Suggestion : Kill your ally.
- Thread starter Lizard Lips
- Start date
Infiniti2000 said:And making it as strong as or stronger than the latter is equally lame.
Agreed.
Course, even if one made Suggestion as powerful as Dominate Person in compelling power level (i.e. absolute control), Suggestion would:
1) still be one activity that ends when the task is complete,
2) still not have the suggestion change as a move action,
3) still only be one hour per level (instead of one day per level),
4) still not be telepathic, and
5) still not be able to receive sensory input from the target.
Except for the type of creature it affects and the potential save bonus a DM can give, Dominate Person is still a lot more powerful and useful, even if one upped the compelling power of Suggestion to "save or do what I say" (which I am not suggesting).
All in all, if handled basically as written, Suggestion appears to be well balanced level-wise and neutering it does not make sense.
JiffyPopTart
Bree-Yark
wayne62682 said:
How exactly did this ruin the entire game? He created a new character and moved on...it makes no difference if he did this because he was fireballed or thrown in jail.
DS
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
KarinsDad said:As Fireball has significant potential to affect multiple targets, there is a necessity for Suggestion to be better than Fireball in combat for a single target.
Agreed, it should potentially be more effective against a single target than Fireball.
I will vehemently disagree with interpretations that make it roughly as good as Dominate Person. Forcing attacks against allies ranks pretty highly in terms of frightening effects. Dominate Person can be foiled by a 1st level spell, so it is far easier to stop than a Suggestion that would achieve the same ends. Dominate has significant limitations of time and space that do not generally apply to Suggestion as well.
Sejs
First Post
Well, no, to be fair the player was not allowed to bring his character back into the group like he wanted because the PC had just betrayed the party. That's not the spell's fault. Heck, I would be hard pressed to let the traitor PC back in the party once his shenanagans came to light, suggestion or no suggestion.
Dross
Explorer
KarinsDad said:
Agreed, and it could work to the caster's advantage if the victim knows about hot springs.
"A nice relaxing soak in this warm bath like pool will do wonders for you."
Of course one problem I see is that if the pool is known to be deeper that the victim is tall, then he is going to need to take that heavy armour off or get it soaked and rusty.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
I imagine the character is going to want to take his armor off before he goes swimming anyway. Being submerged is not exactly healthy for a suit of fullplate.
Dross said:
moritheil
First Post
Ciaran said:
KD's argument there seems to be that merely because suggestion has use out of combat does not mean that nerfing its in-combat use is okay. Fireball could theoretically be used to breach a wall, clear away undergrowth, or something of that nature outside of combat, yet this is not grounds for reducing its damage in combat.
Imagicka
Explorer
Greetings…
So, we have a situation where your enemy combatant, namely a spellcaster, has suggested that your comrades are doppelgangers who are planning on betraying the victim of the spell.
Now, I agree that suggesting that your comrades are traitorous doppelgangers, and that the character should kill them first is TWO suggestions. Not just a ‘justification’ and a ‘suggestion’. First it suggests to you to change your perception, and accept that your comrades are evil doppelgangers. Then there is the suggestion of action that you should attack them.
Well, just like others stated, the spell doesn’t make you stupid. You know that it’s going to be ‘harmful’ if you attack your ‘evil’ friends.
However, saying something leading such as, “I am not your enemy, they are!” or ”You’re friends are really evil doppelgangers!” is rather open ended. Leaving the course of action to the player as to what they should do knowing that their comrades are now their enemy.
With the suggestion “It’s a pool of refreshing water, go for a swim!” Again, I would argue it is two suggestions, unless the target is uncertain as to the contents of the pool, or somehow led to believe that it’s water. This would be pretty hard to do unless the target has a problem with their sense of smell.
Of course anyone is going to argue that anything that someone suggests is going to be unreasonable, if it’s going to negatively affect the character.
Evil Mage casts Suggestion, “Now is a good time to flee!” shouts at Wayne.
Wayne, “Oh, I can’t flee, that would be unreasonable of me to do that! To leave my friends and comrades behind! That’s just crazy!”
It’s a mind affecting spell. The purpose of the spell is to influence the actions of the target by suggesting a course of activity. But with the RAW here, if you don’t suggest a course of action, then the spell’s requirements aren’t met, and your spellcaster just wasted a spell.
If it’s a feasible and plausible suggestion, then there can be no argument about the situation. Now, of course trying to convince someone to do some harmful act by telling them it’s not harmful… “Oh, you can make that jump.” – Well, that becomes a tricky situation. If I were so inclinded as to rule that the spell changes the perceptions of the victim, personally, I would suggest an INT check against some difficulty, so that the character has a chance to notice the momentary lapse of reason.
But, what if your character is being told something like: “You can fly! – Jump, you can make it!” The RAW doesn’t say anything about changing the perceptions of the target. After all, the activity isn’t reasonable. What evidence does the victim have that they can fly? Or that they can make the jump? None. The spell doesn’t say that it alters the perception of the target so that they imagine that a pool of acid is water. Or that the space between two towers is a reasonable distance to be able to jump across. Or that you perceive your friends as doppelgangers.
I would have to say, without evidence to help support the spellcaster, such as an illusion or something else, the spell isn’t mind-altering enough to make the person perceive things that just aren’t there to begin with. Or I would give the target a circumstance bonus to save. Also, the spell description says that the spell is ineffective if they are requested to do something harmful. Harmful, for whom? The target themselves? Their intended victims? To a complete stranger? Again, another hole for the rule-lawyers to ride their donkeys through.
Who is the arbitrator of what is feasible and plausible? The distinction between "mostly" and "very" and "somewhat" reasonable is of course up to the GM. Certainly not the players. Because of course the players are biased towards themselves. Hopefully, the GM/DM is not biased. But then, if the GM starts throwing NPCs at the players telling them to “count the grains of sand on this beach” or “it’s a reasonable distance to jump across, go ahead… jump!”, then I’m going to start using the spell with just as much effect and power that the DM attributes to it.
Machiavelli, but you assessment is incorrect. The intent of the spell cannot be harmful. The spell, RAW, states that the spell will fail if the action is obviously harmful. An obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell... It’s a slippery slope to start comparing spells of the same level against one another, and asking yourself ‘is this as powerful as blah?’… especially with this wacky Vancian/D&D system.
However, if they do give the example that you can preface the action with a plausible rational, this implies that it does change the perceptions of the intended victim. So, with careful wording, the sky’s the limit! ”The sky is falling, flee for your lives!”
Fieari casts Suggestion, “We have just cast a spell on you and your friends that would shunt you elsewhere and replace you with a doppleganger, but you and only you have succeeded in resisting this spell. The spell will return your friends as soon as you kill the dopplegangers, so kill them.”
Imagicka resists, “Your sentence is run-on. I reject it outright because of the bad grammar!”
So, we have a situation where your enemy combatant, namely a spellcaster, has suggested that your comrades are doppelgangers who are planning on betraying the victim of the spell.
Now, I agree that suggesting that your comrades are traitorous doppelgangers, and that the character should kill them first is TWO suggestions. Not just a ‘justification’ and a ‘suggestion’. First it suggests to you to change your perception, and accept that your comrades are evil doppelgangers. Then there is the suggestion of action that you should attack them.
Well, just like others stated, the spell doesn’t make you stupid. You know that it’s going to be ‘harmful’ if you attack your ‘evil’ friends.
However, saying something leading such as, “I am not your enemy, they are!” or ”You’re friends are really evil doppelgangers!” is rather open ended. Leaving the course of action to the player as to what they should do knowing that their comrades are now their enemy.
With the suggestion “It’s a pool of refreshing water, go for a swim!” Again, I would argue it is two suggestions, unless the target is uncertain as to the contents of the pool, or somehow led to believe that it’s water. This would be pretty hard to do unless the target has a problem with their sense of smell.
Of course anyone is going to argue that anything that someone suggests is going to be unreasonable, if it’s going to negatively affect the character.
Evil Mage casts Suggestion, “Now is a good time to flee!” shouts at Wayne.
Wayne, “Oh, I can’t flee, that would be unreasonable of me to do that! To leave my friends and comrades behind! That’s just crazy!”
It’s a mind affecting spell. The purpose of the spell is to influence the actions of the target by suggesting a course of activity. But with the RAW here, if you don’t suggest a course of action, then the spell’s requirements aren’t met, and your spellcaster just wasted a spell.
If it’s a feasible and plausible suggestion, then there can be no argument about the situation. Now, of course trying to convince someone to do some harmful act by telling them it’s not harmful… “Oh, you can make that jump.” – Well, that becomes a tricky situation. If I were so inclinded as to rule that the spell changes the perceptions of the victim, personally, I would suggest an INT check against some difficulty, so that the character has a chance to notice the momentary lapse of reason.
But, what if your character is being told something like: “You can fly! – Jump, you can make it!” The RAW doesn’t say anything about changing the perceptions of the target. After all, the activity isn’t reasonable. What evidence does the victim have that they can fly? Or that they can make the jump? None. The spell doesn’t say that it alters the perception of the target so that they imagine that a pool of acid is water. Or that the space between two towers is a reasonable distance to be able to jump across. Or that you perceive your friends as doppelgangers.
I would have to say, without evidence to help support the spellcaster, such as an illusion or something else, the spell isn’t mind-altering enough to make the person perceive things that just aren’t there to begin with. Or I would give the target a circumstance bonus to save. Also, the spell description says that the spell is ineffective if they are requested to do something harmful. Harmful, for whom? The target themselves? Their intended victims? To a complete stranger? Again, another hole for the rule-lawyers to ride their donkeys through.
Who is the arbitrator of what is feasible and plausible? The distinction between "mostly" and "very" and "somewhat" reasonable is of course up to the GM. Certainly not the players. Because of course the players are biased towards themselves. Hopefully, the GM/DM is not biased. But then, if the GM starts throwing NPCs at the players telling them to “count the grains of sand on this beach” or “it’s a reasonable distance to jump across, go ahead… jump!”, then I’m going to start using the spell with just as much effect and power that the DM attributes to it.
Machiavelli, but you assessment is incorrect. The intent of the spell cannot be harmful. The spell, RAW, states that the spell will fail if the action is obviously harmful. An obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell... It’s a slippery slope to start comparing spells of the same level against one another, and asking yourself ‘is this as powerful as blah?’… especially with this wacky Vancian/D&D system.
However, if they do give the example that you can preface the action with a plausible rational, this implies that it does change the perceptions of the intended victim. So, with careful wording, the sky’s the limit! ”The sky is falling, flee for your lives!”
Fieari casts Suggestion, “We have just cast a spell on you and your friends that would shunt you elsewhere and replace you with a doppleganger, but you and only you have succeeded in resisting this spell. The spell will return your friends as soon as you kill the dopplegangers, so kill them.”
Imagicka resists, “Your sentence is run-on. I reject it outright because of the bad grammar!”
