| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think they're poorly defined. Being charmed means that you will turn on your friends/allies if they are trying to fight your charmer. That is something you would never do, right?
I would.
In a heartbeat. If my brother who I loved suddenly turned on my absolutest best friend with a sword.... I absolutely would turn on my brother and try to break up the fight. Using as little 'force' as i possibly could.
Doesn't really matter to the victim if his bestest buddy has only been that way for about 6-12 seconds ;)
I DO agree that hyperanalyzing 'harm' is ridiculous waste of time. I've seen people argue that... "NO, Won't possibly open the gate, even for a friend... I could lose my job and not feed my familY!!!
THAT"S HARM!!!!
Pure rubbish.
I don't think they're poorly defined. Being charmed means that you will turn on your friends/allies if they are trying to fight your charmer. That is something you would never do, right?
Actually, putting yourself inbetween two friends fighitng is not unlikely. The spell does make the target see the caster as a great friend, so protecting the caster is not something the target would absolutely never do. Have you never tried to stop two friends of yours from fighting each other (not necessarily physically, maybe just a heated argument)? I know I had to break up fights between my friends or siblings a few times.
Now the thing is we can argue semantics all day long. If I was charmed into harming my sister I'm harming her. I love her, I would miss her, I'd probably drop into a great depression, but in the literal sense of the word I am not harming myself by harming her.
I dunno, is harming your sister more acceptable than harming yourself? The answer may vary from person to person. If you feel so strongly about your own safetly/well being that not even magic can make you hurt yourself, is it too much to think that you feel just as passionately about harming your beloved ones?
Harm, to physically hurt or injure. In this case, it is impossible to make a charmed creature physically hurt or injure themselves. None of this emotional psychobabble semantical crap. If we went with that then the spell becomes a big steamy pile because I could distort the meaning until you literally could do NOTHING with it for virtually any action could conceivably cause some harm to the charmed character in some abstract way.
That's exactly my point. You can interpret RAW to mean anything, including that the spell is completely useless because you can't charm anyone into doing anything.
I'm not saying you're warping RAW to mean what you want, just that by RAW, there is no line saying the target does anything you say. Obviously, it'd be a pretty dumb interpretation, because if that's the case, what is the point of the spell?Where I disagree with you is about the extent of the caster's control over its target. The way I see, a charmed person sees the casters as her very favorite person (or something close to that), and will do all sorts of favors for you and seriously consider any suggestion/advice you give her, but she'll not like you enough to do something she'd never absolutely do even for her best friend (like killing herself or drowning her baby).
If my father, who I love and respect a great deal, asked me a favor, I'd most likely do it. If he gave me an advice/suggestion, I'd seriously consider it. But if he told me to shoot my brother in the head, I'd surely refuse, and assume he was joking.
I think that's basically what happens when a creature is charmed. It might not obey your order/suggestion if it's something absurd, but if the subject fails its extra saving throw, it'll assume you didn't mean that, or that it misunderstood you.
It's still a very powerful effect. Especially for a 1st level spell.
I'm trying to apply common sense to the spell description. Is "taking suicidal or obviously harmful actions" just an arbitrary limitation? A "bug" accidentally overlooked behind by whoever created the spell? Or is it that the spell is not powerful enough to force someone to do something she would never even consider doing for even the closest of her friends?
I think the last answer makes more sense.
I'm not saying you're warping RAW to mean what you want, just that by RAW, there is no line saying the target does anything you say. Obviously, it'd be a pretty dumb interpretation, because if that's the case, what is the point of the spell?
You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.)
Found that line for you. :P
I'm not saying you're warping RAW to mean what you want, just that by RAW, there is no line saying the target does anything you say. Obviously, it'd be a pretty dumb interpretation, because if that's the case, what is the point of the spell?You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.)Found that line for you. :P
I quoted that line myself. And I pointed out that even though it says you must succeed in the charisma check, it never says that's enough to make the person obey you.
So by RAW, the Charisma check is necessary, but not sufficient.Then again, such reading would make the spell completely useless. Which is kind of my point.
I don't follow. What do you think the purpose of the Charisma check is if not to see if you're successful?
Checks have results when they're either successful or fail. An attack hits or misses. A spell is saved against or not. You pick the lock or don't.
You successfully make the order (no retries allowed), or you don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying you're warping RAW to mean what you want, just that by RAW, there is no line saying the target does anything you say. Obviously, it'd be a pretty dumb interpretation, because if that's the case, what is the point of the spell?You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.)Found that line for you. :PI quoted that line myself. And I pointed out that even though it says you must succeed in the charisma check, it never says that's enough to make the person obey you.
So by RAW, the Charisma check is necessary, but not sufficient.Then again, such reading would make the spell completely useless. Which is kind of my point.
I'm not really one to ever get up and leave a table... I love game night WAY too much....
HOWEVER, if I ever had THIS happen at a table...
Me: I'm going to order my new buddy to check for traps.
DM: That sounds dangerous, he wouldn't want to do that. Make a charisma check.
Me: I rolled a 34....
DM: Yep that wins the Chr check! Still doesn't work.
THAT would feel like a DM screwing with me...
You do not need to make a chr check to 'Try to give an order'... that's TALKING... it's a FREE action. The CHR check exists to make him FOLLOW it...
|
You make a good point, Ashiel, but I'm still not convinced. Let me try to explain why.
"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing."
Note that the target doesn't get an extra saving throw with a +X bonus and/or another Charisma check. It never hurts itself for you.Now, why is that "never" there? Why does a charmed creature absolutely refuses to do something, despite your control over it?
Personally my issue is with the 'might.' It KINDA nullifies the word 'NEVER'
If Never means NEVER... then how 'MIGHT' I 'CONVINCE' you to do something 'obviously harmful?'
The way I read it is the 'never' is attached to the generic order... and the 'might be convinced' is the Charisma check.
So no, I could never order you to kill a loved one... but I MAY be able to 'convince' you to....
How can you have a 'might' written after a 'never'?
You might convince them by trickery. You know the door is trapped, they don't. You say, "Hey Bill, can you open the door. Bill says, "Sure" because Bill is your buddy and Boom goes Bill.
Or you might convince Bill it is worth doing, as in, hey Bill, that door is trapped but your really tough and there is a lot of gold in there I will share with you.
The Devs made it very clear what the spell does both in the spell and in the FAQ.
The spell makes the target think they are your friend.
Nothing more. Nothing less. You might be able to convince your friend to do something harmful, if it is worth doing. That is the caveat.
|
|
I'm not saying you're warping RAW to mean what you want, just that by RAW, there is no line saying the target does anything you say. Obviously, it'd be a pretty dumb interpretation, because if that's the case, what is the point of the spell?You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.)Found that line for you. :P
In the FAQ, just getting the Orc to dig a ditch was against their nature.
Yet you want to expand it to dominate...
No, the person who has been charmed into breaking their oath has not committed a wrong subjectively.
There was a little Dungeons and Dragons book that I remember having as a kid. It had Kelek and Mercion and I can't remember who else. Mercion had an item that Kelek wanted and in order to get it he charmed her. He asked her for it and she said something along the lines like as my friend I can't give it to you. He asked again and she gave it to him.
So Paizo had absolutely no reason to print the following?
If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you.
I did say subjectively they have not done something wrong.
That being said, objectively it was still done.
I thought that people would be able to make the connection.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This debate will never end until the game designers actually put some reasonable definition around what charm does. Frankly if I'm playing with an Ashiel-type GM I'm just going to use charm as "dominate" throughout the game and take over the entire frickin' world by level 4. Most of my characters have decent charisma anyway since I love UMD, plus all my tricks to boost charisma for UMD will work for charm as well, so who the heck needs any other mind controlling spell?
Charmageddon Baby!!!! Here it comes!
This debate will never end until the game designers actually put some reasonable definition around what charm does. Frankly if I'm playing with an Ashiel-type GM I'm just going to use charm as "dominate" throughout the game and take over the entire frickin' world by level 4. Most of my characters have decent charisma anyway since I love UMD, plus all my tricks to boost charisma for UMD will work for charm as well, so who the heck needs any other mind controlling spell?
Charmageddon Baby!!!! Here it comes!
LOL!
This debate will never end until the game designers actually put some reasonable definition around what charm does. Frankly if I'm playing with an Ashiel-type GM I'm just going to use charm as "dominate" throughout the game and take over the entire frickin' world by level 4. Most of my characters have decent charisma anyway since I love UMD, plus all my tricks to boost charisma for UMD will work for charm as well, so who the heck needs any other mind controlling spell?
Charmageddon Baby!!!! Here it comes!
That's hilarious AD. Because it won't happen. It hasn't happened yet and I've been using charm person as written for years now. Exactly how do you figure charm is going to break the world like this?
If having a character playing a merfolk psion modeled after a "siren" who literally spammed charm like it was going out of style didn't upset my game, I'm very interested in knowing how you think it would.
EDIT: Also, you can't use charm as dominate because they are very different. Their only similarity is they both exercise some form of mental control and both disallow suicidal activities. They're entirely different beasts.
Ashiel, based on your description of how you would rule on "charm person" if I wanted to (and I probably wouldn't because I like playing fun games, not proving points while playing, but if I wanted to) I would totally break your game using charm person the way you say it can be used.
I'll never get the chance to prove it. And like I said, even if I had the chance I'd rather have fun than rub your nose in what I think is a poor ruling, but if I had the chance and truly wanted to prove the point, I would break your game. Every town we visited would end up building statues to me. And that would be just the start of it.
Sure you say "no you wouldn't" and that's probably true, because it wouldn't take long for you to revise your rulings on the subject to stop me. But of course, that would just prove my point just as well.
I don't follow. What do you think the purpose of the Charisma check is if not to see if you're successful?
Checks have results when they're either successful or fail. An attack hits or misses. A spell is saved against or not. You pick the lock or don't.
You successfully make the order (no retries allowed), or you don't.
That's why I said (twice) that it'd be a really stupid interpretation of the rules.
I'm not defending said interpretation, just saying it's a possible one.I'm not really one to ever get up and leave a table... I love game night WAY too much....
HOWEVER, if I ever had THIS happen at a table...
Me: I'm going to order my new buddy to check for traps.
DM: That sounds dangerous, he wouldn't want to do that. Make a charisma check.
Me: I rolled a 34....
DM: Yep that wins the Chr check! Still doesn't work.
THAT would feel like a DM screwing with me...
You do not need to make a chr check to 'Try to give an order'... that's TALKING... it's a FREE action. The CHR check exists to make him FOLLOW it...
Why do you guys refuse to understand my point? That's exactly what I said! In fact, I said it 3 times now: It'd be a incredibly stupid way to read the spell description. But not a impossible one.
BTW: "Check for traps" is not suicidal, but "trigger that trap" is. If you told your charmed friend to do that, he'd have a new save, and in case that failed, you'd have to pass a Charisma check.
Then, assuming you win the Cha check, the charmed character would say something like "Oh, you mean you want me to check for traps, or find a way to trigger that one without risking our safety... I see." and still act like you're her BFF despite the fact that you just told her to step on a explosive mine.
Again, why do we have the word "never" there? Is it just an arbitrary restricition? Could it as well be "the target never obeys rules to eat spaghetti", but it just happened to be a restriction that stops suicidal orders?
Or is it that harming yourself is so against your nature that not even the charm spell can force you to do it? That seems a lot more reasonable.
Would it be too much to assume that killing your parents or children is just as unthinkable, therefore, also can't happen by means of a charm spell?
Actually, putting yourself inbetween two friends fighitng is not unlikely. The spell does make the target see the caster as a great friend, so protecting the caster is not something the target would absolutely never do. Have you never tried to stop two friends of yours from fighting each other (not necessarily physically, maybe just a heated argument)? I know I had to break up fights between my friends or siblings a few times.
The problem is that you're not their best friend ever. They are treated as being "friendly" as the first effect of the charm. I wouldn't expect an NPC to suddenly stop helping their former allies and start fighting for your safety just because you raised them from Indifferent to Friendly with a successful Diplomacy check. Such is an effect of the charm, not the attitude as defined in the charm rules.
I dunno, is harming your sister more acceptable than harming yourself? The answer may vary from person to person. If you feel so strongly about your own safetly/well being that not even magic can make you hurt yourself, is it too much to think that you feel just as passionately about harming your beloved ones?
It's not more acceptable but due to the nature of the spell one is open season and the other isn't. Even with dominate you cannot give orders that are self-destructive. Presumably there is some limitation of the magic that simply makes it so, similar to how you don't throw fireball spells that explode in the shapes of pentagrams, because that's simply not how the spell works.
If I was told to hurt my sister I would get another Charisma check AND another saving throw to break the spell entirely because that's something that I would be violently opposed to. I'd sooner hurt myself, but the charm can alter my perceptions of reality and brainwash me into hurting her. It doesn't matter how it brainwashes, merely that it does. I'd just get some additional checks to break free of it.
The only thing that my feeling passionate has to do with anything is getting the extra saving throw and charisma check to break free. Otherwise I do it because the spell says I do and I'm under the effects of the spell. Tough cookies. At least I have more chances to avoid it than if the person making me do it just cast magic missile and killed my sister outright. The psychotherapy later is gonna suck though.
That's exactly my point. You can interpret RAW to mean anything, including that the spell is completely useless because you can't charm anyone into doing anything.
But only if you're ignoring definitions here. The spell is actually one example in the rules where it's not that open to interpretation and is actually very well defined and yet people dislike what it means and try their damnest to twist and weasel it into what they want it to be. I just linked the definition of harm. It means actual physical harm. So none of this "oh but they will feel bad about it or it will make them sad" nonsense, no "the guard won't give you the key to the gate because he might lose his job if discovered and that would harm him". Nope. Nada. Not gonna fly. It said harm and it means harm, and it has to be self-harm.
So you could tell the guard to give you the key, oppose Charisma. If you win he gives you the key. If he wins he doesn't and you cannot try to get him to give it to you again. But if you ordered the guard to stab himself or leap off a cliff that could actually kill him then you get no check. He simply isn't doing it.
I'm not saying you're warping RAW to mean what you want, just that by RAW, there is no line saying the target does anything you say. Obviously, it'd be a pretty dumb interpretation, because if that's the case, what is the point of the spell?
See above. He doesn't do anything you say. He does anything you say with X restrictions. You cannot make him self-destruct, nor self-harm, and you risk failure with orders he doesn't go along with, and you risk breaking your spell if you give orders he is greatly opposed to. You want him to avoid a certain route on his patrol the next night? Easily done. You want him to leave a key to the manor under the doormat? Not as easily done but do-able. You want him to poison the lord of the house? Very difficult to do and can break the spell entirely.
Where I disagree with you is about the extent of the caster's control over its target. The way I see, a charmed person sees the casters as her very favorite person (or something close to that), and will do all sorts of favors for you and seriously consider any suggestion/advice you give her, but she'll not like you enough to do something she'd never absolutely do even for her best friend (like killing herself or drowning her baby).
Except they aren't even "helpful" by default. Merely "friendly" unless you exercise the 2nd option in charm effects, barring the natural side effects of being charmed such as altruistically fighting to protect your charmer.
If my father, who I love and respect a great deal, asked me a favor, I'd most likely do it. If he gave me an advice/suggestion, I'd seriously consider it. But if he told me to shoot my brother in the head, I'd surely refuse, and assume he was joking.
I think that's basically what happens when a creature is charmed. It might not obey your order/suggestion if it's something absurd, but if the subject fails its extra saving throw, it'll assume you didn't mean that, or that it misunderstood you.
Except is your father exerting power over you with a mind-affecting spell that by its nature forces you to do things you wouldn't ordinarily do? Clearly you would ordinarily listen to your father, and you wouldn't ordinarily shoot your brother in the head. If my parents told me to shoot my sister or brother in the head, I would be horrified and appalled. I wouldn't even consider it for a moment. But if I'm being affected by a spell that causes me to act in ways I wouldn't ordinarily because of the effect of the spell then the spell may make me do it if I can't break out of it and resist their force of will.
It's still a very powerful effect. Especially for a 1st level spell.
Actually the alternative is a pretty sucky effect because charm is not a 1st level spell. Charm person is a 1st level spell. However the charm effect is shared right up the totem pole with charm monster and mass versions of these spells. The reason it's fine as a 1st level spell is because of the exceptionally narrow range of uses you have with the 1st level version.
Keep the following in mind.
1) It only works on 1 type of creature.
2) Countless creatures are immune to it (even the monster version) because it is a mind-affecting effect.
3) It grants a +5 bonus to your save if using it in a hostile situation (IE - you and your allies are fighting or threatening).
4) It requires an ability check to attempt to get the charmed creature to do something it wouldn't normally do. Ability scores do not rank up quickly and even with a 30 Charisma you can still fail fairly often even against low Charisma targets.
5) If you give an order the victim is violently opposed to, not only do they get the test to ignore it but they get another saving throw to break free from the spell entirely.\
6) The effect is countered by common protections including protection from evil (though Paizo dropped the ball with this one something fierce).
7) It is subject to spell resistance.
8) It is blocked by spells like mind blank.
9) It can be defended against by using a friendly charm spell (charm person lasts 1 hour/level and monster lasts 1 day/level, and by accepting a friendly charm anyone who charms you must oppose not only your will but the will of the other caster when getting you to do conflicting things).
10) It can simply be dispelled at any time with a successful dispel magic.
Compare to sleep or deep slumber for example which with 1 saving throw simply nullify one or more creatures appropriate for your level. In the case of charm monster, compare to other 4th level spells like black tentacles, phantasmal killer (this is a mind-affecting 2 saving throw spell that probably slays the target outright), greater invisibility, fear (two fear spells cast back to back has 100% chance to frighten enemies and can CC a huge amount of enemies at once), and lesser geas/quest (which literally does force most any course of action with no chance to break free or ignore it after the initial saving throw, cannot be dispelled without some heavy magic, and punishes you if you're prevented from carrying out your task).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and for those of you saying "yeah, you can charm them into murdering their brother, but they'll remember who made them do it...
That's why "disguise" and "bluff" exist.
With the ruling presented here by the charm==dominate crowd, I can convince you that I am your business rival, charm you to kill your brother and then wait for the charm to wear off so you will take your revenge against your business rival.
Ah... good times.
I'd be Mayor in a month. Lord in six months. King in a year...
AD, doing that for a month SURELY you'd have dominate by then, right? :D
I vote AD for king!
Oops, did you even charm me to do that?
But Dominate Person has all of those limitations, and yet, it's a 5th level spell.
Why bother with that spell if you can use Charm Person for nearly all the same things?
|
|
Oh, and for those of you saying "yeah, you can charm them into murdering their brother, but they'll remember who made them do it...
That's why "disguise" and "bluff" exist.
With the ruling presented here by the charm==dominate crowd, I can convince you that I am your business rival, charm you to kill your brother and then wait for the charm to wear off so you will take your revenge against your business rival.
Ah... good times.
I'd be Mayor in a month. Lord in six months. King in a year...
Which is why they said in the FAQ "The spell makes the target think they are your friend."
That is what it does. Period.
What that means varys from GM to GM I supposed, but I'm not murdering my wife because my buddy said to...
Ah you should be a Kitsune with the realistic shape feat! Their favorite class bonus would help you too! Maybe fey bloodline sorcerer? Or serpentine?
That actually fits how i see "charm person" quite good^^
If it were much different, the spell would not have any sense.
Anyway, there is still the thing that many Gm´s and people see casting a spell on someone a hostile act. So if you just go somewhere and charm someone, this person and others would see and hear it and consider it hostile, then react accordingly.
Ashiel, based on your description of how you would rule on "charm person" if I wanted to (and I probably wouldn't because I like playing fun games, not proving points while playing, but if I wanted to) I would totally break your game using charm person the way you say it can be used.
Haha. No. You wouldn't. You think people haven't used charm in creative ways in my games over the years? One of my more recent games a few month back involved a PC whose entire shtick revolved around spamming charm and similar spells (a merfolk psion who was themed as a siren-esque sea-witch). She charmed all sorts of things and used it liberally. I do mean liberally too. I think she probably used charm effects more often than any other spell effect that should could produce because that was the idea of her concept (it was her signature shtick).
Didn't break the game.
I'll never get the chance to prove it. And like I said, even if I had the chance I'd rather have fun than rub your nose in what I think is a poor ruling, but if I had the chance and truly wanted to prove the point, I would break your game. Every town we visited would end up building statues to me. And that would be just the start of it.
That's pretty laughable. I'd love to see an example as to how you'd end up doing that. It sounds funny. :)
Sure you say "no you wouldn't" and that's probably true, because it wouldn't take long for you to revise your rulings on the subject to stop me. But of course, that would just prove my point just as well.
I don't think I would. Again, I've been using it as written both for PCs and NPCs for years now. I see no reason to change it because someone insists they would break my game, anymore than I saw the need to change the monk because someone insisted they could break my game with it (they didn't, but is anyone really surprised?). :P
But Dominate Person has all of those limitations, and yet, it's a 5th level spell.
Why bother with that spell if you can use Charm Person for nearly all the same things?
Because you don't use it for nearly all the same things. Dominate firstly doesn't care about your Charisma or the target's. The best they get is another saving throw and if they fail that then they are your own personal b@**&. Dominate likewise lasts 1 day/level, provides telepathic communication for simple instructions over any distance, awareness of your thrall's condition, and allows you to use your thrall as a spy. You don't need to be able to communicate with your target for basic instructions and your foe doesn't give a +5 saving throw if you try to use it in combat.
What's amusing is a persistent dominate can be more or less unstoppable once it has been applied to a target with a low Will save. There is no arguing the power of dominate. Dominate means that the target will carry out their orders to the letter without question. It's one of the reasons Vampires are really scary with their at-will domination.
Domination is definitely the more powerful of the two. Especially with the ability to give commands without even being present and without forcing an opposed ability check to get them to do it and the lack of need to be able to communicate with the creature. Charm monster is actually severely limited by this problem. If you're a master linguist then charm person and/or monster is pretty good at dealing with creatures that share a language with you (hopefully you really enjoy putting ranks in Linguistics), but even if you can charm a hydra, what are you going to do with it besides get it to not eat you and/or get it to attack any other nearby creatures attacking you?
AD, doing that for a month SURELY you'd have dominate by then, right? :D
Why in the heck would I bother with memorizing a fifth level spell when I can do the same thing with a first level spell?
Since Charm Person only makes some act as if you were good friends, I would not say it is an Evil act. Most people don't sleep with their friends, so charming them wouldn't be enough to make someone who wasn't already interested in you go to bed with you.
Dominate Person/Monster, on the other hand, would be rape, and Evil.
As far as Ive ever know with the spell Charm Person or other type of compulsion magic. You can not make the person commit an act that he or she would not do or if you do they are entittled to another saving throw with a modification depending on the act being forced apon them.
The atonement spell alludes to the potential outcome of paladins and clerics falling while under compulsion magic.
As far as Ive ever know with the spell Charm Person or other type of compulsion magic. You can not make the person commit an act that he or she would not do or if you do they are entittled to another saving throw with a modification depending on the act being forced apon them.Since Charm Person only makes some act as if you were good friends, I would not say it is an Evil act. Most people don't sleep with their friends, so charming them wouldn't be enough to make someone who wasn't already interested in you go to bed with you.
Dominate Person/Monster, on the other hand, would be rape, and Evil.
Dark, if I'm exploiting charm person to turn it into dominate, I'm going to have a very difficult to beat charisma check. Sure, it won't be 100%, but it doesn't need to be. In a typical situation to accomplish the goals I would want to do with this exploit there will be dozens of NPCs I can target. I'll nail the majority of them.
The biggest oddity with charm person is that it has verbal components. You must say these in a strong voice. So, you're basically raising your voice at someone then they're your pal. If they're anyone with spellcraft they even know what you're doing yet the spell works as it does. All that depends on how "real" you want to play your games though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest oddity with charm person is that it has verbal components. You must say these in a strong voice. So, you're basically raising your voice at someone then they're your pal. If they're anyone with spellcraft they even know what you're doing yet the spell works as it does. All that depends on how "real" you want to play your games though.
Heh... Now I see how charm works...
Wizard: I'M COOL! BE MY FRIEND!
Target: Uh... Okay...
- later -
Target's friend: Why did you say you'd be his friend?
Target: Well, it was the only way to make him shut up and stop doing those freaky hand gestures... How could I know he'd keep asking me to kick my own dog? I'm afraid that if I don't obey he'll freak out and burn my house!
Heh... Now I see how charm works...
Wizard: I'M COOL! BE MY FRIEND!
Target: Uh... Okay...
- later -
Target's friend: Why did you say you'd be his friend?
Target: Well, it was the only way to make him shut up and stop doing those freaky hand gestures... How could I know he'd keep asking me to kick my own dog? I'm afraid that if I don't obey he'll freak out and burn my house!
I <3 you Lemmy. That is so much win. :P
Oh, and for those of you saying "yeah, you can charm them into murdering their brother, but they'll remember who made them do it...
That's why "disguise" and "bluff" exist.
With the ruling presented here by the charm==dominate crowd, I can convince you that I am your business rival, charm you to kill your brother and then wait for the charm to wear off so you will take your revenge against your business rival.
Ah... good times.
I'd be Mayor in a month. Lord in six months. King in a year...
That's hilarious. Mostly because in a world of magic such things are suspect. Seriously, you'd probably not be the first person to murder someone using magical means in some complex way. There are low level spells and items that can easily foil such a scheme.
It's like the people who laugh and mock the GM and say they will break his game with prestidigitation by making all their copper pieces look like gold or platinum pieces, and then they're thrown in jail for fraud 'cause the coins aren't even the correct size and weight and it's not like someone hadn't tried that trick before.
Also for goodness sakes stop using terms like: "the charm==dominate crowd" because I've seen nobody here to has said anything of the sort. Not even I. Setting up false arguments and arguing them is not very kosher.
One should definitely consider second- order and third-order effects, yes.
Charm in a world with lots of charmers is different than being the only charmer in the world. Another reason why subtlety is the defining mark of the enchanter, and why local legal codes will usually have something to say about the spell and similar powers.
Still/Silent Spell are wonderful for social situations and wizards who get involved in them.
No one is saying it directly. Its how it feels when someone says charm can get someone to do anything. It definitely helps, but everyone seems to have their own idea on how far someone is willng to go.
Kind of makes me want to explore just how far charm can go, and how it appears morally in a pfs enviroment. Can't be too hard to find a kitsune boon somewhere.
No one is saying it directly. Its how it feels when someone says charm can get someone to do anything. It definitely helps, but everyone seems to have their own idea on how far someone is willng to go.
Kind of makes me want to explore just how far charm can go, and how it appears morally in a pfs enviroment. Can't be too hard to find a kitsune boon somewhere.
Actually, Kitsunes get a bonus to spells of the Compulsion subtype, not Charm.
What's really fun is that a Kitsune sorcerer can pretty easily have something like Deep Slumner with a save DC of 28 by 7th level. lol.
I'm honestly tempted to make a Kitsune Sorcerer next... And abuse mind-control like there was no tomorrow! And keep a few other useful spells for thing that I can dominate, of course.
If you reach the high levels, I'm sure you can boost your compulsion spells DC to the early 40s.
EDIT: My bad, Kitsune Magic affects all enchantment spell.
EDIT2: Just made a 20th level Kitsune Sorcerer on HL. Managed to boost the DC for Dominate Monster up to 44. That means a Balor needs a 19 to resist the effect. The only problem is getting through SR 31.
Kitsune Magic is a flat +1 to all enchantments though, and my ARG says its favored class is +1/4 to DC of enchantments(not specifying charm or compulsion). I've always wanted to try being foxxy for once. My last try ended terribly becuase no one wanted to accept the summoner with a Kitsune eidolon wasn't a kitsune. The bullying at the table got to be too much. Thats a different story though.
Spreading out into transmutation and conjuration is always fun. Create pit has been my go to spell for a long time, just too much fun to drop rooms full of foes into a pit. Last time I used it I think I accidentally broke an office...
Fey bloodline is a plus +2 to compulsions only. Thats probably what you were thinking of.
Yup, I mixed them up. Probably because the build I was thinking about used the Fey Bloodline.
Still... DC 44 is really fun... hah.
Its a go to thing and not that uncommon. I think I'd prefer sylvan myself to have a bestest friend come along with me. Cat reskinned as a celestial fox doesn't sound bad at all.
Its a go to thing and not that uncommon. I think I'd prefer sylvan myself to have a bestest friend come along with me. Cat reskinned as a celestial fox doesn't sound bad at all.
I agree. I was just trying to see how far I could push the DC. Since I reached 44 in like... 1min of character building at HL, I assume there must be a few ways to rise it by another 1 or 2 points if I tried really hard.
At the local gaming store back when I did pfs, there was someone who decided to use that build actually. Tasha's Hideously Laughter ended many encounters that the foe didn't roll a nat 20. You may not need that last 1 or 2...
I don't think I ever played with the character myself, nor did I hear about them use charm for fun though.
Need it? Probably not... But it'd be interesting... A few metamagic rods can raise the DC and/or give you a better chance to bypass SR.
And you can always use Intimidate to nerf their saves.
Or better yet! Use Feeblemind! It's a Compulsion spell, so it has a save DC of 40. lol.
Never liked that spell. I could use them and their delicious brain, and you know when you use spells like that the DM is likely to throw them back at you.
Now make friends with the local witch...
1 whole school is actually a pretty broad trick, and as a sorcerer you can still branch out into other schools now and then for those pesky undead and constructs.
Who needs skillpoints when I can just ask you really really nicely to do it for me! and in like, 12 different ways!
There's the issue with a Kitsune Sorcerer - skill and hp's are not great if you focussed on uber-maximising save DC's...
One trick pony. But what a trick.
I don't think a Kitsune Sorcerer's skills and HP will be much lower than any other sorcerer. They can reach absurd DC numbers with 2~5 feat, and spend the rest on whatever they want.
If you take serpentine bloodline and invest either two feats or some money into a rod you can have threnodic spells.
Then you enchant and mind-affect animals, monstrous humanoids, magical beasts and undead. For the rest you can find some other spells and you still have the rest of your party normally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also for goodness sakes stop using terms like: "the charm==dominate crowd" because I've seen nobody here to has said anything of the sort. Not even I. Setting up false arguments and arguing them is not very kosher.
Ashiel, when you argue that all you need to do is make a charisma check to get your charmed target to do anything you ask, except commit suicide or harm themselves, you have duplicated the effect of "dominate".
So you ARE the "charm==dominate"crowd.
AD, doing that for a month SURELY you'd have dominate by then, right? :DWhy in the heck would I bother with memorizing a fifth level spell when I can do the same thing with a first level spell?
Honestly... If you plan on charming commoners and townsfolk?? you wouldn't.
If your going against people with actual SAVING throws... then the higher spell will always be better. Last runelords I was playing my infernal sorcerer I went with Charm Monster instead of Charm person.... because I just couldn't trust that CR 7-9 opponent would fall to a 1st level spell.
Same with the light spells, and the sleep spells and the fire spells... there are many examples of higher spells doing about the same thing... only Better.
If you don't need the better version, why bother. Sorcerers with high charisma probably don't need ot bother with dominate... Wizards with low charisma definitely want to avoid that extra loophole.
AD, doing that for a month SURELY you'd have dominate by then, right? :DWhy in the heck would I bother with memorizing a fifth level spell when I can do the same thing with a first level spell?Honestly... If you plan on charming commoners and townsfolk?? you wouldn't.
If your going against people with actual SAVING throws... then the higher spell will always be better. Last runelords I was playing my infernal sorcerer I went with Charm Monster instead of Charm person.... because I just couldn't trust that CR 7-9 opponent would fall to a 1st level spell.
Same with the light spells, and the sleep spells and the fire spells... there are many examples of higher spells doing about the same thing... only Better.
If you don't need the better version, why bother. Sorcerers with high charisma probably don't need ot bother with dominate... Wizards with low charisma definitely want to avoid that extra loophole.
Yeah, if you accept the premise that dominate is just charm with a higher save DC then fine.
But it's not. Both spells require a second check if you attempt to force the creature to do something against its nature or self-destructive. Charm requires an opposed charisma check, dominate requires a second save. Which of those is more likely to succeed depends entirely on the build and the target.
But I don't disagree that the main distinction between charm and dominate according to the way some are interpreting charm is that dominate has a higher entry DC.
Of course there are ways to improve any DC if you want to go that direction.