| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry if this has been answered already, but I keep having this situation come up over and over and a new curve ball has been thrown in and I am hoping to get something official. Sorry also for the length. For your reference the errata I will be referring to is here: Go to http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5ldw0?The-FAQ-That-Time-Forgot.
So this keeps coming up with Charm person as there seems to be multiple of these sorcerer caster running around who by level 6 are rocking a +9 or 10 to their charisma checks on controlling beasties, and its causing lots of upheavals.
So this was quoted at the table:
"Charm person makes a humanoid "friendly" to you, as per the rules found in the Diplomacy skill, but it also allows you to issue orders to the target, making an opposed Charisma check to convince the target to do something that it would not normally do. How does that work?
The charm person spell (and charm monster by extension) makes the target your friend. It will treat you kindly (although maybe not your allies) and will generally help you as long as your interests align. This is mostly in the purview of the GM. If you ask the creature to do something that it would not normally do (in relation to your friendship), that is when the opposed Charisma check comes into play. For example, if you use charm person to befriend an orc, the orc might share his grog with you and talk with you about the upcoming raid on a nearby settlement. If you asked him to help you fight some skeletons, he might very well lend a hand. If you asked him to help you till a field, however, you might need to make that check to convince him to do it.
That about wraps it up for this week. Keep those questions coming.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer"
.
To which the GM said bull on that and said you still can't make someone attacks its friends. Seems legit, as I can see a first level spell thats stronger than dominate for a sorcerer and the GM waving it. So then this from further down was quoted:
The charm answer didn't really clear things up for me; the example of tilling a field is still within the vague range of something a friend might do for you. How about ordering a man to murder his wife and children?Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness. Tilling a field might really depend on the creature (I dont think Orcs care much for farming), but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check, and might not even work (the creature might take its own life instead, its not your puppet after all).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Ok, so the first part of reference is: but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check, and might not even work.
Ok, seems legit, you can make it attack a friend, but it still has free will so can take its own life, or maybe even find another way out of the situation, not sure what but maybe someone clever could. Ok, but then the GM called this part out: Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness.
He said that line made it so the GM could say Charm doesn't work like that in certain situations. He did say you could, command it to leave the battlefield, but not attack an ally. That seems legit, but according to what I'm reading it says "GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness." which sounds like it is in favor of the GM deciding WHEN opposed charisma checks are used, but not what for.
Really just trying to get a handle on this. It comes up over and over in multiple games as many people have adopted this dominate character recently and I'd like to know how it work, officially, for PFS. Thank You.
|
You aren't going to get an official PFS ruling on a game rule.
Essentially, expect table variation.
But I'm going to lean towards most GM's not allowing you to use Charm Person to attack an ally. No check, just nope, guy isn't going to do it (that is unless in his character description it says he secretly hates his allies).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What would your friend do for you? If I asked my friend to help me murder his other friends, best case he laugh it off and tell me I needed to see a shrink. I could try to convince him (opposed charisma check) that it really was a good idea, but even if he fails the check, he's just going to be convinced that I'm nuts.
At least that's how it would go at my table.
|
You're not going to get a consensus on how charms and compulsions affect the target. We have a hard enough time agreeing on rules that are much more clearly defined, and this one is specifically written with ambiguity. The best you can do is adjudicate how YOU feel is appropriate based on the situation. It is also very important that any player using this theme is aware that GM adjudications are going to widely differ and they should not get combative if the ruling goes against them.
A good piece of advice to all players that consider playing "borderline" PCs is if you're not prepared to accept the GMs position on said ambiguous rules, don't play that character. No one wants/needs conflict at a social gaming table especially when those involved are strangers. And GM does not need the added pressure of being the "bad guy" because s/he ruled against you. Playing a character who employs ambiguous rules can certainly be fun, but from time to time, it isn't going to work the way you want it to. Suck it up or play a different PC.
I agree with all that, but there is still: but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check, and might not even work (the creature might take its own life instead, its not your puppet after all). which is where the ambiguity surfaces again. Does he have to kill himself then if he doesn't want to follow through with the act? Based off my literal reading of the FAQ is yes he does, but it is a little vague.
For the record I tend to hope the ruling is against charm because it just wrecks so many games I've been a part of, but knowing what should happen would be very useful, especially with the frequency that this keeps coming up for me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've personally always thought the "I charm him to attack his allies" was the worst idea one could come up with for Charm Person anyways. There are so many other creative and useful possibilities for that spell. Turning it into Murderous Command shouldn't be first on your list.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
He was wrong*. That dichotomy (kill your loved ones or find a way out of it) has never been how charm worked. That would make it stronger than dominate which only allows a new save against things contrary to the creature's nature and flat out can't make them kill themselves.
*Obviously, he's the lead designer so he can't be "wrong." But I feel it was a bad ruling that caused more confusion than it solved.
Well, I've seen it used a lot to get "pets" too. You charm a person here and a monster there and soon you have a small army going with you into every combat. And with a +10 charisma, and most things having a -1 to a +1 modifier, its like a master summoner only stronger, because they can still summon too, and take guys out of the fight.
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
stop reading subjective opinions as matter of fact A+B = C.
This is ambiguous. Each GM must and is specifically allowed, to make their own determination based on the circumstances at hand, how charm person will work at their table.
This isn't, "Either I convince my new "friend" to kill his other friends, or he must kill himself." I can see that getting abused big time.
It is:
Player: GM I cast charm person on that guy.
GM: Ok, he fails his save, he's now your friend.
Player: Ok, I command him to kill the lady sorcerer over there.
GM: He looks at you quizzically, "But my friend, you want me to kill my wife? Why?!"
Player: Hah! He has to kill himself now, the FAQ says so.
GM: Get off my table.
|
|
He's offering examples, but even those are situational and not intended to be absolutes. There may be times that a charmed target would be willing to kill someone that would otherwise be considered a friend, family, loved-one, etc., but not in most cases. Remember, charm person does not make the target an automaton, just more receptive to suggestion. I doubt you'll get a paladin to go in with you on a burglary, but a rogue just might, even if the target is a friend, etc.
The point is that there are no absolutes with regards to charm. It is very situation and dependent on the attitude and motivations of the target.
My barbarian has had a few cases where a disruptive and combative character got on his nerves and might have suffered if I was charmed. PvP be damned ;-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stop reading subjective opinions as matter of fact A+B = C.
This is ambiguous. Each GM must and is specifically allowed, to make their own determination based on the circumstances at hand, how charm person will work at their table.
This isn't, "Either I convince my new "friend" to kill his other friends, or he must kill himself." I can see that getting abused big time.
It is:
Player: GM I cast charm person on that guy.
GM: Ok, he fails his save, he's now your friend.
Player: Ok, I command him to kill the lady sorcerer over there.
GM: He looks at you quizzically, "But my friend, you want me to kill my wife? Why?!"
Player: Hah! He has to kill himself now, the FAQ says so.
GM: Get off my table.
I agree, a better way to handle this scenario would be...
Player: GM I cast Charm Person on that guy.
GM: Ok, he fails his save, he's now your friend.
Player: Ok, I ask him to intervene on my behalf to prevent that sorceress from hurting me.
GM: He nods his ascent and tries to interpose himself between the sorceress and his "friend", trying desperately to reason with the sorceress, even going as far as to try to subdue the sorceress for her own good of course.
Charm Person (or Monster for that matter) are subtle controls that take tact and patience to use effectively. Asking someone to intervene on your behalf is reasonable to just about any person, asking them to attack friends and loved ones should immediately trigger resistance in the victim.
stop reading subjective opinions as matter of fact A+B = C.
Jason Bulhman Lead Designer wrote this in the "errata" section of the website. They are not opinions, as far as I know errata is considered RAW.
This is ambiguous. Each GM must and is specifically allowed, to make their own determination based on the circumstances at hand, how charm person will work at their table.
The problem is, I'm not sure that it is ambiguous. Going by strict RAW the ONLY thing ambiguous I see is this: Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness. That is directly followed up by a statement where he gives an example of when and when not an opposed charisma check is needed. I have personally banned Charm spells based off of this errata in my home games as it is obviously ridiculous, but I can't do so in PFS.
Ok, those are some good examples Bob, David and Aspasia. That gives what seems like it could be fair under the RAW, though I'm not sure that's not stretching what he said a little, because Kill and Subdue are obvious very different. Still, I think that's legit enough to get away with.
What about the other issue, first battle or two in scenario charm multiple people, and then they attack non-friends in the next 2-3 battles. The player legitimately has 1/3 the minions in the entire game charmed. I guess at this point its just charisma checks to make them "attack" their non-enemies, and they legitimately attack them?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Friends help you move.
Real friends help you move bodies.
Charmed people help you MAKE bodies.
|
|
stop reading subjective opinions as matter of fact A+B = C.Jason Bulhman Lead Designer wrote this in the "errata" section of the website. They are not opinions, as far as I know errata is considered RAW.
This is ambiguous. Each GM must and is specifically allowed, to make their own determination based on the circumstances at hand, how charm person will work at their table.The problem is, I'm not sure that it is ambiguous. Going by strict RAW the ONLY thing ambiguous I see is this: Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness. That is directly followed up by a statement where he gives an example of when and when not an opposed charisma check is needed. I have personally banned Charm spells based off of this errata in my home games as it is obviously ridiculous, but I can't do so in PFS.
Ok, those are some good examples Bob, David and Aspasia. That gives what seems like it could be fair under the RAW, though I'm not sure that's not stretching what he said a little, because Kill and Subdue are obvious very different. Still, I think that's legit enough to get away with.
What about the other issue, first battle or two in scenario charm multiple people, and then they attack non-friends in the next 2-3 battles. The player legitimately has 1/3 the minions in the entire game charmed. I guess at this point its just charisma checks to make them "attack" their non-enemies, and they legitimately attack them?
Jason Buhlman's examples were just that, examples. Both of his statements are not mutually exclusive. He was just trying to give examples on how to adjudicate an ambiguous spell based on the circumstances.
Best thing to do, is realize that Table Variation is going to happen.
Paizo has written in the Shattered Star AP that a demon used charm to have someone turn on an adventuring companion. Not just kill him. No, the companion successfully fled and the charmed individual hunted him down and returned. Anything's possible. I simply find peoples' egos get in the way when their character isn't "theirs" anymore as if some sacred contract had been written and those spells don't exist at their games. This applies equally to GMs and players.
I would be carefull with examples from AP´s or scenarios where the evil ones use charm spells for several reasons.
I remember one scenario with a similar plotline, but the main difference is/was, the charming person (in that case the evil person) had a lot of time there with the charmed indivudual. Poisoning persons hearts takes time. Without knowing (and please don´t spoiler it) i´m inclinced to say that in the Shattered Star it might be the same.
Now, compare this to a PC that comes along, casts charm in a possibly hostile situation and then asks to kill friends/teammembers. Same true for evil ones. I think the situation there is just different.
Working on something over time, especially long time can work that way, but something spontaneous without proper preparation is much more limited.
Such are also the liberties of writers to provide you a good story.
The example from Shattered Star was thus:
- Wizard and magus find ruin
- In exploring ruin demon finds them
- Wizard flees
- Magus gets charmed
- Ordered to go kill wizard
- On return, then follows a long line of repeated charms that slowly drives the person to think they genuinely love the demon
So, the "go kill x" was immediate. There was a subsequent period of a much more insidious seduction but that was after a job well done. As I've GMed that book already, that's how the events are written. Given the Shattered Star AP (don't know about others; only AP I've GMed so far) goes to great length to describe the vast majority of events, I see no reason for details to be missing for that bit of history.
|
|
In some PFS scenarios the background and motives for BBEGs are listed, and sometimes two groups encountered together really despise (or at least don't care about) each other. In those few cases I could see charm person working to make one attack the other (still requiring an opposed Charisma check, of course).
Double checking...
The wizard panicked and fled, and (demon) swiftly charmed (magus) and sent him off to kill his previous employer.
Looking at the demon's spells and spas... charm monster and charm person are there. No dominates. Using charm person/monster is also in their battle tactics section.
Not sure which part of Shattered Star you're talking about, Buri, but in the second book,
Might that be two different occasions? Me thinks so.
Probably. The point is that official Paizo material is inconsistent in itself on what charm can do, depending on the author and his or her interpretation of the spell text.
For the record, it says she merely questioned the order. She didn't refuse.
I only see complaints because there have been thousands of attempts to bend the rule, and because the people bending the rule don't win, they rally and just try again.
It's a simple perspective. Take your friend. your best friend.
Ask your friend to help you in a fight.
Ask your friend to make out with you.
Ask your friend to kill his family.
Now common sense would dictate a range of "normal" responses to these questions. If we ignore the trolls and terribly bright wits with the smartass remarks, we can answer these few questions and create a guideline for charm person. Yes, he might help you in a fight. Yes, it becomes more complicated if it's against other people who are his friends. No, they're not going to just jump in and play tonsil hockey. They like you for some reason, but don't automatically lust you, get over it. If they're going to murder their family because you asked him, then you likely deserve being next on your friend's To-Do list anyway, so, problem solved, no more player trying to bend the charm person rules.
Charm person is not a dominate spell. Just because they like you does not mean they're going to jump at your command. It takes, surprise surprise, your influence to still get them to agree.
It takes, surprise surprise, your influence to still get them to agree.
Many, including myself, would say this is why the charismia check is in there for things outside of their normal behavior. Charisma is inherently your force of personality per the CRB, your ability to press your influence on something. Look at UMD, diplomacy, etc.
Don't forget he can kill himself as well. There's always that comfort.
I have spent a lot of time looking up the rules for this and arguing it in the past. I am convinced that the opposed charisma check is a powerful compulsion that cannot simply be ignored because it goes beyond normal friendship (as I have seen many argue.)
I have had GMs in PFS use Charm on me several times and want different results. I know my witch has been charmed three times, once the GM just wanted me to stand there and later let me random roll to see who I should attack at random. Two other times different GMs asked me to attack my party with whatever I thought most effective. I am inclined to side with these latter interpretations.
I am also convinced that a player can be abusive with this spell. Collecting pets is just annoying. I don't care if it is through charm, summon, or animates, too many bodies on the field under one persons control just sucks. I would gladly support having all these spells be limited by the one combat pet rule.
Also, I have been in one story where if an NPC was charmed, there was no reason to play the entire rest of the scenario. I was actually going to charm this guy not knowing that his approval was all that was really needed to end the scenario. The GM asked me not to because it would make the scenario suck and I listened. He made a good call.
He was wrong*. That dichotomy (kill your loved ones or find a way out of it) has never been how charm worked. That would make it stronger than dominate which only allows a new save against things contrary to the creature's nature and flat out can't make them kill themselves.
*Obviously, he's the lead designer so he can't be "wrong." But I feel it was a bad ruling that caused more confusion than it solved.
What I think he was getting at is that, sure, there are (rare, corner-case) situations where the charmed individual could be convinced to at least consider killing their family (such as by repeated use of charm spells, bluff, and other misinformation) but that in the end, the decision as to whether to do so is the creature's and not the caster's (and so they might behave in unpredictable ways, such as by killing themselves to rid themselves of the shame of dishonor, or whatever, rather than behaving in a manner which the player wishes).
What he's saying, in other words, is that charm makes the creature favorably disposed to you, but they still have free will.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So, without any real consensus (and nothing from up top) it seems that we have more pointing to charm being really insanely powerful as seen from an AP. While those arguing against it haven't brought anything rules wise to the table. Would you all please FAQ this so maybe we can get something. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but there really isn't anything solid either way, and the RAW evidence points towards the charisma check letting you control someone nearly like an Automaton, but with enough free will to kill yourself. Thanks everyone for your inputs thus far.
I don't have a character that charms and am not looking to make any new PC's (I have like 14), but I have been at too many tables where this keeps coming up and derails the game for 20 minutes. Its over and over.
And I haven't really seen anything RAW that says it is supposed to have variance. I'd love for that to be the decision, but there really isn't a single in game point I've seen made showing that, and several in game points and errata that does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember:
Many abilities and spells can cloud the minds of characters and monsters, leaving them unable to tell friend from foe—or worse yet, deceiving them into thinking that their former friends are now their worst enemies. Two general types of enchantments affect characters and creatures: charms and compulsions.
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.
•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.
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.
Regardless of whether a character is charmed or compelled, he does not volunteer information or tactics that his master doesn't ask for.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I haven't really seen anything RAW that says it is supposed to have variance. I'd love for that to be the decision, but there really isn't a single in game point I've seen made showing that, and several in game points and errata that does.
Really?
This is mostly in the purview of the GM
...and...
Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide
...didn't strike you as meaning "it's up to GM discretion"?
I agree with all that, but there is still: but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check, and might not even work (the creature might take its own life instead, its not your puppet after all). which is where the ambiguity surfaces again. Does he have to kill himself then if he doesn't want to follow through with the act? Based off my literal reading of the FAQ is yes he does, but it is a little vague.
For the record I tend to hope the ruling is against charm because it just wrecks so many games I've been a part of, but knowing what should happen would be very useful, especially with the frequency that this keeps coming up for me.
How much it makes you do will depend on the character and circumstances. Will the LG pally do kill his family? No
Will the evil CE/NE sociopath? It is still unlikely, but possible I guess. It would depend on how he felt about his family.
Dominate on the other hand might not even require the 2nd saving throw to get him to do it.
This is mostly in the purview of the GM. If you ask the creature to do something that it would not normally do (in relation to your friendship), that is when the opposed Charisma check comes into play.
Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness.
Bolded for emphasis. Yes, taken out of context it appears that way, but when fully read in context it becomes quite clear both those statements specifically refer to its up to the GM when the opposed charisma check comes into play. It does NOT reference anything else in the spell.
This is mostly in the purview of the GM. If you ask the creature to do something that it would not normally do (in relation to your friendship), that is when the opposed Charisma check comes into play.Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness.Bolded for emphasis. Yes, taken out of context it appears that way, but when fully read in context it becomes quite clear both those statements specifically refer to its up to the GM when the opposed charisma check comes into play. It does NOT reference anything else in the spell.
The point being made is that the GM decides how much the opposed check can allow you to do. If the GM decides the request is outside the range of the spell then he can still make you roll the check because the game says roll the check, but it would be pointless to roll a check that can never succeed. So most GM's will just not bother making you roll once they decide you are asking for too much. That is why it still goes back to GM discretion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No.
but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check, and might not even work (the creature might take its own life instead, its not your puppet after all).
1) It's up to GM discretion. If you're not satisfied with that answer, then...
2) The opposed Charisma check still might not even work (which brings us back to #1, since you have to determine what the charmed person does).
EDIT: whoops, this was meant to be a reply to UABS's last post. No ninjas, just slow me.
How much it makes you do will depend on the character and circumstances. Will the LG pally do kill his family? No
Unless hte pally lost the opposed charisma check. IN that case the charmer suggestion is not really a suggestion but an order.
Charm person shoudl have not ben FAQed but Errated, the opposed charisma check should not be in the game, IMHO.
If the GM is making you roll the check then he has decided that is soemthing the pally might do. The post you replied to use a pally as an example because most GM's won't have paladins murdering family members so the check will never take place. See my previous post that is just above this one.
The point being made is that the GM decides how much the opposed check can allow you to do. If the GM decides the request is outside the range of the spell then he can still make you roll the check because the game says roll the check, but it would be pointless to roll a check that can never succeed. So most GM's will just not bother making you roll once they decide you are asking for too much. That is why it still goes back to GM discretion.This is mostly in the purview of the GM. If you ask the creature to do something that it would not normally do (in relation to your friendship), that is when the opposed Charisma check comes into play.Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness.Bolded for emphasis. Yes, taken out of context it appears that way, but when fully read in context it becomes quite clear both those statements specifically refer to its up to the GM when the opposed charisma check comes into play. It does NOT reference anything else in the spell.
It sounds like you are in the "I can blow off the charisma check" crowd. This is clearly coming from a desired end result position rather than a RAW position.
And there is a very good reason to have the enemy roll CHA for an order the GM thinks is beyond the scope of what the character will ever do, to find out if he can blow off the order or go to great lengths like Jason described to avoid that command.
The point being made is that the GM decides how much the opposed check can allow you to do. If the GM decides the request is outside the range of the spell then he can still make you roll the check because the game says roll the check, but it would be pointless to roll a check that can never succeed. So most GM's will just not bother making you roll once they decide you are asking for too much. That is why it still goes back to GM discretion.This is mostly in the purview of the GM. If you ask the creature to do something that it would not normally do (in relation to your friendship), that is when the opposed Charisma check comes into play.Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness.Bolded for emphasis. Yes, taken out of context it appears that way, but when fully read in context it becomes quite clear both those statements specifically refer to its up to the GM when the opposed charisma check comes into play. It does NOT reference anything else in the spell.It sounds like you are in the "I can blow off the charisma check" crowd. This is clearly coming from a desired end result position rather than a RAW position.
And there is a very good reason to have the enemy roll CHA for an order the GM thinks is beyond the scope of what the character will ever do, to find out if he can blow off the order or go to great lengths like Jason described to avoid that command.
You missed my point. If the GM decides that even failing check will mean the action won't be taken then why roll the check?
Yes I want you to answer that.
And in case you missed the quote.-->
but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check, and might not even work (the creature might take its own life instead, its not your puppet after all).
Now if it is not going to work it is because the GM said it is not going to work which goes back to Jason saying it is GM discretion.
That is supported by this--> "Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness."
Now if the GM is deciding what is and is not outside of a creature's willingness does that not mean each GM has to decide what the creature will and will not do?
Note that what the creature will do after an opposed check still means they are willing to do it, but they needed some pushing. If they are not willing to do it, then they are not willing to do it. Period.