The Suggestion spell

[Pielorinho]

I'll answer with a question...can you use any skill to increase the DC of any other spell? Can you bluff someone into not dodging a fireball as well?

No; nor does the text suggest that if the fireball is targeted in an especially obvious manner, the victims receive a bonus on their saves . Suggestion has some fuzziness built into it with the "reasonable" aspect of the spell.

If the answer is no, then I'd also say no. Otherwise, you need to consider raising the level of suggestion. On the other hand, using a bluff check would be (at least) a standard action of its own, so to combine it would suggestion would require two rounds or a quickened suggestion*.

Given that the action type is "varies" and that this particular usage isn't covered specifically, I think you're incorrect on saying that it'd be a standard action: instead, it'd be part of the free action of speaking during combat (assuming it was attempted in combat). There's a strong case that Diplomacy would need to be at least a full-round action, however.

Daniel

 

[Arravis]

I had a similar situation come up recently... our group were inmates in a prison, and a caster used Suggestion on one of the party members that was being seperated from the group. The caster cast Suggestions and commanded her to follow the orders of the jailer, with a "Do whatever he tells you to do", and pointing at the jailer. It seemed to be legal, and since he was a figure of authority within the prison, it would seem reasonable. Any ideas on this? It seemed extremely powerful as command after command was issued.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Given that the action type is "varies" and that this particular usage isn't covered specifically, I think you're incorrect on saying that it'd be a standard action: instead, it'd be part of the free action of speaking during combat (assuming it was attempted in combat). There's a strong case that Diplomacy would need to be at least a full-round action, however.

Well, the only free action bluff listed is the one to deliver a secret message. The others are either full round actions or standard actions: "A Bluff check made as part of general interaction always takes at least 1 round (and is at least a full-round action), but it can take much longer if you try something elaborate. A Bluff check made to feint in combat or create a diversion to hide is a standard action." I was initially being generous by allowing it as a standard action, but now I think it should be a full round action.

As far as the suggestion to follow additional commands, I consider it really stretching. Like HeavyG said, it's like wishing for more wishes. Basically, you could say "follow all my additional commands" and then the last one would be to "follow all my comrades commands" and so on, passing the victim around like a slave. That really isn't right and IMO violates the wording in the spell description which refers to "an" activity, implying a singular action, not multiple actions. It's also a specific action, not a generic action to be defined later. Otherwise, you could conceal an unreasonable action in a seemingly reasonable one.

 

[Pielorinho]

Well, the only free action bluff listed is the one to deliver a secret message. The others are either full round actions or standard actions: "A Bluff check made as part of general interaction always takes at least 1 round (and is at least a full-round action), but it can take much longer if you try something elaborate. A Bluff check made to feint in combat or create a diversion to hide is a standard action." I was initially being generous by allowing it as a standard action, but now I think it should be a full round action.

Again, speaking in combat is a free action. If I say something untrue in combat as a free action (not spending a full round to try to convince them), do they automatically see through the lie? If not, how do you figure out whether they're fooled?

It seems bizarre to rule that other characters automatically know the truth of a statement uttered as a free action during combat. I think this is a type of bluff not covered by the rules, but there's only one sensible way to adjudicate it, IMO: use the bluff-vs-sense-motive rules.

Daniel

 

[Infiniti2000]

It has nothing to do with it being untrue or not. "We have you outnumbered" may in fact be true. Additionally, IMO that's closer to an intimidate than a bluff. And, intimidating in combat is specifically listed as a standard action. So, for what you are suggesting (no pun intended) to work, it can't be an intimidate and you are allowing a full bluff in combat to be a free action in order to boost the DC of a spell. Would it work for charm person, charm monster, dominate, or other mind-affecting spells, like phantasmal killer? "What you see is real!"

I just don't like it. I could, however, see an alternative that if the bluff fails then the target either automatically saves vs. the suggestion (or whatever spell) or at least gets a big bonus.

 

[Pielorinho]

It has nothing to do with it being untrue or not. "We have you outnumbered" may in fact be true. Additionally, IMO that's closer to an intimidate than a bluff.

That was my example for diplomacy. My example for bluff was (paraphrased), "Your boss said it's an emergency, and that you should give us the password--I suggest you give us the password!" I'm unclear why saying these words would be a free action, unless you were hoping the target would believe the lie in the beginning of the statement.

Daniel

 

[Infiniti2000]

I agree that speaking in general is a free action, and including a phrase at the beginning of a suggestion is fine, too (no extra action), but rules-wise and IMO balance-wise, it is not a free action. For lack of a better explanation, it should take more than a free action to add +2 (or whatever) bonus to your DC. In other words, it should take at least a standard action's worth of talking (specifically called interaction in the bluff skill) to increase the DC.

Your interpretation has someone duplicating a two-tiered feat (greater spell focus) as a free action while possibly even untrained. That's just not right.

 

[Pielorinho]

Oh, and I would absolutely allow bluff checks to help or hinder certain other spells: when your goal is to persuade people, skills that aid in persuading people ought to come into play, just as your BAB comes into play when your goal is to hit people with a ray.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

Your interpretation has someone duplicating a two-tiered feat (greater spell focus) as a free action while possibly even untrained. That's just not right.

Not really. It's an opposed check, and if I fail in my bluff check when trying to wheedle a suggestion, then I'm immediately prefacing my suggestion with a known lie--and that's almost certain to give the target a bonus on their save. (Of course, I may have dumped a whole bunch of skill-points into Bluff to make my check succeed most of the time, but in that case, I'm paying for the increased workability).

Daniel

 

[Celebrim]

Actually, the more I think about it, the more Pielorinho's suggestion makes perfect sense.

What defines whether an action is reasonable? In the rules its the DM, but no guidance is given to the DM but his own judgement of what he finds reasonable. If he's a good DM, what he finds reasonable at that time is precisely what they NPC finds reasonable. What the NPC normally find reasonable is determined by nothing less than an opposed check between the person making the suggestions Bluff skill, and the NPC's own Sense Motive skill. The DM still has to modify the target DC circumstantially (as outlined in the description of the Bluff skill) depending on how far fetched the lie is, but now the DM doesn't have to rule absolutely on whether or not something is reasonable. Skilled liers ought to be able to make things sound more reasonable, and particularly astute observers ought to have a greater natural skepticism.

The force can have a strong influence over the weak minded.

It's also worth noting that a person with sufficient diplomacy can spontaneously cast the Suggestion spell by making a DC 50 check.

The only thing I have against Pielorinho's suggestion is that I don't like resolving things with more dice rolls than is absolutely needed. Pielorinho's suggestion reveals not how powerful suggestion is, but how relatively weak it is. After all, a person that makes a DC 30 bluff check probably doesn't need to cast a suggestion spell in order for, "I know you're not supposed to tell anyone the password to the meeting-chamber, but your boss said it was an emergency and that he ordered you to give it to us; I suggest that you go ahead and tell us the password to the meeting-chamber." to work. What suggestion does in this context is allow a person to retry a bluff that has failed, and to substitute his presumably superior spell DC and targets presumably inferior Will save for the more normal bluff vs. sense motive contest.

I personally don't see anything unreasonable with a DM suggesting that the best way to decide whether or not a suggestion is reasonable is with a contest of appropriate skills.