Im playing a cleric and I wasn’t trying to come up with some goof commands to use on my enemies. Any suggestions? They have to be one worded and can’t directly harm the target. And if anyone knows a one word way to make someone pledge loyalty, I’d really apprxiate that. Thanks
Puts them prone granting advantage to melee attacks, then burns half their movement standing up unless they have a feature like Athlete which lets them just use 5 feet of movement.
Evidently the filterers for this website do not like any references to scatological humor or removal of clothing since some posts got erased. Making a note for future posters to this thread.
My grandmother Paladin enjoys Commanding enemies to APOLOGIZE. Because when you apologize to grandma you'd better do it with head bowed, honestly and fully!
My grandmother Paladin enjoys Commanding enemies to APOLOGIZE. Because when you apologize to grandma you'd better do it with head bowed, honestly and fully!
It's kind of difficult to make genuine apologies in 6 seconds unless you're playing loose with the time measurements. It is interesting though, and probably would make a good add-on homebrew to the Ceremony spell.
The closest thing I can thing to pledging loyalty in one word is "submit," but "submit" can be applied in various ways depending on the circumstances.
Command is useful for specific, simple actions that disadvantage opponents in some manner (or make allies do really funny things). Otherwise, you're asking for a backfire in the worst ways.
I saw an encounter where the command of "shout" was used to turn a guard captain into a non-combatant and it also created an opportunity to funnel the remaining guards into a choke point before starting combat. The command was quietly used out of combat on the guard captain of a religious cult reliant on complete silence. Poor guy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I wonder if you could say "distract" or "forget" to command someone to end their concentration.
I think you are leaving yourself open to DM interpretation. Depending on DM could be good or bad. They might want to have fun with it, saying the enemy forgot their wife’s birthday, or they might hardline and say that the command is to vague within limitations and has no discernible effect.
I wonder if you could say "distract" or "forget" to command someone to end their concentration.
"Sneeze!"
At the very least, the target should attempt a special save to maintain concentration. The aforementioned censored suggestions in this thread would likely have a higher probability of breaking concentration.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I thought your original post was creative and useful. Still, I can understand why the moderators might want to keep this a PG environment.
Now, though, I'm wondering if you could get someone to do something like eat a poisonous flower that they did not know was poisonous. While the spell says "The spell as no effect if the target is undead, if it doesn't understand your language, or if your command is directly harmful to it" what perspective is "harmful" from? The creature being commanded? The DM?
In a related vein, could you get a creature to drink an obviously strong alcoholic beverage (dwarven brandy)? To some creatures that would have no effect whatsoever, to some it would be clearly poisonous, and to others, it would depend a lot on their luck and how much they had to drink before.
I cannot think of a single word command that would make a person eat a flower or drink an alcoholic beverage. "Graze" as a verb doesn't only mean eat grass. "Inebriate" as a verb is transitive, meaning that the target is left unspecified, giving the DM free-rein to muck things up. "Intoxicate" is also transitive and also has multiple meanings.
The spell is deliberately limited but can be effective in the right hands (not meaning Somatic).
The atonement-challenged Paladin who did the shout trick above prefers to use it to make opponents somehow get themselves in trouble. He sticks to specifically-defined reflexive verbs so that only one target is involved in the command—the target does something itself and itself only, not something to something else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
It can do all sorts from what you'd expect - like attack their friends - to things like running away to leave their friends to die - to something simple like reveal one of their friends secrets they promised to keep. It could be anything but either way the result is probably going to be interesting - and will waste their turn if nothing else.
I cannot think of a single word command that would make a person eat a flower or drink an alcoholic beverage. "Graze" as a verb doesn't only mean eat grass. "Inebriate" as a verb is transitive, meaning that the target is left unspecified, giving the DM free-rein to muck things up. "Intoxicate" is also transitive and also has multiple meanings.
The spell is deliberately limited but can be effective in the right hands (not meaning Somatic).
The atonement-challenged Paladin who did the shout trick above prefers to use it to make opponents somehow get themselves in trouble. He sticks to specifically-defined reflexive verbs so that only one target is involved in the command—the target does something itself and itself only, not something to something else.
Well this brings up another little fun and very related question: While the spell says a one-word command, it does Not specify whether or not it could also include a simple gesture. Pointing to a jug of dwarven brandy or a poisonous flower (that the opposing NPC/PC does not know is poisonous) and Command spelling them to "Eat!"...could that not be ruled as following the rules as written? Yes, this does force the DM to make a rules interpretation, but what is tabletop RPG but a creative exercise in the first place?
It can do all sorts from what you'd expect - like attack their friends - to things like running away to leave their friends to die - to something simple like reveal one of their friends secrets they promised to keep. It could be anything but either way the result is probably going to be interesting - and will waste their turn if nothing else.
I like where you're going with this. It's another very DM-dependent use of the spell with potentially powerful effects. I would say its mileage would vary a lot depending on how much backstory the DM has written for her NPCs. On the one hand, this could get someone to spill the beans about something important. On the other hand, it might have no effect at all if the DM rules that betrayal might be too complex a command to interpret in 6 seconds if the creature commanded is too loyal or too surrounded by creatures whom s/he has no grounds or inclination to betray. By that I mean, to "betray" involves a certain bit of desire and imagination. Betray whom and betray how? Still, potentially quite potent, esp. in a politics-heavy campaign.
Honestly even if the result of the 'Betray' command is the target turning to one of their friends and saying "Your cooking is terrible!" I'm happy. ; )
Well this brings up another little fun and very related question: While the spell says a one-word command, it does Not specify whether or not it could also include a simple gesture. Pointing to a jug of dwarven brandy or a poisonous flower (that the opposing NPC/PC does not know is poisonous) and Command spelling them to "Eat!"...could that not be ruled as following the rules as written? Yes, this does force the DM to make a rules interpretation, but what is tabletop RPG but a creative exercise in the first place?
My interpretation is that gesture is not part of the spell since it's verbal-only, no somatic requirements. Edit2: The target is also not required to see but cannot be deafened. I interpret that as sight having no effect on the spell. Edit3: (I'll eventually get all my thoughts together...) I would interpret gestures as an attempt to give additional words to the target through some non-spell-affected means.
EDIT: "Betray" looks like a good exception to the reflexive rule. It requires familiarity and an alliance with the object to betray it, most likely restricting the action to the caster's opponents.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Well this brings up another little fun and very related question: While the spell says a one-word command, it does Not specify whether or not it could also include a simple gesture. Pointing to a jug of dwarven brandy or a poisonous flower (that the opposing NPC/PC does not know is poisonous) and Command spelling them to "Eat!"...could that not be ruled as following the rules as written? Yes, this does force the DM to make a rules interpretation, but what is tabletop RPG but a creative exercise in the first place?
My interpretation is that gesture is not part of the spell since it's verbal-only, no somatic requirements. Edit2: The target is also not required to see but cannot be deafened. I interpret that as sight having no effect on the spell. Edit3: (I'll eventually get all my thoughts together...) I would interpret gestures as an attempt to give additional words to the target through some non-spell-affected means.
EDIT: "Betray" looks like a good exception to the reflexive rule. It requires familiarity and an alliance with the object to betray it, most likely restricting the action to the caster's opponents.
Ah, but a requirement does not mean that a somatic component cannot also be present. In the examples I give, the target would still need to hear and understand the word to be compelled to act. On a related note, using signs and gestures has surely existed before the invention of words, which are themselves more a complex evolutionary development than utterances of sound. Even cats and dogs communicate with each other all the time with body gestures alongside sounds and scents. Human faces would not be so expressive if slight variations in our features did not offer the observer useful information about what we want or not want.
Im playing a cleric and I wasn’t trying to come up with some goof commands to use on my enemies. Any suggestions? They have to be one worded and can’t directly harm the target. And if anyone knows a one word way to make someone pledge loyalty, I’d really apprxiate that. Thanks
Obey? But even if they did pledge loyalty, they could take back that pledge as soon as the spell's influence ends.
Grovel
Puts them prone granting advantage to melee attacks, then burns half their movement standing up unless they have a feature like Athlete which lets them just use 5 feet of movement.
Evidently the filterers for this website do not like any references to scatological humor or removal of clothing since some posts got erased. Making a note for future posters to this thread.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
InsiderMy grandmother Paladin enjoys Commanding enemies to APOLOGIZE. Because when you apologize to grandma you'd better do it with head bowed, honestly and fully!
Find me on Twitter: @OboeLauren
It's kind of difficult to make genuine apologies in 6 seconds unless you're playing loose with the time measurements. It is interesting though, and probably would make a good add-on homebrew to the Ceremony spell.
It kinda depends on your DM, too.
The closest thing I can thing to pledging loyalty in one word is "submit," but "submit" can be applied in various ways depending on the circumstances.
Command is useful for specific, simple actions that disadvantage opponents in some manner (or make allies do really funny things). Otherwise, you're asking for a backfire in the worst ways.
I saw an encounter where the command of "shout" was used to turn a guard captain into a non-combatant and it also created an opportunity to funnel the remaining guards into a choke point before starting combat. The command was quietly used out of combat on the guard captain of a religious cult reliant on complete silence. Poor guy.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I wonder if you could say "distract" or "forget" to command someone to end their concentration.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think you are leaving yourself open to DM interpretation. Depending on DM could be good or bad. They might want to have fun with it, saying the enemy forgot their wife’s birthday, or they might hardline and say that the command is to vague within limitations and has no discernible effect.
"Sneeze!"
At the very least, the target should attempt a special save to maintain concentration. The aforementioned censored suggestions in this thread would likely have a higher probability of breaking concentration.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Sorry about that.
New suggestions: Giggle, Sneeze, Salute, Bow, (I like the above Grovel), Flee, Dance.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I thought your original post was creative and useful. Still, I can understand why the moderators might want to keep this a PG environment.
Now, though, I'm wondering if you could get someone to do something like eat a poisonous flower that they did not know was poisonous. While the spell says "The spell as no effect if the target is undead, if it doesn't understand your language, or if your command is directly harmful to it" what perspective is "harmful" from? The creature being commanded? The DM?
In a related vein, could you get a creature to drink an obviously strong alcoholic beverage (dwarven brandy)? To some creatures that would have no effect whatsoever, to some it would be clearly poisonous, and to others, it would depend a lot on their luck and how much they had to drink before.
It has to be a single-word command, though.
I cannot think of a single word command that would make a person eat a flower or drink an alcoholic beverage. "Graze" as a verb doesn't only mean eat grass. "Inebriate" as a verb is transitive, meaning that the target is left unspecified, giving the DM free-rein to muck things up. "Intoxicate" is also transitive and also has multiple meanings.
The spell is deliberately limited but can be effective in the right hands (not meaning Somatic).
The atonement-challenged Paladin who did the shout trick above prefers to use it to make opponents somehow get themselves in trouble. He sticks to specifically-defined reflexive verbs so that only one target is involved in the command—the target does something itself and itself only, not something to something else.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Personally am a fan of 'Betray'.
It can do all sorts from what you'd expect - like attack their friends - to things like running away to leave their friends to die - to something simple like reveal one of their friends secrets they promised to keep. It could be anything but either way the result is probably going to be interesting - and will waste their turn if nothing else.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Well this brings up another little fun and very related question: While the spell says a one-word command, it does Not specify whether or not it could also include a simple gesture. Pointing to a jug of dwarven brandy or a poisonous flower (that the opposing NPC/PC does not know is poisonous) and Command spelling them to "Eat!"...could that not be ruled as following the rules as written? Yes, this does force the DM to make a rules interpretation, but what is tabletop RPG but a creative exercise in the first place?
I like where you're going with this. It's another very DM-dependent use of the spell with potentially powerful effects. I would say its mileage would vary a lot depending on how much backstory the DM has written for her NPCs. On the one hand, this could get someone to spill the beans about something important. On the other hand, it might have no effect at all if the DM rules that betrayal might be too complex a command to interpret in 6 seconds if the creature commanded is too loyal or too surrounded by creatures whom s/he has no grounds or inclination to betray. By that I mean, to "betray" involves a certain bit of desire and imagination. Betray whom and betray how? Still, potentially quite potent, esp. in a politics-heavy campaign.
Honestly even if the result of the 'Betray' command is the target turning to one of their friends and saying "Your cooking is terrible!" I'm happy. ; )
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
My interpretation is that gesture is not part of the spell since it's verbal-only, no somatic requirements. Edit2: The target is also not required to see but cannot be deafened. I interpret that as sight having no effect on the spell. Edit3: (I'll eventually get all my thoughts together...) I would interpret gestures as an attempt to give additional words to the target through some non-spell-affected means.
EDIT:
"Betray" looks like a good exception to the reflexive rule. It requires familiarity and an alliance with the object to betray it, most likely restricting the action to the caster's opponents.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Ah, but a requirement does not mean that a somatic component cannot also be present. In the examples I give, the target would still need to hear and understand the word to be compelled to act. On a related note, using signs and gestures has surely existed before the invention of words, which are themselves more a complex evolutionary development than utterances of sound. Even cats and dogs communicate with each other all the time with body gestures alongside sounds and scents. Human faces would not be so expressive if slight variations in our features did not offer the observer useful information about what we want or not want.
ooh "betray' is cool.
what about "kneel"? or "pray"? he is a cleric