Charmed PC during combat [Archive] - Wizards Community

Charmed PC during combat [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Gnarl
09-09-07, 03:54 AM Hello,

In today's game, my PCs are going to face a monster with charm monster as a spell-like ability (with an obscene save DC). Last time I had a charmed PC, the player simply did not play along and this time I will take control of the character.

I could use your opinions on how to run this encounter.

1) Do the PCs get the +5 bonus to saving throw if they are the ones attacking and the monster is the defender?
2) Should I allow the monster to use an opposed charisma check to order the PC to attack his friends?
3) How do you think the charmed PC should react towards his companions?

Thanks,

Gnarl
Fireclave
09-09-07, 05:52 AM 1) Technically, No. The target creature only gets the +5 bonus to save when it is being threaten or attacked. If the monster is taking no threatening actions, then the PC gets no bonus.

However, if the PCs and the monster where already engaged in combat and exchanged blows prior to the monster casting Charm Monster, then I would say yes, they would get the +5 bonus.

2) Maybe. The effectiveness of Charm spells is situational and highly depends on personality of the charmed creature and the how the charmer frames the request.

The biggest thing to remember is that Charm spells don't give you complete control over the target creature. The creature considers you one of its best friends but is otherwise free to act as it normally would act.

It is unlikely that a charmed creature would attack its allies. I would say that most creatures would interpret such a command or suggestion as "obviously harmful orders," (especially creatures who would normally highly value loyalty, trust, and friendship), and therefore make the order automatically fail.

However, if attacking an ally is not completely taboo for the character in question, then a opposed charisma check might be warranted. For example, let's say that one of the party members is Evil McBackstabby of Stelfromgroup, who betrays his friends, party, and his mother all the time. When his new best friend tells him of this awesome plan to take advantage of the group without getting caught/smited by the party's fighter, he might be all for it. Roll opposed charisma. If he is really evil and was already considering offing his party, McBackstabby might not even need a opposed charisma roll to get him on board.

Likewise, it the request is framed in the right way and under the right circumstances that the charmed creature would likely do so under normal conditions, a opposed charisma check might be warranted. For example, if the party attacks the monster unprovoked and the monster charms and then pleads to the party's paladin to save it from his comrades because it is innocent, the Paladin may very well start throwing out some non-lethal damage against his mates.

3) Charm only makes the charmed creature regard the charmer as a "trusted friend and ally". The charmed creature has not forgotten who his other friends are or thinks of them any less than he did before.

If the charmed creature would not normally attack or otherwise direct ill-will upon one of his friends because another friend of his told him to do so, it is highly unlikely that a charmed creature would do likewise.

:twocents:
FrostHammer
09-09-07, 12:31 PM What about Suggestion? Do the same rules apply or do you get more leeway with it since it is a more powerful spell?
Metamagick
09-09-07, 02:16 PM I have discovered that if someone charms another person that he will try and play peace keeper. My logic behind it is this, he sees the monster and his party as his friends, thus, he will wouldnt want his party to kill his friend (and vice versa).

For questions One and Two, I have no comment.
Fireclave
09-09-07, 02:48 PM What about Suggestion? Do the same rules apply or do you get more leeway with it since it is a more powerful spell?
When trying to force someone to do something, Suggestion does have a bit more built-in leeway than Charm Person. The biggest differences between Suggestion and Charm Person is that the former actually gives you some control over the creatures mind. Suggestion does not require you to convince the target to do the course of action you want. As long as the proposed action seems reasonable, the target will say "yes sir," and do it. And unlike Charm Person, you can specify when the target should carry out that action and/or make the target continue the action for the entire duration of spell, both of which are good pluses.

However, like with Charm Person, I would say that ordering the target to attack his allies would be a "obviously harmful act" unless you can convince the target otherwise.
murhe
09-09-07, 03:16 PM I think it is fair favor to ask charmed person to grapple and hold his old friend to prevent violence. Grappling is it not actual attack and is natural reaction to situation where friends fight together. It also ruins round for both characters if succeeds. Even better if this other party member makes attack of opportunity against charmed person, because he may then be asked to defend himself...
ArcTan
09-09-07, 08:48 PM Honestly, I don't see attacking one's allies as "obviously harmful", unless your allies are really that much more powerful than you. Remember that charm person is supposed to be able to get a Fighter to "hold off" an advancing Red Dragon for you.

However, attacking one's allies probably *is* the kind of thing you need an opposed Cha check to do (something they wouldn't ordinarily do), and if you fail an opposed Cha check you can't retry. The charmed PC might refuse to attack his fellows if he's sure it will lead to his own death, but otherwise, he can and will slit his own best friend's throat on a successful opposed Cha check (yes, it's supposed to work like that).

The suggestions on the WotC website for how to handle a fight between a charmer and the PCs' old allies if you do *not* succeed on an opposed Cha check is to handle it like you would a fight between friends ordinarily -- you'd try to plead with them to stop, only intervene when you had to, and try to use nonlethal methods when possible.
Tedronai
09-09-07, 08:53 PM Frankly, if the charmed individual was a reasonably capable grappler, I doubt you would have to even ask. Two of it's (perceived) allies are engaged in lethal combat, and one (the monster who charmed him) seems to be at a distinct disadvantage (in all likelyhood due to being outnumbered, etc.).
The natural reaction is to attempt to resolve the situation, or at least difuse it temporarily. I would expect, at the least, that the charmed individual places himself between the combatants and attempts to seperate them by whatever means seems most likely to succeed (short of lethal force, and unless seriously in trouble from his allies - since being threatened by the monster automatically breaks the effect, so lethal force would never come up as a necessity in that direction).
Fireclave
09-10-07, 01:32 AM Honestly, I don't see attacking one's allies as "obviously harmful", unless your allies are really that much more powerful than you.
An equally valid interpretation, though I disagree with your view because it basically translates "obviously harmful" to "obviously lethal," and I prefer to use a broader definition of "harm."

damage or injury: physical, mental, or moral impairment or deterioration

Sure I could easily Forcecage and Cloudkill Fighty McFighter, my bestest-best buddy, godfather of my children, whom I known since before I could remember, and swore to rid the land of evil on a oath of blood. But I would definitely be harmed by such a course of action by losing not only a best friend, but forever defiling my own personal code of decency by killing in cold blood for no good reason.

Or were you talking about Evil McBackstabby? Yeah, him...I don't like so much :shifty:
ArcTan
09-10-07, 01:34 PM An equally valid interpretation, though I disagree with your view because it basically translates "obviously harmful" to "obviously lethal," and I prefer to use a broader definition of "harm."

Doesn't have to be lethal. A charmed person would probably not take all their money and give it to you, because losing all their money is also a kind of harm.

Sure I could easily Forcecage and Cloudkill Fighty McFighter, my bestest-best buddy, godfather of my children, whom I known since before I could remember, and swore to rid the land of evil on a oath of blood. But I would definitely be harmed by such a course of action by losing not only a best friend, but forever defiling my own personal code of decency by killing in cold blood for no good reason.

Or were you talking about Evil McBackstabby? Yeah, him...I don't like so much :shifty:

...Enh. This sounds too much like a way to get by the opposed Cha check to me. "Obviously harmful" should mean *more* than simply things that are against your nature.

Maybe I could see this as a way for the opposed Cha check to never force you to kill, say, your own kids, or your own wife, or your best friend in all the world.

But you're not necessarily best friends with everyone in your party, and it's kind of cheating to make it so that's always the case -- most parties consist of people who are choosing to work together for a time, and certainly may consider themselves friends, but not with the absolute and unbreakable bonds of brotherly love.
Fireclave
09-10-07, 02:51 PM Doesn't have to be lethal.
I agree that it doesn't. But I was specifically addressing this statement

Honestly, I don't see attacking one's allies as "obviously harmful", unless your allies are really that much more powerful than you.

It seemed that you were implying that attacking your allies is not an obviously harmful act only if they are not much of a threat to your life.

...Enh. This sounds too much like a way to get by the opposed Cha check to me. "Obviously harmful" should mean *more* than simply things that are against your nature.
I didn't mean to imply that "obviously harmful" merely meant things against your nature. I meant to imply that things that would be grossly against your nature to do. Things that would instinctually make you say "WTFareyoudaftHELLNO! :uh-huh: :noway: "

Maybe I could see this as a way for the opposed Cha check to never force you to kill, say, your own kids, or your own wife, or your best friend in all the world.

But you're not necessarily best friends with everyone in your party, and it's kind of cheating to make it so that's always the case -- most parties consist of people who are choosing to work together for a time, and certainly may consider themselves friends, but not with the absolute and unbreakable bonds of brotherly love.
I also didn't mean to imply this as a way of cheating out of Charm Person or to imply that my example is always the case (because it's not). I was just using a overly exaggerated example to illustrate my point. My example still would have worked the same if I did not make the characters in question party specific.

You're right; not everyone in the party is going to have unbreakable bonds, let alone be friends with, with everyone else. IMO, how effective Charm Person works, especially when used to attempt to pit party members against each other, is something that needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis.
mvincent
09-10-07, 03:28 PM 2) Should I allow the monster to use an opposed charisma check to order the PC to attack his friends?Sure, however:
1) Most PC's would consider this "obviously harmful", and thus not do it.
2) A select few might merely consider it something they "wouldn’t ordinarily do".

Note to consider: any character that previously "did not play along" when charmed and attacked their new "friend" obviously doesn't have a problem attacking friends in general.

A) I personally feel (from experience with needlessly long battles) it's just easiest to have people charmed in combat simply take no actions.
B) Another option would have them declare their actions, but if it favors one side or another, make an opposed charisma check and then change the action (if needed) to instead favor the winner's side.
ArcTan
09-10-07, 04:12 PM Sure, however:
1) Most PC's would consider this "obviously harmful", and thus not do it.
2) A select few might merely consider it something they "wouldn’t ordinarily do".

It's not actually been my experience that most PCs are, by definition, blood brothers with the other members of the party. A comparison to co-workers is more apt than best friends (yes, co-workers in extremely hazardous situations, but even most US Marines or firefighters or whatever will admit they're not actually *friends* with their squadmates all the time, even when their lives depend on each other).

My last PC would've probably attacked his party members had (the person he had been magically compelled to think of as) his good friend told him to. He was in the party of necessity, not because he really loved everyone there as his friend. You don't have to be Evil Backstab Guy to be a character like that.

Note to consider: any character that previously "did not play along" when charmed and attacked their new "friend" obviously doesn't have a problem attacking friends in general.

Yeah. It shouldn't happen without extenuating circumstances. Not impossible, but the point of charm person is that you treat the charmer with the best possible intentions you can possibly have in that situation.

A) I personally feel (from experience with needlessly long battles) it's just easiest to have people charmed in combat simply take no actions.
B) Another option would have them declare their actions, but if it favors one side or another, make an opposed charisma check and then change the action (if needed) to instead favor the winner's side.

You need to make an opposed Cha check *specifically* when giving an order for it to work. Otherwise they just take their default actions.

I mean, like the article said, it's simple -- you don't think of them as being on a "side". They do whatever they can to end the combat with minimum casualties. They stop anyone who tries to kill anyone *at all*. You run it just like you would run it if two groups of their friends really did start fighting.
Sildatorak
09-10-07, 04:44 PM They do whatever they can to end the combat with minimum casualties. They stop anyone who tries to kill anyone *at all*. You run it just like you would run it if two groups of their friends really did start fighting.I agree 100%.
mvincent
09-10-07, 05:19 PM even most US Marines or firefighters or whatever will admit they're not actually *friends* with their squadmates all the time, even when their lives depend on each otherI would still consider attacking a co-worker (even in a non-hazardous situations) to be "obviously harmful" (certain alignments and humanoid societies excluded)

My last PC would've probably attacked his party members had (the person he had been magically compelled to think of as) his good friend told him to.That is a-typical in my groups, but I acknowledge that this might be more common for some.

You need to make an opposed Cha check *specifically* when giving an order for it to work. Otherwise they just take their default actions.Unless the player can act terribly objectively, they will tend to favor their 'real' side over the other (even if subtly). I offered this as an alternative to taking control of their character (which the OP said he would do).

They do whatever they can to end the combat with minimum casualties. They stop anyone who tries to kill anyone *at all*. You run it just like you would run it if two groups of their friends really did start fighting.That is absolutely correct. However, from previous experience this tends to result in long, weird battles as players try to stop all combat and treat say, a Spirit Naga as a close, personal friend. The result can often be lengthy and disconnected while not resembling fantasy very much. Having the PC instead not participate (as if mesmerized) may make for a smoother, more enjoyable (and more fantasy-like) result. Yes... the charmed individual may have less to do... but it's an overall win if you spend 1/2 as much real time on conducting the battle, and far better than taking control of their character.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gnarl 09-09-07, 03:54 AM	Hello, In today's game, my PCs are going to face a monster with charm monster as a spell-like ability (with an obscene save DC). Last time I had a charmed PC, the player simply did not play along and this time I will take control of the character. I could use your opinions on how to run this encounter. 1) Do the PCs get the +5 bonus to saving throw if they are the ones attacking and the monster is the defender? 2) Should I allow the monster to use an opposed charisma check to order the PC to attack his friends? 3) How do you think the charmed PC should react towards his companions? Thanks, Gnarl
Fireclave 09-09-07, 05:52 AM	1) Technically, No. The target creature only gets the +5 bonus to save when it is being threaten or attacked. If the monster is taking no threatening actions, then the PC gets no bonus. However, if the PCs and the monster where already engaged in combat and exchanged blows prior to the monster casting Charm Monster, then I would say yes, they would get the +5 bonus. 2) Maybe. The effectiveness of Charm spells is situational and highly depends on personality of the charmed creature and the how the charmer frames the request. The biggest thing to remember is that Charm spells don't give you complete control over the target creature. The creature considers you one of its best friends but is otherwise free to act as it normally would act. It is unlikely that a charmed creature would attack its allies. I would say that most creatures would interpret such a command or suggestion as "obviously harmful orders," (especially creatures who would normally highly value loyalty, trust, and friendship), and therefore make the order automatically fail. However, if attacking an ally is not completely taboo for the character in question, then a opposed charisma check might be warranted. For example, let's say that one of the party members is Evil McBackstabby of Stelfromgroup, who betrays his friends, party, and his mother all the time. When his new best friend tells him of this awesome plan to take advantage of the group without getting caught/smited by the party's fighter, he might be all for it. Roll opposed charisma. If he is really evil and was already considering offing his party, McBackstabby might not even need a opposed charisma roll to get him on board. Likewise, it the request is framed in the right way and under the right circumstances that the charmed creature would likely do so under normal conditions, a opposed charisma check might be warranted. For example, if the party attacks the monster unprovoked and the monster charms and then pleads to the party's paladin to save it from his comrades because it is innocent, the Paladin may very well start throwing out some non-lethal damage against his mates. 3) Charm only makes the charmed creature regard the charmer as a "trusted friend and ally". The charmed creature has not forgotten who his other friends are or thinks of them any less than he did before. If the charmed creature would not normally attack or otherwise direct ill-will upon one of his friends because another friend of his told him to do so, it is highly unlikely that a charmed creature would do likewise. :twocents:
FrostHammer 09-09-07, 12:31 PM	What about Suggestion? Do the same rules apply or do you get more leeway with it since it is a more powerful spell?
Metamagick 09-09-07, 02:16 PM	I have discovered that if someone charms another person that he will try and play peace keeper. My logic behind it is this, he sees the monster and his party as his friends, thus, he will wouldnt want his party to kill his friend (and vice versa). For questions One and Two, I have no comment.
Fireclave 09-09-07, 02:48 PM	What about Suggestion? Do the same rules apply or do you get more leeway with it since it is a more powerful spell? When trying to force someone to do something, Suggestion does have a bit more built-in leeway than Charm Person. The biggest differences between Suggestion and Charm Person is that the former actually gives you some control over the creatures mind. Suggestion does not require you to convince the target to do the course of action you want. As long as the proposed action seems reasonable, the target will say "yes sir," and do it. And unlike Charm Person, you can specify when the target should carry out that action and/or make the target continue the action for the entire duration of spell, both of which are good pluses. However, like with Charm Person, I would say that ordering the target to attack his allies would be a "obviously harmful act" unless you can convince the target otherwise.
murhe 09-09-07, 03:16 PM	I think it is fair favor to ask charmed person to grapple and hold his old friend to prevent violence. Grappling is it not actual attack and is natural reaction to situation where friends fight together. It also ruins round for both characters if succeeds. Even better if this other party member makes attack of opportunity against charmed person, because he may then be asked to defend himself...
ArcTan 09-09-07, 08:48 PM	Honestly, I don't see attacking one's allies as "obviously harmful", unless your allies are really that much more powerful than you. Remember that charm person is supposed to be able to get a Fighter to "hold off" an advancing Red Dragon for you. However, attacking one's allies probably is the kind of thing you need an opposed Cha check to do (something they wouldn't ordinarily do), and if you fail an opposed Cha check you can't retry. The charmed PC might refuse to attack his fellows if he's sure it will lead to his own death, but otherwise, he can and will slit his own best friend's throat on a successful opposed Cha check (yes, it's supposed to work like that). The suggestions on the WotC website for how to handle a fight between a charmer and the PCs' old allies if you do not succeed on an opposed Cha check is to handle it like you would a fight between friends ordinarily -- you'd try to plead with them to stop, only intervene when you had to, and try to use nonlethal methods when possible.
Tedronai 09-09-07, 08:53 PM	Frankly, if the charmed individual was a reasonably capable grappler, I doubt you would have to even ask. Two of it's (perceived) allies are engaged in lethal combat, and one (the monster who charmed him) seems to be at a distinct disadvantage (in all likelyhood due to being outnumbered, etc.). The natural reaction is to attempt to resolve the situation, or at least difuse it temporarily. I would expect, at the least, that the charmed individual places himself between the combatants and attempts to seperate them by whatever means seems most likely to succeed (short of lethal force, and unless seriously in trouble from his allies - since being threatened by the monster automatically breaks the effect, so lethal force would never come up as a necessity in that direction).
Fireclave 09-10-07, 01:32 AM	Honestly, I don't see attacking one's allies as "obviously harmful", unless your allies are really that much more powerful than you. An equally valid interpretation, though I disagree with your view because it basically translates "obviously harmful" to "obviously lethal," and I prefer to use a broader definition of "harm." damage or injury: physical, mental, or moral impairment or deterioration Sure I could easily Forcecage and Cloudkill Fighty McFighter, my bestest-best buddy, godfather of my children, whom I known since before I could remember, and swore to rid the land of evil on a oath of blood. But I would definitely be harmed by such a course of action by losing not only a best friend, but forever defiling my own personal code of decency by killing in cold blood for no good reason. Or were you talking about Evil McBackstabby? Yeah, him...I don't like so much :shifty:
ArcTan 09-10-07, 01:34 PM	An equally valid interpretation, though I disagree with your view because it basically translates "obviously harmful" to "obviously lethal," and I prefer to use a broader definition of "harm." Doesn't have to be lethal. A charmed person would probably not take all their money and give it to you, because losing all their money is also a kind of harm. Sure I could easily Forcecage and Cloudkill Fighty McFighter, my bestest-best buddy, godfather of my children, whom I known since before I could remember, and swore to rid the land of evil on a oath of blood. But I would definitely be harmed by such a course of action by losing not only a best friend, but forever defiling my own personal code of decency by killing in cold blood for no good reason. Or were you talking about Evil McBackstabby? Yeah, him...I don't like so much :shifty: ...Enh. This sounds too much like a way to get by the opposed Cha check to me. "Obviously harmful" should mean more than simply things that are against your nature. Maybe I could see this as a way for the opposed Cha check to never force you to kill, say, your own kids, or your own wife, or your best friend in all the world. But you're not necessarily best friends with everyone in your party, and it's kind of cheating to make it so that's always the case -- most parties consist of people who are choosing to work together for a time, and certainly may consider themselves friends, but not with the absolute and unbreakable bonds of brotherly love.
Fireclave 09-10-07, 02:51 PM	Doesn't have to be lethal. I agree that it doesn't. But I was specifically addressing this statement Honestly, I don't see attacking one's allies as "obviously harmful", unless your allies are really that much more powerful than you. It seemed that you were implying that attacking your allies is not an obviously harmful act only if they are not much of a threat to your life. ...Enh. This sounds too much like a way to get by the opposed Cha check to me. "Obviously harmful" should mean more than simply things that are against your nature. I didn't mean to imply that "obviously harmful" merely meant things against your nature. I meant to imply that things that would be grossly against your nature to do. Things that would instinctually make you say "WTFareyoudaftHELLNO! :uh-huh: :noway: " Maybe I could see this as a way for the opposed Cha check to never force you to kill, say, your own kids, or your own wife, or your best friend in all the world. But you're not necessarily best friends with everyone in your party, and it's kind of cheating to make it so that's always the case -- most parties consist of people who are choosing to work together for a time, and certainly may consider themselves friends, but not with the absolute and unbreakable bonds of brotherly love. I also didn't mean to imply this as a way of cheating out of Charm Person or to imply that my example is always the case (because it's not). I was just using a overly exaggerated example to illustrate my point. My example still would have worked the same if I did not make the characters in question party specific. You're right; not everyone in the party is going to have unbreakable bonds, let alone be friends with, with everyone else. IMO, how effective Charm Person works, especially when used to attempt to pit party members against each other, is something that needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis.
mvincent 09-10-07, 03:28 PM	2) Should I allow the monster to use an opposed charisma check to order the PC to attack his friends?Sure, however: 1) Most PC's would consider this "obviously harmful", and thus not do it. 2) A select few might merely consider it something they "wouldn’t ordinarily do". Note to consider: any character that previously "did not play along" when charmed and attacked their new "friend" obviously doesn't have a problem attacking friends in general. A) I personally feel (from experience with needlessly long battles) it's just easiest to have people charmed in combat simply take no actions. B) Another option would have them declare their actions, but if it favors one side or another, make an opposed charisma check and then change the action (if needed) to instead favor the winner's side.
ArcTan 09-10-07, 04:12 PM	Sure, however: 1) Most PC's would consider this "obviously harmful", and thus not do it. 2) A select few might merely consider it something they "wouldn’t ordinarily do". It's not actually been my experience that most PCs are, by definition, blood brothers with the other members of the party. A comparison to co-workers is more apt than best friends (yes, co-workers in extremely hazardous situations, but even most US Marines or firefighters or whatever will admit they're not actually friends with their squadmates all the time, even when their lives depend on each other). My last PC would've probably attacked his party members had (the person he had been magically compelled to think of as) his good friend told him to. He was in the party of necessity, not because he really loved everyone there as his friend. You don't have to be Evil Backstab Guy to be a character like that. Note to consider: any character that previously "did not play along" when charmed and attacked their new "friend" obviously doesn't have a problem attacking friends in general. Yeah. It shouldn't happen without extenuating circumstances. Not impossible, but the point of charm person is that you treat the charmer with the best possible intentions you can possibly have in that situation. A) I personally feel (from experience with needlessly long battles) it's just easiest to have people charmed in combat simply take no actions. B) Another option would have them declare their actions, but if it favors one side or another, make an opposed charisma check and then change the action (if needed) to instead favor the winner's side. You need to make an opposed Cha check specifically when giving an order for it to work. Otherwise they just take their default actions. I mean, like the article said, it's simple -- you don't think of them as being on a "side". They do whatever they can to end the combat with minimum casualties. They stop anyone who tries to kill anyone at all. You run it just like you would run it if two groups of their friends really did start fighting.
Sildatorak 09-10-07, 04:44 PM	They do whatever they can to end the combat with minimum casualties. They stop anyone who tries to kill anyone at all. You run it just like you would run it if two groups of their friends really did start fighting.I agree 100%.
mvincent 09-10-07, 05:19 PM	even most US Marines or firefighters or whatever will admit they're not actually friends with their squadmates all the time, even when their lives depend on each otherI would still consider attacking a co-worker (even in a non-hazardous situations) to be "obviously harmful" (certain alignments and humanoid societies excluded) My last PC would've probably attacked his party members had (the person he had been magically compelled to think of as) his good friend told him to.That is a-typical in my groups, but I acknowledge that this might be more common for some. You need to make an opposed Cha check specifically when giving an order for it to work. Otherwise they just take their default actions.Unless the player can act terribly objectively, they will tend to favor their 'real' side over the other (even if subtly). I offered this as an alternative to taking control of their character (which the OP said he would do). They do whatever they can to end the combat with minimum casualties. They stop anyone who tries to kill anyone at all. You run it just like you would run it if two groups of their friends really did start fighting.That is absolutely correct. However, from previous experience this tends to result in long, weird battles as players try to stop all combat and treat say, a Spirit Naga as a close, personal friend. The result can often be lengthy and disconnected while not resembling fantasy very much. Having the PC instead not participate (as if mesmerized) may make for a smoother, more enjoyable (and more fantasy-like) result. Yes... the charmed individual may have less to do... but it's an overall win if you spend 1/2 as much real time on conducting the battle, and far better than taking control of their character.