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.
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).
We are diverging from the original topic, but no, I don't care if a PC (or NPC) rolls a 100 with Persuasion or Deception, some things, in fact, MANY things are simply not possible without magic. Try getting past the Swiss Guard, or the Secret Service, or any bouncer into a really high end night club. There is simply no roll high enough. Now, I thing that Suggestion, and its entire family, are wildly OP, ESPECIALLY as a low level spell. The only logical option is to ban them from the game, or to move them to much higher spells slots.
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.
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.
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).
We are diverging from the original topic, but no, I don't care if a PC (or NPC) rolls a 100 with Persuasion or Deception, some things, in fact, MANY things are simply not possible without magic. Try getting past the Swiss Guard, or the Secret Service, or any bouncer into a really high end night club. There is simply no roll high enough. Now, I thing that Suggestion, and its entire family, are wildly OP, ESPECIALLY as a low level spell. The only logical option is to ban them from the game, or to move them to much higher spells slots.
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.
Suggestion makes one guard stand aside and occupies your concentration slot. Presumably any significant VIP will have more than one guard and more than one layer of security. It's a useful tool, but it's not exactly hard for a DM to plan around when it comes to direct combat. Heck, using your example of the Pope, what class do you think the local equivalents of the Swiss guards will be? Hint, it's the ones who will have very high WIS saves and- depending on the subclass- outright immunity to the spell. Banning it from the game is a massive overreaction, and imo a bit of a flag that a DM has a very specific idea of how the campaign's story should proceed.
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.
No, the point isn't that it's up to the DM to decide whether something sounds reasonable. The point is that they don't even give you any guidelines for what the word means.
Does it mean "someone could be talked into doing it without magic?" Or does it mean something more impressive than that?
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).
We are diverging from the original topic, but no, I don't care if a PC (or NPC) rolls a 100 with Persuasion or Deception, some things, in fact, MANY things are simply not possible without magic. Try getting past the Swiss Guard, or the Secret Service, or any bouncer into a really high end night club. There is simply no roll high enough. Now, I thing that Suggestion, and its entire family, are wildly OP, ESPECIALLY as a low level spell. The only logical option is to ban them from the game, or to move them to much higher spells slots.
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.
Suggestion makes one guard stand aside and occupies your concentration slot. Presumably any significant VIP will have more than one guard and more than one layer of security. It's a useful tool, but it's not exactly hard for a DM to plan around when it comes to direct combat. Heck, using your example of the Pope, what class do you think the local equivalents of the Swiss guards will be? Hint, it's the ones who will have very high WIS saves and- depending on the subclass- outright immunity to the spell. Banning it from the game is a massive overreaction, and imo a bit of a flag that a DM has a very specific idea of how the campaign's story should proceed.
NPC guards with immunity to Charm spells....talk about gaming the system against that family of spells. If a DM is going to go through those gyrations, for a low level guard, just say it. That is the equivalent of banning the spell.
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).
We are diverging from the original topic, but no, I don't care if a PC (or NPC) rolls a 100 with Persuasion or Deception, some things, in fact, MANY things are simply not possible without magic. Try getting past the Swiss Guard, or the Secret Service, or any bouncer into a really high end night club. There is simply no roll high enough. Now, I thing that Suggestion, and its entire family, are wildly OP, ESPECIALLY as a low level spell. The only logical option is to ban them from the game, or to move them to much higher spells slots.
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.
Suggestion makes one guard stand aside and occupies your concentration slot. Presumably any significant VIP will have more than one guard and more than one layer of security. It's a useful tool, but it's not exactly hard for a DM to plan around when it comes to direct combat. Heck, using your example of the Pope, what class do you think the local equivalents of the Swiss guards will be? Hint, it's the ones who will have very high WIS saves and- depending on the subclass- outright immunity to the spell. Banning it from the game is a massive overreaction, and imo a bit of a flag that a DM has a very specific idea of how the campaign's story should proceed.
NPC guards with immunity to Charm spells....talk about gaming the system against that family of spells. If a DM is going to go through those gyrations, for a low level guard, just say it. That is the equivalent of banning the spell.
Uh, your example was Swiss guards for the Pope. Those guys aren't rent-a-cops, they're professional security. That's high CR, not 1/8 CR cannon fodder. My point was that it's not hard to prevent a single low level spell from nuking a major obstacle. Even with regular guards, it's quite badly stymied if there's two or three in the same place at the same time. You do something that looks like placing a spell on one, and you can bet the alarm's going to be raised.
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).
We are diverging from the original topic, but no, I don't care if a PC (or NPC) rolls a 100 with Persuasion or Deception, some things, in fact, MANY things are simply not possible without magic. Try getting past the Swiss Guard, or the Secret Service, or any bouncer into a really high end night club. There is simply no roll high enough. Now, I thing that Suggestion, and its entire family, are wildly OP, ESPECIALLY as a low level spell. The only logical option is to ban them from the game, or to move them to much higher spells slots.
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.
Suggestion makes one guard stand aside and occupies your concentration slot. Presumably any significant VIP will have more than one guard and more than one layer of security. It's a useful tool, but it's not exactly hard for a DM to plan around when it comes to direct combat. Heck, using your example of the Pope, what class do you think the local equivalents of the Swiss guards will be? Hint, it's the ones who will have very high WIS saves and- depending on the subclass- outright immunity to the spell. Banning it from the game is a massive overreaction, and imo a bit of a flag that a DM has a very specific idea of how the campaign's story should proceed.
NPC guards with immunity to Charm spells....talk about gaming the system against that family of spells. If a DM is going to go through those gyrations, for a low level guard, just say it. That is the equivalent of banning the spell.
Uh, your example was Swiss guards for the Pope. Those guys aren't rent-a-cops, they're professional security. That's high CR, not 1/8 CR cannon fodder. My point was that it's not hard to prevent a single low level spell from nuking a major obstacle. Even with regular guards, it's quite badly stymied if there's two or three in the same place at the same time. You do something that looks like placing a spell on one, and you can bet the alarm's going to be raised.
They are indeed highly trained. But just how high a CR are you thinking? But if you are saying the guards (let alone the BBEG's) are high CR's, it tracks that the PC's are high levels. Now we are into Hypnotic Pattern, and the entire argument begins again, just with higher levels involved. I stand by my statement. A particular family of spells is just flat out bad for the game. Banning them makes it better for the entire game, and if banned, the DM does not have to game systems to deal with them, and players don't have to deal with them being used against them.
In a world where PCs can create their own damn amulets, charms, and whatnots, do people really, genuinely think that the only possible shit they will encounter is stuff that's written out already in a Monster book somewhere?
Seriously?
Again, I get that some folks have a complete hate on for everything having to do with D&D for some reason, and just want to wail on it, but the idea that the default "go to" for a guard is some little noob who's helmet falls off half the time and whose sword needs a good grindstone is the only possible way to make a guard for the head of an entire church (that, presumably, has freaking clerics working for him) because that's the only guard type in a book is ludicrous and asinine.
And I say that and I am well aware that folks will think "well, I guess I have to roll up a character" for an unnamed NPC who doesn't matter just because they are more than normal, and don't understand how monsters work or how there is an entirely separate system for all the DM side stuff (the Monster stat block is a DM's character sheet, after all) because that's all they think to do in that moment and there's never really been a lot of support for creating such things.
NPCs should not be Fritz and Max from Wizards or some faceless, nameless Stormtrooper from Star Wars.
I pity players who have to deal with that level of NPC, because their DM, imo/ime, is treating them like children.
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
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).
We are diverging from the original topic, but no, I don't care if a PC (or NPC) rolls a 100 with Persuasion or Deception, some things, in fact, MANY things are simply not possible without magic. Try getting past the Swiss Guard, or the Secret Service, or any bouncer into a really high end night club. There is simply no roll high enough. Now, I thing that Suggestion, and its entire family, are wildly OP, ESPECIALLY as a low level spell. The only logical option is to ban them from the game, or to move them to much higher spells slots.
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.
Suggestion makes one guard stand aside and occupies your concentration slot. Presumably any significant VIP will have more than one guard and more than one layer of security. It's a useful tool, but it's not exactly hard for a DM to plan around when it comes to direct combat. Heck, using your example of the Pope, what class do you think the local equivalents of the Swiss guards will be? Hint, it's the ones who will have very high WIS saves and- depending on the subclass- outright immunity to the spell. Banning it from the game is a massive overreaction, and imo a bit of a flag that a DM has a very specific idea of how the campaign's story should proceed.
NPC guards with immunity to Charm spells....talk about gaming the system against that family of spells. If a DM is going to go through those gyrations, for a low level guard, just say it. That is the equivalent of banning the spell.
Uh, your example was Swiss guards for the Pope. Those guys aren't rent-a-cops, they're professional security. That's high CR, not 1/8 CR cannon fodder. My point was that it's not hard to prevent a single low level spell from nuking a major obstacle. Even with regular guards, it's quite badly stymied if there's two or three in the same place at the same time. You do something that looks like placing a spell on one, and you can bet the alarm's going to be raised.
They are indeed highly trained. But just how high a CR are you thinking? But if you are saying the guards (let alone the BBEG's) are high CR's, it tracks that the PC's are high levels. Now we are into Hypnotic Pattern, and the entire argument begins again, just with higher levels involved. I stand by my statement. A particular family of spells is just flat out bad for the game. Banning them makes it better for the entire game, and if banned, the DM does not have to game systems to deal with them, and players don't have to deal with them being used against them.
Hypnotic Pattern has the same inherent weakness; charm immunity stops it, and it's targeting a save that Paladins have prof in. And making a spell not an instant win in certain situations is not a ban, it's basic game design to challenge the party. I can also say with confidence that trying to hit 3+ targets with Hypnotic Pattern pretty much inevitably means at least one enemy will make the save in any case. If you struggle so much with these spells, I would honestly say that it's more a matter of you having a rigid concept of how to design encounters.
Just my two cents, you guys are getting lost in the trees. Ultimately it's a DM call, and what you set sets a precedent for later. So, like my example is two conflicting rules regarding a character's damage resistance, does magic damage pierce, or is it resisted? In my case I had to make the call based on, do I want this guy to be magic resistant for the rest of the... Ever? No. So I made a call based on group and game stability.
In a world where PCs can create their own damn amulets, charms, and whatnots, do people really, genuinely think that the only possible shit they will encounter is stuff that's written out already in a Monster book somewhere?
Seriously?
Again, I get that some folks have a complete hate on for everything having to do with D&D for some reason, and just want to wail on it, but the idea that the default "go to" for a guard is some little noob who's helmet falls off half the time and whose sword needs a good grindstone is the only possible way to make a guard for the head of an entire church (that, presumably, has freaking clerics working for him) because that's the only guard type in a book is ludicrous and asinine.
And I say that and I am well aware that folks will think "well, I guess I have to roll up a character" for an unnamed NPC who doesn't matter just because they are more than normal, and don't understand how monsters work or how there is an entirely separate system for all the DM side stuff (the Monster stat block is a DM's character sheet, after all) because that's all they think to do in that moment and there's never really been a lot of support for creating such things.
NPCs should not be Fritz and Max from Wizards or some faceless, nameless Stormtrooper from Star Wars.
I pity players who have to deal with that level of NPC, because their DM, imo/ime, is treating them like children.
Not sure what you getting at, but as I said before, if a DM creates NPC's/monsters that are geared to counter particular spells, and family of spells, because a PC, or group of PC's, keep using them, then banning those spells is easier. I know what your counter argument to that is. Throwing a set of fire immune monsters at a wizard who is fire-based IS different.
And frankly, I don't have the time nor inclination to build NPC's/monsters that are low level smucks but somehow designed to combat I-win buttons. I have more important things to do with my DM time. I have said this now for the 3rd time. Either accept the fact that both the PC's and NPC's have the ability shut down encounters with a single Wisdom save failure, or do the smart thing, and ban said mechanics. Suggestion, Hypnotic Pattern, Charm Person etc etc etc are shutdown spells. Get rid of them. And have DM's get the spine to say "Sorry, I don't care if your Bard rolled a 32 on Persuasion, this low level guard is not letting you pass."
In a world where PCs can create their own damn amulets, charms, and whatnots, do people really, genuinely think that the only possible shit they will encounter is stuff that's written out already in a Monster book somewhere?
Seriously?
Again, I get that some folks have a complete hate on for everything having to do with D&D for some reason, and just want to wail on it, but the idea that the default "go to" for a guard is some little noob who's helmet falls off half the time and whose sword needs a good grindstone is the only possible way to make a guard for the head of an entire church (that, presumably, has freaking clerics working for him) because that's the only guard type in a book is ludicrous and asinine.
And I say that and I am well aware that folks will think "well, I guess I have to roll up a character" for an unnamed NPC who doesn't matter just because they are more than normal, and don't understand how monsters work or how there is an entirely separate system for all the DM side stuff (the Monster stat block is a DM's character sheet, after all) because that's all they think to do in that moment and there's never really been a lot of support for creating such things.
NPCs should not be Fritz and Max from Wizards or some faceless, nameless Stormtrooper from Star Wars.
I pity players who have to deal with that level of NPC, because their DM, imo/ime, is treating them like children.
Not sure what you getting at, but as I said before, if a DM creates NPC's/monsters that are geared to counter particular spells, and family of spells, because a PC, or group of PC's, keep using them, then banning those spells is easier. I know what your counter argument to that is. Throwing a set of fire immune monsters at a wizard who is fire-based IS different.
And frankly, I don't have the time nor inclination to build NPC's/monsters that are low level smucks but somehow designed to combat I-win buttons. I have more important things to do with my DM time. I have said this now for the 3rd time. Either accept the fact that both the PC's and NPC's have the ability shut down encounters with a single Wisdom save failure, or do the smart thing, and ban said mechanics. Suggestion, Hypnotic Pattern, Charm Person etc etc etc are shutdown spells. Get rid of them. And have DM's get the spine to say "Sorry, I don't care if your Bard rolled a 32 on Persuasion, this low level guard is not letting you pass."
The point is that these guards are not "low level schmucks". If they're low level schmucks, then there's no need for any countermeasures to be in play because they're not meant to be a significant obstacle in the first place. You initially posited here that the existence of the Suggestion spell made the defense of an extremely high profile VIP impossible. The rebuttals are aimed at the point that if you want to have a significant obstacle, then it is not hard to work in answers to a 2nd level spell. Charm spells are not hard shutdown spells; Charm Person and Suggestion are limited social spells if the target(s) don't make their save, and it is not hard to manage encounters so that they are not the instant win buttons you purport them to be. Hypnotic Pattern as an attempt to bypass guards is honestly less effective than Sleep, imo, and once again it's not hard to work in some speed bumps if you think it's getting too much mileage. You are, of course, free to do what you want at your own table, but asserting these spells are so OP that the only proper course of action any DM should take is banning them comes across as a rather narrow-minded and authoritarian approach to DMing.
In a world where PCs can create their own damn amulets, charms, and whatnots, do people really, genuinely think that the only possible shit they will encounter is stuff that's written out already in a Monster book somewhere?
Seriously?
Again, I get that some folks have a complete hate on for everything having to do with D&D for some reason, and just want to wail on it, but the idea that the default "go to" for a guard is some little noob who's helmet falls off half the time and whose sword needs a good grindstone is the only possible way to make a guard for the head of an entire church (that, presumably, has freaking clerics working for him) because that's the only guard type in a book is ludicrous and asinine.
And I say that and I am well aware that folks will think "well, I guess I have to roll up a character" for an unnamed NPC who doesn't matter just because they are more than normal, and don't understand how monsters work or how there is an entirely separate system for all the DM side stuff (the Monster stat block is a DM's character sheet, after all) because that's all they think to do in that moment and there's never really been a lot of support for creating such things.
NPCs should not be Fritz and Max from Wizards or some faceless, nameless Stormtrooper from Star Wars.
I pity players who have to deal with that level of NPC, because their DM, imo/ime, is treating them like children.
Not sure what you getting at, but as I said before, if a DM creates NPC's/monsters that are geared to counter particular spells, and family of spells, because a PC, or group of PC's, keep using them, then banning those spells is easier. I know what your counter argument to that is. Throwing a set of fire immune monsters at a wizard who is fire-based IS different.
And frankly, I don't have the time nor inclination to build NPC's/monsters that are low level smucks but somehow designed to combat I-win buttons. I have more important things to do with my DM time. I have said this now for the 3rd time. Either accept the fact that both the PC's and NPC's have the ability shut down encounters with a single Wisdom save failure, or do the smart thing, and ban said mechanics. Suggestion, Hypnotic Pattern, Charm Person etc etc etc are shutdown spells. Get rid of them. And have DM's get the spine to say "Sorry, I don't care if your Bard rolled a 32 on Persuasion, this low level guard is not letting you pass."
Odd, I never mentioned "creating NPCs to counter particular spells".
I find hilarious that you say "ban spells". Because I have found that banning spells makes everything much more difficult. I have exactly one spell "banned". The others are strongly suggested they not be used, because they come with a price most PCs won't be willing to pay, and cannot be used in combat because they are only available as ritual spells (and not the 10 minute kind).
The one spell I have banned is Wish -- and then only as a spell. They are still out there.
Let's look at some other odd quirks of my game, shall we?
You can't cast a spell in secret. Anyone casting a spell has a lightshow to go with it. Officially, all Enchantment spells are illegal, according to the laws of the major cities. All of them. Yes, even those really helpful ones. And it isn't because of any "game breaking" or even an attempt to limit their use -- it is because they were key to a rebellion. OH, and spell damage? It is a simple system that makes all spells of a certain spell level use the same damage die, and the number of dice is determined by the caster's level. Oh, and some spells take more than 1 turn to cast, and others you have to focus on, and defense stuff can be overwhelmed and...
I probably have more magical items on my world than you do yours. In the hands of everyday, common, ordinary people. Wands, amulets, charms, jewelry. Lots of people have them. Ordinary people. Lots. It wouldn't be unusual for Fritz to have an amulet of resistance to lightning, for example. Probably picked it up from a witch living in that copse outside of town over the hill a ways. He probably wears it on a thong around his neck. Or maybe his Granny heard an old prophecy about it from some Oracle and picked it up for him. He might not even know that's what it does.
I mean, granted, he's Fritz on my world, so he's probably got around 30 HP, an AC of 16 (which, given there is no full plate anywhere to be found, is a big deal), has versatility and finesse on his Glaive, knows how to use a Shortsword more than passably well, and if he's a Sibolan Guard, he's got one of those damned giant shields, as well. If he's been in the Guard for a bit, he may have done a stint in the Crusades, and is grateful to have something as easy and pleasant as Guard Duty -- sweet money, and all he has to do is keep people out.
Max? Max is the same -- he didn't get to be a member of the Sibolan Guard by being all that much a waste, after all. They have standards, they have training. Max has a low Wisdom, though, so if one was going to aim a suggestion spell at one of them, it would be Max. Too bad suggestion only works on one person (mass suggestion is a different spell, after all).
Huh, seems like I have a wonderful lock on that stuff -- both Max and Fritz are going to see someone casting a spell, for one, and if Fritz sees max acting odd, he's going to do something. And these are "low level schmucks" after all -- I mean, they aren't some farmer's kid standing a watch at the village road he doesn't want to be on, or a Farmer whose taking his turn in a hamlet watch.
Time? Inclination? You don't have to have them. However, you are, as a result, treating your players like children, imo. Taking away their toys, not bothering to challenge them with actually interesting variations. I mean, hey, murder hobos in my game don't give a damn either way, lol, they still gonna chop stuff up, and there ain't nothing wrong with running a pure murder hobo game., but even murderhobos like the things they chop to, you know, not always be the exact same thing.
You can't be arsed to do the thing every single module WotC puts out does. And that's fine -- its your game, and my opinion means zero in your game, so o biggie.
And I know I'm different -- hell, I make them follow old 1e rules that I never used when I ran 1e -- the whole "you start with a handful of spells -- after that, you have to find them" thing. And I give them a lot of spells over the next several levels. Like, a lot a lot. So I have a lot of control over what spells the party has -- but I roll randomly to determine, lol. unless it is a spell they will need should they happen to keep following the thread they are currently on.
Look at how I responded to the OP. You'll have to flip back a bit. I have zero problems with any of the enchantment spells. Or, for that matter, pretty much any other spell. None of them are going to "shut down" an encounter -- if they did, it would be poor planning on *my* part.
A "low level" guard for me is around 4th level. Wanna know how long it took me to create a basic Sibolan guard? Less than 5 minutes.Took me about 10 to create the Captain that is in charge of a shift -- because they have a lot more features. Stat blocks are fast, easy, and simple -- hella easier than creating a character, that's for damn sure.
That you don't have time to do that isn't my problem. But, as is obvious, in my opinion, it is a problem for your players. Because they are missing out on just how creative you could be in your pathfinder D&D 5e 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
No, the point isn't that it's up to the DM to decide whether something sounds reasonable. The point is that they don't even give you any guidelines for what the word means.
Does it mean "someone could be talked into doing it without magic?" Or does it mean something more impressive than that?
Except they actually give examples in the spell's description. And it is and always has been up to the DM to interpret the results of every attempted player action in D&D. But sure, if you want to argue forever that it's not clear enough for you then have fun with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
We are diverging from the original topic, but no, I don't care if a PC (or NPC) rolls a 100 with Persuasion or Deception, some things, in fact, MANY things are simply not possible without magic. Try getting past the Swiss Guard, or the Secret Service, or any bouncer into a really high end night club. There is simply no roll high enough. Now, I thing that Suggestion, and its entire family, are wildly OP, ESPECIALLY as a low level spell. The only logical option is to ban them from the game, or to move them to much higher spells slots.
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.
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.
Suggestion makes one guard stand aside and occupies your concentration slot. Presumably any significant VIP will have more than one guard and more than one layer of security. It's a useful tool, but it's not exactly hard for a DM to plan around when it comes to direct combat. Heck, using your example of the Pope, what class do you think the local equivalents of the Swiss guards will be? Hint, it's the ones who will have very high WIS saves and- depending on the subclass- outright immunity to the spell. Banning it from the game is a massive overreaction, and imo a bit of a flag that a DM has a very specific idea of how the campaign's story should proceed.
No, the point isn't that it's up to the DM to decide whether something sounds reasonable. The point is that they don't even give you any guidelines for what the word means.
Does it mean "someone could be talked into doing it without magic?" Or does it mean something more impressive than that?
NPC guards with immunity to Charm spells....talk about gaming the system against that family of spells. If a DM is going to go through those gyrations, for a low level guard, just say it. That is the equivalent of banning the spell.
Uh, your example was Swiss guards for the Pope. Those guys aren't rent-a-cops, they're professional security. That's high CR, not 1/8 CR cannon fodder. My point was that it's not hard to prevent a single low level spell from nuking a major obstacle. Even with regular guards, it's quite badly stymied if there's two or three in the same place at the same time. You do something that looks like placing a spell on one, and you can bet the alarm's going to be raised.
They are indeed highly trained. But just how high a CR are you thinking? But if you are saying the guards (let alone the BBEG's) are high CR's, it tracks that the PC's are high levels. Now we are into Hypnotic Pattern, and the entire argument begins again, just with higher levels involved. I stand by my statement. A particular family of spells is just flat out bad for the game. Banning them makes it better for the entire game, and if banned, the DM does not have to game systems to deal with them, and players don't have to deal with them being used against them.
In a world where PCs can create their own damn amulets, charms, and whatnots, do people really, genuinely think that the only possible shit they will encounter is stuff that's written out already in a Monster book somewhere?
Seriously?
Again, I get that some folks have a complete hate on for everything having to do with D&D for some reason, and just want to wail on it, but the idea that the default "go to" for a guard is some little noob who's helmet falls off half the time and whose sword needs a good grindstone is the only possible way to make a guard for the head of an entire church (that, presumably, has freaking clerics working for him) because that's the only guard type in a book is ludicrous and asinine.
And I say that and I am well aware that folks will think "well, I guess I have to roll up a character" for an unnamed NPC who doesn't matter just because they are more than normal, and don't understand how monsters work or how there is an entirely separate system for all the DM side stuff (the Monster stat block is a DM's character sheet, after all) because that's all they think to do in that moment and there's never really been a lot of support for creating such things.
NPCs should not be Fritz and Max from Wizards or some faceless, nameless Stormtrooper from Star Wars.
I pity players who have to deal with that level of NPC, because their DM, imo/ime, is treating them like children.
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
Hypnotic Pattern has the same inherent weakness; charm immunity stops it, and it's targeting a save that Paladins have prof in. And making a spell not an instant win in certain situations is not a ban, it's basic game design to challenge the party. I can also say with confidence that trying to hit 3+ targets with Hypnotic Pattern pretty much inevitably means at least one enemy will make the save in any case. If you struggle so much with these spells, I would honestly say that it's more a matter of you having a rigid concept of how to design encounters.
Just my two cents, you guys are getting lost in the trees. Ultimately it's a DM call, and what you set sets a precedent for later. So, like my example is two conflicting rules regarding a character's damage resistance, does magic damage pierce, or is it resisted? In my case I had to make the call based on, do I want this guy to be magic resistant for the rest of the... Ever? No. So I made a call based on group and game stability.
Not sure what you getting at, but as I said before, if a DM creates NPC's/monsters that are geared to counter particular spells, and family of spells, because a PC, or group of PC's, keep using them, then banning those spells is easier. I know what your counter argument to that is. Throwing a set of fire immune monsters at a wizard who is fire-based IS different.
And frankly, I don't have the time nor inclination to build NPC's/monsters that are low level smucks but somehow designed to combat I-win buttons. I have more important things to do with my DM time. I have said this now for the 3rd time. Either accept the fact that both the PC's and NPC's have the ability shut down encounters with a single Wisdom save failure, or do the smart thing, and ban said mechanics. Suggestion, Hypnotic Pattern, Charm Person etc etc etc are shutdown spells. Get rid of them. And have DM's get the spine to say "Sorry, I don't care if your Bard rolled a 32 on Persuasion, this low level guard is not letting you pass."
The point is that these guards are not "low level schmucks". If they're low level schmucks, then there's no need for any countermeasures to be in play because they're not meant to be a significant obstacle in the first place. You initially posited here that the existence of the Suggestion spell made the defense of an extremely high profile VIP impossible. The rebuttals are aimed at the point that if you want to have a significant obstacle, then it is not hard to work in answers to a 2nd level spell. Charm spells are not hard shutdown spells; Charm Person and Suggestion are limited social spells if the target(s) don't make their save, and it is not hard to manage encounters so that they are not the instant win buttons you purport them to be. Hypnotic Pattern as an attempt to bypass guards is honestly less effective than Sleep, imo, and once again it's not hard to work in some speed bumps if you think it's getting too much mileage. You are, of course, free to do what you want at your own table, but asserting these spells are so OP that the only proper course of action any DM should take is banning them comes across as a rather narrow-minded and authoritarian approach to DMing.
Odd, I never mentioned "creating NPCs to counter particular spells".
I find hilarious that you say "ban spells". Because I have found that banning spells makes everything much more difficult. I have exactly one spell "banned". The others are strongly suggested they not be used, because they come with a price most PCs won't be willing to pay, and cannot be used in combat because they are only available as ritual spells (and not the 10 minute kind).
The one spell I have banned is Wish -- and then only as a spell. They are still out there.
Let's look at some other odd quirks of my game, shall we?
You can't cast a spell in secret. Anyone casting a spell has a lightshow to go with it. Officially, all Enchantment spells are illegal, according to the laws of the major cities. All of them. Yes, even those really helpful ones. And it isn't because of any "game breaking" or even an attempt to limit their use -- it is because they were key to a rebellion. OH, and spell damage? It is a simple system that makes all spells of a certain spell level use the same damage die, and the number of dice is determined by the caster's level. Oh, and some spells take more than 1 turn to cast, and others you have to focus on, and defense stuff can be overwhelmed and...
I probably have more magical items on my world than you do yours. In the hands of everyday, common, ordinary people. Wands, amulets, charms, jewelry. Lots of people have them. Ordinary people. Lots. It wouldn't be unusual for Fritz to have an amulet of resistance to lightning, for example. Probably picked it up from a witch living in that copse outside of town over the hill a ways. He probably wears it on a thong around his neck. Or maybe his Granny heard an old prophecy about it from some Oracle and picked it up for him. He might not even know that's what it does.
I mean, granted, he's Fritz on my world, so he's probably got around 30 HP, an AC of 16 (which, given there is no full plate anywhere to be found, is a big deal), has versatility and finesse on his Glaive, knows how to use a Shortsword more than passably well, and if he's a Sibolan Guard, he's got one of those damned giant shields, as well. If he's been in the Guard for a bit, he may have done a stint in the Crusades, and is grateful to have something as easy and pleasant as Guard Duty -- sweet money, and all he has to do is keep people out.
Max? Max is the same -- he didn't get to be a member of the Sibolan Guard by being all that much a waste, after all. They have standards, they have training. Max has a low Wisdom, though, so if one was going to aim a suggestion spell at one of them, it would be Max. Too bad suggestion only works on one person (mass suggestion is a different spell, after all).
Huh, seems like I have a wonderful lock on that stuff -- both Max and Fritz are going to see someone casting a spell, for one, and if Fritz sees max acting odd, he's going to do something. And these are "low level schmucks" after all -- I mean, they aren't some farmer's kid standing a watch at the village road he doesn't want to be on, or a Farmer whose taking his turn in a hamlet watch.
Time? Inclination? You don't have to have them. However, you are, as a result, treating your players like children, imo. Taking away their toys, not bothering to challenge them with actually interesting variations. I mean, hey, murder hobos in my game don't give a damn either way, lol, they still gonna chop stuff up, and there ain't nothing wrong with running a pure murder hobo game., but even murderhobos like the things they chop to, you know, not always be the exact same thing.
You can't be arsed to do the thing every single module WotC puts out does. And that's fine -- its your game, and my opinion means zero in your game, so o biggie.
And I know I'm different -- hell, I make them follow old 1e rules that I never used when I ran 1e -- the whole "you start with a handful of spells -- after that, you have to find them" thing. And I give them a lot of spells over the next several levels. Like, a lot a lot. So I have a lot of control over what spells the party has -- but I roll randomly to determine, lol. unless it is a spell they will need should they happen to keep following the thread they are currently on.
Look at how I responded to the OP. You'll have to flip back a bit. I have zero problems with any of the enchantment spells. Or, for that matter, pretty much any other spell. None of them are going to "shut down" an encounter -- if they did, it would be poor planning on *my* part.
A "low level" guard for me is around 4th level. Wanna know how long it took me to create a basic Sibolan guard? Less than 5 minutes.Took me about 10 to create the Captain that is in charge of a shift -- because they have a lot more features. Stat blocks are fast, easy, and simple -- hella easier than creating a character, that's for damn sure.
That you don't have time to do that isn't my problem. But, as is obvious, in my opinion, it is a problem for your players. Because they are missing out on just how creative you could be in your p
athfinderD&D 5e 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
Except they actually give examples in the spell's description. And it is and always has been up to the DM to interpret the results of every attempted player action in D&D. But sure, if you want to argue forever that it's not clear enough for you then have fun with it.