Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Petition: I nominate Ashiel to work for Paizo as Rules Consultant


Off-Topic Discussions

551 to 600 of 951 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Star Voter 2013

ciretose wrote:

So what are the DCs of the different checks. Or is it the same to get someone to feed your cat as it is to get them to kill a small child?

You have to read an a lot into the wording of rule to get the outcome you are describing.

Our position doesn't. The spell simply makes that person friendly toward you. Period. Full stop.

What does "friendly" mean. You go to diplomacy (which it references) and it gives some example interactions and the bonuses and penalties that come with them.

Getting a creature to go against the very nature of it's being...I suspect that is much , much, higher than "Give aid that could result in punishment"

I would suspect that is a ridiculously high roll.

YMMV.

There are no checks. You could use Charm Person to make someone friendly, then use Diplomacy to improve that stance and make them helpful. You come across a Hostile person and hit them with Charm Person, now they are friendly. That's one aspect of the spell.

However, the other aspect is I could give them an order. They can choose to resist the Order in which we make opposed Charisma Checks. This means, we both roll 1d20 and add out Charisma Modifiers. Whoever rolls the higher number, wins the check. If the Caster wins, the Charmed creature follows the Order. If the Charmed creature wins, the Order isn't followed and the Caster can't try to give them the same Order again.

No variable checks, no calculating DCs. The spell is really simple.


Damn, claiming restoration would restore the abilities penalized by the geas seems like a pretty newb mistake for a "supastah!".


I have to say though, I'm still not clear about the difference between ability "damage", "drain", and now "penalty".

I thought I understood the first two, but is this third thing something else or are you guys using "penalty" interchangeably with "ability damage".

Star Voter 2013

Grimmy wrote:

I have to say though, I'm still not clear about the difference between ability "damage", "drain", and now "penalty".

I thought I understood the first two, but is this third thing something else or are you guys using "penalty" interchangeably with "ability damage".

Ability Score Damage:

Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.

For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability. If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score. The only exception to this is your Constitution score. If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you die. Unless otherwise noted, damage to your ability scores is healed at the rate of 1 per day to each ability score that has been damaged. Ability damage can be healed through the use of spells, such as lesser restoration.

Strength: Damage to your Strength score causes you to take penalties on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The penalty also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and your Combat Maneuver Defense. A character with a Strength score of 0 is too weak to move in any way and is unconscious. Some creatures do not possess a Strength score and have no modifier at all to Strength-based skills or checks.

Dexterity: Damage to your Dexterity score causes you to take penalties on Dexterity-based skill checks, ranged attack rolls, initiative checks, and Reflex saving throws. The penalty also applies to your Armor Class, your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Tiny or smaller), and to your Combat Maneuver Defense. A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious).

Constitution: Damage to your Constitution score causes you to take penalties on your Fortitude saving throws. In addition, multiply your total Hit Dice by this penalty and subtract that amount from your current and total hit points. Lost hit points are restored when the damage to your Constitution is healed. A character with a Constitution score of 0 is dead.

Intelligence: Damage to your Intelligence score causes you to take penalties on Intelligence-based skill checks. This penalty also applies to any spell DCs based on Intelligence. A character with an Intelligence score of 0 is comatose.

Wisdom: Damage to your Wisdom score causes you to take penalties on Wisdom-based skill checks and Will saving throws. This penalty also applies to any spell DCs based on Wisdom. A character with a Wisdom score of 0 is incapable of rational thought and is unconscious.

Charisma: Damage to your Charisma score causes you to take penalties on Charisma-based skill checks. This penalty also applies to any spell DCs based off Charisma and the DC to resist your channeled energy. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious.

Ability Damage damages your ability scores. It applies a penalty to all rolls, checks, etc related to that ability score. If reduced to 0, it knocks you unconscious, or even kills you. Ability Damage is healed at the rate of 1 point per day of rest.

Ability Score Penalties:

Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage, but they cannot cause you to fall unconscious or die. In essence, penalties cannot decrease your ability score to less than 1.

Ability Penalty is just like Ability Damage, but it is temporary and can't knock you unconscious or kill you. Typically, when the spell affecting you expires, so too does the Ability Penalty. Ray of Enfeeblement applies a penalty to your strength for a number of rounds, and when it expires, the penalty vanishes.

Ability Drain:

Ability drain actually reduces the relevant ability score. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to lose skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. Ability drain can be healed through the use of spells such as restoration.

Ability Drain literally drains away your Ability score. It doesn't heal naturally, only through spells or similar abilities. Treat as permanent unless magically healed.


Thanks a lot tels.

But why are people saying the ability damage and penalties aren't actually reflected in the mental and physical attributes associated with the ability scores? For example people are saying someone with intelligence 1 from ability penalties can still speak and reason as well as they ever did, and so on. Wraith strike said something to this effect. I was surprised because I always thought the differences between ability damage and ability drain were mostly just to streamline gameplay.

Star Voter 2013

Grimmy wrote:

Thanks a lot tels.

But why are people saying the ability damage and penalties aren't actually reflected in the mental and physical attributes associated with the ability scores? For example people are saying someone with intelligence 1 from ability penalties can still speak and reason as well as they ever did, and so on. Wraith strike said something to this effect. I was surprised because I always thought the differences between ability damage and ability drain were mostly just to streamline gameplay.

Ability Damage and Penalty don't actually take away your ability to speak. Sure, it makes you harder to think and recall information (penalty to knowledge checks), but it doesn't mean they can't speak.

As for reasoning capabilities, that's up to the GM. Personally, someone who has a penalty to Intelligence and Wisdom isn't going to be coming up with some fool-proof plan, or find loopholes in a contract they signed.

That's my own personal viewpoint however, as nothing states that Penalty and Damage actually prevents the person from employing their normal reasoning capabilities.

Technically speaking, Drain does't prevent people from thinking clearly either.


Grimmy wrote:

Thanks a lot tels.

But why are people saying the ability damage and penalties aren't actually reflected in the mental and physical attributes associated with the ability scores? For example people are saying someone with intelligence 1 from ability penalties can still speak and reason as well as they ever did, and so on. Wraith strike said something to this effect. I was surprised because I always thought the differences between ability damage and ability drain were mostly just to streamline gameplay.

Because the rules for ability score penalties and damage are less oppressive than actually having an ability score that low, and have less drawbacks. If you suffer damage or drain, only the following things occur:
Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain wrote:

Strength: Damage to your Strength score causes you to take penalties on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The penalty also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and your Combat Maneuver Defense.

Dexterity: Damage to your Dexterity score causes you to take penalties on Dexterity-based skill checks, ranged attack rolls, initiative checks, and Reflex saving throws. The penalty also applies to your Armor Class, your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Tiny or smaller), and to your Combat Maneuver Defense.

Constitution: Damage to your Constitution score causes you to take penalties on your Fortitude saving throws. In addition, multiply your total Hit Dice by this penalty and subtract that amount from your current and total hit points. Lost hit points are restored when the damage to your Constitution is healed.

Intelligence: Damage to your Intelligence score causes you to take penalties on Intelligence-based skill checks. This penalty also applies to any spell DCs based on Intelligence.

Wisdom: Damage to your Wisdom score causes you to take penalties on Wisdom-based skill checks and Will saving throws. This penalty also applies to any spell DCs based on Wisdom.

Charisma: Damage to your Charisma score causes you to take penalties on Charisma-based skill checks. This penalty also applies to any spell DCs based off Charisma and the DC to resist your channeled energy.

Ability Drain: Ability drain actually reduces the relevant ability score. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to lose skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. Ability drain can be healed through the use of spells such as restoration.

Now if you notice, the effects of ability score damage and penalties only affect what it says it affects. A wizard in Pathfinder who normally has a 19 Intelligence but suffers ability damage to their Intelligence bringing it all the way down to, say, 13, can still cast 9th level spells. It will however hurt their save DCs very badly. In many ways, this is similar to how negative levels can cause you to be treated as a lower level but won't actually take away your abilities (a 20th level wizard with 19 negative levels can cast 9th level spells at caster level 1).

Unless the ability score is actually reduced or increased on a more permanent basis (ability drain for example) then it only affects a small number of things. Having your Intelligence damaged to 1 doesn't cause you to forget your languages or stop being able to speak. It does mean however that your save DCs are super weak for Int-based casting and you have a very hard time with checks based on Intelligence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whether it's technicly convincing them or not, it might as well be domination if it's reduced to a simple charisma check, simply becasue the kind of characters that focus on charm spells boost their charisma for such a purpose.

Scenario:
I'm walking from my car into the store to buy food. A guy walks up to me and I'm apprehensive about a total stranger approaching me. Then for some reason, he strikes me as the kind of guy I'd like to be friends with. He asks me to use the money I was going to use to buy food for my family, to give to him instead for what he thinks is a compelling reason. No matter how much he turns on the charm, I'm not doing it. There's no compelling reason to let my family starve for a week. If he persisted, my attitude would change from friendly to wary pretty quickly.

Spoiler:
Before anyone says 'well this happens in real life' the kind of people that fall for this kind of con artistry in real life, usually have something else going on in their lives that make them susceptable to the line of bull being sold, and are targeted by con men specificly for that specific line of bull.

The spell is there for this guy to get me to friendly to hear him out, but then he has to talk me into anything I find objectionable the hard way. Which then leads to an opposed Charisma check...

Of course, as a GM, you can assign appropriate bonuses or penalties to said Charisma check as appropriate for the line of bull being sold, becasue, well it's your job.
Using Tel's example, if I knew him and was his GM, I would assign him a significant bonus to his CHA check because he is so adamant about not cheating. Why? Because Charm X is not Dominate. I would assign a bonus that allowed a 75% (at least) chance of blowing off the suggestion.
For the Azata, they would get one hell of a bonus to the opposed charisma check, being asked to do something against the fiber of it's being.
They have a constant Holy Aura effect, which works as protection from evil mental influence wise, the only save is vs being blinded if attacked. How is this being circumvented?
Also one of the prepared spells is banishment. Whats to prevent him from casting that on himself once the feather is bandied about?


Ashiel wrote:

Geas doesn't actually force anyone to do anything. Instead, it punishes you for not doing stuff. Protection from evil specifically notes that it prevents effects that control other characters, such as charm person(!), but geas does not force a creature to obey you, nor does it grant control over a creature.

Instead, it produces an effect when you are not doing as told. That effect being penalizing all your ability scores at a rate of -3 per day, up to -12.

Now THIS I don't necessarily agree with. Protection from Alignment, in my reasoned and earthshaking opinion, is a blanket effect that protects the recipent from charm and compulsion effects from casters of that alignment. That's what makes it so amazing. I'm sure nobody would argue that.

In this case, the evil wizard has to get around the aura in some way. A targeted dispel would do the trick I think, and a high level wizard should have a fair chance of winning that caster level check. I was surprised to find that the Protection/Magic Circle effects didn't nullify each other as light and darkness spells, but there you go.

Also I'm beginning to agree with Tels here... Charm is a LOT better than I remember.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Grimmy wrote:
Damn, claiming restoration would restore the abilities penalized by the geas seems like a pretty newb mistake for a "supastah!".

The penalties from Geas only apply if the person under geas is prevented from doing the task assigned for 24 hours. I think he was saying other things done to lower the charisma check could be countered by restoration.

Just because person A says that person B is saying something doesn't mean that is what person B is saying.


It seems like in the case of the charm issue, it is really upsetting people that the spell is more than "magic diplomacy". It appears that people do not like the idea that a 1st level mind-affecting spell might cause someone to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do (even going so far as to ignore that the text clearly states it does just that). Apparently the fact that it's an all or nothing spell, grants a +5 bonus to the save if you're in a hostile situation, and requires opposed Charisma checks (Charisma checks being something that is semi-difficult to power-game since it's not a statistic based on level), immediately ends if you do anything hostile, and can be easily blocked, dispelled, or suppressed.

I dunno about you guys, but about as long as I can recall people have been casting stuff like protection from evil to prevent enemies from turning your allies against you. For example, if you're dealing with succubi, one of their main tactics is charming enemies and then making them do stuff with their goofy Charisma modifiers. Of course, most would just cast protection from evil on everyone they can and laugh.

The one thing that bugs me about how they changed the protection from spells was making it so the mind-warding doesn't apply regardless of alignment. It makes it much more difficult to protect someone, and since it's keyed to alignment now, gives way too much room to neutral characters; but I've noted the problems with alignment and mechanics in another thread already. Suffice to say that Neutral is the most powerful alignment, and that bugs me because I feel like alignment should be a character choice, not a mechanical one in most cases.


Ah, I spoke too soon. He's right, it's right there in the spell description. Restoration does dispel magical effects penalizing ability scores, particularly greater restoration.

Star Voter 2013

Kryzbyn wrote:

Whether it's technicly convincing them or not, it might as well be domination if it's reduced to a simple charisma check, simply becasue the kind of characters that focus on charm spells boost their charisma for such a purpose.

Scenario:
I'm walking from my car into the store to buy food. A guy walks up to me and I'm apprehensive about a total stranger approaching me. Then for some reason, he strikes me as the kind of guy I'd like to be friends with. He asks me to use the money I was going to use to buy food for my family, to give to him instead for what he thinks is a compelling reason. No matter how much he turns on the charm, I'm not doing it. There's no compelling reason to let my family starve for a week. If he persisted, my attitude would change from friendly to wary pretty quickly.

** spoiler omitted **

The spell is there for this guy to get me to friendly to hear him out, but then he has to talk me into anything I find objectionable the hard way. Which then leads to an opposed Charisma check...

Of course, as a GM, you can assign appropriate bonuses or penalties to said Charisma check as appropriate for the line of bull being sold, becasue, well it's your job.
Using Tel's example, if I knew him and was his GM, I would assign him a significant bonus to his CHA check because he is so adamant about not cheating. Why? Because Charm X is not Dominate. I would assign a bonus that allowed a 75% (at least) chance of blowing off the suggestion.
For the Azata, they would get one hell of a bonus to the opposed charisma check, being asked to do something against the fiber of it's being.
They have a constant Holy Aura effect, which works as protection from evil mental influence wise, the...

The problem is, you're completely disregarding the second aspect of the spell. Applying a bonus to the Charisma Check becomes GM fiat/houserule territory, and can't truthfully be brought up in the discussion of the spell.

Per the wording of the spell, I make a person friendly, I can order them to do something they wouldn't normally do, and if I make the Charisma Check, they agree to do the thing I ordered them to do.

Using your example, it works out something like this:

You're getting in the car when the man comes up, and you are initially wary of him. He hits you with Charm Person, and you suddenly think he is a lot nicer than initially thought.

He then says, "You should buy my stuff instead of buying groceries for your family."

That's something you wouldn't do, so you roll opposed checks. In your example, he failed the check because he's a first level wizard and tanked Charisma, or a Rogue with the Magic Rogue Talents and took Charm Person, but tanked his Charisma. (Going off memory here, don't remember if that's possible)

He then says, "How about you give me your car and car keys." Again, something you wouldn't normally do. So you make your rolls. This time, he wins the roll, so you hand over your keys and he drives away, and you proceed to walk to the store and buy food for your family.

[Edit] Also, the use of Charm Monster on a creature you're Binding wasn't to apply a penalty or anything. Personally, I would phrase it as, "I order you to agree to the terms of my Planar Binding."

This is something the called creature wouldn't normally do, so an opposed Charisma check is called for. If the Caster wins, the Called creature agrees to the terms of the Binding. Now Charm Monster plays no effect as the Creature is subject to the terms it agreed to (whether willingly or coerced).

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Ashiel wrote:
Geas doesn't actually force anyone to do anything.

Actually it does:

"The geased creature must follow the given instructions until the geas is completed, no matter how long it takes."

The penalty comes if they are prevented from doing it.

"If the subject is prevented from obeying the geas/quest for 24 hours, it takes a -3 penalty to each of its ability scores. Each day, another -3 penalty accumulates, up to a total of -12. No ability score can be reduced to less than 1 by this effect. The ability score penalties are removed 24 hours after the subject resumes obeying the geas/quest."

This is how the compulsion effects work. The creature is compelled to do what it has been geased to do. It may do other things as well (such as kill you if you aren't careful in your wording) but it must do what it is geased to do.

The limiting factor being it takes 10 minutes to cast and you"...cannot compel a creature to kill itself or perform acts that would result in certain death" but otherwise "it can cause almost any other course of activity." so if you have someone that restrained for that long, you probably could have also killed them.

Very, very different wording than charm. For a reason.


On the other hand Tels, they will stil never do anything that is "obviously harmful". To me that's the most important piece of wording keeping the spell from being too powerful.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

It actually isn't upsetting, because it is just magic diplomacy. That is why it references the diplomacy rules.

I think your side of the debate is upset that is all it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
The problem is, you're completely disregarding the second aspect of the spell. Applying a bonus to the Charisma Check becomes GM fiat/houserule territory, and can't truthfully be brought up in the discussion of the spell.

No this isn't GM fiat. This is adjudication, which is your job as a GM.

Fiat is not giving the Azata the bonus so he fails a simple check he shouldnt even be subjected to in the first place, to go along with the story.


I have to say, I like the idea Ashiel presented. It's cool and edgy.
I played in a module once where an evil cleric who used to be so good a Solar allied with her, and when she turned evil becasue of an unjustice layed on her by the church, the solar was corrupted as well, becasue it had given it's word to protect her.
It's a cool idea, but mechanicly this would never happen.

Star Voter 2013

Kryzbyn wrote:
Tels wrote:
The problem is, you're completely disregarding the second aspect of the spell. Applying a bonus to the Charisma Check becomes GM fiat/houserule territory, and can't truthfully be brought up in the discussion of the spell.

No this isn't GM fiat. This is adjudication, which is your job as a GM.

Fiat is not giving the Azata the bonus so he fails a simple check he shouldnt even be subjected to in the first place, to go along with the story.

Applying a bonus or penalty based on the question asked is changing the actual rules for the spell. That's GM fiat territory. Adjudicate is giving a final ruling on an unclear spell, rule, or feat interpretation.

For instance, whether or not a Monk can use the Two-Weapon Fighting feats (as he has no off-hand attack) is adjudicating.

Applying a bonus or penalty to a save, attack, or check, is fiat.

Star Voter 2013

Grimmy wrote:
On the other hand Tels, they will stil never do anything that is "obviously harmful". To me that's the most important piece of wording keeping the spell from being too powerful.

I agree, but charming a creature to agree to the terms of Planar Binding, isn't obviously harmful, unless the terms themselves are obviously harmful.


Since when is assigning modifiers to checks GM fiat? Seriously?


I have to say, "just magical diplomacy" is a fairly apt description of how charm has always worked in my games, and I'm not seeing anything compelling to change my interpretation of it. The wording is just too similar. Even diplomacy let's you make a request, and a target coerced by the intimidate skill "takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance.".
Charm feels like a magical version of these skills, while compulsion effects like dominate go significantly beyond them.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Kryzbyn wrote:

I have to say, I like the idea Ashiel presented. It's cool and edgy.

I played in a module once where an evil cleric who used to be so good a Solar allied with her, and when she turned evil becasue of an unjustice layed on her by the church, the solar was corrupted as well, becasue it had given it's word to protect her.
It's a cool idea, but mechanicly this would never happen.

I actually am on the fence about if it could happen. I don't think it could work as described because charm doesn't work that way. But Geas is damn powerful with no save, so if you can bind them successfully and it can be cast you can get them to do things.

But I am very confident that when the geas wears off (possibly sooner), you are so very, very screwed if the GM has even 1/2 a brain and asks the question "What is the logical reaction now from all parties with an interest in what just happened."

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Tels wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Tels wrote:
The problem is, you're completely disregarding the second aspect of the spell. Applying a bonus to the Charisma Check becomes GM fiat/houserule territory, and can't truthfully be brought up in the discussion of the spell.

No this isn't GM fiat. This is adjudication, which is your job as a GM.

Fiat is not giving the Azata the bonus so he fails a simple check he shouldnt even be subjected to in the first place, to go along with the story.

Applying a bonus or penalty based on the question asked is changing the actual rules for the spell. That's GM fiat territory. Adjudicate is giving a final ruling on an unclear spell, rule, or feat interpretation.

For instance, whether or not a Monk can use the Two-Weapon Fighting feats (as he has no off-hand attack) is adjudicating.

Applying a bonus or penalty to a save, attack, or check, is fiat.

The spell literally refers you to diplomacy. Literally. It makes the person or monster "friendly" as defined by diplomacy, and that is what it does and all it does.

Anything else is DM fiat. It is a first level spell.

Star Voter 2013

Kryzbyn wrote:
Since when is assigning modifiers to checks GM fiat? Seriously?

I use Fiat and Adjudicate based on the definition of the terms.

Adjudicate: verb (used with object)
1. to pronounce or decree by judicial sentence.
2. to settle or determine (an issue or dispute) judicially.
verb (used without object)
3.to sit in judgment (usually followed by upon ).

Fiat: noun
1. an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat. Synonyms: authorization, directive, ruling, mandate, diktat, ukase.
2. a fixed form of words containing the word fiat, by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization.
3. an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it: The king ruled by fiat.

So one is a judgement or settling of a dispute. The other is decree or arbitrary pronouncement.

Like I said, settling a dispute on the the interpretation on something in the rule book, is adjudicating. Assigning bonuses is fiat.

That's how I use the terms.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Tels wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Tels wrote:
The problem is, you're completely disregarding the second aspect of the spell. Applying a bonus to the Charisma Check becomes GM fiat/houserule territory, and can't truthfully be brought up in the discussion of the spell.

No this isn't GM fiat. This is adjudication, which is your job as a GM.

Fiat is not giving the Azata the bonus so he fails a simple check he shouldnt even be subjected to in the first place, to go along with the story.

Applying a bonus or penalty based on the question asked is changing the actual rules for the spell. That's GM fiat territory. Adjudicate is giving a final ruling on an unclear spell, rule, or feat interpretation.

For instance, whether or not a Monk can use the Two-Weapon Fighting feats (as he has no off-hand attack) is adjudicating.

Applying a bonus or penalty to a save, attack, or check, is fiat.

The spell literally refers you to diplomacy. Literally. It makes the person or monster "friendly" as defined by diplomacy, and that is what it does and all it does.

Anything else is DM fiat. It is a first level spell.

Yes, yes it does.

But then the spell goes on to say you can ALSO give a person orders!

You are reading only half of the spell. You always claim Ashiel twists the rules to suit his needs, and yet here you are ignoring the other half of the spell because it doesn't suit your needs!

Star Voter 2013

As a bit of an off topic this makes me think of how Paladins are held to higher standards than even Angels.

I mean we have seen thread after thread about how easy it is to fall how you can simply be charmed out of your powers with a couple of bad rolls, and yet those same posters will turn around and defy any chance of a divine being ever being held accountable for its actions under those same spells if they would even allow then to work.

Btw not directed at anyone here just to be clear.


Kryzbyn wrote:

I have to say, I like the idea Ashiel presented. It's cool and edgy.

I played in a module once where an evil cleric who used to be so good a Solar allied with her, and when she turned evil becasue of an unjustice layed on her by the church, the solar was corrupted as well, becasue it had given it's word to protect her.
It's a cool idea, but mechanicly this would never happen.

I can think of one way Ashiel's scenario could hold water. The order from the evil caster would be "obviously harmful" and would not work at all, EXCEPT if the Ghaele had suffered all those ability score penalties and was consequently too irrational (Int), foolish (Wis), and lacking a strong sense of self (Cha) to recognize the obvious harm of obeying the command.

But apparently this doesn't work because according to some, penalized ability scores are not really lower.


ciretose wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

I have to say, I like the idea Ashiel presented. It's cool and edgy.

I played in a module once where an evil cleric who used to be so good a Solar allied with her, and when she turned evil becasue of an unjustice layed on her by the church, the solar was corrupted as well, becasue it had given it's word to protect her.
It's a cool idea, but mechanicly this would never happen.

I actually am on the fence about if it could happen. I don't think it could work as described because charm doesn't work that way. But Geas is damn powerful with no save, so if you can bind them successfully and it can be cast you can get them to do things.

But I am very confident that when the geas wears off (possibly sooner), you are so very, very screwed if the GM has even 1/2 a brain and asks the question "What is the logical reaction now from all parties with an interest in what just happened."

Ashiel covered that though. Something about "off the ghaele while you can or it will own your face".

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Tels wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Tels wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Tels wrote:
The problem is, you're completely disregarding the second aspect of the spell. Applying a bonus to the Charisma Check becomes GM fiat/houserule territory, and can't truthfully be brought up in the discussion of the spell.

No this isn't GM fiat. This is adjudication, which is your job as a GM.

Fiat is not giving the Azata the bonus so he fails a simple check he shouldnt even be subjected to in the first place, to go along with the story.

Applying a bonus or penalty based on the question asked is changing the actual rules for the spell. That's GM fiat territory. Adjudicate is giving a final ruling on an unclear spell, rule, or feat interpretation.

For instance, whether or not a Monk can use the Two-Weapon Fighting feats (as he has no off-hand attack) is adjudicating.

Applying a bonus or penalty to a save, attack, or check, is fiat.

The spell literally refers you to diplomacy. Literally. It makes the person or monster "friendly" as defined by diplomacy, and that is what it does and all it does.

Anything else is DM fiat. It is a first level spell.

Yes, yes it does.

But then the spell goes on to say you can ALSO give a person orders!

You are reading only half of the spell. You always claim Ashiel twists the rules to suit his needs, and yet here you are ignoring the other half of the spell because [i]it doesn't suit your needs![i]

From diplomacy (which it references)

"If a creature’s attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature’s current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers. Once a creature’s attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."

Request = Order

I can request or order you to stop arguing with me about this right now, but that doesn't mean you will.

It is not control person, it is charm. It makes them friendly as described in diplomacy. Why would you describe it as making them friendly if not for the purposes of referencing diplomacy as the guideline?

Again, you are arguing having someone feed your cat is the same save as having them murder a kitty.

That isn't what the spell says, it isn't what it does. If it were, it wouldn't say the person isn't an automaton.

Compare it to geas and dominate, both much higher level spells.

It does not have the power you are trying to add to it. It really is just magical diplomacy.


Talonhawke wrote:

As a bit of an off topic this makes me think of how Paladins are held to higher standards than even Angels.

I mean we have seen thread after thread about how easy it is to fall how you can simply be charmed out of your powers with a couple of bad rolls, and yet those same posters will turn around and defy any chance of a divine being ever being held accountable for its actions under those same spells if they would even allow then to work.

Btw not directed at anyone here just to be clear.

A palidan who falls while under the influence of charm or compulsion just has to have "atonement" cast I think. Not a huge deal.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Grimmy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

I have to say, I like the idea Ashiel presented. It's cool and edgy.

I played in a module once where an evil cleric who used to be so good a Solar allied with her, and when she turned evil becasue of an unjustice layed on her by the church, the solar was corrupted as well, becasue it had given it's word to protect her.
It's a cool idea, but mechanicly this would never happen.

I actually am on the fence about if it could happen. I don't think it could work as described because charm doesn't work that way. But Geas is damn powerful with no save, so if you can bind them successfully and it can be cast you can get them to do things.

But I am very confident that when the geas wears off (possibly sooner), you are so very, very screwed if the GM has even 1/2 a brain and asks the question "What is the logical reaction now from all parties with an interest in what just happened."

Ashiel covered that though. Something about "off the ghaele while you can or it will own your face".

You think that specific ghaele in front of you is the only one with an interest in the fact you kidnapped one of them and forced it to act against it's nature?

They are literally warriors for good, and you just kidnapped one of them.

Good luck...

Ultimate Magic said it well:

"One of the most potent tools a spellcasters can wield is the command of summoned creatures; the most powerful of these spells call forth allies mightier than mere flesh, reaching from the depths of Hell to the peaks of Heaven, and even stranger places beyond the pale. When reaching for knowledge and forces from other planes, a spellcaster must have control over the strengths and weaknesses of their targets, or face doom far worse than any that might be visited upon them in the Material Plane. A spellcaster wishing to bind such creatures who cannot play to the desires of his summoned captive will surely lose control, and may find himself torn from his reality as a plaything of the multiverse’s cruelest tormentors."


Tels wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
On the other hand Tels, they will stil never do anything that is "obviously harmful". To me that's the most important piece of wording keeping the spell from being too powerful.
I agree, but charming a creature to agree to the terms of Planar Binding, isn't obviously harmful, unless the terms themselves are obviously harmful.

And the bad guys terms WILL be obviously harmful, unless they're so vague as to accomplish nothing.

The only way the harm isn't obvious, is if he makes that ghaele very dumb first.


ciretose wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

I have to say, I like the idea Ashiel presented. It's cool and edgy.

I played in a module once where an evil cleric who used to be so good a Solar allied with her, and when she turned evil becasue of an unjustice layed on her by the church, the solar was corrupted as well, becasue it had given it's word to protect her.
It's a cool idea, but mechanicly this would never happen.

I actually am on the fence about if it could happen. I don't think it could work as described because charm doesn't work that way. But Geas is damn powerful with no save, so if you can bind them successfully and it can be cast you can get them to do things.

But I am very confident that when the geas wears off (possibly sooner), you are so very, very screwed if the GM has even 1/2 a brain and asks the question "What is the logical reaction now from all parties with an interest in what just happened."

Ashiel covered that though. Something about "off the ghaele while you can or it will own your face".

You think that specific ghaele in front of you is the only one with an interest in the fact you kidnapped one of them and forced it to act against it's nature?

They are literally warriors for good, and you just kidnapped one of them.

Good luck...

Ultimate Magic said it well:

"One of the most potent tools a spellcasters can wield is the command of summoned creatures; the most powerful of these spells call forth allies mightier than mere flesh, reaching from the depths of Hell to the peaks of Heaven, and even stranger places beyond the pale. When reaching for knowledge and forces from other planes, a spellcaster must have control over the strengths and weaknesses of their targets, or face doom far worse than any that might be visited upon them in the Material Plane. A spellcaster wishing to bind such creatures who cannot play to the desires of his summoned captive will surely lose control, and may find himself torn from his reality as a...

I like that passage. Now Demons, from what I understand, usually don't have any means of traveling to the material plane unless they are summoned, it says so in the bestiary entry. But Ghaeles I guess are different and can travel here freely. Would they miss their comrade and know where she went? Maybe not right away, but yeah you are playing with fire. Then again that's what twisted villains like this guy do.


Tels wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Since when is assigning modifiers to checks GM fiat? Seriously?

I use Fiat and Adjudicate based on the definition of the terms.

Adjudicate: verb (used with object)
1. to pronounce or decree by judicial sentence.
2. to settle or determine (an issue or dispute) judicially.
verb (used without object)
3.to sit in judgment (usually followed by upon ).

Fiat: noun
1. an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat. Synonyms: authorization, directive, ruling, mandate, diktat, ukase.
2. a fixed form of words containing the word fiat, by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization.
3. an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it: The king ruled by fiat.

So one is a judgement or settling of a dispute. The other is decree or arbitrary pronouncement.

Like I said, settling a dispute on the the interpretation on something in the rule book, is adjudicating. Assigning bonuses is fiat.

That's how I use the terms.

Don't really see how this helps your case.

As a GM, you sit in judgement using the authority granted to you by the players, within the scope of the rules in the book, including rule 0.
Fiat is abuse of rule 0.

Star Voter 2013

Grimmy wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

As a bit of an off topic this makes me think of how Paladins are held to higher standards than even Angels.

I mean we have seen thread after thread about how easy it is to fall how you can simply be charmed out of your powers with a couple of bad rolls, and yet those same posters will turn around and defy any chance of a divine being ever being held accountable for its actions under those same spells if they would even allow then to work.

Btw not directed at anyone here just to be clear.

A palidan who falls while under the influence of charm or compulsion just has to have "atonement" cast I think. Not a huge deal.

Most of those DM argue that he has to go for the full hard version of atonement.


You guys are probably just using the words differently. Fiat has kind of a draconian ring to it but some people just use it to refer to anything that isn't clearly spelled out in the rules and falls under GM purview.

Star Voter 2013

ciretose wrote:

From diplomacy (which it references)

"If a creature’s attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature’s current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers. Once a creature’s attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."

Request = Order

I can request or order you to stop arguing with me about this right now, but that doesn't mean you will.

It is not control person, it is charm. It makes them friendly as described in diplomacy. Why would you describe it as making them friendly if not for the purposes of referencing diplomacy as the guideline?

Again, you are arguing having someone feed your cat is the same save as having them murder a kitty.

That isn't what the spell says, it isn't what it does. If it were, it wouldn't say the person isn't an automaton.

Compare it to geas and dominate, both much higher level spells.

It does not have the power you are trying to add to it. It really is just magical diplomacy.

The person isn't an automaton, because an automaton does exactly as it's told, every time, without fail, no resistance or argument given. The fact that there is an opposing Charisma Check automatically means the person ins't an automaton.

The spell makes a person automatically friendly. What does that mean? You don't have to try and improve their attitude simply to gather information from someone.

For example:
You walk up to the town guard of a city that is known for not dealing well with outsiders. You want some information about the layout of the land, but you invested in Intimidate instead of Diplomacy.

So you hit them with Charm Person. The Guard now treats you as friendly, and will likely tell you about what he knows about the layout of the land, such as notable landmarks, which paths are dangerous, perils they are likely to face nearby.

However, the Guard has also been ordered not to allow anyone inside the gate, as the city is under some emergency lock down for some reason.

You ask if you can come inside, but the Guard tells you no, he can't and cites the reason the door is closed (By order of the lord etc) and as much as he likes you, he can't open the door.

So instead, you order him to open the door. This involves defying his own superior, which, as a loyal guard, he wouldn't normally do. So you make an opposed Charisma Check. You win the Charisma Check, so the Guard opens the gate, and allows you inside.

That! Is how Charm Person is supposed to be used. It references both the Diplomacy rules, and the ability for the spell to Order someone to do something they normally wouldn't.

You are picking and choosing which aspect of the rules to listen to, because it doesn't suit your stance on the spell. This is something you claim Ashiel does on a regular basis. If you completely ignore the fact that Charm Person allows you to give an order via opposed Charisma Check, then that makes you a hypocrite.

You can't simply ignore the other aspect of the spell, and infact, you seem to avoiding that part of the spell every time I point it out, and only reference the Diplomacy part.

I have acknowledged the Diplomacy part of Charm Person, but you fail to acknowledge the Ordering part of Charm Person. Why do you not do this? Because that would involve admitting you could be wrong, and that is something that you would never do.

Charm Person allows you to gather information more easily. But if you wish to go beyond what the 'friendly' status of Diplomacy allows, you need to make an opposed Charisma Check to succeed in your endeavors. That's how it works. To ignore the second half the spell, is to issue a houserule.


@talonhawke I swear I remember reading that if the pally was "under the influence" it's just the soft version, just have the spell cast and get on with your day.

Of course I'm sure any paladin would feel a ton of remorse, but hopefully his deity would understand.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Grimmy wrote:
Ah, I spoke too soon. He's right, it's right there in the spell description. Restoration does dispel magical effects penalizing ability scores, particularly greater restoration.

Not for Bestow Curse or Geas. They have caveats that they cannot be dispelled.

Bestow Curse wrote:
The curse bestowed by this spell cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed with a break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish spell.
Lesser Geas wrote:
A lesser geas (and all ability score penalties) can be ended by break enchantment, limited wish, remove curse, miracle, or wish. Dispel magic does not affect a lesser geas.
Geas wrote:

This spell functions similarly to lesser geas, except that it affects a creature of any HD and allows no saving throw...

A remove curse spell ends a geas/quest spell only if its caster level is at least two higher than your caster level. Break enchantment does not end a geas/quest, but limited wish, miracle, and wish do.

Restoration specifically mentions that it "dispels" effects.

Restoration wrote:
Greater restoration also dispels all magical effects penalizing the creature's abilities, cures all temporary ability damage, and restores all points permanently drained from all ability scores.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, the devs can't spend 50 pages on one spell description. So they just say things like a charmed creature will never obey an order that is "obviously harmful", or, a charmed creature "is not an automaton". They are writing kind of loose here, and it feels to me like they are almost saying, "duh, within reason".

It makes you friendly, you feel kind of charmed. You are not a mind-controlled slave.


Aratrok wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
Ah, I spoke too soon. He's right, it's right there in the spell description. Restoration does dispel magical effects penalizing ability scores, particularly greater restoration.

Not for Bestow Curse or Geas. They have caveats that they cannot be dispelled.

Bestow Curse wrote:
The curse bestowed by this spell cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed with a break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish spell.
Lesser Geas wrote:
A lesser geas (and all ability score penalties) can be ended by break enchantment, limited wish, remove curse, miracle, or wish. Dispel magic does not affect a lesser geas.
Geas wrote:

This spell functions similarly to lesser geas, except that it affects a creature of any HD and allows no saving throw...

A remove curse spell ends a geas/quest spell only if its caster level is at least two higher than your caster level. Break enchantment does not end a geas/quest, but limited wish, miracle, and wish do.

Restoration specifically mentions that it "dispels" effects.

Restoration wrote:
Greater restoration also dispels all magical effects penalizing the creature's abilities, cures all temporary ability damage, and restores all points permanently drained from all ability scores.

Ah, ok, thanks for weighing in on that. You have to admit that does get a little confusing when you are bouncing back and forth between the different spell descriptions, comparing wording.

I would say your interpretation here looks pretty definitive and final to me though.


Tels wrote:
ciretose wrote:

From diplomacy (which it references)

"If a creature’s attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature’s current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers. Once a creature’s attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."

Request = Order

I can request or order you to stop arguing with me about this right now, but that doesn't mean you will.

It is not control person, it is charm. It makes them friendly as described in diplomacy. Why would you describe it as making them friendly if not for the purposes of referencing diplomacy as the guideline?

Again, you are arguing having someone feed your cat is the same save as having them murder a kitty.

That isn't what the spell says, it isn't what it does. If it were, it wouldn't say the person isn't an automaton.

Compare it to geas and dominate, both much higher level spells.

It does not have the power you are trying to add to it. It really is just magical diplomacy.

The person isn't an automaton, because an automaton does exactly as it's told, every time, without fail, no resistance or argument given. The fact that there is an opposing Charisma Check automatically means the person ins't an automaton.

The spell makes a person automatically friendly. What does that mean? You don't have to try and improve their attitude simply to gather information from someone.

For example:
You walk up to the town guard of a city that is known for not dealing well with outsiders. You want some information about the layout of the land, but you invested in Intimidate instead of Diplomacy.

So you hit them with Charm Person. The Guard now treats you as friendly, and will...

And to ignore the huge caveat on the second half of the spell would be a house rule too. The charmed party will NEVER obey a command that is obviously harmful.

Star Voter 2013

Grimmy wrote:

Honestly, the devs can't spend 50 pages on one spell description. So they just say things like a charmed creature will never obey an order that is "obviously harmful", or, a charmed creature "is not an automaton". They are writing kind of loose here, and it feels to me like they are almost saying, "duh, within reason".

It makes you friendly, you feel kind of charmed. You are not a mind-controlled slave.

You're right, you're not a mind controlled slave. However, the Caster can make an opposed Charisma Check to CONVINCE you that the order they gave is a good idea. The Charisma Check is persuading you into agreement. If you lose the Charisma Check, then you agree to the Order and will carry it out.

That's the part of the spell that people seem to ignore. They keep referencing the Diplomacy Skill, or saying "You're not an automaton". Which you aren't, because I have Persuaded you to do something you wouldn't normally do.

I would never go to a sushi restaurant as I dislike seafood. However, my friend Josh persuaded me to going and trying it at least once. I did. I didn't like it. However, I was still persuaded into going.

If I convince someone to do something, I have changed their viewpoint or stance on an issue, over to my viewpoint or stance. They now agree with me.

So if I convince someone to kill their wife, then they agree that they should indeed kill their wife. That's what the spell does. It magically convinces someone to do an act they normally wouldn't do.


Unless its "obviously harmful"!!!

Eating sushi is not obviously harmful. Killing your wife is.

Star Voter 2013

Grimmy wrote:
Tels wrote:
ciretose wrote:

From diplomacy (which it references)

"If a creature’s attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature’s current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers. Once a creature’s attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."

Request = Order

I can request or order you to stop arguing with me about this right now, but that doesn't mean you will.

It is not control person, it is charm. It makes them friendly as described in diplomacy. Why would you describe it as making them friendly if not for the purposes of referencing diplomacy as the guideline?

Again, you are arguing having someone feed your cat is the same save as having them murder a kitty.

That isn't what the spell says, it isn't what it does. If it were, it wouldn't say the person isn't an automaton.

Compare it to geas and dominate, both much higher level spells.

It does not have the power you are trying to add to it. It really is just magical diplomacy.

The person isn't an automaton, because an automaton does exactly as it's told, every time, without fail, no resistance or argument given. The fact that there is an opposing Charisma Check automatically means the person ins't an automaton.

The spell makes a person automatically friendly. What does that mean? You don't have to try and improve their attitude simply to gather information from someone.

For example:
You walk up to the town guard of a city that is known for not dealing well with outsiders. You want some information about the layout of the land, but you invested in Intimidate instead of Diplomacy.

So you hit them with Charm Person. The Guard now treats you as

...

Have I said anything that was obviously harmful? No, I haven't.

Remember, there are two aspects of the spell that needs to be kept in mind at all times. To use the Ghaele again as an example:

A Ghaele, that encounters an Evil Caster, would not agree to serve the Evil Caster if the Evil Caster were to make such a stance. Why? The Ghaele is opposed to the Evil Caster (i.e. hostile). But the Evil Caster hits the Ghaele with a Charm Monster. The Ghaele is now friendly towards the Evil Caster.

Because the Ghaele is now friendly towards the Evil Caster, serving him is no longer a 'obviously harmful' idea. In fact, the Ghaele may see it (under her magically persuaded mind) as a chance to influence the Evil Caster and turn the Caster to the side of Good.

Both sides are again, referenced. Listening to the order of someone you consider friendly isn't automatically an 'obviously harmful act' simply because the people would normally be opposed to one another.

Planar Binding terms say, "Serve the caster that bound you"
The Ghaele treats the Caster as friendly, ergo, the Terms the Caster issued are not obviously harmful as they come from a friendly source.

If the Planar Binding terms said, "Agree to be sacrificed to the powers of the Dark Gods", the Charm Person would not work as the Terms are obviously harmful, regardless of the source.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Depends is it pufferfish?
What is harmful about killing your wife?

Depending on what cirmustances there are makes all the difference. And if you leave harmful to open then almost any application fails.


Ashiel wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


Vehemently Opposed is the same as just not wanting to do it, only on a larger scale. It's still just not wanting to do it.

You can try to simplify it, but scales of magnitude matter.

If I shoot someone in the face I am sure I won't get the same punishment as punching them in the face, yet both are crimes of violence.

Are you trying to say scales don't matter?

Actually, yes. The wording is pretty clear. Anything you wouldn't ordinarily do. I wouldn't ordinarily punch you in the face, nor would I ordinarily shoot you in the face; but if I was charmed and the charmer won an opposed Charisma check against me, I would be convinced to do so.

It even says things that are very dangerous I could be made to do. I could be made to attempt to walk on a tightrope (though I may fall to my doom). I could be made to kill you, even though the risk of getting caught and punished, maybe even killed, getting sent to hell, or getting ostracized from my community are all very real risks but you would convince me of doing so. Perhaps the gods will have pity since I wasn't in my right mind when I killed you. Maybe I'll give you a hug and apologize on the other side.

I could have deeply rooted religious hatred for tattoos and piercings, and if your will is very strong, you might be able to take me to a tattoo parlor and come out looking like this lady. Later when it's all over with, I might wonder "WTF did I do!?", but I'm still covered in tattoos.

I see we still disagree on the wording of anything for the purpose of that spell. :)

I guess that unless Paizo puts out an FAQ(not likely due to other posters) we won't agree on this one.

Star Voter 2013

Grimmy wrote:

Unless its "obviously harmful"!!!

Eating sushi is not obviously harmful. Killing your wife is.

See, that's a matter of GM interpretation. The GM gets to decide what is 'obviously harmful' as it's a vague term.

Obviously Harmful could mean: actions that bring immediate physical harm to the subject.

It could also mean: actions that have long-standing consequences to the subject.

Killing your wife has long-standing consequences, but no immediate physical harm. It's subject to GM interpretation as to how Obviously Harmful is used for the purposes of the spell.


Tels wrote:

I don't understand why people keep trying to argue that we're making Charm out to be like Dominate, when it's not.

I've said before, and I'll say again, Charm is all about CONVINCING someone to do something. That is the key right there.

Someone comes up to me and casts Charm Person then says, "Cheat on your girlfriend." For those that don't know, I absolutely despise those that cheat or have affairs. I literally will not associate with a person anymore if I find out they have done so. It fills me with a burning rage and makes me wish to smash their skull in wit a rock. Suffice to say, I am vehemently opposed to cheating on my girlfriend.

However, the spell Charm Person allows the caster to make an opposed Charisma Check. If the Caster wins the opposed Charisma Check, then I have been CONVINCED to cheat on my girlfriend. That means I agree to cheat, that I approve of it, that I will go ahead and cheat on my girlfriend, even though I am vehemently opposed to cheating on my girlfriend. I will seek out the chance to cheat on my girlfriend, at least for the duration of the spell.

The Caster CONVINCES you to do the order given. You AGREE with the Caster to do the order given. You APPROVE of the Caster's order given and seek to follow through with it.

It's not Dominating, it's Magically Persuading.

That's how the spell works. If you aren't using the spell that way, then you are using the spell incorrectly. The word 'anything' is not a factor in the mechanics of Charm Person. The word 'Convince' is the key factor in the mechanics of Charm Person. Regardless of what the Order given is, if I can't Convince the person (via an opposed Charisma Check), then the Order will not be followed, regardless of the Order.

Mechanically what is the difference?

If I have magic that can convince you to do anything(no limits) or magic that forces you it is the same thing.

It is not much different than being order not to stab someone with my sword, so I stab them with someone else's sword.

The stabbing(mind controlling) is the issue, not which sword was used.

551 to 600 of 951 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Petition: I nominate Ashiel to work for Paizo as Rules Consultant All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.