why all the hate on charm person?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 213 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Joe Hex wrote:
In July, on the release date of 'Occult Adventures', the Mesmerist, will be arrested for being evil-by-nature, no matter alignment, by the PC fantasy police.

WELP. I know what my next character will be! XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I think Jason gave the RAI of the spell.

Maybe. Jason is awesome, but perhaps not infallible. I think he really missed the boat here. His post that was quoted above allows this example:

Mage wants to charm a NPC to kill himself so he casts Charm Person on the guy.

Mage: Kill yourself.
Guy: Haha, I trust you, friend, but I can and will disobey that request.
Mage: OK, go kill all the people in that village over there.
Guy: I don't want to.
Mage: Too bad, I am more charismatic than you are so do it!
Guy: Crap, I still don't want to so I will kill myself.
Mage: Booyah! That's what I wanted all along!

All of which completely ignores the part that the charmed guy will not do harmful things.

Sorry Jason, I think you spoke too quickly on this subject and maybe didn't consider all the ramifications for this first level spell.

wraithstrike wrote:
If you fail the check you have to follow what is wanted.

Maybe, as long as it isn't harmful. And as long as it is something that a trusted friend could talk you into without any puppet-mastery mind control

The problem here is the vague wording that allows two different parsings of this sentence:

Charm Person spell wrote:
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.

Parsing one: You can convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do by trying to make an opposed CHA check.

Parsing two: If you try to make it do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do, you must make an opposed CHA check.

Both of these parsings are perfectly valid interpretations of that sentence. the first version suggests that ANYTHING is possible if you make the check. The second version suggests that you cannot make him do anything without making the check. The first one is inclusive - all things are possible (as long as you make the check). The second one is exclusive - nothing is possible (but a check...

He has not retracted the statement, but me not liking it does not make it "not the intent". Honestly I won't follow the intent, I think we will run it the same way.

It was also supporting an "FAQ" that was issued which takes the entire PDT to discuss.

We should not confuse what we don't like or what may not make sense with what the rule is or is not.

The once upon a time ruling of not being able to flurry with a single weapon comes to mind.


Curious, is there a post somewhere about this with FAQs on it that we can increase or would we need to start a new FAQ thread with a clear question?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Can we simply accept that Charm Person is really f##*ing poorly written? There is no need for these mental gymnastics to pretend it's well designed. We know most GMs wouldn't allow the spell to be abused, no matter whar RAW says.

Personally, I simply rule that all the spell does is cause the target to see thd caster as a very close friend. There is no Cha check or anything. The target simply does whatever it'd be willing to do for a close friend.

Problem solved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

Can we simply accept that Charm Person is really f*~+ing poorly written? There is no need for these mental gymnastics to pretend it's well designed. We know most GMs wouldn't allow the spell to be abused, no matter whar RAW says.

Personally, I simply rule that all the spell does is cause the target to see thd caster as a very close friend. There is no Cha check or anything. The target simply does whatever it'd be willing to do for a close friend.

Problem solved.

I can agree with that :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

Can we simply accept that Charm Person is really f*!+ing poorly written? There is no need for these mental gymnastics to pretend it's well designed. We know most GMs wouldn't allow the spell to be abused, no matter whar RAW says.

Personally, I simply rule that all the spell does is cause the target to see thd caster as a very close friend. There is no Cha check or anything. The target simply does whatever it'd be willing to do for a close friend.

Problem solved.

*Gasp*, a voice of reason.

Away with you, lest one of the posters listens to you and starts a "Why is everyone complaining, my rogue is fine, you must be doing it wrong" thread, or (God(s) forbid) a "Level 9 wizard vs level 17 MR4 Monk" thread instead because the lack of things to bicker about made them bored.

Sure, this discussion pretty much stopped going anywhere after the first page, but at least it is something fresh.

Dark Archive

littlehewy wrote:

I was just commenting on your implementation of forced alignment changes for PCs, and how they differ from the norm.

Each to their own, though. I'm definitely not suggesting badwrongfun :) So long as your players know the drill and you run it consistently, there's nothing for me to criticise there.

Ha, yeah I mean I've never had to do it (even when I let players play evil, we draw the line at rape (as far as players doing it goes, it's a common background trope for half-races (especially orcs)...) but also to be honest I don't even know my players alignments, or care. I ask them, they don't say evil (and the cleric's alignment matches his deity), then I promptly forget. LOL. Because, for the most part I do see alignment as a tool, not a crutch... so I trust players to know their alignment and stick to it... If they stray occasionally, hey we all do.


I dunno why people are saying "It is a level 1 spell, therefore it can't be better than a level 5 spell".

That seems really strange to me, because lower level spells being better than high level spells happens constantly in pathfinder. There are many low level spells that are much better than high level spells, and there are a lot of high level spells which don't really do anything useful.

For an easy example: Protection from Evil. Even mind blank doesn't give you the immunity to charm spells like pro evil does, and it is level 9!


CWheezy wrote:

I dunno why people are saying "It is a level 1 spell, therefore it can't be better than a level 5 spell".

It's an issue of the level 5 spell being directly derivative of the level 1 spell.

Having Charm Person as powerful as Dominate Person would be analogous to having Fireball being just as powerful as Meteor Swarm.


Saldiven wrote:
CWheezy wrote:

I dunno why people are saying "It is a level 1 spell, therefore it can't be better than a level 5 spell".

It's an issue of the level 5 spell being directly derivative of the level 1 spell.

Having Charm Person as powerful as Dominate Person would be analogous to having Fireball being just as powerful as Meteor Swarm.

That is not what he is saying. He is not saying that is good, he is saying that it is possible.


Saldiven wrote:
CWheezy wrote:

I dunno why people are saying "It is a level 1 spell, therefore it can't be better than a level 5 spell".

It's an issue of the level 5 spell being directly derivative of the level 1 spell.

Having Charm Person as powerful as Dominate Person would be analogous to having Fireball being just as powerful as Meteor Swarm.

I feel Charm person is more powerful than Dominate person.


CWheezy wrote:

I dunno why people are saying "It is a level 1 spell, therefore it can't be better than a level 5 spell".

That seems really strange to me, because lower level spells being better than high level spells happens constantly in pathfinder. There are many low level spells that are much better than high level spells, and there are a lot of high level spells which don't really do anything useful.

For an easy example: Protection from Evil. Even mind blank doesn't give you the immunity to charm spells like pro evil does, and it is level 9!

In my personal experience, arguing "X shouldn't be more powerful than Y" or anything else based on game balance is usually a pretty strong indicator that the person isn't arguing RAI, not RAW. Or, less charitably, Rules As I Think They Ought To Be (RAITTOTB).


CWheezy wrote:

I dunno why people are saying "It is a level 1 spell, therefore it can't be better than a level 5 spell".

That seems really strange to me, because lower level spells being better than high level spells happens constantly in pathfinder. There are many low level spells that are much better than high level spells, and there are a lot of high level spells which don't really do anything useful.

For an easy example: Protection from Evil. Even mind blank doesn't give you the immunity to charm spells like pro evil does, and it is level 9!

Mind blank has always been, and still is, 8th level.

Before PF, mind blank gave blanket immunity to mind-affecting and divination; now it gives +8 resistance on saves vs. mind-affecting and still has immunity to divination.

-----

That said, the comparison I prefer is to suggestion, not to dominate person; dominate can give you several days of same-planar-range telepathic control as long as you're careful to align your demands with the victim's general desires. It's less discreet (based on the Sense Motive check to detect it,) but it lasts longer and doesn't require communication.

The problem with charm person is that, though it's [charm,] the opposed-Charisma mechanism seemingly allows it to do compulsions against which [compulsion] immunity does not apply - in effect allowing you to pseudo-cast several Suggestions during its duration --- which, unlike the real Suggestion, aren't even language-dependent.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In my group, we keep the power of Charm Person at 1st level by literally interpreting the phrase - "An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders". That word harmful is the lynch pin.

You can't make an affected creature kill their brother, adopted father, a whole village, or themselves. You can't even make an affected creature strike someone else for lethal damage. Because those actions are harmful, commands to perform them simply don't work. The rest of the spell description is ran as written:

Mundane commands like"Carry my backpack" = no CHA check needed

Dangerous commands that does not immediately cause physical harm to anyone such as "Take blame for the murder" = CHA check needed

A command that results in the immediate physical harm like"Stab that guy" = automatic fail

(I'm not saying this will work for every group or players, but it does mine.)

P.S. I think this is my first post on these message boards :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dex Celsior wrote:

In my group, we keep the power of Charm Person at 1st level by literally interpreting the phrase - "An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders". That word harmful is the lynch pin.

You can't make an affected creature kill their brother, adopted father, a whole village, or themselves. You can't even make an affected creature strike someone else for lethal damage. Because those actions are harmful, commands to perform them simply don't work. The rest of the spell description is ran as written:

Mundane commands like"Carry my backpack" = no CHA check needed

Dangerous commands that does not immediately cause physical harm to anyone such as "Take blame for the murder" = CHA check needed

A command that results in the immediate physical harm like"Stab that guy" = automatic fail

(I'm not saying this will work for every group or players, but it does mine.)

P.S. I think this is my first post on these message boards :)

Welcome to the boards!

Of course, you know your opinion is wrong... ;)

(that's a joke; opinions by definition are never wrong)

In any case, the key to getting the most out of Charm Person is to read the phrase "do anything they wouldn't ordinarily do" as all-inclusive and simultaneously in a vacuum where none of the rest of the spell's text exists.

I expect any day now the devs will issue an errata to correct Charm Person to what the text should have said all along. The entire spell description will be one sentence: You make the guy mindlessly trust you in all things and can force him to do anything you can imagine with a simple opposed CHA check.

I'm quite sure that's what the devs meant to say all along.

Then Charm Person will truly be the "I WIN!!!" button. You know, like all first level spells are supposed to be...

Of course, when they do, they'll also errata Suggestion and the Dominate line to simply remove them from the spell lists. Charm Person will do all that (and more) anyway. Like it was meant to.

/sarcasm

(but really, welcome to the boards; that part wasn't sarcasm)


Hey guys, rules quote that I don't think anyone has mentioned yet.

CRB page 561:
Charm and Compulsion

Many abilities and spells can cloud the minds of characters and monsters, leaving them unable to tell friend from foe—or worse yet, deceiving them into thinking that their former friends are now their worst enemies. Two general types of enchantments affect characters and creatures: charms and compulsions.

Charming another creature gives the charming character the ability to befriend and suggest courses of action to his minion, but the servitude is not absolute or mindless. Charms of this type include the various charm spells and some monster abilities. Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.

• A charmed creature doesn’t gain any magical ability to understand his new friend’s language.
• A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.
• 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.
• A charmed character who is openly attacked by the creature who charmed him or by that creature’s apparent allies is automatically freed of the spell or effect.

Compulsion is a different matter altogether. A compulsion overrides the subject’s free will in some way or simply changes the way the subject’s mind works. A charm makes the subject a friend of the caster; a compulsion makes the subject obey the caster.

Regardless of whether a character is charmed or compelled, he does not volunteer information or tactics that his master doesn’t ask for.


DM_Blake wrote:
Dex Celsior wrote:

In my group, we keep the power of Charm Person at 1st level by literally interpreting the phrase - "An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders". That word harmful is the lynch pin.

You can't make an affected creature kill their brother, adopted father, a whole village, or themselves. You can't even make an affected creature strike someone else for lethal damage. Because those actions are harmful, commands to perform them simply don't work. The rest of the spell description is ran as written:

Mundane commands like"Carry my backpack" = no CHA check needed

Dangerous commands that does not immediately cause physical harm to anyone such as "Take blame for the murder" = CHA check needed

A command that results in the immediate physical harm like"Stab that guy" = automatic fail

(I'm not saying this will work for every group or players, but it does mine.)

P.S. I think this is my first post on these message boards :)

Welcome to the boards!

Of course, you know your opinion is wrong... ;)

(that's a joke; opinions by definition are never wrong)

In any case, the key to getting the most out of Charm Person is to read the phrase "do anything they wouldn't ordinarily do" as all-inclusive and simultaneously in a vacuum where none of the rest of the spell's text exists.

I expect any day now the devs will issue an errata to correct Charm Person to what the text should have said all along. The entire spell description will be one sentence: You make the guy mindlessly trust you in all things and can force him to do anything you can imagine with a simple opposed CHA check.

I'm quite sure that's what the devs meant to say all along.

Then Charm Person will truly be the "I WIN!!!" button. You know, like all first level spells are supposed to be...

Of course, when they do, they'll also errata Suggestion and the Dominate line to simply remove them from the spell lists. Charm Person will do...

I don't think his is, but an opinion can to be wrong. If it's your opinion that at seven thirty this morning, the moon crashed into the earth, you are in fact wrong. I see way to many people use the crutch "it's just my opinion" in an argument in a bid to escape opposition. Usually it's used in the manner of "I think this is true, but I don't want to have to defend it. So it's 'just my opinion'

On topic, I have to ask ... For the ones that define harm so narrowly - what is your justification for presuming only the most narrow possible definition of harm? Why is that the only one that applies?


RDM42 wrote:
On topic, I have to ask ... For the ones that define harm so narrowly - what is your justification for presuming only the most narrow possible definition of harm? Why is that the only one that applies?

You just missed my rules quote from the CRB appendix. It gives a narrower definition.

CRB page 561 wrote:
• A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.


Snowblind wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
On topic, I have to ask ... For the ones that define harm so narrowly - what is your justification for presuming only the most narrow possible definition of harm? Why is that the only one that applies?

You just missed my rules quote from the CRB appendix. It gives a narrower definition.

CRB page 561 wrote:
• A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.

That isn't really that much narrower. It is a perfectly reasonable interpretation that "plunge a dagger into your daughter's heart' would be grievously harmful to a father, for example.

The "charm is dominate but better" position requires exceedingly narrow reading of what defines harm, or grievous harm.

1
: causing or characterized by severe pain, suffering, or sorrow <a grievous wound> <a grievous loss>

Pain, suffering, or sorrow. Note that it does NOT say "grievous BODILY harm." It isn't limited to asking you to kill yourself or such.


RDM42 wrote:
Snowblind wrote:

...

CRB page 561 wrote:
• A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.

That isn't really that much narrower. It is a perfectly reasonable interpretation that "plunge a dagger into your daughter's heart' would be grievously harmful to a father, for example.

The "charm is dominate but better" position requires exceedingly narrow reading of what defines harm, or grievous harm.

1
: causing or characterized by severe pain, suffering, or sorrow <a grievous wound> <a grievous loss>

Pain, suffering, or sorrow. Note that it does NOT say "grievous BODILY harm." It isn't limited to asking you to kill yourself or such.

The narrower definition in the appendix means the interpretation that you can't ask the charmee to do anything that involves dealing lethal damage is wrong. The appendix definition specifically refers to harm to the charmee, not to anyone else. Dealing lethal damage isn't in and of itself enough to prevent the charmee obeying the order.

As for whether or not non-physical harm counts the rules are much less clear. I would still lean towards a narrow meaning because of the save allowed for something the charmee would be violently opposed to.

If they are so against something that they would resort to violence to prevent it despite their dearest, bestest, most trusted friend asking them to do it for them then the charmee is quite likely going to experience "grievous" emotional harm from being made to do it. What sort of things would allow a save but not be excluded by the grievous harm clause if you interpret emotional harm as counting as grievous harm?

As a side note, I don't think I have ever seen the term grievous harm being used without "bodily" coming into it somewhere. The rules doesn't actually use the word bodily, but that is usually what grievous harm refers to afaik. I doubt that term would be used if they wanted a wide definition.


Emotional harm which is not grievous but temporary.

Interestingly although you don't hear about it nearly as much many or most legal systems also have some equivalent to grievous psychological harm. Sometimes even using that exact phrasing.

You could use your same argument you try to use against psychological or emotional harm to claim charm person wouldn't let you make someone pinch themselves. There are matters of degree in emotional and psychological harm, just as there are in physical harm.

For example restrain or tie up your sister is much different then stab her in the back and kill her.


Even the additional clarification pointed out in the CRB above leaves room for the abusive interpretation:
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.

They spell out what happens if he succeeds, but not what happens if he fails the CHA check.

And people will look at one line, or one word, to exploit the spell rather than the entire spell description and examples given above. Which leaves it up to the GM to moderate, and there is clearly a lot of room for variance.

So, basically, it does whatever works for you and your table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh my god, just don't have the charmed person enter combat or kill his family! is it really that hard?

finally for a good example of having fun with Charm Person, read Dragonlance Chronicles vol 1, Dragons of Autumn Twilight. specifically Raistlin and Bupu:-)


RDM42 wrote:

Emotional harm which is not grievous but temporary.

Interestingly although you don't hear about it nearly as much many or most legal systems also have some equivalent to grievous psychological harm. Sometimes even using that exact phrasing.You could use your same argument you try to use against psychological or emotional harm to claim charm person wouldn't let you make someone pinch themselves. There are matters of degree in emotional and psychological harm, just as there are in physical harm.

For example restrain or tie up your sister is much different then stab her in the back and kill her.

Somebody pinching them selves wouldn't usually qualify as grievous harm regardless of whether or not emotional harm can count as grievous harm, unless you are using an insanely broad definition of grievous.

The gist of what I was saying with regards to the definition of "grievous harm" is that when I have seen the usage of the term grievous harm it refers to physical harm. It could refer to other forms of harm as well, but that is what I suspect the majority of people would think of when they hear the term. If the people who wrote the rules on charm effects intended it to extend to extreme emotional distress as well as grievous bodily harm I imagine they would have tried to make that clear by using a term whose common use clearly includes non-physical harm as well as bodily harm. I could be wrong of course - unclear and vague rules text isn't exactly a rarity in Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Other examples: telling a devout priest you want him to curse and renounce his god is grievous psychological harm. Asking him to look the other way on some minor transgressions likely is not.


RDM42 wrote:
On topic, I have to ask ... For the ones that define harm so narrowly - what is your justification for presuming only the most narrow possible definition of harm? Why is that the only one that applies?

My groups justification is this: that narrow definition makes sense to us as a 1st Level spell. I'm sure other groups play differently but by their own 'justified' ways.

This is a great thread, BTW. It allows someone questioning the spell to get many different takes about how to rule on Charm Person

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
Can we simply accept that Charm Person is really f~&#ing poorly written?

There's nothing wrong with writing of the spell. If every mechanic had to be written in a way to protect it against folks trying to munchkin it beyond what it was meant to be, the rules would be unreadable and unusable.

Trying to expect Pathfinder to work without a rational, sane, and fair GM at the helm, is so far beyond reasonable, it's pure comedy.


Dex Celsior wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
On topic, I have to ask ... For the ones that define harm so narrowly - what is your justification for presuming only the most narrow possible definition of harm? Why is that the only one that applies?

My groups justification is this: that narrow definition makes sense to us as a 1st Level spell. I'm sure other groups play differently but by their own 'justified' ways.

This is a great thread, BTW. It allows someone questioning the spell to get many different takes about how to rule on Charm Person

So first level charm being stronger than dominate Makes sense to you as a first level spell???


RDM42, if you reread his first post, I'm pretty sure that's not what he's saying at all.

I think he and you are talking about different "narrow" definitions.

In other words, he's saying "narrow" interpretation of what the spell does, while you're talking about "narrow" interpretation of what the words mean.

Both of you are saying the same thing using different meanings.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Can we simply accept that Charm Person is really f~&#ing poorly written?

There's nothing wrong with writing of the spell. If every mechanic had to be written in a way to protect it against folks trying to munchkin it beyond what it was meant to be, the rules would be unreadable and unusable.

Trying to expect Pathfinder to work without a rational, sane, and fair GM at the helm, is so far beyond reasonable, it's pure comedy.

...

We have a nearly 200 post thread (so far) because people can't agree on what the correct interpretation of the rules is. The majority of them don't even think the other side is completely wrong. They just feel that their interpretation is the more reasonable one.

I think this is a little beyond people using munchkin logic to break a spell and into the realm of "This spell has multiple wildly differing interpretations and it isn't clear which one is right". Seriously, a large group of people can't agree on the rules for the spell while reading the rules for the spell. If reading the rules doesn't give you a clear idea of the rules, then that would suggest that the rules are poorly written (since the point of rules text is to tell you the rules). If you don't think so, what exactly qualifies as a poorly written spell to you?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Can we simply accept that Charm Person is really f~&#ing poorly written?

There's nothing wrong with writing of the spell. If every mechanic had to be written in a way to protect it against folks trying to munchkin it beyond what it was meant to be, the rules would be unreadable and unusable.

Trying to expect Pathfinder to work without a rational, sane, and fair GM at the helm, is so far beyond reasonable, it's pure comedy.

...

We have a nearly 200 post thread (so far) because people can't agree on what the correct interpretation of the rules is. The majority of them don't even think the other side is completely wrong. They just feel that their interpretation is the more reasonable one.

I think this is a little beyond people using munchkin logic to break a spell and into the realm of "This spell has multiple wildly differing interpretations and it isn't clear which one is right". Seriously, a large group of people can't agree on the rules for the spell while reading the rules for the spell. If reading the rules doesn't give you a clear idea of the rules, then that would suggest that the rules are poorly written (since the point of rules text is to tell you the rules). If you don't think so, what exactly qualifies as a poorly written spell to you?

It may be a 200 post thread, but that number isn't nearly as impressive when you realise it's just the same two very small groups of people arguing back and forth with the same exact points.

The fact is the rules text of the Charm Person spell IS very clear. The only confusion is that some folks seem to think that "friendship" specified by the spell is supposed to allow for demands that no one in their right mind would expect a "friend" to ask, and another to grant. The real problem wasn't the rules text but the support for the munchkin response by the post of a punch-drunk developer who really should have known better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It is, however, more impressive when you consider the number of times this has been brought up before in other threads--the discussion of which covering thousands of posts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never really thought of it as a combat spell and more of a get out of combat spell, goes for adversaries as well


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
It is, however, more impressive when you consider the number of times this has been brought up before in other threads--the discussion of which covering thousands of posts.

Don't forget any discussions on it from D&D forums as well.

The d20srd(3.5) version basically has the same wording ambiguity.


LazarX wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Can we simply accept that Charm Person is really f~&#ing poorly written?

There's nothing wrong with writing of the spell. If every mechanic had to be written in a way to protect it against folks trying to munchkin it beyond what it was meant to be, the rules would be unreadable and unusable.

Trying to expect Pathfinder to work without a rational, sane, and fair GM at the helm, is so far beyond reasonable, it's pure comedy.

A well-written rule would not require GM ruling just to understand how it works, therefore giving the GM more time to actually prepare and run a fun game session... And Charm Person is obviously not very clear, considering the number of threads on the subject we've had.

Not that I expect you to ever acknowledge the fact that Pathfinder is flawed... I've seen this behavior before. In fact... Are you ciretose with a different name?


Lemmy wrote:

Can we simply accept that Charm Person is really f@$&ing poorly written? There is no need for these mental gymnastics to pretend it's well designed. We know most GMs wouldn't allow the spell to be abused, no matter whar RAW says.

Personally, I simply rule that all the spell does is cause the target to see thd caster as a very close friend. There is no Cha check or anything. The target simply does whatever it'd be willing to do for a close friend.

Problem solved.

Not the whole problem. You still have a spell that can be used to suborn witnesses, incite rebellions, and commit fraud. What government, even one composed of wizards, is going to allow a spell like this to remain in circulation?


Ravingdork wrote:
It is, however, more impressive when you consider the number of times this has been brought up before in other threads--the discussion of which covering thousands of posts.

Don't you see? We foolish mortals can't discern the true divine perfection of the wording of Charm Person. Only the great Seer LazarX knows what it really says! And whatever it says, it is perfect. Just don't try to figure out what that is, because it is not for mortals to know!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know what it says. I just use it to make people like me for a little while so I don't have to kill them and take their stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't you mean so they like you even when you take their stuff :-)


LazarX wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Can we simply accept that Charm Person is really f~&#ing poorly written?

There's nothing wrong with writing of the spell. If every mechanic had to be written in a way to protect it against folks trying to munchkin it beyond what it was meant to be, the rules would be unreadable and unusable.

Trying to expect Pathfinder to work without a rational, sane, and fair GM at the helm, is so far beyond reasonable, it's pure comedy.

Pathfinder is notorious for poorly written, and sometimes contradictory rules. Yes, the writing of the spell is poor - as pointed out by Snowblind. And let's not even get into the pages of erratas for...everything.

To put it into perspective? 4e was not nearly as vague and 'interpretive' as Pathfinder in its writing. Rules Questions was not a serious problem in that edition.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CommandoDude wrote:
Pathfinder is notorious for poorly written, and sometimes contradictory rules.

Notorious? Really? First I've heard that! Seems to me what few cases there are, are generally legacy issues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1st edition worked just fine thank you very much, not for me but for someone, maybe


Ravingdork wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:
Pathfinder is notorious for poorly written, and sometimes contradictory rules.
Notorious? Really? First I've heard that! Seems to me what few cases there are, are generally legacy issues.

I think it is fair to say that Pathfinder inherited a fair number of 3.5's legacy issues. Though the devs certainly haven't helped matters with things like flip-flopping FAQ/Errata rulings, rules "fixes" that seem like incredibly hamfisted attempts to change the rules without actually changing the rules text, or Errata that fix one problem while creating four new ones.


Snowblind wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Can we simply accept that Charm Person is really f~&#ing poorly written?

There's nothing wrong with writing of the spell. If every mechanic had to be written in a way to protect it against folks trying to munchkin it beyond what it was meant to be, the rules would be unreadable and unusable.

Trying to expect Pathfinder to work without a rational, sane, and fair GM at the helm, is so far beyond reasonable, it's pure comedy.

...

We have a nearly 200 post thread (so far) because people can't agree on what the correct interpretation of the rules is.

I think this is a little beyond people using munchkin logic to break a spell and into the realm of "This spell has multiple wildly differing interpretations and it isn't clear which one is right". Seriously, a large group of people can't agree on the rules for the spell while reading the rules for the spell. If reading the rules doesn't give you a clear idea of the rules, then that would suggest that the rules are poorly written (since the point of rules text is to tell you the rules). If you don't think so, what exactly qualifies as a poorly written spell to you?

It reminds me the THF/TWF/armor spikes thing. There were a lot of people that thought that because the text remained the same then the rules worked the same as the 3.5, but apparently they were horrible people because they didn't realize that there was a unwritten but obvious rule.


littlehewy wrote:
My best friends could certainly convince me to do many things I wouldn't ordinarily do, but they could never convince me to kill somebody I loved.

But that's the rub.

The problem with Charm Person RAW is it allows a clever player to push the limit of what "wouldn't normally do" means well beyond RAI. So far beyond that it is hard to know where bring the limit back to to "make the spell work".

For example:

What if the NPC were convinced by the PC's lie (opposed CHA checks and PC wins) that his wife was a doppelganger who is about to slay the rest of his family forthwith?

In the abstract - No, absolutely not! The NPC would never kill his wife. He'd rather die first. And before he'd die, he'd sit down and have a long think on this thought of fatally harming his wife. But....

If he was convinced (opposed CHA checks and PC wins) she was a doppelganger about to savage the rest of his family? Well, suddenly prompt and fatal action against his wife becomes a very reasonable response.

This and a thousand other reasonable in-game situations do a dancing end-run around LazarX's position on the RAW.

All the spell needs is a FAQ to clean up the RAW. Doesn't seem too big of a thing to ask does it?

What Lemmy said: A well-written rule would not require GM ruling just to understand how it works, therefore giving the GM more time to actually prepare and run a fun game session... And Charm Person is obviously not very clear, considering the number of threads on the subject we've had.


LazarX wrote:


The fact is the rules text of the Charm Person spell IS very clear. The only confusion is that some folks seem to think that "friendship" specified by the spell is supposed to allow for demands that no one in their right mind would expect a "friend" to ask, and another to grant. The real problem wasn't the rules text but the support for the munchkin response by the post of a punch-drunk developer who really should have known better.

I love how you said that you know better than the dev.


Atarlost wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Can we simply accept that Charm Person is really f@$&ing poorly written? There is no need for these mental gymnastics to pretend it's well designed. We know most GMs wouldn't allow the spell to be abused, no matter whar RAW says.

Personally, I simply rule that all the spell does is cause the target to see thd caster as a very close friend. There is no Cha check or anything. The target simply does whatever it'd be willing to do for a close friend.

Problem solved.

Not the whole problem. You still have a spell that can be used to suborn witnesses, incite rebellions, and commit fraud. What government, even one composed of wizards, is going to allow a spell like this to remain in circulation?

One that accounts for the problem by having options in divination and abjuration. :)


Sandslice wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Can we simply accept that Charm Person is really f@$&ing poorly written? There is no need for these mental gymnastics to pretend it's well designed. We know most GMs wouldn't allow the spell to be abused, no matter whar RAW says.

Personally, I simply rule that all the spell does is cause the target to see thd caster as a very close friend. There is no Cha check or anything. The target simply does whatever it'd be willing to do for a close friend.

Problem solved.

Not the whole problem. You still have a spell that can be used to suborn witnesses, incite rebellions, and commit fraud. What government, even one composed of wizards, is going to allow a spell like this to remain in circulation?
One that accounts for the problem by having options in divination and abjuration. :)

Really, so you're going to cast PFE on every single peasant in your kingdom at least three times an hour (at CL 20)?

You don't think it might not be more practical to just outlaw charm person and charm monster?


Atarlost wrote:

Really, so you're going to cast PFE on every single peasant in your kingdom at least three times an hour (at CL 20)?

You don't think it might not be more practical to just outlaw charm person and charm monster?

Not really, given that the crimes would have to be investigated and prosecuted --- and the royal mages aren't going to investigate every single allegation that a charm spell was used (only to find out that it was simply a stupid decision or a successful skill check, not a charm spell.)

And if you have the means to make that law practically enforceable, then casting PFE on every peasant thrice an hour should be of only equal practicality. (Or installing permanent "charm alarms" to blanket every square meter of all settlements.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

Oh my god, just don't have the charmed person enter combat or kill his family! is it really that hard?

finally for a good example of having fun with Charm Person, read Dragonlance Chronicles vol 1, Dragons of Autumn Twilight. specifically Raistlin and Bupu:-)

Just don't watch the animated movie version.

151 to 200 of 213 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / why all the hate on charm person? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.