Quote from Linklite >>

Quote from JustaFarmer >>

Quote from TraxTheTricky >>

Quote from JustaFarmer >>

Quote from TraxTheTricky >>

I disagree.  The word "obviously" leaves too much room as other posters have pointed out to be interpreted and too much room to have different interpretations depending on context.  The spell would be quite a bit better if the word "obviously" was replaced with the word "inherently" IMO.

Obviously: in a way that is easily perceived or understood; clearly.

Inherently: in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.

 

 

 I don't agree with your interpretation of words, but it is also irrelevant. That is not how the spell reads. The RAW is very clear.

If I have a BBEG cast Mass Suggestion and say "You guys look tired. You should go home and take a nap.", there is very good chance that a big chunk of the party will disengage from the encounter and leave. That in no way that suggestion can be twisted to to have players that fail the save refuse. It is also likely lethal to those that remain to fight.

 
Lol, I used standard Oxford dictionary definitions of "obviously" and "inherently".  If you don't like those definitions, its not me you disagree with.

The argument that this is RAW falls apart because the designers used vague language open to interpretation.  RAW and RAI could be reconciled by simply changing the words. 

 

 It is much simpler to remove the spells in question from the game, as opposed to wrangling about wording.

 That's not an option, given the OP is a player. 

 

Quote from Rathkryn >>

How is this horribly written? Anything obviously harmful ends the spell. 

Some in the thread interpreted "harmful" to mean "proximately causing the loss of HP", which is how you interpret it here:

The spell also states that if you or your allies harm the target then the spell ends as well. So the only way it would work in combat is if nobody attacked the target between the time it was cast and the time the target gets to take its action. 

 "Harmful" is open to interpretation. For example, the online dictionary defines it exclusively as physical damage. Cambridge opens it up to other forms of damage including non-literal. Merriam-Webster confines it to physical or mental damage. Different dictionaries give different answers as to whether giving the most valuable item counts as "harmful", as well as different posters on this thread.

You seem to be of the opinion that if it is the proximate cause of a setback, it counts, but not if it's not the proximate. This isn't actually arguing the meaning of "harmful", but of "obvious". I'd disagree - if I'm being asked to lose a rather valuable object, I'd see that as obviously damaging to my interests. Whether I'm in a battle or not is not much of a game changer, actually. It's still obvious that I'm doing something very counterproductive to my interests. The question is whether it counts as harmful or if it doesn't qualify, not whether it's obvious. Something not obvious is "Go and give this letter, the contents of which is unknown to you, to that giant Minotaur over there", the contents of which insult the Minotaur's mother.

So, there are two key words in adjudicating whether the spell is valid or not, "obvious" and "harmful", and both can be validly  understood in multiple different ways that allow for different answers to the same questions. That can lead to contention at the table as players draw one conclusion and the DM another. Look at Fireball for an example of a spell that is better written. Either you are in range, or you're not. That is clearly defined in the rules. If you're out of range, nothing happens. If you are in range, you get to do a Dex Save; succeed and you get half of 8d6 Fire damage, if you fail you get the full whack. There are very few valid arguments to be made by someone who understands the rules as written in the book. Compare that to Suggestion where two key words to understanding whether it works or not are easily contestable even by someone who has read and understood all the rules as given.

A well written spell is clear and undebatable as to whether it works and what its effects are. It doesn't result in arguments at the table, because we can read it and there's no discussion as to whether it applies or what it does. Suggestion's writing does not preclude good faith disagreements at all and actually encourages them.

That's why it's poorly written.

Great point!  It is interesting because the example they give of a knight giving away their horse is something that could be interpreted as "harmful" as well (horses are very expensive).  If someone walked up to me and demanded my car, I would consider that "harmful to me".

In the first paragraph of the spell they give far more clear examples of "will cause harm to my person", but then their horse example is there too.  If I read the spell in it's totality, then I would say the RAI seems to be scratching at "the spell fails if it would cause the target to physically injure themself".  In which case I would argue the OP's example might work against that PC. 

However, I'm dubious that the spell should be this powerful only excluding the target from causing themselves bodily harm.  Being able to compel any non self-injuring behavior for up to 8 hours feels way too good for a 2nd level spell.  So that makes me question the RAI I guessed at above.  

The spell's wording could be considerably improved and it isn't entirely clear what the RAI is.  If it is about only excluding physical self-injury then rather than only badly worded, the spell is grossly overpowered. 

People really want to stretch "obviously harmful" to mean some pretty insane things. Sure, if you stretch your imagination, you can call anything harmful. Giving up literally any item that has a gold value or any niche use - Woah man, what if I were to need the item or gold for a bribe in a couple of years and not having it leads me to being harmed? Leave a fight unharmed - woah man, that could get my allies harmed and that hinders my path to my eventual goal and that's harming me in the long run right? Don't go into that specific house - but wait, what if that house has some powerful weapons in it, and the lack of that firepower harms me in my next fight? Spill the dirt about my secret employer - but bro, what if they're like, really mad that I did that and they harm me for it?

If one believes that this spell can't be used to disarm, which is not at all obviously harmful by itself, then I don't know what you think the spell can be used for. 

Obviously harmful generally means something that is seen as harmful in that moment to everyone. It is not based in the notion of what could be harmful -- if the same thing might not be harmful in a different context, then it is not obviously harmful.

IN this case, as I mentioned, it could be obviously harmful -- it depends on the what he magical item can do, specifically, not just generally. If the players know that giving it up would be giving the BBEG the ability to kill them all, then it wouldn't happen.

Being suggested to give up gold, or to drop a weapon, or to run away are not obviously harmful. Being suggested to turn over your kingdom is not obviously harmful. Being asked to cut down your best friend of 20 years would be obviously harmful, but being asked to cut down that person you met two weeks ago probably is not obviously harmful. sking it to leave doesn't mean that they aren't subject to an opportunity attack, for example -- it is not the consequence of the act that counts, it is the act itself. You could tell a 1st level character to jump of that ledge if the drop is less than 10 feet, but you couldn't if it is more than 20 (adjust by average damage of 3.5 feet per 10' and the length of the fall).

So the spell capitalizes on the moment, on the context, and without that context, you cannot make a call, because there is no one size fits all answer. That is, a bunch of it depends on the Role Play segment, and you cannot judge roleplay unless you are there.

IF the players are not fully aware of all that the magic item does, then it only applies to what they do know about it, as well.

No matter how reasonably the request is worded (which is purely a DM call), the suggestion cannot do anything obviously harmful, and it is up to DM fiat what constitutes obviously harmful. Both Suggestion and Mass suggestion have this requirement -- Charm Person does not.

I'm curious, when you read "obviously harmful" do you read it as "obviously harmful [to the target themselves]" or "obviously harmful [in general]"

The examples seem to imply the first one (they are all about harm to the target), but now I'm really trying to figure out the bounds of this spell.

Would it be valid to word a suggestion that compels the target to attack others, damage property, etc?  (so long as that was described as a reasonable course of action)

I'm genuinely interested in what the bounds of the spell are now, and for some of you it sees more obvious than it is to me.

Quote from TraxTheTricky >>

I'm curious, when you read "obviously harmful" do you read it as "obviously harmful [to the target themselves]" or "obviously harmful [in general]"

The examples seem to imply the first one (they are all about harm to the target), but now I'm really trying to figure out the bounds of this spell.

Would it be valid to word a suggestion that compels the target to attack others, damage property, etc?  (so long as that was described as a reasonable course of action)

I'm genuinely interested in what the bounds of the spell are now, and for some of you it sees more obvious than it is to me.

 
As a Charmed Condition, the "harm to" is always and only the Caster or the Target.

So the limitation from suggesting someone fight their friend(s) is really just can you word it in a reasonable way, right?

I suppose something like "Your companion is possessed by a demon.  We must incapacitate him and exorcise the demon".

Assuming demonic possession is plausible in your world and the person saying this is someone who you would at least reasonably listen to on the first point (i.e, this wouldn't work against a target the caster is actively opposing at the time of casting, or would it?)

Quote from TraxTheTricky >>

So the limitation from suggesting someone fight their friend(s) is really just can you word it in a reasonable way, right?

I suppose something like "Your companion is possessed by a demon.  We must incapacitate him and exorcise the demon".

Assuming demonic possession is plausible in your world and the person saying this is someone who you would at least reasonably listen to on the first point (i.e, this wouldn't work against a target the caster is actively opposing at the time of casting, or would it?)

 
Yes.

And it applies both to PCs and NPCs.

A core rule a lot of player's hate and DM's forget is that if Players can do it, the BBEG can do it.

But it does not always work the other way -- BBEGs can do things PCs cannot. This is an intentional function of the game, as well -- The antagonist is always going to be able to do things that the protagonists cannot.

So to use the spell successfully

(1) Present a reasonable course of action to the target

(2) Don't ask the target to do anything that directly/immediately hurts themselves 

(3) Target has to fail their save

#2 is not immediately obvious to me based on how it is written but I do understand how it can be read that way (and can agree it is at least likely RAI).  Some minor rewrites would make RAW match RAI I think.

With clarity on #2, we're left with a lot of judgment for the DM to determine reasonableness which is what DMs are for.

This brings up a very good point - Command vs. Suggest. This may be the crux of the problem right here. 

The name of the spell is Suggestion - implying nobody has to do what's suggested. A suggestion is just that - a suggested course of action. Most people ignore suggestions.

Whereas a Command must be followed.

This clear things up for me, finally. Suggestion is a stupid, pointless confusing spell that only causes contention at the table. It should be removed from the game entirely. Which is is exactly what I'm going to "suggest" to our DM.

Back to the OP post they are in the clear on #2 but #1 depends entirely on the context

Quote from Wheeler777 

This clear things up for me, finally. Suggestion is a stupid, pointless confusing spell that only causes contention at the table. It should be removed from the game entirely. Which is is exactly what I'm going to "suggest" to our DM.

Aside from the confusion which I think could be addressed there is a power level issue here.  You can make someone save or suck (with some limitations) and they get NO repeated saves or any way to break free really for 8 hours.  That is batshit insane for a 2nd level spell.

Compare this to Otto's Dance which compels the target to dance but which you could do with a suggestion too.  Ottos dance is a 6th level spell and

- it only lasts one minute

- you can use your action to save and break it each round

Now you can attack someone that is dancing which is cool but other than that suggestion is kind of "better" plus you can make the target do stuff besides dance.

The big difference is that Ottos doesn't have to pass the reasonableness test which to me says the best way to keep Suggestion from being better than almost any save/suck spell is that the reasonable test has to be relatively hard to pass.

Quote from TraxTheTricky >>

Quote from Wheeler777 

This clear things up for me, finally. Suggestion is a stupid, pointless confusing spell that only causes contention at the table. It should be removed from the game entirely. Which is is exactly what I'm going to "suggest" to our DM.

 

Aside from the confusion which I think could be addressed there is a power level issue here.  You can make someone save or suck (with some limitations) and they get NO repeated saves or any way to break free really for 8 hours.  That is batshit insane for a 2nd level spell.

Compare this to Otto's Dance which compels the target to dance but which you could do with a suggestion too.  Ottos dance is a 6th level spell and

- it only lasts one minute

- you can use your action to save and break it each round

Now you can attack someone that is dancing which is cool but other than that suggestion is kind of "better" plus you can make the target do stuff besides dance.

Otiluke's adds penalties to the affected, Suggestion doesn't. Those penalties are what makes it more powerful.

• use all its movement to dance without leaving its space 
• has disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws and attack rolls. 
• other creatures have advantage on attack rolls against it.

While you can use Suggestion to make them dance, you cannot use suggestion to give them disadvantage on Dex or give othes advantage. Also, you are looking at the spell from a very narrow frame of reference.

This is a spell that is more about roleplay. It has an 8 hour duration because it is meant to be used to suggest a course of action that could possibly take time to do.

Command is a spell that can do one thing, and you only have one word to do it with. SO while you could use Suggestion to do the same thing, why would you? Command is a less intensive spell.

Otiluke's Dancing is a spell where you can't have the victim give you something or drop something or go do a particular task (run down to the general store and bring back a box of those cookies you know I love so much) -- it is basically you there, start dancing so we can kill you.

WHich is another thing -- suggestion has the "obvious harm" element (and relies on the Charm condition) as well as the "can't attack the guy"; Otiluke's doesn't The only thing they can do is dance, and they will do it even while they are being attacked, and are unable to defend themselves well -- that doesn't apply to suggestion.

Spells don't "stand alone" -- they are often set up in chains -- command to suggestion to charm person to mass suggest to ...

Each part of that chain is a little stronger than the last *in some way*, and that way may not be in the combat or strict encounter usefulness way.

My biggest problem with the spell isn't the 'obviously harmful' clause, it's with "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable."

Because, well, if it's actually a reasonable suggestion, you should be able to get people to do it without casting a spell. Which means actual reasonableness can't be the standard, and leaves open the question of what the standard actually is. Some sort of veneer of plausibility?

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

My biggest problem with the spell isn't the 'obviously harmful' clause, it's with "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable."

Because, well, if it's actually a reasonable suggestion, you should be able to get people to do it without casting a spell. Which means actual reasonableness can't be the standard, and leaves open the question of what the standard actually is. Some sort of veneer of plausibility?

 Omg!  That is totally right, and the core of why the "reasonable" clause is so hard to adjudicate.

 So to use AeDorsay's chain if you have a reasonable suggestion for someone:

- No spell - roll persuasion and if you beat some DC then the DM probably has them follow what you said

- Charm Person - you roll with advantage

- Suggestion - you automatically succeed

This would be the right power level for the spell IMO - it allows you to automatically succeed on a persuasion check without passing the test.

Since DMs adjudicate persuasion all the time this would be far easier to manage.  It would be a significant nerf from how this spell is generally used.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

My biggest problem with the spell isn't the 'obviously harmful' clause, it's with "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable."

Because, well, if it's actually a reasonable suggestion, you should be able to get people to do it without casting a spell. Which means actual reasonableness can't be the standard, and leaves open the question of what the standard actually is. Some sort of veneer of plausibility?

 
Hence the standard is "sound reasonable", not factually reasonable.

This is the internet -- there are ten thousand things that sound reasonable, but are actually mighty harmful, lol. I can think of a certain trial going on where the defense is saying that lying is reasonable, ordinary, and customary. And a lot of people think it is.

I don't understand the confusion here. Just because something is reasonable doesn't mean that people will do it for you if you ask them. 

"These are not the droids you're looking for!" sounds reasonable so the spell works. But it is not actually reasonable as they are the droids he is looking for and he hasn't yet verified they're not. 

That's the intended purpose of the spell. 

Quote from Rathkryn >>

I don't understand the confusion here. Just because something is reasonable doesn't mean that people will do it for you if you ask them. 

"These are not the droids you're looking for!" sounds reasonable so the spell works. But it is not actually reasonable as they are the droids he is looking for and he hasn't yet verified they're not. 

That's the intended purpose of the spell. 

 
I am not sure it is confusion so much as "trying to find the outs", lol. 

You are 100% correct. I have said this in the past. The only thing you can suggest a PC do is something it would do anyway. Period.

Ok, so it sounds like the issue is related to the spell not having a distinct determining factor with a binary outcome. The spell’s description consists of caveats that can influence how the spell will affect the target. So far there are three elements being discussed that can influence how the target will respond to the spell:

1. The course of action must sound reasonable
1. A obviously harmful act will cause the spell to fail
2. The target attempts a saving throw
3. The target pursues the course of action to the best of its ability
1. This is based on the wording of the phrase (i.e. suggestion) form the caster.  If the target meets this criteria, even if it is not what the caster expected, the spell ends.

From the posts, it sounds like bullet #1 and how to interpret these criteria is what causes the most debate.  I am assuming that #3 is relatively accepted aspect of the spell.

Now, I don’t think the problem is the wording or the language used.  Rather, I think including a spell like this is always going to lead to moments of debate in game sessions. The developers cannot list all the potential activities that the caster can suggest, nor could they list all the activities that would cause the spell to fail.  This will result in players being able to challenge any interpretation of conditions being used in ruling if the spell worked.

The only recommendation I can make is that if such debates start happening and become a stalemate between participants in the game, then I think the DM should shift the conversation to the term(s) in the spell’s description that is causing the hangup.  The objective of the conversation should be to reach an agreed definition that is generic and universal with respect to how the game operates. The definition should not be based on the situation that inspired the debate.  Whenever the spell is cast and there is a challenge then anyone at the table can call for the agreed upon definition of term(s) to be reviewed.  This would hopefully allow the table to adjudicate further instances with more ease and allow for the game to proceed.

Quote from Rathkryn >>

I don't understand the confusion here. Just because something is reasonable doesn't mean that people will do it for you if you ask them. 

"These are not the droids you're looking for!" sounds reasonable so the spell works. But it is not actually reasonable as they are the droids he is looking for and he hasn't yet verified they're not. 

That's the intended purpose of the spell. 

 That's not even a legal use case. Suggestion requires you specify a course of action, and that's not a course of action. That's an attempt to make your target believe a counterfactual. Which is an entirely reasonable spell:

You suggest a set of facts and actions (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 target behaves as if the suggested facts are true, and will take the suggested action as long it is an appropriate response to its (possibly altered) understanding of reality. The spell automatically fails if the suggested facts are obviously false, or if the suggested course of action involves harm to self. The target gets a new save if exposed to evidence that its altered understanding is incorrect.

but isn't what RAW suggestion does (the examples don't help any. For example, a suggestion of "you might suggest that a knight give her warhorse to the first beggar she meets." (a) doesn't sound reasonable, and (b) causes the spell to immediately end, so the knight goes "Hey, I was under an enchantment" and takes it back).