|
I am not arguing diplomacy couldn't be used to do some of this. Quite the contrary that is largely the position I am taking.
And you seem to not want to deal with much of the 2nd paragraph as well, as it says they are not an automaton, won't do anything obviously harmful,like killing personal friends and family members.
Hell it only says "might" for convincing them doing something dangerous is worth doing.
It is a first level spell. Hell, even dominate has more restrictions.
Okay, let's increase the work Succi has to do.
1) Succubus charms the mother.
2) Succubus uses Bluff to telepathically tell the mother she's a messenger from her god. She has a +27 to her bluff skill: she could take 10, eat -10 from the lie being far-fetched, and still have a higher DC than the wife possibly could make. Not only that, the charm person effect twists the succubus' words favorably.
3) Succubus further sweet-talks the mother, displaying her best behaviour to get on mother's good side. With her Diplomacy of +19, she is actually unable to not shife Mommy's attitude to Helpful.
4) Succubus uses Bluff to tell mother that her children have become fatally tainted by demons, and the only way to stop the taint from spreading (and to guarantee their journey to the good afterlife) is to kill them immediately. Actually, I'd place this one somewhere along -15 to the Bluff Check, but the odds still are favoring the Succubus.
5) Succubus orders that the mother kills the children, who, according to the voice in her head, will soon be dead anyway, and would be saving her children if they died by her hand. The choice, in the mother's head, is to do nothing and watch as the corruption spreads to everyone, or kill them now to save them all.
6) Since this is not something that the mother would normally do, an opposed charisma check occurs (which will generally be a +8 (for the Succubus) vs a +0 for your average mother). However, twisting the mother's world view enough to indeed feel that she must kill the children would warrant a hefty bonus to mother's check (in extreme cases, this bonus becoming 'infinity', thus causing mom to auto-win), Let's assume the mother loses.
7a) The mother is also violently opposed to killing people, so she gets a saving throw. In this case, she makes it and throws off the charm! The succubus shrugs, excercises her dominate person ability, and has the mother watch in horror as she kills her own children, unable to control her own actions.
7b) The mother fails her saving throw and kills the children. She cries while doing it, but (for the time being) she believes what she's doing is the right thing to do.
A charmed person will not do things that are obviously harmful. So, if I make him perceive things as 'not harmful', or 'the lesser evil', the command suddenly moves from 'impossible' to 'within bounds', in my opinion.
Better now, ciretose? Or still far beyond anything?
|
|
That could work, provided you are within all time lines of the charm spell and with some debate on how high the DC would be to convince someone your family are all demons.
But the succubus could also do the same thing with just diplomacy and not have to worry about the saving throw for doing something that breaks the charm.
The charm spell is generally useful when someone is hostile (or at least unfriendly) and you need that to change for any number of reasons. If someone is already friendly (or made friendly) over time you can convince them of horrible things. It's a common trope.
It just doesn't have to happen withing the time frame of the charm spell if the succubus does it that way.
|
I'll leave the "what is obviously harmful" debate to someone else, since I'm really just trying to argue the purpose of the second paragraph.
So, let's use this to make an example instead.
Rescuing a baby from a burning building is very dangerous, but not obviously harmful.
There is a burning building nearby and a baby inside it. You see a local ruffian and think he would be the perfect man for the job of saving said baby. Diplomacy isn't going to work here, since, this ruffian unfriendly to you and isn't likely to risk his behind on someone he doesn't even know, (even people with an attitude of "friendly" aren't going to take risks to help someone they don't know).
However, you cast charm person on him, and give him the equipment required for baby saving.
1. He wouldn't normally go in and save the baby.
2. By your own statement, this is very dangerous, but not obviously harmful.
3. Unbeknownst to you, he is terrified of fire, so would be violently opposed to going into the burning building.
Guess what? You can order him to go save the baby himself. He gets his opposed charisma check and second saving throw, but if he loses the first and fails the second, his skewed vision of the world twists to him believing that saving that baby is the best thing he could be doing right now.
Automatons don't think. They don't have free will. If you had an automaton trying to save that baby, you would likely have a burnt baby, AND a burnt automaton, because he doesn't have the capacity to think (hell, dominated characters aren't even automatons).
What do you think is the point of the second paragraph? If Charm Person was just magical Diplomacy, it's not needed, since you can't do any of the second paragraph by Diplomacy alone anyway (or if you can, you can do it without needing charisma checks and additional saving throws).
Seriously, this bullet point is in the 'charm' section:
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.
There is nothing in Diplomacy about commanding anyone, and yet charm spells allow you to do it. This is NOT just Magical Diplomacy.
|
|
Again, where is the illusion portion of the spell that makes him forget he is terrified of fire? If he is terrified of fire, he would view running into the building as obviously harmful and not do it.
Now if the person was naturally brave (or naive) and believed they would survive unharmed if they ran in, and that saving the baby was worth doing, they would do it. Because they didn't believe they would be harmed.
Were you military? You seem to assume an order is unquestionable, despite all of the included caveats.
Again, where is the illusion portion of the spell that makes him forget he is terrified of fire? If he is terrified of fire, he would view running into the building as obviously harmful and not do it.
Now if the person was naturally brave (or naive) and believed they would survive unharmed if they ran in, and that saving the baby was worth doing, they would do it. Because they didn't believe they would be harmed.
Were you military? You seem to assume an order is unquestionable, despite all of the included caveats.
There is no illusion. There's a mind-affecting effect that skews his views of the world. Go figure.
Also, an automaton would be a mindless skeleton via animate dead. It does what you tell it to with no resistance. If you tell it to save babies, it saves babies. If you tell it to eat babies, it eats babies. If you tell it to jump off a building, it jumps off a building.
In both cases of charm and dominate, the victims are not automatons. They can resist you. They can break free. Beyond the parameters of the spell, they will continue to act with free will. It explains the parameters that you are allowed to exert control, and what you are expressly not allowed to do (and that is force suicidal or self-harming actions). However, the rules for charms note that you can completely skew their perception of the world including making them turn on those they consider allies as hated enemies, so outside sources do not count (because honestly I'd be sad if I was to kill my best friend in the same adventuring party as me, just like I would be sad if I killed my wife under magical manipulation).
You have consistently ignored huge portions of the spell, the rules, and tried to cling tooth and nail to a word that does not mean what you think it means, and tried to interpret things in ways that the rules directly contradict.
The counter argument fits entirely within the rules without contradiction and takes the entire thing into account. That by its nature places the counter argument above your own in terms of validity.
Speaking of killing killing babies...
(No, seriously, it's a funny song)
Skews the view of the world to no longer see wives and children as allies so you can get around the allies part of the rule.
Right.
Glad you finally agree with us.
Now that that's over with..
Welcome to the Ashiel Appreciation Association. Here is your complementary Ashiel Holy Symbol and Ashiel Worship Attire *hands Ciretose stuff*. If you need anything, or have any questions, any questions at all, please, feel free to ask.
Also, if you're thirsty or hungry, refreshments are offered anytime of the day. Between you an me, try the Kool-Aid, it's simply to die for.
I'm glad you joined us, and I look forward to collaborating with you on future projects done in the name of our Lord and Master, Ashiel, the All-Father.
Just out of curiosity, based on Tels' and Ashiel's interpretation of Charm in general and Charm Person in particular:
Suppose you gained the Heighten Spell feat for free, in some way.
Would you ever prep a Dominate Person spell in place of a Heightened Charm Person spell?
- Both have the same save DC.
- Making "requests" of a Charmed Person is just talking (an immediate action), while giving a new order or changing an order to a Dominated Person is a move action.
- A Charmed Person gains a new save only if you "request" it to do something against which it is "violently opposed", while a Dominated Person gets a new save, with a +2 bonus, anytime you order it to do something "against its nature".
- The Dominate Person-caster's control can be blocked by spells like Protection From Evil, while the Charm Person-caster's cannot.
- It is a DC 25 sense motive check to realize that someone has been Charmed, while it is only DC 15 to realize that they have been Dominated.
- (By your interpretations) Charmed Persons will do anything short of "stab yourself in the chest" or "jump off of this cliff" provided you win the opposed Charisma check, while Dominated Persons will... well... do anything short of "stab yourself in the chest" or "jump off of this cliff".
Basically, the only strike I can see against Charm Person, by your interpretations, is having to occasionally win an opposed Charisma Check. Otherwise, it is a much, much more powerful spell.
Skews the view of the world to no longer see wives and children as allies so you can get around the allies part of the rule.
Right.
Glad you finally agree with us.
Now that that's over with..
Welcome to the Ashiel Appreciation Association. Here is your complementary Ashiel Holy Symbol and Ashiel Worship Attire *hands Ciretose stuff*. If you need anything, or have any questions, any questions at all, please, feel free to ask.
Also, if you're thirsty or hungry, refreshments are offered anytime of the day. Between you an me, try the Kool-Aid, it's simply to die for.
I'm glad you joined us, and I look forward to collaborating with you on future projects done in the name of our Lord and Master, Ashiel, the All-Father.
Oh no! Not that kool-aid. :o
That's for the acolytes to practice their detect poison cantrips! It's not for drinking. (O.O)""
Just out of curiosity, based on Tels' and Ashiel's interpretation of Charm in general and Charm Person in particular:
Suppose you gained the Heighten Spell feat for free, in some way.
Would you ever prep a Dominate Person spell in place of a Heightened Charm Person spell?
- Both have the same save DC.
- Making "requests" of a Charmed Person is just talking (an immediate action), while giving a new order or changing an order to a Dominated Person is a move action.
- A Charmed Person gains a new save only if you "request" it to do something against which it is "violently opposed", while a Dominated Person gets a new save, with a +2 bonus, anytime you order it to do something "against its nature".
- The Dominate Person-caster's control can be blocked by spells like Protection From Evil, while the Charm Person-caster's cannot.
- It is a DC 25 sense motive check to realize that someone has been Charmed, while it is only DC 15 to realize that they have been Dominated.
- (By your interpretations) Charmed Persons will do anything short of "stab yourself in the chest" or "jump off of this cliff" provided you win the opposed Charisma check, while Dominated Persons will... well... do anything short of "stab yourself in the chest" or "jump off of this cliff".
Basically, the only strike I can see against Charm Person, by your interpretations, is having to occasionally win an opposed Charisma Check. Otherwise, it is a much, much more powerful spell.
Dominate Person also allows you to issue orders at any range, and allows for the caster to receive full sensory input, and you can force a creature to attack his party members immediately.
Charm Person/Monster requires more time. You have to convince the person of the skewed world you're representing (bluff/diplomacy to believe your story). Then you can convince the person what needs to be done, then you can order them. So it would be roughly 3 rounds after casting the spell that you could order them to do something.
So yes, I would prepare Dominate in place of Charm. However, I'm also a person that is firmly of the belief of mixing spell effects together. So I could cast Charm Person and have them accept a spell from their 'new friend'. That the spell they're accepting is Dominate is irrelevant, because they forwent their Will Save since it's coming from their new friend. The same tactic applies when using Suggestion. "I'm going to cast a beneficial spell, I suggest you not resist it," is my favorite use of Suggestion. Then I could follow that up with Charm Person, or Dominate Person if I'm high enough.
Just out of curiosity, based on Tels' and Ashiel's interpretation of Charm in general and Charm Person in particular:
Suppose you gained the Heighten Spell feat for free, in some way.
Would you ever prep a Dominate Person spell in place of a Heightened Charm Person spell?
- Both have the same save DC.
- Making "requests" of a Charmed Person is just talking (an immediate action), while giving a new order or changing an order to a Dominated Person is a move action.
- A Charmed Person gains a new save only if you "request" it to do something against which it is "violently opposed", while a Dominated Person gets a new save, with a +2 bonus, anytime you order it to do something "against its nature".
- The Dominate Person-caster's control can be blocked by spells like Protection From Evil, while the Charm Person-caster's cannot.
- It is a DC 25 sense motive check to realize that someone has been Charmed, while it is only DC 15 to realize that they have been Dominated.
- (By your interpretations) Charmed Persons will do anything short of "stab yourself in the chest" or "jump off of this cliff" provided you win the opposed Charisma check, while Dominated Persons will... well... do anything short of "stab yourself in the chest" or "jump off of this cliff".
Basically, the only strike I can see against Charm Person, by your interpretations, is having to occasionally win an opposed Charisma Check. Otherwise, it is a much, much more powerful spell.
Oh hell yeah I would. Most of my casters have Heighten spell anyway, but like I said, dominate is another bag of chips, and is even better for nefarious deeds. You can give very elaborate orders if you can communicate to the creature (otherwise it's simple orders), and hostile actions don't break it. Dominate an enemy, drop a fireball on them accidentally (or intentionally) and they're still dominated. Also, dominate is easy to powergame. Anything that penalizes their saving throws makes dominate stronger. Capture a critter and dominate them and you can force them to do virtually anything you want. You can even establish multiple dominations, creating layers of domination. Who gives a turkey of you make one of your saves? I applied 5 dominates to you before we left the house and you've still got 4 more to go before you're free, and they last for weeks.
Also, you might want to double check. Protection from Evil blocks charm person as well. In fact, it directly mentions it by name. See?
effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person. This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target.
That's pretty much the nail in the coffin as to the argument that charm spells don't allow you to control people as well, but protection from spells definitely block charm person and allow you to attempt to suppress it.
You're also forgetting that dominate person establishes a telepathic link with no range other than same plane of existance. Your subject doesn't even have to know you are involved. You could be walking through a crowd, dominate somebody at a fruit stand, and then force them to do almost anything you want without requesting at all. You could use it to spy on someone. You don't actually have to give a dominated creature an order (according to dominate person the DC 15 Sense Motive comes from them following your order almost mindlessly, presumably you would not get this if they were not given an order, but I'll accept that it could be debated), allowing you to see through their senses.
Dominate also doesn't require communication to be somewhat useful. If I cast charm monster on a hydra, the hydra doesn't speak, so at best it won't attack me, but I cannot direct it around. If I cast dominate monster on a hydra, I can force it to eat my enemies. Replace hydra with any humanoid who doesn't share a language with you for dominate person.
If your save DCs are strong or the target's Will is weak (either naturally or by your engineering), dominate rocks socks. You ask would we use dominate? I ask why wouldn't we use dominate. :P
So yes, I would prepare Dominate in place of Charm. However, I'm also a person that is firmly of the belief of mixing spell effects together. So I could cast Charm Person and have them accept a spell from their 'new friend'. That the spell they're accepting is Dominate is irrelevant, because they forwent their Will Save since it's coming from their new friend. The same tactic applies when using Suggestion. "I'm going to cast a beneficial spell, I suggest you not resist it," is my favorite use of Suggestion. Then I could follow that up with Charm Person, or Dominate Person if I'm high enough.
Tels is correct. A good enchanter worth his salt will apply multiple layers of brainwashing. :)
You know Ashiel, one of these days, I'll find something I disagree with you on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know Ashiel, one of these days, I'll find something I disagree with you on.
I disagree? (^.^) *tongue-in-cheek*
I applied 5 dominates to you before we left the house and you've still got 4 more to go before you're free, and they last for weeks.
I'm not sure about this.
Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates.
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.
Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject's ability to act. Mental controls that don't remove the recipient's ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.
I realize it's not spelled out anywhere in this, but it seems like one Domination would not take precedence over the others. So, casting five dominate person spells on the same person is a waste of time and spell power. If he makes his save to throw off one, he'd throw off the lot.
Tels seems to have the right idea, using a Charm to Dominate. That seems like a perfectly good use of the Charm Person spell (and depending on the targets spell knowledge, may not even require an opposed Charisma check). But, based on your previous statements, an opposed Charisma check would make your new friend slaughter all of his old friends anyway. So, why bother casting the Dominate Person? Unless you just want to sadistically watch it play out through his eyes.
Anyway, yes, big swing and a miss on the Charm vs. Pro Evil. And I'll concede that Dominate Person is a bit more "battle ready", in the sense that it's more useful in the middle of a fight. Though, if you get a Heightened Charm off before the fight, then the fight happens, it becomes largely irrelevant, as your new buddy will fight his allies for you.
Basically, it seems like you are saying: (Charm Person + Opposed Charisma Check) = (Dominate Person - telepathic link)
I believe you are making the spell far more powerful than it is intended.
Exactly how do you get the idea that you cannot have multiple instances of the same spell active at the same time? You can legally cast resist energy repeatedly to give resistances to every element, or you could double up on the same resistance (but most do not because the resistances do not stack). If anything your cited rules actually confirm what I was discussing, because a creature can be under the effect of multiple mind-controlling effects.
For example, you could have a creature that is dominated by a vampire, dominated by a wizard, and dominated by a sorcerer...all at the same time. If their orders conflict, it's an opposed Charisma between the casters (Sorcerer and Vampire are likely more likely to win than Wizard). However, you could easily be all three casters by having 3 instances of dominate person on someone.
Why would you do this? Well because he'd have to make multiple saves. The chances of him breaking all the dominate effects is reduced. Likewise, if someone wants to try and use protection from evil to suppress the effect, then he'd have to make a save vs each. If they wanted to dispel the domination, they'd need to peel each of them off.
And also, no, I'm not saying that charm person is dominate minus the link. I'm saying it's dominate minus the adjustment to attitude, with more opportunities to resist you, a save to throw it off if you force them to do something they're greatly opposed to, and lacks a link.
Why is this so hard to understand? Personally I think charm + dominate is the best way to establish the utmost control over an individual. First you make them like you, and you can attempt to convince them through more mundane methods before resorting to a dominate command (first diplomacy vs easy DCs due to altering their mood to friendly, if that fails, opposed Charisma check, if that fails, saving throw or bust). You also didn't mention that dominate isn't broken by hostile actions for you and your party; nor is it reliant on your ability scores or does it concern itself with your opponent's ability scores (not sure if you noticed recently, but lots of enemies have really good Charisma scores, and even with a difference of 8 points of modifier they still have a 10% chance to ignore a command).
Exactly how do you get the idea that you cannot have multiple instances of the same spell active at the same time?
I never said you couldn't. I said it would be a waste of time and spell power. Since no one Dominate Person spell would take precedence...
Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates.
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.
... and since they don't interfere with one another...
Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject's ability to act. Mental controls that don't remove the recipient's ability to act usually do not interfere with each other.
... if he gained a new saving throw against your Domination, and made the save, he'd throw off all of the spells at once.
Why is this so hard to understand? Personally I think charm + dominate is the best way to establish the utmost control over an individual.
I agree. I said so. But, based on your interpretation of the strength of the Charm Person spell, I can't see why you would bother.
You also didn't mention that dominate isn't broken by hostile actions for you and your party; nor is it reliant on your ability scores or does it concern itself with your opponent's ability scores (not sure if you noticed recently, but lots of enemies have really good Charisma scores, and even with a difference of 8 points of modifier they still have a 10% chance to ignore a command).
I did concede that Dominate Person was more "battle ready".
Which would you prefer? A 10% (or even 50%) chance to ignore each individual command while remaining under the spell? Or a 10% bonus to your save to throw off the spell entirely? If the spells have equal strength of command, then that is the primary difference.
And also, no, I'm not saying that charm person is dominate minus the link. I'm saying it's dominate minus the adjustment to attitude, with more opportunities to resist you, a save to throw it off if you force them to do something they're greatly opposed to, and lacks a link.
You left out the (+ Opposed Charisma Check). Since Dominate Person also has a save to throw it off if you force them to do something they're greatly opposed to (or even regular opposed to, and it comes with a +2 bonus), it sounds like that is exactly what you are saying.
I still contend that winning an opposed Charisma check does NOT give the Charm Person spell the same strength of command that Dominate Person has. But, since I can't seem to Charm or Dominate your Person, I'm willing to end the argument here (after reading your next rebuttal, of course).
Actually, if anything, that just means that whomever has the stronger Dominate, is in control. So if say a Cr 9 Vampire is attempting to Dominate someone, and a 15th level Wizard has already Dominated that person, the Vampire can successfully cast the spell, but gains no control because the Wizard's Dominate is more powerful.
If he throws off the Wizards Dominate, then he reverts to the Vampire's control.
Exactly how do you get the idea that you cannot have multiple instances of the same spell active at the same time?I never said you couldn't. I said it would be a waste of time and spell power. Since no one Dominate Person spell would take precedence...
Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates.
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.
... and since they don't interfere with one another...
Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject's ability to act. Mental controls that don't remove the recipient's ability to act usually do not interfere with each other.... if he gained a new saving throw against your Domination, and made the save, he'd throw off all of the spells at once.
Nope. Only one applies at a time, but it doesn't mean the others don't exist. For example, if I cast a spell that grants a +1 natural armor bonus and the same spell is active granting a +2 natural armor bonus (such as barkskin + barkskin), it's only +2 that is in effect. However, as you can see in the very text you're quoting you have multiple effects "operating on the same target". You know this is true because it even cites and example of a creature that is under the effects of the same spell more than once and how to deal with those conflicting.
There is no evidence in anything you posted to say that breaking free of one instance of the spell frees you of all of them. You are making an assertion that is not present in the rules that you are quoting.
Each would have to be dispelled separately, and overcome separately because they are multiple instances. It is layered. It is not all of them melding into a single spell, it's like 5 spells that have the same effect. Each effect has to be removed individually, because each effect is a separate instance.
Here, do you play magic the gathering by chance? I might be able to explain it this way. Let's say you have a card that says "enchanted creature has haste". You play that card on a creature. Then you play the same card on the creature 3 more times. Now the creature has 4 instances of "this creature has haste". If you wanted the creature to no longer have haste, you would need to eat through all 4 instances. They don't give some sort of "super x4 mega haste". They just give the same effect, but there are 4 of them giving it.
The word convince in there seems to be overlooked a bit too. Generally, it takes a fair bit of time to convince anyone to do something they don't want to. The opposed charisma roll is not described a roll that happens in a round. By rights, by the time you've convinced them, your first level spell may well have worn off.
Also, anytime a spell asks for a dm controlled character to act, it is calling on the rules that Tels keeps calling GM fiat. Those rules are written specifically for these situations.The spell does not specifically spell out effects of control like dominate does, which means the GM has to interpret what happens. since the need to consider what is against he victims nature is called on, the GM has to consider alignment, fealty to others, relevant position in the society, happiness in their current lot in life etc. This means DM has to call on rules that allows for modifications based on such things. That is not DM fiat, that is rules application.
Also, charming a creature makes it the casters friend, not his companions friends. It's funny watching casters get tackled to the ground by a well meaning charmed minion as they scream "Watch out! Those guys tried to kill us earlier, I'll protect you with my body while my friends kill them"
A chaotic evil creature is going to respond far differently to a lawful good character. Chaotic evil guys betray their trusted allies all the time, just for starters. They also kill or betray other people close to their trusted allies to curry favour or remove competition for attention.
How much of that are you guys considering in this discussion about a spell that calls for a DM to make decisions about their npc. This is what makes this an interactive and interesting role play game, rather than just battleships.
Typing on iPad, so appologies for mistakes and bad grammar.
Another voice of reason. Thank you, where you been?
Okay, let's increase the work Succi has to do.
1) Succubus charms the mother.
2) Succubus uses Bluff to telepathically tell the mother she's a messenger from her god. She has a +27 to her bluff skill: she could take 10, eat -10 from the lie being far-fetched, and still have a higher DC than the wife possibly could make. Not only that, the charm person effect twists the succubus' words favorably.
3) Succubus further sweet-talks the mother, displaying her best behaviour to get on mother's good side. With her Diplomacy of +19, she is actually unable to not shife Mommy's attitude to Helpful.
4) Succubus uses Bluff to tell mother that her children have become fatally tainted by demons, and the only way to stop the taint from spreading (and to guarantee their journey to the good afterlife) is to kill them immediately. Actually, I'd place this one somewhere along -15 to the Bluff Check, but the odds still are favoring the Succubus.
5) Succubus orders that the mother kills the children, who, according to the voice in her head, will soon be dead anyway, and would be saving her children if they died by her hand. The choice, in the mother's head, is to do nothing and watch as the corruption spreads to everyone, or kill them now to save them all.
6) Since this is not something that the mother would normally do, an opposed charisma check occurs (which will generally be a +8 (for the Succubus) vs a +0 for your average mother). However, twisting the mother's world view enough to indeed feel that she must kill the children would warrant a hefty bonus to mother's check (in extreme cases, this bonus becoming 'infinity', thus causing mom to auto-win), Let's assume the mother loses.
7a) The mother is also violently opposed to killing people, so she gets a saving throw. In this case, she makes it and throws off the charm! The succubus shrugs, excercises her dominate person ability, and has the mother watch in horror as she kills her own children, unable to control her own actions.
7b) The mother...
This is starting to look somewhat reasonable because the way you do it, a succubus could pull it off, but not a run of the mill first level caster.
Those numbers look pretty good to me at a glance but it would STILL depend on a few specifics we don't have a bout the scenario, like what kind of society does the mother live in. Of she lives next door to a temple of the god the succubus is interpreting, would she pop over next door and ask for an exorcism before she offed her kids? On the other hand it could be a remote village that burns witches and fears magic of all kinds.
|
|
So to sum up, wives and children aren't allies, and harmful only matters if it removes hit points.
On the other hand, you can concoct elaborate stories using only a simple, unmodified charisma check that the player must believe, that allows them to then ignore the harmful, no allies part of the spell, despite them not being an automaton.
Does that about sum up Tels and Ashiel's position?
|
|
There is no illusion. There's a mind-affecting effect that skews his views of the world. Go figure.\Again, where is the illusion portion of the spell that makes him forget he is terrified of fire? If he is terrified of fire, he would view running into the building as obviously harmful and not do it.
Now if the person was naturally brave (or naive) and believed they would survive unharmed if they ran in, and that saving the baby was worth doing, they would do it. Because they didn't believe they would be harmed.
Were you military? You seem to assume an order is unquestionable, despite all of the included caveats.
Except it doesn't skew the views of the whole world, just how they view the person they are charmed by.
You want that to then expand to them forgetting everything else in the world that has ever happened and blindly follow the person who charmed them, despite the fact the spell doesn't even make them "Helpful" toward the person who cast it.
They won't do anything obviously harmful.
They will " retains his original alignment and allegiances"
They will fight "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 will "never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him."
Cutting and pasting the key points."A charmed character retains free will"...
"with the exception 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 asked me to kill my wife, I would say "no."
If you want to concoct a story as to why I should, that is a diplomacy check.
The only thing Charm is doing is making me think you are my friend. Anything else is attempted RAWering.
Here, do you play magic the gathering by chance? I might be able to explain it this way. Let's say you have a card that says "enchanted creature has haste". You play that card on a creature. Then you play the same card on the creature 3 more times. Now the creature has 4 instances of "this creature has haste". If you wanted the creature to no longer have haste, you would need to eat through all 4 instances. They don't give some sort of "super x4 mega haste". They just give the same effect, but there are 4 of them giving it.
And if you make the creature pro-red, all four enchantments fall off simultaneously.
Comparing MTG rules to PF rules will get us into a world of trouble very quickly.
The rules I was quoting from PRD state very explicitly:
1. A spell functions normally, no matter what other spell is in effect, unless specifically stated otherwise. (Two Dominates by the same person function normally)
2. If a creature is under the effects of two of the same spell, then one is suppressed if they are at different strengths. (Two Dominates by the same person have the same strength)
3. A creature under the effects of multiple Dominates tries to obey them all simultaneously. (Your one command would apply to all your castings of Dominate)
The creature gets five simultaneous commands to do the exact same thing. I would think he would only need to make one save. Maybe that's just me.
Here, do you play magic the gathering by chance? I might be able to explain it this way. Let's say you have a card that says "enchanted creature has haste". You play that card on a creature. Then you play the same card on the creature 3 more times. Now the creature has 4 instances of "this creature has haste". If you wanted the creature to no longer have haste, you would need to eat through all 4 instances. They don't give some sort of "super x4 mega haste". They just give the same effect, but there are 4 of them giving it.And if you make the creature pro-red, all four enchantments fall off simultaneously.
Comparing MTG rules to PF rules will get us into a world of trouble very quickly.
The rules I was quoting from PRD state very explicitly:
1. A spell functions normally, no matter what other spell is in effect, unless specifically stated otherwise. (Two Dominates by the same person function normally)
2. If a creature is under the effects of two of the same spell, then one is suppressed if they are at different strengths. (Two Dominates by the same person have the same strength)
3. A creature under the effects of multiple Dominates tries to obey them all simultaneously. (Your one command would apply to all your castings of Dominate)
The creature gets five simultaneous commands to do the exact same thing. I would think he would only need to make one save. Maybe that's just me.
If he's under the effects of 5 Dominates, then he has to make 5 saves, 1 for each spell.
|
|
Again, where is the illusion portion of the spell that makes him forget he is terrified of fire? If he is terrified of fire, he would view running into the building as obviously harmful and not do it.
Now if the person was naturally brave (or naive) and believed they would survive unharmed if they ran in, and that saving the baby was worth doing, they would do it. Because they didn't believe they would be harmed.
Really? You said yourself that saving a baby from the burning building isn't obviously harmful. Now you've changed your statement saying that the person has to be naturally brave or naive in order to view it as not obviously harmful. When does "violently opposed to doing something" not conflict with "obviously harmful" in your mind?
I'll ask again, what do you think is the purpose of the second paragraph? Orders are commands, something you do when you have authority over another. Requesting is synonymous with asking. Why are you allowed to make orders or commands if the subject has the option to just ignore you? What's the point of the opposed charisma check if he can't be made to do something he doesn't want to do anyway?
The only thing Charm is doing is making me think you are my friend. Anything else is attempted RAWering.
If that was truly the case, then the only thing the charm spell needed to say would be:
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. 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.
Yet, it says more than that.
|
|
It isn't harmful if you don't catch on fire doing it. It is dangerous, but if you believe you can do it without any harm coming to yourself, yes I do.
If you are deathly afraid of fire, clearly you don't believe that. If you saw a baby in a house on fire and thought you could save the baby and not be engulfed in flame.
Stepping in front of a car to be struck in order to preventing a baby from being struck = Harmful
Running to snatch them from in front of the car because you think you can then roll out of the way like a bad ass = Possibly delusional, definately dangerous (which is covered) but not obviously harmful.
Burning your own house down with your wife and children inside. Obviously harmful.
|
|
I think the first paragraph says what the spells does (makes them "friendly" and the purpose of the 2nd factor is to lay out the limiting factors that would never be overcome based on charm.
Most of what has been proposed can be done through diplomacy with a high enough roll. You can get someone to attack an ally with a high diplomacy check. Talking the king into starting a war with an ally for example, is something you can do with diplomacy.
The second paragraph reads.
"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."
So line one is saying 'They aren't an automaton, they percieve your words and actions in the most favorable way. Looking at the charm section, they regard you as a "dear friend".
Second line "You can try to give the subject orders" basically says you can ask them to do things, but they get a check when it isn't something they would do, because they have free will. This is the same as anyone else in the world.
Third line basically says, "but they won't do these things, no matter what" and if it is dangerous you have to convince them it is worth doing, even though they view you as a friend.
Fourth line says basically that if you or anyone around you do anything that may threaten the person, spell over.
Last line is just about language.
So I read the spell as first paragraph says what it does (Makes them friendly to you), second paragraph gives the limiting exceptions (except for in these situations).
|
|
So, in other words, you have no clue why the second paragraph is included, nor why the 7th bullet point regarding "commanding minions" and "violent opposition" exists.
"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."
Means if you ask them to do something they would be violently opposed to, not only might they say no to that request, but IN ADDITION they will get a new saving throw to break the spell completely and realize you aren't an ally.
|
|
Example.
I ask Bill to kill his wife. I don't make the diplomacy check to get him to think that his wife is a demon or whatever other contrivance is at play.
At this point Bill will not kill his wife, but in addition Bill gets a save to see if he is still charmed.
If he fails, he thinks it is odd I tried to convince him his wife is a demon who should be killed, but he still likes me. (still charmed)
If he succeeds he breaks the charm.
|
|
Because
"Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world."
And
"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."
In the example above, why Bill thinks I am still cool when I tried to get him to kill his wife is the charm. But Bill has complete free will as to everything else that isn't about if he likes me or not. If he is lawful good, he is still lawful good.
|
|
I say he says no because it is obviously harmful, but that is different than the issue we are currently discussing.
I say they didn't include he was "friendly" in the first paragraph for no reason, and so I believe that the rules that govern making any request apply to requests made on a charmed person.
Otherwise, to beat a dead horse, the check is the same to ask him to babysit as it is to commit murder. And that is a) silly and b) way overpowered for a first level spell.
I read it as Paragraph 1 = What the spell does, aka, make you regard the person as you would someone you are friendly with. This is still very powerful, particularly for a first level spell.
Paragraph 2 = A list of exceptions that the person won't do, even though they regard you as a "dear friend". I think this was included because if you just left it as paragraph one, that would be too powerful and so they were trying to add limits. Which is why I disagree with the reading that makes this actually add power to the spell.
|
|
Bill is friendly toward you, so when you ask him to make a sandwich I would regard that as "Give simple aid" on the diplomacy chart and you can probably take 10 to get him to make you a sandwich.
He isn't going to be violently opposed to making a sandwich, and it isn't obviously harmful to do so, and so no check is needed to see if he stays charmed.
Now if you want him to steal something for you, well that is "giving aid that could result in punishment, meaning it is at least a DC 25 diplomacy check (10 for friendly + 15 for giving aid that could result in punishment) and could be more depending on how dangerous it is, etc...
If it were just intended as a straight charisma vs charisma check, stealing the Mona Lisa is the same check as making a sandwich.
|
|
Ah, so the second paragraph is only for the GM to say "ah ha! Gotcha!" and punish the player when he is stupid enough to try to do what he can't do with the spell anyway.
The 2nd paragraph is to say "Yes he is your friend, but that doesn't mean he forgot all his old friends or he's automatically going to do something dangerous or harmful just because he likes you. In fact, if you try that crap he gets a second save to break the charm."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Congratulations, you know how Diplomacy works.
There is absolutely no point in stating that you need to make an opposed Charisma check if you are never going to make an opposed Charisma check and everything is just handled by Diplomacy.
My dear friend can't control me like an automaton. Charm Person doesn't need to say that explicitly. If my dear friend gives me an order, and I don't want to do it, I don't need to make an opposed Charisma check to say no, I just say no. I have no idea why that would be part of Charm Person. If my dear friend asked me to jump over a 100ft cliff, I'd say no. If my dear friend asked me to cut myself, I'd say no. Charm Person doesn't need to explicitly say that, either. You might be able to use Diplomacy to convince me to do something dangerous. That's perfectly within the rules of Diplomacy, so Charm Person doesn't need to say that explicitly either.
No one's going to automatically do something dangerous or harmful or even anything for you just because he likes you. Why include it in a spell that apparently only makes someone like you?
|
|
Your dear friend could actually convince you to jump off a 100 ft cliff, or cut yourself, or do any of the things you mentioned...with a high enough diplomacy check.
If I am able to convince you that those actions are of greater benefit to you than harm, diplomacy can do that. The DC would be astronomical, but if you consider I can use diplomacy to get people to go to war with each other, what limit is there on what I "could" talk someone into doing?
Again, with a ridiculously high diplomacy check.
I can't actually get someone to jump off a cliff or cut themselves with charm (obviously harmful).
You are confusing what you can make a PC do with diplomacy with what you can make an NPC do with diplomacy.
|
|
Why does Charm Person need to have these additional clauses that punishes the player when he tries to do something that can't be done with the spell? Why would it say, "the subject never obeys suicidal requests and gets a saving throw to shake off the spell if you ask it of him". What possible use would the second part of the sentence have aside from the DM being able to say "Ha! You tried to do something that can't be done with the spell! He shakes it off!"
That's like saying "You thought that the improved strength from Bull's Strength would let you jump higher. Unfortunately, when you tried to jump higher, not only did you fail to jump higher, but the Bull's Strength was dispelled".
|
|
<sigh>
The second paragraph is there BECAUSE this conversation comes up over and over again.
The second paragrpah provides an off-hand link to a mechanic which IS DEFINED for altering relative moods and convincing individuals to perform specific actions. Which mechanic? The one given in the Diplomacy section (You should note that Diplomacy is a Cha-based skill, for those about to focus on the fact the spell only says Che roll).
Charm Person does not give you control of the charmed target. It makes that target Friendly to you (which term also has meaning within the rules only as described in and around the Diplomacy skill, as I remember things).
The second paragraph talks about how to handle trying to convince the Charmed target to take specific actions on your behalf, not how to finalize your control over them.
Really? I'm pretty sure if the second paragraph didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Assume it just said "This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly)."
With this sentence, how could you possibly infer that you now have the ability to tell it to do something suicidal or harmful, or tell it to turn on its other friends in the middle of combat? Diplomacy doesn't work that way, why would Charm Person?
|
Serum, the spell description states that you can try to order them to do somehting. However, it then goes on to state that you must make an opposed charisma check to convince them if the order goes against their nature.
So you order the guard to kill the king, that's against his nature and he initially balks at the idea. You then spend a good deal of time working your silvered tongue to try and convince him it's a good idea to assassinate the king. That is the opposed charisma roll.
Since there is no defining part of the spell that says how long that convincing part takes, that is completely up to the GM. If this guard were loyal, I might rule it takes months to bring him around to the point where he believes the king needs to be killed. Completely at the gm's mercy there, unlike dominate. After those months of work, you then get to make your opposed charisma roll. You see, rolls like that aren't defined by specific time limits. Everyone keep saying talking is a free action etc, but that only pertains within reasonable limits, also defined in the rules there somewhere. No where does it say these types of rolls are made as a single action, unless covered specifically under diplomacy and intimidate rules.
I guess, as I stated previously, it comes down to the disposition of the guy you're trying to charm. Charm is quite powerful against things like goblins etc, who's very nature is betrayal and chaos. It's amazingly awful against societies where loyalty and love of others rules. Of course, that all comes down to your GM, since the spell has built in rules for GM interpretation.
Dominate doesn't give that same power to the dm. Much better spell in fact, for what most of you are saying.
|
|
Man, Diplomacy must be amazing in your games. Just max your Charisma and Diplomacy bonuses, and now you can convince anyone to just jump off 100ft cliffs.
I would probably set the DC at 100, slightly higher than selling the brooklyn bridge.
In your game it seems to be just an opposed charisma check with a first level spell, as they didn't know it was 100 ft cliff or that killing your wife would be harmful
|
|
You'll notice I stopped trying to talk about what is/isn't obviously harmful with regards to Charm Person, since you're adamant on that position, and I agree that Charm Person will not let you get someone to jump off a cliff, among other things.
However, you've told me that I can use Diplomacy to convince someone to jump off a cliff. I infer that would be ridiculous. You then tell me that the DC would be 100. Um, in what situation is a DC 100 possible? Why would you say that it's possible when you, as the DM, were going to make it impossible for the player if he tried it? Nevermind, that's not really the question I would want you to spend your time answering.
Assume it just said "This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly)."
With this sentence, how could you possibly infer that you now have the ability to tell it to do something suicidal or harmful, or tell it to turn on its other friends in the middle of combat? Diplomacy doesn't work that way, why would Charm Person?
Why does the second paragraph need to exist at all? Is it exclusively so that the GM can punish the player when he tries to do something the spell isn't allowed to do?
Wrath: I somehow don't believe that an hour/level spell was meant to be used for months on end so that you could get your subject to do something. Do you really want to have your game devolve into having a player spend his time casting a single spell on the same guard every few hours for a month so that he can spend his free time convincing said guard to kill his king? Damn, just say "No, he refuses to attack his king", and the game can carry on.
Hell, you can use Diplomacy and spend a minute shifting said guard's attitude to helpful and then another couple rounds requesting that he kills his king, and arrive at the same conclusion much quicker when he inevitably tells you "No".