I've looked at some older threads on the subject and they are asking some slightly different questions.
I am curious as to the rule on when someone does or does not have the +5 bonus.
The spell says: "If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw."
I think this specific language is very important to how this should be ruled. It uses the language "Currently being threatened or attacked". Most people seem to rule this meaning combat.
I disagree for a few reasons. The first is the wording they chose. Threatened in Pathfinder has a different meaning than it would outside of that context, meaning you are in a square that is adjacent to someone who has a melee weapon and they are capable of attacking you.
The second reason is that when you compare that wording to another spell or ability it is in stark contrast. Hypnotism specifies "If you use this spell in combat...", and fascinate says any "hostile action...".
If they wanted charm person to be less effective in any combat situation I believe the wording would have been different, and it seems explicit to me.
So with that all being said- when do you feel charm person should be used with the +5 bonus and why?
"Threatened" doesn't necessarily mean "engaged in melee combat". It could also mean that your ranger buddy is standing beside you with an arrow cocked, aiming directly between your target's eyes. Your target would indeed get the +5 bonus in this case, too.
It can be a gray area, though; just because your allies have their weapons drawn doesn't necessarily mean that your charm person target is "threatened" by them. Heck - just because your allies are fighting your target's friends doesn't mean that the target gets the +5. It's a DM's call based on the situation, and common sense should govern whether or not the target gets the +5.
I don't believe the use of "threatened" in this context implies the reach of a melee weapon.
However, most situations where you have a weapon drawn next to a hostile creature would qualify as threatening. I just think it's more inclusive than that. You can't have an ally pointing a crossbow at someone's head and expect that they won't get the +5 just because it's not a melee weapon with a threat range and you haven't (yet) attacked.
The intention of the rules is pretty clear here.
My question then, is why did they use the language they used? The concept of something is threatened, but not actually threatened, makes the spell highly unstable.
I do agree that if you have someone tied up and are pointing an arrow at their head then they feel threatened, but what if no arrow- then can I cast my spell? okay so do I have to untie them to get the best effect?
If the idea is that you are being hostile, then why not use the word hostile?
I'm not trying to take control away from the GM, but it seems like there should be some level of consistency to how the spell works, and I think that should come from the way it is written.
I would never look for that level of consistency in the language of spells. You're going to see this issue a lot.
Recall that some of the language in the Core Rules has literally been around since 1978. While 3.0 was a major overhaul in many senses, it did not impart rigid orthogonality to the system. If that is what you're looking for, you might be looking for 4th edition (and I say this with no enmity to you or that edition).
I'm sure that if you asked the devs why, they'd lament the necessity of reserving natural language for game terms. I've heard it many times from them, and I totally relate to their position. Much of the CRB was inherited from the OGL SRD, and so the folks at Paizo had nothing to do with the choice of language; or at least they didn't have enough time to fix it before Pathfinder's release, which was on a deadline!
In general, if you're worried about an ambiguity, you should ask your GM before deciding to take or cast such a spell.
+1 to Evil Lincoln. Read each spell, feat, skill, rule, etc. as its own separate entity than expect that level of consistency with terms like "threatened" and "Reach" and so forth... you will find that while there is SOME consistency, it's not always perfect.
Also, you should consider that there is a high level of relativity in a Pathfinder game. While there are numerous rules to govern most things, the rules don't cover everything. Relativity = DM fiat. As to your example of tying someone up but NOT threatening to hurt them or kill them, this is one of those situations (i.e. a gray area). Situations like this rise all the time where the DM just has to make a judgement call.
Personally, I would go by Pathfinder's NPC attitude table (in the Diplomacy section). I would say that tying someone up would drop their attitude toward you by 1 point (usually indifferent to unfriendly), but they wouldn't take the -5 unless their attitude was hostile. Again, this would just be my personal take. The rules are mere guidelines to playing the game, but they should be used whenever the opportunity presents itself.
I can appreciate that to an extent- the reason I have a problem with it is in organized gameplay. You are working with a number of GM's and there should be a certain level of consistency involved as a result.
I don't disagree that there are things about this game that should be vague- I liked in 1st ed that you could pick whatever word for command you wanted to and then you figure it out from there.
That being said, because there is a lot of rigidity in this game in regards to how attacks can be made, how spells can be cast, and what the effects are I think that when in doubt we should look to the verbiage of the spell to determine what it should do.
In this case the wording is very specific- threatened or attacked. not combat, not hostile, not "unfriendly", not having just lost a bet with you, or anything else.
If I say you can get an attack of opportunity on any square you threaten that means something very specific. As it turns out that is the exact word they used in this spell.
I get your understanding of the spell, and when I read it I realized there was language in there that meant something different than what I thought it meant. If I cannot rely on words meaning something throughout the book then how do you play the game?
I have still not really heard anything that tells me why I should ignore the words as they are written, not intended, in this spell. If it was a home game that would be 1 thing but at a PFS game where you spend feats to get better at things and are either effective or useless based on GM fiat... well thats no good.