Why is everyone so hung up on the supposed power of the spell? If you want to kill a man's wife, you could charm him, pass a CHA check and a second save, or you could have your fighter friend hit her with a great-sword... That hardly seems over-powered.
That dwarven merchant probably has a hidden lackey to cast Protection From Evil on him if he sees someone throwing charms around. Or even a Permanenceied Circle Against Evil on his counter if his wears are worth anything at all.
I would be more worried about the Evil PCs killing everyone in the store and taking their stuff.
And Dominate is way stronger. It lasts days per level. That's pretty important if you need dependable minions.
"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing."
This sentence right here explicitly prevents one from using this spell to get the target to attack it's allies.
"obviously harmful". It does NOT stipulate harmful to itself, just "harmful".
So violence is just RIGHT OUT.
So says the spell. Go by what the spell says.
Is no one else able to see this sentence in the text:
"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing."
Is it just me that can see that?
Never obeys...harmful orders.
Right there, no violence is permissible by the spell, it says so, right in the spell.
Seriously guys.
It doesn't stipulate harmful to themselves. Just harmful.
This spell is CLEARLY intended to aid in roleplaying, it is not a combat spell.
Is no one else able to see this sentence in the text:
"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing."
Is it just me that can see that?
Never obeys...harmful orders.
Right there, no violence is permissible by the spell, it says so, right in the spell.
Seriously guys.
It doesn't stipulate harmful to themselves. Just harmful.
This spell is CLEARLY intended to aid in roleplaying, it is not a combat spell.
It's the "opposed CHA check" that makes some people think they can get away with harmful shenanigans.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the other thread, someone actually put this really wellEmphasis mine.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.
It's the "opposed CHA check" that makes some people think they can get away with harmful shenanigans.Is no one else able to see this sentence in the text:
"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing."
Is it just me that can see that?
Never obeys...harmful orders.
Right there, no violence is permissible by the spell, it says so, right in the spell.
Seriously guys.
It doesn't stipulate harmful to themselves. Just harmful.
This spell is CLEARLY intended to aid in roleplaying, it is not a combat spell.
Literally the next sentence talks about not allowing harmful actions.
The very next sentence.
*shrugs* I don't care how anyone else uses it, I read the spell from start to finish (not just the part about CHA checks) and use it as written.
hiiamtom, it CAN be used in combat, but probably isn't wise. The opponent gets a +5 to resist it, I wouldn't advise using it this way. Also, it only sees the caster as a friend, not the entire PC party.
Also, bad idea because of this:
"Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell."
It's appropriately balanced for a first level spell, IMO.
|
I envy your employment relationship :)Simple rule of Charm Person. Charm person turns someone into your best friend.
What would you do for your best friend? Move a couch? Yup. Lend you a weeks pay? Yeah if I can swing it. Break you out of jail? Maybe if it won't ruin my life. Kill my boss? Hell no are you nuts dude?
Maybe this is an appropriate time to quote one of the best opening lines of a novel ever:
"On one otherwise normal Tuesday evening I had the chance to live the American dream. I was able to throw my incompetent jackass of a boss from a fourteenth-story window."
From _Monster Hunter International_
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is no one else able to see this sentence in the text:
"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing."
Is it just me that can see that?
Never obeys...harmful orders.
Right there, no violence is permissible by the spell, it says so, right in the spell.
Seriously guys.
It doesn't stipulate harmful to themselves. Just harmful.
This spell is CLEARLY intended to aid in roleplaying, it is not a combat spell.
Please read the rules on charmed here.
Surely it's tricky to be used in combat but it can be used in combat.
I really wish those rules were listed under the (Charm) subschool where they are easier to find.
I really wish those rules were listed under the (Charm) subschool where they are easier to find.
Same here but having scattered rules was a feature of 3.5 (and even 3.0 iirc) that pathfinder unfortunately inherited.
Even with those clarifications, it still leaves it up to the GM for what happens when you fail an opposed CHA check, or fail to break the Charm if asked to do something you are "violently opposed to."
The designers can't clarify the spell in every possible way it can be (ab-)used. They have to allow each group to arrive at its own "balance."
Charm Person = expect table variation.
Is no one else able to see this sentence in the text:
"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing."
Is it just me that can see that?
Never obeys...harmful orders.
Right there, no violence is permissible by the spell, it says so, right in the spell.
Seriously guys.
It doesn't stipulate harmful to themselves. Just harmful.
This spell is CLEARLY intended to aid in roleplaying, it is not a combat spell.
Please read the rules on charmed here.
Surely it's tricky to be used in combat but it can be used in combat.
I didn't mean you CAN'T use it in combat, just that it isn't ideal.
I am familiar with the general rules on Charmed, and at your request re-read them to see if I missed something, but the spell has specific conditions, including how it talks about harmful actions.THAT distinction alone makes the spell almost worthless in combat, as you CANNOT use it to make someone attack another person.
I wouldn't use this in combat, or for combat, there are a lot of other spells better suited for it.
To me, this spell is used for free drinks at the bar after an adventure, or to gain admission to a town after hours.
It is, after all, only first level.
@alexd1976
I don't get it, what does the spell says (different than the rules on charmed) that precludes you from having a charmed person attack another person?
@alexd1976
I don't get it, what does the spell says (different than the rules on charmed) that precludes you from having a charmed person attack another person?
"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders"
Unlike the charmed condition, this doesn't specify harmful to oneself.
Quoted straight from the spell, nothing altered.
So, no harmful orders.
"Go harm your family!"
"No."
@alexd1976
I don't get it, what does the spell says (different than the rules on charmed) that precludes you from having a charmed person attack another person?"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders"
Unlike the charmed condition, this doesn't specify harmful to oneself.
Quoted straight from the spell, nothing altered.
So, no harmful orders.
"Go harm your family!"
"No."
The rules on charmed also say "A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him." but it also talks about how to fight allies.
So i don't know about attacking his family but he can be fight his allies (under conditions but still).
@alexd1976
I don't get it, what does the spell says (different than the rules on charmed) that precludes you from having a charmed person attack another person?"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders"
Unlike the charmed condition, this doesn't specify harmful to oneself.
Quoted straight from the spell, nothing altered.
So, no harmful orders.
"Go harm your family!"
"No."
The rules on charmed also say "A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him." but it also talks about how to fight allies.
So i don't know about attacking his family but he can be fight his allies (under conditions but still).
Nah, the specific text of the spell trumps the general text of charmed condition. So no violence. If you wanna play it differently, thats your choice, im just drawing attention to RAW.
@alex: He's not saying that's his preference, the Charmed rules say that a charmed person will fight their allies if "they attack his new friend" (words to that effect). Which complicates combat, but doesn't prevent it.
@alexd1976
I don't get it, what does the spell says (different than the rules on charmed) that precludes you from having a charmed person attack another person?"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders"
Unlike the charmed condition, this doesn't specify harmful to oneself.
Quoted straight from the spell, nothing altered.
So, no harmful orders.
"Go harm your family!"
"No."
The rules on charmed also say "A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him." but it also talks about how to fight allies.
So i don't know about attacking his family but he can be fight his allies (under conditions but still).Nah, the specific text of the spell trumps the general text of charmed condition. So no violence. If you wanna play it differently, thats your choice, im just drawing attention to RAW.
Where does it say no violence in the text of charm person? All it says is
"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders"and the rules on charmed say
"A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him."
How are those things different?
@alex: He's not saying that's his preference, the Charmed rules say that a charmed person will fight their allies if "they attack his new friend" (words to that effect). Which complicates combat, but doesn't prevent it.
That's what i mean with the "(under conditions but still)".
Where does it say no violence in the text of charm person? All it says is
"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders"
and the rules on charmed say
"A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him."How are those things different?
There's a difference between "harmful" and "harmful to you." Ordering me to punch my gerbil is a harmful order. Punching a grizzly bear is an order that would be grievously harmful to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between "harmful" and "harmful to you." Ordering me to punch my gerbil is a harmful order. Punching a grizzly bear is an order that would be grievously harmful to me.
Where does it say no violence in the text of charm person? All it says is
"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders"
and the rules on charmed say
"A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him."How are those things different?
Ok now i see it, i didn't think it that way, thank you.
I think that you are taking the harmful part of the sentence out of context (i am saying that because it comes after the suicidal part) but i can understand your (and probably alexd1976's) point.
Yeah. Still not going to do it unless John's a zombie.** spoiler omitted **I'm pretty sure that there is no situation ever where I would attempt to kill either one of my friends simply because they were lethally inclined towards the other.
Regardless, if you're Charmed, you do do it—that's in the rules for the condition. Charm Person is more than a mere "trusted friend".
People get very stuck on the "trusted friend" line. Charm Person is clearly more than simple friendship—you can give orders with a simple Charisma check, and even the Core Rulebook refers to your target as your "minion". No, you don't get to make them kill their wife (unless it comes down to between her and you—which, as previously pointed out, requires an incredibly specific set of unfortunate coincidences), but you can make them do a lot of stuff they wouldn't ordinarily do, even for a trusted friend. That's according to the rules.
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.
So, "Go kill your wife," probably not. "Tell me your employers' weaknesses", make a Charisma check. If he's super loyal to the employer, still probably not. That said, if you attack that employer, nothing in the spell description allows him to try and stop you. In fact, if he thinks the employer is going to kill you, he's compelled to use nonlethal (or lethal, if need be) means to stop him.
Charm Person isn't domination, but it basically makes you someone's favoritest person ever for a few hours.
Also, I've noticed people taking this debate really personally. Do not ask people if they can read. Do not tell them to "get over it". Both sides think this is an obvious matter and the other side is being crazy—neither one has the right to resort to insults.
Never obeys...harmful orders.
Right there, no violence is permissible by the spell, it says so, right in the spell.
Seriously guys.
It doesn't stipulate harmful to themselves. Just harmful.
I can't tell if you're parodying something (I apologize if you aren't, it's sincere confusion). That's put next to "suicidal". It's clearly not meant to preclude any manner of violence against people they don't care about.
This "Charm Person shouldn't be bigger than it's meant to be" argument is going too far if you can't even charm, say, a random bandit into helping you fend off a wild boar. Some level of violence is clearly meant to be involved in the spell. Let's put aside the current controversy and stop tearing apart aspects that we all agreed on up til now.
Ahh - good old "Charm person"...
I tried to explain to a friend of mine the limitations of this spell because he always tends to try to squeeze the most OP things out of the game.
He recently got married, so I asked him: "Hey! Can I sleep with your wife?" He looked at me like I was crazy. And I said: "And yet, you have no problems asking me to kill mine 'because you're a good and trusted friend'?" Shut him right down.
Nope, you just failed your cha check.