Suggestion Sucks

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Great suggestion if you are near a deep pit filled with liquid. Now... how would you rule it would work if you have a tribe of 30 evil ogres (intent on you and your parties death) between you and the water? Would the Paladin be able to Fight his way to the water, or would he lose all comman sense and simple run to it at top possible speed?

If there's a tribe of 30 evil ogres between the Paladin and the pool, you shouldn't be able to Suggest to him to take a swim in the first place, whether he has to fight his way through them or not. It's flat unreasonable.

 

[JDowling]

I think it's reasonable to allow someone playing a character with 25 int some slack in exact wording of things.

It's safe to assume that 19 - 25 int is likely more intelligent than most people at the table, so it's safe to assume that a being of that intelligence could think up something we couldn't.

Elder-Basilisk, do you also require that someone with high CHR and lots of Bluff and other social skills need to acctually role play out a Bluff scenario, and then judge the outcome based on that?

You see, what you're doing is making totally irrelivent the parts of the character the player has chosen to enhance, to invest in as it were. If that's how you rule things I'd make an INT 6 character and solve all the puzzles in your game anyway, because stats don't matter nearly as much as what the player can think of.

It's simply unreasonable to disregard stats of creatures and characters. If a monster or character is a genius that makes mensa look like a playground, you should cut them some slack in intelligence-related areas, anything else is like saying, "you can't life 150 lbs in real life, I don't care if your fighter has 30 STR, if you can't do it in real life you can't do it in game"

that's just rediclous.

EDIT:

"my character is a 15th level wizard with a 25 int, he can figure out a way to make surrendering/fleeing/handing over loot/whatever else I want at the time sound reasonable even though I can't." At my table, at least, a player who tried this would be told "then, it's unfortunate that you're unable to play your character properly, but what do you want your character to do?"

in short - you've walked yourself out onto a slippery slope, if you don't allow it for INT, then it's inconsistant to allow it for any other stat, or skills for that matter.

In that case, why even bother playing with rules because you're just doing make believe w/o rules anyway

obviously I'm taking your point to an extreme to make my point, but the point I'm illustrating is a valid flaw in your reasoning.

EDIT 2: if you're not comfortable just allowing things like that flat out - make it an INT check just how a character with high STR would need to make a STR check to break down a door.

It could be an opposed check, or a check against a DC, w/e you want, it'd be a house rule though, but a way to allow players to use their characters mental / social stats even if they (the player) doesn't know how to act / think properly to illustrate it.

EDIT 3: you also exagerate my point to make yours. I'm not saying that *anything* should be reasonable, but I think that making someone run away is.

 

[JDowling]

..."These aren't the droids I'm looking for, and I don't need to see your identification" seems reasonable to me; "I want to abandon my friends to their fate" doesn't.

Unless, of course, the Illithid knows the party (through association or simple observation) well enough to be able to suggest something that would make the PC want to abandon his friends.

Knowing he's likely a paladin, and likely is interested in smiting evil and saving his friends the illithid suggests:

"The only way to kill me is using an artifact stashed back up the tunnel."

Knowing this the paladin will realise, "it's the only way to kill him, I'd better get that artifact to save my friends".

There's a difference between:
"I want to abandon my friends to their fate"
-and-
"there's only one way to stop this monster and save my friends!"

EDIT:

If your character normally runs around with blinders on, only focusing on his one goal, then it makes sense.

But if your character thinks things through, then he is going to make sure he survives getting to that destination or taking that action.

I agree with this, but I think it's totally unreasonable (as a DM) to dissallow monsters and characters to use their stats. I also think that I've given a good suggestion that would make the paladin withdraw from the fight (perhaps he even encourages his friends to withdraw with him? w/e)

If you can make a red dragon think joining your party is a good idea (while he's already trying to kill you! and certainly doesn't need your help to loot another stash) - I think you can make a paladin run away. (see DMG for where i got example).

 

[Brisk-sg]

I agree with this, but I think it's totally unreasonable (as a DM) to dissallow monsters and characters to use their stats. I also think that I've given a good suggestion that would make the paladin withdraw from the fight (perhaps he even encourages his friends to withdraw with him? w/e)

If you can make a red dragon think joining your party is a good idea (while he's already trying to kill you! and certainly doesn't need your help to loot another stash) - I think you can make a paladin run away. (see DMG for where i got example).

The real problems we have in our campaign with suggestion isn't the suggestion itself, but how our DM wants us to carry out the suggestion. He wants us to put on blinders and carry out the suggestion to the exclusion of everything else.

Also, I think there are some problems with making someone with a high INT actually word something differently then what was actually said... very slipperly slope. Basically you are saying if a suggestion is worded "Leave the city and wait until I come for you", because the mind flayer has a 19 int, that it means something else, that is somehow more profound and well though out. But what does it mean if this is what he said?

My Mystic Thurge in the campaign in question has a 22 INT, so basically if I was to cast suggestion on a Mind Flayer, it failed it save and I got past SR, that I could say ooc "Yum, that brain cavity of that Priest King standing next to you looks mighty good, why don't you take a taste!" and I somehow make that into a reasonable suggestion because I am a genious!?

Point blank, if the action is not reasonable, it doesn't matter how it is worded. It is never reasonable for you to use suggestion to cause a character to attack its allies (even if they are "allies" that are being used as puppets, mean nothing to you, and probally do have good tasting brains).

Also, remember, your spell casting STAT is already factored into the spell, raising (if good) the DC of the spell and making it harder to resist. Giving you another bonus from that high stat is just making it more and more powerful.

Also, what does Intelligence have to do with good word choices. Their are alot of really smart people who cannot express their thoughts vocally very well. That is why CHR determines most speaking based skills. So wouldn't a CHR be just as important for Suggestion as INT?!

 

[Brisk-sg]

Also, if you are to rule that Suggestion is modified by your INT score on how it is actually worded, what happens if a Sorcerer with CHR 18 and INT 6, casts suggestion. Would you then modify anything that is suggested by that character to reflect him being not very bright? Would you create artificial loopholes that are not in the wording?

I very much believe that suggestion is already a difficult spell to handle with out muddling it more with "well, he has int 22 so he can pull it off, it doesn't matter how it is worded". Couldn't the same be said for Wish? From a game standpoint, I can see it making a difficult spell much more difficult, as this bypasses the spells primary controlling factor of "reasonable".

 

[JDowling]

The real problems we have in our campaign with suggestion isn't the suggestion itself, but how our DM wants us to carry out the suggestion...

I agree with you that this is not how the spell is intended to work, unless your character is always blindly charging into stupid situations. A command spell makes you drop everything and do just the one word command, suggestion doesn't seem to.

Also, I think there are some problems with making someone with a high INT actually word something differently then what was actually said...

I don't mean to say "the mind flayer says XXX" that XXX acctually means something. I mean - if you DM can't think up a good way to word it he should say, "the mind flayer casts Suggestion on you, and makes you run away." Then the players need to understand - "okay, maybe the DM isn't being swift on his feet, but mind flayers have high INT, WIS, and CHR, he can probably pull it off".

Likewise as a player if you cast suggestion and can't think of how to word it but you know the desired result - you should be allowed to get away with it if your character has a high stat (I was using INT).

My Mystic Thurge in the campaign in question has a 22 INT, ... and I somehow make that into a reasonable suggestion because I am a genious!?

Yes. Instead of saying specifically what you say, say, "I want the mind flayer to eat his buddies brain".

Let me quote for you the guidelines of the spell: ". . . The Suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking a creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act automatically negate the effect of the spell. . ."

What we learn from this is-
1 - the only things that are automatically unreasonable are to hurt youself, or the like.
2 - The activity doesn't have to be reasonable, it has to be worded in such as way as to *sound* reasonable.

"Your high commander standing next to you has been plotting against you, if I were you I'd eat his brain before he stabs you in the back" - there you go, a reasonable reason the mind flayer would eat his buddies brain.

Point blank, if the action is not reasonable, it doesn't matter how it is worded.

Acctually, reread the spell. you are mistaken, it *totally* matters how it is worded, and not if the action is reasonable or not. Reread the spell.

Also, remember, your spell casting STAT is already factored into the spell, raising (if good) the DC of the spell and making it harder to resist....

so if they fail their save - you win, yay. I only suggested allowing an INT check if someone was uncomfortable just assumeing the creature / monster was smart enough to come up with something.

Also, what does Intelligence have to do with good word choices... So wouldn't a CHR be just as important for Suggestion as INT?!

as the whole idea of a check would be a house rule - sure, why not? However, mind flayers are smart (19 int), wise (17 wis), and charasmatic (17) so you're looking at a +1 / -1 difference between the stats in this case.

Also, if you are to rule that Suggestion is modified by your INT score on how it is actually worded, what happens if a Sorcerer with CHR 18 and INT 6, casts suggestion...

then change it to your primary casting stat. Coming up with a reasonable way to word things could be based off any of the mental stats, that whole idea would be a house rule so the specifics aren't important.

I very much believe that suggestion is already a difficult spell to handle with out muddling it more with...

I don't agree that it's difficult to handle - I think that it's rather easy acctually. go with what's written in the book.

1 - self inflicted harm automatically negates the spell. (EDIT: self inflicted harm that can't be worded nicely - swimming in acid is self inflicted harm, but it works just fine if you say it's water in the suggestion)
2 - the activity only needs to sound reasonable, and not acctually *be* reasonable.

I think the whole issue is two problems (from what I've read)
1 - the DM is being stubborn about how the suggestion is carried out.
2 - the players are trying to warp the spell around to make it weaker.

for the players - read the spell again. no where in the discription does it say "the action must be reasonable" but rather is specifically says that the action only needs to "sound reasonable". Then accept the fact that if you have a low will save that creatures can make your character do things you don't like.

Suggestion can: ". . . For example, you might suggest that a noble knight give her warhorse to the first beggar she meets. . ." under the caveat that if the knight doesn't meet a begger in the duration of the spell that there is no end result. Suggestion *can* make you do unreasonable things, as long as they *sound* reasonable.

Also - the DMs word is final. However, if he's a good DM, then he will be consistant. If your DM insists that Suggestion makes you a mindless zombie - use it on all his BBEG, fair is fair.

for you DM - how to you make it even sound reasonable to drop your defenses and mindlessly walk through a horde of enemies while they cut you down? I don't think you can. Then accept the fact that while suggestion is a powerful tool for manipulating actions - it doesn't do everything, and it doesn't make you a mindless zombie to carry out the task for the duration (like Command does).

for both of you - if you can't think up ways to make suggestions sound reasonable on the fly, and are opposed to turning it into an ability check of some kind, or simply can't come to an agreement about how these spells work. Don't use them.

 

[JDowling]

. . .the spells primary controlling factor of "reasonable".

I'm just going to mention this again, because it seems to be causing you the most trouble.

The spells primary controlling factor is not "reasonable".

The spells primary controlling factor is "sounds reasonable".

big difference - it's all in the wording. Re-read the spell in the PHB.

EDIT: feel free to ignore my previous, longer, post. It seems that this short one addresses the primary hang up much more quickly.

EDIT 2: I just want to make i really clear - I think your DM is ruling the method of carrying out the spells poorly if it's "drop everything and mindlessly do whatever heedless of obvious dangers like being mauled by 30 ogres".

 

[Silverglass]

If there's a tribe of 30 evil ogres between the Paladin and the pool, you shouldn't be able to Suggest to him to take a swim in the first place, whether he has to fight his way through them or not. It's flat unreasonable.

It is reasonable to suggest it. By the description of the spell you would be placing a desire to swim in the pool which persists for the duration. If the paladin could reasonable expect to overcome the 30 ogres by force or guile then he would try his best to deal with the Ogres and go for a swim once it was safe.

In the original post if the Illithid suggested that the paladin Flee from a fight that they were otherwise winning and leave their friends in danger that would be unreasonable, but if they suggested that the Paladin needed to retreat then the Paladin should order an immediate retreat by the party and pull back as fast as is safe to do so, only attacking any monsters that kept attacking them.

Although this may make Suggestion seem weaker than Cause Fear there remains the fact that the suggestion for a reteat would hold sway for the entire spell duration (1 hour/level) or until the party has retreated to a safe distance such as they would normally do if forced to retreat. For my players that generally means a good distance and then a defensible location (usually the last rest point as thats the default location they regroup at if separated).

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't know if anyone else has the same problem in their campaign, but I think suggestion was a bad idea. I hated in 2nd, I hate it in 3rd. Here is a spell that never fails to start an arguement at the table. Example

DM: Ok, the illithid suggests you run away.

Me: I'm a paladin, sworn to justice and good, I wouldn't abandon my friends.

DM: Sorry, you're under the effect of a spell, you leave.

Me: Ok, but I'm not going to leave combat stupidly, I'll withdraw and take any attacks of oppurtunity against my enemies that present themselves.

DM: No, you need to run, like he suggested you do.

Me: That's not a reasonable action then.

How do you guys adjudicate this stupid spell.

In your specific situation, I think the player has a good point, but if he failed the ST he has to follow the suggestion (otherwise what's the point of having a ST if you can just ignore it?).

The Paladin could do what he would do in a situation when he himself realizes it's best to run away, which may mean stop attacking and shout to his friends to pull back and perhaps grab a couple of them away from the fight by force... not necessarily leave everyone there and run away alone.

 

[Hussar]

I think Li Shenrong has it right here. The paly failed his save, so now, he thinks that retreating is the best course of action. It is as if he had come to the decision that retreat was the best idea. So, he retreats. He doesn't stop and thump on people on the way out. He moves at best possible speed away from the fight, towards a safe point. He would likely tell everyone that they should retreat also. The fight is lost, so discretion is the better part of valour. If his friends don't follow him, he will not stop and force them to leave, because that isn't part of the "good idea". The "good idea" is to get out of there as fast as possible. Yes, he would likely move in such a way as to avoid AOO's, since that would make his retreat more difficult. But, he also would not engage anyone in his retreat unless absolutely forced to.