Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Yaeri 12-22-04, 06:45 AM	I'm having an argument with a fellow player about the charm person spell. The spell states that the target receives a +5 bonus on it's saving throw when the spellcaster or it's allies are threatening or attacking the target. The situation is as follows: Two people are standing in an arena facing each other for a fight untill death. The spellcaster has attacked with a sling once, the other person has attacked with a sword. After that one attack the spellcaster tries several times to charm the other one. On the third try the target fails it's save. The save would not be a fail if the +5 bonus from being threatened applies. The target sais that they're fighting a battle till death and that they've attacked eachother so the +5 bonus applies. The spellcaster sais that the target isn't being threatened because the spellcaster isn't aiming a weapon (the sling wich was used in the beginning of the fight is lying on the ground now) and the spellcaster is a friend of the target. The target sais that the sling liying on the ground doesn't matter. That if the spellcaster was supposed to have a weapon in hand there would be no mention in the +5 rule because wizards will never have a weapon in hand when casting. The spellcaster than said that rule was referring to several special situations such as when a spellcaster would for example: have an animated sword flying in front of him/her or it's foot standing on a button that would drop the trapfloor under the target. So the question could be reduced to: Is being threatened in this instance: Being physically visibly threatened at the moment the spell is being cast? Or is it being in an overall threatening situation, being at edge in regard to the spellcaster? We both hope you can resolve this issue. Because we are both damned total convinced we're right! :D (So please oppinions of multiple people are welcome)
Roxlimn 12-22-04, 06:57 AM	Technically speaking, charm person is a enchantment type of magical attack, so if you were to interpret the rules that way, charm person would always get a +5 bonus on the save. More sensibly, I think "threatened" in that sense means impending or obvious physical or magical attack; in this case meaning that there is none. No +5 bonus should accrue.
Gil Gwath 12-22-04, 07:02 AM	IMO they are fighting. They rolled initiative and in the first round the wizard attacked him (why in the hell did he do such a fool act anyway?). They are still fighting in the same initiative order. IMC the fighter would have the +5 mod.
Vloorshad 12-22-04, 09:03 AM	In an arena fight-to-the-death, how could the opponent not view the caster as an enemy, regardless of where the sling is and what the Wizard's been doing for the past few rounds. Opponent gets a +5 because by the Wizard's very presence in the arena, he's an enemy.
Roxlimn 12-22-04, 09:13 AM	It isn't being perceived as an enemy that grants +5. It's threatening the target that grants a +5. Now pardon me if I get this wrong, but you can be someone's enemy without threatening them with anything, right?
CruelDM 12-22-04, 10:07 AM	In game terms "threatened" has a defined meaning. Using that as the basis, a character must have a melee weapon in hand and the opponant must be in a square threatened by the caster or his allies. This is not the case according to the description of events in the original post. Ranged weapons dont threaten areas unless they double as melee weapons (daggers, hatchets, etc.), a character cannot threaten areas without a melee weapon unless they also have Imp. Unarmed Strike. A less game related definition of "threatened" opens a whole new can of worms that requires subjective viewpoints and could mean both sides are correct. I recommend sticking to the term as defined by the rules.
Finarin Panjoro 12-22-04, 10:22 AM	The way I rule it is that the caster or an ally must attack the target for the +5 bonus to be applied. So in this case the fighter would get the +5 bonus because the spellcaster attacked him with a sling before he cast the spell. Whether it is a ranged, magical, or melee attack is irrelevant. It also doesn't matter if the attack hit or not, just that an attack was made. If the spellcaster won initiative and cast the spell before using his sling then the +5 would not apply. Likewise if the caster lost initiative, but niether he nor an ally retaliated against their attacker, then he could cast charm person repeatedly and the target would not recieve the +5 bonus on any of them. You hardly seem threatening if you're being repeatedly attacked and don't return blows.
Roxlimn 12-22-04, 10:41 AM	That doesn't make sense Finarin Panjoro. Casting a spell is a threat on the level with drawing your sword and attacking someone with it. That's why people in cities are normally very jumpy about wizards and sorcerers casting spells. It's a magical attack, but it's still an attack. Which is why the +5 wouldn't make sense unless the word "threatening" meant immediately threatening as in with some sort of attack, in the technical sense. I could even view it in a less technical sense, as in if the caster were targetting the target with a bow at the same time, but no farther. It isn't a Diplomacy check after all, it's a spell!
The Mailman 12-22-04, 11:44 AM	For what it's worth, a caster can always cast spells with somatic components with a weapon in hand. You only need one free one. Of course, this also ignores spells without somatic components. So I don't think the "target's" interpretation is right on that count. As for threatening, threatening IMHO can start or stop. So, if you start the fight, then throw down your weapon, it seems pretty clear to me that you're trying to communicate the fact that your giving up the offensive posture. (By comparison, legally, if someone is threatening you and then they throw down their weapon and back off, as a general rule you can't attack them in 'self-defense' since you aren't in danger of imminent harm.) Also, while casting a spell at someone might be 'threatening' them in a general sense, I think that the only sensible way to deal with spells like charm person and suggestion is not to take the casting into consideration when deciding the target's response. I mean, they have the saving throw. That's what it's for. To make the saving throw dependent on whether they see you cast the spell, would effectively lower the DC in almost every situation. More specifically, if you are considered as threatening someone every time you cast charm person at someone that saw you cast, the +5 save bonus would no longer be an exception, it would be the rule. If you want to rationalize the way this plays out, you could think of it this way: The rule can apply whether or not they are holding a weapon, because it's about whether the target percieves the caster as an imminent attacker. This fear or focus gives the +5 bonus. So, a mage with no weapons would be threatening or attacking just like a fighter swinging a sword. You'd have the same result if someone were, say, pointing an empty wand at the target, since they don't know the wand is empty. On the other hand, if a rogue/sorcerer dropped her knife after a confrontation, and then convinced the target that things had settled down for a moment and she wanted to negotiate, even though she was really looking for an opportunity to sneak attack, the target would still not get the +5 if she just suddenly cast the spell at him. So, what I'm suggesting is a subjective rule based upon the perception of the target. In your case, depending on how the wizard acted after she dropped the sling, there might not be a bonus. If the target could reasonably believe that the wizard was giving up or pleading for his life, and then suddenly cast the spell, I'd deny the bonus. On the other hand, if the wizard, in the middle of combat suddenly threw down his sling, grabbed some components and spat a spell at him, I'd at least consider the bonus--especially given the context of a gladatorial duel. How reasonable would it be for the target not to think he was attacking?
Mirror, Mirror 12-22-04, 12:05 PM	Um, in an arena match, both parties are threatening each other. If the fighter was an NPC, the wizard would definitly have to make a diplomacy check to change the attitude before the +5 would go away. The same goes here. So the fighter is entitled to the +5.
Finarin Panjoro 12-22-04, 01:15 PM	That doesn't make sense Finarin Panjoro. Casting a spell is a threat on the level with drawing your sword and attacking someone with it. That's why people in cities are normally very jumpy about wizards and sorcerers casting spells. It's a magical attack, but it's still an attack. I disagree. I don't consider charm person to be an attack and don't believe the target would either unless the charm fails (since the DMG states that he would know the charm was attempted). Otherwise you would have to have surprise to cast charm person on someone without them recieving the +5 bonus. I agree with the Mailman the spell itself cannot be considered a threat or the +5 save bonus would always apply. The attack must be percieved as an attack and simply casting a spell is not an attack. I could be casting a cure spell, a transport spell, a buff spell, a divination spell, a defensive spell, etc. none of which threaten the target in any way. Furthermore there is nothing that indicates that the target of a spell knows that he is the target until it takes effect (or fails too), so I could be casting at someone else. My feeling is that even in an arena context until you attack me I know that I'm a threat to you, but I don't know that you're a threat to me. You can still flee within the confines of the arena, beg for mercy, or whatever. Using threaten in the mechanical sense also doesn't make sense because it would allow me to cast lightning bolt at you and not be considered to be a threat. I rule that an attack is any action that would make you visible if you were invisible. Until such an action is taken against the target or his allies, not including the charm/suggestion itself (unless it fails), then the +5 bonus does not apply. If the party gets attacked and everyone takes total defense actions while the wizard starts casting charm spells then there is no way I'm giving the attacker a +5 bonus on his save.
jaelis 12-22-04, 01:33 PM	The text: 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. CruelDM has the best argument. The target is threatened if you or your allied threaten him with a melee weapon. The harder issue is "currently being ... attacked." It is impossible for the target to be the subject of an attack (other than the Charm Person spell) at the time Charm Person is being cast. I would assume that this phase is meant to cover attacks by ranged weapons and spells. On the basis of "events in a round nominally happen simultaneously," I'd say that if you or your ally has attacked the target at any time in the previous round (including the caster's previous turn) then the +5 bonus should apply. But that's just me; it would really be up to the DM. In the case of the original example, I'd say that the original sling attack and the previous (failed) castings all counted as "attacks", so the +5 bonus would apply. If the caster took a round off to cast a defensive spell or something, then I would have the bonus go away. jaelis
Someone 12-22-04, 01:48 PM	I think we're missing the big picture here: What good would charm person do in a fight to the death?!? Okay, they aren't attacking you now, but you can't do anything to them without breaking the spell. And the spell caster had to try 3 times! Including the sling attack, that's 4 whole rounds they could have been casting spells to kill the opponent instead.
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 12-22-04, 02:56 PM	"If the creature is currently being threatened..." Technically, you do not threaten creatures; you threaten squares. If a creature is in a square you threaten, you can attack it. I don't think the text in Charm Person is meant to be taken in a mechanical sense. Threaten in this instance, I believe, is used with the common English definition in mind. If one of your allies is ranting in a barroom about how he's going to "RIP THAT F***ING ORC'S EARS OFF" with his bare teeth, I gotta admit, I think that f***ing orc across the table is going to feel threatened. It is, after all, a threat. In my opinion, he'd get the +5 bonus against a Charm spell cast by the allies of the ranter. I definitely think the +5 bonus would apply in the situation provided by the original poster. I mean, dUde. Come on. You chucked a rock at his head. Where's the love? And, AND, you keep waving your hands around and pointing at him, and he keeps feeling a "hostile force or tingle" immediately following the conclusion of your gestures. You're obviously a threat. I am opposed to using the mechanical rules definition of "threaten" with Charm Person because a) it doesn't follow the actual, mechanical definition. You threaten squares, not creatures. b) Um. Flip it around. The DM ambushes the party from afar with archers. Oh, the agony! But wait! A lone figure steps out from the woods from where the arrows are coming and smiles at the PCs. "Hey, baby. It's cool. We're all friends here." *arrow*arrow*arrow*Charm Person* But, awww. The archers don't technically threaten the PCs, and no one is technically attacking on the enemy caster's turn. No +5 bonus for our heroes. ...That just seems really laaaame, but hey. That's just me. -mike the amazing muskrat
BW0222 12-22-04, 03:10 PM	Charm person only makes someone your friend. It doesn't dominate them or prevent them from taking any specific action. It also doesn't make the subject forgetful. Even with a fail, if my "friend" had just tossed a 1/2 lbs lead shot at my head, I can think of a lot of reasonable actions I would/could do. Certainly, I'd take the sling away from him, tactle him to the ground, knock him unconcious, order him to surrender, etc. Either my friend has gone insane, he doesn't recognize me, maybe he has been dominated, or he really isn't my friend? In any case, we'd both be safer if he was unconcious, tied up, or disarmed. Charmed doesn't mean stupid. If another PC attacked you with lethal force, what would you honestly do? If you attack people and then charm them, don't expect anything less from them. At best, you can get him to go non-lethal until you aren't a threat.
tarkin 12-22-04, 03:27 PM	You are confusing threatening squares and threatening people. threatening squares requires a melee weapon. If you have ANY weapon out, you are considered threatening people. Yes, this means that any time combat is goign on, people get the +5 bonus. Charm Person is designed to be a non-combat spell, cast when no one has weapons out/ready.
jaelis 12-22-04, 03:59 PM	Charm Person is designed to be a non-combat spell, cast when no one has weapons out/ready. Then why did they put that word "currently" in the description? To me, it suggests that you could have been attacking the target previously, but aren't any more. jaelis
Neely 12-22-04, 05:10 PM	Hey! I saw that fight! I was watching from the tribune. :D That halfling with his pointing stick, he shouldn't have to try it with me... poor pink eye gnome :/ This is my philosophy: Being threatened isn't permanent... you can feel at ease if someone throws down her weapons. Which was the case. As roleplayer I try to figure out how a spell would look like. A fireball would have aggressive somatic components for instance, while a Charm Person spell most likely would have gentle somatic. If I had a wizard doing some voodoo stuff at me, and twice in a row I had no clue what the hell he's up to (note, I consider a spell failure as unnoticeable in effect) I'd start to chuckle. It's just all subjective... the only two who can settle this dispute are the wizard and her target. *Tosses 2 copper pieces in the arena*
grindarsfolly 12-22-04, 05:17 PM	he should definitely get the + 5 bonus tarkin is right , threatening someone is different from a threatened space, the bonus is meant to reflect your heightened distrust or wariness of someone who is already threatening you so once they attacked eeach other, even though the wizard put his sling down , he is still threatening until the conflict is resolved if someone shot you, but then put their gun down next to himself and said lets be friends - how trusting woul dyou be , i think most people would still consider the other person to be a threat by your arguement giants throwing boulders at you, a ranger shooting you full of arrows, or a wizard hitting you with repeated lightening bolts would not be threatening at all sinc ethey are not in an adjacent square, or int he wizards case not at all since he is not next to you and has no weapon in hand
Bloodtide_the_Red 12-22-04, 08:33 PM	...............Then why did they put that word "currently" in the description? To me, it suggests that you could have been attacking the target previously, but aren't any more. ................... ---I'm not sure I can grasp this logic. You walk up to orc, orc swing you swing-fight starts. Then you put down your weapon and the orc will go 'Oh he is a good guy who will not hurt me, he put down his weapon. Guess I'll just stand here and go to sleep'. A good balance factor. Would you want this done to your character? Evil mage basts you with two fireballs, he has no weapon so your not 'threatened' by him(um, just forget about thoes fireballs). Then he charm persons you, you'd suffer the +5 right...he is just a 'harmless guy', so your not 'currently' threatened. If you realy want to go with this, you should just dump saving throws vs magic all together. Saves assume that any magic effecting you is hostile, so you try to fight it off. But if your not threatened, you should lower your save. So as long as the bad spellcaster does not have a weapon, you never get a save vs their spells................ BT
Phrennzy 12-22-04, 08:39 PM	How is casting Charm Person NOT considered threatening? It's a mind control spell - it magically compels you to change your view. I'd call that threatening. Aside from that, the wizard IS threatening the fighter because they are in the middle of combat. It's simple: In combat = +5 to save Out of Combat = no +5 to save.
taltamir 12-22-04, 10:34 PM	Ok, here are some logical assumptions. 1. The spell itself cant be threatening (but previous attempts to cast it CAN be), otherwise the +5 always applies... 2. Charm person doesnt make a person stupid or forgetful, they will consider you a friend... who is currently attacking you with lethal force... at most they will go non leathal on your ass. At worse they will fight as usual (there are many who will kill their best friend if he pisses them off, they would likely be willing to do you a favor, like killing someone else, if you just charmed them out of combat). 3. Threaten person isnt the same as threaten a square, it cant be with melee only, since otherwise a mage would NEVER be threatening with any offensive. 4. Different people have different attitutes. The fighter and the wizard in your group disagree on weather it seemed threatening, the people here disagree about its threatening value. Do they get the +5 bonus? you CAN make a roll for their attitute (to see if they felt threatened by the mage) or just come to a descision about it, based on all the ideas and views people suggested so far. What would even be the results of a successful charm? that the person would likely use non leathal force, against the caster only that is. It is important to remember that a charm person makes the target more cordial to YOU the caster, NOT to your allies... as such from his viewpoint his friend is with some guys who are trying to murder you... you kill those guys, and disarm the friend, and then tell him he better have a good explanation. PS. From the attitude of the mage he sounds agressive, that might make him threatening... :)
Vaelan 12-23-04, 02:28 AM	1. They get the +5. The inconsistancy between the uses of the word "threatened" has been shown well enough to state that you do not need to have a weapon out to be "threatening" someone for the purposes of Charm. 2. Charm Person is worthless. Fights to the death are generally enforced. If neither party will fight, they will both die. Charm Person will not force the person to give up their life to save yours. You'll need Dominate Person for that.
TrustTymora 12-23-04, 05:27 AM	I agree with Tarkin. You might want to look at the glossary under "facinated" to see what a potential threat and an obvious threat are. I'm not sure what the plan was if the charm person spell worked but remember that any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. Hope this helps, TT
Yaeri 12-23-04, 05:56 AM	I'm not sure what the plan was if the charm person spell worked but remember that any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. TT The plan if the charm person worked out is not a problem. We were both actually fooling around in a hypothetical situation. We were at school when one of us said: alright our characters are standing in an arena for a fight untill death. We took out the dice and started playing it and the rest is history. So I didn't post the question to resolve an ingame problem. But because we were both so damned convinced of our right. Our DM is glad this thing popped op out of a game, so this can be resolved before our next session. (Otherwise it would certainly arise during a game, and there would be no time for consulting the forum) Someone said that I always want to be right. Wich I consider a flaud remark, how could anyone think "my opinion is this but it's wrong?" If you think you're wrong than you don't have that opinion. Everybody thinks they're right untill they get convinced of the oposite by discussion or experience and then they drop the former opinion. Anyway I was agitated by that remark so I said: "Bet if I post the question on the forum more people will say that I'm right than that you're right?" (because that would be the only way to "proove" that my claim to being right was legit) So we posted the message. Both sides looking to it that the post was objective. (all arguments of both sides posted in it, and not mentioning who was on wich side) We decided that the final count on votes would be at 14:00 hours today. (that's still 2 hours after this post) And to "win" one would need at least double the votes of the other one. There are things in this thread on wich I'd like to respond but that's against the rules so I'll wait a few hours. :D anyway, we both thank you for all the responses. And voting is still possible for the next two hours :) PS: The target isn't a fighter, it's a rogue, not that it matters. :D
Yaeri 12-23-04, 08:32 AM	Alright the dispute has been settled. I'd just like to respond to two things that have been said in above posts. About the spell failure making the effect unnoticable: This is a misunderstanding. There was no spell failure (no arcane spell failure or failed concentration check due to damage). The spell was cast successfully, but the target made two successful will saves. So the target had to twice use his/her willpower to overcome the spell wich was cast. About the +5 bonus then always applying: No, the charm person spell has been used several times in our games in non threatening situations. I see charm person usefull in situations where you need to convince others. Make a guard let you into town, make someone you actually don't know or doesn't like you borrow you money. Make someone turn his back on you so your rogue friend can sneak attack him. I see the +5 bonus only applying (and it's a bonus so it doesn't even make it impossible in such situations) in situations where you're in combat with the spellcaster, or where you KNOW he/she is trying to hurt you. I don't see the act of casting the spell in itself as threatening. I would if the spellcaster had previously cast offensive spells or has attacked the target. If -as mentioned by someone else- the spellcaster had fooled the target into believing there was a time-out or the caster wanted to negotiate, (maybe that would require a bluff check) I agree the +5 bonus would not apply. Thanks all for the replies. We can dive into our next game (upcoming monday: part two of chapter three of our campaign :D) without having this issue pop up.
Roxlimn 12-24-04, 01:57 PM	Finarin Panjoro: I disagree. I don't consider charm person to be an attack and don't believe the target would either unless the charm fails (since the DMG states that he would know the charm was attempted). As far as the target is concerned, its a spell aimed at him. He doesn't know what it does, whether or not he felt anything. Considering the vast number of hurtful conditions spells can and are widely known to inflict, I would say that watching someone cast a spell on you would very much feel like an attack of some sort. The DMG information, IMO, only exists to clarify that the target can be made aware of a magical attack on a failed save, whether or not he sees the spell being cast. The attack must be percieved as an attack and simply casting a spell is not an attack. I could be casting a cure spell, a transport spell, a buff spell, a divination spell, a defensive spell, etc. none of which threaten the target in any way. Furthermore there is nothing that indicates that the target of a spell knows that he is the target until it takes effect (or fails too), so I could be casting at someone else. Dude, there are two people in the arena and one of them is casting a spell. Two guesses who the target can be. While casting a spell isn't necessarily an attack, the person observing can't know that. As far as he's concerned, you can be targetting him with instant death, and that's so pressing a concern that the possibility that you're casting something else tends to be less relevant. When someone points a gun in your general direction, he could be just playing, using a toy gun, targetting someone else in your vicinity, checking his aim sights, or god knows what. As far as you're concerned he could be shooting at you, and for most people, that's the only possibility they think of until the threat is neutralized. Furthermore, many campaign materials and even DMG material strongly suggests that just the act of casting an unsanctioned spell is highly threatening to anyone. Comrmyr imposes charters to quell people's fears. Upper Tavick Landing in Sharn does so, too, as do a lot of other cities in many campaigns. In the DMG, "Magic in Your World" and "Legal Issues" entries strongly suggest and magic is so powerful and inscrutable that most people are only aware of it in terms that can do them harm. In these cases, a magic user casting a spell in a tavern or emporium, for example, is viewed pretty much like he drew a sword or worse. CruelDM makes the most solid case, but there is some precedent as in the fascinate power, as suggested. You can threaten without actually threatening the opponent's square, but in the case above, being unarmed, the wizard would most likely be considered less of a threat, unless you take his magic into account, in which case you would view any spellcasting activity as a threat. Since this is untenable, I would not grant the +5 bonus on the assumption that you don't apply it anyway just because the wizard casted a spell.