Again, if you'll look closely, you'll se that the PHB describes that each spell with a verbal component has a "particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance." That particular-and-specific vocalization is indeed unspecified, and can be whatever your character or DM wants it to be.... but it's one particular-and-specific vocalization for that spell. Reading "particular" and "specific" as "not particular" and "changing to fit the context of what you're suggesting" is.... not RAW. Could be RAI, for all I know! But that's not the verbal component rules that were written down!
The verbal component of the spell isn't what I was suggesting.
In the Suggestion spell it says "that can hear and understand you", so this implies that the suggestion is being verbally given to them - which seems likely after the spell's "verbal" component has been completed.
Agreed that you make noise, which is perceptible as spellcasting, and THEN make a coherent verbal suggestion which prompts a save to comply.
Disagree with the position that the verbal suggestion is perceptible as a spell effect, telling creature that that verbal suggestion is the magical effect of the spell they just heard being cast.
Not saying an NPC couldn’t put 2 and 2 together. But perceptible spell effects are just that, effects, like a fireball or glowing light or physical change or magical sound. A normal verbal request isn’t overtly magical, and creatures don’t automatically know when they make wisdom saves.
I'm not usually one to trot out simulationist excuses, but did real knights outside of Disney movies actually bond with their horses like pets? I was under the impression that it was much more of a utilitarian relationship and if anyone would have bonded with the horse it would have been the squire or horse trainer who did all the other stuff aside from riding on it.
Not in every case, but with most I would bet on it. Look at equestrian competition (jumping courses, etc). The riders and horses have been with each other for a long time and in the case of jumping, a firm level of trust needs to be built.The riders took their horses to Japan for the Olympics. That's not even taking into account life and death combat and chaos.
Those riders have been with those horses for years, yes. A knight (or man at arms) would have been with multiple horse for many years. For example, you would have different horses for different purposes. You wouldn't use your warhorse to go riding, for example. The horse(s) were first and foremost a tool and since life was a lot harsher back then and people were a lot more used to death and suffering, animals weren't as highly valued. Of course they could have formed bonds with them but most likely not a "Disney level" degree. And of cours,e if it's an evil knight he might not care at all about his steed.
Even if it's purely utilitarian, a good warhorse is not easy to come by.
Sure, but even back when a good warhorse was among the most expensive things you could own they were still treated in ways that show that kindness wasn't necessarily the number one priority. Just look at medieval spurs...
You could interpret the knight giving away their horse as to what should be considered "reasonable". Giving away a pricey but replacable possession to a person in need? Reasonable. Giving away the crown to the kingdom to your enemy or your firstborn to a Fey Lord? Probably not reasonable.
I would say that a crown is closer to "pricey but replaceable" and a trained animal/pet is closer to family than a possession.
If the knight's horse is not their personal horse that they have had for a long time and formed a bond with, then it would be reasonable.
A kingodm isn't replacable. You do realize that "the crown to the kingdom" is a metaphor for the entire country, right? Like how "giving them the key to the city" often means not giving someone a literal key but rather to hand over control of that city to the other part. And not all knights bond with their horses, but that's beside the point.
I did read that literally, sorry. We were talking about the giving away of tangible things after all.
No, we're talking about the Suggestion spell. Which cover more than just giving things away.
I don't think the spell could realistically give away a leadership position even if it didn't have the reasonable clause. Kingship isn't something that can be given away so easily or quickly. But that tangent isn't really relevant.
How do you know that? What setting are we talking about? Going by folklore and popular stories it seems quite easy to do so. Especially if the monarch rules with absolute power. Either way, the point still stands.
What is the point is that while not all knights bond with their mounts, not all don't. The wording doesn't indicate that it matters if it is a beloved pet or merely a tool and works either way. And that is a dangerous precedent.
Why would it be "dangerous"? It's a guideline for the DM.
Where is the line? If an animal that is both essential to your job and potentially very sentimental can be suggested to be given away, why not all of your food and money? Why not your house? Why not a family member?
Yes, why not? That depends on what you (the target of the spell) think is "reasonable". If you are a noble knight who has sworn to help the less fortunate in every way you can, why wouldn't you give away your horse? All of this depends on what that particular character thinks is "reasonable" and is, of course, up to the DM to decide since they are the one who knows what that character would think is reasonable. Assuming the knight is an NPC, of course.
That's why I don't like the example. I would have excepted a suggestion to give all their money to a peasant over this. And yes, I acknowledge that it is a house rule, and not RAW.
What if you needed the money to pay the ransom for your kidnapped daughter? Wouldn't that be more important than the horse?
I'm not usually one to trot out simulationist excuses, but did real knights outside of Disney movies actually bond with their horses like pets? I was under the impression that it was much more of a utilitarian relationship and if anyone would have bonded with the horse it would have been the squire or horse trainer who did all the other stuff aside from riding on it.
Not in every case, but with most I would bet on it. Look at equestrian competition (jumping courses, etc). The riders and horses have been with each other for a long time and in the case of jumping, a firm level of trust needs to be built.The riders took their horses to Japan for the Olympics. That's not even taking into account life and death combat and chaos.
Those riders have been with those horses for years, yes. A knight (or man at arms) would have been with multiple horse for many years. For example, you would have different horses for different purposes. You wouldn't use your warhorse to go riding, for example. The horse(s) were first and foremost a tool and since life was a lot harsher back then and people were a lot more used to death and suffering, animals weren't as highly valued. Of course they could have formed bonds with them but most likely not a "Disney level" degree. And of cours,e if it's an evil knight he might not care at all about his steed.
An evil knight wouldn't find it reasonable to give his steed to a beggar. That's why that example is interesting. It suggests that a Suggestion must not only be merely harmless to the target, but must seem at least in a small way worthwhile to the target. It doesn't have to be something they would normally do, but at least something they would consider doing.
You can think about it as something they might do if they got really drunk. "I got really drunk last night and gave my horse to a beggar," is a ridiculous but plausible story. I got really drunk and let the barbarians through the gates is probably too far.
Something like the BBEG handing over the McGuffin obviously wouldn't seem reasonable.
It is a second level spell. I would rule that a suggestion that is not directly contradictory to the target's interests will take effect.
Suicide, helping to kill their comrades, directly contravening their mission... those are not reasonable.
Fleeing the battle after seeing your wizard throw a fireball, deserting on a doubt of their leader's motives, or being told "you should take this 5 gold and go home" all seem pretty reasonable.
You can make a minion flee the battle, but you can't make the BBEG flee, even though, if you've created a balanced combat, that is by definition reasonable. My way of interpreting this is that the DC for a Persuasion check to make the BBEG give up is higher than anything you could achieve with a natural 20 and any possible bonus.
Oh yeah, I wouldn't let the BBEG be reasoned with. They are highly motivated to fulfill whatever goal they are attempting, so just convincing them to give up would never fly.
I would allow something like making them choose between 2 priorities, like focusing on protecting a mcguffin over fleeing to fight another day.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The verbal component of the spell isn't what I was suggesting.
In the Suggestion spell it says "that can hear and understand you", so this implies that the suggestion is being verbally given to them - which seems likely after the spell's "verbal" component has been completed.
Agreed that you make noise, which is perceptible as spellcasting, and THEN make a coherent verbal suggestion which prompts a save to comply.
Disagree with the position that the verbal suggestion is perceptible as a spell effect, telling creature that that verbal suggestion is the magical effect of the spell they just heard being cast.
Not saying an NPC couldn’t put 2 and 2 together. But perceptible spell effects are just that, effects, like a fireball or glowing light or physical change or magical sound. A normal verbal request isn’t overtly magical, and creatures don’t automatically know when they make wisdom saves.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Those riders have been with those horses for years, yes. A knight (or man at arms) would have been with multiple horse for many years. For example, you would have different horses for different purposes. You wouldn't use your warhorse to go riding, for example. The horse(s) were first and foremost a tool and since life was a lot harsher back then and people were a lot more used to death and suffering, animals weren't as highly valued. Of course they could have formed bonds with them but most likely not a "Disney level" degree. And of cours,e if it's an evil knight he might not care at all about his steed.
Sure, but even back when a good warhorse was among the most expensive things you could own they were still treated in ways that show that kindness wasn't necessarily the number one priority. Just look at medieval spurs...
No, we're talking about the Suggestion spell. Which cover more than just giving things away.
How do you know that? What setting are we talking about? Going by folklore and popular stories it seems quite easy to do so. Especially if the monarch rules with absolute power. Either way, the point still stands.
Why would it be "dangerous"? It's a guideline for the DM.
Yes, why not? That depends on what you (the target of the spell) think is "reasonable". If you are a noble knight who has sworn to help the less fortunate in every way you can, why wouldn't you give away your horse? All of this depends on what that particular character thinks is "reasonable" and is, of course, up to the DM to decide since they are the one who knows what that character would think is reasonable. Assuming the knight is an NPC, of course.
What if you needed the money to pay the ransom for your kidnapped daughter? Wouldn't that be more important than the horse?
An evil knight wouldn't find it reasonable to give his steed to a beggar. That's why that example is interesting. It suggests that a Suggestion must not only be merely harmless to the target, but must seem at least in a small way worthwhile to the target. It doesn't have to be something they would normally do, but at least something they would consider doing.
You can think about it as something they might do if they got really drunk. "I got really drunk last night and gave my horse to a beggar," is a ridiculous but plausible story. I got really drunk and let the barbarians through the gates is probably too far.
Oh yeah, I wouldn't let the BBEG be reasoned with. They are highly motivated to fulfill whatever goal they are attempting, so just convincing them to give up would never fly.
I would allow something like making them choose between 2 priorities, like focusing on protecting a mcguffin over fleeing to fight another day.