|
I'm going to weigh in here, as i just finished a scenario where i had a wish-crafter sorceress use Charm Person as her go to spell. Ironically, the scenario was #0-07 Among the Living- lots of zombies.
When the party encountered some cultists, she cast Charm Person, they failed their will save and she suggested they go fisticuffs. One managed to acquiesce and the other one was killed before he could acquiesce.
Then came the big bad fight. He rolled lowest initiative and was doomed regardless; the sorceress rolled highest initiative and whammied him with her last Charm Person and asked him to surrender.
With the typical baddie's "Fight to the Death" he had the full +15 bonus to resist the suggestion- and still failed. Sorceress rolled 27 Diplomacy to, his total was 26.
With the big bad dead last in initiative anyways, i ruled the scenario completed. either the PC's kill him, or they restrain him and turn him over the authorities- who execute him for his crimes.
my point-
Charm Person in PFS, and in general homegame, the result is up the GM to interpret and roleplay.
Yes, you made a potentially hostile enemy a potential ally. They may not acquiesce to your request, but they possibly won't attack you.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
I'm going to weigh in here, as i just finished a scenario where i had a wish-crafter sorceress use Charm Person as her go to spell. Ironically, the scenario was #0-07 Among the Living- lots of zombies.
When the party encountered some cultists, she cast Charm Person, they failed their will save and she suggested they go fisticuffs. One managed to acquiesce and the other one was killed before he could acquiesce.
Then came the big bad fight. He rolled lowest initiative and was doomed regardless; the sorceress rolled highest initiative and whammied him with her last Charm Person and asked him to surrender.
With the typical baddie's "Fight to the Death" he had the full +15 bonus to resist the suggestion- and still failed. Sorceress rolled 27 Diplomacy to, his total was 26.With the big bad dead last in initiative anyways, i ruled the scenario completed. either the PC's kill him, or they restrain him and turn him over the authorities- who execute him for his crimes.
my point-
Charm Person in PFS, and in general homegame, the result is up the GM to interpret and roleplay.
Yes, you made a potentially hostile enemy a potential ally. They may not acquiesce to your request, but they possibly won't attack you.
I think you gave the spell too much power there. Just because it makes you their friend doesn't get rid of your other friends or change your goals or motivations. You're not going to give up on your plan, you'll just feel bad that it has to include a friend. You could try and convince your new charming friend to join you instead of acting against you, but when they say no you'll just have to deal with the loss of your new friend.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Socrerer: Charm persons a bugbear guard
Guard rolls a 1
DM plays barry white music.
Sorcerer stayed behind to distract the guard. Left the wise cracking familiar with the party so they'd know if something was wrong.
In the middle of the next fight, familiar falls off the fighter's shoulder laughing at the sensations coming through the link...
|
|
Sorceress rolled 27 Diplomacy to, his total was 26.While you're certainly entitled to GM the effects of charm person how you'd like (it's the epitome of "YMMV"), I wanted to point out that the spell asks for an opposed Charisma check, not a Diplomacy check.
I know, regardless of how I would have interpretted the outcome, the BBEG rolled last in initiative. with a party of a gunslinger, rogue, ninja, bloodrager and alchemist- as well as aforementioned Sorceresss- he was doomed
|
I think I've seen Charm Person used once in Society play. It was quite a successful tactic when used against a bunch of Norgorber cultists. The Party sorcerer charmed two of the cultists and asked them to protect her from the rest of those horrible nasty people. Given that all of them were literally murderous cultists, GM was happy for them to fight each other with full force.
|
Well, in the next level or so, my Lust Wizard will be making Still/Silent Charm Person as a go to spell for social encounters. :D
Looking forward to it.. be nice to not have the +4 (or higher) for apparent spell casting.. some of my GMs have a very loose of 'in combat'.
Of course 4 charm monsters breaking a special might have something to do with that locally
|
|
Well, in the next level or so, my Lust Wizard will be making Still/Silent Charm Person as a go to spell for social encounters. :D
That won't work at all with the
inventionclarification of spellcasting manifestations. You're going to have to get conceal spell.
So NPCs throughout the world get away with Charm/Dominate person/monster but we have 'manifestations' that inexplicably show our spells?
that' bogus
|
|
Prerequisites: Deceitful, Bluff 1 rank, Disguise 1 rank, Sleight of Hand 1 rank.
Benefit: When you cast a spell or use a spell-like ability, you can attempt to conceal verbal and somatic components among other speech and gestures, and to conceal the manifestation of casting the spell, so others don’t realize you’re casting a spell or using a spell-like ability until it is too late. The attempt to hide the spell slows your casting slightly, such that spells that normally take a standard action to cast now take a full-round action, and spells that normally take longer than a standard action take twice as long. (Swift action spells still take a swift action.) To discover your ruse, a creature must succeed at a Perception, Sense Motive, or Spellcraft check (the creature receives an automatic check with whichever of those skills has the highest bonus) against a DC equal to 15 + your number of ranks in Bluff or Disguise (whichever is higher) + your Charisma modifier; the creature gains a bonus on its check equal to the level of the spell or spelllike ability you are concealing.
If your spell has a somatic component, any creature that can see you receives a Perception or Spellcraft check (whichever has the highest bonus) against a DC equal to 15+ your number of ranks in Sleight of Hand + your Dexterity modifier; the creature gains a bonus on its check equal to the level of the spell or spell-like ability you are concealing.
Since you are concealing the spell’s manifestation through other actions, others observing you realize you’re doing something, even if they don’t realize you’re casting a spell. If there is a verbal component, they still hear your loud, clear voice but don’t notice the spell woven within. If an opponent fails its check, your casting also does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and an opponent that fails its check can’t use readied actions that depend on realizing that you’re casting a spell or using a spell-like ability, or readied actions such as counter spelling that require identifying the spell you’re casting. Spells such as fireball that create an additional obvious effect (aside from the manifestation of casting that all spells and spell-like abilities share) still create that effect, though it might not be obvious who cast the spell unless it emanates from you. If a character interacts with you long enough to attempt a Sense Motive check without realizing you have been casting spells, that character can use Sense Motive to gain a hunch that you’re behaving unusually.
So for conceal spell in ultimate intrigue, you need a rank in bluff, disguise and sleight of hand as well as Deceitful. And after all that, it still may not be concealed if they roll high enough.
So as a spell caster, to cast spells completely undetected, you need to burn 3 feats(Deceitful, Still Spell, and Silent Spell) and then 3 skill ranks minimum. And if it is core, I guess you are out of luck.
Does anyone else think this is a bit to hard on casters?
|
|
Well, in the next level or so, my Lust Wizard will be making Still/Silent Charm Person as a go to spell for social encounters. :D
That won't work at all with the
inventionclarification of spellcasting manifestations. You're going to have to get conceal spell.So NPCs throughout the world get away with Charm/Dominate person/monster but we have 'manifestations' that inexplicably show our spells?
that' bogus
It applies to NPCs as well.
And Manifestations can be pretty much anything, not just glowing runes and fireworks going off. It could be something as simple as quick whirl going over your eyes.
|
|
Well, in the next level or so, my Lust Wizard will be making Still/Silent Charm Person as a go to spell for social encounters. :D
That won't work at all with the
inventionclarification of spellcasting manifestations. You're going to have to get conceal spell.So NPCs throughout the world get away with Charm/Dominate person/monster but we have 'manifestations' that inexplicably show our spells?
that' bogus
It applies to NPCs as well.
And Manifestations can be pretty much anything, not just glowing runes and fireworks going off. It could be something as simple as quick whirl going over your eyes.
According to the FAQ, it is obvious to the uninitiated. So maybe it is a little more noticeable than that.
|
|
According to the FAQ, it is obvious to the uninitiated. So maybe it is a little more noticeable than that.Well, in the next level or so, my Lust Wizard will be making Still/Silent Charm Person as a go to spell for social encounters. :D
That won't work at all with the
inventionclarification of spellcasting manifestations. You're going to have to get conceal spell.So NPCs throughout the world get away with Charm/Dominate person/monster but we have 'manifestations' that inexplicably show our spells?
that' bogus
It applies to NPCs as well.
And Manifestations can be pretty much anything, not just glowing runes and fireworks going off. It could be something as simple as quick whirl going over your eyes.
I don't have anything to do with magic. But if I saw a whirl all of sudden appear over someone's eyes while talking to them I'd know some weird shit be going down :3
Manifestations for charm person only really matter if the subject makes the save vs the spell.
Manifestations for charm person only really matter if the subject makes the save vs the spell.?
Because if you have someone charmed, it thinks of you as a buddy and really doesn't dwell on the fact that you put the whammy on it. (ergo Charles Pritcher's conversation on his conversion by the Mule in Issac Asimov's Second Foundation.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought the most common manifestation was having your nose wiggle. Or is that just for witch spells?
Don't get me started on my Bewitched vs. I Dream of Jeanie rant!
"Because any woman who calls her husband, Master, automatically loses."
Or anyone else around, say you want to charm the bartender. You cast the spell, the bartender fails, and you go into combat as the patrons attack you as they saw you cast the spell.
There's a reason why when the Master pulls this trick, it's almost always when he and his victim are alone. It's also been true of every player I've seen succesfully cast that spell.
|
on a different thread about how/what you could get a charmed NPC to do, I posted the following...
the Original post went something like...
"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. - So, if you ask the charmed person to fight his/her allies, you must first win an opposed Charisma check, and then they get a new save to break the spell completely."
...
"what, you think I should swing on George? He's my buddy! He's my pal... I mean, why would I do that? ...Wait...he took all the bacon this morning at breakfast. He snores & farts... he NEVER PUTS OUT THE TRASH! HE'S SO DEADDDDDD! ARGGGGG!!!!"
My point is, just because he's "an ally" is no sign he's "a friend"...
I mean, do you have anyone at work you'd just love to whack - as long as you could claim "the wizard charmed me!"? I can see someone saying to their Ally, "heck - the enemy wizard thru a spell on me, everyone saw it! and that made me do it! It's not my fault!" ;) [ooc]heck, I've even seen players do this at the table. "Not my fault! I was Confused!"
I firmly believe that this manifestation things sucks hard. How do you do no for your Nymph NPC to charm the Fighter? What are the point of Silent/Still Spell? Why Paizo wants you to buy Ultimate Intrigue so bad? If we are true to their FAQ then NPC with charms abilities are terrible right now. I don't know for you guys but my players would attack on sight someone with the slightest manifestations who is talking to them. And I'll not call that an evil action but self-defense! When you kno what magic can do better be safe than dominated!
However I think that a lot of people around here are confounding Charm-Personn with Dominate. Or people have very very nice best friends! Because a friend still got his free-will, his agenda, his motivations. It's just that you're his really nice funny and cool friend that's it. He likes you a lot, but he's not a puppet. I think that this manifestations thing is a way to maybe protects PFS from to powerful Charms because the DM ruled it a little bit too powerful.
And Bards did not even needed Silent/Still spell before they got this Feat from
The Inner Guide (I think or Ultimate Magic) which allow them to cast while performing music like nothing happened!
Silent and Still spell never adjusted the DC for spell identification or for noticing a spell cast. That's been the fact since D+D 3.0.
** spoiler omitted **...
Bluff IS a class skill for sorcerers.. who also happen to be charisma casters.
That's incorrect. Silent and Still could make the DC impossible.
Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.)
See OR hear, Verbal Or Semantic. Apparantly you only needed one, not both, and the lack of one, imposes no modifier.
But if the spell only HAS one, it becomes impossible to ID. And if you use both, the same result happens.
I don't have the 3.0 version handy but 3.5 has the same text. When Pathfinder reprinted the skill it eliminated the table for factors involving spell identification. That's the big difference.
|
|
I don't know for you guys but my players would attack on sight someone with the slightest manifestations who is talking to them. And I'll not call that an evil action but self-defense! When you kno what magic can do better be safe than dominated!
Yes, and that's a reasonable and typical NPC reaction in situations where there is little basis for trust.
okay, be sure to have them attack if they ever ask a temple for healing. ;) Some chatty cleric talking to you as he cast the cure/restoration/remove X spell and since you can't ID it you attack them on site
Of course I'm going to do that! Last adventure the Cleric of Erastil came close to loose his powers after he went hard on a poor musician who wasn't a Bard!
I never think of Silent and Still as way to counter being tied or in a Silence zone! It makes sense now. I always considered them as a way to do the Jedi mind trick.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never think of Silent and Still as way to counter being tied or in a Silence zone! It makes sense now. I always considered them as a way to do the Jedi mind trick.
Silence can also be VERY useful in a scouting situation. There are times when the invisible scout DESPERATELY wants to cast Detect Magic without making noise :-).
Of course, under the new rules I'm not sure that would work any more :-(
Does one automatically detect an invisible caster casting a silent spell?
|
|
Are there indications for how cover or concealment effect ability to notice manifestations? Because my inclination is to make sure to duck around a corner or under a table before casting.
But then I tend to run high stealth Arcane Trickster types, so I tend to focus on making my own hidey-holes, rather than actually going invisible.
