A good display how charm person is not just diplomacy is to contrast it with the witch charm hex. The hex works with diplomacy and states this to increase the target's attitude by two steps. Then you can use diplomacy per normal use. Charm does not have this direct tie to diplomacy whatsoever. You can issue orders, even weird ones with a charisma check. If it were meant to be diplomacy+ it would say so like the hex does.Actually it does. The first sentance is
"This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly)."
What is "Friendly" as a starting attitude referencing.
You can always make a Charisma check to give an order, as it governs ability to lead. Most people don't like to roll social interactions, but if a general is shouting out for the men to charge into the breach, if there was any debate as to if the NPCs would do it, that would be what would make the most sense to me to roll.
And what of my example?Which one?
The one I posted earlier. The same one I directly quoted you from and even linked to. If you want to see it scroll. Then again you have a tendency to outright ignore what I say and have done so multiple times. If you want it go find it yourself. TLDR: Paizo used it to get someone else to kill their former adventuring ally.
|
Diplomacy.A good display how charm person is not just diplomacy is to contrast it with the witch charm hex. The hex works with diplomacy and states this to increase the target's attitude by two steps. Then you can use diplomacy per normal use. Charm does not have this direct tie to diplomacy whatsoever. You can issue orders, even weird ones with a charisma check. If it were meant to be diplomacy+ it would say so like the hex does.Actually it does. The first sentance is
"This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly)."
What is "Friendly" as a starting attitude referencing.
You can always make a Charisma check to give an order, as it governs ability to lead. Most people don't like to roll social interactions, but if a general is shouting out for the men to charge into the breach, if there was any debate as to if the NPCs would do it, that would be what would make the most sense to me to roll.
Correct,that phrase is referring to Diplomacy.
Nice to see you've come around to agreeing with me.
|
|
The one I posted earlier. The same one I directly quoted you from and even linked to. If you want to see it scroll. Then again you have a tendency to outright ignore what I say and have done so multiple times. If you want it go find it yourself. TLDR: Paizo used it to get someone else to kill their former adventuring ally.And what of my example?Which one?
If you aren't even going to bother take the time to say what you are talking about, or better yet link to what you are talking about, why would I take the time to try and find it?
I honestly am not ignoring you, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Scroll up back a page or two. I've already done this. I'm not doing it again.
I don't exist to serve you, mate. Fact remains: Paizo used charm person to kill a previous ally.
Correct,that phrase is referring to Diplomacy.
Nice to see you've come around to agreeing with me.
Yep. That's 'cause requesting that soldiers go once more into the breach is making a request via Diplomacy unless you're threatening them with authority to get in line and get back to the war, which would be Intimidate.
Charm allows you to give an order that will be carried out barring extreme conditions by an opposed Charisma check which is quite clearly not Diplomacy.
|
|
Correct,that phrase is referring to Diplomacy.
Nice to see you've come around to agreeing with me.
Yep. That's 'cause requesting that soldiers go once more into the breach is making a request via Diplomacy unless you're threatening them with authority to get in line and get back to the war, which would be Intimidate.
Charm allows you to give an order that will be carried out barring extreme conditions by an opposed Charisma check which is quite clearly not Diplomacy.
I didn't see the words "extreme conditions"
Pop quiz.
"You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem."
Where is that from and what does that describe?
I didn't see the words "extreme conditions"
That's 'cause I'm referring to the dev commentary about suicide. I consider that pretty extreme.
Pop quiz.
"You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem."
Where is that from and what does that describe?
Not charm. It describes Diplomacy and can be used with charm (which makes Diplomacy significantly easier and often unneeded). However when you give an order with charm you and your minion make opposed Charisma checks if the minion wants to refuse to see if he does or not.
Anyone with eyes in their head can tell that is not Diplomacy. What are you trying to prove beyond how grossly you can twist and screw up the mechanics?
What continues to amaze me is how the pro charm==dominate crowd completely refuse to acknowledge that their ruling turns a level 1 spell into a level 5 spell effect.
In what world is that balanced?
|
|
I didn't see the words "extreme conditions"That's 'cause I'm referring to the dev commentary about suicide. I consider that pretty extreme.
Actually, he used "tilling a field" as an example of a behavior that was against the nature of an Orc, and would therefore require a charisma check.
Then later, when pressed if it was even possible to get them to kill a loved one he said that the person might kill themselves, even if you succeeded on the roll, rather than do the behavior, because the charmed person isn't a puppet.
Is there any part of what I just wrote that is an inaccurate description of the series of posts from the Dev?
What continues to amaze me is how the pro charm==dominate crowd completely refuse to acknowledge that their ruling turns a level 1 spell into a level 5 spell effect.
In what world is that balanced?
In my opinion? Its not at all. Worse yet is the idea that you absolutely have to do something with a charisma check no matter how ridiculous, and that a viable solution to "This is awful..." is "I think I'll just coup de grace myself! YEAH!". Level 1 save or die. Granted ashe is saying you need a dozen saves and checks and thats how its balanced, but my god thats horrifying for a first level spell that makes you friendly and charms someone!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't see the words "extreme conditions"That's 'cause I'm referring to the dev commentary about suicide. I consider that pretty extreme.
Actually, he used "tilling a field" as an example of a behavior that was against the nature of an Orc, and would therefore require a charisma check.
Then later, when pressed if it was even possible to get them to kill a loved one he said that the person might kill themselves, even if you succeeded on the roll, rather than do the behavior, because the charmed person isn't a puppet.
Is there any part of what I just wrote that is an inaccurate description of the series of posts from the Dev?
This is actually one reason I like SKR. JJ was pushed into a corner and simply refused to give a direct answer and instead gave an especially ill-conceived example of not following even a successful opposed charisma check that was so extreme that it actually didn't answer anything and just fed the flames.
I completely understand why he and the other devs (and even SKR on occasion) use this passive-aggressive nonanswer-answer technique, and I sympathize with them for having to deal with such aggressive exploit happy players, but I still wish they'd just answer a simple straightforward question with a simple straightforward answer instead of trying to channel Yoda on zoloft.
In my opinion? Its not at all. Worse yet is the idea that you absolutely have to do something with a charisma check no matter how ridiculous, and that a viable solution to "This is awful..." is "I think I'll just coup de grace myself! YEAH!". Level 1 save or die. Granted ashe is saying you need a dozen saves and checks and thats how its balanced, but my god thats horrifying for a first level spell that makes you friendly and charms someone!What continues to amaze me is how the pro charm==dominate crowd completely refuse to acknowledge that their ruling turns a level 1 spell into a level 5 spell effect.
In what world is that balanced?
Hey, if it wasn't RAI (rules as intended) Jason wouldn't have said it.
|
|
What continues to amaze me is how the pro charm==dominate crowd completely refuse to acknowledge that their ruling turns a level 1 spell into a level 5 spell effect.
In what world is that balanced?
Nothing is ever unbalanced in their games, except classes that can't keep up with the broken.
MOAR POWER!
Hey, if it wasn't RAI (rules as intended) Jason wouldn't have said it.
I don't think thats how that works, but I don't like to give my opinion on the devs or people in general. The game sure, but not the devs or people.
In my opinion? Its not at all. Worse yet is the idea that you absolutely have to do something with a charisma check no matter how ridiculous, and that a viable solution to "This is awful..." is "I think I'll just coup de grace myself! YEAH!". Level 1 save or die. Granted ashe is saying you need a dozen saves and checks and thats how its balanced, but my god thats horrifying for a first level spell that makes you friendly and charms someone!What continues to amaze me is how the pro charm==dominate crowd completely refuse to acknowledge that their ruling turns a level 1 spell into a level 5 spell effect.
In what world is that balanced?
I don't know where Ashiel is getting the idea you have multiple saves for charm anyway. The spell says you get a save and if you fail you are charmed. If you are then asked to do something you would not do, you make opposed cha checks and if you fail, you do it.
The idea that this is more difficult than failing two will saves is completely arbitrary. Whether an opposed cha check is easier or harder to succeed than a will save depends on the caster and the target. In many, many cases the opposed cha check is going to be harder for the target than a will save for "dominate" would be.
The charm school description itself has additional mechanics. Someone else can check for me, I'm feeling particularly lazy today and I've cracked open more than enough books.
In some cases your victim is just rolling for 20s. Thats just nasty.
Edit: her post below me clarifies it really well actually. Thanks ashe! Pretty stars.
In my opinion? Its not at all. Worse yet is the idea that you absolutely have to do something with a charisma check no matter how ridiculous, and that a viable solution to "This is awful..." is "I think I'll just coup de grace myself! YEAH!". Level 1 save or die. Granted ashe is saying you need a dozen saves and checks and thats how its balanced, but my god thats horrifying for a first level spell that makes you friendly and charms someone!What continues to amaze me is how the pro charm==dominate crowd completely refuse to acknowledge that their ruling turns a level 1 spell into a level 5 spell effect.
In what world is that balanced?
I don't know where Ashiel is getting the idea you have multiple saves for charm anyway. The spell says you get a save and if you fail you are charmed. If you are then asked to do something you would not do, you make opposed cha checks and if you fail, you do it.
The idea that this is more difficult than failing two will saves is completely arbitrary. Whether an opposed cha check is easier or harder to succeed than a will save depends on the caster and the target. In many, many cases the opposed cha check is going to be harder for the target than a will save for "dominate" would be.
From the *** ****ed ****** ****ing rules for charm effects I've quoted since the ****** ****ing beginning of this conversation, which I've referenced repeatedly through this *** ****ed thread full of people who refuse to listen to a **** thing and keep saying I'm saying stuff that I'm not. Because of this, we all get pretty little stars to look at instead of words! :D
A charmed creature doesn't gain any magical ability to understand his new friend's language.
A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.
A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight with an actual friend).
A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.
A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.
If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.
A charmed character who is openly attacked by the creature who charmed him or by that creature's apparent allies is automatically freed of the spell or effect.
|
|
A charmed creature doesn't gain any magical ability to understand his new friend's language.A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.
A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight with an actual friend).
A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.
A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.
If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.
A charmed character who is openly attacked by the creature who charmed him or by that creature's apparent allies is automatically freed of the spell or effect.
FTFY
EDIT: Also you "forgot"
"Charming another creature gives the charming character the ability to befriend and suggest courses of action to his minion, but the servitude is not absolute or mindless. Charms of this type include the various charm spells and some monster abilities. Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world."
And
"Compulsion is a different matter altogether. A compulsion overrides the subject's free will in some way or simply changes the way the subject's mind works. A charm makes the subject a friend of the caster; a compulsion makes the subject obey the caster."
Honest oversight I am sure. You are welcome!
In my opinion? Its not at all. Worse yet is the idea that you absolutely have to do something with a charisma check no matter how ridiculous, and that a viable solution to "This is awful..." is "I think I'll just coup de grace myself! YEAH!". Level 1 save or die. Granted ashe is saying you need a dozen saves and checks and thats how its balanced, but my god thats horrifying for a first level spell that makes you friendly and charms someone!What continues to amaze me is how the pro charm==dominate crowd completely refuse to acknowledge that their ruling turns a level 1 spell into a level 5 spell effect.
In what world is that balanced?
I don't know where Ashiel is getting the idea you have multiple saves for charm anyway. The spell says you get a save and if you fail you are charmed. If you are then asked to do something you would not do, you make opposed cha checks and if you fail, you do it.
The idea that this is more difficult than failing two will saves is completely arbitrary. Whether an opposed cha check is easier or harder to succeed than a will save depends on the caster and the target. In many, many cases the opposed cha check is going to be harder for the target than a will save for "dominate" would be.
From the *** ****ed ****** ****ing rules for charm effects I've quoted since the ****** ****ing beginning of this conversation, which I've referenced repeatedly through this *** ****ed thread full of people who refuse to listen to a **** thing and keep saying I'm saying stuff that I'm not. Because of this, we all get pretty little stars to look at instead of words! :D
...A charmed creature doesn't gain any magical ability to understand his new friend's language.
A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his
Does it actually say that the affected individual DOES the thing that provokes the save to break the charm completely?
Ashiel, your rules quotation is not from the spell, it's from the "special abilities" section, which may or may not refer to spells.
Also, that section which you are quoting also says this: "Compulsion is a different matter altogether. A compulsion overrides the subject's free will in some way or simply changes the way the subject's mind works. A charm makes the subject a friend of the caster; a compulsion makes the subject obey the caster."
So I have to parrot ciretose here and say that you have an amazing capacity for quoting the rules you agree with and ignoring those you don't.
I would like to hear a developer say what the ruling is on how to rule on "charm person". Do we use the literal rules as written in the spell (which do not describe any second charisma effect) or do we go with the "special abilities" section you quoted which do?
Even so, for many charisma optimized characters succeeding with TWO opposed charisma checks is still likely to be more successful than a will save in some cases.
Does it actually say that the affected individual DOES the thing that provokes the save to break the charm completely?
Yeah.
"A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed." If he fails then he does it. If he succeeds then he decides not to. It is either or.
Also Ciretose again highlights things that are of 0% relevancy and do not contradict the rules for charm at all. Charm does not contradict itself. All facts apply.
|
|
Does it actually say that the affected individual DOES the thing that provokes the save to break the charm completely?Yeah.
"A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed." If he fails then he does it. If he succeeds then he decides not to. It is either or.
Also Ciretose again highlights things that are of 0% relevancy and do not contradict the rules for charm at all. Charm does not contradict itself. All facts apply.
"Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world." does not apply?
Really?
Is that why you didn't include it? Because I thought it was because it directly contradicts your argument.
Does it actually say that the affected individual DOES the thing that provokes the save to break the charm completely?Yeah.
"A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed." If he fails then he does it. If he succeeds then he decides not to. It is either or.
Also Ciretose again highlights things that are of 0% relevancy and do not contradict the rules for charm at all. Charm does not contradict itself. All facts apply.
Ashiel, you are misreading the question. The question is whether the SECOND charisma check action is performed. The description doesn't say whether it is or not, just that if the second opposed charisma check fails, the subject is no longer charmed.
One other point Ashiel. In the "special abilities" rules you posted, it's not necessary, even for the final charisma check, for there to be more than one opposed charisma check. If you charm someone and IMMEDIATELY ask them to perform something they would be "violently opposed to", then they go right to the final opposed charisma check, and if they succeed, they are no longer charmed. But if they fail, it is not clear to me that they do the action, they may just remain charmed, but refuse to do it.
There's no second opposed charisma check. There's an additional will save that goes along with an opposed charisma check if you attempt to give your thrall an order that they're violently opposed to.
If the save is successful they're no longer charmed, if it fails they remain charmed.
If the opposed charisma check is successful your thrall obeys your command, if it fails they ignore your command but remain charmed.
Ah, sorry, right you are Aratrok. The last check is a second will save.
That would mean that it would be easier to save against charm than dominate just due to the spell level modifier, but that's still not enough to convince me it's not overpowered to rule this way.
Well, whether it's overpowered or not isn't really the question. If your group feels it's overpowered they can house rule it.
The issue's just that some people are confused about what the spell actually does sans-house rules.
Ah, sorry, right you are Aratrok. The last check is a second will save.
That would mean that it would be easier to save against charm than dominate just due to the spell level modifier, but that's still not enough to convince me it's not overpowered to rule this way.
AD, I'm not here to argue with you as to what you do or do not consider overpowered. I don't believe it is overpowered, you do. If you recall we had a very lengthy conversation months ago as to your opinion that a ring of sustenance was overpowered. Also, despite the fact you keep saying it, charm is not identical to the 5th+ level dominate. I keep saying this but you keep ignoring me. I'm sorry.
If you think it's overpowered, I'm sorry. House rule it. I don't want to fight with you about it. I do however want to talk about charm and talk about charm as it is in the core rules. Where it works as it says it does, and talk about the evil nefarious things you can do with it as would be in keeping with the thread. Then after that, maybe we could talk about the great ways you could use charm to do good things, yeah?
|
|
Not dealing with the "Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world." part?
I mean, you quoted most of the rest of the section, I thought you felt what is included there would be relevant.
Or is it only the parts that don't contradict your argument?
And should that screwed view of the world include killing one's family per the caster?
The difference between compelled to do something and convinced to do something due to a skewed worldview is the same as the difference between having a +1 bonus to hit because of weapon training and having a +1 bonus to hit because your weapon is masterwork.
The fluff and source are different, the end result is the same. :)
And should that screwed view of the world include killing one's family per the caster?Only with a hella high roll or very interesting circumstances, I would expect.
Hell, they might just kill themselves rather than do something like that, it isn't like they are a puppet or something.
Negative. It would be outside their character so would simply be a charisma check per the spell.
Then, we're right back at Jason's example. The target can do what they want as a result of how the caster has shaped their world but it doesn't mean they have any less view that doing such a thing is a good idea. They may hate themselves for it and run away, off themselves, etc rather than going through with it but they still think it.
|
|
The difference between compelled to do something and convinced to do something due to a skewed worldview is the same as the difference between having a +1 bonus to hit because of weapon training and having a +1 bonus to hit because your weapon is masterwork.
The fluff and source are different, the end result is the same. :)
Not really. Again, imagine as a player having the different effects on your character and the differences become fairly stark.
|
|
And should that screwed view of the world include killing one's family per the caster?Only with a hella high roll or very interesting circumstances, I would expect.
Hell, they might just kill themselves rather than do something like that, it isn't like they are a puppet or something.
Negative. It would be outside their character so would simply be a charisma check per the spell.
Then, we're right back at Jason's example. The target can do what they want as a result of how the caster has shaped their world but it doesn't mean they have any less view that doing such a thing is a good idea. They may hate themselves for it and run away, off themselves, etc rather than going through with it but they still think it.
Jason's second answer, which followed the chain of discussion I described above that no one has contested so far.
No, not really. In both cases your character is acting due to magic affecting their mind.
If you're playing a druid and you get charmed into clearcutting a forest and burning the lumber I'm not going to make you lose your powers; you didn't make that choice, you were convinced to do it due to magic clouding your mind.
|
|
No, not really. In both cases your character is acting due to magic affecting their mind.
If you're playing a druid and you get charmed into clearcutting a forest and burning the lumber I'm not going to make you lose your powers; you didn't make that choice, you were convinced to do it due to magic clouding your mind.
But how are you going to convince a druid to burn down a forest?
Compelled, sure. But charmed they still have free will.
With a charisma check. Like it says in the spell description. :)
That part that you conveniently ignore while simultaneously accusing other people of ignoring things that they're explicitly mentioning.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With your Charisma modifiers.
|
Not dealing with the "Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world." part?
I mean, you quoted most of the rest of the section, I thought you felt what is included there would be relevant.
Or is it only the parts that don't contradict your argument?
Yet with a failed cha check they have NO CHOICE but to obey.....
With your Charisma modifiers.
Best answer ever. XD
|
|
Yet with a failed cha check they have NO CHOICE but to obey.....Not dealing with the "Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world." part?
I mean, you quoted most of the rest of the section, I thought you felt what is included there would be relevant.
Or is it only the parts that don't contradict your argument?
Really. Because that is the opposite of what that says. And what "not a puppet" means.
Funny that.