Would "undress" be an appropriate use of the spell Command?

[Cikomyr2]

Wondering how much it could incapacitate some adversaries, either in a fight or socially. Its definetly a cheap shot to take at someone.

[nickl_2000]

Wondering how much it could incapacitate some adversaries, either in a fight or socially. Its definetly a cheap shot to take at someone.

It's a single word command, it doesn't do direct damage. It fits by RAW. How it is followed is up to the DM if its used on an NPC or player on a PC.

As for appropriate, well if you are in a society where it's expected that you wear clothing... I would say it's inappropriate.

[Xervous]

My first evil GM thought leads towards “you want me to put my hands, on my head, like this?” A la MIB bug

[JackPhoenix]

Sure, but remember, it only works for the target's next turn. How much they'll take off in ~6 seconds?

[micahaphone]

Sure, but remember, it only works for the target's next turn. How much they'll take off in ~6 seconds?

Time to find out which orcs are wearing rip-away armor

[Anonymouswizard]

Wondering how much it could incapacitate some adversaries, either in a fight or socially. Its definetly a cheap shot to take at someone.

It's a legal command, as for incapacitating, it wouldn't do much in a fight compared to drop. The target won't follow the command to the point it might be harmful (so won't take off armour or defensive magic items items, and arguably offensive ones), and won't drop it's trousers if it has any other option (such as removing their cloak). They'll take the quickest option that doesn't require them to stop defending themselves and then end their turn. Plus, you know, six second duration.

In a social situation it's likely to backfire on the caster. If the society wears clothes it'll be a faux pas, likely illegal if done without consent, and even if there's no witnesses you've likely made your target angry and/or embarrassed. And an angry embarrassed naked person probably doesn't want to help you

I see a potential use in getting unalert enemies to remove their armour before attacking them, but it's probably not worth the spell slot in most cases.


Kinky Clerics and Paladins also likely get some use out of it, but then we're getting into very different situations.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Yes but they wouldn't be able to remove all their stuff in the one turn Command lasts. But it's as valid a command as any other to make them waste their turn.

[Damon_Tor]

Wondering how much it could incapacitate some adversaries, either in a fight or socially. Its definetly a cheap shot to take at someone.

I wonder if you can give commands which cover normally involuntary biological functions. "Vomit" stands out, if the creature swallowed something you would like to recover, for example. "Defecate" would create a social hazard for the recipient. "Orgasm" could be a useful distraction for your adventuring party if you've got spell slots remaining at the end of the day.

[Cikomyr2]

I wonder if you can give commands which cover normally involuntary biological functions. "Vomit" stands out, if the creature swallowed something you would like to recover, for example. "Defecate" would create a social hazard for the recipient. "Orgasm" could be a useful distraction for your adventuring party if you've got spell slots remaining at the end of the day.

I am sure a majority of people could be made to piss themselves at least a little in 6 seconds on command.

[MaxWilson]

It's a legal command, as for incapacitating, it wouldn't do much in a fight compared to drop. The target won't follow the command to the point it might be harmful (so won't take off armour or defensive magic items items, and arguably offensive ones), and won't drop it's trousers if it has any other option (such as removing their cloak). They'll take the quickest option that doesn't require them to stop defending themselves and then end their turn. Plus, you know, six second duration.

The spell description says only that it refuses commands that are directly harmful, not indirectly harmful. Looks to me like "disrobe"/"undress" could indeed result in starting to remove armor, which per PHB takes 5 minutes to complete for heavy armor--but since you don't get any AC benefit from donning armor until that full 10 minutes is complete, it seems likely that a partially-disrobed orc or orog receives no benefit from armor, and is therefore AC 11 until it spends another twelve seconds fastening its armor back on.

A Fire Giant would presumably drop to AC 9.

[ftafp]

Command is weird, because officially it's only one word, but it's not clear if you can add context in other ways.

For example, what happens if you look the target in the eyes, point at one of their allies on the other side of the battlefield and say "Yeet!", Will they toss their weapon/focus at the enemy you pointed at, or will they only be compelled to toss it as hard as they can?

[Anonymouswizard]

The spell description says only that it refuses commands that are directly harmful, not indirectly harmful. Looks to me like "disrobe"/"undress" could indeed result in starting to remove armor, which per PHB takes 5 minutes to complete for heavy armor--but since you don't get any AC benefit from donning armor until that full 10 minutes is complete, it seems likely that a partially-disrobed orc or orog receives no benefit from armor, and is therefore AC 11 until it spends another twelve seconds fastening its armor back on.

A Fire Giant would presumably drop to AC 9.

Yeah, because removing armour in a combat situation isn't directly harmful.

To be more serious, it might not be in the letter of the RAW, but it is in the spirit of the RAW. Or certainly 'the target will remove their hat cloak before their armour' is.

[Yakk]

it seems likely that a partially-disrobed orc or orog receives no benefit from armor, and is therefore AC 11 until it spends another twelve seconds fastening its armor back on.

A Fire Giant would presumably drop to AC 9.
The idea that taking off a helm, a guantlet or a bracer reduces you to unarmored AC is stupid, and arguing that at a table that isn't doing "gonzo rules are fair play" to the level that commoner railguns are world staples is a bad idea.

[ftafp]

the issue here isn't that taking your armor off is directly harmful (which it's not), it's that it takes time to don and doff armor and that time is more than 6 seconds

[JackPhoenix]

Command is weird, because officially it's only one word, but it's not clear if you can add context in other ways.

For example, what happens if you look the target in the eyes, point at one of their allies on the other side of the battlefield and say "Yeet!", Will they toss their weapon/focus at the enemy you pointed at, or will they only be compelled to toss it as hard as they can?

The enemy will look at you in confusion, because he has no idea what do you want, then he stabs you as normal.

[Telwar]

Yeah, I don't see how you could get unarmored in one turn, unless it was the orc barbarian in their rip-off leathers. Maybe bracers of armor could be taken off in one turn, but I would not buy that as my first action for "disrobe."

So, legal, not really harmful in most cases, but wastes their turn.

[Kuu Lightwing]

A thought: since it requires a single word, should we take into account that there might or might not be a single word for a particular action in the specific language creature understands?

[MaxWilson]

The idea that taking off a helm, a guantlet or a bracer reduces you to unarmored AC is stupid, and arguing that at a table that isn't doing "gonzo rules are fair play" to the level that commoner railguns are world staples is a bad idea.

Blame the PHB.

The time it takes to don or doff armor depends on the armor’s category.

Don: This is the time it takes to put on armor. You benefit from the armor’s AC only if you take the full time to don the suit of armor.

Doff: This is the time it takes to take off armor. If you have help, reduce this time by half.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Blame the PHB.

The time it takes to don or doff armor depends on the armor’s category.

Don: This is the time it takes to put on armor. You benefit from the armor’s AC only if you take the full time to don the suit of armor.

Doff: This is the time it takes to take off armor. If you have help, reduce this time by half.

To be fair, it does not say at which point you stop having the benefit of armor if you doff it. Maybe it only happens after you take full time to doff it.

[ftafp]

The enemy will look at you in confusion, because he has no idea what do you want, then he stabs you as normal.

Shouldn't Command: Yeet at the very least work on rangers and druids? If anyone would know vines it would be them.

[JNAProductions]

You can add all the context you want, but it wouldn't help you in that situation.

That can be comparable to the command "Attack!"

Which, sure, they have to do on their next turn. And they can, 100%, attack you or your allies.

[MaxWilson]

To be fair, it does not say at which point you stop having the benefit of armor if you doff it. Maybe it only happens after you take full time to doff it.

If so then you can have spellcasters who fully don heavy armor (which they are not proficient with), and then almost-fully doff it, so that they can get the full AC benefits but can also doff the armor in a single action if they need to cast spells.

Also, it's silly for being partly-unarmored (e.g. missing helmet, uncinched straps) to affect you differently depending on whether or not you are donning or doffing the armor.

[JNAProductions]

For the OP, I'd probably rule that they'd either spend an action on their next turn getting readjusted, or suffer a -1 to-hit and to AC, representing their slightly off armor. Obviously the only thing they're doing on their turn is undressing, but that only goes so far in six seconds.

[Unavenger]

"Undress" can be transitive ("He undressed her") so there's no guarantee the target will even take its own clothes off...

[Kuu Lightwing]

If so then you can have spellcasters who fully don heavy armor (which they are not proficient with), and then almost-fully doff it, so that they can get the full AC benefits but can also doff the armor in a single action if they need to cast spells.

Also, it's silly for being partly-unarmored (e.g. missing helmet, uncinched straps) to affect you differently depending on whether or not you are donning or doffing the armor.

If we are going by what's silly, losing all benefit of the armor by only just starting taking it off, is also silly. The use case you have provided is also extremely limited, cause once you want to cast spells (which is probably every encounter, given they are a spellcaster) you lose your AC until you can take time to put it on and "almost" take it off again.

[MaxWilson]

If we are going by what's silly, losing all benefit of the armor by only just starting taking it off, is also silly. The use case you have provided is also extremely limited, cause once you want to cast spells (which is probably every encounter, given they are a spellcaster) you lose your AC until you can take time to put it on and "almost" take it off again.

Not necessarily every encounter. Necromancers have fantastic no-concentration spells, so much so that necromancers wearing plate armor without proficiency is actually a thing, and it would be even more of a thing if removing armor during combat required only a single action. And, it's silly.

Now, you can certainly throw out the PHB armor donning/doffing rules because they are indeed silly, and replace them with a more realistic, AD&D-ish model where partial donning results in partial benefits. If you do so you'll get no argument from me.

[Damon_Tor]

To be fair, it does not say at which point you stop having the benefit of armor if you doff it. Maybe it only happens after you take full time to doff it.

Also complicated by the idea that the different armor classes are additive. IE, a breastplate is a part of half plate which is a part of full plate. Plate was worn with some other kind of armor underneath, some kind of mail or jerkin, so even if we assume full plate ceases to be full plate after 6 seconds of doffing (fun fact: doffing plate armor isn't usually possible without assistance) it would be difficult to argue you aren't getting a benefit from the breastplate or the mail or enough remaining plate to be considered "half-plate".

[Evaar]

I would rule the creature drops what it is holding and spends its action to start the "doffing armor" process, but does not get as far as actually removing enough armor to matter. Clasps are loosened or whatever, but no items actually fall off.

There's no reason to think they can doff any faster than what's in the rulebook, or that partial doffing has any clear mechanical effect. If there was, you would expect to see some commentary in spells like Heat Metal which may cause an enemy to want to doff armor in the middle of combat.

You can always houserule something up if you want more nuance, but as written them's the rules.

[Segev]

You can add all the context you want, but it wouldn't help you in that situation.

That can be comparable to the command "Attack!"

Which, sure, they have to do on their next turn. And they can, 100%, attack you or your allies.

This could be fun in a situation where you're not already in a fight, though. It won't be an easy, straight-forward application, since casting a spell to force behavior could be considered fairly obvious, but a Sorcerer, for instance, using Subtle Spell and working the command to "attack" into an innocuous sentence could potentially be interesting.

[Seclora]

Shouldn't Command: Yeet at the very least work on rangers and druids? If anyone would know vines it would be them.

This is a splendid Jest!

[cutlery]

Kinky Clerics and Paladins also likely get some use out of it, but then we're getting into very different situations.

Deep down, they’re not that different from fiendlocks.

[ftafp]

Deep down, they’re not that different from fiendlocks.

I've always said that the only difference between a cleric and a warlock is how big your patron's fanclub is

[rel]

I've always said that the only difference between a cleric and a warlock is how big your patron's fanclub is

Brilliant!
This may well inform the philosophy of next warlock, binder or ur priest

[Hytheter]

Kinky Clerics and Paladins also likely get some use out of it, but then we're getting into very different situations.

I don't like this new interpretation of the Oath of Conquest.



For example, what happens if you look the target in the eyes, point at one of their allies on the other side of the battlefield and say "Yeet!", Will they toss their weapon/focus at the enemy you pointed at, or will they only be compelled to toss it as hard as they can?

You forget that Command doesn't work if the target doesn't understand your language. :P

Actually, I wonder if the spirit of that line should extend to words the creature doesn't know. Sure, that orc speaks common but does he know what it means to "prostrate"?


"Undress" can be transitive ("He undressed her") so there's no guarantee the target will even take its own clothes off...

If you get one bandit to depant the other than you've stopped two enemy actions. Not bad at all. That said, if they come after you...


This could be fun in a situation where you're not already in a fight, though. It won't be an easy, straight-forward application, since casting a spell to force behavior could be considered fairly obvious, but a Sorcerer, for instance, using Subtle Spell and working the command to "attack" into an innocuous sentence could potentially be interesting.

Command is V only anyway, and I think arguably (or at least in spirit) the verbal component is the command itself, so I'm not convinced subtle spell would actually make a difference in how the spell appears. I'm sure most won't see it that way though, so Subtle Command does sound fun. Quicken might have some fun combat uses too. Is there value in extending the duration perhaps? That said it's not on the sorcerer list, though Divine Souls can pick it up. Then again, is it any better than Suggestion?

[Unoriginal]

Wondering how much it could incapacitate some adversaries, either in a fight or socially. Its definetly a cheap shot to take at someone.

Using a spell against someone in a social situation would likely result in the PC being arrested. Unless the person in charge likes the caster a lot more than the one they're casting on.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Command is V only anyway, and I think arguably (or at least in spirit) the verbal component is the command itself.
That's a glaring issue (at least in my opinion) in how spells work. V component is always gibberish, so if you cast command it will always be "Abra-kadabra, undress!" unless you are using subtle spell. From what I see there's no other way of masking a "social" spell like this, be it a Charm, Command, Suggestion or even Message.

[Yakk]

Blame the PHB.
No. The PHB stated rules about doning armor and when you gain AC benefit.

You attempted to invent frankly stupid rules on when you lose the AC benefit.

The blame here is really clear. It is you. The guy who made up stupid rules and pretended the PHB forced them to.

When do you lose the AC benefit when doffing armor? Talk to your DM.

Can you do all but 1 action, keep the benefit, then do the last action? The PHB rules don't say what happens if you interrupt donning or doffing armor, and if you can continue it later. Talk to your DM.

Those are the actual rules, not the ones you invented out of whole cloth.

[Contrast]

Yeah, because removing armour in a combat situation isn't directly harmful.

To be more serious, it might not be in the letter of the RAW, but it is in the spirit of the RAW. Or certainly 'the target will remove their hat cloak before their armour' is.

Spending a turn lying on the floor doing nothing while someone tries to stab you with a sword seems pretty likely to result in harm.

Or dropping your weapon and shield.

Or a wizard abandoning their safe position in cover and moving into melee range.

These are all explicit examples of what the spell can achieve however. You can't get someone to walk into lava but you can certainly get them to walk up to a ledge where you can push them over easily. You can't someone to stab themselves but you can get them to throw down a shield so they're easier to stab.

Removing clothing is definately within the potential remit of the spell unless the clothing you are wearing is actively protecting you from an immediate environmental effect I would say. That said 6 seconds isn't sufficient time to have any noticable impact on AC in my opinion given the timescales it takes to doff armour generally.

[Lord Torath]

Spending a turn lying on the floor doing nothing while someone tries to stab you with a sword seems pretty likely to result in harm.

Or dropping your weapon and shield.

Or a wizard abandoning their safe position in cover and moving into melee range.

These are all explicit examples of what the spell can achieve however. You can't get someone to walk into lava but you can certainly get them to walk up to a ledge where you can push them over easily. You can't someone to stab themselves but you can get them to throw down a shield so they're easier to stab.

Removing clothing is definately within the potential remit of the spell unless the clothing you are wearing is actively protecting you from an immediate environmental effect I would say. That said 6 seconds isn't sufficient time to have any noticable impact on AC in my opinion given the timescales it takes to doff armour generally.Your first three examples are cases of indirect harm. Lying on the ground is not harmful. It makes it easier for other things to harm you, but is not of itself harmful. Unless the floor is lava.

Does Back-flip count as one word? Getting an opponent to attempt a back-flip would be hilarious, especially if they don't release their weapons first (possibly smacking their allies), and even more so if they fall on their faces in the attempt. Although hurting yourself with an incomplete back-flip probably counts as "direct harm", and thus unlikely if the target thinks they can't do one safely.

This was a slightly more effective spell when rounds were a minute long. You can take off a lot of armor in one minute. Not so much in 6 seconds.

How about "Betray!"

[ProsecutorGodot]

No. The PHB stated rules about doning armor and when you gain AC benefit.

You attempted to invent frankly stupid rules on when you lose the AC benefit.

The blame here is really clear. It is you. The guy who made up stupid rules and pretended the PHB forced them to.

When do you lose the AC benefit when doffing armor? Talk to your DM.

Can you do all but 1 action, keep the benefit, then do the last action? The PHB rules don't say what happens if you interrupt donning or doffing armor, and if you can continue it later. Talk to your DM.

Those are the actual rules, not the ones you invented out of whole cloth.

Since it makes clear that you must fully equip armor to benefit from it's AC, the most logical (in terms of following the written rules) is in fact that removing any part of that armor should result in a loss if your armored AC.

It's not logical from a realistic point of view, but it's the most "reasonable" inference to make.

And I very much doubt that Max would use that sort of ruling in his game (a hunch, but he doesn't seem the type) but it's certainly not invented from nothing.

[nickl_2000]

How about "Betray!"

I would spend 6 second telling my best friends deepest, darkest secrets that he told me to never reveal to anyone.

[tyckspoon]

How about "Betray!"

Insufficiently obvious as to what they should do - ask your DM what it will result in before you commit to trying to order that. Could very well cause things like "Subject loudly announces a secret they promised to keep" or "Subject rejects a sworn oath (denounces their King/god/warlock Patron/etc.") Which while amusing and possibly socially harmful is not likely to have any significant combat effect unless you find a Warlock who has a Patron that is very observant, easily ticked off, and does not make allowances for acting under duress.

[Kyutaru]

There was a Command Word in other editions too and the video game Baldur's Gate uses it for Command Word: Die. What's interesting is that even though you can't kill them by asking them to "Die" they will either believe they are dead or attempt to simulate death and lay on the floor in corpse position.

[Vogie]

Command: Undress would be useful regardless if the target attempts to undress themselves or someone else - they'll lose their turn regardless. Disrobe, decloak, and potentially Donate would all work.

Command: Yeet would be akin to Command: Throw or Command: Toss - if the target has something in their hand, they'd do that. However, Yeeting is a known quantity in one of my games, and would involve them trying to hit a target so hard they go flying.

I've seen Command: Dive work wonders on a wall guard over a moat. I also had a player drop a spare dagger away from the fight, waltz up to the target and use Command: Fetch.

Command: Backstab I haven't seen, but would enjoy.


There was a Command Word in other editions too and the video game Baldur's Gate uses it for Command Word: Die. What's interesting is that even though you can't kill them by asking them to "Die" they will either believe they are dead or attempt to simulate death and lay on the floor in corpse position.

I've seen people use Command: Vomit and Command: Sleep for that, yeah.

[Kuu Lightwing]

...and potentially Donate would all work.
...

I wonder now, if someone asks for a donation using Subtle Spell Command spell, would you realize that you've been manipulated by magic?

[Wraith]

I think it appropriate in the sense that it would work both RaW and RaI.

I can imagine that it might be viewed as inappropriate socially - in that, some players wouldn't appreciate that sort of implication in the game without being given forewarning, if at all.

Aggressively demanding that someone take their clothes off could very easily be one of those jokes that seems slapstick, but in the wrong place could be a step too far. Use sparingly, and with plenty of advanced notice, I think.

[Anxe]

Seems fine. I'd probably rule it similarly to the "Grovel" command in what it does. Similar penalties to their actions and defenses, but corrected by a quick fix once they have control of their actions again. In game, there'd be almost no difference unless the easiest piece of clothing to remove was something magical you wanted to grab.

[cutlery]

If I wanted a fun word to use for command, I might try "fornicate!".

Usually, though, I just say "flee!".

[Contrast]

Your first three examples are cases of indirect harm. Lying on the ground is not harmful. It makes it easier for other things to harm you, but is not of itself harmful. Unless the floor is lava.

The person I was responding to was of the opinion removing armour was directly harmful. My point was that if that is the standard we're using for the spell, then the examples listed in the spell description don't work. I agree with you that the examples listed are indirect harm (and also that removing armour would be an example of an indirect harm).

[Chronos]

The spell also doesn't dictate how quickly you perform the action. Someone sufficiently skilled in undressing can spend a full minute just on removing a single scarf.

[nickl_2000]

The spell also doesn't dictate how quickly you perform the action. Someone sufficiently skilled in undressing can spend a full minute just on removing a single scarf.

It also doesn't dictate what you are doing. No one is wearing just their armor, they could easily spend 6 second unstrapping and removing their helmet, and that has no mechanical impact on the game.

[Kyutaru]

It also doesn't dictate what you are doing. No one is wearing just their armor, they could easily spend 6 second unstrapping and removing their helmet, and that has no mechanical impact on the game.

DM: The King's Right Hand approaches on his magnificent steed, his gleaming plated armor shining like a thousand diamonds. Even from here you can sense the magical wards that have protected him for decades through fearsome wars and brutal quests. Upon nearing your party he spots your female cleric and stares. Trodding over, he removes his helm and bows in his saddle. "Such a beauty I have not seen in--"

Rogue: His armor's gone! I shoot him in the face with my crossbow! Sneak attack, sucker! How much is this gleaming plate worth?

[Joe the Rat]

Something to keep in mind on the biologicals: Command is a behavior-inducing spell. Shouting "Defecate!" May result in six seconds of grunting, or have the target fiddle with lacings and drop trou so they can pop a few seconds of squat (socially inappropriate and achieving the "all terrain is difficult until you pull your pants up" effect that disrobe might produce), but they are not magically full of poop, nor necessarily going to perceive loading the longjohns as the right response. "Vomit" will result in an attempt to gag themselves - which should be doable in six seconds, but is not an auto spew (And would give me Advantage on the save - it's one of the few things I despise doing more than injections).


Command is weird, because officially it's only one word, but it's not clear if you can add context in other ways.

For example, what happens if you look the target in the eyes, point at one of their allies on the other side of the battlefield and say "Yeet!", Will they toss their weapon/focus at the enemy you pointed at, or will they only be compelled to toss it as hard as they can?
Were I of yeeting stature, I would run over to the targeted ally and try to yeet them. So effectively combining "Flee" and "Hug".

And I am now officially suggesting "Hug" as a Command word.


Shouldn't Command: Yeet at the very least work on rangers and druids? If anyone would know vines it would be them.
Well played.

[Sigreid]

The biggest limitation on this and some of the other proposed commands is that it's a 1 round duration. Not much will be completed on the stripping in one round in most cases.

[Greywander]

[...]The target won't follow the command to the point it might be harmful (so won't take off armour or defensive magic items items, and arguably offensive ones)[...]
The command can't be directly harmful. You can't command them to stab themselves, for example, because that is directly harmful. However, removing their armor does not harm them, it merely makes them more vulnerable to future harm. This quote covers this concept pretty well:

Spending a turn lying on the floor doing nothing while someone tries to stab you with a sword seems pretty likely to result in harm.

Or dropping your weapon and shield.

Or a wizard abandoning their safe position in cover and moving into melee range.

These are all explicit examples of what the spell can achieve however. You can't get someone to walk into lava but you can certainly get them to walk up to a ledge where you can push them over easily. You can't someone to stab themselves but you can get them to throw down a shield so they're easier to stab.

Removing clothing is definately within the potential remit of the spell unless the clothing you are wearing is actively protecting you from an immediate environmental effect I would say. That said 6 seconds isn't sufficient time to have any noticable impact on AC in my opinion given the timescales it takes to doff armour generally.
Of course, this raises the question of what counts as "harmful"? Does losing your job/money count as harmful? What about tarnishing your reputation? Is this limited to just physical harm, or is it anything with directly negative consequences? To prevent headaches and arguing, it should probably be restricted to just physical harm, since that's easy to quantify (literally, as damage taken).


Command is weird, because officially it's only one word, but it's not clear if you can add context in other ways.
I feel like context has to matter to at least some degree. Most language has at least a little reliance on context, and especially with a single word command you need context to fill in what might be missing. Whether we're standing in a church or in front of a bridge, the command, "Cross!" will have different connotations. What makes sense to me is that the target will attempt to obey the command as best as they would normally understand it given the current context (as if you were just giving a normal command, not magic), but you can't cheat the one-word limit by adding hand gestures and such.


The idea that taking off a helm, a guantlet or a bracer reduces you to unarmored AC is stupid, and arguing that at a table that isn't doing "gonzo rules are fair play" to the level that commoner railguns are world staples is a bad idea.

the issue here isn't that taking your armor off is directly harmful (which it's not), it's that it takes time to don and doff armor and that time is more than 6 seconds
These are good points, and I think this would be a good place to impose a separation between roleplay and mechanics. Taking off your helmet to greet someone shouldn't count as "taking off your armor". If a fight breaks out, it would be assumed that they would immediately put their helmet back on.

The fact that 5e does way with most minor bonuses and boils things down to advantage or disadvantage is an indication that little things that would only make a small difference shouldn't be given any mechanical effect. For example, do tieflings get a bonus to balancing because they have a tail? No, even though a tail helps with balance, it's not a significant enough effect to be worth assigning a mechanical result. By granting a bonus (or penalty) to these small things, you encourage your players to act in specific ways that aren't normal.

Now, that said, there's a difference between removing a helmet while RPing, and commanding an enemy to doff their armor. The latter uses a spell (a mechanical ability), which uses a spell slot (a mechanical resource), and causes a specific mechanical effect. They aren't just taking off their helmet to RP, they are actively trying to doff their armor, because you told them to. This likely means they're undoing buckles and straps and such, not just pulling off a helmet.

However, as pointed out, there are no mechanical rules for partially doffed armor. There are a couple of things we do know, and a few things we can infer as a result. We know you don't benefit from armor until it is fully donned. We know it takes time both to don and to doff armor. We can infer that a partially doffed set of armor is probably equivalent to a partially donned set of armor (the armor doesn't need to be fully doffed before it can be re-donned), and thus you would lose any benefit from the armor. What about penalties for wearing armor? Well, we don't want to encourage PCs to walk around with partially donned armor in order to get all the benefits of being unarmored, while being one action away from being fully armored. What makes sense to me is that while donning or doffing armor, you get all the penalties and none of the benefits. You either want to get that armor all the way off or all the way on. Just think about running around with your pants around your ankles and you might start to see how having your armor only half on might be more of a hindrance than not having it at all. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a good enough approximation.

However, if you want to bypass this discussion entirely, a similar command would be one to drop their weapon and shield (if they have one). Doffing a shield only takes an action, as does donning the shield. So, you can either eat two of their actions, or force them to fight with less AC. They can easily pick up the dropped weapon using an object interaction, so make sure you use your own object interaction to kick it away (or pick it up, if you have a free hand). Not sure what word you would use for such a command, though. Disarm? I feel like that would just result in dropping their weapon.


Using a spell against someone in a social situation would likely result in the PC being arrested. Unless the person in charge likes the caster a lot more than the one they're casting on.

That's a glaring issue (at least in my opinion) in how spells work. V component is always gibberish, so if you cast command it will always be "Abra-kadabra, undress!" unless you are using subtle spell. From what I see there's no other way of masking a "social" spell like this, be it a Charm, Command, Suggestion or even Message.
I feel like at some point in development, it might have been the intention that the command/suggestion/message/etc. was meant to actually be the verbal component, but something changed before release and now verbal components are entirely separate. V components means magical chanting, so everyone knows you're casting a spell, and yes, I would expect there to be some legal restrictions on magic in most major cities. In a world with Fireball, I'd expect anyone casting a spell in public to be treated similar to someone who just pulled out a gun in public. Not quite the same, since there are a lot of innocuous spells, but it's definitely going to make people nervous. "Casting in public" might be a minor crime that gets you tossed in the clink for a day, and/or a small fine, provided the spell cast doesn't cause any additional harm.

[nickl_2000]

The biggest limitation on this and some of the other proposed commands is that it's a 1 round duration. Not much will be completed on the stripping in one round in most cases.

Sure it's not armor, but

https://steemitimages.com/DQmeQQqKaB5da7JipRuKzj8bNTsb8GtwRLqgt6Qsgwsvbsk/giphy%20(25).gif

[KorvinStarmast]

Disrobe might be a better word choice.

@nickl_2000. As to the gif: nice job if time is the metric.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I feel like at some point in development, it might have been the intention that the command/suggestion/message/etc. was meant to actually be the verbal component, but something changed before release and now verbal components are entirely separate. V components means magical chanting, so everyone knows you're casting a spell, and yes, I would expect there to be some legal restrictions on magic in most major cities. In a world with Fireball, I'd expect anyone casting a spell in public to be treated similar to someone who just pulled out a gun in public. Not quite the same, since there are a lot of innocuous spells, but it's definitely going to make people nervous. "Casting in public" might be a minor crime that gets you tossed in the clink for a day, and/or a small fine, provided the spell cast doesn't cause any additional harm.

Well, different spells require different components. To me it makes little sense to have the social spells that are so immediately obvious that people cast them. And moreso, If I can more subtly cast Suggestion, it doesn't necessarily mean that you can do the same with Fireball.
The legal stuff, is another question entirely. I agree that influencing someone's mind is probably illegal, but that only makes the necessity of these spells to be more discreet.

[ftafp]

i think its mostly settled that command:undress wont work but what about other useful commands?

also, what about [mass] suggestion? there doesn't seem to be a combat advantage on the save. suggestion is concentration and limited to one target while mass is very high level, but they allow a lot more context and longer durations. you might not be able command: betray, but you can certainly say "you know you're going to lose this fight if you continue, right? side with me and follow my orders and ill make you a very rich man. its a good deal, i suggest you take it." as long as you maintain concentration and none of your allies attack them you basically have the target dominated

[kazaryu]

Wondering how much it could incapacitate some adversaries, either in a fight or socially. Its definetly a cheap shot to take at someone.

In terms of the debuff, itd probably do basically the same thing as irrisitable dance, but also take up their action.

[Greywander]

i think its mostly settled that command:undress wont work
Not sure how you got to this conclusion. It would certainly make the target undress (or begin to, as much as they can in six seconds). Whether or not they would start taking off their armor is up for debate, and likely would vary from DM to DM, and maybe from NPC to NPC. Also, what the exact effect of starting to remove their armor would be is also up for debate. Whether or not this command will "work" depends on what you're trying to do with it.

Now, there might be more useful commands you could use instead. "Flee" can potentially waste two turns instead of just one, since they run away, then have to run back. "Sleep" or some variant can make the target lie prone, opening themselves up to attack. "Surrender" might make them drop their weapon and stop fighting (allowing you to cuff them, or just skewer them while their guard is down). In social settings, an overt Command can be used as a demonstration of your dominance over the person ("kneel" is a good one for this), while a subtle Command can be used to get the target to do something embarrassing in public.

[Teaguethebean]

Yeah, because removing armour in a combat situation isn't directly harmful.

To be more serious, it might not be in the letter of the RAW, but it is in the spirit of the RAW. Or certainly 'the target will remove their hat cloak before their armour' is.

dropping prone is similarly harmful but it is one of the listed options.

[Sigreid]

Older editions said specifically that "Die" would cause the target to become non-responsive for one round.

[eunwoler]

Your F.A.T.A.L. is leaking. If this is how you wish to utilize Command I shudder to think of what debauchery you'd unleash with Bigby's Hand or the Finger of Death

[Greywander]

Your F.A.T.A.L. is leaking. If this is how you wish to utilize Command I shudder to think of what debauchery you'd unleash with Bigby's Hand or the Finger of Death
Not necessarily. Getting an enemy to waste their turn disrobing can give you an edge in the action economy. If they start removing their armor and lose the benefits, that's even better. If it's a social setting and your trying to discredit them, this would probably work as well. While there might be potential for perverted uses, there are also plenty of legitimate uses for this Command. Plus, sometimes nudity can be used for comedy, rather than, well, you know.

Also, from what I understand, FATAL wasn't specifically an ERP game, it just went way too in depth into certain subjects. I remember watching a video that talked about it, and it sounds like a horribly unwieldy system, but there is an actual system there, with a setting that has some interesting ideas (like dwarves with raven feet). Honestly, it just sounds like it's a fanfic-quality product, rather than a professional polished and edited one. It deserves to be mocked and shunned, but the concept most people seem to have of FATAL is more of a caricature than the real thing. I'm not saying it isn't bad, I'm just saying it isn't all sex stuff. Never read it myself, though, and never plan to, for obvious reasons.

[JNAProductions]

Not necessarily. Getting an enemy to waste their turn disrobing can give you an edge in the action economy. If they start removing their armor and lose the benefits, that's even better. If it's a social setting and your trying to discredit them, this would probably work as well. While there might be potential for perverted uses, there are also plenty of legitimate uses for this Command. Plus, sometimes nudity can be used for comedy, rather than, well, you know.

Also, from what I understand, FATAL wasn't specifically an ERP game, it just went way too in depth into certain subjects. I remember watching a video that talked about it, and it sounds like a horribly unwieldy system, but there is an actual system there, with a setting that has some interesting ideas (like dwarves with raven feet). Honestly, it just sounds like it's a fanfic-quality product, rather than a professional polished and edited one. It deserves to be mocked and shunned, but the concept most people seem to have of FATAL is more of a caricature than the real thing. I'm not saying it isn't bad, I'm just saying it isn't all sex stuff. Never read it myself, though, and never plan to, for obvious reasons.

Eh... Fanfic quality is giving it a little too much credit.

Most fanfics aren't very good, but they aren't morally repugnant. If you look through FATAL and especially the author's responses to a review, it's pretty horrific on a moral level.

I'd go into details, but forum rules. I'd also advise you to look into more, but... Don't. It's not worth the brainspace.