PDA

View Full Version : Limits of Charm Monster?



gogogome
2016-05-17, 08:25 AM
I'm getting soooo many different ruling opinions on this from my players and colleagues @_@. Help me understand charm.

1. Charmed creature gives great weight to the directions and suggestions from the charmer. This means the charmed creature will basically believe everything the charmer says unless there is like, undeniable proof that he's wrong. So like, if the charmer says "You're a female human" to a male troll, the troll will think really, really hard about whether he's a human with magically cursed eyes, whether he used to be a female human but turned into a troll in the past, whether his current habits/hobbies are what humans do, whether he's actually a really ugly human girl, etc. but ultimately without some form of proof, the troll will say to his charmer "You're mistaken."

2. Charmed creatures will do things they won't do even for a close friend if they lose a charisma check. This means that as long as the charmer wins the charisma check, he can make the charmed creature do almost anything, like give most if not all of his wealth, work tirelessly day and night to achieve the charmer's goals, etc.

3. The limit of the charisma check is "Grievously Harmful" actions. So a merchant whose dream was making 1million gp, obviously giving 500,000gp to the charmer is grievously harmful so even passing the charisma check wouldn't make him give up his goods, but if its a Paladin who won the lottery for 1million gp, he'll fork it over upon losing the charisma check unless he's the type of guy to give lots of money to his close friends, in which case no charisma check is needed. Of course if he's a really, really greedy paladin or he absolutely needs the money to save a group of sick orphans, the charisma check will fail to make the paladin fork over the money.

4. Orders that are "violently opposed" nets a new saving throw and failing that does not force the creature to perform the action. So if a paladin is ordered to murder a child, he gets a saving throw to break the charm, but if he fails, he still doesn't murder the child even though he failed the charisma check and saving throw.

5. Charm spell effects are way, way beyond those of diplomacy's "friendly" attitude, unless the charisma check is never utilized, but even then, because the charmed creature gives the greatest weight to the charmer's words, it is still significantly more powerful than a creature diplomacy-ed to friendly. Then again, will saves are automatic, and if you tell a guy to voluntarily let this spell affect your mind... at the least you need a charisma check unless the guy is the type of guy that absolutely will not let anything affect his mind, in which case it is impossible. If the guy is the type of guy who regularly allows his mind to be affected then no check needed.

So like, in the case of planar binding, on a successful charisma check, the charmed outsider will accompany, protect, and try its absolute best to help the charmer completely free of charge upon losing its charisma check, but will NOT intentionally fail its saving throw for a 2nd charm monster unless he has 0 spellcraft and is otherwise unable to identify the spell as charm monster.

Oh and...

6. If the charmer wishes to redo a failed charisma check, he can cast charm monster on the charmed creature again to redo the check. If casting the 2nd charm monster is perceived as hostile, the 1st charm ends so there is no conflict. If it is not perceived as hostile and the 1st charm doesn't end, it doesn't matter, because by RAW, the last spell trumps others for spells with "Same effect but differing results". If the creature has 2 charm spells on it simultaneously from the same creature, you still only roll for the charisma check once because the last spell trumps others, meaning the roll of the 1st charm effect is irrelevant as long as the 2nd charm is in effect.

Diarmuid
2016-05-17, 08:30 AM
So...what's your actual question?

Are you just looking for affirmations on your interpretations? What were the differing opinions at your table?

gogogome
2016-05-17, 08:31 AM
So...what's your actual question?

Are you just looking for affirmations on your interpretations? What were the differing opinions at your table?

Just affirmations. Usually someone on this forum points out something I misinterpreted after reading my thought process. The differing opinions are too vast to list in this thread. I'm just showing my opinion based on hearing everyone's and reading the back of the DMG and waiting to see someone in this forum says "Yup, you got it spot on!" or "Nope, you got it all wrong.". Some of my players claimed charm = dominate monster with charisma check instead of will saves, some claim it is just an attitude changer... etc.

weckar
2016-05-17, 08:35 AM
In that case, I affirm everything you wrote.

Call me if you want me to contest some of your interpretations, I can do that too.

Diarmuid
2016-05-17, 08:42 AM
It's fairly open to interpretation and likely differs in application from table to table.

If you're the DM, then I'd say you get to set the expectations/interpretations. If you're not, then I'd see what the DM says and roll with that.

I dont see anything inherently "wrong" with your interpretations, but I wouldnt go so far as to say "those are exactly how RAW would be interpreted". But that's mostly because I dont think that's possible with how the spells/mechanics are described in the various books.

Geddy2112
2016-05-17, 09:31 AM
Pathfinder has a really good example of a charm monster/person situation

"For example, if you use charm person to befriend an orc, the orc might share his grog with you and talk with you about the upcoming raid on a nearby settlement. If you asked him to help you fight some skeletons, he might very well lend a hand. If you asked him to help you till a field, however, you might need to make that check to convince him to do it"

It does not allow control, but the charmed thing will perceive you and anything you say or do in the most favorable way. You can convince it to do anything that is not suicidal or obviously harmful.

So, for your situations.

1. Yes, the troll will hear you out, but it would be like one of your best friends telling you that you are actually a horse. You would probably listen, but dismiss them as being crazy or obviously wrong. Unless they had strong evidence otherwise. Charm person/monster is not carte blanche to gaslight things as you see fit.

2. Within reason, what is harmful or suicidal to a creature varies. There is convincing it to do something it would not normally do, and then there is trying to make it do something it would never do. The latter is impossible.

3.Depends entirely on it the paladin normally forks over money to their friends. People handle windfalls differently, so it varies.

4. You can't order creatures to do things they would never otherwise do. You have a lot of influence, but no actual control of the creature. IDK what edition you play, but as far as I know there is no second save against it, any obvious hostile act breaks the spell.

5. Yes.

6.Yes. There is also the possibility the spell is considered hostile and breaks the charm, and they pass a save against the new spell. Leaving you at square 1 with an uncharmed thing.

It is not as powerful as dominate, but way more powerful than an attitude changer.