| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Put down or toss away your weapons is a reasonable suggestion. The 'harmful' part of the suggestion spell is supposed to be an immediate thing like 'fall on your sword' or 'jump off that cliff'. Something that MAY cause you harm based on future consequences doesnt track in my opinion. It might be LIKELY harmful but it isn't OBVIOUSLY harmful as I believe the spell intends. And I think its enough of a hazy point in the rules where the dm has the right to make a call there.
That said, this doesnt sound like a very good dm that was just on a power trip of murdering the party. Maybe he had something planned, but based on your later comments I think you might just want to walk away from this table.
Okay, a rakshasa is a CR10 creature with (among other things) a 13 Int and a DC16 suggestion ability it can use 3/day.
Let me point out that the classic suggestion is "say, wouldn't you like to take a dip in this nice pool of water" when the "pool of water" is actually acid. So clearly the activity can be dangerous, it just has to be stated in a way that sounds reasonable.
Now, since that is an example that's known to work, even in the middle of battle, clearly an argument like "but stopping fighting to take a dip is clearly hazardous" is an insufficient argument.
I think the issue here is that the GM didn't make the action sound reasonable. "That bow's about to catch fire, you should throw it away!" or "That bow's cursed, you should throw it away!" would both be sufficient. In my opinion, "throw away your bow" is insufficient.
But here's the rub. Given that the GM could easily have made a suggestion that would have sufficed perfectly well, and didn't due to either inexperience, haste, as a result of a simple mistake or some other completely reasonable reason, is it worth causing huge problems about? I'd recommend accepting it, moving on, and perhaps suggesting (calmly and politely) that you feel the encounter was unwinnable, was it meant to be that way?
Now, since that is an example that's known to work,
Source?
I think the issue here is that the GM didn't make the action sound reasonable. "That bow's about to catch fire, you should throw it away!" or "That bow's cursed, you should throw it away!" would both be sufficient.
Since suggestion does not make the target believe his bow is on fire, that does not sound reasonable at all, since the target KNOWS the bow is NOT on fire.
You're wrong, Hyla. The stated example is suggesting that a dragon (high int and wisdom) not immune to acid takes a swim in an acid pool, referring to it as a cool refreshing dip in water.
Any explanation you come up with that doesn't account for that is wrong, and the onus is on you to explain why, not anyone else.
I personally use the spell as Kolokotroni does. It is compulsion, not charm. It can make you do harmful things, you have to word them correctly.
When deciding if a suggestion is reasonable, I divorce it from the context, to get rid of indirect harm. "Stand here" is a reasonable suggestion, even if your mother is dying. "Your friends on the other side of the city are in danger, you need to go save them!" is a reasonable suggestion, even if the friends that are on THIS side of the city are in danger and you abandoning them is likely to spell their doom. "Slit your throat" is not a reasonable suggestion. "Give me your staff" is.
Also, if it can make you jump in acid for a refreshing bath, it can make you drink poison for a pick me up tonic. Or toss your bow off the side of a cliff.
Ok, so the CR was more likely around 13 than 16, but that's still way too high for the level of the party!!
But here's the rub. Given that the GM could easily have made a suggestion that would have sufficed perfectly well, and didn't due to either inexperience, haste, as a result of a simple mistake or some other completely reasonable reason, is it worth causing huge problems about? I'd recommend accepting it, moving on, and perhaps suggesting (calmly and politely) that you feel the encounter was unwinnable, was it meant to be that way?
When I first DMed I made my players get into an encounter they could not win. I did that to take them as slaves and start with the campaign, but one of the more experienced players pointed out to me that this was not a great way to start a campaign (to make your players feel useless): I appreciated the input because I did not have considered their feelings and was concentrated just on what would have happened next.
Anyway, I was talked to in a respectful manner and I actually benefited from the talk: I would advise the OP to do the same, simply talk about what happened making it clear that it's in the past anyway and that he is not just complaining about it. This will probably help them both to gain a better understanding of the game and to make the next sessions more fun.
Look, suggestion is not a charm spell. It is a compulsion spell. If it was just about being charmed and "hey throw your weapon away" in the face of grave danger, then sure, it doesn't work. But it is a compulsion, rational thought to a large degree, does not feature in the process.
Suggestion: we're talking about a level 3 spell here. That's where haste and fireball are home. A pithy thing as compelling you to throw your weapon away in the face of danger - of course a level 3 spell can do that.
Consider: the next thing up the chain is dominate person, likewise a compulsion effect - and this spell can make you actually actively help the bad guy.
All things considered, it appears that it was a combination of an encounter at waay to high CR, combined iwth a poorly worded suggestion.
The spell could certainly have ended the fight if worded properly, but that was not IMO a reasonable suggestion, because like someone pointed out, it was a command.
Command: Throw away your bow! (why would I? that is unreasonable)
Suggestion: Why don't you put that silly weapon down and fight me like a man? (Well fine then you big jerk maybe I will!)
Same end result, but sounds reasonable to someone under a compulsion.
Basically I think the problem was the wording, not that the effect was out of line.
To put it another way: using the acid bath example...
Reasonable: Why don't you go take a nice refreshing dip? (sure why not baths are nice)
Unreasonable: Go jump over there! (um why?)
Meh, I think the real problem here is a dm who railroads players into tpk situations.
Magicdealer won this thread.
Your DM argued with you, you complied for the sake of not grinding the game to a halt with futile debate (good on you, OP) you failed your save against a powered-up enemy and a TPK resulted. So your DM did 3 things, willingly, to TPK.
1 - made an enemy whose abilities had a good chance of screwing you (higher DCs; at least 3 higher than a standard Rak).
2 - chose to use that ability in a way which you warned him may cause TPK.
3 - argued the validity of the use of said ability, despite warning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're wrong, Hyla. The stated example is suggesting that a dragon (high int and wisdom) not immune to acid takes a swim in an acid pool, referring to it as a cool refreshing dip in water.
Any explanation you come up with that doesn't account for that is wrong, and the onus is on you to explain why, not anyone else.
Where is this example stated? Not in my core book, thats for sure.
Anyway, by your reasoning you can just about force the target to do ANYTHING. I mean, stepping into a an acid pool is suicide. What IS unreasonable, if not that?
And: Whats the difference between dominate monster and suggestion, then? Only that you need to spend a (very) little amount on thinking on how you word your suggestion? If you can just invent random environmental changes (bow on fire, acid = water), you can make ANYTHING sound "reasonable".
Consider: the next thing up the chain is dominate person, likewise a compulsion effect - and this spell can make you actually actively help the bad guy.
Following the reasoning of some people here, so could suggestion. Just say "Your friends are about to betray you, best kill them" (suggestion), instead of "Kill your friends!" (dominate).
Also, Dominate person is not just only a level higher than suggestion, but also takes a full round (instead of a standard action) and only works on humanoids. In my book, your interpretation makes suggestion a massively better spell than dominate person.
As stated, the pool of acid is the "classic example" back in 3.5.
With that said Hyla, when could you reasonably use it by your definition? That guard might well know that leaving his post will cause him to lose his job and ability to support his family.
In my games, having multiple players who mess with bluff, intimidate, charm and compulsion abilities there is a very fine line to walk and that's something that I clear with the GM or players depending on which side of the fence I walk.
Specifically, I ask how much are we using the intent behind the wordings vs. the literal words. And once we agree (prior to the game start) we hold to it. So for us, the statement of "throw the bow off the edge" would be presumed to have, with the greater Charisma of the Rakshasa vs. GM, spoken it in a more reasonable manner. And when we later did the same to random badguy later, the GM wouldn't hold it against us when we said "I tell the stupid ogre that he wants to take a bath in the acid."
For me the primary limiter is the passive vs. active nature of suggestion. The direct request can't be an immediate/active damage. Taking a dip isn't direct damage, dropping a key item isn't direct, the cleric remembering he needs to deliver a sermon at home...not direct.
Whereas with Dominate... you have your own little puppet.. :)
From the information provided, I will say that I agree it looks like the GM was looking to wipe out the party. Mainly because of the bridge being out, and therefore cutting off your escape. The rest could have been an encounter he expected you to pull back from once you realized how deep you were in!
As stated, the pool of acid is the "classic example" back in 3.5.
With that said Hyla, when could you reasonably use it by your definition? That guard might well know that leaving his post will cause him to lose his job and ability to support his family.
Well PF is not D&D 3.5. Maybe the example was left out for a reason.
To answer your question: I personally think there should be a non-negligible chance that the target gets away with the suggested course of action without suffering serious injury, death, loss of job etc.
The way I interpret it, the suggestion has to be sth. that conceivably could pop up in the mind of the target anyway.
Such as: "Your wife may be cheating on you, better check on her quickly, nobody will notice you being away for 30 minutes."
As stated, the pool of acid is the "classic example" back in 3.5.
Well PF is not D&D 3.5. Maybe the example was left out for a reason.
It was. The examples weren't part of the SRD, and thus likely not part of the OGL. Even if Paizo wanted to use them, they wouldn't have been able to.
By the way, since they're being discussed anyway, here are those examples so everyone can be on the same page:
Asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell. However, a suggestion that a pool of acid is actually pure water and that a quick dip would be refreshing is another matter. Urging a red dragon to stop attacking your party so that the dragon and party could jointly loot a rich treasure elsewhere is likewise a reasonable use of the spell's power.
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 key part is it must sound reasonable.
"Hey, can you get me the book on the other side of that illusionary wall of fire?"
Why wouldn't it be unreasonable to walk through an illusory wall of fire?
"Hey, your bow's about to catch fire, you should drop it."
Wow, that would hurt. Sure thing! (Note the correct statement - about to catch fire.)
How reasonable the activity actually is is irrelevant. The whole key to suggestion is making it sound reasonable; it says so in the description of the spell itself. Like others have said, it's a compulsion.
Now, granted, I am having a hard time making falling on your sword reasonable, or jumping in a pit of lava. But many, many things can be made to sound reasonable, and that's the key.
All of this, of course, is secondary to what sounds like the actual crux of the matter - the GM sounds like kind of a jerk based on this one side of the story.
That acid pool example works because the dragon thinks it is water. If the dragon knew it was acid it would not work. In other words the target has to believe it is taking a reasonable action in order for it to work.
Works:"Put down your weapon, and we will let you live." Of course this assumes the enemy might be trustworthy.
Does not work:"Put down your weapons, and we won't kill you right now."
Well, it certainly seems like you and your DM are not communicating very well. The Foe seems way overpowered, and the Suggestion is a bit questionable, but not outside a DM’s rule interpretation.
As other have said, it looks like he wanted to TPK the group. Speak with him privately, sit down like adults, and ask him about this. Refer him to this thread, too.
Look, suggestion is not a charm spell. It is a compulsion spell. If it was just about being charmed and "hey throw your weapon away" in the face of grave danger, then sure, it doesn't work. But it is a compulsion, rational thought to a large degree, does not feature in the process.
Suggestion: we're talking about a level 3 spell here. That's where haste and fireball are home. A pithy thing as compelling you to throw your weapon away in the face of danger - of course a level 3 spell can do that.
Consider: the next thing up the chain is dominate person, likewise a compulsion effect - and this spell can make you actually actively help the bad guy.
Exactly.
As a compulsion spell, it takes common sense and actual reason out of the question; as long as the Suggestion sounds reasonable, its legal.
I'm a big fan personally of things like, "You seem to be at a considerable disadvantage; if you join me, I offer benefits like good pay and being allowed to continue living." "Protect me and we'll spare your life." is also simple and good.
Whats more, I'm fully willing to keep my end of things, especially if my new friend is willing to sit and accept a buff from me after we get somewhere safe... Charm Monster is a great buff, right? :)
That acid pool example works because the dragon thinks it is water. If the dragon knew it was acid it would not work. In other words the target has to believe it is taking a reasonable action in order for it to work.
Works:"Put down your weapon, and we will let you live." Of course this assumes the enemy might be trustworthy.
Does not work:"Put down your weapons, and we won't kill you right now."
I agree.
Depends on how it was worded.
"If you throw your weapon over the ledge I would have no reason to attack you anymore" = your weapon going over ledge
"That weapon looks to be cursed, you best throw it over the ledge and rid yourself of the worry." = weapon going over ledge
"Throw your weapon over the ledge!" probably a harmful act... spell negated
The first one seems legit(to an extent) The 2nd one is questionable coming from someone who is trying to kill you, and the weapon most likely has not caused you any harm yet.
The first one seems legit(to an extent) The 2nd one is questionable coming from someone who is trying to kill you, and the weapon most likely has not caused you any harm yet.
Seems like a perfect time to call for a Bluff check at a -10 (as per the lie being Far-Fetched).
Just for reference, Dismissal is a level 4 spell, so the Rakshasa had to have 7-8 levels in wizard/sorcerer to be able to cast that or the DM threw in an ability for the sole purpose of screwing over the summoner.
CR10 monster + 8 levels of sorcerer = CR 14 encounter against a level 7 party.
My assessment is your DM is either bad or vindictive. Either way, I suggest you get out of there now.
Rule 0 says the DM is always right.
Rule -1 says you are under no obligation to play with a DM who abuses rule 0.
Personally, I would not consider throwing away your only effective weapon to be a reasonable suggestion by itself. Now if you had a good bluff to go with the suggestion, then it may work.
Thanks for all your replies, I'm going to stick with the group a bit more and avoid starting debates with the GM during the session and keep it for after we're done playing ( Keeping them civilised of course no worry there ). I'm aware of the rule 0 and rule 1. It's my lack of gaming group that actually makes me reluctant on leaving but if things keep going toward Dm power trip, I'll definately try looking elsewhere.
Suggestion seems to be a very hard spell to deal with as it's interpretation can be taken differently from person to person. As for now I'll tell my Dm to try and develop his use of the spell to sound less of a command and more of a reasonable suggestion stating some of the examples you gave me.
I figure ( just a theory though ) that the DM wiped us because he did too many mistakes with the things he gave us as magic items and loot in general and wanted to ''fix'' the party with a reset,( We found several elexir of permenant stats and items of the like ) though I would have prefered he'd put us in retirement than the grave but oh well. I'm going to try and ask the Dm if I'm right or if not what was his plan because, as some of you stated, the fight was obviously rigged to get us killed.
I'm going to try a mage-class so I could learn and get a better understanding of how spell function and come back to you all if I need help.
Just for reference, Dismissal is a level 4 spell, so the Rakshasa had to have 7-8 levels in wizard/sorcerer to be able to cast that or the DM threw in an ability for the sole purpose of screwing over the summoner.
CR10 monster + 8 levels of sorcerer = CR 14 encounter against a level 7 party.
Dismissal is actually a 5th-level spell for Sor/Wiz. However, a Rakshasa already casts as a 7th-level sorcerer, so it only needs another 3 levels to cast 5th-level spells. Since those are associated for the Rakshasa, the final minimum CR is 13.
(and yes, I know the Bestiary/PRD doesn't specify that the Rakshasa casts as a sorcerer, but since it has a spellcaster level of 7 with a max of 3rd-level spells, and a "Spells Known" header rather than "Spells Prepared" header, I'm 100% convinced that's simply an omission. Plus the 3.5 Rakshasa also cast as a 7th-level sorcerer).
Just for reference, Dismissal is a level 4 spell, so the Rakshasa had to have 7-8 levels in wizard/sorcerer to be able to cast that or the DM threw in an ability for the sole purpose of screwing over the summoner.
CR10 monster + 8 levels of sorcerer = CR 14 encounter against a level 7 party.
Dismissal is actually a 5th-level spell for Sor/Wiz. However, a Rakshasa already casts as a 7th-level sorcerer, so it only needs another 3 levels to cast 5th-level spells. Since those are associated for the Rakshasa, the final minimum CR is 13.
(and yes, I know the Bestiary/PRD doesn't specify that the Rakshasa casts as a sorcerer, but since it has a spellcaster level of 7 with a max of 3rd-level spells, and a "Spells Known" header rather than "Spells Prepared" header, I'm 100% convinced that's simply an omission. Plus the 3.5 Rakshasa also cast as a 7th-level sorcerer).
More likely, the DM grabbed a stock Rakshasa and gave it Dismissal to spite the Summoner. I would have made it at least use a scroll of Dismissal with a caster level check(need a 5 or better on a d20) to at least pretend I wasn't being a dick.
Seriously, a creature having an additional ability that completely negates most of your class abilities reeks of a DM who is out for vengence.
Rolling up a new character? How about a mage with suggestion?
|
That acid pool example works because the dragon thinks it is water. If the dragon knew it was acid it would not work. In other words the target has to believe it is taking a reasonable action in order for it to work.
That's one of the reasons the acid pool example always bugged me, and why I'm glad they removed it.
The way it was worded, it looked as if the PCs could attack the dragon in its lair, with which it is intimately familiar, and force it to jump into a pool that the dragon is fully aware, is full of acid. A pool the dragon dug, a pool the dragon charmed an alchemist to fill with acid, a pool in which the dragon dips his prisoners and small wildlife in every day, for fun."The dragon knows it's a pool of acid. He looks at you scornfully, and tells you to 'F#!$ off'."
It also presupposes the pool doesn't utterly reek, that the fumes aren't making your eyes water, that there's no bodies lying round the edge, clutching their throats. How about a huge rusted barrel, with "DANGER: ACID" written on the side?
My rule for suggestion-- and it's admittedly a house rule-- is that you don't give orders. You make a reasonable sounding statement, and if the target fails its Will save, it believes you; you can suggest a course of action to go with it, if it's reasonable for the suggestion. Think of Star Wars: "These are not the droids you're looking for. We're free to go. Move along."
"I don't want to fight anymore. Why don't you put down your weapon so we can talk about this?" is a reasonable suggestion unless the character would be unwilling to negotiate.
"You have amused me. Surrender now and I'll spare you," is also pretty reasonable, if the caster is doing pretty well in the combat and isn't known to kill everyone he meets.
"Your sword's about to break. Hand it to me so I can fix it for you," is pretty good.
In my games, you can also get away with a lot more with suggestion if you precede it by charm.
"Throw your bow away" is NOT a suggestion, it is a command!
"Hand me your sword, I will repair it." is only a suggestion if the caster successfully posed as a friendly weaponsmith first and sword is not needed right now.
Suggestion does NOT change what the PC knows or perceives as a fact. Giving away your sword in battle to a unknown or even hostile character, just because he claims he will repair it, is stupid.
In short, I think it is best to play suggestion just like the bluff skill.
In the OP example "You are a worhty opponent unlike you fellows who fell like wimps. Drop yor bow and surrender, and you will life." would be a good suggestion but including "throw your bow over the edge" would not have worked because it is surrendering that is the core of the suggestion and not "get rid of your weapon in the most efficient way during a fight".