Because the harmful part comes right after the suicidal part but you take it to mean no violence at all instead of harmful to you, which in turn makes the 4th level charm monster spell a quite useless spell.Also, how am I taking 'harmful' out of context? I keep telling people to read the entire spell, and THEN declare how it works.
That's kinda the exact opposite of taking a single word out of context.
Still not seeing how it's out of context... suicidal affects yourself, harmful affects others...
If it said harmful to yourself, suicidal wouldn't even need to be there.
In any case, this first level spell can't be used the way some people seem to think it can-no third party murders or magic item theft.
Most of us do allow for some in-combat use (myself included), despite the written text explicitly forbidding harmful actions-this goes against RAW, but is common practice.
RAW is full of ambiguous words like 'harmful' (Physically? Emotionally? Financially? Harmful to whom?) So some people go looking for evidence of RAI. Others are more interested in finding something that sounds balanced. Debates between these groups rarely make any progress.
I personally disagree with Alex's interpretation of "harmful".
I base this on the general glossary terms that say:
"A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend"
This clearly states that the charmed character CAN fight former allies. The obvious implication is that the charmed character can fight non-allies too (it's nonsensical that it can fight its former allies under certain conditions but cannot ever fight its former enemies or fight random monsters, etc.).
So clearly charmed characters can fight things if they want to, or if their charmer asks them to (it might require that CHA check if the charmed character wouldn't ordinarily fight whatever he's being asked to fight).
I submit point A: charmed characters inflict harm as needed, with restrictions only related to harming former allies.
I do not see any text in Charm Person that overrides this except maybe this:
"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders"
But that line is almost word for word the same as the general glossary definition:
"A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him."
These two rules are so similar, nearly identical, that I assume the two are intended to be synonymous. Therefore I treat them as such, using the slightly wordier version because its intent is more clear.
I submit point B: charmed characters, including those under the influence of Charm Person, won't commit suicide or do things that are grievously harmful to themselves, but as per point A above, they can fight and do harm to others if they would ordinarily do so or if they can be convinced by a CHA check.
they can fight and do harm to others if they would ordinarily do so or if they can be convinced by a CHA check.
Except under the circumstances when doing so would be grievously harmful to them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And as for the CHA check, there is this in the general glossary:
"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."
I think most sane people are violently opposed to killing their family and even to killing random strangers (although, as I said before, to get maximum benefit from this spell, only charm violent psychopaths who actually might ordinarily do awful things - you could get them to do just about anything without even needing a CHA check).
As for the OP, I think a dwarven blacksmith would be very much, perhaps violently, opposed to giving away his best masterpiece. Dwarves are notoriously greedy, and so are merchants, and this guy is both. He would never give it away and should probably count as "violently opposed".
So now how do we work that into the whole context of the spell:
2. You demand that he kill his wife. Maybe you couch that in sneaky convincing lies about her being an alien pod person and killing her is the only way to save the world. Even so, he would not ordinarily kill his wife so an opposed CHA check is needed. If he wins, he won't do it, but he's still charmed. Let's assume he fails.
3. He's now convinced that your lies are truth because you're a trusted friend but he's normally violently opposed to killing his wife so he gets a second Save to break the spell. If he succeeds, your spell ends. Let's assume he fails.
4. He's now failed three times, he believes your lies, he thinks his wife might be a pod person (but he also might want more evidence; maybe he's heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof), so he goes out to act on this new knowledge and is still under your influence. He might just kill his wife.
4a. But remember you don't control him like an automaton. He can still make his own decisions about how to act on his (mis)information and what to do about it. Maybe he decides to knock her out and tie her up to see if he can find proof that she's a pod person. Maybe he decides he's not great at killing, especially killing aliens, so he runs to the local wizard's guild to hire them to help him save the world, pleading that they fix his wife instead of just blasting her. Anything is possible because, after all, he's just a guy acting on stuff his good friend told him and deciding on his own how to deal with his good friend's suggestion that he should kill his wife. Who knows, he might even take Jason's far-fetched solution and kill himself so he can meet his wife in their afterlife.
2. You demand that he give you all his stuff. Maybe you couch that in sneaky convincing lies about charity is good for the soul, you're destitute, and he can always work hard and make money to buy new stuff. Even so, he would not ordinarily give ALL his stuff to any friend so an opposed CHA check is needed. If he wins, he won't do it, but he's still charmed. Let's assume he fails.
3. He's now convinced that your lies are truth because you're a trusted friend but a judgment call might be needed here. If "give me all your stuff" means just what he's carrying, maybe he's opposed but not violently opposed. In this case, failing the CHA check means he just might hand over his coin pouch and maybe a weapon or two. But if "give me all your stuff" means his home, his furniture, and literally everything he owns, he probably is violently opposed to that so he gets a second Save to break the spell. If he succeeds, your spell ends. Let's assume he fails.
4. He's now failed three times, he believes your lies, he thinks he should probably give you all his stuff, so he probably will.
4a. But remember you don't control him like an automaton. He can still make his own decisions about how to act on his (mis)information and what to do about it. Maybe he decides to not tell you about the hidden stash under his floorboards - even trusted friends can't have that. Anything is possible because, after all, he's just a guy acting on stuff his good friend told him and deciding on his own how to deal with his good friend's request.
1. You cast charm person on a target. He attempts a save. If he saves, your spell ends with no effect. Assume he fails.
2. You demand that he give you his best magical sword. Maybe you couch that in sneaky convincing lies about it being flawed anyway, and too overpriced so he'll never sell it, and you, his trusted friend, really need it to save the world. Even so, he would not ordinarily give away anything this valuable so an opposed CHA check is needed. If he wins, he won't do it, but he's still charmed. Let's assume he fails.
3. He's now convinced that your lies are truth because you're a trusted friend but he's normally violently opposed to giving away highly valuable items so he gets a second Save to break the spell. If he succeeds, your spell ends. Let's assume he fails.
4. He's now failed three times, he believes your lies, he thinks he should probably give you the sword, so he acts on this new knowledge and is still under your influence. He might just give you the sword.
4a. But remember you don't control him like an automaton. He can still make his own decisions about how to act on his (mis)information and what to do about it. Maybe he decides that it makes more sense to just lend it to you, and of course, the smart thing to do is to request a security deposit. Maybe he decides the sword is just too valuable but he has another sword, still really good but not THAT good, so he gives that to you instead. Anything is possible because, after all, he's just a guy acting on stuff his good friend told him and deciding on his own how to deal with his good friend's suggestion that he should give you his best sword.
And after all of that, please remember that this spell eventually wears off, after just a few hours. The victim absolutely will remember what you did to him and if you made him do these kinds of things he will ordinarily (yes, I can use that word too) do everything in his power to get revenge, including tracking you down, hiring assassins, getting local law enforcement involved, talking to the king about what you did, etc. Whatever it takes to get revenge.
PCs who do this kind of thing even just a few times may find that the whole world (or at least this region of it) is hunting them down to bring them to justice, or simply to kill them with vigilante justice.
To the OP (or anyone else): if your players are abusing this "power", have the world react to it. No community, no village, no town, no city, will tolerate even one jerk running around magically making people do terrible and/or life altering things while under the influence of mind-altering spells. Anybody living there would have to fear that they could be next. So naturally, when the word gets out, they will happily form any kind of posse/lynch mob, pool their resources, hire assassins and other adventurers, justiciars, bounty hunters, witch hunters, even monsters if they can find some with a mercenary outlook, and send them all after these PCs.
Further, they will spread the word. Your PCs (the charmer and all of his known allies) will be unwelcome EVERYWHERE - nobody will do business with them. Towns will close their shops when these guys come to town. If the PCs assault people or Charm them into cooperation, that just adds to their crimes and adds to the bounty - the bigger the price on their heads, the more powerful the people who come to claim it. Eventually this kind of crap should catch up to them and the most powerful high-level adventurers in the land, paladins and other do-gooders, will show up to put an end to it once and for all.
And if the PCs can survive that, don't forget about inevitables...
they can fight and do harm to others if they would ordinarily do so or if they can be convinced by a CHA check.Except under the circumstances when doing so would be grievously harmful to them?
Of course. Telling a farmer to charge a huge dragon is obviously suicidal and or grievously harmful to the farmer (not to the dragon).
Telling the same farmer to fight a wolf might be just fine - he does that from time to time anyway when he defends his livestock from wolves, so he wouldn't consider it grievously harmful to himself.
Remember, that quote also includes the word "obviously". Risking your life to save yourself and your trusted friend in a battle is risky, but if the odds seem reasonable (e.g. you think you can win that fight, especially with your trusted ally's help), then it's not "obviously grievously harmful to you". It's just a risk of battle.
But when the odds are overwhelmingly against you, then it IS "obviously grievously harmful" and you don't have to do it, even if you're charmed.
I do not see any text in Charm Person that overrides this except maybe this:"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders"
But that line is almost word for word the same as the general glossary definition:
"A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him."
These two rules are so similar, nearly identical, that I assume the two are intended to be synonymous. Therefore I treat them as such, using the slightly wordier version because its intent is more clear.
I agree.
I personally disagree with Alex's interpretation of "harmful".
I base this on the general glossary terms that say:
"A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend"
This clearly states that the charmed character CAN fight former allies. The obvious implication is that the charmed character can fight non-allies too (it's nonsensical that it can fight its former allies under certain conditions but cannot ever fight its former enemies or fight random monsters, etc.).
So clearly charmed characters can fight things if they want to, or if their charmer asks them to (it might require that CHA check if the charmed character wouldn't ordinarily fight whatever he's being asked to fight).
I submit point A: charmed characters inflict harm as needed, with restrictions only related to harming former allies.
I do not see any text in Charm Person that overrides this except maybe this:
"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders"
But that line is almost word for word the same as the general glossary definition:
"A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him."
These two rules are so similar, nearly identical, that I assume the two are intended to be synonymous. Therefore I treat them as such, using the slightly wordier version because its intent is more clear.
I submit point B: charmed characters, including those under the influence of Charm Person, won't commit suicide or do things that are grievously harmful to themselves, but as per point A above, they can fight and do harm to others if they would ordinarily do so or if they can be convinced by a CHA check.
I pretty much let the spell be used the same as you in my home games (which makes it a house rule, because that ISN'T how the spell is worded), I was simply pointing out that it IS written differently than the general Charmed condition, which you pointed out.
Perhaps this was deliberate.
It is what is written, making it literally RAW, unlike forum posts or assumptions.
It is what is written, making it literally RAW, unlike forum posts or assumptions.
Yeah, but what's "literally RAW" is a very ambiguous word that each GM must interpret on his own. What is, or is not, "harmful"?
Do we go by the dictionary definition? Maybe. If so, then your point is valid that a charmed person will not lift a finger to help you fight orcs or zombies or anything - unless he would ordinarily do that anyway.
Do we go by the game definition? Alas, there isn't one. However, the Glossary definition of Charm/Compulsion gives us a far more clear understanding of what the game developers meant by "harmful": "obviously grievously harmful to himself". That is as close to a game definition of what "harmful" means, at least in this context.
Do we go by the FAQ that Time Forgot? Maybe. It's a PDT blog/FAQ. In there it says the guy might fight skeletons if you ask. By this example, clearly he can fight when it's not "obviously grievously harmful to him". But that's not in the official FAQ or Errata so maybe it doesn't apply. Or, maybe it's clear insight into what the developers think of this spell.
Do we go by Jason's message board post? No, definitely not. That post says the guy will commit suicide to avoid orders which is extremely contradictory to the official published text - unless and until they make this contradiction official, the published version must stand.
As for me, when choosing which of these options best settles his issue at my table, I choose published official clarification first (the glossary definition that clarifies what "obvious grievous harm to himself" means). I choose developer/PDT clarifications second (so I can clear up any misunderstandings in the published version), and only if those are unsatisfying do I resort to English language definitions.
Evidently, you take that in a different order.
Sadly, there are precious few FAQ requests on the currently open Charm Person rules thread, so we'll probably never know.
Can you respond to this post alexd?StuffHi! I have a response to you saying that charm person is too strong if run correctly, because it is a level 1 spell
Here are some other level 1 spells:
AoE save or dieImmunity to mind control from 99% of enemies
Replace expensive spell components for free
Understand all languages, even unknown ones
Become invisible
AoE Save or Die (I know this is twice, it is another one)
Breathe and fire guns underwater
I don't even have all the books, and this is just arcane spells. I think in comparison "Minor dominate where the charmed person gets a will save AND an opposed charisma check to break out of commands" is not so bad
I sure can.
I never said Charm Person is too strong if run correctly, in fact, I have been attempting to draw attention to the FACT that you can't use it to have people perform harmful actions.
So yeah...
I do, however, houserule it to allow for some flexibility, I don't want it to be totally useless... If you charm a city guard, despite the 'harmful' disclaimer, I usually allow them to at least TRY to help out in combat, if it isn't obviously suicidal.
Please read my posts more closely before attempting to put words in my mouth, RAW this spell doesn't allow for harmful actions, no matter what OPINIONS are expressed.
It is what is written, making it literally RAW, unlike forum posts or assumptions.Yeah, but what's "literally RAW" is a very ambiguous word that each GM must interpret on his own. What is, or is not, "harmful"?
Do we go by the dictionary definition? Maybe. If so, then your point is valid that a charmed person will not lift a finger to help you fight orcs or zombies or anything - unless he would ordinarily do that anyway.
Do we go by the game definition? Alas, there isn't one. However, the Glossary definition of Charm/Compulsion gives us a far more clear understanding of what the game developers meant by "harmful": "obviously grievously harmful to himself". That is as close to a game definition of what "harmful" means, at least in this context.
Do we go by the FAQ that Time Forgot? Maybe. It's a PDT blog/FAQ. In there it says the guy might fight skeletons if you ask. By this example, clearly he can fight when it's not "obviously grievously harmful to him". But that's not in the official FAQ or Errata so maybe it doesn't apply. Or, maybe it's clear insight into what the developers think of this spell.
Do we go by Jason's message board post? No, definitely not. That post says the guy will commit suicide to avoid orders which is extremely contradictory to the official published text - unless and until they make this contradiction official, the published version must stand.
As for me, when choosing which of these options best settles his issue at my table, I choose published official clarification first (the glossary definition that clarifies what "obvious grievous harm to himself" means). I choose developer/PDT clarifications second (so I can clear up any misunderstandings in the published version), and only if those are unsatisfying do I resort to English language definitions.
Evidently, you take that in a different order.
Sadly, there are precious few FAQ requests on the currently open Charm Person rules thread, so we'll probably never know.
*shrugs* I'm not an idiot, I have houseruled it to allow for situations like charmed guards maybe protecting you in a bar brawl and such...
It's a courtesy on my part, not RAW.
It's a first level spell, and I treat it as such.
So you treat it equally to aoe save or dies?
That is what I am trying to understand. A level one spell allows you to be immune to a level 20 lich wizard mind controlling you.
Correct.
So why is giving one guy orders that have a very reasonable chance to fail too strong compared to aoe save or dies, or immunity to mind control?
Protective spells that work specifically against a small set of opposing abilities VS spell that allows for open ended interpretation?
Are you new to role playing games?
Hi, I posted other things too. I think being immune to mental control is pretty important! See this thread on charm person for example.
Ignoring all the other way more powerful Level one spells is pretty lame Alex.
For an example where pro evil is pretty good, see the entire wrath of the righteous adventure path, or when fighting vampires.
I'm sorry, until you brought other level one spells into this, I thought the thread was ABOUT Charm Person. My bad.
Protection from X doesn't allow the PC to influence the world.
Charm Person does.
If you feel that they are equal somehow, that's... uh... your opinion I guess.
In any case, Charm Person forbids harmful action. It's right there. Any ruling against that is houserules. It's just... I dunno, printed text.
I houserule it to allow for a bit more, like maybe having a farmer help you kill rats with his club, or a trained city guard helping you to bring down a local pick-pocket...
But trying to use it to take a hard-working crafters most prized possession, or talking someone into murder...
WAY beyond the scope of a first level spell, so that's where I refer back to the whole 'harmful' disclaimer, and remind my players that any advantages granted are basically a gift.
This spell, as written, is nearly useless.
I'm sorry, until you brought other level one spells into this, I thought the thread was ABOUT Charm Person. My bad.
Actually you did!
It was one of your reasons for ruling charm person wrongly "It is a level 1 spell"
This means you are comparing to other spells at level 1 and saying that if you run it as written, it has too much power.
I find that to be obviously false, and post some examples of arcane spells, not even divine!
Unfortunately you choose to selectively respond or give nonsensical replies
("Charm Person allows you to affect the world and pro evil doesn't" What, everything you do has an affect on the world, lol)
I think he meant that charm person is proactive where protection from evil is reactive.
So why is giving one guy orders that have a very reasonable chance to fail too strong compared to aoe save or dies, or immunity to mind control?
Cast it on the duke, get him to give you the contents of his treasury.
Cast it on a wizard, get him to cast the AoE save or dies on your behalf.Honestly, I don't know if it's really that troublesome to make it as good as Dominate; if Charm Person breaks your game, then it was going to get broken anyway in a few levels' time.
|
I think folks are making this spell into way more than it is. It won't get a FAQ since it deals with totally subjective material.
"This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally"
Those are the words of the spell. You would need to ask yourself, would you do {Some activity} if your best friend asked you?
Will this make someone commit regicide? probably not.
Will they murder a complete stranger? It would depend on their nature to begin with.
Will they up and "gift" you all their worldly possessions? Unlikely, unless they were crazy generous to begin with.
This spell is only as game-breaking as a GM will allow. It is a role-playing spell.
I'm sorry, until you brought other level one spells into this, I thought the thread was ABOUT Charm Person. My bad.
Actually you did!
It was one of your reasons for ruling charm person wrongly "It is a level 1 spell"
This means you are comparing to other spells at level 1 and saying that if you run it as written, it has too much power.
I find that to be obviously false, and post some examples of arcane spells, not even divine!
Unfortunately you choose to selectively respond or give nonsensical replies
("Charm Person allows you to affect the world and pro evil doesn't" What, everything you do has an affect on the world, lol)
Oh dear...
no no no.
Saying that Charm Person is 1st level isn't me talking about other spells...
I have not said, as written, that it has too much power. Quite the opposite. It sucks, terribly.
My 'selective responses' are an attempt to keep the focus on the topic of discussion. Charm Person.
As for nonsensical replies... I will try to use shorter sentences and smaller words, my apologies.
I think folks are making this spell into way more than it is. It won't get a FAQ since it deals with totally subjective material.
"This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally"
Those are the words of the spell. You would need to ask yourself, would you do {Some activity} if your best friend asked you?
Will this make someone commit regicide? probably not.
Will they murder a complete stranger? It would depend on their nature to begin with.
Will they up and "gift" you all their worldly possessions? Unlikely, unless they were crazy generous to begin with.
This spell is only as game-breaking as a GM will allow. It is a role-playing spell.
Nobody is pushing for what does a trusted friend do. We're wanting some guidance on what the CHA check can do and what the NPC's options are if it fails. Because it's called out to be things that they wouldn't ordinarily do for a trusted friend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think folks are making this spell into way more than it is. It won't get a FAQ since it deals with totally subjective material.
"This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally"
Those are the words of the spell. You would need to ask yourself, would you do {Some activity} if your best friend asked you?
Will this make someone commit regicide? probably not.
Will they murder a complete stranger? It would depend on their nature to begin with.
Will they up and "gift" you all their worldly possessions? Unlikely, unless they were crazy generous to begin with.
This spell is only as game-breaking as a GM will allow. It is a role-playing spell.
If that's all it is, then why bother adding text about opposed Charisma checks to order them around at all?
#4 read the whole spell, and stop ignoring the disclaimer about harmful actions.
If that's all it is, then why bother adding text about opposed Charisma checks to order them around at all?I think folks are making this spell into way more than it is. It won't get a FAQ since it deals with totally subjective material.
"This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally"
Those are the words of the spell. You would need to ask yourself, would you do {Some activity} if your best friend asked you?
Will this make someone commit regicide? probably not.
Will they murder a complete stranger? It would depend on their nature to begin with.
Will they up and "gift" you all their worldly possessions? Unlikely, unless they were crazy generous to begin with.
This spell is only as game-breaking as a GM will allow. It is a role-playing spell.
"Hey friend, buy me a drink?" sure
"Hey friend, lend me your horse" maybe (CHA check)"Hey friend, can I crash at your place?" sure
"Hey friend, bring your rake and help me kill a dragon?" NOPE-harmful
"Hey friend, take off all your clothes, stick this mask on and run through town?" uh... I rather wouldn't (CHA check)
It IS a role playing spell. It CAN be cast in combat, but is WAY less effective (+5 to save!).
Yup. KenderKin nailed it with #3. No need to mention suicide, harmful is good enough.
Give me all your stuff and I guarantee to double it in 2 hours for you.
Give me all your stuff and I guarantee to double it in 2 hours for you.
Roll CHA.
Also, I'm coming with you. It's all my stuff.
No I want you to come, but I'm going into a very dangerous and life threatening place. You'd be sure to die if you go there. So I'm ordering you to come with me.
No I want you to come, but I'm going into a very dangerous and life threatening place. You'd be sure to die if you go there. So I'm ordering you to come with me.
That sounds too dangerous, forget it.
Lets go get a drink, on me.
:D
Wait, why isn't he giving me his stuff? It's not a harmful order at all and I won the CHA check. I understand him not coming since that's a harmful order.
Wait, why isn't he giving me his stuff? It's not a harmful order at all and I won the CHA check. I understand him not coming since that's a harmful order.
Giving over stuff (after CHA check)-sure. But, still having free will, wants to come with (it's 'all his stuff').
Dangerous situation? Nah-no longer interested, but willing to go have a drink.
You know, friendly stuff.
The spell doesn't dominate them, and all conditions of the spell must be met.
Selectively focusing on JUST the CHA check will likely result in disappointment when the GM shuts you down...
Anyway, I'm done with this one, looks like some people allow it to dominate people, if I ever wind up in a game like that I will abuse the CRAP out of it. :D
Sorcerer FTW!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If that's all it is, then why bother adding text about opposed Charisma checks to order them around at all?
Because there ARE many things that people would not ordinarily do, even for a trusted friend.
That's what the CHA check is for.
But asking him to do harmful things that he wouldn't ordinarily do are disallowed by the spell. The GM decides what this particular charmed person considers "harmful" as well as what he would/wouldn't "ordinarily do".
So here's the script a GM should follow:
1. The guy failed his save and now he's charmed. I must decide a few things about this person.
1a. What is his alignment?
1b. What other personality quirks make this individual unique.
2. OK, the PC asked him to do something, so now I must decide:
2a. IF this guy would ordinarily do this thing for a friend, THEN he will simply do it, no problem.
2b. ELSE IF this guy could be convinced to do this thing for a friend and does not consider it [/b]harmful[/b] THEN he will do it if the caster wins the opposed CHA check.
2c. ELSE IF this guy is violently opposed to doing this request but does not consider it [/b]harmful[/b] THEN he will get a new Save to break the Charm spell and will do the request only if he fails the Save.
2d. ELSE IF this guy thinks this request is obviously suicidal or harmful THEN he will not do it, but he remains Charmed.
Every possible request should fall into one of those categories (2a through 2d), but each victim may have different personal tolerance for "violently opposed" and "harmful" that the GM must evaluate individually.
|
Or another way to put it. Friends help you move. (auto agree)
Best friends help you move bodies. (cha check needed)
True friends help you create the dead bodies (cha check needed, probably with penalties)
False friends want your stuff and wont touch the bodies (auto fail)
Hostile false friends want your stuff over your dead body (auto fail, new will save)
|
|
yea and if he wouldnt theirs still an opposed cha check to get him to do it
I agree with Zelda. This is a FIRST level spell that is often abused. I wouldn't even go so far as to say "best friend" but rather just as "trusted friend and ally" as per the description. Would you gave any magic item (let alone all) to a fellow adventuring companion? It would depend on your nature/alignment and the circumstances (which have to be at least plausible to be viewed "in the most favorable" way). I'm a CN ogre, and I don't necessarily trust any of my friends...
yea and if he wouldnt theirs still an opposed cha check to get him to do itI agree with Zelda. This is a FIRST level spell that is often abused. I wouldn't even go so far as to say "best friend" but rather just as "trusted friend and ally" as per the description. Would you gave any magic item (let alone all) to a fellow adventuring companion? It would depend on your nature/alignment and the circumstances (which have to be at least plausible to be viewed "in the most favorable" way). I'm a CN ogre, and I don't necessarily trust any of my friends...
Things they'd do for a trusted friend and ally are auto-success. It's things they wouldn't do for that kind of person that needs a CHA check. currently the only limit on what the CHA check gets them to do is they can't do suicidal or harmful.
Perhaps the advice from the SPELLS OF INTRIGUE section of Ultimate Intrigue might help settle the matter?
Perhaps the advice from the SPELLS OF INTRIGUE section of Ultimate Intrigue might help settle the matter?
Without someone who has the book coming here and paraphrasing, it will take a couple of weeks to find out.
