| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
**The word 'convince' is, I believe, the most critical word in the spell. If I convince someone to do something, then they are in agreement of what I convinced them to do. It means I have persuaded them over to my viewpoint. It means they accept my argument as the best or most likely to succeed idea.
The spell uses the word convince after opposed Charisma Check. This means, to me, that if I win the opposed check, then for the duration of the spell, the target believes my order to be a good idea, as I have magically persuaded him into 'thinking' it was a good idea.
This is very much so one of those, "It seemed like a good idea at the time" situations people hear about all the time.
Actually the key word is "anything" because it is the limitor on what you can convince them to do. Anything can be used to mean "no limit" or "the least thing".
1. He will do anything I say.
2. He won't do anything I say unless I bribe him.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If the wording had been something like "The caster can request the Charmed victim to do anything, via an opposed Charisma Check, the Charmed victim can still decide whether or not to accede the request, depending on his or her disposition and the nature of the request."
Instead, it says I can convince you to do anything. Convince implies full and total agreement. If they had used nearly any other word, I don't think this issue would even have come up. But the fact remains, I convinced someone to do something.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing exists in a vaccum. Every single other opposed check in the game has potential mitigating factors to it. Stealth vs Perception, Bluff vs Sense Motive, Disguise vs Perception, I could go on. Seems illogical to insist that mitigating factors (something covered in the rules under GMing I might add) don't apply in this one case.I'm not saying they don't apply. I stated previously I would use modifiers on the roll. However, when it comes time to discuss actual game mechanics, things like houserules, fiat, custom items, they all have to be discarded.
Why? Because they are not strictly RAW. For instance, I myself would allow a Command Word Ring of True Strike in my game, barring someone having some super 1-hit wonder class that I don't know of. So far, I haven't heard of anything that can slay any creature in 1 hit, though AM BARBARIAN comes close, but he needs a lot of GM allowance in the first place.
Applying a modifier to an opposed check is up to the GM and the GM alone. The modifier could change depending on the GM, and since it can change, it can't be counted on when discussing the rules and mechanics of the spell.
I will state again. In my own personal games, I have actually applied modifiers to the opposed Charisma Check.
I would argue that modifiers ARE RAW, because they are powers specifically given in the rules of the game to the GM, since the designers, in foresight, understood that they would never be able to think of every single situation in which a spell, ability, or skill would be used and apply a proactive modifier to it.
It seems to be a view not held by the majority, however.
It is unheard of for mentally stable people that really care to do so.
So, no one has ever, for example, found their spouse in bed with another individual and committed a double homicide? I'm pretty sure you wrong on that.
Obviously so until you can show me where a save is allowed for the charm spell to resist an order.No I didn't.
That is incorrect. Dominate gives you a second save. Charm does not. You got the two mixed up.
I already did.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, no one has ever, for example, found their spouse in bed with another individual and committed a double homicide? I'm pretty sure you wrong on that.
I would dare to say that, in those circumstances, the spouse (and other individual) would no longer be considered "allies".
A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight with an actual friend).
A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.
A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.
If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So it seems that charm is very powerful.
It also means there are degrees of "don't like." Something you really don't want to do gets you an opposed charisma check.
If it is against your core beliefs then you get a saving throw to break the spell.
I still think the spell should be higher level, but it does seem to be able to make you do things that are against your nature.
It is unheard of for mentally stable people that really care to do so.So, no one has ever, for example, found their spouse in bed with another individual and committed a double homicide? I'm pretty sure you wrong on that.
I already did.Obviously so until you can show me where a save is allowed for the charm spell to resist an order.No I didn't.
That is incorrect. Dominate gives you a second save. Charm does not. You got the two mixed up.
I think the person being killed is "out of favor" at that point so my previous post still stands. By the way I did find that quote I needed. I think the spell is too strong for a first level spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tels - I am saying what you do in your home games is the rule, which is why it references the "friendly" condition for diplomacy.
Why would it make that reference if it didn't intend it to be used for adjudicating requests?
Your home game is actually following the rules, it sounds like.
This is partly what I meant when I said you disregard my posts. I've stated a number of times now (between the two threads), that Charm Person changes the disposition of the target to friendly, and then references the Diplomacy Skill, so that you know exactly what you can and cannot get out of the person because their disposition is friendly.
If you want to go above and beyond the disposition of 'friendly' you need to make an Order, which the target can resist via an opposed Charisma Check.
The Diplomacy Skill is not an opposed Charisma Check. It is a set DC modified by their disposition, their Charisma modifier, and the nature of the action taken.
I could use Charm Person and Diplomacy to talk the person into 'giving aid that could result in punishment' which would have a bare minimum DC of 25. Meaning I roll 1d20 and add my Diplomacy modifier and see if I meet or exceed the DC of 25.
OR I could order the charmed person to give me aid that could result in punishment, at which point I probably need to make an opposed Charisma Check.
It gives the caster an option. If they have a ridiculously high Diplomacy, they're better off using the skill. But if their Charisma is high, but have no ranks in Diplomacy, they're better off using the opposed Charisma Check.
It is unheard of for mentally stable people that really care to do so.So, no one has ever, for example, found their spouse in bed with another individual and committed a double homicide? I'm pretty sure you wrong on that.
I already did.Obviously so until you can show me where a save is allowed for the charm spell to resist an order.No I didn't.
That is incorrect. Dominate gives you a second save. Charm does not. You got the two mixed up.
You actually posted a wall of text, and I had to find it myself.
It=the text I needed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------So it seems that charm is very powerful.
It also means there are degrees of "don't like." Something you really don't want to do gets you an opposed charisma check.
If it is against your core beliefs then you get a saving throw to break the spell.
I still think the spell should be higher level, but it does seem to be able to make you do things that are against your nature.
Yea with the PRD rules on charms it seems like charm should be at least a 2nd circle spell (I would rate it on par with hold person). Before reading that I would have never thought you could force someone to be a battle thrall with a 1st circle spell.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you read diplomacy, it gives the same level of power to making requests of people who considering you to be friendly or helpful. It just points out the save DC increases for things that are more outside of what the character would normally do.
I don't think the spell would reference being friendly as per diplomacy if it didn't intend for that to be used.
You can convince someone to murder their wife. But it is going to be a really high DC check.
Again, is the other side saying the check is the same for babysitting and for murder.
I am saying you can get them to murder, but the check will be really high.
Nothing exists in a vaccum. Every single other opposed check in the game has potential mitigating factors to it. Stealth vs Perception, Bluff vs Sense Motive, Disguise vs Perception, I could go on. Seems illogical to insist that mitigating factors (something covered in the rules under GMing I might add) don't apply in this one case.I'm not saying they don't apply. I stated previously I would use modifiers on the roll. However, when it comes time to discuss actual game mechanics, things like houserules, fiat, custom items, they all have to be discarded.
Why? Because they are not strictly RAW. For instance, I myself would allow a Command Word Ring of True Strike in my game, barring someone having some super 1-hit wonder class that I don't know of. So far, I haven't heard of anything that can slay any creature in 1 hit, though AM BARBARIAN comes close, but he needs a lot of GM allowance in the first place.
Applying a modifier to an opposed check is up to the GM and the GM alone. The modifier could change depending on the GM, and since it can change, it can't be counted on when discussing the rules and mechanics of the spell.
I will state again. In my own personal games, I have actually applied modifiers to the opposed Charisma Check.
I would argue that modifiers ARE RAW, because they are powers specifically given in the rules of the game to the GM, since the designers, in foresight, understood that they would never be able to think of every single situation in which a spell, ability, or skill would be used and apply a proactive modifier to it.
It seems to be a view not held by the majority, however.
I don't think I'm being very clear on my own stance. I think modifiers themselves, are RAW, as it's clearly stated the GM can add or subtract bonuses. However, the degree to which the modifiers are present (i.e. what the bonus or penalties numerical advantage is) is not RAW. One GM might say the opposed Charisma Check warrants a +5 on the roll, while another might say +10, or +1 or +10,000.
That is what I meant by 'not RAW'.
As an example, my players captured a Red Mantis Assassin and used Charm Person to interrogate him. There is little info given for GMs on the Red Mantis, so I constructed it mostly off the top of my head. Basically, he's a grunt and doesn't know much, but what he does know, he's been specifically trained to not reveal via spells such as Charm Person.
So when they asked where the boss was, the numbers of assassins, etc. He refused to answer. When the caster ordered the assassin to reveal the information, I gave a +3 bonus on the roll (because he was a 3rd level Red Mantis Assassin) as he had been trained not to reveal such information.
If a PC charmed someone and ordered them to kill his wife, I'd give s substantially larger bonus as the person isn't inclined to do that (depending on the NPC; if he suspects she's cheating and robbing, maybe not so much of a bonus).
It gives the caster an option. If they have a ridiculously high Diplomacy, they're better off using the skill. But if their Charisma is high, but have no ranks in Diplomacy, they're better off using the opposed Charisma Check.
Diplomacy is a CHA based skill, so anything that could be convinced via Diplomacy would be a better option - even if you don't have any ranks in the skill, it can be used untrained, and the charmed person would be "friendly".
Ordering someone does sound like an option, which would require focusing a person's persuasive ability/charisma to override common sense (as opposed to fast-talking, which would be bluff or diplomacy), and would therefore be the more difficult check to make.
If you read diplomacy, it gives the same level of power to making requests of people who considering you to be friendly or helpful. It just points out the save DC increases for things that are more outside of what the character would normally do.
I don't think the spell would reference being friendly as per diplomacy if it didn't intend for that to be used.
You can convince someone to murder their wife. But it is going to be a really high DC check.
Again, is the other side saying the check is the same for babysitting and for murder.
I am saying you can get them to murder, but the check will be really high.
That would be you, as the GM using GM Fiat, to assign a modifier to the rule. While it is allowed, the degree to which the modifier is present, cannot be included in the discussion of mechanics.
For the record, I agree with you. Ordering someone to do something they really don't want to do, gets a bonus in my own games (see previous post for an example). But the actual rules for the spell state it's simply an opposed Check vs the targets 1d20 + Charisma Modifier.
[
You actually posted a wall of text, and I had to find it myself.It=the text I needed.
Wall of Rules Text relevant to the discussion at hand, particularly since much of it was not contained in the Charm Person spell description. But, OK, I was feeling a little hungry and kinda cranky.
So it seems that charm is very powerful.
It also means there are degrees of "don't like." Something you really don't want to do gets you an opposed charisma check.
If it is against your core beliefs then you get a saving throw to break the spell.
I still think the spell should be higher level, but it does seem to be able to make you do things that are against your nature.
It is fairly powerful.
After considering it for a while, I don't think a simple Charisma check is a good representation of "convincing" your friend to go along with you suggestions. It makes the roll potentially too trivial, similar to how Diplomacy used to be trivial.
It gives the caster an option. If they have a ridiculously high Diplomacy, they're better off using the skill. But if their Charisma is high, but have no ranks in Diplomacy, they're better off using the opposed Charisma Check.Diplomacy is a CHA based skill, so anything that could be convinced via Diplomacy would be a better option - even if you don't have any ranks in the skill, it can be used untrained, and the charmed person would be "friendly".
Ordering someone does sound like an option, which would require focusing a person's persuasive ability/charisma to override common sense (as opposed to fast-talking, which would be bluff or diplomacy), and would therefore be the more difficult check to make.
I disagree. I know a player in another campaign who is playing a Sorcerer at level 8 with a 22 Charisma (24 with headband). That means he has a +7 modifier. He has no ranks in Diplomacy at all as he relies on Charm spells.
Charming a person and then asking them to hide you (via the Diplomacy Skill) after you have assassinated the king, and the character knows it, would have a DC of at least 25 (friendly base of 10 + 15 for possibly resulting in punishment). That means the Sorcerer needs to roll an 18 or higher to hit DC 25.
Conversely, the Sorcerer could order the target to hide him, and it becomes an opposed Charisma Check. The Sorcerer has a better chance of succeeding on the opposed check, than he does on the Diplomacy roll.
I don't think I'm being very clear on my own stance. I think modifiers themselves, are RAW, as it's clearly stated the GM can add or subtract bonuses. However, the degree to which the modifiers are present (i.e. what the bonus or penalties numerical advantage is) is not RAW. One GM might say the opposed Charisma...Nothing exists in a vaccum. Every single other opposed check in the game has potential mitigating factors to it. Stealth vs Perception, Bluff vs Sense Motive, Disguise vs Perception, I could go on. Seems illogical to insist that mitigating factors (something covered in the rules under GMing I might add) don't apply in this one case.I'm not saying they don't apply. I stated previously I would use modifiers on the roll. However, when it comes time to discuss actual game mechanics, things like houserules, fiat, custom items, they all have to be discarded.
Why? Because they are not strictly RAW. For instance, I myself would allow a Command Word Ring of True Strike in my game, barring someone having some super 1-hit wonder class that I don't know of. So far, I haven't heard of anything that can slay any creature in 1 hit, though AM BARBARIAN comes close, but he needs a lot of GM allowance in the first place.
Applying a modifier to an opposed check is up to the GM and the GM alone. The modifier could change depending on the GM, and since it can change, it can't be counted on when discussing the rules and mechanics of the spell.
I will state again. In my own personal games, I have actually applied modifiers to the opposed Charisma Check.
I would argue that modifiers ARE RAW, because they are powers specifically given in the rules of the game to the GM, since the designers, in foresight, understood that they would never be able to think of every single situation in which a spell, ability, or skill would be used and apply a proactive modifier to it.
It seems to be a view not held by the majority, however.
Ah, yes I think I understand what you mean a little better now. Just for giggles, since the spell specifically calls for an opposed Cha check, I would not actually treat it like a Diplo check (TBH the skill doesn't need any help in getting more powerful.) I would, however, probably look to that skill for an idea of an appropriate modifier for various "requests."
You're right though, that would be completely my call, as yours was just the +3.
|
|
So you disagree with me on what it says, but agree that if it is read the way you are reading it, it is then broken to the point you modify it in your home game to be basically the way I am saying that it is.
Is that about right?
You don't think they included the reference to "friendly" and diplomacy as a guidepost, you just think it is there...I don't know why you think it is there actually, you lost me on that one.
It seems very clear to me that you charm someone into thinking you are an ally, making them friendly and subject to all of the diplomacy rules on how you can interact with friendly people to make requests.
It is fairly powerful just as that, considering you can make an enemy into a friend. It is ridiculously overpowered if you ascribe more to it than that.
Come on FAQ...
Very fair description of the two sides, Tels.
Only thing I would clarify is that we are saying it makes them "Friendly" as per the diplomacy guidelines, and that the opposed charisma checks more or less follow the guidelines for requests using DC difficulty.
I FAQed as well. Now off to work.
I am not sure it's a completely fair description of both sides. Everyone agrees you can try to issue an order, and it will be resolved with an opposed charisma check.
The thing we disagreed about, as I recall, was whether situational modifiers would apply to the opposed checks, and what would constitute "obviously harmful".
So you disagree with me on what it says, but agree that if it is read the way you are reading it, it is then broken to the point you modify it in your home game to be basically the way I am saying that it is.
Is that about right?
You don't think they included the reference to "friendly" and diplomacy as a guidepost, you just think it is there...I don't know why you think it is there actually, you lost me on that one.
It seems very clear to me that you charm someone into thinking you are an ally, making them friendly and subject to all of the diplomacy rules on how you can interact with friendly people to make requests.
It is fairly powerful just as that, considering you can make an enemy into a friend. It is ridiculously overpowered if you ascribe more to it than that.
Come on FAQ...
Agreed. The spell as it is laid out is more powerful than most people realize. I think a lot of people see 'first level spell, useless' and don't read anymore into it. But I mentioned in other posts, I have a tendency to 'break the system' so I can stop others from breaking it ahead of time.
When I first picked up Pathfinder, one of the first things I noticed was the 'no xp cost for crafting'. Then I looked over at Wish and realized, again, no xp cost. So looked again at crafting, and realized you could easily get an ability score in the 30's because of the lack of xp cost.
I called up my GM within 2 hours of getting the book and explained it to him, and over the course of a week, other things I noticed to be careful about. At our very first Pathfinder game we'd ever played, my GM's brother showed up with a Sorcerer that dumped everything to boost Con and Charisma. Then mentioned when the GM wasn't present how he's ingeniously going to abuse the Wish spell and boost his Con and Charisma into the 30's. Due to some good rolls (on part of the sorcerer) and bad rolls (on part of the barbarian). At level 8, the Sorcerer has more HP than the Barbarian, even when raging.
=======================
Anyway, what I'm saying is I broke Charm, and then patched in my own games.
A friendly person isn't going to have much of a problem giving directions, a little info on the town (don't go to Josie's Cafe, hit up the Sea Shore Diner for some good foo), and other such things. But a friendly person isn't going to tell you that the lord's child was recently discovered to be practicing necromancy and has hushed it all up with a harsh penalty to whomever tells.
A friendly person isn't going to give you the key to their jewelry store either. A friendly person isn't going to just hand over that dagger that's been handed down from generations past so you can commit murder.
That's why I think they reference Diplomacy, and because if someone wishes to use Diplomacy instead of Charisma, they know where the Charmed person stands when using the Diplomacy skill.
Very fair description of the two sides, Tels.
Only thing I would clarify is that we are saying it makes them "Friendly" as per the diplomacy guidelines, and that the opposed charisma checks more or less follow the guidelines for requests using DC difficulty.
I FAQed as well. Now off to work.
I am not sure it's a completely fair description of both sides. Everyone agrees you can try to issue an order, and it will be resolved with an opposed charisma check.
The thing we disagreed about, as I recall, was whether situational modifiers would apply to the opposed checks, and what would constitute "obviously harmful".
I admit, I was not in the best frame of mind when typing that. Real life issues were making me very annoyed at everyone. If I had typed what I wanted, I'm betting the entire thread would have been deleted.
That was me being 'nice' at the time.
Charm is that powerful. It really does let you command someone to do nearly anything.
The "Friendly" it turns you is so far beyond what is listed on the diplomacy chart. You are their most trusted friend and ally.
You can command a person to kill his wife but the spell clearly states you must convince them. So you, who are their best friend beyond any other tells them, "I saw your wife cheating on you. Dirty woman deserves to die. You should end her to teach her a lesson."
At this point two things happen.
1. Opposed Charisma Check to convince them to do something they normally wouldn't.
2. You gave them an order to commit an act they are violently opposed to (assuming they had a good relationship) and they get another save.
At this point the person has failed:
1. A will save to be charmed.
2. An opposed charisma check.
3. A third will save.
1st level spell or not that's alot of chances to roll high on the dice. And if you have a 15th level character charming commoners well, that's just mean and they will never pass anyway.
Tels is absolutely right. You can command people with Charm but it is much more difficult to do. The charm section of the PRD is very clear.
It gives the caster an option. If they have a ridiculously high Diplomacy, they're better off using the skill. But if their Charisma is high, but have no ranks in Diplomacy, they're better off using the opposed Charisma Check.Diplomacy is a CHA based skill, so anything that could be convinced via Diplomacy would be a better option - even if you don't have any ranks in the skill, it can be used untrained, and the charmed person would be "friendly".
Ordering someone does sound like an option, which would require focusing a person's persuasive ability/charisma to override common sense (as opposed to fast-talking, which would be bluff or diplomacy), and would therefore be the more difficult check to make.
I disagree. I know a player in another campaign who is playing a Sorcerer at level 8 with a 22 Charisma (24 with headband). That means he has a +7 modifier. He has no ranks in Diplomacy at all as he relies on Charm spells.
Charming a person and then asking them to hide you (via the Diplomacy Skill) after you have assassinated the king, and the character knows it, would have a DC of at least 25 (friendly base of 10 + 15 for possibly resulting in punishment). That means the Sorcerer needs to roll an 18 or higher to hit DC 25.
Conversely, the Sorcerer could order the target to hide him, and it becomes an opposed Charisma Check. The Sorcerer has a better chance of succeeding on the opposed check, than he does on the Diplomacy roll.
I would posit that if he's relying on the charm spells as a stand-alone, as opposed to using it in tandem with Diplomacy, then it's not going to work as well.
That character, with 8 ranks in diplomacy, could:
- Kill the king
- Charm the Queen (making her "friendly")
- Make a DC 10+*Queen's CHA mod* to make her "Helpful". With a +15 modifier to the Diplomacy check (had he made the investment into the skill, Queen would have to have a 22 CHA in order to NOT be helpful (be able to fail on a roll of 1).
- Use Diplomacy to ask Queen to hide him. DC of this would be, worst case, 15+*Queen's CHA mod*, IF the Queen knew that she could be "punished" for helping him (which would be the equivalent of D20 vs. Queen's CHA modifer).
If it's just some servant passing by, and not someone who witnessed the assassination, then it would just be "complicated aid" which is only DC 5+*CHA MOD*, which would end up being a d20 roll vs. their CHA mod - 10.
This also assumes that the caster isn't:
- A bard, who would have Diplomacy as a class skill
- Someone who has a trait boosting Diplomacy (and making it a class skill)
- Someone with a Masterwork Diplomacy Item (nice suit?)
I guess what I'm saying is that the Sorcerer in question is doing things sub-optimally.
I was trying to be nice. It itches. :)
Commendable, but I want my stance to be represented fairly. The way it's summarized here, it makes me look like I can't read, and doesn't even make the question seem FAQ worthy.
Indeed, the Sorcerer is playing 'sub-optimally' but true to his character concept. His character is 'an arrogant mage' and thinks he can solve all of lifes problems with Magic alone. He looks down upon the mundane classes (those without spells) and isn't too fond of the more martial casters either (paladins, bards, Magus etc).
The only skills he really puts ranks in are Knowledge, and Spell Craft I think.
Where are people getting the idea that opposed skill checks never have situational modifiers?
[
You actually posted a wall of text, and I had to find it myself.It=the text I needed.
Wall of Rules Text relevant to the discussion at hand, particularly since much of it was not contained in the Charm Person spell description. But, OK, I was feeling a little hungry and kinda cranky.
So it seems that charm is very powerful.
It also means there are degrees of "don't like." Something you really don't want to do gets you an opposed charisma check.
If it is against your core beliefs then you get a saving throw to break the spell.
I still think the spell should be higher level, but it does seem to be able to make you do things that are against your nature.
It is fairly powerful.
After considering it for a while, I don't think a simple Charisma check is a good representation of "convincing" your friend to go along with you suggestions. It makes the roll potentially too trivial, similar to how Diplomacy used to be trivial.
It is cool. I was not Mr.Happy myself so I back away from the thread for a while. I personally think the spell is too good for a first level spell, but it is what it is.
I am probably going to limit its effects in my own games. Why bother with dominate if they both offer 2nd save to make someone do something against their core beliefs when I can heighten charm to get the same effect. Well it is not exactly the same, but close enough that it does not matter.
Here's a random example from the rules on Performance Combat:
PRD wrote:
"Hostile: The crowd does not like what it is seeing. Hostile crowds demoralize combatants in a performance combat. In these battles, while the crowd is hostile toward a given side, those combatants take a –2 penalty on all attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, ability checks, skill checks, and saving throws. This is a mind-affecting effect."
Bolding mine.
So you disagree with me on what it says, but agree that if it is read the way you are reading it, it is then broken to the point you modify it in your home game to be basically the way I am saying that it is.
Is that about right?
You don't think they included the reference to "friendly" and diplomacy as a guidepost, you just think it is there...I don't know why you think it is there actually, you lost me on that one.
It seems very clear to me that you charm someone into thinking you are an ally, making them friendly and subject to all of the diplomacy rules on how you can interact with friendly people to make requests.
It is fairly powerful just as that, considering you can make an enemy into a friend. It is ridiculously overpowered if you ascribe more to it than that.
Come on FAQ...
I think by RAW they are correct. The term "violently opposed" is pretty close to saying their core beliefs can be over ruled. I don't like it, but that is how it reads. It would be nice to get an FAQ on the matter, but since SKR was the advocate of getting FAQ's for us, and he is not happy about his treatment I don't know when we will get answers.
I consider charms useful only in social situations (no initiative rolled) while compulsions are useful in social or combat situations (after initiative is rolled). So using Charm Person to order/ask the target to attack anything would technically require initiative and be combat, so it wouldn’t work. That's my simple rule-of-thumb.
So you might be able to use a charm to convince a guard to let you pass, or leave his post, but once you roll initiative you are going to have to use a compulsion to force him to stop attacking or defending himself.
Using an above example you would not be able to charm “the queen” to attack “the king” (combat) but you might be able to convince her to slip some poison in his food (social).
Sounds like house-rule territory.
Where are people getting the idea that opposed skill checks never have situational modifiers?
People? I'm the only one saying anything of the sort. But that's also not what I'm saying. You need to read the entirety of the thread, because I have responded to this some 5 times now.
Situation modifiers (aka GM FIAT) cannot be included in discussing the raw mechanics of a spell, feat, ability, attack, defense, check or any other kind of roll because GM FIAT is not clearly spelled out and can be different for each and every GM.
Diplomacy has clearly spelled out modifiers that depend on the nature of the request asked, the disposition of the person asked, and the charisma modifier of the person asked. Those situational modifiers can be used when discussing Diplomacy DCs.
However! Assigning a modifier based on the difficulty of an order given, via Charm Person, cannot be included because the nature of assigning such a modifier is not clearly spelled out, therefore, it is subject to change on a case by case scenario.
I said before, one GM may assign a +3 modifier for a situation, while another GM may assign a +10 modifier for the exact same situation. Because of the very nature of GM assigned modifiers, they cannot be included into a discussion of the RAW mechanics.
========================
No one is saying modifiers aren't actually used in skill checks, saves, attacks, or any other kind of roll. The only one saying anything abut disallowing modifiers, is myself, based on the fact that a modifier that isn't clearly spelled out, cannot be counted on in such a discussion.
So a victim targeted by Charm Person, in a RAW discussion, has a roll of 1d20 + their Charisma Modifier but not other additional bonuses as they are GM Fiat.
In your own home game, you are free to assign bonuses as you please (and I even gave a couple of examples of such bonuses assigned in my own games). But not here, not when discussing the RAW mechanics of a spell.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think by RAW they are correct. The term "violently opposed" is pretty close to saying their core beliefs can be over ruled. I don't like it, but that is how it reads. It would be nice to get an FAQ on the matter, but since SKR was the advocate of getting FAQ's for us, and he is not happy about his treatment I don't know when we will get answers.
The arguing with Devs stuff pissed me off. If you don't like it, house rule, but you don't rule the house.
If you don't want the Devs input, don't buy the book. Not saying I always agree or don't house rule, but I am saying I don't pay people on the messageboards for their opinions, I do pay the devs.
So if a Dev says it is so, it is so. And if you can't be polite in disagreement, STFU.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, how many people needs to hit the FAQ button for the DEVs to respond?
Seems FAQ responses used to come faster and more often, but everyone would disregard the ruling and keep on arguing, or even flame the devs. It's a shame, we had it really good.
Sounds like house-rule territory.I consider charms useful only in social situations (no initiative rolled) while compulsions are useful in social or combat situations (after initiative is rolled). So using Charm Person to order/ask the target to attack anything would technically require initiative and be combat, so it wouldn’t work. That's my simple rule-of-thumb.
So you might be able to use a charm to convince a guard to let you pass, or leave his post, but once you roll initiative you are going to have to use a compulsion to force him to stop attacking or defending himself.
Using an above example you would not be able to charm “the queen” to attack “the king” (combat) but you might be able to convince her to slip some poison in his food (social).
Yeaaaah,that is most definitively a house-rule.
Tels is correct. When discussing things on the boards everyone has to have the same baseline. That is why WBL is used for builds, not because "you must have this much wealth", but it is the assumed standard.
Yeah as a GM I can give a modifier of +15 if I want to, but another GM might only give +3 for the same situation.
I think by RAW they are correct. The term "violently opposed" is pretty close to saying their core beliefs can be over ruled. I don't like it, but that is how it reads. It would be nice to get an FAQ on the matter, but since SKR was the advocate of getting FAQ's for us, and he is not happy about his treatment I don't know when we will get answers.
The arguing with Devs stuff pissed me off. If you don't like it, house rule, but you don't rule the house.
If you don't want the Devs input, don't buy the book. Not saying I always agree or don't house rule, but I am saying I don't pay people on the messageboards for their opinions, I do pay the devs.
So if a Dev says it is so, it is so. And if you can't be polite in disagreement, STFU.
Agreed, though I know I have overstepped the bounds on what is and is not appropriate when concerning the Devs.
However, I would like to point out that one should be able to challenge the ruling by the Devs if you really think it's necessary, just as we did when the Devs issued the Flurry of Blows (re)clarification.
|
|
Diplomacy's modifiers are far from well spelled out. They are at best very loose guidelines for a GM to start from.
As they should be.
I am not going to stop game to look up the "What if he is having a bad day because he split his pants" modifier, nor to I want a RAWywer citing it is not a +5 but a +7 because he split them bending over rather and sitting down.
I think the way you described is how it was intended and how it works best.
IMHO "GM fiat" is the entitled players pouting line when they don't get to run the game from the other side.
Diplomacy's modifiers are far from well spelled out. They are at best very loose guidelines for a GM to start from.
As they should be.
I am not going to stop game to look up the "What if he is having a bad day because he split his pants" modifier, nor to I want a RAWywer citing it is not a +5 but a +7 because he split them bending over rather and sitting down.
I think the way you described is how it was intended and how it works best.
IMHO "GM fiat" is the entitled players pouting line when they don't get to run the game from the other side.
GM Fiat is deviation from the books. It not a bad term to never be used. If by the book the DC to make a climb check is 24, and you want it to be 20 or 29 then that is GM Fiat.
I think we all GM Fiat to some extent, but we should always know when we are doing it.
The exact modifier given may vary from GM to GM, but the ability to assign one at all is not GM fiat.
Diplomacy's modifiers are far from well spelled out. They are at best very loose guidelines for a GM to start from.
As they should be.
I am not going to stop game to look up the "What if he is having a bad day because he split his pants" modifier, nor to I want a RAWywer citing it is not a +5 but a +7 because he split them bending over rather and sitting down.
I think the way you described is how it was intended and how it works best.
IMHO "GM fiat" is the entitled players pouting line when they don't get to run the game from the other side.
They are a lot more clearly spelled out than a lot of other 'subject to GMs discretion' scenarios in the rule book. However we do have an actual numerical bonus we can use to roughly gauge the usefulness (or lack thereof) of an ability.
========================
Also, I disagree on GM Fiat. GM Fiat should be used both for and against the players, and for enhancing a story. I've given players bonuses for things that aren't spelled out at all (such as using a Decanter of Endless Water to damage a vampire as running water can kill them). I've also used it against them (such as the Red Mantis I mentioned above).
GM Fiat is a powerful tool that can be easily abused. But I like to think that I wield mine fairly well. The only serious complaint my players have ever given me, is when they challenged a Black Dragon in a lake, and it grappled and drowned a player. The felt it was unfair the Dragon wasn't coming up on land where they could fight it one on 7. I said Dragon's are intelligent, they fight to win. The guy who got drowned actually wasn't complaining (and he's my best friend) because he knows the game kills players. The ones who have been playing for years, know the game is dangerous, the ones who haven't assume video games and think everything is geared towards the player's survival (handing the game to them on a silver platter).
The exact modifier given may vary from GM to GM, but the ability to assign one at all is not GM fiat.
I addressed this in a previous post. It's not against RAW for a GM to assign bonuses as he or she pleases. But those bonuses have no numerical value we can use on a consistent basis to reliably use them in a discussion involving math and numbers.
The closest thing I've seen to a reliable GM Fiat is, as much as it pains me to say this, D&D Next's Advantage/Disadvantage system.
In the Charm person case, I would say the Caster has Disadvantage when ordering the Charmed victim, and the victim could even have Advantage as well, depending on the order.
Killing your wife? Caster has Disadvantage, Victim has Advantage.
Let me inside so I can hide? Caster has Disadvantage, Victim has normal roll.
So on and so forth.
The exact modifier given may vary from GM to GM, but the ability to assign one at all is not GM fiat.
That is why it is GM Fiat. If I can't present the modifier to any group, nor find a rules quote that supports that specific modifier it is GM Fiat.
I was never arguing what the exact circumstance modifier should be. I was arguing that a GM had the right to assign one.
This was called fiat. I disagreed. I still do.
Keep in mind that charm person is an enchantment (charm) [mind-affecting]. As opposed to dominate person enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting].
Charm: A charm spell changes how the subject views you, typically making it see you as a good friend.
Compulsion: A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way its mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject’s actions or the effects on the subject, others allow you to determine the subject’s actions when you cast the spell, and still others give you ongoing control over the subject.
In other words, you're not getting better than being viewed "as a good friend". Yes, a friend can give another friend an order (or suggestion) - and doing so between friends allows for considerable leeway on what a person is willing to do for another, especially when helped along with an opposed Charisma roll.
Except in heavily dysfunctional relationships, it is not viable to ask your friend to kill his wife. Likewise it is not viable to have him make you the sole inheritor of his fortune when he has a loving family and offspring dear to him. But, you could get included in the will - and likewise you could get him to snub the wife for a night and go drinking with you instead.
Don't try to get more out of the spell. "Obviously harmful" is anything you could request where a friend would go: "hey man! that's not cool!" Generally this includes getting permission to sleep with the wife.
Interesting.
It's not GM fiat to assign modifiers based on the circumstances surrounding x check when they aren't clearly defined in the book, but if he doesn't use clearly defined circumstantial modifiers from the book for a check, it's GM fiat.
This is what I'm reading...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting.
It's not GM fiat to assign modifiers based on the circumstances surrounding x check when they aren't clearly defined in the book, but if he doesn't use clearly defined circumstantial modifiers from the book for a check, it's GM fiat.This is what I'm reading...
Clearly defined modifiers aren't fiat as they are clearly defined. For instance, if I ask someone to hide me from guards while using Diplomacy, that check has a +15 added to the DC. Why? Because the book says things that could result in punishment increase the DC by 15. That's clear. It's defined. It's not Fiat.
To say that Jim-Bob had a 'bad day' so his DC is increased by 5, is GM Fiat because nowhere does it say that 'having a bad day adds +5 to the DC'.
However, we all know that when someone has had a bad day, it's a lot harder to speak to them.
I was never arguing what the exact circumstance modifier should be. I was arguing that a GM had the right to assign one.
This was called fiat. I disagreed. I still do.
Nobody is arguing the GM's right to change anything. If that was the issue then it was just a misunderstanding. Our basic point was that GM "modifications" can't be used on the boards, well it was mine anyway.