| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'm pretty much in between the two readings you sport.
The save DC to shake the spell, is, in my opinion, the same as sported by the initial casting of the spell.
However, the opposed Charisma checks are where I'll begin to ramp up (circumstance) modifiers, depending on the degree of antagonism the charmed one might harbor towards the command.
Call it an increased difficulty to sufficiently skew the world view of the charmed person.
Is the save DC for the charisma check the same for asking someone to babysit as it is for murder.
Umm... Ciretose... There is no such thing as a Save DC for a Charisma check.
I notice you wrote a lot of stuff (less than normal, so progress) but still didn't answer the question.
Is the save DC for the charisma check the same for asking someone to babysit as it is for murder.
Very simple question.
What are you talking about? You don't roll Charisma against a save DC. Y'know what. Nevermind. I'm done wasting my breath. I have factually given you everything that you need. Examples, rule citations, even the text that says that charms can make you believe your closest friends are your worst enemies and yet you still try to weasel out of this in the same word twisting that you accuse me and others of doing.
So, I'm pretty much in between the two readings you sport.
The save DC to shake the spell, is, in my opinion, the same as sported by the initial casting of the spell.
Yeah, the DC would be against the initial DC. So if it was DC 13 to avoid becoming charmed, a violently opposed order would have a DC 13 to end the effect completely.
EDIT: Also if someone casts protection from evil (or appropriate alignment) on you while you're charmed, you immediately get a new saving throw to suppress (but not end) the effect. This is worth noting because having an oil of protection from evil could allow someone to shake off a succubus' charm person SLA and make them immune to further attempts to charm them.
However, the opposed Charisma checks are where I'll begin to ramp up (circumstance) modifiers, depending on the degree of antagonism the charmed one might harbor towards the command. Call it an increased difficulty to sufficiently skew the world view of the charmed person.
That's an entirely reasonable house rule. In fact, I'd recommend even applying a modifier up to +6, similar to how Planar Binding allows up to a +6 circumstance modifier for particularly terrible bindings. I've got no problem with people modifying or adjudicating the spell their own way in their own games. I myself gave Wraithstrike an almost completely re-written Simulacrum to try out in his own games because Simulacrum as written is really stupid powerful (because there is no limit on racial abilities which are not effects based on hit dice).
|
This is what the spell does, it makes you "friendly" toward someone you might not otherwise be "friendly" toward. You think the guy who charmed you is cool. A trusted ally.
Until they show otherwise, at which point you get a new save.
Now, just because you think someone is cool doesn't mean you are going to do things that are obviously harmful to yourself. No matter how friendly you are with someone (not even helpful) you aren't going to burn your own house down because they said to.
That would be obviously harmful.
Ashiel wants to expand friendly to being able to convince you that your wife is a demon. That to me is like convincing you your arm is possessed by a devil and must be cut off by a chainsaw.
Something that is obviously harmful.
Further I believe that diplomacy was referenced specifically because those are where the rules for making requests are. Requests being for all intents and purposes, orders.
So therefore any requests you make fall to those modifiers. In short, all the spell did was make the person friendly toward you. They are not an automaton, they won't do anything that will bring harm to themselves, but they now are friendly rather than, say, hostile.
The thing that blows my mind is that this is more or less exactly what Tels said he does in his home game, he just thinks it is a house rule and the Devs for some reason meant to make a first level spell completely broken.
Why...who knows...
Just want to restate again before the walls of tangents appear again.
|
|
I notice you wrote a lot of stuff (less than normal, so progress) but still didn't answer the question.
Is the save DC for the charisma check the same for asking someone to babysit as it is for murder.
Very simple question.
There is no DC. there is a opposed charisma check. I do not like it but is what it says, unless i missing something.
Ok, modifier. Is it the same dice roll for convincing someone to babysit or murder.
Ok, modifier. Is it the same dice roll for convincing someone to babysit or murder.I notice you wrote a lot of stuff (less than normal, so progress) but still didn't answer the question.
Is the save DC for the charisma check the same for asking someone to babysit as it is for murder.
Very simple question.
There is no DC. there is a opposed charisma check. I do not like it but is what it says, unless i missing something.
As written, yes. EDIT: Except the murder most likely comes with a saving throw to end the spell as well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
As written, yes.Ok, modifier. Is it the same dice roll for convincing someone to babysit or murder.I notice you wrote a lot of stuff (less than normal, so progress) but still didn't answer the question.
Is the save DC for the charisma check the same for asking someone to babysit as it is for murder.
Very simple question.
There is no DC. there is a opposed charisma check. I do not like it but is what it says, unless i missing something.
And this is where we separate. And could do so respectfully. I think they included the part about diplomacy as the basis for adjudicating the requests, you don't. I don't know why they would include that if it wasn't meant to be used and I think the spell is completely broken without it.
We also disagree about harm, which we could continue to discuss, but it seems you have a narrow view of harm meaning personal physical harm while I am viewing it as anything that would cause harm to the person in any way.
So this is why we have entered the need for Dev ruling territory and requested an FAQ.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Eh, ninja'd a post in there while I was adding a note to my last one. They would get another saving throw in addition to merely resisting the order.
I'd think if my best friend IRL told me my children were demons, I'd still get a second opinion...
I don't think people understand that a charmed person isn't thinking clearly. It's not something you can really wrap your head around. You might never be able to imagine doing harm to your children even under those absurd claims but a charmed creatures as per the PRD:
Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.
Your not dominated but your perceptions, your thoughts are not the same. It's not mind control but it is brainwashing.
This isn't just friendship. This is magical friendship. But to each their own on interpretations. That's why DM fiat exists. I've seen some people convinced of some insane things just by people in real life (cults, etc.) where they will disown children and this is from people who are just good speakers.
Maybe you can't imagine it but people are weak-willed.
I'd think if my best friend IRL told me my children were demons, I'd still get a second opinion...I don't think people understand that a charmed person isn't thinking clearly. It's not something you can really wrap your head around. You might never be able to imagine doing harm to your children even under those absurd claims but a charmed creatures as per the PRD:
Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.Your not dominated but your perceptions, your thoughts are not the same. It's not mind control but it is brainwashing.
This isn't just friendship. This is magical friendship. But to each their own on interpretations. That's why DM fiat exists. I've seen some people convinced of some insane things just by people in real life (cults, etc.) where they will disown children and this is from people who are just good speakers.
Maybe you can't imagine it but people are weak-willed.
Hm, I hadn't thought about the cult thing, but you're right. Just mundane words can make people do terrible things. Even things that seem like torture to their children because they believe them; before you even get into the whole mind-affecting magic thing. Good analogy. +1 all the way.
A bit unrelated to your post but to save post count...
I still maintain that dominate is way stronger than charm. There is no option to resist in Charm. The best you get is a saving throw when you would get a saving throw vs Charm, but that cuts down your ability to resist drastically (and spell DCs are easier to pump IMHO); plus all the other goodies you get via dominate. I really don't think this spell is overpowered, but I do think it's strong.
I haven't weighed in for a while, now, so...
An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.
It seems like people are adding a bit to this line in their interpretation of it.
It does NOT say:
"An affected creature never obeys an order that is obviously harmful to itself." That is covered under "suicidal".
NOR does it say:
"...but it might be convinced that something obviously harmful is worth doing." It only says "something very dangerous".
You can never convince a charmed creature to take any action that would cause obvious harm, to himself, to anyone else, to kittens, to orcs, to chairs, etc...
You might convince him to run the risk of harm, and maybe even to place his family and friends at risk. But, he will never kill his wife. Because, "An affected creature never obeys...obviously harmful orders...
Actually, it's been one of the main sources on contention. What exactly constitutes Obvious Harm?
Is it Physical Harm? (As I believe)
Is it Physical or Emotional Harm?
Is it Physical, Emotional, or Mental Harm?
Is it Physical, Emotional, Mental, or Societal Harm?
Is it Physical, Emotional, Mental, Monetary, or Societal Harm?
Is it Physical, Emotional, Mental, Monetary, Societal, or Political Harm?
Where exactly do you draw the line at what is, and is not, Obvious Harm.
I think Obvious Harm is simply going to be a 'subject to GM' interpretation. If your GM (such as someone playing in my game), only uses the term Physical Harm, then you could order someone to kill their wife. If your GM interprets as Physical and Emotional/Mental Harm, then you couldn't be ordered to kill your wife.
I think that's the clencher on the interpretation of the term.
So obvious harm can only be solved with GM fiat and isn't relevant to the discussion...?
So obvious harm can only be solved with GM fiat and isn't relevant to the discussion...?
Nope, Fiat is an arbitrary decision. This would be GM Adjudication (AKA, a judgement or interpretation).
Different GM Power.
[Edit] For instance, myself as a GM, would interpret Obivous Harm as anything that causes physical damage. So no ordering someone to fight the Hill Giant (unless they can be persuaded to do so, by say, defending the village he lives in), or walking through a waterfall of conjured acid. Murdering your wife is ok though.
Others could interpret it as 'no negative consequences' and shut the power down.
Another might say 'no physical or mental harm' at which point murdering your wife, or fighting the Hill Giant (barring certain circumstances) would be disallowed.
But theres no clearly defined solution in the book. So it must be fiat.
I think Obvious Harm is simply going to be a 'subject to GM' interpretation. If your GM (such as someone playing in my game), only uses the term Physical Harm, then you could order someone to kill their wife. If your GM interprets as Physical and Emotional/Mental Harm, then you couldn't be ordered to kill your wife.
Actually, quite the contrary. Killing your wife causes tremendous Physical Harm to your wife.
The spell description states, "An affected creature suicidal or ..."
It does not add the caveat, "as long as they are only harmful to the affected creature."
A charmed person will NOT take an action that causes obvious harm, any obvious harm, merely because you ask him to.
By RAW, an affected creature will never obey the order to kill his wife, because that would cause "obvious harm".
Well, we'd have to properly define the harm, first. Then decide the apporiate action. But, sometimes this is adjudication, sometimes it's fiat. Who can keep it all straight?
|
|
Well, we'd have to properly define the harm, first. Then decide the apporiate action. But, sometimes this is adjudication, sometimes it's fiat. Who can keep it all straight?
Hopefully whatever Dev wades in for a ruling. :)
I really don't think it is all that complicated. The charm makes the person view you as an ally (referencing friendly in diplomacy) rather than whatever they would view you as otherwise, and you can make requests of them.
If anything the second paragraph is more limiting than the diplomacy rules because it specifically says they won't do ANYTHING harmful, whereas with diplomacy and a high enough roll their is no restriction.
All this because someone wants to make an Azata do horrible things to a monk in a whole other thread...the messageboard is a silly place...
Well, we'd have to properly define the harm, first. Then decide the apporiate action. But, sometimes this is adjudication, sometimes it's fiat. Who can keep it all straight?Hopefully whatever Dev wades in for a ruling. :)
I really don't think it is all that complicated. The charm makes the person view you as an ally (referencing friendly in diplomacy) rather than whatever they would view you as otherwise, and you can make requests of them.
If anything the second paragraph is more limiting than the diplomacy rules because it specifically says they won't do ANYTHING harmful, whereas with diplomacy and a high enough roll their is no restriction.
All this because someone wants to make an Azata do horrible things to a monk in a whole other thread...the messageboard is a silly place...
Actually, it has nothing to do with a Monk. It had everything to do with a scenario whereabouts an evil caster could force a Ghaele Azata into agreeing to the terms of a Planar Binding.
The idea was, if a Ghaele Azata was subject to a Charm Person, could the caster order the Ghaele (who now views the caster as his new best friend) to agree to the terms of a Planar Binding spell, which was something along the lines of, 'agree to follow my orders and do all that you can to make my desires come true'. I'm not going to go look it up, but it was something like that.
I still think the Ghaele, who views the caster as her new best friend, would agree to the terms, as her new best friend would never hurt her in anyway. This is all dependent on the caster getting around her Holy Aura of course, which is entirely possible.
Which came out of that thread because of a derail.
That whole thread is a derails. It's in off-topic for a reason :P
Which other thread?
Which other thread?
Petition: I nominate Ashiel to work for Paizo as Rules Consultant
Fun thread, lots of random things talked about so far.
I know I was there too...
Come on FAQ!!!!!!!!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't weighed in for a while, now, so...
An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.It seems like people are adding a bit to this line in their interpretation of it.
It does NOT say:
"An affected creature never obeys an order that is obviously harmful to itself." That is covered under "suicidal".
NOR does it say:
"...but it might be convinced that something obviously harmful is worth doing." It only says "something very dangerous".
You can never convince a charmed creature to take any action that would cause obvious harm, to himself, to anyone else, to kittens, to orcs, to chairs, etc...
You might convince him to run the risk of harm, and maybe even to place his family and friends at risk. But, he will never kill his wife. Because, "An affected creature never obeys...obviously harmful orders...
Actually, it is harmful to yourself. I've linked the appropriate rules. There are rules that specifically note the effects of charms and compulsions, and I'll post them for you again, in the spirit of working this out.
A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.
Yeah, I did see that as well, (the general charm description.), it's posted a couple times upthread. I have to admit that does support team "charm pwns".
@Wraithstrike I didn't mean to be unfair earlier by not asking for clarification, and I had read all your posts carefully. I get what you're saying and that it's not the same as saying " no mods to opposed ability checks". But I still don't think the situational mods fall under GM Fiat just because they aren't specifically spelled out for every possible situation.
Ashiel.
General rules for charm say the charmed person never harms itself. Specific rules for charm person say the charmed person never does anything obviously harmful. Period.
Maybe specific trumps general here?
Also, neither says physically. So a mother killing the kids she thinks are possessed might find it obvious that this would harm her by leading to her arrest, her loss of loved ones, etc?
Ciretose has consistently referenced Diplomacy for determining the DC of the request. I'm not Ciretose, but I don't think that's what he means.But the DC to convince her of that would presumably be insanely high.
At this point I think we have entered dead horse territory until a Dev weighs in.
There is no DC, only an opposed check. Succubus has a 27 Charisma, or a +8 bonus. The NPC woman is going to have a +2 at best. So they roll 1d20 and add their modifiers.
That's the check. That's it. If we were in a game, a GM could add a bonus or penalty to either check, but we're not. No DC, opposed rolls.
An opposed ability check could still be said to have a DC right? The DC is set by the opposed roll. I know in opposed skill checks they still word it that way, at least.
I think that's all Ciretose means.
I think he's referencing Diplomacy as a source of guidelines for situational modifiers that would apply to the opposed ability check.
His use of the term "DC" shouldn't imply that he wants to set fixed numbers and have the caster of Charm beat those numbers using the Diplomacy skill.
From what I gather he is well aware that the spell calls for an opposed charisma check, and is only referring to the result of one charisma check as the "DC" for the other charisma check to beat.
There is plenty of precedent for this wording, in skill descriptions such as Perception for example, which cite an opposed Stealth check as the "DC".
Ciretose please confirm if this is what you meant so people can stop correcting you when you say "DC".
A Succubus has a +27 Bluff. What's the Sense Motive of a commoner woman?
Ashiel.
General rules for charm say the charmed person never harms itself. Specific rules for charm person say the charmed person never does anything harmless.
Maybe specific trumps general here?
Also, neither says physically. So a mother killing the kids she thinks are possessed might find it obvious that this would harm her by leading to her arrest, her loss of loved ones, etc?
I'd say that would make it dangerous, but you can convince them to do dangerous things. Consequences are a funny thing. Would you not say that a bad guy could charm someone and say "Tell no one I was here." before running out the back way? If the person knew the bad guy was running from the law, they would be aiding a criminal (very punishable), but I think they'd do it anyway (assuming that the bad guy made the Charisma check at least).
As for the specific vs general, the charm effect is described in the spell, but described in greater detail in the actual rules governing charms. As far as I know, all charm effects source charm person, and the glossary explains specifically how to adjudicate them unless they are noted specifically otherwise. I don't think that charm person is specifically otherwise so much as it is less well defined (which makes arguing the specifics of the rules actually pertaining to charms and how to adjudicate them feels a bit too much like munchkiny twisting than is comfortable to me, and that's saying something because I almost never use the term "munchkin" o.O).
I don't think there is anything that the rules for charms that conflicts with charm person. In fact, it actually makes charm person a bit more reasonable because it notes that as a core part of being charmed you get to attempt an additional saving throw if you are tasked with doing something you're violently opposed to. So that's pretty cool too; and if you're dealing with enemies anywhere near your level, saving twice is a hugely beneficial factor.
Let's say the party encounters a Dryad. She casts a charm person on the party's Fighter as a SLA. The Fighter rolls 1d20+4 (at 3rd level he has +1 Will, a +2 Wisdom, and a +1 resistance). He has a 50% chance to fail, but fails. He is now charmed. The dryad then turns and commands him to kill the party's rogue who was getting into flanking position. She rolls 1d20+4 (her Charisma) versus his 1d20-2 (his Charisma). He has a 20% chance to simply ignore the order, and also gets another 50% chance to end the spell effect entirely. So the likelihood of the dryad actually getting the Fighter to harm his allies is less than 25%.
Now in the succubus vs woman example, I was using a monster who is so far beyond a commoner that it might as well be a divine being of some sort. CR 7 demon vs CR 1/4 (or lower) commoner. The commoner only has a 5% of saving, and only a 10% chance to beat the succubus on the Charisma check (it's still a 10% chance though, which is surprisingly high given the +8 Charisma the succubus has pre-buffs of any sort). So even in the case of the succubus, the mother is going to have a 5% chance to beat the spell initially, 10% chance to ignore any order she wouldn't ordinarily do, and a 5% chance to break free each time she is forced to do something that she would be violently opposed to.
Incidentally, I think that if you can RAW force them to do things they are "violently opposed to" that rules out emotional harm as argument. It's obviously something you would feel extremely strongly about. Strong enough that you would become violent (like a mother protecting her children for example). That implies great mental and emotional conditioning.
An important thing to note here is we're talking about the absolute worst example of charm that can occur here. A succubus, arguably the poster child and queen of charms and compulsions, versus a first level commoner with +0 in all stats (arguably the weakest sentient class in the entire game, and CR 1/4 if not 1/6); and yet the commoner still has a small chance of resisting and breaking off from the charm (admittedly, the succubus may still just keep spamming charm monster because that's what they do, but when we take it in context that this is a monster of nightmare vs the mom next door, it really puts it into context).
And did anything in the succubus example not make sense?
On an unrelated note, again I think that the whole scenario would be sad, wicked, yet wonderful for the PCs to try and solve. They could possibly solve the mystery by using spells like detect evil to pick up lingering auras (a succubi's aura can last up to an hour in an area), use speak with dead to get eyewitness accounts from the victims, augury to confirm certain aspects of the mother's statements (as well as things like Sense Motive, discern lies or zone of truth). If the succubus is still around, a see invisibility can spot her if she is ethereal. A few Knowledge checks (Knowledge Arcana, Knowledge Planes) could lead to ideas as to what sorts of things might have led to this crime; and if you're a big softy like I am (I'm a sucker for a happy ending), you might include an possibility for the PCs to gain the means to have the victims raised (such as a reward from a nearby temple for combating the forces of evil trying to spread fear and anarchy in the community).
I doubt she's got any bonuses so the Succubus would clearly be advantaged depending on the penalty assigned for the lie. Bluff however also outright says "Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion)." Which is another instance of GM discretion being part of the rules.
The Succubus also has 100 ft telepathy, and hits the woman with Charm Person.
So the woman already regards 'the voice in her head' as friendly, and now 'the voice' says that she's an agent of her god and that her children are really demons in disguise. The only way to save her children, is to drown the imposters.
So the friendly agent of her god tells her to drown the disguised demons, which will free her children and save them from torment.