Suggestion: What Exactly Is and Isn't "Reasonable"

[Aeradom]

So as I've said in the previous thread about controlling/dominating/disabling others, I'm attempting to build my spell list for my level 10 Bard when an interesting question comes to mind. I've been using Suggestion now for the past little while in our games and so far it's worked one of two ways; in battle, the NPC that I dominated and "suggested" him to assist us in combat, and has done so (the combat ended very quickly though so not sure how that would of turned out) and again out of combat later one to convince turn on his comrade when the NPC thought the time was right. Now that I'm higher level, I have other optiosn such as Geas and Dominate Person but I'm wondering if I really need to get them when I could just use suggestion.

Ah, but that's where that term "reasonable" comes in, and realizing I don't really know what is and isn't reasonable. Sure, I know I can't get him to do something that would harm himself, but if I can have him turn on his compatriots and attack them (assisting us) then ... I don't really know short of asking himself to kill himself isn't. Could someone enlighten me?

[KorvinStarmast]

Ah, but that's where that term "reasonable" comes in, and realizing I don't really know what is and isn't reasonable. Sure, I know I can't get him to do something that would harm himself, but if I can have him turn on his compatriots and attack them (assisting us) then ... I don't really know short of asking himself to kill himself isn't. Could someone enlighten me? Remind me to challenge your selection to a jury. :smallbiggrin:

Your DM will know. Suggest you discuss this concern with DM before your next play session. You need to know what Your DM thinks is reasonable, right? That's who is judging by that criterion.

Hint: "Exactly" has nothing to do with it. This isn't a digital code.

[Aeradom]

Remind me to challenge your selection to a jury. :smallbiggrin:

Your DM will know. Suggest you discuss this concern with DM before your next play session. You need to know what Your DM thinks is reasonable, right? That's who is judging by that criterion.

Hint: "Exactly" has nothing to do with it. This isn't a digital code.

Oh har har :tongue:

In the end, it really is up to him what is reasonable or isn't I suppose, but I am curious though what others have found in their games. After all, I could see attacking one's compatriots being seen as unreasonable as well... and probably in a game I'd run I'd say that unless it's worded carefully, it's not reasonable to turn on one's allies to attack the others. It does seem quite powerful for it being a level 2 spell to be able to turn someone in combat.

[Segev]

Since it's been referenced, the "reasonable man" standard in law is often applied, and it's just what you're getting at: would a reasonable man think this was acceptable?

A lot of what's "reasonable" depends on circumstances and the target's personality. It's totally reasonable for an Evil or even Chaotic person who is in an uneasy alliance to backstab his allies before they can do him.

It's reasonable to believe that a pool of liquid is water (and that whoever suggested it was acid was full of it), and that a dip would be nice. It is less reasonable to believe that that pool of liquid so hot it's igniting your clothes just getting near it is not lava, but is in fact a cool, refreshing spring, and that a dip would be nice. It is reasonable, however, to suggest that a dip in lava might be refreshing...to a red dragon.

It's reasonable to suggest that a mercenary throw over his contract to work for you for equal or better pay, if he's not a strict "never break contract" type, because you're more likely to win and keep him alive.

It's reasonable to suggest that a jealous man's wife might be being flirted with or having an affair with one of his allies, and he should do something about it. It's not reasonable to suggest that a man with no SO has his wife cheating on him.

It's reasonable to suggest that this is all a misunderstanding and that you're a victim of circumstance, so the Paladin should defend you while hearing out your side of the story. ...unless he saw you in no uncertain terms doing the evil deed(s). (And even then, "It was an illusion; I'm being set up!" might still be reasonable enough for the spell to work.)

But it's very circumstantial.

[Aeradom]

Since it's been referenced, the "reasonable man" standard in law is often applied, and it's just what you're getting at: would a reasonable man think this was acceptable?

A lot of what's "reasonable" depends on circumstances and the target's personality. It's totally reasonable for an Evil or even Chaotic person who is in an uneasy alliance to backstab his allies before they can do him.

It's reasonable to believe that a pool of liquid is water (and that whoever suggested it was acid was full of it), and that a dip would be nice. It is less reasonable to believe that that pool of liquid so hot it's igniting your clothes just getting near it is not lava, but is in fact a cool, refreshing spring, and that a dip would be nice. It is reasonable, however, to suggest that a dip in lava might be refreshing...to a red dragon.

It's reasonable to suggest that a mercenary throw over his contract to work for you for equal or better pay, if he's not a strict "never break contract" type, because you're more likely to win and keep him alive.

It's reasonable to suggest that a jealous man's wife might be being flirted with or having an affair with one of his allies, and he should do something about it. It's not reasonable to suggest that a man with no SO has his wife cheating on him.

It's reasonable to suggest that this is all a misunderstanding and that you're a victim of circumstance, so the Paladin should defend you while hearing out your side of the story. ...unless he saw you in no uncertain terms doing the evil deed(s). (And even then, "It was an illusion; I'm being set up!" might still be reasonable enough for the spell to work.)

But it's very circumstantial.

I see, that makes then and does allow me a reason to keep dominate person on my spell list when I want someone to do something that I can't figure out a "reasonable" reason for him to do so. That's quite helpful, thank you.

[mephnick]

I'd never consider "Help us (complete strangers) murder your comrades!" a reasonable suggestion, so an NPC would never switch sides in battle barring some pretty specific circumstances.

Maybe "You're tired and your friends don't need your help, go sit down and rest" if I was being nice that day.

[Segev]

I'd never consider "Help us (complete strangers) murder your comrades!" a reasonable suggestion, so an NPC would never switch sides in battle barring some pretty specific circumstances.

Maybe "You're tired and your friends don't need your help, go sit down and rest" if I was being nice that day.

You MIGHT get some traction with, "Those aren't your allies; the enemy wizard used an illusion to swap our appearances! Help us so he doesn't turn us against each other!" But it's harder.

[JellyPooga]

I'd never consider "Help us (complete strangers) murder your comrades!" a reasonable suggestion, so an NPC would never switch sides in battle barring some pretty specific circumstances.

Maybe "You're tired and your friends don't need your help, go sit down and rest" if I was being nice that day.

I've got to agree here. Suggestion as a combat spell is pretty limited. If you've got some kind of background on the guys you're fighting, maybe you could come up with a Suggestion that would make one of them turncoat, but it's still going to be a stretch.

Perhaps multiple Suggestions or Illusions to set up the turn could work.

Bard: *casts Suggestion* "Hey you. You suspect that guy's been stealing some of your wages for months. How else could he afford that nice shiny belt?"

Bad Guy: "Yeah maybe, but I'll deal with that later"

Wizard: *casts Detect Thoughts* "Hmm...so that's what his wife looks like...interesting, his shifts changed today" *casts [some kind of] Illusion "Hey look, isn't that your wife?"

Bad Guy: "Ah crud, what's she doing here"

Warlock: *casts Suggestion* "Must be here to see that guy. After all, you didn't know she was coming and he does have a nice shiny belt...*

Bad Guy: "Right that does it, he's got it coming" *attacks other Bad Guy*

Yeah...even then it's a bit of a stretch :smalltongue:

[MaxWilson]

Ah, but that's where that term "reasonable" comes in, and realizing I don't really know what is and isn't reasonable. Sure, I know I can't get him to do something that would harm himself, but if I can have him turn on his compatriots and attack them (assisting us) then ... I don't really know short of asking himself to kill himself isn't. Could someone enlighten me?

My answer: anything which doesn't leave him in a coherent mental state is unreasonable. "Stab yourself in the gut" invites the question "Why am I stabbing myself in the gut?" and doesn't work. "You just swallowed a Slaad larvae--quick, cut it out!" leads to "I'm cutting open my guts to get out the Slaad larvae before it kills me!" and would work just fine except that suggesting self-harm explicitly triggers the end of the spell--but that means "your buddy just swallowed a Slaad larvae!" would work just fine.

I actually wish the spell ended on any damage, so the victim's companions could snap him out of it too (Indiana Jones-style, Shorty hitting Indy with a torch to snap him out of the Black Sleep).

So, pretend you're dealing with the most gullible person in the world, and give him one or two sentences. He'll believe you. That's Suggestion.

[JoeJ]

"You can't win this fight; surrender now and live."

[MaxWilson]

"You can't win this fight; surrender now and live."

Any DMG-balanced encounter Medium or Hard encounter (by DMG definitions, there's not even a chance that the PCs will lose unless it's Deadly) should allow this sentence to be a simple Persuasion check instead of a Suggestion spell, because it's actually completely true.

[JoeJ]

Any DMG-balanced encounter Medium or Hard encounter (by DMG definitions, there's not even a chance that the PCs will lose unless it's Deadly) should allow this sentence to be a simple Persuasion check instead of a Suggestion spell, because it's actually completely true.

The first part is. Depending on the party, the part about living if they surrender might not be completely true.

[Laserlight]

Sure, I know I can't get him to do something that would harm himself, but if I can have him turn on his compatriots and attack them (assisting us) then ... I don't really know short of asking himself to kill himself isn't. Could someone enlighten me?

When you tell him what you want him to do, can you give him a reason why he might think it would be a good idea?

If you were in his situation and you got that suggestion, would you think "You know, that makes sense" or "Who are you trying to fool?"

[Laserlight]

Any DMG-balanced encounter Medium or Hard encounter (by DMG definitions, there's not even a chance that the PCs will lose unless it's Deadly) should allow this sentence to be a simple Persuasion check instead of a Suggestion spell, because it's actually completely true.

Any good salesperson will tell you that "it's completely true" is not what counts; it's "do they believe it enoughto be confident" that does the trick.

[JellyPooga]

"your buddy just swallowed a Slaad larvae!" would work just fine.

This would be contingent on the victim knowing a) what a Slaad is in the first place, b) knowing how they reproduce and the repercussions of it and c) the guy coming to the conclusion that the best way to deal with the situation is to stick his buddy with a sword instead of, say, finishing the fight with these intruders and then performing or having a professional perform some surgery (in the worst case) or making his buddy puke up his guts (in a more reasonable line of thinking).

At my table, I'd give you kudos for originality, but I'm not convinced you'd get the exact results you were looking for if you wanted a turncoat fighting for you. This is the problem with using Suggestion as a turncoat spell in combat; whatever you suggest has to have immediate ramifications that not only implicates his allies but also vindicates you, the caster and your own allies.

Even suggesting something along the lines of "your allies have all been possessed by demons" is unlikely to make him turn on them unless they actually start acting and/or looking like demon-possessed dudes for some reason. If they're all still attacking the adventurers, then at best, the guy might run away thinking that whoever wins, he's done for.

[Finieous]

I think your DM has been interpreting it very liberally. Be grateful and roll with it.

I also think most people interpret the spell as both a) implanting a false belief in the target's mind, and b) suggesting a course of action based on that false belief. But the spell actually doesn't allow (a). You can suggest a course of action that sounds reasonable. That's it. So you could say to an orc, "Kill your chief and we'll help you become the new chief." That's a suggested course of action that probably sounds reasonable (and appealing) to the orc. But if you say, "The chief has been possessed by a celestial! Help us kill him!" that's going outside the bounds of the spell description. IMO.

[JellyPooga]

I also think most people interpret the spell...

That's...a very good point. The spell doesn't implant a belief, only a course of action that sounds reasonable. So, for instance;

"Your friends are all possessed by demons, better attack them" is an auto-fail suggestion because the actual suggestion there is just "better attack them", which is not a reasonable suggestion.

...but if someone had previously cast Confusion on the group and they were behaving erratically anyway, that same suggestion might fly because it provides an explanation for their erratic behaviour and a reasonable course of action based on it.

[Segev]

Not able to look it up right now, but unless this changed since 3e, one of the example suggestions is, "That lake is full of cool water, and a dip would be refreshing," while pointing to a lake full of acid.

[Pex]

Cynical answer: Anything short of making the DM feel you are trying to get away with something, get an undeserved advantage (not the game's meaning), or makes you "too powerful". The DM is not necessarily being a Jerk about this. He could be Honest True trying to keep the game "balanced" and "fair" even if he leans more towards denial of things. It is possible some player somewhere really is trying to get away with something, get an undeserved advantage, or wants to be all powerful. It is vague and undefined because it is dependent on the motivations of the DM and player. Context of the situation is also a factor.

[JellyPooga]

Not able to look it up right now, but unless this changed since 3e, one of the example suggestions is, "That lake is full of cool water, and a dip would be refreshing," while pointing to a lake full of acid.

"That lake is full of cool water" is not something the target is compelled to believe as part of the spell.

"and a dip would be refreshing" is a valid suggestion, but unless I'm mistaken, not one that the target would be impelled to follow. Yes, he believes that a quick splash would indeed be nice, but there's dudes attacking him; no time for a dip right now!

"Have a dip in the pool" would be a suggestion he'd be compelled to follow, on the other hand, unless he has reason to believe the pool would be damaging to him. If he already knows that it's acid, then suggesting that it's water and then that he should have a dip still won't work; you can't implant the false belief that it's water and that he should take a dip using just the one spell.

[pwykersotz]

Not able to look it up right now, but unless this changed since 3e, one of the example suggestions is, "That lake is full of cool water, and a dip would be refreshing," while pointing to a lake full of acid.

You don't even need to add that first part. "Go take a refreshing dip in that lake" is fine, unless the target knows that it is full of acid, which would trigger the "obviously harmful" clause. Also, I would rule that as soon as he takes initial damage from the lake, the action becomes obviously harmful and the spell ends. It IS a magical compulsion, it's beyond simple persuasion after all.

[Finieous]

Not able to look it up right now, but unless this changed since 3e, one of the example suggestions is, "That lake is full of cool water, and a dip would be refreshing," while pointing to a lake full of acid.

Nothing like that in 5e. "Give your horse to the first beggar you meet" is the example given.

[RickAllison]

You don't even need to add that first part. "Go take a refreshing dip in that lake" is fine, unless the target knows that it is full of acid, which would trigger the "obviously harmful" clause. Also, I would rule that as soon as he takes initial damage from the lake, the action becomes obviously harmful and the spell ends. It IS a magical compulsion, it's beyond simple persuasion after all.

Exactly. That is why you have the Athletics specialist follow and knock him prone (probably with advantage) once he is snapping out of it. Drown him in acid! Let his screams burn his lungs until his breathing is pointless! Mwahahahaha!

Sorry, I'm thinking evil today :smallbiggrin:

[Mr.Moron]

Reasonable is anything that would already be on the NPC's decision tree given the current circumstances. In other words in any given situation an NPC has a number of things they might wind up doing without the intervention of your spell, by weighing the circumstances and making guesses at what might happen. A "reasonable" suggestion is one that is already among all the possibilities the NPC might normally consider. You're basically choosing which branch(es) they take on their decision tree. You can't suggest things that aren't on it, and can't introduce new branches.

[JellyPooga]

Reasonable is anything that would already be on the NPC's decision tree given the current circumstances...You're basically choosing which branch(es) they take on their decision tree. You can't suggest things that aren't on it, and can't introduce new branches.

It should be noted that the spell chooses which branch they take even if that branch is somewhat far-fetched.

In the example given in the book, a Paladin is quite unlikely to give the next beggar he meets his horse under normal circumstances; it's a useful horse and it belongs to him...but being a charitable sort of chap, it's something that he might do anyway, even though it's unlikely, so the spell works. Suggesting an uncharitable Rogue or Fighter do the same may result in the spell failing as being unreasonable.

[RickAllison]

As a DM, I would say that a reasonable saying for compulsion is something you could achieve with a Persuasion check. Might be a higher DC for the Persuasion, but the advantage for using the spell is that it becomes, well, a compulsion. A high Persuasion check could convince someone they would really like to let this disguised ally take over his guard post while he relaxes in the magical Jacuzzi, but Compulsion would make him do so (and would be nice for the guy, actually...).

[Slipperychicken]

Have you guys had much luck in real games with using it to compel surrender? I've been thinking about it myself for some time, but I want to know if anyone could share an experience with it.

[Mr.Moron]

It should be noted that the spell chooses which branch they take even if that branch is somewhat far-fetched.

In the example given in the book, a Paladin is quite unlikely to give the next beggar he meets his horse under normal circumstances; it's a useful horse and it belongs to him...but being a charitable sort of chap, it's something that he might do anyway, even though it's unlikely, so the spell works. Suggesting an uncharitable Rogue or Fighter do the same may result in the spell failing as being unreasonable.

I disagree. That example is more than far-fetched, it's just totally random. "Give random dude your horse at random time for no reason" is not simple generosity and wouldn't stem from any sort logic internal to the individual. You may as well suggest "Pull down your pants and take dump, you gotta go somewhere!" sure what you've said is true and maybe the dude needs to ****, and maybe there are some set of circumstances that could conspire to make him do it in the road but that is not now and these are not those circumstances.

Now if there was some cause or context that would make the paladin consider giving the horse specifically it's viable suggestion, but generally one does not consider giving one's horse or sword or armor or whatever else.

To give a concrete example:

Many times I've walked down the street seen the homeless begging for change and had thoughts ranging from "I should give that man some money", "I should invite that man to eat a meal with me", "I should find some way to volunteer". Similarly there are some thoughts I had specifically but sitting here know I can see as plausible "I should ask that man what his name is". I haven't done these things, but they're things I would and have considered.

We can see that were someone to cast suggestion on me "Give that homeless guy some money", "Buy that homeless guy a sandwhich", "Go volunteer at the soup kitchen" or "Try to introduce your self to a homeless guy" are reasonable suggestions. These are things which I might consider doing without the intervention of the spell, the spell just does the considering for me.

Never once have I thought "I should fill up my car with gas, and give it away to that homeless guy". Nor can I sitting here think of any circumstances under which I would do that.

The paladin is charitable, but just giving away his horse at random is not something he'd ever consider. He's generous, but not like "Chaotic Stupid Generous"

[pwykersotz]

I disagree. That example is more than far-fetched, it's just totally random. "Give random dude your horse at random time for no reason" is not simple generosity and wouldn't stem from any sort logic internal to the individual. You may as well suggest "Pull down your pants and take dump, you gotta go somewhere!" sure what you've said is true and maybe the dude needs to ****, and maybe there are some set of circumstances that could conspire to make him do it in the road but that is not now and these are not those circumstances.

Now if there was some cause or context that would make the paladin consider giving the horse specifically it's viable suggestion, but generally one does not consider giving one's horse or sword or armor or whatever else.

To give a concrete example:

Many times I've walked down the street seen the homeless begging for change and had thoughts ranging from "I should give that man some money", "I should invite that man to eat a meal with me", "I should find some way to volunteer". Similarly there are some thoughts I had specifically but sitting here know I can see as plausible "I should ask that man what his name is". I haven't done these things, but they're things I would and have considered.

We can see that were someone to cast suggestion on me "Give that homeless guy some money", "Buy that homeless guy a sandwhich", "Go volunteer at the soup kitchen" or "Try to introduce your self to a homeless guy" are reasonable suggestions. These are things which I might consider doing without the intervention of the spell, the spell just does the considering for me.

Never once have I thought "I should fill up my car with gas, and give it away to that homeless guy". Nor can I sitting here think of any circumstances under which I would do that.

The paladin is charitable, but just giving away his horse at random is not something he'd ever consider. He's generous, but not like "Chaotic Stupid Generous"

Which is probably what distinguishes the spell from a simple persuasion check.

[JellyPooga]

I disagree.

Your disagreement is based on property values, rather than the premise, though.

The example given could easily have been "give the next beggar money" or food or a ride into town or to ask his name or whatever and it's only the personal conception of the value of the action that will determine whether the action Suggested is reasonable.

For you, personally, you can't conceive giving a beggar a car because it represents a much larger investment in a complete stranger than you would ever be willing to provide, not only in terms of money, but also in time and effort. You're also highly unlikely to meet a beggar whilst driving said car down the motorway (freeway/autobahn/whatever).

For a Paladin chance meeting a beggar on the road, however, the circumstances are different. The horse is right there to be given away (he's riding it) and it's possible that the horse is not of much intrinsic value to the Paladin; yes, it has a large monetary value and it also represents swifter travel, greater efficiency in combat and so forth, but the Paladin can also obtain another horse without any great effort. If nothing else, he can probably purchase one or beg one himself once he reaches the next town without any fuss. To the beggar, however, that horse could represent a year of good eating if it's sold for a decent price; something a Paladin might well consider a worthy donation, especially if backed by a magical compulsion.

If the Paladin was under strict time pressure to get somewhere quickly, however, a Suggestion that he donate his horse is not reasonable if he cannot possibly get where he needs to go without his horse. The value of the horse is too high, even though under different circumstances he might.

[Slipperychicken]

I'm starting to think the sentence is meant to be taken in the context of the following one.


"The suggestion must be worded in such a manner
as to make the course of action sound reasonable.
Asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto
a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously
harmful act ends the spell."

So "obviously harmful" acts (that is, directly and immediately damaging to the target's person) may be intended as the constraint on what constitutes reasonability.

[MaxWilson]

I think your DM has been interpreting it very liberally. Be grateful and roll with it.

I also think most people interpret the spell as both a) implanting a false belief in the target's mind, and b) suggesting a course of action based on that false belief. But the spell actually doesn't allow (a). You can suggest a course of action that sounds reasonable. That's it. So you could say to an orc, "Kill your chief and we'll help you become the new chief." That's a suggested course of action that probably sounds reasonable (and appealing) to the orc. But if you say, "The chief has been possessed by a celestial! Help us kill him!" that's going outside the bounds of the spell description. IMO.

Without implanting a false belief, how do you make the canonical example of "give your horse to the next beggar you meet" a reasonable course of action? Why isn't it an auto-fail?

[Finieous]

Without implanting a false belief, how do you make the canonical example of "give your horse to the next beggar you meet" a reasonable course of action? Why isn't it an auto-fail?

I suppose it's not unreasonable for a knight to be charitable. In any case, no false belief is implanted in the example -- there is only a suggested course of action. This matches the whole of the spell description, where no indication that you can implant a false belief is to be found.

[RickAllison]

On the other hand of the horse debate, a steed in many cultures is considered one of the most important possessions of a man. Read the story by Don Manuel, "Of what happened to a young Man on his Wedding Day". The climax of the story is important because in the Castilian culture of the time, a man's horse was more important than his house or his wife. Telling one such as that to give up his horse might be less reasonable than telling him to give up his life.

Additionally, it depends on your definition of "other obviously harmful act". Giving up a horse or a set of plate armor is an obviously harmful act to his financial state (unless he is loaded; kings might be better targets than paladins for that purpose). Defining "harmful" is not nearly so concrete as casters may assume and hope for. Suggestions could be physically harmful, mentally harmful, financially harmful, emotionally harmful, etc. Not all DMs will see it that way, and the degree depends on the target, but it is an important consideration.

[Aeradom]

First off, thank you all for your responses. It's given me a lot of food for thought on the topic. Now to my responses to individuals posts


I think your DM has been interpreting it very liberally. Be grateful and roll with it.

I also think most people interpret the spell as both a) implanting a false belief in the target's mind, and b) suggesting a course of action based on that false belief. But the spell actually doesn't allow (a). You can suggest a course of action that sounds reasonable. That's it. So you could say to an orc, "Kill your chief and we'll help you become the new chief." That's a suggested course of action that probably sounds reasonable (and appealing) to the orc. But if you say, "The chief has been possessed by a celestial! Help us kill him!" that's going outside the bounds of the spell description. IMO.

I agree, but I'm also not satisfied with letting it slide as if this is incorrectly interpreted, I'd like it to be corrected. That being said, I like the way you put it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but really waht I'm trying to do is use a true belief that already exists in the target's mind, and suggest a course of action based off of that.


Cynical answer: Anything short of making the DM feel you are trying to get away with something, get an undeserved advantage (not the game's meaning), or makes you "too powerful". The DM is not necessarily being a Jerk about this. He could be Honest True trying to keep the game "balanced" and "fair" even if he leans more towards denial of things. It is possible some player somewhere really is trying to get away with something, get an undeserved advantage, or wants to be all powerful. It is vague and undefined because it is dependent on the motivations of the DM and player. Context of the situation is also a factor.

Matter of fact, I'm the one that's concerned that I'm not using the spell correctly. At this point, the DM seems fine with the way it is but I'm not. Plus, there's the fact that the spell could always be turned on us so (plus, I'll be a DM at some point as well) I just wanted to get a better handle of it.


As a DM, I would say that a reasonable saying for compulsion is something you could achieve with a Persuasion check. Might be a higher DC for the Persuasion, but the advantage for using the spell is that it becomes, well, a compulsion. A high Persuasion check could convince someone they would really like to let this disguised ally take over his guard post while he relaxes in the magical Jacuzzi, but Compulsion would make him do so (and would be nice for the guy, actually...).

I liked this explanation in particular because it makes it simple but I have one issue. Couldn't anything be at a persuasion check, just an exceptionally high one? Even "You will fight for us against your allies" I'd guess to be a persuasion check, if just so high you'd never make it.

[RickAllison]

I liked this explanation in particular because it makes it simple but I have one issue. Couldn't anything be at a persuasion check, just an exceptionally high one? Even "You will fight for us against your allies" I'd guess to be a persuasion check, if just so high you'd never make it.

And there you hit the reason why focused Persuasion still trumps Suggestion. Suggestion can only force them to embark on a reasonable course of action. Persuasion is used to convince someone that something is a reasonable course of action. The Persuasion check in that case wouldn't be "You will fight for us against your allies," it would be "You will make far more coin helping us that dying alongside your friends!" With how you alter the frame of mind of the target with Persuasion, you convince them to a proposed way of thinking. Now, if someone had both high Persuasion and Suggestion?

Turn 1: "I am an adventurer with a large stockpile of wealth. I can offer you far more than your piddling master. Join me and those riches can be yours as well!" Persuasion check on the group to decide if you have convinced them that joining you is now a reasonable course of action.

Turn 2: Mass Suggestion. All of those enemies who fell for the Persuasion check just so that it was reasonable (i.e. not even enough to fully convince them) will now betray their allies.

The combination of the two would be terrifying.

[E’Tallitnics]

So "obviously harmful" acts (that is, directly and immediately damaging to the target's person) may be intended as the constraint on what constitutes reasonability.

I think you're onto something here! The ends of the bell curve are:

Spell Fails
The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable. Asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act ends the spell.

Spell Succeeds
For example, you might suggest that a knight give her warhorse to the first beggar she meets. If the condition isn't met before the spell expires, the activity isn't performed.
[And just to remind the reader]
If you or any of your companions damage the target, the spell ends.

That's a pretty good framework for a DM/Player to work under when determining what's "reasonable".

Honestly my favorite use of the spell is to ask my newly found friend to "borrow for a minute" their weapon, magic item, etc.

Of course, to the OP, the highly debatable nature of "reasonable" is all the reason you need to keep your higher level enchantment spells!

[BootStrapTommy]

Well, the PHB specifies that self-immolation is unreasonable, so it probably stands as a good point of reference. Is it as ridiculous as telling them to commit horrendously painful suicide? Yes? Then it's probably unreasonable.

That being said, Dominate and Geas are better long term solutions.

[MaxWilson]

I liked this explanation in particular because it makes it simple but I have one issue. Couldn't anything be at a persuasion check, just an exceptionally high one? Even "You will fight for us against your allies" I'd guess to be a persuasion check, if just so high you'd never make it.

No. Persuasion is like a catalyst--it lowers the activation energy for a chemical reaction, but if the end state doesn't have a lower energy than the start state, the reaction is impossible, catalyst or no. Similarly, Persuasion might convince someone to act in a way which helps them (and helps you), or even in a way which helps you and doesn't help them or hurt them--but no Persuasion is going to get someone to act unnaturally. To get someone to do something truly crazy, you need Deception (to change their perception of facts) and Persuasion (to get them to act on those facts in a way you control). Insight can also be useful to deduce what arguments are likely to sway the person (by deducing what is important to them, e.g. "this guy is a jealous husband").

Persuasion doesn't change wrong into right. It only changes when someone is willing to admit what is right. For examples of low Persuasion rolls, look at an Internet argument where neither party is willing to change their minds regardless of the facts, because of their stubborn pride and negative relationship with the other party arguing. Compare that with the rare case where someone says, "Yeah, you're right. I guess that makes sense after all." That is a case of good Persuasion combined with a strong case.

The best salesman in the world will never persuade you to sell your grandmother for a footstool, but he might perceive that you're worried about losing your wife's affection and persuade you to buy his new, outrageously-priced brand of shampoo.

[Finieous]

I agree, but I'm also not satisfied with letting it slide as if this is incorrectly interpreted, I'd like it to be corrected. That being said, I like the way you put it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but really waht I'm trying to do is use a true belief that already exists in the target's mind, and suggest a course of action based off of that.


Yeah, I'd say the ideal case is where you can compel the target to act in a prescribed way on their own beliefs, self-perception, impulses, desires or tendencies, even if they wouldn't ordinarily do so in the prescribed way (which is typically somewhat extreme), or at least, wouldn't ordinarily do so under the circumstances. So, really, just magical hypnotic suggestion. So even if the knight isn't really charitable, he probably thinks of himself as charitable (self-perception) or wants to think of himself as charitable, or believes he should be charitable, so the compulsion to perform a random act of kindness sticks.

[Sitri]

Remind me to challenge your selection to a jury. :smallbiggrin:



I don't understand why someone would want to be on a jury. "I will not only use the information presented in this trial to make my decision. I understand my right to jury nullification." Those are some real life verbal components.

Suggestion and Mass are by far my favorite control spells of 5e. I know there is another current thread where I complaining how control spells suck now, but these are ones that still are actually pretty decent. In combat, out of combat, doesn't matter.

If you are looking to gain turncoats, I think you are asking a bit much, but it shouldn't be hard to come up with some wording to eject some enemies from battle or skyhook some plot lines.

[Aeradom]

I don't understand why someone would want to be on a jury. "I will not only use the information presented in this trial to make my decision. I understand my right to jury nullification." Those are some real life verbal components.

Suggestion and Mass are by far my favorite control spells of 5e. I know there is another current thread where I complaining how control spells suck now, but these are ones that still are actually pretty decent. In combat, out of combat, doesn't matter.

If you are looking to gain turncoats, I think you are asking a bit much, but it shouldn't be hard to come up with some wording to eject some enemies from battle or skyhook some plot lines.

For example? I know I've heard some decent ones (I'll pay you more to fight for me, your tired) but I'm curious as someone who is a fan of the spell, what are some of your favorites?