The enemy tabaxi rogue had tried to kill the party Wizard, had failed and is now nearly dead and needs to run away from the party. He thinks about disengaging but the wizard has no weapons so decides he is better off using both his action and bonus action to dash to get well away from the party. What he didn't know if the party wizard has warcaster.

"Halt" shouts the Wizard as he casts command, and the rogue fails his saving throw.

What happens next?

RAW the Rogue must "follow the command on its next turn" so by my understanding it can run 180 ft away (more if he was subject too haste/ longstrider or had drunk a potion of speed etc) which will probably enable him to take cover and be safe from the party when he freezes on his next turn. (After which be can double his movement speed again.

Is this correct? It is very counter intuitive.  The alternative interpretation that it applies on the same turn gets open to interpretation if the target has already used its action. It would also mean a spell like guiding bolt would have the glow end before any allies have had a chance t oattack (unless they also had a reaction attack on the enemies turn) 

Quote from Brian_Avery >>

How did the wizard cast Command when it wasn't his turn?

The wizard has the warcaster feat which allows this.

The relevant rules for reactions are:

A reaction is an instant response to a trigger

. . . 

If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction

The wording for command is this:

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.

I would interpret that to mean something like "the next time that it's that creature's turn" as opposed to thinking of it like a creature has its first turn on the first round and the second turn on the second round and so on.

So, in this situation, the opportunity attack reaction instantly interrupts the gameflow when the tabaxi attempts to escape from the threatening range.  That turn is interrupted and the spotlight now instantly shifts to the Wizard.  The Wizard completes its reaction.  Now, according to the rules for reactions, it becomes the tabaxi's turn again.  In my opinion, this is the next moment that it's that creature's turn and so the consequences of the command spell would be in effect from this moment forward.  However, this turn is a continuation of the turn that was interrupted so any action economy that was already spent prior to the reaction is still spent.  In this case, I would rule that no further movement is allowed this turn from the tabaxi and so it must remain 5 feet (or perhaps 10 feet, I'm not sure) away from the Wizard for the rest of this turn.

I'd say the tabaxi gets their movement and dash, but the Command word is cast during this movement, and their movement ends as they hear the word "Halt", meaning they would stop on their next turn (there's not much room for misinterpretation there!) and would not move.

Alternatively, as a DM, I might make this affect the turn in which they start to move instead, causing them to stop and, in all likelihood, attack the wizard again.

not 100% as to whether, if the wizard died, the spell would end and, having not used their movement, they could then continue to move.

I would rule the tabaxi gets about 20 feet away before coming to a stop unless the particular situation gets more interesting if he escapes.

Note that when you run into things like this, the Rules of Cool and the Rules of Fun take precedence, so the "sticking point" is mitigated.

"how does he escape?" you might ask? Well, to quote the wise gal: snit happens. Magic is unpredictable, and even a Tabaxi Rogue may have the favor of the gods upon them.

The same applies for him not getting away. The whole "next turn" thing is meant to help smooth combat, not create extra barriers, so when it doesn't work, you just ignore it.

Well, 20 feet away makes no sense.  The command is issued instantly at the moment of the opportunity attack which is when the creature is 5 feet away.  At that point, there are two valid interpretations of what is meant by what exactly happens when the affected creature then must "follow the command on its next turn".

In one interpretation, the creature "can continue its turn right after the reaction" as per the rules for reactions and we interpret the moment in time after the reaction to be the "same turn" and not the "next turn" but instead the "next turn" is actually the "one after that".  So the creature can then ignore the command for the rest of the turn, which obviously makes no sense.

If we step back and understand narratively what is going on with the Command spell -- a command is issued and then the creature obeys the command in response to that command.  From that standpoint, we have the second (and better imo) interpretation of what exactly happens when the affected creature then must "follow the command on its next turn".  We simply consider "next turn" to mean "the next time that it's the creature's turn".  In that case, immediately after the reaction the creature responds to and obeys the command.

The reason why the wording can't instead say something like "this turn" instead of "next turn" is because the command will usually occur when it is not that creature's turn at all -- it's currently someone else's turn entirely.  So, the creature's "next turn" is the very next time that it becomes that creature's turn.  It is easy to take it to mean something like when we say "I will see you this weekend" which is this very next weekend coming up, but we say "I won't see you again until next weekend" which means not this very next weekend but the one after that.  However, this game very consistently does NOT word things in that way.  The game never says "this turn" to mean the very next time that it's the creature's turn.  It always says "next turn" to mean that.  Again, that is very consistent language throughout the game.  Slightly unfortunate that it's a little bit open to interpretation, but that's how it's always worded in this game.

And yet, that's how I would rule it. 

20 feet because they have a speed factor and it takes a moment for the spell to kick in and they were likely already in motion before the spell was started and bodies do not simply "freeze up" like they are petrified or frozen because of a command spell. The distance could be 10, could be 15, could 14.83 -- whatever. 30 feet in six seconds is 5 feet per second, so I am saying four seconds were involved -- start the run, command cast (which is an action, so RAW takes at least 2 seconds), spell takes effect, they stop.

and that's in both my game, where spells are little different in a lot of ways (all of them require V, S components), and in the main line.

Why 2 seconds?

A general turn is still a six second time period to my knowledge unless I missed that. Move, Action, Reaction, Bonus all happen in that period. Move happens concurrently (unless folks are teleporting 30 feet in a second) to the others.

So, to me, it makes sense. Hence my ruling, although I confess when I said that I didn't lay all of that out in my head; I have been doing this a long while, so I don't always think through the bits and pieces of a decision, I simply make it.

Now, all of that, and I would *also* point out that in this circumstance as described, from the perspective of the poor tabaxi rogue, that command would place them in direct peril, and if ya want to argue about the ruling, well, then the spell fails and he gets away. Because 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.

He is fairly obviously an assassin, he just tried to kill the wizard, failed, and when an assassin fails and is caught the likely outcome is immediate death and selling out of their employer (also immediate death, even if they didn't because what employer trusts an assassin).

Hence the "unless" part of my ruling. 

Lastly, and because I am that pedantic, lol, I will point out that my ruling is still within the full scope of the spell as it pertains t the specific command: Halt. The target doesn't move and takes no actions. A flying creature stays aloft, provided that it is able to do so. If it must move to stay aloft, it flies the minimum distance needed to remain in the air.

Essentially, this is a creature in motion (akin to the in motion part of flying), and on the command they stop, but that motion takes a moment to cancel out, and so, they stop 20 feet away.

This is enough to make the party have to move, there were no other combatants in sight, and it tells a cool story (they almost got away! Good job on that spell, Wizard!).

I mean, you can rule however you want but your suggestion isn't even close to RAW for many reasons.  There are two legitimate interpretations of the rules as discussed earlier in the thread by multiple people.  This isn't one of them.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

20 feet because they have a speed factor and it takes a moment for the spell to kick in and they were likely already in motion before the spell was started and bodies do not simply "freeze up" like they are petrified or frozen because of a command spell. The distance could be 10, could be 15, could 14.83 -- whatever.

There's literally nothing in the rules to support anything like this -- it's completely made up.  When an opportunity attack occurs, the movement is put on pause and the reaction is resolved "instantly" as per the rule for reactions.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

so I am saying four seconds were involved -- start the run, command cast (which is an action, so RAW takes at least 2 seconds), spell takes effect, they stop.

. . .

Why 2 seconds?

A general turn is still a six second time period to my knowledge unless I missed that. Move, Action, Reaction, Bonus all happen in that period. Move happens concurrently (unless folks are teleporting 30 feet in a second) to the others.

 

This also is not supported by the rules.  First of all, although this spell usually has a casting time of 1 action, in this situation the Warcaster feat is allowing this spell to be cast as a reaction.  But even if it were cast as an action -- there is nothing in the rules that defines how long an action takes to execute -- it simply happens and completes within the 6 second round.  Things like this are intentionally simplified in 5e and the most correct approach is that each individual thing that happens occurs instantaneously or without any significant amount of time passing.  When something happens that stops your movement, your movement stops.  It doesn't keep going for a while and then stop, otherwise the effect would say something more like "the creature's speed is reduced to 15 feet for this turn" or something in which case the creature would be free to move 15 feet away from where they were when the effect occurred.  Things do what they say they do in this game.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

A flying creature stays aloft, provided that it is able to do so. If it must move to stay aloft, it flies the minimum distance needed to remain in the air.

Essentially, this is a creature in motion (akin to the in motion part of flying), and on the command they stop, but that motion takes a moment to cancel out, and so, they stop 20 feet away.

No, the creature in question in this thread is not a flying creature so this does not apply.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

 

. . . and if ya want to argue about the ruling, well, then the spell fails and he gets away. Because 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.

 

Wow.  Well that is the sign of a vindictive, combative, me-vs-the-players type of DM that is absolutely horrendous to play with.  "Oh, you question my god-like powers?  Ha!  Now nothing you have tried works at all and you all die!  Take that!"  Um, okay.  You can get yourself a new player, I'm so outa here.

It would be a legitimate questioning of your ruling anyway.  Being forced to stop near an enemy is NOT directly harmful to the creature -- that is a poor interpretation at best.

Don't take that attitude with your players -- that's not the point of the game.

Quote from up2ng >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

 

. . . and if ya want to argue about the ruling, well, then the spell fails and he gets away. Because 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.

 

 

Wow.  Well that is the sign of a vindictive, combative, me-vs-the-players type of DM that is absolutely horrendous to play with.  "Oh, you question my god-like powers?  Ha!  Now nothing you have tried works at all and you all die!  Take that!"  Um, okay.  You can get yourself a new player, I'm so outa here.

It would be a legitimate questioning of your ruling anyway.  Being forced to stop near an enemy is NOT directly harmful to the creature -- that is a poor interpretation at best.

Don't take that attitude with your players -- that's not the point of the game.

Snipped for the relevant bit, really.  The notion that standing next to someone and heir friends you just tried to kill is clearly and most certainly harmful, and if this is a combat, these folks have likely already killed some of YOUR friends, so lethality is more than reasonable to assume.  ha is one, very valid and reasonable ruling to make on this specific situation.

On their NEXT turn can also mean the NEXT time that entity gets a turn.  They are currently operating on THIS turn, so by the letter of the rule, they continue to do whatever they were going to do (apparently run, then dash then dash)  On their NEXT turn they HALT as commanded and as the letter of the RaW indicates.

Another option is they HALT, then resume their run.  You said HALT, not STAY.  Nitpicky?  Yeah, a little bit, kind of like how a DM looks at a complex worded Wish.  A technicality loophole as it were.

The alternate suggested above (since none of the RaW interpretations both follow RaW and make logical sense) is a generous hybrid to allow mostly RaW and some rule of cool, as it was an innovative idea.  This kind of alternate ruling is ideal for situations exactly like this, where devs likely never considered the clunky, illogical, weird-ass way the exact wording of THIS spell, and THIS feat combining in THIS way.  Meeting the players halfway is a lot better than pointing out 2-3 wording problems that essentially say "Screw your outside the box thinking"  Your criticism of the DM style is overblown and the type of mentality I wouldn't be really keen on having at my table.  Anything other than "Great job player X!" would end up being the DM hating on you and trying to "beat" you.  Sometimes (more often than many would like) the written rules conflict enough to create a situation that is just a mess.  I'd rather have the DM give a little than just saying "That didn't work the way you wanted"

I would tend to rule this in line with the narrative expectations of the characters using the spell in the particular circumstances. "Next turn" is not clearly defined when the creature is already taking some of their turn. If command was cast an instant before the turn starts it would clearly apply to the current turn but when cast within a creature's turn it is less clear since they have part of their turn left to go which one might consider their "next turn" (with a bit of a broad reading).

I believe that the command spell is intended to make the creature perform the action at its first opportunity to take the action (not at the moment the intention is applied - thus the creature doesn't grovel immediately which might allow creatures attacks vs a prone target). In the case of halt, grovel etc - these types of responses aren't available to a creature until it is their turn so the spell is written such that the effect doesn't take place immediately but as soon as the target has an opportunity to act on it.

In your example, since it is the Tabaxi is currently taking their turn and the wizard tells them to halt using command as a reaction during their turn, then since it is possible for the Tabaxi to immdiately respond to the command since it is their turn then I'd allow the effect to happen immediately since I think that is the intention of the spell.

However, I could easily see a DM deciding that the literal "next turn" is not the remaining part of the creatures turn but the turn which follows that.

P.S. On the topic of directly harmful ...

The spell states both of the following:

" 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."

There is a list of valid examples including the following:

"Grovel. The target falls prone and then ends its turn.

Halt. The target doesn't move and takes no actions. A flying creature stays aloft, provided that it is able to do so. If it must move to stay aloft, it flies the minimum distance needed to remain in the air."

These examples of valid uses of the Command spell would clearly be detrimental to ANY creature in a combat encounter. Particularly the grovel command where they go prone and immediately end their turn allowing any creature within 5' to make attacks at advantage for the next round until they can stand up.

Either this command can NEVER be used in combat and so the spell itself is not written correctly. OR this is an intended and valid option for the command spell and the "directly harmful to it" clause refers to things like "Jump" when standing on the top of a cliff which would cause immediate damage to the target and not the possibility of damage represented by being prone or not moving away from an opponent when the target might wish to do so.

So, I think the suggestion that telling the creature to Halt in this circumstance would be invalid because it would be considered "directly harmful to the creature" is an incorrect interpretation of RAW (though as always DMs can do what they like ... but if you are asking what the rules say then dropping prone or not moving are NOT actions that are DIRECTLY harmful to a creature and thus would be perfectly allowed uses of Command.

Quote from up2ng >>

I mean, you can rule however you want but your suggestion isn't even close to RAW for many reasons.  There are two legitimate interpretations of the rules as discussed earlier in the thread by multiple people.  This isn't one of them.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

20 feet because they have a speed factor and it takes a moment for the spell to kick in and they were likely already in motion before the spell was started and bodies do not simply "freeze up" like they are petrified or frozen because of a command spell. The distance could be 10, could be 15, could 14.83 -- whatever.

 

There's literally nothing in the rules to support anything like this -- it's completely made up.  When an opportunity attack occurs, the movement is put on pause and the reaction is resolved "instantly" as per the rule for reactions.

 

Quote from AEDorsay >>

so I am saying four seconds were involved -- start the run, command cast (which is an action, so RAW takes at least 2 seconds), spell takes effect, they stop.

. . .

Why 2 seconds?

A general turn is still a six second time period to my knowledge unless I missed that. Move, Action, Reaction, Bonus all happen in that period. Move happens concurrently (unless folks are teleporting 30 feet in a second) to the others.

 

 

This also is not supported by the rules.  First of all, although this spell usually has a casting time of 1 action, in this situation the Warcaster feat is allowing this spell to be cast as a reaction.  But even if it were cast as an action -- there is nothing in the rules that defines how long an action takes to execute -- it simply happens and completes within the 6 second round.  Things like this are intentionally simplified in 5e and the most correct approach is that each individual thing that happens occurs instantaneously or without any significant amount of time passing.  When something happens that stops your movement, your movement stops.  It doesn't keep going for a while and then stop, otherwise the effect would say something more like "the creature's speed is reduced to 15 feet for this turn" or something in which case the creature would be free to move 15 feet away from where they were when the effect occurred.  Things do what they say they do in this game.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

A flying creature stays aloft, provided that it is able to do so. If it must move to stay aloft, it flies the minimum distance needed to remain in the air.

Essentially, this is a creature in motion (akin to the in motion part of flying), and on the command they stop, but that motion takes a moment to cancel out, and so, they stop 20 feet away.

 

No, the creature in question in this thread is not a flying creature so this does not apply.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

 

. . . and if ya want to argue about the ruling, well, then the spell fails and he gets away. Because 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.

 

 

Wow.  Well that is the sign of a vindictive, combative, me-vs-the-players type of DM that is absolutely horrendous to play with.  "Oh, you question my god-like powers?  Ha!  Now nothing you have tried works at all and you all die!  Take that!"  Um, okay.  You can get yourself a new player, I'm so outa here.

It would be a legitimate questioning of your ruling anyway.  Being forced to stop near an enemy is NOT directly harmful to the creature -- that is a poor interpretation at best.

Don't take that attitude with your players -- that's not the point of the game.

Things *are* simplified in the game, no question -- but that doesn't mean that there isn't a need to break those six second down in some circumstances (common ones for folks who have played for decades), and so it doesn't take much to look at the breakdown of what is possible in a six second round and make those determinations I did.

Because simplified rules cannot cover every eventuality. That doesn't make it "Not Raw", it just makes it "not explicit" when it is implicit.

So "completely made up" isn't accurate as a description -- everything is based in the structures of the game -- even the momentum based element derived from the flying being used as a comparative.

Given that the game lays things out so that those things can all happen in six seconds, it is *not unreasonable* to want to know such. 

No, you won't find a specific rule that says "blank" because the game is simplified -- and so you have to turn to your own best judgement. So I am asking you:

• how much time do each of those things take out of those 6 seconds?
• How much time do you give for each of those elements?
• how long is an action?
• How long is a reaction?
• How long is a bonus?
• Where is the rule that says "when something stops your movement, your movement stops"?
• Where in the spell does it say their movement stops as if they have been frozen in place?
• Where is the rule that says when our movement stops it is a complete cessation of momentum?

Now, it find it interesting to note that you describe the *final*, off hand, possible ruling with the most vicious accusation one can hurl at a GM. 

It is *your opinion* that the subject is not in danger. You say that it is a poor interpretation -- whereas I made no warranties as to the quality of the interpretation, but more importantly, that is a subjective (opinion based) description of said interpretation, and not one you can back up with the rules, either.

And, despite my initial ruling being the one I would go with and the rest being supportive of it, you decided that the final potential basis for something is the hallmark of the whole, which seems a little more than unfair -- especially as I pointed out that the tabaxi is likely to perceive that as being putting them in danger, and there are no rules to support either your opinion or mine...

Except the one you acknowledged at the very beginning and that I acknowledge to you as well -- I was merely explaining my thinking and my approach. That rule, of course, is that the DM is the final arbiter of *their* game. I have been a DM for 40 plus years, lol, and overseen tens of thousands of hours of games with thousands of people. And ya know what? It doesn't matter. 

The OP asked for thoughts. I gave mine as to how I would rule, and then I explained my ruling when you questioned it and made some surprising points of your own that lack any basis in the rules. The rules do not cover every possible situation. Even if they hadn't simplified the game they wouldn't.

Our biggest disagreement comes down to "does Command, a 1st level spell, also have the ability to act like Hold Person (which is currently a 2nd level spell) and paralyze the target?"

I don't think it does, you do think it does. 

I wouldn't argue with you in your game.  My players argue with me all the time, lol, but only three are rules lawyers and they learned a long time ago that the reason we call them Rules lawyers is they are like Lawyers in a court arguing before a judge, and the judge is still the arbiter. 

Did you forget the whole thing aout "if it tells a better story" that I put in there? Several times? Because that's the deciding factor, isn't it - over and above rules? I don't have enough knowledge to speak to the broader arc that this is but a snippet from. That would have an impact in one of my games, and so I needed to acknowledge that. 

Look, you are free to think I am the lowest form of scum DM, that I am petty and vindictive and uncaring and all the rest, in the games I run for my group of folks who I have been playing with since 1981, adding their friends and kids and grandkids as we went along. That is fine by me. I am certain that there are folks who used to play in the open sessions I ran in the 80's and 90's who think exactly that, and I know at least one person who played in a convention game thinks that way. I mean, I did throw them out for being disruptive, so there is probably some basis to all of it.

None of it matters. Because I run my games, other run theirs, and I'm pretty happy with stuff and based on playtesting last night, my players are super happy with stuff, so that's all I worry or care about. We have fun.

And personally, I hope that you have just as much fun as we do -- because that's the best part of the game, the point of hte game, the meaning of the game.

Well, except to tabaxi rogues who missed on an assassination attempt.

AEDorsay, I apologize for how I phrased my last post, it came out more harshly than intended.  Plus, the part that I was criticizing, you may not have even meant it that way.

What I disagreed the most strongly with was this part:  "and if ya want to argue about the ruling, well, then the spell fails . . .".  So, it wasn't so much about the original ruling or the new ruling.  It's the attitude that a DM takes with a player that basically says, ok, this is a ruling that you may not like but shut your mouth or else I'm going to give this other ruling that you REALLY won't like!  You may not have intended it quite like that but this "style" is really really bad no matter how much experience you have.

Anyways, back to the topic.  The momentum thing is just a total homebrew.  That's fine, but these discussions are within the context of RAW.  I'm not sure why you keep wanting to compare the situation to a situation that involves a flying creature -- that section does not apply.  The only reason the wording about what happens to flying creatures exists is because there are a lot of other game mechanics which basically cause the flying creature to plummet down to the earth below and take massive falling damage -- this was an explicit failsafe against that -- again, not relevant to non-flying creatures.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

• how long is an action?
• How long is a reaction?
• How long is a bonus?

 

In each of these cases, the answer is "somewhere between instantaneously and 6 seconds" but probably on the lower end of the scale in most cases.  The rules do not define the passage of time to a shorter granularity than a 6 second round and there really is never any reason to even attempt to track such passage of time in this game.  The meta throughout the rules is that in any given combat round, many things are happening within a turn and across many turns of many creatures very quickly and they are happening more or less simultaneously.  However, the structure of the game is turn-based, mostly so that it can actually be played.  As such, certain things within a round will resolve first and will potentially influence or affect other actions that are taken within the same round.  So, for example, a player has their PC attack a goblin and it is killed.  The next player probably won't decide to have their PC attack that same goblin -- they will do something else.  But in terms of theatre-of-the-mind that's more like a ret-con than a cause-and-effect.  Even though the players were originally intending to attack the same goblin, what actually happens in the game world is that the two PCs actually attack two separate enemies -- but more or less at the same time, give or take.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

• Where is the rule that says "when something stops your movement, your movement stops"?
• Where in the spell does it say their movement stops as if they have been frozen in place?
• Where is the rule that says when our movement stops it is a complete cessation of momentum?

 

Ok, now these rules are pretty ironclad.  In many cases, an effect will say something like "movement (or speed) is reduced to 0".  If your speed is 0 you cannot move.  You cannot relocate to another grid square via your own locomotion.  In this particular case it says:  "The target doesn't move and takes no actions".  As one might expect, this means that the target doesn't move and takes no actions.  Things do what they say in this game.  As for when movement stops it is a complete cessation of momentum?  Yes, that's exactly how it works.  Otherwise, there would be some description that mentions some sort of forced movement such as when a creature is shoved or hit with a thunderwave spell or something.  Absent that, wherever a creature is located when its movement stops is where it remains.

I will agree with you that the concept of "directly harmful" is open to interpretation.  I have my opinion about it but it is technically undefined.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Our biggest disagreement comes down to "does Command, a 1st level spell, also have the ability to act like Hold Person (which is currently a 2nd level spell) and paralyze the target?"

I don't think it does, you do think it does. 

No, not exactly.  I do agree that this is a pretty powerful effect for a 1st level spell.  But there are quite a few differences between this effect and the effect of Hold Person.  

Halt Command:

"The target doesn't move and takes no actions".  Duration:  1 round -- the target follows the Command for one turn and then the effect ends.

Hold Person:

"The target [is] paralyzed for the duration".  Duration:  Up to 1 minute -- the target can attempt another saving throw at the end of each of its turns to end the spell effect.

Paralyzed:  Incapacitated (can't take actions or reactions), can't move, can't speak, auto fails STR and DEX saving throws, attack rolls against the creature have advantage, any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature.

So, on the surface there is a similar spell effect involved.  But Hold Person is quite a bit more powerful.  Whether or not the difference is enough to justify the difference between a 1st and 2nd level spell?  I think so but debating that point is reasonable.

Quote from AEDorsay >> 

Look, you are free to think I am the lowest form of scum DM, that I am petty and vindictive and uncaring and all the rest,

No, nothing like that at all.  I made a comment about one particular action and potentially one style of being a DM that I disagree with and I should have phrased that better.  Nothing about the person.  I don't know anyone here personally and none of this should be taken too seriously despite the argumentative nature of an online forum.  It's only a game after all and like you said, it's supposed to be fun.

Quote from Jegpeg >>

The enemy tabaxi rogue had tried to kill the party Wizard, had failed and is now nearly dead and needs to run away from the party. He thinks about disengaging but the wizard has no weapons so decides he is better off using both his action and bonus action to dash to get well away from the party. What he didn't know if the party wizard has warcaster.

"Halt" shouts the Wizard as he casts command, and the rogue fails his saving throw.

What happens next? 

 The Rogue moves away and on it's next turn it doesn't move and takes no actions. 

If during a creature's turn an effect affect it on it's next turn, it will therefore be on a subsequent turn as the current turn is not the next turn.

During the Wizard's turn if it really wished to prevent the Rogue from moving and acting, it should have cast Command  instead of ready it.

Quote from up2ng>>

AEDorsay, I apologize for how I phrased my last post, it came out more harshly than intended.  Plus, the part that I was criticizing, you may not have even meant it that way.

Apology accepted, but it wasn't a stress -- just kinda startling because it's been a really long time since anyone accused me of that, lol.

turns out, I agree -- it set you off, and to me it was a throw away line of precisely that sort, made in a sense of humor that makes fun of such things.

However, we do have pretty strict rules lawyering rules, especially when new players join the group, and all five of the main DMs have the same basic rule, which comes down to "calls during the game stand, changes come after.", so that the flow of the game isn't stopped . And I am without doubt one of the reasons for that -- those old days of open games when anyone could show up?  I would be willing to set aide 20 minutes to debate a ruling (because there were other circumstances that required me to do so to "keep the peace), and so I'm at least as good as the average joe on rules.

I haven't done a petty ass thing like that since 1982, -- and I note that I can be bribed, lol. (this is a long standing joke).

Anyways, back to the topic.  The momentum thing is just a total homebrew.  That's fine, but these discussions are within the context of RAW.  I'm not sure why you keep wanting to compare the situation to a situation that involves a flying creature -- that section does not apply.  The only reason the wording about what happens to flying creatures exists is because there are a lot of other game mechanics which basically cause the flying creature to plummet down to the earth below and take massive falling damage -- this was an explicit failsafe against that -- again, not relevant to non-flying creatures.

It comes back to the question of momentum, which, as I will note in a moment, is Physics -- something the game's rules presume and rely on in the second phrase of that statement.

Quote from AEDorsay>>

• how long is an action?
• How long is a reaction?
• How long is a bonus?

In each of these cases, the answer is "somewhere between instantaneously and 6 seconds" but probably on the lower end of the scale in most cases.  The rules do not define the passage of time to a shorter granularity than a 6 second round and there really is never any reason to even attempt to track such passage of time in this game.  The meta throughout the rules is that in any given combat round, many things are happening within a turn and across many turns of many creatures very quickly and they are happening more or less simultaneously.  However, the structure of the game is turn-based, mostly so that it can actually be played.  As such, certain things within a round will resolve first and will potentially influence or affect other actions that are taken within the same round.  So, for example, a player has their PC attack a goblin and it is killed.  The next player probably won't decide to have their PC attack that same goblin -- they will do something else.  But in terms of theatre-of-the-mind that's more like a ret-con than a cause-and-effect.  Even though the players were originally intending to attack the same goblin, what actually happens in the game world is that the two PCs actually attack two separate enemies -- but more or less at the same time, give or take.

You have been a Very lucky DM to have had to go more granular, so congratulations.  However, the statement you make is false -- indeed, I did just go granular and I frequently have to go granular in order to determine the outcome of certain effects that the ways in which they interact for my games. Is it crunchier? hell yeah. Do I have to do it all the time? NO. But then, as I noted, I have a lot of practice doin it -- I think about this stuff instantly.

That said, I will point out that you evaded the question. "Somewhere between" is awfully wishy washy, not to be offensive, and I think you can do better than handwave it away with "that's the rules". Reminder: the rules are a baseline and a guideline, not a definitive structure. Especially in straight 5e, they have to be applied with a degree of awareness of your table, and I sit at a table with a ton of "special interest" folks and between three and seven other PhDs. 

Ever have an argument about the impact of a dust explosion?  Hell, have you ever seen rules for a dust explosion in any of the books? (I have, but not this edition). What about a fireball in a 10 by 15 room with three open doors? What about a room shaped like a cone at the end of a 20 foot long hallway that has a tiny door at the opposite end? One behind which sits a pissed off Dragon -- whose breath weapon is ten feet shorter than the room?

Physics counts, because many would let that fireball expand to fill the space, and others would not -- who follows the rules there?

The breath weapon would completely fill the room, plus the 20 foot long hallway, but how do people rule on that person at the edge of the hallway?  Will they have time to duck back around the corner while their entire party is fried (had to cross the room to open the door), even though it is a complete surprise situation?

Time counts -- fractions of a round count. Actions that from different party members, with dependencies on each other, count. One downside to playing a long time is that your players know all the rules already and work together really well -- and yeah, that means that knowing how long something takes matters during play and as you pointed out the rules ain't gonna give you guidance for that.

So I ask again, in the hopes you won't wave it away because I am not going to argue with you about what you think -- hell it could all be 1 second for all I care, my point is that you say it doesn't matter, and that tells me you just haven't had a situation arise where it does -- for  the story or the fun or the survival of a character.

Quote from AEDorsay>>

• Where is the rule that says "when something stops your movement, your movement stops"?
• Where in the spell does it say their movement stops as if they have been frozen in place?
• Where is the rule that says when our movement stops it is a complete cessation of momentum?

Ok, now these rules are pretty ironclad.  In many cases, an effect will say something like "movement (or speed) is reduced to 0".  If your speed is 0 you cannot move.  You cannot relocate to another grid square via your own locomotion.  In this particular case it says:  "The target doesn't move and takes no actions".  As one might expect, this means that the target doesn't move and takes no actions.  Things do what they say in this game.  As for when movement stops it is a complete cessation of momentum?  Yes, that's exactly how it works.  Otherwise, there would be some description that mentions some sort of forced movement such as when a creature is shoved or hit with a thunderwave spell or something.  Absent that, wherever a creature is located when its movement stops is where it remains.

Now see, this is where the disagreement is. Physics says that the motion will continue for a moment -- the caster does not gain complete control over the body, the are enchanting the person, so they have control over the mind.  Run your fastest race and then try stopping instantly.

That said, you didn't answer me again, lol. The spell doesn't say they are frozen in place. You have said if it doesn't say it -- well, it doesn't say that. Where are the rules for the other bits? The answer is in momentum as a function of physics. And it has to be - because otherwise, a hold person spell would stop you from falling. Hell, under some rulings, a Command spell would do so. Some stuff the rules presume to be true and part of common knowledge. 

Jack triggers a trap and begins to fall. "Halt!" casts Dilmancer the Wizard, saving jack from 40' plunge to his death. Because, you know, command freezes them in place against the laws of physics. it's magic, after all. And consistency is a hobgoblin of a foolish mind! (and if you don't think that would happen, you haven't played with some of the folks I have, who would take a ruling like that and run with it, all while chuckling evilly at me.)

I will point out that under RAW, things do as the DM says, regardless of the rules, as a rule. Because it seems as if you want the rules to have final say, and they don't -- consistency and the play do. And, as a result, if you ever have some of the situations arise that I have, you will be paralyzed for a bit trying to figure out what the rules say can be done. I know because I was -- don't think I am some sort of super computer, lol.  I got to this point from thousands of sessions so even as I say all of this, I can TOTALLY see your point. But we are also talking about magic -- and there is a context, and so I don't see Command acting as a weaker version of Hold Person. I see it as an enchantment, a "whisper in the mind" a dominance act.

there is nothing wrong with you seeing it differently -- that's just not how I am going to rule it.

I will agree with you that the concept of "directly harmful" is open to interpretation.  I have my opinion about it but it is technically undefined.

in fairness, directly has a lot of wiggle room in it, so I'm cool with both being right ;).  Also, given how much of the nature of language I know, my ability to finesse the hell out of that term (which I did with the whole "from the POV of the rogue) plays into my hands. I could just as easily use the same argument I have used around God's -- all of this is under the eye of powers greater than we, and how does that tabaxi's god feel about it? Are they even paying attention. Some worlds do have very active gods (hello, FR).

One thing I note as well is that when I am playing an NPIC -- no matter who they are, a shopkeeper, an axolotl, a BBEG, a lieutenant, a goblin, a street urchin, a failed assassin -- they are my character at the time. Fairness dictates that i get he same changes as other characters, and if someone placed a PC in the same situation how would I rule is a fair question.

The same way.

Quote from AEDorsay>>

Our biggest disagreement comes down to "does Command, a 1st level spell, also have the ability to act like Hold Person (which is currently a 2nd level spell) and paralyze the target?"

I don't think it does, you do think it does. 

No, not exactly.  I do agree that this is a pretty powerful effect for a 1st level spell.  But there are quite a few differences between this effect and the effect of Hold Person.  

Halt Command:

"The target doesn't move and takes no actions".  Duration:  1 round -- the target follows the Command for one turn and then the effect ends.

Hold Person:

"The target [is] paralyzed for the duration".  Duration:  Up to 1 minute -- the target can attempt another saving throw at the end of each of its turns to end the spell effect.

Paralyzed:  Incapacitated (can't take actions or reactions), can't move, can't speak, auto fails STR and DEX saving throws, attack rolls against the creature have advantage, any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature.

So, on the surface there is a similar spell effect involved.  But Hold Person is quite a bit more powerful.  Whether or not the difference is enough to justify the difference between a 1st and 2nd level spell?  I think so but debating that point is reasonable.

I note that Hold Person was a 3rd level spell until 5th edition.

I will also note that the description is incorrect, giving paralysis the same practical (physics based) effect as petrification. That condition should be described as petrified or a nonmagical equivalent, since paralysis effectively means loss of all voluntary muscle control, which would mean dropping the being prone.  But that is why we have a lot more conditions in our house rules. Because of things like that.

Quote from AEDorsay>>

Look, you are free to think I am the lowest form of scum DM, that I am petty and vindictive and uncaring and all the rest,

No, nothing like that at all.  I made a comment about one particular action and potentially one style of being a DM that I disagree with and I should have phrased that better.  Nothing about the person.  I don't know anyone here personally and none of this should be taken too seriously despite the argumentative nature of an online forum.  It's only a game after all and like you said, it's supposed to be fun.

For only being a game it got me through my time in the military (before it was officially permissible) and it was why I went on to school in my fields and sorta didn't leave for way too long and racked up all my damn letters. Games don't do that. They don't inspire people to lifelong professions and interests. Hell, monopoly inspired my paternal figure to take up real estate as his -- and I learned so much from him that I am not allowed to play it on those nights, lol.

It is supposed to be fun, and I frequently say things like "the story matters" because I don't always make it clear that the story is not something I create: it is the story of the player characters. That is the story that always matters.

If catching the tabaxi with a command spell in the moment in the same grid ("5' grids! ha! They should be 3 foot grids for a better sizing system and more accurate travel!" mutters the pedantic dragon Toni inside me) helps to tell a better story of the player characters, then I would rule that way -- as I pointed out. If it tells a better story for him to escape, then I would rule that way. If it is a neither/nor, then I would rule as I wrote.

because my fun is just as important ;)

I get what you're saying about making fun-based rulings and enhancing the story and all that, but this is a RAW forum where we try to discuss what is written and what the rules actually are.  It's important to know what the rules are as a baseline so that as a DM you know when you are breaking them and why you are breaking them and you can at least try to maintain some logical in-world consistency.

Also, I totally agree with "calls stand, changes come after", that's a great way to do it.

You bring up the question of momentum.  RAW, there is no momentum in d&d 5e.  There also is no earth-like physics in d&d 5e.  Just take a look at the rules for falling and the subsequent optional supplemental Xanathar's rules for falling.  There is nothing even remotely earth-like physics based within those rules.  The rules are intentionally simplified and are not at all aligned with the Laws of Physics.  In many cases, the explanation for this in-game is "because it's magic".  This is just a reality of playing a game like this.  In the case of a very long fall, you can feel free to describe the passage of time as part of the flavor and the story, but mechanically a falling body is not falling with an acceleration of 9.806 m/s^2.  Not even close.

I stand by my statement that a period of time of less than 6 seconds simply does not need to be tracked or worried about in any way in this game.  I'm mostly sure that you won't find any text in any game materials that refers to a smaller amount of time than this.  Events such as actions, reactions, bonus actions and movement generally occur within a 6 second period of time and can be a quick as instantaneous.  There are rules for combat actions such as whose turn it is and which events can occur during these turns and how those events are resolved.  The time that's involved mostly doesn't matter except for story-related descriptions of the events.  To stay in parallel with your phrasing, time of less than 6 seconds does NOT count.  Fractions of a round do NOT count.

As for your fireball scenario, there are specific rules for the fireball spell that are listed right in its spell description.  In particular, it says:  "The fire spreads around corners".  So, yes, within the 20-foot radius of the point of origin the fireball does spread out to fill up that small room.  Not because of physics, but because the rule says that that's what it does.  However, in the case of the dragon breathing fire, it would depend on whether or not the doorway is getting in the way of the shape of its cone.  The fire breath from a dragon does NOT spread around corners.  So, if I was standing behind a two-foot wide stone pillar and the dragon breaths fire in my direction I would have full cover and be unaffected.  Again, not because that does or does not make sense with the physics of it, but because those are the rules.  I guess it's magic fire (even though it's not).

There are also rules for what happens to creatures that are "on the edge" of an AOE.  You can follow the rules or you can homebrew it.  Maybe they get advantage on their save.  Who knows?  But know when you are deviating from the rules and why and what the consequences are.

As for the movement debate we are having:  First, if a creature is in the middle of running their fastest race and their turn ends because they used up all of their speed for the turn, they are now located in a grid square.  Now, 47 other creatures can all gang up and attack that creature while they happen to be in exactly that square as they are racing across the field.  None of us seem to have a problem with suspending belief for that scenario, because without a turn-based structure where creatures are frozen in place in-between their turns, we just wouldn't be able to play.  Next, when it gets to that creature's turn again, in almost all scenarios that creature might do a 180 degree turn (on a dime!) and race as fast as he can in the opposite direction.  We pretty much never say -- oh no, but you were running this way, you'll have to continue using up your movement for another 10 feet in that direction and then spend another 10 feet coming back before you can go that other way.  We are just never doing that.  Third, if instead one of those 47 creatures hit our mad racer with some sort of ability that causes our racer's speed to be reduced to 0, then guess what?  When that creature's turn comes around again they will remain in exactly that square and will be unable to move.  These are just the rules of the game and they are straightforward.

And you are correct, the Halt Command doesn't freeze the creature due to some outside force -- it causes the creature to obey the command and so it freezes itself.  Like in freeze tag.  Freeze!  Hold Person causes Paralysis which has no interaction with falling.  Falling is forced movement due to gravity.  Effects that cause you to be unable to use your movement do not prevent you from "being moved" due to forced movement.  So that's a non-issue.  Same for Jack being saved from falling by the Halt Command.  Jack is unable to use his movement but will still fall.  Obviously.

Anyways, I appreciate the debate.  I'm just not sure why you come to a RAW forum and double down so hard on the creativity that a DM should have to rule this way or that way on any given issue.  In this section of the forum people are just trying to interpret what is written in the rules.  It's ok to mention a homebrew here and there as part of the discussion as long as it doesn't get confused as a suggestion for what the rules are saying.

Quote from up2ng>>

 RAW, there is no momentum in d&d 5e. 

I stand by my statement that a period of time of less than 6 seconds simply does not need to be tracked or worried about in any way in this game.  I'm mostly sure that you won't find any text in any game materials that refers to a smaller amount of time than this.  Events such as actions, reactions, bonus actions and movement generally occur within a 6 second period of time and can be a quick as instantaneous.  There are rules for combat actions such as whose turn it is and which events can occur during these turns and how those events are resolved.  The time that's involved mostly doesn't matter except for story-related descriptions of the events.  To stay in parallel with your phrasing, time of less than 6 seconds does NOT count.  Fractions of a round do NOT count.

Confidence doesn't change the reality an the fact of circumstances that can, have, will, and do arise that necessitate it. Stand by it. I shall chalk it up to less experience.

As for your fireball scenario, there are specific rules for the fireball spell that are listed right in its spell description.  In particular, it says:  "The fire spreads around corners".  So, yes, within the 20-foot radius of the point of origin the fireball does spread out to fill up that small room.  Not because of physics, but because the rule says that that's what it does.  However, in the case of the dragon breathing fire, it would depend on whether or not the doorway is getting in the way of the shape of its cone.  The fire breath from a dragon does NOT spread around corners.  So, if I was standing behind a two-foot wide stone pillar and the dragon breaths fire in my direction I would have full cover and be unaffected.  Again, not because that does or does not make sense with the physics of it, but because those are the rules.  I guess it's magic fire (even though it's not).

I mentioned the fireball very specifically -- because the physics of the game are what it describes -- yet here you are saying it isn't because of physics because you are so caught up in the idea that I meant "Earth-like Physics"" in a game that uses dice to determine if someone likes you or not.

I have to accept some of the blame here -- I thought you all already had this kind of an argument about the differences between D&D Physics and Real World Physics, and understood what physics are and how momentum works and why a fireball will go around a corner but a dragon's breath will not (or, more precisely and to your specific point it can and does go around corners in  a confined space such as I noted, but it is also capable of being blocked, which is not as much of a problem for a fireball).

There are also rules for what happens to creatures that are "on the edge" of an AOE.  You can follow the rules or you can homebrew it.  Maybe they get advantage on their save.  Who knows?  But know when you are deviating from the rules and why and what the consequences are.

Yes, I know. However, I asked you what they were, not for you to toss "oh they are there" back in my face, because the very specific question about it I asked has an impact on the overall discussion.

First, if a creature is in the middle of running their fastest race and their turn ends because they used up all of their speed for the turn, they are now located in a grid square. 

Now, 47 other creatures can all gang up and attack that creature while they happen to be in exactly that square as they are racing across the field. 

None of us seem to have a problem with suspending belief for that scenario, because without a turn-based structure where creatures are frozen in place in-between their turns, we just wouldn't be able to play.  Next, when it gets to that creature's turn again, in almost all scenarios that creature might do a 180 degree turn (on a dime!) and race as fast as he can in the opposite direction.  We pretty much never say -- oh no, but you were running this way, you'll have to continue using up your movement for another 10 feet in that direction and then spend another 10 feet coming back before you can go that other way.  We are just never doing that. 

Third, if instead one of those 47 creatures hit our mad racer with some sort of ability that causes our racer's speed to be reduced to 0, then guess what?  When that creature's turn comes around again they will remain in exactly that square and will be unable to move.  These are just the rules of the game and they are straightforward.

Anyways, I appreciate the debate.  I'm just not sure why you come to a RAW forum and double down so hard on the creativity that a DM should have to rule this way or that way on any given issue.  In this section of the forum people are just trying to interpret what is written in the rules.  It's ok to mention a homebrew here and there as part of the discussion as long as it doesn't get confused as a suggestion for what the rules are saying.

So, first off, this was my initial response:

I would rule the tabaxi gets about 20 feet away before coming to a stop unless the particular situation gets more interesting if he escapes.

Nothing in that steps outside of RAW. Nothing. Our entire argument is based on my breaking it down because you felt that 20 feet was not right, but above I just pointed out how it is completely reasonable and that I could even do 30 feet, because it is instantaneous. Or I can rule that it took a moment to cast while he was running and he got a little bit away before it kicked in.

IN all cases, Still RAW. -- just different interpretations, because there is no and never will be a single interpretation. Even WotC can't do that (except possibly with Adventurer's League).

Now that means that I came in to speak to RAW. To the point that I looked up the relevant elements before I responded. Now, what we have been speaking to within our arguments is mechanics -- which are not rules, butthe ways that rules and systems (collectively) operate to create the space for the game. THe Physics I mentioned previously are part of game mechanics. The breakdown in seconds are part of game mechanics. 

My observation about Paralysis, and, really a huge amount of what I speak to has been about game mechanics.

That's why I am here. In short, I spend a lot of time with game mechanics. With TTRPG engineering, even. You can call it the Rules of the Rules, or the Unwritten rules, or the Infrastructure of the Gaming Environment (I like that one, since I am an infrastructure nut) -- whatever, it is also what this area of the forums is about.

Quote from Jegpeg >>

The enemy tabaxi rogue had tried to kill the party Wizard, had failed and is now nearly dead and needs to run away from the party. He thinks about disengaging but the wizard has no weapons so decides he is better off using both his action and bonus action to dash to get well away from the party. What he didn't know if the party wizard has warcaster.

"Halt" shouts the Wizard as he casts command, and the rogue fails his saving throw.

What happens next?

RAW the Rogue must "follow the command on its next turn" so by my understanding it can run 180 ft away (more if he was subject too haste/ longstrider or had drunk a potion of speed etc) which will probably enable him to take cover and be safe from the party when he freezes on his next turn. (After which be can double his movement speed again.

Is this correct? It is very counter intuitive.  The alternative interpretation that it applies on the same turn gets open to interpretation if the target has already used its action. It would also mean a spell like guiding bolt would have the glow end before any allies have had a chance t oattack (unless they also had a reaction attack on the enemies turn) 

 

Things can get weird when you use War Caster to turn action spells into reaction spells

I'd rule that the rogue doesn't move at all -- that "next" turn now means the current turn -- simply because there is already a feat in the game that allows a melee character to stop someone fleeing (Sentinel), so it's only fair for a caster to be able to do the same thing

On the other hand, I also might politely suggest the wizard just cast hold person or hideous laughter instead of command if the goal is to stop the rogue from getting away, and avoid the necessity of making a rules call in the first place

Quote from AntonSirius >>

On the other hand, I also might politely suggest the wizard just cast hold person or hideous laughter instead of command if the goal is to stop the rogue from getting away, and avoid the necessity of making a rules call in the first place

 Sorry I made an error in my original post as command is not on the Wizard spell list. I should have said they were a Cleric or paladin (or Fiend Warlock).

Unfortunately the rules of D&D are that you do not know every spell, or even every spell on your class list,  a cleric might not have hold person prepared, (they might not even have access to 2nd level spells), hold person is a great spell when you encounter humanoids but if you do not know what you will be up against at the start of the day command is able to be used in a lot more circumstances. Without multclass a cleric or paladin will not have access to hideous laughter.

If I was DMing in this situation I would go in the caster's favor in such circumstances. As I originally wrote it I would say the target has to obey on the current turn if they had used their action to attack and then tried to run I would give the player the choice which turn it applies to, guiding bolt would glow until the end of the next turn. I would know however that this is homebrew.

Regardiing the idea of 20 foort of movement is necessary as momentum means movement can not just stop dead does this also apply to sentinal, if so the feat would become EXTREMELY weak?

A better command  to use when a creature provoking an Opportunity Attack upon moving away would have been Drop as it make the the target drop whatever it is holding and then ends its turn, thus effectively cutting its retreat.

Quote from Jegpeg >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

On the other hand, I also might politely suggest the wizard just cast hold person or hideous laughter instead of command if the goal is to stop the rogue from getting away, and avoid the necessity of making a rules call in the first place

 Sorry I made an error in my original post as command is not on the Wizard spell list. I should have said they were a Cleric or paladin (or Fiend Warlock).

Or a wizard with Magic Initiate (Cleric). There are too many ways to circumvent those class restrictions on spells to worry about it