Hey all, here's the short version. The party, level 5, is battling the bad guy and his minions.
The bad guy casts Suggestion on a PC, who fails the save. The bad guy suggests that the PC give him the PC's semi-powerful magic item (it's a home-brew item that does various battlefield control effects).
According to the horribly written spell description, should the PC be forced to hand his enemy this magic item?
It has.to be worded in a reasonable way. So theoretically, yes, it is possible, but the wording matters.
This is why I'm not keen on these kinds of effects. I get that it's for brevity and conciseness, but the virtually complete lack of guidance and boundaries makes it very prone to disagreements between DMs and Players. The fact that it's impinging on Player agency makes it problematic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Nice to know your opinion on banning spells, but that wasn't the question asked. I'd have no qualms shutting down a Player's attempt to abuse the spell. The problem comes when the judge is also the defendant as well as the jury. The spell is fine in principle, it's just the fact that it's poorly defined that leads to contention.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
My 2cp worth: The suggestion cannot compel the target to do something "obviously harmful", given the PC know the magic item has certain battlefield control effect, does the PC think that giving this items power to someone else might be harmful in any way? if they do, the spell fails.
Nice to know your opinion on banning spells, but that wasn't the question asked. I'd have no qualms shutting down a Player's attempt to abuse the spell. The problem comes when the judge is also the defendant as well as the jury. The spell is fine in principle, it's just the fact that it's poorly defined that leads to contention.
You've put your finger on the issue (the user and the jury are the same person). I think the only path forward in a game is to trust that the DM is being as fair as possible and not get too emotional about any one decision. If you reflect on the DMs performance over time and feel that trust is misplaced then you need a new DM.
That said, this spell practically invites an unhealthy and adversarial conflict because it is so open to interpretation. Apart from banning it, a DM could develop a set of examples and FAQ about how the spell works in their game (and if someone has done this I would be interested in seeing the interpretations out there).
I am not tracking what the potential issue here is.
In short, yes. The player under the spell should present the item. If this is occurring during an encounter and initiative has been rolled then it is the DMs call, but I would think the player would start the process to hand it over but the task is completed on their turn. However, I can see ruling so the action happens immediately so that the player retains their action on their turn. Either way, the spell ends once the item is handed over.
I disagree. The word "obviously" leaves too much room as other posters have pointed out to be interpreted and too much room to have different interpretations depending on context. The spell would be quite a bit better if the word "obviously" was replaced with the word "inherently" IMO.
Obviously: in a way that is easily perceived or understood; clearly.
Inherently: in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.
Welp, my first thought is "punch the suggested person". It will end the spell. If they are in a combat, and they take a hit from the minions, the spell ends, and I pity that poor minion should they survive.
For this, I am going to presume that the instruction wasn't more than two sentences, and sounded very reasonable (meaning that there was no lie from the PC point of view that was uttered -- so the villain couldn't have argued that they were going to use it for good, since they are known to be a villain). If those aren' the case, then it doesn't take, and I'd give a second save.
I might also do a perception save if there was something off about the whole idea.
But, again, presuming that's all within bounds...
it would depend on what the battlefield control effects are, and what the PC thinks the villain will do with it *right then* (not down the road).
if it was a wand of fireballs, for example, I would say no, unless the wand is out of charges. If it was a wand of candle lighting, I'd say yes.
The key part there is, as someone else pointed out, about the way that it would be used against the character.
Now, I also will admit that if the story requires it, then it happens. I might argue the story shouldn't require it, but that's not the point here -- if the story requires it, then it happens.
And, finally, I also have to note that if it would heighten the stakes or drama in a session of general campaign that hasn't felt like it was all that dramatic or tense, then I would have it given over. I would describe the mighty struggle, the immense will, have extra rolls made, and make it a Big Deal. I would have them move at 5 feet if it was over 30 feet away, or maybe even 1 foot if closer. I have the sweat dripping off them, their face screwed up in a mix of rage and defiance, the weapons falling as they focused their will on resisting the magic.
ANd I would make it a slow walk because I would be buying time to see if...
someone would just punch the suggested character in the next turn.
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
I disagree. The word "obviously" leaves too much room as other posters have pointed out to be interpreted and too much room to have different interpretations depending on context. The spell would be quite a bit better if the word "obviously" was replaced with the word "inherently" IMO.
Obviously: in a way that is easily perceived or understood; clearly.
Inherently: in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.
I don't agree with your interpretation of words, but it is also irrelevant. That is not how the spell reads. The RAW is very clear.
If I have a BBEG cast Mass Suggestion and say "You guys look tired. You should go home and take a nap.", there is very good chance that a big chunk of the party will disengage from the encounter and leave. That in no way that suggestion can be twisted to to have players that fail the save refuse. It is also likely lethal to those that remain to fight.
Lol, I used standard Oxford dictionary definitions of "obviously" and "inherently". If you don't like those definitions, its not me you disagree with.
The argument that this is RAW falls apart because the designers used vague language open to interpretation. RAW and RAI could be reconciled by simply changing the words.
Just to revist this, drop another 2cp and explore my own mental process.....op says "The party, level 5, is battling the bad guy and his minions", to which I infer the following: initiative is rolling, combat and mayhem ensues, at some point during combat the bad guy casts suggestion.
If the Suggestion spell needs the suggestion to be worded in a way that sounds reasonable as well as not obviously harmful, then would handing a magical item to your opponent during combat be a reasonable request? If it is not, then in this instance, the spell fails. If it is then the spell works. Persoanlly I would say its not a reasonable request to hand over any equipment to you opponent mid fight. I think Suggestion is one of those spells where its not only how the user phrases the request but also the environment in which it is used which imapct on how effective it is. Out of combat usage it is much easy to decide what works.
For a bit of an alternate view though...I did find a sage advice tweet from Mr Crawford in which he gave three examples of how to use Suggestion in combat which were: "Flee! A dragon comes." "Don't attack; I intend no harm." "Your sword is cursed. Drop it."....so who knows how this thing is supposed to be used because using the last option of Mr Crawford you could suggest they drop the magic item and then have either the bad guy or a minion pick it up and abscond with it.
How is this horribly written? Anything obviously harmful ends the spell.
With the party and bad guy engaged in battle, either party giving up their magic item designed for battle is obviously harmful. The suggestion would come across as: _"Let me borrow that. I want to hit you with it!"_
If they were not engaged in battle then the action would seem reasonable. In this case it would come across as: _"Hey, let me borrow that! I want to look it over."_
The spell also states that if you or your allies harm the target then the spell ends as well. So the only way it would work in combat is if nobody attacked the target between the time it was cast and the time the target gets to take its action.
Hey all, here's the short version. The party, level 5, is battling the bad guy and his minions.
The bad guy casts Suggestion on a PC, who fails the save. The bad guy suggests that the PC give him the PC's semi-powerful magic item (it's a home-brew item that does various battlefield control effects).
According to the horribly written spell description, should the PC be forced to hand his enemy this magic item?
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
The spell description isn't horribly written, it just intentionally leaves discretion up to the DM to determine what a "reasonable" wording is. That's what DMs are for, to allow spells like this to exist so that we can all be creative and then the DM adjudicates the results as fairly as they can.
My take on it is that if the PC takes no damage before their turn starts, then the PC would use their free action to hand over their weapon, and then would be freed from the Suggestion influence having fulfilled the condition of the spell. This leaves their action free to do a Disarm Attack and attempt to steal the weapon right back with an attack roll vs Bad Guy's Athletics/Acrobatics skillcheck. Or just murder the Bad Guy in some other manner and loot the weapon off his dead corpse
I disagree. The word "obviously" leaves too much room as other posters have pointed out to be interpreted and too much room to have different interpretations depending on context. The spell would be quite a bit better if the word "obviously" was replaced with the word "inherently" IMO.
Obviously: in a way that is easily perceived or understood; clearly.
Inherently: in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.
I don't agree with your interpretation of words, but it is also irrelevant. That is not how the spell reads. The RAW is very clear.
If I have a BBEG cast Mass Suggestion and say "You guys look tired. You should go home and take a nap.", there is very good chance that a big chunk of the party will disengage from the encounter and leave. That in no way that suggestion can be twisted to to have players that fail the save refuse. It is also likely lethal to those that remain to fight.
Lol, I used standard Oxford dictionary definitions of "obviously" and "inherently". If you don't like those definitions, its not me you disagree with.
The argument that this is RAW falls apart because the designers used vague language open to interpretation. RAW and RAI could be reconciled by simply changing the words.
It is much simpler to remove the spells in question from the game, as opposed to wrangling about wording.
How is this horribly written? Anything obviously harmful ends the spell.
Some in the thread interpreted "harmful" to mean "proximately causing the loss of HP", which is how you interpret it here:
The spell also states that if you or your allies harm the target then the spell ends as well. So the only way it would work in combat is if nobody attacked the target between the time it was cast and the time the target gets to take its action.
"Harmful" is open to interpretation. For example, the online dictionary defines it exclusively as physical damage. Cambridge opens it up to other forms of damage including non-literal. Merriam-Webster confines it to physical or mental damage. Different dictionaries give different answers as to whether giving the most valuable item counts as "harmful", as well as different posters on this thread.
You seem to be of the opinion that if it is the proximate cause of a setback, it counts, but not if it's not the proximate. This isn't actually arguing the meaning of "harmful", but of "obvious". I'd disagree - if I'm being asked to lose a rather valuable object, I'd see that as obviously damaging to my interests. Whether I'm in a battle or not is not much of a game changer, actually. It's still obvious that I'm doing something very counterproductive to my interests. The question is whether it counts as harmful or if it doesn't qualify, not whether it's obvious. Something not obvious is "Go and give this letter, the contents of which is unknown to you, to that giant Minotaur over there", the contents of which insult the Minotaur's mother.
So, there are two key words in adjudicating whether the spell is valid or not, "obvious" and "harmful", and both can be validly understood in multiple different ways that allow for different answers to the same questions. That can lead to contention at the table as players draw one conclusion and the DM another. Look at Fireball for an example of a spell that is better written. Either you are in range, or you're not. That is clearly defined in the rules. If you're out of range, nothing happens. If you are in range, you get to do a Dex Save; succeed and you get half of 8d6 Fire damage, if you fail you get the full whack. There are very few valid arguments to be made by someone who understands the rules as written in the book. Compare that to Suggestion where two key words to understanding whether it works or not are easily contestable even by someone who has read and understood all the rules as given.
A well written spell is clear and undebatable as to whether it works and what its effects are. It doesn't result in arguments at the table, because we can read it and there's no discussion as to whether it applies or what it does. Suggestion's writing does not preclude good faith disagreements at all and actually encourages them.
That's why it's poorly written.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
A well written spell is clear and undebatable as to whether it works and what its effects are. It doesn't result in arguments at the table, because we can read it and there's no discussion as to whether it applies or what it does. Suggestion's writing does not preclude good faith disagreements at all and actually encourages them.
That's why it's poorly written.
That sounds like a boring game if everything is 100% cut and dried without any room for interpretation or creativity. The spell is perfectly fine if you trust your DM to adjudicate things fairly and so that everyone has fun. And if you don't, then you have way bigger problems than this spell.
Players really dislike being put out of the game, so to speak. However, I fail to see how this particular use of Suggestion isn't - in all ways - better than failing a save vs. Hold Person.
Hold Person even has the distinction of having no counterplay at all, except 'making your save'. For Suggestion, wording might provide an exit, another player might have a reaction to intervene (not sure how, but I'm not ruling it out), or, reasonably, the player in question might argue 'well, I can't hand over my magic sword of slayiness intil it's my turn', buying some time at least.
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.
I disagree. The word "obviously" leaves too much room as other posters have pointed out to be interpreted and too much room to have different interpretations depending on context. The spell would be quite a bit better if the word "obviously" was replaced with the word "inherently" IMO.
Obviously: in a way that is easily perceived or understood; clearly.
Inherently: in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.
I don't agree with your interpretation of words, but it is also irrelevant. That is not how the spell reads. The RAW is very clear.
If I have a BBEG cast Mass Suggestion and say "You guys look tired. You should go home and take a nap.", there is very good chance that a big chunk of the party will disengage from the encounter and leave. That in no way that suggestion can be twisted to to have players that fail the save refuse. It is also likely lethal to those that remain to fight.
Lol, I used standard Oxford dictionary definitions of "obviously" and "inherently". If you don't like those definitions, its not me you disagree with.
The argument that this is RAW falls apart because the designers used vague language open to interpretation. RAW and RAI could be reconciled by simply changing the words.
It is much simpler to remove the spells in question from the game, as opposed to wrangling about wording.
How is this horribly written? Anything obviously harmful ends the spell.
Some in the thread interpreted "harmful" to mean "proximately causing the loss of HP", which is how you interpret it here:
The spell also states that if you or your allies harm the target then the spell ends as well. So the only way it would work in combat is if nobody attacked the target between the time it was cast and the time the target gets to take its action.
"Harmful" is open to interpretation. For example, the online dictionary defines it exclusively as physical damage. Cambridge opens it up to other forms of damage including non-literal. Merriam-Webster confines it to physical or mental damage. Different dictionaries give different answers as to whether giving the most valuable item counts as "harmful", as well as different posters on this thread.
You seem to be of the opinion that if it is the proximate cause of a setback, it counts, but not if it's not the proximate. This isn't actually arguing the meaning of "harmful", but of "obvious". I'd disagree - if I'm being asked to lose a rather valuable object, I'd see that as obviously damaging to my interests. Whether I'm in a battle or not is not much of a game changer, actually. It's still obvious that I'm doing something very counterproductive to my interests. The question is whether it counts as harmful or if it doesn't qualify, not whether it's obvious. Something not obvious is "Go and give this letter, the contents of which is unknown to you, to that giant Minotaur over there", the contents of which insult the Minotaur's mother.
So, there are two key words in adjudicating whether the spell is valid or not, "obvious" and "harmful", and both can be validly understood in multiple different ways that allow for different answers to the same questions. That can lead to contention at the table as players draw one conclusion and the DM another. Look at Fireball for an example of a spell that is better written. Either you are in range, or you're not. That is clearly defined in the rules. If you're out of range, nothing happens. If you are in range, you get to do a Dex Save; succeed and you get half of 8d6 Fire damage, if you fail you get the full whack. There are very few valid arguments to be made by someone who understands the rules as written in the book. Compare that to Suggestion where two key words to understanding whether it works or not are easily contestable even by someone who has read and understood all the rules as given.
A well written spell is clear and undebatable as to whether it works and what its effects are. It doesn't result in arguments at the table, because we can read it and there's no discussion as to whether it applies or what it does. Suggestion's writing does not preclude good faith disagreements at all and actually encourages them.
That's why it's poorly written.
Great point! It is interesting because the example they give of a knight giving away their horse is something that could be interpreted as "harmful" as well (horses are very expensive). If someone walked up to me and demanded my car, I would consider that "harmful to me".
In the first paragraph of the spell they give far more clear examples of "will cause harm to my person", but then their horse example is there too. If I read the spell in it's totality, then I would say the RAI seems to be scratching at "the spell fails if it would cause the target to physically injure themself". In which case I would argue the OP's example might work against that PC.
However, I'm dubious that the spell should be this powerful only excluding the target from causing themselves bodily harm. Being able to compel any non self-injuring behavior for up to 8 hours feels way too good for a 2nd level spell. So that makes me question the RAI I guessed at above.
The spell's wording could be considerably improved and it isn't entirely clear what the RAI is. If it is about only excluding physical self-injury then rather than only badly worded, the spell is grossly overpowered.
People really want to stretch "obviously harmful" to mean some pretty insane things. Sure, if you stretch your imagination, you can call anything harmful. Giving up literally any item that has a gold value or any niche use - Woah man, what if I were to need the item or gold for a bribe in a couple of years and not having it leads me to being harmed? Leave a fight unharmed - woah man, that could get my allies harmed and that hinders my path to my eventual goal and that's harming me in the long run right? Don't go into that specific house - but wait, what if that house has some powerful weapons in it, and the lack of that firepower harms me in my next fight? Spill the dirt about my secret employer - but bro, what if they're like, really mad that I did that and they harm me for it?
If one believes that this spell can't be used to disarm, which is not at all obviously harmful by itself, then I don't know what you think the spell can be used for.
Obviously harmful generally means something that is seen as harmful in that moment to everyone. It is not based in the notion of what could be harmful -- if the same thing might not be harmful in a different context, then it is not obviously harmful.
IN this case, as I mentioned, it could be obviously harmful -- it depends on the what he magical item can do, specifically, not just generally. If the players know that giving it up would be giving the BBEG the ability to kill them all, then it wouldn't happen.
Being suggested to give up gold, or to drop a weapon, or to run away are not obviously harmful. Being suggested to turn over your kingdom is not obviously harmful. Being asked to cut down your best friend of 20 years would be obviously harmful, but being asked to cut down that person you met two weeks ago probably is not obviously harmful. sking it to leave doesn't mean that they aren't subject to an opportunity attack, for example -- it is not the consequence of the act that counts, it is the act itself. You could tell a 1st level character to jump of that ledge if the drop is less than 10 feet, but you couldn't if it is more than 20 (adjust by average damage of 3.5 feet per 10' and the length of the fall).
So the spell capitalizes on the moment, on the context, and without that context, you cannot make a call, because there is no one size fits all answer. That is, a bunch of it depends on the Role Play segment, and you cannot judge roleplay unless you are there.
IF the players are not fully aware of all that the magic item does, then it only applies to what they do know about it, as well.
No matter how reasonably the request is worded (which is purely a DM call), the suggestion cannot do anything obviously harmful, and it is up to DM fiat what constitutes obviously harmful. Both Suggestion and Mass suggestion have this requirement -- Charm Person does not.
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
I'm curious, when you read "obviously harmful" do you read it as "obviously harmful [to the target themselves]" or "obviously harmful [in general]"
The examples seem to imply the first one (they are all about harm to the target), but now I'm really trying to figure out the bounds of this spell.
Would it be valid to word a suggestion that compels the target to attack others, damage property, etc? (so long as that was described as a reasonable course of action)
I'm genuinely interested in what the bounds of the spell are now, and for some of you it sees more obvious than it is to me.
I'm curious, when you read "obviously harmful" do you read it as "obviously harmful [to the target themselves]" or "obviously harmful [in general]"
The examples seem to imply the first one (they are all about harm to the target), but now I'm really trying to figure out the bounds of this spell.
Would it be valid to word a suggestion that compels the target to attack others, damage property, etc? (so long as that was described as a reasonable course of action)
I'm genuinely interested in what the bounds of the spell are now, and for some of you it sees more obvious than it is to me.
As a Charmed Condition, the "harm to" is always and only the Caster or the Target.
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
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey all, here's the short version. The party, level 5, is battling the bad guy and his minions.
The bad guy casts Suggestion on a PC, who fails the save.
The bad guy suggests that the PC give him the PC's semi-powerful magic item (it's a home-brew item that does various battlefield control effects).
According to the horribly written spell description, should the PC be forced to hand his enemy this magic item?
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
It has.to be worded in a reasonable way. So theoretically, yes, it is possible, but the wording matters.
This is why I'm not keen on these kinds of effects. I get that it's for brevity and conciseness, but the virtually complete lack of guidance and boundaries makes it very prone to disagreements between DMs and Players. The fact that it's impinging on Player agency makes it problematic.
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.
Nice to know your opinion on banning spells, but that wasn't the question asked. I'd have no qualms shutting down a Player's attempt to abuse the spell. The problem comes when the judge is also the defendant as well as the jury. The spell is fine in principle, it's just the fact that it's poorly defined that leads to contention.
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.
My 2cp worth: The suggestion cannot compel the target to do something "obviously harmful", given the PC know the magic item has certain battlefield control effect, does the PC think that giving this items power to someone else might be harmful in any way? if they do, the spell fails.
You've put your finger on the issue (the user and the jury are the same person). I think the only path forward in a game is to trust that the DM is being as fair as possible and not get too emotional about any one decision. If you reflect on the DMs performance over time and feel that trust is misplaced then you need a new DM.
That said, this spell practically invites an unhealthy and adversarial conflict because it is so open to interpretation. Apart from banning it, a DM could develop a set of examples and FAQ about how the spell works in their game (and if someone has done this I would be interested in seeing the interpretations out there).
I am not tracking what the potential issue here is.
In short, yes. The player under the spell should present the item. If this is occurring during an encounter and initiative has been rolled then it is the DMs call, but I would think the player would start the process to hand it over but the task is completed on their turn. However, I can see ruling so the action happens immediately so that the player retains their action on their turn. Either way, the spell ends once the item is handed over.
I disagree. The word "obviously" leaves too much room as other posters have pointed out to be interpreted and too much room to have different interpretations depending on context. The spell would be quite a bit better if the word "obviously" was replaced with the word "inherently" IMO.
Obviously: in a way that is easily perceived or understood; clearly.
Inherently: in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.
Welp, my first thought is "punch the suggested person". It will end the spell. If they are in a combat, and they take a hit from the minions, the spell ends, and I pity that poor minion should they survive.
For this, I am going to presume that the instruction wasn't more than two sentences, and sounded very reasonable (meaning that there was no lie from the PC point of view that was uttered -- so the villain couldn't have argued that they were going to use it for good, since they are known to be a villain). If those aren' the case, then it doesn't take, and I'd give a second save.
I might also do a perception save if there was something off about the whole idea.
But, again, presuming that's all within bounds...
it would depend on what the battlefield control effects are, and what the PC thinks the villain will do with it *right then* (not down the road).
if it was a wand of fireballs, for example, I would say no, unless the wand is out of charges. If it was a wand of candle lighting, I'd say yes.
The key part there is, as someone else pointed out, about the way that it would be used against the character.
Now, I also will admit that if the story requires it, then it happens. I might argue the story shouldn't require it, but that's not the point here -- if the story requires it, then it happens.
And, finally, I also have to note that if it would heighten the stakes or drama in a session of general campaign that hasn't felt like it was all that dramatic or tense, then I would have it given over. I would describe the mighty struggle, the immense will, have extra rolls made, and make it a Big Deal. I would have them move at 5 feet if it was over 30 feet away, or maybe even 1 foot if closer. I have the sweat dripping off them, their face screwed up in a mix of rage and defiance, the weapons falling as they focused their will on resisting the magic.
ANd I would make it a slow walk because I would be buying time to see if...
someone would just punch the suggested character in the next turn.
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
Lol, I used standard Oxford dictionary definitions of "obviously" and "inherently". If you don't like those definitions, its not me you disagree with.
The argument that this is RAW falls apart because the designers used vague language open to interpretation. RAW and RAI could be reconciled by simply changing the words.
Just to revist this, drop another 2cp and explore my own mental process.....op says "The party, level 5, is battling the bad guy and his minions", to which I infer the following: initiative is rolling, combat and mayhem ensues, at some point during combat the bad guy casts suggestion.
If the Suggestion spell needs the suggestion to be worded in a way that sounds reasonable as well as not obviously harmful, then would handing a magical item to your opponent during combat be a reasonable request? If it is not, then in this instance, the spell fails. If it is then the spell works. Persoanlly I would say its not a reasonable request to hand over any equipment to you opponent mid fight. I think Suggestion is one of those spells where its not only how the user phrases the request but also the environment in which it is used which imapct on how effective it is. Out of combat usage it is much easy to decide what works.
For a bit of an alternate view though...I did find a sage advice tweet from Mr Crawford in which he gave three examples of how to use Suggestion in combat which were: "Flee! A dragon comes." "Don't attack; I intend no harm." "Your sword is cursed. Drop it."....so who knows how this thing is supposed to be used because using the last option of Mr Crawford you could suggest they drop the magic item and then have either the bad guy or a minion pick it up and abscond with it.
How is this horribly written? Anything obviously harmful ends the spell.
With the party and bad guy engaged in battle, either party giving up their magic item designed for battle is obviously harmful. The suggestion would come across as: _"Let me borrow that. I want to hit you with it!"_
If they were not engaged in battle then the action would seem reasonable. In this case it would come across as: _"Hey, let me borrow that! I want to look it over."_
The spell also states that if you or your allies harm the target then the spell ends as well. So the only way it would work in combat is if nobody attacked the target between the time it was cast and the time the target gets to take its action.
The spell description isn't horribly written, it just intentionally leaves discretion up to the DM to determine what a "reasonable" wording is. That's what DMs are for, to allow spells like this to exist so that we can all be creative and then the DM adjudicates the results as fairly as they can.
My take on it is that if the PC takes no damage before their turn starts, then the PC would use their free action to hand over their weapon, and then would be freed from the Suggestion influence having fulfilled the condition of the spell. This leaves their action free to do a Disarm Attack and attempt to steal the weapon right back with an attack roll vs Bad Guy's Athletics/Acrobatics skillcheck. Or just murder the Bad Guy in some other manner and loot the weapon off his dead corpse
That's not an option, given the OP is a player.
"Harmful" is open to interpretation. For example, the online dictionary defines it exclusively as physical damage. Cambridge opens it up to other forms of damage including non-literal. Merriam-Webster confines it to physical or mental damage. Different dictionaries give different answers as to whether giving the most valuable item counts as "harmful", as well as different posters on this thread.
You seem to be of the opinion that if it is the proximate cause of a setback, it counts, but not if it's not the proximate. This isn't actually arguing the meaning of "harmful", but of "obvious". I'd disagree - if I'm being asked to lose a rather valuable object, I'd see that as obviously damaging to my interests. Whether I'm in a battle or not is not much of a game changer, actually. It's still obvious that I'm doing something very counterproductive to my interests. The question is whether it counts as harmful or if it doesn't qualify, not whether it's obvious. Something not obvious is "Go and give this letter, the contents of which is unknown to you, to that giant Minotaur over there", the contents of which insult the Minotaur's mother.
So, there are two key words in adjudicating whether the spell is valid or not, "obvious" and "harmful", and both can be validly understood in multiple different ways that allow for different answers to the same questions. That can lead to contention at the table as players draw one conclusion and the DM another. Look at Fireball for an example of a spell that is better written. Either you are in range, or you're not. That is clearly defined in the rules. If you're out of range, nothing happens. If you are in range, you get to do a Dex Save; succeed and you get half of 8d6 Fire damage, if you fail you get the full whack. There are very few valid arguments to be made by someone who understands the rules as written in the book. Compare that to Suggestion where two key words to understanding whether it works or not are easily contestable even by someone who has read and understood all the rules as given.
A well written spell is clear and undebatable as to whether it works and what its effects are. It doesn't result in arguments at the table, because we can read it and there's no discussion as to whether it applies or what it does. Suggestion's writing does not preclude good faith disagreements at all and actually encourages them.
That's why it's poorly written.
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.
That sounds like a boring game if everything is 100% cut and dried without any room for interpretation or creativity. The spell is perfectly fine if you trust your DM to adjudicate things fairly and so that everyone has fun. And if you don't, then you have way bigger problems than this spell.
Players really dislike being put out of the game, so to speak. However, I fail to see how this particular use of Suggestion isn't - in all ways - better than failing a save vs. Hold Person.
Hold Person even has the distinction of having no counterplay at all, except 'making your save'. For Suggestion, wording might provide an exit, another player might have a reaction to intervene (not sure how, but I'm not ruling it out), or, reasonably, the player in question might argue 'well, I can't hand over my magic sword of slayiness intil it's my turn', buying some time at least.
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.
Great point! It is interesting because the example they give of a knight giving away their horse is something that could be interpreted as "harmful" as well (horses are very expensive). If someone walked up to me and demanded my car, I would consider that "harmful to me".
In the first paragraph of the spell they give far more clear examples of "will cause harm to my person", but then their horse example is there too. If I read the spell in it's totality, then I would say the RAI seems to be scratching at "the spell fails if it would cause the target to physically injure themself". In which case I would argue the OP's example might work against that PC.
However, I'm dubious that the spell should be this powerful only excluding the target from causing themselves bodily harm. Being able to compel any non self-injuring behavior for up to 8 hours feels way too good for a 2nd level spell. So that makes me question the RAI I guessed at above.
The spell's wording could be considerably improved and it isn't entirely clear what the RAI is. If it is about only excluding physical self-injury then rather than only badly worded, the spell is grossly overpowered.
People really want to stretch "obviously harmful" to mean some pretty insane things. Sure, if you stretch your imagination, you can call anything harmful. Giving up literally any item that has a gold value or any niche use - Woah man, what if I were to need the item or gold for a bribe in a couple of years and not having it leads me to being harmed? Leave a fight unharmed - woah man, that could get my allies harmed and that hinders my path to my eventual goal and that's harming me in the long run right? Don't go into that specific house - but wait, what if that house has some powerful weapons in it, and the lack of that firepower harms me in my next fight? Spill the dirt about my secret employer - but bro, what if they're like, really mad that I did that and they harm me for it?
If one believes that this spell can't be used to disarm, which is not at all obviously harmful by itself, then I don't know what you think the spell can be used for.
Obviously harmful generally means something that is seen as harmful in that moment to everyone. It is not based in the notion of what could be harmful -- if the same thing might not be harmful in a different context, then it is not obviously harmful.
IN this case, as I mentioned, it could be obviously harmful -- it depends on the what he magical item can do, specifically, not just generally. If the players know that giving it up would be giving the BBEG the ability to kill them all, then it wouldn't happen.
Being suggested to give up gold, or to drop a weapon, or to run away are not obviously harmful. Being suggested to turn over your kingdom is not obviously harmful. Being asked to cut down your best friend of 20 years would be obviously harmful, but being asked to cut down that person you met two weeks ago probably is not obviously harmful. sking it to leave doesn't mean that they aren't subject to an opportunity attack, for example -- it is not the consequence of the act that counts, it is the act itself. You could tell a 1st level character to jump of that ledge if the drop is less than 10 feet, but you couldn't if it is more than 20 (adjust by average damage of 3.5 feet per 10' and the length of the fall).
So the spell capitalizes on the moment, on the context, and without that context, you cannot make a call, because there is no one size fits all answer. That is, a bunch of it depends on the Role Play segment, and you cannot judge roleplay unless you are there.
IF the players are not fully aware of all that the magic item does, then it only applies to what they do know about it, as well.
No matter how reasonably the request is worded (which is purely a DM call), the suggestion cannot do anything obviously harmful, and it is up to DM fiat what constitutes obviously harmful. Both Suggestion and Mass suggestion have this requirement -- Charm Person does not.
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'm curious, when you read "obviously harmful" do you read it as "obviously harmful [to the target themselves]" or "obviously harmful [in general]"
The examples seem to imply the first one (they are all about harm to the target), but now I'm really trying to figure out the bounds of this spell.
Would it be valid to word a suggestion that compels the target to attack others, damage property, etc? (so long as that was described as a reasonable course of action)
I'm genuinely interested in what the bounds of the spell are now, and for some of you it sees more obvious than it is to me.
As a Charmed Condition, the "harm to" is always and only the Caster or the Target.
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