|
In the way Charm Person is written, it more or less looks like a multi-part Save-or-Suck spell. While I understand in Home Games it's up to the GM for as to how powerful this spell is (which can range from "not very" to "it's basically dominate person"), if I'm running a PFS event, I'd like to know how I should instruct my GMs to to treat this spell, given that I have some players who want to use this to take over the minds of enemies during battle and have them attack their fellow allies (or at the very least, drop all their weapons or lie on the ground or something like that).
My instruction to the GMs has been to treat it as only effective outside of combat, but looking it over, I wonder if it can't just be used as a poor man's dominate person (order the person to attack their ally, make opposed Charisma checks and succeed).
|
"Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person ends the spell." This can be pretty broad - if you've charmed me and then you start cutting down my friends, that's pretty threatening.
I think that if one of my "friends" (who has charmed me) asked me to attack another one of my friends, then I'd think the first friend had been possessed or gone mad or something, and I'd feel threatened by that. I mean, if he wants me to kill our buddy Grunk the orc, who's to say he won't turn on me next?
Charm person isn't dominate, and if you let it become that you are in for some major trouble. I would rule that making someone attack their ally would break the spell, because it's so far beyond "something you wouldn't normally do".
Also remember, charming people outside of combat is dicey as well - most cities would call taking control of someone else's mind using magic a crime, and arrest you.
On the other hand... charm person can add a bunch of cool if used by a creative (and not abusive) player... I tend to roll with it unless it gets out of hand.
|
Speaking of it being a crime in a major city, I know this is Golarionn and not another campaign, but for example, in the World of Greyhawk setting, there was a codified legal system. One charge in it reads, "interfering with the integrity of a person". Which is a legal-ese way of referring to compulsion of any kind pressed upon another through magical or mundane means.
So, yeah.
Also, I agree that it's nothing even near Dominate. It's a way to influence, but not control, another person. You can't *force* them into it.
|
I think Scott and nosig nailed it. It's great as a substitute for diplomacy and you can use it to avoid encounters, but there is nothing that makes the charmed person act against his nature. If your allies start attacking his buddies, he's going to attack them right back. He's certainly not going to attack his own friends because his new-found buddy is asking him to.
|
|
It's a matter of interpretation.
"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing."
No-where does the spell suggest the charmed person is suddenly an idiot. Killing your allies is suicidal and harmful. Particularly if you were ordering the charmed character in a reckless way that is clearly going to get them killed.
|
I'd say that the part of the spell that reads:
"Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell."
Would indicate that if you ask him to attack his other friends, and fail your opposed charisma check, you'd definitely break the effects of the spell. Additionally, he probably wouldn't attack his friends, but rather he would try to stop his two friends from fighting. If that seems impossible after a round or two, the spell would likely be broken.
|
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that people forget about is it only makes the caster their friend. If used in combat, even if your allies stop attacking him specifically, and he fails his save, he could very well still see your allies as enemies and attack them. Just because he's your friend doesn't make him friends with the rest of your friends. You'd need the cha check to have a possibility of that.
|
|
As for killing your allies, people seem to jump over the logical fallacies that they instead fall over. If you're a gold based mercenary, and someone charms you, and offers you more money to jump ship - at that point exactly who is your enemy and ally?.
Well,if we're going to get into logical fallacies ... You're using one. You're purporting that one's profession dictates their alignment. "What they would normally do" is in no way dictated by profession. A chaotic mercenary certainly may do what you describe, and contemporary fiction is certainly filled with this trope. (just watch Game of Thrones). But, a mercenary who is lawful is likely bound by a contract, and would not violate the trust of the person for whom they've sworn to fight. There's plenty of examples, especially in history, of instances when someone has tried to pay a mercenary to turncoat, and instead got duped, because the mercenary was loyal to their oath, and told their employer who was trying to bribe them. (even a recent issue of the New Avengers has this trope)
So, charm person doesn't work that way. If a person is not likely to suddenly attempt to murder their compatriots, they're not going to start doing it because they have another good compatriot.|
|
You have a 30 Charisma? That's amazing! ;)I also have a +10 to my charisma checks.
I know a certain Gnome dominatrix who does. She's BobBob's best friend (and I'm not referring to Thea!).
And the +10 CptTylorX refers to probably includes a circlet of persuasion.
I completely forgot about that item...and I have a character with one. :P
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Once I win that opposed Charisma check, and having built around increasing my charisma based checks - that bad guy should turn around and start swinging. I also have no issue with making another charisma check to make sure my new boon companion doesn't make with the murderous rage against people I currently travel with.
That is, until the order to fight becomes "obviously harmful" in which case the spell says it never will obey - CHA check or not. And as soon as "you or your apparent allies" threatens him in any way, the spell breaks automatically.
So yeah, if you win the opposed CHA check and the request to attack his allies doesn't seem obviously harmful and no one in the party makes him feel threatened at all, then yes, he'll fight for you.
With enough coordination I could see that working, but it'll require a lot of effort from both you and the rest of the party.
|
|
Once I win that opposed Charisma check, and having built around increasing my charisma based checks - that bad guy should turn around and start swinging. I also have no issue with making another charisma check to make sure my new boon companion doesn't make with the murderous rage against people I currently travel with.That is, until the order to fight becomes "obviously harmful" in which case the spell says it never will obey - CHA check or not. And as soon as "you or your apparent allies" threatens him in any way, the spell breaks automatically.
So yeah, if you win the opposed CHA check and the request to attack his allies doesn't seem obviously harmful and no one in the party makes him feel threatened at all, then yes, he'll fight for you.
With enough coordination I could see that working, but it'll require a lot of effort from both you and the rest of the party.
You mean something like:
"hay, Cledwyn - how about you and me go somewhere more private - so we can discuss - ah - baking - ah... banana nut bread?" (wink!)|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You mean something like:
"hay, Cledwyn - how about you and me go somewhere more private - so we can discuss - ah - baking - ah... banana nut bread?" (wink!)
But weren't you paying attention? It makes you my friend. So...
Sorry Katisha, but let's just be friends.
Charm Person: the compulsory "friend zone" inducer! ;)
|
|
It already has a built in threat modifier of a +5 bonus to the saving throw. Too many people dismiss the spell due to not wanting to allow it to work the way its RAW. It gets a +5 if my allies are threatening the creature or it's friends.
It doesn't say anywhere that a failed check breaks the spell, that's interpretation. I'm an avid charm person user. I also have a +10 to my charisma checks.
As for killing your allies, people seem to jump over the logical fallacies that they instead fall over. If you're a gold based mercenary, and someone charms you, and offers you more money to jump ship - at that point exactly who is your enemy and ally?
However if I say, Your allies have betrayed you! Help us kill them, and then beat the opposed charisma check, then I exactly expect for the charmed person to do everything in their power to help us kill his former allies, so long as we don't harm the charmed person, by dropping area affects / including him in bad things.
Just my 2cents.
Charm person was broken in Greyhawk. My Mindbender proved it there, now my Serpentine Bloodline sorcerer is proving that here, with Charm persons on all sorts of creatures.
What are some of the things you have done with Charm Person?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sort of sounds like a good rule of thumb might be to pretend that the charmer had taken the victim aside and spent a few minutes using Diplomacy to improve his attitude up to Helpful and go from there. (Just as a rule of thumb, mind you, not in lieu of the actual text.)
|
|
As more or less an Event Coordinator who has to help instruct a whole bunch of GMs when it comes to rulings, I'd really like a more official ruling on this, if at all possible. I have no problem if this is a Save-or-Suck spell for combat, but I want to if it is one or not. Can I use it in Combat to have the BBEG stop attacking my party (or at the very least, stop attacking me)?
What about combining Charm Person with something like Suggestion or other compulsion spells (like Ultimate Magic's Malicious Spite or Vengeful Urge, with the intent of sicking your pal on the new target of their hate)? Would the charm make the latter spells easier to use on them? I.e., "We're friends, so please help me stop your other friends from hurting my other friends?"
I also imagine that even if you can't command your new charmed buddy to kill his old pals, you could command him to stop them by non-lethal means such as sundering weapons, using bull rush or overrun, casting spells like web or hold person, etc.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
As more or less an Event Coordinator who has to help instruct a whole bunch of GMs when it comes to rulings, I'd really like a more official ruling on this, if at all possible. I have no problem if this is a Save-or-Suck spell for combat, but I want to if it is one or not. Can I use it in Combat to have the BBEG stop attacking my party (or at the very least, stop attacking me)?
It makes you friends, but what that means depends on the person affected. Will a heartless barbarian stop attacking his friends? Probably not, although he might swap to non-lethal damage.
|
|
As more or less an Event Coordinator who has to help instruct a whole bunch of GMs when it comes to rulings, I'd really like a more official ruling on this, if at all possible. I have no problem if this is a Save-or-Suck spell for combat, but I want to if it is one or not. Can I use it in Combat to have the BBEG stop attacking my party (or at the very least, stop attacking me)?
You won't get an official ruling on this on these boards. This is a rules question and you'd be better off asking for an official ruling on the appropriate rules forum.
|
|
The crux of this spell is this:
If you or your allies threaten him.
Once that happens the spell breaks.
If you fail your opposed charisma check to force them to do something dangerous that they wouldn't normally do, I would rule that as threatening them, and thus break the spell.
It might be an interpretation. But it doesn't flout the RAW. The RAW are ambiguous enough on this that they support my interpretation.
I don't think 1st level spells should be able to completely render encounters trivial. So while if the interaction by the character and his allies are reasonable toward the NPC and his allies, then certainly Charm Person can be fun and enjoyable to roleplay through.
But if all you are looking to use it for is as a combatant to help kill the other bad guys, then yeah, it isn't going to be as successful as you might like it to be.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think 1st level spells should be able to completely render encounters trivial.
What about color spray? uses the same save (will), does not grant the +5 to the save, is an AoE (multiple targets), doesn't have the 1 round casting time of sleep, and goes one step further than control, it incapacitates. Sounds like it is much more "broken" than charm person at 1st level.
It would seem charm person is the lesser evil. If the player uses it to gain information or to minimize a single encounter, why not allow it? If their intention is to build an army of automatons to follow them around and act as "red shirts" then no, perhaps you need to be a bit more limiting on the adjudication. Or if it being used at the outset of every encounter to "break" combat, perhaps you need to be more restrictive so the other players get to participate.
A wand of charm person is a nice diplomacy tool to use at low level. Sure the DC is only 11, but most of the time, low-level mook's will saves suck anyway. And if you have a decent bluff, you might be able to convince them not to resist the spell because it is a cure for their wounds. YMMV.
|
|
"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."
So, if you ask the charmed person to fight his/her allies, you must first win an opposed Charisma check, and then they get a new save to break the spell completely.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
makes him feel threatened at all, then yes, he'll fight for you.Threatened is a technical term in PFRPG. It has nothing to do with feelings and everything to do with whether he is in a space which could be attacked by one of your allies if he took an action which would provoke an AOO (yes, somewhat circular description...)
Unfortunately (fortunately?), Pathfinder is not a strict keyword-based system. Occasionally a word that usually has a reserved meaning is instead used in its plain-english sense. You have to look at context and usage to determine how it's being used each time.
|
Ha! a non-magical un-targeted Charm Person.
In a crowded bar, a seedy type NPC is "perstering" my PC. She stand up tall - takes a deep breath (hold it for effect - gotta love being a mammal) and yells out. "Twenty gold to whoever will take this guy out back and punch his face for me!"
The seedy guy doesn't miss a step - smacks himself for 3 non-lethal and heads for the door.
Not what I was expecting - but, hay, who wants to argue with results?
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Unfortunately (fortunately?), Pathfinder is not a strict keyword-based system. Occasionally a word that usually has a reserved meaning is instead used in its plain-english sense. You have to look at context and usage to determine how it's being used each time.makes him feel threatened at all, then yes, he'll fight for you.Threatened is a technical term in PFRPG. It has nothing to do with feelings and everything to do with whether he is in a space which could be attacked by one of your allies if he took an action which would provoke an AOO (yes, somewhat circular description...)
A duck is a duck is a duck is a duck is a duck is a witch.
|
Ha! a non-magical un-targeted Charm Person.
In a crowded bar, a seedy type NPC is "perstering" my PC. She stand up tall - takes a deep breath (hold it for effect - gotta love being a mammal) and yells out. "Twenty gold to whoever will take this guy out back and punch his face for me!"
The seedy guy doesn't miss a step - smacks himself for 3 non-lethal and heads for the door.
Not what I was expecting - but, hay, who wants to argue with results?
I *love* it!
Is charm a better spell choice than hypnotism?
Yes and no. Hypnotism only shifts attitudes by two steps, and lasts just a few rounds. But the new attitude persists indefinitely with regards to a single request, and you can cast it from around the corner (it's a burst).
If you have to chose one or the other, go with Charm Person. But the true Enchanter has both in his repertoire.|
|
Just because he's an ally is no sign he's a friend...
Which is ultimately where role-play on the GM's part comes into play. In some situations it might make a lot of sense for an NPC to switch sides in which case it's awesome. In other cases you have NPCs who are fiercely loyal to each other. That's the judges call. Hopefully there is enough information in the scenario to steer him on this issue.