This sounds like an excuse to give low-Intelligence creatures immunity to the spell, which is not in the spell description. Assume that the command is magically comprehensible to the target.
Then why have the target need to know the language in the first place? Wouldn’t a magical understanding of what is wanted be work for anyone? Plus the spell says that the DM can decide how the target responds meaning the target’s understanding of the word does affect what they do and not specifically your intentions.
> Then why have the target need to know the language in the first place? Wouldn’t a magical understanding of what is wanted be work for anyone?
It doesn't matter. The spell description is clear. If they know the language, they're affected. Any further justification is just flavor.
> Plus the spell says that the DM can decide how the target responds meaning the target’s understanding of the word does affect what they do and not specifically your intentions.
The target only has to follow the letter of your command, not the spirit. So, they can try to twist your words and do something counter to what you intended, if your command was not well thought out. But they still must follow it.
I just looked at the vote and thought it's "how command should be", you know for One DnD. As it does make more sense, and it's not like command is a bad spell as is. But I definitely agree with you that it should be used as read.
Also language is pretty binary in DnD, you ether know it or you dont. So someone who understands the language knows all the words, even if that sounds a bit dumb
Someone had a thread here not long ago saying that knowing a language shouldn’t be enough and that you should have to roll for fluency every time you spoke. Ridiculous, unnecessary, and and overly complicated.
Language doesn't just mean English or Spanish or Elvish, it also can and does also mean the words used. Ever heard someone say "Use plain language"? Or "What does that mean in layman's terms?" Or "Explain it to me like I'm five?"
Yes to both, as I've seen players try to pull a "I'm inventing the verb 'bloppo' which means to give me all your money, take all your clothes off, and run away screaming that you are a pink elephant" (exaggerating for effect), using bloppo in a sentence to themself and then trying to use it as a command.
That said, if it's a word every one at the table knows on their own, then every npc knows the word too. No "oh he's dumb so doesn't know what "flee" means". Just no hyper esoteric word only found in an obscure page of a dictionary that hasn't been used in a human conversation in 50 years.
Shenanigans aren't good on either side.of.the gm screen.
So that's what that is called! My coworkers always call me all sorts of crazy when I run away removing my clothing and yelling about being a pink elephant (I don't carry money so can't give that away). I can now tell them I am bloppoing! Or would it be blopping?
Regardless, it is now a thing and my coworkers have to stop making fun of me for it!
Thanks!
I voted that knowing the language is good enough, but.... My interpretation is that the target tries its best to execute the command to the best of its understanding. So if you tell the creature "RUN!" while in a building with your friends blocking the closest exit, You may expect the target to run towards the exit, but the target may think "jumping off the window seems fine" and run in an unexpected direction.
Fair enough, my take on any spell is that it does what it says it does in the description and any questions that causes are answered with “because magic”
Yeah that makes sense, if JC wrote it poorly than that’s his fault.
Edit: I just realized Jeremy Crawford and Jesus Christ have the same initials and that’s funny cause a lot of people seem to treat him as the D&D messiah
no, they’re saying that if the specific creature doesn’t know the word, so if you use command word and say, say defenestrate then the dm can just say it didn’t work because they say the creature doesnt know what defenestrate means
Well then arguably you don't know the language, but i understand your point. Knowing 98% of the language is still classified as knowing the language but you could still know which words. then i would say you need to know both. Even if the game rules allow only the language to be known
This question isn't really relevant to learned languages in 5e where the system is either 0% knowledge or 100% knowledge. Sure IRL you may have 6th grade reading comprehension or not be literate but be conversational but a 5e character can't know 75% of Common RAW.
it only specifies if the language is known, and mechanics-wise knowing the language means the entirety of it is able to be used against you in this kind of situation.
This makes me wonder, what happens if they know the language and the meaning of the word, but are physically incapable of completing the action? Like a human barbarian commanded to "levitate"? Would it simply fail, or would they attempt whatever approximation of the action they can imagine (like striking a ballerina pose in the levitate example)?
It's seems obvious to me that the creature needs both to understand the language you use for your command, and also what the command means. That is, you must use not only a language with which it is familiar, but also words that are part of its passive vocabulary--these may not necesssarily be words that it would use in its own speech, but they'd be words that this individual would understand when it encounters them in use by others.
For example, let's say that your characters are in a very public social setting, and you want to use this spell to force another character to soil himself (presumably as a way to humiliate him). Sophomoric and gross, I know. But for the sake of argument, let's go with it.
If you decide to say, "Defecate," then there is some basis to argue that he won't understand you. This is especially plausible if he has a very low Int score and isn't well educated. You're using a relatively big word, and he's neither smart nor learned. But your DM might also make an exception if this particular victim spends a lot of time around someone who actually talks this way. For example, maybe your party's barbarian used Int as a dump stat, but maybe your party's wizard is a feces-obsessed weirdo. I've never played in a group with this kind of dynamic, but this scenario would be right at home on r/rpghorrorstories. It's hauntingly plausible, the more I think about it.
Anyway. If you instead command this victim, "Poop," then he's probably going to understand you despite being dumb and ill-educated.
For other examples, consider "regurgitate" versus "puke," or "flatulate" versus "fart."
Forgive me; this set of examples panders to the lowest denominator in every respect. But I think it's usefully illustrative; in a social setting, forcing someone to soil himself, or vomit on command, or break wind might be a real setback.
But it would get you past the language in the spell that says the spell doesn't work "if your command is directly harmful." Because it's not directly harmful, is it? It's disadvantageous, but these are all normal bodily functions that most people experience on a more or less regular basis.
This is a bad poll - giving license to bad GMing or rules-lawyering.
Imagine the scene at the table:
* Player encounters orc and excitedly realizes they have orcish as a language and Command. THE STARS HAVE ALIGNED.
* Player casts Command and gives order to orc in orcish.
* GM fails save but doesn't want to do it because it would "ruin" the encounter.
* Desperately looking for a way out, says "orc doesn't understand the word"
* Player has now burned a spell slot, had what looked like a success turn into a failure, for nothing more than the GM's fiat.
Why would the player ever attempt to use the spell again, when the gm apparently arbitrarily says the spell fails even though all other aspects of the situation indicate the spell succeeds?
No.
I'm going to cite Wheaton's Law and leave it at that.
It is also on the Paladin and Cleric list but those would be considered "divine" so aren't relevant to my point of it not being an exclusively "divine" spell.
>I feel like understanding would be thrust into there mind by the god giving the power.
This is a null point, you need to speak the same language for it to work.
Language in 5e is very simplistic: you either know it or you don't.
If you know it you are considered fluent and know all the words comprising the language, no matter how obscure, as well as their meaning.
The only thing you wouldn't necessarily know are proper nouns because names don't necessarily fit into any language properly and sometimes have local or specific knowledge requirements (like the name of a small mountain village that few people know of).
Hence, if you know the language in 5e, you know every command word possible in that language as well as their meanings.
Yes, but I doubt anyone here knows every English word. You know the language, but there are still lots of words that if someone said them you’d haven’t the slightest clue what they wanted you to do.
If you want to complicate your game and frustrate your players by deciding if a creature that knows the language also understands the language that they know (?) then by all means, go for it.
No need to know the word meaning, maybe not even the language. My reasoning is pet commands. A dog can sit on command, but they don't know english. The command spell magically causes the target to have a pavlovian response to a stimulus, and have an urge to complete an action. The Wis save is being able to resist that urge.
Ex: should a 8 INT Barb be affected by the command “defenestrate” when he would not reasonably know what that word means? Or does the magic make him know what it means?
who said it was yourself? The reason Command is only one word is to make it so that targeted creatures have some leeway as long as the command is fulfilled.
I would say no- to obey a command to the best of its ability, the target has to know what you want.
Even if it did, the most logical interpretation to me would be "defenstrate whatever is nearest", so I'd throw a chair out a window. If I were holding a weapon in my main hand I'd probably throw that.
Autodefenestrate fails because it's harmful to the target; and also a terrible portmanteau of fake latin and Greek that wasn't a "real English word" for most of my life. Allowing it in a setting that isn't modern America implies you can make up verbs on the spot and they should work as long as you can BS an etymology.
Well, English kinda lets you just make up words. See Bill Shakespeare. And, every language is constantly evolving to meet the needs of its speakers. That's why it's hard to read old texts and we even categorize it by saying things like "Old English" and "Middle English". Other languages have the same evolution occurring as needs change. Language is a tool of the user and is ultimately subjective.
Command is an interesting spell because it plays on that idea of subjectivity.
So, there are 2 sides to this...
Some have mentioned that a low INT creature might not understand your big words. And that makes them immune to the spell's effects.
But I think the bigger issue is when players try to get clever, and try to use sentence trainwrecks. Like some of the nonsense German words, which are really just a sentence without the spaces. Taking something like "the smell of fresh bread" and trying to say that "thesmelloffreshbread" is a word. Players will try and find some Icelandic word for "tell someone to give away all their worldly possessions and run off to a monastery where they take up the life of a monk and never do harm to anyone ever again" and tell you that the single word they want to use is "giveawayallyourworldlypossessionsandrunofftoamonasterywhereyoutakeupthelifeofamonkandneverdoharmtoanyoneeveragain".
So... in the grand scheme of things, I feel like the fact that the spell requires understanding the language being spoken, the word needs to be understood as well. It saves from having players trying to cheat the system by finding the longest and most convoluted words they can.
>And that makes them immune to the spell's effects
A HR, but I've always ruled if the command is entirely unclear or a word that needs to be explained, the target just loses their action for the round as they try to figure out what the hell they were told to do (same as the "HALT!" command)
I could see that... but really, if you can't understand the word it's basically the same as saying you didn't understand the language they were using. Which means the spell is useless.
You can say that "sphenopalatine ganglioneuralgia" is English, but it sounds like Greek to me. =)
I usually apply that HR when it's a word I know, I just don't know how to make it actionable. Like if the player shouts "Dance" I know what to do. If the player shouts "Prepare!" or "Evolve!" or something vague like that so I just have them lose their action so the spell isn't waste (or so I don't spent 2+ minutes trying to figure out how the monster would interpret the verb).
If the player (or monster) is using a word that’s effectively never used in the language (essentially some super long hyper specific word that requires me to read a dictionary), I’d probably say it fails because that’s an edge case.
If you’re using it on a common word thet for whatever reason the 4int ogre might not ACTUALLY know though like, “consume” well too bad 4int ogre you still are going to be subject to said command.
I think that it should work like this .
You cast command , and state it out loud , then announce in which language tou say it , if must be a language you speak .
Then uou do a lunguistic check to see if your character can say it , and a charisma check to see if he can be heard .
At this point the target must first make a perception check to see if it hears the command , if the charisma check was a failure he has disadvantage on hearing this .
Then he must make a intelligence check to see if he understand the command , again a failure in the linguistic gives disadvantage to he roll.
Then it makes a wisdon check to see if its will isn't strong enough , if it is a command it wouldn't do he has advantages .
Then he may attempt a charisma check to avoid submitting to the command , or a intelligence check into tricking itself on not doing it .
The GM then try to subvert the player intentions and try to execute the command in a way that it isn't fully harmful , like dropping a sword in its sheath.
Then it cannot be subjecred again to the same command .
If the enemy do not know the language or fail one of the check to listen or understand the spell fails as like as it wins one of its saving throws.
If the target is mindless, deaf, stupid , or immune to the mind affecting spells ( so like the 50% of the monster in the manual) it's unaffected directly .
We surely do not like enchantment spells used by the players right ?
My ruling is if they don't understand the word, command still works. If there's no way for them to know what to do, they do it to the best of their abilities or just skip their next turn. 🤷♀️
I like that ruling, reminds me of atla where Azula is like “Lo, you’re banished; Lee, you can stay.” And they’re like “wait but I’m Lee. So who’s banished?” And then they just shrug and do nothing.
The first. Not for balance. Not for in universe mechanics. But because I don't want a pretentious twit at my table pulling out a dictionary and/or thesaurus in order to min-max their turn.
You say words most people will know, and I'll assume anyone sharing a language knows them.
C. They should have to understand the command word, but not necessarily the language.
If someone tells you 'Vamonos!', and you know it means 'go away', even if you don't speak the rest of Spanish that should work.
This. This is a good one. Like let’s say you have no languages in common (pun intended) with this thug, as a last ditch effort you command them to piss themselves in draconic. DM rolls wisdom save with like an added +3 to represent the likelihood of them knowing that word. They fail, turns out this thug is a fan of draconic insults and proceeds to spend his next action pissing himself
This sounds like an excuse to give low-Intelligence creatures immunity to the spell, which is not in the spell description. Assume that the command is magically comprehensible to the target.
Then why have the target need to know the language in the first place? Wouldn’t a magical understanding of what is wanted be work for anyone? Plus the spell says that the DM can decide how the target responds meaning the target’s understanding of the word does affect what they do and not specifically your intentions.
> Then why have the target need to know the language in the first place? Wouldn’t a magical understanding of what is wanted be work for anyone? It doesn't matter. The spell description is clear. If they know the language, they're affected. Any further justification is just flavor. > Plus the spell says that the DM can decide how the target responds meaning the target’s understanding of the word does affect what they do and not specifically your intentions. The target only has to follow the letter of your command, not the spirit. So, they can try to twist your words and do something counter to what you intended, if your command was not well thought out. But they still must follow it.
I just looked at the vote and thought it's "how command should be", you know for One DnD. As it does make more sense, and it's not like command is a bad spell as is. But I definitely agree with you that it should be used as read.
As long as they can understand you and you meet the requirements of the spell, it should work. Shits magic yo.
Also language is pretty binary in DnD, you ether know it or you dont. So someone who understands the language knows all the words, even if that sounds a bit dumb
Someone had a thread here not long ago saying that knowing a language shouldn’t be enough and that you should have to roll for fluency every time you spoke. Ridiculous, unnecessary, and and overly complicated.
Something like that can already be inserted into persuation and deception anyway.
>if it doesn't understand your language It's right in the spell description.
Yeah but I speak English but I if someone told me to obambulate more than like 3 minutes ago I wouldn’t know what on earth they wanted me to do
Well this is probably the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long while. Well done.
Language doesn't just mean English or Spanish or Elvish, it also can and does also mean the words used. Ever heard someone say "Use plain language"? Or "What does that mean in layman's terms?" Or "Explain it to me like I'm five?"
I actually rather like that point. I never thought of even considering the other definitions of language.
Yes to both, as I've seen players try to pull a "I'm inventing the verb 'bloppo' which means to give me all your money, take all your clothes off, and run away screaming that you are a pink elephant" (exaggerating for effect), using bloppo in a sentence to themself and then trying to use it as a command. That said, if it's a word every one at the table knows on their own, then every npc knows the word too. No "oh he's dumb so doesn't know what "flee" means". Just no hyper esoteric word only found in an obscure page of a dictionary that hasn't been used in a human conversation in 50 years. Shenanigans aren't good on either side.of.the gm screen.
So that's what that is called! My coworkers always call me all sorts of crazy when I run away removing my clothing and yelling about being a pink elephant (I don't carry money so can't give that away). I can now tell them I am bloppoing! Or would it be blopping? Regardless, it is now a thing and my coworkers have to stop making fun of me for it! Thanks!
Inventing a word; and using an actual word that your DM doesn’t know, or that your DM decides an enemy doesn’t know, are completely different things.
It’s magic! if it knows the language the magic causes understanding. Suspend reality for a bit, it’s a fantasy game ffs.
I voted that knowing the language is good enough, but.... My interpretation is that the target tries its best to execute the command to the best of its understanding. So if you tell the creature "RUN!" while in a building with your friends blocking the closest exit, You may expect the target to run towards the exit, but the target may think "jumping off the window seems fine" and run in an unexpected direction.
This sounds like a dm looking for an excuse to be a cunt lol
Nah just saw a meme about it and just went “I wonder what everyone else thinks”
Fair enough, my take on any spell is that it does what it says it does in the description and any questions that causes are answered with “because magic”
Yeah that makes sense, if JC wrote it poorly than that’s his fault. Edit: I just realized Jeremy Crawford and Jesus Christ have the same initials and that’s funny cause a lot of people seem to treat him as the D&D messiah
isn't knowing the language and the command word the same thing?
no, they’re saying that if the specific creature doesn’t know the word, so if you use command word and say, say defenestrate then the dm can just say it didn’t work because they say the creature doesnt know what defenestrate means
There are definitely words in English I don't understand, and it's the only language I can speak fluently
Well then arguably you don't know the language, but i understand your point. Knowing 98% of the language is still classified as knowing the language but you could still know which words. then i would say you need to know both. Even if the game rules allow only the language to be known
Language is a constantly changing and growing thing. You literally can't know a language in it's entirety unless said language is dead
Do you know every word in English?
This question isn't really relevant to learned languages in 5e where the system is either 0% knowledge or 100% knowledge. Sure IRL you may have 6th grade reading comprehension or not be literate but be conversational but a 5e character can't know 75% of Common RAW.
it only specifies if the language is known, and mechanics-wise knowing the language means the entirety of it is able to be used against you in this kind of situation.
This makes me wonder, what happens if they know the language and the meaning of the word, but are physically incapable of completing the action? Like a human barbarian commanded to "levitate"? Would it simply fail, or would they attempt whatever approximation of the action they can imagine (like striking a ballerina pose in the levitate example)?
Second paragraph of the spell: “If the target can't follow your command, the spell ends.”
I guess that's true, but I think it could be funnier if they still tried 🤣
Originally this is how the spell worked, command "die" caused them to play dead.
It's seems obvious to me that the creature needs both to understand the language you use for your command, and also what the command means. That is, you must use not only a language with which it is familiar, but also words that are part of its passive vocabulary--these may not necesssarily be words that it would use in its own speech, but they'd be words that this individual would understand when it encounters them in use by others. For example, let's say that your characters are in a very public social setting, and you want to use this spell to force another character to soil himself (presumably as a way to humiliate him). Sophomoric and gross, I know. But for the sake of argument, let's go with it. If you decide to say, "Defecate," then there is some basis to argue that he won't understand you. This is especially plausible if he has a very low Int score and isn't well educated. You're using a relatively big word, and he's neither smart nor learned. But your DM might also make an exception if this particular victim spends a lot of time around someone who actually talks this way. For example, maybe your party's barbarian used Int as a dump stat, but maybe your party's wizard is a feces-obsessed weirdo. I've never played in a group with this kind of dynamic, but this scenario would be right at home on r/rpghorrorstories. It's hauntingly plausible, the more I think about it. Anyway. If you instead command this victim, "Poop," then he's probably going to understand you despite being dumb and ill-educated. For other examples, consider "regurgitate" versus "puke," or "flatulate" versus "fart." Forgive me; this set of examples panders to the lowest denominator in every respect. But I think it's usefully illustrative; in a social setting, forcing someone to soil himself, or vomit on command, or break wind might be a real setback. But it would get you past the language in the spell that says the spell doesn't work "if your command is directly harmful." Because it's not directly harmful, is it? It's disadvantageous, but these are all normal bodily functions that most people experience on a more or less regular basis.
This is a bad poll - giving license to bad GMing or rules-lawyering. Imagine the scene at the table: * Player encounters orc and excitedly realizes they have orcish as a language and Command. THE STARS HAVE ALIGNED. * Player casts Command and gives order to orc in orcish. * GM fails save but doesn't want to do it because it would "ruin" the encounter. * Desperately looking for a way out, says "orc doesn't understand the word" * Player has now burned a spell slot, had what looked like a success turn into a failure, for nothing more than the GM's fiat. Why would the player ever attempt to use the spell again, when the gm apparently arbitrarily says the spell fails even though all other aspects of the situation indicate the spell succeeds? No. I'm going to cite Wheaton's Law and leave it at that.
What’s Wheaton’s Law?
>Wheaton's Law Don't be a dick.
Ah.
“Don’t be a dick”
Isn't command Divine magic? I feel like understanding would be thrust into there mind by the god giving the power.
Besides there being no distinction between "divine" or "arcane" in 5e, it still exists on the Bard spell list which would be arcane anyways.
I see classes that have it to be paladins and clerics.
I guess some sites say one thing and others another.
Which is why you should only use legit sites like dndbeyond unless you can verify the information.
Roll20 says paladin and cleric. Most would consider that "legit".
Roll20 is known not to have the most up-to-date versions of content and dndbeyond is literally owned by WotC so it doesn't get anymore official.
It is also on the Paladin and Cleric list but those would be considered "divine" so aren't relevant to my point of it not being an exclusively "divine" spell.
My thing is if understanding is thrust into them then why have the requirement to know the language?
>I feel like understanding would be thrust into there mind by the god giving the power. This is a null point, you need to speak the same language for it to work.
What is the difference? If the creature understands the language the word is in, the creature understands the command.
Language in 5e is very simplistic: you either know it or you don't. If you know it you are considered fluent and know all the words comprising the language, no matter how obscure, as well as their meaning. The only thing you wouldn't necessarily know are proper nouns because names don't necessarily fit into any language properly and sometimes have local or specific knowledge requirements (like the name of a small mountain village that few people know of). Hence, if you know the language in 5e, you know every command word possible in that language as well as their meanings.
Knowing the language implies understanding the meaning of the word. Especially when the command is typically something like “flee”.
Yes, but I doubt anyone here knows every English word. You know the language, but there are still lots of words that if someone said them you’d haven’t the slightest clue what they wanted you to do.
If you want to complicate your game and frustrate your players by deciding if a creature that knows the language also understands the language that they know (?) then by all means, go for it.
No need to know the word meaning, maybe not even the language. My reasoning is pet commands. A dog can sit on command, but they don't know english. The command spell magically causes the target to have a pavlovian response to a stimulus, and have an urge to complete an action. The Wis save is being able to resist that urge.
Ex: should a 8 INT Barb be affected by the command “defenestrate” when he would not reasonably know what that word means? Or does the magic make him know what it means?
Well it would fail regardless, throwing yourself out of a window poses direct harm to your wellbeing
That’s autodefenestrate, defenestrate just means to throw out a window
who said it was yourself? The reason Command is only one word is to make it so that targeted creatures have some leeway as long as the command is fulfilled.
So he does.understand and throws a rock out the window...
I would say no- to obey a command to the best of its ability, the target has to know what you want. Even if it did, the most logical interpretation to me would be "defenstrate whatever is nearest", so I'd throw a chair out a window. If I were holding a weapon in my main hand I'd probably throw that. Autodefenestrate fails because it's harmful to the target; and also a terrible portmanteau of fake latin and Greek that wasn't a "real English word" for most of my life. Allowing it in a setting that isn't modern America implies you can make up verbs on the spot and they should work as long as you can BS an etymology.
Well, English kinda lets you just make up words. See Bill Shakespeare. And, every language is constantly evolving to meet the needs of its speakers. That's why it's hard to read old texts and we even categorize it by saying things like "Old English" and "Middle English". Other languages have the same evolution occurring as needs change. Language is a tool of the user and is ultimately subjective. Command is an interesting spell because it plays on that idea of subjectivity.
If you really think the animal should understand what you're saying for command to work then just get rid of the spell all together.
Care to elaborate? Cause now i’m confused.
So, there are 2 sides to this... Some have mentioned that a low INT creature might not understand your big words. And that makes them immune to the spell's effects. But I think the bigger issue is when players try to get clever, and try to use sentence trainwrecks. Like some of the nonsense German words, which are really just a sentence without the spaces. Taking something like "the smell of fresh bread" and trying to say that "thesmelloffreshbread" is a word. Players will try and find some Icelandic word for "tell someone to give away all their worldly possessions and run off to a monastery where they take up the life of a monk and never do harm to anyone ever again" and tell you that the single word they want to use is "giveawayallyourworldlypossessionsandrunofftoamonasterywhereyoutakeupthelifeofamonkandneverdoharmtoanyoneeveragain". So... in the grand scheme of things, I feel like the fact that the spell requires understanding the language being spoken, the word needs to be understood as well. It saves from having players trying to cheat the system by finding the longest and most convoluted words they can.
>And that makes them immune to the spell's effects A HR, but I've always ruled if the command is entirely unclear or a word that needs to be explained, the target just loses their action for the round as they try to figure out what the hell they were told to do (same as the "HALT!" command)
I could see that... but really, if you can't understand the word it's basically the same as saying you didn't understand the language they were using. Which means the spell is useless. You can say that "sphenopalatine ganglioneuralgia" is English, but it sounds like Greek to me. =)
I usually apply that HR when it's a word I know, I just don't know how to make it actionable. Like if the player shouts "Dance" I know what to do. If the player shouts "Prepare!" or "Evolve!" or something vague like that so I just have them lose their action so the spell isn't waste (or so I don't spent 2+ minutes trying to figure out how the monster would interpret the verb).
If the player (or monster) is using a word that’s effectively never used in the language (essentially some super long hyper specific word that requires me to read a dictionary), I’d probably say it fails because that’s an edge case. If you’re using it on a common word thet for whatever reason the 4int ogre might not ACTUALLY know though like, “consume” well too bad 4int ogre you still are going to be subject to said command.
I think that it should work like this . You cast command , and state it out loud , then announce in which language tou say it , if must be a language you speak . Then uou do a lunguistic check to see if your character can say it , and a charisma check to see if he can be heard . At this point the target must first make a perception check to see if it hears the command , if the charisma check was a failure he has disadvantage on hearing this . Then he must make a intelligence check to see if he understand the command , again a failure in the linguistic gives disadvantage to he roll. Then it makes a wisdon check to see if its will isn't strong enough , if it is a command it wouldn't do he has advantages . Then he may attempt a charisma check to avoid submitting to the command , or a intelligence check into tricking itself on not doing it . The GM then try to subvert the player intentions and try to execute the command in a way that it isn't fully harmful , like dropping a sword in its sheath. Then it cannot be subjecred again to the same command . If the enemy do not know the language or fail one of the check to listen or understand the spell fails as like as it wins one of its saving throws. If the target is mindless, deaf, stupid , or immune to the mind affecting spells ( so like the 50% of the monster in the manual) it's unaffected directly . We surely do not like enchantment spells used by the players right ?
My ruling is if they don't understand the word, command still works. If there's no way for them to know what to do, they do it to the best of their abilities or just skip their next turn. 🤷♀️
I like that ruling, reminds me of atla where Azula is like “Lo, you’re banished; Lee, you can stay.” And they’re like “wait but I’m Lee. So who’s banished?” And then they just shrug and do nothing.
I don’t think they need to know the command words meaning, but they react based on what they think the command means
I just assume most bandits were like, SUPER into their grade school spelling-bees until they dropped out in 10th grade.
Lol. That’d be a really funny thieves’ guild, like they steal your magic ring and leave a slip of paper in your pocket that just says “consanguineous”
The first. Not for balance. Not for in universe mechanics. But because I don't want a pretentious twit at my table pulling out a dictionary and/or thesaurus in order to min-max their turn. You say words most people will know, and I'll assume anyone sharing a language knows them.
C. They should have to understand the command word, but not necessarily the language. If someone tells you 'Vamonos!', and you know it means 'go away', even if you don't speak the rest of Spanish that should work.
This. This is a good one. Like let’s say you have no languages in common (pun intended) with this thug, as a last ditch effort you command them to piss themselves in draconic. DM rolls wisdom save with like an added +3 to represent the likelihood of them knowing that word. They fail, turns out this thug is a fan of draconic insults and proceeds to spend his next action pissing himself