Mass Suggestion ruling as DM's

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Let's say you were DMing an encounter between the PC's and a party of hostile Giants and the party Bard cast Mass Suggestion with the command, "Defend myself and my party vigorously, we are here to liberate you from the greater evil."

Bard spells can frequently be tough or tricky for players DM's. The PC's need to figure out interactions and what different things accomplish. We Lore Bards in particular have a few straight forward damage dealing spells but mostly rely on strange magical effects to stay relevant.

How would you as DM have the Giants who failed the save act? Or what would be the expected range of interpretations?

Duration: 24 hours


You suggest a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two) and magically influence up to twelve creatures of your choice that you can see within range and 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 automatically negates the effect of the spell.


Each target must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, it pursues the course of action you described to the best of its ability. The suggested course of action can continue for the entire duration. If the suggested activity can be completed in a shorter time, the spell ends when the subject finishes what it was asked to do.


You can also specify conditions that will trigger a special activity during the duration. For example, you might suggest that a group of soldiers give all their money to the first beggar they meet. If the condition isn’t met before the spell ends, the activity isn’t performed.


If you or any of your companions damage a creature affected by this spell, the spell ends for that creature.

[KillingTime]

I'm loathe to use Suggestion in combat scenarios except in specific niche cases.
Suggestion is a 2nd Level spell, yet it's often used to replicate the effects of a 5th level Dominate Person spell.
Mass Suggestion is obviously the same only worse, and using it against non-humanoids is efectively replicating the 8th Level Dominate Monster spell.

The trouble is the rather ambiguous phrase "reasonable course of action".
My interpretation is that hostile creatures won't think switching sides is reasonable.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I'm loathe to use Suggestion in combat scenarios except in specific niche cases.
Suggestion is a 2nd Level spell, yet it's often used to replicate the effects of a 5th level Dominate Person spell.
Mass Suggestion is obviously the same only worse, and using it against non-humanoids is efectively replicating the 8th Level Dominate Monster spell.

The trouble is the rather ambiguous phrase "reasonable course of action".
My interpretation is that hostile creatures won't think switching sides is reasonable.

Switching sides isn't a reasonable course of action.
Suggestions are more subtle.

It will be more like not getting attacked by a single enemy and starting a conversation because you suggested that they made an identification mistake.

[fbelanger]

reasonable course of action for the creature targeted by the spell.
An hostile giant group is reasonably looking for gold, slaughter, slaves, getting rid of ennemies. They are the greater evil, if not they will make alliance until they overcome it.
A single giant might also be interested to become the leader of its clan, acquire more power, or other personal goal that fits its alignment and behaviors.

[Segev]

"Join these weak smallfolk against our leaders" is what the OP's suggestion translates to. This is not a reasonable course of action. It's suicidal. Even if the giants were eager to overthrow their leaders, the notion that these smallfolk would make the difference is a bit ludicrous.

Now, suggestion is a potent spell, and it can make things that are not believable seem more reasonable. I like to interpret it as bypassing filters that say, "that would be reasonable if only this other thing were true." The example of getting a knight to give his horse to a beggar appeals to the knight's generous nature, and ignores the fact that the knight needs the horse more than the beggar probably does, in terms of how one can use things.

To some degree, "reasonable" can also mean "what the DM thinks is balanced," though that's a bit meta-gamey. No harder to judge, because suggestion is so vague to begin with, but slightly different.

An example that I think is on the edge of suggestion's capability came up in my game a few sessions ago. The party was ambushed by a Red Wizard and two of his thugs, and the Warlock used suggestion on one of the thugs: "Your boss is planning to betray you and use you as a sacrifice. Kill him before he can do so." Had the fight been going the Red Wizard's way, the thug wasn't going to go try to backstab the wizard right then and there. For now, the Wizard is on his side. But if the fight had ended without the Warlock's concentration being broken, the thug would be looking for an opportunity to kill the wizard "before he can kill me" for the rest of the day, as long as it wouldn't be suicidal (e.g. in a fight against another force). The wizard wound up noping out of the fight, though, after being knocked to less than half his hp in one round, and the thug took that as a confirmation of betrayal and talked his buddy into retreating with him, because this fight wasn't worth it and they couldn't be sure the wizard would have their backs right then.

The key points here, I think, are that you can convince the target of a course of action, but you can't make them carry it out when and how you choose. The more fiddly or precise the suggested actions are, the less likely it is to work, because the more points of unreasonableness can enter into it. It's reasonable for an evil thug to distrust his evil boss and to decide to be the first betrayer. It is not reasonable for an evil thug to decide, in the middle of a fight, to try to kill his more powerful boss, when his boss is part of what gives him a chance not to be killed by the other side of the fight.

[MaxWilson]

Let's say you were DMing an encounter between the PC's and a party of hostile Giants and the party Bard cast Mass Suggestion with the command, "Defend myself and my party vigorously, we are here to liberate you from the greater evil."

Bard spells can frequently be tough or tricky for players DM's. The PC's need to figure out interactions and what different things accomplish. We Lore Bards in particular have a few straight forward damage dealing spells but mostly rely on strange magical effects to stay relevant.

How would you as DM have the Giants who failed the save act? Or what would be the expected range of interpretations?

Depends on the giant type honestly. For fearful and cowardly hill giants, it might work. (I'd give it a 50% chance that the giants know what he's talking about.) For more powerful and arrogant giants, it's just not a good suggestion: too vague and implausible even if it were literally true. "What great evil could be threatening us?" the Fire Giants laugh, and go back to killing you.

A better suggestion requires more knowledge about the internal group dynamics of the giants. "I am small but skilled in rhetoric--bring me to your steading and help me help you depose Valiar Marcus as Squadron Leader" would work on Fire Giants IMG if they fail the save, but note that it requires the PCs to acknowledge the Fire Giants as their social superiors--they will expect to be giving the orders, and if PCs disobey they will be treated "as disobedient slaves deserve."

Dominate Monster can force a creature to act against its nature, but I would judge that Suggestion/Mass Suggestion does not, it just implants a specific delusion/desire supporting a course of action, and the creature will fulfill the desire according to its nature.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Good points. I am happy to have heard them all when I'm not blowing my 6th level slot on something beyond the norm.

In combat what would be good suggestions? Drop your weapons and go check on your friends and families? Drop your weapons we cursed them all? The dragon is attacking, you better head to the north gate!

[Doug Lampert]

Good points. I am happy to have heard them all when I'm not blowing my 6th level slot on something beyond the norm.

In combat what would be good suggestions? Drop your weapons and go check on your friends and families? Drop your weapons we cursed them all? The dragon is attacking, you better head to the north gate!

Anything that involves "drop your weapon" is, IMAO, not likely to be reasonable.

"We have important information and you need to talk to us" is fine.

"We know the location of a great treasure, and will show you how to get to it if you'll kill the guardians" is very likely to work. (Hey, PCs will obey a random quest giver, why shouldn't NPCs.)

"If you take this 1,000 GP from us and let us go, then when we come back later you can take more gold whereas if you kill us, that's all you get" will work on almost anyone who doesn't know that you're carrying a lot more than 1,000 GP.

What are you trying to accomplish in a fight? What are the giants trying to accomplish? Something that lets them have their goal without a fight is better than fighting, so suggestions of that sort are reasonable. Something that has them doing something obviously silly or stupid isn't really reasonable, that's kind of what reasonable means after all.

[MaxWilson]

In combat what would be good suggestions? Drop your weapons and go check on your friends and families? Drop your weapons we cursed them all? The dragon is attacking, you better head to the north gate!

"Spare our lives and instead follow this map to all of my worldly treasures! Claim them as a reward for your generosity to me!"

[Keltest]

"Spare our lives and instead follow this map to all of my worldly treasures! Claim them as a reward for your generosity to me!"

But they can just kill you and then take the map from your corpse. You could do something like "Were worth more to you alive than dead!" to get them to fight to incapacitate instead of kill.

[Pex]

But they can just kill you and then take the map from your corpse. You could do something like "Were worth more to you alive than dead!" to get them to fight to incapacitate instead of kill.

The suggestion is what makes it reasonable to spare them/not kill them. That's the point.

[MaxWilson]

But they can just kill you and then take the map from your corpse. You could do something like "Were worth more to you alive than dead!" to get them to fight to incapacitate instead of kill.

The intent of my suggestion was more about "leave quickly!" than "spare us." "Spare us" is just an excuse to hand them a map and make following it sound reasonable.

I suppose if your goal was to infiltrate the Fire Giant camp somehow (e.g. your parties is a bunch of monks and Eldritch Knights and wizards, don't need weapons to be dangerous) you could Suggest that they take you all prisoner and make you slaves.


The suggestion is what makes it reasonable to spare them/not kill them. That's the point.

Furthermore the suggestion is intended to make them leave immediately. Hopefully the magic amplifies both their gullibility and their (individual) greed.

With any luck the giants will kill each other fighting over the map, but as long as they leave it's done its job. However, that probably also depends upon what the giants who resist the magic do. It wouldn't shock me if the suggestion sometimes failed to work properly even on giants who failed their saves, if enough other giants still want to kill the humans first anyway.

If 1 Fire Giant fails his save and 5 Fire Giants succeed, I'd expect that one to grumble: "Fine, fine, we can kill the humans first, THEN follow the map! But hurry!" Peer pressure is powerful. But if it's evenly split 3 and 3 maybe there'd be an argument, and maybe the group would split in half and three would hurry on ahead together while the others who didn't believe in the map killed the humans.

[Keltest]

The suggestion is what makes it reasonable to spare them/not kill them. That's the point.

The whole point of the thread is to find where the line is on what the spell makes seem reasonable. If im a bloodthirsty giant, im certainly not going to abandon a fight I perceive myself to be winning to suddenly go on a treasure hunt, especially if its based on loot I don't have yet from these guys im fighting. You need to give them an actual reason as to why smashing you would be a bad idea, as opposed to one that doesn't affect the outcome either way.

[Segev]

The whole point of the thread is to find where the line is on what the spell makes seem reasonable. If im a bloodthirsty giant, im certainly not going to abandon a fight I perceive myself to be winning to suddenly go on a treasure hunt, especially if its based on loot I don't have yet from these guys im fighting. You need to give them an actual reason as to why smashing you would be a bad idea, as opposed to one that doesn't affect the outcome either way.

It is a hard line to find.

"What is 'reasonable?'" is the question that resounds throughout the history of this line of spells, all the way back to the first edition suggestion was invented.

Obviously, anything that the target would never do under any circumstances beyond the most contrived (and/or direct, will-crushing mind control) is beyond that point. Most mothers can't be suggested to consign their own children to death. Most misers can't be suggested to give away their fortunes.

But then we get to "but what if...?" questions. If you can contrive a situation where the course of action sounds reasonable, you can probably get it through. The poor mother who can barely feed her children, but who would never sell them into slavery or leave them abandoned in the woods or kill them, herself, could be persuaded to give one or more of them away to a "rich and powerful person who can take better care of them than she ever could." Even if her normal, rational thought process might ask, "But would he?" the power of the suggestion spell suppresses questions about whether the presented scenario is valid.

Perhaps - and this probably isn't quite right or perfect as a way to put it, but I'm hoping it's a good point to feel out as we try to zero in on it - what suggestion does is give you a perfect Bluff check. Er, Charisma (Deception). Or, rather, sets it to a fixed DC of your spell save DC and makes them use their Wisdom save to see through it rather than (say) Wisdom(Insight).

It's not ANY Deception, either. Just a Deception check that whatever underlying assumptions are necessary to make the suggestion's justification reasonable are true.

...and that's still not right. "I'm a wealthy and powerful man; you should let me adopt your son because I can take better care of him than you can," might, for example, make the mother fail to question whether you WILL take better care of him, but if you don't look wealthy and powerful, or if she knows better, suggestion probably isn't making her believe the bald lie.

Telling the loyal retainer, "The King has been replaced by a doppelganger; you must imprison it and force it to tell you where the real King is!" might actually work, because there's nothing overtly and obviously untrue about the presented scenario. The crown-wearing being planning to sit on the throne very well could be a doppelganger; the whole point is how hard it is to tell. And the loyal retainer, believing that to be true thanks to suggestion, finds the notion of keeping this impostor from abusing the power of the King to be important, and is likely emotionally invested (due to said loyalty) in finding the real King.

Bribing some bandits to just take money you're offering and leave you alone is something that could happen under not-too-unreasonable circumstances. And, heck, the party including a mage powerful enough to cast suggestion puts us in the right ballpark to begin with. The bandits MIGHT be dumb enough to think, "We can take 'em and get EVERYTHING they have," but most bandits will recognize that heavily armed people, no matter how wealthy, will likely leave some of them (the bandits) injured or dead, even if the bandits ultimately win. The question is, how much of a bribe is necessary? With no magic, it's a Charisma (Persuasion) check, possibly backed by (Intimidation). And you likely get a bonus the more money you're throwing at it, and the more obviously deadly a fight you'd be.

With suggestion, you can probably take an amount of money that is in the "is it quite enough?" range, or an amount of threat that makes the outcome of the fight iffy, and turn that into a definite success to convince them to take the bribe and leave you alone. (Or leave you alone with no bribe, depending.) The difference is in just how much bribe you're forced to offer. If it's so trivial an amount that they may as well not have bothered, it probably won't "sound reasonable." But if it's a moderately large amount, an amount where, normally, there might be an open question whether they'd accept or not, suggestion makes them just accept. If you're going for intimidation, instead, suggestion can take the fact that you look dangerous and probably make it work, whereas an Intimidation check may or may not cut it.

"Bloodthirsty giants" attacking you will have motivation for doing so. If it's truly pure sadism, no, suggestion likely won't make them give up, but it might make them redirect their efforts onto something "more fun to torment." If they've got other motivations, you want the suggestion to play into that. It doesn't have to be perfect, and you don't need it to be persuasive overall; that's what the spell does for you. But "reasonable" suggestions will be something that, if they bought the implicit scenario, would align with their interests.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

"For example, you might suggest that a group of soldiers give all their money to the first beggar they meet."

Is given as an example of a reasonable action in the spell. So what about the point of view that RAI I think we just need to decide what is as reasonable as a hardened merciless soldier of evil giving all his money to a beggar?

[Segev]

"For example, you might suggest that a group of soldiers give all their money to the first beggar they meet."

Is given as an example of a reasonable action in the spell. So what about the point of view that RAI I think we just need to decide what is as reasonable as a hardened merciless soldier of evil giving all his money to a beggar?

Honestly, I have no idea how this, if taken at face value, doesn't just toss "reasonable" out the window and imply that suggestion is just geas, but better and more effective (albeit with a shorter duration).

Any attempt to examine it on my part requires I assume facts not in evidence, such as, "Perhaps that's just the end result of it, and the suggestion includes reasoning that makes it sound reasonable."

Something like, "Carrying excessive weight is one of the fastest ways to exhaust - and thus render vulnerable - a soldier. You obviously need most of what you have, but coins are super heavy and don't help you in a fight. You should weigh some other poor schlub down with them. Beggars are literally asking for it: give the next beggar you see all your coin."

[Keltest]

Well hold on now, how did we go from "mercenaries" to "hardened merciless soldier of evil"? Baldur's Gate in the Forgotten Realms is policed by a professional mercenary company, just as an example, and theyre generally at least decent people. And its not like anybody carries their life's savings on their person all at once, even mercenaries would have a barracks or something somewhere in town that they spend the night at. Asking a basically decent person to toss their pocket change to a begger doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

[Segev]

Well hold on now, how did we go from "mercenaries" to "hardened merciless soldier of evil"? Baldur's Gate in the Forgotten Realms is policed by a professional mercenary company, just as an example, and theyre generally at least decent people. And its not like anybody carries their life's savings on their person all at once, even mercenaries would have a barracks or something somewhere in town that they spend the night at. Asking a basically decent person to toss their pocket change to a begger doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Like I said, we have to assume facts not in evidence. Really, for both sides, because the evidence is so sparse. We don't know the situation very well from that example (making it a bad example).

You're seeing it as closer to "tip your waitress generously" while others are seeing it as more like "selflessly cause yourself massive financial harm for a poverty-stricken stranger."

[Keltest]

Like I said, we have to assume facts not in evidence. Really, for both sides, because the evidence is so sparse. We don't know the situation very well from that example (making it a bad example).

You're seeing it as closer to "tip your waitress generously" while others are seeing it as more like "selflessly cause yourself massive financial harm for a poverty-stricken stranger."

I mean yeah, but within the parameters of "is this reasonable?" the former checks out while the latter... well, doesn't.

[Segev]

I mean yeah, but within the parameters of "is this reasonable?" the former checks out while the latter... well, doesn't.

To you and me, yes. I am sure, if I looked hard enough, I could find somebody who'd say that suggesting mercenaries - nay, anybody who isn't a saint - give coins to a beggar when they wouldn't otherwise is "unreasonable."

The term is subjective, and when you give an example of a supposedly-reasonable suggestion, it needs to be obvious what makes it "reasonable." If you have to make up a scenario that "sounds reasonable" to make it work, you're making a circular argument. It's a bad example.


By it being a circular argument, I mean, "Wait, how do you know that telling him to give his pocket change is what's meant?" "Because that's reasonable." "Well, yeah, but so is telling him to give his entire week's pay that he has on him." "No, it's not!" "How do you know that? The example says you can make him give the beggar all his money!" "That wouldn't be reasonable!" "Why not? The example of an order that works is to give the next beggar he sees all his money. Therefore, it must be reasonable."


And they keep going around and around in circles because they're trying to use whether their surrounding circumstances make it reasonable to determine what the example is telling them is reasonable.

[Keltest]

To you and me, yes. I am sure, if I looked hard enough, I could find somebody who'd say that suggesting mercenaries - nay, anybody who isn't a saint - give coins to a beggar when they wouldn't otherwise is "unreasonable."

The term is subjective, and when you give an example of a supposedly-reasonable suggestion, it needs to be obvious what makes it "reasonable." If you have to make up a scenario that "sounds reasonable" to make it work, you're making a circular argument. It's a bad example.


By it being a circular argument, I mean, "Wait, how do you know that telling him to give his pocket change is what's meant?" "Because that's reasonable." "Well, yeah, but so is telling him to give his entire week's pay that he has on him." "No, it's not!" "How do you know that? The example says you can make him give the beggar all his money!" "That wouldn't be reasonable!" "Why not? The example of an order that works is to give the next beggar he sees all his money. Therefore, it must be reasonable."


And they keep going around and around in circles because they're trying to use whether their surrounding circumstances make it reasonable to determine what the example is telling them is reasonable.

Ok. A mercenary giving up their life's savings (or anybody else for that matter) to a beggar isn't reasonable because it results in destitution and long term hardship for the victim of the spell as an easily foreseeable consequence of carrying it out. Is that a better argument?

[MaxWilson]

"For example, you might suggest that a group of soldiers give all their money to the first beggar they meet."

Is given as an example of a reasonable action in the spell. So what about the point of view that RAI I think we just need to decide what is as reasonable as a hardened merciless soldier of evil giving all his money to a beggar?

I thought that's what we were already talking about, no? It's certainly an example I've had in mind as we discussed e.g. greater evils, treasure maps. If Suggestion basically allows you to implant one delusion/desire and suggest a course of action supporting that, and then the creature acts according to its nature in fulfilling that desire... then hardened evil mercenaries will interpret the suggestion more cruelly than regular soldiers (they may take something from the beggar in exchange--crutches if they are merely brutal and stupid, eyesight if they are very evil indeed--and leave all the money as mockery) and undead wights won't obey it at all.

To me, "the suggestion must be worded to make it sound reasonable" is a roleplaying challenge to the player. Can you suggest a course of action to this monster that would leave it psychologically self-consistent if it carried out out? The same words need not work the same way on all soldiers.

I honestly don't think the PHB writers thought it out that way but that is my ruling, and it's consistent with PHB text.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Ok. A mercenary giving up their life's savings (or anybody else for that matter) to a beggar isn't reasonable because it results in destitution and long term hardship for the victim of the spell as an easily foreseeable consequence of carrying it out. Is that a better argument?

Just to argue. Check this bit of Rules As Intended out from regular boring Suggestions:

"You can also specify conditions that will trigger a special activity during the duration. 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."

Now this knight, a mounted warrior who should be as attached to this Warhorse as a Canine Officer is to his service dog, is going to give a RAW 400GP Warhorse she probably loves as much as a modern Police Officer does his canine partner to the next beggar she meets.

So is it reasonable to say 400GP and giving away something you are bonded with is what counts as RAW/RAI?

[Segev]

Ok. A mercenary giving up their life's savings (or anybody else for that matter) to a beggar isn't reasonable because it results in destitution and long term hardship for the victim of the spell as an easily foreseeable consequence of carrying it out. Is that a better argument?


Just to argue. Check this bit of Rules As Intended out from regular boring Suggestions:

"You can also specify conditions that will trigger a special activity during the duration. 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."

Now this knight, a mounted warrior who should be as attached to this Warhorse as a Canine Officer is to his service dog, is going to give a RAW 400GP Warhorse she probably loves as much as a modern Police Officer does his canine partner to the next beggar she meets.

So is it reasonable to say 400GP and giving away something you are bonded with is what counts as RAW/RAI?

To expand on this by giving a different "for the sake of argument" position:

"No, I agree, a mercenary giving up his life savings to a beggar isn't reasonable because he'd be miserable after having done so and wouldn't get anything out of it. But even asking him to give the money he has on him is unreasonable because it results in him getting nothing and having short-term hardship and destitution, either due to not being able to afford dinner at the tavern, or due to his wife wondering where that money went when he gets home, or just due to having less to buy something he needs tomorrow."

The problem isn't that you can easily say "that's unreasonble." THe problem is that the same line of reasoning can be used to make your "reasonable" idea just as (un)reasonable as something you intend to contrast it with.

[Keltest]

Just to argue. Check this bit of Rules As Intended out from regular boring Suggestions:

"You can also specify conditions that will trigger a special activity during the duration. 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."

Now this knight, a mounted warrior who should be as attached to this Warhorse as a Canine Officer is to his service dog, is going to give a RAW 400GP Warhorse she probably loves as much as a modern Police Officer does his canine partner to the next beggar she meets.

So is it reasonable to say 400GP and giving away something you are bonded with is what counts as RAW/RAI?

If you want to be pedantic, a landed knight would have a stable of horses so that they don't overwork one and accidentally injure it, and so that they aren't completely unable to perform their duties in case something does happen to the warhorse, such as, apparently, a wandering wizard casting suggestion on them to give it away. I would also point out that you are adding extra circumstances to the scenario that aren't present in the text, ie the knight's emotional attachment to this specific warhorse.

[MaxWilson]

Just to argue. Check this bit of Rules As Intended out from regular boring Suggestions:

"You can also specify conditions that will trigger a special activity during the duration. 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."

Now this knight, a mounted warrior who should be as attached to this Warhorse as a Canine Officer is to his service dog, is going to give a RAW 400GP Warhorse she probably loves as much as a modern Police Officer does his canine partner to the next beggar she meets.

So is it reasonable to say 400GP and giving away something you are bonded with is what counts as RAW/RAI?

It depends--how did the player word the suggestion to the knight? That example is illustrating conditional suggestions, not how to word. If you just saw the knight do something shameful like run from an enemy, maybe you could Suggest that he give away his horse as an atonement, but it's up to the player to think of something the DM agrees sounds (superficially) reasonable.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

It depends--how did the player word the suggestion to the knight? That example is illustrating conditional suggestions, not how to word. If you just saw the knight do something shameful like run from an enemy, maybe you could Suggest that he give away his horse as an atonement, but it's up to the player to think of something the DM agrees sounds (superficially) reasonable.

I sorta thing giving the warhorse away is borderline unreasonable. By the RAW/RAI words in the spell description it apparently isn't though. My wife talking me into watching This is Us is apparently a Persuasion check, this is a 2nd or 6th level SPELL effect.

That sounds more complicated than just following the words in the Spell Description and telling the knights to go donate their warhorse(s) to the next beggar(s) they find. Its easily fluffed with something like, "Do a good deed for PR sake's and give your warhorse....."

[MarkVIIIMarc]

If you want to be pedantic, a landed knight would have a stable of horses so that they don't overwork one and accidentally injure it, and so that they aren't completely unable to perform their duties in case something does happen to the warhorse, such as, apparently, a wandering wizard casting suggestion on them to give it away. I would also point out that you are adding extra circumstances to the scenario that aren't present in the text, ie the knight's emotional attachment to this specific warhorse.

That MAY make an actual difference to my ruling when I am the DM so thank you. We may disagree with how the adding extra circumstances. I think reasonable extras are important to consider. The words in the spell description did not say, "give one of your war horses away" but perhaps I'm supposed to know many knights had a couple.

Did armies or companies of knights travel with some extra horses commonly? I guess knights in a castle have access to any extras.

[MaxWilson]

I sorta thing giving the warhorse away is borderline unreasonable. By the RAW/RAI words in the spell description it apparently isn't though. My wife talking me into watching This is Us is apparently a Persuasion check, this is a 2nd or 6th level SPELL effect.

That sounds more complicated than just following the words in the Spell Description and telling the knights to go donate their warhorse(s) to the next beggar(s) they find. Its easily fluffed with something like, "Do a good deed for PR sake's and give your warhorse....."

AFB so I'm quoting from D&D Beyond but I'm confident that it's pretty close to the actual PHB wording:

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.

The target must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, it pursues the course of action you described to the best of its ability. The suggested course of action can continue for the entire duration. If the suggested activity can be completed in a shorter time, the spell ends when the subject finishes what it was asked to do.

You can also specify conditions that will trigger a special activity during the duration. 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.

If you or any of your companions damage the target, the spell ends.

What I'm saying is that nothing in the section on conditional activity removes the requirement to word the request in a manner that makes it sound reasonable. It may or may not be enough to say, "Hey knight, give your warhorse to the first beggar you meet." That's up to the DM. What it is definitely saying is that it's okay to have delayed triggers, and that there are ways to make even costly actions like giving away a warhorse sound reasonable, at least to some knights under some circumstances, so the DM should be generous in what he/she allows. But "the suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable", which means you're going to be doing some roleplaying and trying to get inside the target's head to figure out how to make things sound reasonable to it.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

AFB so I'm quoting from D&D Beyond but I'm confident that it's pretty close to the actual PHB wording:

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.

The target must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, it pursues the course of action you described to the best of its ability. The suggested course of action can continue for the entire duration. If the suggested activity can be completed in a shorter time, the spell ends when the subject finishes what it was asked to do.

You can also specify conditions that will trigger a special activity during the duration. 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.

If you or any of your companions damage the target, the spell ends.

What I'm saying is that nothing in the section on conditional activity removes the requirement to word the request in a manner that makes it sound reasonable. It may or may not be enough to say, "Hey knight, give your warhorse to the first beggar you meet." That's up to the DM. What it is definitely saying is that it's okay to have delayed triggers, and that there are ways to make even costly actions like giving away a warhorse sound reasonable, at least to some knights under some circumstances, so the DM should be generous in what he/she allows. But "the suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable", which means you're going to be doing some roleplaying and trying to get inside the target's head to figure out how to make things sound reasonable to it.

I hear you. And that's why I'm asking. Later I may debate from the opposite point of view just to get all sides of the debate. My DM isn't unfair by any means but we're all pretty nuts & bolts type war gamers at heart so playing this Bard can be challenging.

If you were my DM and I wanted to Suggest or Mass Suggest some knight into giving away their horse what phrasing should I use?

[Hail Tempus]

The way I've seen it done in games, and that I agree with, is that the caster makes an assertion, and follows it up with a required course of action.

For example:

"You can't win this fight, take your weapons and go to your homes."

If a target fails the save, then they have to believe the assertion and, if the proposed course of action is reasonable, they have to follow it. Nothing unreasonable about fleeing from a losing fight,for example.


DMs shouldn't try and overlawyer the spell into ineffectiveness. It's a 6th level spell, it should have a significant impact on encounters.

[Segev]

I hear you. And that's why I'm asking. Later I may debate from the opposite point of view just to get all sides of the debate. My DM isn't unfair by any means but we're all pretty nuts & bolts type war gamers at heart so playing this Bard can be challenging.

If you were my DM and I wanted to Suggest or Mass Suggest some knight into giving away their horse what phrasing should I use?

It would depend on the knight, honestly. I'd expect, if the PCs had never met the individual before, that they'd be making some Intelligence (History) rolls, maybe (INvestigation), and perhaps Wisdom (Insight) to get a read on him. Then, they'd try to use what they found out. Also, conversation.

If, for example, the knight were riding them down because he felt they'd evaded justice, but they keep giving him the slip by setting up ways to waylay him...but he's caught up AGAIN because he's on horseback and they're not?

"You're exhausting us, Sir Verant! That horse must be wonderful; here we are, near helpless without the ability to ride to town, and you keep catching up! Lo, if you see a beggar on the road, he will likely die from his long trek without food or rest. You should give him your steed so he can get to town faster!"

Clunky, I know. But it "sounds reasonable" if you buy the premises.

If the knight is more of a "thrill of the hunt" sort of evil noble, "It can't be very satisfying, you on horseback and us on foot. If you gave your horse away to the nearest beggar, you could chase us on foot."

Part of the reason I have trouble coming up with a good one is simply that I can't think of a good reason to want a knight to give a horse to a beggar.

[MaxWilson]

I hear you. And that's why I'm asking. Later I may debate from the opposite point of view just to get all sides of the debate. My DM isn't unfair by any means but we're all pretty nuts & bolts type war gamers at heart so playing this Bard can be challenging.

If you were my DM and I wanted to Suggest or Mass Suggest some knight into giving away their horse what phrasing should I use?

It depends on circumstances.

As I said in post #26, one possibility, if you know the knight (i.e. he's a friendly NPC and you have some history with him), is "You have shamed yourself by showing cowardice in the face of the enemy. Redeem yourself by showing compassion to the first beggar you meet, and give him your horse." (This relies on having been in a fight or something together where the knight was something other than recklessly aggressive in pursuit of the enemy. If the knight took a dozen opportunity attacks in the last fight I'd judge the suggestion unreasonable and unworkable, but if someone else did most of the tanking, or if the party avoided a fight through negotiation and guile, I'd view this Suggestion as superficially-reasonable and therefore valid.)

If you don't know anything about the knight and you make up something generic, like "Show chivalry and compassion by giving away your horse to the next beggar you meet!" I'd make a judgment call on how likely knights are in this setting to believe in chivalry and compassion, and then roll dice. If it's a scumbag world then it would be an oracle check with disadvantage (need to roll 4-6 on each of 2 dice), if it's a faux-European setting it would just be a straight oracle roll (4-6 on one die).

So you probably don't want to make up something generic because then you're relying on luck. Is this knight alone or leading a group? If he's leading a group, you could try, "Men love leaders who treat them as fellows. Equalize yourself with your men by giving your horse to the next beggar you meet!"

You might also try telling him the horse looks diseased, or cursed. There's probably a dozen other approaches my players would think of but right now that's all I have off the top of my head, without actually being in the situation. If you told me more about the hypothetical knight and the circumstances under which you are hypothetically encountering him I could probably think of some others though.

P.S. Oh yes, you could also play on compassion. "This winter is hard on poor folks and many are perishing for want of food and shelter, some of them not so different from your own old mother. Honor your dear old mother by giving your warhorse to the first indigent old woman you meet, that she may sustain her life."

[MarkVIIIMarc]

It would depend on the knight, honestly. I'd expect, if the PCs had never met the individual before, that they'd be making some Intelligence (History) rolls, maybe (INvestigation), and perhaps Wisdom (Insight) to get a read on him. Then, they'd try to use what they found out. Also, conversation.

If, for example, the knight were riding them down because he felt they'd evaded justice, but they keep giving him the slip by setting up ways to waylay him...but he's caught up AGAIN because he's on horseback and they're not?

"You're exhausting us, Sir Verant! That horse must be wonderful; here we are, near helpless without the ability to ride to town, and you keep catching up! Lo, if you see a beggar on the road, he will likely die from his long trek without food or rest. You should give him your steed so he can get to town faster!"

Clunky, I know. But it "sounds reasonable" if you buy the premises.

If the knight is more of a "thrill of the hunt" sort of evil noble, "It can't be very satisfying, you on horseback and us on foot. If you gave your horse away to the nearest beggar, you could chase us on foot."

Part of the reason I have trouble coming up with a good one is simply that I can't think of a good reason to want a knight to give a horse to a beggar.

lol. That makes sense. My motivation would be mostly to make her and or her friends leave the combat on a day long trek SOMEPLACE else.

[Segev]

lol. That makes sense. My motivation would be mostly to make her and or her friends leave the combat on a day long trek SOMEPLACE else.

Suggesting they give away their horse wouldn't be how I, personally, would do that, especially since the course of action would not require them to go find a beggar right now, but rather to wait until they happened upon one (which isn't now; now they're fighting you).

If they're attacking you, though, maybe, "Hah, now that I've delayed you and drawn you out here, my confederates attacking your home will leave you ruined! You'll have to hurry back there if you want to save everything you love, but I'll keep you here for a bit longer so you can't!"

Now the scenario is pitched as this whole fight being a delaying tactic by you, so the knight will try to disengage and rush back home. you can, of course, "let" them.

[Silly Name]

My general rule in ruling Suggestion spells is to ask myself three questions to determine if the suggestion is reasonable:

1) Does the suggested action cause harm (physical, emotional, monetary) to the target in an obvious way?
2) Does the suggestion action cause some benefit to the target in a way they can understand?
3) Is the suggestion itself based on a believable premise?

For number one, an example could be the bouncer who's refusing to let you into the party. Under normal circumstances, she might accept bribes and thus is ok with letting in uninvited guests - she doesn't find the idea of "let us in even if we are not on the list" to be harmful to her. However, if her employer has found out that she has been allowing in uninvited guests and has threatened to fire her if it ever happens again, our bouncer is now less inclined to allow people not on the list.

The second question is not as important as the first of third, but still quite useful. If the suggested action is worded as to be appear beneficiary to the target, they are more likely to consider it a reasonable idea. "Let us in" is not worded in a way that the bouncer sees herself getting anything out of it. "We have connections with the nobles in town, let us in and we'll recommend you to wealthier clients" is a statement that implies the bouncer gains something from following the suggestion.

Lastly, the believable premise is probably the most important aspect: if the characters look like beggars, covered in mud and dirt, the bouncer is not going to believe they are buddies with the high class. Likewise, a Suggestion aimed at stopping a fight is less likely to work if the target is winning. "We're more trouble than it's worth" won't make sense if you are the last man standing in your party and the enemies outnumber you five to one.

On the other hand, a good starting premise is paramount to making a working Suggestion: look like nobles and the bouncer is likely to believe your tale, start with a display of power and the ambushers can more easily scared into submission.

[Segev]

My general rule in ruling Suggestion spells is to ask myself three questions to determine if the suggestion is reasonable:

1) Does the suggested action cause harm (physical, emotional, monetary) to the target in an obvious way?
2) Does the suggestion action cause some benefit to the target in a way they can understand?
3) Is the suggestion itself based on a believable premise?

For number one, an example could be the bouncer who's refusing to let you into the party. Under normal circumstances, she might accept bribes and thus is ok with letting in uninvited guests - she doesn't find the idea of "let us in even if we are not on the list" to be harmful to her. However, if her employer has found out that she has been allowing in uninvited guests and has threatened to fire her if it ever happens again, our bouncer is now less inclined to allow people not on the list.

The second question is not as important as the first of third, but still quite useful. If the suggested action is worded as to be appear beneficiary to the target, they are more likely to consider it a reasonable idea. "Let us in" is not worded in a way that the bouncer sees herself getting anything out of it. "We have connections with the nobles in town, let us in and we'll recommend you to wealthier clients" is a statement that implies the bouncer gains something from following the suggestion.

Lastly, the believable premise is probably the most important aspect: if the characters look like beggars, covered in mud and dirt, the bouncer is not going to believe they are buddies with the high class. Likewise, a Suggestion aimed at stopping a fight is less likely to work if the target is winning. "We're more trouble than it's worth" won't make sense if you are the last man standing in your party and the enemies outnumber you five to one.

On the other hand, a good starting premise is paramount to making a working Suggestion: look like nobles and the bouncer is likely to believe your tale, start with a display of power and the ambushers can more easily scared into submission.

I am not sure (3) is a good criterion. I mean, it's not 100% bad, as seemingly-obvious flaws to the claim should cause issue. "We're nobles" when they're dressed in rags? Seems unlikely. "I'm your twin sister, and you wouldn't turn your sister away, would you?" is going to fail because the male wizard saying this looks nothing like the bouncer's non-existent twin sister. But at the same time, I think you should be asking more, "Is the suggestion based on a not-unbelievable premise?" because without that, why can't you just roll Charisma(Deception)?

Suggestion, to me, is doing things like making the bouncer accept "We're friends with nobles" without questioning the plausibility, so long as it's not all but obviously untrue. (And you can probably get mileage out of, "We're nobles slumming it.")

[MaxWilson]

On the other hand, a good starting premise is paramount to making a working Suggestion: look like nobles and the bouncer is likely to believe your tale, start with a display of power and the ambushers can more easily scared into submission.

In fact, if your starting premise is good enough, you may not need a Suggestion spell at all, just regular roleplaying.

Suggestion still requires a superficially-reasonable premise, but I think Suggestion is much, much better at getting the target not to think things through very deeply. I would allow things from a Suggestion spell that I would never ever permit based on regular talking no matter how high your Charisma/Deception/Persuasion skill is.

Lore Bard with Glibness and +30 to Persuasion: "Do you have any change? Give me two tens and I'll give you a five."
Victim: "No way, loser."

Lore Bard with Suggestion spell: "Do you have any change? Give me two tens and I'll give you a five."
Victim [failed save]: "Sure, I think I've got two tens."

[Pex]

The whole point of the thread is to find where the line is on what the spell makes seem reasonable. If im a bloodthirsty giant, im certainly not going to abandon a fight I perceive myself to be winning to suddenly go on a treasure hunt, especially if its based on loot I don't have yet from these guys im fighting. You need to give them an actual reason as to why smashing you would be a bad idea, as opposed to one that doesn't affect the outcome either way.

But it's also not the DM's job to find an excuse as to why a player's suggestion doesn't work and thus always fail. The spell specifies what won't work. I won't call those conditions verbatim exclusive, but suggesting the combat end and the bad guys go do something else that's not harmful to them is not even close. It's a glorified Calm Emotions.

[Demonslayer666]

Let's say you were DMing an encounter between the PC's and a party of hostile Giants and the party Bard cast Mass Suggestion with the command, "Defend myself and my party vigorously, we are here to liberate you from the greater evil."
...
How would you as DM have the Giants who failed the save act? Or what would be the expected range of interpretations?

...

I would not have them assume the other hostile giants are the greater evil. It's ambiguous, so they would think, "ok, what's the greater evil we need to be liberated from?", and when the other giants are still hostile (those that made their save), they would defend you, but they would still treat the other giants as allies. They would not attack the other giants outright, but they would likely try and stop them from attacking you by stepping in front of them, or grabbing their arms and impeding their attacks and trying to talk them out of it.

If you wanted to make the giants allies that would help you attack the other giants, you would have to give them a reason they need to attack them, like they are under mind control from a powerful wizard and knocking them out will break the spell, or they were replaced by doppelgangers, or they are enemies hiding under an illusion.

Reasonable courses of action are for Persuasion/Deception, not the Suggestion spell.

The Suggestion spell makes the unbelievable reason to do the suggested course of action believable. It has nothing to do with the course of action (except when it is to harm themselves). All you have to do, by the wording of the spell, is give a reason for the course of action: you should do X because of Y. If Y is not a reason to do X, then it's unreasonable. If Y is impossible, then it's unreasonable. IMO, all you have to do is give a good reason to do something, and they should have to save.

[Segev]

I would not have them assume the other hostile giants are the greater evil. It's ambiguous, so they would think, "ok, what's the greater evil we need to be liberated from?", and when the other giants are still hostile (those that made their save), they would defend you, but they would still treat the other giants as allies. They would not attack the other giants outright, but they would likely try and stop them from attacking you by stepping in front of them, or grabbing their arms and impeding their attacks and trying to talk them out of it.

If you wanted to make the giants allies that would help you attack the other giants, you would have to give them a reason they need to attack them, like they are under mind control from a powerful wizard and knocking them out will break the spell, or they were replaced by doppelgangers, or they are enemies hiding under an illusion.

Reasonable courses of action are for Persuasion/Deception, not the Suggestion spell.

The Suggestion spell makes the unbelievable reason to do the suggested course of action believable. It has nothing to do with the course of action (except when it is to harm themselves). All you have to do, by the wording of the spell, is give a reason for the course of action: you should do X because of Y. If Y is not a reason to do X, then it's unreasonable. If Y is impossible, then it's unreasonable. IMO, all you have to do is give a good reason to do something, and they should have to save.

This is a good way to look at it. In a sense, suggestion is a poor man's geas. It sets a particular task for a relatively limited duration, but you ahve to make the task sound like it is a reasonable course to be taking (assuming the reason backing it up is true, which the spell makes them believe).

"The evil wizard who's body I'm in just swapped all your allies' minds with his party's! You should help us by restraining any of them who keep attacking us!"

Normally, not something the giants would buy. They'd just assume you're lying. But thanks to suggestion, they buy the premise and, under that circumstance, restraining the giants who are still fighting the small folk is a good idea: those giants are clearly the small folk possessing giant bodies.

[MaxWilson]

This is a good way to look at it. In a sense, suggestion is a poor man's geas. It sets a particular task for a relatively limited duration, but you ahve to make the task sound like it is a reasonable course to be taking (assuming the reason backing it up is true, which the spell makes them believe).

"The evil wizard who's body I'm in just swapped all your allies' minds with his party's! You should help us by restraining any of them who keep attacking us!"

Normally, not something the giants would buy. They'd just assume you're lying. But thanks to suggestion, they buy the premise and, under that circumstance, restraining the giants who are still fighting the small folk is a good idea: those giants are clearly the small folk possessing giant bodies.

Yeah, I think I'd buy this one. I'm sure it would be a little bit more polished in play, perhaps with a reference to a specific known powerful NPC wizard.

[Segev]

Yeah, I think I'd buy this one. I'm sure it would be a little bit more polished in play, perhaps with a reference to a specific known powerful NPC wizard.

In this case, it's whoever the PC casting suggestion is. Because he's the one suggesting that the giants side with him and his allies on the premise that he (the wizard who's now speaking) is now possessing one of the giants' allies, and the person in the body that's speaking is really one of the giants.

[MaxWilson]

In this case, it's whoever the PC casting suggestion is. Because he's the one suggesting that the giants side with him and his allies on the premise that he (the wizard who's now speaking) is now possessing one of the giants' allies, and the person in the body that's speaking is really one of the giants.

Wait. Then in that case I don't buy it, because it doesn't make any sense. If everyone swapped minds, then the fire giants are now shrimpy humanoids, and there's nothing suspicious if shrimpy humanoids continue trying to kill noble giants--if anything it will just redouble the determination of the Fire Giants to prevent humans from damaging noble Giant bodies lest they never get them back.

The suggestion needs more work, and I would point that out to the player. "If I the real-life DM can't figure out what you're trying to portray, the Fire Giants can't either."

[Segev]

Wait. Then in that case I don't buy it, because it doesn't make any sense. If everyone swapped minds, then the fire giants are now shrimpy humanoids, and there's nothing suspicious if shrimpy humanoids continue trying to kill noble giants--if anything it will just redouble the determination of the Fire Giants to prevent humans from damaging noble Giant bodies lest they never get them back.

The suggestion needs more work, and I would point that out to the player. "If I the real-life DM can't figure out what you're trying to portray, the Fire Giants can't either."

Okay. 1) I'm assuming the giants outnumber the humanoids.

2) The implicit claim is that none of the little humanoids are still in their bodies, and that all the humanoid bodies now have giants in them. Conversely, some of the giants have humanoids possessing them. Less implicit is the assertion that you can tell which giants are actually possessed by humanoids by the fact that they're still attacking the humanoid bodies (because "obviously" real giants wouldn't be attacking their friends and fellow giants who are stuck in humanoid bodies).

3) The suggestion is thus, then, for those giants who buy this story (i.e. those who fail the save) to stop the giants who "are obviously possessed" (i.e. who did make the save and demonstrate this by continuing to attack the humanoids) from killing the "giants" who are supposedly trapped in the humanoid bodies.


Desired result from an objective standpoint: giants who fail the save vs. mass suggestion will restrain giants who do not fail the save, or at least attempt to, while the humanoid party tries to get by or otherwise work out a truce.

From the viewpoint of the giants who fail the save: "That little wizard just swapped the minds of all his group with some of my friends! My friends are now trapped in those bodies! I don't want them hurt! I should stop the evil humanoids that are possessing some of my friends' bodies from hurting my friends, who are trapped in teh humanoid bodies!"

[MaxWilson]

Okay. 1) I'm assuming the giants outnumber the humanoids.

Wow, that's quite some encounter then. Half a dozen Fire Giants is a force to be reckoned with even for 20th level PCs. I'm not personally opposed to very tough encounters, mind you**, but my sense of GITP is that most groups aren't willing to go Deadly x3, which is what 6 Fire Giants would be for a 13th level party, so you're talking a pretty unusual playstyle. (Which is fine but I want to state it explicitly for the record.)

I would have no hesitation about introducing a community of several hundred Fire Giants into my game, for example, which raises the possibility of players winding up surrounded by dozens of Fire Giants at some point. One of the nice things about this is that players will automatically realize that the DM doesn't expect them to fight their way through, and they'll be more willing to talk/negotiate/play dirty than if they just randomly happened across a couple of Fire Giants at high level.

2) The implicit claim is that none of the little humanoids are still in their bodies, and that all the humanoid bodies now have giants in them. Conversely, some of the giants have humanoids possessing them. Less implicit is the assertion that you can tell which giants are actually possessed by humanoids by the fact that they're still attacking the humanoid bodies (because "obviously" real giants wouldn't be attacking their friends and fellow giants who are stuck in humanoid bodies).

3) The suggestion is thus, then, for those giants who buy this story (i.e. those who fail the save) to stop the giants who "are obviously possessed" (i.e. who did make the save and demonstrate this by continuing to attack the humanoids) from killing the "giants" who are supposedly trapped in the humanoid bodies.

Desired result from an objective standpoint: giants who fail the save vs. mass suggestion will restrain giants who do not fail the save, or at least attempt to, while the humanoid party tries to get by or otherwise work out a truce.

From the viewpoint of the giants who fail the save: "That little wizard just swapped the minds of all his group with some of my friends! My friends are now trapped in those bodies! I don't want them hurt! I should stop the evil humanoids that are possessing some of my friends' bodies from hurting my friends, who are trapped in teh humanoid bodies!"

My response: "Could you please rephrase your suggestion to be clearer? These giants need to instantly understand what you're suggesting without reading several paragraphs of text about implicit claims."

In principle I would buy this general idea of blaming magic, but the way you've tied it to body-swapping makes it too complicated to instantly grasp, and IMO that makes it too complicated to be a valid Suggestion.

TL;DR I think this Suggestion is like "write-only" C++ code: not as easy to follow as the original author assumes when he/she first writes it. Giants won't respond to it the way you think they will.

P.S. Also the suggestion given was about "all of your allies' minds" which doesn't fit with giants outnumbering the humans.

"The evil wizard who's body I'm in just swapped all your allies' minds with his party's! You should help us by restraining any of them who keep attacking us!" And who is "us" supposed to be? Clearly not "your allies" or "your allies" wouldn't be in third person.

[JackPhoenix]

One potentially important note: bog-standard Fire Giant don't understand common. Which, beyond the possibility of making the Suggestion fail, may also cause a problem with the specific Suggestion mentioned, as the alleged giants-in-humanoid-bodies would be able to communicate with the affected giants if the claim was true. And I think it's somewhat unlikely all the PCs speak Giant... or know the giant's names which would also be an easy way to disprove the claim.

[Segev]

One potentially important note: bog-standard Fire Giant don't understand common. Which, beyond the possibility of making the Suggestion fail, may also cause a problem with the specific Suggestion mentioned, as the alleged giants-in-humanoid-bodies would be able to communicate with the affected giants if the claim was true. And I think it's somewhat unlikely all the PCs speak Giant... or know the giant's names which would also be an easy way to disprove the claim.

Eh, I'm not going to push it when it has confused people so badly as to the intent. It probably wasn't as good as I initially thought.

That said, "easy-to-disprove" is not the same as "patently obviously false," and I would allow suggestion to work with the former, though not the latter. Once they've got the course of action stuck in their minds and accepted as "reasonable," they're just not heeding contrary (even if objectively true) facts. Maybe, if the situation's right, I'd allow it to break, but I probably wouldn't do it mid-combat. Too much going on, too little brain to focus on reasoning out flaws in the magically-imposed rationale.

[MaxWilson]

One potentially important note: bog-standard Fire Giant don't understand common. Which, beyond the possibility of making the Suggestion fail, may also cause a problem with the specific Suggestion mentioned, as the alleged giants-in-humanoid-bodies would be able to communicate with the affected giants if the claim was true. And I think it's somewhat unlikely all the PCs speak Giant... or know the giant's names which would also be an easy way to disprove the claim.

That's one reason I'm so willing to roll with Mass Suggestion being potentially powerful, as long as the player makes a specific reasonable suggestion--there's a good chance unforeseen difficulties will arise if the Suggestion is taken seriously. : )

For giants who have already failed their save and accepted the Suggestion, I wouldn't make "disprove the claim" a danger, but I would certainly expect Fire Giants to jump to additional, incorrect conclusions if additional evidence is provided. If Fengar attacks Tiny Human #1 and Boswick tries to intervene, Fengar may howl, "Boswick, is that you? It's me, Fengar! I'm still me!" If Tiny Human #1 shouts back, "No, I'm Fengar!" Boswick will probably still keep believing Fengar is possessed, but otherwise he may conclude that Fengar resisted the magic and shout, "Brothers! This tiny human is an enemy!" leading to focus fire on the known enemy.

So, it helps if you are prepared to support the Suggestion in other ways via roleplaying.

[NaughtyTiger]

The suggestion doesn't have to be reasonable.

It has to sound reasonable.


considering "calm emotions" can turn an entire group from hostile to indifferent at 2nd level, suggestion should definitely make a fire giant non-hostile

[MaxWilson]

The suggestion doesn't have to be reasonable.

It has to sound reasonable.

considering "calm emotions" can turn an entire group from hostile to indifferent at 2nd level, suggestion should definitely make a fire giant non-hostile

Aside: Calm Emotions would be a lot better if it worked on non-humanoids and if it didn't break so easily ("ends if it witnesses one of its friends being harmed" = doesn't really work on large groups unless PCs are breaking contact and running away). Between those two restrictions it's very, very niche.

Overall Calm Emotions is not really comparable to Suggestion.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

The Fire Giant posts have taught me a couple things.

- Try to make the suggestion relevant to what is going on.

- Keep it simple where as long as the DM doesn't think you've gone too far folks don't stand about confused.

Oh, I have a good one.

"Walk for twelve hours west of here and spend the next twelve hours doing math equations."

[BurgerBeast]

The suggestion doesn't have to be reasonable.

It has to sound reasonable.


considering "calm emotions" can turn an entire group from hostile to indifferent at 2nd level, suggestion should definitely make a fire giant non-hostile

Yes. Thank you. It has to sound reasonable.

To anyone who is insisting that the suggestion must be reasonable: what is the spell for?

Surely a reasonable suggestion stands a chance of being followed precisely because it’s reasonable. I wouldn’t even require a persuasion check. If it sounded a little fishy or possibly unreasonable, I’d allow a persuasion check to convince them. The use of a spell ought to do even more than an ability check.

It’s a magical charm. Start by asking what you could persuade your drunken friend into considering as reasonable, and then take it a little further, because magic.

[MaxWilson]

To anyone who is insisting that the suggestion must be reasonable: what is the spell for?

Your tone suggests you're trying to persuade someone specific, but you're arguing a non-controversial point AFAIK. The controversy in this thread has been about other things.

[NaughtyTiger]

Your tone suggests you're trying to persuade someone specific, but you're arguing a non-controversial point AFAIK. The controversy in this thread has been about other things.

maybe it is an interpretation then, because I read posts (including one of yours) that the suggestion must be reasonable; and that is determined by the target considering all the options.

to me the controversy is whether a suggestion must:
actually be reasonable (given xyz), or
sound reasonable if one doesn't think too hard about it

[MaxWilson]

maybe it is an interpretation then, because I read posts (including one of yours) that the suggestion must be reasonable; and that is determined by the target considering all the options.

to me the controversy is whether a suggestion must:
actually be reasonable (given xyz), or
sound reasonable if one doesn't think too hard about it

It's funny you interpret me this way because I've said just the opposite, over and over again.

It has to sound *superficially* reasonable.

Do a search for how many times I've said "superficially" in this thread. See my example about trading two tens for a five. Etc.

So I think you're trying to persuade people to believe something they already believe.

[NaughtyTiger]

It's funny you interpret me this way because I've said just the opposite, over and over again.

yeah, i reread the #33, and realized i misinterpreted your statement

then what is the controversy in this thread?

[MaxWilson]

yeah, i reread the #33, and realized i misinterpreted your statement

then what is the controversy in this thread?

AFAICT, it's mostly a question of where individual DMs draw the line. Basically OP is just polling for data on what he can expect, and how to maximize his chances of sounding just reasonable enough.

[NaughtyTiger]

AFAICT, it's mostly a question of where individual DMs draw the line. Basically OP is just polling for data on what he can expect, and how to maximize his chances of sounding just reasonable enough.

then we are just going in circles...
some folks stated that the suggestion had to be reasonable given rational thought, and discounted the examples given as unreasonable. the comments were directed at them.

[BurgerBeast]

Your tone suggests you're trying to persuade someone specific, but you're arguing a non-controversial point AFAIK. The controversy in this thread has been about other things.

I didn’t have anyone specific in mind, but I did read the thread. Within the first ten posts, there are at least three posts to which my comments apply. People are using “reasonable” as the measuring stick for determining whether the spell will work.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I didn’t have anyone specific in mind, but I did read the thread. Within the first ten posts, there are at least three posts to which my comments apply. People are using “reasonable” as the measuring stick for determining whether the spell will work.

What were your thoughts on the reasonableness of the two examples used in the descriptions of Suggestion and Mass Suggestion?

[BurgerBeast]

What were your thoughts on the reasonableness of the two examples used in the descriptions of Suggestion and Mass Suggestion?

Yes. Exactly.

Consider these scenarios in which no spells are cast. If the PCs asked a knight to give his warhorse to the first beggar he meets, I’d say that is decidedly unreasonable. In other words, I would not let it auto-succeed. I would probably not even give it a DC. It would auto-fail.

Yet, in the context of the spell, this is an example of something that sounds reasonable.

That’s the power of the spell.

So we know that reasonable is not the right metric. The spell obviously is powerful enough to cause someone to give up all of their wealth (in the case of mass suggetion) or a very prized possession (a knight’s warhorse is no small sacrifice).

But we also know self-harm is not something that “sounds reasonable” in the context of the spell.

Between those, there is a lot of possibility. That’s why I’m surprised that “lay down your weapons” is being considered conclusive in either direction. It’s up to the DM.

Hence why I suggested a drunken friend as a starting point. It offers some context for a person, under and mind-altering influence, considering unreasonable suggestions to sound reasonable. I would expect a magical effect to be stronger than alcohol.

[JackPhoenix]

Yes. Exactly.

Consider these scenarios in which no spells are cast. If the PCs asked a knight to give his warhorse to the first beggar he meets, I’d say that is decidedly unreasonable. In other words, I would not let it auto-succeed. I would probably not even give it a DC. It would auto-fail.

Yet, in the context of the spell, this is an example of something that sounds reasonable.

That’s the power of the spell.

So we know that reasonable is not the right metric. The spell obviously is powerful enough to cause someone to give up all of their wealth (in the case of mass suggetion) or a very prized possession (a knight’s warhorse is no small sacrifice).

But we also know self-harm is not something that “sounds reasonable” in the context of the spell.

Between those, there is a lot of possibility. That’s why I’m surprised that “lay down your weapons” is being considered conclusive in either direction. It’s up to the DM.

Hence why I suggested a drunken friend as a starting point. It offers some context for a person, under and mind-altering influence, considering unreasonable suggestions to sound reasonable. I would expect a magical effect to be stronger than alcohol.

That's the thing: The example lacks any context, and it's not an example of what counts as reasonable, but an example of suggestion triggered by external conditions. It doesn't say if that suggestion works on every single knight in existence, or if it's limited to a single specific knight who wouldn't find the idea of giving his horse to a beggar (perhaps in specific circumstances not mentioned in the text) unreasonable.

[Segev]

That's the thing: The example lacks any context, and it's not an example of what counts as reasonable, but an example of suggestion triggered by external conditions. It doesn't say if that suggestion works on every single knight in existence, or if it's limited to a single specific knight who wouldn't find the idea of giving his horse to a beggar (perhaps in specific circumstances not mentioned in the text) unreasonable.

Indeed, it kind-of strikes me, on examination, as similar to the examples for Trick Shot in Dreamscarred Press's Ultimate Psionics. That Talent lets you describe a 10-word-or-less stunt that you pull off with a projectile, and it does it. The examples given explicitly state that they're wordier than the actual 10-word description would be in order to illustrate in detail what the power can do.

I'm thinking that the examples for suggestion and mass suggestion are not examples of how they were worded, but end results they can lead to. You can make a suggestion that will result in a knight giving his horse to the first beggar he seems [assuming you phrase it so that it sounds reasonable].