I have an impending scenario. The heroes kick in the door to find their enemy, a wizard. He casts suggestion on the fighter, suggesting he go give all of his things to the poor. This is reasonable, and he fails his save, and leaves.
This means a level 2 spell removed a character from the battle, and perhaps also stripped him of all his goods. Seems... Too powerful. Am I missing something?
How reasonable is it that the fighter leave the enemy behind while they give away all their possessions? The player's aren't dominated after all, and taking out the enemy may be a higher priority.
However, this is largely up to DM discretion, and has been the subject of more than one heated thread discussion.
AndyDay wrote:
Wizard: "Give all your possessions to the poor."
Fighter, "Yes sir! I shall do it when I am not busy!" *Keeps on defending his allies and THEN after the battle does so.*
Fighter: "OK." Gives his stuff to the party monk. Wizard: "Why do you do that?" Fighter: "The monk has taken a vow of poverty and is poor."
Fighter to the party cleric: "Once the danger has passed, I shall donate to your church so that it helps the needy."
Fighter: "That's not reasonable for I own a castle (or other property or real estate)." *Not only unreasable, but cannot be done easily at all within the spell's duration, thereby possibly negating the spell altogether.*
Fighter: "I would if I could, but most of my gear isn't truly owned by me." *Has gear that is a quest item (s) or is provided by a church, guild, order or via loan.*
After all, the wizard didn't say, "Give all your possessions to the poor now." 
Lastly, even should the wizard specify doing it right then, the act of stripping off his gear in front of a known enemy (as the OP portrays the wizard as) would be tantamount to suicide which would at the very least give the fighter another save.
Kishri wrote:
iserith wrote:
AndyDay wrote:
AndyDay wrote:
"These are not the droids you're looking for."
Sorxores wrote:
Let's say the bbeg stole a powerful artifact; you knock at his door and once he open it you cast suggestion and say "give it back". End of a high lvl quest.
you just have to get near him and cast a low level spell (you can also call an army of lvl 3 sorc to cast it with heigten). any counter the bbeg can come up to you can counter too.
Conterter wrote:
Kishri wrote:
CulveDaddy wrote:
[quote="Kalani"]
CulveDaddy wrote:
immunities to pc "ability" are bad in my opinion, It's better to make the spell less powerful (<-- that is my advice) instead of make it useless when it count. So maybe even if it's not directly harmful giving away your main stuff (artifact and weapons) it's not allowed in my opinion. Also your valid use of suggestion are almost the same of the "command" spell which duration is 1 round istead of 8 hours of suggestion. So it makes suggestion way better than command (unless you use it with a higher spell slot), even if you need to concentrate on it, it will last at least as much as command. Anyway i'm not saying you are wrong, i'm just hoping you couldd use my words as an advice
Suggestion does not dictate your character's exact actions.
You do not get to choose what a character does with his actions, that is up to the character.
I think saying the 'safest' way to go give your stuff away is to leave is incredibly dumb and highly incorrect. Especially in a dungeon, in the middle of the wilderness, in the middle of a battle, or in some other precarius place.
The safest course of action for 'any' adventurer is to kill everyone who is attacking him as fast as possible, then ask the party to go with you to town. If OP used the spell as described, and forced my character to do 'obviously suicidal' things like wander the wilderness alone, or traverse a dungeon alone, or lay prostrate in front of a dude that can throw fireballs at me, then we would have issues.
Byakugan01 wrote:
The spell is not a compulsion. It doesn't use the word compel or compulsion in the description. And there is nothing in the spell description that says it happened 'immediately'. Rather, it can be used as a sort-of post-hypnotic suggestion, causing something to happen in the future, as long as conditions are met. It can also be used to suggest a course of action now, which the target will follow through on in the safest way to the best of its ability. There is a combat going on where someone is trying to kill me, it would be safest for me to end the threat, rather than fleeing, since the enemy could chase after me, which isn't safe at all.
Undrhil wrote:
Yes, because the creature I am fighting could reasonably chase after me, causing me harm. Whereas, if I defeat said creature, it can do no such thing.
Undrhil wrote:
mellored wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
I mean, if you're the DM, you can make Suggestion the "I win" button that you're describing, but that would never fly at my table, and I suspect your interpretation puts you in a very small minority.
Novacat wrote:
Novacat wrote:
mellored wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
mellored wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
I was re-reading the suggestion spell and I think people are confusing the intent of the spell
The wording states that the request must sound reasonable. Nothing in the request must actually be reasonable, nor must it be something the creature would do normally.
It would be very helpful if you gave me as much treasure as I could carry from your hoard. It would go a long way to purchasing the plate armor I have my eye set on
This is a suggestion that sounds reasonable, and would therefore succeed (assuming a failed save). The fact that a dragon would not normally part with its treasure is irrelevant. The suggestion sounds reasonable, and is not more than one or two sentences.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
So are you saying the spell is really only useful as a motivational tool? To get people to do something they already otherwise would want, or be willing, to do but just aren't doing at the moment?
Maybe the spellcaster should start up a weight loss program for his friends...
Orethalion wrote:
You are missing the point. The suggestion does not have to be reasonable. It just has to sound reasonable.
The creature is charmed and compelled to follow any reasonable sounding request.
Asking it to impale itself is not reasonable sounding. Demanding its treasure is not reasonable either.
Asking a friend if they can borrow some money to purchase some armor, sounds reasonable (depending on if said friend can spare such an expense, not an issue with a dragon). The dragon will consider it as a request from a friend, and is compelled to say "yes".
With that being said, the instant the suggestion is fulfilled (aka. the dragon gives the PC some money) - the suggestion ends. Said dragon would then be immediately angered by the PC having tricked it, and would justifiably attack.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
While the spell's wording does exhibit a certain level of ambiguity, there is enough precedent set by other similar spells to make an educated guess at the designer's intent. I looked at the following spells: Animal Friendship, Charm Person, Command, Compelled Duel, Dominate Beast/Monster/Person, Enthrall, Friends, and Suggestion/Mass Suggestion. After comparing them, I've made the following observations:
1) Animal Friendship, Charm Person, Suggestion, and Mass Suggestion all end immediately if you or your companions do anything harmful to the target. Furthermore, Compelled Duel will end immediately if your companions do anything harmful to the target.
2) Charm Person and Friends are the only two spells which explicitly say the target automatically knows that you attempted to use magic to affect its mood.
3) Command stipulates that any command which is directly harmful to the target fails automatically.
4) Where the Dominate spells are concerned, there is no restriction on the command being issued but each time the target takes damage, it gets to attempt a saving throw to end the spell's effects.
5) Most of these spells allow the targets to attempt their saving throw with advantage if the spellcaster and his/her companions are currently engaged in combat with it. Suggestion, however, does not include such a clause.
Finally, some of the situations being argued in this thread are EXPLICITLY answered by the spell's full text:
You suggest a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two) and magically influence a creature you can see within range that can hear and understand you. Creatures that can't be charmed are immune to this effect. The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable. Asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act ends the spell. The target must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, it pursues the course of action you described to the best of its ability. The suggested course of action can continue for the entire duration. If the suggested activity can be completed in a shorter time, the spell ends when the subject finishes what it was asked to do. You can also specify conditions that will trigger a special activity during the duration. For example, you might suggest that a knight give her warhorse to the first beggar she meets. If the condition isn't met before the spell expires, the activity isn't performed. If you or any of your companions damage the target, the spell ends.
I feel like suggestion is an enchantment spell, the creature is under the effect of spell for the duration and the effect of suggestion is to pursue the course of action the caster described for the duration or until complete. I also feel like 'reasonable' is shown to be 'not directly harmful' or 'not against its nature.' I could be wrong. To me, it seems like some of us are overcomplicating the spell.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Pandaemonius wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Pandaemonius wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pandaemonius wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pandaemonius wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
IMO: "sounds reasonable" = "something you can potentially do".
"Fly over a rainbow" is an example of something not reasonable.
"be in 2 locations at once" is also not reasonable.
give up your weapons, gold, horse (which is the example) is reasonable.
Kalani wrote:
As far as giving away the horse, I would rule as a DM that it is usually a reasonable request. Yes, horses are important to a knight but he can always replace it and it's not even his biggest expense if he has plate armor.
On the other hand, if the character has role-played a special bond to the horse that he raised from a colt, that he went into a burning barn to save (giving him horrible scars) on the night his family was murdered by marauding orcs, if he's made it clear that the horse is a bond to his past life? No it's not reasonable that he will give it away.
A horse the knight bought a couple of adventures ago that he hasn't ever named? Sure. Depending on level it's not even that big a deal financially.
Saying that you can use suggestion on every passer-by to make them into serial killers? I'd say no to that.
Coredump00 wrote:
Okay, lets try this a different way...
For Chris, Kalani, Pand... (or anyone else)
Does this 'sound reasonable'
"Now is the time to strike, your leader is wounded and you can take his place"
Does that 'sound reasonable'?
What if it was said to a lawful good monk at a monastary?
What if it was said to a chaotic evil Orc that was second in command?
What it if was during battle?
What if it was after the battel back at camp?
"Dear bugbear leader, you should attack that other bugbear tribe and take their gold"
Does that sound reasonable?
What if the other tribe was much larger?
What if the other tribe was much smaller?
What if the other tribe was holding his offspring as hostages?
What if the other tribe had a history of slighting his tribe?
What if the leader had a strong sense of honor, and the tribes had an alliance?
What if he had been thinking about doing it already?
"Sell me your baby for 1 gp"
Does that sound reasonable?
What if it were 1,000 gp?
What if it were 1,000gp and the rest of your family was sick and dieing of starvation and cold?
What if it were addressed to a Lizard folk that did not feel familian ties at all?
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Pandaemonius wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pandaemonius wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pandaemonius wrote:
mellored wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Yet you personally have described why its okay for a DM to excuse away a dragon from giving away some of its treasure...
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
This is starting to sound less like a conversation on the relative power of the suggestion spell and more like a conversation on the degree to which PCs and DMs make crap up to get one over on each other.
Coredump00 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pandaemonius wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
In the same way you are asking a cop to give up his patrol car...
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
mellored wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Hey Chris, before you go, could you answer my questions from two pages ago...??
Coredump00 wrote:
Or respond to this...
Coredump00 wrote:
Or answer these questions...
Basically, could you take part in the conversation beyond continually saying "but I don't want to" will fizzle the spell...
Coredump00 wrote:
mellored wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
The DM doesn't want his NPCs turned into automatons by a 2nd level spell, but he does want the group to have fun and for their story to progress.
The player doesn't want to waste his character's Suggestion spell and wants to add to the story. He or she does not have the backstory of the spell's target.
Given the pages and pages of discussion, why couldn't a DM approach it this way.
DM: Wait, you want to cast Suggestion. That is a spell that can cause a lot of controversy when the players and DM don't agree on what is "reasonable". I want you to give me some sample suggestions and I will tell you if I think they are reasonable or not. We can discuss them a bit if you strongly disagree but the table agreed right at the start that the DM makes the final call on these things. When you get an idea of what I will allow and not allow, then make your final Suggestion.
Situation: The party has encountered a thug-gang in a back alley of a town. The gang's leader is the son of the ringleader.
Player: Go jump off that 3rd storey balcony.
DM: Nope, directly harmful.
Player: Attack your mother.
DM: Nope, against its essential nature and directly harmful!
Player: Aw come on, she's a tyrant! OK, go and start planning the next booze-up at the tavern.
DM: Yep, sure.
Player: OK, my character smiles at the thug-gang leader and says "All this fighting is making me thirsty. How about you go to the tavern and organise a round of drinks".
DM: The thug leader looks at you suspiciously (DM rolls saving throw, a failure) but then his features show that he has had a good idea. "Yep, a drink sounds like a great idea", and he turns and walks toward the tavern.
Player: Great. That's the main threat out of the way for now. Do you thugs want a piece of me?
The example is contrived but it serves to illustrate how the situation might be sorted out by some player-DM discussion. It means the spell can be used and most times it won't be the wording that causes it to fail but the target's saving throw. Also means the table might have some fun, talk and get to know what each other are like as players and DM. After a few discussions along these lines when suggestion is used it may become unnecessary - players and DM will achieve some kind of tacit agreement over what constitutes an acceptable (and "reasonable") suggestion.
El_Condoro wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Dyndrilliac wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Dyndrilliac wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Hey, guys.
You know that pesky Wisdom saving throw the target has to make ... and how this is a magic spell? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that part will make anything that 'sounds' reasonable ("sell your car", "dump your girlfriend", "get rid of the DM screen") actually sound reasonable to the target. Otherwise, what's the point of the Wisdom save?
Dyndrilliac wrote:
I just think the suggestion "You should kill all of your allies right now and then go back to town and murder everyone you see. Don't forget to turn yourself in to authorities and confess your crimes just before sunrise." is an example of a request that would not sound reasonable to most people.
Who gets to decide what is reasonable? Up to the DM and the PC. If the PC tells me that he can't give up his generic warhorse because "reasons" that's something I'll have to deal with but for the most part I trust my players.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Applying strict scrutiny too "sounds reasonable" is a mistake. Whether or not the spell works will be determined by the wisdom save.
The reason I need a reasonable sounding explanation is so I can narrate what happens next. If the target fails the save, they're gonna shrug, mutter "Seems legit," and do whatever the suggestion was.
For me, I want the players to be able to rely on their spells and whatever without getting into lawyerly BS or stopping them on a technicality. Boring.
To make a Paladin flee from a combat, mention that there are other lives at stake outside: "I was scrying on those villagers outside. I think they will enjoy the pets I am sending them. Shouldn't you help them?"
Slyck314 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Well, this conversation devolved quickly.
Pandaemonius wrote:
To restate my last point in a different way, this is why I am inclined to believe that the requirement that the suggestion be "reasonable" is being overstated, and that the requirement is more of a formalism and not intended to be as substantive a limitation as many here suggest:
First, think about the wording.
The authors could have said, "The suggestion must be reasonable,." They did not. That the requirement is that is sound reasonable must mean something different.
The authors could have said, "The suggestion must sound reasonable." They did not. What they wriote was the more complicated "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable." That sentence can literally be shorted to "The suggestion must ... sound reasonable," and as such the additional verbiage musty be there to idicate somethinhg about the intended meaning of the sentence. Those extra words relate solely to how the words of the suggestion must be formulated, and in no way focus on the target of the spell, and any special characteristics of the way the target might be affected or how special concerns or character traits oif the target might impact the suggestion.
Thje think the longer more circuitous formulation is intended to signal a mere formalistic requirement about how the caster formulates the suggestion (literally a mere formalism) rather than imposing a serious substantive limitation on the power of the spell. If they meant it to be substantive, they could have eliminated half that sentence,
I acknowledge that that is not the only way to read the spell description, but I am not personally persuaded by the alternate readings of it.
Second, there is room to debate whether the special considerations of the target will impact whether a given suggestion sounds reasonable,
For example, can Suggestion be used in a wasy to make Sir Percy the Extremely Loyal leave the battlefield mid-combat, leaving his allies to fight alone? Let's suppose that Sir Percy has a stove at his home 20 miles away. Would the suggestion that he go home immediately to make sure the sytove is off not "sound reasonable" to Percy becauise it would mean abandoning his friends, something he'd never do ordinarily?
I think the spell description addresses this clerarly enough with the example of the knight giving away her warhorse. I would think that, for a person specializing in mounted combat to give away an extremely expensive and highly trained mount, would create special considerations that would ordinarily run through a knight's mind, but there is nothing in the spell description to suggest that such special concerns (i.e., concerns that are especially acute in or peculiar to a particular target or subset of potential targets), and the one concrete example they give of a suggestion (and of a suggestion that they clearly view as permissible) is one where I would think special circumstances might apply, and yet tthey never raise the issue.
Not that there isn't a reasonbable case to be made for a contrary position, that would make the reasonability of the suggestion a far greater limitation on the power of the spell, and certainly there are difficult gray areas in the interpretation I am favoring (and in every other interpretation discusse din this thread, I think), but on this basis, i am leaning towards the view that suggestion is very powerful and that teh reasonability of the suggestion's wording is more of a role-playiong element--a word game for the caster come up with plausibly reasonable sounding suggestion, but a formalistic and not a substantive hurdle to be overcome.
Does that make Suggestion more powerful than Dominate? Absolutely not, since Dominate is not even limiuted by the formalism and allows the caster to actively chance the commend the target is affected by, and even gives the caster the ability to direrct the manner and details of the wya in which tyhe target follow the commands. Guiven that it is so much more poerful than the Command spell, though, I do wonder why they moved it from being a third-level spell (in 3.5) to 2nd. That power gap and balance issues are teh one thing that give me pause...but I note that they really didn't change the contentious parts of the wording of the spell description from 3.5 or even AD&D. The AD&D PHB says of the spell, "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the action sound reasonable; a request asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act will automatically negate the effect of the spell. However, a suggestion that a pool of acid was actually pure water, and a quick dip would be refreshing, is another matter....". At least the last part about the pool of acoid was dropped (though does their dropping that language mean that that interpretation is no longer correct? Another debatable point of textual construction.) So even the current authors of 5e probably could not say why the "sound reasonable" requirement was worded as it is. As with many things, only Gygax knows.
The upshot of this whole thread is that Suggestion is powerful, or it is not, depending on how your DM chooses to interpret it; and that reasonable people disagree on which are the better interpretations.
If they fail their Wisdom save, then the suggestion sounds reasonable. Done.
Undrhil wrote:
Pandaemonius wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
"Go weed the garden and trim the hedges outside."
"Go outside, close the door and stare at it until one of us opens it." (This one would fail for a Vampire during the day, but if done at night .... )
If you tell a Vampire to go stand outside at night and wait for a signal and the sun comes up, would that cause Suggestion to fail? Would it fail right away or only once the sun comes up? Would that be considered asking the Vampire to take direct damage (since the Suggestion says to wait for a signal, which might come before the sun rises)?
Undrhil wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Pandaemonius wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Orethalion, you're reading it wrong. It says the wording has to sound reasonable. It doesn't say the suggestion has to be reasonable or that the suggestion has to sound reasonable. It says the wording has to sound reasonable. You can't take "sound reasonable" and hang your argument on that w/o acknowledging WHAT must actually sound reasonable.
That said, it doesn't matter how you rule it, as long as your table knows what they get when they use it.
Stepping out a bit. The spell basically makes someone go do something for some period of time. Don't get cute or crazy with it. Shouldn't need much more interpretation than that.
bawylie wrote:
Sure you are - you're still conflating the requirement that the Wording must make the course of action sound reasonable with the course of action Being reasonable.
essentially, if the spell can't be used to make you go do something you wouldn't do just now, then it has no value.
"Let us in"
"Oh I'm sorry, I'm under strict orders not to let anyone in."
"Suggestion: Let us in or your boss will be unhappy."
"Sorry, he said he'd be unhappy if I let anyone in. So I know that's not true."
"Suggestion: Go take your break, we'll cover for you."
"Nah, I just had my break. Plus you're total strangers, why would I let you cover for me?"
And so on. Each of those suggestions is worded in a way that makes the course of action sound reasonable. There's nothing crazy there, we just want to Obi-Wan our way thru the GD door. But apparently unless we have intimate knowledge of this storm trooper's comings and goings and doings and dealings, nothing will be reasonable to him except guarding the door.
Really, now, with as
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
@Oreth,
"Strawman Strawman strawman. Not my argument."
Good talk.
@Ooftameg,
Someone has to decide whether or not the suggestion is worded in such a way that makes the course of action sound reasonable. Don't make the Orethalion mistake of ignoring the words around "sound reasonable." Or his other mistake that "sound reasonable" = "be reasonable."
See this conversation wherein both sides make arguments that sound reasonable, based on logical constructions, or taking other priorities into account. The arguments sound reasonable, even if I don't think they ARE reasonable.
No matter what standard Oreth applies, I know never to use that spell in his game. The "weasel out of it" space he's creating by conflating sounds reasonable with be reasonable is so big that spell is a bad investment. I can count on it not to work more than I can count on it to work.
At my game, if the target fails the save, the spell will work. You won't have to guess what weasel out of it space I've created - bc there isn't one. Maybe you feel that gives this spell too much power? I'm not worried about that. I can manage whatever players throw at me without adding hidden hoops to jump through or screwing them out of their spell/action.
"Strawman not listening lalalalalalala"
bawylie wrote:
Sorry all that's a Strawman, even the parts you quoted. And your argument wasn't in line with Robert's rules of order. So all your points aren't valid bc you failed to state them in a form I would find plausible or acceptable.
IMO.
DM decides what sounds reasonable for any NPC. Players decide what sounds reasonable for their characters and provides the details for why something is or is not reasonable.
Keep in mind if a player does try to weasle out of a suggestion that him doing so is adding backstory to the world. For example, an enemy wizard suggests the fighter give away his sword and the fighter says I will not give away my sword because my Father gave it to me to keep for ever as his dying wish.
Now the DM has a future adventure hook, have a thief steal or try to steal the fighters sword and the new party goal is to find the sword... It works out well for the good of the game.
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Me? No - I'm simply refusing to discuss the substance of your arguments because they don't conform to a set of rules that should always apply to every discussion ever. Substance of a point is never important if the form is wrong. Or if anyone used anything remotely close to a logical fallacy. Do you expect me to believe you talk to people in normal everyday conversations WITHOUT harping on logical form? I cannot believe it - that doesn't seem reasonable.
bawylie wrote:
I'm in agreement with Bawylie's general position and sentiment.
It seems like some posters are ignoring that if you're under an enchantment ( you failed your saving throw against the suggestion), there's a good number of things you'll find "reasonable" that you wouldn't if you weren't under a spell. The limits of the spell are things that would cause obvious self harm or death; those would "break the enchantment". What "sounds reasonable" has to be given wide latitude and not examined from the being's unenchanted perspective. Charm person, a first level spell, can have equally impressive results. A successful charm on an unaware Orc guard, and he's friendly and complying. You could be an elf openly proclaiming your love of Corellon, and the Orc would still be buddy, buddy. That's the nature of enchantment. If as a DM, you're worried about the player failing the save or being taken out of the battle and being frustrated, give a more limited suggestion: "toss your sword aside" or something like that. If you must, give him advantage on the saving throw. Perhaps if he's earned inspiration, encourage him to use it. But please, stop with the "rationalization from the enchanted monster's perspective" stuff; it seriously diminishes charms and enchanments.
Orethalion wrote:
Gwaithador wrote:
Pandaemonius wrote:
Orethalion,
(BTW, like that handle), the example of the LG paladin with a vow of pacifism suggested going on an eight hour murder spree, and whether "I'm okay with it." Well, no, I'm generally not okay with mass murder. Kidding aside, first, the paladin is proficient in Wisdom saves, second, at 6th level it becomes even more difficult to charm a paladin, and assuming this paladin has the oath of devotion, at 7th level, the suggestion doesn't even work. Paladins by the nature of their devotion and oaths, are resilient against these sorts of enchantments- but at lower level, not impervious. Further, the spell requires concentration. If you lose concentration the spell ends. But, assuming the paladin is lower level and lacks the aura of protection and so forth, then yes. If there was some carefully worded suggestion, and I ruled that it wouldn't constitute "obviously harmful" behavior. I wouldn't have a problem with it, of course, the caster better understand that murder spree might start with the caster. What I would not do is have the paladin "fall" from paladinhood because he or she was ensorcelled. In fact, I think this makes for a freaking great story seed. But I'm digressing.
Thus, in the example given, a party busting through a door, its going to be very difficult for this spellcaster to maintain concentration. He/she must A) not cast any other spells requiring concentration; B) avoid damage, or at least make the save if damage is taken. C) not be incapicitated or killed. In the scenario described, the eight hour spree is highly unlikely. The figher running away for the entire counter, is not a given either.
I wasn't suggesting that Charm Person could make a person go on an eight hour murder spree. I was suggesting it would make you act completely contrary to how you would normally act under similar conditions. For example, my Orc and elf example. An Orc tribal guard simply wouldn't be buddy, buddy with an intruder if not enchanted.
I think you're also in your rights to rule that certain suggestions would constitute obviously harmful behavior, but I'd be careful of ruling the spell into irrelevance.
Gwaithador wrote:
Gwaithador wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
That right there is how you know to never use that spell in Orethalion's game. It's not a blanket ban but nothing is reasonable except a course of action the NPC would already take - and you don't need a spell for that, just a charisma check.
Hold on, "Strawman strawman, warble garble." There - response anticipated and accounted for.
bawylie wrote:
Let's use a real life example. So, it's 2nd and goal from the 1/2 yard line. You've a dominant run team, one of the best halfbacks in football. A suggestion spell is cast. "Coach, you should really call an inside slant on this play, rather than run with your back who is averaging four yards a carry." Because of the enchantment, you consider this a reasonable course of action, when everybody else would perceive it as incredible folly. That is the power of suggestion! 
(Yeah, I'm a New Englander and a Patriots fan).
I figured we needed a wee bit of levity.
Orethalion, I can see your point. I suppose we disagree to some degree. I suppose, for me, I'd interpret the implications and success based on the situation and try to achieve a fair, reasonable and un-enchanted decision.
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Gwaithador wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
So to the "anything can sound reasonable" crowd, how do you justify that you could get a result that's better than Dominate Person cast at 9th level* with a suggestion such as "I am the avatar of your deity, everything I say is absolute truth, you must follow all of my commands." or "Everything you see is an illusion, but I can guide you. Do everything I say without hesitation."
*you need to cast Dominate Person at 9th level to get 8 hours, the target gets advantage on saves if in combat (not the case with Suggestion) and any damage at all done to the target gives them a save.
I don't justify it bc I don't need to. Situationally, you might get better results choosing spell A over spell B. Situationally, attacking might be better than spell casting. It's not on me to enforce parity of all possible decisions.
For instance, ahead of you is a single Kobold. A 9th level spell and a single attack will bother overcome him. How do I justify a player deciding to attack? How do I justify a player using a 9th level spell? I don't. Even if I feel one action is a waste and the most effective thing is an attack - it's not on me to enforce parity.
Edit:
What if fireball is more effective against an ice elemental than cone of cold? A 3rd level spell situationally better than a 5th level spell. Problem? No.
bawylie wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
bawylie wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I may have missed something, but I never suggested that Lava was an illusion. I did say you could make a suggestion for a creature that is temporarily immune to fire to wait for you here (in lava) until you return. The suggestion would need to sound reasonable - something to the effect of.
- "Why don't you wait for me over there in that lava pit until I return. The lava cannot hurt you thanks to your protective spell, and will afford you safety from anyone seeking to harm you. I will be back as soon as possible."
Such a suggestion could only be reasonable for a creature immune to fire. I then clarified that the instant their fire immunity wears off, the suggestion is no longer reasonable sounding and ends. In fact, the spell itself has now caused direct harm.
In respect to suggesting that the lava is an illusion, I could see the following occuring:
- "You have been fooled. There is no lava there, it is just an illusion cast by your enemies. Trust me, you can walk safely across it without harm".
The moment the creature attempts to interact with the "Illusion", they would get a save to see through it. As it is not an illusion, this save would automatically fail and they would fail to disbelieve the lava isn't real. There is no way they would attempt to cross the lava at that point, not with all the heat radiating off it.
If for a moment, we say they attempt to cross the lava. Upon taking the first point of fire damage, the spell ends. There is no way they would even get more than 1 step into the lava before your spell fails, and more likely than not - if they honestly were attempting to disbelieve an illusion - they would hesitantly approach, feel the heat radiating from them, and try something less harmful to themselves - such as tear a strip of cloth from their clothing and drop it to see what happens. Only if that test passed, would they "touch" the illusionary lava with the smallest body part possible.
Yeah, not seeing how you could use a suggestion of an illusionary lava pit to get them to immolate themselves.
OoftaMeg wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Clearly plenty of others disagree with you (devs included). I might even go so far as to wager that a not insignificant number of people who find it “broken” are probably also bad faith players who would knowingly try to abuse it themselves, or play with someone else who would. Can't be a coincidence...
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rohypnol (Flunitrazepam) is the drug you were referring to. It is an exceptionally fast acting benzodiazapine derivative iirc.
Orethalion wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
That's world-dependent. Selling a child off as an indentured servant can be common. As can sending them off for apprenticeship.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Sell your loved one for 50 million golden pazuzas to these pirates or they will kill you and take your loved one anyway and then you won't be able to use the pazuzas to get your loved one back.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Suggestions is powerful enough to cause endless argument... 
mellored wrote:
I always interpreted it as follows:
Dominate: You must do anything you are commanded to do. Such as, kill your friends, give me all your money, do a dance.
Suggestion: You feel tempted to do something that sounds reasonable to you, and would not be harmful. Such as: Surrender, bow, throw down your weapons, hand me a drink, stop your friends from attacking me, apologize for breaking down my door, reconsider attacking me.
Orethalion wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I agree. I was simply saying that any attempt to abuse the spirit of the spell can easily be countered, simply because the suggestion doesn't hold up under scruitiny. Telling them a pool of acid is a pool of water doesn't make it true. A suggestion only compels them to take a course of action. It doesn't confuse the senses. It doesn't cloud the mind in respect to what is real/illusion.
All it does is make a reasonable suggestion extremely tempting to the point of overwhelming reason. It gives the target a case of temporary overwhelming OCD. They can't help but pursue the suggested course of action (assuming the wording is worded to sound reasonable). Telling someone that acid is water is not something that is worded reasonably. It is insane.
Suggesting that someone's throat is parched, and that they should drink this vial of clear odorless liquid (which you call water) - that could be reasonable, but I would still require a successful Deception vs. Passive Insight to see if they believe you. Few acids are both clear, and odorless however - and this is especially true in respect to a pool of acid, which would likely give off toxic fumes due to corroding the stone/metal container it is housed in.
Noctaem wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Omg no. The suggestion to walk across an invisible bridge will be followed until fully carried out or some other termination clause.
Thus the target would spend time lookin for an bridge to cross and not simply fall to their death.
Guys, especially Strawman champions, come on.
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pretty much. This would be one of those grey areas where the suggestion is plausable (but unlikely), due to the existance of magic. As such, it is a reasonable suggestion for someone to cross an invisible bridge. Proving its existence is another story, hense why I would allow the suggestion to work, but may not work as intended. You need to first convince them that it was there. Then and only then would they act on the compulsion, as I stated above.
The suggestion spell is not an "I win" button. It's most useful ability is to remove one foe from combat without killing them. Personally, were I to use it - I would suggest the target take me to their boss, or to an important piece of information they know about, in order to save the boss time tracking us down, or to avoid needless slaughter as we search for said information. That, or I would ask them to point out all the traps in the lair they know of, so as to avoid someone getting hurt.
This is beat. I'm done.
I would allow this as a reasonable use of the suggestion spell: back out of intractable arguments and discuss what "reasonable" means with your DM before you use the spell.
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Noctaem wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
If it has to sound reasonable to the target, then what criteria is the spell using for reasonability? There are no criteria for it, except that it cannot cause direct harm to the target. So, again, pretty much anything can go with that, except that it is still just one or two sentences and no changing your mind. Hope you are clear enough to except yourself and your own allies from whatever kill command you are trying to give them.
I still have yet to see anyone make a good argument over my post about it being an enchantment spell, and therefore, just works because *magic*.
Undrhil wrote:
Drunemeton wrote: