Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 AKBuldar May 23, 2015 2:34:57	on a failed save for Suggestion does the target know you are trying to effect them with a spell?
#2 jaelis May 23, 2015 5:36:41	The spell doesn't say, but I'd play it that the target is sort of hypnotized and can't really think clearly about what is going on with the suggestion.
#3 Orethalion May 23, 2015 8:22:34	It's the DM's call.  The targetting section says, "Unless the spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targetted by a spell at all."  The DM has to decide whether obvious chanting of sounds in a particular pitch and resonance along with a snake tongue and honeycomb, followed by a verbal suggestion to do something you otherwise wouldn't have done is a perceptible effect or not.  I personally would rule that in a world of magic, where "charm" magic is fairly common and almost certainly outlawed, only an idiot would fail to recognize when such a spell was cast on him.
#4 Noctaem May 23, 2015 7:37:49	Compare to something like the spell Friends which actually specifically says that the target realizes you did something to its mind and becomes hostile as a result.
#5 reddaemon May 23, 2015 7:56:37	Whether the target knows you cast a spell or not, they still have to do what you told them to do. For example you could cast suggestion on an orc and tell him that his warchief has betrayed his clan and he must go kill him. Let's say the orc somehow knows you cast a spell on him. The orc would brush it off as if he already knew that he had to do what you told him. I'd run it that the spell makes the creature justify it in their mind. The warchief met with a human two weeks ago and didn't let the orc eat him, so he must be plotting with the enemy. Granted this suggestion is probably not going to succeed since he will get many saves while fighting the warchief.
(Reply to #5) Undrhil	reddaemon wrote:
(Reply to #4) Ilse	Noctaem wrote:
#8 Kentus May 23, 2015 15:53:54	Since the spell doesn't say anything about it, it's the DM call. I, for example, would say, that it depends on the suggesion and the course of action. If the suggestion is more or less something minor that doesn't greatly interfere with the important stuff the NPC should do (like going for a piss or look at a certain direction during watchduty), the target will most likely not really have the feeling of being charmed at all. If a watchman leaves its post, do sabotage or going to work while he should be at his wedding, he will most likely conclude, that he was under the effect of a spell. For everything between, which could happen, but isn't much likely, I would most likely let the target make a Intelligence (Investigation) roll, to deduce why it did the things it did.
#9 Orethalion May 23, 2015 21:34:09	Ilse wrote:
#10 reddaemon May 23, 2015 18:37:08	Undrhil wrote:
#11 iserith May 23, 2015 20:08:05	For suggestion in general:   DMs, if a player has his or her character cast suggestion on an NPC/monster and the monster fails the save, interpret the suggestion and the effect on the NPC/monster that follows in the most favorable way to the player you can with an eye toward making the interaction fun and add to an exciting, memorable story. If an NPC has cast suggestion on the character and that character has failed his or her save, then offer the player Inspiration for playing true to the suggestion, again, in a way that is fun for everyone and adds to the tale being created during play.   Players, if you are planning on using suggestion, don't abuse it. Use it in cool ways with reasonable suggestions that fit the scene and the target well. Make it easy on your DM to say "Yes" to your ideas. If you're the target of the suggestion spell, agree to do whatever reasonable suggestion is put forth and ask your DM if you can get Inspiration for it if you play it up well.   As to the OP's question: Sometimes yes, sometimes no, based on whatever fits the scene best at the time, is the most fun result, and leads to the more exciting, memorable story.
#12 cowleymen May 23, 2015 22:39:15	Orethalion wrote:
#13 Ilse May 24, 2015 1:45:34	Orethalion wrote:
#14 El_Condoro May 24, 2015 2:23:06	The PHB p.203 describes Verbal components as "mystic words" and "particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion". They're more than mundane speech, although that might be part of it when it comes to things like suggestion and charm spells.
#15 Razintarr May 24, 2015 2:54:31	AKBuldar wrote:
(Reply to #14) Saeviomagy	El_Condoro wrote:
#17 Orethalion May 24, 2015 6:25:53	Ilse wrote:
#18 Orethalion May 24, 2015 6:29:07	Saeviomagy wrote:
#19 Saeviomagy May 24, 2015 21:21:23	You honestly believe that a verbal only spell has nothing required to cast it beyond saying the words right (similar for S component spells)? Why would wizards bother practising anything other than wish if that were the case? Why do wizards only get a set number of spellcasts per day? Why can't a spell be written in a book with normal ink? How does a wizard/sorc cast a wizard spell using subtle spell? And so on and so forth.   Simply put - there is more to a spell than simply saying the words, waving your arms and holding appropriate materials. Given that, there's no requirement on a spell (even a V only spell) to be abnormal words: it could be perfectly mundane words, and it's this 'something else' that is required to turn it into a spell.   As for whispering spells - you're correct, if a spell requires a specific pitch and resonance, it cannot be whispered. The quietest 'voiced' speech however is pretty darn quiet. Certainly quiet enough to be covered up in any environment louder than a library.
#20 Orethalion May 24, 2015 21:24:03	Saeviomagy wrote:
(Reply to #20) Saeviomagy	Orethalion wrote:
#22 Ilse May 25, 2015 5:12:38	Orethalion wrote:
#23 Noctaem May 25, 2015 6:27:34	Regardless of the semantics of if you actually need to speak the "mystical words" in a whisper or a shout or at normal tone:   The spell friends specifically states that the target becomes aware that it was influenced by the caster and becomes hostile.   This tells us the following:   If a spell has to specifically call out that this occurs, it's not part of the general rules.  Each spell is a specific element within the rules which trumps the general rules.  If a spell says that you can fly, you can fly even if the general rules don't say that.  Specific vs General, specific always wins.  So if a spell says that after the effects end the target becomes aware that you used a spell on it AND becomes hostile, it does.   So again the general rules for spells don't already do the above by default.  If they did, there would be no need to specifically call out that it does in the case of the Friend spell.   Now to be clear, a DM can make rulings at his table.  If he wants all the spells to have this effect he/she can rule that it does.  Personally I don't.  But the above is fact.
#24 Orethalion May 25, 2015 6:33:17	Saeviomagy wrote:
#25 Orethalion May 25, 2015 6:39:53	Ilse wrote:
#26 Noctaem May 25, 2015 7:00:44	My post above should pretty much settle the semantic debate.  DMs are free to rule however they want at their table, but the RAW is spelled out.
#27 Orethalion May 25, 2015 7:11:08	Noctaem wrote:
#28 iserith May 25, 2015 7:12:35	Noctaem wrote:
#29 Orethalion May 25, 2015 7:18:46	iserith wrote:
#30 iserith May 25, 2015 7:39:11	Orethalion wrote:
#31 Orethalion May 25, 2015 7:41:26	iserith wrote:
#32 Ilse May 25, 2015 15:20:15	Orethalion wrote:
#33 Saeviomagy May 25, 2015 20:38:44	Orethalion wrote:
#34 Orethalion May 25, 2015 21:10:49	Saeviomagy wrote:
#35 Ilse May 26, 2015 1:22:09	Orethalion wrote:
#36 Orethalion May 26, 2015 6:24:47	Ilse wrote:
#37 Ilse May 26, 2015 15:08:48	Orethalion wrote:
#38 Orethalion May 26, 2015 15:34:16	Ilse wrote:
(Reply to #38) Ilse	Orethalion wrote:
#40 Orethalion May 26, 2015 20:59:28	Ilse wrote:
#41 Ilse May 27, 2015 5:22:34	What I find unbelievable is how certain you are of some things, where I find nothing to support your point of view in the rules (and in some cases, you are blatantly wrond, per RAW). I don't deny that one can interpret things in your direction, but your unwillingness to admit that other points of views are at least as valid is frustrating to say the least. A few examples:   Fireball: "It's will.  You shape the desired point of detonation with your will/thought and when released, that's where it explodes."   Where is the support for that ? Why do you need to point a finger then, if you could do everything by will ? I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no ground anywhere to support that it HAS to be will. It could be a gesture. It could be a word.   Mystic words: ""mystic" when it comes to spellcasting is almost always strange magical words. "   Where does this come from ? I have given you two examples (Amber and the Belgariad) where NORMAL words are used to produce mystic effect, as per the definition that you yourself admit, this makes the words "mystic". Look at "Willow" Some words are mystic, but Bavmorda uses perfectly normal words: "Pigs, you are all pigs!"   Suggestion: "Rather, suggestion is a sledgehammer.  It forces you to do something you are almost guaranteed to never have done in those circumstances unless magic has been used against you. "   This is simply no true. The suggestion must be worded to sound reasonnable. So that means there is no guarantee of any kind. Moreover, we are talking about a mental effect. How is that noticeable to onlookers ? Especially if the effect is delayed, possibly days in the future ?   "The effect is nearly as perceptible as a fireball." Are you joking ? Honestly, I hope that you are, otherwise this is getting really ridiculous.   "Whispers cannot have the specific pitch and resonance required, so they are precluded." Again, try to broaden your mind. What if the REQUESTED pitch and resonnance are that of a whisper, or are at least compatible with it. By the way, try it yourself, you can perfectly change the pitch of a whisper. Try it, making it deeper or more squeaky, it's extremely easy. As for the resonnance, it is very easy to do as well: just whisper very slowly, in a kind of misty voice, you will see.   "What is said in the body of the spell is what you do AFTER the spell is cast." There is no proof of that. Absolutely none. Try reading the spell as written, it is perfectly clear. It does not say "after the incantation, speak in a normal voice". It says "by SIMPLY speaking aloud..." You can read the word SIMPLY, can't you ? I'm sorry, but your interpretation goes squarely against the RAW in this case.   "Unless the spell specifically says the target forgets or something similar, the target is going to KNOW that mind magic was used against it." And again in this case your interpretation goes squarely against RAW which is EXACTLY the other way around: "An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise." UNNOTICED...UNLESS A SPELL SAYS OTHERWISE, Understood ?   I'm sorry but, at this stage,  I think I've demonstrated my case quite thoroughly, and unless you bring something new to the table and new arguments, I'm tired of repeating the same thing over and over, have fun playing with your very narrow and personal interpretation.
#42 Orethalion May 27, 2015 6:45:05	Ilse wrote:
#43 Noctaem May 27, 2015 7:31:58	You're having a semantic debate that rests entirely within what each individual participant considers "common sense" primarily.  What exactly are you expecting Ilse?  Sure you're quoting rules text, but it's obviously not having the desired effect.
(Reply to #43) Ilse	Noctaem wrote:
#45 Orethalion May 29, 2015 6:46:32	Ilse wrote:
#46 Ilse May 29, 2015 11:46:45	There is not such thing as "more valid". Things are either valid as per RAW, or they are not. All the ways that I have described are perfectly valid. The way you have described is valid. Some will appeal to some people more than others. Just a matter of taste. End of story.
(Reply to #3) greyhobbit13	Would it be different if arcane or divine focus was used? "You wouldn't take an old man's walking stick would you?"
#48 Orethalion May 29, 2015 14:45:16	Ilse wrote:
#49 Ilse May 29, 2015 17:22:18	Orethalion wrote:
#50 Orethalion May 29, 2015 18:31:51	Ilse wrote: