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).

Quote from Pantagruel666>>

 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:

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).

lol. The example I used is a famous movie referenced used for humor as it is the obvious inspiration for the spell. 

Rules as Written & as Intended: 

• (a) Yes, a knight giving her horse to a beggar sounds reasonable. He's a beggar. She's a (supposedly) virtuous knight and assisting the downtrodden is what she does.
• (b) Compare this to the spell Friends which specifically states the target knows it was enchanted when the spell ends. That's not in the description for Suggestion. When the spell ends she's not aware that she was enchanted. She believes it was her idea to go along with the suggestion. 

I believe AEDorsay was correct in this is people trying to "find the outs". Naturally, when you're the DM you get to adjudicate how spells work. When you believe a spell is problematic then you can take it away. Not every gaming group wants a non-violent solution to every problem, after all. And many do have the "It's the DM vs the Players" mentality. I am fortunate enough to DM in a group that does neither. 

Quote from Rathkryn >>

I believe AEDorsay was correct in this is people trying to "find the outs".

 No, it really isn't. It's a case of "neither as a DM nor a player do I have a clear idea of what this spell does or is supposed to do... so I just don't use it because that's easier than figuring out the answer".

I don't know.  While I agree the spell doesn't explicitly state that the target knows they were influenced, it also doesn't say it changes the target's view of anything it simply compels them to do an action.

In the completely real non-magical world taking an action (that seemed reasonable at the time) and then deciding it wasn't reasonable and undoing it is simply "changing your mind".  Which I don't think the spell prevents from happening - the spell merely makes you think in that 8 hour period that the right course of action is X.  At the end of the spell it seems reasonable that you may no longer think that and regret attacking your friend, giving away mom's long sword, or handing your horse off to a peasant.  And often people that regret something will try to undo what they have done which seems perfectly reasonable.

I don't really think this is about adversarial player/DM either.  This is about a poorly worded spell that has unclear boundaries that we're trying to understand.  The discussion has given me a better idea of what people think the RAI is (even if I think it seems a bit much for a 2nd level spell).  And it confirms for me that the RAW is pretty horrible.  Pantagruel666 suggested a better RAW that would be a clear improvement over the current spell.

One way of doing is just to combine it in some way with the regular influence rules -- just treat a failed save as equivalent to a successful deception or persuasion check (not advantage on the check -- you just succeed). It's not like the influence rules are super clear either, but DMs usually at least have a concept of what is a possible check.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

One way of doing is just to combine it in some way with the regular influence rules -- just treat a failed save as equivalent to a successful deception or persuasion check (not advantage on the check -- you just succeed). It's not like the influence rules are super clear either, but DMs usually at least have a concept of what is a possible check.

 I think this would be an elegant solution and has the benefit of putting the spell's power level at what seems like the right place for 2nd level.