One of those situations where you endeavor to grant intelligence to the mindless.
One of those situations where you endeavor to grant intelligence to the mindless.
I actually wrote some feats for my players for some undead stuff, more or less to replace the feats in the Libris Mortis so we didn't need to keep referencing it. It allows you to add certain things to your undead, and one of the options is giving them an Intelligence score of 3 (or increasing their Int by a bit), so it could have been done in my games. He would have gotten back his ability to speak and got to keep some of his feats (the ones he qualified for, which I think were all of them). But right now he's just a normal fast zombie.
I used the feats to create a necromancer in one of my online games (we shifted GMs as it was a sandbox community) and ended up using it to give a horse I animated sentience. I quickly became attached to the horse (which I named Chain Lightning). He was funny. He was a bloody skeletal warhorse who was wrapped with leather and cleaned regularly. He had a sense of humor and spoke a couple of languages (ranks in Linguistics) and passed himself off as a normal horse (ranks in Disguise). He was damn fast too. He became my buddy, and I even dropped ranks into Ride and began building as a mounted caster (something I hadn't planned at all prior to falling in love with my regenerating horse). Wonderful visuals. :3
If charm person is going to be shutting down a campaign then I think the GM really needs to step back and do some re-examining. It sounds like the sort of thing that is said by a GM who lacks vision. The sort that are terrified of anything from the divination school.
Your or my ability or any other GM to handle certain things does not mean it is ok for everyone else's game. Yeah I don't use divination as a player because I am worried that it might get shut down, and I agree that it should not be that way, but that does not change what is. In short I don't think the most GM's can deal with certain things well. This if a player chooses to focus on it is one of them.
That being said, I don't agree on the magic missile thing at all. Unlike charm person which gets progressively worse for the same spell slot (eventually needing to be replaced by heightened charm monster if not heightened dominate monster, magic missile gets progressively better.
To be more accurate you should say it can get worse, not that it does. Many GM's use self made NPC's which are humanoids throughout most of their campaigns. I am not making my judgements on how I play, but on various games I have observed. I think your stance is "If Ashiel can handle it then it must be ok". The truth which is witnessed by your own thread is that not everyone GM's like you. A certain poster even said that he was less worried about something that was OP in his mind after taking your advice. :)
On its own it reaches 17.5 unavoidable damage at 9th level, which sets the DC to cast a spell at 27 + spell level. A 12th level caster with a +6 key ability is going to struggle to cast spells under those conditions, requiring a 9+ just to cast a cantrip, and require a The fact it's a 1st level spell makes it amazingly easy to boost as well. A cheap Book of Harms gives an almost free maximize on it 1/day, and a cheap metamagic rod can keep you shutting down casters for ages. "Okay, he takes 25 damage and must make a DC 35 + spell level check or fail" is pretty damn good for a 1st level spell slot.
What is book of harms? 1/day, not even an issue. So the caster who likes to ready thing harrasses one caster. The other caster plus the party take advantage of the distraction. Not an issue.
Meanwhile, charm effects are quite the opposite. Charm person begins at DC 11. That's a 50% chance to save against it with a +0. Every +1 to will increases the chance to save by 5%, and every +1 to the DC decreases the chance by 5%. At 9th level, unless you are seriously pumping the DCs of enchantment spells, you are going to struggle to charm anything that's very relevant. For example, if you're 9th level you might easily have a +6 ability score modifier, Spell Focus, and Greater Spell Focus, bringing your DC to 19. You can only affect humanoid foes. A creautre's poor saving throw at this level is generally +7 or better, so you've only got a 60% chance to succeed vs a weak-willed humanoid. Except if you're in battle with them, then they get a +5 to the saving throw, reducing your chances to 35%.
Heighten spell and Persistent spell.
I seriously think you're over estimating it out of sudden shock at its capability. Incidentally, undead tend to have pretty beefy will saves, and command undead is way better in most cases. Being an undead sorcerer or taking feats to use it vs undead is just saving you spell slots generally.
Beefy will saves don't match up to optimized characters. Well a GM can alter things, but that goes back to my first paragraph about good GM's vs average or below average GM's.
I disagree actually. In fact, I think that any ruler worth their salt should already have such defenses, simply because even getting into their good graces with such magics could be enough to usurp them. Also, I'd like to point out that...
Immersion wise I agree, but it is not common in games. The king should have immunity to poison also, and have other defenses vs would-be assassins, but in novels and in adventure modules it almost ever happens. This also carries over to most games.
|
This is one of the worst spells in DnD/Pathfinder design, and really, highlights the weaknesses of its magic system.
Honestly, the answer is - it depends on your GM's interpretation of the spell.
My own interpretation is that it is meant to be for Magical Diplomacy. It is not dominate person. The intent of the spell is clearly to make an ally a friend, not to make them your slave (that is Dominate Person).
The target will not obey " obviously harmful orders". What this exactly means is honestly up to GM fiat, since only the GM knows what the NPCs perceive as "obviously harmful".
If your players are so hellbent on using Save-or-Die Spells, have them use Sleep or Color Spray instead. Seriously. There are save-or-die spells all over the place, but this is not one of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your or my ability or any other GM to handle certain things does not mean it is ok for everyone else's game. Yeah I don't use divination as a player because I am worried that it might get shut down, and I agree that it should not be that way, but that does not change what is. In short I don't think the most GM's can deal with certain things well. This if a player chooses to focus on it is one of them.
See, that makes me a sad panda. You should totally get to actually use your abilities! Often I see things like this and think "WTF, was I the only person to read the 3.x Dungeon Master's Guide?". If you were my player, I'd totally want you to use your divination spells! In fact, I might even expect it! I mean, it takes all of 2 minutes or so to use the SRD to check and see what sorts of magic you'll have access to when figuring out a story. >.>
I mean, but that's a great example for this thread! I mean, yeah some GMs can't handle divination spells (YET, they can always LEARN), but it doesn't mean that the divination spells are broken or that we should nerf them.
To be more accurate you should say it can get worse, not that it does. Many GM's use self made NPC's which are humanoids throughout most of their campaigns. I am not making my judgements on how I play, but on various games I have observed. I think your stance is "If Ashiel can handle it then it must be ok". The truth which is witnessed by your own thread is that not everyone GM's like you. A certain poster even said that he was less worried about something that was OP in his mind after taking your advice. :)
I use self made NPCs that are humanoids throughout most of my campaigns. Heck, half the time I do that because humanoids tend to be more dynamic due to their options for equipment and teamwork. You just described my games. O.o
I'm not saying that everyone GMs like I do. I've been doing almost nothing but GMing for 12 years and I'm still learning. It's an ongoing process. One of the reasons I hop on boards like this is because if I can help someone else over the hurdles that I've faced in the past, and give them the confidence and understanding I've gained through trial and error, then I want to. I give light GMing advice to a friend of mine offline, and he asked me to push his limits, so I played a mummy PC (because they have both strange abilities and big modifiers), but I told him up front "These look scary, but I'm going to give you some tips. The most important thing is don't fear. Understand". And the advice worked. He made CR-appropriate encounters that let the entire party shine, while also keeping my PC challenged and in some cases on the ropes. He did really well. I commended him, because he had successfully leaped across a hurdle of dealing with unusual PCs that some GMs may never cross on their own. It took me a long time experimenting with monstrous creatures to get comfortable with them, and yet he was doing well his first time with it because of some advice.
Notice that everything I've said thus far is sticking as close to both logic and the rules as I can, while pulling as absolutely little GM fiat as possible, and yet I'm also discussing it as a GM primarily. Most of the naysayers are discussing against it as a GM. Even yourself, are discussing it from only the GM vs player perspective. The only other poster I've seen that has shown concern for it as a player is Grimmy, who was worried it might be a dick move to have a bad guy make you kill a weak NPC you liked (it is kind of a dick move, but that's what makes them bad guys instead of slightly misunderstood guys).
That's because I want people to understand it. Come to terms with it. Learn to use it. Learn what makes it tick. Learn the pros and the cons. Get comfortable with it. By not fearing it, and preventing the knee-jerk reaction, you can learn that it's not the scary tiger that you thought but more of a pussycat who wants to cuddle. Sure, it might have claws, but you're not afraid of it. You'll develop a reputation for being good with cats. In gaming terms, your PCs will love you as a GM all the more. Instead of fiating away their divinations or charms and preventing them from using their abilities as they're written, you instead think of ways to incorporate those divinations and ride the wave when someone charms something or even use the wave to lead your group down greater channels of adventure.
Most of my advice is not new. Much of the best advice I have came from the 3.x DMG at its roots. Not sure which of the designers contributed the most to its writing, but the stuff in there is golden and wrapped with silk ribbons. Some of it is original, but the crux of most of my advice can be found there (for example, it discusses not being scared of the PCs abilities in there, only in different terms; don't use fire immune enemies just 'cause the sorcerer loves fireball, don't run away from divination spells but learn to understand them, etc).
It's not about "being Ashiel". Far from it. I promote learning, not simply imitation. How I run my games varies a bit from game to game. Always on the next lookout for the next evolution in my GMing, and tinkering and trying new things. I look at mechanics and I read for ideas. I mean, without actually meaning to, I've basically posted the core of an entire adventure in this thread just discussing succubi and charm spells; just in the pursuit of GMing knowledge and experience. Sometimes I get my best ideas while discussing things here on the boards. Sometimes I get ideas that I wouldn't have even had unless I was giving ideas to someone else! Sometimes some of my best ideas are ones I'm tossing out 'cause someone wanted ideas for X, so then I start thinking and throw out lots of stuff and go "Damn, that's an awesome idea, I'll make a note of that and slip it in a game". I'm learning to!
A great GM does not scare easily. I'm well aware some things are broken. Sometimes when discussing things that are pretty unbalanced, I often note them with a grain of salt. Like the time I told Bob_Loblaw that if he was concerned about his epic level party having a lack of healers, that simulacrum can legally produce a very powerful healer if he wanted to deal with that sort of thing; but then I also wrote a far more balanced and less abuseable simulacrum spell for you Wraithstrike (because yeah, it's the cheese, and while some people like cheese, some people don't). But charm person? This is not cheese. :P
What is book of harms? 1/day, not even an issue. So the caster who likes to ready thing harrasses one caster. The other caster plus the party take advantage of the distraction. Not an issue.
Book of Harms is one of the special spellbooks introduced in Ultimate Magic I believe, and can be found on the d20pfsrd.com, linked from arcane magical writings in the magic chapter (if you have trouble finding them). A book of harms allows you to maximize any evocation spell 1/day on the fly with no level increase. The catch is you take 1d4 x spell level damage when the spell is cast. Basically, you take 2.5 average damage to smash somebody for 25 damage.
The thing is, it's a 1st level spell. It's a very easy method for conserving your own resources while making sure other casters do not get their spells off. Most wizards and/or sorcerers can comfortably drop a spell like haste, a summon, or a battlefield reorganizer, and then prevent other casters from doing stuff worthwhile. A wand of magic missile at CL 9th is also pretty nasty, and then there's the circle of missiles tactic (13th+ level caster makes simulacrums of himself who all prep magic missile and acid arrow and just spam them; as mentioned in the party vs Ghaele thing before).
Am I saying it's better than charm? Hm, well, probably not. Different, but equally effective at what it's good at. Charms are good at manipulating people. Magic missile is good at whacking people and stopping spells in their tracks (and gets nastier and nastier with metamagic applied).
Heighten spell and Persistent spell.
Of course Heighten and Persistent spell. Why else would those spells even exist if not for the fact some low levels spells are actually quite nice? I mean, if charm person was so useless, why would anyone heighten it? Persistent spell is pretty awesome (I prefer persistent flesh to stone myself, as way less things are immune to it and it can end dangerous enemies effectively).
Didn't I actually mention heightening it a while ago, actually? Oh well, either way, I still fail to see the problem here. If you're using both feats and higher level spells slots to make your charms land more often, then they should land more often. Since it's not OP, and is easily removed or defended against, it doesn't seem to be a problem. It's not half as scary as Dazing spell and a druid. Why not complain about that? I posted a nice little guide about playing a blasting druid who locks down BBEGs for entire battles with 1 spell. Given the raging that has gone on 'cause I mentioned charm in another thread, I'm almost saddened (almost) that we're not whining about something more whine-worthy. :P
Beefy will saves don't match up to optimized characters. Well a GM can alter things, but that goes back to my first paragraph about good GM's vs average or below average GM's.
Well you suggested that those poor humanoids are in the most danger. Last I checked those poor humanoids can drink a cheap potion and immunize themselves (at least in 3.5 they could, but PF kind of made it harder to defend against, and neutral casters much stronger). But again, if the NPCs biff it, so what? It's just an NPC. If you optimize your DCs to land your charms, and even with the fact humanoids with HD get good will saves, many classes give good will saves, magic items and spells buff you, and humanoids work in teams, then I think you should be able to land them. You've obviously put a bit of work (or got a bit of luck) into them. Either that or maybe you have an antipaladin and buddy helping you to bomb enemies with a -13 to all saving throws before you nail them down.
I could complain more than Fighters are pretty terrible for their challenge ratings, and how a fairly large portion of any PC-classed NPCs aren't worth their XP reward when you defeat them (almost anything that doesn't cast spells actually). That might bug me a little more than the charm thing (but since I can just add NPC levels to them without inflating their CR drastically, I'm content).
Immersion wise I agree, but it is not common in games. The king should have immunity to poison also, and have other defenses vs would-be assassins, but in novels and in adventure modules it almost ever happens. This also carries over to most games.
But whose fault is that? Is it the fault of the poison, or the tester? Most issues - including fairly powerful issues - can be dealt with on the cheap. Protection from evil, resetting magic traps, detect poison is a cantrip for goodness sakes. Instead of encouraging people to be lazy and not think about the verisimilitude of their world and insist they are right, why not discuss at length cheap methods that people could use to fortify a castle or defend a king from magical espionage? I think new and old GMs alike would get more value out of that than us whining over whether or not charm person is work breakingly broken (or even broken at all).
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
But in all seriousness, the way I've always found it to have the least problems when following through with conclusions is that you can't make the creature harm itself in any way. You couldn't charm an orc and convince him to walk through a pit of acid to get you a key on the other side (it's not obviously suicidal if the acid is mild but it is harmful to the orc). You couldn't convince someone to let someone coup de grace them. You couldn't convince someone to stab themselves even nonlethally (such as stabbing themselves in the hand). You could convince them to do anything that they wouldn't normally do that doesn't involve suicide or harm to themselves. To me, this seems like the most rational interpretation as opposed to trying to twist the word harmful to mean anything. I mean, you could argue that literally any action that anyone takes is in some way harmful somehow. "Sorry, he won't walk through the forest, because it's harmful to step on plants" would be an extreme example, but given that it directly follows suicidal it seems natural to believe that it's talking about harmful to the creature.It's not a case of twisting the word harmful, I agree that it's talking about things that are harmful to the creature. But I don't agree that it's purely talking about physical harm, I don't see why mental harm shouldn't be an issue as well. I think that there are a lot of people who would find chopping off their own hand preferable to murdering their spouse or child. And since this is a spell it makes sense that mental harm is just as relevant as physical harm. Your true personality asserts itself enough to resist a command that you would normally never do, that appears to be the context to me.
Your own examples are even focused on how much mental harm it causes the character forced to murder a child or do something else awful and against their character. That's obvious harm directly caused by the actions of the character, therefore I contend it's not an action they can carry out from the...
The word harm is primarily defined as physical injury or mental damage. There is no mental harm in D&D/Pathfinder beyond perhaps ability damage, some mind-affecting spells, and insanity and the like. Again, this seems like a twisting to me. Mental harm is not something that can be measured and judged. Some people are more or less stable than others. Harm in D&D however is pretty clearly things that damage or hurt you in a physical way. You are right that being violently opposed to the idea allows a chance for your true self to shine through. In fact, it allows the individual a whole will save to not only resist the command but to break free entirely!
While statistically unlikely, the succubus could easily charm the woman, and command her to kill her children. Since the woman would be violently opposed to the idea of killing her children, she would immediately get a Will save to end the effect. She has at least a 5% chance to snap out of it and tell the succubus to go to hell (well actually it'd be more like grab up the babies and run like hell).
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Physical harm can't really be definitively measured and judged in the context of the spell either. Is risk of a stubbed toe enough? A bad bruise? A cut? Losing a finger? A line has to be crossed at some point by the interpretation of the GM.
Harm means physical injury or damage. I imagine if you ordered themselves to hurt themselves (stubbing their toes, bruising themselves, or dismembering themselves) that is physical quantifiable damage.
If the GM is trusted to draw the line there I can't see why they shouldn't be making the call on mental harm too. A GM has to say what level of physical harm triggers this condition, a GM has to say what level of mental harm triggers this condition. There isn't a major disparity in the treatment of these things.
We can quantify physical harm in damage or even dismemberment (there are no RAW ways of dismembering short of vorpal weapons, but there are ways to repair dismemberment). There is no qualifier for mental instability or emotional damage that is caused by your grief.
I don't think it's at all fair to accuse me of twisting the words here. The definition of harm as posted by you above includes mental harm. I'm interpreting the word to mean what the word means, so suggesting that I'm twisting words by doing so is a bit below the belt isn't it? I'm pretty sure we can disagree without getting into such claims.
Like zean says above this spell has GM fiat built right into it. As this thread shows there are numerous potentially valid interpretations for harm which are just up to the interpretation of the GM. Personally I don't consider this a bad thing, I don't care whether my game rules the same as your game, rules the same as wraithstrike's game, provided each table makes it work for them. But there's ambiguity and fiat built right into the rules in a number of places, this is one of them.
If that is so then it is a failing of the system. GMs have more important things to worry about than faulty rules that they have to keep patching with fiat. Things like stories, motivations, politics, or even what treasures are in the dungeon of the week.
However, since there is no mental harm, and the charm is pretty clear about it being direct harm, I don't think this is applicable. You can quite clearly have a charmed creature do something that is dangerous and risks harm coming to them (such as having them help you in a fight, or even turning on their allies), but mental damage does not exist in the way that it is being touted here. Physical harm is the most logical and I believe obvious expectation here. You can't force them to hurt hurt themselves or commit suicide. You can literally change a person's perspective of the world. In fact, that's verbatim what you do. EDIT: In other words, arguing that the victim may have a nervous breakdown or feel sad about it afterwards is not a valid excuse.
|
Walls and walls...
Just so we don't get to much father away from the spell in these walls of metaphors...
Part 1
"This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (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."
Why would I ever think it would reference diplomacy when it...well references diplomacy rule for starting attitude...
"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."
RAWyers continue...I particularly like the argument that "I house rule it that the checks follow similar to diplomacy requests in my game because it's broken otherwise, but I am still arguing for the broken version."
RAWyers man...
I mean, but that's a great example for this thread! I mean, yeah some GMs can't handle divination spells (YET, they can always LEARN), but it doesn't mean that the divination spells are broken or that we should nerf them.
I agree, but going back to the charm spells...
It is kinda like a certain class and system mastery. It is not for everyone. When determining how powerful something should be I try to look at what I consider to be the average or recreational player.I am sure that the incorrect interpretation is more popular than the book version. As an aside if the have put the compulsion and charm information in the magic chapter it would have been easier to find.
To be more accurate you should say it can get worse, not that it does. Many GM's use self made NPC's which are humanoids throughout most of their campaigns. I am not making my judgements on how I play, but on various games I have observed. I think your stance is "If Ashiel can handle it then it must be ok". The truth which is witnessed by your own thread is that not everyone GM's like you. A certain poster even said that he was less worried about something that was OP in his mind after taking your advice. :)
I use self made NPCs that are humanoids throughout most of my campaigns. Heck, half the time I do that because humanoids tend to be more dynamic due to their options for equipment and teamwork. You just described my games. O.o
I'm not saying that everyone GMs like I do. I've been doing almost nothing but GMing for 12 years and I'm still learning. It's an ongoing process. One of the reasons I hop on boards like this is because if I can help someone else over the hurdles that I've faced in the past, and give them the confidence and understanding I've gained through trial and error, then I want to. I give light GMing advice to a friend of mine offline, and he asked me to push his limits, so I played a mummy PC (because they have both strange abilities and big modifiers), but I told him up front "These look scary, but I'm going to give you some tips. The most important thing is don't fear. Understand". And the advice worked. He made CR-appropriate encounters that let the entire party shine, while also keeping my PC challenged and in some cases on the ropes. He did really well. I commended him, because he had successfully leaped across a hurdle of dealing with unusual PCs that some GMs may never cross on their own. It took me a long time experimenting with monstrous creatures to get comfortable with them, and yet he was doing well his first time with it because of some advice.
When I said GM like you, I was trying to say at your level.
To anyone reading this, I am not saying I am a super GM because I can handle certain things. I am just saying some of us are better at certain things than others. I was quiet terrible when I first started.
Notice that everything I've said thus far is sticking as close to both logic and the rules as I can, while pulling as absolutely little GM fiat as possible, and yet I'm also discussing it as a GM primarily. Most of the naysayers are discussing against it as a GM. Even yourself, are discussing it from only the GM vs player perspective. The only other poster I've seen that has shown concern for it as a player is Grimmy, who was worried it might be a dick move to have a bad guy make you kill a weak NPC you liked (it is kind of a dick move, but that's what makes them bad guys instead of slightly misunderstood guys).
I often look at it from both angles. If the player insta-wins it can lead to a very unsatisfying end. I also know that if used against players it can make things go wrong. There are mass charm person/monster spells. Ordering them to kill each other can very well make for a short fight. Even if only 2 of them fail, then it is the BBEG +half the party vs the other half.
But whose fault is that? Is it the fault of the poison, or the tester? Most issues - including fairly powerful issues - can be dealt with on the cheap. Protection from evil, resetting magic traps, detect poison is a cantrip for goodness sakes. Instead of encouraging people to be lazy and not think about the verisimilitude of their world and insist they are right, why not discuss at length cheap methods that people could use to fortify a castle or defend a king from magical espionage? I think new and old GMs alike would get more value out of that than us whining over whether or not charm person is work breakingly broken (or even broken at all).
Whose fault it is does not stop how the game is being played. I am sure if I superfocused on charm spells or compulsions spells many GM's would be giving me the evil eye. I would probably be uninvited to put it nicely. I guess I am saying that how people could play the game if they were to sit back and look at things, assuming they had the time, is different than how the game is played. All of the paladin/smite is OP is an example of that. I have never had a paladin ruin my games. Many of their issues were solved with simple strategy(not buffing monster, not changing feats, etc).
I do think it is good to educate other gamers, as well as myself which is why I am in the rules thread, and advice thread so much.
I have not taken a count, but despite what the rules say, it seems a few(I am thinking at least 50% of those posting in this thread) people are against the way charm works, which is how I figured it would. That is why I want a wider margin between charm and compulsion spells.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I do think the spell means physical harm to the victim of the spell also. The way I read it, you can't make the person harm themselves physically, but anyone else is fair game.
I forgot to add dazing spell is pretty nice, I agree, but it is not for everyone's game either. I am sure I would receive evil looks before all the bad guys suddenly started to make their saves. The good thing about this(fudging against me) is that it taught me to not use SoD/SoS spells as much, and not lose effectiveness. :)
|
|
I do think the spell means physical harm to the victim of the spell also. The way I read it, you can't make the person harm themselves physically, but anyone else is fair game.
You can read obviously harmful very narrowly or very broadly. If you read it very broadly, the spell is broken, which is why even Tels doesn't actually run it the way he is reading it.
For contrast, James said of Dominate (a much more powerful spell)
"Yeah; if you force a dominated creature to do something against its nature, it gets that new saving throw. If it makes that saving throw, it throws off the ENTIRE dominate effect and gets to go back to doing what they want.
As for what constitutes "against its nature," that varies from creature to creature. For a PC, I would say that forcing a PC to attack another PC would normally be against a PC's nature and would allow a new saving throw (unless, of course, that PC has already displayed a propensity for attacking other PCs). For most monsters, it would depend. A lot of monsters are just violent anyway and attacking others of their kind is normal. It's left vague deliberately so each time it comes up, the GM gets to interpret it as needed for the specific target in question."
The devs leave some thing vague to give GM's leeway. Some drive a truck through it.
Going back to the original concept of charming an Azata to be evil, I said I was on the fence about parts of it as I do think you may be able to geas a bound azata to do something evil.
However that is going to have lots and lots of consequences for anyone who does that, as you are pissing off very powerful creatures with connections to other very powerful creatures.
I get annoyed when people want all the benefits with none of the drawbacks.
I also get annoyed by walls and walls of derailing metaphorical text from someone who shouts "RULES ONLY!" when anyone disagrees with them, but that is a whole other thing...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I often look at it from both angles. If the player insta-wins it can lead to a very unsatisfying end. I also know that if used against players it can make things go wrong. There are mass charm person/monster spells. Ordering them to kill each other can very well make for a short fight. Even if only 2 of them fail, then it is the BBEG +half the party vs the other half.
Did I ever tell you about adepts? You know that adepts have sleep as a spell right? You know a 1st level adept is CR 1/3 right? CR 1/4 if they lack proper NPC gear? I've had parties who had to go against enemies who spammed sleep at first level. Human adepts with sleep and spell focus and greater spell focus (enchantment). Does that mean that we should nerf sleep because it can really mess up a party when used on them?
I don't see a particular problem with what you're saying. By the time someone is throwing around mass charm person/monster the players should very well be able to defend against it, if not outright immune to it, by that level or they deserve to die. If charm person is too much for you, then by god CR 10+ encounters are going to tear you up, eat you, barf you out, re-animate you, and repeat.
By the time you encounter mass charm monster, you have access to mind blank which lasts all day and lets you laugh at it. If you're not just immune to it via continual protection from spells at this point (but darn it Paizo, you make Neutral casters so very awesome...).
I mean, if you can't deal with charm person, what are you going to do with a big bad wants to get creative with nightmare? Or magic jar?
Whose fault it is does not stop how the game is being played. I am sure if I superfocused on charm spells or compulsions spells many GM's would be giving me the evil eye. I would probably be uninvited to put it nicely. I guess I am saying that how people could play the game if they were to sit back and look at things, assuming they had the time, is different than how the game is played. All of the paladin/smite is OP is an example of that. I have never had a paladin ruin my games. Many of their issues were solved with simple strategy(not buffing monster, not changing feats, etc).
It is not a secret that there are fewer good GMs than bad ones. We should be trying to increase the number of good GMs, instead of catering to those who refuse to learn. Do you yourself think that it is fun that you don't get to use divinations, or that your GMs will cheat when you try to cast flesh to stone, or otherwise keep shrinking the game because instead of learning the GM just bans or cheats?
I mean look at what you say here:
I forgot to add dazing spell is pretty nice, I agree, but it is not for everyone's game either. I am sure I would receive evil looks before all the bad guys suddenly started to make their saves. The good thing about this(fudging against me) is that it taught me to not use SoD/SoS spells as much, and not lose effectiveness. :)
If something isn't for your game, then that's fine. House rule it, or ban it. No sweat. There's no reason to go "oh but dazing spell doesn't work the way it says because I don't like that". In my games I wouldn't cheat to make bad guys suddenly start making their saves. I'd just learn about your ability. If I'm building an encounter, I'll remember that it's possible for you to bolt-enemies into submission, and I might leave the encounter as-is, or I might include a few more low-CR enemies in place of a single high-CR enemy to make the fight a little more dynamic.
I mean Ciretose is still trying to feed us this charm person = magic Diplomacy, even after his case is basically non-existent after the rules have been posted in the thread. About the only thing we have left that we're disagreeing on is:
A) Is it too powerful?
B) What does "harmful to the creature" mean.
We got one camp who is concerned that it might be too good. We got another camp who seems to think that emotional pain is a tangible thing. I'm arguing against both of those camps because I believe it is neither too powerful, and trying to argue these non-existent emotional damages as a rule mechanic does not compute.
|
|
You mean where it says in the rule "the target's attitude as friendly" which is a direct reference to diplomacy.
Wait, if I just write a succinct reply it won't have as much weight or gravatas, and others will think such a simple response can't possibly be right. Maybe if I just type a lot of words, people will see a really long post and think "Man, look how many words, that person must really know the hell out of the rules to be able to write that many words about something. Clearly with that many words, some substance must be included rather than just references to personal experiences and beliefs. Surely if you are able to type that much on a topic, something of value must be included. Right?
Right?
Wait, that isn't enough words, I'm not even taking a full screen yet...ack, if I just answer the question in a sentence people won't be blinded by my wisdom. Maybe if I add a few lines from Beowulf:
LO, praise of the prowess of people-kings
of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped,
we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!
Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes,
from many a tribe, the mead-bench tore,
awing the earls. Since erst he lay
friendless, a foundling, fate repaid him:
for he waxed under welkin, in wealth he throve,
till before him the folk, both far and near,
who house by the whale-path, heard his mandate,
gave him gifts: a good king he!
To him an heir was afterward born,
a son in his halls, whom heaven sent
to favor the folk, feeling their woe
that erst they had lacked an earl for leader
so long a while; the Lord endowed him,
the Wielder of Wonder, with world's renown.
Famed was this Beowulf:1 far flew the boast of him,
son of Scyld, in the Scandian lands.
So becomes it a youth to quit him well
with his father's friends, by fee and gift,
that to aid him, aged, in after days,
come warriors willing, should war draw nigh,
liegemen loyal: by lauded deeds
shall an earl have honor in every clan.
There we go, no one can doubt the value of my point now...awww yeah!
|
|
http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harm/
Harm means any injury, loss or damage. It can also be any material or tangible detriment. There are different types of harm like accidental harm-where the injury or damage is not caused by a tortious act; bodily harm-where there is some physical pain, illness, or impairment to the body; physical harm-where there is physical impairment of land, chattels or human body etc.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harm/
Harm means any injury, loss or damage. It can also be any material or tangible detriment. There are different types of harm like accidental harm-where the injury or damage is not caused by a tortious act; bodily harm-where there is some physical pain, illness, or impairment to the body; physical harm-where there is physical impairment of land, chattels or human body etc.
Harm means any injury, loss or damage. It can also be any material or tangible detriment. There are different types of harm like accidental harm-where the injury or damage is not caused by a tortious act; bodily harm-where there is some physical pain, illness, or impairment to the body; physical harm-where there is physical impairment of land, chattels or human body etc.
You do realize that every example of harm in that definition relates to a physical and tangible damage, right?
|
|
Yes, because it is one type of harm.
You do realize they also relate to mental harm? Or in this case tangible detriment.
Are you trying to pretend like those words aren't there in the hopes others don't read them, or are you just missing them when you read them?
Edit: Also, why did you quote what I quoted?
I think I'll just agree to disagree at this point, Ashiel.
Not getting into legalese here, but despite being not easily quantifiable, severe emotional trauma fulfils the definiton of 'harm' in my book quite nicely.
In my opinion, it'd be far easier for the one executing the charm to convince the charmed one that an action is not going to be harmful, or detrimental. Hey, after all, I'm his new best friend, and as such, I wouldn't lie to my buddy, would I? (Hello GM... doesn't this count as 'Target wants to believe me' as in modifiers for my Bluff check?)
A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.
which makes it a much better bet to work around that 'obvious' part.
Yes, because it is one type of harm.
You do realize they also relate to mental harm? Or in this case tangible detriment.
Are you trying to pretend like those words aren't there in the hopes others don't read them, or are you just missing them when you read them?
tan·gi·ble
[tan-juh-buhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.
2. real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary: the tangible benefits of sunshine.
3. definite; not vague or elusive: no tangible grounds for suspicion.
4. (of an asset) having actual physical existence, as real estate or chattels, and therefore capable of being assigned a value in monetary terms.
noun
5. something tangible, especially a tangible asset.
Emotion is not a tangible effect. Hurt feelings, and sadness, are not tangible damage by your own argument.
|
|
To be clear what all this means...
They won't do anything clearly harmful.
Harmful could be physical, it could be mental, it could be something that causes a tangible detriment to them, or simply loss or damage to something they own or care about.
They won't do anything that is obviously harmful. Harmful is not just punching yourself in the face. It is also burning down your own house, murdering your wife, etc...
The charmed thing has free will, it can look at what it is being asked and decide if it is harmful or not. You may be able to convince them it isn't using diplomacy, but they have free will and as much common sense as the GM feels fit to give them.
So no, you can't get them to do something that would cause them to be harmed, mentally, physically, financially, etc...with just charm.
25 FAQ so far...anyone who hasn't FAQed yet?
I think I'll just agree to disagree at this point, Ashiel.
Not getting into legalese here, but despite being not easily quantifiable, severe emotional trauma fulfils the definiton of 'harm' in my book quite nicely.
In my opinion, it'd be far easier for the one executing the charm to convince the charmed one that an action is not going to be harmful, or detrimental. Hey, after all, I'm his new best friend, and as such, I wouldn't lie to my buddy, would I? (Hello GM... doesn't this count as 'Target wants to believe me' as in modifiers for my Bluff check?)
A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.which makes it a much better bet to work around that 'obvious' part.
So how much humanity damage do you suffer for killing your first sentient creature? How much emotional trauma damage does it cause when you see a human skeleton for the first time? What is your psychosis score if you kill a loved one while you are under the effects of a confusion condition? Show me the damage, so me the harm, and I will agree with you. However, until you can show me the harm that the creature is inflicting upon itself, then it doesn't hold water.
<(-_-)>
|
|
So how much humanity damage do you suffer for killing your first sentient creature? How much emotional trauma damage does it cause when you see a human skeleton for the first time? What is your psychosis score if you kill a loved one while you are under the effects of a confusion condition? Show me the damage, so me the harm, and I will agree with you. However, until you can show me the harm that the creature is inflicting upon itself, then it doesn't hold water.
<(-_-)>
Your honor, I didn't technically harm him. I just smashed the windows on his car, murdered his wife and maimed his children.
He is fine.
So case dismissed, am I right?
So how much humanity damage do you suffer for killing your first sentient creature? How much emotional trauma damage does it cause when you see a human skeleton for the first time? What is your psychosis score if you kill a loved one while you are under the effects of a confusion condition? Show me the damage, so me the harm, and I will agree with you. However, until you can show me the harm that the creature is inflicting upon itself, then it doesn't hold water.
<(-_-)>
Your honor, I didn't technically harm him. I just smashed the windows on his car, murdered his wife and maimed his children.
He is fine.
So case dismissed, am I right?
You won't be charged with the murder of the husband. That is true. However, you will be charged with property damage, murder, and probably assault and maiming with intent to kill. EDIT: Probably many other felonies in that list too, including some charges for child abuse, possibly breaking and entering, etc.
They aren't automatons. You keep missing that line.
No I don't. They're not automotons. They have free will. But you can exert your will over them, skewing their world view, and convincing them to do things -- possibly terrible things -- that they wouldn't normally do. You're the one who keeps ignoring almost 50% of the spell.
And since no one seems willing to answer, is the save DC the same for Babysitting as it is for murder.
First I would try a Diplomacy check against the now Friendly person to ask them to babysit. Failing that, then it would be an opposed Charisma check (there is no set DC). Now assuming that the person is violently opposed to murder (but not babysitting) then they would also get a saving throw to end the effect.
And since no one seems willing to answer, is the save DC the same for Babysitting as it is for murder.
What 'Save DC' Are you talking about the DC of the second save? *confused*
You also seem to be adding some weird illusion spell where everything else they already know about the world goes away.
skewed
[skyoo] Example Sentences Origin
skew
[skyoo] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
1. to turn aside or swerve; take an oblique course.
2. to look obliquely; squint.
verb (used with object)
3. to give an oblique direction to; shape, form, or cut obliquely.
4. Slang . to make conform to a specific concept, attitude, or planned result; slant: The television show is skewed to the young teenager.
5. to distort; depict unfairly.
They aren't even "helpful" toward you, but you argue they will kill their family because you think it would be a cool thing to do?
Yeah, because you can give them orders with an opposed Charisma check. That part of the spell you pretend isn't there.
|
|
Ashiel is arguing that you can get someone to kill their wife with a simple opposed charisma check, no modifiers if they are charmed.
He is arguing that this is not going to be obviously harmful to the character, because I presume he never loved his wife anyway and won't miss her.
He also perhaps would ask him to kill the families prize goose, because no harm, no fowl.
<rimshot!>
The fact that they rule says they won't do anything harmful, aren't automatons, and are treated as friendly (not helpful) by the diplomacy rules are irrelevant of course.
And since no one seems willing to answer, is the save DC the same for Babysitting as it is for murder.What 'Save DC' Are you talking about the DC of the second save? *confused*
I'm not 100% sure what Ciretose is talking about. There is no save DC for giving an order to someone unless they are violently opposed to. There is an opposed Charisma check. However, if they are violently opposed to the order (such as being told to kill someone you love, or maybe even killing at all if you're a pacifist) then not only do you get an opposed Charisma check to ignore the order (and the order cannot be issued again), but you also receive a new saving throw against the spell to end the spell effect entirely.
Here's an example. Let's say we have a sorcerer. Let's call him Jafar because I'm not feeling very original. Now Jafar casts charm person on Aladdin and makes him think they're best buddies. Now Jafar and Aladdin wander through the local marketplace, and Jafar tells Aladdin that he should steal food from some kids, because Jafar is a twisted jerk. Aladdin wouldn't normally do that, so he makes an opposed Charisma check to ignore it. Jafar rolls and gets a 17, but Aladdin only gets a 9. So Aladdin steals food from some homeless kids and Jafar feeds it to his parrot. Later, Jafar decides he thinks that the sexy open midriff that Aladdin's girlfriend is wearing is insulting to his sensibilities, and demands that Aladdin smite her. This time Aladdin is super resistant because he would be violently opposed to killing his girlfriend. Jafar rolls a 15 Charisma check and Aladdin rolls a 13, but he also rolls his Will save again, and this time beats the DC.
Aladdin suddenly turns and realizes what's been going on and breaks free of Jafar's control, and then jumps on his flying carpet and sets to beating Jafar with his own snake-stick until he cries uncle.
I often look at it from both angles. If the player insta-wins it can lead to a very unsatisfying end. I also know that if used against players it can make things go wrong. There are mass charm person/monster spells. Ordering them to kill each other can very well make for a short fight. Even if only 2 of them fail, then it is the BBEG +half the party vs the other half.Did I ever tell you about adepts? You know that adepts have sleep as a spell right? You know a 1st level adept is CR 1/3 right? CR 1/4 if they lack proper NPC gear? I've had parties who had to go against enemies who spammed sleep at first level. Human adepts with sleep and spell focus and greater spell focus (enchantment). Does that mean that we should nerf sleep because it can really mess up a party when used on them?
I don't see a particular problem with what you're saying. By the time someone is throwing around mass charm person/monster the players should very well be able to defend against it, if not outright immune to it, by that level or they deserve to die. If charm person is too much for you, then by god CR 10+ encounters are going to tear you up, eat you, barf you out, re-animate you, and repeat.
By the time you encounter mass charm monster, you have access to mind blank which lasts all day and lets you laugh at it. If you're not just immune to it via continual protection from spells at this point (but darn it Paizo, you make Neutral casters so very awesome...).
I mean, if you can't deal with charm person, what are you going to do with a big bad wants to get creative with nightmare? Or magic jar?
Nothing will happen. Remember I am working under the guise of the average to less than average group. :)
Now if you are in a more rules wary group or the GM is more rules wary then you might get a few surprises.
As far as the bad GM's some people have to be around slowly and some just never learn. Many of them should not even be GM's. Some groups also hate "hard" modes, and I can promise you our games are very much hard mode to many people.
I think some people can be made into better GM's, but some things should be scaled back to make the game a little easier. I see a big divide between those that really know the system, and those that don't. Some will never cross it. That is not a bad thing, but since their dollars count as much as mine I want them to enjoy it. The fact that many GM's stop games between levels 13 and 15 is a telling fact that not all parts of the game are for everyone. Having the imagination to make up stuff on the spot is also not something everyone can do, and this spell can put a GM on the spot.
PS:Most of this is based on a group of "expert" gamers who I terrorized at the table after asking me to run a difficult game for them a few years back. That is when I learned gamers don't always want, what they say they want, and I should wait for players to ask me to hold back. Pride is a strange thing. After thinking about that group I realized I had ran across more that were similar to them. I am not trying to shield them or anything, but I think that spell should be higher level, probably 3rd.