Suggestion : Kill your ally.

[Elder-Basilisk]

NO. No. And once more no.

Suggestion is a spell that any DM needs to keep a tight rein on otherwise it ends up being a 3rd level wish spell.

Thanee's suggestion (“Look, you are losing, anyways. Help us kill them and you can walk away free and unharmed.”) might work, provided that the subject of the spell had reason to believe that the PCs would allow him to walk away free and unharmed if he changed sides. If the PC is the dread pirate Roberts who never takes prisoners (or so the story goes) and leaves no survivors, then it's not going to work. Ditto if the PCs have slaughtered surrendering enemies before or in sight of the NPC. On the other hand, if allowing turncoats to leave free and unharmed is a part of the PCs' reputation (or their culture's reputation in the case of PCs without significant or known personal reputations) then it's a reasonable suggestion--as long as the NPC's side actually appears to be losing. (If they have suffered no casualties and have dropped two PCs, again, it's not reasonable).

 

[Nail]

NO. No. And once more no.

Suggestion is a spell that any DM needs to keep a tight rein on otherwise it ends up being a 3rd level wish spell

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

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'm of the opinion that suggesting that all your current friends are dopplegangers and your enemy is not is unreasonable. The spell does not make your enemy (i.e. the caster) your friend unless that is the suggestion. Remember, he gets only one suggestion, not two. So, wayne62682 and Elder-Basilisk do have valid points but they revolve around what is reasonable.

 

[wayne62682]

I'm of the opinion that suggesting that all your current friends are dopplegangers and your enemy is not is unreasonable. The spell does not make your enemy (i.e. the caster) your friend unless that is the suggestion. Remember, he gets only one suggestion, not two. So, wayne62682 and Elder-Basilisk do have valid points but they revolve around what is reasonable.

Exactly. Telling me that someone I've known for a while and have trusted before is a doppleganger and/or planning to betray me IS unreasonable. The fact that the spell forces you to do something is my main beef with it.. every time it has been used IME it's been a death sentence for somebody (either the victim or the other PCs) because you're forced to do it; it denies the player the free will they ought to have with their character.

And I stand by what I said... saying "Your companions plan to murder you, kill them first" is unreasonable AND dangerous (three against one is fair odds? Maybe if your character was a braggart who felt he could take an army on by himself). Saying "I am not your enemy, they are!" while pointing to the other PCs would result in me confronting my "backstabbing" companions while telling the bad guy to leave, thus fulfilling the suggestion in a reasonable manner without acting like I've been dominated (and FWIW I am against Charm and Dominate spells as well).

I guess the big issue I have is that this spell's duration remained un-nerfed while other spells that could be more useful had the durations cut; An hour a level or until completed is ridiculously powerful because while under the compulsion either you go off on your own for several hours (thus you're pretty much out of the adventure) or fight your companions (in which case either you get killed and thus are out of the adventure or kill someone else putting THEM out of the adventure), or something else that will no doubt leave somebody twiddling their thumbs and/or making a new PC (even if temporary). I mean, come on; WotC nerfed Invisibility and Fly, making them all but useless outside of combat but kept this rules lawyer spell with a long duration?? Utter rubbish.

 

[Infiniti2000]

...and FWIW I am against Charm and Dominate spells as well).

They may not be as bad as you might originally think. Charm does not alter any relationship except with the caster. So, your friends are still your friends and your (other) enemies are still your enemies. Dominate does force you to take actions, but using dominate is nontrivial. It takes a standard action to cast (if not quickened), then a move action to force you to take an action. One point about dominate that is often missed: "...any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus." So, to get you to attack an ally, you have to fail two saves, one with a +2 bonus. Then, every time you take that action, you get another save and could shake off the domination. Thus, forcing you to attack your ally will cause a lot of saves to be rolled, hopefully quickly resulting in success.

If you rule this way, which is not only the way I think it should be ruled but is proper according to the RAW, do you think dominate/charm is still so powerful?

 

[Iku Rex]

Exactly. Telling me that someone I've known for a while and have trusted before is a doppleganger and/or planning to betray me IS unreasonable.

While telling you to jump into a pool of acid isn't?!

You and others are misinterpreting what the spell means by "reasonable". The compulsion spell alters your mind so that you believe your friends have been replaced by doppelgangers. This does not have to be "reasonable", as the acid pool example proves. Then it suggests that you defend yourself from the doppelgangers, which has to seem reasonable. (Just as going for a refreshing swim in a pool of pure water is usually reasonable.)

 

[wayne62682]

If you rule this way, which is not only the way I think it should be ruled but is proper according to the RAW, do you think dominate/charm is still so powerful?

No I do not, and thank you for pointing that out. I've never used either spell but I was aware of what they can do (only the basics of it, it would seem).

While telling you to jump into a pool of acid isn't?!

If the acid looks like a pool of water and I have no reason to believe it's acid, then yes it is reasonable (as much as I as a player would want to strangle the DM and not do it, cries of metagaming be damned). If its bright green and bubbling and we're in a cave that has several such pools laying around, then its not reasonable (because Suggestion doesn't make you STUPID. Saying "That pool over there looks refreshing, dive in" when I've seen similar pools and know it to be acid is an unreasonable suggestion.).

You and others are misinterpreting what the spell means by "reasonable". The compulsion spell alters your mind so that you believe your friends have been replaced by doppelgangers.

Fair enough, although I maintain you have to reasonably suspect that they've been replaced. If I've been within close range to them for several weeks, I would say this is borderline unreasonable because it doesn't make any sense that they would be replaced by dopplegangers when I was right next to them. And if the counter is that it could have happened before we met, it wouldn't be unreasonable but also wouldn't prompt me to take action against them since if they're dopplegangers, they haven't done anything to me so why would I care in the first place?

This does not have to be "reasonable", as the acid pool example proves. Then it suggests that you defend yourself from the doppelgangers, which has to seem reasonable. (Just as going for a refreshing swim in a pool of pure water is usually reasonable.)

Which still means that the spell ruins somebody's fun because of it forcing you with no way to shake the effects off. THAT is my main gripe with it, not the mechanics or semantics of how it operates. The spell gives you ONE saving throw, and if you fail it you're screwed completely because either you're going to suicide (jump into acid), or leave ("They plan to betray you") or get killed/kill the party ("They're really dopplegangers, kill them all") or any other number of game-wrecking consequences. At least as Infiniti2000 pointed out, Dominate allows you additional saves. Suggestion offers no such thing and IMO is far overpowered due to BEING a compulsion spell and thus changing the creature's nature (whereas Dominate cannot force you to go against your nature without offering additional saves) in the first place.

I admit I am bitter, but I've seen campaigns come to a grinding halt and players be forced to retire characters prematurely because of this spell.

 

[Sejs]

You know, the more I think about it the more issue I've got with the "they're all dopplegangers, kill them!" suggestion, aside from the issue of it being two suggestions, is that it stands with one foot in reasonable and one foot in un-.

First off, that assumes I know anything about dopplegangers. Unless I've got ranks in Knowledge (Nature), I don't - I can't make the DC 14 check. I'm stuck at the DC 10 common knowledge level which basically equates to heresay and rumor. Setting that aside, however.

"Your friends have all been replaced with dopplegangers!" Reasonable. Dopplegangers mimic the appearance of other people, so by god that could well have happened - thank you for warning me, stranger!

"Kill them!" Unreasonable. Let's see here... they havn't attacked me, if I kill them chances are I won't find out what happened to my actual friends, and you and yours are acting all hostile. Oh, and they're a 'they', whereas I'm a 'me'. No, ya know, I don't think I'll be following your advice there. Sorry.

 

[Nail]

I admit I am bitter, but I've seen campaigns come to a grinding halt and players be forced to retire characters prematurely because of this spell.

I'm sorry to hear that. Anytime a game goes wrong --> that's a Bad Thing(tm).

That said, such a thing has little to do with the current rules argument: "How reasonable does the suggestion have to be?" The suggestion spell is a compulsion, and compulsions can make you do Bad Things(tm). Sorry, but them's the rules.....and really, all of Fantasy Literature and Movies are filled with examples.

You influence the actions of the target creature by suggesting a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two). The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell.

The RAW indicates you have to indicate a course of action. Saying "Your friends are dopplegangers" is NOT a course of action -- it's justification for the action you follow up with: "....., so you should kill them before they replace you." Saying that the entire statement is actually 2 suggestions is incorrect. It's 1 suggestion.

The RAW also indicates that very reasonable requests impose a penalty to the target's save. The RAW does NOT say that any bonuses to the subject's save can be given; an unreasonable suggestion is simply negated. That implies that suggestions have quite a range of latitude, as there's no distinction between "mostly" and "very" and "somewhat" reasonable.

So long as the suggestion is even remotely reasonable, the expelled subject must comply.

The PH goes on to list a few things that are unreasonable. Can you see the similarities?

• Asking the creature to stab itself,
• throw itself onto a spear,
• immolate itself, or
• do some other obviously harmful act ....

There's a pretty clear trend there. Suggesting that the subject kill it's doppleganger former friends doesn't fit into the "obviously harmful act" category.




That said: The suggestion doesn't say how the subject must kill it's doppleganger former friends. Perhaps killing them in their sleep is best.....

 

[Infiniti2000]

The RAW indicates you have to indicate a course of action. Saying "Your friends are dopplegangers" is NOT a course of action -- it's justification for the action you follow up with: "....., so you should kill them before they replace you." Saying that the entire statement is actually 2 suggestions is incorrect. It's 1 suggestion.

It's two suggestions because otherwise the first clause is knowingly false. "My friends are doppelgangers? The hell you say, fiend!" The action clause then becomes entirely unreasonable.

Are there any examples in the PH that allow multiple clauses as part of the suggestion? I've always ruled that it should be worded as "I suggest you ..." without any prefacing. The prefacing part that you and others allow is unsupported by the spell description IMO.

Note, however, that it is still possible to include such lies in the suggestion, but the lies might be detected thus rendering the suggestion unreasonable. For example, "I suggest you kill that lying doppelganger half-orc with the two-handed greataxe." This is a valid suggestion IMO, but it's very possible to fail as the doppelganger accusation is not guaranteed success like you assume it to be.