose to fail saves, for instance Polymorph or Zone of Truth, so people can and do willing fail saves. Considering one can choose to fail these saves, it could be commanded with the right word.
They were willing to accept a spell being casted on them, so, yes, they allowed a spell from The Mage to be casted on them. Maybe the caster needs a deception check opposed to a arcana check from the target. Does it allow any incoming attack? Probably not when the target realize it's an attack (directly harmful).
As for my idea, teleportation is instantaneous, so by the time the spell was casted, it's too late realize its intentions. The spell is a teleportation spell, so no deception is needed for that.
I'll give you an example why accepting a teleportation isn't directly harmful. Driving a car blindfolded: is it stupid? yes. Is it directly harmful? no. Is it directly harmful if it results in you hitting a wall? no. It's indirectly harmful. Driving a car into a wall: Directly harmful. What's the difference? One has it where you know the result (directly) and one has it where the result is unknown (indirectly). The target is teleporting with a blindfold on.
Great, so what is the one word command that corresponds to 'Drive a car blindfolded?'
Or for 'Don't resist?'
"Could be commanded with the right word" assumes there is a right word.
I can handle the concept of tricking someone into accepting a spell being cast on them (and thus not resisting) but there is no one word command that covers that.
If you figure out the words for them, let me know. It was an example for directly harmful vs. indirectly harmful.
It assumes there might be a right word. Maybe one could be invented and added to the dictionary. Every time a verb is added to the dictionary, Command get's stronger. It's the only time a spell is buffed without the input of Wizards of the Coast.
"teleport" for Thunder Step.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
It's an interesting proposition, but it's one that as a DM I wouldn't let it work too many times. I don't think its overpowered, because its an insane amount of resources for this type of damage. Sorcery points, bardic inspirations and multiple spell slots(two first levels and a third) all to do something which honestly, you're missing a key point on and I think it does merit the discussion.
Feather Falls description being "1 reaction, which you take when you or a creature within 60 feet of you falls". The creature is going to start falling 180 feet above you, and is therefore out of range of your reaction based spell, potentially. I really don't like that ruling personally, but I can see some ruling it that way because of how they perceive the wording on feather fall.
If I did allow it? I probably wouldn't contest the word choice that much because again, its an insane amount of resources for this type of thing. If I were the enemy party, the SECOND I saw this happen, we'd all run away and tell everyone about the magic men who love dropping people from the sky.
Command words should normal one-word commands you can understand without context. Things like Teleport and Accept are beyond that scope. If you have to explain the command, it's not a one-word command, so invalid for the 1st level spell.
Yes, this will make your combo extremely difficult to pull off, and you really, really want it to, but Command isn't going to let you get around the pesky "willing" barrier. It's almost like the designers did it on purpose. Those bastards!
Nothing says you can't plant the seed of an idea, then command it. One usage of Command is "confess", so one can plant the seed of what they want confessed.
And who says Confess is such a valid usage? It's not one of the examples given by the spell, so you're in DM territory again, and again, you may be overstretching it - you get no say in what they get to confess.
The examples given by the spell are one-word commands that can be understood in their entirety without needing any "seeded ideas". Given the examples and verbiage of the spell it very much seems confined to precisely 1-word commands, not "a sentence or two of seeded ideas followed by the one word command". The one-word command is the whole command. If you want to apply context and more defined instruction, then that is the domain of the Suggestion spell.
This is a deliberate design element to prevent using a 1st level spell to break the "willingness" barriers of other spells. If we want to get really nitpicky, as I have thought on it more, does any spell actually break it - given that to be willing you must know what is to happen and make your own choice - by your own volition - to accept it. When magic is used to make that decision for you - well, it's no longer your choice so how can you be willing?
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.
Command words should normal one-word commands you can understand without context. Things like Teleport and Accept are beyond that scope. If you have to explain the command, it's not a one-word command, so invalid for the 1st level spell.
Yes, this will make your combo extremely difficult to pull off, and you really, really want it to, but Command isn't going to let you get around the pesky "willing" barrier. It's almost like the designers did it on purpose. Those bastards!
Nothing says you can't plant the seed of an idea, then command it. One usage of Command is "confess", so one can plant the seed of what they want confessed.
And who says Confess is such a valid usage? It's not one of the examples given by the spell, so you're in DM territory again, and again, you may be overstretching it - you get no say in what they get to confess.
The examples given by the spell are one-word commands that can be understood in their entirety without needing any "seeded ideas". Given the examples and verbiage of the spell it very much seems confined to precisely 1-word commands, not "a sentence or two of seeded ideas followed by the one word command". The one-word command is the whole command. If you want to apply context and more defined instruction, then that is the domain of the Suggestion spell.
This is a deliberate design element to prevent using a 1st level spell to break the "willingness" barriers of other spells. If we want to get really nitpicky, as I have thought on it more, does any spell actually break it - given that to be willing you must know what is to happen and make your own choice - by your own volition - to accept it. When magic is used to make that decision for you - well, it's no longer your choice so how can you be willing?
Is up to GM.
It's confined to a 1-word command that the GM determines, so seeding can influence how someone interprets it. Nothing in the spell says that seeding isn't effective, so let the GM decide.
Give me the link to the Sage Advice from WotC that says this is a "deliberate" design element. Willing: "not objecting to doing something; having no reason for not doing something" Command makes them willing. They have no choice. You are interjecting "choice" as a requirement of "willing". If you want to argue "having no reason for not doing something" strictly then you always have a reason to not do something, so you're not willing, ever. All spells fails.
At someone point learn critique can be wrong. "willingly" isn't an action.
I didn't say 'willingly' is an action. If my critique is wrong, it's not for that. This is why I have a problem with your language. If you're going to be dismissive, dismiss something I've argued instead of repeating the same thing I've told you I am not saying. You even quote my use of 'silly' in the very sentence I criticize you for isolating the word 'willingly' to argue against something I haven't argued.
Waiting for you to make a point. " " isn't an action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
Teleport: (especially in science fiction) transport or be transported across space and distance instantly. The target knows they're can be teleported by Thunder Step, so they will do what they can do be teleported.
Spell doesn't end. It has the means to teleport. It's the caster with thunder step.
Ahh, yes, it will act against the command while under the effects of Command... Does this need to be addressed?
Wow buddy, nice double standard here.
You say that the target will fail a saving throw and comply to be a target to follow it's given Command. It does so because it is unaware of any harm that may come to it.
Now you argue that it will teleport because it knows the Thunder Step will teleport it.
What a stupid(and smart?) target we have here...
Command can make you do stupid things when you have failed a save. If you're smart, it doesn't matter after you've failed. Also the caster say what they're casting for the target, as I've said before. If you see a double standard, actually draw one out, as I don't understand your point.
The double standard is that the target is too dumb to be allowed to recognize the Command as a possible ploy to do direct harm(in my opinion) and immediately cancel the spells success yet, is smart enough to intuitively understand the mechanics of magic as it applies to Thunder Step in order to complete the teleport command. Are you for real?
As the OP's responses have devolved into: "I don't see reality the same as you do, even if I am all alone in my reasonings", I guess I will put forth another example, one of making anything mean what you want it to mean.
The OP's name is I_Eat_Toast . Hmmm, it's all separated by underscores so, it can't be a simple statement or sentence. It must be I, eat, and toast all meant to to understood for their significance individually. Maybe it IS a sentence. I eat, toast. So, he eats and toasts(toasts what, or to whom?). Wait, wait...you can't eat toast, that's a verb! If I ridiculously refuse to acknowledge that the implied meaning is "I eat toast" presumably, toasted bread, I can never be proven wrong. My other examples are correct provisionally so, it doesn't matter if I know what the standard understanding of my peers will be.
I think both sides are correct in their interpretation, but the level of hostility in this thread is killing active discussion. Rather than not respond to posts, people are baiting each other and going back and forth. This really isn't constructive to the intent of the conversation.
D&D thrives on rulings like this, and part of the fun is that each table is going to be different. We can talk about why it might not be and why it might be, but as has been posted at least 30 times, each DM is going to rule how they want. I think that with all creative applications like this, it opens a door that sometimes we as players don't want to open because now it lets the DM do the same level of things.
"To teleport." Two words, not one. Moreover, 'to teleport to X City.' Four words. It implies that the target has the choice of destination, that the target is in control of the action. In this case they do not. "Flee," as a comparison only requires 'away,' not away in any particular direction. Command does not obligate the person to ask if someone can give them the ability to fulfil the command and they cannot teleport until after they accept the spell without resisting.
That extra needed step, not covered by the Command, causes it to fail.
If their legs were tied and they were ordered to "Run," they would not be obligated to untie their legs. They cannot yet run. So the command fails.
Let me fix it You: "I need to go to X city." Boss: "Fly." or "Teleport." You:" I'm not a bird" or "I'm not a wizard." Boss" You're fired for not having common sense."
Problem fixed.
Let's change this example a bit. Your target is on the ground, prone. You command "flee". Spell says the target has to "... spends its turn moving away from you by the fastest available means." Does it get up and then dash? Yes. If it's tied, does it try to untie itself, so it can flee faster? Yes. Why? Because it's the fastest possible means to get away. Untying one's self is an available means to fleeing and it's the way that is the fastest. It isn't the most direct, like crawling on the ground.
It's an interesting proposition, but it's one that as a DM I wouldn't let it work too many times. I don't think its overpowered, because its an insane amount of resources for this type of damage. Sorcery points, bardic inspirations and multiple spell slots(two first levels and a third) all to do something which honestly, you're missing a key point on and I think it does merit the discussion.
Feather Falls description being "1 reaction, which you take when you or a creature within 60 feet of you falls". The creature is going to start falling 180 feet above you, and is therefore out of range of your reaction based spell, potentially. I really don't like that ruling personally, but I can see some ruling it that way because of how they perceive the wording on feather fall.
If I did allow it? I probably wouldn't contest the word choice that much because again, its an insane amount of resources for this type of thing. If I were the enemy party, the SECOND I saw this happen, we'd all run away and tell everyone about the magic men who love dropping people from the sky.
1 sorcery point optional: 1 bardic inspiration 2 level-1 spells 1 level-3 spell. This isn't too bad to do an average of 63 damage to a high value target and 3d10 to anyone 10 feet near the sorcerer.
Reaction's condition: "which you take when you or a creature within 60 feet of you falls" A creature falls at 180 feet and at 60 feet away from you after 120 feet of falling. Might be up to GM.
Leave no survivors.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
It's confined to a 1-word command that the GM determines, so seeding can influence how someone interprets it. Nothing in the spell says that seeding isn't effective, so let the GM decide.
Give me the link to the Sage Advice from WotC that says this is a "deliberate" design element. Willing: "not objecting to doing something; having no reason for not doing something" Command makes them willing. They have no choice. You are interjecting "choice" as a requirement of "willing". If you want to argue "having no reason for not doing something" strictly then you always have a reason to not do something, so you're not willing, ever. All spells fails.
There is no suggestion from any source, including Sage Advice, that says context is in any way relevant to how the commands are interpreted. Clearly they can make people do things against their will. That is not in question. But the degree to which you are insisting that is effectively unlimited is in question.
You seem to be arguing that, because it is so limited, one should therefore be able to do end runs around the limit. That simply does not follow.
And insisting that one need to prove it isn't a deliberate design element... the spell states its limitations. Furthermore this is not a new spell. It has been around since 1e and hasn't really changed.
Waiting for you to make a point. " " isn't an action.
And that is what is meant by non-constructive. Not agreeing with or not understanding a point does not equate to not making one.
Wasn't implying there was one. You simply plant a seed to make the interpretation more in your favour.
This is the third misrepresentation of my arguments. That's why it doesn't follow.
"This is a deliberate design element to prevent using a 1st level spell to break the "willingness" barriers of other spells." Where does it tell us any of this? I can't find it in the spell? The spell seems to be designed to command someone to be willing, whatever that one word may be.
I've made a counter argument to their first point. They have yet to make one in any following posts that is novel or refutes my counter arguments.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
Where in the spell does it make the target willing? It forces somebody to do something, even if that something is against their will.
The spell affects what you "do", it does not affect whether you were or were not willing to do it.
If I grabbed your arm and jerked it so you punched yourself. Did I just "make you punch yourself" or did I make you "willing to punch yourself"?
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 both sides are correct in their interpretation, but the level of hostility in this thread is killing active discussion. Rather than not respond to posts, people are baiting each other and going back and forth. This really isn't constructive to the intent of the conversation.
D&D thrives on rulings like this, and part of the fun is that each table is going to be different. We can talk about why it might not be and why it might be, but as has been posted at least 30 times, each DM is going to rule how they want. I think that with all creative applications like this, it opens a door that sometimes we as players don't want to open because now it lets the DM do the same level of things.
Care to explain how both sides can be correct, other than by DM fiat?
No, because that's how the interpretation is going to fall. I'm also not going to use decades of history when the average player is playing 5th edition as their first edition, and more important, no other edition matters in my 5th game. If someone said as a command "COME", the target comes to me. There is interpretation by the DM at this point to say ok does that just mean to me, or with me. I have to make that argument as the player, and the DM has to adjudicate. It's literally how it works. Also, because the creature failed that save, are they now doing it "willingly" or not. One side can rightfully go, as Toast is doing, this is what my spell allows. Another can go, rightfully, I think that is beyond the spells power.
The DM makes the call.
A lot of this argument can be circumvented by Charm Person instead of Command. Sure, it'd get the wis save with advantage during battle, but it's a much easier stretch that the person under the effect of Charm Person would be far more likely to come with you willingly than Command.
That's really the end of the discussion. RAW, not allowed without DM wiggle room. RAI, probably kind of not allowed but maybe some DMs would. RAF, definitely allowed.
Approach: Nothing even hints any ability to direct where to approach, nor whether anything said before has any relevance to where they approach. They approach the caster. Period.
Drop. The target drops whatever it is holding. They do not drop something in a postbox. They do not drop and start doing pushups. They do not drop out from Bard College.
Flee. The target spends its turn moving away from the caster by the fastest available means. They do not flee away from someone else, no matter what was said to try to 'set up' the command.
Grovel. The target falls prone and then ends its turn. Particularly interesting since one can normally grovel standing and just with speech, without needing to end action. One can normally grovel while running away, or disengaging and running. But under the command, they fall prone instead. A specific stated (and thus clearly intended) reaction.
Halt. This one is particularly relevant. If the person is flying and cannot safely simply stop flying, they keep flying, flying only just above their stall speed. They do not instead land and halt.
NONE of these examples so much as imply any ability on the part of the caster to direct how the command will be obeyed. The spell does NOT say anything about the target accepting the caster's interpretation of how they intend the command to be followed. And the 'Halt' example with respect to flight is relevant in the context of this teleport example. If the person will not halt in flight if it means falling, presumably they will not teleport in a manner that that causes them a similar fall.
And this is all stated directly in the spell description.
Simply: "You might issue a command other than one described here. If you do so, the GM determines how the target behaves." so planting a seed can influence how the target may interprets the command. So if you give the target a clue what it may mean when they wouldn't before. A word's meaning is only as meaningful as what they know it to mean.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
Where in the spell does it make the target willing? It forces somebody to do something, even if that something is against their will.
The spell affects what you "do", it does not affect whether you were or were not willing to do it.
If I grabbed your arm and jerked it so you punched yourself. Did I just "make you punch yourself" or did I make you "willing to punch yourself"?
It's an enchantment spell, dude. It changes how you think, so it makes you willing.
So that, I'd argue against as a pure RAW ruling. Spells do what they state they do, no more, no less. There is nothing in the spell Command or Charm Person that states that it makes you willing. For Command, your body is COMPELLED to do the action. All of the described actions are physical in nature. Nothing is mind altering, all are "Do this" and your body does. Devils advocate now, you could totally issue a "Comply" command, which in theory SHOULD make them willing, but it'd only do it for their turn.
In the PHB, the enchantment school is described as: Spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior. Such spells can make enemies see the caster as a friend, force creatures to take a course of action, or even control another creature like a puppet.
It doesn't state that all spells do all effects at the same time.
Even Charmed Person is a bit .. Eh. Anything you can do the enemies can do.
There are ways to negate the disadvantage and letting these level 1 spells define "willingness" can be problematic. Let's say you're in a game and the DM made the enemy a multiclass of Enchanter Wizard with Glamour Bard. They can Charm You, Bonus Action Command you as a bonus and, being charmed, you automatically fail, can then Dimension Door you (or their ally can) (because you're willing) and then feather fall, while you go splat from 500 ft up. You stop being charmed but thanks to Enchanter power, you don't remember anything about it, so it would be perfectly easy for them to repeat this again.
You'd be fine with the DM doing this to you?
This is why letting level 1 spells alter "willingness" is not good. It can get broken as ****.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
People can choose to fail saves, for instance Polymorph or Zone of Truth, so people can and do willing fail saves. Considering one can choose to fail these saves, it could be commanded with the right word.
They were willing to accept a spell being casted on them, so, yes, they allowed a spell from The Mage to be casted on them. Maybe the caster needs a deception check opposed to a arcana check from the target. Does it allow any incoming attack? Probably not when the target realize it's an attack (directly harmful).
As for my idea, teleportation is instantaneous, so by the time the spell was casted, it's too late realize its intentions. The spell is a teleportation spell, so no deception is needed for that.
I'll give you an example why accepting a teleportation isn't directly harmful.
Driving a car blindfolded: is it stupid? yes. Is it directly harmful? no. Is it directly harmful if it results in you hitting a wall? no. It's indirectly harmful.
Driving a car into a wall: Directly harmful.
What's the difference? One has it where you know the result (directly) and one has it where the result is unknown (indirectly).
The target is teleporting with a blindfold on.
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
"Teleport" is better word to use. Has less potential for argument of slippery slope or "not as intended" or "I hate creativity".
The harm limit is only directly harmful, so indirect harm, like AOO, being prone, defenselessness, or being a wizard next to the barbarian, is fine.
KYS fails because to follow that is directly harmful. It would be like commanding "approach", then flying over a lava pit. It's called "changing circumstances". Before someone thinks this is a counter argument to myself, target doesn't know the location of the teleport until after they've been teleported, so it doesn't apply.
My argument is that it is the best spell of the spells level 3 and below to accomplish this task, if there is one. You are misrepresenting my previous arguments.
You could. Regardless, I'm still limiting the discussion to combat has already begun.
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
I'll give you an example why your example is a bad choice.
Is texting while driving directly harmful? According to you, no. According to the majority of the world, statistically, yes. Using semantic understandings of "what is IS", that's just poor form.
If there were a word to use, it would probably be "Acquiesce", however, the bottom line is that Command forces outward behavior, not internal states. All of these arguments about semantics are beside the primary issue.
You can't command someone to be "willing" any more than you can command them to be "hungry", because it's not something they have conscious control over, and therefore not a viable option. The spell simply ends. (The valid alternatives would be "do" and "eat", which are categorically and mechanically different.)
I think this is the best example yet as to what the limits of Command are. Something that the target can perform under it's own power with no extenuating additional circumstances or requirements.
If someone tells you "I want you to teleport to X city" and you don't have the ability to cast teleport but you know where you can get someone to teleport, how do you interpret their command? Yes, Misty Step etc. is an option, if they can cast it, as their interpretation.
Command can make you do stupid things when you have failed a save. If you're smart, it doesn't matter after you've failed. Also the caster say what they're casting for the target, as I've said before. If you see a double standard, actually draw one out, as I don't understand your point.
In regards to this comment and the one above:
This is why Thunder Step's caster announces it so the target can know it, as I've said in this thread, already.
Nothing says you can't plant the seed of an idea, then command it. One usage of Command is "confess", so one can plant the seed of what they want confessed.
Cool. You say "silly". I say "inanity". At someone point learn critique can be wrong.
"willingly" isn't an action.
If you figure out the words for them, let me know. It was an example for directly harmful vs. indirectly harmful.
It assumes there might be a right word. Maybe one could be invented and added to the dictionary. Every time a verb is added to the dictionary, Command get's stronger. It's the only time a spell is buffed without the input of Wizards of the Coast.
"teleport" for Thunder Step.
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
It's an interesting proposition, but it's one that as a DM I wouldn't let it work too many times. I don't think its overpowered, because its an insane amount of resources for this type of damage. Sorcery points, bardic inspirations and multiple spell slots(two first levels and a third) all to do something which honestly, you're missing a key point on and I think it does merit the discussion.
Feather Falls description being "1 reaction, which you take when you or a creature within 60 feet of you falls". The creature is going to start falling 180 feet above you, and is therefore out of range of your reaction based spell, potentially. I really don't like that ruling personally, but I can see some ruling it that way because of how they perceive the wording on feather fall.
If I did allow it? I probably wouldn't contest the word choice that much because again, its an insane amount of resources for this type of thing. If I were the enemy party, the SECOND I saw this happen, we'd all run away and tell everyone about the magic men who love dropping people from the sky.
And who says Confess is such a valid usage? It's not one of the examples given by the spell, so you're in DM territory again, and again, you may be overstretching it - you get no say in what they get to confess.
The examples given by the spell are one-word commands that can be understood in their entirety without needing any "seeded ideas". Given the examples and verbiage of the spell it very much seems confined to precisely 1-word commands, not "a sentence or two of seeded ideas followed by the one word command". The one-word command is the whole command. If you want to apply context and more defined instruction, then that is the domain of the Suggestion spell.
This is a deliberate design element to prevent using a 1st level spell to break the "willingness" barriers of other spells. If we want to get really nitpicky, as I have thought on it more, does any spell actually break it - given that to be willing you must know what is to happen and make your own choice - by your own volition - to accept it. When magic is used to make that decision for you - well, it's no longer your choice so how can you be willing?
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.
Is up to GM.
It's confined to a 1-word command that the GM determines, so seeding can influence how someone interprets it. Nothing in the spell says that seeding isn't effective, so let the GM decide.
Give me the link to the Sage Advice from WotC that says this is a "deliberate" design element.
Willing: "not objecting to doing something; having no reason for not doing something"
Command makes them willing. They have no choice. You are interjecting "choice" as a requirement of "willing". If you want to argue "having no reason for not doing something" strictly then you always have a reason to not do something, so you're not willing, ever. All spells fails.
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
Waiting for you to make a point.
" " isn't an action.
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
The double standard is that the target is too dumb to be allowed to recognize the Command as a possible ploy to do direct harm(in my opinion) and immediately cancel the spells success yet, is smart enough to intuitively understand the mechanics of magic as it applies to Thunder Step in order to complete the teleport command. Are you for real?
As the OP's responses have devolved into: "I don't see reality the same as you do, even if I am all alone in my reasonings", I guess I will put forth another example, one of making anything mean what you want it to mean.
The OP's name is I_Eat_Toast . Hmmm, it's all separated by underscores so, it can't be a simple statement or sentence. It must be I, eat, and toast all meant to to understood for their significance individually. Maybe it IS a sentence. I eat, toast. So, he eats and toasts(toasts what, or to whom?). Wait, wait...you can't eat toast, that's a verb! If I ridiculously refuse to acknowledge that the implied meaning is "I eat toast" presumably, toasted bread, I can never be proven wrong. My other examples are correct provisionally so, it doesn't matter if I know what the standard understanding of my peers will be.
I think both sides are correct in their interpretation, but the level of hostility in this thread is killing active discussion. Rather than not respond to posts, people are baiting each other and going back and forth. This really isn't constructive to the intent of the conversation.
D&D thrives on rulings like this, and part of the fun is that each table is going to be different. We can talk about why it might not be and why it might be, but as has been posted at least 30 times, each DM is going to rule how they want. I think that with all creative applications like this, it opens a door that sometimes we as players don't want to open because now it lets the DM do the same level of things.
Let me fix it
You: "I need to go to X city."
Boss: "Fly." or "Teleport."
You:" I'm not a bird" or "I'm not a wizard."
Boss" You're fired for not having common sense."
Problem fixed.
Let's change this example a bit. Your target is on the ground, prone. You command "flee". Spell says the target has to "... spends its turn moving away from you by the fastest available means." Does it get up and then dash? Yes. If it's tied, does it try to untie itself, so it can flee faster? Yes. Why? Because it's the fastest possible means to get away. Untying one's self is an available means to fleeing and it's the way that is the fastest. It isn't the most direct, like crawling on the ground.
1 sorcery point
optional: 1 bardic inspiration
2 level-1 spells
1 level-3 spell.
This isn't too bad to do an average of 63 damage to a high value target and 3d10 to anyone 10 feet near the sorcerer.
Reaction's condition: "which you take when you or a creature within 60 feet of you falls" A creature falls at 180 feet and at 60 feet away from you after 120 feet of falling. Might be up to GM.
Leave no survivors.
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
Wasn't implying there was one. You simply plant a seed to make the interpretation more in your favour.
This is the third misrepresentation of my arguments. That's why it doesn't follow.
"This is a deliberate design element to prevent using a 1st level spell to break the "willingness" barriers of other spells."
Where does it tell us any of this? I can't find it in the spell? The spell seems to be designed to command someone to be willing, whatever that one word may be.
I've made a counter argument to their first point. They have yet to make one in any following posts that is novel or refutes my counter arguments.
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
Where in the spell does it make the target willing? It forces somebody to do something, even if that something is against their will.
The spell affects what you "do", it does not affect whether you were or were not willing to do it.
If I grabbed your arm and jerked it so you punched yourself. Did I just "make you punch yourself" or did I make you "willing to punch yourself"?
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.
No, because that's how the interpretation is going to fall. I'm also not going to use decades of history when the average player is playing 5th edition as their first edition, and more important, no other edition matters in my 5th game. If someone said as a command "COME", the target comes to me. There is interpretation by the DM at this point to say ok does that just mean to me, or with me. I have to make that argument as the player, and the DM has to adjudicate. It's literally how it works. Also, because the creature failed that save, are they now doing it "willingly" or not. One side can rightfully go, as Toast is doing, this is what my spell allows. Another can go, rightfully, I think that is beyond the spells power.
The DM makes the call.
A lot of this argument can be circumvented by Charm Person instead of Command. Sure, it'd get the wis save with advantage during battle, but it's a much easier stretch that the person under the effect of Charm Person would be far more likely to come with you willingly than Command.
That's really the end of the discussion. RAW, not allowed without DM wiggle room. RAI, probably kind of not allowed but maybe some DMs would. RAF, definitely allowed.
Simply: "You might issue a command other than one described here. If you do so, the GM determines how the target behaves." so planting a seed can influence how the target may interprets the command. So if you give the target a clue what it may mean when they wouldn't before. A word's meaning is only as meaningful as what they know it to mean.
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
It's an enchantment spell, dude. It changes how you think, so it makes you willing.
Command is the most powerful level 1 spell; change my mind.
So that, I'd argue against as a pure RAW ruling. Spells do what they state they do, no more, no less. There is nothing in the spell Command or Charm Person that states that it makes you willing. For Command, your body is COMPELLED to do the action. All of the described actions are physical in nature. Nothing is mind altering, all are "Do this" and your body does. Devils advocate now, you could totally issue a "Comply" command, which in theory SHOULD make them willing, but it'd only do it for their turn.
In the PHB, the enchantment school is described as: Spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior. Such spells can make enemies see the caster as a friend, force creatures to take a course of action, or even control another creature like a puppet.
It doesn't state that all spells do all effects at the same time.
Even Charmed Person is a bit .. Eh. Anything you can do the enemies can do.
There are ways to negate the disadvantage and letting these level 1 spells define "willingness" can be problematic. Let's say you're in a game and the DM made the enemy a multiclass of Enchanter Wizard with Glamour Bard. They can Charm You, Bonus Action Command you as a bonus and, being charmed, you automatically fail, can then Dimension Door you (or their ally can) (because you're willing) and then feather fall, while you go splat from 500 ft up. You stop being charmed but thanks to Enchanter power, you don't remember anything about it, so it would be perfectly easy for them to repeat this again.
You'd be fine with the DM doing this to you?
This is why letting level 1 spells alter "willingness" is not good. It can get broken as ****.
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.