|
How would it ever come up then? Since casters should definitely know how their own abilities work, why would you ever command your charmed minion to harm or oppose an ally and thus allow them the saving throw if there was no chance they would do it anyway?
1. You've been advocating to use it for killing wives and children.
2. I can think a of a ton of scenarios where the caster charms someone and asks them to do something toward a person caster didn't realize the person they cast it on was friends with.
Casters aren't infallible, and if it were an impossible scenario, why write a rule specifically on how to handle it?
This thread is probably ready to be locked pending the FAQ. Neither side is going to budge and the fishing expeditions are getting tedious.
...the fishing expeditions are getting tedious.
The Alaskan in me is crying foul at this comment. How about we use the Nascar Races instead?
[Edit] Oooh, ooh, or, we could use a Poker Match. Was flipping through the channels earlier today, and saw that one channel had a Poker Game on it. I giggled, because they had 3 announcers commenting on the game as if it was football or baseball or something. Seriously, take your generic sports commentary, insert poker terms, and you've got these announcers.
Ashiel what's GG? Good game?Heh. Well that's pretty much the "GG" isn't it? It's been fun. Looks like the thread is over. :PWas rolling up a Bard when I came across the spell Unbreakable Heart. I linked to it, but here's the part that I found was interesting.
A creature can still be charmed or otherwise magically controlled while under this spell’s effects, but if such a creature ever receives a new saving throw against that effect as a result of being ordered to attempt to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally, he can roll that saving throw twice and take the better result as his actual roll.Don't really want to start up the argument again, but just though I would point out that this spell references charming and ordering the victim to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally.
Anyway, off to finish browsing Bard spells and stuff. Ta for now!
[Edit] Tried to change the link from SRD to PRD so people can't complain about the source. Turns out, PRD hasn't added the Inner Sea spells to the site yet. Another reason why I prefer the SRD to the PRD.
Yes it is, actually. It's a shorthand used by many real time strategy game players, and it a show of respect and good sportsmanship. Kind of like shaking hands. By being able to say "good game", whether win or lose, it keeps a positive attitude on the competitive spirit.
Ok. So if you order the charmed creature to harm or oppose a true ally, it's so far outside the bounds of the spell that the command not only will not be obeyed, but the charmed creature will think its so weird you asked he will get a saving throw to shake off the spell completely. That's how that reads to me. Or in the case of unbreakable heart he rolls the save twice.How would it ever come up then? Since casters should definitely know how their own abilities work, why would you...
I'm not trying to beat you at a game though. My goal is to figure out how this spell is intended to work. Obviously we read it differently, and I want to take that into account, with an open mind. That's all. I'm not trying to beat you.
not trying to beat you at a game though. My goal is to figure out how this spell is intended to work. Obviously we read it differently, and I want to take that into account, with an open mind. That's all. I'm not trying to beat you.
Don't beat the bunny...
It could come up as soon as the caster asked the charmed creature to do something without understanding how opposed the creature would be to fulfilling the request.
It kind of reminds me of the save that you get if you interact with a silent image. The caster is hoping you don't interact with it, but in case you do, there's a rule that says what happens. How many times have you seen a desperate illusionist try something with silent image that just won't work? Players don't always make perfect choices under pressure, and the rules have provisions for that.
|
|
[Edit] Oooh, ooh, or, we could use a Poker Match. Was flipping through the channels earlier today, and saw that one channel had a Poker Game on it. I giggled, because they had 3 announcers commenting on the game as if it was football or baseball or something. Seriously, take your generic sports commentary, insert poker terms, and you've got these announcers.
Poker: I think this thread is over, best to fold before the flop.
So now were agreeing to a self imposed lock thread, rather then just agreeing to be civil and respect each others opinions and try to figure something out together as fellow gamers.
|
Nothing exists in a vaccum. Every single other opposed check in the game has potential mitigating factors to it. Stealth vs Perception, Bluff vs Sense Motive, Disguise vs Perception, I could go on. Seems illogical to insist that mitigating factors (something covered in the rules under GMing I might add) don't apply in this one case.
Why I'm the only person that marked this as a favorite is unknown to me because this says it all?
It is not a black and white strictly RAW spell. Certain circumstances will always come into play.
|
|
So now were agreeing to a self imposed lock thread, rather then just agreeing to be civil and respect each others opinions and try to figure something out together as fellow gamers.
I don't think we are doing anything productive here without a ruling. (Edit: At this point in the debate, not in general)
Tels and Ashiel are on one end and everyone else is on another end.
Within the moderate position there is some devil in the detail debate, but we've reached a point where people are fishing for obscure rules to "prove" the devs agree, while we wait to see if the Devs agree.
Which is kind of pointless.
This isn't going to be a Dev drop in answer at this point, so we can keep ramming against each other until it gets locked or admit we are at loggerheads.
Even if a dev came here to discuss it now, historically that hasn't been enough for some posters in this thread...so I'm just going to wait for the Devs to rule. I am expecting they will agree with some variant of what most of us are proposing, and then a spin off diatribe about the Devs being unreasonable or cruel to occur.
I was a history major, so I look to past events to anticipate future outcomes. :)
@Shallowsoul: I would have favorited it but I was too busy saying the same thing I guess.
For real I said that a bunch of times 0_o
even if the devs come in and say "Charm Person is total mind control" I won't be like
OH NOZE I LOST THE WAR
I'll just thank them for taking the time to respond. Then I'll consider whether to adopt their ruling in my game or keeping doing it the way it's been in every game I've played in since 1982.
That was the one year I had a DM who ran Charm Person the other way, because his big brother had the Moldvay box, where it was written differently.
We also didn't use dice with that DM though, it was a whole different thing!
By the time I got my own books they had fixed the wording, and it's been smooth sailing ever since, until this thread 0_0
|
|
even if the devs come in and say "Charm Person is total mind control" I won't be like
OH NOZE I LOST THE WAR
I'll just thank them for taking the time to respond. Then I'll consider whether to adopt their ruling in my game or keeping doing it the way it's been in every game I've played in since 1982.
That was the one year I had a DM who ran Charm Person the other way, because his big brother had the Moldvay box, where it was written differently.
We also didn't use dice with that DM though, it was a whole different thing!
By the time I got my own books they had fixed the wording, and it's been smooth sailing ever since, until this thread 0_0
If they come in and did that I would say to myself "Huh, that is really a really dumb ruling on a 1st level spell that even one of the people advocating for it houserules because it is too powerful...Devs are slipping..."
And I will type "Thanks for the ruling, I respectfully disagree but that is what house rules are for. Thanks for the clarification!"
I won't cite books that don't say what I said they say to try and show the Dev is wrong (as others on here have) or get into an aggressive back and forth (as others on here have) because I don't write "the" rules, I simply run "my" rules based on "the" rules.
If Charm turns out to be intended as mind control that can make people kill wives and children, I will be absolutely shocked. But I'll respect the ruling as "the" ruling.
I will do the same. Even if they rule against the legacy of the spell who's wording they only inherited. It's their game now. They kept it alive, I'm playing their edition, I feel lucky they take the time to read these boards and weigh in with their rulings. If I want to deviate from their rulings I'll call it what it is, a house rule. Even if my house rule is more in keeping with 30 years of legacy.
Nothing exists in a vaccum. Every single other opposed check in the game has potential mitigating factors to it. Stealth vs Perception, Bluff vs Sense Motive, Disguise vs Perception, I could go on. Seems illogical to insist that mitigating factors (something covered in the rules under GMing I might add) don't apply in this one case.Why I'm the only person that marked this as a favorite is unknown to me because this says it all?
It is not a black and white strictly RAW spell. Certain circumstances will always come into play.
To be fair though, Tels/Wraithstrike position never said "no mods to Cha check". They just said that falls under the realm of "GM Fiat" and shouldn't be considered when discussing the theoretical effect of the spell. To paraphrase loosely.
|
|
To be fair though, Tels/Wraithstrike position never said "no mods to Cha check". They just said that falls under the realm of "GM Fiat" and shouldn't be considered when discussing the theoretical effect of the spell. To paraphrase loosely.Nothing exists in a vaccum. Every single other opposed check in the game has potential mitigating factors to it. Stealth vs Perception, Bluff vs Sense Motive, Disguise vs Perception, I could go on. Seems illogical to insist that mitigating factors (something covered in the rules under GMing I might add) don't apply in this one case.Why I'm the only person that marked this as a favorite is unknown to me because this says it all?
It is not a black and white strictly RAW spell. Certain circumstances will always come into play.
But in the case of this spell, the GM fiat is a part of the spell. You can't ignore certain aspects of something in order to present a legitimate argument. If GM fiat is what determines those mods then it has to be included.
I'm not trying to beat you at a game though. My goal is to figure out how this spell is intended to work. Obviously we read it differently, and I want to take that into account, with an open mind. That's all. I'm not trying to beat you.
I wasn't trying to tease you or anyone else. I just meant it seemed like the argument was over. How wrong I was. Tels sources a spell that describes commanding a charmed individual to harm their allies, and how the spell specifically helps you make it easier to resist your charms for doing so; which goes with the charmed thing about allowing you to make an additional save if the command would force you to do something you were violently opposed to.
Seemed like yet another source (making the charm person, glossary, and this spell) that describes forcing your charmed individual to do things they don't want to or would not do; with two of those tree sources giving examples of making them turn on their allies violently.
Now the glossary gives general charmed information, including: 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).
It seems entirely reasonable and within the rules to say that if you charm a hobgoblin, the hobgoblin is not going to immediately begin fighting his allies, but that he will if the rest of the hobgoblins are threatening you. He will then fight them with the least lethal means possible. That's separate from commands entirely. It says he would fight them gently because they are his friends.
However, it then goes on to say that you can command them to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do. "Kill them all!" would be something he definitely wouldn't normally do. And he's violently opposed to killing his comrades. So he immediately gets an opposed Charisma check AND a saving throw to toss off the charm effect. If he makes the save then the spell is broken, and if he fails the save and wins the opposed Charisma check, then the spell remains but he simply refuses to kill them and you can't attempt to sway his mind again.
Meanwhile, we have this other spell that if cast on him, would mean that he got 2 saving throws in the above example.
In all cases, this interpretation fits with all facets of the charm rules. That is charm spell, glossary, and the spell tels presented. Let's go back to the succubus for a moment, except let's give her a target that's not so one-sided as the evil charm demon vs the 1st level commoner housewife. Let's say a 7th level sorcerer, and do a step by step breakdown of how this would be resolved.
1.) Succubus Casts charm monster on the sorcerer. For purposes of this example, we shall assume the party is in combat with the succubus, but the 7th level sorcerer failed his saving throw on a 1 (making the +5 to his save irrelevant).
2.) The sorcerer immediately becomes Friendly to the succubus as per Diplomacy. He now regards her as a very close friend and is very easy for the succubus to manipulate with Diplomacy (but this is relatively pointless in combat at the moment).
3.) The sorcerer sees his allies trying to harm the succubus, and attempts to stop them. He fights them to protect his friend, but uses the least lethal methods possible. Thus he casts stinking cloud at his party instead of fireball.
5.) The succubus wants the party dead though. She demands the sorcerer attempt to kill the party. He's violently opposed to that idea. He immediately makes a Charisma check and gets an 18 (11+7) and the succubus gets a 16 (8+8), and he ignores her orders. However, he rolls badly on his save yet again and doesn't break free.
6.) The succubus scowls and instead decides to try and make the party spend more time rescuing innocents than dealing with her. She orders the sorcerer to attack any bystanders to distract the party.
7.) The sorcerer is also violently opposed to this one, fails his Charisma check but makes his saving throw. The sorcerer snaps out of her control completely and drinks a potion of protection from evil to immunize himself against further attempts on his mind.
8.) The succubus scowls and hisses, realizing that her influence has snapped. She greater teleports away to try again later.
But in the case of this spell, the GM fiat is a part of the spell. You can't ignore certain aspects of something in order to present a legitimate argument. If GM fiat is what determines those mods then it has to be included.To be fair though, Tels/Wraithstrike position never said "no mods to Cha check". They just said that falls under the realm of "GM Fiat" and shouldn't be considered when discussing the theoretical effect of the spell. To paraphrase loosely.Nothing exists in a vaccum. Every single other opposed check in the game has potential mitigating factors to it. Stealth vs Perception, Bluff vs Sense Motive, Disguise vs Perception, I could go on. Seems illogical to insist that mitigating factors (something covered in the rules under GMing I might add) don't apply in this one case.Why I'm the only person that marked this as a favorite is unknown to me because this says it all?
It is not a black and white strictly RAW spell. Certain circumstances will always come into play.
That's exactly how I see it, I just wanted to be sure not to obfuscate their position.
I have to say, I'm not crazy about this term GM Fiat, I think different people use it different ways, which can get confusing.
But in the case of this spell, the GM fiat is a part of the spell. You can't ignore certain aspects of something in order to present a legitimate argument. If GM fiat is what determines those mods then it has to be included.To be fair though, Tels/Wraithstrike position never said "no mods to Cha check". They just said that falls under the realm of "GM Fiat" and shouldn't be considered when discussing the theoretical effect of the spell. To paraphrase loosely.Nothing exists in a vaccum. Every single other opposed check in the game has potential mitigating factors to it. Stealth vs Perception, Bluff vs Sense Motive, Disguise vs Perception, I could go on. Seems illogical to insist that mitigating factors (something covered in the rules under GMing I might add) don't apply in this one case.Why I'm the only person that marked this as a favorite is unknown to me because this says it all?
It is not a black and white strictly RAW spell. Certain circumstances will always come into play.
The problem is the bonus that is assigned from GM Fiat can change from person, to person, to person, to person. Because we cannot have any reliable source for GM Fiat, we can't actually use Fiat in such discussions.
GM Fiat is also apart of attack rolls, saving throws and skill checks. When we're calculating averages, DPR, or percentages, should we also then be assigning GM Fiat bonuses to all the calculations? Your argument that GM Fiat needs to be included, means we also need to include it in all other aspects of the game.
So you'd have a DPR calculation of something like...
DPR = 12.567
GM Fiat +1 = 14.873
GM Fiat +2 = 16.248
GM Fiat +3 = 18.572
(note, I simply added 2 to the whole number before, and hit 3 random numbers on my keypad)
And so on and so forth. This isn't a realistic expression of rolls. Why? Because there is no limit on GM Fiat.
Because we have no guidelines for GM Fiat, GM Fiat cannot be used in discussions on RAW Mechanics. Hell, Ciretose himself said if 'kill your wife' were allowed to be ordered, the minimum DC would be something like 100, therefore making it impossible to succeed. That's an example of GM Fiat, but reasoning behind assigning that particular bonus doesn't exist beyond 'he feels it's correct'.
Numbers that can't be verified by the book, can't be used in a discussion. It's no different than trying to compare builds when you're playing Schrodinger's Class. If you don't know how that term is uses, it roughly means if you use X ability, then my Wizard will suddenly change his build and be using Y ability, because he just happens to know exactly which feats, spells, powers, abilities etc that you will be bringing and will always have the perfect counter.
Things that can't be verified, can't be counted on.
I wasn't trying to tease you or anyone else
Cool. It sounded like you maybe were but I didn't want to assume so I asked.
I have to run out real quick, looking forward to reading the rest of your post when I get back.|
|
The counter to "GM Fiat" is the fact that not only can't every variable be listed in the book, the game would slow to a halt if it were, as we would be doing book consult for every scenario
What keeps getting called "GM Fiat" is basic adjudication. Who are the charmed persons allies? "GM Fiat". What would the NPC consider harmful "GM Fiat".
Even following the diplomacy rules require a ton of adjudication. What is the DC for convincing someone their wife is a demon? Not exactly spelled out.
Can we stop using "GM Fiat" like a bludgeon that proves a point while in literally the same post arguing that a GM can allow a ton of things spelled out no where in rules.
Personally, I've been using GM fiat to refer to decisions the GM makes that remove the need for die rolls of any kind.
Tels, can I ask, where do you draw a distinction between GM fiat and adjudication? I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to a GM fiat bonus, but it's the GM's job to assign DCs (or decide which modifiers apply) to checks.
I've also got to point out that every version of D20 rules I've read has some section on ruling against the die rolls, which is the kind of GM fiat that players love, provided the GM rules in their favor.
Edit: ninja's by Citerose with the same vocabulary; there's no justice!
I base my use of the terms words Fiat and Adjudication on the definition of the words themselves. It's kind of annoying that this is the third time now I've had to post those definitions.
ad·ju·di·cate [uh-joo-di-keyt] Show IPA verb, ad·ju·di·cat·ed, ad·ju·di·cat·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to pronounce or decree by judicial sentence.
So this is issuing a decree (aka, houserule)
2. to settle or determine (an issue or dispute) judicially.
verb (used without object)
Settling a dispute. The Devs coming in and giving a ruling on how Charm Person works, would be an adjudication.
3. to sit in judgment (usually followed by upon )
I think this one is fairly easy to understand.
========================
fi·at [fee-aht, -at; fahy-uht, -at] Show IPA
noun
1. an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat. Synonyms: authorization, directive, ruling, mandate, diktat, ukase.
This is similar to the first definition of adjudicate.
2. a fixed form of words containing the word fiat, by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization.
This isn't really relevant, but allowing third party content, would potentially fall under this definition as you are authorizing non-core material.
3. an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it: The king ruled by fiat.
This is what really separates Fiat from Adjudicate. An arbitrary decree, where as adjudicate is a judgement, and a judgement is issued through logic. Using the word arbitrary means it's more chaotic, having less restrictions or order.
========================
So when I'm adding bonuses on the fly, making things up, stuff that 'feels right' is what I refer to as Fiat.
When I'm looking at rules, and making a decision on things, like what's fair, what's not fair, etc, that's me adjudicating.
For instance, say I'm setting up a scenario with the PCs chasing a pack of Goblins up a hill. One of them knocks out the break of a fruit cart and it rolls down the narrow street right into the PCs. How would you determine the success or failure of this? There is no rule for runawaye carts, but a Bull Rush is a very similar mechanic. I look over the rules, and realize, it's close enough that it would be fair to both sides, and within reason. So that would be me adjudicating.
An actual scenario that happened, was the party encountered a Vampire in a room with a bunch of swords eternally raining down on the party (some of you may recognize this room). The Vampire had the power to alter the gravity in the room and force you to make strength checks just to stand up. Most of the party was on the floor, so the Cleric pulled out his Decanter of Endless Water because he knew vampires could be destroyed by running water. He wanted to know if the Decanter counted as running water. So I paused for a moment, realized I couldn't look up any rules, and decided to wing it. I know the Decanter is based off Create Water, and not some portal to the Elemental Plane of Water, so I decided it wasn't running water, but it was close. So the Geyser did 4d4 points of damage that couldn't be healed by the vampire's fast healing. This 'felt right' to me, so I went with it. That would be me using Fiat.
Both Fiat and Adjudicate are words that have similar meanings as both are, essentially, issuing a decree or ruling. But Fiat is more of a gut instinct, while Adjudicate would be more founded on logic and reasoning.
At least, that's how I see it. I don't know if this will explain my method to you or not, but this is about the best I can do.
|
|
But Fiat is more of a gut instinct.
And how you decide the difference, is also about trusting your gut...or what side of the debate you are on at the time.
But Fiat is more of a gut instinct.
And how you decide the difference, is also about trusting your gut...or what side of the debate you are on at the time.
I'm sorry what? The side I'm on hasn't wavered. I think I've been quite clear on that. Also, I'd like to point out that this thread isn't 'Tels and Ashiel vs everyone else' as you claimed earlier. There are mutliple people that have posted that think Charm can be used to give orders, however, the what 'obvious harm' means has been debated by everyone that thinks Charm Person can give orders.
There's the side that says Charm Person can give orders and can be ordered to kill allies.
There's the side that says Charm Person can give orders, but can't be ordered to do anything suicidal or obviously harmful (be that emotional or physical harm).
There's also a side that says Charm Person can give orders but can't cause obvious harm (physical or emotional) to anyone, not just the victim.
Then there's the side that say Charm Person is only magical diplomacy.
On the subject of Obvious Harm, yeah, it's mostly Ashiel and myself against everyone else. On the subject of Charm Person allowing orders to be given... not so much.
By the way, I need to head to bed. I've been up since 7 AM yesterday morning, and the only reason I've been up till now, is my teenage sisters plane from Seattle to Alaska was delayed by several hours, and she only recently got home.
Well, the game needs a referee, right?
That's one thing that sets this game apart from video games. A live human referee that can make rulings.
Calling it GM Fiat when the referee does his job has a funny ring to it. It sounds a little draconian, authoritarian...
I googled the term and the first hit was this
That might not be what you mean when you say it but some people will hear that, because it looks like that's a common use of the phrase.
From dmfiat.com:
"When it comes to running a successful game (Be it D&D or otherwise), there is a school of thought that maintains that DMs (or GMs) cannot cheat. That if a DM needs to ignore certain rules or fudge his dice rolls to create a successful session, then it’s within his right to do it. DM Fiat is the ability of the DM to be the complete authority in his game and the responsibility to use this authority to make the game fun for everyone."
The term "DM Fiat" is also turning up a lot in discussions about 5e. So the term has a pretty standard recognized usage among gamers, you can see it in use all over Giant in the Playground, The Gaming Den, the WotC boards, all over the OSR blogosphere, and I'm assuming even here on Paizo (I haven't checked).
The way it's used seems to be to refer to over-riding rules, fudging dice rolls, and similar hand-waivium for the sake of "fun at the table".
I think for the sake of clarity we should adopt this use of the term "DM/GM Fiat" since its very prevalent. That way we're all on the same page.
|
|
But Fiat is more of a gut instinct.
And how you decide the difference, is also about trusting your gut...or what side of the debate you are on at the time.
There's the side that says Charm Person can give orders and can be ordered to kill allies.
Which is a hard argument to make since "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)."
But your side can keep trying until the thread is locked.
Handwaving what is "harmful" is I suppose adjudication when you do it, Fiat when others disagree with your ruling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game definitely needs a referee. A referee is there to make sure the rules are being followed by all parties, penalize cheaters, and resolve disputes. A referee is most definitely not someone who changes the rules as they desire. Sometimes when something is not covered in the rules, a referee will call a conference of those involved in the game and determine what course of action should be taken.
Imagine how crazy terrible it would be if rules changed every time you got a new referee while playing Baseball, or Basketball, or Hockey? If instead of enforcing rules and resolving disputes, the referee just changed the rules as they felt like it. Would it make the game better? Maybe...but it carries a large risk and can lead to dissatisfaction as rules are constantly changing.
The point of having a good ruleset (and we actually do have a really good rule set) is to make running the game easy from both sides of the screen. There is more to running a good game than just the GM. Players are by their nature part of the experience. There is the group. Not Players vs GM. There are only players, with one running the NPCs and the majority of the story (players are also responsible for their contributions to the story so it's not entirely GM-based).
In online discussions, the rules give us a fair medium to discuss our games. If something is RAW, then it is RAW. We can change that for our own games. If we want Charm Person to be magic Diplomacy and nothing more then we can do that. If we want to decide that ghouls can fly, we can do that. If we want to make full-attacks standard actions (thus allowing martials and monks to move and attack at high levels with the same kill-power as 1st level) we can do that too.
However, when discussing what occurs in the game, we default to the rules. It serves no purpose to be arguing our house rules, nor does it serve a purpose to call other people names, insult the quality of their persona, or try to dehumanize others because they do not ascribe to your house rules. That sort of thing gets on my nerves and is far too common on these boards where we are all gamers coming together to discuss our favorite games. Adhering to the RAW means that we can all accept what is or is not what we desire, discuss it, and share our opinions, and then rule it as we desire in our own games.
Without this sort of acceptance of RAW, we would not have the bugfixes that Pathfinder has produced. People can politely discuss these things on Giant in the Playground, and back on the Wizards boards. There's no good reason why we cannot here, or why posters have to be so hateful towards others. It's sickening, and it's depressing.
Anyway, I've digressed somewhere along here...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How's this.
Player: I want to fight from the ledge so I can get a bonus to hit for higher ground.
DM: Ok the ledge is eleven inches wide so the base DC to balance is 10. But the ledge is slick and slippery so there would be a -2 modifier to your check. You still want to try it?
Player: yeah
DM: OK. *rolls a 10* Oh sorry you didn't make it! You would have been fine if it wasn't so slick.
Adjudication
vs
Player: I want to fight from the ledge so I can get a bonus to hit for higher ground.
DM: Ok the ledge is eleven inches wide so the base DC to balance is 10. But the ledge is slick and slippery so there would be a -2 modifier to your check. You still want to try it?
Player: yeah
DM: OK. *rolls a 12* Oh sorry you didn't make it! You hit the target DC but for the purpose of the story I'm trying to tell I wanted you to fall.
GM Fiat
Which is a hard argument to makeThere's the side that says Charm Person can give orders and can be ordered to kill allies.
It would be if not for...
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.
...
Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.
If you convince them to attack their former allies, it's because they don't see them as their allies anymore.
Ashiel I'm with you 100% on your digression.
Which is a hard argument to makeThere's the side that says Charm Person can give orders and can be ordered to kill allies.
It would be if not for...
If you convince them to attack their former allies, it's because they don't see them as their allies anymore.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.
...
Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.
Small bone to pick with this.. It says many spells can do that, but it doesn't say Charm Person can do that. I'm not saying you're wrong but what you quoted does nothing to suggest you're right.
|
|
Which is a hard argument to makeThere's the side that says Charm Person can give orders and can be ordered to kill allies.
It would be if not for...
If you convince them to attack their former allies, it's because they don't see them as their allies anymore.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.
...
Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.
FTFY.
You seem to be forgetting charm and compulsion spells are different things.
You seem to be the one who wants it to become magical diplomacy that allows you to get someone to do thing specifically forbidden by the spell, using the spell somehow.
Many is not the same as all.
I don't know why I am even trying to reason at this point when you won't even admit you can't charm someone into killing an ally unless the ally attacks the caster of the charm (and even then only when non-lethal means fail), even when the rules literally says that.
I'm not trying to beat you at a game though. My goal is to figure out how this spell is intended to work. Obviously we read it differently, and I want to take that into account, with an open mind. That's all. I'm not trying to beat you.I wasn't trying to tease you or anyone else. I just meant it seemed like the argument was over. How wrong I was. Tels sources a spell that describes commanding a charmed individual to harm their allies, and how the spell specifically helps you make it easier to resist your charms for doing so; which goes with the charmed thing about allowing you to make an additional save if the command would force you to do something you were violently opposed to.
Seemed like yet another source (making the charm person, glossary, and this spell) that describes forcing your charmed individual to do things they don't want to or would not do; with two of those tree sources giving examples of making them turn on their allies violently.
Now the glossary gives general charmed information, including: 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).
It seems entirely reasonable and within the rules to say that if you charm a hobgoblin, the hobgoblin is not going to immediately begin fighting his allies, but that he will if the rest of the hobgoblins are threatening you. He will then fight them with the least lethal means possible. That's separate from commands entirely. It says he would fight them gently because they are his friends.
However, it then goes on to say that you can command them to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do. "Kill them all!" would be something he definitely wouldn't normally do. And he's violently opposed to killing his comrades. So he immediately gets an opposed Charisma check AND a saving throw to toss off the charm effect. If...
This all seems pretty well reasoned and is mostly good food for thought.
I can spot one place in the scenario where it would go different in my game according to the rules as I understand them now, and that is when the succubus ordered the sorceress to start slaying innocent bystanders.
Depending on the sorceress alignment and personality I wouldn't even call for an opposed charisma check to refuse this order. I would rule that slaying innocent bystanders was obviously harmful in the eyes of a good aligned sorceress, and I would grant the sorceress a saving throw to shake off the spell altogether after being asked to do something so heinous by her new best "friend".
Edit: On second thought there was an even earlier command that would be an auto-ignore, no Cha check needed, and free save to shake off the spell. It was the command for the sorceress to up the attack on the party to lethal even though non-lethal was going fine.
|
|
Ashiel I'm with you 100% on your digression.
I am as well.
And I wish it were in any way consistent with what he actually posts in discussions. I have read more "In my games" and "We use X 3.5 rule" examples in Ashiel posts than I can count, usually followed by dismissing someone else replying in the same style.
The rules are the rules. Some rules are hard and fast rules (Add X to attack and damage, etc), some rules are guidelines (Magic item creation), and some rules are simply left to the GM beyond a very rough outline (many skill checks).
The question to ask when anything is unclear is what is this rule trying to do. What was the intent of this rule.
If charm were mind control, why say the player has free will, won't attack allies unless the allies attack the caster of the spell (and even then only with the least force possible), etc...
If they didn't want you to use diplomacy, why reference the character being friendly (Not helpful) in the first paragraph.
What was the intended use for the spell.
It seem very clear the intended use was for a low level spell that let you make an enemy stop attacking you, be friendly toward you, but not so powerful that you then controlled their actions.
If you are reading for intent, I don't see how you get anything more than that.
Now, if you are reading for ways to bend and manipulate the spell...
Paizo ran playtests in order to work out the bugs, and by bugs I mean loopholes players would try to exploit.
Some players, however, take great joy in finding and exploiting loopholes.
May those players all find the same table, sit down, and leave the rest of us alone.
Because the fact that the publisher opens the rules in advance and literally runs tests to weed out things to find and remove things they would try to exploit shows how much they don't want that exploitation to take place.
So we have this fun, limited little spell. But in order to deal with RAWyers it would need pages and pages of text. As it stands it has two paragraphs and and additional quarter to half a page of supplemental material.
And yet...
I am glad I play in groups of reasonable people who come to have fun as a group and not to show off RAWyering abilities, and I'm sad that has to be a primary consideration in rules developing rather than more time and attention being focuses on how to make things possible.
Because the possible has to be mitigated by the pursuit some have for broken so they can "win."
Sad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The part I was agreeing with was the bits about the role the referee should play, and how we should be civil and not descend into personal insults and rivalries.
Honestly, I did play with one DM who ran Charm Person that way. He had learned the game from his big brother who had the Moldvay Redbox Basic Edition from 1982 or so. That edition of the game tried to simplify a lot of wording and make entry into the game less daunting, so Charm Person got a rewrite from the Gygax/Arneson version and the Holmes version. It said you control the creature but you can't cause it to commit suicide. That's it.
I thought the spell was amazing. I couldn't believe no one else noticed how awesome it was for a first level spell. So I used it all the time and I totally dominated. I didn't know it but it was my first time munchkining I guess. I was a little kid and I was thrilled. My friends thought I was awesome at D&D, lol.
I played with that DM at school during class, at lunchtime in the cafeteria, whenever the teacher wasn't looking, for about four months.
Then I got my own books and by then the wording had long been changed. In the Mentzer addition the spell was fixed, in AD&D 1st edition the spell was fixed, in 2nd edition it was fixed.
The same wording we see today was already there, "not an automaton", "obviously harmful", a lot of what were talking about in this thread.
The debate is old as dirt. It's not a big secret that the wording was restored to patch the abuses that the Moldvay wording permitted.
So it's possible that Paizo wanted to return to an obscure implementation of the spell that only appeared in one short lived edition of the basic game from 1982 or so, but it seems extremely unlikely that they would have kept the same legacy wording if they wanted to change the spell.
So while I do look forward to a ruling, what I really want out of this thread is for people to value each other and put aside the bitterness and decide to get along.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose I'm reading for intent like you say, and I see the same thing there on the page you do. We have the same understanding of the spell.
On the other hand, I don't think Ashiel and Tels are 100% necessarily wrong. It's just two different readings. .
But I think you are too hard on Ashiel. You seem to think Ashiel wants to get around the rules. I think Ashiel wants clarity and balance in the rules as much as anyone. Its just a disagreement about what it says on the page.
Ashiel isn't trying to get around what it says on the page. Just reads something different on the page then you do. You both look at the same page, you each read something different. Neither one is trying to twist it.
|
|
OP:
I'm going to add a little something here.
Charm Person
School enchantment (charm) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 1,
sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one humanoid creature
Duration 1 hour/level
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted
friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the
creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your
allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if
it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the
most favorable way. 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. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected
creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it
might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.
Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed
person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to
communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
I just want to show you why a GM is supposed to step in when it comes to this spell. Now if you notice, it doesn't say anything about that harmful order needing to have an instantaneous effect.
Let's look at the region's laws for murdering someone. Now anything from being sentenced to death, to spending a life time in a prison full of disease, other people wanting to kill you, and the psychological effect it could have on the person all qualify as being harmful to that person because of a harmful order.
The person that is trying to be convinced to kill his wife would be fully aware of these laws and refuse to do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to show you why a GM is supposed to step in when it comes to this spell. Now if you notice, it doesn't say anything about that harmful order needing to have an instantaneous effect.Let's look at the region's laws for murdering someone. Now anything from being sentenced to death, to spending a life time in a prison full of disease, other people wanting to kill you, and the psychological effect it could have on the person all qualify as being harmful to that person because of a harmful order.
The person that is trying to be convinced to kill his wife would be fully aware of these laws and refuse to do it.
Congrats you have now made the spell useless for anything other than making buds at the tavern.
Want infomation from a captured bandit? Too bad his crew would kill him so its harmful ergo he won't tell you.
Want that guard over there to look the other way while you just peek in the duke's bedroom? Nope Jail time at best for him so harmful move along.
How about getting the shop keeper to sell you the macguffin before the evil wizard comes to claim it. Nope if its not there he is probably dead so harmful won't do it.
In fact I revise my ealier statement you can't make drinking buddies drinking causes liver problems which are harmful order to drink is ignored.
|
|
Congrats you have now made the spell useless for anything other than making buds at the tavern.
Want infomation from a captured bandit? Too bad his crew would kill him so its harmful ergo he won't tell you.
Want that guard over there to look the other way while you just peek in the duke's bedroom? Nope Jail time at best for him so harmful move along.
How about getting the shop keeper to sell you the macguffin before the evil wizard comes to claim it. Nope if its not there he is probably dead so harmful won't do it.
In fact I revise my ealier statement you can't make drinking buddies drinking causes liver problems which are harmful order to drink is ignored.
He's friendly. What that information, well that would be revealing secret knowledge. DC 20 or more diplomacy
Want him to give dangerous aid, no problem, that is a DC 20 diplomacy check.
As far as useless, that really powerful guy that was attacking you, this spell stopped him from attacking you and made him likely to now defend you.
How is that not useful?