How Does Suggestion Work?

[Strill]

A character has the Suggestion spell cast on them. The suggestion is reasonable at first, but quickly becomes absurd. For example, taking a rest while the rest of your party is ambushed.

I had someone argue that whether the suggestion is reasonable or not only matters when the spell is cast. Moreover, they argued that the suggestion must only "sound reasonable", even if it is completely unreasonable. Is this right? Does Suggestion provide 8 hours of unconditional mind control, as long as you can phrase it in the right way?

[DanyBallon]

A character has the Suggestion spell cast on them. The suggestion is reasonable at first, but quickly becomes absurd. For example, taking a rest while the rest of your party is ambushed.

I had someone argue that whether the suggestion is reasonable or not only matters when the spell is cast. Moreover, they argued that the suggestion must only "sound reasonable", even if it is completely unreasonable. Is this right? Does Suggestion provide 8 hours of unconditional mind control, as long as you can phrase it in the right way?

DISCLAIMER: this is only my opinion as a DM and is in no way enforce by exact ruling. Anyway I'm AFB for the moment :D

In this particular case, I would say that the target of the suggestion would indeed decide to take a rest while he should be in ambush like the rest of his party. But as soon as action will come into play, he'll step up and get into action, maybe loosing 1-2 rounds to do so.

In the case I misread and you meant that the group was ambushed by an other group, I'd say that the suggestion won't be in effect as long as the target feels that there is danger nearby, but as soon as he feel comfortable enough he'll slack down and take a rest. I'd rule it this way because taking a rest in middle of combat is counter productive, but should the suggestion have been to use melee attack instead of it's preferred longbow, then this would be the type of effect that is plausible in the midst of combat.

[SharkForce]

imo it doesn't even necessarily have to sound particularly reasonable. otherwise what's the point of casting the spell? i don't need to cast a spell to make you do what you were already going to do anyways. the official example is a knight giving away his horse iirc (which is probably a warhorse worth several hundred gold and likely a key part of the knight's combat effectiveness which is not easily replaced), which is almost certainly not something the knight would have done without being influenced to think it sounds reasonable. it would be like suggesting to a professional truck driver that they should give away their truck, which is pretty much never even something that could sound reasonable. (honestly, i think the main limitation is that it not cause direct physical harm).

with that said, i would add that if it ever becomes obviously completely unreasonable, it stops working. that is, you could suggest for someone to go swimming in a pool that you know is acid (and which they don't), and they will at first, but once they start taking damage they're going to try to get out.

also having said all that... there is certainly a lot of dissent when it comes to the suggestion spell. at least some people on these forums seem to feel that it should be nothing more than a social skill check where success is determined by a saving throw instead of skills. to me, that doesn't make sense in light of the example given and the fact that you have to expend resources, but that opinion is out there.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I guess a lot comes down to DM interpretation. The spell description explicitly rules out anything that causes harm directly. What about indirect harm? "Go run back and forth between the fighter and the rogue." Drawing opportunity attacks with each pass. (Never-mind, the spell ends if an ally damages it) You could still suggest that it gives up any resistance and allows itself to be captured or bound.
Convincing it that it's allies are traitors that need to be destroyed could be reasonably phrased.

Basically I've read it as Domination with the conditions of: Only one command can be given (Which needs to be communicated verbally, as opposed to telepathically, except for Great Old One Warlocks), no direct self harm, and your allies can't hurt it.

[Strill]

imo it doesn't even necessarily have to sound particularly reasonable. otherwise what's the point of casting the spell? i don't need to cast a spell to make you do what you were already going to do anyways.

I can think of tons of things you could do with it that are all reasonable for the target. "Attack the Fighter instead. He's much more dangerous." "Quick, waste your most powerful spell on [the guy with Counterspell prepared]. He's about to kill you all" "Those [illusionary noises] are definitely an incoming army. You should retreat."

And that's just in combat. There's all sorts of things you can do with it out of combat.

[SharkForce]

I can think of tons of things you could do with it that are all reasonable for the target. "Attack the Fighter instead. He's much more dangerous." "Quick, waste your most powerful spell on [the guy with Counterspell prepared]. He's about to kill you all" "Those [illusionary noises] are definitely an incoming army. You should retreat."

And that's just in combat. There's all sorts of things you can do with it out of combat.

right. so if you're in a battle, and your enemy says "hey, you should go attack that guy instead", you're going to listen to that? if you're told to use your most powerful weapon on a target by your enemy, is that going to make you more likely to do that, or less likely?

[Strill]

right. so if you're in a battle, and your enemy says "hey, you should go attack that guy instead", you're going to listen to that? if you're told to use your most powerful weapon on a target by your enemy, is that going to make you more likely to do that, or less likely?

That's why it's a spell and not a persuasion check. The phrase in and of itself is still something the target would reasonably consider. The litmus test I'd use for whether a Suggestion is valid, is: "Would the target be willing to act on it, had they thought of it themselves?"

[Solusek]

What about a suggestion like "quickly take off all your armor and drop your sword before the invisible druid can cast heat metal you!"

Now you have just taken them out of combat for the next 10 rounds while they remove all their armor. The rest of the fight is probably over by the time they finish and they will be an easy kill themselves as well due to now being unarmored and unarmed. And unlike Hold Person or Dominate Person they only get a single save against it - not a save every round like those spells grant.

Seems pretty overpowered for a second level spell to me. Don't even get me started on the AoE 6th level version that doesn't require concentration.

[SharkForce]

That's why it's a spell and not a persuasion check. The phrase in and of itself is still something the target would reasonably consider. The litmus test I'd use for whether a Suggestion is valid, is: "Would the target be willing to act on it, had they thought of it themselves?"

so you're assuming the knight in the official example was plausibly going to think "hey, i should give away an extremely expensive warhorse to a peasant who has no reasonable expectation of being able to use said war-trained animal (which is not trained as a farm animal, and is probably even *hazardous* to the peasant if the peasant gives it the wrong signal at the wrong time, i would hasten to add) for free" and then act on it?

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

And unlike Hold Person or Dominate Person they only get a single save against it - not a save every round like those spells grant

Dominate only grants additional saves if the target is taking damage, otherwise it's unlimited control for up to 8 hours.

Suggestion on the other hand doesn't even allow the target to take damage, either by disobeying commands or immediately ending the spell. Hold person is the only one which allows for immediate murder of the target, hence the repeating save.

[SharkForce]

What about a suggestion like "quickly take off all your armor and drop your sword before the invisible druid can cast heat metal you!"

Now you have just taken them out of combat for the next 10 rounds while they remove all their armor. The rest of the fight is probably over by the time they finish and they will be an easy kill themselves as well due to now being unarmored and unarmed. And unlike Hold Person or Dominate Person they only get a single save against it - not a save every round like those spells grant.

Seems pretty overpowered for a second level spell to me. Don't even get me started on the AoE 6th level version that doesn't require concentration.

the AOE 6th level version is when spells start to get impressive. the problem is that the classes that don't cast spells don't also get awesome, not that the level 6 spell is awesome.

as to the level 2 spell, there's a level 1 spell (tasha's hideous laughter) that disables someone for up to a minute while allowing saves, forcing them prone, and incapacitating them (that's very bad news). and you can damage them the whole time, though it gives them advantage on their save. there's a level 2 spell that removes enemies from a fight for a minute as long as you don't attack them, and it has a large AOE.

suggestion is a good spell. but not because it is awesome in combat (though it can be used in combat, certainly). it is awesome because it gives you up to 8 hours of someone doing one specific thing that you would like them to do. if you want to screw over a single target in combat, use tasha's or hold person. much more nasty than suggestion. it may not last the entire fight, but it doesn't have to... it just has to last long enough for your melees to unload into the poor helpless SOB who just got turned into their punching bag.

[kaoskonfety]

"The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable."
Sound reasonable - no examples are given but "attack your ally" does not sound reasonable - "Spar with your ally" does - cute, but not great for a "combat spell".

Before initiative is rolled (or before anyone else gets to act on round 1...) "come over here, we will keep you safe (or we have cookies)" sounds reasonable - it *is* DUMB but it sounds reasonable. "Surrender" is not generally sounding reasonable if you have a large advantage - "surrender and we will spare your allies" in and even-ish or loosing fight might. "you look tired, go lie down" is not reasonable with swords out, but before the fighting starts? ya, I could use a nap. See you guys in the morning... "Get down!"...

The example knight giving his horse away doesn't physically hurt him, the poor person is in general need of any charity and the knight doesn't NEED the horse. "reasonable" will vary depending on how its phrased and the knights situation - and I'm pretty sure its the copy/paste duration example from yesteryear. The intend effect from the caster would appear to be "go away from me and give your transportation away to the first person you meet who taking it back from would make you feel bad".

Based on the examples in the spell text "Obviously harmful" is "damaging in stats, hit points or death to the character" - you might extend this to "damaging the numbers on the page" and include AC in combat situations (drop your shield). Harming allies will vary on situation and the phrasing and might generally allow advantage on the save and may be outright disallowed if the ally in question is in fact a friend (rather then just a fellow murder hobo you met in a bar yesterday).

The spell requires some in play DM calls, that's pretty clear from the lack of concrete rule for "reasonable". So all of us are going to vary a fair bit on EXACTLY what it can do. It is social check ++, baby dominate, everything but suicide? I tend to float on the social++ side of Baby Dominate.

Generally:
If you want a "reliable results" spell pick something else, this is going to be powerful but a bit hit and miss, doubly so when axes are swinging and the spell fails once "you or your allies" damage them.
If you are stuck using this in a fight its not useless though - just limit it to a 'reasonable' as you can manage - "get down!" not "lie down", "make sure the mage has that (two-handed) sword to defend himself!" rather than "run to the wizard and drop your sword", "fallback and defend the last room from rear attacks!" etc.

[SharkForce]

a knight's warhorse is worse than useless for a peasant, who may or may not actually be in a particularly awful state of poverty. it is not trained for farm work or pulling wagons, a peasant with a warhorse doesn't know the people to sell it to and is far more likely to be accused of theft for trying to sell it than anything else, and is trained to kill people making it decidely unsafe to be around.

and no, it isn't the example from past editions. the example from past editions is a dragon wanting to help you loot a treasure horde instead of continuing its attack on you.

and losing your horse is a pretty serious loss. it may not immediately hurt the knight physically, but it could cost advantage in combat, and causes him to effectively lose movement and bonus attacks, plus it may very well make him essentially unable to use his primary weapon (if he uses a lance). you very obviously *can* tell them to do things that can reduce their ability to fight, because losing your warhorse does exactly that.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

This is why I prefer the "baby dominate" interpretation, for practical reasons. It sets clearer boundaries on what the spell can and cannot do, instead of continuous negotiating with the DM over what's "reasonable" while he tries to balance based on his mood. With the "baby dominate" version, you just need to check:

-Is the target immune to charm?
-Can the target understand the command?
-Will the target obviously harm itself acting out the command?

The phrasing and presentation elements then become RP cues.

Even with this broad of an interpretation, it would only allow you, in the right situation, to:
-Remove one enemy from a fight after a save (See hold person, Tasha's Laughter, Sleep, Dissonant Whispers, Charm Person, Entangle, Heat metal, Grease, Blindness/Deafness, Calm Emotions, Phantasmal force, etc. which all can have a similar effect but have different but equivalent conditions, and some are even lower level)
-Bypass an obstacle (See Knock, Invisibility, Levitate, Friends, Skill Checks etc.)
-Obtain Information (Charm person, Skill checks, etc.)
-Possibly cause the target to attack other enemies, though this is debatable, as this may lead to obvious self-harm. (This is outside of RAW, but I would allow this, but further adding that damage caused by the target's allies retaliating would grant a further save or even just break the spell.)

It's very versatile, but also situational in it's conditions, and I don't find it to be overpowered compared to other spells like it.

[kaoskonfety]

a knight's warhorse is worse than useless for a peasant, who may or may not actually be in a particularly awful state of poverty. it is not trained for farm work or pulling wagons, a peasant with a warhorse doesn't know the people to sell it to and is far more likely to be accused of theft for trying to sell it than anything else, and is trained to kill people making it decidely unsafe to be around.

and no, it isn't the example from past editions. the example from past editions is a dragon wanting to help you loot a treasure horde instead of continuing its attack on you.

and losing your horse is a pretty serious loss. it may not immediately hurt the knight physically, but it could cost advantage in combat, and causes him to effectively lose movement and bonus attacks, plus it may very well make him essentially unable to use his primary weapon (if he uses a lance). you very obviously *can* tell them to do things that can reduce their ability to fight, because losing your warhorse does exactly that.

Giving the horse away is the duration example - if we take it as face value for an example of "reasonable" the spell is quite potent, yes. I personally generally play it around there for power. "You failed the wisdom save, do something pretty dumb. For the next 8 hours, till you complete the task or until dispelled."

Of course the spell can hinder you in a fight - but we will have trouble finding a group of 4 people who will agree on how much. (lose a turn or 2, fall prone till struck, "go home").

Of course the spell can set you up to later be hindered - that is kind of the point and is its central strength. To make people do things that are *somewhat* understandable but varying degrees of bad idea (leaving your shield and armour at home to 'travel light', taking a dagger instead of your poleaxe, roughing it and not bringing rations, filling you pack with rocks instead of gear to get a workout).

"You are far from civilization and our next easy meal. Save your rations, slaughter, cook and jerky the horse at your next camp." is WAY funnier when the duration runs out/ they complete the task after the long rest than "leave and give your horse to the first peasant you see". In one case you offer the peasant (who as you point out, probably can't use the horse/ is terrified of the armoured knight) a few gold. In the other... well thats some good eating. Hope you can keep it down. Is that order unreasonable? What if the horse is injured badly? Can I have him put it down in "mercy" when it's making death saves? - how about deep under the earth where there is no feed and the animal will likely starve soon? or...

At some point we will agree the order is reasonable. At some point of starvation for both, or mercy for the animal, the knight will kill the horse himself without prompting. Both will vary for knight to knight, DM to DM. Some see the lack of clear rules as a weakness. I don't.


For a mechanical solution should you need one I can toss out some DM/player interaction advise/ideas:

include social and/or Arcane checks to A) be convincing/read the target b) estimate where the line on "reasonable" is for the spell
- A good social check lets the *player* bypass trying to figure out the exact wording and move on to the tactical "I tell him to..."
- a good arcane check in advance of giving the suggestion will advise if it "should work" or if it will give save advantage, or if it "should fail".
Set the DC's easy so the spell can generally function - this is mostly a tool to align the PC and the DM on what to expect when the spell is actually cast. Far from perfect but it could work and even be dropped once expectation at the table are aligned.

If you still think its garbage/OP - fix it or ditch it? I'm not making anyone use it. I've almost never used it over 4 editions (I missed 4th).
As a DM declare there is no such magic, as a player don't take it... or always take it, power to you.
And I suppose if you feel your DM is hosing your party with it but denying you its strength? ... take races immune to charm?

[SharkForce]

if they didn't intend giving the horse away to be a good example of an acceptable suggestion, they shouldn't (and probably wouldn't, but i'm not psychic and therefore don't know) have used it as an example in the suggestion spell.

[Icewraith]

"The person next to you in the blue robes has betrayed you. Kill them!"

Any evil culture where people commonly and literally stab each other in the back (especially drow) this is a totally reasonable Suggestion.

[Demonslayer666]

I think phrasing has everything to do with it. Give them a decent reason why they need to do it, and presto, it's reasonable.

"Your armor is cursed, you should take it off."
"Your friend there is a actually a doppelganger, you should kill him."
"You've had a long day and you deserve a nice long rest, ignore this combat and rest for several hours, your friends can handle this fight!"
"You look cold, you should build a large bonfire to warm up!"

I like to think of it as possible or not. Impossible suggestions or things that are obviously not true would be unreasonable.

"Cut down the largest tree in the forest wiiiiith a herring!"