|
What has been everyone's experience with this spell in PFS play? I haven't really seen it used much at all. I suspect that's because many players, including myself, avoid it for fear of wild table variation in how the judge will let them use it.
I found this thread, where the big debate was whether or not you could use it to convince bad guys to attack their friends. But that's not really what I'm looking for here.
I'm actually making a casting/skill/support occultist, and dumping charisma, so that's the only type of skills she won't be able to do. I was thinking of taking this just as a substitute for diplomacy in asking a bartender for information or talking my way past a guard, but I'd never even consider using it in a combat encounter. That's what more powerful enchantments are for. :P
Bear in mind that as an psychic caster, my spells won't have verbal, somatic, or material components, though she has an implement as a focus (she clutches her necklace when casting enchantment spells), so nobody will know she's casting a spell.
This seems like the type of thing the spell was actually designed for, so I'm hoping not to run into too much table variation from GMs. What do the rest of you think?
|
casting a spell on people while talking to them has always been a little iffy. You need to chant some weird stuff and wriggle your fingers around.
A psycic gets around that, but thats why they made up started enforcing the idea of manifestations. With the advent clarification of manifestations, spellcasting has gotten even more obvious and psycic spellcasting is WHY those manifestations have been stressed recently. Everyone will know you're casting a spell, anyone with spellcraft will know what spell it was. Even with the conceal spell feat everyone knows you're doing something, which most dms are going to interpret as spellcasting and react accordingly.
|
Enchantment spells outside of combat are pretty tricky. In a tense situation, an NPC without Spellcraft will likely attack anyone casting a spell; they have no clue if it's a fireball or a mage hand. An NPC with Spellcraft will likely do the same, unless they know the spell to be irrelevant or harmless. In a more social situation, casting a spell will attract attention and may garner mistrust, especially one that doesn't have an immediately obvious effect. There are times for enchantment, but you have to cast those spells very carefully.
|
I've seen it used with good effect if the player and GM both read what the spell actually says.
Bear in mind that as an psychic caster, my spells won't have verbal, somatic, or material components, though she has an implement as a focus (she clutches her necklace when casting enchantment spells), so nobody will know she's casting a spell.
I wouldn't try that. It is contrary to FAQ and will get you into a nasty long argument with a GM.
NPCs can tell you are doing something when you cast a spell, even when it has no components of any sort. Psychic casters (and other characters who enact magic without components, such as paladins and witches) are known to exist in the world, so an NPC with appropriate skills might guess what you're doing and the GM may even give her a Spellcraft check - as far as I recall, this isn't official, but was John Compton's opinion, so it carries particular weight in PFS.
That is so disapointing... Is that official? I was looking to start running PFS but one of the big things in my tabletop game is the discretion of spell-like abilities and psychic and things like silent spell. When my Dryad comes to a player and speaks to him, I ask him to do a will save at the same time, but I don't describe a big flashy blue light around her head, otherwise it's going to be instant attack. And the same goes for the players of course. The only thing that the people can see (and that justifies the AoO in combat) is the fact that the caster seems absent or focus on something else for a few seconds.
Maybe a spellcraft check but that would be all for me. What is the point of Charm spells otherwise? And it's not dominate, it's only "best friend". A Barbarian Hobgoblin CE can be your best friend, but he's still going to burn the village unless you got a nice offer to propose. Maybe he'll spare the childrens.
If you follow the rules like that it means that everyone in Golarion is paranoid and burn all casters and monsters. Mesmerist would be utterly useless in this world. If you're logical each time a stranger starts to create a few lights or sounds you just hit him or run.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Player starts to cast spell, we generally go to initiative (depending on result of sense motive or perception check). I do not allow PCs to automatically surprise a NPC by casting a spell any more than I allow NPCs to automatically surprise a PC by casting a spell.
So yeah, charm person usually leads to combat.
There are ways around that in (I think) Ultimate Intrigue.
Also, if a charm goes off Charm plus opposed Charisma modification is NOT dominate person, at least in my games. The person views you as a friend, not as their master.
I think that the rules change may have gone too far. Its turned Charm Person from grossly overpowered (at least as some people interpreted it) to arguably underpowered. But it can still be useful to gain information or against opponents with laughably low will saves.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player wants to get the drop on the NPC
Player attempts to non chalanty start casting a spell/punch/whip someone in the head with their 8 pound walking stick.
Player rolls a bluff. NPC rolls sense motive, same way perception/stealth work for creeping around.
if the player wins, they cast the spell. if it succeeds, anyone but the target making a spellcraft check is going to know exactly what happened. Assuming the bartender fails the save, he's perfectly fine his new friend used a spell to make them better friends because new friend is cool like that, but other patrons may make that dc 20 sense motive check to notice Bobs acting funny.
What happens from there probably depends on location. In ustalav you are probably getting torched and pitchforked out of town no matter what, you were obviously doing magic stuffs and they only have two responses to that (torch. and pitchfork)
In andoran they probably don't care about the glowy magic.. unless one of them notices the charm spell. Because thats a gross violation of someones FREEEEDDOOOOM! you're getting torch and pitchforked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player starts to cast spell, we generally go to initiative (depending on result of sense motive or perception check). I do not allow PCs to automatically surprise a NPC by casting a spell any more than I allow NPCs to automatically surprise a PC by casting a spell.
I agree with you on that! But that's the casting part that I find interesting. For me, Silent Spell with a few hand gestures under the tavern's table, a Psychic who looks at you very deeply or a Nymph that smiles are not "casting". That FAQ seems to say that each spell have a visual effect no matter what you tried or use as ability to hide it. That is stupid.
It breaks the credibility of the world. The fact that people can use Charm spell in my opinion in the lore depends on their capacity to do it quietly. If every time you use Charm Personn your eyes are glowing and people start to hear bell sounds, you're going to hit each stranger you can see that tries to use magic. I thought it was the whole point of playing Psychic or using Feats or spell-like abilities whitout components: to be discret.
Of course a Wizard who looks at the guard and starts to go Gandalf on him is going to be in trouble, and the Guard will have a +4 on the save for being threatened, even if he's flat-footed. But the same Wizard casts his spell in the middle of a crowd, hiding his gestures behind the bodies of the others and the sound of his voice behind the ambient noise, well that's guard will have to be really perceptive because I'll not represent the spell like an arcanic blue shackle that goes into the target's head. It will just be Will save.
However I agree with you BigNorseWolf, witnesses will have all the right in the world to do a Sense Motive/Perception/Spellcraft check if they see the guy casting quietly or the bartender acting really funny.
That seems like a huge nerf because the power of that kind of spells probably depends on the GM's interpretation of "friend".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It breaks the credibility of the world. The fact that people can use Charm spell in my opinion in the lore depends on their capacity to do it quietly. If every time you use Charm Personn your eyes are glowing and people start to hear bell sounds, you're going to hit each stranger you can see that tries to use magic. I thought it was the whole point of playing Psychic or using Feats or spell-like abilities whitout components: to be discret.
That was a big part of silent spell. A caster putting the feats into silent spell and still spell and casting charm person as a third level spell is getting a game balanced effect for being able to instacharm the bartender.
A psycic caster is not. Without that FAQ there's nothing to prevent every psycic caster from simply riding roughshod over every social encounter, or indeed, every encounter as they simply charm the pants off of a small town , point at the dunegon and go "ATTACK MY MINIONS!"
It might be stupid but its a very neccesary stupid. I
|
Without that FAQ there's nothing to prevent every psycic caster from simply riding roughshod over every social encounter, or indeed, every encounter as they simply charm the pants off of a small town , point at the dunegon and go "ATTACK MY MINIONS!"
It might be stupid but its a very neccesary stupid. I
to be clear, charm person is not giving minions. At most it's making the diplomacy check a little easier. Giving it more utility is usually a misinterpretation of the spell.
|
Silent Spell simply means you don't need to speak.
Still Spell simply means you don't need to gesture.
But there's still these floating skulls, or ethereal music, or flashing lights, or [insert obvious manifestation here] that are noticeable.
Supposedly, from the Developer's POV, it's always been like that. It can be seen as far back as the first printing of the CRB.
Now it's just spelled out in the FAQ.
Charm Person is still useful. But now it's just the goto spell for after you capture the BBEG.
I want to know would a caster be able to disguise this with a good bluff or slight-of-hand skill? I am asking because they do not spell out how the manifestation should be represented. They flashing blue lights of the psychic, the enlarged eyes of the mesmerist, etc.
|
|
I want to know would a caster be able to disguise this with a good bluff or slight-of-hand skill? I am asking because they do not spell out how the manifestation should be represented. They flashing blue lights of the psychic, the enlarged eyes of the mesmerist, etc.
Look at Ultimate Intrigue. It has the rules (and some feats) for this kind of thing.
|
|
to be clear, charm person is not giving minions. At most it's making the diplomacy check a little easier. Giving it more utility is usually a misinterpretation of the spell.
While I personally agree with that interpretation it is unclear. The issue is how exactly to interpret
"You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do."I've seen GMs who pretty much allow it to work as dominate person if the opposed Cha check is made.
On the other hand, I've seen GMs (including me) make it all but useless under some circumstances. For example, in a home game I played a VERY honourable rule bound samurai and the GM and I agreed that charm person would be no use against him quite often. He'd genuinely believe that you were his friend and genuinely regret having to kill you but if his duty required he'd kill you without hesitation.
|
|
Charm Person is still useful. But now it's just the goto spell for after you capture the BBEG.Unless you're a Bard or 6th level though the Prestige Class is really only useful if the enemies don't want to immediately murder you.
I don't understand. Could you expand on this please (especially saying what happens to the bard at 6th level and what prestige class you're talking about)?
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I don't understand. Could you expand on this please (especially saying what happens to the bard at 6th level and what prestige class you're talking about)?Charm Person is still useful. But now it's just the goto spell for after you capture the BBEG.Unless you're a Bard or 6th level though the Prestige Class is really only useful if the enemies don't want to immediately murder you.
Bardic Performance classes and the Enchanting Courtesan are the only ways to gain the ability to hide spells. Spellsong basically uses perform to hide the spell. Enchanting Courtesan uses bluff (verbal) and slight of hand (somatic) opposed by Sense Motive and Perception. If the spell has both components the enemy has to succeed at both checks. The sixth level is the earliest you can enter into Enchanting Courtesan.
|
|
to be clear, charm person is not giving minions. At most it's making the diplomacy check a little easier. Giving it more utility is usually a misinterpretation of the spell.
No it is not.
That person is my friend. If they would lynch mob a dungeon for a friend they'll do it for me. (so the grizzled veteran adventurer/warrior yes, the timid barkeep no)
Charm Person: How does the "try to issue orders" aspect of this spell work?
The spell 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.
This answer originally appeared in the 9/11/12 Paizo blog.
Note that it's not just moving someone's attitude to friendly, they actually treat you like a friend.
|
My experience is that any of these kind of spells can be sooo tricky to work into a story that PFS GMs are very reluctant to allow them to simply work with no caveats.
In a home game it's easy to work the charmed person's situation into a storyline... the BBEG moves his base, an allied spellcaster starts trying to find his missing buddy and ends up setting up an ambush for the PCs, etc. The story progresses, but not in the way it was originally scripted. But that simply can't be done in PFS. If you are a max-charisma sorcerer and land charm person on a low-Charisma mook there's a pretty good chance that you just figured out the entire plot, where the traps are, and how to get in the secret exit.
It takes a very good GM and a very adaptable party to work with that situation. Because a lot of the scenario probably just turned into role-playing encounters instead of combats. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be challenging. Especially for players who are upset that their "combat-optimized" characters aren't going to get a chance to shine. So a lot of GMs try to avoid that situation by coming up with reasons/excuses why charms don't work.
What I do as a GM is play it as it lies. If they reasonably got a charmed mook to like them, sure. We'll roll with it. But if the rest of the table isn't enjoying it I'll call a break and talk to the player who cast the charm. Ask them to dismiss/send away/remove from the story their new buddy so that everyone can get a chance to shine.
So my advice is: see what the table is like before using charm spells. If the other players are talking about how marvelous the new townhouses their characters are building will look and the GM is practicing his voices, go for it! If everyone is talking about how much they power attack for and the GM is speeding through the box text to get to the combats, don't try to charm.
|
|
And again, this is turning into a discussion about how much control you have over a charmed individual, which isn't really what I was asking. As I said, I just want to use this spell as a substitute for diplomacy, in situations when diplomacy is perfectly normal. But if I can't get away with casting without being seen and attacked, then I'm probably going to skip it and get a different spell instead.
|
|
And again, this is turning into a discussion about how much control you have over a charmed individual, which isn't really what I was asking. As I said, I just want to use this spell as a substitute for diplomacy, in situations when diplomacy is perfectly normal. But if I can't get away with casting without being seen and attacked, then I'm probably going to skip it and get a different spell instead.
Well, ones rather heavily dependant on the other isn't it? How much control you have over a charmed person pretty much determines how useful it is and whether it can be a diplomacy substitute or not.
let the diplomancers diplomance
Consider the trait for int to diplomacy
|
|
And again, this is turning into a discussion about how much control you have over a charmed individual, which isn't really what I was asking.
Unfortunately it's impossible to ask the question without having that discussion. My answer is that many GMs are so concerned about it "breaking" the scenario that they will almost completely disallow charm person from functioning at all.
The only correct answer is "ask your GM." Personally I have no problem with what you want to do.
|
|
Bardic Performance classes and the Enchanting Courtesan are the only ways to gain the ability to hide spells. Spellsong basically uses perform to hide the spell. Enchanting Courtesan uses bluff (verbal) and slight of hand (somatic) opposed by Sense Motive and Perception. If the spell has both components the enemy has to succeed at both checks. The sixth level is the earliest you can enter into Enchanting Courtesan.
Ah. Thank you
|
|
And again, this is turning into a discussion about how much control you have over a charmed individual, which isn't really what I was asking. As I said, I just want to use this spell as a substitute for diplomacy, in situations when diplomacy is perfectly normal. But if I can't get away with casting without being seen and attacked, then I'm probably going to skip it and get a different spell instead.
Fromper, I have used the spell, in PFS, for similar things. However, I always assumed that the casting could trigger combat, and typically tried it when away from a crowd, so that my new friend would be the only one seeing me cast, other than allies.
Made for some interesting hijinks.
But, I do also have very strong diplomatic skills at least in part to clever wordplay. I am a very influential ratfolk, don't you know?
|
|
I have had two situations where a PC used charm person successfully. Both times they charmed the leader of the fight and convinced them that the they were on the same team and parted. Both times the other PCs did not do any significant damage and were easily acting in self defense. So I DM it as an option that often takes extra resources to work, but it opens doors usually closed.
Now i would like to expand on it starting combat. If the situation is not tense or suspicious then a surprise spell like charm could easily work. I would also allow a play to bluff a NPC by saying they are just casting a heal spell and then bust out that surprise spell. If the spell fails or if other people are there it may very easily lead to combat though.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I've seen this spell in use throughout my years of PFS. It's another save or suck, that allows for higher chance of failure during combat. Having NPCs as your buddies for hours at a time is great, especially in lower tier urban adventures. I've been at tables where NPCs have accompanied the players into the first combat. Some where a well placed charm person successfully completes a potential encounter. The best are often performed during combat, despite the +5 to the target's save. A lot of a "PC convincing an NPC to stop fighting", effectively negotiating a truce between them and the party in a round or two.
It's a versatile spell that I prefer to see over other mind control shticks, because the DC is more reasonable, and the GM is allowed to have more variance over the target's actions. It's a spell that can reward roleplaying and lead to some hilarious situations with the right people at the table.
Speaking to using this as a replacement for diplomacy? I wouldn't. As far as I'm concerned, casting a spell on someone else is a hostile action. Maybe as a replacement to intimidate, since you're basically assaulting their mind.
Now if it were more discreet than that FAQ clarifies, it may have been a possibility. But it's still a pretty messed up way to chat with someone. Akin to drugging or hypnotizing whoever you're trying to get information out of.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
If the situation is not tense or suspicious then a surprise spell like charm could easily work. I would also allow a play to bluff a NPC by saying they are just casting a heal spell and then bust out that surprise spell. If the spell fails or if other people are there it may very easily lead to combat though.
I'd definitely allow this if the NPC didn't have spellcraft. Reward that creative thinking.
|
|
If the situation is not tense or suspicious then a surprise spell like charm could easily work. I would also allow a play to bluff a NPC by saying they are just casting a heal spell and then bust out that surprise spell. If the spell fails or if other people are there it may very easily lead to combat though.I'd definitely allow this if the NPC didn't have spellcraft. Reward that creative thinking.
Even if they did have spel craft I would allow it.
NPC: Sure wizardy person cast that heal spell, hrmm thats a weird heal spell, ohh thats charm person.. Hey friend you did not need to charm me, we are already friends!
I just might make the bluff harder.
I'm a big defender of being able to cast these kind of spells quietly, however for me it's really not a "Combat Spell". I've always thought of spells like this like "a really good social check". In combat, even more with numerous opponents, it's going to be very hard to use it. However, cast with care, in a situation where you choose to be discrete with the adequate classes/feats/skills/teamplay (yes because your Rogue can distract the target at the same time for example), once the spell is cast (with the components if need be, so an incantation and a few gestures of one hand), it was for me instant save.
Even more for monsters. A monster with Charm Personn as a spell-like ability for me was dangerous because he quickly, quietly, just while talking to the players, tries to charm one of them. The only visible components of a spell are the one written in the spell's paragraph. We can add some obvious effects if it's creating visual blast, or energy, like Magic Missile, Scorching Ray or something like that.
But for example, if one of my player cast a Summon Monster spell, at maximum range, while being hidden in a small street nearby, it's going to be really hard to see who summoned the creature. I'll not have an energy link between the caster and the monster, the monster will just go "pouf" once the spell cast. Of course the guy will have to do hand gestures and speak his incantation, but that's it.
It seems that at my table I was maybe to kind with the discretion of casters when I read you guys. But to be honnest it's really useful as a GM too, so my players don't complain. I just refer to the "component's" entry in the CRB or the Occult. Otherwise for me it's logic and flavor, but that's it.
And yes Psychic are better at charms spells. But it was the same in 3.5 with Psionic. A master of the mind will always be better at dominate them (Illithid...). But I got an Gnome Illusionist/Enchanter at my table who is still really strong, he just has to be more creative when he cast. The Concell Spell feat in UI just made it easier for him. But it wasn't mandatory in my adventures, a carefull cast at the right time was enough. But the Social Skills are still useful so I don't see imbalance for now.
|
|
I'm a big defender of being able to cast these kind of spells quietly, however for me it's really not a "Combat Spell". I've always thought of spells like this like "a really good social check".
That really isn't an option in PFS. Manifestations are a rule and you can't just ignore them. Conceal spell is what you need, even as a psycic, to pull this off and even that has a bit of a problem with making it obvious you're doing SOMETHING.
|
|
Here's how I would run it:
1. You declare you want to use charm person.
2. Roll Initiative. We determine awareness. If you cast charm person in the surprise round against someone who doesn't act in the surprise round they don't get the +5 save bonus.
3. Charm person has all the obvious manifestations of any other spell unless you have an ability saying otherwise.
4. If the target fails their save they won't care what you cast on them.
5. They are your friend as long as you and your apparent allies (you can totally fake not being allies don't forget) don't threaten them further. This is the only condition which breaks the spell.
|
|
I'd definitely allow this if the NPC didn't have spellcraft. Reward that creative thinking.
I think we seriously disagree about the definition of "creative thinking". Or maybe you've never had a player who'd try and bust charm person out at damned near every opportunity.
There is magic out there to help diplomacy. Charm person isn't it. Charm person is a mental attack, it is taking away somebodies freedom of action. Some players try and use it in a very abusive fashion
I'm a big defender of being able to cast these kind of spells quietly, however for me it's really not a "Combat Spell". I've always thought of spells like this like "a really good social check".That really isn't an option in PFS. Manifestations are a rule and you can't just ignore them. Conceal spell is what you need, even as a psycic, to pull this off and even that has a bit of a problem with making it obvious you're doing SOMETHING.
I hope that with Silent AND Still Spell you don't need Conceal Spell? Otherwise it's a 3rd spell with two skills check to be able to cast it in front of the target that seems ridiculous.
|
|
I hope that with Silent AND Still Spell you don't need Conceal Spell?
you do, otherwise you still have swirly "look into my eyes" eyes or something that visibly lets even a peasant know there's magic going on here.
Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed.
That FAQ killed a lot of spell potential.
SLAs, and invisible casters, used to get away with not being noticed as well.
I suppose the FAQ could have been released to appease the constant drumming of "casters are OP".
But I try not to get into those sorts of tirades.
In my opinion, the FAQ was addressed A) because spellcasters need limitations, B) because all Paizo art already suggested that this was the case, and C) so GMs and/or players couldn't try to use spellcasting "flavor" to invalidate the Conceal Spell feat and similar abilities from Ultimate Intrigue.
But yeah, "I have a chance of failing at this," is generally more fun than, "I can't possibly fail at this," both for the spellcaster and for the person who's day he's ruining.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
C) so GMs and/or players couldn't try to use spellcasting "flavor" to invalidate the Conceal Spell feat and similar abilities from Ultimate Intrigue.
But yeah, "I have a chance of failing at this," is generally more fun than, "I can't possibly fail at this," both for the spellcaster and for the person who's day he's ruining.
the downside is that characters can't do that, at all, because they don't have the feat for it. Thats a big theme with that book: requiring feats to do things you could probably already do.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I think we seriously disagree about the definition of "creative thinking". Or maybe you've never had a player who'd try and bust charm person out at damned near every opportunity.If the situation is not tense or suspicious then a surprise spell like charm could easily work. I would also allow a play to bluff a NPC by saying they are just casting a heal spell and then bust out that surprise spell. If the spell fails or if other people are there it may very easily lead to combat though.I'd definitely allow this if the NPC didn't have spellcraft. Reward that creative thinking.
The bolded section sounds like a creative player to me. Like someone using the tools they have in a way I haven't seen before. If they are just doing it to everyone they come upon, then yeah, it'll go differently.
There is magic out there to help diplomacy. Charm person isn't it. Charm person is a mental attack, it is taking away somebodies freedom of action. Some players try and use it in a very abusive fashion
I agree that it's an attack. Maybe we're talking past each other here?
Speaking to using this as a replacement for diplomacy? I wouldn't. As far as I'm concerned, casting a spell on someone else is a hostile action. Maybe as a replacement to intimidate, since you're basically assaulting their mind.
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
C) so GMs and/or players couldn't try to use spellcasting "flavor" to invalidate the Conceal Spell feat and similar abilities from Ultimate Intrigue.
But yeah, "I have a chance of failing at this," is generally more fun than, "I can't possibly fail at this," both for the spellcaster and for the person who's day he's ruining.
the downside is that characters can't do that, at all, because they don't have the feat for it. Thats a big theme with that book: requiring feats to do things you could probably already do.
Yeah but your complaint about that book doesn't apply given that there has been a Conceal Spell like feat for a while now. All that spell does is actually make it so bards are the best at hiding spells by a slim margin rather than infinite.