The wizard triggers a will save, SR, mind effecting and all sorts of other defenses like Protection From X
Skills requires target to have sentience.
so you favour caps. Thats fine, I was interested in giving the mere mortals a cookie.
If I were to do it, I would probably feat it and give a save dc based off half skill bonus. Probably have it work a number of times per day equal to your ability modifier. Even with huge circumstance bonuses, you would end up with something close to a high level spell.
I find it interesting that a character supremely skilled in Bluff might be able to (depending on the GM and how he interprets the bluff DC table) convince someone they're a lizard (if the other person failed his sense motive check). Presumably the duration would not be permanent as the person would most likely realize that he is, in fact, not a lizard at some point.
Whereas the caster can (pretty much independently of the GM, Baleful polymorph is explicit) physically turn that person into a lizard (if the other person failed his save).
I don't know... I've worked with patients who benefited massively from hypnotism in order to deal with phobias, for instance. By building on the "the greatest minds alive are level 6"-logic, a character with enough ranks and bonuses in Bluff should be able to pull off some pretty insane lies.
That would be terrible. is one of those things I totally discourage as a DM.Circumstance bonuses are within the rules. Most GM's do not like the idea that social skills are essentially mind control.
Me:"You are a lizard. Bluff check nat 20"
GM:"MY MIND!!!, slither slither"
Could you be more specific? WHY is that so terrible? Is it terrible because it is an evil act against a victim, or because the GM is letting his players go too far in the bending of the rules, or something else entirely?
We tend to run the skills as written.
You need bluff to convince other people that your lies are true.
You need diplomacy to improve NPC's attitudes without actions.
You need intimidate to scare someone into doing something for you. Although if you start stabbing them, they may decide to help you all by themselves.
The only area where we may house-rule is the diplomacy make request section. An NPC will either do this for you or they won't. No ones thought of using skill mind control to force people to become your thralls.
I run by the rule of cool. I won't penalize the players for not being eloquent, but I will give bonuses for eloquence or inspired social strategies. I will penalize or even auto fail someone for saying or doing something that is horribly inappropriate to the situation. Opposite is also true. If the player does or says something truly inspired in a social setting, they will succeed. I feel like this allows the players that want to role play more to role play more without worrying t punishing the players who want to just role dice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Polymorph any object and permanency. The existence of those 2 spells allows me to convince people that they are actually a rock.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not likely. You might well convince someone you can turn them into a rock but convincing them they are one when they can clearly see they are not sounds more than implausible.
How do they know they weren't a rock that was turned into a baby? Do they remember their own birth?
The difference between a lie that the target wants to believe (bluff +5) and a lie that the target knows is impossible (Bluff -20) is 25.
Your typical 1st level commoner has 1 rank in sense motive, a +3 trained bonus (he's a very suspicious commoner) and a +3 wisdom modifier because hey, why not.
His sense motive check is d20+7, and the highest he can roll is 27.
I did a quick experiment:
Human 7th level bard, 21 charisma.
Silver Tongued racial trait +2
7 ranks in bluff +10
Trait: Fast Talker +1
Feat: Skill Focus: Bluff +3
Feat: Deceitful +2
Charisma modifier +6
Spell: Eagle's Splendor +2
Spell: Glibness +20
Spell: Heroism +2
Item: Mask of Stony Demeanor +10
That's a total of +58 on bluff checks to tell a lie relying only on self-buffs and a 500 gp item. This is fairly moderate optimization - you can do significantly better if you put a bit more time into it than I did. However for this example +58 will do nicely.
So we take that d20+58, apply the -20 penalty for telling an impossible lie, and wind up with d20+38. The lowest we can roll is 39, which comfortably beats the commoner's best possible roll by 12.
Next comes the "some lies are so improbable" text under bluff - this is where world awareness comes in. Things that are utterly improbable in our world (I saw a dragon fly over the hill! Run for your lives!) is a statement that will be taken very seriously indeed in a campaign setting that does in fact have dragons.
Similarly, "you're actually a lizard that was polymorphed into a human being three score years ago - that's why your memories back then are so fuzzy! I've been searching for you for years in order to reverse the spell! Come with me if you want to live (as a lizard)!" is certainly out there, but in a world where being polymorphed into a lizard is a very real thing, I wouldn't call it "utterly" improbable - especially considering how comfortably the bluff check beat the SM check.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I disagree.
IMO the whole point of the game is to play a role of someone other than yourself. If you're not charming or persuasive, or a good judge of character, a high Cha, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive allows you to have those characteristics in game.
Removing these means that the more persuasive PLAYERS will be more persuasive in game, regardless of their character.
That's basically endorsing metagaming as the only way to persuade NPCs.
I don't think you have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that is essentially the same thing as a skill roll.
Player says X, outside force Y determines whether it succeeds or not.
Whether that outside force is fiat or a skill roll is irrelevant in effect, but I would rather have hard-coded rules that don't rely on subjective factors like whether the DM has decided if I have enough "social mastery" to pull it off.
For me the whole poin of the game is to play, no that your chracter play.
Then what's the point of having characters at all that are separate from the players?
There is no wrong way of playing but I just feel uncomfortable with the "social skill FTW" group of players. It seem like the only choices for the player comes in their chracter creation; the stats, the class, the race, feats, skill allocation. And then when all the numbers are writted there is not much than the player can do except to roll dices.
This is pretty much the worst possible light to put this in.
Nobody is saying "Lol all we do is walk into a room and roll some dice with no decision making or anything at all except dice", and you know that so stop pretending that's what people are saying.
What people are saying is that if your 24 Cha Sorcerer with a +32 Diplomacy can't convince a guy to escape a burning building because his player is a socially awkward, soft spoken person, something has gone wrong in a game.
That's an extreme case, but really illustrates the point well. A character's abilities and a player's abilities should remain separate, lest there not be any point in having characters or dice rolls at all.
A much severe case is when someone argue that a puzzle ( I mean an RPG style puzzle) should be resolved by rolling dices ("My wizard have 20 int, he shoudl be capable of solving this puzzle!"), I can just think "What?".
I think if the players can't figure it out, rather than halt the game and sit there in boredom for the rest of the night, the high Int characters should at least get a hint to move things along, yes.
The problem with that is twofold, I think.
First, it is highly subjective, as you said.
Secondly, and even worse in my eyes, it inherently locks the skill into the limits of human ability by putting them into categories that represent real people.
One of the main reasons, in my eyes, that casters are better than martials is because skills can't do much. They're mundane, spells are magical, and spells are therefore better in every way.
This makes that disparity even bigger by dropping one of the few skills that can, on very rare occasions, BREAK that glass ceiling back under it.
I honestly don't give a damn about "verisimilitude" in the way most people seem to. As long as the world makes sense under its OWN logic, I'm fine with it.
In a game where dragons fly, Sorcerers can suplex the space/time continuum, and interdimensional travel is quite possible, it doesn't break my verisimilitude at all that an insanely skilled diplomat can reach nearly mind control levels of skill.
That ENHANCES the experience in my eyes, not detracts from it.
When I say applying the Ransom filter, I basically do this to pretty much everything the PCs say and boil it down to what it actually means. Then I decide whether their character's level of social mastery is sufficient to carry the line they're trying to walk.
I can't imagine handling it in any other way.
But that is essentially the same thing as a skill roll.
No, it's not. It's judgment, not chance.
Player says X, outside force Y determines whether it succeeds or not.
One force is impartial, and could lead something that has no rights failing to fail, or could make something so bad it could never work into a success.
The other can use context and social cues to arrive at the answer without the risk of immersion-breaking outcomes.
Whether that outside force is fiat or a skill roll is irrelevant in effect, but I would rather have hard-coded rules that don't rely on subjective factors like whether the DM has decided if I have enough "social mastery" to pull it off.
This is a lack of trust in your GM. I am not going to say whether that is good or bad, it just is. If you believed you had a good GM, though, you would trust their judgment.
I know that when my players are immersed in their characters, I trust their judgment when it comes to their character's reactions far more than I trust any die roll in a social combat system. They likewise trust me to do the same for the NPCs.
Without trust like that, I fail to see how you can have an immersive, social game.
With only the dice governing social things, I can't help but picture high school kids playing out personal power fantasies. "I wrote down 18 next to Charisma on my character sheet--it feels so good for every woman to want me instead of those stupid jocks!"
Then what's the point of having characters at all that are separate from the players?
So you have different tools to worth with than you're used to. What's the point of role playing if you're not the one playing the role?
Edit: To clarify, if you're trying to make decisions as someone else would make them, then you're acting. Role playing to me is when you make decisions based on what you would do given those circumstances--granted, you're taking into account the character's entire background and upbringing and everything else, but the minute you look at it as his decision and not yours, you're not in the role anymore. You're out of it--there's no immersion. At that point, they are making decisions, and you're just trying to figure out what those are. It's a weird place for me to explore, psychologically.
What people are saying is that if your 24 Cha Sorcerer with a +32 Diplomacy can't convince a guy to escape a burning building because his player is a socially awkward, soft spoken person, something has gone wrong in a game.
And I'm saying two things:
1) If the socially awkward, soft spoken person can't manage to say anything at all even remotely in the realm of convincing when viewed coming from the mouth of a +32 Diplomacy character, then something is very wrong.
2) Having the socially awkward, soft spoken guy playing the social butterfly is a disaster, and will most likely lead me to being bored and frustrated.
And no, it is not like a fat guy playing the athletic Barbarian or Martial Artist, because the fat guy understands physical activity and has seen fighting in movies and crap and can describe it in an interesting fashion.
No, it is far more like the person who doesn't know a revolver from an assault rifle playing the "gun nut." Or a guy who can barely install programs on his computer playing "the hacker."
Heck, the party is going to be weaker for it, too, because the guy who doesn't really understand social situations won't jump to talking as his first reaction. Even though, with a +32 Diplomacy, he could probably talk his way out of any confrontation, he won't think about it--it won't be until there's a clear "hey, this is a talking thing" situation emerges (like negotiation, or if someone in the party suggests it).
People who are not good at fighting can know about fighting. People who are not good at socializing do not understand it, either, because understanding it is all you need to be good at it.
That's an extreme case, but really illustrates the point well. A character's abilities and a player's abilities should remain separate, lest there not be any point in having characters or dice rolls at all.
If they are separate, there can be no immersion. Personally, I prefer immersing in the character, as does everyone I enjoy roleplaying with. You're not wrong to play as you do--far from it if you enjoy yourself--but it is not something I would like one bit.
I think if the players can't figure it out, rather than halt the game and sit there in boredom for the rest of the night, the high Int characters should at least get a hint to move things along, yes.
I don't. I just think there should always be another way around other than solving the puzzle, that's all. I'd rather leave it unsolved than solve it with a die roll.
And coming up with hints that aren't give-aways for a puzzle is almost as hard as coming up with a puzzle in the first place.
Rules help facilitate role playing. Rules are not role playing in of themselves. Turning the talking aspect into dice checks only is a needless abstraction because most players can talk, while few players can fight with swords or cast spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One force is impartial, and could lead something that has no rights failing to fail, or could make something so bad it could never work into a success.
The other can use context and social cues to arrive at the answer without the risk of immersion-breaking outcomes.
The bolded makes it an inherently better judge than a fallible human being.
In a system like you're describing, if the GM doesn't like you...you can't do anything.
There are plenty of systems with little to no dice rolling already as well, making Pathfinder into one of them is reinventing the wheel for no reason.
This is a lack of trust in your GM. I am not going to say whether that is good or bad, it just is. If you believed you had a good GM, though, you would trust their judgment.
I don't trust a GM to never make a bad call. The more judgement calls somebody makes, the more likely they are to flub one at some point.
Dice don't flub. They are what they are.
I know that when my players are immersed in their characters, I trust their judgment when it comes to their character's reactions far more than I trust any die roll in a social combat system. They likewise trust me to do the same for the NPCs.
Except die rolls don't determine your character's reactions at all. They determine NPC reactions and attitudes.
With only the dice governing social things, I can't help but picture high school kids playing out personal power fantasies. "I wrote down 18 next to Charisma on my character sheet--it feels so good for every woman to want me instead of those stupid jocks!"
And without any mechanics governing what you can and can't do all I see is a bunch of elementary school kids going "I shot you!"
"No, you missed!"
"Nuh-uh!"
Hyperbole is fun!
So you have different tools to worth with than you're used to. What's the point of role playing if you're not the one filling that role?
If there are no mechanics backing up what you can do in-game, no, you don't have different tools to work with.
You have the same "tools" you always had, GM benevolence and your own natural persuasiveness to get him to rule in your favor.
And I'm saying two things:
1) If the socially awkward, soft spoken person can't manage to say anything at all even remotely in the realm of convincing when viewed coming from the mouth of a +32 Diplomacy character, then something is very wrong.
And who's to determine what is "even remotely in the realm of convincing"?
The GM. Who, as we've determined, is capable of making bad judgement calls.
2) Having the socially awkward, soft spoken guy playing the social butterfly is a disaster, and will most likely lead me to being bored and frustrated.
...
Heck, the party is going to be weaker for it, too, because the guy who doesn't really understand social situations won't jump to talking as his first reaction. Even though, with a +32 Diplomacy, he could probably talk his way out of any confrontation, he won't think about it--it won't be until there's a clear "hey, this is a talking thing" situation emerges (like negotiation, or if someone in the party suggests it).
People who are not good at fighting can know about fighting. People who are not good at socializing do not understand it, either, because understanding it is all you need to be good at it.
Incorrect. People are more comfortable among friends than they are in more open social situations.
I would presume that in a game, you are among friends. Otherwise, what is the point of playing?
At the very least, you are among people you will soon come to know as friends, which means that after a session or two you'll loosen up, start cracking jokes, and pay attention to when you can take advantage of your abilities.
There's a big difference between recognizing "I should do this" and having the courage and ability to actually DO that.
Just ask any 16 year old boy who wants to ask his crush out on a date.
He'll know what he SHOULD do, and when, and maybe even how. It's getting up the courage to actually DO it that's an issue.
If they are separate, there can be no immersion. Personally, I prefer immersing in the character, as does everyone I enjoy roleplaying with. You're not wrong to play as you do--far from it if you enjoy yourself--but it is not something I would like one bit.
The whole point of Role Playing is to Role Play as someone who is not you.
There is an inherent separation between the character and the player involved in this.
As well, I find it hilarious that you think if the character and the player are different there can be no immersion.
Because people who have been reading books, watching movies, playing video games, etc. for years and years would probably look at you like you'd grown a third head if you uttered that in their presence, as I just did.
The whole POINT of becoming immersed in something is to put yourself in someone else' shoes. Not your own shoes in a different setting.
As fairly simulationist gamers
As you can probably gather, I am not a simulationist. And this game is, as a whole, a bad simulation of any sort of reality.
Which is good. Reality is boring and tedious, even if that reality includes dragons. I don't want to have to deal with reality in my escapist entertainment, thanks.
I really don't see how, especially since Diplomacy doesn't work on actively hostile people or ones who want to harm you in the near future.
It just means they're unnaturally persuasive to normal people who are indifferent to them or even unfriendly.
That's ALL OVER fiction, the protagonist that can make friends with anybody, given enough time, or the con man who can convince a man to give him the shirt off his back if he wants.
You can "Go Care Bear" on your enemies and make them all your friends anyway, changed attitudes are usually temporary and takes great deal of time to do.
Really, it's not immersion breaking unless you WANT it to be.
|
I really have to agree with Rynjin here, this is living out a fantasy. If I have a mousy kid who wants to actually live the life of a smart talking Rogue who's well loved by everyone and quick with a verbal jab, I'll make one who has 18 charisma and ranks in social skills. This is a game to live out that fantasy, so I'm not going to make that person say every little clever thing that a person with those stats would.
The game is living out fantasies, and I don't see why that's being viewed in a negative light. I have a 14 year old kid playing in my games who would never be the outgoing person that their swashbuckling character is, but if they rolled a 27 against an NPC's 2, I'd tell them what happened, maybe feed them some words for their character to say so that they can both get used to how it feels to act like that and have more fodder for roleplaying.
Let someone who focuses on skills actually do something with them, instead of letting them cap out by about level 7. Maybe if they did, people wouldn't be complaining about the Rogue's niche being stolen by low level spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bolded makes it an inherently better judge than a fallible human being.
I disagree completely. A fallible judge is better than one that can't fully consider the circumstances and the complexities of social situations, or even just the flow of the game.
And besides, just as with computers where the data going in has to be good for the data coming out to be, the rules are what informs the dice, and they were written by fallible people. The dice are just as fallible as any GM, then. I happen to trust GMs I'm sitting across the table from more than people I've never met that wrote the game.
In a system like you're describing, if the GM doesn't like you...you can't do anything.
Why are you roleplaying with someone that doesn't like you? Why are you roleplaying with someone so petty as to penalize you in a game for something that happened outside of it? Why would you want that person as your GM?
I'm sorry, I'm not criticizing, just confused. I would only want to roleplay with people I liked.
There are plenty of systems with little to no dice rolling already as well, making Pathfinder into one of them is reinventing the wheel for no reason.
I make all of them like that, but only when it comes to social situations. I appreciate more complexity in other aspects of play.
I don't trust a GM to never make a bad call. The more judgement calls somebody makes, the more likely they are to flub one at some point.
Dice don't flub. They are what they are.
And yet, I don't think rules have been written yet that handle social situations as well as a partial, fallible arbiter.
Except die rolls don't determine your character's reactions at all. They determine NPC reactions and attitudes.
No, not in Pathfinder. I thought we were talking about systems with social combat--was I mistaken? Those systems always enforce reactions on the PCs.
And without any mechanics governing what you can and can't do all I see is a bunch of elementary school kids going "I shot you!"
"No, you missed!"
"Nuh-uh!"
Hyperbole is fun!
Hyperbole is fun. However, there are two separate things at work here.
First, the situation above ("I shot you!" "No, you missed!") is instantly solved by a 3rd party mutually chosen to decide whether the shot landed or not (i.e. The GM).
Second, I never suggested taking dice away from situations that could not be played out at the table. I remove dice only from things the players can actually do. That means talking and puzzle solving, for the most part.
If there are no mechanics backing up what you can do in-game, no, you don't have different tools to work with.
You have the same "tools" you always had, GM benevolence and your own natural persuasiveness to get him to rule in your favor.
That is a pessimistic way to look at it. And it seems again that you're extending my suggestions beyond social situations, where they were never meant to go. You do have different tools, though, even in those situations, because mechanics are not the only tools. You have different knowledges, you have different connections, you have different relationships, different hopes and fears--almost everything is different.
And who's to determine what is "even remotely in the realm of convincing"?
The GM. Who, as we've determined, is capable of making bad judgement calls.
I find that the dice are, too, and I trust a GM more than the dice.
He'll know what he SHOULD do, and when, and maybe even how. It's getting up the courage to actually DO it that's an issue.
Then he's not actually bad at socializing, he just lacks confidence. And he'd do fine without social mechanics, because of all the reasons you listed.
As well, I find it hilarious that you think if the character and the player are different there can be no immersion.Because people who have been reading books, watching movies, playing video games, etc. for years and years would probably look at you like you'd grown a third head if you uttered that in their presence, as I just did.
That is a different kind of immersion. That is generally more environmental immersion. You read Tolkein, and you feel like you're there in Middle Earth. You watch Game of Thrones, and you can see Westeros. But you don't feel like you are Bilbo Baggins or Tyrion Lannister.
The whole POINT of becoming immersed in something is to put yourself in someone else' shoes. Not your own shoes in a different setting.
I see the point of immersion as filling those shoes yourself. While you are at the table, you are that character. You are not sitting outside of them, figuring out what they might do, you are simplying doing, and it is right because you two are one in the same. That is immersion to me.
As you can probably gather, I am not a simulationist.
I am not a simulationist, either. I am far more interested in verisimilitude. I'd rather something be believable than correct. Internal consistency is far more valuable than mimicking real life. But this has little to do with the fact that I don't like social combat.
I like social skills because they allow my character to do things you can't do.
Just like I don't need to be a body-builder with anger issues to play a Barbarian, I shouldn't need to be charming and well-spoken to play a Bard.
Remember: We may not be the idiotic dorks painted by Hollywood and general Pop Culture, but RPG players are not exactly known for their amazing social skills either.
Also, ignoring social skills makes Charisma even weaker, and it's already the weakest stat in the game.
That said, I like to lower the difficulty for more trivial stuff, so that even a Fighter with Cha 7 can ask the time without needing a roll.
I'd also like that the rules for social skills specifically mentioned something like "The GM is encourage to grant a small bonus to skill checks as a reward for good role-play".
This is kinda what happens for Bluff (Some lies have better chances of succeeding, and it's you, not your character sheet, who decides what exactly your character is saying during his Bluff check).
I prefer a middle ground between "Social skills do everything" and "Social skills are unnecessary".
I think I mentioned this before, but that's how I do it.
1- I don't request social rolls for everyday stuff... You don't need Diplomacy to ask what time is it, you don't need Intimidate to scare peasants when your character is covered with scars and magic weapons and you don't need Bluff if the NPC has no reason or interest in doubting your words (The shady merchant may not believe "Blank" is your real name, but he doesn't care either).
2- I give nice bonuses for good role play. +2 and +4 are easy to get, but do an excellent job at interpreting your character's words and you might get even higher bonus (+8 and +10 are not unheard of).
3- Never give any penalty for bad acting. Some players are simply not capable/interested in role playing social situations. There's nothing wrong with that and they shouldn't be penalized for it. Besides, giving penalties makes role-players less likely to role-play out of fear of saying something wrong and receiving penalties.
So unless the player says something EXTREMELY stupid ("Please, save my life... And I will kill your family and burn your house!"), no penalties. And even if they do say that kind of insane non-sense, give them the old "Are you sure?" so they know something is wrong and can change their wording.
4- Make all these rules clear to your players.
Ditto what Lemmy said
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My houserule is just to make social skills more difficult (higher DCs) and then give circumstance bonuses based on roleplaying.
That way if you get SOME benefit from roleplaying well, but as Rynjin supposed, if you're a bit timid at roleplaying you can just take Skill Focus or have a higher Cha and be okay.
I like to reward, not require.
Ditto what Lemmy said
Wait... Marthkus and I agree on something?
Man, the weirdest things happen in the internet...
My houserule is just to make social skills more difficult (higher DCs) and then give circumstance bonuses based on roleplaying.
That way if you get SOME benefit from roleplaying well, but as Rynjin supposed, if you're a bit timid at roleplaying you can just take Skill Focus or have a higher Cha and be okay.
I like to reward, not require.
But if you increase the DCs, then the benefit from role-playing merely nullifies those penalties, so in the end, there no benefit for role-players, just penalties for shy players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah.
I don't raise the DCs, but I do give circumstance bonuses for good arguments (but they have to make sense in context).
But if you increase the DCs, then the benefit from role-playing merely nullifies those penalties, so in the end, there no benefit for role-players, just penalties for shy players.
I increase the DCs because I think they're too low to begin with. The most outrageous feats are possible with little to no effort.
If I give bonuses to roleplay withOUT increasing the base DCs, I'm merely making it even more stupendously easy for those feats to occur, and at lower levels.
Tying back into the main topic, why is it terribad for skills to be able to do semi-cool things fairly easily if you invest enough in it and roll well, but okay for casters to go "Lol, I cast a spell" and do them one better?
Tying back into the main topic, why is it terribad for skills to be able to do semi-cool things fairly easily if you invest enough in it and roll well, but okay for casters to go "Lol, I cast a spell" and do them one better?
I'm all for high skill rolls being able to achieve the impossible or maybe even recreate magical or supernatural effects as extraordinary abilities. Epic DCs is one thing 3.5 did right.
Tying back into the main topic, why is it terribad for skills to be able to do semi-cool things fairly easily if you invest enough in it and roll well, but okay for casters to go "Lol, I cast a spell" and do them one better?I have always wanted Skill tricks for rogues that let them do more with skill that what is now possible.
But What are those semi-cool tings? Because mental domination if I have high enough diplomacy would be immediately banned in my games. With things like this a NPC do not need Dominate person to control the actions of your character, he just need high enough Bluff.
Hmmm... This could actually be balanced, but it'd would need a few limitations...
1- It should require a minimum number of skill ranks in Diplomacy or whatever skill you find better appropriate (I'd use Bluff for Illusion effects), so a hyper-specialized 1st level character doesn't get it too soon. For a "Charm Person" effect, 5 skill ranks seems reasonable, since it's a 1st level spell.
2- It should allow a will save (DC = 10 + 1/2 skill ranks in Diplomacy + Cha modifier?), and whether or not the target makes it saves, it can't be the target of this ability again for 24h... Just like a Witch's Hex.
3- It should be considered a Charm (or Compulsion) effect despite being an (Ex) ability, so that appropriate bonuses and immunities apply.