|
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, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way.
:::::::::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. (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.:::::::
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 else be good at pantomiming.
If I knew how to bold and highlight an area I would. I've come across in a PFS scenario where a perfectly clear pool of water was in fact acid. So an Acid pool doesnt always have to be stinky, fizzy etc. Even then without the knowledge skills to back it up, a forced charisma check should have that charmed person at least checking the pool
And no, you dont get to force mitigate a spell. If I build a charisma caster that is focused on charm, you dont get to hand wave my build because you dont like it, any more than I can hand wave the +30 damage barbarian.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I knew how to bold and highlight an area I would.
its (b)stuff here (/b) replace ( with [
for example,
::::::::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. (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.:::::::
And no, you dont get to force mitigate a spell. If I build a charisma caster that is focused on charm, you dont get to hand wave my build because you dont like it, any more than I can hand wave the +30 damage barbarian.
No, you don't get to rule by selectively reading one line in the spell ignoring developer statements, the faq clarification, and the very text of the spell itself which says that you CANNOT control the creature like an automoton, but that's what you're trying to do. Making the opposed charisma check gets an orc to plow a field for you, it doesn't make the orc jump off a cliff wearing a tutu. (you need dominate person. And a tutu. for that)
My charmed NPCs tend to be very helpful (way too helpful for acid baths) depending on the scenario they might tell you about the big bad, or given the right pay* and HMO even fight with you.
* or promise of the right pay. ...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most people have friends in real life. Charm person allows you do anything you could normally get your real life friends to do. The only real advantage of charm person over normally making friends, is that you don't actually have to spend the time it would normally take to befriend someone.
So, could you order a friend to get into that pool of acid that would obviously harm/kill them? No.
Now, could you lie to your friend and convince them that they should jump into this "perfectly safe" pool of oddly colored water? Maybe.
And either way, I'd regard any action where you purposely get your friends killed, as evil. Even if they are magically acquired friends, that's still messed up.
|
Does one automatically detect an invisible caster casting a silent spell?Thank you for demonstrating to us the stupidity of these manifestations! That is a real valable question I think!
So, this is a bit of a hijack, but given the direction of the rest of the thread at this point, we might need a bit of a redirect!
One salient point is that spellcraft checks suffer the same penalties as perception checks. It would be reasonable to imagine for this reason alone that invisibility trumps emanations. In addition, the visible effect of a light spell on an invisible target seems to be a light without a source, so it would seem reasonable to me that the visible effects of spellcasting would be at minimum distorted and spread throughout the nearby area (possibly even the range of the spell in question), and in my mind they would be completely suppressed. (You're 100m away from town casting magic missile, and suddenly swirls of magic flash through the bar? Nah.) Those two considerations inform my opinion on the matter.
Action: Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
This FAQ might be interesting to you, Paul, but as has been argued many times on many boards, it does not directly address the issue.
I know where I come down (invisibly hides spell casting), but it's something I ask every gm I play under if I'm planning to be casting while invisible. Until there is a clarification, expect table variation.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ultimate intrigue is really interesting when it comes to things like this. But the concept that people engaged in combat are necessarily hostile is not always true. Some people are ambivalent, some people are proffessionals. Think of civil war, brother vs brother. You don't have to hate your enemy to fight them, unfortunately.
If I'm trying to kill you, I'm hostile to you. Just because it's a Tuesday doesn't change that.
|
|
So if your telling me to jump in the ppol of "water" but you know the pool is full of acid then that's a bluff check. If I know it's acid or I work out that your lying and then learn that it's acid (maybe by dipping my toe in) I would be asking the gm if that constituted a hostile action - hence ending the spell.
Charm person in combat? I'm generally not a fan.
It would be bluff checks to convince your friend that the acid was really water, and then diplomacy to convince them they should go in. And even there, it would really depend how they'd normally respond to pools of water and to friends.
And in any case, I would have this horrible act of sadism affect your alignment. (this is not a good or neutral action, this is evil). Essentially, they are helpless and you are using magic to kill them in an unnessarily cruel way. If your PC is already evil, then this is par for the course.
As for using charm person in combat, it really doesn't work well in party-based combat. In a one on one fight, it would work just fine, but when your allies are attacking their allies, charming one of them isn't going to get them to stop fighting. They'd probably stop attacking you, or pull their punches, or switch to non-lethal damage, but they won't stop fighting while your party is attacking their allies.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They would with an opposed Charisma check. That's why it's there. There is no bluff, or diplomacy needed. Just a straight opposed Charisma.
Hey go do this, and roll. Nothing else is required or mentioned in the spell. Stop adding requirements because the spell is op at 1st and 4th level slots.
no one is adding requirements.
What you're doing is looking at the one rule "you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do" and completely ignoring the entire rest of the spell, including the outright prohibition on the action you're trying to get them to do.
An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders,
never. Not "unless you beat them at a charisma check"
|
|
So I've recently played a sorcerer in PFS that has a small focus in enchantments such as Charm Person, and I'm not any master of rules but I don't think the downfalls of the spell are that common of an occurrence, nor is the benefit that powerful.
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, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. 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. (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. 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 else be good at pantomiming.
With this alone, we have to reference the diplomacy rules and realize that friendly does not mean helpful. Even simple requests could require a check.
If a creature's attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature's current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers. Once a creature's attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.
An example was that one time I charmed a hostile "fightery" looking fellow. He failed his save (even with the +5 for being hostile) and now I decide to use diplomacy on this "friendly" enemy to drop his weapon. He is not my best friend (even though the spell makes it sound that way), but he trusts me, and I make a diplomacy check with a DC = 10 + the enemy's CHA modifier + Request modifier based on the diplomacy rules. If I succeed, he will drop his weapon on his turn and attempt to fight me hand to hand as requested, otherwise he is still "friendly" towards me until something changes that attitude (is attacked by my ally, time, etc.)
So in overall power, the spell requires a lot to be useful in combat, but is very useful out of combat when the party lacks a good face.
In terms of the spells always showing a manifestation, this is for the skill spellcraft. Spellcraft is a trained only skill that I would imagine very few "common folk" having. So the simple casting of Charm Person may radiate a manifestation for a trained spellcrafter to identify, but does nothing for the common folk around (the spell components may raise an eyebrow or two). Provided that the caster isn't in the middle of a plaza during busy times, or surrounded by potentially hostile groups, I'd say that most of the time the casting of this spell isn't going to cause problems in terms of detection.
Just my thoughts, once again, no master of rules.
|
|
but does nothing for the common folk aroundIn a way it's worse for the common folk, who have no idea what you're doing and may assume that it's harmful.
Not necessarily true. There are almost as many non harmful spells as there are harmful.
And also the FAQ just says that the manifestations are typically described in the spell description. Here I would assume that the part of the change in attitude followed by the "it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way" bit as the manifestation that other observers may act upon.
|
|
In a high magic world like Golarion, spell casting is everywhere. Stores carry magic weapons in most of the mid-large cities. Magical potions that can remove your ailments.
So, I'd imagine that unless the party was in Ustalav, that many casual castings are largely ignored unless the effect had obvious harmful effects.
Once again, not an expert on rules or the world of Golarion, but it's how I'd handle it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a high magic world like Golarion, spell casting is everywhere. Stores carry magic weapons in most of the mid-large cities. Magical potions that can remove your ailments.
In large cities, yes. In the boondocks, not so much.
Like i said above, casting a spell is like reaching quickly into a violin case. If you're in the phil harmonic you're fine. If you're in an area known for "legitimate businessmen" they may assume the worst.
|
|
But that's not what would make people hostile. And in this case, I'd compare magic in Golarion to technology on Earth.
Reaching into your pocket for your phone? Might make some people anxious that you might be reaching for something else, but for the most part you'll do fine.
See a magical manifestation on Golarion? Probably a similar effect.
All I'm pointing out is that I don't think the intention of the FAQ was "that guys using magic! Get him!" So much as "hmm, that guys casting a spell... Should I walk away or see what comes of it?"
|
|
In a high magic world like Golarion, spell casting is everywhere. Stores carry magic weapons in most of the mid-large cities. Magical potions that can remove your ailments.
So, I'd imagine that unless the party was in Ustalav, that many casual castings are largely ignored unless the effect had obvious harmful effects.
Once again, not an expert on rules or the world of Golarion, but it's how I'd handle it.
In a magic heavy setting, casting spells is equal to drawing weapons. GM usually has us roll intiative when we starting casting spells. Even detect magic, often results in an intiative roll.
This is because most NPCs don't see a difference between offensive, defensive, and utilitily magic.
If they do have spellcraft, or the PCs explain their peaceful intentions prior to casting, then yeah, no intiative roll. But that's no different from the PCs drawing weapons in social setting (initiative roll, unless the NPCs understand that you aren't drawing the weapons to harm the NPCs).
For a local example, Oregon (USA) is an Open Carry State. This means you'd don't need a concealed weapon permit to have a gun (or sword) on your person, provided you keep it in plain view. That said, if you take it out of the holster/sheathe, or otherwise intimidate people with it, and you should expect to get arrested by police (or even other citizens) unless you've got a very obvious reason.
Back to Golarion, yeah, most places walking around as a wizard or a warrior isn't a crime. Just like having weapons strapped to your body isn't an issue. You start casting spells or drawing weapons, and you should expect other people to consider that a line you've crossed. You'll get arrested, escalate a social sitatuation into a hostile one, or just scare people off.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a magic heavy setting, casting spells is equal to drawing weapons. GM usually has us roll intiative when we starting casting spells. Even detect magic, often results in an intiative roll.
I'd have said that in a magic heavy setting people are less likely to see spellcasting as a threat because there is more of it happening. Plus of course there is the context in which it happens - so the guy on the other side of the road who looked down at his foot, swore and is now casting a spell? Probably Prestidigitation because he stepped in dog muck. The one who stepped out of the pub in the evening and started casting? Probably Light so he can get home with clean boots.
Given how many useful minor spells and cantrips there are, I would expect many people have seen inoffensive spells cast by inoffensive looking people, and it's the circumstances (bunch of people with visible weapons, mix of weird races, openly displayed Wayfinders) that trigger initiative, rather than just casting a spell. Otherwise half of Golarion would be reaching for a pitchfork every couple of hours because they saw a spell go off.
|
|
^ What this guy is saying.
I think it's harder to imagine because we genuinely don't live in a magical world. We think of magic as this strange and rare concept, that just "does stuff" with no understanding to how it was done. That lack of understanding creates the fear that we possess. But in a world full of wizards who dedicate their lives to understanding magic, clerics who have venerated their gods for years on end, bards who have learned that their performances could affect more than feelings, this understanding is there.
Our technology we possess in our everyday lives is hardly terrifying to us. You see people on phones, computers, tablets, or identification based on a bunch of black lines all the time. And although we have some scary technology (missiles, guns, home-made explosives, etc.), most of the time it's not a big deal when we see them. I'd imagine where magic reigned supreme over technology, that the impact would be similar if not the same.
Now in terms of a game setting, I'd expect that there will always be a table variance, but I'd hardly call "You're casting a spell? Roll initiative as the guard down the street finds you suspicious!" a fair ruling. Just my two copper.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the start of each game, I cast Unseen Servant, as I feel a lady of my class should have a servant to fetch and carry for her.
My outfit (clothing) contains an item that has Continual Flame cast on it, and I point out that I am trying to push this spell as a "fashion statement" - I've posted a thread to that effect sometime ago, and gotten good responses. ("hay, it's a hot outfit!").
I use a number of cantrips often - esp. Prestiditation, during the corse of talking (diplomacy) to NPCs ("Cookie?" hand wave, produce small sweet lump...).
The more we (as Players) use non-combat spells available to us, the more people (other players and judges, NOT NPCs) will view magic as being part of the Campaign setting and not something to react with aggression to.
|
I think that Murdock is right. It all depends on circumstances.
If you're already in a moderately tense situation then casting a magic spell is going to be seen as hostile and will often result in initiative being rolled.
If you walk into a store and cast a spell it is going to be seen as hostile (the storekeeper in a store selling anything an adventurer would care about KNOWS about Charm Person, after all).
In that same store, looking at a magic item, saying "I want to examine this myself under detect magic", waiting a second, and then casting detect magic is NOT hostile.
Take the Harry Potterverse as a good analogy. VERY VERY different reactions to drawing a wand or muttering a spell depending on cirvumstances.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that Murdock is right. It all depends on circumstances.
If you're already in a moderately tense situation then casting a magic spell is going to be seen as hostile and will often result in initiative being rolled.
That's like having cops pointing guns at you and you reaching into your pocket for ID, I'd think that's a fair ruling to have initiatives rolled.
If you walk into a store and cast a spell it is going to be seen as hostile (the storekeeper in a store selling anything an adventurer would care about KNOWS about Charm Person, after all).
Two things:
1) Unless that storekeep has spellcraft, you could very well be casting Prestidigitation to get muck off your shoes.2) If it was Charm Person, it's too late for that storekeep to do anything unless he makes his save. And according to rules, if he makes his save he knows that a spell was cast on him and the party is probably being kicked out of a store with hostility. So this particular spell would change nothing in terms of the result.
In that same store, looking at a magic item, saying "I want to examine this myself under detect magic", waiting a second, and then casting detect magic is NOT hostile.
And that is no different than walking into a store, saying "I'm going to detect magic on this" and then cast Charm Person instead. Magic is part of life. Unless that storekeep has something they are trying to hide, a casual casting probably doesn't mean much to him. Although I would say that a storekeep has a higher chance of having spellcraft to assist in his job and is more likely to know that he is about to be charmed.
Take the Harry Potterverse as a good analogy. VERY VERY different reactions to drawing a wand or muttering a spell depending on cirvumstances.
And that's for anything in any world. Different circumstances will require certain tack. Everyday Joe probably does fine casting his Light spell, or Prestidigitation most of the time. But if he's being threatened by the guard, the casting will probably get him stabbed. Just like everyday Joe in our world can pull out his phone under normal circumstances just fine. Do it while being told by police to not move might get you shot.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
I am glad that I am not the only one who believes casting spells in the open is completely normal for Galorian. Some places and people who are anti magic or superstitious to it may be different, hopefully you nailed the local check to find out if they are magic friendly.
With all these magic users in this world as well as the Dieities that walked among the men and women, you would be okay with spells being cast about them.
Hell, even my superstitious unchained barbarian is okay with magic, he just does not like being hit with spells with out knowing the outcomes.
Now if one of the PC's start casting a spell in a crowded bar, they will turn a head or two, but no one will react until someone can figure out the spell is hostile or not, or at least the effect.
|
|
What I'm trying to point out is that I understand that certain circumstances may produce certain levels of aggression during the casting of a spell, but that for the most part, I believe that the casting of a spell would not draw immediate aggression.
That is how society reacts in general though, not just in the magical world of Golarion.
|
|
And that is no different than walking into a store, saying "I'm going to detect magic on this" and then cast Charm Person instead. Magic is part of life. Unless that storekeep has something they are trying to hide, a casual casting probably doesn't mean much to him. Although I would say that a storekeep has a higher chance of having spellcraft to assist in his job and is more likely to know that he is about to be charmed.
So, the difference in pathfinder between announcing the spell you are going to cast, vs lying about the spell you are going to cast, is that they use different skills. One is is diplomacy and the other is bluff.
And if you pass your bluff check, then getting a surprise round, or otherwise casting the spell without the target being on guard, is a reasonable response.
Just like you could say you were reaching for your cell, but instead pull out a gun and shoot the guy.
As an aside, many people keep equating "technology" to Magic, but when describing technology, they have a very limited scope of what applies. Everything humans make is technology, from the ability to write or speak, to advanced robots. A sharpened stick is technology. Magic, if real, is a subset of technology.
In Galorion, Magic is a weapon, first and foremost. And before you rant about how common magic makes people okay with it, go look at the Mana Wastes. Magic is sword, a gun, or a nuclear bomb. At best, Magic to the common person is how gasoline is viewed these days: We need it, but it's poisonous and flamable and it creates greed and causes war.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My cel phone generally doesn't tend to explode in a fireball. (unless it's a samsung 7, then imagine how scared you get when someone takes one of those out on a plane)
Technology in my hand is incredibly unlikely to affect someone else. A nuke may have more destructive power than a fireball but anyone can tell a bomb from beer bottle.
|
|
And that is no different than walking into a store, saying "I'm going to detect magic on this" and then cast Charm Person instead. Magic is part of life. Unless that storekeep has something they are trying to hide, a casual casting probably doesn't mean much to him. Although I would say that a storekeep has a higher chance of having spellcraft to assist in his job and is more likely to know that he is about to be charmed.
So, the difference in pathfinder between announcing the spell you are going to cast, vs lying about the spell you are going to cast, is that they use different skills. One is is diplomacy and the other is bluff.
And if you pass your bluff check, then getting a surprise round, or otherwise casting the spell without the target being on guard, is a reasonable response.
Just like you could say you were reaching for your cell, but instead pull out a gun and shoot the guy.
As an aside, many people keep equating "technology" to Magic, but when describing technology, they have a very limited scope of what applies. Everything humans make is technology, from the ability to write or speak, to advanced robots. A sharpened stick is technology. Magic, if real, is a subset of technology.
In Galorion, Magic is a weapon, first and foremost. And before you rant about how common magic makes people okay with it, go look at the Mana Wastes. Magic is sword, a gun, or a nuclear bomb. At best, Magic to the common person is how gasoline is viewed these days: We need it, but it's poisonous and flamable and it creates greed and causes war.
A weapon? You mean to tell me that my Oracle of Life has been slaughtering people all this time?
Magic is a tool. Tools can do many things, both harmful and beneficial. Could a random person fireball a town two minutes of walking in? Sure. That same random person could walk into town and cast bless on the people just as easily.
When I walk into a bank and reach for my wallet, I could just as easily be reaching for a gun. But I have yet to this date had the silent alarm pressed for such an action, nor have I been tackled, shot at, or have caused mass panic. So why would an individual who starts casting a spell be any different in a setting where magic is EVERYWHERE?
Would you have players roll initiative if one runs up to an injured guard to cast Cure Light Wounds? What if they say "I'm going to heal you?" and fail their diplomacy/bluff check? I've GM'ed quite a few games, and played in quite a few games, and have never had an instance where I had to roll initiative for casting a Cure spell.
You talk of a limited scope of technology, and I admit I have only provided a limited scope thus far, but magic does equal technology in this case. Magic is literally everywhere in this setting. Gnomes (a common race) can trace their lineage to the fey (magical creatures). 2/3 of the classes (the majority) can cast spells. To go out and say that everyone is suspicious of magic on Golarion would be like saying everyone is suspicious of clothing on Earth, where I believe it is pretty much the opposite now (Earthlings tend to look at naked people more strangely than clothed).
|
|
My cel phone generally doesn't tend to explode in a fireball. (unless it's a samsung 7, then imagine how scared you get when someone takes one of those out on a plane)
Technology in my hand is incredibly unlikely to affect someone else. A nuke may have more destructive power than a fireball but anyone can tell a bomb from beer bottle.
Just like how they can tell bombs apart from alarm clocks I assume?
And the thing that you're missing is that just casting a spell is like reaching for something in a pocket. Just because you could be pulling out a bomb, doesn't mean you are. Just because you could be casting fireball, doesn't mean you will. The action taken doesn't justify the aggression given. Circumstances will alter these things. Walking down the street and reach into your pocket? Probably nothing to worry about. Same in my case of spell casting. Walk up to police officers and reach into your pocket, an eyebrow (at least) will be raised. Same if you walk up to some guards and start casting.
|
|
Oh! So next time I see an injured officer, I just let him bleed even though I have medical training?
No, you identify yourself then walk near if they or the people they're with are still up and functioning. Diplomacy THEn heal... An EMT or obvious saranite clergy could skip that part.
Just like how they can tell bombs apart from alarm clocks I assume?
Which is why you don't board a sub way with loose wires sticking out of your pockets unless your helmet reads "Con ed"
|
|
But how often do these things happen in real life? How often have you come across an injured individual and shouted "I'm so and so, I have medical training and I'm here to help you?" before you approach? I've introduced myself after I've already started helping, but typically not before as time is an issue for many injuries.
But in the end, I guess it's just GM fiat, because personally, I see no problems with spells being cast casually, so long as the effect of the spells shows no apparent harm.
Anyways, I've said all I could say on the matter. I don't think spellcasting is a hostile action in and of itself, barring circumstances.
|
|
My cel phone generally doesn't tend to explode in a fireball. (unless it's a samsung 7, then imagine how scared you get when someone takes one of those out on a plane)
Technology in my hand is incredibly unlikely to affect someone else. A nuke may have more destructive power than a fireball but anyone can tell a bomb from beer bottle.
And again technology does not equal magic. Magic is a type of technology. Just like metal working is a type of technology.
A weapon is a type of tool. Specifically, it is a type of tool designed to harm or debilitate others. Magic is tool, and while it isn't always a weapon, the lack of ability to ID magic for the layman, makes the difference kinda irrelevant.
Yeah, the layman knows that it's a cell phone because cell phones all kinda look the same. They don't need to know the specifics to know it's a simple communication device, not a weapon. Spells all look the same without spellcraft - that's the problem.
So if Pathfinder maintains that spellcraft is trained only, then no, I don't think it's reasonable for the layman to assume that spells aren't weapons. If they have the training, they might know better, but that's special training.
Obviously, this is contextual to where and how you use things. Though anything mildly intimitading (like non-hostile spellcasting) will be magnified when you are walking around with 3-5 (pathfinder party size) heavily armed buddies.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But how often do these things happen in real life? How often have you come across an injured individual and shouted "I'm so and so, I have medical training and I'm here to help you?" before you approach? I've introduced myself after I've already started helping, but typically not before as time is an issue for many injuries.
When I was in the park ranger uniform, never. Hi, park ranger , pretty obvious what I'm doing at the pool when you've busted your head on the diving board.
When i wasn't? most of the time. especially if i stop to help someone on the side of the road Identifying yourself and your level of training is part of the process (things don't always go according to the guidebooks though..)
Area matters too. In my home town with a violent crime rate of .00001 % Yeah I can just run up to the cop with a busted leg. In the nearby city that can hit the highest per capita murder rate? Hands up and wait for permission to approach or a moan indicating that he can't give it.
|
|
But in the end, I guess it's just GM fiat, because personally, I see no problems with spells being cast casually, so long as the effect of the spells shows no apparent harm.
Do you see issues eating unidentified mushrooms, provided there are no negative immediate effects?
Magic is like mushrooms, there are lots of kinds and certainly not all of them are bad, but the bad ones are very bad. So if you can't ID them, you should probably not eat them at all.
|
|
Your analogies are all over the place...
Magic = subset of technology. Check
Magic = weapons. Check
Weapons = subset of technology. Check
Magic = mushrooms. Check
Mushrooms = subset of technology... Don't think so...
Mushrooms = weapon... I guess it could be, in the wrong hands.
So what's your final statement as to what Magic equals? Is squirrel next? I like squirrels. Their poofy tails, ya know?
Happy gaming! Hope your party clerics and bards survive the constant attacks wherever they go!
|
|
Back to the OP charm topic:
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?
So dumping CHA and still using Charm is likely a mistake. I think there's a feat that let's you use another stat instead of CHA, but you kinda need to be able to use diplomacy to use charm to good effect.
As for practical uses of Charm, first understand the limitations:
-Doesn't really work in party combat very well. You can use it to change target priority away from you (kinda like sancturary), but it's not going to get the opponent to stop attacking allies (or more likely, to stop defending itself from your allies). And even that's a limited effect if the target has good reasons to attack even a friend in your situation.
-As an enchantment targeting an individual, it can can be detected via Sense Motive (which is an untrained skill...). So charm person is pretty limited if there are two guards, rather than just one. And you'd still need diplomacy to get them to do things that have consequences for (like how slipping past the guards could get them fired).
-They don't forget what happens while you have charmed them. So even with success, there may be consequences when the spell wears off.
Those limitations in mind, Charm's non-social skills applications are pretty limited. You could still make friends this way, and just hang out with people you don't know.
An underused aspect of Charm, is that you could use it to bypass the initial trust issues, then be really nice to the person, so when the spell wears off, they still like you despite your lacking CHA. You could make a real friend that way, despite being really, really ugly.
For example, you happen upon a starving and terrified individual that has been alone too long. Your CHA sucks, but you successfully charm them. While charmed, you get them fed, calmed down, and you treat them as a trusted friend. When the spell wears off, they'll remember how you treated them, which is a positive thing with this application of the spell. Now you have a circumstance bonus on further checks, since they know you have been good to them in the past. Hopefully, this circumstance bonus will be enough to overcome your CHA issues, so you might actually get a real friend out of this.
|
|
Your analogies are all over the place...
Magic = subset of technology. Check
Magic = weapons. Check
Weapons = subset of technology. Check
Magic = mushrooms. Check
Mushrooms = subset of technology... Don't think so...
Mushrooms = weapon... I guess it could be, in the wrong hands.
like the use of magic, analogies are contextual to how they are used.
Though, case and point, if an observer doesn't understand, then they respond in a hostile manner.
|
|
People want to cast charm person
Undetectably
Unobtrusively
and gain TOTAL POWER OVER THE FEEBLE MINDED MINIONS!
Chances are pretty good that one form of table variation or another is going to make that a no go. Manifestations make them visible, vastly different ideas about how people react to magic make it unreliable, and anything resembling a sane interpretation makes the charmed person your friend, not your mind slave.
There are a lot of things that magic does better than skills. Diplomacy isn't one of them. Take the trait that lets you have your int bonus to diplomacy if you need to add "good with people" to your pathfinder dosier
|
|
I guess some people want that, but what I want is what the Charm Person spell says it does. I want to wave my hands, say "Humhana be nice to me now please humhana" and watch their attitude shift from unfriendly to friendly.
Then I'd like to make a request from this now friendly person and make my appropriate skill check (diplomacy is the typical check) against a DC with appropriate modifiers and if I'm lucky I have succeeded in my quest to get information/a bargain/temporary ally/whatever sounds reasonable at the time.
I don't mind being detected in most circumstances, as to be honest the newly charmed person will likely back me up in saying "It's alright, the caster did nothing bad". I don't care about being unobtrusive, those no mags don't know what they're taking about anyways, and total power was out of the scope of the spell anyways.
I don't think it's too much to ask for. That's a lot of hoops to go through just to have a chance of getting a successful diplomacy check.
Also, just to clarify, manifestations do not say that it makes a spell visible, just that there is an obvious magical effect taking place during the casting.
|
|
Though I have to be honest in saying that I've had a couple of players who tried telling me that their charmed "ally" is now their best friend and would do anything they ask as long as it's reasonable... I had to politely show them what "friendly" means in terms of attitudes in the diplomacy section of the book and that what they were thinking of was "helpful". The bickering on that lasted for a minute or so until I requested that we go with my way until next session, where they can provide their arguments alongside with evidence.
|
|
I think that Murdock is right. It all depends on circumstances.
If you're already in a moderately tense situation then casting a magic spell is going to be seen as hostile and will often result in initiative being rolled.
That's like having cops pointing guns at you and you reaching into your pocket for ID, I'd think that's a fair ruling to have initiatives rolled.
If you walk into a store and cast a spell it is going to be seen as hostile (the storekeeper in a store selling anything an adventurer would care about KNOWS about Charm Person, after all).Two things:
1) Unless that storekeep has spellcraft, you could very well be casting Prestidigitation to get muck off your shoes.
2) If it was Charm Person, it's too late for that storekeep to do anything unless he makes his save. And according to rules, if he makes his save he knows that a spell was cast on him and the party is probably being kicked out of a store with hostility. So this particular spell would change nothing in terms of the result.In that same store, looking at a magic item, saying "I want to examine this myself under detect magic", waiting a second, and then casting detect magic is NOT hostile.And that is no different than walking into a store, saying "I'm going to detect magic on this" and then cast Charm Person instead. Magic is part of life. Unless that storekeep has something they are trying to hide, a casual casting probably doesn't mean much to him. Although I would say that a storekeep has a higher chance of having spellcraft to assist in his job and is more likely to know that he is about to be charmed.
Take the Harry Potterverse as a good analogy. VERY VERY different reactions to drawing a wand or muttering a spell depending on cirvumstances.And that's for anything in any world. Different circumstances will require certain tack. Everyday Joe probably does fine casting his Light spell, or...
For things like this, I like to let the actions of the player characters in any game I'm running inform me of how things work in the world.
If the characters don't react to some NPC casting a spell they don't recognise in the tavern, then they are generally free to cast non offensive spells in public without being attacked. On the other hand, if while walking down the street someone starts casting an unknown spell and they immediately attack "in self defense" then that is the general reaction that they can expect from NPCs in the world.
I've found that more groups seem to play that unknown magic cast by a stranger (or often even an NPC they know) is dangerous and should be met with extreme suspicion, but that's hardly scientific, and may be a skewed sample group.
I would ask that anyone who thinks magic should be met with acceptance by NPCs who don't know if it is hostile or not, to consider how your character reacts to such a thing, and if that is in line with how you feel NPCs should react.
|
|
Though I have to be honest in saying that I've had a couple of players who tried telling me that their charmed "ally" is now their best friend and would do anything they ask as long as it's reasonable... I had to politely show them what "friendly" means in terms of attitudes in the diplomacy section of the book and that what they were thinking of was "helpful". The bickering on that lasted for a minute or so until I requested that we go with my way until next session, where they can provide their arguments alongside with evidence.
I don't think that the charm spell is referencing the diplomacy mechanic.
|
|
I guess some people want that, but what I want is what the Charm Person spell says it does. I want to wave my hands, say "Humhana be nice to me now please humhana" and watch their attitude shift from unfriendly to friendly.
Thats more difficult than you'd think.
You are going to try to play with someone's mind, to mess with their free will, and forcibly alter their perceptions of you with a deeply personal alteration to their very selves. You are attacking them, and people get just as much chance to notice this as they do to notice that you're going to try to suckerpunch them. In short, you're starting combat, and they have a chance to defend themselves via the same perception sense motive or some other check to determine awareness that the players would want in the same situation (and that i am a real stickler on insisting that they get)
Then I'd like to make a request from this now friendly person and make my appropriate skill check (diplomacy is the typical check) against a DC with appropriate modifiers and if I'm lucky I have succeeded in my quest to get information/a bargain/temporary ally/whatever sounds reasonable at the time.
As I'm reading it you don't have to. They are your frienD, they are not merely friendly. The same word can appear twice in the rules without always meaning the same thing.
I