| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, one of the projects I've been working on in the background, when I have time, is a correction for certain issues I and my group have with certain spells. It is by no means exhaustive, but we do make efforts to address specific spells which are problems for our group. We take a vote every time someone points out an issue and if it's deemed important enough (the results of the vote determine this), it is added to the list. The "Dominate" line is one of a few groups that EVERYONE agrees with (I have 8 players, same group for the past 12+ years and for them to all agree on something is a big deal) and I'm currently working on it. The following is what I've got so far, with Skill-Based Spells information included for reference purposes only (we've been using it for sometime and are happy with the way it functions). A side-effect of this project is a "fix" for the protection from <alignment> spells and "blanket immunity" spells relating to enchantment once this "fix" is complete.
Dominate Spells
I. A caster must expend his move action to exert direct control after the first time direct control is used. The victim will, to the best of his ability, perform the desired action and will continue to do so until such time as a new command is given. Any command given when direct control is exerted, including the first, grants a new saving throw to the victim; commands which go against the nature of the victim grant a +4 modifier to the saving throw.
II. In addition, these spells allow the caster to influence the victim in more subtle ways. While a spellcaster may still directly command an individual, risking the victim throwing off the effects of the spell, they may also use social skills to influence the victim, at a much lower risk, which also grants the benefit of the Skill-Based Spells rule - in this case, with Bluff and Diplomacy. While under the effects of this spell, a victim may be convinced to do things they might not otherwise do - failure on the skill check does not grant the victim a saving throw, but does prevent them from being influenced in this way for 24 hours, i.e. the spellcaster may attempt the same check on the following day. If the spellcaster succeeds, he may attempt additional checks to influence the behavior of the victim in other ways until such time as he fails (he may not attempt to influence on the same topic for another 24 hours). For every 5 cumulative points that she exceeds the DC, she may treat the victims alignment as 1 full step in a direction of her choice (5 points is 1 step and 10 points is 2 steps) in determining what she may convince the victim to do.
o For example, a 12th-level witch with a Charisma of 18 has dominated the 10th-level fighter (10 Ranks Sense Motive, Wisdom 13), Lawful Good king of a particular land. Instead of directly commanding the king, she decides to use the secondary aspect of the spell, influencing him through Bluff. Since the prince of the kingdom objects to her presence, and opposes her at every turn, she creates a false story of the prince's intentions to dethrone his father. We will treat this as a far-fetched lie, as the prince has demonstrated loyalty to his father and the king trusts his son, but it is far from impossible. As she has maximum ranks in Bluff, she gains a +6 bonus to her roll to convince the king to imprison, banish, or even have the prince executed for treason. Her attempt results in a roll of 5 (total of 32 - 10 = 22) against a DC of 10 + the king's Sense Motive + the king's Wisdom modifier (a total DC of 21 - 5 for spell level = 16). Her roll is successful, and sufficient to alter the king's alignment by 1 step for the purposes of her check (assume that good will imprison, neutral will banish, and evil will excecute for the purposes of this example), so for the time being, she has to settle for the banishment of the prince from the kingdom.
I'm seriously considering that when the alignment is adjusted on a particular topic, that it "remain" adjusted for the duration of the spell, as well as reducing the victims saving throw for further castings of the spell (i.e. extending the spell) while the initial effect is still ongoing.
Thoughts, comments, criticisms?
Streamlining the skill-based spells sounds like a good idea (though jump would get an unneeded nerf, I suppose).
I'm not sure whether introducing additional saving throws to nerf the dominate spells is really necessary - reducing the duration seems like a better option to me. Also, you are blurring the line between compulsion and charm effects. I'd rather have the evil witch in your example use charm and poisoned words to corrupt the virtuous ruler, resorting to domination only if truly necessary.
How do you want to address the protection from x spells?
Streamlining the skill-based spells sounds like a good idea (though jump would get an unneeded nerf, I suppose).
It has worked out extremely well; don't get me wrong, there have been some minor (in my opinion) side-effects, and jump is one of those cases. It is a perfect example of how varied the skill bonuses in spells can be, as well as how many spells are designed to auto-succeed in one form or fashion, acting in place of skills instead of working with them. While it may not be to everyone's tastes, we prefer them to work with the skill system, where appropriate and generally adjust to this effect.
Using jump as an example, I believe we adjusted it to treat the affected individual as if they always had a running start and removed the limitation on jumps greater than your maximum speed. While this grants certain "supernatural or extramundane" effects to a character's use of the skill, we're good with that.
Overall, the adjustment process has been painfully slow due to time, the sheer volume of spells out there, and whether my interest in working on it is in the waxing or waning phase.=)
I'm not sure whether introducing additional saving throws to nerf the dominate spells is really necessary - reducing the duration seems like a better option to me. Also, you are blurring the line between compulsion and charm effects. I'd rather have the evil witch in your example use charm and poisoned words to corrupt the virtuous ruler, resorting to domination only if truly necessary.
We used to run many of these types of spells with a much lower duration, i.e. cast in combat, these spells lasted 1 round/level and their duration was per normal when outside of combat. It proved somewhat unsatisfactory. I do think you may be correct, however, in that the additional saving throws may be out of line. Allowing the saving throw at a +4 modifier if it is out of character, should be more than sufficient for even the Rogue and Fighter (to whom this spell is very much an issue, repeatedly in our games). I've also considered that each day the character should gain an attempt at a normal save IF the dominate effect is exerted, though I'm unsure about this.
I'm using the Dominate Person spell as the baseline for the revision of the line (charm person, charm monster, dominate person, dominate monster) and figured it would be a great place to start. The spell will have the [charm] descriptor added, due to the non-combat use, and is the same mechanic, in essence that the Charm X spells will use, though of much shorter durations as per the spells and you're correct, it definitely blurs the lines somewhat. Ultimately, it does give the effect you describe, assuming the caster doesn't exert the domination effect and relies on his or her social skills, but the option to do so is at his or her lieusure.
How do you want to address the protection from x spells?
I've been using caster level checks, modified by spell level, to great effect in many things, such as darkness spells versus light spells, see invisibility/true seeing versus various types of invisibility spells. The ultimate goal is fewer absolutes with regard to spellcasting, particularly in spell versus spell, and to make casters more a part of the d20 system instead of circumventing it at every turn.
The idea will be to address a level 1 spell nullifying enchantments and summons, regardless of level outright. Using caster level checks to address this should work to fix both players and monsters from being shutdown by a single level 1 spell. It has proved annoying on both sides of the screen.
I hope that explains it; I'll be glad to answer any questions or address any concerns or criticism.=)
Thanks for the explanation, I think I understand you a lot better now.
Giving the charmed/dominated PC/NPC/Monster more agency even while under magical influence seems like a promising approach, and using social skills to resolve what the target is willing to do certainly encourages roleplay.
I also like the idea of using caster level checks to deal with the interaction of spells - it makes magic a lot more unpredictable, especially for high-level-play.
We take a vote every time someone points out an issue and if it's deemed important enough, it is added to the list.
I don't mean to detract from the actual presentation in your thread, but this is my favorite part.
Regarding the skill bonuses, what about ranks equal to 1/2 caster level (resulting ranks not to exceed caster level or maybe HD?) as well as a bonus equal to 1/2 caster level? The reason I bring this up is that with the max ranks thing, you've left no mid-ground. This would benefit casters with no ranks, those with a few, and those with maxed. I like the spell level mod to DC. I had to think about for an extra moment to understand.
Also, not all skill bonuses are equal. In the case of glibness and jump, they are sub-skills of actual skills. Should a spell that grants a bonus to Perception be as potent as one with a bonus to jump checks?
|
I'm seriously considering that when the alignment is adjusted on a particular topic, that it "remain" adjusted for the duration of the spell, as well as reducing the victims saving throw for further castings of the spell (i.e. extending the spell) while the initial effect is still ongoing.
i say alignment 'remains' altered, but, that it's doesn't reduce the victim's saving throw further. because, the Witch can always try again in 24 hours.
consider making rules for multiple Witches exerting Domination over the same King. CHA ability checks? different alignment every day!
this is brilliant btw.
Thanks for the explanation, I think I understand you a lot better now.
Giving the charmed/dominated PC/NPC/Monster more agency even while under magical influence seems like a promising approach, and using social skills to resolve what the target is willing to do certainly encourages roleplay.
I also like the idea of using caster level checks to deal with the interaction of spells - it makes magic a lot more unpredictable, especially for high-level-play.
I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, lol, regarding understanding, that is.=)
I'm really hoping it does give a better atmosphere for such things and enhances game play. The caster level checks have been awesome, and as you point out, made things less predictable, which seems to heighten the feeling of uncertainty and concern for each battle. It's less of a "this'll be a cake walk" and more of a "I sure hope this works."
My players are heavy roleplayers AND heavy optimizers, with the "rule of cool" overriding optimization in all but one case (I have 1 player who roleplays CN, predictable, and is usually a 1 trick pony - we're friends, so I tolerate it, but it does grate on one's nerves).
A somewhat comedic way to understand my perspective on the game designers and spellcasters follows in the spoiler. I love the movie it is taken from and it dawned on me one day that it made a great analogy to my perspective. Mel Brooks is just awesome.
I don't mean to detract from the actual presentation in your thread, but this is my favorite part.
Detracting from a thread isn't something I'd ever accuse you of and I agree. It helps out a lot, as I'm the sort to seek out new problems and new mechanics, to boldly correct things that may not need correcting. This "democratic" system helps keep me in check and make sure the players know their opinions matter. We also vote on the completed "product," as well. More specifically, when I've completed the change, they review it and we take a vote to see if it fits the vision and the mechanics are appropriate.
Regarding the skill bonuses, what about ranks equal to 1/2 caster level (resulting ranks not to exceed caster level or maybe HD?) as well as a bonus equal to 1/2 caster level? The reason I bring this up is that with the max ranks thing, you've left no mid-ground. This would benefit casters with no ranks, those with a few, and those with maxed. I like the spell level mod to DC. I had to think about for an extra moment to understand.
I've been wracking my brain on this. I've built several variations of the mechanics trying to come up with one that matches your concern AND addresses the issue we had, but ultimately fell short each time, either due to the clunky feeling of the wording or the mechanics didn't match up to the goal. The basic rule was to make skills less "I win" for spellcasters; more specifically, the mechanics we wanted were the CL in place of ranks and never allow spellcasters to use magic to trump training, i.e. capped at 20 ranks and no class skill bonus, but to also make it useful for non-spellcasters, as well. The only thing I have, at the moment, is to alter the wording to "ranks = CL" or may add 1/2 CL as an insight bonus to checks. Modifications for specific spells would have to be added, to make them worth their slot. For example, I think adding the bard's Charisma modifier to the DC to penetrate glibness would be a start, as the spell seems to be more of an "avoid getting caught lying" by mundane and magical means and less of a combat buff.
Thoughts?
Also, not all skill bonuses are equal. In the case of glibness and jump, they are sub-skills of actual skills. Should a spell that grants a bonus to Perception be as potent as one with a bonus to jump checks?
I agree, they're not all equal. One limiting factor I've been trying to make sure of is to allow spells to enhance AN aspect of a skill. For example, our change to find traps applies the bonus only to finding traps - same with secret doors. While I may catch flak for this (I've got thick skin, so I'm good), we also separated back out several skills which Pathfinder merged. Perception is spot & listen, search is back to its old self with some extras added in and is Intelligence-based.
i say alignment 'remains' altered, but, that it's doesn't reduce the victim's saving throw further. because, the Witch can always try again in 24 hours.
consider making rules for multiple Witches exerting Domination over the same King. CHA ability checks? different alignment every day!
this is brilliant btw.
Thank you for the reassurance. I felt that the "meta-alignment" shift was appropriate, but wasn't entitely sure and will do on the "wresting control". I appreciate the compliment and am genuinely glad you like it.
My next post, likely this evening, will include as many of the changes as possible from suggestions that "fit" and all the spells in the line (charm person/monster, dominate person/monster).
I ended up with little actual time this evening, so I won't be able to sort out some of the material I would have liked to, but I did get the "Charm Person" changes in a presentable form for critique.
This is more of a rephrasing of charm person, than anything, to make it work with - instead of outside - the normal skill system. It seems to start in that direction and follows by deviating significantly, in such a way that it really doesn't make any sense to me.
A few things of note. The chart for DCs is interesting, as it really doesn't matter what the target's actual skills are, just his (for some reason I can't fathom) Charisma modifier. It makes no more "real" sense than the original chart did in the 3.x-3.5 iterations, which ALSO ignored anything specific about the target. How about we just break it down a bit?
Charm Person. You use it, your opponent must succeed on a Will save (DC 10 + spell level + your stat modifier), +5 to save if your allies are attacking him. Failure SETS their attitude toward you to Friendly. The spell is language dependent. Awesome. So far we're following a pretty standard procedure, save that I believe most "if x, then target gains +Y on it's save" are even numbers, usually +4. I could be remembering wrong. I'm going with +4 for now, but if I find out I'm incorrect, I may change it.
What follows (in the spell text) is a list of things you can and cannot do, which uses an ability check, and doesn't really appear to follow any sort of 3.0-> Pathfinder rule. Checking Charm Person in 3.5, this is just a copy/paste, which explains why nothing was done. It's also probably not a big deal to anyone who doesn't hold "uniformity of rules" a little bit too tightly. Looking back at the old rules, as Pathfinder doesn't include these things, I can see that a friendly attitude means, "Wishes you well" and possible actions are, "Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate." With all this stuff in mind, I came up with the following:
Charm Person
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +4 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril (as per the Diplomacy skill). You may attempt to give the subject orders, but must succeed at a Diplomacy or Bluff skill check (DC 10 + the subject's Sense Motive ranks + the subjects Wisdom modifier) to coinvince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do (retries are not permitted on a particular task for 24 hours). An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing through use of the Diplomacy or Bluff skills and appropriate modifiers. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands or use an alternate method of communication.
|
|
if you think of CHA as a sort of metaphysical STR it might make sense why it is used as an opposed roll for Charms. think of it like arm-wrestling - if you are not winning, you are losing.
that said, as not every character will have Sense Motive, i would go a similar route as feint by offering SM as a 'back-up' defense. that is, consider letting it 'sub in' if (and only if) it is higher than the base DC to resist Diplomacy checks against a Charmed creature - and make this base defense 10 + HD + CHA.
SO it could go like this: The Witch casts Charm on the King (CHA 15) who fails his Will save. The King, a fool, is not trained in Sense Motive (or has only a single rank, whatever), yet he is still a 5-HD Aristocrat NPC. To influence him further, the Witch must succeed on a Diplomacy check against DC 17 (10 + 5HD + 2CHA). To do the same to the Prince (WIS 14, 4 HD, 4 ranks in class skill Sense Motive), she must beat a DC 19.
Thus, both Wisdom and Charisma play a role in getting Charmed.
edit:
i just realized this is actually more a change to 'regular' Diplomacy than anything else...
I agree with rainzax - the first step should be rewriting diplomacy. As is, to make another creature follow your requests, you have to make a diplomacy check vs. a set DC (corresponding with a creature's starting attitude + creature's CHA modifier). That doesn't make a lot of sense. A check vs. DC 10 + the creature's Sense Motive ranks + the creature's CHA/WIS modifier + conditional modifiers would be more fitting - after all, regardless of your intentions, you are trying to get the better of someone (otherwise you wouldn't have to make a check).
Building on top of that, charm person could be treated like other spells you want to address: Giving a bonus on Diplomacy checks (and maybe ending prematurely if you fail to make a request?).
|
|
Building on top of that, charm person could be treated like other spells you want to address: Giving a bonus on Diplomacy checks (and maybe ending prematurely if you fail to make a request?).
I think the OP's intent is not to have Charm grant a bonus to Diplomacy checks, but rather to have Diplomacy checks make a Charm spell even sweeter.
so, instead of having to roll Diplomacy to make an NPC friendly, they just have to fail a Will save. After that, once you have established a magical basis for control, skills checks are used to navigate the aftermath.
Building on top of that, charm person could be treated like other spells you want to address: Giving a bonus on Diplomacy checks (and maybe ending prematurely if you fail to make a request?).I think the OP's intent is not to have Charm grant a bonus to Diplomacy checks, but rather to have Diplomacy checks make a Charm spell even sweeter.
so, instead of having to roll Diplomacy to make an NPC friendly, they just have to fail a Will save. After that, once you have established a magical basis for control, skills checks are used to navigate the aftermath.
I get that, it just occured to me that the changes to charm person proposed by Da'ath could be applied to the "make request" option of the Diplomacy skill with the same reasoning. Then, the wording of charm person could be based on the universal mechanics of Diplomacy (one way or another).
Sorry it took me a bit to respond, it's been a rough week with family being ill and my daughter kicking my butt the other day (we were wrestling and my 3 year old kicked me in the neck on accident, and "confirmed her threat" - been on muscle relaxers and antinflamatories since). My wife is enjoying, a bit too much, telling her friends how our daughter beat me up.
Regarding Diplomacy, I think it might be a good idea to evaluate that in conjunction with these spells. Clear unification of the rules is important to me and I think it definitely needs to reflect the diplomacy rules.
One of the things I do regarding skills is treat them in a passive (defender in most cases)/active (initiator in most cases) format. An example:
Example: Conan the Librarian is keeping watch over his campsite, which includes the other raiders who've been hastling a small town. Bobgoblin and the rest of the PCs plan to attack them at this time and being the rogue, it's Bobgoblin's job to silence the guard before the coup de grace bonanza begins. He sneaks up on Conan, rolling his Stealth (as he is the initiator/active) against a passive (defender) Percepton of Conan. Bobgoblin gets a 23 against Conan's Perception, used as the DC (10 + Perception Ranks + Wisdom modifier) 22. Conan eats a sneak attack snack and dies. Since it was a one-hit kill, I'm going to rule as GM, Conan didn't even get a yell off.
I'll go back through and try to make sure they follow the rules more closely.
|
|
i see some wriggle-room where it says "Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or it's nature, subject to DM discretion."
this could be ordinarily true, except in the case of a charmed or dominated creature. in which case the request itself is treated as Hostile or Unfriendly to the creature's "values"/"nature" (why don't they say "alignment"?) and this sets the base DC at 25 or 20 respectively, in addition to triggering a new saving throw (with the +4 ethics bonus).
complicated hostile/unfriendly requests which take days/weeks to set into motion may or may not offer additional saves at various frequencies.
(an interesting side effect here might be that a TN character is easier to control because, arguably, no alignment can be considered hostile...)