How to use spell suggestion and others

[Virosa]

Recently, i played a game where we spent about half the time arguing rules interpretations, since the DM wasn't quick to overrule and twisted core rules, it got ugly.

I'd like some feedback, since i'm trying to determine if i should quit, i clearly disagree with the trend to a point where its not fun. But if i'm the one who is not reasonable, i'd make an effort to make it work;

#1 I am a warblade, we also have a non combat healer, a rogue and a support bard, we fight exclusively undeads. A undead use suggestion on me with my +4 Will save on subsequent save, i rolled a 15 and did not save. The DM tells me: "You leave the combat." At the moment, we're surrounded by a bunch of enemy, not only leaving mean bunch of opps, my team will get their asses kicked.

I reply there is no way such suggestion would work. He instead says "Well since youre a warblade and you crave glorious battlefield, the enemy, which is a psionic, also push into your mind that you're convinced it it safe to leave and that 500kilometers away there is a glorious battlefield that would fullfill all of your character's glory wishes. So your character leave."

Was that a reasonable use of the level 2/3 spell Suggestion?

#2 My character can dive attack, a debate burst that i should take 20d6 of falling damage as i hit a invisible wall. The antagonist's argument is when you dive attack, you're basically freefalling, therefore you take termal velocity damage. We're level 6, mind you. My counter argument is that a Dive work just like a charge, and you dont take an average of 70 damage if you charge into a wall (visible or not).

What do you think?

#3 The rogue voice that his ranged attacks at 30feet all cause sneak damage automatically if a monster is being flanked by 2 other melees. The DM is unsure, but he agrees as the two players says "well thats always the way we saw it interpreted". I strongly disagree, but i just shut up at that point.

Personally, i feel like this is going a bit too far in term of DM overrulling, this isint really D&D anymore when you ignore all the balance rules... no?

There were more but i fear this post is already way too long...

[Stux]

#1 Was that a reasonable use of the level 2/3 spell Suggestion?

I don't see why this shouldn't work.


#2 My character can dive attack, a debate burst that i should take 20d6 of falling damage as i hit a invisible wall. What do you think?

I can see the justification from a physics standpoint, assuming you have reached a speed that would equate terminal velocity. But it does seem pretty unfair. And since when was D&D supposed to accurately model real world physics?


#3 The rogue voice that his ranged attacks at 30feet all cause sneak damage automatically if a monster is being flanked by 2 other melees.

The SRD is quite clear that a) you only get a flanking bonus if YOU are flanking the enemy, and b) flanking only helps you get a sneak attack bonus if YOU are the one who is flanking the enemy. Therefore this shouldn't work. However it doesn't seem like a ridiculously silly house rule. I can totally see a justification for it, in that an enemy who is being flanked can't properly defend themselves from ranged attacks. It's not as if it makes a rogue overpowered.

[Ydaer Ca Noit]

"i rolled a 15 and did not save."
Well how strong the undead was defines the DC, but if you totaled 19 and still failed it had to be a very strong one.

"You influence the actions of the target creature by suggesting a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two)"

"Well since youre a warblade and you crave glorious battlefield, the enemy, which is a psionic, also push into your mind that you're convinced it it safe to leave and that 500kilometers away there is a glorious battlefield that would fullfill all of your character's glory wishes. So your character leave."

If the "pushing" happened before the suggestion, it should be an other spell, or ability, or bluff check or something.

I think that its just stupid. Gliding=/=free fall. Even if it was ruled that you would take damage, then the damage shouldn't be that high. I mean, if you take 20d6 dmg on hitting yourself, shouldn't you also deal that much damage? Also, 20d6 is the maximum falling damage. You fell from the stars or something?

"The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target."

"Flanking

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner. "

Just rub the rules to their face, its pretty clear.

_____

You have a DM that is going for 1) the rule that is more logical to his mind
2) the rule that most ppl insist is like they say it is.

You have the following solutions:
-Explain why the rule is logical the way it actually is.
-Insist that you are right and that everyone else is wrong, till they get bored and go your way.
-Find the rules as written and point out the obvious rules.
-Learn some basic stuff DMs know, like that the DC of most monster abilities are 10+1/2 monsters HD+ ability mod. So if you tell the DM "Dude, wtf, that undead is intelligent and has to have like more than 10 HD. And he uses super-suggestion. Just tell us that we die, no need to play a cinematic." That will force your DM to read the MM :smallbiggrin:

also most of the above will make you an annoying person. If you don't want to be an annoying person, accept your fate, accept the DMs rules, and try to enjoy the story or something. I mean, if the rogue is flanking when 2 other guys are flanking, doesn't that mean that everyone gets a +2 for flanking the flanked target? And if higher ground gives +1, x5 times higher ground shouldn't give +5? :smalltongue:

[BowStreetRunner]

The rules for a dive attack states "the diving creature must move a minimum of 30 feet and descend at least 10 feet." (RC 27) This is not a freefall. The Minimum Forward Speed rule indicates that when you run into the invisible wall and your forward movement stops, you would have to land by the end of your turn or fall. (RC 92)

[Stux]

Just rub the rules to their face, its pretty clear.

Haha, not the best idea!

Seriously, you can't just call a DM on rules technicalities, because they have rule 0.

Best bet from my perspective is to speak to him separate from the rest of the group and explain that you are unhappy with the way the game is going. That you aren't having fun, and that if it carries on this way you'll have no choice but to leave. I'd also try to explain that you can see why he has made the calls he has, but that sometimes the most logical solution is not the most fun. Ultimately D&D has to be fun, or what's the point?

[Ydaer Ca Noit]

Haha, not the best idea!

Seriously, you can't just call a DM on rules technicalities, because they have rule 0.

Best bet from my perspective is to speak to him separate from the rest of the group and explain that you are unhappy with the way the game is going. That you aren't having fun, and that if it carries on this way you'll have no choice but to leave. I'd also try to explain that you can see why he has made the calls he has, but that sometimes the most logical solution is not the most fun. Ultimately D&D has to be fun, or what's the point?

If the DM wants to houserule it, then its ok. Having a houserule is very different than playing something wrong. And generally a DM is expected to follow the rules like everyone else does - except if he has a reason (important or not) not to. If he doesn't accept the majority of rules, he should make his own rules, or notify the players fpr that. (I am playing a game like that where the DM made global changes to d20 system and is testing them out, and its ok even if some rules are unfair. Because we know what we are playing :smallwink: )

Edit: For example, if the DM thinks my char should die because of a rule that he failed to remember correctly (or properly check), then if I point out that he is wrong, I expect him to let me live, and not just house-rule me dead.

[Stux]

That's all well and good if that is the kind of game that everyone is expecting to play. If the group are playing strictly RAW then fine, but in practice a lot of games are far more freeform. They take the rules as a framework around which to role play, but make adhoc calls to modify them as circumstances dictate. It seems pretty clear that this DM is not one to strictly adhere to RAW.

What is pertinent here is whether the OP is the odd one out in the group in being upset with how the game is run.

I would ask the OP: are the rest of the players enjoying themselves?

[elonin]

The biggest issue is the lack of deference given to dm and rule 0. I'll admit that I've disagreed with dm rulings. I'll give my best argument to the dm but then let it drop. Or at worst bring it up during off game time.

Issue 1: this should work as it the situation is't blatantly life threatening. That is what the spell is for.

Issue 2: Dnd doesn't have a rule about terminal velocity. It is reasonable for you to take damage from the fall, though not necessarily 20d6. The charge rules don't cover using yourself as the weapon. Maybe this is under bull rush?

Issue 3: An argument could be made that the flanked foes are distracted thus allowing precision damage. The rules don't specify that you have to be the one flanking.

[Virosa]

Thanks for the input. I might just tell the DM its not fun.

My view on Suggestion is that it SPECIFICALLY state "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell."

I got out, took bunch of OPP, nearly died, the request wasn't reasonable at all and then my character had to go south for weeks, THROUGH a zone 100% infested by undead and desecrated land and such, to reach... the ocean, and then continue going south and drown.

The flanking thing is a bit farfetched because now it has been decided that if a monster is being flanked, he is flatfooted, which mean ninjas can also dish out damage as if they were rogues.

[Tvtyrant]

1. I think your DM is right. The loophole of not doing something opposed to your character seems like a "I won't kill the other party members/babies" thing. You leaving is a perfectly acceptable use in my mind.

2. When you fall you take falling damage. How far you fell and whether you can make an alleviating tumble check should decide how much it is.

3. By RAW the DM is wrong here. However a ranged Rogue usually needs the help. Why does this bother you?

[Virosa]

1. I think your DM is right. The loophole of not doing something opposed to your character seems like a "I won't kill the other party members/babies" thing. You leaving is a perfectly acceptable use in my mind.

2. When you fall you take falling damage. How far you fell and whether you can make an alleviating tumble check should decide how much it is.

3. By RAW the DM is wrong here. However a ranged Rogue usually needs the help. Why does this bother you?

1. By RAW it doesnt work, because leaving at that point killed me 100%

2. I didnt fall, i hit a wall after a 30 feet dive attack

3. Because the Ninja can go in melee, not flank and hit ****.

[nyjastul69]

It sounds like the DM suggested an obviously harmful act if it forced your character to provoke AoO's

[Virosa]

It sounds like the DM suggested an obviously harmful act if it forced your character to provoke AoO's

Thats what i meant. In the end that didnt kill me but i was in the middle of 7 mobs, thats alot of opps.

[BowStreetRunner]

Thats what i meant. In the end that didnt kill me but i was in the middle of 7 mobs, thats alot of opps.

I remember a DM using suggestion on a Paladin to try to get him to attack an innocent. Ummm...some people apparently have a different definition for "obviously harmful act". :smallconfused:

[nyjastul69]

Thats what i meant. In the end that didnt kill me but i was in the middle of 7 mobs, thats alot of opps.

It's not the amount of AoO's that's relevant either. The language doesn't say life threatening. It says harmful. Although it could be argued that provoking an AoO is not in itself harmful, only a successful one is. I find that reasoning to be a stretch however. Also was there any way at all to avoid those attacks? I'm thinking tumble or a circuitous route? Either of those wouldn't be necessarily be a harmful suggestion.

[Tork]

1)I think the way this suggestion was done was horrible. A DM should never ever say ''your character likes the color purple, as I say so.'' That is just wrong, wrong, wrong. A Dm should never play a player character in anyway.

And the suggestion itself was bad too. ''Oh there is a big fight a billion miles away''. Ok. Sure. But no one short of a chaotic evil sociopath would just ignore the fight they are in at that second, and only a chaotic evil monster would abandon his friends. I'd never let that suggestion work in my game

2)There is no freefall and such in D&D. A dive is just a charge.

3)If your fighting all undead, then sneak attack should be worthless. But in any case everyone needs to re read the sneak attack stuff.

[Virosa]

Yeah well, Suggestion was just one of the ability that was rigged to power over troll level.


1)I think the way this suggestion was done was horrible. A DM should never ever say ''your character likes the color purple, as I say so.'' That is just wrong, wrong, wrong. A Dm should never play a player character in anyway.

And the suggestion itself was bad too. ''Oh there is a big fight a billion miles away''. Ok. Sure. But no one short of a chaotic evil sociopath would just ignore the fight they are in at that second, and only a chaotic evil monster would abandon his friends. I'd never let that suggestion work in my game

2)There is no freefall and such in D&D. A dive is just a charge.

3)If your fighting all undead, then sneak attack should be worthless. But in any case everyone needs to re read the sneak attack stuff.

1. @all: I charged in the middle of 6 large undead elemental by poping the one undead badass undead in the middle (but the dm didnt want me to one shot him so he gave the undead 50% cover from a shroud/fog), which mean if i did more than a 5 foot step, i'd trigger 6 AoO, a tumble wouldnt work because i'd only move 2 steps which wouldnt help much and i can't fly out because i have a minimal forward flight speed. = AoO if i left = Harmful.

2. Obviously.

3. Truedeath Crystal, Greater

[Stux]

Ah, I didn't realise you provoked attacks of opportunity. Yeah that would be obviously harmful and not work. Suggesting that you leave a room in itself is reasonable, but not if that action would directly result in getting attacked!

Also:


I got out, took bunch of OPP, nearly died, the request wasn't reasonable at all and then my character had to go south for weeks, THROUGH a zone 100% infested by undead and desecrated land and such, to reach... the ocean, and then continue going south and drown.

Suggestion only lasts for 1 hour/caster level. There is no way that spell can make you walk for weeks!

Not to mention walking in to the ocean is also obviously harmful.

[Vultawk]

The first depends on what the Suggestion was. If it was merely "leave here", and the DM was describing the possible mental leaps your character too to justify their forced actions to themselves, then the AoO's are on you, because you chose to follow the Suggestion in a way that could harm you, but it's your choice, not the Suggestion that lead to that harm. You could have left in a way that didn't provoke AoO's.

If the Suggestion said something different, then that's a different scenario, but I've always understood a Suggestion as putting an idea is someone's head, and then they do the necessary mental gymnastics to justify it to themselves.

[TmasterT]

since when can undead be affected by sneak attack? i hope your rogue has the feats needed to do that

[Stux]

since when can undead be affected by sneak attack? i hope your rogue has the feats needed to do that

OP said the Rogue has a greater true death crystal, which allows sneak attacks on undead.

[TheTinyMan]

Wait, the Suggestion made you take AoOs? AoOs generally represent, "this character is focusing on something in combat other than fighting, and is leaving himself open." The Suggestion, "it's safe to leave, and there's a glorious battlefield elsewhere" would have to be tempered by the very obvious issue of there being things trying to kill you. "You're not needed here," maybe, but then you'd make a tactical withdrawal - and if I were DMing I'd rule that if there *were* some additional magicy psionicy thing that enabled this psion to overrule your normal judgement regarding what is and what isn't safe (I've been known to rule such things, the guy with major experience in this spell's subject matter gets additional effects from it), the instant you got hit, I'd dispel the Suggestion. At the very least every time that your character was confronted with the reality of the dangers of the situation, he'd get a new save. All of that would be my own DM fiat of course.

But ultimately I'd have to have an awfully good reason, and an awfully well-phrased Suggestion, to think that I can force someone to *run* from the battle. A suggestion, from my interpretation of the text, is basically setting an immediate goal - it doesn't make you ignore everything outside of that goal. "Leave combat and do not harm anything" would be fine, and I'd expect the character to use reasonable options to try to exit safely, like withdrawing or slowly five-foot-stepping behind friendly lines. "Turn and run," however, is clearly dangerous when in melee. And "Abandon the battlefield to go to [this site, on the other side of undead-infested waters]" would mean that, for the duration of the spell (measured in hours, not weeks, by the way), I would expect would result in preparing a safe way through the area, not just running with reckless abandon - another clear violation of the 'obviously harmful act' clause.

I think the issues with the other two have been explained better than I could. :-)

[Deophaun]

The first depends on what the Suggestion was. If it was merely "leave here", and the DM was describing the possible mental leaps your character too to justify their forced actions to themselves, then the AoO's are on you, because you chose to follow the Suggestion in a way that could harm you, but it's your choice, not the Suggestion that lead to that harm. You could have left in a way that didn't provoke AoO's.
The way the OP has phrased it, it seems the DM dictated the way he left. Additionally, if you cannot leave the combat safely (as in, it will take several rounds of maneuvering to avoid provoking AoOs, which it seems like it might in a situation where you are surrounded and so even the withdraw action won't help), then the suggestion is essentially telling you to leave alone enemies that are actively trying to kill you. That's harmful as well, as creatures that would otherwise be dead get to continue attacking you.

If there was another suggestion such as "These ghouls won't attack you if you turn around and walk away," then it would have been fine for the warblade to leave and provoke AoOs. But barring that, the suggestion should have failed.

[Gerrtt]

Regarding the suggestion spell/power.

If it were me I would ask what the suggestion actually is, because per the spell/power's description it matters.

A reasonable suggestion may grant you a penalty to your save, and it could be argued that an unreasonable suggestion could grant you a bonus.

For example: if you have someone who is taking part in a combat because they are forced to and don't really want to be there, but instead want to be home making soup, you could suggest to them "Leave this conflict and return to your family; they really want some of your delicious soup!" and they could get a penalty to the save as that's reasonable.

Conversely: if the suggestion was "Go home and kill your family with your delicious soup." You get a bonus to the save, or it may not even have an effect because for most people killing your family is obviously harmful, due to the fact that this is a fairly unreasonable suggestion.

So, to me, by not telling you what the suggestion actually was so you can get an opportunity to decide if it's reasonable or not, matters.

[Virosa]

"Duration: 1 hour/level or until completed"
They interpreted it that the suggestion last 1 hour level if its something continuous, like stay in lake. But if its like go to city X, it stays until it is completed even if it takes years.

"The suggested course of activity can continue for the entire duration." kind of void this to me but they used the red dragon example where there would be no way for the red dragon example to work if it only lasted a few hours. So that was overruled.

The way it went down was: DM says: << You fail your roll, it was suggestion, your character leave combat.>> and he took my character out of the battle map immediately. I replied my character doesnt do it. Then every time i pointed out that the suggestion fail because of RAW, he changed the suggestion and added tons of stuff like "The suggestion also make you believe that there is a glorious battle 500km to the south." and "Your party is perfectly safe without you."

My take on Suggestion is that it instill a "want" that you will find a way to a way to quench asap and it doesnt make you lose control of your character at all. And just the "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable." Imo, made it void because leaving your ally in a 100% good aligned party in a area infested with armies of undeads when you've been sent by your race and your god as a warrior and tactician against those precise undead is nonsense.

For a valid suggestion, i gave the example: "beat on the undead elementals around you instead" it compel me to ignore the psionic undead, which is a simple and sensical suggestion and itself doesnt cause harm. It is reasonable, albeit a tactical fail since the stuff my character would now beat on is cannon fodder.