What does charm monster do exactly?

[RoboEmperor]

I saw this discussion on another thread on this forum, but it was off-topic, so I decided to post an on-topic thread :D

Before we begin, I just wanted to clarify what the charisma check is.
The charisma check is a persuasive speech simplified to a dice roll. If you don't want to roleplay or if your character is supposed to be a better speaker than you, the check will see if you successfully persuaded the charmed creature or not.

Argument1: Charm monster is just a diplomacy tool. It just sets a guy to friendly and its actions are limited by the friendly attitude in diplomacy.

Supporting Evidence/Logic: I got none XD. If you have any, please post and I'll edit it in.


Argument2: Dominate Monster + Charisma Checks + additional small limitations = Charm Monster. That means, as long as you win your charisma checks, charm monster can do almost everything dominate monster can do.

Supporting Evidence/Logic:
1.

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.

It says with a successful charisma check, you can make it do something it ordinarily won't do. So by RAW, if a lawful good character would never unleash an imprisoned chaotic evil demon onto this world, by winning the charisma check, you can make him unleash it.

2. From the DMG glossary

Charming another creature gives the charming character the ability to befriend and suggest courses of actions to his minion, but the servitude is not absolute or mindless. Charms of this type include the various charm spells. Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.


A charmed creature doesn’t gain any magical ability to understand his new friend’s language.
A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.
A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight between two actual friends).
A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn’t normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.
A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to her.
If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.
A charmed character who is openly attacked by the creature who charmed him or by that creature’s apparent allies is automatically freed of the spell or effect

.

Emphasis on the bolded part. You can make a person do things that he would not do for a close friend which pretty much encompasses every action possibly imaginable, so you can make the guy do almost anything as long as you succeed the charisma check. Difference between dominate monster is, dominate can let you control the guy like a puppet without the charisma check, but charm monster requires the charisma check to do so.

It is also interesting to note that the underlined part of the quote says you are giving commands, not persuasive speeches, which further proves charm acts very similarly to dominate.

Note that the charm effect also gives the saving throw described in dominate monster, but charm person spell description does not. So this means charm monster is capable of forcing most actions dominate monster can force, and the only difference is you need a charisma check before the 2nd will save.

Things dominate does differently than charm in this argument:

1. Charm requires an additional charisma check, dominate doesn't. So essentially dominate is a charm monster with a 100% chance of winning the charisma check.
2. Dominate can make the guy commit suicide, charm cannot.
3. Attack its previous allies. You could get the charmed guy to attack his previous allies, but it requires a charisma check, and arguably depends on the situation, but despite all this, dominate is a complete guarantee that the creature will attack his own allies immediately, no fluff required.
4. Behavior. Dominated people can be detected with a sense motive check (so they act more like automatons rather than naturally), while charmed creatures have no sense motive check.

Everything else should be the same. If you have additional examples dominate does differently, please post so I can add to the list!

Argument3: Argument 2 only works with the assumption that there is a way to persuade everyone into doing anything. This is not true, and the spell's limit lies on whether it is possible to persuade a character into doing that action or not.

Supporting Evidence/Logic:
1.

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 a charmed fighter, for example, might believe you if you assured him that the only chance to save your life is for him to hold back an onrushing red dragon for “just a few seconds". 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.

An official example that clearly states you are persuading the fighter into a dangerous task, not commanding, unlike dominate, which kind of contradicts the statement about resisting instructions or commands in the above DMG quote.

2.
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.

You're convincing, not ordering.

3. DMG quote didn't specifically say upon a failed 2nd will save, the target performs the action it is violently opposed to. So this means if you give it such a command, the charmed creature gets a saving throw to get rid of the charm effect, and that's where it ends. It still does not perform the action.

Current Conclusion:If you believe there is a way to persuade everyone into doing everything, then the charisma roll is your character attempting to persuade everyone (you don't need to know what he says, the dice roll says it all), and if you succeed, you can get them to do anything.

If you cling to the words commands or instructions the DM quote stated, then as long as you win those charisma checks and 2nd will saves, you can get the creature to do anything not suicidal or grievously harmful.

If you believe there isn't a way to persuade everyone into doing everything, then that's the spell's limit. There is still the DMG quote saying that you can get charmed creatures to do stuff they wouldn't ever do even for a close friend, so your DM has to keep that under consideration when imposing this limit. So any action the creature is not violently opposed to should be acceptable.

Way to rule #1: Because of the words command and instructions in the quote, followed by the being able to make it do things it would never do even for a close friend, as long as you succeed the charisma check and the 2nd will save, you can get the creature to do anything you want that's not suicidal or grievously harmful. If you can persuade the character, then no charisma check is necessary.

Way to rule #2: The charisma check is a persuasion attempt, and every action doesn't have the perfect persuasive speech to convince a creature to perform it. So this is the limit of the spell, but because you can make it do things it would never do even for a close friend, the DM can only prevent you from making the creature do actions it is violently opposed to. The DM may opt to roleplay and make you think of a persuasive speech and make the charisma roll your character's attempt to phrase it correctly. If you can't think of a speech, you can't influence that character's action.

[sideswipe]

the "diplomacy substitute" is an effect of charm monster. and so is the other stuff.

i think of it this way.

1. the subject becomes the status friendly, this means they are responsive to most things like a friend is.

2. the spell whilst its in play allows a substitute of diplomacy, the charisma check. this means that people who dumped diplomacy but are naturally charming can "diplomacy" the target.

[prufock]

It says with a successful charisma check, you can make it do something it ordinarily won't do. So by RAW, if a lawful good character would never unleash an imprisoned chaotic evil demon onto this world, by winning the charisma check, you can make him unleash it.
Yes, unless the DM rules that unleashing the demon is "suicidal or obviously harmful" - which is almost certainly the case. Then you would have to persuade it that the reward outweighs the risk. You present your argument and make a Charisma check. Roleplay required - in my games at least.

Other requirements: You have to be able to communicate with the person, and not threaten them.

[RoboEmperor]

Yes, unless the DM rules that unleashing the demon is "suicidal or obviously harmful" - which is almost certainly the case. Then you would have to persuade it that the reward outweighs the risk. You present your argument and make a Charisma check. Roleplay required - in my games at least.

Yeah, hard to explain the roleplay of an extreme example I made to illustrate a point XD. There could be a reason you don't know that could persuade the paladin into this course of action, and it's in that charisma roll. This way you can play a charismatic character without being charismatic yourself, but this wouldn't fly with you right? XD.


the "diplomacy substitute" is an effect of charm monster. and so is the other stuff.

i think of it this way.

1. the subject becomes the status friendly, this means they are responsive to most things like a friend is.

2. the spell whilst its in play allows a substitute of diplomacy, the charisma check. this means that people who dumped diplomacy but are naturally charming can "diplomacy" the target.

That's how you roll it, which coincides with argument 1 (I think), so do you have any evidence that says that's the only thing you can do? :)

[Psyren]

"Friendly" people in diplomacy would never, ever do the above, and winning the charisma check can make a character perform almost suicidal tasks.

"I'm not sneaking past the minotaur!"
*win charisma check*
"You're right, I can do this! And the gold! It's gonna be awesome!"

Charm Person specifically says "An affected creature never obeys obviously suicidal or harmful orders." Now, there is some adjudication required here, because what is "obviously harmful" to one character may not be so to another. If you charm an orc farmer to sneak past a minotaur he will likely balk, but if you somehow charm the Grandmaster of the Thieves' Guild instead, he might consider that task to be child's play and readily agree.

It also says it "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." Generally, your request should be reasonable - or perhaps it can be a little bit short of reasonable - in order to get through.

[prufock]

Yeah, hard to explain the roleplay of an extreme example I made to illustrate a point XD. There could be a reason you don't know that could persuade the paladin into this course of action, and it's in that charisma roll. This way you can play a charismatic character without being charismatic yourself, but this wouldn't fly with you right?
Exactly. NPCs are people too, and they know things. For example, "cut your head off, you won't die, trust me" is not an acceptable argument, regardless of your charisma check. The player has to actually pose a reasonable persuasive argument; the charisma check determines if it works.

[RoboEmperor]

Charm Person specifically says "An affected creature never obeys obviously suicidal or harmful orders." Now, there is some adjudication required here, because what is "obviously harmful" to one character may not be so to another. If you charm an orc farner to sneak past a minotaur he will likely balk, but if you somehow charm the Grandmaster of the Thieves' Guild instead, he might consider that task to be child's play and readily agree.

Hmm, a lot more people than I thought are ignoring the fact that the character's charisma roll is giving the amazing reason why the orc should sneak past the minotaur. Player's social skill is not required. That's fine though! Makes the game more than just dice rolling. Hmm... how am I gonna add this to the original post...

Maybe I got it all wrong. Almost no one believes in argument 1, and I should be tallying arguments and counter arguments on the claims of what charm monster can accomplish.

Or 3 people sample is a bad sample XD.

The counter argument for the obviously harmful orders is, can be persuaded into doing something very dangerous. So... kind of makes me think "obviously harmful order" is limited to "cut off your hand and sell it" or similar. So going past a minotaur qualifies as "dangerous thing is worth doing" rather than "obviously harmful".

I need to go now, so I'll update the original post in a couple hours.

[Psyren]

If the spell says "X never happens" then Charisma rolls are irrelevant. Much like Planar Binding including the "unreasonable requests are never agreed to" clause.

[atemu1234]

True, but telling it to do something it would otherwise enjoy... so avoid phrasing having it "Charge headfirst into an army of paladins each armed with reach weapons and with a full array of smites" and go with "Go kill those paladins". The first is harmful, the second not so much.

[Psyren]

True, but telling it to do something it would otherwise enjoy... so avoid phrasing having it "Charge headfirst into an army of paladins each armed with reach weapons and with a full array of smites" and go with "Go kill those paladins". The first is harmful, the second not so much.

That still depends on who you're talking to. "Go kill those paladins" would likely be suicide to a level 1 Orc Fighter; It might kill one, and then get run through/smote by the others.

"Go kill that paladin" - more reasonable. (Unless of course, that paladin is surrounded by his mates.)

[Fouredged Sword]

Charm just makes the target like you. It doesn't change who the target IS in any way. I had a group who succeeded in charming an assassin sent after them. They wanted to make him tell them who sent him.

They hit him with charm person and acted shocked when he continued to stab them. They asked him why and he simply replied "Sorry my friends, I already accepted the contract. It would be my head if I failed to kill you."

Charm person doesn't make an evil creature not evil. Evil will still stab a friend if they get what they want out of it. Charming an orc may make him decide you are too good of a friend to be killed... better to take you as a slave so he can keep you safe from the rest of his tribe.

[prufock]

Charm just makes the target like you. It doesn't change who the target IS in any way. I had a group who succeeded in charming an assassin sent after them. They wanted to make him tell them who sent him.

They hit him with charm person and acted shocked when he continued to stab them. They asked him why and he simply replied "Sorry my friends, I already accepted the contract. It would be my head if I failed to kill you."
This shouldn't happen. Charm Person makes them friendly in attitude, which includes "Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm). Nowhere is "stab" on that list.

[Fouredged Sword]

They will not "Protect, back up, heal, or aid". That requires a helpful creature. It will put it's own well being over yours. They remain their same alignment. A charmed evil creature is still evil. If it is friendly, it will try to hurt you as little as is possible to in gaining it's goals. An evil creature WILL put it's goals over it's friends though.

[Douglas]

They will not "Protect, back up, heal, or aid". That requires a helpful creature. It will put it's own well being over yours. They remain their same alignment. A charmed evil creature is still evil. If it is friendly, it will try to hurt you as little as is possible to in gaining it's goals. An evil creature WILL put it's goals over it's friends though.
Some evil creatures will, but far from all. Evil can have friends, and can value those friends highly, while still being evil. But yes, if the particular evil creature involved really would put a contract or money above his friends, then Charm Monster could reasonably fail to stop him attacking.

[RoboEmperor]

They will not "Protect, back up, heal, or aid". That requires a helpful creature. It will put it's own well being over yours. They remain their same alignment. A charmed evil creature is still evil. If it is friendly, it will try to hurt you as little as is possible to in gaining it's goals. An evil creature WILL put it's goals over it's friends though.

Can you back your claim? Because by RAW, you can make him talk.

From PHB

Charm Person: Tordek is bullying some goblins into revealing the whereabouts of their camp when Mialee casts
charm person on one of them. The DM rolls a Will saving throw for the goblin against Mialee’s save DC of 13 for her
1st-level spells, and the save fails. Mialee is a 1st-level wizard, so for the next hour the goblin regards her as his friend, and she gets the information out of him.

So..., even the PHB says you can make him talk. I need evidence showing me that charm monster does exactly what you claim to put it in the OP and start a discussion. RAW says it's almost as good as a dominate monster.

Do you have any official examples? Or a wording in the RAW or errata that specifically supports what you say? The RAW spell description says you can make the assassin do something it wouldn't ordinarily do (blab who hired him) just like how a goblin would never blab the whereabouts of his camp. He would rather die than blab, but 1 charm person later, he blabs.

[Psyren]

Can you back your claim? Because by RAW, you can make him talk.

From PHB


So..., even the PHB says you can make him talk. I need evidence showing me that charm monster does exactly what you claim to put it in the OP and start a discussion. RAW says it's almost as good as a dominate monster.

That quote is a very far cry from "almost as good as dominate monster." The goblin just told Mialee where their camp was; he didn't offer to lead them there himself and fight the guards for them, or say that they were his prisoners to get them into the chieftan's tent or the slave pits unopposed or something.

[Douglas]

He would rather die than blab, but 1 charm person later, he blabs.
Correction: He would rather die than blab to an enemy. 1 Charm Person later, the wizard is perceived to be not an enemy.

Charm Person (or Monster) makes the target consider you a friend. How much that gets you depends on what the target is willing to do for its friends. The charisma check lets you use the fake friendship to override his better judgment, but it is still limited to things he might plausibly do for a friend.

[RoboEmperor]

That quote is a very far cry from "almost as good as dominate monster." The goblin just told Mialee where their camp was; he didn't offer to lead them there himself and fight the guards for them, or say that they were his prisoners to get them into the chieftan's tent or the slave pits unopposed or something.

It's not just that example, it's everything I stated before too, like the RAW stuff. I think you can get the goblin to lead you to the chieftan's tent if you convince it that the chieftan intentionally sent you to fight us to die, or he's evil and you need to free your tribe from his taint, or any number of valid reasons that is accomplished through that charisma roll.


Correction: He would rather die than blab to an enemy. 1 Charm Person later, the wizard is perceived to be not an enemy.

Charm Person (or Monster) makes the target consider you a friend. How much that gets you depends on what the target is willing to do for its friends. The charisma check lets you use the fake friendship to override his better judgment, but it is still limited to things he might plausibly do for a friend.

Again, could you provide evidence for your claims? RAW says you can make a guy do something he wouldn't ordinarily do. It doesn't say "limited to friendship." Do you have an official example or errata? Or something I can use to back up your argument? :D

[Psyren]

Again, could you provide evidence for your claims? RAW says you can make a guy do something he wouldn't ordinarily do. It doesn't say "limited to friendship." Do you have an official example or errata? Or something I can use to back up your argument? :D

"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."

Note also that the Charisma check you keep bringing up doesn't actually say it is forced to do anything you want if you win. It merely says that you must win the check to convince it - which means that you still have to actually succeed at convincing it. It's like saying "you must pass your background check to rent this apartment" - well, if you pass the background check that's great, but you still have to pay your deposit, and if you fail you don't even get that far in the process.

[icefractal]

Now that I look at it closely, that spell is weird. My feeling is that it does two separate things.

1) It makes the target friendly. From that alone, you have a certain degree of benefit; it would do certain things if you asked, just because you're a friend. Note however, that it doesn't reach the highest degree of affiliation - Helpful, so that puts a limit on how much it's going to go out of its way to help you.

2) It lets you give the target orders. Suicidal or obviously harmful orders won't work, end of line. Harmful is a pretty broad category, so this actually rules out a lot of things, at least unless you make the effort to hide the danger. "Things it would normally do" don't require a check - well, obviously, it would do those even without the spell being involved.

Now we get to the meat of it, the orders that require a charisma check. The minimum bound is clearly "Anything it wouldn't ordinarily do." Even something as simple as "let me borrow your weapon" might require this, if it's normally the greedy type that doesn't lend things to friends. The maximum bound is undefined. It could be either:
A) Anything less than "suicidal or obviously harmful".
B) Anything that it could be persuaded to do, given that it "perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way".


Something to note - even if this only let you convince it to do 'reasonable' things, it would still be a unique capability. The Diplomacy skill, RAW, has absolutely no power to compel any course of action. You could get a "100" on your Diplomacy roll and it wouldn't make a farmer give you a turnip - merely set the farmer's status to Helpful, which makes your request for a turnip highly likely to be granted.

So in terms of "if it just makes it do things you could convince it to do anyway, why put that in the spell" - that's why, because it provides something different than normal social skills could accomplish, rules-wise.


Personally, I rule more toward "B" above. The Charisma check can stretch the boundaries of Friendly, and it can do things in that single check that would normally require an extended negotiation or a lot of justification, but it doesn't stretch all the way to "anything not suicidal". Charm is a significantly lower-level spell than Dominate (also easier to hide), and I think the effect should reflect that.

[Sith_Happens]

Poor organization strikes again! For detailed information on how Charm [X] works, you have to look under Special Abilities:


Charming another creature gives the charming character the ability to befriend and suggest courses of actions to his minion, but the servitude is not absolute or mindless. Charms of this type include the various charm spells. Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.

A charmed creature doesn’t gain any magical ability to understand his new friend’s language.
A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.
A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight between two actual friends).
A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn’t normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.
A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to her.
If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.
A charmed character who is openly attacked by the creature who charmed him or by that creature’s apparent allies is automatically freed of the spell or effect.

In short, if you ask the subject to do something they would normally do for a very close friend, they do it. If you ask them to do something they wouldn't normally do for a very close friend, they do it anyways if you win an opposed Charisma check. If you ask them to do something that's obviously self-harmful or just that bad of an idea, they refuse unless you can convince them that it's a good idea or worth the risk. If you ask them to do something they straight up would never do under any circumstances, they get a new save.

[Deadline]

Argument2: Charm monster is almost as good as dominate monster.

No, this is utterly ridiculous. Charm Monster is just Charm Person with the addition that it isn't restricted by creature type and it has a longer duration. So what this argument is trying to say is that Charm Person (1st level spell) is almost as good as Dominate Monster (9th level spell).

Let that sink in.

Charm Person makes the target Friendly to you. That's Friendly as defined in the Diplomacy skill. This means it will do stuff for you that it would do for a trusted friend. So a Charmed bank guard would chat with you and treat you warmly, but he sure as heck wouldn't open the vault door for you. This part of Charm Person is partially RP based, and very much up to the DM's interpretation of what a given target will do for its friends.

In addition to now being the target's friend, you can make an opposed Charisma check to try and get the target to do something that it wouldn't normally do, as long as it isn't suicidal or obviously harmful. To use the bank guard example, the guard might now let you sneak inside to take a look, as long as the consequences for doing so weren't suicidal (the king would have his head), or obviously harmful (the guardsman would be imprisoned). This part of Charm Person is partially RP based, and very much up to the DM's interpretation of what a given target will do for its friends.

Charm Person DOES NOT give you a puppet. That's what Dominate is for.

[RoboEmperor]

Thanks Sith_Happens, your quote is very helpful!

So basically to anyone who says "Only does what a friend would do", that is only if you want to make it do something without the check.


A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn’t normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.

Right there, something he wouldn't do even for a close friend is do-able with a charisma check. Note that the srd calls the charmer the "master"

So I'm sorry Psyren, here's a direct ruling from the srd saying you're wrong. But don't be discouraged! You can always houserule your way, after all, it's your game if you're DMing.

So in other words, dominate monster + charisma checks + no suicidal orders = charm monster.


So most definately you can get an assassin to blab it's secrets.

@Deadline
I agree that your DM decides what's suicidal and what's not, but I think the rest of your post is negated by Sith_Happen's quote.

[Deadline]

@Deadline
I agree that your DM decides what's suicidal and what's not, but I think the rest of your post is negated by Sith_Happen's quote.

Nothing in my post is negated by Sith's post.

What do you think is negated?

[Susano-wo]

Thanks Sith_Happens, your quote is very helpful!

So basically to anyone who says "Only does what a friend would do", that is only if you want to make it do something without the check.



Right there, something he wouldn't do even for a close friend is do-able with a charisma check. Note that the srd calls the charmer the "master"

So I'm sorry Psyren, here's a direct ruling from the srd saying you're wrong. But don't be discouraged! You can always houserule your way, after all, it's your game if you're DMing.

So in other words, dominate monster + charisma checks + no suicidal orders = charm monster.


So most definately you can get an assassin to blab it's secrets.

@Deadline
I agree that your DM decides what's suicidal and what's not, but I think the rest of your post is negated by Sith_Happen's quote.

yes, it uses the term Master. This has no game rule effect, its just a [poor choice of] description (it also calls the charmed creature its minion). If you order the assassin in question to reveal its client, or stop attacking you, it should get, by RAW, a CHA check to try to resist. however, that would only be to resist direct commands. [also, if the DM interprets this to be something the character is violently opposed to, the assassin would get a new save. A stretch, but possible.]
Oh and it wont fight its allies unless they attack the charmer [which doe not preclude attacking the rest of your party :smallamused: Hell, they would get CHA checks to resist orders to not attack your friends, and depending on their loyalty to their allies, they may get new saves]

So not basically dominate.

[RoboEmperor]

Nothing in my post is negated by Sith's post.

What do you think is negated?


Charm Person makes the target Friendly to you. That's Friendly as defined in the Diplomacy skill. This means it will do stuff for you that it would do for a trusted friend. So a Charmed bank guard would chat with you and treat you warmly, but he sure as heck wouldn't open the vault door for you.

A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn’t normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.

You said the limit of charm person is defined in diplomacy's friendly attitude. That quote in the DMG glossary specifically states you can make a person do something he would never do, even for a close friend, with a charisma check. So in other words, anything the guy would do for a friend requires no check, but anything else requires a check, and if the check succeeds, he will do it, so your claim that the spell is limited by diplomacy's friendly attitude is wrong.

So in the bank guard example:
1. Guard is neutral or evil, no check necessary.
2. Guard is good, check is required.
(This is an oversimplification as a lot of neutrals would arguably require a check, while a lot of neutrals would also arguably require no check.)

You might argue that letting you steal the bank's treasury is "grievously harmful" to him, but unless opening the vault door would result in his execution with no other alternative (like he could leave the city before capture, bribe his way out, has some underground connections, etc.), then I'd say he will open the door.

I like to compare this with the "suggestion" spell. After reading the DMG's glossary, this is what I came to:
Suggestion: Guy fails will save, he will do 1 action no matter what.
Dominate Monster: Guy fails will save, he will do any action no matter what.
Charm Monster: Guy fails will save, he will do anything for you as a close friend, but anything else requires a charisma check, and upon success, they will obey no matter what. So basically it's suggestion + charisma check, or dominate monster + charisma check. Charm monster is the weakest version of the 3 because it requires an additional check in order to accomplish the same thing. So it's like phantasmal killer v.s. finger of death. Finger of death is 1 save, phantasmal killer is 2 saves.

My advice to everyone is, unless you and your DM talk things thoroughly through, keep the commands not extreme. No wife killing, no betraying alignment, just "kill this" or "carry this" or similar stuff.


yes, it uses the term Master. This has no game rule effect, its just a [poor choice of] description (it also calls the charmed creature its minion). If you order the assassin in question to reveal its client, or stop attacking you, it should get, by RAW, a CHA check to try to resist. however, that would only be to resist direct commands. [also, if the DM interprets this to be something the character is violently opposed to, the assassin would get a new save. A stretch, but possible.]
Oh and it wont fight its allies unless they attack the charmer [which doe not preclude attacking the rest of your party :smallamused: Hell, they would get CHA checks to resist orders to not attack your friends, and depending on their loyalty to their allies, they may get new saves]

So not basically dominate.

I keep saying almost dominate. XD. But I guess I wasn't clear enough on what I meant by almost. I'll edit 1st post accordingly, like how it's different from dominate.

edit: started a list of what dominate does that charisma can't.

[Susano-wo]

except that its not almost dominate, its not even close. Its better than just free diplomacy, but dominate gives you massive benefits (and one drawback that I can think of--the creatures give off clues that they have been dominated,), including not having to worry about the creature exercising its free will.
To use the assassin example, you order him to disarm the traps in dungeon X. Maybe he decides that the best way to do this is to set them off from a safe distance, and he alerts the inhabitant s of the dungeon to your presence. Or maybe you happen to mention some guys back in town giving you trouble. after he leaves you he decides to gank them, going against your moral code[for the purposes of this example.
There are lots of complications that can arise from someone going about your requests in ways you didn't anticipate.
Not to mention that he may still try to kill your friends under charm

[Eldan]

Yeeeaah. That's one of those cases where, as a DM, I'd just say "there's no way a first level spell should be that powerful" and that's that.

[RoboEmperor]

Dominate does the same thing. You tell a dominated assassin to disarm traps, he'll use his own judgement and set them off from afar. Convincing him otherwise requires a charisma check if charmed, or just a move action if dominated. The difference is, you need a charisma check every time you want to issue an order to the charmed assassin, where as you don't with dominate monster. Well, not every time, just when you tell it to do something it won't do even for a close friend.


Yeeeaah. That's one of those cases where, as a DM, I'd just say "there's no way a first level spell should be that powerful" and that's that.

I think you're severely underestimating the charisma check. Not to mention it's spell dc is going to be pathetic unless heightened.

Low levels, sleep and color spray is better, higher levels there's charm monster and the dominate spells. When I played a sorcerer that revolved around charm monster, I didn't even touch charm person, and my party yelled at me for not grabbing black tentacles at level 8.

It's just another save-or-die, except high charisma is a requirement.

A mind-controlled humanoid at level 1 is worthless. I'd rather have 4 dead goblins than 1 goblin ally. Rather, mind controlled trash mobs are worthless, and the stronger ones have a pretty high will save.

Try it yourself and you'll see just how frustrating and suboptimal the charm and dominate spells are. After all, everyone recommends banning enchantment more than evocation.

[Eldan]

I don't have a problem with people winning combat. That happens sooner or later almost any time, with more or less losses. But charm person, worded that way, is incredibly broad with huge out of combat applications.

And I've never seen a campaign where not at least two people had Charm spells on them, even with those rulings. It's just so damned useful.

[Psyren]

Thanks Sith_Happens, your quote is very helpful!

So basically to anyone who says "Only does what a friend would do", that is only if you want to make it do something without the check.



Right there, something he wouldn't do even for a close friend is do-able with a charisma check. Note that the srd calls the charmer the "master"

So I'm sorry Psyren, here's a direct ruling from the srd saying you're wrong. But don't be discouraged! You can always houserule your way, after all, it's your game if you're DMing.

I can only assume you didn't read what he posted, or glossed over these two lines:


- A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to her.
- If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.

Your entire argument in the OP is that there is no second will save with Charm, just a charisma check. The quote not only shows that this belief of yours was wrong, it even reinforces the "never obeys" clause.

And I never said "you can't get an assassin to blab." That was a discussion you were having with someone else, not me :smalltongue:

[RoboEmperor]

Your entire argument in the OP is that there is no second will save with Charm, just a charisma check. The quote not only shows that this belief of yours was wrong, it even reinforces the "never obeys" clause.

And I never said "you can't get an assassin to blab." That was a discussion you were having with someone else, not me :smalltongue:

I edited the OP and included that charm monster requires a will save just like dominate does.

You can argue that your assassin blabbing is violently against its nature, and is allowed a 2nd will save, but the fact of the matter is, if you make the charisma check and the 2nd will save, he will blab :P

Oh and no retries are allowed, so you only got 1 shot to get him to blab, unless you have him completely bound and a lot of charm person/monsters to spam like crazy to allow the retry, but that's still debate-able as to whether that's do-able.

How do people feel about casting charm a 2nd time to do a retry for the failed roll?


But charm person, worded that way, is incredibly broad with huge out of combat applications.

I agree with this.

But don't ban it outright unless the player is abusing it :)

[Psyren]

You can argue that your assassin blabbing is violently against its nature, and is allowed a 2nd will save, but the fact of the matter is, if you make the charisma check and the 2nd will save, he will blab :P

That also depends - for an assassin, blabbing about anything could easily be "harmful," even "suicidal."

[RoboEmperor]

That also depends - for an assassin, blabbing about anything could easily be "harmful," even "suicidal."

I'd only accept this if he has a bomb collar or something on him. If his blab would result in an entire organization hunting him down like an animal, then he'd still blab, because he can still survive the ordeal, so it'd be something very dangerous.

But that's me. If you disagree then alright. Depends on the DM I guess. But I'd say you're stretching it :P.

[Vaz]

Exactly. NPCs are people too, and they know things. For example, "cut your head off, you won't die, trust me" is not an acceptable argument, regardless of your charisma check. The player has to actually pose a reasonable persuasive argument; the charisma check determines if it works.

Depends how high your bluff check is.

[Psyren]

I'd only accept this if he has a bomb collar or something on him. If his blab would result in an entire organization hunting him down like an animal, then he'd still blab, because he can still survive the ordeal, so it'd be something very dangerous.

But that's me. If you disagree then alright. Depends on the DM I guess. But I'd say you're stretching it :P.

The line between "dangerous" and "harmful" depends on how skilled your opposition is. An assassin's guild, one would assume, did not earn the name by sending out gift baskets :smalltongue:

[Fouredged Sword]

I also consider the phrase "harmful" in a broad way. Could this get the target fired from his job? That is pretty harmful to his well being. Will it make his allies turn on him? Also pretty harmful.

Also, I think that we are reading the charisma check component of the spell differently.

I see the spell as having 2 rules segments.

First
"This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly)"
- The target now acts as if friendly to you, but this does not impart ANY ability to control the target. Atempting to get the target to do something specific triggers step 2


"you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do."
- I read this as "wouldn’t ordinarily do" before the charm spell landed. This means you need a charisma check to get the person to do even friendly actions. Any specific requests require a charisma check.

[Psyren]

I don't interpret it quite that broadly. After all, I might get fired for a friend under the right circumstances, for example if I was working for the city and they planned to bulldoze their home, I would protest the decision even if it cost me my job.

But physical harm - that's another matter.

[ericgrau]

It makes the monster your friend. Like another party member assuming he's strong enough for it to not be suicidal. Or like any other friend. The opposed charisma check is persuading a friend to do something tough for you that he could agree to but might not necessarily agree to.

[Deadline]

You said the limit of charm person is defined in diplomacy's friendly attitude. That quote in the DMG glossary specifically states you can make a person do something he would never do, even for a close friend, with a charisma check. So in other words, anything the guy would do for a friend requires no check, but anything else requires a check, and if the check succeeds, he will do it, so your claim that the spell is limited by diplomacy's friendly attitude is wrong.

You ... may want to read my post again. This time read all of it instead of stopping halfway through so you can pretend that I didn't address the Charisma check.

Charm Person with a successful charisma check is not the same as Dominate. And unlike Dominate, the effectiveness of Charm on a given NPC is up to the DM, not the player. By RAW. There is no RAW that says "all NPCs will do the following for a good friend". That requires DM interpretation.

And while it's a minor quibble, I can't quite figure why you think the alignment of a BANK guard would be relevant. Evil people aren't stupid.

[RoboEmperor]

You ... may want to read my post again. This time read all of it instead of stopping halfway through so you can pretend that I didn't address the Charisma check.

Charm Person with a successful charisma check is not the same as Dominate. And unlike Dominate, the effectiveness of Charm on a given NPC is up to the DM, not the player. By RAW. There is no RAW that says "all NPCs will do the following for a good friend". That requires DM interpretation.

And while it's a minor quibble, I can't quite figure why you think the alignment of a BANK guard would be relevant. Evil people aren't stupid.

The quote says you can make people do something they won't do even for a friend. So if you would never carry 200lbs of equipment for a year for a friend, charm monster will make you carry it, if you lose the charisma check. In other words, if you succeed on the charisma check 100% of the time, you can make anyone do anything as long as it's not suicidal. Unless you're saying I misinterpreted the quote. I think you're thinking charm monster is limited by friendship, which the quote specifically says it isn't.

The alignment thing was an oversimplification. In the evil case, the bank guard is a corrupt guard who is easily susceptible to bribes, and to him, opening the vault door for a friend is something he would do, where as a lawful good guard wouldn't, because duty before friendship right? But a charisma check will make the guard open the vault, even if he would never, ever do it even for his own mother unless there's a bomb collar on his neck that will blow up the moment he opens the vault.

[Sith_Happens]

In other words, if you succeed on the charisma check 100% of the time, you can make anyone do anything as long as it's not suicidal.

Or "grievously harmful," which could be interpreted sufficiently broadly to be a significant limiting factor. You could also make the case that the kind of command granting a new saving throw is meant to never be obeyed, but I don't think a strict reading supports that.

[RoboEmperor]

Or "grievously harmful," which could be interpreted sufficiently broadly to be a significant limiting factor. You could also make the case that the kind of command granting a new saving throw is meant to never be obeyed, but I don't think a strict reading supports that.

I've been limiting grievously harmful to physical stuff because of the "very dangerous is worth doing" quote.

Risking all your money in my business? That can be grievously harmful, but it's very dangerous too.

Letting me into the king's chamber for assassination? That can be grievously harmful, but it can also be very dangerous. As long as there's a way he can escape the castle before the guards find out about the regicide, or there's a chance he won't be blamed or suspected, it's not suicidal

But cutting your hand off for some magical thing? That's grievously harmful and in no way very dangerous and is worth doing.

[Sith_Happens]

I've been limiting grievously harmful to physical stuff because of the "very dangerous is worth doing" quote.

You're not taking that whole clause into account:


...but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.

Bolded for emphasis. You need to convince them that it's worth doing, which is where creative phrasing and having social skills besides just a Charisma bonus comes in. For reference, here's the example the Player's Handbook has instead of that line:


...but a charmed fighter, for example, might believe you if you assured him that the only chance to save your life is for him to hold back an onrushing red dragon for “just a few seconds.”

[Susano-wo]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm

"Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth). Because of this limited range of activity, a Sense Motive check against DC 15 (rather than DC 25) can determine that the subject’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (see the Sense Motive skill description)."

Again these spells are worded fairly vaguely, but it clear from the wording [to me at least,] that the person is not quite themselves. So it doesnt make sense for them to do anything other than what you just told them to. Iin the case of the previous example, they will detect and disarm them. Using spot/disable device. They can't accomplish the same result in a more round-about fashion. A charmed person can use more creativity, though they might not do it the way you wanted them to.

[RoboEmperor]

i'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.

You're saying if a charmed assassin is ordered to remove traps, he might set them off from afar instead of disarming them. I agree.
I'm saying if you dominate the same assassin and order it to remove traps, he might set them off from afar as well unless you specifically say otherwise. Same with charm except with charm you may require a charisma check to make him disarm those traps instead of setting them off.

If you're talking about attitude, I think a dominated person won't act like a puppet because those without sense motives are fooled, but is much more obvious than a charmed creatures since charmed creatures don't have that sense motive check stuff.

[Susano-wo]

Again, its vague, but I would say that the dominated person will take the most direct route. Its an extrapolation(and those spells needed to be written better, to specify just this sort of thing), but the SRD says that the dominated person does what you tell them to, to the exclusion of other actions. This indicates to me that a dominated person cannot engage in the sort of lateral thinking that would employ a halfling sized remote trap detonator :P They will approach the traps with the appropriate degree of caution, and try to disarm them using their skills as a device disabler.

And about attitude, maybe not a puppet, but something is obviously amiss(more obvious than other enchantment spells, at least. Its got -10 on the normal sense motive DC to detect enchantment)

[plastickle]

The quote says you can make people do something they won't do even for a friend. So if you would never carry 200lbs of equipment for a year for a friend, charm monster will make you carry it, if you lose the charisma check. In other words, if you succeed on the charisma check 100% of the time, you can make anyone do anything as long as it's not suicidal. Unless you're saying I misinterpreted the quote.
I am saying you misinterpreted the quotes. The quotations from the book suggest that the charisma check can make a charmed person do things they wouldn't ordinarily do, even for a friend. They do not say it can make them do anything they wouldn't ordinarily do.

It singles out orders that are suicidal or grievously harmful as orders that will not work regardless, but it doesn't suggest that these are the only orders you cannot make them follow. There is a vast grey area that you are not allowing, and that the book doesn't try to define, because it's a grey area that is different for every person and character. No rule (other than rule 0) could possibly be complex enough.


I think you're thinking charm monster is limited by friendship, which the quote specifically says it isn't.
It doesn't say that. It says that when the magical friendship isn't enough to convince someone to do something, you can try to charm them into it, which is something you can do with any friend who isn't under the influence of magic, too. The tone of the passage makes it perfectly clear that you should be using normal friendship as a guide to decide which commands are kosher, just like any time one friend is trying to convince the other to do something strange.

Were I DM, I would say that no character in my game would accept "carrying 200lbs of equipment for a year", no matter how many charisma checks you won, because such a decision is plainly ridiculous to all characters. In fact, I disagree with all of your assertions about the specific examples so far. A paladin will not summon a demon, no one will sneak past a minotaur unless they think they have a good chance at succeeding, a bank guard will not let you into a vault, an assassin will not reveal his employer, no one will risk all of their money in an unconvincing business venture, and no one will help you kill the king. These are all psychotic decisions that no one can convince a person into, no matter how (non-epically) charming they are.

[RoboEmperor]

Why do you think charm monster is limited by friendship? The rules seem very clear
1. Anything the guy would do for a close friend, he'll do it
2. Anything the guy wouldn't do for a close friend, he gets a charisma check to resist it. Otherwise, he does it.

I just don't see any rules that support your claims of charm being limited to friendship.

There's nothing stopping you from ruling it your way. It's called houseruling. This thread is more focused on RAW.


It says that when the magical friendship isn't enough to convince someone to do something, you can try to charm them into it

No where in the rules does it say that. I maybe blind, can you quote the exact place that says that? Cause I can with the total polar opposite.


A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn’t normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.

Right here, does it say persuade? Does it say diplomacy? Or does it say resist instructions? Does instructions sound like persuading? Does commands sound like... convincing a friend? It says, right there, you give it instructions, and he gets to resist with a charisma check, or fails and obeys the instructions.

Our disagreement stems from the fact you think the spell is limited by friendship. If it is, you're absolutely right on all cases, if it's not, then I'm right on all cases. You're going to have to provide some additional evidence to support your claims, because I got the RAW quotes right here.

If you think the spell is too strong or not to your liking, go ahead and house rule it but... I don't understand what you're trying to do here.

Quote and bold something. I didn't even know the glossary of the DMG had additional clarificaiton until Sith_Happens showed me on this thread, and I feel it's very strong evidence that charm spells are a "lesser dominate" which is why I'm defending it. If you show me something equally strong then I will change my position on the issue, after all, in my original post I still got 0 evidence for argument 1 XD.

I can't find anything saying it's restricted to friendship. Only the opposite the more I dig into it. But maybe that's because it's me. Maybe you can do better.

I think "grievously harmful" is mostly restricted to physical harm because of the "very dangerous is worth doing" clause, but everyone has their own opinions and there is no RAW clarifying it directly so I don't push the issue, but the "limited by friendship" thing is denied by RAW, which is why I am pushing that.

[plastickle]

Why do you think charm monster is limited by friendship?
I don't think this, because the phrase "limited by friendship" is a really weird way to phrase it. I think the spell is patterned on friendship. And I think that because the spell description says so. The very first line of the passage we are quoting says,
Charming another creature gives the charming character the ability to befriend and suggest courses of actions to his minion,
Do you see? The authors made it clear in the first line what the spell does, and all of the rest of the description is refinement of that idea, intended to be read in the context of what the spell does, which is magically befriending someone.


The rules seem very clear
1. Anything the guy would do for a close friend, he'll do it
2. Anything the guy wouldn't do for a close friend, he gets a charisma check to resist it. Otherwise, he does it.
Your #2 is simply false. I said that last post and you don't seem to have understood. To say that you can charisma check people into some things they wouldn't normally do is very distinct from your claim that you can charisma check someone into anything they wouldnt normally do. Your understanding is based on a simple logic flaw.


I just don't see any rules that support your claims of charm being limited to friendship.
I am basing it on exactly the same rules you are. I am citing the rules that you have already quoted in thread.


There's nothing stopping you from ruling it your way. It's called houseruling. This thread is more focused on RAW.
And here you are just being a jerk. This is an extremely unpleasant conversation style. You cannot simply dismiss someone else's opinion as houseruling when we are directly arguing about what a rule means. It might be literally the most inappropriate thing thing you can say in such a context.


No where in the rules does it say that. I maybe blind, can you quote the exact place that says that? Cause I can with the total polar opposite.

A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn’t normally do even for a close friend.
This segment has been quoted and referenced many times in the thread already, and it says exactly what I just said. It's not that you're blind, it's that you are so certain of your interpretation you are not freshly evaluating what the passage actually says instead of what you have already decided it says.


You're going to have to provide some additional evidence to support your claims, because I got the RAW quotes right here.
The same RAW quotes you are referencing are my evidence. They are already in the thread, and they support my claims. I do not accept your insistence that they say something they do not say.

[RoboEmperor]

And here you are just being a jerk. This is an extremely unpleasant conversation style. You cannot simply dismiss someone else's opinion as houseruling when we are directly arguing about what a rule means. It might be literally the most inappropriate thing thing you can say in such a context.


I'm sorry, I do have that effect on people :(. No hard feelings? :D


Charming another creature gives the charming character the ability to befriend and suggest courses of actions to his minion, but the servitude is not absolute or mindless. Charms of this type include the various charm spells. Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.

This does not negate the other two quotes I've bolded on the OP. Servitude is not absolute or mindless because they can resist with a charisma check.


If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.

This says you can make a guy do something he is extremely and violently opposed to. Right here :\. This is the same saving throw as dominate monster, triggered in the same conditions too, which implies you can make him do the same things like dominate monster.

So
1. Charm spells make the guy your very best friend
2. He will do everything for you as a best friend
3. Anything he will not, the magic makes him do it.

"Hey friend what can I do for you?"
"Give me all of your land, money, and possessions"
"What? No! I can help you out with some gold but no way am I doing that, not even for my best friend"
"Cmon, I want your stuff."
"Sorry, the answer is no. My child needs expensive medicine right now. If I give you all my money he'll die."
"Fine then."
*Charisma check. I'm exerting my mental will on him*
"ARGH!!!!"
*Target loses the check*
"No!!! My son... he'll die!"
*Fails saving throw*
"Here's your money."

So you're right about how charm is designed to be friendship-y and all, but it has a mind-control option too. Guy won't be a mindless puppet, but he'll do what you say, if you win the checks.

[plastickle]

I'm sorry, I do have that effect on people :(. No hard feelings? :D
No hard feelings. Thank you for toning it down. I will also try to keep civil (I feel like I was starting to tilt abrasive, too). :)



Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world. This does not negate the other two quotes I've bolded on the OP. Servitude is not absolute or mindless because they can resist with a charisma check.
I quoted only the first line, the initial sketch of the spell. You've quoted the whole paragraph, and it actually repeats, by the third sentence of the description, what the spell essentially is. It gives the charmed person a skewed view of the world in which you are a good friend. It repeats that the spell leaves the charmed person free will. This is not describing magical compulsion.



If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.This says you can make a guy do something he is extremely and violently opposed to. Right here :\.
But it doesn't say that. It says that when you try to make him do something he's opposed to, it gives him a new chance to break the charm. It doesn't say you succeed in making him do what he was opposed to. Your interpretation is adding that part.


This is the same saving throw as dominate monster, triggered in the same conditions too, which implies you can make him do the same things like dominate monster.
It is the same kind of check, but it is modifying a different spell with different effects. With Charm, you have magically created a sense of friendship. With Dominate you have magically created something quite different.


So
1. Charm spells make the guy your very best friend
2. He will do everything for you as a best friend
3. Anything he will not, the magic makes him do it.
#3 just isn't right. Nowhere in any of the quotes does it say he will obey your commands, even backed up with a charisma check. Instead, it says directly that the subject still has free will.

Look at it this way, even if just for the sake of argument. You've asked the subject to do something he just wouldn't do, a request (or command) inconsistent with the two of you being friends. There is a risk that this breaks the subject free from the magical illusion of friendship. You pass the charisma check to convince the subject that you are still friends. He remains charmed. He still doesn't do the thing you asked him to do.

This is an alternate interpretation of the description of the charisma check, just as consistent as your magical compulsion interpretation. I wouldn't know how to choose between the two interpretations, except this one has the added benefit of being more consistent with the overall description of the charm effect, that is is essentially about tilting the subject's worldview so he considers you a friend.

[RoboEmperor]

By your logic with the will saving throw not specifically stating that "upon failure of the 2nd will save the target performs the command", it also doesn't specifically say "upon failure of the 2nd will save the target still doesn't perform the command", so I guess you're right that it can go either way.

I guess this is were we agree to disagree. The rules say that the charmed creature can resist a command or instruction with a charisma check, and opts not to follow the command only upon success, which means he does it upon a failure. This is the basis for my entire argument, and I just don't see anything you said that counters that, especially since it says you can make it do something it wouldn't ever do even for a close friend, which kind of encompasses almost every possible command or instruction imaginable.

The most clear example I got is the lawful good paladin. He would never release the demon even for a close friend, so giving such an order allows a charisma check to resist. Upon failure, it's violently against his alignment, so he gets a 2nd will save, but upon failure of that, since he failed to resist the order, he has to perform it.

I think we're going in circles here XD. But yeah, I guess this is when we say we can't persuade each other so lets leave it at that :(

[Psyren]

Yeah it seems that there is an impasse.

If you find a DM willing to let you make Charm equal in power to Dominate, by all means enjoy it. But what you should not do is dismiss any DM that prevents you from doing so as "houseruling" when they are simply interpreting the RAW differently than you do.

[RoboEmperor]

Yeah it seems that there is an impasse.

If you find a DM willing to let you make Charm equal in power to Dominate, by all means enjoy it. But what you should not do is dismiss any DM that prevents you from doing so as "houseruling" when they are simply interpreting the RAW differently than you do.

It's bothering me. I can't let it go!

Just please explain to me, as clearly as you can (treat me like a 5 year old), how:


A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn’t normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.

doesn't let you make him do whatever you want (other than the suicidal or grievously harmful orders). Use the lawful good paladin unleashing the demon example, as it seems like the most simplest and clearest to me, unless you have a better example.

[Douglas]

It's bothering me. I can't let it go!

Just please explain to me, as clearly as you can (treat me like a 5 year old), how:

A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn’t normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.

doesn't let you make him do whatever you want (other than the suicidal or grievously harmful orders). Use the lawful good paladin unleashing the demon example, as it seems like the most simplest and clearest to me, unless you have a better example.
That quote is part of a larger context. In that larger context, it is one item in a list of increasingly severe departures from "friendly" behavior. That context implies that the consequences listed for each item are a step up from the previous.

A command that is beyond what close friendship would normally support gets a charisma check to disobey.

A command that is obviously suicidal or "grievously harmful" ditches the charisma check and automatically disobeys.

A command that would be violently objected to goes a step up and gets a new save to break the charm entirely. Even if that fails, this is a more severe item in the list and thus inherits the "automatically disobeys" by implication.

Openly attacking the subject ditches the save and just breaks the charm automatically.

Any lawful good paladin worth the label would violently object to unleashing a demon. Therefore, if you give such a command he will both get a new save and automatically disobey.

[RoboEmperor]

Thanks for describing it like that.

What if the demon can't reach the paladin? So he like presses a button which unleashes the demon who is 5km above him (paladin is underground), and there is a 0% chance of the demon going after the paladin instead of wreacking massive havoc in the world above?

Paladin is in 0 danger, but it is violently against his nature.

I'm gonna try to put what you said into the 1st post.

[Douglas]

Thanks for describing it like that.

What if the demon can't reach the paladin? So he like presses a button which unleashes the demon who is 5km above him (paladin is underground), and there is a 0% chance of the demon going after the paladin instead of wreacking massive havoc in the world above?

Paladin is in 0 danger, but it is violently against his nature.

I'm gonna try to put what you said into the 1st post.
Because of the context relationship I described, whether the paladin is personally in danger or not is irrelevant. The fact that he would violently object is enough by itself to trigger both a new save and automatically disobeying.

[Dgrin]

I have to agree with the majority here - you cannot use Charm as Dominate, both RAI (which is, I believe, already established) and RAW.


First of all, here's the text of Charm Person for future reference:


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 a charmed fighter, for example, might believe you if you assured him that the only chance to save your life is for him to hold back an onrushing red dragon for “just a few seconds". 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.


You're trying to argue that as written, that spell enables you to command the subject by winning the opposed Charisma check. But if you want to argue about RAW, you shouldn't make an assumptions like you did:



I guess this is were we agree to disagree. The rules say that the charmed creature can resist a command or instruction with a charisma check, and opts not to follow the command only upon success, which means he does it upon a failure.


As written, you have to win Charisma check just to try to convince the subject to do something he's opposed to, not that he has to do it. No more, no less. Your assumption is not written in the rules, therefore, it is not true according to RAW. I hope you're not going to argue that it is allowed RAI :smalltongue:

Let me show you an example:
Take Bob.
Charm him. Now, according to your interpretation of harmful, you can order Bob to sacrifice his firstborn to Orcus (Not going to argue about it just now even though I'm pretty sure that counts as harmful. Still, not in RAW so we continue. But if it did, he has to refuse).
Since it is something Bob is violently opposed to, he may attempt new saving throw to break free of your influence altogether, as per DMG glossary.
Upon failing that saving throw, you're entitled to the opposed Charisma check cause that's something Bob wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he has no choice but not to go along with that order as written here:


A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn’t normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.

If you succeed, you may now try to convince him to do it (allowed by PHB, quoted earlier). It is highly unlikely that you will do it but at least he will listen to you due to treating you as his friend. That's where RAW finishes and you have to roleplay (or roll Diplomacy and tell your DM that you convinced him :smallamused:)


Anyway, just don't try to break the game more. There're already enough ways to do it. Just have fun and let others have fun :smallwink:

[RoboEmperor]

I'm not trying to break the game, its wording just seems like that to me. If you want more powerful spells at lower levels, there's always suggestion, which literally has almost no limit to its usage :P

But because charm doesn't have a compulsion tag, maybe it's not that powerful.

I understand what everyone is saying, but the RAW still says "chance to resist order", and make it do something it wouldn't do even for a close friend, and all the "friend" fluff is just for everything before that. Anyways that's how I see it.

Let the reader's decide ;D, though I guess I do have a bias on the 1st post. Only douglas' evidence seems reasonable to me about the limits of charm so i only posted that.

[Psyren]

Dgrin covered everything I would have added (including the DMG quote I was going to include) - I just wanted to add that Suggestion also has "reasonable" and "harmful" clauses, so the DM still has some wiggle room to block anything truly abusive.

[RoboEmperor]

Dgrin covered everything I would have added (including the DMG quote I was going to include) - I just wanted to add that Suggestion also has "reasonable" and "harmful" clauses, so the DM still has some wiggle room to block anything truly abusive.

I have no intention of being abusive, but after reading some of my posts, I guess I did get some abusive intentions later XD.

I think we might have a communication issue as I do have history of it.

When I mean almost like dominate, I mean you can control his actions quite extensively, not make him into a puppet, which the spell specifically says it doesn't.

Thanks for the quote Dgrin. There is proof right there, that rushing head long into a dragon is not "suicidal" or "grievously harmful". :D

But either way, the paladin example seems controversial.

[Deadline]

Thanks for the quote Dgrin. There is proof right there, that rushing head long into a dragon is not "suicidal" or "grievously harmful". :D

I'm not sure how useful "proof" is for you, because again, as myself and others have said, it's the DM's call on most of these kinds of spells.

And to put spin on your "proof", it may not be suicidal or grievously harmful for a fighter to hold off a dragon for a few seconds, but it probably is for a commoner to do so. So again, it's dependent on the NPC and the DM's interpretation. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

"Hold off for a few seconds" and "rush headlong into" are not the same thing, plus as Deadline noted the specific circumstances (the person being asked and the nature of the danger) of what is being asked are factors in the spell's effectiveness.

[RoboEmperor]

Wait, I think I got it.
Me: If a successful charisma check means you successfully persuaded the guy, and assuming there is a way to persuade everyone into doing almost anything, then you can control the guy almost like dominate monster.

You guys: There isn't a way to persuade everyone into doing almost anything. That's where this spell's limits lie. Also, we want some roleplaying instead of just dice rolling so you need to think of at least a plausible persuasive attempt and use the charisma check to see if your character phrased it right.

Is this right? If it is then we've been arguing because miscommunication, because I'd have accepted that argument like 50 posts ago.

[Sith_Happens]

Something like that. Could definitely still use a houserule specifying that "Grants the subject a new save" implies "Can't get them to do it Charisma check or not," though.

[RoboEmperor]

Revamped 1st post.

Way to rule #1: Because of the words command and instructions in the quote, followed by the being able to make it do things it would never do even for a close friend, as long as you succeed the charisma check and the 2nd will save, you can get the creature to do anything you want that's not suicidal or grievously harmful. If you can persuade the character, then no charisma check is necessary.

Way to rule #2: The charisma check is a persuasion attempt, and every action doesn't have the perfect persuasive speech to convince a creature to perform it. So this is the limit of the spell, but because you can make it do things it would never do even for a close friend, the DM can only prevent you from making the creature do actions it is violently opposed to. The DM may opt to roleplay and make you think of a persuasive speech and make the charisma roll your character's attempt to phrase it correctly. If you can't think of a speech, you can't influence that character's action.