Nope, you just failed your cha check.Ahh - good old "Charm person"...
I tried to explain to a friend of mine the limitations of this spell because he always tends to try to squeeze the most OP things out of the game.
He recently got married, so I asked him: "Hey! Can I sleep with your wife?" He looked at me like I was crazy. And I said: "And yet, you have no problems asking me to kill mine 'because you're a good and trusted friend'?" Shut him right down.
Clever. But the implication is that two ordinary people (sorry, Otherwhere, I don't know you so I'm assuming average CHA) who both have average CHA can expect about a 50/50 chance of success when making this request to sleep with a friend's wife?
I can think of at least a dozen close friends and trusted allies of mine who are married; now it looks like I'm going to have a great week (I bet I can win about half of those CHA checks)...
(I'll try not to think about what happens with Mrs. Tarrasque when those same friends make the reciprocal request of me, since I doubt I am likely to win all 12 of those CHA checks).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we stop using the 'Can I sleep with your wife?' thing as an example? It implies that only the husband's consent is necessary for someone to sleep with the wife.
Please substitute 'Can I sleep with you?' It is more direct and is something the charmed creature actually has control over.
Of course not, because there was not a charm person spell involved.Nope, you just failed your cha check.Ahh - good old "Charm person"...
I tried to explain to a friend of mine the limitations of this spell because he always tends to try to squeeze the most OP things out of the game.
He recently got married, so I asked him: "Hey! Can I sleep with your wife?" He looked at me like I was crazy. And I said: "And yet, you have no problems asking me to kill mine 'because you're a good and trusted friend'?" Shut him right down.
Clever. But the implication is that two ordinary people (sorry, Otherwhere, I don't know you so I'm assuming average CHA) who both have average CHA can expect about a 50/50 chance of success when making this request to sleep with a friend's wife?
Not true.
Charm Person makes you a friend and trusted ally. It specifically says you cannot control people. So all the spell does is create a short-cut for you to become the target's best friend. Instead of spending years hanging out with him and actually earning that trust and friendship, you cast a spell to replace all that within 6 seconds.
Fine.
The real question is, what is and is not within the boundaries of true friendship?
Otherwhere suggested that we should test this - find a good friend and make the suggested proposition. Starbuck suggested that a failure simply means not making the CHA check. I took that to the conclusion that all we need are bigger numbers. Miss one CHA check, find a different friend and try again - over the course of a dozen friends, you're bound to win some of those CHA checks and have yourself a very merry week.
Does it matter whether that friendship was built over the course of years of actually being friends or over the course of 6 seconds when a sorcerer casts a spell?
Nope. Either way, you're good friends and trusted allies. No more, no less - even if there were a Charm Person spell involved.
Meh. It helped him realize that his "reasonable request" that I murder someone close to me (because I'm Charmed) was not something even a trusted friend could request.
It helped put some scope on the limits of the spell.
But is it something the spell caster could order and convince you with an opposed charisma check ;)
Can we stop using the 'Can I sleep with your wife?' thing as an example? It implies that only the husband's consent is necessary for someone to sleep with the wife.
Please substitute 'Can I sleep with you?' It is more direct and is something the charmed creature actually has control over.
A wholly valid point, one that I obviously considered at the outset, but the conversation wasn't really about the wives at all, but rather, about convincing a friend to agree to something he might or might not (very probably not) agree to.
What happens outside of that agreement is beyond the scope of the discussion and also beyond the scope of the Charm Person spell.
I figured my posts were long enough without that disclaimer (and judging by responses I've gotten, people didn't really read my long posts anyways), so I didn't include this waiver simply for the sake of brevity.
Besides, Mrs. Tarrasque can take care of herself; no matter who charms me to agree to what nefarious purposes involving Mrs. Tarrasque, they're gonna get CHOMPED!!! when they show up at her doorstep to collect...
But is it something the spell caster could order and convince you with an opposed charisma check ;)
No, not really.
Casting Charm Person circumvents years of close relationship that eventually build up to being a trusted friend. But regardless of whether your friendship is the result of years of being a good buddy or the result of 6 seconds of casting a spell, you're still only my friend and you cannot convince me to agree to that (regardless of Mrs. Tarrasque's opinion on the subject).
Nor could a trusted friend convince me to do anything that a trusted friend cannot convince me to do.
(ciruclar logic, I love it)
The opposed CHA check is to merely get me to agree to stuff that I might not do for a friend. Stuff I don't really want to do, but at least, I might. You need to convince me; asking is not enough. With a good CHA check, you might convince me of these things.
But stuff I would hate to do, stuff I would never do, yeah, that's out of bounds for any friend, real or charmed.
And so it should be for all the NPCs in the OP's campaign. No way a dwarf merchant would give away his best magical sword to anyone. Ever. But, maybe, with a little effort, a trusted friend might be able to borrow it for a few days, especially if he makes a good faith deposit of, say, half its worth. You know, just in case he loses it or damages it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charm Person makes you a friend and trusted ally.It specifically says you cannot control people. So all the spell does is create a short-cut for you to become the target's best friend.
None of this is true.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton
Your control is limited to "giving the subject orders as Charisma checks", and those orders are heavily limited. But it is a form of control.
Yes, Charm Person essentially gives you a "friendship shortcut". It is, however, a much more imbalanced relationship than any standard healthy friendship. Normal friendships don't involve one friend being able to boss the other around without any sort of give-and-take. This isn't your friend—it's a very delicate type of minion.
I certainly hope nobody here is in that kind of relationship with anyone. :P
EDIT: And let's not forget that you can get a Charmed individual to do things he wouldn't normally do even for a friend. Not kill his mother, probably, but it's mostly an area for GM fiat. But there is an area in the chart, located right between "Things I do for a dear friend" and "Things I never do ever ever ever", that Charm Person can manage. It really depends on the target and request.
but you closed my thread that was in the Rules forum, which is for the debating of rule questions and garnering FAQs, which we had been mostly successfully moving the discussion away from this thread to that one. But then you closed it since we had this thread going on about it. And now you say don't discuss here :/
Can we stop using the 'Can I sleep with your wife?' thing as an example? It implies that only the husband's consent is necessary for someone to sleep with the wife.
Please substitute 'Can I sleep with you?' It is more direct and is something the charmed creature actually has control over.
It could go a bit like this:
Me: Hey, honey, I'm home. This is Dave. He's a really good friend.
Mrs: I've never met him before.
Me: No matter, he's awesome. I love this guy!
Mrs: You've never even mentioned him before.
Me: It's OK, musta just slipped my mind. Dave's my bro!
Mrs: Whatever. What's your bro doing in our house?
Me: Well, you see, Dave's very charismatic and we were talking, and one thing led to another, and now he thinks I should let him sleep with you. Sounds like a good idea to me! Whattaya think, sweetheart? Hey, put that down. That's not funny! That thing's probably loaded. Don't point it at me, it might go off! Why is your face so red? You look really pis...
Charm Person makes you a friend and trusted ally. It specifically says you cannot control people. So all the spell does is create a short-cut for you to become the target's best friend. Instead of spending years hanging out with him and actually earning that trust and friendship, you cast a spell to replace all that within 6 seconds.None of this is true.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automatonYour control is limited to "giving the subject orders as Charisma checks", and those orders are heavily limited. But it is a form of control.
Yes, Charm Person essentially gives you a "friendship shortcut". It is, however, a much more imbalanced relationship than any standard healthy friendship. Normal friendships don't involve one friend being able to boss the other around without any sort of give-and-take. This isn't your friend—it's a very delicate type of minion.
I certainly hope nobody here is in that kind of relationship with anyone. :P
Agree, the opposed CHA check doesn't say to get it to do something he'd only do for a best friend. It's saying to do something that the guy WOULDN'T do for a good and trusted friend. Those are the things that you'd make a check for.
One side (A) says that the other (B) is selective reading. Saying that the Orders that you need a CHA check for are limited by things you'd do for a friend. And that reading "Get them to do something they ordinarily wouldn't" is too extreme and taken out of context if taken to mean getting them to do things they wouldn't do for a best friend. A says killing a spouse is right out and can't happen.
B says that A is reading more into things then there are. That Yes, they see you as their bestest friend. And will do things with no check that they'd ordinarily do for a friend. And then to order them to do anything they wouldn't do, you make a CHA check to convince them they need to. B says that killing a spouse is something that a CHA check can do.
Then some of B (maybe all, I don't know), because of Jason's post, say that they'd need to do that thing or commit suicide or something as drastic to stop them from doing that thing.
A says, "That's too strong for a lv1 spell"
B says, "That's what's written, yes it's broken, many spells are, that doesn't mean it doesn't do what it says it does."
Have I missed anything?
I realize that Mrs. Blake can defend herself - What I mean is that using 'Can I sleep with your wife?' as the transgressive request casts wives as the possessions of their spouses. That the awful thing you wouldn't allow your closest friends to do involves this other person.
If the point is to be an example of 'thing you wouldn't do for your closest friend', 'Can I sleep with you?' is still a good example.
If 'Can I have sex with you?' (or 'Can I have sex with your husband?') makes you uncomfortable, then 'Can I have sex with your wife?' should too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fine with me Ross.
Anyways, I have the impression that people that argue that charm person is not that strong are arguing the way they want the spell to work and not the way the spell (and the rules of charm condition, and the posts by Jason) are written.
And I have the impression that people arguing that Charm Person lets you dominate the target are only reading one sentence of the entire spell description.
The only valid way to read Charm Personis to read the WHOLE spell description and parse every sentence INTO THE CONTEXT OF ALL THE REST OF THE SENTENCES.
Doing that, it looks something like this:
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 +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton because it is a friendly trusted friend and ally, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way like people normally perceive the words and actions of their trusted friends and allies. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince (not order and definitely not control like an automaton) it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do for a trusted friend or ally, and because you do not control the charmed person, it can still refuse to follow any orders it deems unreasonable to ever do for trusted friends or allies. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing for a trusted friend or ally. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell (because trusted friends and allies don't allow their friends to harm each other). You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
There, I bolded the parts that need to be parsed into the rest of the text and italicized the actual parses.
When you read it this way, with all the sentences combined so that you must account for all of them, not selectively pick and choose them, the intent of the spell becomes more clear.
My advice to the OP is to use it this way.
I also advise that you should discuss it with the abusive (re: abusing this spell) player so that starts using it as it was intended but has the opportunity to replace it if his core character concept was abusing this spell - don't alter his character's main shtick without giving him a chance to replace it.
The key to understanding this spell is to understand that "ordinarily" is there for a reason.
If you charm someone then ask him to do something he WOULD ordinarily do for a friend, that's easy. He just does it. It's ordinary.
But if you ask him to do something he would NOT ordinarily do for a friend, you have to try to convince him. That's what the CHA check is for.
However, if you ask him to do something he would never do for anyone, trusted friend or not, you simply cannot convince him. Why? Because you don't control him like an automaton - the spell explicitly says this. Since you don't control him, all you can do is try to talk him into doing something he would never do. You CANNOT talk him into doing something he would never do. Why not? Because if the spell lets you talk him into doing things he would never do, then you ARE controlling him like an automaton which the spell explicitly says you cannot do.
So he's not an automaton because it says so. So you cannot control him, because the spell says so. He is a trusted friend because the spell says so. So all you do is talk him into things that he might not ordinarily do, just like his other friends talk him into things he might not ordinarily do. Whatever extraordinary things his other friends could talk him into, you might be able to talk him into those extraordinary things too - with an opposed CHA check.
Everything else is out of scope for a friend, even a convincing friend.
However, if you ask him to do something he would never do for anyone, trusted friend or not, you simply cannot convince him. Why? Because you don't control him like an automaton -NO, the restrictions is that they don't do suicidal or obviously harmful Orders, the rest doesn't follow from the text.
So, the part about being a trusted friend, that's not a restriction?
What about the part that says you con't control him like an automaton, that's not a restriction either?
I'm pretty sure this text is part of the spell description and should not be disregarded out of hand. If the OP is still reading this mess, that's my recommendation to him and anyone else who doesn't want Charm Person to ruin otherwise enjoyable campaigns by ignoring limitations and essentially making this spell more powerful than its 4th level cousin, but available to 1st level casters who don't want to wait until 7th level to get this kind of power.
The part about the automaton is at best in direct contradiction with the rest of the spell.
Wouldn't Occam's Razor and the principles of good communication imply that if you have found a contradiction, that one of your previous assumptions must be wrong?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides the use of the spell in paizo published monster points to the other side
I have previously and elsewhere demonstrated why this is not a valid point, but here it is again:
In this game we have a maxim: Specific rules override general rules.
The game is full of general rules, such as the general glossary definition that applies to all charms and compulsions. Whenever you encounter a specific rule or other specific text that contradicts some general rule or text, the specific text overrides and replaces the general text.
Finding a monster that uses ITS charm ability differently than the spell means that the monster has specific text that overrides and replaces the general text of the spell. But the key here is that this override is only for when that monster uses its ability - this override does not apply anywhere else.
So it is a fallacy to say "Well, monster X has a very special version of Charm Person that it uses differently so I guess this must now mean that ALL Charm Person spells must work this way."
Not true. Not even close to true.
Those monsters have their specific Charm Person text that makes a special version for those monsters, and only those monsters. Everyone else still uses the basic Charm Person and must limit their understanding of the spell to the actual wording of the spell without dragging in unrelated and irrelevant discussions about how some special case applies to some specific monster.
Oh, for god's sake - this is a 1st level spell. If it could do this, why wouldn't EVERYONE dip a single level into bard, cleric, sorcerer, wizard, or oracle so they can have an automatic win spell?
Jason's commentary make a heavy use of the charisma check.
This is true.
I have previously and elsewhere demonstrated why this is (probably) not a valid point, but here it is again:
Jason made that one post, an unofficial one, that completely disregards all printed text. He did so without changing any of the rules, so now that one unofficial post is completely contradictory with the Charm Person spell.
In other words, we have some very specific printed and published official text in the Charm Person spell, and we have some printed and published general text in the Glossary definition of charms and compulsions. Contrasted against that, we have some unofficial and unpublished and un-errata'd text from Jason that breaks those officially published rules.
When he wrote that, he gave no explanation as to why he would write something so contradictory to the published material, and in the three years since he wrote it, nobody has created an errata, nobody has added it to the official FAQ, and nobody has even bothered to explain the contradiction.
What makes it even worse is that Charm Person, by the official text, is nicely balanced with the general game system. Charm Person by the unofficial post is a level one save-or-die spell and clearly out of balance with regard to the ease that a PC can choose to kill people or rob them of all their belongings with a few simple words.
Now, each GM gets to make his own decision.
The choice here is:
1. Follow the official, printed, and published texts and adjudicate the Charm Person spell as the developers wrote it and intended it to be used and enjoy a balanced and official version of the spell
or
2. Ignore the official, printed, and published texts and adjudicate the Charm Person spell according to one unofficial post by one of the developers, a post that contradicts the official text, and accept that this misread spell is unbalanced to the point of being game-breaking
For me, the choice is clear. Without something to back up that unofficial post, I'll stick with the published balanced material; I won't break my campaign for an unofficial post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since this is the Advice board and not the Rules board, my advice is: run Charm Person as a fast Diplomacy check with a guaranteed result. It makes the target "friendly." Forget all the rest about how you can influence them to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do because that way madness lies.
My example with my friend helped him to understand my point of view - there are some things you just couldn't ask a trusted friend to do or allow. For my games, this helped since he was the one always trying to push for things beyond what (I felt) a trusted friend would do, even with an opposed CHA check. (Murder, etc.)
In combat, the caster becomes someone you want to protect.
In social settings, you have the influence of a trusted friend.
It is an awkward spell. Always has been because everyone has a different interpretation of what that means to say "they are seen as a trusted friend."
You've got to run it in a manner that will work for your table.
Besides the use of the spell in paizo published monster points to the other sideI have previously and elsewhere demonstrated why this is not a valid point, but here it is again:
In this game we have a maxim: Specific rules override general rules.
The game is full of general rules, such as the general glossary definition that applies to all charms and compulsions. Whenever you encounter a specific rule or other specific text that contradicts some general rule or text, the specific text overrides and replaces the general text.
Finding a monster that uses ITS charm ability differently than the spell means that the monster has specific text that overrides and replaces the general text of the spell. But the key here is that this override is only for when that monster uses its ability - this override does not apply anywhere else.
So it is a fallacy to say "Well, monster X has a very special version of Charm Person that it uses differently so I guess this must now mean that ALL Charm Person spells must work this way."
Not true. Not even close to true.
Those monsters have their specific Charm Person text that makes a special version for those monsters, and only those monsters. Everyone else still uses the basic Charm Person and must limit their understanding of the spell to the actual wording of the spell without dragging in unrelated and irrelevant discussions about how some special case applies to some specific monster.
Untrue.
For example, in the Dryad the text tells you how the monster use the spell, and it tells you in the description of the monster behaviour. There is no mention of the spell working differently in the monster special abilities.
Keep telling yourself that. It's your game, break it as much as you want.
But please stop advising the OP to break his game the same way you break yours. He's much better off playing the spell by the text that is written in the spell's description.
Hey, by this logic, since a succubus uses Charm Monster (same spell, more eligible targets), does that mean when I cast Charm Monster on a target, I can then kiss them to drain their energy too?
I'm sooooo gonna use this logic. Anything that any monster can do, I can do it too - I just need to cast the spell they cast and I can be monstrous!
Also realize that charm person will make that person friendly...whatever their version of friendly is.
Charm person of a Chaotic Evil person might just mean he lets you live....
Great Point.
And for a good illustration of this, watch the recent "Hannibal" series on NBC.
With friends like these... brr!!!
The Dryad has a caster level of 6th. Charm Person has a duration of one hour per caster level. The Dryad has three uses of Charm Person per day. The standard Dryad has no means of extending the duration of her Charm Person spells.
Consequently, a Dryad cannot even keep a single humanoid charmed for 24 straight hours.
One, most humanoids have to sleep sometime. So she just sets the alarm early and re-charms them before they get up.
Two, have you seen the picture of the Dryad? I'm sure she probably doesn't need to use too much magic to convince her lonely mountain man neighbor to lend a hand. :D
EDIT: Ah, nevermind. I suggest the OP ignore the contradictory info about using Charisma checks to influence things the charmed person wouldn't normally do.
However, if you ask him to do something he would never do for anyone, trusted friend or not, you simply cannot convince him. Why? Because you don't control him like an automaton -NO, the restrictions is that they don't do suicidal or obviously harmful Orders, the rest doesn't follow from the text.So, the part about being a trusted friend, that's not a restriction?
What about the part that says you con't control him like an automaton, that's not a restriction either?
I'm pretty sure this text is part of the spell description and should not be disregarded out of hand. If the OP is still reading this mess, that's my recommendation to him and anyone else who doesn't want Charm Person to ruin otherwise enjoyable campaigns by ignoring limitations and essentially making this spell more powerful than its 4th level cousin, but available to 1st level casters who don't want to wait until 7th level to get this kind of power.
The trust friend is the restriction of if a CHA check is needed or not.
You can't control him, as Jason pointed out, the NPC could kill themselves to stop them from carrying out the order to kill their family they've been convinced they need to do, hence choice is given to them. Not many choices, nor nice ones, but you're not controlling them since death is an escape.
Something they'd never do for anyone definitely falls under the category of things they wouldn't ordinarily do. Thus the need for a CHA check to convince them that they have to do it.
Jason's post was minutes after the blog he had just put out clarifying one of the FAQs that he had just given. The PDT still does this occasionally clarifying or changing a point that isn't reflected in Errata or FAQ since it was clarifying the FAQ they just put out.
And I fail to see any contradiction in what Jason said, or what the spell does. There are many lv1 save or die spells, so what that there's another one? Without highten spell, charm person loses a little because of a lower DC. Also if you're needing to make sure they carry out the task the other spells are better since in charm the person could kill themselves to not have to do the order. While suggestion and dominate they don't have that option.
And again you just straight to the completely unsupported conclusion that death isn't the only other option.
Misreading the rules, house ruling, or GM interpretation? You make the call!
Regardless, for the original poster, the call really is in your hands. This spell is one of those that you should sit down and really think about and how you'd like to deal with it. Really, most of the spells fall under that category, but let's start small with just this one.
There isn't a one size fits all answer; the questions that come along with Charm Person defy a small box and a simple solution. You have to be willing to write in the margins of the book and season things to your and your players liking.
Guys i read and thought over what it was written in the dryad, shoggti qlippoth etc. entries and i came to the conclusion that the writter went a little too far with the fluff description of the monsters without checking in order to make sure that the abilities reinforced that fluff description, sure that damages (a bit) the game because you have to say to yourself "well what it's written here isn't really true for all of the *monster* but only for the above average monster that has special rules like extra hit die and/or class levels in a spellcasting class", but as others have mentioned; it isn't the first time this happens and it won't be the last.
I think i will ignore those fluff entries for these monsters and treat the charm person solely based on the spell and the rules on charmed.
1-Don't use monster entries to support an argument, they have their own rules.
2-Charm Person is a spell that should be read from start to finish, don't quote just a single sentence.
3-Even IF it affects a target, it doesn't even make your target helpful, only friendly.
4-Don't ignore the specific>general thing, trying to quote the 'Charmed' condition is a bad idea (Charm Person has it's own text regarding harmful actions-it isn't specific to the target being harmed).
5-Realize that it is a FIRST level spell, the weakest of spells without going into cantrips... treat it as such!
6-Jason commented on how he thought it works, and that's great that he got involved in the forums, but it isn't a)official errata or b)in line with the apparent purpose of the spell. People make mistakes, I would consider this one.
Trying to say 'RAW' that you can either murder your family or commit suicide is just silly. It isn't a rule. It's also absurd.
It's fine if you want to treat it as a Dominate effect at YOUR table, but stop trying to convince people that 'RAW' it works like that. It doesn't.
To the OP, as it is written, this spell appears to make someone friendly to the caster, but unable to commit harmful actions. It is up to you to decide what constitutes harmful actions.
This is, of course, assuming they fail their save.
Also, "Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell."
You also determine these conditions, not the players.
Considering the fact that "If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.", this is clearly not an optimal in combat spell, though it can be used to end a combat if used properly...
Things to consider:
Pathfinder rules are written assuming an understanding of the english language, I don't advise treating every usage of rules terms as applying only in a mechanical sense: Above, the word 'threaten' is used. I advise applying your existing knowledge of how to speak to your understanding of the spell, not a strict mechanical interpretation, otherwise I could re-write the sentence thusly:
"Any act by you or your apparent allies that You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity. the charmed person also breaks the spell."
Obviously this becomes total gibberish, that is what happens when you apply rules mechanics to every occurrence of a word.
Read the spell start to finish, and apply your existing understanding of language to it.
It is first level, and clearly intended to give a slight push in social situations, not make people murder their loved ones or give over their prized possessions.
There are other spells for that.
@alexd1976
Please re-think your "absolutely no violence" interpretation of charm person, apart from the issue of taking the word harmful out of context; you are making charm monster one of the most useless 4th level spells.
@alexd1976
Please re-think your "absolutely no violence" interpretation of charm person, apart from the issue of taking the word harmful out of context; you are making charm monster one of the most useless 4th level spells.
I'm willing to rethink it, but the point I'm making is valid.
As written, that IS what it says. It certainly does NOT allow for the kind of abuse some people seem to think it does.
On a side note, why oh why do people keep thinking that monster entries in some way reflect how this spell works?
Those books (Bestiaries) aren't intended as player content, they should never be used for discussion of rules found in the Core Rulebook other than things that specifically refer to them (Summon spells etc).
Also, how am I taking 'harmful' out of context? I keep telling people to read the entire spell, and THEN declare how it works.
That's kinda the exact opposite of taking a single word out of context.
Also, how am I taking 'harmful' out of context? I keep telling people to read the entire spell, and THEN declare how it works.
That's kinda the exact opposite of taking a single word out of context.
Because the harmful part comes right after the suicidal part but you take it to mean no violence at all instead of harmful to you, which in turn makes the 4th level charm monster spell a quite useless spell.
@alexd1976
Please re-think your "absolutely no violence" interpretation of charm person, apart from the issue of taking the word harmful out of context; you are making charm monster one of the most useless 4th level spells.I'm willing to rethink it, but the point I'm making is valid.
As written, that IS what it says. It certainly does NOT allow for the kind of abuse some people seem to think it does.
On a side note, why oh why do people keep thinking that monster entries in some way reflect how this spell works?
Those books (Bestiaries) aren't intended as player content, they should never be used for discussion of rules found in the Core Rulebook other than things that specifically refer to them (Summon spells etc).
I disagree with the notion, monsters (in this game) use the same rules as the players unless specified otherwise but in this case it's a non issue, those things about the charm person and the monster entries (that are discussed in this thread) are fluff description of the monsters and not rules or anything; it's just that people (rightly) assume that the monsters use their charm monster SLA to do the mind affecting things mentioned in their fluff but (as i said before) i think that this is a case of a disconnect between the fluff and the mechanics.