Charm Person usage clarification please


Rules Questions


Hello, I am a DM that had a question come up in our game about the use of charm person. There are a few quirks to it that gave a few separate questions i will try my best to ask without sounding confusing.

question one -
charm person states "If the creature (the one being targeted with the spell) is currently being threatened by you (the caster of the spell) or your allies (the spell casters allies), it recieves a +5 bonues to the saving throw"

The specific question is, aside from the obvious of being attacked directly, what is considered "threatening"? Here is our example as it happened in the session.

---- The PC's are attacking a castle by air. They see 4 guards who are sorcerers (that I will refer to as mages from here on out) mages ahead of them guarding the top of the castle. The party has invisibility and fly cast on themselves. The invisibility was removed from one party member allowing the NPC mages to see that person and begin attacking him. Are the PC's who are still invisible considered threatened since he is attacking a friend of theirs or is only the person being attacked threatened? Does the mere sight of a "guard" in a castle that YOU are attacking consider you to be threatened? (i do not want a philisophical answer just a strict rules answer)(note: I ruled that the invisible people would not be considered threatened for the purpose of charm person because the NPC mage did not know of their existence) -----

question two -
The PC Rogue popped out of invisibility to strike one of the NPC mages. On the mages turn he cast charm person on the PC Rogue (As said with the question above I ruled that he did not get his +5 bonus because the NPC mage had not done anything threatening to the PC rogue yet.) The PC Rogue failed his save and the NPC mage said to him "Jump down there (pointing at the distant ground below them where many troops were fighting each other) and help the fight. Do not worry I will cast feather fall on you" The spell says that the player would not do anythign obviously harmful without convincing and would not do something that they wouldn't ordinarily do without an opposed charisma check. (note: the PC Rogue already had fly cast on him, and the Mage said he would cast feather fall on him, removing any chance of this being suicidal) Regardless of if it was or wasn't something the character would do normally for someone he considered an ally, I gave him the opposed charisma check to give him the benefit of the doubt. He failed. So I ruled that he followed the order given to him. Is this a correct interpretation of the spell on my part?

The player was extremely upset with how I interpreted the reading on the spell, so much so that he threatened to quit a week later (still upset about the ruling). So I thought I would ask the experts.

Thanks for taking the time to read all this :)

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 4

I'm not sure what the first question was, but regarding the rogue;

The rogue clearly considered the mages to be threatening, he did try and kill one of them after all. I would have given him the +5 bonus. They're in enemy territory, and these are enemies actively acting against them. The rogue would not be attacking them if he didn't consider them to be a threat.

Now... if one of mages looked exactly like a peasant because of an Alter Self spell, just standing there with a bucket. That would probably count as "not-threatening."

I don't believe there is any hard and fast rule for what a PC will consider threatening.

Grand Lodge

thelemonache wrote:
---- The PC's are attacking a castle by air. They see 4 guards who are sorcerers (that I will refer to as mages from here on out) mages ahead of them guarding the top of the castle. The party has invisibility and fly cast on themselves. The invisibility was removed from one party member allowing the NPC mages to see that person and begin attacking him. Are the PC's who are still invisible considered threatened since he is attacking a friend of theirs or is only the person being attacked threatened? Does the mere sight of a "guard" in a castle that YOU are attacking consider you to be threatened? (i do not want a philisophical answer just a strict rules answer)(note: I ruled that the invisible people would not be considered threatened for the purpose of charm person because the NPC mage did not know of their existence) -----

That is how I would have ruled it.

question two -
The PC Rogue popped out of invisibility to strike one of the NPC mages. On the mages turn he cast charm person on the PC Rogue (As said with the question above I ruled that he did not get his +5 bonus because the NPC mage had not done anything threatening to the PC rogue yet.) The PC Rogue failed his save and the NPC mage said to him "Jump down there (pointing at the distant ground below them where many troops were fighting each other) and help the fight. Do not worry I will cast feather fall on you" The spell says that the player would not do...

I would have allowed the PC Rogue the +5 to his save. Now, if he failed his save by more than 5, and he failed the opposed Charisma rolls, then he has nothing to complain about. I would NOT go back and say it never happened though.

And if this is all it takes to make him want to quit you may want to talk to him and ask what is the real problem. He is either super childish and it would probably be a better game without him, or there is something else bothering him and he felt this was the last straw.

Sovereign Court

Personally I choose to rule it pretty much any time that weapons are drawn, or spells begin to fly through the air that the +5 bonus usually comes into play. One side is threatening the other with some kind of show of force.

The surprise round is usually the only time I go against that as people are a bit unprepared and might even be easier to influence with a mind affecting spell (not that I'd give a penalty to a save of course.)

A more literal interpretation might be that you only get the +5 to your save when your being threatened in combat, aka someone has a weapon drawn and has the ability to reach the square your in on a game board and only then.

The Exchange

Charm Person can be such a gamechanger of a spell that I would rule fairly strictly on it. I know that the OP said he did not want a philosophical answer, but here the interpretation of "threatening" is important. It seems to me that if an ally threatens the enemy - even if the caster is invisible - the enemy is now "on guard" and should probably be afforded the +5 bonus. That's certainly open to discussion, but it's my 2 cp.

In the second situation involving the rogue, his intent was to attack the guard/caster and therefore already viewed him as a threat. The rogue should certainly have recieved the +5 bonus.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krome wrote:
The PC Rogue failed his save and the NPC mage said to him "Jump down there (pointing at the distant ground below them where many troops were fighting each other) and help the fight. Do not worry I will cast feather fall on you."

This would require both an opposed Charisma check (to get the rogue to do something he wouldn't normally do--help the mage's side of the battle) and a successful Bluff check (to believe the lie about feather fall, if it is indeed a lie--if so, the DC is a bit lower than usual due to the charm).

Grand Lodge

I didn't write that part :)

I decided I had better go back and seriously, and I mean seriously review the spell.

PathfinderPRD wrote:

This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

Okay I bolded some parts because I think they are the most pertinent. Just my opinion on that :)

First I want to make clear this is the way I would do it after reading the spell. Not that this is the ONLY way to do it. Okay, so no flames. This is just my interpretation.

If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw--- Essentially the Rogue in this case should get a +5 to his saving throw. The mages are perceived as a threat otherwise he would not be trying to attack them, and further more, he would not have rolled initiative. :)

but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do--- Assuming the Rogue fails his Save, the two must make opposed Charisma checks. I don't see that a Bluff check is necessary, as the Charisma check seems to cover the bluff. Now I also debate whether it would be necessary for the Charisma check in this case. Since the Rogue already had a Fly spell going it would not be suicidal or dangerous for the Rogue to jump off. BUT since it is a PC being Charmed I would probably give him every chance there is to avoid the Charm. If it were an NPC, I would probably not worry about the opposed Charisma rolls.

Now the final part makes me scratch my head and go "huh?" Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell--- okay does this mean that AFTER the spell is cast any further attacks or threats breaks the charm? Because we have already established that the subject can be threatened and attacked by allies before the spell is cast, hence the +5.

And BTW what skill would you use for pantomiming?

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 4

Quote:
Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell

This part means if your friend attacks them it breaks the spell. It's so you can't charm somebody and then beat the heck out of them while you order them to stand there. However it's only any hostile attack to the charmed person, so your allies can attack the charmed persons friends and the charmed person won't break free.


Question: Would the Charmed person not just go off to help one of his Regular friend attack one of the other players PC... as this is what the chararter would normal do if not charmed. Would the caster be required to make another Charisma check to get the Charmed NPC to leave the battle.

While i can see the Charmed NPC helping out to fight a creature it would normal consider an enemy. Would not a fight against friend/Family/Country men be against what the NPC would normal do.


Quote:
The specific question is, aside from the obvious of being attacked directly, what is considered "threatening"?

Both "threatening" and "attacked by you or your allies" sounds a bit vague, but it's built on the concept of combat. Are the PCs in combat? Did they roll initiative - do they intend to roll initative? Do you/your teammates consider the sorcerers enemies? Do sorcerers consider you enemies? Are your enemies aware of you? Are they aware you've cast a spell? If you or your allies are in combat with an enemy, the enemy gets a +5 bonus on the save.

I personally play it like this: the +5 bonus to the save applies in the vast majority of combat situations. This is fine, because the effect is so powerful, it needs to have this huge save bonus. Even in a surprise round, if your presence threatens someone -- a guard obviously would regard anyone violating a strict curfew as a threat -- then the bonus holds. There are quite a few exceptions, but they almost always have to do with masking either components or your identity.

  • If the victim is not in combat with allies and is unaware of your presence *when the spell is cast*. If the whole party is undetected and an invisible PC caster opens up with a Silent charm person, then clearly no one is aware of threatening enemies. The spell will cause invisibility to fade, but that's *after* the attack. Note that the act of casting a spell can be considered threatening by most people unfamiliar with you. Also, if someone has a sufficient spellcraft check, they know it's a charm person spell being cast. But if no one knows you're actually casting a spell and no one knows you're present, you can't be considered threatening. It's no surprise that Silent mass charm monster takes up a 9th level spell slot.
  • If the caster is in a large crowd of people and they cast a Stilled/Silent charm person on a victim outside the crowd. An example would be casting Silent/Stilled charm person on an enemy lawyer in a trial.
  • If you disguise yourself to look like someone who wouldn't threaten your victim. If your victim is a king, he probably wouldn't worry about you if he thinks you're his most trusted advisor.
  • If someone thinks you're casting a spell for a different and beneficial purpose. Sure, it's a "cure moderate wounds" spell, I swear (: This typically goes along with a bluff check. . .
  • And so on. . .

Quote:
As said with the question above I ruled that he did not get his +5 bonus because the NPC mage had not done anything threatening to the PC rogue yet.

So the sorcerers are guarding a castle. They're obviously going to treat anyone who is not supposed to have access as a threat. That's the common behavior of a guard -- *ESPECIALLY* guards of a flying castle. Why would the rogue consider the sorcerers non-threatening? Any reasonable person would assume that the sorcerers -- guardians of a flying citadel -- to be a threat. . . *ESPECIALLY* since the rogue struck at them first! Did the rogue expect the sorcerers to applaud him for his efforts?

If I had ruled, the PC would have a +5 bonus on the saving throw. This isn't even a corner case as mentioned above.

Quote:
The PC Rogue failed his save and the NPC mage said to him "Jump down there (pointing at the distant ground below them where many troops were fighting each other) and help the fight. Do not worry I will cast feather fall on you" The spell says that the player would not do anythign obviously harmful without convincing and would not do something that they wouldn't ordinarily do without an opposed charisma check. (note: the PC Rogue already had fly cast on him, and the Mage said he would cast feather fall on him, removing any chance of this being suicidal) Regardless of if it was or wasn't something the character would do normally for someone he considered an ally, I gave him the opposed charisma check to give him the benefit of the doubt. He failed.

LOL, this is true evil DMing. I guess a few questions:

1. Has the rogue ever seen the feather fall spell? Does he know what it does? If the party has not used it or discussed it, or if the rogue doesn't have ranks in spellcraft (or perhaps knowledge arcana), I can't see him randomly knowing about this spell. If he doesn't know what the spell does, he wouldn't follow the apparently suicidal order. Also, if he did know about the spell, he'd know that the duration is very short -- 60 ft. per round, 1 round per level. That means with a level 20 caster, the total distance you could fall would be 1200 feet. I'd imagine a flying castle would be higher in the sky than that.

2. The rogue was flying. Would the rogue have enough time to get to the ground using the fly spell? Does he know its duration? Keep in mind you move pretty fast with the fly spell if all you're trying to do is move. If not, perhaps the PCs had time to get to him with either another fly cast or perhaps a protection from evil spell (assuming the sorcerers were evil). Nothing in the sorcerer's order suggests that he has to "drop" like a stone -- he simply has to fly down (assuming he's flying as quickly as possible) and join the fight.

3. Ravingdork is correct -- charm person does not automatically make you assume everything the caster is saying is the truth. Perhaps the sorcerer said it in a way that makes him seem deceiving. . . maybe the rogue has the sense motive skill which would have helped him big-time here. . .

There's a lot of gray area here. Obviously the spell would be good to take the rogue out of combat. But in trying to kill him indirectly with the spell, there's quite a few unknowns.


Thanks to everyone who has replied so far :)

It seems that the consensus is that he should have received his +5 to his save because the Rogue viewed the mage as a threat and therefor was "threatened". My only issue with this from a mechanics standpoint is what's to stop for example a chaotic neutral rogue from saying "I consider everyone a threat always" and therefor roleplaying (or powergaming) his way around the mechanic altogether?

An example:
An evil rapist sneaks into a young girls house during the night and hits her to wake her up. The woman casts charm person on the rapist. Due to the fact that the rapist hit her he must consider her a threat and therefor would get +5 to his save.

I know the example above is a little extreme, but I often find by taking the heroics out of the example it often gives people another angle to try and understand where I am coming from in my interpretation of the wording. If this happened...

An example:
An evil rapist sneaks into a young girls house during the night and hits her to wake her up. The woman casts meteor swarm on the attacker and surprises him with her hidden power. She then casts charm person on the rapist.

I would agree with that example that the rapist would without question not only consider her a threat but BE threatened by the woman, thus receiving a +5.

I think for the purpose of game mechanics there should be a realistic difference between "perceiving a threat" and "being threatened or attacked." I do know, however, that bringing real life logic into a fantasy game is usually the source of many problems, but I agree that If someone I "perceived to be a threat" in real life were to cast charm person on me, I should get a +5 since my personal perception would realistically be almost the same when comparing A) perceiving him as a threat to B) knowing he is a threat.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 4

In both those examples the rapist would get the +5.

If one of the girls sleeping nearby woke up then cast Charm Person on him while he wrestled with the first girl then he would not receive the +5 bonus. He wasn't even aware of her presence.

Think of it as being mentally flat-footed if that helps at all.


thelemonache wrote:
It seems that the consensus is that he should have received his +5 to his save because the Rogue viewed the mage as a threat and therefor was "threatened". My only issue with this from a mechanics standpoint is what's to stop for example a chaotic neutral rogue from saying "I consider everyone a threat always" and therefor roleplaying (or powergaming) his way around the mechanic altogether?

But if someone doesn't detect *anything*, they don't get the bonus. They have to perceive a threat or an attack -- if neither of those are present, then even a paranoid character you describe above wouldn't get the +5 bonus. That's where (improved) invisible + Silent charm persons are effective.

Quote:

An evil rapist sneaks into a young girls house during the night and hits her to wake her up. The woman casts charm person on the rapist. Due to the fact that the rapist hit her he must consider her a threat and therefor would get +5 to his save.

An evil rapist sneaks into a young girls house during the night and hits her to wake her up. The woman casts meteor swarm on the attacker and surprises him with her hidden power. She then casts charm person on the rapist.

In both cases, the rapist would get a +5 bonus.

Now, if the rapist sneaks into the house and casts a Silent charm person on the girl. . . the girl gets no +5 bonus. She is sleeping; she is unaware of any threat or attack. Yes, that is very sinister.

Quote:
I think for the purpose of game mechanics there should be a realistic difference between "perceiving a threat" and "being threatened or attacked."

That's kind of splitting hairs |: I mean you could have a philosophical discussion casting every spell. . . but that might slow the game down a bit (:

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Charm Person usage clarification please All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.