Here's what I'm interested in--the spell has no effect "if your command is directly harmful" to the target.
For example, if we are at the top of a tall tower and I say "Jump!", the spell would have no effect. Or would it...? We're on top of the tall tower, I say "Jump!" of course intending that the target would jump off the tower. But the spell is just one word--I cannot specify "Jump off the tower". The target won't jump off the tower...but the target doesn't really know where or how I'm ordering him to jump. Just that I'm ordering him to jump. So the target just jumps, straight up into the air and back again. Spell works.
So question 1: How much interpretation does the target have to do? How much of my intention comes through with the magic?
An enemy commander is charging at us, shouting orders to his troops as he advances. I cast the spell and say "Halt!" And he stops shouting orders, but keeps advancing. Because he halted one of the things he was doing. Or does he stop advancing, but keep shouting orders? Or does he halt both? If he halts both, does that mean that he halts every single thing he's voluntarily doing? If it halts everything that it's voluntarily doing (we'll assume it gets to keep breathing), then if I cast it on a dragon, or a bird, does it both stop advancing and also stop flapping its wings entirely and fall out of the sky? Either way we interpret this, you now have interesting spell mechanics with any of the commands. (Although after typing that and saying it in my head, the word 'halt' now sounds funny.)
Question 2: How direct does the damage have to be? If we're in a boat floating on a river of acid (or a magical Styx River or some other harmful river), and I say "Swim!", I would interpret the spell to say that the target will not jump into the harmful water as it would be immediately harmful, and thus the spell will fail. This would be similar to how the target would not walk into a burning building if you used Command either.
But if the target is within melee of my barbarian friend, and I say "Flee!", that will also be immediately harmful to the target as the barbarian AoEs him. So does the spell fail?
It's not the swimming after all that would be harming the guy in the boat--it's not the act I'm asking him to do, the bodily motions. It's the place I'm asking him to do it. It's not the walking in the burning building case that hurts him, it's where you're telling him to walk. Similarly, it's not the running that would be harming him in the melee case. Its the place I'm asking him to do it.
Question 3: Does the target have to know that the action would harm him, or is it just that the action would harm him?
Back in the Harmful River (great river name) case, say the target did not know the water would be harmful. You say "Swim!" Does the target swim? The spell specifically says the target will not do things "if your command is directly harmful". It doesn't say anything about what the target has to know.
So now what if neither of you know the river is harmful? What if neither of you know the door is trapped, but you Command the target to open the door. If the target will not do anything that is harmful to it (whether it knows it or not), you effectively have a trap detector there. Keep some fool on retainer to be Commanded down the dungeon hallway--he won't step on a trapped flagstone that no one knows about because it would be harmful :)
That absurdity tells me that it really should be about what the target knows. Which then does make it able to harm the target directly, when the target is unaware that things would harm it.
Turns out, it's a somewhat confusing spell. Or, at least, there's a ton more interpretation than I had considered previously.
Here's what I'm interested in--the spell has no effect "if your command is directly harmful" to the target.
For example, if we are at the top of a tall tower and I say "Jump!", the spell would have no effect. Or would it...? We're on top of the tall tower, I say "Jump!" of course intending that the target would jump off the tower. But the spell is just one word--I cannot specify "Jump off the tower". The target won't jump off the tower...but the target doesn't really know where or how I'm ordering him to jump. Just that I'm ordering him to jump. So the target just jumps, straight up into the air and back again. Spell works.
So question 1: How much interpretation does the target have to do? How much of my intention comes through with the magic?
Question 2: How direct does the damage have to be? If we're in a boat floating on a river of acid (or a magical Styx River or some other harmful river), and I say "Swim!", I would interpret the spell to say that the target will not jump into the harmful water as it would be immediately harmful, and thus the spell will fail. This would be similar to how the target would not walk into a burning building if you used Command either.
Question 3: Does the target have to know that the action would harm him, or is it just that the action would harm him?
Turns out, it's a somewhat confusing spell. Or, at least, there's a ton more interpretation than I had considered previously.
1. None whatsoever, you may be able to take actions that cause them to interpret it in a certain way, but the spell in no way forces them to interpret it the way you intend.
2. If the action is guaranteed to be harmful, as in your examples, it can probably be considered directly harmful. Running away is not guaranteed to be harmful as the enemies may choose not to attack or may miss their attacks.
3. I would assume that they would have to know that it would be harmful, which would lead to an interesting result if they knew and you didn't.
Here's what I'm interested in--the spell has no effect "if your command is directly harmful" to the target.
For example, if we are at the top of a tall tower and I say "Jump!", the spell would have no effect. Or would it...? We're on top of the tall tower, I say "Jump!" of course intending that the target would jump off the tower. But the spell is just one word--I cannot specify "Jump off the tower". The target won't jump off the tower...but the target doesn't really know where or how I'm ordering him to jump. Just that I'm ordering him to jump. So the target just jumps, straight up into the air and back again. Spell works.
So question 1: How much interpretation does the target have to do? How much of my intention comes through with the magic?
Question 2: How direct does the damage have to be? If we're in a boat floating on a river of acid (or a magical Styx River or some other harmful river), and I say "Swim!", I would interpret the spell to say that the target will not jump into the harmful water as it would be immediately harmful, and thus the spell will fail. This would be similar to how the target would not walk into a burning building if you used Command either.
Question 3: Does the target have to know that the action would harm him, or is it just that the action would harm him?
Turns out, it's a somewhat confusing spell. Or, at least, there's a ton more interpretation than I had considered previously.
1. None whatsoever, you may be able to take actions that cause them to interpret it in a certain way, but the spell in no way forces them to interpret it the way you intend.
2. If the action is guaranteed to be harmful, as in your examples, it can probably be considered directly harmful. Running away is not guaranteed to be harmful as the enemies may choose not to attack or may miss their attacks.
3. I would assume that they would have to know that it would be harmful, which would lead to an interesting result if they knew and you didn't.
Those make sense, but that's a lot of I assume and probably in there :) Although for the first one, it's impossible for there to be no interpretation. It's language, there has to be interpretation. If I order the charging yelling guy to 'halt', he won't do anything unless he interprets my command in some way. That's my point--if someone is doing more than one thing, then 'halt' is either going to cause them to halt what I intended, or halt something random, or halt what they first think of, or halt what they think I mean, etc. It has to be one, and all of them are interpretations.
If a PC casts Command and I think the creature might not understand the meaning of the word (but understands the language) or knows it would cause harm, I would just have the creature act as if the Command was “halt”. The spell describes Halt as “target doesn’t move and takes no actions”. Even if the target is unsure what the caster wants him to do, at least the target spends its turn doing nothing.
Likewise, if an enemy casts Command on a PC and the player says “my character doesn’t know what grovel means” and I have the player roll an Intelligence check (DC 10 ?) which the PC fails. I would have them spend the round trying to figure out what the word means rather than let them do what they want. Not moving or taking an action seems appropriate. The target spends the turn scratching its head and looking perplexed.
Those make sense, but that's a lot of I assume and probably in there :) Although for the first one, it's impossible for there to be no interpretation. It's language, there has to be interpretation. If I order the charging yelling guy to 'halt', he won't do anything unless he interprets my command in some way. That's my point--if someone is doing more than one thing, then 'halt' is either going to cause them to halt what I intended, or halt something random, or halt what they first think of, or halt what they think I mean, etc. It has to be one, and all of them are interpretations.
I said no intention is carried across, not that there is no interpretation. The DM should interpret the command based on the stats and personality of the target. Other actions taken in addition to the spell may make it more likely for the target to interpret the spell as intended, but it isn't forced as part of the spell.
Those make sense, but that's a lot of I assume and probably in there :) Although for the first one, it's impossible for there to be no interpretation. It's language, there has to be interpretation. If I order the charging yelling guy to 'halt', he won't do anything unless he interprets my command in some way. That's my point--if someone is doing more than one thing, then 'halt' is either going to cause them to halt what I intended, or halt something random, or halt what they first think of, or halt what they think I mean, etc. It has to be one, and all of them are interpretations.
I said no intention is carried across, not that there is no interpretation. The DM should interpret the command based on the stats and personality of the target. Other actions taken in addition to the spell may make it more likely for the target to interpret the spell as intended, but it isn't forced as part of the spell.
Well, to be fair, I asked "How much interpretation does the target have to do? How much of my intention comes through with the magic? " and you replied with "None whatsoever." None whatsoever of interpretation, or intention? :)
One way to handle it would be that no intention comes across. But it's entirely plausible as well that magic that is affecting their brain could also be pulling from your brain. I mean, if you use Command and say "Confess!", and there's no intention coming through at all, then it's entirely within the bounds of the spell that the target finally confesses to themselves, inwardly, without vocalizing, that their whole life they've been trying to live up to their parents' desires. Or you say "Approach!", and for one round they approach the point of being fed up with their choice of footwear. You say "Halt!" and for one round they decide to halt their current diet that's so high in carbs.
Actions taken by the spellcaster don't according to the spell, play any role in the spell at all. It doesn't say that you issue a one-word command then point, or gesture, or anything else. Just the one word.
I think that the spell should of course make the charging person halt their charge, or the person confess their relevant crime/sin/lie. But that's only an achievable result with significant DM interpretation of the spell, adding to the RAW. For the people who stick strictly to "only what the book says and nothing more", this spell is going to be almost useless a lot of the time.
1. The spell itself does not convey intention. It is possible that the situation may convey something of intention, but that is not a certainty. I would say that the subject would use the most likely or most reasonable seeming interpretation of the command. Halt would be interpreted as stopping what they were doing, including movement, something like halting their low carb diet while continuing to charge would be an unreasonable and unlikely interpretation of a command to "halt".
2. Anything that is going to immediately and directly result in the target taking damage is directly damaging. Jumping into a pool of acid is directly damaging. Kicking a barbarian who then hits with his axe is not directly damaging. Kicking the barbarian did not in itself cause you harm.
3. The target would have to know or believe that the action would cause them harm. If they believed that a pool of water was deadly acid they would not obey a command to swim in it. If they believe a pool of deadly acid was water they might.
1. The spell itself does not convey intention. It is possible that the situation may convey something of intention, but that is not a certainty. I would say that the subject would use the most likely or most reasonable seeming interpretation of the command. Halt would be interpreted as stopping what they were doing, including movement, something like halting their low carb diet while continuing to charge would be an unreasonable and unlikely interpretation of a command to "halt".
2. Anything that is going to immediately and directly result in the target taking damage is directly damaging. Jumping into a pool of acid is directly damaging. Kicking a barbarian who then hits with his axe is not directly damaging. Kicking the barbarian did not in itself cause you harm.
3. The target would have to know or believe that the action would cause them harm. If they believed that a pool of water was deadly acid they would not obey a command to swim in it. If they believe a pool of deadly acid was water they might.
I don't think you or Lunali are wrong, there are just unanswered questions as to why it works that way, that's all I'm getting at.
Why would the target do the 'most reasonable' thing? Most reasonable according to who? Is the enemy charging and shouting orders, gets the Command to 'Halt', and then is it the enemy's own ideas of what he is expected to do that make him halt whatever he halts? In other words, is the enemy essentially halting running because he thinks that you are wanting him to halt running? That sounds reasonable. But if that's how it works, then various races, including sentient monster races, might have wildly different ideas of what other beings want.
And if that's the ruling, there's still no good indication of how many actions the target is supposed to halt. A charging battle wizard readying a spell is told to 'Halt'. Is the spell going to make him stop the spell casting? Or the charging? Or both? That's a significantly important issue, and the spell gives us no clue. I don't know why stopping 'everything' would be any more appropriate than just stopping one thing.
But there are middle grounds to 'direct', that's my point. Walking into a building that is clearly in danger of collapsing but is not at the moment collapsing is another step in between the pool of acid and the armed barbarian.
If we're going with the idea that the target's beliefs are playing a role in this, it becomes implausible that the target doesn't think laying down his weapons in the face of the enemy is 'directly harmful' :) The barbarian is lifting his ax and moving towards me, I get the command to 'Surrender' while the ax goes up. Dropping my weapons seems about as directly harmful as jumping into a pool of acid to me.
That's how I'd play this one too. But that then leaves some of the questions above.
I think it is the target's interpretation of the command. The battle wizard would likely stop both charging and spell prep. If he hasn't started the actual casting he will still have the spell slot next round when he is free to act again though...
If commanded to "surrender" in the face of charging barbarian I would keep my weapons up in a defensive posture while shouting that I yield. I would think it suicide to just drop them.
Walking into a burning building is an edge case for sure. I am not sure what command would force the target to do that though. It has to be a single word. Most that I can think of would leave room for movement around instead of into the building.
I think it is the target's interpretation of the command. The battle wizard would likely stop both charging and spell prep. If he hasn't started the actual casting he will still have the spell slot next round when he is free to act again though...
If commanded to "surrender" in the face of charging barbarian I would keep my weapons up in a defensive posture while shouting that I yield. I would think it suicide to just drop them.
Walking into a burning building is an edge case for sure. I am not sure what command would force the target to do that though. It has to be a single word. Most that I can think of would leave room for movement around instead of into the building.
Command is so limited that you really have to find ways to force certain actions. But if you were standing outside the door to a building that was burning/on the edge of collapse, with no other doors/windows in sight, 'Enter' would probably do it...if that's not 'directly' harmful :)
I don't know about the surrender, while keeping your weapons up. That doesn't seem like surrendering to me, no matter what you're saying. If I was the barbarian and I didn't hear/see the spell being cast, and you with your weapons raised shouted "I yield!" at me...I'm not going to stop.
I'm iffy on the battle wizard. Why would he stop both things? If he's also thinking ahead to his entire strategy for the whole battle (a castle siege, for example), would he stop thinking about that too? More directly game play related, if he's currently concentrating on another spell, would he halt concentrating too? So a single "Halt!" would get him to A) stop charging, B) stop the new casting, and C) stop the concentration? That's a really powerful spell suddenly.
It looks like all of this is just going to be DM's call, doesn't it? (Not that I care--early editions I grew up on were mostly DM's call. Nothing like the categories of official states and combat actions and such. I'm perfectly okay with making calls. It's just that it becomes more problematic sometimes to make judgment calls when the rest of the game is orderly and restrictive.)
It's the DM that is in the NPC's head, he/she is the only one who can really interpret the command. There is no real way to force Command to work unless the situation led to that...and as you illustrated those would be very complex scenarios. It's good to know though that commands like KNEEL or FLEE would probably work in most scenarios...it's all situational which is the good part about DnD...it's not a videogame, there are mechanics but still an element of unpredictability. A good DM i think would try and make it work to some extent.
It's the DM that is in the NPC's head, he/she is the only one who can really interpret the command. There is no real way to force Command to work unless the situation led to that...and as you illustrated those would be very complex scenarios. It's good to know though that commands like KNEEL or FLEE would probably work in most scenarios...it's all situational which is the good part about DnD...it's not a videogame, there are mechanics but still an element of unpredictability. A good DM i think would try and make it work to some extent.
I agree, the player shouldn't be determining what the Commanded person does.
This isn't a huge point I'm making, the Command spell is perfectly usable. I was just pointing out that, at least for me, the spell suddenly revealed itself to be in need of much more interpretation than I'd thought before. TBH, Command doesn't get a lot of use in most of the D&D I've ever played. Not sure why. But it's a spell that puts a lot of the interpretive power on the DM. Which is fine by me :)
Charm person and the dominate spells state the target has advantage on the save if they're hostile to the caster, but not this little spell which doesn't mention turning on friends at all. This spell suggests doing simple nearly harmless things like dropping your weapon or running, so betraying your allies with combat is really not in line with the explicit precedent by other spells which clearly state details on turning on your friends or doing other actions. For example, crown of madness has the target melee attack friends, and dominate can have it do anything, but "betray" could have a dm ask a player to fireball and tpk their team, which is a horrible experience and way out of scope for the stated effects of the spell. It would also be op for a lvl1 spell. All the stated effects of spells are balanced, "betray" wouldn't be.
The spell would end or there'd be a save if you took damage, but it's not mentioned (it is for every other mind control spell that lets you harm friends).
It very much seems the intention is not for things like betray (combat allies) to be possible. It's also not clear what betray means, betray your wife's trust? Tell a sworn secret? Break your knight or paladin oath (or change your alignment)? Betray you telling me to betray them?...Other spells let you specify with sentences or have full telepathic control. Dm's should exercise restraint in allowing such effects or interpretations. That being said, for things like an interrogation, "confess", is similar to the other level 1 charm spell which lets you have advantage on social interactions, so that would be balanced.
When you tell someone to "drop" their weapon using the command spell, do you then have the power to pick up their weapon?
Assuming the item they drop is their weapon and they don't pick it back up as part of their turn, (the command only affects them on their turn, not yours) yes.
the creature can’t willing use its action to cause harm to itself or its allies. Commanding a creature to breath with its head held in water will fail as it knows it will drown commanding a creature to Defenestrate off a 4th story window will fail if it knows it will fall. The command “betray” may still get results so long as those results aren’t harmful, such as insulting or pickpocketing an ally. That being said, generally speaking if a command can only possibly cause harm to itself and it’s allies (as far as it knows) it fails, but if the command can be reinterpreted it succeeds and the command is not used to cause harm. I like to think damage a player does as a result of a command is A-OK, such as dancing on caltrops or leaving melee range without disengaging with a word like “expedite” after all grovel is a command that makes a target more venerable. But the creature won’t do the damage itself, it will LET you damage it.
the command only lasts a turn. So you can’t command someone to strip their heavy armor cause that takes a full minute unless you successfully give them 10 consecutive commands. They make strip for a turn and instantly adjust their armor to fit without taking an action if the DM so rules so that’s no better than halt. Commanding someone to do something that tasks more than a turn like strip, doff, return, monologue, teleport, summon, research, results in 6 seconds of starting to do that with no obligation to continue. Same for a command to surrender, the all time favorite of people who think they’re clever as they watch someone as soon as it gets to their turn throw their hands in the air and say they surrender cause that’s when the command starts, then at the end of its turn the command is over and they still fight off people who try to arrest them. It last a turn, not a round, not a minute, and NOT until the command is complete. Duration 1 turn. After which they have no obligation to their behavior
the command doesn’t effect what a creature can do with a turn. For example you can’t give someone the unconscious condition by commanding sleep cause it takes more than 6 seconds to fall unconscious. And commanding a human to fly won’t make them grow wings either.
If a creature can’t do something in a turn when it is not commanded to, it can’t be commanded to do that.
That being said, unless the act of trying itself violates the other rule, they’ll still attempt to sleep or fly to no avail. Similarly you can use this for commands that would otherwise be harmful like Defenestrate on a target who is 100 feet from a window to move them closer to it, or if they are too big to fit through they get stuck, but if the spell fails is decided on their turn.
the target can interpret the commands how it wishes. You may command it to dance but be surprised to find that it can still move a bit slower backwards in a straight line like Michael Jackson. And also a creature has no obligation to interrupt anything else as part of the command besides the word in isolation spoken by you. So if you point somewhere and say relocate the target doesn’t have to go where you point.
the targets ability to interrupt is especially useful to the target when commanded to speak with a command such as ramble monologue confess or talk. Unless you somehow commanded it to speak truthfully about something specific in one obscure word even I don’t know, a creature is under no obligation to tell the truth. It satisfying commands like speak or talk even when lying. Also, a creature is of no obligation to follow commands interpreted in context which means commanding a creature to confess in a murder mystery may get a confession about a lie they told or a prank they pulled 10 years ago.
Context is very important when considering what results the Command spell achieves for words that are not listed within the description.
How do we know that context is important at all? Firstly, as the description states that the target must be able to understand the caster. This clearly adds relevant consideration for target's understanding. Secondly, the example commands and resulting behaviours in the description shows how such words should be interpreted. The DM must speculate what the target would consider the most natural interpretation of the commanded word in the circumstances.
As per the description:
"Drop: The target drops whatever it is holding and then ends its turn."
How does the target know that the caster is referring to what it has in its hands? Drop could theoretically simply mean that the target itself should drop.
The answer must be that it is the target's first instinct on what the word refers to.
This is important when considering such commands as "confess". Without any context, its true that, as someone earlier mentioned, the target would have no idea what kind of confession he should give (which could lead to humorous results). However, I would argue that in an interrogation sequence, where the PCs have questioned the target on a particular subject, where the target has refused, the command of "confess" should stand a good chance of yielding the desired results. While the command itself can only be one word, the command should not just be considered in isolation because it is subject to the target's understanding.
Another important consideration as the restriction preventing the target from obeying if "your command is directly harmful to it".
I am of the view that this is also required a subjective test. If the target can fully see that the command leads directly to its harm, such as obeying "jump" when there are ceiling spikes, then the spell should indeed fail. However, a beverage that has been poisoned without the target's knowledge, and the command is given to "drink"?
I believe that should stand a chance of success. Command is intended to not be as restrictive in the Suggestion spell, with its 'reasonableness' qualifier (although even that reasonableness isn't "true" reasonableness, as no reasonable knight would really give their expensive warhorse to the first beggar they see).
I have a different question but I think it should belong with this topic. As the spell specifies that it is a verbal component and the creature must speak the same language. Would it be that the target must automatically save or would the target need to be able to hear the command word?
Bit of background for the question. My character was in a pit fight and our cleric was using the Command spell to attempt to get my character to fail. DM had him roll a Stealth check to be sure that the crowd didn’t hear him cast this spell but he made me roll anyway.
Personally I feel he was in the wrong on that as my character wouldn’t be able to hear the command word but he said that “because it was “magic” it is whispered in your ear and only you are able to hear it”
The spell description does not say that they need to be able to hear you. It only states that it must be in range, you must be able to see them, and it must understand the language used. I would argue that this implies that the effect of the command is magically sent to the creature, not heard. Thus in theory you could Command a creature standing inside of Silence if you were out of it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have always played that the target must be able to both hear and understand the spoken Command.
Here's what I'm interested in--the spell has no effect "if your command is directly harmful" to the target.
For example, if we are at the top of a tall tower and I say "Jump!", the spell would have no effect. Or would it...? We're on top of the tall tower, I say "Jump!" of course intending that the target would jump off the tower. But the spell is just one word--I cannot specify "Jump off the tower". The target won't jump off the tower...but the target doesn't really know where or how I'm ordering him to jump. Just that I'm ordering him to jump. So the target just jumps, straight up into the air and back again. Spell works.
An enemy commander is charging at us, shouting orders to his troops as he advances. I cast the spell and say "Halt!" And he stops shouting orders, but keeps advancing. Because he halted one of the things he was doing. Or does he stop advancing, but keep shouting orders? Or does he halt both? If he halts both, does that mean that he halts every single thing he's voluntarily doing? If it halts everything that it's voluntarily doing (we'll assume it gets to keep breathing), then if I cast it on a dragon, or a bird, does it both stop advancing and also stop flapping its wings entirely and fall out of the sky? Either way we interpret this, you now have interesting spell mechanics with any of the commands. (Although after typing that and saying it in my head, the word 'halt' now sounds funny.)
But if the target is within melee of my barbarian friend, and I say "Flee!", that will also be immediately harmful to the target as the barbarian AoEs him. So does the spell fail?
It's not the swimming after all that would be harming the guy in the boat--it's not the act I'm asking him to do, the bodily motions. It's the place I'm asking him to do it. It's not the walking in the burning building case that hurts him, it's where you're telling him to walk. Similarly, it's not the running that would be harming him in the melee case. Its the place I'm asking him to do it.
Back in the Harmful River (great river name) case, say the target did not know the water would be harmful. You say "Swim!" Does the target swim? The spell specifically says the target will not do things "if your command is directly harmful". It doesn't say anything about what the target has to know.
So now what if neither of you know the river is harmful? What if neither of you know the door is trapped, but you Command the target to open the door. If the target will not do anything that is harmful to it (whether it knows it or not), you effectively have a trap detector there. Keep some fool on retainer to be Commanded down the dungeon hallway--he won't step on a trapped flagstone that no one knows about because it would be harmful :)
That absurdity tells me that it really should be about what the target knows. Which then does make it able to harm the target directly, when the target is unaware that things would harm it.
Turns out, it's a somewhat confusing spell. Or, at least, there's a ton more interpretation than I had considered previously.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
1. None whatsoever, you may be able to take actions that cause them to interpret it in a certain way, but the spell in no way forces them to interpret it the way you intend.
2. If the action is guaranteed to be harmful, as in your examples, it can probably be considered directly harmful. Running away is not guaranteed to be harmful as the enemies may choose not to attack or may miss their attacks.
3. I would assume that they would have to know that it would be harmful, which would lead to an interesting result if they knew and you didn't.
Those make sense, but that's a lot of I assume and probably in there :) Although for the first one, it's impossible for there to be no interpretation. It's language, there has to be interpretation. If I order the charging yelling guy to 'halt', he won't do anything unless he interprets my command in some way. That's my point--if someone is doing more than one thing, then 'halt' is either going to cause them to halt what I intended, or halt something random, or halt what they first think of, or halt what they think I mean, etc. It has to be one, and all of them are interpretations.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
If a PC casts Command and I think the creature might not understand the meaning of the word (but understands the language) or knows it would cause harm, I would just have the creature act as if the Command was “halt”. The spell describes Halt as “target doesn’t move and takes no actions”. Even if the target is unsure what the caster wants him to do, at least the target spends its turn doing nothing.
Likewise, if an enemy casts Command on a PC and the player says “my character doesn’t know what grovel means” and I have the player roll an Intelligence check (DC 10 ?) which the PC fails. I would have them spend the round trying to figure out what the word means rather than let them do what they want. Not moving or taking an action seems appropriate. The target spends the turn scratching its head and looking perplexed.
I said no intention is carried across, not that there is no interpretation. The DM should interpret the command based on the stats and personality of the target. Other actions taken in addition to the spell may make it more likely for the target to interpret the spell as intended, but it isn't forced as part of the spell.
Well, to be fair, I asked "How much interpretation does the target have to do? How much of my intention comes through with the magic? " and you replied with "None whatsoever." None whatsoever of interpretation, or intention? :)
One way to handle it would be that no intention comes across. But it's entirely plausible as well that magic that is affecting their brain could also be pulling from your brain. I mean, if you use Command and say "Confess!", and there's no intention coming through at all, then it's entirely within the bounds of the spell that the target finally confesses to themselves, inwardly, without vocalizing, that their whole life they've been trying to live up to their parents' desires. Or you say "Approach!", and for one round they approach the point of being fed up with their choice of footwear. You say "Halt!" and for one round they decide to halt their current diet that's so high in carbs.
Actions taken by the spellcaster don't according to the spell, play any role in the spell at all. It doesn't say that you issue a one-word command then point, or gesture, or anything else. Just the one word.
I think that the spell should of course make the charging person halt their charge, or the person confess their relevant crime/sin/lie. But that's only an achievable result with significant DM interpretation of the spell, adding to the RAW. For the people who stick strictly to "only what the book says and nothing more", this spell is going to be almost useless a lot of the time.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
1. The spell itself does not convey intention. It is possible that the situation may convey something of intention, but that is not a certainty. I would say that the subject would use the most likely or most reasonable seeming interpretation of the command. Halt would be interpreted as stopping what they were doing, including movement, something like halting their low carb diet while continuing to charge would be an unreasonable and unlikely interpretation of a command to "halt".
2. Anything that is going to immediately and directly result in the target taking damage is directly damaging. Jumping into a pool of acid is directly damaging. Kicking a barbarian who then hits with his axe is not directly damaging. Kicking the barbarian did not in itself cause you harm.
3. The target would have to know or believe that the action would cause them harm. If they believed that a pool of water was deadly acid they would not obey a command to swim in it. If they believe a pool of deadly acid was water they might.
I don't think you or Lunali are wrong, there are just unanswered questions as to why it works that way, that's all I'm getting at.
And if that's the ruling, there's still no good indication of how many actions the target is supposed to halt. A charging battle wizard readying a spell is told to 'Halt'. Is the spell going to make him stop the spell casting? Or the charging? Or both? That's a significantly important issue, and the spell gives us no clue. I don't know why stopping 'everything' would be any more appropriate than just stopping one thing.
If we're going with the idea that the target's beliefs are playing a role in this, it becomes implausible that the target doesn't think laying down his weapons in the face of the enemy is 'directly harmful' :) The barbarian is lifting his ax and moving towards me, I get the command to 'Surrender' while the ax goes up. Dropping my weapons seems about as directly harmful as jumping into a pool of acid to me.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
I think it is the target's interpretation of the command. The battle wizard would likely stop both charging and spell prep. If he hasn't started the actual casting he will still have the spell slot next round when he is free to act again though...
If commanded to "surrender" in the face of charging barbarian I would keep my weapons up in a defensive posture while shouting that I yield. I would think it suicide to just drop them.
Walking into a burning building is an edge case for sure. I am not sure what command would force the target to do that though. It has to be a single word. Most that I can think of would leave room for movement around instead of into the building.
Command is so limited that you really have to find ways to force certain actions. But if you were standing outside the door to a building that was burning/on the edge of collapse, with no other doors/windows in sight, 'Enter' would probably do it...if that's not 'directly' harmful :)
I don't know about the surrender, while keeping your weapons up. That doesn't seem like surrendering to me, no matter what you're saying. If I was the barbarian and I didn't hear/see the spell being cast, and you with your weapons raised shouted "I yield!" at me...I'm not going to stop.
I'm iffy on the battle wizard. Why would he stop both things? If he's also thinking ahead to his entire strategy for the whole battle (a castle siege, for example), would he stop thinking about that too? More directly game play related, if he's currently concentrating on another spell, would he halt concentrating too? So a single "Halt!" would get him to A) stop charging, B) stop the new casting, and C) stop the concentration? That's a really powerful spell suddenly.
It looks like all of this is just going to be DM's call, doesn't it? (Not that I care--early editions I grew up on were mostly DM's call. Nothing like the categories of official states and combat actions and such. I'm perfectly okay with making calls. It's just that it becomes more problematic sometimes to make judgment calls when the rest of the game is orderly and restrictive.)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
It's the DM that is in the NPC's head, he/she is the only one who can really interpret the command. There is no real way to force Command to work unless the situation led to that...and as you illustrated those would be very complex scenarios. It's good to know though that commands like KNEEL or FLEE would probably work in most scenarios...it's all situational which is the good part about DnD...it's not a videogame, there are mechanics but still an element of unpredictability. A good DM i think would try and make it work to some extent.
I agree, the player shouldn't be determining what the Commanded person does.
This isn't a huge point I'm making, the Command spell is perfectly usable. I was just pointing out that, at least for me, the spell suddenly revealed itself to be in need of much more interpretation than I'd thought before. TBH, Command doesn't get a lot of use in most of the D&D I've ever played. Not sure why. But it's a spell that puts a lot of the interpretive power on the DM. Which is fine by me :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Note:
Charm person and the dominate spells state the target has advantage on the save if they're hostile to the caster, but not this little spell which doesn't mention turning on friends at all. This spell suggests doing simple nearly harmless things like dropping your weapon or running, so betraying your allies with combat is really not in line with the explicit precedent by other spells which clearly state details on turning on your friends or doing other actions. For example, crown of madness has the target melee attack friends, and dominate can have it do anything, but "betray" could have a dm ask a player to fireball and tpk their team, which is a horrible experience and way out of scope for the stated effects of the spell. It would also be op for a lvl1 spell. All the stated effects of spells are balanced, "betray" wouldn't be.
The spell would end or there'd be a save if you took damage, but it's not mentioned (it is for every other mind control spell that lets you harm friends).
It very much seems the intention is not for things like betray (combat allies) to be possible. It's also not clear what betray means, betray your wife's trust? Tell a sworn secret? Break your knight or paladin oath (or change your alignment)? Betray you telling me to betray them?...Other spells let you specify with sentences or have full telepathic control. Dm's should exercise restraint in allowing such effects or interpretations. That being said, for things like an interrogation, "confess", is similar to the other level 1 charm spell which lets you have advantage on social interactions, so that would be balanced.
When you tell someone to "drop" their weapon using the command spell, do you then have the power to pick up their weapon?
You can pick up things on the ground. Yes.
Blank
Assuming the item they drop is their weapon and they don't pick it back up as part of their turn, (the command only affects them on their turn, not yours) yes.
The limitations are as follows
the creature can’t willing use its action to cause harm to itself or its allies. Commanding a creature to breath with its head held in water will fail as it knows it will drown commanding a creature to Defenestrate off a 4th story window will fail if it knows it will fall. The command “betray” may still get results so long as those results aren’t harmful, such as insulting or pickpocketing an ally. That being said, generally speaking if a command can only possibly cause harm to itself and it’s allies (as far as it knows) it fails, but if the command can be reinterpreted it succeeds and the command is not used to cause harm.
I like to think damage a player does as a result of a command is A-OK, such as dancing on caltrops or leaving melee range without disengaging with a word like “expedite” after all grovel is a command that makes a target more venerable. But the creature won’t do the damage itself, it will LET you damage it.
the command only lasts a turn. So you can’t command someone to strip their heavy armor cause that takes a full minute unless you successfully give them 10 consecutive commands. They make strip for a turn and instantly adjust their armor to fit without taking an action if the DM so rules so that’s no better than halt. Commanding someone to do something that tasks more than a turn like strip, doff, return, monologue, teleport, summon, research, results in 6 seconds of starting to do that with no obligation to continue. Same for a command to surrender, the all time favorite of people who think they’re clever as they watch someone as soon as it gets to their turn throw their hands in the air and say they surrender cause that’s when the command starts, then at the end of its turn the command is over and they still fight off people who try to arrest them. It last a turn, not a round, not a minute, and NOT until the command is complete. Duration 1 turn. After which they have no obligation to their behavior
the command doesn’t effect what a creature can do with a turn. For example you can’t give someone the unconscious condition by commanding sleep cause it takes more than 6 seconds to fall unconscious. And commanding a human to fly won’t make them grow wings either.
If a creature can’t do something in a turn when it is not commanded to, it can’t be commanded to do that.
That being said, unless the act of trying itself violates the other rule, they’ll still attempt to sleep or fly to no avail. Similarly you can use this for commands that would otherwise be harmful like Defenestrate on a target who is 100 feet from a window to move them closer to it, or if they are too big to fit through they get stuck, but if the spell fails is decided on their turn.
the target can interpret the commands how it wishes. You may command it to dance but be surprised to find that it can still move a bit slower backwards in a straight line like Michael Jackson. And also a creature has no obligation to interrupt anything else as part of the command besides the word in isolation spoken by you. So if you point somewhere and say relocate the target doesn’t have to go where you point.
the targets ability to interrupt is especially useful to the target when commanded to speak with a command such as ramble monologue confess or talk. Unless you somehow commanded it to speak truthfully about something specific in one obscure word even I don’t know, a creature is under no obligation to tell the truth. It satisfying commands like speak or talk even when lying. Also, a creature is of no obligation to follow commands interpreted in context which means commanding a creature to confess in a murder mystery may get a confession about a lie they told or a prank they pulled 10 years ago.
Context is very important when considering what results the Command spell achieves for words that are not listed within the description.
How do we know that context is important at all? Firstly, as the description states that the target must be able to understand the caster. This clearly adds relevant consideration for target's understanding. Secondly, the example commands and resulting behaviours in the description shows how such words should be interpreted. The DM must speculate what the target would consider the most natural interpretation of the commanded word in the circumstances.
As per the description:
"Drop: The target drops whatever it is holding and then ends its turn."
How does the target know that the caster is referring to what it has in its hands? Drop could theoretically simply mean that the target itself should drop.
The answer must be that it is the target's first instinct on what the word refers to.
This is important when considering such commands as "confess". Without any context, its true that, as someone earlier mentioned, the target would have no idea what kind of confession he should give (which could lead to humorous results). However, I would argue that in an interrogation sequence, where the PCs have questioned the target on a particular subject, where the target has refused, the command of "confess" should stand a good chance of yielding the desired results. While the command itself can only be one word, the command should not just be considered in isolation because it is subject to the target's understanding.
Another important consideration as the restriction preventing the target from obeying if "your command is directly harmful to it".
I am of the view that this is also required a subjective test. If the target can fully see that the command leads directly to its harm, such as obeying "jump" when there are ceiling spikes, then the spell should indeed fail. However, a beverage that has been poisoned without the target's knowledge, and the command is given to "drink"?
I believe that should stand a chance of success. Command is intended to not be as restrictive in the Suggestion spell, with its 'reasonableness' qualifier (although even that reasonableness isn't "true" reasonableness, as no reasonable knight would really give their expensive warhorse to the first beggar they see).
The spell description does not say that they need to be able to hear you. It only states that it must be in range, you must be able to see them, and it must understand the language used. I would argue that this implies that the effect of the command is magically sent to the creature, not heard. Thus in theory you could Command a creature standing inside of Silence if you were out of it.