|
GM assigned modifiers are apart of the game, but because GM assigned modifiers can change, DEPENDING ON THE GM, they cannot be applied in the discussion of the rules.
How can you have a discussion of the rules without discussing application of the rules?
Half of skill checks depend on GM adjudication of modifiers.
And actually, Ashiel said there is no modifier.
|
|
I guess I'll stop bumping this thread since so many people have called for a lock, and you guys probably know better then me when realistically nothing goods going to come of it. I regret letting the discussion end though. We seem actually all not too far from agreeing but furious at the other side for not coming another inch or two our way.
I actually think for all intents and purposes all but one of us are more or less on the same page.
It requires a modifier for many things.
The rest is detail and massaging of if it diplomacy, if it is making the charima check subject to modifiers, etc...
And then one person says it is a straight charisma check to murder an ally (aka wife, children, etc...)
GM assigned modifiers are apart of the game, but because GM assigned modifiers can change, DEPENDING ON THE GM, they cannot be applied in the discussion of the rules.How can you have a discussion of the rules without discussing application of the rules?
Half of skill checks depend on GM adjudication of modifiers.
And actually, Ashiel said there is no modifier.
Hmm? Really?
Ok, modifier. Is it the same dice roll for convincing someone to babysit or murder.As written, yes. EDIT: Except the murder most likely comes with a saving throw to end the spell as well.
I see Ashiel saying, "As written, yes."
I don't see Ashiel saying, "There is no modifier."Keep in mind, as written, the roll is 1d20 + Charisma modifier. That's written. Period.
If a GM wants to assign bonuses or penalties to the roll, that's the GM's decision.
Remember, as written, the roll is 1d20 + Cha vs 1d20 + Cha. Only a GM can alter this roll in anyway and a GM written modifier isn't written down in any place in the book.
|
|
I am a game designer, and before ciretose cuts in with "Yeah, so is everybody here", my genre is not tabletop at all. I design and program video games.
If a large enough number of people pay you that you can afford to live on it, you are a game designer.
If you make side money on it that is enough to buy expensive things you wouldn't ordinary be able to afford, you can call yourself a game designer on the side.
If you live in your parents basement and write things...well...yeah...I'll let everyone else decide what to call that, but I wouldn't call it a game designer.
I don't have any idea what anyone falls into, although it sounds like GrenMeera get's paid on the legit so in my book GrenMeera deserves some extra credibility.
|
|
GM assigned modifiers are apart of the game, but because GM assigned modifiers can change, DEPENDING ON THE GM, they cannot be applied in the discussion of the rules.How can you have a discussion of the rules without discussing application of the rules?
Half of skill checks depend on GM adjudication of modifiers.
And actually, Ashiel said there is no modifier.
Hmm? Really?
Ok, modifier. Is it the same dice roll for convincing someone to babysit or murder.As written, yes. EDIT: Except the murder most likely comes with a saving throw to end the spell as well.I see Ashiel saying, "As written, yes."
I don't see Ashiel saying, "There is no modifier."Keep in mind, as written, the roll is 1d20 + Charisma modifier. That's written. Period.
If a GM wants to assign bonuses or penalties to the roll, that's the GM's decision.
Remember, as written, the roll is 1d20 + Cha vs 1d20 + Cha. Only a GM can alter this roll in anyway and a GM written modifier isn't written down in any place in the book.
You can't separate as written from as played.
You might as well try to say "In theory eugenics is great, but I don't think you should try it."
The rules are written for a game, not just for fun reading. The question is rule as played. Ashiel is saying no modifiers in her game, babysitting and murder are equal checks.
How can you argue for a reading of a rule you don't even play as you say you believe it is written? This baffles me.
|
|
People keep saying we have to use GM Assigned Bonuses or Modifiers (otherwise referred to as Fiat) in the discussion of the saves, opposed checks etc.
This is tough for me to read because I abhor GM fiat, and avoid exercising it at all costs in my games. I wiped out a party tonight of characters that I care more about I think then their own players do. I had lovingly created an obsidian portal page, helped them craft the builds, helped them write back stories and weave them deeply into my campaign setting. I had imagined epic destinies for them, and had spent hours upon hours writing material for future adventures that was tailored to their back stories. Well, they showed up tonight with only three out of five guys, and wanted to charge right in kicking down doors anyway. And I couldn't stop rolling crits. I roll in the open, and I don't fudge anything. It was so close to a TPK. They all went down at some point. One actually died but he had two action points and used them to cheat death. In the end they got out of there with only one permanent, un-raisable death. I wanted to fudge something to save them the whole time but they know I don't do that, and that why we were all standing around the table with white knuckles watching every dice roll in suspense.
Honestly, I'm depressed. I wish I just fudged something and saved that one character. But I don't do GM Fiat.
On the other hand of course I applied situational modifiers to all kinds of rolls, why wouldn't I? That's how it works.
I agree with you. Without the dice gods making choices, the game becomes storytime around the fire with Uncle GM.
Which is part of what upsets me about loose rules readings to achieve story objectives. It's the same outcome by another method. If you allow spells and skills to overcome all obstacles that may limit players and cause challenge, it is to me GM Fiat by other means.
There isn't much difference to me between fudging rolls to let your players "win" as their is reading them as loosely as possible to allow your players to be "creative."
Not to say legitimate creatively isn't rewarded at my table, but more to say I don't particularly think RAWyering is a creativity worth rewarding.
What are you talking about? The way I play it, is if the order doesn't bring obvious physical harm to the target, then the order is valid. As written, there is no modifier because there is no GM to assign a modifier on a fourm.
If I were playing in another's game, I would expect there to be a modifier on the roll if the GM deems it appropriate. I myself use modifiers if I deem it appropriate, but not everyone is going to be getting a modifier unless it's of exceptional circumstances.
Like a Red Mantis Assassin undergoing training where is mind is f#&@ed with on a regular basis through spells like Suggestion, Charm and Dominate.
Or if a Demon were to a mother to kill her children. However if the Demon were to convince the mother her children had been replaced by Demons, then ordered the mother to kill the Demons, there would be no modifier.
In an actual game, I have no problem with a modifier being assigned to a roll, as that is the GM's prerogative. But when we're discussing things on the forums, an arbitrary modifier assigned by a GM cannot be relied upon for the success or failure of a roll.
What's discussed on the formus =/= how it's played in a game.
|
|
What's discussed on the formus =/= how it's played in a game.
If this is true then the whole exercise is just mental masturbation.
Of course what is discussed on the forum relates to how the game is played, half of the posts seem to be anecdotes to various games people run, and more to the point, the rules are for a game we all play. In a vacuum outside of play, the rules have no real purpose.
Why discuss rules for a game you aren't playing?
What is being said by some people is that you can ignore the harmful and "won't attack allies" part of the spell with a simple opposed charisma check, and that no modifiers can be applied to the check.
You actually aren't arguing this, as you have said that isn't what you do in your game, so I have no idea why you are still on the "that is what the rules say" kick, unless you believe that was the intent of the developers when they wrote the rule and you just don't agree with that intent.
What all but I believe one person at this point are saying is that clearly it is wrong that babysitting and murder have the same check. And all but one person seem to be looking at different ways we believe this is adjudicated.
You advocate putting a modifier on the charisma check. I say that isn't sufficient, as you would need to convince the person that who they are attacking is not an ally through bluff or diplomacy (depending on circumstances) and that you look to these checks when attempting to convince someone to do things.
I say the person is only friendly on the diplomacy scale, because that is what the spell says. I think it is telling that the charmed person isn't even "helpful" on the diplomacy scale when looking to what the intended power level of the spell is.
Red Herrings aside, this is the core of the discussion.
What? There's no text in Charm Person that says they won't attack their allies. The only references to allies in the entirety of the spell are that your target gets a save bonus if you or one of your allies is threatening them, and that attacking them ends the charm effect.
|
|
What? There's no text in Charm Person that says they won't attack their allies. The only references to allies in the entirety of the spell are that your target gets a save bonus if you or one of your allies is threatening them, and that attacking them ends the charm effect.
Sorry, you came in late and this was already discussed
"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)."
|
|
The above is why I think we are near the lock point. I'm not sure if additional arguments exist to be discussed, but we are likely to re-argue old ones as new people come in.
Much like the Supreme Court (only far, far, far less important in any conceivable way) I think all sides have made arguments and it is up to the judges at this point.
I'm going to have to side with you on the note of fighting allies or killing friends, then. That rule is highly specific, and looks to be an exception to giving orders.
I think you could definitely still order your charmed buddy to off someone or "subdue" allies without killing them, though. A succubus ordering a woman to murder her children is probably going to need her Dominate SLA to pull it off- though she could try and order the woman to not save against her spell.
What's discussed on the formus =/= how it's played in a game.If this is true then the whole exercise is just mental masturbation.
Of course what is discussed on the forum relates to how the game is played, half of the posts seem to be anecdotes to various games people run, and more to the point, the rules are for a game we all play. In a vacuum outside of play, the rules have no real purpose.
Why discuss rules for a game you aren't playing?
Why discuss rules? Because discussing rules allows for better understanding of said rules. I probably should of phrased the line you quoted better. What's discussed on the forums does not mean it is played out exactly in such a manner in game.
Why is that true? Simple, because there is NO GM on the forums. Because there is NO GM, things like GM ASSIGNED MODIFIERS cannot be factored into the discussion, BECAUSE THERE IS NO GM TO ASSIGN THOSE MODIFIERS.
No GM to assign modifiers = modifier of +0
However, IN GAME there is a GM, and therefore GM assigned modifiers can be applied. So forum discussion does not directly equal to game play application.
What is being said by some people is that you can ignore the harmful and "won't attack allies" part of the spell with a simple opposed charisma check, and that no modifiers can be applied to the check.
Really? Are you actually that obtuse or are you just pretending? We've said nothing of the sort about not including modifiers. What we've said is that modifiers can't be included in forum discussion. Again, for the 10,000th time.
Are you understanding it yet? Or do I need to repeat it another 10,000 times till you do?
You actually aren't arguing this, as you have said that isn't what you do in your game, so I have no idea why you are still on the "that is what the rules say" kick, unless you believe that was the intent of the developers when they wrote the rule and you just don't agree with that intent.
The rules say 1d20 + Cha vs 1d20 + Cha. Go ahead, look at the spell. Opposed Charisma check is a d20 plus your Charisma modifier, versus another's d20 plus their Charisma modifier.
What I'm arguing is that the spell:
- Turns someone Friendly for the purposes of Diplomacy
- If someone doesn't want to, or can't, use Diplomacy, then they can issue an order as long as it isn't suicidal or obviously harmful
- Obviously Harmful means physical harm to the target of the spell
- If the order is valid, then the target may resist the spell via an opposed Charisma check
- If the target is abhorred by the order, then they get a second saving throw to break free of the spell
- If they fail the opposed check, and fail the second saving throw if they get one, then the order is carried out
That is what I'm arguing. I'm fairly certain I've stated this before on this thread, but it might've been the other thread.
I'm not arguing the intent of the spell, I'm arguing the spell AS IT IS WRITTEN.
What all but I believe one person at this point are saying is that clearly it is wrong that babysitting and murder have the same check. And all but one person seem to be looking at different ways we believe this is adjudicated.
Babysitting and murder do have the same check. On a forum.
In an actual game, with an actual GM, then the check may change if he deems it appropriate to assign bonuses or penalties. If he doesn't deem it appropriate, then the check for babysitting and murder are exactly the same.
Only a GM can modify the check. No you. No I. Not Ashiel. Not Grimmy. Only the GM.
You advocate putting a modifier on the charisma check. I say that isn't sufficient, as you would need to convince the person that who they are attacking is not an ally through bluff or diplomacy (depending on circumstances) and that you look to these checks when attempting to convince someone to do things.
In a game I run, a modifier is all you will really need. First they get a save, then they get a check, then, if necessary, they get another save. That's three chances for them to win. Three strikes if you will. If they miss all strikes, they're out, and SOL.
I say the person is only friendly on the diplomacy scale, because that is what the spell says. I think it is telling that the charmed person isn't even "helpful" on the diplomacy scale when looking to what the intended power level of the spell is.
Making a person Friendly as per Diplomacy allows the Caster to take certain liberties without really needing to a difficult roll. Like asking a good place to stay, or where the local blacksmirth is, or when the caravans can be expected, or of troubling matters around town. These become a lot easier rolls to make when a person is Friendly, than Hostile.
However, if you need to go beyond what Friendly allows, and try to make them Helpful using Diplomacy, or use the spell you cast to give them an order.
Spell casting is all about options, and Charm Person gives a caster Options.
Red Herrings aside, this is the core of the discussion.
No, I think the core argument is what constitutes 'obvious harm' for the purposes of the spell. Giving an order has been established, now what that order can be, is limited by only 5 words. Nothing suicidal or obviously harmful. Suicidal is fairly obvious, as nothing that causes the target to kill him/herself. Obviously harmful is the problem as 'harm' is a term that can mean a great deal of things.
I'm going to have to side with you on the note of fighting allies or killing friends, then. That rule is highly specific, and looks to be an exception to giving orders.
I think you could definitely still order your charmed buddy to off someone or "subdue" allies without killing them, though. A succubus ordering a woman to murder her children is probably going to need her Dominate SLA to pull it off- though she could try and order the woman to not save against her spell.
Ciretose fails to mention the fact that we have, on multiple occasions, mentioned using Diplomacy, or Bluff if necessary, to deceive the Charmed victim into believing their allies are no longer allies, and they are actually enemies. At that point, once the victim believes his friends are now his enemies, is when you would give the order to attack.
The worst part about Charm vs Dominate, is that, unlike Dominate, you are convincing someone to do something, albeit, with the aid of magic. It's not simply mind control, like Dominate is, I'm using my words, backed by magic, to convince you that doing the order I gave, is a good idea.
I'd actually have to hazard a guess, that a Paladin that had been Charmed into slaying civilians, would lose their Paladin powers because they were convinced to do so.
Ciretose fails to mention the fact that we have, on multiple occasions, mentioned using Diplomacy, or Bluff if necessary, to deceive the Charmed victim into believing their allies are no longer allies, and they are actually enemies. At that point, once the victim believes his friends are now his enemies, is when you would give the order to attack.
The worst part about Charm vs Dominate, is that, unlike Dominate, you are convincing someone to do something, albeit, with the aid of magic. It's not simply mind control, like Dominate is, I'm using my words, backed by magic, to convince you that doing the order I gave, is a good idea.
I'd actually have to hazard a guess, that a Paladin that had been Charmed into slaying civilians, would lose their Paladin powers because they were convinced to do so.
Yeah, I understand that; it's only logical. I was just conceding to a point about giving orders. There can always be extenuating circumstances.
|
|
Ciretose fails to mention the fact that we have, on multiple occasions, mentioned using Diplomacy, or Bluff if necessary, to deceive the Charmed victim into believing their allies are no longer allies, and they are actually enemies.
Actually, you didn't initially. You later said you used modifiers.
I linked to what Ashiel said about 10 posts back.
But to clarify, you now agree with me that you would have to make a diplomacy of bluff check to convince them that someone isn't an ally, and that it can't be done with a simple opposed charisma check?
|
|
@Tels
Wow, before you used bold I wasn't sure. But that TOTALLY CONVINCED ME
Saying the forum is for better understanding of the rules without looking at application to the game is like saying a forum for discussing the Kama Sutra should never actually discuss real sex.
Might I suggest you take a breath, as you are now seem arguing that the rules have nothing to do with how the game is played.
If there's no DM on the forum to assign modifiers, then there's no DM to create a humanoid target for the spell.
Not really Hostile, as a good person can use it to call a good being, such as a Ghaele, as ask for it's services. Certainly, in an Evil or possibly Neutral casters hands, it's hostile, but not all the time.
The problem is Planar Binding, in my experience, is more often used by the 'evil wizard' so he can have demons, devils and other nasties under his command.
I know that I have used planar binding before for totally benign purposes, and not even to ask the called being to do anything for me. In some cases, I asked for advise. I mean, if you're a good guy, it seems like an angel (neutral good generally) might be a good source of advice for your problems, right? It's also a decent method to use to pop your outsider or extraplanar friends over to you.
Me? I say Charm Person = "These are not the droids you're looking for."
Y'know, I used this sort of example before. Except I showed how a really bad guy used it. I think the very first example I gave was making Anakin kill an unarmed (literally) prisoner (which he immediately felt regret for but couldn't explain why he did it). Then I jokingly gave some other examples. But we all know how that turned out. :P
Joking and debating aside though, I want to give you a big bunny-hug, because of the things you said earlier in the thread. It means a lot to me. Gren Meera too. And Tels. I appreciate it guys.
===========================================
@ Aratrok
Concerning the fighting friends thing...
A charmed creature doesn't gain any magical ability to understand his new friend's language.
A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.
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).
A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.
A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.
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.
A charmed character who is openly attacked by the creature who charmed him or by that creature's apparent allies is automatically freed of the spell or effect.
The commentary about fighting their friends comes before the bits about commanding them to do things. It is my belief that it would resolve as follows.
1. You charm a hobgoblin.
2. The hobgoblin's allies continue to attack you.
3. The hobgoblin begins fighting his allies of his own volition using nonlethal means.
4. You order the hobgoblin to use lethal force.
5. The hobgoblin immediately gets an opposed Charisma check and a new saving throw against the spell. If both fail, then the hobgoblin stops taking a -4 penalty to deal nonlethal damage and instead uses the pointy end of his sword.
However, merely charming the hobgoblin would not be enough to make him turn on his allies if they were not threatening you. You would have to attempt a risky command just to get him to assist you against his allies. You could not, for example, simply charm the hobgoblin and have him assist you in ambushing his other hobgoblin buddies without further attempts and risk of breaking the spell.
Part of this reasoning comes from the parenthesis that explains that that the charmed individual fights his allies as he would because they are his friends. The charmed individual is not yet convinced to hurt them, and has no desire to hurt them, only the desire to protect the charmer to the best of his ability. It is even clear that the charmed creature will use lethal force if nonlethal force is not effective or available (a sorcerer may warn his allies that if they attack he will have no choice but to cast fireball since his flailing his fists about would be of no use, and then do so with great weight but will end up nuking the violent former ally).
I am very confident that I have not been unfair, or are against the rules. Even though my group plays the game pretty much as I have described here, charm effects are not the be-all end-all spell that some are suggesting they would be. They are too limited. At low levels, it suffers from some pretty heavy restrictions.
1.) Target must be humanoid.
2.) It's going to be useless if you don't speak the language.
3.) It doesn't affect anything that's mindless (exception undead-bloodline sorcerers).
4.) It affects 1 target and is save negates.
Because of this, my group is more fond of spells like sleep, colorspray, and enlarge person. Each having some of the limitations of charm person but not all. We currently have a player who wanted to use charms and compulsions as a theme. She is playing a merfolk that is flavored as a siren (the "siren" abilities actually being traits of her class, not race). She has charmed quite a few enemies (I think 7 to date, including 1 weak-willed hydra thingy with charm monster, 2 clerics, 1 sorcerer, and 3 hobgoblin mooks). She has no disrupted the game at all however, despite being quite literally optimized just for charming stuff. She has developed a bit of a reputation for "converting the masses", and has saved the party on at least one occasion (she charmed the undead-mongering cleric, which allowed her to force him to call off his undead who were wailing on the party).
By the time you get the 4th level charm monster which has fewer restrictions than charm person, you've reached the point where there are spells that are as attractive or more so (black tentacle, globe of invulnerability, stoneskin, dimension door, resilient sphere, fear, animate dead, bestow curse, mass enlarge person, etc). It's a good spell, but it's not the spell. It's also not usually difficult to block (though Paizo made it harder to block by nerfing protection from spells).
Of course, many people complained that the enchantment school was weaksauce during 3.5, so maybe they figured it would be a buff. I dunno.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But to clarify, you now agree with me that you would have to make a diplomacy of bluff check to convince them that someone isn't an ally, and that it can't be done with a simple opposed charisma check?
You would make the diplomacy or bluff check to convince them that they are not an ally, which makes them valid targets for your order you give to kill them. The order is a simple opposed charisma check.
Alternately, if someone is not their ally, such as a stranger, an animal, a monster, that guy down the street who took all his money at the poker table last week, the town guards, a random baby, or anyone else who is not explicitly their ally, then it just takes a simple opposed charisma check.
If its his best friend, or a coworker, or a friendly neighbor, or his wife & other family members he likes, you need to make the diplomacy roll to move them from 'ally' to 'not ally' before you can make the simple charisma check.
As for the modifiers thing; Yes the GM is likely to assign modifiers. Do you know what that modifier will be, or if the GM will assign them at all?
Do you know if it's a GM who doesn't assign fiat modifiers? (There are lots of those, I've played in several games with them - they use the DCs in the book, and if there is no DC for a task they look at the list of examples. The book says opposed roll, so they would take it at its word, and not houserule it to add common sense modifiers). If it is that type of GM, then the modifier is always 0.
You can't assume the GM is going to houserule it on the fly, or that he is going to do a good job of houseruling it on the fly.
I thought all of this was quite clear a few pages ago.
That's the reason that most forums focus on RAW instead of RAI. You can see the RAW. You often have to guess at the RAI; and you may make different guesses than someone else. If the RAW is well written, the RAW will be the RAI. If you're having to spend alot of time arguing over what the RAI is, then it should have been rewritten to be more clear.
Repeating things 10k times doesn't make it true, so...
Reminds me of a time in one of my games where a Paladin tried to convince an evil chaotic outsider via diplomacy that it should meet him in a open field of battle for honorable one on one combat. He had a really high diplomacy, and rolled really well. He still failed. Why?
Because an evil chaotic outsider will never see eye-to-eye with a lawful good mortal. I set the DC in the 50's. Pretty much anything that comes out of the paladin's mouth is going to be counter to the very core of it's being. If I had simply followed what was in the book, they'd be having tea. Ridiculous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have any idea what anyone falls into, although it sounds like GrenMeera get's paid on the legit so in my book GrenMeera deserves some extra credibility.
True I make all of my money through my work in which I am a game designer. However, I'd like to request that I receive no extra credibility from this alone. My specialization is not in tabletop gaming and I would prefer to earn my credibility through my posts. I do appreciate the acknowledgement though.
Well, in their defense, they were programmed to destroy us. You can't really blame them for it. :)
That was before, when man made machines. Now the machines are making the machines and all hope is lost!
Joking and debating aside though, I want to give you a big bunny-hug, because of the things you said earlier in the thread. It means a lot to me. Gren Meera too. And Tels. I appreciate it guys.
Well thanks, but I wish I could have helped more. I didn't want to get directly in the middle of things on a public forum.
Lots of stuff...
As I haven't spoken about my direct view in quite awhile, I'd like to simply agree with Darkholme. This is another well thought out post that reiterates my stance nicely.
Reading comprehension fail.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I just lost a line by line analysis of the charm spell and the charm and compulsion description that took me most of my lunch hour to type...
But it is probably for the best...
I am glad to see that everyone now agrees that babysitting and murder aren't the same check.
But let me sum up.
Charm Person says
"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."
First sentence says what the spell does, the rest narrow that down to close off loopholes for abuse.
"Charming another creature gives the charming character the ability to befriend and suggest courses of action to his minion, but the servitude is not absolute or mindless. Charms of this type include the various charm spells and some monster abilities. Essentially, a charmed character retains free will[b] but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.
* A charmed creature doesn't gain any magical ability to understand his new friend's language.
* A charmed character [b]retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.
* 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).
* A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.
* A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.
* 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.
* A charmed character who is openly attacked by the creature who charmed him or by that creature's apparent allies is automatically freed of the spell or effect[b].
[b]Compulsion is a different matter altogether. A compulsion overrides the subject's free will in some way or simply changes the way the subject's mind works. A charm makes the subject a friend of the caster; a compulsion makes the subject obey the caster.
Regardless of whether a character is charmed or compelled, he does not volunteer information or tactics that his master doesn't ask for."
So to sum up, the spell:
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly).
A charm makes the subject a friend of the caster; a compulsion makes the subject obey the caster.
This is a charm, not a compulsion. I largely agree with Darkholme, but it is important to remember the spell does not remove free will. It retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world. Specifically that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.
If a dear friend ask you to do something other than you would normally do, they need to convince you.
Everyone appears to now be on the same page that convincing is a separate check.
Correct?
Because if that is where we are at, awesome.
|
|
Just like people who build model boats or trains are model builders, even if they don't get paid for it, the term you are looking for here is, "Amerature Game Designer."
Amateur actually. Cheap shot I know, because lord knows I can't spell either :)
Much like I would prefer a professional Architect to design a building I am living in, or a professional engineer to design the car I drive, or a professional pilot to control airplanes I am on, I give more weight to someone who is so good at designing things that people pay them money to do so as a full time job.
As I said in another thread, the people on here who are actually good at designing things usually get recruited to do work designing things. The message board has quite a few people who crossed over into freelance and design, because the talent they had was seen as worth paying for.
Others...not so much. Myself included.
GrenMeera is paid to design video games. Different skill set, but a good amount of overlap. I am paid to prevent kids from breaking the law. Not much overlap.
So take what I say with a grain of salt. Which I think most people do.
Now if over time I establish a reputation, perhaps as an ornery rules minimalist who narrowly interprets everything in an aggressive way, plug that into your reading of what I write.
Conversely, if you establish over time a reputation for allowing everything and seeking loopholes, plug that into your reading.
GrenMeera designed games. Video games, but still games. So in my mind, more cred to GrenMeera.
|
|
The more I read it the more It confuse me
This
"Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world."
is contradicted by this
"A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed."
I do not see the point of the free will if the caster can just order things.
See I don't see a contradiction. I read it as complementary.
I see it as "A charmed character has free will, so if you want them to do anything at all they wouldn't do, you are going to have to make a check"
If they wouldn't normally hold the door for you and you want them to, that is a check. Because you don't control them. They just happen to like you, and will treat you as they would treat any friend.
