Charmed condition metagaming

[Zhorn]

Opinions on the metagame knowledge of charmed condition and suggestion spells.
Spells with the charmed effect and compulsions tend to include lines about characters knowing they were under such effects AFTER they have ended.

Players are fully aware their characters are charmed from the start though.

How strict do you feel is necessary to come down on players metagaming their choices to effectively play counter to the directions of the charm/compulsion, or diving right for the undo-feature when in practice the character should have no knowledge that they are currently charmed?

edit: thread topic is more to do with this^ than with the stuff in the spoiler field

I had a scenario play out with my party this week that I'm a little sour on.
I ruled in my party's favor and let them have the win because I did ultimately want them to come out on top, but am rather unsatisfied with it on an execution level.

Party assaulted a wizard's tower with the intent of murderhobo behaviour (known fiend cultist connections, they've rationalized it as a justified murder-spree for the "greater good"... plot point developing for them, not so worried about this part). General bust down doors attitude with little regard for how much destruction they cause.

Top floor is the wizard and a Ultroloth doing mystery experiments on captured soldiers (another group the party suspects of being compromised)
Fight ensures
Before escaping the Ultroloth unleashes a Mass Suggestion on the party to "destroy the device and the tower"
Aligns with their attitude on entering the tower, passing the "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable" requirement of the spell to my reasoning.
everyone fails their saving throw
...
and proceeds to set up their turns to all be within range of the Cleric for Twilight Sanctuary with the intent of breaking everyone out of the spell effect on the following round* and not damage the tower or device.

*I know Mass Suggestion technically doesn't inflict the Charmed condition (just shares the immunity) and as such Twilight Sanctuary wouldn't be able to remove it, but the session was running late and I didn't want to end the session on an argument.

[Greywander]

Mind control can be very tricky to run. On one extreme, the players metagame themselves into escaping or subverting the mind control, as your players did here. On the other extreme, they're all too eager to play along to the point of causing a TPK. Don't be surprised when you dominate a PC and tell them to kill the rest of the party and they actually do it.

It sounds like maybe your players are treating the game like a video game and just trying to "win". Which is fine, if that's the kind of game they want to play. But it sounds like maybe you had something else in mind and are disappointed they didn't just go along with it. I think you should sit down and talk to your players about it so you can all get on the same page. Aligning expectations is super important, as otherwise each player is essentially playing a different game and getting frustrated with the other players not "playing right". One player might think the right thing to do is to metagame to subvert the mind control. Another player might think the right thing to do is to play along with the mind control. Each player is ruining the experience for the other without realizing they're not playing the same game. Once they talk it over and get on the same page, then they can start playing the same game.

[Skrum]

What Greywander said. They were playing a different game than you. The group I play leans pretty heavily in the other direction - when someone gets dominated, they're gonna burn real resources trying to kill other party members. No one has taken particular glee in it, and there's continual table chatter to make sure everyone is OK with what's happening, but yeah, we go hard at each other and mostly lean into the spell effect.

In this situation, tell the players what happened. Tell them that you more or less expected them to follow the spirit of the spell, and not metagame like that. Present them the opportunity to explicitly say "nah, that's not really the kind of game we're interested in; we want the narrative to follow the mechanics." Make sure they don't feel judged on that either - it's in fact a totally fine way to play!! But just to get everyone on the same page.

Little side note that doesn't really matter cause it's water under the bridge, but using Twilight Sanc, to me, requires a little intentionality on the cleric's part. Like, they'd have to choose to use the enchantment-breaking effect. In that situation, it might have warranted bringing up "hey, I don't really think it's justified that you use that effect," especially since it sounds like they were still in combat.

[Amnestic]

Generally I take the view of: If positions had been swapped and the players had been doing the mass suggesting, would they have been satisfied with the NPCs doing the same thing they did? To see their spell ignored and then negated after everyone failed their save?

My gut says probably not.

[Zhorn]

They have had charm and mind control effects in the past and played them out fairly;
Succubi charms to attack fellow party members (they don't hold back)
Enemy Wizard casting Suggestion on the lone Sorcerer to have them attempt to retrieve a rare spellbook from another party member by force
Just this event was just way too blatant with the metagaming.
Had it been earlier in the night I would have come down harder on it
And in retrospect if I were to rule on this again timing being the same, I'd have wrapped up the session when they all failed since the bad guys were both escaping the following round (couldn't attack the party without breaking the Suggestion), and just pick up next session with the spell effect ending as the tower burned down.

On the group discord I've already touched on a couple of issues regarding that session and charm effects and mechanics, and while I'm not going to retcon the resolution as it already played out, things will be treated more strictly should such an event come up again. I also fully intend on having an talk over voice chat to allow a fair back-n-forth before the next session, because yeah I don't think any of us handled it right with the metagaming on their part and over-leniency on mine.

Because yes, this is very much one of those "spells should do what they say they do" interactions and this is a tool the players have equal access to and their should be an expectation of consistency between a PC or NPC being under the same effect.
A player in the party who was not there tonight has the Rod of Rulership for example, and has used it in the past for auto winning an encounter. That interaction in the past should make this discussion with the players very reasonable.

This thread though I'm more interested in the talking points above the spoiler box, regarding how you view reacting to players metagaming past charms and compulsions in general rather than the specifics of this singular instance.
Should it be a game-stopping moment where to call it out
An overrule and keep momentum with discussion time at the end
Not making an initial issue at the table; giving it a day or so for the discussion to be had after some cooling down time so it's not done in the heat of the moment
etc

[Asmotherion]

When describing the charmed condition I give a loose definition of what I expect. For exampla I will say "you can't remember when exactly you two met, but you view Enchanter as a true friend you trust". If anything is played within those guidlines, I figure it's fine.

For example, I would be suspicious if a friend of mine told me to attack an other friend of mine. If anything, I might suspect "Enchanter" is either a dopleganger or just tesing me or something.

Just because you are Charmed, nothing compels you to act out of character. You just need to act as if your Enchanter was a party member.

[JackPhoenix]

Just because you are Charmed, nothing compels you to act out of character.

That very much depends on the source of the charmed condition.

[Skrum]

Just because you are Charmed, nothing compels you to act out of character. You just need to act as if your Enchanter was a party member.


Yes and no. The Charm spell, I'm more inclined to agree; the spell pretty strongly implies that you can guide what the target does, but you can't compel them to do something they wouldn't do under any circumstance.

Suggestion and then Domination are different though. Suggestion lets you set a particular task for the target, and assuming it's not obviously and immediately harmful to them or their allies, they do it (my favorite use of this spell is to have armored characters take off their armor; it's reasonable, and doffing times are long enough it more than takes them out of the combat). In this case, trashing the tower was a *very* reasonable suggestion, as they were there to do basically that.

Domination is even stronger; you've all but lost self-determination. This is the spell that can cause parties to fight themselves.

[Psyren]

That very much depends on the source of the charmed condition.

Agreed. The charm/frighten condition itself might interfere with your ability to control where you're placed on each round.

That's irrelevant in this case though, since:



*I know Mass Suggestion technically doesn't inflict the Charmed condition (just shares the immunity) and as such Twilight Sanctuary wouldn't be able to remove it, but the session was running late and I didn't want to end the session on an argument.

Respectfully, that shouldn't be an argument, the rules as written are completely and unambiguously on your side. Twilight Sanctuary does nothing to counter Suggestion; enforcing that weakness of the Twilight Cleric is absolutely something you should have gone with.

I disagree however that "destroy the tower" is reasonable though given that they're all currently inside it. The device certainly, but even if the party succeeds in destroying it, there should be enough of it left that they can still progress the plot/track down the Ultroloth if they wish.

[sithlordnergal]

When describing the charmed condition I give a loose definition of what I expect. For exampla I will say "you can't remember when exactly you two met, but you view Enchanter as a true friend you trust". If anything is played within those guidlines, I figure it's fine.

For example, I would be suspicious if a friend of mine told me to attack an other friend of mine. If anything, I might suspect "Enchanter" is either a dopleganger or just tesing me or something.

Just because you are Charmed, nothing compels you to act out of character. You just need to act as if your Enchanter was a party member.

Problem is they were hit with Mass Suggestion, not a Charm. Mass Suggestion is basically just Suggestion on a larger scale, and both spells have really weird limits on what is reasonable or not. Mass Suggestion has an entire group of soldiers giving all of their money to the first beggar they find, while Suggestion has a Knight giving their warhorse to a beggar. So it could totally have you act out of character, provided it sounds reasonable.

[Tanarii]

The Cleric shouldn't have chose to use their action for Twilight Sanctuary. That's not an action related to destroying the tower or device.

If your players don't buy in to mind control and play along, you have two choices: change the spells to take control of their characters; don't use such effects.

[Keltest]

I disagree however that "destroy the tower" is reasonable though given that they're all currently inside it. The device certainly, but even if the party succeeds in destroying it, there should be enough of it left that they can still progress the plot/track down the Ultroloth if they wish.

I agree with this. They werent really playing it straight, but the suggestion itself comes with pretty imminent mortal danger to the party vis a vis being in the tower. The whole thing sounds like a wash to me. I think the best way to handle it would be to start next session with a conversation about such, apologize for trying to use the spell so harshly, but also let them know that you expect them to play it straight when they get charmed or suggested.

[Psyren]

The Cleric shouldn't have chose to use their action for Twilight Sanctuary. That's not an action related to destroying the tower or device.

TS might have been active already - it lasts a full minute (as long as the cleric isn't incapacitated) with no concentration, and is typically the first action a TC takes in a fight so that their temp HP and flight turn on.


If your players don't buy in to mind control and play along, you have two choices: change the spells to take control of their characters; don't use such effects.

I would definitely go for the former unless the suggestion doesn't preclude them taking other actions somehow, which this one does.

[greenstone]

The Cleric shouldn't have chose to use their action for Twilight Sanctuary. That's not an action related to destroying the tower or device.

I think that's how I would run this. The spell compells the party to perform the suggested action "to the best of their ability." Using channel divinity is not destroying the tower to the best of their ability.

[kazaryu]

Opinions on the metagame knowledge of charmed condition and suggestion spells.
Spells with the charmed effect and compulsions tend to include lines about characters knowing they were under such effects AFTER they have ended.

Players are fully aware their characters are charmed from the start though.

How strict do you feel is necessary to come down on players metagaming their choices to effectively play counter to the directions of the charm/compulsion, or diving right for the undo-feature when in practice the character should have no knowledge that they are currently charmed?

edit: thread topic is more to do with this^ than with the stuff in the spoiler field

I had a scenario play out with my party this week that I'm a little sour on.
I ruled in my party's favor and let them have the win because I did ultimately want them to come out on top, but am rather unsatisfied with it on an execution level.

Party assaulted a wizard's tower with the intent of murderhobo behaviour (known fiend cultist connections, they've rationalized it as a justified murder-spree for the "greater good"... plot point developing for them, not so worried about this part). General bust down doors attitude with little regard for how much destruction they cause.

Top floor is the wizard and a Ultroloth doing mystery experiments on captured soldiers (another group the party suspects of being compromised)
Fight ensures
Before escaping the Ultroloth unleashes a Mass Suggestion on the party to "destroy the device and the tower"
Aligns with their attitude on entering the tower, passing the "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable" requirement of the spell to my reasoning.
everyone fails their saving throw
...
and proceeds to set up their turns to all be within range of the Cleric for Twilight Sanctuary with the intent of breaking everyone out of the spell effect on the following round* and not damage the tower or device.

*I know Mass Suggestion technically doesn't inflict the Charmed condition (just shares the immunity) and as such Twilight Sanctuary wouldn't be able to remove it, but the session was running late and I didn't want to end the session on an argument.

yeah, thats definitely cause to begin the next session with a mini-session 0. talk to the party about the type of game y'all want to play. because thats no even metagaming...thats straight up ignoring the spell effect. Now, in general, i'd say its a good idea to discuss player agency and the use of such spells during a session 0.

and for me, personally, where i tend to go when i DO use compulsory effects like that, is i lead into a narration, i mean...if the players have no meaningful choices, then there's no reason to stop to ask them what they do (unless of course you know for a fact that they're willing to play such effects straight.). but what i'd probably do in that scenario is describe them doing exactly what they were compelled to do. of course, destroying a tower in just 24 hours is...a bit of a large ask, even if some of the casters have shatter. So, as someone mentioned, at the end of the narration there would be plenty for the party to pick through. but they'd lose a full day in the pursuit of the bad guy.


I agree with this. They werent really playing it straight, but the suggestion itself comes with pretty imminent mortal danger to the party vis a vis being in the tower. The whole thing sounds like a wash to me. I think the best way to handle it would be to start next session with a conversation about such, apologize for trying to use the spell so harshly, but also let them know that you expect them to play it straight when they get charmed or suggested. the spell lasts for 24 hours. being told to destroy the tower would only put them in imminent danger if there was like...a self destruct button.

[Hytheter]

I disagree however that "destroy the tower" is reasonable though given that they're all currently inside it.

I wouldn't say a knight giving away their horse to a random beggar is reasonable either, but that's literally the example used in the spell. Indeed, it's a misconception that suggestions have to be reasonable - they only have to sound reasonable. Whatever that means.

One of the worst written spells in the game if you ask me.

[Psyren]

I think that's how I would run this. The spell compells the party to perform the suggested action "to the best of their ability." Using channel divinity is not destroying the tower to the best of their ability.

To reiterate, it's highly likely the cleric already had their channel divinity active when the Suggestion went out.


I wouldn't say a knight giving away their horse to a random beggar is reasonable either, but that's literally the example used in the spell. Indeed, it's a misconception that suggestions have to be reasonable - they only have to sound reasonable. Whatever that means.

One of the worst written spells in the game if you ask me.

I'd say destroying a structure you are currently inside is pretty "obviously harmful." A knight can still walk, and they can also immediately try getting their horse back once the transaction is complete and the spell ends. They're not the same thing at all.



the spell lasts for 24 hours. being told to destroy the tower would only put them in imminent danger if there was like...a self destruct button.

You don't have to get all the way through wrecking a structure you're inside to know it's dangerous to do so.

Were I the DM, I would just have the Ultroloth restrict its instructions to the device, or better yet, have the party go through with breaking the device and then have the spell end immediately once they turn to the obviously harmful act of bringing the tower down around their ears.

[Tanarii]

I wouldn't say a knight giving away their horse to a random beggar is reasonable either, but that's literally the example used in the spell. Indeed, it's a misconception that suggestions have to be reasonable - they only have to sound reasonable. Whatever that means.
Yeah either the writer was thinking of an extremely chivalric knight. Or their idea of reasonable is far broader than mine.

[kazaryu]

Were I the DM, I would just have the Ultroloth restrict its instructions to the device, or better yet, have the party go through with breaking the device and then have the spell end immediately once they turn to the obviously harmful act of bringing the tower down around their ears.

my point is that its a long process and doesn't require you to actually be inside the tower to accomplish. source: the fact that buildings get demolished all the time with 0 loss of life.

it would only present an 'imminent danger' if the tower was already wired to explode, and the detonator was also inside the tower. lacking that, the instructions to 'destroy the tower' with the caveat 'to the best of your ability' necessitates you do something that allows for plenty of safety. (for example, rigging the base of the tower to explode, if such tech exists in your world).

[Zhorn]

So again; while I was more interested in the topic on a general level rather than the specifics as it related to the events of my game, it looks like there are some fixations on my game's event that I should clarify.


The Cleric did not in fact have Channel Divinity Twilight Sanctuary already active at the time
The Mass Suggestion's command wasn't 'destroy the tower with you inside it', self preservation reasoning on the command to destroy the tower and device would allow the party to be outside the tower during the dangerous collapse.
The party themselves were already aware the an active fire from the encounter (a Fire Storm was cast and the tower had wooden floors) would eventually cause serious damage over time. Instead of feeding those fires to ensure greater destruction (there were supplies of alchemist fire lower in the tower that could have been repositioned for this), the fires were instead extinguished on the immediate round after the Suggestion was mistakenly allowed (my bad) to be broken.
It was also suggested by some of the party members before the turn cycle got around to the metagame that they sling spells at it from the outside.
The reasonable-ness of the Suggestion was in that it aligned with their initial attitude for assaulting the tower and inhabitant otokill everyone and destroy everything, with them only changing to 'don't wreck the tower' AFTER the Suggestion was cast

But anyway, the specifics on my scenario are being resolved. Have already had some text exchanges over on our discord and have managed to have a one-on-one voice chat with some of the players already with the understanding that this will be followed up with as a group discussion pre-game next session.

[Keltest]

Yeah either the writer was thinking of an extremely chivalric knight. Or their idea of reasonable is far broader than mine.

I mean, its certainly reasonable in the sense that the knight doesnt need the horse to go on living or is otherwise going to be suffering from some sort of obviously harmful effect as a direct consequence of doing so. Its not something they would likely ever do on their own initiative, since there are a lot of reasons that the knight would benefit from keeping that horse that probably outweigh the good it does to the beggar, but its not like its anathema to their existence or anything.

[animorte]

I mean, its certainly reasonable in the sense that the knight doesnt need the horse to go on living or is otherwise going to be suffering from some sort of obviously harmful effect as a direct consequence of doing so. Its not something they would likely ever do on their own initiative, since there are a lot of reasons that the knight would benefit from keeping that horse that probably outweigh the good it does to the beggar, but its not like its anathema to their existence or anything.

This is very similar to what I was going to say. This instance of reasonable could simply refer to an impulse that guides you to the benefit of someone else. My wife and kids have cast suggestion on me many times, causing me to take a simple act that I likely wouldn’t have considered without their influence. Maybe I just have a crap Wisdom score. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

The Cleric did not in fact have Channel Divinity Twilight Sanctuary already active at the time


Then that was a tactical error on the cleric's part and a very generous ruling on yours.


my point is that its a long process and doesn't require you to actually be inside the tower to accomplish. source: the fact that buildings get demolished all the time with 0 loss of life.

Sure, but the Suggestion wasn't "leave the tower and then destroy it." The target is under no obligation to correct the caster's phrasing into something optimal, the onus for that is on them.


I mean, its certainly reasonable in the sense that the knight doesnt need the horse to go on living or is otherwise going to be suffering from some sort of obviously harmful effect as a direct consequence of doing so. Its not something they would likely ever do on their own initiative, since there are a lot of reasons that the knight would benefit from keeping that horse that probably outweigh the good it does to the beggar, but its not like its anathema to their existence or anything.

Indeed.

Now if they were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and were Suggested to give their boat away to the first pirate they saw (or destroy it), that would be a different matter entirely.

[theNater]

Opinions on the metagame knowledge of charmed condition and suggestion spells.
Spells with the charmed effect and compulsions tend to include lines about characters knowing they were under such effects AFTER they have ended.

Players are fully aware their characters are charmed from the start though.

How strict do you feel is necessary to come down on players metagaming their choices to effectively play counter to the directions of the charm/compulsion, or diving right for the undo-feature when in practice the character should have no knowledge that they are currently charmed?
I feel like it's reasonable to ask players to justify their decisions with respect to the charm/compulsion. If someone is under a suggestion to build a house and they declare they are taking a long rest, you can ask how that is helping them build the house. If they say "it will refresh my spell slots and allow me to prepare Wall of Stone", then sure; if they say "I'll be more efficient at hammering if I'm not tired", you can point out that's probably not the best of their ability and ask them to take a different course of action.

For the charmed condition itself, given that characters are intelligent, it's fair for them to realize their opinion of some creature has suddenly changed. While that's not going to break the charm, it should allow them to be wary of that creature in some sensible way, and possibly move to avoid it (if permitted by the charming effect).

Asking the cleric "how does channeling Twilight Sanctuary help you destroy the device and the tower?" would probably have been a good move.

[Zhorn]

For the charmed condition itself, given that characters are intelligent, it's fair for them to realize their opinion of some creature has suddenly changed. While that's not going to break the charm, it should allow them to be wary of that creature in some sensible way, and possibly move to avoid it (if permitted by the charming effect).
That's part of the meta-game catch, different sources of the Charmed condition and other similar compulsion effects specify how the afflicted creature is to regard the source. Introducing new reasoning that runs contrary to the effects description is actively working against the intent of the charm.
Say for example we use the Rod of Rulership. You are to regard the rods user as your "trusted leader", and metagaming a reason to be doubtful or wary is very much not trusting.

[Reynaert]

I wouldn't say a knight giving away their horse to a random beggar is reasonable either, but that's literally the example used in the spell. Indeed, it's a misconception that suggestions have to be reasonable - they only have to sound reasonable. Whatever that means.

One of the worst written spells in the game if you ask me.

Suppose a knight actually got suggestion cast on them to give away their horse to a random beggar. This is what would happen:

Meet the beggar and give them the horse. The spell ends.
See a beggar with a horse that's obviously the knight's, realising what a bad decision that was.
Take the horse back. Maybe kill the beggar for their insolence.

Also, on a serious note to the OP: Don't forget to ask the players their honest feelings on having compulsion-type spells cast on their characters.

[Keravath]

In this type of situation, I try to gently remind the players to play in character and be very clear about telling the players exactly what their characters know and feel about the effect. If there is further discussion, I'll explain that creatures under the effect of a Suggestion think it is totally reasonable and would not take any specific action to end it because the character doesn't think anything is wrong. (even though the player might be aware).

The creatures under the effect of the suggestion may realize it was a spell but they feel completely comfortable with it. The suggestion becomes part of what they want to do and not something unreasonable. If it wasn't this way, a paladin or cleric under the effect of a suggestion would just turn around and cast dispel magic on themselves the next round making Suggestion effectively unusable. Alternatively, any of the party members affected by the spell could just start casting dispel magic on the party.

----

In the current example, all of the players acted completely out of character by all running to surround the cleric in the hopes he could end the effect. The characters DON'T think there is any effect that needs ending (only the players do). An unaffected character would be able to take actions to end the effect IF they become aware that anyone was affected at all - which won't be clear until they start destroying the device and tower.

----

Anyway, when I DM a situation like this, I try to ensure that the player is made aware of exactly what the character knows and feels and what they do not.

"Your character thinks that destroying the device and tower is a great idea. It fits so well with what the character was thinking when they assaulted that the tower that the character is surprised they didn't mention it before entering. Your character does not think there is anything wrong at all. The character either doesn't know or doesn't care that they might be under the effect of the spell regarding the course of action. The Suggestion feels so reasonable from the character's perspective that the character is surprised that they didn't think of it themselves."

Most players, when the description of what the character knows is made clear, will role play the character in this situation and avoid the players meta gaming. Describing the effect clearly helps avoid meta gaming by removing any misunderstanding beforehand about what the character knows and does not know - which is usually what is used by the players to justify the meta gaming actions.

The same would happen if everyone in the party was charmed instead of under the effect of a suggestion. The characters still don't know anything is wrong and would not take actions to fix something they don't know is broken.

----

In this specific situation, everyone failed the save so there is actually little if anything the party can do except destroy the device, watch the tower burn, then try to sift through the ashes looking for some clues perhaps thinking to themselves "Wow, we overdid that a bit!". The characters might still not be aware that they were under the effect of a Suggestion since in-character, the Suggestion actually made a lot of sense for the characters and the actions they were taking.

[Zhorn]

Update for those who are invested:
Have managed to talk to 3 of the party members so far (Warlock, Sorcerer and Monk)
Just Cleric to go (Barbarian and Wizard were away that night)
All so far seem very understanding.
General agreement to the encounter should have been called when everyone failed their saves, and resume play after cutting forward to the party being safely outside as the tower crumbles to the ground in flames.

Warlock said they were actually expecting me to shoot down their "gather around the Cleric" play on the night.

Monk and I had a bit of an extended talk regarding Charmed condition in general and their Stillness of Mind (understanding the Suggestion spells are not the Charmed condition, of course). Agreement being Characters will not know they are charmed (or under compulsions) till after the effect has ended, but if it is a Charmed condition they will still instinctually use their action on Stillness of Mind if available as to not nerf the class feature.

Sorcerer is cool with the ruling. Was more keen on talking build progression and discussing taking Counterspell next level as a precaution.

[JackPhoenix]

Sure, but the Suggestion wasn't "leave the tower and then destroy it." The target is under no obligation to correct the caster's phrasing into something optimal, the onus for that is on them.

The suggestion also wasn't "Destroy the tower while you're still inside.". As long as the tower is destroyed, the party is free to decide where they'll stand and how they'll approach the task.

[Psyren]

The suggestion also wasn't "Destroy the tower while you're still inside.". As long as the tower is destroyed, the party is free to decide where they'll stand and how they'll approach the task.

No, they're not free to do any such thing. Once they fail the save, they pursue the course of action, and they're currently inside the tower. If every suggestion included an unspoken "minimize potential harm before carrying this instruction out even though I didn't say that" then the obviously harmful clause wouldn't be there and the spell would be much more powerful than it is. Suggestion is not dominate.

By your logic, if a bard Suggested that a cleric chug some poison, that would be a reasonable request as long as they have Protection from Poison available to cast on themselves, even if the Bard didn't ask them to do that.

[Greywander]

As an aside, there's something kind of poetic about how mind control is usually handled in TTRPGs. Normally, the DM isn't supposed to tell a player how their character thinks or feels. But mind control is just that: a third party forcibly overriding your thoughts and emotions to impose those of their choosing onto you. The ensuing conflict between the player and their mind controlled character is also reminiscent of the character's inner struggle against the mind control. Ironically, the more adept a player is at handling mind control, the less resistance they have in that inner struggle.

[JackPhoenix]

No, they're not free to do any such thing. Once they fail the save, they pursue the course of action, and they're currently inside the tower. If every suggestion included an unspoken "minimize potential harm before carrying this instruction out even though I didn't say that" then the obviously harmful clause wouldn't be there and the spell would be much more powerful than it is. Suggestion is not dominate.

Exactly. Suggestion is not dominate, thus the targets are free to excercise their own jusdgement in pursuing the suggested course of action to the best of their ability. Having the tower collapsed on yourself is generally not the best way to ensure the tower will be completely destroyed.


By your logic, if a bard Suggested that a cleric chug some poison, that would be a reasonable request as long as they have Protection from Poison available to cast on themselves, even if the Bard didn't ask them to do that.

It would not, because Protection from Poison does not grant you immunity. Poison you have resistance against is still harmful.

[kazaryu]

Sure, but the Suggestion wasn't "leave the tower and then destroy it." The target is under no obligation to correct the caster's phrasing into something optimal, the onus for that is on them.



the phrasing is entirely my point. they're not directed to use a particular method of destruction. they're only obligated to destroy the tower. and doing so 'to the best of their ability' necessitates the use of tools and methods that are likely to...well, they're likely to exceed the duration of the spell long before major destruction occurs. but even with the tools on hand, if they do manage to destroy the tower, there's no reason it can't be done in a way that is safe. there is no 'imminent danger'.

[Psyren]

Exactly. Suggestion is not dominate, thus the targets are free to excercise their own jusdgement in pursuing the suggested course of action to the best of their ability. Having the tower collapsed on yourself is generally not the best way to ensure the tower will be completely destroyed.

Oh but it is. The support beams and pillars are on the inside. Destroying those is a much more effective way of collapsing the tower than trying to take it down from outside. Your safety was never part of the instruction.


It would not, because Protection from Poison does not grant you immunity. Poison you have resistance against is still harmful.

So if you Suggested a Druid jump into a volcano, that would be reasonable so long as they had Investiture of Flame prepared then?

[BRC]

I would say that the charmed condition of Suggestion specifically effectively sets the affected character's immediate goal, and the character is not aware that they are charmed.

(This is distinct from, say, a Dominate spell, where the characters might be AWARE of the domination, just helpless to resist)

So when they failed their saves, they should be thinking "Okay, if my goal is to destroy the device and the tower, how would I be acting". You have to be pursuing the goal, although not necessarily super effectively.

For example, a character might, upon receiving that order, start looting chests, because were they to destroy the tower, they would want to loot it first.
Another might start searching the walls for structural weaknesses because they're looking for the most effective way to destroy the tower.

if you are actively under attack, you can keep defending yourself, because ignoring something trying to kill you in order to pursue some other goal would be unreasonable.


Now, the key thing here is that all the PC's arranged to be within 30ft of the twilight cleric so the cleric could hit them with Twilight's Sanctuary. I would allow that so long as their movements all made sense within the context of trying to destroy the tower and machine. The Cleric shouldn't have been able to cast that unless they could argue that doing so was a reasonable step towards their goal of destroying the tower.

When under a suggestion spell, you're still YOU, you just think the suggestion is a really good idea. You can't play word games to justify your way around the compulsion (Well they didn't say we needed to destroy the tower NOW, I'll take a nap and then destroy it!) because your character isn't motivated to do so. At the same time, you have leverage as far as how would your character approach things if that was a goal.

With the example of "Give all your money to the next beggar you see", some characters might just go about their day, and if they run into a beggar give them the money. Others might actively seek out a beggar to give money to.

[theNater]

That's part of the meta-game catch, different sources of the Charmed condition and other similar compulsion effects specify how the afflicted creature is to regard the source. Introducing new reasoning that runs contrary to the effects description is actively working against the intent of the charm.
Say for example we use the Rod of Rulership. You are to regard the rods user as your "trusted leader", and metagaming a reason to be doubtful or wary is very much not trusting.
Right. Like I say, the player needs to justify their actions with respect to the charm. Wariness isn't appropriate for this charm, but there are absolutely times when characters will disobey trusted leaders, meaning that the Rod's user needs to be mindful of what they order, lest their new followers immediately go rogue (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0765.html).

[Sigreid]

Honestly doesn't come up. Pretty much everyone I play with is delighted to play for the other team and mess with the party when they get the chance and never hold back.

[Zhorn]

there are absolutely times when characters will disobey trusted leaders
If you can justify that the orders are not to be followed, you are expressing mistrust in those order
If you don't follow the orders of someone, they cannot be justified as your leader

Blatant metagame excuses are blatant

[theNater]

If you can justify that the orders are not to be followed, you are expressing mistrust in those order
If you don't follow the orders of someone, they cannot be justified as your leader

Blatant metagame excuses are blatant
Perhaps an example will clarify:

An underling enters the command tent. The commander says "Good, you're here. It is imperative that we take the city by sundown. Sound the attack immediately!" The underling says "Actually, sir, I'm here to deliver the news that the city has surrendered."

The underling is disobeying the order by not sounding the attack immediately. Is it your position that the underling does not trust the commander? Or that the commander is not actually the underling's leader?

[Zhorn]

In this scenario you have set up that the subject in question is already operating under orders of an unknown third party.
You are going out of your way to establish niche situations to circumvent the intent of a spell effect, and then trying to use such scenarios to establish precedence to disregard the intended function of the spell text.
Poor sportsmanship, the type of approach more likely to frustrate others and the table and get you removed from play rather than winning others over to your line of reasoning.

[theNater]

In this scenario you have set up that the subject in question is already operating under orders of an unknown third party.
You are going out of your way to establish niche situations to circumvent the intent of a spell effect, and then trying to use such scenarios to establish precedence to disregard the intended function of the spell text.
Poor sportsmanship, the type of approach more likely to frustrate others and the table and get you removed from play rather than winning others over to your line of reasoning.
You seem to be operating with some information I don't have. What is your source on the intended function of the Rod of Rulership?

[Greywander]

That's part of the meta-game catch, different sources of the Charmed condition and other similar compulsion effects specify how the afflicted creature is to regard the source. Introducing new reasoning that runs contrary to the effects description is actively working against the intent of the charm.
Say for example we use the Rod of Rulership. You are to regard the rods user as your "trusted leader", and metagaming a reason to be doubtful or wary is very much not trusting.
Suggestion doesn't actually inflict the charmed condition. For mind control effects that do, however, I think it's more that they're anchoring the effects to the underlying conditions. The actual effects vary from spell to spell, but anything that can remove the charmed condition can remove the spell. It's like how almost every poison that isn't just straight damage will inflict the poisoned condition, then anchor additional effects to the poisoned condition. If you had, say, a paralyzing poison that just straight up inflicted paralysis, then it would be able to bypass poison immunity. But if the poison first inflicts the poisoned condition, and then also paralyzes the poisoned creature, then it's susceptible to effects that remove the poisoned condition or grant immunity to it.

And yes, a spell or other feature shouldn't override the effects of the charmed condition, but they can. It's a case of specific beats general, with the spell being more specific than the condition. It's still very useful because then you can just write some general rules for the charmed condition (such as how to remove it), and that then applies to every spell that uses the charmed condition. The alternative would be to write special rules for every charm-like effect, which is massively more work both to write as a developer and to read and understand as a player. TBH, I think Suggestion should use the charmed effect, and if necessary it can simply override the normal effects of being charmed. That's a little easier than writing a bunch of extra rules for how certain effects that already interact with charms interact with Suggestion, specifically.

I also can't help but wonder why the charmed condition isn't used more in combat. Yeah, charms are usually social tools, but the clause that prevents attacking the charmer definitely has combat utility. A while back I was fiddling around with some homebrew and came up with an "enraged" condition, and found that it forms a sort of emotional manipulation trinity with charmed and frightened, which in turn made me think about how little the charmed condition was used in combat. Imposing disadvantage on attacks is one thing, but not even allowing them to roll is something else entirely.

As for Suggestion, specifically, what makes sense is for the player to treat the suggestion as if it were a great idea, and then to execute it on that basis. If given a Suggestion to destroy the tower, then they'd start planning the best way to do it, as if it wasn't a compulsion but rather an idea they had come up with themselves. In some cases, a character under a Suggestion might delay carrying it out, but only if doing so would somehow allow them to carry out the Suggestion better. For example, if given a Suggestion to hang the laundry out to dry, they might decide to wait until it stops raining. That said, a simple Persuasion roll could probably convince them to do it anyway, because it does seem like a great idea. Because the character isn't aware they're under a Suggestion, they might even unintentionally wait out the duration, though this should be rare and only when it would really make sense for them to wait that long to execute the Suggestion. For example, if given a Suggestion to assassinate the king, your character might reason that the king will be back to the castle in a few days, so it makes more sense to wait for him to return than to go looking for him.

A lot of these mind control effects simply require doing as they say. If the Rod of Ruler ship says people treat you as a "trusted leader", then they treat you as a trusted leader. If a trusted leader ordered you to hand over the Macguffin, you wouldn't think twice. If they ordered you to kill your friend, you'd probably hesitate. Even a "trusted leader" has limits. You wouldn't stop thinking of them as a trusted leader, but you might start wondering if maybe they're off their meds, or maybe this is a test, or maybe the "trusted leader" is being blackmailed or mind controlled. Rationalizing incongruities is one of the things that can make mind control very interesting.

[Atalas]

Opinions on the metagame knowledge of charmed condition and suggestion spells.
Spells with the charmed effect and compulsions tend to include lines about characters knowing they were under such effects AFTER they have ended.

Players are fully aware their characters are charmed from the start though.

How strict do you feel is necessary to come down on players metagaming their choices to effectively play counter to the directions of the charm/compulsion, or diving right for the undo-feature when in practice the character should have no knowledge that they are currently charmed?

edit: thread topic is more to do with this^ than with the stuff in the spoiler field

I had a scenario play out with my party this week that I'm a little sour on.
I ruled in my party's favor and let them have the win because I did ultimately want them to come out on top, but am rather unsatisfied with it on an execution level.

Party assaulted a wizard's tower with the intent of murderhobo behaviour (known fiend cultist connections, they've rationalized it as a justified murder-spree for the "greater good"... plot point developing for them, not so worried about this part). General bust down doors attitude with little regard for how much destruction they cause.

Top floor is the wizard and a Ultroloth doing mystery experiments on captured soldiers (another group the party suspects of being compromised)
Fight ensures
Before escaping the Ultroloth unleashes a Mass Suggestion on the party to "destroy the device and the tower"
Aligns with their attitude on entering the tower, passing the "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable" requirement of the spell to my reasoning.
everyone fails their saving throw
...
and proceeds to set up their turns to all be within range of the Cleric for Twilight Sanctuary with the intent of breaking everyone out of the spell effect on the following round* and not damage the tower or device.

*I know Mass Suggestion technically doesn't inflict the Charmed condition (just shares the immunity) and as such Twilight Sanctuary wouldn't be able to remove it, but the session was running late and I didn't want to end the session on an argument.

I recently came into a situation much like this. my character was charmed and was in a position to genuinely cause a TPK. My one saving grace was that the DM did remind that, even though I was charmed, I did still see the other party members as friends and companions. so, I grappled the cleric (am a grapple based fighter; thus far creatures have had to be either too large to grapple or incapable of being grappled to not be victimized) and drug her away without attacking, far enough in fact that she would have to pick and choose to to do a ranged heal on, and would have had no chance at all to escape the grapple. Things did work out in the end after passing my save (which.. I did at the end of the selfsame turn), but it still came down to one final attack to avoid the TPK.

[PallyBass]

Opinions on the metagame knowledge of charmed condition and suggestion spells.
Spells with the charmed effect and compulsions tend to include lines about characters knowing they were under such effects AFTER they have ended.

Players are fully aware their characters are charmed from the start though.

How strict do you feel is necessary to come down on players metagaming their choices to effectively play counter to the directions of the charm/compulsion, or diving right for the undo-feature when in practice the character should have no knowledge that they are currently charmed?

edit: thread topic is more to do with this^ than with the stuff in the spoiler field

I had a scenario play out with my party this week that I'm a little sour on.
I ruled in my party's favor and let them have the win because I did ultimately want them to come out on top, but am rather unsatisfied with it on an execution level.

Party assaulted a wizard's tower with the intent of murderhobo behaviour (known fiend cultist connections, they've rationalized it as a justified murder-spree for the "greater good"... plot point developing for them, not so worried about this part). General bust down doors attitude with little regard for how much destruction they cause.

Top floor is the wizard and a Ultroloth doing mystery experiments on captured soldiers (another group the party suspects of being compromised)
Fight ensures
Before escaping the Ultroloth unleashes a Mass Suggestion on the party to "destroy the device and the tower"
Aligns with their attitude on entering the tower, passing the "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable" requirement of the spell to my reasoning.
everyone fails their saving throw
...
and proceeds to set up their turns to all be within range of the Cleric for Twilight Sanctuary with the intent of breaking everyone out of the spell effect on the following round* and not damage the tower or device.

*I know Mass Suggestion technically doesn't inflict the Charmed condition (just shares the immunity) and as such Twilight Sanctuary wouldn't be able to remove it, but the session was running late and I didn't want to end the session on an argument.

Suggestion should be run as a compulsion. The PC thinks the course of action is priority number one, to the exclusion if everything else. I.e. BBEG Suggests the Fighter go home to restock on equipment. The Fighter is blown away by this "epiphany" and realizes they NEED that gear and so rushes home to the detriment of other PCs. Attempts at conversation are thwarted, the Fighter is enchanted to think this is THE decision to do and will explain it as such. PCs that interact with him or observe him will be able to roll skill check to determine his erratic behavior as being under a enchantment effect. The "reasonable" clause of suggestion is pretty lenient, a favorite among my players is to tell armored enemies to doff thier armor to effectively remove them from the fight. It sounds dumb, but it helps to think of "reasonable" to mean an action that does not directly harm the creature

Dominate Person would be similar in compulsion but stronger since the caster can issue direct orders that don't have to sound reasonable, the caveat is unless the caster uses their Action to assert Precise control the afflicted target does get some freedom of choice. I.e. BBEG dominates Fighter and commands him to kill the Wizard, Fighter is compelled to move to the Wizard and basic attack him until dead but the PC can choose how he attacks (they have to be trying to kill though, if they spend all their actions trying to intimidate/shoving around/fisticuffs for1+Str dmg/ some obviously metagaming move that isn't"kill the Wizard" I will call it out and tell them) if BBEG uses their action to take Precise control then Fighter is fully DM controlled and will blow through Action surge/other resources to kill wizard.

Charm effects are more tricky to run but more fun when the players roll with it as they have the most freedom to RP the charm. The base Charm person spell makes them consider the caster a trusted ally and as such unwilling to hurt them, and may even protect them. But the affected PC is still loyal to his other party members and thus would be unwilling to attack or hurt them. I.e. BBEG charms fighter and tells him this has been a misunderstanding, the BBEG is innocent and please buy him time to escape. Fighter PC is free to decide how to buy BBEG time, most likely trying to talk to his party members, possibly grappling one who tries to attack BBEG but not hurting them. PC gets a lot of freedom here, but bottom line is they can't hurt or hinder the BBEG while charmed.

A lot of monster have charm abilities that grant additional control over the normal Charm person spell that need to be considered for what the PC can do vs. are compelled to do.

Work with the players and call out metagaming when it's inappropriate for the effect/ spell they are under. This goes for the other extreme too, if Fighter is charmed, it does not give the PC an escuse to murder the whole party (although hilarious)

[Slipjig]

I disagree however that "destroy the tower" is reasonable though given that they're all currently inside it.

That's really only a problem if the PCs have a means of destroying the tower instantly. Setting the place on fire as they leave would fulfill the conditions with no real risk to themselves.

I've never DM'd this particular situation, but if I did I think I'd handle it by asking how they are going to fulfill the condition. If they are doing something that is clearly metagaming (e.g. moving closer to the Twilight cleric when doing so does nothing to accomplish the suggestion) or clearly sandbagging (making an intimidate check when they are supposed to be trying to kill a target), I'd give the player a warning that if they don't act according to the compulsion I'll be determining their action for the round. And then repeat as necessary, allowing them to propose their action each round and then directing otherwise as needed.

But honestly, this doesn't sound like a lot of fun, so if I knew my players weren't likely to roll with it, I'd probably avoid using charms on them in the future.

[Segev]

It can be frustrating when you have what seems a bespoke ability that is ironically useless precisely when you want to use it. A case where thus makes sense might be a cleric with revivify being the one who just died.

One where it is frustrating and perhaps bad design is the Monk's Stillness of Mind feature, which requires an action to remove Frightened and Charmed, which arguably you are not allowed to take when Frightened or Charmed.

It ultimately comes down to the question of what both sides want out of such features.

I still feel a little bad about how I handled it as a player when, as the officer on watch during a night shift on a boat, assassins successfully used Charm Person to get my PC to like them and see them as friendly acquaintances. My PC greeted them warmly and invited them aboard, and wanted to go inform the Captain that his friends were aboard so there wouldn't be any problems, and maybe range a berth if they were staying a while. My reasoning was that this is roughly how he would act if an actual friendly acquaintance he thought meant no harm came aboard. But I am unsure if I should have had him acting more muddled and less duty-conscious.

A fight ultimately broke out and the Charm ended, but it did get them aboard without a fight, at least, I guess.

[Psyren]

Setting the place on fire as they leave would fulfill the conditions with no real risk to themselves.

The suggestion wasn't "destroy the tower as you leave" either. If you're going to rob the players' agency - which compulsions do - the wording has to be precise. Making spells more powerful than they should be is a big part of what leads to caster supremacy in any edition.

[JackPhoenix]

The suggestion wasn't "destroy the tower as you leave" either. If you're going to rob the players' agency - which compulsions do - the wording has to be precise. Making spells more powerful than they should be is a big part of what leads to caster supremacy in any edition.

And, again, that does not matter. Suggestion leaves the target enough free will to use their judgement to approach the task. Claiming it somehow makes the spell "more powerful" is pure nonsense.

[Keravath]

The suggestion wasn't "destroy the tower as you leave" either. If you're going to rob the players' agency - which compulsions do - the wording has to be precise. Making spells more powerful than they should be is a big part of what leads to caster supremacy in any edition.

I disagree. A suggestion to "destroy the tower" in no way requires the characters to immediately and without any thought of harm to themselves to instantly destroy the tower.

Consider the example in the suggestion spell. "Give your warhorse to the first beggar you meet". This suggestion does not require the target to go looking for a beggar so that they can give away their horse. It isn't a compulsion to search out a beggar to fulfill the suggestion. It is a suggested course of action that the target will fulfill when circumstances allow.

In addition, the spell text indicates that suggestions that are immediately harmful are prevented. The examples include stabbing yourself, setting yourself on fire, or something obviously harmful doesn't work. However, the spell could be used to suggest a risky course of action that would not be obviously harmful.

In either case, a suggestion to destroy a tower, especially in the context where a fire has already started AND it is something the characters were already considering makes the suggestion sound even more reasonable. When affected by the spell, the characters are not automatons, they are not compelled to destroy the tower instantly with themselves inside it since that is not what the suggestion said to do. All the suggestion said in this case was destroy the tower and left the means and choices up to the affected characters. Thus they could choose the most effective method that did not harm themselves or others if that is what they wanted to do as long as the tower was destroyed.

At least that is my take on how the spell wording works and how I would run it at my table with a Suggestion like this one.

----

"You suggest a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two) and magically influence a creature you can see within range that can hear and understand you. Creatures that can't be charmed are immune to this effect. The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable. Asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act ends the spell."

"You can also specify conditions that will trigger a special activity during the duration. For example, you might suggest that a knight give her warhorse to the first beggar she meets. If the condition isn't met before the spell expires, the activity isn't performed."

[Segev]

I disagree. A suggestion to "destroy the tower" in no way requires the characters to immediately and without any thought of harm to themselves to instantly destroy the tower.

Consider the example in the suggestion spell. "Give your warhorse to the first beggar you meet". This suggestion does not require the target to go looking for a beggar so that they can give away their horse. It isn't a compulsion to search out a beggar to fulfill the suggestion. It is a suggested course of action that the target will fulfill when circumstances allow.

In addition, the spell text indicates that suggestions that are immediately harmful are prevented. The examples include stabbing yourself, setting yourself on fire, or something obviously harmful doesn't work. However, the spell could be used to suggest a risky course of action that would not be obviously harmful.

In either case, a suggestion to destroy a tower, especially in the context where a fire has already started AND it is something the characters were already considering makes the suggestion sound even more reasonable. When affected by the spell, the characters are not automatons, they are not compelled to destroy the tower instantly with themselves inside it since that is not what the suggestion said to do. All the suggestion said in this case was destroy the tower and left the means and choices up to the affected characters. Thus they could choose the most effective method that did not harm themselves or others if that is what they wanted to do as long as the tower was destroyed.

At least that is my take on how the spell wording works and how I would run it at my table with a Suggestion like this one.

----

"You suggest a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two) and magically influence a creature you can see within range that can hear and understand you. Creatures that can't be charmed are immune to this effect. The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable. Asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act ends the spell."

"You can also specify conditions that will trigger a special activity during the duration. For example, you might suggest that a knight give her warhorse to the first beggar she meets. If the condition isn't met before the spell expires, the activity isn't performed."
All excellent points. Reading it, however, made me think of one way somebody might try to weasel out of it:

"It doesn't say I have to do it immediately, so I'll do it... in a while. You know, after the spell ends. What? The spell's over? I don't feel like doing it anymore!"

And the key here is that the suggestion is a compulsion, just a subtle one. You're left with the means as your choice, but if your means "just happen" to take longer than the duration of the spell when there are fairly obvious means available right there and now, the DM is in his rights to insist you actually take the means available right there and now. Obviously, if it's an obviously and directly self-destructive action to use those means, those clauses apply.

[Psyren]

I disagree. A suggestion to "destroy the tower" in no way requires the characters to immediately and without any thought of harm to themselves to instantly destroy the tower.

Consider the example in the suggestion spell. "Give your warhorse to the first beggar you meet". This suggestion does not require the target to go looking for a beggar so that they can give away their horse.

This analogy is horrible. They're currently in a tower. Of course they can begin carrying out the instruction right away; there is no need to "go looking" for one, the way the example paladin might or might not for the beggar.


In addition, the spell text indicates that suggestions that are immediately harmful are prevented. The examples include stabbing yourself, setting yourself on fire, or something obviously harmful doesn't work. However, the spell could be used to suggest a risky course of action that would not be obviously harmful.

In either case, a suggestion to destroy a tower, especially in the context where a fire has already started AND it is something the characters were already considering makes the suggestion sound even more reasonable. When affected by the spell, the characters are not automatons, they are not compelled to destroy the tower instantly with themselves inside it since that is not what the suggestion said to do. All the suggestion said in this case was destroy the tower and left the means and choices up to the affected characters. Thus they could choose the most effective method that did not harm themselves or others if that is what they wanted to do as long as the tower was destroyed.

The Achilles Heel of Suggestion is the reasonableness clause. Being overly permissive/charitable with that clause has a direct impact on the spell's power. I for one don't think casters need me to bend over backwards and add charity on top of their other advantages, even NPC casters.

And as Segev mentioned, the instruction doesn't tell them when to start either, so if you're going to be overly broad in your interpretation (as I feel you're currently being) then that cuts both ways.



At least that is my take on how the spell wording works and how I would run it at my table with a Suggestion like this one.

The beauty of 5e is that we can (and will in this case) rule differently. Just like we never have to play at one another's table.


And, again, that does not matter. Suggestion leaves the target enough free will to use their judgement to approach the task. Claiming it somehow makes the spell "more powerful" is pure nonsense.

It's nonsensical to add language to spell instructions that isn't there and claim that's intended. The word you two are adding in this case being "safely" or "carefully."

(I also noticed you skipped over the volcano question earlier.)

[Segev]

Hm. Thinking more on the "when to start" issue, I think the best way to frame it is this: A successful suggestion becomes a priority - perhaps even their highest priority - to fulfil. This doesn't mean that it becomes the only thing they care about, but if there is something else in the queue, it's only because it is essential to getting to the high-priority suggestion's course of actions, or it's to make sure they are safe enough to get things done.

"I suggest you destroy the tower" could lead to them delaying the destruction while they loot it, and certainly would include leaving them leeway to ensure the tower was destroyed without them having to be inside it. It would not reasonably lead to them deciding to come back next spring to destroy the tower, unless there was a VERY good reason that they couldn't reasonably manage to destroy it without that delay.

The nature of what makes the suggestion "reasonable" will impact things, too. "This tower is in the way of your colonial expansion; you should destroy it," might well result in them leaving and coming back with their own construction teams to raze the tower, whereas "This tower is horribly steeped in evil and must be destroyed for the good of all, lest it corrupt any innocents who stumble upon it," would tend to encourage a more immediate destruction. Maybe not "drop everything and do it now," but certainly "destroy it before you leave the site if at all possible."

[Keravath]

The beauty of 5e is that we can (and will in this case) rule differently. Just like we never have to play at one another's table.

(I also noticed you skipped over the volcano question earlier.)

Yep :) ... DMs have a lot of leeway when deciding how a Suggestion works, or how an Illusion works or how any effect that causes a player character to take a course of action without explicitly removing the will of the character. What's more, the DMs decision in these cases is very likely to depend on circumstances and context.

How the DM interprets the game world is part of what makes the game fun.

I'd also add that a DM ruling differently on how something works in their game, from what I might choose, would never prevent me from playing and enjoying a game at their table. There are an infinite number of ways to play the game and most of them are fun. Why would anyone decide not to play with someone because they have different opinions on some minutiae of the rules? :)

P.S. I missed whatever the volcano reference was and didn't see it when I skimmed back over the thread - so sorry about not answering it if that was addressed to me ..

[Psyren]

P.S. I missed whatever the volcano reference was and didn't see it when I skimmed back over the thread - so sorry about not answering it if that was addressed to me ..

That part was indeed not addressed to you, but to the quoted poster directly preceding that portion.

[Greywander]

Perhaps a reasonable compromise is that Suggestion would compel you to carry out the suggestion some time during the spell's duration, but not necessarily right away. So a suggestion to destroy the tower wouldn't have to be immediate, but the players would feel as though it really needs to happen some time in the next 8 hours. A reasonable delay that doesn't push them past that time frame would be acceptable, but a delay longer than that would cause them to feel as though they don't have time and have to do something to speed it up.

As an example, one scenario I posed earlier was a Suggestion to kill the king when the king is away. If the king is expected to return in a few hours, then you might decide it is acceptable to wait for their return and start planning how you're going to carry out the assassination once they're back. If they won't be back for longer than that, or if you've been waiting and they're late, you might decide it is necessary to go seek them out so you can fulfill the Suggestion before it ends.

At the end of the day, though, you just have to trust the players to properly roleplay a compulsion. If they're determined to weasel out of it, they'll find some way to sabotage it. If they're willing to play along, then no rules are needed to enforce it. Any rules should really be aimed at those in the middle; the former won't honor them and the latter won't need them.

[JackPhoenix]

It's nonsensical to add language to spell instructions that isn't there and claim that's intended. The word you two are adding in this case being "safely" or "carefully."

I'm not adding anything. "Safely" or "carefully" has nothing to do with the suggestion. It's common sense to not stay inside a building you're about to destroy. Suggestion does not turn you into a mindless zombie. If you use Suggestion to tell someone to go home instead of fighting, they are not forced to jump out of a window, walk into traffic or rush headlong into a closed door.


I also noticed you skipped over the volcano question earlier.

Depends... how do you make jumping into volcano sound reasonable, fire immunity or not?

[Keltest]

Depends... how do you make jumping into volcano sound reasonable, fire immunity or not?

Go jump into the volcano, they can't follow you there!

As far as common sense goes, it's a compulsion. If common sense was allowed to apply, they wouldn't have to obey in the first place.

To use the knight and beggar example, the beggar can't afford to feed it and may well be arrested for stealing it, since he obviously didn't buy it. So giving him this horse is giving him a meal, at best, and seriously hurting him at worst. Completely unreasonable at that point.

[Slipjig]

The suggestion wasn't "destroy the tower as you leave" either. If you're going to rob the players' agency - which compulsions do - the wording has to be precise. Making spells more powerful than they should be is a big part of what leads to caster supremacy in any edition.
If there are two ways to quickly accomplish the Suggestion, and one of them is clearly suicidal (e.g. destroying the tower with themselves inside) and the other is not (leaving immediately and setting fires as they exit), the players should be able to select their method.

Otherwise, players be able to negate pretty even the most innocuous of Suggestions by rationalizing a method that WOULD be harmful. e.g. Suggestion: "Take the bread out of the oven." PC response: "I reach in and grab the hot pan barehanded. Oh, wait, that would be harmful, therefore the Suggestion fails!" Suggestion [PC has the key]: "Unlock the door." PC: "I smash through the window next to the door with my face, so I can unlock from the inside! Oh, wait, no I don't, because that would be harmful, Suggestion negated!"

I do agree that stopping to loot on the way out would not be cricket unless they were grabbing something that could aid in the destruction, such as alchemists fire.

[Psyren]

IIt's common sense to not stay inside a building you're about to destroy.

I'm not seeing "common sense" in the spell description anywhere, sorry.



Otherwise, players be able to negate pretty even the most innocuous of Suggestions by rationalizing a method that WOULD be harmful. e.g. Suggestion: "Take the bread out of the oven." PC response: "I reach in and grab the hot pan barehanded. Oh, wait, that would be harmful, therefore the Suggestion fails!" Suggestion [PC has the key]: "Unlock the door." PC: "I smash through the window next to the door with my face, so I can unlock from the inside! Oh, wait, no I don't, because that would be harmful, Suggestion negated!"

1) Sounds like a great reason to word your suggestions carefully. You know, like the spell tells you to.

2) No, being told to do something inherently dangerous like collapse a structure and neglecting to add a stipulation to do so safely, is not at all the same as being told to do something mundane like open a door and the player choosing to make it dangerous. In both of your examples, you're adding text, while I am not.

[JackPhoenix]

Go jump into the volcano, they can't follow you there!

Sure, that works. Avoiding enemies by entering in an enviroment you can survive in but they can't is pretty reasonable.


As far as common sense goes, it's a compulsion. If common sense was allowed to apply, they wouldn't have to obey in the first place.

To use the knight and beggar example, the beggar can't afford to feed it and may well be arrested for stealing it, since he obviously didn't buy it. So giving him this horse is giving him a meal, at best, and seriously hurting him at worst. Completely unreasonable at that point.

That's the beggar's problem, not the knight's.

[Keltest]

That's the beggar's problem, not the knight's.

Thats the point. The more you allow somebody to think about the task, the less sense just about any suggestion made by a hostile entity makes. The spell doesnt survive contact with critical thought.

[Sigreid]

Go jump into the volcano, they can't follow you there!

As far as common sense goes, it's a compulsion. If common sense was allowed to apply, they wouldn't have to obey in the first place.

To use the knight and beggar example, the beggar can't afford to feed it and may well be arrested for stealing it, since he obviously didn't buy it. So giving him this horse is giving him a meal, at best, and seriously hurting him at worst. Completely unreasonable at that point.

Nothing in the suggestion prevents the knight from immediately offering to buy the horse back from the beggar. Beggar can also just sell it to someone else. But the most likely result is the better takes some gold to give the horse back rather than dealing with a powerful animal he likely doesn't know how to control or care for anyway.

[Reynaert]

Nothing in the suggestion prevents the knight from immediately offering to buy the horse back from the beggar. Beggar can also just sell it to someone else. But the most likely result is the better takes some gold to give the horse back rather than dealing with a powerful animal he likely doesn't know how to control or care for anyway.

Nothing in the suggestion prevents the knight from just taking the horse back from the beggar.

[Segev]

Nothing in the suggestion prevents the knight from just taking the horse back from the beggar.

No, but unless the knight realizes the suggestion was magical compulsion, he's unlikely to consider that a reasonable course of action, either. A knight doing a generous deed is "reasonable" within the paradigm of "a knight." A knight playing a cruel prank on a beggar by "giving" him a horse he immediately steals from him is not. Unless the knight was that kind of person already.


I will mostly agree with Psyren, here, on the collapsing tower thing. Remember: you have to phrase the suggestion so it sounds reasonable. You're allowed to set up framing for it. "This tower is too dangerous to leave standing. You should collapse it before you leave the area," would be reasonable-sounding enough, would give them time to get their business done in the tower, and give them all the leeway they need to collapse it safely. If the players tried to twist that by saying, "Well, right this second is 'before we leave the area,' and it would be harmful to us to collapse it right this second because we're inside: suggestion failed!" I, as a DM, would give them a hairy eyeball and probably insist that, no, they can't interpret it that way. Deliberately adding extra requirements to make it harmful doesn't negate the spell. If the suggestion is worded to sound reasonable, you're required to interpret it in a similarly-reasonable fashion. Within the "reasonable" framing of the suggestion, your enchanted belief is that the tower is too dangerous to leave standing, and that you should therefore make sure it is collapsed before you leave the area. This does not require you to take any directly harmful actions to complete.

"You're hungry; you should eat this sandwich," is not allowed to be interpreted as, "If I stuff the sandwich hole down my throat, I will choke to death, so it's a directly harmful suggestion." Even if people can technically eat something by stuffing it whole in their mouth and trying to swallow without chewing.

"The cake needs sugar to bake it. Go to the basement and fetch me some," doesn't become "directly harmful" just because the basement is dark and there are steep stairs; you are able to turn on or bring a light. The suggestion doesn't fail just because you might have to take a step or two to avoid a hazard. Similarly, "Go up to your room; you've been naughty," doesn't fail just because the most direct path requires you to climb a sheer wall rather than going twenty feet out of your way to get to the bottom of the perfectly-usable stairs, even though climbing the sheer wall is likely to make you fall and hurt yourself.

A suggestion doesn't invoke the "harmful" clause just because there are harmful ways you can do it. It only invokes the clause if you would have to take directly harmful action to fulfil it. The whole fiction of the spell is that it worms an idea into your head such that you think it's a good one, either your own or just that the person who gave it to you is right about it. You like the idea, or at least feel it's very important, and will act to bring it to fruition. The "harmful" clause isn't there to provide a weasel-word escape; it's to prevent the caster from "suggesting" that you stab yourself in the eye. Note that one of the common canon example suggestions is, "That pool over there is cool water, and a dip would be refreshing. You should swim in it," or some variation thereon. It is directly harmful (because the example pool is actually filled with acid), but is considered "reasonable" because the target either doesn't know that or is magically convinced it's cool, refreshing water.

And if you are uncomfortable going that far, that's fine. Just recognize that the players making up a way the task could be completed in a self-harmful way doesn't count. Another way to look at it: the spell doesn't "fail" just because the suggestion is for directly harmful action, so much as the target is only compelled to follow it if he can find a non-harmful way to do so. "You should go make out with the efreet-king on his fire-throne," may be directly harmful if you're not immune to fire, but the character given the suggestion might reasonably be said not to get that auto-failure benefit if she happens to have a ring of fire immunity, or even has a potion of it she could drink as a step in the process.

[Keltest]

A suggestion doesn't invoke the "harmful" clause just because there are harmful ways you can do it. It only invokes the clause if you would have to take directly harmful action to fulfil it.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I would say rather, it only invokes the clause if harm is a normal result of the action. The volcano example is actually very good, because "jump into the volcano" is quite obviously harmful... unless you have protective magic, in which case it's probably fine. But just because you can take steps to turn the action non-harmful doesnt mean it isnt harmful at the moment the suggestion is cast.

In other words, "jump into the volcano" is a different suggestion than "protect yourself from fire and jump into the volcano"

[Greywander]

I don't think "jump into the volcano" is a reasonable suggestion, even if you are immune to fire damage or have the means to protect yourself. It would need to be framed in such a way to make it sound reasonable. For example, "Yo, I saw a sick magma axe floating on top of the lava. You should jump down there and grab it." Even then, the suggestion would fail if it's directly harmful, meaning the target has to believe that they can carry out the suggestion without hurting themselves. Not that there's zero risk, but that it is at least possible to get through unscathed. If they don't have the means to completely negate the lava damage, or avoid taking it in the first place, then it would still be directly harmful. More likely, this would end with them casting Fly or something so they can jump into the volcano without ever touching the lava, and the Suggestion would end once they get down there and realize there is no magma axe or anything else of interest.

[Keltest]

I don't think "jump into the volcano" is a reasonable suggestion, even if you are immune to fire damage or have the means to protect yourself. It would need to be framed in such a way to make it sound reasonable. For example, "Yo, I saw a sick magma axe floating on top of the lava. You should jump down there and grab it." Even then, the suggestion would fail if it's directly harmful, meaning the target has to believe that they can carry out the suggestion without hurting themselves. Not that there's zero risk, but that it is at least possible to get through unscathed. If they don't have the means to completely negate the lava damage, or avoid taking it in the first place, then it would still be directly harmful. More likely, this would end with them casting Fly or something so they can jump into the volcano without ever touching the lava, and the Suggestion would end once they get down there and realize there is no magma axe or anything else of interest.

Suggestion is a compulsion. The "why" doesnt really need to factor into it, IMO. The thing can be silly, random or arbitrary as long as its not convoluted, impossible, highly improbable or otherwise infeasible, and as long as it meets the "not dangerous" clause.

[Segev]

Suggestion is a compulsion, but its entire "thing" is the whole package of what goes into an intention to do something. It is a "why." Maybe an implied why, but it includes one; that's often part of the "reasonableness" clause. It compells you to believe, to an extent, the "reasonable" part of the statement, too. "That pool over there is full of cool water, and a dip would be refreshing," compels in part the acceptance of the assertion in the first clause: that the pool contains cool water (rather than acid, or anything else). It has to sound reasonable, so that acid or whatever had better not be obviously Not Water (e.g., a pool of lava isn't going to reasonably be believed to be cool water, at least not without additional illusion magic).

It also includes a bit of "how," but mostly leaves that to the target. It is about the end result, generally speaking: a setup and a resolution. "This tower is too dangerous to leave standing. You should collapse it." You could interpret that to be immediate, but if you were having a casual conversation with somebody about a building needing to be condemned, you wouldn't assume that the suggestion was to immediately start demolishing it, so much as taking steps to make sure it would be torn down. In a pseudo-medieval exploration game where the party are the only authority they respect in the area, yes, they're the ones who "should" take down the tower, perhaps, but they're also still not going to reasonably believe, barring some immediacy that isn't in the suggestion, that it has to happen NOW NOW NOW WHILE WE ARE INSIDE, so much as "can't leave it standing [when we leave the area]." Now, you can include "before you leave" in the suggestion to cement it a bit. But generally speaking, unless it's truly a knee-jerk response from the player misunderstanding the suggestion (or at least understanding it in that particular way), they shouldn't be looking for ways to re-interpret it to make it harmful. The whole point of suggestion is that it sounds reasonable. If it is phrased to sound reasonable, trying to twist it to sound unreasonable is perhaps how you make your Wisdom save, but once you've failed the save, you can't manage it. (Unless it IS unreasonable on the face of it, rather than by careful twisting.)

[Reynaert]

No, but unless the knight realizes the suggestion was magical compulsion, he's unlikely to consider that a reasonable course of action, either. A knight doing a generous deed is "reasonable" within the paradigm of "a knight." A knight playing a cruel prank on a beggar by "giving" him a horse he immediately steals from him is not. Unless the knight was that kind of person already.

Nothing in the spell prevents the knight from realizing it's magical compulsion. Also nothing in the spell makes the knight keep believing it was reasonable to do it after the spell ends. Best case scenario, the knight gives the beggar a few coins with a 'sorry about that, someone put some kind of spell on me'.

Basically, I firmly believe the whole knight-beggar example is enormously stupid, and will lead to really wonky conclusions if it's viewed as a 'good example' of the spell use.

[Segev]

Nothing in the spell prevents the knight from realizing it's magical compulsion. Also nothing in the spell makes the knight keep believing it was reasonable to do it after the spell ends. Best case scenario, the knight gives the beggar a few coins with a 'sorry about that, someone put some kind of spell on me'.

Basically, I firmly believe the whole knight-beggar example is enormously stupid, and will lead to really wonky conclusions if it's viewed as a 'good example' of the spell use.

When an example in the spell itself is "a bad example," then the problem is probably with your interpretation of the spell. Examples are generally included to show how the designer intends the spell to function. Now, maybe this means he wrote the mechanics poorly, but it certainly doesn't mean the example is bad.

[Zhorn]

Many of these examples and the reasoning used to counter them is part'n'parcel of the main topic.
A player having failed the saving throw pursuing a course of action to come out as though the spell has no impact on them.
I give my horse away, but take it back the second the spell ends.
I'm compelled to flip this table... but I'll do it later after having done the things I was doing before the spell was cast.
I will pour poison in the king's wine... in 24 hours after the spell effect has a chance to expire and I think better of it.
I'm to go to my room, but as there's a risk of splinters on the stair that could hurt me; that is a harmful action and I'm thus free of the compulsion.
It all just comes across as poor sportsmanship.

[Segev]

Many of these examples and the reasoning used to counter them is part'n'parcel of the main topic.
A player having failed the saving throw pursuing a course of action to come out as though the spell has no impact on them.
I give my horse away, but take it back the second the spell ends.
I'm compelled to flip this table... but I'll do it later after having done the things I was doing before the spell was cast.
I will pour poison in the king's wine... in 24 hours after the spell effect has a chance to expire and I think better of it.
I'm to go to my room, but as there's a risk of splinters on the stair that could hurt me; that is a harmful action and I'm thus free of the compulsion.
It all just comes across as poor sportsmanship.

It often is, but there's also a certain amount of second-guessing of oneself even if one wishes to be a good sport.

You are on watch on a night shift on a boat when you hear a noise over the side of it. You look over, and, after failing a Wisdom saving throw, see a gentleman in a dark hooded cloak you know to be a friendly acquaintance you're a little embarrassed to not be able to put a name to. He's trying to climb up from a small rowboat alongside your vessel. You're in charge of keeping the place secure, but he's dangling out there with nowhere to go; would you turn him away? Would you invite him aboard? Would you call out to your fellow watchmen and/or go find the captain to get permission to bring this friend of yours aboard? Would you take him with you to see the captain, so he is properly escorted?

Are you metagaming if you take any action that alerts others to your friend's presence, since charm person is what you all but know you failed the save against? Or are you metagaming in the other direction if you go out of your way to aid his clandestine infiltration of your boat and let him go on his way?

It seems likely to me that just because you see a friend coming aboard doesn't mean you'd refrain from informing anybody else.

And it only gets worse if you try to RP out the whispered conversation. "Don't tell anyone I'm here, buddy," says the cloaked figure.

"Why not?" you whisper back, giving him an initial benefit of a doubt, since you can always call out later. "I can't let you aboard without notifying the watch and the captain. Security and all, you know."

He gives an explanation, maybe one the DM comes up with on the spot to put into words, and then rolls (with advantage) a Charisma (Persuasion) or (Deception) check. You roll Wisdom (Insight), and see nothing deceptive in his statement. But is Persuasion going to make you his mind slave and willing to do whatever he asked? Or is it only going to make you wish you could help him, and try to come up with a work-around or compromise? OOC, you know that the moment other PCs or important NPCs learn IC of this, they'll be suspicious and the guy's jig is up. Are you metagaming when you play the security-minded but still wishing-to-be cooperative friend, rather than just accepting whatever he says and letting him aboard on his own recognizance?

I personally think this is a case where charm person only gets you so far, but by the same token, how would you avoid having this same logic make charm person never do anything useful?

It gets tricky when you're second- and third-guessing whether you're "really" playing things right.

[Zhorn]

There's a big difference between trying to play things straight versus actively trying to subvert the outcome to metagame in immunity despite failing the saving throw.

In your charm person scenario, you're not jumping directly into "I alert the other guards despite being asked not to", but instead have opened a dialogue. One in which the interaction is able to play out in keeping with the specifics of the spell text (advantage on charisma checks). In this case, having an NPC respond that way to a player attempting the same thing were the situations be reversed isn't acting as a subversion, it's playing into the scenario. You are charmed, and engaging in an integration which without the spell would have immediately raised alarms.

This isn't a 1-to-1 comparison to the other examples, which are jumping to a course of action or interpretation intentionally meant to ignore the intended effect.

[Segev]

There's a big difference between trying to play things straight versus actively trying to subvert the outcome to metagame in immunity despite failing the saving throw.

In your charm person scenario, you're not jumping directly into "I alert the other guards despite being asked not to", but instead have opened a dialogue. One in which the interaction is able to play out in keeping with the specifics of the spell text (advantage on charisma checks). In this case, having an NPC respond that way to a player attempting the same thing were the situations be reversed isn't acting as a subversion, it's playing into the scenario. You are charmed, and engaging in an integration which without the spell would have immediately raised alarms.

This isn't a 1-to-1 comparison to the other examples, which are jumping to a course of action or interpretation intentionally meant to ignore the intended effect.

Fair enough. I generally am inclined to agree. My main point is that, in the moment, it can be tricky as player of the creature Charmed to make sure you're playing it straight and not unintentionally leaning on the lever, so to speak. This is also a problem when a DM knows something is an illusion. For some reason, it's harder to gauge the reasonable response to an illusion of, say, a wall of fire than it is to an actual wall of fire. Probably because the actual wall of fire has defined consequences you can weigh risk/reward on to think about whether jumping through it is worth it or not. When there's an illusory wall, it's tempting to say they test it out for whatever reason. Would they REALLY try to climb the wall if it were real, or would they just backtrack? Or would they REALLY have just backtracked without at least poking at it if you knew it was real?

Like I said, second-guessing yourself for metaknowledge activity is a thing. :smalleek:

[Psyren]

I'm not sure I agree with this. I would say rather, it only invokes the clause if harm is a normal result of the action. The volcano example is actually very good, because "jump into the volcano" is quite obviously harmful... unless you have protective magic, in which case it's probably fine. But just because you can take steps to turn the action non-harmful doesnt mean it isnt harmful at the moment the suggestion is cast.

In other words, "jump into the volcano" is a different suggestion than "protect yourself from fire and jump into the volcano"


I don't think "jump into the volcano" is a reasonable suggestion, even if you are immune to fire damage or have the means to protect yourself. It would need to be framed in such a way to make it sound reasonable. For example, "Yo, I saw a sick magma axe floating on top of the lava. You should jump down there and grab it." Even then, the suggestion would fail if it's directly harmful, meaning the target has to believe that they can carry out the suggestion without hurting themselves. Not that there's zero risk, but that it is at least possible to get through unscathed. If they don't have the means to completely negate the lava damage, or avoid taking it in the first place, then it would still be directly harmful. More likely, this would end with them casting Fly or something so they can jump into the volcano without ever touching the lava, and the Suggestion would end once they get down there and realize there is no magma axe or anything else of interest.

Correct for both of these. And if you Suggested that a red dragon jump in (for a reason they cared about) an they failed their save, then they probably would. But suggesting that to a druid, even if they had Investiture of Flame prepared, wouldn't be because you didn't tell them to protect themselves first. That's the point I'm making.

[Segev]

Correct for both of these. And if you Suggested that a red dragon jump in (for a reason they cared about) an they failed their save, then they probably would. But suggesting that to a druid, even if they had Investiture of Flame prepared, wouldn't be because you didn't tell them to protect themselves first. That's the point I'm making.

I assume, though, "You have investigure of flame prepared; swimming in a volcano would be fun! Dive in!" would work well enough, since part of framing it as "reasonable" was the reminder they can cast that spell, which makes it safe to do? Or would you require it explicitly state, "You should cast it, and then dive in?"

[Psyren]

I assume, though, "You have investigure of flame prepared; swimming in a volcano would be fun! Dive in!" would work well enough, since part of framing it as "reasonable" was the reminder they can cast that spell, which makes it safe to do? Or would you require it explicitly state, "You should cast it, and then dive in?"

Unless they already had it active, I would consider it very hard - maybe impossible - to word "you should burn a powerful and limited resource, then do something highly dangerous that depends on that spell being active to not be harmful" in a way that sounds reasonable. And honestly I'm okay with that, Suggestion is not Dominate.

Note that I'm not saying suggestion is useless in this situation either. "Destroy that device" - something the players were already prepared to do if necessary, and that isn't inherently harmful to them - is a pretty reasonable command.

[Keltest]

Unless they already had it active, I would consider it very hard - maybe impossible - to word "you should burn a powerful and limited resource, then do something highly dangerous that depends on that spell being active to not be harmful" in a way that sounds reasonable. And honestly I'm okay with that, Suggestion is not Dominate.

Note that I'm not saying suggestion is useless in this situation either. "Destroy that device" - something the players were already prepared to do if necessary, and that isn't inherently harmful to them - is a pretty reasonable command.

I don't strictly disagree with you, but I feel like this is ignoring the wider context of the spell when looking at whether something is reasonable. It seems to me like people are interpreting it as needing to be rational or logical, but the given example isn't either of those things unless you accept that the stated suggestion is taken at face value as Very Important by the subject of the spell.

[Greywander]

Correct for both of these. And if you Suggested that a red dragon jump in (for a reason they cared about) an they failed their save, then they probably would. But suggesting that to a druid, even if they had Investiture of Flame prepared, wouldn't be because you didn't tell them to protect themselves first. That's the point I'm making.
If you cast Suggestion on someone with the suggestion to take the cookies out of the oven, the suggestion doesn't fail because you neglected to include putting on oven mitts as part of the suggestion. I feel like part of the whole point of suggestion is that it plants the idea into the target's mind and lets them carry it out in a reasonable manner, as opposed to overpowering the target's mind with a directive that they are forced to follow to the letter. It's a feature, not a bug, that the target is able to fill in the gaps of a suggestion, rather than requiring to meticulously word the suggestion to be followed exactly.

Again, I think the best way to handle Suggestion is to treat the suggestion as if it was your own idea and you can determine the best way to fulfill it. You feel it's important to fulfill the suggestion in a timely manner, and while you can delay if it allows you to better fulfill the suggestion, you still feel compelled to complete the task in the next 8 hours (the spell's duration).

If given the suggestion to jump in a volcano, you might seriously consider how you'd do it without harming yourself, and if you can't find a way to do so, the spell would end. It wouldn't require you to robotically carry out the suggestion exactly as stated, but allows leeway to determine the best way to do it so long as you complete the end goal and any explicit instructions you were given. For example, you could suggest someone remove cookies from the oven without using oven mitts, and they would try to find a way to do so without using oven mitts and without harming themselves.

[Psyren]

If you cast Suggestion on someone with the suggestion to take the cookies out of the oven, the suggestion doesn't fail because you neglected to include putting on oven mitts as part of the suggestion. I feel like part of the whole point of suggestion is that it plants the idea into the target's mind and lets them carry it out in a reasonable manner, as opposed to overpowering the target's mind with a directive that they are forced to follow to the letter. It's a feature, not a bug, that the target is able to fill in the gaps of a suggestion, rather than requiring to meticulously word the suggestion to be followed exactly.

Again, I think the best way to handle Suggestion is to treat the suggestion as if it was your own idea and you can determine the best way to fulfill it. You feel it's important to fulfill the suggestion in a timely manner, and while you can delay if it allows you to better fulfill the suggestion, you still feel compelled to complete the task in the next 8 hours (the spell's duration).

If given the suggestion to jump in a volcano, you might seriously consider how you'd do it without harming yourself, and if you can't find a way to do so, the spell would end. It wouldn't require you to robotically carry out the suggestion exactly as stated, but allows leeway to determine the best way to do it so long as you complete the end goal and any explicit instructions you were given. For example, you could suggest someone remove cookies from the oven without using oven mitts, and they would try to find a way to do so without using oven mitts and without harming themselves.

I think there's a balance that needs to be struck here. I see a very clear distinction between demolishing a structure (especially a structure you happen to be currently inhabiting) and taking cookies out of an oven. The latter has one very specific and easily mitigated vector of "harm", whereas the other has a vast array of things that could result, ranging from splinters and dust to glass to falling bricks to smoke and fire to being pinned etc.

[Keltest]

I think there's a balance that needs to be struck here. I see a very clear distinction between demolishing a structure (especially a structure you happen to be currently inhabiting) and taking cookies out of an oven. The latter has one very specific and easily mitigated vector of "harm", whereas the other has a vast array of things that could result, ranging from splinters and dust to glass to falling bricks to smoke and fire to being pinned etc.

Something else to consider is that for many people destroying a building is infeasible. They are, after all, designed to not fall down. So it may well fail the reasonableness test on those grounds.

[Segev]

I think there's a balance that needs to be struck here. I see a very clear distinction between demolishing a structure (especially a structure you happen to be currently inhabiting) and taking cookies out of an oven. The latter has one very specific and easily mitigated vector of "harm", whereas the other has a vast array of things that could result, ranging from splinters and dust to glass to falling bricks to smoke and fire to being pinned etc.This is why I would generally expect that any suggestion to destroy the building you're currently in would include - without having to say so - an assumption that you can do it without you being inside when it collapses. The suggestion fails if there's no way to do that, of course, but if you could, for example, easily take the bomb you were going to take as loot and instead set it for 5 minutes and run out of the building and a quarter mile down the road in that time, there's no reason why you would interpret "destroy the building" as "right this second without any chance to evacuate" rather than "in an expeditious but reasonable manner."

I also think, again, the reasoning behind the "reasonableness" of the order is important. If the building must be destroyed because it is a depressing symbol and would raise the spirits of the nearby kingdoms if it were known to be gone, a different amount of urgency is applied and implied than if it must be destroyed because it's an attractive nuisance that could cause harm in the next day if left unattended, and a different urgency still is applied if it must be destroyed because Gozer the Gozerian is actively being summoned forth in the next five minutes by the building's sacred alignment with the planetary alignment and the Starspawn Calling Constellation.


Something else to consider is that for many people destroying a building is infeasible. They are, after all, designed to not fall down. So it may well fail the reasonableness test on those grounds.
While I agree in principle with your overarching point here, I think, I feel the need to point out that adventurers are often unintentionally responsible for buildings falling down (at least memetically). So it's a lot less of an absurd suggestion that they might destroy one on purpose than it would be to the accountant that works across the street.

[Greywander]

I think there's a balance that needs to be struck here. I see a very clear distinction between demolishing a structure (especially a structure you happen to be currently inhabiting) and taking cookies out of an oven. The latter has one very specific and easily mitigated vector of "harm", whereas the other has a vast array of things that could result, ranging from splinters and dust to glass to falling bricks to smoke and fire to being pinned etc.
It's a question of how the spell works, and it shouldn't change depending on how the DM is feeling. The difference between casting Investiture of Flame before diving into lava and putting on oven mitts before pulling cookies out of the oven is only one of scale; either Suggestion allows you to take precautions without them needing to be an explicit part of the suggestion, or it does not. Now, it's a fair point that casting a high level spell incurs a much greater cost than simply grabbing oven mitts, but surely if grabbing oven mitts is allowed them vacating a building before demolishing it would also be allowed.

Again, I feel like one of the key distinguishing features between Suggestion and direct domination effects are that the latter has you exerting direct control over the target and they will execute your orders to the letter, for better or for worse. Meanwhile, a Suggestion simply implants a directive into the target's psyche and leaves it up to them how best to carry it out. This means you have to relinquish some control over the target, but the advantage is that they can act intelligently and adapt to changing situations. If you Suggest to someone to set off explosives, they're smart enough to wait until you're clear. If you dominate someone and order them to set off explosives, they'll do just that regardless of where you or anyone else is standing at the moment the order is given. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivm8S60aAEY)

There's a balance to be struck. I do think it is ultimately a benefit of Suggestion how much freedom it gives to the target in how they go about following the suggestion. But it does open up the possibility for players to try to weasel their way out of it. Which is a shame because roleplaying being under the influence of Suggestion, and the fallout thereafter, can be a lot of fun. I think sometimes players have to be reminded that roleplaying is about acting, pretending to be someone else, and not yourself. You're playing the part of someone under magical influence. There is no winning or losing, there's only having fun or not having fun. Sometimes you have the most fun when your character is suffering. There's a reason we're fighting monsters and crawling through dungeons instead of living a quiet life at home.

[Witty Username]

Hm, my first thought is to give a dice roll.

If we are going with the charmed condition, and only that, it does:
-the charmer has advantage on social checks interacting with the charmed
-The charmed can't attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful spells and effects

And that's it. So I would give the charmer a check with a DC, I like opposed rolls so a wisdom check (insight to read through a deception or recognize the manipulation) or intelligence check (note the change in social aptitude and question it) maybe to be unswayed.

If it is more than that, I would use the specific wording of an effect.

*For a mass suggestion, that hit the entire party, I would call a break, then resume after they had completed the command, give them a rough time frame and ask how they fulfilled the command.

[Zhorn]

Hm, my first thought is to give a dice roll.
The dice were already rolled; ie the saving throw has already been failed by the target and now the spell is in effect.

[Witty Username]

The dice were already rolled; ie the saving throw has already been failed by the target and now the spell is in effect.

Repeat because I was still working on the last post - hadn't read the specific scenario yet

*For a mass suggestion, that hit the entire party, I would call a break, then resume after they had completed the command, give them a rough time frame and ask how they fulfilled the command.

[Zhorn]

Repeat because I was still working on the last post - hadn't read the specific scenario yet
Not so much about the specific scenario, just in terms of those collective spell effects in general.
The thread is about players having failed against a charm/compulsion effect and then trying to act in a way as though they won't have to comply with the charm/compulsion.
If the solution is to say "put it up to a roll to decide": the answer is "a roll has already decided and it didn't land in their favour".

Fishing for rolls is just an indication of someone not willing to let the dice decide in the first place, be it calling for repeat roll till success or repeat rolls till failure, they are the same practice.

[Psyren]

The difference between casting Investiture of Flame before diving into lava and putting on oven mitts before pulling cookies out of the oven is only one of scale

I strongly disagree; casting Investiture of Flame is the equivalent of putting on a full asbestos hazmat suit compared to those oven mitts. Worse, it's a hazmat suit most people will only be able to use for 10 minutes each day, never mind if they were already concentrating on something. On the surface that is only a difference of scale, but scale matters a great deal when you're determining "reasonableness." Hiring an Uber to take you to work and chartering a limousine or a helicopter are "differences of scale" too, but one is far more reasonable than the other.

[Witty Username]

If the solution is to say "put it up to a roll to decide": the answer is "a roll has already decided and it didn't land in their favour".


When a player fails a save against frostbite, do you let them attack with disadvantage, or do you say they already failed their save and not allow them to attack?

This is the same principle. The Charmed condition gives advantage on social checks made by the charmer to interact with the charmed. That is the end of it, if they want the Charmed to commit to a course of action then they need a persuade, intimidate or deception check as the situation calls for.

[Tanarii]

Not so much about the specific scenario, just in terms of those collective spell effects in general.
The thread is about players having failed against a charm/compulsion effect and then trying to act in a way as though they won't have to comply with the charm/compulsion.
If the solution is to say "put it up to a roll to decide": the answer is "a roll has already decided and it didn't land in their favour".

Fishing for rolls is just an indication of someone not willing to let the dice decide in the first place, be it calling for repeat roll till success or repeat rolls till failure, they are the same practice.
Either it's about the specifics of Suggestion and maybe Charm Person and your thread title was wrong, or you're giving the charmed condition far more power than it has.

As a response to the thread title and even most of the OP without looking in the spoiler, saying 'charmed condition requires a roll to make something happen' is accurate.

[Witty Username]

There is an additional argument here that a suggestion is "reasonable" could be framed as a social roll as well, for edge cases or radical actions.

like say, "That thief that travels with you, you know he's a thief, he has been looking for an easy mark for some time now, you should get rid of him before he gets any funny ideas."
Whether or not this results in a character attacking another, (PC or NPC) could just go for it or not, but this could also be a deception check, with a variable difficulty (30 to convince that the Paladin of Helm is a thief in disguise, 10 if they are the party assassin that has been stashing the dungeon loot in their bag of holding)

It depends on what is being tried and how you want to manage the gap between player and character ability.

[Zhorn]

When a player fails a save against frostbite, do you let them attack with disadvantage, or do you say they already failed their save and not allow them to attack?
Absurd comparison. I don't entertain that the same way I don't entertain the jumping in a volcano. Moving on.

This is the same principle. The Charmed condition gives advantage on social checks made by the charmer to interact with the charmed. That is the end of it, if they want the Charmed to commit to a course of action then they need a persuade, intimidate or deception check as the situation calls for.
Ah, it seems we are talking about different things here and looks like we were talking past one another.
Sorry, I was taking it as an across-the-board additional roll for all charm/compulsion effects after the fact, which my disagreement is in immediately trying to act counter to the condition of the spell as that roll was already failed.

Now I see you are more specifically talking about follow up social interaction that are not part of the casting; to which I would say that also need to account for the specifics of the spell being used and shouldn't be treated as a blanket one-size-fits-all approach.

As Tanarii has specifically called attention to Charm Person, we'll look at that.
The spell text specifically locks the target's attitude to 'friendly' towards the caster for the spell's duration.
That's not contested roll territory; that's calling for Resolving Interactions (DMG p244).
The caster is rolling with advantage versus the DCs for a creature set to a friendly attitude.
The spell's effect is about making the target pliable for social manipulation.

This is different to other compulsions such as Suggestion or Command where the direction given IS the spell's effect. < this is where my initial response was directed at, as the saving throw against those was already failed. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Charm Person/Monster will also be different to Dominate Person/Monster & Crown of madness, with the later about assuming direct control rather than manipulation via social interaction.

Geas doesn't truly matter if they are aware of being manipulated as the attempt to act counter is built in as taking the 5d10 psychic damage.

Hypnotic Pattern is about incapacitation, so the target cannot act counter to the spell's effect.

[Greywander]

I strongly disagree; casting Investiture of Flame is the equivalent of putting on a full asbestos hazmat suit compared to those oven mitts. Worse, it's a hazmat suit most people will only be able to use for 10 minutes each day, never mind if they were already concentrating on something. On the surface that is only a difference of scale, but scale matters a great deal when you're determining "reasonableness." Hiring an Uber to take you to work and chartering a limousine or a helicopter are "differences of scale" too, but one is far more reasonable than the other.
Look at what I wrote in the rest of that paragraph, it adds important additional context to the isolated bit you quoted. What I said wasn't about whether casting Investiture of Flame was reasonable or not (that's a different discussion), it was about whether or not Suggestion would allow you to take reasonable precautions. Casting a high level spell might not be reasonable. It isn't that scale isn't important; it is. Rather, it's that you specifically said that, given a Suggestion to destroy the tower, the party would not be able to exit the tower first because the Suggestion had not instructed them to do so.

The point about scale was that it would be unreasonable not to do a small thing like putting on oven mitts, so clearly reasonable precautions don't need to be an explicit part of the Suggestion. Leaving a building before demolishing it would likewise be fairly reasonable. And yes, I think even burning a high level spell slot could be considered reasonable. Yes, it's a costly resource, but if you weren't under magical compulsion and sincerely believed that taking that course of action was the best plan, then you would do it. The loss of a resource isn't directly harmful, merely wasteful. Time is also a resource, one they can't get back with a long rest, and a victim will invariably spend time carrying out whatever Suggestion they've been given.

It is an interesting question of what would happen if you gave someone a Suggestion to carry out a task in a specific way (e.g. casting a high level spell) and they could think of a better way to achieve the same goal (e.g. use cheap items or a low level spell). My take is that using the specific methods from the Suggestion is part of the Suggestion, and thus those methods must be used. We can infer that if a caster is giving such an oddly specific Suggestion, it is perhaps because the caster's true goal is to get the target to use the method specified, and not so much that they actually succeed at the given task. Merely the attempt will achieve something beneficial to the caster. For example, you'd never give a Suggestion to "create a distraction," you'd instead go with something like "do something ridiculous" and wait for them to draw people's attention away.

Hmm, something that could work well might be to give either advantage or disadvantage to the saving throw depending on how reasonable your Suggestion was. Is it easy to do, won't cost them anything, and in line with how they already behave? Give them disadvantage on the save, because it's actually something they might do even without magical compulsion. Is it really difficult to do, requires significant resource expenditure, and/or contrary to their normal behavior or against their principles? They get advantage on the saving throw as they're highly resistant to the idea, and probably wouldn't do it at all without some kind of magical compulsion. Things that require moderate effort, the expenditure of some small resources, and are slightly out of character would be rolled normally. This shouldn't be too difficult to codify: A suggestion can require little, some, or great effort, few, some, or many resources, and the behavior be normal, odd, or contrary. Anything in the middle on all three is rolled normal. One deviation is rolled normally. Two or more deviations in the same direction are rolled at advantage or disadvantage depending on which direction the deviation is in.

[Tanarii]

I assume, though, "You have investigure of flame prepared; swimming in a volcano would be fun! Dive in!" would work well enough, since part of framing it as "reasonable" was the reminder they can cast that spell, which makes it safe to do? Or would you require it explicitly state, "You should cast it, and then dive in?"


There is an additional argument here that a suggestion is "reasonable" could be framed as a social roll as well, for edge cases or radical actions.

like say, "That thief that travels with you, you know he's a thief, he has been looking for an easy mark for some time now, you should get rid of him before he gets any funny ideas."
This is interesting, because I don't consider trying to set the reasonableness of the suggestion to be a valid part of the suggestion command itself. The suggestion to be made (per the spell) is a course of action, not outside framing/context to establish reasonableness.

In this case the suggestion seem to me to be "Dive in" and "get rid of him". Context that's not outside would be 'to the volcano' and 'thief that travels with you'. And in fact it's possible without that inside context the spell would fail, as an unclear suggestion. Indeed, even trying to add outside context might cause it to fail, since it could cause it not to be a clear suggestion.

[Segev]

I strongly disagree; casting Investiture of Flame is the equivalent of putting on a full asbestos hazmat suit compared to those oven mitts. Worse, it's a hazmat suit most people will only be able to use for 10 minutes each day, never mind if they were already concentrating on something. On the surface that is only a difference of scale, but scale matters a great deal when you're determining "reasonableness." Hiring an Uber to take you to work and chartering a limousine or a helicopter are "differences of scale" too, but one is far more reasonable than the other.I agree that it matters to the "reasonableness" idea, but remember that "give your horse to the next beggar you meet" is an explicit example of what is "reasonable."

Examining it another way, if the suggestion was, explicitly, "Cast investiture of flame on yourself and swim through the lava in order to get the MacGuffin," would that be "unreasonable" because the Druid was actually planning to fly out to grab it using his currently-held bird wild shape? Or because the druid had planned to wild shape into a bird, instead of casting a spell and swimming through lava?

Remember, it only has to "be phrased to sound reasonable," not actually be reasonable. A mass suggestion to a force that badly outnumbers you and is of individually-comparable skill to you of, "None of you WANT to get hurt, and some of you will be if you fight us. Surrender, and none of you will get hurt," should absolutely be a thing you can cast that will not auto-fail. Presuming you haven't demonstrated that you're entirely untrustworthy as prisoner-takers, surrendering to you is not immediately harmful, and "you don't want to get hurt" is, to most creatures, a pretty reasonable motivation. Mass suggestion is a compulsion, an enchantment that whammies people. (Add in that it Charms them all so they literally can't attack you, and it becomes even more reasonable to surrender, but even if it didn't....)


This is interesting, because I don't consider trying to set the reasonableness of the suggestion to be a valid part of the suggestion command itself. The suggestion to be made (per the spell) is a course of action, not outside framing/context to establish reasonableness.

In this case the suggestion seem to me to be "Dive in" and "get rid of him". Context that's not outside would be 'to the volcano' and 'thief that travels with you'. And in fact it's possible without that inside context the spell would fail, as an unclear suggestion. Indeed, even trying to add outside context might cause it to fail, since it could cause it not to be a clear suggestion.
Personally, I think it works best in and out of game if you consider the entire "package" of the suggestion to be part of the magical suggestion. The context is crucial, given the "reasonable-sounding" clause. Now, that doesn't mean they HAVE to use, specifically, investiture of flame if you use that as part of the way to make the suggestion to swim in lava "sound reasonable" (and not be immediately harmful); they could substitute drinking a potion of fire immunity or wild shaping into a Salamander (the fire elemental, not the mundane lizard) first, unless the suggestion explicitly stated they should cast that specific spell. But the included context of "you can take some precautions to make it not harmful, so therefore you should do this thing" means that the suggestion de facto includes a compulsion to do the protective precautions necessary to make the action compelled non-harmful; you don't get to ignore it as "harmful" by ignoring the context.

Of course, "take the necessary steps to make it non-harmful" could just be added to the "command" of the suggestion, but I think that is getting needlessly pedantic and tedious, inviting the same kind of "here's my 37-page lawyer-vetted wish" stuff that sucks the fun out of such things outside of jokes and parody games. Maybe it's fun the first time, or in specific situations, but it stops being interesting as the only way to make the spell work.

[Psyren]

I agree that it matters to the "reasonableness" idea, but remember that "give your horse to the next beggar you meet" is an explicit example of what is "reasonable."

Giving your horse away is not harmful without precautions though. Inconvenient certainly, but not harmful.

Moreover, the example is a bit whiteroom. It's probably reasonable to give your horse away when you're simply going for a stroll or patrol. But what if you're chasing down a kidnapped princess or fleeing a pogrom? Or you're in the middle of a hostile terrain like a desert with no provisions? What if the horse itself won't accept another rider and will turn violent on the innocent beggar? The example on its face treats all these situations as identical, which is why it should be taken with a grain of salt.


Leaving a building before demolishing it would likewise be fairly reasonable.

It's not just about whether a stipulation to a command is reasonable, but whether it can be left unstated for the victim to fill in the blank on their own. Needing to word a suggestion with some measure of care is a large part, perhaps the largest part, of what limits its power.


This is interesting, because I don't consider trying to set the reasonableness of the suggestion to be a valid part of the suggestion command itself. The suggestion to be made (per the spell) is a course of action, not outside framing/context to establish reasonableness.

Precisely.

[Segev]

Giving your horse away is not harmful without precautions though. Inconvenient certainly, but not harmful.

Moreover, the example is a bit whiteroom. It's probably reasonable to give your horse away when you're simply going for a stroll or patrol. But what if you're chasing down a kidnapped princess or fleeing a pogrom? Or you're in the middle of a hostile terrain like a desert with no provisions? What if the horse itself won't accept another rider and will turn violent on the innocent beggar? The example on its face treats all these situations as identical, which is why it should be taken with a grain of salt.

I think this may be conflating two different failure points of the spell into one.

The suggestion must be phrased in a way that makes it sound reasonable.
The suggestion fails if the course of action compelled would be directly harmful.

To that end, I am not sure that "you have this means of protecting yourself from the obvious harm" is really part of (1) at all, so much as it is addressing and negating the auto-fail possibilities of (2). Not that it doesn't contribute to the suggestion "sounding reasonable," but that isn't its purpose, and it isn't necessary to make it sound reasonable, necessarily, so much as to ensure that the course of action suggested is not directly harmful.

But even moreso, I actually am becoming, as we discuss this, more convinced that there isn't a need to spell out to the target HOW the course of action is non-harmful. The suggestion, sounding reasonable, becomes "their own idea" (or at least, an internalized idea they magically are persuaded to be on board with), and they will seek to find a way to achieve it. The failure based on directly-harmful suggestions is supposed to be to prevent "I suggest you stab yourself in the eye" than it is anything else. "I suggest you swim in that lava" is, as you say, a bit white room. I think we both agree that telling that to a Fire Newt will not qualify as "harmful," so he'd go right ahead and follow that suggestion. Likewise, I hope we'd agree that using it on a barbarian who has drunk a potion of fire immunity and is still under its effects (and knows it, or even at least believes it to be true) would work, not tripping the "harmful" clause.

Heck, "This is a potion of fire immunity; drink it and go swim in that lava," might work even if it's false, as long as the barbarian can't tell you're lying.

"You have a potion of fire immunity; go swim in the lava," should, I would argue, also work, even without explicitly ordering him to drink it. I would go so far as to say that, "Go swim in that lava," would actually work if the creature who failed the Wisdom save had any means of making it non-harmful. Because again, the suggestion makes it sound like a good idea, and only failure to find a way to accomplish it without it being directly harmful would make it fail.

"Go swim in lava" is not a reasonable-sounding suggestion, generally. So pointing out you can make it non-harmful helps. But may not be sufficient, either. "It would be awesome to swim in the lava when you're immune to fire damage. You should go swim in that lava lake over there," is the way to make it sound reasonable, and it's up to them to find a way to make themselves immune to the damage. If they can't think of one, the spell fails because they won't take the directly-harmful action. But what they are not allowed to do is deliberately ignore available means to be immune to fire damage in order to declare it "harmful."

[Greywander]

It's not just about whether a stipulation to a command is reasonable, but whether it can be left unstated for the victim to fill in the blank on their own. Needing to word a suggestion with some measure of care is a large part, perhaps the largest part, of what limits its power.
Are you saying that if I cast Suggestion and tell the target to pull the cookies out of the oven the spell would fail because grabbing the cookie sheet with their bare hands would be directly harmful and I neglected to include putting on oven mitts as part of the Suggestion?

Remember, a Suggestion is just a sentence or two. Even if you wanted to, you couldn't write a 50 page legal document that covers any and every possible situation that might occur during the course of executing that suggestion. Suggestion simply doesn't work if the target isn't allowed to fill in the blanks. Maybe it would for things you want them to do immediately, but that's the purview of Command. Suggestion has an 8 hour duration so it is inevitable that circumstances you didn't anticipate will arise as the target carries out a longer Suggestion over several hours. The target has to be allowed to adapt and react to changing circumstances or else they won't be able to fulfill most Suggestions that take longer than a few minutes to execute.

Basically, Suggestion's long duration and one or two sentence limit make the spell nonfunctional if the target isn't allowed to fill in the gaps.

[Psyren]

Are you saying that if I cast Suggestion and tell the target to pull the cookies out of the oven the spell would fail because grabbing the cookie sheet with their bare hands would be directly harmful and I neglected to include putting on oven mitts as part of the Suggestion?

Not necessarily, but I think this example isn't relevant in any case since collapsing a building and taking cookies out of the oven are not comparable.


Remember, a Suggestion is just a sentence or two. Even if you wanted to, you couldn't write a 50 page legal document that covers any and every possible situation that might occur during the course of executing that suggestion.

I think there's middle ground between "50-page legal document" and "the spell knows my intent and perfectly executes that regardless of what I say" that the caster needs to hit when asking for something that has a dozen inherent dangers.


Basically, Suggestion's long duration and one or two sentence limit make the spell nonfunctional if the target isn't allowed to fill in the gaps.

It's not, not for something simple. As I've said repeatedly and am saying again now, "break that device" was a fine suggestion.

[Tanarii]

Personally, I think it works best in and out of game if you consider the entire "package" of the suggestion to be part of the magical suggestion. The context is crucial, given the "reasonable-sounding" clause.
If that was the case, the example given in the spell would have been something like "You're a chivalrous and honorable knight, why don't you give your horse to the next beggar you see." But it wasn't, it was a very clear and straightforward course of action.

If that defines the reasonableness, it also defines what is allowable as a course of action. Not additional framing, not a highly detailed and complex course of action, and ... (edit: splitting since you posted something relevant to my next thought in a later post)


I think this may be conflating two different failure points of the spell into one.

The suggestion must be phrased in a way that makes it sound reasonable.
The suggestion fails if the course of action compelled would be directly harmful.

... that "reasonable" pretty clearly amounting to not causing direct harm as opposed to any common understanding of what the word actually means. In other words, the example itself shows that reasonable and not causing harm must be conflated to be the same thing.

Edit2: I can certainly see why you allow additional context to establish reasonableness. That's the only way to make the spell work in a somewhat useful fashion if you assume that reasonableness and no harm are separate things. Unfortunately since the example given is unreasonable and has no additional context, the only way to make sense of the example is assume they must be the same thing. On the flip side, assuming they are one and the same makes the spell actually useful.

I think you and I have the same goal of coming up with an interpretation that makes the spell useful, when at first glance it doesn't seem useful. :smallamused:

[Segev]

I think there's middle ground between "50-page legal document" and "the spell knows my intent and perfectly executes that regardless of what I say" that the caster needs to hit when asking for something that has a dozen inherent dangers.The spell doesn't have to know what you're talking about. The target does. The spell puts the idea in his head/makes him accept the idea as a good one. It can only push him so far - he won't think it's such a good idea that it is worth hurting himself for - but the spell doesn't puppet him. It manipulates his priorities and how he thinks about the suggestion so he is invested in it.

So, to use the two examples: a suggestion that you should make dinner and do the dishes doesn't auto-fail because he could refrain from using oven mitts to handle hot pans and trays he chose to make dinner with, nor because he could use scalding hot water to wash the dishes with his bare hands, and both would be harmful; a suggestion that he deliver a letter to the castle inside the lava moat doesn't auto-fail if he has means of getting across the lava moat without harming himself, even if he COULD choose to try to deliver it by swimming in the lava unprotected.

A suggestion to specifically remove cookies from the oven doesn't fail just because he could choose not to use oven mitts that are readily available, and that would hurt him. If he couldn't find the oven mitts nor think of another good way to remove the tray without burning himself, then the suggestion would fail because it would be a harmful task. A suggestion to specifically swim in the lava moat would not automatically fail if the character has a similarly-available method of avoiding harm from doing so. It fails if he has no such means.

None of this relies on the spell perfectly filling in blanks. The spell tells the target that whatever you suggested is a great (or at least necessary) idea, and committed to doing it. It doesn't tell him how (unless the wording specifically included the method), and it doesn't make him look for excuses why it would be harmful so he can't do it. It makes him look at it as something he should make happen; if he has no way to do so without harming himself, then it fails because he's not dedicated enough to the idea to hurt himself over it. Maybe risk harm, but not definitely harm himself directly.


If that was the case, the example given in the spell would have been something like "You're a chivalrous and honorable knight, why don't you give your horse to the next beggar you see." But it wasn't, it was a very clear and straightforward course of action.

If that defines the reasonableness, it also defines what is allowable as a course of action. Not additional framing, not a highly detailed and complex course of action, and ... (edit: splitting since you posted something relevant to my next thought in a later post)



... that "reasonable" pretty clearly amounting to not causing direct harm as opposed to any common understanding of what the word actually means. In other words, the example itself shows that reasonable and not causing harm must be conflated to be the same thing.

Edit2: I can certainly see why you allow additional context to establish reasonableness. That's the only way to make the spell work in a somewhat useful fashion if you assume that reasonableness and no harm are separate things. Unfortunately since the example given is unreasonable and has no additional context, the only way to make sense of the example is assume they must be the same thing. On the flip side, assuming they are one and the same makes the spell actually useful.

I think you and I have the same goal of coming up with an interpretation that makes the spell useful, when at first glance it doesn't seem useful. :smallamused:
I can see where you're coming from with this, but if they were meant to be the same thing, I think it would be worded differently. It would more directly conflate them in the wording, saying something like, "It must be phrased to sound reasonable, because people won't hurt themselves to fulfill it," or something like that. Actually connecting the two, rather than having them mentioned separately, with one as a necessary condition for it to work at all, and the other as a failure condition under which it will fail no matter what.

But I do see where you're coming from on this, and it sounds like you can make it work with your interpretation. For me, the "it must be phrased to sound reasonable" is about giving some (possibly insane troll) logic as to why it's a good idea, which a failed Wisdom save makes go without critical examination.

[Sigreid]

The spell doesn't have to know what you're talking about. The target does. The spell puts the idea in his head/makes him accept the idea as a good one. It can only push him so far - he won't think it's such a good idea that it is worth hurting himself for - but the spell doesn't puppet him. It manipulates his priorities and how he thinks about the suggestion so he is invested in it.

So, to use the two examples: a suggestion that you should make dinner and do the dishes doesn't auto-fail because he could refrain from using oven mitts to handle hot pans and trays he chose to make dinner with, nor because he could use scalding hot water to wash the dishes with his bare hands, and both would be harmful; a suggestion that he deliver a letter to the castle inside the lava moat doesn't auto-fail if he has means of getting across the lava moat without harming himself, even if he COULD choose to try to deliver it by swimming in the lava unprotected.

A suggestion to specifically remove cookies from the oven doesn't fail just because he could choose not to use oven mitts that are readily available, and that would hurt him. If he couldn't find the oven mitts nor think of another good way to remove the tray without burning himself, then the suggestion would fail because it would be a harmful task. A suggestion to specifically swim in the lava moat would not automatically fail if the character has a similarly-available method of avoiding harm from doing so. It fails if he has no such means.

None of this relies on the spell perfectly filling in blanks. The spell tells the target that whatever you suggested is a great (or at least necessary) idea, and committed to doing it. It doesn't tell him how (unless the wording specifically included the method), and it doesn't make him look for excuses why it would be harmful so he can't do it. It makes him look at it as something he should make happen; if he has no way to do so without harming himself, then it fails because he's not dedicated enough to the idea to hurt himself over it. Maybe risk harm, but not definitely harm himself directly.


I can see where you're coming from with this, but if they were meant to be the same thing, I think it would be worded differently. It would more directly conflate them in the wording, saying something like, "It must be phrased to sound reasonable, because people won't hurt themselves to fulfill it," or something like that. Actually connecting the two, rather than having them mentioned separately, with one as a necessary condition for it to work at all, and the other as a failure condition under which it will fail no matter what.

But I do see where you're coming from on this, and it sounds like you can make it work with your interpretation. For me, the "it must be phrased to sound reasonable" is about giving some (possibly insane troll) logic as to why it's a good idea, which a failed Wisdom save makes go without critical examination.
Yep, it manipulates you in much the same way that hot girl does. You won't self destruct, but you'll do a lot you wouldn't normally do in order to get her favor.

[Psyren]

The spell doesn't have to know what you're talking about. The target does. The spell puts the idea in his head/makes him accept the idea as a good one. It can only push him so far - he won't think it's such a good idea that it is worth hurting himself for - but the spell doesn't puppet him. It manipulates his priorities and how he thinks about the suggestion so he is invested in it.

Right, which is why the circumstances matter. Is it a good idea to give your horse away if you're going for a fun ride? Is it a good idea to do so if you're in the middle of hostile wilderness and a walk back to civilization on foot would all but certainly kill you? Is it a good idea to do so if you know your horse will maim or kill whoever you give it to? Is it a good idea to do so if you can rationalize the handover as temporary? This is why the example isn't nearly as helpful to extrapolate from as I think you believe it to be, and that's putting aside its usefulness to adjudicate something that is much more inherently harmful like collapsing a building you're inhabiting.

And no, I never said "remove cookies" or "make dinner" would autofail simply because "don't burn yourself" wasn't stipulated. None of those, not even the cookies, are inherently dangerous acts to the same degree. Hell, it's not even clear whether sticking your hands briefly in a hot oven would even cause damage in D&D terms.

[Segev]

And no, I never said "remove cookies" or "make dinner" would autofail simply because "don't burn yourself" wasn't stipulated. None of those, not even the cookies, are inherently dangerous acts to the same degree. Hell, it's not even clear whether sticking your hands briefly in a hot oven would even cause damage in D&D terms.

For sake of argument, can we replace "remove cookies from oven" with "remove haunch of meat from fire," and agree that doing this with bare hands would cause at least 1 point of fire damage? Because the obvious that the example is assuming "this is harmful by the mechanics," and debating whether the example is actually harmful is definitely missing the point.

Though... okay, let's assume "remove cookies from the oven" does not cause harm by D&D terms. It still hurts as badly as it would in real life, though. Is the person to whom the suggestion "You should take the cookies out of the oven," is given, upon a failed save, required to do so without oven mitts because the suggestion did not include "while wearing oven mitts?"

[Keltest]

For sake of argument, can we replace "remove cookies from oven" with "remove haunch of meat from fire," and agree that doing this with bare hands would cause at least 1 point of fire damage? Because the obvious that the example is assuming "this is harmful by the mechanics," and debating whether the example is actually harmful is definitely missing the point.

Though... okay, let's assume "remove cookies from the oven" does not cause harm by D&D terms. It still hurts as badly as it would in real life, though. Is the person to whom the suggestion "You should take the cookies out of the oven," is given, upon a failed save, required to do so without oven mitts because the suggestion did not include "while wearing oven mitts?"

So, lets take a step back here and reframe the task. Same context, you have a tray of cookies in the oven, except now the task is "grab the tray". what happens?

[Segev]

So, lets take a step back here and reframe the task. Same context, you have a tray of cookies in the oven, except now the task is "grab the tray". what happens?

I mean, if I am DMing (or even playing the character and the DM doesn't tell me otherwise), I assume that I put on the oven mitts and grab the tray. After all, grabbing the tray seemed like a good idea, but burning myself does not.

[Psyren]

I mean, if I am DMing (or even playing the character and the DM doesn't tell me otherwise), I assume that I put on the oven mitts and grab the tray. After all, grabbing the tray seemed like a good idea, but burning myself does not.

A better analogy in my view would be "disassemble your oven." Would that ask be reasonable? Would the suggestion add the unspoken stipulation that you should shut off the power first or risk electrocution, and would that make it reasonable?


For sake of argument, can we replace "remove cookies from oven" with "remove haunch of meat from fire," and agree that doing this with bare hands would cause at least 1 point of fire damage?

No, I wouldn't, because "remove meat from fire" and "stick hand in fire" are entirely different asks. One might entail the other, depending on the circumstance, or it might not; if it does, then you're essentially asking for both and that's how reasonableness would be determined.

[Segev]

A better analogy in my view would be "disassemble your oven." Would that ask be reasonable? Would the suggestion add the unspoken stipulation that you should shut off the power first or risk electrocution, and would that make it reasonable?
I can't really comment to reasonableness on that one; likely, that bears a lot on who you're asking. Tim the Tool Man Taylor? It passes the "reasonableness" test, because he'd do that kind of thing, even if the suggestion is making it seem like a good idea for its own sake rather than as part of a bigger plan. Me? I'm about as handy as a snorkel in a parking lot. So probably doesn't pass the "reasonableness" test because why would I ever think that was a task that was worth doing?

Now, insofar as we assume it passes the "reasonableness" test, and we assume the person who's failed his Wisdom save knows what he's doing, yes, I would assume that all of the necessary safety steps to make disassembling the oven non-hazardous are something he would do as part of following the suggestion. Unless, like Tim, he tends to forget the safety steps. In which case he also still follows the suggestion because, as far as he (incorrectly) predicts, there's nothing harmful about the activity suggested.



No, I wouldn't, because "remove meat from fire" and "stick hand in fire" are entirely different asks. One might entail the other, depending on the circumstance, or it might not; if it does, then you're essentially asking for both and that's how reasonableness would be determined.
Okay. Would you agree that if you reached your bare hand in and grabbed the meat with it, that that would qualify for burning you enough to deal at least 1 hp of fire damage?

[Zhorn]

commence friendly mock
Makes statement about monkey-paw-absolute-wording-requirement
denies conditional parity regarding tasks of scale
has dug in heels on prior statement despite agreeing to the allowances of later scenarios
rinse repeat as necessary
end friendly mock
:smalltongue:

Regarding the subtopic of reasonableness;
Even that I'd give a fair amount of leeway on.
How charitable a knight needs to be to give away their horse to the next beggar is less important than the condition that the knight would do something nice for the beggar at all.
There's also the version of taking reasonableness as saying "climb that tree" is reasonable while "jump to the moon" is not reasonable.
When casting the spell; you come to play ball so to speak in making the compulsion a feasible course of action and don't try to lean into absurdity, and likewise the target is also playing ball in taking the wording of the compulsion as "that is a course of action I would be able to fill out" without trying to twist it into an absurdity.

[Psyren]

I can't really comment to reasonableness on that one; likely, that bears a lot on who you're asking. Tim the Tool Man Taylor? It passes the "reasonableness" test, because he'd do that kind of thing, even if the suggestion is making it seem like a good idea for its own sake rather than as part of a bigger plan. Me? I'm about as handy as a snorkel in a parking lot. So probably doesn't pass the "reasonableness" test because why would I ever think that was a task that was worth doing?

Do adventurers routinely collapse towers that they're standing in? If you have to be Tim the Tool Man Taylor to consider disassembling an oven reasonable, I don't see how killing goblins qualifies you for controlled demolition.


Okay. Would you agree that if you reached your bare hand in and grabbed the meat with it, that that would qualify for burning you enough to deal at least 1 hp of fire damage?


One might entail the other, depending on the circumstance, or it might not; if it does, then you're essentially asking for both and that's how reasonableness would be determined.

I don't see how my quoted statement doesn't answer this :smallconfused: if you're asking how I would rule that specific scenario as the DM, I'll tell you if and when you're playing at my table and I've crafted it.

[Amnestic]

Do adventurers routinely collapse towers that they're standing in?

Depends if the boss they killed was load-bearing or not.

[Segev]

Do adventurers routinely collapse towers that they're standing in? If you have to be Tim the Tool Man Taylor to consider disassembling an oven reasonable, I don't see how killing goblins qualifies you for controlled demolition.I've seen "let's raze the place" often enough that I would not consider it outside an adventurer's comfort zone under normal circumstances. Adventurers destroy a lot of stuff.

"Tim the Tool Man Taylor" is not the minimum requirement, merely an example of somebody who'd find it reasonable. I know there are people far less mad-tinkerer like who would also take apart their own oven to try to repair it, and thus wouldn't consider dismantling it inherently unreasonable.


I don't see how my quoted statement doesn't answer this :smallconfused: if you're asking how I would rule that specific scenario as the DM, I'll tell you if and when you're playing at my table and I've crafted it.

It feels to me like you're trying to not engage with the question by not only picking apart others' examples in ways that are unrelated to it, but also by constructing your own (the oven example) such that you then pick it apart based on something other than the question.

The question that I believe we're discussing - and maybe you disagree with me on this, hence the confusion we're both experiencing - is whether "I suggest that you take this action," can be negated if any method of taking that action could be directly harmful, even if there is a means to take it which is not directly harmful.

What I have been trying to construct is examples wherein this is the case; it seems to me you've been attacking the examples by saying, "Well, that's not directly harmful even if you do it the painful way," or, "Well, that's not reasonable even if it would be harmful, so whether it's harmful doesn't come up."

My purpose in trying to go for the meat-grabbing example was to set up something that is directly harmful if done in a particular way, but not if you do it another way.

With that purpose in mind, I propose yet another example:

"That pearl in the bottom of the pool looks valuable. I suggest you swim down and get it."

Is this an auto-fail suggestion because the target COULD choose not to hold his breath, and thus start drowning immediately upon going under the water, thus making it directly harmful?
Assuming (1) is a "no," does the suggestion forbid, by not having included the option, the target from drinking a Potion of Water Breathing before entering the water?
If the character legitimately doesn't think he can hold his breath long enough to retrieve the pearl, but has a Potion of Water Breathing, does the suggestion auto-fail despite the fact that he has the means to swim down and get it with no risk?

Please assume for the sake of argument that the "reasonableness" clause, at least as unrelated to the "direct harm" clause, is met or is otherwise irrelevant, and only the "direct harm" clause could cause it to auto-fail, here.

[Psyren]

I've seen "let's raze the place" often enough that I would not consider it outside an adventurer's comfort zone under normal circumstances. Adventurers destroy a lot of stuff.

"Adventurers destroy a lot of stuff" doesn't necessarily mean they'd consider dismantling a tower they're standing in reasonable. It doesn't automatically mean they wouldn't either. If they're standing in the front door and getting out is as easy as taking a step, that's a different situation than in they're inside the Inner Sanctum. Based on the limited information I have about the OP's scenario, I'd be more likely to rule "unreasonable," but again, I didn't craft it.



It feels to me like you're trying to not engage with the question by not only picking apart others' examples in ways that are unrelated to it, but also by constructing your own (the oven example) such that you then pick it apart based on something other than the question.

I think everything I've said is on-topic, but I certainly can't make you feel that way.


The question that I believe we're discussing - and maybe you disagree with me on this, hence the confusion we're both experiencing - is whether "I suggest that you take this action," can be negated if any method of taking that action could be directly harmful, even if there is a means to take it which is not directly harmful.

MY point is that there is no "any." There is no silver-bullet, universal rule to adjudicate what constitutes reasonable in every circumstance. I get the distinct impression you want there to be one, and you can very well establish that at your tables, but I have no interest in crafting a universal law.


With that purpose in mind, I propose yet another example:

"That pearl in the bottom of the pool looks valuable. I suggest you swim down and get it."

Is this an auto-fail suggestion because the target COULD choose not to hold his breath, and thus start drowning immediately upon going under the water, thus making it directly harmful?
Assuming (1) is a "no," does the suggestion forbid, by not having included the option, the target from drinking a Potion of Water Breathing before entering the water?
If the character legitimately doesn't think he can hold his breath long enough to retrieve the pearl, but has a Potion of Water Breathing, does the suggestion auto-fail despite the fact that he has the means to swim down and get it with no risk?

Please assume for the sake of argument that the "reasonableness" clause, at least as unrelated to the "direct harm" clause, is met or is otherwise irrelevant, and only the "direct harm" clause could cause it to auto-fail, here.

It depends. Given that a puddle would likely be reasonable while the Pacific Ocean wouldn't, there is some threshold for depth that plays into answering this, and that's just one factor to consider here. If you're asking me to craft such a scenario, I'll let you know when I'm offering paid DMing services and my going rates.

[greenstone]

The spell tells the target that whatever you suggested is a great (or at least necessary) idea, and committed to doing it. It doesn't tell him how (unless the wording specifically included the method), and it doesn't make him look for excuses why it would be harmful so he can't do it. It makes him look at it as something he should make happen; if he has no way to do so without harming himself, then it fails because he's not dedicated enough to the idea to hurt himself over it. Maybe risk harm, but not definitely harm himself directly.

That's a nice phrasing.

It repackages the suggestion spell as "this suggestion is now your top priority" rather than "you must obey this order", with the limitation "while the suggestion is your top priority, it's not important enough that you'd harm yourself over it."

[Lord Torath]

It depends. Given that a puddle would likely be reasonable while the Pacific Ocean wouldn't, there is some threshold for depth that plays into answering this, and that's just one factor to consider here. If you're asking me to craft such a scenario, I'll let you know when I'm offering paid DMing services and my going rates.You are again dodging the question. The reasonableness of the request is not what we are asking about. Assume the request is reasonable. I will say this again. Assume the request is reasonable.

Here's what we want your position on:

Does the fact that there is both a safe method and an unsafe method of completing the request mean that the "cause harm" clause kicks in to negate the Suggestion, even though neither method was specified in the Suggestion?

[Psyren]

You are again dodging the question. The reasonableness of the request is not what we are asking about. Assume the request is reasonable. I will say this again. Assume the request is reasonable.

Here's what we want your position on:

Does the fact that there is both a safe method and an unsafe method of completing the request mean that the "cause harm" clause kicks in to negate the Suggestion, even though neither method was specified in the Suggestion?

It depends. How many times do I have to say it?

[Greywander]

It depends. How many times do I have to say it?
I don't know, it kind of feels like you just don't want to commit one way or another, and leave it open to decide on a case by case basis. And I get that; you don't want to be locked in and forced to do it a certain way because you said earlier that it worked that way. But that doesn't really seem like a very useful position to hold when it comes to discussing how it works with others. Not everyone has developed the ability to improvise on the fly, and at least a rule of thumb would be useful for them. With that in mind, let's rephrase the question:

If we assume a Suggestion is reasonable, and there is both a harmful and non-harmful way to fulfill the Suggestion, is there ever a case where the spell would fail due to the direct harm clause? Is there ever a case where it would not? What are the most important factors that distinguish between the two?

Pretend like you're giving advice to a friend who is DMing a game that sees Suggestion getting used a lot and they need some help figuring out how to handle it. They can give you examples of shenanigans that have already happened, but what they really need is advice on how to handle it in the future, and they have no way of predicting what those scenarios could look like.

[Keltest]

I don't know, it kind of feels like you just don't want to commit one way or another, and leave it open to decide on a case by case basis. And I get that; you don't want to be locked in and forced to do it a certain way because you said earlier that it worked that way. But that doesn't really seem like a very useful position to hold when it comes to discussing how it works with others. Not everyone has developed the ability to improvise on the fly, and at least a rule of thumb would be useful for them. With that in mind, let's rephrase the question:

If we assume a Suggestion is reasonable, and there is both a harmful and non-harmful way to fulfill the Suggestion, is there ever a case where the spell would fail due to the direct harm clause? Is there ever a case where it would not? What are the most important factors that distinguish between the two?

Pretend like you're giving advice to a friend who is DMing a game that sees Suggestion getting used a lot and they need some help figuring out how to handle it. They can give you examples of shenanigans that have already happened, but what they really need is advice on how to handle it in the future, and they have no way of predicting what those scenarios could look like.

I'm with Psyren here. This isnt a useful line of questioning. The circumstances between any two given cases, especially in a real game, will be so different as to make hypotheticals unhelpful.

[Sigreid]

I'm with Psyren here. This isnt a useful line of questioning. The circumstances between any two given cases, especially in a real game, will be so different as to make hypotheticals unhelpful.
Agree. Even the war horse example from the book would fail if I'm DMing and the knight had been RPing a genuine affection for his horse instead of treating it as an expendable tool.

[FireJustice]

...don't use such effects.

yeah, thats it
its better fun for everyone involved most of the time
losing agency of your only character?

the DM has as many NPCs he wants, with as many immunities as he wants.
Players have just ONE character... always keep that in mind

i can work, for sure.
but.. really
is it worth the trouble?

[Lord Torath]

Mostly off-topic, but swimming in lava is never a reasonable suggestion for your average character, regardless of what protections vs heat/fire you have available. Lava has a specific gravity of 3.1 (3 times denser than water), which means you can't sink far enough in it to swim well.

Back on topic, I think I'm with Segev on this one:
The spell tells the target that whatever you suggested is a great (or at least necessary) idea, and committed to doing it. It doesn't tell him how (unless the wording specifically included the method), and it doesn't make him look for excuses why it would be harmful so he can't do it. It makes him look at it as something he should make happen; if he has no way to do so without harming himself, then it fails because he's not dedicated enough to the idea to hurt himself over it. Maybe risk harm, but not definitely harm himself directly.

More on topic, I would address the issue as soon as the player tried to take an action that is at odds with what the spell is supposed to do. I like the question above. "How does that action help you accomplish the goal of <insert suggested/charmed/implanted behavior>?"

[Greywander]

So if your friend came to you for advice you would just shrug and say, "It depends"? That's not a helpful answer. Like, no crap it depends, that's why they don't know what to do. If there was a clear rule that dictated the outcome, they wouldn't be asking the question. What they want to know is what it depends on, and how to weigh those factors against each other.

Just as an example, earlier I gave a quick and dirty way of gauging the reasonableness of a request by scoring it on three factors: how much effort is required (little, some, great), how many resources are expended (few, some, many), and how in-character it is (normal, odd, contrary). It's still up to the DM to decide what scores apply to the reasonableness of a request, but it at least gives them some rough guidelines they can use. Does a 6th level spell slot count as some or many resources? That's up to the DM, but that binary choice is much easier to make than the more analogue choice of "on a scale from 1 to 100, how reasonable is expending a 6th level spell slot?"

Perhaps a good way to handle mitigating direct harm might be to refer back to the reasonableness of a method of mitigating direct harm. Drinking a potion is an expenditure of resources. Donning a protective suit takes effort. Silencing a witness might be out of character. Score the reasonableness of that method of mitigating harm, and if it's above a certain threshold then your character won't be willing to do it. Or perhaps they add on to the base reasonableness of the original Suggestion, so if the original Suggestion was already straining the limit of reasonableness, then there would be little tolerance for going out of your way to mitigate harm. If the original Suggestion was more reasonable, you'd be willing to do a bit more to protect yourself.

[Keltest]

So if your friend came to you for advice you would just shrug and say, "It depends"? That's not a helpful answer.

Depends on what they need help with. If theyre just fishing for general advice, looking at the circumstances to decide where to draw the line is in fact about as close to a useful answer as we can give. If they have a very specific circumstance, then we can address that context. Ultimately, nobody can make the ruling for the DM, so absent something really specific, all we can to is try and help them know how to use their best judgement when a case does come up.

[Segev]

"Adventurers destroy a lot of stuff" doesn't necessarily mean they'd consider dismantling a tower they're standing in reasonable. It doesn't automatically mean they wouldn't either. If they're standing in the front door and getting out is as easy as taking a step, that's a different situation than in they're inside the Inner Sanctum. Based on the limited information I have about the OP's scenario, I'd be more likely to rule "unreasonable," but again, I didn't craft it.You keep assuming "right this second, while you're inside it" is part of the suggestion. Why? Nobody has actually included that in the example except those who want to say that's why it's directly harmful.

The fact that you keep assuming that's part of the suggestion despite it not being in the wording of it is why we're asking you all these specific questions you keep refusing to answer (going so far as to answer as if we'd asked something we didn't ask, despite having the fact that we didn't ask be pointed out and what we did ask reiterated). This is very frustrating. I know you're an intelligent man, Psyren, and that you have good insights into the game. It is very frustrating when I cannot have a discussion with you because somehow anything I say gets either ignored in favor of something irrelevant or misinterpreted to the point that you're expressing confusion over the fact that I said (according to you), "water is dry," when I actually said, "sand in the sahara is generally dry because of the scarcity of water."


I think everything I've said is on-topic, but I certainly can't make you feel that way.I would appreciate it if you would not specifically ignore parts of what I am saying - e.g. "assume that the 'reasonableness' clause is met in this example, rather than coming up with variations on it where it might not be reasonable" - and specifically therefore avoid answering the question that I am actually asking - or even acknowledging that part of the question - in favor of explaining why the example might possibly not meet the reasonableness standard. :smallannoyed:


MY point is that there is no "any." There is no silver-bullet, universal rule to adjudicate what constitutes reasonable in every circumstance. I get the distinct impression you want there to be one, and you can very well establish that at your tables, but I have no interest in crafting a universal law.You have the wrong impression. I am looking for a rule of thumb that is non-arbitrary. i.e., a standard whereby your judgment is rooted in something other than, "Yeah, today I rolled out of bed feeling like I'll let the spell work, whereas yesterday I decided it wouldn't, for the same use case, because there's no standard other than my whims."

If that is how you judge it, then fine, but you could at least say so. At that point, there's no point in discussing how anything you use that judgment method on works, because it doesn't work or it does work only depending on your whim at the moment.


It depends. Given that a puddle would likely be reasonable while the Pacific Ocean wouldn't, there is some threshold for depth that plays into answering this, and that's just one factor to consider here. If you're asking me to craft such a scenario, I'll let you know when I'm offering paid DMing services and my going rates.This, for the record, is you ignoring what I said and answering a question I didn't ask.

What I said was to assume the reasonableness clause is met for sake of this example. You're free to imagine the pool being however you need it to be for it to be "a reasonable request." The question is about the harm portion of the spell, and whether you can expect people to be able to invent ways they COULD do something in a way that would make it harmful in order to negate it (which I would generally consider bad sportsmanship, myself), or whether they can be expected to see a task as non-harmful if they can do it in a non-harmful way.

If the suggestion is, "pull the ring out of the fire," and they have the ability to do so by taking some amount of fire damage (which, for sake of argument, please accept qualifies as "directly harmful" rather than quibbling over whether there exists any way the suggestion could be carried out that is directly harmful) by just reaching their bare hand in, OR to use a stick or their sword or polearm to try to hook the ring out of the fire, OR to drink a potion of fire immunity and then reach in with his bare hand, taking no damage because he's immune to fire, which of the following is true?

The spell fails, because he COULD do it by reaching his unprotected hand into the fire and take fire damage, making it directly harmful, and since there is ANY way he could do it that is directly harmful, he can choose that as the ONLY way he'll "try" to follow the suggestion, and thus the suggestion causes direct harm.
The spell fails, because even though he COULD pick up some tool or take a potion, neither course of action was part of the suggestion itself, and thus he is FORBIDDEN from CONSIDERING them as options; the suggestion is always followed robotically with no steps assumed. This also means that any suggestion to "remove the cookies from the oven" fails because "open the oven door" was not part of the suggestion, and thus the course of action is impossible because the cookies are behind a closed door.
The spell succeeds, because he can use one of several methods to try to remove the ring from the fire without it being directly harmful, and he knows of those methods. If, for some reason, those methods become unavailable or fail before he can enact them, leaving him with ONLY directly harmful means, the spell fails at that point, but not before he has exhausted all efforts to perform it non-harmfully.


That's a nice phrasing.

It repackages the suggestion spell as "this suggestion is now your top priority" rather than "you must obey this order", with the limitation "while the suggestion is your top priority, it's not important enough that you'd harm yourself over it."Thank you!

I'd even go so far as to allow it to not be the TOP priority to the point that you ignore lower priorities that don't get in the way. "Destroy this tower; it is too dangerous to leave it standing," would not only allow you to set up the destruction in such a way that you're not literally bringing it down around your ears, but also would let you plan to destroy it after you're done with your already-in-progress clearing out of it.

The context of "it's too dangerous to leave standing" matters, here, too; the "reasonableness" of that statement is weighted heavily by why you believe it to be dangerous at all. (I might go so far as to have it fail the "reasonableness" clause if there's no possible way you can believe it to be dangerous, though if they include an invented one in the suggestion, that changes. That's part of "phrasing it to sound reasonable.")


I'm with Psyren here. This isnt a useful line of questioning. The circumstances between any two given cases, especially in a real game, will be so different as to make hypotheticals unhelpful.The circumstances matter in each case, yes. That doesn't invalidate a general discussion of whether you can expect the target to invent his own steps to performing the suggestion, or you have to programmatically spell out every step he must take to make it happen.

If there's literally NOTHING you can do to predict whether it's necessary to be programmatic, like directing a robot, or you can leave certain things (such as "walk over to the oven") out of the suggestion without the suggestion failing (because "take the cookies out of the oven" said to somebody not standing next to an open oven with cookies in it is something he still can do as long as he adds the steps of walking over to and opening the oven before removing the cookies), then it stops being something people even in-setting can use without taking the most pedantically robotic format for it, since they can't be sure whether anything else will work.


Back on topic, I think I'm with Segev on this one:

More on topic, I would address the issue as soon as the player tried to take an action that is at odds with what the spell is supposed to do. I like the question above. "How does that action help you accomplish the goal of <insert suggested/charmed/implanted behavior>?""I'm getting the loot out of the tower so I can destroy the tower without losing the loot," is something I might find rather reasonable. Unless the suggestion included much more immediacy, somehow. But yeah, that's probably a good first step if you suspect bad faith (or even unintentionally not playing the spell effect out right) on the part of the target's player.


Depends on what they need help with. If theyre just fishing for general advice, looking at the circumstances to decide where to draw the line is in fact about as close to a useful answer as we can give. If they have a very specific circumstance, then we can address that context. Ultimately, nobody can make the ruling for the DM, so absent something really specific, all we can to is try and help them know how to use their best judgement when a case does come up.We're talking, once again, about philosophy and guidelines.

Does suggestion allow you to come up with your own set of steps to completing it? Or are you required to do exactly and only what was stated, making it impossible to complete if there's a programmatic step left out? How precise must the programming be, in this case? Is "walk over to the oven, open it up, and remove the cookies" sufficient, or must you tell him exactly how many steps to take in what direction, where to turn, how to bend his elbow and wrist and fingers to grasp the oven door, how to move his arm to open the oven door, and how to grasp the tray, etc. etc.?

Or can you tell the target, "Take the cookies out of the oven," and he will perform all the necessary middle-work of moving to the oven, overcoming the obstacle of the oven door, and causing the cookies to exit the oven, on his own? Does he have freedom to choose (assuming he's capable of it) to use mage hand to do it from 30 feet away, not even bothering to walk over there? Does he have the freedom to put on oven mitts, despite you not having told him to do so? If he chooses to interpret the order as not having included casting a spell nor getting up from his seat on the couch, can he make a feeble gesture to mime pulling the cookies out and deem the task "impossible" because he doesn't have the oven in reach? If he chooses to reach in with his bare hands and take fire damage from the hot tray, can he cause the spell to fail because that would be directly harmful, and therefore not do it at all?

This isn't about the specific task of taking the cookies out of the oven. This is about how much freedom in method a suggestion gives, assuming the suggestion neither specified nor forbade certain means. It is about whether the target can "game" the suggestion to deem it "harmful" even if there are obviously non-harmful ways to carry it out.


Or, to try a totally different example: Let's say you're in a battle in a cave, and there are three exits, one of which the evoker has covered with a wall of fire. If that wall of fire were not there, all three exits would be equally useful/valid avenues of retreat; the wall of fire is there to prevent reinforcements from coming up behind the party while they are backed up against it and as a place for the party grappler to hurl enemies through to remove them from the fight. The bard uses suggestion to tell an enemy bruiser, "You should retreat; you might get hurt if you don't." could the bruiser choose to interpret "retreat" as being specifically through the exit that is blocked by the wall of fire, so that he can deem the suggestion harmful and thus cause the spell to fail? Even though he has two other exits that are just as good even without considering the wall of fire and the party being between him and them, and thus are strictly better options for retreat? Or, does the suggestion spell require him to choose a non-harmful way to follow the suggested course of action if a non-harmful way to do so is known to be available to the target of the spell?


Just as an example, earlier I gave a quick and dirty way of gauging the reasonableness of a request by scoring it on three factors: how much effort is required (little, some, great), how many resources are expended (few, some, many), and how in-character it is (normal, odd, contrary). It's still up to the DM to decide what scores apply to the reasonableness of a request, but it at least gives them some rough guidelines they can use. Does a 6th level spell slot count as some or many resources? That's up to the DM, but that binary choice is much easier to make than the more analogue choice of "on a scale from 1 to 100, how reasonable is expending a 6th level spell slot?"Good poitns of consideration.


Perhaps a good way to handle mitigating direct harm might be to refer back to the reasonableness of a method of mitigating direct harm. Drinking a potion is an expenditure of resources. Donning a protective suit takes effort. Silencing a witness might be out of character. Score the reasonableness of that method of mitigating harm, and if it's above a certain threshold then your character won't be willing to do it. Or perhaps they add on to the base reasonableness of the original Suggestion, so if the original Suggestion was already straining the limit of reasonableness, then there would be little tolerance for going out of your way to mitigate harm. If the original Suggestion was more reasonable, you'd be willing to do a bit more to protect yourself.

Certainly. I am open to negotiating on just how MUCH you're able to require somebody to do to make something non-harmful, especially as part of the "phrased to be reasonable" clause. I just first want to establish where people stand on the principle of how much freedom the target has to determine how to follow the suggestion.


For the record, in case anybody is unclear on my own position:

I believe that the spell requires you to treat the suggested course of action as a high priority action item, which you might be willing to do some other things on the way to if there's a convenient time/place to do it and those don't delay it beyond reason (which is flexible and contextual), but not so high-priority that you'll hurt yourself to achieve it. I believe that it requires you to consider it high priority enough that you will not let the choice of method get in the way of doing it, unless the method is specified in the suggestion. i.e., you consider the task important. If you consider a task important, you don't deliberately decide to do something foolish to make it harmful as an excuse not to do it. You also take reasonable steps to MAKE it non-harmful even if you could theoretically skip those steps and MAKE it harmful, because you actually want to get it done.

I suppose that's the crux of it: Suggestion makes you want the task to be done, whether because you're resigned to its necessity or you think it's just a swell thing to do. The "reasonableness" clause is there to prevent things that there's no way you could possibly justify wanting from happening; you have to be able to justify it to yourself, even if it takes some willful blindness (provided by magical enchantment muddling your mind, if necessary) to do so. You just don't quite want it done badly enough that you're willing to hurt yourself as a direct consequence of doing it. But you also want it done badly enough that you will put aside things that prevent it from happening, and overcome obstacles to doing it, including taking steps to make it non-harmful so that you don't balk at it.

[Reynaert]

There's a big difference between trying to play things straight versus actively trying to subvert the outcome to metagame in immunity despite failing the saving throw.

In your charm person scenario, you're not jumping directly into "I alert the other guards despite being asked not to", but instead have opened a dialogue. One in which the interaction is able to play out in keeping with the specifics of the spell text (advantage on charisma checks). In this case, having an NPC respond that way to a player attempting the same thing were the situations be reversed isn't acting as a subversion, it's playing into the scenario. You are charmed, and engaging in an integration which without the spell would have immediately raised alarms.

This isn't a 1-to-1 comparison to the other examples, which are jumping to a course of action or interpretation intentionally meant to ignore the intended effect.

Okay, so what if it happened like this: The guard warns the person climbing aboard the ship not to do that because otherwise they'll have to alert the guards and if the person keeps on going, they alert the guards? And if the person sais "don't warn the guards, buddy" simply answers "sorry mate I can't do that".

Besides which, the whole 'charmed' condition on PCs is bunk anyway(*) because giving advantage on checks depends on the DC of the check, and there is no DC for trying to interact with a player character.

*) Except for the don't-attack clause, of course

[Segev]

Okay, so what if it happened like this: The guard warns the person climbing aboard the ship not to do that because otherwise they'll have to alert the guards and if the person keeps on going, they alert the guards? And if the person sais "don't warn the guards, buddy" simply answers "sorry mate I can't do that".

Besides which, the whole 'charmed' condition on PCs is bunk anyway(*) because giving advantage on checks depends on the DC of the check, and there is no DC for trying to interact with a player character.

*) Except for the don't-attack clause, of course

The problem with social checks having no effect on PCs (other than deception, which can at least force the PC to roll Insight to set a DC of whether or not he sees through the lie) is a real one, yeah. In this case, where the nefarious infiltrators are trying to trick you, that actually probably does work, though: "No, bro, don't call the guards; you need to let us aboard for this fast-talking reason I'm spinning, and the guards can't know about it for this related fast-talking reason!" followed by Advantage-on-Charisma(Decpetion) vs. normal Wisdom(Insight). On a success, you at least know your PC buys their Shawn Spencer-esq line of nonsense, and you now have to decide if, believing what your friendly acquaintance is saying, you agree that that's a good reason not to call the guards while letting him aboard.

Sadly, when it comes to Charisma(Persuasion), that's less doable. Insight could tell you they're sincere, but not whether you should care about their plight/claims/whatever. Against NPCs, Persuasion can be rolled to determine if the NPC is swayed, because "agency" is for PCs. Mostly. So...it's a bit of a gap, yeah.

[Psyren]

So if your friend came to you for advice you would just shrug and say, "It depends"? That's not a helpful answer.

If he's asking me to build an entire encounter for him on the spot? Yes, that's my answer, and if he doesn't like it, tough.



If there was a clear rule that dictated the outcome, they wouldn't be asking the question.

There is never going to be "a clear rule that dictates the outcome" for something like this across all tables. Get comfortable being uncomfortable. Or don't, I really don't care either way.


What they want to know is what it depends on, and how to weigh those factors against each other.

As many factors as they can imagine.


You keep assuming "right this second, while you're inside it" is part of the suggestion. Why? Nobody has actually included that in the example except those who want to say that's why it's directly harmful.

You keep assuming "you can delay to take precautions like leaving first" is part of the suggestion. Why? Nobody has actually included that in the example except those who want to say it's not harmful.


This is very frustrating.

We certainly agree on this much.

[Segev]

You keep assuming "you can delay to take precautions like leaving first" is part of the suggestion. Why? Nobody has actually included that in the example except those who want to say it's not harmful.

So, then, you're saying that the suggestion, "The tower is too dangerous to let stand; you should destroy it," means they must destroy it right then and there via a means that will bring it down around themselves, if the spell doesn't fail (e.g. if it didn't have the "no harm" clause)?

Just how much leeway do they have in fulfilling the suggestion? Are they allowed to move from the spot they're standing in, or are they required to attempt to destroy the tower without budging? Are they allowed to cast spells or get out tools to do so, or are they required to start trying to destroy it with whatever they have in hand and without any particluar actions? If there is a self-destruct button for the tower that requires lifting a glass cover off of it before you can push it, are they allowed to lift the glass cover off of the button and push it, or is the fact that you never told them in teh suggestion to "lift the glass cover and push the self-destruct button" enough to make the compulsion to "destroy the tower" disallow them from taking the action to lift the glass?

I assume it annoys you when people take what you say to extremes, but when you imply, as you do in the quote in this post, that they are NOT allowed to leave the tower before destroying it, nor are they allowed to arrange its destruction in such a way that they could escape it without it collapsing on top of them, you raise these questions. If they're not allowed to leave the tower before destroying it, what else are they not allowed to do before destroying it? Are they allowed to do anything? Can the druid polymorph himself into a girralon to make him better at it? CAn he end his wild shape into a mouse, or is he required to try to destroy it as a mouse because doing anything other than mindlessly attacking the tower right where he stands is somehow disallowed by the fact that the method of destroying it wasn't specified?

[Psyren]

So, then, you're saying that the suggestion, "The tower is too dangerous to let stand; you should destroy it," means they must destroy it right then and there via a means that will bring it down around themselves, if the spell doesn't fail (e.g. if it didn't have the "no harm" clause)?

Just how much leeway do they have in fulfilling the suggestion? Are they allowed to move from the spot they're standing in, or are they required to attempt to destroy the tower without budging? Are they allowed to cast spells or get out tools to do so, or are they required to start trying to destroy it with whatever they have in hand and without any particluar actions? If there is a self-destruct button for the tower that requires lifting a glass cover off of it before you can push it, are they allowed to lift the glass cover off of the button and push it, or is the fact that you never told them in teh suggestion to "lift the glass cover and push the self-destruct button" enough to make the compulsion to "destroy the tower" disallow them from taking the action to lift the glass?
...
If they're not allowed to leave the tower before destroying it, what else are they not allowed to do before destroying it? Are they allowed to do anything? Can the druid polymorph himself into a girralon to make him better at it? CAn he end his wild shape into a mouse, or is he required to try to destroy it as a mouse because doing anything other than mindlessly attacking the tower right where he stands is somehow disallowed by the fact that the method of destroying it wasn't specified?

All together now! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9voMNzerk)



I assume it annoys you when people take what you say to extremes, but when you imply, as you do in the quote in this post, that they are NOT allowed to leave the tower before destroying it, nor are they allowed to arrange its destruction in such a way that they could escape it without it collapsing on top of them, you raise these questions.

I'm not annoyed by people going to extremes. What annoys me is demanding highly specific answers to nebulous scenarios that I didn't even craft. Every single question/variable you raised in the quote above this one is valid to consider when adjudicating this scenario, and I can't and won't answer a single one of them. I'm perfectly comfortable with my adjudication of this scenario being wildly different than someone else who might think about or answer these in a way I wouldn't.

In other words - questions are good, and I'd expect them from my players. What you appear to be looking for though is a one-size-fits-all answer from me for a tower I never designed and a party of unknown makeup who I'm not running a game for, and that is an utterly pointless exercise from where I'm sitting; even if I cared to sit down and painstakingly design this scenario such that all these questions were answered, my adjudication would only apply to that specific scenario. That may not be satisfying to you or to Greywander, and that's okay by me.

[Tanarii]

Besides which, the whole 'charmed' condition on PCs is bunk anyway(*) because giving advantage on checks depends on the DC of the check, and there is no DC for trying to interact with a player character.
If the player isn't sure how they want their PC to react, they could always set a DC.

But yes, the entire social mechanics process is very PC vs monster oriented. Not all games are set up that way. Many are designed so it's perfectly possible to make a 'social' check against a PC, and still leave them agency. Just not, yknow, unlimited agency. But not removing all agency either.

[Greywander]

I think the issue is that you've been saying one thing given one scenario, then something completely different for a different scenario, and it comes off as contradictory. Let's flash back to this:

I think there's a balance that needs to be struck here. I see a very clear distinction between demolishing a structure (especially a structure you happen to be currently inhabiting) and taking cookies out of an oven. The latter has one very specific and easily mitigated vector of "harm", whereas the other has a vast array of things that could result, ranging from splinters and dust to glass to falling bricks to smoke and fire to being pinned etc.
You seem to thing that exiting the tower before destroying it would not be allowed, but grabbing oven mitts before removing something hot from an oven would? Yes, the scenarios are different, but both of these involve taking some form of precaution to prevent harm before executing the Suggestion. Why would one be allowed but not the other? What is it that's making the difference? What's the reason for going one way or another? Forget a one-size-fits-all answer, I want to know what makes this one very specific case different from this other very specific case.

It seems to me that you think a target of Suggestion can take certain precautions to prevent themselves from being harmed by carrying out the Suggestion. But there are limits, not every precaution is permitted. And that makes sense. What I'm trying to figure out is what those limits are, and you don't appear to be keen on giving straight answers. I wonder, is your position based more on intuition than reason? If so, that's fine, it just seems like it would make it difficult to have a productive discussion on the matter.


In other words - questions are good, and I'd expect them from my players. What you appear to be looking for though is a one-size-fits-all answer from me for a tower I never designed and a party of unknown makeup who I'm not running a game for, and that is an utterly pointless exercise from where I'm sitting; even if I cared to sit down and painstakingly design this scenario such that all these questions were answered, my adjudication would only apply to that specific scenario. That may not be satisfying to you or to Greywander, and that's okay by me.
That's fair, but I don't think anyone is asking you to give an analysis for a meticulously detailed scenario you didn't design. I think it's safe to think in terms of the generic and typical. Imagine a bog-standard tower being raided by a bog-standard adventuring party, and the enemy wizard casts Suggestion on the party with the suggestion, "Destroy this tower," before teleporting away. Yes, there are details that could completely change how the scenario plays out. But in the absence of those details, we're going to assume that there isn't anything that would factor in. It's just a normal party in a normal tower.

It's like, if Bob eats half a pizza and Alice eats a quarter of a pizza, and you ask me who ate more pizza, the obvious answer is Bob. If you then say, "Well actually, Alice's pizza was bigger, so a quarter of her pizza is more than half of Bob's pizza," that's an additional detail that I should have been informed of before being asked to answer the question. In the absence of that detail, it's fair to assume both pizzas are the same size. With you, it's like if I were to ask who ate more pizza and you were to respond with, "It depends. We don't know how big Alice and Bob are. Bob could be a subatomic entity with a microscopic pizza, while Alice is a cosmic horror with a galaxy-sized pizza. There's no way I could ever come up with a one-size-fits-all answer to this question." No, it's not that complicated, Bob ate half a pizza, Alice ate a quarter, without any further details it's clear Bob ate more. If you introduce a new detail, then the scenario changes, and so might the answer, but that would be a different question.

If you try to consider every possible variation of a scenario, then of course you're not going to be able to come up with a general answer. Every rule has exceptions. Instead, only consider the most generic/typical scenario based on the details given. Anything not given as part of the example can be assumed to have no bearing on the outcome. Then, once you have it figured out for the generic example, you can start thinking about exceptions might change the outcome. For example, what if the only way to leave the tower is to teleport away (e.g. the door is a portal), so there isn't even an exterior the party can interact with? That would be an additional detail that would create a pretty big exception, but it isn't part of the original question.

[Psyren]

You seem to thing that exiting the tower before destroying it would not be allowed, but grabbing oven mitts before removing something hot from an oven would?

I... think.... it.... depends.

If you had to take a taxi to the oven mitt factory because those were the only ones available, that's a different story than if they're hanging next to the oven.

I think stepping one foot out of the tower is a different story than needing to exit Vecna's inner sanctum and give up on the treasure vault to reach the outside.

I didn't design the tower, so I don't know the specifics. Even if I did, I also don't know the party, their demolition capabilities, what they value etc.

Therefore... it... depends.

[Greywander]

I... think.... it.... depends.
[...]
I didn't design the tower, so I don't know the specifics. Even if I did, I also don't know the party, their demolition capabilities, what they value etc.
Ahem:

If you try to consider every possible variation of a scenario, then of course you're not going to be able to come up with a general answer. Every rule has exceptions. Instead, only consider the most generic/typical scenario based on the details given. Anything not given as part of the example can be assumed to have no bearing on the outcome.
Anyway, it seems like you've given us a few hints about the factors you consider. I'm just not sure why getting these sorts of details is like pulling teeth.


If you had to take a taxi to the oven mitt factory because those were the only ones available, that's a different story than if they're hanging next to the oven.
I assume the factor here is either distance or time.


I think stepping one foot out of the tower is a different story than needing to exit Vecna's inner sanctum and give up on the treasure vault to reach the outside.
Right, but inner sanctums and treasure vaults aren't part of the question. Remember, generic tower, any details not given are assumed not to make any kind of difference. For a typical tower, I'd think you could probably get outside from anywhere in the tower in about 10 minutes, an hour tops if it's a really big tower. That's well within the duration of Suggestion, so there'd still be ample time to destroy the tower before the spell wore off. I do think any delay that extends close to or beyond the spell's duration would be deemed unacceptable, or else it would be too easy to thwart the spell.

I'm assuming "giving up on the treasure vault" is referring to making the Suggestion less reasonable, since it has nothing to do with direct harm. This would be in line with the quick and dirty method I wrote about above, falling under behavior. We can assume that it is at least slightly out of character for a typical adventurer to give up on treasure. However, if the Suggestion still passes the reasonableness test, then this would stop being a factor since giving up on treasure is not directly harmful.


I didn't design the tower, so I don't know the specifics. Even if I did, I also don't know the party, their demolition capabilities, what they value etc.
Then assume that the specifics wouldn't make any difference. Again, worrying about all the unspoken details will make it impossible to reach a conclusion. If something is significant enough that it could change the outcome, it will be mentioned. Just work with the details you've been given and don't sweat the rest. If there is an important detail missing, then that's the fault of whoever asked the question and forgot to mention it.

But it sounds like you're acknowledging that there are some scenarios where the party would be able to exit the tower before destroying it. You're just getting hung up on non-existent "what ifs". I mean, it's worth considering some possible common variations or probing for further details, e.g. are they on the top floor, is there a window, how tall is the tower, did they clear the tower on the way up or did they leave a dangerous monster behind, etc. But if you don't have or can't get those answers, then worrying about them is just going to drive you mad.

[Psyren]

Instead, only consider the most generic/typical scenario based on the details given. Anything not given as part of the example can be assumed to have no bearing on the outcome. Then, once you have it figured out for the generic example, you can start thinking about exceptions might change the outcome.

What is a "generic/typical tower?" Especially a generic/tpyical tower that the unspecified party is standing an indeterminate distance inside?



Anyway, it seems like you've given us a few hints about the factors you consider. I'm just not sure why getting these sorts of details is like pulling teeth.

"A few hints?" Segev provided a massive list that I concurred with very openly. :smallconfused: To reiterate:


Every single question/variable you raised in the quote above this one is valid to consider when adjudicating this scenario, and I can't and won't answer a single one of them.



But it sounds like you're acknowledging that there are some scenarios where the party would be able to exit the tower before destroying it.

That's what "it depends" means, yes.

[Zhorn]

Okay, so what if it happened like this: The guard warns the person climbing aboard the ship not to do that because otherwise they'll have to alert the guards and if the person keeps on going, they alert the guards? And if the person sais "don't warn the guards, buddy" simply answers "sorry mate I can't do that".

Besides which, the whole 'charmed' condition on PCs is bunk anyway(*) because giving advantage on checks depends on the DC of the check, and there is no DC for trying to interact with a player character.

*) Except for the don't-attack clause, of course
I would direct you to the same section I was pointing Witty Username to back on page 4 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?650854-Charmed-condition-metagaming/page4&p=25625693#post25625693)
The Charm Person spell sets a targeted creature's attitude to friendly
The DCs for social interactions with a friendly creature are given on DMG p245
With the description of what the friendly attitude means

A friendly creature wants to help the adventurers and wishes for them to succeed. For tasks or actions that require no particular risk, effort, or cost, friendly creatures usually help without question. If an element of personal risk is involved, a successful Charisma check might be required to convince a friendly creature to take that risk.
In the specific example scenario; the adventurer is the one attempting to sneak onto the boat and charm the creature on guard duty. Flipping around which one is the PC and which is the NPC makes no difference, the spell is setting the attitude, and there are defined rules for that attitude and the DCs that go with it.

Other tables more often run this interaction as a contest instead, mostly because those rules are more easily found in the PHB rather than buried in the DMG; which less of the player base bothers to read.
I'd argue though that is a case of misuse; as Contest (PHB p174) are between characters who are actively opposed, while the Charm Person spell explicitly overrides the target to be friendly to the caster, and that comes with a defined meaning in game as quoted before (just shame they are poorly buried in a different book).

Is that robbing agency? Well somewhat yes, that's kind of the intent of these types of spell effects. You have full agency up until you have failed the saving throw, after which your agency is narrowed down to behaving in accordance with the effect.
And that is the crux of the thread; when a PC is under a charm/compulsion that demands for them to act a specific way; and they are instead taking actions counter to that is a blatant attempt to ignore/subvert those directives, how hard should the DM come down on the clear metagaming going on and how should they go about it.

[Reynaert]

Is that robbing agency? Well somewhat yes, that's kind of the intent of these types of spell effects. You have full agency up until you have failed the saving throw, after which your agency is narrowed down to behaving in accordance with the effect.
And that is the crux of the thread; when a PC is under a charm/compulsion that demands for them to act a specific way; and they are instead taking actions counter to that is a blatant attempt to ignore/subvert those directives, how hard should the DM come down on the clear metagaming going on and how should they go about it.

You're basing this whole argument on the assertion that rules for NPCs and PCs should be the same. If your players disagree with that, or any of your rules interpretations for that matter, then "how hard should the DM come down on them" is the wrong thing to ask.

(To be fair, when the question "how hard should the DM come down on the players" gets asked, 99% of the time there are bigger underlying issues at play, which will not be ansered by that question.)

[Segev]

What you appear to be looking for though is a one-size-fits-all answer from meNot quite. I'm looking to get to the core principle from which you operate. Obviously, circumstances can change it. "Is it ever reasonable to expect the target to take actions that would make it non-dangerous?" is the question. If the answer is "no," then I disagree with you, as it creates situations where it's near-impossible to use the spell since you can't do ANYTHING. If the answer is "yes," it becomes a matter of discussion as to just how far it goes.


I... think.... it.... depends.

If you had to take a taxi to the oven mitt factory because those were the only ones available, that's a different story than if they're hanging next to the oven.

I think stepping one foot out of the tower is a different story than needing to exit Vecna's inner sanctum and give up on the treasure vault to reach the outside.

I didn't design the tower, so I don't know the specifics. Even if I did, I also don't know the party, their demolition capabilities, what they value etc.

Therefore... it... depends.

That does answer the question. It sounds like you agree there are things that it is reasonable to expect the target to do, and things it is not. You've got a wide margin between "the oven mitts are right there by the oven" and "the oven mitts are at the store and he'd need to take a taxi to buy them," but it just becomes a matter of determining if the course of action is reasonable when it includes what is necessary to make it non-harmful, and that being a judgment call by the DM is perfectly sensible.

[Tanarii]

In the specific example scenario; the adventurer is the one attempting to sneak onto the boat and charm the creature on guard duty. Flipping around which one is the PC and which is the NPC makes no difference, the spell is setting the attitude, and there are defined rules for that attitude and the DCs that go with it.Agreed, charm person has clear cut related DCs in the DMG. And it's effectively +20 to social checks when cast on a hostile creature and +10 when cast on an indifferent one. Before the advantage from charmed.

And yes, those DCs can be used when it's a Charm Person'd PC.


Is that robbing agency? Well somewhat yes, that's kind of the intent of these types of spell effects. You have full agency up until you have failed the saving throw, after which your agency is narrowed down to behaving in accordance with the effect.
And that is the crux of the thread; when a PC is under a charm/compulsion that demands for them to act a specific way; and they are instead taking actions counter to that is a blatant attempt to ignore/subvert those directives, how hard should the DM come down on the clear metagaming going on and how should they go about it.Its either removing all agency or some. Depends how strictly the DM defines what the NPC wants and what the PCs options are.

Btw personally as a player, I'm perfectly happy to play a Charm Person type effect to the hilt, and probably overdo it even. If a DM talks me "your character is now CE and wants to help the High Priest by betraying the party during the final confrontation", well by golly that DM is going to get the TPK they were clearly asking for! Even if it's not how they expected it to go down.

Keep in mind though, there are plenty of charmed type spells / effects, and even general social rules, in other TTRPGs that never totally remove player agency, while still being highly effective and/or fun for both players and DMs to engage with. The D&D system is almost completely oriented to players using charm/dominate/social spells and skills against NPC/monster, and the DM ruling on how they react as a result. And as a result "metagaming" when a player gets hit by one has been a problem since day one.

[Psyren]

Not quite. I'm looking to get to the core principle from which you operate.

Core principle: "It depends."



That does answer the question. It sounds like you agree there are things that it is reasonable to expect the target to do, and things it is not. You've got a wide margin between "the oven mitts are right there by the oven" and "the oven mitts are at the store and he'd need to take a taxi to buy them," but it just becomes a matter of determining if the course of action is reasonable when it includes what is necessary to make it non-harmful, and that being a judgment call by the DM is perfectly sensible.

I truly, genuinely don't see how any of this is supposed to be some kind of revelation. "It's a judgement call by the DM" is the core of 5e, and I enthusiastically lean into that.

[Segev]

Core principle: "It depends."



I truly, genuinely don't see how any of this is supposed to be some kind of revelation. "It's a judgement call by the DM" is the core of 5e, and I enthusiastically lean into that.

It may be that you are focusing on the wrong parts of what I said, if you believe that "It's a judgment call by the DM" is the "revelation." Not that there is a "revelation," there, but what I was trying to get down to was whether or not there is any leeway for the target to use his judgment in fulfilling the request. And, if so, if he HAS to use it to do his best to fulfil it, or if he is free to use it to rules lawyer it into being "unreasonable" or "harmful" so that he can NOT do it.

[Zhorn]

You're basing this whole argument on the assertion that rules for NPCs and PCs should be the same.
I sure am
It's fair
When the players and the DM have the same understanding of how a spell works, the table cohesion is better off
And when a spell has a single interpretation rather than multiple, there are less likely to be disagreements about it at the table, regardless of whether it is being used on a PC or NPC.
It is also a ruling which is taken 100% from the books without houserules, meaning there's no reliance on some unwritten text on what those effects mean.

For my table, our discussion was on Mass Suggestion instead of Charm Person; but the discussion point that got everyone agreeing was "we should be able to rely of spells doing the same thing regardless of who cast them and who the target is (PC/NPC)" which is the same reasoning applied to this Charm Person example.


PC/NPC casts spell on NPC/PC
The target has no immunities or special features related to the effects of the spell
They fail their saving throw
NPC/PC acts in a way as though the effect is meaningless, different to is the target was instead PC/NPC
That inconsistency is the thing that causes argument at the table

"rules for thee not for me" is not a moto I support.

[Greywander]

You're basing this whole argument on the assertion that rules for NPCs and PCs should be the same.

I sure am
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It's surprising how many ambiguities can be solved by approaching it from this perspective. One of the classic examples is Simulacrum-Wish abuse. Casting Wish and wishing for anything other than duplicating a spell 8th level and lower carries some harsh penalties and the risk that you can never cast Wish again. So why not make a Simulacrum and get them to do it for you? Sure, it's a clever solution, but do you think that no other wizard has thought to try that? Do you really want to play a campaign where high level wizards are basically gods due to being able to make unsafe wishes risk-free? Do you want to have to fight someone like that? I mean, it could be interesting, if it was the premise of the campaign. But as a general rule it's obviously a bad idea. If they could, they would, but they don't, so they can't. Somehow, getting your Simulacrum to cast Wish for you doesn't let you get out of the consequences of an unsafe Wish.

The same logic can be applied to Suggestion, Charm Person, or other mind control effects. Those effects do a thing. Some of those effects are available to players, who will want to use them against their enemies. Sometimes the enemies will use those effects against players. We need to be consistent about how the effect works. If a player is hit with an effect and tries to weasel their way out of it, they may find their own tactics used against them the next time they use a similar effect against an enemy. Why wouldn't it work the same for the enemy as for the player?

Hmm, actually... perhaps a good way to gauge if something is broken is to give it to an NPC and throw it against your party. If the players complain about it, it might be broken. This could be a way to playtest homebrew ideas if you're the DM, and giving it to an expendable NPC might be safer than giving it to a player.

[Ionathus]

Opinions on the metagame knowledge of charmed condition and suggestion spells.
Spells with the charmed effect and compulsions tend to include lines about characters knowing they were under such effects AFTER they have ended.

Players are fully aware their characters are charmed from the start though.

How strict do you feel is necessary to come down on players metagaming their choices to effectively play counter to the directions of the charm/compulsion, or diving right for the undo-feature when in practice the character should have no knowledge that they are currently charmed?

edit: thread topic is more to do with this^ than with the stuff in the spoiler field

Enchantment is a very fiddly category in 5e: it's right up there with Illusion-based stuff for most online arguments and most shots taken in the "dunno, it's whatever the DM decides" drinking game.

On the face of it, I always start from the ground rules laid out by the spell/feature first: the Charmed condition does a very specific thing (and much less than many people assume, it's not mind control, etc.) so anything on top of that has to be explicitly in the text of the effect. And then I ask my players to do that thing.

I've had mixed reactions. As others have said, I've had players get Dominated and immediately & gleefully burn their strongest resources trying to kill their friends. But I've also had somebody approach me in private after a session and say "please don't ever make me roleplay mind control again, I hated how it felt." Any mind-affecting stuff is impossible to predict until you know your table, so that's the most important determining factor. D&D hinges on the decisions that your players make, and charm is one of the few things that artificially puts your thumb on that scale. Resolving that is usually going to be messier than expected.

However, on another level...in this specific example it's pretty obvious that your players were trying to "win" instead of going with the interesting story prompt they were given for failing the save. Maybe they believed (or had been taught through experience) that any failed roll needs to be triaged as quickly as possible. Generally I find that my players are more willing to lean into their "failures" if they see the game as a collaborative story that will continue to be interesting even when they fail a roll.

If the heroes always succeeded on the first try, a lot of media would be super boring. But in D&D there's a tendency to fixate on "winning" every story beat, and to ignore the very real possibility of branching paths - when the branching paths and "anything could happen" dynamic is what makes TTRPGs so special!

Yes, it's a tactical combat game and yes, the fights shouldn't be obvious railroading. But in this scenario, they weren't in danger: there was no reason to fight for an optimal outcome except, perhaps, fear that the story would become so bad that it was worth "cheating" to avert that consequence. Do what you can to ease their fears and show that accepting and playing out a "story beat" failure can make the game more exciting, not less.

[Reynaert]

Do you let the bard player convince the king that he should name the bard the successor of the realm because he rolled real high on his deception check?
Of course not, you won't even let him roll. There is no DC because it would be impossible, and in other cases, the DM can set a high DC if they deem the request as difficult.
So why should a player (for example, guarding a boat when someone wants to come on board) strictly use the table in the DMG to decide if he gets persuaded or not?

Also, when a player casts suggestion on an npc, and the player makes a suggestion they find reasonable, who gets to decide if the suggestion is reasonable or not?
So why, if an NPC casts suggestion on a player (which the DM thinks is reasonable of course), and the player decides the suggestion is unreasonable, would that suddenly be considered cheating?

Rules for thee and not for me indeed...

[Keltest]

So why, if an NPC casts suggestion on a player (which the DM thinks is reasonable of course), and the player decides the suggestion is unreasonable, would that suddenly be considered cheating?

Well, the most straightforward answer is that the player is inclined to have bias whereas the DM is (nominally) impartial. But in general, the DM's job is as referee for both players and NPCs, and you dont give each team a different ref.

[Ionathus]

Also, when a player casts suggestion on an npc, and the player makes a suggestion they find reasonable, who gets to decide if the suggestion is reasonable or not?
So why, if an NPC casts suggestion on a player (which the DM thinks is reasonable of course), and the player decides the suggestion is unreasonable, would that suddenly be considered cheating?

If I had an NPC cast suggestion on a player with something I thought the NPC would deem reasonable and the player said "no, my character wouldn't find that reasonable at all" I would ask the player to explain their thinking. Maybe there's a character beat I didn't know about or had forgotten: maybe the PC who was just told "sit this one out, your friends can probably handle it" is too brash or loyal to accept that suggestion, or maybe they had a former ally die because they "sat this one out" in another fight long ago. Having your NPCs guess wrong and accidentally trigger a PC's berserk button can be a really fun moment and it can help them feel like their character choices have paid off.

Whatever the reason, I don't consider it "cheating" unless the player is clearly making up something on the spot to metagame themselves out of the suboptimal situation. Which would become clear as I pushed on their answers further. Up to and including the direct question of "is this really Marthio's deeply held beliefs, or do you just not wanna do the thing?" as nonjudgmentally as possible. I try to assume good faith with my players, but I have the luxury of doing so because my players are so great :smallsmile:

[Zhorn]

Do you let the bard player convince the king that he should name the bard the successor of the realm because he rolled real high on his deception check?... right. So if a DM wants to lean into absurdities in their campaign is establishing scenarios so far divorced from reasonableness that no possible ruleset will make for a stable method of adjudication, that's a table issue and not a rules issue.

I expressed my view on this back in #109, but to reiterate;
When you are casting spells that are setting up compulsion effects, you do so with the mindset of playing ball.
Avoiding absurdity to stick within the realms of agreeableness for those at the table and the general tone of the game.
'The bard roll and nat 20 and now the kings gives them their throne' would be one of those absurdities. It's a go-to scenario on skit videos and forums because it is funny, but clearly a strawman not to be treated seriously.

I know you're smart enough to understand that, it is after all your underlying point;

Of course not, you won't even let him roll. There is no DC because it would be impossible, and in other cases, the DM can set a high DC if they deem the request as difficult.
You agree the scenario is silly, I agree it is silly, neither of us are promoting that scenario, so why even bother entertaining it?


So why should a player (for example, guarding a boat when someone wants to come on board) strictly use the table in the DMG to decide if he gets persuaded or not?
So in answering this I'll have to repeat the points you are omitting that explain why;
In this scenario a player character is under the effect of Charm Person, having already failed the saving throw.
The spell in addition to inflicting the Charmed condition ALSO sets the player character's attitude to friendly
Friendly as an attitude is defined within the rules with listed implications (as noted back in post #135)
Now if the player character WASN'T under such an effect that magically locked their attitude to friendly, then it would be they have full agency over their own perceptions and desires in the event, and likely would be in opposition to the intruder; in which case the rule would instead call for either no check and assume immediate opposing action, or use that opposition as the basis for using the Contested Check rules from the PHB.
But as already covered, the player character IS under a magical effect that both gives the caster advantage on social checks AND has locked the player character's attitude to friendly, meaning by the definitions in the DMG means they are now wanting the other to succeed in their endeavour, with a convenient list of DCs given for that attitude provided in the same section.
You initial claim that I was responding to were their weren't any provided DCs for such scenarios; all I've done is point out where they are. Which I understand can cause defensiveness, as it's typically unwanted to have the errors pointed out in our assertions.
You are under no obligation to use them. You just now know that they exist and where to find them.
Should this conversation come up again for you in the future; you now have the option to say "There are DCs provided for this specific scenario, but I don't agree with them", and that's fine.


Also, when a player casts suggestion on an npc, and the player makes a suggestion they find reasonable, who gets to decide if the suggestion is reasonable or not?
So why, if an NPC casts suggestion on a player (which the DM thinks is reasonable of course), and the player decides the suggestion is unreasonable, would that suddenly be considered cheating?
Seem like you are mixing up comments from multiple people here.
My issue from the opening post was in regards to when players take actions that ignore such compulsions despite having already failed to them. For our table, the reasonableness of the Suggestion's wording was never the issue, and having talk with all my players on it we are all on the same page of a metagaming issue that should have been ruled on differently on the night.

Take a breather
Your responses come across as lashing out rather than discussing a point