Use of Suggestion in Combat

[Master O'Laughs]

Hey Giants,

So we were in a fight and the DM had a wizard cast suggestion on our Barbarian with the suggestion "you should hurt your friends"

I was looking at the spell and it says "reasonable" suggestion that does not hurt itself. Now our barbarian has been a rather peace loving guy and even feels small conflicts with eating animals. He tried to guilt the party from not killing a NPC guard by talking to the guard over drinks about his family. When he rages he becomes a blood-thirsty beast.

The barbarian was currently not raging when the wizard cast the spell. Would he follow the suggestion and hurt them being a peaceful guy?

The DM ended up just casting a different spell due to the confusion and he thought he told the barbarian to kill his friends.

In summary:
1) can suggestion cause you to hurt or kill your friends under any circumstances?

[Cespenar]

The "reasonable" line gives a lot of leeway to the DM, but I would say no to the direct attacking of one's allies, unless the character already harbors dark feelings towards them.

More reasonable suggestions could be:

1) Go away, this fight is meaningless
2) You should hold [Your Ally] down, or he'll shed innocent blood

The rage aspect could be interesting, though. During the raging "mindset", the meaning of "reasonable" could change for the barbarian. He could be open to things like "Kill everyone, prove your might!" and so on.

[MinotaurWarrior]

Under some circumstances, but not all circumstances.

The way I've always seen it run is that it comes down to the character's controller (DM for NPC, player for PC) and you get a reasonable number of re-wordings attempts, and then if the suggestor is failing, the DM can arbitrate a solution.

Note that self-harm causes the spell to fail, whereas the caster must make the suggestion sound reasonable as a part of casting. That's why I allow and have been allowed re-wordings OOC.

[BiPolar]

Under some circumstances, but not all circumstances.

The way I've always seen it run is that it comes down to the character's controller (DM for NPC, player for PC) and you get a reasonable number of re-wordings attempts, and then if the suggestor is failing, the DM can arbitrate a solution.

Note that self-harm causes the spell to fail, whereas the caster must make the suggestion sound reasonable as a part of casting. That's why I allow and have been allowed re-wordings OOC.

But it's also why there are spells like Dominate Person. Suggestion seems to be more of a OOC spell, or for something minor like "You're weapon seems awfully heavy, it might be better to drop it." But asking someone to attack their allies is not a reasonable suggestion, especially for a peaceful barbarian.

[LudicSavant]

Hey Giants,

So we were in a fight and the DM had a wizard cast suggestion on our Barbarian with the suggestion "you should hurt your friends"

"Reasonable" offers a lot of leeway, but this isn't even trying...


can suggestion cause you to hurt or kill your friends under any circumstances?

Probably. But you should have to come up with something better than "You should hurt your friends."

[RipTide]

The way i look at Suggestion is like you got a natural 20 on a persuasion roll. You cant convince them to do anything to out of the ordinary but you can make something they might have already been thinking of doing more like for them to do.

So saying "hurt you friends" out of the blue means nothing, but if some friends were arguing over who gets the treasure, you might convince a more violent person to attack. So its not impossible to use suggestion to have somebody attack their allies but for that to work you need to have the right set up.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I don't think that's a "reasonable" suggestion. I would throw it back in the DM's face by just having the Barbarian use his free communication each turn to shout insults at his group: "I never liked you." "You smell really bad, deodorant, look into it." "You're the ugliest sorcerer I've ever met", etc.

[Contrast]

I've always had a problem with this spell because the set example given (a knight giving his warhorse to the first beggar he meets) has never seemed to meet the test of 'reasonable' to me unless there were a lot of other factors involved or we're altering the definition of reasonable to account for the fact that its 'reasonable, given that they are being magically compelled' - and if its that interpretation then almost anything is reasonable.

For example - is it reasonable to tell someone to flee a fight if they're winning? Maybe you change it to suggest they leave to find allies to help in the fight - thats certainly reasonable but is it still reasonable if they know they don't have any allies in the vicinity and that their leaving will significantly compromise their chance of victory? What if you suggest to a wizard he doesn't need to waste spell slots on a fight - if that still reasonable when they start losing?

I think the RAW and RAI is for the spell to be powerful and DMs to be lenient on the definition of reasonable but in that case the spell has always seemed incredibly powerful to me with any half imaginative player.

[BiPolar]

I've always had a problem with this spell because the set example given (a knight giving his warhorse to the first beggar he meets) has never seemed to meet the test of 'reasonable' to me unless there were a lot of other factors involved or we're altering the definition of reasonable to account for the fact that its 'reasonable, given that they are being magically compelled' - and if its that interpretation then almost anything is reasonable.

For example - is it reasonable to tell someone to flee a fight if they're winning? Maybe you change it to suggest they leave to find allies to help in the fight - thats certainly reasonable but is it still reasonable if they know they don't have any allies in the vicinity and that their leaving will significantly compromise their chance of victory? What if you suggest to a wizard he doesn't need to waste spell slots on a fight - if that still reasonable when they start losing?

I think the RAW and RAI is for the spell to be powerful and DMs to be lenient on the definition of reasonable but in that case the spell has always seemed incredibly powerful to me with any half imaginative player.

Remember, this is a 2nd level spell that lasts 8 hours and you are limited to a suggestion that fits within 1-2 sentences. Not run-on sentences, but a reasonable sounding and grammatically correct sentence. This isn't supposed to be an all powerful replacement of Dominate Person, but a means to nudge someone in a direction. To me, it reads more like an OOC spell (especially with an 8 hour time), then a combat spell. Using it in in-combat can still occur, but it is much more limiting.

[Joe the Rat]

I think you are underselling Suggestion. This isn't Charm Person. You are giving them a task to do, and so long as the action involved seems reasonable, regardless of the motives or ridiculousness of circumstance, on a failed save, you do it.

On the social engineering side, the Barbarian's pacifistic nature is a strike against the caster in this case, which I might (as DM) offer advantage on the save. If the suggestion was more along the lines of "don't let your friends hurt me," it would be much harder to argue out of. This is why good intelligence (as in useful information, not the attribute) is valuable.

Based on the characterization described - and the fact that all else aside he's got martial training - "hurt your friends" does not sound unreasonable. He hurts things for a living. He won't kill them - hell, he may not hit each more than once - but roughing up his buddies a bit seems reasonable. Hell, if there is bad blood over past acts of compassion, he may feel justified in throwing a couple of punches (again, not asked to kill; lesser forms of violence may be appropriate).


I don't think that's a "reasonable" suggestion. I would throw it back in the DM's face by just having the Barbarian use his free communication each turn to shout insults at his group: "I never liked you." "You smell really bad, deodorant, look into it." "You're the ugliest sorcerer I've ever met", etc.This also works for me. I'd definitely take this approach with a Bard... which still fits with the spirit of the suggestion via vicious mockery. Keep in mind that this may set a precedent for the DM doling out jerkass genie interpretations in the future.

[BiPolar]

I think you are underselling Suggestion. This isn't Charm Person. You are giving them a task to do, and so long as the action involved seems reasonable, regardless of the motives or ridiculousness of circumstance, on a failed save, you do it.

On the social engineering side, the Barbarian's pacifistic nature is a strike against the caster in this case, which I might (as DM) offer advantage on the save. If the suggestion was more along the lines of "don't let your friends hurt me," it would be much harder to argue out of. This is why good intelligence (as in useful information, not the attribute) is valuable.

Based on the characterization described - and the fact that all else aside he's got martial training - "hurt your friends" does not sound unreasonable. He hurts things for a living. He won't kill them - hell, he may not hit each more than once - but roughing up his buddies a bit seems reasonable. Hell, if there is bad blood over past acts of compassion, he may feel justified in throwing a couple of punches (again, not asked to kill; lesser forms of violence may be appropriate).

This also works for me. I'd definitely take this approach with a Bard... which still fits with the spirit of the suggestion via vicious mockery. Keep in mind that this may set a precedent for the DM doling out jerkass genie interpretations in the future.

So you are giving 2nd level Suggestion the ability to act like the 5th level spell Dominate Person?

[Contrast]

Remember, this is a 2nd level spell that lasts 8 hours and you are limited to a suggestion that fits within 1-2 sentences. Not run-on sentences, but a reasonable sounding and grammatically correct sentence. This isn't supposed to be an all powerful replacement of Dominate Person, but a means to nudge someone in a direction. To me, it reads more like an OOC spell (especially with an 8 hour time), then a combat spell. Using it in in-combat can still occur, but it is much more limiting.

...so I walk up to the richest person in the country and say 'You'd get a lot of praise for your generosity if you legally sign over all your money and holdings to me'. If the warhorse meets the test of reasonableness I can't see why that doesn't.

I entirely agree that the spell is massively more powerful out of combat that in it. I'm not arguing that the combat uses are overpowered (as best it will likely take one or two people out of the fight, can't do damage, offers a saving throw and auto ends on friendly fire from the party - lots of get out clauses there). I'm saying the out of combat uses are incredibly powerful for a level 2 spell on the basis of the warhorse example being the standard for 'reasonable'. Powerful to the extent that people would likely not meet face to face with magic users whom they do not implicitly trust or reaching for your component pouch mid-conversation/admitting to being a sorc would potentially make people refuse to deal with you entirely.

[Joe the Rat]

For one task, yes. Command gives you one round of control. Suggestion gives you a long window, but with a single task. It's a progression of puppetry.

[BiPolar]

For one task, yes. Command gives you one round of control. Suggestion gives you a long window, but with a single task. It's a progression of puppetry.

To Clarify,I cited Dominate Person, not Command. Command is powerful, but it's one word and very limiting because of that.

[Joe the Rat]

To Clarify,I cited Dominate Person, not Command. Command is powerful, but it's one word and very limiting because of that.

Suggestion is one course of action, and limited because of that. Domnate Person is complete control.

[BiPolar]

Suggestion is one course of action, and limited because of that. Domnate Person is complete control.

I understand that, but the net effect is the same if you're telling a PC (or NPC) to attack their allies. With Dominate at 5th level, it just works. If you're going to have a 2nd level spell do something similar, I'd be very careful with the requirement of 1-2 sentences to make the suggestion reasonable. It is generally unreasonable for a PC to attack his friends (just like it is to hurt himself.) If you're going to "suggest" they do so, then there has to be enough of a reason. And the 1-2 sentence limit to do that makes that a high bar to reach. Unless the caster has spent enough time observing to come up with a 1-2 sentence long reasonable suggestion "You're friends dislike your pacifism. You should hurt them", but even that isn't quite reasonable. If you're a pacifist, you don't really have an issue if someone doesn't like it, and definitely won't take it to the next step of violence (you'rea lready leaning pacifist).

But the real crux is how powerful do you want a 2nd level spell to be? This was done on a PC...how would you feel about a relatively low cost to take away your player agency?

[Specter]

"Fight lying down so you won't get so tired". Works like a charm, literally.

[MinotaurWarrior]

But it's also why there are spells like Dominate Person. Suggestion seems to be more of a OOC spell, or for something minor like "You're weapon seems awfully heavy, it might be better to drop it." But asking someone to attack their allies is not a reasonable suggestion, especially for a peaceful barbarian.

"Attack your allies" might be a reasonable suggestion for a Bugbear (whose MM entry specifies that they frequently assault their "allies"), whereas "your weapon is heavy, drop it" wouldn't be, because bugbears are insanely strong and prideful of their martial prowess. I disagree that it's meant to be an OOC ability, otherwise it wouldn't have a casting time of one action, but the key here is that it's target-dependent while dominate person isn't.

I think the Knight example is often misinterpreted, because so many of us are no longer enamored with the image of the knight in shining armor. Giving something of immense value to a beggar is a knightly course of action. Killing that beggar wouldn't be, even though it poses no risk, and so I as DM wouldn't allow that suggestion.

[BiPolar]

"Attack your allies" might be a reasonable suggestion for a Bugbear (whose MM entry specifies that they frequently assault their "allies"), whereas "your weapon is heavy, drop it" wouldn't be, because bugbears are insanely strong and prideful of their martial prowess. I disagree that it's meant to be an OOC ability, otherwise it wouldn't have a casting time of one action, but the key here is that it's target-dependent while dominate person isn't.

I think the Knight example is often misinterpreted, because so many of us are no longer enamored with the image of the knight in shining armor. Giving something of immense value to a beggar is a knightly course of action. Killing that beggar wouldn't be, even though it poses no risk, and so I as DM wouldn't allow that suggestion.

That's a very fair assessment, but I think the burden of making a suggestion that has a strong combat use very high. If you're telling someone to drop their weapon, it very much has to make sense with who they are. And that is something that the player/DM shouldn't necessarily know unless they've spent time prior to knowing more about their target. Does the NPC or PC know that about bugbears? If they don't know it in-game, it's not a reasonable suggestion.

Personally, i see suggestion being of more import for someone who has done their homework. To try and fire it off in combat as a means to 'turn' a character or something similar will fail muchmore often than not.

[Master O'Laughs]

"Fight lying down so you won't get so tired". Works like a charm, literally.

This. My barbarian would have done that one so quick!

[Master O'Laughs]

So the hurting allies could possibly work if made to sound reasonable.

Simply stating you should hurt your allies, while in combat, makes no sense.

If a strong enough reason was given, it can still be filtered through the PC's interpretation, i.e. my barbarian could just go up and give each character a massive bear hug until they were in pain and said "ouch" and it would fulfill the suggestion.

It also sounds like going as far as to say kill them would be an impossible suggestion no matter what since he was a normally pacifistic character.

[Contrast]

I think the Knight example is often misinterpreted, because so many of us are no longer enamored with the image of the knight in shining armor. Giving something of immense value to a beggar is a knightly course of action. Killing that beggar wouldn't be, even though it poses no risk, and so I as DM wouldn't allow that suggestion.

I'll assume by knightly you mean chivalrous. The thing is though - warhorses are dangerous, time consuming to train animals. If you took a good, honourable knight and told him of plight of some poor homeless beggars he might well be convinced to help them...but give them his warhorse? And not even a specific peasant just the first random generic one he meets?

Edit - you would also hope they would give a generic example rather than a specific one which required a very specific set of circumstances (as I said in my original post). We have to go off what we've got, which isn't much unfortunately /edit

If a knight can be suggested to give away his warhorse to a random poor person I don't really see why a merchant couldn't be suggested to hand over his goods or a even a king his throne.

To the people saying that a suggestion could work on some people but not others depending on their specific personality/race/etc - I would highlight that we're getting into the slightly dangerous territory of making someone make a charm/deceive test (the in game way of figuring out how convincingly your character has been able to word something) as a prerequisite to casting a spell.

[BiPolar]

So the hurting allies could possibly work if made to sound reasonable.

And that's the crux. You've got 1-2 sentences to do that. If you don't know the person at all, you are very unlikely to make a suggestion to do something big like that reasonable.

[MinotaurWarrior]

That's a very fair assessment, but I think the burden of making a suggestion that has a strong combat use very high. If you're telling someone to drop their weapon, it very much has to make sense with who they are. And that is something that the player/DM shouldn't necessarily know unless they've spent time prior to knowing more about their target. Does the NPC or PC know that about bugbears? If they don't know it in-game, it's not a reasonable suggestion.

1) The DM should innately know. They're the supreme arbiter of what is and is not real.

2) Whether it's a reasonable suggestion or not is no more dependent on caster knowledge than whether they're vulnerable to silver. The question is just if the PC can know that, or if you'd consider making that suggestion / silvering those weapons 'metagaming'. The typical solution here is to require a knowledge roll.


Personally, i see suggestion being of more import for someone who has done their homework. To try and fire it off in combat as a means to 'turn' a character or something similar will fail muchmore often than not.

Well, I think it should never fail, no more than Catapult would fail if I tried to target an object that actually weighs too much. Rather, the DM should just have you choose a different object and a different course of action, imo. It only fails if the course of action is innately dangerous - the reasonable suggestion is a component of the spell. You just can't cast it with an unreasonable course of action. Making an unreasonable request is not allowed RAW.

That being said, I agree that it's much more useful for someone who has done their homework. For instance, I'd allow a DC 20 Knowledge Religion check to allow a PC to know if a Devil might think it's reasonable to begin an inquisition against their subordinates, demoting anyone who seems too ambitious. A multiclass ranger with applicable favored enemy bonuses might get all sorts of special opportunities. An 8int sorcerer with no knowledge skills and the hermit background might get shot down for anything requiring any sort of psychological insight.


I'll assume by knightly you mean chivalrous. The thing is though - warhorses are dangerous, time consuming to train animals. If you took a good, honourable knight and told him of plight of some poor homeless beggars he might well be convinced to help them...but give them his warhorse? And not even a specific peasant just the first random generic one he meets?

Yes.


Edit - you would also hope they would give a generic example rather than a specific one which required a very specific set of circumstances (as I said in my original post). We have to go off what we've got, which isn't much unfortunately /edit

I mean, you can't give a generic example of something so subjective, and if they did give something less specialized, people might not get that it can be more context-specific.


If a knight can be suggested to give away his warhorse to a random poor person I don't really see why a merchant couldn't be suggested to hand over his goods or a even a king his throne.

Because it's not appealing to any of their pre-existing motives. A knight in shining armor wants to help the weak. A merchant wants to make money. A king wants to rule. You can suggest the merchant invest in an expedition, or the king invade a vulnerable neighbor, but you can't suggest any of those courses of action to any of the other examples.


To the people saying that a suggestion could work on some people but not others depending on their specific personality/race/etc - I would highlight that we're getting into the slightly dangerous territory of making someone make a charm/deceive test (the in game way of figuring out how convincingly your character has been able to word something) as a prerequisite to casting a spell.

I disagree, because it's magic mind control and the suggestion is just a part of the spell like the honey comb or the somatic components. Sure, a DM can add that at as component, but it's a false dichotomy to say, "either it works the same on everyone, or you have to add a skill check."

[BiPolar]

1) The DM should innately know. They're the supreme arbiter of what is and is not real.

2) Whether it's a reasonable suggestion or not is no more dependent on caster knowledge than whether they're vulnerable to silver. The question is just if the PC can know that, or if you'd consider making that suggestion / silvering those weapons 'metagaming'. The typical solution here is to require a knowledge roll.


While the DM should know everything, he is also playing his NPCs, and if the NPC doesn't know something, then the DM really shouldn't use that knowledge as if it did.



Well, I think it should never fail, no more than Catapult would fail if I tried to target an object that actually weighs too much. Rather, the DM should just have you choose a different object and a different course of action, imo. It only fails if the course of action is innately dangerous - the reasonable suggestion is a component of the spell. You just can't cast it with an unreasonable course of action. Making an unreasonable request is not allowed RAW.

I agree. And if there isn't a way to make a reasonable 1-2 sentence suggestion that gives the desired effect, the player should have an opportunity to do something else. Whether or not the DM should provide hints to a player by means of asking for DC checks to help guide their suggestion, that's table dependent.

[Asmotherion]

The suggestion spell implants an impulse to the target to do something you tell them. However it should be carefully worded, to sound resonable. Randomly suggesting "kill your allies" for no apparent reason, does not sound resonable, thus I would rule that it should not work, as, wile the target would feel the suddent impulse, it would not act on it. What the DM could have done is give him a reason to do so, such as "Your allies are possesed by demons, and you should kill them to save their souls. I know because I'm a mage and can see their true forms". This would trigger the Wisdom save to belive him or not, thus acting or not on that impulse.

That said, the DM is always right. If in his scenario the spell funcions as that, it's ultimatelly up to him. As a player, I would merelly mention that to him, not in order to get out of the situation, but as an advice for future use, and play as the DM said. Confusion at the table takes all the fun from RPGs, and arguements should only be done out of session in my opinion. If you are not having fun, and if the way the DM (ab)uses his authority doesn't suit you, you are always free to quit the game, and kindly explain the reason, without creating a fuss. Then, after session, you can talk it with your co-players and DM to find a solution, that being either a change of DM or a change of DM behavior.

[MinotaurWarrior]

While the DM should know everything, he is also playing his NPCs, and if the NPC doesn't know something, then the DM really shouldn't use that knowledge as if it did.

Ah, yeah, gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding.



I agree. And if there isn't a way to make a reasonable 1-2 sentence suggestion that gives the desired effect, the player should have an opportunity to do something else. Whether or not the DM should provide hints to a player by means of asking for DC checks to help guide their suggestion, that's table dependent.

Agreed. Glad we could get on the same page!

[BiPolar]

Agreed. Glad we could get on the same page!

I forgot this was the internet...(I suggest) You're wrong!

[Tanarii]

Oh goodie, a suggestion in combat thread. *makes popcorn*


I guess I should express an opinion too, before the fun starts.

And that's the crux. You've got 1-2 sentences to do that. If you don't know the person at all, you are very unlikely to make a suggestion to do something big like that reasonable.That's pretty much my interpretation of Suggestion, and how I run it. Suggestion is a monkey's paw spell, except it just fails instead of actual backfiring.

PCs can and have gotten away with telling my campaign's Orcs to attack their allies using this spell. Bugbears should as well. Basically, any Chaotic Evil creature should be an easy candidate IMO, provided they have the culture or stereotype to back it up. So in that case, I'm probably more lenient than you're suggesting. LE & NE you're going to need to use a bit more smarts in tailoring it to the situation and stereotypical creature's personality. Any other alignment you need to know the specific creature's personality and take advantage of that, or pick something else.

But unless they PCs have a history of getting into it and a personality that could lead to physical blows, it should take a lot to convince one of them a PC to attack another. I'd probably be a little more lenient for using on evil PCs, similar to monsters above, except I don't allow those. So overall, I think we agree on how effective the spell can (or in this case can't) be.

(In case you can't tell, I'm perfectly happy to use Alignment as shorthand for personality for 'monsters' unless I have reason to do otherwise. Especially Evil Alignments. YMMV)

[RickAllison]

Some Suggestions that may work, but may require some homework:

"Save me from [insert ally], he is trying to silence what really happened to [insert friend, lover, or relative who had a tragic death]!" Only two clauses (well within the limits) and it seems very reasonable to save the person who can tell you more about a tragedy. Requirements: a tragic death which can be spun as a secret murder, an ally who could possibly have committed it (been alive and not have a known alibi at the time), and knowledge of this by the caster. Bonus points if the ally is a newer member of the party or who joined soon after the death...

"Cease, we must stop [insert Evil/untrustworthy ally]. He is colluding with Asmodeus/other evil person!" Requires: an ally who could reasonably betray the party, evidence such as 1 on 1, hidden conversations with the evil entity. If the ally has garnered enough to suspect his collusion with the entity, this would be a very reasonable course of action. Probably not to kill him (they would want information), but enough to hopefully take both out of action.

"[Ally] is an imposter! A doppelgänger/other shapeshifter took his place!" This would be very difficult to swing. You would need a pre-established fear of the shifter (seeded rumors could work for that; make the party think they actually have an assassin with that skill after them), reasonable suspicion the person could have been switched (a trap that divides the party would be great), and preferably some OOC moments by the ally.

All of these are pretty hard to set up, but that should be expected for a level 2 spell that turns one party member against another...

[Drackolus]

Even requiring the suggestion to be something the target has some inclination to do already makes it a strong candidate for the single best spell of 2nd level, in my experience. Granted, I play a lore bard, so getting information and applying it is pretty much the thing my class does. Still, I have ended or avoided many entire encounters with it (on a different character, a 3rd level sorcerer), I suggested a chaurus who we'd inadvertently awoken to go back to sleep because 3 humanoids wasn't worth getting up to eat.
Giving it any more lenience is certainly pushing the spell too far.

[Master O'Laughs]

The suggestion spell implants an impulse to the target to do something you tell them. However it should be carefully worded, to sound resonable. Randomly suggesting "kill your allies" for no apparent reason, does not sound resonable, thus I would rule that it should not work, as, wile the target would feel the suddent impulse, it would not act on it. What the DM could have done is give him a reason to do so, such as "Your allies are possesed by demons, and you should kill them to save their souls. I know because I'm a mage and can see their true forms". This would trigger the Wisdom save to belive him or not, thus acting or not on that impulse.

That said, the DM is always right. If in his scenario the spell funcions as that, it's ultimatelly up to him. As a player, I would merelly mention that to him, not in order to get out of the situation, but as an advice for future use, and play as the DM said. Confusion at the table takes all the fun from RPGs, and arguements should only be done out of session in my opinion. If you are not having fun, and if the way the DM (ab)uses his authority doesn't suit you, you are always free to quit the game, and kindly explain the reason, without creating a fuss. Then, after session, you can talk it with your co-players and DM to find a solution, that being either a change of DM or a change of DM behavior.

Basically the question was raised on what the wording "reasonable" meant and also clarifying the exact suggestion of "You should hurt your allies" and it turned out he meant to say "You should kill your allies" (DM has been a stickler to us in the past about exact wording or saying something dumb in character) he eventually decided to just cast a different spell if it was okay with us.

[Master O'Laughs]

Even requiring the suggestion to be something the target has some inclination to do already makes it a strong candidate for the single best spell of 2nd level, in my experience. Granted, I play a lore bard, so getting information and applying it is pretty much the thing my class does. Still, I have ended or avoided many entire encounters with it (on a different character, a 3rd level sorcerer), I suggested a chaurus who we'd inadvertently awoken to go back to sleep because 3 humanoids wasn't worth getting up to eat.
Giving it any more lenience is certainly pushing the spell too far.

I think if the suggestion was along the lines of "protect me from your friends, I want to surrender and change my ways" that would have worked on the barbarian in question. It doesn't mean he has to hurt his friends but he would get in the way and would give the wizard time to prepare something nasty.

[BiPolar]

I think if the suggestion was along the lines of "protect me from your friends, I want to surrender and change my ways" that would have worked on the barbarian in question. It doesn't mean he has to hurt his friends but he would get in the way and would give the wizard time to prepare something nasty.

That would also allow the Barbarian to shout "The wizard will surrender! Focus on the others!" and proceed to do the same.

[Slayn82]

That's why my bard is carrying some precious gems and a bag with 250 gp. So he can say to an enemy:

"We are winning this fight and I will let you join our side. You will stay alive and can get this treasure instead of dying here for nothing".

Another good one is: "Half of your side is dead already. A leader knows to run away to fight another day"

[Drackolus]

That's why my bard is carrying some precious gems and a bag with 250 gp. So he can say to an enemy:

"We are winning this fight and I will let you join our side. You will stay alive and can get this treasure instead of dying here for nothing".

Another good one is: "Half of your side is dead already. A leader knows to run away to fight another day"
Ooh! Those are solid. I'm gonna have to remember those.

[Finback]

But you should have to come up with something better than "You should hurt your friends."

Barbarian: *points* YOU HAVE QUESTIONABLE TASTE IN ATTIRE AND YOUR CHOICES IN ROMANTIC LIAISONS ARE NEVER WELL CONSIDERED. *points at another* AND YOUR PERSONABLE EATING HABITS LEAVE MUCH TO BE DESIRED.

Evil BBEG Wizard: Thaaaat's not what I was planning on.

[RickAllison]

Barbarian: *points* YOU HAVE QUESTIONABLE TASTE IN ATTIRE AND YOUR CHOICES IN ROMANTIC LIAISONS ARE NEVER WELL CONSIDERED. *points at another* AND YOUR PERSONABLE EATING HABITS LEAVE MUCH TO BE DESIRED.

Evil BBEG Wizard: Thaaaat's not what I was planning on.

I've actually pulled this with my extremely-buff minotaur wizard. The DM stuck an effect that put him into an enraged state of mind and expected him to start goring the party on his horns. Instead he picked the biggest guy in the party besides him, the Druid as a giant scorpion, and starting pushing him to the ground while yelling, "I'm the boss, I'm the boss!" After he established his dominance by throwing the giant bug around like cotton candy, he pushed the 14-year-old sorceress over while going over to a corner where he started sulking.

The DM found out that my minotaur had severe self-confidence issues hidden behind a smiling exterior who didn't want to really hurt anyone. So when he was enraged, he became a schoolyard bully who was just trying to push people away so no one would see him hurting. Never threw a punch, or a horn, just pushed people a little bit. As a 15' tall minotaur (Enlarged).

[snowman87]

I once used Suggestion to kill a guy. I Minor Illusioned a telescope stand over the side of a bridge and then Suggested he needed to see something on the horizon through it. He failed his saves to disbelieve and resist and so stepped off the bridge.

[RickAllison]

I once used Suggestion to kill a guy. I Minor Illusioned a telescope stand over the side of a bridge and then Suggested he needed to see something on the horizon through it. He failed his saves to disbelieve and resist and so stepped off the bridge.

I prefer to use it to make customers. For example, Suggesting that a noblewoman my PC was trying to sell a dress to should other noblewomen she was going to be wearing a design by a fantastic up-and-comer, but not tell them who. When it was planted, we would chat about how exciting the reveal would be as the other nobles would be trying to one-up her but only she would have the uniquely beautiful designs of this tailor. The ideal Suggestion is one that the person can't look back on 8 hours later and realize it was magic. The ideal Suggestion should be one that the person (in hindsight) believes was their idea all along.

[Gastronomie]

"Your friend over there is actually a Doppelganger. Kill him."

I've allowed this just once. But never twice in the same gaming group, for the obvious reason that spamming it will break the game.

[ST By Night]

It doesn't sound like it. But then again it is the DM; I'd gently ask about the definition of the spell conflicting with the action, but if he is adamant, yield to Dungeon Master fiat.

[RickAllison]

"Your friend over there is actually a Doppelganger. Kill him."

I've allowed this just once. But never twice in the same gaming group, for the obvious reason that spamming it will break the game.

As a DM, I would not allow this unless there was reasonable doubt that the person could be a doppelganger. Mainly either a seriously OOC moment or the knowledge that there is a doppelganger on the loose and after them.

[hymer]

"you should hurt your friends"

Six seconds' worth of your best insults directed at your friends every round. No taboos will stand, no feelings be considered. They will look fat in that chain mail bikini, and their mother really is a mad old bat.
No need to stop trying to take the head off the caster in the mean time. :smallwink: