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.
Actually, Suggestion is indeed one spell in a stable of several that are indeed I-win spells. I brought this up before. A group of PC's, say 5, face the BBEG. The BBEG casts Mass Suggestion and says "You all look tired. You should go home and take a nap." If 2 out of the 5 fail the save, the other 3 are pretty much doomed if they stay, unless the BBEG was badly under-powered. Hypnotic Pattern is perhaps even more devastating. Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Charm Person, Dissonant Whispers are just a few more in the same family that to various degrees shut down encounters. A DM either allows the players to use them, and at the same time use them against the PCs, which can end up with many encounters falling apart and becoming trivial/deadly, or a good DM bans the spells altogether. There is no middle ground, unless the DM re-writes these spells or adds torturous house rules to rein them in.
There was a reason the wise and brilliant Gygax had Suggestion as a 3rd level spell, as opposed to 2nd. Even then, it is hugely powerful.
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?)
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.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. This is the core of the Suggestion issue for me.
As an omnipotent, omniscient DM controlling literally every NPC in the world, I can handle a few being sidelined or incapacitated by Suggestion. Yes, even if it's the BBEG.
But a player? They're just out of the game for 8 hours and they've lost a good chunk of their agency. It isn't fun and it doesn't feel good.
I don't ban Suggestion as a DM, but I also don't use it. If players want to use it, cool. I can handle it. But since I have literally infinite ways to hinder, challenge, and attack the players, I'm going to choose methods that don't take away agency or ask the player to sit out for a good part of the session.
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?)
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.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. This is the core of the Suggestion issue for me.
As an omnipotent, omniscient DM controlling literally every NPC in the world, I can handle a few being sidelined or incapacitated by Suggestion. Yes, even if it's the BBEG.
But a player? They're just out of the game for 8 hours and they've lost a good chunk of their agency. It isn't fun and it doesn't feel good.
I don't ban Suggestion as a DM, but I also don't use it. If players want to use it, cool. I can handle it. But since I have literally infinite ways to hinder, challenge, and attack the players, I'm going to choose methods that don't take away agency or ask the player to sit out for a good part of the session.
They’re not out for 8 hours; it’s a concentration spell. That’ll last maybe 2 or 3 rounds of combat in most cases.
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?)
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.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. This is the core of the Suggestion issue for me.
As an omnipotent, omniscient DM controlling literally every NPC in the world, I can handle a few being sidelined or incapacitated by Suggestion. Yes, even if it's the BBEG.
But a player? They're just out of the game for 8 hours and they've lost a good chunk of their agency. It isn't fun and it doesn't feel good.
I don't ban Suggestion as a DM, but I also don't use it. If players want to use it, cool. I can handle it. But since I have literally infinite ways to hinder, challenge, and attack the players, I'm going to choose methods that don't take away agency or ask the player to sit out for a good part of the session.
I support you, wholly, in that. Because a DM's game is their game. I don't disagree, really, but I think that phrase is still not right.
On the other hand, I will use it. I will use Guards and Wards, I will use revised spells that are not in 5th Edition. I will use homebrew and creative spells. I will use Power Word: Kill and create two dozen other Power Words.
I will use vicious mockery and performance of creation, and I will use Hound of ill omen and Storm's Fury.
There is no spell, no feature, nor feat, no magic item, no limit to what I will use. I will grant a Hobgoblin extra attacks and a Kobold vengeful ancestors.
The only limit on that is I won't use Wish -- and Player's don't have access to that spell in my game. There are still wishes, but they are the old kind, the dirty kind, the kind that make you wake up in cold sweats with a new appreciation for the concept of semantics.
You see, for me, it is never a matter of should I. Nor even can I. I can, and at some point I probably should. For me, it is a matter of "is this going to advance the story, or is this going to heighten the stakes and provide a sense of what they are up against"
For me this is a question of how I.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Actually, Suggestion is indeed one spell in a stable of several that are indeed I-win spells. I brought this up before. A group of PC's, say 5, face the BBEG. The BBEG casts Mass Suggestion and says "You all look tired. You should go home and take a nap." If 2 out of the 5 fail the save, the other 3 are pretty much doomed if they stay, unless the BBEG was badly under-powered. Hypnotic Pattern is perhaps even more devastating. Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Charm Person, Dissonant Whispers are just a few more in the same family that to various degrees shut down encounters. A DM either allows the players to use them, and at the same time use them against the PCs, which can end up with many encounters falling apart and becoming trivial/deadly, or a good DM bans the spells altogether. There is no middle ground, unless the DM re-writes these spells or adds torturous house rules to rein them in.
There was a reason the wise and brilliant Gygax had Suggestion as a 3rd level spell, as opposed to 2nd. Even then, it is hugely powerful.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. This is the core of the Suggestion issue for me.
As an omnipotent, omniscient DM controlling literally every NPC in the world, I can handle a few being sidelined or incapacitated by Suggestion. Yes, even if it's the BBEG.
But a player? They're just out of the game for 8 hours and they've lost a good chunk of their agency. It isn't fun and it doesn't feel good.
I don't ban Suggestion as a DM, but I also don't use it. If players want to use it, cool. I can handle it. But since I have literally infinite ways to hinder, challenge, and attack the players, I'm going to choose methods that don't take away agency or ask the player to sit out for a good part of the session.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
They’re not out for 8 hours; it’s a concentration spell. That’ll last maybe 2 or 3 rounds of combat in most cases.
I support you, wholly, in that. Because a DM's game is their game. I don't disagree, really, but I think that phrase is still not right.
On the other hand, I will use it. I will use Guards and Wards, I will use revised spells that are not in 5th Edition. I will use homebrew and creative spells. I will use Power Word: Kill and create two dozen other Power Words.
I will use vicious mockery and performance of creation, and I will use Hound of ill omen and Storm's Fury.
There is no spell, no feature, nor feat, no magic item, no limit to what I will use. I will grant a Hobgoblin extra attacks and a Kobold vengeful ancestors.
The only limit on that is I won't use Wish -- and Player's don't have access to that spell in my game. There are still wishes, but they are the old kind, the dirty kind, the kind that make you wake up in cold sweats with a new appreciation for the concept of semantics.
You see, for me, it is never a matter of should I. Nor even can I. I can, and at some point I probably should. For me, it is a matter of "is this going to advance the story, or is this going to heighten the stakes and provide a sense of what they are up against"
For me this is a question of how I.
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 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.
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.
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. 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.
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."
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....