Managing Suggestion

[BaconAwesome]

I know this has been discussed a lot, but I still am struggling with it as a DM. Suggestion is a second level spell, but in a lot of cases, it can take a combatant out of a fight for eight hours with no saving throw after the first.

One of the players in my game used it on the bruiser in a fight, with something like "Your gang isn't trustworthy, so I suggest you leave this combat and the gang before something bad happens to you." Presto - he walked away and was out of the fight.

It seems like the main drawback is that if the caster picks a suggestion that's too extreme, there's no effect at all, but I'm really wrestling with where to draw the line at extreme. Any, um . . suggestions?

[Reynaerde]

One of the most important things is to be really nitpicky about wording.

In this case, the bruiser looks at the highest ranking gang member, tells her or him that he is stepping out of the gang and walks away. Once he is around the corner, and out of the combat, the suggested activity has been completed and the spell ends. Next round Mr. Bruiser is back in the fight and now he has something to to proof to his friends.

Also note that you can only suggest one activity, so in this case I would have asked my player which part of the sentence was backed up by the Suggestion, leaving the combat or leaving the gang?

All of that being said, a simple Suggestion like "keep walking away until you reach [insert name of neighboring country]", will definitely take an enemy out of the combat. Just note that if I'd forget to include the word "away", the enemy could technically just keep walking circles around me for 8 hours.

Edit: See my post below. I'm not sure why I approached this question in this way, but this advise is actually quite bad and does not reflect how we play this spell at our table at all.

[Bjarkmundur]

Save or Suck are an inherent part of the game, for better of for worse. Thankfully the DMG has guidelines on how to deal with it, as to most DMs who ever played earlier editions.

1. Bait the spell out early in the adventuring day. This only works for a couple of levels, but it works. You can complement this tactic with the Gritty Realism rule variant, where long rest = 7 days.
2. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Instead of having one strong monster and a few minions, use two strong monsters and some minions. This allows you to bump up the stats of one boss as the other is taken out, effectively maintaining the challenge of the encounter despite one of the bosses being defeated in the first round.
3. Add a 'second wave' to encounters.
4. DMs gain Inspiration whenever a player rolls a nat1. You can then use that inspiration to gain advantage on your saving throw, whilst laughing maniacally.
5. Use constructs and fey creatures, which are usually immune to charm effects.
6. Let them. It's not player vs. DM, it's player vs. the obstacle the DM lays out for them. Using a spell for its intended effect is, like, the main reason said spell is cast.

If you decide to go the wording route, remember to use the words the character used, not the player.

[Contrast]

One of the most important things is to be really nitpicky about wording.

That is certainly one way to play. I would suggest not a particularly fun one. You're also not following the wording of the spell - its a course of activity described in a sentence or two (emphasis mine), not a single activity.


The main counter to the spell is that its a concentration effect. If the targets allies want to end the effect, they don't wait 8 hours - they attack the caster and try and make them drop concentration. It also only works on those who can understand you which means its often useless against non-humanoids.

I would also point out that getting an enemy to leave a combat is often not in the PCs interest. In your example the bruiser may well go warn the rest of the gang that there are some dangerous individuals about and that they should get out before anything bad happens too, resulting in the PCs getting ambushed later on or the gang clearing out before the PCs get to them to stop whatever they were doing.

[Magicspook]

All of that being said, a simple Suggestion like "keep walking away until you reach [insert name of neighboring country]", will definitely take an enemy out of the combat. Just note that if I'd forget to include the word "away", the enemy could technically just keep walking circles around me for 8 hours.

'The spell needs to de worden in such a way to make the course of action sound reasonable'

[Guy Lombard-O]

One of the most important things is to be really nitpicky about wording.

In this case, the bruiser looks at the highest ranking gang member, tells her or him that he is stepping out of the gang and walks away. Once he is around the corner, and out of the combat, the suggested activity has been completed and the spell ends. Next round Mr. Bruiser is back in the fight and now he has something to to proof to his friends.

Also note that you can only suggest one activity, so in this case I would have asked my player which part of the sentence was backed up by the Suggestion, leaving the combat or leaving the gang?

All of that being said, a simple Suggestion like "keep walking away until you reach [insert name of neighboring country]", will definitely take an enemy out of the combat. Just note that if I'd forget to include the word "away", the enemy could technically just keep walking circles around me for 8 hours.

I have to say, that approach seems extremely adversarial and the opposite of fun for your players, especially with the examples you give. I don't believe that every target of a reasonably stated Suggestion should go out of their way to interpret the wording in the same manner as a devil's contract.

Having the bruiser leave for one round is hardly "leaving this combat and the gang before something bad happens", particularly since his reason for doing so is that the "gang isn't trustworthy". Did the gang suddenly become trustworthy in that 6-second period? This interpretation doesn't even make sense, even if you're going to stretch the "leaving" part into a tortured meaning of "walk 30 feet away from it for a few seconds".

"Keep walking until you reach (XXXX place)" would result in the person walking in circles next to the caster? How is the target supposed to ever get to (XXXX place) by walking in small circles and thus obviously getting no closer (or actually, closer then farther then closer then farther) to their intended destination? Again, this ruling makes no sense.

I don't believe I'd ever attempt to use the Suggestion spell again in such a game. Which might be your ultimate goal? But the players' dislike of such rulings and the implicit attitude behind them might well spill over onto many of the social pillar aspects of your game, and result in a much more "let's just hack and slash everything, since the world doesn't allow for intelligent subtlety" approach.

[Vorpalchicken]

Remember it requires concentration too. (Until Mass Suggestion comes along)

[Segev]

Concentration is a significant cost, both in terms of what the caster is limited to doing while maintaining it (there's a LOT of competition for good spells to Concentrate on), and in terms of the fact that being hit and damaged can break it.

I was running a fairly nasty fight with a Darkmantle and a set of Needle Blights in a cave. Aside from the Darkmantle's 1/day darkness permanently dispelling both of the party's continual flame items (I winced when I realized this would happen, and moreso when their response to one going out was to shine the other on it, but...that's how it works), the darkness effect took Concentration. So, for a round, the party was blind while the blindsight-enabled Darkmantle and Needle Blights were unhindered. But then the monk got in a solid hit on the Darkmantle despite the Disadvantage, and the Darkmantle rolled badly on its Constitution Save to maintain Concentration, so the magical darkness went away. The human monk was the only one who didn't get to appreciate this; everyone else had Darkvision.

[Stone-Ears]

You suggest a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two) and magically influence a creature you can see within range that can hear and understand you. Creatures that can't be Charmed are immune to this effect. 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

In most cases, you can take advantage of the obviously harmful act wording. For the Bruiser, leaving his gang in such a direct manner may not be immediately harmful but it would be obviously harmful should the gang still be around to hunt him down and kill him for being the traitorous swine that he is.

Though I realize that might be considered as punishing a player for being creative. However in this case, I feel the player is trying to make suggestion more of a combat spell rather than an utility spell that's helpful for being the face.

[Reynaerde]

That is certainly one way to play. I would suggest not a particularly fun one.You know what? You are right! Not sure what was possessing me this morning, hahaha.


I have to say, that approach seems extremely adversarial and the opposite of fun for your players, especially with the examples you give. [...] I don't believe I'd ever attempt to use the Suggestion spell again in such a game. Which might be your ultimate goal?The weird thing is, I actually love this spell and the creativity it allows (and luckily my DM does too). So you are absolutely right: my advise was terrible and not actually grounded in how we play it at the table. :smallredface:

[NNescio]

I know this has been discussed a lot, but I still am struggling with it as a DM. Suggestion is a second level spell, but in a lot of cases, it can take a combatant out of a fight for eight hours with no saving throw after the first.

One of the players in my game used it on the bruiser in a fight, with something like "Your gang isn't trustworthy, so I suggest you leave this combat and the gang before something bad happens to you." Presto - he walked away and was out of the fight.

It seems like the main drawback is that if the caster picks a suggestion that's too extreme, there's no effect at all, but I'm really wrestling with where to draw the line at extreme. Any, um . . suggestions?

Suggestion requires concentration. If a player wants to concentrate on the spell for a whole 8 hours (and not being able to use any other concentration spell for that whole time without breaking the Suggestion, plus making concentration saves all the while), I am more than happy to let it happen.

This is, of course, assuming the Suggestion is worded reasonably (from the target creature's PoV) in the first place (and is airtight enough not to allow the creature to pursue a more 'intuitive' or 'less risky' course of action that also fits the wording of the suggestion), but usually as DM I am lenient on allowing it to work on most mook enemies, even if the Suggestion is worded poorly. (BBEGs and elite minions would require more carefully worded Suggestions, because they tend to have a more... 'extremist' outlook.)

[Bobthewizard]

Let it work. It's a fun spell. Let them gain an ally for 8 hours even. They are possibly fighting 10+ NPCs in a big day. If they turn one of them to their side, and use their concentration for 8 hours, you can still make things challenging.

[Pex]

In most cases, you can take advantage of the obviously harmful act wording. For the Bruiser, leaving his gang in such a direct manner may not be immediately harmful but it would be obviously harmful should the gang still be around to hunt him down and kill him for being the traitorous swine that he is.

Though I realize that might be considered as punishing a player for being creative. However in this case, I feel the player is trying to make suggestion more of a combat spell rather than an utility spell that's helpful for being the face.

You're right; it is punishing. If the player wants to use it in combat that's his business. Would you deny a player using Mage Hand or Thaumaturgy to open an unlocked trap door in combat for an enemy to be pushed in?

[Jophiel]

In most cases, you can take advantage of the obviously harmful act wording. For the Bruiser, leaving his gang in such a direct manner may not be immediately harmful but it would be obviously harmful should the gang still be around to hunt him down and kill him for being the traitorous swine that he is.
As a DM, I wouldn't read it that way. The examples before "...or other obviously harmful act" include stabbing himself, piercing himself and setting himself on fire. It seems obvious that the intent is "no acts that will produce immediate physical harm" and not "things that might cause grief down the line".

As a combat spell, it requires the caster's concentration and the target can't be harmed so it's better for taking out a single minion bodyguard than the Big Bad Guy. It's a less flexible Save or Suck in that regard than Hold Person where you can tie the Boss up and maul him to your heart's content -- or just slap him around and hope he doesn't make his save before you've piled on the hurt. It's probably also easier to reasonably convince the mook that he should quit while he's alive in combat than reasonably convince the Boss to give up (unless he's losing badly in which case it's a moot point), although that's a DM call.

[Demonslayer666]

I agree with the others that have said let it work. They just need to give them a reason to do the action. For example, if they cast suggestion and say "walk east until I tell you to stop". That's not reasonable because there isn't something telling you why you should do it. That's more of a Dominate Person thing.

But I also recommend enforcing that the suggestion ends once completed. One could argue that leaving the gang could be maintained with concentration, but that is going to depend on the DM. Another interpretation is denounce the gang, and the suggestion is completed.

I like to add "until morning" to my suggestions, or make sure to suggest a task that takes a long time, like taking off your cursed armor.

[Stone-Ears]

You're right; it is punishing. If the player wants to use it in combat that's his business. Would you deny a player using Mage Hand or Thaumaturgy to open an unlocked trap door in combat for an enemy to be pushed in?

Yeah, it's ticky tacky but it is one way to prevent suggestion from being more powerful than it should be.

And nah, it's well within the bounds of mage hand to open the unlocked trap door. It is also within the bounds of thaumaturgy to do that. That's just creativity operating within the bounds of the spell.

Suggestion, like minor illusion, is more susceptible to players wanting to make it stronger than it actually is.


As a DM, I wouldn't read it that way. The examples before "...or other obviously harmful act" include stabbing himself, piercing himself and setting himself on fire. It seems obvious that the intent is "no acts that will produce immediate physical harm" and not "things that might cause grief down the line".

As a combat spell, it requires the caster's concentration and the target can't be harmed so it's better for taking out a single minion bodyguard than the Big Bad Guy. It's a less flexible Save or Suck in that regard than Hold Person where you can tie the Boss up and maul him to your heart's content -- or just slap him around and hope he doesn't make his save before you've piled on the hurt. It's probably also easier to reasonably convince the mook that he should quit while he's alive in combat than reasonably convince the Boss to give up (unless he's losing badly in which case it's a moot point), although that's a DM call.

The interpretation is mostly for limiting a player who's known to try and find all the game breaking/exploits with various mechanics. Suggestion can be a quite powerful spell, even made more powerful than later spells if one isn't careful to temper expectations of what that spell can do inside a campaign. Though the spell does already have a lot of limitations that attempts to balance out how potent it can be.

[whiplashomega]

Be very very careful about how you limit player abilities, as you risk making them regret their character choices and resent you. My 'suggestion' is to stick with the way the spell is actually worded and intended to be played. OK, that guy left combat. If that is worth the players concentration slot for the duration of the combat and the baddie fails their save, ok. After 8 hours or dropped concentration the spell no longer has an effect and the baddie is free to go and rejoin their gang (should it still exist).

My biggest point is to remember this:

1. Is what they are doing within the rules?

If not go ahead and stop it.

1. Is it hurting anyone else's ability to play and have fun?
2. Is anyone else besides yourself upset about it?

If it is within the rules I would make sure the answer is yes to the next 2 before intentionally nerfing the spell, and then make sure you talk to the player before you do so.

[BaconAwesome]

Thanks everybody - I'm leaning towards ruling that it can't convince anyone to do something that a 30 persuasion roll and a minute or two of explanation couldn't do under the "must be phrased in a way to seem reasonable" provision, but to try my best to be fair about that.

But yes, it's the level two spell my Bard took first - better in some ways than banishment!

[Lunali]

Thanks everybody - I'm leaning towards ruling that it can't convince anyone to do something that a 30 persuasion roll and a minute or two of explanation couldn't do under the "must be phrased in a way to seem reasonable" provision, but to try my best to be fair about that.

But yes, it's the level two spell my Bard took first - better in some ways than banishment!

I lean towards it being effectively lower DC success (15-20) than you, but I also treat it as if the suggestion came from a friendly acquaintance or the like instead of someone they were about to try to kill.

[Rynjin]

Ask yourself the question "why do I care"?

So the Bard or whoever uses a spell and takes an enemy out of a fight. Even an important one.

...So?

There are a million NPCs in the world, why does this one schmuck matter so much to you?

Your goal as a DM isn't to win, whatever "winning" means in D&D, it's to facilitate a good time for everyone.

If the player enjoys mind whammying people out of the game, let them. It only becomes an issue when it starts making other players' experience less fun, which from the phrasing does not seem to be the case.

[Hail Tempus]

Thanks everybody - I'm leaning towards ruling that it can't convince anyone to do something that a 30 persuasion roll and a minute or two of explanation couldn't do under the "must be phrased in a way to seem reasonable" provision, but to try my best to be fair about that.Then you’re essentially making the spell useless in combat. It’s a magic spell, it isn’t necessarily bound by what a persuasive person is capable of.

The example in the spell description is telling a knight to give away his horse to the first beggar he sees. Without magic, the DC for that is “don’t bother rolling persuasion, there’s no way a knight would agree to do that.”

[Tanarii]

The suggestion needs to be reasonable. My recommendation is to ask yourself if the bruiser would consider it very unreasonable that the gang is so untrustworthy they should immediately abandon them in the middle of a fight.

If that's not very unreasonable, then good use of the spell on the casters part.

If it's very unreasonable, then it fails.

I'm guessing most gangs it's not outside the possibility of reason. But if it's was some kind of blood brotherhood or dedicated cult, it might be.

Note that an example of a reasonable action is for a knight to give its warhorse to the next bigger they see, so that's why I would set the bar to use to "very unreasonable". By any sane measure, that's not a reasonable suggestion at all, so clearly we can't actually use reasonable as guideline, despite the text of the spell.

[Hail Tempus]

Note that an example of a reasonable action is for a knight to give its warhorse to the next bigger they see, so that's why I would set the bar to use to "very unreasonable". By any sane measure, that's not a reasonable suggestion at all, so clearly we can't actually use reasonable as guideline, despite the text of the spell.Maybe a better way to look at it is to ask the question of whether a generic reasonable person might do what is suggested, rather than if it would be reasonable for this particular person to do so.

If I came to your house and told you there was a gas line leak and you needed to get away as far as you could, running away would be a reasonable thing to do. If I told you your spouse was possessed by a demon and you needed to kill her, that wouldn’t be something a person would reasonably do.

[Pex]

Yeah, it's ticky tacky but it is one way to prevent suggestion from being more powerful than it should be.

And nah, it's well within the bounds of mage hand to open the unlocked trap door. It is also within the bounds of thaumaturgy to do that. That's just creativity operating within the bounds of the spell.

Suggestion, like minor illusion, is more susceptible to players wanting to make it stronger than it actually is.



Don't let your fear of a player trying to get away with something cloud your judgment such that a player cannot do anything at all.

[Tanarii]

Maybe a better way to look at it is to ask the question of whether a generic reasonable person might do what is suggested, rather than if it would be reasonable for this particular person to do so.
That's kind of my point. An extremely rich and philanthropic person might find it reasonable to give away a 400gp horse to a beggar, but it wouldn't be generically reasonable.

[Contrast]

The suggestion needs to be reasonable.

I would point out that there is a subtle difference between 'the suggestion must be reasonable' and 'the suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable'.

If the spell can only convince someone to do something reasonable then you may as well just make the relatively easy persuasion check as that doesn't cost a spell slot and concentration.

Giving your horse to a beggar isn't a reasonable suggestion but what the spell does is short cut the normal line of argument where the other party would justify not doing the action.

Caster: I suggest you should give your horse to the next beggar you see. They need it more than you do after all.
Victim: But *fails save*...yes ok you're right they do need it more than me.

[Tanarii]

I would point out that there is a subtle difference between 'the suggestion must be reasonable' and 'the suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable'. sure. The difference is the first implies fact. The second allows for opinion to enter into the matter. Unfortunately it doesn't say who it might sound reasonable

All that tells us is that reasonable is not something that can be a fact, something that is objective.

What it doesnt do is tell us that something the vast majority of people would find unreasonable is somehow acceptable.

But then is gives us an example of exactly that as acceptable

[Hail Tempus]

Don't let your fear of a player trying to get away with something cloud your judgment such that a player cannot do anything at all. Yeah, DMs should not be finding ways to undercut a spell or limits its effects to the weakest possible extent. Weakening a spell like suggestion or charm person discourages creative play and encourages murder-hoboism.

I was really annoyed at my DM when he nerfed my wizard's use of Mass Suggestion. The suggestion he didn't like was my wizard telling the underlings in a boss fight that "The warlord is just using you as cannon fodder. Drop your weapons and go home, and you won't die."

The DM had the underlings mill about for a round or two talking about it, even after they failed their saving throws, then get back in the fight. So my wizard said screw it, and dropped a Meteor Swarm on the entire encounter and the rest of the party finished off the warlord in two rounds.

[Jophiel]

The suggestion needs to be reasonable. My recommendation is to ask yourself if the bruiser would consider it very unreasonable that the gang is so untrustworthy they should immediately abandon them in the middle of a fight.
I don't think you even need to go that far. Just Suggest that they should stay out of this fight because they're going to lose and die. I think most people could find that reasonable and, unless the party is taking on an entire army, the chance of the bad guy losing is probably good enough for it to make sense. As you said, this is easier for some hired help than for a blood-bound fanatical martyr.

But, honestly, this application of Suggestion is probably one of the weaker. Suggesting to a noble to give them documents for free passage or Suggesting to a sage that they should be allowed to access his library, etc can circumvent a lot of work. Suggesting that some thug not get into a fight is nothing. You could use Hold Person for that (with both having pros and cons). And it's easily "fixed" by adding one extra mook in the fight if you think it's making things too easy. It's really not something a DM should be worried about.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Remember, the DM can do anything the players can do. The best way to manage any PC's ability is to remind the player that if it works for them, it'll work for their opposition. So go ahead and let them use their encounter-ending Suggestion spell. They won't have any business complaining when they run into an evil Enchanter who also likes to use that same trick.

[Tanarii]

Remember, the DM can do anything the players can do. The best way to manage any PC's ability is to remind the player that if it works for them, it'll work for their opposition. So go ahead and let them use their encounter-ending Suggestion spell. They won't have any business complaining when they run into an evil Enchanter who also likes to use that same trick.
Strangely, players complain like crazy if you instantly focus all the attacks on a caster who just dropped a concentration spell. Yet it's the first thing they'll do. And yet I'm still loathe to do that because it doesn't feel like a realistic monster/NPC reaction.

[NNescio]

Strangely, players complain like crazy if you instantly focus all the attacks on a caster who just dropped a concentration spell. Yet it's the first thing they'll do. And yet I'm still loathe to do that because it doesn't feel like a realistic monster/NPC reaction.

Well, I suppose this is justified somewhat with PCs usually being more familiar with spells than the average monster/NPC. Though this should only work for spells the characters have seen their casters using (and only if the effect is visible or otherwise overt).

(Or maybe handwaved with passive Arcana/Religion, depending on spell. But PCs can share information since talking is a non-action anyway, even if it's technically limited to the turn of the creature [not that most DMs bother enforcing the in-turn restriction].)

It's more of metagaming issue with the DM being far too liberal in providing information on what specific spell has been cast (and the player not separating in-character knowledge from OOC).

Though admittedly as DM I am usually... moderately tolerant of player metagaming. It's part of the genre.

[Segev]

Strangely, players complain like crazy if you instantly focus all the attacks on a caster who just dropped a concentration spell. Yet it's the first thing they'll do. And yet I'm still loathe to do that because it doesn't feel like a realistic monster/NPC reaction.

When my players start casting Concentration spells that have obvious effects, I'll let you know if they complain when I target the caster. As-is, the only Concentration spells they've cast so far have been protection from evil and good (the wood elf diviner cast it on the monk) and dragon breath (same caster, once on the barbarian and once on his familiar). It's hard to tell that it's the wood elf who's responsible for the monk being unusually hard for the ghouls to hit, or the owl or half-orc breathing fire.

[Tanarii]

When my players start casting Concentration spells that have obvious effects, I'll let you know if they complain when I target the caster.A big one is Conjure Animals, especially around the level it first becomes available. If you can drop the concentration on that spell, all the animals disappear instantly. Trying to kill the animals themselves is a sucker tactic.

[Hail Tempus]

A big one is Conjure Animals, especially around the level it first becomes available. If you can drop the concentration on that spell, all the animals disappear instantly. Trying to kill the animals themselves is a sucker tactic. Sure, in theory the best thing to do would be to target the spellcaster.

Realistically, in the heat of battle, no combatant in their right mind is going to turn their attention away from the pack of wolves that just appeared all around them.

I'd say only a small number of tactically competent combatants would focus fire on the caster or healer while there's a raging Goliath barbarian swinging a greataxe at them.

And plenty of monsters are simply too dumb to understand the rules of magic and concentration. A troll or hill giant is trying to kill the thing in front of it, it barely notices other enemies.

As a DM, I'm fine with the players meta-gaming in combat. I've got plenty of tools to mess them up, while avoiding meta-gaming on my part. It's really not fun for the guy playing the wizard if he gets focus-fired every time he casts web.

[Contrast]

sure. The difference is the first implies fact. The second allows for opinion to enter into the matter. Unfortunately it doesn't say who it might sound reasonable

All that tells us is that reasonable is not something that can be a fact, something that is objective.

What it doesnt do is tell us that something the vast majority of people would find unreasonable is somehow acceptable.

But then is gives us an example of exactly that as acceptable

I would be intrigued for you to give some examples of things you consider to be factually reasonable and not subject to opinion.

[Magicspook]

You know what? You are right! Not sure what was possessing me this morning, hahaha.

The weird thing is, I actually love this spell and the creativity it allows (and luckily my DM does too). So you are absolutely right: my advise was terrible and not actually grounded in how we play it at the table. :smallredface:

Hey man, I love the fact that you just straight up accept that others have a good point and don't stand by your previous stand point just to save face. You deserve kudos for that,there are not of people like you.

[Tanarii]

I would be intrigued for you to give some examples of things you consider to be factually reasonable and not subject to opinion.
I don't, and I was agreeing that it's a distinction between my phrasing and the exact book text.

But I think that there are a number of things that the majority of people are going to think is reasonable, and unreasonable. I pretty sure where "give away a $40k car to a beggar" would fall, which is roughly what giving away a warhorse is the equivalent of. It's over a years Modest living expensives.

[Reynaerde]

Hey man, I love the fact that you just straight up accept that others have a good point and don't stand by your previous stand point just to save face. You deserve kudos for that,there are not of people like you.Thanks! I personally don't see the use of a message board if you have made up your mind already anyway.