So, hopefully there is a bit of cooling off that has happened.

Just one final note: RAW is subjective. An "official ruling" is not and never has been the final word.  RAI might be more than just a little suggestion, but RAI is still not the final word.

And that is because RAW states it is that way.

To argue that a particular interpretation (and the use of mechanics inherent in the game) is "homebrew" is rather insulting, and gives the impression that to some folks there is only one "proper way" to play D&D.

For those who have that kind of thinking, I am likely to be a major problem.

 I came in and shared how I would rule based on my interpretation of RAW, and when challenged I gave a rationale behind all of it. That doesn't make my ruling "better" or "best", "worse" or "worst", "homebrew" or "wrong". I am aware that this is a forum for Rules and Mechanics.  Now I have made a clear statement and as I continue to share how I would rule,, I will avoid explaining it to others, and folks just can deal.

I wouldn't call your ruling RAW, but I wouldn't call it homebrew, either. Homebrew suggests a larger, more consistent change to the game, whereas your ruling is just that... a ruling.

Obviously some parts of the rules are completely subjective (for example, it's impossible to define "directly harmful" except on a case-by-case basis), but arguing and debating about which rulings are supported by the text is the fun of the whole forum. I don't think that saying a ruling is not directly supported by the rules is necessarily saying that it's not the "proper way" to play D&D.

RAW, the spell kicks in on the target's next turn, and at that point reduces their speed to 0. I acknowledge that this is RAW. I also acknowledge that I wouldn't rule this way, because it's called Halt and it makes more sense if the creature, y'know, Halts. Does that mean I'm accusing myself of playing D&D wrong? No.

I tend to call anything that goes against RAW as homebrew,  that isn't to say it is bad and often makes the game better.

Command says it works on the target's NEXT turn. There are other rules such as a monks stunning strike where "next turn" clearly means the characters turn after the one the initiative order is currenrtly on. I agree with Quar1on on this and that in the circumstance it makes more sence to have it affect the character on their current turn so I would rule that way. The only difference between us is I call that "homebrew" but I had no intention of implying that makes in an "improper" way to play.

Quote from Jegpeg >>

There are other rules such as a monks stunning strike where "next turn" clearly means the characters turn after the one the initiative order is currenrtly on.

Right, but stunning strike references the monk's next turn, not the target's, so it's not really comparable

A better example might be tasha's mind whip, which also specifies what the target has to do "on its next turn", and which has an effect that lasts "until the end of its next turn"

Quote from Jegpeg >>

I tend to call anything that goes against RAW as homebrew,  that isn't to say it is bad and often makes the game better.

Command says it works on the target's NEXT turn. There are other rules such as a monks stunning strike where "next turn" clearly means the characters turn after the one the initiative order is currenrtly on. I agree with Quar1on on this and that in the circumstance it makes more sence to have it affect the character on their current turn so I would rule that way. The only difference between us is I call that "homebrew" but I had no intention of implying that makes in an "improper" way to play.

I totally agree with all of this.  In the situation presented in this thread there are two possible interpretations.  The first is that we issue a Halt Command and the creature halts.  The second is that we issue a Halt Command and then the creature gets their entire turn to do whatever they want in response to this (inviting a lot of metagaming among other things) and then that creature halts on their next turn after that.  I am actually coming around to the idea that technically the 2nd interpretation is more correct in terms of RAW based on the interaction of the current wording involved in the rules, the spell description and the feat description.  However, the spell pretty clearly is not supposed to work that way so I would 100% homebrew this in favor of the 1st interpretation (this seems to be a popular conclusion).

I would go so far as to say that this is a situation that should really be corrected with errata or at least cleaned up for the next version of the game.