The Suggestion spell
- Thread starter ForceUser
- Start date
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
First: the wizard in the strip is WAY out of line. That's dominate monster not suggestion.
Second, a few notes on Pielorinho's idea:
1. It's already somewhat incorporated into the description of the spell iteslf. "That pool of acid is really water, wouldn't it be nice to take a refeshing dip?" Both lines are part of the spell, but the first is describing the situation deceptively (though, as I interpret the spell, not obviously deceptively--the "water" has to be the kind of acid that actually looks like water). That seems to very strongly imply that "you're outnumbered and we've killed two of you; you should turn traitor so we'll let you live" is acceptable. The first part describes the relevant situation (accurately in this case). The second describes a suggested action. No problem.
2. The notion of using a skill check to make certain courses of action seem more reasonable seems like common sense. Out of combat (or prior to it), at least, diplomacy could well convince the NPCs that you would accept their surrender. If you then, during combat, suggest "you're outnumbered and outclassed; you should surrender--it's the only way to save your neck," it is a far more reasonable suggestion than if you spent the pre-combat rounds trying to intimidate them by boasting about how you'd dig their intestines out with a blunt spoon and feed them to the wild beasts.
Similarly, the suggestion "your master will assume you spilled your guts to us and will kill you too if we lose; your best hope is that we defeat your master so you should tell us the location of the traps in the secret passage" is much more reaonable if your party has displayed skill in the combat where the NPC was captured and has intimidated/bluffed him enough that he thinks you'll kill or torture him if he doesn't talk.
Thus skill checks and even attack rolls should rightly figure into the reasonableness of the suggestion. As a DM, you have a choice of using skill checks to determine whether you convince the NPC you'll accept his surrender/kill him if he doesn't talk or ignoring skill checks and arbitrarily deciding. If you use dice for social interaction, however, changing an NPC's view of you and his circumstances is what those skills do. The second choice as a DM is whether to apply reasonableness to the roll. If you don't, you get some awfully funny results, however. (See OotS, for instance). But, if you use dice for interactions AND apply reasonableness modifiers to the save, then I think you've already decided that Piehlorhino's examples work in principle and the only question then is how many actions they take and when the setup will work.
My take on this is that a free action preface to a suggestion will only affect the reasonableness DC modifier if it is readily apparent and/or the target believes it to be true already. Thus "you're outnumbered and outclassed; you should surrender" gets a reasonableness penalty to the save if the caster's side is clearly superior and simply doesn't work at all if the caster's side appears inferior. (Being based on an obviously false premise, it's absolutely unreasonable and doesn't work. No save necessary).
The second example is obviously outside of combat thus the success or failure preceeding bluff will determine whether the suggestion merits a save bonus (no, I don't think the boss did tell you it's an emergency) or a save penalty (hmm, the boss told them I'd do it so he'll be mad if I don't).
Trying to change what a target believes in combat will require careful setup (a simple one-line bluff will state the grounds to consider the suggested course of action reasonable or unreasonable, but probably won't significantly change his extant beliefs and perceptions; on the other hand, a series of actions--free or otherwise--over several rounds that is consistent with the grounds you are suggesting could trick the NPC), but could affect the save dramatically given the right situation.
Second, a few notes on Pielorinho's idea:
1. It's already somewhat incorporated into the description of the spell iteslf. "That pool of acid is really water, wouldn't it be nice to take a refeshing dip?" Both lines are part of the spell, but the first is describing the situation deceptively (though, as I interpret the spell, not obviously deceptively--the "water" has to be the kind of acid that actually looks like water). That seems to very strongly imply that "you're outnumbered and we've killed two of you; you should turn traitor so we'll let you live" is acceptable. The first part describes the relevant situation (accurately in this case). The second describes a suggested action. No problem.
2. The notion of using a skill check to make certain courses of action seem more reasonable seems like common sense. Out of combat (or prior to it), at least, diplomacy could well convince the NPCs that you would accept their surrender. If you then, during combat, suggest "you're outnumbered and outclassed; you should surrender--it's the only way to save your neck," it is a far more reasonable suggestion than if you spent the pre-combat rounds trying to intimidate them by boasting about how you'd dig their intestines out with a blunt spoon and feed them to the wild beasts.
Similarly, the suggestion "your master will assume you spilled your guts to us and will kill you too if we lose; your best hope is that we defeat your master so you should tell us the location of the traps in the secret passage" is much more reaonable if your party has displayed skill in the combat where the NPC was captured and has intimidated/bluffed him enough that he thinks you'll kill or torture him if he doesn't talk.
Thus skill checks and even attack rolls should rightly figure into the reasonableness of the suggestion. As a DM, you have a choice of using skill checks to determine whether you convince the NPC you'll accept his surrender/kill him if he doesn't talk or ignoring skill checks and arbitrarily deciding. If you use dice for social interaction, however, changing an NPC's view of you and his circumstances is what those skills do. The second choice as a DM is whether to apply reasonableness to the roll. If you don't, you get some awfully funny results, however. (See OotS, for instance). But, if you use dice for interactions AND apply reasonableness modifiers to the save, then I think you've already decided that Piehlorhino's examples work in principle and the only question then is how many actions they take and when the setup will work.
My take on this is that a free action preface to a suggestion will only affect the reasonableness DC modifier if it is readily apparent and/or the target believes it to be true already. Thus "you're outnumbered and outclassed; you should surrender" gets a reasonableness penalty to the save if the caster's side is clearly superior and simply doesn't work at all if the caster's side appears inferior. (Being based on an obviously false premise, it's absolutely unreasonable and doesn't work. No save necessary).
The second example is obviously outside of combat thus the success or failure preceeding bluff will determine whether the suggestion merits a save bonus (no, I don't think the boss did tell you it's an emergency) or a save penalty (hmm, the boss told them I'd do it so he'll be mad if I don't).
Trying to change what a target believes in combat will require careful setup (a simple one-line bluff will state the grounds to consider the suggested course of action reasonable or unreasonable, but probably won't significantly change his extant beliefs and perceptions; on the other hand, a series of actions--free or otherwise--over several rounds that is consistent with the grounds you are suggesting could trick the NPC), but could affect the save dramatically given the right situation.
Pielorinho said:
kanithardm
First Post
HeavyG said:That's exactly like wishing for more wishes.
So we can't do that?
kanithardm
First Post
I also noticed that exact line comes from www.giantitp.com under comics, something like strip 183 or 182
Jack Simth
First Post
Well.... if you cast the wish yourself, paying full XP, you can create a standard wish item, such as a ring of three wishes. Of course, that will set you back 5,000+15,918*2=36,836 xp, while simply casting three straight wishes will only set you back 15,000 xp.kanithardm said:
Jack Simth
First Post
; 1 refers to a note at the bottom of the table:SRD said:
You can't do that, as Wish requires extra XP for making magic items, and the item can't provide that unless it's been added at creation.SRD said:
Shadowdweller
Explorer
Umm...to re-iterate once again:
Whereas the PHB states:Elder-Basilisk said:
No mention of a Bluff check is involved. This IMPLIES that the spell already CAN in fact significantly change perceptions.PHB said:
Pielorinho said:
I would grant a synergy bonus to the DC for the save or as a penelty to the save roll itself for 5+ ranks in diplomacy, Bluff, or other related Skills. And a bonus to save or sub from DC for NPC who has Skills that counteract. IE sense motive in the Sug example. Would go something like this. NPC sense 5 ranks, PC diplo 5 ranks, bluff 5 ranks. Suggestion Save modified as follows (DC +1-2for dip, +1-2for bluff, -1-2 for Sense = DC) something like that. That is kind of teh purpose of Synergy bonuses to make some similar tasks easier to accomplish but not to bring those similar skills into play directly.
Now you could also be trying to NON magically persuade in the examples and use the skills. Possibly a bonus to save if a Suggestion is cast AFTER the skills are resolved. Because the only reason to do it this way is because you failed to convince them and are now trying to compel them.
I do not think actual checks should come into play here. I would give major bonuses to resist a Suggestion that essentially multiplys the spells use to more than one action.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Shadowdweller said:
No, actually it doesn't. It only implies that the spell can significantly change perceptions if you assume that the "pool of acid" is bubbling, frothing, spilling out toxic fumes, and has a hazard label on the side. If the "pool of acid" actually looks like clear water (and a lot of acids do look like water), then it does not imply that the spell can significantly change perceptions. Since taking "a quick dip" in a pool of obvious acid is as obviously harmful as sticking a knife through your arm which is explicitly prohibited by the spell, the conclusion that makes the best sense of the text is that the pool of acid is assumed to look like water or at least not be known to be acid. Otherwise, the suggestion "pain can sometimes be pleasurable; you'd have fun if you stuck the knife into your arm and then plunged it into a vat of rubbing alcohol" would be workable.
Similar Threads
