The suggestion spell's wording needs to be "reasonable". I'd argue having the bad guy give an enemy a magic item to be nonreasonable Note: I get that the definition of "reasonable" could be interpreted by a player to be basically be nonexistent, since the knight giving their horse to a beggar example in the spell is absolutely not a reasonable course of action, but by rules-as-written, that specific example is the only outlier to the "reasonable" required wording for the spell. So it's inferred that all other suggestions must be "reasonable". In addition, Suggestion has verbal components, so if the player in question is casting it outside of combat, by rules as written there's an incantation prior to the existing command, so the spell isn't stealthy enough to approach an enemy with and cast before initiative is rolled. I get that these are pretty authoritarian rulings on Suggestion, but I do think it's good to really impose the limits of both rules-as-written and the realism of the setting onto enchantment spells (especially V,S,M components), so they remain good utility, but not consistently quest-breaking overpowered. You'll have to likely lure your opponent into a situation where the high risks of casting enchantment spells are lessened, instead of just spamming said enchantment spells to cheese every social encounter. Overall I think this way of ruling these kinds of spells is healthy for the game in the long term, even if in the moment it brings a bit of dissatisfaction.
The Suggestion does not need to be reasonable; it needs to sound reasonable. To quote directly, "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable." The point of the spell is to be able to compel someone to do something they otherwise would not. As I referenced previously, the "these are not the droids you're looking for" bit is not actually a reasonable explanation in the situation, but in the context of why the guard should wave them through, it could be.
If you are not proficient, the DC should be higher.
This struck me as odd. If it's not in the rules, then why?
It's not that I disagree, necessarily. But it's a game, and the rules are the rules. I do get why never having tried something means it's harder to do. But in principle, we imagine the rogue has had tons of practice picking locks to reach level one - but that's not stated anywhere, at all. It's entirely meta. So essentially: This is a lock, it's DC 12 to pick. If you're a fighter with a dex of 12, you'll get a rather tiny bonus to try and pick it - and if you're a rogue with 18 dex, the tools for the job and so on, you need to roll a 6 to do it.
That seems ... kinda fine to me. Maybe buying a set of tools just comes with basic instructions.
well, couple of things.
Note that I used two representatives with the same core scores. A fighter and a Rogue with a 16 dex. Let's say they are both 8th Level, as well. All Rogues have the Thieves Tools. It is a gimmie.
Now, let's say that the fighter does not have the tools for this example. The Lock is a DC 15. The fighter has to roll equal to or better than a 15 to pick the lock, and has a +3 (Dex) to their roll. So they have to roll a 12 or better.
The Thief has to roll a 9 or better, because they can add their Proficiency bonus.
9 versus 12 may seem pretty reasonable -- a 3 point difference between someone who has no clue what they are doing versus someone who has experience and understands what's going on.
Except that's only a 15% difference. The difference between a High School graduate and someone with a Doctorate is far more than 15% -- but the part that matters isn't the direct experience or inexperience, knowledge or lack of knowledge, it is the way that the training allows them to find new ways to think around and solve the same problem. Someone with more knowledge and experience is going to solve it not only with greater ease, but faster, and more effectively.
On the mean, that is.
This can be represented in one or both of two simple ways within the system: The requirement of more time passing to accomplish the lockpicking task (which may not be possible) and the increase in DC for someone who lacks proficiency.
I mean, the lock may be rated Hard for someone who has proficiency, but if they don't, it could be rated Very Hard. If I tried to pick a pair of handcuffs open, I would probably take days. But my friend can do it without fail in less than 30 seconds. By shifting the DC of an effort accordingly -- say an additional 3 to five points -- you increase that difference from 15% to 30 or 45% in difference, which is more in line with reality, but also not outside the basic fantasy.
That's a real difference. But there is more reason to do so...
Drama, lol. A lot of us (myself included) talk about the importance of story. Story is important because it keeps things moving, it provides motivation, and it gives a game a kind of "sense" or rationale.
But what is actually important in a given session is drama. Tension, immediacy, urgency. What makes a scene in a movie where the hero is trying to get through a door so compelling? Drama.
If the lock is harder for someone who isn't gifted, it heightens the drama of that roll -- even more so if they have to do it under a clock ("dude, it is taking you way too long to pick that lock. They are going to be here any minute!" "Shut up! It's not like I do this all the time. That's Sven's job!").
It also drives home the point that everyone's skills are of value -- Sven the Rogue is tied to a chair on the other side of that door. Derek, the fighter, has no skill. That newbie Wizard doesn't have a spell for it -- but they do have a pair of lock picking tools, and they learned how to use it before they went off to wizard school. They just hate to be the one to do things because people look at them funny.
after five minutes, while the guards are searching, the newbie wizard gives in, and bam, he gets through the lock in a jiffy. But for five minutes of failed rolls because the fighter isn't nearly as good as the newbie wizard or Sven, the tension of the game is high. Yet the whole time, there is a chance that the Fighter *could* have done it.
Another reason is "learning". Growth of a character is a key thing. Let's say that the Fighter succeeds. Well, if a DM chooses to (some like it, some don't, not saying it is anything more than a useful thing for some people), they can reduce the DC the next time that fighter tries to pick a lock by one. Because they have learned to do it. THey might not gain proficiency, bu they at least have learned a bit ore, and now things won't be quite as hard the next time.
That's growth. For a murder hobo campaign, that will mean pretty much nothing. For the big ass open world/sandbox style campaigns I run, that can mean a lot.
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
So ... your example seems to assume a rogue of normal mental faculties, and a fighter who's decided he wants to be mediocre at fighting at best, but in return also want's to be at best second rate at picking locks. Frankly, I feel the fighter should have made better life decisions, but I'll still reward him for putting points and stats and effort into becoming the guy the group turns to for lock picking when the rogue has a hand injury.
I guess I'm saying your numbers are ok, but my example is better. And further, if a fighter wants to be able to pick locks - I'm not going to stop him.
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.
The Suggestion does not need to be reasonable; it needs to sound reasonable.
Which is super vague and unhelpful, because "sounds reasonable" isn't well defined. Colloquially it usually means that it passes superficial inspection, but most of the actual examples in the text don't reach that standard.
So ... your example seems to assume a rogue of normal mental faculties, and a fighter who's decided he wants to be mediocre at fighting at best, but in return also want's to be at best second rate at picking locks. Frankly, I feel the fighter should have made better life decisions, but I'll still reward him for putting points and stats and effort into becoming the guy the group turns to for lock picking when the rogue has a hand injury.
I guess I'm saying your numbers are ok, but my example is better. And further, if a fighter wants to be able to pick locks - I'm not going to stop him.
A Baseline always looks at minimums. I mean, if I really wanted to set up a baseline example, I would have use a score of 10. From a technical and mechanical standpoint, your example isn't better (it is, technically, equivalent to mine, since neither used a baseline), but it isn't worse, either.
That your takeaway from that was "their scores are too low" and "but that will stop a fighter from picking a lock", well...
... that's the principle of the point in action, lol.
Keep in mind, that not all games work for "optimized" characters. Indeed, many games, especially by those who have custom worlds and are run by folks who dislike the whole idea of "optimizing", are built so that the standard measures are the kinds of things that will ultimately get them killed out faster, because they will do things that the character was designed for.
As an example: most "optimized" builds go for things like DPR. They are based on the assumptions that the ability scores will be the same, the classes will be the same, that the monsters will be the same, that the adventures will be combat focused over other possible things (like skills use, or role playing). With over half the games that people play being done on custom worlds, those aren't safe assumptions. But also, they are the kind of assumptions that force a certain style of play.
THey aren't wrong, mind you -- I am not saying there is anything wrong with that at all. I am pointing out a weakness in such a circumstance.
What would happen if there was no "dump stat" that you could use without putting yourself at risk of possible death?
What if none of the classes as you know them existed? There are still Fighters and Wizards and Rogues, but they aren't the "official" ones?
What if there are 9 scores you have to deal with, and you know that you will have to have two scores of 10 and two scores of 11 and no score over 16?
What if none of the monsters you encounter have stats that resemble anything in the books? And all your attacks are based on things that you have no idea if they will affect the creature or not?
These are the kinds of things that the standard optimization stuff cannot account for. And there are a lot of games out there like that. So, that fighter may have made some of the best possible decisions in his life, and his character may have a greater survivability than some character with straight 24's in all their scores.
Optimization is always best done to the specific game being played, never to a theorycraft of a "generic" game.
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
The Suggestion does not need to be reasonable; it needs to sound reasonable.
Which is super vague and unhelpful, because "sounds reasonable" isn't well defined. Colloquially it usually means that it passes superficial inspection, but most of the actual examples in the text don't reach that standard.
Which ones don't?
And why don't they?
Paladin giving their horse to a beggar? Paladins are, colloquially, expected to be charitable to extremes. So that does seem reasonable.
As I pointed out, it is deeply contextual and it is not about what *could* happen, it is about what is known in the moment -- the magic takes away the could happen part", and makes the focus on the immediate.
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
The Suggestion does not need to be reasonable; it needs to sound reasonable.
Which is super vague and unhelpful, because "sounds reasonable" isn't well defined. Colloquially it usually means that it passes superficial inspection, but most of the actual examples in the text don't reach that standard.
Which ones don't?
I guess there's only one example, but the short answer is that telling a knight (not a paladin... a knight) to give her warhorse to the next beggar she meets, without further context or justification, is not facially plausible. It's certainly possible to come up with a long convoluted story which ends up making that course of action sound reasonable, but (a) it's not something you can do in the space of a single action, and (b) it's not what the example actually says.
The Suggestion does not need to be reasonable; it needs to sound reasonable.
Which is super vague and unhelpful, because "sounds reasonable" isn't well defined. Colloquially it usually means that it passes superficial inspection, but most of the actual examples in the text don't reach that standard.
Which ones don't?
I guess there's only one example, but the short answer is that telling a knight (not a paladin... a knight) to give her warhorse to the next beggar she meets, without further context or justification, is not facially plausible. It's certainly possible to come up with a long convoluted story which ends up making that course of action sound reasonable, but (a) it's not something you can do in the space of a single action, and (b) it's not what the example actually says.
You don't need to come up with a convoluted explanation. You say something like "Beggars' feet must get sore. You should give the next one you meet your horse." Or I suppose based on the description you could just say "You should give your horse to the next beggar you meet". The "reasonable" qualifier is a DM brake if they feel the player is pushing for too much from the spell; "you should drop this anvil on the king's head" for instance is significantly more unreasonable- and, more to the point, potentially plot-breaking- than giving someone your horse.
You don't need to come up with a convoluted explanation. You say something like "Beggars' feet must get sore. You should give the next one you meet your horse." Or I suppose based on the description you could just say "You should give your horse to the next beggar you meet". The "reasonable" qualifier is a DM brake if they feel the player is pushing for too much from the spell; "you should drop this anvil on the king's head" for instance is significantly more unreasonable- and, more to the point, potentially plot-breaking- than giving someone your horse.
Getting into whether an effect is plot breaking is even worse.
The colloqual meaning of "sounds reasonable" is essentially the same as facially reasonable -- there's nothing that stands out as unreasonable on first consideration. That's honestly not a very strong effect, it's basically the equivalent of a successful deception check, and I think the spell is supposed to be stronger than that... but there just aren't any particularly good lines to draw between that and just making the spell be command, but with a duration of an hour.
You don't need to come up with a convoluted explanation. You say something like "Beggars' feet must get sore. You should give the next one you meet your horse." Or I suppose based on the description you could just say "You should give your horse to the next beggar you meet". The "reasonable" qualifier is a DM brake if they feel the player is pushing for too much from the spell; "you should drop this anvil on the king's head" for instance is significantly more unreasonable- and, more to the point, potentially plot-breaking- than giving someone your horse.
Getting into whether an effect is plot breaking is even worse.
The colloqual meaning of "sounds reasonable" is essentially the same as facially reasonable -- there's nothing that stands out as unreasonable on first consideration. That's honestly not a very strong effect, it's basically the equivalent of a successful deception check, and I think the spell is supposed to be stronger than that... but there just aren't any particularly good lines to draw between that and just making the spell be command, but with a duration of an hour.
Command is completely different; it's a single word, not a course of action. You can't use it to make someone give a third party ownership of something. Yes, Suggestion is a soft spell, with the ultimate parameters adjudicated by the DM, but it's clearly intended to be a Jedi Mind Trick spell, so arguing your "colloquial" interpretation is getting into the worst kind of rules-lawyering, imo.
Command is completely different; it's a single word, not a course of action. You can't use it to make someone give a third party ownership of something. Yes, Suggestion is a soft spell, with the ultimate parameters adjudicated by the DM, but it's clearly intended to be a Jedi Mind Trick spell, so arguing your "colloquial" interpretation is getting into the worst kind of rules-lawyering, imo.
I would have no problem with a Jedi Mind Trick spell... but that's not even close to what the spell as worded actually does (Jedi Mind Trick clearly gets the target to believe something, the Suggestion spell does not do that, it causes the target to do something). The core problem with the spell isn't that Jedi Mind Trick is unreasonable for a level 2 spell, the core problem is that it's not at all clear what the spell does.
I would have no problem with a Jedi Mind Trick spell... but that's not even close to what the spell as worded actually does (Jedi Mind Trick clearly gets the target to believe something, the Suggestion spell does not do that, it causes the target to do something). The core problem with the spell isn't that Jedi Mind Trick is unreasonable for a level 2 spell, the core problem is that it's not at all clear what the spell does.
It honestly can not get any clearer as to what the spell does. Due to this thread I read the spell's description to a friend who has never played D&D in his life and he understood exactly what the spell does.
The Jedi Mind Trick caused the Storm Trooper to allow the party to pass, i.e. do something. The Suggestion spell causes the target to believe the caster's suggestion is what they want to do. Thus it has to be reasonable in that it's not something that the target would never do. Such as the example of the knight. Suggesting the knight jump off a cliff is something the knight wouldn't ever do. Suggesting the knight gives her horse to the first beggar she sees is not something she would normally do, but since she is in the habit of helping those in need it will work.
It is not up to the Player's Handbook to list every possible instance of what will happen when any a spell is cast. The PHB would be the size of a law library if that was the case. It's instead up to the DM to use their imagination and determine what is reasonable. And in the case of Suggestion the Jedi Mind Trick is the example that makes it easiest for people who are confused about the spell to understand it.
If you are OK with a Bard going up to an NPC guard to some castle and saying "Let me pass" and think that is reasonable, then equally reasonable is some Hag coming up to the 3rd watch of a party at night and saying "I need your help. Please come with me."
On a related note this is the "cure" for a player believing they can seduce any NPC with a Nat 20. The hag is hideous. She rolls to seduce you... Nat 20! Fade to black while Love Like Mine begins to play....
If you are OK with a Bard going up to an NPC guard to some castle and saying "Let me pass" and think that is reasonable, then equally reasonable is some Hag coming up to the 3rd watch of a party at night and saying "I need your help. Please come with me."
Either of those things could be reasonable, given appropriate setup. If the hag comes up looking like a hag with teeth of iron and carrying a thighbone as a staff... probably not reasonable. If the hag casts disguise self to turn into a helpless old lady or innocent farmgirl... quite possibly. Same sort of thing for the bard, depending on what the bard looks like and what the castle is like.
The thing is, those things are also reasonable with a deception check and no magic at all, and we assume that a second level spell slot is actually doing something of value (otherwise I'll just cast Enhance Ability-Eagle's Splendor).
For all those still debating the wording of Suggestion, or anything its family, including super high rolls on Persuasion, I will paint you a scenario
If you are OK with a Bard going up to an NPC guard to some castle and saying "Let me pass" and think that is reasonable, then equally reasonable is some Hag coming up to the 3rd watch of a party at night and saying "I need your help. Please come with me."
I think it's fair to say that the minimum effect of Suggestion is that you can do anything you could do with a reasonable (rollable by that character) charisma check (including, but not limited to, deception, intimidation, and persuasion), the question is what, if anything, more it can do (other than work on PCs, which influence rolls generally do not, but is mostly relevant to NPCs casting the spell).
I would have no problem with a Jedi Mind Trick spell... but that's not even close to what the spell as worded actually does (Jedi Mind Trick clearly gets the target to believe something, the Suggestion spell does not do that, it causes the target to do something). The core problem with the spell isn't that Jedi Mind Trick is unreasonable for a level 2 spell, the core problem is that it's not at all clear what the spell does.
It honestly can not get any clearer as to what the spell does. Due to this thread I read the spell's description to a friend who has never played D&D in his life and he understood exactly what the spell does.
The Jedi Mind Trick caused the Storm Trooper to allow the party to pass, i.e. do something. The Suggestion spell causes the target to believe the caster's suggestion is what they want to do. Thus it has to be reasonable in that it's not something that the target would never do. Such as the example of the knight. Suggesting the knight jump off a cliff is something the knight wouldn't ever do. Suggesting the knight gives her horse to the first beggar she sees is not something she would normally do, but since she is in the habit of helping those in need it will work.
It is not up to the Player's Handbook to list every possible instance of what will happen when any a spell is cast. The PHB would be the size of a law library if that was the case. It's instead up to the DM to use their imagination and determine what is reasonable. And in the case of Suggestion the Jedi Mind Trick is the example that makes it easiest for people who are confused about the spell to understand it.
It's not even necessarily about if the knight readily helps others, just that transfer of ownership is a normal thing that happens. The underlying concept of "giving someone else a horse" is reasonable, even if the practical effect of transferring a 400 gp title for nothing in exchange is not. The "reasonable" is just a DM caveat to distinguish between Suggestion and Dominate Person.
To go way back to the example that kicked this off, handing another person an item is a reasonable course of action in and of itself. Now, within the context of BBEG using this on a PC with a magic item, we're really getting far more into the murky depths of table management and player/DM relationship dynamics than interpreting the spell effect. Handing someone an item when you won't be immediately and directly harmed by giving them that item (ie. it's an "explosive leash" type plot macguffin) is a valid effect; whether or not it was a good call for the DM to make in play is another, far more subjective matter.
You want to get past the Swiss Guard to kill the Pope? Well, you are not doing it with Persuasion nor Deception, under any circumstances. And Suggestion STILL makes it trivial. So either ban Suggestion, or make it a 4th or even higher level spell.
I think you're grossly overestimating what subverting a single guard will actually accomplish, but the whole point of this discussion is that the meaning of 'sound reasonable' is not clear; it's an entirely reasonable interpretation to say that if it's impossible with persuasion or deception, suggestion also doesn't work.
To me, there is no question that the spell is ridiculously unclear and that reasonable people will disagree on what to do with the question posed by the OP about the specific situation if presented with the current wording of the spell. I have shared my rationale for why the spell is unclear multiple times in this thread (tldr; the words "sound reasonable" and "obviously harmful" by definition leave too much room for interpretation).
However, all that said, I am tapping out of this thread. The group that thinks the spell is super clear isn't going to be convinced by my arguments, and I certainly am not going to be convinced by their repeated "it couldn't be more clear" statements. I hope the designers read the thread and see the recommendations for improved wording, it would make the game better and would take nearly no effort.
I the whole point of this discussion is that the meaning of 'sound reasonable' is not clear; it's an entirely reasonable interpretation to say that if it's impossible with persuasion or deception, suggestion also doesn't work.
The point you seem to be avoiding is that D&D is designed so that it's up to the DM if something sounds reasonable or not. Because, again, it would take a law library worth of books to detail it in the specificity that you seem to be wanting. So let's expand on your examples of charisma checks vs the spell and see if this explanation is helpful:
Your party is told by the Beggar Sect that they want a warhorse in exchange for the information the party wants. Maybe the rogue wants to talk the Knight into giving her warhorse to the beggar on the street and so the DM has him roll the persuasion or deception he's an expert in for a 30, hitting the nearly impossible threshold. Maybe the wizard has a minus two to her charisma stat so decides to use Suggestion to do the same thing. The Knight fails the save. Either way the party accomplishes the same thing.
For comparison let's now look at the spell Jump. The spell triples the distance the target can jump. With a running start, a six feet tall character with a 29 strength can jump 29 feet. A similar character with a 10 strength can jump 10 feet. If the chasm that needs to be traversed is twenty five feet across, If I say that the spell doesn't specifically state which character needs to have Jump cast on them, you still know which character needs to have it cast on them.
Spells were created so that casters could accomplish things they can't do that the jocks can. Whereas martials have trained their bodies to do things without the use of magic that the book nerds can't do. And not every party has an expert in persuasion and/or deception.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Suggestion does not need to be reasonable; it needs to sound reasonable. To quote directly, "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable." The point of the spell is to be able to compel someone to do something they otherwise would not. As I referenced previously, the "these are not the droids you're looking for" bit is not actually a reasonable explanation in the situation, but in the context of why the guard should wave them through, it could be.
well, couple of things.
Note that I used two representatives with the same core scores. A fighter and a Rogue with a 16 dex. Let's say they are both 8th Level, as well. All Rogues have the Thieves Tools. It is a gimmie.
Now, let's say that the fighter does not have the tools for this example. The Lock is a DC 15. The fighter has to roll equal to or better than a 15 to pick the lock, and has a +3 (Dex) to their roll. So they have to roll a 12 or better.
The Thief has to roll a 9 or better, because they can add their Proficiency bonus.
9 versus 12 may seem pretty reasonable -- a 3 point difference between someone who has no clue what they are doing versus someone who has experience and understands what's going on.
Except that's only a 15% difference. The difference between a High School graduate and someone with a Doctorate is far more than 15% -- but the part that matters isn't the direct experience or inexperience, knowledge or lack of knowledge, it is the way that the training allows them to find new ways to think around and solve the same problem. Someone with more knowledge and experience is going to solve it not only with greater ease, but faster, and more effectively.
On the mean, that is.
This can be represented in one or both of two simple ways within the system: The requirement of more time passing to accomplish the lockpicking task (which may not be possible) and the increase in DC for someone who lacks proficiency.
I mean, the lock may be rated Hard for someone who has proficiency, but if they don't, it could be rated Very Hard. If I tried to pick a pair of handcuffs open, I would probably take days. But my friend can do it without fail in less than 30 seconds. By shifting the DC of an effort accordingly -- say an additional 3 to five points -- you increase that difference from 15% to 30 or 45% in difference, which is more in line with reality, but also not outside the basic fantasy.
That's a real difference. But there is more reason to do so...
Drama, lol. A lot of us (myself included) talk about the importance of story. Story is important because it keeps things moving, it provides motivation, and it gives a game a kind of "sense" or rationale.
But what is actually important in a given session is drama. Tension, immediacy, urgency. What makes a scene in a movie where the hero is trying to get through a door so compelling? Drama.
If the lock is harder for someone who isn't gifted, it heightens the drama of that roll -- even more so if they have to do it under a clock ("dude, it is taking you way too long to pick that lock. They are going to be here any minute!" "Shut up! It's not like I do this all the time. That's Sven's job!").
It also drives home the point that everyone's skills are of value -- Sven the Rogue is tied to a chair on the other side of that door. Derek, the fighter, has no skill. That newbie Wizard doesn't have a spell for it -- but they do have a pair of lock picking tools, and they learned how to use it before they went off to wizard school. They just hate to be the one to do things because people look at them funny.
after five minutes, while the guards are searching, the newbie wizard gives in, and bam, he gets through the lock in a jiffy. But for five minutes of failed rolls because the fighter isn't nearly as good as the newbie wizard or Sven, the tension of the game is high. Yet the whole time, there is a chance that the Fighter *could* have done it.
Another reason is "learning". Growth of a character is a key thing. Let's say that the Fighter succeeds. Well, if a DM chooses to (some like it, some don't, not saying it is anything more than a useful thing for some people), they can reduce the DC the next time that fighter tries to pick a lock by one. Because they have learned to do it. THey might not gain proficiency, bu they at least have learned a bit ore, and now things won't be quite as hard the next time.
That's growth. For a murder hobo campaign, that will mean pretty much nothing. For the big ass open world/sandbox style campaigns I run, that can mean a lot.
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
So ... your example seems to assume a rogue of normal mental faculties, and a fighter who's decided he wants to be mediocre at fighting at best, but in return also want's to be at best second rate at picking locks. Frankly, I feel the fighter should have made better life decisions, but I'll still reward him for putting points and stats and effort into becoming the guy the group turns to for lock picking when the rogue has a hand injury.
I guess I'm saying your numbers are ok, but my example is better. And further, if a fighter wants to be able to pick locks - I'm not going to stop him.
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.
Which is super vague and unhelpful, because "sounds reasonable" isn't well defined. Colloquially it usually means that it passes superficial inspection, but most of the actual examples in the text don't reach that standard.
A Baseline always looks at minimums. I mean, if I really wanted to set up a baseline example, I would have use a score of 10. From a technical and mechanical standpoint, your example isn't better (it is, technically, equivalent to mine, since neither used a baseline), but it isn't worse, either.
That your takeaway from that was "their scores are too low" and "but that will stop a fighter from picking a lock", well...
... that's the principle of the point in action, lol.
Keep in mind, that not all games work for "optimized" characters. Indeed, many games, especially by those who have custom worlds and are run by folks who dislike the whole idea of "optimizing", are built so that the standard measures are the kinds of things that will ultimately get them killed out faster, because they will do things that the character was designed for.
As an example: most "optimized" builds go for things like DPR. They are based on the assumptions that the ability scores will be the same, the classes will be the same, that the monsters will be the same, that the adventures will be combat focused over other possible things (like skills use, or role playing). With over half the games that people play being done on custom worlds, those aren't safe assumptions. But also, they are the kind of assumptions that force a certain style of play.
THey aren't wrong, mind you -- I am not saying there is anything wrong with that at all. I am pointing out a weakness in such a circumstance.
These are the kinds of things that the standard optimization stuff cannot account for. And there are a lot of games out there like that. So, that fighter may have made some of the best possible decisions in his life, and his character may have a greater survivability than some character with straight 24's in all their scores.
Optimization is always best done to the specific game being played, never to a theorycraft of a "generic" game.
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
Which ones don't?
And why don't they?
Paladin giving their horse to a beggar? Paladins are, colloquially, expected to be charitable to extremes. So that does seem reasonable.
As I pointed out, it is deeply contextual and it is not about what *could* happen, it is about what is known in the moment -- the magic takes away the could happen part", and makes the focus on the immediate.
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
I guess there's only one example, but the short answer is that telling a knight (not a paladin... a knight) to give her warhorse to the next beggar she meets, without further context or justification, is not facially plausible. It's certainly possible to come up with a long convoluted story which ends up making that course of action sound reasonable, but (a) it's not something you can do in the space of a single action, and (b) it's not what the example actually says.
You don't need to come up with a convoluted explanation. You say something like "Beggars' feet must get sore. You should give the next one you meet your horse." Or I suppose based on the description you could just say "You should give your horse to the next beggar you meet". The "reasonable" qualifier is a DM brake if they feel the player is pushing for too much from the spell; "you should drop this anvil on the king's head" for instance is significantly more unreasonable- and, more to the point, potentially plot-breaking- than giving someone your horse.
Getting into whether an effect is plot breaking is even worse.
The colloqual meaning of "sounds reasonable" is essentially the same as facially reasonable -- there's nothing that stands out as unreasonable on first consideration. That's honestly not a very strong effect, it's basically the equivalent of a successful deception check, and I think the spell is supposed to be stronger than that... but there just aren't any particularly good lines to draw between that and just making the spell be command, but with a duration of an hour.
Command is completely different; it's a single word, not a course of action. You can't use it to make someone give a third party ownership of something. Yes, Suggestion is a soft spell, with the ultimate parameters adjudicated by the DM, but it's clearly intended to be a Jedi Mind Trick spell, so arguing your "colloquial" interpretation is getting into the worst kind of rules-lawyering, imo.
I would have no problem with a Jedi Mind Trick spell... but that's not even close to what the spell as worded actually does (Jedi Mind Trick clearly gets the target to believe something, the Suggestion spell does not do that, it causes the target to do something). The core problem with the spell isn't that Jedi Mind Trick is unreasonable for a level 2 spell, the core problem is that it's not at all clear what the spell does.
It honestly can not get any clearer as to what the spell does. Due to this thread I read the spell's description to a friend who has never played D&D in his life and he understood exactly what the spell does.
The Jedi Mind Trick caused the Storm Trooper to allow the party to pass, i.e. do something. The Suggestion spell causes the target to believe the caster's suggestion is what they want to do. Thus it has to be reasonable in that it's not something that the target would never do. Such as the example of the knight. Suggesting the knight jump off a cliff is something the knight wouldn't ever do. Suggesting the knight gives her horse to the first beggar she sees is not something she would normally do, but since she is in the habit of helping those in need it will work.
It is not up to the Player's Handbook to list every possible instance of what will happen when any a spell is cast. The PHB would be the size of a law library if that was the case. It's instead up to the DM to use their imagination and determine what is reasonable. And in the case of Suggestion the Jedi Mind Trick is the example that makes it easiest for people who are confused about the spell to understand it.
On a related note this is the "cure" for a player believing they can seduce any NPC with a Nat 20. The hag is hideous. She rolls to seduce you... Nat 20! Fade to black while Love Like Mine begins to play....
Either of those things could be reasonable, given appropriate setup. If the hag comes up looking like a hag with teeth of iron and carrying a thighbone as a staff... probably not reasonable. If the hag casts disguise self to turn into a helpless old lady or innocent farmgirl... quite possibly. Same sort of thing for the bard, depending on what the bard looks like and what the castle is like.
The thing is, those things are also reasonable with a deception check and no magic at all, and we assume that a second level spell slot is actually doing something of value (otherwise I'll just cast Enhance Ability-Eagle's Splendor).
Agreed.
I think it's fair to say that the minimum effect of Suggestion is that you can do anything you could do with a reasonable (rollable by that character) charisma check (including, but not limited to, deception, intimidation, and persuasion), the question is what, if anything, more it can do (other than work on PCs, which influence rolls generally do not, but is mostly relevant to NPCs casting the spell).
It's not even necessarily about if the knight readily helps others, just that transfer of ownership is a normal thing that happens. The underlying concept of "giving someone else a horse" is reasonable, even if the practical effect of transferring a 400 gp title for nothing in exchange is not. The "reasonable" is just a DM caveat to distinguish between Suggestion and Dominate Person.
To go way back to the example that kicked this off, handing another person an item is a reasonable course of action in and of itself. Now, within the context of BBEG using this on a PC with a magic item, we're really getting far more into the murky depths of table management and player/DM relationship dynamics than interpreting the spell effect. Handing someone an item when you won't be immediately and directly harmed by giving them that item (ie. it's an "explosive leash" type plot macguffin) is a valid effect; whether or not it was a good call for the DM to make in play is another, far more subjective matter.
I think you're grossly overestimating what subverting a single guard will actually accomplish, but the whole point of this discussion is that the meaning of 'sound reasonable' is not clear; it's an entirely reasonable interpretation to say that if it's impossible with persuasion or deception, suggestion also doesn't work.
To me, there is no question that the spell is ridiculously unclear and that reasonable people will disagree on what to do with the question posed by the OP about the specific situation if presented with the current wording of the spell. I have shared my rationale for why the spell is unclear multiple times in this thread (tldr; the words "sound reasonable" and "obviously harmful" by definition leave too much room for interpretation).
However, all that said, I am tapping out of this thread. The group that thinks the spell is super clear isn't going to be convinced by my arguments, and I certainly am not going to be convinced by their repeated "it couldn't be more clear" statements. I hope the designers read the thread and see the recommendations for improved wording, it would make the game better and would take nearly no effort.
The point you seem to be avoiding is that D&D is designed so that it's up to the DM if something sounds reasonable or not. Because, again, it would take a law library worth of books to detail it in the specificity that you seem to be wanting. So let's expand on your examples of charisma checks vs the spell and see if this explanation is helpful:
Your party is told by the Beggar Sect that they want a warhorse in exchange for the information the party wants. Maybe the rogue wants to talk the Knight into giving her warhorse to the beggar on the street and so the DM has him roll the persuasion or deception he's an expert in for a 30, hitting the nearly impossible threshold. Maybe the wizard has a minus two to her charisma stat so decides to use Suggestion to do the same thing. The Knight fails the save. Either way the party accomplishes the same thing.
For comparison let's now look at the spell Jump. The spell triples the distance the target can jump. With a running start, a six feet tall character with a 29 strength can jump 29 feet. A similar character with a 10 strength can jump 10 feet. If the chasm that needs to be traversed is twenty five feet across, If I say that the spell doesn't specifically state which character needs to have Jump cast on them, you still know which character needs to have it cast on them.
Spells were created so that casters could accomplish things they can't do that the jocks can. Whereas martials have trained their bodies to do things without the use of magic that the book nerds can't do. And not every party has an expert in persuasion and/or deception.