why all the hate on charm person?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
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.

LOL! oh i did, or i should say i started to.... Keifer Sutherland as Raistlin was hilarious! that smokers cough for him was truly inspired:-p

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CommandoDude 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.

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.

When the bulk of the rules are almost totally just ways for different people to hit, either vs. AC, Reflex, or Will, when everything is reduced to wargaming combat, there's not much to argue about.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I find this fascinating, since I also interpret "something I would ordinarily do", "something I wouldn't ordinarily do" and "something I would never do" as nonintersecting sets, an interpretation that seems to be held by some people and not by others.

The question I have for myself is why I feel that way, since it would generally make sense that if a set of actions is described as matching a particular adjective, than all other actions should be "not" that adjective. As such, if an action is not an action that I would ordinarily do, it must be an action I wouldn't ordinarily do.

I thought about it, and I came to the conclusion that the reason why I felt differently was that the phrase has additional connotations beyond its literal definition. If you hear someone start a sentence, "I wouldn't ordinarily do this, but...", what are they about to agree to do? They are universally about to agree to do something contrary to what they normally do, but never something extreme. It is not a phrase that is used to describe murdering your family or lighting your neighbor's house on fire, its a phrase used to describe not giving someone a speeding ticket, letting a friend copy off your homework assignment or pretending to call in sick to work because the girl you met at a party last night wants you to do something. Describing murdering your family as something that "you wouldn't ordinarily do" is like describing torturing someone to death as being "unkind". Yes, technically, its probably an accurate statement, but its not the correct phrase for what you're trying to communicate. I think the difference between the implied and the literal definition further amplifies something that was already poorly written and mechanically flawed to help propagate a myriad of different interpretations for how this should function.


Hey, if anyone is interested I started a thread to try and get some FAQs for this here. I personally would love for this spell to get some official attention and clarification, and since I am unaware of any threads to FAQ for this question, I created one.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Hey, if anyone is interested I started a thread to try and get some FAQs for this here. I personally would love for this spell to get some official attention and clarification, and since I am unaware of any threads to FAQ for this question, I created one.

I'm not sure a new thread will get any more "official attention" than it has here. But I will be sure to check it out.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Hey, if anyone is interested I started a thread to try and get some FAQs for this here. I personally would love for this spell to get some official attention and clarification, and since I am unaware of any threads to FAQ for this question, I created one.

It was already FAQed. The answer is :ask your GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just remember if you want your GM to see it your way, bring them their favorite cookies :-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

... or cast "Charm Person"...?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
... or cast "Charm Person"...?

Ah yes with the ole shoulder rub and flattery spell components (semantic and verbal is it? while the cookies would cover the material components:-D)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
... or cast "Charm Person"...?

But then you run into the whole issue of whether agreeing with your rules arguments is something the GM "would ordinarily do," "wouldn't ordinarily do," or "would never do."


I don't do anything to the GM that I don't want done to my PC.

Don't make a super-powerful chararacter if you don't like mirrors of opposition.

Don't make Charm Person into some godly powerful spell unless you like the NPCs flipping the same sh!t on you.

Be a good guy to your GM, and he'll be a good guy to you. If not, get a better GM.

The day that playing D&D becomes a competition between players and GM is the day I walk out the door and go find something fun to do with my time.


Tiaximus wrote:

I don't do anything to the GM that I don't want done to my PC.

Don't make a super-powerful chararacter if you don't like mirrors of opposition.

Don't make Charm Person into some godly powerful spell unless you like the NPCs flipping the same sh!t on you.

Be a good guy to your GM, and he'll be a good guy to you. If not, get a better GM.

The day that playing D&D becomes a competition between players and GM is the day I walk out the door and go find something fun to do with my time.

What if instead pathfinder was fair and things like you mention wouldn't happen?


If pathfinder was fair, it would be called checkers and both players would go first and at the same time.

201 to 213 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.