doesnt it just give you advantage on charisma checks, or somesuch?
Psikerlord wrote:
I have one word to describe Charm Person as it's now written: AVOID
Basically it's a hoser spell, i.e. the DM can hose you with it (even if it works) pretty much anytime he wants to (more than normal I mean).
Essentially the way it's worded this is a very subtle spell, and it's exactly the sort of subtly that isn't well modeled or rewarded in DND (esp not in the Dungeon). I could see use for this spell in a political campaign or the like, but honestly, if the main setting for your adventures is the royal court, DND is probably not the game you want [see L5R for starts]
-Polaris
A charmed individual cannot attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful spells or magical effects. That can be used for a combat application. The charmer also has advantage on social checks when dealing with the charmed individual, regardless of which ability check. It's another spell that gives advantage so becomes more effective with the right skills and ability scores.
Ashrym wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Noon wrote:
Polaris wrote:
I think that talking with the DM is the best solution. Everyone handles this kind of things is his (or her) own way. For instance i'd let the player make the monster heal him in combat (if able) or a similar action-wasting action. Surely the advantage on ST makes it really really hard to land in combat.
Anyway, i find it a bit more powerful when it is cast in a higher spell slot. At very least you are charming 2 enemies, which isn't really bad. But the limitations of the spell are many, especially the fact that the target will remember you charming him or her.
Spell like charm person are invaluable for getting past encounters with no combat. Need to get past the guards on the gate without bringing the whole keep down on you. Caught sneaking through the orc camp and need a quick way to prevent an alarm. Interogating captured prisoners to get info about the rest of the dungeon.
I like the way it can scale on the fly to include more creatures as needed. Great first level spell, probably best when the wizard is using higher level slots for combat
I like the way charm spells work in 5e.
There are clear mechanical effects thanks to the charmed condition, and there is a pretty clear intent to the non-mechanical portion of the spell (friendly aquaintances don't tend to fight eachother without significant provocation) to neutralize a potential combatant.
If you pick the "leader" of a crowd of potential combatants, you could even avoid an entire combat encounter by turning it into a quick and friendly chat before you and your party mosey on by, leaving a decent time window before your target's mind clears up and the realization of mental violation sets in.
This last bit I say as a DM: If you are a player and you use this spell, and you feel that your DM is "hosing" your character with how the effect is being applied, tell them. Stick up for yourself by saying "Hey DM, I think the way you are handling this situation is not suitable according to the game rules we agreed upon using, and is unfair because you didn't forewarn me of the reduced effectiveness you give this type of spell so that I could make an informed decision about what spells to know, prepare, and cast. Change how you are adjudicating it, or at least allow me to change it to a different spell that does what I expect it to do and regain the spell slot I just wasted on the only guy in the world that treats his friendly aquantances like untrustworthy garbage."
If they are a DM worth playing under, you'll know it because this situation will either never happen or will resolve in a way you find favorable.
Polaris wrote:
Prism wrote:
Man, some people here really have trust issues.
Anyway, I think Charm Person is a great 5e spell and here's why:
- You can use the spell to avoid combat. All you need to do is get past their Wisdom save (or a Charisma save if you're using Ramzour's Six Ability Save System).
- The spell is NOT mind control. The target(s) treat you as a friend. That's a fantastic distinction and opens up lots of roleplaying opportunities. It's not a spell to cast and forget. It requires that the Wizard actually roleplay the effects.
- You can cast it at higher levels to affect more than one target in range. Huzzah! Thus, the high level Enchanter can can walk into a room and Charm pretty much everyone with a level 1 spell that is cast using a higher level slot. No need to have Charm Person I, Charm Person II, Charm Person III, Mass Charm Person, etc....
- The wording of the spell says "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you." Note the wording! It doesn't say that the creature knows you TRIED to Charm it. They only know you tried to charm it if they DO get charmed and only after the spell ends. Thus, if you cast this on multiple creatures and only some of them fail, you don't have the situation where half of them realize you cast Charm Person and try to convince the others that ARE charmed about what happened. Very nice!
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
iserith wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
The only use of charm person right now is to avoid a fight with an orc sentry that would otherwise have attacked you on sight...
Charm person is a very bad substitute for diplomacy and other social skills. Not only do you get a saving throw so there's no autosuccess argument possibe here but on top of that, you might get in trouble on a failed saving throw and you'll always be in trouble when the spell ends because the charmed creature knows who charmed him. If you're playing in a game world where robbing someone of his free will is not punishable by law, you're playing in a very wierd world.
Polaris wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Aside from the mechanical difference of also "ganing advantage on social rolls", the effect of Charm Person in 5e is exactly what it always was in D&D. It is not a combat spell, per se. It is a spell of social interaction and, yes, it can even be used to avoid combat if some sort of social interaction takes place before combat erupts.
Charm Person has always worked great, and since in 5e it's the same as it always was, I see no reason to think it isn't good. Depending on the circumstances you may not even need any "social roll" but just role-play the scene, and the DM will treat the charmed person as friendly and more cooperative to you.
If you don't trust your DM and think he will try to always screw you by turning subjective effects such as charm against you (or if the DM is actually doing that) then you should talk things over with your DM. This isn't an issue with this particular spell. The DM has the power to distort any spell or anything in the game if so wishes, but a good DM will play with his players being fair, not against his players.
Looking at the Enchantment spells currently in the Basic Rules, I think we also see a nice progression of power to control a creature.
- Guidance (cantrip): Can be used to get +d4 on a CHA check
- Charm Person (level 1): the target is your friend, but probably wont put itself in danger
- Suggestion (level 3): the target does what you suggest to it, but doesn't hurt itself
- Dominate Person (level 5): the target obeys your every command
Ramzour wrote:
I have mixed feeling about it. Not putting such restrictions on it can make it a game-breaking first level spell. That said, I wish it had been a little more specific about what kinds of things they will and won't do.
I'm also not sure how I feel about the creature knowing it's been charmed. A good deterrant for over-using it, but I have trouble seeing any situation where an ex-charmed creature wouldn't go out of it's way to get you back. I know I would. I'd feel so freakin' violated.
It's a conundrum.
Interaction rules, when they are fleshed out, will make charm person easier to adjudicate, I expect. For now, see the last playtest packet for how "friendly" might be handled with regard to requests the PCs make of the NPC/monster.
A creature that realized it was charmed will only seek revenge if that's an interesting complication in the emergent story. So if you don't think it's an interesting complication to bring into play, then don't. The DM has full control over this aspect.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
iserith wrote:
I think its a usefupl Jedi mind trick in some circumstances, but very iffy to use in combat, and generally less effective than having a legitimately charismatic and socially skilled character just do the talking. It seems sort of like Knock, in that its possible to think of situations where it could really come in handy, but most of the time you're better off letting the party member who'se actually good at the task handle it and spending your slots on other stuff.
Gnarl wrote:
The way I see it, it does 2 things.
1.) it can create an opportunity where there wasn't one previously. Turn an auto-fail scenario into a chance at success.
2.) grants some advantages on social roles (per the text).
Id set DC based on approach & intent of player.
Arithezoo wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
@XunValDorl: In a lot of games, the players push rolls. This is not in keeping with the rules of the game as Arithezoo says. Only DMs may call for rolls and that is when it's possible and there's a chance of failure. If the players are permitted to break the rules and push for rolls, then the group is not getting the game experience intended by design and, like any time we don't follow the rules, odd results may occur.
I think a lot of games would be greatly improved by following that one simple rule: Players state actions - DMs ask for rolls. It's the structure of the conversation of the game and is very important.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
iserith wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
iserith wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Alex_ wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
iserith wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Remember that the PHB will have more explicit rules for social encounters, making use of flaws, ideals, and so on, and presumably adding some mechanical meat to this sort of effect. If DM fiat is a concern, playing with those rules might well help.
Polaris wrote:
I'm still betting that "friendly" is the operative word (rather than "acquaintance") and is a game term with specific rules for governing interactions when the rules are further fleshed out after the PHB or DMG are released.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Noon wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I recall years ago, when I briefly moved to Arizona for school. Jonsing for a game, I went out and found a local game store. I met the owner. Great guy. He could tell I was LFG so he invited me to come back in a few days and join his weekly role-playing game. Excited to scratch that itch, I eagerly accepted with almost no details. I dind't care.
I show up that afternoon and find out they'd been playing a campaign using his favorite system: Tunnels & Trolls. Now, individual preferences in system aside, I really dislike a great deal about T&T. It almost put me off enough to decline jumping in. But begrudgingly, and because he convinced me to give it a shot, I agreed and sat down.
It was about a month into the game that I realized I was having some of the most fun roleplaying ever in my considerable years in the hobby. What a blast we had. He was such an incredible and gifted DM and roleplayer. I still think back fondly of that campaign (but I still dislike T&T).
True story.
The players make the game.
Polaris wrote:
Noon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
If you think you need a mechanical in game description of the effects of someone being a "friendly acquaintance", you are going to really have issues with the Speak with Dead spell. We will need a mechanical definition for:
1) Usually. Exactly what percentage constitutes 'usually'.
2) Brief. Exactly how many words constitute a 'brief' response.
3) Cryptic. How cryptic? Quantify!
4) Repetitive. How repetitive? Does it give the same answer to every question?
Sidebar: does the quaifier 'usually' refer to just the word 'brief' or does it also refer to 'cryptic' and 'repetitive'?
5) Hostile. How often will a hostile creature offer a truthful answer?
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Noon wrote:
My house rule is different degrees of social relationship:
Loyalty - he will risk to help you.
Friend - he helps you if it isn´t risky or too annoying.
Neutral - he will not bother you if it is not necesary or there isn´t provocation.
Unfriendly - he will bother or damage you if it isn´t too dangerous.
Enemy - he will take risks to damage you.
The spell "charm person" only changes a step or two but the affected one doesn´t total free will. A enemy can change to enemy. he will insult but he wouldn´t rather attack you if you aren´t a menace, let´s say he become too lazy or coward to fight, but he will do if he feels forced to do it. It would more like diplomacy skill check gets a natural 20.
Ramzour wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
For what it's worth, I liked the playtest's rules on this:
Friendly NPC Reactions
DC: Result
Default: The NPC will do as you wish for requests that don't involve risks or sacrifice.
10: The NPC accepts a minor risk or sacrifice to do as you wish.
20: The NPC accepts a significant risk or sacrifice to do as you wish.
This makes adjudicating the guard-at-the-door scenario a lot easier for the DM and more predictable for the player. ("Predictable" here meaning in a game sense of choosing and managing resources effectively, not in that the game is boring and predictable.)
DM: "None shall pass by order of Duke Badguy!" says the guard at the iron door. He's got a keyring on his belt that jingles as he stands to attention.
Wizard: "Come now friend, don't you know me?" I cast a charm person spell. He needs to make a Wisdom saving throw.
DM: *rolls* He botched it. "Oh, right! Sorry, mate. How goes it then?"
Wizard: "Good, good. Can't complain. Well, I could, but who'd listen, eh?" I laugh and make some small talk, then I lean in and ask if my friends and I can get through the door.
DM: "I'd love to let you by mate, always happy to do a favor for a friend, but it's my hide if Duke Badguy finds out."
Wizard: "C'mon, you know me. I'm a learned man, not a troublemaker and I never forget a favor. Would a bit of gold for your children be a just gift for your help?" I hand him a pouch with some gold in it.
DM: The guard looks at it greedily - that's a few months pay for him. Sounds like you're making a Persuasion check? Since he's charmed you have advantage and as this is a significant risk to him as established, the DC is 20 per the rules. If you succeed, he'll let you through and it's a short route to your destination. If you fail, he just can't do it and keeps your gold, but tells you of a secret unguarded way that will take you where you want to go only it's a longer route.
Wizard: Sounds good. *rolls*
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Expending the resource creates an opportunity out of an impossibility.
Duke McSlaughter might kill everyone who fails him (that he knows about). So the guard may by default never let anyone pass.
Charming the guard creates an opportunity for the player to persuade the guard (which may still be rather hard), where that opportunity didn't exist before.
Also, let's assume the Duke is aware that Charm spells exist & has stationed guards (at the sensitive areas, I guess) with greater than average willpower or mental fortitude.
Casting the spell is taking a risk. Expending a significant resource. The player's intent is to bypass this obstacle peacefully by convincing the guard to let him pass. Committing to it with a significant resource requires that I honor the Player's Play. Same as if the player offered an overwhelmingly good bribe. Or moved to checkmate.
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
From there, you have to be honest to the player.
"Ok, he's charmed and treats you like a friend (whatever). Bob, what do you say to him? Keep in mind that what you tell him will affect the DC of your action, raising or lowering it depending on what's important to this guard."
"Let me through." Hard dc
"Let me by, I left my keys in the office and I need to get them." Slightly under a hard dc
"I saw someone sneaking through the perimeter. Go check it out." Moderate DC.
"Are all those Orcs supposed to be at the back gate?" Just under moderate DC.
"I saw your wife heading downtown with a guy. I thought it was you, but here you are." Impossible DC all the way down to auto-success depending on of this guard is married and how he feels about his wife.
Point is, honoring Play requires letting some control go & fairly evaluating the players' intent, approach & commitment.
bawylie wrote:
This conversation though is not about right or wrong. DMs adjudicate and decide. They set DCs. The world goes round. In one it might be a bit different from another. That is okay. That is beautiful in fact.
People who want hard fast rules that somehow "bind" the DM play a game I don't care to play. To me the heart of roleplaying is exactly the opposite of that notion. We have a human DM. We don't have to rely upon "computer code" to play the game. If I wanted that I'd play Skyrim. The advantage of a human DM over a computer is the human DM can use judgment and give you a better experience because of that. For those that don't feel the experience is better, I am sad for you and sad you have such a sad DM. For those of us who are good DMs and/or have good DMs, we aren't willing to throw away all we get just to solve your personal issues with your DM.
Orethalion wrote:
I'm sad that rules that support DMs in their adjudication process are seen by sad DMs and players as impacting roleplaying in a negative way. That is sad, very sad, and I feel sad for people who believe that. Those of us who know that clear rules can help both players and DM both hope that the game will include such rules so that players can make meaningful decisions and DMs can make fair adjudications.
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
That's not bad. If he succeeded on a hard DC, the guard might've even told him when to come back. "Look, get in on Steve's shift, not mine. He's off drinking now..."
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
iserith wrote:
1st, the guard "won't report" while he's charmed. When charm wears off, he'll know he was charmed. So we've introduced a complication (time limit).
Second, in my mind Peter hates Steve. So while he won't risk his own neck, he'll happily screw a rival. So we simply create an opportunity at a cost. Deal with Steve before time runs out on Peter's Charm & you'll be able to get in undetected.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
I would just convince the guard he's failing and his family will all die if he doesn't let me in because it's official business. That swings the risk the other way and incents him to help me. There's too much "absolute" in many comments made so far. The charmed condition is also clear on the benefits it gives. Roleplaying the results of the rolls is still roleplaying and neither excludes the other. We are talking about just this spell based on what's been said so far either. Any character who invested in social skills made significant and permanent choices in the character design and concept that is arbitrarily denied because the DM chooses not to allow those choices to work. Failure or failing forward becomes a lot less important when a player find out his choices were not real choices to start with.
"Failure or failing forward becomes a lot less important when a player find out his choices were not real choices to start with."
I want to avoid, as much as I can, situations like this - where the player doesn't have real choices.
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Look, the players are the only audience and only participants.
I guess you can keep info from them, but what's the point? Interacting with them is how to play.
I just dont really get the idea that there's something they shouldn't be knowing. If it's part of the world, it's got to be discoverable. If it's pertinent to the situation we're actually in, I've gotta bring these elements into play. Otherwise they're useless.
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Noon wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
This isn't an issue of "right" vs "wrong". As always: know your players.
Some groups like mysteries. They enjoy surprises. They love that feeling when you realize there are things going on that you don't fully understand. Part of the fun for them is unravelling the mystery to figure out the "Why?"
Other groups like things to be totally predictable. They hate surprises. They love that feeling when you are given all the facts and you realize what the perfect tactical plan is for the situation. Part of the fun for them is smashing through the obstacles using the perfect tactics for the situation.
And other groups are somewhere in the middle.
So if your group likes for things to be predictable, let them know in advance what they can do with a spell like Charm Person. But I don't think the PHB is a good place for Attitude Adjustment DCs and Interaction DCs. In my experience, these serve to reduce the role of the DM, because Players feel entitled to use the numbers. "The book says I can do X with a successful Persuasion check." for example. I don't like such things to be quantified, because it makes things far too simple and (in my experience) tends to take away from the roleplaying of the situation. Such tables would be useful in the DMG, to give DMs advice on how to adjudicate social interactions.
As I said before, I think the spell is fine. I don't think we need a mechanical definition of the term 'friendly acquaintance'.
Ramzour wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
I'd like to narrow down on some of the issues here.
1.) What is a DM obligated to tell the players?
-For me, the DM is the eyes and ears of the players. Therefore I am obligated to tell everything that's obvious and to clear any ambiguity. What is hidden, to me, must be framed or suggested or hinted - not necessarily outright told, tho I sometimes do that too "This guard is undead, but none of you know that." This is a basic duty at play: set a scene & frame any challenges.
2.) what role do mystery and surprise play in creating a living world?
-For me, they play a huge role. I love mysteries and I adore confounding expectations. So I use them big, too. I'm unlikely to keep small things like "the guard is undead" or "the guard is under threat of death" close to the vest. Now, if the Duke were undead, that might be a decent sized mystery. Or if the guard WAS the Duke - that would be a decent flip on expectations.
3.) What do the players need in order to act intelligently - to play?
-For me, I'm generous with info because I prefer my players to make informed decisions more than trial and error. Largely because character death isn't too frequent (maybe one death every six sessions. Max 2). So I don't have trial and error the way we did in Tomb of Horrors. I like the continuity between seasons, and I like my players to discuss things, etc. Sometimes they do trial and error anyway - that's up to them. But I do my best to see that they don't HAVE to. In other words, all the cards are on the table. Some are face down, but you can get a look if you play right.
Now, all of these are worth their own discussions, but these are the issues I see floating around our charm-person discussion. What's relevant? What am I obligated to say? What do they need and what should they have to earn?
bawylie wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I don't think we're far apart at all. Consider the figuring behind a box on the desk. If that's not important, I just describe a desk. If I'm framing some importance on it, I describe that the desk has some trinkets on it, a small box, some papers, etc.
I decide what's a feauture of my scene and what's just color.
Now when they go over to the desk and look at the things there, I give them the figurine. Maybe you have them actually look behind the box.
But there's maybe 15% difference here between us in practicality.
Orethalion wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
1.) I feel obligated to at least highlight game elements that are more than just background color.
2.) Let's talk cloaks. For me it would be appropriate to "call out" the cloak in some fashion. Anything from giving rumors that the cloaked guards are said to be incorruptible to perhaps just describing the extraordinary craftsmanship of the cloaks (maybe even they're considerably cleaner than the rest of the uniform). In other words, if something is different than expected (even if the players don't know how) the difference needs, at minimum, to be highlighted. I can come right out and say the cloaks grant charm resistance, or I can use the rumor and the description - then I've done my job.
That brings us to 3. The charm immunity is a face down card. But by giving hints on incorruptible guards and the quality of the cloaks, I've telegraphed all I need. I've shown there's a face-down card. It's on the players to turn it over. If they don't bother exploring that & the charm person spell fails, that's fair. All the information is on the table - not exploring it was their decision. Casting the spell was their decision. So it's all fair game.
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
The principle is this: if it's not on the table, it's not in play.
Its totally fine to have ambushes, surprises, mysteries, hidden immunities, and all that. But they've got to be somewhere on the table. You can't have "no way of knowing." You can "not know, yet." You can "find out later." But you can't have game elements that aren't discoverable. It's just not fair, or realistic (though that's a lesser concern for me).
iserith wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
I really don't enjoy the semantics portion of the conversation.
Sometimes stuff makes ales it into popular culture & is widely known or rumored. Gossip continues to exist. Legends, tales, bardic songs.
One of you thinks that information is a local secret. One of you thinks that information is an open secret or a widespread rep. Thats as far as it goes.
Nobody's getting fired for what makes it into the pop culture (or what doesn't).
Jaysus.
Noon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I run my game how "I" see fit, and you run your game how "you" see fit.
iserith wrote:
Reputations spread. As does gossip. And rumors. I see your point, but it doesn't defy credulity.
iserith wrote:
I would stick to just mentioning the uncanny resillience to persuation of the guards. Perhaps even hint that it is almost supernatural. Then the characters would have to do leg work to find out more. Perhaps ask around among the local criminals. I am sure that the thieves guild would know. But their services does not come for free....
Orethalion wrote:
kalil wrote:
iserith wrote:
I'm confused about why we're talking about Harry Potter.
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
iserith wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
kalil wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Noon wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
I'm still not seeing how the players would feel robbed of their agency if the DM didn't drop hints that the Charm spell wouldn't work.
Player: I cast Charm Person on the gurad in the fancy cloak and say "Hello old friend!"
DM: :*clatter of dice, result irrelevant because the guard is immune* He looks at you suspiciously and says "We are not friends. Be off with you!"
Player: Damn, he must have made his save. Ok guys, if we want to get into the Dukes castle it's back to the giant wooden badger plan...
Now I'm not saying you CAN'T drop hints. Just that you don't have to.
Arithezoo wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
It appears I've found the new Second Wind/Hit Dice thread...lol.
The problem lies in the fact that describing one thing, and not another, alerts the player - not the character - that that one thing is important. It's the "Girl in the Red Dress" effect from the matrix. In my experience this is ultimately unsatisfying to the players, because they feel spoon fed.
Now if you want to preserve the fun for the players, you can either describe EVERYTHING as if it was detailed and important - and it's very hard to do that when you are running a sandbox game with no clear idea where your players are going to go from minute to minute - or describe EVERYTHING as if it's equally nondescript and unimportant unless the players ask for more detail.
The first approach can be occasionally entertaining - I once had a group of players tear a room apart stone by stone and Detect Everything on it just by describing it as apparently empty - but I find the second one actually encourages meaningful player action more.
And of course the failing with the giant woodedn badger plan is that I always forget to tell them the Duke has a pathological hatred of burrowing mammals, because a gnome stole his wife.
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Isertith you are no longer engaging in la conversation with people you are talking at them proclaiming the virtues of your One True Way. You've done this since the playtest, Ino longer feel my forum experience is improved by reading your rants. I'll be placing you on ignore and invite others to do the same. I hope you look at your posting style and reconsider how you engage people on these forums.
iserith wrote:
"A guard of the City of the Sirens, notable by his fine cloak, said to be incorruptible - common knowledge has it they never take bribes, never break a promise, and never fall victim to an enchantress' song. "What do you do?"
"Girl in the Red Dress" problems are a matter of DM skill."
Yes. And you have just made the classis mistake. (insert mandatory "Princess Bride" reference here)
In order for it NOT to stand out in that example, you would have had to mention those guards at some point well before that encounter, preferably in a very off hand way. The way you described it there is a very clear meta-game signal to the players that something notweorthy is up, information their characters would not have.
Edit: unless of course you are in the habit of adding one outrageously specific detail to every encounter, even when they are complete red herrings. If so, I withdraw my objection.
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
"They can't evaluate cards on their merit, or intelligently - they can only act randomly until the DM says "good enough.""
Heh. Off-topic, that's kind of a metaphor for how life works, isn't it?
I agree with you Bawylie that it's the DMs job to provide descriptions. I disagree that it's the DM's job to ALWAYS include a clue of some sort that sets the players spider sense tingling. Sometimes there will be a clue and the description may alert them. Sometimes a passive perception check will ferret it out. Sometimes there isn't, and only prior independent action on the players part will give them even a chance of knowing it. And sometimes it's just not knowable, because reacting to the unexpected, thinking on the fly - or not turning the card up until combat begins, in your analogy - is actually the point of the encounter.
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Luciender wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
"The game tells us to present the basic scope of options."
This is a genuine question Iserith, not just being argumentative. Can you give me the page citation in Next for that?
Ramzour wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
iserith wrote:
First, thank you.
Second, that seems to imply that as DM I need to say for example, "There is an orc in the room. You can attack it, try to talk to it, or close the door and run away.". Do you see that as true?
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Let me address that.
*I* said it was bad DM-ing, not Iserith. He quoted me, later.
Second, the card analogy always works. If the guard is the face-down card, that's fine.
Ill reiterate, because this point seems to keep getting lost: you DO NOT have to spoon feed all the info available up front. The relevent info simply has to be discoverable - that is, SOMEWHERE that it can be found.
Scenarios should be properly framed. DMs are obliged to do so. How you frame it is on you.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Luciender wrote:
On that point (consistency) - I think it may be a fool's errand to shoot for inter-table consistency. Probably enough to have consistency at the one table.
That is, I'm not convinced concrete rules defining friendly or acquaintance would be helpful.
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Luciender wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
"Im not objecting to them; just don't think they're self-evidently necessary."
I think it should be a table decision. I don't care how another table runs it; I don't want that to have any influence on how I run it or am expected to run it.
I will say - and this falls outside of the scope of the printed rulebook - "How do you run Charm spells?" is an absolutely essential question a player should ask their DM before choosing the spell.
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
All I have to say to EVERYONE in this very serious discussion is:
bawylie wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
"They are, after all, human beings (I assume you don't play D&D with animals?) and can think for themselves."
Not since my cat started reading the Char-op boards.
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Why would you speak so derogatorily about his playstyle? And why should he have to play your way if his way works for him already? Why do you insist on trying to convert everyone here to your way of playing?
Im not seeing where Iserith is being derogatory, or that anyone has to play his way, or any attempts at conversion.
Ive been making the same points he's been making and nobody's called me out for onetruewayism or whatever else. I believe you're on him because of who he is and not the merits of his arguments.
Anyway, I'm out. Describe your scenarios how you like. Run your charm person how you like. Only now nobody has to wonder why their players never seem to know what to do next.
DemoMonkey wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Im not sure what anyone's point is on things but my prime motivator is to play my world honestly and truly. So whether the party knows or doesn't know is based on what they know or don't know. In some cases that might mean making a check but even then its an informed check.
I'm against the DM choosing to bend reality just to make the current situation more interesting. I do believe in creating up front an interesting world full of interesting npcs. I find the impulse to adlib is driven often by a lack of prep. I'm not against it entirely but if that is the main path then it's not for me. I find DMs that just go with the flow produce games I find silly and inconsistent.
Just my preferences.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
<span>Orethalion</span> wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
It is my first playthrough as a Wizard we are playing 3.5
Just used Charm Person for the first time last night, and after reading all of the earlier posts, I think we might have done it all wrong!
Met by three brigands on a path through a forest, and they were demanding our weapons and a fee... So I charmed the guy in the middle and attempted to get by, when talks were about to break down... I innitiated combat by asking my new "friend" to come closer and then moving him to the side as I Burning hands his previous friends...
Combat bagan with a enemy sorcerer summoning a hell hound and hiding in a cloud of obsuring mist.
The other two brigans began to lay into the rest of my party and I asked my new friend to take out the Hell Hound. "what it the world is that"? I shouted "kill it"!
my party and my new "friend" came through it in the end, and then preceeded to pump him for information... which was probably what the spell was intended for.
I made sure we did not attck the charmed, and he never actually hit any of his old friends... but I still feel like we pulled one over the new DMs head....
Beardnick wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Almost for a laugh I had an evil wizard cast this on my 5e party.
I basically told the players that they could try to do a save anytime the villain attacked or harmed them or their friends, but otherwise you considered him a friend.
The players had a lot of fun with it eventually casting cantrips to try to illustrte to the party how cool the bad guy was.
Probably what would be good is if there was a faction that a player/their PC really liked. Then a villain casts the charm spell and assuming it passes, tell the player that person is from the faction they really like (without mentioning the charm spell occured). Just let them roleplay being friendly. Granted the spell doesn't quite work that way - it wont misslead you as to someones faction. But it'd be fun.