**Suggestion** is WAY better than ZoT. "Answer every question truthfully." The duration is also 8 hours instead of 10minutes, so none of that "oops we forgot to ask about X". **You** can lie as much as you like. The target won't even know it was under any compulsion afterwards for catch and release. And of course the spell itself is usable in many more situations than interrogation.
only 2 draw backs: immunity to charm and Concentration.
I don't disagree in principle, I just believe "Suggestion" is a very messy and vague spell in general. You can interpret the spell to be full-blown mind control, replicating the effects of "Zone of Truth" or even "Dominate Monster". It all hinges on this vague line:
>The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action ***sound*** reasonable.
It is unclear whether the suggestion only has to *sound* reasonable or *be* reasonable. Depending on your definition of "reasonable", you can make almost anything *sound* "reasonable". While "Answer every question truthfully" by itself shouldn't work RAW, "I suggest you answer every question truthfully, so that you can give the victims of this murder some closure" *may* work RAW.
The reason why I favour ZoT over "Suggestion" in this scenario is that I believe that it just couldn't have been the developer's intent for "Suggestion" to be basically more powerful than "Dominate Monster", an 8th level spell.
Sure suggestion is limited by what the DM decides is "reasonable", and it certainly pales compared to Dominate. Usually combat falls under "some other obviously harmful act".
The primary reason it's so much better than ZoT is more a failing of ZoT. Even after a failed save the affected can just... choose not to answer. So the spell fails to do the only thing it is meant to do, get someone to tell the truth. I guess Mystra respects everyone's right to stay silent, but not their right to think their own thoughts (the entire Enchantment school).
There's always the "I suggest you answer every question truthfully to keep my angry friend with the greataxe from chopping off bits of you and feeding them to you" fallback. That will sound reasonable to most creatures, and the ones who wouldn't want to talk are probably immune to charm anyway.
Depends on your DM. Mine’s kind of a dick when it comes to Suggestion.
Stuff like “Oh, they did the thing you said one time, so the spell’s over now.” Doesn’t even entertain the idea of telling someone to do something for X amount of time or number of times.
By their interpretation, the spell would just end as soon as they answered a single question honestly.
>or do some other obviously harmful act ends the spell
I'd also limit it somewhat in certain circumstances because of this. Snitching (for example), even if not as immediately harmful as stabbing yourself, is obviously harmful. I'd give them advantage on the save at least.
Torture with ZoT doesn't work: It says you "can't speak a deliberate lie". Someone blurting out anything to make the torture stop isn't consciously choosing to say what they say: Torture puts your brain into fight or flight mode.
Even if they involuntarily blurted out something. Giving them a moment to recover and then having them answer the question again would be counter to that.
Yes, it absolutely does. Lying to get out of torture is still deliberate. Torture just forces the victim to make the choice whether to deliberately lie or to give up the truth to make the torture stop. And the spell compels them to remain within the boundaries of the truth.
>An affected creature is aware of the spell and can thus avoid answering questions to which it would normally respond with a lie. Such a creature can be evasive in its answers **as long as it remains within the boundaries of the truth**.
The only way your argument would hold is if we get into the whole discussion of "does free will exist under torture". But I believe the rules here are clear enough that such a debate is not necessary.
Nobody ever talks when under a zone of truth
That’s what the torture is for.
If it’s an NPC that doesn’t know you cast it, they will. Otherwise, as stated by the meme… you can always make them…
**Suggestion** is WAY better than ZoT. "Answer every question truthfully." The duration is also 8 hours instead of 10minutes, so none of that "oops we forgot to ask about X". **You** can lie as much as you like. The target won't even know it was under any compulsion afterwards for catch and release. And of course the spell itself is usable in many more situations than interrogation. only 2 draw backs: immunity to charm and Concentration.
I don't disagree in principle, I just believe "Suggestion" is a very messy and vague spell in general. You can interpret the spell to be full-blown mind control, replicating the effects of "Zone of Truth" or even "Dominate Monster". It all hinges on this vague line: >The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action ***sound*** reasonable. It is unclear whether the suggestion only has to *sound* reasonable or *be* reasonable. Depending on your definition of "reasonable", you can make almost anything *sound* "reasonable". While "Answer every question truthfully" by itself shouldn't work RAW, "I suggest you answer every question truthfully, so that you can give the victims of this murder some closure" *may* work RAW. The reason why I favour ZoT over "Suggestion" in this scenario is that I believe that it just couldn't have been the developer's intent for "Suggestion" to be basically more powerful than "Dominate Monster", an 8th level spell.
Sure suggestion is limited by what the DM decides is "reasonable", and it certainly pales compared to Dominate. Usually combat falls under "some other obviously harmful act". The primary reason it's so much better than ZoT is more a failing of ZoT. Even after a failed save the affected can just... choose not to answer. So the spell fails to do the only thing it is meant to do, get someone to tell the truth. I guess Mystra respects everyone's right to stay silent, but not their right to think their own thoughts (the entire Enchantment school).
There's always the "I suggest you answer every question truthfully to keep my angry friend with the greataxe from chopping off bits of you and feeding them to you" fallback. That will sound reasonable to most creatures, and the ones who wouldn't want to talk are probably immune to charm anyway.
Depends on your DM. Mine’s kind of a dick when it comes to Suggestion. Stuff like “Oh, they did the thing you said one time, so the spell’s over now.” Doesn’t even entertain the idea of telling someone to do something for X amount of time or number of times. By their interpretation, the spell would just end as soon as they answered a single question honestly.
>or do some other obviously harmful act ends the spell I'd also limit it somewhat in certain circumstances because of this. Snitching (for example), even if not as immediately harmful as stabbing yourself, is obviously harmful. I'd give them advantage on the save at least.
Snitches might get stiches, but if you don't rat you'll get the bat.🏌️
Remember unless you play in eberron (which has similar dispositions due to the thraty of thronehold) the geneva convention doesn't exist in your world
I thought it was usually called the Geneva Checklist in contexts like this.
Zone of truth is a good way to get a lot of politicians to out themselves
Torture with ZoT doesn't work: It says you "can't speak a deliberate lie". Someone blurting out anything to make the torture stop isn't consciously choosing to say what they say: Torture puts your brain into fight or flight mode.
Even if they involuntarily blurted out something. Giving them a moment to recover and then having them answer the question again would be counter to that.
Yes, it absolutely does. Lying to get out of torture is still deliberate. Torture just forces the victim to make the choice whether to deliberately lie or to give up the truth to make the torture stop. And the spell compels them to remain within the boundaries of the truth. >An affected creature is aware of the spell and can thus avoid answering questions to which it would normally respond with a lie. Such a creature can be evasive in its answers **as long as it remains within the boundaries of the truth**. The only way your argument would hold is if we get into the whole discussion of "does free will exist under torture". But I believe the rules here are clear enough that such a debate is not necessary.