LazarX wrote:Lemmy wrote:Can we simply accept that Charm Person is really f~&#ing poorly written?
There's nothing wrong with writing of the spell. If every mechanic had to be written in a way to protect it against folks trying to munchkin it beyond what it was meant to be, the rules would be unreadable and unusable.
Trying to expect Pathfinder to work without a rational, sane, and fair GM at the helm, is so far beyond reasonable, it's pure comedy.
We have a nearly 200 post thread (so far) because people can't agree on what the correct interpretation of the rules is. The majority of them don't even think the other side is completely wrong. They just feel that their interpretation is the more reasonable one.
I think this is a little beyond people using munchkin logic to break a spell and into the realm of "This spell has multiple wildly differing interpretations and it isn't clear which one is right". Seriously, a large group of people can't agree on the rules for the spell while reading the rules for the spell. If reading the rules doesn't give you a clear idea of the rules, then that would suggest that the rules are poorly written (since the point of rules text is to tell you the rules). If you don't think so, what exactly qualifies as a poorly written spell to you?
It may be a 200 post thread, but that number isn't nearly as impressive when you realise it's just the same two very small groups of people arguing back and forth with the same exact points.
The fact is the rules text of the Charm Person spell IS very clear. The only confusion is that some folks seem to think that "friendship" specified by the spell is supposed to allow for demands that no one in their right mind would expect a "friend" to ask, and another to grant. The real problem wasn't the rules text but the support for the munchkin response by the post of a punch-drunk developer who really should have known better.