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.
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.
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.
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.
So you’re saying a player should spend a 2nd level spell to just make the functional equivalent of a Persuasion roll? At that point, why bother with the spell?
So you’re saying a player should spend a 2nd level spell to just make the functional equivalent of a Persuasion roll? At that point, why bother with the spell?
For the same reason knock exists? It's presumably success on a hard roll at least.
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).
The full quote was something along the lines of “You don’t need to see our papers, these are not the droids you’re looking for, and we can move along now” (obviously I’m paraphrasing to the intent, please don’t nitpick based on the exact wording in the movie). I’d call that valid, as the effect was to get through the checkpoint without being inspected; one single instance. It also neatly highlights the distinction between “sound reasonable” and “be reasonable”; the argument isn’t actually valid in the situation, but it explains why the guard is letting them through.
So you’re saying a player should spend a 2nd level spell to just make the functional equivalent of a Persuasion roll? At that point, why bother with the spell?
For the same reason knock exists? It's presumably success on a hard roll at least.
Point, though as a counterpoint lock picking requires proficiency with thieves tools, which is relatively uncommon, whereas any PC can attempt a persuade roll. Also, Knock has more utility than is possible with thieves tools (opening a barred door), whereas your proposed interpretation of Suggestion is basically just “you succeed at a Persuade roll”.
I was gonna say, um, yeah -- any of the assorted skills can be tried by anyone. They just can't add their proficiency bonus to the roll. Anyone can attempt to pick a lock, or persuade, or whatever -- those with proficiency in it get to add their bonus is all (for default rules).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Pretty sure tools require proficiency to make the attempt
Okay, double checked that and the PHB only talks about PB (must have been thinking of crafting), but regardless the point stands that Knock functions in situations when any reasonable skill roll would not- such as a barred iron door. Nothing to pick and no realistic expectation of forcing it via Athletics. Thus similarly Suggestion should not be limited solely to what can be achieved via Persuasion.
Thieves' Tools. This set of tools includes a small file, a set of lock picks, a small mirror mounted on a metal handle, a set of narrow-bladed scissors, and a pair of pliers. Proficiency with these tools lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to disarm traps or open locks.
Nothing about that wording suggests that you cannot use the tools without the proficiency.
Pretty sure tools require proficiency to make the attempt
Other Dexterity Checks. The DM might call for a Dexterity check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
Control a heavily laden cart on a steep descent
Steer a chariot around a tight turn
Pick a lock
Disable a trap
Securely tie up a prisoner
Wriggle free of bonds
Play a stringed instrument
Craft a small or detailed object
Taking the tools is how you get proficiency. Without the tools, you cannot add your bonus. But you can still pick the lock.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Pretty sure tools require proficiency to make the attempt
Other Dexterity Checks. The DM might call for a Dexterity check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
Control a heavily laden cart on a steep descent
Steer a chariot around a tight turn
Pick a lock
Disable a trap
Securely tie up a prisoner
Wriggle free of bonds
Play a stringed instrument
Craft a small or detailed object
Taking the tools is how you get proficiency. Without the tools, you cannot add your bonus. But you can still pick the lock.
Oh? This has been a major discussion between me and a GM: Whether or not you can attempt a thing without proficiency.
So am I hearing this right - having tools let's you try the stuff, being proficient let's you add your proficiency bonus? That seems maybe too forgiving? Like, can I forge full plate without proficiency? That would be dubious =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Pretty sure tools require proficiency to make the attempt
Other Dexterity Checks. The DM might call for a Dexterity check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
Control a heavily laden cart on a steep descent
Steer a chariot around a tight turn
Pick a lock
Disable a trap
Securely tie up a prisoner
Wriggle free of bonds
Play a stringed instrument
Craft a small or detailed object
Taking the tools is how you get proficiency. Without the tools, you cannot add your bonus. But you can still pick the lock.
Oh? This has been a major discussion between me and a GM: Whether or not you can attempt a thing without proficiency.
So am I hearing this right - having tools let's you try the stuff, being proficient let's you add your proficiency bonus? That seems maybe too forgiving? Like, can I forge full plate without proficiency? That would be dubious =)
The crafting section calls for proficiency, I think that's what I was getting crossed here. Granted, I'd honestly call for tool prof for lockpicking as well. A lock that anyone can just stick a tool in, shake a few times, and open is hardly even worth mentioning during play.
Pretty sure tools require proficiency to make the attempt
Other Dexterity Checks. The DM might call for a Dexterity check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
Control a heavily laden cart on a steep descent
Steer a chariot around a tight turn
Pick a lock
Disable a trap
Securely tie up a prisoner
Wriggle free of bonds
Play a stringed instrument
Craft a small or detailed object
Taking the tools is how you get proficiency. Without the tools, you cannot add your bonus. But you can still pick the lock.
Oh? This has been a major discussion between me and a GM: Whether or not you can attempt a thing without proficiency.
So am I hearing this right - having tools let's you try the stuff, being proficient let's you add your proficiency bonus? That seems maybe too forgiving? Like, can I forge full plate without proficiency? That would be dubious =)
If you have the tools, you can add your proficiency bonus. No tools, no proficiency bonus. If you have an ability score, you can still try.
The goal of it, mechanically, is that someone should be able to give something a try if they do not have proficiency at it. However, rather than apply a penalty to such like disadvantage or a negative, you simply do not gain the benefit of having proficiency -- which is what the tools represent.
One of the biggest pet peeves of older players is that this means that Rogues are no longer the ones you turn to for your "trap and lock" stuff. Because anyone can try it, and all of it is right there in the description of the ability scores.
The reason for this is pretty simple, but they never really mention it directly in the rules: If you are not proficient, the DC should be higher. This is where the penalty phase comes in. Not knowing how to pick a lock and not having the tools doesn't mean you can't try -- it means you are less likely to succeed.
A Fighter without a set of lockpicking tools and a 16 DEX on a Hard lock (DC 20) does not get to use their proficiency bonus.
A Rogue is going to be able to apply their Proficiency bonus (because Rogues always get the thieves tools) in the same circumstance.
If you adjust the DC based on the absence of Proficiency, you suddenly are able to make that difference much more clear.
Can you forge a set of plate armor without proficiency? Well, yes. However, how much harder is it for you to do it -- without the tools or the knowledge? The tool sets represent the idea that the character knows how to use them and understands the process of making it.
This system lets anyone try to do anything, but their chance of success is going to be lower than if they had the knowledge and training to do it. Without a system like that, you cannot try to do something if you don't know how, and that kinda defeats the whole "tell a good story" thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
As a DM I have recently used Suggestion on my players and in turn had player use it successfully. when I used it on them i phrased it like this "Can you get your friends off my back for a few minutes." and when the party used it. it was the Jedi mind trick "We are not the people you are looking for." My players did not find fault with my use of the spell. I cannot find fault with their use of the spell because it followed both the letter and the spirit of the spell.
Suggestion is not an I WIN spell. It is at its heart a role-playing spell it is not like fireball which if you want can cast hither and yon killing your way through a city... Suggestion has to be used within clear context of a social interaction, with two sentences or less. it cannot put the target in danger or cause the target harm.
the OP's use of the spell will fail because if the item in question has effects that make it a danger to the target, and by extension the party it is not a reasonable suggestion to give up an item that could be used against yourself or your party. Now if the caster took the time and made themselves look like one the party members and had the target of the spell partially separated from the party and made the suggestion "Hey let's take this to a sage I know and determine if this item has more powers." would be a reasonable suggestion. Which could lead to a twist in the campaign because if planned correctly you could kidnap or kill the character you have successfully separated from the party and still use the item against the party later in the campaign.
Now throughout this thread i have heard Good DMs would ban suggestion and other troublesome spells. That is not the case at all a good DM reads the troublesome spells and abilities and will make a ruling that is generally even handed for both themselves and their players. They will then discuss it with their players so that everyone understands.
On the subject of Suggestion impinging on player agency. I will refer to earlier in my post when I successfully used suggestion on my party in particular my cousin's eldritch knight. the mage made the suggestion to calm his friends down my cousin rolls a one on the save. He goes to calm the party down after the session we discussed it and i asked him point blank why didn't you grab the mage by the arm and drag him along.?... nothing in the suggestion compelled you to let him go. that was the lightbulb moment for my cousin as a player and DM. His player agency was affected because he did not stop to think. now he views suggestion in a completely different light. if there was ever a spell in D&D that called for Malicious compliance suggestion, is it.
Didn’t have time to read everything but did the bad guy run off with the item? Did the party kill the bad guy and the item is back in the character’s possession? Did the player talk to the DM?
If the bad guy ran off with the weapon, was it for a reason? (The homebrew item was too powerful for the level of the party so the DM took it temporarily so that they could regain it, and have extra animosity towards the bad guy for the theft, at a more appropriate level. See “Did the player talk to the DM” above)
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:
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.
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.
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.
So you’re saying a player should spend a 2nd level spell to just make the functional equivalent of a Persuasion roll? At that point, why bother with the spell?
For the same reason knock exists? It's presumably success on a hard roll at least.
The full quote was something along the lines of “You don’t need to see our papers, these are not the droids you’re looking for, and we can move along now” (obviously I’m paraphrasing to the intent, please don’t nitpick based on the exact wording in the movie). I’d call that valid, as the effect was to get through the checkpoint without being inspected; one single instance. It also neatly highlights the distinction between “sound reasonable” and “be reasonable”; the argument isn’t actually valid in the situation, but it explains why the guard is letting them through.
Point, though as a counterpoint lock picking requires proficiency with thieves tools, which is relatively uncommon, whereas any PC can attempt a persuade roll. Also, Knock has more utility than is possible with thieves tools (opening a barred door), whereas your proposed interpretation of Suggestion is basically just “you succeed at a Persuade roll”.
No it doesn't. You just can't add your proficiency bonus if you aren't proficient.
I was gonna say, um, yeah -- any of the assorted skills can be tried by anyone. They just can't add their proficiency bonus to the roll. Anyone can attempt to pick a lock, or persuade, or whatever -- those with proficiency in it get to add their bonus is all (for default rules).
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Pretty sure tools require proficiency to make the attempt
Okay, double checked that and the PHB only talks about PB (must have been thinking of crafting), but regardless the point stands that Knock functions in situations when any reasonable skill roll would not- such as a barred iron door. Nothing to pick and no realistic expectation of forcing it via Athletics. Thus similarly Suggestion should not be limited solely to what can be achieved via Persuasion.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/equipment#Tools
Nothing about that wording suggests that you cannot use the tools without the proficiency.
Other Dexterity Checks. The DM might call for a Dexterity check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
Taking the tools is how you get proficiency. Without the tools, you cannot add your bonus. But you can still pick the lock.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Oh? This has been a major discussion between me and a GM: Whether or not you can attempt a thing without proficiency.
So am I hearing this right - having tools let's you try the stuff, being proficient let's you add your proficiency bonus? That seems maybe too forgiving? Like, can I forge full plate without proficiency? That would be dubious =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The crafting section calls for proficiency, I think that's what I was getting crossed here. Granted, I'd honestly call for tool prof for lockpicking as well. A lock that anyone can just stick a tool in, shake a few times, and open is hardly even worth mentioning during play.
If you have the tools, you can add your proficiency bonus. No tools, no proficiency bonus. If you have an ability score, you can still try.
The goal of it, mechanically, is that someone should be able to give something a try if they do not have proficiency at it. However, rather than apply a penalty to such like disadvantage or a negative, you simply do not gain the benefit of having proficiency -- which is what the tools represent.
One of the biggest pet peeves of older players is that this means that Rogues are no longer the ones you turn to for your "trap and lock" stuff. Because anyone can try it, and all of it is right there in the description of the ability scores.
The reason for this is pretty simple, but they never really mention it directly in the rules: If you are not proficient, the DC should be higher. This is where the penalty phase comes in. Not knowing how to pick a lock and not having the tools doesn't mean you can't try -- it means you are less likely to succeed.
A Fighter without a set of lockpicking tools and a 16 DEX on a Hard lock (DC 20) does not get to use their proficiency bonus.
A Rogue is going to be able to apply their Proficiency bonus (because Rogues always get the thieves tools) in the same circumstance.
If you adjust the DC based on the absence of Proficiency, you suddenly are able to make that difference much more clear.
Can you forge a set of plate armor without proficiency? Well, yes. However, how much harder is it for you to do it -- without the tools or the knowledge? The tool sets represent the idea that the character knows how to use them and understands the process of making it.
This system lets anyone try to do anything, but their chance of success is going to be lower than if they had the knowledge and training to do it. Without a system like that, you cannot try to do something if you don't know how, and that kinda defeats the whole "tell a good story" thing.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
As a DM I have recently used Suggestion on my players and in turn had player use it successfully. when I used it on them i phrased it like this "Can you get your friends off my back for a few minutes." and when the party used it. it was the Jedi mind trick "We are not the people you are looking for." My players did not find fault with my use of the spell. I cannot find fault with their use of the spell because it followed both the letter and the spirit of the spell.
Suggestion is not an I WIN spell. It is at its heart a role-playing spell it is not like fireball which if you want can cast hither and yon killing your way through a city... Suggestion has to be used within clear context of a social interaction, with two sentences or less. it cannot put the target in danger or cause the target harm.
the OP's use of the spell will fail because if the item in question has effects that make it a danger to the target, and by extension the party it is not a reasonable suggestion to give up an item that could be used against yourself or your party. Now if the caster took the time and made themselves look like one the party members and had the target of the spell partially separated from the party and made the suggestion "Hey let's take this to a sage I know and determine if this item has more powers." would be a reasonable suggestion. Which could lead to a twist in the campaign because if planned correctly you could kidnap or kill the character you have successfully separated from the party and still use the item against the party later in the campaign.
Now throughout this thread i have heard Good DMs would ban suggestion and other troublesome spells. That is not the case at all a good DM reads the troublesome spells and abilities and will make a ruling that is generally even handed for both themselves and their players. They will then discuss it with their players so that everyone understands.
On the subject of Suggestion impinging on player agency. I will refer to earlier in my post when I successfully used suggestion on my party in particular my cousin's eldritch knight. the mage made the suggestion to calm his friends down my cousin rolls a one on the save. He goes to calm the party down after the session we discussed it and i asked him point blank why didn't you grab the mage by the arm and drag him along.?... nothing in the suggestion compelled you to let him go. that was the lightbulb moment for my cousin as a player and DM. His player agency was affected because he did not stop to think. now he views suggestion in a completely different light. if there was ever a spell in D&D that called for Malicious compliance suggestion, is it.
They don't mention it because it's not intended to be true. The game was quite deliberately made so that proficiency is nice-to-have, not essential.
Didn’t have time to read everything but did the bad guy run off with the item? Did the party kill the bad guy and the item is back in the character’s possession? Did the player talk to the DM?
If the bad guy ran off with the weapon, was it for a reason? (The homebrew item was too powerful for the level of the party so the DM took it temporarily so that they could regain it, and have extra animosity towards the bad guy for the theft, at a more appropriate level. See “Did the player talk to the DM” above)
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?