There is a creature in my campaign that can cast command at 5th level and I was trying to think of the most effective one-word command for this creature to give. I was thinking of "betray" so that the party wastes a round expending resources to kill each other. Is this how "betray" should be run, or could there be a better word?
The problem with "betray" is that you cannot specify who or what to betray or how and with only 6 seconds to carry out the command, there isn't much time for them to do any serious betraying.
I think people tend to be a bit too anal about the Command spell and how it can be misinterpreted. The spell already lists examples and how they should be ruled. For example, it lists "Approach" and then clearly states that approach is understood as moving towards the caster as much as they can. If it weren't specified that way, one could argue "It doesn't specify who to approach or by what method or by what path or how fast! They might just move 5ft towards their closest friend!"
Same with "Drop". It specifies in the spell, that "Drop" makes them drop whatever they hold in their hands, and still I see people argue "Well, it could be misunderstood as dropping themselves to the ground, going prone".
I would give players lots of leeway in finding the right command, and would also consider that words that are polysemous in English are not necessarily polysemous in Common (or whatever language is used to issue the command). Furthermore, Common might even have words for concepts that require multiple words in English. Similarly, I would take the same amount of liberty if I as a DM controlled a creature that used Command. I think using "betray" during combat in order to make them attack each other would be fine. I would, however, not make them all use their most expensive resources (highest spell slots, etc). That would be pretty unfair. Perhaps I would roll a d6 to decide how much effort they put in the betrayal, where 6 would result in their most powerful attack and 1 would result in a grapple or shove.
Sit' while swimming or climbing could be tricky for them too.
Unless they can actually find something nearby to sit on, I would rule that the spell simply ends in this case. It says in the text that the spell ends if it's impossible to do what they are told.
Sit' while swimming or climbing could be tricky for them too.
Unless they can actually find something nearby to sit on, I would rule that the spell simply ends in this case. It says in the text that the spell ends if it's impossible to do what they are told.
It also ends if it is directly harmful which "sit" definitely could be in those instances.
Sit' while swimming or climbing could be tricky for them too.
Unless they can actually find something nearby to sit on, I would rule that the spell simply ends in this case. It says in the text that the spell ends if it's impossible to do what they are told.
It also ends if it is directly harmful which "sit" definitely could be in those instances.
It only lasts for 6 seconds, so sit whilst underwater is entirely possible. I've certainly tried this in a swimming pool in my younger days.
The problem with "betray" is that you cannot specify who or what to betray or how and with only 6 seconds to carry out the command, there isn't much time for them to do any serious betraying.
I think people tend to be a bit too anal about the Command spell and how it can be misinterpreted. The spell already lists examples and how they should be ruled. For example, it lists "Approach" and then clearly states that approach is understood as moving towards the caster as much as they can. If it weren't specified that way, one could argue "It doesn't specify who to approach or by what method or by what path or how fast! They might just move 5ft towards their closest friend!"
Same with "Drop". It specifies in the spell, that "Drop" makes them drop whatever they hold in their hands, and still I see people argue "Well, it could be misunderstood as dropping themselves to the ground, going prone".
I would give players lots of leeway in finding the right command, and would also consider that words that are polysemous in English are not necessarily polysemous in Common (or whatever language is used to issue the command). Furthermore, Common might even have words for concepts that require multiple words in English. Similarly, I would take the same amount of liberty if I as a DM controlled a creature that used Command. I think using "betray" during combat in order to make them attack each other would be fine. I would, however, not make them all use their most expensive resources (highest spell slots, etc). That would be pretty unfair. Perhaps I would roll a d6 to decide how much effort they put in the betrayal, where 6 would result in their most powerful attack and 1 would result in a grapple or shove.
Sit' while swimming or climbing could be tricky for them too.
Unless they can actually find something nearby to sit on, I would rule that the spell simply ends in this case. It says in the text that the spell ends if it's impossible to do what they are told.
"Approach" is to the caster, not to anything else the caster may want them to approach. Why would betray 'obviously' be their party members rather than the caster or anyone else they might betray?
As for why drop is 'drop what they are holding' instead of 'drop themselves to the ground,' at best you could argue that it is the recipient's best faith interpretation. You cannot argue that it is the caster's interpretation (which is what the OP seems to want from 'betray'), since there is no ability of the caster to communicate that in that single word. Although the standard interpretation is that that word is simply interpreted as stated. It is magic, after all.
And as for sitting, one can go to a sitting position in freefall. It is not impossible and it is not the sitting that does any damage directly, but rather the fall from losing one's grip while climbing. While swimming they might simply lose momentum and sink for 6 seconds, which is not immediately or directly harmful, either. If you went with 'grovel' while they are swimming, they might even simply end up in a normal floating position.
Your best counterargument would actually be the results of being halted while flying, which is that they still stay above stall speed. Based on that, 'sit' or 'grovel' while climbing may just result in them halting movement and hugging the wall/mountain/whatever they are climbing.
The problem with "betray" is that you cannot specify who or what to betray or how and with only 6 seconds to carry out the command, there isn't much time for them to do any serious betraying.
In any situation, a DM can adjudicate an extent to which clear options of who to betray may exist.
Command specifies reactions for
Approach. The target moves toward you by the shortest and most direct route, ending its turn if it moves within 5 feet of you. ... and Flee. The target spends its turn moving away from you by the fastest available means.
However, if the cleric was currently, for instance, in the presence of a more prominent entity such as their god, a ruler or a formidable force, then there might be other possible directions of travel. Individual DMs can come up with their own adjudications on these matters.
If a target is in a band of allied creatures that are working together and perhaps they have a plan formulated for, say, attacking another group of creatures, I think 'betray' could have the potential to either get the target to act against the creatures or against the plan.
Certainly, I'd think that a failed saving throw would result in a loss of action.
I agree that "with only 6 seconds to carry out the command, there isn't much time for them to do any serious betraying." The DM can adjudicate if there is any obvious course of action that may be taken or whether inaction could constitute a significant enough betrayal.
"Betray" is basically commanding a character to take an action that they would choose but in a completely different paradigm in that they'd be commanded to act against their allies. I have enough trouble with players deciding on what actions they want to perform when acting against a foe they may have thought about attacking. On top of the target doing nothing against people other than in their group, perhaps dice could decide the extent to which they might act against their allies.
I might homebrew those targetted being ready in opportunistic betrayal. The target has failed the save and fails by a moderate amount. They don't necessarily act on their turn but, when one of their allies moves past them, they try to trip or shove them (certainly using shove mechanics for knocking prone). Nothing too severe here but I think it could be fun.
"Approach" is to the caster, not to anything else the caster may want them to approach. Why would betray 'obviously' be their party members rather than the caster or anyone else they might betray?
This is why I suggested to consider that we are arguing details of English semantics when in fact the characters speak languages that aren't English. There might be a single word that is less ambiguous than "betray" in Common, for all we know (depends on how synthetic/agglutinative Common is). For example, in English there exists is "amicide" (murder of a friend). It's a noun, not a verb, but perhaps Common as a verb for it? Lots of languages have ways of converting between types of words.
But, i wouldn't put the onus on the player to come up with the word. My player might not know "amicide" or think of it, but the character they are playing might be a 20INT wizard with a better vocabulary than me or the player, and might come up with the Common equivalent of an imperative verb form of "amicide". If my player wanted to use command for an "off-label" effect (anything other than what's described in the text of the spell), the player would ask me "Does my guy know a single word that would have this effect?" and depending on how complex the desired effect is I might answer yes or no. If it's in a gray zone, I might ask an INT check, to see if the character can think of something.
Of course I'm not saying players would not be encouraged to come up with an (English) word by themselves. Player creativity is a floor for what the characters can come up with :-)
Command is a first level spell, it should not have the power to have the party (or enemies) use their actions to go harming others imo. The examples given are simple, mundane actions.
If I had an enemy use "betray" as the command, then I would allow the player to decide how they would betray and who they would betray: physically or verbally. If they chose physically, I would leave it up to them (with my judgement) on how they would betray through a physical action (for example, this could be an attack on an ally or handing over a powerful magical item in their possession). If they chose verbally, I would leave it up to them (with my judgement) on how they would verbally betray someone's trust; for example, they could give up valuable information that the party was trying to keep secret, say the name of a secret location which would leave it vulnerable to plane shift, or confess a secret about one of their party members (the verbal betrayal has to be something that both the player and the DM agree would count as betraying someone).
That, at least, is how I have been thinking of running that command.
might be good options to end their turns and have them not resist w/e happens until their next turn. Pushing grappling and other contests can be willingly failed.
some spells and effects give options for failure against saving throws.
As has been said, any given DM can rule it any way they want, however going with that 'there might be a word in Halfling for this!,' is that it begs the question where that ends. There might be a single world in any given language for giving all your valuables to the nearest authority figure, or for closing your eyes, putting your hands behind your back and singing at the top of your lungs regardless of what is happening around you.
If players are allowed to invent new words that mean whatever they want and have them work with the command spell, it becomes massively more powerful.
No, I don't suggest allowing the players to "invent" new words. I suggest that the DM decides on a case-by-case basis whether an effect is simple enough for a word to exist and the caster to think of it in the moment. Where does it end? Wherever the DM decides it ends.
I don't think DnD should become a game of scrabble, where we have to look up words in a dictionary to see whether they are "real" words and not "invented". It raises lots of questions too. Are compound words considered a single word? "turn on" is written with a space, but it's such a simple concept that in most languages it would be a single verb. "stir-fry" is written with a hyphen, does that count as a single verb? "babysit" is written without a space, but it has an object and a verb packed together. In German compounds are generally written without spaces and would therefore typically considered to be a single word always. Is verbing (turning nouns into verbs) considered inventing or just a mechanism of the language? Lots of verbs we use every day were created through verbing. Are we only allowed to use verbs that started as verbs (you'd need a linguistics PhD to answer that), verbs listed as verbs in the dictionary (i.e. playing scrabble) or also verbs we "invent" through verbing (like it is common in everyday language)?
How powerful command is is already highly dependent on the language you play in, your vocabulary, your ability to argue semantics, and the DMs interpretation of what a word is and what a single word is. What I'm suggesting is making it less arbitrary and putting how powerful it actually is in the DMs hand, abstracted away by roleplaying and roll-playing.
Just like I don't ask my players to google a trap disarming manual, or watch youtube videos on how to pick locks, I also don't ask them to bring a dictionary so they can get the most out of the command spell.
Just like I don't ask my players to google a trap disarming manual, or watch youtube videos on how to pick locks, I also don't ask them to bring a dictionary so they can get the most out of the command spell.
Semantics apply to some degree no matter what language is being used, no matter what spell is being cast, no matter what any given character or players is trying to communicate.
My very argument is based on lack of clarity. Your argument seems to be that clarity can simply be assumed. The easiest way to avoid players having to bring out dictionaries is to simply rule that if ones need to bring out a dictionary to prove one's command should work, it is too vague to work.
We are, however, still needing to communicate with each other to convey what our characters are doing and every language has its limitations. The one word limit is intended to be a limitation of the spell, even though, yes, that means the spell is somewhat limited by the vocabulary of players. Several examples are provided for those who have trouble working within that constraint.
D&D is a complex, time-consuming game and asking for an extra die roll to see if a word exists in another language will add to the time taken - but, if that's what participants at a table are into, fine. Faced with, perhaps a kobold or goblin artificer, with a character who knows kobold or goblin, I guess there might be a chance that a single word for something like "turn on" might exist in the language of tinkering peoples like kobolds and gnomes.
Asking a relevant question in a hopefully relevant context might be interesting and fun. Repeatedly fishing for an extra chance of a word combination might get annoying.
In regard to clarity, some DMs might simply dismiss the idea that "betray" could have benefits beyond wasting a target's action and, as SwiftSign has noted, command is only a first-level spell. A DM can adjudicate on any further possible benefits of a command such as "betray" depending on context and again, perhaps, on dice rolls. If contexts and/or dice rolls are favourable, a DM might view a betrayal to be fun.
D&D is a complex, time-consuming game and asking for an extra die roll to see if a word exists in another language will add to the time taken - but, if that's what participants at a table are into, fine.
I would like to add that I only suggested this dice roll for situations where the DM themselves is uncertain about which way to rule (that is, what the player wants to do might sound a little complex, but not too complex over overpowered to dismiss straight away). It saves time that the player might otherwise spend arguing semantics.
I guess there might be a chance that a single word for something like "turn on" might exist in the language of tinkering peoples like kobolds and gnomes.
That's a funny thing to say. It doesn't take a "tinkering people" to have a word like that. If anything, I think English is probably the odd one out with requiring two words for such a simple concept (German: einschalten, Italian: accendere, French: allumer, Spanish: ecender, Croatian: upaliti, Greek: ανάβω, ...)
No one is asking for any extra die rolls. The poster I was responding to seemed to be saying "Well a word that works might exist in some other language, so why not allow it?"
Not really what I said. I suggest re-reading, but perhaps I can clarify with a simple diagram
Player says: "I'd like to command them to do X. Do you think my character could find a word for that?"
I say:
Case 1, It's a very simple concept that likely has some unambiguous word for it, regardless of whether my player thought of one: "Yeah, that should be no problem, I'm sure your character can find a word for that."
Case 2: It's too complex and/or overpowered: "Not really. Unless you can think of some word?" <- this is where players can convince me by proposing an English word
Case 3: It's a little complex but not overly so and could fill an entire session just discussing semantics of words: "Roll a DC20 INT check to see if your character can come up with a word!"
My response was to ask why the DM can't simply decide based on whatever language the table speaks.
You didn't really ask that, but since you are now: Because I find arguing grammar and semantics at the table boring. I already pointed out above a couple of examples about why the "one word" limit is dumb if policed too aggressively (compound words, verbing, language differences, etc).
Just like I don't ask my players to google a trap disarming manual, or watch youtube videos on how to pick locks, I also don't ask them to bring a dictionary so they can get the most out of the command spell.
Semantics apply to some degree no matter what language is being used, no matter what spell is being cast, no matter what any given character or players is trying to communicate.
My very argument is based on lack of clarity. Your argument seems to be that clarity can simply be assumed. The easiest way to avoid players having to bring out dictionaries is to simply rule that if ones need to bring out a dictionary to prove one's command should work, it is too vague to work.
We are, however, still needing to communicate with each other to convey what our characters are doing and every language has its limitations. The one word limit is intended to be a limitation of the spell, even though, yes, that means the spell is somewhat limited by the vocabulary of players. Several examples are provided for those who have trouble working within that constraint.
D&D is a complex, time-consuming game and asking for an extra die roll to see if a word exists in another language will add to the time taken - but, if that's what participants at a table are into, fine. Faced with, perhaps a kobold or goblin artificer, with a character who knows kobold or goblin, I guess there might be a chance that a single word for something like "turn on" might exist in the language of tinkering peoples like kobolds and gnomes.
Asking a relevant question in a hopefully relevant context might be interesting and fun. Repeatedly fishing for an extra chance of a word combination might get annoying.
In regard to clarity, some DMs might simply dismiss the idea that "betray" could have benefits beyond wasting a target's action and, as SwiftSign has noted, command is only a first-level spell. A DM can adjudicate on any further possible benefits of a command such as "betray" depending on context and again, perhaps, on dice rolls. If contexts and/or dice rolls are favourable, a DM might view a betrayal to be fun.
It sounds like you are agreeing with me, but it is hard to tell?
No one is asking for any extra die rolls. The poster I was responding to seemed to be saying "Well a word that works might exist in some other language, so why not allow it?"
My response was to ask why the DM can't simply decide based on whatever language the table speaks.
I'm very agreeable.
I'd use extra die rolls for many things where I thought there could be an uncertainty. That's just me.
The DM can reasonably decide whatever they like based on whatever they like. For gaming convenience, it is an elegantly simple and streamlined option just to stay with the language at the table. For those willing to tolerate more complexity, when one multilingual person communicates with another multilingual person, they will have more options for communicating with each other and, relating to the current discussion, more potential command words they could use.
D&D is a complex, time-consuming game and asking for an extra die roll to see if a word exists in another language will add to the time taken - but, if that's what participants at a table are into, fine.
I would like to add that I only suggested this dice roll for situations where the DM themselves is uncertain about which way to rule (that is, what the player wants to do might sound a little complex, but not too complex over overpowered to dismiss straight away). It saves time that the player might otherwise spend arguing semantics.
I guess there might be a chance that a single word for something like "turn on" might exist in the language of tinkering peoples like kobolds and gnomes.
That's a funny thing to say. It doesn't take a "tinkering people" to have a word like that. If anything, I think English is probably the odd one out with requiring two words for such a simple concept (German: einschalten, Italian: accendere, French: allumer, Spanish: ecender, Croatian: upaliti, Greek: ανάβω, ...)
DM's can simply say 'no.' If a player insists on taking up campaign time over semantics, the DM can say "Please stop" and if that does not work, "There's the door."
And at different tables where different languages are used, what can be done with one word will be different. So? It does not mean that one can use any language they want to get around the limitation. No one is owed any given idea to work.
DM's can, within reason, say what they want.
A player can, for instance, enquire as to whether a reasoned, researched and grounded conjecture could be incorporated into the game and respond accordingly.
Having multiple language options would, occasionally, mitigate the single word limitation. There's no getting around involved. As DerManiac has said, while English doesn't have a single word for "turn on", languages like German: einschalten, Italian: accendere, French: allumer, Spanish: ecender, Croatian: upaliti, Greek: ανάβω do. Perhaps some of these and other languages don't have single words to parallel some of the single word commands we have in English. You'd still have more chance of having a single word option if you could communicate in multiple languages.
No one is asking for any extra die rolls. The poster I was responding to seemed to be saying "Well a word that works might exist in some other language, so why not allow it?"
Not really what I said. I suggest re-reading, but perhaps I can clarify with a simple diagram
Player says: "I'd like to command them to do X. Do you think my character could find a word for that?"
I say:
Case 1, It's a very simple concept that likely has some unambiguous word for it, regardless of whether my player thought of one: "Yeah, that should be no problem, I'm sure your character can find a word for that."
Case 2: It's too complex and/or overpowered: "Not really. Unless you can think of some word?" <- this is where players can convince me by proposing an English word
Case 3: It's a little complex but not overly so and could fill an entire session just discussing semantics of words: "Roll a DC20 INT check to see if your character can come up with a word!"
My response was to ask why the DM can't simply decide based on whatever language the table speaks.
You didn't really ask that, but since you are now: Because I find arguing grammar and semantics at the table boring. I already pointed out above a couple of examples about why the "one word" limit is dumb if policed too aggressively (compound words, verbing, language differences, etc).
Again, arguing grammar and semantics is only happening because the player is trying to get more mileage out of the spell than intended. And not many DM's would allow interpretations of any given rule to be decided by die roll.
If a player would disrupt a session with an extended debate over semantics over a single word, wouldn't the same player do the same with whatever die roll the DM came up with insisting on a specific formula, likely one that they can meta game?
Compound verbs are not the problem you are making them out to be, particularly since we are discussing in English for English speaking players.
Note that rounds are 6 seconds long, so it is not like characters have half an hour or so to come up with the right word even in character
"arguing grammar and semantics"? I'd say you were discussing relative vocabularies.
"the player is trying to get more mileage out of the spell than intended"? Command just says "You speak a one-word command to a creature you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or follow the command on its next turn. The spell has no effect if the target is undead, if it doesn't understand your language, or if your command is directly harmful to it. Some typical commands and their effects follow. You might issue a command other than one described here. If you do so, the GM determines how the target behaves. ..."
I guess interpretation may be applied to "your language". I'd personally interpret this as the language you chose to speak in.
"If a player would disrupt a session with an extended debate over semantics over a single word". There's no semantics involved. The meaning is the same. It's just that languages may differ in the number of words they require to convey a meaning. You are postulating a situation of disruption. Personally, I welcome it when players ask creative and thought through questions with the respectful approach DerManiac has taken.
"Note that rounds are 6 seconds long, so it is not like characters have half an hour or so to come up with the right word even in character," A character who is fluent in say common and gnomish who is speaking to a gnome, I think, could easily flip languages to suit. How do I say something pithy to this fellow? Ah, I'll use this word. The words would be to hand. The characters are fluent.
No one is asking for any extra die rolls. The poster I was responding to seemed to be saying "Well a word that works might exist in some other language, so why not allow it?"
Not really what I said. I suggest re-reading, but perhaps I can clarify with a simple diagram
Player says: "I'd like to command them to do X. Do you think my character could find a word for that?"
I say:
Case 1, It's a very simple concept that likely has some unambiguous word for it, regardless of whether my player thought of one: "Yeah, that should be no problem, I'm sure your character can find a word for that."
Case 2: It's too complex and/or overpowered: "Not really. Unless you can think of some word?" <- this is where players can convince me by proposing an English word
Case 3: It's a little complex but not overly so and could fill an entire session just discussing semantics of words: "Roll a DC20 INT check to see if your character can come up with a word!"
My response was to ask why the DM can't simply decide based on whatever language the table speaks.
You didn't really ask that, but since you are now: Because I find arguing grammar and semantics at the table boring. I already pointed out above a couple of examples about why the "one word" limit is dumb if policed too aggressively (compound words, verbing, language differences, etc).
Again, arguing grammar and semantics is only happening because the player is trying to get more mileage out of the spell than intended. And not many DM's would allow interpretations of any given rule to be decided by die roll.
If a player would disrupt a session with an extended debate over semantics over a single word, wouldn't the same player do the same with whatever die roll the DM came up with insisting on a specific formula, likely one that they can meta game?
Compound verbs are not the problem you are making them out to be, particularly since we are discussing in English for English speaking players.
Note that rounds are 6 seconds long, so it is not like characters have half an hour or so to come up with the right word even in character
"arguing grammar and semantics"? I'd say you were discussing relative vocabularies.
"the player is trying to get more mileage out of the spell than intended"?
Command just says "You speak a one-word command to a creature you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or follow the command on its next turn. The spell has no effect if the target is undead, if it doesn't understand your language, or if your command is directly harmful to it. Some typical commands and their effects follow. You might issue a command other than one described here. If you do so, the GM determines how the target behaves. ..."
I guess interpretation may be applied to "your language". I'd personally interpret this as the language you chose to speak in.
"If a player would disrupt a session with an extended debate over semantics over a single word". There's no semantics involved. The meaning is the same. It's just that languages may differ in the number of words they require to convey a meaning. You are postulating a situation of disruption. Personally, I welcome it when players ask creative and thought through questions with the respectful approach DerManiac has taken.
"Note that rounds are 6 seconds long, so it is not like characters have half an hour or so to come up with the right word even in character," A character who is fluent in say common and gnomish who is speaking to a gnome, I think, could easily flip languages to suit. How do I say something pithy to this fellow? Ah, I'll use this word. The words would be to hand. The characters are fluent.
Possible words include: Undress (Removing armor as well as having to drop what they're wearing unless they're clever about it.) Dig/dance/sing (A curveball that's definitely an odd thing to do.) Throw/eat/drink (Easy way to get rid of something important) Douse/burn/give/take/cut Indulge/lie/spill/rant
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There is a creature in my campaign that can cast command at 5th level and I was trying to think of the most effective one-word command for this creature to give. I was thinking of "betray" so that the party wastes a round expending resources to kill each other. Is this how "betray" should be run, or could there be a better word?
I think people tend to be a bit too anal about the Command spell and how it can be misinterpreted. The spell already lists examples and how they should be ruled. For example, it lists "Approach" and then clearly states that approach is understood as moving towards the caster as much as they can. If it weren't specified that way, one could argue "It doesn't specify who to approach or by what method or by what path or how fast! They might just move 5ft towards their closest friend!"
Same with "Drop". It specifies in the spell, that "Drop" makes them drop whatever they hold in their hands, and still I see people argue "Well, it could be misunderstood as dropping themselves to the ground, going prone".
I would give players lots of leeway in finding the right command, and would also consider that words that are polysemous in English are not necessarily polysemous in Common (or whatever language is used to issue the command). Furthermore, Common might even have words for concepts that require multiple words in English. Similarly, I would take the same amount of liberty if I as a DM controlled a creature that used Command. I think using "betray" during combat in order to make them attack each other would be fine. I would, however, not make them all use their most expensive resources (highest spell slots, etc). That would be pretty unfair. Perhaps I would roll a d6 to decide how much effort they put in the betrayal, where 6 would result in their most powerful attack and 1 would result in a grapple or shove.
Unless they can actually find something nearby to sit on, I would rule that the spell simply ends in this case. It says in the text that the spell ends if it's impossible to do what they are told.
It also ends if it is directly harmful which "sit" definitely could be in those instances.
It only lasts for 6 seconds, so sit whilst underwater is entirely possible. I've certainly tried this in a swimming pool in my younger days.
DerManic is saying what they would do.
In any situation, a DM can adjudicate an extent to which clear options of who to betray may exist.
Command specifies reactions for
Approach. The target moves toward you by the shortest and most direct route, ending its turn if it moves within 5 feet of you.
...
and
Flee. The target spends its turn moving away from you by the fastest available means.
However, if the cleric was currently, for instance, in the presence of a more prominent entity such as their god, a ruler or a formidable force, then there might be other possible directions of travel. Individual DMs can come up with their own adjudications on these matters.
If a target is in a band of allied creatures that are working together and perhaps they have a plan formulated for, say, attacking another group of creatures, I think 'betray' could have the potential to either get the target to act against the creatures or against the plan.
Certainly, I'd think that a failed saving throw would result in a loss of action.
I agree that "with only 6 seconds to carry out the command, there isn't much time for them to do any serious betraying." The DM can adjudicate if there is any obvious course of action that may be taken or whether inaction could constitute a significant enough betrayal.
"Betray" is basically commanding a character to take an action that they would choose but in a completely different paradigm in that they'd be commanded to act against their allies. I have enough trouble with players deciding on what actions they want to perform when acting against a foe they may have thought about attacking. On top of the target doing nothing against people other than in their group, perhaps dice could decide the extent to which they might act against their allies.
I might homebrew those targetted being ready in opportunistic betrayal. The target has failed the save and fails by a moderate amount. They don't necessarily act on their turn but, when one of their allies moves past them, they try to trip or shove them (certainly using shove mechanics for knocking prone). Nothing too severe here but I think it could be fun.
This is why I suggested to consider that we are arguing details of English semantics when in fact the characters speak languages that aren't English. There might be a single word that is less ambiguous than "betray" in Common, for all we know (depends on how synthetic/agglutinative Common is). For example, in English there exists is "amicide" (murder of a friend). It's a noun, not a verb, but perhaps Common as a verb for it? Lots of languages have ways of converting between types of words.
But, i wouldn't put the onus on the player to come up with the word. My player might not know "amicide" or think of it, but the character they are playing might be a 20INT wizard with a better vocabulary than me or the player, and might come up with the Common equivalent of an imperative verb form of "amicide". If my player wanted to use command for an "off-label" effect (anything other than what's described in the text of the spell), the player would ask me "Does my guy know a single word that would have this effect?" and depending on how complex the desired effect is I might answer yes or no. If it's in a gray zone, I might ask an INT check, to see if the character can think of something.
Of course I'm not saying players would not be encouraged to come up with an (English) word by themselves. Player creativity is a floor for what the characters can come up with :-)
Command is a first level spell, it should not have the power to have the party (or enemies) use their actions to go harming others imo. The examples given are simple, mundane actions.
If I had an enemy use "betray" as the command, then I would allow the player to decide how they would betray and who they would betray: physically or verbally. If they chose physically, I would leave it up to them (with my judgement) on how they would betray through a physical action (for example, this could be an attack on an ally or handing over a powerful magical item in their possession). If they chose verbally, I would leave it up to them (with my judgement) on how they would verbally betray someone's trust; for example, they could give up valuable information that the party was trying to keep secret, say the name of a secret location which would leave it vulnerable to plane shift, or confess a secret about one of their party members (the verbal betrayal has to be something that both the player and the DM agree would count as betraying someone).
That, at least, is how I have been thinking of running that command.
How about "bicker" or "squabble"? Perhaps "double-cross"?
Maybe "riot" or "brawl"?
“Surrender”
”concede”
”yield”
might be good options to end their turns and have them not resist w/e happens until their next turn. Pushing grappling and other contests can be willingly failed.
some spells and effects give options for failure against saving throws.
No, I don't suggest allowing the players to "invent" new words. I suggest that the DM decides on a case-by-case basis whether an effect is simple enough for a word to exist and the caster to think of it in the moment. Where does it end? Wherever the DM decides it ends.
I don't think DnD should become a game of scrabble, where we have to look up words in a dictionary to see whether they are "real" words and not "invented". It raises lots of questions too. Are compound words considered a single word? "turn on" is written with a space, but it's such a simple concept that in most languages it would be a single verb. "stir-fry" is written with a hyphen, does that count as a single verb? "babysit" is written without a space, but it has an object and a verb packed together. In German compounds are generally written without spaces and would therefore typically considered to be a single word always. Is verbing (turning nouns into verbs) considered inventing or just a mechanism of the language? Lots of verbs we use every day were created through verbing. Are we only allowed to use verbs that started as verbs (you'd need a linguistics PhD to answer that), verbs listed as verbs in the dictionary (i.e. playing scrabble) or also verbs we "invent" through verbing (like it is common in everyday language)?
How powerful command is is already highly dependent on the language you play in, your vocabulary, your ability to argue semantics, and the DMs interpretation of what a word is and what a single word is. What I'm suggesting is making it less arbitrary and putting how powerful it actually is in the DMs hand, abstracted away by roleplaying and roll-playing.
Just like I don't ask my players to google a trap disarming manual, or watch youtube videos on how to pick locks, I also don't ask them to bring a dictionary so they can get the most out of the command spell.
D&D is a complex, time-consuming game and asking for an extra die roll to see if a word exists in another language will add to the time taken - but, if that's what participants at a table are into, fine. Faced with, perhaps a kobold or goblin artificer, with a character who knows kobold or goblin, I guess there might be a chance that a single word for something like "turn on" might exist in the language of tinkering peoples like kobolds and gnomes.
Asking a relevant question in a hopefully relevant context might be interesting and fun. Repeatedly fishing for an extra chance of a word combination might get annoying.
In regard to clarity, some DMs might simply dismiss the idea that "betray" could have benefits beyond wasting a target's action and, as SwiftSign has noted, command is only a first-level spell. A DM can adjudicate on any further possible benefits of a command such as "betray" depending on context and again, perhaps, on dice rolls. If contexts and/or dice rolls are favourable, a DM might view a betrayal to be fun.
I would like to add that I only suggested this dice roll for situations where the DM themselves is uncertain about which way to rule (that is, what the player wants to do might sound a little complex, but not too complex over overpowered to dismiss straight away). It saves time that the player might otherwise spend arguing semantics.
That's a funny thing to say. It doesn't take a "tinkering people" to have a word like that. If anything, I think English is probably the odd one out with requiring two words for such a simple concept (German: einschalten, Italian: accendere, French: allumer, Spanish: ecender, Croatian: upaliti, Greek: ανάβω, ...)
Not really what I said. I suggest re-reading, but perhaps I can clarify with a simple diagram
Player says: "I'd like to command them to do X. Do you think my character could find a word for that?"
I say:
You didn't really ask that, but since you are now: Because I find arguing grammar and semantics at the table boring. I already pointed out above a couple of examples about why the "one word" limit is dumb if policed too aggressively (compound words, verbing, language differences, etc).
I'm very agreeable.
I'd use extra die rolls for many things where I thought there could be an uncertainty. That's just me.
The DM can reasonably decide whatever they like based on whatever they like. For gaming convenience, it is an elegantly simple and streamlined option just to stay with the language at the table. For those willing to tolerate more complexity, when one multilingual person communicates with another multilingual person, they will have more options for communicating with each other and, relating to the current discussion, more potential command words they could use.
DM's can, within reason, say what they want.
A player can, for instance, enquire as to whether a reasoned, researched and grounded conjecture could be incorporated into the game and respond accordingly.
Having multiple language options would, occasionally, mitigate the single word limitation. There's no getting around involved. As DerManiac has said, while English doesn't have a single word for "turn on", languages like German: einschalten, Italian: accendere, French: allumer, Spanish: ecender, Croatian: upaliti, Greek: ανάβω do. Perhaps some of these and other languages don't have single words to parallel some of the single word commands we have in English. You'd still have more chance of having a single word option if you could communicate in multiple languages.
"arguing grammar and semantics"? I'd say you were discussing relative vocabularies.
"the player is trying to get more mileage out of the spell than intended"?
Command just says "You speak a one-word command to a creature you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or follow the command on its next turn. The spell has no effect if the target is undead, if it doesn't understand your language, or if your command is directly harmful to it.
Some typical commands and their effects follow. You might issue a command other than one described here. If you do so, the GM determines how the target behaves. ..."
I guess interpretation may be applied to "your language". I'd personally interpret this as the language you chose to speak in.
"If a player would disrupt a session with an extended debate over semantics over a single word". There's no semantics involved. The meaning is the same. It's just that languages may differ in the number of words they require to convey a meaning. You are postulating a situation of disruption. Personally, I welcome it when players ask creative and thought through questions with the respectful approach DerManiac has taken.
"Note that rounds are 6 seconds long, so it is not like characters have half an hour or so to come up with the right word even in character," A character who is fluent in say common and gnomish who is speaking to a gnome, I think, could easily flip languages to suit. How do I say something pithy to this fellow? Ah, I'll use this word. The words would be to hand. The characters are fluent.
Possible words include:
Undress (Removing armor as well as having to drop what they're wearing unless they're clever about it.)
Dig/dance/sing (A curveball that's definitely an odd thing to do.)
Throw/eat/drink (Easy way to get rid of something important)
Douse/burn/give/take/cut
Indulge/lie/spill/rant