Charm and caster's allies, also bluff


Rules Questions


Charm spells make tha target to consider only the caster their trusted friend and ally; it doesn't include caster's allies, right?

Let's consider this situation: a PC wizard charmes an ogre, the ogre instantly considers the wizard a friend, but he still sees other PCs as enemies; because of that he would still attack other PCs, and a Charisma check would be necessary to convince him to let them go (as this isn't something he'd ordinarily do); is that correct?

Second question: Charm Person also says that the target perceives the caster's words and actions in the most favorable way; does it work like as automatic succes in Bluff? For example if the aforementioned wizard tells the ogre that other PCs are also friendly towards the ogre, would the ogre believe automatically (because of the charm he wouldn't consider his friendly wizard lying), or would Bluff be required (because it's still a lie)?


Adjoint wrote:
Charm spells make tha target to consider only the caster their trusted friend and ally; it doesn't include caster's allies, right?

Correct

Adjoint wrote:
Let's consider this situation: a PC wizard charmes an ogre, the ogre instantly considers the wizard a friend, but he still sees other PCs as enemies; because of that he would still attack other PCs, and a Charisma check would be necessary to convince him to let them go (as this isn't something he'd ordinarily do); is that correct?

This depends on the creature. Imagine you're best friends with someone and they are with a bunch of sketchy looking people. Are you going to automatically treat these sketchy people the same way you would normally after learning that they're friends with your best friend? and/or your best friend asks that you let them go. Maybe you normally would or maybe you normally wouldn't. I imagine a charisma check would be necessary unless the creature is very trusting of its "friends".

Adjoint wrote:
Second question: Charm Person also says that the target perceives the caster's words and actions in the most favorable way; does it work like as automatic succes in Bluff? For example if the aforementioned wizard tells the ogre that other PCs are also friendly towards the ogre, would the ogre believe automatically (because of the charm he wouldn't consider his friendly wizard lying), or would Bluff be required (because it's still a lie)?

A bluff check would still be required, however, you would probably get a +5 circumstance bonus because the target "wants to believe you". A generous DM might even give you up to a +10 if you provide "proof" as per the bluff skill.

Depending on the end result you're after and the situation, a diplomacy check might be better. Since the spell should make the target friendly if not helpful. Meaning it will be much less risky then a bluff check.


Ok, let's now considera reverse situation: The PCs have met a group of lamia matriarchs. The PCs can reasonably guess that the lamias work for the BBEG they are after. However, using their surprise round, the lamias use their charm abilities and charm some of the PCs (let's assume that some of them made their saves). The lamias will try to avoid fighting, instead trying to calm the PCs down and get a chance to charm everyone. They'll defend themselves, but fight back only if they figure out they need to use force to put the PCs down. Even then they'd prefer to capture PCs alive rather than kill them.

The charmed PCs see that their lamia friend appeared with a bunch of other lamias that they had believed to be enemies. On top of that they ask to PCs to clam down and not to fight. At the same time, the PCs that avoided being charmed may start attacking these lamias, claiming that they try to charm them.

What kind of checks should be made in order to determine what the charmed PCs can do? They shouldn't be able to attack the lamia that charmed them, if they are not attacked, but can they attack the other lamias even if their lamia friend tells them not to?

Just for additional context, I made clear to the players that every tactic they use is also a tactic their opponents can use, if something is allowed for players, it's also allowed for monsters - and these players have already used the charming monsters as a strategy before.


I think the charmed PCs should get a sense motive check opposed by a bluff check. The lamia would get at the very least a +5 circumstance bonus to the bluff check since the charmed PCs "want to believe" it. If the other lamias taking actions to appear non-hostile then you may even impose an additional +10 since there is "believable evidence".

If the charmed PCs fail the sense motive check then they should "realize" their "friend" believes they are telling the truth. If it's otherwise apparent to them that this is not true, they don't think they were lied to just that their "friend" is mistaken about the situation. It would even be reasonable for the PCs to make an attempt to "rescue" their friend from the other lamias. They should also intervene for and/or defend the charming lamia from their actual allies.

IRL if you have two friends and they've pulled knives on each other you're probably going to try to de-escalate the situation and talk sense to them.

If the PCs pass the sense motive check they should "realize" that the lamia making the statement is just being sarcastic or is trying to make a very poor joke. They know they've been lied to but its "obvious" that there was no "real attempt" at deceit.

Until something happens that actually breaks the charm effect the PCs should not treat the lamia that charmed them as a threat and will do whatever is reasonable to prevent that lamia from coming to harm.


I'd say LordKailas is correct and it could get confusingly complex fast if more than one Lamia successfully charms more than one PC. Keeping track of who "likes" who and all that o.O Heaven only help the DM if one of the Lamia is up to treachery against her fellow Lamia


I'm using roll20, and I think I'll use colorful markers to mark who is liked by who.

I'll try to use this ruling, we'll see how it tunrs out. ANother question regarding charm spells came to my mind:, regarding orders that require opposed CHarisma check - can they be made out of turn, and can they interrupt someone's actions? Speaking is usually treated as something that can be made out of turn and doesn't require anyaction, and I don't see anything that suggest that giving such order is requires anything more than being able to communicate the commands.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Charm and caster's allies, also bluff All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.