Can the player under the suggestion spell be made to attack it's companion's? Does the fact elves have advantage to charm spells give them advantage to the suggestion since it's a form of charm?
Can the player under the suggestion spell be made to attack it's companion's? Does the fact elves have advantage to charm spells give them advantage to the suggestion since it's a form of charm?
Elves aren't resistant to suggestion - only full immunity to charmed helps with it, not just advantage on saves.
Your DM has no choice but to homebrew the finer details of how this spell works, because its exact limits are impossible to define - specifically, the spell says you can't make obviously harmful suggestions, and one of the listed examples of a valid suggestion inflicts obvious financial harm on the target (giving up her horse). Due to this paradox, in practice no two tables play with this spell the same way, because every DM has to define for their table which suggestions are valid and which are not.
Again, you can't suggest anything "obviously harmful", which RAW includes harming the target's companions - harm is harm, and the spell doesn't specify harmful to whom. That said, I have a DM right now who has declare that harmful suggestions are ok, only self-harmful ones are banned. Since no definition of harmful is completely consistent with the RAW (due to the horse example), this isn't any less legal than some other DM's houserule. So ask your DM what they want "obviously harmful" to mean.
I would classify attacking one's companions as "obviously harmful" and thus out of the realm of Suggestion. Although creatures who are immune to charm are immune to Suggestion, it does not actually inflict the Charmed status, so Elves don't have advantage against it.
1) Can the player under the suggestion spell be made to attack it's companion's? 2) Does the fact elves have advantage to charm spells give them advantage to the suggestion since it's a form of charm?
1) Yes, if the suggestion sounds reasonable. Up to the DM to adjudicate that. 2) Strictly speaking, no. Only outright immunity is mentioned in the spell description, and the spell is not defined as a charm. It's a reasonable interpretation though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'd interpret it to be something similar to hypnosis. You can't hypnotise me and get me to kill myself or hurt my wife. That is fundamentally against my being and my conscience would rebel. However, things that I might do, with persuasion, do? Then that would work. For example, you might get me to contribute my car for the greater good if you persuade me that it's for an important cause, therefore it's in the realm of things that suggestion could do. You wouldn't be able to persuade me to murder my party, but hinder them? Trap them so they are substantially delayed? That's perfectly legitimate, despite it "harming" them. It also depends on the person - I'm talking about me with a good relationship with the targets. If your character is already suspicious of them, then he probably wouldn't object to the idea of acting on those suspicions. If they're the "band of brothers", then they would consider harming them the same has harming themselves - and therefore wouldn't do it.
That's a rule of thumb, but I feel that there isn't a need to go into such a rigid definition of "harm" to understand it and thereby create a paradox - it's just the nature of language mixed with a bit of the unfortunate fact that a lot of the time WotC assumes you already know what they intend.
Of course, that's my model and a DM is free to interpret it their way, so speak to them. Also, even with my understanding, the lines are still somewhat fuzzy so there's still some need for clarity.
With regards to whether Elves get advantage...it looks like a charm and sounds like a charm, but doesn't explicitly declare itself a charm. I'd say that it was a charm and therefore the Elf gets advantage. However, it doesn't explicitly say that it's a charm, despite acting like one and sharing a vulnerability to the same immunity, and strictly speaking the immunity is to a specific condition, charmed, (which doesn't apply here) and so a more legalistic DM would probably rule that it's not charming you so that racial trait isn't applicable. I may disagree, but it's your DM's opinion that matters, not mine, so ask them.
As with almost all things D&D it seems, we can share our opinions, but ultimately it's down to the DM.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Can the player under the suggestion spell be made to attack it's companion's? Does the fact elves have advantage to charm spells give them advantage to the suggestion since it's a form of charm?
Elves aren't resistant to suggestion - only full immunity to charmed helps with it, not just advantage on saves.
Your DM has no choice but to homebrew the finer details of how this spell works, because its exact limits are impossible to define - specifically, the spell says you can't make obviously harmful suggestions, and one of the listed examples of a valid suggestion inflicts obvious financial harm on the target (giving up her horse). Due to this paradox, in practice no two tables play with this spell the same way, because every DM has to define for their table which suggestions are valid and which are not.
Again, you can't suggest anything "obviously harmful", which RAW includes harming the target's companions - harm is harm, and the spell doesn't specify harmful to whom. That said, I have a DM right now who has declare that harmful suggestions are ok, only self-harmful ones are banned. Since no definition of harmful is completely consistent with the RAW (due to the horse example), this isn't any less legal than some other DM's houserule. So ask your DM what they want "obviously harmful" to mean.
I would classify attacking one's companions as "obviously harmful" and thus out of the realm of Suggestion. Although creatures who are immune to charm are immune to Suggestion, it does not actually inflict the Charmed status, so Elves don't have advantage against it.
1) Yes, if the suggestion sounds reasonable. Up to the DM to adjudicate that. 2) Strictly speaking, no. Only outright immunity is mentioned in the spell description, and the spell is not defined as a charm. It's a reasonable interpretation though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'd interpret it to be something similar to hypnosis. You can't hypnotise me and get me to kill myself or hurt my wife. That is fundamentally against my being and my conscience would rebel. However, things that I might do, with persuasion, do? Then that would work. For example, you might get me to contribute my car for the greater good if you persuade me that it's for an important cause, therefore it's in the realm of things that suggestion could do. You wouldn't be able to persuade me to murder my party, but hinder them? Trap them so they are substantially delayed? That's perfectly legitimate, despite it "harming" them. It also depends on the person - I'm talking about me with a good relationship with the targets. If your character is already suspicious of them, then he probably wouldn't object to the idea of acting on those suspicions. If they're the "band of brothers", then they would consider harming them the same has harming themselves - and therefore wouldn't do it.
That's a rule of thumb, but I feel that there isn't a need to go into such a rigid definition of "harm" to understand it and thereby create a paradox - it's just the nature of language mixed with a bit of the unfortunate fact that a lot of the time WotC assumes you already know what they intend.
Of course, that's my model and a DM is free to interpret it their way, so speak to them. Also, even with my understanding, the lines are still somewhat fuzzy so there's still some need for clarity.
With regards to whether Elves get advantage...it looks like a charm and sounds like a charm, but doesn't explicitly declare itself a charm. I'd say that it was a charm and therefore the Elf gets advantage. However, it doesn't explicitly say that it's a charm, despite acting like one and sharing a vulnerability to the same immunity, and strictly speaking the immunity is to a specific condition, charmed, (which doesn't apply here) and so a more legalistic DM would probably rule that it's not charming you so that racial trait isn't applicable. I may disagree, but it's your DM's opinion that matters, not mine, so ask them.
As with almost all things D&D it seems, we can share our opinions, but ultimately it's down to the DM.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.