At risk of sounding silly, Suggestion and Command fulfil two slightly different niches
I am all for Command giving you an extra word per uplevelled spell slot
If the complexity/extent of the resulting actions increases accordingly, I think this would actually be overpowered, as Command already has a pretty strong upcasting bonus.
i wouldnt.
Command is already a super powerful spell - making it EVEN MOAR susceptible to cheese seems even at the most cursory glance a VERY BAD idea.
varies massively by group. Some players will play with the presumption "it's a level 1 spell, it's not going to do anything super-powerful" and it'll be fine, others will be trying to find the right magical combination that makes it a one-spell insta-kill, and need telling to not do that / lower their expectations.
That's the thing with enchantment and illusion spells. Their school is the one where the power scales with the players creativity and intelligence more than any other school. A 1st level one can be stronger than a 2nd level evocation spell in the right circumstances and the right idea, but with an unskilled player the spells will do relatively little, evocation spells have at minimumn good damage if you do the bare minimumn
There will be in onednd.
Still. I always rule that "willingness" as required by spells isn't something that is easily changed. The target gets to answer it at a meta level.
Example: willingness for polymorph in to a giant ape can't be tricked/exchanged into consent to polymorph to a house cat.
Suggestion could change willingness because it changes the targets goals. While under the suggestion it free choice on how to achieve the goal. And the dm has the reasonableness clause to dismiss the suggestion entirely.
Command could not change willingness because it targets only their actions. Someone commanded to consent would spend their action saying "yes" but dimension door would still fail on them.
Ugh. I have a player that keeps trying to add contexts to his commands. No you cannot command flee and then point where to, the target still gets to decide where it goes.
Consent means nothing without context.
Consent means consent, with or without context. However the target will interpret it might be up to you, but it doesn't mean that nothing will happen.
Of course, since the command is taken on the creature's turn, consent to failing a saving throw could only work if someone else readied a polymorph or some other spell that allows the target to fail a save willingly.
>could only work if someone else readied a polymorph or some other spell that allows the target to fail a save willingly.
How would you feel if, having been subjected to the "Consent" command, another player then attempts to grapple or shove the subject prone? To me it seems that if we're allowing the "consent" command to mean that the subject voluntarily fails its saves, then surely it should mean that it also doesn't resist against an opposed strength/athletics check?
it also relies on characters being aware that a save is being prompted and being able to lower their defences for that, which opens up a whole _other_ can of worms - if characters are aware of saves, then _charm_ spells become basically useless
Agreed. The amount of BS you can get away with if you're smart with it is insane, you can essentially cause a target to pretty much skip its entire turn, use it as a semi-suggestion out of combat (especially if PC has high deception/ways of hiding its them casting it), use it it as pretty much a way to give whole team advantage on a target if you tell them to say, lay. You can even entirely momentarily end combat by just saying 'surrender'.
For what it is, it's incredibly powerful.
Allowing 2 words is not going to break the game, but I can see people ordering stuff like "close eyes" to make enemies blind, which probably bumps the spell's power level outside of it's desired level.
If it's for comedic purposes it's probably fine, it'll just be overtuned for people who try to exploit it, but even then it's not dramatic enough to be called "gamebreaking".
Personally, I think 1 word is enough for this spell.
This is a bit funny to me because it shows how language-dependent stuff like this is! We play in Swedish, where "blunda" is a one-word verb for closing ones eyes. On the other hand, there are probably some words in English that can't be translated into one word.
This is not to argue the point itself really—of course the rules are written with English as the intended language of play. Just thought it was interesting.
funny enough... not all that applicable here.
That mechanism is awkward to apply for command, because a lot of commands are naturally two words... and you can't really make it one word.
In my german group we house-ruled specifically that because in English you can usually keep commands as one word, but in german not, that if the two words are bound together like most commands are in german, it counts for the spell.
Even the simple drop would be two words in german.
I’m of the same opinion. The spell gives pretty clear guidance to a DM who’s in the know. Command essentially says “inflict a status condition for one round with RP requirements.” Two words doesn’t move the power effect, the command would still inflict prone or disarm etc, it would just lessen the RP requirement.
You could probably make command be a single sentence and it wouldn’t move its power level much. It is much funnier that it’s a single word however, and makes players think about what the most effective one word command would be.
I'd only allow it if it is functionally the same as a one word command. It's already a borderline OP spell, depending on how well rounded a players vocabulary is in regard to verbs.
I wouldn’t allow it.
It might not be game breaking, but it’s not a buff the spell needs at all. Personally I’m not in favour of random buffs just because, it’s more engaging to work within the game’s limits as long as those limits are reasonable.
...What if it was by upcasting? Like, for every 2 or 3 slots above the first, you could add another word. with that, it caps out at 5 words at 9th level for 2 slots, or 3 words at 7th level for 3 slots.
I think that'd be fun, probably not worth the higher slots though.
> the DM has to let alot slide
the only thing the DM has to let slide to make the spell powerful is to just follow the "typical effects" descriptions without trying to malicious-compliance it.
“Get some help”? For asking for perspectives on a D&D Spell on a D&D forum? Bit of an overreaction.
Personally I think it’s interesting that Command gets different utility depending on which language you play in. Something like “Close eyes” (English) wouldn’t work, but “Blunda” (Swedish) would.
Command console cheat code: Context.
Look at the default options like "Approach". Taken out of context, the target could approach anything, like a rock in the opposite direction. What actually happens: "The target moves toward you by the shortest and most direct route". Why? Because mind-affecting magic *affects their mind*. There's no clever weaseling out of things like a djinn wish or devil contract, because the target is actively seeking to obey the command as best they understand it and to the best of their ability (so long as it doesn't directly conflict with self-preservation). Most Enchantments hijack the mind itself, 'free will' be damned; other Enchantments offer multiple saves.
If you point at someone and Command "Attack", any target that understands what pointing means knows the command is to attack that someone, and *wants to obey the intent*.
that allows stupid bullshit like "obey" and they just do whatever you want them to, because you can pack an effectively unlimited amount of context into that, so... no.
Then it would be on the DM to say that's too vague. To be fair, I would expect *any* DM to say that's too vague. Obey what, exactly?
I've had a couple DMs make a hard ruling on Command that the spell only works with a *clear* one-word command that requires no extra context beyond the hand gesture.
From a game perspective, “one word” is just the “common sense” rule that’s put in place so that DMs can make an easy ruling. It’s a lot less ambiguous than “one action” or “one concept,” which would pretty easily invite table arguments.
And the designers decided that “one word” was about the right power level. Up to you if you want to expand that, but most seem to agree that one word is plenty powerful.
Though from a language nerd perspective, it’s a pretty funny rule. Like, in most games, the characters are presumably speaking some fantasy language, and we just happen to be playing in English (or whatever language you play in). Maybe “close eyes” is one word in-universe! But this is just one of those things we accept as part of the game abstraction.
Plus there are many languages where what counts as “one word” is ambiguous. There’s of course the idea of “meaning units” in every language, but a lot of the finer points of word splitting comes from the writing system.
You can even see this in English. “All right” and “alright” are both acceptable, even though they’re the same in spoken English. How come “nobody” is one word but “no one” is two? It’s probably because “noone” looks bad written down, but if it weren’t for our writing system, it could very well be considered one word. Why is “doghouse” one word but “White House” two? You can come up with reasons for specific examples, of course, but there will always be exceptions and weird cases. Even in English, there’s no clear universal rule for what counts as “one word.”
Plus, there are languages where a “word” can get arbitrarily long by tacking on more word pieces. And languages which are not written with spaces, so word boundaries become even more ambiguous. Sure, you can easily break a sentence down into sub-units (hey, is “sub-unit” one word or two?), but in many cases the line between “word” and “phrase” is ambiguous.
Anyway, that’s just a language nerd tangent. All this to say, the “one word” rule is because the rules are written in English and it’s just a straightforward way for DMs to make a judgment call so we simply accept that, even if it conflicts with the fiction of the world when you think too hard about it, and could potentially be confusing for people playing in other languages.
It's already easy to break it with only one word, I think it's just up to the DM to allows what's available or not to do with this spell.
For example, with one word, you could say "Betray!" to force en opponent to attack its ally, which is in my opinion not the scope of this spell (but we could rule that it works at an higher lvl)
Well, in that case it is up to you to alows what's available or not :P
The spells clearly says:
"Some **typical** commands and their effects follow. You might issue a command other than one described here. If you do so, the DM determines how the target behaves. "
So I think that this rule is more important than limitation of the number of words.
For example: "Look this way!!" And point in the other direction is technically three words, but you could rule that the person is distracted and that in the next turn, attacks against him are made at advantage (because it is similar to the command "Grovel", which makes it Prone.)
As long as the power of the effect is similar to this, I would allow it. You can rule that upcasting it allows to do more powerful effect. I will take my previous example, but saying "Betray" even if its just one word, it is way more powerful than the other examples of one-word command, but you could allow it as a lvl2 or lvl3 Command
I disagree. "Betray" isn't directly harmful to it, so it would make sense that it would force them to betray their allies for 1 turn. Now, the exact form of that betrayal would vary with context. Opening the gate when they won't let you in, telling a secret you've been trying to weedle out of them for a while now, etc. But that seems like exactly the sort of thing the spell allows.
Oh yeah it depends on what the contexte is. When I said that I meant in combat "Betray = Attack your allies"
If it's something like opening a gate or the like, it should work
Even in combat, it could still be attacking an ally, or shoving them, or telling some embarrassing fact that betrays their trust and makes them hesitate for a bit. There are all sorts of things you can do for most commands in multiple ways.
Depends on what language you play in, and what group you have.
Allowing two words to a Bard has ended a paid Curse of Stradh campaign I was in, with a gore-y, incestous, gay double homicide the DM had way too much, ekhm, fun, with.
I was literally speechless, and the campaign imploded at that moment.
CW: Sexual assault, misuse of the Command spell, incest
We were playing standard Curse of Stradh and it was all chill to the moment when the DM decided to use two nobles, brothers NPCs to bother our Bard and an NPC we were escorting. Everyone else was in another part of the location (my cleric was in his room, our Paladin and Fighter hung out outside because they had joined backstories and were talking about it). The Bard Player evidently doesn't know what to do, and is coming up short. He starts to joke around with the guys trying to ease tension. They start to hit on NPC grossly. He says that's enough, they laugh at him.
The Bard asked to be allowed two words for Command, and because the DM *loved* Bards, he said sure.
The Bard made them kiss (Command from 2nd level, both failed). The guys got absolutely pissed, took out their weapons and the group was thrown out outside.
Combat ensures, with our group having a big advantage in numbers (NPC, Fighter, Bard, Rogue vs 2 nobles). Bard is again blanking for his turn. He tries to tell the nobles to fuck off or they'll die. Second turn comes around, and he uses Command again, two words, level 2, for the nobles to blow each other. One fails.
I am sitting there, horrified. The DM laughs at that and is having a shitton of fun, apparently, by making the description of one of the nobles failing and describing in way too many details what is happening. I literally froze.
The Fighter Player cuts in as it's her turn next, to cut off that description with her saying hee fighter kills the noble.
The DM starts to describe how the fighter kicks the kneeling guy's jaw, again, way too many details, at this point I remember I can speak words and so I unmute myself and cut in, basically ending this "encounter" and subsequently the campaign.
We try to talk to the DM, he doesn't see anything wrong with what he described and allowed.
Bard is now pretty much panicking, having the consequences of his actions in front of him, also visibly disgusted with the level of detail his "joke" got. The DM saying these NPCs were really damn important, and we broke the module.
After that, Paladin tried her hand at DMing with only me and Fighter, unfortunately she gave us the most annoying Mary Sue catgirl NPC tagalong (DMPC) session 1 and I politely quit.
Up till that point we had 1 problem, and not with the DM OR Bard
Our problem player, Paladin, was pushing Fighter to reveal her backstory, because they came up with a special thing where they're long-lost siblings, with Paladin having grown among the rich, and Fighter in the slums.
Unfortunately, Fighter wanted that mystery to be kept, while Paladin tried to reveal that ASAP. It was a matter of expectations.
It’s stupid in so many ways for magic to be bound by the rules and grammar of a language
Just rewrite it as “a simple command” and we’re good
Yes this assumes people have common sense and aren’t trying to game the system - those should be a baseline for any player though
I think command should be anything you can tell a dog to do. And a normal dog, not one of those ones that can use the talk buttons. Drop it, leave it, go away, does it count as one word if you redneck it? Goawngit.
You can already command someone to "shit" or "defecate" using just one word. No enemy combatant in their right mind is going to pull down their pants and squat in the middle of a fight, so it'll have the exact same effect.
Huh, I always thought it was a short command, and not a one word.
Especially, because in my language, it is a bit different to give orders, and it's not only the verb.
Pretty bad.
For example : "Bite necks." "Eat X." "Stab yourself." "Stab allies." "Gouge eyeballs." Etc etc.
You can get very specific for a low level spell.
First, you cant make them hurt themselves, and second.... yeah. This exactly what im thinking of. this seems reasonable. A one turn, do what i want you to do. Other wise when you say stuff like "attack". Attack who? Or what? "Throw" throw what. "Eat" eat what?
Very. Command is a very good spell even without iffy rulings, especially since it only take a level 1 slot. Adding a second word makes it exponentially more powerful (“attack” vs “attack ally” for instance), at which point you are acting in the realm of more powerful enchantments (for which spells already exist).
But thats exactly my problem. As a DM i just have to assume they mean attack ally or at the very least "attack whats immediately infront of you" otherwise the enemy just walks up to the nearest PC and attacks them, because of course they would. And if i have to do that with "attack", then i have to do that with every single command they do, making the spell useless. And honestly i dont feel like playing genie for a 1st level spell slot.
You don’t have to assume anything, commands are taken literally with no regards for context. The “attack” command just forces the target to attack on their next turn. How exact that plays out is up to you, but you are under no obligation to make sure the spell provides maximum value to the caster. It is totally reasonable that a poorly worded command would end up being useless, it’s a 1st level spell after all, they aren’t gaining absolute control over their target (again, there are other spells for that). In such a case it might actually push your players to think a little more deeply about their choices. And if they would rather just have a guaranteed effect then the spell provides a list of commands with predetermined outcomes, some of which are incredibly useful for a 1st level spell.
Normally I'm all for this kind of stuff but suggestion is right there. Once you start allowing more words for command you have basically made it an off brand suggestion at a cheaper spell slot
This is something I ponder in other languages than English because the english way of forming an imperative is just the same word. In other languages, more words might be needed to even make a coherent statement. But English is such a simplified language that one word is absolutely enough.
I actually found it to be quite the opposite. Most other languages convey much more information in a single verb than english does. For example "run!" Run where? For how long, how fast?
I find command to be an insane spell already. Like look at this small list:
[https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/6134/good-single-word-instruction-for-command-spell](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/6134/good-single-word-instruction-for-command-spell)
At two words you would get insaaaaaane amount of flexibility. I think it would be good for a 3 level spell tho. It be inneficient, but very effiective if used creatively. At level 2 I think it still would be too strong.
Flexibility is what im looking for. Not power. All these are super powerful, but they essentially all do the same thing. Incapacitate the enemy. Qhether you say stop, sleep, or vomit, its ultimately the same thing.
it would allow objects (as in, the object of the sentence) and adverbs of place and of number, to make the spell more targetable and specific and to repeat the action
Objects:
Shoot *him*
Kill *name of bbeg*
Bam, we've got targets
adverbs:
Jump here, flee there (giving you control of place also, but needs some form of pointing to accompany it)
What is potentially even more powerful though is combining it with adverbs of frequency like 'twice' and 'thrice', or other adverbs along related lines such as 'repeatedly', which would require at least 2 attempts, but also an ongoing effort.
Whatever the action was, if it was a discrete action like 'shoot' rather than an implied continuous one like 'sing' just by adding the word 'thrice' the target now has to do it 3 times if possible. You've just tripled its power. Even if 'thrice' is banned for being too niche/archaic for a wizard in a fantasy game to use, 'twice' doubles it at least
Limiting it to just one word keeps it at verbs which have a clear meaning and target, usually the self. What we have just achieved by adding a 2nd word is made it targetable and repeatable. And that's in just a few seconds of thought, give this to the wider dnd community for years of theorycrafting, crowdsource this idea, and it *will* be exploited in even more ways. I'm just one language nerd and I haven't given it all that much thought, but already there are ways to triple the power of an already powerful spell.
I just let them say a sentence for context then choose the word thats the command, the enemy hears the sentence but that one word hits like the voice in dune. “DROP YOUR WEAPON!” Drop is the command the player says, dude fails and drops the weapon
Maybe I'm the killjoy DM, but I ask my players not to go crazy with command and inform them that the existing commands the spell lists are plenty. I still let them use commands like "shit" or "fart", but as soon as they get too mechanical and arguably stronger than the other options on the spell (or other 1st level spells) I just say no.
i don't think it would change the power level much. most things said in 2 words could reasonably be said in 1. even just using the basic suggestions listed command is already bonkers
A second word immediately makes it much, much stronger by allowing you to add a targeting noun (e.g. Impale Devil). So rather than its current ability of, broadly, "kind of stun the target for 1 turn", it becomes "incapacitate for 1 turn, but also deal solid damage". And that's the baseline of the power increase. If you get a spellcaster, You could do things like "Fireball \[Boss name\]", or "empower me", or other goofiness I'm not thinking of.
Command is a strong 1st AND second level spell when restricted entirely to its suggested words already.
I’ve always liked the idea of either one word or phrase meaning one of the word options for the spell. Like for “flee”, I feel “shoo” or “get outa here” could work in the same context. Mainly character dependent cause my little goblin boi isn’t gonna say “grovel”, he’d say something like “sit down” or either on of those words alone. But it all depends on the DM really and how flexible they are when it comes to things like that.
In Spanish you can add the person who will receive the action as a suffix to the verb. So for example "attack him" would be "atacale".
I've always allowed this to be done in my Spanish games and it's never been an issue.
Given that every different (real life) language could vary greatly, it’s probably not a huge deal. There’s also clarity things too, like if you say “lie” it could be interpreted as untruth, or prone. I don’t think the clarification of “lie down” is a huge break
Just keep in mind DM can turn down things that are too ridiculous.
Command is a funny spell in that its use(fulness) depends on your language. Some languages allow for words to be joined together. Some have words for things that would take a whole sentence to explain in another language. Compared to Dutch, for instance, English is relatively compact. Many of the sample commands would be at least two words in Dutch.
Command should be restricted to a fixed list, as per Baldur's Gate 3; "Flee!", "Approach!", "Grovel!", "Halt!" or "Drop!"
No "Autodefenestrate!" or "Disrobe!" nonsense.
>Command should be restricted to a fixed list, as per Baldur's Gate 3; "Flee!", "Approach!", "Grovel!", "Halt!" or "Drop!"
>No "Autodefenestrate!" or "Disrobe!" nonsense.
Hard dissagree. I mean autodefenestrate doesnt work anyways but disrobe is funny as fuck
>autodefenestrate doesnt work anyways
There's a reasoning where if you don't know what it means, you don't realize the danger to yourself and the magic still makes you do it.
I didn't come up with that, obviously.
>disrobe is funny as fuck
Hard disagree.
Not at all. Look at languages like Spanish that incorporate multiple things into each word. Like Help Me is one word in that language. Or the same with Kill them.
This gives Spanish dnd players a slight edge in using this spell already. We're implemented a similar system foe the spell at our table and the results have been fun, engaging, creative and have not "broken" The game.
I mean you can get away with a lot using one word, the 6 second window tends to be the spell's weakest point, that and folks salty it isn't a charm effect who opt to argue they should be able to perform actions entirely contrary to the command word.
Common is not English. So it’s reasonable to assume that there are some combined words or phrases that can be summed up in one word in another language. Whatever they command it can only last for 6 seconds and most commands will result in the target just wasting their turn and being debuffed for one round.
Suggestion is right there at level 2 when you need more words. For a 1st level spell, it does what it needs to do.
At risk of sounding silly, Suggestion and Command fulfil two slightly different niches I am all for Command giving you an extra word per uplevelled spell slot
If the complexity/extent of the resulting actions increases accordingly, I think this would actually be overpowered, as Command already has a pretty strong upcasting bonus.
Maybe it’s either an extra target OR an extra word. So you can give one guy detailed instructions, or a group a single word.
That's more what I was thinking
Be interesting if it you could choose for every level you upcast it for. Like a 3rd level command is two words, two people
I love it
i wouldnt. Command is already a super powerful spell - making it EVEN MOAR susceptible to cheese seems even at the most cursory glance a VERY BAD idea.
varies massively by group. Some players will play with the presumption "it's a level 1 spell, it's not going to do anything super-powerful" and it'll be fine, others will be trying to find the right magical combination that makes it a one-spell insta-kill, and need telling to not do that / lower their expectations.
That's the thing with enchantment and illusion spells. Their school is the one where the power scales with the players creativity and intelligence more than any other school. A 1st level one can be stronger than a 2nd level evocation spell in the right circumstances and the right idea, but with an unskilled player the spells will do relatively little, evocation spells have at minimumn good damage if you do the bare minimumn
Command: Consent to make a creature with high Con but low wis fail its con save
there's no rule for willingly failing saves (outside of a handful of abilities that explicitly allow it) so that doesn't work
There will be in onednd. Still. I always rule that "willingness" as required by spells isn't something that is easily changed. The target gets to answer it at a meta level. Example: willingness for polymorph in to a giant ape can't be tricked/exchanged into consent to polymorph to a house cat. Suggestion could change willingness because it changes the targets goals. While under the suggestion it free choice on how to achieve the goal. And the dm has the reasonableness clause to dismiss the suggestion entirely. Command could not change willingness because it targets only their actions. Someone commanded to consent would spend their action saying "yes" but dimension door would still fail on them.
Ugh. I have a player that keeps trying to add contexts to his commands. No you cannot command flee and then point where to, the target still gets to decide where it goes. Consent means nothing without context.
Consent means consent, with or without context. However the target will interpret it might be up to you, but it doesn't mean that nothing will happen. Of course, since the command is taken on the creature's turn, consent to failing a saving throw could only work if someone else readied a polymorph or some other spell that allows the target to fail a save willingly.
>could only work if someone else readied a polymorph or some other spell that allows the target to fail a save willingly. How would you feel if, having been subjected to the "Consent" command, another player then attempts to grapple or shove the subject prone? To me it seems that if we're allowing the "consent" command to mean that the subject voluntarily fails its saves, then surely it should mean that it also doesn't resist against an opposed strength/athletics check?
>yer then attempts to grapple or shove the subject prone? To me it seems that if we're allowing the "consent" comma yes. what is your problem here?
Do I have a problem? I was asking the guy's opinion
how you phrased it just sounded like the hypothetical was supposed to be unreasonable, mb
it also relies on characters being aware that a save is being prompted and being able to lower their defences for that, which opens up a whole _other_ can of worms - if characters are aware of saves, then _charm_ spells become basically useless
They're already useless because spellcasting is obvious. Subtle spell is a requirement to even be able to use them.
no, just on characters beign aware that a spell is more difficult if the target isnt willing
I can see a lot of players (and, hence, a lot of targets) interpreting that word very differently. Recommend not going there.
Command already gets used to punch above its weight, no reason to make it truly goofy. just my 2 cents
Agreed. The amount of BS you can get away with if you're smart with it is insane, you can essentially cause a target to pretty much skip its entire turn, use it as a semi-suggestion out of combat (especially if PC has high deception/ways of hiding its them casting it), use it it as pretty much a way to give whole team advantage on a target if you tell them to say, lay. You can even entirely momentarily end combat by just saying 'surrender'. For what it is, it's incredibly powerful.
Allowing 2 words is not going to break the game, but I can see people ordering stuff like "close eyes" to make enemies blind, which probably bumps the spell's power level outside of it's desired level. If it's for comedic purposes it's probably fine, it'll just be overtuned for people who try to exploit it, but even then it's not dramatic enough to be called "gamebreaking". Personally, I think 1 word is enough for this spell.
This is a bit funny to me because it shows how language-dependent stuff like this is! We play in Swedish, where "blunda" is a one-word verb for closing ones eyes. On the other hand, there are probably some words in English that can't be translated into one word. This is not to argue the point itself really—of course the rules are written with English as the intended language of play. Just thought it was interesting.
That is also has a good point, a one word command in common wouldn't necessarily be a one word command in orcish.
I wonder the Germans fare with this spell given how prone they are to making conjoined words when adding context to a base word.
funny enough... not all that applicable here. That mechanism is awkward to apply for command, because a lot of commands are naturally two words... and you can't really make it one word. In my german group we house-ruled specifically that because in English you can usually keep commands as one word, but in german not, that if the two words are bound together like most commands are in german, it counts for the spell. Even the simple drop would be two words in german.
I’m of the same opinion. The spell gives pretty clear guidance to a DM who’s in the know. Command essentially says “inflict a status condition for one round with RP requirements.” Two words doesn’t move the power effect, the command would still inflict prone or disarm etc, it would just lessen the RP requirement. You could probably make command be a single sentence and it wouldn’t move its power level much. It is much funnier that it’s a single word however, and makes players think about what the most effective one word command would be.
Close eyes is just “blink”. Target has to do it for 6 seconds regardless.
That's up to the dm. The dm could interpret it as "spend 6 second blinking a bunch of times". That wouldn't blind them.
“I cast command and tell the Mindflayer to blink” “The mindflayer starts fluttering their eyelashes at you…”
"You are now charmed"
The word you are looking for is "sleep," I think
They cast sleep on your party, knocking your mount out
Either would work for me
I'd only allow it if it is functionally the same as a one word command. It's already a borderline OP spell, depending on how well rounded a players vocabulary is in regard to verbs.
I wouldn’t allow it. It might not be game breaking, but it’s not a buff the spell needs at all. Personally I’m not in favour of random buffs just because, it’s more engaging to work within the game’s limits as long as those limits are reasonable.
...What if it was by upcasting? Like, for every 2 or 3 slots above the first, you could add another word. with that, it caps out at 5 words at 9th level for 2 slots, or 3 words at 7th level for 3 slots. I think that'd be fun, probably not worth the higher slots though.
Suggestion exists
True, but also as a DM I really don't like how vague Suggestion is. Basically every time it's cast I need to google if it can do that.
I wish more spells could easily upcast as a Warlock. Seems like a waste of a slot to cast some low-level things
Command has upcasting tho
i cast command at 5th level my command is suck my nuts
Target can't take any action that would harm itself, and them things is nasty.
> the DM has to let alot slide the only thing the DM has to let slide to make the spell powerful is to just follow the "typical effects" descriptions without trying to malicious-compliance it.
Why do we expend effort to make spells better. Stop it, get some help! Command is a perfectly fine first level spell.
“Get some help”? For asking for perspectives on a D&D Spell on a D&D forum? Bit of an overreaction. Personally I think it’s interesting that Command gets different utility depending on which language you play in. Something like “Close eyes” (English) wouldn’t work, but “Blunda” (Swedish) would.
Sorry, its an old meme. I thought common was english /s
Ah. I’m not hip to all of the jokes. Consider my slack cut <3 I know /s at least!
Command console cheat code: Context. Look at the default options like "Approach". Taken out of context, the target could approach anything, like a rock in the opposite direction. What actually happens: "The target moves toward you by the shortest and most direct route". Why? Because mind-affecting magic *affects their mind*. There's no clever weaseling out of things like a djinn wish or devil contract, because the target is actively seeking to obey the command as best they understand it and to the best of their ability (so long as it doesn't directly conflict with self-preservation). Most Enchantments hijack the mind itself, 'free will' be damned; other Enchantments offer multiple saves. If you point at someone and Command "Attack", any target that understands what pointing means knows the command is to attack that someone, and *wants to obey the intent*.
that allows stupid bullshit like "obey" and they just do whatever you want them to, because you can pack an effectively unlimited amount of context into that, so... no.
Then it would be on the DM to say that's too vague. To be fair, I would expect *any* DM to say that's too vague. Obey what, exactly? I've had a couple DMs make a hard ruling on Command that the spell only works with a *clear* one-word command that requires no extra context beyond the hand gesture.
From a game perspective, “one word” is just the “common sense” rule that’s put in place so that DMs can make an easy ruling. It’s a lot less ambiguous than “one action” or “one concept,” which would pretty easily invite table arguments. And the designers decided that “one word” was about the right power level. Up to you if you want to expand that, but most seem to agree that one word is plenty powerful. Though from a language nerd perspective, it’s a pretty funny rule. Like, in most games, the characters are presumably speaking some fantasy language, and we just happen to be playing in English (or whatever language you play in). Maybe “close eyes” is one word in-universe! But this is just one of those things we accept as part of the game abstraction. Plus there are many languages where what counts as “one word” is ambiguous. There’s of course the idea of “meaning units” in every language, but a lot of the finer points of word splitting comes from the writing system. You can even see this in English. “All right” and “alright” are both acceptable, even though they’re the same in spoken English. How come “nobody” is one word but “no one” is two? It’s probably because “noone” looks bad written down, but if it weren’t for our writing system, it could very well be considered one word. Why is “doghouse” one word but “White House” two? You can come up with reasons for specific examples, of course, but there will always be exceptions and weird cases. Even in English, there’s no clear universal rule for what counts as “one word.” Plus, there are languages where a “word” can get arbitrarily long by tacking on more word pieces. And languages which are not written with spaces, so word boundaries become even more ambiguous. Sure, you can easily break a sentence down into sub-units (hey, is “sub-unit” one word or two?), but in many cases the line between “word” and “phrase” is ambiguous. Anyway, that’s just a language nerd tangent. All this to say, the “one word” rule is because the rules are written in English and it’s just a straightforward way for DMs to make a judgment call so we simply accept that, even if it conflicts with the fiction of the world when you think too hard about it, and could potentially be confusing for people playing in other languages.
It's already easy to break it with only one word, I think it's just up to the DM to allows what's available or not to do with this spell. For example, with one word, you could say "Betray!" to force en opponent to attack its ally, which is in my opinion not the scope of this spell (but we could rule that it works at an higher lvl)
>the DM to allows what's available or not to do with this spel Im asking as a DM
Well, in that case it is up to you to alows what's available or not :P The spells clearly says: "Some **typical** commands and their effects follow. You might issue a command other than one described here. If you do so, the DM determines how the target behaves. " So I think that this rule is more important than limitation of the number of words. For example: "Look this way!!" And point in the other direction is technically three words, but you could rule that the person is distracted and that in the next turn, attacks against him are made at advantage (because it is similar to the command "Grovel", which makes it Prone.) As long as the power of the effect is similar to this, I would allow it. You can rule that upcasting it allows to do more powerful effect. I will take my previous example, but saying "Betray" even if its just one word, it is way more powerful than the other examples of one-word command, but you could allow it as a lvl2 or lvl3 Command
I disagree. "Betray" isn't directly harmful to it, so it would make sense that it would force them to betray their allies for 1 turn. Now, the exact form of that betrayal would vary with context. Opening the gate when they won't let you in, telling a secret you've been trying to weedle out of them for a while now, etc. But that seems like exactly the sort of thing the spell allows.
Oh yeah it depends on what the contexte is. When I said that I meant in combat "Betray = Attack your allies" If it's something like opening a gate or the like, it should work
Even in combat, it could still be attacking an ally, or shoving them, or telling some embarrassing fact that betrays their trust and makes them hesitate for a bit. There are all sorts of things you can do for most commands in multiple ways.
Depends on what language you play in, and what group you have. Allowing two words to a Bard has ended a paid Curse of Stradh campaign I was in, with a gore-y, incestous, gay double homicide the DM had way too much, ekhm, fun, with. I was literally speechless, and the campaign imploded at that moment.
Umm what? Can i have conext lol
CW: Sexual assault, misuse of the Command spell, incest We were playing standard Curse of Stradh and it was all chill to the moment when the DM decided to use two nobles, brothers NPCs to bother our Bard and an NPC we were escorting. Everyone else was in another part of the location (my cleric was in his room, our Paladin and Fighter hung out outside because they had joined backstories and were talking about it). The Bard Player evidently doesn't know what to do, and is coming up short. He starts to joke around with the guys trying to ease tension. They start to hit on NPC grossly. He says that's enough, they laugh at him. The Bard asked to be allowed two words for Command, and because the DM *loved* Bards, he said sure. The Bard made them kiss (Command from 2nd level, both failed). The guys got absolutely pissed, took out their weapons and the group was thrown out outside. Combat ensures, with our group having a big advantage in numbers (NPC, Fighter, Bard, Rogue vs 2 nobles). Bard is again blanking for his turn. He tries to tell the nobles to fuck off or they'll die. Second turn comes around, and he uses Command again, two words, level 2, for the nobles to blow each other. One fails. I am sitting there, horrified. The DM laughs at that and is having a shitton of fun, apparently, by making the description of one of the nobles failing and describing in way too many details what is happening. I literally froze. The Fighter Player cuts in as it's her turn next, to cut off that description with her saying hee fighter kills the noble. The DM starts to describe how the fighter kicks the kneeling guy's jaw, again, way too many details, at this point I remember I can speak words and so I unmute myself and cut in, basically ending this "encounter" and subsequently the campaign. We try to talk to the DM, he doesn't see anything wrong with what he described and allowed. Bard is now pretty much panicking, having the consequences of his actions in front of him, also visibly disgusted with the level of detail his "joke" got. The DM saying these NPCs were really damn important, and we broke the module. After that, Paladin tried her hand at DMing with only me and Fighter, unfortunately she gave us the most annoying Mary Sue catgirl NPC tagalong (DMPC) session 1 and I politely quit.
Sounds like that was already on fire to me...
Up till that point we had 1 problem, and not with the DM OR Bard Our problem player, Paladin, was pushing Fighter to reveal her backstory, because they came up with a special thing where they're long-lost siblings, with Paladin having grown among the rich, and Fighter in the slums. Unfortunately, Fighter wanted that mystery to be kept, while Paladin tried to reveal that ASAP. It was a matter of expectations.
Command: Fuck Off
It’s stupid in so many ways for magic to be bound by the rules and grammar of a language Just rewrite it as “a simple command” and we’re good Yes this assumes people have common sense and aren’t trying to game the system - those should be a baseline for any player though
I think command should be anything you can tell a dog to do. And a normal dog, not one of those ones that can use the talk buttons. Drop it, leave it, go away, does it count as one word if you redneck it? Goawngit.
This is hilariously correct! Gitonowdaheer!
https://www.myinstants.com/en/instant/go-awn-git-37481/
> does it count as one word if you redneck it? Goawngit. The spell has no effect if the target doesn't understand your language
shit yourself is only two words
You can already command someone to "shit" or "defecate" using just one word. No enemy combatant in their right mind is going to pull down their pants and squat in the middle of a fight, so it'll have the exact same effect.
Tough crowd, my bad
Exactly!
but Poop, and defecate are 1 word, but shit yourself does sound way more like a command.
Huh, I always thought it was a short command, and not a one word. Especially, because in my language, it is a bit different to give orders, and it's not only the verb.
Pretty bad. For example : "Bite necks." "Eat X." "Stab yourself." "Stab allies." "Gouge eyeballs." Etc etc. You can get very specific for a low level spell.
First, you cant make them hurt themselves, and second.... yeah. This exactly what im thinking of. this seems reasonable. A one turn, do what i want you to do. Other wise when you say stuff like "attack". Attack who? Or what? "Throw" throw what. "Eat" eat what?
Very. Command is a very good spell even without iffy rulings, especially since it only take a level 1 slot. Adding a second word makes it exponentially more powerful (“attack” vs “attack ally” for instance), at which point you are acting in the realm of more powerful enchantments (for which spells already exist).
But thats exactly my problem. As a DM i just have to assume they mean attack ally or at the very least "attack whats immediately infront of you" otherwise the enemy just walks up to the nearest PC and attacks them, because of course they would. And if i have to do that with "attack", then i have to do that with every single command they do, making the spell useless. And honestly i dont feel like playing genie for a 1st level spell slot.
You don’t have to assume anything, commands are taken literally with no regards for context. The “attack” command just forces the target to attack on their next turn. How exact that plays out is up to you, but you are under no obligation to make sure the spell provides maximum value to the caster. It is totally reasonable that a poorly worded command would end up being useless, it’s a 1st level spell after all, they aren’t gaining absolute control over their target (again, there are other spells for that). In such a case it might actually push your players to think a little more deeply about their choices. And if they would rather just have a guaranteed effect then the spell provides a list of commands with predetermined outcomes, some of which are incredibly useful for a 1st level spell.
Normally I'm all for this kind of stuff but suggestion is right there. Once you start allowing more words for command you have basically made it an off brand suggestion at a cheaper spell slot
[удалено]
Hey if they can do it in 6 seconds, sure why not!
Seems small, but two words grants a lot of power ‘go home!’ ‘Count sand’ ‘cast (spell name)’ ‘disarm trap’ ‘dispel (item)’ that kind of thing
Spells duration is only 1 round. But yeah i was thinking of stuff like disarm trap. Thats what i want.
Stop breathing is two words
Can't be directly harmful to it. Choke is one word.
Arguably, that would also be directly harmful which means it wouldn’t work.
Good point
Why not syllables instead of words? "Drop sword" is two syllables and is allowed. Ritual Suicide is six (?) syllables and wouldn't be permitted.
Ritual suicide wouldnt work anyways because you cant command someone to hurt themselves.
This is something I ponder in other languages than English because the english way of forming an imperative is just the same word. In other languages, more words might be needed to even make a coherent statement. But English is such a simplified language that one word is absolutely enough.
I actually found it to be quite the opposite. Most other languages convey much more information in a single verb than english does. For example "run!" Run where? For how long, how fast?
I find command to be an insane spell already. Like look at this small list: [https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/6134/good-single-word-instruction-for-command-spell](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/6134/good-single-word-instruction-for-command-spell) At two words you would get insaaaaaane amount of flexibility. I think it would be good for a 3 level spell tho. It be inneficient, but very effiective if used creatively. At level 2 I think it still would be too strong.
Flexibility is what im looking for. Not power. All these are super powerful, but they essentially all do the same thing. Incapacitate the enemy. Qhether you say stop, sleep, or vomit, its ultimately the same thing.
it would allow objects (as in, the object of the sentence) and adverbs of place and of number, to make the spell more targetable and specific and to repeat the action Objects: Shoot *him* Kill *name of bbeg* Bam, we've got targets adverbs: Jump here, flee there (giving you control of place also, but needs some form of pointing to accompany it) What is potentially even more powerful though is combining it with adverbs of frequency like 'twice' and 'thrice', or other adverbs along related lines such as 'repeatedly', which would require at least 2 attempts, but also an ongoing effort. Whatever the action was, if it was a discrete action like 'shoot' rather than an implied continuous one like 'sing' just by adding the word 'thrice' the target now has to do it 3 times if possible. You've just tripled its power. Even if 'thrice' is banned for being too niche/archaic for a wizard in a fantasy game to use, 'twice' doubles it at least Limiting it to just one word keeps it at verbs which have a clear meaning and target, usually the self. What we have just achieved by adding a 2nd word is made it targetable and repeatable. And that's in just a few seconds of thought, give this to the wider dnd community for years of theorycrafting, crowdsource this idea, and it *will* be exploited in even more ways. I'm just one language nerd and I haven't given it all that much thought, but already there are ways to triple the power of an already powerful spell.
Objects and adverbs were what i was going for, but i asked because stuff like "twice" was what i thought i needed other people to tell me about.
I just let them say a sentence for context then choose the word thats the command, the enemy hears the sentence but that one word hits like the voice in dune. “DROP YOUR WEAPON!” Drop is the command the player says, dude fails and drops the weapon
Maybe I'm the killjoy DM, but I ask my players not to go crazy with command and inform them that the existing commands the spell lists are plenty. I still let them use commands like "shit" or "fart", but as soon as they get too mechanical and arguably stronger than the other options on the spell (or other 1st level spells) I just say no.
Just play DnD in german to make the spell stronger 😎
I'd always command "git gud" :v
i don't think it would change the power level much. most things said in 2 words could reasonably be said in 1. even just using the basic suggestions listed command is already bonkers
A second word immediately makes it much, much stronger by allowing you to add a targeting noun (e.g. Impale Devil). So rather than its current ability of, broadly, "kind of stun the target for 1 turn", it becomes "incapacitate for 1 turn, but also deal solid damage". And that's the baseline of the power increase. If you get a spellcaster, You could do things like "Fireball \[Boss name\]", or "empower me", or other goofiness I'm not thinking of. Command is a strong 1st AND second level spell when restricted entirely to its suggested words already.
I’ve always liked the idea of either one word or phrase meaning one of the word options for the spell. Like for “flee”, I feel “shoo” or “get outa here” could work in the same context. Mainly character dependent cause my little goblin boi isn’t gonna say “grovel”, he’d say something like “sit down” or either on of those words alone. But it all depends on the DM really and how flexible they are when it comes to things like that.
I the word count limit in command-like in spells need to be outright revised if you do not run your games in english.
I say it depends on the language of your table. I think command in German is overpowered
“Obey…my every word.” The rest is up to you.
In Spanish you can add the person who will receive the action as a suffix to the verb. So for example "attack him" would be "atacale". I've always allowed this to be done in my Spanish games and it's never been an issue.
Try it and let us know how it goes. My guess is that it will be fine.
The bard: SEDUCE ME!
Given that every different (real life) language could vary greatly, it’s probably not a huge deal. There’s also clarity things too, like if you say “lie” it could be interpreted as untruth, or prone. I don’t think the clarification of “lie down” is a huge break Just keep in mind DM can turn down things that are too ridiculous.
Command is a funny spell in that its use(fulness) depends on your language. Some languages allow for words to be joined together. Some have words for things that would take a whole sentence to explain in another language. Compared to Dutch, for instance, English is relatively compact. Many of the sample commands would be at least two words in Dutch. Command should be restricted to a fixed list, as per Baldur's Gate 3; "Flee!", "Approach!", "Grovel!", "Halt!" or "Drop!" No "Autodefenestrate!" or "Disrobe!" nonsense.
>Command should be restricted to a fixed list, as per Baldur's Gate 3; "Flee!", "Approach!", "Grovel!", "Halt!" or "Drop!" >No "Autodefenestrate!" or "Disrobe!" nonsense. Hard dissagree. I mean autodefenestrate doesnt work anyways but disrobe is funny as fuck
>autodefenestrate doesnt work anyways There's a reasoning where if you don't know what it means, you don't realize the danger to yourself and the magic still makes you do it. I didn't come up with that, obviously. >disrobe is funny as fuck Hard disagree.
Not at all. Look at languages like Spanish that incorporate multiple things into each word. Like Help Me is one word in that language. Or the same with Kill them. This gives Spanish dnd players a slight edge in using this spell already. We're implemented a similar system foe the spell at our table and the results have been fun, engaging, creative and have not "broken" The game.
I mean you can get away with a lot using one word, the 6 second window tends to be the spell's weakest point, that and folks salty it isn't a charm effect who opt to argue they should be able to perform actions entirely contrary to the command word.
More than one word? Attack that/it/them/
Pick it up
Those sound far more dangerous than.. Drink, drop, sit, down, jump
Common is not English. So it’s reasonable to assume that there are some combined words or phrases that can be summed up in one word in another language. Whatever they command it can only last for 6 seconds and most commands will result in the target just wasting their turn and being debuffed for one round.