Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from I_Eat_Toast >>

Quote from Kotath >> 

"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. 

 

See my post directly above this one. A command to fly does not force someone to book a flight. A command to teleport does not force someone to accept a foreign spell which may or may not be a teleport.

If tied, the fastest means possible at that moment is hopping or rolling. This is why I used 'Run' as my example instead of 'Flee.' 'Drop' on someone carrying nothing does not force them to pick something up to drop.

'Approach' on someone already hugging you does not force them to move away to enable their ability to approach.

You have provided no counter to the question of how the person knows it really is a teleport spell and whether your interpretation obligates them to accept any spell cast on them as long as they are told it is a teleport spell.

And if my boss expected me to fly or teleport within the next 6 seconds, well....   And if they expected me to fly or teleport and a co-worker said 'Take this pill, it'll let you fly, alright!' well.....

 It can at GM discretion.

I used "flee" because it's in the spell's description and implies, with "fastest available means", one can take action to aid in the command, so it countered your point, easily. 

They just hug you harder. or they can't approach 1 nm, so they get it done.

Asked, answered, go find it. Hint: its being told.

The command spell is your pay check and is being casted in perpetuity until you wise up that you're not being paid enough. You might be able to buy a flight in 6 seconds with a phone. Your ability to understand examples is beginning to be worrying on how literal you take them when they're being used for a game.

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

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 ****.

So the enchantment thing is once a day.  Once the effect ends, fail save, or creature takes damage, they are immune to that effect until the wizard takes a long rest.  There'd also be an argument that since the target is "visibly dazed", do they understand Command for it to take hold?

Quote from Spideycloned >>

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

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 ****.

 

So the enchantment thing is once a day.  Once the effect ends, fail save, or creature takes damage, they are immune to that effect until the wizard takes a long rest.  There'd also be an argument that since the target is "visibly dazed", do they understand Command for it to take hold?

 
Wrong feature.

Alter Memories

At 14th level, you gain the ability to make a creature unaware of your magical influence on it. When you cast an enchantment spell to charm one or more creatures, you can alter one creature’s understanding so that it remains unaware of being charmed.

Additionally, once before the spell expires, you can use your action to try to make the chosen creature forget some of the time it spent charmed. The creature must succeed on an Intelligence saving throw against your wizard spell save DC or lose a number of hours of its memories equal to 1 + your Charisma modifier (minimum 1). You can make the creature forget less time, and the amount of time can’t exceed the duration of your enchantment spell.

Eh, it's a 14th level ability.  At that point, we already have true mind altering spells.  I'm also not worried about in the context of this thread because we're talking about what's feasible at level 5, not 14.

It doesn't matter at what level the abuse potential can come into play, it's still abuse. 

Half of all D&D games I've played have gone into these high levels. 

The point of why spells have a "target must be willing" clause is to keep things within a certain level of balance. Removing that balance using 1st level spells is a huge upset in balance.

If you accept that the spells genuinely do change willingness (despite the spells not saying they do), then you don't even need the features of high level enchanters, because evidently, even if they know what you're going to do, your one-word command is all you need to make them accept being teleported into the air for fall damage. And hey, why stop there, teleport over hazards like spikes or lava: I mean the feather fall lets you fall slowly enough you have time to move or teleport away to safety, but your target won't.

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

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 ****.

Holy, so many things wrong here and are against RAW.
Being charmed and Charm Person doesn't make you fail saves. Considering someone a "friendly acquaintance" doesn't mean you choose to fail the save for Command's wis save.
You can't cast two spells, unless one is a cantrip, on the same turn.
Wizard can't use their reaction twice. As the first post stated, the person using thunder step is using their reaction on the trigger cast thunder step on the target's turn when they accept. This is why the Bard casts Feather Fall for the Sorcerer. Wizard needs an ally.

Let me know which DM sends a level 17 (14/3 wizard/bard) against a level 5 party. That the true problem here.

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

It doesn't matter at what level the abuse potential can come into play, it's still abuse. 

Half of all D&D games I've played have gone into these high levels. 

The point of why spells have a "target must be willing" clause is to keep things within a certain level of balance. Removing that balance using 1st level spells is a huge upset in balance.

If you accept that the spells genuinely do change willingness (despite the spells not saying they do), then you don't even need the features of high level enchanters, because evidently, even if they know what you're going to do, your one-word command is all you need to make them accept being teleported into the air for fall damage. And hey, why stop there, teleport over hazards like spikes or lava: I mean the feather fall lets you fall slowly enough you have time to move or teleport away to safety, but your target won't.

It matters, and it's also important to point out that your experience isn't anyone else's, but when Badeye did the dev update back in 2019 that spoke to what characters existed on D&D Beyond, 10% of characters were level 11 or higher.  So 90% of players didn't get to experience that.  Now, your counter argument would be "Just because the players aren't level 14 doesn't mean the DM NPC isn't", and that's valid, but the confluence of ****ery that would go into your earlier outlined scenario would have me on bad terms, or I put my character in such a bad situation that you know what, I earned this.

Personally, I agree with you.  At my table, I wouldn't allow this.  Toast isn't wrong to have the discussion though.  They aren't wrong to argue in their favor about it either.

Quote from I_Eat_Toast >>

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

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 ****.

Holy, so many things wrong here and are against RAW.
Being charmed and Charm Person doesn't make you fail saves. Considering someone a "friendly acquaintance" doesn't mean you choose to fail the save for Command's wis save.
You can't cast two spells, unless one is a cantrip, on the same turn.
Wizard can't use their reaction twice. As the first post stated, the person using thunder step is using their reaction on the trigger cast thunder step on the target's turn when they accept. This is why the Bard casts Feather Fall for the Sorcerer. Wizard needs an ally.

Let me know which DM sends a level 17 (14/3 wizard/bard) against a level 5 party. That the true problem here.

[REDACTED]

"Being charmed and Charm Person doesn't make you fail saves. Considering someone a "friendly acquaintance" doesn't mean you choose to fail the save for Command's wis save."

Notice I said it was a multiclass of Glamour Bard? Look up their feature Mantle of Majesty. If the target is charmed by you when you cast your Command, the target automatically fails against the Command spell.

"You can't cast two spells, unless one is a cantrip, on the same turn."

Actually there are ways to cast multiple levelled spell in a turn, with some MC features, but you should also note I said "or your ally" - two different spellcasters can, indeed, cast their spells during the same round and even the same turn using ready action. You even give example it. Jeebus, dude, come on already.

"Wizard can't use their reaction twice..."

Same shit again. Yes, I know. Hence why I said "or your ally". 

"Let me know which DM sends a level 17 (14/3 wizard/bard) against a level 5 party. That the true problem here"

What crap are you on about now? Who said putting epic level mages against 5th level PCs? Not a ******* soul. I am talking about how a ruling is not limited by the levels of your scenario as games can go higher and with higher level features it becomes even more susceptible to abuse. Not that it needs to, it's quite broken even without these, I'm just giving an example of how this ruling can bite you later if you went to higher levels - as some games do, even if it was originally not intended to.

Quote from Spideycloned >>

Quote from I_Eat_Toast >>

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

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.

 Command has a lot it can do with your ruling on RAW with one piece.
"You might issue a command other than one described here. If you do so, the GM determines how the target behaves."

RAW says GM follows that command word to whatever GM wants to do to that character for 6 seconds. Preferably, it's relevant to the command word.

Quote from Spideycloned >>

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

It doesn't matter at what level the abuse potential can come into play, it's still abuse. 

Half of all D&D games I've played have gone into these high levels. 

The point of why spells have a "target must be willing" clause is to keep things within a certain level of balance. Removing that balance using 1st level spells is a huge upset in balance.

If you accept that the spells genuinely do change willingness (despite the spells not saying they do), then you don't even need the features of high level enchanters, because evidently, even if they know what you're going to do, your one-word command is all you need to make them accept being teleported into the air for fall damage. And hey, why stop there, teleport over hazards like spikes or lava: I mean the feather fall lets you fall slowly enough you have time to move or teleport away to safety, but your target won't.

  

It matters, and it's also important to point out that your experience isn't anyone else's, but when Badeye did the dev update back in 2019 that spoke to what characters existed on D&D Beyond, 10% of characters were level 11 or higher.  So 90% of players didn't get to experience that.  Now, your counter argument would be "Just because the players aren't level 14 doesn't mean the DM NPC isn't", and that's valid, but the confluence of ****ery that would go into your earlier outlined scenario would have me on bad terms, or I put my character in such a bad situation that you know what, I earned this.

Personally, I agree with you.  At my table, I wouldn't allow this.  Toast isn't wrong to have the discussion though.  They aren't wrong to argue in their favor about it either.

 
BadEye's data is only a reflection of D&D Beyond, not all of D&D, and whether it;s 10% or 1%, it is still relevant. My experience is only mentioned to remind that games don't always stay limited by 5th level, and some games may end up going higher, even if that wasn't always the original intention of the group. So yes, it does matter if you are allowing rules that can have a bad impact on the game balance in future. Long term effects of a rule should always be considered before implementing it. 

"Now, your counter argument would be "Just because the players aren't level 14 doesn't mean the DM NPC isn't", and that's valid,"

No, I wouldn't bother with that as a counter. Please don't tell me what my responses would be, it's incredibly offensive. I can think for myself, thank you.

"Toast isn't wrong to have the discussion though."

I never said otherwise, so I don't understand why you're saying this.

"They aren't wrong to argue in their favor about it either."

Again, I never said otherwise, so I don't understand why you're saying this.

Correct, as is any spell.  GM fiat is going to trump all.  Command has built in ambiguity because of what it is potentially capable of, so it calls out that GMs are free to use it as they deem fit. That being said, it's not my ruling on "spells do what they say they do", that's a Crawford piece.  Crawford has also given some guidance on Command in the sense that "Flee" isn't a directly harmful command, so an enemy would spend its movement going away from you who happened to run through squares that are hostile to it would take opportunity attacks.  It does this because even though obeying the flee command isn't directly harmful, its the actions of others in their path that pose the harm.  But obeying your command wasn't directly harmful.  This somewhat lends SOMETHING to your argument because "Why would an enemy run into obviously hostile squares and take damage if it had full control of itself?"

Intrepretations being what they are, because that's what this thread is about?  I don't interpret this as the target being willing so much as the target is compelled to follow the direction, but as I posted earlier, the DM piece is how far does that extend.  I wouldn't extend it beyond the scope of the initial command.  If it "Comes", then it spends its movement to come, and then stops.  After its turn, it regains full function, but because of the command taking over this turn, they can't make decisions.  They were still aware of what was happening though, they just couldn't do what they wanted, their body was unwilling due to the failed save, but their mind still was there.  

I don't know for sure but I'd like to see a show of hands from all the GMs that have posted on this thread.

Even though many have argued that the command to teleport or obey would not work at all, the OP wants it to work and has settled upon GMs choice.

I would NOT as the command spell would fail right at the teleport command. If the target cannot teleport, the spell fails. It has nothing to do with what will happen later or whether the target knows somebody can teleport it. If it can't do it, the spell fails.

How many of you would allow this chain of events to happen as the OP wants? 

Quote from Wysperra >>

I don't know for sure but I'd like to see a show of hands from all the GMs that have posted on this thread.

Even though many have argued that the command to teleport or obey would not work at all, the OP wants it to work and has settled upon GMs choice.

I would NOT as the command spell would fail right at the teleport command. If the target cannot teleport, the spell fails. It has nothing to do with what will happen later or whether the target knows somebody can teleport it. If it can't do it, the spell fails.

How many of you would allow this chain of events to happen as the OP wants? 

 
Not me.

I've lost track.  Which one word commands are you using again?  Just tell me the word, with no context, and I'll decide what the character would do.  You say the spell doesn't allow people to think, and must do whatever you say as a follow up, but if that's how the spell works, the moment they are able to follow the command, they do what they were Commanded to do.  Make sure you tell me the order, because that's important.  "Obey" without context does nothing at all, for example, and since you seem to believe they cannot decide for themselves what to do, they aren't able to think about anything that follows.

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

Quote from I_Eat_Toast >>

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

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 ****.

Holy, so many things wrong here and are against RAW.
Being charmed and Charm Person doesn't make you fail saves. Considering someone a "friendly acquaintance" doesn't mean you choose to fail the save for Command's wis save.
You can't cast two spells, unless one is a cantrip, on the same turn.
Wizard can't use their reaction twice. As the first post stated, the person using thunder step is using their reaction on the trigger cast thunder step on the target's turn when they accept. This is why the Bard casts Feather Fall for the Sorcerer. Wizard needs an ally.

Let me know which DM sends a level 17 (14/3 wizard/bard) against a level 5 party. That the true problem here.

 

Something a mod had to redact

"Being charmed and Charm Person doesn't make you fail saves. Considering someone a "friendly acquaintance" doesn't mean you choose to fail the save for Command's wis save."

Notice I said it was a multiclass of Glamour Bard? Look up their feature Mantle of Majesty. If the target is charmed by you when you cast your Command, the target automatically fails against the Command spell.

"You can't cast two spells, unless one is a cantrip, on the same turn."

Actually there are ways to cast multiple levelled spell in a turn, with some MC features, but you should also note I said "or your ally" - two different spellcasters can, indeed, cast their spells during the same round and even the same turn using ready action. You even give example it. Jeebus, dude, come on already.

"Wizard can't use their reaction twice..."

Same shit again. Yes, I know. Hence why I said "or your ally". 

"Let me know which DM sends a level 17 (14/3 wizard/bard) against a level 5 party. That the true problem here"

What crap are you on about now? Who said putting epic level mages against 5th level PCs? Not a ****ing soul. I am talking about how a ruling is not limited by the levels of your scenario as games can go higher and with higher level features it becomes even more susceptible to abuse. Not that it needs to, it's quite broken even without these, I'm just giving an example of how this ruling can bite you later if you went to higher levels - as some games do, even if it was originally not intended to.

You use Mantle of Majesty to cast Command as a bonus action. You can cast it without using the feature, so specify it. You're trying to explain how something can be done without explaining how it can be done at the same time. Your writing is too ambiguous, as Bard level and usage of Mantle of Majesty was never stated.

Let me fix it. You can't cast two spells, unless one's a cantrip on the same turn, or if your bard/wizard who is also a level 2+ fighter, or you have something that triggers a reaction. However, you didn't specify the wizard is a fight nor a spell that needs a reaction, so you can't cast these two spells on the same turn. You're casting the held spell on your turn and releasing it as a reaction. The release is not a casting. I sure hope "two different spellcasters can, indeed, cast their spells during the same round..." Was worried only one spell caster could be effective per round, but we're talking about on the same turn. "... and even the same turn using ready action. You even give [an] example [of] it." Releasing a spell is not casting a spell, as stated prior. This is why readying a spell take up one's concentration. 

I like how you still feel like you're right because you said "or your ally". You're wrong because only an ally can make this achievable, there is no "or". There is "only".

If this isn't level 5, then there's worse combos I've seen from GM than 20d6 (max falling damage) for one character at the level a party encounters a "epic level mage".

Quote from Geann >>

I've lost track.  Which one word commands are you using again?  Just tell me the word, with no context, and I'll decide what the character would do.  You say the spell doesn't allow people to think, and must do whatever you say as a follow up, but if that's how the spell works, the moment they are able to follow the command, they do what they were Commanded to do.  Make sure you tell me the order, because that's important.  "Obey" without context does nothing at all, for example, and since you seem to believe they cannot decide for themselves what to do, they aren't able to think about anything that follows.

 I'm thinking "teleport" is the best option right now.

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from Spideycloned >>

Correct, as is any spell.  GM fiat is going to trump all.  Command has built in ambiguity because of what it is potentially capable of, so it calls out that GMs are free to use it as they deem fit. That being said, it's not my ruling on "spells do what they say they do", that's a Crawford piece.  Crawford has also given some guidance on Command in the sense that "Flee" isn't a directly harmful command, so an enemy would spend its movement going away from you who happened to run through squares that are hostile to it would take opportunity attacks.  It does this because even though obeying the flee command isn't directly harmful, its the actions of others in their path that pose the harm.  But obeying your command wasn't directly harmful.  This somewhat lends SOMETHING to your argument because "Why would an enemy run into obviously hostile squares and take damage if it had full control of itself?"

Intrepretations being what they are, because that's what this thread is about?  I don't interpret this as the target being willing so much as the target is compelled to follow the direction, but as I posted earlier, the DM piece is how far does that extend.  I wouldn't extend it beyond the scope of the initial command.  If it "Comes", then it spends its movement to come, and then stops.  After its turn, it regains full function, but because of the command taking over this turn, they can't make decisions.  They were still aware of what was happening though, they just couldn't do what they wanted, their body was unwilling due to the failed save, but their mind still was there.  

 

Flee just says 'away.' It says nothing about any straight lines. As long as they are moving away, they can still try to avoid any AoO's.

There is an innate contradiction too in that while 'Flee' might cause someone to run through AoO's, 'Halt' cannot make someone stop flying and fall. That restriction on 'Halt' implies there is some level of consideration for indirect damage. In such a case, it would not be the halting of flight that causes harm. The person is not being ordered to dive into the ground or anything solid, but rather the subsequent effects of gravity causing them to so so.

How is that different from running past the weapons of enemies?

The target has some discretion, but at the same time there are some conditions.  Flee says "moves away from you with its fastest available means".  So if I have a viable option to run away in one direction that has no enemies, versus another that does, the enemy has a choice in which way they go.  My personal interpretation would be about distance.  The enemy has to make a decision in which way moves them the farthest from the caster of Command, but then can move in its safest way possible.  Any command is subject to DM interpretation, but for a flying enemy, halt would just mean they stay in place.  The consideration here would be Prone, a flying enemy wouldn't comply with this, as the fall would cause damage.  

Quote from Wysperra >>

I don't know for sure but I'd like to see a show of hands from all the GMs that have posted on this thread.

Even though many have argued that the command to teleport or obey would not work at all, the OP wants it to work and has settled upon GMs choice.

I would NOT as the command spell would fail right at the teleport command. If the target cannot teleport, the spell fails. It has nothing to do with what will happen later or whether the target knows somebody can teleport it. If it can't do it, the spell fails.

How many of you would allow this chain of events to happen as the OP wants? 

 I don't believe anyone other than the OP has fully accepted this tactic from any stand point other than GM Fiat. While I myself accept it on GM Fiat, that's just in general concept. No arguments made here would convince me to support this tactic as it was presented by "RAW mechanics" or GM Fiat as a player or a DM.

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from I_Eat_Toast >>

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from I_Eat_Toast >>

Quote from Kotath >> 

"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. 

 

See my post directly above this one. A command to fly does not force someone to book a flight. A command to teleport does not force someone to accept a foreign spell which may or may not be a teleport.

If tied, the fastest means possible at that moment is hopping or rolling. This is why I used 'Run' as my example instead of 'Flee.' 'Drop' on someone carrying nothing does not force them to pick something up to drop.

'Approach' on someone already hugging you does not force them to move away to enable their ability to approach.

You have provided no counter to the question of how the person knows it really is a teleport spell and whether your interpretation obligates them to accept any spell cast on them as long as they are told it is a teleport spell.

And if my boss expected me to fly or teleport within the next 6 seconds, well....   And if they expected me to fly or teleport and a co-worker said 'Take this pill, it'll let you fly, alright!' well.....

 It can at GM discretion.

I used "flee" because it's in the spell's description and implies, with "fastest available means", one can take action to aid in the command, so it countered your point, easily. 

They just hug you harder. or they can't approach 1 nm, so they get it done.

Asked, answered, go find it. Hint: its being told.

The command spell is your pay check and is being casted in perpetuity until you wise up that you're not being paid enough. You might be able to buy a flight in 6 seconds with a phone. Your ability to understand examples is beginning to be worrying on how literal you take them when they're being used for a game.

 

Actually even using your 'Flee' counter-example, untying oneself does not equate to fastest means possible, since it assumes that the person can untie themselves and that untying themselves takes no time. 

More importantly, you are insisting that a command to 'Teleport' equals a command to accept as friendly any spell cast on them as long as they are told it is a teleport spell. That simply does not follow. That is something other than actually teleporting.

 That's why I said "can". It's D&D, so I'd wager heavily on the side that you can make a check to untie yourself. If they're tied up, I'd wager they're retrained, so if they can untie themselves, they will. Why? otherwise they can't move. So, let me change it to they have to try to untie themselves, as it is the fastest means to flee. If they fail, they can't move, spell ends.

"Teleport" command equates to the target taking a means to teleport (to teleport themselves, to put themselves in state to be teleported, or active an object to teleport). To say that "having someone teleport you is out of scope of 'teleport'" is like saying "pressing a button to teleport is out of scope". Both of these are the target causing themselves to teleport. 

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from Spideycloned >>

Correct, as is any spell.  GM fiat is going to trump all.  Command has built in ambiguity because of what it is potentially capable of, so it calls out that GMs are free to use it as they deem fit. That being said, it's not my ruling on "spells do what they say they do", that's a Crawford piece.  Crawford has also given some guidance on Command in the sense that "Flee" isn't a directly harmful command, so an enemy would spend its movement going away from you who happened to run through squares that are hostile to it would take opportunity attacks.  It does this because even though obeying the flee command isn't directly harmful, its the actions of others in their path that pose the harm.  But obeying your command wasn't directly harmful.  This somewhat lends SOMETHING to your argument because "Why would an enemy run into obviously hostile squares and take damage if it had full control of itself?"

Intrepretations being what they are, because that's what this thread is about?  I don't interpret this as the target being willing so much as the target is compelled to follow the direction, but as I posted earlier, the DM piece is how far does that extend.  I wouldn't extend it beyond the scope of the initial command.  If it "Comes", then it spends its movement to come, and then stops.  After its turn, it regains full function, but because of the command taking over this turn, they can't make decisions.  They were still aware of what was happening though, they just couldn't do what they wanted, their body was unwilling due to the failed save, but their mind still was there.  

 

Flee just says 'away.' It says nothing about any straight lines. As long as they are moving away, they can still try to avoid any AoO's.

There is an innate contradiction too in that while 'Flee' might cause someone to run through AoO's, 'Halt' cannot make someone stop flying and fall. That restriction on 'Halt' implies there is some level of consideration for indirect damage. In such a case, it would not be the halting of flight that causes harm. The person is not being ordered to dive into the ground or anything solid, but rather the subsequent effects of gravity causing them to so so.

How is that different from running past the weapons of enemies?

"Flee" says "The target spends its turn moving away from you by the fastest available means", so if you want to say a zig-zag is faster than a straight like, go ahead. "Fastest" could mean the riskiest path, too, as there's overlap. The path just can't be directly harmful, like lava is in the way.

"Flee" causing AOO is not directly harmful. It is indirectly harmful. One cannot predict if an enemy will use their reaction for AOO, so it's not a direct result. Falling out of the sky is directly harmful, like sticking your hand in fire. You do know what nature is going to do. You don't know what people are going to do.

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from Spideycloned >>

 

The target has some discretion, but at the same time there are some conditions.  Flee says "moves away from you with its fastest available means".  So if I have a viable option to run away in one direction that has no enemies, versus another that does, the enemy has a choice in which way they go.  My personal interpretation would be about distance.  The enemy has to make a decision in which way moves them the farthest from the caster of Command, but then can move in its safest way possible.  Any command is subject to DM interpretation, but for a flying enemy, halt would just mean they stay in place.  The consideration here would be Prone, a flying enemy wouldn't comply with this, as the fall would cause damage.  

 

Doesn't that include an assumption that the enemies are no obstruction? That they would not slow you at all? When I am running through a crowd, I look for openings. I do not run straight line into groups of people that I could avoid. 

It would be like insisting that running as fast as possible directly into a wall is running away faster than running as fast as possible around the wall, even though one might slow marginally to shift momentum around it.

 Fastest path is the fastest way to exit the situation, be it a door or 60 feet away in an open field. One could argue you could run past the caster if that's the path to the only exit, and gets you the farthest away. Figure it out if you're a GM. Fastest way doesn't exclude riskiest way. It just can't be directly harmful, like a walk through fire. If they can jump over lava and may succeed and it causes no damage, then it's not directly harmful and is an acceptable option. If they fall in by  failing the check and get burned alive, then that's indirect harm. It isn't that hard to understand as you're making it out to be. 

Quote from BogWitchKris >>

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from Spideycloned >>

 

The target has some discretion, but at the same time there are some conditions.  Flee says "moves away from you with its fastest available means".  So if I have a viable option to run away in one direction that has no enemies, versus another that does, the enemy has a choice in which way they go.  My personal interpretation would be about distance.  The enemy has to make a decision in which way moves them the farthest from the caster of Command, but then can move in its safest way possible.  Any command is subject to DM interpretation, but for a flying enemy, halt would just mean they stay in place.  The consideration here would be Prone, a flying enemy wouldn't comply with this, as the fall would cause damage.  

 

Doesn't that include an assumption that the enemies are no obstruction? That they would not slow you at all? When I am running through a crowd, I look for openings. I do not run straight line into groups of people that I could avoid. 

It would be like insisting that running as fast as possible directly into a wall is running away faster than running as fast as possible around the wall, even though one might slow marginally to shift momentum around it.

 

The more times I read the spell, the more my view shifts on what it really is.

If I envision a scenario in real life where I am standing around and someone, out of the blue, authoritatively barks 'Move!' at me. Before I know what's going on, I've moved, and only after do I ask myself, "Why did I do that?" In that scenario, I am going to move how I move. And I'm not going to move into oncoming traffic or into a campfire. The only extraordinary thing is that I reflexively responded to the order, not any other facet of my ordinary behaviour. 

I see Command as a magically souped-up version of that phenomenon. The creature, without thinking, goes "Aw heck, I better do this," then after a round comes to their senses with a bit of a "Wait, wut?" Granted, that's clearly an interpretation, and no one is obligated to see the spell quite that way, but it does call to mind what is and isn't in the spell. It doesn't create any sort of charmed or frightened or otherwise altered state. It just compels a creature to follow that one word. And that creature is going to follow, to the best of their ability, in good faith, the way they know how to follow the command.

When I say 'in good faith' the creature is legitimately going to try to flee,  which does mean trying to increase the distance between themselves and the spell caster as much as they can. But a rogue is going to flee the way a rogue would flee. A paladin is going to flee the way a paladin would flee. A blink dog is going to flee the way a blink dog would flee. And maybe there would be some caveats because as a player, if my character has Thunder Step, I would absolutely flee starting with that (unless maybe I had something longer range), which might be a bit extreme in this situation.

So I don't know if there would be a default 'command' way to flee with regard to things like AoO. If the aforementioned rogue felt the desperate need to flee without being commanded, how would they do it? They might disengage rather than dash, then use as much of their movement as they can. 

I'd say Dimensional Door or Thunder Step within scope fastest way, so one might cast take it. A Fathomless Warlock might even use Fathomless Plunge. 

I'm still gonna say AoOs are indirect harm because others are doing it upon the target. The spell only excludes direct harm. It's like this, for example:
A caster readies a spell, and its trigger is when the target moves. The target knows the trigger. The target doesn't know if the caster will release the spell or not, the caster can choose not to. If the target moves, is the spell, command, directly harmful? If the spell misses, has the target been harmed? If a AoO misses, has the target been harmed? The damage is an indirect result of the target moving. It wasn't the target moving that caused the harm, if any. It was the people choosing to AoO or releasing a spell that caused the damage. People saying the target directly harmed themselves are victim shaming the target. 

This is to say, the rogue wouldn't disengage to prevent AoO, but would only dash under the command "flee".