Ruling on SUGGESTION ?

[da newt]

At the end of our last session my party was in a temple and we were attacked by many YuanTi. Like a good tank, I'm blocking the entrance (door cannot be closed). After the third attempt, my PC failed to save against a SUGGESTION spell to "go bathe in the river until midnight." There are ~ a dozen YuanTi between the Temple door and the outer gate. There is no way to go around the YuanTi without passing through their Op ATT range. They are blocking the outer gate/entrance, but I could climb the perimeter wall.

So what can my PC do? What can't he do?

He is compelled to move towards the river - but he still views all the YuanTi as enemies (right?).

Would he wade into the bad guys to hack his way to the river? Is he compelled to ignore the enemy and walk like a zombie in a direct path toward the river without attacking or protecting himself? Is he compelled to move as expeditiously as possible to the river but still protect himself from harm as best he can (disengage, dodge, etc)?

What is RAW and/or how should you rule as DM?

[Hellpyre]

Is your PC aware of the other Yuan-Ti and the danger of passing them by? If so, the clause
Asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act ends the spell. may cause the effect to simply fail. Otherwise you will take damage from one attack and then have the spell end, as per the final sentence
If you or any of your companions damage the target, the spell ends.

[da newt]

Is your PC aware of the other Yuan-Ti and the danger of passing them by?

- Yes. They are in the open, a few within 10', they have all attacked first round of combat (bow or suggestion), and I OpAtt-ed one (PAM).

Also - yes I hope one of them will attack my PC, but they all heard the SUGGESTION and are YuanTi so they know how it works, so that would be an exceptionally foolish decision for them to make.

[Amnestic]

Would he wade into the bad guys to hack his way to the river? Is he compelled to ignore the enemy and walk like a zombie in a direct path toward the river without attacking or protecting himself? Is he compelled to move as expeditiously as possible to the river but still protect himself from harm as best he can (disengage, dodge, etc)?

What is RAW and/or how should you rule as DM?

I would expect the character to either Dash or Disengage/Dodge while moving along the shortest possible route to the destination - more likely the former than the latter. I would not accept them being able to attack the enemy to get through them. Nor would I accept the idea that passing by the hostiles without attacking them counts as the sort of 'obvious harm' that the spell mentions.

The Suggestion has crowd controlled you out of the fight, same as Hold Person would do. Fixwise you're reliant on allies either spending an action on trying to hit you or on breaking the Concentration of the enemy.

[Segev]

This is one of those things where the DM can have the other NPCs make this work or fail. If you have to fight through them, then you can and probably should to follow that suggestion.

If, on the other hand, the yuan-ti, having heard the suggestion, step aside for you and gesture you on towards the pool, there is no reason for you not to accept their generous offer and go peacefully. The pool and bathing in it is the most important thing, provided you’re not obviously committing immediate self-harm to do so.

[Tanarii]

Spell fails.

That happens with most attempted uses of Suggestion in combat, because they're often obviously harmful. Even suggestions to flee, because fleeing in 5e D&D is usually a death sentence.

[Mr Adventurer]

Spell fails.

That happens with most attempted uses of Suggestion in combat, because they're often obviously harmful. Even suggestions to flee, because fleeing in 5e D&D is usually a death sentence.

This is a bad interpretation.

[Segev]

Spell fails.

That happens with most attempted uses of Suggestion in combat, because they're often obviously harmful. Even suggestions to flee, because fleeing in 5e D&D is usually a death sentence.

Again, this is heavily dependent on the way the allies of the one casting the spell act. If they make the suggested course of action not require you to hurl yourself into more danger than you’re already in, then it should work just fine.

A suggestion to flee should work as long as nobody takes pot shots at you that you would otherwise not be vulnerable to.

The suggestion to bathe in the pool may not be useful of the yuan-ti keep fighting you; you aren’t going to strip and bathe while enemies are threatening you but you might fight to secure the pool for your bath. (It is not immediately self-harmful because you already were fighting them; it just shifts your priorities.) if they openly invite you and act non threatening if you go in, then there’s no reason the suggestion is suicidal.

[sithlordnergal]

Spell fails.

That happens with most attempted uses of Suggestion in combat, because they're often obviously harmful. Even suggestions to flee, because fleeing in 5e D&D is usually a death sentence.

Not at all, if you cast Suggestion on someone and told them to "Run away as far as you can to save yourself", that's certainly not a death sentence. And its more than reasonable if you're watching a group slaughter your allies.


As to the OP, how does your DM rule Suggestion when players cast it? Does your DM rule it favorably towards the players? I.E. could you use Suggestion to get an enemy to surrender/flee from combat? If yes, then follow those guidelines and head over to the pool for a bath.

[JellyPooga]

Spell fails.

That happens with most attempted uses of Suggestion in combat, because they're often obviously harmful. Even suggestions to flee, because fleeing in 5e D&D is usually a death sentence.


Again, this is heavily dependent on the way the allies of the one casting the spell act. If they make the suggested course of action not require you to hurl yourself into more danger than you’re already in, then it should work just fine.

A suggestion to flee should work as long as nobody takes pot shots at you that you would otherwise not be vulnerable to.

The suggestion to bathe in the pool may not be useful of the yuan-ti keep fighting you; you aren’t going to strip and bathe while enemies are threatening you but you might fight to secure the pool for your bath. (It is not immediately self-harmful because you already were fighting them; it just shifts your priorities.) if they openly invite you and act non threatening if you go in, then there’s no reason the suggestion is suicidal.

I tend to agree with Tanarii on this one; most in-combat Suggestions should, as a rule, fail because they are usually obviously harmful or directly lead to harm. Suggestion doesn't take away control of a character, per se, it merely reduces their agency of choice (i.e. in most cases a Suggestion victim can still choose how they do something, just not what they achieve by their actions). I do, however, agree with Segev that the context of the Suggestion takes priority.

[patchyman]

Spell fails.

That happens with most attempted uses of Suggestion in combat, because they're often obviously harmful. Even suggestions to flee, because fleeing in 5e D&D is usually a death sentence.

Disagree. “If you flee now, we won’t pursue. Remain and we will show no mercy” is a perfectly cromulent and reasonable suggestion.

[Amnestic]

I tend to agree with Tanarii on this one; most in-combat Suggestions should, as a rule, fail because they are usually obviously harmful or directly lead to harm. Suggestion doesn't take away control of a character, per se, it merely reduces their agency of choice (i.e. in most cases a Suggestion victim can still choose how they do something, just not what they achieve by their actions). I do, however, agree with Segev that the context of the Suggestion takes priority.

Personally the fact that all the 'obviously harmful' examples in the spell description are causing you direct harm says - to me, at least - that the example in the OP wouldn't qualify. You're telling him to take a bath. That's not "obviously harmful", unless you're allergic to water.

DMs mileage may vary, of course.

I see it that if you start arguing for possible harm as a result of suggestion then the spell is probably never going to work, ever, because one could probably conjure up some possible harm caused (be it physical, emotional, monetary, etc.) from any Suggestion example that is made, even ones suggesting a course of action they already intended to make. The spell doesn't specify what type of harm needs to be caused.

To enforce my point:


Disagree. “If you flee now, we won’t pursue. Remain and we will show no mercy” is a perfectly cromulent and reasonable suggestion.

This suggestion leaves your friends a man down, possibly leading to their deaths. The guilt of this would cause you immeasureable harm, along with leaving you vulnerable to attacks(!) later on since you're on your own. Therefore, if you take Suggestion as avoiding possible harm, this Suggestion fails.

I don't think it should, but that's how I'd justify it. And I think that's silly.

[Tanarii]

I do, however, agree with Segev that the context of the Suggestion takes priority.
Me too. It's just that most suggestions for combat-use Suggestion I see online, and have had proposed by players, don't make it over the hurdle.

[SpanielBear]

Me too. It's just that most suggestions for combat-use Suggestion I see online, and have had proposed by players, don't make it over the hurdle.

“Throwing your axe always works.”

To get an orc to use their great axe as an improvised throwing weapon, not a horrifying close combat one.

They still have a knife, after all.

EDIT: Our DM allowed it, but mileage may vary.

[Xetheral]

Spell fails.

That happens with most attempted uses of Suggestion in combat, because they're often obviously harmful. Even suggestions to flee, because fleeing in 5e D&D is usually a death sentence.

I'm on board with this for balance reasons. If Suggestion can be used to take an enemy completely out of a fight it becomes similarly effective to Banishment, which is a fourth-level spell (and one of the stronger fourth-level spells at that).

Worse still is if a table lets Suggestion force an enemy to change sides, with suggestions like "Your only chance of survival is to abandon your friends and fight for us". If that's permitted, Suggestion instantly becomes the second-best CC spell in the game, second only to the concentration-free Mass Suggestion.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I'm on board with this for balance reasons. If Suggestion can be used to take an enemy completely out of a fight it becomes similarly effective to Banishment, which is a fourth-level spell (and one of the stronger fourth-level spells at that).


Banishment works on creatures immune to Charm effects...Suggestion does not.

[No brains]

Between the needs of being 'reasonable' and needing to avoid 'obvious harm', I have trouble ruling suggestions. For me, the player should at least give a good Looney Tunes sell to explain why a Suggestion sounds reasonable and the magic keeps the gag going. The onus is on the suggester to make the suggestion sound reasonable, all the magic does is prioritize that reasoning to the suggestee.

The most we have to go on is that the book's example suggestion. Apparently a knight can be convinced to give up a 400gp warhorse to a beggar. I have... so many problems with that particular example, but that's the guideline. I'm inclined to think that is the most you could ever get away with, but other DMs might see it as a middle of the road.

[JellyPooga]

Banishment works on creatures immune to Charm effects...Suggestion does not.

That's...barely even worth a single level reduction, let alone two. Contrary to popular and over-permissive belief, Suggestion really does have some very stringent restrictions on its use. Much like Bestow Curse, it's a spell that is potentially very flexible, but it absolutely must be considered that it should not replicate the effect of other spells and a player should not be allowed to run rampant with it just because the GM subscribes to a "never say no" style of running games.

I'm not saying it's a worthless spell by any means, only that GMs must be careful and be prepared to draw the line on both how they use it and how they allow their players to use it. It's the "adamantine door" problem; anything you use against your players can and will be used and abused against you/your campaign. A concept that works both ways; if, as a GM, you permit your players to use a spell a certain way, they should expect and you must be willing to allow NPCs to use it that way too. Two-way streets, double-edged swords, the light at the end of the tunnel being a flamethrower...and all that.

@Amnestic: The context of a Suggestion is at least as important as the wording of it. In the case of the OP, taking a bath in a blissful limpid pool with some accomodating water nymphs is very much a different proposition to making your way through a gate guarded by known hostiles to take said bath.

[Xetheral]

Banishment works on creatures immune to Charm effects...Suggestion does not.

And Suggestion lasts 8 hours instead of 1 minute, and has additional out-of-combat utility that Banishment lacks. I said "similarly effective" because of these differences, but even once you start comparing the details, Suggestion holds up quite favorably despite being only a second level spell.

I'd rather use Tanarii's interpretation that leaves Suggestion's awesome out of combat utility intact while preventing it from also having combat utility comparable to one of the best fourth level spells.

[Segev]

For a good example that I think ... is questionable on the "suicidal" front but not if you consider the character:

In my ToA game, the half-orc barbarian is always having to be restrained (verbally, at least) by the rest of the party to keep from using violence as the first solution to any problem, and is likely to break stealth and charge, or similar behaviors. The yuan-ti used a suggestion of "You'd better chase me down before I get away" and turned and ran, leaving the half-orc to run through his allies and come after him, and possibly have more break off to surround the half-orc.

"Obviously harmful" in that it's tactically unwise, but this isn't exactly outside the wheelhouse of that particular barbarian.



In general, I would agree that any order to disarm yourself (especially stripping off armor or the like) is unreasonable during combat. However, a suggestion to surrender might work, especially if the enemies promise to let them live and don't have an immediately obvious tendency to renege on this clemency. ("They might" isn't good enough; people surrender to enemies of marginal trustworthiness all the time.)

Certainly, I think a suggestion to flee has to be allowable unless it's clear they'll be chased down and killed if they don't stand and fight. Yes, it abandons their allies, but that is not "throwing yourself on a spear" or the like. The example in the spell itself is of a knight being told to give his horse to the first beggar he sees. This is immensely harmful, financially, and hurts his survival chances indirectly. But it isn't immediately harmful.

[Tanarii]

("They might" isn't good enough; people surrender to enemies of marginal trustworthiness all the time.)
In D&D? My experience is a DM has to make it explicit to players that massacring surrendering enemies will result in the same the other direction if it becomes known. And the PCs have to be in situations where they need to surrender and realize it. And their enemies have to be enemies reasonably known to accept surrender. And in the other direction, when accepting surrender the PCs have to have reasonable cause to trust those kinds of enemies to honor their parole, because they usually take the time to herd them back to civilization as prisoners of war.

It's doable. But you have to retrain players from years of gaming experience (both tabletop and video) first.

[Segev]

In D&D? My experience is a DM has to make it explicit to players that massacring surrendering enemies will result in the same the other direction if it becomes known. And the PCs have to be in situations where they need to surrender and realize it. And their enemies have to be enemies reasonably known to accept surrender. And in the other direction, when accepting surrender the PCs have to have reasonable cause to trust those kinds of enemies to honor their parole, because they usually take the time to herd them back to civilization as prisoners of war.

It's doable. But you have to retrain players from years of gaming experience (both tabletop and video) first.

That is a problem, yeah. One thing I try to do - though I am still bad at it - is have there be an objective other than the death of the enemy for both sides of a fight. It doesn't always work out.

[Keravath]

Spell fails.

That happens with most attempted uses of Suggestion in combat, because they're often obviously harmful. Even suggestions to flee, because fleeing in 5e D&D is usually a death sentence.

I'm just curious but have you never played in a game where either the NPCs or PCs decide to flee and thus survive the encounter? In general, in both the games I run and the ones I have played, fleeing is often a viable option in many situations either for the players if they get in over their head or for the NPCs if things appear to be going sideways. In both the campaigns I am currently running I have had NPCs decide to flee and survive so I completely disagree with "usually a death sentence" to the extent that it would cause a Suggestion spell to automatically fail.

The only reason I can think of to make a ruling like this is because a DM hates suggestion and wants to nerf its use into the ground making it useless in combat situations. If a DM wants to do that, I find it better to just discuss it with the player and tell them "Suggestion won't work in combat because as DM I will always rule it impossible for you to come up with any reasonable suggestion that doesn't amount to a death sentence so it will always fail so don't take it."

[Xetheral]

Certainly, I think a suggestion to flee has to be allowable unless it's clear they'll be chased down and killed if they don't stand and fight. Yes, it abandons their allies, but that is not "throwing yourself on a spear" or the like. The example in the spell itself is of a knight being told to give his horse to the first beggar he sees. This is immensely harmful, financially, and hurts his survival chances indirectly. But it isn't immediately harmful.

Out of curiosity, reagrdless of RAW, do you think it's good for the table to let a 2nd level spell take an enemy out of the combat (actually, all combats for up to 8 hours) with no follow-up save? That would seem to make it, by far, the best 2nd level spell in the game. As described above, there is no other CC that hard until fourth level spells.

[sithlordnergal]

Out of curiosity, reagrdless of RAW, do you think it's good for the table to let a 2nd level spell take an enemy out of the combat (actually, all combats for up to 8 hours) with no follow-up save? That would seem to make it, by far, the best 2nd level spell in the game. As described above, there is no other CC that hard until fourth level spells.

Well, some 2nd level spells are a bit weird. Phantasmal Force is in a similar position where it is incredibly powerful for a 2nd level spell when its in the hands of a creative player.

Heck, Phantasmal Force is even worse since it gives a specific example of a creature falling through the illusion of a bridge and thinking the wind blew them off or they slipped, with the implication that they'd go back up and try to cross again.

[Segev]

Out of curiosity, reagrdless of RAW, do you think it's good for the table to let a 2nd level spell take an enemy out of the combat (actually, all combats for up to 8 hours) with no follow-up save? That would seem to make it, by far, the best 2nd level spell in the game. As described above, there is no other CC that hard until fourth level spells.

Concentration duration, so you're not doing anything but keeping that enemy out of combat, and you're certainly not repeating the performance.

If the argument is that suggestion is too powerful, that's one thing. I actually think Tasha's hideous laughter is far, FAR too powerful, but...it is what it is.

[Amnestic]

Out of curiosity, reagrdless of RAW, do you think it's good for the table to let a 2nd level spell take an enemy out of the combat (actually, all combats for up to 8 hours) with no follow-up save? That would seem to make it, by far, the best 2nd level spell in the game. As described above, there is no other CC that hard until fourth level spells.

Most CC doesn't require the target to be able to hear and understand you, and break on any damage.

Hold Person takes the enemy 'out of combat', gives you auto-crits and advantage and doesn't break on damage.

Levitate can be an effective CC with only a single save if the enemy has no ranged attacks. Ditto for Earthbind.

[sithlordnergal]

If the argument is that suggestion is too powerful, that's one thing. I actually think Tasha's hideous laughter is far, FAR too powerful, but...it is what it is.

Oh yeah, if you wanna talk about OP low level spells, Tasha's Hideous Laughter is the worst offender. Its like a level one Hold Monster, because the only restriction is an Intelligence of 5 or more. Which means most creatures outside of Beasts and Zombies will be effected by it. Heck, it affects a majority of Undead.

It isn't a Charm, so immunities and resistance won't work against it, its effects are separate from each other so even if a creature is immune to prone or incapacitated they're still hit by the other half, and the save is at the end of a turn. Meaning even if the target saves, they're still prone for an entire round.

Hideous Laughter is one of those spells where it'll be useful at level 1 and retain its use at level 20

[Tanarii]

I'm just curious but have you never played in a game where either the NPCs or PCs decide to flee and thus survive the encounter?
Lots. Because I made a special "party flees" rule to allow them to do it on an initiative count other than the first PC after the monsters.

By the normal combat rules, the enemy has no chance if they don't flee right away, or encounter circumstances are very unusual. Players also have to decide pretty early on, or have whittled down the enemy. If they wait until things start to go sideways they're probably dead.

[Pex]

And Suggestion lasts 8 hours instead of 1 minute, and has additional out-of-combat utility that Banishment lacks. I said "similarly effective" because of these differences, but even once you start comparing the details, Suggestion holds up quite favorably despite being only a second level spell.

I'd rather use Tanarii's interpretation that leaves Suggestion's awesome out of combat utility intact while preventing it from also having combat utility comparable to one of the best fourth level spells.

As opposed to Hold Person giving everyone advantage and critical hits against the victim?

This is the problem with Suggestion and illusion spells. DMs are so afraid players are getting away with something they take the harshest interpretation to make the spell useless. Just ban the spell already and save everyone the aggravation. Alternatively, stop playing against your players and play with them.

[Xetheral]

As opposed to Hold Person giving everyone advantage and critical hits against the victim?

This is the problem with Suggestion and illusion spells. DMs are so afraid players are getting away with something they take the harshest interpretation to make the spell useless. Just ban the spell already and save everyone the aggravation. Alternatively, stop playing against your players and play with them.

Hold Person gives a save every round. Suggestion gives a single save, and then lasts for 8 hours. Both require concentration. Suggestion is already one of the best out-of-combat spells in the entire game. Removing its ability to also be the best (or among the best) CC in the game isn't making the spell useless--it's letting other concentration spells of the same level have a chance to shine too. And I don't see how my preference for keeping Suggestion as mostly an out-of-combat spell is any way playing against my players. (To be clear: how I handle Suggestion is in my campaign documentation, so there are no surprises at my table.)


Most CC doesn't require the target to be able to hear and understand you, and break on any damage.

Hold Person takes the enemy 'out of combat', gives you auto-crits and advantage and doesn't break on damage.

Levitate can be an effective CC with only a single save if the enemy has no ranged attacks. Ditto for Earthbind.

Hold Person allows repeat saves. You have a good point with Levitate though--it can indeed be quite powerful, although as you note target selection is basically limited to melee-only foes. Also, the spell can vary a lot from table to table, because its power depends a lot on how the DM rules horizontal movement while under its effects.


Concentration duration, so you're not doing anything but keeping that enemy out of combat, and you're certainly not repeating the performance.

If the argument is that suggestion is too powerful, that's one thing. I actually think Tasha's hideous laughter is far, FAR too powerful, but...it is what it is.

My argument is that letting Suggestion be an effective substitute for Banishment (except with a longer direction, albeit a slightly more limited target selection) is way out of whack for second level spell that also has fantastic out-of-combat potential. I think limiting Suggestion's crowd control ability makes the game more fun for me and my players.

Unlike Suggestion, the damage limitation on Tasha's Hideous Laughter isn't limited to the caster or the caster's allies. The target's allies can simply hit the target with an unarmed strike to give the target an immediate new save at advantage. With Suggestion the only things the target's allies can do are disrupt concentration or use Dispel Magic.

(And yes, Banishment has the advantage of not being dispellable, but that rarely seems to matter.)

[Pex]

Hold Person gives a save every round. Suggestion gives a single save, and then lasts for 8 hours. Both require concentration. Suggestion is already one of the best out-of-combat spells in the entire game. Removing its ability to also be the best (or among the best) CC in the game isn't making the spell useless--it's letting other concentration spells of the same level have a chance to shine too. And I don't see how my preference for keeping Suggestion as mostly an out-of-combat spell is any way playing against my players. (To be clear: how I handle Suggestion is in my campaign documentation, so there are no surprises at my table.)




If you damage the person under Suggestion the spell automatically ends. You have one spell that makes it easier for everyone to kill someone and another, you're forbidding, is to let that someone go away and live.

[Tanarii]

If you damage the person under Suggestion the spell automatically ends. You have one spell that makes it easier for everyone to kill someone and another, you're forbidding, is to let that someone go away and live.
Or more commonly running away while providing OAs and taking ranged attacks, then stuck with a choice between trying to run away while getting plonked or running back while getting plonked.

Of course, monsters are just there to die anyway so I guess it's kinda mostly a moot point. Just facing the PCs without immediately running is more often than not suicidal. :smallamused:

But yeah balance wise allowing Suggestion to be a social god spell AND a solid combat control spell is far too much. That wasn't my objection but it's definitely the case.

[Thunderous Mojo]

There was quite a modicum of ink spilled, in response to a one line statement. 😉

That's...barely even worth a single level reduction, let alone two. Contrary to popular and over-permissive belief, Suggestion really does have some very stringent restrictions on its use.

I agree completely that the Suggestion spell has some very stringent hurdles to overcome, for the spell to be useful.

Firstly the target has to hear you and speak your language.
If you tell the Stormtrooper "these are not the droids you are looking for" but pick the wrong language, the spell fails.

This is not an insignificant limit to the number of viable targets for the spell. In practice, you are often casting the Suggestion spell with an accompanying spell like Tongues.

Banishment, meanwhile just causes the target to make a CHA saving throw.
The Suggestion spell hasn't even gotten to the Saving Throw yet.

The next hurdle is phrasing a two sentence Suggestion, that a DM will find "reasonable". This may be impossible to achieve. Especially when some DMs, will rule, a priori, that: All uses of the Suggestion spell in combat will fail.

Banishment works. Suggestion requires you to speak a language the target understands as well, the target is not immune to charm effects, and a receptive DM.

Items in hotel mini bars cost more than normal, due to a convenience fee.
Banishment is a fourth level spell, for the convenience fee of not having a DM hose the spell, even before a Saving Throw is rolled.

And Suggestion lasts 8 hours instead of 1 minute, and has additional out-of-combat utility that Banishment lacks.

The 8 hour Concentration duration is as much a limitation as a boon.
Obi-Wan Kenobi has to Concentrate on the Suggestion, because as soon as the Jedi stops, the Stormtrooper will realize that, of course those were indeed the droids he was looking for.

If your party just successfully cast Suggestion on a Senator hours before an important vote, the caster now has to avoid losing their Concentration, or else their out of combat use of the Suggestion spell is wasted.

The longer a Suggestion spell is active, the greater the chance the spell is detected by Detect Magic, and then Dispelled.

[I]
My argument is that letting Suggestion be an effective substitute for Banishment (except with a longer direction, albeit a slightly more limited target selection) is way out of whack for second level spell that also has fantastic out-of-combat potential. I think limiting Suggestion's crowd control ability makes the game more fun for me and my players.


A successful Banishment removes a creature from the same plane for 1 minute , at minimum; Permanently , if certain criteria are met.
Banishment, requires a single Cha save.

Suggestion requires:
1) The target not be immune to Charm Magic.
2) The caster to speak in a language the target understands.
3) The Player to craft a two sentence request. (Optimized stats, will not help)
4) The request must be deemed "Reasonable" by the DM.
5) The request must be something not easily accomplished.
6) The target must fail their Wisdom saving throw.
7) The caster, must retain Concentration.

Banishment requires the target to fail their Charisma saving throw, and the caster must Concentrate on the spell. These two spells are not, remotely; equal.

[Rusvul]

I don't think Suggestion is really a substitution for Banishment. Under very, very specific circumstances, they can perform a similar task by different means, but that doesn't make one a substitute for the other. Suggestion isn't just lower-level Banishment, they're different spells that do different things in different ways, with some overlap in function. If the only thing we care about is taking enemies out of the fight with a single save, Hypnotic Pattern blows both spells out of the water because it's an AoE... but there's a lot more factors at play than just that.

Plus, there's all kinds of spells that are a bit more or less powerful for their level. Banishment is a pretty good 4th level spell, Suggestion is a very strong 2nd level spell. If we decide that Suggestion is an equivalent substitute to Banishment and therefore too strong, it would follow that Spiritual Weapon (3rd level) is too strong because it's better than Mordenkainen's Sword (7th level)--the damage is comparable if upcast; and it has better action economy. But that's not really how the game is balanced; some spells are strong for their level and that's okay.

In a more balanced game, would Suggestion be weaker? Yeah, definitely, but that's not the game that 5e is, and I think that's a feature, not a bug. Unless a player is actively abusing Suggestion at a table to such an extent that it makes the game less fun for the other PCs, I wouldn't interpret it so narrowly.

[Xetheral]

A successful Banishment removes a creature from the same plane for 1 minute , at minimum; Permanently , if certain criteria are met.
Banishment, requires a single Cha save.

Suggestion requires:
1) The target not be immune to Charm Magic.
2) The caster to speak in a language the target understands.
3) The Player to craft a two sentence request. (Optimized stats, will not help)
4) The request must be deemed "Reasonable" by the DM.
5) The request must be something not easily accomplished.
6) The target must fail their Wisdom saving throw.
7) The caster, must retain Concentration.

Banishment requires the target to fail their Charisma saving throw, and the caster must Concentrate on the spell. These two spells are not, remotely; equal.

Maybe we just run wildly different campaigns. Your number 1 and 2 rarely come up in my games. I don't remember the last time I had a PC or an NPC who was immune to charm effects. Also, in the regions of my campaign world where I've set recent campaigns, common has been a shared tongue, so anything with a language is fair game. If enemies immune to charm or that don't speak common are frequent occurrences in your game, I can definitely see why Suggestion would be less powerful at your table than at my table.

As for your #3 and #5, the two-sentence request can be a stock request (e.g. "your only chance to survive is to run away and keep running," or, if allowed: "your so-called friends have betrayed you--help us defeat them and we will welcome you as one of our own.") So it's not hard for a player to come up with a couple CC-related requests in advance, and just use them over and over.

Your number 4 is a misreading of the spell--the request doesn't need to actually be reasonable, the request only needs to sound reasonable. Imposing an actual reasonableness requirement is how my houserule works to nerf in-combat Suggestion, since most CC-related requests won't be actually reasonable in the middle of combat.

6 and 7, of course, exactly line up with Banishment, other than charisma being, on average, a better save to target than wisdom.

Whatever the ultimate reason, I found Suggestion to be too much of a go-to spell both in and out of combat. I prefer a wider variety of spells see play, so I houseruled in an actual reasonableness requirement, which kept most of the out-of-combat utility while restricting the in-combat CC potential. (It's still useful in-combat for things like getting the enemy leader to negotiate instead of fighting, or team up to jointly fight mutual enemies.)

[Snivlem]

And Suggestion lasts 8 hours instead of 1 minute, and has additional out-of-combat utility that Banishment lacks. I said "similarly effective" because of these differences, but even once you start comparing the details, Suggestion holds up quite favorably despite being only a second level spell.


1. Charisma save vs wisdom save.
2. Suggestion requires a common language.
3. Banishment upcasts. Banishment isnt a strong 4th level spell, unless the targets Charisma is abyssmal, it is a very bad one. It is however a strong 5th, 6th etc level spell.

[Segev]

Frankly, half my problem with Tasha's hideous laughter would be solved if it didn't work on things immune to Charm.

Not all of it, though. It really doesn't make sense to me that a flesh golem is susceptible to it.

[Gtdead]

At the end of our last session my party was in a temple and we were attacked by many YuanTi. Like a good tank, I'm blocking the entrance (door cannot be closed). After the third attempt, my PC failed to save against a SUGGESTION spell to "go bathe in the river until midnight." There are ~ a dozen YuanTi between the Temple door and the outer gate. There is no way to go around the YuanTi without passing through their Op ATT range. They are blocking the outer gate/entrance, but I could climb the perimeter wall.

So what can my PC do? What can't he do?

He is compelled to move towards the river - but he still views all the YuanTi as enemies (right?).

Would he wade into the bad guys to hack his way to the river? Is he compelled to ignore the enemy and walk like a zombie in a direct path toward the river without attacking or protecting himself? Is he compelled to move as expeditiously as possible to the river but still protect himself from harm as best he can (disengage, dodge, etc)?

What is RAW and/or how should you rule as DM?

I will answer from the lens of a player and keep in mind that I don't really know the threat level of the encounter.

Your character is a tank, so I assume that he can take a few hits. The moment you take damage, per spell description the effect should end. Wasting a third level spell for a single weapon attack is bad for the enemy.

So what you should do, is casually walk through the enemies (no dash/disengage or anything, they are your friends now) and hope that your DM will take the bait. Now you created a precedent and your party can cast suggestion too and take an enemy out of the fight by suggesting something smarter.

If he attacks with an AoO, the spell will fail and you will be able to dash back to your position.

[Aquillion]

Banishment works on creatures immune to Charm effects...Suggestion does not.More importantly, the target must be able to hear and understand you, which means there are entire categories of opponent that Suggestion fails to affect.

But there are other limitations, too, which I think people are overlooking. (Remember, the suggestion must be simple and reasonable, so you can't add a ton of riders.)

Most especially, the target can do anything else they want while fulfilling the suggestion.


Banishment isnt a strong 4th level spell, unless the targets Charisma is abyssmal, it is a very bad one.Also this. I'm completely baffled by the argument that Banishment is somehow supposed to be some incredible spell against which all other spells must be measured. Banishment isn't completely terrible at 4th level, but it's pretty mediocre - there are multiple spells that can effectively remove an appropriate opponent at second level, and even some (Hideous Laughter) at first. Its only real advantage is that it works on anything; lower-level spells tend to have more limited targets (or only disable enemies in specific ways that won't be effective against everyone.) But look at this list (bolded ones are particularly significant points of comparison):

1st level: Entangle, Hideous Laughter

2nd level: Phantasmal Force, Hold Person, Web, Suggestion, Levitate

3rd level: Hypnotic Pattern, Fear, Stinking Cloud, Bestow Curse

Banishment is in most respects a clear step down from the third level ones (which either target multiple enemies or have far more versatility); while it has some advantages, the disadvantage of only targeting one enemy (and making it far more likely that it will have no effect whatsoever on a failed save) is huge. This is why, like someone said above, you mostly learn it to upcast it.

As a combat-removal spell, Suggestion is comparable to Hold Person - perhaps a bit better, but Hold Person is available to more classes, so it's supposed to be somewhat weaker. Its range of targets is generally comparable; Suggestion lasts longer, doesn't allow additional saves, and has more versatility, but Hold Person can be used to very quickly kill someone and get their stuff, whereas using Suggestion to make someone flee leaves an enemy alive. I think you're drastically overrating the additional saves for Hold Person, since it's very easy to kill most people when they're under the effect of it, while letting an enemy survive often carries significant risks.

It's also extremely comparable to Phantasmal Force; Phantasmal Force allows additional rolls to get free, but, again, can be used to kill someone fairly directly or to make them take self-harming actions, while Suggestion cannot. And Phantasmal Force has comparable utility (possibly better, since, again, it can trick people into unreasonable actions.)

Compared to the levels around it, using Suggestion in combat is an upgraded version of Hideous Laughter (though Hideous Laughter can be used while beating an enemy down) and generally a weaker version of Hypnotic Pattern or Fear (since it's single-target and will generally not accomplish more than them.) Going from single-target to multi-target is a normal result of shifting a spell one level, which makes the comparison to Hypnotic Pattern particularly apt. The overall pattern is clearly "second-level spells remove a single target, with some restrictions; third-level spells remove multiple targets, with some restrictions."

It's more versatile than most of the spells on the list, but it's not the combat-breaking thing people make it out to be, and is roughly in line with other spells that have similar applications.

We had a similar discussion about Phantasmal Force. I think the basic issue is that DMs (and some players) hate seeing fights ended by a single failed save, so when it happens repeatedly they start reaching for the houserules and concocting whatever justifications they need to oust the offending spells - but as this list shows, it's pretty reasonable for a second-level spell to take a target out of the fight that way on a failed save if they fit the right conditions.

And if your argument is "well, Hideous Laughter is broken, and Phantasmal Force is broken, and Suggestion is broken, and Hypnotic Pattern and Fear are broken", and maybe you're even considering calling a few other spells I listed broken, perhaps consider that the issue is that you disagree with how 5e designs and balances its save-or-lose combat removal spells in general, rather than Suggestion in particular being an issue.


Whatever the ultimate reason, I found Suggestion to be too much of a go-to spell both in and out of combat. I prefer a wider variety of spells see play, so I houseruled in an actual reasonableness requirement, which kept most of the out-of-combat utility while restricting the in-combat CC potential. (It's still useful in-combat for things like getting the enemy leader to negotiate instead of fighting, or team up to jointly fight mutual enemies.)I strenuously recommend against such a houserule; it has the feel of a kneejerk "keep the players from getting away with something" ruling. Suggestion is a reasonably strong spell, but not out of line for other strong spells at its (or other) levels.

Also, go-to spells are not a bad thing; most spellcasting classes will only have one or two spells known or prepared at a particular level, which means spells of broad applicability are necessary or some spell levels will rarely see use. Such "bread and butter" spells make it easier to quickly build and advance a character, and are particularly important for Sorcerers.

Look at the list above. Using suggestion to make an enemy flee is an entirely reasonable application of the spell that is totally in line with comparable spells for taking an enemy out of combat; the issue is that Banishment is mostly a weak spell whose only advantage over spells a level or two below it is broader targeting. If you removed every spell for which a weaker one existed, the only spells left in the game would be Skywrite and Enthrall.

(You are also drastically overselling the eight-hour duration; for a CC spell cast on enemies, the difference between an eight hour duration and a one-minute one is mostly insignificant in combat time because few fights extend long enough to matter.)

[JellyPooga]

Suggestion requires:
1) The target not be immune to Charm Magic.
2) The caster to speak in a language the target understands.
3) The Player to craft a two sentence request. (Optimized stats, will not help)
4) The request must be deemed "Reasonable" by the DM.
5) The request must be something not easily accomplished.
6) The target must fail their Wisdom saving throw.
7) The caster, must retain Concentration.

Your 4th is the point of contention with regard to its combat applicability. The spell explicitly fails if the Suggestion sounds unreasonable to the victim or is obviously harmful and (funnily enough) most things you're going to want to suggest in a combat scenario are going to be obviously harmful or sound unreasonable. To use the example of the OP, running past known hostiles to take a bath while under attack is both unreasonable and obviously harmful; taking a bath while there are enemies attacking you could be the definition of unreasonable activity! That's an auto fail, even though the worded Suggestion of "Go take a bath" under a different, non-combat, circumstance could easily be very reasonable. Likewise, an obviously outnumbered and outmatched spellcaster trying to cast Suggestion on a Bandit Leader to call off a highway heist is also going to auto-fail; it's not reasonable for that Bandit to call off or run away from an attack that will obviously succeed. The combat application of Suggestion is so limited to be almost useless; combats are almost defined by reason being off the table and by their harmful nature, which will almost always prevent a useful Suggestion from working.

That's not to say it can't be used in combat at all. A Suggestion to "Kill the Barbarian first", to stop an enemy skirmisher from bypassing the party tank could well work. Just as with non-combat application of the spell, it's about playing into the motivations of the victim. The given example of the knight and beggar in the spell description plays (presumably) on the knights motivation for generosity. "Run away" as a Suggestion to a self-serving coward might be reasonable if things are looking a bit dicey, but not so much for a Paladin under Oath to protect his allies and be brave. "Stop fighting and negotiate" might be reasonable to that same Paladin though (whilst being entirely off the table for the berserk Barbarian), assuming he doesn't have some other motivation to press the engagement.

[Amnestic]

That's not to say it can't be used in combat at all. A Suggestion to "Kill the Barbarian first", to stop an enemy skirmisher from bypassing the party tank could well work.

Would you spend a 2nd level spell slot for Suggestion if that was the extent of its capability? Potentially retargetting an enemy, right up until the first time they take damage, and it takes your concentration? And, funnily, it would stop them from surrendering, requiring you to kill them. Because it seems like you've argued it into being less than worthless at that point.

Because I wouldn't cast it if that were the case. I'd cast Hold Person or Phantasmal Force or Tasha's Hideous Laughter (only a 1st level spellslot!) or Levitate or Earthbind.

"Just use it out of combat" doesn't exactly work unless you are exactly a Sorcerer with exactly Subtle Spell because otherwise everyone's going to notice you casting it since it's got V and M components.

[da newt]

Just for context - the casters are ~ a dozen YuanTi that are attacking the party, so the DM is the one casting and ruling on SUGGESTION's effectiveness / power.

The question at hand is, what is the PC allowed to do, what are they required to do, what can't they do (by RAW / convention)?

The SUGGESTION was to go bathe in the river until midnight, the party is in combat, the river is massive, ~ 250' away, full of rapids, and just down stream is a waterfall into a pool of lava (excessively unrealistic as a high flow 100' wide river doesn't just flow into a lava pit and evaporate).

[Keltest]

Just for context - the casters are ~ a dozen YuanTi that are attacking the party, so the DM is the one casting and ruling on SUGGESTION's effectiveness / power.

The question at hand is, what is the PC allowed to do, what are they required to do, what can't they do (by RAW / convention)?

The SUGGESTION was to go bathe in the river until midnight, the party is in combat, the river is massive, ~ 250' away, full of rapids, and just down stream is a waterfall into a pool of lava (excessively unrealistic as a high flow 100' wide river doesn't just flow into a lava pit and evaporate).

In and of itself, bathing in the river is not obviously harmful, but the target is actively being attacked. Any flavor of "stop defending yourself and go do this thing with no relation to the combat" should IMO be interpreted as being obviously harmful because somebody is actively trying to kill you. Sort of like "take off your smithing gloves before you start working" would be obviously harmful if youre a blacksmith handling hot metal. The action itself may not be directly harmful, but it will still result in easily foreseeable harm.

I should point out there is a distinction between "go do something that isnt combat" as a suggestion and "You are losing, flee and save yourself" as a suggestion. The former requires them to forget that their life is actively threatened and to stop trying to save it. The latter allows them, indeed requires them, to prioritize their own safety above everything else.

[Sigreid]

Ok, I just read the spell description before commenting. Since the wording says the suggestion must be worded in a way to make it sound reasonable, I don't see how this suggestion would work in the middle of a pitched battle. Wandering away from the fight is just crazy. That doesn't mean suggestion can't be used in combat. As a quick example, "Put down your weapons so we can stop the bloodshed and work this out peacefully" does sound reasonable to me.

[KorvinStarmast]

I am with Tanarii on this one, though for a different reason perhaps.

The DM's application of the spell during combat was very clumsy.

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...The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable. And it doesn't. You are in the middle of a battle, and the suggestion is "go take a bath." That is not a reasonable suggestion based on the situation that your character it is. Verdict: lazy and sloppy DMing there. :smalltongue:

Here's a suggestion that makes sense: 'You are getting splattered by sacred blood that will poison you and kill you - quick, run to the river and wash it off!"
This fits your situation of being in combat with the Yuan-Ti.

So what do you do? The game's action choices allow your PC to (a) disengage as your next action, or, dodge and then move in attempt to get away from the combat and then (b) attempt to reach the river with all of your skill and ability. You need to do this to save your own life!

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.

My suggestion based on experience in multiple editions of the game:
Charm and enchantment spells require more work than simply launching a blast of thunder at someone or cleaving in their skull with a great axe. For them to really fit the game, put in the effort whether you are the DM or the player.

[JellyPooga]

Would you spend a 2nd level spell slot for Suggestion if that was the extent of its capability?

That's rather the point. Generally speaking, no, I would tend not to use Suggestion in combat any more than I'd use, say, Zone of Truth or Speak with Dead. Yeah, it might come up, but rarely. It's my opinion that it's not a spell designed for combat use. I have this opinion because all of its clauses prevent it from being particularly useful in combat;
- Must sound reasonable : Hostility prevents this to a large degree.
- Cannot be directly harmful : Combat is full of harm.
- Damage breaks spell : Damage happens frequently in combat.
With all of that working against you, why would you bother using it in combat at all, indeed? Thise limitations aren't there to grant additional leeway on what the spell can do, they're there to narrow its use to situations that aren't generally found when danger is afoot. This isn't inference and supposition, this is based on a literal reading of the capabilities of the spell. Yes, it might come up every now and then that Suggestion is useful in a particular combat scenario, but I wouldn't count on it.

[Gtdead]

The question at hand is, what is the PC allowed to do, what are they required to do, what can't they do (by RAW / convention)?


Truthfully.. suggestion is one of the more nuanced abilities and it's the DM that actually used it, not a player.
I think the whole discussion about what "obviously harmful act" means is beside the point. The DM used it and it's a defacto harmful act because it weakens your party. So he believes that while it's harmful, it's not "obviously" harmful to you (the target) as per spell description.

In addition your DM either got lucky or metagamed the spell, because he set a timed suggestion which is even more nuanced.

As for what you are expected to do as a player, is to just go and take a bath till midnight. You don't have to hurry/dash, you don't have to pick a particular route, you don't have to put yourself in danger or stay safe. There is nothing that compels you to act in a particular way besides the original suggestion. If you can find a way to take a bath till midnight in a single turn (which obviously is impossible unless you have a wish or something), you can do that. You still know what is wrong and right, so if you find a way to gain an advantage, like baiting an attack of opportunity to end the effect, good for you.

To give an example:
If you hold a gun and I magically compel you to "put a bullet to your head" (forget the self harm limitation for now), you still know that shooting yourself in the head is bad for you and you don't want to do it. So instead you can take a bullet out of the gun and put it in your mouth. It's still in your head so the suggestion ends.

Edit: If by staying in the river endangers you personally, the moment you notice it the suggestion ends, because following this course of action till midnight is impossible without causing self harm.

[Amnestic]

That's rather the point. Generally speaking, no, I would tend not to use Suggestion in combat any more than I'd use, say, Zone of Truth or Speak with Dead. Yeah, it might come up, but rarely. It's my opinion that it's not a spell designed for combat use. I have this opinion because all of its clauses prevent it from being particularly useful in combat;
- Must sound reasonable : Hostility prevents this to a large degree.
- Cannot be directly harmful : Combat is full of harm.
- Damage breaks spell : Damage happens frequently in combat.
With all of that working against you, why would you bother using it in combat at all, indeed? Thise limitations aren't there to grant additional leeway on what the spell can do, they're there to narrow its use to situations that aren't generally found when danger is afoot. This isn't inference and supposition, this is based on a literal reading of the capabilities of the spell. Yes, it might come up every now and then that Suggestion is useful in a particular combat scenario, but I wouldn't count on it.

You're ignoring the fact that unless you're a sorcerer with subtle spell it's useless out of combat too.

Someone just cast a spell on you. You can tell this because it's got both V and M components. Nothing they tell you to do is reasonable, because reasonably you're now influenced by the spell. Therefore it can't work. That is, after all, why it's not reasonable to follow the commands in combat, by your own logic.

Find me an actual use case for Suggestion, in or out of combat. And since it shows up on Bard, Wizard and Warlock lists, you can't use subtle spell.

[Tanarii]

Just for context - the casters are ~ a dozen YuanTi that are attacking the party, so the DM is the one casting and ruling on SUGGESTION's effectiveness / power.

The question at hand is, what is the PC allowed to do, what are they required to do, what can't they do (by RAW / convention)?

The SUGGESTION was to go bathe in the river until midnight, the party is in combat, the river is massive, ~ 250' away, full of rapids, and just down stream is a waterfall into a pool of lava (excessively unrealistic as a high flow 100' wide river doesn't just flow into a lava pit and evaporate).Ah, the context about the river helps. It reinforces my point, and gives you a way to make it clear to this DM.

If the DM insists the suggestion sounds reasonable and is not harmful, ask "why are you trying to make my PC commit suicide, and why didn't you just say rocks fall you die?" DM is ruling that your character has to die due to a 2nd level spell being cast and failed a save.

Edit: unless ... maybe they think what they did was make you go fight the yuan-it in between you and the river, but it'll break when you see the river?

[Thunderous Mojo]

Maybe we just run wildly different campaigns. Your number 1 and 2 rarely come up in my games.
Your number 4 is a misreading of the spell--the request doesn't need to actually be reasonable, the request only needs to sound reasonable.


Right, the request, in real world terms has to sound "reasonable" to the DM.

Even, if you the player, utter the most cleverly formulated and eloquent two sentences of your life, if your DM feels this way about Suggestion:
"Spell fails.
That happens with most attempted uses of Suggestion in combat, because they're often obviously harmful. Even suggestions to flee, because fleeing in 5e D&D is usually a death sentence"

Then the Suggestion spell is going to fail. If the DM deems that Zed the Hater, the gnoll chieftain terrorizing the area, hates everything and finds "no request reasonable"...then no request will be. Even a Suggestion to go eat the goat the the party staked to the ground a mile away, is going to fail, if the DM rules as such.

Thank you though, for acknowledging that your campaign conditions might be enhancing the effectiveness of the Suggestion spell.


Your 4th is the point of contention with regard to its combat applicability. The spell explicitly fails if the Suggestion sounds unreasonable to the victim or is obviously harmful and (funnily enough) most things you're going to want to suggest in a combat scenario are going to be obviously harmful or sound unreasonable.

That's not to say it can't be used in combat at all. .

If a DM states in Session 0, that their philosophy is, a Suggestion spell cast in combat has a much greater chance of failing,(regardless of the result of the saving throw), then succeed....then the intended chilling effect has happened and most players will never use the Suggestion spell in combat.

That is the intent behind the "DM Strict Scrutiny" towards Suggestion, is it not?
The intent is to reduce the number of times, that one as a DM has to adjudicate Suggestion requests in combat.

To so clearly state your DMing approach to only muddle the message, by stating: "That's not to say it can't be used in combat at all"
is what I object to most.

The role of the DM is, in part, to attempt to clearly signal how they, (the DM), interpret and then adjudicate the rules.

----As a player it is helpful if a DM states that they interpret a spell in such a way that the spell in question is nerfed in certain situations.

----It is not helpful, in my personal view as a player, to have the DM just explain how they will Nerf something, to then immediately follow that statement up by stating:
"That's not to say it won't work, sometimes"

This takes away the value of certitude, clear, delineating lines provide, and just introduces doubt.

Be Bold DMs, if you want to Nerf something, Nerf it...and own the decision.
Be Bold DMs, and your players will follow your lead.

[Keravath]

The biggest problem with the Suggestion spell is the "reasonable" requirement and how it is interpreted by different DMs, especially in combat situations.

The problem is really ... what is reasonable?

Is an instruction to run away reasonable?
Is an instruction to make a strategic retreat as quickly as possible reasonable?
Is an instruction to go take a bath reasonable?
Is an instruction that you are needed to defend the town RIGHT NOW from an attack reasonable?

This all depends on the DM. In my opinion, suggesting a course of action that could (not necessarily does) make sense in the context then on a failed save the creature will try to follow it.

"Go have a bath" ... doesn't make much sense in the context of combat to me (but it might depend on how it was phrased).
"Go defend the town" ... Yes, I could see that working. There are times when you need to prioritize which combat to be involved in and if the folks in town need you then it could be reasonable to leave this combat. The same would go for fleeing a combat which a character is now convinced that they can't win. That isn't unreasonable either in my opinion.

On the other hand, some DMs don't let NPCs or PCs flee combat and consider it a death sentence ... in which case they probably would not allow such suggestions to work.

In all cases, it is ultimately a DM call and the answers differ widely between DMs which is why players should always discuss spells like Suggestion and illusion spells with the DM before taking them. Just ask the DM how they will run these spells in practice before choosing them.

This is IN CHARACTER information that your CHARACTER would already know having studied these spells and seen them in practice in the game world. It is a DM call how they work but it is information that should be shared with the characters since they live in the world and would KNOW what sorts of suggestions or illusions would work and what wouldn't. Casters probably even have a addendum in their spell book listing suggestions that work and ones that would not ... probably passed down from master to student. Think about it ... every mage to cast Suggestion isn't suddenly making it up for the first time. There are probably decades if not centuries of examples used for the Suggestion and Mass Suggestion spell designed for different uses in different situations.

So ... DM tells the characters how it works and any limits ... characters use suggestion in the game as intended but a DM who thinks the characters wouldn't know how suggestion works is being a bit disingenuous.

[Xetheral]

I strenuously recommend against such a houserule; it has the feel of a kneejerk "keep the players from getting away with something" ruling. Suggestion is a reasonably strong spell, but not out of line for other strong spells at its (or other) levels.

Also, go-to spells are not a bad thing; most spellcasting classes will only have one or two spells known or prepared at a particular level, which means spells of broad applicability are necessary or some spell levels will rarely see use. Such "bread and butter" spells make it easier to quickly build and advance a character, and are particularly important for Sorcerers.

Look at the list above. Using suggestion to make an enemy flee is an entirely reasonable application of the spell that is totally in line with comparable spells for taking an enemy out of combat; the issue is that Banishment is mostly a weak spell whose only advantage over spells a level or two below it is broader targeting. If you removed every spell for which a weaker one existed, the only spells left in the game would be Skywrite and Enthrall.

(You are also drastically overselling the eight-hour duration; for a CC spell cast on enemies, the difference between an eight hour duration and a one-minute one is mostly insignificant in combat time because few fights extend long enough to matter.)

My houserule requires that the Suggestion be reasonable, rather than merely sound reasonable. A substantial fraction of posters in this thread apparently read the spell as having a reasonableness requirement anyway, so my houserule ends up matching the way many people run the spell.

For context, I run player-driven, combat-as-war sandbox games. Finding creative solutions to obviate the obstacles between the PCs and their goals is a main focus of this style of play. Accordingly, I have zero problems with the players "getting away with something". :) However, I would prefer that any one spell not routinely be one of the best choices both in-combat and out-of-combat, because the availability of such a spell de-emphasizes other creative solutions. Additionally by adding a reasonableness requirement to the spell, I increase the creativity required to use it, by making the caster take into account the context of the situation and the target's motivations, rather than relying on one or two stock suggestions that sound reasonable out of context, and thus always work. So my houserule actively supports my goals for play at my table.

Additionally, my houserule makes it clear in advance that the game-breaking edge cases for Suggestion won't work at my table. For example, "if you stay and fight we're going to kill you--you should run away as far and as fast as your legs can carry you" sounds reasonable, but 8+con mod rounds later the target has 5 levels of exhaustion (thanks to the chase rules) that require a short rest to remove--in many situations that's an auto-kill. Other game-breaking examples that I want to make clear won't work at my table are psuedo-domination effects ("your allies have betrayed you--help us kill them and we'll welcome you as one of our own") and bypassing the self-harm restriction through indirect suggestions ("our previous proposal is in your best interest--you should agree to it"). Sure, I can rule against these degenerate outcomes on a case-by-case basis (arguably many of them don't work by RAW), but my houserule that the suggestion has to actually be reasonable makes the expectations for the spell clear to everyone up front.

As to your comparisons with other CC effects, I would note that all the ones you bolded can be broken either by repeated saves/checks (Fear, Hold Person, Phantasmal Force) or by the target's allies with a mundane standard action (Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Hypnotic Pattern). Suggestion can't be broken in either of those ways. Still, if the only thing Suggestion did was CC, I might be ok with it without my houserule--it's the combination of out-of-combat utility and in-combat effectiveness that I object to. And to reiterate, I don't mind powerful (and even encounter-ending) effects. My concern with an overly powerful/versatile spell is that it makes other spells less interesting and useful in comparison.

Lastly, the duration element is mostly a concern when cast on a PC. A spell that can take them out of combat for an entire adventuring day, plus split them from the party, is too powerful for second level. I'd prefer to houserule the spell to only work with reasonable suggestions rather than come up with implausible reasons to justify why every enemy with access to Suggestion doesn't use that tactic when facing adventurers.

[Keltest]

As far as whether it counts as reasonable or not, i think a better way to look at it might be if it is unreasonable.

Giving your horse to a beggar might not be something any horse-owner would do of their own volition barring exceptional circumstances, but it isnt a crazy irrational thing to do either, its just weird. To that end, it passes the "its not unreasonable" test. On the other hand, ignoring a combat in any circumstances is highly unreasonable. Its right there. It has immediate life or death consequences. Its an impediment to doing other stuff. Ignoring it is unreasonable by any measure, so anything that asks you to ignore the combat entirely is also unreasonable even if the action itself is a perfectly normal, logical thing to do most of the time, like eating breakfast.

[JackPhoenix]

Likewise, an obviously outnumbered and outmatched spellcaster trying to cast Suggestion on a Bandit Leader to call off a highway heist is also going to auto-fail; it's not reasonable for that Bandit to call off or run away from an attack that will obviously succeed. The combat application of Suggestion is so limited to be almost useless; combats are almost defined by reason being off the table and by their harmful nature, which will almost always prevent a useful Suggestion from working.

Why not? There are many possible reasons why you'd want to call an attack even if you outmatch the opponent. There may be a better target elsewhere and they are missing an opportunity focusing on this one, the target may be more dangerous than it appears at the first glance, the target may not be worth the effort, the target may be your ally or someone else you don't want to attack....


In and of itself, bathing in the river is not obviously harmful, but the target is actively being attacked. Any flavor of "stop defending yourself and go do this thing with no relation to the combat" should IMO be interpreted as being obviously harmful because somebody is actively trying to kill you. Sort of like "take off your smithing gloves before you start working" would be obviously harmful if youre a blacksmith handling hot metal. The action itself may not be directly harmful, but it will still result in easily foreseeable harm.

I should point out there is a distinction between "go do something that isnt combat" as a suggestion and "You are losing, flee and save yourself" as a suggestion. The former requires them to forget that their life is actively threatened and to stop trying to save it. The latter allows them, indeed requires them, to prioritize their own safety above everything else.

But the suggestion didn't say anything about stopping defending yourself. The character can avoid the enemies, take Disengage action to ignore opportunity attacks or even attack or shove the enemies away, if they are blocking the way to the river. Or ask them to get out of his way. He's not a zombie that'll walk into a fire just because it sees someone on the opposite side of it.


- Cannot be directly harmful : Combat is full of harm.

Well, then anything that takes you away from combat is the opposite of harmful, isn't it?

[Keltest]

But the suggestion didn't say anything about stopping defending yourself. The character can avoid the enemies, take Disengage action to ignore opportunity attacks or even attack or shove the enemies away, if they are blocking the way to the river. Or ask them to get out of his way. He's not a zombie that'll walk into a fire just because it sees someone on the opposite side of it.

Youre right, he isnt a zombie. Thats why he knows that going to the river for a bath, even if he spend the maximum amount of effort on defense that he can, is a stupid idea. He cant just make the enemy combatants go away and has no reason to think that theyre suddenly not his enemies who are trying to kill him. Trying to take a bath during a fight for your life is fundamentally unreasonable because it dramatically increases your chances of getting killed or otherwise hurt.

Suggestion isnt Dominate Person or Command. Its a finesse tool, not a blunt object.

[Imbalance]

Other than self-harm, there are many reasonable actions that one could suggest even during combat, most involve self-preservation. If the save fails and the victim is simply told to, "save yourself. Run for your life," reason dictates that this is a rational thing to do in most circumstances where the victim undestands that combat is imminently harmful and avoiding it greatly mitigates risk of harm.

With that in mind, the OP's example must be examined: "go bathe in the river until midnight."

From the word "go" the suggestion presents a challenge that I'll get to in a minute. Again, leaving the present location and engaged scenario is reasonable compared to staying and incurring harm. "Bathe" is a reasonable task for anyone who values even a modicum of cleanliness.

Then we hit the phrase "in the river" and we have to broaden our assessment. The author tells us that, "the river is massive, ~ 250' away, full of rapids, and just down stream is a waterfall into a pool of lava." If the character knows all of this, the spell utterly fails at this point, IMO. There is little that would be rational about this under normal circumstances unless you were a denizen of this location and a routine thing that you did after preparing to overcome the inherent and obvious dangers (ie. fast-moving, deep water that travels over turbulent rocks before spilling from a high point into a pit of molten stone and fiery death). I might even argue that it was too great a walk for a bath if another body of water was closer.

But, wait! That's not all! The caster then goes on to specify the duration of the command: "until midnight." Depending on the time of day, this could sound terribly unreasonable. Noon? Who bathes for twelve hours straight? If the victim is accustomed to going to sleep at a consistent hour each night, it could easily seem like a bother to be up so late doing something mundane. I could easily see the spell failing on this clause, too.

However, what is most easily considered unreasonable is the cessation of the present action in order to comply with the command. "Go" conjures a great many implications and any thinking creature ought to be able to calculate a few prominent repercussions, even in the heat of battle, that would register as unreasonable. The victim would reasonably have considered such consequences as have already been mentioned in this thread before combat even began, as their very role is to stand firm against the enemy. Even if "go" denotes assured survival it invalidates purpose. I'd say if this character has any history of self-sacrifice whatsoever, they will not find it reasonable to abandon their friends. Otherwise, getting out of the heat of the fight may be reason enough, except if they can imagine further consequences along the way.

If the other conditions are met and the save fails, the spell does something, but I think I would rule that the victim loses at least a turn on internal conflict while the player makes a reasonable argument against their character carrying out the activity, and do the same in the case of the victim being an NPC to the mercy of the players. I feel like a compelling argument should at least allow a followup save attempt on a subsequent turn.

[Thunderous Mojo]

To build off JackPhoenix post above...if a Suggestion spell will automatically fail against a bandit chief in the section quoted....what about a 32 total Deception or Persuasion check?

If the magic of a second level spell is bound to a strict interpretation, what binds the results of an outlandishly successful Persuasion check?

Two weeks ago I witnessed an 11th level Bard make a Persuasion roll that resulted in a final total of 37 on the check. If a DC 30 check is equivalent to achieving the "nigh impossible", then result of 37, it is reasonable to conclude, achieves the impossible.

Should an ability check with the result of 37, be more powerful than a 2nd level spell?

[Keltest]

To build off JackPhoenix post above...if a Suggestion spell will automatically fail against a bandit chief in the section quoted....what about a 32 total Deception or Persuasion check?

If the magic of a second level spell is bound to a strict interpretation, what binds the results of an outlandishly successful Persuasion check?

Two weeks ago I witnessed an 11th level Bard make a Persuasion roll that resulted in a final total of 37 on the check. If a DC 30 check is equivalent to achieving the "nigh impossible", then result of 37, it is reasonable to conclude, achieves the impossible.

Should an ability check with the result of 37, be more powerful than a 2nd level spell?

I mean, if theyre actively fighting you right now, i dont care what your roll is. The bandit isnt listening to you in the first place. You wouldnt roll at all, it would just fail.

Likewise, while there may be compelling reasons for them to be attacking other targets, none of them invalidate the current situation of you trying to kill them and them winning. Any suggestion that is cast needs to be working around that. "Your group is obviously winning. Go back to your camp and start organizing your next raid" is something i could see a player get away with. "You want to stop fighting us to go fight somebody else" is not.

[Xervous]

To build off JackPhoenix post above...if a Suggestion spell will automatically fail against a bandit chief in the section quoted....what about a 32 total Deception or Persuasion check?

If the magic of a second level spell is bound to a strict interpretation, what binds the results of an outlandishly successful Persuasion check?

Two weeks ago I witnessed an 11th level Bard make a Persuasion roll that resulted in a final total of 37 on the check. If a DC 30 check is equivalent to achieving the "nigh impossible", then result of 37, it is reasonable to conclude, achieves the impossible.

Should an ability check with the result of 37, be more powerful than a 2nd level spell?

Ask your DM. A 37 might let you fly, or it might not climb a tree. These are generally things that the system encourages you address on a case by case basis with few/no examples or suggestions on hand.

[Doug Lampert]

In D&D? My experience is a DM has to make it explicit to players that massacring surrendering enemies will result in the same the other direction if it becomes known. And the PCs have to be in situations where they need to surrender and realize it. And their enemies have to be enemies reasonably known to accept surrender. And in the other direction, when accepting surrender the PCs have to have reasonable cause to trust those kinds of enemies to honor their parole, because they usually take the time to herd them back to civilization as prisoners of war.

It's doable. But you have to retrain players from years of gaming experience (both tabletop and video) first.

I find that a system of ransoms that most intelligent creatures use goes a long way toward stopping combat from being to the death by default.

Throw in a widespread belief that an oath to provide a ransom is sacred, and the gods punish violators (which belief can easily be true in D&D land), and things get rather simple on the "let them live" & "occasionally accept surrenders" fronts.

Given that you can still steal someone's magical gear when they surrender as well as demanding their ransom, and that people paying their ransom need to know where to deliver it, and that you need to not be carrying your own ransom with you (if you're carrying it then it gets stolen prior to negotiating your release and giving your parole) it all also encourages people to have a home base or fixed address and to maintain backup gear and trustworthy allies. All good stuff IMAO.

[ProsecutorGodot]

For example, "if you stay and fight we're going to kill you--you should run away as far and as fast as your legs can carry you" sounds reasonable, but 8+con mod rounds later the target has 5 levels of exhaustion (thanks to the chase rules) that require a short rest to remove--in many situations that's an auto-kill.

Why are you using the chase rules here? Who's chasing them? Certainly not your players if the goal is simply to force them away.

This seems very much like a problem created to for you to "fix" using mechanics they don't actually apply in most cases. There's no reason for you to use the chase rules here, a rogue dashing each turn of combat for fun isn't going to fall over and die. This guy running for his life isn't going to run himself to death if you aren't chasing him.

[Keravath]

To build off JackPhoenix post above...if a Suggestion spell will automatically fail against a bandit chief in the section quoted....what about a 32 total Deception or Persuasion check?

If the magic of a second level spell is bound to a strict interpretation, what binds the results of an outlandishly successful Persuasion check?

Two weeks ago I witnessed an 11th level Bard make a Persuasion roll that resulted in a final total of 37 on the check. If a DC 30 check is equivalent to achieving the "nigh impossible", then result of 37, it is reasonable to conclude, achieves the impossible.

Should an ability check with the result of 37, be more powerful than a 2nd level spell?

Persuasion checks are altogether different from a Suggestion spell. Persuasion isn't magical. You can't convince a king to give up his crown no matter how high the roll. You couldn't convince most folks to go take a bath during combat with a persuasion roll - it automatically fails. The only reason Suggestion might work is because it is magical.

It is up to the DM to adjudicate the skills system and there are a lot of tasks that simply are impossible. A DC of 30 is NOT impossible obviously because some characters can achieve it no matter how it is described. A DC given to any task makes it "not impossible" even if you don't know how to achieve such a high die roll. Anyway, in my games, rolling a 37 can never achieve the "impossible" only the incredibly improbable :)

... and yes a 2nd level spell can achieve the impossible that a skill check never could. So, no, a 37 die roll is not more powerful than a 2nd level spell depending on what the goal might be.

[Pex]

Ask your DM. A 37 might let you fly, or it might not climb a tree. These are generally things that the system encourages you address on a case by case basis with few/no examples or suggestions on hand.


https://i.postimg.cc/Z5hvFkPN/umnevermind.gif

:smallbiggrin:

[JellyPooga]

You're ignoring the fact that unless you're a sorcerer with subtle spell it's useless out of combat too.

Someone just cast a spell on you. You can tell this because it's got both V and M components. Nothing they tell you to do is reasonable, because reasonably you're now influenced by the spell. Therefore it can't work. That is, after all, why it's not reasonable to follow the commands in combat, by your own logic.

Find me an actual use case for Suggestion, in or out of combat. And since it shows up on Bard, Wizard and Warlock lists, you can't use subtle spell.

I don't need to use Subtle Spell, though it clearly has it's uses in hiding the fact that you're casting a spell, which can help with group encounters. But I digress...

You appear to be under the misapprehension that who is doing the casting is what matters here and not the person being cast upon. It's not the fact that the caster is hostile or not, it's the kind of suggestions that might be called for in combat or out of it that makes the difference. Asking an enemy to drop their weapon and bend over in combat is an unreasonable request, not because you, specifically, are their enemy but because dropping your weapon and exposing yourself to harm is clearly an unreasonable request whilst in the middle of a hostile encounter. Likewise for the Bandit Chief with the suggestion of dropping an obviously successful highway robbery; it's not reasonable to him not to press an engagement that looks to be already won, regardless of who is doing the casting.

The same goes out of combat too. The fact that you cast a spell in their vicinity doesn't make a difference, even if they recognise that they're the target; the suggestion has to be reasonable to the sensibilities of the target.

[Rara1212]

I don't need to use Subtle Spell, though it clearly has it's uses in hiding the fact that you're casting a spell, which can help with group encounters. But I digress...

You appear to be under the misapprehension that who is doing the casting is what matters here and not the person being cast upon. It's not the fact that the caster is hostile or not, it's the kind of suggestions that might be called for in combat or out of it that makes the difference. Asking an enemy to drop their weapon and bend over in combat is an unreasonable request, not because you, specifically, are their enemy but because dropping your weapon and exposing yourself to harm is clearly an unreasonable request whilst in the middle of a hostile encounter. Likewise for the Bandit Chief with the suggestion of dropping an obviously successful highway robbery; it's not reasonable to him not to press an engagement that looks to be already won, regardless of who is doing the casting.

The same goes out of combat too. The fact that you cast a spell in their vicinity doesn't make a difference, even if they recognise that they're the target; the suggestion has to be reasonable to the sensibilities of the target.

Well, isn't it "unreasonable" for the knight(or was it paladin?) in the example of Suggestion to give away their steed?
One that they might have ridden for many years, their best friend, and something that costs a lot of gold.

[Xervous]

Well, isn't it "unreasonable" for the knight(or was it paladin?) in the example of Suggestion to give away their steed?
One that they might have ridden for many years, their best friend, and something that costs a lot of gold.

I don’t think we’ve accused the rules of being well written or possessing great clarity yet.

[Amnestic]

I don't need to use Subtle Spell, though it clearly has it's uses in hiding the fact that you're casting a spell, which can help with group encounters. But I digress...

You appear to be under the misapprehension that who is doing the casting is what matters here and not the person being cast upon. It's not the fact that the caster is hostile or not, it's the kind of suggestions that might be called for in combat or out of it that makes the difference. Asking an enemy to drop their weapon and bend over in combat is an unreasonable request, not because you, specifically, are their enemy but because dropping your weapon and exposing yourself to harm is clearly an unreasonable request whilst in the middle of a hostile encounter. Likewise for the Bandit Chief with the suggestion of dropping an obviously successful highway robbery; it's not reasonable to him not to press an engagement that looks to be already won, regardless of who is doing the casting.

The same goes out of combat too. The fact that you cast a spell in their vicinity doesn't make a difference, even if they recognise that they're the target; the suggestion has to be reasonable to the sensibilities of the target.

You've yet to actually present a "reasonable" Suggestion example from your viewpoint, despite me asking for one.

What am I meant to conclude from that?

[Imbalance]

After more thought, and in regard to the question of what the player can do if the DM is insistent, I would say it is also perfectly reasonable for the victim to continue to stand there in the doorway until the caster provide them with a clean towel, a fresh robe, and a rubber ducky.

[JellyPooga]

Well, isn't it "unreasonable" for the knight(or was it paladin?) in the example of Suggestion to give away their steed?
One that they might have ridden for many years, their best friend, and something that costs a lot of gold.

I didn't write that example, but my supposition is that the suggestion is supposed to appeal to the knights generosity such that he finds it reasonable to do that charity. Vague example is vague; without knowing specifically who the knight is, little argument can be drawn from it.


You've yet to actually present a "reasonable" Suggestion example from your viewpoint, despite me asking for one.

What am I meant to conclude from that?

You can draw whatever conclusion you wish. Personally, I see little value in a single example devoid of context. If you insist, though...
"Make me dinner" suggested to the casters wife. It's a reasonable suggestion that, if she fails her save, would be compelled to do.

Is that useful to you?

[Amnestic]

You can draw whatever conclusion you wish. Personally, I see little value in a single example devoid of context. If you insist, though...
"Make me dinner" suggested to the casters wife. It's a reasonable suggestion that, if she fails her save, would be compelled to do.

Is that useful to you?

No, because that's not a realistic case to see in actual gameplay, something that you'd actually spend a second level spell slot (and a 'spell known') on.

[Xetheral]

Why are you using the chase rules here? Who's chasing them? Certainly not your players if the goal is simply to force them away.

This seems very much like a problem created to for you to "fix" using mechanics they don't actually apply in most cases. There's no reason for you to use the chase rules here, a rogue dashing each turn of combat for fun isn't going to fall over and die. This guy running for his life isn't going to run himself to death if you aren't chasing him.

You selectively quoted my post to make it look I was arguing that without imposing a reasonable requirement, the players could exploit Suggestion in combination with the chase rules to rapidly inflict levels of exhaustion. That is not my position. If you look at the full paragraph from my post, I think I made it clear that doing so arguably isn't RAW and in any case can be avoided with a simple DM-ruling on the the spot. By telling my players up front that I require Suggestions to be reasonable, rather than merely sound reasonable, I simply head off any debate about whether such degenerate uses are/should be allowed. It's a minor benefit of my houserule that it helps set player expectations from the start.

[KorvinStarmast]

After more thought, and in regard to the question of what the player can do if the DM is insistent, I would say it is also perfectly reasonable for the victim to continue to stand there in the doorway until the caster provide them with a clean towel, a fresh robe, and a rubber ducky. This is a fine answer to the question. :smallbiggrin:

[ProsecutorGodot]

You selectively quoted my post to make it look I was arguing that without imposing a reasonable requirement, the players could exploit Suggestion in combination with the chase rules to rapidly inflict levels of exhaustion. That is not my position. If you look at the full paragraph from my post, I think I made it clear that doing so arguably isn't RAW and in any case can be avoided with a simple DM-ruling on the the spot. By telling my players up front that I require Suggestions to be reasonable, rather than merely sound reasonable, I simply head off any debate about whether such degenerate uses are/should be allowed. It's a minor benefit of my houserule that it helps set player expectations from the start.

The players aren't trying to exploit anything here, the DM is ruling it as a chase so that the request is deemed unreasonable so it would kill the target rather than simply have them run away.

The players don't decide what constitutes a chase, the DM does. If your intent was to communicate that the players told the DM what the result of their actions was, that's not Suggestion being abused, that's the entire gameplay loop of DND being turned on its head.

I'll leave it at "this was a bad example" which is why I singled this one out and not the examples you gave following it. The given suggestion (paraphrased to: we won't kill you if you run, run) was reasonable, your conclusion on how it would be deemed unreasonable and consequently fail was, in my opinion, less so.

EDIT: And just because I feel the need to cover my bases, using this suggestion during an actual Chase isn't any more unreasonable, as it would effectively drop them out of the Chase rather than forcing them to not be a part of it while still subjected to its penalties.

[Xetheral]

I'm not following what you are saying. But given the confusion my example has created, I'm fine with agreeing that it was a bad example and leaving it at that.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm not following what you are saying. But given the confusion my example has created, I'm fine with agreeing that it was a bad example and leaving it at that.

I don't understand what I've misunderstood, the reasoning you give for the houserule is that you want to avoid what you deem "game-breaking edge cases with degenerate outcomes" and this was an example you gave as one of those.

This doesn't just sound reasonable, it is reasonable barring exceptional circumstances (you are being chased by law enforcement for a crime which they know you are guilty of, to name one example) none of which are "since it's a chase, I will die if I follow these instructions, so it fails".

I don't think it's "degenerate" or that it even functions in the way that you described, suggesting that a participant in a chase leaves doesn't automatically fail because running away would force them to die of exhaustion, they simply stop being a part of the chase. What exactly is the issue with it just... ending?

[Xetheral]

I don't understand what I've misunderstood, the reasoning you give for the houserule is that you want to avoid what you deem "game-breaking edge cases with degenerate outcomes" and this was an example you gave as one of those.

This doesn't just sound reasonable, it is reasonable barring exceptional circumstances (you are being chased by law enforcement for a crime which they know you are guilty of, to name one example) none of which are "since it's a chase, I will die if I follow these instructions, so it fails".

I don't think it's "degenerate" or that it even functions in the way that you described, suggesting that a participant in a chase leaves doesn't automatically fail because running away would force them to die of exhaustion, they simply stop being a part of the chase. What exactly is the issue with it just... ending?

I'll try to elaborate. My post was trying to summarize the reasons I require a Suggestion to be reasonable, rather than merely sound reasonable. One of those reasons is that, at the far end of reasonability spectrum, there can be debates over how far one can push a Suggestion that sounds reasonable when devoid of context to get a combat advantage. By stating my reasonableness requirement up front, I'm setting player expectations that none of those edge cases are possible.

The exhaustion example used the Suggestion "if you stay and fight we're going to kill you--you should run away as far and as fast as your legs can carry you". (In my opinion that phrasing sounds reasonable, but whether or not it is actually reasonable depends on the circumstances in which it is used.) Mechanically speaking, a target subject to that phrasing would be required to take the dash action every round (and incidentally is prevented from using teleportation or other movement modes). That's not degenerate. Where it becomes degenerate is if the caster (or one or more of the caster's allies) tries to give chase in order to create an exhaustion penalty for the target's constant dashing. As a DM, I can simply refuse to invoke the chase rules to prevent the degeneracy, but if the player was counting on the ability to do so (potentially because they thought this was a clever use that didn't cross the line into abusing mechanics), there's now some friction at the table. My houserule sets the expectation from the beginning that artificially invoking the chase rules with Suggestion won't work at my table, avoiding any later potential friction. It's a very minor benefit of my houserule.

Does that make more sense?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Does that make more sense?

Yes, though I will say that I think this isn't a problem necessarily with Suggestion, seems more like Suggestion is just the avenue you expect what could be called a "problem player" to use. I guess it is worth acknowledging that Suggestion being as vague and permissible as it is means it's a much more prevalent avenue for that behavior.

[JellyPooga]

No, because that's not a realistic case to see in actual gameplay, something that you'd actually spend a second level spell slot (and a 'spell known') on.

Would another example really be any more useful than the reasoning I've already given you?

Whether it's a suggestion to a shopkeeper to consider selling stock he's got reserved for someone else or a guard you suggest he go check the locks on the other prison cells, specific examples aren't going to be very useful, because the context is going to be different in every scenario. That's what I'm not sure you're understanding; there is no hard rule on what will or will not work.

In the case of the shopkeeper I mentioned, selling you the crown jewels he had made on commission is in no way going to sound reasonable to him...but it might if he was part of a rebel movement looking to overthrow the king...unless the reason he took the commission was so he could lace the crown with poison...and so on and so forth. Do you see how useless a short example is yet? There can always be a "yeah, but what if..." counterpoint.

It's why the knight & beggar example, or any other, is no basis to judge the potential of the spell, any more than if Fireball said "this spell can kill orcs" instead of saying it deals 8d6 damage in a 20ft radius; What kind of orc? What if it has class levels? How many Orcs? What about other creatures? etc. etc. There's too many variables for examples to really be useful.

[Xetheral]

Yes, though I will say that I think this isn't a problem necessarily with Suggestion, seems more like Suggestion is just the avenue you expect what could be called a "problem player" to use. I guess it is worth acknowledging that Suggestion being as vague and permissible as it is means it's a much more prevalent avenue for that behavior.

I can agree with that. :)

[Amnestic]

Would another example really be any more useful than the reasoning I've already given you?

Whether it's a suggestion to a shopkeeper to consider selling stock he's got reserved for someone else or a guard you suggest he go check the locks on the other prison cells,

Why would either of those listen to you and not immediately attack and/or call the guards when you just cast a spell on them? 'cos that's the problem with a reasonable request. "It's unreasonable to listen to someone who just cast an unknown spell on me", after all. And that is always going to be the context.


That's what I'm not sure you're understanding; there is no hard rule on what will or will not work.

I understand just fine. What I'm trying to do is get you to understand that your way effectively nerfs the spell into being less than worthless - actively detrimental, even since it becomes a trap option. It's not useful in combat. It's not useful out of combat. No one would take it.

And then what's the point in it existing?

[Tanarii]

As a DM, I can simply refuse to invoke the chase rules to prevent the degeneracy, but if the player was counting on the ability to do so (potentially because they thought this was a clever use that didn't cross the line into abusing mechanics), there's now some friction at the table.Neither here nor there to the point you were making, but if a DM (not you specifically) were to make Dash exhaustion contingent of if they invoked the Chase scene rules, in other words only when Dashing as part of a chase, there's going to be some kind of friction regardless. Those rules should be used whenever multiple Dash are being used, or not at all.

Possibly more relevant is you can't Dash yourself to death, your speed goes to zero. Unless the DM rules you have to Dash without moving and it exhausts you to death I suppose.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Persuasion checks are altogether different from a Suggestion spell. Persuasion isn't magical. You can't convince a king to give up his crown no matter how high the roll. You couldn't convince most folks to go take a bath during combat with a persuasion roll - it automatically fails. The only reason Suggestion might work is because it is magical.

I think this is an excellent summation of the viewpoint that Magic can achieve results that even the most skilled can not.

Not every game shares this viewpoint, but I do not think it an uncommon paradigm.
So if we take the sentiment from the quote above and apply it to this:


In the case of the shopkeeper I mentioned, selling you the crown jewels he had made on commission is in no way going to sound reasonable to him...but it might if he was part of a rebel movement looking to overthrow the king...unless the reason he took the commission was so he could lace the crown with poison...and so on and so forth. Do you see how useless a short example is yet? There can always be a "yeah, but what if..." counterpoint.


JellyPooga....the qualifications you stated above on what would be "reasonable" to the shopkeeper seem more considerations for a Persuasion Ability check, not the magic of a Suggestion spell.

Essentially, you seem to be stating that the magic of a Suggestion spell is so feeble, the spell will only work if, and only if, the Suggestion request is something the target would agree to, even if no magic was involved.

So if Suggestion fails, would a Persuasion check of 37 work?

I think it also suggests that your concerns with the Suggestion spell might extend beyond ensuring that Suggestion does not overshadow Banishment in combat.

[Xetheral]

Neither here nor there to the point you were making, but if a DM (not you specifically) were to make Dash exhaustion contingent of if they invoked the Chase scene rules, in other words only when Dashing as part of a chase, there's going to be some kind of friction regardless. Those rules should be used whenever multiple Dash are being used, or not at all.

Possibly more relevant is you can't Dash yourself to death, your speed goes to zero. Unless the DM rules you have to Dash without moving and it exhausts you to death I suppose.

I entirely agree--I dislike that repeated dashing causes exhaustion in one context but not in another. But at a table where repeated dashing always leads to exhaustion, and Suggestion only needs to sound reasonable, there's a lot more potential for Suggestion to become effectively save-or-die.

I also agree that the target wouldn't need to dash themselves to death even if such a suggestion were permitted at a table that always applied dashing exhaustion. (Arguably they wouldn't need to dash themselves past 3 levels, since the fourth changes the HP max, potentially violating the self-harm rule.) But five levels of exhaustion is such a huge combat nerf that it's effectively a death sentence. The caster and their allies have a full hour to track down and dispose of the crippled, immobile target.

[Sigreid]

Well, isn't it "unreasonable" for the knight(or was it paladin?) in the example of Suggestion to give away their steed?
One that they might have ridden for many years, their best friend, and something that costs a lot of gold.

Depends on the knight. I could see it working on one that's truly dedicated to helping the downtrodden. Not so much on the arrogant noble type.

[Lupine]

At the end of our last session my party was in a temple and we were attacked by many YuanTi. Like a good tank, I'm blocking the entrance (door cannot be closed). After the third attempt, my PC failed to save against a SUGGESTION spell to "go bathe in the river until midnight." There are ~ a dozen YuanTi between the Temple door and the outer gate. There is no way to go around the YuanTi without passing through their Op ATT range. They are blocking the outer gate/entrance, but I could climb the perimeter wall.

Suggestion spell prohibits “Asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act ends the spell” I’d say tanking a bunch of attacks counts as harmful. Climb the wall.

Next, the suggestion spell is concentration. Just have a buddy hit it out of them. When you’re on the wall, now you’re at the top of a wall, otherwise known as “immune to melee attacks”

The creature performs the activity “to the best of its ability.” This means you do have to dash, and can’t take any other action, but if you have something like spiritual weapon, well well, might as well hit them with the door as you leave. Bonus points if you hit the creature with a spiritual weapon, and break the caster concentration, thus freeing your turn.



He is compelled to move towards the river - but he still views all the YuanTi as enemies (right?).

Definitely. Suggestion is interesting, because it’s a “letter of the law” spell meaning you can pull the “faustian deal” card, and work a loophole. Notice that you are compelled to act, not “charmed.”

[JellyPooga]

Why would either of those listen to you and not immediately attack and/or call the guards when you just cast a spell on them? 'cos that's the problem with a reasonable request. "It's unreasonable to listen to someone who just cast an unknown spell on me", after all. And that is always going to be the context.

I understand just fine.

See, I'm still not sure that you do. The spellcaster and the targets opinion of them is largely irrelevant. The context and stage of the suggestion in light of who the target is, is all that matters.

Can you point me toward the text that describes how the target knows they've had Suggestion cast on them? Charm Person has such a description, but Suggestion, notably, does not. This suggests that whether or not the target knows a spell has beem cast on them has little or no bearing on the result of the spell. This, then, further implies that the targets relationship with the caster (whether friendly, hostile or otherwise) is also largely irrelevant. All that matters is that the suggestion itself sounds reasonable to the target (which must also account for their current state of mind and situation) and that it's not harmful (with similar qualificarions).

I mentioned before that the spell does not remove control of the target, only their agency, but what the spell also struggles to do is override the morals, personality or requirements of the target, because those are the things that (largely speaking) constitute their "reason". You could not ask a chivalrous knight to steal a horse from his liege, nor ask a beggar to hand over the only crust of bread he's seen in a week; those actions aren't within their reason to perform. Asking the knight to give the horse as charity on behalf of their lord or the beggar to sell that crust might be a different matter.

So yeah, you would be right to say that no suggestion from someone that has cast a spell on you could possibly be deemed reasonable, except that the caster and the casting is not part of the equation; only the suggestion itself as it pertains to the target.

If, for example, the target is openly hostile toward spellcasters in general, then in that case you are indeed going to find Suggestion hard to use, just as you'll find it hard to make any suggestion sound reasonable in combat; not because you cast a spell on them or that you're the one asking, but because you're a spellcaster and they're prejudiced against them, so asking them to do anything that would benefit you (a spellcaster) is unreasonable to them. If, on the other hand, you used Suggestion on our magiphobe to aid your non-spellcaster friend, then he'd likely be much more conducive (and it almost certainly wouldn't improve his opinion of mages).


JellyPooga....the qualifications you stated above on what would be "reasonable" to the shopkeeper seem more considerations for a Persuasion Ability check, not the magic of a Suggestion spell.

Yes and no. It's worth bearing in mind that, like a lot of lower level spells, Suggestion is the "magical Persuasion" spell, much as Knock is a kind of "magical thieves tools" spell or Invisibility is "magical Stealth". Yes, the parallels are not exact, but I think it's a fair comparison.

So yes, a lot of how you'd adjudicate the effect of Suggestion is similar to the way you'd judge a Persuasion check; the "reasonable" clause of the spell must pertain to the target in question because "reasonable" is a subjective term. "Take a bath" is reasonable in your own home, not on a battlefield. It's also reasonable to a typical civilised human noble, but not to a hydrophobe.

Where Suggestion trumps Persuasion is in bypassing the targets agency, as I mentioned above. The beggar with his crust might not want to sell you his crust, simply out of stubborness or spite, potentially making Persuasion impossible. He has that choice. Suggestion, however, removes his agency to choose, because the money he gets from the sale could buy him more food; it appeals to his reason.


I think it also suggests that your concerns with the Suggestion spell might extend beyond ensuring that Suggestion does not overshadow Banishment in combat.

Banishment isn't even on my radar when I'm discussing Suggestion, which is why I was quick to dismiss it earlier. They are completely different spells that fill entirely different functions and I see little value in comparing the two.

[Dark.Revenant]

[....] 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 RAW has been pointed out before. It just needs to sound reasonable, and the moment the task becomes obviously harmful, it ends.

I think this is sufficient guidance to rule the spell's applicability to combat. If you suggest for a creature to flee from battle (worded in a "reasonable way"), it mostly just comes down to what kind of reprisal the creature will face. If flight is treason and will result in a punishment like execution, it's obviously harmful because the creature knows it will die as a result of taking that action. Similarly, if there is a taskmaster ready to strike down any who flee the battle, escape is obviously harmful because the creature is certain to be attacked by its superior. On the other hand, a mercenary is probably going to face some kind of reprisal if it flees, but it won't likely be worse than a setback, so it could go either way. Undead, monsters, and other such creatures (assuming they're charmable and can understand you) probably have no reason to stick around other than self-interest, so they'd skedaddle.

Keep in mind that a level later, Fear accomplishes a similar effect but hits a whole group of creatures.

In the OP's case, you're being asked to flee straight into the enemy. Unless you have some means of bypassing the danger, the spell probably shouldn't work on you.

[Amnestic]

See, I'm still not sure that you do. The spellcaster and the targets opinion of them is largely irrelevant. The context and stage of the suggestion in light of who the target is, is all that matters.

Can you point me toward the text that describes how the target knows they've had Suggestion cast on them?

It's got V and M components, which means that they can see and hear it being cast, obviously. That's why I kept bringing up Subtle spell.


Charm Person has such a description, but Suggestion, notably, does not.

Neither does Fireball. But I'm pretty sure you know who casts it when it happens, no?

[Aquillion]

If a DM is uncertain whether a suggestion sounds reasonable, another option is to let the PC roll Deception, Intimidation, Performance, or Persuasion, depending on what you're trying to do. Obviously the roll isn't required, but eg. Intimidation could be used to make "drop your weapon and run" more reasonable.

[Yakk]

That suggestion, to me, means "ok everyone, clear the temple, for tonight WE BATHE!"

Imagine if your PCs goal was to have a bath in that water this night. Would you run past the deadly guards, or kill them first?

[Keltest]

It's got V and M components, which means that they can see and hear it being cast, obviously. That's why I kept bringing up Subtle spell.



Neither does Fireball. But I'm pretty sure you know who casts it when it happens, no?

Why does it matter if they know? Theyre busy going off and doing the thing you just suggested to them to do. Even if they didnt know at the time, theres going to be a "Why on Toril did i just do that?" effect immediately after the spell finishes, so it doesnt really matter. Its the magic that makes you want to do something you otherwise wouldnt, not the logic of the statement.

[JellyPooga]

It's got V and M components, which means that they can see and hear it being cast, obviously. That's why I kept bringing up Subtle spell.

The target can see a spell being cast, yes, but unless they have seen that specific caster cast that specific spell before, or pass an Arcana check to identify the spell, they aren't going to know the spell is Suggestion and they aren't going to know that they're the target until they're already under its effect (the "magical influence"). Subtle Spell will conceal the obvious spellcasting, but it has no bearing on the effect of the spell itself; you still have to engage verbally with the target for the spell to take effect (they must be able to hear and understand you). You can bring it up again and it will still be just as irrelevent.


Neither does Fireball. But I'm pretty sure you know who casts it when it happens, no?

A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame.

I think this might be the giveaway for the target of Fireball, which is the point I was making, not the V/S/M components. As I've repeatedly said, the caster is not at issue, the target is.

Casting a spell in someones general vicinity =/= Someone knows the spell has been cast specifically on them. Many spells describe some kind of visual effect (such as Fireball), others mention specifically that the target knows (such as Charm Person). There are others still that do neither (such as Suggestion) and as you point out yourself, would be ineffectual if they did. Therefore, it follows that these types of spell must not work that way.

[Randomthom]

Suggestion has the potential to screw things up royally if the DM lets it. Charm Person has the same basic problem.

It is important to understand what these spells are and more importantly, what they are not.

Consider what Dominate Person allows by comparison and you'll start to get an impression of what they ought to be capable of.

Put simply;
Suggestion: Player retains agency of their actions but their priority temporarily changes. You are not charmed*
Charm Person: Player views the caster as an ally. They do not suddenly view their original allies as enemies.
Dominate Person: Player becomes puppet of the caster in all meaningful ways.

*The charmed condition states that you cannot attack the caster of this spell. Suggestion does not carry the charmed condition with it. You still fully understand the caster of the spell (and by proxy, it's allies) to be your enemies. You may be compelled to get to that pool to bathe but you'll fight your way through these YT to get there and when you do get there, you won't doff your armour & drop your weapon while it is unsafe to do so.

If your old priority was protecting your friends, that is still a high priority for you, you've just gained one higher still.

Regarding the OP, the DM in you game is the important decision maker here. It is worth speaking to them before the game, explaining how you think the spell works and asking them how they think the spell works. Your priority has now changed but your tactical brain and the immediate danger to you and your allies has not.

[da newt]

For context, the 5 YuanTi Pureblood and 4 Malison are in plain view right in front of the Temple, the first two SUGGESTIONs to take a bath failed before the third was successful, so it is safe to assume everyone heard multiple YuanTi tell my PC to go take a bath, but it would be a stretch to assume anyone knows which one should be attacked to break concentration.

Bottom line - it seems consensus is that my PC must take action to move to the river, but has free choice as far as how to go about getting there. He could decide to wade into melee and hack his way through his foes or disengage and go around them doing his best to protect himself from harm or anything similar...

[Sorinth]

The spell should probably grant advantage to the target when they are in combat/hostile like charm person.

Generally in combat things like running away/surrendering are reasonable actions to take. But it varies, surrendering for example might reasonable to begin with, but if combat continues then it can become unreasonable. And running as far and as fast as you can should only have you Dashing until 1 level of exhaustion, at which point you would continue to move but not longer Dash as an action.

So to the OP situation, taking a bath in the middle of a fight isn't reasonable and should fail. But obviously talk to your DM about it. More generally in your situation, if there was a reasonable course of action that required you to get to the other side of the Yuanti then it would come down to whether there is an open path or not. So if you could disengage and move past them then you should have to do that, if the path was blocked then fighting through could make sense, as would backing off and looking for another way past.

[da newt]

Given the option, my PC would choose to hack his way through vice scuttling away like a wuss - it is his nature, especially as the rest of the party is threatened. He has a strong protector / hero complex, and habitually puts himself in harm's way so that others are safer. He relishes the tank role.

Besides, you might as well get good and bloody before your bath ...

[JackPhoenix]

Possibly more relevant is you can't Dash yourself to death, your speed goes to zero.

Which would be sufficient to fulfill the Suggestion anyway. You've ran as far as your legs could carry you, as asked, the spell ends.

[Amnestic]

The target can see a spell being cast, yes, but unless they have seen that specific caster cast that specific spell before, or pass an Arcana check to identify the spell, they aren't going to know the spell is Suggestion and they aren't going to know that they're the target until they're already under its effect (the "magical influence"). Subtle Spell will conceal the obvious spellcasting, but it has no bearing on the effect of the spell itself; you still have to engage verbally with the target for the spell to take effect (they must be able to hear and understand you). You can bring it up again and it will still be just as irrelevent.




I think this might be the giveaway for the target of Fireball, which is the point I was making, not the V/S/M components. As I've repeatedly said, the caster is not at issue, the target is.

Casting a spell in someones general vicinity =/= Someone knows the spell has been cast specifically on them. Many spells describe some kind of visual effect (such as Fireball), others mention specifically that the target knows (such as Charm Person). There are others still that do neither (such as Suggestion) and as you point out yourself, would be ineffectual if they did. Therefore, it follows that these types of spell must not work that way.

"Woah, weird, this guy just cast an (unknown) spell and then told me to do something, and I weirdly feel like doing it, nothing suspect there at all!"

[JellyPooga]

"Woah, weird, this guy just cast an (unknown) spell and then told me to do something, and I weirdly feel like doing it, nothing suspect there at all!"

You're now just responding without making a point and that's just irritating without being useful. Unless you want to reiterate and reinforce your argument, make an actual counter-point to my post(s) or add something new, I reckon I'm done here.

[Thunderous Mojo]

the "reasonable" clause of the spell must pertain to the target in question because "reasonable" is a subjective term. "

Where Suggestion trumps Persuasion is in bypassing the targets agency,

So Suggesting that a troll should rip the arms off another creature should always work then?

How is Suggestion "bypassing the target's agency" if the target ultimately decides what is "reasonable"?

Does a committed vegetarian even have to make a saving throw if Suggestion is used to request the target: "eat some meat for their own benefit and nourishment"?

D&D is a game about the inter-subjective, not just the subjective.
As a reader, I don't believe I could characterize your rubric for adjudicating the Suggestion spell as anything other than by fiat.

That is not saying you are a bad judge, only that I can't discern any process unifying the examples you have given in this this thread, other than: you rule based on what you think is fair.

[JellyPooga]

How is Suggestion "bypassing the target's agency" if the target ultimately decides what is "reasonable"?

...

As a reader, I don't believe I could characterize your rubric for adjudicating the Suggestion spell as anything other than by fiat.

Cutting to the chase, I largely believe that's the only way the spell can be judged, in my opinion.

The distinction that Suggestion makes is that it doesn't allow a choice; agency is removed. But the spell is limited to what the target finds reasonable; which is entirely subjective, dependent on both who the target is and the situation they're in at the time. To rule any other way (e.g. "X suggestion is always considered reasonable") would be contrary to the wording of the spell that states the suggestion must sound reasonable, presumably to the target given the context of the statement. The "choice" of whether a given Suggestion sounds reasonable or not is not made by the target, but rather by who/what they are and what they're doing at the time. A functionally limitless number of possibilities.

This is why I was resistant to giving examples, because in this particular case, a specific example is only useful for the example itself. Take the given example in the spell; the knight, warhorse and the beggar. We have no idea why the knight finds it reasonable to donate a warhorse to the first beggar he sees, only that he does (e.g. he could be filthy rich, exceedingly generous, or even something as weirdly specific as having just taken a vow of poverty). This does not mean that the same beggar would also find it reasonable to donate a warhorse to the first (other) beggar he sees; his outlook and circumstance are entirely different to that of the knight. The example is not useful for creating a grounded basis for what will always be considered reasonable and nor is any other. Such a thing does not and cannot exist.

[Tanarii]

Or it could just mean whatever sounds reasonable to your DM

[Sorinth]

To rule any other way (e.g. "X suggestion is always considered reasonable") would be contrary to the wording of the spell that states the suggestion must sound reasonable, presumably to the target given the context of the statement.

It seems odd to claim any other ruling would be contrary to the wording of the spell but then also have to make a presumption.

Especially since if they wanted it to mean what you say all it would have been very easy to add "to the target" to the sentence about being reasonable.

[Keravath]

Cutting to the chase, I largely believe that's the only way the spell can be judged, in my opinion.

The distinction that Suggestion makes is that it doesn't allow a choice; agency is removed. But the spell is limited to what the target finds reasonable; which is entirely subjective, dependent on both who the target is and the situation they're in at the time. To rule any other way (e.g. "X suggestion is always considered reasonable") would be contrary to the wording of the spell that states the suggestion must sound reasonable, presumably to the target given the context of the statement. The "choice" of whether a given Suggestion sounds reasonable or not is not made by the target, but rather by who/what they are and what they're doing at the time. A functionally limitless number of possibilities.

This is why I was resistant to giving examples, because in this particular case, a specific example is only useful for the example itself. Take the given example in the spell; the knight, warhorse and the beggar. We have no idea why the knight finds it reasonable to donate a warhorse to the first beggar he sees, only that he does (e.g. he could be filthy rich, exceedingly generous, or even something as weirdly specific as having just taken a vow of poverty). This does not mean that the same beggar would also find it reasonable to donate a warhorse to the first (other) beggar he sees; his outlook and circumstance are entirely different to that of the knight. The example is not useful for creating a grounded basis for what will always be considered reasonable and nor is any other. Such a thing does not and cannot exist.

I disagree :). The target of a Suggestion spell can't be expected to consider the suggestion completely reasonable if they were not being affected by the spell ... it only needs to sound "reasonable", not be reasonable.

Example, in combat, you suggest to a target that they retreat from the fight and run away to defend elsewhere or do something else. The target says "that isn't reasonable since I would never leave my friends" - in your opinion the spell automatically fails. Always ... since telling this target to leave their friends to fight on their own is always unreasonable for this character.

In the example from the PHB, the suggestion to the knight is to give their warhorse to the first beggar they see. In my opinion, this example is intended to illustrate an example suggestion that would be EXPECTED to work whether the knight is rich or poor. Whether the knight has 10 horses or only one. Whether the knight needs their horse to complete a mission or not. Yes, this makes suggestion a situationally powerful spell but in my opinion that is the way it is expected to work.

The suggestion has to sound reasonable, not actually BE reasonable to the character being affected by the suggestion.

In any case, however you want to run it is fine, the entire spell is completely open to DM interpretation and how they want to run it in their games ... but I would suggest that if you plan to nerf it to the point where a suggestion can only get a creature to do something they would choose to do anyway because those are the only actions the creature would consider reasonable that you let the players know that the spell is useless and not to bother taking it in your games since unless the creature was planning on having dinner you couldn't even suggest that they get a bite to eat. "Nah. not hungry now. Not a reasonable suggestion."

[Tanarii]

I hate the knight example given in the spell.I can't think of any definition of "sounds reasonable" where it fits the criteria. To me it's a direct contradiction.

For context, at a minimum that's roughly like Siggesting someone give away their BMW 5 series to the next beggar they see.

[Imbalance]

I hate the knight example given in the spell.I can't think of any definition of "sounds reasonable" where it fits the criteria. To me it's a direct contradiction.

For context, that's roughly like Siggesting someone give away their BMW 5 series to the next beggar they see.

"Well, it's due for an oil change, and the blinkers never did work..."

[Tanarii]

"Well, it's due for an oil change, and the blinkers never did work..."
"She was ready for the glue factory anyway" still doesn't make it sound reasonable.

"The next beggar you meet is your best friend in disguise, and she needs a horse for a secret mission. Lend it to her." would be more likely to pass muster. But I don't know if that is the kind of thing Suggestion is supposed to allow happening, reprogramming bs to make it believable.

[Sorinth]

I hate the knight example given in the spell.I can't think of any definition of "sounds reasonable" where it fits the criteria. To me it's a direct contradiction.

For context, at a minimum that's roughly like Siggesting someone give away their BMW 5 series to the next beggar they see.

There's an argument that the "reasonable" part is about self-harm. Is it reasonable to conclude that the suggested course of action will harm the target? If yes the spell fails, if no then they perform the action.

[Keltest]

"She was ready for the glue factory anyway" still doesn't make it sound reasonable.

If you could actually just persuade somebody to do it nonmagically, why would you even need the spell? Giving your horse to somebody is a totally normal thing that people do sometimes. Giving things to beggars is a totally normal thing that people do. Giving your horse to a beggar to keep is a super weird thing to do (and probably not going to do the beggar any favors, frankly) but its not outlandishly weird, its just nobody ever has a reason to.

If you start with the assumption that they just wouldnt ever willingly do it even if they wanted to, of course nothing is going to sound reasonable. But its magic, the spell makes them want to do it. You have to look at what is reasonable within that context. And if you want to give your horse to a beggar, its perfectly reasonable to do so.


There's an argument that the "reasonable" part is about self-harm. Is it reasonable to conclude that the suggested course of action will harm the target? If yes the spell fails, if no then they perform the action.

Feasibility plays into it too. Asking a man who cant use his arms to climb a tree is probably not going to work no matter how much he really wants to. "Flap your arms and fly off the cliff!" wont work on a human. "Flap your arms and try to fly!" would. Because a pure human will never fly by flapping their arms, but they can try knowing that they will fail.

[JellyPooga]

I disagree :)

That's your prerogative and I welcome it!


Example, in combat, you suggest to a target that they retreat from the fight and run away to defend elsewhere or do something else.

This touches on something that I believe (from experience) a lot of people mistake about Suggestion. I'm not saying you're making this mistake but your comment here suggests you might and I suspect a lot of those who do make the mistake would tend to agree with your stance. Namely, the mistake that Suggestion makes or can make the target believe something that isn't true or you want the them to believe. Suggestion cannot do that.

Suggestions that go something along the lines of (to use a corruption of your example) "go defend the side gate because there's enemies there". This might "sound reasonable" because enemies at your rear are obviously a nuisance. The only part of the suggestion that's valid, however, is "go defend the side gate". The spell cannot make the target believe the "there are enemies there" bit. As such, the "reasonable-ness" of the suggestion can only be judged on whether the target believes defending the side gate sounds reasonable when there's a fight at hand, which is a very different proposition.


The target says "that isn't reasonable since I would never leave my friends" - in your opinion the spell automatically fails. Always ... since telling this target to leave their friends to fight on their own is always unreasonable for this character.

Don't mistake my stance for being arbitrary or draconian. I just have exacting standards as to what will and won't fly at my table, based on my interpretation of the spell. The OP's example is a far cry from anything I'd allow at my table, on several levels.


In the example from the PHB, the suggestion to the knight is to give their warhorse to the first beggar they see. In my opinion, this example is intended to illustrate an example suggestion that would be EXPECTED to work whether the knight is rich or poor. Whether the knight has 10 horses or only one. Whether the knight needs their horse to complete a mission or not. Yes, this makes suggestion a situationally powerful spell but in my opinion that is the way it is expected to work.

This is counter to the rule that the suggested course of action sound reasonable. This interpretation is entirely arbitrary. For a start it's predicated on having the title of knight, rather than to be in a particular circumstance e.g. wealth, etc. that I discussed in my last post. What might sound reasonable to a wealthy landed knight will absolutely not sound reasonable to a listless or dispossessed knight. That's not "situationally powerful", it's nonsense.


you let the players know that the spell is useless and not to bother taking it in your games

Babies. Bathwater. You know the saying. I by no means make the spell useless just because I don't let players use it for everything forever without making them earn it. It's a 2nd level spell, not Wish. I hold it to that level of power, is all.

[Tanarii]

If you could actually just persuade somebody to do it nonmagically, why would you even need the spell?

Given the sounds reasonable criteria, why should it be any more powerful than what you can accomplish with a persuasion or other charisma check? Just without the check.

[patchyman]

Giving your horse to a beggar might not be something any horse-owner would do of their own volition barring exceptional circumstances, but it isnt a crazy irrational thing to do either, its just weird. To that end, it passes the "its not unreasonable" test. On the other hand, ignoring a combat in any circumstances is highly unreasonable. Its right there. It has immediate life or death consequences. Its an impediment to doing other stuff. Ignoring it is unreasonable by any measure, so anything that asks you to ignore the combat entirely is also unreasonable even if the action itself is a perfectly normal, logical thing to do most of the time, like eating breakfast.

I use the mirror test to evaluate a Suggestion. I ask my players to consider if the Suggestion is something that their character might reasonably do if the situation were reversed.

Because I trust my players, I don’t worry that they will claim Suggestions they believe are unreasonable are actually reasonable. Because they trust me, they accept it if I say that there is a reason why a Suggestion that is not otherwise unreasonable is unreasonable for this character (a character with a death wish will probably not accept a request to surrender).

In most cases a Suggestion to flee would be acceptable, and unless you are playing on a featureless plain, I find the claim that fleeing is a death sentence to be untenable. Generally, if a person flees, the other person gets a single free shot before they find some sort of cover.

[Sorinth]

Feasibility plays into it too. Asking a man who cant use his arms to climb a tree is probably not going to work no matter how much he really wants to. "Flap your arms and fly off the cliff!" wont work on a human. "Flap your arms and try to fly!" would. Because a pure human will never fly by flapping their arms, but they can try knowing that they will fail.

Does it?

Flap your arms and fly off the cliff fails because it's reasonable to expect that course of action to cause the target harm.

Flap your arms and try to fly is not likely to cause harm and therefore works. Climbing a tree could be a bit of a grey area because climbing the tree might lead to harm if they fall, so it comes down to risk not feasibility. But I'd rule the target would try to climb the tree because it's not obviously harmful.

[Sorinth]

This is counter to the rule that the suggested course of action sound reasonable. This interpretation is entirely arbitrary. For a start it's predicated on having the title of knight, rather than to be in a particular circumstance e.g. wealth, etc. that I discussed in my last post. What might sound reasonable to a wealthy landed knight will absolutely not sound reasonable to a listless or dispossessed knight. That's not "situationally powerful", it's nonsense.

If as you say it's contradictory wouldn't the logical conclusion be that the example they give is the "right" interpretation?

I mean isn't the whole reason they provided a example is to show what the spell is supposed to be able to do because they knew the wording of the spell was vague?

[Keltest]

Does it?

Flap your arms and fly off the cliff fails because it's reasonable to expect that course of action to cause the target harm.

Flap your arms and try to fly is not likely to cause harm and therefore works. Climbing a tree could be a bit of a grey area because climbing the tree might lead to harm if they fall, so it comes down to risk not feasibility. But I'd rule the target would try to climb the tree because it's not obviously harmful.

If you suggest that they do something that theyre physically incapable of doing, then the spell fails the reasonability test. Its unreasonable to tell a random human commoner to go fly somewhere, period, because they just cant do it ever no matter what they try. And yes, before somebody tries to get smart, i am excluding the idea of a random adventurer giving them an item that lets them fly. I picked a commoner for a reason.

[patchyman]

Well, isn't it "unreasonable" for the knight(or was it paladin?) in the example of Suggestion to give away their steed?
One that they might have ridden for many years, their best friend, and something that costs a lot of gold.

Worth noting that the example doesn’t say that the steed in question was ridden for many years, was their best friend, or that relative to their overall wealth, it cost a lot of gold.

I think in trying to make sense of an example, we should try to limit additional elements that would tend to make the spell more powerful.

After all, it is equally likely that the knight gave the beggar a warhorse that had broken its leg, has always been finicky and hard to control, and the knight has a dozen war horses back at his castle.

😃

[Glorthindel]

I go with the "is this something you might do drunk?" line of reasoning. I believe the spell puts you in a highly suggestable state of mind, but still in your mind. It is still you acting, but a good chunk of the inhibitions you might normally have over doing something has been stripped away.

Many of us have done it; the morning following a particularly hard drinking session, you suddenly remember doing something poorly thought out, more than a little silly, but also (I will speak only for me here, but I doubt I am alone) entirely in line with how your mind works. But for a breif period, your normal long-term brain has just gone "sod it" and let your short term brain go with whatever foolish notion passed it by.

And I wouldn't put it just down to alcohol; most of us have done silly things because we acted in haste, or in a moment of panic, lots of us will have been convinced to do something out of guilt or social pressure we later regret agreeing to, and many of us have bought things only to realise the day later that it was probably a silly purchase. Coincidentally, that's why I think the "Knight" example works, since a honourable, goodly knight could quite feasibily make an act of immense generosity to display his knightly virtue and inspire hope amoungst the poor folks, only to think minutes later "hmm, that was probably a bit rash of me".

That's how I rule suggestion. I don't let it make a character do completely out of character things, but things that, after four or five pints, or after a half hour of guilt-tripping by your mother, the character might have done, even if they didn't want to. Its a temporary brain short-circuit, not a form of control.

[patchyman]

If you could actually just persuade somebody to do it nonmagically, why would you even need the spell? Giving your horse to somebody is a totally normal thing that people do sometimes. Giving things to beggars is a totally normal thing that people do. Giving your horse to a beggar to keep is a super weird thing to do (and probably not going to do the beggar any favors, frankly) but its not outlandishly weird, its just nobody ever has a reason to.

I disagree that the spell would be useless if you could only use it to Suggest a course of action you could persuade them of non-magically.

First, to persuade someone non-magically, it generally helps to have high Cha and training in Persuasion, something that is pretty rare for Wizards in practice (“Allows the Wizard to do something they would otherwise suck at” is a perfectly reasonable use case).

Second, at level 3 when Suggestion comes online, very few characters can consistently hit DC 20 Persuasion checks, so Suggestion is worthwhile even if it is only as effective as a DC 20 persuasion check.

Third, Suggestion would still be the better option against targets that are trained in insight but not proficient in Wisdom Saving throws.

Finally, Suggestion remains a useful option for when a Persuasion check fails (especially if you donÂ’t allow players to make multiple identical checks for the same purpose).

[Sorinth]

If you suggest that they do something that theyre physically incapable of doing, then the spell fails the reasonability test. Its unreasonable to tell a random human commoner to go fly somewhere, period, because they just cant do it ever no matter what they try. And yes, before somebody tries to get smart, i am excluding the idea of a random adventurer giving them an item that lets them fly. I picked a commoner for a reason.

Well first off there are plenty of handicapped people who can do physical activities you might not think they could. For example,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Maynard

If you tell someone to "fly" and magic exists then why wouldn't the target try to find a way to get magic to make them fly. They could go around begging wizards to cast fly on them, they could look for magic items, etc... If their goal is to fly, quite frankly in a D&D world it's far from unreasonable to come up with and execute a plan to end up flying.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I hate the knight example given in the spell.I can't think of any definition of "sounds reasonable" where it fits the criteria. To me it's a direct contradiction.

For context, at a minimum that's roughly like Siggesting someone give away their BMW 5 series to the next beggar they see.

As you read this sentence, there is somebody in the world, performing an act of charity at least as comparable, if not greater than the examples above.

That you find Charity to be "unreasonable", is more a statement on the breadth of your viewpoint, than a statement regarding the Suggestion spell.

Everything that you have written in this thread, Tanarii, indicates that any player in a D&D game you are adjudicating would be better served casting anything else other than the Suggestion spell. 😁

I'm not writing that as a criticism. You are upfront about your position. I, personally, have no problem being a player in a D&D game that uses different interpretations of the rules, than I use when I run a game.


There's an argument that the "reasonable" part is about self-harm. Is it reasonable to conclude that the suggested course of action will harm the target? If yes the spell fails, if no then they perform the action.

I agree with this statement...which is why I quoted it in BOLD.
In US Jurisprudence, the "Reasonable Man" test, reviews the "legitimacy" of an action, through the lens of "Reasonable in the moment", divorced of context.

In D&D terms, the Suggestion spell request can not be obviously suicidal.
The limit of "Reasonableness" is, one cannot ask for a creature to die.
Asking a commoner to leap off a cliff is generally suicidal. Asking a Troll to jump off a cliff is generally not a suicidal action, for a troll.



This touches on something that I believe (from experience) a lot of people mistake about Suggestion. I'm not saying you're making this mistake but your comment here suggests you might and I suspect a lot of those who do make the mistake would tend to agree with your stance. Namely, the mistake that Suggestion makes or can make the target believe something that isn't true or you want the them to believe. Suggestion cannot do that.

In the United States, a man described as "perfectly reasonable", by his friends, family, and neighbors, took firearms to a Pizza joint,(with hostile intent), because of suggestions that world leaders were abusing children in the basement of the location.
The pizza parlor has no basement.

There have been multiple documented instances in the world, of violence resulting from false, erroneous, or misleading social media posts. I don't bring this up to discuss politics.....Please DO Not....rather to document examples that counter the claim above.

Yes, Suggestion is not an illusion spell, but the self deception required for cognition and one's "sense of self", only needs the slightest bit of encouragement, to spark our tendency to confabulate.

If an NPC sees armed opponents at the front door, and then someone successfully Suggests, that there are also opponents at the rear door....a door that is not visible at the moment.....why would the NPC doubt the assertion?

The story unfolding in a D&D game, is the PC's story. The fact that the DM, on the fly, decides that Shopkeeper #4 doesn't like Broccoli and is afraid, and therefore finds your Suggestion to sell you a particular magic item "unreasonable" is not making the game about the PCs.

The Tempest looses a bit of luster, if Prospero's Magic largely doesn't work.

[Yakk]

The "Knight" example, I took the "Knight" to be the "aurthurian story" Knight, not "Knight as actually existed".

Nominally a paragon of virtue, follows a code, etc.

Here, Charity to the poor is one of the Knight's obligations. You are just suggesting the Knight do something a bit more extreme and immediate with it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The "Knight" example, I took the "Knight" to be the "aurthurian story" Knight, not "Knight as actually existed".

Nominally a paragon of virtue, follows a code, etc.

Here, Charity to the poor is one of the Knight's obligations. You are just suggesting the Knight do something a bit more extreme and immediate with it.

I read it the same, the example is clearly given as valid with context in mind that for the knight in question, this is reasonable.

Context is a large factor in what is reasonable.

[GloatingSwine]

"Woah, weird, this guy just cast an (unknown) spell and then told me to do something, and I weirdly feel like doing it, nothing suspect there at all!"

Yeah, that suspicious feeling's called "a saving throw".

If you fail the saving throw then you're going to do it anyway and can complain about it after the spell ends, if you make the save then you get an extra reason to be very annoyed about the attempt.



Now, one thing I haven't seen mentioned here is that this is Suggestion being used on a Player Character. Which to me would indicate that the player should be involved in deciding whether the suggestion "sounds reasonable" to the character in that moment. (Obviously this requires trust and honesty from both sides, but the alternative is just taking away their character for the duration of the spell, and is that what you really want for your players?)

In this case the answer is "obviously no, that doesn't sound reasonable". It's too blunt and too far outside of the context of actions any reasonable person might take in the middle of combat. It's not unsalvageable, but it would have to be tailored more to the character involved. (eg. if the character is the noble trust-your-friends type maybe "Your allies can handle this little scuffle, you can take a rest for this fight and maybe wash some of that blood off")

[Keravath]

I hate the knight example given in the spell.I can't think of any definition of "sounds reasonable" where it fits the criteria. To me it's a direct contradiction.

For context, at a minimum that's roughly like Siggesting someone give away their BMW 5 series to the next beggar they see.

However, I think that is the point. If you assume that the writers who created the spell created the example with the capability of the spell in mind (might be a far-fetched assumption I know :) ), then the example in the Suggestion spell is an example to players and DMs alike on what a "reasonable" suggestion WOULD be.

Assuming the example was referring to a knight who believes in good things, helping others, charity etc. ... then the writer of the spell considers the example as one that would generally be considered reasonable ... otherwise it would NOT be used as an example.

If it was supposed to reasonable only for the 5% of knights that might find the charity of giving up their warhorse to a beggar that probably couldn't use it, more reasonable than hanging onto it for their own use and giving the beggar a few coins then it would have said that.

Objectively, there are almost NO circumstances where even an honorable, upstanding, lawful stupid knight would actually consider it "reasonable" to give up their warhorse (as you clearly point out - given the context, giving away your horse makes no sense at all and is pretty unreasonable - however, this IS the example in the spell text). From that I conclude that the goal of the example is to explicitly give a suggestion that WOULD be considered "reasonable" in terms of the intent of the spell. As a result, the suggestion has to only sound reasonable, since magic is involved, the suggestion isn't required to actually BE reasonable to a creature if they heard the suggestion unaffected by the spell. (but folks are welcome to play it however they like).

[Keltest]

Well first off there are plenty of handicapped people who can do physical activities you might not think they could. For example,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Maynard

If you tell someone to "fly" and magic exists then why wouldn't the target try to find a way to get magic to make them fly. They could go around begging wizards to cast fly on them, they could look for magic items, etc... If their goal is to fly, quite frankly in a D&D world it's far from unreasonable to come up with and execute a plan to end up flying.

Because then if i told somebody to jump off a cliff, the spell would work, they would just go seek a means of getting flight or featherfall first. Or some other means of negating the damage, if they think of one. You didnt suggest to them to change the circumstances to make an action more reasonable, you just suggested that they do something directly.

"Jump off this cliff" isnt "Go find some way to survive jumping off this cliff and then jump."

[JellyPooga]

If an NPC sees armed opponents at the front door, and then someone successfully Suggests, that there are also opponents at the rear door....a door that is not visible at the moment.....why would the NPC doubt the assertion?

Because the Suggestion spell cannot assert that. It can only suggest a course of action, not a state of affairs. You can plant the suspicion in the targets mind as a Deception check, perhaps, but the spell in and of itself is not capable of convincing its target of anything except that they must follow a course of action. If you tried to use Suggestion to convince someone there was someone at the back door (and nothing else), it would simply fail as being an incorrect or inappropriate suggestion.

[GloatingSwine]

If an NPC sees armed opponents at the front door, and then someone successfully Suggests, that there are also opponents at the rear door....a door that is not visible at the moment.....why would the NPC doubt the assertion?


Mu

The question is wrong.

The NPC's belief in opponents at the rear door is irrelevant to Suggestion. Suggestion is "go do this action". Additional supporting information might make going and doing the action seem more reasonable, but what needs to seem reasonable isn't "there might be enemies at the back door" but "you should go and guard the back door now".

[Sorinth]

Because then if i told somebody to jump off a cliff, the spell would work, they would just go seek a means of getting flight or featherfall first. Or some other means of negating the damage, if they think of one. You didnt suggest to them to change the circumstances to make an action more reasonable, you just suggested that they do something directly.

"Jump off this cliff" isnt "Go find some way to survive jumping off this cliff and then jump."

Except asking for something obviously harmful ends the spell.

Climbing a tree isn't obviously harmful even if it's next to impossible for a person. Jumping off a cliff is.

[Keltest]

Except asking for something obviously harmful ends the spell.

Climbing a tree isn't obviously harmful even if it's next to impossible for a person. Jumping off a cliff is.

No, but climbing a tree isnt reasonable either if you lack the ability to climb in the first place. Thats my point. If something isnt feasible on its face without them having to go do something totally different first, the spell just doesnt work. A man in a full body cast isnt climbing a tree. A human isnt flying by flapping their arms. Youre arguing that somebody should MAKE a task seem reasonable, im saying that if you allow that, then somebody should make a task non-harmful and then attempt it. It makes the spell not actually have any points of failure because the victim will just go further and further out of their way to get around the danger or limitations.

[Xetheral]

The standard I use to determine whether or not a Suggestion is actually reasonable (given my houserule requiring actual reasonableness rather than just sounding reasonable) uses the same standard as the basic 5e resolution mechanic, where the DM has to decide whether a given action is an automatic success, an automatic failure, or uncertain (and thus call for a check).

If a given Suggestion would be an automatic success or have uncertain success if attempted with mundane persuasion under the same circusmtances by someone the target was indifferent towards, I rule it to be reasonable. The advantages of using the spell over persuasion are that it (a) is much faster (mundane persuasion can take a long time), (b) it replaces a potentially unreachable Charisma-check DC with a saving throw, and (c) ignores any pre-existing hostility/suspicion on the part of the target towards the caster.

[JellyPooga]

I go with the "is this something you might do drunk?" line of reasoning.

This, I like! It's a useful touchstone (at least for me; I admit to nothing incriminating!) for the "sounds reasonable" clause. I'd add the caveat of "Is this something I'd convince myself to do while drunk", because something someone else asks you to do is different. In my experience at least, I'm more prone to convince myself to do something daft while drunk than if someone else tried to convince me (e.g. I have jumped off a bridge into a watery ditch, including backflip, to retrieve a favoured hat while under the influence, but I doubt I'd have done the same for someone else or at their insistence.). As much as alcohol can make you suggestable, if can also make you stubborn, so I reckon the qualifier of what you'd convince yourself of eliminates that possibility.

[Segev]

This isn't directly applicable, since this is referencing earlier editions, but in an earlier edition, one of the things discussed in the spell text was that you couldn't get somebody to jump in a lake of acid just by suggesting they do so, but a suggestion that "That lake is filled with cool, refreshing water, and you really need a dip," would theoretically work.

If you can make the self-harm inobvious, it becomes more reasonable, is the message, there. 5e notably doesn't use that example, so it may be that you can't turn a directly self-harmful suggestion from "obviously harmful" to "acceptable" that way in 5e. However, I think it still has some useful stuff we can glean.

A suggestion has to "sound reasonable." To me, that means, "If the premises were entirely accepted by the listener, would he think this a thing he should do?" This lets you get around a lot of the normal reasons to resist a suggested course of action, because now you assume that not-obviously-false-by-direct-observation premises are simply accepted without examination.

In the by-now oft-referenced "it's like banishment" example of "You should retreat," there's an unspoken assumption that the fight is a losing one, or otherwise not worth the costs you'll pay if you stay and fight. If this is accepted without question, retreating is a reasonable option...as long as it's not obviously inviting immediate murder. i.e., it won't work if the idea that retreat is survivable isn't realistic.

"You should turn on your boss before he turns on you," carries the spoken assumption that the boss will turn on the target. This still only sounds reasonable if the notion of the boss turning on him is worse than what will happen if he turns on his boss, and if his loyalties aren't such that he'd willingly let his boss "turn on" him. In a group of evil creatures who are only bound by the notion that they're better off on their boss's good side than not, "turn on your boss before he turns on you" sounds reasonable because the assumption the boss will turn on him means he's already on the boss's bad side. In a group of loyal friends or retainers, the idea that their friend/boss would turn on them hurts, but they're not necessarily willing to turn on them because of it.

This still falls a lot into the "I know it when I see it" sort of reasoning, but I hope it's at least helpful for people in making their own determinations as to what "sounds reasonable."

[Sorinth]

No, but climbing a tree isnt reasonable either if you lack the ability to climb in the first place. Thats my point. If something isnt feasible on its face without them having to go do something totally different first, the spell just doesnt work. A man in a full body cast isnt climbing a tree. A human isnt flying by flapping their arms. Youre arguing that somebody should MAKE a task seem reasonable, im saying that if you allow that, then somebody should make a task non-harmful and then attempt it. It makes the spell not actually have any points of failure because the victim will just go further and further out of their way to get around the danger or limitations.

The spells say the target pursues the course of action to the best of their ability. Yes the ability of someone in a full body cast to climb a tree is basically nil, but they still should pursue that task. How is up to them, they aren't forced to go out of their way but it is a valid option, as is being stumped just sitting there thinking about how to do this almost impossible task.

The spell ends if they complete the task, not if they attempt and fail.

[Keltest]

The spells say the target pursues the course of action to the best of their ability. Yes the ability of someone in a full body cast to climb a tree is basically nil, but they still should pursue that task. How is up to them, they aren't forced to go out of their way but it is a valid option, as is being stumped just sitting there thinking about how to do this almost impossible task.

The spell ends if they complete the task, not if they attempt and fail.

So you think it's reasonable for somebody who physically cant climb a tree and knows it's impossible to try to do it anyway?

[Segev]

So you think it's reasonable for somebody who physically cant climb a tree and knows it's impossible to try to do it anyway?

"You should climb that tree to strengthen yourself as part of your recovery."

[Aquillion]

So you think it's reasonable for somebody who physically cant climb a tree and knows it's impossible to try to do it anyway?That's what "best of their ability" means.

If they are completely unable to make any attempt whatsoever then the best of their ability means "do nothing" and the spell has no effect. However, there's a pretty big gap between "know with absolute certainty that this feat cannot even be meaningfully attempted" and "yeah, failure is almost certain, but I can still try."

Someone who is merely incredibly clumsy or missing a limb or something is still going to have to go over to the tree and try. Someone who is paralyzed or whatever, though, is unaffected because they simply can't do it.

Also climbing a tree is sometimes dangerous - if the danger is high enough to make it obviously harmful to even attempt it then it has no effect. And the "sound reasonable" constraint applies here, too; it is harder to make it sound reasonable when suggesting something that is almost impossible.

[Sorinth]

So you think it's reasonable for somebody who physically cant climb a tree and knows it's impossible to try to do it anyway?

I think most things aren't actually impossible just extremely hard. Just like climbing a mountain without arms or legs, most people would say it was impossible, until someone did it.

It's also irrelevant for actual game play since it's not something that will come up. No one is casting Suggestion on someone in a full body cast and asking them to climb a tree.

[da newt]

PC's decide to do things that are obviously harmful all the time - combat monsters for example - these things are not reasonable to sane people with any sense of self preservation. So how do you argue what is 'reasonable' to an adventurer? Melee fighters especially - only a moron would ever act as a party TANK.

One of my former PC's decided to jump off a 150' cliff because he needed to get to the bottom NOW and he knew he would survive the fall ...

Does anyone ever play a PC that decides to avoid any action that is likely to do them harm? That would make for an exceptionally crappy adventuring party member ...



SUGGESTION is terribly vague. This is evident in this thread of 5 pages of differing opinions on what it can / can't / should / shouldn't do. I love the idea of the spell, but it is so poorly written that no one knows what it does until they ask their DM to rule on it and the DM is forced to make a judgement call based on their personal interpretation of a crappily worded spell description.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Mu

The question is wrong.

The NPC's belief in opponents at the rear door is irrelevant to Suggestion. Suggestion is "go do this action". Additional supporting information might make going and doing the action seem more reasonable, but what needs to seem reasonable isn't "there might be enemies at the back door" but "you should go and guard the back door now".

I actually never detailed what Suggestion would be requested.

Any response that begins with: "Mu" is guaranteed to make me smile.
The example I gave was to just illustrate the point, that two sentences of a Suggestion can include lines that make the request more acceptable, and people tend to believe others, especially in a crisis.

If I was in an active shooter scenario looking for a place to hide, and came upon someone else who said "Don't go down that hallway, the shooter is there"...just as a matter of prudence, I would likely take the statement at face value.
(I also would be panicked and not thinking clearly)

To be frank, this is an ancillary issue for me, at best.

The most important aspect of this discussion, to me, is as a player I expect a DM to be able to provide guidance on how they will adjudicate the spell, at Session Zero.

If a DM is unwilling to provide an answer to the hypothetical question:

Would a staunch vegetarian find the request from a Suggestion spell to "Eat this piece of meat" as unreasonable?"

The only prudent response, as a player, would be to assume that the Suggestion spell in that campaign has a high degree of failure, even before the actual saving throw roll itself.
Most likely I would avoid the spell entirely, in that circumstance.

[GloatingSwine]

Would a staunch vegetarian find the request from a Suggestion spell to "Eat this piece of meat" as unreasonable?"

The only prudent response, as a player, would be to assume that the Suggestion spell in that campaign has a high degree of failure, even before the actual saving throw roll itself.
Most likely I would avoid the spell entirely, in that circumstance.

Depends on the context of the action.

It's reasonable if it's in a context where eating at all would be a reasonable action. It's not if it isn't.

Winding back to the subject of the thread, that means that less things are going to be reasonable in combat than out of it.

[Bohandas]

At the end of our last session my party was in a temple and we were attacked by many YuanTi. Like a good tank, I'm blocking the entrance (door cannot be closed). After the third attempt, my PC failed to save against a SUGGESTION spell to "go bathe in the river until midnight." There are ~ a dozen YuanTi between the Temple door and the outer gate. There is no way to go around the YuanTi without passing through their Op ATT range. They are blocking the outer gate/entrance, but I could climb the perimeter wall.

So what can my PC do? What can't he do?

He is compelled to move towards the river - but he still views all the YuanTi as enemies (right?).

Would he wade into the bad guys to hack his way to the river? Is he compelled to ignore the enemy and walk like a zombie in a direct path toward the river without attacking or protecting himself? Is he compelled to move as expeditiously as possible to the river but still protect himself from harm as best he can (disengage, dodge, etc)?

What is RAW and/or how should you rule as DM?

I think sneaking would be warranted in this case

[SpanielBear]

What I find interesting about a lot of these nerfs to the spell is that they seem to make the spell weaker than level 1 spells. Tasha’s laughter has been mentioned, but Command is relevant here too. You can make someone kneel, clap, flee... all with a level 1 spell. Suggestion should at least be more powerful than that, no? Because “NPC saves against being persuaded to do an action, but only one they were originally inclined to do...” I dunno, seems to take the heart out of the spell.

At the very least, it feel like it should be a spell of “these aren’t the droid’s you’re looking for” level effectiveness.

[JellyPooga]

What I find interesting about a lot of these nerfs to the spell is that they seem to make the spell weaker than level 1 spells. Tasha’s laughter has been mentioned, but Command is relevant here too. You can make someone kneel, clap, flee... all with a level 1 spell. Suggestion should at least be more powerful than that, no? Because “NPC saves against being persuaded to do an action, but only one they were originally inclined to do...” I dunno, seems to take the heart out of the spell.

At the very least, it feel like it should be a spell of “these aren’t the droid’s you’re looking for” level effectiveness.

This is the sticking point that I think there's the most misunderstanding over. I'm not sure those in the "Suggestion is worthless under those circumstances" camp appreciate just how powerful getting someone to do something they might do but otherwise wouldn't actually is.

The power to dictate someones actions, even when its limited to things they might "only" be inclined to do is insanely useful and is well within the "these aren't the droids" level of power. Imagine how many other droid owners that trooper had told to "move along" already that day...the Suggestion not to inspect too closely is definitely within the realms of "sounds reasonable" for an exasperated 'trooper that is just doing his job.

[SpanielBear]

This is the sticking point that I think there's the most misunderstanding over. I'm not sure those in the "Suggestion is worthless under those circumstances" camp appreciate just how powerful getting someone to do something they might do but otherwise wouldn't actually is.

The power to dictate someones actions, even when its limited to things they might "only" be inclined to do is insanely useful and is well within the "these aren't the droids" level of power. Imagine how many other droid owners that trooper had told to "move along" already that day...the Suggestion not to inspect too closely is definitely within the realms of "sounds reasonable" for an exasperated 'trooper that is just doing his job.

It is always going to be a subjective point at the end of the day, so like others up thread even though I disagree with you I’m not saying you are wrong. More trying to explain why your position *feels* wrong to me. So yeah, utterly, utterly subjective.

But we’re talking about resource expenditure- a level 2 slot, for a non-guaranteed chance of success. And essentially, the only way the spell feels useful under your description is if the dc for a persuasion check to get someone to do something *they were already inclined to do* is *higher* than the wisdom save.

I mean... really?

Edit: and that’s even before we get into the “once the spell wears off they know they were messed with” weeds, which could be the case no matter how high or low powered the spell is.

[Segev]

It is always going to be a subjective point at the end of the day, so like others up thread even though I disagree with you I’m not saying you are wrong. More trying to explain why your position *feels* wrong to me. So yeah, utterly, utterly subjective.

But we’re talking about resource expenditure- a level 2 slot, for a non-guaranteed chance of success. And essentially, the only way the spell feels useful under your description is if the dc for a persuasion check to get someone to do something *they were already inclined to do* is *higher* than the wisdom save.

I mean... really?

Exactly. Remember that suggestion is competing with Charisma(Persuasion) checks.

Now, we have (thankfully) rules for those that tell us what a given DC will get somebody to do based on their attitude.

Can suggestion bypass the attitude, or is that part of "sounds reasonable?"

Can it bypass the DCs? No, it really doesn't engage them except on the "take significant risks" level. It seems like it either can or cannot make people "take significant risks," depending on whether "throw yourself on my spear" is "taking a significant risk" or is well beyond that.

[Pex]

The most important aspect of this discussion, to me, is as a player I expect a DM to be able to provide guidance on how they will adjudicate the spell, at Session Zero.

If a DM is unwilling to provide an answer to the hypothetical question:

Would a staunch vegetarian find the request from a Suggestion spell to "Eat this piece of meat" as unreasonable?"

The only prudent response, as a player, would be to assume that the Suggestion spell in that campaign has a high degree of failure, even before the actual saving throw roll itself.
Most likely I would avoid the spell entirely, in that circumstance.



It would be nice if such a thing was discussed in Session 0, but I find such details don't get discussed. House rules, campaign theme, character development, yes. How particular spells work? Not likely. Great if a player knows he wants to cast Suggestion to ask the DM, but in my opinion not many players are thinking in such minutiae of what their character will be doing several levels and several real world months if not later in the future. The sad truth is many players won't know the DM's tolerance until it's too late.

[Tanarii]

The sad truth is many players won't know the DM's tolerance until it's too late.
Just so long as it works the same way when casts by NPCs against PCs.

Some players want these things to work powerfully when cast against them and complain if the tables are turned.

Some DMs rule harshly against PC power but powerfully when a monster casts the spell.

That's where it gets annoying.

[GloatingSwine]

But we’re talking about resource expenditure- a level 2 slot, for a non-guaranteed chance of success. And essentially, the only way the spell feels useful under your description is if the dc for a persuasion check to get someone to do something *they were already inclined to do* is *higher* than the wisdom save.

I mean... really?

Yeah, it's not "things they were inclined to do", it's "things they aren't currently strongly disinclined by circumstances to do".

Suggestion can make people act outside of their normal behaviours, including to their detriment but not active harm (damage interrupts it). It can't make them do something really stupid, like go and take a bath in a fast flowing river whilst snake-people are actively trying to kill them, because it has to be a reasonable command.

[Segev]

Just so long as it works the same way when casts by NPCs against PCs.

Some players want these things to work powerfully when cast against them and complain if the tables are turned.

Some DMs rule harshly against PC power but powerfully when a monster casts the spell.

That's where it gets annoying.

I find this is especially true with illusions, even more than suggestion. It's so bad that people I consider otherwise good and player-friendly DMs are kind-of unfair about it. I don't even think it's a "gotta win" thing. I think illusions are just hard to divorce yourself from the knowledge of the character with.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I go with the "is this something you might do drunk?" line of reasoning. I believe the spell puts you in a highly suggestable state of mind, but still in your mind. It is still you acting, but a good chunk of the inhibitions you might normally have over doing something has been stripped away.

Many of us have done it; the morning following a particularly hard drinking session, you suddenly remember doing something poorly thought out, more than a little silly, but also (I will speak only for me here, but I doubt I am alone) entirely in line with how your mind works. But for a breif period, your normal long-term brain has just gone "sod it" and let your short term brain go with whatever foolish notion passed it by.

And I wouldn't put it just down to alcohol; most of us have done silly things because we acted in haste, or in a moment of panic, lots of us will have been convinced to do something out of guilt or social pressure we later regret agreeing to, and many of us have bought things only to realise the day later that it was probably a silly purchase. Coincidentally, that's why I think the "Knight" example works, since a honourable, goodly knight could quite feasibily make an act of immense generosity to display his knightly virtue and inspire hope amoungst the poor folks, only to think minutes later "hmm, that was probably a bit rash of me".

That's how I rule suggestion. I don't let it make a character do completely out of character things, but things that, after four or five pints, or after a half hour of guilt-tripping by your mother, the character might have done, even if they didn't want to. Its a temporary brain short-circuit, not a form of control.

I like this way of ruling. I think I'm going to steal it and use it when the spell comes up.

[patchyman]

It would be nice if such a thing was discussed in Session 0, but I find such details don't get discussed. House rules, campaign theme, character development, yes. How particular spells work? Not likely. Great if a player knows he wants to cast Suggestion to ask the DM, but in my opinion not many players are thinking in such minutiae of what their character will be doing several levels and several real world months if not later in the future. The sad truth is many players won't know the DM's tolerance until it's too late.

Is that really a problem? If the player’s intention is to play an enchanter, he should bring it up. In other cases, there are a ton of powerful 2nd level spells they could choose.

[Pex]

Is that really a problem? If the player’s intention is to play an enchanter, he should bring it up. In other cases, there are a ton of powerful 2nd level spells they could choose.

Yes it's a problem because the player is denied the fun he thought he would have if the DM nerfs it to uselessness. If it was a free choice as a wizard gaining a level it's a lost choice despite never having to prepare it again. If it's a spell known as sorcerer or bard it's a waste for a level until he can exchange it.

[patchyman]

Yes it's a problem because the player is denied the fun he thought he would have if the DM nerfs it to uselessness. If it was a free choice as a wizard gaining a level it's a lost choice despite never having to prepare it again. If it's a spell known as sorcerer or bard it's a waste for a level until he can exchange it.
If the DM’s interpretation of a spell is different from a player’s, it is entirely justifiable to ask (or to allow) the player to switch to a spell that they would actually use.

It IS a problem where a class feature that CAN’T easily be changed is nerfed (like a Chainlock’s familiar, or a Paladin’s smite, or a Monk’s Stunning Strike), but a wizard, sorcerer or bard has plenty of other powerful options.

[MrCharlie]

Spell fails.

That happens with most attempted uses of Suggestion in combat, because they're often obviously harmful. Even suggestions to flee, because fleeing in 5e D&D is usually a death sentence.
This is a massive overreach, and interpreting all in-combat uses of the spell as "obviously harmful" requires incredible generous/harsh interpretations of the spell. The examples given are explicitly directly harmful, not doing something isn't obviously harmful, nor is retreating.

Also, retreating is only a death sentence to the rest of the party. To the one running it works great, so long as you can actually do it. If retreat isn't meaningfully possible, the character would move towards the exit to the best of their ability, realize that, and the spell would end.

(I'm not trying to be combative to anyone in particular, this is merely the first reply that mentioned this interpretation, which I think is absurd)

[Kireban]

This is why i hate this spell. DM fiat in it's finest. Someone is going to be mad with it no matter what happens.

[MrCharlie]

This is why i hate this spell. DM fiat in it's finest. Someone is going to be mad with it no matter what happens.
Might as well ban the entire charm school from being used on players. In all seriousness, if people complain about the spell for this, you basically need to. It's incredibly mild compared to what other charms and illusions can do, let alone some of the more severe necromancy spells like magic jar.

The spell does what it does-make you take actions that aren't obviously harmful to yourself. It, like many spells, takes control away from a player at the DMs prompting. But that's simply the way the game works. Part of being a good player is not getting mad when things like this don't go your way.

In context to this original thread though, the actual stated usage would probably fail, or work out to the character hacking his way through the Yuan-ti, because suggestion says nothing about how you take the action, just that you do it. But if the DM says that your character just walks to the river, 'dems the ropes. If he does it in a way that then wipes the party and ends the campaign, he's probably a bad DM, but the spell isn't at fault for that.

I think that last point is the real issue-spells like this make the bad DMs obvious, either due to inexperience, powergaming, etc. The spell itself isn't at fault, the DM who is abusing it is.

[Kireban]

Might as well ban the entire charm school from being used on players. In all seriousness, if people complain about the spell for this, you basically need to. It's incredibly mild compared to what other charms and illusions can do, let alone some of the more severe necromancy spells like magic jar.

The spell does what it does-make you take actions that aren't obviously harmful to yourself. It, like many spells, takes control away from a player at the DMs prompting. But that's simply the way the game works. Part of being a good player is not getting mad when things like this don't go your way.

In context to this original thread though, the actual stated usage would probably fail, or work out to the character hacking his way through the Yuan-ti, because suggestion says nothing about how you take the action, just that you do it. But if the DM says that your character just walks to the river, 'dems the ropes. If he does it in a way that then wipes the party and ends the campaign, he's probably a bad DM, but the spell isn't at fault for that.

I think that last point is the real issue-spells like this make the bad DMs obvious, either due to inexperience, powergaming, etc. The spell itself isn't at fault, the DM who is abusing it is.

I had a game where a level 3 used it on an ogre is a pre boss fight with the suggestion "I am important, protect me" which led to a 8 hours of the ogre helping the party to fight ogres and goblins, and speak for them with the boss. Do you think that this sh*t is supposed to happen with a level 2 spell? And the creature doesnt even know it was charmed after it ends.

[Aquillion]

I had a game where a level 3 used it on an ogre is a pre boss fight with the suggestion "I am important, protect me" which led to a 8 hours of the ogre helping the party to fight ogres and goblins, and speak for them with the boss. Do you think that this sh*t is supposed to happen with a level 2 spell? And the creature doesnt even know it was charmed after it ends.I would have to know more, but you'd really have to explain how "turn around and kill your friends and family for me" was sold as reasonable, because I'm not seeing it.

Even the people who are most concerned / expansive about Suggestion above are mostly focused on using it to remove someone from combat. Actually getting someone to fight for you requires that you be able to make it sound reasonable for them to do so, which usually means they were one good Diplomacy or Deception check from fighting for you anyway.

[JackPhoenix]

I had a game where a level 3 used it on an ogre is a pre boss fight with the suggestion "I am important, protect me" which led to a 8 hours of the ogre helping the party to fight ogres and goblins, and speak for them with the boss. Do you think that this sh*t is supposed to happen with a level 2 spell? And the creature doesnt even know it was charmed after it ends.

No, because the Suggestion ends once the target fulfills the task. After the first time he's protected you, the ogre is free to do whatever it wants. Propably turning you into a smear on the ground. And it's up to the ogre how he interprets "protection". Grabbing and dragging him away from the place filled with enemies is valid interpretation, and one that's not gonna end well once the Suggestion ends....

[Kireban]

The problem with the spell is that people look at it as a mind controll spell. The spell's description makes everything open to debate which is not how it is supposed to go in a combat. It's vague description makes it a bad spell.

I wont try to defend that use of suggestion. It annoyed me enough to loose all interest in that campain.

[Keltest]

The problem with the spell is that people look at it as a mind controll spell. The spell's description makes everything open to debate which is not how it is supposed to go in a combat. It's vague description makes it a bad spell.

I wont try to defend that use of suggestion. It annoyed me enough to loose all interest in that campain.

Thats because it is a mind control spell, just an incredibly mild one. That example wasnt following the rules particularly well, but a suggestion of "protect me" is not in and of itself outside the scope of the spell.

[MrCharlie]

I had a game where a level 3 used it on an ogre is a pre boss fight with the suggestion "I am important, protect me" which led to a 8 hours of the ogre helping the party to fight ogres and goblins, and speak for them with the boss. Do you think that this sh*t is supposed to happen with a level 2 spell? And the creature doesnt even know it was charmed after it ends.
...Yeah? Charm person does it for an hour, more or less-it doesn't force violent action against others, but neither would that wording of suggestion. The ogre could grab the caster and take them to a secure area instead. Suggestion doesen't make them hostile to their allies, or friendly to their enemies, unless that's the direct effect-and "pick a fight them Y" is pretty obviously self-harmful.

[Kireban]

...Yeah? Charm person does it for an hour, more or less-it doesn't force violent action against others, but neither would that wording of suggestion. The ogre could grab the caster and take them to a secure area instead. Suggestion doesen't make them hostile to their allies, or friendly to their enemies, unless that's the direct effect-and "pick a fight them Y" is pretty obviously self-harmful.

Good. Now, lets say that the same thing happens in a game you play. This is how things go and you find yourself in this situation. How are you going to continue? Just roll with it? Start arguing?

[MrCharlie]

Good. Now, lets say that the same thing happens in a game you play. This is how things go and you find yourself in this situation. How are you going to continue? Just roll with it? Start arguing?
Let the DM make a ruling. Because I know how DnD works.

Seriously, again, the only thing this spell is doing is making it 100% clear that this is how DnD works, and showcasing bad DM calls-or potentially bad players.

You can't seriously expect there to never be disagreement-that's part of what the DM is for. The key is that if the players and DM are keeping it friendly and fun, that disagreement won't derail the game.

I've literally had hundreds of disagreements with DMs-places I know the RAW contradict them, places I feel they are pushing an interpretation that is unreasonable, etc.-and I either politely voice my difference in opinions, or shut the hell up and let the game continue. I've had similar disagreements with players as a DM. The players whom consistently play at my tables accept my rulings, partially because I know how to read a room and a players mood and modify my DMing.

The long a short of it is that, yes, this spell is difficult to arbitrate, but there is nothing wrong with the spell because of this fact. If you want a system that doesn't require this level of arbitration, there are better games to play, in the same or different genres.

[Keravath]

I had a game where a level 3 used it on an ogre is a pre boss fight with the suggestion "I am important, protect me" which led to a 8 hours of the ogre helping the party to fight ogres and goblins, and speak for them with the boss. Do you think that this sh*t is supposed to happen with a level 2 spell? And the creature doesnt even know it was charmed after it ends.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I am guessing you weren't the DM in this case?

Suggestion doesn't change the attitude of the creature. Suggestion in particular doesn't impose the charmed condition even if creatures immune to charm are immune to suggestion.

"On a failed save, it pursues the course of action you described to the best of its ability."

In the game you played, the character was allowed to get the ogre to help because the DM decided that was what the DM wanted to happen. The DM may have thought it would be fun for the players and humorous to have this ogre traipsing along with the party especially if some of the encounters were going to be difficult or deadly and the ogre evened the odds a bit for the party. The DM did not look at it from a player perspective where some other players might get irritated with the apparent power of the spell ... nor did the DM seem to consider that they might be setting a precedent. It played out this way because that is what the DM wanted and they could fall back on "but that is what the spell says" if someone complained.

However, the spell doesn't say that ... the suggestion "I am important, protect me" ... can be interpreted in many ways. Keep in mind that the creature affected by the suggestion is NOT charmed. They do not have to see the caster in a friendly way ... if they wanted to eat the caster before the suggestion, then they STILL want to eat the caster while under the suggestion.

In this case, with a suggestion, "I am important, protect me" ... the ogre could well decide to pick up the caster, quickly carry them back to their cave, stow them in a cage and protect them from all the other ogres so they can eat them later. They are "important" ... they are a really IMPORTANT source of food that MUST be protected from everyone else that will eat him. The ogre won't help the party, the ogre isn't about to attack his friends unless they go after his food. This is just one of many possible interpretations of that suggestion.

Even the suggestion in the PHB of a knight giving their warhorse to the first beggar they see says nothing about the knight immediately taking it back after the suggestion spell ends. It ends immediately when they complete the task. The knight passes over the reins ending the spell then takes the reins back saying "Sorry, I was confused for a moment, I love my horse too much to give him up".

Suggestions are context and creature sensitive and anything that occurs as the result of a suggestion is exactly what the DM wanted to allow to happen. Suggestion is very much a rule of cool type spell that the DM scales up and down in effect to hopefully increase the enjoyment of the players.

[patchyman]

In this case, with a suggestion, "I am important, protect me" ... the ogre could well decide to pick up the caster, quickly carry them back to their cave, stow them in a cage and protect them from all the other ogres so they can eat them later.

I agree . The way I, as an ogre, would interpret the “I am important, protect me” Suggestion is “This guy’s the leader. We kill the others, but we knock this guy out to present him to our leader for interrogation.”

Suggestion does not rewrite your personality or your memories.

[GloatingSwine]

Thats because it is a mind control spell, just an incredibly mild one. That example wasnt following the rules particularly well, but a suggestion of "protect me" is not in and of itself outside the scope of the spell.

In the proper context no.

Like in that specific case, if the Ogre was a non-hostile third party, then I reckon it would be a solid use. If it was a hostile prior to the spell it wouldn't or would have to have distinctly unintended consequences.

[Segev]

"We're too important to disarm us; you should escort us forthwith to your leader for negotiations that are above your pay grade." (Replace the idiom with an appropriate one; as a DM, I'd allow a player to use the idiom with the understanding that his character said something equivalent if "above your pay grade" isn't natural to the setting.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

"We're too important to disarm us; you should escort us forthwith to your leader for negotiations that are above your pay grade." (Replace the idiom with an appropriate one; as a DM, I'd allow a player to use the idiom with the understanding that his character said something equivalent if "above your pay grade" isn't natural to the setting.)

The first part of that sentence isn't part of the spell. Or you've suggested two courses of action (take us to your leader and don't follow orders to disarm guests). Which doesn't work. Suggestion only gives a single course of action, not a reason. Any reasons you give are in your own voice. The course of action, standing alone, must be reasonable based on what the target already knows.

And I'd expect suggestion to be phrased in terms of "I should..." (ie from the target's PoV, like an internal voice). You're implanting a suggested course of action and most people don't have their mental voice in the second person.

[patchyman]

"We're too important to disarm us; you should escort us forthwith to your leader for negotiations that are above your pay grade." (Replace the idiom with an appropriate one; as a DM, I'd allow a player to use the idiom with the understanding that his character said something equivalent if "above your pay grade" isn't natural to the setting.)

So the party gets to fight the BBEG, his minions, the ogre, the ogre’s minions, all at the same time? I’m not sure this is as clever a use of the Suggestion spell as the Spellcaster thinks.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The first part of that sentence isn't part of the spell. Or you've suggested two courses of action (take us to your leader and don't follow orders to disarm guests). Which doesn't work. Suggestion only gives a single course of action, not a reason. Any reasons you give are in your own voice. The course of action, standing alone, must be reasonable based on what the target already knows.

And I'd expect suggestion to be phrased in terms of "I should..." (ie from the target's PoV, like an internal voice). You're implanting a suggested course of action and most people don't have their mental voice in the second person.

The magical implantation of a suggestion doesn't necessarily imply that you should be wording it as if its their own thoughts, in fact I might even go so far as to say it shouldn't because the suggested course of action is explicitly something you are suggesting, not something they'll think is their own mind. Phrasing it in the first person might even make it more suspicious when they think back on why they did whatever you asked them to, even the oft mentioned Subtle Spell Sorcerer might out himself as having cast a spell on them by using such awkward phrasing as "I think I should escort the devilishly handsome lad and his companions to my leader."

Why is he talking like that? Why do I want to do what he just said I wanted to do now?

I agree on the first point, more or less. I believe context can change what is deemed reasonable but you can't invent context for your suggestion as a part of the suggestion that they have no reason to believe.

[Avonar]

The magical implantation of a suggestion doesn't necessarily imply that you should be wording it as if its their own thoughts, in fact I might even go so far as to say it shouldn't because the suggested course of action is explicitly something you are suggesting, not something they'll think is their own mind. Phrasing it in the first person might even make it more suspicious when they think back on why they did whatever you asked them to, even the oft mentioned Subtle Spell Sorcerer might out himself as having cast a spell on them by using such awkward phrasing as "I think I should escort the devilishly handsome lad and his companions to my leader."

Why is he talking like that? Why do I want to do what he just said I wanted to do now?

I always tend to word suggestions starting with "Why don't you..." Suggesting a course of action in a way that's actually an order, seems appropriate I think.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The magical implantation of a suggestion doesn't necessarily imply that you should be wording it as if its their own thoughts, in fact I might even go so far as to say it shouldn't because the suggested course of action is explicitly something you are suggesting, not something they'll think is their own mind. Phrasing it in the first person might even make it more suspicious when they think back on why they did whatever you asked them to, even the oft mentioned Subtle Spell Sorcerer might out himself as having cast a spell on them by using such awkward phrasing as "I think I should escort the devilishly handsome lad and his companions to my leader."

Why is he talking like that? Why do I want to do what he just said I wanted to do now?

I agree on the first point, more or less. I believe context can change what is deemed reasonable but you can't invent context for your suggestion as a part of the suggestion that they have no reason to believe.

It's basically hypnotism in my mind. The target (assuming a failed save) doesn't really hear the words with their rational mind, any more than a hypnotized person hears the suggestion given while they're under. It's physically heard, but not interpreted by the waking, watchful mind. It bypasses that and hits the subconscious. So it should appear to the victim like they're doing that thinking themselves.

But that's secondary. I wouldn't null a cast of it based on those grounds. Just more of an aesthetic thing.

[MrCharlie]

It's basically hypnotism in my mind. The target (assuming a failed save) doesn't really hear the words with their rational mind, any more than a hypnotized person hears the suggestion given while they're under. It's physically heard, but not interpreted by the waking, watchful mind. It bypasses that and hits the subconscious. So it should appear to the victim like they're doing that thinking themselves.

But that's secondary. I wouldn't null a cast of it based on those grounds. Just more of an aesthetic thing.
That's absolutely one of those things that players can and should modify themselves, as well. A great old one warlocks suggestion might be quite a bit different from an Archefey's suggestion, let alone another classes.

[Osuniev]

I just want to chime in on the components of Suggestion :

For me, the V component is the sentence itself, not some sort of incantation. It means you cannot cast Suggestion when gagged or inside a Silence spell, but it does not mean the target knows you're casting a Spell.

Similarly, the Material component only means you cannot do it without your Arcane focus or Components pouch.

The lack of Somatic components, IMO, is designed so you can cast it in social situations without needing Subtle Spell metamagic.

The Knight example doesn't seem unreasonable to me. In my opinion, the author imagined the knight as a chivalrous "help the poor" type, and the Suggestion make them feel like St Francis of Assisi has it right : giving your belongings to the poor is the right thing to do. (It doesn't seem that outlandish to me either, many stories from medieval or ancient times have examples of a character deciding to give something really valuable to someone poor. Heck, some of my players did the same sort of things without any Suggestion cast on them and it felt in character).

As for the comparison with Banishment : at my table, "Flee because you're about to lose this battle" would be a perfectly reasonable Suggestion (if the encounter has an appropriate CR, it's almost certainly true), unless the target is protecting something more important to them than their life. The main drawback compared to Banishment, is that the target of the spell can now raise the alarm, and even if they may not come back for 8 hours, the others denizens of the Dungeon/fortress WILL be warned.

[JackPhoenix]

I just want to chime in on the components of Suggestion :

For me, the V component is the sentence itself, not some sort of incantation. It means you cannot cast Suggestion when gagged or inside a Silence spell, but it does not mean the target knows you're casting a Spell.

Similarly, the Material component only means you cannot do it without your Arcane focus or Components pouch.

The lack of Somatic components, IMO, is designed so you can cast it in social situations without needing Subtle Spell metamagic.

That, unfortunately, isn't true either by RAW or RAI (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/12/suggestion-spell-component/). You have to cast the spell first... which involves V component... before you get its effect... which includes suggesting the course of cation the victim should take.

More related to the main topic, JC suggests (heh) these (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/07/18/do-you-have-examples-how-you-might-use-the-suggestion-spell-in-combat/) as valid uses of Suggestion in combat. If dropping your sword mid-battle is "reasonable", so should leaving the battle to take a bath... though note there's a reason provided for why should the victim disarm itself.

[da newt]

It's sort of irrelevant at this point but this is what played out:

One of the YuanTi moved on it's turn creating an open path to the front gate. On my turn I announced "I need a bath" walked through the hoard of YuanTi my full movement, then attacked the nearest Malison. No YuanTi attacked me. Before my next turn, the YuanTi concentrating on my SUGGESTION was attacked and lost concentration, so I was free to jump back into the fray.

During the fight our Pali failed to save against the SUGGESTION to "drop your weapon and surrender." On her turn she dropped her sword, said "I surrender," the spell ended, picked up her sword, and attacked the nearest YuanTi.

[MrCharlie]

It's sort of irrelevant at this point but this is what played out:

One of the YuanTi moved on it's turn creating an open path to the front gate. On my turn I announced "I need a bath" walked through the hoard of YuanTi my full movement, then attacked the nearest Malison. No YuanTi attacked me. Before my next turn, the YuanTi concentrating on my SUGGESTION was attacked and lost concentration, so I was free to jump back into the fray.

During the fight our Pali failed to save against the SUGGESTION to "drop your weapon and surrender." On her turn she dropped her sword, said "I surrender," the spell ended, picked up her sword, and attacked the nearest YuanTi.
Which is why using suggestion in combat is generally a crapshoot due to the text of the spell, not because you need to go nuts and come up with bizarre countermeasures.

That said, I have seen clever, clever suggestions in combat before, in the same way I've turned an encounter into a farce with spells like Command before. It just depends on context and what you think to do with it.

[Aquillion]

So the party gets to fight the BBEG, his minions, the ogre, the ogre’s minions, all at the same time? I’m not sure this is as clever a use of the Suggestion spell as the Spellcaster thinks.
Depends on what you do afterwards. In theory you can be escorted most of the way there, then ambush your escort and drop the spell, having gotten past the traps and most of the other guards. Of course, there are risks and drawbacks (the non-magically-compelled guards you go past might get suspicious), which is what makes it reasonable.

[Osuniev]

That, unfortunately, isn't true either by RAW or RAI (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/12/suggestion-spell-component/). You have to cast the spell first... which involves V component... before you get its effect... which includes suggesting the course of cation the victim should take.

More related to the main topic, JC suggests (heh) these (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/07/18/do-you-have-examples-how-you-might-use-the-suggestion-spell-in-combat/) as valid uses of Suggestion in combat. If dropping your sword mid-battle is "reasonable", so should leaving the battle to take a bath... though note there's a reason provided for why should the victim disarm itself.

It's a shame, it makes Suggestion useless in any social situation with witnesses.

Uh. Well, I will continue to play in my own, wrong way.

[JackPhoenix]

It's a shame, it makes Suggestion useless in any social situation with witnesses.

I believe that's rather the point. Spells are powerful enough as it is, they have limitations for a reason. Just as Knock has built-in disadvantage compared to picking a lock the normal way and Invisibility doesn't completely replace stealth, Suggestion has a built-in disadvantage compared to convincing or manipulating someone by talking to them. Not giving extra power to spells and not making them the perfect solution to any problem helps mitigate the gap between casters and non-casters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I believe that's rather the point. Spells are powerful enough as it is, they have limitations for a reason. Just as Knock has built-in disadvantage compared to picking a lock the normal way and Invisibility doesn't completely replace stealth, Suggestion has a built-in disadvantage compared to convincing or manipulating someone by talking to them. Not giving extra power to spells and not making them the perfect solution to any problem helps mitigate the gap between casters and non-casters.

Exactly. The first (and largest) step to remove the caster/non-caster gap is to hold spells to exactly what they say. They do that one thing and nothing else. And all of the built-in limitations, exclusions, and such are observed. On the other hand, non-spell abilities (especially ability checks) should be read as more open-ended.

In practice, what happens is too often the reverse. Spells can do anything and have no restrictions, because magic. Ability checks get held to a super-narrow, sub-real-life view of what's possible, because realism.

[Segev]

Exactly. The first (and largest) step to remove the caster/non-caster gap is to hold spells to exactly what they say. They do that one thing and nothing else. And all of the built-in limitations, exclusions, and such are observed. On the other hand, non-spell abilities (especially ability checks) should be read as more open-ended.

In practice, what happens is too often the reverse. Spells can do anything and have no restrictions, because magic. Ability checks get held to a super-narrow, sub-real-life view of what's possible, because realism.

While I agree with the sentiment, there comes a point where the spell can't actually do anything other than be a combat debuff, and that's...tragic.

There are no enchantresses who can beguile the mind with this kind of ruling.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While I agree with the sentiment, there comes a point where the spell can't actually do anything other than be a combat debuff, and that's...tragic.

There are no enchantresses who can beguile the mind with this kind of ruling.

You can absolutely beguile the mind. Just...not in front of witnesses unless you convince them that you're casting something else entirely. Or have subtle spell. Or are an NPC with a separate, non-spell ability that lets you charm without words (ie vampires). Or casting it innately (no components to be seen).

But letting every caster have free subtle spell on charm spells seems a bit...off. Especially since that's 90% (hyperbole alert) of the use case for subtle spell. It's not just a caster/non-caster distinction--it craps on the sorcerer. Wizards get one of their abilities, but better. And no cost.

[Segev]

You can absolutely beguile the mind. Just...not in front of witnesses unless you convince them that you're casting something else entirely. Or have subtle spell. Or are an NPC with a separate, non-spell ability that lets you charm without words (ie vampires). Or casting it innately (no components to be seen).

But letting every caster have free subtle spell on charm spells seems a bit...off. Especially since that's 90% (hyperbole alert) of the use case for subtle spell. It's not just a caster/non-caster distinction--it craps on the sorcerer. Wizards get one of their abilities, but better. And no cost.

See, "subtle spell" has a massive use case outside of that: without verbal or somatic components, you can't be STOPPED from casting it under most circumstances. Admittedly, the name of the metamatic indicates how they pictured it being used is more in line with your argument.

I dunno. It bothers me that they have a subclass that's supposed to be a mind-whammier who can't do it effectively without a skill set that is outside his class structure (either subtle spell or a bunch of rogue stuff to be able to sneak around and catch people alone).

[Keltest]

See, "subtle spell" has a massive use case outside of that: without verbal or somatic components, you can't be STOPPED from casting it under most circumstances. Admittedly, the name of the metamatic indicates how they pictured it being used is more in line with your argument.

I dunno. It bothers me that they have a subclass that's supposed to be a mind-whammier who can't do it effectively without a skill set that is outside his class structure (either subtle spell or a bunch of rogue stuff to be able to sneak around and catch people alone).

Assuming youre referring to the Enchantment wizard, you already have a "look into my eyes" style charm that, if they fail the save, works for as long as you can stay within 5 feet of your victim. Granted, that distance limit can be a problem, but if youre trying to convince somebody to sign a contract/give you something/come over for tea tomorrow, which is what most of the out of combat utility for Charm is, you dont need them to stay charmed after you get what you want.

[MrCharlie]

It's a shame, it makes Suggestion useless in any social situation with witnesses.

Uh. Well, I will continue to play in my own, wrong way.
Assuming that people understand, testify, or notice enough to implicate you. Or that using spells this way is illegal. Or that anyone is going to investigate.

To put it more generally, someone has to notice, comprehend, and care. If you can risk or manipulate it so that one of those three isn't true, you're still good.

[Aquillion]

I believe that's rather the point. Spells are powerful enough as it is, they have limitations for a reason. Just as Knock has built-in disadvantage compared to picking a lock the normal way and Invisibility doesn't completely replace stealth, Suggestion has a built-in disadvantage compared to convincing or manipulating someone by talking to them. Not giving extra power to spells and not making them the perfect solution to any problem helps mitigate the gap between casters and non-casters.

Just as reminder (since this comes up constantly), as far as I'm aware, nothing in the rules remotely suggests that the purpose of verbal or somatic components is to make spellcasting obvious to onlookers. The wording for verbal components emphasizes that Silence blocks it, and Somatic components emphasize that they need a free hand, but neither indicates that they are particularly noticeable or recognizable without the (optional-rules-variant) Knowledge: Arcana check to recognize that a spell was cast, which itself specifically states it can only be made if the casting was perceived.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. If you're going to argue that we need to have spells work exactly as described then spellcasting is only unconditionally obvious if you can point to a rule specifically stating that to be the case.

Many players have inferred that spellcasting is noticeable and recognizable because the gestures are "forceful" and the chanting has "specific pitch and resonance" (which is unspecified), and have houseruled that it cannot reasonably be concealed for a variety of reasons, but none of that is in the book.

My own reading is that the developers did not consider it important and that, therefore, spellcasting can sometimes be noticed and can sometimes be concealed, based on how the players describe it, the context in which they are casting, and the whims of the DM. If the developers had thought it essential to specify whether spellcasting is obvious it would have required no more than a single word or so to do so; the lack of it suggests that whether a specific spell is noticed is intended to be something you can finagle with trickery - the rogue making a distraction, the Bard concealing the sounds and motions within a performance, and so on.

Because the real point is that D&D is meant to be a social game about telling stories, not a wargame about mechanically following set rules. There are a few things that are established via hard and fast rules to streamline gameplay and ensure balance; whether and when spellcasting is obvious is very noticeably not one of those things, which suggests to me that it was intended to be worked out on an individual basis each time you cast.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Just as reminder (since this comes up constantly), as far as I'm aware, nothing in the rules remotely suggests that the purpose of verbal or somatic components is to make spellcasting obvious to onlookers.

It doesn't have to be the explicit purpose to be obvious, see the line directly before the one that notes Silence prevents verbal casting.

The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion.

This tells us two things: The suggestion within Suggestion is not what carries the magic and that there will always be a specific set of sounds at a specific tone and resonance before the spell is cast.



Many players have inferred that spellcasting is noticeable and recognizable because the gestures are "forceful" and the chanting has "specific pitch and resonance" (which is unspecified), and have houseruled that it cannot reasonably be concealed for a variety of reasons, but none of that is in the book.
If the sounds, pitch and resonance are "specific" that means you can't change them else the spell doesn't work.

I suppose it would be up to the DM to set them at the beginning of the campaign, but unless they plan on making that exception for anyone who casts that spell forever it's entirely reasonable to say that you can't make the components indistinguishable from those that would recognize spellcasting. To be clear, unless your DM has made a verbal component "low and barely distinguishable in tone" for everyone, the spells shouldn't work for anyone in that way.

I'm sure they'd be thrilled if their DM allowed it, right up until the point it was used against them.

[Aquillion]

Again, I specifically pointed out that while the "specific pitch and resonance" wording is used by many people to houserule that spellcasting is always obvious, it doesn't say anything of the sort, since it doesn't say what that specific pitch generally is.

Also, pitch is not volume. Pitch determines whether a sound is high or low, not how easy it is to hear. "Specific pitch and resonance" supports the idea that you can whisper your spells as long as you get the pitch right; if it was meant to be "specific pitch and volume" then it would be "specific pitch and volume."

And more generally, my point is that the developers knew what they were doing. If they wanted spellcasting to always obvious it would have been trivial for them to state as such - it would have only required one or two additional words. The fact that they did not means that, to them, that was not their intent - whether the casting of a specific spell is noticed is something you are meant to adjudicate on an individual basis, just like anything else. The heavy meaning people attach to the "specific pitch and resonance" line in order to justify houseruling spellcasting as obvious only makes it obvious that that's not the original intent, since if it were, there would be a much more clear rule stating it rather than "spells always sound high-pitched or low-pitched based on the spell you're casting."


This tells us two things: The suggestion within Suggestion is not what carries the magic and that there will always be a specific set of sounds at a specific tone and resonance before the spell is cast.Sure. Those are the things that, per XGE, you can use an arcana check to recognize the spell if you perceive them (meaning, you are not certain to perceive them.) But they're not required to be loud or soft, specifically, and nothing in the bit you quoted remotely hints that they are impossible to conceal; so by the normal rules they can be concealed, sometimes, like any other action.


I suppose it would be up to the DM to set them at the beginning of the campaign, but unless they plan on making that exception for anyone who casts that spell forever it's entirely reasonable to say that you can't make the components indistinguishable from those that would recognize spellcasting. To be clear, unless your DM has made a verbal component "low and barely distinguishable in tone" for everyone, the spells shouldn't work for anyone in that way.No, it absolutely isn't something the DM should set at the beginning of the campaign. Again, the rules intentionally do not state that spellcasting is always obvious or that it is never obvious. It is meant to be determined on a case-by-case basis according to the situation, with ability checks if appropriate (just like your ability to notice anything else is determined on a case-by-case basis according to the situation, with ability checks if appropriate.)

If you try to cast a spell without being noticed in the middle of the room with everyone staring at you and no distractions, you'd better have a damn good explanation for how you're going to do it or you wouldn't even get a roll. If you cast a spell while hidden in a crowd while your Rogue makes a loud obvious distraction, at best someone might get a perception check to notice - the same rules as if you subtly did anything else in that circumstance.

More specifically, in many cases noticing the casting of a spell is going to require a perception check - nothing in the rules suggests that it is more noticeable (or harder to conceal) than anything else a character might do.

A DM could choose to houserule that spellcasting is always noticeable, but this would 100% be a houserule and would be changing the way the game works, and should therefore be stated upfront like all houserules. I also don't think it's a very good houserule, since part of the fun of D&D is that ability of the DM to adjudicate things on the fly allows it to be more sensitive to context.


I'm sure they'd be thrilled if their DM allowed it, right up until the point it was used against them. The same is true for your proposed houserule (players will love it when it makes it impossible for enemies to be able to sometimes, as intended, cast spells without their noticing around them, and hate it when it strips them of the ability they'd normally have to do so themselves), but in general I think that it is better to go by the default rules, which allow for more creativity and depth, rather than your fairly blunt suggestion of a houserule, which removes the context-sensitive nature of player actions from spellcasting and nothing else (for no clear reason, that I can see.)

And more generally I feel like this argument ("players will love it until the DM uses it to screw them over!") is unduly adversarial. The DM should use rules like that intelligently in ways that lead to a good story. So the question is - which leads to a better story? I think it's obvious that having the freedom to decide whether spellcasting is noticed based on circumstances leads to better stories. It rewards players for being creative in setting up situations where they can cast without being noticed, or for noticing when the enemy might be trying to set up a situation. Making all spellcasting automatically obvious doesn't really lead anywhere interesting at all.

I definitely wouldn't want to play a game with your houserule myself.

[ProsecutorGodot]

snip

Then I guess I don't understand your argument, why is my interpretation a house rule when your take is based entirely of an absence of rules otherwise?

If we're being charitable here, it's all house rules.

Edit: and to avoid sending the wrong message, I don't understand why "house rule" seems to be used in a negative way in this discussion.

There's nothing wrong with ruling differently at your table, it with someone else ruling differently than you.

[Keravath]

It's a shame, it makes Suggestion useless in any social situation with witnesses.

Uh. Well, I will continue to play in my own, wrong way.

I just wanted to emphasize that, in your own game, it is NOT "your own wrong way" ... it is the RIGHT way for your game and how you play.

One of the great things about D&D is that there is RAW ... and then there is how each individual DM runs their game which will never be exactly the same as another DM and can easily have house rules like "The verbal component for the suggestion spell in my game is the suggestion itself". It is a house rule but there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that as long as you let the players know.

In the forums, we usually discuss RAW because that is the basic common denominator and the only thing that everyone can refer to as a common reference. There are many places where RAW is either unclear or can be interpreted differently depending on how an individual reads the text. Each instance of this results in a ruling for an individual DM in terms of how they play that rule in their game. So ... folks here will often comment that what someone chooses to do may not be RAW ... however, as long as the DM shares their rulings with the players before it comes up ... it isn't wrong.

[Segev]

One of the (possibly desirable, depending on what you like in your games) complications to spellcasting being of indeterminate obviousness - that is, it's something people can notice, but don't necessarily - is that it invites the question, "What can I do to make my spellcasting as subtle as possible (absent metamagic)?" Any spellcaster is likely to eventually, at least once, ask that question, whether it's because he wants to hide the fact that he's the one using toll the dead on the injured vizier or because he wants to disguise that he just cast charm person on the king before trying to talk himself and the party into his good graces in front of the whole court.

If spellcasting is always obvious, then obviously, this fails. At the very least, everybody recognizes the clear and confident declaration in an attention-getting voice coupled with dramatic gestures probably means Wizzardo the Wondrous just cast a spell, and if anything unusual happens coincidentally or in the very near immediate aftermath, they'll suspect perhaps there is a causal relationship.

If spellcasting is of questionable obviousness, then can Wizzardo the Wondrous make his gestures small and keep his voice low? Is there ever a reason for him NOT to do so, and instead bombastically cast his spells obviously? How hard is it to detect him being non-metamagically subtle?

Stealth checks suddenly become something that maybe are rolled with every attempted casting, to see just how quietly he can manage to do it. Not being a usual Wizard proficiency, it's still a Dexterity check. Or is it Charisma(Deception)? Charisma(Performance) to disguise it as something else? Are Sorcerers and Bards the natural "subtle casters" even leaving aside the possibility of metamagic?

If I want to really complicate things, I might call for a Dexterity(Stealth) check to see how obvious the caster is being and set the DC of the Wisdom(Perception) check to recognize what the caster is doing, and also require the caster to simultaneously roll an Intelligence(Arcana or Religion) or a Charisma(Performance) (for a Bard) check to see if he can cast the spell successfully while trying to hide it; maybe set the DC of the "cast it successfully" check at the DC set by "hide the casting," and allow the caster to decide before rolling whether he'll cap the stealth check at his casting check, or risk losing the spell. (A question of whether remaining stealthy is more important than getting the spell off, or not.)

If an ally is deliberately creating a distraction, the ally sets the "notice the casting" DC without impeding the caster's efforts.


Again, though, this is pretty complex. Is that desirable? Maybe, if intrigue and maneuvering is important to your game. Maybe not, if quick and clear resolutions are more important than fiddly social maneuvers.

[Democratus]

Spellcasting is obvious in D&D because there are Reactions you can take to a spell being cast.

Were it impossible to tell if a spell was being cast, then these Reactions would not work.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Spellcasting is obvious in D&D because there are Reactions you can take to a spell being cast.

Were it impossible to tell if a spell was being cast, then these Reactions would not work.

Right.


If a sorcerer casts a spell with only verbal or somatic components using Subtle Spell, can an opponent use counterspell against it? If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast. So, since you can’t see the casting, counterspell is of no use.

Implication: if it did have material components, it would be possible to see. Also, if you could hide the use of material components, then this implication would fail. So implied you can't hide material components.

The existence of Subtle Spell strongly implies that spellcasting is obvious by default. Otherwise it has very little reason to exist. Because if you can hide components, you can achieve everything it can do and more...for free. No class levels, no sorcery points, and including material components (which Subtle Spell doesn't handle). If anyone could hide components with a relatively-easy check or just wording the action statement differently ("I whisper!"), then Subtle Spell would be meaningless and even more of an insult to sorcerers. Look, everyone else can do what costs you sorcery points for free!

[JellyPooga]

Implication: if it did have material components, it would be possible to see. Also, if you could hide the use of material components, then this implication would fail. So implied you can't hide material components.

Because something is true in combat does not make it true outside of combat.

Combat assumes all involved are alert and aware of everyone involved and what they're doing unless specified otherwise (e.g. hiding). Not-Combat does not make the same assumption and I feel safe saying that to do so would be incredulous. I would not assume some ruffian drinking ale at his table across the bar would be paying attention to an inconspicuous chap waving his hands and muttering gibberish, regardless of whether a spell is actually being cast or not...especially if there was some kind of entertainment or other distraction going on.

In order to use a Reaction, the character must be aware of what they're reacting to; this is supported by e.g. Counterspell not being able to be cast against a Subtle Spell. The only times a character is always assumed to be aware of something occurring in their immediate surrounds are upon making a successful Perception check or upon Combat being joined (i.e. under initiative order) and the specific rules inherent to those conditions. Otherwise, such awareness is not and cannot be assumed without further information/clarification specific to the scenario in question.

Given that verbal and somatic components do not state that they automatically make any character aware a spell is being cast, then the standard assumptions regarding deception, distraction, perception and awareness, whatever they might be at your table, must also apply to spellcasting as much as they do to any action or activity. Moving and Talking are both activities that are obvious to an onlooker, but both can be done unnoticed under the right circumstances, of which Combat is not usually one unless exempted.

[Aquillion]

Implication: if it did have material components, it would be possible to see. Also, if you could hide the use of material components, then this implication would fail. So implied you can't hide material components."Possible" is specifically not the same as "certain!" That was my entire point.

Knock makes it impossible to fail at opening a lock. This does not mean that it is impossible to open them with thieves' tools. This situation is similar to that - your normal skills still operate, even when there's a class ability that allows the check to be bypassed.


The existence of Subtle Spell strongly implies that spellcasting is obvious by default. Otherwise it has very little reason to exist. Because if you can hide components, you can achieve everything it can do and more...for free. No class levels, no sorcery points, and including material components (which Subtle Spell doesn't handle). If anyone could hide components with a relatively-easy check or just wording the action statement differently ("I whisper!"), then Subtle Spell would be meaningless and even more of an insult to sorcerers. Look, everyone else can do what costs you sorcery points for free!
Subtle spell guarantees that your casting will not be seen, and (much, much more importantly) allows you to cast in a silenced area or while gagged. The focus of the rules (which talk exclusively about the latter and don't even mention the former) heavily implies that its purpose is to negate Silence and that making it automatic that you avoid being noticed when casting is a mere side-benefit.

But nothing in it remotely implies that spellcasting is obvious by default, and houseruling that it is just to give Sorcerers a buff is silly because you're cutting of interesting options for every other spellcasting class in order to buff something that was not significant enough to Sorcerer design to even get a single word of attention in the rules or text.

Different classes have different ways of doing things. Wizards can cast Fly, Rogues can climb, Druids can shapeshift into something with wings, etc. Likewise, casting a spell without getting noticed is something that can be accomplished in many different ways - no class has an absolute lock on being able to achieve any specific task, only on the very specific thematics, methods, and mechanics they use to achieve that task.

Otherwise you end up in a situation where every book that gets published makes the space of what players can do become narrower and narrower ("now there is a feat for X; it can no longer be done any other way. Now there is a spell for Y, so don't even try to do it without it. Now there is a class for Z, so nobody else can even attempt it.") That's not fun and leads to a less interesting, less creative, and less deep game in the long term.

It also, again, doesn't reflect how classes are designed - no other class has the absolute lock on an entire field of endeavor that advocates of this houserule are trying to establish for Sorcerers and casting spells without being noticed.

It's particularly significant because casting a spell, without being noticed? Has nothing whatsoever to do with the Sorcerer theme. Not even to the slightest degree. Wizard illusionists, Arcane Tricksters, and Bards of all stripe have a far better claim to it, both thematically and in terms of, for the latter two, having the correct broad skillset rather than one narrow trick (and I would argue that arcane tricksters and bards are better than Sorcerers at casting without being noticed, and are intended to be - one metamagic option should not and does not trump the entire Arcane Trickster skillset.)

Finally, as an aside, do note that unlike an Arcane Trickster who is heavily invested in the relevant skills, most Sorcerers cannot conceal the use of material or somatic components - Silent Spell does nothing for that; they have to rely on a stealth or deception roll that they probably suck at. This also reinforces the idea that while it allows them to avoid Perception rolls to notice their verbal components, Sorcerers are not really a class that is very good at casting unnoticed overall, not compared to the classes that are more specifically specialized in it across the board. They have one narrow, limited trick, but it has significant limitations of its own; so trying to use it that Sorcerers are the only class that can cast unnoticed is silly - they're not even that good at it.

If a player came to me saying they wanted to play a character based on stealthy, sneaky casting in social situations, I would recommend Bard or Arcane Trickster. I would not even mention Sorcerer, or, if I did, I would only bring it up to say that it's a trap and that Subtle Spell alone is not enough and should not be relied on for that if you want to make it your main thing. They do get that one trick to avoid the need for a roll in some circumstances, but stealth and subtly are not, overall, a forte of Sorcerers; it is like eg. the difference between knowing Knock and being a rogue. Subtle Spell allows Sorcerers to sometimes mimic the more steathly classes but is in no way a substitute for overall skill at acting unnoticed.


Because something is true in combat does not make it true outside of combat.

Combat assumes all involved are alert and aware of everyone involved and what they're doing unless specified otherwise (e.g. hiding).The note about hiding is particularly important, too. If someone successfully hides and then casts a spell with somatic and material components, do you automatically notice the casting? Obviously not. Therefore that can be used in other situations.

What about verbal components? Obviously it is something to decide on a case-by-case basis, but normally it would be like making any other sound while stealthed and trying to maintain stealth - you roll a Perception check to see who can hear it.

In social situations it's a bit more complex, yeah (and requires some additional DM adjudication because the rules for non-combat situations aren't as rigid), but the same basic concepts apply; you can attempt to conceal spellcasting the same way you can any other action. It's not special in that regard.

[Osuniev]

Fair point that spellcasting being harder to use than using skills is a feature, not a bug. I still feel that saying EVERY spellcasting is always obvious makes the Illusion and Enchantment schools very limited. (Basically saying : your spells are very situational, because you need to cast them without witnesses). I guess that makes the Metamagic feat of Tasha a MUST have for Illusionist and Enchanters.

[Tanarii]

Just because spellcasting is always obvious if percieved doesnt mean a DM must rule its always observable. If its as loud as speaking in a normal to somewhat loud conversational tone, it would sound as loud as a whisper at 30-60ft. Background noise could cover it up.

Similarly, casting a S or M spell might be easily percieved by those nearby, but harder if behind screening cover or behind a crowd, or at a significant distance.

I'm not saying that a player could necessarily be able to have a PC attempt to disguise it, e.g. by using a sleight of hand or stealth check. Rather that the DM might rule environmental conditions cause a static DC for observers to beat with a perception check (passive or rolled). Players could certainly have their PCs arrange such circumstances if they're clever enough.

Edit: suggestion would ve trickier, because they have to be able to hear he suggestion that follows the V component of casting the spell.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The note about hiding is particularly important, too. If someone successfully hides and then casts a spell with somatic and material components, do you automatically notice the casting? Obviously not. Therefore that can be used in other situations.

What about verbal components? Obviously it is something to decide on a case-by-case basis, but normally it would be like making any other sound while stealthed and trying to maintain stealth - you roll a Perception check to see who can hear it.

In social situations it's a bit more complex, yeah (and requires some additional DM adjudication because the rules for non-combat situations aren't as rigid), but the same basic concepts apply; you can attempt to conceal spellcasting the same way you can any other action. It's not special in that regard.

Well, if you're hidden that means both unseen and unheard, so reasonably hiding would mean that if you are still able to target someone with a spell they wouldn't see it. You shouldn't get to "hide" every time you cast a spell though.

However, that's not really the issue here. If someone is in your face (or within an area around you, not under cover or obscured from you) casting a spell, it's implied in more than one way that it is obvious that they are doing something other than simply talking towards you, assuming you can see them clearly.

So cast it from behind them, above them, underneath them, just don't argue that a face to face casting of suggestion should go unnoticed because of an absence of specifics. Your preparation on being unseen/heard should be done before the casting, not during, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the in-process sounds and motion are exceedingly difficult to conceal. They're "forceful gesticulation*" or "intricate sets of gestures" and "particularcombinations of sounds and specific pitch and resonance" which are all very active descriptors.

Everything in those descriptions suggests that there are specific and recognizable aspects to the spellcasting, so long as you have line of sight to the caster. Put yourself into a situation that masks those aspects rather than suggesting you can ignore them wherever and whenever you want with a high enough skill check.

[Pex]

Well, if you're hidden that means both unseen and unheard, so reasonably hiding would mean that if you are still able to target someone with a spell they wouldn't see it. You shouldn't get to "hide" every time you cast a spell though.

However, that's not really the issue here. If someone is in your face (or within an area around you, not under cover or obscured from you) casting a spell, it's implied in more than one way that it is obvious that they are doing something other than simply talking towards you, assuming you can see them clearly.

So cast it from behind them, above them, underneath them, just don't argue that a face to face casting of suggestion should go unnoticed because of an absence of specifics. Your preparation on being unseen/heard should be done before the casting, not during, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the in-process sounds and motion are exceedingly difficult to conceal. They're "forceful gesticulation*" or "intricate sets of gestures" and "particularcombinations of sounds and specific pitch and resonance" which are all very active descriptors.

Everything in those descriptions suggests that there are specific and recognizable aspects to the spellcasting, so long as you have line of sight to the caster. Put yourself into a situation that masks those aspects rather than suggesting you can ignore them wherever and whenever you want with a high enough skill check.

There is argument to be made that a spellcaster is more knowledgeable of spellcasting than the player such that the high enough skill check is the process of putting himself into a situation that masks those aspects. It's similar to the idea that a socially awkward person is still allowed to play a bard with expertise in persuasion. The player may not know what to say, but the character does and can say it well. A successful check doesn't mean the character did Subtle Spell. It means he found the obstruction to be out of site for the brief moment it took to cast and said in a low enough voice or at the right timing with environmental noise so as not to have been observed casting the spell.

[ProsecutorGodot]

There is argument to be made that a spellcaster is more knowledgeable of spellcasting than the player such that the high enough skill check is the process of putting himself into a situation that masks those aspects. It's similar to the idea that a socially awkward person is still allowed to play a bard with expertise in persuasion. The player may not know what to say, but the character does and can say it well. A successful check doesn't mean the character did Subtle Spell. It means he found the obstruction to be out of site for the brief moment it took to cast and said in a low enough voice or at the right timing with environmental noise so as not to have been observed casting the spell.

I guess I could phrase it simpler. I think the process should go "I want to attempt to hide my spellcasting, is there a way for me to do that" DM asks for a check, offering that a nearby crowd of people would offer sufficient vision and noise cover.

What shouldn't be the case is openly attempting to cast a spell and then asking, "but can I do this quietly with subtle hand motions" because I don't find an argument that an absence of rules saying that those components are noticeable (I don't think there really is an absence to begin with, the descriptors heavily imply they would be noticed) convincing. There's more evidence to suggest these components are noticeable in the absence of environmental obstructions, there's no evidence to suggest that because it isn't specified how "forceful" you need to gesticulate or exactly what "tone and resonance" you need to chant at that you should be able to hide your casting regardless of environmental obstructions.

To make some examples:
-An illusionist with Actor disguising their voice and using suggestion within a crowd of people = Good
-Subtle Spell Sorcerer attempting to cast Suggestion during a face to face negotiation, saying they whisper it with their hand over their mouth = Bad
-Subtle Spell Sorcerer hidden in a far off unlit corner of the room attempting the same thing = Good

[Tanarii]

-Subtle Spell Sorcerer attempting to cast Suggestion during a face to face negotiation, saying they whisper it with their hand over their mouth = Bad
-Subtle Spell Sorcerer hidden in a far off unlit corner of the room attempting the same thing = Good
Depends on if focus in place of M components are ruled by the DM as perceivable casting. Otherwise the subtle spell sorcerer can just do it face to face, without hiding their mouth.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Depends on if focus in place of M components are ruled by the DM as perceivable casting. Otherwise the subtle spell sorcerer can just do it face to face, without hiding their mouth.
Right, probably shouldn't be posting before my caffeine kicks in otherwise I make silly mistakes in my head like thinking the verbal component still mattered in this example. Whoops.

Those would all probably be "good" examples then, but in the event that the Sorcerer wasn't using subtle spell in the middle one, it would still be "bad".

[Tanarii]

Right, probably shouldn't be posting before my caffeine kicks in otherwise I make silly mistakes in my head like thinking the verbal component still mattered in this example. Whoops.

Those would all probably be "good" examples then, but in the event that the Sorcerer wasn't using subtle spell in the middle one, it would still be "bad".
Agreed.

Another consideration would be if the caster wanted the target to hear the suggestion part of Suggestion, but not know it was specifically the caster speaking. In theory it should be possible to set that up. Like a teacher turning around and saying "who said that?" :)

[Darth Credence]

I had a player attempt to use Suggestion for the first time this weekend, and luckily had already defined how it would be ruled (thanks to everyone who helped me with that). We had a quick discussion for those who had not read the spell ruling guide.
The encounter was them against an ogre and several orogs. They interrupted the monsters while they were camped and having lunch. Things were not going well for the players, as the encounter was balanced for them having another player at the table, but they were out this week. The bard decided to attempt suggestion, and the initial suggestion was not something that would have been reasonable. Since this was the first shot, we paused briefly to discuss the spell. The idea that it is something someone would do while drunk made it click for several of them, and we talked about possibilities. I specifically called out that telling an ogre that he should surrender was not a reasonable course of action, especially since the monsters were clearly winning at that point. One of them said, "how about something like 'that food smells really good, and you should eat it while it's hot'?" (Note - this happened right after an orog was killed and the description of the kill had the body catching on fire in places and specifically described the scent of the burning flesh.) Everyone smiled at this, and I said that I would absolutely rule that as a reasonable suggestion.
So, spell cast, saving throw failed, and the ogre cracked open the orog's armor and started to eat. There was a slight miscommunication there, as I believe they all thought the ogre would go back to his lunch rather than dine on an orog, but it was right there, so that's what it did. It worked out well, because the party was able to eliminate another orog and heal up the unconscious guy, which gave a good reason for the other orogs to decide that this was not a fight they were going to win and to exit stage left. They surrounded the hungry ogre and hit it with everything they had, eliminating it. Meanwhile, the two orogs made it out of there and I have a couple of monsters with a grudge to throw back at them later.

[Segev]

I had a player attempt to use Suggestion for the first time this weekend, and luckily had already defined how it would be ruled (thanks to everyone who helped me with that). We had a quick discussion for those who had not read the spell ruling guide.
The encounter was them against an ogre and several orogs. They interrupted the monsters while they were camped and having lunch. Things were not going well for the players, as the encounter was balanced for them having another player at the table, but they were out this week. The bard decided to attempt suggestion, and the initial suggestion was not something that would have been reasonable. Since this was the first shot, we paused briefly to discuss the spell. The idea that it is something someone would do while drunk made it click for several of them, and we talked about possibilities. I specifically called out that telling an ogre that he should surrender was not a reasonable course of action, especially since the monsters were clearly winning at that point. One of them said, "how about something like 'that food smells really good, and you should eat it while it's hot'?" (Note - this happened right after an orog was killed and the description of the kill had the body catching on fire in places and specifically described the scent of the burning flesh.) Everyone smiled at this, and I said that I would absolutely rule that as a reasonable suggestion.
So, spell cast, saving throw failed, and the ogre cracked open the orog's armor and started to eat. There was a slight miscommunication there, as I believe they all thought the ogre would go back to his lunch rather than dine on an orog, but it was right there, so that's what it did. It worked out well, because the party was able to eliminate another orog and heal up the unconscious guy, which gave a good reason for the other orogs to decide that this was not a fight they were going to win and to exit stage left. They surrounded the hungry ogre and hit it with everything they had, eliminating it. Meanwhile, the two orogs made it out of there and I have a couple of monsters with a grudge to throw back at them later.

I think the beauty of this suggestion is that it even works in terms of "but there's a fight going on:" The ogre's side was clearly winning, so he could go get the hot food while the others finished it off!

[Amdy_vill]

At the end of our last session my party was in a temple and we were attacked by many YuanTi. Like a good tank, I'm blocking the entrance (door cannot be closed). After the third attempt, my PC failed to save against a SUGGESTION spell to "go bathe in the river until midnight." There are ~ a dozen YuanTi between the Temple door and the outer gate. There is no way to go around the YuanTi without passing through their Op ATT range. They are blocking the outer gate/entrance, but I could climb the perimeter wall.

So what can my PC do? What can't he do?

He is compelled to move towards the river - but he still views all the YuanTi as enemies (right?).

Would he wade into the bad guys to hack his way to the river? Is he compelled to ignore the enemy and walk like a zombie in a direct path toward the river without attacking or protecting himself? Is he compelled to move as expeditiously as possible to the river but still protect himself from harm as best he can (disengage, dodge, etc)?

What is RAW and/or how should you rule as DM?

Raw, you not going to put yourself in obviously harmful "Asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act ends the spell."

as a DM, I wouldn't have done this but if I did I would expect you to protect yourself as best you can but still head to the river.

overall you should still walk to the river but your not an idiot, unless you are in which case you might just walk into the ememies. but you would have to have a 3 or less in int.

[da newt]

"Combat assumes all involved are alert and aware of everyone involved and what they're doing unless specified otherwise (e.g. hiding)."

BTW, the above is only true if the folks involved have never actually been involved in combat that has multiple folks on both sides. Anyone who has actually participated in any sort of combat (real or just for fun) knows that the above assumption is complete BS - hence the term 'fog of war.'