Suggestion : Kill your ally.

[Elder-Basilisk]

Do you believe these Suggestions are the same rulewise?

No.

(1) Suggest the target jump into the "refreshing pool of water" when the target has absolutely no idea whatsoever what the pool contains.

Absolutely no idea? As long as it looks like water, I'd say this could work. If it doesn't look like refreshing water, the target gets a bonus to the save or the spell automatically fails.

(2) Suggest the target jump into a "refreshing pool of water" when he just saw someone die a horrible and graphic death by corrosive effect in the same pool 6 seconds ago.

The suggestion automatically fails.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Had a bad experience with this spell, did we? Poor DM.

Let's count some of the things I've seen people try to use the spell for (as a player and a DM, it's pretty much equally frustrating--even when it's fellow players abusing the spell):

"Close your eyes and do nothing"

"Go to sleep"

"Run for your life"

"Do nothing except what I tell you to do"

"Give me the ring"

"Apologize immediately to the priest before he tosses you into a re-education camp"

It's about 30% allowable, but some of the non-allowable ones are so egregious (do nothing except what I tell you to do, for instance) that they would make the spell into a superior version of dominate monster.

In any event, I think there are two keys to the spell. The first is the reasonableness of the suggestion.

The second is that asking the creature to do obviously harmful acts negates the spell.

The third is that the spell ends when the subject finishes what it was asked to do.

The examples in the PHB must be interpreted in light of these stipulations. (And this is fairly easy to do by assuming that
1. the pool of acid looks like a pool of water and that the victim does not have evidence that it is actually acid. (Since this example has been around since 1e and old school dungeons frequently had fountains that could contain water, acid, unholy water, potions, etc with know way of knowing what they were short of experimentation with the trusty 10' pole, this does not seem like an unreasonable assumption).

2. The warrior who is being asked to hold the dragon back for a couple of rounds is actually a skilled and capable warrior who might just be able to delay the dragon for a couple of rounds and maybe even live to tell the tale. This is of more of a Rary said to Robilar example than Emrikol the Chaotic said to the random commoner.

3. The knight in question holds some of the ideals of Christian humility and generousity that prompted some of the saints and Knights of medieval European legend to give their horse or cloak away to a peasant in need. Since those are part and parcel of the concept of knighthood (understood in the narrow historical sense) this also seems reasonable.

If you're not prepared to subjegate the examples to the description in this or a similar manner, you end up with an enchantment spell that can override normal perception more reliably than any illusion, and can make giving anything to anyone inherently reasonable and make anything short of slitting one's wrists seem non-self-destructive. That's not a 3rd level spell; it's wish with a will save.

 

[Fieari]

"Close your eyes and do nothing"

Not reasonable in combat, and there's no rational given for why anyone would want to do this. Doesn't work. I can't think of any rational that would make someone do this in the middle of combat. This would fall under "unreasonable" pretty easily I think.

"Go to sleep"

Suggestion isn't a sleep spell. Even if going to sleep were reasonable, I know I can't fall asleep on command, and certainly not when my adreneline is pumping for whatever reason. Not reasonable.

"Run for your life"

This could work, if their life is in doubt. I'd be a lot more comfortable letting this work if it was prefaced by a successful Intimidate check.

"Do nothing except what I tell you to do"

Suggestion isn't dominate. This would work with Dominate, not with Suggestion. "I'm actually your mother and you should listen to me" is the closest I can come up with, but even that isn't going to work in most cases. I mean, yeah, you might get them to think you are their mother, but that doesn't mean automatic obediance...

"Give me the ring"

Not worded like that. This isn't dominate, remember? "The ring must be kept safe from those who would want to steal it. I can keep it safe, so give it to me." This wouldn't work if we were obvious enemies though. It would work in a setting of court intrigue, I think.

"Apologize immediately to the priest before he tosses you into a re-education camp"

This one is pretty close to workable out of the gate, I think.

 

[KarinsDad]

If you're not prepared to subjegate the examples to the description in this or a similar manner, you end up with an enchantment spell that can override normal perception more reliably than any illusion, and can make giving anything to anyone inherently reasonable and make anything short of slitting one's wrists seem non-self-destructive. That's not a 3rd level spell; it's wish with a will save.

I do not totally agree. Suggestion still should have some teeth to it.

Charm Person 1st level, 1 hour per level - could get many actions as if target were a friend.

Suggestion 3rd level, max 1 hour per level - one set of related activities, but compelling.

Dominate Person 5th level, 1 day per level - many many actions, but absolutely compelling and long duration.

Compared to Charm Person and Dominate Person, it looks like Suggestion is at the appropriate level.

The thing to do is not give it the Carte Blanche of Dominate Person, but to give it more umph than Charm Person.

One way to do this is to understand that Suggestion is a Compulsion spell. The word "Suggestion" is pretty lame as a name. The name Compulsion is more apt than Suggestion. As such, consider the caster to be more of a friend than with Charm Person. If your best buddy suggested that you do this action and the action is reasonable for the current situation, then you should do it. This to me is the litmus test of Suggestion. A third level spell should be more potent than a first level spell.

And, Suggestion is really not much different than any other mind affecting spell: Scare, Command, Cause Fear, Color Spray, Fear, etc. Mind Affecting means Mind Affecting. It does not mean "Hmmm, let me rationally think about this for a moment".


If the NPC does know it is a pool of acid, he will not do an obviously harmful action like jump in. So by definition of the spell, that example must mean that the NPC does not know it is a pool of acid. On the other hand, he also will not deduce that it is acid either unless he has significant evidence (i.e. "obviously harmful"). He is mind affected and compelled.

If the action sounds reasonable when the spell is cast and he misses his save, he's mind affected.

 

[Sejs]

"Close your eyes and do nothing"

In combat - no way in hell. Tantamount to falling on your sword. Out of combat, I'd say have 'em close their eyes and mentally hum the Jeopardy theme, then open 'em again after a bit. Not standing there for the full hour/lvl like a doorknob.

"Go to sleep"

Again, in combat, nothing doing. Out of combat, more reasonable, but not in the sense of the person just instantly keeling over and counting sheep. They'd start to do whatever would be normal for them if they were really tired. If they're a sentry, that means going and getting a replacement before hitting the baracks.

"Run for your life"

Could be reasonable, particularly if their life looked threatened. On the losing side of the fight and whatnot. Of course that doesn't stop them from alerting allies once they've fled...

"Do nothing except what I tell you to do"

Not a snowball's chance in hell. This one's basically the same thing as wishing for more wishes. At its VERY outside, the subject will follow the next single order given, then the terms of the spell have been satisfied. But frankly even trying to whip that one out should warrant a dose of the stink-eye from the DM and the player being told to not be a dick and come up with a real suggestion.

"Give me the ring"

Only if you sing the rest of This Corrosion. Otherwise no deal.

"Apologize immediately to the priest before he tosses you into a re-education camp"

Sounds like a reasonable request. Can't see why that one wouldn't fly.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The knowledge that the target has of reality must be a factor, or, as E-B says, it becomes the equivalent of a perfect illusion spell with a single save.

If I as a player had a very good reason to actually believe all the fellow party members were replaced by dopplegangers while I was in the middle of combat, the following would occur to me in no particular order:

(1) "The betrayal is inevitable, but they clearly are not attacking me at this exact moment. They are killing these monsters -- that is obvious. Be careful here. I should get a little distance."

(2) "These monsters in front of me are definitely dangerous."

(3) "I may think that all of them are replaced, but maybe I am mistaken by one or two of them? Acting too precipitously may not only cause me to kill a friend, but may get me fingered as a doppleganger by the real dopplegangers."

(4) "Fleeing and getting help may be the best choice. I am completely outnumbered in a dangerous environment."

At least in terms of combat effects, I personally believe that you will get outrageous results if you do not allow the target to be roleplay in some sane manner based on what they already know, what common sense tells them, and the "newfound information" bequeathed by the spell.

 

[Machiavelli]

Games should be dynamic, not scripted. The game revolves around the decisions and actions of both the PCs and the NPCs. Both the players and the DM. All of these people are at the table. And sometimes, the most interesting sessions occur when events surprise the DM.

And sometimes the PCs should just get an easy win, regardless of how many crafted plotlines the DM wants the PCs to experience.

There is a difference between power and abuse of power. Let the dice decide. That's why saving throws are in the game.

"Railroading" players isn't a universal abuse of power. It can be a crutch for a bad DM to patch up botched campaign planning, yes, but it can be useful for much, much more. The DM spends about a billion more hours planning a campaign than each player spends statting a character and writing a back story. Now, what happens when the dice go sour and a player fails at something critical, meeting a stupid, random end to their adventure? The game comes to a screeching halt until a new character is rolled, and the campaign needs to include a whole new set of events to include the new character. To avoid that sort of delay and frustration in encounters and events that are not MEANT to be lethal, the DM may allow a reroll of the offending dice.
So why not "re-roll" when a week's worth of the DM's story writing, NPC formulation, and thematic description writing get utterly ruined by an odd interpretation of an obscure spell, or some other quirk? There is no reason not to. This isn't a competition to see who can f*** with the DM, nor a battle to crush the souls of your players (who are likely your friends IRL!). This is a fantasy game. Bending and breaking rules is part of making it run smoothly, and the DM is the one charged with the challenging task of defining what "smoothly" means.

 

[wayne62682]

At least in terms of combat effects, I personally believe that you will get outrageous results if you do not allow the target to be roleplay in some sane manner based on what they already know, what common sense tells them, and the "newfound information" bequeathed by the spell.

But that's just the issue of debate, I thought? The spell by virtue of being a Compulsion effect changes what common sense would say. I find it totally unreasonable to submit to an effect when I've been around my companions for the past few weeks (assuming your group stays together.. in mine someone is always wandering off so this example would fail utterly) so I know there's no logical way they would be replaced by dopplegangers.

Suggestion ruined a game I played in once, although it was a logical course of action it was still UNFAIR. A PC had betrayed the party by stealing an item we had, intending to use it for the greater good, and then he thought better of his actions and came to aid us. We were fighting a low-level Mind Flayer who used Suggestion on my PC telling me that he [the MF] wasn't my enemy but the returning PC was. DM imposed a stiff penalty because the PC had just betrayed the party and basically forced me to try and go after him (I worked around it by not attacking him but demanding that he surrender so I could bring him to justice); that player was not allowed to bring his character back into the group like he wanted and was forced to create a new one because of this spell.

The issue here is that the RotG article SUPPORTS a command like "kill your ally" because of this statement (emphasis mine): something that the subject might decide to do on his own if the circumstances were appropriate or if the subject shared the caster's point of view..

Assuming the caster wishes harm on the party, sharing the caster's point of view then equals wishing harm on the party.

 

[KarinsDad]

"Railroading" players isn't a universal abuse of power. It can be a crutch for a bad DM to patch up botched campaign planning, yes, but it can be useful for much, much more. The DM spends about a billion more hours planning a campaign than each player spends statting a character and writing a back story.

Irrelevant.

Now, what happens when the dice go sour and a player fails at something critical, meeting a stupid, random end to their adventure?

Then the PC dies. Oh well. The risk of adventuring should always be a factor.

If the DM removes the risk, the game changes from a challenge that the players and DM create together into a story being mostly told by the DM.

The game comes to a screeching halt until a new character is rolled, and the campaign needs to include a whole new set of events to include the new character. To avoid that sort of delay and frustration in encounters and events that are not MEANT to be lethal, the DM may allow a reroll of the offending dice.

Delay?

It's not a delay. It's a different sequence of events.

The game should never ever be forced down a path by the DM. He is not the only one at the table playing the game to have fun. Typically, there are 3+ more other people there. If the PCs die, oh well. If the reoccurring NPC villain dies, oh well.

It's a game!

Games are meant to be fun for everyone, not just the DM.

So why not "re-roll" when a week's worth of the DM's story writing, NPC formulation, and thematic description writing get utterly ruined by an odd interpretation of an obscure spell, or some other quirk? There is no reason not to.

Again with the storytelling.

This is not a story. The DM does not tell a story. That is not his job. His job is to create the environment and let events occur as they will.

He does heavily influence the type of adventures that will occur, but it is not his job to script those adventures to the point that the PCs must play out his entire adventure.

Sure, some DMs do attempt to do this with player alignment / background elements. And that's fine. But, the DM should never use "mystical intervention" to prevent a PC death or to change the rules or other heavy handed tactics, just to keep his "storyline running smoothly". That's a crutch.

This isn't a competition to see who can f*** with the DM, nor a battle to crush the souls of your players (who are likely your friends IRL!). This is a fantasy game. Bending and breaking rules is part of making it run smoothly, and the DM is the one charged with the challenging task of defining what "smoothly" means.

Bending and breaking the rules is the sign of an incompetent DM (note: there is a difference between breaking rules and creating house rules that will be consistently used throughout the campaign).

There is never a need to break rules.

On the other hand, if the players feel like they are being railroaded (and it tends to become pretty obvious pretty quick), the game just might "come to a screeching halt" anyway.

I know as a player, I absolutely hate being purposely led around by the DM and since I do know the rules fairly well, breaking and bending the rules (and even just fudging dice rolls) can sometimes be fairly obvious.

I'll give an example. Say you are DMing a murder mystery in a town. As the players go from location to location following clues, a good DM has multiple clues (and even misleading clues) at each location. The players then get to decide which clues to follow up on in which order (the players also get to decide whether to follow the clues at all, or to stop part way through the adventure if that is what they want to do). A bad DM typically has one clue at each location and the players are forced to go from point A to point B to point C in that order.

At any point in the adventure, something bad might happen and a PC dies. Oh well. It's perfectly ok for the rest of the PCs to bury their friend and move on. They should never be forced to continue the adventure. If they decide to do so, fine. Nor should the "gods of fate" (i.e. DM) intervene to keep the PC alive. It's annoying when the "DM cheats" (and yes I know what the DMG states) or when the NPC calvary comes to the rescue.

 

[wayne62682]

This is not a story.

Says you. I personally think the POINT of D&D is to tell a story, and I ENJOY following the plot to see how things turn out. Hell, that's the reason why I play the game. If the "plot" is that we need to travel to Exotic Location, fight Evil Guy and retrieve the Artifact of Awesomeness and there is no other way to get to Exotic Location besides hiring Cranky Old Wizard to get us there, you may call it railroading, but to me that's a story and it's what I enjoy.

I think the problem is that players expect everything to cater to them and won't give anything back. They ignore the obvious plot hooks, deliberately go off in unforseen directions and expect the world to revolve around them and what they want with no consideration for how things are SUPPOSED to be. I chalk that up as being the player's fault, not the DM's. The DM's job is to be a storyteller and weave the story, it's up to the players to fill in the gaps and add depth to it.

However, this is getting rather off-topic so I will refrain from further comments on this subject; anyone wishing to continue it is encouraged to make a seperate topic that I would be glad to participate in.